Years of Living Dangerously Series Debunked
Part 4 of 8:
Season 2, Episode 4 - Fueling the Fire
Part 1 of 8: Season 2, Episode 1 – A Race Against Time
Part 2 of 8: Season 2, Episode 2 – Gathering Storm
Part 3 of 8: Season 2, Episode 3 – The Uprooted
Part 4 of 8: Season 2, Episode 4 – Fueling the Fire
Part 5 of 8: Season 2, Episode 5 – Collapse of the Oceans
Part 6 of 8: Season 2, Episode 6 – Priceless
Part 7 of 8: Season 2, Episode 7 – Safe Passage
Part 8 of 8: Season 2, Episode 8 – Uprising
By: Shawn Alli
Posted: May 31, 2017
*Disclosure: I am a climate denier, albeit a more rational one.
*Disclosure: I am NOT funded by any oil, natural gas or coal corporations. I am NOT funded by any private interest groups (NGOs, foundations or political entities).
We begin with Brazilian supermodel Gisele Bundchen in the Brazilian rainforest lamenting the fact that illegal forestry corporations are trying to cut down trees in the Brazilian rainforest. Umm...that's not a climate change issue. That's a deforestation issue relative to corruption in Brazil.
Claiming that Brazil is a banana republic due to government corruption...is a bit too harsh. But it's pretty close. Government regulations and the implementation of those regulations are necessary to protect forests. Again, that's not a climate change issue. That's a political issue.
We then go to US Army Camp Arifjan in Kuwait with Arnold Schwarzenegger questioning our oil addiction in the Middle East. The more wars we wage, the greater the oil we use. If you want to stop military oil usage, you have to stop wars and invasions by the US government (which is no small task).
Back in Brazil, Bundchen meets with the agent in charge of protecting the Brazilian rainforest Maria Luiza Souza. They talk about the illegal deforestation due to meat consumption. Again, it's up to the government to police illegal activity. But please don't blame it on man-made climate change. You can blame the insatiable demand of meat eaters along with a weak and corrupt Brazilian government.
At the Paris summit, Schwarzenegger says that there's no doubt that man-made climate change is humanity's biggest threat. Umm...what? So...government corruption, poverty, racism, sexism, and inequality are all backseat issues? In the mind of climate change believers...yes. And this is why the climate change movement is completely out of touch with the people. They're all wrapped up in their ideological bubbles.
Schwarzenegger says that the US military is trying to go green. In reality they're not. While electricity generation at the bases via solar energy is admirable, all the vehicles on land, air, or sea are gas/diesel based (aside from nuclear based naval ships).
The directors show videos images of wars in the Middle East. I love how they don't mention the real cause, religious ideology, namely Islam. But that's not what the climate change movement, cast, directors, and producers are selling. They're selling fear and labeling traditional energy as the villain.
Again, I'm not against wind or solar. Solar has great potential (see Oil, The 4th Renewable Resource). But until the efficiency rate is higher, it's not feasible. Electric cars are good for hot weather but are garbage for super cold weather. I don't see those hot shot characters in the Fast and Furious film series driving electric cars when they outrun the police or stop terrorists.
Back in Brazil, Bundchen gets a birds-eye view of the Brazilian rainforest deforestation via animal farming. And I agree that people shouldn't be replacing beautiful Amazon rainforest with animal farming. But the demand for meat is insatiable.
Animal farming is the elephant in the room for the climate change movement. While they can no longer ignore it (which they do in the past), they just make a note of it instead of saying that everyone in the climate change movement should be vegan (not vegetarian). Why? Because most people will tune out.
But that's the first step towards a genuine movement. You can't water down the ideology for the masses to accept. Libertarians try to water down their political ideologies for the masses to accept, but it doesn't work. A movement has to be genuine in order to make real progress. Otherwise, it's just convoluted ideologies via anarchism.
Big names/organizations in the climate change movement needs to stop acting like a child and say that they're going vegan, living in a condo, exclusively driving an electric car, and living a minimalist lifestyle. I'm talking to you Leonardo Dicaprio, Arnold Schwarzenegger, James Cameron, Jack Black, Don Cheadle, Mark Ruffalo, Jessica Alba, and Ian Somerhalder.
Only then will the climate change movement be a genuine ideological movement. The next step after that is for them to falsify all of their theories instead of letting ideological junk science reign supreme. While falsification should come first, ideology via changes in dietary choices has a bigger impact.
On the optimistic side, all those patches of animal farming in the middle of the Brazilian rainforest can be replaced with lush forests by people. It only takes vision, willpower, money, and a non-corrupt government to do so. But the Brazilian government first has to get its political house in order before moving to economic policies and enforcement.
Bundchen then talks about the meat culture in Brazil with Brazilian companies exporting meat to the US and China (the two biggest meat markets on the planet). Bundchen talks to Dr. Antonio Nobre (a climate scientist) who says that deforestation can lead to a desert. Yah...no. The amount of water and biodiversity in the Amazon rainforest would prevent that. But even if it does occur, humans can intervene and replant lush forests.
Nobre says that there's no plan C of going to another planet due to the destruction of this one. Yah...that sounds like my old childhood cartoon series Captain Planet, which is nothing but environmental social conditioning. I wonder if Hollywood is ever going to make a live action version of Captain Planet. Maybe Disney/Marvel can buy the rights and do something with it.
Schwarzenegger then goes to DC to see why green energy programs in the military are only operating at a small scale level relative to gas/diesel. I can answer that. It's because electric vehicles are not reliable in a war. Tesla is not building any electric armored vehicles for military use. Why not? Because there's no battery charging station when conducting a mission in the Middle East. While solar energy has huge potential in the future, today it's limited to photovoltaic panels with garbage efficiency rates for electricity generation. It has no real application for military land, air, or sea vehicles.
Former Department of Defense executives say that the Republican controlled House introduces amendments to prevent renewable energy in the military. And yes Big Energy does fund Republicans. But the people still vote them into power. If you want to blame someone you have to blame the people who vote these people into power.
But that's not what the climate change movement, the cast, the directors, and producers are selling. They're selling Big Energy as the villain, not the people. Why do the people vote Republicans into power? Aside from Christian ideologies, it's jobs. If a Republican candidate can promise jobs, most people will vote for them. While Democrats promise jobs as well, many voters are skeptical of those jobs being full-time. And even if it's full-time, with the Democrats love affair for free trade and cheap labor, the jobs will eventually go to China, India, or Mexico.
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Daniel Y. Chiu says that the science tells us climate change is going to get worse in the future. Is that falsifiable? Nope. It's just unfalsifiable ideological junk science labeled as objective science. This is the same tactics that past scientists use to defend racism and sexism in a scientific manner.
The directors then show clips of natural disasters across the world. Emotional manipulation. Sorry, but natural disasters have been happening for all of time. Claiming that man-made climate change is the cause is false. While you can maintain that climate change influences these natural disasters, you can't put a percentage on it. Why not? Because the percentage/risk will be based on unfalsifiable climate models.
Bundchen is correct about the war between indigenous people and land activists vs. the corrupt Brazilian government. Today, the issue is escalating into violence as indigenous people assert their land rights.  But again, this isn't a climate change issue. This is a political and economic issue.
Bundchen meets with Brazilian indigenous leader Sonia Guajajara about politicians and Big Agriculture exploiting indigenous lands. And yes, former Minister of Agriculture Senator Katia Abreu is scum. Her nicknames are Miss Deforestation, the chainsaw queen, and the face of evil.  That's hardcore. But again, the issue is political and economic. Brazil has to get its house in order. Until then, it's all bedlam.
Bundchen meets with Senator Abreu. Abreu's defense of agribusiness comes straight out of a Monsanto playbook. We'll feed the hungry and save humanity. In reality, Big Ag will destroy all of land, grow their GMOs in greenhouses, and then sell it to us for a pretty penny. Well done Big Ag.
Until the climate change movement goes completely vegan, deforestation due to animal farming will continue. While the cause is corrupt politicians, the climate change movement's silence in advocating for a vegan diet is allowing this to occur.
Again, by pushing veganism they'll lose a lot of people. But so far the climate change movement has accomplished practically nothing other than changing a few light bulbs and passing a carbon tax/cap in a few states/provinces. While I criticize the climate change movement as a cult, I'm also trying to help them understand their own ideologies. It's up to them if they choose to ignore the advice.
Schwarzenegger talks to Assistant Secretary of the Navy Denny McGinn at the Naval Station Norfolk. US Navy Rear Admiral Jack Scorby says that a Category 2 hurricane will put half of the base under water in 2050.
While I don't want to tell the US military how to do their job, it shouldn't be rocket science to create naval bases at a higher elevation and use technology to prepare bases at the docks for an underwater mode. Again, building massive infrastructure at or near sea level is not exactly a great idea.
