On June 22, BFI Southbank as part of its celebration of Yoko Ono are going to show Gasland.

this is now they introduce the fim in their publicity:

We welcome musician and artist Yoko Ono to introduce GasLand as a film that has inspired her.

Part vérité travelogue, part expose, part mystery, part bluegrass banjo meltdown, part showdown. When filmmaker Josh Fox was asked to lease his land for drilling, he embarked on a cross-country odyssey uncovering a trail of secrets, lies and contamination. A recently drilled nearby Pennsylvania town reported that residents are able to light their drinking water on fire. This was just one of the many absurd and astonishing revelations of a new country called GASLAND.

I would like to make a reasoned protest about showing this absurd film in any other context than that of "fiction". I would be grateful if someone would point me to the best factual take-down of this absurd film so that I may bring it to the attention of the BFI.

What, you mean you know it is absurd but you need someone else to tell you why? You're just the man to tell the BFI...

MartinA, no, how does he know it is 'absurd'? Answer, because he's seen so many 'sceptics' who also know it is absurd, tell him so. It's the same as knowing that AGW is untrue because all your 'sceptical' mates on the Hill or at Watts tell you so. But this isn't how 'sceptics' claim they form their views.

BB...4.57PM

When it looks like sh#t, smells like sh#t, then by golly it is sh#t.

David Porter, yes but poor Diogenes obviously doesn't know what shit looks or smells like, otherwise he wouldn't need help describing it.

BB, I haveve previously thought you have had a rough ride here, but you're increasingly behaving like a complete 4rsehole.

> What, you mean you know it is absurd but you need someone else to tell you why?
> You're just the man to tell the BFI...

I know it's absurd, I've seen footage where it's debunked and I know the producer of the film admitted he knew it was lies before he started, but I can't remember where.

If I was in diogenes' position I'd be asking for help with references to help make the point.

Nial, yeah, I would generally to turn the other cheek, accepting being called a troll and worse at any time when people couldn't contest or just didn't like what I said. I lost count of the number of times my better nature was abused when I was being reasonable. Thing is, I got tired of it; it is not much fun and sarcasm and teasing are much more satisfying. So I now tend in that direction except with the people I like or those who treat me with politeness and honesty. Diogenes is very certainly not in that group. Sorry and all that...

You consider GasLand 'absurd' because that is what you've been told by industry propaganda. They've worked hard to blunt the message and with some they succeeded. Where necessary they have bought silence with court orders prevent people from speaking freely. Why would they need to do that if there is no truth in the movie? You can't remember why it is that you find it 'absurd' because you weren't meant to; you were meant only to learn the message and broadcast it.

> You consider GasLand 'absurd' because that is what you've been
> told by industry propaganda.

No, as I fairly clearly said "I know the producer of the film admitted he knew it was lies before he started".

> that is what you've been told by industry propaganda

The propaganda for which industry?

Citation?

> Where necessary they have bought silence with court orders prevent people from speaking freely

Citation?

> You can't remember why it is that you find it 'absurd' because you weren't meant
> to; you were meant only to learn the message and broadcast it.

Sorry, are you ill?

1 question.

If you knew for a fact that the section of the film where they light the tap water was a stunt and that they'd been able to do this for _years_ (decades?) before fracking started, how much credence would you give the rest of it?

Here's an explanation of credence....
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/credence

And here's an explanation of integrity, as I don't think you understand the concept....
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/integrity

Nial, oh are we playing 'prove it' again. That is a sceptic favourite, isn't it?

So go on, tell me where the producer said he knew it was 'lies'.

And are you really denying that the gas industry uses court orders preventing people from speaking about their experiences? Hell, they're even used in the NHS. You sure are naive if you believe gas companies don't do that.

lmfao.....BB at his best....what a prick!...thanks Nial

and, of course, it is always worthwhile to consider how full of factual, well-considered information any response by the Buckettwat is

Before you go BB you should make an appointment to see Lewandowsky. He's good at analysing conspiracy theorist and I’m sure you would make a good patient.

