Climate Activists Want Michael Moore’s Doc Panning Green Energy Banned, Say It’s Chock Full Of Misinformation

From The Daily Caller

Daily Caller News Foundation logo

Chris White Tech Reporter April 26, 2020 1:29 PM ET

Anti-fossil fuel activists unsuccessfully attempted to browbeat the film producer behind a Michael Moore documentary panning green energy into permanently removing the movie over claims that it contains pro-oil industry misinformation.

Activist Josh Fox, climate scientist Michael Mann and other environmentalists signed onto a petition Friday asking the producer to take down “Planet of the Humans,” saying Moore’s film relies on old data to claim solar and wind energy is dependent on fossil fuels. Films for Action initially nixed the film before putting it back online, saying the move was meant to engage in debate.

“We are disheartened and dismayed to report that the film is full of misinformation — so much so that for half a day we removed the film from the site,” Films for Action noted in a press statement Saturday. “Ultimately, we decided to put it back up because we believe media literacy, critique and debate is the best solution to misinformation.”

The company then shared some of its thoughts on the film’s premise, which was directed by environmentalist Jeff Gibbs and argued human beings are the problem, not energy production. Films for Action decided that effectively banning the film would be a form of censorship. (RELATED: Michael Moore Rolls Out A Doc Ahead Of Earth Day Destroying A Common Enviro Left Narrative)

“We still need to transition to 100% renewable energy. There is no other option. But the delusion that we need to dispel is the idea that renewables can power our industrial civilization as is, and that these technologies are entirely ‘green’ when they are themselves still destructive,” Films for Action noted in the statement.

Gibbs and Moore lashed into wind, solar and biomass in particular.

“Green energy is not going to save us,” Gibbs noted in the film before focusing his ire on environmentalists Bill McKibben, Van Jones, Robert F. Kennedy and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, all of whom push for a combination of solar panels, nuclear or wind power to replace oil production.

Fox, who’s perhaps best known for producing the anti-fracking film “Gasland,” told his Twitter followers Friday that the attempt to take down the film was successful. He included in the tweet a screenshot of Films for Action’s statement, which did not include the section of the post explaining why the producer opted not to take down the film.

Screenshot of a tweet from activist Josh Fox praising Films for Action’s initial decision to take down the film (Screenshot/Tweet)

“I just received notice that the distributor of Michael Moore’s #PlanetoftheHumans is taking the film down due to misinformation in the film,” Fox wrote before criticizing Moore. “My hero has fallen. I have watched @MMFlint PUNCH UP at authority and hypocrisy with glee for his whole career. He has deeply inspired me and taught me. But now he’s the Goliath in the room, PUNCHING DOWN at us.”

Neither Fox, Mann nor “Planet of the Humans” have replied to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment. Mann, a Pennsylvania State University professor, has been criticized in recent years for embellishing his credentials. Environmentalists wrote reviews of the film after it was posted for free on YouTube claiming that the movie relies on old, outdated information.

Fox is a proponent of the Green New Deal, a policy idea meant to aggressively transition the United States away from the oil industry.

225 thoughts on “Climate Activists Want Michael Moore’s Doc Panning Green Energy Banned, Say It’s Chock Full Of Misinformation

  1. There’s a lot of money to be had in the renewables industry. Unfortunately, a lot of it comes from tax dollars or credits.

    • Almost all of it comes from redistributed wealth. It also proves that they’re worthless because wouldn’t they be profitable if they generated large amounts of electricity?

      • The worst thing is that they redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich. If you can’t afford solar panels on your roof, you end up subsidising those who can.

        • It seems the rich left wants to kill the poor.

          The world going end in 11 years, and reason is world going end is over population.
          There are a lot poor people in the world and not many rich lefties.
          And the rich lefties could probably find a few rich lefties they wouldn’t mind, dead.
          And rich lefties can do some math: billions of poor people have to die.
          And China is the model, forceful abort their children, tax them to death, and weld them
          into building to die.

          • gbaikie – that is exactly the message I heard too. For environmentalists and green academics to have their utopia, the rest of us have to go, except for essential services, of course, but the peons need to live in poverty under totalitarian control.

            Nothing new that I saw in this film, the Green Scam has been obvious for decades, but I didn’t realise how far the biomass scam had gotten. And now Michael Moore finally notices? I wonder if he didn’t get his cut from someone and this is his revenge.

          • I watched the whole thing. Typical Michael Moore style, but I saw nothing in the actual facts about “renewable” energy that were wrong. Renewables are not up to the job.

            Later on, when they segued into End of the World scenarios they had a lot of factual problems. The main one is that the best way to reduce the population and the effects of people is to get the people out of dire poverty. A wealthy country is a happy country and can realistically take steps to reduce human impact without wars or pogroms. Wealthier people have fewer children because they don’t need 4,5,6 or more kids(half of whom die young) to survive

          • It’s much much simpler. People who have real jobs don’t have time to waste protesting. Conversely, people who have time to protest don’t have real lives, don’t understand real lives, and don’t know they don’t understand real people.

            They aren’t intentionally evil. They are just ignorant. Add in all the time they spend protesting, and they grab all the political attention necessary to push their well-intentioned agenda. Add in politicians, who also have no familiarity with real people and their real lives, and you have 2/3 of the recipe for trouble. The other 1/3 is government itself, a bureaucracy with a monopoly on violence whose own employees define its limits,

            Protesters + politicians + government. That’s the problem.

        • ‘An inconvenient truth’ was found to have some basic flaws. No doubt the Moore movie has incorrect information as well. We need to know what the inaccuracies are so we can admit to them, counter them and we can then use the Moore film to its best advantage

          tonyb

          • This is key. The claims of factual mistakes are not accompanied by any specific examples. That may tell you something about the claims.

            But if they are there, identify them and move on with the factual claims.

          • Yes Paul. That’s just like shouting “you are wrong” at someone.

            They accuse someone of misinformation but are not able to say what it is they find wrong. The accusation falls there and goes no further.

            Some handwaving claims that this is “fuel industry” misinformation is equally baseless.

            What they need to address is that this is not a film produced by Heartland Inst. or some other “right wing” group, it produced and directed by people who for decades have been on their side of the argument.

            Like when Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore started outing their stupidity and malfeasance, you know it has to be taken seriously.

            We need more Moores !

          • The biggest irony is that Fox, who produced “Gasland”, complains because a film contains “inaccuracies” and “misinformation”. It was my recollection he eventually owned up to some of the whoppers in that film.

            Mann of course is clearly confused regarding the line between a scientist and an activist.

          • Claims of MULTIPLE factual errors are bogus. Michael Moore movies have too few facts to blow up a light bulb.

          • “Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
            Riding through the land
            Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
            Without a merry band
            He steals from the poor.
            And gives to the rich
            Stupid bitch”

            “Dennis Moore” ~ Monty Python

      • Have you ever noticed that those who are most in favor of “redistribution of the wealth” envision themselves as being the ones who end up with other people’s stuff.

    • The CA PUC forced PG&E to divert their time, energy, and $ Resources into “renewable, alternative energy sources”. In exchange, the CA PUC allowed PG&E to systematically raise rates … slowly … boiling the dumb frogs who keep writing huge checks each month to PG&E … transferring my wealth to God knows who?

      And for the coup de Gras … the CA PUC by orders of Gov. Jerry Brown … diverted their time and $ resources away from basic maintenance … causing numerous fires … destroying the environment, people, and improvements. Some decision-makers at the Gov’s. Office and the CPUC need to held criminally responsible for interfering with a public utility for personal gain and political agenda. Criminally responsible for manslaughter.

      Transferring PG&E’s revenues into their cronies pockets … resulting in the horrifying deaths of 100’s of Californians.

      • Fires caused the deaths, the fires may have started by electrical shorts, but that probably happens in California hundreds of times a day in all sorts of situations, a friend had his business burnt out that way. The difference is the vegetation and the preceeding dry period. People living in fire prone areas and hoping they escape in time only had themselves to blame, just as happened in Australia.

          • It was. The biggest problem is that environmental regulations made it difficult to maintain the right of ways.

      • “Some decision-makers at the Gov’s. Office and the CPUC need to held criminally responsible… Too right! :<)

  2. I agree. Anything with disinformation should be banned. Oh, wait. I’m not on the panel that makes that decision. Never mind.

    • Hahahahaha !! The left attacking the left view….Australia’s ABC won’t cover MM’s view…chuckle…

      • typical isnt it?
        hes their hero, and then…hes not
        just like the ABC and their dags(bits that hang off a sheep butt) treated Ian Plimer who they gave 3 or more Eureka awards for science until he spoke out about the co2 issue beign utterly wrong
        ditto quite a few others Like Bob Carter and anyone who dares question their meme
        Robin williams has a death grip on what passes for “science” on the abc and is ensuring proteges are also indoctrinated HIS way
        the avowed human hater/ex? commie running the LNL show is the same warmist claptrap at every chance

    • So true – I saw an amusing truism the other day : if you want to piss off a Conservative, tell a lie; if you want to piss off a Leftie/Greenie, tell the truth!

    • I’m pretty sure he mispronouced somebodies name, which is sufficient to prove that everything in it is wrong.

        • I can’t debate someone I have zero respect for. It would bring down my value.

          I also stutter and avoid public speaking like the coronavirus.

        • As biased as Mann’s hokey stick is, unfortunately it has more scientific basis than Zoe’s 14 second delay heating calculation plus unique denial of the existence of the radiative greenhouse effect….

          • What do you mean MY calculation?

            It’s the official greenhouse effect calculation. There is no other.

            If you have an alternative way to derive the official final ~155 W/m^2 GHG effect on Earth, why don’t you share it with us …

          • You think Mann was justified in gluing GLOBAL temperature data to an average of several LOCAL tree proxies?

