+- +-


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

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 43
Latest: Heredia05
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 11314
Total Topics: 250
Most Online Today: 21
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi  (Read 9537 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17993
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #210 on: May 23, 2018, 10:10:32 pm »

Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

May 23, 2018

Pruitt doing what he does. 🤬

ICYMI: Pruitt’s 👹 Pro-Smoking Policy Criticized, EV Attack Gets Context  , SLR Denial Gets Buried  ;D

“A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots.” This old adage has never been more true than in 2018. The quote, often (potentially erroneously) attributed to Mark Twain, was inspired by Thomas Swift, who wrote in 1710 that “Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it.”

We’d rather have laced up boots than be limping, but either way today we’re going to call out some recent rebuttals that were just a little too slow to be included in past denier roundups.

Plenty of folks have dragged Pruitt’s politically-driven, pro-smoking “secret science” policy since he announced it last month. Since the comment period is coming to a close, UCS recently ran a post and provided a helpful guide on how to make a public comment. Working with 500 Women Scientists, Earth Justice and the Public Comment Project, they want you to make sure your voice is heard during what they’ve (oh so succinctly) dubbed the National Week of Public Comments on EPA’s “Restricting Science” Policy.

If you’re thinking of writing a comment, you could perhaps point out that John Ioannidis, whose work on reproducibility has been weaponized by deniers, wrote a strong piece against the policy for PLOS One. Or that basically every single scientific organization opposes the policy, as do former EPA leaders (in part because it’s straight out of the tobacco industry’s playbook). Even Pruitt’s pro-polluter takeover of the Science Advisory Board hasn’t stopped it from standing up for science--the revamped Board wants to review his policy, too.

Speaking of questionable takes--did you catch the op-ed attacking electric vehicles in Politico last week? In a recent blog post, the Energy and Policy Institute provided a lot of important context--including the author’s past pro-pollution work, which Politico conveniently forgot to include. The Guardian’s Dana Nuccitelli also debunked the bad take in his most recent column.

In the same column, Nuccitelli also tackled last week’s absurd levels of sea level rise denial in the WSJ from Fred Singer. He was hardly the only one to do so:  Dr. Scott Denning wrote a basic “laws of physics” debunking of Singer’s piece for USCS. Singer’s outrageous claims  also got the Climate Feedback treatment. Our favorite quote from the Climate Feedback piece: one expert wrote that “If this were an essay in one of my undergraduate classes, [Singer] would fail.”

The Journal, to its credit, did run a letter to the editor Tuesday debunking the piece, from University of Florida sea level expert Andrea Sutton and all-around debunker Michael Mann (and a few others.) “Legitimate scientific conclusions are not reached in op-ed pieces,” Mann and Sutton write, “but through careful peer-reviewed research.”  We couldn’t agree more.

Somehow, Singer’s op-ed wasn’t the dumbest sea level rise denial last week. That honor went to Mo Brooks (R-AL) who went about as viral as a dumb science story can with his Cliffs of Dover defense.

The Washington Post’s Philip Bump gave the Dover quip a much more serious treatment than it warranted, and actually calculated just how big a rock would be needed to cause the sea level rise we’re seeing. To produce the amount of rise we’re experiencing, Bump estimates “we’d need to take the top five inches of the United States”--9.1 million square miles worth of land--and drop it into the ocean. Every year.

Given that such a mass would weigh 6.6 quadrillion pounds, perhaps the truth only limps along after the lies because it’s got such a heavy load to carry.

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


+-Recent Topics

End Times according to the Judeo Christian Bible by AGelbert
January 22, 2019, 01:57:15 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
January 15, 2019, 08:51:55 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
January 15, 2019, 06:56:39 pm

Hydrocarbon Crooks Evil Actions by AGelbert
January 14, 2019, 07:05:57 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
January 14, 2019, 12:31:46 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
January 13, 2019, 06:10:10 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
January 13, 2019, 02:12:44 pm

Money by AGelbert
January 12, 2019, 05:00:03 pm

Non-routine News by AGelbert
January 12, 2019, 02:42:21 pm

Photvoltaics (PV) by AGelbert
January 12, 2019, 12:29:46 pm