1 Question....

If you knew for a fact that the section of the film where they light the tap water was a stunt and that they'd been able to do this for _years_ (decades?) before fracking started, how much credence would you give the rest of it?

Here you go, people were able to light the water from their taps decades before fracking started but "It's not relevant".....

http://vimeo.com/noteviljustwrong/gaslanddirectorjoshfoxhidesfullfacts

I think this is the sort of thing diogenes was looking for.

Here is the debunk of the debunk written by the director Josh Fox...

AFFIRMING GASLAND

Diogenes, I wish you well, but you are unlikely to get much traction. This is a very American way of dealing with their problems, whilst to us it can look like pantomime villains, this is part of their culture (just look at their films and TV: one man against the state/baddy.) Greenies and the NRA actually share a very similar viewpoint (just the solutions are different with less or more government) though your average US Greenie would go ballistic at that thought.

They even mention "Dick Cheney", which is like parading a Guy on bonfire night to Greenies.

Basically, these things can go all the way up to the Supreme court and still only be decided on political lines.

Nial
So go on, tell me where the producer said he knew it was 'lies'.

In my experience, because he knows you're wrong BB won't bother reading or viewing any references so don't waste your time posting any, if you do he may well award you this week's BB Star for googling.

MartinA, yes it was a never-ending offer. Ten polite requests to leave, each with an explanation of why and I'll disappear into the night. I don't remember getting more than three before and one was rude - and rudeness resets the count to zero.

Or the boss can just ask me to go himself. It's his blog.

I only reliably watch the Discussions, so chose a thread I'll see (like this one).

BitBucket

I would like you to go because your MO is simply to recycle the same rhetoric.

Put that one on the scoresheet, please.

@jiminy

thanks for that....it was a a bunch of "coulds", "possiblys", "maybes" and lots of the usual derision of "fossil-fuel funded" people.

So we have a count of one so far, which Mike Jackson came close to cancelling out. Looks like I'm not so unpopular after all...

Nial, you seem to think that you formed your opinions of GasLand independent of any industry push-back (which industry? Duh!). That's like me saying I formed my opinion of it independently. It is clearly not true either way.

I have my own biases which lead me to conclude that the film is not absurd. These include the film itself, the 'Affirming Gasland' questions/answers, and my innate dislike of fossil fuel companies; the film is pushing at an open door. Yes, I dislike FF companies because of the harm they do, but let's not get into that. The point is I can admit that; I am not able to be totally disinterested in the debate. I cannot judge the film on my own; I've never been to the areas concerned.

Equally, you have biases. You viewed the film and it conflicted with what you want to believe. You saw the coverage of the film (wherever: here, WUWT, etc) and it did chime with what you want to believe. However, the coverage that 'refutes' the film didn't come about spontaneously out of thin air, but was created by interested (ie. not disinterested) industry groups and supporters. Unlike me, you cannot admit that you did not come to your opinion of the film independently. You like to maintain an inner fiction that your rating of the film as 'absurd' is your opinion and yours alone, as if you'd visited the areas covered, talked extensively to the people and read all of the documents without anyone telling you the juicy bits. Maybe you really did that research, in which case I stand corrected, but otherwise, if anything is absurd, it is your pretence.

"Unlike me"

Unlike your massive intellect?

"you cannot admit that you did not come to your opinion of the film independently. You like to maintain an inner fiction that your rating of the film as 'absurd' is your opinion and yours alone,, as if you'd visited the areas covered, talked extensively to the people and read all of the documents without anyone telling you the juicy bits."

You really are quite mad.

As this doesn't address any of the points under discussion but is a mostly a completely imaginary ad-hom attach against me there isn't much point 'debating' this any further.

Yeah, Nial, that is the normal 'sceptic' tactic on the Hill: when you can win the argument call your opponent a 'troll', 'prick', 'twat', 'mad' or whatever.

Points under discussion? My post addresses your assertion that the film is 'absurd' and questions how and where you developed that brilliant thesis. The video you claim as evidence doesn't prove 'lies' in any way. There's no admission of 'lying' that you suggest.