            Really?

            Denying the existence of something that doesn’t exist is called good science.

            What evidence do you have that the GH effect exists?

            It’s a post-hoc and false-attribution fallacy followed by circular reasoning.

          • Until CO2 prevents atmospheric convection, in no way is there such a thing as a ‘greenhouse’ effect.

          • “radiative greenhouse effect”

            LOL

            We could wait forever for you to provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2. Brain-washed unsupportable belief, is all you have.

          • @ Dergy,

            The only gas that has a measurable and calculatable effect on convection, is H2O

            Increased atmospheric CO2 would actually cause a tiny increase in the lapse rate.

          • Zoe, aka Joe….
            Yes, there is a radiative greenhouse effect and, Yes, there is CO2 warming (but more H2O warming),
            The amount of heat being radiated from one surface to another is
            q/a= [k/(1/ehot+1/ecold-1] x (Thot^4-Tcold^4).
            The ground is at Thot due to being warmed by sunshine,
            If the atmosphere was only N2 and O2, it would be completelely transparent to Infrared. In that case, Thot would be ground temperature and Tcold would be outer space at -270 C. But CO2 and H2O readily absorb and reradiate IR. Because the H2O and CO2 are the same temperature in the atmosphere as the N2 and O2, the ground radiates to “the sky” instead of outer space, and the “sky” is much warmer than outer space. You can take an IR thermometer and typically read the temperature of clouds at about freezing and blue sky down to -80, but $40 IR guns do not have proper emissivity settings to be accurate for this job. Anyway my point is that the ground temp will warm more in the sunshine in order to radiate the same amount of heat it receives from the sun, when there are radiating gases between the ground and outer space. That extra temperature is caused by the Sun, but is a result of the greenhouse gases mixed with the Nitrogen and Oxygen in the atmosphere. That is the Radiative Green House effect, RGHE. And you should not forget that by the top of the troposphere, H2O concentration is only half that of CO2. Your denying RGHE is an embarrassment.

          • Zoe vs Mann is pretty much a draw, we probably have to make a decision based on volume of junk written.

          • DMac,

            You just spouted off ideological mathematics posing as physics.

            I apply your ideological mathematics to a blanket and get a prediction.

            Then I look at empirical evidence, and see that it’s completely false.

            Retard, empricial evidence trumps ideology.

            You believe in the conservation of heat flow, which has no existence in the real world.

            No one cares about your ideological thought experiments.

            You failed to prove the existence of the greenhouse effect. You just keep asserting it.

            Show ONE experiment that demonstrates your theory!

          • By applying the laws of radiation to a blanket all you have done is prove that you don’t have clue as to what you are doing. (From the guy who believes you can’t have an atmosphere without geothermal energy.)

      • Scissor & Fred250: I think the “radiative heating theory” implies that atm CO2 heats the oceans…impressive how it works:

        7.975E+20 lbs wtr in the ocean, appx, in upper 1 km

        1.1 F dT (assumes 0.6 C dT)
        0.96 btu/lbF spec ht sea wtr
        8.422E+20 btu absorbed by upper 1 km
        60 yrs
        525600 hrs in 60 yrs
        1.602E+15 btu/hr
        4.695E+14 W, power driving ocean dT assuming 0.6C dT of upper 1 km
        469 TW,
        2.77E+15 sq ft ocean surface
        2.54362E+14 sq m ocean surface
        1.8 W/m^2 where have I seen this number b4?
        1067 ocean heat cap/atm heat cap
        0.00173 W/m^2 atm cap for same dT

        83640 TW, solar power reaching surface of planet
        164 W/m^2, solar power flux surface of planet
        1.13E-02 ocean power flux/solar power flux
        5.61E-03 power absorbed by ocean/solar power at surface of planet

        1.83E+10 W, power driving atm dT based on NC dT

        3.89E-05 atm warming power/ocean warming power
        25691 CO2 warms the ocean 26000X more than the atm

    • 100% Zoe. A body kept warm is not the same as raising its temperature.
      So, what has all the fuss been about really, over the years? Is it simply that some are talking about something completely different to what they think they are talking about?
      Quite frankly, I know that some of the much more learned and experienced, (to me) contributors to the debate, have disagreed with the ”cool body warming the warm body” saying that it is possible, but I can only see in their explanation, exactly what you are saying. Heat can transfer between two bodies, but temperature will only move in one direction. Temperatures do not add together to make even higher temperatures. Including two bodies at the same temperature.
      The temperature of a warmer body, such as the Earth, cannot be raised, by adding heat energy returning to it from the cooler Atmosphere.

      • Alas Eamon,
        you are missing the physical meaning of the energy of photons emitted by a body at temperature, which is proportional to T^4 of the body, and radiative heat transfer between bodies, which is proportional to Thot^4 – Tcold^4 and is always from hot to cold. This is a result of reading junk descriptions like Zoe’s…..

        • DMacKenzie,
          Individual photons do not care what the temperature was of the object that emitted it, nor does it refuse to be absorbed by an object that has a higher temperature. What you are talking about is the average behavior of large numbers of photons. Since a hotter object will have fewer atoms, on average, in the proper (low) energy state to absorb an IR photon, it will not warm up as much as a colder object which has, on average, more atoms in the proper (low) energy state.

          A lot of the confusion revolving around these topics comes from a misunderstanding of what “temperature” is really measuring. For example, what is the real units of measure for temperature? Hint: it’s not degrees anything; those are just relative differences from something else, like the freezing point of water. If you solve the gas law for T, what units of measure do you end up with?

          • Not sure what you are trying to say, Paul. Planck’s curve and Wien’s Law are pretty clear physics. Not to mention E=hv…..yes they are macro effects of quantum mechanical phenomenon if that is where you are coming from.

          • What I’m addressing is this idea that “heat doesn’t flow from a cold object to a hot object” which may not be true depending on your definition of “heat” and “flow”. My point is that when the “cold” object emits photons, they can indeed be absorbed by the “hot” object. Now, over time, the “cold” object will absorb more photons from the “hot” object than vice versa. So if you see “heat flow” in terms of net radiative energy transfer then the statement “heat doesn’t flow from a cold object to a hot object” is true. But if you look at it from a quantum mechanical perspective, it’s not true. So a lot of the problems are with imprecise language.

            Another example of that is “temperature”, as I stated earlier. Temperature is a measurement of energy density, not “heat energy”. Solve the gas law for T if you don’t believe me. What people think of as “heat energy” is actually the total kinetic energy of all the molecules in a given volume. It’s when people conflate these terms (because they don’t really understand them) that they come to incorrect conclusions.

            In science it’s important to be concise, specific, and consistent.

          • Paul P: Science or concise or not they got a word for all that…”entropy”.

            C’aint stick a thermometer or even a fork in it.

            But it works pretty well in this sort of discussion about which way the photon go.

      • What you consider “heat transfer” is actually the net of two flows. One from the warm body to the cold one and a second from the cold body to the warm one.
        Obviously the flow out of the hot object will be a lot more than the flow out of the cold one, but that outflow is still there.
        When the cold body warms up, the outflow from it increases and some of that energy will end up in the warm body.

        This is basic science here.

        Question: How do you tell the difference between preventing something from cooling, and warming it directly?

        • Conservation of heat flow is not a thing.

          The colder object’s electrons do not drop to the lowest energy level as if it’s surrounded by 0 kelvin, while at the same time being raised by the hotter object.

          Electron energy level drops only where there is a potential for it to drop, i.e. when it’s surrounder by a colder object.

          • Every time you post I come away further convinced that you are either totally delusional or incapable of understanding anything you don’t want to understand.

            What’s this “conservation of heat flow” crap? Is it another fictional thing that you have invented so that you can disprove it?

            Your second paragraph makes even less sense.

            Electrons drop to the lower levels all the time. They do this because the lowest energy levels are the most stable. I also have no idea what you are talking about in regards to what surrounds atoms, You seem to be working under the assumption that all atoms are in physical contact with each other.

            Grow up, read some high school physics, then come back.

          • You’re conserving heat flow, not energy.

            In normal physics, the hotter object cools, and the cooler object warms – lowering the heat flow until a possible ZERO.

            In climate junk science, the warm object warms itself because the heat flow must remain fixed at the same level as outflow of colder object to space.

            There is not a single experiment to back them up, but these filthy low lifes insist it happens anyway.

            Mark thinks that the orbits of electrons of a 1K object are the same as a 273K object.

            He thinks the lowest orbit for a body at a given temperature is the same for all temperatures.

            He confuses lowest with lower.

            Then he projects his gross incompetence onto others.

          • As usual, you aren’t making any sense.
            Heat flow is merely energy in motion, conserving it is a concept that has no basis in any form of reality recognized by science.
            Net heat flow even more so.

            In normal science all object radiate, the hotter the object, the more it radiates. Your concept of cooling and warming is not rational.

            This has been explained to you many times by many people. The fact that you prefer to believe in fantasies isn’t my problem.

            “the heat flow must remain fixed at the same level as outflow of colder object to space.”
            Completely wrong. There is no such thing as “heat flow”. Objects radiate, and they radiate based on their temperature. The temperature of nearby objects makes no difference whatsoever. There are thousands of experiments that back this up.

            “Mark thinks that the orbits of electrons of a 1K object are the same as a 273K object.”
            Not only do you not know the first thing about actual physics, you can’t even be bothered to quote others accurately. Definitely the mind of a crank.

            The lowest orbit (sic) of an electron is determined by the atom, not the temperature.

            Someone who can’t even be bothered to accurately quote another man’s positions has no room to be calling others incompetent. You would need a few years worth of study just to reach the level of an embarrassment.

          • MarkW: bearing all of your salient points in mind, what does the word “radiate” mean?

            What does the word “temperature” mean?

            What does the concept of “absolute zero” mean in terms of temperature?

            I think what you are saying is I can shine a hand held flash light on a star, and:

            The flash light photons directed at the star will impart more energy to that star.

            Yet the “heat flow” song remains the same, the same star still radiates from hot to cold… the heat seems to know which way to go.

            Entropy, it’s an idea unlike a rib roast that you can’t stick a thermometer in, but one that serves us all well.

            Who needs electrons anyway?

        • MarkW: Simple.

          Imagine a thermos bottle full of hot water surrounded by a colder heat sink called “air”

          Assume the mass of the colder heat sink is infinite while it’s temperature is constant.

          Wait for a day or two and check it’s temperature. It will be the same as the heat sink.

          Now take the same bottle full of U235 shy of critical mass, wait a day or two and the bottle will still be hot.

          The insulation does not make the source hot.

          • Mark,
            There is no use debating meiggs/zoe…..as Mark Twain said…..”They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.“

    • I second your observation, Jim. The leftist extremist activists are the worst when it comes to threats to their bubble of climate orthodoxy.

    • Jim: on the topic of free speech, any plans to issue an updated “Landscapes & Cycles?” Would enjoy your perspective on what’s come to pass since it was published. Great read btw, good to know there is still a bit of sense out there somewhere.

    • Jim Steele ==> I surprise myself by actually watching the movie (mostly — listening while working on other projects). I seldom watch YouTubes at all — too time consuming — I’d rather read transcripts in 1/4 the time.

      The truly NEW information for me was the number of BIOMASS plants built and operating — incredible in today’s world of awareness of the importance of forests in maintaining the planetary ecology. Somehow, under the radar of public consciousness, they have been building thousands of plants that burn trees to make electricity. Back to the 1890s!

      Where were the environmentalists while this was being done? Where were the tree-huggers? Lulled by the fake idea that burning trees is GREEN?

      Jim, do you think that Gibbs and Moore were exaggerating the number of biomass plants?

      • Agreed. I did not know there were that many plants burning away our forests. The greens are so ignorant that they got fooled by the word “biomass” or “biofuel”. The lefties should be upset the Koch brothers are in there. The film shows how incompetent Mckibben is.

  3. I really do think we need a worldwide campaign to call out people like Josh Fox for what they really are – SNOW DENIERS.

    We all know that Al Gore and his merry band of climate ‘scientists’ made claims decades ago that by now snow would be a thing of the past.

    They were completely wrong. Even here in Australia we are expecting some snowfalls in late April and early May. That’s really early in the year for snow in Australia.

    Just call the left out, call them what they really are – SNOW DENIERS. Take the climate narrative back from the left.

  4. You can say that something is full of misinformation all you want. That doesn’t make it so. If you want us to believe you, you have to be very specific. We won’t be taken in by hand waving. How about getting a judge to rule that there are specific untruths in Moore’s film … like what happened to Al Gore. link

      • Moore is just a guy who figures out how to make a buck from documentaries by making them “edgy”. As in the edge of a wave that the public might “buy into”. It is interesting that by backing this movie, he probably feels a wave of people being fed up with “big environmentalism” baloney is coming and is something he can make a viable documentary about. Otherwise the documentary is just the usual Malthusian “we got too many people” stuff, with no constructive solution.

    • They need to be careful for bans on misinformation about half the green propoganda out there would fall foul of that.

  5. From the above article: “Films for Action decided that effectively banning the film would be a form of censorship.”

    Amazing . . . what great thinking went into reaching this conclusion!

  6. Charles, I suspect there’s a typo in the post’s title.

    Unless I’ve woken up in a parallel universe where climate activists actually OBJECT to misinformation, I think you meant “force-fed to school children,” not “banned.”

    The mental image of them suddenly growing a sense of probity did brighten my morning though. (Who do they think they are, skeptics?) Well worth the cost of a new keyboard 😉

  7. Biggest thing wrong with Planet film is that it totally ignores fusion energy as an alternative. Take of look at “Let There be Light” for info on that. It also goes back to the old “overpopulation is the problem” lie at a time when urban populations around the world are having fewer than two kids per couple. The only place population is growing rapidly is Africa. Does Moore want to say that they are the problem?

    • Fusion energy? You mean that stuff that’s only 10 years away?

      It must be viable. It’s very consistent. It’s been 10 years away for about 50 years now…

      • Fusion needs research, just like, say a vaccine needs research. That needs money. The money spent on fusion in the last 50 years is vastly less than the money spent to get to the Moon. Less than a week’s spending on fossil fuels, even at these prices. Also, governments made a huge mistake in focusing on only one approach. Funding all approaches that are possible–a crash program– is needed. That would still cost less than 200,000 barrels of oil a day–kind of a rounding error. But it could provide energy that is far cheaper than any available today, because it is far denser–just the opposite of solar and wind.

        • I agree that fusion needs far more cash. At the moment the subsidies going to wind and solar are just paying more for the same product – except it’s actually a worse product, because it delivers in its own sweet time.

          Spend money on research, not subsidising inefficient producers.

        • Eric, please give us numbers. I don’t believe that the ITER or the NIF are cheap. Do you consider results up-to-day to be promising?

      • In October 1968 at a introductory university lecture we were told that practical Nuclear Fusion was twenty five years away. I am now seventy and practical Nuclear Fusion is still twenty five years away.

    • We have a huge fusion reactor which will operate without any maintenance for millions of years.
      It’s called the Sun.
      If you imagine it’s not strong enough at 1 AU distance, then, move closer to it.
      But if just get away from Earth’s dense and cloudy atmosphere, you can get plenty of power from
      it at 1 AU distance.

      • Yeah, but at most for half the time. What do you do during the time when Solar is not available?

        • Right, you want electrical power source that is available most of the time, and on Earth surface solar energy is only practical for growing food**.
          Due to Earth thick atmosphere, even when one has clear skies, whenever sun is low on horizon, it provides very little energy. But adding clouds, seasons and you get solar energy at best for only for about 25% of any average day. Even if in Low orbit, the planet Earth blocks a significant amount of sunlight- unless you in sun synchronous orbit.

          ** Though Solar energy is pretty good if you need hot water, and it’s easy to store hot water.

          • “on Earth surface solar energy is only practical for growing food**.”
            Plants have wonderfully evolved such that they need darkness to reverse the photosynthesis thereby releasing CO2 to grow. So you are right!

            Us pesky people learned to control our own surrounding climate using access to cheap reliable energy –and we, for the most part, thrive because of that human ability… From the beginning of humanity, we learned how to burn the abundant stuff at our will to elevate our status.

            The so called greenies want us to go backwards to a harsher life. Michael Moore’s solution seems to try another way to save the Planet FROM the Humans, which is to limit (eliminate?) Humans from the unfortunate Planet which has been overtaken by us humans.

            There, that is my synopsis!

          • That human are bad, is wrongheaded, and humans are only known way of saving Life on planet Earth.
            Now, if you hate biological life, human are also only known pathways to artificial life.

            But if you just hate any kind of life, I don’t know, but it does seem rather boring.

            Anyhow if environmentalist want to save life, I think they need a plan.
            And this solar system has lots of big enough rocks which can wipe out all life on Earth.
            And our Sun is not going to last forever.
            Life on Earth has been about 4 billion year, “project” and in such time periods, there doesn’t seem to be much time left- particularly, if you exclude humans in your scheme.
            And humans have the capacity, to do a lot within a very short time period.
            Or if anything is magical, it seems to be humans.

            And if gong to believe in a Gaia god or any god, it seems the least you do have some modicum of respect for your god.

    • It also still follows the brain-washed “CO2 is bad”, meme,

      … when in fact, the atmosphere and the world’s plant life could actually use quite a bit more of it..

      • I wonder, do you think schools will force feed Mike Moore’s movie to the kids every year like they did Al Gore’s movie?

        I somehow doubt it.

    • Nothing like ignorance of nuclear’s future, which can be summed up in two words: molten salt.
      Anyone who fails to mention molten salt SMRs is not qualified to make any statements about energy, present or future.

  8. “Fox, who’s perhaps best known for producing the anti-fracking film “Gasland,””

    In other words, he has no problems with lying so long as it advances the cause.

    • Remember the mantra of the post modernist Marxist

      “Truth is relative to culture”

      So by changing culture you can rewrite Truth.

      Magic! (Literally)

      Roger Scruton pointed out the flaw,
      “Truth is relative to culture” is only True for one culture…

      This is a wonderful example of the problem of recursive logic and indeed recursion in general which anyone who has read Douglas Hofstatder will be familiar with. (e.g. Gödel, Escher, Bach).

      Defining something in terms of itself is in the end creating unprovable (and undisprovable) assumptions (i.e. metaphysical ones).

      This has been a particular study of mine, and the conclusions one reaches is that the whole panoply of Leftist/Liberal/Progressive thinking in itself is fundamentally based on false premises. The Left is simply not very smart or discerning when it comes to thinking.

      A very simple test will serve to distinguish between people on either side of an interesting intellectual divide. Are they illuminating you, or indoctrinating you? Do they claim to have the Truth, or simply a more useful way of looking at stuff, that seems to work better?

      If the former, you know instantly they are at best third class intellects, who have only ever rote learnt anything, and think that because they learnt it from Egg Spurts, it’s The One Truth, if the latter, then you know that they are experienced enough and wise enough to have understood that Knowledge is not Truth, and only small people need to think that it is.

      The Law of Gravity is not True, but if you want to predict the fall of objects it is handy to proceed AS IF. it were. To date. Making no promises or guarantees about the future, which is hard to predict, as Yogi Bear once said. Or something.

  9. Any pathetic coward that wants their opposition’s opinion banned probably doesn’t have the ability to support it’s own position.