McGinn says that we have to develop alternatives. Fine, then focus on nuclear fusion funding and chop all the funding from Big Energy along with solar and wind. I'm sure that some genius researcher will one day figure out how to increase the efficiency rate of solar panels to at least be over 70%.
Governments don't need to fund this kind of research. Necessity is the mother of all inventions. Take away all the subsides for solar and you'll drive climate change entrepreneurs into a corner. The only choice they'll have is to either innovate or die.
In terms of flooding, I believe that water desalination by all cities in North America will lead to a significant drop in sea level rise. I'd love to see peer-reviewed studies on this by scientists practicing falsifiable objective science.
Bundchen talks with President and CEO of World Institute Resources (a think tank) Dr. Andrew Steer. Steer says that people can't continue to eat beef at our current rate of population growth. Steer says that not everyone has to be vegan. They just half to eat less. Again, until the climate change movement gets serious about animal farming, climate change success will forever remain elusive.
Steer says that the future is grim and it's a race again time. Yawn. People say the same thing about visible minorities and women getting the right to vote. It's all junk science labeled as objective science in the past. Ideological fear mongering. The same will be true of man-made climate change.
Schwarzenegger talks with former military members who protect oil convoys in the past. And yes, I agree that dying to protect oil convoys is a waste of a life. Of course, the death is hyped up as dying for America or democracy, but we all know that it's just for oil. Such events show the expendable nature of military members and their ability to take orders from idiot leaders for idiot wars/invasions.
He then talks about all the innovations that the US military can come up with, and that the problem is Congress. Yes...letting the military have final say without Congress is clearly the best democratic move.
And while hybrid power units and solar radio's are great, it's not enough for the field. If a solider is in the field they want to know that they're using the best equipment. If a solar battery is going to die in three hours but a regular one will last six, it's better to choose the six hour battery. The solider may not need the six hours (like the mileage on an electric car), but they feel more comfortable having the longer battery/vehicle just in case.
But the real garbage about this entire episode is Bundchen herself. Bundchen is a supermodel that makes around $30 million a year,  selling superficial images to the global public. The modeling industry itself is one of mass excess, spending, and gorging (not on food of course).
In reality, the modeling industry is 100% unnecessary. If the entire modeling industry disappears tomorrow, do you know what would happen? Absolutely nothing. Why? Because it's an industry that serves no genuine purpose.
Of course, if all the janitors and maintenance workers in the US goes on strike for a week, the entire US economic, political, education, and social system would grind to a complete halt. Supermodels get paid millions for selling garbage social conditioning that has no genuine value while janitors and maintenance workers have to fight for a few dollars in wage increases. Tragic.
And then we have Bundchen's husband (who's not in the documentary) Tom Brady (a quarterback for the New England Patriots). He makes anywhere between $20-45 million. 
Like the modeling industry, the sports industry is unnecessary. It's an industry of leisure and entertainment. If all competitive sports shuts down tomorrow, do you know what would happen? Nothing. Aside from a few die hard sport fans that have no purpose in their lives, life would continue to exist. The sports industry is one of mass excess, money, and living a life of luxury. It's completely incompatible with the climate change movement.
And the same is true for Leonardo DiCaprio and the Hollywood industry (see Leonardo DiCaprio's Before the Flood Completely Debunked). The Hollywood film/TV industry is one of mass excess. The carbon footprint of Hollywood is incalculable. But the worst thing is that their existence isn't necessary. Independent filmmakers/studios are quite capable of replacing Hollywood if it ever dies (though it never will).
Be it the modeling industry, the sports industry, or Hollywood, none of these industries are genuine industries. They're all industries of excess, greed, and massive amounts of money. Such industries are completely incompatible with the climate change movement. Those that think otherwise are living in their ideological bubbled wrapped world.
 Solomon, Feliz. Brazilian Ranchers Brutally Attack Indigenous Land Rights Activists, Reports Say. Time. May 1, 2017.
 Watts, Jonathan. Brazil's 'chainsaw queen' takes on environmentalists. Guardian. May 5, 2014.
 Kirkpatrick, Emily. Gisele Bundchen Is the Highest Paid Model in the World for the 14th Year in a Row. People. August 31, 2016.
 Kilgore, Adam. In a cap-free NFL, Tom Brady could probably double his salary. Washington Post. January 26, 2017.