Michael Moore for Dummies
Guest post by Rod McLaughlin
Unlike many readers of this site, I have environmentalist sympathies. I think green anarchist turned film-maker Craig Rosebraugh once did some good. When he organized the “Liberation Collective” in old town Portland, or organized protests against police excesses, he was doing something useful. When he was a spokesman for extreme environmentalists, this was not “eco-terrorism”. Burning down an empty building in the middle of the night is not terrorism: it doesn’t terrorize anyone.
The only genuine eco-terrorist is Ted Kaczynski, the “Unabomber”. One of the most effective bits of Rosebraugh’s new documentary, “Greedy Lying Bastards”, is when it shows a billboard put up by the skeptic Heartland Institute, with a picture of Kaczynski, and the legend “I still believe in Global Warming. Do you?”. But Heartland’s idiotic mistake has nothing to do with the facts of global warming. It doesn’t show that the medieval warming period didn’t happen. It doesn’t prove that the warming in the last century was unprecedented and man-made.
Rosebraugh is shameless in using guilt by association. He tries to give the impression that global warming “deniers” tend to be American knuckledraggers, ignoring sane, smart people around the world who doubt the global warming hysteria. For example, he forgets to tell us that the three most prominent Canadian skeptics boycotted Heartland because of the above-mentioned own goal.
Left-wing American documentaries, like this one, or Michael Moore’s, or one I saw about the evils of Walmart, tend to insult the viewer by bombarding her with one side of the story, and words like “lying”, “greedy” and “bastards”. Watching Rosebraugh’s movie, every time the narrator said that there is lying and greed on the skeptic side of the debate, I wondered whether he’d consider if these vices occur among the promoters of climate change “theory”. He did not.
Unflattering shots of one’s opponents, selective information about funding, tear-jerking anecdotes about sea level rise, and shots of hurricanes and fires, with no statistical analysis to show if these events really did increase during the 20th century. All this Rosebraugh learned from Michael Moore, who has been criticized for “dumbing down the left”. Rosebraugh does the same with environmentalism.
To be fair, Rosebraugh did mention billionaire George Soros funding warm-mongering organizations, as well as the mega-rich Koch brothers backing “climate change deniers”, but only in passing.
It doesn’t matter if the CEO of Exxon says global warming is not unprecedented and anthropogenic, because it’s in his company’s interests. This has no bearing at all on whether or not it’s true. It’s the old “self-serving argument” fallacy. Just about any argument and its opposite serves someone: you have to figure out whether it’s right or wrong independently of interests.
Rosebraugh chooses the most plausible-sounding defenders, and implausible critics, of the anthropogenic global warming position. Worse, he almost avoids citing any of the numerous scientifically-trained skeptics. An honest approach would be to interview Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKittrick, who first broke Michael Mann’s “hockey stick”. Or Joanne Nova, or Anthony Watts, the creator of Watts Up With That. Or Judith Curry, a scientist of whom Michael Mann revealingly wrote “I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause”. Skeptical professor Richard Lindzen does appear, but not for long enough to explain his rejection of climate change hysteria.
For his leading climate skeptic, Rosebraugh chooses Christopher Monckton, who, by carefully selecting from his presentations carefully, is made to look like a nut. In reality, he’s merely eccentric. If you read his stuff, Monckton has a grasp of logic unheard of among warm-mongers, misanthropists and fluffies. Rosebraugh tries to refute Monckton’s views on the grounds that he isn’t “a scientist”. This is a variant of the logical fallacy of “argument from authority”.
This implies that you must accept what scientists say. So what do you do when they disagree? Two giants of science, Richard Dawkins and Edward Wilson, recently had a debate about kin selection theory. Dawkins used the number of scientists who support him as an argument. Wilson showed no mercy: “It should be born in mind that if science depended on rhetoric and polls, we would still be burning objects with phlogiston and navigating with geocentric maps.”
Michael Moore
I’m not a scientist either, but I understand logic, and the work of Karl Popper on scientific method. I know that ad hominem, post hoc ergo propter hoc, ad populam, and ad verecundiam arguments have no validity.