    • > Any pathetic coward that wants their opposition’s opinion banned probably doesn’t have the ability to support it’s own position.

      Or maybe they consider it dangerously irresponsible to give oxygen to crank views.

      Science is all about debate, and scientist love nothing better than debating—but not with people who disagree with them. That would be grossly unethical, because the public would just get confused and think the science is debatable.

      (Declining to debate your opponents without giving the mistaken impression that you’re a “pathetic coward” can be tricky, so always follow the guidelines here. It’s jam-packed with tricks for hiding your decline.)

      Calling for a free contest of ideas isn’t respect for the First Amendment, it’s blackmailing the facts into sharing a stage with misinformation.

      On the off chance that someone besides me speaks propositional calculus, allow me to prove this thus:

      Logically complementary claims—e.g. A and not-A—have Boolean values 0 and 1 (or 1 and 0, depending on what ‘A’ stands for) as a matter of axiomatic truism.

      By giving equal time to True and False claims, you are reducing the quality of the average discourse to 0.5.

      Which is all you folks need, isn’t it, to ensure deadlock on climate change until it’s too late to literally save the planet. Well, that’s all fun and games until it works.

      But the climate community isn’t going to stand for the dilatory chicanes of debatalist cunctators.

      Scientists have already lost one planet this century. They’re not about to sit around protesting peacefully while Earth goes the way of Pluto.

      • All climate alarmist “scientists” are followers of Fourier, a geothermal denier.

        Why should anyone listen to imbeciles who accept a false premise in their “science”?

        Listening to climate alarmist “scientists” is like taking financial advise from Marxist “economists”. Their premises are nonsense, their methodology is suspect, and their conclusions are more nonsense.

        • Listening to climate alarmist “scientists” is like taking financial advise from Marxist “economists”. Their premises are nonsense, their methodology is suspect, and their conclusions are more nonsense.

          THAT is the key to understanding Liberals as you Americans call them. Their premises are nonsense. Methodology can be reasonable.

          One of the most frightening examples in political history which few people seem to have the courage to attempt to understand, is the rise of fascism and anti-Semitism in particular in Germany, leading up to the horrors of the Holocaust. And yet, examined dispassionately given the premises on which it was based the Holocaust was the correct proper and logical outcome. Before you throw the keyboard through the screen let me add, that the flaw was of course in the premise, not the logic.

          The Premise was, more or less, a post-Nietszchian perspective of a valiant, heroic and noble Race – the Aryan Race, at its purest found in Germany and the Nordic countries – which had allowed itself to become the victim of oppression (sounds familiar) by less noble and highly inferior Races of ‘untermenschen’ . France of course who had dictated the terms of surrender after WWI, and stripped Germany of part of what it considered its heritage, Jews of course because in a time of general depression they had managed by self help and being smart (unforgivable) to remain slightly more prosperous…

          So of course these Races were by definition inferior and the Proper Chaps spent a long time and a lot of money looking for historical and archaeological evidence of the innate superiority of the Aryan Race, and naturally managed to find some (confirmation bias).

          But what of the other races? Of course they were inferior species. Like rats, infesting the grain stores of the Only True Heirs to Humanity. Thus dehumanised and consigned to evolutionary extinction, given that they were in a war competing for the same grain as the Master Race, what else would one do but poison them and gas them, as one would with rats? Evolution in action. The strong naturally have every right to eliminate the weak.

          That today’s Left and especially Greens employs virtually the same methodology, arguments and similar premises scares the peanuts out of me.

          Marxism begins and ends with the false proposition that history simply records a struggle by one class to oppress and exploit another class. That view, is espoused as the One True View.

          Greenism espouses the Faith that Nature is Good and man is anti-Nature, and Evil. This is the morality of the Eden myth, and indeed we have the Eden project etc etc. That man is also part of nature, and in any case what is wrong with exctincting (is that a word) every damned species on the planet that gets in the way of a comfortable human suburban life…are ideas and questions that are rejected without consideration as wholly immoral. (There is after all no rational reason to believe that e.g. Polar bears deserve to live, while man does not).
          Autre temps, autre moeurs is a wonderful French saying, or to put it in modern terms Morality is relative to culture. And yet, the Greens have to force us to believe that morality is absolute and independent of culture.

          Well THAT idea is of course embodied in its purest form in terms of the Semitic religions’ God. The ultimate arbiter of Good and Evil, Sin, and Sorrow, Repentance and Holy Bliss.

          Greenism is merely the repackaged morality of Western religion. Indeed the Gaia concept – personifying Nature with some sort of supernatural existence, goes back even further to even pre pagan religions, to the ‘spirits of the world’ of animism and indeed the One Great Spirit of shamanism.

          This are the invisible and unconscious premises that drive people who need to believe in something, who feel vaguely guilty about themselves, not sure if they have committed a sin or not, by existing, to acts of violent signalling of virtue and the espousing of Noble Causes.

          Sigh. And a certain sort of person is especially vulnerable. The sort of person who thinks they are better than the plebs, but is ashamed to admit it. But isn’t smart enough to see that ‘better’ is relative to what axes you use to judge it. A labourer is better at lifting heavy weights, an intellectual is better at playing chess. So?

          So it is the petit bourgeois intellectual who is really behind and supports the modern Left and the Greens. Because it gives him an excuse to take power and a moral superiority, which absolves him from the need to tell the truth or behave with humility. Think Michael Mann, Think Greta Thunberg, Think Oleagenous Ocasio Corset – is there any sense of humility, of asking nicely ‘please can we have our world back?’ No. There are the ranting screaming demands of the self righteous Adolf-like demagogues.

          When I were a ‘prentice there was a saying on the shop floor, where Boffins occasionally were to be found, that Bullshit Baffles Brains. That is, the lads of limited intelligence,but endless cunning,. would compete to concoct tall tales carefully designed to trap the attention of a Boffin, and these tales would be related to the Boffins in tones of utter sincerity and earnestness and of course to other ‘prentices…it being generally held that the smarter people thought they were, the easier it was to twist their own intellectual pretensions up and shove them up their tails.

          Today, one merely has to announce oneself as a Victim, and the whole panoply of the Liberal ideology and its power and energy is instantly placed at ones disposal, to combat the forces of oppression and enable the ennoblement of ones Suffering.

          I was taught in tones of dripping sarcasm that ‘Life, is Rough, Tough and desperately unjust, so I had Better Get Used To It” shortly before being handed arbitrary punishment.

          Autre temps, autre moeurs Indeed!

          Bullshit Baffles Brains, and that is why I am of the firm opinion that the third rate bourgeois intellectuals are all rabid Democrats, and Greens, along with anyone who has realised that being a Victim is a massively profitable career, whereas all the plebs and the first rate brains, support the Trump, not least because his bullshit really is baffling the intellectuals brains, which they enjoy, and it is an antidote to the endless drip feeding of Moral Superiority bullshit coming from the Liberal mindset.

          After all, Mr Obama, who made YOU God, anyway? Racial guilt has it’s limits.

          • Whoever you are, what you have written is pure common ( rare as hens’ teeth) sense. Thank you, thank you!

          • >post-Nietzchean

            I can’t tell if you’re putting the stress on the prefix or the suffix, but didn’t Nietzsche himself claim to dream of shooting anti-Semites?

            I do hope you’re not trying to get away with the denihilist technique of blaming Nietzsche for the changes we’re seeing, are you? There’s an excellent website maintained by John Cook that will set you straight. I have nowhere near the IQ necessary to do justice to Cook’s arguments, but my meagre and simplistic summary would be:

            It’s not Nietzsche, it’s not the Sun, it’s not volcanoes, it’s us!

            And you won’t see John Cook having any truck with the Third Reich in embarrassing cosplay selfies hacked by an unidentified ex-KGB cybercrime syndicate, that’s for sure.

        • There is no scientist who denies the existence of geothermal energy.
          On the other hand your nutty theory that the atmosphere only exists because the core is hot is denied by everyone except you.

      • Science can be summed up in layman’s terms as “Why is it so?”

        “Why is it so?” can be paraphrased as “Question Everything”.

        If you are not asking questions then basically you are not doing science.

        If you are not in a position to defend your answers you are not doing science. it doesn’t matter if the person questioning you is a literal defined idiot or a certified genius, your argument needs to be rational and sound. The ability for your audience to comprehend the argument is not an excuse for you not to have one.

        Rule of Thumb? if you can’t put up an argument then you need to go back and re-word your theory. If you refuse to put up an argument you are probably hiding the fact you are not skilled enough to word theories in the first place.

      • Scientists have already lost one planet this century.

        Have they looked down the back of the sofa? It’s usually either that or behind the fridge in my experience. I hate losing planets.

      • Brad Keyes wrote:

        “Or maybe they [the pathetic crowd] consider it dangerously irresponsible to give oxygen to crank views.

        I call and raise the use of “crank views.” The global warming alarmist community routinely promulgates misinformation (i.e., crank views) in the following eleven ways.

        1. Climate Denial: A phrase used by the global warming alarmist community to characterize a belief held by those outside the community—i.e., by skeptics. Confounds the issue, hardly anyone “denies climate;” and to imply skeptics “deny climate” is to falsely assign to them an inane belief.

        2. Greenhouse Effect: Name given to a process to convince the general public that via the presence of atmospheric “greenhouse gases” the Earth is warming in much the same way that a greenhouse is warmer than its environment. Misleading, a greenhouse warms primarily by inhibiting thermal convection, a form of heat transfer greenhouse gases contribute to, not inhibit.

        3. Greenhouse Gas/Greenhouse Effect: Atmospheric greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect; the greenhouse effect is caused by atmospheric greenhouse gases. Circular argument.

