+- +-

+-User

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

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 41
Latest: GWarnock
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 8246
Total Topics: 226
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 48
(June 03, 2014, 03:09:30 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 23 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Attach:
Help (Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 1024KB, maximum individual size 512KB
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 11, 2017, 02:47:50 pm »

 

Deconstructing Denial’s Lies: Fictional Quotes and Fake Moralizing

Yesterday was a big day for fossil fuel counter-programming to COP23. Heartland held its America First Energy Conference, while Europe’s version of Heartland, EIKE, held a denial conference with CFACT in Dusseldorf (a short distance from Bonn.)

At the America First conference, participants dutifully toed the pro-fossil fuel party line. Kevin Dayaratna of US-based, fossil-fuel-funded Heritage Foundation was applauded by the crowd for calling for a subsidy for CO2 emissions (apparently, the social cost of carbon is negative). This reality-challenged perspective was repeated by CFACT’s Paul Driessen, whose presentation at the conference (and not his own organization's European event) touted the dangers of high electricity prices   and the benefits of carbon dioxide.

Since we can expect to see this pro-pollution argument echoed at the Trump administration’s Monday event in Bonn, we’d like to highlight  Emily Atkin’s latest piece at the New Republic for a concise debunking of this (im)moral case for fossil fuels. From Bjorn Lomborg to Alex Epstein to Rick Perry, Atkin traces the short history of this long con, and points out the two key reasons why it’s wrong. 

First and foremost, Atkin explains, fossil fuel pollution hurts public health. Secondly, since renewables are increasingly cheaper than fossil fuels and being more rapidly deployed in the developing countries these pseudo-moralizers pretend to care about, the argument that fossil fuels provide cheaper electricity increasingly fails to reflect reality.

Just as reality-deficient as the arguments at fossil-fuel-funded conferences are some the urban legends and manufactured quotes about Paris and international climate policy that deniers often bandy about. In a new post over at DeSmogBlog, Graham Readfearn breaks down some of the most egregious quote mining that deniers have engaged in over the years, tracing the myths of some of deniers’ favorite false flags.

If you see a climate-denying relative post on Facebook, for instance, that UN negotiators have admitted climate policy is just a wealth redistribution scheme, or that the press never criticizes the Paris agreement because it literally cheered its signing, know these are both incredible distortions of what really happened. Worse, if a denier breathlessly relays that environmental godfather Maurice Strong once admitted that the real goal of climate policy is to bring about the collapse of industrial civilization, know the quote comes from an interview where he was describing the fictional plot of a fictional dystopian novel he was considering writing.

Say what you will about deniers, but it’s clear they do have some admirable qualities. For these supposedly “free market” groups to propose subsidies for carbon pollution shows a certain ideological flexibility and nuance when it comes to picking winners and losers. And to think to portray a description of a fictional plotline as a factual admission is the sort of boldly creative, out-of-the-box thinking inherent in innovators and criminal defense lawyers doing their best on behalf of a guilty client.

And if nothing else--no honesty or morality or compassion or basic human decency--deniers sure are loyal to fossil fuels.   

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 30, 2017, 06:22:18 pm »


The graph above is errroneous happy talk. I can prove it by focusing on one single data point. THAT is the "CH4 - Waste and Other". Notice that they show a decreased rate of increase to match the rather convenient "slow down" of the increase in human industrial and agricultural activity. This is blatantly false. WHY?

Simply because of the obvious increase in methane emmisions from the documented melting of vast areas of permafrost, never mind the increases in leaks (toxic VOCs plus methane) from abandoned (and active) fracked well sites, (the number of which increases every year) that have boosted methane output, even if the industrial processes from closed drill rigs in the ocean and on land may have reduced methane output from all the flaring they love to "externalize" onto we-the-people.

Then there is that "minor" detail that this "study" seems to have forgotten from Earth biology biosphere basics. Termites are the greatest natural producer of CH4 on the planet. This "study" would have us believe that we are killing off a large percentage of the termites, when anyone with the most basic knowledge of termite biomes knows that all species of termites THRIVE as temperatures increase. Yes friend, the termites are moving north and still doing quite well in the tropics. That means their biomass is increasing. That means the termites, which definitely qualify for the "waste and other" category in this "study", are increasing their CH4 output.

But many profit over planet fools will parade this "study" as "proof" that we are "making progress" towards "reducing" greenhouse gases. Nothing could be further from the truth.

QUOTE:
Methane Sources - Termites

Each termite produces, on average, about half a microgram of methane per day, a seemingly insignificant amount. However, when this is multiplied up by the world population of termites, global methane emission from this source is estimated to be about 20 million tonnes each year.

There are more than 2000 different species of termites and the amounts of methane produced varies considerably between species, with some producing no methane at all. Methane is produced in termite guts, by symbiotic bacteria and protozoa, during food digestion.

Human Impact

The primary impact of humans on termite methane is reduction of emissions through termite habitat destruction. Many of the most important methane producing termite species are found in tropical forest areas, huge swathes of which are destroyed each year for logging, agriculture and housing developments. Additionally, in North America and elsewhere colonies of termites are regularly exterminated due to the threat they pose to wooden structures.

UNQUOTE

http://www.ghgonline.org/methanetermite.htm


The human impact (termite habitat destruction) has been more than counterbalanced by the termite spread north due to global warming AND the methane coming from the melted permafrost. Termites poplulation increases are ANOTHER feedback loop that is contributing to the acceleration of global warming.

It is a mistake to think termites are not a significant (i.e. gigatons per year of methane) CH4 source.

Granted, no scientific study wants to deal seriously with this YET. So, for now, you are free to pretend termite methane outpout is "not a concern".

I am convinced that termite population increases are one more feedback loop accelerating global warming. Cows are supposed to have a species biomass of 530 million tons and termites 445 million tons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology)

The total cow (2005) biomass estimate is nearly 10 years LATER than the last termite estimate published in 1996. During that time glaicers have been melting and termites have been spreading north. So it is reasonable to accept that termites have a greater biomass than cows as of 2017. And even if they have about the same biomass, remember that termites produce MUCH more methane per unit of body weight than cows.


QUOTE from Termites - Greenhouse Gases - United States EPA:

Termite CH4 emissions estimates vary for several reasons. Researchers have taken different approaches to approximating the number of termites per area for different ecological regions (e.g., cultivated land, temperate grassland, tropical forest) and different species. In addition, the total area per ecological region is not universally agreed upon,. and not all of the area in an ecological region is necessarily capable of supporting termites. For example, cultivated land in Europe and Canada is located in a climatic zone where termites cannot survive. Some researchers have tried to estimate the percentage of each region capable of supporting termites while others have conservatively assumed that all of the area of a given ecological region can support termites. Finally, the contributions to atmospheric CH4 from many other related CH4 sources and sinks associated with termite populations (i. e., tropical soils) are not well understood.

14.2.2 Emissions3-4

The only pollutant of concern from termite activity is CH4. Emissions of CH4 from termites can be approximated by an emission factor derived from laboratory test data. Applying these data to field estimates of termite population to obtain a realistic, large-scale value for CH4 emissions is suspect, but an order-of-magnitude approximation of CH4 emissions can be made. Termite activity also results in the production of carbon dioxide (CO2). These CO2 emissions are part of the regular carbon cycle, and as such should not be included in a greenhouse gas emissions inventory.

Table 14.2-1 reports typical termite densities per ecological region, and Table 14.2-2 provides the CH4 emission factors for species typical to each ecological region.

A critical data gap currently exists in determining the activity rate for these emission factors (which are given in units of mass of CH4 per mass of termite). Estimates of termites per acre are given in Table 14.2-1, but converting the number of termites into a usable mass is difficult. If the species of termite is known or can be determined, then the number of termites or the number of termite nests can be converted into a mass of termites. If the species is not known for a particular area, then a typical value must be used that is representative of the appropriate ecological region. Reference 4 provided information on termite density for various North American species, with an average denisity of 4.86x10-6 lb/worker termite.
UNQUOTE

https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch14/final/c14s02.pdf

Methane is 86 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. All this is happening because we refuse to accept that we must stop absolutely ALL burning of fossil fuels within a decade or less, not within a feel good slow phase out over 50 years.

Do not assume that science wants to address the hard facts about termite methane production realistically. They would rather talk about cows, to the delight of the Fossil Fuel Industry.

That is part to of the present insanity.



The "study" in this article is happy talk, period.

I insist they are lowballing, not just the increase of greenhouse gases, but the RATE of increase. The rate of increase has NOT slowed down; it HAS increased.

This NASA satellite is not playing games with the temperature increase or the Carbon Dioxide (and other particulate pollutants and green house gases).

ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE:

SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE:

CARBON DIOXIDE LEVEL (click on any area for read out):

NOTICE that Hawaii,,where the CO2 measurement is taken to determine our "global" increase, is one of the LOWEST CO2 concentration areas of the planet.We are NOT getting the full picture!

CO2 457 PPM!


The globe can be repositioned to see any part of the Earth.

TUTORIAL:



Please pass this on. People need to become citizen scientists. 

The 6th Mass Extinction Event is here * Geologic History shows why CO2 caused Global Warming before
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 15, 2017, 09:49:38 pm »




TRNN SPECIAL: Trump, The Koch Brothers and Their War on Climate Science

September 14, 2017

A documentary special 
reveals how climate change science has been under systematic attack; the multi-million dollar campaign allowed a climate change denier to be elected president (a new version with updated content and music)

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=19992
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 08, 2017, 08:10:32 pm »

Pictured Above: A representative of those scientists who "produced" that 3% of papers that deny climate change. 

IMPLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY  ;D

Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed


https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 30, 2017, 03:04:35 pm »

Corporate Media Silent on Fossil Fuels as Hurricane Harvey Devastates Southeast

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

By Anton Woronczuk, Truthout | News Analysis

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/41772-corporate-media-silent-on-fossil-fuels-as-hurricane-harvey-devastates-southeast



Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 29, 2017, 10:43:32 pm »

 

On Harvey and Climate, Curry  Casts Doubt as Experts Explain

The National Weather Service has called Hurricane Harvey “unprecedented” with impacts “beyond anything experienced.” Experts expect several more days of extreme rainfall in the area this week, which could compound the impacts of an already deadly and destructive storm. (Here’s a great list of ways to help the region, if you’re so inclined.) Unfortunately, this climate-fueled extreme weather event provides, along with plenty of internet hoaxes, scams and one Very Good Boy, an opportunity for deniers to use the past as supposed proof that climate change isn’t driving extreme weather.

Case in point: Judith Curry’s blog post on Harvey. She mostly praises the models that accurately predicted Harvey’s path but towards the end trots out the most overblown statistic in meteorology, implying that because we’ve haven’t seen many Category 4 and 5 storms recently, “Anyone blaming Harvey on global warming doesn’t have a leg to stand on.”

It seems to us that this is like saying that because auto accidents happen all the time, drunk drivers must be blameless for their crashes.  ;D

Curry’s claim that Harvey wasn’t caused by climate change is completely unexplained and unsupported by her otherwise lengthy post. So it figures that Curry’s post is exactly what Michael Bastasch picked up for his latest Daily Caller piece. Because Bastasch didn’t bother to actually do much of any reporting and instead just copy and pasted from Michael Mann’s statement on Facebook, the piece mostly consists of evidence of warming’s influence on hurricanes.

On the side of reason and real news, Mann  expanded his Facebook statement for an op-ed in the Guardian, which declares in its headline that “It's a fact: climate change made Hurricane Harvey more deadly.” The basic physics, as Mann explains, are undeniable:

1) Warm air can hold more moisture. More moisture in the air means more rainfall- in this case as much as 30 percent, according to Kevin Trenberth. More rain means more flooding.

2) Hurricanes are driven by warm water. Hurricane Harvey fed on Gulf waters that were 2.7-7.2°F above average.

3) Storm surge is a major contributor to flooding, and as sea levels rise storm surge worsens. Harvey’s storm surge was half a foot higher than it would have been without climate change, Mann estimates.


Despite the emphatic yet lackluster pushback from Curry and the deniers, the connection between climate change and Harvey is clear and Mann and the rest are right to point that out.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 27, 2017, 05:13:31 pm »



PART III

Historic proof that manufacturing all the renewable energy machines and infrastructure needed to transition to a 100% Renewable Energy world ecnomy can be achieved in two decades or less: The mass produced Liberty Ships of WWII.
The other day, a knowledgable mechanical engineer I know stated this concern about the colossal challenge and, in his opinion, impossibility of switching to renewable energy machines in time to avoid a collapse from an energy to manufacture and global industrial capacity limitation in our civilizational infrastructure.

He said:
Quote
I admire your enthusiasm, and I agree with many of the points you make. Yes ICE waste high EROEI consistently, yes fossil fuels and conventional engineering has a warped distorted perspective because of the ICE, and yes we have an oil oligarchy protecting its turf.

However say we hypothetically made all the oil companies dissappear tommorow and where able to suspend the laws of time and implement our favorite renewables of choice and then where tasked with making certain all of societies critical needs were met we'd have a tall order. The devil is in the details and quantities.

Its the magnitudes, its 21 million barallels per day we are dependent on. Its created massive structural centralization that can only be sustained by incredible energetic inputs. Not enough wind, and not enough rare earth material for PV's to scale and replace. We have to structurally rearrange society to solve the problem. Distributed solar powered villaged, not bit cities and surely not suburbia. I fear we'll sink very useful resources and capital towards these energy sources (as we arguably have with wind) when the real answer is structural change.

I have shown evidence that there are several multiples of the energy we now consume available just from wind power. This data came from a recent study by Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Scientists.

He thinks we CAN'T do it even if we had enough wind because of the colossal challenge and, in his opinion, impossibility of switching to renewable enrgy machines in time to avoid a collapse from an energy required to manufacture and global industrial capacity limitation in our civilizational infrastructure.

His solution is to survive the coming collapse with small distributed energy systems and a radically scaled down carbon footprint. Sadly, that option will not be available to a large percentage of humanity.

