+- +-


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

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 42
Latest: eranda
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 9204
Total Topics: 233
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 48 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Message icon:

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

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

Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 23, 2018, 07:38:51 pm »

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

Pielke Jr. 🐍 Joins Red Team , Defends Trump, Critiques Mainstream Climate Report

Roger Pielke Jr. once wrote a book about being an “Honest Broker” in the science-policy debate. Pielke’s whole schtick is that he’s the moderate willing to criticize mainstream climate scientists, advocates and media, but is still part of the consensus and supports a carbon tax. He was not pleased, for example, when Foreign Policy included him in a guide to skeptics back in 2010. In his various blog posts, tweets and op-eds, Pielke takes care to present himself as a sensible, serious and unbiased voice in a discussion full of extremists.

This facade should no longer be entertained. In terms of Pruitt’s red team/blue team attack on science--at one point envisioned as the red team reviewing climate science reports--it’s clear Pielke belongs on the red team. In fact, Pielke’s 2013 and 2017 Congressional testimony was cited so heavily in Heartland’s “Task Force” to critique the 2017 Climate Science Special Report that they credited him as a contributor. (Worth noting that Pielke said he had nothing to do with Heartland’s critique, and that Heartland has since updated their report to remove him from “contributor” status--a mistake they’ve apparently made before.)

Heartland’s reliance on Pielke’s testimony makes it undeniable that his work is part of the effort to discredit mainstream science, whether he likes it or not. And if there was any doubt he fits in with the many fine people on the red team, he wrote an op-ed for the Guardian, published Wednesday, defending Trump’s science agenda, claiming “there is no systematic effort to undercut science and technology policy.”

Pielke’s piece, which defends Trump as indifferent as opposed to hostile to science, does acknowledge that Trump’s proposed budget would seriously cut funding for multiple scientific programs (apparently excusable because Congress didn’t enact it) and that Trump’s EPA is making “sweeping changes” to how it uses science. If we have Pielke’s thinking straight, Trump himself does nothing good on science, and Trump’s appointees are actively anti-science, but we shouldn’t consider Trump anti-science-- which seems pretty generous stance to take towards a president 🦀 with over 100 entries in something called the “Silencing Science” tracker.

Pielke also attacks the March for Science, writing “there is seemingly little energy in any follow-up or the building of a movement.” (This particular criticism was meet with a swift and energetic response that they have been “doing the less flashy but more impactful work of *organizing*”--exactly the sort of serious work an honest broker would be commending them for.) 

After all this build up about what everyone else gets wrong, Pielke’s sage advice is that instead of being outraged about Trump, a “more productive use of oppositional energy would be for the scientific community to develop well-considered approaches to science and technology policies.” 

This means nothing. Of course the scientific community should think through how it approaches policy! Is he suggesting that before now, they’ve only developed poorly-considered approaches? How does telling people to develop an approach provide any insight into how to address Trump’s, at best, avoidance of science? At what point in time would the community not be wise “to develop well-considered approaches” to policy? How does that banal and empty fortune-cookie-wisdom sort of suggestion compare to the seriousness of the situation at hand?

And Pielke’s specific suggestion for the scientific community? That the Office of Science and Technology Policy should put together “a shadow, bipartisan version” of an advisory panel it runs. This, of course, is exactly what is already happening with some advisory panels. 

In case anyone still had doubts, this op-ed is proof that Pielke can write paragraph after paragraph criticizing others, but has proven he has nothing new, unique or even well-informed to offer.

Which makes him perfect for the red 😈 team.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 22, 2018, 05:55:14 pm »

From: monsta666
Was reading the blog Our Finite World when I came across this comment Gail put up that made me think of you:

Gail Tverberg says:
March 14, 2018 at 9:07 am   

So let's move on to talking about a different issue. The silliness of talking about a transformation to renewables is beyond crazy.

Has this changed your stance on Gail? That particular comment was made towards another poster on her article titled: Our Latest Oil Predicament

If I understood correctly what she is saying in the above quote, she alleges that there is no way that Renewable Energy can TOTALLY EVER REPLACE fossil fuels AND MOCKS, by using the word, "silliness", those who advocate for a world powered exclusively by Renewable Energy. 

If I understood what she said incorrectly, and she was actually taking a position that we need to get off fossil fuels, like YESTERDAY, and DO the transition to Renewable Energy intead of "talking" about it, then I would be pleased and genuinely surprised that she finally is smelling the Catastrophic Climate Change coffee.

But I doubt that she has woken up to climate change reality yet, so I think she is engaging in typical Pro-polluting status quo propaganda.

Has this changed your stance on Gail?

No. Gail has always been a stalking horse for the Fossil Fuel Industry "business model" AND a staunch defender of Nuclear Power as well. The irony of coming up with a name like "This finite World" for her forum has never been lost on me. She must have studied Orwellian discourse.  Of course we will EVENTUALLY run out, but not anywhere close to the (rather convenient for fossil fuel profits) artificial scarcity timetable Gail and her fellow Pro-Fossil Fuel Propagandists wail and moan about. 

Since the beginning, her entire pitch has consisted of creating the impression that we are "running out" of fossil fuels for the express purpose of making them appear more valuable to readers. THAT IS, convincing we-the-people that we must pay MORE for that crap.

Of course she won't admit that is her greedy motive for harping on the "increasing scarcity" of fossil fuels. She claims she is just "telling us we are going to run out of our precious and prized 😇, high energy density oil and gas for our own good". 

Many posts I have made cover the fact that this is an old propaganda technique the fossil fuelers have used, not only in regard to the peak oil meme, but for the rather convenient price shocks during rather convenient wars, and other cheap excuses (hurricanes, oil spills, OPEC, etc. ad nauseum). It's all bullshit, but it has worked because so many governments work hand in glove with these greedy profit over people and planet bastards.

I have posted the following now and then. It happened nearly thirty years ago. Yet, the same crooked game continues to be played against us. Gail is an active participant in this very profitable, totally unjustified, "game"    the polluters play. She has ALWAYS defended fossil fuels as being the "cheapest and most efficient" energy option. That is bullshit. I have no respect for her at all.

I have been occasionally posting the following hard truths here and there since 2014:

Here's a little something to throw at the liars and prevaricators that defend fossil fuels as being the "cheapest and most efficient" energy option.

It's a historical (and peer reviewed) fact. This grand larceny on behalf of fossil fuels is STILL going on.

The DIRTY ENERGY SOURCES have a long history of profiting from our blood and treasure while they despoil the biosphere.

The following quote from a peer reviewed book is of extreme importance to all Americans:

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

"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.

This totally unjustified profit, never mind the needless lose of lives, then increases the power of the fossil fuel corporations to perpetuate a biosphere harming dirty fuel status quo. How? By "funding" politicians with rather large "donations" to keep renewable energy from competing with dirty energy.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 21, 2018, 09:11:10 pm »

Oil Change International

Mar. 19, 2018 12:43PM EST
Early April Fool's Joke? Statoil 🦕 Rebrands Itself as Equinor 😇

By Andy Rowell


First came BP, which went from British Petroleum to Beyond Petroleum. Then Denmark's Dong Energy changed its name to Orsted, to mark its departure from oil and gas. Then earlier this year Shell announced it was morphing from an oil company into an integrated energy company.

And now, the Norwegian company Statoil is proposing to change its name to "Equinor." The rebranding exercise—or what some may call greenwashing exercise—will cost as much as 250 million kroner or $32 million.



Statoil is just repeating history. Years ago, a book on countering corporate greenwash, edited by Eveline Lubbers, noted that BP's "rebranding was part of an effort to portray BP as an energy company, not just an oil company." Critics noted that the rebranding, which cost BP $200 million and was designed by Ogilvy & Mather, was a greenwashing exercise. Years later BP remains predominantly an oil and gas company.

Statoil's rebranding looks like greenwashing, too. Buried deep in the company's press release last week, Statoil stated that it "will develop long-term value on the Norwegian continental shelf, deepen in core areas and develop new growth options internationally …. Statoil is building a material industrial position within profitable renewable energy, and expects to invest 15-20% of total capex in new energy solutions by 2030." Put another way, in twelve year's time, some 80 percent of the company's capex will still be oil and gas.

Given the climate crisis and need to disinvest from oil and gas, this is hardly a revolutionary shift. So the company may be called "Equinor," but it will still essentially be Statoil to its core. So it really does look like an early April Fool's joke.

Full article:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 13, 2018, 10:37:41 pm »

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

March 13, 2018

Lamar Smith 🐉 in Fox and Oren Cass 🦖 in WSJ: Not RickRolling, but Still Trolling

It’s already a weird month for climate op-eds. While powerful pieces like Alison Spodek Keimowitz’s reckoning with leukemia and climate change or 16-year-old climate activist Jamie Margolin’s story can find good homes in online outlets like Slate and Refinery29, some newspapers appear to be more concerned with driving hate clicks than thoughtful, original, and, most importantly, honest commentary.  :(

Some might say the trolls of the modern op-ed page are doing an amazing job, and getting recognized more and more. But as Virginia Heffernan describes in a recent piece in Wired, modern trolls’ approach is hardly new or unique: present a transparently ridiculous argument as though it’s being made in good faith, wait for people to get mad about it, then enjoy how little effort it took to trigger a much larger reaction.

Though Heffernan doesn’t mention climate, climate deniers are typical trolls. But instead of engaging just for laughs (“for the lulz”), like other bad-faith online actors, professional deniers 😈 go on the offensive to not only rile people up, but to push a viewpoint that benefits their fossil benefactors. Two recent op-eds make this clear.

On Sunday, the Wall Street Journal 🐍published an op-ed by Oren Cass that describes a new report he’s written for the Manhattan Institute. Given that the Manhattan Institute has been funded by the Kochs 🦕 (in addition to big tobacco) and has Rebekah Mercer 🦀 on its board, you can expect nothing but the best from Cass’s 🐲 report.

And of course, he delivers. The report is an “analysis” of a bunch of peer-reviewed and government reports on the relationship between the economic impacts of rising temperatures and the increase in deaths from rising temperatures. At fewer than 20 pages of actual material, the report is hardly a match for the peer-reviewed studies it seeks to rebut. The central thesis can be summed up as: warming won’t kill people or cost much money in the future because warming in the 20th century was mitigated by air conditioning. So we can just adapt to future warming the same way.

At least Cass provides a relatively new troll. At Fox News Rep. Lamar Smith 🐊 chose to dredge up some ancient trolls on Monday, including one particularly risibile and decades-since debunked distortion of a quote about the need for scientists to be both honest and effective. In his op-ed, Smith, who as Chair of the House Science, Space and Technology committee no doubt has the staff available to fact check and make sure he’s not lying, takes a quote from climatologist Dr. Stephen Schneider out of context, clips the conclusion, and reverses its meaning.

The full quote, of course, provides far more nuance and insight than Smith or other deniers care to convey. In a 1988 interview, Schneider originally spoke about the “double ethical blind” scientists face when communicating about climate change. Scientists, Schneider elaborated, need to stay honest to the science, with "all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.” But, he cautioned, the media doesn’t tend to appreciate those types of quotes instead preferring “simplified, dramatic statements.” A climate scientist, Schneider concludes, “has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

Smith’s gross misrepresentation that Schneider advocated that scientists only “make little mention of any doubts we might have” is in no way new or unique. The Detroit News took the same approach in a 1989 editorial, which Schneider debunked. Julian Simon followed up in a similar fashion in 1996, which Schneider debunked, again. Various internet trolls in comment boards kept up the attack, which Schneider addressed again in 2009. We can’t say we’re surprised Smith chose to ignore nearly thirty years of Schneider correcting the misuse of his quote.

The rest of his op-ed is no better. Smith claims climate models overestimate warming we’ll see (this is false, and has been debunked). He downplays hurricane frequency and damages, which is a brave stance for a politician from Texas, which is looking at $180 billion in damages from Harvey in 2017. Smith downplays wildfires, despite 2017 breaking multiple records. And he cites MIT researchers to claim the impact of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement will be minimal. (Those researchers have debunked the misuse of their research and called that portrayal of their work “misleading.”)

None of these facts are hidden, complex, or hard to look up online. If Smith were even remotely interested in having a factual, honest, and good-faith debate, he wouldn’t be making any of these points.

But Smith is not interested in honesty: he’s interested in trolling. As long as the public is engaging with trolls, we’re not discussing the solutions that would hurt his fossil fuel benefactor’s bottom line.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 09, 2018, 07:01:11 pm »

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

March 9, 2018

Viv Forbes 🦀 Fears a Grim Global Green Dictatorship. We're Not So Sure About It.

These days, we’re always keeping an eye on important denier-y things happening at the highest level of the federal government. For example we could spend some time diving into this recent op-ed in which Cass Sunstein describes a recent government report showing the billions of dollars in benefits from regulations.

But sometimes we miss being able to dumpster dive for the whacky gems of the lowest denier blogs. So when we came across this post on Heartland’s blog by long-time coal guy Viv Forbes, we had to share with you. Take a moment, if you would, to bask in this glory and reminisce about the days when deniers worked out of their home offices, not the Oval Office.

It’s hard to convey just how paranoid and delusional Forbes is here. The post is a rant about “greens,” his catchall name for environmentalists, the UN, politicians, NGOs, concerned citizens, and really anyone who doesn’t just love fossil fuels. Forbes appears to feel under siege by his own strawmen of environmentalists that, per his opening line, “hate individual freedom and private property.” This nuanced and subtle motif runs through the piece: Forbes claims that “greens hate miners,” along with farmers and fishermen and foresters and suburbs and reliable power and free markets. Per Forbes, they think that even “fun, frills or luxuries” have no place in our sustainable world.

Apparently, greens “plan to expel farmers and graziers from most land areas” and instead produce food in factory farms and feedlots. To be fair, we can’t count the number of times we’ve seen greens campaigning for more factory farms and concentrated animal agriculture. But that’s only because you can’t count to zero.

Forbes fears that greens are coming for his beloved suburbs, using the common conspiracy catchphrase that people will be “stacked-and-packed” in what he calls “high-rise cubic apartments.” Now, we’re not sure what sort of non-cubic apartments he might prefer (spherical apartments? Conical? Dodecahexagonal?) people in urban areas live in, but this is a dog whistle for Agenda 21 paranoia about people being forcibly removed from single family homes and relocated into sustainable urban communities.

Forbes goes further than most though, and is so hamfisted in his attempts to make environmentalists into monsters that in the list of things about suburbs that greens despise, he includes ponies. Yes, we apparently hate ponies. Sure, the other things he lists about suburbs (SUVs, lawns, pools, parks and golf courses) have their eco-enemies, but ponies? Come on, man! Even Lisa Simpson loves ponies!

Ponies aside, we’ll give Forbes the fact that we “think it is ‘sustainable’ to uglify scenic hills with whining wind towers... and to clutter pleasant estuaries and shallow seas with more bird-slicing turbines… [and] keep smothering sunny flatlands under solar panels.” That’s only because, you know, it is. If folks want those hills to stay scenic and not burnt in a wildfire or parched by drought or underwater, and wants those estuaries and seas to stay shallow and not made acidic by carbon dioxide, we’ll need renewable energy. Perhaps a lifetime in the coal industry has made Forbes more comfortable with blowing up mountains to get at the coal rather than installing some turbines.

But which green group is he referring to when he writes that “they also favour compulsory recycling of everything, no matter what that process costs in energy or resources.” Who says we should recycle even if it’s costly and polluting? Show us, Forbes! Show us those greens!

And it gets worse: Forbes predicts that this green-mandated counterproductive recycling will be enforced by “surveillance cameras [that] will keep watch on our ‘wasteful’ habits.” Makes sense--we all know how many pro-surveillance, anti-privacy green groups there are.

Finally, in a panicked sweat with constant paranoid glances over his shoulder, Forbes delivers the final blow: “The Despotic Green New World is coming. Climate alarm is the stalking horse, ‘sustainable development’ is the war cry, and global government is the goal.”

And they call us alarmists!
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 28, 2018, 01:29:03 pm »

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

Replacing Coal, Renewables Reduced Emissions As Much As Nat Gas

A new study published last week in Energy Policy finds that from 2007 to 2013, CO2 emissions from energy production in the US fell by 10%, thanks in nearly equal measure to renewables and natural gas. As the study authors point out in an EDF blog post, conventional wisdom credits the switch from coal to gas as the primary driver of emissions reductions. But their analysis shows that renewables and energy demand reduction both played just as big a role as natural gas.

Key to this downward trend in production, of course, is the falling price of renewables, which when combined with batteries are increasingly cost-competitive with both coal and natural gas. In fact, when financial firm Lazard released its annual study on the full costs of energy last November, it found that building new renewable capacity is already cheaper than running existing coal and nuclear plants in many places across the country.

Though the Energy Policy study period ends at 2013, according to the latest Bloomberg New Energy Finance Sustainable Energy factbook, 2017 was the first year that renewables actually outshined natural gas in reducing emissions. Clearly this trend doesn’t look like it’s reversing any time soon.

Also not likely to change course any time soon? Fossil fuel fanatic Scott Pruitt . We all know how Pruitt likes to point to these CO2 reductions when asked about his slashing of emission reduction policies. He has a tendency to either vaguely or inaccurately cite innovation and technology in a nod to fracking and natural gas. And of course, Pruitt’s determined advocacy for the natural gas industry has taken him all the way to Morocco and back. Given the disturbingly close relationship Pruitt 🦀 cultivated with natural gas company Devon Energy 🦖 while he was still in Oklahoma, we don’t expect Pruitt to end his love affair with natural gas any time soon.

But as this study shows, gas has provided no greater benefit than renewables. What’s more,  renewable energy doesn’t emit methane, itself a powerful greenhouse gas, and one Pruitt supposedly cares about.

Renewables are still far from deniers’ minds when talking about natural gas--for them, it’s a fight between gas and coal. Last week, Heartland announced that it has started a campaign to defend coal plants in danger. Heartland has its eye on combating the success of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign, which has convinced local leaders to take over 250 coal plants offline since 2010.

Yet James Taylor, president of the relatively newly-created energy and environment-focused freemarket group, Spark of Freedom Foundation and long-time Heartland senior fellow, throws coal under the bus in his new report promoting natural gas. Naturally, Taylor’s not concerned about climate. Instead, he makes the case that since natural gas plants are cheaper to build, conservatives should forget about coal.

Now, we’ll just have to wait and see how long it takes for Taylor to catch up to the fact that renewables are increasingly cost-competitive. And once he does, we’re sure he will maintain intellectual integrity and argue that fiscal conservatives should embrace renewables and let both natural gas and coal plants be cast aside by the invisible hand of the free market.

But wait--if Heartland senior fellow James Taylor recognizes that the free market is choosing cheaper gas over coal, then how does free-market think tank Heartland justify its apparent preference for more expensive coal plants?  

Weird. The discrepancy sort of makes it look like Heartland’s whole free-market advocacy thing is just a pretense for advancing industry 🐉🦕 🦖 interests
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 27, 2018, 08:13:13 pm »

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

Deniers Losing their Favorite Journal, Energy and Environment 🦕, to SAGE Publishers

With a name so mundane it’s practically impossible to Google, the journal Energy and Environment has been the “journal of choice” for deniers who want to try and slip something into the peer-reviewed literature. The journal is held in exceptionally low regard by the academic community and considered heavily biased in favor of industry. (And to be clear, it’s entirely different from the energy and environment news outlet E&E.)

Pieces published at Energy and Environment seemed to lack a quality peer-review process, but hopefully that will change. Mat Hope at DeSmog UK broke the news on Friday that the journal has been acquired by peer-review-giant SAGE publishing. With this change in leadership, the journal has adopted a new “double-blind peer review policy for the journal” as well as an online submission system. 

After the transfer, denier Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen resigned from the journal’s editorial board. The new ownership and the vacuum of denier power at the top editorial levels means we can expect to see fewer denial papers published there.  ;D 

Let’s take a quick trip down memory lane to see the sort of content Energy and Environment is (hopefully) leaving behind.

When deniers compiled a list of journal articles in 2011 that bucked the climate consensus, Energy & Environment published more of the articles in the list than any other academic journal.

That same year, the publication sent a thinly-veiled threat to sue Real Climate after a post that claimed papers that fit with a particular political point of view sail through peer review, implying that deniers could get things published with ease.

In 2009, Boehmer-Christiansen was also responsible for soliciting and publishing a opinion piece by Oliver manuel in the journal, advancing what we’ll call a very creative idea that the Sun is actually made of iron.

In part of the pal-review scandal of 2003, a paper attacking Michael Mann’s 🕊 work was published in Climate Research. Its failures were so severe that half the journal’s board resigned in embarrassment and shame. Naturally, Energy and Environment  decided to publish an extended version of the faulty paper.

That study was co-authored by Willie Soon of fossil fuel 🦖 funding fame. Unsurprisingly, Soon 🐲 has published a bunch of other papers in Energy and Environment.

Best of luck to Energy and Environments new owners in improving the journal’s reputation. We have high hopes: if anyone can clear out the ghosts of denier papers past, it’s got to be the group named SAGE
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 22, 2018, 03:00:11 pm »


February 21, 2018

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

Deniers 🦕 🦖 Rage
at Mann’s 🕊 AAAS Award for Public Engagement 🌟

Last week, climate scientist Dr. Michael E Mann🕊 was honored with the AAAS award for Public Engagement in Science.

Mann hardly needs an introduction here. Ever since the publication of his hockey stick study twenty years ago, Mann has been a central target of the denial machine. Deniers have attacked him with everything they’ve got: weaponized FOIAs, constant trolling, you name it. In 2010, as the FBI finished the investigation into anthrax-laced letters that killed five people in the early 2000s, someone sent Mann white powder in an envelope.

In his book on the Climate Wars, Mann describes how the denial apparatus singles out outspoken scientists and targets them for campaigns of harassment. Mann calls this the “Serengeti Strategy,” named for how pack hunters single out prey for an easy meal. But instead of gradually wearing down the subject until they give up, Mann has only gotten more attention from the press and more praise from his peers, all while continuing to publish regularly in the peer reviewed literature.

Instead of scaring Mann out of the public eye, deniers have only managed to elevate his profile.

It makes sense, then, that this award made deniers angry. They’re up in arms that Mann, who they’ve always tried to present as an outlier hated by his fellow scientists, is being thusly rewarded by his fellow scientists for exactly the behavior they’ve criticized.

Roger Pielke Jr. wrote that by awarding Mann this prize, AAAS sends a message that it’s okay to speak out about people like Pielke and his fellow “denier lites” like Bret Stephens, Rebekah Mercer, Megan McArdle and Judith Curry. Which is exactly what AAAS should be saying.

Scientists should feel not just comfortable, but obligated to correct those who use their platforms to continually make incorrect assertions about science, again and again. Scientists should correct the systematic distribution of misinformation and help inform the public of where, why and how that misinformation is being spread in the public discourse and relied on by politicians to enact anti-climate policies. Most importantly--and especially given the denial machine that attacks those who speak out on climate--academics should be supported in these education efforts by institutions like AAAS.

That, of course, is not how serial misinformers see things. Pielke’s post got tweeted by Bjorn Lomborg, excerpted by Delingpole at Breitbart and expanded on by The Federalist which was in turn reposted by Climate Depot, putting Pielke squarely in the center of the denial world’s feigned outrage machine.

To be fair, Pielke recognizes that human activity causes climate change, and even thinks a carbon tax would be the right policy to address it. But as former New York Times reporter turned New York Times columnist Justin Gillis tweeted, that’s just part of Pielke’s ploy for readership, which is why Gillis stopped quoting Pielke. “The schtick: Pretend to be part of the mainstream consensus about global warming, then draw attention to yourself by kneecapping other people,” Gillis explains. “It's an odious way to build personal brand. @BjornLomborg does it too.”

No surprise to see Lomborg 🦕 and Pielke 🦖 as two peas in a pod. And their response to Mann’s award continues to show that once you move beyond their token acceptance of mainstream climate science, their jealousy of Mann’s success will likely be as green as they ever go.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 15, 2018, 04:49:35 pm »

Unmoored from Facts, Will EIA Projections Become Reality?

February 13, 2018  |  By Jules Kortenhorst Kieran Coleman

The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) most recent Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) should give anyone watching today’s energy markets a jolt of surprise. Not for projecting that U.S. energy demand will grow by an average of 0.4 percent per year after two decades of evidence to the contrary. Not for presenting major alternative scenarios only in the cases of cost and technology improvements in the oil and gas industries. But for exhibiting erroneous data about the costs of renewables, and for its simple and outdated outlook on how the market is changing and will in time transform.

The danger is that key decision makers will make decisions in accordance with an altogether different future than might otherwise result from current market activity. This risk stems from the agency’s opaque assumptions and modeling methodology, which have recently been the subject of significant criticism. In response, the EIA has sought to create a tenuous distinction between its “projections” and “forecasts” that requires mental acrobatics to accept—as do the annual outputs of its work.

Are We Looking at the Same Market?

In a two-part tragedy, incorrect initial positions go on to influence completely outdated expectations about the composition of the American energy landscape through 2050. To its credit, EIA analysts read the news (if selectively): the AEO projects that renewables will be among the fastest-growing segments in electricity generation markets. But the EIA assessment of generation costs across technology types in 2022 more closely resembles a copy-paste of renewables’ market data from back in 2015. It’s no wonder the EIA expects that policy will be the near-exclusive driver of renewables’ market growth, by way of state-enforced procurement requirements and federal tax credits.

EIA methodology is a key reason why the AEO’s citation of levelized costs (those upfront costs spread over an energy asset’s lifetime generation) seems so obsolete. Suffice to say that the EIA ignores the average results of recent tenders in the U.S. and elsewhere when compiling its forward-looking average price estimates. As a result, stagnating future prices—wind and solar are estimated to decline by only $3/MWh from 2019–2022, unsubsidized—underlie EIA’s projection that capacity installations over the same period will be only 60 percent of actual annual totals for the last two to three years.

In contrast, indicators over the past 18 months are regularly showing that large- and medium-scale solar and large-scale wind prices are far more competitive than marginal costs from traditional sources—especially when they are sited near to load, as most often only modular renewables can be. This, in turn, is enabling still-expensive storage to be coupled with renewables generation to firm supply for portions of the day and provide grid services in addition to those offered by renewables with smart inverters. Collectively, these trends indicate the rapid approach of widespread grid parity between traditional sources and less-intermittent clean energy generation.

International Markets Drive This Momentum

The EIA should look to real, current market dynamics to inform its initial positions. To start, the market is now global. Following leadership in early market development efforts by Europe and the U.S., countries like China, India, and Mexico have set their sights on securing sustainable economic development and near-term, cutting-edge jobs for their constituents. This motivates large-scale procurement of renewable energy that their domestic companies are simultaneously racing to manufacture and distribute, often with a boost in expertise and capital from established companies in developed markets.

Second, international markets are scaling—fast. As each large-scale procurement sees low bids from not one or two, but ten bidders, governments, companies, and communities are encouraged to go back to the market with more and larger tenders—even going so far as to free up capacity by canceling previously planned coal plants. Large, competitive procurements in LEDs, renewables, and now even electric vehicles ensure that buyers can leverage market forces and use existing expertise to innovate technology and delivery models that achieve step changes down the learning curve to reduce cost. Even though tenders may occasionally risk overestimating future cost declines, these are marginal in relation to their empowerment of cost reduction trends that are consistently more rapid than analysts expect.

Third, technology markets are converging to drive nonlinear deployment. Manufacturers of lithium-ion storage, for example, are serving multiple segments like electric vehicles and grid-scale storage; thus growth in any one segment will enable cost declines that support growth in others. Further, storage will support intermittent but predictable renewables generation, unlocking new customers’ interest and further deployment. As evidence of this trend, leading project developers in the U.S.—some of which are subsidiaries of traditional utilities hedging their bets—have merged traditionally separate teams to analyze, bid, and build integrated and technology-agnostic portfolios of cost-effective generation resources.

Together, market dynamics like these, missed by the EIA, tell us that the proverbial cat is out of the bag, and its claws inexorably stretch back into U.S. markets. In Colorado, Xcel’s all-source solicitation in late 2017 demonstrated just this, with one of the largest energy companies in the U.S. submitting a solar plus storage bid for $36/MWh based on the cost of components mostly built abroad. Attempts to wrestle it back in risk ceding the U.S. businesses’ cutting-edge innovation to foreign businesses in a global market estimated at $1 trillion per year by some of the world’s largest companies.


The EIA needs to start looking at current market offers and consistent patterns in actual deployment versus its historical forecasts. Only in this way will it start to come to grips with the real trends in the accelerating energy transition, and have the insight to be able to project or forecast the revolution that is coming. If not, it risks becoming totally irrelevant as a source of information and a poor guidance for business leaders and policy makers across the country.


Agelbert NOTE: The EIA is now a Trump TOOL of "alternative" facts.

Trump 🦀 EIA official 🦖 having some coffee:

Tomorrow is Yesterday...

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 12, 2018, 07:00:43 pm »

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

The Fallacy of Ted Nordhaus’s 2C Delusion in Foreign Affairs

Ted Nordhaus of the Breakthrough Institute 🦖 wrote an essay for Foreign Affairs published last week, headlined “The Two-Degree Delusion; The Dangers of an Unrealistic  ;) Climate Change Target.”

While Nordhaus and Breakthrough are not your typical climate science deniers, deniers often appreciate them. Both Nordhaus and his parent institute have long been described as hippie-punchers for their consistent attacks on the left as a way to position themselves as Very Serious Centrist Thinkers. For example, Nordhaus and colleagues wrote in Foreign Affairs last January that “the trajectory of emissions is unlikely to differ significantly under a Trump administration from what it would have been under a Hillary Clinton administration.” That kind of laughable both-siderism is par for Breakthrough’s course.

With that in mind, reading Nordhaus’s latest essay on the 2C target provides a lesson in applying the critical thinking and argument analysis skills we discussed last week.

The premise of the Foreign Affairs piece is threefold. Nordhaus’s first point is that adaptation and mitigation are either-or options. Secondly, he argues that developing countries will be more resilient as they grow more wealthy--wealth only achievable by fossil fuels, as renewables, he claims, can’t exceed 20% of a grid’s capacity. From there, Nordhaus concludes that meeting 2C would mean sacrificing developing nation’s ability to adapt to changes.

Take a moment to read those points again. Can you spot the disconnects between premise, reality, and conclusion?

That’s right! Adaptation and mitigation aren’t either-or decisions. Countries can reduce emissions while also fortifying infrastructure! (Particularly if there were some sort of policy to put a price on carbon emissions, and use that revenue to improve resilience…)

And of course, renewables are perfectly capable of replacing fossil fuels as developing countries electrify.

Nordhaus’s claim that renewables can’t provide more than a fifth of a grid’s power is disproven by several existing examples. Mexico is already at 21 percent, and aiming higher. Chile has doubled Nordhaus’s imagined limit, with 45 percent of its electricity coming from clean sources. Costa Rica ran for 300 days on 100% renewables last year. Denmark, the UK, Germany and Portugal have all briefly run entirely on renewables, albeit for short periods of time.

There’s a lot more you could say, but we’ll leave it up to you to find the fallacy in essentially  every paragraph of the piece that accuses the climate community of being delusional.

Because as the clean energy experiences of Mexico, Chile and others show, it’s Ted who appears delusional for thinking a high renewable threshold is impossible. We’ll just caution that people who live in glass Nordhauses  shouldn’t throw stones.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 10, 2018, 02:27:38 pm »

Former CIA Officer Will Teach You How to Spot a Lie
February 10, 2018 • 116,978 views

Story at-a-glance

֍ If a person is lying, they’ll commit a deceptive behavior within five seconds of being questioned, and commit two or more deceptive behaviors before they’re done responding

֍ Ignore a person’s truthful statements, which are often attempts at manipulation, and instead focus on their deceptions

֍ Deceptive behaviors include failing to deny the accusation, failing to answer the question and using “convincing statements” rather than conveying information

֍ Nonverbal cues that a person is lying include grooming gestures, hand-to-face motions, moving feet and clearing of the throat

By Dr. Mercola

A person lies an average of 10 times a day, according to Susan Carnicero — and she’s one to know. As a former CIA officer who spent more than 20 years interrogating, interviewing and polygraphing suspects, she’s learned a thing or two about how to spot a liar.

In fact, Carnicero has also developed behavioral screening programs used by the U.S. government and co-written the book “Spy the Lie,” which teaches you how to detect deception. She’s also a co-founder of QVerity, which is a provider of behavioral analysis and screening services for both the private and public sectors.

It may seem shocking that people lie on such a regular basis, but remember that not all lies are malicious. Little white lies are told more often than big important lies, according to research published in the Journal of Language and Social Psychology,1 and this includes innocent mentions like saying you’re fine when someone asks you how you’re doing — even if you’re actually not.

There’s a wide range of lies, Carnicero notes in the video above. At one end of the spectrum are lies meant to spare somebody’s feelings or keep a conversation from going in a direction you don’t want it to go. At the other end are big bold-faced “I didn’t do it” lies. It’s in the latter case where being able to spot a liar can definitely work in your favor, in more scenarios than you might initially imagine. For instance, if you’re hiring a new employee or thinking about investing in a financial venture, knowing the truth is certainly important.

Likewise, in your personal life, whether you’re confronting your partner about potential infidelity, your child about drug use or wondering whether your new flame is trustworthy. Even when you’re in the market for a new car or seeking a contractor for your home, cuing in on telltale signs of deceit can help you avoid an expensive mistake.

How to Spot a Lie: Analyze Versus Speculate

It’s difficult, if not impossible, to tell if a person is lying just by looking at them. This would be speculation. Instead, Carnicero stresses the importance of analyzing the situation. “What I want to look at is how a person is reacting to things,” she says, using the example of someone sitting with their arms folded — a “global behavior.” While this might at first appear to be a closed-off or deceptive posture, there are many reasons why someone might sit in this way, from being cold to just being a habit.

“We give way too much weight to global behaviors,” Carnicero says. “We want to do away with that. That’s speculation.” To pick out what’s relevant and what’s not, first identify the stimulus — the questions you’re asking — and then focus on the behaviors that are directly associated with the person’s response. Timing is key here; a major red flag is a deceptive behavior that occurs within the first five seconds after the question is asked.

