I'm asking you if you checked.
If you think he's unbiased and independent, shouldn't you have checked?
Michael Moore exposes green energy as a fraud
- Thread starter Gooseifur
- Start date
If you think he's unbiased and independent, shouldn't you have checked?
I did. Same with others. I havent seen anything that says he takes money.
He makes from YouTube adverts, speaking engagements and Patreon type funding. 800,000 subs on YouTube means he has a following.
His motivation is the death of his father, who died due to not being able to afford to go to a doctor.
And his critisism of both parties is consistent with his world view and policy thoughts.
So you don't know if he's still getting money from that PAC, which was wall street funded or other sources.
You can agree or disagree with his views, but if you don't know who is funding them you don't know if he's really pushing someone's narrative or not.
He never recieved money from it. He founded it and LEFT because of the change in course.
Nice try. But you are playing the ol' prove a negative.
And that won't cut it. He is as home grown as it gets. Criticizes all. He even had harsh words for Sanders over his running of the campaign and endorsement of Biden after.
He is a true believer. It's you that are fake.
You're so full of shit its not funny anymore.
But then most of this forum knows that already, which is why so many people have you on ignore.
Just last year Iran discovered a new oil field worth more than 50 billion barrels of crude oil:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/world/middleeast/iran-oil-field.html
This is a brandnew oil field, and not "stuff thats deep in oceans, stuck in rocks or in the tar sands" like you said
That was downgraded to 2.2 billion barrels, which makes it fairly minor.
The only recent large discovery was in Kazakistan in 2000.
Renewables Threaten German Economy & Energy Supply, McKinsey Warns In New Report
A new report by consulting giant McKinsey finds that Germany's Energiewende, or energy transition to renewables, poses a significant threat to the nation's economy and energy supply.
One of Germany's largest newspapers, Die Welt, summarized the findings of the McKinsey report in a single word: "disastrous."
"Problems are manifesting in all three dimensions of the energy industry triangle: climate protection, the security of supply and economic efficiency," writes McKinsey.
In 2018, Germany produced 866 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, a far cry from its goal of 750 million tonnes by 2020.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...ly-mckinsey-warns-in-new-report/#41be015c8e48
If Renewables Are So Cheap Why Is Germany’s Electricity So Expensive?
https://www.americanexperiment.org/2018/11/renewables-cheap-germanys-electricity-expensive/
A new report by consulting giant McKinsey finds that Germany's Energiewende, or energy transition to renewables, poses a significant threat to the nation's economy and energy supply.
One of Germany's largest newspapers, Die Welt, summarized the findings of the McKinsey report in a single word: "disastrous."
"Problems are manifesting in all three dimensions of the energy industry triangle: climate protection, the security of supply and economic efficiency," writes McKinsey.
In 2018, Germany produced 866 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, a far cry from its goal of 750 million tonnes by 2020.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...ly-mckinsey-warns-in-new-report/#41be015c8e48
If Renewables Are So Cheap Why Is Germany’s Electricity So Expensive?
https://www.americanexperiment.org/2018/11/renewables-cheap-germanys-electricity-expensive/
No, the oil field still holds about 50 billion barrels, but because of the US embargo they dont have the technology to extract the entire 50 billion
Matt Tahibi? Ryan Grim especially at the Intercept? They have broken significant stories without partisanship.
I love it when a bunch of people who have dismissed everything Moore has ever said suddenly think he's the smartest man on Earth (even though they didn't actually pay attention to what he said).
The problem with any "green" conversation is that it is purely political and somewhat religious(with all them believers and deniers). There are some good questions out there that will never even be addressed outside a very small circle of researchers because of the fear of stepping on toes. Too bad. The way things are now, it's not a conversation worth having.
Not surprisingly, eco-activists were trying to get the film banned and then backed down.
https://dailycaller.com/2020/04/26/michael-moore-planet-of-humans-green-new-deal/
I watched it on the weekend and the film is highly recommended.
I'm no fan of Moore and I don't share his anxiety about the future of the planet. But I will say the film does a terrific job exposing the green energy scam. Some of the key takeaways:
-- Renewable energy does not reduce carbon dioxide emissions. When you factor in everything that goes into the production of wind and solar power and the return, you get a net loss. As one eco guy says in the movie, it would have been better to leave the coal plants in place.
-- The battery supply for electric vehicles comes predominantly from burning coal.
-- The big corporations that are jumping on the green bandwagon are only gaming the system to make more money. There's nothing to suggest anything they're doing in partnership with environmental groups like the Sierra Club and 350.org will benefit the planet.
-- There is no corporation or organization anywhere that is powered 100 per cent by renewable energy. The ones that make that claim -- like Apple -- are lying.
As we can see from some of the posts in this thread, the documentary is particularly problematic for some leftists because the usual ad hominem attacks don't work.
Moore isn't a "denier," he isn't a shill for big oil (he actually exposes some of the leading environmentalists' close ties with the plutocrats) and he isn't a right-winger.
Much of the information in the documentary isn't news to right wingers. But you can bet it will rattle many of the lefties who make up Moore's audience.
Personally, as a free market neo-liberal type, I wouldn't have a problem with big corporations making money off this stuff it were actually profitable.
But it isn't. The rich are getting richer soaking up the billions upon billions being wasted by governments. And to repeat, none of it is making any difference to the environment.
Even if you believe there is an urgent need to reduce CO2 emissions, the reality is green energy isn't reducing a damn thing. In fact, it's almost certainly contributing to an increase in man-made CO2 emissions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE
https://dailycaller.com/2020/04/26/michael-moore-planet-of-humans-green-new-deal/
I watched it on the weekend and the film is highly recommended.
I'm no fan of Moore and I don't share his anxiety about the future of the planet. But I will say the film does a terrific job exposing the green energy scam. Some of the key takeaways:
-- Renewable energy does not reduce carbon dioxide emissions. When you factor in everything that goes into the production of wind and solar power and the return, you get a net loss. As one eco guy says in the movie, it would have been better to leave the coal plants in place.
-- The battery supply for electric vehicles comes predominantly from burning coal.
-- The big corporations that are jumping on the green bandwagon are only gaming the system to make more money. There's nothing to suggest anything they're doing in partnership with environmental groups like the Sierra Club and 350.org will benefit the planet.
-- There is no corporation or organization anywhere that is powered 100 per cent by renewable energy. The ones that make that claim -- like Apple -- are lying.
As we can see from some of the posts in this thread, the documentary is particularly problematic for some leftists because the usual ad hominem attacks don't work.
Moore isn't a "denier," he isn't a shill for big oil (he actually exposes some of the leading environmentalists' close ties with the plutocrats) and he isn't a right-winger.
Much of the information in the documentary isn't news to right wingers. But you can bet it will rattle many of the lefties who make up Moore's audience.
Personally, as a free market neo-liberal type, I wouldn't have a problem with big corporations making money off this stuff it were actually profitable.
But it isn't. The rich are getting richer soaking up the billions upon billions being wasted by governments. And to repeat, none of it is making any difference to the environment.
Even if you believe there is an urgent need to reduce CO2 emissions, the reality is green energy isn't reducing a damn thing. In fact, it's almost certainly contributing to an increase in man-made CO2 emissions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE
Moore's distributor pulled the movie for fucking with the facts.
Bummer.
Realistic criticism here.
https://www.filmsforaction.org/arti...ba1HCUmx3rdov9hBz5BH8ZwBw9lPKGmW1Izkz8iOjulsY
The distributor is Films For Action. It's on their website as well as on Youtube where it was originally published. Care to elaborate on your claim that they have "pulled the movie for fucking with the facts"? (or are you just fucking with the facts...again?)
They removed it for half a day before putting it back up: https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/michael-moore-presents-planet-of-the-humans/
As of right now its still on their site
I guess the pressure about censorship got to them thank goodness!
Why does the left foster the cancel culture if they don't want to hear something that goes against their opinion?
Glad it's back, the world needs the truth about this scam.
Yes, its back up there on that link along with their statement on the film.
Hardly a ringing endorsement, but I guess you hardcore Michael Moore fans who trust everything he says, including his film on capitalism, have to stick with him even with the bad ones.
The left loves censorship when it comes to what they believe regardless of how flawed it actually is. Green energy is one of their big ideas and has been exposed as a scam. They will go to great lengths to quiet the criticism of one of their ideals.
