I watched it, the main guest says the film is uncharitable to the history of the environmental movement and that the Bill McKibben who runs 350.org actually wants to fix things and is unfairly characterized by the film. Yet in the credits for the film, it says "After the first screening of this film, Bill McKibben said he was wrong about biomass." How can one of the figureheads of the movement to stop carbon from building up past 350 PPM not know that burning biomass (cutting down and shipping millions of trees to Europe and elsewhere) is a bad thing and huge contributing factor?

They also criticize Michael Moore for not doing more, and yes, he's a pretty big :LIB: and generally won't stir the pot enough for my liking, but I don't think it's a fair criticism in this case as he got onboard with the film and made it free to view, distributed it, and promoted it.

So I don't think the Michael Brooks interview offers anything substantial. They're upset that the film shits all over green energy and the failed attempts to fix the problem.