Hoping for a more positive future scenario, I analyzed his concerns to see if they are valid and we have no other option but to face a collapse and a die off with the surviving population living at much lower energy use levels. :P

I'm happy to report that, although the mechanical engineer has just cause to be concerned, we can, in reality, transition to 100% Renewable Energy without overtaxing our civilizational resources.

This a slim hope but a real one based on history and the word's present manufacturing might. Read on.

 




I give you the logistics aiding marvel of WWII, the Liberty Ship. It was THE JIT (just in time), SIT (sometimes in time) and sometimes NIT (never in time because it was torpedoed) cargo delivery system that helped us win the war.

This was a mass produced ship. These ships are a testament to the ability to build an enormous quantity of machines on a global scale that the U.S. was capable of over half a century ago. 

Quote
The Liberty ship model used two oil boilers and was propelled by a single-screw steam engine, which gave the liberty ship a cruise speed of 11 to 11.5 knots. The ships were 441.5 feet long, with a 57 foot beam and a 28 foot draft.





Quote
The ships were designed to minimize labor and material costs; this was done in part by replacing many rivets with welds. This was a new technique, so workers were inexperienced and engineers had little data to go on. Additionally, much of the shipyards' labor force had been replaced with women as men joined the armed forces. Because of this, early ships took quite a long time to build - the Patrick Henry taking 244 days -
but the average building time eventually came down to just 42 days.


Quote
A total of 2,710 Liberty ships were built, with an expected lifespan of just five years. A little more than 2,400 made it through the war, and 835 of these entered the US cargo fleet. Many others entered Greek and Italian fleets. Many of these ships were destroyed by leftover mines, which had been forgotten or inadequately cleared. Two ships survive today, both operating as museum ships. They are still seaworthy, and one (the Jeremiah O'Brien) sailed from San Francisco to England in 1994.

These ships had a design flaw. The grade of steel used to build them suffered from embrittlement. Cracks would propagate and in 3 cases caused the ships to split in half and sink. It was discovered and remediated.

Quote
Ships operating in the North Atlantic were often exposed to temperatures below a critical temperature, which changed the failure mechanism from ductile to brittle. Because the hulls were welded together, the cracks could propagate across very large distances; this would not have been possible in riveted ships.

A crack stress concentrator contributed to many of the failures. Many of the cracks were nucleated at an edge where a weld was positioned next to a hatch; the edge of the crack and the weld itself both acted as crack concentrators. Also contributing to failures was heavy overloading of the ships, which increased the stress on the hull. Engineers applied several reinforcements to the ship hulls to arrest crack propagation and initiation problems.


Heavily loaded ship

http://www.brighthubengineering.com/marine-history/88389-history-of-the-liberty-ships/

Today, several countries have, as do we, a much greater industrial capacity. It is inaccurate to claim that we cannot produce sufficient renewable energy devices in a decade or so to replace the internal combustion engine everywhere in our civilization. The industrial capacity is there and is easily provable by asking some simple questions about the fossil fuel powered ICE status quo:

How long do ICE powered machines last?

How much energy does it require to mine the raw materials and manufacture the millions of engines wearing out and being replaced day in and day out?

What happens if ALL THAT INDUSTRIAL CAPACITY is, instead, dedicated to manufacturing Renewable Energy machines?


IOW, if there is a ten to twenty year turnover NOW in our present civilization involving manufacture and replacement of the ICEs we use, why can't we retool and convert the entire ICE fossil fuel dependent civilization to a Renewable Energy Machine dependent civilization?

1) The industrial capacity is certainly there to do it EASILY in two decades and maybe just ten years with a concerted push.

2) Since Renewable Energy machines use LESS metal and do not require high temperature alloys, a cash for clunkers worldwide program could obtain more than enough metal raw material without ANY ADDITIONAL MINING  (except for rare earth minerals - a drop in the bucket - :icon_mrgreen: LOL- compared to all the mining presently done for metals to build the ICE) by just recycling the ICE parts into Renewable Energy machines.

3) Just as in WWII, but on a worldwide scale, the recession/depression would end as millions of people were put to work on the colossal transition to Renewable Energy.


HOWEVER, despite our ABILITY to TRANSITION TO 100% RENEWABLE ENERGY, we "CAN'T DO IT" ???  because the fossil fuel industry has tremendous influence on the worldwide political power structure from the USA to Middle  East to Russia to China.

IOW, it was NEVER

1. An energy problem,

2. A "laws of thermodynamics" problem,

3. A mining waste and pollution problem,

4. A lack of wind or sun problem,

5. An environmental problem,

6. An industrial capacity problem or

7. A technology problem.

   
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE ABOVE excuses for claiming Renewable Energy cannot replace Fossil Fuels are STRAWMEN presented to the public for the express purpose of convincing us of the half truth that without fossil fuels, civilization will collapse.

It was ALWAYS a POLITICAL PROBLEM of the fossil fuel industry not wanting to relinquish their stranglehold on the world's geopolitical make up.

It drives them insane to think that Arizona and New Mexico can provide more power than all the oil in the Middle East. Their leverage over lawmakers and laws to avoid environmental liability is directly proportional to their market share of global energy supplies.

They are treatened by Renewable Energy and have mobilized to hamper its growth as much as possible through various propaganda techniques using all the above strawmen.   

It is TRUE that civilization will collapse and a huge die off will occur without fossil fuels IF, and ONLY IF, Renewable Energy does not replace fossil fuels. It is blatantly obvious that we need energy to run our civilization.

It is ALSO TRUE that if we continue to burn fossil fuels in ICEs, Homo sapiens will become extinct.
This is not hyperbole. We ALREADY have baked in conditions, that take about three decades to fully develop, that have placed us in a climate like the one that existed over 3 million years ago.

We DID NOT thrive in those conditions or multiply. This is a fact. We barely survived until a couple of hundred thousand years ago when the weather became friendlier and even then we didn't really start to populate the planet until about 10,000 years ago.

The climate 3 million years ago was, basically, mostly lethal to Homo Sapiens. To say that we have technology and can handle it is a massive dodge of our responsibility for causing this climate crisis (and ANOTHER strawman from Exxon "We will adapt to that"      CEO).

Fossil fuel corporations DO NOT want to be held liable for the damage they have caused, so, even as they allow Renewable Energy to have a niche in the global energy picture, will use that VERY NICHE (see rare earth mining and energy to build PV and wind turbines) to blame Renewables for environmental damage.



In summary, the example of the Liberty ships is proof we CAN TRANSITION TO RENEWABLE ENERGY in, at most, a couple of decades if we decide to do it but WON'T do it because of the fossil fuel industry's stranglehold on political power, financing and laws along with the powerful propaganda machine they control.




PART IV
Three different future scenarios


What can we expect from the somewhat dismal prospects for Homo sapiens?

1) Terrible weather and melted polar ice caps with an increase in average wind velocity in turn causing more beach erosion from gradually rising sea level and wave action. The oceans will become more difficult to traverse because of high wave action and more turbulent seas. The acidification will increase the dead zones and reduce aquatic life diversity. But you've heard all this before so I won't dwell on the biosphere problems that promise to do us in.

2) As Renewable Energy devices continue to make inroads in fossil fuel profits, expect an engineered partial civilizational collapse in a large city to underline the "you are all going to die without fossil fuels" propaganda pushed to avoid liability for the increasingly "in your face" climate extremes. ;)

3) Less democracy and less freedom of expression from some governments and more democracy and freedom of expression from other governments in 

direct proportion to the percent penetration of Renewable energy machines in powering their countries (more RE, more freedom)

and an inverse proportion to the power of their "real politik" Fossil Fuel lobbies in countries. (more FF power, less freedom).


The bottom line, as Guy McPherson says, is that NATURE BATS LAST. Nature has millions of "bats". Homo SAP has a putrid fascist parasite bleeding it to death and poisoning it at the same time. The parasite cannot survive without us so it is allowing us to get a tiny IV to keep us alive a little longer (a small percentage of renewable energy machines).  It won't work.

But the parasite has a plan. The IV will be labelled a "parasite" (the villain and guilty party) when Homo SAP finally figures out he is going to DIE if he doesn't fix this "bleeding and poison" problem. Then the real parasite will try to morph into a partially symbiotic organism and Homo SAP will muddle through somehow.

I think that the parasite doesn't truly appreciate the severity of Mother Nature's "bat".

Three future Scenarios:

1. If the parasite (as a metaphor for a fossil fuel powered civilization) does not DIE TOTALLY, I don't think any of us will make it.

2. If the the parasite takes MORE than 20 years to die, some of us will make it but most of us won't. 

3. If, in 2017, when the north pole has the first ice free summer, all the governments of the Earth join in a crash program to deep six the use of fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine within a ten year period, most of us will make it.   

A word about political power and real politik living in a fossil fuel fascist dystopia.

IT simply DOES NOT MATTER what the 'real world", "real politik" geopolitical power structure mankind has now is. IT DOES NOT MATTER how powerful the fossil fuel industry is in human affairs. The ICE and fossil fuels have to go or Mother Nature will kill us, PERIOD.

Pass it on. You never know when somebody on the wrong side of the Darwininan fence will read it and join the effort to save humanity.


Save as many as you can!
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 27, 2017, 05:12:37 pm »

Originally Posted October 4, 2013 and TOTALLY IGNORED by Fossil Fuel SHILL Nicole Foss.

Open letter to Nicole Foss

By A. G. Gelbert

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I

Commentary on video by Nicole Foss on farming and energy saving


PART II
Fossil fuels and renewable energy discussion with Nicole Foss including the importance of climate science data to energy resoures.


PART III
Historic proof that manufacturing all the renewable energy machines and infrastructure needed to transition to a 100% Renewable Energy world economy can be achieved in two decades or less: The mass produced Liberty Ships of WWII


PART IV
Three different future scenarios


[embed=640,380]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESYAix1QD1E#[/embed]
Nicole Foss shares the story of how she has reduced her energy needs by 90%.

I watched and listened to the above video from a 2011 Sustainability Conference. You said you felt the energy resource poor England, with 60 million people, convinced you to sell your townhouse and buy a 40 acre farm in Ottawa with 7 barn outbuildings.

You went about reducing your energy needs by 90%, have some sheep, chickens and other farm animals, a dog sled team for winter transportation, rent out some of the land, make your own hay, grow vegetables and have extended the growing season with a greenhouse.

Your plan for making use of renewable energy was based on power with less moving parts so you avoided wind power and obtained 3 kW  of PV non-tracking panels for an off grid system.
You didn't hook up to the grid for feed in tariff (FIT) extra money because you don't want your power going to "public uses", don't believe FIT will last 20 years and, in the event the grid went down, you wouldn't have the benefit of power because a grid tied system did not allow you to store energy in batteries.

There was an easy way around that. You buy your battery bank and keep it charged from the grid, not the PV panels. You have an electrician set up a switch from the inverter to the grid so that if grid power is lost, you just isolate yourself from the grid and the PV panels will then be able to keep your batteries charged  and you are supplied with power until grid power comes back.

But from your comment about "public use" of your PV electricity and your feelings about the imminent collapse of feed in tariffs (FIT), it appears that you were more influenced by Libertarian ideology than pure logic.

After all, the community that you are fostering and the responsible, low carbon footprint behavior that you are engaging in by keeping your energy sources nearby and renewable (except for the gasoline, diesel and grid tie for your electric range and other high power demand appliances) energy wood fired heating system for the house and the greenhouse (when temperatures are below freezing) is really about survival of Homo sapiens, is it not?

I don't agree with drawing a line at the grid connection and thinking you have no responsiblility to share your power with the larger community. But, I'm grateful to you for trying to live within your means and your sound advice to your children to avoid debt like the plague.

I too believe in being debt free and have been so for over a decade even though I do have to pay for the 1/3 acre of land I rent where my manufactured home sits.

I assume, because of your belief in some type of imminent civilizational collapse, that you are designing your lifestyle to be independent of industrial civilization. You are convinced that it is all going to go away.

I don't think so but I'll discuss that later. If a collapse is imminent, your actions are logical. If it isn't, you are doing yourself and humanity a favor by living closer to the land and within your means. That is most prudent of you even though 80% or more of the human species does not have the option of owning one acre to farm, let alone 40.

Considering how most people with a townhouse in England (like most of the rich EVERYWHERE that own the mining corporations, factories and are the major corrupting influence that spurs goverments to fight resource wars)  ignore the huge carbon footprint that the population of the developed countries have, I admire what you have done to break the mold of that unsustainable lifestyle by setting a sustainable, boots on the ground, example to lead the way in what all of us MUST do if humanity is to survive.

I was particularly gratified that you seriously considered walling off a section of your house in the winter to keep the heating costs down. I am of the opinion that if the human population was limited to only being able to heat, cool and plumb 500 square feet per capita, a sustainable renewable energy based world would be easily achievable. Of course that would entail a commensurate restructuring of industrial capacity and a 90% downsizing of large fuel hogs like the U.S. military and "security" state bureaucracies.

You mentioned that your geothermal system goes down 140 feet. Are you aware of the advances in passive geothermal systems that use geofoam above a large open land area to keep the land from very low temperatures? 

Quote
The most common uses of Geofoam are as a lightweight fill and as insulation. Some specific applications of Geofoam are outlined below.

Unstable Soil Substitute

Roadbeds & Runways (pavement insulation)

http://www.drewfoam.com/geofoam.html

IOW, the land above the frost line is insulated too so, for all practical puposes, there is no frost line. Since you make your own hay, it is conceivable to use hay bales instead of geofoam.

Any passive geothermal loops placed down to the 140 feet below insulated soli with no frost line, but in a much larger area than a home footprint, will keep you quite comfortable. Also, the fact that your house is old means that it must be very poorly insulated compared with modern thermal mass based structures like the earthships.

I'm sure you are familiar with them. Old houses may have historical, traditional and sentimental value but they have next to zero value as low energy use living structures due to their draftiness unless you want to be bundled up with warm clothing all winter like our ancestors were.

