Planet of the Humans - an environmental documentary film

Sorry, I missed the edit timer on my previous post. Regardless, this is specific, current information about photocells that comes from today's Tesla release of their Q1 2020 financials:
Q1'20 Update

• pp 6 - "Solar deployed (MW) - 47, 29, 43, 54, 35"
• pp 9 - "Solar Roof In Q1, Gigafactory New York reached a significant milestone. In a single week, Solar Roof production exceeded 4 MW, enough for up to 1,000 homes. ..."
• pp 20 - "Energy generation and storage (M$) - 316, 326, 314, 385, 282" (*)
• pp 21 - "ASSETS ... Solar energy systems, net - 6242, 6201, 6168, 6138, 6106" (*)
• pp 22 - "Payments for the cost of solar energy systems, net (25), (18), (25), (37), (26)" (*)

* - Tesla combines their utility grade, battery storage systems with their solar roof business. So these numbers reflect the sum of the two.

In the out-of-date, lying movie:

• 14:35 - 16:22 :: Cedar Street Solar Array, Lansing, Michigan, "Enough for 10 homes"
  • Google Map address "151 S Cedar St, Lansing, Michigan". An overhead view show there are two styles of solar arrays but the lying video shows only one. Other Google sources report it is designed for "50 homes" but that is old technology that puts the arrays on racks in the middle of a city instead of the roof of adjacent buildings, the Tesla approach. Speculation, it looks like the parking lot north of the solar array has sun shields covered with solar cells. That does NOT show up in the lying video.

Lie to me once, shame on you. Lie to me twice, shame on me. This movies is grossly out of date and Moore could get in his car and fact-check the movie claims in Lansing. He did not and it remains a flawed video.

It was only because the Q1 2020, Tesla quarterly report that I had direct facts and data that contradicted the first false claim about solar in Lansing. As for the other solar array claims, I don't have a dog in that fight BUT I know people who do ... and asking Mr. Google, you can find them too.

Bob Wilson

p.s. Facts and data are a powerful argument when compared to wordy, imprecise, opinion:

 

Guess I should have included that smilely.

My experience with Moore's work is limited to his old show that was on HBO, IIRC. What I know of his movies sounds like they are just longer versions of those episodes. His goal was to inform the audience about something he felt was wrong. If people agreed with him, but couldn't be bothered to do leg work on their own, they probably won't going to do anything if he included solutions.

It is fine you don't agree with that, but he is free to not include them. Most documentries I watched were nature or historical ones, so I don't see the issue with how Moore chooses to work.

 

But I'm such a fan of wordy, imprecise, opinion.
Loved Literature, Loved writing,- passed mathematical courses ONLY because they were required.

I think it takes all types to reach the truth.
You bring the facts and data, I'll bring the wordy, imprecise, opinion.

 

All of that sounds grand as abstract posturing, but the bits I bolded are where it gets real, or would get real, if the filmmaker wanted to approach it responsibly.

"may be" acts of self delusion? "may be" emperor's new clothes? Great! Bring the numbers and show whether they are or not. To strike this grand posture and not address the yes/no question is no different from taking the latest nutcase rumor in your social media feed and sharing it to all your friends with a "WHOA IF TRUE!" and zero effort to ask if it is true, or not.

Example: (I watched it a few days ago so I'll just draw from things I remember)

Ivanpah solar plant. Burns some gas every morning to get ready for solar input. Film shows Gibbs mugging astonishment for the camera. Film does not say how much gas, or how much solar energy is then captured. Those are pretty much the only two numbers that matter for that claim. You can find them on Wikipedia easily enough, and so can Gibbs. He knows those are the numbers that would support, or not, his "emperor's clothes" argument. He knows they don't support it. So he leaves them out.

At every turn in the film, he is mugging astonishment about one thing or another that still has some hydrocarbon as a process input, or is backed by some hydrocarbon-powered capacity, and at every turn, the data that would matter would be "how much? how much in comparison to output?". It would be ridiculous to suggest Gibbs somehow doesn't know that's the data that would matter. He just elects not to supply it.

It's maybe worth watching, carefully and alertly, finger on the pause button, as an expert lesson in deceptive filmmaking. Every topic transition is a good place to hit pause and think for a moment, "what did I just see? what was being suggested? what information would be necessary to check that suggestion? did he provide it? what, again no?! why did he elect not to?"

It is possible to overdo "that's a fair, important concept to look at". As another example that's been done before and is familiar to PriusChatters,

"whether a Prius is more lifecycle energy intensive than a Hummer H3" is a fair, important concept to look at.

It is worth looking at for exactly as long as it takes to find out the answer is "nope!", and then move on. It's not like there's a shortage of other fair important concepts that need to be looked at.

Take enough canards like that to fill an hour and forty minutes, leave out all data that would reveal them as canards, and you too can have made this film.

 

How in the hell do I "bring the numbers!" concerning what "acts of self delusion" or "emperors new clothes"?

My post is opinion, and it is opinion based on 1 viewing, and what I feel the message, and good/bad flaws of the documentary may be.
It's never presented as a "Fact Check" operation.
And quite frankly I don't see anyone else really bringing the numbers.

 

It's a thread about a film; I'd say it was the responsibility of Jeff Gibbs to bring the numbers.

And notable that he made undoubtedly deliberate decisions not to.

Many of those Gibbs chose to leave out can be found in the links I added in post #3.

 

My apologies to those I've publicly <PLOINK>. I should have done it quietly. Regardless, I'll still follow my usual practice:

1. 30 day wait and silently review - about half the time, they leave or change on their own.
2. 90 day wait and silently review - the 'persistence of time'
3. 365 day wait and silently review - haven't seen them last this long

Some live for feedback, positive or negative. If positive or fact based posts are ignored, it suggests they live for the other kind. Second to misinformation, the next best irritation is being too lazy to even ask Mr. Google.

Bob Wilson

 

Hey, I watched the documentary.
I spent some considerable time formulating an opinion and writing an evaluation.
Which is ADMITTEDLY an opinion based viewpoint NOT evaluating each claim made within the documentary on facts and data. I'm not disparaging the use of facts and data and pie charts.
I think if you find specific facts presented in error, the use of "facts and data" is absolutely valid in a evaluation of the documentary.

But a fact and data based evaluation of specific technical claims within the documentary was never the aim or intent of my evaluation.
And I don't think it has to be. I think my observations on the monologue at the end, the tone of the documentary, the message being communicated...IS also valid observation and criticism.

Ideally in a TOTAL evaluation, you want both. You want the "facts"-numerical data, and I think also a evaluation of the total finished product, which includes evaluation of the message and narrative being delivered, the voice of the documentary.

I apologize if I insulted you with my comment.- I see you did (as usual) bring the numbers.
And I think that's great.- Sincerley.
Since as I admit, I'm not a big, chart, graph, number guy, I appreciate somebody else doing that dirty work.

My defensiveness in this matter, only comes because I believe my post's are a valid evaluation of the documentary even if admittedly NOT a evaluation that is "fact checking" solar panel claims and other data based flaws in fact the documentary may of presented.

In short, my evaluation is more of a evaluation of story and narrative being presented in the Documentary.
Your evaluations are more a evaluation of specific facts and data, about the data claims being made in the documentary.

I don't see why BOTH approaches can't be appreciated and respected. Because I believe BOTH are valid, and BOTH are needed for the best FULL picture of what the documentary really represents.

Calling me a "willful idiot" I think unfair and harsh. I apologize for not noticing your posts with the numbers and data.
I respect Data and Facts, even if I admit that's NOT my favorite approach. I've always been more of a writer, narrative-story person.
And I think the narrative/story being presented here...and there is one, does have valid points for evaluation and criticism.

 

I appreciate all the thoughts, opinions and evidence provided by the above peeps! Keep us on our toes! My biggest concern about misinformation is that if said enough, it becomes the truth. Think Nazi Germany and Joseph Goebbels. He was the master at creating a perception from false things. Thats what concerns me today. With social media, false truths make it around the world before it can be discussed.

 

There's a difference between "data" and "fact."
The Googles are data rich.

People use if more for affirmation than information........

 

Google is the library index. The next step is 'go to the stacks' and check sources. Like this badly done, video, not every books has merit.

Bob Wilson

 

The challenge for me, is that obviously I can't defend my opinion as being "fact".
But since I'm evaluating narrative and not data based facts, I don't feel I have to.

In other words, I'm not going anywhere near saying something like..." I don't think the documentary's presentation of the output capabilities of solar panels is correct" and leaving it at that. -That would be a bad presentation. I leave that for the fact checkers, and data presenters to "prove" that statement...and GOOD for them, great that they can.- That's NOT the battle I'm fighting.
I'm nearly exclusively evaluating narrative.
Again IMO the best evaluation of the documentary includes BOTH approaches.

