+- +-

+-User

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

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 43
Latest: Heredia05
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 10405
Total Topics: 244
Most Online Today: 1
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 36 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

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

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


Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 04, 2018, 09:16:28 pm »

 

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

August 1, 2018

Trump Admin 🦕😈🦖👹: Driving Efficient Cars is Bad For You: As part of its effort to roll back fuel economy standards, the Trump administration plans to argue that improved gas mileage for cars and trucks would be more dangerous for drivers, the AP reported Wednesday. A draft of the administration's long-anticipated proposal to freeze fuel efficiency standards, seen by the AP, posits that freezing the standards could prevent up to 1,000 deaths per year, since less efficient and heavier cars would prevent people from driving more. "To say that safety is a direct result of somehow freezing the fuel economy mandate for a few years, I think that’s a stretch," Giorgio Rizzoni, director of the Center for Automotive Research at Ohio State University, told the AP. Transportation is the largest single source of air pollution in the country, and research last year found that even small increases in pollution correlated to more than 100,000 additional deaths among elderly populations. The proposal, which could be released as soon as this week, also contains plans to challenge California's ability to set its own standards, the AP reports.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/trump-administration-links-gas-mileage-to-risk-for-drivers/2018/08/01/546edabe-9542-11e8-818b-e9b7348cd87d_story.html

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 26, 2018, 06:01:38 pm »

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

July 26, 2018




😈 Gen Z are Lazy, Entitled and Pollution Hating Jerkz 

Not sure if you've heard, but there’s a new cult in town. It’s run by teenagers who want climate justice and a livable future. Sounds scary!

Zero Hour 🌎 is a climate group led by youth of color from different parts of America. Understanding that combating climate change requires urgent action, they recently released an ambitious platform of demands that outlines what different levels of the government must do in order to safeguard their future. Last Saturday, they held marches across the country, which received overwhelming support from parents, scientists, celebrities, politicians and other climate groups.

But not, surprisingly from the shrinking tribe of climate deniers 🙉 🙊 🦕🦖 . The planet's actually really cold, schooled a few anonymous experts. It’s a hoax, yelled others. What snowflakes, said some others who clearly like being original.

In response to the youth's brave stand last weekend, the denier blogger community mainly screamed back that teenagers are being brainwashed, exploited and indoctrinated to believe lies about climate change. (We’ve heard those talking points before. Remember the shameful piece in the Federalist about children victimized by gun violence?)

Watts Up With That featured a guest post (or rather two lines followed by copy-pasted content) complaining that “climate indoctrination begins at a very young age.

Ed Straker 🦕 from American Thinker wrote a blog post to share his belief that Zero Hour is a doomsday cult with a “militantly brainwashed doomsday leftist” leader. Apparently, Straker is very scared of 16-year-old founder Jamie Margolin. Margolin, Straker writes,"may seem young, but never forget that many of the Red Guards in Mao's China who committed unspeakable atrocities were young, too.” Straker never gets around to really explaining how Zero Hour is a cult, but does complain that Margolin doesn’t smile enough. (Again, very original stuff.)

Fire up your tiny violins for Straker's next complaint: he notes that the group doesn’t appear to be led by men, especially white men. “Are boys not as easily brainwashed as girls?” he wonders. (We're...not going to touch that one.)

But easily the most prolific hater of the youth climate march was blogger Tom Nelson 😈, who repeatedly barraged the Zero Hour teen team with denier tweets, calling them brainwashed, a scam and BS, anti-science, and so much more. He 🦖 even gloated that there was low turnout as videos showed the youth resiliently rallying and marching in the pouring rain. We've got a sneaking hunch Nelson might have been a big old bully in high school the way he keeps attacking these teens.

Unfortunately, 2018 seems to be the year of militant attacks from the right 😈🦖 against young people doing their best to preserve their future. At least there are school kids like those in Zero Hour giving us hope.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 22, 2018, 04:58:22 pm »

CleanTechnica
Support CleanTechnica’s work via donations on Patreon or PayPal!

Or just go buy a cool t-shirt, cup, baby outfit, bag, or hoodie.

3 Natural Gas & Climate Myths

July 21st, 2018 by Guest Contributor

Originally published on The Climate Reality Project.

Flaring natural gas (imf.org)

Fossil fuels (all of them!) are the energy of the past. With new technologies like wind, solar, and advanced batteries in our hands, we can power today and tomorrow with clean, reliable energy that doesn’t harm our health and destroy our planet.

Natural gas is a growing energy source – one many are putting a lot of faith in.

Proponents like to portray the fuel as a cuddlier cousin to coal and oil when it comes to climate because it generates less carbon dioxide when burned. But its CO2 emissions are only one piece of a far more nuanced puzzle.

Many of the arguments in support of natural gas are based on outdated or incorrect information – sometimes going so far as to border on wishful thinking. That’s why we’re setting the record straight on some of the most common myths about natural gas and our climate.

Natural Gas Will Not Solve The Climate Crisis

When people make this argument, they’re (mostly) referring to one thing, in particular, that is indeed true of natural gas: a new, efficient natural gas power plant emits around 50 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2) during combustion when compared with a typical coal-based power plant, according to the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL).

To be sure, we should take seriously any source of energy that reduces our dependence on coal and oil, the primary sources of the carbon emissions that drive climate change. But let’s also engage in some real talk: 50 percent less CO2 also isn’t zero CO2, and CO2 isn’t the only harmful emission generated by natural gas development.

We’re still talking about a fossil fuel here, one that still contributes to climate change when burned. And achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the second half of this century is essential to the long-term health of our planet.

That number also doesn’t take into account all of the carbon emissions that happen across the full life cycle of natural gas, particularly during extraction, infrastructure construction, transport, and storage. But rather than dwell, let’s just get straight to the real climate Big Bad when it comes to natural gas – methane.

Methane is a very, very powerful greenhouse gas. In the atmosphere, compared to carbon, it’s fairly short-lived: only about 20 percent of the methane emitted today will still be in the atmosphere after 20 years. However, when it first enters the atmosphere, it’s around 120 times more powerful than CO2 at trapping heat and 86 times stronger over a 20 year period.

(Carbon dioxide hangs around for much longer: As much as 15 percent of today’s carbon dioxide will still be in the atmosphere in 10,000 years.)

And a lot of the methane that ends up in the atmosphere comes from natural gas production.

“The drilling and extraction of natural gas from wells and its transportation in pipelines result in the leakage of methane,” Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) notes. “Preliminary studies and field measurements show that these so-called ‘fugitive’ methane emissions range from 1 to 9 percent of total life cycle emissions.”

(When we talk about “total life-cycle emissions,” we’re talking all emissions from the source, including those leaked during its extraction, transportation, and more, and not just what is emitted when a fuel source is burned to create energy.)

If you’re thinking, “The difference between 1 and 9 percent is a pretty big deal,” you’re absolutely right. It’s also an exceptionally important metric when talking about the relative value of natural gas in the climate fight. For a natural gas power plant to have lower extraction of natural gas than a coal plant (as proponents keep claiming is the benefit), the entire system’s methane leakage must be kept below 3.2 percent.

Natural Gas Is Not Environmentally Friendly

We need to be very clear here: Natural gas is not a clean form of energy. Cleaner than coal? Sure – but that’s not saying a heck of a lot. Clean like solar or wind? Get out of here!

To start, the extraction process is rife with potential problems. Much of our natural gas comes through the process of hydraulic fracturing – aka “fracking.” In this process, companies drill boreholes deep into the earth and inject liquid into the subterranean rock at very high pressure. This forces open rock fissures and release gas from within the rock or reservoirs below.

In particular, fracking can contaminate groundwater supplies if it’s not done properly.

Fracked gas is typically found pretty deep in the earth – much further down than the water table. But the boreholes carrying the gas back up to the surface travel straight through the water-bearing rocks, called aquifers, from which many of us get our water. The injected fracking fluid often contains dangerous chemicals that no one would want to drink – and if the borehole is not properly cased, those chemicals can escape into groundwater.

And it’s important to remember that natural gas development is itself far from pollution-free.

“Some areas where drilling occurs have experienced increases in concentrations of hazardous air pollutants and two of the six criteria pollutants — particulate matter and ozone plus its precursors — regulated by the EPA because of their harmful effects on health and the environment,” the Union of Concerned Scientists reports. “Exposure to elevated levels of these air pollutants can lead to adverse health outcomes, including respiratory symptoms, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.”

Exposure to these pollutants can be particularly damaging to very young children.

“Given the profound sensitivity of the developing brain and the central nervous system, it is very reasonable to conclude that young children who experience frequent exposure to these pollutants are at particularly high risk for chronic neurological problems and disease,” the Center for Environmental Health’s Ellen Webb, a researcher on the neurological and neurodevelopmental effects of chemicals linked to unconventional oil and gas operations, told the Guardian last year.


Natural Gas Is A Bridge To Nowhere

The conversation over natural gas’ value as a “bridge fuel” is a fraught one. Supporters claim that it’s a better alternative to coal that will carry us until renewables like wind and solar can fully power the grid. But let us ask you this: Would you take a bridge at all if there was no river, ravine, or other obstacle you had to cross?

That’s to say, we already have zero or near-zero carbon-emitting energy sources that are preferable to coal, oil, and natural gas. Residential and utility-scale wind, solar, and geothermal energy are up and running and getting better every day – and they’re increasingly cost-competitive with energy produced by fossil fuels. Right now.

