+- +-

+-User

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

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 39
Latest: robbrogers
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 1
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 7574
Total Topics: 220
Most Online Today: 0
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 5497 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7404
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #135 on: April 01, 2017, 02:37:46 pm »
   

As the climate becomes more unstable, the media becomes more silent
How Broadcast Networks Covered Climate Change In 2016 

Mediamatters.org, March 17, 2017

In 2016, evening newscasts and Sunday shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as Fox Broadcast Co.'s Fox News Sunday, collectively decreased their total coverage of climate change by 66 percent compared to 2015, even though there were a host of important climate-related stories, including the announcement of 2015 as the hottest year on record, the signing of the Paris climate agreement, and numerous climate-related extreme weather events. There were also two presidential candidates to cover, and they held diametrically opposed positions on the Clean Power Plan, the Paris climate agreement, and even on whether climate change is a real, human-caused phenomenon. Apart from PBS, the networks also failed to devote significant coverage to climate-related policies, but they still found the time to uncritically air climate denial -- the majority of which came from now-President Donald Trump and his team.

Total Climate Coverage On Broadcast Networks Cratered In 2016

Combined Climate Coverage On ABC, CBS, NBC, And Fox News Sunday Decreased Significantly From 2015 To 2016, Despite Ample Opportunity To Cover Climate Change. In 2016, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday* aired a combined 50 minutes of climate coverage on their evening and Sunday news programs, which was 96 minutes less than in 2015 -- a drop of about 66 percent.

*Fox Broadcast Co. does not air a nightly news program

As was the case in 2015, ABC aired the least amount of climate coverage in 2016, covering the topic for just six minutes, about seven minutes less than in 2015. All the other major networks also significantly reduced their coverage from the previous year, with NBC showing the biggest decrease (from 50 minutes in 2015 to 10 minutes in 2016), followed by Fox (39 minutes in 2015 to seven minutes in 2016) and CBS (from 45 minutes in 2015 to 27 minutes in 2016).

Networks Had Ample Opportunity To Cover Climate Change In 2016. Despite the pronounced decline in climate coverage, the networks had ample opportunity to cover climate change in 2016. As The New York Times reported, in 2016, climate change took on “a prominence it has never before had in a presidential general election” given the stark contrast between the candidates’ views. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump had a long track record of climate denial and differed with Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton on a range of important climate issues, including the Paris climate agreement, the Clean Power Plan, and the continued use of coal as an energy source, with Trump pledging that he would put coal miners “back to work” and Clinton proposing a plan that would help coal communities transition to clean energy. Additionally, there were also a host of non-election climate stories worthy of coverage in 2016, including extreme weather events tied to climate change, like Hurricane Matthew and the record-breaking rainfall and flooding in Louisiana (which the American Red Cross described as “the worst natural disaster to strike the United States since Superstorm Sandy”); the signing of the Paris climate agreement and the U.N. climate summit in Morocco; the official announcement from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that 2015 was the hottest year on record by far; and investigations by state attorneys general into whether ExxonMobil committed fraud by misleading the public on climate change. [The New York Times, 8/1/16; Media Matters, 5/26/16; The Huffington Post, 9/8/16; DonaldJTrump.com, 9/15/16; Media Matters, 3/15/16, 10/7/16, 8/17/16; The Huffington Post, 4/22/16; The Guardian, 4/22/16; InsideClimate News, 11/3/16; The New York Times, 1/20/16; InsideClimate News, 12/28/16]

ABC, CBS, NBC, And Fox Failed To Discuss Climate-Related Ramifications Of A Clinton Or Trump Presidency Until After The Election. ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News Sunday did not air a single segment informing viewers of what to expect on climate change and climate-related policies or issues under a Trump or Clinton administration. While these outlets did devote a significant amount of coverage to Trump’s presidency, airing 25 segments informing viewers about the ramifications or actions of a Trump administration as they relate to climate change, all of these segments aired after the election. Examples of post-election coverage include a PBS NewsHour segment about Trump’s selection of Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Pruitt’s history of climate denial and ties to the fossil fuel industry; a CBS Evening News segment about Trump appointing climate denier Myron Ebell to his EPA transition team; and an NBC Nightly News report on Trump’s promise to roll back President Barack Obama’s executive actions on climate change. [PBS NewsHour, 12/7/16; CBS Evening News, 11/15/16; NBC Nightly News, 11/9/16**]

**We included citations of specific shows when we described the content of a segment. We did not include show citations for general tallies. We linked to episodes that were available online but listed only the date for those that were not.

PBS NewsHour Was The Only Show To Discuss Climate Ramifications Of A Clinton Or Trump Presidency Prior To The Election. PBS NewsHour*** was the only show in our study that examined what impact a Trump or a Clinton presidency would have on climate-related issues and policies before the election. On the September 7 edition of PBS NewsHour, correspondent William Brangham discussed “what a Clinton or Trump administration might mean with regards to climate change” with The New York Times’ Coral Davenport and The Washington Post’s Chris Mooney. And a September 22 segment explored “what the early days of a Trump presidency might look like” and featured Judy Woodruff interviewing Evan Osnos of The New Yorker about whether Trump would renounce the Paris climate agreement. [PBS NewsHour, 9/22/16, 9/7/16]

***Unlike the nightly news shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC that air for a half hour seven days a week, PBS NewsHour airs five days a week and is a half hour longer.

Tyndall Report Found No Discussion Of Climate Change In Issues Coverage During Campaign. The Tyndall Report, which tracks the broadcast networks' weeknight newscasts, analyzed election-related issues coverage on the major networks’ weeknight newscasts and found no issues coverage devoted to climate change in 2016 up through October 25. The Tyndall Report defines election-related issues coverage as that which “takes a public policy, outlines the societal problem that needs to be addressed, describes the candidates' platform positions and proposed solutions, and evaluates their efficacy.” [The Intercept, 2/24/17; Media Matters, 10/26/16; Tyndall Report, 10/25/16]

Networks Aired A Disproportionate Amount Of Climate Coverage After Election Day. In the roughly 45 weeks before the November 8 election, the networks aired a total of 55 segments about climate change -- roughly one per week. After the election, the networks aired 32 climate-related segments over approximately seven weeks till the end of the year -- about five stories per week.

Networks Ignored Links Between Climate Change And National Security And Rarely Addressed Economic And Public Health Impacts, But Some Detailed Impacts On Extreme Weather And Plants And Wildlife.

Networks Did Not Air A Single Segment On Link To National Security. Numerous military and intelligence organizations have sounded the alarm on climate change’s connection to national security. A September 2016 report prepared by the National Intelligence Council and coordinated with the U.S. intelligence community stated, “Climate change and its resulting effects are likely to pose wide-ranging national security challenges for the United States and other countries over the next 20 years.” And following Trump’s election victory, “a bipartisan group of defense experts and former military leaders sent Trump’s transition team a briefing book urging the president-elect to consider climate change as a grave threat to national security,” E&E News reported. Yet the national security implications of climate change never came up in any of the networks’ climate coverage for 2016. [Media Matters, 1/13/17; Scientific American, 11/15/16]

PBS Was The Only Network To Address Economic Impacts Of Climate Change. PBS was the only network to report on the economic impacts of climate change. Two segments about Washington state’s carbon tax ballot initiative that aired on the April 21 and October 20 editions of PBS NewsHour featured the president of the Washington State Labor Council explaining that Washington’s shellfish industry “has left the state and gone to Hawaii because the acid levels in the ocean has risen so much.” And on the November 17 edition of PBS NewsHour, correspondent William Brangham reported that 365 American companies “have written to the president-elect imploring him to uphold the Paris accords and warning -- quote -- ‘Failure to build a low-carbon economy puts American prosperity at risk.’” [PBS NewsHour, 4/21/16, 10/20/16, 11/17/16]


Networks Rarely Addressed How Climate Change Impacts Public Health.

The World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Climate Assessment have all concluded that climate change has a significant influence on human health and disease. And as 2016 saw the first local spread of the Zika virus in the continental United States, Climate Signals found that “climate change creates new risks for human exposure to vector-borne diseases such as Zika, particularly in the United States where rising heat and humidity are increasing the number of days annually in which disease vectors thrive.” However, only two segments on NBC Nightly News dealt with the link between climate change and public health -- no other network covered the issue. In a January 18 report about the spread of Zika, correspondent Tom Costello noted, “Researchers are also studying whether climate change and El Nino are causing certain mosquitoes populations to grow.” And a July 4 report about a massive algae bloom creating a toxic emergency in Florida featured correspondent Gabe Gutierrez explaining, “The debate is raging over what`s to blame for this latest growth, but scientists say there are many factors including population growth and climate change.” [World Health Organization, accessed 3/21/17; CDC.gov, accessed 3/21/17; National Climate Assessment, accessed 3/21/17; Climate Signals, 8/23/16; NBC Nightly News, 1/18/16, 7/4/16]

CBS And ABC Rarely Covered Climate Link To Extreme Weather, While NBC And Fox Ignored It Completely. 2016 saw no shortages of extreme weather events influenced by climate change, with Hurricane Matthew making landfall on the East Coast; wildfires -- which have become a consistent threat thanks, in part, to climate change -- charring more than 100,000 acres in seven states in the Southeast; and record rainfall and flooding in Louisiana causing what the American Red Cross called “the worst natural disaster to strike the United States since Superstorm Sandy.” Yet NBC and Fox never addressed the link between climate change and extreme weather, while CBS did so in four segments and ABC did so in just one segment. By contrast, PBS NewsHour aired eight segments dealing with the link between climate change and extreme weather. [The Weather Channel, 10/9/16; Media Matters, 10/6/16; The New York Times, 11/29/16; Climate Central, 11/23/16; Media Matters, 8/17/16]


PBS Led The Networks In Stories Detailing Climate Impacts On Plants And Wildlife.

PBS provided the most coverage of climate impacts on plants and wildlife (six segments), followed by CBS and NBC (three segments each), and ABC (one segment). Examples of this reporting included a “Climate Diaries” segment on CBS Evening News about how climate change is “taking a toll on endangered mountain gorillas” in Central Africa by making their food supply less predictable and forcing human populations searching for water into their territory and an NBC Nightly News segment about how Yellowstone grizzlies are threatened because one of their food sources -- seeds from whitebark pine trees -- has been decimated by climate change. Another example was a PBS NewsHour segment reporting that “two-fifths of bees, butterflies, and related pollinating species are heading toward extinction” thanks to “a range of factors, ranging from pesticide use to climate change to habitat loss.” [CBS Evening News, 11/17/16; NBC Nightly News, 5/22/16; PBS NewsHour, 2/26/16]


Specific Climate-Related Policies Received Sparse Coverage Outside Of PBS


The Clean Power Plan Was Almost Completely Ignored On Sunday Shows And Received Sparse Coverage On Nightly News Shows. The broadcast networks provided scant coverage of the Clean Power Plan even though Trump had promised during the campaign to eliminate the policy. The Clean Power Plan establishes the first-ever federal limits on carbon pollution from power plants and serves as the linchpin of President Obama’s program to meet the nation’s emissions reduction obligation under the Paris agreement. Fox News Sunday was the only Sunday show to feature a climate-related segment on the Clean Power Plan, in which Washington Post editorial writer Charles Lane claimed that the Democrats’ focus on the plan is an example of how “environmentalism in a crucial way worked against the Democratic Party this year,” because Trump carried coal-dependent states in the election. But contrary to Lane’s claim, numerous polls conducted in the run-up to the election indicated that a majority of Americans consider climate change an important issue and favor government action to address it. On nightly news shows, ABC was the only network that did not air a climate-related segment on the plan, while PBS NewsHour covered the Clean Power Plan the most (seven segments), followed by CBS Evening News (three segments) and NBC Nightly News (two segments). [DonaldJTrump.com, 9/15/16; The White House, 8/3/15; The New York Times, 3/2/16; Fox News Sunday, 11/13/16; Media Matters, 11/29/16]

PBS Far Outpaced Networks In Coverage Of U.N. Climate Agreement And Summits. In 2016, world leaders met on Earth Day for the signing ceremony of the Paris climate agreement reached by 195 nations and later again in Morocco for talks about implementing the climate accord. In Trump’s first major speech on energy policy, in May, he vowed that he would “cancel” the Paris climate agreement. But after the election he told The New York Times, “I have an open mind to it.” Despite these developments, PBS was the only network to devote significant coverage to the U.N. climate agreement and U.N. climate-related summits, doing so in 21 segments, while CBS aired five segments, NBC and ABC aired just three, and Fox aired just two. [USA Today, 4/22/16; The New York Times, 12/12/15; InsideClimate News, 11/3/16; BBC.com, 5/27/16; DonaldJTrump.com, 5/26/16; The New York Times, 11/23/16]

CBS, NBC, And Fox Addressed The Climate Impacts Of The Keystone XL Pipeline Only Once, While ABC And PBS Failed To Do So At All. During the campaign, Clinton and Trump staked out opposing positions on whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport tar sands oil that is 17 percent dirtier than average and would “increase emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases linked to global warming” from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast. Yet there was a dearth of coverage on Keystone XL’s link to climate change, with CBS, NBC, and Fox each airing just one segment that connected Keystone XL to climate change and ABC and PBS ignoring the topic completely. The networks also ignored Keystone XL more broadly -- airing just four additional non-climate-related segments on the pipeline. [Business Insider, 9/25/16; Media Matters, 1/15/15]

Fox Was The Only Network To Cover The Dakota Access Pipeline In A Climate Context. The Standing Rock Sioux and other Native American tribes, as well as environmental activists, protested against the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline in 2016, citing, among other concerns, the impact a continued buildup of oil infrastructure would have on climate change. Yet Fox was the sole network to cover the Dakota Access pipeline in a climate context. On the December 11 edition of Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace previewed his upcoming interview with Trump by saying that he would “ask [Trump] to clear up exactly where he stands on climate change.” After returning from a commercial break, Wallace said to the Trump, “Let me ask you a couple specific questions. Will you still pull out of the Paris climate agreement, which has been signed by more than 100 countries to reduce carbon emissions? Will you restart the Dakota Access pipeline, which the Army just stopped?” To which Trump replied that he was “studying” the Paris climate agreement and would “have [Dakota Access] solved very quickly” when he takes office. ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS did air multiple segments on the Dakota Access pipeline (airing eight, 10, four, and 10 segments, respectively), but none of these segments linked it to climate change. [MPR News, 12/7/16; Time, 12/1/16, 10/28/16; Fox News Sunday, 12/11/16]

Major Networks Completely Ignored The “Exxon Knew” Story. Reports from InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times revealed that Exxon’s own scientists had confirmed by the early 1980s that fossil fuel pollution was causing climate change, yet Exxon-funded organizations helped manufacture doubt about the causes of climate change for decades afterward in what became known as the “Exxon knew” scandal. The reports prompted the attorneys general in New York, California, and Massachusetts to each launch investigations of Exxon, as well as countersuits from Exxon and subpoenas from members of Congress in defense of Exxon. Yet none of the networks covered any of these developments over the course of 2016. [Media Matters, 9/1/16; InsideClimate News, 12/28/16]

CBS, Fox, And PBS Uncritically Aired Climate Science Denial In 2016 -- All Of Which Came From Trump Or Trump Officials


CBS, Fox, And PBS Aired A Combined Five Segments That Included Unrebutted Climate Science Denial In 2016 -- All From Trump Or Trump Officials. In 2016, CBS Evening News, PBS NewsHour, and Fox News Sunday aired a combined five segments that misled audiences by featuring climate science denial. Half of Fox News Sunday’s climate-related segments included climate denial. In every instance, it was Trump or Trump officials promoting denial.

• On the September 27 edition of CBS Evening News, correspondent Julianna Goldman fact-checked a portion of the September 26 presidential debate in which Clinton stated, “Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. I think it’s real,” and Trump interjected, “I did not. I did not. … I do not say that.” Goldman noted that Trump had in fact tweeted that climate change is a hoax, but she did not fact-check the veracity of Trump’s statement that climate change was a hoax. [CBS Evening News, 9/27/16; Media Matters, 5/26/16]

• On the November 9 edition of PBS NewsHour, during a segment on world leaders’ reactions to Trump’s election victory, correspondent Margaret Warner reported, “Also in question is America’s participation in the Paris climate accord. Trump has called climate change a hoax, and while it would take four years to formally pull out of the agreement, there are no sanctions in place for ignoring it.” And in a report on the ways in which Trump would dismantle environmental policy on the November 17 edition of PBS NewsHour, correspondent William Brangham stated, “Trump has repeatedly expressed his own skepticism about climate change, like in this 2012 tweet, when he said: ‘The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing noncompetitive.’ Two years later, he wrote: ‘Global warming is an expensive hoax.’" In neither instance did the correspondent note that Trump’s statements are at odds with the scientific consensus that climate change is real and human-caused. [PBS NewsHour, 11/9/16, 11/17/16]

• Shortly after Trump’s interview with The New York Times in which he stated that he had an “open mind” on climate change and the Paris climate agreement, Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace asked Trump’s incoming chief of staff, Reince Priebus, how flexible Trump would be on his campaign promises. Priebus answered that as “far as this issue on climate change -- the only thing he was saying after being asked a few questions about it is, look, he'll have an open mind about it but he has his default position, which [is that] most of it is a bunch of bunk , but he'll have an open mind and listen to people.” Priebus then moved on to discuss the potential nomination of Jim Mattis as defense secretary before Wallace concluded the interview. And during Wallace’s interview with Trump on the December 11 edition of Fox News Sunday, Trump declared that “nobody really knows” whether human-induced climate change is happening. Wallace didn’t challenge Trump’s claim that blatantly misrepresents the consensus of the world’s leading scientific institutions that human activities such as burning fossil fuels are the main cause of global warming. [The New York Times, 11/23/16; Fox News Sunday, 11/27/16, 12/11/16; NASA.gov, accessed 3/21/17]

Other Nightly News Segments On PBS, CBS, And NBC Also Included Climate Science Denial, But Reporters Pushed Back On Those Claims, Noting That They Conflicted With Established Climate Science. Segments on PBS, CBS, and NBC nightly news shows also included climate denial, but reporters noted that that these statements were at odds with established climate science.

• In a segment about Trump selecting Scott Pruitt as his nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency on the December 8 edition of PBS NewsHour, anchor Judy Woodruff reported, “Pruitt is in sync with President-elect Trump on a range of issues, including his skepticism about man-made global warming. Writing in the National Review this year, he said: ‘That debate is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming.’ In fact, the vast majority of scientists agree that human activity contributes to global warming, all of which underscores questions about whether a Trump administration will refuse to abide by the Paris accords on greenhouse gas emissions.” And on the December 14 edition of PBS NewsHour, Woodruff asked Sean Spicer, who was then communications director for the Republican National Committee, “Does the president-elect still believe, as he said on the campaign trail, that the science behind climate change is still not settled, in other words, something that most climate scientists say is absolutely correct?” Spicer replied by denying the consensus on human-caused climate change, stating that Trump “understands that there’s elements of man, mankind, that affect climate, but the exact impact of it and what has to be done to change that is something there is some dispute about within the community, not just science, but within the industry.” [PBS NewsHour, 12/8/16, 12/14/16]

• A November 15 CBS Evening News segment on the appointment of climate denier Myron Ebell to Trump’s EPA transition team featured footage of Trump calling climate change a “hoax,” followed by correspondent Chip Reid stating, “President-elect Donald Trump has left little doubt where he stands on the issue of climate change. He wants a dramatic increase in the production of coal and oil, which he says will create jobs. And his EPA transition team is being led by Myron Ebell, a leading climate change skeptic. Ebell, who is not a scientist, disagrees with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who say the driving force behind the warming planet is the burning of fossil fuels.” [CBS Evening News, 11/15/16]

• The December 14 edition of ABC’s World News Tonight featured footage of Trump transition official Anthony Scaramucci denying climate change by arguing, “There was overwhelming science that the Earth was flat. ... We get a lot of things wrong in the scientific community.” Correspondent Brian Ross introduced Scaramucci’s comments as “a Trump transition official continu[ing] the public assault on established science.” [ABC’s World News Tonight, 11/14/16]

Because hosts or correspondents on these programs noted that the statements in question contradicted mainstream climate science, they were not counted as denial in our study.

Climate Scientists Were Completely Absent From ABC’s World News Tonight … Again

For The Second Consecutive Year, ABC’s World News Tonight Did Not Feature A Single Scientist In Its Climate Coverage. ABC’s World News Tonight did not feature a single scientist in its climate coverage for the second year in a row. By contrast, NBC Nightly News and CBS Evening News featured five and six scientists, respectively, and PBS NewsHour featured 18.

Sunday Shows Did Not Feature A Single Scientist In Climate-Related Coverage. After featuring just two scientists over a five-year period from 2009 to 2013, the Sunday shows featured seven scientists in 2014 alone, and then backslid in 2015, quoting or interviewing just two scientists (4 percent of all Sunday show guests). In 2016, that backslide continued, with the Sunday shows featuring no scientists in their climate-related coverage.

PBS And CBS Frequently Aired Coverage Related To Climate-Related Scientific Research, While NBC And ABC Did So Less Often. PBS and CBS far outpaced their counterparts in the number of segments focusing on climate-related scientific research that they aired on nightly news shows. PBS NewsHour aired 10 segments on climate-related scientific research, including a segment that featured scientists explaining climate change’s influence on wildfires in Southern California and flooding in Louisiana; CBS Evening News aired seven segments on climate-related research, including a segment featuring interviews with scientists who discovered unprecedented rates of sea ice melt in the Arctic Circle. Conversely, NBC Nightly News aired just three segments on climate-related research, and ABC’s World News Tonight aired just two. None of the Sunday shows featured any segments on climate-related scientific research. [PBS NewsHour, 8/17/16; CBS Evening News, 3/4/16]


Sunday Shows’ Climate Coverage Dropped By 85 Percent

Every Network’s Sunday Show Significantly Decreased Its Climate Coverage. After dropping slightly from a high of 81 minutes of coverage in 2014 to 73 minutes in 2015, the Sunday shows’ climate coverage dropped 85 percent to just 11 minutes of coverage in 2016 -- the third-lowest amount in the eight-year time frame Media Matters has examined. Every network saw significant declines in Sunday show coverage, with Fox leading the way (down 32 minutes from the previous year), followed by NBC (down 17 minutes), CBS (down 10 minutes), and ABC (down four minutes).

Bernie Sanders Brought Up Climate Change Four Times As Much As Hosts Did On ABC, CBS, And NBC Sunday Shows. On every Sunday show except Fox News Sunday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) brought up climate change significantly more often than the hosts themselves did. ABC’s This Week, CBS’ Face the Nation, and NBC’s Meet the Press aired a combined five segments in which the hosts brought up climate change, while Bernie Sanders brought up climate change 21 times during his appearances on those shows. Because our study counted only those segments where a media figure brought up or discussed climate change, those 21 segments were not counted in this study's overall network tallies.

Nightly News Shows On ABC, CBS, and NBC Aired Roughly Half As Much Climate Coverage As They Did In 2015

NBC Nightly News And CBS Evening News Significantly Decreased Climate Coverage, And ABC Once Again Lagged Behind Network Counterparts. The nightly news shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC collectively decreased their climate coverage from approximately 73 minutes in 2015 to just over 39 minutes in 2016 -- a drop of 46 percent. NBC Nightly News had the biggest drop in climate coverage, decreasing by about 22 minutes, followed by CBS Evening News, which had a drop of approximately nine minutes. ABC’s World News Tonight, which aired significantly less climate coverage than its competitors in 2014 and 2015, once again continued its downward trend, dropping even further from roughly seven minutes of climate coverage in 2015 to just four minutes in 2016.

For Second Year In A Row, PBS Aired More Climate Coverage Than All Other Nightly News Programs Combined. For the second consecutive year, PBS NewsHour aired more segments addressing climate change than the other nightly news shows combined. PBS NewsHour aired 46 climate-related segments, while ABC (five), CBS (19), and NBC (12) aired a combined 36 climate-related nightly news segments. However, PBS NewsHour’s climate coverage decreased from 2015, when the network aired 58 climate-related segments.

CBS And NBC Nightly News Shows Have Stepped Up Climate Coverage In Early Months Of 2017    ::)

In 2017 So Far, CBS Evening News Has Already Aired More Than Half The Amount Of Climate Coverage It Did In All Of 2016. In the first few months of 2017, CBS Evening News has already aired about 17 minutes of climate-related coverage, just eight minutes less than the show aired for all of 2016. In fact, CBS Evening News aired nearly half as much climate coverage as it did in all of 2016 in just one week of 2017; this coverage was during a series of climate-related reports from Antarctica for its “Climate Diaries” series. [Media Matters, 2/13/17]

In Early Months Of 2017, NBC Nightly News Has Already Aired Nearly Half As Much Climate Coverage As It Did In All Of 2016. In just over two months, NBC Nightly News has already aired about five minutes of climate-related coverage, roughly half as much as the show aired for all of 2016.


Methodology

This report analyzes coverage of "climate change" or "global warming" between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016, on four Sunday news shows (ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, NBC's Meet the Press, and Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday) and four nightly news programs (ABC's World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, and PBS NewsHour) based on Nexis transcripts. Fox Broadcasting Co. airs Fox News Sunday but does not air a nightly news equivalent; Fox News is a separate cable channel. PBS NewsHour is a half-hour longer than its network nightly news counterparts, but it airs five days a week, compared to seven days a week for the other nightly news shows (PBS NewsHour Weekend was not included in this analysis). In one instance, Nexis categorized a segment that did not mention "climate change" or "global warming" as being about climate change; because the segment provided other clear indications that it was indeed about climate change, it was included. To identify the number of segments networks aired on the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, we used the search terms Keystone w/20 pipe! And Dakota w/20 pipe!.

Our analysis includes any segment devoted to climate change, as well as any substantial mention (more than one paragraph of a news transcript or a definitive statement by a media figure) about climate change impacts or actions. The study did not include instances in which a non-media figure brought up climate change without being prompted to do so by a media figure unless the media figure subsequently addressed climate change. We defined media figures as hosts, anchors, correspondents, and recurring guest panelists. The study also does not include teasers if they were for segments that aired later on the same program. We acquired time stamps from iQ media and applied them generously for nightly news segments when the overall topic was related to climate change. For instance, if a nightly news segment about an extreme weather event mentioned climate change briefly, the entire segment was counted as climate coverage. However, if a significant portion of the segment was not related to climate change, such as a report on the pope giving a speech about climate change, immigration, religious freedom, and outreach to Cuba, only the portions of the segment that discussed climate change were counted. For the Sunday shows, which often feature wide-ranging discussions on multiple topics, we used only the relevant portion of such conversations. All coverage figures have been rounded to the nearest minute. Because PBS NewsHour is an hour-long show and the other networks’ nightly news programs are half-hour shows, our analysis compared PBS NewsHour's climate coverage to other nightly news programs' coverage in terms of topics covered and number of segments, but not in terms of number of minutes.

Research intern Katherine Hess and Sarah Wasko contributed to this study.


https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2017/03/23/how-broadcast-networks-covered-climate-change-2016/215718

Agelbert NOTE: NOW you KNOW why the Trump Fossil Fuel Fascist Wrecking Crew    is in such a hurry to DEFUND PBS. 


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

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7404
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #136 on: April 03, 2017, 03:39:52 pm »
 

US politicians held an insane and embarrassing hearing just to attack climate science
Mihai Andrei March 30, 2017

The hearing, led by Chair of the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology Lamar Smith, descended into an old-fashioned bullying of science, with Smith and his peers stepping way out of bounds just to make it seem that scientists have no idea what they’re doing — and they themselves, the politicians, are much better informed.

Climate change has been associated with droughts and water scarcity. Image in Public Domain.

In the US, anti-science is winning, at least at a political level. Just after President Donald Trump ordered a massive rollback of rules that limited carbon emissions, and a few weeks after he released a budget proposal which aims to slash funding for science and health agencies, the Trump administration made it clear once more that they have no regard for science or the environment. The mock hearing, called “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method,” was basically a series of accusations and name calling, with Lamar Smith especially saying that climate scientists use “alarmist findings that are wrongfully reported as facts.”

Quote
“Much of climate science today appears to be based more on exaggerations, personal agendas, and questionable predictions than on the scientific method,” Smith said.

Smith, who has received more than $600,000 from the fossil fuel industry during his career in Congress (like almost all climate change deniers), is well known for conducting “witch hunts” against scientists. In the past, he has threatened to prosecute the NOAA if they don’t release public information about how their studies are conducted — which might not sound that unreasonable if the information wasn’t already public. I guess this just goes to show how well-informed Smith is. But back to the hearing. Michael Mann — a Penn State University professor of atmospheric science who has been repeatedly threatened for his work on climate change — was the only climate scientist participating at the hearing.

Lamar S. Smith , member of the United States House of Representatives, did his best to make it look like climate scientists don’t know what they’re doing.

Several colleagues have urged Mann to boycott this hearing, as everyone was well-aware that it’s basically a charade.

Quote
“In the past, the science community has participated in these hearings, even though questioning the basics of climate change is akin to holding a hearing to examine whether the Earth orbits the sun,” wrote David Titley, a professor in the department of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, in the Washington Post on Tuesday, the eve of the hearing. Enough!”

But in a room stacked with career politicians and lawyers, Mann was the only non-denier scientist, and he felt that injecting some science into a hearing that was “ostensibly supposed to be about science” was necessary.

Michael Mann was the only scientist chosen to represent what’s basically a consensus on climate change. Image credits: Karl Withakay.

Judith Curry , a former professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology, who has retired from academia due to what she calls the poisonous nature of the scientific discussion around human-caused global warming, turned to paraphrasing Donald Trump  to emphasize her points:

Quote
“Let’s make scientific debate about climate change great again,” she said.

When asked about the Antarctic Ice, Curry highlighted the limits of her knowledge, by giving a bizarrely vague answer focusing uncertainties due to past measurement issues and regional differences. Mann was quick to tell her that we now have satellites (called GRACE) that measure ice, so we clearly know we’re losing ice. Another scientist present at the debate, Roger Pielke, who doesn’t currently study climate science, seemed to take a more reasonable position and even argued for a carbon tax at one point, though he is well known for publishing a piece where he states that the price of disasters is rising, but not because of climate change. Criticism of that piece led his editor to respond and publish a rebuttal.

Three out of the four scientists present at the hearing are at the fringe of science, Judith included. Considering that 97% of scientists agree that man-made global warming is a thing, it’s at least strange that 75% (3 out of 4) are climate change deniers. It’s almost like the hearing’s opinions were predetermined and they don’t really care about the science, isn’t it?

Quote
“For a balanced panel we would need 96 more Dr. Manns,” said Democrat Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon.

But this was just the beginning, the best was yet to come. Smith objected to Mann quoting articles from Science magazine, stating that Science “is not known as an objective magazine.” I’m surprised he didn’t call it fake news. Not long after that, the name calling began. California Republican Dana Rohrabacher likened the tactics of climate scientists to the those of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, while Georgia Republican Barry Loudermilk said of Mann:

Quote
We could say you’re a denier of natural change.”

Yes, this totally looks like natural change to me.  ;)  Image credits: Hanno / Wiki Commons.

Mann stood his ground, and he too accused the politicians of being swayed by the money they receive from fossil fuel companies. Basically, he tried to present science and objective facts to some of the biggest climate change deniers in Congress. By the end, it was clear that the scientific reality is not enough for Lamar Smith , who said that scientists have lost their way, and that:
Quote

“Their ultimate goal,” he said, “is to promote a personal agenda, even if the evidence doesn’t support it.”

Ironically, despite overwhelming evidence, despite decades and decades of thorough research done by thousands of people, Smith, like EPA chief Scott Pruitt, believes that the science is not in yet. It’s almost like he has a personal agenda that he’s pursuing, even against all the evidence. But hey, who needs facts when you have alternative facts?



At the end of the day, objective observers will easily discern the scientific reality from the bias. But what happens in the US is extremely worrying. The country is the world’s second largest polluter, and any backtrack of environmental issues will have drastic consequences not only for Americans themselves but for the rest of the world as well.

http://www.zmescience.com/science/hearing-climate-change-30032017/

Agelbert NOTE: Please observe that the fossil fuel TOOL Smith and his bought and paid for pals are using the Orwellian technique championed by Karl Rove. THAT IS, to accuse your opponent of your OWN greed based modus operandi.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7404
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #137 on: April 06, 2017, 07:30:22 pm »
Scientist Exposes Mendacious Anti-Global Warming Propaganda in 1990! 


Published on Apr 5, 2017

Climate scientist Stephen Schneider talks climate change.

Dr. Stephen Schneider is one of the most notable and outspoken scientists on the topic of climate change. His moderate and scientific approach to explaining climate change has helped congressmen, journalists, and citizens understand the complex, and often contradictory, issues related to global warming. In this ever timely talk, Dr. Schneider goes over the many different portrayals of climate change in the media and explains how to distinguish hype from science.

He argues that in order to have a functional democracy, voters must understand the basics of these important issues so that they can make informed decisions. This talk is part of the Walter Orr Roberts Public Lecture Series presented by the Aspen Global Change Institute. Recorded in Aspen, CO on July 30, 1990.

Release via https://archive.org/details/Agci-TheG...

Agelbert NOTE: The fossil fuel industry funded LIE claiming that global warming is not "proven" to be occurring (i.e. DOUBT is their product) involves a propaganda playbook developed in the 1980s. That's right, there is NOTHING new about their crooked pitch. 

In the above video (1990 lecture), Climate Scientist Stephen Schneider exposes this mendacious methodology. For example, an article claims that US temperature records from 1895 to 1988 show "no warming trend". The problem is that the article left out the word "GLOBAL" in that headline. SO, the headline FOOLED people into ASS-U-ME-ing that "there ain't no GLOBAL warming trend" (even though deep in the article, TOWARDS THE END, the reporter did say that 1988 was the HOTTEST year in the average GLOBAL temperature since 1895.) You see, the US covers only 2% of the global surface (that ain't mentioned in the article, of course ).

Forbes and other "objective"     news outlets then do follow ups (in blitz style) by hurling ridicule at anyone who could entertain the very idea that Global Warming could be occurring  (i.e. "Panic" and a "textbook overreaction"). 

My, my, aren't these propagandist liars and crooks clever...

Watch the whole video and you will see that the exact same pattern of duplicity and disingenuous doubletalk has corrosively continued helping profit the polluters and destroy our democracy and biosphere to this day. 

Since these were the early days in this anti-climate science fossil fuel industry crusade, the scientist is being polite as to who is behind all this BULLSHIT. But even then, all you had to do was follow the fossil fuel money.     


The Fossil Fuelers   DID THE Climate Trashing, human health depleting 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: 7404
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #138 on: April 07, 2017, 06:47:33 pm »
What we need to do is diagnose and then treat.  I just provided the diagnosis.  The treatment protocol is not to kill them, or fumigate, but to deprive them of positions of so-called "leadership".

How do you propose to do that?  They'll just maintain their power by force and kill you if you try to deprive them of their power and control.

RE

Have you ever been outdoors in a swampy area with an ungodly number of mosquitoes?  I mean a fog of mosquitoes?  Millions and millions of 'em?


JRM,
The problem, as RE pointed out, is that the top dirty dogs always game the system. But I go a step further. I claim the problem is that DOUBLETALK and LYING that undermines scientific objectivity is destroying human civilization. WHY? Because, if there is no standard for what is CORRECT and what is INCORRECT, chaos and collapse is guaranteed (eventually - it takes a while for the mountain of mendacity to blow society apart).

We have reached a stage in which it's "okay" to LIE if you make a lot of money from it BECAUSE you are preserving profits for corporations who's products are deleterious to the biosphere in general (and humans in particular). It's NOT "okay". It's NEVER going to be "okay". All these heinous tactics exposed in the following video like attacking the objective scientist messenger, giving equal time to fringe opinions of in uncredentialed "experts" (funded by industry polluters WITHOUT full disclosure of funding), distorted statistics, cherry picking "positive" aspects of a pollutant (without a shred of scientific proof), media blitzes repeating the same lie (following by a back page retraction published weeks later in only one source), ETC. MUST result in charges AND criminal prosecution EVERY TIME they publish self serving BULLSHIT that harms the public welfare.

Otherwise, THEY WILL CONTINUE TO RUIN ANY OPPOTUNITY FOR GOVERNMENT AND SOCIETY TO ACT to prevent all the crimes corporations wishing to disguise the damage their products do (e.g. GMOs, makeup, pharmaceuticals, fossil fuels, Tobacco, etc. - it's a LONG list BECAUSE it's a list of CAPITALIST "success" stories).

Agelbert NOTE: The following METER READING is sine qua non for those who champion the above mendacious strategy:
               


Stunning film exposes climate "sceptics" Merchants Of Doubt


Published on Aug 30, 2016

Merchants of Doubt is a 2014 American documentary film directed by Robert Kenner and inspired by the 2010 book of the same name by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway.

The film traces the use of public relations tactics that were originally developed by the tobacco industry to protect their business from research indicating health risks from smoking.

The most prominent of these tactics is the cultivation of scientists and others who successfully cast doubt on the scientific results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt





« Last Edit: April 07, 2017, 09:59:56 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7404
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #139 on: April 07, 2017, 09:51:56 pm »
What we need to do is diagnose and then treat.  I just provided the diagnosis.  The treatment protocol is not to kill them, or fumigate, but to deprive them of positions of so-called "leadership".

How do you propose to do that?  They'll just maintain their power by force and kill you if you try to deprive them of their power and control.

RE



Have you ever been outdoors in a swampy area with an ungodly number of mosquitoes?  I mean a fog of mosquitoes?  Millions and millions of 'em?

We have reached a stage in which it's "okay" to LIE if you make a lot of money from it BECAUSE you are preserving profits for corporations who's products are deleterious to the biosphere in general (and humans in particular).

Who says it's okay to lie?

Who says it's okay to maim, poison, kill, destroy...?

Who says. What authority is saying this? 

Is it okay to spit in the faces of strangers on the streets, too, then to stomp on their toes or feet with big, heavy boots?  Is it okay to punch strangers in the nose?

Who says this is okay?


The folks who are running the show and have the most money.

RE



So, let me get this straight....  Some guy with a lot of money shows up and says "This here pile of horse manure isn't really a pile of horse manure at all, but is rather an excellent gourmet meal," we're supposed to get down on all fours and eat that ****? 


   

JRM,
PLEASE, watch the video I posted. THERE you will see people BRAGGING about making money from bullying scientists and undermining, or even worse, lying about the science and distorting it so much that the public believe (see Orwell) the EXACT OPPOSITE! Watch Marc Morano GIGGLE about death threats to scientists spawned by his propaganda.

WATCH O' Keef, former head of the infamous Marshall Institute, ADMIT that he is a PAID LOBBYIST for Exxon (even though he never said it to the public). WATCH that bastard smile when he is asked if he would have the George C. Marshall Institute STOP denying climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels if he is paid enough by Environmentalists. He answered, "They can't afford me.". 


ARE YOU GETTING THE PICTURE, JRM?


I guarantee you will learn a LOT about how GOOD, Honest people fall for this ****!



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

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7404
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #140 on: April 07, 2017, 10:40:11 pm »
Shorter video: Merchants of DOUBT


The name for what these unethical BASTARDS do is AGNOTOLOGY.



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

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7404
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #141 on: April 08, 2017, 03:50:31 pm »
AG,
Thanks for posting the vid Merch's of doubt ....
I watched it awhile back but I think it's time to see it again.

you are  welcome AZ. I just wish I could convince you that the fossil fuel industry is THE culprit here. 

"Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Those who are the puppet masters of this world, don't give a crap about their puppets they play with. It has been this way for many, many, many years. I see it as a cycle, except this time around the whole world is involved almost simultaneously, and we have maybe caused our own extinction. So there have always been periods of great chaos and tragedy, so that  humans keep evolving past their (mega ) habits. We are alive during a great transition of enormous importance though this time around.

Well said, Knarf. But I don't share your confidence that this will work out okay.  :(

One could even read "Merchants of Doubt" ;) I read it long ago and although I was slightly aware of the Big Tobacco's lies it was astonishing to see the exact same "scientists" and "experts" who were casting doubt on Tobacco's harmful effects then went over to Big Oil and helped them cast doubt on Climate Change. I sometimes think Corporations are more pernicious than their lackeys in government, then I remember whose fingers (small?) are on the nuclear trigger.
AJ

All true.  :(  I hear ya.  Things just seem to get better and better for the most evil bastards that walk the earth. And now they've got the Supremely Fascist Court the empathy deficit disordered psychos have dreamed of. If you watch that full video I posted, you will see Putin doing a fist pump with Tillerson towards the end. I suspect there are a lot of fist pumps in fossil fuel Fascist board rooms going on right now. Here's one of them having some coffee:

The ancient past is most likely prologue.

Tomorrow is Yesterday...
Quote
I just got a call from Trump. He said BUY on Monday. The mahket is going to the MOON now that we have our main man in the fossil fuel Supreme Court. We ARE GONNA GET RICHER THAN EVAH NOW!



 

The forests won’t fix our CO2 problem — in fact, they’ll scrub less than we assumed


Alexandru Micu March 7, 2017

Carbon dioxide absorption by growing biosphere may have been overestimated up to now, a new study concludes. This is due to previous estimates not taking into account the limiting factor of essential nutrients on plant development.

Image via Pixabay.

One effect of rising concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere is that plants have more of the gas — a prime source of carbon — to metabolize, improving growth rates. It also raises average temperatures in cold areas, promoting plant growth. Satellite imagery has shown that while growth has declined in some areas, our planet is getting greener overall.

Climate scientists have pointed out that this increased quantity of plants will be able to scrub even more CO2 out of the atmosphere, forming a natural carbon sink, and helping mitigate our emissions. But they have overestimated just how much the biosphere will grow, and thus how much more carbon it will soak. By testing the effect of higher CO2 levels on forests growing in tropical and subtropical soils, a team from the Western Sydney University in Australia has found that the biosphere will likely grow less than what previous estimates have projected.

Plenty of carbon, scarce phosphorus

The team, led by David Ellsworth of Western Sydney University in Australia, says that forests will absorb around a tenth less CO2 than previously expected, meaning CO2 levels will rise even faster than our current models predict. The main limiting factor opposing CO2’s fertilizing effect is the lack of phosphorous in tropical and subtropical regions, they explain.

To determine how much the biosphere will grow, the team artificially raised CO2 levels in six plots of a mature eucalyptus forest near Sydney, which were growing in characteristically phosphorus-poor soil. The plots were covered in a mix of individuals of diverse species and ages.

ALSO READ  NASA satellite spots mile-long iceberg breaking off from Antarctic glacier

Previous similar work in temperate forests (whose soils are much richer in phosphorus) found that CO2 increase could boost growth by as much as 20%. Ellsworth’s team found no evidence of growth boost in their plots at all. They attribute this difference to the limiting effect of phosphorous (a key nutrient) on growth. The results are backed by previous results, showing plant growth in the past 30 years didn’t see as much an increase as we estimated.

Another (very) limiting factor is human activity. Although some forests will grow faster if left to their own devices, we have a pretty consistent habit of cutting them down. Martin Brandt et al. show that while there’s overall more woody vegetation in Africa, the effects of warmer climate and rising levels of CO2 are offset by deforestation for raw materials and arable land in highly populated, humid areas, leading to a decrease in woody vegetation for these regions. The biggest increase in forests was seen in dry areas with low human populations, but it’s unclear if this makes up for the losses in vegetation elsewhere.

Quote
Ellsworth also points out that an increase in plant growth doesn’t necessarily translate to an increase in CO2 absorption and storage by plants.

Where does this leave us? Well, while it would be a nice turn of events it seems unlikely that the trees will clean our mess. So overall the situation takes a turn for the worse. Our best bet, as up to now, is to limit emissions and find ways to sequester CO2. In the meantime, we should also try as much as possible to mitigate the damage.

The full paper “Elevated CO2 does not increase eucalypt forest productivity on a low-phosphorus soil” has been published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/phosphorus-limits-forest-growth/

Agelbert NOTE: The above is objective scientific reporting. Unfortunately for those of us in the reality based community, the probability of seeing or reading about this in Fox News (and most other media in the USA   :P ) is about 7%.


You say that ain't so? You say that was way back in 2012 and "people are better informed by the media today". 


READ ON:
Most Americans believe climate change is real but the media war on science clearly shows its teeth

Tibi Puiu April 7, 2017

On Wednesday, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D) gave his 163rd “Time to Wake Up” address on climate change in front of his colleagues from Congress informing them that most Americans believe climate change is real. Whitehouse cited a recent study released by Yale University scientists to highlight the gap between what lawmakers say and do in Congress and what their constituents really think and expect from their elected representatives.


According to the Yale study, 70% of Americans believe in climate change. That might sound like good news but there are a couple of caveats that we need to pay attention to. For instance, the same study found only 53% of Americans believe climate change is caused by human activity. In other words, one in two people thinks the direction climate is heading is completely natural or impossible to influence, which is just borderline better than outright climate change denial.

Counties where adults discuss global warming at least occasionally. The west part of the country is far more involved in the climate change conversation. Credit: Yale University.

Agelbert NOTE: Vermont is, like much of the west, part of the reality based community.   

What can explain these stats in light of an overwhelming scientific consensus? It’s the media war on science, of course. The Yale survey found 49 percent of people thought that “most scientists think global warming is happening,” when in fact 97% of climate scientists agree climate change is not only happening but is caused by humans. It reminds me of the confusion around the health risks of smoking tobacco. Despite the fact that ever since the freaking 1950s an overwhelming majority of doctors cautioned patients that smoking can kill, the general public was polarized by Big Tobacco marketing campaigns and bogus cherry-picked studies made by ill-intentioned scientists or no real scientists at all, for that matter. Almost everyone nowadays knows smoking kills and it would be silly to think otherwise because you just can’t keep the lid on this kind of thing for too long — but just a few decades ago things weren’t that clear in the eyes of the general public.

So the confusion among the general public is understandable when you realize the country’s biggest broadcast networks collectively aired shows or news covering climate change for no more than 50 minutes for the whole year of 2016. That’s how much time the planet and the livelihoods of millions of species are worth to them. When they do talk about climate change or events under a climate change lens, often there are no real scientists invited to the discussion or, worse, they air climate denialism.

With half the population of the country dazed and confused, this Presidential Administration feels legitimized to undo policies that were actually helping the environment and enacting policies that will make it worse. The most recent attack on climate and science, in general, was last week’s executive order to destroy the Clean Power Act under which hundreds of new power plants would have been closed and replaced with renewable energy. The idea is to make ‘coal great again’, you know, last century’s tech which has been getting killed by the market for years. Reviving coal use is like trying to put back horse drive carriages on the road. Pure lunacy, just like one of the most embarrassing anti-science hearing ever that took place recently. Last week was a ‘good one’.

“Typical for this insider friendly administration. It’s a polluter’s wish list that’s terrible for the American people. ‘Sad,’ as the President would say,” Sen. Whitehouse spoke in front of Congress colleagues.

“The question of carbon dioxide as a polluter has been settled by the Supreme Court. So you have as a matter of law a dangerous pollutant and under the law it must be regulated. So this performance by the Trump show is a waste of time because ultimately lawyers and courts will give ‘the law’ — the final say,” he later added.

Yet again, it seems policy makers act with total impunity against the wishes of their constituents. The Yale study found 82 percent of respondents said the country should fund research into renewable energy sources. Moreover, 75 percent said the government should regulate CO2 as a pollutant.

ALSO READ  Trump orders media blackout at the EPA, tells employees to 'cut climate change webpage'

If you feel justifiably underrepresented by these recent developments, don’t stand idle. Write to your senator letting him or her know that what you care about stands in stark contrast to Congress and Oval Office action. But before you do that, talk to your friends and family about this. A previous study found two-thirds of Americans are worried about climate change but rarely talk about it publically.   

http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate/climate-change-wake-up/

ANOTHER Agelbert NOTE: The REASON Americans don't talk about their worries on climate change publicly is BECAUSE of the media propaganda blitz funded BY THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY. It's called Cognitive dissonance through AGNOTOLOGY.

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

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7404
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #142 on: April 23, 2017, 04:48:27 pm »

Fox News Gets Schooled By Nebraska Farmer on Dangers of the Keystone XL Pipeline


SNIPPET 1:

Trump's support for Keystone rests on a foundation of disinformation. Independent analysts agree that the the project would create about thirty-five permanent jobs. But even if it created more, that wouldn't justify destroying communities and the livelihoods of private citizens.

Snippet 2:

Smith     : We all want to achieve energy independence in this country. This was an effort and a step in that direction. How do you achieve that?"

Tanderup: Well first of all, this is not American oil, and it is going across America...

Smith : "But it's coming from Canada, rather than the Middle East, would be the argument."

Tanderup: "That’s true, but it’s going across America to be refined and exported, which is not for America’s use."

Full story:

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/4/23/1655491/-Fox-News-Gets-Schooled-By-Nebraska-Farmer-on-Dangers-of-the-Keystone-XL-Pipeline

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

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7404
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #143 on: May 09, 2017, 11:53:13 pm »
 

May 9, 2017

TRUMP: Trump to nominate two energy regulators (The Hill, Politico), Perez jabs Trump’s ‘aggressive stupidity’ on environment (The Hill)

EPA: The US Environmental Protection Agency is slowly turning its back on everything it was set up to protect (Quartz), EPA seeks delay of California waiver suit (Politico Pro $), EPA strips one science board, while likely eyeing a bigger prize (InsideClimate News), latest changes at EPA have scientists on alert (LA Times $)

METHANE: GOP under pressure as Senate weighs vote on drilling rule (AP), Portman to back resolution overturning BLM methane rule (Politico Pro $), Dem senator: Possible methane vote would be ‘a huge step backward’ (The Hill), Congressional anti-rule push may live on after methane vote (E&E $)

WEATHER: Near record amount of April showers drench US last month (AP, USA Today), swath of states experiencing hottest year to date (Climate Central), spring's early arrival is a troubling indicator of climate change (PRI)

IMPACTS: Climate change erodes thin safety margins at Calif. dam (Greenwire $), flooding in the Mississippi Delta is climate change in action (Nexus Media News), carbon pollution is suffocating ocean life and speeding up the next mass extinction (ThinkProgress)

SOLUTIONS: Inside NYC's plan to fight climate change through architecture (Fast Co.Design), cleaner fuel hoard seen rising as nations grapple with pollution (Bloomberg)

PIPELINES: Pipeline spill by Dakota Access company could have a ‘deadly effect’ (Washington Post $, Ohio Dispatch News)

LOCAL RENEWABLES: Minnesota officials release new data on the state’s growing solar industry (Midwest Energy News), in another departure from Christie, Guadagno wants N.J. to re-join RGGI (Politico Pro NJ $)

INT'L RENEWABLES: Europe's $6.9 billion coal subsidies 'better spent on technologies of the future' (Thomson Reuters Foundation), renewables offer cheaper, more reliable power for Philippines' small islands: report (Thomson Reuters Foundation), full tilt: giant offshore wind farm opens in North Sea (AFP), Germans may face higher power costs on exit from nuclear energy (Bloomberg)

RESEARCH & BUDGET: MI congresswoman: Trump budget could shutter emissions lab (AP), Trump's budget would eliminate a key funder of research on coastal pollution (NPR), visit this interactive climate website, before the Trump administration scrubs it too (Mashable)

AGRICULTURE: America’s farmers are caught between the changing climate and Trump’s denial (ThinkProgress)

INT'L: As droughts worsen, phones and radios lead way to water for Niger's herders (Thomson Reuters Foundation), a parable from down under for US climate scientists (New York Times $)

FINANCE: Lawmakers, advocates press for fossil fuel divestment by state, city pension funds (Politico Pro NY $), green bonds need global standards (FT $)
 
•Planet could breach 1.5C warming limit within 10 years, but be aware of caveats (The Guardian, Graham Readfearn column)

•Trump is waging a war on millennials (Washington Post, Katherine Rampell column $)

•Senators, protect Arizonans from toxic air pollution (Arizona Republic, Michelle Laverman op-ed)

•To curb climate change, we need to protect and expand US forests (The Conversation, William Moomaw op-ed)

DENIER ROUNDUP

 
Bradley & Barre & Kochs are Scary, But Look as their Garden Grows

A new study published in PLOS One last week confirms the idea that you can inoculate an audience against further lies by teaching them about misinformation. By explaining false balance to an audience, like the history of tobacco’s “fake experts,” the audience is less likely to fall for the various tricks deniers will use to turn the public against real experts.

For a great (and timely) example of fake experts, let's look at the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s letter urging Trump to abandon the Paris agreement. It’s signed by representatives of forty free-market groups, which to the untrained eye might appear to be credible experts. But to those savvy in the ways of fossil-fuel front groups, these are no different than the infamous “20,679 Physicians say ‘Luckies are less irritating’” ad, a relic of Big Tobacco's decades-long campaign to mislead the public. In fact, the inoculation study used this example to show how fake experts have long been used to convince the public to act against its own best interest.

Far from being unbiased and independent experts  , the group of forty signatories may as well have signed “Sincerely, The Kochs. ” But the Kochs aren’t the only ones who deserve our attention. There are other big names at play in this world, like Trump funders and string pullers, the Mercers. (Interesting side note: Mercer’s company is being sued by a former employee who was fired for comments critical of Mercer’s politics, particularly regarding comments about Bob Mercer expressing his opposition to the Civil Rights Act.)

Specifically, documents published last week by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel revealed two relatively obscure funders behind CEI. In an in-depth investigation rising out of hacked internal documents, the Journal-Sentinel looks at the (relatively successful) efforts of the Lynn and Harry Bradley Foundation to grow beyond Wisconsin and into a national, Koch-like network.

The Bradley Foundation is quite similar to the Kochs. Like the Kochs’ father, Harry Bradley was an OG of the John Birch Society (which, like their ideological brother Bob Mercer, was also opposed to the Civil Rights Act.) Like the Kochs and Mercers, the Bradley foundation supports a long list of right-wing groups, as well as a number of respectable, Milwaukee-based civic institutions. But among the listings for children’s theaters and orchestra donations are hefty sums to groups like CEI.

We know this because one of the documents leaked is a 2014 grant funding proposal where CEI asks Bradley to renew its giving. In it, CEI brags about their close work with other Bradley-supported groups, as well as listing out some of CEI’s other funders- the Koch and Scaife Foundations, as well as Exxon Mobil- who has claimed they stopped funding deniers like CEI years go, meaning either that’s not true, or CEI is listing defunct support.

 Getting a special shout-out from CEI is Barre Seid, who has anonymously “been among [CEI’s] biggest supporters.” Seid’s alleged anonymous giving to other groups like Heartland has been touched on elsewhere in leaked documents, so this is a thread interested parties might want to start tugging.

 Another interesting tidbit? When describing themselves in public, groups like CEI are always careful to describe themselves as “free-market” groups   , not political ones. This distinction is important, since their tax-deductible 501c(3) status prohibits partisan political activity.

But apparently CEI is willing to let the “free-market” fig leaf fall behind closed doors, as the document refers to CEI’s Cooler Heads Coalition, chaired by scorned Trump advisor Myron Ebell. The document describes Ebell’s work as bringing together “scholars and activists from almost every major right-of-center organization in Washington, D.C.”

This then brings us back to the coalition letter, led by Ebell and signed by “Forty Free-Market Groups.” Are all these groups and their legally non-partisan remit the same “right-of-center” groups CEI brags about to its funder?

Perhaps someone should give the IRS a heads up, and we’ll c(3) what they say...   


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

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7404
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #144 on: June 14, 2017, 06:58:12 pm »
How To Handle Trolls — Cleantech Communication Handbook
June 14th, 2017 by Zachary Shahan  ;D

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/06/14/handle-trolls-cleantech-communication-handbook/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7404
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #145 on: June 16, 2017, 09:07:24 pm »
 

New Denier Study So Bad Even Deniers are Somewhat Skeptical  :D

It goes without saying that peer review is an important safeguard against shoddy pseudoscience. Peer reviewers are so vital to the scientific endeavour that they recently got their own monument!
 
But peer review is not a perfect process. It’s necessary to ensure quality science, of course. but sometimes peer review goes wrong. For example, a journal whose editor is a climate denier with ties to Heartland recently published a paper claiming to refute the greenhouse theory. The paper is so bad that one scientist told DeSmog it is “laughable,” in part because the paper takes issue with the fact that greenhouses have glass roofs, and the atmosphere does not.   
 
Seriously.  ;D
 
So although deniers try to downplay the importance of the consensus to claim that a vast global conspiracy keeps their work out of peer-reviewed journals, it’s not impossible for their shoddy science to get published.
 
Most recently, Daily Caller’s Michael Bastasch,our favorite Koch operative masquerading as a reporter, covered a new study by “veteran statistician Stan Young” claiming to “expose huge flaws in EPA science.”  Surprisingly, Bastasch included a number of reasons to question the accuracy of the study. The post starts with an indication that Young’s study had been shopped around for three years before being peer-review published. Bastasch also includes a quote from reviewers who rejected the study from other journals, and a surprisingly lengthy section about the EPA’s decades-old establishment of the lethality of PM 2.5 pollution.
 
Bastasch mentions that the backstory on the struggle for this paper to pass peer review comes from a book, Scare Pollution . For some reason, he fails to mention that this book is written by Steve Milloy, the guy who wrote columns for Fox News until it was revealed that he was a tobacco industry lobbyist before becoming a fossil fuel booster. While Milloy does not appear to be an author of the study, he refers to it on his site JunkScience as “My California study” (the research is based on California health info).
 
The Milloy connection hints at the backstory behind the study, which is an attempt to debunk the seminal Six Cities study from Harvard that established the link between pollution and mortality. Because of its use by the EPA as a justification for regulations, the Six Cities study has long been a target for anti-EPA and pro-industry forces, particularly Lamar Smith.
 
While we haven’t yet dug into the details of the study, we hope some of you smart people do soon. It will likely make an appearance in Congress the next time someone wants to argue against EPA regulations. 
 
And when even their denier peers include multiple red flags about how it struggled to pass peer-review, it shouldn’t be too hard to debunk this study purporting to debunk decades of studies. 


https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/06/11/new-sham-journal-OMICS-climate-science-denier-ties-heartland-institute
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7404
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #146 on: July 01, 2017, 03:07:39 pm »
Statoil to Develop Carbon Capture and Storage System Off Norway

June 30, 2017 by gCaptain

Agelbert NOTE: The above is a technofix Big Oil Scam. I will explain WHY after you have waded through the Big Oil Pie in the Sky   Happy Talk Propaganda article  below.

Norwegian oil and gas company Statoil has been assigned the task of developing a carbon storage facility offshore Norway, in what could be the world’s first storage site to receive carbon dioxide from several industrial sources.

The storage project is part of Norwegian government’s efforts to develop full-scale carbon capture and storage in Norway. The project was assigned by the Norwegian state-owned carbon capture technology firm Gassnova.  

According to Statoil, the system will capture CO2 from three onshore industrial facilities in Eastern Norway and transport CO2 by ship from the capture area to a receiving plant onshore located somewhere on the west coast of Norway. At the receiving plant, CO2 will the be pumped over from the ship to tanks onshore before being sent through pipelines on the seabed to several injection wells east of the Troll field on the Norwegian Outer Continental Shelf, Statoil said.
 

Several possible locations for the receiving plant will be evaluated and a final decision will be based on criteria such as safety, costs and expansion flexibility, Statoil added.


In addition, the storage solution to be evaluated    will have the potential to receive CO2 from both Norwegian and European emission sources, according to Statoil.
Quote
Statoil says that studies performed in 2016 show that it is technically feasible to realize a carbon capture and storage chain in Norway, and technologies for carbon capture and storage in geological formations are also well known and established.
 


Future carbon storage could also benefit the hydrogen market, as hydrogen produced from natural gas generates CO2 as a by-product.


“Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an important tool to reduce carbon emissions and to achieve the global climate targets as defined in the Paris Agreement,” says Irene Rummelhoff, Statoil’s executive vice president for New Energy Solutions. “The CCS project that has been assigned to us will require an entirely new collaboration model with carbon capture from several industrial sources, carbon transportation by ships, and carbon storage 1000-2000 meters below the seabed. In addition, this may be the start of the world’s first CCS network across national borders. Much work remains, but if we are successful, this may open new business opportunities both for Statoil, our collaboration partners and Norwegian industry.”   

The next phase of the project, to be performed by Statoil, will involve concept and pre-engineering studies in order to evaluate the possibilities in more detail and to get accurate cost estimates towards a possible investment decision, which could be made by the Norwegian Parliament in 2019.
 
“The next big tasks are developing technology, regulations and general commercial conditions that may stimulate an extensive roll-out of CCS,” says Rummelhoff.

http://gcaptain.com/statoil-to-develop-carbon-capture-and-storage-system-offshore-norway/

FACT CHECK by Agelbert: Why is ALL the above an excellent example of irrational, suicidal, and cynical propaganda by Big Oil for the exclusive purpose of clinging to their profit over planet polluting 'business model'?

1. Well, to begin with, there is NO DEBATE about the deleterious effects on the biosphere of the 'business model' of the Fossil Fuel Industry (see below).

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is now around 410 Parts Per Million (PPM). That tiny amount in our atmosphere is already over 60 PPM above the limit (i.e. 350 PPM) to avoid massive extinctions, a huge rise in sea level, marine species killing acidification and routine 30 meter high wave tossed oceans. So what? Aren't they going to REDUCE the amount of CO2 out there? ???  NO, THEY ARE NOT!      See explanation below:

2. The most technically advanced method of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere is now used by the Military Submarine fleets throughout the world. The U.S. Navy has the absolute state of the art CO2 scrubbing technology. In fact, the PRIMARY reason U.S. subs need to surface is to get fresh air and purge the CO2.

Yes, they need to surface to get food and other supplies, but they CANNOT allow the  CO2 to get above 8 THOUSAND PPM (not 410 PPM) because the crew will suffer permanent cognitive and respiratory damage.  SO WHAT? Eight thousand PPM is a lot more than we have to 'worry' about in our atmosphere. A piddly 410 PPM is no concern of ours, right? WRONG!  See "1." above:

The point is that there is NO TECHNOLOGY in existence that can get the CO2 in the atmosphere BELOW 5 THOUSAND PPM. That is the best the U.S. Navy (and probably every other navy with submarines) can do.

But even that modern CO2 scrubbing technology is time limited. How come? Because, despite the scrubbing, the present technology cannot prevent the CO2 concentration from gradually rising until it approaches 8,000 PPM, thereby requiring the submarine to surface in order to avoid crew damage.

So, ANYONE claiming, as Statoil does in the above article, that "technologies for carbon capture and storage in geological formations are well known and established" is dissembling, to put it mildly. 

Yes, you CAN pump CO2 into geological formations. BUT, you can NEVER extract (i.e. capture) enough CO2 from our atmosphere to get anywhere NEAR less than 5000 PPM, never mind the 350 PPM that we MUST return to.

IOW, this is another SUBSIDIZED Big Oil move to get we-the-people to pay for a "carbon capture solution" that DOESN'T EVEN WORK, except as a clever, mendacious and cynical excuse to continue burning fossil fuels.

Notice, for example, that many of those geological formations they plan to pump liquified CO2 into just happen to be places where Big Oil is NOW extracting fossil fuels from. Isn't that amazingly convenient? The Polluter Trolls want to charge you for putting CO2 in their aptly named Troll field. These bastards have absolutely no shame. They pollute the planet and then they propose a pie in the sky geological formation carbon storage "solution" that we-the-people have to pay THEM for!

3. This "carbon capture NONsolution" subsidy is simply a way to avoid responsibility. The CAN store but they CANNOT, as of yet, CAPTURE the PROPORTION of atmospheric Carbon dioxide needed to mitigate Catastrophic climate change. This is the type of half truth double talk the fossil fuel industry crooks and liars are infamous for since they took lessons from the tobacco propagandists.

It is just another unethical slick propaganda move to try to rebrand Big Oil and Gas as the "problem solving savior" when they are the profit over people and planet problem cause AND perpetuator!

There is presently NO OTHER METHOD under present technology, besides CEASING to burn fossils, available to mitigate climate change Catastrophe during this sixth Mass Extinction that we have entered.

But, but couldn't we just hope for a technical miracle from the fossil fuel industry?  The Fossil fuelers have, for about 40 years now, written thousands and thousands of articles about how Renewable Energy was "pie in the energy sky" and "was not ready for prime time". They claimed (and still claim) that they were just being "prudent" and "real world" about what was "doable" and what "wasn't". They claimed they would happily support Renewable Energy when it was, uh, "cost effective". But, alas, they just couldn't, for our own good, OF COURSE, support "unproven" technologies.
We have all read them. Most of us     actually believed that tripe a few decades ago.

But, many of us finally figured out their tobacco corporation inspired profit over people and planet propaganda game. We all NOW know that all that FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt propaganda technique) was deliberate for the express purpose of delaying the Renewable Energy Revolution.
They lied serially and continually to defend their polluting business model.

So why should we give them the hopium benefit of the doubt for a technology, NOT YET INVENTED, when they attacked Renewable Energy technologies that had already been invented for decades? The increases in efficiency of Renewable Energy technologies came in spite of all the road blocks placed deliberately by the fossil fuel industry to strangle and destroy Renewable Energy technologies, not because of any good will or concern for the biosphere on the part of the polluters.

To those who believe the Fossil Fuel Industry can be trusted to act ethically for the good of society, the kitty below has a question for you:



Finally, even if there was a technofix to get us back to 350 PPM from 410 PPM while continuing the 'business as usual' (IPCC RCP-8.5) burning of fossil fuels, it would merely kick the resource can down the road. A future generation would find itself where those submarines are (but without a place to surface to) when their vaunted CO2 scrubbing technology could no longer hold back the massive collapse of civilization, along with the extinction of most, if not all, high order vertebrate species on the planet.


Technofixes, so far, have always eventually failed because the central issue is an ethical one, not a resource availability one, which is merely the symptom of unethical behavior by TPTB. Technofixes have just kicked the resource can down the road.

While we ARE tool makers, and will never escape that propensity to tinker, we also can choose to be ethical about our tools or unethical. If technology is applied ethically (i.e. by ensuring the protection of ALL the species affected that are known to provide a healthy habitat for humans), then technology could be a wise choice. However, if we don't learn to add and subtract with biosphere math, we are doomed.

« Last Edit: July 01, 2017, 05:39:22 pm by AGelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7404
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #147 on: July 10, 2017, 05:58:39 pm »


Here’s the Goop on Fake News, From Mainstream Media to Human-Pig Hybrids

Sometimes fake news is obvious, but sometimes it’s more subtle. For example, it’s not hard to tell that conspiracy theorist extraordinaire Alex Jones’s recent “reporting” on talking human/pig/gorilla hybrids is pretty obviously and entertainingly fake.

Slightly more believable-looking are fake news stories with clear ideological bents. In a piece from last month, the Huffington Post’s Alex Kaufman highlights a Daily Caller story that falsely blames offshore wind turbines for whale deaths, using the impacts of the construction process to support its claim. As Kaufman points out, construction on the turbines ended last year. The whale died a few weeks ago. See the problem?  ;)

But politically-biased press aren’t the only game in town, and the mainstream media isn’t totally innocent of falling for fake news. Sometimes, aggregators like Yahoo will pick up a fake story. For example, Alex Kaplan at Media Matters points out that lYahoo ran a made up story last week claiming the UN chief said Trump was right about the Paris Agreement. The supposed quote appears to only exist in the mind of the headline writer, as it doesn’t appear in the story, or anywhere else. Because it’s fake.

What’s worse, though, is when otherwise trusted sources actively promote or disseminate the sort of denial we expect from the Daily Caller and Alex Jones. Rebecca Leber and Jeremy Schulman explored this problem in a recent piece for Mother Jones, and created a timeline of mainstream media’s climate-denying fake news. It’s a great illustration of how the fossil fuel industry  has gamed media to prey on their instinct for (false) balance, controversy and lies-as-opinions. And sadly, based on the example of Bret Stephens being hired by NYT and now MSNBC, it doesn’t look like this is going to come to an end any time soon.

But don’t worry, dear reader. You can continue to count on us to highlight this fake news and call out the denial and false balance. Especially because we’ll be staying far, far away from all the weird, supposedly brain-boosting “medicinal” products sold at Alex Jones’ InfoWars store--which is apparently the same type of stuff sold at Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop website.

Actually, maybe all those exotic herbs and mushrooms explain the human-pig-gorilla hybrids Jones was so worked up about...
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7404
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #148 on: July 11, 2017, 06:32:24 pm »
Coal baron says carbon capture and storage ‘does not work’ and ‘is just cover for the politicians.’

Hmmmm

Robert Murray, CEO of Murray Energy. CREDIT: AP/Douglas C. Pizac

While President Donald Trump continues to tout “clean” coal, coal baron Robert Murray says it’s just a fantasy.

“Carbon capture and sequestration does not work. It’s a pseudonym for ‘no coal,’” the CEO of Murray Energy, the country’s largest privately held coal-mining company, told E&E News.

Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), also called carbon capture and storage, is the process of trapping carbon dioxide from a power plant (during or after burning a hydrocarbon like coal) and then storing it permanently, usually underground.

It’s a technically challenging and expensive process — especially problematic in an era of cheap natural gas and renewable energy. Mississippi pulled the plug on one of the country’s biggest CCS efforts last month after the company spent billions on trying, and failing, to make it work.

While many clean energy analysts (including me) have long been dubious of CCS for economic, environmental, and practical reasons, the coal industry has touted “clean coal” as the long-term savior of the industry in a carbon-constrained world.

That’s why it’s so stunning a top coal CEO like Murray would now say that clean coal isn’t a real thing.


“It is neither practical nor economic, carbon capture and sequestration,” he said last week. “It is just cover for the politicians, both Republicans and Democrats that say, ‘Look what I did for coal,’ knowing all the time that it doesn’t help coal at all.”

And this is from a guy who is a member of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity    — which has spent tens of millions of dollars trying to persuade the public that clean coal is the solution to global warming.

The Clean Coal Smoke Screen - Center for American Progress

Posted on View details of ACCCE investment in carbon capture and storage Download this report (pdf) A series of feel…

www.americanprogress.org

If, as Murray says, CCS is “neither practical nor economic,” then coal clearly has no future. Two years ago the nations of the world agreed in Paris to bring global CO2 emissions down to zero in the second half of this century — the only way to avoid multiple, irreversible catastrophic climate impacts.

And if we won’t be using coal in the foreseeable future, then we need to start an orderly reduction of existing coal plants — in contrast to Murray’s support for team Trump’s plan to boost coal use. It makes little or no sense to keep building new coal plants, since they will have to be shuttered prematurely and replaced with carbon-free energy. All that wasted capital would be better spent on sustainable carbon-free sources from the start. This is precisely the calculus that more and more countries are starting to make today, including China.

The coal industry has pushed CCS and “clean coal” for years. But coal baron Murray just let the cat out of the bag: Clean coal is a fiction.

https://thinkprogress.org/clean-coal-isnt-real-eda3e2841060

Coal baron says carbon capture and storage ‘does not work’ and ‘is just cover for the politicians.’

Hmmmm


Robert Murray, CEO of Murray Energy. CREDIT: AP/Douglas C. Pizac

This, in re that **** monster:


Yep.  :( Thank you Knarf and Surly, for spreading the word about how badly this country (and the world) has been SUCKERED by these profit over people and planet fossil fuel industry liars and crooks.

The Fossil Fuelers   DID THE Climate Trashing, human health depleting 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: 7404
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • View Profile
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #149 on: July 22, 2017, 06:35:46 pm »
Zero Hedge is packed with Fossil Fuel Industry cheerleaders for all things polluting which never tires of attacking EVs and Renewable Energy


Karl Rove

Agelbert NOTE:
Karl Rove always advocated accusing the oponent of having YOUR WEAKNESS, before he could attack you with it. Zero Hedge must have studied Karl Rove.  :evil4:




Below is a list of articles stuffed with bold faced lies and totally unsubstantiated claims about Renewable Energy that ACTUALLY APPLY to fossil fuels, NOT Clean energy.


Controversy Explodes over Renewable Energy Post Carbon Institute

July 11, 2017

Making Coal Great Again | Zero Hedge  
June 17, 2017

More Solar Jobs Is A Curse, Not A Blessing | Zero Hedge
June 6, 1917

Exposing The Renewable Fuels Con | Zero Hedge
May 7, 2017

Renewable Lies And The Deception Of Dutch ... - Zero Hedge
February 6, 2017

Destroying The "Wind & Solar Will Save Us" Delusion | Zero Hedge 
January 21, 2017


Alberta Warns Trump Of Retaliation If Energy ... - Zero Hedge

April 25, 2017


Germany Struggles With Too Much Renewable Energy | Zero Hedge

August 15, 2015

The fossil fuel industry OWNS ZERO HEDGE    . Don't listen to a word they say about ENERGY in general and EVs in PARTICULAR!   


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

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
48 Replies
2430 Views
Last post July 31, 2017, 08:53:09 pm
by AGelbert
202 Replies
3407 Views
Last post July 11, 2017, 10:14:46 pm
by AGelbert
57 Replies
1763 Views
Last post April 19, 2017, 05:03:50 pm
by AGelbert
31 Replies
2961 Views
Last post February 09, 2017, 07:20:24 pm
by AGelbert
100 Replies
2641 Views
Last post August 04, 2017, 02:42:46 pm
by AGelbert

+-Recent Topics

Nuclear Poisoning of the Pacific by AGelbert
August 18, 2017, 11:19:26 pm

Defending Wildlife by AGelbert
August 18, 2017, 10:43:28 pm

Money by AGelbert
August 18, 2017, 10:26:21 pm

The Wisdom of the Books of the Bible by AGelbert
August 18, 2017, 09:59:34 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
August 16, 2017, 07:13:50 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
August 16, 2017, 03:13:46 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
August 16, 2017, 03:12:59 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
August 15, 2017, 09:40:25 pm

Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden by AGelbert
August 15, 2017, 09:00:37 pm

Welcome! by AGelbert
August 15, 2017, 04:36:54 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial