JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

The moment greens realize they’ve been used by Big Money Renewables — the Michael Moore documentary:

It’s like someone read all the major skeptic blogs in the world and turned them into a documentary.

The new Michael Moore documentary: Planet of The Humans

1 - unapologetically exposes Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Robert Kennedy, etc. for being con artists and hypocrites,
2 - crucifies the Sierra Club and their ilk for being disingenuous and primarily in it for the money and influence, and
3 - also carefully documents how wind, solar and biofuels are scams. — John Droz, jr.

h/t Thanks to Peter  D, AndyG, Michael S, Colin, Willie, and Jim Simpson who enjoyed this “even the credits”.

Richard Branson will allegedly spend $3 billion to fight global warming! Then Branson, sitting next to @AlGore, is asked “Is Al Gore a prophet?” Branson replies “How do you spell “prophet”"? [Profit!!!] Everyone laughs!@tan123

 


HaroutDSDZ
: It’s the moment when Winston Smith realizes that O’Brien is not a revolutionary but a loyal member of Ingsoc…

Over the last 10 years, everyone from celebrity influencers including Elon Musk, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Al Gore, to major technology brands including Apple, have repeatedly claimed that renewables like solar panels and wind farms are less polluting than fossil fuels.

But a new documentary, “Planet of the Humans,” being released free to the public on YouTube today, the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day, reveals that industrial wind farms, solar farms, biomass, and biofuels are wrecking natural environments.

“Planet of the Humans” was produced by Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore. “I assumed solar panels would last forever,” Moore told Reuters. “I didn’t know what went into the making of them.”

What next?

If the uber Greens now admit that wind, solar and biomass are destructive, and it becomes unfashionable to be seen supporting them (or Gore), what will they replace that with next?

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (137 votes cast)
The moment greens realize they've been used by Big Money Renewables --- the Michael Moore documentary: , 9.5 out of 10 based on 137 ratings

210 comments to The moment greens realize they’ve been used by Big Money Renewables — the Michael Moore documentary:

  • #

    It’s good that Moore recognizes the green idiocracy that we’ve been talking about for decades, but it’s too bad he didn’t address the fake science used to support the scam.

    660

    • #
      RicDre

      “…it’s too bad he didn’t address the fake science used to support the scam.”

      I agree, but to go that far would collapse his whole world view, not an easy thing for a person to do. That he has come this far is quite amazing so perhaps there is hope that in the future he can follow this process to its logical conclusion.

      390

      • #
        truth

        RicDre…

        I doubt Moore can/will..because you’ll note that at the end of all this he had to blame the destruction of the planet[in his view]…the ‘human-caused apocalypse’…not on the Left’s malevolent plan for Global Socialism…but on capitalism.

        He knows all the movers and shakers he cites…who have built/are building massive fortunes out of this are the rapacious..felonious..malevolent Fascists…not capitalists…the uber-rich Socialists posing as ‘do-gooders’…the ones who call all the shots and have the rest of business worldwide…banks and all…in a death grip with the squillionaire master-minds deciding on the ‘green’ rules and on who is green enough to keep their licence for doing business at all.

        The film cites a long list of the uber-rich Socialists but at the end obviously tries to manipulate viewers into believing them…Rockefeller Bros…KerryFoundation..Blood&Gore…Kennedys…Sierra Club…Sandler Foundation with its Clinton apparatchiks…Goldman Sachs…Bloomberg …Soros…350.org etc etc…to be capitalists…rather than the powerful Socialists they are…like the Chinese Communist dictatorship using capitalism to consolidate their own power for their own evil nefarious ends…ie Global Socialism.

        If I referred my LeftWing CAGW-committed relatives to this film and asked them what they think about it…they would say just that…that the film blows the whistle on the evils of capitalism and coal…and they would not permit any further discussion on the revelations about their ‘renewables’ and the hypocrisy and moral vacuum of their shifty Fascist gurus’and their dodging and weaving as they hide ‘under the cover of clean’.

        It’a all pretty much what we sceptics have tried in vain to discuss with them for years.

        What would make a difference though …is if some of those who are the ultimate enablers of this catastrophe…the television journalists…were snapped into reality and then regularly and relentlessly cited these facts to Scott Morrison….and insisted on responses.

        Morrison’s faction… that enthusiastically plotted for and enabled the 2015 Turnbull Coup that broke Australia in order to transition it to 3rd world poverty as the only nation on earth with a 100% weather-dependent electricity system..and foreign-owned at that….belongs to lobbyist Photios …who is in turn an acolyte of Gore…Naomi Klein and the whole nefarious ‘movement’.

        250

      • #

        The scientific truth will more than just collapse his world view, it’s an existential threat to the political left. There’s never been another scientific truth that’s as asymmetrically disruptive to politics as this one is, that accepting it is politically inconceivable for so many otherwise intelligent people.

        70

        • #
          truth

          You google 350.org today and you see a big banner saying…

          [ 'Stop Fossil Fuels. Build 100% Renewables' ]

          Never have the world’s politicians been so cravenly supine…so wilfully blind to propaganda and fraud and so happy to destroy their countries and the lives of their constituents in the face of evil as our present mob is.

          Never since the Third Reich have cretinous politicians been so seduced …almost in unison this time….into such destructive and deceptive means to achieve such diabolical ends.

          210

          • #
            Komrade Kuma

            You wouldn’t be referring to poor little Muddled Malcolm would you? That sad little creature, the laboratory love child of Narcissus and Icarus who fell from the high of being to PM to splash down in a pond of his own self importance.

            130

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Maybe some day. One step at a time begins the journey. If he gets into the subject thoroughly he’s bound to discover other things that don’t make sense. He doesn’t seem to be very science literate in that I think his education was not in the hard sciences. I could be mistaken and maybe I’ll look up his bio if I have the chance.

      181

      • #
        robert rosicka

        We sceptics don’t need to be persuaded as to the folly of renewable energy but if this movie plants a seed of doubt in any of the green left why wouldn’t that be a marvellous achievement.
        As for the anti fossil fuel side or what replaces it let’s just put on one leg at a time a win is a win doesn’t matter if only by a point .
        Planting that seed of doubt is what I’m taking away from this .

        241

        • #
          truth

          With ‘one leg at a time’ it will be too late for Australia..we’re too far down the track already towards being the only modern country on the face of the earth without baseload power…plenty in the ground …but soon we’ll have none of the infrastructure to use it…and too poor to rebuild with the squillions that have been flushed down the toilet or into the coffers of Socialist and Communist carpetbaggers…and no trade to fund anything…massively vulnerable to the next..maybe worse virus.

          We’ll be insecure in every way…especially now that China’s had its dry run and the PLA can see how quickly and easily our allies can be brought to their knees.

          Australia needs to move very quickly post-crisis to restore not just our health security but military and border security to higher levels than ever before.

          China has sent out signals already re its mindset…by stealing some Philippine-claimed islands…a collision with a Japanese ship in the Sea of Japan…turning an Australian aid flight away from cyclone-ravaged Vanuatu.

          81

      • #

        When the facts change, what do you do, huh?

        80

  • #
    Speedy

    Yes, the green movement is corrupt and its foot soldiers are being shamelessly used by people who do not share their ideals. But this does not mean that capitalism (and, by association, democracy) is to blame. Quite the opposite – it is the growth of post-modernist, left-leaning ideology that has fostered the sloppy thinking that has stifled rational debate and allowed these issues to fester.
    Cheers,

    Speedy.

    540

    • #
      reformed warmist of logan

      Good Morning Jo,
      Not only have you made my day … You guessed it … You’ve, MADE MY WEEK!!
      And of course Speedy, I couldn’t agree more with your pithy summation.
      (My wife says I should try it sometime/too many words all the time/who knew??!!)
      I think I can start to hear the sound of pennies dropping all over the world!!
      Maybe we won’t all fry & go to hell in 9 years & 8 months!! (As Alexandria Occasional-Cortex et al keep parrotting!!)
      Anyways, I can’t help but keep harking back to that wonderful quote which is often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, but of late there has been a couple of mentions of doubt re sourcing…
      “You can fool some of the people all the time, or all the people some of the time; but you can’t fool all the people all the time!” (Or words to that effect.)
      Please please keep up the great work.
      Warmest of regards…Reformed Warmist of Logan

      370

    • #
      pattoh

      Ahoy Speedy,

      I get the very strong impression that AGW is not the only rational debate that has been stifled.

      I for one, see the current hysteria more in terms of the un-precedented debt bubble, the rapacity & arrogance of the 0.01% ers who made a killing in the extended Greenspan Financialized Economy & the many orders greater & more rapid power grab that is daily taking place.

      This is not the society, country or world I thought I grew up in.

      Welcome to serfdom & have a nice day!

      200

  • #
    H.B. Schmidt

    It’s not just that wind, solar and biomass are destructive, they’re wholly ineffective at providing the amount of energy we need for a modern, 24/7 society.

    As recovering addicts can attest to, admitting you have a problem is the first step towards accepting it. Perhaps now greenies will be more amenable to investing in nuclear … a fitting change for the 50th anniversary of Earth Day.

    430

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I have no doubt that he will get blow back even more vicious than the campaign to impeach Donald Trump. I hope he withstands it.

      210

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Roy,
        spare a thought for the worker who allowed this onto youtube. It won’t be well received in quarters who think they can (and should) control what we view.
        Unless youtube is changing direction?

        130

        • #
          Roy Hogueo

          I hadn’t thought of that. However, YouTube has kept some pretty controversial stuff up. I think it depends on who it comes from and who demands that it be taken down. Moore has a big name so that’s in his favor. But if Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer says take it down…

          Of course they dump fraudulent and obscene stuff, etc. Michael Moore is not necessarily circumspect about accuracy so who knows?

          40

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            I have not changed my name. I corrected the typo before submitting this and previewed it again and it came out correct. Then I submitted it and look what happened.

            I could easily regret ever hearing the word, computer. Treacherous bastards to say the least. :-( :-( :-( :-(

            60

            • #
              Roy Hogueo

              Jo, your submit script needs to always recapture name, email and web site and doesn’t do it.

              30

              • #
                Roy hogue

                Damn, look what it did. It was correct in the immediate parent comment then i’s back to misspelled here. Where did it go to get the wrong spelling again?

                30

  • #
    RicDre

    On a related topic:

    #EarthDay at 50: None Of The Eco-Doomsday Predictions Have Come True

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/22/earthday-at-50-none-of-the-eco-doomsday-predictions-have-come-true/

    220

    • #
      TdeF

      And what is interesting in 1970 was the change in language in the media and their move to be the creators, not reporters of news.

      They started with the claims of universal scientific support and enabled the rise of the pseudo scientist climate expert like Al Gore and Tim Flannery. So Scientists say, experts say, The Science, 97% of scientist agree.

      In the last two years, it has become unnecessary to quote climate scientists. You are told to believe, not to question.
      The pronouncements are absolute and any one who disagrees is denier. The Polar bears have not been mentioned for years.

      It’s very much like the media attack on Cardinal Pell. He is guilty because the ABC says so and Victoria police agree. They just lack any evidence at all and advertise for accusers to come forward with total protection. Instead of apologizing for framing Pell without evidence, they immediately announce they have found another accuser. And they will get him this time.

