Renewable Revolution

Energy => Fossil Fuel Folly => Topic started by: AGelbert on October 14, 2013, 06:44:17 pm

Title: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on October 14, 2013, 06:44:17 pm
Think About it

Most Americans consider NPR an independent media organization, so it might surprise you that one of its biggest corporate sponsors is the American Natural Gas Alliance, a front group that exists only to promote some of the worst energy polluters in America.

The ANGA has been an NPR corporate sponsor for months, using its airtime to promote the misleading ‘think about it’ campaign that is in fact a promotion for the dangerous and destructive drilling process known as fracking.

NPR’s financial dependence on the fracking industry could be fouling its news coverage, just like fracking fouls up our air, water and climate. Fracking puts America on a path toward a bleak energy future, with polluted land, flammable tap water and earthquakes.

Meanwhile, clean, green energy sources like wind and solar can provide 99 percent of our electric, transportation and manufacturing power needs. No fracking required. even better — every time we choose renewable energy over oil, coal and gas, we reduce emissions, lower the cost of energy and create jobs.

When trusted news outlets like NPR take money from ANGA and repeat their deceptive marketing claptrap — on OUR airwaves — we have to question their objectivity. ( Sign up here to tell NPR that when it comes to fracking, don’t even think about it.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on October 18, 2013, 05:52:33 pm
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on October 21, 2013, 03:22:09 pm
How Change Manifests, How Action To Stop Global Warming Must Come About (   (   (   (


It’s obvious. Global efforts to combat climate change have failed. International summits are full of hot air and greenhouse gas 

pollution continues to rise. ( (

If a

country bails on a climate commitment ( (,

they pay a price of, well, zero.

Turns out that’s okay,  ??? at least according to game theory analyses by researchers at the University of Lisbon. Their models ( suggest that punishment by global institutions has no effect. They also say that global summits actually

impede cooperation ( ( Risk of collective failure provides an escape from
the tragedy of the commons). ( (

Now, in a new report, the researchers suggest that if punishment starts getting handed out at the local level, say

city governments ( (,

what emerges is a much more cooperative global regime for combating climate change.

Interestingly, though, the local actors must be stimulated by an understanding that global warming means catastrophe… big time. Thus, the remarkable bottom line to change is essentially an old bumper sticker tagline (link added):

Nevertheless, the math of how people play games suggests that successfully curbing carbon pollution will rely on the old adage: think globally…

act locally (Seattle to Create Nation’s First Public Food Forest (,

The journal Nature Climate Change ( ( describes how that proverbial pond inspires change with many ripples from within — it is the rippling of change:

We show that a bottom-up approach, in which parties create local institutions that punish free-riders, promotes the emergence of widespread cooperation, mostly when risk perception is low, as it is at present3, 7. On the contrary, global institutions provide, at best, marginal improvements regarding overall cooperation. Our results clearly suggest that a polycentric approach involving multiple institutions is more effective than that associated with a single, global one, indicating that such a bottom-up, self-organization approach, set up at a local scale, provides a better ground on which to attempt a solution for such a

complex and global dilemma (U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Down 11 Percent Since 2007 (

Another international climate conference is coming up, this one being held in Poland. There isn’t much optimism regarding what is to come out of this, and it seems there’s no reason for optimism.  

What is needed is a stronger focus on creating action on the local level. What is needed is an emphasis on communicating the great risks and costs that come with global warming, while showing people local solutions that they can implement in their cities.

People are starting to realize this, but the message needs to get out to more ( and more of us, especially the ones who are motivated ( and assertive enough (    ( to push for meaningful change.(    (   (   (    (    (     (


                                     ( (


Are you going to sit there and TAKE THAT???  (

I'm not!  (

(       =              ( (

Title: Kochs gave more than $60 million to climate denial groups in the past 15 years
Post by: AGelbert on October 27, 2013, 01:15:11 am
The Kochs' Brazen Buyout of Our Democracy Is Right Up There with the Worst Oligarchs in American History

Spending hundreds of millions to buy as much political power as they can for a project that could earn them over $100 billion.

October 23, 2013

To understand the present, you have to understand the past, which brings us to the story of William A. Clark.

William A. Clark (Would you buy a used car from this man? Do you have any idea what life was like for his copper mining slave/employees? Do you think that his descendants owe some money to we-the-people for the horrendous pollution caused by said copper mining?  >:( I think so.)

Clark was one of the so-called Montana “Copper Kings” of the 1800’s.  

Copper King Mansion in Butte

After making millions in the booming mining industry, and trying his hand in the electric, newspaper, banking, and railroad industries, Clark set his sights on political office.

Clark had always had a lifelong ambition of becoming an elected official, and of achieving the fame and power that came with it.

In 1899, Clark made a serious push to become a U.S. senator from Montana.
Back then, U.S. senators were chosen by their respective state legislators.

So one afternoon Clark walked into the Montana State Legislature, and announced that he would be standing in the back of the room, holding envelopes filled with thousand-dollar bills.
He said he’d give those envelopes to anyone who voted for him.

Enough legislators voted for him and took his money that Montana sent him to Washington, D.C. as their senator for the 1900 legislative session.

But Clark’s bribery scheme was so public and brazen that even the largely corrupt U.S. Senate was horrified. They refused to seat him after reading newspaper stories about his passing out thousand-dollar bills to get elected.

And it was the notoriety of Clark’s naked bribery attempt in Montana, well reported in newspapers across the country, that helped lead to the passage of the 17th Amendment, which says that U.S. senators are elected by the people instead of by state legislatures.

With all this notoriety, Clark quickly became public enemy number one in the early 1900’s.
Speaking about Clark, Mark Twain once wrote that, “He is as rotten a human being as can be found anywhere under the flag; he is a shame to the American nation, and no one has helped to send him to the Senate who did not know that his proper place was the penitentiary, with a chain and ball on his legs.”

While William A. Clark may have died back in 1925, his willingness to corrupt the American democracy and political process is alive and well today.

Just ask the Koch Brothers.  >:(

Charles and David Koch, worth a combined estimated $68 billion in net worth, are among the driving forces behind the corruption of our democracy.

Between 1998 and 2008, Koch brother-controlled foundations gave more than $196 million to organizations that favor polices that would further pad the wallets of the two brothers.

In that same time period, Koch Industries, owned by the two brothers, spent $50 million on lobbying and handed out $8 million in PAC contributions.

The Kochs are also behind groups like Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, which both gave and continue to give major financial support for the Tea Party movement.

And FreedomPartners, a Koch-affiliated organization, has doled out grants worth over $230 million to a variety of conservative organizations, Tea Party groups, and front-groups that oppose Obamacare.

This all brings us to the Keystone XL pipeline.

Recently, the Koch Brothers have been throwing their billions at lobbyists, front-groups, and lawmakers that support the fossil fuel industry and the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.
The Koch Brothers are the fossil fuel industry’s largest donors to congressmen and women who sit on the committee that oversees the Keystone XL pipeline.

In 2010 alone, the Kochs and their employees gave over $300,000 to members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

At the same time, the Kochs have given more than $60 million to climate denial groups over the past 15 years.

Spending hundreds of millions to buy as much political power as they can for a project that could earn them over $100 billion.

So why are the Kochs handing out so much money to groups and lawmakers that support the Keystone XL pipeline and America’s toxic addiction to fossil fuels?

Money. And lots of it.

According to a new report released by the International Forum on Globalization, the brothers stand to make up to $100 billion in profits with the approval of the pipeline.

Keep in mind they’re only worth $68 billion. This could double their net-worth.

The report found that the Kochs and Koch Industries hold up to 2 million acres of land in Alberta, Canada, which is the proposed starting point of the Keystone XL pipeline.

And many Koch Industries subsidiaries stand to make millions from the pipeline's construction, including Koch Exploration Canada, which would profit from oil exploration on its land, and Koch Supply and Trading, which would benefit from the trading of oil derivatives.

With a possible $100 billion windfall down the road, more than double their combined total fortune today, it’s no surprise that the Koch Brothers are doing everything possible to make the Keystone XL pipeline a reality.

Their Republican allies in Congress even tried to use the Keystone XL pipeline as leverage in the government shutdown, demanding that it be approved before they would end the government shutdown and raise the debt ceiling.

Meanwhile, you and I are stuck with the byproducts of the Koch’s relentless pursuit of money and power.

Koch Industries is already one of the top ten polluters in the United States, pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, driving global warming and climate change.

And if the Keystone XL pipeline is finished, it will make things even worse.

Synthetic crude oil from tar sands generates three times the pollution of regular crude oil production, and is extremely poisonous. If there were ever a leak from the pipeline, the environmental and human damages would be horrific.

The ghost of William A. Clark is alive and well in the form of billionaires like the Koch Brothers, who are corrupting our political process, while destroying the environment and poisoning us.

We can’t continue to let the likes of modern-day William A. Clarks continue to buy off the American political process.

Thom Hartmann is an author and nationally syndicated daily talk show host. His newest book is The Last Hours of Humanity.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: Surly1 on October 28, 2013, 01:00:26 am
Koch article reposted on FB. Superb.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on October 29, 2013, 03:10:06 pm

Danke vielmals  (Many thanks).  ;D
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on October 29, 2013, 09:32:49 pm
Renewables represent a drop in the bucket of global supply.

They are having no effect whatsoever on fossil fuel prices.

They are more expensive than fossil fuels

THREE INCORRECT STATEMENTS BY ENERGY EXPERT NICOLE FOSS in July of 2012 when the ENERGY MARKET activity you will read about below was in progress SINCE 2008.

German Utilities Hammered in Market ( Favoring Renewable Energy    (

Tino Andresen, Bloomberg

August 12, 2013 

Dusseldorf, Germany -- Germany, Europe’s biggest electricity market, is beating up its traditional utilities. RWE AG and EON SE are getting hurt by falling power prices and a shrinking market share this year. They’re set to report second-quarter earnings this week just as RBC Capital Markets said both may need to raise capital.

“Lower earnings for RWE and EON have knock-on implications for the balance sheet of both companies,” John Musk, an analyst at RBC Capital in London, said last week. “The market has yet to factor in the longer-term earnings impact of German power prices,” which have dropped about 27 percent in a year.

Across Europe and some of the U.S., utilities that a decade ago dominated markets now struggle to cope with lower prices exacerbated by subsidized renewables that don’t pay fuel costs. The pain is most acute in Germany, which led the world installing solar farms and has the largest offshore wind plans. Clean energy also has preference over fossil fuels in European wholesale markets, a job killer at traditional utilities.

EON of Dusseldorf and Essen-based RWE are considering halting coal and gas plants with capacity exceeding 20,000 megawatts and can supply 21 cities the size of Cologne, risking some of the combined workforce of more than 10,000.

“A significant part of our business model is now facing new challenges,” RWE Chief Financial Officer Bernhard Guenther said in an interview, without being specific about halts or jobs. “Whatever we do in terms of cost and capex-cutting won’t fully compensate the profit loss we see in conventional power generation.” A RWE spokeswoman said there was nothing to add.

Merkel Response

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government has said it wants to reform the country’s clean-energy subsidy law after the Sept. 22 elections and also rework the design of the country’s power market. The German renewable boom has caused “huge problems for the system,” Merkel said June 12 in Berlin.

RWE shares slumped to a decade-low last week and EON did likewise last month, as analysts reduced earnings forecasts.

“We have never seen mothballing to this extent,” Susanne Nies, head of energy policy and generation at the Eurelectric AISBL lobby group, said by phone from Brussels. Europe’s power demand will be lower in 2020 than in 2010, and utilities have “massively overestimated demand for gas-fired power.”

Musk said the two may have to tap investors for cash in the next few years, estimating that RWE may have a capital need of about 2.5 billion euros ($3.3 billion), and EON may require 4 billion euros to maintain its rating, in a note to investors.

EON Reporting

EON tomorrow is expected to report first-half adjusted earnings almost halved from a year earlier, according to analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg, while RWE will report on the following day.

Both utilities were among the biggest decliners in Germany’s benchmark DAX index today, with RWE falling as much as 1.9 percent to 20.91 euros and down 1.5 percent at 12:59 p.m. in Frankfurt trading. EON dropped as much as 1.8 percent to 12.03 euros and was down 1.4 percent at the time.

The retrenchment is mirrored in the U.S., where burgeoning rooftop solar panels eat into the market share of utilities from New York to Hawaii. :icon_mrgreen: In Japan, the government is opening the market, giving traditional suppliers such as Tokyo Electric Power Co. pressure from new rivals.

Germany’s four largest power producers had only invested enough in clean energy to control 4.9 percent of renewable capacity by 2012, according to Bremen-based Trendresearch GmbH, and the country will increasingly rely on wind and solar to fill the gap left by the nuclear phaseout. The share of renewables in generation more than tripled to 22 percent in 2012 from 2000.

Shares Slump :emthup: :icon_mrgreen:

“The adaptation of the conventional power-plant fleet is indispensable because renewables get preference on the grid,” said Thomas Deser, a portfolio manager at Union Investment GmbH, which holds EON and RWE.

EON and RWE’s cost-cutting strategies haven’t stopped stock slides. Together have lost about 76 percent of the $200 billion combined market value they had in early 2008.

RWE has slumped 32 percent this year in German trading, the most among companies on Europe’s STOXX 600 Utilities index. EON has lost 13 percent. Both are unlikely to recover any time soon, according to Commerzbank AG.

“We have intact, long-term downsize trends at EON and RWE,” Petra Kerssenbrock, a technical analyst at Commerzbank, said by phone from Frankfurt.

Profit Forecast

At EON, adjusted profit may drop 40 percent this year, according to the average estimate of analysts surveyed by Bloomberg. “For newer power plants there is always a latent risk for writedowns,” Chief Financial Officer Marcus Schenck said in an interview in May. EON kept its unprofitable Irsching 4 and 5 gas-fired generators in Bavaria running only after a compensation deal with regulator Bundesnetzagentur and grid operator TenneT TSO GmbH signed in April.

RWE’s income has declined for the past three years and is forecast to fall again next year.

“It’s all about shutting power plants with a negative cash flow,”
Patrick Hummel, an analyst at UBS AG, said by phone from Zurich. Unlike a decade ago when utilities reduced capacity to push up electricity on the market, the current halts “won’t work to drive the power price,” he said.

Independent Producers

Independent power producers such as Wpd AG, Juwi AG and S.A.G. Solarstrom AG invested earlier and more heavily in wind and solar power, cutting into the share supplied by RWE and EON.

German year-ahead power price dropped 27 percent over the past 12 months, according to broker data compiled by Bloomberg. The contract, a European benchmark, traded at 36.70 euros a megawatt-hour today.

While utilities across Europe have seen demand dwindle, those in Germany are also contending with a phase-out of nuclear energy. RWE and EON acknowledge the decision to close all reactors by 2022 forces them to abandon plants they had counted on to produce income for years.

Smaller competitor EnBW Energie Baden-Wuerttemberg AG said last month it will shut four plants in Marbach and Walheim following “a drastic fall in revenue.” The utility expects earnings from generation and trading to plunge as much 40 percent this year.

The shift from fossil fuels has also hurt other operators in the country. Vattenfall AB, a Swedish utility with coal and nuclear plants in Germany, announced plans July 23 to split off non-Nordic units after writing down $4.6 billion. It will have to cut investments and push through deeper cost cuts, it said, partly blaming the failure of nations to align policies.

“The idea of an integrated European energy market is in shambles,” Chairman Lars G. Nordstroem said last month. “Energy politics is becoming increasingly national. Everyone looks at their natural assets and their policies.” :emthup: :icon_sunny:

Copyright 2013 Bloomberg (

NATURAL ASSETS are wind, sun, biofuels and geothermal NOT FOSSIL FUELS!   (
Title: During the 1970s, Big Oil began the "New Ice Age" Propaganda LIE!
Post by: AGelbert on October 31, 2013, 11:31:48 pm
1970s: The decade the Fossil Fuel Industry began the "New Ice Age" Propaganda LIE!

Why do I bring up what appears to be ancient history?  ??? Because they are BACK( with the same lie about a "New Ice Age" for EXACTLY the same reason they started their propaganda in the 1970s, to keep renewable energy from pricing fossil fuels out of the market! FOSSIL FUELERS HERE --->(

I have written about the Marshall institute propaganda mill and how Big Oil has "defended" itself with lies and duplicity as well as bought and paid for "scientists".

Feeling threatened again, the fossil fuel industry is back with a new bit of ice age poppycock, but with a twist.  (
The propagandists are arguing that back in the 1970s, the scientific consensus believed an ice age was at hand and they have been proven WRONG. Consequently, we CANNOT BELIEVE THEM NOW when they say global warming is with us.  >:(

The only "MINOR PROBLEM"  ;D with that bit of clever doubletalk is that the CONSENSUS in the 1970s WAS NEVER that a new Ice age was coming.  (

In fact, those were the early propaganda efforts by big oil that represented a minuscule quantity of credentialed WHORES paid to lie among a tiny group of scientists and a several NON-SCIENTIFIC media stories with NO SCIENCE behind them WHATSOEVER. You know the drill: Top scientists say blah, blah (no names) ;). Top research lab says blah blah (no research lab named) ;). The media are EXPERTS at spin used to defend moneyed interests (in this case, the fossil fuel industry). (

Here's the REAL STORY of what went down in the 1970s:


What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.

Climate Myth...

Ice age predicted in the 70s (

"[M]any publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895." (Fire and Ice)(

Mainstream Media

What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production."  ;)

"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."  ::)

A 1974 Time magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:

"When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."  (

Peer-Reviewed Literature

However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). ;) (

Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). ( large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).

Scientific Consensus

In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"

This is in strong contrast with the current position of the US National Academy of Sciences:  
...there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring...

It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities...

The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."

This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

In contrast to the 1970s, there are now a number of scientific bodies that have released statements affirming man-made global warming. More on scientific consensus...

•National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

•Environmental Protection Agency

•NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies

•American Geophysical Union

•American Institute of Physics

•National Center for Atmospheric Research

•American Meteorological Society

•The Royal Society of the UK

•Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

•American Association for the Advancement of Science

Reasoning Behind Cooling Predictions

[b]Quite often, the justification for the few global cooling predictions in the 1970s is overlooked.  Probably the most famous such prediction was Rasool and Schneider (1971):[/b]

"An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5°K."  ;)

Yes, their global cooling projection was based on a quadrupling of atmospheric aerosol concentration.  This wasn't an entirely unrealistic scenario - after all, sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions were accelerating quite rapidly up until the early 1970s (Figure 2).  These emissions caused various environmental problems, and as a result, a number of countries, including the USA, enacted SO2 limits through Clean Air Acts. As a result, not only did atmospheric aerosol concentrations not quadruple, they declined starting in the late 1970s:

SO2 emissions

Figure 2: Global sulfur dioxide emissions by source (PNNL)

Similarly, if we now limit CO2 emissions, we can also eventually get global warming under control.


So global cooling predictions in the 70s amounted to media and a handful of peer reviewed studies.

The small number of papers predicting cooling were outweighed by a much greater number of papers predicting global warming due to the warming effect of rising CO2.

Today, an avalanche of peer reviewed studies and overwhelming scientific consensus endorse man-made global warming.

To compare cooling predictions in the 70s to the current situation is both inappropriate and misleading. (

Additionally, we reduced the SO2 emissions which were causing global cooling.   

The question remains whether we will reduce the CO2 emissions causing global warming.

Last updated on 7 April 2011 by John Cook. (

Agelbert NOTE: There are several definitions for the word "SNOW". Among those is a VERB.  :evil4:
To SNOW someone. ... deceive, lead astray, betray - cause someone to believe an untruth;

Try not to get SNOWED about global cooling. It's good for the fossil fuelers and nuke pukes  and BAD FOR THE PLANET!  ( 
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on November 01, 2013, 07:30:35 pm
Please study the dismal  >:( infographic below:


The matter of world shaking importance for our energy needs that it leaves out is CHEMURGY (more on chemurgy - making anything, now made from hydrocarbons, from plant based carbohydrates after you have become thoroughly depressed by the "we are all going to die without oil" ( infographic ).(


Are we doomed without fossil fuels? (

ACTUALLY, we are DOOMED if we KEEP BURNING fossil fuels!   ???

1.The burning of fossil fuels is destroying the biosphere humans depend on to survive. We have no other option but to stop burning them  and work to bioremediate the biosphere with actions that include, but are not limited to, returning to 350 ppm of CO2

2. At more than $ 72 a barrel for crude oil (a price left behind long ago in the constant rise of price per barrel), all fuels, lubricants, pharmaceuticals and plastics now made from hydrocarbons can be made cheaper AND WITHOUT ADDING POLLUTANTS TO THE ATMOSPHERE from duckweed refineries.

( We need fossil fuels like a hole in the head!(

You heard it FIRST HERE!


Duckweed, the Miracle Biofuel Plant Part 1 (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on November 06, 2013, 02:26:47 pm
Big Oil And Climate Change Denial( (

If you’ve been following the climate change denial lobby, you probably know until a few years ago one of the most notorious climate change deniers in the oil industry was Exxon Mobil. The company was a major funder of the lobbying organization Heartland Institute, a leading force in anti-climate management efforts.

Koch Brothers lobby against production tax credit for wind.( ( (

By 2007, Exxon Mobil was publicly ;) disavowing its denialist position ( ( and the company cut ties to Heartland, ;) but since then the Koch brothers have more than made up the difference (for those of you new to the topic, Koch Industries has been challenging climate management on a wide array of fronts).

As far as the relationship between AEA and the Koch brothers goes, while the organization is not required to disclose its sources, our friends over at SourceWatch have connected the dots ( for us. ;D

According to SourceWatch, AEA was founded in 2008 by Thomas Pyle, ( who also serves as its current president. Pyle’s roots are in the petrochemical industries lobby, which includes work for Koch Industries.  ;)(

Pyle is also the President of AEA’s sister organization, the Institute for Energy Research (IER), which according to a report by Greenpeace continues to receive both direct and indirect support from the Koch brothers.(

They Write Letters( (  ;)

AEA’s anti-wind tax credit letter is brief and to the point, positioning itself as a grass roots effort with 100 signing organizations representing “millions of Americans.”

Agelbert NOTE: The old ASTRO TURF TRICK.  ::)

That positioning is reinforced by AEA’s website, which features the following warning on its home page…

Thanks to Big Wind the hidden cost of wind energy may get even MORE expensive.    (  (

…along with an exhortation to retweet the following message:

Big Wind’s tax credit already cost tax payers $12B (
and now they want more? Time to #EndtheWindGiveaway via @AEA

However, among the many grass roots style names on the list is a generous helping of “Big” ( organizations openly supported by the Koch brothers, including the 60 Plus Association, Americans for Prosperity, and Freedomworks.

As for those groups with grass roots-sounding  ;) names, it’s worth noting that several are Tea Party affiliates. Though positioning itself as a grass roots movement, the Tea Party is a corporate creature as revealed by a recent peer-reviewed study that examines the decades-long linkage between the use of astroturfing by the tobacco lobby, anti-climate management efforts, and Koch brothers funding, which resulted in the founding of the Tea Party in 2002.  ( (

The Tea Party affiliates on the list include the Greenfield Area Tea Party, the Mansfield North Central Ohio Tea Party, the Outer Banks Tea Party, the State Coordinator (OH) Tea Party Patriots, and the Georgia Tea Party, Inc.

( (

We’re not saying that a few bad apples spoil the whole barrel, but if anyone out there is familiar with the money behind any other “grass roots” organizations on the list, feel free to drop us a note in the comment thread.  ( (

*Clarification: The American Energy Alliance is a signatory to the letter, which is part of an Americans for Prosperity project. (

Title: Big Money Doesn't Always Win: Fracking Bans, No Coal Exports! :>)
Post by: AGelbert on November 06, 2013, 10:25:48 pm
Big Money Doesn't Always Win: Fracking Bans, No Coal Exports

11/06/2013 12:58 PM News

Following up on our article, Key Votes to Watch: Climate, Fracking, Coal Exports, here are the results from the 2013 election.

Fracking Votes in Colorado

There's great news from Colorado, where three of four cities voting on fracking moratoriums approved them.

Most importantly, Lafayette voters passed a Community Bill of Rights, which permanently bans oil and gas drilling.  (
It also prohibits corporations from storing or transporting chemicals, water or any byproduct of drilling in the city. It bans any infrastructure that facilitates the extraction of oil, gas or nuclear, and bans any extraction of city water for those purposes.  (

Voters in Fort Collins and Boulder passed five year moratoriums on fracking with strong margins. The vote is being recounted in Lafayette where there is just a 13 vote spread.

Proponents were outspent 40-1, with the oil and gas industry pouring in a whopping $900,000  ( ( in contrast to $26,000 raised by activists.

Community Bill of Rights were also on the ballet in three cities in Ohio. It passed in Oberlin, but were voted down in Youngstown and Bowling Green.

Coal Exports in Washington State

Here too, fossil fuel interests took a licking.  (
All four progressive candidates for Whatcom County Council won. They are all against issuing the permit needed to build a coal export terminal. (
The race was the most expensive ever for this tiny county of 200,000 people. The environmental community spent about $1 million!

The $600 million coal terminal is one of three planned in Oregon and Washington.

Tar Sands Referendum, Portland, Maine This important referendum lost by only 192 votes and would have passed easily if not for big oil's money.  (

If the referendum passed, it would have permanently blocked exports of tar sands oil from Portland's harbor, effectively blocking the route through Maine.

The proposal would have amended Portland's code so that a terminal to store, process and export tar sands oil could not be built.

The Petroleum Institute was a major contributor to the $600,000 to defeat the referendum. Grassroots activists raised just $42,000.  (

As is often the case, people strongly favored the proposition until opponents framed the debate around misinformation - the "huge" economic and job losses that would result. (

But activists say they will be back with a second referendum and the head of Portland's city council says he will work with them to pass a law that would block tar sands exports. We will keep you updated on what ensues.

Here's the background.

GMO Food Labels in Washington State

Since Washington requires mailed-in ballots, only 60% of the vote has been counted, but as of now, this referendum also lost, 54.8% to 45.2%.

Had it passed, Washington would have been the first state to require labels on food that contains GMO, breaking through the logjam of threats of lawsuits from Monsanto in particular.

Just two months ago, polls showed that two-thirds of voters favored the GMO labeling proposal, but that changed once big money started rolling in. Opponents ended up spending triple that of GMO activists.
"Win or lose, this is a long war, and labeling is inevitable," David Bronner, CEO of Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, told Seattle Times. Dr. Bronner's was the biggest donor for GMO labels, contributing $1.7 million.
Title: Internal Docs Expose Oil Industry 'Profit over Planet' Mentality
Post by: AGelbert on November 10, 2013, 08:28:02 pm

Internal Docs Expose Oil Industry 'Profit over Planet' Mentality
Internal emails indicate industry successfully lobbied federal government against new regulations.  >:(

Published on Friday, November 8, 2013 by Common Dreams

Internal documents exposed publicly Friday have pulled back the curtain on the Canadian oil industry's war against carbon-curbing regulations in a bid to protect its profit margin over the planet.

Emails between the Canadian federal government and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP)—released through provincial freedom of information laws and publicly posted by Greenpeace Canada researcher Keith Stewart—reveal that last spring the oil industry successfully delayed a proposed carbon tax increase of $40 per ton in the province of Alberta by lobbying  ( the Canadian federal government.

“The industry in these documents is clearly saying delay, delay, delay and then do as little as possible,” Stewart said Friday in an interview with the Globe and Mail. “And the federal government seems to be taking that as marching orders.”

In the exposed emails, CAPP officials vigorously oppose "costly new burdens on the industry and the economy."   (
Numbered among their concerns is that the profit margin of the tar sands industry could be harmed.(

They insist the proposed tax will hurt their bottom-line without helping their public image.  ( "The objection to the oil sands is ideological...  2 ( if the 40/40 guidelines were enacted, oil sands opponents would claim that they too were insufficient." (

"Will higher stringency requirements impact production and revenue?" reads the document. "Very likely."  (

CAPP urges the government to forestall any immediate action, insisting, "more communication, public awareness campaign of current policies, regulations, and environmental issues is required." ( 

The industry's efforts appear to have been successful so far at stalling a carbon tax increase. ( Large carbon emitters currently pay $15 for every ton of carbon yet are reimbursed large portions of these penalties through provincial tax write-off laws.

Alberta has been slammed for its relatively weak laws and high levels of emissions, thanks in part to its dirty tar sands industry.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on November 16, 2013, 02:29:27 am
Transferred from my newz channel at the Doomstead Diner

Senator Whitehouse Tears the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page to tiny pieces! He exposes their DENY, DOUBT and DELAY on absolutely ALL climate issues from the 1970s until now. NEVER, and I mean NEVER, believe you will get ANY TRUTH about factual science when COSTS for polluting industries are on the table! Listen to the quotes! Then read the DOUBTS voiced HERE at the DD by Snowleapard "WE JUST DON'T KNOW" and others. Listen to the exact same words you have read from Snowleapard and Mking coming from the Wall Street Journal Editorial page. It's ORGANIZED. It's LOCKSTEP. It's PROPAGANDIST MESSAGE DISCIPLINE! IT's a PACK OF LIES AND DOUBLETALK!  That's the PLAYBOOK 1. Deny the science  2. Question the motives 3. Exaggerate the costs  UNTIL they can no longer DELAY the regulations or legislation. THEN they change their tune as if they had NEVER DENIED the SCIENCE!   
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on November 17, 2013, 07:08:13 pm
1960s book on the left that revealed advertising lies. On the Right, the Book that Reveals  The Greatest Predatory Capitalist Crime in History by some of the World's Largest and Most Powerful Corporations.

Agelbert NOTE: This book details in agonizing and projectile vomiting detail WHO DID THE CRIME to avoid liability for the CLIMATE TRASHING CRIME! For those TWO HUGE CRIMES, they need to DO THE TIME and PAY THE FINE!  (

The COVER-UP is ALWAYS worse than the CRIME. WHY? Because the benefit of the doubt existed as to their motives when they were trashing the planet. Once they decided to avoid liability with lies and duplicity, they are A PRIORI admitting they KNEW they were TRASHING the PLANET AND DID NOT CARE!   (

First Chapter of Climate Cover-Up HERE

“Climate Cover-Up documents one of the most disgusting stories ever hidden about corporate disinformation. What you’ll discover in this book amounts to proof of an intergenerational crime.”
DAVID SUZUKI, Author of The Sacred Balance and Good News for a Change.

“This book explains how the propaganda generated by self-interest groups has purposely created confusion about climate change. It’s an imperative read for a successful future.”
LEONARDO DICAPRIO, Actor and Producer

“To those of us who have been unknowingly made to turn a blind eye to the terrifying and true facts about global warming, there’s no time left for ignorance. Please read this shocking and incredible book, learn how we’ve been manipulated, get angry and take action.”
NEVE CAMPBELL, Actor and Producer

“A clear and courageous battle cry against those who, for profit’s sake, would lead us to environmental and, ultimately, economic ruin."LESTER BROWN, Author of Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization

“An exposé of planetary scale.”
JAMES E. HANSEN, Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

“Forget about the crime of the century – this probably qualifies as the crime of the geological epoch.”
BILL MCKIBBEN, Author of Deep Economy and The End of Nature

“A compelling, sometimes chilling explanation of how public safety has been sacrificed on the altar of private interest.”CHRIS MOONEY, Author of The Republican War on Science

"If you want the full, detailed story of the manufactured opposition to climate science and climate action, look no further than James Hoggan's comprehensive and compelling Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming (Greystone, 2009). It's the real story on climate change and the media, with footnotes."
ALEX STEFFEN, World Changing

Through impeccably document analysis, Climate Cover-Up exposes the well-oiled propaganda campaign designed to manufacture dissent and uncertainty about the science of global warming. It is essential reading for anyone who cares about the future of democracy.”
ANDREW WEAVER, Author of Keeping Our Cool: Canada in a Warming World

“An important and disturbing book about the  lies and corrupt language that government and industry still employ to dismiss the facts on global warming.”ANDREW NIKIFORUK, Author of Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent

“Climate Cover-up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming is a remarkable deconstruction of what he argues is a carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign whose goal is to set the agenda in climate policy by discrediting legitimate science and manipulating public perceptions of the scientific evidence...I have no doubt that Climate Cover-up is going to stir up controversy, particularly in the United States where many of these strategies were deployed and fine-tuned.”
STEPHEN HUME, Vancouver Sun

"Climate Cover-Up should be as big and influential as the Hidden Persuaders was; it exposes how truth gets twisted, how lies become opinions worthy of editorial pages, how Exxon greases the whole process."
LLOYD ALTER, Tree Hugger

"James Hoggan's new book Climate Cover-Up (Greystone Books) is a must-read for anyone concerned about the biggest, most pervasive effort ever at manipulating the media by some of the world's largest and most powerful corporations."

“Hoggan’s book is a thoughtful and sustained exposure of a movement which has done great harm. I read it with close interest and shared his dismay. I recommend it to anyone who wants to understand how denial has had such a charmed run. His presentation is painstaking and reasonable. There’s nothing shrill about it, and his justifiable anger is relatively muted.”
CELSIAS, Clean Techies

"“The writing is a well-researched investigation into the continuing fabrication of the defense of Climate Change “skepticism”, which amounts to a long narrative of invention, first of outright denial of the science of Global Warming, then of foot-dragging delay being urged on all Governments.”
Jo Abbess

“Their new book is a chilling description of greed, conflicts of interest and the oil and coal industries' shenanigans; it picks up where other books, like Ross Gelbspan's "The Heat Is On" (1997) and "Boiling Point" (2004), left off.”
Truth Out

“The book does a very thorough job of documenting the history of sometimes despicable attempts by various vested interests and contrarians to discredit climate science.”

