+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 39
Latest: robbrogers
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 7825
Total Topics: 220
Most Online Today: 1
Most Online Ever: 48
(June 03, 2014, 03:09:30 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Author Topic: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi  (Read 5655 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7655
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #105 on: June 13, 2016, 07:28:10 pm »

For those who can still add and subtract, the following FACTS about fossil fuel ERoEI thermodynamic efficiency (That is, the Fossil fuel ERoEI math, that Gail Tverberg and at least 54% of the Renewable Energy survey participants swear by, including Palloy, DELIBERATELY IGNORES THE FACT that, in the real world of the science of thermodynamics, Energy RETURN MINUS WASTE HEAT EQUALS work (as defined by physics) ) reveal the error of assuming fossil fuels have a higher ERoEI than Renewable Energy technologies.

The fossil fuel industry originated disingenuous trick is to FIRST hammer the "high energy density" (excluding waste heat, of course) Hess Law based thermodynamics into us while avoiding discussions of waste heat like the plague. When they have established the FALSE MEME that fossil fuels have a "higher energy density" than Renewable Energy technologies, they cleverly create a false equivalence between the cherry picked "higher" fossil fuels ERoEI and "higher" MONETARY Profits. 

Massive Fossil Fuel Industry Welfare Queen Subsides, COSTS to we-the-people, which are TOTALLY UNRELATED to ERoEI thermodynamics, ALWAYS make it to the "higher" MONETARY profits happy talk.  ;)

However, the SCC (social Cost of Carbon), like waste heat thermodynamics, never gets included in the fossil fuel ERoEI happy talk OR the false equivalence "higher" MONETARY Profits fossil fuel happy talk, even though ALL MONETARY INVESTMENT DECISIONS, on which energy sources to use, are based on ALL COSTS.

HELLO? Is anybody there?

If we are going to talk about how much MONEY to invest in an energy source, based on how much MONEY it will cost to DO THAT, and how much MONEY we can get in a RETURN on our IVESTMENT, it is customary (if you aren't Gail Tverberg doing the bidding of the fossil fuel industry) to SUBTRACT all the COSTS of said energy source.
 

« Last Edit: June 14, 2016, 01:58:05 am by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7655
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #106 on: June 18, 2016, 04:51:36 pm »
The MKing & MattS Screen IDs are now re-enabled and back in the member list.  Moriarty should be able to post with either ID now as before.  If he is unable to do that (I can't see why not, all the switches are in the same place they were before) then he can register a new ID MKing2 to post up. However, it is fairly pointless if he is not going to admit his identity, he'll just get another cooling off period.
RE


Agreed. I think MKing is a worshipper of, and possible propaganda water carrier for, Hamm, the world class billionaire ass hole Fracker. MKing has SAID he actually SPOKE with Hamm. I believe MKing wasn't, as is his wont, stretching the truth to puff up his importance.

Can ANYBODY confirm or deny that MKing is a Hamm hired gun? Eddie? RE? Surly? Monsta?

Harold Hamm shown denying all knowledge of, or ties with, MKing.   




Can ANYBODY confirm or deny that MKing is a Hamm hired gun? Eddie? RE? Surly? Monsta?


We cannot CONFIRM anything, that is the whole reason for this dispute.  All we can do is speculate given the investigations we have undertaken to feret out the IRL Identity of the poster IDed as MKing.  How you managed to miss this I cannot grasp, but the general consensus is that MKing's real identity is Dan Jarvie, Chief Geochemist for EOG Resources.

This is only speculation though and cannot be confirmed unless MKing himself admits this.  I have made this a non-negotiable criteria for his continued participation.  Either he comes clean with his IRL Identity, or he is perpetually in Cold Storage.

RE



I probably missed it because I have a condition reflex developed by years of dealing with double talking bullshit artists. There is only so much time in one day.  Unlike you, I do not enjoy perpetually sparring with people that have ZERO to add to the benefit of humanity. Therefore, I have generally ignored most of his posts and any discussions about him.

I understand grappling with those types is a type of challenge for you that you enjoy. Good for you. You are doing yeoman's service for the rest of us that lack the patience to slap those liars around for the good of humanity.

Now that I have a name, I'll see what I can dig up about times, places and posts. That is, when I'm not busy posting news of value, unlike the verbal, self serving puffery fecal effluent that MKing has ALWAYS posted here (i.e. the Doomstead Diner).
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7655
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #107 on: June 18, 2016, 05:02:14 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: Cross posted form the Doomstead Diner because it applies here.  8)

Quote
Also, anyone. like GO, who considers this a platform for corner bar BSing just for fun should certainly not get upset about whether or not some other member of the peanut gallery is given da bidness.

If there was no real merit in the discussions here, I would NOT BE HERE. I resent any claim that we are just BSing here to pass the time of day.
   

Well kindly forgive me Agelbert for my dimness.

Ass hole me was under the impression that the intimacies you shared with us; your career in aviation, your horrible first marriage, the pictures of your lovely blue colored home, details about your happier second marriage and descriptions of your wonderful wife, your cat and how sad you were at it's death,etc., were all part of a general form of discussion with your friends at the Diner that I, in my ignorance, would have considered bullshitting, chewing the fat, telling a little something about myself to other members as a way of getting to say this is a peek at who I am and a way of introducing your persona to other Diners. It's what I have always like about the Diner, our software set up that allows us to converse freely and personably on a open forum. To get to know one another and develop a kinship or better understanding of why we think the way we do, this is why Reddit does not appeal to me at all.

Forgive me, sorry you resented my false impression of our friendly tavern like atmosphere.  I had no idea that glimpses into your private life were matters of great merit and seriousness, sorry.

In closing  one of  scenes you described from your past comes to me, the one where your Father used to go play golf every Sunday and was too cheap to hire a caddy, and how he used to say to you, Agelbert, "YOU P I S S TOO LOUD". That one really stuck with me, your Dad must have been quite an interesting personality.                                 Regards, GO                   
         

My old man had me pegged, for sure!   

I understand your point of view. I apologize for mistaking your definition of BSing as meritless communication. I see that, it being you remember what I have posted as the sincere TRUTH of my experiences, rather than double talk and actual BULLSHIT by too many propagandists (you do remember the "new ice age" BULLSHIT from Snowleopard, don't you?), I feel rewarded because you consider me a credible source of information (and not just about my own experiences). That is the best compliment anyone can provide to my posts. 

You are right about merit in friendly and truthful conversation. I strongly disagree with you about giving free reign to propagandist bullshitters on a mission to defend profit over planet and a greed based "real world".

I appreciate your input and am always grateful to you for your excellent posts, including many pictorial displays of the sad plight of modern civilization.     

Much of what too many believe in their embrace of a nostalgia for a past time is basically a myth. I am certain you do not, or at least you should not, in good conscience, support maudlin and mendacious attempts to wish for the "good old days". People like MKing do that. That really is BULLSHIT.

I was a pretty happy kid growing up in Kansas believing in a make believe world constructed by TPTB. I grew up.

Quote
This mythical narrative is disseminated in films, on television, by the press, in churches, in universities and by the state. It is a lie. But it is a lie that works.

