Any prior fans still a fan of Michael Moore?
New Michael Moore-Backed Documentary On YouTube Reveals Massive Ecological Impacts Of Renewables
New Michael Moore-Backed Documentary On YouTube Reveals Massive Ecological Impacts Of Renewables
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Michael Moore vs. Renewable Energy
- Thread starter iPlug
- Start date
willow_hiller
Well-Known Member
I still need to watch the film before passing judgement, but reading reviews his main argument is that renewables are intermittent, and therefore cannot provide all the energy the world needs?
The main premise seems to be missing non-intermittent forms of renewable energy (wave energy, geothermal), and the potential for battery power-plants to store intermittent renewable energy and release it when needed.
The main premise seems to be missing non-intermittent forms of renewable energy (wave energy, geothermal), and the potential for battery power-plants to store intermittent renewable energy and release it when needed.
Well, many factual inaccuracies in the article and some straw man positions and other anti-renewable claims that have been debunked in the past.
You're a braver one than I. Had the article presented new evidence, I would be inclined to examine the "documentary". If you watch it, please share any thoughts.
You're a braver one than I. Had the article presented new evidence, I would be inclined to examine the "documentary". If you watch it, please share any thoughts.
Well, I watched it and the Live Podcast. It says there is no such thing as green energy and the main problem is too many people who use too much stuff. Basically we need to use a lot less stuff and share everything we have. They seem to blame it all on Capitalism. So what about China? I also wonder what they think about third world populations where most of the growth in population is occurring. Those third world populations want what we have which would require a lot more energy and stuff.
Tam
Well-Known Member
No one's perfect! I like Elon Musk but I don't like him downplaying the Covid-19.
I like Michael Moore but not with "Planet of the Humans" because although it is informative on the scam of biomass, biofuel, Blood and Gore... but it does quite a damage to Tesla, EV, solar, and wind movement.
It perpetuates fossil fuel's argument that if the grid is coal, don't buy EV to charge it from coal. That just doesn't make sense.
I buy EV because it doesn't kill me with carbon monoxide if I forget to turn off the car in my garage. Coal bad, EV good: Get solar and skip the coal!
Luckily wind and solar are being driven my economics now, not movements. There's only so much damage he can do. Possibly mostly at policy level.
Brando
Active Member
So right Willow
- other storage include: "FLOW Batteries" & "pumped hydro"
AND we could reschedule - go to bed earlier and wake up earlier - follow the sun and sleep when it is dark.
More work from home, more flexible start & quit times for work..
side note: storage can happen most anywhere along the transmission lines or at customer location.
Wonder what the benefits of "more natural" wake & sun along with dark & sleep. At least for working times.
I do enjoy the night sky.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
For the sake of argument, let's say he is correct.
So what ? How does that change the fact that vast amounts of fossils can and should be replaced by clean energy a decade ago, and the sooner that is accomplished, the longer civilization will have to figure out the remainder ? Is the notion of a CO2 budget foreign to this attention seeking movie maker ?
I've never been a fan of Moore, and I doubt this movie is going to change my mind. I find provocative and ridiculous claims rationalized as discourse encouragement to be little more than self-serving FUD.
Last edited:
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
I watched it. It's a complete waste of time. Seriously. It's an anti-corporate hit piece that does nothing but perpetuate nihilism with false equivalence and misinformation.
Despite my agreement on a number of subjects in his past films, I have usually found it unsettling to watch his media which typically comes off as about him and lacking genuine concern and sincerity of presented issues and data.
Much appreciated, saved me 1hr 40min. It all adds up
.
Last edited:
Brando
Active Member
People just can't reason. Little to no understanding of things like significant numbers (precision), percentages (not know the base that is used to calculate % is meaningless. Even the concepts of climate vs weather is unclear to most. Historical data and measurements are not simple to put into context. Changing populations, changing pollution. Statistics - few understand the first thing about it.
Consider the "ozone hole" is that still a thing? and we have more than one?M
rare earth does not mean scarce Rare-earth element - Wikipedia
Clashes of ideology rather than attempts to find basic truths.
Mean while 8 wars to make us safer and there are more terrorist and costs are in the trillions, no end in site. People accept this?
enough of my ranting ...
Consider the "ozone hole" is that still a thing? and we have more than one?M
rare earth does not mean scarce Rare-earth element - Wikipedia
Clashes of ideology rather than attempts to find basic truths.
Mean while 8 wars to make us safer and there are more terrorist and costs are in the trillions, no end in site. People accept this?
enough of my ranting ...
I agree. It perpetuates old info. It is like it they are taking clips from 2003 and willfully ignoring solutions and improvements. It is anti-technology. There is a fundamental failure of effort to understand the path before us.
I do note that Moore has kept a certain distance from the film by not doing the narration. It is unfortunate the film was ever made. It does damage IMO.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
My favorite quote from a review was something along the lines of 'Why is a 'documentary' released in 2020 critiquing the solar industry in 2009?'
<snip>
Like many documentaries, especially those from Moore, this film is a polemic, using tendentious language and clips to make its argument stronger even at the expense of objectivity.
Rather than proving its claims with economically sound and up-to-date facts, it often feels like an attempt to manipulate viewers who just don't know any better — like Moore's anecdotal evidence about Canadians not locking their doors in his 2002 movie, Bowling for Columbine.
Anecdotes are a great tool to illustrate a point but only if the point is a truthful representation.
For instance, images of rusted, abandoned windmills in Hawaii are not representative of a wind energy industry that has been successfully operating around the world for decades. As with any technology, constant maintenance is essential.
Pictures of a crumbling solar site make no mention of the fact that it was in the process of being replaced by a better one. The film uses footage and interviews referencing technology that is more than a decade old without revealing it.
It fails to address the essential fact that any new technology must pass through many stages and have many failures while trying to challenge tried and true existing systems.
In its apparent effort to make the case that fighting climate change is not enough and that industrial capitalism continues to erode the earth's resources even when directed toward green projects, the film uses the tricks of gotcha journalism.
In one instance showing grainy found footage of an environmental leader who seems to avoid mentioning he has accepted money from the Rockefeller Foundation, which funds energy and development projects around the world, as if it implied business collusion, without ever presenting evidence of it.
The movie has been justly criticized for using out-of-date information, such as misleading video clips of older models of solar panels to demonstrate the failures and inefficiencies of photovoltaic panels.
"It's like doing a documentary on the uselessness of mobile phones but only examining the [1990s] Motorola Ultrasleek," wrote infuriated technology writer Ketan Joshi.
<snip>
Full article at:
Planet of the Humans movie draws outrage as it calls for economic slowdown: Don Pittis
Like many documentaries, especially those from Moore, this film is a polemic, using tendentious language and clips to make its argument stronger even at the expense of objectivity.
Rather than proving its claims with economically sound and up-to-date facts, it often feels like an attempt to manipulate viewers who just don't know any better — like Moore's anecdotal evidence about Canadians not locking their doors in his 2002 movie, Bowling for Columbine.
Anecdotes are a great tool to illustrate a point but only if the point is a truthful representation.
For instance, images of rusted, abandoned windmills in Hawaii are not representative of a wind energy industry that has been successfully operating around the world for decades. As with any technology, constant maintenance is essential.
Pictures of a crumbling solar site make no mention of the fact that it was in the process of being replaced by a better one. The film uses footage and interviews referencing technology that is more than a decade old without revealing it.
It fails to address the essential fact that any new technology must pass through many stages and have many failures while trying to challenge tried and true existing systems.
In its apparent effort to make the case that fighting climate change is not enough and that industrial capitalism continues to erode the earth's resources even when directed toward green projects, the film uses the tricks of gotcha journalism.
In one instance showing grainy found footage of an environmental leader who seems to avoid mentioning he has accepted money from the Rockefeller Foundation, which funds energy and development projects around the world, as if it implied business collusion, without ever presenting evidence of it.
The movie has been justly criticized for using out-of-date information, such as misleading video clips of older models of solar panels to demonstrate the failures and inefficiencies of photovoltaic panels.
"It's like doing a documentary on the uselessness of mobile phones but only examining the [1990s] Motorola Ultrasleek," wrote infuriated technology writer Ketan Joshi.
<snip>
Full article at:
Planet of the Humans movie draws outrage as it calls for economic slowdown: Don Pittis
Ulmo
Active Member
Edit:
It seems like everyone in the first 15 posts thought the same thing I did. I feel like I'm being redunant. Well, I'll leave my post for whatever entertainment you may get out of it.
End edit
-------
I get to do another "I told you so." My opinion of Michael Moore being evil has never changed.
I heard a summary of his latest lie movie, and everything told in the movie is lies:
"If we convert to solar power, we'll use more natural gas than ever!"
"We cannot convert to solar power!"
I bet the movie has:
To those liars, the worst thing that can happen is electric car owners deciding they will only charge their cars during sunny days connected to solar panels.
They would go appaplecitc to learn every home is installing a personal high efficiency natural gas peaker plant for when the sun isn't shining (dead of winter and/or many-day storms), allowing them to turn off their PG&E electric service. Homeowners would keep their natural gas service, and also eventually dig a hole and put in a natural gas tank, maybe in their driveway (to reduce the potential for disaster), and eventually could also disconnect the PG&E gas line as well. This scares the hell out of the big Michael Moores of the world. People can farm their own energy while having a backup long dark storm plant of their own -- the collectivist power control people would skyrocket the price of natural gas in response, and so then the homeowners would go farm more solar and buy more batteries -- a perfect storm of anti-collectivism, just the sort of thing the China First policy people in USA would hate the most. They want us to be a slave state of communism. We say no, individually, and the balance of power would shift from the collectivists to the individualists. That is their fear.
They want total control of our power, and anything that allows us to collect and use our own power under our own terms scares them.
It seems like everyone in the first 15 posts thought the same thing I did. I feel like I'm being redunant. Well, I'll leave my post for whatever entertainment you may get out of it.
End edit
-------
I get to do another "I told you so." My opinion of Michael Moore being evil has never changed.
I heard a summary of his latest lie movie, and everything told in the movie is lies:
"If we convert to solar power, we'll use more natural gas than ever!"
"We cannot convert to solar power!"
I bet the movie has:
- No mention of optimizing the timing of water pumps.
- No mention of charging electric cars in the sunlight.
- No mention of installing PowerWalls.
- No mention of reducing the commutes of white collar workers so they have more sunlight hours awake and at home and need to have less evening energy, leaving the existing road infrastructures for blue collar workers who now will get better milage.
To those liars, the worst thing that can happen is electric car owners deciding they will only charge their cars during sunny days connected to solar panels.
They would go appaplecitc to learn every home is installing a personal high efficiency natural gas peaker plant for when the sun isn't shining (dead of winter and/or many-day storms), allowing them to turn off their PG&E electric service. Homeowners would keep their natural gas service, and also eventually dig a hole and put in a natural gas tank, maybe in their driveway (to reduce the potential for disaster), and eventually could also disconnect the PG&E gas line as well. This scares the hell out of the big Michael Moores of the world. People can farm their own energy while having a backup long dark storm plant of their own -- the collectivist power control people would skyrocket the price of natural gas in response, and so then the homeowners would go farm more solar and buy more batteries -- a perfect storm of anti-collectivism, just the sort of thing the China First policy people in USA would hate the most. They want us to be a slave state of communism. We say no, individually, and the balance of power would shift from the collectivists to the individualists. That is their fear.
They want total control of our power, and anything that allows us to collect and use our own power under our own terms scares them.
Ha! Amazing. I was more right than I thought I was.
That's what I said.
Unfortunately, that is not a side note. The whole purpose of the collectivists is to make sure that we individualists never buy our own solar panels and batteries; the collectivists want large institutions to be the only ones allowed to own batteries or solar panels. It is all about collectivism. Yes, they will install large battery systems. Actually, since collectivists' main purpose in life is to seek more power, they don't give a hoot about pollution or clean energy; they'd just assume have collectivism based on coal or oil as batteries and solar, but either way if we keep pushing them, they will install massive batteries and massive solar so they have power over us.
We'll still see the night even if we switch to a more natural diurnal schedule, and I agree, Zoom (the video conferencing software using the modern fiber-based Internet and fast modern computers with modern high resolution high color quality screens and cameras) will help us do that.
Last edited:
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
No; It's even more idiotic than that unless I got lost in the maze of non-sequiturs. It's that renewables and EVs aren't magic and require energy and raw materials => we need less people.......... yeah..... even if it was 60s it's not worth watching.
Similar threads
