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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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?
https://reason.com/2011/05/17/the-difference-between-a-tax-b/
_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:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/angelinvestor.asp
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:
“noun
1.
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.
@ur momisugly 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
@ur momisugly 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:
“noun
1.
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.
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.
“… our out-of-control human presence and consumption …”.
Mike’s an expert:
Megafauna.
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.
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.
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.
One hour and forty minutes is a non-starter. No Thanks.
Almost all documentaries can be watched at 1.25x speed without loss of comprehension. Sometimes, 1.5x or higher is possible.
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.
Not “ever increasing” population growth, just for the next 50 years – a 50% increase. Its that increase combined with an increasing per capita consumption piled on top a biosphere already dying from a thousand cuts with seven billion. What could possibly go wrong with eleven?
https://ourworldindata.org/region-population-2100
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.
“Biosphere already dying”
What color is the sky in your world?
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
“woke up to the scam” not work – thanks for releasing my post.
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.
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.
Ralph
Ralph, remind me again how many new hydraulic fracturing wells in the UK this year.
If you frack off shore, does it annoy the whales.
Shouldn’t we be annoying the whales?
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.
How much CO2 is being released by people, possibly individuals, streaming this documentary?
(not that it really matters)
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.
I sat through the whole thing all the way to the end, and I think I heard the word nuclear once.
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.
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.
Whenever i see Moore I can only think of Team America: World Police
Never thought Michael Moore would make a film like this. He has b*lls.
Understandably, it took him a while to find them.
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.
McKibben didn’t know who funds his organization. Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Got him with that one!
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.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GEVO?p=GEVO
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.
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.
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.