And it works because it is what we want. It appeals to our fantasies about ourselves:
that we are a virtuous people,
that God has blessed us above others,
that we have the highest form of civilization,
that we have been anointed to police the world and make it safe,
that we are the most powerful and righteous nation on earth,
that we are always assured of victory,
that we have a right to kill in the name of nationalist values—values determined by our naked self-interest and that we conveniently define as universal. - Chris Hedges
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_real_enemy_is_within_20150906
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7655
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #108 on: June 18, 2016, 05:16:47 pm »
WSJ Ads Call Out WSJ’s Climate Denial     

The Wall Street Journal’s opinion page is perhaps the most influential outlet for climate denial and rarely gives its readers accurate information about how fossil fuels cause global warming.

A new ad campaign from The Partnership for Responsible Growth seeks to fix that, giving readers real facts on climate change and driving them to pricecarbon.org to learn about solutions.

Yesterday, they kicked off the campaign with a quarter-page ad in the Journal’s opinion section featuring the headline: “Exxon’s CEO says fossil fuels are raising temperatures and sea levels. Why won’t the Wall Street Journal?” (Good question!)

The Washington Post has the ad for you to see, as well as the inside scoop, revealing tidbits such as how the paper charged nearly $10,000 more for the first ad that calls out the WSJ than it did for the next dozen that don’t explicitly reference the paper. (The WSJ disputes that claim, responding that the first ad is simply full price while the rest are discounted…) 

The Post story also points to a white paper that underpins the claims in the ad that the Journal’s editorial board has never acknowledged the reality of climate change. Turns out that in at least 201 editorials going back to 1997, not once has the editorial board explicitly admitted fossil fuels cause climate change. And not only are pieces usually scientifically inaccurate, the Journal also routinely fails to disclose to readers that op-ed authors work for fossil-fuel funded think tanks. So not only are there errors, but given the funding bias of authors, those frequent errors might not be accidents…

The white paper is an analysis of over 600 pieces of content on the WSJ’s opinion page, each judged according to whether or not it provides the reader with mainstream climate science or fringe denial. Out of the 602 editorials, columns and op-eds, only 44 reflect the consensus or call for climate action. So while 97 percent of climate scientists agree fossil fuels cause climate change, readers of the Journal’s opinion page get the opposite impression as 93 percent of its content runs counter to the consensus.

The paper is an absolute must-read, a ten page intellectual tour de force from the exceptionally smart, perhaps too-kind, incredibly witty, and might we add, spectacularly good-looking people at Climate Nexus. They’re the best, whoever authored this white paper. Clearly top-notch folks. Real high energy winners, for sure.

So while it’s no surprise that the WSJ’s opinion page is a hotbed of climate inaccuracies, this sort of quantification lays bare their pro-pollution bias.

But the ads also show the Journal is willing to print the truth about climate change… So long as you pay them something like $30,000. 



Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7655
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #109 on: June 18, 2016, 05:47:14 pm »
Quote
 
Agelbert said
I was a pretty happy kid growing up in Kansas believing in a make believe world constructed by TPTB. I grew up
.

You weren't the only one that grew up AG, what a painful experience that was for many of us who believed in the Fairy tales taught us.

AG you were at your best when you were discussing the Legal Code and what it really meant in that argument, one of the very few, where we were both on the opposite side of Ashvin, a rare position for me to be in.

I still laugh my arse off remembering your jokes and parody of what the legal code and system really were, and how corrupt and money tainted they had become.  You showed me your true argumentative genius then, because it was something I could truly understand, where most of your arguments in science and math. like your latest exchanges with Palloy, are over my head. Your description of lawyers, the legal code, and the legal system we find ourselves was done with such sarcasm, truth, and interspersed with comic relief that I still laugh whenever it comes to mind.  :laugh: :exp-laugh: :exp-laugh:

What an attorney you would have been had you chosen law for a profession. F Lee Bailey himself would have shied from sparring with you.  ;D



Thank you so much, GO.    In today's world, attorneys with a conscience don't do well. So perhaps I would have done better taking up comedy.    It appears that gallows humor has a great future in our society.  ;)


Now that I have a name, I'll see what I can dig up about times, places and posts.

No shortage of material out there to dig up AG.      You can have a field day here with this.

I feel like I just let loose the hounds.  LOL

RE


You got it, bro.    
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7655
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #110 on: June 18, 2016, 06:01:47 pm »
Note to GO: It is possible that there are still a few lawyers with a conscience left in the USA.  :o  ;D

June 16, 2016
Mass Attorney General Issues Exxon-Related Subpoenas

It’s been a little while since we’ve covered the #ExxonKnew investigations, so here’s something new: Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey has issued civil investigative demands for Exxon’s communications with some think tanks and activists organizations, including Heritage Foundation and Americans for Prosperity. She’s asking for 40 years worth of internal communications, according a copy of the subpoena-like request obtained by the denier’s favorite “reporter”, Michael Bastasch at the Daily Caller, whose headline boasts of this “EXCLUSIVE” get. (Less than an hour after the Daily Caller story's publication, Politico PRO had the story, and even included links to the documents. Unlike Bastasch though, it informs readers that ExxonMobil has filed an injunction against Healey’s investigation.)

As per usual, even with this “exclusive,” Bastasch gets key facts wrong. He says, “there’s a huge problem with Healey’s subpoena that shows just how broad this investigation has become” and claims that Americans for Prosperity and Beacon Hill Institute have never gotten money from ExxonMobil.

But a quick search shows that Americans for Prosperity's predecessor Citizens for A Sound Economy got hundreds of thousands from ExxonMobil. The history is admittedly a little complicated for a churnalist like Bastasch to follow. But, fortunately, Sourcewatch lays it out: in 2004, ExxonMobil-funded Citizens for a Sound Economy split, part of it merging with Empower America to form the Dick Armey-led and more GOP-controlled FreedomWorks, while the David Koch branch formed Americans for Prosperity. Hmm, guess it’s not so complicated after all, if the group in question simply went by another name when it was funded by ExxonMobil.

And although Beacon Hill Institute itself hasn’t (yet?) been proven to have received ExxonMobil money, its President/Executive Director David G. Tuerck was a policy expert for Heritage Foundation and Heartland, and was at one point director of the Center for Research and Advertising at the ExxonMobil-funded American Enterprise Institute. Teurck/Beacon Hill have produced numerous anti-renewable papers to be used to oppose cap and trade and fight renewables. In 2012, the Portland Press Herald reported that Maine Gov. Paul LePage relied on a Beacon Hill report to justify his opposition to a renewable portfolio standard, apparently unaware of its fossil fuel funding. So Teurck has past ties to ExxonMobil money, and has since produced “research” used in coordinated efforts  to undercut public support for renewable energy.

Were Bastasch a respectable reporter, he might have spent just a few minutes googling and then refrained from falsely suggesting that neither group has ties to ExxonMobil money. Instead he simply published the claim, likely fed to him by whomever sent him the subpoena, and fulfilled his role as a dutiful purveyor of the Exxon-defense narrative.

This is exxactly the sort of thing that should serve as a learning exxperience for Bastasch, proving he should not to get too exxicted about exxclusives from Exxon et al.’s exxpert defenders. It should teach him to exxamine their exxamples of how these AGs are supposedly acting exxtra-legally. He should be exxtremely embarrassed, since there’s no exxcuse for not fact-checking. Really, it’s sad that this even needed to be exxplained.

 


Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7655
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #111 on: June 22, 2016, 02:36:42 pm »
Koch Brothers Continue to Fund Climate Change Denial Machine, Spend $21M to Defend Exxon

Connor Gibson, Greenpeace | June 22, 2016 9:06 am

The Kochs have spent more than $88 million in traceable funding to groups attacking climate change science, policy and regulation. Of that total, $21 million went to groups that recently bought a full page New York Times advertisement defending ExxonMobil from government investigations into its systematic misrepresentation of climate science.

The signatories of this New York Times ad from May 2016, defending ExxonMobil from investigations into its climate denial campaigns, have received a total of $10 million from Exxon and $21 million from Koch foundations.

If you’re an executive at a big oil company watching as ExxonMobil is finally exposed for studying climate change, covering up the science and spreading misinformation, you’re probably worried now that state attorneys general are knocking on Exxon’s door.

Charles and David Koch must be worried, anyway. Their foundations gave more than $21 million to the people and groups that signed a recent, full page New York Times advertisement that defends ExxonMobil’s longstanding efforts to ruin the public’s understanding of climate change science.

Here Are the Numbers:



For comparison, Exxon itself spent half as much on the same people and groups, $10.1 million; money that the front groups spent on tactics like … a $100,000-or-so full page ad buy in the New York Times. (More info at Climate Investigations Center from my former colleague, Kert Davies).

The ringleader group behind the letter, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), is of particular interest. Exxon dumped CEI for its unsupportable climate stance back in 2006, a crushing blow for the aggressive beltway front group that continued to humiliate CEI staff for years.

But it appears that CEI is loyal to the cause of climate denial, despite being abandoned by Exxon a decade ago. Other financiers, like the Koch family and several coal and oil companies may explain why the denial campaign was sustained.

Traceable funds only represent a portion of the Koch family’s contributions to CEI. At CEI’s annual fundraising events, Koch Industries’ lobbying subsidiary has been listed as a sponsor. Full-disclosure tax filings published by PR Watch revealed that Koch Industries directly paid Americans for Prosperity, the Texas Public Policy Foundation and other organizations.

PR Watch discovered another revelation in the full-disclosure tax documents that were leaked. Apparently, David Koch likes to cut CEI $100,000 checks straight from his own coffers. David Koch’s money was not sent through his nonprofit foundation, which would have had to report the grants to CEI.

This incomplete patchwork of previously-undisclosed funds from Koch Industries and David Koch adds $3,124,834 to the accounting on groups that co-signed the CEI ad. This raises the question: who else is just cutting a direct check to the climate deniers?

And then there’s the “Dark Money ATM” sister groups, DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund. The DonorsTrust franchise is run by CEI’s former president, Lawson Bader, who helps donors—including Koch—anonymize tens of millions of dollars that go to dozens of front groups each year. DonorsTrust & Capital Fund have funneled millions of dark money dollars to CEI.

But that’s still not the end of the financial trail. Other mechanisms used by Charles Koch and his army of donor friends include Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, a dark money umbrella group that has hidden hundreds of millions of dollars in politically-charged cash, shuffled between various trusts, nonprofits and limited liability corporations.

For the deep history, check out Kert Davies’ post for the Climate Investigations Center, which spurred my own interest in the sponsors of the recent New York Times ad. Kert details the crucial history of some of the letter’s signatories, the role they have served in the climate denial machine over the years and the exact documents that inform his understanding.

I have reproduced Kert’s ExxonSecrets map (below) of the players involved, as it helps show how a small group of people funded by a few oil and coal companies can cast a shadow that is deceptively deep. The tobacco industry crafted this deceptive model and fossil fuel companies have innovated it since. It helps that the same people doing tobacco science denial moved on to climate science denial.


One of those tobacco denial alumni, lawyer Steve Milloy, himself an aggressive defender of ExxonMobil, knows that a small group of people can have an outsized impact with enough funding—even in the face of 97-99 percent of the world’s climate scientists. Milloy once said, “There’s really only about 25 of us doing this. A core group of skeptics. It’s a ragtag bunch, very Continental Army  ;).” 
Legal team meets to plan climate denial strategy


This indicates that folks like Milloy aren’t just deceiving the public, but themselves. If I was taking Charles Koch’s money to attack science, I too would probably have to constantly remind myself of my American heroics.

Mr. Koch is as awkward as ever in his half-hearted attempts to understand climate change science (you’d think a MIT alumnus would get it), he has been wary of climate laws and regulations for a long time.

That’s probably why he has rained cash on the organizations that stage the fight, groups that have given room for a top U.S. CEO, with a background in chemical engineering, to demonstrate such scientific ignorance. Since 1997, the Kochs have spent more than $88 million in traceable dollars into the network of groups that attack climate science, the scientists doing the research, the potential policy solutions and the champions of those policies.

ExxonSecrets Map of the Players:
exxon_750 (at article Link) Click on image for larger size


Connor Gibson does research for Greenpeace’s Investigations team. He focuses on polluting industries, their front groups and PR operatives, particularly focusing on the Koch Brothers.

http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/22/koch-defends-exxon/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7655
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #112 on: June 23, 2016, 05:51:23 pm »
The "Oracle" of OIL?



This quote tells you all you need to know about the "objectivity" of this fossil fuel worshipping puff piece book:
... abracadabra and/or dreams of a 100% replacement of fossil fuel energy with renewable ("renewable") energy,

The normal and expected MKing style mockery and derision of clean energy, as usual, makes its sine qua non presence into these fossil fuel industry happy talk propaganda pieces.


Speaking of MKing, is he Dan Jarvie or not? Only their hairdresser knows.

I have been unsuccessful in finding out if Dan Jarvie raced motorcycles in his youth. That data point would have gone a long way to identify MKing as Danny boy.

But there are some similarities I wish to point out, though they don't confirm MKing as anything but having the same line of happy talk and ego inflating puffery as Dan Jarvie.

Specifically, I wish to remind the readers about MKing's claims that:

1) INNOVATIONS in cost reduction "high" technology by the Frackers has lowered costs, placing them (EOG Resources, perhaps?) in a position to make big bucks when ("history of oil" based view ) the "turnaround" comes.

2) The "innovations" are part of MKing's "world class geochemist" contributions to making Fracking more profitable. SO, MKing is a credentialed "genius that should get a raise from his boss and our recognition for all that wonderful ingenuity he has come up with to make our lives more comfortable".

Well, EOG Resources, HAS come up with some "innovations" that put them slightly ahead of the Fracker pack. IF MKing is Danny boy, then it is expected that he would crow about said "high tech" innovations.

The following is instructive. It shows you how techniques that have been known to any oil industry rough neck with two brain cells to rub together for over 40 years (at least!) have been rebranded as "innovations" by a world class BULLSHITTER for the fossil fuel industry that also happens to be a geochemist specializing in "unconventional" shale gas geochemistry.

 Some thoughts on the possibility that MKing's real identity is Dan Jarvie, Chief Geochemist for EOG Resources.

A fellow like Mking would fit right in at EOG Resources.

WHY? Because, EOG Resources is the successor to Enron Oil & Gas Company (crooks and liars). LOL!

The following quotes from a Motley Fool article about EOG oil and gas pig policies fit with what  MKing (Dan Jarvie?) has been smugly posting.

