PLANET OF THE HUMANS:Moore's new film about green energy worth a look

by MAC



DeckerCreek June 29, 2020 - 10:12 am

Head in sand moment

Stefan Krauter June 29, 2020 - 10:12 am

Correction of 11 errors of "Planet of the Humans":

Brad June 29, 2020 - 10:12 am

Sure shows the green scam.

me b June 29, 2020 - 10:12 am

The fact that the Michael Moore’s of the world didn’t see this 30 years ago shows that they can’t be trusted with planning our energy strategy. Too little, too late.

The Al Show June 29, 2020 - 10:12 am

The promotion of wind and solar as alternative to oil, coal and natural gas has been and remains a farce and a lie.

guywhousesyewtube June 29, 2020 - 10:12 am

"not lowering greenhouse gas emissions, it's increasing them" HAHAHAHAHA WHAT? What a fucking moron. This is definitively untrue. Stats for GHG emissions per capita from multiple countries that have converted from usual production methods to renewables is CONSISTENTLY down across the board. Michael Moore's 'documentary' (not worthy of the name) relies in some cases on decade old data to make easily-debunked arguments regarding renewables. For example the claims about solar panels is EASILY contradicted by the US department of energy analysis and other scholars.
But… I wouldn't expect the SUN to report that. Not the paper owned by the company who literally ordered all of their owned papers to endorse conservative candidates without input from their own respective editorial boards despite the editorial boards consistently making and weighing those decisions previously for many papers. Nooooo they're definitely not biased.
In this video too, they definitely didn't cherrypick very specific (and yet flimsy) arguments from an already-cherrypicked, debunked documentary.

"sold out to companies promoting green energy" This one started at hilarious, went to depressing that someone would be so stupid to say aloud, revolved around from another go and landed adjacent to "stupid" in the realm of 'does this guy not understand what he's even talking about'?
Yes. Some people have sold out. And this might actually be even the most remotely-relevant pittance of a valid argument if it wasn't for the fact that there's mountains of evidence proving a vast, unbelievable amount of selling out for the O&G industry. It's not like there have been leaked documents from lobbyist groups describing how they would pay scientists to "add their voice" with no mention of desire for facts to the likes of corrupt Smithsonian scientists who lied about being paid off by O&G. It's not like most pro O&G documentaries can easily be shown to be produced by people who admit to 90%+ fiscal year income coming from O&G. Shit like that tooooooootally doesn't happen.
Like, seriously? You have to ignore pretty much EVERY other aspect of the conversation to make this idiotic statement and think it supports your argument. And this man isn't just an adult, but one that works for a news reporting agency? LMAO.
…Ooops. I called the Sun a "news reporting agency" as if they were actually interested in unbiased news. My bad, I apologize.

~00:50 'Haven't found anywhere in the world that runs on 100% renewable alone'. Well, I mean… You couldn't even find up to date data on solar LMAO. 'I couldn't find it therefore it doesn't exist even though elsewhere I didn't do a good job of finding things.' Good job Michael, here's a cookie. Try harder next time.
This is a claim I see conservatives (both deliberately and ignorantly) butcher constantly. When an entity claims they now 'run on 100% renewable energy' that usually means the amount they produce in renewable energy via solar or other sources EXCEEDS the amount the burn. They are at net zero or positive (with energy returning to the grid from their source in some cases). Because of how energy grids work, no- some of the electricity that runs through that same entities circuits could likely be traced to non renewable sources. Saying that the "runs on renewable energy" claim is false relies on a massive misunderstanding on what the claim actually means. To say it is false is true ONLY semantically. Not mathematically, or practically. It's a shame that the SUN didn't do some… you know… reporting. They may have figured this out.

1:09 "none of them could exist without fossil fuel energy" Ohhhhhhhhh my god this is a new level of depressingly stupid. This is a consequence of the nature of our current foundational infrastructure. Holy fuck this is so disingenuous and intellectually dishonest it's unreal.
To clarify- IF we lived in a world where all CURRENT power production came from renewable (don't confuse this with assuming it's premise) – then subsequent production of energy sources COULD be constructed without energy loss contrary to what the SUN so dishonestly implies. Holy fuck, every single argument that con artists offer on this topic completely (and intentionally) disregards nuance.
"Fossil fuel energy goes into creating all of them". I know there are some readers who will get lost here by this immensely scummy rhetorical bullshit argument so I'll clarify further. Say you start out with an energy source A. Let's assume that is the sole energy source. How do you produce new energy sources? You produce them either from something that doesn't require energy (in general this just doesn't happen for the purposes relevant here). OR you produce it USING energy A. In other words, there remains one option: you produce it with energy A, IE you produce new energy with your existing energy sources.
Real world: an immense amount of energy comes from energy A (fossil fuels). How do you produce new energy? You do it with energy A (fossil fuels) because it's pretty much the only existing way to actually produce new energy.
So what conclusions can be drawn from that? Do we need to produce more energy A? Fuck no, this is idiotic. This doesn't follow from this premise. Can we still reduce energy A? Actually, yes. This depends pretty much entirely on the rate at which we produce new energy sources from energy A (fossil fuels).
In other words, this line of thinking is a massive, devious dipshit strawman argument that can be shown to be logically invalid.

1:47 OOOOOOOoooooh the entirely subjective, nonsensical, baseless (and antithetical to what unbiased reporting actually is) 'well he belongs to this group so if he's speaking out against something that group likes, he MUST be telling the truth or facts'. This will never be valid logic. It should also be immediately intuitive that it has absolutely nothing to do with whether his conclusions are factually, valid, constructed logically, etc. It's not even hard to show that much of it absolutely isn't. Not that the sun is even capable of this.

'He's taken a hard look at it, and for that deserves attention'. Dear analstraponlordgodfuckbeast, seriously? This is a new low for a sun reporter (which says quite a bit). Facts are what matter. Not how hard he tried (and failed) to accurately describe the full picture.

I'm not even being hyperbolic when I say I'm amazed, absolutely astonished that the sun was able to squish so much dishonesty into a 2 minute video. But then, that's just more of the same.

For the record, I ABSOLUTELY support nuclear power development.

So many idiots in the comments peddling conspiracy theories about what they claim (without evidence) is a conspiracy theory. It's quite telling that they've taken the documentary as truth immediately. Jesus christ, you people are adults? LMAO.
"suspect that Trudeau is heavily invested in this sham"
"The elite just want to find a new way to exploit people. So called green energy was their ticket."
"Green energy is a ponzi scheme. Climate change is a cyclical process. Glad to see Moore wake up to the truth" <- LMAO

Please don't have children.

archiveseeker June 29, 2020 - 10:12 am

Alberta and Saskatchewan should go nuclear. One reason is that it seismically safe.

B234 June 29, 2020 - 10:12 am

Nuclear is the way of the future. The Simpsons had that one right too…don’t get it twisted. That would be the most environmentally favourable and reliable form of energy in conjunction with lowering fossil fuels.

Stephen Stretch June 29, 2020 - 10:12 am

how long would it take to offset the use of fossil fuels to get to total electric machines to do the work and make everything green energy?

fgnsdfnbnd June 29, 2020 - 10:12 am

Fossil fuels are lifting billions of people out of poverty, reducing all the negative effects of poverty on human health.

Fossil fuels are vastly improving human well-being and safety by powering labor-saving and life-protecting technologies, such as air conditioning, modern medicine, and cars and trucks.

Fossil fuels are dramatically increasing the quantity of food humans produce and improve the reliability of the food supply, directly benefiting human health.

Fossil-fuel emissions are contributing to a “Greening of the Earth,” benefiting all the plants and wildlife on the planet.

A fifth benefit could be added only if fossil fuels are in fact responsible for a significant part of the global warming recorded during the second half of the twentieth century. That benefit would be:

Fossil fuels should be credited with saving lives by reducing deaths due to extreme cold weather. Weather is also less extreme in a warmer world, resulting in fewer injuries and deaths due to extreme weather.

Landscape Architect June 29, 2020 - 10:12 am

Love how liberals understanding of economics is stuck at 1675

J L June 29, 2020 - 10:12 am

there are many falsehoods in the film. very surprised it came from MM

Larry Dugan June 29, 2020 - 10:12 am

The pretence of saving the world in a hundred years by taxing now delivers everything a morally posturing politician needs! There is no other kind of politician!

Mark Kaminsky June 29, 2020 - 10:12 am

Planet of the Humans is the greatest documentary I’ve ever seen.

George Davidson June 29, 2020 - 10:12 am

Solar panels not working well at 54 degree of northern latitude. Last year $30,000 spent on 10 KW solar array. In December 2019 only $16.75 worth of electricity produced. Total failure. Family would freeze to death between -20 and -30 if heating relied only on solar panels.

Tom Harris June 29, 2020 - 10:12 am

Here is my 14 min TV interview (in Alberta, Canada) about the good and bad parts of the film:

Jamie McMahon June 29, 2020 - 10:12 am

Please, for everyone who really wants to educate themselves on renewable energy, look to published research. Not Michael fucking Moore.

If anyone has any technical questions they wish to ask please fire away.

An energy systems engineer.

Simon Curtis June 29, 2020 - 10:12 am

Very badly put together and misleading documentary….

LR Vogt June 29, 2020 - 10:12 am

The narrator simply parrots the gross misinformation in Moore's terrible misrepresentations. It's filled with outright lies.

Jim McKinley June 29, 2020 - 10:12 am

This film uses outdated statistics. The film is misleading. Can't believe Moore has sold out to Big Oil.

Bodo von der Donau June 29, 2020 - 10:12 am

Production and transportation needs energy but not green energy. Green energy is nothing but a hoax. As long as there is no cold fusion there is no real economic green energy.

Dominic Wong June 29, 2020 - 10:12 am

Don't waste your time with Planet of the Humans. Michael Moore is over of my favorite directors, but he did not direct this film and he is not an environmentalist. It's totally misleading, outdated, and harmful to the movement. Better to read a critique of the film instead.

Michael Augustus June 29, 2020 - 10:12 am

The only true wilderness, is between a greenie's ears.


Leave a Comment