"The Real Story" is open to interpretation and rebuttal. The following is a good start. There will be more. Kinda reminds me of Art Berman as far as "cherry picking data" goes.
Planet of the Humans
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The film uses footage of the renewable energy industry that is up to a decade old, giving a false impression of the maturity of the technologies, as the last decade has seen large cost reductions and innovations. The documentary shows a solar panel with 8% efficiency, which is far below the typical 15-20% efficiency of currently installed solar panels. In its criticism of electric vehicles, the producer gives an out-of-date example of the electricity mix these cars would use (95% coal), which is not at all reflective of the grid in 2020.
A pie chart is shown in the film with total battery storage compared to yearly energy use, which is a factor of thousand higher. The filmmakers suggest that this amount of energy storage is needed to make sure intermittency of renewables doesn't lead to power outages. In reality, battery storage is only part of the solution, and using a mix of different energy sources reduces the need for batteries.
The documentary criticizes the unsustainable practices in the use of biomass, which is indeed a concern among experts. However, the film neglects to mention more sustainable options for biomass use.
The film inaccurately portrays the life-cycle energy of renewable energy as being comparable with the lifetime energy generation, whereas a large body of research shows that wind, nuclear and solar have much lower life-cycle emissions.
The Union of Concerned Scientists, which was mentioned in the movie, responded, "it implies that UCS took money from corporations profiting from EVs, without (again) stopping to check the facts, or reaching out to UCS about it. It wouldn't have been hard, either way, to discover that UCS doesn't take corporate money at all".
"A Youtube video emerged on Earth Day eve making charges about me and about 350.org — namely that I was a supporter of biomass energy, and that 350 and I were beholden to corporate funding, and have misled our supporters on the costs and trade-offs related to decarbonizing our economy. These things aren't true." 
In Rolling Stone, McKibben continued: "the filmmakers didn't just engage in bad journalism (though they surely did), they acted in bad faith. They didn't just behave dishonestly (though they surely did), they behaved dishonorably. I'm aware that in our current salty era those words may sound mild, but in my lexicon they are the strongest possible epithets."
This came out weeks ago and didn't get much traction for the obvious reasons mentioned in the wiki article. It's not a debate, it's a rebuttal. It's called the facts.
Thanks for posting this, Jay. I'd been tipped to its revelations weeks ago and was wondering what other people had thought about it.
Presently, on YouTube, it's had over over 8 million views. That's a lot, so the word is, indeed, getting out as to what's really going on behind the scenes with certain do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do hypocrites.
Yes, indeed. As tends to happen with such controversial topics, there's always two or more sides to a story. Glad we have a "free press" in the USA. We'd be in a real pickle if we didn't.
And like you, Jay, I think more people should watch this documentary. It's well worth the time.
Jay Thanks for posting. This is a very interesting video and of course the greenies will object to it. It is the greenies who are presenting and creating the entire climate crisis hoax to further their entire political agenda.
Skip references Wikileaks as a factual source, get real it is a anonymous source. That's just like the MSM quoting unnamed sources for their articles.
There are numerous articles, in addition to the Wiki, pointing out the flaws with the data and methodology of the film. If the claims made were not so easily debunked, this would be big news. It's not. And it has nothing to do with greenies. Has to do with facts.
I think most of the ardent Shaler fans of their erstwhile object of hateful derision, Michael Moore, need to gaze at the real picture. Moore is an enemy of scams and slash/burn predatory capitalism. He is against four flushers, and his point in making the documentary is to show four flushing promoters and schemers are not exclusive to energy companies. Listen to some of his podcasts. The onus of sustainability should not be placed on individuals or promoted consumer choices, the system of current economy needs a change. I have read rebuttals, the better being Dana Nuccitelli’s. Though Mr Moore is commited to his cause, he hurt his reputation with this documentary. His factual ground is very unstable.
If he were accurate, it by no means assures the continued level of support for the current petroleum industry and supporters. Alternate and sustainable will be heard and felt more than most shalers dread. This decade will be about green