Stephen Heins writes on Facebook:
This latest unseemly attack on “Planet of the Humans” reveals the environmentalist methodology: Name-calling, scarcity of counter-argument facts, the exaggeration of harm, and the abuse of the legal system with large buckets of tax-free Green Machine Money.
The four-second clip subject to the copyright right claim comes 37 minutes into the documentary, in a sequence titled “How Solar Panels & Wind Turbines Are Made.” The footage shows a mining operation for rare earth metals, which are used in wind turbine manufacture. Gibbs says he incorporated the footage under “fair use,” an exception to copyright law that allows news reporters, producers and documentary filmmakers limited access to copyrighted material to illustrate points.
It’s unclear who asserted the copyright violation, though Moore’s rep suspects a person who runs an environmental foundation that, in turn, is funded by a group with ties to an environmentalist criticized in the documentary. YouTube notifies content creators automatically after a copyright infringement claim has been lodged. The creator then has an opportunity to “contact claimant” to resolve the matter or to dispute the claim through YouTube. A representative for Moore and Gibbs confirmed that the filmmakers have formally disputed the copyright infringement claim through YouTube.
Reference, this Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/may/26/michael-moore-film-planet-of-the-humans-removed-from-youtube
I love it when the Left eats their own.
Simple solution, travel to a rare earth mine and capture several seconds of footage, splice those 4 seconds replacing the ?Copyrighted? Seconds and never more infringement
Bit more than a day trip involved there, Bryan.
The only operation in the US is Mountain Pass in California – and I’m not sure they are even actively working there. Last I knew, they were sending their concentrate overseas to be processed by their owners. If they are active, I doubt that their ChiCom owners would give them permission to film something for use in damaging one of their most precious monopolies.
Everywhere else, I’d make a conservative estimate that the cost would be somewhere around $2,000 to $3,000 USD a second, assuming a legitimate operation. The Congo would probably cost you your life. A major studio might have the money to throw around like that – but not the people.
(Using footage of something else very similar to a rare earth mine – such as an open pit copper operation – would only give the censors a hook for a “fact check” takedown.)
Replace it with a plasic factory for making wind turbines or a fibreglass plant, Steel and concrete making. If I were Moore, I’d announce a sequel looking behind the really big curtain, for which the hopeless renewables are window dressing.
Why not use steam coming out of a stack? (^-^)
YouTube has many documentaries and much footage of kids in Congo cobalt mines. Use some of that:
Those were my thoughts with variations. It is an opportunity. Place an upgraded version on youtube with the purported offensive clip redacted and replace it with something that the lefties would find even worse.
Surely there is a 4 second shot of a mining operation SOMEWHERE out there in the public domain. And there no ethical issue if the public domain mining video is not EXACTLY that being mentioned in the video narration, as long as there is no claim asserting such. Artistic “license” such as this is used all the time in the MSM, for both videos as well as still photos.
I’d replace the 4-second sequence with a 10-second longer sequence simply saying:
“Sequence of rare earth mining removed due to environmentalists objecting to the truth
#censorship”
I only wish they ate faster.
Michael Moore is feeling what its like to be a “sceptic” (also known as a sane rational person) and Republican.
Eat it up Moore boy! 😉
Time to repeal section 230. Treat publisher like publisher.
Actually I hope Moore makes the connection that it is his lefty cohorts who are the enemies of free speech and freedom in general. I hope he takes another step to learn and reveal the dystopian plan his UN EU ‘Liberal’ néomarxiste and the Davos Champagne socialist friends have for running things.
Freedom to do and to express unpopular views is (was) his bread and butter. At least someone should point out to him if he doesn’t see this that he unwittingly has a lot in common with skeptics now.
I’m happy to have downloaded-it while being online 😀
I’ve downloaded it too, just in case any of my left-leaning friends don’t believe it exists.
You could point them here:
https://planetofthehumans.com/
“Must protect the narrative”
Why You Tube chooses to commit suicide, is a mystery.
Get woke go broke?
Our progressive comrades are not shy about their book burning,idea banning heritage.
RE: “Why YouTube chooses to commit suicide, is a mystery. Get woke go broke?”John Robertson
Google has arguably the Deepest Pockets in the USA (The NSA & CIA fund it.) so don’t expect YouTube to fail anytime before the end of the USA.