        4. Greenhouse Gases Trap Heat:
        (a) In the sense that “trap” implies the inability to escape—Wrong, no substance can prevent heat from moving from a region of higher temperature to a region of lower temperature.
        (b) In the sense of retaining heat—Misleading, greenhouse gases aren’t unique, all gases retain heat.
        (c) In the sense of retaining heat at a rate greater than the rate heat is lost—Unimportant to global warming because over the hundred or so million years greenhouse gases have existed in the atmosphere, the Earth’s temperature has just now reached a temperature of approximately 288 Kelvin.
        (d) In the sense of absorbing electromagnetic radiation—Misleading, greenhouse gases also “free” heat by emitting electromagnetic radiation.

        5. Most incoming solar energy exists in the visible band. Wrong, approximately 51% of incoming solar radiation lies in the IR band, a fact often glossed over by the global warming community.

        6. Incoming solar radiation in the visible band reaches the Earth’s surface unabsorbed by the atmosphere. Misleading, the Earth’s atmosphere absorbs a not insignificant (approximately 10%) amount of visible band solar radiation incident at the top of the atmosphere.

        7. The spectrum of incoming solar radiation peaks in the visible spectrum. Half-truth, correct if measured by Spectral Radiance per Unit Wavelength, incorrect if measured by Spectral Radiance per Unit Frequency.

        8. Increasing temperatures follow increasing amounts of heat. Half-truth, sometimes yes, sometimes no.

        9. In the absence of greenhouse gases, the Earth’s temperature would be 33 Kelvin colder than it currently is. Wrong.

        10. All else being equal, back radiation where none existed before leads to a temperature increase in the object receiving the back radiation. Half-truth, sometimes yes, sometimes no.

        11. Make available two or three hundred billion dollars to anyone who can find any adverse effect of a phenomenon; and when responses come in, argue the science in support of the phenomenon (not in support of the negative impacts of the phenomenon, but in support of the phenomenon itself) is overwhelming. Science by authority or purchased science—take your pick.

        A neutral observer might even conclude that a fitting motto for today’s global warming alarmist community is: “We have met the climate-science misinformers, and they are us.”

        • Make like a swamp and read Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes, Reed. Don’t be fooled by her good looks—she’s no bimbo.

          She’s got your number. Your continual demands for evidence the Fallacy of Impossible Expectations. You know perfectly well that if we wait for evidence, it will be too late to stop the science coming true.

          The website Climate Nuremberg, which aims to reconcile, detoxify and defuse the rancor in the climate debate crisis, nails this brand of fallacious Flyoverianism perfectly:

          It’s all well and good for the science to tell us global warming is a bigger threat than Fascism was, but Joe Q. Flyover doesn’t understand science. He wants evidence.

          Well, I’m sorry, but I won’t be drawn into a formal exchange of alternating substantive arguments and reasoned rebuttals with you, Reed. That would just create the illusion of debate, and I won’t be complicit in such doubtmongering stratagems. That’s exactly what your side wants, isn’t it: to make people think there are two sides.

          Speaking of the illusion of debate, that reminds me of The Illusion of Debate.

          In that serious paper, which I cannot recommend highly to anyone who’s serious, we read how the scientist and communicator Gavin Schmidt deals with the pseudo-debatalism tactics of professional delayalists:

          2013: Stossel Event averted

          Dr Gavin Schmidt is praised for running away from a critic on national television, preserving the dignity of science.

          Early reports suggest the scientist to whose scientific arguments Schmidt narrowly escaped exposure was a science denier.

          Colleagues agree that if not for Schmidt’s quick fleeing there might have been a full-blown “climate debate”—the theoretical state in which (scientists fear) it might look as if there were two viable “sides.”

          • You’re lacking in self-awareness and critical thinking skills.

            Con-artists would exploy the same technique you praise.

            1) Make up B.S.
            2) Get caught
            3) Claim need for censorship because the debunkers are exposing your B.S. (which you call truth).

            Don’t you realize that total frauds would run away from a debate? And truth tellers would want to have a debate so the frauds would be embarassed?

            Why does the Mafia muder eye-witnesses?

            According to you, it’s because the eyewitnesses would just make up false stories, right?

            “The Illusion of Debate”

            The Mafia would make the same claims:

            Debate is pointless. They didn’t commit those crimes, the critics are just anti-science story-fabricators that just hate the mafia’s politics.

            Do you sincerely belive you’re not full of crap? Are you dumb or evil?

          • I read over the weekend that Bill Gates has bought a beach side ‘hut’ in CA and it only cost him the GDP of a small country! Gore and Obama have done likewise. What have they all in common? CC alarmists?

            I really, really do not understand why so many more people can’t ‘fill in the gaps’ and come to the same conclusion as me(?) If CC and sea level rises were imminent (Gore said London would be under water many years ago) then why would intelligent (!!) people ( a President, VP and richest man who has ever lived) would buy beachside villas, for many millions of $, if sea levels were rising so quickly?

            As a Brit, I ask what powers the POTUS has? Can he, for instance, convene a Presidential Inquiry, to be given, on oath, from the climate science fraternity to get to the truth? Can he invite John Stossel to ask questions (from his failed live TV attempt in Sept. 2019) to either side of the Climate debate (where one side failed to turn up in Sept.)? Would he be able to summon a Brit, Prof Phil Jones from the Uni of East Anglia, to explain about the leaked emails re altering figures to fit the outcome?

            Until scientists are forced to give evidence, on oath, will we ever find out the truth (are we all going to die in 11 years)?

          • Zoe Phin

            > Con-artists would exploy the same technique you praise.

            Some—not Brad—would suspect you were affirming the consequent.

            I have an… uglier name for your rhetorical knavery, madam: the converse error.

            Were I not a gentlemen or you not a lady, I might be inclined to forgo euphemism entirely! The phrases fallacy of the converse, confusion of necessity and sufficiency and still worse spring to mind.

            You may thank my good breeding that they do not spring to mouth.

            Hast thou no shame, madam?

            > Do you sincerely belive you’re not full of crap?

            Well, I believe I’m not sincerely full of crap, I’ll put it that way.

            > Are you dumb or evil?

            If this is one of those forced-choice MCQs then by process of elimination I’ll have to go with the latter.

            Because I’m hardly dumb! That’s a laugh. Me, mute? My last three wives left me because I couldn’t shut up.

            Are you deaf and evil? Wanna get coffee sometime?

            Oh, you also have to be humorless. Sorry. An ability to appreciate irony is a complete turnoff, I’m afraid. So please just say so, up front, if you understand sarcasm and satire and all that nonsense, because my biological clock is ticking and I can’t waste time on blind dates when there’s no future in it.

            Right before I had him strangled my astrologer told me I’d meet my perfect match digitally. (Well, I think that’s what he was trying to indicate with his middle finger.)

          • Brad Keyes wrote: “Your continual demands for evidence the Fallacy of Impossible Expectations. You know perfectly well that if we wait for evidence, it will be too late to stop the science coming true.

            What science are you referring to? If by “science” you mean the behavior of mother nature, I agree. But then mother nature will behave as she does whether we wait for the evidence or not.

            If by “science” you mean the predictions of a cult, yes a cult, of people who misrepresent well established scientific theory (as in substances like greenhouse gases can trap heat) in an attempt to frighten the world into a path of behavior, then I disagree–that “science” is extremely unlikely to “come true.”

      • Brad,

        It doesn’t matter what Boolean logic you use, or justify elimination of tradition through a weak definition for another planet, but the Earth is safely flat and goes on to infinity in all directions, didn’t ya know??

        Try it!! Pick a point anywhere on earth and go in any direction and you will never, ever, in a bajillion years find the edge! You will also find it generally flat the whole way, except for a few inconvenient mountains!

        Theory corroborated!

        Never mind that in about 25,000 miles things will look peculiarly similar to what you’ve seen before but simply disregard that as the evil mascinations of those flat earth deniers who ruin every good night’s sleep with demands of an equal voice!

        Dissension cannot, will not, be tolerated! To do so is a complete waste of time!

        • RockyRoad,

          what homework are you going to set me next? Are you going to tell me to walk ten miles South, then ten miles East, then ten miles North, then notice that I’m exactly where I started and figure out what is the color of the bear I see in the not-too-distant distance?

          Do you know how dangerous polar bears are to other apex predators, like homo, that impinge on their rapidly-dwindling territory?

          Of course you do, and that’s what you’re counting on, isn’t it.

          Well sir, did you know that when you threaten your opponent with being torn limb from limb and slowly consumed over the course of the next few hours you’re effectively admitting that you’ve lost the debate?

          Of course you do, and that’s what you’re counting on, isn’t it.

          You want to give the illusion of having lost something that we were never having, because THERE IS NO DEBATE, as I have already spent three rounds of our dialogue arguing by means of facts and persuasive language, only to have you argue points that DON’T EVEN REMOTELY agree with what I’m trying to prove.

          > Dissension cannot, will not, be tolerated! To do so is a complete waste of time!

          Finally—can it really be? Do my eyes deceive me or am I getting through to you people?

          Thanks for conceding the debate. Better luck next time. Oh, and stop by the library on your way home tonight. You’ll find that you’ve mangled that Oreskes quote ever-so-slightly. What she actually said was Dissent Is The Highest Form of Treason.

          If only your fellow ideologues had the integrity to lose the debate like you, the debate might finally be able to move on from this pointless heterogeneity of views.

          • Brad Keyes April 26, 2020 at 10:01 pm

            sorry library closed lock down you know. Oh yes, you have been report to the proper authorities for inciting people to violate stay at home orders .
            (thank god I hoarded T.P.)

            michael

          • I have missed your wry humour and sarcasm Brad 😉
            you really do take the mickey very well

          • ozspeaksup April 27, 2020 at 3:23 am

            oz I have missed him also, he is on a roll tonight I can’t stop laughing.
            I would love to see him matched up against the late great Don Rickles .

            michael

      • Brad Keyes makes the obvious logic error of circular logic.
        IOW, I set out to prove what I assume is true, thus anyone who debates me is wrong. Thus any debate just dilutes my “true” message.