I first became a skeptic when I read climate “scientists” using the word “consensus”. Anyone with even a cursory familiarity with scientific method knows that that word is not in a scientist’s vocabulary.
In contrast, the argument of Rosebraugh’s documentary, like the global warming movement in general, relies on “scientific concensus”. It can therefore be dismissed out of hand.
Rosebraugh deals with the “Climategate” revelations of 2009 as follows:
· he presents the scandal as a conspiracy to derail the Copenhagen climate talks
· he claims, without evidence, that the emails were “stolen” from the CRU in East Anglia
· he uncritically accepts Michael Mann’s assurance that the emails were quoted “out of context”
· he fails to mention that all the emails are online, so we can judge if phrases like “Hide the decline”, “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith?”, “Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?” and “We have to get rid of the medieval warming period” are less damning in context – they aren’t
· he claims that the various inquiries exonerated the warmists, without saying how
Another technique he borrows from Michael Moore, is showing crowds of conservatives waving flags, wearing garish outfits, and holding up signs with ridiculously exaggerated warnings about Obama introducing communism. And rejecting climate change panic. The implication is, if you disbelieve in anthropogenic global warming, next thing, you’ll be in favor of waterboarding.
Related articles
- Movie review: “Greedy Lying Bastards” a global warming documentary with sobering evidence (denverpost.com)
- Greedy Lying Bastards (powerlineblog.com)
- ‘Greedy Lying Bastards’ film uses a fake cover photo, recycled PR from 2005, cites opinion of a ‘truther’, is directed by a former ELF spokeman and uses a big dose of hate to make its point (wattsupwiththat.com)
Recently, there have been papers using observations to calculate climate sensitivity and it comes out on the low side. Naturally, it’s just my conspriatorial thinking, but why is it that a paper like this come out just after these others? So, no, we can’t use observation to determine climate sensitivity. Talk about moving the goal posts 😉
In agreement here with many, many others on the points raised …
.
Honestly I have been thinking that someone should do a documentary showing the billions of dollars shoveled to various political campaigns and NGO’s via the AGW issue and call THAT movie “Greedy Lying Bastards”.
Sunlight best cure for corruption.
“Conservative” has meaning.
Emotive pseudo environmentalist has another.
When an ideology denies humans as part of the environment, their delusion is apparent for all, except themselves, to see.
The modern “environmental corporations, thats Greenpeace, WWF and a horde of other self serving parties,have no interest an ecological environment.
Their environment is the same one PT Barnum exploited.
That most conducive to separating the suckers from their dollars
Most self identifying modern eco-saviours are so far removed from reason as to be considered insane.Unthinking belief in contradictory & destructive policy.
The mantra of modern “environmental sympathies” is a list of nonsense confirming a personal idiocy, Monty Python, we are all individuals, comes to mind.
I have no sympathy for delusional twits who are attempting to destroy the wealth and wellbeing of me and mine.
What contribution to society do these ideologies offer?
Save the environment by destroying it?
Save humanity by mass culls and deprivations?
Poverty will save the environment?
Prolonging and preserving poverty in the “3rd world” is a good thing?
Comes down to Ned Ludd reincarnated anew.
Thanks for the review, did not need it, propaganda is always an own goal, mostly due to the stupidity of true believers.The more ugly the better as projection begets reflection.
Those who have never built a thing do not understand the fragility of civilization.
jeanparisot says:
March 10, 2013 at 6:52 am
So it’s ok if Obama uses a drone strike
===========
the threat would certainly help “encourage” those that fail to contribute “enough” to political parties.
Guest post by Rod McLaughlin
Unlike many readers of this site,
===========
you are obviously not a reader of this site.
Guest post by Rod McLaughlin
Burning down an empty building in the middle of the night is not terrorism:
===========
if someone burned your house to the ground while you were away, you would be OK with it? I would think you and your family would be terrorized if they knew it was done deliberately. The questions that would haunt you would be “why” and “what next”.
almost certainly the burning of the house would be intended as a threat and a warning, to terrorize and intimidate you and change your future actions. the message is quite clear. if you fail to play ball, the next time things will be more serious.
