Guest essay by Eric Worrall
In the wake of harsh allegations of green corporate greed made in the documentary “Planet of the Humans”, who will Greens sacrifice to restore public confidence?
Bill McKibben and the Sierra Club appear to be the leading contenders. Both were strongly criticised in “Planet of the Humans”, but so far McKibben seems to be pulling ahead in the public relations race; he appears to have more friends.
Published on Tuesday, April 28, 2020
by Common DreamsMobilizing Climate Action in the Face of Planet of the Humans
Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs’s new film is so full of weak analysis, misinformation, and misplaced invective that I worry it will cause more harm than good.
by Cynthia KaufmanWe are in a climate emergency. That means we all need to do everything we can to get the world to stop burning fossil fuels and chopping down trees. And we need to do it as quickly as possible. Getting to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 will take everything we have.
…
A film that really took that on, with enough credibility for its claims to be believed, would be helpful. But given how untrustworthy the film is, I have no idea if the Sierra Club compromised its principles in the investment companies it promotes. I know that its Beyond Coal Campaign was enormously successful, and that, as much as I dislike Michael Bloomberg, he played a very positive role in it. I’m not a fan of the corporation Caterpillar. But the fact that its bulldozers were used against protesters at Standing Rock doesn’t make me against bulldozers. And it does not make me criticize the Sierra Club for being associated with investments in Caterpillar.
To me the most misplaced invective is the treatment given to Bill McKibben. He comes across in the film as dishonest and corrupt. And yet he has done more for the climate justice movement than almost anyone else in the world. For all I know he has made some mistakes in the past and backed some initiatives that turned out to not be good ideas. I have no idea. But the way he is presented in the film is pure propaganda. Look at the claims critically, even without having any outside information, and they all turn to smoke. Why Gibbs and Moore want to take down McKibben is a mystery to me.
…
Read more: https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/04/28/mobilizing-climate-action-face-planet-humans
Note I am not offering an opinion on whether Bill McKibben or the Sierra Club actually are corporate sellouts.
Bill McKibben gave a surprisingly poor performance in “Planet of the Humans”. When asked who pays his bills, he struggled to remember who his sponsors are, though he described Rockefeller as a “great ally in this”.
The full movie is well worth watching. The allegations of green corporate greed are very specific and well presented. Keep the remote handy so you can skip past the tedious climate emergency rhetoric.
Very interesting reading. Thanks for putting this together.
I wonder what part Ms Kaufman considers to be “Weak Analysis or Misinformation”?
The fact that 100% solar powered events are being run on Diesel Generation?
The fact that Green Energy Production requires far more land space than equivalent fossil generation?
The fact that Green Energy sources require far more materials mining than Fossil counterparts?
The fact that manufacturing Solar Panels requires Coal Mining to endure?
The fact that Wind Turbine manufacture is still dependent on Petrochemicals requiring continued Oil Extraction?
The fact that Biomass Generation still requires forest destruction because leaf litter is insufficient?
Or is she merely concerned that Weepy Bill McKibben is being portrayed in a harsh bright light?
She specifically says we have to stop chopping down trees, but yet far and away the majority of green energy is biomass, chopping down trees, fully supported by McKibben and Sierra club.
Why she cannot put those together is beyond me.
And climate emergency, meh
It’s very difficult for the Alarmists to have to answer charges and not merely crow about the need to save the world. They have virtually no facts to support their stance except the reliance on an appeal to mortal fear. So, the only thing Kaufman and others can do is launch ad hominem attacks. The media will support that because they want the False story of AGW to continue as they need a job.
Who is funding 350.org and the Sierra Club?
How come the writer does not seem to be aware of at least one sponsor for these and others?
Easy Peasy – Try the Rockefellers at https://www.rbf.org
They have a lovely search engine there from which you can peruse at least some of their “loans” to such organizations as above.
Better still, read what I say about it on my site.
https://thedemiseofchristchurch.wordpress.com/2015/08/15/the-rockefellers-who-they-fund-from-their-web-site/
Cheers
Roger
Roger you haven’t watched the movie ‘Planet of the Humans’ have you.
You’ve got Al Gore in it telling people how much gold (and he emphasises how wonderful gold is) can be made by saving the planet, obviously by investing in renewables. Richard Branson has a cameo too, when asked if he thought Al Gore was a prophet he said “How do you spell profit?” That brought a gleeful response.
We all know that amongst billionaires, there is no left or right, only obscene amounts of of money. Money brings power, the power to control. The whole renewables venture is a ruse to make more money and to create fear, they are all interdependent on each other, they are united in their greed.
Their ultimate aim is further the control of the UN and to form world government. Money, anybody’s money, can by just about anything.
Megs,
Nice to hear from you.
It is true that I have been concerned for some time about the things you mention.
Not sure what one could do about it. Communism does seem popular at the moment, but 1. I know that will not work and I think that should be avoided. 2 Capitalism is preferable, but the obscene amount of wealth that is accumulated by a relative few is affecting things as you mention.
Not sure what the solution could be, but I think individuals who own billions of their own are likely to have an influence – usually not to help society – which adversely effects the proper function of freedom which is a problem we see today.
Cheers
Roger
Haven’t seen the movie yet but will keep an eye open for it.
Roger
“Haven’t seen the movie yet but will keep an eye open for it.”
Here’s the link Roger, you only have to click on it!
The thing that makes this such an important film is that the ‘right’ have been almost completely shut down, freedom of speech is all but gone. Michael Moore has told the world things that we would never have been permitted to do. I only hope that some of these issues are expanded on, publicly and very soon. Renewables are creating real ecological damage. They churn out the CO2 with biomass then tell us how much CO2 is rising so we’d better put in more wind and solar to reduce it. Watch the movie, see how clean and green that is.
It is clear to me now that being a capitalist has nothing to do with which side of politics they are on, they are all equally greedy for wealth and power.
https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE
Roger,
You don’t have to keep an eye open for it? The film is available on the link above. 1hr 40 mins of revelation. If you were a Green advocate, it is about as devastating as it gets for you.
As a film producer, you just know you have hit the bull(sh**er)s eye when Michael Mann comes out of his bunker to have a go at you.
Meg and Rod,
Sat down and watched the movie in one shot.
Hell they could have taken a lot of those facts from my websites which are both more than 10 years old now.
I guess that being an Economics major kinda helped me to figure it all out. Just a pity that all those people in all the rallies all round the world are going to need someone other exercise instead of making these people rich.
Al Gore could especially do with a kick though!
All the best.
Cheers
Roger
Respect Roger.
We all watched it through different eyes and see different things. I actually don’t have a problem with people being obscenely rich nor do I feel the need to be like them or even associate with them, they are after all no more important than anyone else and I’m sure that there are philanthropists amongst billionaires too. It’s when their wealth is used for power and control that it becomes ugly and absolute greed gives way to corruption and lies. These people truly believe that they are superior human beings, that they deserve to be in power.
