To use that well-known climate cliché, the film reveals a number of "inconvenient truths".

Climate activists are up in arms. Music and pop culture publication NME exclaims that Moore's film is "half-truths and lies".

Michael Mann, the climate scientist responsible for the disputed "hockey stick" climate graph, said the filmmakers "have done a grave disservice to us" and urged the removal of the film from the internet.

Writing in Rolling Stone, climate activist Bill McKibben describes Moore's film as "a bomb in the centre of the climate movement".

Columnist George Monbiot, writing in The Guardian said: "Planet of the Humans ... claims that environmentalism is a self-seeking scam, doing immense harm to the living world while enriching a group of con artists."

Gosh! Any film that has upset assorted climate personalities to that extent must be worth watching.

Moore's documentaries like Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine garnered huge attention worldwide. So far, this one has attracted six million viewers.

Planet of the Humans illustrates in just 100 minutes how the climate movement has lost its way, by promoting a series of half-truths and fallacies, and profitable money-making ventures such as wind and solar.

As you watch the movie, you will see that Moore has hit on some very sore points.

"Renewable" energy schemes do not necessarily benefit the environment, and if viewed from conception to final scrapping of the worn-out equipment, could actually be harming the planet.

Moore is particularly scathing of renewable energy produced via biomass. He shows the degradation of forests that provide wood for burning in these plants that are springing up all over America.

In one scene the biomass plant, which supposedly uses waste, is actually fired by shredded tyres, dropping black dust on a nearby preschool.

It's the exaggeration that Moore particularly attacks. He savages electric cars, because the environmental savings are simply not there - not unless all electricity comes from renewables. He challenges the hype around a newly-launched electric vehicle. The manufacturers simply don't want to talk when he asks where the electricity comes from. The Tesla Gigafactory is connected to the grid.

Moore would have us believe that solar has a number of downsides.

It's not just the amount of land that would be needed if we were going to try and power whole cities with solar. It's the amount of furnace coal used to make solar panels, the fact that the quartz has to be heated to 1800 degrees, and all of the CO2 emissions that go with that.

Then there's the short life span. Dead solar panels are not recyclable and go to landfill.

Likewise, the environmental life cycle of wind towers does not stand up. He points to the amount of steel and cement required for each tower.

They last for 20 years, then the composite turbine blades end up in landfill because they are not recyclable.

Planet of the Humans is not kind to activists like Bill McKibben, and he reserves special mention for billionaires like Al Gore.

He connects Gore with ethanol schemes that are clearing and burning the Amazon forests, and the homes of native tribes. He connects billionaires like Gore and David Blood with tax havens in the Cayman Islands.

Moore is still an environmentalist, in the mould of wanting to shut down economic activity and limit population growth, but it's the takeover of the environmental movement by billionaires and corporations promoting renewables for profit that he finds abhorrent.

"Take control of the billionaires, they are not our friends," a voiceover says at the end of the movie.

That's America. But why are subsidies needed in Australia if renewables are the answer? And who are the wealthy Australians (and retired politicians) who are profiting from renewables?

As the movie says: "The path to change comes from awareness."

Planet of the Humans is free on YouTube. Watch it for yourself and make up your own mind.