We’ve reported on Years of Living Dangerously and how it has been tanking in the ratings, despite a big budget and big name participants. Michael Mann tried to prop it up recently (more below), but as usual his effort was laughable. The documentary followed two people (one from Heartland institute and one a former congressmen) debating whether a carbon tax can curb climate change. The Web-only segment is called Clash of the Conservative Titans and is not slated to appear in an upcoming episode.
James Taylor and Bob Inglis debate the merits of a carbon tax at the R Street Institute.
click here if you can’t see it: http://vimeo.com/95541475
Now on Mann and his effort to make this documentary seem successful; Bishop Hill alerts me to a Huffington Post story where Mann makes this claim:
…a popular new cable television series The Years of Living Dangerously produced by James Cameron and Arnold Schwarzenegger and featuring prominent figures like Harrison Ford, Leslie Stahl, Matt Damon and Jessica Alba…
Hmm Mann must be using some sort of new PCA Mannian math to come up with a definition of “popular”, because the ratings for this program stink, with ratings like 0.04:
The documentary got moved to Monday nights, and this past Monday night it didn’t even make the top 100 cable TV programs this week.
Of course, in the small myopic world Mann inhabits, where even simple things like a free calendar at Christmas set him off on conspiracy theories, I’m not surprised that he believes Years of Living Dangerously is popular. In his tiny circle, it probably is. In the real world, not so much.
Some background on Bob Inglis, for those unfamiliar with him: Bob Inglis was a fundamentalist Christian from South Carolina, who parlayed his fire-breathing hatred of the Clinton’s into a congressional seat for a few years. Then he transferred his religious fervor over to the cause of Global Warming, and became one of the most zealous of the True Believers. (the warmists will try to hide the fact that he has always been a hard-core fundamentalist and creationist, which will let you in on his true long term views towards “science”)
in 2010, a primary opponent made an issue out of Bob’s warmist views, and he was bounced out of his congressional seat by republican primary voters. He has never forgiven them for that, and to this day holds a monstrous grudge against those wicked and evil voters who failed to see the wisdom of his personal, divine revelation.
And this is the guy that they picked as a “conservative titan”. riiiiiiiiiggghhhhttttt.
The proper term for this type of production is crockumentary.
A fellow named crock, er, cook reviewed the show and said 97 percent of the people he spoke with found it:
1) A TV show that should be a movie
2) A movie that should be a TV show
3) both of the above
4) none of the above“Bob Inglis is an astroturf conservative. The legacy press loves to use the conservative label, but it’s a lie.”
You guys should note that Inglis won the debate.
You guys should also note that it was held at R street, a libertarian think thank.
Expect more sound thinking from the right
Like my Libertarian friends at R street I see climate change as an opportunity to address some key issues.
Ending subsidies for industry ( FF and renewable)
Fixing the insurance mess
Monetizing the commons. It’s my frickin Air, no coal company should get to dump their PM2.5 there for free.
Will the BBC spend tax payers money and buy the series.
Funny to see Steve Mosher think so highly of a fundamentalist and creationist who thinks evolution is nonsense. But “he won the debate!!!”
I wonder if Steve would be singing the same tune of Ingles had just “won” a debate about evolution?
There has just been a programme on the BBC about Monsoons in India and way back in the past in Sahara . They talked about the tilt of the earth , natural causes , very interesting.
I couldn’t quite enjoy it as I had my hand on the remote ready for instant channel change, every second I expected to hear man made global warming or co2 thrown in. The tension starts to mount but nope got through the programme without a mention. I was a little shaky after that so had a cup of tea with sugar in.
Steven Mosher says:
May 21, 2014 at 7:51 am
You guys should note that Inglis won the debate.
=============
That may be the most obscure piece of trivia ever.
Years of Living Dangerously is “popular”. Mann is a “Nobel laureate”. Alarmist book author Ross Gelbspan is a “Pulitzer winner”. The illicit industry funding of skeptic scientists is “well documented” and the mainstream media gives “too much equal time to skeptics” anyway over a science debate that is “settled”.
Plop, plop, plop goes all those dominoes until the last one falls, which then sends the collective idea of catastrophic AGW into its final tailspin.
@Steven Mosher says:
May 21, 2014 at 7:51 am
Susidies
I’m curious as to what sorts of subsidies you thing the fossil fuel industry receives. And please don’t go on about “depletion allowances” and what not. These are tax adjustments whereby the government declines to confiscate, er, I mean collect as much money from a company as it might otherwise. If the company doesn’t collect a check after it pays no taxes, it’s not a subsidy.
PM2.5
You’re kidding, right? The next reputable study that makes a connection between PM2.5 and lung disease will be the first one.
@Mosher, why did Inglis lie that the debate is about clean air? Why are you being intellectually dishonest as well? Dealing with PM has nothing to do with CO2.
Inglis is a flat out liar and has no integrity on this matter.
Inglis a titan? A golem, maybe.