Quote
"EOG Resources spent the bulk of 2015 working to get its costs down. It did this by becoming more efficient as well as by focusing on new innovations that are targeting the best spots of an oil and gas reservoir. This is yielding lower well costs as well as higher well output, which are two of the key drivers of drilling returns."

What "new innovations"?   :icon_scratch:

Well, the geochemists working there are being more careful about where to drill, which allegedly saves the company money. After 20 plus years of working as geochemists, MKing and friends discovered a rather ancient 20th century technique called thermal imaging. Yes, computers make the display more snazzy, but it is BALONEY to call this an "innovation".

Quote

"EOG Resources puts together a heat map, so to speak, of where the best hydrocarbon-bearing rocks lie and then targets those sweet spots."

This sounds more like MKing happy talk than reality, but the other "innovation"  discussed below has actually improved well output.

Quote
"EOG Resources is finding that by using more sand in a well, known as a high-density well, it is producing greater quantities of oil than it had been in legacy wells."

As you can see, this "high tech" method of throwing sand at the production problem is part of the "world class geochemist" knowledge skill set that that can only come from credentialed fine fellows and years of study.  LOL!
The fact that EOG owns a sand mine may have had something to do with this "innovation".'

Quote
"This is a trend that actually plays into EOG Resources strength as it has vertically integrated so that it owns a sand mine, which gives it unparalleled access to sand so that it can more easily test out volume concentrations on new wells."
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/09/24/eog-resources-incs-innovation-is-paying-off.aspx

But a closer look at the EOG MO (that this article doesn't want to talk about  ;)), is how oil and gas pigs weather downturns by pulling out their extensive accounting grab bag of tax breaks thanks to the coerced generosity of we-the-people.

And no mention about what cherry picking well drilling sites and using more sand does to the environment, of course. That too, is another invisible bit of subsidy swag that we-the-people are providing to help these crooks "weather the downturn".

So, attaboys for "after tax" improvements in the bottom line lack proper investor perspective when "before tax" accounting fun and games are not included.

Adding sand to high speed drilling operations may be a great excuse to throw some accelerated depreciation added tax deductions to drilling equipment.  :evil4: That is a neat trick because they have a lot of idle equipment that nobody wants to buy (see: stranded rig asset over stranded shale oil "asset") so they can kill two birds with one stone, so to speak, by putting their equipment through the sand meat grinder in a cannibalizing effort to get more production while they game their tax picture.

 That fits perfectly the MKing's oft published pride in his "survival of the fittest" (screwing the taxpayer to stay "profitable" is expected and laudable "apex predator" behavior) religion.   

EOG bet on an oil price rebound in 2016 while putting a lid on production in 2015. That fits with the "weathering a downturn" statements of MKing (Dan Jarvie?). They kept drilling but they didn't put new wells in production.

They need $65 a barrel to open the floodgates of production. Motley fool discussed this and patted them on the back. That explains MKing's crowing about the oil price popping up to $50. But since EOG needs $65, that also explains MKing's "calm assurance" that the price will go a lot higher.

The problem for the EOG post Enron crooks and liars is that the oil price isn't cooperating.  ;D
Quote

"The hold-up is getting oil prices to cooperate, which is a problem because the company is waiting until it sees a sustainable oil price above $65 a barrel before it unleashes a gusher of growth. At the moment, that means crude oil would need to more than double. While that's a possibility before the end of the year, it's not likely going to happen anytime soon. That would delay the company's ability to drive robust growth in 2016 because it will take time before its inventory of wells can be completed and new ones drilled. In other words, while EOG Resources can ramp its production much sooner and at a faster pace than its peers, it's not as if it can just flip the switch on growth.

Investor takeaway

EOG Resources' ability to deliver its best year yet boils down to what happens with the price of oil. If it rallies sharply before mid-summer, then the company could set a production record before the year is out. However, if oil stays lower for longer, we could start to see EOG Resources slowly begin to complete some of its uncompleted well inventory just to manage its decline rate, which would mute its upside potential when oil does finally rally."

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/03/will-2016-be-eog-resources-incs-best-year-yet.aspx

Don't Expect MKing or Motley Fool to tell the whole truth about EOG Resources.

The Motley Fool owns shares of Devon Energy and EOG Resources.


Below, please find, a pep talk cheerleading EOG that MKing, if he is Dan Jarvie, Chief Geochemist for EOG Resources, will not hesitate to peddle as prudent, measured, real world, responsible fossil fuel industry behavior:

Quote
"While its peers were growing just to grow last year, EOG Resources (NYSE: EOG) said on the outset that it was "not interested in accelerating crude oil production in a low-price environment." Instead, the company focused on improving its returns. That's because unlike its peers, EOG Resources puts much less emphasis on growth, which is only an 8% weighting for executive bonuses, and a much higher weight on returns on capital, relative stock price, and spending.

Those incentives paid off for both the company and its shareholders, with EOG Resources' stock vastly outperforming its peers and the price of crude oil last year. That's after the company's focus on innovation and efficiency enabled it to significantly improve its well returns. In fact, now more than a quarter of its drilling inventory is profitable at a $30 oil price, which is something that seemed unimaginable just a few years ago.

That type of returns-weighted incentive plan really needs to become the standard across the industry going forward."

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/10/wheres-the-outrage-energy-ceos-reap-millions-while.aspx

The claim that EOG can make a profit from more than a quarter of its drilling inventory at a $30 oil price is a lie. They can't. They know it. Motley Fool knows it. Don't believe this baloney. It's accounting sleight of hand of the most craven and GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) mocking sort. But oil and gas pigs are quite skilled at unethical accounting snake oil.

Here's some more Happy talk from the horse's mouth, so to speak:

Quote
EOG Resources changing strategy to get more crude out of stubborn shale

Posted by Collin Eaton
Date: May 06, 2016

HOUSTON – EOG Resources says it can get “triple-digit” returns at $60 a barrel oil, a sign the company has whittled down drilling costs as it moves rigs to its most profitable spots.

Outlining a new strategy, the Houston oil company said Friday it has pointed its drill bits at its top-shelf locations in South Texas’ Eagle Ford Shale and elsewhere that get a minimum 30 percent return at $40 oil.

“Our shift to premium is permanent and not simply a temporary high-grading process in a low-commodity price environment,” EOG Resources Chief Executive Bill Thomas told investors. “If history is any indication, we will continue to push the oil price needed for triple-digit returns even lower.”

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/05/06/eog-resources-changing-strategy-to-get-more-crude-out-of-stubborn-shale/

NOTE the focus on HISTORY. MKing loves to talk about HISTORY. These people have their heads so far up their oil and gas profit over planet HISTORY ASS, that they cannot compute the climate change catastrophe that they are exacerbating to save there lives.

Getting back to the question of whether MKing is Dan Jarvie, Chief Geochemist for EOG Resources, the above quoted Motley Fool happy talk is a useful tool.

Also, please observe that, true to their ENRON heritage, EOG is very big on "relative stock price". Observe MKing's post frequency and tone when the price goes down sharply and when the price spikes. This will provide data points, though it will still lack speculation free proof.

A fellow like MKing simply cannot avoid talking his book. That much is obvious from his repeated crowing about his "high intelligence and world class credentials".

Even if he reads this, he will not be able, despite his ample skills at duplicitous rhetoric, hide his joy with a high stock price or his woe with a cratering one. The EOG stock price and MKing behavior is now one of my hobbies.

There are other links that can be tested to confirm whether or not MKing (Danny boy?) works for EOG. I'm working on that.
Quote

EOG Resources, Inc. is a petroleum and natural gas exploration company headquartered in the Heritage Plaza building in Houston, Texas.

Tell us MKing, how many Houston construction gantry towers can you see from Heritage Plaza? Perhaps that is what you use to come with your "scientifically based" prudent, studied and measured anecdotal conclusion that the economy of Houston isn't in the shitter.

Dateline 2030: A day at a museum in Houston
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7655
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #113 on: June 23, 2016, 07:22:57 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: This is cross posted from another forum where the lawyer liar and pseudo Christian, Ashvin is currently peddling the Christian TALK in his accustomed sanctimonious hypocritical fashion.

Quote
He may be going to Hell, but God does not celebrate that fact and neither should we. We most certainly should not cross our fingers and hope that more bankers or any other "ledge leaners" follow suit.

How do you know He doesn't celebrate? You have God on Speed Dial?  He made the rules.

RE

Yeah and he communicated those rules to us clearly in his revelation.

"This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people."

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness, but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

If he wants ALL people to know the truth and repent and be saved, and sacrificed his only son to achieve that purpose, and NOT all people know the truth, repent and are saved, then obviously he is not happy about that. Simple logic here.


Here's some simple logic that the nameless learned counselor has derided as the unproven hyperbole of wide eyed 'sky is falling' "conspiracy theorists". The fellow below knows a thing or two about Christianity and Christian moral imperatives (if you engage in wilful ignorance of them, you are in sin). Of course a Calvinist pseudo Christian might take issue with such a "judgmental" point of view.

Learned counselor claimed a fellow I was debating called Alan was "reasonable". Below please find, a 278 day plus old direct quote from the last post on that debate where I addressed, in my "unreasonable fashion", the questions put forth by learned counsel.

Said questions were allegedly based on the excuse that learned counsel, a very intelligent and well read individual (that has apparently been living in a climate science news blackout bunker for several years), had not had time to research the global warming issue in his busy life.

Ashvin,
Here I continue to address your questions with a post from Eddie that I comment on.


Because of that 40 year time lag, it is simply impossible, even with drastic measures to stop the continued increase in deleterious effects of global warming for that length of time, even if we go 100% green today. IOW, we have to go to more than 100% green to actually address the baked in time lag. We have go to, say 130% or so, so as to rapidly return the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels. This is certainly not limited just to CO2 reduction. Many other toxic products of industry must be eliminated somehow.

A lot of people missed the memo on this, but I've read it from a number of sources I trust.



Exactly. AS David Wasdell states in the following video, if you wish to actually ameliorate the existential threat from catastrophic climate change, you must use the projected climate condition of about 40 years from now as your target, not what is observed at present. Acting on the present guarantees failure due to the fact that the feedback mechanisms are moving faster than the policies to ameliorate climate change. This is politically very unpalatable. But it is the only approach with science behind it. IOW, if the IPCC predicted 470 ppm of CO2 and a 2 degree C increase by 2055, then drastic action to eliminate any target above that must be taken now.

Of course, that is not happening. Every day that isn't happening makes it more and more difficult to deal with.
 

David Wasdell, Director of the Meridian Programme, is a world-renowned expert in the dynamics of climate change. He is also a reviewer of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports and the author of numerous papers and presentations on climate change and related topics.

Kevin Anderson, former Director of the Tyndall Centre (the UK's top academic institute researching climate change), said that a global society (like the one we have now) is not possible with our present level of technology in 4degree C or higher world. And that's where we are going, despite the IPCC figures all revolving about an alleged agreement (with no teeth, no enforcement and all voluntary carbon limits. LOL!) by the piggy countries s of taking measures to keep the planet  below 2 degrees C. Collapse is baked in, so to speak, thanks to government piecemeal incremental measures.

Back to David Wasdell, he clearly and calmly stated that the 30 or so positive feedback loops, if not addressed with absolute limits on carbon output, including even foregoing even biofuels, approximately 80% of life on Earth may die. If that isn't an existential threat, I don't know what is.


Ashvin asked,

What are the chances that scientific technology will progress quickly enough to offer viable solutions (I believe you say this is a very good chance)?'

According to both the scientists I mentioned, we do not have the technology to stop this catastrophe at this time, once the runaway greenhouse positive feedback loops push us past a certain point. Some say we have passed it. Due to the 40 year bake and the paltry government measures being employed, it sure looks that way. Drastic measures to stop emitting CO2 might change that equation.

But it is not realistic to expect governments to engage in them. When large masses of people are dying and a public outcry is sounded, it will be about 40 years too late.

All that said, there are technofix types that claim we just have to put a pack of aerosols up there and cool the planet like volcanic eruptions have partially done in the past. There is evidence that our government has been doing just that since 2000. It doesn't seem to be working. Maybe it's just a conspiracy theory, but some very obvious man made 'cloud' grids have been videoed for some time. And, they are not jet contrails.

Another less messy and much more expensive approach is to block out a portion of the sunlight reaching earth with some giant aluminum vapor coated, 1 mil thick, polyester film a few thousand miles in diameter to cool the planet. But we have no way of knowing whether such a simple solution would not trigger some, even worse, unforeseen climate effect. It certainly is true that the massive sun shield qualifies in the 'any port in the N.T.H.E. storm' category.

But it would do nothing to eliminate the other industrial toxins, unrelated to CO2, that have upped the probability of getting cancer in our lives from 1 in 10 back in 1950 to 1 in 2 (for men) and 1 in 3 (for women) at present. And no, that isn't because we "live longer" ( check the social Security stats and you will find the longevity increase applies to the top 20% wage earners. The bottom 80% "longevity increase" looks like a rounding error.  :P). ; it's because we are subject to more pollutants in our food, air and water from birth than any humans in history. 

We have a plethora of severe problems and the rug the gooberment keeps trying to sweep them under is starting to look like Mount Everest.


-What are the chances that the above technology, or other mitigating policies, will be implemented by corporations and governments which can make a difference when push comes to shove (I believe you say this is a low chance, but quite possible)?

-What are any other known or as of yet unknown factors which may serve to mitigate the destructive trends?


Well, here's the situation, according to Professor Emeritus Richard Somerville  Please note that he is a very conservative scientist. But he makes it clear how serious the urgency is BECAUSE of the limitations of our technology and government reaction times.

The above graph is discussing the procedure to limit the damage to 2 degrees C. That was in 2013. He explained that the required carbon limits, if not enforced by 2020, will basically be impossible to implement. We are passing by 2015 with no end in site to the INCREASE in carbon pollution.

As he said, once the window is closed, it will remain closed. That is a scientist's way of stating an existential threat. He understands the technology. He understands what will happen when we cannot hope to stop the positive feedback mechanisms from overwhelming reforms. He understands that will head us to 4 degrees C or more. That is a dire threat to our species, and literally millions of other species we share this planet with.



Notice how the IPCC sea level rise predictions only fit the data at the extreme end. It is not logical to think that they aren't erring on the side of caution. They are. Therefore, only the most extreme scenarios they come up with can be considered 'in the ball park'.

Every time a report comes out, they have to admit that, yeah, the ice melted more than predicted and several other predictions were a bit on the, uh, conservative side. Each report published every 7 or 8 years gets a little more real. Consequently, it is prudent to assume that a worse than their worse case scenario is highly probable.

That is why I believe firmly that mankind faces an existential threat from Global Warming AND all the other industrial pollution factors degrading the biosphere.

That is why I focused initially on extinctions with Alan. When the extinction rate of species in our biosphere is 1,000 to 10,000 the normal background rate of the last ten thousand years (at least!), it's logical to then assume our species faces an existential threat.

This extinction rate cannot be neatly approached as the product of a single cause. Our society is lousy at dealing with multiple causes. It's like we are as bad as crows (they can't count above three).

But  there are thousands of toxic chemicals, radionuclides and aerosols, along with the CO2 damage that have joined together to drown us in our industrial effluents. CO2 pollution is what we should all agree on. As you can see from Alan's posts, even that is like pulling teeth.

Also, there are too many corporations stuck in the incremental measures approach to expect them to own up the their responsibility to future generations. I just posted an article on the good and the bad corporations. But the 'good" are STILL not at 100% renewable energy. And the bad ones are worse than ever. :emthdown:

It's hard to communicate this threat dispassionately. I do the best I can. We are in a world of trouble.

These are the web sites Professor Emeritus Richard Somerville recommends for reliable information. I hang around RealClimate regularly. I have posted articles from RealClimate here during the last year and have recommended it to all readers. They are the ones who are now looking very hard at the meltwater tunneling by supercritical water (liquid water several degrees below freezing due to massive glacier pressures lubricating glacier movement) beneath Greenland glaciers that is NOT addressed in any of the IPCC predictions that David Wasdell discussed.

They cover all the climate bases. RealClimate is staffed exclusively by climate scientists.
 



Ashvin went away. He never answered. I'm certain he is a busy fellow, but considering the importance of this issue, the fact that he could not find the time in 278 days to drop in and view it is prima facie evidence of willful denial and ignorance of this issue.

His excuse that he "hadn't had the time to research the issue" is a sophist canard. IOW, it's a cheap dodge and a LIE to disguise the fact that he is on the denier side of this issue, and wants to STAY there.

I am posting this here because he came to this forum and mocked, derided and insulted me as a wide eyed conspiracy theorist, as is his ridicule laced wont.

I am NOT posting this here to give him an opportunity to answer. He is now banned from my forum for his abysmal lack of objectivity and serial mendacity.

I post it here so that the disingenuous MO of this lawyer LIAR pseudo Christian, which includes, among other sophist unethical tricks, faking an intellectually honest interest in an issue (that he only wishes to ridicule though attack the messenger chicanery) is exposed for all to see objectively.

An accomplished sophist will look at the following quotes that expose them and immediately set about trying to attack one of the authors as a "nut case" if possible.   Anything to avoid admitting they are in willful denial.

IGNORANCE is NO EXCUSE:
Quote

It is therefore inexcusable that some members of Congress and other politicians continue to ignore or plead ignorance to the irrefutable science, and dangers, of climate change.

We know the continued argument in their echo chamber, that the science is unclear or the dangers are not real, is a lie — a dangerous lie.

The science is clear. Already, 2015 is the hottest year to date and might top 2014 as the hottest year on record, and carbon dioxide has reached its highest level in 800,000 years. These record-breaking events are related: carbon dioxide and global temperatures are rising together, thanks to human activities. - Rep. A preponderance of "H"'s Johnson (D-Ga.)

Quote
“No matter how busy you may think you are, you must find time for reading, or surrender yourself to self-chosen ignorance.”  - Atwood H. Townsend
Quote

“The sin which is unpardonable is knowingly and wilfully to reject truth, to fear knowledge lest that knowledge pander not to thy prejudices.”  - Aleister Crowley
Quote
“People are stupid. They will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true.” - Terry Goodkind
Quote

“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjaming Franklin
Quote

“But you can't make people listen. They have to come round in their own time, wondering what happened and why the world blew up around them. It can't last.” - Ray Bradbury


Alan's GRAB BAG of DENIER excuses that ASHVIN has no problems with:






   
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7655
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #114 on: June 24, 2016, 09:21:54 pm »
Bouncing Around The Room: From Exxon to GOP to Koch And Back

John Cook, lead author of the 97% consensus study that’s been downloaded half a million times, has a guest post up at DeSmog that’s a simple history of climate denial featuring interviews with some experts and other great tidbits.

Another enlightening tidbit about the interconnected world of climate denial comes from POLITICO’s Morning Energy newsletter. Yesterday, it carried the news that Kristina Baum will be leaving her position as spokeswoman for the Senate Environment and Public Works Republicans    , chaired by Jim “The Greatest Hoax” Inhofe (R-OK), to be communications director for the House Science Committee, chaired by Lamar "witch-hunter” Smith (R-TX), who has a history of employing Koch and Exxon operatives. Politico notes that Baum previously worked for Platts and DCI Group.

DCI Group is one of the public relations firms that’s been targeted in the #ExxonKnew subpoenas. (Small update there: ExxonMobil’s suit against the Virgin Islands will be held in federal, not state court, a loss for Exxon.   ) A request for info concerning DCI Group makes sense, as it is has ExxonMobil as a client (and also represents Big Tobacco, Koch-funded groups, the coal industry and others). Specifically, DCI was the publisher of Tech Central Station, a now-defunct website that peddled pro-polluter propaganda including climate change denial as though it were news.

Baum is replacing Zachary Kurz, who has recently moved to the the Cause of Action Institute, which is funded by donations from the Koch-favorites Franklin Center and Donors Trust, and is run by a former attorney for the Koch Foundation and House Oversight Committee’s Rep. Darrell “Unicorn Award For Denial" Issa (R-CA).

With all these GOP ties to what Bill McKibben describes as potentially “the largest corporate scandal in history,” it’s no wonder that Koch-backed groups, various GOP AGs and House members (all 13 of which are recipients of ExxonMobil money) defend ExxonMobil so vigorously.

The term “revolving door” comes to mind, but that suggests there are actually walls between these groups. A more apt metaphor might be that there’s no door separating them, and operatives   go from one employee to the other, just bouncing around the room.


Agelbert Note: The LIST of (most, but not all) organizations in our country that are traitors to the USA and future generations because they peddle climate change denier propaganda:

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7655
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #115 on: July 08, 2016, 08:45:08 pm »

July 8, 2016
  DENIER ROUNDUP

Emulate to Undermine: Utility Industry Propaganda in Action
 
Quote
Back in April, we talked about a DeSmog review of a new book that examined How Propaganda Works. It’s a great book, but one steeped in jargon that in some ways disguises a relatively simple definition of propaganda: language that emulates some ideal, but in a context that undermines that very concept.
 
Since then, we’ve read the book, and started noticing when propaganda pops up. For example, back in March, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) hired a crisis communications expert to try to help utilities rebrand. By the sounds of a story in E&E, they’ve begun rolling out these new terms in order to, supposedly, help customers understand the services provided by utilities as part of what they’re calling the Lexicon Project.
 
Some of the changes in word choice seem benign and helpful in making the jargon more understandable, like using “24/7 power sources” instead of “baseload generation” or “renewable” instead of “green” energy. But some of the choices provide a perfect example of clever propaganda that obfuscates instead of clarifying and, if used widely, prevents the public from being able to communicate clearly.
 
One particular choice stands out: Their attempt to rebrand “rooftop solar” as “private solar.” The intended connotation is perfectly clear, as “privatization” is the selling off of a once-public service to the private sector, like social security privatization or private prisons, both topics that don’t generally engender goodwill from the public. But rooftop solar is the exact opposite, because it takes the power (literally) out of the hands of the corporations and utilities and gives it to the public. That’s why solar is often referred to as the democratization of electricity. Because instead of giant fossil-fuel-fired plants creating electricity, it’s thousands of individual rooftop systems owned or leased by regular people.
 
By describing the decentralized ability of citizens to take the generation of energy into their own hands with a term that is most often used in reference to corporate takeover of public services, EEI is supposedly trying to be more clear, while in fact deliberately confusing the public. They’re trying to describe something good for the public and bad for Big Business with a word that describes something often considered exactly the opposite.
 
So keep an eye out for this sort of doublespeak that uses language as a tool to achieve its own goals at your expense. If all the world’s a stage, then words can be used as a prop-to-gain-an upper hand.

Agelbert NOTE: Orwellian discourse by ethically challenged sophists specializing in duplicity and doubletalk laced with serial mendacity is used by con artist snakes in the grass who pretend to be "in favor" of Renewable Energy in order to undermine any support for the replacement of fossil fuel dirty energy infrastructure with Renewable Energy.

I know a at least two sophists (one a lawyer and the other a mathematician) who engage in this type of chicanery on a routine basis. They are slick, but they are basically back stabbing, double talking, fossil fuel industry defending "political language" spewing LIARS.


   
 
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7655
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #116 on: July 21, 2016, 06:25:51 pm »
July 21, 2016

Denier Roundup

Quote
Those who derived their power from profits found science-based health and environmental regulations an affront to their business models. Exploiting the postmodern concept that there is no objectivity enabled authoritarians to push their public policy agendas with PR instead of relying on scientific evidence to justify their positions.

Harold Hamm
Harold Hamm: Sergeant in the War on Science

Quote
Last night, oil tycoon Harold Hamm addressed the Republican National Convention. Since this post was written before his speech, we won’t address what was said. Instead, we’ll provide just a bit of history on Hamm and the wider sociopolitical history that has led us to a campaign season where facts have fallen by the wayside and emotional rhetoric have risen in importance.
 
Hamm is the billionaire CEO of the oil company Continental Resources. Before being identified as a potential candidate for a cabinet position and “Trump’s energy whisperer,” Hamm was in the news a year ago for his attempt to silence scientists who were linking Oklahoma’s massive uptick in earthquakes (from one-ish a year in 2009 to over 500 in 2014) to the massive uptick in fracking operations. Hamm apparently  ;) tried to get a University of Oklahoma scientist fired for doing their job in pursuing the science that might interfere with his profits. 
 
This brings us to the larger point of science as a counterbalance to power.
It’s the major theme in Shawn Otto’s newest book, The War on Science: Who’s waging it, Why it matters, What we can do about it.

Otto traces the history of science and politics, starting with the “self-evident” nature of our rights within the Declaration of Independence. Science’s search for the underlying truth of nature, Otto writes, has always been a political force. Not in the partisan sense, but in the power sense. “Science is the great equalizer,” Otto told us via email. “It underpins the whole argument for democracy. But it’s also political, because it either confirms or disrupts somebody’s vested interests, and those people tend to fight back when science suggests certain laws or regulations they don’t like."
 
Fast-forward to the 20th century, when science ended World War II with the power of the atomic bomb. In the ensuing years, science enjoyed the financial support of the military and retreated from the public sphere, as it no longer needed public engagement for funding.
 
At the same time, the public was growing increasingly wary of science, the cause of their children’s pointless “duck and cover” drills in case of nuclear attack.

Meanwhile, in the humanitarian departments of academia, the postmodernist movement was questioning the fundamental nature of science as a way to discover objective truth, portraying it as just another “metanarrative” -- a story told by the ruling class in order to retain power.


 

This thinking worked its way into journalism schools, where reporters  learned that there is no such thing as objectivity , and creating the conditions where false balance thrives and industry    spokespeople  are given equal time and consideration as real scientists
 
This postmodernism, mostly a leftist concept, provided the intellectual underpinning for the larger war on science by the axis of industry and religious forces who coopted that language to insist we “teach the controversy.” Those who derived their power from religion found evolution and stem cells to be affronts to the sacred notion of a creator.

Those who derived their power from profits found science-based health and environmental regulations an affront to their business models. Exploiting the postmodern concept that there is no objectivity enabled authoritarians to push their public policy agendas with PR instead of relying on scientific evidence to justify their positions.

 
Which brings us back to this election cycle and the celebration of a man who has attempted to use his power to silence the science that threatens his profits. Instead of being run out of democratic society for this blatant display of authoritarianism, Hamm’s been given direct access to a candidate, a prime time speaking slot at the convention, and possibly a cabinet position.     

Unlike most books of its type, The War on Science offers up a robust battle plan to restore science to its rightful place as an objective arbiter of the reality we all share, and upon which policy decisions must be made.
 
It won’t be an easy fight, but it’s one we can’t afford to lose. As the government scales of checks and balances are increasingly tilted in favor of the rich and powerful, science offers the strongest anti-authoritarian weapon available to restore power to the people.

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7655
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #117 on: July 25, 2016, 11:53:59 pm »
How Big Oil
taught Big Tobacco to bend science

By Matt Smith

July 24, 2016 | 9:50 am

Over the past year, revelations about what the giants of the US petroleum industry knew decades ago about climate change have had a familiar ring to them.

Several observers picked up an echo of the same pattern that forced the American tobacco industry into a multi-billion-dollar court settlement in the 1990s: trying to cast doubt on the risks of the product, and denying publicly the hazards their own scientists told companies about privately.

Turns out there may be a reason for that.

Legal researchers have found stacks of documents they say demonstrate that as people started to worry about the toll cigarettes were taking on smokers, the cigarette makers turned to the same playbook the oil companies had written to head off worries about what the carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels were doing to Earth's atmosphere.

Quote
"It shocked us. Not once, but over and over again"

That was a surprise to Carroll Muffett, the head of the Center for Environmental Law. It wasn't news that the two industries had collaborated, but most people had assumed that the strategy had spread the other way—that Big Tobacco had pioneered the plan, and Big Oil had run with it later.

"It shocked us. Not once, but over and over again," said Muffett, whose researchers have spent four years digging through corporate and university archives to assemble what they're calling the "Smoke and Fumes" papers. "But, in retrospect, it shouldn't have."

Other researchers have pointed to connections between the oil and tobacco industries in the last decade. Gretchen Goldman, lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the new documents reinforce those other links, but with a twist.

"This sort of flips it on its head—that it was the oil industry playbook that tobacco took, and they arguably were less good at it than oil," she said.

Muffett's organization has spent four years digging into the oil industry's early research into carbon emissions and climate change. This week saw the release of the third round of documents in the "Smoke and Fumes" project, which outlines what American petroleum companies knew about the dangers of carbon emissions long before climate change became the hot-button issue it is today.

Muffett said the two industries often acted as corporate frenemies, with embattled tobacco executives sometimes expressing jealousy of their petro-colleagues. At other times, they tried to shift responsibility for their products' problems to one another.

"Over and over again we see this mutual finger-pointing that, because it increases uncertainty, redounds to the benefit of both industries," Muffett said.

Tobacco companies like Philip Morris turned in the 1950s to oil giants like Shell and the corporate ancestors of today's Exxon Mobil for help analyzing what was in cigarette smoke and tar, the documents show. Shell and Exxon also designed cigarette filters using petroleum-derived fibers, the documents show. The oil industry was also trying to fend off concerns about air pollution and the use of lead as a gasoline additive, a battle it finally lost in the 1970s.

Related: Meet the 'Rented White Coats' Who Defend Toxic Chemicals

Muffett said that technology-sharing relationship soon led to the industries sharing a PR strategy as well. 


"The tobacco industry is the very poster child for a corporate cover-up, the very poster child for a corporate and industrywide conspiracy," he added. "The relevance of these documents is they demonstrate the tobacco industry in turn was looking to and learning from oil."

Maybe, maybe not, said tobacco historian Louis Kyriakoudes, now director of the Albert Gore Research Center at Middle Tennessee State University. For instance, the tobacco industry knew before the 1950s that there were problems with its products, he said.

"This is an exciting line of research, and it's an exciting arrow pointing us in a direction," said Kyriakoudes, who testified in several of the lawsuits against the tobacco industry. But he said the question of who first wrote the playbook is less important than how the plays were run.

Quote

"These are common techniques that are being used by two powerful industries, and are continuing to be used by these industries even to this day"

"By the 1950s, it's clear the both have a common origin in terms of strategy, setting a pattern of using science against the truth as opposed to using science to promote the truth," Kyriakoudes said. "These are common techniques that are being used by two powerful industries, and are continuing to be used by these industries even to this day."

The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's leading trade association, did not respond to a request for comment. Nor did tobacco giant Philip Morris, whose executives feature prominently in the documents.

But ExxonMobil spokesman Alan Jeffers told VICE News via e-mail, "We reject long-discredited conspiracy theories that attempt to portray legitimate scientific observations and differences on policy approaches as climate denial. We rejected them when they were made a decade ago, and we reject them today."

Prosecutors in at least 17 US states and territories are investigating whether ExxonMobil misled investors about climate change and its potential impact on the company's bottom line. The company now says the risk is "clear and warrants action," but has resisted shareholder efforts to asses just how risky it is.

The first "Smoke and Fumes" installment documented how leading researchers had verified the effects of carbon dioxide and other byproducts of burning oil, gas and coal on the atmosphere by the 1950s; the second, released in May, showed how the industry had explored technologies to reduce emissions in the 1960s—but ultimately decided to raise doubts about the science of climate change instead.

Goldman said the documents suggest that while Exxon "might have been one of the bigger actors" in that strategy, "it wasn't the only actor in it." And as with the tobacco industry, any future court cases could force oil companies to open up their own records.

"To me, what this does is sheds a much brighter light on that deep and long connection between the two industries, and shows it's a little more organized and intentional than at least what I'd seen before," she said.

https://news.vice.com/article/hold-how-big-oil-taught-big-tobacco-to-bend-science

The Fossil Fuelers   DID THE Climate Trashing, human health depleteing CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks, they are trying to AVOID DOING THE TIME   or   PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it!  Pass it on! 
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7655
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #118 on: August 03, 2016, 07:46:48 pm »

DENIER ROUNDUP


Trump Takes Cheep Shots at Renewables
Quote
At a rally in Pennsylvania on Monday, Donald Trump made some feather-ruffling remarks about renewable energy, directing criticisms at wind and solar power.
 
“The wind kills all your birds. All your birds, killed. You know, the environmentalists never talk about that,” Trump reportedly said.
 
Actually, environmentalists do talk about that, especially when they’re forced to rebuff bird-brained arguments by repeat deniers.
 
An estimated 970 million birds crash into buildings annually. By comparison, wind turbines kill approximately 500,000 birds a year, according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. A 2013 study found that fossil fuel plants “pose a much greater threat to birds and avian wildlife than wind farms.”
 
Trump also said that solar is “so expensive” and “not working so good.”    It seems that Trump decided to wing it instead of actually checking the facts, because according to SEIA, the cost of solar has actually fallen 70 percent in the past 10 years and rooftop solar is already at grid parity in 20 states. The US also reached the milestone of one million solar installations nationwide in May, so we’d say it’s working pretty well.

Honestly, we’re a little surprised Trump is even worried about the birds, considering he’s run a-fowl of them before...
   

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7655
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #119 on: August 04, 2016, 02:39:11 pm »

Deniers Want Clexit After Brexit

Quote
There’s a new denial group on the scene -- this one is intent on ensuring that the world doesn’t enter into “costly and dangerous” climate action pacts like the Paris Agreement.
 
The oh-so-cleverly named Clexit (climate exit) was “inspired by” Brexit, the UK’s decision to leave the European Union and set out on their own. The founders of Clexit are names you’ve seen here before: Christopher Monckton of the UK, Australia’s Viv Forbes, and good old, homegrown Marc Morano
 
According to the campaign’s website:
 
“If the Paris climate accord is ratified, or enforced locally by compliant governments, it will strangle the leading economies of the world with pointless carbon taxes and costly climate and energy policies, all with no sound basis in evidence or science.”



Where do we even begin? Maybe it would be prudent to remind the Clexit crew that after Brexit, their glamorous inspiration, the British economy absolutely tanked. Similarly, climate change has huge financial implications for the global economy and could cause up to $24 trillion in economic damage in the worst case scenario.

Of course, this worst case scenario would be exactly what Clexit is asking for: if governments backed out of the Paris climate accord, took no action and let climate change cause extreme havoc.
 
As for the “no sound basis in evidence or science,” we’ll just point back, as we often do, to the 97% of scientists who agree on human-made climate change (and the consensus on this consensus).
 
There are a lot more classic denier tropes on the site, ranging from “CO2 is good for the planet!” to “The Green Climate Fund is just bribes!” Too many for us to go through one-by-one, but we encourage you to go take a look and have a good laugh.

 We’re probably hoping for too much if after Brexit and Clexit, we could get a Dexit: a denial exit. 

Agelbert NOTE: Message to the polluter funded, biosphere math challenged greed balls supporting Clexit:

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
48 Replies
2459 Views
Last post July 31, 2017, 08:53:09 pm
by AGelbert
202 Replies
3444 Views
Last post July 11, 2017, 10:14:46 pm
by AGelbert
57 Replies
1802 Views
Last post April 19, 2017, 05:03:50 pm
by AGelbert
31 Replies
3004 Views
Last post February 09, 2017, 07:20:24 pm
by AGelbert
108 Replies
2701 Views
Last post September 13, 2017, 07:13:37 pm
by AGelbert

+-Recent Topics

Money by AGelbert
September 22, 2017, 06:05:21 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
September 22, 2017, 04:48:04 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
September 22, 2017, 03:47:33 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
September 22, 2017, 02:51:06 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
September 21, 2017, 11:13:44 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
September 21, 2017, 10:39:27 pm

Historical Documentaries by AGelbert
September 21, 2017, 10:09:30 pm

Endangered Species by AGelbert
September 21, 2017, 07:42:00 pm

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
September 21, 2017, 06:03:14 pm

Robotics by AGelbert
September 21, 2017, 05:33:37 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial