+- +-

+-User

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

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 41
Latest: GWarnock
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 8946
Total Topics: 232
Most Online Today: 4
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Post reply

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

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

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


Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 15, 2018, 04:49:35 pm »




Unmoored from Facts, Will EIA Projections Become Reality?

February 13, 2018  |  By Jules Kortenhorst Kieran Coleman

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 But for exhibiting erroneous data about the costs of renewables, and for its simple and outdated outlook on how the market is changing and will in time transform.

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

Are We Looking at the Same Market?

In a two-part tragedy, incorrect initial positions go on to influence completely outdated expectations about the composition of the American energy landscape through 2050.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

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

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

International Markets Drive This Momentum

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

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

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

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

Reality

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

https://rmi.org/news/unmoored-facts-will-eia-projections-become-reality/

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


Trump 🦀 EIA official 🦖 having some coffee:

Tomorrow is Yesterday...


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

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



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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Story at-a-glance

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

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

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

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

By Dr. Mercola

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

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

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

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

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

How to Spot a Lie: Analyze Versus Speculate

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

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

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

Managing Your Bias and Recognizing Evasiveness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

Nonverbal Signs of Deceit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spotting a Liar Isn’t an Exact Science

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

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

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


 
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/02/10/how-to-spot-a-liar.aspx

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

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

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

 

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




Good Life Within Planetary Boundaries Study Misrepresented as Wealth Redistribution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By  Lorraine Chow

February 8, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full article:

https://www.ecowatch.com/scott-pruitt-climate-change-2532424794.html
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 07, 2018, 01:50:19 pm »

EcoWatch


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

By Jessica Corbett

SNIPPET:

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


Full must read article:

https://www.ecowatch.com/combat-climate-myths-2531934384.html

The Fossil Fuelers 🦖 DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 05, 2018, 05:23:34 pm »

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



Critical Thinking Is Critical, But So Are Facts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 




Gore in Snowflake-Filled Davos Triggers Photoshop Loving Climate Deniers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

SNIPPET:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subsidies for What?

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

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/26/renewable-energy-doesnt-get-subsidies-fossil-nuclear-sources-gotten-continue-get/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 16, 2018, 07:00:16 pm »

 




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






December 19, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE

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

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

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

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

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


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

RE

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

EcoWatch

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

By David Suzuki

December 2, 2017

SNIPPET:

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

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

Full eye opening article:

https://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy-suzuki-2514182227.html
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 29, 2017, 07:59:38 pm »

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


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

Thom Hartmann Nov. 28, 2017 5:30 pm








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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


       

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

November 23rd, 2017 by James Ayre

SNIPPET:

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

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

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

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


Full Article:


https://cleantechnica.com/2017/11/23/statoil-focus-development-clean-light-crude-oil-ceo-says-focus-fossil-fuel-extraction-decades-come/

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


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



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

 

Deconstructing Denial’s Lies: Fictional Quotes and Fake Moralizing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

QUOTE:
Methane Sources - Termites

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

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

Human Impact

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

UNQUOTE

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


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

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

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

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

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


QUOTE from Termites - Greenhouse Gases - United States EPA:

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

14.2.2 Emissions3-4

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is part to of the present insanity.



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

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

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

ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE:

SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE:

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

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

CO2 457 PPM!


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

TUTORIAL:



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

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




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

September 14, 2017

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

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

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

IMPLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY  ;D

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


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

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

Corporate Media Silent on Fossil Fuels as Hurricane Harvey Devastates Southeast

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

By Anton Woronczuk, Truthout | News Analysis

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



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

 

On Harvey and Climate, Curry  Casts Doubt as Experts Explain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



PART III

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 




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

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

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





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


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

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

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

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


Heavily loaded ship

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

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

How long do ICE powered machines last?

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

IOW, it was NEVER

1. An energy problem,

2. A "laws of thermodynamics" problem,

3. A mining waste and pollution problem,

4. A lack of wind or sun problem,

5. An environmental problem,

6. An industrial capacity problem or

7. A technology problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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




PART IV
Three different future scenarios


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Three future Scenarios:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Open letter to Nicole Foss

By A. G. Gelbert

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I

Commentary on video by Nicole Foss on farming and energy saving


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


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


PART IV
Three different future scenarios


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unstable Soil Substitute

Roadbeds & Runways (pavement insulation)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now that is staying power! [/size]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

PART II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your statements are in brown color

My response in blue


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


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

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



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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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



Quote
They are more expensive than fossil fuels


(phase 3)

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

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


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

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

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

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



Quote
because of their very low EROEI


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


Quote
Scientific Investigations of Alcohol Fuels 1890 – 1920

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I dare say not much has changed.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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



Quote
and very large fossil fuel dependency.


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

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



Electric Grid Renewable energy Penetration in Selected Markets

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

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

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

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

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



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


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

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

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

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


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


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

http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_06_26_For_As_Long_As_The_Sun_Shines



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


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

Quote
Retail Prices (Dollars per Gallon) 2012-2013

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


Quote
Volatile fossil fuel prices make renewable energy more attractive

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



Quote
especially at a large scale.


(phase 3)

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

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



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

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

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

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


Quote
Intermittency Of Renewables?… Not So Much

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


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

http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_06_26_For_As_Long_As_The_Sun_Shines



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


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

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

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

Expensing of Intangible Drilling Costs

Percentage Depletion Allowance

Deduction for Tertiary Injectants

Geological and Geophysical Expenditures

Exception for passive loss limitations for oil and gas

Enhanced oil recovery credit

Marginal oil well credit

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

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



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

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



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


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

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

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

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


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

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


Quote
Prepare For Disruptive Solar Technology

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

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



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

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

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




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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Gas fracking corruption posts:


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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A quote from the following Peer Reviewed book:


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

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

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

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

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


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

I have. The collapse scenario does not add up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mother nature will force it to do so.

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

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

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



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

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

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

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



Quote

15 April 2013
James Hansen

1. Exaggeration?

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

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



Quote
It's about money and power.


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

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

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




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

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

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




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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question is, which side are you on?


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

 Phase 2 – Denounce & Mobilize Against the Renewable Energy Option

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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

RE

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

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

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

I agree with you 100% Monsta. 

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

You don't see that.

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

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

If you wish to claim that Foss's "energy expert" MO has no bearing on this particular issue, I will respectfully continue to disagree. EVERYTHING that Foss does publicly has to do with

+-Recent Topics

Corporate Fascist Corruption of Christianity by AGelbert
Today at 03:37:15 pm

Human Life is Fragile but EVERY Life is Valuable by AGelbert
Today at 02:47:34 pm

Sustainable Farming by AGelbert
Today at 02:34:26 pm

Robotics by AGelbert
Today at 02:10:32 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
Today at 01:34:21 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
Today at 01:22:33 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
Today at 12:57:25 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
February 20, 2018, 08:35:08 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
February 20, 2018, 07:53:55 pm

Non-routine News by AGelbert
February 20, 2018, 07:43:39 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial