« | »

‘An Inconvenient Truth’ Producers Talking Sequel

From the Hollywood Reporter:

‘An Inconvenient Truth’ Producers Talking Sequel (Exclusive)

By Tina Daunt | April 2, 2014

Al Gore might need to dust off his projector. The creative forces behind the Oscar-winning environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth are hatching plans for a sequel to the film that raised global awareness of climate change. "We have had conversations," producer Lawrence Bender tells THR. "We’ve met; we’ve discussed. If we are going to make a movie, we want it to have an impact."

Will it be an apology for all the things they got wrong in the first one?

The first film certainly did. Released in 2006 by Paramount and Jeff Skoll’s Participant Media, the Davis Guggenheim-directed doc grossed nearly $50 million worldwide and helped propel Gore, its narrator, to a 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

But Bender believes that during the ensuing years, the fossil-fuel industry has changed the dialogue with a misinformation campaign. "They did a really good job of pushing back and confusing people," he says. "Some people actually believe global warming doesn’t exist."

And never mind that there should be warming, since we are still coming out of an ice age.

Environmental activist Laurie David also believes a sequel should be on the agenda. "God, do we need one," she says. "Everything in that movie has come to pass. At the time we did the movie, there was Hurricane Katrina; now we have extreme weather events every other week. The update has to be incredible and shocking." …

"Everything has come to pass"? This is textbook delusion.

Inconvenient Truth and the issues it raised were on Bender’s mind as he accepted an award during a Beverly Hills fundraiser March 21 that collected $700,000 for UCLA’s Institute of the Environment and Sustainability. At the gala, hosted by Jeanne and Anthony Pritzker, the producer called for renewed activism on climate change and cited the film’s impact.

"At the time, we hoped to provoke a global conversation about climate change," Bender told the audience, which included Courteney Cox, Anjelica Huston, Johnny McDaid, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. "Our new inconvenient truth is that not nearly enough concrete action has been taken."

"Courteney Cox, Anjelica Huston, Johnny McDaid, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr." What a brain trust.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Thursday, April 3rd, 2014. Comments are currently closed.

5 Responses to “‘An Inconvenient Truth’ Producers Talking Sequel”

  1. evansj42

    We have no brains…

  2. Enthalpy

    True Believers are here to stay- delusional as ever.

    • captstubby

      “We’ve met; we’ve discussed…”
      An Inconvenient Truth about the Man Made climate change bunch.

      scientometrics

      “Examining science at the level of the publication can give us all manner of exciting results. A group of researchers at Harvard Medical School looked at tens of thousands of articles published by its scientists and mapped out the buildings on campus where they worked. Through this, they were able to look at the effect that distance has on collaboration. They found exactly what they had assumed but no one had actually measured: The closer two people are, the higher the impact of the research that results from that collaboration. They found that just being in the same building as your collaborators makes your work better.
      We can also understand the impact of papers and the results within them by measuring how many other publications cite them. The more important a work is, the more likely it is to be referenced in many other papers, implying that it has had a certain foundational impact on the work that comes after it. While this is certainly an imperfect measure—you can cite a paper even if you disagree with it—much of the field of scientometrics is devoted to understanding the relationship between citations, scientific impact, and the importance of different scientists.
      Using this sort of approach, scientometrics can even determine what types of teams yield research that has the highest impact. For example, a group of researchers at Northwestern University found that high-impact results are more likely to come from collaborative teams rather than from a single scientist. In other words, the days of the lone hero scientist, along the lines of an Einstein, are vanishing, and you can measure it.
      Citations can also be used as building blocks for other metrics. By examining the average number of times articles in a given journal are cited, we can get what is known as the impact factor. This is widely used and carefully considered: Scientists want their papers to be published in journals with high impact factors, as it is good both for their research and influences decisions such as funding and tenure. The journals with the highest impact factors have even penetrated the public consciousness—no doubt due to the highly cited individual papers within them—and include the general science publications such as Nature and Science, as well as high-profile medical journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine.
      Scientometrics has even given bragging tools to scientists, such as the h-index, which measures the impact of a paper on other researchers. It was created by Jorge Hirsch (and named after himself; notice the h) and essentially counts the number of articles a scientist has published that have been cited at least that many times. If you have an h-index value of 45, it means that you have forty-five articles that have each been cited at least forty-five times (though you have likely published many more articles that have been cited fewer times). It also has the side benefit of meaning that you are statistically more likely to be a fellow of the National Academy of Sciences, a prestigious U.S. scientific organization.”

      The half-life of facts
      Samuel Arbesman.
      2013

  3. canary

    IG Report: EPA Secretly Tested Deadly Pollutants on Humans

    Report: EPA tested deadly pollutants on humans to push Obama admin’s agenda

    By Michael Bastasch 04/02/2014

    The Environmental Protection Agency has been conducting dangerous experiments on humans over the past few years in order to justify more onerous clean air regulations.

