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.
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.
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.
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.
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%.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Asian_states_by_GDP_growth
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sycomputing, see what I mean?
Jeff, thank you for reading what I wrote.
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.
https://tinyurl.com/ycpm65l2
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.
NOW WHERE’S MY DEFINITION OF “SYH” MISTER?!?!
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.
Paul . . . errr, sorry, that was my John-Wiley-Price.
I meant to say, “Clay”:
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.
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.
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.
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.
“… carbon emissions from Germany (closing nuclear power plants, pushing up renewables, still burning coal and increasing natural gas) vs France (75% nuclear)”
https://youtu.be/jV4xWmoTZUE
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.
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?
Is there proof of that?
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
https://www.terrapower.com/
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.
https://www.terrapower.com/people/bill-gates/
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.
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”.
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!
This video also explains why mainstream media lies about climate change :
https://youtu.be/YVwg-bI5DdY
Why do 53% of meteorologists agree with the consensus on climate change?
Worthless.. he sure is wrong about the oil industry lacking supplies.
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!