Yale Climate Connections makes the stakes plain: “Although it might not be practical to replace all coal plants with renewables immediately, it’s definitely possible to do so in the next decade if renewables continue to fall in price.”

The article goes on to highlight the real danger of the bridge fuel fallacy: “If we replace coal with gas today, we’ve sunk costs into new gas infrastructure that we might be loath to replace a few years later with renewables. In this way, a gas bridge could delay the widespread adoption of renewables.”

If natural gas expansion comes at the expense of renewables, the greenhouse gas emissions threat to our climate continues. And there’s already plenty of evidence that overemphasizing gas really does siphon investment away from renewable energy sources that produce truly clean power.

The bottom line is that natural gas is still a fossil fuel, and simply shifting from coal to it won’t keep the US on track to meet its emissions reduction goals, even if methane leakages are reined in.

So rather than make an unnecessary, temporary wholesale switch to natural gas, the smarter tactic would be to phase out coal while moving straight to utility-scale renewable energy – something that is totally doable.

Listen, we get it: Fossil fuels helped power the Industrial Revolution and helped shape the past two centuries. But they’re just that – the energy of the past. With new technologies like wind, solar, and advanced batteries in our hands, we can power today and tomorrow with clean, reliable energy that doesn’t harm our health and destroy our planet.

It’s just that simple.


Are you ready to learn more about fossil fuels and their impact on our planet? Download Climate 101 Fact Sheet: Fossil Fuels now.

In this free fact sheet, we outline the basics of fossil fuels like natural gas in plain language. In just two pages, we answer these questions:

֍ What exactly are fossil fuels?

֍ How are these sources of energy impacting our climate?

֍ How are coal, natural gas, and oil different from each other?

֍ Why should we make the switch to clean, renewable energy?

The climate is changing, but these facts don’t. Download our free fossil fuel fact sheet today.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/07/21/3-natural-gas-climate-myths/#comment-4001227647
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 18, 2018, 04:38:51 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Bill McKibben debunks the hydrocarbon hellspawn 😈 negative propaganda about Renewables.

The Renewable Energy Jobs Myth

July 18, 2018

by  The Sanders Institute
 

One of the largest myths about addressing climate change is that transitioning to renewable energy from fossil fuels (especially coal) will create a net loss of American jobs.

However, renewable energy is doing the opposite of putting Americans out of work. The New York Times reported that in 2016 coal was responsible for 160,119 jobs. In contrast solar employed more than double that amount (373,807 Americans).

The number of renewable jobs is also expected to grow significantly in the coming years. Last year, Business Insider reported that “solar and wind jobs are growing at a rate 12 times as fast as the rest of the US economy and… 46% of large firms have hired additional workers to address issues of sustainability over the past two years.”

In addition to renewables' contribution to overall employment in the United States, there are a number of other economic benefits to American workers when we encourage growth in the renewable energy industry:

Geographic Distribution
While fossil fuel jobs tend to be concentrated in a few states (the vast majority of jobs in coal exist in West Virginia or Wyoming.), renewable energy jobs are spread out around the country. Program Director Liz Delaney at the Environmental Defense Fund points out that “These jobs [in the renewable energy sector] are widely geographically distributed, they're high paying, they apply to both manufacturing and professional workers, and there are a lot of them.”

Supporting and encouraging the renewable energy industry will help hundreds of thousands of Americans find jobs all across the country. These are not simply installation jobs either, maintenance is a large part of the renewable energy industry.

Small Businesses

Environmental Defense Fund Program Director Delaney also mentions that “70% of the 2.2 million Americans who work in jobs related to energy efficiency are employed by companies with 10 employees or fewer.” These are small businesses, hiring American workers, in one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy. In addition, according to Delaney these jobs are also more difficult to outsource because “many sustainability jobs involve installation, maintenance, and construction.” The renewable energy sector is encouraging small business development in America.

Ultimately, encouraging the development of the renewable energy sector is the best path forward for America. Concerns about lost jobs in the fossil fuel and coal industries are legitimate and important to recognize, but those lost jobs should not hinder progress towards a renewable future. This is why training programs should be encouraged to support fossil fuel workers move to other sectors or be trained in budding renewable technology. The New York Times reports that “In Wyoming, home to the nation’s most productive coal region by far, the American subsidiary of a Chinese maker of wind turbines is putting together a training program for technicians in anticipation of a large power plant it expects to supply. And in West Virginia, a nonprofit outfit called Solar Holler… is working with another group, Coalfield Development, to train solar panel installers and seed an entire industry.” These successful test cases demonstrate that America can work towards renewable energy while also supporting and training workers to transition from fossil fuels to renewables in the same way that America is transitioning.

The claim that renewable energy is a job killer or a drain on our economy is a myth, perpetrated by the fossil-fuel business 🦖 😈 👹 and the politicians 🐒 who do their bidding. Don't fall for it. Renewable energy is the path forward for American jobs and the future of our planet.

https://www.sandersinstitute.com/blog/the-renewable-energy-jobs-myth


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 13, 2018, 04:50:49 pm »

Truthout

July 13, 2018

Bradley Foundation😈🦕🦖 Funds Web of Climate Change Deniers 👹🐒🦍

David Armiak, PR Watch: Bradley Foundation internal documents reviewed by the Center for Media and Democracy reveal a concerted effort by the organization to delegitimize climate science while promoting fossil fuel energy development in the United States.

Read the Article

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 13, 2018, 12:01:54 pm »

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

July 12, 2018



So Close, Yet Still So Far from Reality: Two Deniers Almost Tell the Truth

Denial is never scientifically accurate, but sometimes it’s close. While we enjoy the relative ease of dunking on the obviously wrong, today we’re going to be a little nicer, and look at a couple of examples of deniers 🦕 🦖 who got oh so very close to being right.

Both, oddly enough, are by folks associated with local chapters of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC 🦕), which has received funding from Heartland🦖.

First up: a piece by Viv Forbes 🦕, a career coal guy affiliated with the Australian version of ICSC, published this week in the American Thinker. Forbes argues that the “climate alarm media” misses long-term trends of climate by focusing on short-term weather events. This is, of course, exactly the opposite of reality, but in making this counterfactual point, Forbes lays out a fairly factual description of the natural cycles of the climate system.

Unfortunately for Forbes, he manages to totally gloss over the fact that these natural cycles take hundreds and thousands and hundreds of thousands of years, while the warming humans are causing can be felt in just decades. Forbes’s insistence that human carbon pollution can’t offset the next looming ice age is cold comfort for anyone but readers in the year 3100. 

The second is an essay by Steve Goreham 🦖, a public speaker, Heartland policy advisor and leader of the Climate Science Coalition of America (CSCA) 😈 👹, which is the US arm of the aforementioned ICSC. The piece first appeared in the far right fake news and hate factory WND, then made its way to the Daily Caller, then finally to Heartland’s website

Like Forbes, Goreham flirts with the truth but ends up missing the mark by encouraging his audience to stop saying humans “contribute to climate change.” Goreham complains that from keeping housecats to exhaling, “every human activity contributes to climate change.”

Goreham’s description of the climate system is surprisingly scientifically accurate, touching on the influence of the oceans and aerosols and the like. Even his main point isn’t technically wrong:  he argues that water vapor is the “dominant” greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and that there’s more natural CO2 in the atmosphere than there is from human activity. Goreham therefore concludes that since everything contributes to climate change, not just humans, the term is meaningless and people should stop using it.

We don’t tend to agree with folks we feature here, but Goreham’s not wrong. It’s much more accurate and simple to say that human activity, spec ifically burning fossil fuels, is not contributing to, but causing climate change. We’re responsible for it. We are to blame for it. It’s our fault.

Thanks, Steve! You’re right, just… not in the way you 🦖 meant to be.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 05, 2018, 04:37:23 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: This is the final portion of a post where I address Surly, an Admin at the Doomstead Diner. I have basically had it with Surly's soft spot for the Palloy "Peak Oil caused collapse will save us" hydrocarbon worshiping propagandist BULLSHIT ARTIST.


Palloy mixes hard facts with bullshit seamlessly and you get your drawers in a bunch every time I expose the arrogant bastard for what he truly is!

After the defamatory CRAP he pulled on Dr. Brown, all you could come up with is some lame request for "proof", which he DID NOT PROVIDE, by the way, and you left it right there, rather than ask me if that constituted "proof" (which it did NOT), after putting me in the exact same "don't Ad hom" scolded at position as the routinely defamatory Palloy PEDANT.

I will NO LONGER TOLERATE you coming after me for alleged AD Hominem towards Palloy. I told you loud and clear what a dangerous F U C K he is in PMs. He is pushing a meme that will kill ALL of us, and you, like Palloy, are too bound up in your belief that a lack of hydrocarbons caused collapse will come before environmental catastrophe caused collapse to see that.

Allowing an ASS HOLE like Palloy to keep parading his pseudo-erudite BULLSHIT continually is a testament to EVERYONE HERE's incredibly STUPID world view that is contributing to the AGE OF (hydrocarbon loving) STUPID that is DOOMING human civilization.

GET OFF your "hydrocarbons are needed for civilization" STUPID VIEW, Surly. It IS STUPID.


Here is PROOF that it is STUPID!

Conversation with a Buddhist.

Ka said
Quote
I think it likely that the remaining hegemons will say -- time to withdraw to the Western Hemisphere (except maybe keep the sea lanes open to Nigerian and Angolan oil). If so, then I think the West has better long-term prospects than the East.

I hope you are right. But the MO of the goons (with a CONSISTENT historical track record) in charge that you are totally ignoring makes your wish look more like a prayer than a serious possibility.

THE MO of the neocon has a LONG history. As a scholar, you probably know it better than I do but you JUST DO NOT WANT TO GO THERE. It's time you did.

Let me refresh your memory on how this works:

Richard Nixon was the first (in our country - as far as I know) to espouse the policy of acting super belligerent and crazy as a foreign policy tactic. The purpose is to intimidate the other nation into acting "reasonable" and acceding to our predatory corporate demands RATHER THAN BEING DESTROYED. You need to convince the other nation that you will gladly go beyond the brink even if your economy will be hampered by it! This BULLY policy has gotten more polished but it's still the same basic MO.  Look up some quotes from the Republican speaker of the house (Gingrich). He said NEVER back down. When an opponent attempts to negotiate a settlement agreeable to both, DOUBLE DOWN on the threats. Never admit fault. Never go on the defensive. Always remain on the offensive. THAT is the MO that you want to pretend does not DOMINATE US foreign policy.

The problem with that type of MO is that it leads to WAR if the other party does not back down. It has worked BECAUSE it has been used on WEAK countries for the past few decades. If you think Russia is going to back down here, you just do not understand the situation.

Russia, by the way, STILL has complete underground cities and an extensive plan to survive (as well as possible under the circumstances - they KNOW how to grow food in sealed areas - they did a multiyear study to simulate a closed food system on mars) a full scale nuclear attack. Have you forgotten that?

The people doing this in our country have LOST IT. They aren't PRETENDING to be crazy. They have GONE CRAZY! It's called megalomania born of too many monstrous "successes" like Iraq and 9/11. 

It happened in Germany before WWII. We are there. Only some smart people that can counter them INSIDE our government will avoid WWIII. The neocons BELIEVE, like the crazies Reagan spoke about in the 1980s (you've got to be pretty crazy to be to the right of Reagan!) that "we" can win a nuclear war. They will NOT EVER accept a multi-polar world. That's the reality. We are all in danger as long as they are commanding our government sponsored terrorism.

All that said, I envy your ability to pretend all this is an illusion. That means your stress hormones are probably lower than mine and you will never have heart disease from stress.

I wish it was an illusion. I don't think so. I remember how you claimed Fossil fuels had NOT gamed the playing field against renewable energy in the 1980s as if dirty energy actually WON the cost competition in those days. I gave you all sorts of circumstantial evidence but since it wasn't in the New York Times, I guess you remained unconvinced.

Watch this two minute tape. Accept EVERYTHING on it as true. If you don't, then watch the entire video the clip comes from and you WILL see the evidence for yourself. You were wrong to think fossil fueldom did not screw us back then and continues to screw us now. These people are not stupid; they are evil. But I agree that if this is all an illusion, it does not really matter...

Fossil Fuel Government 2 minute Video Clip FULL VIDEO, "The Age of Stupid": 



corruptio optimi pessima

THIS is not an illusion:


Surly, if you are too enthralled with your concept of "freedom of speech" to see how SUICIDALLY STUPID it is to allow assholes like Palloy to claim the greater problem for human civilization is the "lack of energy from the lack of hydrocarbons", then you, like Palloy, are part of the problem and I am in the wrong forum.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 29, 2018, 07:04:11 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: This Perry POS is definiteliy a student of the Goebbels big lie. Perry probably takes his talking points from Orwell's book, "1984".

Published 11:44 AM ET Tue, 26 June 2018  Updated 1:20 PM ET Tue, 26 June 2018

Energy Sec Rick Perry 🦕 says 'stubborn opposition' to fossil fuels risks keeping billions in poverty


Perry, who casts doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change, says nations should have the right to responsibly use every fuel source.

The oil and natural gas industry has recently opposed Perry's efforts to force power markets to buy energy from failing coal and nuclear power plants.

Tom DiChristopher   | @tdichristopher

https://climatenexus.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=be64b1f5db&e=0fd17c5b57


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 28, 2018, 08:03:01 pm »

Financial Post commentary misleads about warming effect of greenhouse gas emissions by cherry-picking studies

Analysis of "Ross McKitrick: All those warming-climate predictions suddenly have a big, new problem"

Published in Financial Post, by Ross McKitrick on 20 June 2018

Five scientists analyzed the article and estimate its overall scientific credibility to be 'low'. 

A majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Cherry-picking, Misleading.


SCIENTISTS’ FEEDBACK

This opinion published by the Financial Post, written by economist Ross McKitrick, claims that Earth’s climate is much less sensitive to additions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide than climate scientists think. The article further claims that global warming is, therefore, not an important problem—and may even be beneficial.

Scientists who reviewed the article found that this argument is misleading, and relies on ignoring all but a select few of the many studies that exist on this topic. These studies use a particular method for estimating this “equilibrium climate sensitivity” that other research has shown to be problematic. An informed opinion should consider all the scientific lines of evidence available instead of picking the ones that agree with the author’s predetermined conclusion. Taken together, that evidence does not support the article’s argument.

For a detailed summary of what we know about Earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity, see this article at Carbon Brief.

See all the scientists’ annotations in context

REVIEWERS’ OVERALL FEEDBACK

These comments are the overall opinion of scientists on the article, they are substantiated by their knowledge in the field and by the content of the analysis in the annotations on the article.

Reto Knutti, Professor, ETH Zürich:
This is an opinion piece in the “lukewarm” category, arguing that climate models are wrong, future warming will be small, based on carefully selected publications, misleading presentation, and incorrect reporting of the underlying data.

This opinion piece is a completely one-sided and misleading representation of what we know about the long-term response of temperature to greenhouses gases.

Zeke Hausfather, Research Scientist, Berkeley Earth:
This article selectively cherry-picks studies showing low climate sensitivity, leaving out whole lines of evidence (e.g. paleoclimate studies) that agree with the sensitivity estimates found in models. It also glosses over the many criticisms of instrumentally based (or “energy balance”) sensitivity estimates published in recent years.

Patrick Brown, Postdoctoral Research Scientist, Carnegie Institution for Science:
The article makes a big deal about the fact that some methods of estimating equilibrium climate sensitivity tend to give smaller results than others. This is not a new finding and it is not under appreciated in the climate science literature or by the IPCC. The methods for estimating climate sensitivity discussed in the article are already incorporated into the uncertainty ranges of climate sensitivity considered by the IPCC and other assessments. Overall, it is best practice to consider results from a full range of methods and to not focus on the single method that produces the lowest estimate of climate sensitivity.

Mark Zelinka, Research Scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:
Rather than present the Lewis and Curry (2018) study in the context of the multitude of other estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity, the article shows only results from studies using similar approaches that confirm the claim in the title. Such energy budget approaches consistently underestimate climate sensitivity primarily because they rely on a conceptual model of forcing and response that is too simple for the problem at hand, as an explosion of recent literature on the topic has shown. This body of evidence is either dismissed out of hand or ignored entirely in the article.

Andrew Dessler, Professor, Texas A&M University:
This paper misrepresents that state of science. It selectively quotes analyses that support the author’s opinion, while ignoring all contrary evidence. Putting all of the evidence together, there’s no reason to think that climate models are wrong.

Notes:
[1] See the rating guidelines used for article evaluations.
[2] Each evaluation is independent. Scientists’ comments are all published at the same time.

The statements quoted below are from the article; comments and replies are from the reviewers.

Quote
People who study the impacts of global warming have found that if ECS is low — say, less than two — then the impacts of global warming on the economy will be mostly small and, in many places, mildly beneficial. If it is very low, for instance around one, it means greenhouse gas emissions are simply not worth doing anything about.

Patrick Brown, Postdoctoral Research Scientist, Carnegie Institution for Science:
This passage is misleading. It seems to imply that society has already decided to exactly double CO2 concentrations and has committed to emitting no further greenhouse gasses after that. If that were the case, then we could in fact assess climate change impacts in the manner done here.

However, society is far from committing to stabilizing CO2 concentrations at “only” twice their preindustrial levels. We may go well beyond that. In that case, lower equilibrium climate sensitivity just means that it takes longer to reach a given level of warming. So even if climate sensitivity turns out to be very low, all the worst impacts could still be realized—they would just be delayed.

Quote
We may not be able to stop it, but we’d better get ready to adapt to it.

Patrick Brown, Postdoctoral Research Scientist, Carnegie Institution for Science:
The magnitude of equilibrium climate sensitivity has nothing to do with whether or not we can stop climate change. Global temperatures will stabilize when the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses stabilize. So regardless of the climate sensitivity value, we can “stop” climate change by stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations.

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/financial-post-commentary-misleads-warming-effect-greenhouse-gas-emissions-cherry-picking-studies-ross-mckitrick/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 27, 2018, 11:05:47 pm »

BY FORMER REP. BOB INGLIS, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

06/25/18

Climate change disputers 🦖 are actually innovation pessimists 😈
   
Climate action is being blocked more by pessimism about innovation than skepticism about causation. Scratch a climate skeptic, and you’ll find an innovation pessimist. They don’t believe it can be done. Overwhelmed by the scale of the problem, they assume that we can’t change our trajectory. Secretly, they’re depressed about it. They need hope.