“If they don’t show me a deceptive behavior within five seconds, they’re not lying to me,” she says, adding that paying attention to clusters is another key. “I want to see at least two or more behaviors [during their response] for that to be a deceptive answer.” In some cases, the first deceptive behavior may occur before you’ve even finished asking the question — and this is a red flag too — but just remember that the first one should occur within the first five seconds — and there should be two or more in total to signal a lie.

Managing Your Bias and Recognizing Evasiveness

Many people are taught that lying is wrong and to try to look for the good in people. But when trying to spot a liar, it’s important to ignore truthful behavior, which will only add to your bias and contribute to what Carnicero describes as the “halo effect.”  Deceptive people can give us truthful answers,” she says, and will try to manipulate you to believe them. In many cases, they may give you more information than you asked for in an attempt to make you think they’re a good person. According to Carnicero:

“The people that we know are already out to manage our perceptions … go way beyond what we’re asking for … the purpose of that again is to convince us that they’re good people, and what happens if I’m a novice is that I start to think that’s a good person. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy … and I’m going to start to think that that person’s good, and I’m going to miss the bad.”

So make a point to ignore truthful behavior, instead focusing on deceptive ones. Meanwhile, recognize tactics of evasiveness, which are major clues that a person is not being candid, such as:

Failure to provide information asked for — does the person go on at length but not answer the question you asked?

Failure to deny. “The most important thing to the honest person is giving you that answer, denying if they didn’t do something. The truth is their biggest ally,” Carnicero says.

Use of exclusionary qualifiers, such as saying “for the most part,” “fundamentally” or “not really.” These beg for a follow-up question to reveal what the person is leaving out.

Aggression Is Often a Sign of Lying, as Are ‘Convincing’ Statements

When evaluating a person’s trustworthiness, “some behaviors weigh more than others,” according to Carnicero. “Aggression is one of those.” If you question your child whether he’s taking drugs and his immediate response is one of anger, it’s a major red flag. Likewise, if you’ve had a theft at your company, and the employee you’re questioning attacks you for asking about the theft.

“If you have somebody who jumps down your throat because you ask them a question — I don’t even care if it’s your kid … you got a problem,” she says. They may also attack a third party, such as the company itself for not providing enough security to prevent thefts in the first place. Along these lines, demonstrating an inappropriate level of concern is another telltale sign that someone is not telling the truth.

For example, if they brush off an important question as inconsequential, smile at an inappropriate time or get angry for seemingly no reason, they’re likely lying. Carnicero also stresses the importance of differentiating between convincing statements and those intended to convey information — the former being a sign of lying. Let’s say you ask someone if they stole something.

If the person launches into a long response about their good employment history and trustworthiness, those are convincing statements that, while they sound true, signal a lie. Simply saying “no” is conveying information that is likely a truthful response. Carnicero says, “A convincing statement is the strongest arrow that any person is going to have in their quiver. Saying ‘I’m a good person,’ ‘I’m a good worker’ … when somebody’s trying to convince you of something” rather than convey information, it’s a strong sign of a lie.

Paying attention to small details can also reveal a lie — like saying “I wouldn’t do that” versus “I didn’t do that.” The former — “wouldn’t” — is often a lie. “We have to listen for didn’t,” Carnicero says. Invoking religion is another tactic liars often use to draw you in and manage your perceptions of them, saying things like “I swear on a stack of bibles.” Other subtle signs include “perception qualifiers” such as “honestly,” “to tell you the truth” and “quite frankly,” which are used to verbally “dress up a lie.” When combined with clusters of other deceptive behaviors, these can help you to spot a lie.

Nonverbal Signs of Deceit

A person’s nonverbal cues are also important to hone in on when evaluating whether or not they’re lying. Carnicero recommends paying attention to the following nonverbal cues:2

• Behavioral pause: If you ask a person a vague question, such as what were you doing on this date years ago, it’s reasonable to expect a pause before they respond. But if you ask, did you rob a bank 10 years ago to this day, they should respond immediately. In the latter case, a delay is a sign of lying.

• Verbal/nonverbal disconnect: If a person nods their head while saying no, or shakes their head “no” while saying yes, this disconnect is considered a deceptive behavior (except in certain cultures in which nodding doesn’t mean yes).

• Anchor point movements: Another sign of a lie is movement in an “anchor point,” such as feet on the floor, arms on a desk or even a dangling foot if a person’s legs are crossed.

• Grooming gestures: Straightening a tie or other piece of clothing, fixing hair, adjusting glasses or fiddling with shirt cuffs can be subconscious ways that people try to quell their anxiety and are often a sign of a lie. Clearing of the throat or swallowing prior to answering are also considered indicators of deceptiveness.

• Hand-to-face movements: If a person put their hand to their mouth, licks their lips, pulls on their ear or otherwise touches their face or head, it’s another deceptive behavior. Parade noted:3

“The reason goes back to simple high school science. You’ve asked a question, and the question creates a spike in anxiety because a truthful response would be incriminating.

That, in turn, triggers the autonomic nervous system to go to work to dissipate the anxiety, draining blood from the surfaces of the face, the ears, and the extremities — which can create a sensation of cold or itchiness. Without the person even realizing it, his hands are drawn to those areas, or there’s a wringing or rubbing of the hands.”

Spotting a Liar Isn’t an Exact Science

While it isn’t always easy to determine when you’re being lied to, following Carnicero’s guidelines can certainly help. You can find more details, including many anecdotes that show the guidelines in action, in Carnicero’s book “Spy the Lie: Former CIA Officers Teach You How to Detect Deception.” Being able to decipher the truth can be life changing when it comes to your professional and personal life, and you can even use it to save yourself money and avoid getting ripped off.

As for lying, if you’re on the giving rather than the receiving end, it’s worth noting that adopting an “honesty is the best policy” approach isn’t only good for those around you but also for yourself. 🕊People who told only the truth for five weeks had an average of seven fewer symptoms, such as sore throats, headaches, nausea and mental tension, than the control group,4 with researchers suggesting that lying may cause stress that dampens the immune system. *

In the case of lying, however, many people do it without even thinking about it, which means, in order to protect your health — and your reputation — you’ve got to recognize that you’re doing it — and change it — before those around you recognize it first.


* Agelbert NOTE: Psychopaths 🦖 like Trump 🦀 do NOT suffer immune system problems from serial mendacity; they actually benefit physically from this despicable behavior. The reason for this is that their brains have been "rewired" to equate pleasure with some type of perceived denigration, mockery (e.g. lying to make a fool of somebody trying to expose your crimes) or abuse, be it verbal or physical, of humans and/or animals around them.   They 🦀 also, deliberately and methodically, convincingly lie to gain a person's confidence and trust in order to subsequently scam said person later on. During this mens rea activity, the psychopath is every bit as charming and affable as he or she is cruel and denigrating when the victim (i.e. the mark or the target of the con) has been scammed and complains about the scam.

Pruitt doing his bought and paid for Fossil Fuel Industry thing.
The fossil fuel 🦖TOOL Pruitt 🦀, now busy trashing the EPA, is even more skilled at clever, disingenuous, innocent sounding mendacity than Trump is.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 09, 2018, 06:24:23 pm »


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

Good Life Within Planetary Boundaries Study Misrepresented as Wealth Redistribution

A story this week in the conservative National Review claims that, based on a new study in Nature Sustainability, environmentalists want “to make the rich West much poorer so that the destitute can become richer.” Climate Depot gave the study the headline banner treatment and reposted it; given the Depot’s wide reach in Denierdom, we can probably expect to see more of this attack. The study fits perfectly with a common denier narrative that climate action is just a communist hoax to redistribute wealth from rich countries to poor, so it’s not surprising that deniers would want to shout it from the rooftops

But there are two big problems with this story. One, no one, environmentalist or otherwise, is trumpeting this study as justification for wealth redistribution. And two, the study says absolutely nothing about wealth redistribution.

What the study actually does is quantify resource use required for basic and improved standards of living, and compare this use with the constraints of our natural resources . The authors examined the use of several resources worldwide, including clean water, nitrogen and phosphorus for agriculture. They also included carbon emissions, and how much pollution the atmosphere can accommodate. They conclude that in order to raise quality of life around the world, we need to find more efficient ways to use our available resources.

Beyond technological advancements to increase how much we can physically extract from the earth, the most practical path would be economic reforms: by moving from the current standard of constant growth to meet needs to a system with sustainable lifestyles that don’t require constant consumption, the authors argue, everyone can live the good life without using up all our natural resources.

This question of how much of our natural capital we can spend on improving lives without breaking the bank gets twisted by the National Review’s 🦖 Wesley Smith  . In Smith’s piece, he repeatedly excerpts from the study, then disingenuously jumps to paranoid and hyperbolic conclusions. Smith writes the authors “prescribe an international technocratic tyranny;” also according to Smith, the way to a sustainable future where we aren’t consuming more than the Earth has to offer would mean “confiscation of wealth” and that we must “destroy the evil fossil fuel companies and redistribute, redistribute, redistribute!”  ::)

This hand-wringing is quite a leap, considering that the word “redistribute” appears exactly zero times in the study. There’s also the little fact that the study’s lead author Daniel O’Neill  told the LA Times that even if we could magically reallocate all the world’s resources, living the good life would mean “"we need to become two to six times more efficient” in how we use our resources to better human lives. The point of the study, then, is that even if we were to “redistribute, redistribute, redistribute,” we STILL would need to change things to avoid using up all of Earth’s materials that make modern life possible.

This study is all about how to raise the standard of living for those in poverty while simultaneously ensuring currently-wealthy countries don’t have to totally sacrifice our standard of living. Unfortunately, this major point seems to have eluded Smith 🦀. “The goal [of the study] clearly is a technocracy,” he writes in a panic, “that will undermine freedom, constrain opportunity, not truly benefit the poor, and materially harm societies that have moved beyond the struggle for survival.”

National Review titles Smith’s piece “Environmentalists Push Global Wealth Redistribution.” But the study hasn’t been pushed by any environmentalists, says nothing of redistribution, and focuses on our natural resources, not wealth.

Message to Smith : Amazing. Every single word you just said...is wrong.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 08, 2018, 03:06:18 pm »

Scott Pruitt 🦀 Asks if Global Warming 'Necessarily Is a Bad Thing'

By  Lorraine Chow

February 8, 2018

Scott Pruitt, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), suggested in an interview Tuesday that humans "flourished" during warm periods and climate change might not be so bad. 

Agelbert NOTE: The BULLSHIT by Fossil Fuel 🦖 TOOL Pruitt 🦀 is off the charts in the video below:

"We know that humans have most flourished during times of what? Warming trends," Pruitt told Nevada news station News 3. "So I think there's assumptions made that because the climate is warming that that necessarily is a bad thing."

Ironically, Pruitt's remarks were made after News 3 host Gerard Ramalho listed a slew of very real and very dangerous climate-related consequences to the EPA administrator—southern Nevada has felt one of its hottest summers and warmest winters ever, the polar ice caps are melting, sea levels are rising, and hurricanes and tornadoes are intensifying.

Pruitt's gaffe is comparable to the time he said carbon dioxide is "not a primary contributor" to climate change. But it is. It just is, as the overwhelming majority of climate scientists have concluded.

"As the evidence becomes ever more compelling that climate change is real and human-caused, the forces of denial turn to other specious arguments, like 'it will be good for us,'" Penn State University climate scientist Michael Mann told the Guardian, which first flagged the interview.

"There is no consistency at all to their various arguments other than that we should continue to burn fossil fuels ," Mann  added.

Pruitt, as well as his oval office boss, continue to ignore scientific fact as they roll back one environmental protection after another—including the Obama-era Clean Power Plan that slashes emissions from coal-power plants—to push for fossil fuels. 🦖

Full article:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 07, 2018, 01:50:19 pm »


A Six-Step Guide to Combat the Fossil Fuel 🦖 Industry's Climate Lies

By Jessica Corbett


After examining more than 40 common climate change myths pushed by those who are hell-bent on discrediting scientific conclusions about the global crisis, three researchers teamed up to create a six-step critical thinking tool that helps people combat misinformation by "neutralizing" the lies.

Full must read article:


The Fossil Fuelers 🦖 DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, 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: February 05, 2018, 05:23:34 pm »

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

Critical Thinking Is Critical, But So Are Facts

Idaho lawmakers are currently debating whether or not to include climate change in science education standards. The local lawmaker opposed to including the fact that human activity is changing the climate, Republican Rep. Scott Syme 🦕, said he doesn’t like that the climate-related sections of the proposed standards “have conclusions drawn in.”

Now, aside from the grammar no-no of ending a sentence with a preposition, this focus on the process of learning instead of the facts is not all that misplaced. Students should absolutely be taught critical thinking skills, instead of just wrote memorization of facts. 

But then again, Rep. Syme said he doesn’t “care if the students come up with a conclusion that the earth is flat – as long as it’s their conclusion, not something that’s told to them.”

Which is, well, exactly the opposite of how education is supposed to work. Of course teaching critical thinking skills must allow a child to examine sources for bias, compare empirical evidence and draw a conclusion based on his studies. But if that conclusion is one that is clearly and plainly wrong, then the education system has failed.

To profess that you don’t care what a kid thinks, as long as she came up with it herself, is to embrace exactly the sort of “feelings over facts” that conservative trolls lambast.

Syme’s🐉 too-clever-by-half  approach to climate denial of hiding behind the idea that kids should be given the skills to think for themselves reveals that he really doesn’t care at all about whether Idaho’s students get a quality education.

If lawmakers like Syme don’t care if students decide to believe something incorrect, like that the earth is flat or climate change isn’t happening, it’s clear they don’t care about education. Hiding behind the idea that teaching kids to think better is a coward’s way of avoiding responsibility to ensure Idaho’s children receive an education that prepares them for the real world.

But perhaps that’s their strategy. The lawmakers opposed to the new science standards are all Republicans. And as we explored at the end of last year, the GOP is losing control of truth in its own party, as studies show conservatives are increasingly creating and living in an alternate reality where facts are secondary to ideology. Passing that on to the next generation is a way to try and combat the reality that the younger demographics are all leaning far to the left of their parents.

If they all receive an education of the sort Rep. Syme wants though, that may change, since they’ll be comforted by platitudes instead of facing reality. They’ll be climate science deniers because no one taught them real science, but left them to fend for themselves on a flat Earth.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 03, 2018, 03:38:44 pm »

Proper Perspective on Fossil Fuel "Subsidies" (bail outs of an UNPROFITABLE DIRTY FUEL INDUSTRY)

Rockefeller 🦖 (I'm a Capitalist BUT Competition is a sin! ) is the FATHER of the Fossil Fuel Industry's SECRET MOTTO: Fossil Fuels are CHEAP because the POLITICIANS 🦀 we 🦖 buy GUARANTEE IT! The laws of thermodynamics and pollution effects are for Libral Commies! 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 29, 2018, 02:48:02 pm »


Gore in Snowflake-Filled Davos Triggers Photoshop Loving Climate Deniers

Every time it snows and Al Gore is seen in public, deniers rejoice in pretending that Gore’s climate awareness campaign is somehow incompatible with cold weather. At last week’s elite meet-and-greet in Davos, snow in the Swiss Alps in January provided enough irony for deniers to enjoy, as they gleefully and nonsensically tagged Gore on Twitter and trotted out their favorite photoshops of a frozen Gore.

Deniers haven’t done much to hide their fixation on Gore and their particular love for amateurish photoshops of him frozen in ice. But here’s a surprise: there’s a chance some of these images aren’t hastily slapped together in a dank basement by by trolls who are definitely not going to make it to the South Pole to collect a sandwich left for them by an intrepid 16-year-old.

Rather, they could well be a product of a multi-million dollar lobbying and PR firm.

Last week, Bloomberg Businessweek ran a major feature by Zachary Mider and Ben Elgin on DCI Group, a powerhouse of industry astroturfing. It appears that back in the ‘90s, three former flacks for big tobacco started a PR company which pioneered the concept of “idea laundering,” or making corporate lobbying look like grassroots activism. To stealthily push messaging from its industry clients, DCI Group created projects like Tech Central Station, a blog that was essentially one big ad for DCI clients. They took money from companies like ExxonMobil, and produced so-called “journalism” that mirrored industry talking points. Tech Central is where a lot of the deniers we know and love got some early exposure, including Bjorn Lomborg, Chris Horner, David Legates, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Steven Milloy, and Willie Soon.   

While DCI’s work on climate denial was much less visible once Tech Central shut down, ExxonMobil kept funding the group until at least 2016. (That’s why DCI is one of the groups caught up in the #ExxonKnew cases.)

DCI 🐉 wields extraordinary influence in DC: the Businessweek piece describes one new hire being “awed” at the reach of the firm into the nonprofit, policy, and journalism worlds in DC. This staffer, Mider and Elgin write, “came to see his former colleagues as puppets—and he had become the one with his hand on the strings.

In the course of checking up on DCI after seeing the Businessweek piece, we found that one of the first big embarrassments for DCI was when the Wall Street Journal exposed that a hacky, very amateur-looking YouTube video mocking Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth was in fact a DCI product. ABC has non-paywalled coverage, co-bylined by Max Culhane and now-CNN anchor Jake Tapper which included a quaint description of YouTube as “mostly amateur videos, which feature lip-synching, odd performances and funny satires.”

Tapper’s story ends with a warning that is all too prescient, and still all-too relevant: “So next time you're reading something on the Internet from a ‘real person’ pushing a movie or defending an actor's alcohol-fueled rant -- be wary. That real person might actually be a hired gun, selling you an idea through deception.”

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

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 27, 2018, 03:03:24 pm »

Renewable Energy Doesn’t Get More In Subsidies Than Fossil 🦖 & Nuclear Energy
 Have Gotten, & Continue To Get
January 26th, 2018 by Jake Richardson


This article is part of our “CleanTechnica Answer Box” collection. For some reason, there are certain anti-cleantech talking points that get thrown around over and over that are absolute bunk. We got tired of dealing with the same myths repeatedly and also saw others who spent time responding to these untruths in many discussions on CleanTechnica and elsewhere could use some help more efficiently and effectively doing so, so at the suggestion of a reader we created this resource in the same vein as Skeptical Science’s responses to global warming & climate change myths.

Myth: renewable energy gets subsidies whereas fossil fuels and nuclear energy don’t.

Short answer: Fossil fuels and nuclear energy have gotten subsidies for decades. Actually, fossil fuels have received government subsidies for 100 or so years. These days, fossil fuel subsidies reportedly total approximately $5 trillion globally each year. Despite tremendous health costs, climate costs, and countless premature deaths caused by pollution, these super rich and overly mature industries receive subsidies that serve no genuinely useful purpose for society. Renewable energy also receives subsidies, but not to the same degree.

A highly misleading anti-cleantech talking point  is that renewable energy “relies on government subsidies,” and that all of the renewable energy growth in recent years is attributable to them. In actuality, fossil fuels and nuclear power have been receiving government support for much longer than renewable energy has. They have received much more government subsidy historically speaking than renewables. And these dirty energy options continue to receive a tremendous amount of government support even though they are overripe industries in many regards.

In the United States alone, the petroleum and coal industries receive at minimum about $20 billion a year in various forms of financial support.

Claiming that renewables receive too much government support while neglecting to mention all of the subsidies fossil fuels get is a deliberate campaign of misinformation.

There have been many government subsidies for the petroleum industry and some have been active for a very long time.

In a document uploaded to the House Committee Ways and Means website, it is explained that a particular financial support, the intangible drilling oil & gas deduction, has been available to the petroleum industry for about 100 years.

“For all practical purposes, the option to expense or capitalize the intangible drilling expenditures has existed since the first income tax statute. Judicial recognition of the existence of the option for the year 1916 appears in Shaffer v. Comm.”

The US coal industry has also received considerable government support dating to 1932! One analysis came up with a total figure of at least $70 billion, and that was only for the last 60-some years, “Since 1950, the federal government has provided the coal industry with more than $70 billion (in constant 2007 dollars) in tax breaks and subsidies.”

In sum, global fossil fuel subsidies reportedly total approximately $5 trillion per year.

→ Related: Early Fossil Fuel & Nuclear Energy Subsidies Crush Early Renewable Energy Subsidies

Subsidies for What?

Full EXCELLENT article (don'r miss the comments ):

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 16, 2018, 07:00:16 pm »


Connecting the Koch’s Puzzling Press Donations and Daily Callers Fact Check Fuss

Last Tuesday, the Daily Caller ran a story that accidentally admits that the site--and all the others like it--is fake news. The piece’s title alleges that Google’s fact check “Almost Exclusively Targets Conservative Sites.” But of course, as Salon’s Matthew Sheffield points out in his debunking of this attempt to paint Google as partisan, that’s because fake news leans hard to the right. As Sheffield explains, Google fact-checks many right-wing blogs because they’re full of fake news. That doesn’t mean Google’s fact-check is biased--it means it’s accurate.

Why are so many alt-right outlets so full of alt-facts? It might that have something to do with right-wing media being funded by overt partisans like the Kochs and Mercers. But what if those same forces are recognizing that their own echo chamber is only effective for those who have already bought in to their worldview, and that they must expand their influence beyond the bubble? If that were the case, then one would expect to see these funders working with more legitimate, mainstream journalism groups to find new audiences for their agendas. 

And that’s exactly what they’re doing. Last Thursday, Christopher Cook of the Columbia Journalism Review wrote a piece on the controversy around the Koch Foundation’s 2017 grant to the American Society of News Editors (ANSE) for its journalist protection hotline and its support for a Poynter Institute project supporting college journalists.

Cook reports that many consider the grants an attempt by the Kochs to whitewash their image. He also focuses on the incredible irony of the Kochs supporting ANSE’s program dedicated to “protecting journalists from attacks” while employing strong-arm tactics against journalists who cover their shady practices. Jane Mayer, who wrote a book last year on  the Koch’s weaponized philanthropy, told Cook that after her expose the Kochs so far as to hire “a private eye” whose “firm spent months and months trying to dig up dirt on [Mayer].”

That irony is rich, but Cook misses the Koch’s larger strategy. The Poynter Institute’s program funded by the Koch Foundation works to “provide training to student journalists,” who are given $3,000 “to spend on a reporting project or event that advances civil discourse on campus” in addition to an in-person training session and online courses.

This is the real game. The Kochs are not just using these grants as public relations fodder, as per Mayer and others’ criticisms described in Cook’s piece. What’s more likely is that this is part of Koch’s overarching strategy to just flat out buy the press. With this program, which started on 300 campuses across the country last semester, the Kochs are seeding a generation of reporters who see them as the philanthropists who helped start their career, not the creeps who hire private eyes to dig through a reporter’s garbage.

For a student reporter $3,000 is a lot of money at a very early stage in one’s career. The Kochs are making a bold attempt to buy a lifetime of goodwill for a month’s salary. What’s more, these grants are provided to fund stories that, as a Koch Foundation flack told Cook, explore “civic and economic liberties that allow people to prosper.” This money, then, is specifically earmarked in hopes of starting young reporters on a free-market-friendly career path.

Those who embrace the libertarian framing are likely encouraged to enter the Koch journalism pipeline, where they can intern at a Koch-funded group like Heritage, get trained further by Koch-funded “investigative news” producing Franklin Center, then move into one of the Koch’s own media properties, like Charles Koch Institute partner The Daily Caller.

Once at the Daily Caller, after a few years of Koch-brand fake news training, they’ll be ready to start writing about how fake news-busting fact checks are a big conspiracy. ;)
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 19, 2017, 05:24:18 pm »

December 19, 2017

How Did We Wind Up in a Post-Truth World? And What Can Be Done About It?

From coal’s astroturfing online to an artificial intelligence’s both-sides equivocation, when we talked about denial in the age of AI last week, things didn’t look promising. Fortunately, the December issue of the Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition is here! It’s a special edition, focused on a lengthy article and featuring nine responses, all offering some help navigating misinformation in the post-truth age, with an eye towards technology.

Given the importance of the matter and depth of the research, and that all but the initial paper are behind a paywall, this will be the first in a rare three-part roundup. We felt it fitting to end this post-truth year with a rumination on our post-truth past.

Our journey through the truthiness landscape starts with a target article by Stephan Lewandowsky, Ullrich K.H.Ecker and John Cook, summarizing the state of scholarship regarding how the public deals with misinformation and offering some suggestions about how to address the problem. The authors argue that key to surviving in this new “post-truth” landscape is “technocognition,” or the combination of psychological principles and technological solutions.

For those who want a crash course in the tenets Lewandowsky, Ecker and Cook’s piece is based on, see The Debunking Handbook. But the three authors move past the summary to a much more interesting analysis:  they argue that American society must look at the socio-political context of fake news to fully understand its impacts and solutions, expanding the current focus from online interactions to the full IRL experience.

“The post-truth problem is not a blemish on the mirror,” they write. Instead, “the problem is that the mirror is a window into an alternative reality.” In this reality, elites and their evidence, like the multiple independent lines of research proving climate change is caused by human activities, are cast aside in favor of socially shared alt-news. The election of Donald Trump shows just how these misinformation ecosystems have moved from the fringe corners of the internet into the mainstream.

But the creation of these new realities is not a bipartisan problem: rather, it’s a curiously conservative phenomenon. Whether it’s a NASA-run child slave colony on Mars or the decades-old conspiracy around the UN’s plans for a global government or climate change being a Chinese hoax, the authors advise on the need to consider misinformation through “the lens of political drivers that have created an alternative epistemology that does not conform to conventional standards of evidentiary support.”

This is a fancy way of saying that sometimes conservative leaders just make bullshit up and people believe them. While this reckoning may seem new, the authors demonstrate that it’s been a long time coming (Karl Rove’s admission that the Bush administration actors “create[d] our own reality” is a particularly poignant example). The authors’ reference that Republicans “have moved towards the right in a manner unprecedented since the 1880s” follows with the fact that the right appears to be more susceptible to the pseudo-profound bullshit philosophical nonsense we’ve talked about before.

One important effect of creating alternate realities on social media, the authors explain,  is the invention of intense, imaginary conflict. Did scientists really discuss manipulating data in hacked emails? Of course not, but arguing about it makes for good TV! Fanning the hot flames of these conflicts, in turn, pushes politicians towards extremism. While nominees have traditionally hewed to the center for the largest possible share of votes, modern politicians now focus on their echo chamber to rile up the base. In this new post-truth world, “lying is not only accepted, it is rewarded,” Lewandowsky, Ecker and Cook write. “Falsifying reality is no longer about changing people's beliefs, it is about asserting power.”

These concepts make it crystal clear that climate denial is not an attempt to build a base of knowledge contrary to the consensus. Rather, the authors write, climate denial is “a political operation aimed at generating uncertainty in the public's mind in order to preserve the status quo and to delay climate-change mitigation.”

So how do we get people (conservatives) to care about truth and reality again? Technocognition might just have some answers. 

But, uh… what is that? Mind melds with a Mac? Uploading our consciousness into the Matrix? Studying climate change while listening to the latest techno jams? Tune in tomorrow to find out!
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 08, 2017, 01:41:51 pm »

Re: Don't blame God or nature. This is our fault

Aren't we part of Nature?  Weren't we created by God?


We are 99 % space, and an infinitesimal speck in the universe. Our evolution has reached it's peak, and apparently if "God" designed this, it let us humans destroy most of the life on the planet. There are as many views about what life is about as there are people. If one needs verification of their view by others, then they compromise their own unique view. Just like what happened in the McSteinsen group think. I know you are aware of the Christian religion, and their use of the Bible to tell them about god. here is a list of different denominations, all of which group think, but are in themselves different from the other denominations...

Looks like you ran out of room on your paste at "L".  lol.

I think our evolution reached its peak quite some time back and we have been on the downhill slide since the invention of agriculture.

Anyhow, this title is meant to play the Blame Game for the destruction of the earth ecosystem on Homo Saps.  Why not make it more specific and blame Boomers?  Maybe we should place the blame on White Males?  Or on Welfare Queens?

I personally will not take the blame for this, it's not MY fault the earth is going to hell.  I was born into 20th Century Amerika.  Everybody drove a car.  In most of the places I lived, if I didn't have a car, I couldn't get to work.  I never learned to farm, I didn't have to.  Food came on the shelves of the supermarket.  This is somehow MY fault?  WTF?

If you want to place blame, place it where it belongs on the Masters of the Universe who run this S H I T show, the .01%.


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 02, 2017, 01:21:58 pm »


Renewable Energy Isn’t Perfect, But It’s Far Better Than Fossil Fuels  

By David Suzuki

December 2, 2017


In their efforts to discredit renewable energy and support continued fossil fuel burning, many anti-environmentalists have circulated a dual image purporting to compare a lithium mine with an oil sands operation. It illustrates the level of dishonesty to which some will stoop to keep us on our current polluting, climate-disrupting path (although in some cases it could be ignorance).

The image is a poor attempt to prove that lithium batteries and renewable energy are worse for the environment than energy from oil sands bitumen. The first problem is that the "lithium mine" is actually BHP Billiton's Escondida copper mine in Chile (the world's largest). The bottom image is of an Alberta oil sands operation, but it's an in situ underground facility and doesn't represent the enormous open-pit mining operations used to extract most bitumen.

Full eye opening article:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 29, 2017, 07:59:38 pm »

How Can We Police Our Media When Big Money Bought It? (w/Guest Charles Alexander)

The Koch brothers   are buying up the media, how can we stop them? the former science editor of Time Magazine joins us to help us figure it out.

Thom Hartmann Nov. 28, 2017 5:30 pm

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 29, 2017, 07:13:32 pm »


Research Debunks Denier’s Attempts To (Mis)Use IPCC and Actual Science

At the recent Heartland energy conference , deniers reiterated their plan to find a farmer to flip the script on climate lawsuits, attacking the Endangerment finding by arguing reduced emissions would be bad for agriculture because CO2 is good for crops.

Deniers  insist this idea is based on the science of CO2 fertilization. But science has long shown the effect of CO2 on crop growth is not a big enough to outweigh all the ways in which CO2 is bad for agriculture.

A new study in Nature Communications out of Purdue reminds us of this important point by updating the cost of carbon to agriculture. The study finds that while decades-old data suggested agriculture could benefit to the tune of $2.7 per ton of CO2, the more recent body of literature finds that carbon pollution imposes a net costs of $8.5 per ton. If being wrong ever stopped deniers, this would be the end of their use of “CO2 is good for agriculture” argument.

Speaking of talking points we know are wrong that deniers continue to use, the Royal Society released a new 36-page report this week on what we’ve learned in the four years since the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report (AR5), as something of a midterm report while we wait for AR6 in 2022. The report tackles 13 questions that have arisen since the report’s 2013 release, some of which seem targeted at deniers who misleadingly cite the IPCC.

The first question, for example, suggests an update to the IPCC’s climate sensitivity range. It finds that AR5’s downward revision of the low end of how much warming we can expect from a doubling of CO2, down to 1.5°C from AR4’s 2°C, should be revised back up. They conclude: “A value below 2°C for the lower end of the likely range of equilibrium climate sensitivity now seems less plausible.” Sorry, Nic Lewis.

The Society addresses other common arguments that rely on a very specific reading of the IPCC. It points out how “climate change carried on” during the so-called pause, it implicitly debunks the claim that Arctic sea ice isn’t experiencing any sort of rebound, reiterates that temperature and rainfall extremes are changing as a result of human activity, confirms that oceans are at risk from warming and acidification, and discusses how warming hurts human health. The report even includes a particularly compelling graph showing warming hurts food crop yields.

The findings of this report and the Purdue study means that deniers can’t use agriculture as a tool to undo the Endangerment finding, if they actually hope to win. The only industry that fossil fuel regulations negatively impacts is... the fossil fuel industry.

Why wouldn’t deniers want to just openly defend that industry? Why do they hide from the fact that the industry sponsors their denial to protect their profits?

The latest example of deniers running from their industry bedfellows comes from an op-ed in The Hill by William O’Keefe, which claims that there are reasons to be skeptical on climate change that don’t come from or involve “tools of the fossil fuel industry.”

That climate denial doesn’t come from the industry is an odd argument from a man who admits in the piece that he “spent a career in the petroleum industry.” William O’Keefe was literally a tool of the fossil fuel industry, lobbying for Exxon Mobil, among other work for oily employers.

In conclusion: while deniers are tools of the fossil fuel industry, they’re certainly not the sharpest ones. 

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 23, 2017, 05:54:49 pm »


Statoil To Focus On Development Of “Clean” Light-Crude Oil, CEO Says (To Focus On Fossil Fuel Extraction For Decades To Come)

November 23rd, 2017 by James Ayre


The CEO went on to state that Statoil would remain focused on oil and gas extraction for decades to come, and that demand will remain strong.

An attitude which was paraphrased helpfully by the writers over at Reuters as: “There’s oil, and then there’s oil.”

Yeah, that’s pretty much what Statoil CEO Eldar Saetre’s comments amount to. Yes, it’s true that some oil reserves are more energy intensive to develop than others … but that’s really besides the point — if extreme anthropogenic climate change is to be curtailed, then effectively all of the world’s oil reserves will need to remain in the ground.

I’m aware that that’s very, very unlikely to happen, but that reality doesn’t justify the doublespeak that’s so common nowadays (seemingly across all sectors, and all political parties) and that is being used to keep business-as-usual going even as climate collapse gets closer by the day.

Full Article:


Agelbert Lamentation: These Oil Corporations just do not get it. But they will. Unfortunately, so will we.

The fossil fuel corporations have to die or humanity is toast.

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.

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.



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.


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).



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.


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)

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. 


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


+-Recent Topics

Pollution by AGelbert
March 23, 2018, 09:20:00 pm

Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi by AGelbert
March 23, 2018, 07:38:51 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
March 23, 2018, 07:25:24 pm

Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery by AGelbert
March 23, 2018, 05:53:54 pm

Future Earth by AGelbert
March 23, 2018, 02:36:00 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
March 22, 2018, 09:38:12 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
March 22, 2018, 06:28:53 pm

Money by AGelbert
March 22, 2018, 06:10:31 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
March 21, 2018, 09:35:42 pm

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
March 21, 2018, 08:39:59 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial