Anyone watched Planet of the Humans?
- Thread starter trunole1
- Start date
Actually no. Not going to make climate change/green energy advocates happy at all.
I had the same thoughts. Well worth a watch.
What Michael Moore’s new film gets wrong about renewable energy
Michael Moore’s Planet of the Humans challenges renewable energy’s ability to fight climate change, but it’s riddled with errors and old information.
www.sciencenews.org
Temperature graph misrepresented to deny climate change
Social media users are misrepresenting a small portion of a graph from NOAA to support the erroneous claim that global temperatures are falling rather than rising, meaning global warming is not real.
apnews.com
Interesting article here by the AP in which they debunk a claim about climate change. Its interesting they state that the false claim only accounted for an 8 year period and to be accurate they must account for the full 142 years we have records. That's correct in that a larger sample size is better. So what about the other 4.5 billion years? Where is the data for all that time to show what was going on? We can tell when there were earthquakes and tsunamis in 1700 so why not temperature data? I'm no expert but seems we could use a larger sample size before panicking.
Point being is that while renewable and clean energy are good especially in uses for homes and businesses. Geo thermal, solar, wind, LED lighting and more efficient homes and buildings save energy. This helps the consumer, business and the grid especially during peak usage. These systems are not always cost effective and do have draw backs but its a step forward. Do we need to rely solely on renewable sources to save the planet? I don't know that we have enough data to make that call yet.
Good points.Temperature graph misrepresented to deny climate change
Social media users are misrepresenting a small portion of a graph from NOAA to support the erroneous claim that global temperatures are falling rather than rising, meaning global warming is not real.
Interesting article here by the AP in which they debunk a claim about climate change. Its interesting they state that the false claim only accounted for an 8 year period and to be accurate they must account for the full 142 years we have records. That's correct in that a larger sample size is better. So what about the other 4.5 billion years? Where is the data for all that time to show what was going on? We can tell when there were earthquakes and tsunamis in 1700 so why not temperature data? I'm no expert but seems we could use a larger sample size before panicking.
Point being is that while renewable and clean energy are good especially in uses for homes and businesses. Geo thermal, solar, wind, LED lighting and more efficient homes and buildings save energy. This helps the consumer, business and the grid especially during peak usage. These systems are not always cost effective and do have draw backs but its a step forward. Do we need to rely solely on renewable sources to save the planet? I don't know that we have enough data to make that call yet.
Interestingly enough I came across information through genealogy. There was a summer that there was no summer in the midwest during the mid 1800's. Crops didn't grow.
There was also a summer in the late '90's or so that the soil temperature never got warm enough for the vegetables to grow in CT.
There are weird weather phenomena that happen randomly, and never are cause for concern until they happen repeatedly, like the mini ice age in Scandinavia that was the cause of "the barbarian invasion".
I am watching a series on Netflix called Earthstorm. It talks about tornados, earthquakes, hurricanes ect... They can go back hundreds and thousands of years to connect random weather events and natural disasters. Really interesting the amount of significant events that took place hundreds of years ago.
The mid 1800's saw some really bizarre events that led many to believe in hindsight, that the upheavals signified the beginning of a new "age". In the 1970's the front cover of Time magazine featured "The Coming of a New Ice Age?"
Settled science? Agree that solar and wind have benefits but aren't the solution to energy needs in the future. The demonization of CO2 is a silly unproven theory for climate change. Without CO2 life as we know it would not exist. Cold hard fact.What Michael Moore’s new film gets wrong about renewable energy
Michael Moore’s Planet of the Humans challenges renewable energy’s ability to fight climate change, but it’s riddled with errors and old information.
Do you believe that biofuels are a solution? Did you watch the movie?
yes failed predictions are the norm for those that profit from fear mongering.
Follow the money tied to such predictions.
Actually, I read a lot of science publications, and associate with people that live, work and study things, so I am not going to say that it is all fear mongering, and family members have been lab rats that has turned out to be a good thing.
Where does the grant money coming from that funds the research for many of those climate change research papers? This is not to say that all research is tainted but if such research leads to getting in your wallet it sends a RED FLAG! IMO
OK, I'll get real here. I'm not going to address the funds for research. Let's just call it Beth's backyard farm. You are free to look at the pictures. I'd be happy to send the link.
I had a very large garden, and a number of satellite gardens. I was also a bee keeper.
I kept records every year of soil temperatures, when I planted certain things and what I used on the plants. I kept records of weather, etc.
No one gave me a grant, other than my husband telling me how much I was spending on said garden. The main garden being 50x60 feet.
I can tell you all of my observations over the course of 20 years. The amendments I made, the bee behavior, all of it. Invasive plants, etc. How the summer that the soil temps never reached 70 degrees affected certain plants.
Go for it. I'll answer with pleasure.
impressive. Real observations over 20 years are always good.
So share some of your observations and conclusions over that 20 year
period. Always admire those with a green thumb.
Please let me know what I claimed about “settled science” and climate change.
Or are you just arguing with yourself?
I merely posted an article by a highly credible scientific source critiquing the film you shared.
Later. I'm off to support my musician friends At the Blue Tavern.
But, I'll be happy to oblige.
Edited for spelling. I absolutely hate it if I misspell a word.
Fair enough.
The article you posted obviously had an axe to grind because of many omissions that
the film showed. Obviously, you haven't watched the film and its conclusion for its solution hence my question to you on biofuels which you refused to answer.
Do you believe that CO2 is the worlds greatest existential threat?
Oh I disagree with the films IMO chilling conclusion/solution.
I believe in climate change as I see it 4 times a year.
Absolutely not worth my time to engage in beyond the article I shared.
Believe whatever you choose to believe.
The article is correct in that many of the films data points are outdated but the main premise of the film is also correct. I'm not a Michael Moore fan but I think he is correct in that the fix is more harmful than the problem in many cases. To the articles credit there are advances in technologies that is making solar, wind and other renewables a better option.What Michael Moore’s new film gets wrong about renewable energy
Michael Moore’s Planet of the Humans challenges renewable energy’s ability to fight climate change, but it’s riddled with errors and old information.
My opinion is that we don't have a large enough sample size to know how bad of a problem climate change is or if its change at all. It could be a normal pattern. We have less than 200 years of date vs 4.5 billion years so its really hard to say. However, like I stated before renewables and clean energy are a good thing even if its just to save consumption during high demand. It just doesn't make sense to create another problem by trying fix one.
Grinding up trees to fuel US power plants doesn't sound like a step in the right direction.
What ever happened to the concept of kudzu for fuel? It's an invasive, and it would be a good way of getting rid of it.
Similar threads