Isn’t the implied threat of future harm coupled with the invisibility of the attacker the essence of terrorism? you never know where and when the next attack will take place, and thus over time will exhaust your resources and will power in trying to defend yourself. In this fashion even great nations have been defeated.
john robertson says:
March 10, 2013 at 12:25 pm
Save humanity by mass culls and deprivations?
==============
he was a threat to himself, so in the end we had no choice.
@David, UK says:
March 10, 2013 at 11:04 am
“Oh come on. You included the quote yourself. He didn’t say it wasn’t “wrong” – on any number of levels. What he said was that it isn’t “terrorism.””
I don’t care what he said. I say burning down something that doesn’t belong to you is wrong on a number of levels. I still say that!
Now that’s funny, ferd. Although I’m sure Rod doesn’t think so.
Rod McLaughlin says:
March 10, 2013 at 7:52 am
Thanks for all the comments.
Having said that, I read this site a lot, and it has a somewhat Republican bent. I don’t.
—————————————————————————————————–
Most people stop, having put their foot in their mouth once. I think that’s at least the third foot.
As asked above – you done a head count ??
Calling out the liars, huckster, frauds and scientific buffoons who represent the fake-environmental-give-me-taxpayer-money crowd does not necessarily make one a Republican or of Republican bent.
I’m not going to be so dogmatic as you, but I would bet that most on this site are politically considerably to the left of fake left-wingers like Al Gore, Michael Moore and the other multi-hundred million dollar millionaires peddling left wing claptrap to the guilt-ridden sheeple who will buy it.
Rod McLaughlin says:
March 10, 2013 at 7:52 am
“… As a result, these non-violent campaigners had their families broken up, and one was driven to suicide. THAT’s violence….
“…WUWT proofread and put this up within half an hour. But then, it has a huge staff, paid for by the oil industry.”
* * *
Now you’ve lost me completely.
Suicide is not violence – murder is. The person who chose to kill him/herself because he/she couldn’t stand the heat should have stayed out of the kitchen. If suicide counts as violence to you, then then put the blame where it belongs – with the person who did the act. No one pressured them to commit terrorism, they chose to. In choosing to break they law, an individual is required to take the consequences. You can’t have one without the other – where they are caught, they should be tried and convicted and pay the price. If a person is frightened of paying the price, then, hey, don’t break the law. How hard is that?
So, someone copped out, and you’re blaming society? Total BS on that one. Violence was not done to that person, that person did violence to him- or herself.
“WUWT… huge staff, paid for by the oil industry”? WTF? You are showing your ignorance here. How about doing some research. While you’re at it, look up who’s funding the loudest alarmists and those who want most of all to knock us all back into the Stone Age.
Sorry, mate, you are showing your true colours stark and bright. I am not interested in your agenda, nor your views. You need to take those blinkers off and get some serious studying done because someone has led you astray and you haven’t even questioned it. Good day to you.
In my opinion this article was beneath the usual standards of logic that I’ve come to expect from WUWT. The other commentors have hit upon the myriad problems with this piece. It seems like it was intended as some kind of reproachment to the phone booth full of libtards that are on the fence about the climate scam. Appeasment usually doesn’t work.
Friends almost talked me into seeing this movie, now I am glad I didn’t waste my time. Thanks for the review!
As to people here having an environmental bend… Makes sense. Who else would spend hours and hours arguing over minute details of the science?
Rod, thank you for the post, it is an interesting insight, and a rational take on the debate.
As posted by many, you unfortunately alienated many of your readers with the statements at the beginning.
Those had actually nothing to do with the post and may be clichés overtaken and not your direct thoughts. Please think about the observations mentioned by many readers and try to understand their point of view.
I am sure that with the logic that you show in analysing you will maybe rethink some of the points.
John F. Hultquist says:
March 10, 2013 at 9:34 am
Some of the things I enjoy about WUWT are the funny, sarcastic, ironic, and other crazy things people write.
This is a bit ot…. but John, then I am sure you will enjoy this comment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/09/open-thread-weekend-17/#comment-1243960
A.D. Everard says:
March 10, 2013 at 1:43 pm
“WUWT… huge staff, paid for by the oil industry”?
A.D. I trust the /sarc tag was missing there, he certainly was joking.
It doesn’t help when Heartland are strident conservatives and Monckton always does interviews with uber conservative radio hosts, etc. This doesn’t mean they’re culpable, but it makes them easier to dismiss.
Hey Anthony, you should check out some libertarian-anarchist perspectives on the subject from guys like David Friedman and Bob Murphy, who the latter has written up economic papers on CC policy.
Actually I have always thought that initially crossing some body’s private property line without expressed invitation is already an issue and a criminal act, (I rule out the mail guy and the people that have a legitimate and agreed on right to enter your property and most of them nowadays call ahead of time). This is just before the issue of arson.
“””””…..I’m not a scientist either, but I understand logic, and the work of Karl Popper on scientific method. I know that ad hominem, post hoc ergo propter hoc, ad populam, and ad verecundiam arguments have no validity……”””””
Well unless you are an authoritative Classicist, as Lord Crhistopher Monckton, is well known to be; you might consider making use of your English language skills (in this particular forum), instead of regaling us with a bunch of mediaeval Roman mumbo jumbo.
I’ve never heard of Karl Popper or his positions on scientific method; but I have been getting paid fairly, for more than half a century of solid scientific work, for strictly profit making enterprises.
I can find nothing redeeming about your attitude toward open lawlessness.
You’ve obviously never been burglarized; or you wouldn’t have your cavalier attitude toward other people’s property. I can assure you that arson, and burglary most assuredly are crimes of violence, and fit any reasonable definition of terrorism.
At least in these United States of America, it is the sworn duty of the elected government to protect the property and other rights of the people.
“””””…..alexwade says:
March 10, 2013 at 5:29 am
Your review of this movie reminded me of another documentary that I saw that was basically an anti-Monsanto and anti-genetically modified movie: Food, Inc. While it made some good points, I researched some of the so-called facts in the movie and found out the “victims” of Monsanto weren’t as innocent as the movie made out. I also asked a friend of mine who is a farmer about Monsanto and he acted like Monsanto was the best thing to happen to farmers since fertilizer. I am not saying Monsanto is an upright company. I do believe that Monsanto is targeted mostly because environmentalist hate, for no good reason, genetically modified crops……”””””
Well I don’t mind telling that I once worked for Monsanto Corporation in their Central Research Laboratories in St Louis County, Missouri. My work didn’t have a darn thing to do with Crop Research. You’d be quite amazed by some of the things Monsanto Corp does; or at least was doing back then in the mid 1960s.
Their very first product was manufactureed in East St Louis, Illinois, well over 100 years ago. Sacharin, one of the first plastic substitutes for sugar; so far as I know it is still despite it’s bitter after taste, the only non-nutritive sweetener, that has never been shown in research studies (vast numbers of them) to have any known harmful side effects. You can test them out for yourself at any Starbucks, where those dummies offer all the known varieties; but brag that they use in their products no “high fructose corn syrup.” HFCS contains 10% more fructose than “ordinary (presumably low fructose) sugar. It’s main claim to infamy, is that the western corn states can make it by the rail car load, instead of mutilating trees in Vermont.. So cut your sugar usage by 10% and you will be perfectly safe from HFCS.
Speaking of rail car loads, Monsanto also makes Aspirin by the rail car load; at one point they made 85% of the entire world production of Aspirin.
If you buy a Proctor and Gamble laundry or dishwasher detergent product, it was almost certainly manufactured by Monsanto corp; no matter what brand it says on the box or bottle.
Monsanto makes “Skydrol”. It is a non flammable flame retardent hydraulic fluid that is used in close to 100% of all the world’s commercial aviation aircraft; for those who don’t think fires are good, whether empty building arson or not.
Monsanto is one of the world leading manufacturers of Nylon, even though that was originally a Dupont invention. No, Monsanto didn’t steal Dupont patented secrets. They developed their own process for Nylon, starting with quite different precursors, to come up with a lower cost better product.
Monsanto’s engineered seeds are deliberately sterile; not to force third world countries to come back to them for next year’s seeds, but to prevent them accidently taking over from other varieties; in the spirit of responsible environmentalism.
If that company has any product they should be ashamed of, I would vote for “Astroturf”, which has resulted more athletic injuries, than any harm the GM crops have caused.
I actually played a cricket match on a pitch of Astroturf for 30 seconds of film footage for their shareholder’s AGM. I have NO financial interest whatsoever in Monsanto Corp; but bad stewards of the environment, they are not.
In fact one of the things, I worked there on, in the mid 60s, is now about to make one of the most significant disruptive technology advances ever, that will be of incalculable benefit to ALL of mankind. I had very little to do with helping bring that about; just was an early part of getting it going. Solid State lighting, that will cut lighting energy costs by an order of magnitude over Edison incandescent technology, and eventually eliminate much of mercury laden fluorescent lighting technology too; and also at an energy savings.
So don’t try and tell me that Monsanto Corp is not a responsible good citizen outfit, concerned about the environment; they most certainly are. Like most large organisations they have had their accidents and disasters even. One of Monsanto’s doozies was the Texas City Texas fertilizer blast, way back when. Of course much chemical safety knowledge evolved from that accident.
East St Louis, used to have smoke of every color known to man coming from Monsanto processes. They decided to clean it up for good neighborliness reasons; so they developed all manner of chimney scrubbers and filters, to remove all kinds of pestilence. It helps when you know what your processes are using, and producing.
Not only did they clean up their local environment; but they established a multimillion dollar new business making scrubbers for sale all over the world to their competitors; a win win for everybody.
So know what you are talking about before you go after this or that business to give you a feel good feeling.
The biggest single beneficiary of “Big Oil”, is the Treasury of the United States of America; they make far more out of big oil, than does big oil. Yet the US Department of energy has never made available, enough energy to power your computer mouse, or your electric toothbrush.
So what I’m getting out of this, and frankly all I’m getting out of this, is that a “moderate leftist” is one who excuses arson and destruction of other people’s properly reflexively, but draws the line at murder. Maybe.
Can my tent *not* be *that* big, please?
dmacleo says:
March 10, 2013 at 10:58 am
terrorist use violence or destruction to further their political/ideological views.
arsonists burn for money/sake of burning.
when an environmentalist burns a building to make a point its terrorism.
————————————-
Nope, motive is irrelevant in the case of arson. It doesn’t matter why they did it; what matters is the act. People commit arson for all sorts of ‘reasons’, like getting back at their ex or because they think that they have some other grievance against the owner of the building. It isn’t just about money or politics.
As I said way above, I don’t think that the semantics matter – just like I don’t think that murder (a deliberate act) is made better or worse because it is framed as a ‘hate crime’ or whatever. This is the equivalent of post-modern science infecting the criminal justice system.
Most jurisdictions have heavy penalties for arson – up to 25 years where I live. It is no accident that it is regarded as one of the most serious crimes – because it is one of the most serious crimes, for reasons that many people have enumerated above. There is discretion in sentencing depending on motive, though. So, a deranged pyromaniac might be judged less harshly than a disgruntled ex-employee, or a political activist. In the latter examples,the arsonist is intending to intimidate, as well as destroying property and threatening extraneous lives and property.
If an activist commits a crime, they are first and foremost a thief/vandal/murderer/arsonist or whatever. Creating special categories for them just legitimises what they did by dressing it up as a ‘different’ form of that fundamental crime.
Apparently everyone forgot the ecoterrorists convicted for crimes in Arizona including cutting the bolts on a ski lift and attempting to cut a power line to the largest nuclear plant in the country (potentially causing a nuclear disaster). This was EarthFirst!’s doing. Not terrorists, excuse me?
As for torching buildings, if the intent is to cause fear (say, that your building might be next), then it’s terrorism, obviously. It’s also arson.