“In brief, this is a must-read book. I’ve read a lot of climate/energy books over the past couple of years (trying to glean how to get the message across to the public); this is one of the two best books on the subject you will find, even if you aren’t involved in the issue at all. “
Consider it required reading for anyone remotely interested in a livable climate, or defending public interest from industry. Although, fair warning: You will probably be angry (or angrier) at the status quo after reading this. It certainly makes me want to take a stronger stand than before… maybe I can find a way to link studies of PR and denialism into my grad studies…”
BRIAN D, Left as an Excercise

“This book will open your eyes, it will raise your ire and, most especially, it will inspire you to take back the truth — to end the Climate Cover-up. This is a must-read book.”
Climate Progress

This book isn't some silly bit of finger-waving by activists, but a concise, well-researched (thanks in large part to my friend, Kevin Grandia) piece of journalism by people who have been immersed in the PR industry for decades.”

When all else fails, there's always the NON SEQUITUR for the Global Warming Deniers. (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on November 24, 2013, 11:04:49 pm
These members of Congress are bankrolled by the fracking industry

By Molly Redden
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

The growing fracking industry is “yielding gushers” of campaign donations for congressional candidates — particularly Republicans from districts with fracking activity — according to a new report [PDF] from the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

The report, “Natural Cash: How the Fracking Industry Fuels Congress,” examines a period spanning from 2004 to 2012. In that time, CREW finds, contributions from companies that operate hydraulic fracturing wells and fracking-related industry groups rose 180 percent, from $4.3 million nine years ago to about $12 million in the last election cycle.

These donations are flowing to members of Congress at a time when some legislators are trying to increase regulation of fracking, a process in which drillers inject a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals into the bedrock to release oil and natural gas reserves. The most serious of these legislative efforts is the FRAC Act. First introduced in 2009, the act would require EPA regulation of the industry and would force fracking companies to disclose the chemicals that they inject under high pressure into the ground.

Both the House and Senate versions of the bill are stalled in committee.(

“So far, the industry has successfully fended off almost all federal regulation of fracking,” CREW’s report notes. The report adds that the biggest increase in donations from the fracking industry came between 2010 and 2012, when Congress was particularly active on fracking issues.

Candidates from districts where fracking is concentrated — CREW identifies 94 such districts — experienced the biggest windfall. (CREW built an interactive map showing the industry’s contributions over time in states home to fracking.) The industry’s political contributions to those candidates rose 231 percent, from $2.1 million to $6.9 million. That’s nearly twice the increase in their contributions to senators and members of Congress from districts without any fracking activity. CREW identified

ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Chesapeake Energy as the industry’s three largest donors. (

The fracking industry’s increase in giving far outstrips the increase in political donations from the oil and gas sector at large, which rose 104 percent over the same period. The whole oil and gas sector gave $35.6 million to congressional candidates in last year’s election.

Rep. Joe Barton  ( (R-Texas) was head and shoulders above his fellow candidates in donations from the fracking industry. Barton accepted more than half a million dollars — $100,000 more than any other candidate. In the past, he chaired the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and he sponsored legislation in 2005 to exempt the fracking industry from the Safe Drinking Water Act. A version of that bill became law and prevented the EPA from exercising key oversight over fracking activity.

Republicans in general benefited from the industry’s largesse far more than Democrats. “Nearly 80 percent of fracking industry contributions to congressional candidates went to Republicans,” ( the report notes. Republican candidates from fracking districts saw their donations from this sector go up 268 percent. According to the report, only six of the top 50 recipients of fracking industry contributions among current members were Democrats.” Only one Democrat — Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana  (— **** the top 10 list of fracking money recipients.

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on December 05, 2013, 09:56:38 pm
MKing said at the doomstead Diner,
so you can run your built from petrochemicals computer?  (

Ah yes, the purist argument...

I can't throw stones because I am as much a sinner as YOU ARE?  (

Your argument is based on the false premise that RENEWABLE ENERGY is BULLSHIT. I don't care whether you deny that day and night. You THINK RENEWBLE ENERGY DOESN'T EXIST. You think DIRTY ENERGY is IT, as far as energy. You think that Renewable Energy enthusiasts should just stop using ALL energy because that is the only "ethical" way to challenge the status quo. (

From your point of view, it makes a kind of shrewd sense. All those greens should just LEAVE the energy discussions to REALISTS like YOU. Well, it AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

Rockefeller pulled the same **** with gasoline over ethanol by funding Prohibition laws. AFTER Prohibition, the argument YOU just trotted out (Hey, don't use energy(gasoline) if you've got a complaint about refineries and pollution!) was trotted out.  How **** convenient.

Fossil Fuel Corproations Game the **** out of the energy "playing" (that word again LOL!) field and then claim that's the "REAL WORLD" and we just have to "LIVE WITH IT" or stop being silly goose "hypocrites" using dirty energy.


We NEVER needed fossil fuels. We DON'T need them now. Renewable Energy was and IS MUCH CHEAPER.

ANY defense of dirty energy is BULLSHIT and YOU KNOW IT.

But I realize that won't stop you from pulling out all your tired propaganda points so have a ball.  ;)

ALL your arguments ALWAYS AVOID discussion of the MASSIVE GOVERNMENT GIVEAWAYS that we-the-people have been cheated out of by the Fossil and Nuclear Fuel industries.

They were NEVER subsidies. That were ALWAYS BAIL OUTS because without them they would have never enjoyed an energy monopoly that they would subsequently and perversely twist 180 degrees out of phase and claim, LOL!, the triumph of free enterprise and the "cheapest" form of energy.

All that happy horseshit is going away, not because of prissy tree hugging environmentalists out to poop on your dirty energy party, but because you represent a MASSIVE FRAUD.

And, thanks to people that write about this Energy FRAUD, like me, Dirty Energy is going to go bye bye.

The ONLY GROUNDS for an argument that you have, which you NEVER BRING UP, for some reason, LOL!, is that a person claiming defense of the environment and Renewable Energy is a HYPOCRITE if he/she own STOCK in a Fossil Fuel PIG or Defense Contractor that Pushes them and nuclear energy. That is PROBABLY because you've got SEVERAL OF THEM in YOUR portfolio! :evil4:


I will stop using electricity when the power is off, not a moment sooner. Every second I use it to call fossil nukes on their lies is WORTH IT for the biosphere. I can't say the same for you.  ;)

Have a nice day. (

Title: Exposed: The Rightwing's National Plan To Crush Green Energy
Post by: AGelbert on December 06, 2013, 12:38:57 am
Exposed: The Rightwing's National Plan To Crush Green Energy

Published on Thursday, December 5, 2013 by Common Dreams       

From supporting Keystone XL to opposing home solar panels, ALEC planning assault on the environment( ( ( ( (

- Sarah Lazare, staff writer

The American Legislative Exchange Council's war on green protections is poised to expand over the next year, taking aim at the Environmental Protection Agency, state regulations, and even solar panels installed in individual homes.

Alec's policy agenda will, among other things, seek to penalize individual homeowners who use solar power. (Photo: ©

This is according to internal documents revealed Wednesday by The Guardian and supplemented by interviews that expose this corporate lobbying powerhouse's vast anti-green agenda.

The revelations come in the midst of a three-day ALEC policy summit in Washington, DC bringing together 800 legislative and corporate leaders from around the country.

In 2014, ALEC will push a series of measures aimed at preventing the federal government from curbing greenhouse gas emissions and blocking state efforts to expand wind and solar power, according to The Guardian's summary of the documents.

John Eick, the legislative analyst for ALEC's energy, environment and agriculture program, told The Guardian that ALEC will also advocate for increasing financial penalties for individual homeowners who would otherwise benefit from feed-in solar energy programs. Many sustainable energy advocates see state-level feed-in schemes—like the one that recently came under attack in Arizona—as one of the keys to a national transition to clean, renewable energy.

ALEC also notes that its resolution in support of the Keystone XL pipeline has "been introduced in at least seven states this year which has helped highlight state support for this project."

In 2013 alone, ALEC introduced at least 77 anti-green bills in 34 states, according to The Center for Media and Democracy.

As Connor Gibson, a research associate at Greenpeace, explained to CMD: "ALEC's long time role in denying the science and policy solutions to climate change is shifting into an evolving roadblock on state and federal clean energy incentives, a necessary part of global warming mitigation."

"ALEC's guise of 'free market environmentalism,'" Gibson continued, "is just a code word for its real mission in our states' legislatures: to allow dirty energy companies to pollute as much as they want, to attack incentives for clean energy competitors and to secure government handouts to oil, gas and coal interests. That's not a free market."

An excerpt from the documents, boasting of past accomplishments, can be seen below (at the link).

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on December 06, 2013, 04:05:43 pm
A collection of DEEP and CONSCIENTIOUS OPINION CARTOONS by friends of MKing and Snowleopard   (  (


Snowleopards' FAVORITE!

MKing asures us there is  "Nothing to see here, just move along"   (

Remember that LAST PANEL when they tell you to stop using electricity OR that you CAN'T SUE Fossil fuel Corporations for environmental damage.  ( 

If the Fossil Nukers HAD THEIR WAY...

Title: The "Let Them Eat Coal" Fossil Fuel Propaganda
Post by: AGelbert on December 06, 2013, 10:04:54 pm
YEP. And catch this news. The "Bjorn Lomborg organization" issuing the ridiculous crap about developing countries needing "cheap" coal was THROWN OUT of Copenhagen. Do you know where it is NOW? WASHINGTON D.C. :evil4: We are the heart of fossil fuel DARKNESS.

“Let them eat coal”: Why cheap, (   dirty fuels aren’t a meal ticket for developing countries  (

By Brentin Mock


Bjorn Lomborg, ( a Danish provocateur who loves to pick fights with the climate movement, argues in the New York Times this week that what people in developing nations — or as he called them, “the poor” — really want is cheap, dirty, fossil fuels to help them reach prosperity. Poor folks, he says, could get rich off of coal if the West would just get out the way.(

It’s part of an ongoing conversation that has stymied international climate talks, about how wealthy countries have gotten rich on fossil fuels, and now want poor countries to help clean up the mess. (  (

Lomborg uses South Africa as his test:

The last time the World Bank agreed to help finance construction of a coal-fired power plant, in South Africa in 2010, the United States abstained from a vote approving the deal. The Obama administration expressed concerns that the project would “produce significant greenhouse gas emissions.” But as South Africa’s finance minister, Pravin Gordhan, explained at the time in The Washington Post, “To sustain the growth rates we need to create jobs, we have no choice but to build new generating capacity — relying on what, for now, remains our most abundant and affordable energy source: coal.”(

We’ll put aside the fact that the last time, or rather the first time the Dutch came up with a prosperity scheme for Africa it involved a vicious slave trade that put the continent on a path to poverty it’s yet to fully recover from.

Africans, not Lomborg, are the people to determine what Africans need.  (

And while Gordhan, speaking for finance, may have said his country needed coal in 2010, the following year during the COP 17 climate negotiations in Durban, faith leaders came together declaring that [PDF] “South Africa must stand with Africa — not big polluters.”

For their COP 17 statement they wrote:

For South Africa, true leadership on climate change and sustainability must mean abandoning nuclear energy and its continued use of coal, its insistence on claiming further carbon space, and its refusal to change unless it is paid to do so by the international community.

It must turn away from supply and pricing models that privilege multinational corporations,
must improve on its current paltry ambition of at most 20% renewable energy by 2030, and commit resources into developing renewable energy and promoting energy efficiency that will create new employment and new opportunities for all in Southern Africa.

They circulated a petition at the Durban conference calling for the same. Among the signers: Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and Pravin Gordhan.

In Gordhan’s 2013 budget speech, he didn’t mention coal once.
But he did say:

To ensure that South Africa produces fuel that is more environmentally friendly, support mechanisms for both biofuel production and the upgrade of oil refineries to cleaner fuel standards will be introduced.

In addition, government continues to direct spending towards environmental programmes, such as installing solar water geysers, procuring renewable energy, low carbon public transport, cleaning up derelict mines, addressing acid mine drainage, supporting our national parks, and in particular, to saving our rhino population, who remain under threat.

We are also encouraging the private sector and smaller public entities to be creative and develop low-carbon projects through the Green Fund.

Perhaps knowing that South Africa wasn’t his best black friend on this issue, Lomborg included China as another example, noting how it moved almost 680 million people out of poverty by giving them access to coal-powered energy. “Yes, this has resulted in terrible air pollution and a huge increase in greenhouse gas emissions,” wrote Lomborg. “But it is a trade-off many developing countries would gratefully choose.” (

Maybe they’d choose it, but “gratefully”? If they aren’t offered much other choice? I grew up with a lot of people who came up out of poverty by selling drugs. This led to a huge increase in incarcerations and poor health outcomes throughout the rest of their communities – not to mention shaving years off their own lives due to the threat of jail or getting killed. Yes, it’s a tradeoff, but they took it because they weren’t offered much else in terms of jobs and economic opportunities.  (

The tired “let them eat coal” argument that you should get rich or die from pollution trying is obsolete and borderline racist given you rarely hear it made for Europeans.

But Africans have determined that this is not an either-or thing. (
A conference held in October by the Climate for Development in Africa (ClimDev Africa Programme) concluded with a summary and recommendations document [PDF] that said, “There is no question of a choice between economic growth and environmental protection. The green economy is about achieving green growth while at the same time protecting our environment.” They recommended that, “Planners of development programmes and projects should include the valuation of Africa’s ecosystems as part of their economic evaluations.”

In other words, there is no trade-off. What Africans have been demanding is funding from the already-rich-from-coal countries for their own climate change adaptation, mitigation, and clean technology systems. Their economies have not been able to keep up with the hyper-industrialized western nations so they can’t afford this on their own. How they got that they way had a lot to do with those Dutch slave traders.

Today, Lomborg’s home country is one of the world leaders in renewable energy. I can imagine one of the African farmers who actually have to live with the worst of climate change’s impacts saying to him, “If this coal is so cheap and good, then why don’t you eat it?” (

Brentin Mock is a Washington, D.C.-based journalist who writes regularly for Grist about environmental justice issues and the connections between environmental policy, race, and politics. Follow him on Twitter at @brentinmock. (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on December 09, 2013, 02:32:29 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!  (

PROPAGANDA SMOKE SCREEN on the LEFT so we don't SEE the TRUTH on the RIGHT! (   
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on December 13, 2013, 07:03:51 pm

In 2005, 2.42 billion metric tons of oil were shipped by tanker. In 2006, 76.7% of this was crude oil, and the rest consisted of refined petroleum products. This amounted to 34.1% of all seaborne trade for the year. Combining the amount carried with the distance it was carried, oil tankers moved 11,705 billion metric-ton-miles of oil in 2005.

By comparison, in 1970 1.44 billion metric tons of oil were shipped by tanker. This amounted to 34.1% of all seaborne trade for that year. In terms of amount carried and distance carried, oil tankers moved 6,487 billion metric-ton-miles of oil in 1970.

The main loading ports in 2005 were located in Western Asia, Western Africa, North Africa, and the Caribbean, with 196.3, 196.3, 130.2 and 246.6 million metric tons of cargo loaded in these regions.

The main discharge ports were located in North America, Europe, and Japan with 537.7, 438.4, and 215.0 million metric tons of cargo discharged in these regions.]

No big deal in cost or infrastructure, the fossil fuelers claim (never mind the yearly ocean pollution from spills AND normal operation...). Looky here, how CHEAP it is to move crude around! And please be charitable with their use of the word "efficiency" as if either pipelines or tankers WERE ENERGY GENERATING ENGINES! (

Second only to pipelines in terms of efficiency,  ( the average cost of oil transport by tanker amounts to only two or three United States cents per 1 US gallon (3.8 L).  ( (

That COST figure above is a GIANT, BOLD FACED LIE! Only through extremely creative accounting (accelerated depreciation, ignoring energy used to mine, refine and manufacture the tankers and pipes themselves and, OF COURSE, "cooperation" from finance capital for low interest, long term financing and oil loving national NON-regulations) can they come up with that "TWO to THREE cents per US gallon FICTION.  (   (

The world's largest supertanker was built in 1979 at the Oppama shipyard by Sumitomo Heavy Industries, Ltd. as the Seawise Giant. This ship was built with a capacity of 564,763 DWT, a length overall of 458.45 metres (1,504.1 ft) and a draft of 24.611 metres (80.74 ft). She had 46 tanks, 31,541 square metres (339,500 sq ft) of deck, and at her full load draft, could not navigate the English Channel.

The above is the 1979 GIANT polluting pig compared with SKYSCRAPERS.  Please NOTE the capacity of 564,763 DWT.

The latest ones aren't quite that big but they are still REALLY BIG PIGS!

Hellespont Alhambra (now TI Asia), a ULCC TI class supertanker, which are the largest ocean-going oil tankers in the world

As of 2011, the world's two largest working supertankers are the TI class supertankers TI Europe and TI Oceania. These ships were built in 2002 and 2003 as the Hellespont Alhambra and Hellespont Tara for the Greek

Each of the sister ships has a capacity of over 441,500 DWT, a length overall of 380.0 metres (1,246.7 ft) and a cargo capacity of 3,166,353 barrels (503,409,900 l). They were the first ULCCs to be double-hulled.  ;) (agelbert note: They were SCHEDULED TO BE BUILT DOUBLE HULLED IN THE 1980S BUT Reagan STOPPED THAT SO THE POOR BABIES   ( WOULDN'T SUFFER PROFIT REDUCTION! Thank you, REAGAN, for EXXON VALDEZ!)To differentiate them from smaller ULCCs, these ships are sometimes given the V-Plus size designation.

1970-1980    8.0 million DWT
1980-1990    8.7 million DWT
1990-2000  20.8 million DWT
In 2005, 475 new oil tankers were built, accounting for 30.7 million DWT.

The average size for these new tankers was 64,632 DWT. Nineteen of these were VLCC size, 19 were suezmax, 51 were aframax, and the rest were smaller designs. (

This looks like an industry that IS EXPANDING, not contracting.
This looks like an industry that will do everything it can to PREVENT a transition Renewable Energy  (30.7 million DWT  ( (

Renewable Energy really IS cheap. That is why the fossil fuelers want to kill it. As MKing would say, it's not personal; it's just "business".

Unavoidable conclusions about oil tankers from people with a few neurons to rub together that aren't  shills for the fossil fuel industry.   8)

1) The oceans of the world would be much less polluted without them. If you don't agree, just google annual oil tanker spills and accidents for the last 50 years. This cost is IGNORED by the MKings of this world when they study cost/supply curves. Then there are the trains, the trucks, gasoline stations, the giant tank facilities all over the world, the refineries, etc. NONE OF THAT cost exists for Renewable Energy! And don't forget that coal is even WORSE!

2) They don't generate ANY energy, use enormous amounts of energy to build, including the metals and machinery mining, refining and manufacturing. YET, not ONE article from a fossil fueler mentions this when wailing and moaning about those "huge" energy costs to build wind turbines and solar panels!

3) They DO NOT last as long as solar panels or wind turbines, which, unlike oil tankers,  can be nearly 100% recycled without pollution or high energy costs.
In 2005, the average age of oil tankers worldwide was 10 years. Of these, 31.6% were under 4 years old and 14.3% were over 20 years old.

Consequently, no rational accountant could claim that oil tankers are a prudent investment as a "cost effective business expense".  Do you know how tankers are "recycled"? YEP! Using MORE energy and generating MORE pollution and health problems for the poor saps working in scrapping yards. Another COST that we-the-people PAY and big oil IGNORES.  The fossil fuel industry is 100% WASTE BASED![/color][/size]

Now dear readers, do you expect ANY of these conspiracy theory  FACTS will be discussed rationally by the fossil fuelers like MKing? Of course not. They know what they are defending is, in purely logical terms, not defendable.

So, they use ridicule, hyperbole, exaggeration, denial of facts, avoid apples to apples energy use comparisons like the plague and just generally wing it!

1. For anyone doubting the scale of the massive dead weight on the planet that the fossil fuel industry is, just add up all the pipes, tankers, drill rigs, refineries, gasoline stations, port facilities exclusively used for oil, natural gas and coal, trains, trucks, recycling in scrap yards, pollution and health costs,  bought politicians and last but absolutely essential, the goon squad expenses needed to make fossil fuel "profits".

2. NOW, ADD that to the cost of making internal combustion engines and fossil fuel power plants.

Add NONE OF THE ABOVE to the cost of making wind turbines, solar panels and any other renewable energy technology you can think of.  :o  (

GET IT?  (

I do. MKing does too. That's why he won't go there. The moment he becomes part of the reality based community, he has no argument.   ( 
( Pass it on.( ( planet you save may be your own!  (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on January 22, 2014, 03:33:12 pm
( + (

Largest Power Company in U.S. Joins ALEC in Plot Against One State’s Solar Revolution

Greenpeace | January 22, 2014 11:06 am |

By David Pomerantz

The new hot spot for solar energy in the U.S. is North Carolina. The state was second in the nation in solar growth in 2013, behind only California.

In fact, if U.S. states were considered as countries, North Carolina   ( would have been among the top 10 countries in the world for solar growth last year.

All of that solar growth, driven by policies like the state’s renewable energy portfolio law, has been great for the North Carolina economy, generating $1.7 billion in revenue for the state. At the end of 2012, 137 solar companies employed 1,400 people in North Carolina—a number that increased during solar’s record 2013 year.

But while North Carolina’s solar sector shines brighter, a cloud is approaching on the horizon that places all of the benefits of solar power at risk of disappearing: Duke Energy, the state’s monopoly utility and the largest power company in the country, is about to launch a major attack on solar energy.

On Jan. 7, Duke’s president of North Carolina operations, Paul Newton   (, fired the first shots of the war. Speaking in front of a joint energy committee of the state’s legislature, Newton attacked net metering, one of the key policies to North Carolina’s solar growth.

Net metering allows customers with rooftop solar panels to get credit for any extra electricity that they send back to the grid, like rollover minutes on a cell phone bill.

Newton argued that solar customers aren’t “paying their fair share” to Duke, and that his company would thus be forced to charge higher rates to all of its other customers in response.

Those allegations are false. A study conducted last year showed that the benefits of rooftop solar in North Carolina—even for customers who don’t have the panels—would outweigh any costs by 30 percent. That’s because as more homes and businesses go solar, Duke wouldn’t have to keep building expensive gas and coal plants and raising rates on its customers to finance them. Those rate benefits are aside from the job creation, climate and public health positives of solar power.

But Duke’s shareholders profit by building those gas and coal plants,  :P which is exactly why rooftop solar is in the crosshairs. (  (

Duke’s key ally in its war on solar: ALEC   (

Duke isn’t the first utility in the country to attack net metering; utilities in California, Arizona and Colorado began similar campaigns in 2013, and others are forming battle plans now.  (

In December, The Guardian newspaper revealed that these power companies have been coordinating their efforts under the guise of the American Legislative Exchange Council, (ALEC), a group that lets corporations like Duke ghostwrite laws for right-wing state legislators.

Many utilities are ALEC members, and they have made it ALEC’s top priority to attack net metering laws around the country. Forty percent of North Carolina state lawmakers are ALEC members, and Duke will rely on them to do their bidding. 
 ( (

So far, Duke and ALEC’s communications strategy has been to stigmatize solar energy as being only for the wealthy.  ( ( 

Their argument is that we shouldn’t be letting rich families with solar panels get even richer on the backs of non-solar households. (

It wouldn’t be surprising if early adopters of solar do have higher incomes, since buying the panels involves an upfront cost. But recent research shows that solar penetration is increasingly happening in middle class neighborhoods. In any case, if ALEC and utilities are so worried about the poor, they should be trying to give more solar access to working and middle class communities, since it will help them save money, not take away their chance to go solar by attacking policies like net metering.

The idea that the nation’s power companies, which have raised rates on customers to pad corporate profits and sited coal plants in the nation’s poorest communities for decades, suddenly want to act as champions for social justice doesn’t pass the smell test.  (

Duke will eventually learn to bask in the sun.(

A few days after Newton went in front of the legislature to attack solar policies, Duke Energy’s Facebook and Twitter feeds started bragging, amazingly, about North Carolina’s solar growth:

It’s not the only public display of support for solar power Duke has shown in recent months. Previous CEO Jim Rogers said that he saw rooftop solar as an opportunity as much as a threat, and in March, Duke bought a stake of a distributed solar power financing company, Clean Power Finance.

Were these moves signs that Duke is embracing the solar revolution, or just greenwashing? Both answers may be true: Duke is feeling its way around the edges of solar opportunities while it mostly stalls for time by attacking net metering. One thing that would hasten Duke’s solar transition is if it loses on net metering, since that would force the company to more quickly come to terms with the inevitability of rooftop solar.

A Duke loss on net metering is far from a given, considering Duke and ALEC’s almost unlimited influence in North Carolina politics.   ( But for all of Duke’s money and political power, it can’t change a simple reality: Rooftop solar is immensely popular. A 2013 poll showed that 88 percent of North Carolinians support solar energy. Last year, when ALEC attacked North Carolina’s renewable energy law, the effort failed because Republicans in the legislature recognized solar power as a job creator. In fact, ALEC’s efforts to attack renewable energy laws failed in every state where it tried in 2013. (

Now, solar advocates will gear up to bat away the next attack wave in 2014. The sooner they win, the sooner utilities like Duke will have to face the music and realize that they need to join their customers in the sun.

Visit EcoWatch’s RENEWABLES page for more related news on this topic.

Agelbert NOTE: This is just one more example of uncompetitive fossil fuel corporations constantly gaming the energy playing field to make Renewable energy, which is CHEAPER, as well as being clean, appear more expensive than the PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE (without subsidies and corruption) FOSSIL FUELS! ( CROOKED BASTARDS!  (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on January 22, 2014, 10:25:20 pm

Don't Believe the Dirty Lie

The fossil fuels industry and their lobbyists are always telling us that we can't afford not to use their dirty energy. Fossil fuels are abundant and cheap, they say. Renewables can't do the job, they argue, and switching to them would cripple our economy. But it's all a Dirty Lie.

Greenpeace: Don't believe the dirty lie It's time we started pushing back. The Dirty Lie is constantly repeated by coal and oil industry lobbyists and their friends in Congress. We need your help to call out the Dirty Lie whenever and wherever we find it.

How can you help call out the Dirty Lie?

When you come across the Dirty Lie being repeated without challenge, report it to us via Facebook, Twitter, or Delicious. In turn, we'll let you know how you can help call out the worst offenders. Get the full scoop here: How you can help call out the Dirty Lie.

We put together a factsheet to help you recognize the Dirty Lie when you see it. You can view the factsheet below, or right-click this link and choose "Save Link As" to download the PDF: Dirty Lie Factsheet.

How do we know it's a Dirty Lie?  ???

We teamed up with more than 30 scientists and engineers from universities, institutes, and the renewable energy industry to create our new report, Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable USA Energy Outlook. The report lays down a blueprint for how we ensure our emissions peak by 2015, as the Nobel prize-winning IPCC says they must if we’re to avoid runaway global warming, while phasing out nuclear and fossil fuel energy. It also shows how we can provide about 96% of our electricity from renewable sources by 2050, growing our economy and creating 1.1 million jobs in the renewables sector alone by 2030 in the process.

Dirty Lie Factsheet

Published by Greenpeace

We’ve all heard the arguments from Big Oil and King Coal: “Without coal and oil, energy and gas prices would go through the roof;” or “We have to use domestic coal and oil reserves to ensure our energy security;” and “Renewables can’t do the job, so we have to keep using fossil fuels.”

That’s the Dirty Lie: The idea, heavily promoted by coal and oil industry lobbyists and their friends in Congress, that there is no remedy for our addiction to fossil fuels. But the truth is that with today’s technology, we can continue to grow our economy while phasing out fossil fuels altogether.

Dirty Lie #1: Oil and coal are cheap and plentiful  (

Despite wildly volatile price swings, Fossil Fuel companies love to claim that their products are cheap and virtually unlimited. The truth is that they’re only cheap if you don’ t count the billions of dollars paid in cleanup costs from oil spills, the public health costs of water and air pollution, and the lives and livelihoods lost to accidents and illness. And plentiful? Oil and coal companies are using untested technology and taking unprecedented risks to wring out every last ounce of fossil fuel from the ends of the earth, including oil drilling miles under the surface of the ocean.

Dirty Lie #2: Renewables like wind and solar can’t do the job(

Greenpeace’s Energy Revolution report lays out a practical path to a virtually coal and oil free economy, while at the same time phasing out ALL of our nuclear plants. On its own, greater energy  efficiency can account for the projected increase in our energy demands. A diverse and highly localized combination of things like electric vehicles, small-scale and large-scale wind and solar projects, and smart grids can supply the rest. The truth is, renewable energy can power the US economy, and we can start right now.

Dirty Lie #3: Switching to renewables will hurt the economy ( (

In spite of the global recession that has bottomed out many global industries, renewable energy, and wind in particular, grew by 40% last year. Already, the wind industry employs more people than the coal industry. And recently, our biggest economic competitor—China—surpassed the US as the world’s largest investor in renewable energy. Renewable energy is the key to the 21st century economy, and the longer we are stuck on fossil fuels, the further behind we will be.

Dirty Lie #4: Oil and coal companies are part of the solution

Fossil fuel companies love to tout their “commitment”  (  ;) to the environment and their pursuit of new energy sources. But while they’re spending millions on green washing ad campaigns, many are also spending millions to confuse the public about issues like climate change. Exxon, for example, gave $1.3 million to climate denial organizations last year. And don’t forget that BP has held itself up as“ beyond petroleum” for years.

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on February 20, 2014, 03:54:48 pm
Yellowstone Bison Slaughter Underway   ??? :( :'(

James Dinan

Published: February 20, 2014 (

  >:( The Fossil Fuelers are Winning their Pyrrhic "victory" over the Biosphere:

Even In Perpetual Darkness, Arctic Sea Ice Coverage Drops To Record Lows  :(  >:(

 By Ryan Koronowski   on  February 20, 2014 at 10:02 am (

This North Dakota Oil Town Has The Highest Rent In The Country   ::)  >:( (

With more than 7,000 oil and gas wells and 5,500 more already approved, the Eagle Ford shale play in Texas is one of the most active drilling sites in the nation. But according to a new investigation, Texas is failing to adequately monitor the site’s emissions, which is leading to health concerns for nearby residents.   :P  >:( (

Birds, Bombs, Sharks Slow Offshore Wind From UK to Germany  >:( (

Japan FIT Changes Reflect End of Residential PV Program and Delay in Non-residential Projects  >:( (

Idaho Bill Would Get Rid Of All EPA Regulations In The State   >:( (

U.K. Wind Expansion Scrapped on Concern Birds May Be Harmed
  >:( (

Agelbert NOTE:Do you see how this is DONE? Big Oil uses EXCUSES about environmental "damage" which are NOT TRUE to CASTRATE renewable energy while they continue to dismantle ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS so they can continue to pollute the **** out of the biosphere.   >:(

The next time some fence straddling **** tells you it is a "complex subject that requires much study and no hasty conclusions", remember to tell them they are FULL OF ****!  8)

Title: Who Needs A Livable Climate? I’ve Got A Job!! (Shell Video)
Post by: AGelbert on March 01, 2014, 03:00:02 pm
Who Needs A Livable Climate? I’ve Got A Job!! (Shell Video)

( (   (

Originally published on Planetsave.

A facilities engineer for Shell is featured in the video below in order to inform us of how swell it is to work for Shell. You know, if you can just block out that whole “destroying the world” thing. Anything for a little money, eh?  (

Truthfully, this video really stands out to me for how it demonstrates what gets people into this industry — It’s a job. Perhaps even a high-paying job. In an office. For a big company.

40 hours a week helping to bring down human civilization and countless species. What’s not to love? ( 

However, I’ll come back to the crux of the matter: as much as “evil” oil suppliers are to blame, demanders are many more times to blame. Oil companies and simple people like the lady in this video are supplying a demand. If we pull out the demand, there will be no such jobs. Instead, there will be jobs in much cleaner bike, electric car, and public transit industries.

If you are opposed to destroying society and/or countless species, stop driving gasmobiles and go solar!


Agelbert COMMENT:

... the so-called customers that feed the fossil fuel burning greedballs at the top have been continuously forced out of green alternatives by the fossil fuel 'bought- and-paid-fors' in government.

I have written extensively about how Big Oil has engineered (for about 100 years!) tax payer rip offs called "subsidies", fake oil shortages for profit and wars.

Throughout this period, Big Oil gamed the energy market and consumer choices starting with Prohibition (No, it was not about booze; it was about making ethanol illegal so Rockefeller could corner the fuel market!) and extending through the 1980s when solar and wind renewable energy were crushed in their infancy.

Hand in hand with all this corruption and propaganda that fossil fuels were "Cheaper"  (, came the "new ice age" baloney.

It's a long, sordid story and they are still at it to this day.

FossilFuel Industry's SECRET MOTTO (

Don't Believe the Dirty Lie (

That's Alright, Isn't It----Everyone Is Doing It SO it must be OK? (

How the Promise of Chemurgy Was Dashed By Big Oil (

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."
Title: What Are the Koch Brothers Working Towards?
Post by: AGelbert on April 14, 2014, 03:43:50 pm
04/11/2014 02:38 PM       

What Are the Koch Brothers   ( Working Towards? News

It seems that whatever the issue is, the Koch Brothers are there, even ones you wouldn't expect them to be interested in - like GMO agriculture or health care.