I too, knew much about the negative side of renewables from my own research. But my knowledge as an individual was a massive frustration for me because I didn’t know how to get the message out there when freedom of speech was all but gone. Knowing that the whole renewable industry is totally superfluous and that the planet is being stripped of its resources and will be well into the future is a travesty. Of course heads of government fell for the ‘clean green’ energy lie hook line and sinker, and with all the extra CO2 being being added to the atmosphere by the ‘green’ energy itself, the urgency to build more renewables perpetuated the lie, as was intended.
Of course that’s where the waste of money comes in, trillions of dollars, most of it from the taxpayers themselves by way of subsidies and all for nothing. The greedy billionaires from both the right and left of politics working side by side in their endeavor to part as many fools as they can of their money. They will never have enough wealth, they will not stop until the coffers are empty and that is when they will move in and take control, all by way of altruism and virtue signalling.
That’s what makes Michael Moore’s documentary/movie such a gift. If this movie had been made by a right of centre skeptic it wouldn’t have gained traction, no one on the left would have watched it. It would have been shut down very quickly. A well known, successful, left wing environmentalist and documentary maker, now that’s a different story. It was the element of surprise, leftists felt compelled to watch it. And many people on both sides of politics had no idea about any of this, they chose to simply believe the ‘97% of scientists’. Now that’s another story.
Megs,
“It’s when their wealth is used for power and control that it becomes ugly and absolute greed gives way to corruption and lies. These people truly believe that they are superior human beings, that they deserve to be in power. ”
I agree completely with your comment, including the above.
Great minds think alike maybe.
All the best
Roger
Gotta love the fact that 359.org is the only green outfit that cannot move the goalposts. Otherwise it would surely be 450.org by now.
Typical leftist critique – don’t investigate, deny the claims, move on.
They always do that. “Just change the dialect”
WTF is “climate justice,” anyway? The semantics have mutated AGAIN!
If they are the climate justices, the nu nazi clan ANTIFA must be the climate police, and that must mean we are the climate criminals. Have you repented your climate sins and said 100 Hail Gaia Prayers today?
Climate justice only occurs when the climate warriors are getting everything they want.
“Any _______ Justice besides Equal Justice isn’t justice at all.”
I forget who said that, but I like it.
– JPP
The standard reply in the U.S. ” that’s been debunked” which eventually leads to ” that’s had numerous debunkings” and a new word is born.
Watch Alex Epstein, who loves fossil fuels- mop the floor with McKibben in a debate from 2012: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_a9RP0J7PA&t=1075s
Watched this, i think at the time this debate was fairly even, but listening to it now years later you can see just how wrong McKibben really was and is on so many things.
Increasing temp will destroy crop yields? Research and data shows increasing CO2 allows plants to grow better in higher heat and using less water.
He made the libertarian argument that co2 causes sea rise, taking away others land. Yet innumerable rich people and believers are buying and building sea side mansions, all crap.
The renewable comments are blown out of the water by this new movie.
I think Bill is a useful idiot
Saw the clip with Bill (again).
I came to think of Greta when she was interviewed by the press after her speech of hatred and anger.
I am not sure I am familiar with that interview, Carl.
Can you direct me to it, please?
I am fixing to watch this Moore film for the first time.
Thank you
-Nick
It is a long time since I saw it.
Greta Thunberg was invited to speak at a UN assembly in the senate, I think.
In her speech to the diplomats she used the term “How dare you”, “You have stolen my childhood”, all with a face of spoiled child who is denied her favorite toy.
After this awful, but well read speech, she came to sit with several other speakers in a row in front of the press. One journalist asked her some very simple questions, which she could not answer and after weaving for a while, she turned to one of the grownups at the table, saying that the journalist should rather ask some of the others.
That is what I remember. Sorry I cannot bare to listen to her again, so if you do not find it on YouTube, then I am sure there are some other people here who can help.
Oh, yes…I recall that perfectly.
Not so much of an interview because she could not even give any hint of a perfunctory reply whatsoever.
The way she behaved made me think she may not have any thoughts of her own at all.
She was not even able to recite a talking point or a few sound bites.
And, IIRC, when she deflected to the others at that table, not a one of them could think of a single thing to say either.
Thank you for the reply.
I will find it and post it here.
I found it under “Greta without a script”.
Here it is:
https://youtu.be/0bwLt_5t73g
Carl,
Yes I just love your “bare to listen to her”
In our childhood we had a little ditty ” A bear tore my bare arm so bare I could not bear to bare it”
These people on here who think Moore and Gibbs are global warming realists, are more delusional than Al Gore. They are both Marxist Malthusians.
Like all the rest of the Satanists they think that we should reduce the world population to the level of the stone age.
Mind you they may have a point – there is no shortage of stones.
Bill McKibben says we are in a climate emergency.
Well here is SW Oz we sure are. After a horrible bushfire summer it is pissing memories of autumns past. Even some earlyish snow. OMG!!
Rivers are flowing! CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!
Dams are filling! DAMN!
Its autumn and its cold and wet for TWO DAYS RUNNING!!
Covid 19 and now this!! SOB. SOB. SOB
And then along comes Michael Moore and calls out the ONE TRUE RELIGION !
PAGAN!
INFIDEL !
HERETIC !
/sarc
You have made my morning Billy Boy. I’m gonna boil the billy in your (dis)honour and have a coffee. :-))
I’ll be dam*ed if I’ll ever watch anything Michael Moore produces. I vote with my dollars and it’ll be a cold day in hell before any of my dollars find their way into Michael Moore’s pocket.
Well, it is free to view on ChinaPravda, I mean YouTube, but I tend to agree with you. Whiny, fat, and rich aren’t qualities that recommend themselves.
The movie is available on Youtube for free. However, given Youtube’s charter to censor wrongthought, I would not be surprised if it is pulled.
Download it and save it for posterity.
The movie is free on YouTube — and it’s in color. The amazing conclusion stated near the end of the film is … “It’s not CO2 that’s destroying the planet ….”, which is why the green movement is trying to pull the film off the Internet.
Yeah, they didn’t want their de-population agenda released until a decade or so after their CO2 reduction efforts were obviously not working in the eyes of the voting public. The timing has to be just right or all the third world countries will object to sterilization, and this documentary is way too early.
They do not do a very good job when it comes to actualizing their depopulation rhetoric.
They are all gung hung kung flu lockdownistas.
*Gung Ho, Kung Flu, Lockdownistas*
My appointment with Dr. Fraud, I mean Freud, is pending.
Maybe I should see Jung.
He does not make an appearance in the movie, if that helps.