@johanna – the issue isn’t whether it’s arson, it’s whether it’s *also* terrorism. Motive does count, otherwise we wouldn’t have legally different degrees of homicide (justifiable homicide, manslaughter, second degree murder, first degree murder, first degree murder with special circumstances).
Lars P. says:
March 10, 2013 at 3:22 pm
A.D. Everard says:
March 10, 2013 at 1:43 pm
“WUWT… huge staff, paid for by the oil industry”?
A.D. I trust the /sarc tag was missing there, he certainly was joking.
*
Hi Lars. 🙂 Yes, I actually considered that, but could not figure how someone could jump, in the same post, from something so serious as a suicide and the “now THAT’S violence” comment, to suddenly joking about WUWT being funded by oil. So, I concluded he was either joking on both counts – which is shabby and certainly should have been made clear – or he was not joking in any way, after all.
Given his various misconceptions, it’s more likely the latter, or he’s playing a sociological game with us all to see how we react to various stimuli, kind of like the Lew paper. However, I don’t think it’s that, either.
Rod is giving his backing, or should I say, his “sympathies and understanding” to people who commit acts of terrorism, and he feels they are “victims” when brought to justice and it’s a crime that they should pay the price. Somewhere behind all that, it wouldn’t surprise me if he thought that the big bold D-word should be somehow behind it all and carry the blame.
No. He started off on the wrong foot, and has continued on the wrong foot. Instead of thinking about what he said and what we said, he is defending his stance by pointing the finger ANYWHERE but at the criminals who commit terrorism in the name of their Cause. HE isn’t wrong. THEY aren’t wrong. They are tree-huggers and GENTLE people. Yeah? So who IS to blame? Let me guess…
It’s like that.
““WUWT… huge staff, paid for by the oil industry”? WTF? You are showing your ignorance here.”
I originally thought he was being sarcastic (just as Anthony and commentors often joke that they haven’t got their Exxon check yet) until I read your reply. If he was being serious, then the author is as deluded as Mr. (not Dr. – no respect) Mann.
Disclosure: Chevron and Shell (as well as McDonald’s and others) send me a check every quarter.
Helps pay for the premium/hi-test gas I put in my excessive HP auto.
Sometimes the way facts are presented on closer examination just give the opposite conclusion. For example, the documentary showing that potato chips from Macdonalds did not decompose after sometime after it was sealed in an air tight container showed the chips were well sterilize and free from harmful organism. If the documentary added the chips to a active composting bin and it did not decompose it would have been another story. This is the problem of impassioned documentary makers and naive public. The conclusion is distorted against the facts.
John Moore says:
March 10, 2013 at 6:39 pm
Apparently everyone forgot the ecoterrorists convicted for crimes in Arizona including cutting the bolts on a ski lift and attempting to cut a power line to the largest nuclear plant in the country (potentially causing a nuclear disaster). This was EarthFirst!’s doing. Not terrorists, excuse me?
As for torching buildings, if the intent is to cause fear (say, that your building might be next), then it’s terrorism, obviously. It’s also arson.
@johanna – the issue isn’t whether it’s arson, it’s whether it’s *also* terrorism. Motive does count, otherwise we wouldn’t have legally different degrees of homicide (justifiable homicide, manslaughter, second degree murder, first degree murder, first degree murder with special circumstances).
————————————————————-
John, thanks for putting up a few more examples of eco-crime to refute the nonsense claim that there has only been one eco-criminal in human history.
But, I respectfully disagree with your last paragraph. In most Western jurisdictions, there are two broad categories of homicide – accidental or deliberate. Accidental is covered by terms like manslaughter. Deliberate is murder.
The incremental cutting and slicing of these categories (such as you mention in your post) is really just a money-fest for lawyers, not to mention increasing the ways a defendant can get off a charge because of technicalities.
As I said above, it is in sentencing that these gradations are properly made. When they are made in advance, it not only creates the impression that deliberate murder (for example) is ipso facto sorta OK or understandable in some circumstances, it creates the space in which political activists can claim partial immunity from the laws that apply to the rest of us.