 Given that their fortune comes from oil and chemicals, it's understandable that they would be against mass transit and the growth of renewable energy.

 We're pointing this out because they are going further than any individuals have gone, literally building out their own national campaign infrastructure with hundreds of employees across 32 states so far. In the first four months of 2014, they have already spent over $30 million on the mid-term campaigns.

They launched the Tea Party with their funds.

 The Koch Brothers (  (  ( are worth $80 billion, adding $12 billion to their wealth last year, according to Forbes Magazine. They own the second biggest private company in the US and are among the largest tar sands oil owners.   

Koch tar sands acreage

"But that's not good enough for them, says Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who would give Americans a real progressive choice if he decides to run for President in 2016. "It doesn't appear that they will be satisfied until they are able to control the entire political process." 

In 1980, David Koch ran as the Libertarian Party's vice-presidential candidate, giving us insight into what his overall goals are.

He would repeal and abolish just about everything the government does. Read this incredibly long list:

•Abolish federal campaign finance laws and the "despotic Federal Election Commission;"

•Abolish Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, calling the latter a "fraudulent and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. After repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary;

•"We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services."

•Deregulate the medical insurance industry

•Abolish the US Postal Service and turn it over to the private sector.

•"We oppose all personal and corporate income taxes, including capital gains taxes, and support the eventual repeal of all taxes." Until then, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.

•Repeal minimum wage laws

•"We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Public schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with individual free choice. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended. We condemn compulsory education laws."

•Private schools should not be taxed on income or property.

•Abolish the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, Federal Aviation Administration, Food and Drug Administration, Consumer Product Safety Commission and Department of Transportation;

•"We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for privatization of public roads and the national highway system."

•"We specifically oppose laws that require people to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets."

•End all tax credits that have to with raising children, and all  welfare and tax-supported services for children.

•"We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor' programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals."

•"We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households."

•"We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act."

•"We support the repeal of all state usury laws."

"These are the people who pull the strings for Republican Party and because of the disastrous Citizens United and McCutcheon Supreme Court decisions, they can now spend an unlimited amount of money to buy the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the next President of the United States," says Sanders.

 They are also working on state and local levels, but that still isn't enough - they are also influencing what's taught in our schools, from grade school through college.

Luckily, they are getting old.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on May 01, 2014, 10:27:18 pm
GO's pals at HAHVAHD management are being challenged by intelligent, principled students that don't have their heads up their arse like GO and his greedball, materialistic, fossil fuel loving PIG friends. >:(
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on May 02, 2014, 03:18:26 pm

‘Dirty Duke’ TV Ad Exposes Largest Power Company in the U.S.

Brandon Baker | May 1, 2014 2:47 pm         

It’s just 30 seconds, but it’s powerful
.  ( and The Other 98% premiered an advertisement in the Charlotte, NC and Orlando, FL markets May 1 highlighting Duke Energy’s campaign to put a halt to solar energy, as well as the damage done by the company’s coal ash spill in the Dan River in February. It sarcastically mocks the company with an upbeat narrator declaring that the company makes some of the “dirtiest power.”

The advocacy groups chose to air the ad on the same day as Duke’s annual shareholder meeting.  ;D

Duke is the largest electric power holding company in the U.S. That’s why Presente, The Other 98% and groups like the Sierra Club, 350.0rg, Sachamama and the League of Conservation Voters are encouraging people to sign a petition to tell the company to end its dirty pollution. The groups charge that communities that consists of minorities are the ones that bear the brunt of dirty energy, though they would benefit most from the expansion of renewable energy.

“Latino communities are sick of Duke Energy poisoning our families and undermining our efforts to get clean energy,” said Arturo Carmona, executive director of

“Times are changing, and Duke can no longer get away with polluting our communities in secret. We demand Duke stop destroying our climate, our health, and our neighborhoods.”
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on May 07, 2014, 11:14:49 pm
Report Rules Out Industry Myth That Coal Will Alleviate Poverty in the Developing World  (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on May 19, 2014, 07:06:23 pm
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on May 23, 2014, 01:09:31 am
A new report details the extreme measure that the fossil-fuel industry has taken to attack clean energy.

 Gabe Elsner, Energy and Policy Institute 
 May 22, 2014
Fossil fuel-funded front groups repeatedly spread disinformation on renewable energy standard and net metering policies in an effort to overturn pro-clean energy laws in 2013 and 2014.

A new report details the efforts of these front groups to eliminate clean energy policies across the country. The fossil fuel lobby aggressively uses lobbying and propaganda to achieve their goals. Self-identified “free market think tanks” are among the most effective advocates for the fossil fuel industry to lobby for policy changes. Dozens of these so-called free market organizations, a majority of which are members of the State Policy Network (SPN), worked to influence state level energy policies and attack the clean energy industry.

These organizations are usually described in neutral, nondescript terms, such as “think tank,” “institute,” or “policy group,” but publicized internal documents from the American Tradition Institute, Heartland Institute, and the Beacon Hill Institute suggest that these types of organizations embrace transactional relationships with the corporate lobbying interests that fund their operations.

The Beacon Hill Institute, a “think tank” based out of Suffolk University (and a Koch-funded member of SPN) submitted a controversial grant request to the Searle Freedom Trust, a prominent conservative foundation, in they expressly stated: “Success will take the form of media recognition, dissemination to stakeholders, and legislative activity that will pare back or repeal [the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (or RGGI)].” In other words, the Beacon Hill Institute proposed to pursue biased economic research to support the express goal to “pare back or repeal” a regional climate change accord — all before the institute performed any research determining the economic effect of the law.

Another example of the pay-to-play nature of these so-called “think tanks” comes from Heartland Institute’s Internal fundraising documents which stated: “Contributions will be pursued for this work, especially from corporations whose interests are threatened by climate [change] policies.”

Despite positioning themselves as ideologically-focused on smaller government, dozens of these organizations aggressively denounce policy investments in clean energy as market-distorting and unnecessary, while remaining silent on the far-larger, decades-old stream of taxpayer dollars and policies supporting oil, gas, and coal interests. ( (

Over the years, government support for fossil fuels has come from a variety of sources: tax deductions, tax credits, direct subsidies, cheap access to public property, pollution remediation, research and development, and entire government agencies devoted to helping promote and assist fossil fuel industry growth.

By all credible measurements, fossil fuel subsidies are massive and extremely unpopular, and are flowing to some of the most highly profitable industries on earth. Yet, fossil fuel subsidies go largely unmentioned by these “free market” groups, such as the Heartland Institute, despite their avowed opposition to wasteful government spending.

Fossil fuel-funded front groups operate in multiple areas to influence the policy-making process in their attempts to eliminate clean energy policies. First, groups like the Beacon Hill Institute provide flawed reports or analysis claiming clean energy policies have negative impacts. Next, allied front groups or “think tanks” use the flawed data in testimony, opinion columns, and in the media. Then, front groups, like Americans for Prosperity, spread disinformation through their grassroots networks, in postcards mailed to the public, and in television ads attacking the clean energy policy. Finally, lobbyists from front groups, utilities, and other fossil fuel companies use their influence from campaign contributions and meetings with decision makers to push for anti-clean energy efforts.

Instead of advocating for a fair and free market for electricity, over the past year and a half, fossil fuel front groups have advocated to repeal, freeze, and eliminate pro-clean energy policies across the country on behalf of allies and funders in the fossil fuel industry. >:(

This is an exceprt from a new report, issued today by the Energy and Policy Institute entitled "Attacks on Renewable Energy Standards and Net Metering Policies by Fossil Fuel Interests and Front Groups 2013-2014." You can download the 35-page report at this link (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on May 25, 2014, 05:43:52 pm
“We can’t fund our schools on a boom-or-bust industry,” Arnold said before she was ushered off the stage. “They’re poisoning our state and ruining our chance for a strong economic future.”
Elizabeth Arnold   (
A pleasant INTERRUPTION of Fossil Fuel (Fracking LACK  ;) of discussion in this case) Propaganda MO.  ;D

Watch a Pennsylvania Woman ( Disrupt Democratic ( Gubernatorial Candidates Who Avoided Fracking Discussion  ( (  (   ( 

Brandon Baker | May 19, 2014 12:32 pm
Title: ‘Gasland’ Director Josh Fox Brilliantly Avoids Entrapment!
Post by: AGelbert on May 25, 2014, 07:21:23 pm
Watch ‘Gasland’ Director Josh Fox Brilliantly Avoid James O’Keefe’s Oil Entrapment

Brandon Baker | May 25, 2014 9:00 am | Comments

Gasland director Josh Fox recently found himself in a game of “Gotcha.” That is, until he turned the tables back around on the man who tried entrapping him.

Conservative activist James O’Keefe had loads of fun in recent years staging scams and releasing audio and video recordings of notable people who were supposedly caught in compromising or contradictory situations. He thought he had the perfect plan for Fox—an over-the-phone offer to fund a future project with so much oil money that even an environmentalist like Fox wouldn’t pass it up.

However, a listen to the recording lets you know just how poorly O’Keefe thought this thing out. He also didn’t anticipate that Fox would recording the conversation as well. That was perfect for exposing how O’Keefe edited the chat to give people the perception that Fox was a sellout.

MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes captures it all and lets Fox explain why he also recorded the odd conversation:

GREAT VIDEO! Don't miss it!  ;D
Title: Personally, I don’t think it proper for any American to use that argument
Post by: AGelbert on May 31, 2014, 05:50:44 pm
“Personally, I don’t think it proper for any American to use that argument,” said Donald. J Wuebbles, a distinguished professor of atmospheric sciences and coordinating lead author for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2013 assessment report.   (

Boehner Says He’s ‘Not Qualified’ To Talk About Climate Science. Here’s How Scientists Responded (

By Emily Atkin on May 29, 2014
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on June 14, 2014, 10:42:03 pm
Chevron Hides Evidence That Proves Guilt in Ecuador Rainforest Contamination Case

Karen Hinton | June 13, 2014 1:03 pm |

In the wake of a controversial U.S. court ruling that a $9.5 billion Ecuador judgment against Chevron is fraudulent, the oil giant has been touting loudly its innocence of any environmental crimes in the South American country.

Chevron’s lawyers even successfully pressured some CBS News corporate suits to yank a damning 60 Minutes piece from the network’s website about the deliberate contamination of the Ecuador rainforest from 1964 to 1992 by Texaco, which Chevron later bought.

Instead of succumbing to Chevron’s pressure tactics, CBS’ lawyers should grow a backbone and demand to see contamination “playbook” documents that Chevron has been forced to produce in an international arbitration proceeding.

They are explosive and prove 60 Minutes got it right, and the U.S. judge got it wrong.

The playbook details how the company hid evidence of contamination during an eight-year Ecuador trial resulting in a $9.5 billion damage award that the Ecuadorians are waiting for Chevron to pay.
Meanwhile, Chevron is claiming in arbitration that the Republic of Ecuador should pay the judgment, and the two parties are duking it out before a panel of corporate trade lawyers who rent office space at The Hague and act as “judges”—more about them later.

The playbook took center stage in a recent arbitration filing by Ecuador. It appears the country’s lawyers have gotten their hands on much of, if not the entire, playbook, but the corporate trade lawyers are requiring Ecuador to redact or cover up the really damning evidence.

Even so, a recent rejoinder filed by Ecuador reveals enough to demonstrate what a morally bankrupt company Chevron is.

Here’s what we know about the playbook, pieced together from the filings of both the Ecuadorians in U.S. court and the Republic of Ecuador in arbitration.

In 2011, the Ecuadorians obtained a few pages from the playbook and tried to enter them into evidence during Chevron’s “fraud” trial, but Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan refused to allow any evidence of contamination into the record, including the small excerpt from Chevron’s playbook.(See my recent blog about this legal travesty, and this earlier 2011 press release about the playbook)

During the Ecuador trial Chevron’s paid experts wrote the playbook to document how to handle the contamination they found at the well sites in soil and water tests.

Without the knowledge of the Ecuador court, Chevron’s experts conducted unofficial and secret pre-inspections of the sites so they could avoid the badly contaminated areas during the official judicial inspections.  ( (page 63 in the rejoinder)

Their pre-inspection findings would have been devastating to their case had they been turned over to the court. So they never were.  ( 63)

Instead, they used the ( to avoid the contaminated areas and test at clean spots,   usually from soil and water at elevations higher than the huge, unlined and open pits Texaco built to store permanently pure crude and toxic water. (

Quick backgrounder: Texaco explored for oil in Ecuador from 1964 to 1992 and was the sole operator of the well sites during that time. The Ecuadorians filed their original lawsuit in the U.S. against Texaco in 1993, one year after Texaco left Ecuador. A U.S. judge dismissed their lawsuit ruling in 2001 at Texaco’s urging the litigation should be heard in Ecuador. That year, Chevron bought Texaco. In 2003, the Ecuadorians re-filed their case in Ecuador but not before the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals instructed Chevron that it must accept Ecuador’s jurisdiction, which it did.

Chevron routinely used deceptive methods, such as mixing clean soil with dirty and undercounting hydrocarbons, to hide or reduce toxic chemicals in samplings. (pages 66-72)

This table below (at link), taken from the arbitration filing, reflects just a few of the thousands of pages of playbook notes Chevron’s experts and field personnel took, describing the contamination and advising the company about ways to avoid it during the official judicial inspection:

It’s heavily redacted. If it’s true—as Chevron says it is —that the oil giant is innocent  (, and the truth is what it seeks (, then why won’t Chevron release the un-redacted, unedited playbook for all to see?  >:(

Read the rest of this article here and please pass it on! We want everyone to know what these conscience free fossil fuelers are ALWAYS up to when one peeks beneath their mendacious happy talk propaganda (I.E. ALWAYS Profit over Planet! (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on June 15, 2014, 01:53:04 am
Groups Call on FCC to Investigate Radio Stations Airing False Ads ( on New Carbon Standards   
EcoWatch | June 12, 2014 10:19 am
In an effort to elicit a federal investigation into radio stations airing false advertisements critical of the Obama Administration’s new carbon standards, more than two dozen organizations sent an open letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) yesterday.

The letter urges the FCC to look into 23 radio station in five states—Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Michigan and Pennsylvania—that are still airing a widely discredited ad paid for by the National Mining Association  (  despite repeated requests that it be taken off the air.

The above is Mendacious Scare Mongering propaganda by the fossil fuelers ( (

A print and radio advertising campaign paid for by the National Mining Association is spreading false information about the Obama Administration’s new carbon emission standards.

The ad makes deceptive statements about the first-ever proposed federal limits on carbon pollution from power plants. This ad earned “four Pinocchios”—their highest rating—from Washington Post fact checkers, because they found the ad to be “wholly unsupported” and “bogus.”

According to Natural Resources Defense Council, the groups question whether the stations are properly serving their communities, noting that the FCC has advised broadcasters to ensure ads run on their stations are not false.

The full text of the letter follows:

June 11, 2014

Chairman Tom Wheeler
Commissioners Mignon Clyburn, Jessica Rosenworcel, Ajit Pai and Michael O’Rielly
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20536

Dear Chairman Wheeler and Commissioners Clyburn, Rosenworcel, Pai, and O’Rielly:

We write to ask you to investigate 23 radio stations that continue to run a false and misleading radio advertisement, sponsored by the National Mining Association (NMA), despite extensive and detailed critiques of the ad. The ad is airing in five states: Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Michigan and Pennsylvania. We have sent multiple letters over the last three weeks to the respective stations’ managers, requesting that the radio stations cease airing the NMA radio ads, but these requests have gone unanswered. We ask that the Federal Communications Commission initiate an investigation into the licensees airing the deceptive NMA radio advertisement.

The central claim of the National Mining Association ad, which has been determined to be false by independent researchers, is an inaccurate and duplicitous statement about the impact of proposed clean air standards. The Washington Post fact checkers called the NMA ad claims “bogus,” “hyped,” and “wholly unsupported.” They concluded that “the ad does not pass the laugh test” and assigned the ad “four Pinocchios,” their worst rating. In addition, the Denver Post declared that the radio ad “flunks the truth test.” Both articles are attached for your review.

The National Mining Association has attempted to defend its deceptive ad against The Washington Post’s analysis, but in doing so has simply created more misleading claims. Attached to this letter is a point by point refutation of the flawed arguments in NMA’s most recent letter.

The FCC has advised broadcasters that they are “to be responsible to the community they serve and act with reasonable care to ensure that advertisements aired on their stations are not false or misleading.” We request that the FCC investigate whether the radio stations running this misleading advertisement are properly serving their communities.


Natural Resources Defense Council

Arkansas Sierra Club

Center for Biological Diversity

Clean Wisconsin

Climate Parents

Climate Solutions

Earth Day Network

Environment America

Environment Michigan

Environmental Defense Fund

Forecast the Facts

Greenpeace USA

Interfaith Power & Light

Iowa Environmental Council

Iowa Interfaith Power & Light

League of Conservation Voters

Michigan Environmental Council

Montana Environmental Information Center

Oregon Environmental Council


Protect Our Winters

Public Citizen

Re-Volt Pueblo

Snake River Alliance

Southern Environmental Law Center


Western North Carolina Alliance
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on June 20, 2014, 10:35:59 pm
Big Oil and Big Guns: Not so strange bedfellows

Questions arise over why oil and gas companies are donating money to gun groups with seemingly opposing political aims

June 16, 2014 5:00AM ET

by Jamie Tarabay - @jamietarabay (

Agelbert NOTE: Interesting first article in a series. It turns out that ONE zip code in the DFW is the origin of MOST of the "donations" to politicians on behalf of BIG OIL!  ( :o
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on July 01, 2014, 04:11:56 pm
2012 interview. The oil bastards don't know when to stop trashing the planet! It's up to us to STOP them.

Way ahead of you Anthony. May I recommend you join those of us already DOING something about it, get rid of that Camry and become part of the solution, not the problem!


Mr. MKing,
I'll make a deal with you. YOU PROVE you have DIVESTED from ALL Fossil fuel investments, stocks, mutual funds or whatever AND I WILL, not sell, but RECYCLE the metal, glass, wiring, rugs, plastic, rubber and whatever else is of use from the camry so NOBODY ELSE can run it ever again.  ;D

You see, I can add and subtract quite well. I'm not into creative, the will makes the reality, type "math".

IOW, when you PROFIT from dirty energy to BUY a clean energy (e.g. Bush's ranch had geothermal power installed from big oil profits!) you have not done JACK **** to improve the biosphere or the corruptus in extremis status quo that is killing us.

You are akin to the rich man that engages in "philanthropy" to green wash his putrid, greedball, conscience free, predatory dog eat dog mentality.

If you HAVE a conscience, I can help you overcome your "guilt" feelings for promoting a dirty energy world through your lifetime piggery. I will joyfully accept your used Volt free so you can buy a brand new ALL ELECTRIC Leaf!  ;D

Right. I didn't figure you would be interested...

I'm bad. I drive a 1997 camry to the grocery store, pharmacy and doctor's and pacemaker appointments (and to a "gulp" gas station every now and then   :-[) less than 2,000 miles a year. I am such an environment destroyer I should just STFU, right?

And since you are DOING so much to save the world, are you in favor of BANNING the manufacture and sale of ALL internal combustion engine powered cars RIGHT NOW?

I am.

Well, ARE YOU ARE YOU NOT in favor of that?

Are you in favor of shutting down ALL the coal fired power plants in the WORLD ( And spare the FUD that "we are all going to die" from a civilizational collapse if we do that. ;)) RIGHT NOW?

I am.

Well, ARE YOU ARE YOU NOT in favor of that?

Are  you in favor of shutting down ALL the nuclear power plants in the WORLD RIGHT NOW and pulling the turbines out and installing them in geothermal power plants (600C is 600C and those giant steam turbines down give a **** where the heat came from! )  or not?

I am.

Well, ARE YOU ARE YOU NOT in favor of that?

Are  you in favor of MANDATING that ALL remaining fossil fuel power plants in the WORLD switch to biofuel feedstock hydrocarbon fuels within a decade or not?

I am.

Well, ARE YOU ARE YOU NOT in favor of that?

Are  you in favor of eliminating ALL energy subsidies, direct and indirect on Fossil, nuclear and renewable energy technology RIGHT NOW or not?

I am. Well, ARE YOU ARE YOU NOT in favor of that?

Do your good deed for the day, Mr. World Savior. Sign my ****ing petition and show me how wrong I am about you. (  (

Only Care2 sees your name, address and e-mail (you can elect to not have your name displayed  8) ). All I see is the general geographic area.

Have a nice day.  ;D

For those who think I am a piggy compared with MKing, remedial classes on materials engineering, MTBF, manufactured product life cycle costs (all of them) and cost accounting are available at UVM.   ;D
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on August 14, 2014, 07:34:52 pm
Flaw and Order: How Brookings  Got Its Analysis of Wind and Solar Costs So Wrong (  (


Pick your metric:

levelized cost of energy,
saved carbon,
cash flow profile,
financial return,
annual and
cumulative installed capacity or
global investment.

By any meaningful set of accurate data and recent trends, renewables such as PV and wind are making rapid and accelerating inroads against incumbent fossil fuels -- precisely because they’re proving themselves increasingly economical, not because they’re supposedly swimming against the economic tide.


The “ripped from the headlines” data and recent real-world trajectories of renewables show a low-carbon electricity future based on solar and wind is being built as fast as or faster than RMI’s analysis predicted it could.

That’s not because renewables are defying economics (as Dr. Frank’s defective analysis would suggest they are), but because their ever-more-competitive economics reinforce their expanding gains against incumbent power stations.    (  ;D
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on August 23, 2014, 01:54:46 pm
MORE MATH CHALLENGED BS From the Economist posing as "balanced" Journalism in the service of "Doing the math" on Renewable Energy costs. (

The cost of renewable energy; New numbers, same conclusion  (

Aug 22nd 2014, 17:59 by J.P.

Agelbert's comment posted at the Economist for all Mking math challenged prevaricators to enjoy.  ;D

Dr. Frank is mendacious and duplicitous. Dr. Lovins is being far too polite. It's time for the Economist to admit that Renewable energy is NOT an issue of 'balance' about whether it actually costs more than Fossil Fuel and/or Nuclear power Energy. But that would require the "Economist" to ADMIT that the biosphere IS the ECONOMY, not their convenient and resource extraction and pollution cost IGNORING view of the human "economy" taught for over a century in business schools for the "benefit" of predatory Capitalism which, in the final analysis, is ANTI-Capitalistic because it DESTROYS, rather than accumulates, Capital.

Fossil fuel Government 2 minute Video Clip from "The Age of Stupid" Video:

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on August 26, 2014, 01:53:14 pm
With all due respect to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy and the Alliance to Save Energy  ;D, energy savings lack an amplifier powerful enough to make their important signals audible over the supply-side hype, so efficiency continues to be underestimated or ignored.

This omission makes governments and firms misallocate ( even more financial, physical, and political capital to costlier, slower, and less effective supply expansions.

Reduced energy intensity could have fueled about three times as much recent global economic growth as increased supply, but the supply industries  :evil4: own more like 99 percent of the message.  ;)
Amory Lovins RMI cofounder and chief scientist   (

Energy Efficiency: The Secret Revolution (


Increased efficiency matters: lower consumption due to 1974–2010 drops in energy intensity was the largest single energy resource across the 11 IEA member countries’ aggregate total final consumption — bigger than either oil or the combined contributions of gas, electricity, and coal.

Had those 11 countries produced their 2010 GDP at their 1974 delivered energy intensities, they’d have used 65 percent more energy than they did. Reduced intensity has fueled half the world’s growth in energy services since 1970 — as much as all supply expansions. Who knew?  ( (

Agelbert NOTE: The Fossil Fuel Industry BEAN COUNTERS KNEW and are threatened by that knowledge!  (

And THAT is why the fossil fuel prevaricating and mendacious bullshit artists (Hi S3 Mking!   ;D) harp on the "math" of SUPPLY AND DEMAND.  (

Te conozco bacalao / aunque venga disfrazado
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on September 04, 2014, 09:08:13 pm
Keystone Ads Mislead on Canada's Deep Cuts to Environmental Monitoring: Canada has cut nearly $3 billion in spending and up to 5,000 jobs from its science-based departments, according to a union representing federal scientists. (  >:(
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on September 24, 2014, 11:41:02 pm
Behold an excellent example of what the Fossil Fuelers routinely, with Malice and Aforethought, DO.  (

I found this from the Union of Concerned Scientists. It's breathtaking how fossil fuelers took a REAL study, twisted it, BUT KEPT the title and cover all the way to the color scheme EXCEPT for the temperature graph. I mean, this is the most IN YOUR FACE Mendacity  ( I have EVER SEEN!  :o

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on October 03, 2014, 07:03:49 pm
Congressman proves we have nothing to fear from global warming because Science  ;D

There you have it, fellow scientists; Scientific PROOF that it is possible for Money AND BULL S H I T to TALK simultaneously. (

"Money talks and Profit over Planet Bull s h i t walks too!"
 Chapter 9 verse 11 of the Fossil Fueler Luciferian Bible  

 (                             (

Title: Schlumberger N.V. (SLB): The BIG OIL Planet Polluter you never heard of...
Post by: AGelbert on October 24, 2014, 08:30:39 pm

Schlumberger N.V. (Schlumberger) is the supplier of technology, integrated project management and information solutions to the international oil and gas exploration and production industry. The Company’s segments include Reservoir Characterization Group, which consists of the principal technologies involved in finding and defining hydrocarbon deposits; Drilling Group, which consists of the principal technologies involved in the drilling and positioning of oil and gas wells, and Production Group consists of the principal technologies involved in the lifetime production of oil and gas reservoirs and includes Well Services, Completions, Artificial Lift, Well Intervention, Subsea, Water Services, Carbon Services and the Schlumberger Production Management field production projects.   SLB  has a Mkt cap of 126.44B and operates in 80 countries. SLB has EXTENSIVE gas drilling operations in the USA. (

From the fine print in a Schlumberger FORM 10−Q QUARTERLY REPORT  :o ( 

Any dilution of, or decrease or delay of any accretion to, Schlumberger’s earnings per share could cause the price of Schlumberger’s common stock to decline.

Demand for our products and services could be reduced or eliminated by governmental regulation or a change in the law. (

International, national, and state governments and agencies are currently evaluating and promulgating climate−related legislation and regulations that are focused on restricting greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions.  In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) is taking steps to require monitoring and reporting of GHG emissions and to regulate GHGs as pollutants under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). The EPA’s “Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases” rule established a comprehensive scheme of regulations that require monitoring and reporting of GHG emissions that began in 2010.

Furthermore, the EPA recently proposed additional GHG reporting rules specifically for the oil and gas industry. The EPA has also published a final rule, the “Endangerment Finding”, finding that GHGs in the atmosphere endanger public health and welfare, and that emissions of GHGs from mobile sources cause or contribute to the GHG pollution.  ( Following issuance of the Endangerment Finding, the EPA promulgated final motor vehicle GHG emission standards on April 1, 2010.

The EPA has asserted that the final motor vehicle GHG emission standards will trigger construction and operating permit requirements for stationary sources. In addition, climate change legislation is pending in the United States Congress. ( These developments may curtail production and demand for fossil fuels such as oil and gas in areas of the world where our customers operate and thus adversely affect future demand for our services and products, which may in turn adversely affect future results of operations.  (

Additionally, legislation to reduce greenhouse gases may have an adverse effect on our operations, including payment of additional costs due to carbon emissions. ( Higher carbon emission activities include transportation, including marine vessels, cement production (by third party suppliers), and electricity generation (by third party suppliers) as well as other activities.

Finally, our business (  could be negatively affected by climate change related physical changes or changes in weather patterns, which could result in damages to or loss of our ( ( physical assets, impacts to our ability to conduct operations and/or disruption of our customers’ operations.

FORM 10−Q QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 SCHLUMBERGER N.V. (,d.ZGU&cad=rjt)

Agelbert NOTE: Isn't the above just CLASSIC Profit over planet world class GREED? They have the BRASS to "worry" about the climate change THEY are causing costing THEM some money!   But about the REST of the biosphere, they just do not CARE!  (

And these psychopaths KNOW the damage, to humans alone, caused by their oil and gas "services" (grossly polluting practices) is NOT COVERED BY INSURANCE!  >:(

We could be subject to substantial liability claims, which would adversely affect our results and financial condition. (

Certain equipment used in the delivery of oilfield services, such as directional drilling equipment, perforating systems, subsea completion equipment, radioactive materials and explosives and well completion  systems, are used in hostile environments, such as exploration, development and production applications. An accident or a failure of a product could cause personal injury, loss of life, damage to property, equipment or the environment, and suspension of operations.

Our insurance may not adequately protect us against liability for some kinds of events, including events involving pollution, or against losses resulting from business interruption.  (

Moreover, in the future we may not be able to maintain insurance at levels of risk coverage or policy limits  ( that we deem adequate.

Substantial claims made under our policies could cause our premiums to increase. Any future damages caused by our products that are not covered by insurance, or are in excess of policy limits or are subject to substantial deductibles, could reduce our earnings and our cash available for operations.

TRANSLATION (the one the LAWYERS that wrote the above ethics free boilerplate are communicating LEGALLY to you ):
We ain't gonna pay for our piggery. There ain't no profit in ADEQUATE insurance coverage of WHAT WE REALLY DO to endanger people and pollute the biosphere... (

If you don't assume that SLB is every bit as involved in buying politicians and democracy in the service of profit over planet as Exxon, Chevron, Halliburton and the Koch Crooks are, then read that financial statement cover to cover like I did. LEARN where their operations are, the names for their two field segments, the tax dodges from depreciation and the currency hedging they claim is not for "speculation" purposes . LOL! You need some accounting background and a strong stomach.  :P

Check out what ridiculously low taxes they pay.  >:(  The statement is somewhat dated (2009 and 2010). But it gives you and excellent view of the abject irresponsibility that this conscience free corporate example of the banality of EVIL calmly APPLAUDS and JUSTIFIES as OKAY in order to make a profit.   

FORM 10−Q QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 SCHLUMBERGER N.V. (,d.ZGU&cad=rjt) (

We can always hope that this 130 billion dollar world class polluting Corporation run by psychopaths for profit over planet will go bankrupt from pollution fines SOON!  (

( Spread the word. Schlumberger is helping kill the biosphere and could care less!   (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on November 01, 2014, 02:55:01 pm
Why Dr. Evil   ( Is Targeting Anti-Fracking Activists as ‘Big Green Radicals’  ( (

This is the FRUIT of BAD GOVERNMENT by

1) predatory,
2) conscience free ('liberated' from guilt feelings by the almighty Freud in order to avoid 'neurosis'),
3) social Darwinist,
4) game theory (cooperation is a guise to fool and destroy the competition) screwed up world view,
5) situational ethics (an oxymoron!),
6) if it feels good-DO IT
corporate consent manufacturing propagandists in the service of **** CANNED ETHICS for SHORT TERM PROFITS!

the PROBLEM is that CORPORATIONS ARE the present BAD GOVERNMENT!  They support imprisoning people that speak truth to power and giving the people the mushroom treatment for the same reason they ignore global warming and pollution:  **** CANNED ETHICS FOR SHORT TERM PROFITS!

As part of being responsible, caring human beings, we have to pressure our government to take major action to stop the degradation of the biosphere from climate change. This is causing death and disease to both domestic animals and wildlife, all of which have done nothing to deserve such a horrible fate at our hands. It's time to eliminate the excuse our fossil fuel loving oligarchy uses for "resources" wars for oil that bring nothing but misery to us and profits for them.

I started a petition on Care2: Demand Liberty From Fossil Fuels Through 100% Renewable Energy WWII Style Effort. I'm hoping that if enough people sign my petition, we can make a difference. I have over 400 signatures. Once I reach 500, Care2 will publicize it more. Will you help me collect more by adding your name?

Here's a link to the petition (You can sign anonymously if you have privacy concerns):

Thank you and please pass it on. The biosphere you save may be your own.

Here's a link to the petition (You can sign anonymously if you have privacy concerns):

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on November 03, 2014, 08:00:27 pm
Texas lobbying group ( busted for phony anti-solar campaign  (


If you want to see just how low utility companies will stoop to try to turn public opinion against rooftop solar energy, just look to Wisconsin. There, as in other states, utility companies have been pushing to increase households’ fixed monthly energy costs, arguing that rate hikes are needed because of solar “net metering” policies. (  (

Full story here: (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on November 25, 2014, 07:27:58 pm
11/25/2014 02:41 PM     
Petroleum Front Groups ( Focus on Pacific Northwest Next Year News

The Koch Brothers and their peers in the petroleum industry pretty much own the USA now  >:( - with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress and in 30 states - Wow.   :(

 But so far, they haven't managed to squash renewable energy even with their best efforts. They plan to try even harder next year, with Americans for Prosperity and others leading the charge to eliminate or weaken state Renewable Portfolio Standards, Efficiency Standards, and getting people to pay for using solar (instead of being paid through net-metering). On the federal level, they are already hard at work making sure the wind production tax credit doesn't get renewed, but Keystone does.

In California, the powerful Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) ( is leading the effort  ( to turn residents against renewable energy and prevent the state's watershed climate plan (AB32) from being fully implemented.

They better hurry. In January, transportation fuel providers join power plants, cement factories and other big polluters in California's successful cap-and-trade program. They will either have to lower emissions at refineries or pay for the right to pollute the air.