        What a moron. Do you really think we’re that dumb Brad?

        If it is a crank view, then the data should put the crank to rest post haste. But when you don’t come armed with data, but with models that give output what you told (programmed) it to output, and ask for everyone to look upon your work with awe and reverence, the clear mind knows where the deceiver is.
        To paraphrase the late Dr Crichton, if you find yourself being told the science is settled (and don’t question it) on a matter that involves great public costs and massive public policy shifts that favor certain groups over others, hold onto your wallet because you likely being hustled.

      • Scientists are “not about to sit around protesting peacefully while Earth goes the way of Pluto.”
        Earth doesn’t meet the criteria for being a planet because it hasn’t swept up neighborhood objects.
        So if scientists aren’t going to protest peacefully, what, then? Are they going to make something that goes boom in mommy’s basement?

      • Brad, “scientist love nothing better than debating—but not with people who disagree with them.

        I know plenty of scientists who are very willing to debate with people who disagree with them.

        Those unwilling to debate are members of a special field of study called Pseudo. Pseudo-scientists refuse debate.

        Most of the other kind take it on as a matter of course.

        Will Happer has said that when he was directing the DOE’s Office of Science (1991–1993) he interviewed scientists in various fields about what they did. He said that all of them were eager to talk about their work.

        All but the climate modelers. They, and they alone, were defensive, evasive, and hostile. Will said that he became immediately suspicious of their work.

        As we and he have found out since, climate modeling is a crock. And has been a crock since at least 1988.

        • > Those unwilling to debate are members of a special field of study called Pseudo. Pseudo-scientists refuse debate.

          Actually they tried it once, at an IQ Squared-organized event in New York I think, but never made that mistake again. As I recall Michael Crichton used his height to unfair advantage, or at least that was Gavin Schmidt’s excuse.

          Just don’t say “pathological sciences” please. That’s an insult to all the honest and hardworking coroners, microbiologists and anatomical pathologists who’d lose their jobs for Hiding a Decline.

          The Happer anecdote is brilliant. I’ve been compiling a list of ways someone could figure out which “side” of the climate debate was right without knowing a single thing about the climate itself, say, because they were stuck in a cave for the last 30 years, doing the definitive paper on guano or whatever, with excellent WiFi reception.

          (Yeah, yeah, I know—there’s a flaw in my experimental design right there, because you can tell a lot about external temperatures from inside a cave, but let’s not nitpick.)

          I must add Happer’s Heuristic to the list. 🙂

          • “Gavin Schmidt was the stand-out as lie-monger.”

            Have you heard him on the radio? Turns out that even when he sits down he’s a stand-out at lying to laymen.

        • > I think people are taking you seriously!

          Sure, but not seriously enough. Nobody ever has. One guy come close, years ago, during a job for the Libyans, but he was found dead in seiner Pension in Berlin the following day. The official inquest said he died of a broken liver, but I’ve never got over the nagging feeling I broke a much higher organ.

  10. OK, OK. Let’s assume that we make the transition to 100% “green energy”. Can anyone claim that we will no longer have hurricanes, tornados, wild fires, droughts, floods, or any other extreme weather events?? No!!!! So, why bother?

    • Sure, you can live on Mars.
      And you could stop impactors from hitting Mars {or Earth}.
      Mars also does not have volcanoes.
      And also fly like bird and swim like a fish.

      • speaking of misinformation:

        Mars also does not have volcanoes.

        Sorry, bnaikie, but Mars has extensive lava flows, vast lava plains, and the largest known volcanoes in the Solar System. Look up the Tharsis region (aka the Tharsis bulge) or Olympus Mons.

        Now perhaps what you meant was Mars doesn’t have any *active* volcanoes. That’s a possibility, as we haven’t managed to observe any active volcanic events on Mars. However, our observations are limited, for obvious reasons, so just because we haven’t spotted any doesn’t mean there necessarily isn’t any.

        • that should have read “sorry, gbaikie, but”. Fingers apparently didn’t want to hit the right keys when I was typing your name. sorry about that. I really miss the edit button!

        • Since Mars’ core has cooled down to point where it can no longer generate a magnetic field, the odds are against there being any active volcanoes left.
          On the other hand, the universe is weird, so anything can happen if you wait long enough.

          • Dangerous volcanoes don’t seem available on Mars.
            If you could any useful volcanic heat, that is an interesting question.
            With Mars you can dig deeper than you can on Earth. Generally it’s not commonly easy to dig much deeper than 1 mile, whereas with Mars, one probably go at least 10 miles under the surface. And such depths, you might be able to find useful volcanic heat.
            Though the thin Mars atmosphere is not much problem in terms of it being cold, but going to depth of having “room temperature” conditions, would be around a couple km depth.

  11. Remember when Mann attacked “An Inconvenient Truth” for “misinformation?” Me either.

  12. I would think that Michael Moore would come out and defend the accuracy of his documentary. Is he just going to let these guys smear his effort?

  13. I watched the whole movie. Moore is still a true blue socialist, but he did get the science right.
    It impossible for solar and wind energy systems to replace a significant amount of fossil fuels. It certainly is impossible for them to replace even a significant amount of generated power. Significant meaning the end result is cheaper than what it replaced.

    It would have been good if he had given a little cameo appearance to nuclear power. It’s by far the safest form of electric power still. The current old, essentially submarine, power plants should be replace with newer more intrinsically safe designs.

    • — looking at ‘Flight Level’s ‘No Tricks Zone’ link:
      Skimming through that video, and reading the transcribed quotations from the video, there really does seem to be a whole lot of communistic head shaking going on there! In the video, Moore states that “capitalism makes capitals”, while humanism makes “humans”. A more desperately confused credo could scarcely be imagined, given the whole premise of his brand of leftism is so completely anti-human or misanthropic?

      Going back to the ‘Planet of the Humans” documentary itself, one thing that is a bit problematic is that some excellent points about alternative energy problems are actually presented in a somewhat subdued, or resigned manner, compared to what you tend to see in the documentaries I’ve seen narrated by Moore himself (where he typically shows some outrage, verve or enthusiasm in going after whatever he is critiquing, be it gun laws, or whatever). Here in *this* documentary, actually directed by Mr. Gibbs, the interviewed people are bemused, or perplexed, by the harm that the ‘alternatives’ do, but Gibbs never really seems to step up the outrage against the perpetrators? I suppose it is always the greedy population at large, enabled by nasty Capitalism, that is *really* to blame, so no use yelling overmuch at the immediate enviro-schemers/tax money rent seekers, at hand?

      What kind of odd excuses for the obvious cognitive dissonance here, are we going to see coming out of all this? Does it all just get shoved to the back burner, somehow? Maybe they just pray like mad for better viruses to thin out this Planet of the Humans perhaps?

      • Sadly yes David Blenkinsop.

        This guy is fractal. Every shrapnel contains the genetically greenwashed perception he exhales as a whole.

      • I would say that capitalism uses capital (money) to make everyone rich, while humanism use humans to make those in charge rich.

  14. 2007—Climate activists want Al Gore’s doc stealth-marketing his carbon-credits fund nominated for a Nobel and an Oscar, saying it’s a case study in disinformation done right, and has the potential to delude millions of muggles

    2018—Climate activists want Naomi Oreskes’ doc libeling skeptics protected from criticism at all costs, saying the Gish gallop of inuendo, fallacies and fabricated graphs serves to toxify the climate debate, hopefully forever

    2020—Climate activists want Michael Moore’s doc undermining The Cause banned, saying it undermines The Cause

    2034—Climate activists Stephan Lewandowsky and George Marshall—heirs apparent to Naomi Oreskes’ title as Queen of Climate Heresiology—die in an science-denying accident gone wrong. Yosemite Park Rangers say the deceased couple blatantly ignored the theory of gravity in an unsuccessful bid to free-cluck El Capitán.

    While skeptics describe it as cheering news in an odd way, climate scientists (the opposite of skeptics) see it as a tragedy. The pair were said to have been on the brink of solving science’s Big Problem: why on earth doesn’t everyone trust climate activists?

  15. I would really like to know what part of it should be tagged as “misinformation” . Let’s be really specific. Exactly what information is wrong?
    I’m sure I could find fault with parts of it, but saying the whole thing should be blocked because “somebody” disagrees with “some” part of it, is just wrong.
    It is regrettable that Moore didn’t get the deeper message that the whole doomsday scenario is hyped misinformation. But he did well enough just identifying the hypocrisy of the alternative energy push isn’t going to help.

    • “I would really like to know what part of it should be tagged as “misinformation” . Let’s be really specific. Exactly what information is wrong?”

      Good question.

      That’s what Michael Moore ought to be asking his critics.

    • I “pointed out the errors” in Naomi Oreskes’ 2015 documentary of Merchants of Doubt.

      In December 2018 her employer, Harvard University, set an investigation in motion into her academic misconduct. My expectations were low, and I was sure I’d get a generic f*ck-off letter from some bureaucrat a couple of days later. As the weeks dragged on, however, it became clear the venerable institution was actually taking the Oreskes problem seriously, as they were obliged to do by their own codes of research integrity, not to mention the unquantifiable value to Harvard of its long-won reputation for academic excellence. The time they were devoting to the complaint therefore went some way to restoring my faith in the more-or-less probity of academia (at least if confronted with a case of intellectual corruption they could neither fail to see, nor sweep under the carpet, nor deny outright).

      But as the probe turns one and a half years old, with no estimate of a verdict date, I’m finding the infrequency of updates from Harvard is the most frustrating aspect. The findings are sure to be worth the wait, given how long they’ve spent digging into the bottomless guano-berg of Oreskes’ dishonesty, but the time doesn’t exactly fly when you’re the one seeking redress.

      So to some extent I can sympathize with the urge to bypass civilized channels. The wheels of justice grind slow, but they grind exceedingly fine; but the wheels of bullying and lynching can be brutally efficient.

        • Jeff,

          this is Harvard we’re talking about, not some University of the Third Rate.

          I HARDLY think they’d circle the wagons around a lying academic just because she was a climate celebrity and funding magnet.

          I’m as cynical as the next guy, Jeff, but come on. HARVARD. Have you read their Research Integrity Code of Conduct? It couldn’t scream “old school integrity” more if it were drafted by Feynman himself.

          No, there are places in this world that are still immune to the meretriciousness of the median man, Jeff. Oases of probity, groves of Academe consecrated to the Goddess Mut, and chief among them is a certain city on a certain hill in Connecticut.

          If your instincts about human and corporate nature are right, Jeff, I’d rather be wrong. Because always seeing (or smelling) the morally gangrenous in everyone is a sad way to live.

  16. “saying Moore’s film relies on old data to claim solar and wind energy is dependent on fossil fuels.”

    OK – so they are admitting that there was a time when all of this was true? So we were right back then and they were wrong? So all we need to do it get them to agree we are still right and they are still wrong?

    I love it! They are admitting we “were right” but not willing to say we are still right. Getting closer all the time!

  17. Gee …. give us sometime to rejoice at Kim Jung Il’s being “somewhat dead” before you remind us how much totalitarianism lurks in the “Free West”.

    • Kim Jung Il is completely dead and has been since 2011. You meant Kim Jung Un, aka Rocket Man, who is possibly dead or at least missing and presumed dead, or brain dead following heart surgery, or incapacitated, or just hiding out in his bunker playing HORSE with Dennis Rodman.

      More interesting is his heir apparent, his sister Kim Yo Jong, a commie cutie of 31 and the twin sister (by another mother) of AOC. According to insiders, Trump met Yo Jong at one of his socials with Rocket Man.

      Rumor has it she had her brother snuffed last week, but the dark secrets of the NorKo cult dynasty are well kept. Pass the popcorn.

    • As we don’t know if Kim Jong Un is dead or alive, isn’t this more a case of Schrödinger’s Kim?

  18. The actions of people such as Mr. Fox clearly show their motives of greed and fear mongering. Censorship is the bastion of cowards with no science to back them up!

  19. I respect the intellectual honesty of Moore and his friend. As I understand it they set out to “promote” renewables but as they got into it they saw it was all a scam so they continue and put forward the facts as they found them, which is great.
    They did not address climate change or other alternative energy sources but that was not their goal, so that is fine with me.

    The question I would ask is –who funds / supports Josh Fox ?

  20. A long awaited expose’ on so called ‘renewable energy’. What could be more progressive than to recycle carbon to generate energy and return the unused carbon to the earth?

  21. Ha! Tony Heller gave them hell on twitter and I bet a lot of others did also. Thus the 180.
    https://realclimatescience.com/2020/04/defeating-censorship/

    All of Moore’s “documentaries” contain misinformation. Including ‘Bowling for Columbine’ for which he got an Academy award among others, and which made him. But this time the communist has turned his jaundiced eye against a pet of the left and they can’t handle it. Pretty sure bet that ‘Planet of the Humans” won’t be on the list for the next Academy Awards.

    • Exactly, Michael Moore has a point of view he pushes in his “documentaries” and plays fast and loose with the facts (to be kind) to push it. And the Left was perfectly fine with all his previous efforts because the POV he was pushing was in alignment with their own. Now that he’s made one that doesn’t, now, all of a sudden they cry “misinformation”.

  22. Odd, it seemed quite factual to me.

    I look forward (once they stop shrieking incoherently) to their point by point refutation.

    I wonder why they think oil/coal/gas companies would be against wind and solar? they are major sustainers of their businesses.

  23. Too good to be true that Moore has seen the light about worth less than nothing wind, solar, ethanol. Expect an apology and withdrawal from his new found positon.

  24. Critique of Michael Moore’s Film “Planet of the Humans”

    I suggest that courageous teachers everywhere insist on showing the Jeff Gibbs video right alongside any required airings of “Inconvenient Truth”.

    Most of the video targets the flim-flammery and corruption of the “alternative” “green” movements. Every named leader has “made deals that (he) shouldn’t have”. But energy is life, and unfortunately, by seeing the Devil in every detail of energy production – when survival itself equals an irrecoverable degradation of the commons – civilization itself must be seen as evil. So this becomes Gibbs’ Jeremiad about overpopulation, at
    least an honest attribution of cause for the coming apocalypse.

    I don’t know why liberals despise the Ridley, Pinker research showing that advanced and wealthy societies eventually find their way out of the overpopulation conundrum on their own.

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/transformation/steven-pinker-s-ideas-are-fatally-flawed-these-eight-graphs-show-why/

    Perhaps it is my provincial or overly-optimistic view that people want to move in generally the same direction: toward democratic, free and open societies in which they have the opportunity to acquire property, wealth, education, higher health standards, leisure time, and basic freedoms of movement, association and speech. When they have these basic securities, a cleaner environment is great too. Finally, for their own families’ sakes, or so the theory goes, they choose to remain small. India’s and Africa’s problems, in this view, will resolve themselves.

    As these countries become better off, they’ll no doubt pose geopolitical problems for the United States. To deal with them, and with the current archvillain on the world stage, will be a test of America’s technological and scientific prowess, politial skill, and wise leadership. Take away China’s repressive government, the illusory benefits of socialism, and what’s left are people more or less trying to be like us.

    But… countering the jolly Green oaf is a great first step. You can’t kill all the chimeras at once.

    Thanks for the video and the many interesting posts about it.

  25. Michael Moore claims that, until he looked into, he really did think that green energy schemes would save us. I suspect that he’s snudgin’ a little there. Somebody who can see now that solar and wind and biomass won’t work could see it back then too. Could he really have not understood that the sun doesn’t shine at night, or that manufacturing and erecting huge steel structures might involve a bit of mining and fossil fuel intensive manufacturing, or that the bio in biomass was wood?

    I made it through most of Planet of the Humans, but the whole thing was just an evocation of the phrase, “duh.”

    • hmm, “did think that green energy schemes would save us.”
      Well, Michael seems to think he doesn’t need to know anything about science.
      This of course requires “mind reading”, but he seems to give such clues.
      But I would say he doesn’t “care about” science, but rather have other people
      be more interested in this difficult topic, and Mike rather focus on what he good at, which is
      bullshitting. Maybe he thinks it’s bullshit, but then again science would have be some amazing
      bullshit.
      I imagine Micheal will talk to anyone, because he is looking for story material, so seems very
      hard imagine not running across someone who wouldn’t say “alternative energy” is crap. I think
      even the people installing solar panels might tell him that. Or he buys an electric cars, and would not be impressed.
      The other thing is I don’t think anyone thinks “the green energy schemes would save us” rather it’s at best the hope/faith “the green energy schemes could save us” – somehow, or appears to be going it right direction.
      I think it’s pretty easy to be fooled by the idea that solar energy {or wind} could “help” add some electrical power to the grid. And of course if camping with RV, a solar panel could be useful.
      But I think what important is that everyone has to have a religion- roughly as film says, if have religion it serve the function of not having to think about something too much.
      Perhaps, what triggered Micheal, was the notion that solar energy was cheaper than coal powerplants, and he wanted to prove this claim.
      And he couldn’t.

  26. After moving to a gorgeous historic country town and discovering they were in the process of building 300 hectares of solar infrastructure I thought I’d better do a little research on it. I was horrified! I’ve learnt alot this past year (it’s like the movie was made based on what I’d learnt) and I’ve had a few rants on this site. Thought I should share the ‘truth’ with 20 of my lefty artist friends, some of whom I had close relationships with and had known for years, and all bar none turned their backs on me. That was just before Christmas. Two days ago I sent the link for Planet of the Humans to 10 of them, an hour a forty minutes of their time, none have responded.

    An additional 800 hectares of solar panels is in the pipeline planned to go in next to the the existing plant four kilometers from town. To rub salt into the wound I found out last week that there is a new proposal for a 1,000 hectare solar plant seven kilometers north of here.

    I can see this beautiful town that is so dependent on tourists to survive ending up like that ghost town in the movie. More than 2,000 hectares of what will become toxic waste dumps. As you all know Australia is famous for their grassfires, and we’ve already been told by the firey’s that the firefighters won’t go near a solar fire.

    I really thought these people cared enough about me to at least listen to what I had to say, that and the constant battle with bureaucracy to try to make them aware of the truth about renewables. I am feeling gutted.

    Please send this movie on to as many people as you can.

    • My Australia friends say your experience is normal. Anyone at odds with the green thoughts is treated as a leper. The more affluent the neighborhood, the more conformist thinking.

  27. If Moore’s movie gets banned by progressives it’s going to be a second red pill for him. The renewable scam was his first red pill. What was that old saying , a liberal is a conservative who hasn’t been mugged yet.

  28. Quote from the article:-
    “We still need to transition to 100% renewable energy. There is no other option.”

    Patently untrue. Nuclear is an option, and in a real crisis would be the obvious solution, but it is, with few exceptions, not acceptable to greens. So that indicates no crisis!

    100 % renewable energy is possible if most of it is biomass generation, but that is CO2 intensive, higher than coal generation per Mwatt hour, ignoring the CO2 in producing the fuel and loss of forests. It is certainly far from ideal, especially when it attracts subsidies.
    Wind and solar are not possible as a base for 100% renewable generation as they are unsuited for large scale grid supply. The film made no mention of their technical weakness such as lack of inertia, and asynchronism.
    If you have a grid failure wind and solar cannot assist in providing power to restore it, i.e. they can’t do a black start. An other weakness is that their short circuit capability is low which makes the grid protection systems less effective or requires more and different type of (expensive) protection, if there is such a thing?
    Geothermal has potential only if the geology is favourable. A lot of geothermal sites have load restrictions or the heat source drops off. Wave and tidal generation have much the same problems as wind and solar.
    Despite all the media attention to battery storage, this is unfeasible. most seem to confuse storage to cover intermittency rather than a task it can do which is cope with demand peaks which requires a far smaller amount of capacity, it is expensive, however, and less effective overall than other systems such as pumped storage, which have a much longer life span.

    • Nuclear energy is not an option.
      It is the ONLY option.

      Biomass can’t be big enough, wind isn’t steady enough, sun disappears at night and is weak in winter, hydro can’t be big enough, tide can’t be big enough, and isn’t constant, geothermal can’t be big enough.. and fossil is increasingly taking so much energy to extract that it will become less and less valuable as a fuel.

      Whereas the EROEI and the energy density of nuclear material means that there are about 10,000 years of financially and energy-viable reserves on the planet. And then there is fusion. 10,000 years MAY be long enough to get a viable fusion reactor. Not that I am holding my breath.

      All the false claims of renewables can be dismissed by asking ;’is there enough of it, even if it works, and at an overall integrated cost that doesn’t cripple the world’s economy’.

      Once you ask THAT question the answer is ‘if not fossil, then nuclear’

      • Controlling fusion energy is easy. Using magnetics a dead end. Magnetic bottles won’t work since we lack a magnetic monopole. We just need to control gravity. If we had control of gravity we could control a fusion reaction the same way as the sun. 😉 See I told you it is easy. /sarc
        Until then maybe we could make LFTR’s and start reprocessing fuel for our conventional reactors. 👍😀

        • You have your answer, right there.
          All we need is to start making magnetic mono poles. If the government wanted to, they could make these mono poles. All they have to do is pass a law requiring companies that make magnets to start making these as well.

  29. Leftist enviro-fascists always fail to provide concrete empirical evidence of “misinformation of opposing views” or data to support their insane positions because none exist…

    Solar, wind and biofuels are insanely expensive, intermittent, unreliable, diffuse and have laughable energy densities and will never replace conventional energy sources.

    Because of the Left’s Cancel Culture, any opposing views they don’t like (not that they’re false or unsupported) are censored and the people espousing opposing views are personally attacked and often ruined for no good reason.

    Hard empirical evidence, simple physics, logic and common sense overwhelming show solar, wind and biofuels are completely incapable of replacing fossil fuels and nuclear power.

    Leftists believe the mere repetition of lies somehow magically make their absurd lies the truth… Not so much…

  30. You’d think a new Michael Moore documentary on “renewables” would attract a little attention from the BBC, but, no, not even a whisper.

  31. The facts are well known to all of us; it’s the fact that they are being told that is extraordinary. Watch right through to the end as there are clips inserted throughout the closing credits.
    Note that ‘for some reason’ the tally of likes and dislikes is not showing on Youtube. Hmmm, I wonder why that would be:

    • I totally agree.

      This is the most important environmental film in the last 10 years.

      It is like childhood’s end. The largest amount of ‘green’ energy is now (Biofuel).

      Biofuel is cutting down trees and burning them.

      It is all a corrupt game. Corrupt is the problem and corruption requires lies and power.

      The money spent on ‘fighting’ climate change has resulted (total net) in significantly more damage to the environment.

  32. It probably is full of misinformation; the misinformation that AGW is real.

    The bits about renewables not doing what they’re supposed to are right.

    • LOL, so you AGREE with the bits that are correct, but cherry-pick all the bits that happen to be nonsense and all of a sudden you REJECT those parts.

      Consistency, thy name is NOT denihilism.

  33. “old data”

    The solar array in the desert was closed down last year. The film was produced over the last year.

    • You can see it on google earth that the desert has taken over Ivanpah. The 3 towers have been taken down, and most of the mirrors are either gone or askcue. As the film says, it’s a solar dead zone.

      If you search it on Google, Ivanpah is said to be a roaring success. Wackapedia doesn’t even give one hint that the whole thing has been “dismantled” – to be kind.

      – JPP

  34. In a previous post I asked if the upwelling and downwelling radiation claimed was measurable and was being measured and was advised that it was and the claimed values were confirmed.

  35. “renewable energy” is primitive 16th century energy, and is not an alternative to reliable energy.
    Anyone with any knowledge of future energy technologies realizes that molten salt SMRs are the future : China knows this, India knows this and Russia knows this. Only the energy-illiterate renewable crowd exhibits total ignorance of the obvious future staring us in the face. Despite the fact that molten salt nuclear reactors resemble typical conventional reactors in practically name only, these renewable morons think any technology which contains the word nuclear should be opposed.
    There are no humans dumber than the renewable crowd.

  36. Notice how the Green Blob immediately goes after the people behind the film, rather than address the points it raises?

    They handily divert attention by wailing of ‘misinformation’ yet the same voices are as silent as a church mouse about demonstrable flaws in Al Gores ‘An Inconvenient Truth’.

    • “Notice how the Green Blob immediately goes after the people behind the film, rather than address the points it raises?”

      That’s always the way the radical Left attacks opponents. They attack the person not the facts, because most of the time they don’t have the facts on their side.

      • Nail on head.

        I have a simple question which stops Leftists in their tracks when they resort to ad hominem attacks on me: “What have I said which is false?” I have never had a coherent answer.

  37. I watched it, most of it was old news for me as the biomass scam was already aired on national television (!) in the Netherlands in 2017 in a Zembla documentary. On the other hand it was a Malthusian praise of Rachel Carson who feared capitalism for the end of all biodiversity (which did not bappen).

    And the Koch brothers are now the evil green industrials? LOL

  38. The Intolerance of the modern version of the flagellants is as predictable as the rising of the sun.

    I (and most I know) rarely agree with Moore, but I have not heard a large outcry to ban him until now.

  39. I suppose they’re right. The complete truth about the renewables industry is that it is far more, wasteful, corrupting and anti-human than the movie says. And the players such as Gore and McKibben are are utterly immoral opportunistic egomaniacs.

  40. The high point of the documentary, for me at least, is when they claim they “were fed a lie” about green energy. I would dispute that. They demanded to be lied to, and in spite of all the evidence around them, for years, refused to believe. We can only be grateful they finally woke up to realize their error. Now they get to see what it is like to have a “wrong opinion.”

  41. I wonder if Michael Moore has any clue just how deep the green climate deep state is in media groups, political parties, NGOs, and Hollywood. He’s a flea on the back of an elephant and he does not even know the size of the herd.

  42. We still need to transition to 100% renewable energy.

    This is logically, linguistically and semantically identical to saying “I am a moron and I am militantly proud of it”.

    • The notion that we need to leave stuff in the ground because our great grandchildren might need is a recipe to always leave everything in the ground.
      After all, even if they need it, our great grandchildren have to leave it in the ground because their great grandchildren might need it.

      And so it continues, forever.

  43. The real job m maker and money sink is the fact that Win and Solar equipment only lasts twenty years. Therefore, in order to achieve the goal of 100% solar by 2050 all facilities already built will need replaced when they are twenty years old. Then the equipment built over the next twenty years will need to be replaced as it ages. However all of the equipment needed can not be built in twenty years. Meanwhile, at the wind farms and solar farms maintenance and repair is an ongoing operation. That means that by 2040 all working age people will be needed to build new equipment, replace the older equipment, and maintain/repair all operating equipment. now factor in the additional number of people to make all of the component parts for the Wind/Solar farms and the people needed to mine the raw materials so that they can be manufactured.
    To say that 100% renewable is not feasible is a gross understatement. It is IMPOSSIBLE.
    Meanwhile who is operating, maintaining and building the fossil plants needed for reliable electricity??

  44. The Forbes review has it right.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2020/04/23/michael-moores-planet-of-the-humans-skewers-renewables-delivers-same-old-anti-human-malthusianism/

    The film rightly exposes the hollow vacuous sham of the renewables road to nowhere.
    But it substitutes it with something worse – Paul Ehrluch Malthusian population control.
    Moore’s and Gibbs’ mistake is the same as that of the climate alarmists and green idealists – their prophecy of doom is flat out wrong.

    • Phil Salmon,
      Thank you for posting that. I really despair at how all our global warming realists are orgasming over those two Malthusian Marxists. If anyone thinks Moore or more importantly Gibbs have a Damascusine conversion – nothing could be further from the truth
      I do not even subscribe to the old “my enemies enemy is my friend” nonsense. They and all their sort would wish to see us dead.

  45. all the renewables built to date account for 1% of total energy needs that is increasing at 2% per year. Even if they could match the 2% per year the land area needed in 50 years would be colossal.

  46. Michael Mann must be about the greatest climate fraudster around. His fake hockey stick graph is what has convinced the luni fringe that an increase in CO2 at the rate of 0.01% at 3.4 km in the tropics over 60 years had caused the global mean temperatures to rise by almost 1 oC during the 20th century. The supersonic speed of Earth’s rotation (1,677 km/h) makes that impossible as it turns CO2 into a cooling agent, just like the photosynthesis and the ozone formation it facilitates. Go back to school before you start believing the anthropogenic global warming nonsense. It all shows how modern education is not making people any smarter, just more gullible.

  47. It’s OK old chap, we all get a little twitchy about our sins when we reach the end and fear the final judgement. Don’t worry I am sure the master of the universe has seen this all before and won’t blame you for human weakness. So there is no need to spit fire and brimstone to eaern brownie points. It’s too late. Throw yourself on the mercy of the court as they say.

Comments are closed.