Watch The Age of Stupid For Free

Don't listen to the negative reviews

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

The first must-see film of the year.

Shell pays a PR company to paint them well.This is a group of social media hacks making money and selling their wares. If you don't believe look at the reviews. Most good reviews have many likes and come from fake accounts.This is a piece of junk. Like Zeitgeist, The Age of Stupid is a big work of montage to serve a religion in the hope of getting paid for preaching. It caters to a sectarian movement. Like the Christian or Muslim sects, the eco crowd I know prefers putting others through slavery and hunger, never themselves.So save your time and money and get a book from somebody who knows there is a climate change and not from some social media informed believes.Contact me with Questions, Comments or Suggestions ryitfork @ bitmail.ch

This film takes us through the 19th century history of what led to the "severe issue" of global warming.Not much is special about it, just another environmental extremism film done by a global warming alarmist.Do you consider your parents stupid for prospering in the 19th century, when factory work was readily available in the States and Canada? Do you consider your grandparents stupid for happily living in this time? That's right, for the most part families had jobs, had food, had water, had everything they needed and were happy...Then the real "age of stupid" came about with the environmental movement. Environmental regulations, carbon offsets, promoting recycling and "green living" and Earth Day in schools before students could even decide which side of the fence they were on... we're all controlled by the green age, the real age of stupid.This movie isn't worth your time to watch or your money to buy. Of course, if you do decide to purchase this load of biased crud, don't forget to litter and drop the DVD on the ground after viewing.

This film had some clever portrayals of critical concepts, especially in the animated segments. It initially did a good job of paring down the major issues. The story about the Mont Blanc guide who laments vanishing glaciers was the high point for me. There was dramatic footage of how much a glacier had receded in his lifetime.But the "personal stories" sent mixed messages, seemingly intentionally. They could have used a clearer moral angle. You couldn't tell if the characters were hypocrites or do-gooders. Maybe that was the whole point.Whatever the full intent was, it got lost on me when NIMBY attitudes toward 400-foot wind turbines were portrayed as ANTI-environmental, solely for the climate change aspect. The man pushing turbines had a righteous indignation that was one-sided in this coverage. Was he upset for lack of "greenness" or loss of personal profit? He was living on a farm, but seemed to have forgotten the value of nature itself vs. coddling human needs.Wind power development is often about short term gains for the developers. The outfits who build them are like oil wildcatters; not exactly people who respect nature. The locals end up stuck in an industrial zone when they had hoped for peace & quiet with unfettered sunsets and no shadow flicker or red flashing lights all night. Bird kills still happen with the large turbines, since their blade tips are fast-moving.The film singled out a scenario where a wind farm would be near a noisy speedway, but failed to mention that the cars aren't revving all night while people try to sleep. Turbine noise has been described as an insidious freight train that never arrives. Putting 400-foot structures on the viewshed is no trivial thing. It's an affront to nature in many ways. Those unwilling to cut back on fossil fuels are hypocritical to a point, but many are just tired of seeing the landscape wrecked to reduce our carbon footprint. What type of environmentalist can't see equal tragedy in Man's physical footprint?There was no effort to present solar panels on existing rooftops as a big alternative to wind. This is likely because the segments were done in Britain, which has minimal sunshine, but you can still generate solar power on cloudy days; just less of it. It's all relative. I'm not keen on industrial-scale solar plants that invade desert land, though they are much lower profile than turbines.For people who are tired of watching nature being industrialized, the amount of land being covered by turbines is just as depressing as the prospect of runaway climate change. Wind power seems like a classic Faustian bargain, and its emphasis spoiled this film for me.Piers Guy (the aforementioned wind developer) only had one small turbine on his farm. I wonder how ardent he'd remain if surrounded by dozens of giants? That's the true NIMBY test. Even if he'd personally be OK with it, it's still a travesty when turbines keep popping up in wild or bucolic landscapes, or can be easily seen from wilderness peaks and beaches. Future plans for their mass construction resemble a military invasion scenario.The segments about Nigeria and India (grossly overcrowded places) failed to emphasize the urgent need for birth control, which is arguably the best way to reduce overall energy demand and fix a host of other problems like urban sprawl and desecration of the landscape (see above). Poor people were portrayed as victims of circumstance, but they often dig their own holes by doing nothing to change overcrowded conditions.I did like the irony of the Indian airline entrepreneur, contrasted with flying as a wasteful, carbon-intensive activity.Global warming can be seen as primarily a population problem, and scientists say the Earth may only be able to support 2 billion people without fossil fuels (which the film noted indirectly in an animation). I found the emphasis on consumption vs. sheer human numbers to be overwrought, though still very important. Overall, this film was worth seeing but it sent too many mixed messages.

In this film, set in the year 2055, society passed the tipping point of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Runaway climate change and a cascading failure in our ability to meet the resource requirements of our society led to famine, global war and collapse.The archivist, a character sitting comfortably in his high-tech, climate controlled, 2055 office environment, with thousands of servers running full tilt, minority-report multi-touch displays, in something that looks like an oil-platform sunk into the floor of the arctic, looks down condescendingly at the audience while reviewing clips from present day society.People who don't buy into the theory of AGW will be insulted. People who do buy into the theory of AGW should be embarrassed to be lumped into the ignorant technofetishism and the portrayal of AGW activists as alarmist kooks who think the apocalypse is around the corner.If you want to stand on the street corner and scream that the end is neigh! then this is the movie for you!