The Doc Every Climate Change Denier Should Be Forced to Watch

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by futurecurrents, Mar 19, 2013.

  1. Eco-activist Craig Rosebraugh is the first to admit he took “a sizable gamble” by titling his first film so provocatively—Greedy Lying Bastards.
    The hard-hitting documentary is a sophisticated, four-years-in-the-making look at the deviousness of climate change deniers using archival footage and new interviews. It was intended to be “a bit more in your face” than most docs, Rosebraugh admits.
    Now showing across the country in more than 30 cities, it appears that despite the provocative title, audiences are ready for climate change films at cineplexes. (See also James Balog’s Chasing Ice, which continues to screen across the country thanks to phenomenal footage of glaciers in retreat and great word of mouth.)
    Both filmmaker and his eco-audience have been encouraged by mainstream reviews. “A single-minded attack … may just be the feel-good documentary of the year,” wrote the New York Times. “Sober—and sobering,” according to the Washington Post.
    The documentary is the most detailed telling of climate deniers’ efforts yet, focused on the organizations and individuals who attempt to deflect from the truth about climate change by spending big money and telling outright lies. Who are the bad guys? ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, the Koch brothers, electric companies…and more. The film also raises the question time and again: Where are our political leaders on climate change?
    Rosebraugh is not a stranger to the camera, though much of his experience has been on the other side of the lens as a spokesperson for environmental and human rights issues going back two decades. Over the years he’s also been grilled by inquisitors from the FBI and the ATF, primarily during his time as spokesman for the Earth Liberation Front in the days soon after the group admitted burning down a mountaintop ski resort in Vail, Colorado, in the name of preserving a lynx habitat.
    A New York Times Magazine profile in 1998 said: “Rosebraugh stood out in Portland, if he stood out at all, as the guy who was always getting arrested at anti-vivisection events or locking himself to a door of the corporate headquarters of a hospital group to protest experiments being done on cats.”
    Rosenbraugh's first film was aided by an experienced team, including editor and cowriter Patrick Gambuti, Jr. and archival producer Marianna Yarovskaya, who worked on the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth. Activist and actress Daryl Hannah joined three years into the process as executive producer. TakePart found Rosebraugh at home in Los Angeles.
    TakePart: As a first-time filmmaker, what inspired you to take on climate change deniers? Was there a trigger, a moment when you realized you had to make this film?
    Craig Rosebraugh: There wasn’t one moment, but cumulative. I’d been watching the debate over climate change for a couple decades. As we got late into the 2000s, leading up to the convention in Copenhagen in 2009, I wondered about a project linking the truth that climate change was real and a parallel universe, especially in the United States, of people refusing to listen to the science. Why with the science so sound were politicians refusing to act?
    One thing that amazed me was how much I learned during the four years we worked on the film. The very deceptive campaigns by energy companies have really done a great job at convincing people that climate change is not real.
    The film was funded by two independent, private financiers, who wish to stay anonymous. It is their first project in the film industry but their motivation is concern about the issue.
    Of all the greedy, lying bastards you discovered during the making of the film, who are the greediest, most prevaricating?
    Christopher Monckton is the one that far and above makes a mockery of himself. Yet despite being debunked time and time again by the scientific community, any time anyone invites him to come and deliver his lies, he continues to show up.
    In terms of money, it’s hard to beat the Koch brothers. Their influence is everywhere, with their base in oil, oil transportation, oil refining, large cattle ranches, textiles, fertilizers and on and on. Their power is undeniable.
    A big question raised in the film is why the media continues to allow climate deniers equal time, when the science is clearly against them. “Doubt is way easier to sell” is a great line in the film.
    Fox is far and away the extreme example. They’ll have a known holocaust denier debating a holocaust survivor. Or a tobacco industry representative still arguing that smoking isn’t linked to cancer.
    The challenge is how do we get the media to stop presenting the issue as if it were a debate, when the debate is already over. I think it’s up to our lawmakers to make a hefty stand, especially the Republican Party. As long as they continue to publicly question the science of climate change, so will the media.
    On our website, Expose the Bastards, we’re calling for a Congressional investigation into the deception and lies regarding climate since much like what Congressman Henry Waxman did with the tobacco industry. And it should include an investigation into the media’s role.
    Big energy has a reputation for aggressively refuting films about climate change and other environmental issues. You’re up against the wealthiest, most powerful industry in the world. Has their been any industry kickback yet?
    Not yet. My gut is that they’re waiting to see how well the film does. If they go after it, it’s only going to create more publicity. Months ago Monckton threatened a lawsuit, but we’ve not heard anymore since.

    http://news.yahoo.com/doc-every-climate-change-denier-forced-watch-222942029.html
     
  2. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    I think I'm going to burn a big piles of leaves in my back yard every time I see one of these posts. If I run out of leaves, I'll go buy some mulch from Home Depot and burn that.
     
  3. jem

    jem

    who has spent more... the liberals at the UN and govt all over the world promoting an idea which has no scientific proof and failed models or oil companies?


     
  4. pspr

    pspr

    Another load of crap from our resident Climate Alarmist. The comments from the article are telling. Here's a sampling:

    "So, documentary is now the new word for fiction?"
    "Here's a good one: A big question raised in the film is why the media continues to allow climate deniers equal time, when the science is clearly against them. 'Doubt is way easier to sell” is a great line in the film.'"
    "So, these open minded people are pretty touchy when someone disagrees with their point of view. They want free speech as long as it's their version of it."
    ----
    "No one EVER denied climate change. What was denied was man being the main cause of it and that controlling humans via taxation, carbon schemes and massive redistribution could alter it. Libs can change the language all they want to propagandize, the facts remain."
    ----
    "Everyone knows the climate changes. It has been since creation. Smart people know that Al Gore can't do a thing about it and so called scientists look to line their pockets with taxpayer money " studying" the effects."
    ----
    "Sorry. I prefer to read science books and let others watch propaganda films."
    -----
    "The title of this article is typical of all the Global Warming Believers:
    It Drips of Fascism."
     
  5. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    Beautiful
     
  6. Only 8 more years until we enter the next Ice Age. Oh, wait...

    Excerpt: “The world "could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts,” read a July 9, 1971 Washington Post article. NASA scientist S.I. Rasool, a colleague of James Hansen, made the predictions. The 1971 article continues: "In the next 50 years" — or by 2021 — fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere "could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees," resulting in a buildup of "new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas." If sustained over "several years, five to 10," or so Mr. Rasool estimated, "such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."
     
  7. OMG, where did the sun go?

    "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine, January 1970.

    Dear God, we're going to freeze to death.
    If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970.

    Holy shit! I hope you Brits are OK.
    "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

    I do smell something, but it ain't fish.
    "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970
     
  8. pspr

    pspr

    This Kenneth E.F. Watt seems to have stopped publishing after this disaster of a prediction. But he remained on the U. Cal. Davis faculty in the Evolution and Ecology Department as a Ph.D., LL.D., Professor Emeritus before apparently retiring.

    I'm surprised Obama didn't put him on one of his advisory boards given this guy's lack of accomplishments. :D
     
  9. I burn tires. Will consider tires still attached to vehicles if any indication of gw advocate.


     
  10. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    :D
     
    #10     Mar 19, 2013