      And the victim approach to law where any complainant is telling the truth, is a victim and must be protected. And second hand evidence, hearsay is quite good enough. Victims don’t even have to turn up in court and face the accused. Unless they accuse Bill Clinton or Joe Biden, in whic case they are all li*rs.

      Everyone agrees though, Harvey Weinstein just went too far for too long. There was little friends like Hillary Clinton could do. And Jeffrey Epstein just knew too much about too many famous people he was bl*ckmailing, so he could not be cross examined. And the press does not care. He was obviously s*icidal. Obviously.

      Climate Change, a creation of the press and socialist politics and big wind and big solar. Real scientists and meteorologists are all deniers in the pay of Big oil. Obviously.

      250

      • #
        Greg in NZ

        A buddy sent me a pic of a T-shirt with this on it:

        Earth Day 2020
        50th Anniversary
        ‘Only 10 years to save the planet’
        - since 1970

        :-)

        190

        • #
          TdeF

          It’s an amazing record of success.

          100

        • #
          Speedy

          Yes Greg, it is all unprecedented, just like the last time.
          Cheers,

          Speedy

          100

        • #

          Jest anuther of those doomsday predictions that failed… Malthus , Club of Rome, Paul Ehrlich, Jim Hansen, et Big AL.

          20

        • #
          sophocles

          And with all the European, American and Australasian lock downs there have been weeks of very few vehicles on the roads. Yet the air quality hasn’t changed … yet no diesel fumes, petrol fumes and no improvement.

          The Greens have got it WRONG, Yet Again.

          Must be all the Solar Cells and Windmills …

          20

  • #
    patrick healy

    It is best to not get carried away folks.
    These malthusians are only looking for something more extreme than windmills and mirrors to screw up the planet. Come on – would any sane person believe anything that obese Marxist Moore would say?
    Never forget the British queens husband, Phil the Greek, is on record as saying he wishes to return to earth as a virus (from Wuhan perhaps?) to prevent the undesirables from breeding.

    120

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Possibly so. Yet a step in the right direction is very welcome, at least to me.

      But as you hint, nothing stays around longer than a bad idea.

      71

    • #

      No prince Philip did not say that at all in the context you are quoting it . He wrote this in a foreword to a book and is looking at it as an endangered animal, not as Prince Philip

      “I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers than it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist… I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.”
      Foreword to If I Were an Animal (1987) by Fleur Cowles ISBN 9780688061500

      140

      • #
        Betty Luks

        Thank you Tonyb for tracing the original statement by Prince Philip.

        In the light of the present pandemic by a new virus strain the distortion reminded me of another ‘popular’ distortion of a statement made by Charles Darwin as expressed in the quotation : “Nature red in tooth and claw” and the current media’s onslaught on the human mind by everything perverse, lethal, fearful, criminal, violent or catastrophic.

        In the late 1960s biologist Geoffrey Dobbs sought to redress the balance in the discussions going on then. He wrote in “On Planning the Earth”:

        “ . . . Comparatively few people yet realise the true situation: namely that symbiosis and innumerable less intimate forms of intricate mutualism and association, including commensalism (feeding together) and successionalism (one form following another) constitute the main basis of the biosphere, while parasitism and predation, are marginal and secondary phenomena, though important as limiting and eliminating factors. You cannot have a parasite without a host, but you can have a ‘host’ without a parasite, and a ‘disease’ has no existence except as an abnormal condition of an organism.

        “. . . It is one of those manifest truisms, not readily acknowledged by anyone in the career-structure of science, that far-reaching and heavily financed investigations into the building-blocks of the matter and energy of the universe and of life itself, are grossly unbalanced and premature, in that they confer a degree of power upon some men which is blatantly beyond their capacity to handle without disaster. It is like handing over the piloting of an air-liner to a five-year-old.

        Unfortunately, the temptation to dress up the remotely centralised fear-and-bureaucratic control of vast masses of mankind with hypnotic words appears to be unlimited; and every increase in centralised power is justified by the amount of ‘good’ it will do.”

        Michael Moore’s film is evidence of the correctness of Geoffrey Dobbs’ words.

        40

      • #
        me@home

        Tonyb that’s a clarification that changes nothing.

        03

      • #
        truth

        Doesn’t his last sentence personalize it as his own personal wish or temptation…same intent as Patrick Healey described?

        00

        • #
          tonyb

          truth

          the clue is here

          ‘Foreword to If I Were an Animal (1987) by Fleur Cowles’ It is a book about being an animal. it is the viewpoint of an animal not a Prince

          20

          • #
            truth

            I think you’re right Tony B…that Prince Philip meant the remark to be that of the fictional animal…but he should have said…

            ‘[if I were that animal] I must confess that I would be tempted to ask for…’]

            …ie a conditional statement….in which case the media would not have had the opportunity to use the words against him.

            20

            • #
              tonyb

              truth.

              good to see you change your mind when confronted with the ‘truth. that is as it should be.

              I would imagine Philip has been asked to do thousands of interviews, forewords, speeches etc as he is the patron of so many causes and I am not sure he would analyse every word to see if they have an alternative meaning in the wrong hands.

              30

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    From Michael Moore no less. Well he shows himself to be an honest man after all. It must be hard for such a blowhard for renewable energy to admit he was wrong.

    Let’s hope he puts the same zeal into his newfound crusade as he did for the old but without the sharp edge.

    I’m not in a position to watch his documentary but I’ll assume that he was his usual thorough self.

    Good for you, Michael Moore.

    120

  • #

    The documentary pivots toward population reduction as the only real solution.

    140

    • #
      Curious George

      A very sensible approach. The only problem is where to start.

      32

      • #
        Scott

        I suggest starting at the top with the ruling elite

        100

      • #
        Travis T. Jones

        If only the people who believe in failed UN doomsday global warming over population saw their doctor for an assisted suicde note, the planet would be saved by now.

        40

      • #
        Roger Knights

        “The only problem is where to start.”

        Immigration reduction.

        30

    • #
      Furiously curious

      The world population may be peaking very soon. Once again the experts and their models are probably way off the mark. To maintain a steady population each female needs to have 2.1 children. China’s rate is 1.2, India has just dropped to 2.1, the rest of the western world is below 2.0, even Africa is dropping steadily. Brazil 1.7. Urbanisation, (now over 50% of the population) makes it very expensive to bring up a child, plus female education = low birth rates. China may have less than 700 million be centuries’ end ! This is going to destroy the Endless Growth paragon anyway.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYZPTaV-RcQ&t=50s

      190

      • #
        RickWill

        That is a great video on the population estimates. This one is older and indicates the background to the UN 11 million – it is far more entertaining:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E

        A key point in the Rosling forecast is that the year of the peak children is a while ago. Where his projection fails is that he assumes the number of children remains at the 2000 level but is now actually declining.

        The population is only one factor in the energy equation. The other is the energy consumption per person. For example, in Australia the average annual per capita energy consumed is 5.5t of oil equivalent. For comparison India is 0.6t.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita
        Global average is now 2.6t.

        I expect that we could all live well on 4toe/Yr without much adjustment to lifestyle. Maybe less if we simply stop wasting resources on grid scale wind and solar projects. Hybrid cars halve the fuel consumption of their equivalent without hybrid. Points, the world has probably not yet hit peak energy consumption.

        Ultimately the fossil fuel and fission fuels are limited resources. And it is reasonably clear that all the touted “green” energy sources are anything but. That leaves fusion. The promised better than unity output over input is now down to 5 years so maybe in 20 years it could be proven technology.

        This film needs to be widely broadcast. Would love to see it posted on Reneweconomy but I am banned there so maybe someone can do me a favour and post it – let me know if you do.

        Also found that there is a live stream on the film about tp start:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBGcEK8FD3w
        I like Ozzie Zehner.

        50

        • #
          Geoff Sherrington

          Rick,
          You claim “Hybrid cars halve the fuel consumption of their equivalent without hybrid.”.
          Simply not true. You are still shifting roughly the same mass over a comparable distance to an internal combustion car, with similar wind resistance and rolling resistance. The required energy input is similar for each, perhaps a little worse for the hybrid with its extra weight of batteries and the reality that the fuel load does not change much as you get close to empty with electric. Geoff S

          30

        • #
          truth

          I’m banned on Renew Economy too..and on the Conversation…I think everyone who asks inconvenient questions is banned.

          But I want PM Morrison to see the Moore film before he goes one expensive step further with RE and his Turnbull ‘transition’ post-crisis…but even more I want him questioned about it on TV for everyone to see his replies.

          I want Morrison asked on air to justify why he’s making Australia the sacrificial goat for such a flaky hypothesis…that the proponents have declared sacrosanct and not to be questioned….from the start..before the research was even done.

          I want him to admit on air that the film shows that none of these prominent ‘environmentalists’ are able to speak one coherent sentence in support of their claims …on the strength of which he is ‘transitioning Australia’ to de-industrialization and 3rd world poverty.

          I want him to tell the world that Australia is opting out of the Paris Accord and RE …and will instead build the cleanest available coal plants and maintain our industries so we can afford to fund UNSW’s world-leading research into fusion…and any other research.

          https://www.theaustralian.com.au/science/lasers-fire-hopes-of-clean-energy-switch/news-story/c95e88bae781899dd45b9e0ec532f020

          30

    • #
      me@home

      That seems to have been missed by many here.

      10

  • #

    But how could someone like Moore ardently support green energy without apparently bothering to find out how such things as solar panels are constructed, the highly damaging mining of rare earths and minerals or that china mostly controls their excavation processing and manufacturing into the panels they then sell back to us.

    He does realise the substantial strangeold china has on all things green from phones, batteries electric cars and other devices he now uses every day?

    120

    • #

      Electricity comes from walls and solar panels come from trucks. (Sarc)

      90

    • #

      Moore needs to do more homework on the life of solar panels. They lose efficiency every year, usually around 2% but lesser quality ones can easily be around double that.

      What does that mean? Well, after 20 years we have lost 33% of the output or 45% in the case of the poor panels. This then means we need to be putting in MORE panels continuously to replace the drop in output, and also there will be a continuous stream of panels going to the dump….

      A coal fired station is built to last at least 35 years and up to 50 years or more with upgrades. You get far more life from your investment. And usually the engineers (I am one, by the one) can tweak things here and there to INCREASE output over time.

      Windmills are even worse…

      Just a complete waste of money on the panels and windmills…

      150

      • #
        Deano

        Off topic here but…I only just found out that LED lights lose their ‘luminescence, brightness, intensity’ (you get the idea) as time goes by. I thought they’d stay pretty stable until their fateful day came.

        10

      • #
        markx

        You should watch it Aussie.

        Jeff Gibbs (he’s the writer, producer and narrator, while Moore is the executive producer) says that many solar panels last only 10 years.
        He discusses the life of windmills at 25 years.

        It is very well done.

        10

  • #
    Dave in the States

    Still the root of his angst are “corporations” and big business. He is just gobsmacked that scammers and hypocrites are making money out of the enviro movements, however unethically, instead of being ideologically pure to how he myopically sees the world.

    He still hasn’t discovered that the ultimate evil corporation is of course the socialist/fascist state.

