[LINK TO THE HOME PAGE OF THIS SITE]

RELATED POSTS: [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] [LINK] 

THIS POST EXAMINES THE REACTION OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS TO THE MOORE-GIBBS FILM “PLANET OF THE HUMANS” DESCRIBED IN A RELATED POST [LINK] 

PART-1: WHAT THE PLANET OF THE HUMANS SAYS

1. The film “Planet of The Humans” is a critical evaluation by environmentalists of the environmentalism claims of the climate change movement. In the evaluation, environmentalists find that the renewable energy options proposed by climate science to replace fossil fuels are not as reliable nor as environmentally friendly as climate science says they are.
2. The evaluation finds that solar arrays, solar towers, windfarms, and biofuel, and biomass energy options proposed by climate science as reliable and environmentally friendly energy alternatives to fossil fuels are neither reliable nor environmentally friendly.
3. In the case of biofuel and biomass, the destruction of trees and forests, either for harvesting trees (as in biomass projects) or for clearing land (as in biofuel projects) is cited from an environmentalism point of view as an unacceptable level of the destruction of nature just to keep humans supplied with an unreasonable amount of energy in view of what nature can withstand.
4. For wind and solar, their downsides are found not only in terms of their environmental impact but also in terms of significant technical limitations that make them an impractical and unreliable energy source. It is argued that wind and solar energy require a very large expanse of land that often needs to be cleared of trees and wildlife. The other serious concern with respect to wind and solar is that their power generation is intermittent and the amount of power they generate is variable. For these reasons these power generation devices are not reliable and must be backed up by fossil fueled power plants anyway. Therefore it is not logical to claim that wind and solar can replace fossil fuels.
5. Other considerations include useful life, regular maintenance, and fossil fuel consumption of wind and solar. Solar panels and wind turbines have a useful life of 10 to 20 years. They must therefore be regularly disposed of and replaced. Their disposal has environmental impact implications because of the enormous amount of environmentally damaging material involved. Also, the environmental impact of their replacement has cost and environmental considerations because of the very large quantities rare earths and metals needed from mines in Africa in an activity with serious health and environmental issues.
6. It is also mentioned that thermal concentrated solar power plants consume natural gas and therefore not really an “alternative to fossil fuels”. Also, it is claimed that they are often abandoned after a few years and that such abandonment involves an unacceptable level of environmental harm . In all cases, renewable energy production must be backed up by coal or natural gas plants. It is therefore a falsehood and an underhanded strategy to claim that they are replacements for fossil fuels.
7. The film also points out that the the involvement of capitalists in the renewable sector raises serious questions about their environmental credentials.  The move to renewables is making rich capitalists richer and that provides an alternative capitalism interpretation of the move to renewables that has nothing to do with their claimed environmental credentials.
8. An important contribution of the video is that it finds widespread cheating and lying in the renewable business that exposes an ugly side of the climate movement. This finding implies that climate science claims about their proposed climate action plans are not credible.
9. The study also finds an inadequacy of battery capacity in the extreme such that the only real solution to intermittency is full scale fossil fuel backup power and thereby rejects the claims to battery storage as an option to overcome intermittency. In summary, the Moore/Gibbs film finds that from a perspective of environmentalism and practicability, the environmentalism claims of the renewable option by climate science must be rejected.

PART-2: WHAT CLIMATE SCIENCE SAYS ABOUT THESE CLAIMS BY MOORE/GIBBS 

1. A possible rational response by climate science could have been that yes, there are some unresolved issues in the renewable option being offered to replace fossil fuels. We are well aware of these issues and we are working on their resolution and would be pleased to work with the Moore/Gibbs team in that project. This option would have retained the kind of planet saving environmentalism claimed by climate science. But this is not what happened.
2. Instead what we find is climate scientists crying foul in a strangely angry and hostile response rejecting the Moore/Gibbs presentation wholesale as rubbish, and calling for the immediate removal of the film to prevent further public viewing. This kind of hostility towards environmentalism by individuals claiming to be environmentally concerned scientists who have set out to replace environmentally unacceptable fossil fuels with an environmentally correct energy infrastructure leads to a very different image of climate science than the image climate science has presented to governments and consumers.
3. The essence of the climate science response appears to be that the Moore/Gibbs assessment is an unjustified attack on their renewable energy climate action plans because it is made from a purely environmentalism perspective. These objections raise even more serious issues about climate science than prior claims of skeptics.
4. Climate scientists had voluntarily appealed to environmentalists for support claiming to be environmental agents that will save the planet from the industrial economy of humans. What we see in the Moore/Gibbs video is that this claim is not accurate. This collision between climate science environmentalism and what appears to be real environmentalism reveals that climate scientists lied about their science in both directions by telling climate deniers that their science is bathed in the holy waters of environmentalism and now, blaming real environmentalists for holding them to that claim. These contradictions and conflicts further weaken the reliability and legitimacy of the climate movement.
5. A more rational response might have been that “yes, we are of course aware of these issues in the renewable option and we are working on it and have made substantial advancements that are not included in the video”. BUT NO SUCH SCIENTIFIC AND HONEST RESPONSE FROM CLIMATE SCIENCE IS FOUND. What we find instead is a childish name calling shouting match with climate scientists calling for the film to be taken down immediately.
6. Whatever harm the movie may have done to the climate movement now appears to be insignificant in comparison to the harm that climate scientists have done to the legitimacy and credibility of the anti fossil fuel movement of climate science [LINK] and of the claimed environmentalism credentials of climate science such that they are the environmental agents that will save the planet from destruction by fossil fuels [LINK] .

THE  MOORE/GIBBS VIDEO HAS BEEN REMOVED BY YOUTUBE ON AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUE BUT A TRANSCRIPT OF THE VIDEO IS AVAILABLE HERE [LINK]. AND HERE IS A LINK TO THE VIDEO PROVIDED BY CHARLES ROTTER AT WUWT THAT APPEARS TO WORK. [LINK] 

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN TO “PART-2: TRANSCRIPT OF THE VIDEO ”