I watched the entire Documentary, it was effective in exposing the “Green power” scam.
It is worth it, to watch it, despite that Moore is the Executive Producer, it was Gibbs the director who does the work demolishing McKibben, Sierra $$$ Club, Al Gore and more monetary vampires of the left.
That alone is worth the reason to watch it.
Speaking of the Sierra Club, it brings to mind this interview, even though he is no longer president of the Sierra Club – (I can see why). But they have the same mindset.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw&t=98s
– JPP
It’s free on you tube and you can copy it for free also. It’s the only movie I partially agree with Michael Moore with.
Oh, there was the one before the last election where he explained exactly why Trump was going to win. First time I ever agreed with him.
Sometime, more by luck than judgment or design he stumbles on the truth and is astonished by it.
“I’ll be dam*ed if I’ll ever watch anything Michael Moore produces”
Gee John G, does this mean you never watch any critiques of your cherished ideas? How did you come to have these ideas? Who gave them to you. Look, it makes your position on this issue and essentially all other positions you stand by look shallow if your reaction to Moore is simply impotent anger. Bring your ideas to life by delving into them and have a superior ‘take’ on such issues. Show Moore up to be wrong or trivial or something.
Frankly, when one of your own giants that you have supported through all of his other projects suddenly gets a makeover, be shaken, like McKibben or the Sierra club, although they, too will resort to anger, ad hominems and reprisals instead of rock solid rebuttal with facts, logic and ‘rapier-like wit’ because they, too haven’t got game.
Mr. Pearse,
I’ve seen enough Michael Moore going all the way back to “Roger & Me” to know that he’s a propagandist, an opportunist and an editing room Machiavellian. He is a muddle-brained man utterly lacking economic literacy.
I recently observed him in an interview conducted by Amy Goodman of the left-wing lunatic fringe, public television news program Democracy Now! alongside Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and “Bug-Eyed” Bernie Sanders. He was, as usual, all over the map with his remarks, rarely making sense.
Hmmm. Well perhaps you have done your homework. Your post above was pretty information free. I basically saw Moore as part of the “progressive” echo chamber and a guy that found a shtick that gave him fame and cash.
Michael took me by surprise on this one, though. He won’t be forgiven by the left, ever. He did not do himself a favor if he was planning to continue in the chamber. I have to respect him for the integrity he showed in exposing, first, the fact well known to many on both sides of the Global Warming divide being that windmills and solar don’t really work, aren’t environmentally friendly and second, the business end of it all behind the curtain.
However that is only half of the bigger story that he wasn’t far off from discovering. These were only the useful idiots and a few corporate opportunists he got in the net. The real operators aren’t interested in CO2 or the environment. They have a grander global plan. I leave that for homework.
Reminds me of an old Christy Moore song, Minds Locked Shut
I sat down and spent the one hour and forty minutes to watch this film last night. I have never been able to bring myself to watch a Michael Moore film before. I couldn’t stop watching this one right to the end. I was so surprised. The thing about this film that kept me enthralled was simple. The line of questioning was firmly guided by a relentless effort to get straight answers sans bullshit. Sort of like what real journalism would look like. Heck, just like what happens on this blog every day. But you never see it in the mainstream. They made it look so easy to ask the right questions. I work in the construction industry, where I am confronted by and confounded by green regulations each and every day. It is beyond frustrating. So for me it was like this film was asking question I ask (and already know the answers to ) every day. So refreshing.
More of these commentators should do what you did – sit down and watch the film before commenting.
Well done, and well thought out post !
Thumbs up to you Stacy.
– JPP
I don’t usually watch anything on YouTube for anything longer than 2 minutes. But like you, I sensed its importance and stayed for the whole 100 minutes.
Rich.
These long YT videos are one you have to figure out how to watch on your TV to really appreciate.
No problem watching the YouTube “Planet of the Humans” video in HD on my 75 inch TV screen.
– JPP
I also watched the film and agree it was a complete take down on RE. However, the film’s other narrative is directed towards reducing our energy needs and promotes the false idea that our current energy resources are finite and will soon be exhausted. In my opinion, the film fails here on a few counts, one is by promoting the idea we need to move to minimal energy usage lifestyles and the second is by neglecting to mention nuclear energy, which is the obvious means that humans will ultimately provide endless power for our future. The idea that humanity is destined back to the stone age was dispelled the day after Einstein worked out his famous formula of E = MCsq. The greens either missed this memo due to their limitation of only being able to study arts courses, or they are still trying to work out what the formula actually means having never studied math.
McKibben’s inability to remember that the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the family, in general, are huge backers has to rank as one of the most disingenuous performances of all time.
Not only is McKibben a blithering idiot, he’s also a horrible actor and an even worse liar.
Have pity for the poor fellow, apparently he suffers from extreme constipation (“This Rump is closed”). 😉
How DARE you. He learned at the Christine Blasey Ford Method-one Acting Clinic and he probably just needs more acting juice.
I wonder if Moore & Co offered this film for free because they knew their usual distribution methods (film festivals then limited commercial release) would NOT yield the same results (effusive praise from lib critics boosting Box Office). So they decided to take a loss just to shirt circuit the critics. Guess the didn’t count on the cancel culture going after them trying to get YouTube to remove their film.
“To me the most misplaced invective is the treatment given to Bill McKibben. He comes across in the film as dishonest and corrupt. And yet he has done more for the climate justice movement than almost anyone else in the world. For all I know he has made some mistakes in the past and backed some initiatives that turned out to not be good ideas. I have no idea”
Yes, madam, the truth of it all is in the last sentence which says in effect that you don’t really have objective information to debunk Gibbs but you know how you feel.
Here are my comments on some the video, the essence of which is that climate science is not really eco wacko activism but they invited the Gibbs attack by trying to project that image as part of the marketing of their climate change and climate action activism.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/04/26/climate-action-business-model-part-2/
Where can I read about the politically correct, I assume, climate justice movement? Is it what I think it is – stealth genocide of poor people and especially brown and black poor people for a large consultancy fee or an NGO salary?
read about it here: https://ajustclimate.org/
She DOES know (she said so in the previous paragraph) but she can’t reconcile it, so in her emotional confusion she says “I have no idea”.
“He comes across in the film as dishonest and corrupt. And yet he has done more for the climate justice movement than almost anyone else in the world.”
He has done more for the climate justice movement than almost anyone else in the world BECAUSE, as portrayed in film, he is dishonest and corrupt … because that is what it takes to push forward the lie (and make a good living doing it).
My belief is that Bill McKibben is not corrupt or dishonest at his core.
He is a classic ‘true believer’. Afer ‘conversion’, he true believer soon finds that the world is not as simple as his belief system and is full of contradictions when viewed through a true believe lens.