Dan Kurt
While this is true, as a former CEO, I can tell you that I see signs everywhere that Youtube is losing money and Alphabet is trying to stop the losses. From additional ads to all sorts of other revenue enhancing measures. Including continually cutting the share that creators get. Also demonetization is probably driven as much by the search for profits as by ideology. Lots of alternatives like bitchute. And TIL, Spotify, the music streaming company, does videos too. Joe Rogan signed a huge deal with them. He interviews lots of “out of the mainstream” people, which is a real service to democracy to hear those voices, regardless if you agree with them or not.
The BIG Advertisers with deep pockets want to be brand safe…utube is not brand safe.
Many of the marx-stream cable fake-news channels lose money but continue to be propped-up. Profit is not so much a concern as long as “The Cause” is served.
I’d argue ideology has very little to do with it, which, as you know as a former CEO, is the only way to run a successful business.
The Left is just as p*ssed off at Alphabet/Google/YouTube as some on the Right are, and for the same reasons:
https://tinyurl.com/y7xpenah
The NSA and the CIA do not fund Google. You do, and I do and everybody else who adds our eyeballs and personal data to their advertising engine.
Don’t blame the government. It is our fault.
We have met the enemy and he is us.
“CIA do not fund Google”
Keep telling yourself that…
Do you have any evidence that they do?
Or is this one of those situations where the absence of evidence is just more proof of how deep the conspiracy goes?
“The NSA & CIA fund it.”
Is that what the voices in your head are telling you?
Dumb question, based on ignorance:
https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-cia-and-nsa-research-grants-for-mass-surveillance/
https://www.businessinsider.com/companies-funded-by-cia-2016-9?r=DE&IR=T
The qz.com story just says NSA etc have funded university researchers like they did in WW2 and ever since
None of those start up companies on ‘business insider’ list with interesting idea are Google. When it started Google was one of many search engines
“Internet search engines themselves predate the debut of the Web in December 1990. The Who is user search dates back to 1982[1] and the Knowbot Information Service multi-network user search was first implemented in 1989.[2] The first well documented search engine that searched content files, namely FTP files, was Archie, which debuted on 10 September 1990.[3] Wiki Search Engine
“A second grant—the DARPA-NSF grant most closely associated with Google’s origin—was part of a coordinated effort to build a massive digital library using the internet as its backbone”
The internet itself was a DARPA project.
Finally, someone with some common sense called out Moore for what he is: an accomplished con man. WELL DONE. SIR!!
Just because he’s a con man is not evidence that a 4 second clip violates the fair-use principle.
So Ralph, what was Moore wrong about re the hopelessness of wind and solar to run a modern world on that struck you? Or was the ulra left Guardian your source? Note the Guardian didn’t even provide a reply to the main criticisms except a vague handwaving about being an outmoded view, and then through in that he was fascist and racist, do tell.
Only now ??
Enough people saw-it 😀
The complaint was made by Toby Smith, who owns the rights to the video clip in question. He approached YouTube.
Yes, and ?
Toby Smith is a Brit. here is the UK Fair Dealing Law
“Fair use for the reporting of current news events
Section 30(2), (3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 lists the permitted conditions of using copyright material for the purposes of reporting current events:
The material is not a photograph
The source of the material is “sufficiently acknowledged”
The extent of material included in the report is considered an acceptable amount for the purpose of the news story”
It’s an interesting question to consider, which law will apply, UK or US? This is the sort of tiff lawyers live for.
It seems that could be the only sticking point, as the actual issue is moot because it appears to meet the defined standard in either system.
Direct from his commercial web site. Emphasis added.
Is video interpreted to be “a photograph”?
The education of Michael Moore is just gearing up. Like I said, this is is going to be a trilogy series.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if Moore does an exposé of the Green movement bullying and demonising those who disagree with them. Moore is in the perfect position to do this, and witnessing the slap-down first hand, and Moore fights back with equal fervour.
It’d be an amazing turnaround if it was Moore who starts the collapse of the Green Energy movement.
I hope you’re right RG, though watching him in recent interviews, he still believes in CAGW. Maybe some of the scientists on this site could try to get in touch with him. The ‘realists’ that is.
I’d pay to watch the next two movies if they had more of the facts, including the whole CO2 lie.
Please see Page Four, et seq for Fair Use provisions:
https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
Looks to me as if Moore’s case is open and shut. This was a nuisance complaint.
But I’m not a copyright lawyer, nor do I play one on blogs.
