#EarthDay EPIC! Michael Moore’s new film trashes ‘planet saving’ renewable energy – full movie here!

A MUST READ! Wow, the renewable light bulb of “great idea” over Michael Moore’s head just burned out. He’s trashing renewables in this new film Planet of the Humans.

On the 50th anniversary of EarthDay, the irony meter is pegged. It’s an epic take-down of the left’s love-affair with renewables by one of the left’s most known public figures. Full video follows. h/t to Dennis Wingo.

Via Forbes writer Michael Shellenberger

New Michael Moore-Backed Documentary On YouTube Reveals Massive Ecological Impacts Of Renewables

Over the last 10 years, everyone from celebrity influencers including Elon Musk, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Al Gore, to major technology brands including Apple, have repeatedly claimed that renewables like solar panels and wind farms are less polluting than fossil fuels.

But a new documentary, “Planet of the Humans,” being released free to the public on YouTube today, the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day, reveals that industrial wind farms, solar farms, biomass, and biofuels are wrecking natural environments. 

“Planet of the Humans was produced by Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore. “I assumed solar panels would last forever,” Moore told Reuters. “I didn’t know what went into the making of them.” 

The film shows both abandoned industrial wind and solar farms and new ones being built — but after cutting down forests. “It suddenly dawned on me what we were looking at was a solar dead zone,” says filmmaker Jeff Gibbs, staring at a former solar farm in California. “I learned that the solar panels don’t last.” 

Like many environmental documentaries, “Planet of Humans” endorses debunked Malthusian ideas that the world is running out of energy. “We have to have our ability to consume reigned in,” says a well-coiffed environmental leader. “Without some major die-off of the human population there is no turning back,” says a scientist. 

The film unearths a great deal of information I had never seen before. It shows Apple’s head of sustainability, former EPA head Lisa Jackson, claiming on-stage at an Apple event, “We now run Apple on 100% renewable energy,” to loud applause. 

But Gibbs interviews a scientist who researched corporate renewables programs who said, “I haven’t found a single entity anywhere in the world running on 100% solar and wind alone.” The film shows a forest being cut down to build an Apple solar farm.

After Earth Day Founder Denis Hayes claims at a 2015 Earth Day concert that the event was being powered by solar, Gibbs goes behind the stage to find out the truth. “The concert is run by a diesel generation system,” the solar vendor said. “That right there could run a toaster,” said another vendor.

The film also debunks the claim made by Elon Musk that his “Gigafactory” to make batteries is powered by renewables. In fact, it is hooked up to the electric grid. 

“Some solar panels are built to only last 10 years,” said a man selling materials for solar manufacturing at a corporate expo. “It’s not like you get this magic free energy. I don’t know that it’s the solution and here I am selling the materials that go in photovoltaics.”

“What powers a learning community?” said [Bill] MicKibben at the unveiling of a wood-burning power plant at Middlebury College in Vermont. “As of this afternoon, the easy answer to this is wood chips. It’s incredibly beautiful to look at the bunker of wood chips. Anything that burns we can throw in there! This shows that this could happen everywhere, should happen everywhere, and must happen everywhere!”

The film reveals that McKibben and Sierra Club supported a Michigan ballot initiative that would have required the state get 25% of its electricity from renewables by 2025, and that the initiative was backed by biomass industrial interests, and that efforts to build a biomass plant at Michigan State University were hotly opposed by climate activists — including ones from 350.org.

Read the full article here

The film:

The film description says:

Michael Moore presents Planet of the Humans, a documentary that dares to say what no one else will this Earth Day — that we are losing the battle to stop climate change on planet earth because we are following leaders who have taken us down the wrong road — selling out the green movement to wealthy interests and corporate America.

This film is the wake-up call to the reality we are afraid to face: that in the midst of a human-caused extinction event, the environmental movement’s answer is to push for techno-fixes and band-aids. It’s too little, too late. Removed from the debate is the only thing that MIGHT save us: getting a grip on our out-of-control human presence and consumption.

Why is this not THE issue? Because that would be bad for profits, bad for business. Have we environmentalists fallen for illusions, “green” illusions, that are anything but green, because we’re scared that this is the end—and we’ve pinned all our hopes on biomass, wind turbines, and electric cars? No amount of batteries are going to save us, warns director Jeff Gibbs (lifelong environmentalist and co-producer of “Fahrenheit 9/11” and “Bowling for Columbine”).

This urgent, must-see movie, a full-frontal assault on our sacred cows, is guaranteed to generate anger, debate, and, hopefully, a willingness to see our survival in a new way—before it’s too late.

Featuring: Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Richard Branson, Robert F Kennedy Jr., Michael Bloomberg, Van Jones, Vinod Khosla, Koch Brothers, Vandana Shiva, General Motors, 350.org, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Nature Conservancy, Elon Musk, Tesla.

299 thoughts on “#EarthDay EPIC! Michael Moore’s new film trashes ‘planet saving’ renewable energy – full movie here!

  1. The only reason Michael Moore would trash renewable energy would be to push an even worse idea.

    • Obviously, being a malthusian he wants to push the idea of “major die-off of the human population”.

      • IIRC this is exactly the opposite of what Michael Moore said at the premiere of this movie. That he refuses to let humanity die out in darkness and poverty. He was just arguing to save the environment and humanity the so-called “green” energy is definitively not the solution.

        • “Planet of the Humans was produced by Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore. “I assumed solar panels would last forever,” Moore told Reuters. “I didn’t know what went into the making of them.”

          How could anyone who pontificates on the subject not bother to find out how they were made?

          Does the video mention the extreme environmental damage caused by the mining and processing of the rare earths and minerals needed to make many renewables and smart phones and laptops? Does anyone mention the stranglehold the Chinese have on the means of extraction and manufacture of batteries?


          • The only reason Michael Moore would trash renewable energy would be to push an even worse idea.

            Entertainers, actors, etc., are soon forgotten unless they can keep their “name” in the headlines, …. spotlights.

          • Tonyb, yes Rare Earth mining in China has created enviro disaster, but mining and processing RE has been done efficiently and cleanly elsewhere. One of the premier operations, Molycorp with a ptoject at Mountain Pass, California operated for many decades. It was a victim of predatory pricing in China.

            Even in China, most of the damage was done by illegal miners who dug pits in an unusually rich clay deposit (particularly with high value and rare heavy RE) and poured sulphuric acid in the pits. This liquid was then drawn out of the pits and the RE bulk precipitated as carbonates and the waste liquids with thorium and other undesirable elements simply dimped down a hill towards agricultural land below.

            You can probably guess the same people pushing the green sos*hulist agenda are the creators of all the nasty bad news about mining, child labor, and other such topics. To not suspect much of this is like Moore “assuming” solar panels last forever.

            I’ve taken Paul Driessen of CFACT to task for this type of thing, too, in his otherwise good articles on green excesses.

          • I am wondering if at any time in his film, did Moore confront the question of what would make an actual difference while supplying abundant CO2-emission-free power?
            I am also wondering if there was an acknowledgement that, while these clowns were busy being wrong, there has been a large group of people who have consistently been correct, namely those in the skeptical community?
            Because if those two questions are asked, the answer to making plenty of power without burning anything will be clear: Nuclear power plants, specifically a whole lot of new ones, and hydroelectric power plants, wherever it is possible to build them.

            But I expect that people who have never been right about anything will be a long time coming around to recognizing that the people they have been telling to shut up, have been right all along.

          • Yes, the film actually did an admirable job of covering the ecological damage done by mining for the materials to manufacture supposedly “green” solutions, even to the point of showing children in Africa mining and processing cobalt.

            They did an excellent job of validating many of the points that the “skeptic” community has been bringing up for years.

            Of course the tilt wasn’t toward abandoning the movement, it was toward purging it of those horrible capitalist influences and continuing to work toward finding the “real” green solution.

            At one point they implied that the real solution was to drastically reduce the human population. My thought is that all the people who buy into the green agenda should volunteer to kill themselves…problem solved all around.

          • ANTHONY: If you see this, I would suggest posting about this up above — also a new e mail to WUWTers giving notice would be good, too.

            Today, 4/22/20 at 7PM, PDT, There will be a livestream with Moore and the film’s producers, Gibbs and Zehner — they will ANSWER AUDIENCE QUESTIONS.

            Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBGcEK8FD3w

            Note: Ask Ozzie Zehner is my recommendation — he will answer honestly and intelligently (although, with his usual anti-materialism bias).

          • (over an hour later)👀

            Is this not being posted where all will see it because WUWT knows that we cannot actually ask questions of Zehner, Gibbs, and Moore? 🤔

            Huh. Thought this would have been a great opportunity to get truth out. Oh. Well.🤷‍♀️

          • Yes. I watched the entire movie.

            It was unbelievably honest about the failure of ‘green’ energy and the corruption of those who pushed it and are still pushing it.

            The movie explains and shows what materials, processes, the energy, and how people are affected in the manufacture of materials that make up solar panels.

            The movie shows that solar, wind, and particularly biomass is ….

            … causing more environmental damage than just burning hydrocarbons.

            It also shows the damage to the desert when the solar farm is built and the blowing sand that is left when the solar farm is torn down.

            Biomass is mostly just cutting down trees and burning them. 60% of German’s green energy is biomass.

            It showed renewable ‘green’ movement to be just about money. No care for the planet, people, or common sense.

        • Yeah but define “humanity.” If cornered, what you’d get out of Moore is an eventual admission that he only means himself and those who think like him.

          Everyone else can die.

          • It’s a nobrainer, it’s always bee nukes. But then we know the brain trust strength on the green gobblers side.

      • Planned Population (PP)? Reducible, reusable, renewable colorful clumps of cells. That would be congruent with the Progressive Church, Pro-Choice religion, and Liberal ideology. #WickedSolution

      • Remember the answer to Malthus. “We didn’t raise ourselves out of the stone age because we ran out of rocks.” It was finding new and better ways to use what is available to us that allowed us to advance.

        That balance to overreaching capitalism is conservation, not socialism or environmentalism.

          • Capitalism that relies on things like government subsidies and legal mandates to create, maintain or increase profits.

            Some would claim that isn’t “true” capitalism and that’s technically true, but it has about as much practical worth as the technical truth that the Democrat party platform isn’t “true” socialism

          • What we think about capitalism is based on the time in which we lived.

            We lived during a time when capitalism worked. Capitalism works when countries are expanding and there is enough pie to go around.

            Capitalism works as long is it is among equals and every country plays fair.

            When a country becomes too big and, there are no checks and balances for the country in question, capitalism can be used to take over the world.

            China has been allowed to cheat, steal technology, monopolize rare earth minerals, and take over the world economy using financial means, backed up by military force.

            When the pie shrinks capitalism does not work as it cannot change fast enough.

            The developed countries (GDP) has shrunk by 30% do the covid-19 isolation. China’s GDP was only shrunk 6% as they are continuing to manufacture.

            When cities, states, and countries collapse and industries collapses, capitalism cannot change fast enough. It is exactly like being in a world war, except it is an economic war.


      • I notice that didn’t bother to mention where the major die-offs need to occur (Asia) as that would be racist,xenophobic,politically incorrect etc.

      • What do you think, Sobaken, if Michael Moore would die, him being an excessive consumer of both energy and food, it would save five or six regular persons? Sorry, irresponsible speculation on my part.

        • Or we could float him out in front of the sun to cool the planet. If only we could prove its warming.

      • It’s a shame that he sees with 20/20 vision what is happening with the crony capitalists pushing unsustainable “green” tech, but then pushes the Malthus death cult. I can’t share this without finding a compelling video debunking the overpopulation and overconsumption arguments. Anybody have recommendations?

        • Yes and because my brain has not had enough coffee:

          Hans Rosling’s Yardstick of Wealth – Don’t Panic – The Truth About Population on YouTube.

        • Regarding overpopulation, I suggest getting on a long distance airplane flight and spend the time looking down. Any notion that we are running out of room ought to quickly evaporate.

          And regarding overconsumption, just have a look at statistics on agricultural production over time, as well as analyses of the amount of food which is never consumed but instead wasted.
          Statistics on obesity worldwide and over time make it difficult to argue that there is no problem whatsoever with overconsumption, but this has more to do with abundant oversupply, overall prosperity, and a general tendency to not be particularly health conscious, and little to do with the ability of the planet to supply enough food. In fact it demonstrates the opposite, as do stats on wastage and on production: There is plenty of food, and immense capacity to greatly increase the supply if ever the need arose.

          See this comment thread for a detailed look at a few aspects of agricultural productivity and the huge potential for increases in productivity yet to come:


          “Prior to 1940, 35 bushels per acre would have been a record.
          Between the late 1930s and late 1950s, the trend was solidly up and a bad year in that time was above 35 bushels per acre.
          By 1950 yields were near or above 40 every year, and must have seemed miraculous to old timers who had seen decade after decade of yields topping out under 35.
          Around 1958 everything changed dramatically, and the trendlines shot rapidly up on a whole new trajectory.
          By 1962 yields were never again below 60.
          By 1970 years with close to and then above 80 appeared.
          By the late 1970s years close to and then above 100 were achieved for the first time.
          By 1989, yields close to 120 were occurring regularly.
          The pace of improvements in yearly yields increased more sharply, although so to did variability.
          The higher the numbers have gone, the larger the amount between a good and a bad year, although the overall increases were so fast that bad years were still great by standards of a few years prior.
          1988 was far below trend, but it would have been a record year for yields prior to 1970.
          1995 was the last time yields were as low as ~100 (slightly above), but within a few years the first harvest of 140 bushels per acre was achieved.
          This year 167 bushels per acres was below trend!
          2017 and 2018 had yields around 176 or so.


          How high can the numbers go?
          Well, it needs to be pointed out that these numbers are all averages for the entire country.
          What about the records set by individual farmers in a given season?
          Where are those records in recent years?
          Hold on to your hat if you never knew about any of this, because individual farmers have for many years been achieving yields far in excess of national average.
          Several times more!
          In 2003 a guy grew 322 bushels per acre on his contest plot to win that years record.
          “The short answer is, “Yes!” Many growers are producing yields over 300 bu/acre every year. Some of these producers are represented in the National Corn Growers Yield Contest every year. Contest winners from across the country typically produce between 250 to 350 bushels per acre per year. In 2006, seven of the 27 national winners produced over 300 bu/acre with the highest yield of 347 bu/acre coming from Purdy, MO. National contest winners have rarely yielded more than 350 bu/acre, yet yields of 360-370 bu/acre have been documented. Yields of 300 bu/acre are possible with today’s genetics, excellent management, and stress-free environments. The difficulty is in producing yields of this caliber on a large scale. Unfortunately, most producers do not have the right combination of these three factors to produce 300 bushels per acre.
          Iowa’s average corn yield was 166 bu/acre in 2006, which is just slightly above the 30-year trend line. Our highest average yield was 181 bu/acre in 2004. Iowa is increasing yield at approximately 2 bushels per acre per year”
          From a Feb 2007 article:

          In 2017 he grew over 542 bushels per acre on his contest plot!
          The guy who did this is farming land in Virginia that was first cultivated in 1609 and has been farmed ever since!
          His farm includes land that was part of the original Jamestown colony Mainland Farms.

          Here is more from that guy, David Hula, in 2018:

          In the 2017 National Corn Growers Association Yield Contest, Charles City, Va. farmer David Hula scored the highest yield ever: a whopping 542.270 bushels per acre. At this year’s North Carolina Commodities Conference in Durham Jan. 11 he shared some of the steps that got him there.”

          • Imagine also if all the acres assigned to growing crops for ethanol were used for food instead, imagine the entire world having a weight/diabetes/heart problem?
            Malthus was and continues to be wrong, Moore still only gets part of the story right, he still believes the world is coming to an end due to CO2 so his basic premise is still wrong

      • Let’s hope that Covid-19 isn’t just a test run for partial-extinction by the Chicom totalitarians. Pre-prepare vaccinations for only those who “deserve” to survive.
        That, or someday, just a leftist extremist suicide cult pushing a religion of self-hate and “green” purification.
        How the heck can we put the germ warfare genie back in the bottle?

        • You could be equally concerned that a righty extremist religious cult, pushing for a cull of non-believers & anybody they consider to be moral degenerates & impure.

          • Even if you could find such a group, finding one that is control of a government would be even harder.

          • Um, Iran much? They put a satellite up successfully this week. Maybe to have a little fun with an EMP burst or something? If you think the SHTF with Covid, imagine what ELSE is out there . . .

      • Anyone who wants that should volunteer to go first. Then again (looking at him), maybe he already has.

    • Indeed. Here in District 12, rumour has it Mike and the Malthusians are rooting for Team Virus in the Pandemic Games.

    • No. Michael Moore calls it the way he sees it. Very few people on the left thought President Trump would be elected. Moore thought he would and told us why. link

      • Yes, he does call it how he sees it.

        This is why he usually sounds like a try hard desperately trying to impress the cool kids at school.

        What was his take a few years ago when all the Democrats dressed in white for no logically good reason?

        “Trump must look out at the sea of white and think of the White Walkers coming to get him”

        Game of Thrones references. Yeah, that aged well. Apart from the fact the White Walkers were ultimate personification of mindless evil (nice backhand insult there Micky), GoT fluffed the landing so badly that even the Star Wars franchise mocks it.

        All we are seeing here is the Left eating itself.

      • Good for Michael Moore. The pudgy pessimist has opinions and isn’t afraid to share them. Every now and then his musings resemble reality.

        • Never have liked Michael Moore and probably never will. I’ll give him credit here for very graphically documenting the farce of green energy. That is something everyone who got an education, as opposed just going to school, can support.
          It’s funny the “true” disciples of the green movement have no problem buying into the controversial, polluting high tech, but think it’s sinful for some people to profit off of trying to make a buck doing exactly what they(the greenies) say they want.

          Unfortunately Moore ignored nuclear power which can certainly do all the things needed to “go green”. But he wandered off into the “limits of growth” instead of looking up to the spars. The world really desperately needs to establish an off-planet colony just to fend off a complete extinction from the inevitable comet or meter strike.

      • To be sure there’s an element of Strange New Respect for Michael Moore.

        However, the unspoken solution he’s proposing is forced “de-growth” and at best a long-term massive depopulation through sterilization and attrition. Other options would make Stalin and Mao blush. The cure he proposes (or alludes to) is worse than the disease.

        • Experience in the First World would suggest that giving everybody in the world a First World life (i.e. cheap energy) would lead to a decrease in human population, without having to murder anybody.

        • The de-growth and attrition are already under way in all Western countries and Japan, and are being accelerated by the virus. Young people are not getting married and having children, they are living single in marginal gig-economy jobs, drowning in student debt. The populations of all the developed countries are aging to the point where very soon those of working age won’t be able to support the burden of pensioners (unless the retirement age rises considerably). The Left has made sacraments out of abortion, homosexuality, and confused sex characteristics. Cultural functional adolescence now extends to the latter childbearing years.
          The Western processed diet is so bad infertility and low sperm counts are becoming “normal.”
          The individual’s education in biology, geology, history, anthropology is now nonexistent

          We’ll be lucky if we humans don’t go extinct from listening to the crazy voices.

      • I don’t think the film is advocating “population reduction” or anything of the sort. I think it’s a given that civilization has been able to develop to its current state because of fossil fuels in the last 200 years or so.
        “Green” alternatives are thoroughly trashed, and no alternatives are offered as a solution. That wasn’t the point of the documentary. The question left out there is how, and with what, do we replace fossil fuels and the thousands of products derived from them in the year XXXX? Fossil fuels may last a long time, but they ARE finite. It’s not just the energy from them we use.

    • The only reason Michael Moore would release his film online for free would be that he couldn’t get it distributed. It obviously doesn’t follow the alarmist religion mantra. He must have really worried the global warming industry that they were going to have their green gravy train fakery exposed. By denying him distribution they have effectively done a ‘green’ version of ‘Me Too’ on him and must have really p’d him off for Moore to telease it free online on ‘earth day’.

    • Whenever I see mike I can only recall his guest appearance in Team America: World Police

      • ‘Merica! F**k Yea! That movie smacked everybody around, especially Matt Damon, and the majority of people really just didn’t get it.

  2. Michael Moore’s new film has looked behind the curtain, switched on the light and revealed the awful truths behind the Warmistas’ planet-saving’ ‘renewable’ energy fraud disaster. Michael deserves credit for this. Just a bit more work and he will discover that the whole ‘Climate Change’ CO2 fiasco is also a fraud of even bigger proportions.

    • Maybe Michael Moore is growing up and developing the common sense that comes with age. We’ll see if he votes for Trump in the fall.

      Would help if he figures out that nuclear power is the best way to decrease the non-threat of CO2.

    • hey like him or not, if you could get the idiot young greenbelievers to see gore n mckibben and branson exposed for the lying bast*rds they are…thats gotta be a good thing
      ditto the lies about the solar setups and the rest
      WE all know this
      too many of the gullibles dont
      and Moore has respect from a lot of the idealogic kiddies
      as for depop well can you REALY say that india africa china etc wouldnt be far better off with less people
      ditto many mid east and even other areas of dense populations
      educating women and allowing them to limit the kids they bear to enable better lives for the ones they DO choose to have instead is a win win.
      less famine disease and overcrowding, more for the lesser amount rather than bugger all for all
      Covid is going to do it for us in some spots
      and if not this bug then another one.

    • Michael has discovered the favored crony capitalist industries aspect of this urgent cause that enriches the few at the expense of so many others, from rare earth mining children, to energy starved Africans, to taxpayer funded subsidies for that next great breakthrough that will surely make it all sustainable. He has always and still hates the captains of industry and has finally noticed another den of them in his own back yard.

      • I can’t call our friend Mike here a quick study if he is only lately catching on to the unsustainability of so-called ‘renewable’ energy sources to either construct themselves in the first place without the use of a lot of coked coal (to produce the steel), petroleum (for composite plastic windmill blades and transport to the site), or CO2 release (from cement production for the concrete to anchor the huge towers in); much less deconstruct and replace themselves in kind at the end of each generation of their service life. And he also comes rather late to the party in identifying the windfall profit-hungry hypocrisy of deceitful green celebrities so many years after the collapse of the likes of Solyndra where upper management made out like bandits for a time on presidentially commended gu’mint subsidy.

        In addition his continuing lack of inquiry into the premises of a manmade CO2 climate crisis still leaves him confounded in a fundamental delusion. Nor is his faith in replacing capitalism with a socialist structure borne out by the historical record of those regimes’ effects on their natural surroundings. So this is light years from a true repentance, but this video may still make some servile heads explode nonetheless. But the concluding sympathetic display of deforested ‘orange men’ (orangutans) even undermines the automatic ‘orange man bad’ reflex we’ve come to expect. What were they thinking?

  3. As I have said for many years, global warming is an oil industry promoted project. What is really happening in America is that coal is being replaced by natural gas.

    Look at the graph and listen to the commentary from the film here


    • I’d mark that up as he may not have known what he didn’t know.

      Many people on the left are sheep and believe everything they’re told. When he actually looked into the matter, he found out what he didn’t know.

      I think we need to fact check it and see how well it stands up to scrutiny. He has biases and agendas that need to be double checked.

      • What he does know but what seems to remain and unkown unkown on the right is: “the only thing that MIGHT save us: getting a grip on our out-of-control human presence and consumption.”

        Many “on the left” have realised that renewable energy/ev is at best going to merely kick the can down the road a few years.

          • Many “on the left” have realised that renewable energy/ev is . . .

            I’m interested. Who else on the left is saying so?

          • Those of you on the Left just love dangerous ideas, such as all forms of Socialism and the notion that too many human beings exist.
            How is it that you see yourselves as being the ones in control of the lives of others, but never as being among the populations which must be reduced?

          • Sy, Mike Moore is not the first lefty to realise . . .

            So I see. Loydo your world has no winners where humanity is concerned. That seems as unfortunate as it is surely incorrect.

            I’m glad you come here. You’ve got some b*lls to do it. I sure hope over time you see the error of your side.

          • Loydo,

            “increased economic activity due to expanding renewable energy just means more urban sprawl, more happy motoring to Walmart and increasing, unsustainable mining of the biosphere.”

            What makes you think we are seeing increasing unsustainable mining of the biosphere?

            As technology increases we actually mine *less* for most materials. The telephone companies no longer have millions of miles of copper cable in the ground, that’s been replaced by either fiber optics (freely available sand) or by wireless technology. We use less silver, gold and just about anything you can think of than we used to. Steel panels on autos are being replaced by fiberglass or plastic. We no longer have a multitude of farmers farming 100 acres, all requiring a tractor and other equipment. That’s been cut down by at least an order of magnitude thus lessening our need for all the various component ores and such.

            I could go on and on but you won’t believe it so it would be a waste of time.

          • Sy, I’m on the “side” of science.

            Btw, bau, urban sprawl, happy motoring to Walmart and increasing, unsustainable mining of the biosphere just ended, did you notice?

          • Sy, I’m on the “side” of science.

            I’m not so sure. I’m an evidence guy, or so I like to believe (*mah!*) and it seems to me at this point you’re still one of the faithful. I’ll grant you it’s getting warmer, but why, how much more, and if that’s even a bad thing in the first place real science can’t possibly say right now.

            A great primer that also brings humor to the subject matter is here: https://tinyurl.com/ya4tm85j

            And yep I did notice, as pretty much everyone has. The natives are becoming restless, and who can blame them?

            The thing about unsustainability as I think you mean it is such a thing is unsustainable if your kids and their progeny hope to live happy, healthy lives. All things being equal, I believe they ought to have the opportunity. I know you do too. But your way’s gonna make it more difficult than the evidence (right now) suggests is necessary.

        • “…“the only thing that MIGHT save us: getting a grip on our out-of-control human presence and consumption…”

          Seems like your presence and consumption are out-of-control.

          Doesn’t matter how much more responsible humans get…it is never going to be enough for you.

          If the “many ‘on the left'” did truly realize that and were honest, they’d STFU then.

          • Those on the left want to control other people’s consumption, only because they want it for themselves.

        • And here comes loydo to prove Jeff right.

          Neither our presence, nor our consumption is out of control.

          Many on the left, know lots of stuff that was never true. That’s what makes them so dangerous in large crowds.

          • Correct point, Mark. Loydo and the rest of the Malthusians have no understanding. Speaking of flattening the curve, the real problem is coming when the population curve flattens and begins falling. It doesn’t take long to crash when the replacement rate falls to European levels. There won’t be any need to “populate the stars” nor will it be possible. Humans will sputter out into a truly dystopian future with an ever-smaller population. Many seem to think that is a good thing. I think that human propagation is paramount. Obviously, while also taking care of our home.

          • Funny how the left argue we have too many people, then want to bring the people that breed like flies to the places where they are unconstrained to do so.
            They cheer when one of their own wishes he would be reincarnated as a deadly virus, but then insist we do whatever possible to make sure no one dies ever, from anything, if they can squeeze one more breathe out of their life.
            They claim we need to winnow the herd, but then enact policies that make sure even the least fit can easily survive.

            Now…I am not taking the opposite side in any of this, just pointing out how what they say and what they do are at many instances diametrically opposed.
            And I am not excluding those on the other side of the aisle from any hint of hypocrisy.

        • Moronic statement. It’s been around for a few years and it made energy less reliable and more expensive. It is also already known, that it did nothing, nada zero to reduce CO2 at all, thank goodness. How is that “at best going to merely kick the can down the road a few more years”?

        • “the only thing that MIGHT save us: getting a grip on our out-of-control human presence and consumption.”

          “we need to get a grip on our out-of-control human presence” translation “we need less people” which invariably what is meant is less of *other* people but not me or my fellow travellers.

          My response: you first Loydo, until you practice what you preach and are willing to be among the first of the people to be “lessened”, your anti-human screed isn’t worth listening to or taken seriously.

      • Jeff Mitchell, it’s OK to give the best information you have, not knowing that it’s wrong. But there’s a higher standard when you say you’re an expert and you start telling other people to act on your information. The lie is not, “X is true,” but “Trust me; I know X is true. Change your life accordingly.”

  4. “Solar is cheap” according to green propaganda.

    Well, one part of that price is the level of industry sector salary in China, another part is the level of pollution regulation in China, another is the working conditions of the extraction sector in Africa…

      “In terms of total weight, humans constitute 0.05212% of the total mass of life on earth.”

      How is framing this as a question “of total weight” not fatuous and misleading? What fraction of the biosphere is an irrelevant virus?

      This is the trouble and misunderstanding you get into when engineers start opining about biology.

      • Now that thar is funny, given that loydo knows nothing about either engineering nor biology.
        And from the quality of her posts, she has managed to reach left wing nirvana, she knows absolutely nothing about absolutely everything.

        • Ze’s paid to pander this nonsense. Griff by any other name.

          (It isn’t Griff, he was put on Moderation, then got banned) SUNMOD

          • SUNMON, I don’t think Cube was claiming Loydo was Griff specifically. It was more of using Griff as a particular type of poster. Hence the riffing on the “rose by any other name” line. Loydo is just another “rose” same as all the others (and thus no different than Griff in that regard) no matter what handle he/she/it/any of the 57+ other made up options goes by.

          • You mean Griff got banned instead of just going away because he didn’t want to register to post, like he said he would?

            The reason I ask is because I haven’t seen anything Griff did to get himself banned. People are not normally banned for being wrong, as far as I know, they are banned for being obnoxious or otherwise unfriendly. If he were going to be banned for being obnoxious, he should have been banned after he trashed Dr. Susan Crockford, but he wasn’t, and I haven’t seen him do anything like that since that time (he was roundly criticized for those comments about Crockford), so I guess I’m just kind of curious as to what Griff did..

            We miss you Mr. Griffin. You are always good for a lot of rebuttal posts.

            (He posted that he was never coming back, then recants a few months later. Then he did it again, this time with some blog wide insults on the members themselves, along with his declaration he will never come back. He again in a few weeks wanted to post comments, I told him, he is now banned because of his past statements of wanting to stay away, and blog wide insults.)


          • Griff was far more intelligent than Loy-doh ! 😉

            Loy seems to be the scrapping from the bottom of a stagnant trough.

          • Griff was far more intelligent than Loy-doh !

            Hahaha! Wheeee-doagie yeah, that’s it! You tell ‘im there budrow-fre’doh! I mean, who goes about “kicking an own goal” like Loydo, right?


            Yepper . . . you told ‘im alrighty dincha son?

      • You get even more ridiculous statements when someone like Loy-doh , who is neither a biologist or an engineer, and never will be, start making comments.

        Poor fella exhibits a total lack of rational thought..

      • This is the trouble and misunderstanding you get into when engineers start opining about biology.

        And the trouble you get when biologists, maths teachers, physicians, politicians, churnalists, cartoonists, historians, psychologists, Loydos, etc. start opining about climate change.

  5. I will believe renewables can power our society when I see a plant that makes solar panels and/or wind turbines powered exclusively 24/7/365 with wind or solar power.

    • Careful.

      If renewables cost, for the sake of argument, 100% of their lifetime’s output, and let’s put their lifetime at a generous 20 years, you could produce 5% of the existing outputs per year. The next year you have 5% x 105% (having increased output capacity) so 5.25% of the original capacity.

      That grows every year. The only problem is that capacity actually degrades a bit each year, but you get the point.

      Unfortunately, you will do nothing at all but produce more renewables, and no actual benefits to anything or anyone. BUT you will get what you defined, without actually meeting your stated goal. AND the ecoloons would trumpet their ‘success’ very loudly through the Mendacious Sensationalist Media.

      • They should surround Albany with wind turbines. At least then it would drown out all of the hot air emanClarksvilleating from the capitol.

  6. To Moore and his friends, humans are essentially the “coronavirus” that is infecting Gaia…
    Mines and quarries and dams/reservoirs are “scars upon the land.”
    Towns and suburbs are “urban blight.”
    People are net consumers of energy and materials, devouring the planet’s resources and producing nothing worthwhile.
    And in keeping with that rationale, that we are a blight on the world, Babies should be and are being aborted…

    To me every mind, every life, is a wonder of potentiality….with knowledge, wisdom, and faith there’s nothing that new life, new mind, can not make better. Each new sould is part of the Crown of Creation.

  7. “Michael Moore presents Planet of the Humans, a documentary that dares to say what no one else will…”

    Ha ha ha ha… You’ve got to be kidding me.
    Who has he been denigrating all these years if this is true?

  8. Somehow, coming from Michael Moore, I think this is impressive. A good example of how some people, considering themselves as environmentalists (apparently such as Michael Moore), when they try to know a little more and go after the whole picture of the available information, finally they see the light!! He has all my respect.

    • Well I will go this far. I liked when he said Trump will be president and I like that he found out how wrong he was about green energy. The rest, not so much.

  9. “… we are losing the battle to stop climate change on planet earth … in the midst of a human-caused extinction event … our out-of-control human presence and consumption … a willingness to see our survival in a new way—before it’s too late …”.

    This utter garbage is just crying out for a ‘H!tler rant parody’.

    • (I am NOT related to Mr. M. Moore)

      Lol — and George Carlin should get top billing:

      George Carlin — Saving the Planet
      (Warning: foul language — but, you probably guessed that, lol)

      And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we’re a THREAT?? (at 3:01)

  10. I know. Like the road we’re suppose to go down is the one the Squirrel Lady says we go down.

  11. Attaboy Mike Moore, you finally realized that our conclusions of 2002 were correct – only 18 years too late.


    Regarding expertise, I suggest the best objective measure of one’s competence is one’s predictive track record, and the predictive track record of the global warming alarmists has been consistently wrong for the past ~40 years – every one of their very-scary predictions of runaway global warming and climate catastrophe has FAILED TO HAPPEN. Nobody should believe the warmists – about anything

    Furthermore, I suggest that “No rational person could be this stupid for this long” – the warmists have a covert agenda. The Green New Deal socialist ravings of the US Democratic Party now make that agenda obvious – it is the end of our Western economic model, to be replaced by the proven failures of the socialist dictatorships. The warmists are utterly incompetent climate scientists – but they are very good at inciting false public hysteria to promote their extremist political objectives – we call that treason.

    Back in 2002, we wrote that runaway global warming was a false crisis, and green energy was not green and produced little useful (dispatchable) energy – both those statements are correct-to-date. We also predicted that global cooling would start by 2020-2030, and crop planting has been one-month late across the Great Plains of North America for the past two years, and there was a huge crop failure last year.

  12. Good movie and actually quite accurate in it representations.

    MM is not a fan of capitalism but most in the green movement will be hugely concerned by that alliance.

    Another brick in the wall to the destruction of that green myth.

    • “MM is not a fan of capitalism”

      His bank manager is though.

      I may be in a small minority here, but I’ve never bought into the notion that MM is a leftard. He uses the free market system to sell semi-idiotic products to leftard idiots and get rich. Similarly, it’s only leftards who phonily pronounce that people like Bill Gates and Richard Branson are non-free market leftists – they don’t themselves, they just give phony cheesy smiles.

    • “Good movie and actually quite accurate in it representations.”
      Not regarding biomass- which is a very good energy source!

  13. When the left says it wants to kill two billion people to make the world a better place, you should believe them .

    • “What’s the difference between ‘earth day’ and ‘earth hour’?”

      The difference is the length of time you are supposed to leave all of the lights in your house turned on.

      • Dish Network, the satellite television broadcaster is running an Earth Day channel for a month. All it amounts to is animated scenes of various places on Earth which rotate in and out of view every few minutes. Nice artwork. Not much else.

  14. (Sigh) And here, I was hoping I would not have to get out my Grandma’s oil lamps, get new wicks and chimneys for them, and add two to each room that needs a light. I guess Lehman’s will be hearing from me before long.

    Just glad I have enough sense to NOT get rid of my old-fashioned gas stove – NOT the kind that has the convection oven, you see. If you have a stove with a convection oven and the electric power grid goes out, the gas valves won’t open. Do NOT get a stove with a convection oven. You might want to heat some soup or day-old coffee in a wintertime power outage.

    Must have been painful for Mr. Moore to discover that he’d been lied to for so long, eh?

    • My oven has convection and non-convection settings, a GE gas oven
      Are you saying if power is off the gas won’t flow?
      I’ve never tried it

  15. One side effect of “the job” is that with time, one ends up with a very fine tuned “BS” detection radar. As consequence, instinctively, like many in the trade, I ask myself if I’m comfortable to work with this or that person behind a closed door at 38’000 feet on a dark night over a clueless waterbody with the responsibility of that many souls at the back..

    Facial expression, body language, intonation, all is somehow instinctively evaluated and can trigger high-priority mental warnings that from this point on, trust,reliance and confidence are out of the equation.

    A very self-aware and exhausting day at the office ensues as reliable workload sharing can not be safely established and sustained.

    Exactly the kind of alert that triggers when I perceive any green proponent, spokesman, PR folk, politician, activist even with the sound turned off.

    I mean is it really that difficult to realize that these guys are downright con artists or zombies on a mission?

    Face it, is it really that hard to figure out what’s behind the scenes, why they all act and talk in a way that even “Honest Joe, pre-owned cars salesman” can’t achieve?

    Or is that greens silently exploit the consequences of a rampant oligophrenia pandemic?

  16. Watched the movie. It does a good job of exposing the fallacies of green energy and the hypocrisy of anti-fossil fuel organizations and leaders. It does, however, carefully avoid any mention of nuclear energy as an alternative and ultimately pushes a Malthusian/Ehrlichian world view. Too bad Mr. Gibbs didn’t discover Bjorn Lomborg, Patrick Moore or any of a dozen other people who could have provided more optimistic, realistic and actually possible future action recommendations that would be good for both the planet and humans.

    I guess it’s too much to hope that Mr. Gibbs or Michael Moore would do a similar deep dive into the subject of CO2 and global climate itself. At least Planet of the Humans seems to demonstrate that there are liberals who are capable of changing their minds when confronted with solid evidence.

  17. (Note: I am NOT related to Mr. M. Moore)

    … the only thing that MIGHT save us: getting a grip on our out-of-control human presence and consumption.

    Why is this not THE issue? Because that would be

    Because that would be stupid.

    1) The underlying premise, that human ingenuity will not enable us to adapt to whatever natural resource situation we find ourselves in in the centuries to come is wrong.

    2) The current known (not to mention projected) petroleum/coal reserves are enough to last for many decades (if not centuries). That is, there is no emergent need to “save us.” There will be plenty of time when things begin to run out (i.e., their price goes up), to adopt new technology/sources of energy.

    3) NUCLEAR POWER was not (did I miss it? — I only skimmed through the entire film) presented as an alternative to “renewables.” Only biomass was mentioned (to present a false dichotomy: either horrid biomass OR “renewables” which do you want? (head shake)) presented as a good alternative source of energy (it is).


    Re: human consumption** is the CHOICE of each individual. That is, the main thing is: LIBERTY. It is a religious belief of Zehner (“The Planet of the Humans” producer) et al. that “materialism” or “over-consumption” or the like is “wrong.” It simply is. It is not wrong or right. They are attempting to evangelize for their religious belief (one to which I do NOT ascribe**).


    I must say, as I have said for years, that Ozzie Zehner is EXCELLENT (See his lecture “Green Illusions” here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ9-jYfpwfw and here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=–OqCMP5nPI ). However, in spite of a sharp new, much more handsome, haircut, he still (as he does in the last half or so of both of those “Green Illusions” lectures) goes off the rails about half-way through: he is a firm believer in not being “materialistic.”


    Re: all that talk in the middle (around 45:00 on for awhile) about accepting the reality that someday, each of us will die. What was that about?? Yeah, so? I am going to die someday. This is news? Not sure how that fit in….. sort of: “Since you’re going to die anyway, just live a basically miserable life using as little as you can (including energy). That you will shorten your life by doing this (because, given the current technology, only with petroleum are you going to have decent medical, dental, heat/cooling, food, etc.) is NO BIG DEAL for you are just going to die anyway.”

    (Interestingly: I am firmly convinced that my death is no big deal — upon taking my last breath, I am going to heaven the second I leave this world and YET, I also firmly believe that humans should consume as much as they like (without harming others or being poor stewards of the earth — and USING petroleum and emitting CO2 is NOT being a poor steward nor are many of the other “unholy” activities of the cult of Environmentalism).

    That psychology/philosophy prof. saying something about a “whole new societal construct” (about the meaning of life, etc.) was essentially saying: start telling yourself that humans are not very important in the scheme of things and, well, just suck it up and don’t be a cockroach (as that smug young woman in the intro. so charmingly compared humans to) and try to live happily and long. Instead, live sparingly and briefly — that is the holy (or the “culturally beneficial” or the whatEVER) thing to do.


    ** (from above, re: materialism) I DO wholeheartedly AGREE with Zehner/the film that the rare earth metals mining in Africa is an abomination which must stop — the Chinese run those mines — somehow, we consumers need to refuse to buy anything not (just coming up with a possible label — like “cage free” for eggs) “slave labor free” (like we do with oriental rugs). Those children and their parents live lives of misery and become ill from that work. Yes, they can choose to not work there, but, well, you see, the fact is, they DO, and they WILL, unless we intervene on their behalf.

    And the hybrid and electric cars made from those things are a WASTE of everyone’s money…. but, as long as they are made humanely and 100% paid for by the purchaser (not subsidized by a rebate), that is the business of those rich people who want to “virtue signal” or just feel good or whatever.

    Bottom line: buying and owning things is, in general, a GOOD thing.

  18. Loydo and the the other members of his nihilistic death cult want to blame humans for all perceived problems and changes in the biosphere. It is ironic when one considers that, barring intelligent human action, foraminifera and coccolithophores will continue to extract calcium carbonate from seawater thus lowering atmospheric CO2 levels until the Earth experiences the largest mass extinction EVER! The only life forms likely to survive would be anaerobes and viruses; maybe the Wuhan Flu, COVID19, is testing the waters.
    We humans have conquered slavery, Fascism, human sacrifice and were close to eradicating the “scientific slavery” known as Communism before the Progressive “long march” through our institutions destroyed the Western education system and filled our children with insanity and self doubt. In spite of the planet becoming greener, wetter and marginally warmer our young are taught that the Earth is dying! How embarrassing for a species that should be climbing to the planets and then the stars to be backsliding into the swamp of ignorance and lies that our forebears fought so hard to drain!

  19. Michael Moore is a good example of that blind squirrel that occasionally finds a nut. But just look at how long it took him!

    • (I am not related to Mr. M. Moore)

      Paul! Am I glad to see you. I wanted to affirm you re: reusable (plastic) bags (didn’t manage to do it on the bags thread). While I stand by what I wrote back a couple weeks ago or so, you are right. There IS that…. (the occasional pale brown plastic bags, wanly waving in the breeze from bushes and trees). Not cool.

  20. So, alternative energy has been a very stupid idea.
    These people have been destroying our forests. But we would not have had the forest for them to destroy, without Coal energy saving our forest in the first place.
    Burning trees is inefficient, mining and burning coal is more efficient. But natural gas can be more efficient than mining and burning coal, and US has less coal burning, not because burning wood, it’s because we are fracking natural gas.
    But natural gas is not the answer, but if figure out how to extract methane from Oceanic Methane- methane hydrates- that would be good.
    Likewise Nuclear energy is not the answer, but there is a lot energy available from nuclear power, and if thought reducing CO2 is good idea, nuclear energy is only short term solution.
    As film seems to indicate alternative energy does not reduce CO2 emission.
    The film indicates some reasons why solar energy does not work, but why solar energy doesn’t work is because we live on planet Earth. Solar panels were made for Earth orbit, and solar power is powering the satellite industry. And solar energy would work if we lived on the Moon.
    There are “problems” with living on the Moon, not suggesting you pack your bags and go to Moon, just saying if solved problems of living on Moon, solar energy works there, and on Earth, it doesn’t.
    Of course on the Moon, you do get more sunlight energy, but in polar regions of the Moon one always harvest solar power, because within a small region the is always sunlight available.
    If the state of Oregon, had places within the state which there was always sunlight, you might able use solar energy in Oregon, even though Oregon does not on average, get much sunlight. And smallest region in lunar region that you get constant sunlight is much smaller area than the State of Oregon.
    Also in lunar polar region, a spot in the region can get sunlight 80% of the time, so could get 1360 watts per square meter, 80% {or more} of the time. Oregon lack any spot where can get and average of 680 watts for 50% of the time, and there is no spot of on Earth which can do that.But if Oregon had a spot what it could get an average 680 watts 80% of time, then solar energy would work in that spot.
    And there was dozen spots in Oregon which gave average 680 watts per square 80% of time but the 80% of their time at different times and overlapped times that other spots weren’t getting sunlight. Oregon is where you get solar energy on planet Earth.
    But it’s much better than that, on the Moon.
    But for Earthlings on earth surface, they should get the solar power from Earth orbit, problem is it’s too expensive to put solar farms in Earth orbit. The cost to get anything into Earth orbit has been lowering over the decades, but presently and not within say 10 years or 20 years the launch cost is too high.
    Elon Musk owner of SpaceX, might disagree- but probably only in sense he might claim he could get close to doing it, within 20 years. If you give him subsidies which 1/4 of what was already wasted on solar energy subsides…and provide more usable electrical than what those subsidies gave the public… and..,.
    but I mean without such crazy subsidies. But within 50 to 100 years, it seems one start with SPS for people on Earth surface.
    And seems if want within 50 years, one needs to lower the launch from Earth.
    It should be noted that if we were truly doomed, there is technical way of doing this- and possible rob this technical way, which has be known for decades. It’s call a Nuclear Orion.
    And if ginning up, doom, you giving the Chinese political cover to actual build Nuclear Orions.
    Or problem with Nuclear Orions is political, because you using nuclear bombs for rocket thrust, within the Earth’s atmosphere. But the damage to the environment, would far less than what the stupid idea of “alternative energy” brought upon our global environment.

    • “These people have been destroying our forests.”
      Wind and solar “farms” destroy forests- but biomass energy doesn’t destroy forests. That’s the part the Moore film got wrong.

      • “Wind and solar “farms” destroy forests- but biomass energy doesn’t destroy forests. That’s the part the Moore film got wrong.”

        Biomass could not destroy forests, but the “big business” of biomass does destroy lot’s of forests, and you got the “big business” of biomass because govt is subsiding it.
        So, the “big business” wouldn’t be destroying forests, if was not for govt policy- or Govt policies are actually destroying vast amount of forests. Or there is and has been biomass use which is viable or “good” and has happened for centuries, and has no need of govt subsidy {of course if handing out money and does not require too much paperwork and time to get it, most people will take any money you give them].

        • all energy is subsidized- so the fact that woody biomass is subsidized is no difference- and I did mean forestry derived biomass, not agricultural derived biomass

          forestry biomass is a good thing when done right- and by that I mean good forestry results in periodic tree cutting- most of which should be sawlogs for timber- but trees that are not good for timber need to be removed too- and if there is no market for pulp or firewood- then it’s good to have a market for biomass

          Here in Massachusetts- we have a continuing war over this issue. I’m on the side of forestry because I’ve been a forester for 47 years. There is way too much nonsense on this subject published by people who have no clue about forests and proper forest management. Without forestry- you can’t live in a wood house with wood furniture and paper products.

          • re: “all energy is subsidized”

            A little more discretion and caution is desired (and urged!) when making broad, generalized statements like this. Tax breaks are NOT subsidies. Simply put, being permitted to keep your income is not the same as taking it from competitors. Exemptions and loopholes do not forcibly redistribute wealth; taxes and subsidies do, thereby benefiting some producers at the expense of others. Tax breaks are beneficial to those who claim them, but they are not subsidies.

            Let’s take this to its extreme, if you do not pay ALL your income to the state, YOU are getting a ‘subsidy’ for that part which you do NOT pay to the state! See how that works now?


          • _Jim: Thank you for making this point.

            It is a real pet peeve of mine when people throw out memes without having any understanding or precision of the words used.

            The LEFT have changed the meaning of words in order to muddle clear conversation. This helps them end cogent discussion.

            Subsidy used to be clearly understood to mean something given to someone because they did not work to attain it.

            Now subsidy could mean, “something you earned that you are allowed to keep.” This is really disappointing.

          • “Subsidy used to be clearly understood to mean something given to someone because they did not work to attain it.”
            That seems vague, I say subsidy usually refers government giving money/resources to some activity which has social good. Amtrack provides train service and is seem that if public had access to a train service, it would be socially good. And the train service costs are higher than the revenue, it charge for train tickets, so government can provide various kinds of advantages, so AmTrack is profitable if value of subsidy + plus ticket sales gives Amtrack a profit.
            Also usually, there is a limit to how many ” AmTracks” you would subsidize- or you get too many train company dividing the amount profit from ticket sales.
            Or subsidies are very similar or a verison of monopolies.
            Or granting monopolies is subset of government subsidy.

            You also have something like subsidy done by private sector, it’s called angel investors:

            Spaceshipone, wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipOne
            was done by Angel investing:
            “Both craft were developed and flown by Mojave Aerospace Ventures, which was a joint venture between Paul Allen and Scaled Composites, Burt Rutan’s aviation company. Allen provided the funding of approximately US$25 million.”
            Paul Allen did other angel investing, which basically means one gives a loan and don’t expect a return on investment, but the rich guy wants done for basically “social good”.

            So I got idea of how to launch rockets from the ocean- the idea is too risky and would have marginal profit {at least the for few years or even decade} and a bank would not provide loan for it. So it would require a government subsidy, angel investor, or a rocket company that wants launch their rockets from the Ocean.
            Also could got route of patent- I decide against that idea, but doing what talking about could involve patents, on the specific manner it was built- or could be dozens of patents related to it. But I don’t do patents and as general idea, it seemed, too simple, it like patenting a bicycle, or bicycles will have patents, you don’t patent a bicycle.
            Anyhow, the general idea of subsidy, is fine, but governments cesspools of corruption and stupid, and government subsidies are never a social good.
            Of course, classic example of a subsidy are public schools.

          • gbaikie wrote: “That seems vague, I say subsidy usually refers government giving money/resources to some activity which has social good.”

            You just made it more vague! I could not read any more of your post. If you need to go on a diatribe to redefine a word into what you want it to mean based on more vague terms, you are making it all the more vague. Sheesh.

          • mario lento, def is better:
            a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.”

            So, not:
            “given to someone because they did not work to attain it”
            rather it’s about markets and competition.
            Or whale oil cease to exist as available as product in the market, because mining crude oil was a cheaper way to get oil.
            Governments might have subsidized the mining of crude oil, but I don’t give any credit to any government which did “happen” to do this.
            But I would give credit to whale oil market, for making a cheaper market price of oil and enough market demand for oil, which led to using crude oil as substitute for whale oil.

            Subsidizing the burning of wood as “biofuel” is similar to government subsidizing hunting whales. Say, because one thinks whale meat is better than cow meat. Whale farts are better than cow farts, or some other crazy idea.

          • So I made a typo: Should have been: ““given to someone who did not work to attain it” There I fixed it. Short sweet and precise.

            If you have to torture the crap out of the word “subsidy”, you have destroyed precision of the word. That is my point, which you have proven.

          • @ gbaikie

            You (at 4:45pm today): money granted

            Mr. Lento (9:50am today): something given

            Mr. Lento’s term “something” is functionally the same as your term “money.”

            That is, your statement (essentially) = Mr. Lento’s.

            That you spend paragraph after paragraph trying to explain how Mr. Lento is incorrect is, thus, absurd.

            Suggestion: have someone who speaks English as their first language proof-read your comments.

            I hope that you will continue to read and comment, here, gbaikie. If you have someone help you with your English, I feel sure that you will no longer come off as conceited and arrogant and then you will find that the wonderful WUWTers will be happy to help you understand what they wrote.

          • –Janice Moore April 23, 2020 at 5:36 pm
            @ gbaikie

            You (at 4:45pm today): money granted

            Mr. Lento (9:50am today): something given

            Mr. Lento’s term “something” is functionally the same as your term “money.”–

            Well, if the sentence was:
            I was given a subsidy.
            That would mean subsidy = “money granted” or “something given”
            But a good definition of subsidy is:
            a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.”

            Which is quoted.
            {not my English}
            And you may not like how I add context to the above definition.
            {And I do, tend to mistype a lot]
            And I will note, you are mind reading my “arrogance”.
            And you lack skill at this “magical ability”.
            BUT if “arrogance” = typing far too many words.
            Ok sure,
            I am arrogant.

  21. Two decades of these bird-killing monstrosities and suddenly the green royalty have worked out they’re bad for Da Nvironment. Sheesh. Why the sudden epiphany?

    Here in Australia the senior Green likewise came out against wind farms last year.

  22. Suppose that all the facts presented in the movie are absolutely true. It doesn’t matter. If you’re even semi intelligent, you can find facts to support any stance you care to espouse.

    The problem is balance. Stupidity and evil are in infinite supply, so how is it that we are even here? Once you’ve worked that out it becomes obvious that although fighting stupidity and evil is important, if that’s all you do, you’re wasting your time.

    Buckminster Fuller nailed it when he said we can do more and more with less and less until eventually we can do everything with nothing at all. We are somewhere near peak stuff. Even Al Gore has noticed.

    Between 1977 and 2001, the amount of material required to meet all needs of Americans fell from 1.18 trillion pounds to 1.08 trillion pounds, even though the country’s population increased by 55 million people. Al Gore similarly noted in 1999 that since 1949, while the economy tripled, the weight of goods produced did not change. link

    Later this century we will probably pass peak people and the population of the world will slowly decrease.

    The solution to the world’s problems is not to crash the economy because that would destroy technology. Human civilization is already on the right trajectory. Many of us now live in what is close to an Earthly Paradise. The trick is to use and continue to develop technology to enable the rest of humanity to join us.

    • “Later this century we will probably pass peak people and the population of the world will slowly decrease.

      The solution to the world’s problems is not to crash the economy because that would destroy technology. Human civilization is already on the right trajectory. Many of us now live in what is close to an Earthly Paradise. The trick is to use and continue to develop technology to enable the rest of humanity to join us.”

      Very good comments.

      We will hit “Peak People” when we manage to lift everyone in every country up to a certain level of personal wealth. And that is not that far away if cooperation and good sense ruled the day. The population of all affluent nations is dropping, even China, and it should be expected that will be the case in other nations as they acquire electricity and their economies stablize.

      Humanity’s best bet is to raise all of humanity out of povery as soon as possible, and it is entirely doable. The darker side of humanity (selfishness) is the “only” thing standing in the way. We see the goal, and we see the obstacle. Let’s get to work.

  23. As a sceptic who daily reads blogs like this ,I kept seeing info that I already knew ,being spouted by a committed leftist. Highlighting the corruption and hypocrisy of the climate change billionaires is a theme well known on these pages but virtually unknown outside our bubble. Because Michael Moore is producing the film I’m hopeful that some warmists may accidentally find themselves watching it because of his political and societal leanings. I do hope that Boris Johnson decides to watch as it might put some perspective to that horrible DRAX power plant that they think is saving the planet.
    I know it is unlikely to appear on the ABC but I am actually optimistic it might reflect the beginning of a major change in thinking about renewables. The timing of this doco with the Coronavirus pandemic may in fact help give financially stretched governments a valid excuse to reduce commitments to the green energy boondoggle.

    • Almost all documentaries can be watched at 1.25x speed without loss of comprehension. Sometimes, 1.5x or higher is possible.

  24. His majour proposition is that we are doomed due to ever increasing growth in human population.
    But the facts are that the fertility rate in almost every continent except africa is below replacement level. The population of Europe and North America would be falling were it not for immigration. Wealthy countries like japan which don’t allow immigration are in serious trouble due to their failure produce their next generation.

      • Wrong as always, Loydo.

        World population growth peaked about 50 years ago (1969) at 2.09% annual growth. It has been steadily declining and is now at 1.05%, roughly a 50% deceleration. This is the result of per capita income skyrocketing (exactly the opposite of what the Malthusian hypothesis predicts).

        Even if population only continues that trend, it is likely to reach zero growth in 50 years, which at worst implies a 25% increase before stabilizing and beginning to fall. Which would put the peak at about 9.8 billion.

      • Loydo
        I can’t decide if you are intentionally or unintentionally funny
        You do seem to enjoy being abused, not sure if it’s a sign of BDSM proclivity

  25. How handy. The day after the petrodollar takes its worst licking in history…and now MM comes out and says how harmful so-called “renewables” really are. Timing. That’s what entertainers are masters of.

    I had a friend ask me one time why there were so many attacking the petroleum industry as if it needed to completely go away. I said that IMHO it was an effort to reduce the value of the petrodollar and the petroleum industry (as the sun gets quiet and the world gets colder, BTW), because the only way you have a hope to survive the colder climate is with the use of petroleum products. Buy it low, and when it rises again, then you’re sitting pretty.

  26. Oh, IIRC, Maggie Thatcher started the global warming myth so she could reduce the power of the coal miners.

    I haven’t dug deep on that story, but ain’t that a kick in the head?

  27. Well we have been saying all these things for years, doing the hard research for them and now this is the clever propaganda to get us to sell the ultimate message, humans must go, and sends so many subliminal messages that are then easy to sell and support such as the Michigan Governor’s insistence that abortion i.e. killing off human children is an important woman’s duty, elective hip/knee surgery is not. Now those with that underlying and worse messages to sell will have the right and duty, the human lemmings might well be encouraged to follow each other over the cliff while the messiah’s Bill Kibben and the others watch and tearfully applaud. Sane people need to think about this propaganda that we realists will help distribute far and wide. I fear the ultimate result of not subjecting it to some clear thinking and commonsense. Sure that is what we have found for them, but this is the equivalent of those 10/10 despicable videos that map a path to evil perversions. Good to see they work up to the scam. Now it is the time to get back to science and the scientific method. Note the media is ramping up the scam of man made Global warming and this will neatly cause publicity not for science, but for more scary belief. Don’t be surprised to see Hallelujah, covid -19 was sent to cull man and save the planet!!. The message is there for the grasping true believer, very clever propaganda.

  28. I note my comment is in moderation as it probably challenges the general thought stream, but some need to carefully look at how we use this sudden reversal of thinking.

    • Everyone here for any length of time, has had posts hang in moderation.
      Most people understand that it is a WordPress thing and has nothing to do with the illustrious moderators, except in the rare case of people who have made themselves untrustworthy.

      Usually, such delays are inexplicable. In your case, however, I notice that you have used a word that starts with a “k”, which delays a post, every time.
      Either that, or it could be that you smell funny, or otherwise deserve being picked on.

      Ps You made interesting points.

  29. Malthusianism has not been debunks at all, it simply has not been given enough time.

    In Britain we reached a Malthusian Peak-Oil in about 2000, and no amount of further exploration will ever bring production back to 1990s levels – as the new finds get smaller and smaller. And if Britain can reach Peak Oil, then so too can the world. It is simply a matter of time.

    Britain also hit a Malthusian Peak Wood back in the 19th century, which makes it absurd that we have gone back to wood-burning at Drax, the country’s largest power station (4 gw). But don’t worry, chaps, we solved the wood problem – we only burn American trees now….

    And changing the fuel source does not invalidate the Malthusian claims – a large enough population can indeed deplete a particular resource. The fact that we have been able to discover alternate sources does not mean that Peak Raw Material is not a real problem with real consequences.


  30. Wow Bill Gates finally got MM to do that doco!
    Enter Nuclear . . . new gen, new scam, same high prices.
    Long live oil and coal!

    • Must have missed the part about next gen nukes. I didn’t miss the part about how rare earth mining spreads evil radioactivity over the desert, so shilling for nukes seems like it would be inconsistent with his message. Also since he’s pushing the end to “infinite growth” message and the “there’s no technical fix” message, nukes would definitely not fit in.

      They are of course the only choice we currently have ready to roll once we do deplete fossil fuels several centuries or even millennia from now. But who knows what will be available 500 years from now. The world in 1520 was a slightly different place. The world in 2520 will probably be different on a similar order of magnitude.

      • We will live on the ocean and launch rockets to space from the ocean.
        People might not like the saltwater, so they have lakes of fresh water on the ocean and have saltwater beaches for people that like that, things like surfing and scuba diving to artificial reefs.
        One could visit the Venus sky, but probably all the acid clouds have already been depleted.
        You probably go to a virtual world to experience, the Venus with acid clouds.

  31. How much CO2 is being released by people, possibly individuals, streaming this documentary?

    (not that it really matters)

  32. I still haven’t seen any sign that M. Moore has gotten any more honest or less manipulative from the time of Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11 and Sicko.
    I see this as nothing more than internecine warfare in the leftist environmentalist side; the enemy of your enemy isn’t always your friend.

