Sort of odd as their main arguments seem to be around how costly things like solar and wind energy are and how much energy they are actually able to produce. Those weren't even the films most concerning points.Climate experts call for 'dangerous' Michael Moore film to be taken down
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...planet-of-the-humans-michael-moore-taken-down
Yeah that's probably a better critique of it, a few other things I've seen about it seem to suggest that the data they used was about 10 years old as well.It's pretty much being torn apart by scientists and the media for false information. Some quotes amongst many:
"'n one almost impossibly lazy bit, Gibbs and Zehner visit a concentrated solar plant outside Daggett, California, but are surprised to see that the mirrors are missing. “It suddenly dawned on me what we were looking at,” Gibbs narrates. “A solar dead zone.” End scene.
It took me less than a minute on Wikipedia to find out that this array, originally completed in 1985, was deconstructed for replacement in 2014-2015. A new photovoltaic array has been online since 2017.'
'No math is done at any point, no data is shown for grid-total emissions over time, and no scientists are consulted to quantify emissions or compare different scenarios. Some of the information presented comes from Gibbs’ strategy of plying industry trade-show sales reps and environmental advocates with awkward questions on camera, then stringing together quick-cut clips of people admitting to downsides.'
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...rgy-takedown-worse-than-netflixs-goop-series/
If that's true, I wouldn't be surprised. I'm sure I've read that Michael Moore was outed before for being economical with the truth to make the point he wants to make in his documentaries.It's pretty much being torn apart by scientists and the media for false information. Some quotes amongst many:
"'n one almost impossibly lazy bit, Gibbs and Zehner visit a concentrated solar plant outside Daggett, California, but are surprised to see that the mirrors are missing. “It suddenly dawned on me what we were looking at,” Gibbs narrates. “A solar dead zone.” End scene.
It took me less than a minute on Wikipedia to find out that this array, originally completed in 1985, was deconstructed for replacement in 2014-2015. A new photovoltaic array has been online since 2017.'
'No math is done at any point, no data is shown for grid-total emissions over time, and no scientists are consulted to quantify emissions or compare different scenarios. Some of the information presented comes from Gibbs’ strategy of plying industry trade-show sales reps and environmental advocates with awkward questions on camera, then stringing together quick-cut clips of people admitting to downsides.'
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...rgy-takedown-worse-than-netflixs-goop-series/
Yes, very much so. He also likes to present anecdotal evidence as representing something bigger. It works when there's merit to his overall point, but this time it's blown up in his face. Worth pointing out, though, that this Gibbs's film rather than Moore's.If that's true, I wouldn't be surprised. I'm sure I've read that Michael Moore was outed before for being economical with the truth to make the point he wants to make in his documentaries.
I don't think anyone has.Has anyone debunked the core message: that overpopulation and our perpetual growth economical model are the main drivers and changing to renewables won't create any sort of seamless transition?
Evil somewhat? What would be the point of the environment being there if there weren't people to enjoy it? You think nature appreciates itself?... Obviously, things would be better for the environment if half the human population didn't exist.
That's a joke, right? I mean, the environment doesn't exist to serve us; it just 'is', just like humanity. Also, I didn't say that half the human population should be killed or whatever, just that the current population level clearly is a factor in global warming.Evil somewhat? What would be the point of the environment being there if there weren't people to enjoy it? You think nature appreciates itself?
It isn't just essentially global warming, but all the other myriad of ways we destroy the planet and the species on it. I agree that population control isn't about killing people, but encouraging rationel incentives for people to have less children in countries with exploding populations.That's a joke, right? I mean, the environment doesn't exist to serve us; it just 'is', just like humanity. Also, I didn't say that half the human population should be killed or whatever, just that the current population level clearly is a factor in global warming.
Has anyone debunked the core message: that overpopulation and our perpetual growth economical model are the main drivers and changing to renewables won't create any sort of seamless transition?
Overpopulation has been debunked as a burning issue many times and population growth is in fact slowing after reaching peak growth in the 60s. We are not growing exponentially.It isn't just essentially global warming, but all the other myriad of ways we destroy the planet and the species on it. I agree that population control isn't about killing people, but encouraging rationel incentives for people to have less children in countries with exploding populations.
Yeah, but obviously the system of consumerism is also becoming more and more widespread. Which is not something I critize. People in developing countries want the same benefits that we enjoy. Which leads to an ever increasing rates of consumers.Overpopulation has been debunked as a burning issue many times and population growth is in fact slowing after reaching peak growth in the 60s. We are not growing exponentially.
https://theecologist.org/2020/apr/16/debunking-overpopulation
https://www.pop.org/debunking-the-myth-of-overpopulation/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20160311-how-many-people-can-our-planet-really-support
Consumerism and economic inequality are big problems.
The very definition of anthropocentric right there. Of course, that's how we've gone about things, though we now know that the Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth. I guess this thinking is kind of like: If a tree falls in the wood and there is no human there to notice it, will it make a sound: yes, it will emit a growl of sadness for not being harvested for an IKEA desk that has been put away in a human's storage unit.Evil somewhat? What would be the point of the environment being there if there weren't people to enjoy it? You think nature appreciates itself?
Thanks for the reply. I agree that our way of life is the key driver - but it so happens that our way of life is an ideology that has co-opted and harvested everything in its wake so now it's spread all over the world, directly or indirectly. As @Shamana alludes to - though I'm not sure everyone wants exactly the same. I guess if people were allowed to control their own local regions, countries, natural resources, pieces of land etc. we could say that, but the level of superpower and corporate interference (same thing largely) and exploitation obscures that no end.Overpopulation has been debunked as a burning issue many times and population growth is in fact slowing after reaching peak growth in the 60s. We are not growing exponentially.
https://theecologist.org/2020/apr/16/debunking-overpopulation
https://www.pop.org/debunking-the-myth-of-overpopulation/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20160311-how-many-people-can-our-planet-really-support
Consumerism and economic inequality are big problems.
More a way of surviving than a way of thinking. There you are - projecting your fantasies on to me. Projecting fantasies is - in my experience - the very definition of anthropocentric. Oh, and projecting fantasies = the very definition of supporting renewable energy. So, actually on topic w.r.t. Planet of the Humans.The very definition of anthropocentric right there. Of course, that's how we've gone about things, though we now know that the Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth. I guess this thinking is kind of like: If a tree falls in the wood and there is no human there to notice it, will it make a sound: yes, it will emit a growl of sadness for not being harvested for an IKEA desk that has been put away in a human's storage unit.
Thanks for the reply. I agree that our way of life is the key driver - but it so happens that our way of life is an ideology that has co-opted and harvested everything in its wake so now it's spread all over the world, directly or indirectly. As @Shamana alludes to - though I'm not sure everyone wants exactly the same. I guess if people were allowed to control their own local regions, countries, natural resources, pieces of land etc. we could say that, but the level of superpower and corporate interference (same thing largely) and exploitation obscures that no end.