j4remi wrote:HarthorneWingo wrote:Btw, I heard some disturbing reports related to climate change activist, Bill McKibbon, and those entities standing to make a lot of money from this endeavor. The upshot is that the Deal is dirty because McKibbon went rogue and partnered up with the other moneymakers thus contaminating the recipe.
From who? Ever since the Michael Moore documentary got blown up and debunked (and he doubled down on it so badly that one of his own former editors trashed him and his new fact checkers), I'm extremely curious about what sources are targeting McKibben and how they've reached their conclusions. I've seen plenty of allies fall off and sell out but I've also seen the left cannibalize its own on shoddy rumors and hearsay that seem planted (Buttar and Morse being recent examples).
The main arguments Moore made were all debunked. I'd like to show just one, to show what Moore did wrong. You can read it here, if you like: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/bill-mckibben-climate-movement-michael-moore-993073/
The argument is that around 20 years ago, McKibbens students at a Vermont college came up with the idea that burning trees would be ok, because new trees would be grown and therefore, the net carbon effect would be zero. At that time, wind and solar were impractically expensive, and rarely used. He understands that there was a flaw in the argument back then, one he wasn't aware of. Major flaw was that trees sucked carbon out of the air many years ago, but burning them would be releasing that carbon now. It was a valid attempt to improve on burning fossile fuels, but it was flawed, and he acknowledged that long ago. There are many better ways of doing this.
The point is this doesn't prove that McKibben is in bed with any special interests, but it does show that people come up with (supposedly) helpful ideas that are later on not found to be helpful.
