On How The Planet's Going To Shit: The Undeniability Of Climate Change

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,727
Anybody watched the new Michael Moore documentary Planet of The Humans?

I'm about half-way through and no wonder the Green Woke crowd want it banned. The facts are simple: you ain't gonna' get off this cop, crime and coronavirus biolab experiement of a planet without hydrocarbons.
 

Fwiffo

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
8,838
Anybody watched the new Michael Moore documentary Planet of The Humans?

I'm about half-way through and no wonder the Green Woke crowd want it banned. The facts are simple: you ain't gonna' get off this cop, crime and coronavirus biolab experiement of a planet without hydrocarbons.
Yes - I did.

A mate of mine highly recommended it although he was under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs so it sounded better than it was. It took me three viewings to finish and I am not surprised. Nuclear power is the cleanest power - free energy forever.
 

Rambo

Fucked Walker In The Face
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
29,457
Anybody watched the new Michael Moore documentary Planet of The Humans?

I'm about half-way through and no wonder the Green Woke crowd want it banned. The facts are simple: you ain't gonna' get off this cop, crime and coronavirus biolab experiement of a planet without hydrocarbons.
no not yet. what's the movie about and why dont the green's like it?
 

Journeyman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
3,459
Anybody watched the new Michael Moore documentary Planet of The Humans?

I'm about half-way through and no wonder the Green Woke crowd want it banned. The facts are simple: you ain't gonna' get off this cop, crime and coronavirus biolab experiement of a planet without hydrocarbons.
I had a look. It's worth noting that it's *produced* by Michael Moore, not directed by him.

I found it to be rather disingenuous. As an example, one of its arguments was that green tech (ie solar panels and wind turbines) are inefficient because they break, and parts need to be replaced. However, it failed to acknowledge that precisely the same applies to any other form of power generation. After all, it's not as though a coal- or gas-fired plant runs without maintenance and without needing to have parts replaced.

From memory, it also fails to properly acknowledge improvements in energy storage, so it makes the same argument that Trump made about wind and solar power when he spoke about how the TV would stop working if the wind stopped blowing. However, battery technology has improved markedly and is still improving. Here's an example of it being used in conjunction with a wind power generation facility in South Australia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Power_Reserve

It also seems to argue that because fossil fuels are used in the extraction and manufacturing processes of green technologies, and because concrete emits CO2, then that means that green technologies are not effective at helping the environment. Of course, as with the point above, it fails to recognise that non-green technologies also use fossil fuels or create carbon emissions and, because those technologies are not green, they use more fossil fuels, or have greater emissions. There's a false equivalency there, the idea that because green tech isn't perfect, then it's not good enough and we may as well stick with what we have.
 

Fwiffo

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
8,838
I had a look. It's worth noting that it's *produced* by Michael Moore, not directed by him.

I found it to be rather disingenuous. As an example, one of its arguments was that green tech (ie solar panels and wind turbines) are inefficient because they break, and parts need to be replaced. However, it failed to acknowledge that precisely the same applies to any other form of power generation. After all, it's not as though a coal- or gas-fired plant runs without maintenance and without needing to have parts replaced.

From memory, it also fails to properly acknowledge improvements in energy storage, so it makes the same argument that Trump made about wind and solar power when he spoke about how the TV would stop working if the wind stopped blowing. However, battery technology has improved markedly and is still improving. Here's an example of it being used in conjunction with a wind power generation facility in South Australia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Power_Reserve

It also seems to argue that because fossil fuels are used in the extraction and manufacturing processes of green technologies, and because concrete emits CO2, then that means that green technologies are not effective at helping the environment. Of course, as with the point above, it fails to recognise that non-green technologies also use fossil fuels or create carbon emissions and, because those technologies are not green, they use more fossil fuels, or have greater emissions. There's a false equivalency there, the idea that because green tech isn't perfect, then it's not good enough and we may as well stick with what we have.
Hence nuclear power is the solution to all of it except for nations spooked by fukushima like Germany.

Charge your Tesla as much as you want - free energy, forever.
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,727
Nuclear energy isn't free.

It's colossally expensive, it requires massive government subsidies (more than green energy!) and it takes decades to decommission nuclear plants.
Nothing comes close to fossil fuels, except nuclear energy. Without these two, we cannot sustain our current historically enviable lifestyles. You can power fleets of container ships forever with nuclear fuels, you can do the same with wind, but it might take several months to get there.
 

Rambo

Fucked Walker In The Face
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
29,457
Nothing comes close to fossil fuels, except nuclear energy. Without these two, we cannot sustain our current historically enviable lifestyles. You can power fleets of container ships forever with nuclear fuels, you can do the same with wind, but it might take several months to get there.
and all it takes is one incident to ruin everything. is it really worth that risk when we could be solving everything several times over with renewables?
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,727
and all it takes is one incident to ruin everything. is it really worth that risk when we could be solving everything several times over with renewables?
This is the turd they're subsiding and trying to polish:


More polluting than modern coal power stations and many times more C02 omitting than natural gas, and that's before the biodiversity and deforestation issues. Shake down baby, big time, big time!

 

Rambo

Fucked Walker In The Face
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
29,457
This is the turd they're subsiding and trying to polish:


More polluting than modern coal power stations and many times more C02 omitting than natural gas, and that's before the biodiversity and deforestation issues. Shake down baby, big time, big time!

money quote from the article:
That biomass could cause a loss of biodiversity is a real risk. But without it, the Netherlands will have to install a lot more solar panels and wind turbines even faster. And Netherlands residents would have to seriously think about eating less meat and flying less, the agency concluded.
couldn't we skip the biomass and do the install more panels, turbines, eat less meat, and fly less part???
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,727
couldn't we skip the biomass and do the install more panels, turbines, eat less meat, and fly less part???
The less flying part is already here. But what's with this eating less meat? That has nothing to do with the energy mix. You don't need to pump in artificial C02 to increase photosynthesis to keep livestock. You do in the intensive greenhouse food farming the Netherlands. And take away meat, we'll be needing to eat a lot more vegetables, so more C02. These people don't know what they on about. They're either in on the shakedown, or useful idiots.

The Dutch have accepted the Soviet era EU targets hook line and sinker, whereas the French and Germans don't get bogged down in the rules imposed on the colonies and vassal states.
 

Journeyman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
3,459
But what's with this eating less meat? That has nothing to do with the energy mix. You don't need to pump in artificial C02 to increase photosynthesis to keep livestock. You do in the intensive greenhouse food farming the Netherlands. And take away meat, we'll be needing to eat a lot more vegetables, so more C02.
Cows eat huge amounts of food - it's commonly accepted that the amount of energy you get from meat is only a fraction of the energy (in the form of plant material, grains etc) that is required to grow the meat. Being a vegetarian is far more environmentally friendly - and less expensive, too.

Having said that, though, I love eating meat.
 

güero

Well-Known Member
Messages
522
Cows eat huge amounts of food - it's commonly accepted that the amount of energy you get from meat is only a fraction of the energy (in the form of plant material, grains etc) that is required to grow the meat. Being a vegetarian is far more environmentally friendly - and less expensive, too.

Having said that, though, I love eating meat.
And that even disregards the fact that 99% is KZ meat that tastes like crap anyway.
 

Arnathor

The Hamiltonian Hung Like a Horse
Supporter
Messages
4,533
Nothing is wrong with pumping extra CO2 into a greenhouse, it has what plants crave.
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,727
Destroying the planet to meet EU targets, you couldn't make this buffoonery up:


The Dutch like to think they good with contracts and business. Can't be that good if they haven't found a way out of these EU diktats unlike the French and Germans.

The real scandal is the billions in subsidies they've given to biomass projects that not only results in deforestation, but is a much worse polluter that modern coal power stations.

And despite all the wind farms which are everywhere over here, including offshore still only 1.85% of energy comes from this.
 

Rambo

Fucked Walker In The Face
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
29,457
And despite all the wind farms which are everywhere over here, including offshore still only 1.85% of energy comes from this.
why so little? are they not good quality? are they not in use? is there something else i'm not seeing in the big picture?
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,727
seems to be working very well in other areas its implemented. thats why im wondering why the dutch are having such issues with it.
It's not, sleight of hand tricks and marketing spin. You cannot start a modern energy grid from wind power, nor is their one example a modern country being able to rely on wind power. Germany is heavily reliant on coal power and gas power is it's number one strategic energy resource going forward now they've ditched nuclear. Hence all the issues with Nord Stream and their reliance on Russia.
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,727
Those dastardly euros wanting to use less pesticides and go organic.
They had the option GM crops, but decided pesticides were better. I'm all for organic stuff, I certainly prefer organic tomatoes, oranges and lemons as they have more complex flavour and texture. But when it comes to feeding everyone, it's not viable. The yields are not there and then the costs are more.

Feeding the multitudes requires factory, industrial scale farming. It just so happens the Dutch are state-of-the-art in this. Why should they be punished? No modern farming = not enough food everyone.
 

Rambo

Fucked Walker In The Face
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
29,457
Apocalypse Never.....


good quote from the piece:

Now, along comes another frustrated former greenie, Michael Shellenberger, an active environmentalist throughout his career, publishing a book that takes the green movement to the woodshed, as fully exposed in a recent Wall Street Journal review, d/d June 21st by John Tierney of Shellenberger’s book Apocalypse Never, Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All (Harper)


Based upon Tierney’s review, and assuming Tierney did not “cherry pick” and massage the facts to satisfy corporate interests, i.e. the WSJ, Shellenberger misses the target by a country mile. For example, Shellenberger’s “reach for credibility” includes claims such as: “No, climate change has not caused an increase in the frequency or intensity of floods, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes.” Really? Did Tierney get that right? (Maybe check in with Nebraska, Missouri, S. Dakota, Iowa, and Kansas re the Great Flood of 2019, the longest flood on record, just for starters)


Shellenberger, who evidently promotes industrialization as humanity’s savior, actually suggests, not facetiously, capitalist entrepreneurs saved whales by discovering cheap substitutes for whale oil, like petroleum. Ahem!


And, not to worry about plastics as sunlight and other forces break down the substances…. not to worry. And, solar and wind power are impractical and damage the environment requiring vast areas of land and harm flora and fauna. Oh, really! Did Tierney get that right…? (I know, I know! “Read the book,” but, based upon the review, no thanks)


And, finally, according to Shellenberger: “While industrialization causes a short-term rise in carbon emissions, in the long term it’s beneficial to the environment as people move to cities, allowing farmland to revert to nature, and as prosperity enables them to switch to cleaner and more compact forms of energy.”


Hmm – Just wondering, thinking out loud, where does sophism come into play here?


As a final note about Shellenberger’s book, a positive review in the WSJ is nothing to be proud of if you are an eco warrior of any stripe. It’s the ultimate sell-out, although, it’s not Shellenberger’s fault that the WSJ picked up on his diatribe of the green movement.


Still, aren’t Wall Street and its kissing cousin the WSJ responsible for promoting the neoliberal leviathan that “sucks up” to fossil fuel interests and literally destroyed America’s middle class and unions and checks and balances on pollution by shipping U.S. manufacturing offshore to the lowest common denominator of wages and avoidance of environmental regulations? Answer: Yes!


Based upon Tierney’s review, Shellenberger is simply one more lifeline for the fossil fuel industry and Wall Street’s neoliberal dreamland advocacy. Although its constituency is quite narrow, the one percent plus a few lesser want-a-be millionaire/billionaire luminaries. So, who’s really left to buy the book?
 

Rambo

Fucked Walker In The Face
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
29,457
no increase in floods from climate change because that's how they make the numbers look

 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,727

good quote from the piece:
It's there, an alternative voice in the social engineered reality that is being implemented on a global scale. So you take what you consider valid from it, and/or explore/refute further.

These are positions backed up by strong scientific arguments:
  • 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50% (Indeed based on current and optimistic forecasts of improvements in wind farms etc. The Dutch experience is 2019: 1.84% energy to the grid from windfarms. That's all the offshore ones and on land. And they're everywhere).
  • Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
  • Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels (i.e. Biomass)
  • Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress
  • The most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium.
I bet the armchair city dweller eco-warriors don't know afforestation can often be a problem replacing natural habitats in places like South Africa where elephant grass environments have become overly forested due to bad farming techniques.
 
Top Bottom