Michael Moore has lost all credibility with this latest film

[Quixote1818]

I watched it yesterday and have been reading about it on a number of websites doing fact checking. He has become a joke. I know he didn't write it but he produced it and put his stamp of approval on it. It's so outdated and littered with errors it's absolutely stunning! Showing technology from 10 years ago and passing it off as though it is current technology is extremely dangerous, reckless and lazy filmmaking on an epic level. Cherry picked gotcha moments and no opportunities to give other sides. It's complete trash and I have lost any grain of respect I had for his competence and credibility.

https://grist.org/energy/michael-moores-latest-film-is-riddled-with-errors-and-millions-are-watching/

https://www.vox.com/2020/4/28/21238597/michael-moore-planet-of-the-humans-climate-change

[Cha]

1. KR!

[leftyladyfrommo]

2. I haven't ever cared for him nt

[TexasTowelie]

3. Ditto. nt

[CatMor]

9. I haven't either

[LeftInTX]

12. His first movie, filmed in the 1980s was good

Bowling for Columbine was all over the place. It didn't have a focus. It seems like it would appeal to teenagers or very young adults.

[Goonch]

4. Michael Moore Presents: Planet of the Humans Full Documentary Directed by Jeff Gibbs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=26&v=Zk11vI-7czE&feature=emb_logo

[mucifer]

5. I went with some friends to a presentation of his show TV Nation many years ago:

I sat next to a few people who worked for him. They were talking to each other about him and I could hear them.
They hated him. I can't remember what they said. It was a long time ago.

[HotTeaBag]

13. My wife worked with him on 'Michael Moore in Trumpland'

and loved the experience and him.

So, not everyone feels the same.

[randr]

6. Personally, I have a few questions that need answers

Is the Sierra Club truly vested as portrayed and who sponsored Earth Day for two.

[Newest Reality]

7. There is one benefit here...

The movie is certainly controversial. I found it questionable myself. It does hit hard at the green movement.

However, if it stirs controversy and motivates people to discuss what is involved, that's a plus. In this case, the attention then draws rebuttals, fact checks and counterpoints. If people start to attack the film that way, then the stage is set to not only get to the heart of these matters, but it also points to the climate change issue and what to do about it in a way that will be sustainable and practical.

That was what I was thinking as I watched. These days, negative PR works in a very odd way.

If people don't agree with or accept the information then they should really jump all over this and lets have more public exposure to the facts and where we are with green energy, etc. We don't really have much time anymore.

[0rganism]

8. i found its most striking aspect to be the complete rejection of incrementalism

you know, slow, steady improvement and change -- some call it progress
so you have a natural gas plant backing up your solar array? that's suboptimal, but it's moving in the right direction

maybe we do need to move faster or make fundamental changes at the roots of our civilization, but i didn't get any suggestions on how to proceed with this from the film.

[Quixote1818]

11. Agree, the film was like someone walking mindlessly in the desert with no real direction

They are going to go after population control and growth. They think green energy is tilting at windmills but not population control and growth? They are correct that we need to do something about them but why throw things that are making real progress out of our chest of weapons? We need to be doing all these things.

[meadowlander]

14. Also the assumption that anyone with money and anyone who takes money must be

bad for the environment.

The whole film is riddled with logical fallacies but the one that really stood out for me was the "guilt by association". Just because the Koch brothers own mines that produce components for solar arrays doesn't automatically mean that solar arrays are bad.

If you want to build green infrastructure you need money. If you need money, you have to get it from people who have it. Most people who have that kind of money are assholes who have done terrible and destructive things for the planet in the past.

Nothing in that process means that green infrastructure is inherently bad.

And then running around a conference asking gotcha questions about biomass energy and pretending that anyone who didn't have a ready answer in their back pocket must be compromised across all aspects of green infrastructure or were "trying to hide something".

Not sure what Michael Moore was thinking putting his stamp on this, but anyone with a high school education can recognise intellectually dishonest propaganda when they see it.

[hunter]

16. Wind turbines represent a commitment to natural gas I find unacceptable and delusional.

The half life of carbon dioxide and methane dumped into the atmosphere isn't offset by wind turbines.

All fossil fuels, including natural gas that we extract from the ground and burn are harmful. Every last gram.

A society powered entirely by "renewable" energy would look nothing like the society many affluent people now enjoy.

This thing we now call economic "productivity" isn't productivity at all. It is, in fact, a direct measure of the damage we our doing to our planet's natural environment and our own human spirit.

I don't give a fuck if wind energy is approved of by the bankers.

The only way to quit fossil fuels is to quit fossil fuels. This will involve some significant changes in the lifestyles of affluent people, let's call them the 10%. Generally, they don't like that.

Wind turbines and electric cars will not save them.

[0rganism]

17. what kind of time frame do you envision for the "quit fossil fuels" operation?

bearing in mind that modern agriculture is largely the conversion of fossil fuel into edible food, such a transformation will require significant lifestyle changes for a helluva lot more than 10% of humanity.

[hunter]

18. Fossil fuels to fertilizers minus meat....

... and everything else.

What number do you come up with?

[coti]

27. Let's destroy everything so that we can encounter the same problems we had 100 years ago

and then build everything back up again.

Out of jealousy of those with more money, you're rejecting that we can make significant progress toward a cleaner, more sustainable environment with technology. You're just wrong. We continue to develop higher and higher levels of efficiency and can make a serious impact on the global problems with face with serious dedication to it.

[Caliman73]

19. Agreed. Not to mention medicines and much of our infrastructure relies on petrochemicals.

The one percent fights so hard because their money and power relies on fossil fuels. The rest of us, unfortunately, are dependent on them for our daily lives.

I think that we can ultimately get off of fossil fuels and petrochemicals, but it is going to be a painful process that wlll not only affect rich people.

[SQUEE]

20. Would I be mistaken to assume you live the life you are now demanding others embrace?

I highly doubt you are evn 1% of the way there, yet here you are demanding we all partake of the pastoral utopia that never was.

[coti]

26. With your passion and dedication I assume you've already sworn off use of any

fossil-fuel-powered vehicles or electricity.

How have you gone about powering the device you're using to post on DU? Hamster wheel?

It must be a very, very difficult life, communicating with others only by homing pigeon. Doesn't sound very practical. Or pleasant.


I'm suspicious that your concerns are rooted less in genuine concern for the well-being of our world and more in jealousy of people who have the resources to invest in these important alternative energies. Because where you're wrong is in your idea that renewable energies are somehow impractical or can't sustain our world in any meaningful way. With investment in effective, low-impact energy storage like pumped hydro, we can power a very large portion of our society with renewable energy.

[samsingh]

10. i have completely given up on Moore and i was a huge buyer of his books and movies at one time

[Gothmog]

15. What credibility?

Does Moore have any credibility to lose? I do not consider this person to be a serious person and change channels when he is on TV

[lunatica]

21. Yeah, it's a real disappointment that this film even exists

that anyone, especially Michael Moore would allow it to pass for the truth. Very disappointing.

[Blue Owl]

22. Stick a fork in him

He's done...

[JI7]

23. He lost Credibility when he worked to Defeat Al Gore in 2000 , and based on this film

we can see why he wouldn't like Gore.

[Gothmog]

24. the distributor of Michael Moore's #PlanetoftheHumans is taking the film down due to misinformation

Link to tweet

[Quixote1818]

28. Thanks for this. It was so poorly done I was kinda stunned.

How can one use 12 year old technology and pass it off as though it's from today and get away with it?

[Hekate]

25. KnR