Michael Moore Has Become a Hero to Climate Deniers

[ronwagn + 6,290]

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/05/09/delingpole-michael-moore-has-become-a-hero-to-climate-deniers-complains-guardian/

How could Michael Moore betray most of his fans by telling the truth about energy? See the free movie, still running on YouTube. RCW

Delingpole: Michael Moore Has Become a ‘Hero’ to ‘Climate Deniers’, Complains Guardian

1,272

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Well, I don't know about hero; he's got a lot of work to do to get to that status.  But I give him credit for recognizing all that he has, and for making visible what so much of the Climate Movement has devolved to.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

Michael Moore came to prominence as a gadfly, poking at the besotted sides of a bloated General Motors and its Chairman, Roger Smith, and the GM departure from the city of Flint, where GM has this dominant presence, leaving the city with no tax revenue and no jobs.  Flint then collapsed.  At one point the city sold the fire houses and had to lease them back, in a desperate effort to have the funds to pay the policemen.  Flint remains a basket case, made worse with the episode of old lead pipes leaching lead into the drinking water. I think all that you can do for Flint is bulldoze it, unfortunately.  It is now beyond repair. 

Since the Moore-Smith debacle, GM, or more accurately  the New GM, has hired a sharper engineer as its president, Mary Barra.  Barra and Trump in turn had their moments, and Moore (in 2018) denounced Trump, saying he had been "played" by General Motors,  How true that is again depends on where you sit - but Moore, ture to his tradition of being a gadfly, was right there with his criticisms.  Michael Moore is a curious fellow, and you cannot really peg the man, other than to say that he does have this penchant for truth, no matter how unpleasant.  As you can imagine, that makes him unpopular with people who would rather have this sanitized narrative for the world.  Moore has exposed the Greenies as the loonies, and I give him full marks for that.  Again, the man speaks a certain raw truth, which is always unsettling to the target.

I loved the movie.  I recommend it for unvarnished truth.  

[UNC12345 + 171]

6 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Michael Moore came to prominence as a gadfly, poking at the besotted sides of a bloated General Motors and its Chairman, Roger Smith, and the GM departure from the city of Flint, where GM has this dominant presence, leaving the city with no tax revenue and no jobs.  Flint then collapsed.  At one point the city sold the fire houses and had to lease them back, in a desperate effort to have the funds to pay the policemen.  Flint remains a basket case, made worse with the episode of old lead pipes leaching lead into the drinking water. I think all that you can do for Flint is bulldoze it, unfortunately.  It is now beyond repair. 

Since the Moore-Smith debacle, GM, or more accurately  the New GM, has hired a sharper engineer as its president, Mary Barra.  Barra and Trump in turn had their moments, and Moore (in 2018) denounced Trump, saying he had been "played" by General Motors,  How true that is again depends on where you sit - but Moore, ture to his tradition of being a gadfly, was right there with his criticisms.  Michael Moore is a curious fellow, and you cannot really peg the man, other than to say that he does have this penchant for truth, no matter how unpleasant.  As you can imagine, that makes him unpopular with people who would rather have this sanitized narrative for the world.  Moore has exposed the Greenies as the loonies, and I give him full marks for that.  Again, the man speaks a certain raw truth, which is always unsettling to the target.

I loved the movie.  I recommend it for unvarnished truth.  

Enjoyed the movie, so much to think about.  Actually had to stop at one point as it is just raising so much concern in my head - and who needs that these days? Your last statement leads me to wondering a few things.  Since the YouTube channel is where most people would watch this (assuming), and it's now mainstream and it's media, why are you willing to give it the nod as being completely truthful and trustworthy?  I think that it is, but according to most on this forum, I  am a gullible and naive person for even considering that the MSM might tell the truth. 

Just a question for an aimless Sunday, not to argue about.  Genuinely curious about what leads to different viewpoints on here.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

6 minutes ago, UNC12345 said:

I  am a gullible and naive person for even considering that the MSM might tell the truth. 

I think I can assurre you that Michael Moore is not "Mainstream Media"!

Michael Moore started out searing General Motors.  GM is a big - huge - purchaser of advertising on the MSM.  In response, the MSM fawns over GM.   Moore has no such clout, and he goes in the other direction.  Moore's stuff would be of the genre that YouTube would ban.  They seem to tolerate it, so far.  I suspect you will find that as YouTube management tightens up what it allows to be posted, these Moore exposes will disappear.  YouTurb will become yet another vacuous medium, filled with posts of car nuts doing "donuts" on parking lots, that sort of thing.  As the Googles of the world tighten their grip, the intellectual content will disintegrate.  Then, another pirate channel will open up, everyone will flock to it, and another billionaire will be born.  Cheers. 

[UNC12345 + 171]

I agree he doesn't neatly fit in the MSM mould.  But he's made about 13 films that millions have watched on various hot button topics.  I'd say he approaches mainstream just in terms of his popularity and number of views.

Does this source make you think any different?  Seems like his truth might not be "unvarnished" after all.

https://theconversation.com/3-times-michael-moores-film-planet-of-the-humans-gets-the-facts-wrong-and-3-times-it-gets-them-right-137890

Edited May 10, 2020 by UNC12345

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

36 minutes ago, UNC12345 said:

Does this source make you think any different? 

Nope.

[BradleyPNW + 282]

Michael Moore conned liberals for two decades. Now he's conning conservatives. I don't understand how people can be so gullible. 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

This Josh Fox dork could make a documentary claiming a Russia Hoax or illegal voter plot and conservatives would lap it up despite the fact he made a name for himself producing anti-gas propaganda. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasland

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 hours ago, UNC12345 said:

I agree he doesn't neatly fit in the MSM mould.  But he's made about 13 films that millions have watched on various hot button topics.  I'd say he approaches mainstream just in terms of his popularity and number of views.

Does this source make you think any different?  Seems like his truth might not be "unvarnished" after all.

https://theconversation.com/3-times-michael-moores-film-planet-of-the-humans-gets-the-facts-wrong-and-3-times-it-gets-them-right-137890

The article lists three things he got right but I'd say he only got one thing right - that biomass energy is stupid.

The world population growth rate is decreasing rapidly as living standards and life spans improve. The growth rate will turn negative in about 50 years. Population will take care of itself in a market fashion.

And the one I hate the most is that infinite growth on a finite planet is suicide. The overwhelming problem with this is that we don't live on a finite planet. We live in a nearly infinite universe whose primary energy source, fusion energy, comes to us every day for free by way of sunlight. Sunlight that not only supports almost all life on Earth today but that we are also on the brink of redirecting to earth so as to solve the intermittency issue. Space Force is launching "experiment, designed by the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, "transforms solar power into radio-frequency microwave energy, then studies transmitting that energy to Earth," on the X37B https://www.space.com/x-37b-space-plane-secret-mission-otv-6-launch-date.html

A universe that has perhaps infinite levels of chemical elements which we will soon be able to mine on the Moon and asteroids. We just need to go get them.

A universe that avails itself to what seems like almost endless technological advancement. Think about how much your world has grown since the advent of the Internet for example. And we are discovering no end of how to expand our resources by discoveries such as genetic research and fantastical physical constructs such as graphene. 

MM is really just an anti-economic growth and anti-technology Luddite charlatan. Environmentalism is just his vehicle for achieving those goals. 

Edited May 10, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

MM is really just an anti-economic growth and anti-technology Luddite charlatan. Environmentalism is just his vehicle for achieving those goals. 

Well now, at least we now know exactly where you stand.  Your mileage may vary.

OK, seriously, you simply misunderstand Mr. Moore.  He is looking at the world through a different lens than you are.  His lens does not extend to the construction of solar receivers in outer space that are eight thousand miles across,  with massive microwave converters the size of the Borg Cube, beaming the stuff down to the planet surface.  For the record, I don't either. 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

And the one I hate the most is that infinite growth on a finite planet is suicide.

Agreed. That's a recipe for human misery. Paul Ehrlich lobbied pop culture for population control while selling his Population Bomb book in the 70s. According to him, population was going to grow and we'd all be starving to death. The exact opposite happened because agriculture innovated new methods. Ehrlich was an entomologist who viewed biological systems in a static framework of limited resources. Humans aren't like insects, we innovate. China, unfortunately, listened to Ehrlich and instituted one child policy. Result, lots and lots of human misery that has carried over through today. 

Now Moore wants to regurgitate Ehlich's swindle and his theory of immutable system constraints. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

5 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Nope.

Rational adults will watch a presentation and then fact check it and do their own homework if they are actually concerned or interested....regardless of the original source.

These days, the problem is that if a presentation happens to fit with one’s own bias or preconceived notions, it is accepted as truth and no further study or research is done. On the other hand, if the information provided goes against your bias, you immediately go to the internet and try to find something, anything to disprove it!

As our mothers used to tell us, ‘don’t believe everything you read’ and to do your own homework.

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Well now, at least we now know exactly where you stand.  Your mileage may vary.

OK, seriously, you simply misunderstand Mr. Moore.  He is looking at the world through a different lens than you are.  His lens does not extend to the construction of solar receivers in outer space that are eight thousand miles across,  with massive microwave converters the size of the Borg Cube, beaming the stuff down to the planet surface.  For the record, I don't either. 

So you think the military is wasting taxpayer money on their experiment? 

[Fiver 0]

You have to love it when the global warming religion is skewered by one of their own. How suddenly one becomes a left wing pariah !

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

26 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

So you think the military is wasting taxpayer money on their experiment? 

It is not that I think the military is wasting taxpayer money, it is that I know the military is wasting taxpayer money on this folly!

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

7 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

It is not that I think the military is wasting taxpayer money, it is that I know the military is wasting taxpayer money on this folly!

The funny thing is this was "reported" in the movie "Robocop" in a scene where the TV in the background is reporting about an "accident" where the power beaming system has a breakdown and accidentally kills four former presidents living in California. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

13 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Moore has exposed the Greenies as the loonies, and I give him full marks for that.  Again, the man speaks a certain raw truth, which is always unsettling to the target.

I loved the movie.  I recommend it for unvarnished truth.  

I watched the movie, it was interesting but full of partial truths.  I don't even think the main message was greenies are the loonies -after all it points a bleak picture of the future environment and doesn't deny climate change; it just says the current green movement isn't working.

Very defeatist movie - you can't win so don't bother trying...  carry on with status quo and die. 

Fully agree that unchecked capitalsim and population growth are untenable. GDP and population can't grow forever...

 

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

46 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

I watched the movie, it was interesting but full of partial truths.  I don't even think the main message was greenies are the loonies -after all it points a bleak picture of the future environment and doesn't deny climate change; it just says the current green movement isn't working.

Very defeatist movie - you can't win so don't bother trying...  carry on with status quo and die. 

Fully agree that unchecked capitalsim and population growth are untenable. GDP and population can't grow forever...

 

 

GDP & technology growth initially caused a population spike but that peaked 50 years ago. GDP growth is now causing the population growth rate to decrease. World population growth rate peaked in 1970, and India in 1985. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

15 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Michael Moore came to prominence as a gadfly, poking at the besotted sides of a bloated General Motors and its Chairman, Roger Smith, and the GM departure from the city of Flint, where GM has this dominant presence, leaving the city with no tax revenue and no jobs.  Flint then collapsed.  At one point the city sold the fire houses and had to lease them back, in a desperate effort to have the funds to pay the policemen.  Flint remains a basket case, made worse with the episode of old lead pipes leaching lead into the drinking water. I think all that you can do for Flint is bulldoze it, unfortunately.  It is now beyond repair. 

Since the Moore-Smith debacle, GM, or more accurately  the New GM, has hired a sharper engineer as its president, Mary Barra.  Barra and Trump in turn had their moments, and Moore (in 2018) denounced Trump, saying he had been "played" by General Motors,  How true that is again depends on where you sit - but Moore, ture to his tradition of being a gadfly, was right there with his criticisms.  Michael Moore is a curious fellow, and you cannot really peg the man, other than to say that he does have this penchant for truth, no matter how unpleasant.  As you can imagine, that makes him unpopular with people who would rather have this sanitized narrative for the world.  Moore has exposed the Greenies as the loonies, and I give him full marks for that.  Again, the man speaks a certain raw truth, which is always unsettling to the target.

I loved the movie.  I recommend it for unvarnished truth.  

I was very impressed. Apparently Moore just helped distribute it and endorsed it. I do not agree with the population growth issues for America, but more so for densely populated areas. We do need to learn how to not pollute the earth though and live in a truly sustainable way, just not the way that Green fanatics usually promote.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

9 hours ago, UNC12345 said:

Enjoyed the movie, so much to think about.  Actually had to stop at one point as it is just raising so much concern in my head - and who needs that these days? Your last statement leads me to wondering a few things.  Since the YouTube channel is where most people would watch this (assuming), and it's now mainstream and it's media, why are you willing to give it the nod as being completely truthful and trustworthy?  I think that it is, but according to most on this forum, I  am a gullible and naive person for even considering that the MSM might tell the truth. 

Just a question for an aimless Sunday, not to argue about.  Genuinely curious about what leads to different viewpoints on here.

I originally was promoting wind and solar along with ethanol etc, during the "last energy crisis". Then I discovered that fracking had made oil and natural gas abundant again and America would be independent of foreign energy sources. My emphasis was and is on promoting natural gas now. The movie does not promote it and mentions fracking negatively. It does mention using ways to save energy through various methods. That is highly commendable and possible to a point. It should probably be the number one emphasis of the green movement. Architectural changes, insulation, window placement and quality, etc. I would add lower cost methods for housing affordability while allowing for the rural and suburban lifestyle and more space for the inner cities. 

So, I don't entirely agree with the movie, but think it does burst a bubble that has been promoted by people like Al Gore who have made millions  promoting "green energy". 

[0R0 + 6,251]

6 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

GDP & technology growth initially caused a population spike but that peaked 50 years ago. GDP growth is now causing the population growth rate to decrease. World population growth rate peaked in 1970, and India in 1985. 

First, Right On. Population growth is in its final slowing phase, and in all the large energy consuming nations it has either started declining or will do so soon. India's peak babies was a decade ago. Global peak babies has already happened 2018 or last year if you believe China births stats. 

Second, NG is rapidly displacing coal, and is on the way to displacing diesel. and oil petrochemical inputs, thus will lower demand for that too, within the decade we should be consuming up to 40% less oil for this reason. Thus whatever non-benefit is being had by renewables is complemented by 40% CO2 and all particulates reduction against coal, and 30% against oil.  

China, the sole substantial source of environmental damage growth is reaching a demographic brake on its growth as consumer demand is falling as its boomers retire and its milennials age into the savings demographic. It provided 65% of global growth and 85% of monetary expansion over the last 20 years. It is a wonder why the "capitalist polluters" diatribe was not aimed at China even once. 

Generally speaking, I am just hoping for cheaper and more abundant energy as the costs of solar and offshore wind fall. By my reckoning, price is energy. If the renewables cost more, then it is because they produce less energy vs. energy put into them. Even a Tesla doesn't produce less CO2 against a ICE car until 10 years on the road. So, though hopeful, I never considered renewables ready for primetime nor deserving of subsidy. 

The most damning part of the film was the absolute idiocy of "biofuels" and the actual very real damage it does environmentally and socially, as well as economically. The harvesting of the greening of the planet with the CO2 fertilization effect by 30% is not unreasonable, but this is definitely not the way.  

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

9 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Rational adults will watch a presentation and then fact check it and do their own homework if they are actually concerned or interested....regardless of the original source.

Then there are the irrational NPC masks for feelings encountering wrong-think

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

12 hours ago, 0R0 said:

The most damning part of the film was the absolute idiocy of "biofuels" and the actual very real damage it does environmentally and socially, as well as economically. The harvesting of the greening of the planet with the CO2 fertilization effect by 30% is not unreasonable, but this is definitely not the way.  

That was the most annoying part for me.  There are good places for waste to energy facilities.

I sometimes buy 2x4's... that cuts down a tree and makes branches and bark waste that has to go somewhere.

Should we focus on it? No. Should it be used in some areas? Yes.

[ralfy + 55]

According to the same documentary, those who are funding climate deniers are also funding green energy businesses.

What both sides miss is that the documentary is about limits to growth.