I think a strong argument can be made that there are BOTH flaws in the documentaries narrative presentation AND in specific facts and data being presented within the documentary.
But I feel there is nothing to be gained, and something to be lost, in not respecting both these perspectives.

 

Two things can be true at the same time.....

 

I agree...
And two things can be false at the same time as well.

 

I can take criticism.
And even though I am dealing with opinion on narrative, I would also defend my opinion as being as precise as I can make it. I shrug off the unprovoked labeling of it being imprecise.
I don't want to be a dealer even unknowingly of misinformation, or misleading narrative myself.
Which is why, if you read my post, I try to use a direct quote from the documentary...followed by my evaluation. The direct quote becomes my version if you will, of a presented documentary narrative fact. -These are direct quotes, not paraphrases.

My defensiveness comes from the contention that my ideas are somehow less valid because I'm NOT providing a pie chart, or a stats table attacking specific data as presented in the documentary.

For me it's not Either/Or.

 

Again...my post is opinion on NARRATIVE. I can't "ask Mr. Google". It's not that type of response or structure.
Post #17 is a call and response critique of narrative of the documentary, and YES my opinion on that narrative.
What am I suppose to punch into (Mr.) Google?
I could uncover a wealth of continued opinion-my opinion is not the start and end of all opinion, but that's not going clear the water. I'm not dealing with the same evaluation currency or approach you are.

My viewpoint is there are more facets to truth, or the search for truth than JUST graphs, charts and data. Again NOT saying that that graphs, charts and data aren't valid-great, but they aren't the ONLY valid battle front in critique and evaluation.

If I wanted to get really defensive I could say anyone can ask Mr. Google, and find sources to copy and past data points that support their personal viewpoint on an issue. Mr. Google isn't discriminating in who he lets into the party.

I find it interesting you had no qualms, and actually "liked" my post when my post happened to be an opinion negative about Michael Moore.
But when I make an opinion based post evaluating the documentary, and say I think it's worth watching, and has some interesting ideas in it....then suddenly my opinion becomes "wordy, imprecise opinion".
Even though if you read my post, my opinions are very critical of the narrative and presented I believe very precisely. Mine is hardly a ringing endorsement of the documentary.

So is this a case of your opinion is welcomed, great if you're agreeing with me, but should be ignored, shunned and discounted if it strays from YOUR opinion?

I put some time into creating post #17. I added it to this thread in earnest. With the intention of positively adding to the discussion. I suppose everyone wants to feel their opinion/contribution is respected and hopefully liked at least valued. But I realize I can't control that.
I just feel like my post has been attacked for HOW it is structured IE: Not about facts and data.
I think opinion on opinions (the narrative is opinion) are valid in critique and evaluation. Not everything is invalid that hasn't been vetted through google. And some truths don't come with data points and pie charts.






.

 

I realize I expressed myself poorly in a couple of places, such as where I came across as knocking @The Electric Me for not bringing data to support points in the film, which wasn't my intent. I was knocking the filmmaker for not bringing data to support points in the film. That's whose job it was.

So I think I see how that happened. In my mind, when we're talking in a forum thread about a topic, it's all of us putting thoughts in about the topic, and playing off each other's thoughts, but still about the topic. So if, say, Electric posts that the filmmaker seems to be saying "these solutions may be pretend" and my post is a "reply" to Electric's post, my intent is something like "yeah, you're probably right that Gibbs would say that's what he's saying, only here's the problem with what he's saying."

It's still about the film; it's not me saying Electric's post was wrong. In my mind, replying to a post in a forum thread is more of a "yeah, your thought on the topic led me to this thought on the topic." I am usually not trying to pick on an individual poster (there have been instances, but they're outliers).

I noticed the same thing happened over in the SARS-CoV-2 thread, where Electric mentioned human psychology and I replied with "of course it isn't human psychology that's changed...." Seems I came across as if I was suggesting Electric didn't get that, where what I meant was more "of course we both get that; I'm continuing the thought on into implications of that."

I might need to look for ways of making that come across better when I'm writing.

 

One of the bad side effects of this video is the distractions of criticisms in useful videos:

Robert is not kind to the bad video.

Bob Wilson

 

Bob, never heard about this guy. Very insightful! Entertaining. He seems to know his stuff. Thank you for the introduction.

 

I used to Patron support until his channel became too EU centric. Still, a reasonable, honest Brit.

Bob Wilson