Had these pessimists been in the stadium at Rice University in September of 1962, they might have chanted “No way” when President Kennedy said of the Mariner spacecraft then on its way to Venus, “The accuracy of that shot is comparable to firing a missile from Cape Canaveral and dropping it in this stadium between the 40-yard lines.”

Innovation pessimists are right to point out that the drive for innovation was more immediate and more visible in 1962. The Soviet’s launch of Sputnik had raised the specter of a goose-stepping, hostile power in control of space. We were unified, and our response was completely within our control.
 
Climate change crawls and creeps; it doesn’t goose step. Addressing it requires a coordinated global response, and innovation pessimists are right to doubt the ability of the United Nations and the ability of the regulatory state to solve the problem.

But the innovation pessimists are missing the dynamism that comes from the internalization of negative externalities, and they’re underestimating the strength of the American market.

Internalizing negative externalities involves adding the health and climate damages to the price of fossil fuels. This accountability would shatter the illusion that energy from fossil fuels is cheap. In a transparent, accountable energy market, consumers — not regulators, not mandates, not fickle tax incentives — would drive demand for clean energy. Entrepreneurs would race to supply that demand, and we’d power our lives with the fuels of the future.

Most simply, this could be accomplished through a carbon tax applied at the mine and at the pipeline. The revenue raised from the carbon tax should then be returned to taxpayers in cuts to existing taxes or in the form of dividend checks to ensure no growth of government.

The strength of the American market would become evident when we applied our carbon tax to imports from countries lacking the same price on carbon dioxide. This border adjustment would entice our trading partners to enact their own carbon taxes. Why pay a tax on entry into the U.S. when you could have paid that same tax to your home country, enabling your goods to enter the U.S. without a carbon tax adjustment?

If innovation pessimists need hope, there’s a further category that needs correction. They’re innovation opponents. They’re 🦖 vested politically or financially in fossil fuels. They don’t want a level playing field. They don’t want transparency. Sometimes they even conjure up national security arguments so that the fossils 🦖 can continue to socialize their soot.
 


Such is the case with Secretary of Energy Rick Perry.
It was reported earlier this month that the Department of Energy has reached back to the Cold War-era Defense Production Act to draft a plan that would enable the DOE to direct operators to purchase electricity from coal and nuclear facilities that are at risk of retirement.

There’s no red army getting ready to invade. The army marching on coal is natural gas. While, there may be an argument for continuing subsidies for emission-less nuclear power, there’s no argument for favoring dirtier-burning coal over cleaner-burning natural gas.

Had innovation opponents like Perry been in the Rice stadium that day in 1962, they would have gone beyond pessimism toward the innovation speech of the century — they would have tried to scramble the signal from the microphone.

They would have wanted to silence the credo of American exceptionalism spoken by Kennedy: “Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it — we mean to lead it.”

Backwash indeed: frozen piles of coal, coal ash slurries, mountain top removal, asthma and other lung diseases, climate damages. Innovation is not your friend if you’re wed to the past or if you’ve made promises you can’t keep to people🦖 who trusted you to protect them from a future that you cannot hold back.

To the innovation pessimists, we can offer hope. To the innovation opponents 🐉🦕, we must offer correction.

Former Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) directs republicEn.org, a community committed to free enterprise action on climate change. He served in Congress from 1993-1999 and 2005-2011.

This piece has been updated.

http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/393718-climate-change-disputers-are-actually-innovation-pessimists
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 19, 2018, 09:33:42 pm »


"IT'S A SCAM!!!" Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's BRILLIANT Takedown of the Koch Brothers🦕🦖 & Donald Trump 🦀


Dose of Dissonance

Published on Apr 24, 2018

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse delivers a fiery speech on the corrupting influence of "creepy billionaires!" BUY TRUMP TOILET PAPER! http://amzn.to/2Fe08tb (Affiliate Link)

Support Dose of Dissonance's mission @ https://www.patreon.com/DoseofDissonance
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 06, 2018, 11:16:00 pm »



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

June 6, 2018



A More Inclusive Climate Movement Is Bad, Says Kochy 🦕 Dark Money Director

Yesterday, the Kochs announced that brother David, due to health reasons, would be stepping down from Koch Industries and Americans for Prosperity. Unfortunately, that probably does not mean the vast network of Koch interests will stop trying to influence the public.

For example, an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal yesterday carried on the Koch’s message--but, of course, without any disclosure of the Koch money behind its author. The piece by Steven Hayward argued that “climate change is no longer a pre-eminent policy issue,” based on a handful of seemingly random reasons.

By way of introduction, Hayward seems like a ramblin’ man, having bounced around from Ashland University, Georgetown U, UC-Boulder, and Pepperdine. He is now a resident scholar at Berkeley where he co-teaches a course formerly taught by a grad student. While Hayward’s academic career has careened all over the place, he has been consistent in working with Koch affiliated groups. He was a fellow at the conspiracy theorist’s nightmare Mont Pelerin society, the Pacific Research Institute, Heritage, AEI,  and is currently treasurer and on the board of directors at the dark money group Donors Capital.

Of course the WSJ doesn’t disclose to its readers that Hayward is a career Kocher, instead only listing his position at Berkeley. But the content of his op-ed advances the Koch party line that the left politicized climate change and now no one cares about it.

Hayward’s argument is, from the start, dumb. He claims climate is “no longer a pre-eminent policy issue,” and that now only “boilerplate rhetoric from the political class, frivolous nuisance lawsuits, and bureaucratic mandates” supports renewables. But, uh, doesn’t the fact that politicians are talking about it so often it’s boilerplate, and introducing bureaucratic mandates to fight it, kind of indicate that climate and clean energy still an issue?

Not to mention how the various #StillIn coalitions are only gaining in momentum, and how corporations are so terrified of those supposedly frivolous lawsuits that they’re launching projects to push back on them.

Then Hawyard blows an alt-right dog whistle by claiming the Paris Agreement’s inclusion of gender equality and intergenerational equity is “a good indicator of why climate change as an issue is over.” His second supposed proof point is how U-Washington climate scientist Sarah Myhre said that climate change can’t be addressed without also addressing misogyny. Myhre’s had plenty of experience dealing with trolls like Hayward, so instead of dealing with his attacks, we’ll just point out that an issue becoming elevated and intertwined with other salient issues that are part of the larger social zeitgeist is hardly a sign that it’s fading away.

Hayward concludes that the left politicized the climate issue-- apparently because certain climate funders didn’t pour money down the sinkhole of nuclear power--so it deserves to “die by politics.”

But as we all know, it wasn’t the left that used the campaign contribution possibilities opened by Citizens United to primary out Republican Bob Inglis in the 2010 election cycle for talking about climate change.

That was the Kochs. Who, unsurprisingly, Hayward has spent a career serving. As he, and others, will likely continue to for years to come, living out the Koch’s shameful legacy.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 24, 2018, 08:16:39 pm »

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

May 24, 2018



Climate Change Versus the Volcano

Fissures have been opening in Hawaii’s Kilauea volcano this month, forcing hundreds from their homes, spewing lava 300 feet into the air, and generating images straight out of a late-90s action movie. A few days ago, the Big Island’s most active volcano was the subject of a NBC MACH video entitled “What the Mt. Kilauea eruptions mean for climate change”.

Volcanic eruptions can have an impact on the global climate. For example, Mt. Pinatubo’s massive eruption in 2001, referenced in the NBC video, cooled average global temperatures by 1°F over 15 months. The eruption spewed 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, which blocked solar radiation.

So what’s the issue with this video? ??? Well, as multiple scientists helpfully pointed out on Twitter, the science  ;) in the video is less solid than hot, molten lava. Though NBC quotes one volcanologist, the relationship between the volcanic impacts he cites and climate science are a bit fissured. ;D


First, the video says that volcanoes emit CFCs, which deplete the ozone layer and cause warming. It also claims that rapid global warming since 2014 could have been caused by the eruption of the Bardarbunga volcano in Iceland (with no real explanation for this conclusion).

There are a bunch of issues here, which Gavin Schmidt breaks down in one tweet:

֍ - Neither Kilauea nor Bardarbunga are/were emitting any SO2 or HCl into the stratosphere

֍ - There are no CFCs involved at all

֍ - Neither had any impact on stratospheric ozone

֍ - Even if they had, the resulting ozone depletion would cause a slight *cooling*! 👀

Andrew Dessler puts it even more simply: “So much in that video piece was wrong. It would have been great if they'd done some basic fact checking before producing it.”

But since they didn’t, perhaps this video is best left unwatched, and instead flushed down the lava-tory.  ;D
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 23, 2018, 10:10:32 pm »


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

May 23, 2018

Pruitt doing what he does. 🤬

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 22, 2018, 05:03:59 pm »


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

May 21, 2018

This]network of like-minded fundersthen manufactured an entire ecosystem of pseudo-academics producing white papers and holding conferences and the like, with the intent to establish as a real theory and not just far-right daydreams the idea that the government is actually bad for people, because the public should be free to choose to get ripped off by corporations.[

To be fair to CEI, it would be nice if dishwashers could get the job done faster, and more efficiently. But instead of calling on manufacturers to improve their products through Good Old American Innovation, CEI would rather just have the government loosen the rules.

Because the right’s obsession with personal responsibility only applies to people, not corporations. And it’s not like corporations are people too, right?    

Absolutely brilliant summary, AG. Thanks.

💐 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 21, 2018, 09:56:35 pm »

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-21/man-killed-after-tesla-model-s-crashes-castro-valley-pond
Man Killed After Tesla Model S Crashes Into Pond
Tyler Durden
05/21/2018

In the third fatal crash involving a Tesla Model S in just the last two weeks, after a "horrific" Ft. Lauderdale crash killed two teens who were trapped in the burning sarcophagus after the car's batteries exploded, and just days after another model S also burned to a crisp also tragically trapping its driver on a highway in Switzerland, a 34-year-old man was killed when his Tesla Model S drove into a San Francisco-area pond Sunday night and his body ended up being recovered early Monday morning; the fatal crash closed a portion of Crow Canyon Road in Castro Valley, according to the California Highway Patrol.

    CHP: Adult man was behind wheel of #Tesla Model S sedan when he lost control, broke through fence and landed in pond along Crow Canyon Road. No one else in car besides driver. No ID yet. #AlamedaCounty @nbcbayarea pic.twitter.com/DCm4YONxrX
    — Bob Redell (@BobNBC) May 21, 2018

    The driver of a Tesla broke through a white fence, went up an embankment, into the air, through a tall wooden sign and 65’ into a pond. Divers found his body overnight. #AlamedaCounty @nbcbayarea pic.twitter.com/8nH4ZC3Hzr
    — Bob Redell (@BobNBC) May 21, 2018

According to KTVU and NBC, Alameda County Sheriff's Sgt. Ray Kelly identified the driver as Keith Leung, 34, of Danville.

    Coroner has identified Tesla driver as Keith Leung, a 34 yo man from Danville. A business card found at the scene indicates he was a freelance musician who played bassoon. pic.twitter.com/VSnTTZceew
    — Bob Redell (@BobNBC) May 21, 2018

Based on preliminary evidence, the driver, who has been identified as Danville resident Keith Leung, appeared to veer from Crow Canyon Road just south of Bollinger Canyon Road, smash through a fence and crash into the pond, authorities said. Leung's body and the car were pulled from the water early Monday.

"The vehicle was severly damaged...This is something again that is very tragic," CHP Officer Daniel Jacowitz said according to NBC. "The driver really didn't stand a chance in a way on this. It's sad. It really is."

The pond, site of the deadly crash, is shown below:





A property owner heard the Tesla, driving northbound on Crow Canyon Road, just before 8 p.m. on Sunday, according to CHP Officer Daniel Jacowitz. He called 911 and when he came outside he saw damage to his fence and tire tracks leading up to the pond.

    One man is dead after he crashes his Tesla Model S through a fence off Crow Canyon Road and it submerged in a pond. No other vehicles suspected as being involved. - CHP Castro Valley. .@KTVU pic.twitter.com/udpgBio3D4
    — Leigh Martinez (@LeighMartinezTV) May 21, 2018

Nine members of the Alameda County Sheriff’s rescue team went into the pond about 10 p.m. and found the driver, still sitting upright in the driver's seat, Jacowitz said. He was pulled out and declared dead at the scene about 5:30 a.m. "It's really tragic," Jacowitz said.

However, CHP officers did acknowledge that this stretch of road is a problem area and they conduct enforcement there on a regular basis.  The speed limit ranges from 35 mph to 55 mph and officers say they have cited people for going as fast as 75 mph.



Neighbors have regularly complained that they can’t get out of their drive ways because vehicle are driving so fast.

Jacowitz added that Leung would have had to have been driving more than posted speed limit of 35 mph to have gone airborne and fly the distance it did.

“The vehicle was submerged...trees in the water made it difficult to tow it out,” said CHP Sgt. Michael Novosel.

Of course, Tesla did not respond to a request for comment by KTVU on Monday as the company will first issue a press release explaining just how safe the auto pilot makes its increasingly deadly crashes a thing of the past.

NHTSA said that  "gathering information" on the fatal pond crash "and will take action as appropriate."

    .@NHTSAgov says it is "gathering information" on fatal California Tesla crash into pond "and will take action as appropriate"
    — David Shepardson (@davidshepardson) May 21, 2018

It is not clear if alcohol or drugs played a role in the crash. It is also unclear if Leung was speeding or if autopilot features were engaged at the time of the crash. As the aerial photo of the crash site shows, there are no road markings on the right side of the road below, which is probably why the autopilot got confused, lost control and headed straight into the pond.




This is what happens when you go too fast in a car on a dangerous country road. The fact that it was an EV made by Tesla is irrelevant.

Agelbert NOTE: Any person with an elementary knowledge of physics can see that the Tesla in that crash was going too fast. Although the hysterical electric car haters are trying to blame it on the autopilot or whatever, it's really rather obvious that ANY car going very fast on that road (that you aren't supposed to go above 35 mph on) would crash into the pond. Considering the car had to travese the ramp up in soil before leaping into the air prior to hitting the pond, it is blatantly obvious that this vehicle was traveling at very high speed. If you blame Tesla instead of the driver, you are worthy of pity as well as requiring a course in elementary physics.  Eddie is right about disdaining stuffed shirt types who pretend they are the only one privy to extensive knowledge of science for the purpose of lecturing everyone else. 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 21, 2018, 09:19:48 pm »

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

May 21, 2018

Trump 🦀 Trashes Climate Targets for Federal Agencies
The Trump administration has rescinded an Obama-era policy requiring federal agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. An executive order signed late last week that instructs agencies to prioritize energy efficiency and reduce waste and costs also rescinds a 2015 executive order, which set a goal of reducing the federal government's greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent over a decade. The 2015 order also tasked agencies with using clean energy as 25 percent of their energy needs and reduce building energy use by 2.5 percent per year. The new Trump executive order makes no mention of climate change, does not require agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and does not set specific energy efficiency goals.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/388293-trump-repeals-obama-policy-asking-federal-agencies-to-reduce


EPA Undoes Safety Regulations For Chemical Plants 😡

EPA chief Scott Pruitt 👹 moved last week to rescind Obama-era chemical safety regulations intended to reduce the risk of disasters at chemical plants, saying the rules pose "unnecessary regulatory burdens" on industry. The Obama administration put together the Chemical Disaster Rule in response to a 2013 explosion at a chemical plant that killed 15, injured 260 and damaged 150 buildings in the small town of West, Texas. Groups like the American Chemistry Council and American Petroleum Institute aggressively lobbied the Trump administration to roll back the rule, prompting Pruitt to issue a stay on the rule's implementation last year. "With all due respect to Scott Pruitt, he’s never lost 15 firefighter friends," West's mayor Tommy Muska told the Austin American-Statesman. "I’m as pro-business as anyone, but some things are way, way, way more important than too much regulation, and that includes the safety of these chemical plants."
https://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/frustration-west-after-epa-does-away-with-chemical-plant-rules/IWeohabTs04AG3cAlZk17L/


Investors Put on Pressure Ahead of Shareholder Votes

Dozens of global investors called on the oil and gas industry Friday to take more action to tackle climate change. In an open letter published in the Financial Times, 60 investors, who collectively oversee almost $10.5 trillion of the world's assets, called on the oil and gas industry to "be more transparent and take responsibility for all its emissions." The letter comes ahead of several annual shareholder meetings, including a Tuesday meeting where Royal Dutch Shell shareholders will vote on a resolution requiring the company to set specific emissions reductions targets.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-funds-climatechange/oil-gas-industry-needs-to-do-more-on-climate-change-investors-idUSKCN1IJ1DP




CEI’s 🐉 Next Big Target is Apparently Big Dishwasher   

The industry-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute 😈 is out with a new campaign, urging its followers to submit public comments on an issue of vital importance to the national discourse.

CEI has set up a microsite making it easy to submit a form letter to the federal register, letting Rick Perry and the Department of Energy know about a grave injustice.

A blog post by CEI’s Devin Watkins directing readers to the site makes it clear that CEI is concerned with the issues that most impact real Americans: slow, energy-efficient dishwashers. Yes, dishwasherchoice.com is a real thing that actually exists.

For the cost of handing over your name, email, phone number and address for CEI to spam you with, you too can send a generic email as a public comment complaining that your energy-efficient dishwasher doesn’t use enough water or power.

Now, if Perry is anything like Zinke when it comes to public comments, he’ll probably ignore these responses anyway. But on the off chance he’s reading, CEI would like him to know that they have very serious concerns about dishwashers being too efficient, and would please like people to have higher energy bills and consume more water. 

Jokes aside, this is a prime example of how “choice” is used by conservatives 😈 as a rhetorical tool to cast inferior products as somehow preferable. In this case, CEI thinks consumers should be able to choose to buy less efficient dishwashers. In other cases, conservatives use “choice” as a way to insist the public should be subject to predatory loans, as in last year’s “Financial Choice Act.” 🦀 During the healthcare debate last year, conservatives floated a “Consumer Choice Act” to allow consumers to buy healthcare plans that didn’t meet ACA standards--plans they barely offered any coverage at all.



This rhetorical ruse--using choice as a code for letting companies rip people off--can be traced back to the “public choice theory” popularized by James Buchanan , a history richly retold in Nancy Maclean’s Democracy in Chains. It’s a story of how fringe economists supplied a convenient narrative for corporations (and racists) who wanted to roll back regulations on their products (and to fight federal desegregation efforts in schools.) The monied interests installed Buchanan and his contemporaries at universities using big donations to set up economic centers.


Which, if you’ve been paying attention to the Koch’s George Mason influence 🦖, should sound pretty familiar.

This network of like-minded funders 🦖 then manufactured an entire ecosystem of pseudo-academics, producing white papers and holding conferences and the like, with the intent to establish as a real theory and not just far-right daydreams the idea that the government is actually bad for people, because the public should be free to choose to get ripped off by corporations.

To be fair to CEI, it would be nice if dishwashers could get the job done faster, and more efficiently. But instead of calling on manufacturers to improve their products through Good Old American Innovation, CEI would rather just have the government loosen the rules.

Because the right’s obsession with personal responsibility only applies to people, not corporations. And it’s not like corporations are people too, right?    
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 16, 2018, 04:48:28 pm »

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

May 16, 2018



Why Is It Only Fossil Fueled Pundits 
Criticize Electric Cars?

There seems to be no shortage of deceptive attacks on electric vehicles, whether from the GOP’s opposition research arm or the Koch brothers themselves. The latest attempt to malign EVs is a report released Monday, which claims increased adoption of EVs will actually increase air pollution. Multiple reports in the past have come to the opposite conclusion--so what makes this one different?

For starters, the “Short Circuit” report was published by the Koch (and Mercer , and Big Tobacco ) and Exxon-funded Manhattan institute, and authored by Jonathan Lesser  , an energy industry consultant with a history 😈 of doing utility and industry bidding and a long track record of anti-climate action writing. With these credentials, it’s not exactly surprising that the report advocates against EV subsidies.

What is surprising is that Politico gave Lesser space to promote the report--without any disclosure of his energy industry 🦖 clients or the Manhattan Institute’s fossil fuel funding. Instead, Lesser’s consultancy is described as “an economic and regulatory consulting firm 😇”   in his Politico byline. This sounds a lot more innocent than the blurb on his LinkedIn profile, which discloses that he provides “services to clients in he [sic] energy industry.”

Lesser’s 👹 full CV provides a little more detail on those energy industry clients 🐉🦕 🦖, which include Shell, Exelon, various state-based gas and utility companies, and the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, an anti-wind farm group with a Koch brother as its chairman.

As for the report itself, the topline findings are that people buying electric cars instead of new gas powered autos will actually increase particulate matter , sulfur and nitrous oxide pollution (the American Lung Association says otherwise), that EVs will only reduce CO2 emissions a little (not true), and that subsidies are unfair because only rich people can afford EVs. 


Please forgive us, then, for not wasting our time and yours by digging into the report to find just where and how Lesser has cooked the books to produce the counterintuitive click-bait headline that EV subsidies are bad. And it beggars belief that anyone would actually believe that the Manhattan Institute 👹, funded by conservative billionaires 🦀💵 🎩, actually cares about economic inequality, given that it 😈 has argued that “there is little evidence we should” even try to reduce economic inequality.

To sum up, this report is written by a man whose career is built on fossil fuel consulting, published by a group built with fossil fuel money, arguing cars that don’t use fossil fuels are bad. For some reason, Politico only thought that third part was relevant for its readers. 

But would you trust the findings of that report Lesser more than all the others showing the opposite?


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: May 15, 2018, 09:11:25 pm »

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

May 15,2018




With Congressional Funds as Paint, the Wash Examiner 🐉 Greenwashes Trump 🦀
 

The Washington Examiner is a DC-focused outlet owned by a conservative billionaire (who also happens to own the influential conservative opinion magazine Weekly Standard--which, judging by a recent editorial, seems to be as sick of Pruitt as we are). The Examiner tends to show its conservative hand in its coverage of climate, but also hasn’t given deniers the free rein that many of its counterparts in the right-wing media sphere have. And unlike the Wall Street Journal’s stark divide between fair reporting in its newsroom and denier-controlled hysteria on its editorial board, the Examiner’s opinion page is more balanced: it recently ran an editorial about California’s rooftop solar rule that’s a spitting image of the Journal’s, but also gave space to an op-ed by the Defenders of Wildlife criticizing Trump’s Arctic drilling plan.

But on Sunday, the Examiner went past its regular bias with a story claiming that “Trump is a lot greener than you think he is.” The piece uses a greenwashing framing one would expect Trump’s PR team to churn out, trumpeting Trump’s claims that he is “to a large extent, an environmentalist.” Unsurprisingly, the story fails to live up to its headline.

The focus of the piece is the flurry of research and development funding coming out of the Department of Energy. We’re apparently supposed to be impressed that unlike the Trump cabinet members who seek to entirely dismantle their agency and hand it over to the industry they’re supposed to regulate (Pruitt, DeVos, Zinke), Rick Perry is, by contrast, working to really advance energy innovation.

The greatest sin of the piece is one of omission. Nothing is said about all the ways Trump is hurting the environment, or how his administration chooses to ignore or suppress information about public health and the environment.

Instead, the Examiner piece argues, Trump should get green credit because DOE is giving out money for clean coal, nuclear, and yes renewables. One could weigh the potential merits of funding renewables while also keeping the fossil fuel industry alive, or whether or not carbon capture and sequestration, if successful, would actually make coal clean. But that’s not what the piece does, and really not even necessary for anyone paying attention.

The fact of the matter is that the DOE has been dispersing funds--but it’s despite, not because, of Trump’s presidency. The Examiner piece is lengthy, but barely touches on the fact that Trump’s proposed budgets have absolutely gutted DOE’s renewable funding. Turns out Congress are the real heroes here, as they reinstated credits for renewables. Republicans, of course, aren’t going to turn down money for their districts--and clean energy rightly enjoys overwhelming bipartisan popularity across the country.

The Examiner piece praises the ARPA-E funding for clean energy, but Trump’s proposed budget zeroed out funding for ARPA-E. Despite the Examiner’s attempt at spin, the facts speak for themselves: overall, Trump’s 2019 proposed budget reduced clean energy and energy efficiency funding by 72 percent, while upping funding for fossil fuel programs.

Just like Trump’s 🦀 claims to be an environmentalist , the Examiner’s 😈 claim that he’s greener than we think turns an ugly, dirty brown after even the briefest examination.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 11, 2018, 02:32:38 pm »

CleanTechnica
Support CleanTechnica’s work via donations on Patreon or PayPal!

Or just go buy a cool t-shirt, cup, baby outfit, bag, or hoodie.


Fox News 😈 Slams California Rooftop Solar Initiative With Lies, Half-Truths, & Distortions


May 10th, 2018 by Steve Hanley

The California Energy Commission has mandated that most new residential structures — single family homes, condominium complexes, and apartment buildings — have rooftop solar systems beginning in 2020. While most people who care about the Earth are applauding the move, Fox News has greeted the decision with derision and scorn.

Amber Beck, a spokesperson for the California Energy Commission, says, “For residential homeowners, based on a 30-year mortgage, the Energy Commission estimates that the standards will add about $40 to an average monthly payment, but save consumers $80 on monthly heating, cooling, and lighting bills. On average, the 2019 standards will increase the cost of constructing a new home by about $9,500 but will save $19,000 in energy and maintenance costs over 30 years.”

It didn’t take Faux News long to find someone with a gloomier view. Brian Dahle, the Republican leader of the California Assembly, told the alleged news organization, “That’s just going to drive the cost up and make California, once again, not affordable to live.” Yup. You betcha. In a state where the average single-family home costs $479,000 and the typical monthly mortgage with principal and interest is $2,334, that extra $40 a month is going to be a deal breaker for most folks. (And the long-term savings don’t matter.)

Then Fox News dug up a quote from Bill Watt, a homebuilder and former president of the Orange County Building Industry Association. He tells The Orange County Register the added solar panel costs, in addition to other building mandates, will make home ownership out of reach for many buyers. “We’re not building enough housing already. Why not just pause for a little while, focus on the affordability and housing issues, then circle back?”


Robert Raymer, technical director of the California Building Industry Association, gave a tepid endorsement to the new policy. “[W]e would prefer that this had been put off for a few more years, but the fact is that the California Energy Commission has been working on this, with us, for the past 10 years. We know this is coming. We did everything we could to push down compliance costs and increase design flexibility.” In other words, they did everything they could to slow walk the process as much as possible, delaying the inevitable every step of the way, and increasing emissions in the process.

Brooke Singman , who purports to be a journalist, larded her Fox News story with this memorable line: “The solar panel decision is just the latest example of what critics see as the state’s ever-evolving nanny-state policies. California often is at the leading edge of government mandates and bans, having recently prohibited everything from plastic bags to foie gras – and even flirting with phasing out internal combustion engines.” Foie gras? Oh, the horror!

Then, as if to establish her bona fides, she dredged up the Solyndra debacle, an idea everyone was for before they were against it. “The mandate is the latest win for the solar industry, despite past controversies tied to companies’ use of taxpayer funds. The most notorious example was California company Solyndra, which filed for bankruptcy in 2011. An Energy Department inspector general report in 2015 said the company misrepresented facts in order to secure a $535 million loan guarantee from the federal government. Taxpayer lost most of that money in the deal.”

Conservatives Reactionaries have never met a handout to fossil fuel companies 🦖 or the military 🦍 they didn’t like.
Those taxpayer-funded gifts cost hundreds of billions of dollars each and every year. But money to jump start the US solar industry so America could begin to wean itself off oil? Hang the bastards! Tar and feather ’em! Have them drawn and quartered at sunrise and then keel-hauled around the fleet!

Having thoroughly poisoned the minds of her readers, Singman tosses out this throwaway line at the very bottom of her journalistic tour de farce: “The new California measure would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 700,000 metric tons over three years, according to the commission. The Energy Commission said this would be equivalent to taking 115,000 cars off the road.”

Oh. With such fairly unbalanced diatribes soaking into the brains of its readers and viewers every day, it is little wonder that Donald Trump is pushing the world to the brink of World War III with his unhinged policies while his “base” cheers. In a perfect world, Fox News would be declared a terrorist organization and its rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth adherents deported. Then America could truly begin the task of becoming great once again.

Hat tip to Dan Allard

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/05/10/fox-news-slams-california-rooftop-solar-initiative-with-lies-half-truths-distortions/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 10, 2018, 02:21:56 pm »

Union of Concerned Scientists

May 10, 2018

This Just In

Scientists React

Over the years, fossil fuel companies have poured their resources into lobbying politicians, attacking scientists, funding biased studies…and producing deceptive ad campaigns. These slick advertisements are piped into our living rooms to convince us that only fossil fuels can support our way of life, that oil is clean, and that it’s solely individuals like us and our lifestyles, not these companies and their well-funded efforts to block sensible policies, who are responsible for climate change. We asked UCS scientists Dr. Astrid Caldas and Dr. Gretchen Goldman to react to some recent oil industry advertisements—watch their reactions.


Who is ExxonMobil? 🦖 ExxonMobil is one of the largest producers of oil and gas. They also have the distinction of being one of the major players in efforts to fund and implement campaigns to deceive the public about climate change.

Let’s break down some of the claims in Exxon’s Energy Lives Here advertisement

Quote
“If we could see energy, what would we see?” ExxonMobil asks.
Great question! If the energy comes from fossil fuels—oil, coal, and natural gas—we would see air pollution harming our health, extreme heat, drought, sea-level rise, and other climate impacts caused by carbon pollution, and we would see the disproportionate impacts on communities of color, low-income communities, and tribal communities.

Let’s talk jobs.

The ad heralds jobs in the fossil fuel industry, when in fact more than 500,000 people work in solar, wind, hydro, bioenergy, and geothermal energy. The energy efficiency sector alone employs more than two million people—double the number of people directly employed in the oil, coal, and gas industries in 2016, according to the Department of Energy.
Quote

“Using energy responsibly has never been more important,” ExxonMobil states with earnest concern.
We couldn’t agree more. Yet ExxonMobil borrows tactics from the playbook of the tobacco industry—hardly a model of corporate responsibility. ExxonMobil’s own scientists warned about the risks of burning oil and gas in the late 1970s. Management chose to ignore those warnings and continued pursuing fossil fuel extraction unabated, while spreading climate science disinformation and downplaying the risks of fossil fuels. To this day, they still mislead the public about the harm of their product.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/scientists-react#.WvSLp4gvw2w
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 30, 2018, 10:07:47 pm »

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

April 30, 2018




Morano 👹 Thrilled His Book Is Apparently Outselling 50 Year-Old Book

CFACT’s Marc Morano is very proud of his book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.” Last Thursday, he scored an 18 minute interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network’s Pat Robertson 😈 (who once suggested Disney World’s “Gay Days” could incite God to hit Orlando with hurricanes.) At the EPA’s scientific “transparency” policy announcement earlier this week, Morano gave a copy to Scott Pruitt (who, of course, needs no help being incorrect).

All this publicity among those who are looking for advice on how to be wrong about climate change is paying off. According to an email blast sent to CFACT’s subscribers last week, Morano’s book is currently outselling Rachel Carson’s seminal 1962 work, “Silent Spring”.

Carson’s series of New Yorker articles-turned-book on the impacts of widespread pesticide use is widely considered a catalyst for the rise of the modern environmental movement, and is credited as helping to bring environmental concerns into the mainstream. It’s also a book published 56 years ago. Last we checked, surpassing current sales of works published five decades ago isn’t exactly a major accomplishment.

Then, of course, there’s the matter of who’s actually buying Morano’s screed. After all, bulk purchasing is a tried and true method of gaming these sorts of lists, where marketers, book clubs or groups with an interest in a book’s topic buy in bulk then resell at a significant discount.

You may remember this from the 2015 pseudo-scandal in which the New York Times kept Ted Cruz’s book off its bestseller list because they found “the overwhelming preponderance of evidence was that sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases.” Campaign finance filings later revealed that Cruz’s campaign spent $122,000 on copies of his book. 

Though this sort of bulk purchasing is an all-too-common nonpartisan marketing ploy, this was hardly the first time conservatives bought in bulk (see right-wing talk show host Mark Levin’s 2014 book, which got a boost from a $400,000 purchase from the Republican Senate Conservatives Fund). We know climate deniers are undoubtedly well aware of the strategy of bulk buying and distribution: last year Heartland sent 25,000 science teachers its climate denial propaganda.

But the idea’s been around for years. Back in 2007, a group of conservative authors sued conservative printing house Regnery Publishing, alleging it was "selling their books at a steep discount to book clubs and other organizations owned by the same parent company.” And by donating the books or otherwise selling at a discount, Regnery was stiffing the authors out of their royalties. (Per their contract, the dispute was settled by arbitration, which found in Regnery’s favor.)

And who published Morano’s book?

Because there are no coincidences in climate denial: Regnery Publishing.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 09, 2018, 08:04:13 pm »

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

April 9, 2018




Milloy 🦖 Tries to Defend Pruitt 🦀 by Attacking Dems

Deniers rushed to Scott Pruitt’s defense over the last week as scandals continued to emerge and members of Congress called for his resignation. But, unsurprisingly, none of their arguments made much sense.
 
One of these deniers was Steve Milloy, former director of the self-professed largest privately-owned coal producer in the United States. In his latest Junk Science piece, Milloy complains that it isn’t fair to criticize Pruitt more harshly than the three most recent Democratic EPA administrators, who broke public records laws.
 
Let’s unpack that.
 
Milloy points out that Carol Browner, EPA administrator under Clinton, had her hard drive erased on her last day in office. Upon closer googling, it turns out the drive was erased by a contractor, and government lawyers said it was part of the process of transitioning between administrations. Milloy completely fails to mention the reason the act was notable at all: the same day the drive was erased, a judge had ordered the EPA to preserve all records relating to a specific lawsuit filed the previous fall (some of which were presumably on the hard drive). The Washington Post reported that government lawyers believed “the erasure of her hard drive occurred before Lamberth's order was signed,” so it’s unclear whether Browner broke the law at all.
 
Milloy also reminds us that Lisa Jackson, the first EPA administrator under Obama, hid emails from FOIA requests by sending them under the fake name “Richard Windsor.” The New York Times reported that Jackson said she “used the second account because her public email address was widely known.” EPA Associate Administrator Arvin Ganesan confirmed, explaining that for “nearly two decades EPA administrators have managed the agency with two email accounts” because one is publicly available on the website. While we agree secret email addresses can cause quite a bit of trouble, there was an inquiry into this and nothing juicy was ever found.
 
Next, Milloy turns his attention to Gina McCarthy, who, he writes, “simply deleted 5,000 text messages rather than turn them over for public scrutiny.” Of course, Milloy doesn’t mention that when Lamar Smith 🦕 subpoenaed McCarthy for the texts, the Obama administration actually produced them — along with all her phone records dating back to her arrival at the agency in 2009.
 
Still hungry after all those nothing burgers?  ;D

Try as he might, Milloy fails to make Pruitt’s behavior seem excusable. Sorry Steve, but at this point, it just may not be possible to save the EPA administrator from himself.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 06, 2018, 02:31:50 pm »

With climate change, fake news is old news

BY TIM LYDON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 04/05/18 02:00 PM EDT
   
For the last three decades the greatest disinformation campaign of our time convinced millions of Americans to reject the fairly basic science of greenhouse gas pollution. Like earlier tobacco campaigns, the simple purpose is protecting sales of industry products, in this case coal, oil and gas.


Increasingly, science and fact-based journalism show industry has long promoted a blend of fake news and biased reporting to undermine acceptance of climate science. Research last year from Harvard University analyzed over 180 climate-related documents published by ExxonMobil between 1977 and 2014. It showed the firm issued dozens of news-worthy statements dismissive of climate change while, simultaneously, company scientists quietly affirmed the threat. Engineers even began adapting drilling infrastructure for rising seas and other anticipated changes. The LA Times reported similar findings, sparking protests and the hashtag #Exxonknew.

But ExxonMobil is hardly alone. Increasingly, reports describe fossil fuel industry funding of conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, and others known for peddling skepticism on climate science. Their custom-crafted messages enter news cycles via conservative politicians and sympathetic media outlets. Or in the case of the Heartland Institute, supported by Peabody Energy and other coal giants, by erecting billboards likening climate scientists to serial killer Ted Kaczynski.

Climate disinformation has been expertly served to the public. Consider the so-called “climate-gate” scandal, founded on selective reading of emails stolen from researchers. First surfacing in 2009, it was debunked by eight independent investigations. Yet for years, conservative news and commentary shows pushed the story, which Republican lawmakers cited to justify inaction on climate. Research from George Mason University showed the campaign increased public skepticism about climate change, especially among conservative voters.

Like ExxonMobil’s public statements, climate-gate reflects a decades-long effort to disrupt public discourse, especially at key moments. It intensified leading up to the first global climate initiative, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which the U.S .did not ratify. Climate-gate itself came as the U.S. joined 2009 global climate treaty talks in Copenhagen. In 2016, fossil fuel interests supported and advised President Trump campaign. Trump ultimately fulfilled promises to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate accord and appointed industry veterans to top government posts.

With homegrown meddling like this, who needs the Russians?

But while climate-gate is outright fakery, a more insidious concern is widespread underreporting and media bias against climate coverage. In an exhaustive examination of television news broadcasts, Media Matters found nearly 80 percent of 2017 climate change reporting focused on statements by Trump. Only minimal coverage discussed climate in connection to the year’s record-setting natural disasters, including epic Atlantic hurricanes and devastating California wildfires, which together destroyed infrastructure and tens of thousands of homes. Media Matters showed some networks even favored stories disputing connections between climate change and extreme weather. It corroborated earlier research by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Similar to Russian election interference, climate disinformation is a complex melding of forces. It entails industry money, social media algorithms, and political and cultural identity, especially within a modern conservative movement priding itself on distrust of science and journalism. The entwined results are that millions of Americans still reject climate change science, and fossil fuels maintain dominance over the energy sector.

Yet, resistance is growing. Shareholders, the Security and Exchange Commission, and several state attorneys general have launched investigations and lawsuits to determine whether ExxonMobil committed criminal deceit. And nine U.S. cities, including San Francisco and New York City, are suing dozens of fossil fuel companies. They seek billions of dollars in damages for urgently needed climate change adaptations, including new sea walls and storm-water controls.

The cases signal mounting anger among citizens stuck with high infrastructure costs tied to burning fossil fuels. Meanwhile, advances in science lend legal weight to the cases. Researchers are increasingly able to tally historical CO2 emissions and even approximate their contribution to specific meteorological events.

It is also worth noting efforts to improve K-12 media literacy education. Media Literacy Now and others offer models for state legislation, aimed at ensuring students learn to discern between news sources and recognize persuasion techniques. Several states have adopted the laws and others are considering bills, according to Media Literacy Now.

Media literacy skills will remain important. In December, the National Association of Manufacturers 👹 formed a new trade group to oppose climate change lawsuits, and last month automakers urged regulators to dismiss established climate science. They represent a continued industry commitment 😈 to public disinformation over an earnest debate about regulation and public health.


Tim Lydon works in federal lands management and is the author of “Passage to Alaska, Two Months Sea Kayaking the Inside Passage.”

http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/381814-with-climate-change-fake-news-is-old-news

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 02, 2018, 04:57:17 pm »

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

April 2, 2018




Alex Jones 😈 Hops On Climate Change & Gun Control Brainwashing Bandwagon

Let’s start our week with two jokes: Alex Jones 😈 and Marc Morano 😈. Last week, Jones interviewed Morano for a segment that supposedly showed how the “global warming playbook” is apparently being used to brainwash children against guns. We watched the silly interview so you don’t have to. (Our brain is still hurting, please send pizza.)

Seems that Alex wanted to huff some Big Words and invent new ones, while Morano was out to promote his new book. In between, we got a segment that just about barely actually explained why they think kids are getting brainwashed.

It started with both of them praising Trump The Greatest Human To Walk This Planet, because he solved the gun shooting epidemic with his promise to maybe ban bump stocks. The discourse involved statements like “People are saying don’t criticize the gun marchers because they’re connected to Hitler.” (Don’t ask us. We don’t know. Who knows why coherent sentences were even invented in the first place.)

The crux of Jones and Morano’s “conversation” centered around how the gun control movement’s key motivation is a hatred of the Second Amendment, (of course, it has absolutely nothing to do with not wanting school children to die), and paralleled this to the supposed “real agenda” of climate activists: world domination (again, nothing to do with wanting to live safe and healthy lives and keeping the planet clean).

From the interview, it was hard to determine if there was actual argument (however fallacious) connecting gun control activism to climate action. But tying these two issues together could be an emerging new conservative talking point. Our regular readers may recall a similar post in the Federalist we discussed last week claiming the March for Our Lives shows how gun control groups “are seizing on” the climate change playbook to mobilize kids. The author argued that gun control “bullies” and climate “alarmists” exploit children by using celebrities and feeding them “steady news of gloom and doom.”

Over the past few weeks, we’ve seen the shameful lengths some conservatives can go to serve the gun lobby. This new method to attack two birds with one stone is yet another way to attempt to deny the undeniable impact of young people rising up nationwide to fight for their rights. 

Incidentally, Nexus Media recently spoke to a few school kids on why they’re fighting for urgent climate action and preparing for a youth-led march this July. Plot twist: Through facts aided by emotion, they’re looking to brainwash the resistant adults into accepting the undeniable reality of human-caused climate change.



 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 28, 2018, 08:01:23 pm »

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



Kids Believe In the Easter Bunny, But Even They’re Too Clever For Climate Denial 😈 and the NRA🔫

March 28, 2018

Back in 2013, Heartland 🐉 Senior Fellow Ben Domenech (who married Megan McCain last year) founded The Federalist 🦕 to add some hip young perspective  ;) to the conservative media environment. The site is famous for smart, original and youth-oriented pieces such as a recent tirade defending Roy Moore, a literal defense of dumpster fires that admitted it isn’t even an original idea. The site is also somewhat famous for its lack of funding transparency, with “Who 🦖 funds the federalist?” emerging on twitter as a meme.

It’s a worthwhile question, especially considering a post from Friday by “author”Julie Kelly 😈 which explains “How Successful Climate Pressure Tactics Paved The Way For Gun Control Bullying.” In a sense, we have to admire Kelly: it takes a brave pundit to attack children victimized by gun violence (and somehow also tie the same diatribe to climate). In her past writings, Kelly has demonstrated a commitment to similarly bold stances--she recently criticized AAAS for giving an award to Dr. Michael Mann, defended Pruitt’s red team attack in a post last summer, and lectured the Pope for his climate concern in November.

To criticize children for getting active in the political process while defending two of the richest special interest groups in the world without looking like a soulless monster would take nuanced thinking from a writer skilled in restraint and subtlety. Sadly, Kelly is not that kind of writer.

The crux of her argument is that gun control “bullies” are exploiting children for political gain--just like climate “alarmists.” These two groups, Kelly argues, use celebrities to spread their message and demonize the opposition as “industry shills, bought off by special interest groups.”

(To be fair, she’s not exactly wrong. Lifting up impacted voices with personal stories, tapping celebrities with wide social media reach and pointing out the rank corruption among opposition organizations funded by industry are all effective communications strategies. We just apparently happen to differ with Kelly on whether protecting children’s rights to a livable climate and to safety from guns is a good or bad thing.)

Kelly explains “children are weaponized” for climate issues, quoting our friend Marc Morano about how kids are fed “a steady diet of fear and doom” so that we can use “vulnerable children to promote climate fears.” Kelly, of course, fails to disclose Morano’s ties to industry-funded CFACT.

According to Kelly, the March for Our Lives shows how “gun control activists are now seizing on” the climate change strategy and “shamefully capitalizing off the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School last month.” That the kids organized and have led a large majority of the effort is written off simply because they’ve gotten fiscal support from rich people. Considering that they won’t tell anyone what rich people give their publication fiscal support, we think this is a particularly interesting angle for the Federalist’s editors to allow.

At the end of her piece, Kelly decries how “activists routinely post the amount of money politicians have accepted from the NRA or fossil fuel companies  and attempt to intimidate lawmakers into rejecting those blood-soaked contributions.”

It’s understandable that Kelly, who’s gotten called out for being a pro-GMO shill in the past, would be jumpy about the public holding industry shills accountable for their funding.

After all, it’s hard to believe that anyone who would attack children in service of the NRA and fossil fuel companies would do so out of a sense of journalistic integrity. Especially not at The Federalist .
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 26, 2018, 02:49:13 pm »

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 »

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

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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

SNIPPET 1:

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.

                           


SNIPPET 2:

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:

https://www.ecowatch.com/statoil-equinor-greenwashing-2549947654.html

+-Recent Topics

Pollution by AGelbert
August 14, 2018, 10:37:03 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
August 14, 2018, 09:06:46 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
August 14, 2018, 08:51:23 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
August 14, 2018, 07:11:38 pm

Hydrocarbon Crooks Evil Actions by AGelbert
August 14, 2018, 06:22:50 pm

Photvoltaics (PV) by AGelbert
August 14, 2018, 01:09:25 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
August 14, 2018, 12:33:00 pm

Money by AGelbert
August 13, 2018, 09:25:57 pm

Genocide by AGelbert
August 13, 2018, 08:57:55 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
August 13, 2018, 08:46:10 pm