Review: Michael Moore exposes wind and solar energy in new documentary

JimmyJamesMD

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
7,178
Reaction score
517
Points
113

Summary: Michael Moore’s most recent documentary, Planet of the Humans, is an honest criticism of “green energy.” It exposes wind and solar energy as little more than desperately fake measures aimed “not to save the planet but to save our way of life.” Wind turbines and solar arrays simply cannot possibly power anything resembling our current industrial civilization. The documentary also exposes the green movement’s hypocritical leaders, who personally profit from the comfortable myths (and subsidies) they have been peddling for decades to credulous left-leaning upper-middle-class Americans
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
43,517
Reaction score
1,116
Points
113

Summary: Michael Moore’s most recent documentary, Planet of the Humans, is an honest criticism of “green energy.” It exposes wind and solar energy as little more than desperately fake measures aimed “not to save the planet but to save our way of life.” Wind turbines and solar arrays simply cannot possibly power anything resembling our current industrial civilization. The documentary also exposes the green movement’s hypocritical leaders, who personally profit from the comfortable myths (and subsidies) they have been peddling for decades to credulous left-leaning upper-middle-class Americans
Yikes. I guess I know who's up next in the cancel culture. I checked out on Moore after his Capitalism movie. He did a whole movie on capitalism, and was asked to define capitalism and couldn't do it. Maybe that should be step one in your expose.
 

JimmyJamesMD

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
7,178
Reaction score
517
Points
113
Yikes. I guess I know who's up next in the cancel culture. I checked out on Moore after his Capitalism movie. He did a whole movie on capitalism, and was asked to define capitalism and couldn't do it. Maybe that should be step one in your expose.
I had already assumed everyone knew that Moore didnt know what capitalism is. Here, Moore is exposing the liberals little pet projects as nothing more than pet projects
 

forever a gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
136
Points
63
"Roger and Me" was a really good movie. His subsequent ones haven't been nearly as good, as they've been too preachy. As is usual with documentaries, there is a hard-core agenda that they usually try to hide with the veil of being unbiased. I don't agree with Moore's political views, but at least you know where he stands and that he most assuredly IS biased and framing things to paint a specific picture.

You do have to give props to him for making this gem:


1589992888788.png
 

Livingat45north

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
2,113
Reaction score
520
Points
113
Wait, you mean Al Gore's six homes aren't helping the environment? Next you'll try to tell me that DiCaprio flying on his private jet doesn't help reduce carbon emissions in the planet, or that Greta flying her entire sailing crew across the planet so she can take pics on her boat isn't helping global warming...
 
Last edited:

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
4,815
Reaction score
416
Points
83
Michael Moore drives me nuts. That voice is just awful.
 

Panthadad2

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
2,386
Reaction score
583
Points
113
Wait, you mean Al Gore's six homes aren't helping the environment? Next you'll try to tell me that Brad Pitt flying on his private jet doesn't help reduce carbon emissions in the planet, or that Greta flying her entire sailing crew across the planet so she can take pics on her boat isn't helping global warming...
There's no shortage of hypocrisy coming from the uber-rich Hollywood "climate change" preachers, but you might be mistaking Brad Pitt for DiCaprio. I don't recall Pitt preaching from that stump.
 

Livingat45north

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
2,113
Reaction score
520
Points
113
There's no shortage of hypocrisy coming from the uber-rich Hollywood "climate change" preachers, but you might be mistaking Brad Pitt for DiCaprio. I don't recall Pitt preaching from that stump.
You sir are completely correct. Edit made.
 

LakevilleBro

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
409
Reaction score
308
Points
63
Michael Moore, Alyssa Milano, Debra Messing, Chelsea Handler, etc, etc, etc, are really smart people. They want/need to stay in the headlines, and they know that they just have to make an anti-Trump statement, and instantly they are back in the news cycle.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
17,023
Reaction score
1,276
Points
113
To the extent that wind and solar can reduce reliance on dirty energy, that's good. There's no sense throwing out the baby with the bathwater just because they're not a total and complete solution.
 

atsgopher

Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
473
Reaction score
6
Points
18
To the extent that wind and solar can reduce reliance on dirty energy, that's good. There's no sense throwing out the baby with the bathwater just because they're not a total and complete solution.
I think maybe they can augment some energy. That is to say reduce capacity. However, to replace means storage. The requirements for batteries for green energy are anything but. The requirements to go all green would be be protested to no end.

Even still, I think your right that we need to explore as many differing sources as we can, While reducing energy usage wherever we can.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
17,023
Reaction score
1,276
Points
113
I think maybe they can augment some energy. That is to say reduce capacity. However, to replace means storage. The requirements for batteries for green energy are anything but. The requirements to go all green would be be protested to no end.

Even still, I think your right that we need to explore as many differing sources as we can, While reducing energy usage wherever we can.
Until and unless the magic bullet is developed (clean and plentiful/renewable), we're going to have to go with the cleanest combo of sources that are reasonably economical as a whole.

I haven't looked closely at the film, but I suspect the underlying theme is that we're gluttons and need an energy diet. To an extent, that's always true, but I'll argue we're already doing that. I replaced my four recessed kitchen bulbs a while back with LED, and as God is my witness, the electric portion of my utility bill is down $30-40 per month ever since. Is that even possible?!
 

atsgopher

Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
473
Reaction score
6
Points
18
Until and unless the magic bullet is developed (clean and plentiful/renewable), we're going to have to go with the cleanest combo of sources that are reasonably economical as a whole.

I haven't looked closely at the film, but I suspect the underlying theme is that we're gluttons and need an energy diet. To an extent, that's always true, but I'll argue we're already doing that. I replaced my four recessed kitchen bulbs a while back with LED, and as God is my witness, the electric portion of my utility bill is down $30-40 per month ever since. Is that even possible?!
Agree with you. And I didn't know that film existed. I still think it important to note that the self righteousness zealotry of the "green" new deal people can be as dangerous as deniers.

The price China pays in mining rare earth minerals for green energy hearkens back to the love canal days.
 

Cruze

Well-known member
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
2,433
Reaction score
287
Points
83
Agree with you. And I didn't know that film existed. I still think it important to note that the self righteousness zealotry of the "green" new deal people can be as dangerous as deniers.
There is no fucking way green new deal people are as dangerous as science deniers. Not even close.
 

Nokomis

Nothing To Say
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
4,423
Reaction score
177
Points
63
People who focus on the political optics of Moore's movies miss the whole point he's trying to make. Renewable energy will not satisfy our unquenchable consumerism. Renewable energy is like trying to stop Old Faithful with a BandAid. Though I haven't seen the movie, I image that's what Moore is trying to say. That's pretty much always been his M.O.
 

Nokomis

Nothing To Say
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
4,423
Reaction score
177
Points
63
Until and unless the magic bullet is developed (clean and plentiful/renewable), we're going to have to go with the cleanest combo of sources that are reasonably economical as a whole.

I haven't looked closely at the film, but I suspect the underlying theme is that we're gluttons and need an energy diet. To an extent, that's always true, but I'll argue we're already doing that. I replaced my four recessed kitchen bulbs a while back with LED, and as God is my witness, the electric portion of my utility bill is down $30-40 per month ever since. Is that even possible?!
I agree with you on the intended theme. But I think Moore would say we haven't gone far enough. While your bill has gone down, your energy needs haven't. I think the point Moore is making is that we won't solve our environmental issues until we truly have that energy diet.

Maybe I should actually watch the movie before commenting more...
 

fan of Ray Williams

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
6,134
Reaction score
72
Points
48
Until and unless the magic bullet is developed (clean and plentiful/renewable), we're going to have to go with the cleanest combo of sources that are reasonably economical as a whole.

I haven't looked closely at the film, but I suspect the underlying theme is that we're gluttons and need an energy diet. To an extent, that's always true, but I'll argue we're already doing that. I replaced my four recessed kitchen bulbs a while back with LED, and as God is my witness, the electric portion of my utility bill is down $30-40 per month ever since. Is that even possible?!
Dude, about time! And.....four?.....C'mon man, do the whole house.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,630
Reaction score
564
Points
113
I agree with you on the intended theme. But I think Moore would say we haven't gone far enough. While your bill has gone down, your energy needs haven't. I think the point Moore is making is that we won't solve our environmental issues until we truly have that energy diet.
The real problem that goes unnoticed is the mega money behind NOT being more energy efficient. Take that complete asshole Warren Buffet who ventures down off his ivory towers in Omaha and buys NV Energy, then buys enough members of the NV Public Utilities Commission to all but kill solar power in souther NV; you know, a place where the sun KINDA shines at least 300 days a year.

Right about the time Buffet took over NV Energy, people were installing solar installations at home, collecting energy, selling it back to NV Energy when they could, etc. It's been a few years, I forget the details but those people who had already done that essentially got hosed and it pretty much killed anyone else from installing solar at their homes for years.

But Harry Reid managed to make out pretty well in the whole thing with yet another shady land deal in southern NV for some solar fields, etc, of which he has become famous for; being able to purchase land from the Feds, Bureau of Land Mgmt, that wasn't available to anyone else on the planet for purchase.
 

atsgopher

Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
473
Reaction score
6
Points
18
There is no fucking way green new deal people are as dangerous as science deniers. Not even close.
Why not? There all lying, or they don't know what they're talking about (which is worse).

There is a reason that critical minerals for green energy are only mined in China (and it ain't because they have the most).

Here is a shot of the byproduct:

Baotou Toxic Lake

Now go investigate the strip mining needed to push green energy. It'll boggle your mind. You'll figure out quick enough we have no solution.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
17,023
Reaction score
1,276
Points
113
Dude, about time! And.....four?.....C'mon man, do the whole house.
One of my quirks is that I don't like throwing things away that still work. I'd be trashing dozens of perfectly good incandescent bulbs! Gives me the willies just thinking about it.
 

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
10,463
Reaction score
428
Points
83
Until and unless the magic bullet is developed (clean and plentiful/renewable), we're going to have to go with the cleanest combo of sources that are reasonably economical as a whole.

I haven't looked closely at the film, but I suspect the underlying theme is that we're gluttons and need an energy diet. To an extent, that's always true, but I'll argue we're already doing that. I replaced my four recessed kitchen bulbs a while back with LED, and as God is my witness, the electric portion of my utility bill is down $30-40 per month ever since. Is that even possible?!
4 lamps = $30-40/mo. Huh. That is some really strange numbers, Bad.

Your bills are down that much. Meanwhile, Xcel's rate adjustments are impacting the rest of us with continual, consistent increases in monthly service costs.
 

GopherNE

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2019
Messages
53
Reaction score
22
Points
8
4 lamps = $30-40/mo. Huh. That is some really strange numbers, Bad.

Your bills are down that much. Meanwhile, Xcel's rate adjustments are impacting the rest of us with continual, consistent increases in monthly service costs.
Xcel doesn't like solar either, but they need to meet legislation and PUC rulings.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
17,023
Reaction score
1,276
Points
113
Understood. Bad's #'s make absolutely no sense.
That's why I asked whether it made any sense, duh. But I've compared bills for the same months a year apart, and kWh are down consistently with cost savings ranging from $25 to $50. Those were big, hot lights, and they're a bank we have on often.
 

Nokomis

Nothing To Say
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
4,423
Reaction score
177
Points
63
The real problem that goes unnoticed is the mega money behind NOT being more energy efficient. Take that complete asshole Warren Buffet who ventures down off his ivory towers in Omaha and buys NV Energy, then buys enough members of the NV Public Utilities Commission to all but kill solar power in souther NV; you know, a place where the sun KINDA shines at least 300 days a year.

Right about the time Buffet took over NV Energy, people were installing solar installations at home, collecting energy, selling it back to NV Energy when they could, etc. It's been a few years, I forget the details but those people who had already done that essentially got hosed and it pretty much killed anyone else from installing solar at their homes for years.

But Harry Reid managed to make out pretty well in the whole thing with yet another shady land deal in southern NV for some solar fields, etc, of which he has become famous for; being able to purchase land from the Feds, Bureau of Land Mgmt, that wasn't available to anyone else on the planet for purchase.
Solid post, Ogee, though I don't know anything about this specific example. People will always exploit an opportunity, including renewable energy. And that's the over-arcing theme in Moore's movies. Wealthy people buy up all the assets and cut out the rest of us (e.g. Buffet & Reid in NV). And then these capitalists thrive on our insatiable consumerism.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
12,314
Reaction score
1,474
Points
113
Agree with you. And I didn't know that film existed. I still think it important to note that the self righteousness zealotry of the "green" new deal people can be as dangerous as deniers.

The price China pays in mining rare earth minerals for green energy hearkens back to the love canal days.
Long term, we need a step change breakthrough in portable energy storage. Not a fuel to be combusted, and not a battery. Maybe a fuel cell, or maybe something else. Not sure, but that's where we still need help.

For non-portable storage, we have plenty good technology available: gravity. It's a matter of when/if it can be economical.


As you correctly noted above: the issue has nothing to do with generation. You cover what amounts to a "dot" on the overall map of the Sahara Desert with solar panels, and that's enough generation for the Earth. The issue has only to do with storage.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
12,314
Reaction score
1,474
Points
113
Solid post, Ogee, though I don't know anything about this specific example. People will always exploit an opportunity, including renewable energy. And that's the over-arcing theme in Moore's movies. Wealthy people buy up all the assets and cut out the rest of us (e.g. Buffet & Reid in NV). And then these capitalists thrive on our insatiable consumerism.
I can't speak to Buffet's strategy, but overall, we need to stay focused on centralized generation, and not these half-assed attempts of people putting solar panels on their roofs.

Or at the least, if they want to do that, fine. But we can't allow them to "sell" it back to the grid. They can run their own homes, fine, or purchase when they need to. But having everyone trying put energy back on the grid, independently and sporadically, is too complex and expensive to control, and drives down the revenue for power companies too much.
 

Just Gopher It!!

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2020
Messages
629
Reaction score
278
Points
63
To the extent that wind and solar can reduce reliance on dirty energy, that's good. There's no sense throwing out the baby with the bathwater just because they're not a total and complete solution.
Energy companies are no longer building or have coal power plants in their pipeline; the costs for renewables has come way down and they improved dramatically - that is capitalism at its best IMO.

For those of you who have an interest in the topic and seek knowledge there are two good articles regarding it from the TImes & Smithsonian.

In a First, Renewable Energy Is Poised to Eclipse Coal in U.S. – Times Article

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/climate/coronavirus-coal-electricity-renewables.html

MN referenced in the article –
The latest example: This month Great River Energy, a cooperative based in Minnesota, said it planned to close its giant Coal Creek Station, a 1.1 gigawatt coal plant in North Dakota, by 2022. While a utility official attributed the decision to long-term economic trends, not the pandemic, the closure is notable for what will replace it: The utility plans to add 1.1 gigawatts of new wind capacity, a small amount of gas, as well as a first-of-its-kind battery that can store wind power for long periods.

For the First Time, Green Power Tops Coal Industry in Energy Production in April – Smithsonian Magazine
Renewable energy outworked coal in April—and will likely do the same in May—though the trend likely won’t last once air-conditioners switch on

 
Last edited:

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
43,517
Reaction score
1,116
Points
113
I had already assumed everyone knew that Moore didnt know what capitalism is. Here, Moore is exposing the liberals little pet projects as nothing more than pet projects
I dont' think anyone on the left knows what capitalism is, they think it's anything private business or corporations do. But it's still astounding to do an entire documentary on a topic and never define it or understand it.
example, no offense to poster
Energy companies are no longer building or have coal power plants in their pipeline; the costs for renewables has come way down and they improved dramatically - that is capitalism at its best IMO.
[/URL]
 

Nokomis

Nothing To Say
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Messages
4,423
Reaction score
177
Points
63
I dont' think anyone on the left knows what capitalism is, they think it's anything private business or corporations do. But it's still astounding to do an entire documentary on a topic and never define it or understand it.
example, no offense to poster
So how do you define capitalism, and how does that differ from Moore? How does the left's understanding differ from the right's?
 
Top Bottom