Leaked Internal Presentation  (

A leaked internal presentation reveals their coordinated campaign among at least 15 front groups that extends to Oregon and Washington. They operate under names like California Drivers Alliance, Californians Against Higher Taxes, Fed Up at the Pump, Oregonians for Sound Fuel Policy, Save Our Jobs and Washingtonians for Sound Fuel Policy.

Koch - CA Front Groups  (

"WSPA's new crop of front groups and the campaign behind them is indeed impressive. They are attacking climate and clean energy policies - both existing and under development - in California, Washington, and Oregon. They are engaging (and in some cases pretending to speaking on behalf of) consumers, launching petition drives, tracking and attending every policy and public forum, funding reports designed to back their interests, backing or attacking elected leaders to influence politics, and running aggressive and misleading ad campaigns. Since 2009, the oil industry has reported spending over $70 million on lobbying in California alone.

If only they showed the same determination and innovation in cleaning up their operations and developing clean energy alternatives for their customers," says Merrian Borgeson, Senior Scientist, Energy and Transportation, for Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

"The environmental community is used to sky-is-falling analysis from fossil fuel interests in response to clean energy initiatives, so that part isn't surprising," Tim O'Connor, a senior attorney at the Environmental Defense Fund, told Bloomberg Businessweek. "But it's eye-opening to see the lengths [the WSPA] has gone to push back rather than move forward. I don't think anybody knew how cross-jurisdictional, cross-border, and extensive their investment is in creating a false consumer backlash against climate legislation."

 And if they can do it California, where 70% of residents are on-board, they can do it anywhere... which is their plan. ( (

Read our article, How Did ALEC Fare in the Midterm Election?

Read NRDC's report, Unmasked: The Oil Industry Campaign to Undermine California's Clean Energy Future:


Agelbert NOTE: These fossil fuel predatory FOSSILS DO NOT GET The FACT that we-the-people are tired of their fascist profit over people and planet "fun".  But they will... ( (

Renewable energy= (                                ( Fuelers

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on December 13, 2014, 02:28:32 am
Agelbert NOTE: What to expect from the main stream media in the next six months in regard to the EFFECTS of low Oil Prices on different countries in the world that ARE on the USA's HIT ( as in ( list:

( MY cup overrunneth.  ;D
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on December 19, 2014, 08:03:47 pm

Amory Lovins exposes, WITH MATH, why fossil fuels, because they COST MORE than Renewable Energy, should be a LAST resort, (about 5% or less, if at all) for the electrical grid.

He also exposes the MYTH that fossil fuels are "reliable". Beyond the routine maintenance required of all fossil fuel and nuclear power plants that REQUIRE multiples of them in the grid for reliability, he shows how power plants can, and DO, fail routinely within milliseconds, causing load balancing problems that are EASIER (more cheaply) HANDLED with redundant Renewable Energy systems than redundant coal and nuclear power plants.

Pass it on. Call BS on the fossil fuel perfidious propaganda that Renewable Energy is not reliable. It is, IN FACT, MORE RELIABLE to run our grid on them than with dirty energy!  :o    (
Title: The "Welfare" of Society has always been the alibi of tyrants part 1 of 2
Post by: AGelbert on December 20, 2014, 04:50:06 pm
Leaked Internal Presentation Details the Oil Industry's Campaign to Stop Clean Energy
Merrian Borgeson, NRDC
December 03, 2014

Agelbert NOTE:
It's a great article. However, the title needs to be corrected in order to enlighten readers about what is PAR FOR THE COURSE for fossil fuelers for the last CENTURY: Leaked Internal Presentation Details the Oil Industry's Campaignonspiracy to Stop Clean Energy

Fossil fuel fascist MKing Propagandist types (

The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) — whose members include Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, ConocoPhillips, BP, and others — was caught red-handed late last month when a leaked internal presentation revealed a coordinated campaign to stomp out climate and clean energy progress in California, Oregon and Washington by propping up  :evil4: over 15 front groups that purport to represent the views of concerned citizens and the broader business community.

The leak comes on the heels of NRDC’s report released this month, which unmasked eight of the front groups that are campaigning against California’s climate and clean energy laws, as having direct ties to the oil industry.

Fortunately, Californians have shown they can see through Big Oil’s smoke and mirrors tactics. In 2010, voters rejected an oil-funded ballot measure to derail the state’s pioneering clean energy law, AB 32, by a margin of more than 2 to 1. And just recently, Chevron’s $3 million campaign to influence the outcome of the city of Richmond’s local elections (which just happens to be the home of a Chevron refinery) completely backfired. (

Agelbert NOTE:
The comments are WORLD CLASS!( Please note that some commenters are not native English speakers so ignore the nunc pro tunc grammar errors.  8)
William Fitch III
December 3, 2014
Hi: First:

"WSPA’s new crop of front groups and the campaign behind them is indeed impressive. "

I would not use the word impressive to describe (and yes I "get" the context) people who are involved with being a traitor to humanity, literally. Labeling them traitors or environmental terrorists may seem harsh and out on a limb, but even at that level of verbiage, the words fall far short of the REAL act they are involved in.

The Nazies set the Reichstag fire, the US complicity in the Gulf of Tonkin not to mention our desire to create the whole Indochina war express, 9/11's events (one doc worth viewing out of all the krap is, "9/11: The press for Truth", print version, "The Terror Time line) on and on... why do people seem to find it necessary, to be surprised at what the desire/keeping of wealth and power will do to the rest of humanity who do not sit at their table?

Edward Snowden (CitizenFour) basically gave up his life, to reveal something that is/should have been blatantly obvious as being the current state of affairs for the USA and tagged business linked governments, for anyone who has even a light understanding of what the advent of a digital world would mean vs analog.

Anyway, let's not use possible words of praise or surprise (, every time one of these associations finds itself in print.

After all, it is a given.... or as they say in finance, its already baked in..

PJ van Staden
December 4, 2014
The welfare of society was always the alibi of tyrants     ( , ...talking about  ( wolves in sheep clothing.     (

Do you now understand why I keep pushing that the renewable industry should do more to get the general public educated? Can you see what these fossil incumbents' fear is? Can you see that they are doing the very thing I'm preaching to the renewable industry?

They know that all their money cannot save them from public protest ( (, which politicians cannot ignore, because politicians' very survival depend upon popularity amongst the broad public.

And if it does get ignored, they know it will transform into violent resistance  (, and that is the last thing they want, because then they lose whatever control they think they have, and the foundations of their empires start crumbling away.

But if the public is not aware of, and have no knowledge of the REAL reasons why we should go renewable, then power will remain within the realm
of the psychopathic (diminished empathy and no conscience) few, for them to continue manipulate and destroy our existence as they wish and please, all in the name of, and for the sake of, financial greed only. These bastards are blind. They WILL NOT, AND NEVER WILL, understand any reason behind moral decision making if it implies any reduction in the dollar wealth of their small isolated circle.

These WSPA-backed groups should now be exposed to the public as part of an awareness program of the renewable industry. Use these fossil incumbents' own filthy tactics to work against them. Reveal their "alibi" to the people. Those groups are kept in the dark and most people associated with them will dissociate themselves once they begin to see the truth.

Is the truth about our climate, our earth's health, our very survival, not in favor of renewables? Won't it boost the industry?

Can you see the change happen in state subsidies when a whole nation expect his leaders to rule in favor of life, and those leaders know that the nation is aware of, and possess the knowledge of, and expect them to do so?

They get away with murder because we sit idle and wait for santa claus to do something about it. Politicians are voted into power to serve you, my dear friend, not to rule you. Why do you think they rule, and you accept it like that? Its because you have been brainwashed by a little group of psychopaths to believe what they want you to believe. Wake up, stand up, and claim your right to live! Those bastards' money are not going to buy your kids a new climate and a life when nature's photosynthesis process start to collapse! Do you then want to look your sons and daughters in the eyes and say "SORRY"!!!!??


John Nistler

December 4, 2014
Anyone who did not expect a battle or war between the fossil fuel industry and renewable energy must not be experienced with history. Any entrenched group tends to fight against loosing the control, power and income that they maintain. If you have spent 30 years drilling for oil, its difficult for you to see it becoming more difficult to sale your product.

The only real impact that lower fuel prices have directly on renewable energy is to reduce the emphasis for public and electric transportation. Public transportation should be able to stand on its own due to reduced highway maintenance and vehicle costs, reduced air pollution and reduced traffic frustration. The BART in California is a good example of what can be done. Millions move around the south San Francisco Bay area on the BART tram and bus system. Cost of Maintenance per person mile is significantly lower with the BART than with the highways. The DART in Dallas is also a very good example and the Bus System in Fort Worth. Both operating successfully for over 20 years in the middle of oil rich Texas. Traffic and air quality is what sold those systems. 

Job 001

December 4, 2014
Nasty FF/utility tactics noted or to be watched;
Constrained Freedom of Speech by excess moderation of alternate views - noted by Brian and others, example Energy Collective.
Defunding innovative RE - routine in research.
Routine blog overload i.e. utility trolls/obsolete misinformation.
Corrupt Government grant funding and law favoring FF energy subsidy.
News media concentrated ownership by FF troglodytes.
Science like Government "Bought and paid for".
William Fitch III
December 4, 2014
Hi: has, the true concept of telling a lie, along with Ethics, Integrity and ones true beliefs as in sticking to them despite public opinion....


Brian Donovan
December 4, 2014
We need to wake up the sheep. Most folks still do not comprehend and reject the reality that all trillion dollar industries spend billions of dollar per year on pr and influence. They can buy almost anything, anyone, and create alternate realities using the corporate media and fraudulent web sites.

The concept of fraud as a crime has vanished in the USA.

Grace Adams

December 4, 2014
I suspect our federal government will need to both find and prove a renewable energy substitute for oil and practically give it to our ten too big to fail oil firms AND also tax all energy regardless of carbon footprint and devote the revenue to buying fossil fuel reserves as mineral rights to get it off the market in order to sufficiently bribe our too big to fail fossil fuel firms to get out of the way. Joule Unlimited with its GE microbes producing ethanol, gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel might be a suitable renewable substitute for petroleum if it really can get its cost down to $1.20/gallon.

William Fitch III

December 4, 2014
Hi: Grace, you cannot bribe a bottomless pit... you might as well say I am going to end infinity. There is never enough!! That is the whole point! That is why a serial killer kills, and keeps killing... just one more murder will due, but it doesn't... he (Usually) needs to keep killing and killing.. even though he knows it will very most likely mean his own death eventually, he keeps killing... sound familiar... the act of consumption becomes its own reward...

The "Welfare" of Society has always been the alibi of tyrants part 2 of 2 (
Title: The "Welfare" of society has always been the alibi of Tyrants part 2 of 2
Post by: AGelbert on December 20, 2014, 04:51:52 pm
PJ van Staden
December 4, 2014
This cry doesn't go unheard. That you can believe. As much as the sheep will be awakened, so much members amongst the wolves themselves will be enlightened. And so more will leak out. And there is nothing which is hidden, that will not be revealed.

Their eyes follow these words as much as anyone else's does. That I know for sure, for I also know that they are just as much in search of the wisdom to better understand the truth behind this life as everyone else do, because sensing a glimpse of the existence of this truth is a given within all, and curiosity within humans has always survived formal teaching, tradition, believes, and cultures. And this wisdom is far out of reach from that which money buys you.

But in order to make sense of this truth not understood, fiction is created within the grasp of his intellectual capacity and lived as if it is a truth. By nature the story would then, as expected, revolve around the protagonists, and in ignorance it is then so schemed and set up. But this fallacious assurance of a so called perceived reality is not going to last. Leakage of information is the evidence of enlightenment within the circle amongst those who become more aware of the real truth. So, here is to the ones who will not understand;

The call of truth shall not be ignored, not even by you masters of lies yourselves, for it contains an inherent pattern embedded within the anatomy of all living from which life cannot separate itself. And if you know how to seek for it, you will find it, see it, and then begin to understand who you really are, and how indifferent you really are.

Why would you build anything not to fulfill or accomplish the purpose you build it for? Why would you build a car to take in fuel, and for the fuel to flow through the engine, work the engine, turn the wheels, but then expect the car to be stationery while the wheels are turning, and never to take you anywhere? Because that is exactly what you are doing if you think (or believe) that everything stop when you die. Nothing stops when you die, and here is for your consideration, a pattern that doesn't lie, a truth that speaks for itself, and always tell the same thing over and over again. Its this very truth you sense a glimpse of on the inside, but choose to act against all of the time;

All living organisms, plant, animal, human, virus and bacteria, take in energy and transform it into another form of energy that flows out from it. You eat and drink energy, then transform it into the things (works) you do. So does all other life. And so does everything you build. You create by that very nature, that very pattern. It is engraved into you, and into everything else as well. And it stays a standard, a constant, always. Its is what you are part of. Energy taken in is always flowing out in another form. It is a law you cannot change.

Now, do you think the earth is any different? Do you think the earth would still have lived if all who came in from the beginning, plant, man, and animal, never died? All life come into this earth as energy, does it's work, and flow out in a different form again. Its the same thing. The same pattern. The same truth. The same message. Everywhere around you. It is how everything works. You are at the moment like the fuel in the car. Once you have burned out (done your work) carbon will be left behind (your body), but your energy will flow out in a different form (motion of car). And you know that. You know very well that you will not live here in this body of yours forever. How many years have you got left over at most?

Your purpose is to allow life, not to kill. Energy is brought in to make work, not to end. But it is this knowledge you lack while the truth speaks all around your blindness, or at least up until your reading here now. How far does money's rescue reach? For it forms no part of your energy flowing out of here. But money surely achieved something. It succeeded in making you take this life very shallow and meaningless. But its not so. Not at all.

Like I said, everyone read these words.


Gerry Wootton
December 6, 2014
If you're an energy supplier, efficiency, conservation, self-production and alternative energy are all threats to the bottom line. First, profit is based on sales volume - reduced demand == reduced profit. Second, reduced demand == lower selling price == reduced profit.

Only alternative energy provides an option for energy suppliers but if that alternative is lower cost, again there is less profit to be had. Also, currently fossil fuel based energy suppliers have so many special deals that they have hundreds of pages of tax codes, environmental, safety and commercial regulations all their own: enterprises that supply insulation or heat pumps should be envious. However you slice it, this is a lot to give up. While they promise low energy prices, they sorrow whenever consumer prices actually go down.

PJ van Staden

December 6, 2014
Gerry, you are right. But when the oil folks themselves decide to lower their price by not reducing their pumped quota, I guess they bet on increased volume sales, especially with the festive season coming up. It also offers them the opportunity to sell as much as possible of their black death, as quickly as possible, before getting put out of business all together by alternatives. We should all actually stay home this festive season, unless you got an electric vehicle.

PJ van Staden

December 6, 2014

You're a worse lier than a politician. Take your scam to the oil industry's websites. Maybe they will believe you! The people here are too smart for your criminal type.

Agelbert NOTE: Maria Kitty's MKing style perfidy was removed by Renewable Energy World Staff. (

pascal molineaux
December 6, 2014
AND they will insist that they are for "free markets" (politically rigged to favor them).... AND they will say they want "energy independence" - which explains their fight against locally-produced, decentralized energy and their full-blown enthusiasm for the Keystone XL pipeline.... I don't get it. I guess they are just very comfortable with open-mouthed lying! Enough nonsense.

Frank Berry
December 7, 2014
Chancelor Merkel has set the new "inertial" standards for the world by taking Nuclear off line and now even one of Germanies largest coal producing companies is switching to 'renewables' as a way to amend their' losing share strength....

Of course,...the US will never lead in anything, as we're by far,...the largest polluters with China now. We need in invest in Gigawatt farms for solar...have the ability to make money with
"home grown utilities" and move forward to 50% sustainable by the end of 2030.

Our homes, are getting smaller,...our garage interfaces can have solar to fuel our cars; getting 100 miles gallon easily's stop the sh*t and get moving NOW,...while some of the earth can still repair itself.

Gary Hild
December 7, 2014
Should anyone even think that the oil companies will give up the huge profits even when the world is at stake. They will lie even more because there are some people that believe a lie that is told loud enough and often enough must be true, but that does not make it more truthful, just a louder lie.

Gerry Wootton
December 9, 2014
An analogy from real life: A friend of mine tried to take some ice cream away from a tame bear. The bear turned out to be less friendly than he generally let on and things didn't go so well for my friend. After a great deal of persuasion and coercion, the bear finally let my friend have his hand back ... but he kept the ice cream! [/i]

PJ van Staden
December 9, 2014
Gerry, the bear also have weaknesses, of which the greatest his greed (and love) for the ice cream. Your friend's strategy just wasn't the right one. If he observe carefully, he will see how weak the ice cream makes the bear.  (

PJ van Staden

December 10, 2014
The difference between us, people, and them, psychopaths, is that people have empathy with one another and with all other forms of life. Psychopaths don't possess this human characteristic. People have a conscience about their actions taken.

Psychopaths don't possess this human characteristic. They find within themselves no human worth, neither any value in compassion. They have no measuring stick by which they can define their inner strength. To them, it is non-existent. And therefore they cannot bear the truth of life. They simply do not have that courage. They are cowardness in its extreme form. The only means, and worth, by which they can define who they are, is the terms "balance sheet" and "bank account."

If that fall away, nothing of them is left behind. Then they carry no worth to society. They become obsolete to life itself. And they are aware of this. They know it. And for this very reason they are easily frightened, and does fear have no struggle to infest their being.

It is the only reason why they are prepared to pay big money to turn political favor towards them, because how else will they save themselves from that notion of emptiness inside them? To them the only defense for survival is to gain more and more without end.

It fills them with a sense of power which secures their existence. But, had they only have known. Had they only have realized. That their very existence balance on the longevity of human patience, which in turn determines the extend of tolerance granted to them.

Their empires shall not prevail. Money strength will not save them. They have made the mistake to take this false sense of power which they believe they possess, for granted. And they have grown so blind that they do not even see what is already happening all around them.

The moment of their revelation will hit like an unsuspected thief in the night. They will not be prepared. And glory will go to the ones who have set them, and have kept them, on their thrones all of the time. The ones with whom the real and greater power have been all along.

illiam Fitch III
December 10, 2014
Hi: Gary Hild, exactly right. Also it has been shown time and time again, that the loss of wealth, like in 1929 or 2008 will drive the previous owners of it to kill themselves. SO, wealth entities have set the bar on the value of such. How can we expect to take it away for less....


Dave Morgan
December 17, 2014
Not only psychopathic, but suicidal. If we don't embrace sustainability on a global scale we will perish as a species...and it'll happen so fast there won't be time to fill out an application to put homo sapiens on the Endangered Species List. The hard lesson is...human beings are not innately rational at all levels. Within their small "life bubble" they're rational as the dickens. But outside that bubble they inflict death and destruction which doesn't bother their conscience one bit. The psychopathy kicking in.

A. G. Gelbert 
 December 20, 2014

I just want to give a big THANK YOU to the plethora of intelligent, observant, perspicacious, honest, erudite and caring commenters that shine a bright light on the Fossil Fuel Fueled Fascist Perfidy.

These penetrating comments that, by clearly defining the crux of our problem, lead the way to a solution, should be required reading in every single high school and college in the world in general and the USA in particular, especially in the engineering curriculum vitae that has so contributed to the wasteful and inefficient use of energy in our civilization to the detriment of the biosphere.   (

If our species listens to you, we will make it. If not, we won't.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on January 02, 2015, 10:38:27 pm
Agelbert NOTE: This excellent article counters the fossil fuel industry inspired lies, deliberate distortions and mendacious myths about Renewable Energy. Yes, it is limited to Australia, but everything said here applies even more in the USA. (

Myth Busters: the top 4 myths about renewable energy debunked!

By Marianne Graham on 18/11/2014 in Campaigns, Other Ethical Stuff

Here at Ethical Switch, we thought it might be fun to channel Adam and Jamie from the TV show “Myth Busters” and do some myth-busting about renewable energy. Unfortunately, I don’t get to have as much fun as they do on the show by blowing things up, but I have bravely and intrepidly scanned the internet for the most common myths about renewable electricity and condensed them into 4 assumptions that people use to put a dampener on renewable energy.

So here we go – The Top 4 Myths About Renewable Electricity, debunked!

1. Renewable electricity is more expensive than coal and gas fired electricity

This myth is probably the most common and the most damaging to the renewable energy industry so we shall tackle this one head on.

Most people think that if something comes from renewable (read: better for the environment), then it therefore must be more expensive than coal produced energy. This is actually not true. While, it does cost money to build the wind turbines or to produce and install the solar panels, as technology has improved, the cost of building these have reduced dramatically over the past decade.

But you don’t need to take our word for it. There have been recent studies done on the cost of renewable energy versus new plant coal-fired generation. A study by Bloomberg New Energy Finance showed that the cost of renewable energy is now $80/MWh versus the cost of new build coal fired generation of $143/Mwh and new build gas fired generation of $116/MWh.

Michael Liebreich, Chief Executive of Bloomberg New Energy Finance stated “The perception that fossil fuels are cheap and renewables are expensive is now out of date”.

If you’d like to read more about this study, then click here (

Why is this the case? Well, it seems that apart from the diminishing cost of wind and solar technologies, the financing cost of a new coal plant has increased as banks attach a risk-premium due to the reputational damage of emissions-intensive investments.   Additionally, the actual input cost of wind and solar is zero while fossil fuels still incur a cost to mine and transport it to the generator.

Add on top of this, any carbon emissions cost that will be imparted onto fossil fuel emissions and it is easy to see why this myth is busted!  (

While the study does include the cost of carbon emissions, it showed that even without this cost included, the cost of renewable energy is still 14% less than new build coal and 18% cheaper than new build gas fired generation.

2. Purchasing renewable electricity doesn’t help the environment because you can’t tell where the electricity coming into your house is from.

This is probably the second most common question our intrepid team here at Ethical Switch gets asked, and the actual answer to this myth is…. it’s true AND false! How’s that for confusing?

It is true that there is no way to know what source the electricity entering your residence through the poles and wires is from, but this is only part of the myth so not the end of this story.

This myth is also false, because it still does assist the environment to “buy” renewable electricity – read on to see why.

The best way to understand the electricity industry in Australia is to think of the analogy of a swimming pool with 10 people standing at one end of the pool, each with a water hose, filling the pool and at the other end, 10 people taking water out of the pool with separate hoses.

In this analogy, the swimming pool and hoses are the transmission and distribution grid and the water in the pool is the electricity flowing through the grid. The 10 people filling water are the various generators – coal, gas, wind, solar, hydro etc. supplying electricity into the grid and the 10 people taking water out are the houses and businesses consuming electricity. As someone taking water out of the pool, there is no way for me to know from which hose (or energy source) the drops of water I am consuming come from as its all mixed up in the swimming pool.

Hopefully, that analogy made sense to you. On to the false part of this myth.

Although a customer doesn’t know from where his electricity is sourced, by buying renewable electricity, your dollars are going towards suppliers of renewable electricity, thereby encouraging more electricity production from these renewable suppliers.

Back to my pool analogy: If I am consuming water and only pay one of the people filling the pool for my water this means he has to put more water in – either by getting a bigger hose or increasing the speed of his water flow – for what he’s been paid. The same principle works for electricity.

By purchasing through Ethical Switch and putting money into a renewable electricity supplier, you are effectively investing into renewable generation, thereby reducing the need for coal or gas fired generation.

Since, the main part of this myth is about the benefit or purchasing renewable electricity, we have shown that overall; it is actually beneficial to purchase renewable electricity, therefore…

This myth is busted! (

3. Renewable electricity is bad for the environment

This myth encapsulates the various complaints that people (often farmers whose land the wind farm is going onto) make about wind farms and solar panels.   These are the killing of bats and birds; noise pollution; land use and footprint of renewables.

When wind farms are planned, the environmental impact assessment and migrationary patterns of birds are researched so as to minimise any damaging impact.   This should also be looked at in the context of other sources of electricity. Research shows that fossil fuel and nuclear power both kill more birds than wind power generation. If you’re interested, see the link here.

Studies have shown that noise complaints, especially those related to wind farms, are often unrelated to actual noise. In most cases it was found that people were actually opposed to the farms on aesthetic grounds – which would be the same with coal or nuclear plants. It was also found that ‘noise’ complaints dropped off rapidly when local communities derived income from the renewable energy projects in question.

International experience has shown that wind farms do not affect land use and that livestock are completely unaffected by wind turbines and will graze right up to the base of the turbines. As for the footprint of renewable energy, unlike coal and nuclear energy, renewable energy pays off its carbon footprint relatively quickly.

4. Renewable electricity can’t fully supply the electricity demand in Australia 24/7

This myth is borne from the fact that obviously, both solar and wind power are dependent on their fuel sources being available – namely the sun and wind so at night and when the wind doesn’t blow, one might assume that we would always need to be reliant on coal and gas fired sources of electricity.  (

Again, this myth needs to be busted. Germany is among a number of countries, currently increasing their reliance on renewable energy. During the first half of 2014, 31% of its electricity was produced from renewable energy (see source) and in one particular period in 2014, 75% of Germany’s electricity was produced by renewables.

It has been shown by international experience that diversifying the supply across various renewable sources and building wind farms at diverse geographic locations to obtain the most constant supply of wind, that it is theoretically possible to supply all of a country’s electricity demand from renewable sources. Other renewable sources that can be used to supply electricity include hydro, wind, solar, bio-gas, low-cost thermal storage and concentrated solar thermal power. These are just some of the ways that we would be able to supply our demand 24/7 via renewable sources.

Combine this with further efficiency improvements from the demand side, and there is no reason that, over time, we will not be able to supply Australia’s electricity demand via renewable sources.

A more in-depth article on this topic is located here (

So, once again we find that this myth is busted!

I hope you’ve enjoyed our little Myth Busting journey and it provides some eye-opening information for all our readers!

Now you know the truth, why not make the switch to renewable electricity in support of some amazing not-for-profits today?
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on January 04, 2015, 03:56:30 pm
This post is divided into 3 parts due to max size of post limitations. It was originally one post on the Doomstead Diner Forum (Agelbert's Newz Channel).

I've been thinking about the onslaught of Alzheimer's  ;) he has had lately in regard to Nicole Foss's history of support of fossil fuels and, despite her CYA talk about Faustian bargains and such with fracking and tar sands in 2011 and 2012, her SUPPORT for those technologies by awarding them EROEI numbers ABOVE 1:1. The instant she did that, she signaled to investors, as a credentialed energy expert, that they could MAKE MONEY off of them. THAT is SUPPORT, in my book. 

I do believe the old boy has the same crush on her that another Doomstead Diner (Golden Oxen) I have gone round and round with has.

So, here's a stroll down memory lane for Ka. (

Two sides of Nicole Foss's mouth:
The "I'm not happy with this" side showing much concern for humanity after paragraph after paragraph of IGNORING global warming and GLOSSING OVER the enormous environmental damage the fracking causes:
Snippet From "Fracking Our Future" by Nicole Foss (crocodile tears are in evidence).
Given the poor economics and low EROEI of shale gas in general. It is very difficult to argue that fracking, particularly in areas like the Marcellus Shale, makes sense. Unconventional gas is far from being a clean fuel when the whole lifecycle is considered. In fact considering the substantial potential for releases of fugitive methane emissions, one cannot even argue that unconventional gas is an improvement in comparison with burning coal when it comes to climate impact, let alone an improvement on other environmental fronts.

Shale gas is simply another Faustian bargain that humanity should not be making. We run substantial long term risks, which we socialize, for the sake of short term private profits.

This is the typical human modus operandi, but it is high time we learned from our mistakes. (

HELLO? Who is "TRYING TO ARGUE" that Fracking makes sense? The ARGUMENT is not about "sense", dear. The ARGUMENT is about ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE COSTS. You just FLAT REFUSE to QUANTIFY THAT!  :emthdown:

Some compassionate words about  fracked gas not being an improvement over the damage of coal to the climate (without COST NUMBERS) DOESN'T CUT IT.

Now for the other side of her mouth.  ( THAT IS, whenever a Credentialed Energy Expert SAYS the EROEI of WHATEVER is ABOVE 1:1, they are engaging in DE FACTO support of said technology. They are TELLING investors that the technology is PROFITABLE. If Ka does not define that as support, it is due to his hairsplititis, an occupational hazard of self described scholars everywhere.  (

In 2012 she wrote an article with lots of graphs showing the EROEI of Fracked gas to be ABOVE 1:1. I wrote and told her that fracking was an obscenity. I cannot find the article or my comment. If anyone can find it, please post it HERE. I will not hold my breath waiting for Ka to do it.

I went back to comment on another article in the hopes of getting that "energy" expert to understand that pushing fossil fuels as "cheap" was inaccurate (i.e. the energy RETURN is LESS than that INVESTED so the number must be, for example 1: 0.1) when the climate costs are figured. The whole point (that she has ALWAYS danced around) was to tell her that externalized costs are real and they MUST be figured in the EROEI.
Ilargi, another one of Ka's pals(?),  took care of THAT:
July 9, 2012 at 3:48 am #4515 
Raúl Ilargi Meijer
I deleted your obviously far too lengthy comment from this thread. Left it on the other thread for now. I thought I had been clear before. Apparently not. Any additional comments like this will be deleted. This is a forum for everyone, and it’s not to be bogarted. (

I wrote the Open Letter in 2013 (a year later). I showed conclusively how her predictions had NOT panned out and how her SUPPORT of technologies like tar sands and fracking (by ASSIGNING them EROEI numbers ABOVE 1:1 was bad for the  climate and beneath her as an "Energy" expert. I was polite, as Ashvin had requested me to be in PM's when we discussed it. She never answered.  :emthdown:

When I posted the letter HERE on the Doomstead Diner, the SILENCE was DEAFENING. Ka was not interested in talking about it. Neither was anybody else. And Foss was CERTAINLY NOT interested in eating crow. So it goes.

SNIPPET from the letter hi-lighting the OTHER side of Nicole Foss's mouth:
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

Renewables represent a drop in the bucket of global supply.

(Phase 1)
  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. (

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?

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

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

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. (

They are more expensive than fossil fuels

(phase 3)

  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. (

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. (

because of their very low EROEI

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

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.

Energy Payback Time = (Emat+Emanuf+Etrans+Einst+EEOL) / (Eagen–Eaoper)
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.. (

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".

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

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. (

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

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.

Retail Prices (Dollars per Gallon) 2012-2013 (

Volatile fossil fuel prices make renewable energy more attractive (

especially at a large scale.

(phase 3)

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 (

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. (

Continued on next post in this thread:
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on January 04, 2015, 03:58:44 pm
Second part of 3 parts:

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."

Intermittency Of Renewables?… Not So Much (

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

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.

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.” (

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:

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. (

Prepare For Disruptive Solar Technology

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

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.

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.

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. (

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: ( (

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

Continued in next post on this thread:
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on January 04, 2015, 03:59:36 pm
Third of 3 parts:

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.

"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. (

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.


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. (

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.

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.

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).

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. (

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.)

( 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.(,559.msg63084.html#msg63084

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on January 04, 2015, 04:09:09 pm
MKing SEZ,
Ah yes...biosphere math....brought to us by the same mathematicians who claimed net energy mattered and predicted the end of oil and gas drilling before the turn of the LAST century? And turned out that drill baby drill WORKED? Mathz can be tricky!

Uh, no MKing. That is NOT what I speak of when I mention BIOSPHERE MATH. I am NOT talking about Charles Hall's BALONEY about EROEI. I AGREE with you that Charles Hall is full of horse poopy.

I am talking about the THERMODYNAMICS of living organisms on planet earth as has been repeatedly and relentlessly documented by the fastidious measurements of energy capture and transfer by scientists starting with the autotrophs and going to the primary consumers and on to the heterotrophs above them and so on.

It's not rocket science but it's peer reviewed and indisputable. Hell, they got the natural logarithm function from it! Are you going to claim THAT is "tricky mathz" too? 

Unlike the "heat, beat and treat" thermodynamics "truths" that you swear by in your zeal to justify  incredibly inefficient and polluting industrial processes you are so enamored with, energy capture in the autotrophs and those that depend on them, like YOU AND I, is done WITHOUT high temperature causing WASTE of energy transfer. Enzymatic processes are FAR more efficient than THERMAL processes to capture energy for movement of muscle. In fact, said muscle DIES if the biochemical reactions occur outside a narrow band of temperature and pH.

Sure, Homo SAP has not been able to scale up bio-mimicry to the level of an electric blast furnace.  And so, you claim the "high ground" on "prudent, real world" energy CFS.

That's another false premise simply because Renewable Energy, although it is far less efficient thermodynamics wise than biological processes, is far MORE efficient that "heat , beat and treat" thermal processes. You know that. So you holler and scream "the new technology cannot be scaled up fast enough" and it is "not ready for prime time" perfidy.   

You DO NOT have the thermodynamic "high ground" with fossil fuels.

I told Nicole Foss two and half years ago that Fracking is an Obscenity. She said, "there was money to be made". And people like you have made a LOT of it. You call THAT a "bridge"? Hello? Have you even bothered to compute the SCC of Fracked gas?

Are you going to give me more BS about how we-the-people put a gun to YOUR HEAD to Frack?

Tell me MKing, how much Fracking would have been done WITHOUT the Halliburton Loophole in the Safe Drinking Water act? HUH? Right, that's water under the bridge. LOL!

Fracking HAD to get a get out of jail free card from Cheney. It did. Without it, it wasn't "cost effective", as you fossil fuelers like to claim. Any MORON can see a graph showing Fracking BEFORE the Halliburton loophole and AFTER is like an ant hill next to mount Everest! Demand and supply did not have JACK **** to do with it. You crooks pulled a fast one on the American public and now you want to dance around it and claim it was the public piggy love of "cheap" energy  that "made you do it". BALONEY!

I am continually amazed at how you take something that IS happening (large scale Fracking) as something we should all sing and dance about (after we bow down and give thanks to you for all your "sacrifices" to get us the "cheap energy" we mercilessly drove you to frack - LOL! ) and, in almost the same BREATH, you can turn around and tell us how ephemeral everything is and that "change is part of life".  ::)

Healer, HEAL THYSELF!  Renewable Energy is THE CHANGE that is happening DESPITE your foot dragging, not BECAUSE you support change. You support Fracking for the same reason Nicole Foss does (MONEY!). Had the Halliburton loophole not been shoved up our collective descending colons, we would be much farther along the transition to renewable energy. Your Fracking "bridge" is a Ponzi scheme energy DETOUR!  :emthdown:
Energy efficiency, thermodynamics, the public demand and our civilization's energy needs are canards you use to avoid the REAL ISSUE.

The REAL ISSUE is the following (you just don't want to go there  :emthdown:):

That pyramid below is a simplification but it gives you an idea how VITAL the PRODUCERS (the base of the trophic pyramid) are to our existence.

The MASSIVE amount of energy stored in the base from captured sunlight is necessary because energy is LOST as the secondary and tertiary trophic levels EAT the life forms below them.

The BASE does NOT have to be WIPED OUT for Homo SAPS to be TOAST. It MUST be GIGANTIC in order to provide life for the subsequent trophic levels. The INSTANT that BASE CANNOT be several times LARGER in biomass because of what WE are doing to the environment, we, along with lots of other non-producers high up on the pyramid, are on the path to extinction. We ARE THERE.

This is not hard.

1) Set the example of a Frugality is Freedom Minimalist Mindset lifestyle
. BUT THAT IS NOT GOING TO CUT IT! The hippies did that and made the MISTAKE of dropping out. They were supposed to use that very same psychology the propagandists for dirty energy used to turn the masses into piggies. That TOOL is to be found in Maslow's hierarchy. IT is called PEER GROUP ACCEPTANCE. That is why TPTB demonized the hippies. That STRIPPED THEM of their ability to exert PEER PRESSURE on "respectable citizens". The rest is history.  If THAT history is repeated and pro-renewable energy minimalist mindset people are demonized by TPTB, Homo SAP is history! Now to step 2.

2 Explain the OBVIOUS to the propagandized chumps.

3. Use peer pressure to cajole, coax, mock, lambast, accuse of foot dragging and lack of CFS, suicidal tendencies, being dumb as a post (and so on - you get the idea) fellow Homo SAPS 24/7.

Unless ET and the USAF have a press conference (After all the big oil CEO's commit suicide  :icon_mrgreen:) announcing zero point free energy appliances, flying machines and lunch will now be available to every Homo SAP on the planet within a year or so, there is no alternative to a low carbon economy, PERIOD.

The PLAN, if you can call it that, is to RESPECT and CARE FOR THE TROPHIC PYRAMID, especially the BASE.
And give HELL to everyone that won't do that!

This is not hard.


Pictorial lesson plan for informing the uninformed: The "logical" choices presented by the profit over planet evolutionary dead enders to the propagandized chumps:
Short cognitive time horizons are not conducive to Homo SAP species perpetuation.  8)
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on January 08, 2015, 06:37:32 pm

Carbon Counterattack

How Big Oil Is Responding to the Anti-Carbon Moment

Unless directly challenged, this pro-carbon offensive -- backed by copious Big Energy advertising -- is likely to attract at least as much favor as the claims of anti-carbon activists. At this point, of course, the moral arguments against carbon consumption are -- or at least should be -- well known.

The oil, gas, and coal companies, it is claimed, are selfishly pursuing mega-profits at the expense of the climate, the environment, our children and grandchildren, and even possibly a future of any reasonable sort for humanity as a whole. “Basically [the big energy companies have] said, we’re going to wreck the planet, we don’t care what you say, we think we can, and we dare you to stop us,” observed climate activist and cofounder Bill McKibben in a recent interview. This outlook was reflected in many of the signs carried by the estimated 400,000 demonstrators who participated in the People’s Climate March in New York City last September.

The fossil fuel industry is often also portrayed as the nucleus of a global system of wealth and power that drags down democracy and perpetuates grotesque planetary inequalities. “Fossil fuels really do create a hyper-stratified economy,” explained Naomi Klein, author of the best-selling book This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate. “It’s the nature of the resources that they are concentrated, and you need a huge amount of infrastructure to get them out and to transport them. And that lends itself to huge profits and they're big enough that you can buy off politicians.”

Views like these animate the struggles against “fracking” in the United States, against the transport of tar-sands oil via the Keystone XL pipeline, and against the shipment of coal to ports in the Pacific Northwest. They also undergird the drive to rid college and university endowments and other institutions of their fossil fuel stocks, which gained momentum in recent months, thanks to the decisions of both the Stanford University board of trustees to divest from coal company stocks and of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund to eventually rid itself of its fossil fuel stocks and invest in alternative energy.

Once upon a time, the giant carbon companies like Exxon sought to deflect these attacks by denying the very existence of climate change or the role of humans in causing it -- or at least by raising the banner of “uncertainty” about the science behind it. They also financed the efforts of rogue scientists to throw doubt on global warming. While denialism still figures in the propaganda of some carbon companies, they have now largely chosen to embrace another strategy: extolling the benefits of fossil fuels and highlighting their contributions to human wellbeing and progress.   (  (

Agelbert NOTE: The skullduggery of the fossil fuel industry is absent from this article. From ethanol being made illegal with Prohibition to chemurgy refineries burning down "mysteriously" in the 1930's to anti-Hemp legislation to never paying a nickel to all the children (and many species of animals) in the entire civilized WORLD damaged by gasolene with lead additives (STILL LEGAL in the USA for aviation gasoline interanl combusiton engines!), their mens rea modus operandi criminal actions for the purpose of keeping competing renewable energy technology from getting a foothold for over a century are well documented.

They are criminals and they mostly OWN our government. We have a FASCIST FOSSIL FUEL GOVERNMENT in the USA. It's up to we-the-people to continue our DEMAND REJECTION of these dirty fuels.

Our government WILL NOT HELP, despite the lip service about promoting renewable energy.  (

The author of the article doesn't want to "go there". However, I think he gets it. Just read between the lines.  ;D Big Oil can't sue him for pointing people at "dots" that readers, if they still possess critical thinking skills,  can then connect for themselves.   8)

If a climate movement is going to challenge the energy powers of this planet effectively, it’s crucial to grasp the vision into which Big Energy is undoubtedly planning to sink incredible resources and which, across much of the planet, will become a living, breathing argument for ignoring the catastrophic warming of the planet. They present it, of course, as a glowing dreamscape of a glorious future -- though a nightmare is what should come to mind.

Here, then, in a nutshell is the argument that Big Energy is going to seed into the planet for the foreseeable future. Prepare yourself.

VERY brief Summary provided by Agelbert to prevent readers that can add and subtract from projectile vomiting:
No Growth Without Us    (
Propelling the New Global Middle Class   (
Carbon Humanitarianism (
We Can Do It Better (  (

Agelbert NOTE: For those with strong stomachs (or loyal fossil fueler members of the Wall Street Social Darwinist, Predators 'R' Us RELIGION), read unadulterated Hysterics about collapse without fossil fuels mixed with Fossil Fuels "savior of mankind" tear jerking baloney, how "experienced" big oil is in providing "cheap" energy (LOL!) and last, but not least, the old boilerplate about how much "cheaper" fossil fuels are than those "unreliable", "intermittent"  (solar and wind  - they are silent as DEATH about ocean currents, tide and geothermal - LOL!). "costly" (and so on).  ::)

Bring your barf bag for this thorough summary of all of the fossil fueler talking points, all of which have been proven to be FALSE by Amory Lovins, and several others like Herman Scheer, OVER and OVER again.

Or, skip the link below and read how the author takes apart the  Big Oil Happy Talk:

The Rockefeller T-Rex Doo Doo-ing what it DOES (


Facing the Challenge (

Put together, this represents a dazzling vision of a future in which growing numbers of people enjoy the benefits of abundant energy and unlimited growth. You can already imagine the heartwarming TV commercials that will be generated on a massive scale to propagate such a message: pictures of hard-working individuals of all genders and hues enjoying the American Dream globally thanks to Exxon and its cohorts.   (   (

Needless to say, in such imagery there will be nothing to mar the promise of unbridled prosperity for all -- no horrific droughts, colossal superstorms, or mass migrations of desperate people seeking to flee devastated areas.

But this vision, like so much contemporary advertising, is based on a lie:( in this case, on the increasingly bizarre idea that, in the twenty-first century, humanity can burn its way through significant parts of the planet’s reserves of fossil fuels to achieve a world in which everything is essentially the same -- there’s just more of it for everyone. (  (

In the world portrayed by Exxon, it’s possible for a reassuring version of business-as-usual to proceed without environmental consequences. In that world, the unimpeded and accelerated release of carbon into the atmosphere has no significant impact on people’s lives. This is, of course, a modern fairy tale that, if believed, will have the most disastrous of results.  :(

Agelbert NOTE: Did you notice the HOPIUM? Did you read the pie in the sky hallucinations that these fosssil fuelers keep pushing on us?

Can you see why I get so incensed at the Nicole Fosses, Roamers and Mkings of this world when THEY have the BRASS to claim I am the one embracing HOPIUM and pie in the sky hallucinations?

These people are as blind, deaf and dumb to reality as they come! They are a danger to themselves and society. They belong in jail or a mental institution. 

The author of the article finishes off by underlining, with cold hard logic, how SUICIDALLY STUBBORN the fossil fuel industry and it's greed worshipping friends and camp followers are. These logic challenged money grubbers are enemies of future generations of ALL earthlings, not just Homo SAPS. 

It is well written. Expect huffing and puffing from the resident fossil fuelers.

Someday, it will also be seen as one of the more striking lies on whatever’s left of the historical record. ( In fact, follow this vision to 2040, burning through whatever fossil fuels the energy companies and energy states can pull out of the earth and the ballooning carbon emissions produced will ensure planetary warming far beyond the two degrees Celsius deemed by scientists to be the maximum that the planet can safely absorb without catastrophic climate effects.

In fact, those dreamy landscapes in the new pro-carbon version of the planetary future will, in reality, be replaced by burning forests, flooded coastlines, and ever-expanding deserts. Forget the global rise of the middle class, forget all those cars and trucks and planes and resorts, forget the good life entirely. As climate conditions deteriorate, croplands will wither, coastal cities and farmlands will be eradicated, infrastructure will be devastated, the existing middle class will shrink, and the poor will face ever-increasing deprivation.


Preventing these catastrophes will involve sustained and dedicated effort by all those who truly care about the future of humanity. This will certainly require better educating people about the risks of climate change and the role played by fossil fuel combustion in producing it. But it will also require deconstructing and exposing the futuristic fantasies deployed by the fossil fuel companies to perpetuate their dominance. However fraudulent their arguments may be, they have the potential to blunt significant progress on climate change and so must be vigorously repudiated. Unless we do so, the apostles of carbon will continue to dominate the debate and bring us ever closer to a planetary inferno. This is the only way to thwart and discredit those who seek to perpetuate the Reign of Carbon.

Michael T. Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The Race for What’s Left. A documentary film version of his book Blood and Oil is available from the Media Education Foundation. Links to his work can be found at

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Rebecca Solnit's Men Explain Things to Me, and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

Please pass it on.  Future generations are counting on all you ranting bunnies (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on February 20, 2015, 07:02:41 pm

Must read related Greenpeace article at link: (


But for the world’s largest firm to take some meaningful steps to throw in the towel on climate denial indicates a precedent for an industry that most activists wouldn’t have bothered to spend time trying to change.

And it’s a good thing, because climate scientists aren’t getting any less distressed about our changed climate. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences is getting desperate enough to officially call for “unproven technology” in attempts to mitigate the crisis.   (

Despite the weight of the crisis, which is just getting started, coal companies, oil companies, the Koch brothers and their legion of front groups are creating layers of red tape to block the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, the first regulation of carbon emissions from existing power plants.

 World’s Biggest PR Firm Quits American Oil Lobby (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on February 23, 2015, 06:38:20 pm
Climate Denier’s Funding from Fossil Fuel Industry Exposed at a Staggering $1.25 Million
Andy Rowell, Oil Change International | February 23, 2015 9:18 am

For nearly two decades avid researcher, Kert Davies, has been hunting climate deniers and exposing their links to the fossil fuel industry.

Davies, who used to run Greenpeace USA’s Research Department, developed Exxon Secrets a decade ago which highlighted many of these links. It remains an invaluable tool today.
Willie Soon DOING what HE DOES. (
Documents uncovered by Kert Davies and Greenpeace reveal just how much funding Soon received from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, American Petroleum Institute (API) and Donors Trust, which is a secretive foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers. And the total comes to a staggering $1.25 million over the last 14 years.

Last year, Davies decided to move on from Greenpeace and set up the Climate Investigations Center, whose remit is to “monitor the individuals, corporations, trade associations, political organizations and front groups who work to delay the implementation of sound energy and environmental policies that are necessary in the face of ongoing climate crisis.”

For anyone who has followed how climate sceptics have distorted the debate on climate science, there are a few key names on the list. And one of those is Wei-Hock Soon, more commonly known as Willie Soon, who is an astrophysicist from the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics.

Only last week I wrote about the Philip Morris’s “whitecoat” program and how the tobacco industry strategy of using scientists to promote their message had been copied by the oil industry.

Soon is the perfect whitecoat for the fossil fuel industry and those who want to deny or delay action on climate change because he believes that climate change is caused not by fossil fuels but by the sun.

These views mean that Soon has been a valuable commodity to the fossil fuel industry and Republicans who deny climate change.

He has long established connections to leading denial think tanks from the U.S., such as the Heartland Institute. Indeed at last year’s annual climate sceptic conference run by Heartland, Soon was one of three skeptics to be given an award for “speaking truth to power, whistleblowing, and the defense of science.”  (

Nothing, it seems, could be further from the truth. It is the powerful fossil fuel industry which has been trying to undermine—not defend—science.

We have known for years that Soon has taken fossil fuel industry money, but the exact amount has always remained a mystery.

And now documents uncovered by Davies and Greenpeace reveal just how much funding Soon received from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, American Petroleum Institute (API) and Donors Trust, which is a secretive foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers.

And the total comes to a staggering $1.25 million over the last 14 years.
The largest donor was Southern Company, one of the America’s biggest electricity providers which relies heavily on dirty coal for its power plants.

The strategy has been simple. To employ Soon to sow doubt about climate change. “What it shows is the continuation of a long-term campaign by specific fossil-fuel companies and interests to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change,” argues Davies.

Davies adds: “The question here is really: ‘What did API, ExxonMobil, Southern Company and Charles Koch see in Willie Soon? What did they get for $1m-plus.” He asks: “Did they simply hope he was on to research that would disprove the consensus? Or was it too enticing to be able to basically buy the nameplate Harvard-Smithsonian?”

More worryingly, the documents suggest that Soon also “improperly concealed his funding sources” from scientific journals in contravention to their guidelines.

According to the New York Times, which broke the story, at least 11 papers Soon has published since 2008 omitted disclosing his funding sources, “and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.”

“The [Southern] company was paying him to write peer-reviewed science and that relationship was not acknowledged in the peer-reviewed literature,” argues Davies.

Greenpeace has now written to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and Congress arguing that Soon may have misused grants from the Koch foundation by trying to influence legislation.

Meanwhile, Soon has always denied that his industry funding influences his work.    (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on February 25, 2015, 08:16:10 pm
02/24/2015 12:47 PM     

Climate Denial 101, Paid-Off Scientist Exposed  ( News

What's behind climate change denial? 

Many people have long suspected that scientists who refute the evidence are paid off  and now there's proof.  (

 Willie Soon, a prominent scientist at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has published "scholarly" research for years with funding from Exxon Mobil, American Petroleum Institute,  Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, Donors Trust and the utility, Southern Company - over $800,000 since 2008, and over 1.2 million in the past 10 years.

He published 11 studies in nine professional publications like Journal of Climate, and didn't mention his compensation came from the fossil fuel industry - breaching conflict of interest protocols.

Soon's big argument is that solar flares are causing the Earth to warm  ( . He's the go-to "scientist" for deniers like Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), who now chairs the Senate Environment Committee. When Republicans need someone to testify against the science of climate change, he's their man - he won a "courage" award from Heartland Institute for standing up to the vast number of scientists that disagree with him. His testimonies have been used to block action on climate change and incentives for renewable energy. 

The ridiculous idea that polar bears are not under stress also comes from him, paid for by the State of Alaska and others that don't want it listed as endangered.

 In his proposals to prospective funders, Soon promises annual "deliverables" on research published, public presentations, a book chapter, and testimonies to Congress.

 The investigation by Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Centre has been reported widely in the news, from The Guardian to the New York Times. 

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA)  ( says he will further investigate the "denial-for-hire scheme perpetrated by the anti-climate action cabal." He wants fossil fuel companies and trade organizations to disclose their funding of climate science. "The American public deserve an honest debate that isn't polluted by the best junk science fossil fuel interests can buy," he told the Boston Globe.

The fracking industry is also working to distort the science.   (    (

Climate Change Discussion

Climate Denial 101

 Curious about the psychology behind climate denial and how to communicate with climate deniers?

 Take the online course, Climate Denial 101! 

This 7-week course requires 1-2 hours a week of your time. You can audit the course free of charge. The 12 instructors are impressive - the international team includes scientists, computer modelers, communications specialists and lecturers on the subject. They all contribute to the Skeptical Science website, where scientists refute the myths.

 In the course description they say: You'll learn both the science of climate change and the techniques used to distort the science.

"With every myth we debunk, you'll learn the critical thinking needed to identify the fallacies associated with the myth. Finally, armed with all this knowledge, you'll learn the psychology of misinformation. This will equip you to effectively respond to climate misinformation and debunk myths."

A well-functioning democracy depends on a well-informed public, they say.

Sign up here for Denial 101:
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on March 06, 2015, 05:39:23 pm

Meet the ‘Merchants of Doubt': Spin Doctors  (
fake Obscuring the Truth on Climate Change  >:(
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on April 28, 2015, 10:30:59 pm


Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on May 10, 2015, 08:58:48 pm
Snowleopard, consistent climate denier for YEARS, is BACK!  :P

Snowleopard (AS USUAL) says,
My guess is that they Will Soon drop the global warming/climate change meme as a means to implement the control system.  Likely sustainability will be the new keyword to induce Ben Dover to accept the control agenda.

For the last three years or so you have been pushing unscientific, pro-fossil fuel propaganda like "sunspots, not fossil fuel burning, causes global warming", "the alleged "pause" in global warming (That HAS been proven a hoax generated by pro-fossil fuel propaganda), the "new ice age" (see Snowleopard wanting to move "south" and making plans to "ice skate on the Potomac" LOL!), ETC. 

For those very same last three years, hard data and scientific evidence of the horror show in the biosphere thanks to your fossil fuel burning pals has been pouring in torrentially, YET you still remain consistent to your climate denier "tune".  :evil4:

But let us assume for the moment that your are right and there is no global warming. WHY DO YOU, who claim to be looking out for we-the-people, play blind, deaf and dumb at the rip offs we-the-people are CONSTANTLY being subjected to by your fossil fuel PALS if, indeed, they AREN'T your pals and you aren't a PRO-Fossil Fuel SHILL?  :icon_scratch:

FACTS about global warming don't bother you.

I guess FACTS like the following TAXPAYER THEFT FINANCED BY THE BANKS AND THE GOVERNMENT on behalf of fossil fuel bottom lines don't bother you either.  ;)

Tt costs $1.50 per acre a year for the first five years of a lease, and increases to $2 per acre for years 5-10 - the same as when Eisenhower was President.  (

Royalties are 12.5% of the value of the extracted coal, oil and gas, but that ends up around 5% after loopholes, and is much lower than the 18.75% for offshore leases (and that's also undervalued).   

US taxpayers are losing about $1 billion a year in royalties
- $30 billion over the past 30 years, says The Mountain Pact.

Read our articles, Even At Bargain Basement Prices, No Coal Company Bids At Auction and US Continues To Lease Our Coal for $1 a Ton.

Banks Keep Coal On Life Support    (

For years, the world's largest banks have promised to stop financing coal, but in 2014 they still supported the industry with $144 billion - a billion less than the previous year. (

 Financing for coal mining actually increased from $55 billion in 2013 to $70 billion in 2014, and financing for coal-fired power producers dropped to $75 billion from $90 billion in 2013.

 Some banks have stopped financing the worst kinds of coal mining, such as mountaintop removal in the US and the world's largest mine in Australia.

"It's outrageous for some banks to be hitching themselves to this year's UN climate negotiations in Paris as 'climate leaders' while they are not prepared to pull out of all coal sector financing, end of story,"   ( says Yann Louvel at BankTrack.

 Read our articles, World's Biggest Coal Miner Gets Help From Major Banks and JP Morgan, Bank America, Citi Still Top Coal Financiers.

Read, The End of Coal, the Coal Finance Report Card 2015, which ranks the banks:
Website: ( (


Snowleopard, I am not buying the agnotology that you are selling.  ;)


Agnotology: Part one of six parts  (

Agnotology: Part two of six parts  (

Agnotology: Part three of six parts  (

Agnotology: Part four of six parts  (

Agnotology: Part five of six parts  (

Agnotology: Part six of six parts  (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on May 11, 2015, 06:16:15 pm
Residential rate = (  :P  Commerical and industrial rates =  (   (

The Fantasy of Electric Rates: Time to Educate Ratepayers ( 

Scott Sklar, The Stella Group
 May 11, 2015  |  2 Comments 

Many electric utilities are flexing their political muscles against solar net metering and state renewable portfolio standards (RPS). Their main issue is that other consumers are subsidizing solar (and renewables), particularly pointing to lower-income consumers. I have already written about the numerous studies that disprove those allegations, but that is not what this article is about.

There are several fantasies about electricity rates, and it is time to address “ratepayers subsidizing solar.” The corollary is “at no other time do ratepayers subsidize other ratepayers.”  I am here to tell you, dear readers, that this belief is hogwash. Cross-ratepayer subsidies occur every single day in every utility service territory.

Fantasy One: There Is One Electric Rate

In many states, residential ratepayers have one homogenized rate, and commercial/industrial/institutional (CII) ratepayers have a series of electric sub-rates called demand charges (rates increase over a certain level of electric use), peak and season rates, and in de-regulated states “spot” or “ratchet” rates (which are time-specific rates) and some even have time-of-use (TOU) rates.  So in states where residential customers have a singular rate, those CII ratepayers subsidize residential rates.

Fantasy Two: There Are No Cross-rate Subsidies

Every utility in their service area allows large industrial, commercial, and institutional customers receive lower electric rates. In fact, these large players negotiate with the electric utility on what rate they expect when they move a facility or building into an area. The larger they are, the lower electric rates they get.

According to the Energy Information Administration, 2014 electric utility rates for New England stand at 17.98/kWh for residential while commercial is 14.04/kWh and industrial is 10.97/kWh, which is the only electric rate that went down from the year prior.  Pacific coast rates are at 13.81/kWh for residential and 8.51/kWh for industrial, while West South Central states are at 11.01/kWh for residential, 8.17/kWh for commercial and 5.75/kWh for industrial.

In fact there is a whole industry of consultants that represent companies to negotiate lower electric rates with their electric utilities. One such consultant advertises: “Our energy consultants routinely negotiate with utilities to generate savings for companies. These negotiations extend beyond tariff rates into other utility opportunities, incentives and programs that involve: obtaining preferable contract terms and developing specialized rates.”

Manuals for officials from commercial and industry that move or open new facilities routinely state: “Electricity price negotiations: In contrast to negotiating your interconnection agreement, you may have more bargaining flexibility in negotiating your price for electricity.  In some locations, all electricity prices will be defined by pre-determined tariff rates. However, ideally you'll find a "negotiated rate tariff," which lays out the structure of the agreement but leaves blanks for the actual prices. This means the door is open for you to negotiate on price.”

A February 2014 story in Business reported:

Florida Power & Light Co. received the go-ahead from regulators Tuesday to negotiate discounted rates for industrial and commercial customers with a load of 2 megawatts or more  ( hopes of bringing more large power users to its territory. State regulators unanimously approved what’s known as a commercial/industrial service rider that gives FPL the flexibility to negotiate prices with customers within those parameters. Those eligible would either be companies are at risk of leaving FPL’s territory for less expensive service outside of Florida or firms weighing locating in Florida versus other states.
The bottom line is that when these large energy users receive lower negotiated rates — and this happens in every utility service territory — guess who is subsidizing the richest ratepayers in the world? Answer: Other ratepayers, usually small business and residential ratepayers.    (

Fantasy Three: Utilities Can Strong Arm the Political Process for Electric Rates

On April 17th, The Texas Senate has voted to eliminate the state's RPS and its Competitive Renewable Energy Zone (CREZ) program, two initiatives that were instrumental in driving a huge growth of wind power and an expanding market for solar, as well.

While only one House of the Texas legislature acted so far this year, Kansas repealed its RPS in the state legislature this year. Midwest Energy news reported, “It’s the fourth consecutive year that renewable-energy opponents such as Wichita-based Koch Industries and the Kansas Chamber of Commerce have attempted to downsize or eliminate the requirement that investor-owned utilities derive increasing proportions of their energy from renewable sources.”

Bottom line: Due to flatter consumer demand and much higher consumer adoption of energy efficiency and on-site electrical generation, the old electric utility model is taking a licking. Most electric utilities are frantically using their political clout, just as MaBell did to stall deregulation and cellular.

But while large industrial and commercial ratepayers get huge electric rate reductions subsidized by other ratepayers, does anyone hear a call for standby charges due to rate shifts to other customers? No.  Only solar users receive that designation in some states due to a very sophisticated    ( campaign by electric utilities.  ;)

I personally have no problem with large electric users or solar users benefitting from their clout or personal entrepreneurism.  But I do strongly object to policymakers and regulators focusing on the smallest side of the rate shift, rather than the largest – and implementing fees (standby charges) to address the much smaller impact on rates than the large users.

Many legislatures and regulatory commissions are falling for this dual standard  ;)on the guise that they need to make the standard electric utility model viable.  (

But in fact, their job should be focused on what’s best for all ratepayers to provide reliable, clean, and affordable (over the long term) from their electricity delivery system.  (

Sadly, most are failing that consumer/ratepayer test. And it’s our job as electric ratepayers to put our foot down on shifting penalties to energy savers rather than a more flexible, agile, electric delivery system we all deserve.  (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on June 09, 2015, 07:30:11 pm

Secretive donors gave US climate denial groups $125m over three years   >:(
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on June 22, 2015, 05:51:26 pm
Good Vermonters tear a fossil fueler Vermonter's propaganda piece to bits! (


Jeff Noordsy 

June 21, 2015 at 7:42 pm

To those who are following the recent cavalcade of commentaries and op/ed pieces favoring the pipeline I’m guessing that you too are taking note that NONE of the proponents are mentioning the cost of the project. Should we not, as taxpayers or ratepayers, consider the costs of a project versus the benefits? That’s certainly what we all do as homeowners, but the gas company is hoping that they will not be scrutinized in this manner. The simple fact is that the gas company is asking (demanding, actually) 40,000 or so already overburdened Vermont taxpayers to write a $154 million dollar check that MIGHT provide service to 3000 Vermont homes. That simply does not make sound economic sense. No matter your feelings about energy in general or natural gas in particular, this project’s costs far exceed the benefits. There’s a reason that the proponents will not speak directly to that issue.

Jane Palmer 

June 21, 2015 at 9:28 pm

While the author of this opinion piece has many impressive credentials, it doesn’t appear she has used any of what she must have learned through her experience in terms of how to filter out hype and propaganda from truth and reality. This piece reads just like a PR release from Vermont Gas. In fact, she uses most of the same phrases and comparisons and statistics. Problem is, she most likely got those so called “facts” directly from Vermont Gas! Forgive me if I am wrong, but she didn’t reference any studies or articles in her opinion piece.
 Everyone is entitled to their opinion…but it would be more interesting to read something someone actually thought about instead of just parroting back what they “learn” from the advertising and press releases from the company that stands to gain from the project.
 As someone who acknowledges climate change and the need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuel, Ms Nystrom Meyer should know it makes no sense at all to spend over $154 million to hook up less than 3000 new customers. Since the author lives in Colchester, she should be pressuring VGS to deliver gas to her area and other parts of Chittenden and Franklin Counties that don’t currently have gas but could be hooked up without the insane expense of building a transmission line.

Philip Beliveau 

June 21, 2015 at 9:31 pm

Wow sounds like you just got a new job with Vt gas. Nice job of cherry picking the numbers you like to support the position that lines your pockets. What about the cost of converting furnaces etc? What about the fact that existing customers will be paying for this pipeline? Does that obliterate the savings they have enjoyed? What about that this pipe will cost 180 million to serve 3000 customers? When is the price to high? What about the other states that are experiencing earth quakes and water contamination? Is it ok for Vt to benefit when other states suffer the consequences? Either you know better or you are being paid to look the other way. Sad!

Sally Burrell 

June 21, 2015 at 10:57 pm

We need to discuss methane as well as CO2 when comparing GHG emissions. Methane is 80 times more potent as a Green House Gas than CO2. Extracting natural gas releases a significant amount of methane into the atmosphere and actually makes natural gas a poor choice compared to oil, propane and even coal. VGS customers may have enjoyed better rates in the past, but rates are fluctuating and generally rising. The same savings are no longer available. Many ratepayers will be paying well beyond their means to cover the pipeline if it is built. We were not as aware a decade ago of the overall societal and environmental costs of using fossil fuels. Now that we know better, it doesn’t make sense to put long term infrastructure into the ground for a fuel that causes more destruction, expense and climate chaos for our future. Renewable sources are steadily being developed and implemented around the world. We need to transition to a more sustainable energy system starting now.

Chuck Reiss 

June 21, 2015 at 11:12 pm

Karen Meyer it appears to have decided of the two “solid” arguments the new gas pipeline is the more solid of the two. Based on savings of course. It also appears she has cherry picked her facts to support her argument. Or perhaps she does not have all the facts she needs. Facts like we can and are taking older homes and converting them to renewable energy, by way of conservation, heat pumps and solar pv (on site or community based). Reducing a household’s energy load any where from 80 – 100%. and in some cases making the home owner cash positive on a monthly basis. This is what the comparison should be, not choosing between a polluting and a less polluting fuel source. This type of half analysis is exactly what Vermont Gas is hoping for. They are so far down the path to a fossil fuel dependent future for Vermont, the idea that we actually have alternatives that are really clean and less expensive for the Vermont home owner only wreaks havoc with their corporate model of keeping us dependent on their infrastructure. So lets learn the facts before we sit in judgement of the more solid argument.

Don Peterson 

June 22, 2015 at 8:22 am

Ms Nystrom might have had a long career in public service but she has failed to grasp that the “Public” has changed dramatically. The public can meet and share ideas in ways that were not possible ten years ago. Collective wisdom in this case trumps the status quo.

We expect higher levels of transparency, competence and public utility than perhaps she is used to. It’s a wake up call for bureaucrats everywhere.

Why she would place her weight behind this poorly executed project is a mystery. No doubt someone asked her to help out.

Joel R. Davidson 

June 22, 2015 at 8:35 am

This pipeline project has become to costly to have any benefit to the customers or State taxpayers. Stop it now before we get in too deep to back out. New technologies will soon make propane and natural gas an outdated source of fuel. The solar farms, while unsightly to some will work effectively with hydrogen based system. Fuel cells are a viable option. If the storage and safety concerns can be overcome hydrogen will be the “green” fuel of choice. It is in endless supply here on earth and produces pure water as a byproduct. There is no need for major pipelines and solar energy can help produce large quantities over time that can be stored where produced. Hydrogen fueled cars already exist although efficiency needs improvement. How many readers have not produced hydrogen in a school lab using electrolysis? There are now much more effective methods of producing hydrogen. See links below ( (


Peter Burmeister 

June 22, 2015 at 11:21 am

Fossil based fuels, including natural gas, are an obsolete technology. To continue to invest in distribution systems at the price of hundreds of millions of dollars, only to be building a 21st century equivalent of an Erie Canal, is absurd. The environmental cost of encouraging the burning of carbon is enormous. Certainly our best minds can find far more viable and less devastating solutions to the problem of home heating during the Vermont winter.

Karen Nystrom Meyer: Solid arguments  ( (

To fossil fueler Karen Nystrom, my neighbor in Colchester, Vermont.

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on June 22, 2015, 08:05:05 pm
New Report Exposes Dark Money Funneling to Climate Change Denial Groups (


The network of corporate-funded right wing think tanks in America is massive. The money that flows to these organizations is even more massive than the networks themselves, and it flows in almost total secrecy thanks to Donors Trust and ]Donors Capital Fund.
According to the report, a staggering sum of $125 million has been given to these organizations that deny climate change  over the last three years. Photo credit: Shutterstock



A few of the groups listed in the report include:

The Federalist Society, a networking group for conservative lawyers and justices which calls on states to reject the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency authority to regulate carbon pollution, received $8.7 million over the past three years.

The State Policy Network, a network of ultra-conservative think tanks, received a total of $8.2 million over the last three years.

Think tanks allied with the State Policy Network have worked with the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a pro-business lobby, which has sought legislation to penalize homeowners who install solar panels.

The Hudson Institute, a Washington think tank whose climate expert opposes cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, took in $7.9 million over three years.

The Heartland Institute, which sent a delegation to Rome in April to try to upstage meetings between the Pope and the UN Chief Ban Ki Moon on climate change, received $3.8 million.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has received $4.3 million over three years, claims on its website that climate change is its biggest program.

The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, whose communications director is Marc Morano, took $3.7 million from donors in 2012—its most ever. A year later, however, the organization received $325,000.

Full article:
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on July 09, 2015, 01:19:45 pm

Internal Documents Expose Fossil Fuel Industry’s Decades of Deception on Climate Change

Elliott Negin, Union of Concerned Scientists | July 9, 2015 8:51 am

Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse created a stir recently when he speculated that fossil fuel companies may be violating federal racketeering law by colluding to defraud the public about the threat posed by carbon pollution.

A new report reveals that some of the top carbon polluters were fully aware of the reality of climate change but continued to spend tens of millions of dollars to promote contrarian arguments they knew to be wrong.

Whitehouse likened their actions to those of the tobacco companies that conspired to manufacture doubt about the link between smoking and disease when they were all too aware of it. In 2006, a federal district court ruled that the tobacco industry’s deceptive campaign to maximize its profits by hoodwinking the public amounted to a racketeering enterprise.

Whitehouse may be among the first to suggest that the fossil fuel industry is flouting the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), but he’s not the first to point out the parallels between the tobacco industry’s fraudulent campaign and the fossil fuel industry’s efforts to quash government action on climate change.

Back in 2007, a Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report revealed that ExxonMobil—then the world’s largest publicly traded oil and gas company—had spent $16 million between 1998 and 2005 on a network of more than 40 front groups to try to discredit mainstream climate science. Billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, meanwhile, were outed by a 2010 Greenpeace report revealing they spent significantly more than ExxonMobil between 2005 and 2008 on virtually the same groups. Many of those groups and the scientists affiliated with them had previously shilled for the tobacco industry.

Despite their outsized role, ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers are just a part of a much bigger story, according to a new UCS report, “The Climate Deception Dossiers.” After spending nearly a year reviewing a wide range of internal corporate and trade association documents pried loose by leaks, lawsuits and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, UCS researchers have compiled a broader tale of deceit.

Drawing on evidence culled from 85 documents, the report reveals that ExxonMobil and five other top carbon polluters—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, coal giant Peabody Energy and Royal Dutch Shell—were fully aware of the reality of climate change but continued to spend tens of millions of dollars to promote contrarian arguments they knew to be wrong. Taken together, the documents show that these six companies—in conjunction with the American Petroleum Institute (API), the oil and gas industry’s premier trade association, and a host of front groups—have known for at least two decades that their products are harmful and have intentionally deceived the public about the climate change threat.

Exxon Recognized Carbon Emissions Problem 34 Years Ago  (

The collected documents reveal the fossil fuel industry campaign has relied on a variety of deceptive practices, including creating phony grassroots groups, secretly funding purportedly independent scientists, and even forging letters from nonprofit advocacy groups to lobby members of Congress.

Read the other two pages of this excellent and revealing article at link: (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on July 17, 2015, 02:35:20 pm
Dossier shows how oil firms sowed climate doubt

Top oil companies accepted the realities of climate science in their internal deliberations decades ago, even while outwardly denying the link between carbon pollution and global warming, according to a dossier released last week by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Their refusal to concede that the use of their product endangers the public reminds Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) of the tobacco executives of yesteryear who denied the relationship between smoking and lung disease. Although most Republicans toe that line, one GOP senator’s embrace of clean energy as a way to solve the climate challenge has earned her hefty contributions from a North Carolina entrepreneur.


- See more at:

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on August 02, 2015, 04:38:05 pm
Breaking up is hard to do?   (


What are the arguments against divestment?

Critics of the fossil fuel divestment movement say that it is hypocritical because a globalised western society (and the individuals within it) are dependent on coal, oil and gas for their everyday lives. One group supporting an anti-environmentalist firm built it into their PR strategy, releasing this film: (

Others, such as the Financial Times’ John Gapper, say that the movement should be targeting the companies emitting high quantities of carbon, rather than the producers alone. He argues that divestment is only a “grand symbolic gesture” that will not have a financial impact because others will pick up the shares.

Some, such as Times columnist Matt Ridley, argue that the movement is unethical on poverty grounds, because fossil fuels are needed to build the economies of developing countries. He says it demands that institutions “prioritise the possibility of the start of net harm in the time of our great-great-grandchildren over the plight of the poor today”.

Many of these arguments are refuted in 10 myths about fossil fuel divestment put to the sword.

We all use fossil fuels – isn’t divestment hypocritical?  (

Of course, much of the goods and utilities – from heating to plastics – that we use in daily life are dependent on fossil fuels. But the fossil fuel movement will not bankrupt the industry overnight – and indeed its impact is being felt largely though political means, not financial. Instead it argues that fossil fuels are driving us towards catastrophic levels of climate change and that the world needs to transition to much greater dependence on renewables – and do so much more quickly.

Consumers can of course be pro-active and make changes to their own lifestyles, which is important. Yet it is the producers who have the power to make the difference that will – or will not – see global temperatures breach internationally agreed targets to prevent climate change occurring on a catastrophic and irreversible scale. These producers are currently committed to business models that will take us well beyond that.

Won’t the fossil fuel stocks be bought by others? (

Yes, others may buy the stocks, although the amounts being divested are too small to flood the market and cut share prices, so they won’t be going cheap.

This cuts to the heart of the impact of the fossil fuel divestment movement – which is not to bankrupt the industry financially, but to do so morally and politically. As research by Oxford University pointed out, the financial loss of the divestment campaign – the fastest growing in history – will not be felt through the shares sold but through the reputation lost by these companies by being stigmatised.

But the fossil fuel divestment campaign does not only make a moral assertion; it makes an economic one. Shares invested in fossil fuel companies are invested in a business model that is completely incompatible with international agreements on mitigating climate change. If governments abide by them, such investments will become worthless – so pulling them out now makes good financial sense too.

Will organisations that divest lose money? (

Not necessarily – in fact they may even make money. Companies such as HSBC have warned clients about the risks of fossil fuel investments. Even though fossil fuel companies are some of the most lucrative on the planet, the “stranded assets” argument – that fossil fuel investments will become worthless if international agreements on climate change are met – suggests they are several times overvalued.

Coal prices have dropped significantly in the past few years and the oil price has also done so more recently. A recent analysis by MSCI, the world’s leading stock market index company, indicated that portfolios free of fossil fuel investments have outperformed those with assets in coal, oil and gas companies over the last five years.

There is also ample opportunity for investment in the green economy. Researchers predict that renewable energy will become the cheapest source of electricity in the next decade, with the cost of solar having fallen by two-thirds between 2008 to 2014, according to the IEA thinktank.

Further reading: (links at main link below)

The climate change denier’s guide to getting rich from fossil fuel divestment

Can the world economy survive without fossil fuels?

Climate Action and Profitability: the Carbon Disclosure Project

Won’t divestment mean losing influence with the companies?

Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, takes this view arguing that “all fossil fuel companies are not equal” and can be influenced by active shareholder engagement. This is lost if an institution divests.

But there are few examples of engagement resulting in significant change. The Wellcome Trust, for example, say that they cannot share any such results without losing the confidence of those they engage with.

The one recent example that is often used are the shareholder resolutions at BP and Shell asking them to test the extent to which their business models are compatible with international agreements on climate change. However questions have been raised about the potential impact of the resolutions and the extent to which activists collaborated with the oil giants behind the scenes.

A Beginners Guide to Fossil Fuel Divestment (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on August 04, 2015, 10:12:28 pm

Annette Smith 

August 4, 2015 at 9:15 am

“An opponent?” Jeez, can people raise legitimate questions about projects without being labelled? We really need to get over this “opponent” and “foe” framing of discussions about development proposals.

By opening the article with “an opponent” it detracts from the substance of issue, which should alarm anyone with an interest in how Gaz-Metro/VGS is doing business in Vermont. The Vermont leadership is all implicated in withholding critical information at times when it should have been disclosed. It is irrelevant to the story whether or not people oppose the project.

What is relevant is a corporation behaving as though it is entitled to take the land of Vermonters and disrupt people’s lives for years without any regard for how and it achieves its goals. This project should be cancelled on ethical issues alone. (

AARP claims Vermont Gas withheld information on pipeline contractor

Erin Mansfield Aug. 3 2015, 7:26 pm


The board was looking into whether it should reopen the company’s state-level permit when the price increased the first time — from $86.6 million to $121.6 million — allegedly because of increased construction costs.  (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on August 05, 2015, 09:48:23 pm
Noam Chomsky: How Climate Change Became a 'Liberal Hoax'
Jan 24, 2011
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on August 12, 2015, 03:24:35 pm
John Marshall    (

Ms. Hauter, how embarrassing that you create a column like this, with a number of statements that are either gross exaggerations or simply untrue, and how equally embarrassing that people believe them. I've been involved, seen it, know the science and engineering, and none of what you have stated in regards to frac'ing is true. The possible exception is risk. There is risk in anything we as humans do to advance our society. Is there risk in a nuclear reactor blowing up? Yes. Is there risk in a hydroelectric dam bursting and drowning thousands? Yes. And yet we as a society seem to be able to live near a nuclear reactor, and downstream from dams. I propose that the risk of frac'ing is infinitely smaller than the two examples I've mentioned above, as well as countless others, and yet you pound a drum and try to get thousands to dance to your music. I know the facts. I'll skip this dance, thank you.

agelbert > John Marshall

The problem with your risk analysis calculus is your definition of benefits as well as damage costs. In your Empathy Deficit Disordered world, so-called "externalized" costs do not count.

Additionally, even the potential risks that DO count are discounted because you simply do not care if some environmental downside from your profit over people and planet technology will, as scientists have stated OVER AND OVER, occur within a century.

Also, if you had a shred of objectivity, you would agree that medical doctors should have access to epidemiological studies of cancer clusters near nuclear power plants, accept that it is WRONG for the NRC to oversee (as in GAG) the World Health Organization's publishing of anything that details radionuclide damage to humans and finally, that an exact and detailed list of all fracking fluid chemicals should be available to medical doctors by region.

But you are silent as death on those topics.

Your cause and effect horizon is so narrow that you might even qualify as a non-self aware being, if it wasn't for your mens rea happy talk propaganda on behalf of fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Have a nice day.

10 Years Later: Fracking and the Halliburton Loophole

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on August 27, 2015, 11:57:18 pm
Scientists try to replicate climate denier findings and fail  ;D

By Suzanne Jacobs  on 26 Aug 2015


When we tried to reproduce their model of the lunar and solar influence on the climate, we found that the model only simulated their temperature data reasonably accurately for the 4,000-year period they considered. However, for the 6,000 years’ worth of earlier data they threw out, their model couldn’t reproduce the temperature changes.

The authors argued that their model could be used to forecast future climate changes   ;), but there’s no reason to trust a model forecast if it can’t accurately reproduce the past.  (

The Fossil Fuel Industry Propagandists need to address the FACT that the fossil fuel industry has

1) the MOTIVE (threatened profits from climate change science demanding an end to fossil fuel use)

2) the OPPORTUNITY (privileged access to main streammedia and powerful politicians)

3) the MEANS (billions of dollars from dirty energy profits)

to produce fraudulent scientific papers based on distorted models of climate science that challenge/refute the climate science consensus that fossil fuels are over heating the biosphere.

So, in true Orwellian fashion,
they accuse the truly objective climate scientists of doing what the fossil fuel industry has been doing for several decades to defend the fossil fuel industry massive subsidy swag (in comparison to the pittance for Renewable Energy) and dirty energy profits.

As you may observe here, MKing spends no time at all questioning the models that question global warming. He spends no time at all addressing the giant conflict of interest the fossil fuel industry has that inhibits any objective scientific inquiry whatsoever on the question of whether to burn fossil fuels or not.

Oh no, MKing spends most of his time making spurious and defamatory charges about the alleged mens rea involved in climate change science modeling that predicts a hotter biosphere from green house gasses the fossil fuel industry externalizes to we-the-people.

He claims the empirical data is distorted or cherry picked or erroneous or incomplete or whatever to "justify all that money and subsidy swag" for Renewable Energy. It's allegedly a big conspiracy to ruin our quality, comfort and high standard of living that ONLY the burning of fossil fuels can provide.  (

Clever, isn't he? (
Karl Rove would admire MKing.

Karl Rove strategy #3: Accuse your opponent of your weakness.,5451.msg83999.html#msg83999
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on September 02, 2015, 08:58:57 pm
Shilling for Dollars

Front groups with official and impressive name such as Medicine and Public Health at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) tend to lend an air of authoritative credibility to a given issue. It carries the impression of being an expert source.

To increase the “expert credibility” image, add someone with a few letters before and/or after their name to the staff.

But is the front group or its representatives really an expert and credible organization?  (

Full article:

Agelbert NOTE:
The short answer is NO. The ACSH is funded by a rogues gallery of polluters. The scientists they employ are bought and paid for to distort, dissemble and twist the science of applied physics (see "High Energy Density" of fossil fuels happy talk) and climate science along with several other pro-corporate and anti-people propaganda). The ACSH exists to perpetuate the profit over planet polluting status quo, PERIOD.

Why You Can’t Trust the American Council on Science and Health

Posted on April 17, 2015 by Gary Ruskin

The American Council on Science and Health is a front group for the tobacco, agrichemical, fossil fuel, pharmaceutical and other industries.


ACSH’s “Medical/Executive Director” is Dr. Gilbert Ross.[2] In 1993, according to United Press International, Dr. Ross was “convicted of racketeering, mail fraud and conspiracy,” and was “sentenced to 47 months in jail, $40,000 in forfeiture and restitution of $612,855” in a scheme to defraud the Medicaid system.[3]
ACSH’s Dr. Ross was found to be a “highly untrustworthy individual” by a judge who sustained the exclusion of Dr. Ross from Medicaid for ten years.[4]


ACSH has often billed itself as an “independent” group, and has been referred to as “independent” in the press. However, according to internal ACSH financial documents obtained by Mother Jones:

“ACSH planned to receive a total of $338,200 from tobacco companies between July 2012 and June 2013. Reynolds American and Phillip Morris International were each listed as expected to give $100,000 in 2013, which would make them the two largest individual donations listed in the ACSH documents.”[5]

“ACSH donors in the second half of 2012 included Chevron ($18,500), Coca-Cola ($50,000), the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation ($15,000), Dr. Pepper/Snapple ($5,000), Bayer Cropscience ($30,000), Procter and Gamble ($6,000), agribusiness giant Syngenta ($22,500), 3M ($30,000), McDonald’s ($30,000), and tobacco conglomerate Altria ($25,000).

Among the corporations and foundations that ACSH has pursued for financial support since July 2012 are Pepsi, Monsanto, British American Tobacco, DowAgro, ExxonMobil Foundation, Philip Morris International, Reynolds American, the Koch family-controlled Claude R. Lambe Foundation, the Dow-linked Gerstacker Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, and the Searle Freedom Trust.”[6]

ACSH has received $155,000 in contributions from Koch foundations from 2005-2011, according to Greenpeace.[7]

Indefensible and incorrect statements on science
ACSH has:

Claimed that “There is no evidence that exposure to secondhand smoke involves heart attacks or cardiac arrest.”[8]

Argued that “there is no scientific consensus concerning global warming. The climate change predictions are based on computer models that have not been validated and are far from perfect.”[9]

Argued that fracking “doesn’t pollute water or air.”[10]

Claimed that “The scientific evidence is clear. There has never been a case of ill health linked to the regulated, approved use of pesticides in this country.”[11]

Declared that “There is no evidence that BPA [bisphenol A] in consumer products of any type, including cash register receipts, are harmful to health.”[12]

Argued that the exposure to mercury, a potent neurotoxin, “in conventional seafood causes no harm in humans.”[13]


[2] “Meet the ACSH Team,” American Council on Science and Health website.

[3] “Seven Sentenced for Medicaid Fraud.” United Press International, December 6, 1993. See also correspondence from Tyrone T. Butler, Director, Bureau of Adjudication, State of New York Department of Health to Claudia Morales Bloch, Gilbert Ross and Vivian Shevitz, “RE: In the Matter of Gilbert Ross, M.D.” March 1, 1995. Bill Hogan, “Paging Dr. Ross.” Mother Jones, November 2005. Martin Donohoe MD FACP, “Corporate Front Groups and the Abuse of Science: The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).” Spinwatch, June 25, 2010.

[4] Department of Health and Human Services, Departmental Appeals Board, Civil Remedies Division, In the Cases of Gilbert Ross, M.D. and Deborah Williams M.D., Petitioners, v. The Inspector General. June 16, 1997. Docket Nos. C-94-368 and C-94-369. Decision No. CR478.

[5] Andy Kroll and Jeremy Schulman, “Leaked Documents Reveal the Secret Finances of a Pro-Industry Science Group.” Mother Jones, October 28, 2013. “American Council on Science and Health Financial Report, FY 2013 Financial Update.” Mother Jones, October 28, 2013.

[6] Andy Kroll and Jeremy Schulman, “Leaked Documents Reveal the Secret Finances of a Pro-Industry Science Group.” Mother Jones, October 28, 2013. “American Council on Science and Health Financial Report, FY 2013 Financial Update.” Mother Jones, October 28, 2013.

[7] “Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group: American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).” Greenpeace. See also Rebekah Wilce, “Kochs and Corps Have Bankrolled American Council on Science and Health.” PR Watch, July 23, 2014.

[8] Richard Craver, “The Effects of the Smoking Ban.” Winston-Salem Journal, December 12, 2012.

[9] Elizabeth Whelan, “’Global Warming’ Not Health Threat.” PRI (Population Research Institute) Review, January 1, 1998.

[10] Elizabeth Whelan, “Fracking Doesn’t Pose Health Risks.” The Daily Caller, April 29, 2013.

[11] “TASSC: The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition,” p. 9. Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, University of California, San Francisco. November 21, 2001. Bates No. 2048294227-2048294237.

[12] “The Top 10 Unfounded Health Scares of 2012.” American Council on Science and Health, February 22, 2013.

[13] “The Biggest Unfounded Health Scares of 2010.” American Council on Science and Health, December 30, 2010.

Food For Thought, Hall of Shame

Agelbert NOTE:
Here is an excellent example of pseudo scientific baloney published by the ACSH (it's three years old but the same baloney continues to be peddled by fossil fuelers and those that swallowed their mendacious propaganda):

Energy Density: Why Gasoline Is Here To Stay  (

By Hank Campbell   ( | August 2nd 2012 11:00 PM

SNIPPET 1 - The Pretense of Objectivity Wind Up (i.e. tough love "real world" baloney mixed with sympathy laced rhetoric):

Like people who approach geopolitics with the attitude of "If people would just talk to each other, we would all along", there are a lot of naïve assumptions about just dumping gasoline.

We know it causes emissions, and emissions are bad, we know a lot of the money paid for oil goes to fund Middle Eastern terrorism, and that is bad - those things should cause both the left and the right in America to want gasoline gone. And yet it is not gone. The reason is simple: gasoline is a lot more efficient than alternative energy proponents want to believe.

SNIPPET 2 - The pitch:

Energy density is the amount of stored energy in something; in the case of gasoline we talk in America about a 1 gallon volume but I will use both metric and standard for the values. Gasoline has an energy density of about 44 megajoules per kilogram (MJ/kg), converted to American values that is 1.3 × 108 J/gallon.

SNIPPET 3 (Just ONE of SEVERAL real world AND applied physics LIES):

Ethanol was the last craze of the Anything-But-Oil contingent yet even they had to succumb to reality and recognize that the lower energy density meant 25% worse gas mileage - worse for people, worse for food prices and worse for the environment.

Agelbert NOTE: To begin with, ethanol is not a "craze". It was not a craze in 2012 and, because presently 15 billion gallons of it are made a year (, it certainly isn't one now.

But the fact that the author is so ignorant of history (Edison labs in partnership with the U.S. Navy, in the first decade of the 20th century, PROVED that ethanol was a superior fuel to gasoline - It was rather convenient for Standard Oil that Prohibition just happened to come along after Rockefeller funded the temperance movement to the tune of several million dollars...) is informative about the questionable scientific objectivity of the author.  ;)

The author puts up a happy talk graph showing gasoline as the high energy density champion over E85. He leaves out E100 (an informative omission that points squarely at a fossil fuel bias).

The chart is accurate. So what's the problem? The problem is that energy density of gasoline and ethanol is a process determined in the lab, by scientists, in certain standardized conditions. I'm CERTAIN fossil fuelers know this. The energy density of about 44 MJ/kg) for gasoline is determined by heating water, in an open flame in standard atmospheric conditions (a fixed temperature and pressure - sea level at 59 degrees F). 

If the above appears irrelevant to you, let me remind you that heating water in an open flame is an EXTERNAL combustion process. It is true that gasoline will heat that water quicker than ethanol.  ;D

But, unless you have a steam engine running your car, you need to consider how much WORK you can get from gasoline versus ethanol in an INTERNAL combustion engine. (

The author neglected to mention that ethanol (E100) has a higher octane rating than non-leaded gasoline, even though E100 has a lower energy density.  ;D High octane ratings give a fuel better mileage as long as you oxidize them in a high compression internal combustion engines. That is why tetra-ethyl lead was invented to help our children's IQ... You see, ethanol was outlawed for fuel thanks to Prohibition... And, by the way, leaded gasoline is STILL LEGAL for use in aircraft internal combustion engine, all of which are high compression engines. Do you live under the approach to general aviation airport? Then you are getting the "benefit" of still another "externalized" cost thanks to the fossil fuel industry.

When you mix gasoline with ethanol (e.g. E85) you LOWER the octane rating. IOW, you are making it LESS efficient. You are making it LESS competitive with gasoline. You are getting the waste heat disadvantage of gasoline and losing the a part of the high octane rating of ethanol. That is Inefficient. That is unscientific. That is STUPID. But that is convenient and profitable for the fossil fuel industry. You might ask yourself why E100 is in common use in Brazil, but not in the USA. I'll give you three guesses - the first two don't count.  ;)

Why ethanol's octane rating is higher than that of non-leaded gasoline if ethanol has a lower energy density? Because ethanol is of uniform chemical structure. Consequently, it burns evenly and does not suffer from pre-ignition (like low octane gasoline DOES) which can severely damage an engine.

More thermodynamically important, however,  the consistent chemical structure of E100 ensures complete combustion, aided by the fact that it carries it's own oxygen.

In addition, ethanol has extremely low waste heat because, unlike gasoline, it doesn't produce carbon deposits from incomplete combustion on the cylinder walls that increase friction and decrease engine life.

Unlike an engine running on gasoline, you can touch the block, or the manifold, of an engine running on ethanol with your hand AND KEEP IT THERE without getting burned. This has huge savings implications for engine design that the fossil fuel industry has done it's best to keep from internal combustion engine designers and manufacturers (more on that below).

IN SUMMARY, "High energy density" calculations  are based on EXTERNAL thermodynamic combustion processes. It is true that gasoline will boil water in an open flame faster than ethanol will. That doesn't have beans to do with automobiles.

But when INTERNAL combustion is involved, ethanol produces more useful work than gasoline. That has EVERYTHING to do with automobiles.

But there is more the fossil fuel industry does not want most people to know. Due to the fact that ethanol burns so cleanly and has such low waste heat, a high compression internal combustion engine specifically designed for ethanol would be about 30% lighter (i.e. a lot cheaper) because the metal alloys involved would not have to be engineered to withstand the engine stressing waste heat that gasoline generates. Of course, said internal combustion engine (ICE) could not be approved for running gasoline. Gasoline would trash an engine designed specifically to run on ethanol in short order. The fossil fuel industry would not like that at all.

A lighter ICE running ethanol would then get even more mechanical energy (i.e. WORK) out of each gallon because less engine weight would need to be moved along with the car and occupants.

The Fossil Fuel Industry knows all that. That is why they continuously try to demonize and talk down ethanol biofuel with mendacity and dissembling about "low ERoEI", "water in the fuel" and "corrosion".

I, and many others, have exposed all that fossil fuel industry self serving propaganda. But they just keep throwing it out there to try to preserve the TOTALLY unscientific basis for claiming fossil fuels are a "better fuel" than E100 (pure ethanol).

Don't believe them. And check to see who is doing the funding when you read happy talk about fossil fuels.

The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) is not objective, science based or credible. Hank Campbell, like the fossil fueler MKing that haunts the Doomstead Diner, is not interested in scientific objectivity; preserving the fossil fuel profit over planet status quo with mens rea mendacity is behind everything they write. (

Further reading that methodically takes apart some relatively recent pseudo scientific baloney by the "illustrious" Professor Charles Hall, friend of fossil fuelers everywhere.  (

Renewables have higher ERoEI than fossil fuels (


Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on September 03, 2015, 04:13:06 pm
What the fossil Fuel Industry Propagandists tell us about fossil Fuels being "cheaper" than Renewable Energy is EXACTLY BACKWARDS! (


One the central claims of the peak oil/energy decline movement, is that renewable sources of power have extremely low ERoEI. Therefore, it is claimed, renewables are no substitute for fossil fuels, because they cannot provide enough “net energy” to power civilization. In support of this claim, energy decline adherents often post graphs like this one (at link), showing that renewables (especially solar PV) have low ERoEI compared to fossil fuels. More recently, Hall  ( and Prieto  ( have published a book, Spain's photovoltaic revolution   ( (, in which they claim that the ERoEI of solar PV in Spain is only 2.45, which is far lower than the ERoEI of fossil fuels.  (

In fact, those claims are entirely wrong. Renewables have ERoEI ratios which are generally comparable to, or higher than, fossil fuels. Although peak oilers reach a different conclusion, that is because they are carrying out the calculation incorrectly.

They are ignoring or not including massive waste heat losses (generally 60% or more  :o) from combustion engines which drastically reduces the ERoEI of fossil fuels.

Those waste heat losses provide no energy services to society, and should be counted as losses, but are wrongly counted as "energy returns" by peak oilers.

Furthermore, peak oilers are ignoring or not counting other large energy losses of fossil fuels. Those omissions exaggerate the ERoEI of fossil fuels relative to renewables. When the calculation is carried out correctly, renewables have higher ERoEI ratios than fossil fuels.

In other words, the notion that renewables have ERoEI ratios which are lower than fossil fuels, is simply mistaken.
It arises from performing invalid, apples-to-oranges comparisons, or from not counting energy losses of fossil fuels.

Renewables have higher ERoEI than fossil fuels. (

Agelbert NOTE: For those who still don't get the "how it works" of fossil fuel bought and paid for scientists like Hall and Prieto, the Orwellian (for fossil fuelers) title of the book "Spain's Photovoltaic Revolution" should be a learning experience.

You see, it's the wind up to a sucker punch pitch.  ( They KNOW people will rush to that title. They KNOW that many readers are not scientists and don't understand clearly the upsides and downsides of different energy technologies.

The purpose of books like that is to dissemble about Renewable Energy upsides (and simultaneously cheer fossil fuel based energy) while disingenuously claiming to be scientifically objective about all energy sources.

They lead people with hope for a clean energy world there (i.e. they get you to BUY the book with that disingenuous title. When you spend money on something, you already have some ownership bias working AGAINST your objectivity in regard to the book's contents.  ;)).

THEN they proceed to demonize PV with men rea sympathy laced crocodile tear rhetoric about wishing that we could all go to Renewable Energy heaven but it just cain't be done - sorry".

That is immediately followed but the old "tough love" trick about the "real world" where fossil fuels are IT if we don't want to live in caves"... ( - Works every time!  ( At least it used to until people got wise ( to their clever dissembling.

THINK, people. THINK!  (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on September 17, 2015, 02:38:51 am
What is the NIPCC? Is it just like the IPCC, but with an "N"?  ;)

Well, no. The NIPCC is a group of climate change "skeptics", bank rolled by the libertarian Heartland Institute to promote doubt about climate change. This suits the Heartland Institute's backers, including fossil fuel companies and those ideologically opposed to government regulation.

The NIPCC promotes doubt via thousand-page reports, the latest of which landed with a dull thud last week. These tomes try to mimic the scientific reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), right down to the acronym. However, unlike the IPCC, the NIPCC reports are works of partisan pseudoscience[/size][/quote].
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on September 18, 2015, 02:55:48 pm
Climate Myth...

CO2 is plant food

Earth's current atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost 390 parts per million (ppm).  Adding another 300 ppm of CO2 to the air has been shown by literally thousands of experiments to greatly increase the growth or biomass production of nearly all plants.  This growth stimulation occurs because CO2 is one of the two raw materials (the other being water) that are required for photosynthesis.  Hence, CO2 is actually the "food" that sustains essentially all plants on the face of the earth, as well as those in the sea.  And the more CO2 they "eat" (absorb from the air or water), the bigger and better they grow. (source: Plants Need CO2)

An argument made by those who prefer to see a bright side to climate change is that carbon dioxide (CO2) being released by the burning of fossil fuels is actually good for the environment. This conjecture is based on simple and appealing logic: if plants need CO2 for their growth, then more of it should be better. We should expect our crops to become more abundant and our flowers to grow taller and bloom brighter.

However, this "more is better" philosophy is not the way things work in the real world. There is an old saying, "Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing." For example, if a doctor tells you to take one pill of a certain medicine, it does not follow that taking four is likely to heal you four times faster or make you four times better. It's more likely to make you sick.

It is possible to boost growth of some plants with extra CO2, under controlled conditions inside of greenhouses. Based on this,  'skeptics' make their claims of benefical botanical effects in the world at large. Such claims fail to take into account that increasing the availability of one substance that plants need requires other supply changes for benefits to accrue.  It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth will see an increase in deserts and other arid lands, reducing the area available for crops.

Plants cannot live on CO2 alone; a complete plant metabolism depends on a number of elements. It is a simple task to increase water and fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth? Just as increasing the amount of starch alone in a person's diet won't lead to a more robust and healthier person, for plants additional CO2 by itself cannot make up for deficiencies of other compounds and elements.

What would be the effects of an increase of CO2 on agriculture and plant growth in general?

1. CO2 enhanced plants will need extra water both to maintain their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater moisture evaporation as the heat increases. Where will it come from? In many places rainwater is not sufficient for current agriculture and the aquifers they rely on are running dry throughout the Earth (1, 2).

On the other hand, as predicted by climate research, we are experiencing more intense storms with increased rainfall rates throughout much of the world. One would think that this should be good for agriculture. Unfortunately when rain falls in short, intense bursts it does not have time to soak into the ground. Instead, it  quickly floods into creeks, then rivers, and finally out into the ocean, often carrying away large amounts of soil and fertilizer.

2. Unlike Nature, our way of agriculture does not self-fertilize by recycling all dead plants, animals and their waste. Instead we have to constantly add artificial fertilizers produced by energy-intensive processes mostly fed by hydrocarbons, particularly from natural gas which will eventually be depleted. Increasing the need for such fertilizer competes for supplies of natural gas and oil, creating competition between other needs and the manufacture of fertilizer. This ultimately drives up the price of food.

3. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). Higher concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat.

4. As is confirmed by long-term  experiments, plants with exhorbitant supplies of CO2 run up against  limited availability of other nutrients. These long term projects show that while some plants exhibit a brief and promising burst of growth upon initial exposure to C02, effects such as the  "nitrogen plateau" soon truncate this benefit

5. Plants raised with enhanced CO2 supplies and strictly isolated from insects behave differently than if the same approach is tried in an otherwise natural setting. For example, when the growth of soybeans is boosted out in the open this creates changes in plant chemistry that makes these specimens more vulnerable to insects, as the illustration below shows (at link).

Plant defenses go down as carbon dioxide levels go up, the researchers found. Soybeans grown at elevated CO2 levels attract many more adult Japanese beetles than plants grown at current atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Science Daily; March 25, 2008. (Credit: Photo courtesy of Evan Delucia)

More than 55 million years ago, the Earth experienced a rapid jump in global Carbon Dioxide levels that raised temperatures across the planet. Now, researchers studying plants from that time have found that the rising temperatures may have boosted the foraging of insects. As modern temperatures continue to rise, the researchers believe the planet could see increasing crop damage and forest devastation. Science Daily; Feb. 15, 2008
Global Warming reduces plant productivity. As Carbon Dioxide increases, vegetation in Northern Latitudes also increases. However, this does not compensate for decreases of vegetation in Southern Latitudes. The overall amount of vegetation worldwide declines

6. Likely the worst problem is that increasing CO2 will increase temperatures throughout the Earth. This will make deserts and other types of dry land grow. While deserts increase in size, other eco-zones, whether tropical, forest or grassland will try to migrate towards the poles. Unfortunately it does not follow that soil conditions will necessarily favor their growth even at optimum temperatures.

In conclusion, it would be reckless to keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Assuming there are any positive impacts on agriculture in the short term, they will be overwhelmed by the negative impacts of climate change.

Added CO2 will likely shrink the range available to plants while increasing the size of deserts. It will also increase the requirements for water and soil fertility as well as plant damage from insects.