    The agency conducted tests on people with health issues and the elderly, exposing them to high levels of potentially lethal pollutants, without disclosing the risks of cancer and death, according to a newly released government report.

    These experiments exposed people, including those with asthma and heart problems, to dangerously high levels of toxic pollutants, including diesel fumes, reads a EPA inspector general report obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation. The EPA also exposed people with health issues to levels of pollutants up to 50 times greater than the agency says is safe for humans.

    The EPA conducted five experiments in 2010 and 2011 to look at the health effects of particulate matter, or PM, and diesel exhaust on humans. The IG’s report found that the EPA did get consent forms from 81 people in five studies. But the IG also found that “exposure risks were not always consistently represented.”

    “Further, the EPA did not include information on long-term cancer risks in its diesel exhaust studies’ consent forms,” the IG’s report noted. “An EPA manager considered these long-term risks minimal for short-term study exposures” but “human subjects were not informed of this risk in the consent form.”

    According to the IG’s report, “only one of five studies’ consent forms provided the subject with information on the upper range of the pollutant” they would be exposed to, but even more alarming is that only “two of five alerted study subjects to the risk of death for older individuals with cardiovascular disease.”

    Three of the studies exposed people to high levels of PM and two of the studies exposed people to high levels of diesel exhaust and ozone. Diesel exhaust contains 40 toxic air contaminants, including 19 that are known carcinogens and PM. The EPA has publicly warned of the dangers of PM, but seemed to downplay them in their scientific studies on humans.

    “This lack of warning about PM,” the IG’s report notes, “is also different from the EPA’s public image about PM.”

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/04.....z2xsDfsdGP

    Entire report below

    Inspector General Report on EPA Human Study Subjects

    The EPA followed applicable regulations when it exposed 81 human study subjects to concentrated airborne particles or diesel exhaust emissions in five EPA studies conducted during 2010 and 2011. However, we identified improvements that could be made to the EPA’s policies and guidance to enhance protection of study subjects. The EPA obtained approval to conduct the five human research studies, including approval from a biomedical Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the EPA Human Studies Research Review Official (HSRRO). However, the EPA’s policies and guidance do not address when HSRRO approval is needed for significant study modifications. Developing guidance for when HSRRO must approve significant modifications would ensure their independent review. The EPA obtained informed consent from the 81 human study subjects before exposing them to pollutants. While the consent forms met the requirements of 40 CFR Part 26, we found that exposure risks were not always consistently represented. Further, the EPA did not include information on long-term cancer risks in its diesel exhaust studies’ consent forms. An EPA manager considered these long-term risks minimal for short-term study exposures. We believe presenting consistent information about risks further ensures that study subjects can make the most informed choice about participating in a study. The EPA addressed six adverse events during its studies, reported them to the IRB, and provided clinical follow-up after the events. While the clinical follow-up appeared to be reasonable, the EPA’s policies, guidance and consent forms do not establish the EPA’s clinical follow-up responsibilities. According to EPA managers, the agency uses the latest University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) IRB’s adverse event definitions and reporting timeframes to respond to adverse events. However, the agency’s guidance provides different definitions and reporting timeframes and does not state that the EPA has adopted the UNC-IRB definitions and timeframes. Using EPA’s guidance, the EPA reported two of the six adverse events later than required and did not report two other events to IRB.

    Recommendations and Planned Corrective Actions

    We recommend that the EPA establish procedures for obtaining HSRRO approval of significant study modifications, ensure consent forms consistently address pollutant risks, update its guidance to include the EPA’s clinical follow-up responsibilities, and address a number of other recommendations. The EPA concurred with all recommendations and provided planned corrective actions and completion dates that meet the intent of the recommendations. All recommendations have been resolved.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General

    Recommendations
    At a Glance
    The EPA can enhance its human studies by improving how it obtains approval for studies; how it communicates risk to people who participate in EPA studies; and how it addresses adverse events in its guidance.

    GAO Report No. 09-448T:
    Undercover Tests Show the Institutional Review Board System Is Vulnerable to Unethical Manipulation
    , March 26, 2009.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/2159.....y-Subjects

    There are reports of adverse effects some people had and how the EPA nurse handled it up to the points of telling the subjects to seek their own health care providers. One was lucky enough to get an ambulance.

    Also, the EPA was warned not to use junk science, but sound science.

  4. yadayada

    “people keep throwing money at us. hell, we got an Oscar and a nobel prize out of it !! of course were gonna make a sequel !!” – nuff said?


« Front Page | To Top
« | »