    170

  • #
    nb

    The delusional Moore gets it half right, and from the comments above, it appears concludes the population must be reduced. Wrong again. Leftism is always a discussion of lies or half-truths, leading to the wrong, often devastating, conclusions.
    The real question is what motivates people to follow false prophets? Why can’t they think for themselves? Why might one or two films – films, no less! – achieve what a thousand articles in blogs, several other films, real-life evidence, and the words of any number of dissenting scientists not achieve? Moore has built his reputation on crazy lies, and, if his conclusion is that we must reduce the population, continues with more crazy conclusions from half-crazy half-truths. And there is a whole segment of the population who love all this. Oh, why!?
    If the present is to be taken as a fair sample there is an invitation to believe the whole of human history has been built on crazy lies and half-truths to devastating effect. If our prophets would just shut up! If people would stop investing their energies into these slobs. But that isn’t going to happen. We live in a sea of lies. Always have.

    130

  • #

    Those who propose population reduction are hypocrite low lifes scum bags.

    Why are they still breathing?

    They want you and yours to die, but obviously not themselves.

    P.S. Enjoy my latest:
    http://phzoe.com/2020/04/21/the-strange-case-of-mimas/

    131

    • #
      Peter C

      Thanks Zoe,
      Very good and easily understood.

      40

    • #
      Fred Streeter

      When, in the 70s, I married and became a “semi-detached suburban Mr Jones”, I discovered that all the neighbours in our Close were University Educated types.

      Seemingly interminable conversations on Saving the World took place, Population Reduction was up there with Greedy Capitalism.

      However, killing parents and their children was not put forward as an option in discussions with colleagues and neighbours, nor in any media that I perused; merely that we should be content with 1 or 2 offspring.

      The missus and I ended up with 4 children (damn the rhythm method ☺). However, only 1 grandchild – so no harm done to the planet.

      40

  • #
  • #
    Yonniestone

    Haven’t yet watched the documentary and going by sceptical reactions it appears to have a surprising amount of truth in it, I would be cautious in cheering a remarkable victory in exposing what many have known for years from an unlikely source as through the climate ruse sceptics have learnt the politics that drive it are as devious as the scam itself.

    Being a fan of Milton Friedman I came across an old video of a young Michael Moore debating Friedman in a university appearance Milton Friedman Puts A Young Michael Moore In His Place.

    Consider Moore’s age here then reflect on his career and world view, now call me cynical but someone who has devoted their entire life to spreading the word of Marx and foisting its ideals upon Western Society is not going to wake up one day and think “hey maybe I was wrong to hate democracy”, there is always a reason the left do the unexpected and its never a good one.

    160

    • #
      PeterS

      I think you are spot on for being sceptical. I’ve reviewed the movie and have come to the conclusion he is still anti-fossil fuel and pro-renewable but he realises the current renewables plans are fake. The ending of the video clearly points out we as a human species need to change our way of life drastically. He doesn’t explain what that means but I think given his background we can guess what it is. It’s back to the stone age sort of stuff along the line of the Greens movement but without the modern and fake renewable industries. Is he an off the grid type of person perhaps?

      100

    • #

      Yes, the Green religion still lives on. Moore doesn’t credit skeptics as being right all time (I’m expecting, but I didn’t watch it all, so correct me if I’m wrong).

      He’s upending 10% of their faith but not the whole bag. There is honest, and then there is the whole truth….

      70

  • #
    TomRude

    LOL
    So what big deal all those dirty actors have been exposed by Michael Moore. We all knew it. Nothing new. The door was all open.
    But the real message of this agitprop is de-growth.
    And by embracing this propaganda, you are celebrating de-growth, that is poverty for billions.
    What’s next?
    More anti-China rhetoric?

    60

  • #
    PeterS

    Great. Should be mandatory viewing at all schools and Universities. Political leaders of all sides should site with the children and watch it too. They might learn something.

    40

  • #
  • #

    The one thing I’ve written which got published on a major sceptic site was entitled Michael Moore for Dummies – A review of Craig Rosebraugh’s documentary “Greedy Lying Bastards” – Watts Up With That, 2013.

    The joke is, of course, that I think Michael Moore is always for dummies. But maybe I’ll have to change my mind.

    60

  • #
    GD

    I’m halfway through watching this excellent doco. I can’t believe that Michael Moore is the producer. Well done, apart from the overarching theme of the doco is that humans are destroying the planet and CO2 is evil pollution.

    Other than that, Moore demolishes the Green claims that wind and solar are ‘clean’ energy. Hats off to Moore, he is good at his craft.

    If you’re short of time, play from 33.00 mins for about five minutes. It starts with a bloke telling it like it is, and then a fast-motion sequence of all the mining involved in the production of wind turbines and solar panels.

    It’s enough to convince even the most rabid Green.

    I’m sending this to Adam Bandt and to my family who are dyed in the wool ABC lefties.

    Well done, Michael Moore!

    130

    • #
      PeterS

      I think you missed the point of the movie. It’s arguing for a drastic change in the way we live but it doesn’t offer us any solutions. It’s also anti-fossil fuel, unless I’m mistaken.

      40

      • #
        GD

        Peter I agree with you, however the movie, regardless of its overarching theme of sustainability and humans are bad, it still does a wonderful expose of the truth about wind and solar technology.

        I did not miss the point of the movie, it was indeed as you say, but ripping apart the myth that wind and solar are cheap and clean was excellent.

        The fact that ex-greens were doing the ripping made it even better.

        20

      • #
        markx

        Peter S. It is a good start though.

        However, don’t expect a wave of converts, the first zealot I shared it with just replied that it was obviously fake and paid for by ‘big oil’.

        10

  • #
    PeterS

    The video’s main theme is about having a sustainable planet of humans. Well we already know what the solution is for sustainable power generation for the foreseeable future; coal and/or nuclear depending on the country in question. It will solve much of the problems the video points out that are caused by the fake renewables movements. The ending of the video is a big let-down in that regard.

    50

  • #
    EasilySolved

    I detect Moore is in the early stages of jumping ship. The follow up movie will cover the science scam but won’t be a free movie. We’ll have to pay for it.

    61

    • #
      RicDre

      “The follow up movie will cover the science scam but won’t be a free movie.”

      I have never paid to see a Michael Moore film in my life, but if he ever creates a documentary that fairly covers CAGW, I’d be happy to pay to see it.

      40

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Perhaps he could call it AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH.

      80

  • #
    PeterS

    Unless I’ve missed something, the video’s message is still anti-fossil fuel of any form, and the solution I think it’s trying to present is we as a species need to alter our way of life drastically, but doesn’t offer any viable options. I feel this video is a classic example of misdirection and not helpful for most of us here who are pro-coal. What do others think?

    50

  • #
    PeterS

    Unless I’ve missed something, the video’s message is still anti-fossil fuel of any form. What do others think?

    30

    • #
      AndyG55

      I think I mentioned that on the previous unthreaded.

      Moore still remains well and truly blinkered against the anti-science, and-life anti-CO2 malarkey.

      The unquestioning acceptance of that nonsense is his next hurdle to overcome.

      Increased atmospheric CO2 is nothing by beneficial to all life on Earth.

      150

      • #
        PeterS

        Thanks for confirming my suspicions. His video is a classic example of misdirection.

        40

      • #
        Ian Hill

        Near the end the movie debunks CO2 as the problem and says instead that humans are the problem.

        Example: At 17:10 in reference to windmills: Is it possible for machines made by industrial civilisation to save us from industrial civilisation?

        Many other memorable moments, and the young guy in the fawn check shirt was amazing!

        10

    • #
      RicDre

      “Unless I’ve missed something, the video’s message is still anti-fossil fuel of any form.”

      I agree with that. Its conclusion is both anti-technology and anti-human. The solution it offers is one we have heard before; reduce our use of technology and reduce our population. The one thing I did not hear is them volunteering for either of these two reductions.

      80

      • #
        PeterS

        In other words he’s possibly even more dangerous than the fake renewables industries he is so right to criticise. How ironic.

        30

        • #
          RicDre

          “In other words he’s possibly even more dangerous than the fake renewables industries he is so right to criticise.”

          True, though he has also made the “Green” movement far more vulnerable as he has stripped away their cloak of righteous and left them and himself naked for everyone to see what they truly stand for.

          100

  • #
    PeterS

    The Guardian (of all sources) did a good review on this documentary:
    Planet of the Humans review – contrarian eco-doc from the Michael Moore stable

    Most chillingly of all, Gibbs at one stage of the film appears to suggest that there is no cure for any of this, that, just as humans are mortal, so the species itself is staring its own mortality in the face. But he appears to back away from that view by the end, saying merely that things need to change. But what things and how?

    My sentiments exactly. What changes is he proposing? Off the grid perhaps?

    70

    • #
      RicDre

      “What changes is he proposing?”

      He is proposing going back to a less technological society and a smaller human population, though I suppose if you adopt the first precept then the second precept will follow naturally from the first one. I agree with the Guardian, he does seem to back away from this conclusion in the end; perhaps even he is appalled by the consequences of this conclusion (like perhaps, no more documentaries?).

      50

      • #
        PeterS

        Let’s hope that he does fade away as his hints for the alternatives appear to be too sinister.

        40

  • #
    PeterW

    There is no fury like that of a fanatic who realises that The Cause has been betrayed by his co-conspirators for Filthy Lucre.

    It’s why Civil Wars are so savage. Both sides are convinced that it’s not merely a matter of “opinion”. The apostates Should. Know. Better. They are beyond redemption. There is no forgiveness for them. Burn the heretics.

    90

  • #
    PeterS

    Conclusion about the documentary: only the first half or so is to be used for our fight against the fake renewables industries. The rest should be ignored for the time being as it has the potential to lead people down a more sinister path than the renewables scam itself. The solutions for our power needs are simple; coal, gas and nuclear. Given the documentary dropped a few hints along the way it’s against such sources of power, I would be very careful about how we use it to promote anything.

    80

  • #
    Zigmaster

    Whilst the film has anti fossil fuel overtones its clear message is that the renewables industry is corrupt, and is ineffective as a solution. Should be compulsory viewing for all politicians and all school kids. This will have more cut through than Climate Hustle because Michael Moore is one of them. I think that with its timing being released in the middle of this pandemic will provide any government that takes time to take its message the perfect excuse to cut subsidies and save vital financial resources that can be used more effectively elsewhere. Cause it also has anti capitalist overtones it will get viewed by many warmist zealots attracted to it by the understanding that Moore is one of them. It won’t make them necessarily less convinced that climate change will destroy the planet but it will make them realise that there is no real solution ( except nuclear). It may make them quite despairing. Hopefully some of them ( perhaps including Michael Moore) will delve into the science of climate change and realise that is also infested with the same levels of corruption and deceit. Maybe, because it is Michael Moore ( one of them) we may even see this screened on the ABC.
    Whatever happens next I see this as the most important potential influence in the climate change debate since Al Gores film because he cannot be accused of having an agenda . I may be wrong and this may be buried by a concerted effort by the climate change cabal and the mainstream media like happened with climategate but I’m hopeful with the general weariness created by the virus induced lockdowns it is being released when the public might be susceptible to question some of the climate change mantra that they have just accepted as gospel. I am very hopeful that this film can have a really positive influence on the date.

    140

    • #
      PeterS

      I agree but let’s be careful what we wish for. The documentary ends on a down note and the suggestion we should change our way of life drastically. I can think of a number of ways that could be achieved by the very same people who are promoting the fake renewable industries, of which Turnbull was a part of and possibly still is. He came from Goldman Sachs, and so was very likely heading us down the same road as the fake Greens movement explained in the video. Turnbull was managing director of Goldman Sachs Australia, eventually becoming a partner in Goldman Sachs and Co. before entering Australian politics. Fortunately, he was thrown out just in time to avoid further damage to our nation. Trouble is we are still suffering from the after effects, such as emissions reductions. I’m hoping the “regrow Australia” plan being developed by PM Morrison will dispense with that destructive part as well. I don’t trust any politician any more so we better keep a close eye on what Morrison decides.

      90

    • #
      GD

      Whilst the film has anti fossil fuel overtones its clear message is that the renewables industry is corrupt, and is ineffective as a solution. Should be compulsory viewing for all politicians and all school kids. This will have more cut through than Climate Hustle because Michael Moore is one of them

      Absolutely.

      30

    • #
      markx

      I agree Zig.
      It is a huge first step in the right direction.

      10

  • #
    Binny Pegler

    What’s next? China finding out the foolish mob of ‘useful idiots’ are unpredictable and not really controllable. An anti-China ‘bring manufacturing home’ push? – Stranger things have happened.
    The people need something to fear and unite against, and China has just done a bang-up job of placing it’s self front and centre.
    Right now there’s a raft of western politicians and media looking for a distraction from their own failings.

    30

  • #
    PeterS

    Didn’t Michael Moore compare Trump to Hitler? If he did then we need to be extra careful of listening to what Michael Moore has to say.

    30

    • #
      RicDre

      Comparing Trump to Hitler is one of the early symptoms of a person who has contracted TDS. One must always be careful of listening to someone with TDS as unlike a serious case of the Coronavirus, Stage 4 TDS will leave you alive but unable to think rationally.

      70

    • #
      markx

      “…Didn’t Michael Moore compare Trump to Hitler?…”

      Yeah, but I reckon he’s onto something there. The politics of racial division, always blaming someone else, and appealing to the lowest common denominator are pretty bloody ugly.

      I do happen to agree with his direction on energy and trade, but I’m pretty sure with the trade deals he only gets that right due to years of experience in screwing contractors.

      Anyway, time to go and get in the foxhole and hunker down.

      10

  • #
    RicDre

    As I sit hear at 5:50PM EST on April 22, 2020 here in Northern Ohio, US, large white flakes of Global Warming Climate Change Climate Weirdness Climate Emergency are falling from the sky. Seems appropriate to the topic for some reason.

    80

    • #
      PeterS

      Well if the global cooling trend is real and it continues then the global warming alarmists will have to change their mantra. Let’s see, how about blaming the pandemic on man-made climate change, which in tern can be blamed on CO2 emissions? Woops; already done:
      Earth Day: Greta Thunberg calls for ‘new path’ after pandemic

      50

    • #
      PeterS

      This is what I mean when I said earlier we must keep a close eye on what PM Morrison has in stall for us to regrow Australia. He better not fall for what could be the next scam to justify a continuation of his present ideas to keep reducing our emissions.

      31

      • #
        Greg in NZ

        Why – oh why! – did I click on your link, Peter. The Grauniad should be renamed The Grunge. To quote:

        “During a crisis like this there is a big risk that people try to use this emergency to push their own agenda or their own interests. We need to make sure that doesn’t happen”. Saint Greta of Sweden.

        The UN’s Antonio Guterres declared “the pandemic to be the biggest threat the world had faced since the second world war, though he said the environmental emergency was deeper”. Biggeth/deepeth?

        The Grunge itself finished with: “News is under threat just when we need it the most. Millions of readers around the world are flocking to the Guardian in search of honest, authoritative, fact-based reporting [sic] … news organisations are facing an unprecedented existential challenge”.

        Better get me a bucket because I’m going to be sick!

        60

        • #
          PeterS

          LOL. Don’t worry, I do believe people like her only make a bigger fool of themselves. Of course they don’t realise it but that’s because of their blindness to reality, which bites.

          21

  • #
    Robber

    Be wary of “truth” in a movie. What’s needed is a scientific paper analysing the facts about solar generated electricity.
    We have our CSIRO reporting: “Our data confirms that while existing fossil fuel power plants are competitive due to their sunk capital costs, solar and wind generation technologies are currently the lowest-cost ways to generate electricity for Australia, compared to any other new-build technology.”
    And our government is still funding the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA): “We invest in projects to accelerate Australia’s shift to affordable reliable renewable energy.” That covers 513 projects costing $1.48 billion to date.

    70

    • #
      PeterS

      Try explaining all that to the voters. It would go way over their heads. We need true leadership to make the hard decision, and stop mucking around with notions it’s good to reduce our emissions while nations like Japan, China, India and others are doing the exact opposite by building far more coal fired power stations that we already have and could ever possible need. Keep it simple. Most voters are simple minded, which is actually good. We just need simple and basic facts to help them along. Four hundreds new coal fired power stations let’s say minus say six of ours still equates to lots of extra coal fired power stations. After all we are all living on the same planet, even though many politicians don’t appear to be.

      51

      • #
        el gordo

        The money spent on renewables is chicken feed compared to the pandemic payout and Morrison has no intention of talking about emissions reduction until at least November.

        Apart from the Turnbull inspired Guardian Australia, the MSM has put climate change in the bottom draw.

        30

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      Robber,

      The official modelling I have studied to date for Australia carries nthe implicit assumption that the modelling has to comply with Australian obligations to the Paris Agreement. The Chief Scientist model stated this clearly.
      I have not read the CSIRO paper you mention. Perhaps you could add a comment on whether its model is free of such a constraint, or if it represents a level playing fiels comparison to coal fired.
      Also, some modelling stops short of costs of power distribution lines, with extra usually needed for wind and solar located well away from cities.
      Finally, some models also stop short of factoring in the costs of keeping backup ff plants running, to cope with sudden drops in renewables output. It is well known that running coal plants to fill in drops in renewable output is rather more costly than running them in flat out baseline mode. Geoff S

      10

    • #

      Robber
      This is totally bogus, as you know. Who cares what cost solar and wind are, as they are intermittent and unreliable. You may get very little for days. The CSIRO need to do an analysis which looks at 365/24/7 supply. In which case they have to add in the cost of storage and backup. Very quickly it is obvious that wind and solar are actually v expensive with astronomical capital (and ongoing replacement ) costs

      Just like needing science in the climate change debate, we must have engineering type cost analysis, not greens style analysis where we trumpet that solar can generate the cheapest but forget about the 16 hours with no or low generation.

      20

    • #
      Roger Knights

      “We have our CSIRO reporting: “Our data confirms that while existing fossil fuel power plants are competitive due to their sunk capital costs, solar and wind generation technologies are currently the lowest-cost ways to generate electricity for Australia, compared to any other new-build technology.””

      CSIRO has to be puzzled then by why 90% (?) of power-plant new construction money in Asia is going into “other new-build technology.” (The reason is that they have skin in the game and are motivated to evaluate the claims of renewable energy proponents accurately.) Unlike CSIRO.

      20

  • #
    Mirek Fatyga

    the lesson from all this is not to be fanatical, ideological, but practical, science and engineering based. I look both at “conservative” websites and at “leftist” websites, and they all push their story, lying half of the time, or worse. My “truth” would look something like this:

    1. Population growth is a big problem, even though it is abating, or maybe even reversing in places. I am 62 years old and the population of this planet almost tripled in my lifetime, and I am not dead yet, even though the Covid thing is gunning for the likes of me. –> Say this on a “conservative” website, you are a despicable, antichristian, commie, Malthusian, Club of Rome, flake.
    2. And yet, the US, with ~5% of world population, still uses ~20% of world oil production. This is a big problem if your intent is to scale up the fossil fuel based civilization to the whole planet. No matter how you look at it.
    3. Many problems, like droughts, that are blamed by the “left” on the climate change are actually population growth problems. It is the same drought today in Syria as the drought 100 years ago, but there may be 5 times as many people competing for the same water and food. There are limits to how far a finite resource can be stretched. Every chemical reaction requires substrates and energy, or else it stops. We, humans, are no exception. –> say this on any “left” website, you are a climate change denier and you are blaming the poor for their plight.
    4. The population growth happened because of a collision between cultures adjusted to 50% mortality of the young, and western medicine that lowered this mortality to ~0% by relatively simple means, in a culturally short amount of time. This has happened so suddenly in cultural terms, that it caused exponential growth of populations in many places. The problem is self correcting as cultures adjust, but not until it produces fairly large numbers of people, particularly in the developing world where most of this collision occurred. Not only there, though, witness “pro life” movements in the developed world that are not just against abortion, but also against contraception. It is the same culture, or rather vestiges of it, that caused the exponential population growth elsewhere. –> say this on any “conservative” site …

    The upshot of this is: we need to accept larger populations as a given, and seek solutions that work best for most people, without destroying the environment. In doing so, we have to be pragmatic, science and engineering based. Perhaps we also need a cultural (or religious) adjustment. God made us stewards of the Earth, of all God’s creatures, rather than the owner that can trample everything in one quest alone: multiply. Tell me, that this is not what Christianity teaches …

    We need to be as friendly to people as we can, and be pragmatic, not ideological.

    Take the movie: putting together a solar or wind power plant and a gas plant into one unit is not necessarily “a lie”, but it may be a pragmatic solution. It provides electricity while using less gas than a straight gas plant would. Maybe it makes sense? You just look at the cost and practicality.

    Finally, without writing a book here, I do not think that providing electricity for 10 billion people can possibly work without nuclear power. But then, I may be wrong. Pragmatically, I am willing to entertain that possibility and have a reasoned discussion.

    30

    • #
      PeterW

      You very much seem to be begging the question….. indulging in the fallacy of assuming that population growth or fuel use are problems, without producing evidence to support your proposition. You assume that which you need to prove.

      I have watched the population grow and I dislike it, but I do not assume that my dislike proves that it is a problem, let alone a problem that we have not solved.

      One example is your argument that a drought in a given area “might” be more of a problem because the population is greater. The Conservative reasoning that you so denigrate, responds by asking why it is such a problem when fewer people actually die. Even when the number of people who “might” die is five times greater.
      The same reasoning – the examination of cause and effect – would note that there is ample food and transport infrastructure (something to which the population has contributed) but that the cause of supply constrictions is political and economic. As such constrictions were obvious in history well before either of us were born, the onus is on you to show that population has somehow caused a pre-existing problem.

      No wonder you dislike Conservative websites when you have so much trouble with arguments examining cause and effect.

      30

      • #
        PeterW

        You may care to clarify, but your argument appears to be that we should continue to expect certain people-groups to live with high levels of ill-health, poverty and violence – all those things that reduce population growth – because population itself is a problem, not inadequate resources.

        Are you prepared to adopt this lifestyle, yourself?

        30

    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      Mirek wrote “even though it is abating, or maybe even reversing in places.