John,
It is worth noting that the DMCA only applies in the USA. Youtube operates worldwide and different countries have different copyright laws many of which do not have
‘fair use’ provisions. Youtube has to tread a very fine line between allowing
users to post massive amounts of copyrighted material which drives users to the
site and avoiding being sued out of existence like Napster. So it makes also makes it
very easy for people to claim copyright infringement and take videos down.
Yet the objection which YT claims motivated its decision was based upon US law, ie DMCA.
This is getting weird if it weren’t so funny, with YouTube, Facebook, Google becoming our new censors of ‘truth’. Especially taking down a Michael Moore documentary on nebulous grounds.
Incidentally, Michael Moore was on Real Time/Bill Maher the last episode on HBO, and Bill didn’t even bring this documentary up on renewables at all. But he still had him on the show, talking about taking Trump and the Republicans down at election time and physically removing him from the White House in case he decides to not leave. Talk about an illogical straw man argument.
So it’s not like Michael Moore is our new skeptic about everything. He just told the truth about intermittent renewables not being able to replace base load of any type. Plus in my opinion, most of the time the documentary was much more an anti biomass documentary with 10-15 year old video clips about whole tree chipping for wood chips, (rotten or dead valueless wood) when in reality only pulp grade logs are ever whole chipped, since a merchantable log will always find it’s true value for plywood, lumber or even OSB/MDF, cardboard or toilet paper etc, before being burnt for steam/electricity. And most of it is wood waste from saw milling operations in the first place, at least in the First World and our responsible forestry practices of always having the same amount of timber growing in any given wider region. Only useless biomass that has no higher value is ever chipped for just burning in a thermal steam plant for electricity. The raw wood product will aways find its highest and best use just based upon economics. And it is base load spinning reserve electricity, a much more valuable electricity product than junk intermittent asynchronous solar and wind electricity. So he was even totally wrong about that IMHO.
Biomass
Another
Further example
Last one
Isn’t sooo wrong…..
Biomass production
Link correction, hope, it works….
Lot’s and lots of people don’t like oil and gas either. But your video was funny, in that after they were done excoriating biomass for pellet production, they say in their byline “100% committed to renewable energy” and “getting the world off fossil fuels”. This is extreme leftist propaganda with an axe to grind, otherwise know as an agenda.
What would you rather have, a 2×4 made out of Georgia Pine with 2-3 growth rings per inch, or a hardy northern wild pine with 25 growth rings per inch. All that wood in the video was plantation wood grown on private land for pulp. Much of it goes to pulp and paper plants for toilet paper, but that’s ok. The better quality gets milled if it has any capacity to make something useful for a better ROI. Who are you to tell USA lumberman what they can grow on their own private land, and what they can make out of it? There is a lot of critical thinking missing here on this subject. And it all reverts to CO2 in a matter of years anyway, whether it is burnt or not, since it has a very short lifespan. Then I suppose your next argument will be P2.5 particulate pollution…
+1
Could be it was a bad example, but in an earlier thread here about the same subject I linked a lot of sites showing how deforestation f.e. in Roumanio works by Austra pellet industry.
Some again here:
https://www.fern.org/fileadmin/uploads/fern/Documents/Up in Flames.pdf
https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/eng/Areas/Romania/Timber-mafia-and-deforestation-in-Romania-200194
https://issuu.com/europeanwildernesssociety/docs/ews_special_journal_logging_hans_kn
https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/illegal-logging-in-romania-benefits-germany-a-1032253.html
Correction first link: Up in Flames
Then I suppose your next argument will be P2.5 particulate pollution…
😀
Take NO2 😀
Agree, Earthling2. The loblolly pine plantations in many areas of the US southeast are well-managed, fast-growing and replanted regularly.
Exactly! I’m a forester and I manage timber harvests where SOME and only some of the wood goes to biomass. Harvesting biomass isn’t about making money (not much any way) nor is it about trying to replace much fossil fuel- it’s done to weed out the forests to improve them. The “tree huggers” will or course deny this but they have no clue. If people like wood products they shouldn’t mind some wood going to a biomass burner.
Earthling2,
The reality problem (why green scams do not work in reality) is scale and how much power is required.
The Green scams work for small scales and up to a certain point, for ideal locations/conditions. Wind farms in great locations. Wind providing up to 10% of a grid’s power and so on.