Another "automatic" way to provide heating when you most need it is a wind turbine. When wind speed increases in the winter, that's when you lose most of your heat from conduction. If you have a wind turbine that, like your PV array, is not only stand alone, but additionally does NOT go through an inverter but just sends DC into a resistance heating coil in some important part of your house, you will automatically get more heat in direct proportion to the strength of the wind.

I bring that up as something to think about. I don't think you need to be overly concerned with the reliability and longevity of wind turbine moving parts. The reliability of the rotating parts of these machines has been proven by the fact that the old windmills in Texas and the midwest are still being made (now many converted to generating electricity).

They have 40 to 50 year life spans and no wind storm is going tear them apart unles it tears your house apart too. As you know, windmills, prior to the fossil fuel age, were used to pump water, mill crops and several other tasks that, without these pre-industrial Renewable Energy devices, would have been onerous.

Quote
In the United States it may be said that the conestoga, or covered wagon, settled the west and the colt 45 tamed the west. I will add that the windmill was the major
force in developing the western United States.

Quote
[/size=10pt]The covered wagon is no longer used as a means of transportation. The Colt 45 is no longer worn as a side arm and known as ‘the peace keeper.’ However, the windmill, that other great symbol of the nineteenth century American West, is now becoming the twenty-first century symbol of renewable energy.

Now that is staying power! [/size]

http://buckcreek.tripod.com/windmill.html

I am certain that John D. Rockefeller did not like windmills at all. I believe he was that fine fellow that said, "Competition is a sin". He also said THIS:
"Try to turn every disaster into an opportunity. "

Attributed in The Rockefellers (1976) by Peter Collier and David Horowitz


"Measured in today's dollars, Rockefeller is the richest person in the history of mankind"

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller

Considering the mindset of this fine fellow and his descendants in the fossil fuel industry, it is not far fetched to believe than when an opportunity wasn't "presenting itself" due to some competitive nuisance (like ethanol), they would contrive a "disaster" for said competition that they could then turn into an OPPORTUNITY (I.E. PROFIT). More on that below.

It seems that we can see where the modern, conscience free expression," Never waste a crisis" originated. I don't think Karl Rove and the Bush family invented the idea of deliberately creating a crisis in order to obtain a profit or stifle competition, do you?

PART II

Fossil fuels and renewable energy discussion with Nicole Foss including the importance of climate science data to energy resources.

 
At any rate, with all that wood you have, you should do all right if the winds don't get too high from global climate change. Humans, according to science, cannot function when average wind speeds are 50 mph or greater. Let us hope that global climate change doesn't produce such average wind speeds.

I heard this information and a lot more about the massive threat to humanity that global climate change represents and the absolutely vital requirement that we stop burning fossil fuels now, not 50 or a hundred years from now, from a panel of scientists including James Hansen. The climate catastrophe is upon us and is baked in for up to a thousand years. This is not hyperbole.Video here:

[embed=640,380]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPaTAC29W2I#[/embed]
I will refer to this a few more times in this document.

The ten indicators that climate scientists are monitoring are all going into uncharted territory promising a climate that humans have never, ever been subjected to. See the article I posted on my channel (written nearly three years ago) with some recent charts I added at the top.

http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=559.msg27545#msg27545

Please ignore the snark I included in that post. I am just a bit tired of having the data I present here being viewed as questionable, debatable, or some tree hugger's hysterical opinion.

Did you know one of the founders of a Disinformation Think Tank (The George C. Marshal Institute) created to defend the Reagan SDI star wars boondoggle (when 6,500 of the top scientists signed a document refusing to work in it) and, after the cold war ended, switched to adopt the "Tobacco Strategy" of sowing doubt about the global warming science, had been previously president of Rockefeller University?

What does propaganda fostered by the fossil fuel industry for the purpose of denying Global Climate Change have to do with the subject of this letter to you?

A lot. I'll get to that but now I wish to remind you of a response you wrote to me in a comment forum about a year ago when I complained that you had not figured in the cost of poisoned aquifers from fracking gas drilling in the EROEI of fracked gas. I further said that, given the fact that Renewable Energy does not pollute, it actually is more cost effective than fossil fuels.

Why wait a year to answer you? Because I ran into exactly the same talking points in several other comment forums when the subject of fossil fuels versus renewable energy came up. So I set about to research your claims and predictions.

I have answered the statements and predictions you made. Nearly 100% of your predictions have not come about. In fact, in some cases the exact reverse of what you predicted has happened.

Also, some of your statements were factually incorrect at the time you made them, not just a year after you made them. Please read them and tell me if you have revised your views in these matters.

I have included your statements in exactly the same sequence as you made them without any alterations whatsoever.

Your statements are in brown color

My response in blue


Quote
Renewables represent a drop in the bucket of global supply.


(Phase 1)
Quote
  Energy from renewable resources—wind, water, the sun, biomass and geothermal energy—is inexhaustible and clean. Renewable energy currently constitutes 15% of the global energy mix.

http://www.sustainableenergyforall.org/objectives/renewable-energy



Quote
They are having no effect whatsoever on fossil fuel prices.


(Phase 2) So the huge demand destruction in fossil fuels this past year was ONLY related to the depression we have been in since 2008!!? Why then, didn't said demand destruction occur THEN? Why did that demand destruction DOVETAIL with the explosive growth of energy and wind in the USA in 2011 and 2012?


Quote
Charts: The Smart Money Is on Renewable Energy
—By Tim McDonnell
Mon Apr. 22, 2013

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/04/charts-renewable-energy-fossil-fuels


Quote
IEA Predicts Wind to Double and Solar Solar to Triple in 6 Years

http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/wind-and-solar-energy-rush-goes-global-130712.htm


Quote
The European Investment Bank (EIB), the world’s largest public financial institution, has announced that, effective immediately, it will no longer finance most coal-, lignite- and oil-fired power stations in an effort to help Europe meet its climate targets.


http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/07/european-investment-bank-cuts-lending-to-fossil-plants-supports-renewables?cmpid=rss



Quote
They are more expensive than fossil fuels


(phase 3)

Quote
  When you account for the effects which are not reflected in the market price of fossil fuels, like air pollution and health impacts, the true cost of coal and other fossil fuels is higher than the cost of most renewable energy technologies.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-is-too-expensive.htm


Quote
In the July 2011 PE magazine article “Why We Need Rational Selection of Energy Projects,” the author stated that “photovoltaic electricity generation cannot be an energy source for the future” because photovoltaics require more energy than they produce
(during their lifetime), thus their “Energy Return Ratio (ERR) is less than 1:1.”

Statements to this effect were not uncommon in the 1980s, based on some early PV prototypes. However, today’s PVs return far more energy than that embodied in the life cycle of a solar system (see Figure 1).

Their energy payback times (EPBT)—the time it takes to produce all the energy used in their life cycles—currently are between six months to two years, depending on the location/solar irradiation and the technology. And with expected life times of 30 years, their ERRs are in the range of 60:1 to 15:1, depending on the location and the technology, thus returning 15 to 60 times more energy than the energy they use. Here is a basic tutorial on the subject.
 

http://www.clca.columbia.edu/236_PE_Magazine_Fthenakis_2_10_12.pdf



Quote
because of their very low EROEI


(phase 3) See above. The EROEI of fossil fuels is lower than Renewable energy EROEI.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-is-too-expensive.htm


Quote
However, today’s PVs return far more energy than that embodied in the life cycle of a solar system (see Figure 1).

Their energy payback times (EPBT)—the time it takes to produce all the energy used in their life cycles—currently are between six months to two years, depending on the location/solar irradiation and the technology. And with expected life times of 30 years, their ERRs are in the range of 60:1 to 15:1, depending on the location and the technology, thus returning 15 to 60 times more energy than the energy they use. Here is a basic tutorial on the subject.

Quote
Energy Payback Time = (Emat+Emanuf+Etrans+Einst+EEOL) / (Eagen–Eaoper)
where,
Emat: Primary energy demand to produce materials comprising PV system
Emanuf: Primary energy demand to manufacture PV system
Etrans: Primary energy demand to transport materials used during the life cycle
Einst: Primary energy demand to install the system
EEOL: Primary energy demand for end-of-life management
Eagen: Annual electricity generation in primary energy terms
Eaoper: Annual energy demand for operation and maintenance in primary energy terms

The traditional way of calculating the EROI of PV is EROI = lifetime/EPBT, thus an EPBT of one year and life expectancy of 30  years corresponds to an EROI of 1:30..

http://www.clca.columbia.edu/236_PE_Magazine_Fthenakis_2_10_12.pdf


Quote
Scientific Investigations of Alcohol Fuels 1890 – 1920

Studies of alcohol as an internal combustion engine fuel began in the U.S. with the Edison Electric Testing Laboratory and Columbia University in 1906. Elihu Thomson reported that despite a smaller heat or B.T.U. value, “a gallon of alcohol will develop substantially the same power in an internal combustion engine as a gallon of gasoline. This is owing to the superior efficiency of operation…”62 Other researchers confirmed the same phenomena around the same time.

USDA tests in 1906 also demonstrated the efficiency of alcohol in engines and described how gasoline engines could be modified for higher power with pure alcohol fuel or for equivalent fuel consumption, depending on the need.63

The U.S. Geological Service and the U.S. Navy performed 2000 tests on alcohol and gasoline engines in 1907 and 1908 in Norfolk, Va. and St. Louis, Mo. They found that much higher engine compression ratios could be achieved with alcohol than with gasoline. When the compression ratios were adjusted for each fuel, fuel economy was virtually equal despite the greater B.T.U. value of gasoline. “In regard to general cleanliness, such as absence of smoke and disagreeable odors, alcohol has many advantages over gasoline or kerosene as a fuel,” .[/b]the report said. “The exhaust from an alcohol engine is never clouded with a black or grayish smoke.”64

USGS continued the comparative tests and later noted that alcohol was “a more ideal fuel than gasoline” with better efficiency despite the high cost.65

The French War Office tested gasoline, benzene and an alcohol-benzene blend in road tests in 1909, and the results showed that benzene gave higher mileage than gasoline or the alcohol blend in existing French trucks.66

The British Fuel Research Board also tested alcohol and benzene mixtures around the turn of the century and just before World War I, finding that alcohol blends had better thermal efficiency than gasoline but that engines developed less brake horsepower at low rpm.67
On the other hand, a British researcher named Watson found that thermal efficiencies for alcohol, benzene and gasoline were very nearly equal.68

These experiments are representative of work underway before and during World War I. The conclusions were so definitive that Scientific American concluded in 1918: “It is now definitely established that alcohol can be blended with gasoline to produce a suitable motor fuel …”69 By 1920, the consensus, Scientific American said, was “a universal assumption that [ethyl] alcohol in some form will be a constituent of the motor fuel of the future.”

Alcohol met all possible technical objections, and although it was more expensive than gasoline, it was not prohibitively expensive in blends with gasoline. “Every chemist knows [alcohol and gasoline] will mix, and every engineer knows [they] will drive an internal combustion engine.”70

And then along came Prohibition and saved the day for gasoline.
So a 'Prohibition law "disaster" for ethanol was a rather convenient profit opportunity, was it not? It is quite conceivable that a "disaster" was CREATED (Rockefeller "donated" millons to the Temperance movement.) for ethanol in order to "Try to turn every disaster into an opportunity. ".

After all, competition was a "sin" for the Rockefellers and big oil.  It may be "real politik" but it certainly isn't cricket. The terms "free market" and "level playing field of energy resources" ring rather hollow in the "real world" of big oil market rigging and lawmaker bribing, blackmailing or bullying. 

I dare say not much has changed.



Quote
Alcohol from grain and potatoes, at about 25 to 30 cents per gallon, was far too expensive to compete with petroleum, but alcohol from Cuban molasses, at 10 cents per gallon, was thought to be competitive.

Some observers suspected a conspiracy in the fact that Standard Oil of New Jersey had financial ties to the Caribbean alcohol market. The influence of an oil company over the alcohol industry was “a combination which many will regard as sinister,” said Tweedy.59

In 1942, Senate committees began looking into the extent to which the oil industry had controlled other industries, including the alcohol industry and the rubber industry. Attorney General Thurmond Arnold testified that anti-trust investigations had taken place into the oil industry’s influence in the alcohol industry in the 1913-1920 period, in the early 1920s, and between 1927 and 1936. “Renewed complaints in 1939 were brought to the anti-trust division but because of funds no action was taken,” Arnold said.60

Then the investigation of 1941 which exposed a “marriage” between Standard Oil Co. and the German chemical company I.G. Farben also brought new evidence concerning complex price and marketing agreements between du Pont Corp., a major investor in and producer of leaded gasoline, U.S. Industrial Alcohol Co. and their subsidiary, Cuba Distilling Co.

The investigation was eventually dropped, like dozens of others in many different kinds of industries, due to the need to enlist industry support in the war effort.

However, the top directors of many oil companies agreed to resign and oil industry stocks in molasses companies were sold off as part of a compromise worked out with Arnold.

http://www.environmentalhistory.org/billkovarik/research/henry-ford-charles-kettering-and-the-fuel-of-the-future/

Ethanol WAS ALWAYS a superior fuel to gasoline even WITHOUT the horrendous pollutants that an ICE burning gasoline produces. And ethanol requires NO CATALYTIC CONVERTER.

Every nasty, negative naysaying thing you have heard about ethanol from it using up food crops to having a "low" EROEI to corroding engines from increased water vapor to it being less economical than gasoline is DISINFORMATION and I can prove it point by point.


Quote
**"The gasoline engine became the preferred engine for the automobile because gasoline was cheaper than alcohol, not because it was a better fuel. And, because alcohol was not available at any price from 1920 to 1933, a period during which the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol was banned nationally as mandated in the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The amendment was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment on December 5, 1933. In time to produce alcohol fuels during World War II.

By the time World War II ended, the gasoline engine had become "entrenched" because gasoline remained cheaper than Alcohol, and widely distributed – gas stations were everywhere."



Quote
and very large fossil fuel dependency.


(phase 3) Maybe that was true in 1980 but NOW it is only partially true. Norway has about 100% penetration of renewable energy in their electric grid. Other highly industrialized countries have high penetration as well. This mean the electric arc furnaces for smelting steel and other high temperature thermal processes dependent on electricity are using very little fossil fuels to make renewable energy machines in these places.

Also Nuclear power plants, something neither you nor I favor, have always been made with fossil fuels but that never stopped our government from making or heavily subsidizing that new energy technology. Why should it be different for renewable energy machines?
Observe below the Renewable Energy penetration of the electric grid in various industrialized countries



Electric Grid Renewable energy Penetration in Selected Markets

Although we technically do not have PV manufacturing plants or Wind turbine manufacturers driving EV trucks or mining with EV machines as well as powering their factories with wind and PV or some other renewable energy, it's just a matter of time.

WHY? Because of the HIGH EROEI of Renewable Energy devices. They pay for themselves in a few years and then, as long as they are properly maintained, last a number of decades while using ZERO fossil fuels throughout the entire period.

The fossil fuel powered internal combustion machine is not competitive with Renewable Energy technolgies UNLESS fossil fuels retain their massive subsidies and continue to limit the market penetration of renewable energy systems in the USA and elseware with the threadbare excuse, and untrue allegation, that they are "too intermittent".

Quote
The Great Transition, Part I: From Fossil Fuels to Renewable Energy
Lester R. Brown

http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2012/update107



Quote
In fact renewables is a minomer. The sun will continue to shine and the wind to blow, but steel is not renewable and neither are many other essential components.


Six Terrawat hours a year of energy is expended each year in the USA just to make the internal combustion engines and spare parts. How come you never complained of this massive amount of energy involving "non-renewable" steel used in manufacturing internal combustion machines?

Renewable Energy devices terminology refers to the FACT, that once they are constructed, they don't USE fossil fuels to output energy. And the metal used in Renewables is not high temperature alloy metal like that required for internal combustion engines which makes it recyclable with LESS energy than that required for internal combustion engine metals.

In fact, we need far less steel and other metals to replace the entire internal combustion independent infrastructure with renewable energy WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL MINING by just cannibalizing the internal combustion machines for Renewable Energy machine metals as we make the transition.

Yes, I know about the rare earth metals mining pollution. I can only remind you of that phrase, "drop in the bucket" compared with the benefits of doing away with fossil fuels altogether.


http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg25945#msg25945


Quote
For As Long As The Sun Shines: The Non-Crisis of PV Module Reliability

http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_06_26_For_As_Long_As_The_Sun_Shines



Quote
The demand and price collapse will kill much of renewable development,


Prices have gone up for fossil fuels even as demand has gone down. This has actually spurred the switch to renewables , not dampened it.

Quote
Retail Prices (Dollars per Gallon) 2012-2013

http://www.eia.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp


Quote
Volatile fossil fuel prices make renewable energy more attractive

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/blog/fossil-fuel-prices-renewable-energy-attractive



Quote
especially at a large scale.


(phase 3)

Quote
To date, we've committed over $1 billion to renewable energy project investments, signed ... It may also be more feasible to build larger power installations .... and match their demand with utility-scale solution

http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/www.google.com/en/us/green/pdf/renewable-energy-options.pdf



Quote
You cannot run an industrial society on intermittent energy sources with low EROEI.

The Renewable energy blend eliminates intermittency and the low EROEI claim has been proven, not just inaccurate, but the exact reverse.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-is-too-expensive.htm

Quote
CSP technology can also be coupled with energy storage, one of the hottest topics in the renewable energy industry this year. Plants that include energy storage with molten salt can store solar power and dispatch it in the early evening and into the night. Tex Wilkins from the CSP Alliance thinks this application could make PV, which is often viewed as a threat to CSP, a complimentary technology. "The ability of CSP with storage to dispatch its power to the grid in the early morning and evening can combine with daytime PV to spread out the use of solar power from the time people get up early in the morning until they go to bed late at night," he explained. Wilkins said that in five years most CSP plants will include energy storage. Van Scoter from eSolar said in five years he expects that most CSP projects will include molten salt or ISCC technology. "There is also a high potential for projects involving industrial process heat, EOR and desalination," he said.
All CSP experts said that utilities are just beginning to recognize CSP's value - a renewable energy able to provide base load, dispatchable power. According to SkyFuel's Mason, "This attribute of CSP is its main differentiator from PV and wind, and will ensure its increasing uptake in the power market."


Quote
Intermittency Of Renewables?… Not So Much

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/07/21/intermittency-of-renewable-energy/


Quote
For As Long As The Sun Shines: The Non-Crisis of PV Module Reliability

http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_06_26_For_As_Long_As_The_Sun_Shines



Quote
Feed in tariffs are already being cut worldwide, and without them renewable power is not competitive.


This is a generalization and is inaccurate as well.
It is also a faulty comparison. The MASSIVE subsidies fossil and nuclear fules get dwarf any feed in tariff "advantage" for Renewable energy.

If all fossil and nuclear fuel subsidies were removed, the ridiculously tiny Renewable Energy subsidies in the form of feed in tariffs and other paltry incentives would be even less significant than they are now.

I know you are adverse to feed in tariffs. It is not logical for you to be adverse to FIT and not ALSO be adverse to fossil fuel subsidies like THESE:

Expensing of Intangible Drilling Costs

Percentage Depletion Allowance

Deduction for Tertiary Injectants

Geological and Geophysical Expenditures

Exception for passive loss limitations for oil and gas

Enhanced oil recovery credit

Marginal oil well credit

You eliminate ALL THE ABOVE and the pittance that FIT represents can be eliminated quite easily, thank you very much. Just google fossil fuel and nuclear power subsidies to date in the USA alone and then look at the tiny sliver of a percentage of subsidies for renewables to date.

Of course, fossil fuel industries want renewable enrgy to go away and are doing everything possible to make that happen. Eliminating FIT would be one step to that goal while keeping fossil fuel subsidies intact.



Quote
Said Brian Jennings, ACE executive vice president, in a release, “If oil companies cannot stand on their own two feet after 100 years of clinging to certain taxpayer subsidies, Congress shouldn’t hurt American consumers by repealing the RFS, a policy that helps level the playing field with oil a little bit by giving people affordable and renewable fuel choices.”

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2013/03/big-oils-100-year-incentive-birthday-bash-hosted-by-biofuels



Quote
Since we cannot run this society on renewables, our society will have to change.


A logical conclusion based on the low EROEI incorrect premise and the intermittency incorrect premise.

With an incorrect premise, you will always come to the wrong conclusion.

The fact that renewable energy has grown in leaps and bounds for over three years now is proof that it is a more profitable energy source, as well as being non-polluting after manufacture, than the poisonous fossil fuels.

The renewable energy percentage use targets are INCREASING, not decreasing as you incorrectly believe. Here's just one example:


Quote
Vermont may have more foresight than other states it its ambitious 90% renewable energy target by 2050, but it’s really the sign of a paradigm shift in energy, says Dave.

http://www.ilsr.org/vermonts-standard-offer-renewable-energy-program-episode-10-local-energy-rules-podcast/


Quote
Prepare For Disruptive Solar Technology

Quote
In 2013, the landscape is drastically different. Solar power is here to stay, and the major manufacturers should be motivated to make big moves.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1504552-prepare-for-disruptive-solar-technology



Quote
We will have to learn to live within our means.

Most people in the world already do. It's people with giant carbon footprints that don't.

I think what you are doing in lowering your carbon footprint is laudable but be aware that every time you board an aircraft, you have just used up about 6 months worth of the carbon footprint of a person in the third world. That doesn't help.




Quote
This article was not about poisoned aquifers. I have written about that before though. I cannot cover everything in every article or there would be no focus. Of course fracking is obscene, the environmental risks are huge and a few well connected individuals are making a killing from the ponzi scheme. The price collapse will eventually prevent it, just not right now when there is still money to be made.

Yes, the environmental risks, and damages as well, are already huge. Fracking adds insult to injury. It's time to stop supporting this biosphere killing technology, regardless of the fossil fuel industry's stranglehold on governments and policy.

Quote
The country is in the midst of an unprecedented oil and gas drilling rush—brought on by a controversial technology called hydraulic fracturing or fracking.
Along with this fracking-enabled oil and gas rush have come troubling reports of poisoned drinking water, polluted air, mysterious animal deaths, industrial disasters and explosions. We call them Fraccidents.

http://earthjustice.org/features/campaigns/fracking-across-the-united-states



Quote
The numbers are bad even with externalities excluded, and are of course much worse with them. Some of these things are very difficult to quantify, and over-quantification doesn't really help anyway.

Well, it DOES HELP the frackers in attracting investment capital to have energy experts publish EROEI numbers above 1:1, does it not?  A real world EROEI woud remind these planet poisoners of the repercussions of their actions AND make it HARDER for them to get investment capital.

The less happy the EROEI numbers, the less inclined they will be to engage in criminal and toxic activity. If energy experts don't do it, who is, besides the scientific community which is getting drowned out by the bought and paid for media?

I can show you a Buffalo University study about three years old (not the snow job that came later falsely claiming it was peer reviewed and forced to recant) that proved conclusively that Uranium traces would come up in the process of fracking and invade the aquifers, not at radiactive dose danger levels but as heavy metal pollutants.

There's a LOT more bad stuff going on out there. If you don't know about it, you should.

Gas fracking corruption posts:


http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg5905#msg5905
http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg5923#msg5923


Quote
'Fracking' Mobilizes Uranium in Marcellus Shale, UB Research Finds

http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2010/10/11885.html



Quote
This is real politik - the way the world really works.

You mean that's the way the POLITICAL WORLD works.
The planet and the biosphere, according to serious, objective, proven environmental science,  will become uninhabitable if we do not stop burning fossil fuels within a couple of decades (See video above in this document of panel of scientists where one British Scientist actually says that the REAL, "real world" is about to overwhelm the perception managed "real politik, real world" the fossil fuel industry and most of mankind falsely believe they live in. Note: Part 2 of that video is extremely informative as well.).

The intransigence of the fossil fuel industry in this matter is a given. They wish to avoid liability for the damage they have casued so they have, for several decades, (See the George C. Marshal Institute) launched a campaign of disinformation to claim there is NO climate threat whatsoever.

The disinformation has used the scare tactic that we are running out of fossil fuels. Sure, according to latest estimates, we have about 37 years left of oil and slightly over 100 years of coal.

I certainly think those numbers don't translate into an imminent collapse UNLESS the fossil fuel fascists (that isn't hyperbole) engineer one as an additional scare tactic.

Don't tell me the industry famous for contrived price shocks and oil resource wars is not capable of that.

Here's a PRIME example of what the fossil fuel industry has done to the USA and the world:

A quote from the following Peer Reviewed book:


Dilworth (2010-03-12). Too Smart for our Own Good (pp. 399-400). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

Quote
"As suggested earlier, war, for example, which represents a cost for society, is a source of profit to capitalists. In this way we can partly understand e.g. the American military expenditures in the Persian Gulf area. Already before the first Gulf War, i.e. in 1985, the United States spent $47 billion projecting power into the region. If seen as being spent to obtain Gulf oil, It AMOUNTED TO $468 PER BARREL, or 18 TIMES the $27 or so that at that time was paid for the oil itself.

In fact, if Americans had spent as much to make buildings heat-tight as they spent in ONE YEAR at the end of the 1980s on the military forces meant to protect the Middle Eastern oil fields, THEY COULD HAVE ELIMINATED THE NEED TO IMPORT OIL from the Middle East.

So why have they not done so? Because, while the $468 per barrel may be seen as being a cost the American taxpayers had to bear, and a negative social effect those living in the Gulf area had to bear, it meant only profits for American capitalists. "

Note: I added the bold caps emphasis on the barrel of oil price, money spent in one year and the need to import oil from the Middle East.


Consequently, all extrapolated future scenarios the Peak Oil people come up with must have their premises scrutinized to see how much of that is fossil fuel propaganda.

I have. The collapse scenario does not add up.

In that video above, the scientific community makes it crystal clear that there is easily another 100 years of coal, a much more polluting fossil fuel than oil, available regardless of the state of petroleum depletion.

So it is not realistic to say everything is just going stop one day from a chain of collapses in economies. The available fossil fuels are still TOO available.

The worsening weather will be the ONLY thing that will spur change unless the 1% performs a coup d'état on the fossil fuel world power structure and even then we already passed the point a couple of decades ago when bioremediation was going to be fairly straight forward.

So the Peak Oil people and preppers, like you, are doing themselves a world of good by preparing for a lower carbon footprint and learning many low tech survival skills because, even in the best of the three scenarios I envisioned (no die off), we will still have to reduce our carbon footprint until we get all the bugs out of the 100% renewable energy PLUS 20-40% carbon sequestering economy implemented to GET BACK to below 350 ppm.

You are wrong to think it will all collapse but you are right to prepare for hard times and horrible weather. Hansen said the atmospheric and oceanic inertia is nearly 100 years. I had thought it was only about 30 years.  :P

That means we are experiencing NOW the effects of our generated pollutants (if you say the incubation inertia is 50 years or so) as of 1963!

Consider all the pollutants that have poured in to the biosphere since then and you start to understand why brilliant people like Guy McPherson are so despondent. There is NO WAY we can stop the pollution/bad weather clock from CONTINUING to deteriorate for another 50 years (or 100 if Hansen is right) even if we STOPPED using all fossil fuels today. :(

I'm not in charge and neither are you. But clinging to this fossil fuel fantasyland of cheap power and all we "owe" it for our civilization is not going to do anything but make things deteriorate faster.

If enough people reach the 1%, maybe they will wake up. It's all we can do in addition to trying to foster community.

The system, as defined by the fossil fuel fascist dystopia that currently runs most of the human affairs among the 1 billion population in the developed world that are saddling the other 6 billion, who are totally free of guilt for causing it, with this climate horror we are beginning to experience, IS quite stubborn and does not wish to change the status quo.

Mother nature will force it to do so.

Whether it is done within the next two decades or not (i.e. a swtch to 100% PLUS bioremediation Renewable Energy steady state economy) will dictate the size of the die off, not only of humans but thousands of other species as well.

We are now in a climate cake that has been baked for about 1,000 years according to atmospheric, objective, proven with experimental data, science.

My somewhat quixotic hope as fleshed out in the following article is that the 1% will respond to the crisis with a crash program to bioremediate the biosphere as a matter of enlightened self interest.



http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/08/13/sexual-dimorphism-powerstructures-and-environmental-consequences-of-human-behaviors/

If the crash program to switch to renewable energy is to begin soon, I expect the trigger for the crash program will be the first ice free arctic summer (according to my estimates  :icon_mrgreen:) in 2017.

So I would use that future melting now as a rallying point to wake people up and join in the effort to ban fossil fuels from planet earth. Expect the fossil fuelers to counter that polar ice melting catastrophic reality with propaganda about what a "wonderful" thing it is to have a new ocean to shorten ship traveling (i.e. TANKERS) distances. So it goes.

But if things go well for humanity and the 1% galvanize to save the biosphere and their stuff  :icon_mrgreen:, we will witness the dismantelling of the centralized fossil fuel infrastructure, it's use and, more importantly, the relinquishing of political power worldwide by big oil.



Quote

15 April 2013
James Hansen

1. Exaggeration?

I have been told of specific well-respected people who have asserted that "Jim Hansen exaggerates" the magnitude and imminence of the climate threat. If only that were true, I would be happy.
"Magnitude and imminence" compose most of the climate story.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130415_Exaggerations.pdf



Quote
It's about money and power.


Correct. It has ALWAYS been about POWER (which always brings easy money).

It has NEVER been about ENERGY beyond CONTROLLING the spigot to we-the-people.

That's why the fossil fuel industry simply didn't switch to the much more profitable and economical renewable energy technologies long ago (they certainly have the money to do so); they simply could not figure out a way to retain POWER and CONTROL with a distributed, rather than a centralized energy system.




Quote
The expansion phase of the bubble concealed that for a while by floating many boats temporarily.

No comment except that the forces of nature will overwhelm any bubble mechanics that corrupt central bankers or Wall Street can come up with.

The importance of financial activity pales in the face of climate change.




Quote
I wish that wasn't the way it worked, but it does, whether we like it or not. All we can do is to understand our situation and make the best of it.


Renewable Energy is making life and profits more and more difficult for the fossil fuel corporations.

But you are right that they run the corrupt system and do not want to cede their power (even if it kills all of us).


Quote
Robert F. Kennedy Jr: In the next decade there will be an epic battle for survival for humanity against the forces of ignorance and greed. It’s going to be Armageddon, represented by the oil industry on one side, versus the renewable industry on the other.

And people are going to have to choose sides – including politically. They will have to choose sides because oil and coal, they will not be able to survive – they are not going to be able to burn their proven reserves.

If they do, then we are all dead. And they are quite willing to burn it. We’re all going to be part of that battle. We are going to watch governments being buffeted by the whims of money and greed on one side, and idealism and hope on the other.

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/06/interview-with-robert-f-kennedy-jr-on-environmental-activism-democratization-of-energy-more/

This ends my response and rebuttal of your statements and predicitons.

<------------------------------------------------------>

Do you now recognize that what you told me, wittingly or unwittingly, was fossil fuel anti-renewable energy propaganda?

I have shown the error in your statements and request you reconsider your position on everything you said to me.

The fossil fuel industry and those who side with it, regardless of appearing to take a pro-environment position in their personal lives, are hurting our chances for a viable biosphere.

Those who, instead, simply stand their ground on the settled climate science and state unequivocally that fossil fuels must be BANNED from human use forever and the fossil fuel industries dismantled while a massive transition to a lower carbon footprint and 100% plus renewable energy economy takes place, are the only hope Homo sapiens has.

The question is, which side are you on?


Typical phases of resistance to renewable energy, as descriped by Dr. Herman Scheer are as follows:
 
 Phase 1 – Belittle & Deny the Renewable Energy Option

 Phase 2 – Denounce & Mobilize Against the Renewable Energy Option

 Phase 3 - Spread Doubt & Misrepresent the Challenges in the Disguise of General Support

(Note: reaching Phase 3 doesn’t mean that Phase 1 & 2 will disappear.)


Continued in next post:
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 27, 2017, 05:05:32 pm »


Well, my friend, it is difficult to begin with your stated assumption that I am delusional. You know enough about me to realize I do ALL the math, not simply what is convenient to our polluting self serving suicidal status quo. And hyperbole about the probabilities of colonizing mars versus running our civilization on renewable energy makes it crystal clear that you do not respect what I have posted, even though you may respect me personally.

That's not true.  I do respect what you have posted (although I have not seen a lot of it...admittedly).  I just don't believe we can keep our current BAU petroleum heavy way of life going for 7 billion people and counting on renewables. 


Quote
Yes, Foss is a shill for the fossil fuel industry. My assertion is based on the fact that she advocates happy talk ERoEI numbers for Fracking and petroleum. Yes, she admits coal is bad news and nuclear power is horribly expensive and polluting as well. So?

Like I said earlier, I don't know what she says or advocates.  I just know that she is part of the PO blogosphere.  I'm not disputing that she may be a shill for the fossil fuel industry.  I'm just saying that if she is I don't know how.  That's what I was asking for you to elucidate for me.  Just don't assume I've read everything that you have written here on the Diner. 


Quote
Her defense of Fracking amounts to shilling, period. If you want the long explanation, just ask. I will repost my polite letter to her several years ago tearing every single point she made about fossil fuels in general (and Fracking in particular) to tiny shreds. I made it clear that fossil fuels had a MUCH LOWER ERoEI than the fossil fuel industry shills like Charles Hall (Monsta's hero  ) claimed.

The response was ZERO on energy. There was no discussion of pollution costs. There was no discussion of my assertion that Energy Return on Energy Invested was actually CAPITAL RETURN on CAPITAL INVESTED (thanks in part, but not all, to subsidies coerced from we-the-people INCLUDED in the ERoEI happy talk Foss and Hall peddle) because fossil fuels are energy NEGATIVE when all the costs are included.

Ilargi "responded" by claiming I did not write with the "caliber" that was "acceptable" at the Automatic Enema Earth.

RE went to bat for me, but they were not interested, and neither was Ashvin, who was an admin there at the time.

So she defended fracking?  How so?  That seems pretty stupid from a pollution point of view.  As in, it's highly polluting.  It's also a bandaid on the problem of fossil energy depletion.  It's only viable due to gullible investors and government subsidies.  I had no idea that she was saying that fracking was a good idea. 

Quote
I will continue to disagree with you about our inability to survive without fossil fuels, and will continue to claim the "delusional" view, according to you, that, on the contrary, we guarantee our extinction by continuing to use fossil fuels.

Understand, I agree that we likely guarantee our extinction by continuing to use fossil fuels.  Also, I never said we could not survive without fossil fuels.  Good try though.  What I said was that our fossil fuel dependent global civilization will not survive without fossil fuels.  It was built up and designed around fossil energy and resources after all.  However, man was around long before fossil energy was discovered.  Entire civilizations rose and fell before fossil energy.  Given that we don't burn the Earth down we'll have more civilizations that don't require petroleum energy.  What I AM SAYING is that this particular civilization is FUC KED without fossil energy.  What I AM SAYING is that renewable energies are not going to continue this particular civilization unabated. 

I figure something like 80% of the population is going to parish in the next couple of decades.  That is going to happen because fossil energy is why that 80% is here in the first place.  Can we build a renewable energy civilization up after that?  Sure...I see no reason why not.  It's not as if we're going to run out of fossil fuels to continue creating renewable energy gewgaws after all.  We may very well use the remaining fossil energy, after an 80% die off, to engineer an ecotechnic world. 

Quote
But that has nothing to do with the Foss fossil fuel shilling MO. It is delusional to think we can continue to foul our nest and survive the sixth Mass Extinction. Why can't you understand that?

I do understand that.  Why can't you understand that I understand that?  Fossil fuel burning is going to kill us.  A civilization dependent on a limited resource is doomed.  Renewable energy is based on the energy of the SUN, and we've got billions of years of that left (I think). 

Can you demonstrate how we make one of those massive wind turbines without fossil energy?  I mean from mining the material to constructing the turbine?  Ditto with PV.  Honestly, that's the piece I'm missing in your renewable energy revolution story. [/size]

Once again you are avoiding the central issue here of Foss's shilling for fossil fuels. Go to my news channel (next post on this thread). I just posted the letter I sent her on October 4, 2013, while there probably WAS enough time to solve this mess.

Lucid, I am NOT trying to convince you that Renewable Energy is our only way out. I am trying to convince that that, whether it is or not, THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION. Why can't you understand that? When you are in a hole, it is customary to quite digging.

I'm done trying to convince you. RE insults me and then wants an apology! You claim to respect what I write yet you never cite the NUTS AND BOLTS of the GRADUAL transition from polluting energy that I point to in my numerous posts.

I think I'll have a cup of coffee and pretend I do not exist. 

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 27, 2017, 04:56:30 pm »

In contrast, Foss DOES have a track record of polluting energy ERoEI  bold faced mendacity.



What are you talking about here Agelbert?  Can  you spell it out for me how she's a shill for the fossil fuel industry?  I don't need links and sh it, just splain it to me please! 

Is she saying that without fossil fuel energy we're all fu cked?  As in our fossil fuel powered global civilization won't work any longer without fossil fuels? 

I happen to agree with that if it's the case.  Our civilization rose up and was engineered and created around petroleum energy after all.  All of our infrastructure requires petroleum inputs fro our roads and bridges to the mining of metals for water pipes to the making of solar farms and massive wind turbines.  We are quite simply FUC KED without petroleum. 

Could there be another way?  Sure, there most certainly could have been...like less 6 billion people ago.  To think that we keep this whole shebang going on alternative energy is impossible.  Not without 6 billion or so people dying miserable deaths. 

Here's the thing I've learned in the last year.  Idealism is delusion.  Especially in a global economy perpetuated by fossil fuel BAU.  Respectfully, Agelbert...I'm not trying to pi ss you off...but I'm not buying renewable energy saving our civilization either.  In my mind, we've got a better chance of colonizing mars.



Well, my friend, it is difficult to begin with your stated assumption that I am delusional. You know enough about me to realize I do ALL the math, not simply what is convenient to our polluting self serving suicidal status quo. And hyperbole about the probabilities of colonizing mars versus running our civilization on renewable energy makes it crystal clear that you do not respect what I have posted, even though you may respect me personally.

Lucid, I appreciate and am grateful for your respect, but this energy discussion has NEVER been about me or you or Foss or RE.

Yes, Foss is a shill for the fossil fuel industry. My assertion is based on the fact that she advocates happy talk ERoEI numbers for Fracking and petroleum. Yes, she admits coal is bad news and nuclear power is horribly expensive and polluting as well. So?

Her defense of Fracking amounts to shilling, period. If you want the long explanation, just ask. I will repost my polite letter to her several years ago tearing every single point she made about fossil fuels in general (and Fracking in particular) to tiny shreds. I made it clear that fossil fuels had a MUCH LOWER ERoEI than the fossil fuel industry shills like Charles Hall (Monsta's hero  ) claimed.

The response was ZERO on energy. There was no discussion of pollution costs. There was no discussion of my assertion that Energy Return on Energy Invested was actually CAPITAL RETURN on CAPITAL INVESTED (thanks in part, but not all, to subsidies coerced from we-the-people INCLUDED in the ERoEI happy talk Foss and Hall peddle) because fossil fuels are energy NEGATIVE when all the costs are included.

Ilargi "responded" by claiming I did not write with the "caliber" that was "acceptable" at the Automatic Enema Earth.

RE went to bat for me, but they were not interested, and neither was Ashvin, who was an admin there at the time.

I will continue to disagree with you about our inability to survive without fossil fuels, and will continue to claim the "delusional" view, according to you, that, on the contrary, we guarantee our extinction by continuing to use fossil fuels.

But that has nothing to do with the Foss fossil fuel shilling MO. It is delusional to think we can continue to foul our nest and survive the sixth Mass Extinction. Why can't you understand that?


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 27, 2017, 04:52:51 pm »

Nice dodge of the real issues here.  ;)  Nice effort to keep peddling unproven assertions of manipulation of vulnerable females while ignoring all the harm Foss has caused by peddling polluting crap. Well done. 

I just call 'em as I see 'em AG.  You may not like it, but Guy Struck Out in my book and he is out of the Batter's Box for me.

If you wish to be a Dr. McStinksion supporter, this is your choice.
  I can't buy that sh it, but apparently you can.

RE

When logic is not on your side, you  twist the words of the debater and resort to insults. That's beneath you and  sad.  :( Foss, a serial liar on behalf of polluting energy sources, is your friend. You are being loyal, not logical. I get it.  Have a nice day, RE.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 27, 2017, 04:49:34 pm »

I never knew Guy was a grief councillor. Now whether he has had sex with his patients is one thing but what these facts demonstrate is he is using his theory as a means of gaining clients for his business. Since there is a monetary as well as emotional incentive towards pushing his narrative one has to wonder how impartial he is when making statements. I never believed his theory on near-term human extinction and took whatever he said with a large pinch of salt. With these revelations I am even less inclined to believe what he says as I can see he is using his theories to make money and take advantage of vulnerable people. Now whether the more extreme accusations of ra pe or even sex are true or not is another matter but what he is doing is quite dubious and unethical... Even if we ignore the more extreme allegations. Now the issue here is there is no direct accusations and it is all insinuated so it is really quite difficult to decide on the veracity of the claims.

I agree with you 100% Monsta. 

Guy is most certainly an ass hole.  If it's all true then he is definitely abusing his power as a "grief counselor" and he's most certainly creating a market for his new certificate of power.  He's doing that to make money.  He's also, if the allegations are true, most certainly doing it to get laid...and if he's married he's a philandering bastard on top of that.  Which...Zeus was the achetypical philandering ass hole...I'll admit...and that's immoral as well, but it doesn't warrant castration of the male role in this world. 

Guy is an ass hole and Foss is a bit ch. 

And so the human tragicomedy continues perpetuating on down through the ages. 

For the record, if Guy did set up the conditions just to take advantage of sensitive females then he definitely deserves public scorn.  However, it's not Foss's job to make sure nobody else suffers from another pretend ra pe pricking at the hands of Dr. Mcstinksion.  How does being vulnerable because you believe we're all going to die in the next couple of years mean that you don't want to fu ck anyways?  What do the two have in relation to one another? 

That's the part I don't get.  You're vulnerable because you are upset that we're all supposedly going to die in the next couple of years?  You're vulnerable about Near Term Human Extinction?!!!  If we're all going to die then we might as well all be fu cking each other!!!!  Why not?  As Walter in The Big Lebowski said so poetically "8 year olds dude."
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 27, 2017, 04:45:50 pm »


I don't know much about Guy as a person.  I just know his angle on NTHE, which I disagree with.  However, it appears to me that this is hitting below the belt.  If it's consensual than it's nobodies business accept the participants in the consensual act.  If it's ****, than it's a police matter. 
For a Prophet of Doom, consensual sex is purely a private matter.

If Guy wants to call himself a Grief Counselor, though, he needs to follow their Code of Ethics.  If their code of ethics states that he can't have sexual relations with a current client, then he should have told her that he couldn't be her counselor effectively because he was sexually attracted to her.  Then he would have been free to pursue a relationship with her, if she consented.

With all due respect, that is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

AG, with the greatest affection and respect, it IS the matter at hand. JD has framed the issue perfectly. All other agendas, and Foss' role vis a vis energy, are irrelevant to the main issue, which is the Guy is accused of abusing a counselor relationship.

"Why now" remains a valid question, for which I have answer and less interest.

I content myself in knowing that three billion Chinese don't care.


I personally do not like Guy McPherson. I consider him arrogant and totally disagree with his take on evolution and HOW SOON we will go extinct from fouling our nest with suicidal behavior. But he does not now, or ever has, lied about any fo the scientifc studies he cites. In contrast, Foss DOES have a track record of polluting energy ERoEI  bold faced mendacity. 

You may think  I am fixated on the pollution issue and see a pollution defending agenda where there is none. I considered that possibility and, after thinking it through, have rejected it.

You are a knowledgeable writer and know EXACTLY how the propaganda industry "works" and how a hit piece is formulated. You understand  defamatory innuendo and can smell it a mile away.

But HERE you are flat refusing to engage in the key question, Surly. The key question is CUI BONO? This is a DOG WHISTLE for limousine liberal tear jerking distraction!

You don't see that.

You want to stand up and defend vulnerable females everywhere. Me too.

But FOSS DOES NOT GIVE A TINKER'S DAMN ABOUT vulnearble females. Foss is about SHILLING FOR FOSSIL FUELS.

If you wish to claim that Foss's "energy expert" MO has no bearing on this particular issue, I will respectfully continue to disagree. EVERYTHING that Foss does publicly has to do with
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 27, 2017, 04:44:28 pm »

I never knew Guy was a grief councillor. Now whether he has had sex with his patients is one thing but what these facts demonstrate is he is using his theory as a means of gaining clients for his business. Since there is a monetary as well as emotional incentive towards pushing his narrative one has to wonder how impartial he is when making statements. I never believed his theory on near-term human extinction and took whatever he said with a large pinch of salt. With these revelations I am even less inclined to believe what he says as I can see he is using his theories to make money and take advantage of vulnerable people. Now whether the more extreme accusations of ra pe or even sex are true or not is another matter but what he is doing is quite dubious and unethical... Even if we ignore the more extreme allegations. Now the issue here is there is no direct accusations and it is all insinuated so it is really quite difficult to decide on the veracity of the claims.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 27, 2017, 04:43:11 pm »



Foss is GUILTY as sin of being a world class manipulator. The possible argument on her behalf that she manipulates greedy people instead of the "vulnerable" is a rather strange defense, don'tcha think?

So here we have a mean spirited bit of gossip dressed up in psychobabble while the incredibly mean spirited greed based push by foss and friends to defend the polluting status quo is totally ignored as if that has no bearing on the lives and health of ALL life forms on  this planet.




Well I'll willingly admit that I'm out of the Foss "Automatic Earth" loop.  Last time I read that s h i t Ashvin still had his own blog...as in before he started working for Foss. 

I was just reading AE to try to make sense of economics.  Then I read JMG's The Wealth of Nature and closed the book on the case of economics.  JMG is right about economics and all of that other **** is a bunch of smoke and mirrors in "this is too complicated for the layman to understand" equations and algorithms.  Modern day economics is based entirely on energy.  That is the limiting factor.  Digibits are not limited by anything but energy.  That's why this global economy hinging on BAU will continue until the Earth catches fire, we run out of petroleum, or somebody pushes the nuke button. 

Foss and Guy are both out to make money on collapse issues.  End of story. 

Guy likes to fu ck around on his wife and play S&M with "helpless" females and Foss apparently likes to use assholes like Guy to further her own message.   

Personally I have no tolerance for feminism.  That's an entire other debate though.  However it is tied up in the accusations towards Guy.  I come to his defense just because he's a man, and I think if the liberal feminist had their way we'd all be castrated.  They've been actively setting up a world where men are only needed for sperm banks.  That's bullshit.  Yin and Yang after all.  And what's wrong with a caring mother who stays at home and raises children and keeps a healthy household?  Women have estrogen and oxytocin after all.  They are wired to care about little children and their childish complaints about toys and feelings and attempting to understand the cruel world.  Mom is supposed to hold the child and nurse him, tell him it's all going to be okay, and be a refuse from the cruel world.  Dad is not supposed to do that.  Dad is supposed to kill sh it, sweat his ass off, and protect the nest.  He's supposed to kill something, rip it's guts out, skin it, and feed it to the family.  Touchy feeling doesn't kill an animal and rip it's guts out.   

Sh it...I went off and went on a rant.  I'm just saying...fu ck wearing pink shirts and "feeling" for some dumb bit ch who just got off on some rough little pri cking. 

The bigger issue for me, in this story, is the emasculation of the archetypical father that the feminist are all up in arms about.  They want to cut Zeus's dick off and pretend like he doesn't wield the power of creation with his...ummm...lightning bolt.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 27, 2017, 04:40:25 pm »

When Foss talks, I aleays check the BS meter (see below for the reading on her latest effluent).

On the BS Meter, Nicole usually puts it at about 80%.  Guy pegs it.

RE

The difference is not that significant, but it is interesting that you do not enter into the "20%" from Foss that you think is "acceptable". Guy does not bullshit about ERoEI happpy talk for fracking or any other fossil fuel. Guy cites scientific studies on extinction rates. Foss plays math games and cites fossil fuel industry stats like they were handed down to Moses on the Mountain while consitently ignoring pollution costs. Guy consistently points out the pollution costs.

Yeah, Guy is a super doomer and into some hyperbole about how soon it all comes crashing down. So? What part of the peer reviewed scientific studies he cites are not truthful or accurate? At least he doesn't pretend fossil fuels are God's gift to humanity. To claim, as Foss has done, that we will all die without fossil fuels is really pegging the BS meter!

Guy just states we will die BECAUSE we pollute, which is scientifically irrefutable (See: Do not industrially **** where you eat).



Tell me WHO iis the REAL BULLSHITTER.


Tell me WHO iis the REAL BULLSHITTER.

In measuring Bullshit, IMHO Dr. McStinksion wins hands down.  There simply is no way every last Homo Sap will be dead by 2026.  Utter bullshit, he is out of his mind or using it to manipulate females who are depressed about the situation..

RE

Nice dodge of the real issues here.  ;)  Nice effort to keep peddling unproven assertions of manipulation of vulnerable females while ignoring all the harm Foss has caused by peddling polluting crap. Well done.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 27, 2017, 04:37:44 pm »

I don't know much about Guy as a person.  I just know his angle on NTHE, which I disagree with.  However, it appears to me that this is hitting below the belt.  If it's consensual than it's nobodies business accept the participants in the consensual act.  If it's ****, than it's a police matter. 
For a Prophet of Doom, consensual sex is purely a private matter.

If Guy wants to call himself a Grief Counselor, though, he needs to follow their Code of Ethics.  If their code of ethics states that he can't have sexual relations with a current client, then he should have told her that he couldn't be her counselor effectively because he was sexually attracted to her.  Then he would have been free to pursue a relationship with her, if she consented.


With all due respect, that is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

AG, with the greatest affection and respect, it IS the matter at hand. JD has framed the issue perfectly. All other agendas, and Foss' role vis a vis energy, are irrelevant to the main issue, which is the Guy is accused of abusing a counselor relationship.

"Why now" remains a valid question, for which I have answer and less interest.

I content myself in knowing that three billion Chinese don't care.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 27, 2017, 04:35:16 pm »

When Foss talks, I aleays check the BS meter (see below for the reading on her latest effluent).

On the BS Meter, Nicole usually puts it at about 80%.  Guy pegs it.

RE

Yep, this whole incident is bullshit.  It's a publicity stunt for Foss IMO.  Guy may be a sexual deviant.  And?  Who gives a ****.  I certainly don't.  I agree that if he's a "grief counselor" then he shouldn't be **** his clients.  However, WTF is a grief counselor?  Did he go to college and get a doctorate in psychiatry?  Probably he went and sang kumbyeya with some hippies and got a certificate in grief counseling?  Good grief...really?  Maybe I should go be a grief counselor for money? 

I've got no interest in wasting my time dealing with people who likely just need a good ****.  Hell, sounds like Guy probably did that woman a favor.  Maybe part of his grief counseling is to give the gift of orgasm?  Who knows?  I, for one, don't give a ****.  Guy Mcstinkshin isn't selling me anything that I'm going to buy.  Nor is Foss.  This whole incident is just high school drama in the collapse-o-sphere. 

Consenting adults can **** each other, yes?  If they want to put clothes pins on their balls and pretend that they are being raped, and they all consent, then what's the difference if their foreplay was talking about NTHE and how hard it is to deal with?  Sounds like NTHE, Nihilism, and S&M should be great bedfellows. 

"Oh yes, fu ck me Guy, fu ck me in the ass while I scream and squirm and yell rap, we're all going to die next year anyways...oh yeah Guy, fu ck me with your little prick." 

"Fu ck you guy, you hurt my feelings with your little pri ck...I'm telling the stupid little collapse-o-sphere that you're a rap ing ass hole." 

I'm not buyin' any of it.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 27, 2017, 04:32:16 pm »

When Foss talks, I aleays check the BS meter (see below for the reading on her latest effluent).

On the BS Meter, Nicole usually puts it at about 80%.  Guy pegs it.

RE



The difference is not that significant, but it is interesting that you do not enter into the "20%" from Foss that you think is "acceptable". Guy does not bullshit about ERoEI happpy talk for fracking or any other fossil fuel. Guy cites scientific studies on extinction rates. Foss plays math games and cites fossil fuel industry stats like they were handed down to Moses on the Mountain while consitently ignoring pollution costs. Guy consistently points out the pollution costs.

Yeah, Guy is a super doomer and into some hyperbole about how soon it all comes crashing down. So? What part of the peer reviewed scientific studies he cites are not truthful or accurate? At least he doesn't pretend fossil fuels are God's gift to humanity. To claim, as Foss has done, that we will all die without fossil fuels is really pegging the BS meter!

Guy just states we will die BECAUSE we pollute, which is scientifically irrefutable (See: Do not industrially s h i t where you eat).



Tell me WHO iis the REAL BULLSHITTER.

[/quote]
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 27, 2017, 04:29:51 pm »

Counselors of all kinds are notorious for ethics violations. Seen that movie about the life of Carl Jung and his patient who had to be spanked to get off?

This reeks of the usual Social Justice Warrior/Uber-feminist BS. Another reason I refuse to do FB at all.
 
Conformity 2.0.....

Day of our Collapse Lives indeed! Oh, the drama.

I don't like Guy McPherson much for reasons I've stated many times. But this is some sad, silly s h i t.

True? Dunno, but completely irrelevant to my collapse life.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 27, 2017, 04:28:39 pm »

I don't know what occured in this incident with this woman, I only know about the behavior patterns that Nicole observed over a couple of years and told me about in confidence.  I promised not to reveal any of this stuff.

What we are talking about here is not physical ****. Nicole said most of the time no physical sex is involved at all, although sometimes it may be.  What Guy apparently gets his jollies from is to take emotionally weak women and make them psychologically dependent on him.  He uses his whole NTHE shpiel as a lever to accomplish this task.  This is not "illegal" in any code of law you could find, so I doubt there is any "crime" here you could prosecute.  It is however if true quite unethical.

During the time Nicole observed the behaviors, Guy was married and together with his wife, I don't know if he still is.  So his wife was either unaware of it at the time or if aware she tolerated the behaviors.  Nicole herself is quite the ardent Feminist, so you have to take her opinions of what was going on with a grain of salt as well here.  Feminists tend to see male predation on females everywhere (particularly among WHITE males), so you never get a truly unbiased opinion from them.  For me though, Nicole's opinions hold more weight than what Guy says and does, and this critique rings true to his personality that I have observed.

It will be interesting to see what the Blowback is from this inside the Collapse Community, which as we all know is quite small overall.  I imagine Guy will take a Low Profile position for a while, although I don't think he will disappear completely.  It will be interesting also to see how this affects his speaking tours if he continues to do them.  One would expect Gail Zawacki to show up and try to disrupt them, she is not shy about pulling that ****.

Like Sands through the Hourglass, these are the Days of Our Collapse Lives.  ::)


RE

I always have liked you, RE. But the fact that you have given Foss the time of day and even praised her knowledge of "energy" over the years shows a serious flaw of judgement on your part. It appears that you have been in friendly communication with her over the years. That too, is a blunder on your part.

But it's your life. Just don't be surprised when 99% of EVERYTHING that you thought made sense about energy ERoEI from Foss is proven to be TOTAL BULLSHIT on behalf of the fossil fuel industry.

I am your friend, RE. But I have not forgotten how you consistently sided with that SHILL Foss over energy issues when I severely criticized her. Yes, you defended my right to write my thoughts (that she and her side kick Ilargi attacked, undermined and refused to answer), but you never actually stated she's WRONG about energy and I'm RIGHT.

You probably still feel that way. You will probably never admit it, but you will learn I was right about the solution to our energy problems from the start.

Argue away. I am not in the mood to argue. Like I said, it's your life. If you want to befriend evil, lying people like Foss, that's your problem, not mine.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 27, 2017, 04:27:12 pm »

I don't know much about Guy as a person.  I just know his angle on NTHE, which I disagree with.  However, it appears to me that this is hitting below the belt.  If it's consensual than it's nobodies business accept the participants in the consensual act.  If it's ****, than it's a police matter. 
For a Prophet of Doom, consensual sex is purely a private matter.

If Guy wants to call himself a Grief Counselor, though, he needs to follow their Code of Ethics.  If their code of ethics states that he can't have sexual relations with a current client, then he should have told her that he couldn't be her counselor effectively because he was sexually attracted to her.  Then he would have been free to pursue a relationship with her, if she consented.

With all due respect, that is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Foss is engaging in an attack the messenger operation. If you cannot see that, I suggest you look deeper. She would like nothing more than for people to engage in arguing abut  the ethics of this, that or the other, just as long as the issue of biosphere destruction from the polluting business as usual status quo is not brought up. You are playing right into the Foss Fossil Fuel Shill's con.

It probably won't be long before Gail Tverberg weighs in with some added tear jerking distraction to defend Foss. 

When Foss talks, I always check the BS meter (see below for the reading on her latest effluent).



Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 27, 2017, 04:24:43 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: The following several posts are from a thread on another forum. I post them here to show how exercised people who refuse to believe the facts can get when a fossil fuel shill they consider an "energy expert" is accused of defamatory activity to  undermine the danger of near term human extinction from using polluting energy sources. I am the accuser. Some agreed that Nicole Foss was peddling attack the messenger libel. Some did not. So it goes.

Nicole told me about this **** a couple of years ago, but she wasn't prepared at the time to go public with it.  Now she has.  It was published on The Wrong Kind of Green website.  Thanks to RandyC for making me aware of it.

RE

STATEMENT

Wrong Kind of Green Aug 26, 2017 Neo-Liberalism and the Defanging of Feminism

August 26, 2017

To all-

It has come to our attention that a respected leader of our small online enclave has betrayed the trust many people have instilled in him over the past years.  We are stunned at these revelations like everyone else.  It was with much internal debate and emotional pain that we decided as a group that we had to release the information to the community.  Although this form of information is not our usual forte as we are collectively concerned about overriding issues, such as leaving some form of a natural world above all else, it was something so stunningly vile that we had no other choice but to present it to the community as our conscience would not allow us to conceal this from the public.

Since this decision, which is something we thoroughly debated due to its seriousness, there is much online discussion regarding to what degree his transgressions can be described as terrible and even if they should be in the public due to the personal nature of the correspondence.  From this perspective, this person and his supporters have pointed to the fact that the behavior between himself and the woman in question was of a consensual, private nature, and should be of no concern to the wider community.  We believe this argument falls short for three critical reasons which should be considered both separately and collectively.

The first reason is one of ethics, which is separate from legality.  The word ethics is defined as “a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.”  Most professional organizations have codes of ethics, which participants must adhere to in order to remain in good standing.  In regards to its specific ethical standards, the American Psychological Association states “your psychologist shouldn’t also be your friend, client, or sex partner.  That’s because psychologists are supposed to avoid relationships that could impair their professional performance or harm their clients. One type of relationship that’s never acceptable is a sexual relationship with a current client.“

This person has taken on several roles, which in combination provide the framework for producing potentially serious ethical concerns.  As a recognized authority in the field of climate science, this person’s words contain the weight of authority for many.  His carefully worded prognostications of a coming end of human existence on the planet, though backed by his scientific understanding,  nonetheless have the ability to produce a state of anxiety, uncertainty, and despair in those who accept his perspective.  This person acknowledges this on his website, stating that “Because the topics of his presentations sometimes induce despair, Guy became a certified grief-recovery specialist in January 2014.”

The combination of his pursuits, as a climate scientist predicting the end of life as we know it, and grief counselor, puts him in the unique role of both producing or exacerbating the effect of anxiety or despair in an individual, as well as creating the context through which that despair is then addressed.  His audience, of which we have been a part, consists of individuals often marginalized by our larger society that ignores the very real warnings of catastrophic  climate change.  The views shared by many in our Near Term Human Extinction (NTHE) group have produced not simply a sense of despair about the future, but also a sense of isolation from our immediate communities and families.  Solace is then sought out within the NTHE community, under the banner of this person’s scientific findings.

While in many ways natural responses warranted by our current situation, this combination of despair, confusion, and isolation, none the less set up the potential for the exploitation of those who acutely feel the desperation and disorientation of abrupt climate change, and have nowhere else to turn for answers.

And this is the reason for the need for ethics and ethical boundaries.  This person is in a position of authority with direct influence over the mental, emotional, and in some cases physical and monetary lives, of those who exist in a state of vulnerability.  This is a state which he has helped to facilitate and of which he profits from in his personal life.  To then use that position, as this person has done, to engage in sexualized relations with women by way of administering a self-serving “healing” to individuals who are going such traumatic personal experiences, is a violation of ethical boundaries.  From a purely ethical perspective within a narrowly focused context of a professor/student and grief therapist/client context, the exact content of these relations, which will justifiably elicit revulsion in many by themselves, is not the primary concern.  The mere existence of these relations under such power dynamics, whether consensual or not, is at best ethically compromised, simply because of the potential  for abuse that exists, even if no actual abuse can be conclusively identified.  As the revelations of women who have come forward and expressed their pain with regard to these relationships continues to grow, this strongly indicates that emotional abuse and the abuse of power were at play and their claims should be taken with utmost seriousness. At the most basic level, it is because these abuses could take place that professional boundaries and codes of ethics are established and why we should reject this person‘s behavior.

In that vein, the truth of the matter is that whatever grey area there may potentially be is no longer up for debate due to his repeated and lengthy record of attempting and succeeding in taking advantage of women in a vulnerable position emotionally due to the disheartening mental and social effects of personally accepting the ongoing Sixth Great Extinction (of which humanity will be one of its victims, as well as its singular cause).  As one of the admittedly unfiltered and honest voices concerning this present set of circumstances with few people having the sphere of influence that he has in our small community,  the unethical manner in which he used this trust for nefarious sexual ends repeatedly has left us no other recourse but to do everything in our power to stop him from continuing the same behavior.

This then leads to the second critical point.  While the argument has been made that in regard to his relations with one particular woman, the content is irrelevant because of its consensual nature, this defense rings hollow.  To use an analogy: while living in a free society one may be legally permitted to hold racist beliefs and freely associate with other racists, a member of the NAACP would  nonetheless rightfully oppose its leader if they were later discovered to be a member of the KKK.  Such an association would clearly violate the spirit and mission of an organization promoting racial justice, and in the duplicity of core beliefs in the leadership, it would  also indicate a threat to the structural integrity of the organization and potentially its members.  It would not matter whether the current leader had joined the KKK after being first approached by a klansman, or if the leader started a chapter on his own.  The compromise would be clear.

Similarly, the content of his interactions with one woman in question, no matter how they came about, indicated the willingness of this person to engage in, perhaps initiate, **** fantasies  and other degrading and sexually objectifying dialogues that are not congruous with the core values of a significant number of members of the Near Term Human Extinction Support Group and its associated community.  This incongruity is borne out in the fact that he has spoken out specifically against patriarchy on his regular online radio program and in innumerous public forums and presentations, but has engaged in fantasies of **** and sexual enslavement, which represent the most extreme form of patriarchy, regardless of how that interaction began.   Therefore, the problems surrounding the content of his interactions are twofold.  They are contained in both the degrading, misogynist verbiage itself and the fact that such interactions represent a betrayal of trust relating to the public image of a respect for life and an opposition to patriarchy that he has cultivated in the public eye to his personal benefit.

The destruction of the Earth, the underlying concern of the NTHE support group, is the direct result of human and environmental exploitation, a core element of which is the domination of women where females are treated as property to be used  like much of the natural world, mere objects for male gratification.  Thus the move from more egalitarian, hunter gatherer societies into stratified agricultural and industrial societies, which culminated in today’s planet devouring global civilization which this person critiques, entailed the objectification and commodification of women.  To participate in such objectification and fantasies of female subjugation with a potential member of the NTHE group no less, goes beyond hypocrisy.  It signifies that in regard to what this person believes and values, he cannot be trusted.  And given the context, as suggested in the above analogy, this duplicity threatens both group integrity and potentially the safety of its members.

Perhaps some would say that the way in which the information was obtained makes us no better and even worse than the perpetrator, as there are many online accusations of this being the case.  However, we didn’t go out seeking this information, even if we are greatly appreciative of it since it allows us the opportunity to stop any future manipulations by someone in a leadership position.  It was brought to us and we made the difficult decision to use it for the greater good of stopping any further occurrences – our decision superseding any disparaging things said about us individually or collectively.

Ultimately, the fact of the matter is that none of the individuals who became privy to this information have an axe to grind with this person. Actually, this is quite the contrary.  We are all people who had a great amount of respect and admiration of him as a scholar and a person.  It wasn’t until recently that those who possessed such a tremendous amount of respect for this man started questioning his motives outside of the irrefutable science and his singular desire to provide it to the public.  Sadly, this recent incident dispelled any doubts in our minds regarding much of his endeavors.

We are a small community of activists.  Most of what we know to be true in this world in regards to the state of affairs of the planet are things that are not accepted by the mainstream world, even though they are playing out in real time and disaffecting humanity at this very instant and with growing intensity.  As it is difficult to find any sources of solidarity, be it local or globally, once this disparate group of human beings find comrades or leaders (of which there are even less), we tend to cling on to them in great desperation as they are truly few and far between.

As this is the case, the people who come to us and try to find a community of some sort to explain to them what is going on or just commiserate about the ongoing travails of this global society are the picture of vulnerability during their greatest hour of need.  Hence, it is unethical, even predatory, for anyone to take advantage of these people while they are most defenseless.  As some people are trying to construe this as just a single, solitary case,  the fact of the matter is that this has been an ongoing pattern for awhile now and has reached a point where someone must step in and stem the tide of abuse this man is committing on this tiny yet venerable group.

As such, it begs the question how long can people righteously withhold  what they know to be the truth when it comes to this man’s interaction with the members of such a small group, an already victimized sect who find very little acceptance in general society?  Can we, as supposedly moral people, just sit back idly and allow this type of behavior to continue unabated since it is the path of least resistance to stay silent?  As the response from this tight knit community has ranged from outrage to acceptance, the outcome of this revelation is of no real importance as biases abound as to the acceptance of this information.  Since that is the case, the only thing of barometric significance is apprising the people of the truth to keep them from harm, which was our singular reason for the release of this information.

Although we are cognizant that all of us have personal transgressions and no one is perfect, the predatory nature of this individual makes him a threat to both those who may be accepting of his advances and, most importantly, those who are not.  If the interaction is one of consent amongst equals, it is not the business of us as individuals or as a group to intercede at all.  But, when there is a blatant disregard for the welfare of the people  in an attempt to serve the lascivious desires of one man, then that is something that must be addressed by those who are in power to do so by any means necessary.

This brings us to the third and final critical point.  Not only was there a sordid psycho-sexual aspect of what took place that was against everything this man professed to be of a personal nature as a leader of a social movement, he also betrayed the confidence and trust of another intellectual leader and comrade in the movement, where, based on his documented language, it is a legitimate concern as to whether or not he would have been an actual physical threat to her if he had the opportunity.  With this third and final critical piece, his actions go beyond purely professional ethical violations and public misrepresentations of core values which demonstrate a willingness to degrade and objectify women.  His discussion moves into the realm of creating a physical environment that justifiably feels unsafe to core members.  As previously mentioned, there are other cases of women who have begun to voice their own troubling experiences, which at this time we cannot provide further details.

Therefore, even though we have all had an immense amount of respect for this man over the years, the recent events show he isn’t worthy of being in a position of influence and power over others, as he has abused it in the past, is abusing it presently and will assuredly continue this behavior in the future if no one attempts to at least stop him.

Although we are understanding that people will still hold their opinions about the veracity of the evidence against this man and come away absolving him of all guilt in this series of events, the primary thing we hope to accomplish is to warn those who are in the community about the ulterior motives of this man.  Once people are provided all the evidence, it is up to them to make a personal decision if they wish to continue their relationship with this person, be it personal and/or professional.  We aren’t here to tell anyone what to do in any aspect, as freedom of thought and choice is something we believe in and respect.  However, we would be remiss if we didn’t provide people the total knowledge they need to make informed decisions.

As we know that many people will consider our revelation as being divisive and a planned attack for some fantastical reason that has no basis in reality, we can only say we received this information through no attempt on our part and will receive no reward for releasing it.  Once we became aware of it though, there was no other recourse but to bring it to the public sphere, as the ongoing pattern of behavior was spiraling out of control. There will be those who will cast aspersions against our character and accuse us of somehow profiting in some way from this event, even though this is anything but the case.  Still, there will be many people who will consider us turncoats, paid informants, subversives and every other form of accusation as to our motives.  Yet, we will almost assuredly lose more favor and receive heightened scorn through providing this information than any other outcome.  No matter what blowback we receive though, it is worth it to us to receive a mountain of negative response rather than live with the unconscionable act of staying silent in the face of knowing malfeasance.

We welcome all queries about the veracity of the information since the specific evidence is part of the public domain and not under our supervision.  We have nothing to hide and will vociferously defend our decisions in this matter since to be silent in this regard is criminal, if not legally, then definitely morally.

We are greatly appreciative of the support from our online community in bringing this to the fore.

Thank you.

Michael  Sliwa, Host of the radio show Nature Bats Last from August 2014 to May 2017

Derrick Jensen, Deep Green Resistance

Lierre Keith, Deep Green Resistance

Cory Morningstar, Wrong Kind of Green

Forrest Palmer, Wrong Kind of Green

Luke Orsborne, Wrong Kind of Green

 

+++

Psychiatrist, researcher, teacher, and author Judith Herman:

“Authoritarian, secretive, sometimes grandiose, and even paranoid, the perpetrator is nevertheless exquisitely sensitive to the realities of power and to social  norms. Only rarely does he get into difficulties with the law; rather, he seeks out situations where his tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired. His demeanor provides an excellent camouflage, for few people believe that extraordinary crimes can be committed by men of such conventional appearance.  The perpetrator’s first goal appears to be the enslavement of his victim, and he accomplishes this goal by exercising despotic control over every aspect of the victim’s life. But simple compliance rarely satisfies him; he appears to have a psychological need to justify his crimes, and for this he needs the victim’s affirmation. Thus he relentlessly demands from his victim professions of respect, gratitude, or even love. His ultimate goal appears to be the creation of a willing victim. Hostages, political prisoners, battered women, and slaves have all remarked upon the captor’s curious psychological dependence upon his victim. George Orwell gives voice to the totalitarian mind in the novel 1984: “We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us; so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him. We burn all evil and all illusion out of him; we bring him over to our side, not in appearance, but genuinely, heart and soul.”

 The desire for total control over another person is the common denominator of all forms of tyranny. Totalitarian governments demand confession and political conversion of their victims. Slaveholders demand gratitude of their slaves. Religious cults demand ritualized sacrifices as a sign of submission to the divine will of the leader. Perpetrators of domestic battery demand that their victims prove complete obedience and loyalty by sacrificing all other relationships. Sex offenders demand that their victims find sexual fulfillment in submission. Total control over another person is the power dynamic at the heart of pornography. The erotic appeal of this fantasy to millions of terrifyingly normal men fosters an immense industry in which women and children are abused, not in fantasy but in reality.”


FINAL-STATEMENT-AUGUST-26-2017-final-revision


Nicole told me about this **** a couple of years ago, but she wasn't prepared at the time to go public with it.  Now she has.  It was published on The Wrong Kind of Green website.  Thanks to RandyC for making me aware of it.

RE

I saw some discussion of this on The Panic room, Gail Zawacki's FB page. Was wondering WTF was going on. If this is accurate, a lot of things make more sense as they fall into place.

ICK.

Was not aware of the "psycho-sexual" angle. WTF is Nicole talking about? Sounds a bit far-fetched, imho.

There is more information on Facebook.  I was not aware of the nature of the problem until a week ago.  It first surfaced when Robin Westenra of Seemorerocks blog made comments that a woman had accused Guy of taking advantage of her.  Guy claims it was among consenting adults, but the problem is one of ethics, taking advantage of vulnerable people as a grief councilor.

Also, take a look at the people who added their names to the bottom of the statement, Mike Sliwa lived near Guy in New Mexico and co-hosted his radio show.  The two were friends!  I doubt very much that this is just a personal attack because Cory Morningstar and Derrick Jensen co-signed it as well as three other people.  I hardly think they would do that and risk their reputation and position in the collapse community without good reason.

Take a look at Guy's more recent posts on NBL.  He is taking a break from his public presence due to "professional trolls" and the "deep-state."

https://guymcpherson.com/2017/08/im-mostly-done/#more-14549

Something is clearly wrong here. 

Finally, Nicole and Guy had a falling out several years ago because Guy was rather rude to her, as well as others analysts in the collapse community because he didn't think they were taking a strong enough stand on the coming collapse.  He has been banned from The Automatic Earth for some time now, it is not even acceptable to speak his name on that web site.

If you want access to the Facebook feed, send Robin Westerna a friends request so you can read what people are saying.  Friend Nicole Foss as well as she posted it shortly after Wrong Kind of Green posted it.

WTF?  Seriously?  I read the entire article.  They never even said what supposedly happened.  It was all just insinuated.  ****!  That is a strong word to use for consensual sex amongst adults. 

It sounds like complete bullshit to me.  Sounds like two people had some kinky sex, then somebody got their feelings hurt and went public to smear Guy's name.  It's nobodies **** business is what it is, unless there was actually a ****.  Looks to me like this is a publicity stunt for Nicole. 

The world is burning and we're supposed to get all in arms about some consensual sex? 

I don't know much about Guy as a person.  I just know his angle on NTHE, which I disagree with.  However, it appears to me that this is hitting below the belt.  If it's consensual than it's nobodies business accept the participants in the consensual act.  If it's r a p e, than it's a police matter. 

This is one good reason why I refer to facebook as "swampbook" and avoid it like the plague.


Nicole Foss is a deceitful propagandist for the fossil fuel industry.  Her claim to being an "energy expert" was BULLSHIT from the moment she SAID, "I know, but there is money to be made.", when I pointed out to her in 2012 that Fracking is an obscenity.

She IGNORED the FACT that there were, and still are, MASSIVE costs to the biosphere in general, and people in particular, that make the Fracking ERoEI happy numbers a total fossil fuel funded fabrication (that Foss would happily repeat over and over ).

ANYONE that has ANY respect for the Foss fossil fuel SHILL is worthy of pity, if not outright disdain.

I don't agree with much of what Guy says, but it is crystal clear to anyone with a modicum of objectivity and critical thinking skills that FOSS
 is out to undermine
(i.e. attack the messenger - fallacious debating technique) Guy's message simply because he has cited irrefutable evidence that the fossil fuel industry (and other polluters) are RESPONSIBLE for the biosphere degradation and the Sixth Mass Extinction Event we are now experiencing.

As usual, Nicole Foss is SHILLING for the fossil fuel industry, nothing more.
Guy is RIGHT that BUSINESS AS USUAL IS KILLING US.




Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 07, 2017, 08:43:00 pm »

Demystifying Three Climate Lies - The Road to Decarbonisation | Thomas Stocker | TEDxBern


TEDx Talks

Published on Oct 13, 2016

Thomas Stocker starts by debunking three of the most popular climate change myths. He is one of the leading researchers in the field of climate and regularly advises the UN. At the end of the talk, he shows the way out of climate change: decarbonisation.

Thomas Stocker graduated from ETH Zürich in 1987 and held research positions in London, Montreal and New York. Since 1993 he is Professor of Climate and Environmental Physics at the University of Bern. This research group is leading in the reconstruction of greenhouse gas concentrations from polar ice cores and the simulation of past and future climate changes. From 2008 to 2015 he co-chaired Working Group I of the IPCC, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 07, 2017, 02:25:19 pm »


Quote
In the year of 1936 during the middle of summer, an ancient tomb was discovered during construction of a new railway line near Bagdad city in Iraq. The relics found in that tomb were about 2000 years old. Among these relics, there were some clay jars or vessels which were sealed at the top with pitch. An iron rod, surrounded by a cylindrical tube made of wrapped copper sheet was projected out from this sealed top.

When these pots were filled with an acidic liquid, they produced a potential difference of around 2 volts between the iron and copper. These clay jars are suspected to be 2000 year old battery cells.

https://www.electrical4u.com/battery-history-and-working-principle-of-batteries/

This area of investigation has always fascinated me. We are ever-so-smug in our presentism, that the ancients were a bunch of ignorant rubes, but there are enough discoveries found in the wrong place to indicate that we are wrong.

And then of course is the question of where the knowledge came from
.

 

Yep. Your observation has some very important nuggets of wisdom that most people do not even begin to undertand, never mind taking to heart in order to realize how delibertely dumbed down our society is.

The most important part of your obervation is the fact that people are indoctrinated to BE smug about our incredibly, STUPID, suicidally destructive society.

Smugness breeds the overcondence that always precedes dumb, and sometines trajic, errors in judgement.

We don't need to go back to ancient times to see that at work now. Tesla made it quite clear in the early 20th century that we DID NOT NEED to use fossil fuels for ANYTHING because energy was plentiful. But ignorant, brain washed people claim cheap, clean energy, especially those who have eaten the happy talk for the fossil fuel liars and crooks, as advocated by Nikola Tesla (and Thomas Edison too, by the way) is a "pipe dream".  ::)

Smug, brain washed people that actually believe the BALONEY that we "owe" our standard of living to our "loyal servants, the fossil fuel industry", when there is NO QUESTION that the microscope (and the discovery of germs that cause disease) is the REAL REASON for the human population explosion, will continue to wallow in their stupidity until it is too late. Personal hygiene is the CAUSE of the human population explosion, not the fossil fuel based "economy".

The ancients certainly were not ignorant rubes. Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison weren't rubes either.




Before Edison said the following, he had gone on record over a decade earlier clearly stating that hydrocarbon fuels for internal combustion engines were INFERIOR to ethanol BECAUSE of all the waste heat and resultant added engine wear. Ethanol only engines would be TWO THIRDS lighter than hydrocarbon powered engines because ethanol runs cool (because it carries it's own oxygen with it causing TOTALLY EVEN BURNING), as well as being renewable and polluting less. And it is also propaganda mendacity out there that claims we would "cut into world food supply by growing ethanol crops".   

But telling bold face crocodile tear laden lies has never stopped the brain washers that so many here smugly worship.   
 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 27, 2017, 05:16:57 pm »

Koch Brothers Video Smears Electric Cars. Can You Spot The Lies?
July 27th, 2017 by Steve Hanley

Not content to push America toward fascism and line their pockets with cash from fossil fuel enterprises that negatively affect the health of millions, the deadly duo of Charles and David Koch have reached down from the executive suite to order up a video designed to paint electric cars as evil, death-dealing machines.     

It must be fun to have so much money that you can subvert entire governments with devious schemes to make even more money.

Watch this latest video from the Koch-funded front group Fueling U.S. Forward, which has as its motto, “Discover the value and potential of fossil fuels.” Feel free to jot down the lies you can find as you go through this professionally prepared experiment in thought control. Feel free to share your list with others in the comments section. 


The brainiacs behind this hatchet job are just a small piece of the vast Koch Industries empire, which has created a dizzying array of think tanks, institutes, research organizations, and shell corporations designed to do one thing and one thing only — make Charles and David Koch richer by stomping out any and all opposition to their business empire. Several of those organizations have played a major role in the attack on climate science over the past 20 years.

Thanks to their willingness to make graft legal, they have subverted much of the federal, state, and local governments in America so that they are stocked with pliable politicians anxious to do the Koch brothers’ bidding. Thanks to them and other like-minded individuals, we have Citizens United; extremists like James Inhofe, Scott Pruitt, and Kris Kobach; and a US Congress falling all over itself to repeal the Affordable Care Act so that the uber wealthy can get a multi-billion-dollar tax cut — even if it means tens of millions of Americans will lose their health coverage.

Emboldened by their success at buying all three branches of government, the Koch-sponsored interests don’t even bother to disguise their nefarious plans to make the government work for them any more. Last month they told members of Congress in no uncertain terms that the “piggy bank” of funds for political donations was closed until legislators repealed the hated ACA. 


Morality, humanitarian concerns, and compassion have no place in the Kochosphere. They are Ebenezer Scrooge writ large — greedy, grasping overlords who revel in the misery of others so long as they benefit financially.

A complete catalog of the Koch brothers network and their dastardly deeds would be larger than the Encyclopedia Britannica. Fortunately, someone has done all the hard work of compiling some of that information for us. Jane Meyer, a writer for The New Yorker has published a book entitled Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right.

Quote
“Few had waged a more relentless or more effective assault on Americans’ belief in government,” Mayer writes.

Media Matters has done an extensive review of Mayer’s book, delving deeply into such topics as how the Kochs buy and control the media to advance their personal agenda. Readers will find disturbing parallels between the machinations of the Koch brothers and the media circus that surrounds the administration of #FakePresident Trump.

To fully understand how trash like the video from Fueling U.S. Forward gets made and distributed, it is necessary to understand the forces at work that created it. Sadly, in today’s world, where discussion is limited to sentences no more than 142 character long, in-depth thinking is difficult. That’s why even though Americans give Congress an approval rating of around 10%, incumbents get reelected 97% of the time.

The power of change is still in the ballot box, but unless people are willing to take the time to understand the issues and actually go vote, that power may soon be lost forever. The Koch brothers are counting on voter apathy and voters’ willingness to believe the last thing they hear. That’s all they need to make their dreams come true.

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/27/koch-brothers-video-smears-electric-cars-can-spot-lies/

Agelbert NOTE: Don't miss the comments! 

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/07/27/koch-brothers-video-smears-electric-cars-can-spot-lies/
Posted by: AGelbert
« 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!   


Posted by: AGelbert
« 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!   
Posted by: AGelbert
« 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...
Posted by: AGelbert
« 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.

+-Recent Topics

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
November 18, 2017, 02:59:10 pm

Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden by AGelbert
November 18, 2017, 02:54:49 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
November 18, 2017, 02:35:13 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
November 17, 2017, 09:53:40 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
November 17, 2017, 11:51:50 am

Fossil Fuel Profits Getting Eaten Alive by Renewable Energy! by AGelbert
November 17, 2017, 11:35:55 am

Defending Wildlife by AGelbert
November 16, 2017, 03:11:24 pm

Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda by AGelbert
November 16, 2017, 02:17:16 pm

Historical Documentaries by AGelbert
November 15, 2017, 11:29:18 pm

Corporate Fascist Corruption of Christianity by AGelbert
November 15, 2017, 06:19:44 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial