Seduction Spa
Toronto Escorts

AP story - New Michael Moore-backed film exposes the "false promises" of green energy

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
170
63
AP story - New Michael Moore-backed film exposes the "false promises" of green energy

This certainly came out of "left field."

A new documentary that was primarily financed by Michael Moore takes direct aim at the environmental movement's "false promises" about renewable energy.

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/08/07/us/ap-us-film-planet-of-the-humans.html

The film, "Planet of the Humans," goes further than the already well-known reality that wind and solar power produces very little energy relative to the enormous cost. The film says renewable energy is "inextricably tangled" to coal and natural gas and that everything from wind turbines to electric car charging stations are tethered to the grid.

Says director Jeff Gibbs: “It was kind of crushing to discover that the things I believed in weren’t real, first of all, and then to discover not only are the solar panels and wind turbines not going to save us … but (also) that there is this whole dark side of the corporate money … It dawned on me that these technologies were just another profit center.”

The film has reportedly received standing ovations among the festival crowd.

I'm no fan of Michael Moore but I do hope this independent film finds an audience. It could play a significant role in getting more "progressives" to face reality and stop indulging in fairy-tale beliefs about a "Green New Deal."

Here's the reality: If you genuinely believe mankind has to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, the only practical way to produce more energy is for governments to invest heavily in nuclear power.

Renewable energy won't reduce man-made emissions in any meaningful way.
 
Last edited:

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Some interesting data points in this one

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/0...he-most-important-documentary-of-the-century/

Some of the reality presented:

+ all “alternative energy” itself is fossil-fuel-based. None of it could or did exist without fossil fuels. Solar panel themselves are made with metallurgical coal and quartz – both derived from blowing up mountains. The top beneficiaries of tax subsidies to promote solar? The Koch Bothers!;

+ same with wind and even hydro and Nukes, as the essential major ingredient in the creation of cement and steel is…coal. None of these technologies existed, nor could they exist, without fossil fuels. The grid cannot even operate without fossil fuel-derived steam-generated baseloads – in the spring when hydro is surging, the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) cuts off wind power (and still has to pay its providers after a lawsuit), yet has to keep the Boardman Coal plant (Oregon’s top carbon polluter) running in order to balance the baseload. Even eCon Musk’s famed battery plant in Nevada is powered by…fracked natural gas. The huge bird and desert-destroying Ivanpah Solar array in California also has fracked natural gas as an essential ingredient;

+ the documentary depants the ubiquitous memes/reports of how “Germany gets its energy from renewables.” It trots out footage of a series of the top misleaders stating one after the other: “Germany gets 30% from renewables,” “40%,” “50%,” “60%”,… The reality is that Germany gets just 3.5% of all its renewable energy from solar and wind combined. A whopping 70% of what passes for “Green” energy in Germany comes from Biomass – grinding up trees in the Amazon and the US Southeast and shipping them to Europe where Germany (and Great Britain) burns them for electrons and get Carbon Credits for doing so!;

+ the other part of the Germany myth is that “Germany gets off coal…” The reality here is that Germany gets 37% of its energy from coal and is even trying to level one of its last intact forests to get at the coal underneath. The only thing currently stopping the destruction of the 12,000-year-old Hambach Forest is mass protests;

+ the top beneficiaries of Biomass are, of course, Big Timber giants. The Koch brothers, again, own Georgia-Pacific, the second largest stump creator in the world after Weyerhaeuser. G-P’s two mills in Oregon are the state’s #4 and #5 carbon polluters, as well.
 

Knuckle Ball

Well-known member
Oct 15, 2017
6,793
2,787
113
It’s interesting how you guys all believe it’s a great film without even having seen it simply because it tells a story that fits with your pre-existing beliefs.
 

rhuarc29

Well-known member
Apr 15, 2009
9,590
1,193
113
It’s interesting how you guys all believe it’s a great film without even having seen it simply because it tells a story that fits with your pre-existing beliefs.
Not really that interesting. Totally expected, actually.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
It’s interesting how you guys all believe it’s a great film without even having seen it simply because it tells a story that fits with your pre-existing beliefs.
I don’t know that it’s a great film, I like the idea they were going to make a confirmation bias film and then followed the fucking facts. We don’t see much of that these days.
 

Knuckle Ball

Well-known member
Oct 15, 2017
6,793
2,787
113
I don’t know that it’s a great film, I like the idea they were going to make a confirmation bias film and then followed the fucking facts. We don’t see much of that these days.
Isn’t “confirmation bias” evident in what you just posted, though?
 

omegaphallic

Well-known member
Mar 26, 2010
3,003
42
48
This certainly came out of "left field."

A new documentary that was primarily financed by Michael Moore takes direct aim at the environmental movement's "false promises" about renewable energy.

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/08/07/us/ap-us-film-planet-of-the-humans.html

The film, "Planet of the Humans," goes further than the already well-known reality that wind and solar power produces very little energy relative to the enormous cost. The film says renewable energy is "inextricably tangled" to coal and natural gas and that everything from wind turbines to electric car charging stations are tethered to the grid.

Says director Jeff Gibbs: “It was kind of crushing to discover that the things I believed in weren’t real, first of all, and then to discover not only are the solar panels and wind turbines not going to save us … but (also) that there is this whole dark side of the corporate money … It dawned on me that these technologies were just another profit center.”

The film has reportedly received standing ovations among the festival crowd.

I'm no fan of Michael Moore but I do hope this independent film finds an audience. It could play a significant role in getting more "progressives" to face reality and stop indulging in fairy-tale beliefs about a "Green New Deal."

Here's the reality: If you genuinely believe mankind has to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, the only practical way to produce more energy is for governments to invest heavily in nuclear power.

Renewable energy won't reduce man-made emissions in any meaningful way.
Not just nuclear, but next generation nuclear, which will produce little to no nuclear waste, and some even can use old nuclear waste as fuel.

See the problem is that too many people base their nuclear energy policy positions on really old nuclear power plants, really old technology, Churnoble was extremely old and built by irresponsible morons, and Fukishima was really old too, a younger nuclear power plant with more modern technology was also hit, but was fine.

It's like basing you auto strategy on the horse and buggy. A lot of anti nuclear folks don't understand the technology they protest, they just know bad shit happened in the past, but they don't know why it happened or how the technology changed.
 

omegaphallic

Well-known member
Mar 26, 2010
3,003
42
48
I don’t know that it’s a great film, I like the idea they were going to make a confirmation bias film and then followed the fucking facts. We don’t see much of that these days.
This reminds me of the red pill documentary. Feminist Cassie Jaye started making it with a feminist bias, and feminist backing and lost both when confronted with the truth about MRM. She had a mental break down, so did her intern.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,743
17,569
113
Not just nuclear, but next generation nuclear, which will produce little to no nuclear waste, and some even can use old nuclear waste as fuel.

See the problem is that too many people base their nuclear energy policy positions on really old nuclear power plants, really old technology, Churnoble was extremely old and built by irresponsible morons, and Fukishima was really old too, a younger nuclear power plant with more modern technology was also hit, but was fine.

It's like basing you auto strategy on the horse and buggy. A lot of anti nuclear folks don't understand the technology they protest, they just know bad shit happened in the past, but they don't know why it happened or how the technology changed.
This new version doesn't exist yet, does it?
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
170
63
It’s interesting how you guys all believe it’s a great film without even having seen it simply because it tells a story that fits with your pre-existing beliefs.
No one said it was a "great film."

I said I hope it finds an audience because it might help "progressives" to start to accept reality when it comes to renewable energy. Many of the points they're raising are valid, regardless of the quality of the movie.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Isn’t “confirmation bias” evident in what you just posted, though?
Not at all, just reading what the director said....

Says director Jeff Gibbs: “It was kind of crushing to discover that the things I believed in weren’t real

Anything of content to post?
 

Knuckle Ball

Well-known member
Oct 15, 2017
6,793
2,787
113
Not at all, just reading what the director said....

Says director Jeff Gibbs: “It was kind of crushing to discover that the things I believed in weren’t real

Anything of content to post?
But if Gibbs had concluded that the things he believed were real you would not believe him because of your confirmation bias.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
But if Gibbs had concluded that the things he believed were real you would not believe him because of your confirmation bias.
You are chasing your tail.

I don’t have a conformation bias as it relates to renewable energy, I have an ability to read data.
http://www.tsp-data-portal.org/TOP-20-Generation#tspQvChart

BTW, I’m building a house with solar, to the highest Leed standards and have ordered an EV pickup. I have no issue with renewable energy, I have an issue with irrational exuberance on the issue, especially if it drives energy policy.

Do you have any content to add or does your bias prevent you from facing the data in this thread?
 

Insidious Von

My head is my home
Sep 12, 2007
38,089
6,424
113
Old news.

If course there are problems with green energy, the biggest is storage capacity. It's not a silver bullet to slow down climate change. That doesn't mean the technologies should not be pursued. Have we colonized another planet yet?

Question: Canada is investing in Bolivia's lithium mines - is that enough of a grievance for Alberta to separate?

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-biggest-problem-facing-renewable-energy

https://www.mining.com/web/bolivia-revolutionaries-lithium-miners-go-die/
 

Knuckle Ball

Well-known member
Oct 15, 2017
6,793
2,787
113
You are chasing your tail.

I don’t have a conformation bias as it relates to renewable energy, I have an ability to read data.
http://www.tsp-data-portal.org/TOP-20-Generation#tspQvChart

BTW, I’m building a house with solar, to the highest Leed standards and have ordered an EV pickup. I have no issue with renewable energy, I have an issue with irrational exuberance on the issue, especially if it drives energy policy.

Do you have any content to add or does your bias prevent you from facing the data in this thread?
So why do you assume this movie accurately represents the “facts?” If it had portrayed a different set of “facts” you would disparage it. You have already done whatever research you think you need to and have come to a conclusion- ie confirmation bias.

You seem to think that you have discovered the “truth” and that anyone who disagrees with you suffers from “confirmation bias.”
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
So why do you assume this movie accurately represents the “facts?” If it had portrayed a different set of “facts” you would disparage it. You have already done whatever research you think you need to and have come to a conclusion- ie confirmation bias.

You seem to think that you have discovered the “truth” and that anyone who disagrees with you suffers from “confirmation bias.”
Still no content

Not true at all, I’d love for them to be wrong, unfortunately I don’t think they are.
 

Knuckle Ball

Well-known member
Oct 15, 2017
6,793
2,787
113
Still no content

Not true at all, I’d love for them to be wrong, unfortunately I don’t think they are.
Exactly. You have formed a conclusion. As such, you believe this movie presents accurate facts about the topic without even having seen the film. Not sure why you believe everybody else is afflicted with confirmation bias except you.
 
Toronto Escorts