Except Moore has kinda forfeited the right to be considered any kind of an environmentalist by exec-producing this lame slice of bacon.

Apr 30, 2020 at 11:39 PM Phil Clarke

Meanwhile all Hockey Teamsters have forfeited the right to receive Taxpayer Funding for two decades of corrupting science.

If US Democrats drained their own swamp of Green Blob slime, they might have a chance against Trump.

The Green Blob have already destabilised the EU, and Coronavirus is simply exposing the damage already inflicted.

The whole world will breathe better if 97% of Climate Scientists lose their funding.

Michael Moore probably wants Democrats in The White House, and knows their biggest threat and challenge is defeating the corruption within their own ranks. Democrat voters have already rejected Sanders, the New Green Deal and other failed political and economic doctrines promoted by Climate Scientists.

"seems like Moore's over the target...."

Absolutely lol!!! Wasn't going to bother watching it but with all the fuss Phil has been making with his lists of negative reviews I thought maybe I should .... glad I did.....refreshing, reckon a mirror has been put up to the green movement and they don't like what they see!!

"seems like Moore's over the target...."

Absolutely lol!!! Wasn't going to bother watching it but with all the fuss Phil has been making with his lists of negative reviews I thought maybe I should .... glad I did.....refreshing, reckon a mirror has been put up to the green movement and they don't like what they see!!

Whoops....sorry!

"Whoops....sorry!
May 1, 2020 at 10:18 AM Marion"

If only Climate Science had admitted significant "discrepancies" with Mann's Hockey Stick.

May 1, 2020 at 11:11 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

"If only Climate Science had admitted significant "discrepancies" with Mann's Hockey Stick."

Unfortunately Climate 'Science' simply doesn't conform to what most of the rest of us view as science.

"Unfortunately Climate 'Science' simply doesn't conform to what most of the rest of us view as science.
May 2, 2020 at 1:33 PM Marion"

97% of them may have to learn something about Unemployment and Career Change.

Meanwhile, as reality starts to bite harder than Climate Models predicted:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/02/wind-solar-industries-crushed-by-covid-19/

"Congress is likely to continue to focus on injection of broad economic aid to workers and small businesses. The massive and endless subsidies for wind and solar electricity are likely to be put off until later legislation.

Far from being “essential”, heavily subsidized, and chaotically intermittent wind and solar, and the fleeting jobs those industries create, are starting to look like wasteful luxuries that mega economies like that in Germany, Australia, and America can ill afford."

Life's too short to Fisk that lot, but much of it is bollocks.

The 2004 quote is from Andrei Illarionov, an implacable opponent of any action on climate and denier of the warming effect of CO2. Illarionov organised a meeting purportedly to discuss the Russian input to the Kyoto Protocol, but then hijacked it his own agenda, inviting such (non)-experts as Nils-Axel Morner and Piers Corbyn. When King and the British delegation discovered the subterfuge, they withdrew. Illarionov naturally portrayed this as King et al being rude and 'unable to answer our questions'.

We did this one already: http://www.bishop-hill.net/discussion/post/2702725

Paul Homewood is certainly an authority on drivel. He opens his article by repeating the claim about King saying Antarctica would soon be the only inhabitable place on Earth, it's only halfway through the article that Homewood drops in that not only did King not say that, he complained to Ofcom when the false claim was broadcast, and won a retraction and apology. So why mention it? Because it's the only vaguely substantive thing he has, perhaps?

May 4, 2020 at 7:46 PM Phil Clarke

Your primary source is Mann's Hockey Stick, and all your sources are Hockey Teamsters.

Do you have anything that is evidence based rather than based on "bollocks"?

"We did this one already: http://www.bishop-hill.net/discussion/post/2702725
May 4, 2020 at 7:46 PM Phil Clarke"

And sure enough, your dishonesty and Hockey Teamster dependency came through:

"I wonder what Nils Axel Morner's opinion of Phil Clarke is? Apart from 'Who he?'
Feb 16, 2018 at 9:39 AM | Roger Tolson"

"I am sure Nils Axel Morner would recognise the influence of William M Connolley
Feb 16, 2018 at 11:52 PM golf charlie"

"Just two observations:

1. Gergis et al is an Australasian reconstruction. The 'hockey sticks' were Northern Hemisphere only.

2. Nobody credible has found a flaw in Gergis's work.

Feb 17, 2018 at 12:50 AM Phil Clarke"

Does your credibility hang with Gergis AND Mann?

"He opens his article by repeating the claim about King saying Antarctica would soon be the only inhabitable place on Earth,

May 4, 2020 at 7:46 PM Phil Clarke"

King is still making unscientific claims:

https://rebellion.earth/2020/01/27/sir-david-king-to-support-extinction-rebellion-defendants-at-trial-for-london-city-airport-protest/

"Extinction Rebellion

Tomorrow: Sir David King to support Extinction Rebellion defendants at trial for London City Airport protest
January 27, 2020 by Zoe Blackler

Sir David King on 3-4 degrees Celsius of warming

" In his statement, Sir David says the world is on course for 3-4 degrees Celsius of warming by the end of the century, based on current policy commitments, and that lives would be saved if the government committed to achieving net zero emissions earlier than 2050. Extinction Rebellion is calling for a net zero target of 2025. "

“Climate change represents the greatest threat that humanity, as a whole, has ever had to manage. We are all involved and we need to work together with urgency to generate the pathways to a safer world.”

He didn't really though, did he?

May 6, 2020 at 9:41 AM Phil Clarke
King did make claims that were not supported by evidence, only the predictions from Mann, his Hockey Teamsters and the Hockey Stick.

May 6, 2020 at 9:41 AM Phil Clarke
King gave rubbish advice. I guess he believes in Mann's Hockey Stick

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/health-39488662/diesel-cars-it-turns-out-we-were-wrong

Planet of the Humans, another review and fact-check:

Occasionally, the film lands a punch on the right nose. It is right to attack the burning of trees to make electricity. But when the film’s presenter and director, Jeff Gibbs, claims, “I found only one environmental leader willing to reject biomass and biofuels”, he can’t have been looking very far. Some people have been speaking out against them ever since they became a serious proposition (since 2004 in my case). Almost every environmental leader I know opposes the burning of fresh materials to generate power.

There are also some genuine and difficult problems with renewable energy, particularly the mining of the necessary materials. But the film’s attacks on solar and wind power rely on a series of blatant falsehoods. It claims that, in producing electricity from renewables, “You use more fossil fuels to do this than you’re getting benefit from it. You would have been better off just burning fossil fuels in the first place”. This is flat wrong. On average, a solar panel generates 26 units of solar energy for every unit of fossil energy required to build and install it. For wind turbines the ratio is 44 to one.

Planet of the Humans also claims that you can’t reduce fossil fuel use through renewable energy: coal is instead being replaced by gas. Well, in the third quarter of 2019, renewables in the UK generated more electricity than coal, oil and gas plants put together. As a result of the switch to renewables in this country, the amount of fossil fuel used for power generation has halved since 2010. By 2025, the government forecasts, roughly half our electricity will come from renewables, while gas burning will drop by a further 40%. To hammer home its point, the film shows footage of a “large terminal to import natural gas from the United States” that “Germany just built”. Germany has no such terminal. The footage was shot in Turkey.

May 7, 2020 at 1:37 PM Phil Clarke
Unreliable source on Unreliable power.

If US Democrats want to oppose Michael Moore's film, Trump is going to love it.

Phil Clarke. From your 1.37pm quotation may we expect from you no future support for any form of biomass energy? Or which bits of the quotation do you disagree with?

AK - Not all biomass, no. But so-called first-generation biomass electricity generation and automotive biofuels have not delivered the carbon neutrality they promised and in most cases are worse than the problem they purport to solve, pushing out crops that should be feeding people and using more carbon by harvesting old growth timber and transporting it around the world than is saved by not burning fossils. George Bush got behind corn ethanol in the States, and the EU gave biomass generation a 'renewable' categorisation, wrongly in my view.

But where the source material is from new growth quick-rotation coppicing (Drax, for example gets a small percentage of its fuel from locally-grown willow), crop waste or industry byproducts (biodiesel from used chip fat for example), then these so-called second-generation biomass and biofuels do have a role to play, but a very minor one.

As Monbiot points out, contrary to the impression given in the movie, prominent environmentalists have been pointing out the issues with biomass for some time, eg Bill McKibben

or Friends of the Earth, RSPB & Greenpeace (2012), Dirtier than coal? Why Government plans to subsidise burning trees are bad news for the planet

or Friends of the Earth, RSPB & Greenpeace (2013), Burning Wood for Power Generation: The Key Issues Explained

May 7, 2020 at 8:44 PM Phil Clarke
Petrol and diesel are so much more efficient, and reliable.

The stupidity of biofuels created food shortages and price hikes. Another Green Blob catastrophe

"first-generation biomass electricity generation and automotive biofuels have not delivered the carbon neutrality they promised"

Back in the mid 1990s I was cooking up waste food oil in 100L batches into FAME ( and some very minor local notoriety boom-boom) - as a consequence I was invited by some local eco groups to give talks....

It's my recollection that at the time "carbon" wasn't really a thing in the SW-UK eco movement and pretty much all the questions were about how humans could use plants to power their world. I don't recall where the fag packet arithmetic originated but I stole it and it stayed with me. If humans planted the entire cultivable parts of the planet with the most productive known oil plant type then it would power about 20% of what is expended annually in fossil fuel - and obviously there'd be some human nutrition issues. I didn't get asked back.

That "minor role" is piffling tiny - meanwhile I hear farmers are uneasy with what some claim is 80% of their profit is subsidy from maize to ethanol.

In my opinion, part of the point that Moore is making is that in a capital intensive utility industry the flows of investment get diverted to areas where more profit can be had - if that means creating a bunch of phoney justifications then there are plenty of people who are entirely up for that - and plenty of trendy fashion victims to mill about and sing the praises of all these notionally "Green" schemes.

Now that a mirror has been held up many do not like their reflection.... The idea that the selling price of renewables should reflect the actual utility cost with no-dispatchability and intermittency fully costed has them all up in arms...

A bit of introspection in eco-land as a result of some Green on Green debate makes a refreshing change from the seemingly endless proclaiming that we've been hosed down with for some time. Every time I've suggested some eco-justice warrior to perhaps have a look at David MacKay's book and not take my word for anything at all - they usually resist mightily....

The Guardian bless'em have been all over the place on renewables - although unlike The Daily Mail they rarely do it on the same page.