I can explain why we can never find the origin of the Universe.

Foxy,

Having read the article to which you linked I found it to be a simple polemic rather than an unbiased review. Given the author Carolyn Gramling's lack of qualifications in the subject and history of being an uncritical climate change cheerleader I shouldn't have been surprised.

Much of her claims are based on the film being out of date, however, she rebuts MM's claims by using claims of future tech advances in capability and cheapness. The high efficiency solar panels and sulphur batteries are not that new, and the reason that they are not used is that they are difficult and expensive to fabricate and run.

The reality is that the renewables movement has essentially claimed that building this renewable generation while expensive now will generate free energy in perpetuity.

Even CG acknowledges that renewables have a finite life so in 2045 everything built to date will be scrap with a huge price tag to remove like the skeletons of wind farms and solar farms built 2 decades ago.

Shadow Minister,

You know as well as everybody else that most of the renewable energy plant will come with a MADE IN CHINA label which means it will be crap so where did you get this 25 years of economical life from? Lucky if you get 5-7 years. Do a life cycle cost estimate for renewable energy plant and work out how many $$$$ in the red we will be by 2045.

Shadow Minister,

There are many links on the web that criticise Michael
Moore's film. I chose "Science News," because it
publishes articles and reviews in all disciplines of
science and Carolyn Gramling in her article cites
and gives full references to scientists and
environmentalists opinions to the assertions made in
the movie point by point. They are not her opinions
as you imply but those of experts.

Also she has BA degrees in geology and a PhD in
marine geochemistry from MIT to name just a few of
her qualifications.

Funny how you question her qualifications yet you
accept those of Michael Moore and his director and
narrator - Jeff Gibbs, a self-proclaimed -
"photographer, campaigner adventurer and storyteller,"
who's co-produced some of Moore's films.

We know that Michael Moore is a guy known for provocation.
Every documentary he's put out has been designed to
paint a world of sharp contrasts with clear bad guys. His
films are designed to get a reaction.

There's a reason that Breitbart and other conservative
voices aligned with climate denial and fossil fuel
companies have taken a shine to the film. It's because
it ignores the solution of holding power to account.
And of course predictably - you jump onto the band-wagon.

I'll leave you to it.

Foxy,

I am not claiming that Michael Moore is a renewable energy expert, but as a climate /renewables activist for decades no one can claim that he is biased against renewable energy. His film is not meant to be purely against renewables, rather against the motives behind the large companies making $bns from the industry and comparing their spin vs reality. That he has interviewed experts in the field is what gives his film credibility.

With regards Carolyn Gramling I am not claiming that CG is not smart cookie, but qualifications in geology and marine chemistry is hardly relevant to power generation and networks. That she has a long history of climate activism explains her motives, and why you jumped on the left whinge band wagon.

I would take a bet that you haven't even watched the documentary

Shadow Minister,

Actually I did watch it. However I would bet
that you did not read the link I cited because
you would have noted that they were not
her opinions
being expressed but those of scientists and
experts all you had to do is click onto them.

Moore's documentary came out on Earth Day positioning
itself up as some tough, real talk not just about
renewable energy but environmental groups. It cast
renewables as no better than fossil fuels and
environmental groups as sleek corporate outfits in bed
with billionaires helping kill the planet.

However the big critique was that the film ignores the
solution of holding power to account.

Science News was not the only critique of the film
The web had many others from scientists and experts.
But I'm sure you already know that, or you should.