FINALLY! Cracks in the façade of the mighty environmental industry machine, originating from a critical place – the inside

The world needs to see the cracks in the façade of the environmental movement before there will ever be constructive advances on the path to renewable energy. Their armour is so strong that the challenges had to come from within. It has begun. Read on…

38 Replies to “FINALLY! Cracks in the façade of the mighty environmental industry machine, originating from a critical place – the inside”

  1. “The world needs to see the cracks in the façade of the environmental movement before there will ever be constructive advances on the path to renewable energy.”

    You think the world needs to advance on the path to renewable energy, eh? You’re WRONG. It’s fine if private companies want to independently develop new sources and processes for providing energy, but it’s time people like you understood that the politics surrounding a forced change has GOT TO STOP. We do not need renewable energy. Alberta alone has reserves to last 400 years.

    There is NO AGW! There is NO ENERGY SHORTAGE. We are being faced with artificially high prices at the pumps and false doomsday scenarios because of malignant political agendas.

  2. Business and political class environmentalists is what I call them . They’re the guys who pretend to be environmentalists but are actually seeking to maximize their profits. Good at marketing, good at schmoozing, good at making money, good at manipulation…but they don’t give a damn about the (lack of) effectiveness of green energy, carbon taxes or carbon taxes. It’s just another way for business and political class environmentalists to make a buck.

    They are easily identified by their hypocrisy. The talk about carbon dioxide climate catastrophe but live high on the carbon dioxide hog while raking in cash from taxpayers. The don’t walk the talk. They are identical to TV evangelical preachers who break every commandment they preach to their gullible followers.

    Nice to see some progressives waking up to the deception.

    1. Interesting to see that they can only do so if they can blame big business. I don’t see much here; there may be a coming out into the open of the misanthropes. After “fire is bad” it’ll be “electricity is bad”.

  3. Eventually they’ll discover nuclear energy and hydro are they only viable non carbon alternatives to coal. I’d argue natgas is also essential because of its flexibility, reliability, quick build time and affordable cost.

    1. Natural gas is so clean that it should be considered green. In fact it’s likely much cleaner than solar and wind when you factor in how the latter are made.

      1. Actually, Boots, there may be a very real question as to whether or not solar is an energy source at all. Given the energy cost to make PV panels, they may in fact consume more energy in their manufacture than they can ever produce during their operating lifetime. Meaning in effect that all they actually do is move fossil fuel emissions from one place to another.

        1. I have to disagree with you, cgh. Concentrated solar power is coal and oil, and a goodly portion of natural gas as well.

          10,000 years of sunlight (followed by geologic and geothermal concentration and cooking over many millions of years) gives us a metre thick coal seam. Now if only there were some way to release the trapped gasses from the coal back into the atmosphere to allow more mossy swamps to grow…..

        2. No energy source is “dirty”; that is a word applied by those who see a moral imperative in their philosophy. Many religions have a definition of what is “unclean”.

      2. No energy source is “dirty”; that is a word applied by those who see a moral imperative in their philosophy. Many religions have a definition of what is “unclean”.

    2. Sorry, but there is no reason at all to look for “viable” non “carbon” alternatives to coal … or oil. Coal and oil are plentiful and cheap with established industries. Known oil reserves will last to the end of the century, at least. (Whereas before, known oil reserves only lasted ten years.) And the real reason why is because more and more oil is seeping to the crust from the mantle interface, wherein it is continuously being produced by the Earth.
      The product of hydrocarbon processing are water and carbon dioxide, both essential for plant growth, especially the latter. Carbon dioxide does not produce global warming, not that a little of it isn’t a good thing. Historical records have always shown atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to follow global warming, rather than vice versa.
      Except for the complicity of oil producers, we have literally already a God given source of very cheap energy. We have already the methodology to remove impurities so the combustion can be essentially pollution free. (Carbon dioxide is NOT pollution!) While there is no need for any other energy source, it would be nice if eventually we can safely and easily exploit the fusion of heavy water. Then truly we will have no energy worries at all. That is the only alternate energy worth pursuing. Wind and solar farms will known useful life spans are no more “sustainable” than oil wells with known reserves, and have a lot more environmental impact.

      1. I worked in coal fired electrical generation for over a decade. I’ve shovelled it, swept it, sampled it tested it and monitored the environment around it. So I think I’m well qualified to say that, yes, coal combustion is dirty.

        There’s the coal and coal dust itself, of course, but also the byproducts of combustion – flyash. The lightest flyash goes airborne (coal plants monitor it at air stations). The heavier flyash is hauled away and dumped on fields where it stays forever – on acres and acres of land. These piles are monitored and ground water tested to detect any leaching. Only a very small portion of flyash is sold.

        I’m also familiar with natgas plants and hydro stations. They are phenomenally clean compared to coal. Natgas and hydro are just as reliable but cheaper and cleaner than coal. Regardless of CO2, coal and hydro are better. Moving to better, cleaner sources that are affordable and reliable makes sense.

        1. Should mention that coal is not the evil villain the environmentalists have conjured up. Their death toll numbers attributed to coal are absolutely ridiculous. Their constant exaggeration and apocalyptic language is one of the reasons why I don’t believe a single thing they say. Their blatant hypocrisy also gives them away and exposes them as charlatans, of course.

          Global warming – yes
          Apocalyptic, catastrophic global warming- no

          The warming is mild and manageable through a combination of adaptation and technological innovation.

        2. I’ll accede to you on coal. All I know is the emission of coal powered generators have been scrubbed to stringent federal standards. I was mostly talking about oil rather than coal, if you notice.
          I take no sides in coal vs oil vs natural gas. They are all carbon based, hydrocarbon in the last two cases. Watermelons hate all three.
          If you look honestly at the data in the last century, there has been a rise in best guess at global temperature of maybe one degree Celsius. By and large, that has been beneficial for the planet. The slight increase in temperature, plus the rise in CO2, has visibly (from space) greened the planet.
          I’ll amend what you said below to
          Global Warming — yes
          Anthropogenic Global Warming — no
          Catastrophic Global Warming — a costly hoax

          1. Warming is very mild at about .12C per decade and, imo, has been a net benefit to humans, animals and plants. More people and animals die from cold than heat (see death rates). Plants have grown better in heat and elevated CO2 (see global greening) while agritech can and will continue to engineer crops giving better yields, counteracting any changes in climate.

            I agree that oil’s benefits far exceed its negatives. There is no affordable, reliable substitute for it at this time. Oil is not just a fuel. Its petrochemicals, plastics, a component in fertilizer and much more…environmental activists conveniently forget that ending the ICE will not end the need for petroleum.

    3. Everything circles back to the necessity of using fossil fuels for mining, smelting of metals and transportation of components. Please bear in mind that as the population continues to increase, that the planet is still a finite piece of dirt and eventually will reach carrying capacity without a massive die off of billions.

      1. Yes, the great seer Paul Ehrlich warned us of that way back in 1968 with his prescient book The Population Bomb.
        He predicted that disaster in the 1970’s and 1080’s. Elsewhere, he also predicted the inundation of NYC before the end of last century due to melting glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica.
        Those of us who lived through those disasters should well remember his words. /sarc
        Paul Ehrlich also lost a famous bet with economist Julian Simon on the price in ten years of five metals of Ehrlich’s choosing. Ehrlich picked chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten. He thought the price on all of them would skyrocket due to demand and scarcity. He lost spectacularly in every case.
        Why does anyone still want to believe him and quote him (even without saying so by saying the exact same thing) is beyond me.

        1. OldBruin, your skepticism aside, the earth still is finite piece of dirt and like all finite places and spaces they will eventually fill up. Logic dictates just that unless population does not stop growing then the planet will reach carrying capacity. How many years that takes no one knows so stop relating it to one humans life span, it may be a few hundred years but unless there is a decrease in the unlimited growth of the population, the carrying capacity will be reached, that sir is a fact.

          1. No conjecture of what may happen in hundreds of years is “a fact.” You can state your belief that it will surely happen, that does not make it “a fact.”
            If you have trouble with relating “the Human Bomb” to one human’s life span, argue with Paul Ehrlich, not me. He was the one who said it, I was the one who ridiculed him for saying it.
            For what it is worth, birth rates of first world countries have stagnated at or below replacement rate. If we can turn the whole world into first world, population with stop growing.

          2. You must have flunked Logic 101.
            You hang onto your “logic” like a puppy won’t let go of a piece of rag. But you are so ignorant that you call a logical conclusion “fact”, rather than an exercise in syllogism with faulty premises.
            Your first premise: the Earth is a “finite piece of dirt.” No, it is not. Not by any stretch of imagination is the Earth a “piece of dirt.” It is a globe, over 70% of which is covered by water. Another 12% is permanently covered by snow and ice. Another 10% is covered by desert. The first two of which are not inhabited. The last is very sparsely populated. That leaves less than 10% of the Earth’s surface deemed inhabitable. For now. But you are assuming that science will not develop to where all three of them can be inhabited. (For example, Israel has demonstrated that desert agriculture is not only feasible, but self sustaining. Using salt water to farm the desert. Who woulda thunk?)
            Your second premise: if unchecked, population will grow forever. I told you that is not the case in first world countries, but you plowed on, totally ignoring that piece of information.
            Any conclusion you may draw from those two faulty premises will be invalid, let alone not “fact”.
            Let me rephrase your premises for you:
            First premise: the Earth is a globe with finite inhabitable space.
            Second premise: third world population will grow if left unchecked.
            Conclusion: Third world population expansion will overwhelm the Earth’s inhabitable space.
            The first premise is valid given the current technology, but it may not be valid in “a few hundred years.”
            i gave you the reason why your second premise can be irrelevant, but you didn’t appreciate the fine distinction. So yes, if we do not develop the Earth’s other surfaces to be inhabitable, if we do not improve agriculture, and enough third world countries will remain so, in a few hundred years the population expansion may overwhelm the inhabitable space.
            First as I said, conjectures about what will happen in a few hundred years are hardly “fact.” Second, the conjecture that nothing changes (development of “inhabitable space”, increasing per acre yield of agriculture, or elevation of third world countries) in a few hundred years is hardly a tenable premise.
            Your own logical faculties are so deficient that you cannot understand that I was attacking Ehrlich’s conclusions, not supporting them merely because I quote him. The /sarc tag doesn’t even help. You don’t even understand it when I pointed it out to you. I pointed out Ehrlich’s predictions fail miserably even in the half century since them. And we don’t even have to go to such extremes as redefining habitable space. Just by using better strains of seeds, staple food (wheat, barley, rice, corn …) per acreage yield have been setting almost annual records, and are at roughly double the yield when Ehrlich made his pronouncement. How do we know what advancements science will bring in “a few hundred years”?
            As an example, up until about two decades ago, they still talked about “peak oil.” At the beginning of each decade, they invariably projected “peak oil” usage to deplete known oil reserves within the decade. What they said was true enough when applied to the known reserves at the time, but they did not figure on more and more oil reserves will be discovered. We now know oil reserves at the minimum will last the century, maybe much longer. Reduced to a logical syllogism,
            Logic? You don’t have the faintest idea what it is all about, and what are its limitations. We have a saying in computer software that is apropos here: GIGO.

        2. Don’t forget that before Ehrlich, there was malthus. Before peak oil, there was peak tulip bulb. Before _______, there was _______.

  4. FIRST: there is no such thing as renewable energy/generation.

    There is reliable energy.

    There is unreliable energy.

    Our civilization requires 3 things of energy:
    ** cheap
    ** reliable
    ** plentiful

    You mess with any of those 3 things, you are attacking the foundation of civilization.

    1. Totally agree. Seen this today:
      UK experiences massive power outage

      Parts of England and Wales experienced a major power outage during Friday’s evening rush hour that left commuters stranded and officials demanding answers.

      The nine-hour disruption left commuters stuck on trains and others locked in gridlock traffic due to nonworking traffic signals, according to The Guardian. . .

      “The root cause of yesterday’s issue was not with our system but was a rare and unusual event, the almost simultaneous loss of two large generators, one gas and one offshore wind, at 4.54pm. We are still working with the generators to understand what caused the generation to be lost,”. . .

      Was the wind blowing?

  5. Personally I am always leery of fat people (Michael Moore) telling me I need to cut back on anything.

  6. This is the only way it can end. One of their own had to see what a façade it was. What Michael Moore is doing is following in the footsteps of Michael Shellenberger, Patrick Moore, Bjorn Lomborg, Steward Brand, Bishop Hugh Montefiore. The grim truth is that when they start quantifying the energy a modern civilization requires it falls to pieces.

    Kevin is entirely right; the foundation of everything is energy that is cheap, reliable and plentiful.

    It will be interesting to see if Moore goes where the others have preceded him; namely that only nuclear power can replace any significant portion of energy provided by fossil fuel.

    1. So he’s made s movie on this? Where is it? Will it run in the big theatres? If yes, this would be a breakthrough.

  7. Years ago, Harambe read in a McGill discussion board, open admissions that they lost track of which side of tree cores were taken from. Harambe think some from north side then a few from south side … banana!
    Harambe think banana fake.
    Harambe sign about fake banana.
    Harambe dead now.

  8. So Moore has concluded that “renewable energy” is just another racket, like “alternative medicine.” Would that that were so.

    Ensuring that only China has access to the cheap and plentiful fossil fuels required to fight and win modern wars is a key element of the plan to destroy western civilization and replace it with something more to the taste of the monsters who rule over us.

  9. We tried all this garbage in the 1970’s … all of it … tried it, and the Free Marketplace rejected it. Why? Price. Inconvenience. Ineffectiveness. Obsolescence. All this “alternative energy” nonsense. Wind Solar. Electric cars. Who killed the electric car? The consumer did. We weren’t interested in a novel little cart that can barely get us around 18 holes of golf. It didn’t work then, and it doesn’t work now (it just ‘looks’ kewler).

    I tried to find some detailed info about Moore’s low budget Independent Documentary film … and found this: Not surprisingly, Moore has no solutions. No “alternative” magic bullet. Moore simply does what he does best, mock and deride things HE determines to be unsavory … and run. Mock and run. There is no depth of discussion or contemplation of WHY the Free Marketplace makes the best decisions. Decisions that make economic sense, such as BOTH: 1. Using fossil fuels because their use is highly efficient, and 2. Affording to clean-up after ourselves (because that makes economic sense too).

    These people … these so-called environmentalists … utterly HATE the culture, society, technology and industry that Free Market Capitalism has built. They want to seize total control of it and destroy it. Not because they have a better idea … they don’t. No, they WON’T be doing Socialism “right” this time. They will just START with a lot more $$$$ … before they destroy it all.

  10. “The continuous disasters of man’s history are mainly due to his excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, nation, church or cause, and to espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation.We are thus driven to the unfashionable conclusion that the trouble with our species is not an excess of aggression, but an excess capacity for fanatical devotion.” ~ Arthur Koestler

  11. “Now we can begin to come up with the right solutions that might make a difference … The film doesn’t have the answers but it will get us asking a better set of questions,”

    They are still out to save the planet from CO2. They’ll double down and get it right next time after dragging a few off to the pillory.
    Costs don’t matter. ZIRP & negative rates are to the rescue. As they kill economies, they drop the rates. Homeowners in Denmark are currently receiving checks each month because their mortgages have negative interest rates. It’s all good.

  12. Those that follow a fool like Michael Moore are seriously delusional. Take your Meds….

    The book by “Rivet Head” a GM factory worker, who was befriended by Moore, called him out as a big Clown faker. Moore is a flake & a fool who speaks childish meaningless gibberish gook….

  13. The author is giving Moore way too much credit.
    The energy scam is the natural effect of allowing emotion to overrule reason.
    The Cult of Calamitous Climate is collapsing, but the fools and bandits will fight to the end,of their grip on power,to tax air.
    This is the dream of kleptocrats and bureaucrats,tax and control using meaningless concepts .
    Plantfood is evil,pay your indulgences.
    Reward our dishonesty.
    Or we will shun you,DOX you and shriek in your direction endlessly.

    The scam is dying,because it has become boring and the hand of the bandits is openly exposed.
    Gang Green is all about the greenbacks.

    Moore is just leaping in front of the parade,public sentiment is hostile to the Cult and now the bandits have actually imposed a “Carbon Tax”,(but not a tax really,a fee on pollution) the taxpayer finally has something real to respond to.
    Well in some Provinces but not others….

    Madness in our bureaucracies takes decades to correct,it will soon be a decade since “Climate Gate” showed their lies are deliberate.
    The fallout will be entertaining,Big Government is useless and massively destructive of wealth, productivity and personal freedom.

    A sane society will trim the civil service by 99%.
    Absolutely useless,pointless, power hungry drones, willing to declare open war on their host.Institutional stupidity.

    Institutional “science” is doomed.
    Public Education equals indoctrination.

    “Free Government Help” means the opposite.
    Free yourself of government help is the major lesson of Canada,the UN and The Cult of Calamitous Climate.
    Any farmer could have predicted this,when the weight of parasites exceeds that of Host,desperate or dead host.

  14. ‘hypocrisy thy name is enviromentalist’ (after Wm Shakespeare)

    again o guardian of gaia, you are NOT and never again permitted to avail yourself of ANYTHING coming out of the carbon based energy sector, including any and all gadgets, food sources, clothing, artifacts, ad infinitum manufactured and/or transported using carbon based energy sources.

    meanwhile feel free to sign up for a guest appearance on ‘nekked and afwaid’.