Hours ago, National Geographic released the new 95-minute-long movie “Before the Flood” created by Leonardo DiCaprio on their YouTube channel:
DiCaprio is facing trouble because they caught him when he was misappropriating a rainforest fund in an international money laundering scandal so he surely hopes that this movie will help him to decriminalize himself.It’s probably the most superficial movie on the climate issue that has been released so far, beating even No Pressure 10:10, An Inconvenient Truth, The Times of the Stupid, 2055, and many other “masterpieces”. DiCaprio never goes beyond the manipulative one-sentence slogans that everyone must have heard about one million of times. What is annoying is that DiCaprio isn’t just a fool. He is a pompous fool and that’s the kind of creatures that I simply cannot stand.
So he could afford to fly to many corners of the world including the polar regions and has befriended many famous or notorious people. But none of these things implies that he has a clue what are laws that the climate actually obeys and what’s going to happen with it ‚Äì a trivial fact that he implicitly tries to obfuscate all the time.
He must be right when they paid for a helicopter to go here or there, he wants millions of stupid viewers to think, and some of them will.At the beginning, we learn a few things about DiCaprio’s dad. He was a fan of Andy Warhol or whatever. Then we’re shown some paintings of Adam and Eve. There are additional paintings of the characters from the Bible, a few generations after Adam and Eve.
At the beginning, we learn a few things about DiCaprio’s dad. He was a fan of Andy Warhol or whatever. Then we’re shown some paintings of Adam and Eve. There are additional paintings of the characters from the Bible, a few generations after Adam and Eve.
I exploded in laughter when a picture with dozens of people from the Biblical times was described as “overpopulation”. Well, if someone is terrified by the “overpopulation” 2,000 (or even 3,000+) years ago when there were just a few hundred million people in the world (the Roman Empire had about 50-60 million near the 4th century CE), the contemporary world must surely make him nuts.
But it’s obvious that the Earth has no trouble to feed the 7+ billion people today and even without any new technologies, a world with tens of billions of people is easily imaginable.
We’re shown various famous and notorious friends of DiCaprio’s ‚Äì Ban Ki-Moon, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, the Pope, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Elon Musk, Michael Mann and several others. All of them only say one or two sentences that you could absolutely predict. All skeptics are paid by the fossil fuels, of course (including all the authors of hate mail that Michael Mann has received: does Mann really believe that all the tens of millions of people who consider him a shameful deceitful scumbag are funded by Exxon?), a few degrees of warming is enough to melt the Greenland (sorry, you need more than 10 ¬∞C to melt most of the Greenland ice and something close to 50 ¬∞C to do it in the Antarctica), the dirty smoke from Chinese chimneys is the carbon dioxide that causes the global warming (sorry, CO2 is invisible, odorless, and harmless for human health so it has nothing to do with the pollutants we know from the chimneys), and so on, and so on.
Everyone with the IQ above 90 must be offended by the sheer stupidity of this film and its father.
He pretends that all the assorted pessimistic pictures are examples of the climate change. So some people in India are poor, that must be due to the climate change. (India has never been really rich.) Some street was flooded somewhere, it must be due to the global warming as well (sorry, floods like that have existed for billions of years), and there are dozens of absolutely ludicrous examples like that in the movie. A person who takes most of this stuff seriously has such a hopeless brain that I recommend him euthanasia.
I am thinking about a comparison of this film e.g. with Durkin’s The Great Global Warming Swindle ‚Äì and several other good introductions into the debate. (Marc Morano told me that I should get a DVD of his new film but so far, I can’t tell you anything about it.) The comparison isn’t really possible. They are not comparable films at all. Durkin’s movie, to be specific, is an excellent piece of popularization of science which really does provide you with a review of the history of the climate, the greenhouse effect, lots of other effects that influence the climate, as well as the economics and psychology and politics of the broader political interactions that refer to the climate change.
DiCaprio’s movie is a superficial kitsch that can only sell some cheap incoherently mixed scenes, emotions, and irrational associations to the most gullible of imbeciles in the world.
DiCaprio is surely self-serving and a√üholes like this one are probably earning some social capital by creating outrageous movies of this kind ‚Äì because of the atmosphere in their environment that basically rewards such a behavior (instead of punishing them stringently which is what should happen).
But I am sometimes trying to consider the kind hypothesis that these actors are true idealists who are doing these things purely because of their absolute stupidity. After all, they are puppets. Their very occupation assumes that you don’t have your own brain that decides how to behave ‚Äì you are just copying a script i.e. emulating how other people behave. We may like actors and they may star as intelligent people but it’s conceivable that they are actually some of the stupid people you may find anywhere on Earth and that’s what makes them good actors.