rmarkd
Entrou em mai. de 2000
Bem-vindo(a) ao novo perfil
Nossas atualizações ainda estão em desenvolvimento. Embora a versão anterior do perfil não esteja mais acessível, estamos trabalhando ativamente em melhorias, e alguns dos recursos ausentes retornarão em breve! Fique atento ao retorno deles. Enquanto isso, Análise de Classificação ainda está disponível em nossos aplicativos iOS e Android, encontrados na página de perfil. Para visualizar suas Distribuições de Classificação por ano e gênero, consulte nossa nova Guia de ajuda.
Selos2
Para saber como ganhar selos, acesse página de ajuda de selos.
Avaliações117
Classificação de rmarkd
Right after watching Planet of the Humans, I felt depressed and defeated. All this progress that I've been excited about regarding solar/wind/battery storage shot to hell in 100 minutes. As it turns out though, it's not quite as dismal.
The documentary consists of three main points: solar/wind is not going to solve the issue; green energy proponents are secretly proponents of biomass, specifically burning trees for energy; the real solution is population control.
The evidence in the documentary of the futility of solar/wind is pretty damning until you find that alot of the arguments made were based on technology 10 or so years old. And yes, there have been a few stumbles along the way with solar and wind, but they have gotten significantly better over the last couple years. Moreover, it paints a distorted view of solar/wind. For example, they say solar panels last roughly 10 years. However panels last easily 20+ with minimal degradation (< 10%) and can last much longer than that with modest degradation. There is also continuous improvement in panel efficiency as well as cost of scale and materials. In short, the documentary argues using old evidence and that evidence has changed. Now, it may be things still don't quantitatively make sense, but the fact that they didn't make that argument with more recent evidence makes this suspect at least.
The evidence that "green" people like Al Gore and "green" groups like the Sierra Club quietly being proponents of biomass was also pretty damning. In this case, I tended to agree with their arguments. I can remember Al Gore being a media darling with his "Inconvenient Truth" and environmental stances. Now, he seems more like a charlatan who made alot of money saying nice things, but accomplishing little. Admittedly, I haven't researched this nearly as much, but the rebuttal articles/videos I've seen tended to say "yeah the documentary is not wrong" on this account.
As for the "conclusion" that the solution is population control, again, they didn't make an argument. Really, they didn't do much to support that, or how that would make things better in a quantitative sense.
The documentary ends with an extremely heavy handed and cringeworthy scene of a couple of orangutans suffering in a forest being cut down. Yes, I can understand trying to show a powerful image at the end, but it was so over the top and forced as to be just silly. For me, it actually worked against them.
On the whole, this is less an objective documentary and more an agenda. I suppose that's the case to some extent with all documentaries, but this is flagrant.
5/10. It exposes some of the hypocrisy of the green movement, but the arguments it makes are dated, which is at best lazy and at worst dishonest and casts doubt about everything else in the documentary.
The documentary consists of three main points: solar/wind is not going to solve the issue; green energy proponents are secretly proponents of biomass, specifically burning trees for energy; the real solution is population control.
The evidence in the documentary of the futility of solar/wind is pretty damning until you find that alot of the arguments made were based on technology 10 or so years old. And yes, there have been a few stumbles along the way with solar and wind, but they have gotten significantly better over the last couple years. Moreover, it paints a distorted view of solar/wind. For example, they say solar panels last roughly 10 years. However panels last easily 20+ with minimal degradation (< 10%) and can last much longer than that with modest degradation. There is also continuous improvement in panel efficiency as well as cost of scale and materials. In short, the documentary argues using old evidence and that evidence has changed. Now, it may be things still don't quantitatively make sense, but the fact that they didn't make that argument with more recent evidence makes this suspect at least.
The evidence that "green" people like Al Gore and "green" groups like the Sierra Club quietly being proponents of biomass was also pretty damning. In this case, I tended to agree with their arguments. I can remember Al Gore being a media darling with his "Inconvenient Truth" and environmental stances. Now, he seems more like a charlatan who made alot of money saying nice things, but accomplishing little. Admittedly, I haven't researched this nearly as much, but the rebuttal articles/videos I've seen tended to say "yeah the documentary is not wrong" on this account.
As for the "conclusion" that the solution is population control, again, they didn't make an argument. Really, they didn't do much to support that, or how that would make things better in a quantitative sense.
The documentary ends with an extremely heavy handed and cringeworthy scene of a couple of orangutans suffering in a forest being cut down. Yes, I can understand trying to show a powerful image at the end, but it was so over the top and forced as to be just silly. For me, it actually worked against them.
On the whole, this is less an objective documentary and more an agenda. I suppose that's the case to some extent with all documentaries, but this is flagrant.
5/10. It exposes some of the hypocrisy of the green movement, but the arguments it makes are dated, which is at best lazy and at worst dishonest and casts doubt about everything else in the documentary.
Enquetes respondidas recentemente
1 pesquisa respondida no total