The inevitable day soon arrives when the choice between abandonment of the ‘true belief’ or ‘comprimise to justify the true belief’ must be made. Practical men have chosen both roads in the past. Bill chose ‘maintain the belief at all costs’.
We needn’t invoke corruption when consistency will explain behaviour.
Based on my responses to 350.org emails solicitations & the fact that they keep sending me emails and solicitations, I can only assume that their computer driven solicitations are intended to only make money, and the signatory names on the solicitations are completely disconnected from the propagandistic solicitations. The main goal is to make money.
They may have a secondary goal & they need money to meet that secondary goal. But the methods used to obtain the money are dishonest and corrupt; that is my belief.
The guy that makes a living doing what he does may not be dishonest or/and corrupt at his core, but his means (and the part of him that surrounds his core) appear to be both dishonest & corrupt. Sometimes the ends justifies the means … in the case of whatever his secondary goal is (end fossil fuels?; reduce CO2 to 350 ppm?; reduce people?; call attention to corporate badness? martyr himself by shrinking away to nothing like Stevens Kings thinner character?), his goal does not justify his means.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/27/michael-moore-strikes-back-defends-anti-renewable-energy-planet-of-the-humans/#comment-2979532
Mike Moore finally gets energy right… and gets cancelled by the extreme left.
I have two engineering degrees and a career in energy. I will compare my energy achievements with anyone on the planet, and I say Mike Moore is essentially correct in this film.
A GREEN ENERGY PRIMER – GRID-CONNECTED WIND AND SOLAR ENERGY BOTH FAIL DUE TO INTERMITTENCY AND DIFFUSIVITY.
INTERMITTENCY means the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow 24/7, and the electric grid needs reliable dispatchable generation, not generation that goes up and down uncontrollably. Battery storage is touted as the solution, but it does not economically exist at grid-scale.
DIFFUSIVITY means it takes far too much land area to replace conventional energy with wind and/or solar generation –it would take fully ~10% of all the land area in Britain to do so. In the USA, this 10% would total about 300,000 square miles, or all of Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.
Energy experts have known these facts since ~forever – my co-authors and I published them in 2002 – but a leftist lie goes around the world ten times before the truth gets its boots on.
Regards, Allan
Not just land, but the actual materials that go into all these intermittent weak generators – absolutely massive amounts.
The U.K.’s drive to green energy agenda was set in stone. Something the electorate never voted for and never wanted. By the time they have destroyed the economy under this nonsensical shutdown they’ll have no choice but to reopen up the coal mines.
G. Bailey
“they’ll have no choice but to reopen up the coal mines.”
Wouldn’t be a bad thing I think, but the way there is hurting more than it should.
“Bill McKibben. He comes across in the film as dishonest and corrupt.”
Ironically, the author isn’t even talking about things Bill has done over they years that might actually be dishonest or corrupt.
He actually came on here a few years ago in a failed attempt to lecture all of us little people. His bad lying (see above comment), as it related to me, was that when I said that saying 350ppm was the perfect level, while simultaneously saying that fake-hurricane Sandy was caused by 400ppm was moronic, he obliquely accused me of calling him a moron.
Lying scumbag maybe, but an ability to steal an underserved living I would never class as being the hallmark of a moron.
McKibben’s organisation pays money to Canadians to undermine Canadian industry as part of some unknown agenda. All we know is these contractors show up at all universities trying to influence students with emotive arguments about how the economy needs to be shut down. Well, it is shut down now so I guess they will get a bonus.
I met one of his contractors at an interfaith gathering at which this lady tried to sell the eco-religion to the leadership of real ones. A lot of them were on board. There is such spiritual poverty that any reasonable looking cause gets more than a passing glance from those wishing the world was a much better place. Young people have no memory of how awful the world used to be so if effectively alarmed, they might be willing to divest and ban and abjure themselves into penury, possibly extinction.
I am not surprised McKibben comes across as disingenuous. He doesn’t debate real opponents so tripping over one was a jarring experience. You would expect the same with any similar encounter with the leading “darks” of the climate-industrial complex. Their common technique is to shine the dark light of extinction on anything that challenges their obvious biases or exposes them as shills for one or other secretive agenda. Sunlight is indeed an effective disinfectant for polluted minds.
McKibben knows full well who is financing him to finance Canadian NGO’s to pay my neighbours to convince me to shut down the modern Canadian economy. He thinks we are that stupid.
One of the best defenses against this is malign influence is to undo the entire block of regulations that permit the existence of the “off-shore” banking business. That is where the dark money hides and plays games.
Excellent comments, thank you Crispin.
Stay safe and well.
Best personal regards, Allan
I don’t think the Sierra club or Bill McKibben have compromised their principles. I also don’t think they had intended for the whole world to see exactly what those principles are. I expect we will continue to see them living by their principles every day. Just not the principles they pretended to have or principles we would want our children to adopt.
I am not so sure they have any actual principles, at least not the way people that have some understand them.
It seem to me they are motivated by the urge to control, and operate on the level of emotion.
Everything else is subordinate to those.
Andy and Nic, yes interesting points. Between jobs a few years ago, I decided to volunteer for a campaigning organisation here in the UK. The thing that remained with me after working there for a few months was the total lack of any guiding principles. They would campaign for anything, in fact they were desperate for some authentic gripe, which could turn into a bandwagon, and contribute to their importance. They competed with other similar organisations to trap concerned citizens into supporting a series of campaigns, and contributing money to the promotion of the campaign (and, to be fair, only mildly enriching the founders of the organisation).
So yes it is fair to say they are ambitious and so motivated by the usual things; fame, respect of ones peers, relevance, importance and fortune, the key thing is that to succeed with those in politics one has to have principles that can be traded, obscured and perverted.
If you can’t be bought, then you aren’t useful to anyone.
That’s how it sounds to me, and the politicians demonstrate that principle. That’s why so many power people supported Bill and Hillary. They were (and are) easily bought.
re: “The thing that remained with me after working there for a few months was the total lack of any guiding principles. They would campaign for anything, in fact they were desperate for some authentic gripe, which could turn into a bandwagon, and contribute to their importance. ”
Sounds a LOT like Munchhausen’s syndrome by proxy; Attention seeking by another name.
Andy
There was a time, back in the early-’70s, that I was a card-carrying member of the Sierra Club. Their magazine had an article about deformed fish in a river, I think in Alaska. The author blamed it on arsenic, which in turn he blamed on gold dredging. Gold is commonly associated with pyrite and arsenopyrite. Arsenic is an essential constituent of the arsenopyrite, and trace quantities of arsenic are common in pyrite. One could reasonably expect elevated arsenic concentrations in waters in gold-bearing areas. I wrote to the magazine and asked if there had been any chemical analyses performed on the river waters prior to being dredged. I did not get a timely reply, nor was my letter published in the Letters to the Editor, so I wrote again. This time I got a response from the author, but there was nothing in his correspondence to support his claim that gold dredging was responsible for the fish deformities. It was evident that neither the author or the editors of the SC were interested in the truth. They had an agenda to promote, and facts were not part of the principles they used in their promotion. I let my membership lapse, and have never again contributed.
Clyde I let my membership to the Issac Walton league lapse as well. Initially, I really felt the organization was doing grass level work to work towards clean water and then I got an email from the national chair That they needed money to fight climate change. They mentioned how the CA fires were a result of climate change. I sent an email asking for the evidence to back up the claim. Their response was along the lines that it was common knowledge 🙂
Mean while the governments in the U.S. have succeeded where the greens have not. Shut it down now =50% loss of automobile sales and of course jobs
https://www.edmunds.com/industry/press/new-vehicle-sales-continue-downward-slide-in-april-edmunds-forecasts.html
the point of view is debatable, I talk about in http://sastrainggris.unimus.ac.id/?p=1486#comment-205346 However, I do not agree with Greta, not because she is a girl, but she comes out with opinions from her parents and not with an informed opinion.
Cynthia really is a true believer. The fanaticism of the converted shines through. She is right about one thing though. Getting to net zero by 2050 will indeed take everything we have: our standard of living, our health, our future, our freedom, our lives.
Ms. Kaufman,
Bill McFibben comes across as “dishonest and corrupt” because he is. Take your own advice and do some investigation of the man.
Very telling that the progressive left views a ‘Planet of Humans’ as a horror story.
Ha ha yes, if I might paraphrase Brad Keyes – the progressive left makes the Amish look like visitors from the future.
Progress is [unqualified] monotonic change, that has been imputed with all manner of positive denotations and connotations for sociopolitical and economic leverage. #SemanticGames
The true believers will not let go easily.
Any consortium (and all involved) that veers from a scientific investigation on the effects of CO2 emissions, to something called a “climate justice movement” which is a political ideology – not science, has blatantly become ‘dishonest and corrupt’ .
Leftists are so funny….
Leftists claim to only follow the science, but all empirical evidence and laws of physics show ECS will beneficially be around 1.2C, which is far below 3C~5C vapid model projections they blindly believe despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary…
Kinda like the Leftist Wuhan flu model death projections which predicted 2.2 million US deaths by August 2020… Meh, not so much…
Moore did a mediocre job explaining why wind, solar and biofuels will NEVER be able to replace fossil fuels, but he should have gone one step further and explain why only new nuclear power technologies are capable of replacing fossil fuels in the future, but, alas, Leftists generally HATE nuclear power, too…
Yeah, right, the Left is sooooo the party of science…
If Annalena Baerbock or Robert Habeck (leaders of the Greens in Germany) “brainstom” in front of a camera, they demonstrate their “scientific” background:
Baerbock: The grid is a storage
Baerbock: confusing cobalt with kobold (gremlin) in batterrie (accus)
Baerbock: it’s proven by science calculations, a “dark-calm” doesn’t exist (no sun/ no wind)
Habeck: We the greens will bring back democacy to Bavaria, …to Saxony (in 2 election campaigns)
Habeck: The incubation time will double all 2 days. (Corona)
Leftist when confronted with facts – deny them, or just usually ignore them.
And when they do debate, they never do with facts, but with emotions.
– JPP
“Yeah, right, the Left is sooooo the party of science”
Yes, you can tell because the Democrats are always saying “the Science”, “the Science”. They want to portray Trump as not being a person who listens to “the Science” and they want to contrast that with themselves by always saying “the Science” which makes it seem like “the Science” is one of their piorities and specialties.
It’s just more propaganda and psychological warefare from the Left.
Tom-san:
Yes, the Left often uses the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad nauseam, where they simply repeat a known lie over and over again with the hope the masses will eventually believe it to be true….
Leftism truly is evil..
It is an utterly failed construct which can only survive through deceit, lies, and the obfuscation of reality..
Another great movie
https://youtu.be/oYhCQv5tNsQ
“That means we all need to do everything we can to get the world to stop burning fossil fuels and chopping down trees.”
How’s that going to work then? EU imports 6,000,000 tons of palm oil to burn instead of coal and the UK’s Drax power station imports 140,000 tons of wood pellets a week to avoid using coal. This is a bit like some western countries locking down to save lives AND the economy?
All of these Big special interest political groups are corrupted . The groups start out uncorrupted then money gets involved and all become about power and getting richer.
In the above-quoted article authored be Cynthia Kaufman, she writes: “Getting to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 will take everything we have.”
Just one tiny hint for you, Cynthia: “Getting to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 IS IMPOSSIBLE based on the technology, engineering and scientific knowledge that we have today.”
Everyone who is born, dies.
So at one level, will it really matter, whatever happens?
Will how many people are alive now, or how long any of them live, or even how long all of them live, will any of that matter in a thousand, a million years?
We do not have a hive mind, at least not much of one.
There was a movie that was one of my all time favorites from the first time I saw it.
It had a line which was not written by the sci-fi writer who wrote the story the movie was based on.
Nor was it written by the writer or writers of the screen play, or by the director.
It was written by one of the actors, and not even the big star of the movie.
It was written by the not very well known actor who played the main villain.
He said, near the end when he was going to die, speaking of what would become of all of his memories, the things he has experienced, the things he has lived through, the things he has seen:
“All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.”
And that is what awaits us all.
Today, tomorrow, or in a hundred years.
That is what we all have coming.
Nice story, but I do believe the movie line, and you, are incorrect. We have long had an effective “hive mind”, dating back to the concept of writing down words, and then forming libraries to store and share such.
More recently, we have expanded that “hive mind” capability by many, many orders of magnitude and made it nearly instantaneous by dint of developing computers, the Internet and the Web.
For as long as humans exist, at least some of the greater “moments” of the Bible’s authors, Socrates, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Beethoven, Newton, Einstein, and millions of other humans will not be lost in time.
I think you are the one with a story.
I simply described what will become of us.
You think some words and art and ideas will survive forever?
How long is that?
Forever forever?
A million years?
Millions of us will have our thoughts and ideas and memories preserved?
You are guessing, and wishing, and hoping.
~7,000,000,000 alive right now.
Experiences every second of every day.
You really think the stuff that is written down and survives today represents the sum of the lives of even those few people you mention?
Besides for that, if you think recorded text and speech and being able to learn things about people who lived in the past is a hive mind, you are not talking about what I understand the term to mean.
A hive mind thinks as one entity.
You seem to be talking about having a few ideas from the past preserved temporarily.
Are we acting as one entity, in any sense of those words, because we have some old books?
You seem to be unwilling to come to terms with death, and all it entails.
Faith in an everlasting immortal soul is an infinitely better argument, than that people from the past have not had the contents of their brains erased from existence, and than the idea that some thoughts we may have and write down while we are alive encapsulates and preserves our mind.
Maybe people will still be around for millions and billions of years, and maybe they will even be as aware as some of us are, of those people and books and ideas you make reference to.
And maybe not.
But in any case, I know that unless I can upload my mind into some everlasting machine, or unless I have an immortal soul that will exist in some way and in some place that will be like still being alive…unless either of those things happen, my mind will be utterly gone the instant I am no longer alive to be aware of my memories.
Show me Socrates tears and the specific sadness that caused him to shed them, and I will change my mind.
Nicholas, no need to get all in a twit.
The answers to your first paragraph of questions is found in the introductory phrase of the last paragraph of my post above: “For as long as humans exist . . .”
But perhaps you did not bother to read that far?
And your are attributing to me an awful lot of things that I never stated . . . the classic strawman rebuttal technique in a discussion that is not going too well for one side.
As to YOUR bottom line statement, you are now asking for actual physical objects (tears) and emotions (specific sadness) whereas your OP was focused on memories, which are quite different things of course?
I should stay away from philosophy.
I am not in a snit or anything.
I just think we are talking about two separate things.
I should have just said that I wrote that comment while pausing the movie right at the part He was talking to the guy who mentioned Camus.
I do not know what happens when we die, but my instinct is to hold onto my own life as though the moment I die will be the last thing I ever know, and I will not know it for long.
And then, in this view, everything I ever cared or thought about will be erased.
Anyway, by the end of that movie I wished I never saw it…it was really not a pleasant movie at all.
And I already knew just about everything in the movie.
He never even talked about the turbines killing birds and bats.
Or what would be a better alternative for generating power.
In fact it was kind of jarring to me that there seemed to be no mention that there are two forms of generating power that we can make happen whenever we want, and that involved burning nothing and that make clean power.
I feel sorry for a lot of those people…they have no idea of how dumb they are.
Nicholas wrote: “A hive mind thinks as one entity”.
Thanks for partly clarifying what you meant by your use of the term “hive mind”.
I wonder if bees fit that definition as they individually go about daily foraging for sources of water, pollen and nectar?
And with your clarification, I now thank God that we DO NOT have a “hive mind” as you envision that thinks as one entity . . . I have uncountable personal experiences and associated memories, both good and bad, that I never want to share with anyone else. Conversely, sharing the experiences and mind “knowledge” (some truthful, most half-truths at best)—and the emotions and memories, if you will—of some 8 billion of other humans has absolutely no appeal to me whatsoever.
Rutger Hauer had also been the villain in “Nighthawks.” He was pretty well-known.
Shame what the sequel did to “Blade Runner,” though.
The relative fame or how to accurately describe how well known he may be or not be, was not really any part of the point I was making.
He is very much more well known since Blade Runner.
He died last year.
I do not know anything about what his most treasured memories might have been.
The first time he kissed the love of his life?
His memory of the most perfect moment of his life?
The most beautiful things he ever saw?
In any case, the conversation about coming to terms with death was not a key part of this film.
The point of it could have been, how to best preserve the resources of the Earth, how to stretch them out and make them last.
I would start with getting all of the poor people to a more prosperous life, with a better education for all of them. That reduces birth rate more than anything else.
Then consider using all of the energy resources as efficiently as possible, and how to work towards that.
How much less trees and fossil fuels would be getting burned if all of those so-called green energy dollars had been used to build nuclear plants and hydroelectric dams?
That would make a real difference.
And so would getting politics out of such matters.
This movie is incredibly depressing on many levels.
What are the chances of any of the people shown in this film, changing their minds on what they are working towards?
It would take all of them changing to make much difference.
I saw no hint that any of them have a bit of awareness of the irrationality regarding weather and climate and temperature that is the basis of their entire mythology, that human beings can control weather, that small changes in GAST are a catastrophe, that the planet is too warm and needs to be colder, and that we can make that happen through elaborate and wasteful energy schemes.
“All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.”
And that is what awaits us all.
Today, tomorrow, or in a hundred years.
That is what we all have coming.”
Maybe. None of us really know what comes after death, if anything. Are we in for a huge pleasant surprise (like continuing to exist in some form), or does it just end? Nobody I know, knows. Lots of speculation though. I guess that is to be expected under the circumstances. 🙂
Wherever they are, I do not know of too many people who have heard back from any of them.
One time I got to wondering what might happen if we do have an immortal consciousness, that remains aware after our body has died.
I was wondering how we would have any sensory input, or way to communicate?
What if it is like being in a sensory deprivation tank, all alone, forever?
*shudder*
Almost anything would be better than that.
I was of course, commenting from the point of view that when we go, we are gone.
I am not hoping for that.
And when I was in my car accident back in 1982, I did have something very strange and mysterious happen to me, in which I was out of my body and rising up…I saw the lodgepole pines lining the road (West Thumb of Lake Yellowstone) moving past, then I was above them, then I saw mountains off to the side, snow capped mountains…and clouds above me, then I was up through the clouds, and when I looked down it was down onto those snow capped peaks…then…something weird happened I cannot describe and then after that I was waking up lying in the road, out of the car, and I heard what must have been the sound of the thing they used to cut a wreck apart, and I knew they were trying to cut Mike out of the car…
Anyway, I had never been in a plane above mountains. And I was barely aware that the Tetons were snow capped. But years later, when I flew over those mountains in a plane, it looked exactly like what I had seen that morning.
There are a lot more details, but that is the gist of it…and I was not dreaming. I never have remembered a dream in my life. But that memory is as vivid 40 years later as when it happened.
And that is a true story.
So help me…
That’s interesting, Nicholas. I had a somewhat similar out of body experience, something entirely unexpected and beneficial and so that’s one reason I keep an open mind about religion, because I have experienced something I can’t explain and it came out of the blue, without any prompting from me. There are a lot of things in this universe we don’t understand. I think humans have to have hope of something in their lives. It keeps you going when the going gets tough.
I know if I do get to the Pearly Gates I’m going to have a *lot* of questions. I hope I don’t wear out my welcome, and get sent somewhere else. 🙂
re: “Wherever they are, I do not know of too many people who have heard back from any of them.
One time I got to wondering what might happen if we do have an immortal consciousness, that remains aware after our body has died.”
I would recommend looking at the work of one Fr. Spitzer regarding NDE and TL (near death experiences and terminal lucidity) experiences IF you are curious about the afterlife; various reports and studies done in conjunction with doctors and hospitals have been done in this area. It’s an eye opener … it will be from a Catholic perspective (JUST so you know) BUT the experiences and events as related are still valid in any case.
re: “Will how many people are alive now, or how long any of them live, or even how long all of them live, will any of that matter in a thousand, a million years? We do not have a hive* mind, at least not much of one.”
What can one say except: Myopia writ large. See Luke 22:19, ~2000 plus years and counting.
(See also comment by Gordon Dressler)
.
.
* Hive mind may not be the exact word to describe it.
As Ms Kaufman wrote in her boxed article excerpt in the above WUWT article, ” . . . Bill McKibben. He comes across in the film as dishonest and corrupt. And yet he has done more for the climate justice movement than almost anyone else in the world.”
The word “yet” in that assertion is an obvious mistake . . . it logically should be not be there.
The useful idiots are about to serve their purpose.
Bill has been groomed as a scapegoat for years.
When the victims of fraud realize they have been had,they seek revenge.
I have noticed nearly all the original Climate Con,profiteers have moved on,while funding ideologues as their replacements.
The “Team” are such useful meat,they will be the people thrown to the mob,when the government agents are held responsible..
Government funded scientific research will be another.
Scapegoating is a wonderful sport for diverting lynch mobs.
We will one day look back and ask ourselves “what went wrong” or “how did we become so wrong.” So much work has been done to develop theoretical models posed to represent a hugely complex systems which are untestable in any realistic way, with any resemblance or meaning of real time. One reason – too much time on our hands that could be spent solve real world problems… like, e.g., future global virus pandemics.
Propaganda is begat of conflicting belief and of peoples’ determination to spread their own doctrines against all others. It is the antithesis of honest education and unbiased information. To be effective, propaganda needs the help of censorship. Within a arena of censored information, it can mobilize all means of communication – printed, spoken, artistic and visual – and press its claims to maximum advantage. The five basic rules of propaganda are:
1. The rule of simplification: reducing all data to a simple confrontation between ‘Good v. Bad’, ‘Friend v. Foe’.
2. The rule of disfiguration: discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies.
3. The rule of transfusion: manipulating the consensus values of the target audience for one’s own ends.
4. The rule of unanimity: presenting one’s viewpoint as if it is the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people; including drawing doubting individuals into agreement by the appeal of star-performers, social pressure and by ‘psychological contagion’ sometimes a.k.a. psy-ops.
5. The rule of orchestration (or repetition): endlessly repeating the same message over and over; in different variations and combinations.”
Ref. Norman Davis’ five basic rules of propaganda in “Europe – a History,” Oxford Press, 1996, pp 500-501)
In reply to:
We will one day look back and ask ourselves “what went wrong” or “how did we become so wrong.”
All the focus on a fake problem… and the fake problem created a real problem.
CAGW the issue created ‘Big Bother’ and somehow de-brained the Democrat party, enably it to be taken over by special interests and of course China is the most powerful special interest in the world.
The Trillions wasted on green stuff was sad.
Big Brother is an uncontrollable monster that gets more powerful with time. Big Brother wants to control what you see on the internet.
Big Brother is absolutely as dangerous as the Communist Party.
New technology has made Big Brother possible. China has face recognition for all citizens. Purchases are made with face recognition. China can and does track citizens to find any activity that is not in accordance with Big Brother.
China is using their communication system AI, to provide complete monitoring and control of their internet and voice communication via phone. The system continuous monitors all voice and digital communication to find any communication that is not in agreement with Big Brother.
Big Brother is a few steps away from controlling our internet.
We were so stupid and wealthy that we could waste trillions of dollars and damage our environment for almost no net benefit. Logic was on our side. It did not matter.
There has, however, been a paradigm change.
There is absolutely no money for CAGW or any other stupid program that is not essential to the restart and rebuilding of our economies and/or running essential services in our country.
re: “Big Brother is a few steps away from controlling our internet. ”
BB/AI ALREADY EMPLOYED on YT, FB, and in Google searches …
I thought the film was good, but really puzzled by the indictment of Caterpillar as a company because their bulldozers were used against protestors. Such an odd, seemingly indefensible indictment.
Leftist guilt by association, if someone gets shot its the gun maker’s fault.
Moore should have interviewed Hansen for this movie. We all know what’s his opinion on renewables.
Yes but Hansen would have said pro-nuclear things, and Moore’s movie steered very carefully around the nuclear elephant. The only brief mention of nuclear I recall was mildly disparaging.
Agreed.
And that’s not all as the massive fallacy of composition with rooftop solar is coming to a head with their iconic South Australian experiment to add to their woes-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/markets/energy-operator-wants-to-remotely-switch-off-rooftop-solar-systems-amid-uncontrolled-growth/ar-BB13pbOi
How do you like Australia’s wind energy output in April? If you run your pointer over those wonderful peaks and troughs you’ll find the true believers have faith in a system that varies from 62.3% of installed capacity down to 1.3%. – https://anero.id/energy/wind-energy/2020/april
You have to ask yourself with so much resourcing thrown at educating so many in the history of mankind we can still have so much basic technical ignorance and stupidity. Who slapped you around the head Mr Moore?
Moore was right about renewables, just that he didn’t expand on it with some facts. From a small pdf I wrote on solar panels so to satisfy the following question. Are solar panels a reusable, and environmentally friendly source of energy with a low Greenhouse Gas footprint?
To manufacture a solar panel 1094.4 kWh/m2 of energy is consumed, this same panel if located in Manitoba/Ontario would produce 174 kWh/m2 per year. Therefore, a solar panel located there would have 6.3 years of energy pay-back time. However, to calculate the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) footprint the criteria is more complicated.
The GHG footprint for a solar panel is dependent on, 1 its location solar irradiance value, 2 its longevity or life span, and 3 importantly the source of electrical generation used by its manufacturing process. The accepted norm of 50g CO2-eq/kWh used for GHG footprint of solar panels is not applicable in Canada and is reliant on usage of clean power sources in its production.
Of the three major influences in a solar panel GHG footprint, the greatest is the source of electrical generation used in its manufacture. If nuclear or hydro power was used for this, a solar panel would have 1 to 10g CO2-eq/kWh GHG footprint. If coal was the primary source of power, the GHG footprint would be of over 300g CO2-eq/kWh. In this instance a solar panel installed in Manitoba/Ontario would have GHG pay-back period of over 170years, far beyond its life span.
Are solar panels a GHG friendly source of energy? Only if they are manufactured using energy with low GHG emissions, and used in locations of high GHG emissions attributed to the primary power source on the electrical grid.
CO2 is not a pollutant, it is an invented hobgoblin.
The reason to have as many nuclear plants and hydro dams as we need to produce all or most of our electric power, ought to be to conserve the supply of fossil fuels for other purposes and to keep the price of them low.
Even talking about GHG footprints is buying a large part of the mythology the warmistas have created out of thin air.
Oh I totally agree with you, CO2 is not a pollutant nor a problem. But the argument being sold to people is that renewables don’t put out any GHG’s and that is huge fallacy.
