Climate Experts Are Calling Michael Moore’s New Film “Dangerous, Misleading, and Destructive”

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | General Discussion | Climate Experts Are Calling Michael Moore’s New Film “Dangerous, Misleading, and Destructive”

Viewing 10 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #311234
      JonLP
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,013
      A new Michael Moore-produced documentary that takes aim at the supposed hypocrisy of the green movement is “dangerous, misleading and destructive” and should be removed from public viewing, according to an assortment of climate scientists and environmental campaigners.

       

      The film, Planet of the Humans, was released on the eve of Earth Day last week by its producer, Michael Moore, the baseball cap-wearing documentarian known for Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine. Describing itself as a “full-frontal assault on our sacred cows,” the film argues that electric cars and solar energy are unreliable and rely upon fossil fuels to function. It also attacks figures including Al Gore for bolstering corporations that push flawed technologies over real solutions to the climate crisis.

      Planet of the Humans has provoked a furious reaction from scientists and campaigners, however, who have called for it be taken down. One distributor, Films for Action, temporarily took down the film after describing it as “full of misinformation,” though they later reinstated it, saying they did not want accusations of censorship to give the film “more power and mystique than it deserves.” A free version on YouTube has been viewed more than 3 million times.

      letter written by Josh Fox, who made the documentary Gasland, and signed by various scientists and activists, has urged the removal of “shockingly misleading and absurd” film for making false claims about renewable energy. Planet of the Humans “trades in debunked fossil fuel industry talking points” that question the affordability and reliability of solar and wind energy, the letter states, pointing out that these alternatives are now cheaper to run than fossil fuels such as coal.

      https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2020/04/climate-experts-are-calling-michael-moores-new-film-dangerous-misleading-and-destructive/

      I have no idea if it is misleading or not. All I know is there is a big controversy.

       

    • #311250
      Yanath
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,282

      Jeff Gibbs, who wrote and directed the film, has suggested that unrestrained economic and population growth should be the target of environmentalists’ efforts rather than technological fixes.

      If he said that, he’s absolutely correct, and it probably has more to do with the controversy than anything else. Capitalists don’t care much for the obvious implications of a dramatic reduction in economic activity and the necessary changes in energy, economics, transportation and agriculture.

      I’ve haven’t seen the film, though.

    • #311257
      carrotguy
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 453

      that MSM footage of jellyfish in the canals of venice and the LA skyline visible in clean air might make headway into society’s tolerance for sustainable living.  it would have to be legislatively incremental though – it will not happen by choice

    • #311318
      GZeusH
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,505

      I’ll say it again -overpopulation- so that climate “experts” can call me dangerous,misleading, and destructive.

    • #311322
      Ohio Barbarian
      Moderator
      • Total Posts: 13,851

      It’s available for free on You Tube, and is about an hour and 45 minutes long. When I have time, maybe I’ll look into the people who are calling it “dangerous.” Dangerous to whom? The documentary focuses on the money trail, how capitalists are financing long-established environmental groups and are getting tax breaks and subsidies for technologies labeled “green” that ain’t necessarily so.

      Solar and wind power plants must be backed up by natural gas or coal plants to make sure there’s a backup at night or when the wind stops, and to maintain a steady load on the grid so the whole thing won’t collapse. Is that dangerous knowledge? Biomass is nothing more than burning copious amounts of trees. Is that dangerous knowledge? Gasohol is a huge fraud, emitting more greenhouse gases in its manufacture than just using premium gasoline. Is that dangerous knowledge?

      I think what’s dangerous, to some, is that the film asks uncomfortable questions, like why some “green” technologies should be receiving public subsidies when they’re not so clean and because environmental groups connected to a certain political party wholeheartedly endorse them while receiving funding from investors in those same technologies.

      Or, is the film dangerous and misleading because it illustrates how our cellphones and rechargeable laptops and things are dependent on rare earth elements that require intensive mining, deforestation, water pollution, and other consumption of finite resources? (Shhh! Don’t tell our consumers that they may have to give up their smartphones some day! Eeek!)

      IOW, the film suggests that our lifestyles may have to be dramatically changed in order to survive. It’s an inconvenient truth that many just don’t want to think about.

      The fact that some people want the film banned suggests there are ulterior motives afoot.

      It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

      If Democrats don’t stand for the people, why should people stand for them?--Jim Hightower

    • #311331
      Fasttense
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 710

      Every single developed country in the world is seeing a birth rate decrease. The only way these countries are seeing increse in populations is through immigration. That is why the average age is increasing in every developed nation. Women Do Not just have babies after babies unless their children are dying or their only value to society is as an incubator.

      You can stop population growth merely by providing healthcare, ending endless war, birth control and economic opportunity.

      But it is so much easier to claim over population than to look at the numbers and truly see what is happening in developed nations.

      And to say solar power….free energy…. Is equal to the cost of fossil fuels has never used solar power. I have a lot of solar powered equipment throughout the farm and it is amazing. Hardly any maintenance, mobile and sets up in hard to reach areas. No cords and underground wires and all for free. Yeah you have to buy the solar panels, you have to understand how they are connected, but after that, there is no more constant fees to refuel or put in oil or clean out carburetors. Electric equipment is so much cleaner and easier and cheap, cheap cheap.

      I don’t know where Moore got his info but it sure wasn’t from the day to day reality of dealing with fossil fuels and solar panels and population patterns.

      • #311383
        Bearian
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 524

        Just waiting for my Tesla Truck. I’ll get batteries an go off grid soon.

      • #311409
        ieoeja
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 71

        … that are used to manufacture solar panels.  By the logic of that documentary bicycles are bad because fossil fuels and mined metals are used in their manufacture.  Walking is worse than driving because walking requires more energy causing us to eat more and food production uses fossil fuels.

        The documentary has some interesting tidbits, but the overall premise – Green Energy is not Green if something non-Green is used at some stage in the process – is pretty silly.

    • #311335
      David the Gnome
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,402

      If anyone wants to draw conclusions about it – watch the video first.

    • #311361
      Ohio Barbarian
      Moderator
      • Total Posts: 13,851

      The advocates of solar, wind, hydrogen, what-have-you, imply that we can maintain our current lifestyles if only we will switch over to 100% clean energy. That’s what many people believe, and it just ain’t so. The film says it just ain’t so, and that there are already more people on the planet than it can support in the long run with our current rates of consumption and depletion of natural resources.

      In short, watching the Planet of the Humans can cause cognitive dissonance, and lots of people just hate that.

      It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

      If Democrats don’t stand for the people, why should people stand for them?--Jim Hightower

      • #311368
        N2Doc
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 7,214

        @ohiobarbarian – I also see another angle that causes the establishment to shriek. Moore’s film calls out the ecological ‘savior’ industry. Just like how the Civil Rights movement morphed into a bunch of get rich scammers who sold out to the Establishment, the Environmental Movement is full of well-paid ‘leaders’ who live off of making people feel like something is being done when they donate. Actually doing something is quite difficult and can be dangerous (as Sea Shepherd can attest to). Much easier to sit back, talk talk talk about crises, and beg for more money.

        • #311375
          Haikugal
          Moderator
          • Total Posts: 1,594

          Thanks @n2doc that was my takeaway as well.

        • #311382
          Ohio Barbarian
          Moderator
          • Total Posts: 13,851

          The last Sierra Club meeting I went to was in Arvada, Colorado sometime around 2000. It was in a nice, comfortable suburban house with a nice, large, comfortable living room.

          I pulled up in my 1998 Saturn, 35 mpg highway and city combined, gasoline engine. The president of the club had a Toyota Prius, all clean, electric and shiny new, and about $50K. Everyone gushed over it. “Everyone” also drove up in gas-guzzling SUVs that got maybe 15 mpg max.

          Ungracious barbarian that I am, I pointed this out. Everyone became very uncomfortable and looked at me like, Who let him in? As I said, that was my last Sierra Club meeting.

          It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

          If Democrats don’t stand for the people, why should people stand for them?--Jim Hightower

      • #311480
        retired liberal
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 2,590

        “…these alternatives are now cheaper to run than fossil fuels such as coal.”

        Cheaper to run, yes. But not cleaner, greener or cheaper to make. That part is always glossed over.
        And with the current overpopulation, we are at best, just treading water with green energy.
        The way this incompetent Administration is dealing with this pandemic though, overpopulation may become a thing of the past, so there is that. However I don’t want to become the contents of a urn on the mantel any time soon.

        We are an arrogant species, believing our fantasy based "facts" are better than the other person's fake facts.

        If you are wrong, it will be because you are not cynical enough.

        Both major political parties are special interest groups enabling each other for power and money, at the expense of the people they no longer properly serve…

    • #311387
      Earthartist
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 718

      Thanks Ohio, I think what is sad about sierra club is that it’s roots where very much in the right place. Bloomberg  bought out sierra, but very likely it sold out before that.  I watched WA state Sierra turn a blind eye to what was going on in Puget Sound, and with the timber industry. Then with the whole social justice movement all the greens started using this to manipulate their groups into doing nothing. I have stopped giving to most, I have a select few that I give to that actually have a track record of protecting land. This goes for the social justice movement as well. I only give to organizations like looking glass or the CLDC. Who actually have boots on the ground helping communities.

       

      Earthartist

    • #311401
      Hobbit709
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,711

      That they don’t need a new iPhone very year. Nothing is made to last by design so that you can buy a new one every few years.

      Appliances can be easily made to last 25 or more years but the profit driven industry doesn’t want that

      I drive a 1992 Toyota pickup, it passes the emissions tests every year. It gets 31 mpg on the highway, 26 or so in traffic.

      I have a 45 year old Kenmore drier that my appliance guy says will probably outlast me, So it doesn’t have a digital readout, etc. but it works just fine. My washing machine is over 30 years old and works just fine.

      My cell phone is a Samsung S7 that I got refurbished 3 years ago. It does everything I want from a cellphone.

      My main desktop and the one in the bedroom were originally built over 10 years ago. All I did was upgrade from XP to 7 when XP was no longer usuable in terms of getting online. I have replaced failed components-drives mostly.

      My two laptops-my personal one and the one I use for my sound gigs are 10 years old, they work just fine and do what I want.

      But too many people think they need the latest and greatest, most of which don’t do anything the old ones were quite capable of.

      There would be a lot less using up resources if people wouldn’t buy a new whatever every other year just because they need to be trendy.

      I don't waste my time teaching pigs to sing.

      • #311506
        Ohio Barbarian
        Moderator
        • Total Posts: 13,851

        @hobbit709 GM stopped producing the Saturn because the damned things were built so well they’d last over ten years easy. Maybe twenty. I know. I had a 1998 Saturn that finally rusted apart in 2015.

        Just another example. Appliances and vehicles can be built to last. For that matter, Roman roads are still in use, but asphalt roads have to be constantly resurfaced. There’s a whole industry that would go out of business if we built highways out of sturdier material.

        Capitalism requires growth. Growth requires exploitation, natural resource depletion and a disposable society. Disposable appliances, vehicles, computers, phones, bags, homes, and people.

        I think we need to dispose of the people who profit from this situation and try something else. Mother Nature’s about had enough of us.

        It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

        If Democrats don’t stand for the people, why should people stand for them?--Jim Hightower

    • #311413
      Two way street
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,604

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE

      2020 Campaign Season: We the People are in the fight for our lives and livelihoods.

Viewing 10 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.