  33. I sat through the whole thing all the way to the end, and I think I heard the word nuclear once.

  34. So MM is still a Malthusian :
    – Malthusianism is one of the rare pseudo-scientific fraud that has been constantly falsified by facts since at least two centuries and this falsification trend constantly increases as time goes. Just look, among many other pieces of evidence, at the prices of the fundamental goods trends during the last decades.

    Perhaps MM is less idiotic than the standard leftist chicken-little, but still a complete idiot.

  35. Michael Moore is advocating for the removal of the “human presence” from the planet. I suggest he lead by example and stop eating. Don’t worry, he’s in no immediate danger of starving to death.

  36. A very good movie even allowing for the emotional stiff that it’s overlaid with. Michael Moore has found his own road to Damascus and I agree with him that it is chilling. CO2 is an irrelevancy compared to human greed. Bill McKibben and Gore come out of this very badly.

    • Do they care? As long as there are sheep to fleece, they will remain in this business.

      However, support does not seem to be enthusiastic. Look at the 350.org rally by Michigan State students at ~59 minutes, I count about 40 students. This is from a university student body of almost 50,000.

  37. Michael Moore is still a Left-wind extremist, promoting climate change, advocating population control, opposing capitalism, etc.

    Don’t get distracted by that nonsense!

    What’s startling — and refreshingly different — here is that Moore:
    1 – unapologetically exposes his allies Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Robert Kennedy, etc. for being con artists and hypocrites,
    2 – crucifies his allies like the Sierra Club and their ilk for being disingenuous and primarily in it for the money and influence, and
    3 – also carefully documents how the Left’s mantra for wind, solar and biofuels are scams.

    • I think Khosla has two remaining entities in the biofuels space. One is Gevo, trading at about $0.9 down from the equivalent of $100,000 at IPO after reverse splits/dilution. Kior mentioned in the movie flamed out a while ago along with Range Fuels. I think Khosla and Branson have a stake in Lanzatech also.


    • Michael Moore predicted Trump would win. Probably can predict Trump will win again.
      The Left is weak. Look, Joe Biden. How weak is that!
      Michael Moore did it, because he could do it.
      The writing is on the wall.

  38. Moore presents a lot of good information in this video, then, typically, fails to reach the right conclusions from all his excellent evidence. There is no helping this type of person.

    It comes at a good moment though and will make a lot of heads explode.

  39. The man is such a moron. All he needs to do is read here for a while and just be quiet. I won’t be watching this movie either unfortunately. I don’t want to support him accidentally.

  40. Liberals like Michael Moore always want to go with the “Pol Pot Solution” before *gasp* Nuclear Power, not realizing they would be the first to die.

    It’s like young people that want “free healthcare”, not realizing that 1) they don’t currently pay for old people’s healthcare or 2)THEY would be the one’s paying for old people’s healthcare.

    We have a name for people like this…. “Idiots”.

    • UNGN … at 5:30 am
      Liberals like Michael Moore always want to go with the “Pol Pot Solution” before *gasp* Nuclear Power,

      Nuclear was mentioned once in passing I expect that the next release will edit that small blip out.

    • Actually young people do pay for old people’s health care in the form of FICA taxes. Old people were on the ground floor of the Medicare pyramid scheme. They now just want the ground floor, … of the pyramid, … for everyone.

  41. Michael Moore doesn’t know what he believes other than promoting his movies. His “thinking” (if you can call it that) is frequently muddled as a result of his economic illiteracy, innumeracy and poor education.

    Anybody who pals around with the nutcase Bill McKibben is woefully ignorant.

    • Michael Moore is a predator.

      And Humans are the top predator, and that’s why there is no doubt, it’s a human planet.

      Well, other than the microbial life, which actually dominates the planet. And human can’t
      exist without them, so we will take them, where ever we go in this universe.

  42. The Obsession with CO2 reduction has blinded well-intentioned people to what works to improve the environment:

    Identifying & reducing point source pollution.

    The United States has done a tremendous job at identifying & reducing point source pollution.

    Reducing point source pollution is quantifiable (measurable). It is based on scientific principles of observation & measurement. Laboratory experiments with controlled variables can be conducted.

    Cost/benefit analysis of point source pollution reduction can be realistically performed.

    Point source pollution reduction does not take a cult-like following which rejects the basic scientific principle: reasonable skepticism.

    Responsible hydrocarbon use with appropriate care for point source pollution is the appropriate environmental response.

    Hydrocarbons… oil & gas… are, in fact, the most environmentally friendly energy sources. Even coal with appropriate scrubbers can be environmentally friendly, believe it or not.

    The obsession with CO2 reduction has hijacked the environmental movement.

    It has set back an idea, having a clean environment, by alienating many people who, otherwise, would be open to tackling & reducing identifiable point source pollution.

    Example: many conservatives are also conservationists. Why, because many conservatives not only want to conserve their societies, but also their environments, too. “Ways of Life” often depend on a clean & healthy environment.

    Earth Day was a good idea… it was a way to generate awareness of our environment and as an educational tool for young people to be made aware of ecological relationships and systems and how people can impact them, for good or bad.

  43. Mr. Moore has a certain amount of integrity; you’ve got to give him that, even if you don’t particularly like his politics. I first read about Planet of the Humans some time ago (perhaps even a year?) and then kept looking for it in our local art house theatre. When it didn’t come, I thought (cynically) that Mr. Moore had taken a payout from some green energy seller to bury the movie. But now it’s here.

    People on the left are more often than not essentially decent. Unfortunately they tend to be angry, and angry people tend to want to hurt the people they’re angry at. That’s when the left becomes the enemy of decency.

    Michael Moore is not such a bad guy. He’s still on the side of regular working people and, let’s face it, no matter how rich he gets, nobody who looks like Mr. Moore is ever going to be upper class. This gives him a certain basic incorruptibility that someone like Leonardo DiCaprio will never know. Consider that Mr. Moore’s understanding of the appeal of Donald Trump was possible because, unlike the people who write for the New York Times, he knows real working people.

    The Planet of the Humans is actually a continuation of the premise of so many of Mr. Moore’s movies, and that is that rich, powerful people in expensive clothes are out to cheat and bully their social inferiors. So good boy, Michael.

  44. You don’t think they’ll be rushing this Oscarsize film into the school curriculum then? More like ostrasize.

  45. On the very tenuous grounds that this is a post about highly prominent personalities in the climate change/renewables arena of debate I offer this link to a post in NotaLot:

    It refers to the death of Sir John Houghton and contains these sentencs :
    -“It was under Houghton’s tenure in the First Assessment Report (FAR)(forIPCC) that the process began of writing the all important Summary for Policymakers which did not reflect the detailed chapters.
    Houghton’s Summary claimed it was confident that the increase in CO2 alone had been responsible for over half of the warming during the 20thC. Yet the main report was far more guarded and evenly flatly contradictory. But none of this stopped Houghton’s Summary demanding immediate reductions of 60% in emissions. “-

    Now I have put that in because I am hoping to tempt a devastating rebuttal from Dr Stokes .
    I need some distracting amusement, locked up here in Stalag Luft Altrincham , awaitng the next Red Cross parcel of goodies from our neighbours who have , unlike us, access to online supermarket shopping.

  46. I was really hoping that this movie could be a game changer in the manner of “Inconvenient Truth”, but in a good way by presenting the facts rather than just propaganda. In the end I was disappointed. It did go some way to exposing the folly of “Green Energy” and its exploitation by the billionaires, but it fell short in many other important areas.

    No questioning of whether catastrophic climate change was in fact occurring; no questioning the role of CO2; blind acceptance of the Malthusian philosophy; no consideration of a greening planet; no consideration of where the major growth in population is occurring and how this might be reduced by provision of cheap reliable energy to raise living standards; no real consideration of nuclear as an alternative. And so on. These facts would be useful in helping people to at least question the the propaganda of the enterprises driving the scam.

    A missed opportunity.

  47. Well, I watched the whole movie before I made a comment:

    The first half of the film proved to me that for over ten years or so, that my BS meter was correct about the renewables (wind and solar replacing fossil fuels, etc.).

    The second half of the film was truly disturbing…and is probably supported by the de-growthers and by the anti human crowds. (- and those who probably want to kill humans sadly).

    Surprised that there was no mention of nuclear energy and nuclear power plants ! (Unless I missed it, but I don’t think I did).

    Bill McKibben in this film comes off as stupid and uninformed on what’s going on – LOL. And that, I see as good.

    Al Gore comes off in this film as looking very “prosperous” towards the end – if you know what I mean – LOL.

    – JPP

    • Jon P Peterson April 22, 2020 at 7:05 am

      The word “nuclear” was mentioned once in passing.

      MicKibben came across as rather stupid, i.e., he didn’t know who funds his organization.

    • “Bill McKibben in this film comes off as stupid and uninformed on what’s going on”
      And for proof of that- just watch him debate Alex Epstein who happens to like fossil fuels:

      • It’s good that one of the less brainwashed of the students recognized that McKibben uses many fallacious arguments.

  48. They will curse him from their seaside villas and private islands.

    The UN diplomat/fund raisers nay virologists and public health experts will try to control him with contract work.

  49. Beautiful.

    At last;

    The sane voice of proper left.
    No prone to demagogy and radicalism.
    No prone to madness.
    No prone to irrational self destruction.
    No prone at last to delusion… hopefully no any more.

    The main power source to/of the industrialization and capitalism, the proper left, hopefully waking up to reality.
    Left is good for as long that left is good, aka proper and not polluted, by dogma and indoctrination…
    free of delusion.

    Extremism, radicalism, dogma and indoctrination ain’t ether left or right proper;
    simply a category and class of it’s own… delusional, at the very least.

    thank you.


  50. In the same vein. Never mind about running the EV on fossil fuel power just feel the empowering and galvanising-
    That’s referring to some pearls of wisdom from the usual boofheads and groupthinkers at the The Conversation. To get a flavour of what goes on there with a bunch of well lubricated taxeater backslappers look no further than a claque of them at Australian National University anointing themselves The Commission for the Human Future-
    Your future is all in safe hands now folks.

  51. This is like someone finding out they have been buying snake oil to cure an imaginary disease, and instead of simply no longer taking snake oil, they look for a new cure of the imaginary disease. One step at a time for these rubes.

        • Aw, Jon. Good to “see” you. Thank you! It’s always sort of depressing when it appears (and I realize it is likely that it only appears so, but, still… 😥) that no one read one’s comment(s). It is, or, rather, USED to (before this site went to a second-rate version of WordPress about 4 years ago) be fun to “talk” with people. Now, that is usually just a big PAIN. Like trying to have a phone conversation via Pony Express.

          We all experience this, I realize, and, to some degree, it’s just part of blogging.😐

          Anyway. I hope you are doing LOTS of painting and enjoying your enviable location in Mexico.

          Take care.

          Your WUWT friend,


  52. Mods, I have had a comment go to moderation due to a number of included links.
    Thank you,

  53. I see the start of a beginning of a tendency to understand reality in this movie. But it also appears to have the editorial slant that there are currently too many human beings, and that many of us have to go, that we should perhaps voluntarily cull ourselves? or else many of us will die in a huge natural correction.

    I can’t really say that’s wrong or incorrect. I also can’t say it’s correct. What I will say, is that I’ll never voluntarily vote for or promote the idea that someone CLAIMING TO KNOW what he cannot possibly know, will be politically promoted to have some police powers to tell the rest of us what to do. Now THAT would be insane.

    Mortality rates from the economic contraction due to the current pandemic panic MAY exceed deaths from the virus itself. It will be interesting to see if the lefties an environmentalists and media will even examine this question. I’m betting not. So how can we ever arrive at what may very well be the most important conclusion, that our tendency to panic and to promote hysteria is a bigger threat than the pandemic, or even bigger than the ‘problem’ of climate change? I simultaneously laugh and despair that emotional irrational panic will be chastised, that the media conglomerates will temper their words so as to try and reduce panic and fear, and that the emotional end-of-the-world doom-casting will be less successful in the future. After all, it’s the preferred polemic for the lazy and power hungry socialists of the world, like Michael Moore.

    I’m happy that I finally seem to share a value with Moore. Cronyism in the free market system is bad. Propaganda in virtue signalling is bad. But that’s where Mr. Moore and I part ways. He wants there to be no capitalism, no economic freedom so that people HE trusts can fix the problem, even though he mocked and criticized their naivete in the movie. Double dumb ass on you, Michael Moore.