Cool, I just wanted to make that point.
The movie did effectively make the point, but only briefly, that solar and wind and biofuels mostly all use FF to make those things.
How bad is a coal mine compared to cutting down rainforests in Borneo for palm oil plantations?
The only people that seem oblivious to what is being done to fulfill biofuel mandates are the people who think they are doing the planet a favor by making such laws.
Although it does not make much sense to me to include burning trash as somehow equivalent to chopping down trees to burn for electricity, or to make palm oil plantations.
Also making no sense is the idea that making cracks in rocks a mile down under the ground to get nat gas out of the rock is some horror.
When it comes right down to it, all of the insanity depicted in this movie is a direct consequence of people being brainwashed about CO2 and global milding.
Peter Roach, thank you, I’ve been long looking for GHG footprint data as you presented it. Very helpful.
Thank you, I do have a 4page pdf that goes in to detail where all the numbers come from that I could make available somehow, if interested.
I do wonder how many commenters have viewed it. I thought Ozzie Zehner was a brilliant participant and want to see more of him.
Several sources that can be readily found with a simple search using the operand “what is michael moore’s net worth” estimate it at $50,000,000. Another Hollywood limousine liberal.
The people responsible for cutting down those rainforests to make palm oil plantations and doing that to those orangutans should be stoned, IMO.
And I think I would throw the first one.
Tar and feather them and send them out of town.
“I’ll be dam*ed if I’ll ever watch anything Michael Moore produces”
Gee John G, does this mean you never watch any critiques of your cherished ideas? How did you come to have these ideas? Who gave them to you. Look, it makes your position on this issue and essentially all other positions you stand by look shallow if your reaction to Moore is simply impotent anger. Bring your ideas to life by delving into them and have a superior ‘take’ on such issues. Show Moore up to be wrong or trivial or something.
Frankly, when one of your own giants that you have supported through all of his other projects suddenly gets a makeover, be shaken, like McKibben or the Sierra club, although they, too will resort to anger, ad hominems and reprisals instead of rock solid rebuttal with facts, logic and ‘rapier-like wit’ because they, too haven’t got game.
Mr. Pearse,
See above:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/30/planet-of-the-humans-climate-activists-scramble-to-choose-a-corporate-sellout-scapegoat/#comment-2982145
Was anyone else wondering if the people that made this movie are aware that one of the two Koch brothers they kept highlighting, died a while ago?
David Koch died a few weeks after the limited first release, way back in August 2019.
Ah, OK.
That ‘splains it.
Thanks, Eric.
I’m rooting for Weepy Bill.
You can do it, Mon! Hoe that row. Show your corporate-backed creds. Win! Win! Win!
Full disclosure: I have a soft spot for anyone that promotes eliminating fossil fuels yet there’s a photo of him heading home from shopping carrying those disposable plastic bags that he rails against. I love a good do-as-I-say-not -as-I-do kind of guy. How do you think I raised such great children? ;o)
.
.
“Don’t smoke pot.”
But dad, you smoked pot when you were our age.”
“That was the ’60s. Do as I say, not as I did.”
The secret of successful parenting revealed.
The biggest fonder of 350 is NOT Swedish at all.
It might be Danish, http://www.vkrf.org/
Rasmussen fondation.
Money comes from Ventolux a window company.
Here is a very good account, from a “reformed” Sierra club member.
http://www.environmentalismgonemad.com/
Environmentalism Gone Mad
How a Sierra Club Activist and Senior EPA
Analyst Discovered a Radical Green Energy Fantasy
by Alan Carlin
Dr. Alan Carlin is an economist and physical scientist with degrees from Caltech and MIT and publications in both economics and climate/energy, who became actively involved in the Sierra Club in the 1960s as an activist and Chapter Chairman. This led to an almost 39 year career as a manager and senior analyst at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
“We are in a climate emergency. That means we all need to do everything we can to get the world to stop burning fossil fuels and chopping down trees.”
The film actually says quite a lot about chopping down trees. It clearly shows that “biomass” and “wood chips” are really all about chopping down trees for energy. As with so many “green” policies, including biomass and bio fuels, the actual result is to cause more environmental destruction.
Well done to Michael Moore and the maker of the film for showing all this green hypocrisy for what it really is. Hopefully with time they’ll finally realise that we’re not doomed, and that increasing prosperity for all of mankind is the best way to protect the environment.
Chris
The question we are now all asking “Will this film promote change ?”
In my opinion nothing will change. It’s been obvious to everyone that’s not afflicted by green ideology that RE is a scam that provides power we can’t use in any significant quantity in an energy grid. The fact that this film has been made by a member of the green-left fan club will only result in the expulsion of at least one person from the club. The message will be the same “If we keep repeating the same failed experiment year after year with more free money donated by western governments, one day it will work because that’s what our science says”.
How do we promote change Serge?
Don Pittis was a forest firefighter, and a ranger in Canada’s High Arctic islands. After moving into journalism, he was principal business reporter for Radio Television Hong Kong before the handover to China. He has produced and reported for the CBC in Saskatchewan and Toronto and the BBC in London. He is currently senior producer at CBC’s business unit…. Better known for driving a diesel VW Jetta… until the emission scandal emerged.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/planet-humans-michael-moore-economics-1.5549693
Pittis evacuates the whole issue fast…
Excuses…
Ahahaha and then follows a promote for green stuff, Pittis has found the perpetual movement!
LOL the whole article is in the same vein…
And he finishes with Greta!
What a Pittis!
Here are some of my “takes” on the film:
Michael Moore didn’t make the film, and wasn’t much involved in it, except maybe some editing. He’s more a promoter of it than a producer.
The film’s objection to the green movement is mostly that it isn’t pure enough. It is allowing capitalists to get involved behind the scenes, and allowing any use of fossil fuels to back up or supplement renewable installations. This is consistent with Moore’s demonization of money-making and of non-purist actions.
The film’s critics are right in saying that some of its criticism is dated or inaccurate. (I haven’t actually read their criticism.) For instance, solar panels today are more efficient than the ones criticized in the film.
The film’s main criticisms were directed at the use of biomass. But it failed to criticize one of the fattest targets out there: the attempt to convert biomass into biodiesel, using algae, massively funded by Silly Valley bigwigs. Even 60 Minutes had a field day with that.
There was little criticism of all the money the government lost by giving loan guarantees to dozens of failed green energy companies like Solyndra.
The film wasn’t very focused. It mostly took opportunistic slams. So it only dinged its target(s), rather than destroying them, as some of us skeptics would like to believe.
What is the actual call to action in the film? Stop deploying renewables — and then do what instead? Mass executions or suicide? Chinese-style limits on family size? Forced sterilization? Are any of the proponents volunteering to go first?