Our electrical grid will need to provide, THREE times more power, (UK Absolute Zero report estimate for the UK) because everything in our country (transportation, heat, manufacturing, and so on) is going to be run from the electrical grid.
There are not enough forests in the world to enable the idiots to get to Absolute Zero emissions. Ignoring the fact that burning forests down does not reduce CO2 emissions.
Can you see the how absolutely ridiculous it was to suggest burning waste wood or burning smaller trees could be scaled up to run a country during the periods when the wind is not blowing.
All the forests in the US would supply the US with power for three years.
https://www.coastalreview.org/2019/01/report-blasts-wood-pellet-industrys-effects/
The report says that by 2015, it had become clear that residual wood waste would not be enough to supply the wood pellet market. “So, Enviva had to turn to whole wood sources. The corporation primarily consumes pine trees found in softwood forests as well as a mixture of bottomland and upland hardwood trees.
….but the bottomland and upland hardwood trees generally come from older growth, biodiverse regions critical to the environmental health of North Carolina. …
The report states that, given increasing demand in European and Asian markets, Enviva will increasingly need to clear-cut forests, threatening the state’s human population and biodiversity, exacerbating flooding and putting at risk ground water and surface water quality.
In earlier times, Roman f.e. shipbuilding was a factor, just Mediterranean regions and North Africa had widely sufferd from deforestation.
North America isn’t suffering from deforestation. They say we have more trees growing now in North America than at any time in modern history. And the planet has the equivalent of a couple extra North Americas growing greenery and forests from additional CO2. The forest profile has changed, from real hot forest fires to former logging practises that high graded valley bottoms for the best timber, but that is all growing back healthier than ever. Mainly from enhanced CO2 availability, in my opinion. You can’t stop the forest from growing back, unless we get these really hot burns from wild fires that burn the duff and top soil off, which is in part a man made problem by suppressing fire for so long. Or allowing dead beetle pine to occupy millions of acres without harvesting them (and putting the fires out) and then getting it replanted real quick. What do we do with all that dead pine now?
I would agree that the Third World might be a problem in general, for converting prime jungle habitat for Palm/Sugar Cane plantation. Or other non professional forestry, much of which is straight up illegal logging by everyone and their dog, including organized crime. And slash and burn agriculture too is a problem, but people want to eat and have a life too. There is indeed a lot of problems with forestry in the third world, but that is straight up greed and criminal behaviour. We don’t have that to any degree in North America. Europe already completely decimated their natural forests 500 years ago and converted to agriculture and rural/urban and cities, so when Macron criticized Brazil for the forest fires for slash and burn agriculture, they asked why didn’t France restore all its natural forests and kick everybody out of the country. It is pretty hypocritical.
But the idea that North America or Europe and other first world countries are practising forest destruction is a straight up lie, unless you a green whack job. The whole idea of first world professional forestry is to always have the same amount of wood growing only cutting incremental growth per year. In my case, I own and manage thousands of acres of private land growing trees. I cut on average 1% per year, on a 100 year rotation. So there is a perpetual forest there, even logging 1% of it every year. And that is conservative because I am finding the trees are growing so well, I could actually cut more, but it is always wise to error on the side of conservation. And the majority of my wood goes for high grade veneer and plywood, or log homes or speciality post and beam or the best soft wood Spruce/Fir lumber you get to buy. But I still have thousand and thousands of tons of waste wood left over from that, from the harvesting cycle and then the manufacturing cycle. What are we do with all this wood waste debris from these operations? We pelletize it and sell it to tens of thousands of people with wood burning pellet stoves, which makes up a huge market for the pellets. It isn’t all just for electricity generation. And pellets at 8% moisture burn real clean and mostly smokeless. And the ship loads of pellets that we ship/float to Asia mix in 10%-20% ground pellets to the coal in Japan/Korea and China, and no one here on the west coast says boo about that. Not even GreenPeace. And wood pellets have almost the energy content of lignite coal, so floating a barge or ship across the pond is real efficient. Just think if Australia would have done the same and kept their coal fleet operational by doing the same? They could have saved the entire useless solar and wind BS from ruining their electrical grid and now excessive cost for electricity because they are literally blowing up their coal generators. I say that is a much bigger shame and pox on civilization. There are many different kinds of renewables, but properly managed forestry is in a league of its own. And we all use it, whether for shelter, or to wipe our arse every morning to reading the Washington Post, which is toilet paper.
Same problem when China explored. Vast regions of Vietnam were deforested, in addition to regions in China.
….And from an environmental standpoint, habitat, is top of the top list of why there is species loss.
William, I am not saying that we want to even try and replace any fossil fuels with woody biomass or suggest burning waste wood or burning smaller trees that could be scaled up to run a country during the periods when the wind is not blowing. I was saying let’s utilize a renewable resource for electricity generation to mix with coal and keep the coal plants open like they are doing in Asia. Drax is a poor example when it sits atop a coal mine. Australia should have taken this approach, instead of dynamiting their coal fleet. There will be a lot of wood pellet supply for years to come and sources that haven’t even been developed yet.
Let’s get rid of all these millions of acres of dead pine trees, and Spruce trees now susceptible to the Spruce budworm, or the Fir bark beetle that is starting because the forest is getting old. Or old deciduous decadent forests that are on their last legs and dying because we have been putting the forest fires out. It isn’t even absorbing any CO2 once near dead. If it can’t be utilized for forestry (lumber and plywood/OSB etc) then make pellets out of it and get a new crop growing even if it is a break even proposition, just to get a new crop of trees growing quicker. Or let it burn so a new forest can get established, (which it evolved to do as a firescape ecology) otherwise you wind up with no live forest and a dead one taking up space. And then a really big fire and it too gives back all that CO2 as it burns naturally or rots methane and CO2 over an extended time span, so saying burning wood emits additional GHG’s is also patently false in the scheme of things. It isn’t and wasn’t fossil CO2. It is just recycling atmospheric and soil CO2. And the planet is getting greener with more forests all the time according to NASA.
We don’t really think CO2 is a problem anyway, so why a false concern about CO2 from burning old decadent wood but not oil and gas? I can assure we are not burning whole valuable Oak trees like some claim for pellets. That is pure propaganda. Maybe the sawdust, bark and planer shaving waste, but the market always separates out the more valuable forest for the highest and best return on effort and investment. If there is an old dying Oak forest then plan to harvest and chop it in a way that won’t harm the watershed or the majority of animal species. This is what professional foresters do, is to plan all this years in advance, by law in most places in the First World.
The 3rd World is of course a completely different story and habitat/species loss is a major disappointment with unregulated logging, but then some say all logging is bad. I see this from my city friends who are skeptics, but believe cutting down a tree is bad. I have had to endure this attack on legitimate forestry for 40 years, mainly from eco-terrorists and while there is a place for protecting 8%-10% of lands for Parks and Nature Reserves, let’s not advocate for no forest industry including no wood pellets or wood chips. It’s much better source of electricity than wind/solar, and also larger if not looking at Name Plate capacity. I say ditch grid scale solar and wind, and keep the base load coal fleet operational to end of life with utilization of ground up 15%-20% pellet mix to the coal. Or even better, it looks like promising technology is to gasify this coarse woody debris and mix this biogas in with NG and burn it in CCGT technology, and get double the efficiency.
It is on Bit Chute here:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ctyGO01tgwiq/
😀
Censorship, pure & simple.
YouTube censorship selection correlates with the truth at ~ 0.96 +/- 0 04. Michael More told the truth for once. He’ll never do that again.
Alternatively.it might just piss him off : there’s no such thing as bad publicity.
Michael Moore became an enemy of the Climate EcoTard Leftists by simply telling the truth. The entire climate scam is based on a few outright lies and half-truth distortions that start with a few granules of truth. Thus anyone who tells an objective truth completing the story (the rest of story as Paul Harvery would’ve said) and informs readers/viewers how they are being manipulated and deceived becomes an enemy that must be silenced. The full truth on the climate change scam is the scimitar that lays waste to the field of climate lies being told to both enslave the West and to siphon off vast amounts of wealth produced by western democracies into elitists’ pockets. Suppress that they must.
As such there are no attempts to allow any debate. No attempts to negotiate. They simply use “suppress and silence” as their go-to tactic because what they are doing cannot be defended when confronted with an informed and skilled debater about the nonsense story they have woven. This isn’t just confined to climate scam of course. This is called the cancel culture the Left has adopted to avoid university students and the public being presented with evidence to unmask the scam at hand. People like Dr Jordan Peterson, Dinesh D’Souza, and Ben Shapiro scare the Hell out the Leftists on many current topics because they are informed and know the Liberal tropes and how to take them down with logic and facts. On the climate and the economics of the climate scam side of course there are notables that the Left must invoke their Cancel Culture on like Judith Curry, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Willie Soon, Alan Moran, and even warmunists like Roger Pielke, Jr.
Michael Moore – welcome to the skeptic’s side. Now you have a taste of what the critical thinkers have faced for years.
Big Brother from Orwell’s “1984” is still alive and well today. We are only allowed to hear what Big Green Brother tells us and no one else. To whatever extent Gibbs and Moore have become Orwellian thought criminals, their censorship (whether temporary or permanent) didn’t finally happen until the film was viewed 8 million times. Where are the thought police when you need them? Perhaps YouTube and the complainants will serve as viable substitutes.
Seeing the environmental movement taking their cues from Orwell’s novel demonstrates the impact the novel still has today. Their level of arrogance and egotism of Orwellian Big Green Brother must be nearly off the scales. I can’t even begin to guess when, where and how the Big Green Lie will ever end. Cults can hardly get any better than this .
It just sends viewers somewhere else. Watch it here:
Thank you William Abbott
Yep was able to view the film on vimeo no problem, didn’t have to join vimeo !
It’s still playing on my laptop.
– JPP
It’s now been deleted from Vimeo too.
It’s now been removed from Vimeo, too.
It is still there if you search for it
where did this come from?
Material on this website is copyright © 2006-2019, by Anthony Watts, and may not be stored or archived separately, rebroadcast, or republished without written permission. (Miriam O’Brien aka slandering “Sou” from Hotwhopper, that means you.)
For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.
All rights reserved worldwide.
Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.
Are you the dishonest one?
Where did it come from ghalfrunt? It’s been on the WUWT website for as long as I can remember. I don’t think Anthony uses it much, but he asserts the right to do so.
Did you take classes in how to act clueless?
Read up on fair use practices.
All original works of any kind are automatically protected by copyright. It is the assumed position unless specifically stated otherwise.
What’s your question?
Here’s an excellent recent article on censorship from Matt Taibbi. This guy is a leftist but he has written some pretty damning articles about his side in the past which to me, qualifies him as an outstanding true journalist.
The Inevitable Coronavirus Censorship Crisis is Here – Reporting by Matt Taibbi
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/temporary-coronavirus-censorship
He had another excellent article out recently on the Flynn case…?
Propaganda and censorship are alive in totalitarian states through the media. Controlling both in the digital media is easy. The question is when publicly traded “social media” becomes biased is it OK or does it infringe on the law?
Michael Moore is now a hot potato and someone to avoid in the Climate Crusades march. Even limited association with him will be viewed harshly. His next film on censorship and media targeting will be educational.
D.tube: https://d.tube/#!/v/skywalker007/QmPQX6ZNzfnJe7XbjrejNv9rcYr1B19voz4NmFrE9iy8dM
Such blatant censorship is a desperate tactic of those that are running scared. They know full well that if the People wake up that they have been fed lies and half truth from the beginning, they will not be happy. Like ants, there are vastly more of us.
I just hope the hullabaloo stimulates curiosity to seek out the documentary. Ideally enough warmists wake up that they have been used-like toilet paper to wake up others. Once 10% of the population believes something, it becomes mainstream. Currently, over 10% swallow the Kool aid on cAGW, in spite of absolutely no evidence, so it has the illusion of being majority (pagan) belief.
Conversely, if we can get over 10% of people woken up to the scam, it will become mainstream-we have been fed lies from the beginning by those that seek to control all of humanity. It is up to the People to take control- expose and depose the handful of self-appointed Elites that think they own us.
First they burn the books, then they burn the people. For books, read videos etc. The Green Blob knows no shame.
On burning biomass. The UK’s biggest power plant, Drax in Yorkshire, has converted 4 of its 6 furnaces to burning biomass instead of coal. We are aghast at the idea that trees cot down in the USA are transported 3000 miles across the Atlantic and burnt instead of locally mined coal. Maybe the trees are low quality, weeded out or whatever, but how can the whole operation make sense?
but how can the whole operation make sense?
As it’s Green policiy, it make as usual zero sense 😀
What I find amusing is that many of the people who are complaining, are the same ones who declare that things like copyright and patents are just more ways for “THE MAN” keeps poor people down.
Is that so ?
Here’s a good article on the YouTube take-down of Planet of the Humans, by Helen Buyniski of RT:
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/489836-michael-moore-documentary-deplatformed-copyright/
This is a frivolous complaint, under any countries laws. It should be dismissed, but it will take a little while.
Then the next one will take it off YouTube for another couple of weeks.
Then the next…
It will eventual be old news before the complaints run out.
Maybe Moore c would use this as the basis of his next documentary on how any criticism of The Science is stifled.
I wonder if it is on LBRY? They try and keep all the vids that others have booted.
Maybe so, but it has its own website:
https://planetofthehumans.com/
Thanks Sy 🙂
Hey you betcha Megs!
🙂
Excellent! Nothing provides free publicity and notoriety like a banning, especially one that looks as cynical and frivolous as this one! Are you sure Moore himself isn’t behind this marketing coup?
YouTube has applied a 21st century method for burning the books.
Now let me think.
Who was the last bloke who did that?
Jack if you open the full Guardian article you will find a link to Toby Smith’s full 6 minutes and 42 seconds of video, “rare Earthenware project”, a play on words as there is a potter making earthenware pots from the sludge. It’s good footage with excellent visuals and data. At the end of the video you’ll see a potter throwing pots from the radioactive sludge. He is wearing gloves and a mask but I’m not sure, being a potter myself that I’d be happy to work with such materials.
Toby Smith said he hasn’t watched Planet of the Humans, he has been sucked in by the leftist rhetoric. Shame really, I would have thought that they were on the same page and he’d be happy to see a couple of seconds (4) of his film out there.
I assume that the Guardian linking the full film means he gave them permission.
All depends on how radioactive it is, and what type of radiation it is.
He might even mix in enough non-radioactive clay to reduce the piece he is working on to safe limits.
You are right Mark, he would have had to add other materials to make it ‘plastic’ (as in clay plasticity) so that he could form the pot. This was an artsy leftist statement.
But the point of my comment was that the full video is available for all to see in the article above yet the Planet of the Humans is being proposed to be taken down over 4 seconds of Toby Smith’s video.
Fortunately I had written a transcript of the full video beginning to end. It is available online. Here is the link.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/04/26/climate-action-business-model-part-2/
Or you could go to the website:
https://planetofthehumans.com/
Paradoxically it takes a case of gross censorship like this to show what a powerful tool for public education the internet is. Before the internet, the media companies controlled the news, and there was no room for opinions that dissented from what the ruling elites wanted people to believe.
Want an example? Sure. Ronald Reagan’s mental capacities were severely limited during his second term. Everyone In the Washington press corps knew this, but politely ignored it, as if the President’s cognitive capacities were just a personal health issue that were not the public’s business.
Here’s another one. By 1985 epidemiologists had determined that HIV was a blood borne virus, that was easily spread by anal sex but almost never by vaginal sex. It is likely that there was not even one case of female to male sexual transmission of HIV in the United States. (Magic Johnson was almost certainly lying about how he contracted the virus.) Nevertheless, the media insisted on calling AIDS a sexually transmitted disease (which it was), while jealously guarding the secret that a heterosexually spread AIDS epidemic in North American was an impossibility.
My point is, the internet, chaotic and often corrupt as it is, is a huge improvement over the state of public debate before it existed.
Well… to be honest…
Fake News.
I assume that the Guardian, being the Elite Know It Alls that they are, are attempting to talk this up as absolute proof that Moore is WRONG.
However if you follow enough YouTube content creators you would know this happens all the time. From what I gather this is a Copyright Claim. These happen all the time and are often run from bots who troll through posted videos looking for matches to ‘their property’. The ‘owner’ puts in a ‘Claim’ against the ‘Creator’, the video gets taken down, and the Creator either bends the knee, edits the video to make the clip shorter, or remove music (music is normally the biggest claim so I am told), or other trickery, OR, tells YouTube that they know how fair use actually works and they are going to fight it.
What normally happens is the video is back up in a couple of days, often with zero change. It is considered by some as being lawfare because in those couple of days the video is not getting views and hence the creator is missing out on that sweet ad revenue. (YouTube can provide enough income that creators can and do use it as their full time job.)
Another option is to just say ‘sod it’ and have the video demonetised and – open to correction here – the creator gets zero ad revenue but the ‘owner’ does. Some creators are happy to work like that if they feel they really want to present their video the way they want and/or if they think they can still make money via other donation methods.