    • “But it also appears to have the editorial slant that there are currently too many human beings, and that many of us have to go, that we should perhaps voluntarily cull ourselves? or else many of us will die in a huge natural correction.”

      The movie is not for conservatives or anyone rational. The religion of Left, is idea the Industrial Revolution is bad.
      And of course the Industrial Revolution was one of best revolution, ever.
      Or the Industrial Revolution is comparable to the American Revolution- one could argue which is better.
      And French Revolution which brought about “The Terror” was the Left- and not, good.
      And most revolutions have a tendency to fail, badly.

      • re: “The movie is not for conservatives or anyone rational. The religion of Left, is idea the Industrial Revolution is bad.”

        Yes … this ^^^^^.

        MM is sending a message to his ‘peeps’ – “get right with (your) gaia” and I’m going to work towards that goal. He smells rats in the movement and he’s coming after them …

  54. One nitpick (still listening to the documentary):

    Fulcrum Bioenergy gets lumped in with the “biofuel” plants that are (stupidly) cutting down trees to make fuels. Fulcrum is a waste disposal firm. They are one of two companies (to my knowledge) that got gasification of municipal waste to work. The fuel input is garbage with the output primarily being jet fuel.

    • HILN — given, that you are correct that needs to be EMPHASIZED:


  55. Bumms in seats, luv, Mike will say whatever to keep the audiences toddling in. This freebie on utube is a sly commercial for his Next Big Thing.

  56. I love how the only bad thing they can say about nuclear, is that it’s associated with a few green energy capitalists.

    Green Energy McCarthyism!

    I also never thought I’d say this:

    Thank you Michael Moore.

  57. “Even a broken clock is right twice per day.” And Micheal Moore is so very, very broken.

  58. As always, the eco-fascists continue to push “renewable” energy sources like: wind, solar, biofuel, pixie dust, and unicorn farts to replace fossil fuels, which is an absolute impossibility..

    The ONLY real viable fossil fuel energy alternative is nuclear power, and, of course, Michael Moore didn’t mention it once in his film.

    Moore’s grand vision is that humans are useless and pathetic parasites that will soon cause their own extinction…

    Oh, goody…

  59. The non-response from the Left will be deafening. No true blue liberal could ever get past the first minute of the movie. On track to be the most media ignored event ever.

  60. It trashes industrial wind and solar. Good.
    But it also trashes biomass which is a great form of energy which allows we foresters to better manage the forests.

    • It does not trash biomass. It trashes the business model whereby they use it by getting paid a grant to replace other reliable forms of energy. The biomass plants they showed were anything but sustainable since they could not get enough clean wood to make energy. Instead they needed wood with toxic resins (railroad ties) that burn at a higher temperature, and old chipped tires to add heat to the burn. The result was pollution and destruction, and not enough trees to keep up with demand.

      Burning the scraps needed for forest management is fine by the way… but not to replace nat gas and nuclear. Supplement maybe… but not to be relied upon.

      • I agree that burning railroad ties is bad and burning trash is bad- but wood derived from good forestry practices is wood we need to remove from the forest- it consists of trees that will never be able to grow into valuable sawlogs- either undesirable species or diseased/deformed trees- if we don’t remove them, we can’t grow mostly healthy trees of the species best suited to the site. And, I don’t care for agricultural derived biomass- only woody biomass from excellent forestry practices. And, it is reliable and it is sustainable. Of course it’ll never amount to a large amount like natural gas (which I like very much) but that’s no reason to not use it. Most woody biomass facilities DO have access to sufficient amounts of “good” wood. They are expensive to build- often a quarter of a billion dollars- so they research ahead of time if enough forest is available.

        • Sorry, far too many products that can be produced from all that “biomass” waste wood material. I hate OSB(obviously sh*t board), yet it is used in all manner of construction, furniture, shipping etc etc, and it comes from the same waste wood material being burned so inefficiently to produce a very tiny amount of electricity. For use on remote sites to provide electricity is fine, same for solar and wind, all three are niche power systems. The focus with waste wood material should be in uses which have much longer and more productive outcomes. And yes, I hate OSB, far prefer real plywood and actual lumber, and yet the material is out there and should be used.

        • I am pro forest management, and pro loggers and wood industry. I believe in the use of our natural resources. What we do in CA by banning management and clear cutting of certain areas is stupid and dangerous.
          That said, I would imagine there is plenty we can do with the mass removed from the forest. If that means burning it, making mulch, paper etc, I am all for it. But the government paying to drive an industry to burn up trees to replace more efficient energy is plane stupid, dangerous and counter productive. I think the movie pointed that out well.

          I always say, you get more of what you PAY for and less of what you tax.

          • This will likely not be read by anyone, but, this has been bothering me for days, now, so I am writing here, just for the record, just so I can stop thinking about this:

            Re: my calling biomass “horrid” (on April 21 at 7:16pm)

            I was characterizing biomass as the FILM did –> to point out their false dichotomy which falsely implied that nuclear power wasn’t a viable option.

            I, too, think that clear cutting (along with re-planting as ALL U.S. forest management companies do, e.g., Weyerhauser of my state, Washington), clearing forest clutter, etc. are not only not harmful, they are GOOD and WISE practices.

            Conclusion: biomass energy is not “horrid,” per se. It is, as Mr. Lento pointed out, inefficient, but it is not “horrid” (unless done incorrectly, e.g., burning too many old tires to get green wood to burn where the ppm of benzene in air likely to be inhaled** are too high or any like issues with a catalyst to get the biomass to burn).

            LOL — (no one will read this, either, but, HAD to write it, too)

            **MANY of the misinformed people against biomass, per se, inhale TONS (figure of speech for a LOT, okay?🙄🙂) of harmful chemicals with their filthy vaping/smoking dope habits. And THEN, they huff and puff about biomass or CO2 “pollution.”

            Okay. Now, I have made sure I don’t go down as being against biomass burning per se.

  61. When does the movie come out? Jim Carrey could play any number of these real life characters. They are l court jesters starting with Prince Charles.

  62. Essentially we are 85% of peak pop. and it may slip back to around what we have now with the spread and growth of prosperity. No metal or reasonably cheap energy, or food or any other resource is showing signs of reaching a limit.

    Remember also, we don’t demand zinc, we demand non- corrosive barn rooves, culverts, batteries… Nuclear is a no brainer, not for reducing CO2, but because it is proven tech with lots of research and dev. upside.

    Prosperity for all? The best kept secret or most ignored inconvenient truth is that some of the most famine prone, poverty stricken countries of the past are enjoying rapid growth and ability to feed themselves. 13 Asian states have over 6% gdp growth and 30 of them have over 3% growth. Bangladesh tops all with over 8% and they have just built a large clean coal fired electrical plant. India is over 6% growth and even Pakistan is over 5%.


    Lets get NGOs kicked out of Africa where they have been on safari for 60yrs and sabotaging economies and bring that continent prosperity and the everything will be fine. For goodness sake, lets rescue our own education from the Philistines.

  63. It is a good documentary. I watched the whole thing. Not very surprising I think to the regulars here. As far as it goes, the narrator is correct; current civilization depends on fossil fuel and there is no replacement. But then, the sun itself is “fossil” fuel; it will eventually run out of hydrogen to fuse. Even nuclear is fossil fuel; run out of radioactive elements.

    Are human beings going to gracefully decline to whatever passes for “sustainable”? No of course not. There was a taste of it after hurricane Katrina with a sharp increase in the price of gasoline that rippled through the economy; and our (USA) self inflicted wound on the GDP is going to make history.

  64. McKibben creates a strawman to argue against. He attempts to refute that fossil fuels have been responsible for longer lives by saying we use too much and don’t get enough exercise.

    Fine! But he ignores the important point that most of the technology that has been developed in the world have been developed in nations with high fossil fuel use. Why? Because it enables people to work on such problems when they aren’t working full time to grow food to feed themselves.

    Its OK to suggest somebody ride a bicycle more but taking away their current transportation and forcing it has other consequences.

  65. Some of the “experts” interviewed in the film admitted fear. I don’t fear because I know that God (of the Bible) is in control. I have His peace that surpasses all understanding. Is there going to be an end to humanity, and earth as we know it? Emphatically, Yes! But it is all part of God’s plan. People think God, Jesus, is meant to provide a wonderfully consistent, oasis of a life for humanity. We have it backwards, people are here to worship God – that is mankind’s purpose. Is God therefore a tyrant, a slave-master, a maniacal monarch? No. He is the creator of all things, the Universe, and He loves mankind, individually; He knows how many hairs are on each person’s head, he knows the feathers of every bird. He intimately knows all. He wants the warm loving relationship with each of us. But God is Holy, and He is just, and He is perfect and makes no mistakes.
    To know the future of the world and humanity, we must have a God perspective. Believe in Jesus, and don’t worry, God has our future in His capable hands. Don’t be caught flatfooted, believe in Jesus.

    • Its nice that you believe that, but what action does it propose to address the issues in M Moore’s film?

      • Hey, EdB,
        Glad you asked. What I said does nothing (action) to address issues in the film. Is the world (as we know it) going to end. Ans: Yes. Does what we are doing, right or wrong, make any difference? We are called to be good stewards of that which God has created; we are not completely, but there is an end coming to all this some day – when Christ Jesus returns. For our own sake, we should be more concerned about Jesus’ return and what that means for individually.
        My own world view of this environmental stuff is: 1) CO2 is a non-issue; we can emit 5 times more (presumably from “fossil fuels”) CO2 than current, and it will only serve to benefit mankind 2) CAGW is a sham; pure bullshit 3) The Climate has always changed – that’s what it does for a living 4) Al Gore only cares about Al Gore 5) If we want clean energy, go new Nuclear; there are lots of apparently viable new versions: LFTR, and various other MSR, even new takes on conventional 6) In the meantime, and in addition to: mine coal, crude, natural gas, and stop worrying about one of the wonderful gases of life: CO2. Earth’s atmospheric mass is roughly 23,000,000,000,000,000 Metric Tons, and we’re supposed to be worried about a trace gas, 0.04%, whose origins and sinks are not even understood. Sailors in nuclear submarines often and usually live in “air” that is comprised of 3000 PPM to 6000 PPM. Greenhouse operators burn fossil fueled CO2 generators to jack CO2 levels to at least 1,100 PPM for plant food.
        The film is meant to scare – that’s Michael Moore. But I’m OK with us being scared. Did not 1995 Edward R. Murray Building in OKC scare; did not 9/11 scare; has not ChiCom-19 caused scare? Would you ever have guessed any of these kinds of undamned-believable events would have happened? God did not cause these things to happen, but God did allow these things to happen. He had His people, the Jews enslaved in Egypt for 400 years, and then He had them wander in the desert for 40 years. Why? To get His stiff-necked people’s attention. I propose God is trying to get our attention. He is using another means to get our attention. “Wake up people, and hear my Word!”. The end is near, so to speak. 🙂 But wait: in Rev 21:5 God says, “Behold, I am making all things new.”
        Please seek out Jesus, the Word, and God before it is too late. Whan is too late? I have no idea, but it will come as a thief in the night; that is, when we least expect it. So don’t tarry, y’all.

      • Hmm, not really Jeff. I still think your comment in the previous post was unwarranted.

        In the previous post I think you scanned Clay’s words without thinking about their meaning and thus assumed he was saying something he wasn’t. I wonder if you didn’t give him the benefit of the doubt because it appears you have a visceral reaction to his expression of religious faith when he expresses it. But if we’re careful readers, we’re not allowed to do that. A good reason why is because what Clay’s doing here isn’t the same thing as what he was doing there.

        In this post Clay makes a positive statement regarding his approach to dealing with fear. In the previous post he was making a negative statement regarding the games climate believalist prognosticators play with the precautionary principle in order to further their anti-science based agenda.

        I’ll demonstrate.

        In the previous post, Clay begins with: “I can play that game too,” and then proceeds to speak about the return of the Son of the Creator in, e.g., Matthew 24:42. This topic sentence gives the rest of the post’s theme away, i.e., assuming he maintains that theme to the end. I think he did. The game to which Clay was referring is the requirement of propagandizing climate believalist prognosticators to push forward their prophecies far into the future because their “science” is one of hypothese non nullifiable. (That’s not a real Latin phrase but it plays one on WUWT.)

        Clay concludes with (emphasis added): “Of course NO ONE, except the Father, knows when Jesus will return, ergo, I choose 2050 because I and many of my critics will be dead by then. It’s easy to forecast something well into the future. Don’t believe anyone that does, including me.” Notice the year 2050 Clay used was also the year the climate believalist propagandist chose to use in his article to suggest when the world would finally suffer freedom from arctic ice.


        To this you responded: “So what’s Jesus been doing all this time? Playing shuffleboard?” Well, what Jesus has been “doing all this time” isn’t at all the point of Clay’s argument. In other words, Clay isn’t speaking to when Jesus will return. Rather, what Clay’s doing is using an example with which he’s familiar to argue a good point about how climate believalist propagandist communicators continue to push a plethora of anti-prognosticating poppycock to we the people. Thus, or so I would argue, your comment was unwarranted, and I said so.

        I’ve answered your question in great detail and to the best of my ability. If you have further questions, please advise. To this you owe a similar return.


        • sycomputing, you are dead-on, and it was a pleasure reading what I meant. 🙂 Sorry I caused confusion in the first place.
          Not sure what EdB is thinking, but, in any case, I only wish EdB. I do understand the controversy. I was once there myself.
          I love science, but after Australians Barry Marshall and Robin Warren swam upstream against a biased and unfriendly “consensus” of medical science, and proved in 1982 that bacteria caused ulcers, and then also after competitors Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons irrationally and prematurely, in my opinion, declared cold fusion in 1989, I lost a lot of respect/trust for/in the scientific community. I know exactly where I was when both of these revelations came to light – Helicobacter pylori on the radio as I was crossing the railroad tracks in Seagoville, Tx; at my girlfriend’s house reading the Dallas Morning News, page 7 – a little blurb about Cold Fusion. I jumped out of the chair and exclaimed, “This can’t be true!”. And I told my girlfriend that the idiots at The DMN didn’t even know what they had; next day, it was on page one.
          Anywhoo… I learned that the people behind science can be soooooo fallible, and some apparently crooked. And after 20+ years of chiding Christians, I learned that God is immutable.

          • And after 20+ years of chiding Christians, I learned that God is immutable.

            Paul . . . errr, sorry, that was my John-Wiley-Price.

            I meant to say, “Clay”:

            sycomputing, you are dead-on, and it was a pleasure reading what I meant.

            Thanks for your encouragement. It was, however, my pleasure to once again voice that which you’d already said after the first time you’d said it before I restated it here yet the second time. And since we (as in the both of us) haven’t yet together said what we’re going to have said now later, I’ll say with you for the first time what you just said by yourself alone up-thread, that is:

            “I’m with you, I too wish EdB [all the peace of grace].”

            As for your apology thanks to Jeff, well, there’s no need. I think we know the “dealio” with him if you get my “” reference (har har). And if you do btw, I’d suggest you’re spending much too much time here.

            But seriously, I have fun with Jeff. I like him. He’s got a sense of humor in here.

            Regardless, you and I know from whence it is that Jeff comes when he rails against you because of your Christianity. It isn’t his fault. You’ll make mention of that in your daily travels with you know Who, I’m sure.

            Peace my brother first, and my fellow Texan, second!

          • sycomputing, my missing word was “well” I wish EdB WELL Where it went, I do not know. Once again you saved me. Thanks.
            We are finishing up Acts, Ephesians, and James in BSF. I appreciate the comparison to Paul, but I’m no Paul; however, with me flipping to belief 20+ years ago (I’m a great-grandfather, so I’m no spring chicken), that makes me a kind of Paul. I get it. Clever what you did there.
            I discovered WUWT in early 2007, and really enjoy and appreciate Anthony, David, and all the other contributors and moderators, etc. They all understand Scientific Methodology. The so called (minority) “consensus” and the media have apparently never heard of it.
            While I have daily followed WUWT since 2007, I don’t post much, especially about Christianity, but I often see a parallel between CAGW believers and any false religion. You and I know that there is a “hole” in every human that is meant to be filled with God’s Word, but ignorant people, and the truly recalcitrant will forever try to fill the hole with false beliefs. I think environmentalism, belief in CAGW, AGW, Global Warming, Climate Change are attempts to fill the hole. And of course, you can’t fill a God shaped hole with junk and have joy as a result. BTW folks – joy is far, far superior to happiness.
            I have this thing about truth; I desire it. CAGW, and all it means is a pack of lies, and I want it exposed; to have the truth come out.
            Jesus is pure truth, love, hope and joy. So it’s strange how the name, Jesus, can cause such a fuss. The man-God who loves the world and everyone in it, is despised by so many. It doesn’t make sense. People should ask themselves about this phenomenon.

  66. It’s as if he’s educating himself on the issues of energy and the environment in between doing documentaries on the subject. At this pace, after another 3 or 4 documentaries he might be up to speed with climate change skeptics.

  67. Lot of positive comments here. Quite a few negative comments, to which I would say – don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.

    Michael Moore doesn’t always stick with factual information. In one of his films (Sicko? – I don’t remember offhand which one) he stands in a street and says “This is a Canadian slum”. Well no, it’s a mixed-use housing development that grew up on old freight yards near downtown Toronto. Some subsidized “social” housing and some private condominiums. A really nice place to live if you’re into urban living. We looked at moving there one time. Not a slum, not even close. He perhaps doesn’t appreciate that Canada hides its slums in out-of-the-way suburbs and remote “First Nation” reserves. Don’t want the tourists to be put off, do we? That was just a factoid that I could see through from my own experience; I can’t believe it’s the only time he stretched a fact or two to try and make a point.

    Anyway, this time he has got most of his facts more or less straight (except of course, the whole “climate crisis” and the supposed role of CO2).

    I hope this film will open a few eyes to the scandalous, subsidy-mining “sustainable energy” industry, the biggest theft of public money and waste of resources since – I don’t know when. Perhaps some viewers might move on to an understanding that the whole thing is a scam and that “green energy” is a not just non-solution; it’s a non-solution to a non-problem.

    It certainly won’t gain him any new friends on the left hand side of the political spectrum. What will Greta of Thunder Mountain have to say? Moore praised her in a sickeningly obsequious way last year when she single-handedly crossed the ocean in a 4-metre wooden rowing boat so she could give a good scolding to North Americans (/sarc). Greta is going to be very, very upset.

    I’m waiting for some really nasty character-assassination of Mr. Moore from his former allies.

  68. The world population may be peaking very soon. Once again the experts and their models are probably way off the mark. To maintain a steady population each female needs to have 2.1 children. China’s rate is 1.2, India has just hit 2.1, the rest of the western world is below 2.0, even Africa is dropping steadily. Brazil 1.7. Urbanisation, (now over 50% of the population) makes it very expensive to bring up a child, plus female education = low birth rates. China may have less than 700 million be centuries’ end ! This is going to destroy the Endless Growth paragon anyway. They think the only countries that will grow their popn, are those that can attract migrants, and that may become more difficult if living standards can rise generally. Both China and India have a major disparity in their male/female ratios.

    • “makes it very expensive to bring up a child, plus female education = low birth rates. ”

      We going to have revolution in Education, and we get back to more birth rates, which I think is good news.
      There is no over population problem, but there a huge problem with how people get educated- it’s too slow, too expensive, and it’s too much brainwashing.
      Earth is under populated.
      And btw, we have been in Ice Age for millions of years- everyone “knows” this, but few are educated about it.

  69. Stunning , really. He sure kicked a lot of sacred cows. It really is hard to believe that so many people believe the wind and solar yarn after decades of failure.
    I really don’t think Michael Moore or his cohorts are smart enough to worry about population.
    The human race and the planet will work it out without their help. Trends don’t continue forever.
    Not even for Tesla stock… or oil price.

  70. The problem I see is that Moore even a few weeks ago was pushing hard for Bernie, he is all on board with AOC and the Green New Deal 90% of which is what he trashes in this film that had to be in production since last year.
    So what is the real angle

    What is AOC saying? Bernie?

    • He serves two masters one of which is Bill Gates who paid for it via ‘intermediaries’ as part of his Nuclear business ambitions.
      Who do you think paid for this expensively filmed and produced free flick?

        • re: “Is there proof of that?”

          What is your threshold for “proof”? Would the following suffice?


          Terrapower – “A Nuclear Innovation Company”
          Best-in-class talent demonstrating clean energy solutions

          With the growing demand for electricity, TerraPower entered the nuclear energy arena to lift billions out of poverty. Advanced reactors and other isotopic applications are possible with technology and enhanced computing capabilities that were unimaginable just a few decades ago. At TerraPower, we are ready to build the clean energy of tomorrow – today.


          BILL GATES
          Chairman of the Board
          Bill Gates is co-founder of Microsoft, co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and founder and chairman of TerraPower.

          Since 2006, Gates has also served as chairman of TerraPower, a company he helped launch in 2006 that aims to provide the world with a more affordable, secure and environmentally friendly form of nuclear energy.

          • Good for Bill Gates. I know he is funding his own nuclear plant design, plus at least one more. (molten salt Thorium).

            Google trashed renewables already.

            I applaud Bill Gates stepping up with reactor solutions.

  71. When you see something like this production, the stand out is not the revelation of that which you already know, mainly that the Greens are rich hypocrites, we already understand that, he just confirms it in a film producers style.
    The stand out is what he does not say and never mentions. The nuclear energy option, which would resolve the energy issues without destroying environmental sustainability of green growth. That never gets a look in?
    He asks the Green high priests what they think about biomass, they struggle to give an answer for all the obvious reasons.
    Not once do we see Moore asking the same hypocrites what they think about the nuclear energy options?
    Overall I will give Moore a “B+”, he is making a much needed point and taking it to the holier than thou crowd of Green advocates, but he stopped short of seeking a real solution.
    Maybe he thinks taking out five billion people is a real option?
    Maybe there will be a follow up film?
    “The less human Planet”

    • The nuclear energy option

      For the PC culture, nuclear energy is “that what must not be named”.

  72. Never thought I’d be reviewing a Michael Moore flick, but here goes…

    On the one hand, this flick exposes the corruption fueling the Climatastrophist religion. (Sad but telling to see adherents convinced of their morality but unable to answer a simple question without a script.)

    On the other hand, the dystopian vision echoes the 1983 flick “Koyaanisqatsi” and ’70s Malthusian population-control books by Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren that claim the only solution is an autocracy with authority to limit reproduction by any means.

    What is inadvertently exposed is the degree to which governmental redistribution of income allows the corruption to occur. Influential corporations fund wasteful schemes with governmental investment (subsidies). The “poor,” who pay no federal income tax and see no stake in how government funds are spent, are unlikely to complain.

    What is missing is the role of the Obama administration and EU bureaucrats in creating this vast squandering of resources to no good end.

    • Verde: Just finished the film [it’s better at at 1.5 x speed!] and I have to agree with you.
      It is ironic that the Greens have become the ‘evil corporations’ that they so despise. And
      conventional industries are more than willing to make a profit from the Left side of the equation.
      His take-down of solar, wind, batteries and biomass should be seen by everyone.
      And the section that I label ‘follow the money’ is eye-opening too.

      Jeff Gibbs (he wrote & directed it; M. Moore produced it) goes after his two ‘elephants in the room’ :
      1) renewables won’t supply adequate energy and will actually make things worse, and
      2) over population is the underlying driver of it all.
      But he fails to mention that the whole premise of catastrophic climate change is based on the
      chimera of CO2. That’s the original elephant in the room.
      And everyone should watch all the credits at the end. Al Gore has never been sleazier!

  73. If your worldview is driven by the evolutionary hypothesis, then you will be worried!

    If you realize that DNA is proof that there is a God and He is extremely intelligent, then there is nothing to worry about! He formed this planet to be inhabited!

    Satellite imagery, over the last 30 years, has shown that the planet is greening! Plants love CO2, and ares showing their approval by growing in places where they didn’t used to grow!

    As there are more and more people we discover more efficient ways to grow food! The more people there are the better off we are!

    Michael Moore’s idea, that the earth needs to be depopulated, is a monstrous idea very much like the ideas of one Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Mao Tse Dong! All 3 of them rolled up into one criminal mastermind!

    NO! The human race is not in control of this planet, and when we try to take control there will be atrocities! Guaranteed!

    Every time one group thinks their ideas take precedence over the lives of other people, there are always atrocities!

Comments are closed.