The Michael Moore film Planet of the Humans drives a stake through the heart of the so-called green energy movement deriding many of its chief proponents as forest destroying, money grabbing, wildlife decimating, hypocritical promoters of useless, expensive, intermittent energy, almost wholly reliant on cheap, reliable, efficient oil and gas.
Of course your correspondent feels this is a fair summation of the matter with little that one could find to disagree. But fair-minded chap that he is, he might have expected a little push back from the trillion dollar green boondoggle crowd.
But for the junk science brigade on the BBC it was business as usual. As the Moore mushroom cloud broke, Matt McGrath, (left) fresh from collecting 100,000 euros from a green energy promoter, concentrated on some climate fireball baloney based on margin of error temperature rises while Roger Harrabin (right) tried to make something on twitter about 26 extra minutes of sunshine in April.
Elsewhere it has all been rather half hearted. There were a few routine calls for the film to be banned from hardened campaigners amid suggestions that the work is full of “errors”. There was little activity from other hacktivists with a particularly poor effort from Emma Gatten, the Daily Telegraph environmental editor. She suggested that climate scientists had hit out at “inaccuracies” but sadly the only “scientist” she quoted was a Californian academic working in a politics department writing for the Vox blog!
The Moore film, produced in association with fellow veteran left wing activist Jeff Gibbs, takes a Malthusian tone suggesting there are too many humans living on the planet for the future to be sustainable. Of course this line of thought is never far from the surface in much of the green community but the overall shock caused by the destruction of the green energy fallacy has been immense. Moore and Gibbs were thought to have impeccable left wing, woke up the wazoo, green new deal credentials.
It might be noted that both men are clearly not fools. Suggesting that we can rely on renewable energy is rapidly becoming an insult to the intelligence. But there is logic to the idea that we can only reduce our “carbon footprint” if we reduce our overall population numbers. It’s just that nobody has come up with any realistic or moral ideas how to do it – forced sterilisation, enforced birth control and child permits, mass suicides, eugenics, genocides – none of them seem to have mass appeal.
It has been obvious for some time that renewables cannot provide enough power to run a modern civilisation. They are intermittent and storage is non-existent for all practical purposes. Up until now politicians can bask in virtue signalling policies but the more intelligent ones must know that they can’t strip the country of gas boilers and petrol cars without widespread social opposition.
In the UK we subsidise (read: feather green nests) wind and solar to the tune of £12bn a year for a power source that provides around 3% of our energy needs. In a post Covid-19 era, that spending is going to be even less popular than the £15bn we spend on improving world levels of corruption, sometimes known as the annual foreign aid budget.
It’s unlikely that Moore and Gibbs have been converted to the idea that we do not face a climate “emergency” from C02 plant food. They may be continuing to ignore the scientific fact that only 3% of C02 that enters the atmosphere on an annual basis arises from burning fossil fuel. Removing the entire human output is unlikely to do much and certainly not halt the gentle 200-year rise of around 1C.
Sadly the endemic confirmation bias built into all climate change reporting by the mainstream media is not going to be altered much in the near future. As retired professor of pathology Dr John Lee said recently when commenting on biased Covid-19 coverage: “ .. there is the less critical type of media which essentially illustrates a story that it thinks it already knows”.
And the mainstream media, as is immediately obvious, knows everything about climate change. The matter is “settled” – so settled in fact that it frequently calls upon an under-educated Swedish school girl and an ancient neo Malthusian voice over artiste to tell us we are all going to hell in a handcart unless we renounce our wicked ways and take a global vow of poverty (and chastity while we are about it). The BBC more or less banned any critical discussion about climate science in a secret editorial cabal going back to 2006 while the Guardian published a letter in 2018 signed by all the usual suspects including in house writer George Monbiot stating “we will no longer debate those who deny that human caused climate change is real … we urge broadcasters to move on, as we are doing”.
Much of the “denier” abuse is directed at people who question fireball forecasts of up to 6C extra warming based on forecasts made by around 100 climate models that over 30 years haven’t an accurate prediction to rub together. In fact their reporting record seems to replicate Professor Neil Ferguson and his medical models, a body of work that over the last 20 years has been as useful as the output from a mediocre fairground astrologer.
Confirmation bias is widespread in our current Covid pandemic. But at least the general public is aware that many medical scientists don’t agree with the lockdown route and its collateral smashing of the economy. “As a scientist, I hope I never again hear the phrase ‘based on the best science and evidence’ spoken by a politician”, say Edinburgh public heath professor Devi Sridhar.
Experts are said to have voiced growing frustration over the UK government’s claims that it is “following the science” and the disproportionate weight “given to the views of modellers”.
Interestingly these comments appear in the Guardian which published the 2018 letter stating that its infallible authors would not debate and “offer credibility” to those who denied climate change was predominately caused by humans.
So what is different between a robust scientific discussion over a medical emergency and accusing sceptics who wish to debate climate science of denying the Nazi massacre of the Jews?
Money, pure and simple – trillions of dollars flowing into the pockets of billionaire venture capitalists, subsidy and rent seekers, fake climate scientists and chancers of every description. If you promise £600bn of free green money to turn the energy clock back to the Middle Ages as Rebecca Wrong-Daily did during the last UK election, you can expect vast numbers of people willing to hold their hands out and close their ears to rational scientific debate.
That is why the Moore film is so dangerous for the green trillion-dollar fraud. It doesn’t debate the science but it casts major doubt on the ludicrous impractical solution to a hypothetical problem. Since there is no solution that doesn’t involve mass death, poverty and monk-like denial – none of them palatable to most humans – it could lead to a critical re-examination of climate and science.
But in the meantime one would expect a tad more opposition than a few self-identifying scientists writing letters and tepid news stories from tame journalists.
Please follow @CMorrisonEsq on Twitter