There is also a Copyright Strike. This is more serious. The subtle differences I are not really in a position to fully explain but this is where the ‘owner’ claims the creator is deliberately attempting to make money off something that clearly belongs to the ‘owner’. Get Copyright Strikes and you lose your channel. YouTube bans you as a creator. Game Over. However, since Strikes can destroy creators there is also a clause where a false copyright strike will get YOUR channel taken down. I am paraphrasing greatly but the intention is that Strikes are not something you throw around casually and if you do make one, you need to make sure you have ALL your ducks in a row. Cry Wolf and there had better be a wolf, or YOU get shot.
This is not to say that Copyright Strikes are not used – crudely – as lawfare. Read up on Naughty Dog, Sony, and Last of Us 2 where Sony and Naughty Dog very crudely went after a large amount of YouTubers in a ham fisted attempt to stop discussion about their upcoming game release. Most of it was done through a shell company, apparently, but still overt lawfare that has led to a very vocal fan backlash.
(gasp! Those toxic fans refusing to buy the things WE decide are good for them. Also see ‘Synder Cut’ if you want to see the ‘establishment’ getting salty because the consumer dares discuss what they actually want to spend their money on.)
ANYWAY, short answer? Fake News. Moore’s movie will be back up, maybe with minor edit, maybe not, within about 48 hours.
(also – Toxic Fans for beginners:
Media and Big Studios: This new movie is AMAZING and everyone should go see it
Fans: Didn’t like it.
Media and Big Studios: Manbabies!!! You don’t count.
Fans: Actually I really prefer the earlier movies. The stories were better and I liked the characters more. Why can’t we have more movies like that anymore.
Media and Big Studios: You are Toxic Fans! Also Hate Women! You are a vocal minority that is out of touch with mainstream and need to stop spoiling movies for other people with your out of date views.
Fans: Fine. Won’t spend money or buy your merch.
Different and Pragmatic Movie Studio: Hey, we can listen. We can change our ways and make movies you actually want to pay to go see. Win/Win, right?
Media and Big Studios: Stop pandering to the toxic fans! They need to watch the content WE make for them and they need to stop complaining and do as they are told!
This REALLY happens. The Media is honestly salty because the studio listened to fan backlash after the first Sonic the Hedgehog trailer, delayed the release date and re-did the animation for the blue speedball to he looked more like fan expectations. The Main Stream Media believed this was WRONG as the fans have no right to complain and pandering to them only gives them voice.)
I’m sure Moore can get round the “copyright” issue if he had to. Replace the sequence with actors speaking the same words, and with a comment telling viewers that they weren’t allowed to show the original footage. I’m sure that would be even more intriguing.
I like ferdberple’s idea: Stamp a big red CENSORED over the “offending” section.
Youtube is also removing other good contributions because of blind censorship, or maybe that’s what they call Artificial Intelligence.
Case in point are video’s by L.A. lung specialist Dr. Seheult on his Medram Youtube channel that happen to mention HCQ. He doesn’t approve it, he simply discusses it critically but Youtube tied itself to the WHO so only 97% consensus allowed. Seheult calls it Academic Censorship.
A big red “CENSORED” stamped over the offending 4 seconds would be more effective than trying to fix it up.
was Moore wrong about re the hopelessness of wind and solar to run a modern world
========
He was right. Solar and wind produce enough power to build another solar and wind over their lifetime without any excess. Without the excess, how do we power anything outside of factories to make solar and wind?
Fossil fuels produce considerably more energy than it takes to dig them out of the ground. It is this excess that powers the modern world.
Eventually, as fossil fuels become harder to find, we will reach a point where fossil fuels take as much energy to dig up as they produce. At that point in time they will be like solar and wind; unsuitable to run the modern world.
There is no need to pass regulations or taxes or subsidies to make this happen. In the long run none of these are effective against the market. They simply make the economy less efficient.
Ferd:
Turbines don’t produce enough power to even reproduce themselves once over. Solar cells require pure silicon wafers which require high amperage arc-furnace heat. Depending on the purity, up to 3 cycles of purification are required. The toxic waste products, like hydrogen fluoride gas, take steps to deal with, not itemized here in this short communiqué. Wind farms are best situated in open ocean (unfortunately, in bird migration lanes, which birds need the extra wind to keep them aloft on their journeys). The ocean placed turbines require high quality high manganese-steel alloy to resist corrosion, and Mn is very expensive and needs to be specially mined, mainly in developing countries under abject conditions.
The video has not gone away
Click on https://www.altcensored.com