Foxy,

Michael Moore is not a scholar or a scientist ( = Shadow Minister).

He is a social critic who uses filmmaking as a means to express his views about the world and he is not interested in portraying his topics and subjects in a scientific or philosophical perspective in the way scholars and scientists do.

So you need to take what he says with a gain of salt because he only tells you what he thinks about the world and not what he knows. Shadow Minister would understand this because like Moore SM also lacks scholarly and scientific credentials (and SM is almost smart enough to comprehend what I am saying.)

I thought I'd never say this. Mr O is not more than an ignorant smartarse. He has not seen the movie or researched the claims made. Mr O makes no contribution to scientific analysis of the claims he is not more than a sheepish follower of his Marxist professors - "just degrade the messengers: don't argue the claims". He is devoid of rational debate.

The claims The movie makes, demonstrates when humans try to turn back the tide of climate change they make a mess of of things. The outcome is worse than fossil fuel consumption as it involves highly toxic materials to be handled and disposed of.

Josephus,

In what way are you suited to make a scientific contribution (to anything)?

Are you a scientist or a scholar? Or are you just another vocationally trained drone that thinks he has all the answers?

Foxy,

The article you quoted like most of the criticisms by "scientists" were extremely unscientific. The attempt to discredit the documentary simply quibbled about some of the details on fringe and failed to address the main issues. For example:

The 8% efficiency figure given in the 2008 installation does not simply refer to the efficiency of the solar panels, as panels even then had higher efficiencies, but the efficiency is reduced by protective covers, dust, and simply not being 100% lined up with the sun. More efficient panels will improve the efficiency, but this has nothing to do with the points raised by the film.

Similarly, while solar panels if treated properly can last 20yrs or longer, the panels and support infrastructure is vulnerable to hail, wind etc. That the last hail storm in Sydney took out 1000s of roof panels is an example. Even if they last 20yrs, this generally gives a pretty poor payback without a thumping tax payer funded subsidy.

Finally, the intermittency of renewables is perfectly demonstrated by the German network whose renewables have generated 100% of demand for a small period, but due to overcast windless days have generated less than 6% for more than a week at a time. Their answer has been to build more coal fired stations or buy nuclear power from France to prop up their system.

Mr 0,

If you intend to be more than just a cretinous troll, perhaps you could try to add to the debate. However, I doubt that you have the IQ to even try.

Shadow Minister,

What bothers you the most is that I and people like me make you realise how little you know. You are the blame for that because you wanted to be just an engineer (aka mindless drone.)

Shadow Minister,

It seems that I'm the only one trying to
seriously respond to you and your claims.

You've still not read the citations given
in the article. You have not clicked onto
the scientific explanations and opinions -
obviously. Also there are enough sites on
the web for you to choose from that give
genuine and valid critiques of Moore's film
You ignore them all or are not interested.

Your claims are ridiculous. Renewables are going
ahead worldwide. From Sweden - which threw down the
gauntlet in 2015 to eliminate fossil fuels from
electricity generation by 2040. Costa Rica has
achieved 95% renewable electricity. Nicaragua 90%,
Scotland 98% - wind-powered electricity.

In the first half of 2018 Germany produced enough renewable
energy to power every home in the country for a year.
Uruguay's electricity - 100% renewables. Denmark - wind power
world record. Morocco - world's largest solar power
plant. The US solar industry now employs more people than
coal & nuclear combined.

More than half of electricity in Kenya is geothermal.
China - 2017 - 45% global renewable investment - and
the list goes on.