+- +-

+-User

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

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 46
Latest: Tony Ryan
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 12295
Total Topics: 256
Most Online Today: 3
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi  (Read 9974 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23032
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #60 on: February 25, 2015, 08:16:10 pm »
02/24/2015 12:47 PM     

Climate Denial 101, Paid-Off Scientist Exposed 


SustainableBusiness.com News

What's behind climate change denial? 


Many people have long suspected that scientists who refute the evidence are paid off  and now there's proof. 

 Willie Soon, a prominent scientist at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has published "scholarly" research for years with funding from Exxon Mobil, American Petroleum Institute,  Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, Donors Trust and the utility, Southern Company - over $800,000 since 2008, and over 1.2 million in the past 10 years.

He published 11 studies in nine professional publications like Journal of Climate, and didn't mention his compensation came from the fossil fuel industry - breaching conflict of interest protocols.

Soon's big argument is that solar flares are causing the Earth to warm  . He's the go-to "scientist" for deniers like Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), who now chairs the Senate Environment Committee. When Republicans need someone to testify against the science of climate change, he's their man - he won a "courage" award from Heartland Institute for standing up to the vast number of scientists that disagree with him. His testimonies have been used to block action on climate change and incentives for renewable energy. 

The ridiculous idea that polar bears are not under stress also comes from him, paid for by the State of Alaska and others that don't want it listed as endangered.

 In his proposals to prospective funders, Soon promises annual "deliverables" on research published, public presentations, a book chapter, and testimonies to Congress.

 The investigation by Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Centre has been reported widely in the news, from The Guardian to the New York Times. 

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA)  says he will further investigate the "denial-for-hire scheme perpetrated by the anti-climate action cabal." He wants fossil fuel companies and trade organizations to disclose their funding of climate science. "The American public deserve an honest debate that isn't polluted by the best junk science fossil fuel interests can buy," he told the Boston Globe.

The fracking industry is also working to distort the science.      

Climate Change Discussion

Climate Denial 101

 Curious about the psychology behind climate denial and how to communicate with climate deniers?

 Take the online course, Climate Denial 101! 

This 7-week course requires 1-2 hours a week of your time. You can audit the course free of charge. The 12 instructors are impressive - the international team includes scientists, computer modelers, communications specialists and lecturers on the subject. They all contribute to the Skeptical Science website, where scientists refute the myths.

 In the course description they say: You'll learn both the science of climate change and the techniques used to distort the science.


Quote
"With every myth we debunk, you'll learn the critical thinking needed to identify the fallacies associated with the myth. Finally, armed with all this knowledge, you'll learn the psychology of misinformation. This will equip you to effectively respond to climate misinformation and debunk myths."


A well-functioning democracy depends on a well-informed public, they say.


Sign up here for Denial 101:
 
Website: www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x#.VOy34ix0w_4

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26165
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23032
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #61 on: March 06, 2015, 05:39:23 pm »
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23032
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23032
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #63 on: May 10, 2015, 08:58:48 pm »
Snowleopard, consistent climate denier for YEARS, is BACK!  :P

Snowleopard (AS USUAL) says,
Quote
My guess is that they Will Soon drop the global warming/climate change meme as a means to implement the control system.  Likely sustainability will be the new keyword to induce Ben Dover to accept the control agenda.

For the last three years or so you have been pushing unscientific, pro-fossil fuel propaganda like "sunspots, not fossil fuel burning, causes global warming", "the alleged "pause" in global warming (That HAS been proven a hoax generated by pro-fossil fuel propaganda), the "new ice age" (see Snowleopard wanting to move "south" and making plans to "ice skate on the Potomac" LOL!), ETC. 

For those very same last three years, hard data and scientific evidence of the horror show in the biosphere thanks to your fossil fuel burning pals has been pouring in torrentially, YET you still remain consistent to your climate denier "tune".  :evil4:

But let us assume for the moment that your are right and there is no global warming. WHY DO YOU, who claim to be looking out for we-the-people, play blind, deaf and dumb at the rip offs we-the-people are CONSTANTLY being subjected to by your fossil fuel PALS if, indeed, they AREN'T your pals and you aren't a PRO-Fossil Fuel SHILL?  :icon_scratch:

FACTS about global warming don't bother you.

