Born Naked: Planet of the Humans Exposes Renewable Energy as the Greatest Fraud of All Time


Planet of the Humans has done more than touch a raw nerve among climate cultists and RE zealots, it’s sent them into apoplexy.

Michael Moore’s withering attack on the power and money behind the renewable energy scam – produced by Moore and made by Jeff Gibbs – has been uploaded to YouTube to allow all and sundry to get the message: renewable energy is the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time. STT first covered it here: Blood & Gore: Mike Moore’s ‘Planet of The Humans’ Unmasks The Power & Money Behind Renewables Scam

The film focuses on characters like David Blood and Al Gore who have made $billions by stripping the world’s landscapes and wilderness in order to burn every scrap of timber they can, in subsidised ‘biomass’ fuelled power plants – and leaves them looking like the cynical, mercenary hypocrites that they are.

That Elon Musk, Al Gore and Bill McKibben among others have pocketed $billions from naïve and gullible taxpayers is down to their ability to keep up the climate scare and perpetuate the lie that windmills, solar panels and burning wood chips offer the only hope of saving the planet from imminent incineration.

One environmentalist who saw through the wind and solar scam from the beginning, is Michael Shellenberger. Here he is being interviewed by Andrew Bolt.

Nobody expected ‘very left-wing’ Michael Moore to issue a film ‘critical of renewables’
Sky News
Andrew Bolt and Michael Shellenberger
28 April 2020

Michael Moore’s new film ‘The Planet of the Humans’ marks the beginning of a “grand awakening” to the impacts of renewables on the natural environment says Environmental Progress founder Michael Shellenberger.

Mr Moore has garnered fame and accolades for his documentaries over the last two decades, and has himself been an activist for broadly left issues including environmental protectionism.

In his new film he exposes the renewable energy sector as not being entirely green or clean as well as criticising large corporations for virtue signalling on this issue.

Mr Shellenberger said Moore is a “very left-wing person who people did not expect to issue a movie that was so critical of renewables”.

He told Sky News host Chris Kenny, the problem with renewable energy is its fuel is “very energy dilute, you have to spread a huge amount of energy collectors,” be it solar panels or wind turbines, over a huge area, “so the land requirements are absolutely enormous”.

Many people have politicised the issue of energy and environmentalism, but Mr Shellenberger said the problems with renewables exist “whether you have a capitalist society or a socialist society”.

“They have to do with the inherent physical nature of renewable energy … the better energy sources have more energy, they’re higher energy density that means you use less of the natural environment”.

“It’s impossible to just dismiss the people who are raising these concerns anymore as climate deniers or as right-wingers”.
Sky News



Andrew Bolt: Michael Shellenberger, thank you so much for joining me. What has the reaction been to Michael Moore’s film? I mean, I’ve actually seen some demands that it be pulled from YouTube, demands from green groups.

Michael Shellenberger: I mean, it’s pretty amazing. We’ve seen a number of environmental leaders, including environmental documentary filmmakers, demand that the film be taken down from the internet. No one’s really laid out a very good case of what the film got wrong. I had some problems with it myself I mentioned in my piece, but really intense reaction. I mean the film has over three million views already, which is really unheard of for documentary movies in general, especially environmental documentaries. So, I mean it’s been … I’ve gotten a huge amount of email traffic. I think there’s just … Michael Moore is our most famous documentary filmmaker, and this is very surprising because he’s just a very left-wing person who people did not expect to issue a movie that was so critical of renewables.

Andrew Bolt: What is the significance of his film, do you think?

Michael Shellenberger: I think it marks the beginning of a grand awakening among people that care about the natural environment, to the impacts on environment that renewables have. There’s something really simple at the heart of this, which is this idea of energy density. Every fuel we use, whether it’s wood or coal or natural gas or uranium or sunlight or wind, has an amount of energy in it. And the problem with renewables is that the renewables fuels, so to speak, the flows really, are just very energy dilute. And so what that means is that you have to spread a huge amount of energy collectors, whether they’re in the form of solar panels, mirrors in the desert, wind turbines, over a huge area. And so the land requirements are absolutely enormous.

This didn’t get explained as well as it needed to in the movie, in my opinion. They sort of attributed the problems with renewables to capitalism or some weird thing. But the problems with renewables exist whether you have a capitalist society or a socialist society, they have to do with the inherent physical nature of renewable energy. So I think it’s going to have a big impact. I think it’s going to educate a lot of people and send people out looking to learn more, I hope.

Andrew Bolt: But it’s interesting, isn’t it, Michael? Because you’ve been writing about this for a long time. This problem. Others have been writing about it, talking about it for a long time, but here’s Michael Moore suddenly, like a road to Damascus conversion, “Oh my God, it doesn’t actually work,” and someone from the left. Is that the significance of it that is really seems to have come from an unexpected quarter, a dose of reality?

Michael Shellenberger: Yeah, that’s right. I mean, it’s funny when you think about it, like the idea that energy sources would have a politics. In my view, it’s just the better energy sources have more energy. They’re higher energy density. That means you use less of the natural environment. So I don’t think that’s a liberal or conservative thing, or a left or a right thing, but there is a history here, which is that really after the fall of the Soviet Union and really starting much earlier than that, environmentalists really had this idea of saving the natural environment by returning to an earlier agricultural mode of production. It was very romantic. It never made any sense technically or economically, but I think people really fell in love with the idea. I think people really fell in love with the idea of harmonising human society with the natural environment and they felt they could do that with renewables.

I think we’re now having scaled up enough solar farms and wind farms as well as biomass, which has just been devastating. Biofuels have been devastating. I think enough of it has now gone on that people can see the real world impact, and it’s impossible to just dismiss the people raising these concerns anymore as climate change deniers is the language they use, or as right-wingers, or as the fossil fuel lobby. These are usually people who’ve dedicated their lives to protecting the natural environment. It’s often scientists, conservationists, neighbours. So I think that we have … I think this is maybe the end of the beginning or maybe the beginning of the end, but at least a moment of increased awareness of the impacts of renewables.

Andrew Bolt: But the criticism here from some green groups being one, Michael Moore’s film is dangerous because it doesn’t recognise new developments in solar technology, so the panels lasts a bit longer and they don’t recognise a battery improvement so that you can store a little bit more power than … at perhaps a less devastating cost than is true so far. How much credence do you give to those arguments?

Michael Shellenberger: Well, these are really easy arguments to fact check. I did so this morning. An Australian commenter argued that solar panels have become significantly more efficient in converting sunlight into electricity over the last 10 years. Well I looked it up, the increases have been around 2% according to the National Renewable Energy Lab, which is both a developer and a promoter of renewables in the United States. So solar panel efficiency doesn’t increase at exponential rates. And you got to remember the first crystalline Silicon solar panel for modern use was developed in the 1950s and that’s the same design of panel that the Chinese are using.

So I mean, the thing that people have to remember is that we can make the panels a little bit more efficient and you’ll see maybe a little bit less land used, but it still takes somewhere around four to five hundred times more land to generate the same amount of electricity from a solar farm as it does from a natural gas plant or a nuclear plant. That’s a huge difference. So even if you were to reduce that land amount by 10%, you’re still talking about many hundreds of times more land and at least a dozen times more materials and mining, and our estimates are somewhere between 200 to 300 times more waste is produced from solar panels than from nuclear. So, has there been some progress over the last 10 years? Sure. There’s been progress on everything. Has it made a fundamental difference? It hasn’t. And it’s because the fundamentals of the technology, the fuel, in this case sunlight or wind or wood, are all just energy dilute and that’s never going to change.

Andrew Bolt: Michael Shellenberger, my criticism of the film, as I said last night, was that it still subscribes to that sort of doom Paul Ehrlich population bomb kind of thing that I thought we’d grown out of, we’d learned better from 40, 50 years ago that the planets running out of resources, we’re cockroaches on the planet, that it’s all doom and gloom, and there’s no real acceptance that there are technological solutions that would keep an advanced economies like yours and ours going and for instance, it doesn’t even discuss nuclear power. That seems to me, the doom message that Michael Moore and the director are pushing, that seems to me the greatest flaw in the movie.

Michael Shellenberger: Yeah, I agree with you. The truth is that the movie doesn’t present a lot of the information that I think people are really yearning for. I don’t think most people realise that Britain, Germany and France saw their carbon emissions peak in the 1970s. Carbon emissions peaked in the United States and in most developed economies over a decade ago, mostly from the transition from coal to natural gas in Europe. It was also the transition from coal to nuclear. There’s a number of trends that are going in the right direction. Everything’s not perfect, we still … there’s a lot of human beings on earth and we need to do things to make room for other habitats and other species, but we’ve done amazing things. We’re growing so much more food on the same amount of land that the amount of land that we use for meat production for example, has gone down.

We only use a half a percentage of the land right now for energy production, but if we were to go to a 100% renewables, the amount of land most nations would need to produce that amount of energy would be something closer to 50% of their land. It’s never going to happen of course, there’s no way that nations would do that, but I think it gives you a sense that as to protect the environment, we need to produce more food and more energy with fewer natural resources. And that means actually moving away from these land intensive, resource intensive technologies like renewables, and towards things like natural gas and nuclear, which just use much less of the landscape, much less materials, and still can provide for very high standards of living and are proven to provide that for decades. SkyNews

Never stand between a zealot and a bucket of other people’s money.

About stopthesethings

We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.


  1. Richard Kohn says:

    I’m a scientist who worked on alternative fuels from 2006 to a few years ago. I used laws of thermodynamics to identify physically feasible ways to capture and store energy through fermentation processes, and I have 9 patents and some papers on this topic. I could not get government funding nor any interest from industry other than charlatans who wanted to use my inventions as schemes to raise money but wouldn’t let me use any of the money raised to develop the technology. I concluded that the government programs are run by corporations, the corporations understand that it is more profitable to say you’re going to solve the world’s problems than to actually make some effort toward solving them, and since the corporations make proposals to the government and then the corporations themselves judge the proposals, there is no point in actually doing anything about solving the problem when they are given money for free anyway. I invented a process of converting electricity to fuels using microorganisms that the government called “electrofuels” (search ARPA-E and electro fuels). I was a finalist for funding when a billionaire lobbyist was considering backing me, but when it was apparent that the billionaire was simply trying to get the grant money and I still wouldn’t be able to develop my inventions, I cut him out. Then the ARPA-E suddenly lost interest but funded other groups for millions of dollars to re-do the work I had already done and filed patents on. Since my work was based on laws of physics, I was able to tell that much of what was funded was to do things in ways that were not feasible, essentially to invent perpetual motion machines. The energy research agency ARPA-E had the slogan “inventing the impossible” and this inspired the slogan for my company “focusing on feasible”.


  2. Crispin bpm says:

    I shall never be able to look at roof top solar panels in the same way again after watching this film.

    Roof top ‘Coal Panels’ would seem to be a far more appropriate description.

  3. Could the following explain Bill McKibben’s zealotry?

    “But what about when a person does push back against the facts, when they simply cannot admit they were wrong in any circumstance? What in their psychological makeup makes it impossible for them to admit they were wrong, even when it is obvious they were? And why does this happen so repetitively — why do they never admit they were wrong?

    The answer is related to their ego, their very sense-of-self. Some people have such a fragile ego, such brittle self-esteem, such a weak “psychological constitution,” that admitting they made a mistake or that they were wrong is fundamentally too threatening for their egos to tolerate. Accepting they were wrong, absorbing that reality, would be so psychologically shattering, their defense mechanisms do something remarkable to avoid doing so — they literally distort their perception of reality to make it (reality) less threatening. Their defense mechanisms protect their fragile ego by changing the very facts in their mind, so they are no longer wrong or culpable.”

  4. ronaldsteinptsadvancecom says:

    What’s the best way to submit Op Ed articles to Stop These Things?


    Check out some of my Op Ed articles at LinkedIn and Facebook and follow me on Twitter Available for purchase at Amazon Further information about the book can be seen at

    [Energy Made Easy]

    Ronald Stein, P.E. Founder and Ambassador for Energy & Infrastructure 949-268-4023

  5. Reblogged this on uwerolandgross.

  6. says:

    Extinction Rebellion get to protest their business destructive aim while everyone else is in lockdown and police move on sunbathers instead. Daily Telegraph business section front page photo of protesters outside barclays bank in London Friday 8th May.
    Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

  7. Reblogged this on ajmarciniak.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: