Corwin’s documentary, which cost about $2 million to produce, spawned from a book, also called 100 Heartbeats, which was released in late October and was about two-thirds complete when he pitched MSNBC. The filming was often arduous, Corwin said, but “the hardest part was looking at all the footage that didn’t make it in.”
Fortunately, some of that extra tape found a home on the Future Earth Web site. There, for example, viewers can watch the story of Chhouk, a Cambodian elephant that lost the lower half of one of its legs in poacher’s snare, but received a prosthetic from local conservationists that may have saved its life.
Not all tales have happy endings, however. Corwin said that since he completed filming, timber companies have purchased the jungle sanctuary to which he’d helped transfer a group of Sumatran orangutans. “Unfortunately,” he said, “these types of stories are not going away.”
The film and the book repeatedly stress that humans are responsible for the extinction crisis, and only they have the power to stop it. Clearly, the last thing Corwin wants is for his next documentary to be called 50 Heartbeats.
what kind of wolf did you talk about on your program Sun. Was it the red wolf or the black wolf in North Carolina.
Thank-you,
Connie
#1 Posted by connie keller, CJR on Tue 24 Nov 2009 at 05:30 PM
So, nothing about the ClimateGate emails? I realize that this column is not meant as a comprehensive resource for climate related news, but you would think that the revelations about the CRU methodology, combined with the upcoming Copenhagen conference, would merit at least one post?
Sometimes silence speaks louder than words.
It's hard at this point not to imagine that Mr. Brainard is sitting on his hands, hoping this will all blow over. A true journalist indeed.
#2 Posted by JLD, CJR on Tue 1 Dec 2009 at 12:12 AM
JLD, the discussion of "climategate" ended up here.
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/lets_get_this_party_organized.php#comments
Don't know why, it just did. As to why Brainard hasn't written upon the subject, he may well be verifying the details before throwing them up, unlike a lot of the bloggy journalism as of late, and he may be getting ready for a story about the Copenhagen report, which the CRU emails were obvious attempt to blunt by skeptical luddites.
Anyways, don't clutter the comments. You can yap about it in the article above.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 1 Dec 2009 at 05:26 AM
JLD -- Yes, what Thimbles said. With such a flood of coverage following "ClimateGate" and so many emails to pour over, I'm going to take my time. Like many others, I don't think these emails shatter the foundations of climate science, but they absolutely highlight some problems in the way some of it has been carried out. All of that and more has of course been said in the media. I'm pouring over the coverage and commentary looking for a meta-analysis of sorts, but that takes time (I'm also wrapping up a piece on coverage of the new breast cancer screening guidelines released two weeks ago). Rest assured, we'll have something, but I don't think another from-the-hip post is what's needed right now. -- all best, Curtis
#4 Posted by Curtis Brainard, CJR on Tue 1 Dec 2009 at 11:48 AM
Curtis, thanks for your note. I guess I missed the "flood of coverage." Do you mean the two blog posts and single published article in the Times? There hasn't been a single report on MSM TV to my knowledge. If this is a flood, I'd hate to see a trickle.
Maybe now that Phil Jones is stepping down (temporarily?) there might be some interest.
Sorry, I really don't want to come across as being cynical, but it's hard not to. Once again its up to Fox and the Journal to report anything contrary to the MSM liberal agenda.
#5 Posted by JLD, CJR on Wed 2 Dec 2009 at 04:43 AM
Global Warming is not part of a liberal agenda any more than terrorism is part of the neo-con conservative agenda.
There was the reality of terrorists apart from any exaggerations of the Bush cabinet, yes?
Same with global warming. There is a lot of real data from 1980 on. There are a lot of people desperately pushing nuclear power to offset carbon producing power in spite of nuke power being an anathema to Libs. It's not all some scientists imagination. I've personally seen acres of forests dead due to a warmed climate brought on beetle infection.
Cheers
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 2 Dec 2009 at 02:56 PM
The problem with both Global Warming and terrorism is skewed incentives. People whose livelihood is connected to these issues have an economic, political and social incentive to exaggerate their importance. That results in more funding, Nobel prizes, troop deployments, etc.
If GW is not a big deal than Phil Jones is a small-time player. If it's a big deal he becomes mankind's savior, gets huge grants and is the toast of society.
It's the same incentives with terrorism, I agree. The bigger the problem seems, the better it is for those aligning themselves with it.
#7 Posted by JLD, CJR on Wed 2 Dec 2009 at 07:56 PM
JLD -- I was speaking broadly when I typed "flood of coverage," referring to the copious amounts of commentary that have been published outside the mainstream media. Indeed, the mainstream media hasn't been as aggressive on this story as one would like. We'll post my full review this afternoon. -- Curtis
#8 Posted by Curtis Brainard, CJR on Thu 3 Dec 2009 at 12:29 PM
Here's a bit of meta on Climate Email Scandal (I refuse to call it a 'gate')
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4338343.html?page=1
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 3 Dec 2009 at 03:31 PM