I guess FACTS like the following TAXPAYER THEFT FINANCED BY THE BANKS AND THE GOVERNMENT on behalf of fossil fuel bottom lines don't bother you either.  ;)

Quote
Tt costs $1.50 per acre a year for the first five years of a lease, and increases to $2 per acre for years 5-10 - the same as when Eisenhower was President. 

Royalties are 12.5% of the value of the extracted coal, oil and gas, but that ends up around 5% after loopholes, and is much lower than the 18.75% for offshore leases (and that's also undervalued).   

US taxpayers are losing about $1 billion a year in royalties
- $30 billion over the past 30 years, says The Mountain Pact.

Read our articles, Even At Bargain Basement Prices, No Coal Company Bids At Auction and US Continues To Lease Our Coal for $1 a Ton.

Banks Keep Coal On Life Support   


Quote
For years, the world's largest banks have promised to stop financing coal, but in 2014 they still supported the industry with $144 billion - a billion less than the previous year.

 Financing for coal mining actually increased from $55 billion in 2013 to $70 billion in 2014, and financing for coal-fired power producers dropped to $75 billion from $90 billion in 2013.

 Some banks have stopped financing the worst kinds of coal mining, such as mountaintop removal in the US and the world's largest mine in Australia.

"It's outrageous for some banks to be hitching themselves to this year's UN climate negotiations in Paris as 'climate leaders' while they are not prepared to pull out of all coal sector financing, end of story,"    says Yann Louvel at BankTrack.

 Read our articles, World's Biggest Coal Miner Gets Help From Major Banks and JP Morgan, Bank America, Citi Still Top Coal Financiers.

Read, The End of Coal, the Coal Finance Report Card 2015, which ranks the banks:
 
Website: www.ran.org/coalreportcard

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26288



Snowleopard, I am not buying the agnotology that you are selling.  ;)

 

Agnotology: Part one of six parts

Agnotology: Part two of six parts

Agnotology: Part three of six parts

Agnotology: Part four of six parts

Agnotology: Part five of six parts

Agnotology: Part six of six parts


Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23032
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #64 on: May 11, 2015, 06:16:15 pm »

Residential rate =   :P  Commerical and industrial rates =     

The Fantasy of Electric Rates: Time to Educate Ratepayers  

Scott Sklar, The Stella Group
 May 11, 2015  |  2 Comments 

Many electric utilities are flexing their political muscles against solar net metering and state renewable portfolio standards (RPS). Their main issue is that other consumers are subsidizing solar (and renewables), particularly pointing to lower-income consumers. I have already written about the numerous studies that disprove those allegations, but that is not what this article is about.

There are several fantasies about electricity rates, and it is time to address “ratepayers subsidizing solar.” The corollary is “at no other time do ratepayers subsidize other ratepayers.”  I am here to tell you, dear readers, that this belief is hogwash. Cross-ratepayer subsidies occur every single day in every utility service territory.

Fantasy One: There Is One Electric Rate

In many states, residential ratepayers have one homogenized rate, and commercial/industrial/institutional (CII) ratepayers have a series of electric sub-rates called demand charges (rates increase over a certain level of electric use), peak and season rates, and in de-regulated states “spot” or “ratchet” rates (which are time-specific rates) and some even have time-of-use (TOU) rates.  So in states where residential customers have a singular rate, those CII ratepayers subsidize residential rates.

Fantasy Two: There Are No Cross-rate Subsidies


Every utility in their service area allows large industrial, commercial, and institutional customers receive lower electric rates. In fact, these large players negotiate with the electric utility on what rate they expect when they move a facility or building into an area. The larger they are, the lower electric rates they get.

According to the Energy Information Administration, 2014 electric utility rates for New England stand at 17.98/kWh for residential while commercial is 14.04/kWh and industrial is 10.97/kWh, which is the only electric rate that went down from the year prior.  Pacific coast rates are at 13.81/kWh for residential and 8.51/kWh for industrial, while West South Central states are at 11.01/kWh for residential, 8.17/kWh for commercial and 5.75/kWh for industrial.

In fact there is a whole industry of consultants that represent companies to negotiate lower electric rates with their electric utilities. One such consultant advertises: “Our energy consultants routinely negotiate with utilities to generate savings for companies. These negotiations extend beyond tariff rates into other utility opportunities, incentives and programs that involve: obtaining preferable contract terms and developing specialized rates.”

Manuals for officials from commercial and industry that move or open new facilities routinely state: “Electricity price negotiations: In contrast to negotiating your interconnection agreement, you may have more bargaining flexibility in negotiating your price for electricity.  In some locations, all electricity prices will be defined by pre-determined tariff rates. However, ideally you'll find a "negotiated rate tariff," which lays out the structure of the agreement but leaves blanks for the actual prices. This means the door is open for you to negotiate on price.”

A February 2014 story in Business reported:

Quote
Florida Power & Light Co. received the go-ahead from regulators Tuesday to negotiate discounted rates for industrial and commercial customers with a load of 2 megawatts or more  in hopes of bringing more large power users to its territory. State regulators unanimously approved what’s known as a commercial/industrial service rider that gives FPL the flexibility to negotiate prices with customers within those parameters. Those eligible would either be companies are at risk of leaving FPL’s territory for less expensive service outside of Florida or firms weighing locating in Florida versus other states.
The bottom line is that when these large energy users receive lower negotiated rates — and this happens in every utility service territory — guess who is subsidizing the richest ratepayers in the world? Answer: Other ratepayers, usually small business and residential ratepayers.   

Fantasy Three: Utilities Can Strong Arm the Political Process for Electric Rates

On April 17th, The Texas Senate has voted to eliminate the state's RPS and its Competitive Renewable Energy Zone (CREZ) program, two initiatives that were instrumental in driving a huge growth of wind power and an expanding market for solar, as well.

While only one House of the Texas legislature acted so far this year, Kansas repealed its RPS in the state legislature this year. Midwest Energy news reported, “It’s the fourth consecutive year that renewable-energy opponents such as Wichita-based Koch Industries and the Kansas Chamber of Commerce have attempted to downsize or eliminate the requirement that investor-owned utilities derive increasing proportions of their energy from renewable sources.”

Bottom line: Due to flatter consumer demand and much higher consumer adoption of energy efficiency and on-site electrical generation, the old electric utility model is taking a licking. Most electric utilities are frantically using their political clout, just as MaBell did to stall deregulation and cellular.

But while large industrial and commercial ratepayers get huge electric rate reductions subsidized by other ratepayers, does anyone hear a call for standby charges due to rate shifts to other customers? No.  Only solar users receive that designation in some states due to a very sophisticated    campaign by electric utilities.  ;)

I personally have no problem with large electric users or solar users benefitting from their clout or personal entrepreneurism.  But I do strongly object to policymakers and regulators focusing on the smallest side of the rate shift, rather than the largest – and implementing fees (standby charges) to address the much smaller impact on rates than the large users.

Many legislatures and regulatory commissions are falling for this dual standard  ;)on the guise that they need to make the standard electric utility model viable. 

But in fact, their job should be focused on what’s best for all ratepayers to provide reliable, clean, and affordable (over the long term) from their electricity delivery system. 

Sadly, most are failing that consumer/ratepayer test. And it’s our job as electric ratepayers to put our foot down on shifting penalties to energy savers rather than a more flexible, agile, electric delivery system we all deserve. 

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2015/05/the-fantasy-of-electric-rates-time-to-educate-ratepayers
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23032
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23032
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #66 on: June 22, 2015, 05:51:26 pm »
Good Vermonters tear a fossil fueler Vermonter's propaganda piece to bits!

Quote

Jeff Noordsy 

June 21, 2015 at 7:42 pm


To those who are following the recent cavalcade of commentaries and op/ed pieces favoring the pipeline I’m guessing that you too are taking note that NONE of the proponents are mentioning the cost of the project. Should we not, as taxpayers or ratepayers, consider the costs of a project versus the benefits? That’s certainly what we all do as homeowners, but the gas company is hoping that they will not be scrutinized in this manner. The simple fact is that the gas company is asking (demanding, actually) 40,000 or so already overburdened Vermont taxpayers to write a $154 million dollar check that MIGHT provide service to 3000 Vermont homes. That simply does not make sound economic sense. No matter your feelings about energy in general or natural gas in particular, this project’s costs far exceed the benefits. There’s a reason that the proponents will not speak directly to that issue.



Jane Palmer 

June 21, 2015 at 9:28 pm


While the author of this opinion piece has many impressive credentials, it doesn’t appear she has used any of what she must have learned through her experience in terms of how to filter out hype and propaganda from truth and reality. This piece reads just like a PR release from Vermont Gas. In fact, she uses most of the same phrases and comparisons and statistics. Problem is, she most likely got those so called “facts” directly from Vermont Gas! Forgive me if I am wrong, but she didn’t reference any studies or articles in her opinion piece.
 Everyone is entitled to their opinion…but it would be more interesting to read something someone actually thought about instead of just parroting back what they “learn” from the advertising and press releases from the company that stands to gain from the project.
 As someone who acknowledges climate change and the need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuel, Ms Nystrom Meyer should know it makes no sense at all to spend over $154 million to hook up less than 3000 new customers. Since the author lives in Colchester, she should be pressuring VGS to deliver gas to her area and other parts of Chittenden and Franklin Counties that don’t currently have gas but could be hooked up without the insane expense of building a transmission line.


Philip Beliveau 

June 21, 2015 at 9:31 pm


Wow sounds like you just got a new job with Vt gas. Nice job of cherry picking the numbers you like to support the position that lines your pockets. What about the cost of converting furnaces etc? What about the fact that existing customers will be paying for this pipeline? Does that obliterate the savings they have enjoyed? What about that this pipe will cost 180 million to serve 3000 customers? When is the price to high? What about the other states that are experiencing earth quakes and water contamination? Is it ok for Vt to benefit when other states suffer the consequences? Either you know better or you are being paid to look the other way. Sad!



Sally Burrell 

June 21, 2015 at 10:57 pm


We need to discuss methane as well as CO2 when comparing GHG emissions. Methane is 80 times more potent as a Green House Gas than CO2. Extracting natural gas releases a significant amount of methane into the atmosphere and actually makes natural gas a poor choice compared to oil, propane and even coal. VGS customers may have enjoyed better rates in the past, but rates are fluctuating and generally rising. The same savings are no longer available. Many ratepayers will be paying well beyond their means to cover the pipeline if it is built. We were not as aware a decade ago of the overall societal and environmental costs of using fossil fuels. Now that we know better, it doesn’t make sense to put long term infrastructure into the ground for a fuel that causes more destruction, expense and climate chaos for our future. Renewable sources are steadily being developed and implemented around the world. We need to transition to a more sustainable energy system starting now.


Chuck Reiss 

June 21, 2015 at 11:12 pm


Karen Meyer it appears to have decided of the two “solid” arguments the new gas pipeline is the more solid of the two. Based on savings of course. It also appears she has cherry picked her facts to support her argument. Or perhaps she does not have all the facts she needs. Facts like we can and are taking older homes and converting them to renewable energy, by way of conservation, heat pumps and solar pv (on site or community based). Reducing a household’s energy load any where from 80 – 100%. and in some cases making the home owner cash positive on a monthly basis. This is what the comparison should be, not choosing between a polluting and a less polluting fuel source. This type of half analysis is exactly what Vermont Gas is hoping for. They are so far down the path to a fossil fuel dependent future for Vermont, the idea that we actually have alternatives that are really clean and less expensive for the Vermont home owner only wreaks havoc with their corporate model of keeping us dependent on their infrastructure. So lets learn the facts before we sit in judgement of the more solid argument.


Don Peterson 

June 22, 2015 at 8:22 am


Ms Nystrom might have had a long career in public service but she has failed to grasp that the “Public” has changed dramatically. The public can meet and share ideas in ways that were not possible ten years ago. Collective wisdom in this case trumps the status quo.

We expect higher levels of transparency, competence and public utility than perhaps she is used to. It’s a wake up call for bureaucrats everywhere.

Why she would place her weight behind this poorly executed project is a mystery. No doubt someone asked her to help out.


Joel R. Davidson 

June 22, 2015 at 8:35 am


This pipeline project has become to costly to have any benefit to the customers or State taxpayers. Stop it now before we get in too deep to back out. New technologies will soon make propane and natural gas an outdated source of fuel. The solar farms, while unsightly to some will work effectively with hydrogen based system. Fuel cells are a viable option. If the storage and safety concerns can be overcome hydrogen will be the “green” fuel of choice. It is in endless supply here on earth and produces pure water as a byproduct. There is no need for major pipelines and solar energy can help produce large quantities over time that can be stored where produced. Hydrogen fueled cars already exist although efficiency needs improvement. How many readers have not produced hydrogen in a school lab using electrolysis? There are now much more effective methods of producing hydrogen. See links below

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3706/20140225/scientists-discover-cheaper-way-to-make-hydrogen-fuel.htm

http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_production_delivery.html

Joel


Peter Burmeister 

June 22, 2015 at 11:21 am


Fossil based fuels, including natural gas, are an obsolete technology. To continue to invest in distribution systems at the price of hundreds of millions of dollars, only to be building a 21st century equivalent of an Erie Canal, is absurd. The environmental cost of encouraging the burning of carbon is enormous. Certainly our best minds can find far more viable and less devastating solutions to the problem of home heating during the Vermont winter.



Karen Nystrom Meyer: Solid arguments 
http://vtdigger.org/2015/06/21/karen-nystrom-meyer-solid-arguments/

To fossil fueler Karen Nystrom, my neighbor in Colchester, Vermont.


Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23032
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #67 on: June 22, 2015, 08:05:05 pm »
New Report Exposes Dark Money Funneling to Climate Change Denial Groups


SNIPPET 1:


The network of corporate-funded right wing think tanks in America is massive. The money that flows to these organizations is even more massive than the networks themselves, and it flows in almost total secrecy thanks to Donors Trust and ]Donors Capital Fund.

According to the report, a staggering sum of $125 million has been given to these organizations that deny climate change over the last three years. Photo credit: Shutterstock




SNIPPET 2:


A few of the groups listed in the report include:

The Federalist Society, a networking group for conservative lawyers and justices which calls on states to reject the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency authority to regulate carbon pollution, received $8.7 million over the past three years.

The State Policy Network, a network of ultra-conservative think tanks, received a total of $8.2 million over the last three years.

Think tanks allied with the State Policy Network have worked with the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a pro-business lobby, which has sought legislation to penalize homeowners who install solar panels.

The Hudson Institute, a Washington think tank whose climate expert opposes cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, took in $7.9 million over three years.

The Heartland Institute, which sent a delegation to Rome in April to try to upstage meetings between the Pope and the UN Chief Ban Ki Moon on climate change, received $3.8 million.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has received $4.3 million over three years, claims on its website that climate change is its biggest program.

The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, whose communications director is Marc Morano, took $3.7 million from donors in 2012—its most ever. A year later, however, the organization received $325,000.

Full article:


http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/22/dark-money-climate-denial/
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23032
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #68 on: July 09, 2015, 01:19:45 pm »

Internal Documents Expose Fossil Fuel Industry’s Decades of Deception on Climate Change

Elliott Negin, Union of Concerned Scientists | July 9, 2015 8:51 am

Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse created a stir recently when he speculated that fossil fuel companies may be violating federal racketeering law by colluding to defraud the public about the threat posed by carbon pollution.

A new report reveals that some of the top carbon polluters were fully aware of the reality of climate change but continued to spend tens of millions of dollars to promote contrarian arguments they knew to be wrong.

Whitehouse likened their actions to those of the tobacco companies that conspired to manufacture doubt about the link between smoking and disease when they were all too aware of it. In 2006, a federal district court ruled that the tobacco industry’s deceptive campaign to maximize its profits by hoodwinking the public amounted to a racketeering enterprise.

Whitehouse may be among the first to suggest that the fossil fuel industry is flouting the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), but he’s not the first to point out the parallels between the tobacco industry’s fraudulent campaign and the fossil fuel industry’s efforts to quash government action on climate change.

Back in 2007, a Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report revealed that ExxonMobil—then the world’s largest publicly traded oil and gas company—had spent $16 million between 1998 and 2005 on a network of more than 40 front groups to try to discredit mainstream climate science. Billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, meanwhile, were outed by a 2010 Greenpeace report revealing they spent significantly more than ExxonMobil between 2005 and 2008 on virtually the same groups. Many of those groups and the scientists affiliated with them had previously shilled for the tobacco industry.

Despite their outsized role, ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers are just a part of a much bigger story, according to a new UCS report, “The Climate Deception Dossiers.” After spending nearly a year reviewing a wide range of internal corporate and trade association documents pried loose by leaks, lawsuits and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, UCS researchers have compiled a broader tale of deceit.

Drawing on evidence culled from 85 documents, the report reveals that ExxonMobil and five other top carbon polluters—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, coal giant Peabody Energy and Royal Dutch Shell—were fully aware of the reality of climate change but continued to spend tens of millions of dollars to promote contrarian arguments they knew to be wrong. Taken together, the documents show that these six companies—in conjunction with the American Petroleum Institute (API), the oil and gas industry’s premier trade association, and a host of front groups—have known for at least two decades that their products are harmful and have intentionally deceived the public about the climate change threat.

Exxon Recognized Carbon Emissions Problem 34 Years Ago 


The collected documents reveal the fossil fuel industry campaign has relied on a variety of deceptive practices, including creating phony grassroots groups, secretly funding purportedly independent scientists, and even forging letters from nonprofit advocacy groups to lobby members of Congress.

Read the other two pages of this excellent and revealing article at link:

http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/09/fossil-fuel-industry-climate-change/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX0-yiZAbBI&feature=player_embedded
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23032
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #69 on: July 17, 2015, 02:35:20 pm »
Quote
Dossier shows how oil firms sowed climate doubt

Top oil companies accepted the realities of climate science in their internal deliberations decades ago, even while outwardly denying the link between carbon pollution and global warming, according to a dossier released last week by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Their refusal to concede that the use of their product endangers the public reminds Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) of the tobacco executives of yesteryear who denied the relationship between smoking and lung disease. Although most Republicans toe that line, one GOP senator’s embrace of clean energy as a way to solve the climate challenge has earned her hefty contributions from a North Carolina entrepreneur.


- See more at: http://climatesolutions.org/article/1436890756-community-solar-gets-boost-electric-jet-crosses-channel#sthash.phdmr24f.dpuf





Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23032
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #70 on: August 02, 2015, 04:38:05 pm »
Breaking up is hard to do?  

SNIPPET:

Quote
What are the arguments against divestment?

Critics of the fossil fuel divestment movement say that it is hypocritical because a globalised western society (and the individuals within it) are dependent on coal, oil and gas for their everyday lives. One group supporting an anti-environmentalist firm built it into their PR strategy, releasing this film:

https://youtu.be/6A6j1r3Kbuo

Others, such as the Financial Times’ John Gapper, say that the movement should be targeting the companies emitting high quantities of carbon, rather than the producers alone. He argues that divestment is only a “grand symbolic gesture” that will not have a financial impact because others will pick up the shares.

Some, such as Times columnist Matt Ridley, argue that the movement is unethical on poverty grounds, because fossil fuels are needed to build the economies of developing countries. He says it demands that institutions “prioritise the possibility of the start of net harm in the time of our great-great-grandchildren over the plight of the poor today”.

Many of these arguments are refuted in 10 myths about fossil fuel divestment put to the sword.

We all use fossil fuels – isn’t divestment hypocritical? 

Of course, much of the goods and utilities – from heating to plastics – that we use in daily life are dependent on fossil fuels. But the fossil fuel movement will not bankrupt the industry overnight – and indeed its impact is being felt largely though political means, not financial. Instead it argues that fossil fuels are driving us towards catastrophic levels of climate change and that the world needs to transition to much greater dependence on renewables – and do so much more quickly.

Consumers can of course be pro-active and make changes to their own lifestyles, which is important. Yet it is the producers who have the power to make the difference that will – or will not – see global temperatures breach internationally agreed targets to prevent climate change occurring on a catastrophic and irreversible scale. These producers are currently committed to business models that will take us well beyond that.

Won’t the fossil fuel stocks be bought by others?

Yes, others may buy the stocks, although the amounts being divested are too small to flood the market and cut share prices, so they won’t be going cheap.

This cuts to the heart of the impact of the fossil fuel divestment movement – which is not to bankrupt the industry financially, but to do so morally and politically. As research by Oxford University pointed out, the financial loss of the divestment campaign – the fastest growing in history – will not be felt through the shares sold but through the reputation lost by these companies by being stigmatised.

But the fossil fuel divestment campaign does not only make a moral assertion; it makes an economic one. Shares invested in fossil fuel companies are invested in a business model that is completely incompatible with international agreements on mitigating climate change. If governments abide by them, such investments will become worthless – so pulling them out now makes good financial sense too.

Will organisations that divest lose money?

Not necessarily – in fact they may even make money. Companies such as HSBC have warned clients about the risks of fossil fuel investments. Even though fossil fuel companies are some of the most lucrative on the planet, the “stranded assets” argument – that fossil fuel investments will become worthless if international agreements on climate change are met – suggests they are several times overvalued.

Coal prices have dropped significantly in the past few years and the oil price has also done so more recently. A recent analysis by MSCI, the world’s leading stock market index company, indicated that portfolios free of fossil fuel investments have outperformed those with assets in coal, oil and gas companies over the last five years.

There is also ample opportunity for investment in the green economy. Researchers predict that renewable energy will become the cheapest source of electricity in the next decade, with the cost of solar having fallen by two-thirds between 2008 to 2014, according to the IEA thinktank.

Further reading: (links at main link below)

The climate change denier’s guide to getting rich from fossil fuel divestment


Can the world economy survive without fossil fuels?

Climate Action and Profitability: the Carbon Disclosure Project


Won’t divestment mean losing influence with the companies?

Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, takes this view arguing that “all fossil fuel companies are not equal” and can be influenced by active shareholder engagement. This is lost if an institution divests.

But there are few examples of engagement resulting in significant change. The Wellcome Trust, for example, say that they cannot share any such results without losing the confidence of those they engage with.

The one recent example that is often used are the shareholder resolutions at BP and Shell asking them to test the extent to which their business models are compatible with international agreements on climate change. However questions have been raised about the potential impact of the resolutions and the extent to which activists collaborated with the oil giants behind the scenes.


A Beginners Guide to Fossil Fuel Divestment

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/23/a-beginners-guide-to-fossil-fuel-divestment

Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23032
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #71 on: August 04, 2015, 10:12:28 pm »
Quote

Annette Smith 

August 4, 2015 at 9:15 am


“An opponent?” Jeez, can people raise legitimate questions about projects without being labelled? We really need to get over this “opponent” and “foe” framing of discussions about development proposals.

By opening the article with “an opponent” it detracts from the substance of issue, which should alarm anyone with an interest in how Gaz-Metro/VGS is doing business in Vermont. The Vermont leadership is all implicated in withholding critical information at times when it should have been disclosed. It is irrelevant to the story whether or not people oppose the project.

What is relevant is a corporation behaving as though it is entitled to take the land of Vermonters and disrupt people’s lives for years without any regard for how and it achieves its goals. This project should be cancelled on ethical issues alone.

AARP claims Vermont Gas withheld information on pipeline contractor

Erin Mansfield Aug. 3 2015, 7:26 pm

SNIPPET:

Quote
The board was looking into whether it should reopen the company’s state-level permit when the price increased the first time — from $86.6 million to $121.6 million — allegedly because of increased construction costs. 

http://vtdigger.org/2015/08/03/aarp-claims-vermont-gas-withheld-information-on-pipeline-contractor/
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23032
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #72 on: August 05, 2015, 09:48:23 pm »
https://youtu.be/FJUA4cm0Rck
Noam Chomsky: How Climate Change Became a 'Liberal Hoax'
Jan 24, 2011
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23032
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #73 on: August 12, 2015, 03:24:35 pm »
John Marshall   


Ms. Hauter, how embarrassing that you create a column like this, with a number of statements that are either gross exaggerations or simply untrue, and how equally embarrassing that people believe them. I've been involved, seen it, know the science and engineering, and none of what you have stated in regards to frac'ing is true. The possible exception is risk. There is risk in anything we as humans do to advance our society. Is there risk in a nuclear reactor blowing up? Yes. Is there risk in a hydroelectric dam bursting and drowning thousands? Yes. And yet we as a society seem to be able to live near a nuclear reactor, and downstream from dams. I propose that the risk of frac'ing is infinitely smaller than the two examples I've mentioned above, as well as countless others, and yet you pound a drum and try to get thousands to dance to your music. I know the facts. I'll skip this dance, thank you.

agelbert > John Marshall

The problem with your risk analysis calculus is your definition of benefits as well as damage costs. In your Empathy Deficit Disordered world, so-called "externalized" costs do not count.

Additionally, even the potential risks that DO count are discounted because you simply do not care if some environmental downside from your profit over people and planet technology will, as scientists have stated OVER AND OVER, occur within a century.

Also, if you had a shred of objectivity, you would agree that medical doctors should have access to epidemiological studies of cancer clusters near nuclear power plants, accept that it is WRONG for the NRC to oversee (as in GAG) the World Health Organization's publishing of anything that details radionuclide damage to humans and finally, that an exact and detailed list of all fracking fluid chemicals should be available to medical doctors by region.

But you are silent as death on those topics.

Your cause and effect horizon is so narrow that you might even qualify as a non-self aware being, if it wasn't for your mens rea happy talk propaganda on behalf of fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Have a nice day.


10 Years Later: Fracking and the Halliburton Loophole
http://ecowatch.com/2015/08/11/halliburton-loophole-fracking/

Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23032
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #74 on: August 27, 2015, 11:57:18 pm »
Scientists try to replicate climate denier findings and fail  ;D

By Suzanne Jacobs  on 26 Aug 2015

SNIPPET:

Quote
When we tried to reproduce their model of the lunar and solar influence on the climate, we found that the model only simulated their temperature data reasonably accurately for the 4,000-year period they considered. However, for the 6,000 years’ worth of earlier data they threw out, their model couldn’t reproduce the temperature changes.

The authors argued that their model could be used to forecast future climate changes   ;), but there’s no reason to trust a model forecast if it can’t accurately reproduce the past. 

http://grist.org/news/scientists-try-to-replicate-climate-denier-findings-and-fail/

The Fossil Fuel Industry Propagandists need to address the FACT that the fossil fuel industry has

1) the MOTIVE (threatened profits from climate change science demanding an end to fossil fuel use)

2) the OPPORTUNITY (privileged access to main streammedia and powerful politicians)

AND
3) the MEANS (billions of dollars from dirty energy profits)


to produce fraudulent scientific papers based on distorted models of climate science that challenge/refute the climate science consensus that fossil fuels are over heating the biosphere.


So, in true Orwellian fashion,
they accuse the truly objective climate scientists of doing what the fossil fuel industry has been doing for several decades to defend the fossil fuel industry massive subsidy swag (in comparison to the pittance for Renewable Energy) and dirty energy profits.

As you may observe here, MKing spends no time at all questioning the models that question global warming. He spends no time at all addressing the giant conflict of interest the fossil fuel industry has that inhibits any objective scientific inquiry whatsoever on the question of whether to burn fossil fuels or not.

Oh no, MKing spends most of his time making spurious and defamatory charges about the alleged mens rea involved in climate change science modeling that predicts a hotter biosphere from green house gasses the fossil fuel industry externalizes to we-the-people.

He claims the empirical data is distorted or cherry picked or erroneous or incomplete or whatever to "justify all that money and subsidy swag" for Renewable Energy. It's allegedly a big conspiracy to ruin our quality, comfort and high standard of living that ONLY the burning of fossil fuels can provide. 


Clever, isn't he?
Karl Rove would admire MKing.

Karl Rove strategy #3: Accuse your opponent of your weakness.

http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,5451.msg83999.html#msg83999
Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart:
wait, I say, on the Lord. -- Psalm 27:14

 

+-Recent Topics

911 > September 11 2001 > U.S. Fascist COUP? by AGelbert
June 16, 2019, 10:14:01 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
June 16, 2019, 09:23:31 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
June 16, 2019, 06:56:58 pm

Apocalyptic Humor by AGelbert
June 16, 2019, 06:47:39 pm

Doomstead Diner Daily by AGelbert
June 16, 2019, 03:03:45 pm

U.S. History & Politics, Climate Change, Trump Impeachment & Standing Rock: CONTEXT by AGelbert
June 15, 2019, 07:02:04 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
June 15, 2019, 06:03:33 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
June 15, 2019, 05:49:32 pm

Photvoltaics (PV) by AGelbert
June 15, 2019, 05:21:44 pm

Money by AGelbert
June 13, 2019, 05:55:59 pm