Relax, Dave, you've "won" the argument, and the tired and repetitive misuse of Ehrlich as a straw man is totally unnecessary.

If you want to support the fiction that environmental degradation (logging, land clearing, habitat loss, species extinctions, water crises, pandemics) is unconnected to unchecked population growth, you are in very powerful company.

Global and UN policy agrees that the mere mention of the p-word is unacceptably racist. Environmentally speaking, "climate change" has become the only show in town, especially among the younger generation. This works for the corporate sector, works for the religious sector. Again, you "won", chill out.

As with every lie, there is a thread of the truth inside.

Michael Moore comes up with some highly entertaining stuff. But wouldn't the world be a better place without massive human populations? Of course it would, we all agree I'm sure.

But on a more relevant note, Moores obesity. Hasn't he learned, eating fast food in huge quantities is destructive to humans. Surely there are better ways of living Michael.

Dan

They used to say " nothing worse than a woman scorned.+.. these days its "nothing worse than an environmental cultist scorned". Like hi or loath him, Michael Moore is always challenging the accepted view and polictically correct world.

But when he points out something against then climate change cultists ( yes the CCC'ers) and their love of silicon rich solar panels and rare earth metal packed batteries and all the associated resource extraction and lifecycle cost... boy not then the scorn is red hot and in the case of Diver Dan here, 'fattist". Like all good socialist, when they can't accept other viewpoints they turn personal and nasty and demean the messenger. Pathetic behaviour.

Like the aauthor, I watched the whole 1h 40min and have persuaded others to do so. Some of it is tenuous, a lot of it is truly eye-opening for those CCCers and environmentalist who love solar (well that's what they are taught at school and Uni and by the likes of the ABC,BBC, Al Gore, Guardian, CNN etc. BUT the important thing he does as he has with the previous (much praised by the left) he asks questions and raise issues, the mainstream media/luvies of Hollywood won't touch.

Ignore reviews ( no offense to author meant) Watch it yourself and make your own mind up, think for yourself and if you query the material, go to the library, Dr Google, Wikipedia…. and do some work yourself, rather than be led like sheep by others.

I don't think this will have much effect on the climate nutters, who always manage to rationalise (in their minds at least) anything said against their lunacy. They'll be back with vengeance as soon as the China virus is gone. Of course, Moore's mind might have finally popped, as it has been threatening to do for years, and he has slipped up. He's getting on remember.

Surely no one is stupid and arrogrant enough to still think they can predict rainfall, temperatures and snowfalls after 50 years of totally dud predictions from the experts. The Barrier Reef has died 20 times since the 1970's. Just follow the money trail. Ask Turnbull, Gore, Hewston and others who have made a killing out of massive electricity prices hikes for the average person in Australia. Oh sorry and don't forget Greta you evil people who have stolen her future.

Every time I meet a person who blames human over-population for our woes, I recommend they read the book "Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline" by Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson. It presents entirely plausible statistics to suggest that the planet's human population will peak by about 2030, sooner than estimated by the UN, and then reduce significantly as is happening already in japan, Italy and China (even without taking the Covid 19 impacts into account).

It doesn't then take much imagination to accept that, given another 30 to 50 years of economic development, the vast majority of the world's population will have reached a level of affluence sufficient to meet all their more than reasonable needs, such that consumption of natural resources including fossil fuels will plateau and then fall. Mix into this scenario the high likelihood of significant technological innovation and, in my estimation, by the turn of the century, global CO2 emissions will be on their way down without the need to spend trillions of dollars to decarbonise the world's economy.