Decribed in IMDB thus,

"BRIGHT GREEN LIES dismantles the illusion of green technology in a bold
and shocking exposé, revealing the lies and fantastical thinking behind the
notion that solar, wind, electric cars, or green consumerism will save the
planet. Almost every major environmental organization is pushing for
so-called renewable energy. Claims are being made about "green"
technologies that are frankly untrue. Words like "clean", "free", "safe",
and "sustainable" are often thrown around. But solar panels and wind
turbines don't grow on trees. The mass production of these technologies
requires increased mining, industrial manufacturing, habitat destruction,
massive greenhouse gas emissions, and the creation of toxic waste.
So-called renewable energy does not even deliver on its most basic promise
of reducing fossil fuel consumption. On a global scale, the energy is
stacked on top of what is already being used"

It's presently rating a spectacular 9.6, but off an insignificant 8 votes.
Wonder what it'll finish at after word gets out?

alvey

On Thu, 6 May 2021 07:14:24 +1000, alvey <alvey@is.invalid> wrote:

>It's presently rating a spectacular 9.6, but off an insignificant 8 votes.
>Wonder what it'll finish at after word gets out?

Who says it will get more. Eight is more than some. Sometimes,
anything more is only what a film can bring to you. And, sometimes,
there's not much of description given the film personally to promote
itself. Just people who, sometimes, will. Then last, sometimes, good
reviews might not help. I passed on a "good" war film on a film
dealing in torture in the Middle East. I'm also likely to pass on
another "good" film, not about torture, but what 'made Charlie Manson
tick', i.e. before he tortured: An exposé, even if more detailed than
I'd personally known, from traces of Charlie that were left in the
music scene at the time. Watching another, on Frank Zappa, Frank's
house is where Charlie and his people would walk by, from looking out
the window onto Frank's backyard. They walked that way to the camp
Charlie moved to rule -- after music -- not at all pleasant for the
Zappas to see. Nor especially pleasant to me now, even if there's
only a few "good" reviews, to suspect actually in written intent to
convey goodness. There's no helping me look at something I don't want
to look at. Or listen to, if I can be less certain, what is likely to
be accorded as torturing the shit out of music .

On 5/5/2021 5:14 PM, alvey wrote:
> Decribed in IMDB thus,
>
> "BRIGHT GREEN LIES dismantles the illusion of green technology in a bold
> and shocking exposé, revealing the lies and fantastical thinking behind the
> notion that solar, wind, electric cars, or green consumerism will save the
> planet. Almost every major environmental organization is pushing for
> so-called renewable energy. Claims are being made about "green"
> technologies that are frankly untrue. Words like "clean", "free", "safe",
> and "sustainable" are often thrown around. But solar panels and wind
> turbines don't grow on trees. The mass production of these technologies
> requires increased mining, industrial manufacturing, habitat destruction,
> massive greenhouse gas emissions, and the creation of toxic waste.
> So-called renewable energy does not even deliver on its most basic promise
> of reducing fossil fuel consumption. On a global scale, the energy is
> stacked on top of what is already being used"
>
> It's presently rating a spectacular 9.6, but off an insignificant 8 votes.
> Wonder what it'll finish at after word gets out?

Meanwhile, I feel 'polemic' is a category separate from 'documentary'.
Michael Moore makes the former, Errol Morris makes the latter...

On 05/05/2021 06:14 PM, alvey wrote:
> Decribed in IMDB thus,
>
> "BRIGHT GREEN LIES dismantles the illusion of green technology in a bold
> and shocking exposé, revealing the lies and fantastical thinking behind the
> notion that solar, wind, electric cars, or green consumerism will save the
> planet.

Who funded this movie, the oil industry? :-D

It's been said many times that there are devices that can reduce oil and
gas consumption but the patents keep getting shelved by the fuel companies.

stan meyer made an engine that runs on water but was poisoned before it
was made.

On Mon, 10 May 2021 20:03:20 -0300, Alan Smithee <alms@last.inc>
wrote:

>> "BRIGHT GREEN LIES dismantles the illusion of green technology in a bold
>> and shocking exposé, revealing the lies and fantastical thinking behind the
>> notion that solar, wind, electric cars, or green consumerism will save the
>> planet.
>
>Who funded this movie, the oil industry? :-D
>
>It's been said many times that there are devices that can reduce oil and
>gas consumption but the patents keep getting shelved by the fuel companies.
>
>stan meyer made an engine that runs on water but was poisoned before it
>was made.

Last documentary offhand I recall with any salience was Herzog's among
Antarctica scientists. An aspect he had prepared from the perspective
of assortment of rag-tags and expatriates -- not everyone especially
would want to be lost at the ass-end of the world, although, given
they are -- with the common sense of being unwelcomed shared among
them, that the rest of humanity couldn't care one rat's ass less
whether they're to be an extinction event.

Besides, what's the purpose for filming what subjectively is within
sets of encompassing factuality to presentment quite ably, altogether
in written format? (Another documentary I didn't mention was early
English, 17th c. painting and an English response, rather lacking,
insofar a tawdry tale of courtly painter allied with a effete kingly
sort, lacking common grounds, who subsequently is disposed;-
continental affair of no less expressionism as Enlightenment.)
Shouldn't film portray qualities within the media of observances that
express themselves for hedging again verbosity in all their
explicitness? That an underlying intrigue may exist in that very
distinction for vagueness to surround comprehension, upon being
presented at some counterpoint of cultural acceptance among regqrds
more mundane, then, of occupancies we accept as a treadmill conveyor
belt of relegated factuality, until granted ascendancy by death's
Pearly Gates to be judged all the worthier.

Meanwhile, we're quite taken and fascinated with admiring how pretty,
pretty we observe ourselves in mirrors of carnival events staged for
escapism. In the house that does it with art for mirroring reality
or, obversely, reality art (abbreviated as the syndicated realityshow
of shockjockism)-- not as such one unknown, so quickly to have
offended if teasing reality unpleasantly;- yes, pedantic is the very
word, to this very day, for those of whom simply must watch what
cannot better be expressive of words, or a lost art for reading them
at an artificial imposition to discount twenty centuries prior,
largely constituting illiteracy for all but an oligarch.

How even could oil interests conceive to document, at twice a
sustainable output over projected extinction, seas already a sludge
awash and at a tip of petrochemical's exigencies? To disrespect the
notion that we cannot continue to please ourselves by racing to stop
at the very next red light, throwing beer cans full at one another in
an eruption of fisticuffs, as white-thighed thunderous pedestals to
their stuffed britches watch in ill-contained adulation for breeding
purposes. A clearer raison d'être why being the best we've got don't
get, apparently, nor never ever got nearly no better.

On Wednesday, 5 May 2021 at 17:14:26 UTC-4, alvey wrote:
> Decribed in IMDB thus,
>
> "BRIGHT GREEN LIES dismantles the illusion of green technology in a bold
> and shocking exposé, revealing the lies and fantastical thinking behind the
> notion that solar, wind, electric cars, or green consumerism will save the
> planet. Almost every major environmental organization is pushing for
> so-called renewable energy. Claims are being made about "green"
> technologies that are frankly untrue. Words like "clean", "free", "safe",
> and "sustainable" are often thrown around. But solar panels and wind
> turbines don't grow on trees. The mass production of these technologies
> requires increased mining, industrial manufacturing, habitat destruction,
> massive greenhouse gas emissions, and the creation of toxic waste.
> So-called renewable energy does not even deliver on its most basic promise
> of reducing fossil fuel consumption. On a global scale, the energy is
> stacked on top of what is already being used"
>
> It's presently rating a spectacular 9.6, but off an insignificant 8 votes..
> Wonder what it'll finish at after word gets out?
>
>
> alvey

If renewables were a panacea the Chinese wouldn't be building 40 new coal power plants a month while laughably claiming to reach
carbon neutrality by 2030. Meanwhile, the U.S. has been carbon stable since 1990. People need to understand that all of this is a massive
con designed to re-distribute world wealth.

RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

> People need to understand that all of this is a massive con designed
> to re-distribute world wealth.

I've always been fascinated by the paranoid mindset.
Plot by whom, to re-distribute to whom?

Followup-to: sci.environment

--
/* * * Otto J. Makela <om@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */
/* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
/* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */

On 5/10/21 9:22 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Wednesday, 5 May 2021 at 17:14:26 UTC-4, alvey wrote:
>> Decribed in IMDB thus,
>>
>> "BRIGHT GREEN LIES dismantles the illusion of green technology in a bold
>> and shocking exposé, revealing the lies and fantastical thinking behind the
>> notion that solar, wind, electric cars, or green consumerism will save the
>> planet. Almost every major environmental organization is pushing for
>> so-called renewable energy. Claims are being made about "green"
>> technologies that are frankly untrue. Words like "clean", "free", "safe",
>> and "sustainable" are often thrown around. But solar panels and wind
>> turbines don't grow on trees. The mass production of these technologies
>> requires increased mining, industrial manufacturing, habitat destruction,
>> massive greenhouse gas emissions, and the creation of toxic waste.
>> So-called renewable energy does not even deliver on its most basic promise
>> of reducing fossil fuel consumption. On a global scale, the energy is
>> stacked on top of what is already being used"
>>
>> It's presently rating a spectacular 9.6, but off an insignificant 8 votes.
>> Wonder what it'll finish at after word gets out?
>>
>>
>> alvey
>
> If renewables were a panacea the Chinese wouldn't be building 40 new coal power plants a month while laughably claiming to reach
> carbon neutrality by 2030.

Damn, "Rich", you're actually telling the truth this time:

https://e360.yale.edu/features/despite-pledges-to-cut-emissions-china-goes-on-a-coal-spree

On 5/10/21 9:22 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Wednesday, 5 May 2021 at 17:14:26 UTC-4, alvey wrote:
>> Decribed in IMDB thus,
>>
>> "BRIGHT GREEN LIES dismantles the illusion of green technology in a bold
>> and shocking exposé, revealing the lies and fantastical thinking behind the
>> notion that solar, wind, electric cars, or green consumerism will save the
>> planet. Almost every major environmental organization is pushing for
>> so-called renewable energy. Claims are being made about "green"
>> technologies that are frankly untrue. Words like "clean", "free", "safe",
>> and "sustainable" are often thrown around. But solar panels and wind
>> turbines don't grow on trees. The mass production of these technologies
>> requires increased mining, industrial manufacturing, habitat destruction,
>> massive greenhouse gas emissions, and the creation of toxic waste.
>> So-called renewable energy does not even deliver on its most basic promise
>> of reducing fossil fuel consumption. On a global scale, the energy is
>> stacked on top of what is already being used"
>>
>> It's presently rating a spectacular 9.6, but off an insignificant 8 votes.
>> Wonder what it'll finish at after word gets out?
>>
>>
>> alvey
>
> If renewables were a panacea the Chinese wouldn't be building 40 new coal power plants a month while laughably claiming to reach
> carbon neutrality by 2030. Meanwhile, the U.S. has been carbon stable since 1990. People need to understand that all of this is a massive
> con designed to re-distribute world wealth.

For some reason, though, you've failed to mention the utter horseshit
spouted by Trump about 'bringing the coal industry back.' Has your goal
in life always been to be a turd with ears?