      Any country or region where abating and reversing take place face serious issues.
      When the demographics change in this way the percentage of older folks increases and the relative number of earners and wealth creators decrease.
      Allowing immigrants can help solve that issue but introduces others. Russia and Japan, and others, are facing such problems. The USA has had many new-comers and thus some of the economic issues are delayed, but in many parts the culture has changed.

      00

  • #
    Mirek Fatyga

    the lesson from all this is not to be fanatical, ideological, but practical, science and engineering based. I look both at “conservative” websites and at “leftist” websites, and they all push their story, lying half of the time, or worse. My “truth” would look something like this:

    1. Population growth is a big problem, even though it is abating, or maybe even reversing in places. I am 62 years old and the population of this planet almost tripled in my lifetime, and I am not dead yet, even though the Covid thing is gunning for the likes of me. –> Say this on a “conservative” website, you are a despicable, antichristian, commie, Malthusian, Club of Rome, flake.
    2. And yet, the US, with ~5% of world population, still uses ~20% of world oil production. This is a big problem if your intent is to scale up the fossil fuel based civilization to the whole planet. No matter how you look at it.
    3. Many problems, like droughts, that are blamed by the “left” on the climate change are actually population growth problems. It is the same drought today in Syria as the drought 100 years ago, but there may be 5 times as many people competing for the same water and food. There are limits to how far a finite resource can be stretched. Every chemical reaction requires substrates and energy, or else it stops. We, humans, are no exception. –> say this on any “left” website, you are a climate change denier and you are blaming the poor for their plight.
    4. The population growth happened because of a collision between cultures adjusted to 50% mortality of the young, and western medicine that lowered this mortality to ~0% by relatively simple means, in a culturally short amount of time. This has happened so suddenly in cultural terms, that it caused exponential growth of populations in many places. The problem is self correcting as cultures adjust, but not until it produces fairly large numbers of people, particularly in the developing world where most of this collision occurred. Not only there, though, witness “pro life” movements in the developed world that are not just against abortion, but also against contraception. It is the same culture, or rather vestiges of it, that caused the exponential population growth elsewhere. –> say this on any “conservative” site …

    The upshot of this is: we need to accept larger populations as a given, and seek solutions that work best for most people, without destroying the environment. In doing so, we have to be pragmatic, science and engineering based. Perhaps we also need a cultural (or religious) adjustment. God made us stewards of the Earth, of all God’s creatures, rather than the owner that can trample everything in one quest alone: multiply. Tell me, that this is not what Christianity teaches …

    We need to be as friendly to people as we can, and be pragmatic, not ideological.

    Take the movie: putting together a solar or wind power plant and a gas plant into one unit is not necessarily “a lie”, but it may be a pragmatic solution. It provides electricity while using less gas than a straight gas plant would. Maybe it makes sense? You just look at the cost and practicality.

    Finally, without writing a book here, I do not think that providing electricity for 10 billion people can possibly work without nuclear power. But then, I may be wrong. Pragmatically, I am willing to entertain that possibility and have a reasoned discussion.

    [Sorry Mirek, this was caught by the spam filter.] ED

    00

  • #
    Furiously curious

    I posted this earlier, but I think it is important

    The world population may be peaking very soon. Once again the experts and their models are probably way off the mark. To maintain a steady population each female needs to have 2.1 children. China’s rate is 1.2, India has just hit 2.1, the rest of the western world is below 2.0, even Africa is dropping steadily. Brazil 1.7. Urbanisation, (now over 50% of the population) makes it very expensive to bring up a child, plus female education = low birth rates. China may have less than 700 million be centuries’ end ! This is going to destroy the Endless Growth paragon anyway. They think the only countries that will grow their popn, are those that can attract migrants, and that may become more difficult if living standards can rise generally. Both China and India have a major disparity in their male/female ratios.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYZPTaV-RcQ&t=50s

    20

  • #

    Michael Moore has a nose for fraud and with a little luck, it will lead him on to sniff out the fraud involved in the ‘science’ behind the CO2 scam-panic and then with a bit more luck he could turn his attention to the even more colossal fraud behind the ultimate evil corporation which is the Socialist/Fascist State. This will have to be a very slow process as at each stage he will have to dismantle and re-assemble his World View entirely which is a very difficult thing to do. However, Michael has just taken the first step on a long journey.

    70

    • #
      RickWill

      CO2 will remain the villain for Michael Moore. It is too deeply ingrained in his religion and life to question the premise. All he has realised now is that so-called “renewable energy” is not.

      30

    • #
      Dave in the States

      Maybe he should as a next step do a documentary on Venezuela.

      20

  • #
    PeterS

    The population problem is one that can be fixed very simply albeit not easily. There is more than enough space and resources to allow the population to keep growing with no limit in the foreseeable future. I would go as far to say much longer term, say 100′s of years into the future, we could support a trillion people if we really wanted to as long as we used our cleverness to mine asteroids and the moon – but the power hungry elite don’t. They would see that as a huge problem to control. Better to cull the population to make it easier for them to manage and control. That’s the sad reality.

    50

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      The Elite appear to follow a satanic New Age religion, that espouses basically eradicating 90% of the population by whatever means necessary, so they can enslave the remaining 10% and live like kings in a quiet earth.

      They are, like all deranged meglomaniacs of times gone by, not to be trusted.

      40

  • #
    bobl

    Baby steps, it can’t be easy to accept a worldview you’ve had for decades is wrong. It takes time to follow the chain and learn the math.

    This is why I’ve changed tack recently, the debate with the green blob is never about science, greens don’t do science, it sours their latte. They universally argument on morals trying to put “the planet” that is animals and vegetables before people. Being communists they want to deny the billionaires (unless the billionaire is one of them) hence the billionaires jump ship for their own protection. Greens just use AGW science soundbites for justification. It doesn’t matter if it’s real, because it’s just a means to a preordained end.

    So the best way to argue is to paint the moral picture of the results of climate action. Food riots from downgrade corn diverted to ethanol. Excess winter granny deaths. Money diverted away from health. People kept in poverty from the refusal to build coal plants in the third world, kids dying from dung fires. Indigenous Africans displaced or murdered to get land for EU carbon credit forestry. Prime Ag land tiled with solar panels.

    The other useful track is to unravel the mysterious Solar Panel that the green blob worships, especially that Solar doesn’t save much energy over it’s life. Green mythology is based on the simplistic incorrect assumption that gridscale solar is like a bigger rooftop solar (which generates about 25% more than use to make it).

    Showing the reality that the excess CO2 emission to build grid scale solar never gets paid back in “free” energy so the $900 each year that people pay in their electricity bills (and the flow on cost added to everything else) achieves nothing, not even the stated aim of CO2 reduction. Showing that simply planting trees instead of planting solar panels achieves more CO2 reduction does the trick here. People either don’t know about their $900 donation or think that its being “invested” in a good way. Showing that neither is actually true is vastly better than arguing science which glazes their eyes over.

    80

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Yeah although the bunch of weirdos that make up the Establishment appear to have already flagged a religious-like fervour to
      rebuild the world in their own twisted image of greenism as it emerges dazed and confused, from the covid nonsense.

      We need to be hyper vigilant that the powers that be may try and nobble the economic restart with green rules to cripple the economy.

      I think they may get a very rude shock when people fight back and bite them hard in the rear end…..

      40

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      G’day bobl,
      One of the highlights for me was his interview with the scientist who showed him how the advertising claimed that solar panels were made from sand (!) whereas what’s needed is that very pure quartz has to be heated with a greater amount of coal (which looked like good quality coal) at very high temperatures to produce silicon.
      His description of his change from a green activist to a questioner of the message seems to parallel my own path. But for me the clincher was the book “The delinquent teenager” which answered the question as to who could do such a thing on such a scale. That answer was IPCC. His conclusion of too many people was too big a jump, and poorly argued.
      In my view, he did debunk all the current Green “solutions” to the CO2 “problem”, and rather well. That he didn’t explore either more coal fired power stations, or nuclear I took to be necessary to keep the length down.
      Cheers
      Dave B

      30

  • #
    Salome

    “Planet of the Humans” was produced by Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore. “I assumed solar panels would last forever,” Moore told Reuters. “I didn’t know what went into the making of them.”

    Is this the facepalm moment of the millennium? Or is it by way of saying that we have to return to the stone age and allow ourselves to die off in order to save the planet?

    60

    • #
      PeterS

      As explained in certain posts above it’s mire likely the latter. I suppose we will have to wait for his next documentary to be certain.

      21

    • #
      RicDre

      “I assumed solar panels would last forever,” Moore told Reuters. “I didn’t know what went into the making of them.”

      I think this is simply an admission that he believed what he heard and never bothered to check for himself. Many people are or were in that same position. That he changed his mind after checking the facts is to his credit. That he has not proceeded to the next logical step of checking on the validity of CAGW is not surprising, his world view has already been dealt one crushing blow and he is probably not ready to endure a second one. It will be a measure of his honesty as to whether he is willing to take the next step or remain where he is now. The ball is in his court now, we’ll just have to wait to see what he does with it.

      41

      • #
        Chad

        I believe you are all reading this wrong.
        Moore is the Exective Producer, not necessarily the author or scrip writer.
        The story line , writer, producer, director and Editor was. Jeff Gibbs
        Im sure Moore would have approved and contributed, but this is not his work and he doesnt appear in it even once.
        Like all doco’s there are parts that not everyone with agree with.
        Obviously Gibbs/Moore are still AGW followers, but at least now more people will understand that the RE movement is just a scam for an alternative money harvesting business men.

        81

        • #
          RicDre

          “Moore is the Exective Producer, not necessarily the author or scrip writer.”

          That is a good point, however I don’t think he would allow something to be published in his name if he didn’t agree with its conclusions.

          10

    • #

      …Okay a glitch,
      but the message remains,
      ‘humans are evil,
      becoming a blight
      upon the earth
      (a) too many of’em
      (b) capitalism sucks!’

      Forget Hans Rosling stats, (Vid) ‘Good News for a change,’
      Forget Norman Baulaug ‘green revolution’ beating famine.
      Forget human inventiveness and creativity,

      Forget the Hokey stick models that are …. well yu know.

      50

  • #
    PeterS

    The documentary made the comment a major cause of the woes of planet earth is the profit motive. Well that’s on the right track but misses the real problem. The addiction to debt is the real issue. The debt monster is growing and will end in tears due to another related problem; usury. There is a solution; debt jubilee. Of course, the bankers wouldn’t like it, and the central banks backed by the governments would fight to the death to prevent it from ever happening in its current form. So, we are stuck with the debt monster until it eats us all alive, but here comes the punch line. There will be a debt jubilee of sorts instigated by the central bankers. It’s the only way for them to remain in existence. It’s already being prepared as we speak. When completed all fiat currencies will be scrapped, debts will be forgiven and the world will trade with a united currency. Most people don’t see the difference between debt and money. The physical dollars and cents we have in our pockets is fiat money. However, the vast majority of our economy is run on non-physical money called debt, not fiat money. That’s what feeds the growing debt monster. However, to remove the debt monsters running around eating up the nations of the world, a single much more sinister debt monster will be created. By all means talk about how the fake renewable industry is a scam. It sure is. But it’s not the number one threat to our society. The new debt monster rising above the skyline like a monster spaceship from an alien world as depicted in some Sci-Fi movies is the real threat. Please carry on.

    11

  • #
    PeterS

    Good explanation why we lost trust in so many people (also applies to Michael Moore in some respects):
    Who Do You Trust When Everyone’s A Crook?

    10

  • #
    Ross

    Climate science was weaponised in the 90′s by Al Gore went it entered politics. That’s over 20 years ago. So, now its all about the politics not the science or as they say – “the optics”. Great doco, everyone should watch it. I was mindful of the the biomass energy scam but didn’t realise to what extent it had grown. Slowly the truth behind the whole AGW scam will be revealed but it may take another 20 years to unwind. The present climate mafia – Gore, Mann, Hansen. McKibben, Flannery,Turnbull etc all need to retire from public life and for younger influencers to take over.

    40

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Is the Establishment trying to block an effective non-vaccine treatment?

    If the vaccine paradigm breaks, the Establishment loses a lot of power over the population…..

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/nih-panel-recommends-against-using-hydroxychloroquine-with-z-pak-to-treat-covid-19_3322160.html

    “NIH Panel Recommends Against Using Hydroxychloroquine With Z-Pak to Treat COVID-19

    “Doctors and experts on a panel created by the National Institutes of Health are recommending against using hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malaria drug, with azithromycin, an antibiotic known as Z-Pak, in the treatment of COVID-19.

    “The panel released its recommendations on Tuesday, including recommending against the combination, which is being used by a number of doctors in the United States and elsewhere.

    “The panel said it was recommending against the combination “because of the potential for toxicities.”

    “The panel cited a single study, which has not been peer reviewed, for their recommendation.

    “Researchers from the New York University School of Medicine retrospectively studied the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in 84 adult patients and reported an increased QTc, or an interval measured on an electrocardiogram that can signal a higher risk of having heart incidents.

    30

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    Well it’s good to expose the problems in the renewable industry, there should be transparency in all industries.

    What is hard to grasp is the relative position of renewables against fossil fuel, particularly at similar stages in their development.

    04

    • #
      RicDre

      “Well it’s good to expose the problems in the renewable industry, there should be transparency in all industries.”

      I agree, though I would have reworded that as “Well it’s good to expose the problem that is the renewable industry, there should be transparency in all industries.”

      The meaning of the rest of the statement is unclear.

      30

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        The fossil fuel industry has had more than 200 years of development – renewables are a lot younger.
        It would be fairer to compare the 2 at similar stages of their development
        The point being that it fossil fuels were very polluting at the beginning of their development.

        08

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Peter:

          I thought that any study on history would reveal that renewables have been in use for thousands of years. There have been improvements since, but only marginal and not economically attractive, because those improvements haven’t boosted their output enough, because of the low energy density they harvest.
          The Betz limit (for wind turbines) was calculated back in the 1920′s.
          The first ‘large’ scale wind powered generator (75kW) was installed in 1939.
          The first large scale solar powered plant was installed in Egypt in 1913.
          The improved wind powered ships were before 1923 (Flettner rotor or the Yankee clippers before them.)

          100

          • #
            RicDre

            Graeme No.3

            Thank you for the reference to the “Flettner rotor”. I don’t remember ever reading about Rotor Ships before, so I googled it; it is a very interesting subject!

            20

        • #
          RicDre

          “The point being that it fossil fuels were very polluting at the beginning of their development.”

          I think you missed the point of the documentary. Its not that RE creates more pollution over its lifetime than just burning fossil fuels do, though that is true, but rather that they do not produce more energy than is required to create them in the first place. That is why the documentary comes to the conclusion that there is no technology solution to the the problem of Climate Change and so the only solution is less technology and less people. Of course, they never explore the question of whether Climate Change is actually a problem but you can only expect them to slaughter one Sacred Cow at a time.

          80

          • #
            RickWill

            CO2 is not a sacred cow but the demon of the religion. Michael Moore will never think clearly enough to realise he has been scammed on this matter most of his life. He is just one of the many useful idiots who believe that CO2 emissions are harmful.

            60

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            Hmm here is a link that debunks your claim about energy from renewables
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44130/

            And this is the costs involved in Fracking
            https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/12/17/us-fracking-shale-wood-mackenzie-child-wells

            wild claims indeed

            06

            • #
              AndyG55

              LOL, you would be sucked by any propaganda pap.

              Solar and wind has been proven infeasible at providing reliable energy.

              To construct what the first clown is yabbering about would take far more energy than it could produce, and all of that would come from COAL.

              Not to mention the HORRENDOUS real pollution created in their manufacture.

              And as soon as you see someone having to add the stupidity of CO2 sequestration into their calculations, you know they are talking nonsense.

              There is absolutely no need for it, ever.

              You do know that increased atmospheric CO2 is totally beneficial to the planet, don’t you, so why the heck would anyone ever bother to sequester it.. Just dumb.

              The scam and pollution levels associated with renewables has been EXPOSED. Get over it.

              As for the second load of nonsense. (desmog ultra-left garbage)

              Fracking has allowed the US to become nearly energy dependent.

              Its only the combined efforts of the Saudis and Russia and Covid-19 that is making it currently uneconomical.

              Don’t worry, USA can always go back to coal. :-)

              60

        • #
          AndyG55

          Its obvious that you basically zero understanding of the scientific limitations behind solar and wind energy.

          Otherwise you wouldn’t make such fatuous and inane statements.

          51

        • #
          AndyG55

          “The point being that it fossil fuels were very polluting at the beginning of their development.”

          What a pointless point…. We are talking about now.

          .. and in the whole-of-life cycle, modern wind and solar are FAR more polluting that modern coal or gas, and provide absolutely ZERO back to the environment or the economy.

          They are in fact, a total drain on the economy.

          61

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            assertions, and ad Homs, love your work Andy

            07

            • #
              AndyG55

              Love your total lack of any actual evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 is ANYTHING BUT totally beneficial.

              You are still making totally POINTLESS comments..

              The only thing you are capable of.

              30

    • #
      R.B.

      Would have been good not to dismiss the warnings as just misinformation from Big Oil.

      Would also be good if you stopped trying to convince everyone that arguments against the sudden need for them is just misinformation by Big Oil.

      20

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      People have been using solar energy for a long time Peter.

      I can remember almost seven decades ago being told by my mother to take these clothes out and hang them on the line.

      So I carried the basket, unhooked the swing and pulled one side down.
      Put half the clothes on and then pulled the other side down and pegged the clothes to balance.
      Then levelled it off and left the Solar Energy to dry them.

      In those days we didn’t have spring loaded pegs so we used the slit ones. Sometimes they broke.

      I just love the memories of renewable energy and hope that one day all of us originators of same Will be recognised by the United Bloody Nations for our pioneering work.

      KK

      50

      • #
        RicDre

        “I can remember almost seven decades ago being told by my mother to take these clothes out and hang them on the line.”

        My family also took part in that particular use of Solar Energy. Sometimes we would leave the clothes out overnight to dry and there would be a frost overnight and in the morning all of the clothes would be stiff as a board; an occasionally amusing consequence of using that form of Solar Energy.

        20

  • #
    STJOHNOFGRAFTON

    “If the uber Greens now admit that wind, solar and biomass are destructive, and it becomes unfashionable to be seen supporting them (or Gore), what will they replace that with next?”

    The Greens are governed by a bellyache mentality. They must have a cause on which to focus their grievances. It’s a Marxist – Alinsky phenomenon.

    As Sami Grover says in Tree Hugger, May 18, 2010 : “But ultimately the success of environmentalism will not be judged on whether we were right or not. It will be judged on whether we managed to halt, and even reverse, the threats that environmental destruction and resource depletion pose to our way of life and, possibly, our survival.”

    There’s no scientific method raison d’être, which is based on scepticism and truth, with the Green movement. Truth is not part of the narrative. It’s results that count.

    30

  • #
    Serge Wright

    RE is the biggest scam in the history of humanity. Governments provide free cash giveaways to big green companies in endless amounts and because RE isn’t capable of providing sufficient energy, the deployment of more RE and cash giveaways is never ending, driven only by a false belief by it’s brainwashed worshipers who are ultimately descples of the big green propaganda machine that leads back to China.

    30

  • #
  • #
    WXcycles

    Above 200 dead, and higher than 2.5% died:

    % Died | Country | Total Deaths | New Deaths

    14.95 … Belgium … 6,262 … 264
    13.81 … Algeria … 402 … 10
    13.56 … UK … 18,100 … 763
    13.39 … Italy … 25,085 … 437
    13.35 … France … 21,340 … 544
    12.10 … Sweden … 1937 … 172
    11.64 … Netherlands … 4,054 … 138
    10.42 … Spain … 21,717 … 435
    9.02 … Mexico … 857 … 145
    8.56 … Indonesia … 635 … 19
    7.54 … Egypt … 276 … 12
    6.65 … Philippines … 446 … 9
    6.35 … Brazil … 2,906 … 165
    6.27 … Iran … 5,391 … 94
    5.62 … USA … 47,659 … 2,341
    5.60 … China … 4,632 … 0
    5.40 … Romania … 524 … 26
    5.34 … Switzerland … 1,509 … 31
    4.95 … Ecuador … 537 … 17
    4.91 … Canada … 1,974 … 140
    4.91 … Dominican Republic … 260 … 15
    4.85 … Denmark … 384 … 14
    4.61 … Ireland … 769 … 39
    4.19 … Poland … 426 … 25
    3.57 … Portugal … 785 … 23
    3.53 … Germany … 5,315 … 229
    3.42 … Austria … 510 … 19
    3.19 … India … 681 … 36
    2.75 … Peru … 530 … 46

    Above 2,500 active and higher than 3.0% daily spreading:

    NOTE: THE TOP-6 SPREADING % ARE ALL IN WARM OR HOT COUNTRIES

    % New v Active | Country | Active Cases | New Cases
    15.3 … Brazil … 17,533 … 2,678 (a poor population)
    12.1 … Mexico … 6,017 … 729 (a poor population)
    12.1 … Peru … 11,693 … 1,413 (a poor population)
    11.0 … Singapore … 9,233 … 1016 (not a poor pop, sobotage? something is very wrong)
    11.0 … Bangladesh … 3,560 … 390 (a poor population)
    10.5 … Saudi Arabia … 10,846 … 1,141 (not a poor population)
    9.9 … Russia … 53,066 … 5,236 (bigger than Germany, spreading over twice as fast)
    9.5 … Ireland … 6,669 … 631
    9.4 … Qatar … 6,442 … 608
    8.6 … Belarus … 6,454 … 558
    8.2 … Morocco … 2,880 … 237
    8.1 … Chile … 5,750 … 464
    7.9 … India … 16,319 … 1,290
    7.8 … Ukraine … 5,994 … 467
    7.3 … Canada … 24,230 … 1,768
    7.3 … UAE … 6,640 … 483
    6.9 … Romania … 6,780 … 468
    6.8 … Iran … 17,492 … 1,194
    6.8 … South Africa … 2,515 … 170
    6.6 … Pakistan … 7,708 … 511
    6.3 … Colombia … 3,280 … 207
    6.1 … Israel … 9,094 … 556
    5.7 … Dominican Rep … 4,459 … 256
    5.0 … Sweden … 13,517 … 682
    5.0 … Ecuador … 9,051 … 452
    4.8 … Indonesia … 5,870 … 283 (still holing it down)
    4.8 … Germany … 45,933 … 2,195
    4.2 … USA … 717,010 … 29,973
    4.2 … Spain … 100,757 … 4,211
    3.9 … UK … 115,051 … 4,451
    3.9 … Turkey … 79,821 … 3,083
    3.8 … Poland … 8,230 … 313
    3.8 … Serbia … 5,955 … 224
    3.7 … Panama … 4,449 … 163
    3.6 … Belgium … 26,194 … 933
    3.1 … Italy … 107,699 … 3,370

    % Died | Country | Total Deaths | New Deaths
    1.1% … Australia … 74 … 3

    % New v Active | Country | Active Cases | New Cases
    0.2% … Australia … 1,655 … 4 (0.2% spreading and just 4 new cases in 24hrs! Amazing result!)

    Australia is going to completely clear the continent of CHICOM-19, we will be reopening without the virus circulating. And we can keep it that way indefinitely, managed adaptation is all that’s required from here to remain clear of it.

    Recovered = 5,012 (another 234 cases recovered overnight)

    So much for the wowser POV.

    121

    • #
      WXcycles

      doh! Meant to preview it to clean it up, and posted it instead. :-)

      20

    • #
      R.B.

      The raw stats don’t give many answers because of a lot of unknowns. Did a less deadly strain start spreading in some countries? Are some countries treating patients incorrectly? Are cases diagnosed incorrectly? Germany has slightly more cases per million than Sweden but the latter has 3 times as many deaths per million.

      Singapore’s cases have been over 500 per day for a week and near 200 plus for two weeks but only 12 deaths.

      Meanwhile,

      The first American to die of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus that has become a global pandemic, succumbed weeks earlier than initially believed, officials in California said late Tuesday.

      The Santa Clara Medical Examiner-Coroner said autopsies on two people who died in early and mid-February showed they had been infected by the virus. Samples sent to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tested positive on Tuesday.

      Until the new revelations, the first COVID-19 death had been identified as a man in his 50s in Washington state who died Feb. 29.

      21

      • #
        WXcycles

        The numbers have a completely valid purpose, to gauge the success or failure of policies to halt and wind back the spreading and deaths. They serve that purpose very well.

        102

        • #
          R.B.

          Well they don’t. Sweden failed if you look at deaths but succeeded if you look at cases. Even using deaths, “Belgian government on Tuesday announced new far-reaching measures to combat the coronavirus, banning all non-essential activity outdoors, regulating access to supermarkets and banning all social gatherings” 17 March.

          Not that Sweden did nothing at all. Netherlands did less, was criticised by Belgium authorizes, and has 2/3 The deaths and almost half The number of new deaths.

          26

          • #
            WXcycles

            Because ignoring the global data would be helpful, insightful and enlightening, right?

            70

            • #
              R.B.

              Did I say that or point out that you can’t gauge anything from them. You can only cherry pick evidence of what you want to see. That’s worse than being ignorant.

              There is a post at WUWT showing a linear trend of number of new cases with tests ignoring that it only happens in countries with linearly increasing number of cases and linearly increasing number of tests. A lot of comments on why the ratios differ and it doesn’t happen in some countries, meanwhile the elephant in the room is getting a headache from it’s eyes rolling back.

              02

              • #
                WXcycles

                Yes, funny you should mention that, I posted on that thread seven times during the day and disproved Willis’s claims. You you were unaware of this?

                You’ve got nothing.

                00

              • #
                WXcycles

                This was Willis’s conclusion claim:

                “… Conclusion? Don’t use confirmed cases as a metric of the spread of the virus—the number of cases is indeed a function of the numbers of tests. …”

                https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/22/of-tests-and-confirmed-cases/

                Which is of course complete rubbish, the graph and data I’ve posted disproves what he’s concluded and claimed.

                https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/22/of-tests-and-confirmed-cases/#comment-2975057

                https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/22/of-tests-and-confirmed-cases/#comment-2975388

                So if you think your own claims should be listened to, that the primary data is useless and pointless, I thoroughly disagree, you’re wasting your time trying to convince me to ignore it. Not going to happen. The data is what we have, it’s imperfect, always is, but it’s good enough and is fit for the purpose intended, and Willis is obviously wrong, his claim is refuted by observation, not just testing for new cases.

                I’m quite appalled how pathetic Willie’s analysis and checking was, and how far off the mark his conclusion is. It’s not what I expected from him, but apparently he has his bias hat and blinkers on this time around.

                So I’ll be going with data which easily shows how wrong and misguided he is. His new adamant claim is not only wrong, it’s dangerously wrong and greatly misleads the readers who are too lazy to check. Like you, apparently.

                30

              • #
                R.B.

                You’ve got nothing

                You’ve got issues. It never was an attack on you.

                00

              • #
                R.B.

                One last thing. My original comment can be summed up as before analysing what the data means, analyse it so as to figure out how to make it meaningful without fiddling it to fit a theory. It was only an attempt to steer the discussion that way. e.g. an average of all temperature records means nothing because it’s not a collection of complete records spread evenly around the globe.

                10

              • #
                WXcycles

                One last thing. My original comment can be summed up as before analysing what the data means, analyse it so as to figure out how to make it meaningful without fiddling it to fit a theory. It was only an attempt to steer the discussion that way. e.g. an average of all temperature records means nothing because it’s not a collection of complete records spread evenly around the globe.

                What’s your problem RB?

                I don’t need your special guidance here, it’s the data of the day, that’s all. It’s filtered and sorted as the text above each list describes.

                If you’re seeing/perceiving something else it’s you projecting.

                20

    • #
      Bill In Oz

      WXCycles, Thanks for the update !
      One nit pick : Peru is nota warm/hot country. Most of the population lives in the cooler Andes mountains,
      Rather than the warm dry desert coastal plain.

      The BBC has an interesting video about what is happening in Singapore : the disease has got into the dormitories of the casual migrant worker population.
      They are mostly young males from India, Bangladesh and Pakistan.Working in Singapore to send remittances back to families at home. They are accommodated in high rise dormitories with triple deck bunk beds. Ideal for the disease to spread quickly. Nothing is said about how the disease was introduced into this population.But maybe via some new migrants being allowed entry ? Or via the stalls supplying bought cheap meals ?

      https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-52379552/coronavirus-singapore-s-migrant-workers-living-in-fear

      52

  • #
    TdeF

    The underlying question is, why now? Michael Moore is a sensationalist. That’s what he does and how he gets attention and fame.

    That big wind and big solar is a creature of merchant bankers, the Germans and the Chinese has always been known. And calling out for exposure.

    Perhaps he just thinks there is some great material and it would be appropriate to get the focus back on Climate Change and away from Wuhan Flu? Or he could release this now and the Trump haters like himself were just too focused on blaming Trump for the virus to care much about Climate Change. So his friends won’t attack him for stating the obvious.

    It also enables him to be anti Trump and anti Climate Change profiteers, some of whom have a foot in both camps. Like the Koch brothers who according to this video are both profiting from Climate Change and undermining it. He is suggesting that some people are unscrupulous. Really?

    30

  • #
    RicDre

    “The underlying question is, why now?”

    A good question. Its hard to get into Michael Moore’s head (and would you want to be there in any case), but this documentary must have been in the works long before the Wuhan Flu was was let loose on the world, so the only question is why did he release it now. Your explanation is a reasonable one, though a simpler explanation may be that he was so appalled by what he found that he wanted to release it as soon as he finished it. Maybe someday Michael Moore himself will explain the timing of its release…he has done that with some of his earlier documentaries.

    30

    • #
      Furiously curious

      I flagged this doco months ago. when it first was released, in a couple of film festivals. I reckon the reason he put it out now, is he could not get a theatre release. The establishments on both sides hate it. Anti capitalism plus anti renewables. No one would touch it, and also his film’s grosses have been in decline. They were pleased with the receptions they got at the festivals, and have been trying to release it. There wasn’t even been a trailer until very recently.

      60

      • #
        RicDre

        “I flagged this doco months ago.”

        Now that you mention it, I do remember hearing about it a while ago. Your explanation makes a lot of sense.

        20

        • #
          TdeF

          So no one would buy it and he took fame. Better to put it out for free than have no one see it at the time. It is interesting that the video attacks people for having a profit motive and he doesn’t have one? It’s leg pulling time.

          40

  • #
    Pat Lane

    I just spent 1:40 I’ll never get back.
    Here’s the logic:
    1. Humans are wrecking the planet.
    2. Therefor, humans are bad.
    3. Capitalists are human.
    4. Therefore, capitalists are bad.
    5. Environmentalists are human.
    6. Therefore, environmentalists are bad, too.
    7. Also, by some sort of transitivity, environmentalists are capitalists.

    20

  • #
    Steve of Cornubia

    This is just the Left’s usual internecine squabbling. It’s how all their ‘projects’ eventually progress, as they bicker about who is the most devoted, the most pure or whose interpretation of the gospel is correct. This will apply to AGW in the same way the Occupy movement descended into political pantomime.


    “We’re the People’s Front of Judea, not the Judean People’s Front!”

    But the AGW scam has plenty of life left in it, once it has been purified and relaunched in accordance with the New Testament.

    20

  • #
    WXcycles

    I wasn’t impressed with the opening scenes of fast-motion replay of a fish-eye lens orbit over highly developed countries, at night. Any astronomer or photographer knows that if you use a larger aperture, longer exposures and stretching of images or videos, and add color intensity, you can make any really faint to almost invisible emitting object, look bright, luminescent and obvious. Which is exactly what happens with all such orbital images of night lights on earth. i.e. such images are a massive exaggeration or the footprint of humans on earth. Add some blurring and stretch it once again and it looks like the global population has doubled in seconds.

    Be skeptical of this sort of imagery and presentation, it is innately very dishonest and usually designed to create an effect that’s not to inform, but to deceive.

    That sort of innately biased presentation also denies or perceptually excludes the reality of major global greening and the end of “desertification” processes, an enormous reduction in land clearing, the massive growth of national parks, world-heritage areas and wildlife reserves. And improvement in soil health and growth, improvement due more rain, and to improvement for the prospects of many once presumed ‘doomed’ critically endangered species which now suddenly are not so endangered, after all. Walrus, polar bears, corals, rain forest species. The biota greatly improved even as human’s began the higher density living habit, with copious electricity which lead to falling birth rates.

    So always be aware of these images of human cities at night from space, as even an astronaut’s personal camera can enormously exaggerate the light-gathering by dozens of times the light seen by an unaided human eye. Plus the simplest of image-editing routines do the same. And editors and graphics specialists certainly do such things to produce more drama within images from space to spin stories of doom and gloom, and hysterical calls for “action now!”. Seeing that sort of video imagery at the beginning of Moore’s movie immediately makes me suspicious of the motive and the underlying messages and impressions it was meant to leave and seeks to impart.

    170

  • #

    Renewables useless!

    Huh! Who would have thought?

    Tony.

    110

    • #
      TdeF

      Everyone knows this. It’s no secret. However you are not supposed to point it out. And Moore tells us that profiteers are behind renewables, replaceables, unreliables. Again, what’s the secret? Where in the trillions of dollars and half a million windmills is there an actual success not totally reliant on oil, gas, coal or nuclear for continuity? Where have windmills actually replaced coal?

      70

  • #
    STJOHNOFGRAFTON

    More on Earth Day.

    from The Daily Caller via WND:

    FLASHBACK: (to 2011).

    “Earth Day co-founder killed girlfriend, ‘composted’ her ‘mummified’ body.

    “https://www.wnd.com/2020/04/earth-day-co-founder-killed-girlfriend-composted-mummified-body/

    30

  • #
    DonS

    Hi Jo

    Finally a post that does not mention the hideous virus, Hurrah! About time, I notice the media in the last few days have started linking stories of the virus to climate action. Time to give the virus a lower priority?

    Happy Earth Day, started 50 years ago when all the captive “experts” were predicting the coming ice age, survived to warn us of the coming peak oil catastrophe (how’s that looking?), promoted policies that lead to the banning of pesticides that has now produced the worst locust infestation in Africa in about 50 years (famine about to hit), told us all about global warming then climate change then climate catastrophe and now judging by the last few years may have to dust off the ice age scare again. The circle is compete, complete crap!

    As for the Moore film, I haven’t seen it but going from Jo’s comments and some of the comments from those here it sounds about right. Surprised Moore makes a film that the Guardian reviews favorably, why? He is attacking these people from the left. You see he has no problem with destroying industrial society or interest in questioning the global warming scam, no, he has a problem with traitors to the cause making loads of money from it. Does he still support millionaire socialist Burnie I wonder?

    Moore and his ilk are what the Chinese call running dogs. They are about promotion of Marxism in the west and nothing more, don’t be fooled!

    40

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    It’s like someone read all the major skeptic blogs in the world and turned them into a documentary.

    Not all of them, but JoanneNova dot com was surely one.

    Thanks are due. Wouldn’t it be fun to see what they did read?
    Regards,
    John

    50

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    The Elite are struggling that very few will sign up to be tracked.

    Um….why would anyone in their right minds allow the govt to electronically stick its whole arm up your rear end, and keep it there?

    No one I’ve talked to will tolerate the idea, and I suspect you might get a few who sign up, but most ( 90% ) wont.

    Back off fellas…..you’ve lost this one…..another Census debacle….

    Thats the good thing about Democracy….the govt need to have a healthy fear of the people.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-23/tracing-apps-tracetogether-coronavirus-who-will-download/12175866

    “As governments look to ease general social-distancing measures and instead use more targeted strategies to stop coronavirus transmission, we face a social dilemma about the limits of cooperative behaviour.

    “Consider the controversy over contact-tracing phone apps, which can help authorities identify people with whom someone diagnosed with COVID-19 has recently come into close contact.

    “Oxford University research suggests such apps could effectively stop the epidemic if 60 per cent of the population use them, though even with lower uptake they still have some value.

    “The Australian Government’s goal is for 40 per cent of the population to use its app. It is hoping people will do this voluntarily.

    “That’s double the uptake so far achieved in Singapore, which launched its TraceTogether app on March 20. This despite a six-nation survey (including Australia) suggesting Singaporeans are the most relaxed about the personal privacy concerns.

    “My research into cooperative behaviour suggests there’s no reason to believe voluntary uptake will be higher anywhere else.

    31

  • #
    yarpos

    Much excitement. Given the extent of vested interest i think its just as likely that the movie will get sent down the memory hole and Moore discredited by his own. This movie debuted 6 moths ago or more and was studiously ignored by the MSM. It will be interesting to see if it gets any oxygen.

    41

    • #
      TdeF

      Maybe only sceptics will watch it?

      20

    • #
      Chad

      Of course it will be ignored by the MSM, because it doesnt support their line of debate !
      And for sure there will be multiple attempts to discredit it by many powerful bodies…most of whom were identified in the movie.
      BUT i will say this again ..
      This was a JEFF GIBBS documentary , ..he wrote directed, produced , narrated and edited it.
      More doesnt appear, speak or get mentioned anywhere…except as Exectuve producer.
      ..IE used Moores name and reputation to gain exposure.
      Obviously Moore will have accepted the content as valid and worthy of his endorsement.

      62

  • #
    RickWill

    After watching the film you may feel inclined to respond to this survey:
    https://www.solarcitizens.org.au/survey_2020?utm_campaign=2020_solar_survey_launch&utm_medium=email&utm_source=solarcitizens

    There is provision for comments on some of the questions so you could link to the Michael Moore film:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE

    10

  • #
    Reed Coray

    I watched the film in its entirety. One message I got from the film is that independent of any good intentions environmentalists may have had at one time, many (if not most) of the large current environmental organizations they founded have morphed (evolved) into dirty rotten profit driven lowlifes. My cynical nature leads me to two conclusions.

    First, the morphing doesn’t surprise me. IMO one of mankind’s basic instincts is a desire to improve his lot: life span, comfort, shelter, recreation–to include bolstering his own self image. I’m neither ashamed nor feel guilt that I possess and act on these instincts. To do otherwise would in essence be a form of self loathing. That doesn’t mean I want to run rampant over other people, other life forms or the environment in general; but it does mean I’m not going to discredit these characteristics or deplore the fact that I have them.

    The human population on the Earth can’t keep doubling forever if for no other reason there isn’t enough planetary mass to do so. But I’m not convinced we’re on the brink of collapse. Maybe we are; but people like Paul Ehrlich have been saying that for years. I have to believe some philosophers 1,000 years ago may have said the same thing. If so, they and Paul Ehrlich were wrong.

    Second, for the most part I believe the founders of the various environmental organizations that the film deprecates had good intentions. The problem is that their followers were humans possessed of the very characteristic (better your lot in life) that eventually led to the current states of their organizations all the while feeling superior to their fellow man. I believe Jeff Gibbs believes humans are facing an immediate and potentially life threatening crisis. He made this film in part to convey that belief and in part to satisfy his own human need to feel good about himself. If his motivations were purely logical, why end the video with clips of suffering orangutans? The answer has to be to make the audience feel guilty, and by extension to enable him to feel superior to his fellow beings. At the outset, the founders of many of the current environmentalist organizations had similar beliefs and admirable motivations and look where that got us–at least according to Jeff Gibbs.

    If you want to get me to change my behavior and the way I think, give me reason, not emotion.

    60

  • #
    ImranCan

    Thanks Jo … this has really made my day. Never, in a million years, did I think something like this would come from Michael Moore. Wonders never cease, and I really feel like a major step forward has just been taken.

    50

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    A short review of the movie.
    It demonstrates the abundance of people whose talk is based on “plausible avoidance” of the real question asked.
    ………………..

    Plausible avoidance first came to my attention when I asked a son who had just started Uni (with Mum and Dad paying the fees) what his attitude was to finishing projects set by his lecturers in good time and with intensive thought.
    Little did I know I was being educated in a novel communications technique. I am so sad that it is now so widespread as to appear mandatory in some sectors of society. (see politics and media reporting). Geoff S

    10

  • #
    TFX

    In defence of Michael Moore, he has always been a realistic lefty. In 2016 he was going public warning the Democrat establishment that traditional Democrat working class voters were going to go for Trump. He is one of the few lefties that has muddy boots.

    60

  • #
    Meglort

    It will be interesting to see how Humpty the global economy gets put back together again, once the pestilence passes and perhaps famine and war.

    It all might be a moot point, if renewables are the least of our concerns.

    It is quite fascinating to look at the artefacts collectively left behind.
    I have trudged through quite a few, some nobody knows who built or how.

    Human civilisations routinely fail, this could be how ours does.
    Conceit would be thinking society will continue on having never done so yet.

    20

  • #

    When a society loses its nerve,
    It’s on a downward swerve.
    H/t The Roman Empire.

    50

  • #
    Boris

    Only just catching up with this post.

    Just another multi-generational psyop. I just hope this “make work” and illegitimate profit enterprise comes to a quick end. But I also hope the delusion ends just as quickly by recognising the psyop for what it really was, another form of crude exploitation.

    IMHO there are many technologies and levels of technology that we just shouldn’t have developed or implemented. Fiat currency has made it possible to buy us off with destructive delusions that haven’t enriched our lives but put many of us out of meaningful work while harvesting trillions in illegitimate profits and power for the few.

    The elephant in the film was the failure to expose the fake science.

    50

  • #
    WXcycles

    After (finally) watching through to the end of this fairly interesting critique of green energy it was apparent that Jeff Gibbs and Michael Moore are presenting a softer version of Ted Kaczynski’s unabomber manifesto and his virulently misanthropic world-view. The final 10 mins offered doom and gloom, humans are a global pest, and there are no human solutions but to cancel humans, and declare war on humans as leading obvious ‘Next-Step’.

    A pathetic, warped and despicable message to feed to the young and impressionable. It was designed to play with their psychology, certainly a major intent, from the beginning of the movie (i.e. vastly exaggerated impression of way too many modern humans with electricity, as seen from space), and at the end of the movie where a nuked rain-forest stand means humans know no bounds. Yet an older person knows that even a cleared rain forest regrows rapidly in the tropics, unless you make continuous and labor-intensive efforts to prevent it from doing so. It’s so prolific it recovers and propagates almost as fast as coral does.

    Yes, the body-slam to the green energy debacle was good to see, but that was not honesty, that was just the perverse sugar-coating that gets more people to imbibe the underlying “unabomber manifesto” like messaging. This is propaganda narrative, designed to convey a message of hopelessness, to not even try to defend any imagined merits of human civilization, but to reject it out of hand, and end it, but without actually saying so.
    Disgusting.

    “Planet of the Humans” is a dismal and vile psychological attack from seemingly quasi-’honest’ producers but which are deeply misguided and mentally-deranged individuals who wish to falsely accuse humanity of a demonic nature simply to convince the young to self-defeat mentally.

    Disgusting and thoroughly exaggerated nonsense, at the beginning and at the end, with some overdue green self-flagellation in the middle to garner some ‘likes’ and to lend it cred by throwing the more odious elements of the green ultra-hypocrites under the bus for the greater good. Ted Kaczynski’s manifesto likewise despised and rejected the ineffectual hypocritical green movement.

    Unabomber Manifesto text for philosophical comparison of hard and soft misanthrope propagandists:
    https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/national/unabom-manifesto-1.html

    Time has repeatedly shown such deranged misanthropes are wrong, they choose and also strongly recommend a path of assured self-failure and attack on civilization because they fail to recognize that life is tenacious, that humans are a valid part of the life mix, life heals itself and re-propagates very easily, and rapidly. It’s set up to do nothing but that and has an infinite capacity for adaptability, and the creation of new species. And the planet itself over the past 500 million years has been incredibly fertile and conducive to life which has thrived all over it for most of that time.

    And life is certainly thriving in the presence of humans.

    What blind arrogance and foolishness, to presume Earth and life on it, which created humans and modern civilization, got us wrong. It’s absurd! No, we are not a mistake, and if humans volunteered to end it all, as these producers would apparently like to see, the earth would just recreate something very much like us within another 500 hundred million years or so, with no trouble at all. Are we meant to think Life on Earth just stuffed-up?

    Making this documentary was the stuff-up.

    82