Increasing CO2 levels would only be beneficial inside of highly controlled, enclosed spaces like greenhouses.

Basic rebuttal written by doug_bostrom

UPDATE July 2015:

The negative effects of climate change far outweigh any positive effect from increased CO2 levels.

The fossil fuel industry has been trying to push that STUPID, "CO2 is great for plants" baloney for at least two decades. Yeah, they use CO2. Yeah, they NEED CO2. Yeah, More CO2 means they can absorb it better and grow faster.

HOWEVER, they don't do ANY of those things when they are forced outside the BAND of temperature and other conditions that are sine qua non for them.  It's BIOSHERE MATH 101.

The fossil fuel industry is pushing the CO2 happy talk TOTALLY out of context. The desertification and deforestation is NOT being counterbalanced by the greening of colder areas now accessing more CO2 due to warming.

Some areas towards the poles will experience some greening. SO WHAT? We can't plan on moving all the animals, insects and other biota that DON"T migrate, along with the trees and crops north or south thousands of miles.

This the true  situation (Poodwaddle deforestation year to date clock):
Poodwaddle is firmly backed by government published data.

And there is this, which totally destroys any happy talk about CO2 "benefits".

Burning remaining fossil fuel could cause 60-meter sea level rise

September 11, 2015

"Our findings show that if we do not want to melt Antarctica, we can't keep taking fossil fuel carbon out of the ground and just dumping it into the atmosphere as CO2 like we've been doing," Caldeira said. "Most previous studies of Antarctic have focused on loss of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Our study demonstrates that burning coal, oil, and gas also risks loss of the much larger East Antarctic Ice Sheet."

Here's a nice quote from another article in


What is the NIPCC? Is it just like the IPCC, but with an "N"?

Well, no. The NIPCC is a group of climate change "skeptics", bank rolled by the libertarian Heartland Institute to promote doubt about climate change. This suits the Heartland Institute's backers, including fossil fuel companies and those ideologically opposed to government regulation.

The NIPCC promotes doubt via thousand-page reports, the latest of which landed with a dull thud last week. These tomes try to mimic the scientific reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), right down to the acronym. However, unlike the IPCC, the NIPCC reports are works of partisan pseudoscience

The fossil fuel industry does not get it. Neither do those who advocate that incremental measures are sufficient to ameliorate the extinction threat that global warming poses to our species.  (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on September 19, 2015, 02:07:23 pm
Direct quotes from Exxon Mobile

“…for most nations the Kyoto Protocol would require extensive diversion of human and financial resources away from more immediate and pressing needs in health care, education, infrastructure, and, yes, the environment—all critical to the well-being of future generations.”

ExxonMobil went on to advocate a “strong focus on scientific understanding” around climate change and proposed policies “that have the potential to make significant longer-term reductions in emissions, if they are needed.”

The ad finished with this: “Although it is hard to predict what the weather is going to be this weekend, we know with certainty that climate change policies, unless properly formulated, will restrict life itself.”

Exxon Advertised Against Climate Change for Decades After Top Executives Knew Burning Fossil Fuels Would Warm the Planet  >:(

Agelbert NOTE:
The best way to describe why the fossil fuel Industry uses crocodile tears about their "concern" for humanity to lie, distort and double talk about the truth of the climate change existential threat is embodied in the following quote:

“The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.”   ―  Albert Camus
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on October 17, 2015, 05:33:04 pm
Off the keyboard of Ugo Bardi

Published on Resource Crisis on October 8, 2015

"Peak Oil will save us from Climate Change:" a meme that never went viral

The idea that peak oil will save us from climate change has been occasionally popping up in the debate, but it never really gained traction for a number of good reasons. One is that, in many cases, the proponents were also climate science deniers and that made them scarcely credible. Indeed, if climate change does not exist (or if it is not caused by human activities), then how is it that you are telling us that peak oil will save us from it? Add to this that many hard line climate science deniers are also peak oil deniers (since, as well known, both concepts are part of the great conspiracy), then, it is no surprise that the meme of "peak oil will save us" never went viral.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't ask the question of whether we have sufficient amounts of fossil fuel to generate a truly disastrous climate change. The debate on this point goes back to the early 2000s. At the beginning, the data were uncertain and it was correctly noted that some of the IPCC scenarios overestimated what we are likely to burn in the future. But, by now, I think the fog has cleared.  It is becoming increasingly clear that fossil fuel depletion is not enough, by far, to save us from climate change.

Nevertheless, some people still cling to the old "peak oil will save us" meme. In a recent post on "Energy Matters", Roger Andrews argues that:


All of the oil and gas reserves plus about 20% of the coal reserves could be consumed without exceeding the IPCC’s trillion-tonne carbon emissions limit.

Now, that sounds reassuring and surely many people would understand it in the sense that we shouldn't worry at all about burning oil and gas. Unfortunately, that's just not true and Andrews' statement is both overoptimistic and misleading.  >:(

One problem is that the "2 degrees limit" is a last ditch attempt to limit the damage created by climate change, but there is no certainty that staying beyond it will be enough to prevent disaster. Then, there is a problem with Andrew's use of the term "reserves," to be understood as "proven reserves". Proven reserves include only those resources that are known to exist and to be extractable at present; and that's surely much less than all what could be extracted in the future. The parameter that takes into account also probably existing resources is called "Ultimate Recoverable Resources" or URRs

So, let's consider a world fossil URR estimate that many people would consider as "pessimistic," the one by Jean Laherrere that I already discussed in a previous post. It turns out that we have enough oil and gas that, together, they can produce enough CO2 to reach the 2 degrees limit; even though, maybe, not more. There follows that, if we really wanted to burn all the oil and gas known to be extractable, to stay within the limit we would need to stop all carbon burning; starting from tomorrow!  (

Not an easy thing to do, considering that coal produces more than 40% of the energy that powers the world's electrical grid and, in some countries, much more than that. It is true that coal is the dirtiest of the three fossil fuels and must be phased out faster than oil and gas, but the consumption of all three must go down together, otherwise it will be impossible to remain under the limit.

In the end, we have here one more of the many illusions that surround the climate issue; one that could be dangerous it were to spread. However, in addition to the other problems described here, Andrew's post falls in the same trap of many previous attempts: it uses the data produced by climate science to try to demonstrate its main thesis, but only after having defined climate science as "Vodoo Science." No way: this is not a meme that will go viral.  ;D

I agree. There is no way that peak oil. or even the coming collapse of civilization, viewed by many here as the solution to the climate problem, will stop the climate catastrophe.

And this gem of bold faced bull sh it is so science challenged as to be worthy of a long prison sentence:

All of the oil and gas reserves plus about 20% of the coal reserves could be consumed without exceeding the IPCC’s trillion-tonne carbon emissions limit.

The fossil fuel propagandist from (polluting) "Energy Matters", Roger Andrews left out several "minor" details. Here is just ONE of those inconvenient FACTS.

Burning remaining fossil fuel could cause 60-meter sea level rise (

Here are a few more facts that Roger the climate dodger does not want to deal with.

Climate Change: Going beyond the dangerous (

Speaker: Professor Kevin Anderson.

Recorded on 21 October 2011 in Hong Kong Theatre, Clement House, London UK.

This lecture is part of the LSE Department of International Development Friday Lecture Series. A question and answer session follows the talk.

Kevin Anderson is professor of energy and climate change in the School of Mechanical, Aeronautical and Civil Engineering at the University of Manchester.

He has recently finished a two-year position as director of the Tyndall Centre, the UK's leading academic climate change research organisation, during which time he held a joint post with the University of East Anglia.

Kevin Anderson, former Director of the Tyndall Centre (the UK's top academic institute researching climate change) is a depressing guy. Here, in his lecture "Beyond dangerous climate change: emission scenarios for a new world", he lays out the grim reality of climate change, and our inability to address it globally.

We are currently mitigating for 4 degrees C of warming and planning for 2 degrees C. As Anderson points out, that's ass backwards. Further, he sees absolutely no way we can meet those targets, given the rapid industrialisation of China and the emerging economies, and the current state of global political inaction.

He points out, with brutal honesty, that "climate analysts construct their scenarios not to avoid dangerous climate change but to avoid threatening economic growth". There is, therefore, almost no possibility that we are going to act, either in time or at the scale necessary, to address the challenge facing us.

We pretend that 2 degrees C is our threshold. Yet the climate scenarios and plans presented to policymakers do not actually reflect that threshold. As Anderson says, "most policy advice is to accept a high probability of extremely dangerous climate change rather than propose radical and immediate emission reductions." (

I would add that, when the collapse occurs, the clearing of the air from lack of industrially produced aerosols will INCREASE average global temperature by about one degree C in about ONE year! That's MORE than we have warmed in the last CENTURY! I'm sure Roger, the climate change science facts dodger, will find a way to ignore that too.    (  (


Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on October 20, 2015, 06:30:41 pm
The following quote from UB is in response to a fossil fueler pushing the propaganda that solar panels were made with fossil fuels so they were "not Renewable energy". LOL!

What % of world oil, coal and gas consumption is used on making solar panels.. 0.001? 

Don't even try to reason with the "high energy density" fossil fuel worshipping folks. A perfect example of how terminally stupid they are is to ask them what is a more efficient way of transporting energy, a tanker truck carrying some fossil fuel like gasoline, heating oil or propane OR electrical transmission wires.

They will say, but, but, the power plants run on fossil fuel, so there! When you show them the power plant DOES NOT need to run on fossil fuels and can run on any combination of 100% Renewable energy from ethanol, geothermal, solar, wind, tide, hydro,  ETC., they pull out some enthalpy baloney or start bad mouthing corn ethanol ERoEI.

When they pull out the enthalpy baloney and you try to explain to them that high enthalpy refers ONLY to EXTERNAL combustion processes and when INTERNAL combustion is compared , ethanol beats gasoline, even without considering the contribution to renewable energy of the other technologies, they resort to snark and large fonts. ::)

Then they repeat the baloney that you must use fossil fuels to manufacture Renewable energy harvesting devices. So it goes.  (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on October 20, 2015, 11:08:21 pm
Exxon's Climate Coverup

Oct. 20, 2015 2:23 pm By Thom Hartmann

Star Wars fans rejoiced last night with the debut of the final trailer for the newest Star Wars movie.

It's been 38 years since George Lucas debuted the Star Wars movies and gave birth to one of the world's most recognizable franchises.

And just two months after Star Wars was released 38 years ago - the Exxon Corporation was poised to become a leader in climate change research.  (

Yes, you heard that right - according to Inside Climate News - in July of 1977 a scientist working for Exxon told powerful oil executives at Exxon's headquarters that the planet was warming - and that it was caused by burning fossil fuels.

James F. Black    ( told the audience
"In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels."

A year later - he put a fine point to his conclusions when he wrote
"Present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical."

That was a decade before Congress heard James Hansen - as Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies - testify about man-made climate change.

Exxon knew about how their entire business model threatened humanity a full decade before Congress - and what did Exxon do about it?

Well - believe it or not - they took serious action - Exxon launched new research into carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and how it impacts the earth.

They worked with university scientists and the Department of Energy - and they were the early leaders in the field of climate and energy research.

Based on that - you'd think that by 1988 when James Hansen gave his congressional testimony - scientists from Exxon would be next in line to testify about the realities and dangers of global warming.

But that's not what happened.

Instead - in the late 1980s - Exxon made an about-face.  :evil4:

Exxon fired most of its climate scientists and started doing everything it could to cast doubt on the scientific consensus about the causes and dangers of man-made climate change.

They helped to organize the "Global Climate Coalition" - which fights to block any efforts to address global climate change.

And they worked with groups like the American Petroleum Institute and the American Legislative Exchange Council to get fossil-fuel-friendly climate deniers into every level of government.

In 1997 - Exxon chairman and CEO Lee Raymond ( argued against the Kyoto Protocol using the logic that we don't really know what's going to happen with the climate - so why bother?  ( (

That pattern of denial and deception has continued to this day.

Even though the company claims that it accepts climate science today - it's still supporting climate denial as a member of climate denying groups like ALEC.

Because Exxon knows - and they've known for almost 40 years - that the basis of their business model is a threat to humanity.

And so they lied - and they blew a whole lot of smoke to make the science seem less clear than it is - and to protect their bottom line. (  (

Fortunately - our Justice system has dealt with this sort of corporate deception and corruption before.

In 1999 the Department of Justice decided to investigate and prosecute Big Tobacco for violating the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

For nearly 50 years Big Tobacco had promoted phony science and created deceptive labels to make cigarettes attractive and to make them appear "safe" - if not outright "healthy".

Twenty-one years ago - tobacco executives were still testifying that nicotine wasn't addictive.

But in 2006 - when U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler finally ruled on the case - she wrote: "In short, defendants have marketed and sold their lethal product with zeal, with deception, with a single-minded focus on their financial success, and without regard for the human tragedy or social costs that success exacted."

And that's exactly what Exxon and the other oil companies have been doing for nearly 40 years.

And that's why Sharon Eubanks - the former U.S. Department of Justice attorney who prosecuted and won the racketeering case against Big Tobacco - is calling for the Department of Justice to look into whether Exxon violated the RICO Act.

She's not alone - Representatives Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier from California urged Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Friday to launch an investigation into Exxon.

It's definitely time for this to happen - and the investigation shouldn't stop with Exxon - we need a full investigation into every part of Big Oil's decades-long disinformation campaign, particularly the role Koch Industries may be playing in it all.

When the DoJ took down Big Tobacco - it wasn't just Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds - they went after the lobbying groups and the research shills too.  ;D

Today's investigation of climate deniers should include the oil companies like Exxon and Koch Industries - but should also include the organizations that manufacture and push phony research - like the Heartland Institute - and the Heritage Foundation.

Because at the end of the day - these companies and organizations have acted with a single-minded focus on the bottom line of their fossil-fuel donors - without regard to human tragedy - social costs - or the threat to life on Earth as we know it.

And it's time they're all held accountable.  (

Agelbert comment: Excellent artcle, Thom!

But we need to pay attention the fact that the fossil fuel industry is trying to avoid paying for their ( LION'S) share of the responsibility for climate damage by making all of us pay equally to ameliorate climate change. That is why they are all NOW proclaiming "support" for the coming December COP21 Paris Climate Talks. It's part and parcel of their duplicitous modus operandi.

The fossil fuel industry is just trying to get out in front of the Paris talks with disingenuous fake support for measures to ameliorate climate change. They have been at this since these talks began in the early 1990's. Nothing they say publicly is to be taken at face value. Careful attention is to be given to who they "support" with MONEY in these talks.

Here is a snippet from part three of an article on our responsibility to future generations. I provide it so you can understand what the PLAN of the fossil fuel industry is in regard to who, EXACTLY, will be saddled with the bill for ameliorating climate change.

Agelbert NOTE: The mens rea  of the fossil fuel industry and almost half of the world’s 100 largest companies, including Procter & **** and Duke Energy, has been recently exposed. They all funded lobbyists and propagandists in order to obstruct climate change legislation.

I use the Latin legal expression, "mens rea", because the above obstructionists of climate change legislation were knowledgeable over 40 years ago of the damage that burning fossil fuels causes to the biosphere in general and humans in particular.

As  Theresa  Morris made quite clear in her essay, these corporations made the wrong choice. And they made that choice because they refused to think things through.

Theresa  Morris said,

"This task, however, is difficult, not only because of the extent of effects in time and space, fragmentation of agency, and the difficulty of predicting harms, but also because in many cases we may benefit now from actions that result in harms to future generations."

Ethical considerations aside for a moment, the people in these powerful corporations are not stupid. They love their own children.

So, if they knew, because over 40 years ago ExxonMobil scientists laid out the facts to oil executives, who then secretly joined with several other corporations to fund denial of climate change and obstruct climate change legislation, why did they, with malice and aforethought, engage in disguising the fact that they were, and are, getting an F in viable biosphere math?

Some will say that it's a no brainer that they did it for profit. While that is partially true, it ignores the fact that big oil corporations DO believe their own scientists. It also ignores the fact that fossil fuel corporations DO NOT believe the happy talk propaganda that they fund.

They plan ahead. They plan to take advantage of the 'Fragmentation of Agency' mentioned by  Stephen Gardiner. The corporations did not get limited liability laws passed because they wanted to be socially responsible. I believe they will use the 'Fragmentation of Agency', in regard to biosphere damage claims, to unjustly limit their liability in a typically unethical "damage control" exercise.

One of the themes about human history that I have tried to communicate to readers over and over is that predatory capitalist corporations, while deliberately profiting from knowingly doing something that causes pollution damage to the populace, always plan AHEAD to socialize the costs of that damage when they can no longer deny SOME liability for it. Their conscience free lackey lawyers will always work the system to limit even PROVEN 100% liability.

While the profits are rolling in, they will claim they are "just loyal public servants, selflessly providing a service that the public is demanding", while they laugh all the way to the bank. When the damage is exposed, they will claim we are "all equally to blame" (i.e. DISTORTED Fragmentation of Agency).

This is clearly false because polluting corporations, in virtually all cases, AREN'T non-profit organizations. If they were NOT PROFITING, THEN, and only then, could they make the claim that "we all benefited equally so we all are equally responsible to pay equally for the cost."

Those who presently benefit economically from the burning of fossil fuels, despite the scientific certainty that this is ushering in a Permian level mass extinction, will probably be quick to grab on to a severely distorted and duplicitous version of the 'Fragmentation of Agency' meme, in regard to assigning the proportionate blame for the existential threat our species is visiting on future generations.

Privatizing the profits and socializing the costs is what they have done for over a century in the USA. They have always gotten away with it. That is why, despite having prior knowledge that their children would be negatively impacted by their decisions, they decided to dispense with ethical considerations.

They assumed that, with all the profits they would accumulate over the last 40 years (or as long as the populace can be blinded to the truth of the existential threat), they could protect their offspring when things got "difficult".

They know that millions to billions of people, in all probability, will die. But they think their wealth can enable them to survive and thrive. 

As for the rest of us, who obtained a pittance in benefits in comparison to the giant profits the polluters raked (and still continue to rake) in, we can expect an army of corporate lawyers descending on our government(s) demanding that all humans, in equal portions, foot the bill for ameliorating climate change.

The lawyer speak will probably take the form of crocodile tears about the "injustice of punitive measures" or, some double talk legalese limiting "punitive damage claims" based on Environmental LAW fun and games (see: "punitive" versus "compensatory" damage claims).

This grossly unjust application of the 'Fragmentation of Agency' is happening as we speak. The poorest humans are paying the most with their health for the damage done by the richest. The richest have avoided most, or all, of the deleterious effects of climate change.

When the governments of the world finally get serious about the funding needed to try to clean this mess up (present incremental measures ARE NOT sufficient), the fossil fuel industry oligarchs (and other corporate polluting crooks) plan to continue literally getting away with ecocide, and making sure they don't pay their share of the damages for it.

Our Responsibility to Future Generations
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on October 24, 2015, 03:16:03 pm
Over at Eco-Watch, a web site that documents fossil fuel industry pollution, corruption and threats, an interesting phenomenon just occurred.  ;D The trolls that regularly arrive to deny, obfuscate and catapult their 'propergander' have VANISHED! It seems there is a large concentration of those human fecal coliforms, bought and paid for by dirty energy money, in the Houston area.

Of course that is mere speculation on my part. There is no evidence, as those fine fellows that haunt Eco-Watch like to say, that there is a connection between living in Houston and supporting the dirty energy status quo.  ;)

BuzzlightYear is holed up in Houston until the rain quits and he can cash in on more He F artland Institute Money.   (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on November 24, 2015, 11:47:38 pm
... an “ecosystem of influence” within the corporate-backed groups.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on November 30, 2015, 12:26:24 am
Exxon’s two faces

Two-faced Exxon: the misinformation campaign against its own scientists

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on December 14, 2015, 06:30:56 pm
Agelbert NOTE: The fossil fuel industry is now at the pathetic straw grasping stage of ridiculous, irrational claims. With bought and paid for retired science teachers like Jane Mann, one can see why the fossil fuel industry thinks it can lie, dissemble, doubletalk, whine at and confuse Americans into getting biosphere math AND economy math (i.e. job generating clean technologies) exactly backwards. Woodland, North Carolina, just earned the Darwin award for EVOLUTIONARY DEAD END. (

Town Rejects Solar Farm Amid Fears it Would ‘Suck Up All the Energy From the Sun’


Cole Mellino | December 14, 2015 2:50 pm

The town of Woodland, North Carolina rejected a proposal last week to rezone an area of land just outside of the town for a solar farm. The proposed site is an ideal location for a solar farm, according to the solar company behind the proposal—Strata—and the town’s planning board, because of its close proximity to an electrical substation where the panels can be easily hooked up to the electrical grid.    (

Three solar farms have already been approved in the area, but the Roanoke-Chowan News Herald reported “citizens expressed distrust and fear of the solar panels” in a public meeting before the vote.

One of the more unusual claims came from Jane Mann, a retired science teacher, who is concerned that photosynthesis “would not happen” and the panels “would keep the plants from growing.” She said she has “observed areas near solar panels where the plants are brown and dead because they did not get enough sunlight.”

Mann also believes that the solar panels in the community are responsible for the high number of cancer deaths in the area. “I want to know what’s going to happen,” she said. “I want information. Enough is enough. I don’t see the profit for the town.”

“People come with hidden agendas,” she added. “Until we can find if anything is going to damage this community, we shouldn’t sign any paper.”

At least two other residents, Bobby Mann and Mary Hobbs, believe that the solar panels are responsible for turning the community into a “ghost town with no job opportunities for young people.” Hobbs said the panels that surround her house have brought down the value of her home.

“You’re killing your town,” Bobby Mann told those gathered at the meeting. “All the young people are going to move out.” He said the solar farms would “suck up all the energy from the sun and businesses would not come to Woodland.”

Several representatives from Strata were also present at the meeting to talk about the proposal. “There are no negative impacts,” one of the representatives, Beth Trahos, said. “A solar farm is a wonderful use for a property like this.”

Trahos assured residents solar panels “are proven to be safe and exist next to homes” and “there are no negative impacts on property values statewide.”

Another representative, Brent Niemann, even explained that “the panels don’t draw additional sunlight.” They only capture the sunlight that hits them directly.

Despite the company representatives’ assurances, the town could not be swayed. The city not only voted against rezoning the land, but later voted for a moratorium on future solar farms.  ( ( (

The vote flies in the face of recent nationwide polling, which shows very strong support for renewables, even among conservatives.


LaDeDa  • 2 hours ago   

A town of uneducated twits. Probably educated with textbooks from the Heartland Institute aka Koch Bros.
1 △  ▽ 

agelbert > LaDeDa • 8 minutes ago   

Well said. We have some of those in Vermont too. I am glad they are in the minority.

Vermont has addressed this solar farm issue by including, apart from dedicated solar farms, the use of the grass area on super highways for collecting solar energy. It is already public land and solar panels would actually lower grass cutting maintenance costs.

This no-brainer solution, right where the electricity generated can access already built major transmission lines, is applicable all over the USA. It has only been the fossil fuel lobby corruption here and there in our country that has prevented it up until now.

Let us hope that more states get with the program. Super Solar Farm the superhighways!

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on December 22, 2015, 04:14:42 pm
Washington Post Writer Finally Discloses He’s a Shill for Fossil Fuel Industry

Andrew Seifter, Media Matters for America | December 22, 2015 9:35 am

In his latest column repeating his clients’ attacks on climate change policies, lobbyist and Washington Post writer Ed Rogers finally disclosed to readers that his lobbying firm “represents interests in the fossil fuel [industry].”

Rogers is the chairman of BGR Group, a top lobbying firm that has received more than $700,000 from the energy industry in 2015. Rogers has personally lobbied this year for Southern Company, one of the largest electric utility companies in the U.S.—and one of the biggest opponents of the most significant U.S. policy to combat climate change.


Rogers’ disclosure, which was placed in a parenthetical in the middle of his Dec. 17 column, could help Post readers recognize that they should take his opinions on the United Nations’ historic Paris climate agreement with a grain of salt (he says it’s a “sham”). And it marks a stark contrast from Rogers’ past columns, in which the Post allowed him to dismiss the scientific consensus on climate change and echo his client’s attacks on climate policies without disclosing his firm’s fossil fuel ties.

The Post’s past failure to require Rogers to disclose his lobbying firm’s clients—both fossil fuel and otherwise—drew criticism from media ethicists. Among them was Ed Wasserman, dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley, who said it’s clear that “someone else is paying” Rogers to write his columns and urged the Post to provide “specific disclosure” of Rogers’ clients rather than a “blanket description of him as a lobbyist,” in order to make plain that he “has a horse to back” in his columns.

From Rogers’ Dec. 17 column for The Washington Post’s Post Partisan blog (emphasis added):

“The [Conference of Parties] 21 conference in Paris was the most predictable event of 2015. Of course an agreement was going to be reached and of course that agreement is a sham, but it all fits perfectly with what the climate issue has become. The topic of climate change has become manna for exhausted liberals who have nothing much to say and policy failures on almost every front. (Disclosure: My firm represents interests in the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries.) And let’s face it, global warming is an issue that perfectly suits Obama as he warms up for retirement. He doesn’t really have to do anything, there is never any day of reckoning and it lends itself to sanctimonious moralizing and generally lecturing everybody about how they should live.”

( (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on February 19, 2016, 06:27:39 pm
Koch Brothers Plotting Multimillion Dollar War on Electric Vehicles   (

Lorraine Chow | February 19, 2016 2:45 pm


Death to the electric car?    ( Charles and David Koch are reportedly backing a new group that will use millions to promote petroleum and fight against government subsidies for electric vehicles.

In an effort to strike back at record-breaking EV sales, the fossil fuel industry is allegedly funding a new organization that will spend $10 million a year to push petroleum-based transportation fuels and attack government subsidies on EVs, refining industry sources told the Huffington Post.

Elon Musk
✔  ‎‎@elonmusk 

Worth noting that all gasoline cars are heavily subsidized via oil company tax credits & unpaid public health costs.

Comment by renewableguy

Fossil fuels is scared sh--less.

Agelbert reply:

Amory Lovins knows the score. The fossil fuel industry is a wounded beast. It's days are numbered.

Over the past 40 years, Americans have saved 31 times as much energy as renewables added. Those cumulative savings are equivalent to 21 years’ current energy use.  They’re simply invisible: you can’t see the energy you don’t use. But globally, it’s a bigger “supply” than oil, and inexorably, it’s going to get much, much bigger.

Oil companies worry about climate regulation, but they’re even more at risk from market competition. The oil that’ll be unburnable for climate reasons is probably less than the oil that’ll be unsellable because efficiency and renewables can do the same job cheaper.

An oil business that sputters when oil’s at $90 a barrel, swoons at $50, and dies at $30 will not do well against the $25 cost of getting U.S. mobility—or anyone else’s, since the technologies are fungible—completely off oil by 2050. That cost, like the $18 per saved barrel to make U.S. automobiles uncompromised, attractive, cost-effective, and oil-free, is a 2010–11 analytic result; today’s costs are even lower and continue to fall.

In short, like whale oil in the 1850s, oil is becoming uncompetitive even at low prices before it became unavailable even at high prices.

As Oil Prices Gyrate, Underlying Trends Are Shifting To Oil's Disadvantage (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on March 26, 2016, 04:13:38 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Birds of a feather flock together.  ;)

Eddie says to MKing:
There are bloggers who think just like you!  I wondered if you saw this. (

Needless to say, I see it somewhat differently. But I still respect PT. (Even when he's dead wrong, LOL.)

Well, yeah. After all, the Fartland Institute/Koch Brothers money can still find a small, but noisy, ethics free group of individuals who will say whatever they are told to say for money.


They do believe in talking point discipline and rarely deviate rom it  :evil4:. They know that half-truths are welcome doubletalk style propaganda but truth is a No No (

Below, please find, a summarized script of the rinse and repeat ad nauseam of MKing and his pals on the issues of the day, including, but certainly not limited to, Global Warming.

Don't worry about this... According to the deniers, it's "El Niño" ... IOW, "nothing to see here. Move along, citizen."

And don't forget to BUY, BUY, BUY fossil fuels so you can burn them and provide more GOOD CO2 FOOD for plants...

And, OF COURSE, BUY, BUY, BUY fossil fuel industry stocks because they are well priced now due to, uh, challenging market conditions TOTALLY unrelated to those pesky, irrelevant, over subsidized, green scam (etc.) renewable energy technologies...

The fossil fuel industry corporations are CERTAINLY NOT welfare queen subsidy grabbing, government corrupting, democracy destroying, politician buying, court corrupting, greedy, pollution cost  externalizing, biosphere math challenged, conscience free, lying, double talking, Orwellian propaganda pushing crooks! SNIFF! They are, and have ALWAYS been, our loyal servants, working their poor fingers to the bone, just trying help us out while they sacrifice for us unworthy and ungrateful eco-leftists...

Climate change catastrophe? Waddayoutalkingabout? What part of NOTHING TO SEE HERE, MOVE ALONG do you not understand?

We must not get hysterical or be chicken little nervous nellies. But it is TRUE, TRUE, TRUE that we are all gonna die without fossil fuels while we are returning to the caves from lack of the only TRULY COMPETITIVE energy re source (hydrocarbons, OF COURSE).

Stop trying to get in the way of fossil fuel industry profit over planet swag PROGRESS...

If I missed anything, I'm sure MKing, among the deniers workin' hahd to bring us the truth, da trut and nuttin' but da trut,  will provide some more irrefutable data with links to dis, dat and the other fossil fuel industry propaganda web sites. scientifically peer reviewed by at least one bought and paid for scientist...

 Are you tired of facts? Do you think all the concern about climate change is just a bunch of hooey? Then this newscast is for you. See bald eagles, coal mining, unpatriotic polar bears, politics and even a frozen pizza on this satirical episode of Climate Change Denier News. (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on April 15, 2016, 10:53:28 pm
Oil Industry’s Suppression of Climate Science Began in 1940s  >:(, Documents Reveal

Posted on Apr 13, 2016

By Nadia Prupis / Common Dreams

A trove of newly uncovered documents shows that fossil fuel companies were explicitly warned of the risks of climate change decades earlier than previously suspected.
And while it’s no secret—anymore—that the companies knew about those dangers long ago, the documents, published Wednesday by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), reveal even more about the broader industry effort to suppress climate science and foment public doubt about global warming.

Industry executives met in Los Angeles in 1946 to discuss growing public concern about air pollution. That meeting led to the formation of a panel—suitably named the Smoke and Fumes Committee—to conduct research into air pollution issues.

But the research was not meant to be a public service; rather, it was used by the committee to “promote public skepticism of environmental science and environmental regulations the industry considered hasty, costly, and potentially unnecessary,” CIEL writes.

The group continues:

In the decades that followed, the Smoke and Fumes Committee funded massive levels of research into an array of air pollution issues, often conducted by institutes fostered and governed by the oil companies themselves. By the mid-1950s at the very latest, climate change was one of those issues.

The documents also show how Humble Oil (now ExxonMobil) scientists actively engaged on climate science in the company’s name beginning in the 1950s, even as they actively funded and published research into alternate theories of global warming.

Among the documents is a report by the Stanford Research Institute presented to the American Petroleum Institute (API) in 1968 warning of the potential consequences of releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

That report states:

Significant temperature changes are almost certain to occur by the year 2000 and these could bring about climate change. If the Earth’s temperature increases significantly, a number of events might be expected to occur including the melting of the Antarctic ice cap, a rise in sea levels, warming of the oceans, and an increase in photosynthesis. [....]

[T]here seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our environment could be severe.

“We begin with three simple, related questions,” said CIEL President Carroll Muffett. “What did they know? When did they know it? And what did they do about it?”

What we found is they knew a great deal,” Muffett said, “and they knew it much earlier and with greater certainty than anyone has recognized or that the industry has admitted.”

Annie Leonard, executive director of Greenpeace USA, said of the release, “It’s increasingly clear that the fossil fuel industry knew a lot more about the causes of climate change—and its effects—much earlier than anyone else. It pains me to think how much better shape the planet and vulnerable communities could be in if the fossil fuel industry had taken positive action based on this knowledge instead of trying to profit from it.”

The industry’s coverup of climate science was exposed last July by the Union of Concerned Scientists and through reporting by InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on April 21, 2016, 04:09:47 pm
Exxon Tries To Bury Climate Documents By Claiming First Amendment Rights

The oil giant says attorneys general trying to access their internal docs “discriminates based on viewpoint.”  (

Et tu, AGU? Group Continues Exxon Relationship (

InsideClimate News has been named a Pulitzer finalist for its series of stories on ExxonMobil’s climate denial, ranking it as some of the best journalism of 2015. This will be yet another blow for Exxon, which has repeatedly attacked the credibility of the outlet and the story.

But now Exxon has gotten a small win, handed to them by one of the biggest scientific societies on the planet, the American Geophysical Union (AGU).


In February, a group of scientists wrote an open letter to AGU asking them to end ExxonMobil’s sponsorship of the group, as per AGU policy prohibiting partnerships with groups that “disseminate misinformation of science.”

AGU's board held a meeting, examined the evidence, and came to the conclusion that they would continue to take ExxonMobil’s money because  ;) they can’t confirm that the company is STILL funding misinformation, just that it has in the past. (  Joe Romm at ThinkProgress lampoons the decision, calling it the “You can’t prove they didn’t stop yesterday” defense.

Because of how AGU’s rules are written, Exxon's wrongdoing is in the past and therefore forgiven, as AGU didn’t see proof that Exxon is funding denial on a daily basis. Apparently, AGU needs impossible-to-get information to make the right call, as the report showing ExxonMobil’s denial funding is current as of 2014, the latest year such information is available. So to prove that the company is currently funding denial, they would need 2016’s information on charitable giving, which won’t be released until those taxes are filed in 2017.

In that case, to get info about Exxon’s current spending, maybe the IPCC can lend the AGU their time machine? (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on April 26, 2016, 08:23:15 pm
CNN Viewers See Far More Fossil Fuel Advertising  ( Than Climate Reporting:

Oil industry ads outpaced climate-related coverage by almost 5-to-1 on CNN in periods following major climate announcements, according to a study done by Media Matters.

After reporting that 2015 was the hottest year on record and that February 2016 was the most abnormally hot month on record, CNN ran just five minutes of climate news coverage, compared to 23.5 minutes of fossil fuel ads.
“That disparity does not even account for dozens of Koch Industries ads that also ran on CNN, which were not energy-focused but did serve to boost the image of the oil billionaire Koch brothers’ primary corporation,” wrote researcher Kevin Kalhoefer.
(Media Matters, Grist)

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on April 26, 2016, 09:00:02 pm

What Could Possibly Be Fueling ‘Fraud Is Protected Free Speech’ Defense?  ;)


April 26, 2016
The past week has seen a barrage of opinion pieces carrying water for the fossil fuel industry, defending against the ongoing fraud investigations. The Washington Post had two pieces, Newsweek had one and the Financial Times had an editorial, in addition to op-eds in a couple of other conservative outlets. Of those six, half were penned by groups funded at least in part by fossil fuel companies.
The arguments are all by and large the same, claiming that the investigations infringe on fossil fuels companies' right to free speech  ( while steadfastly ignoring the fact that ExxonMobil funded climate denial to protect their business model. ( (

Only the Financial Times editorial actually acknowledges the “misleading claims from fossil fuel interests and their allies” but concludes that it is “because the stakes [of the debate] are so high that all arguments must be heard.” While that sounds fair at first Glantz   (, it quickly sounds silly when applied to a recent example: the tobacco industry’s denial of the fact that its carcinogenic product is addictive.

All but one of the pieces similarly ignored the tobacco industry precedent, and the only person who mentioned it was one of the few voices not plugged into the professional denial apparatus.  

As for the pros, Newsweek ran a blog post from the Hoover Institution, which rambled on about climate science that’s supposedly still uncertain  ;), lamenting that fair debate is impossible if one side can bring the other to court. Not mentioned is how a fair debate can be possible if one side launches multi-million dollar PR campaigns to mislead the public about the science. 

Heritage’s Hans von Spakovsky's
piece in the Washington Times misses the tobacco precedent, but went all the way back to the Spanish Inquisition for his First Amendment fear mongering. George Will  ( used his column in the Washington Post to offer a lesson on how this campaign is part of a larger progressive strategy to shut down debate. But apparently it’s Will that needs a history lesson, as he uses as evidence a story about a 2013 IRS investigation accusing the agency of targeting conservatives. But that investigation “found no evidence” that the IRS actions were politically motivated. No doubt his column is similarly bereft of evidence.
The Washington Post also gave space to the Competitive  ( Enterprise Institute (CEI)  to defend itself by pretending it is being investigated for political dissent, not its years of Exxon funding for climate denial. Worth noting CEI's careful phrasing about its relationship with Exxon, which CEI says "publicly ended its support for us after 2005.” With Donors Trust and others making it possible to anonymize giving, the key word is “publicly.”
Ironically, despite the admission that its Exxon funding is a perfectly legitimate reason to look into its communications, CEI considers its subpoena to be a fishing expedition. Meanwhile, CEI's own coal-funded Chris Horner continues to engage in nuisance FOIAs for climate scientists.
Exxon’s defense    ( is a hot topic in denierland, as it advances the narrative that the fossil fuel industry is an embattled population facing government persecution. But here’s a reality check:  ( before Honduran activist Berta Cáceres was murdered on March 2nd, she reported receiving 33 death threats after years of intimidation. Instead of investigating a man who had previously bragged about his plans to murder her, authorities claim the prime suspects are two of her fellow activists.
Looks like the fossil fuel industry ( isn't the one facing persecution after all.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on April 27, 2016, 06:43:24 pm
The days of that prosperity are ending or at least on hold for now though. Jobs for petroleum engineers are becoming increasingly scarce even for grads from traditionally good universities. Part of the problem is that as U.S. shale oil boomed, so did the number of petroleum engineering grads. There are more than three times as many students graduating today with petroleum engineering degrees as there were in 2008.

In that sense, the petroleum engineering glut is even worse than the oil glut.

Oh GOD does this bring back memories. The petroleum engineers putting in resumes at the companies I was working welltenders! Lured by the adventure and wages they flooded into the schools back in the late 1970's, I recall an entire freshman class at one school where 85% of the kids were declared petroleum engineering majors. The % that graduated as petroleum engineers 4 years later? 2%. Of course, this was during the last real crash, not like the 1998 crash or the 2008 crash or even this one..but the KABOOM!!!!

Put a huge demographics hiccup in the profession that is still visible today.

Oh, and officially, the newest petroleum engineer I hired starts May 2. And he isn't making even 6 figures, and has wonderful experience. You couldn't find a guy like him for <$200G 18 months ago. So yup...downturns suck...the strong survive...the experienced knew it was coming and are now taking advantage of it. Woo Raa!

Woo Rah!  It is great to Butt **** those young guys with $100K in college debt and pay them as low as the market will bear while you live high on the hog. You are scum.


Well said, RE. (

 MKing is everything you said and more!

AND, he's probably LYING about "hiring" ANYBODY. But he loves to BULLSHIT about the prospects for his DYING and SOON TO BE DEAD beloved fossil fuel crooks and lairs "bidness model".

MKing is counting on his pals fighting the last war. The 1980s are gone now to baby him and his subsidy welfare queen fascist predators.

Some people have issues with reality. Below please find the current mindset of the MKings of this world:

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on May 02, 2016, 08:41:47 pm
Clean Power Plan, Steyer, and McKibben, All in the Crosshairs  (
A Koch-backed bill to protect donors from IRS disclosure has just passed the House Ways and Means committee. This will make it harder for the government to prevent nonprofits from acting as lobbying arms for industry. But even without it, figuring out who is behind attacks on clean energy is already difficult, with shell groups and shady funding streams making it impossible to track down their true source.
 Take, for example, the freshly launched, a fake news page for a new campaign dedicated to attacking Tom Steyer and Bill McKibben (among others). The site discloses that it’s “a product of America Rising Advanced Research,” which sounds fine at face value. But some quick digging uncovers that this “news” site is run by a Republican opposition research group whose attacks are so deceitful even Fox News has called them out.
 Funding secrecy is understandable for oppressed minorities who are up against powerful forces. It is why the 1958 ruling in NAACP v Alabama was well warranted in finding that groups don’t have to turn over membership or donor info. But now, this secrecy gives the fossil fuel industry a way to circumvent lobbying disclosures that could hurt its public image. For example, if the fossil fuel industry wanted to spend millions opposing policies (those that regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant), which 75 percent of voters approved of but would hurt the industry’s bottom line. They might “donate” that money to other groups to lobby unofficially on their behalf. Because the beneficiary is a nonprofit, they don’t have to disclose the donation as lobbying.
 Sometimes, though, it’s not so hard to tell who’s behind the coordinated, state-by-state legislative assault on clean energy. Such is the case with the American Energy Alliance, which has been taking credit for efforts across multiple states to pass legislation that prevents the state from spending any money on compliance plans for the Clean Power Plan, which is temporarily on hold. They’ve gotten restrictions passed in Virginia, Colorado and Wyoming, and bills are pending in Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire and Kansas. 
 This particular fossil fuel-funded group is an offshoot of the Charles G. Koch co-registered Institute for Energy Research and has been working with the industry-funded State Policy Network to prevent state budgets from acknowledging the reality that at some point they’re probably going to have to comply with the Clean Power Plan. Wyoming Dept. of Environmental Quality Director Todd Parfitt recently said that, “It would be a mistake to bury our heads in the sand” and waste the additional planning time the temporary Supreme Court stay has given the states. 
 But of course, when it comes to the fossil-fuel industry's stance  ( on climate change and clean energy, heads in the sand is the modus operandi.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on May 09, 2016, 02:45:58 pm
An overwhelming majority of scientists agree — global warming is happening and human activity is the primary cause.

Yet several prominent global warming skeptic organizations are actively working to sow doubt about the facts of global warming.

These organizations play a key role in the fossil fuel industry's "disinformation playbook," a strategy designed to confuse the public about global warming and delay action on climate change. Why? Because the fossil fuel industry wants to sell more coal, oil, and gas — even though the science clearly shows that the resulting carbon emissions threaten our planet.


Who are these groups? And what is the evidence linking them to the fossil fuel industry?

Here's a quick primer on several prominent global warming skeptic organizations, including examples of their disinformation efforts and funding sources from the fossil fuel industry. Many have received large donations from foundations established, and supported, by the fossil fuel billionaire Koch brothers.

American Enterprise Institute

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has routinely tried to undermine the credibility of climate science, despite at times affirming that the “weight of the evidence” justifies “prudent action” on climate change. [1]

For years, AEI played a role in propagating misinformation about a manufactured controversy over emails stolen from climate scientists [2], with one AEI research fellow even claiming, “There was no consensus about the extent and causes of global warming.” [3] A resident scholar at AEI went so far as to state that the profession of climate scientist “threatens to overtake all” on the list of “most distrusted occupations.” [4]

AEI received $3,615,000 from ExxonMobil from 1998-2012 [5], and more than $1 million in funding from Koch foundations from 2004-2011. [6]

Americans for Prosperity

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) frequently provides a platform for climate contrarian statements, such as “How much information refutes carbon dioxide-caused global warming? Let me count the ways.” [7]

While claiming to be a grassroots organization, AFP has bolstered its list of “activists” by hosting “$1.84 Gas” events, where consumers who receive discounts on gasoline are asked to provide their name and email address on a “petition” form. [8] These events are billed as raising awareness about “failing energy policies” and high gasoline prices, but consumers are not told about AFP’s ties to oil interests, namely Koch Industries.

AFP has its origins in a group founded in 1984 by fossil fuel billionaires Charles and David Koch [9], and the latter Koch still serves on AFP Foundation’s board of directors [10]. Richard Fink, executive vice president of Koch Industries, also serves as a director for both AFP and AFP Foundation. [11]

Koch foundations donated $3,609,281 to AFP Foundation from 2007-2011. [12]

American Legislative Exchange Council

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) maintains that “global climate change is inevitable” [13] and since the 1990s has pushed various forms of model legislation aimed at obstructing policies intended to reduce global warming emissions.

ALEC purports to “support the use of sound science to guide policy,” but routinely provides a one-sided platform for climate contrarians. State legislators attending one ALEC meeting were offered a workshop touting a report by a fossil fuel-funded group that declared “like love, carbon dioxide's many splendors are seemingly endless." [14, 15] Another ALEC meeting featured a Fox News contributor who has claimed on the air that carbon dioxide “literally cannot cause global warming.” [16, 17]

ALEC received more than $1.6 million from ExxonMobil from 1998-2012 [18], and more than $850,000 from Koch foundations from 1997-2011. [19]

Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University

From its position as the research arm of the Department of Economics at Suffolk University, the Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) has published misleading analyses of clean energy and climate change policies in more than three dozen states.

These economic analyses are at times accompanied by a dose of climate contrarianism. For example, BHI Director David Tuerck has claimed that “the very question of whether the climate is warming is in doubt…” [20] Claims such as “wind power actually increases pollution” can be found in many of BHI’s reports.

BHI has publicly acknowledged its Koch funding [21], which likely includes at least some of the approximately $725,000 the Charles G. Koch foundation contributed to Suffolk University from 2008-2011. [22]

Cato Institute

Cato acknowledges that “Global warming is indeed real…” But when it comes to the causes of global warming, Cato has sent mixed messages over the years. Cato's website, for instance, reports that “… human activity has been a contributor [to global warming] since 1975.” [23] Yet, on the same topic of whether human activity is responsible for global warming, Cato’s vice president has written: “We don’t know.” [24]

Patrick Michaels, Director of Cato’s Center for the Study of Science, has referred to the latest Draft National Climate Assessment Report as “the stuff of fantasy.” [25] The most recent edition of Cato’s “Handbook for Policymakers” advises that Congress should “pass no legislation restricting emissions of carbon dioxide.” [26]

Charles Koch co-founded Cato in 1977. Both Charles and David Koch were among the four “shareholders” who “owned” Cato until 2011 [27], and the latter Koch remains a member of Cato’s Board of Directors. [28] Koch foundations contributed more than $5 million to Cato from 1997-2011. [29]

Competitive Enterprise Institute

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has at times acknowledged that “Global warming is a reality.” [30] But CEI has also routinely disputed that global warming is a problem, contending that “There is no ‘scientific consensus’ that global warming will cause damaging climate change.”  [31]

These kinds of claims are nothing new for CEI. Back in 1991, CEI was claiming that “The greatest challenge we face is not warming, but cooling.” [32] More recently, CEI produced an ad calling for higher levels of carbon dioxide. [33] One CEI scholar even publicly compared a prominent climate scientist to convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky. [34]

CEI received around $2 million in funding from ExxonMobil from 1995-2005 [35], though ExxonMobil made a public break with CEI in 2007 after coming under scrutiny from UCS and other groups for its funding of climate contrarian organizations. CEI has also received funding from Koch foundations, dating back to the 1980s. [36]

Heartland Institute

While claiming to stand up for “sound science,” the Heartland Institute has routinely spread misinformation about climate science, including deliberate attacks on climate scientists. [37]

Popular outcry forced the Heartland Institute to pull down a controversial billboard that compared supporters of global warming facts to Unabomber Ted Kaczynski [38], bringing an early end to a planned campaign first announced in an essay by Heartland President Joseph Bast, which claimed “… the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.” [39]

Heartland even once marked Earth Day by mailing out 100,000 free copies of a book claiming that “climate science has been corrupted” [40] – despite acknowledging that “…all major scientific organizations of the world have taken the official position that humankind is causing global warming.”

Heartland received more than $675,000 from ExxonMobil from 1997-2006 [41]. Heartland also raked in millions from the Koch-funded organization Donors Trust through 2011. [42, 43]

Heritage Foundation

While maintaining that “Science should be used as one tool to guide climate policy,” the Heritage Foundation often uses rhetoric such as “far from settled” to sow doubt about climate science. [44, 45, 46, 47] One Heritage report even claimed that “The only consensus over the threat of climate change that seems to exist these days is that there is no consensus.” [48]

Vocal climate contrarians, meanwhile, are described as “the world’s best scientists when it comes to the climate change study” in the words of one Heritage policy analyst. [49]

Heritage received more than $4.5 million from Koch foundations from 1997-2011. [50] ExxonMobil contributed $780,000 to the Heritage Foundation from 2001-2012. ExxonMobil continues to provide annual contributions to the Heritage Foundation, despite making a public pledge in 2007 to stop funding climate contrarian groups. [51, 52]

Institute for Energy Research

The term “alarmism” is defined by Mirriam-Webster as “the often unwarranted exciting of fears or warning of danger.” So when Robert Bradley, CEO and founder of the Institute for Energy Research (IER), and others at his organization routinely evoke the term “climate alarmism” they do so to sow doubt about the urgency of global warming.

IER claims that public policy “should be based on objective science, not emotion or improbable scenarios …” But IER also claims that the sense of urgency for climate action is due not to the science that shows the real and growing conequences of global warming. Rather, IER suggests that researchers “exacerbate the sense [that] policies are urgently needed” for monetary gain, noting that “issues that are perceived to be an imminent crisis can mean more funding.” [53]

IER has received funding from both ExxonMobil [54] and the Koch brothers [55].

Manhattan Institute for Policy Research

The Manhattan Institute has acknowledged that the “scientific consensus is that the planet is warming,” while at the same time maintaining that “… accounts of climate change convey a sense of certitude that is probably unjustified.” [56]

“The science is not settled, not by a long shot,” Robert Bryce, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow has written in the Wall Street Journal [57]. At other times Bryce has expressed indifference to the science on climate change. “I don’t know who’s right. And I really don’t care,” he wrote in one book. [58]

The Manhattan Institute has received $635,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998 [59], with annual contributions continuing as of 2012, and nearly $2 million from Koch foundations from 1997-2011. [60]

Sources and References

1  American Enterprise Institute. 2009. Climate Change Email Scandal Underscores Myth of Pure Science.
2  Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), 2011. Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy.
3  American Enterprise Institute. 2011. Climategate (Part II)
4  American Enterprise Institute. 2010. How Climate-Change Fanatics Corrupted Science.
5 2012. Factsheet: American Enterprise Institute, AEI.
6  UCS. 2013. Unreliable Sources: How the News Media Help the Koch Brothers and ExxonMobil Spread Climate Disinformation.
7  Americans for Prosperity. 2013. AFP GA Activists Fire Major Shot Against Obama’s ‘War on Consumer Energy’ Agenda.
8  PR Watch. 2012. Koch's AFP Complains about Gas Prices, but Koch Speculation Helps Fuel High Prices at the Pump.
9  Koch Industries. 2010. Koch and Americans for Prosperity/Citizens for a Sound Economy.
10  Americans for Prosperity Foundation. About AFP Foundation: Directors.
11  Americans for Prosperity. About AFP: Directors.
12  Investigative Reporting Workshop. 2013. Koch database: donations to nonprofits.
13  American Legislative Exchange Council. 2011. ALEC Energy Principles.
14  The Cap Times. 2011. Brendan Fischer: CO2 is good for you, and other ALEC talking points.
15  Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. 2011. The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment.
16  PR Watch. 2013. A Side of Climate Change Denial with Your Coffee? ALEC Dishes up Some Hard to Swallow Spin with the Heartland Institute.
17  Climate Progress. 2012. WeatherBELL Chief Forecaster Joe Bastardi Denies Basic Physics: ‘CO2 Cannot Cause Global Warming’
18 2012. Factsheet: ALEC – American Legislative Exchange Council.
19  Greenpeace. 2011. Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group. American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
20  Carolina Journal Online. 2008. Friday Interview: Global Warming Policy Costs.
21  Washington Post. 2012. Climate skeptic group works to reverse renewable energy mandates.
22  Greenpeace. 2013. Koch Brother Fronts Flood into Kansas to Attack Wind Industry.
23  Cato Institute. Global Warming.
24  Cato Institute. 2005. Hot Enough for You? The state of the global-warming debate, and politicking.
25  Cato Institute. 2013. Federal Climatologists Pen Fantasy Novel.
26  Cato Institute. 2009. Cato Handbook for Policymakers.
27  Cato Institute. 2012. Cato Institute and Shareholders Reach Agreement in Principle.
28  Cato Institute. 2012. Cato Institute and Shareholders Reach Agreement in Principle.
29  Greenpeace. 2011. Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group: Cato Institute.
30  Competitive Enterprise Institute. 2009. 10 Cool Global Warming Policies.
31  Competitive Enterprise Institute. Global Warming FAQ.
32  Competitive Enterprise Institute. 1991. Why Worry About Global Warming.
33  UCS. 2009. New Disinformation Ads Argue for More Carbon Dioxide.
34  UCS. 2013. Timeline: Legal Harassment of Climate Scientist Michael Mann.
35  UCS. 2013. Fossil Fuel Industry Funders of Climate Contrarian Groups, 2001-2011.
36  Greenpeace. Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group: Competitive Enterprise Institute.
37  UCS. 2012. Scientists Who Had Emails Stolen Ask Heartland Institute to End Attack on Climate Science.
38  UCS. 2012. Who’s the Crazy One Here?
39  Heartland Institute. 2012. Do You Still Believe in Global Warming?’ Billboards Hit Chicago.
40  Heartland Institute. 2013. Heartland Institute Celebrates Earth Day with Release of New Book.
41 Factsheet: Heartland Institute.
42  The Guardian. 2013. How Donors Trust distributed millions to anti-climate groups.
43  The Center for Public Integrity. 2013. Donors use charity to push free-market policies in states.
44  Heritage Foundation. 2013. Climate Change: The Cost of “Bold Action”
45  Heritage Foundation. 2013. With Climate Change Science Unsettled, a Carbon Tax is Even More Useless.
46  Heritage Foundation. 2009. Sen. Inhofe Discusses Climategate, “The Greatest Scandal in Modern Science”
47  Heritage Foundation. 2013. 10 Questions for DOE Nominee Ernest Moniz.
48  Heritage Foundation. 2010. How the “Scientific Consensus” on Global Warming Affects American Business—and Consumers.
49  Heritage Foundation. 2009. Global Warming Conference: The Science of Climate Change
50  Greenpeace. 2011. Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group: The Heritage Foundation.
51 2012. Factsheet: Heritage Foundation.
52  UCS. 2012. ExxonMobil Corporation.
53  Institute for Energy Research. Climate Change Overview.
54 Factsheet: Institute for Energy Research.
55  Investigative Reporting Workshop. 2013. Koch database: donations to nonprofits.
56  Manhattan Institute. 2007. Realities and Uncertainties of Global Warming.
57  Media Matters. 2011. Who Is Robert Bryce?
58  Media Matters. 2011. Who Is Robert Bryce?
59 2012. Factsheet: Manhattan Institute for Public Policy Research.
60  Greenpeace. 2011. Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group: The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.

The Fossil Fuelers   DID THE Climate Trashing, human health depleteing 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! (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on May 10, 2016, 10:40:46 pm

Exxon Exxcitment Multiplying as Investigations Go International  ;D
 Prepare yourselves, dear readers. It’s only been five days since we last talked Exxon, but in that time, there’ve been a number of new stories to cover.
InsideClimate News’s latest investigative piece into the fossil fuel industry’s climate change knowledge dug up a three-page article written in 1982 by Mobil’s former chief executive Rawleigh Warner Jr. He acknowledges the “disastrous consequences” that may arise from the “excessive use” of “heavier fossil fuels” extracted from new shale mining operations (fracking) and admits that the concerns “should be seriously addressed.”

He recognizes that the greenhouse effect “may become a serious issue for the future” before placing his faith in the National Academy of Sciences and UN efforts to “supply us with the information to deal with this problem well before the catastrophic consequences which some predict can happen.” Which is ironic, given that these are the very institutions whose findings the fossil fuel industry spent millions to undercut with the Global Climate Coalition and similar efforts.
 This, along with the recent story from DeSmog about Exxon’s Canadian subsidiary admitting that “there is no doubt” that fossil fuels are “aggravating the potential problem of increased CO2 in the atmosphere,” suggests that the #ExxonKnew investigations may be poised to go global.
 In fact, in a way it already has. While Mobil's Warner was confident that the scientific community would steer us to solutions before climate catastrophes hit, thanks to lobbying campaigns by ExxonMobil and others, the public has been deceived for decades about the certainty of climate science. As a result, regulations on fossil fuels have been stalled far longer than the science has been settled, exacerbating extreme weather events and strengthening storms like Typhoon Haiyan. That’s why the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines is in the process of convening a hearing to determine whether the policies of ExxonMobil and 49 of the biggest fossil fuel companies are sufficiently addressing the intersection of climate, oil and human rights. This could be the first salvo in an international effort to hold the industry accountable for its actions.
 Back home in the US, though, the ongoing investigations by state attorneys general continue to face pushback. Politico covers Exxon’s efforts to fight the campaign to publicize the truth of their two-faced approach to climate, and two other editorials offer an important glimpse into what may be the opinion of the press more generally on the issue. The Colorado Gazette takes a straightforward approach of assuming there’s still uncertainty on the science (nothing unusual for them, as a commenter points out) thus demonstrating the success of the carbon-funded denial campaigns.
 The Richmond Times-Dispatch editorial, on the other hand, combines the Exxon investigations with two other examples of government efforts to protect the public from profit-motivated deceptions involving the Federal Trade Commission and California AG Kamala Harris.
 One important line makes it clear that they (and other papers) aren’t defending Exxon or conservative groups so much as they are themselves: "It’s not hard to see how the logic of such a demand could be extended to other institutions that also engage in political speech about government agencies — such as, oh, newspapers and magazines.”
This thinking is quickly dispatched by a piece from the Union of Concerned Scientists’s Elliot Negin, mocking how ExxonMobil’s strategy of “Play[ing] the Victim.” He concludes by quoting NY AG Schneiderman: "The First Amendment, ladies and gentlemen, doesn’t give you the right to commit fraud.”
But since the right to free speech and a free press are both protected by the First Amendment, that Exxon’s (faulty) First Amendment defense is being seconded and third’ed by the fourth estate just makes sense—it all adds up.   ;)  (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on May 11, 2016, 08:04:48 pm
Deniers Try Their Hand at Satire (

Satire can be a powerful tool in the right hands, pointing out the folly of a dominant power by highlighting shortcomings, creating a cartoonish exaggeration of its target through parody or sarcasm. The grade school example is the 1729 work by Jonathan Swift, in which he puts forth A Modest Proposal that poor Irish citizens sell their children as food for the rich. It’s a classic use of satire to call out economic inequality and lack of empathy for those who could use a helping hand.

There’s a long history of satire being cleverly used as a mechanism for intelligent public discourse. But for every example of satire done with a deft touch, there are untold examples of ham-handed misfires. Enter the deniers.

Over on cliscep where a sad set of UK deniers pool their efforts in a futile hope that someone will notice them, self-styled satirist Brad Keyes has a couple of posts up in a fit of click-bait handwaving. Giving the finger to Dr. Michael Mann, Keyes headlined one post “BREAKING: Mann Quits Climate Science” (  and the other “Mann Retirement: Analysis, Reax." (

Both have a similar format, using real media banners from the New York Times, Guardian and others as a sleight of hand.

It’s a (sadly successful) trick to fool readers into thinking what follows is a re-hosted version of a real news story
, instead of what it really is -- hackneyed satire. Someone should tell Keyes the key to good satire is a clear message driven home by hyperbole, because he wanders from one denier meme to the next, touching on the hockey stick and climategate and litigation without really pounding the table on any of them.

Perhaps inspired, Anthony Watts hands over some of his own satire on WUWT in response to the news that Hillary Clinton is planning on creating a climate change-focused Situation Room if elected. His little screenplay suggests Clinton would expect to see screens with climate info constantly changing, due to the phrase “you can see climate change happening now." Of course, that phrase refers to seeing things like record-breaking glacial melt, or warming-intensified hurricanes and typhoons, or empty reservoirs in California due to drought.

Obviously, actual temperature readings or model runs would be static on a day to day basis and as Watts’ “technician” character points out, “the standard baseline for measuring climate is 30 years."

By having the "technician" reinforce the fact that climate refers to longer-term trends, Watts unintentionally serves us some delicious irony  ;D, as this debunks one of the most popular denier arguments that “the pause” means climate concerns can be waved off.   (

On the flip side, for someone who knows satire like the back of his hand, check out the latest episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. He takes on the media’s oft-overblown science reporting and ends the show with a perfect example of satire, spoofing pseudoscientific TED Talks with his own Todd Talks (   (

What Oliver hands up is hands down one of the best examples of science-satire out there, so we hope you digit.  (     (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on May 11, 2016, 09:00:42 pm
Deniers Try Their Hand at Satire (

Perhaps inspired, Anthony Watts hands over some of his own satire on WUWT in response to the news that Hillary Clinton is planning on creating a climate change-focused Situation Room if elected. His little screenplay suggests Clinton would expect to see screens with climate info constantly changing, due to the phrase “you can see climate change happening now." Of course, that phrase refers to seeing things like record-breaking glacial melt, or warming-intensified hurricanes and typhoons, or empty reservoirs in California due to drought.

Obviously, actual temperature readings or model runs would be static on a day to day basis and as Watts’ “technician” character points out, “the standard baseline for measuring climate is 30 years."

Our very own troll has tried his hand at satire, with less-than-Swiftian results. Long timers will recall MKing offering up the website "co2science" as evidence of one thing or another, probably that methane is a vegetable.
Hilarity ensued.

YEP!    (

MKing is a busy fellow. He is now trying to compare Senator Sanders with trenchfoot and Hussein!  (

Thank you agelbert for getting this thread back on track after the 'greenwashing' instigated by our king of trolls.

We need a patriot like Bernie because the other two candidates are not.  One sees themself as a citizen of the great synenergy of globalism and will kick America to the curb in a quest for global community and low tax on capital gains.  The other is a specimen of our opportunistic class who reads Anne Rand for bedtime and wants a low tax on capital gains.  I leave it as an excercise for the reader to match up the two descriptions with Trump and Clinton.

With Bernie in contrast there is a chance for a future.  The other two will lead to only a future of collapse.  It is not a hard decision who to support.

You are most welcome, sir.

But really, we mustn't be too hard on the Mkings of this world.

We need Bernie like we need trenchfoot, but then I would say that about any politician. Voting is usually about the lesser of two (or more) evils, and Bernie certainly meets that low bar.

MKing is, in fact, accurate in his statement about "we" needing Bernie like we need trenchfoot.

You see, in Mking's mind, "we" EQUALS the fossil fuel fascists he worships. So, YEAH. that "we" is scared S H I T less of a Sanders Presidency. The dirty energy subsidy welfare queens have a business model in jeopardy as it is.

"We used to worry about peak oil and demand exceeding supply; now the industry has the opposite problem as demand shrinks."

'Energy expert: Oil companies must shrink and diversify or face rapid decline    (

A President Sanders would complete the destruction.

In the meantime, people like me, who use their car "so often" that a chipmunk family resides under the hood and scamper off when the two weeks between "gas guzzling" (LOL!) expeditions for groceries (and other combined stuff like mail) are up, will continue to give the  giant finger to the fossil fuelers out there.    (
I'm hanging out here until my Camry house comes back from it's twice a month trip.  (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on May 16, 2016, 11:15:37 pm
More misinformation from fossil fuel-backed special interests about renewable energy

By Gabe Elsner

Gabe Elsner is executive director of the Washington, D.C.,-based Energy & Policy Institute, which works to expose attacks on clean technology and counter misinformation by fossil fuel and utility interests.

It’s no surprise that Merrill Matthews’ ( 15 commentary is full of misleading claims about renewable energy. After all, his organization, the Institute for Policy Innovation, is funded by groups like Exxon Mobil and the Koch Brothers. Matthews is also a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, another entity with a lengthy history of climate denial and fossil fuel funding. So, we should expect the misinformation and distortions.

Here’s the truth of the matter: all forms of energy in the United States receive government incentives, and American tax payers have paid conventional fuels more than $500 billion and counting over the last 100 years.

The International Monetary Fund calculated global fossil fuel subsidies to be a whopping $5.3 trillion in 2015, greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments.

"Wind and solar have received a small fraction of that amount. Furthermore, fossil fuels received five times more in government assistance than renewable energy during their incubation period, and nuclear received 10 times more.

From 1950 through 2010, 70 percent of all energy subsidies went to oil, coal, and natural gas and less than 10 percent went to renewables.

Despite Matthews’ claims, wind energy is cheaper than conventional fuels in many parts of the country. When President Obama made that statement in his State of the Union address this January, and again at a recent event in Dallas, numerous organizations fact checked it.

Politifact, the University of Pennsylvania’s, and an Energy Information Administration analyst all confirmed its veracity.

Wall Street Investment firm Lazard also found wind to be the cheapest source of new electric generating capacity in its most recent levelized cost of energy report.

American innovation and improved domestic manufacturing continue to drive down the cost of renewable energy; for example, wind is 66 percent cheaper than it was six years ago. That’s why renewables made up the majority of new electric generating capacity in 2015, representing 68 percent of all new capacity that came online. The price of a solar panel has dropped more than 60 percent since early 2011.

All of this new renewable energy means more money in the pockets of American families and businesses. Continuing to grow wind could save consumers $149 billion through 2050.

And the policies supporting renewable energy demand have been good for Americans across the country. The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory recently concluded that renewable energy projects built to satisfy state renewable energy standards created $7.5 billion in annual environmental benefits, $1.3 to $4.9 billion in reduced energy prices, 200,000 American jobs and $20 billion in annual gross domestic product.

Matthews also brings up the point about the true cost of energy. However, he conveniently fails to discuss the true cost of conventional fuels.

What would they really cost if their mercury, carbon, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions were accounted for?

How about the smog, water pollution and asthma attacks those pollutants create?

What about the cost of dealing with climate change and price increases for insurance from rising sea levels?

We can put a number on some of those expenses. By reducing those sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, wind power saved $7.3 billion in public health costs in 2015 alone.

Matthews’ commentary is just another tired example of anti-renewable energy special interests spreading misinformation in order to cloud the reality that renewable energy is affordable and reliable and the future of our global energy supply.

It’s what will help us create a cleaner tomorrow, and it’s already saving money for Americans across the country.  (  (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on May 19, 2016, 08:36:21 pm

EELI’s  (
 Anti-EPA Suit Uses 'Exhibit A’ from Tobacco's RICO Loss

Apologies dear reader, this is a long post. It’s worth reading, though, we promise!  ( 

 With few exceptions (like this weak WSJ column), the folks defending Exxon from RICO accusations focus their attention on the free speech argument and avoid the tobacco comparison. But now one of their own, Dr. James Enstrom (, has provided a painfully clear connection between the beleaguered industries. 
 The Daily Caller carries the news that the Energy & Environment Legal Institute’s (EELI) latest attempt to waste its (probably coal) funders' money is a lawsuit against the EPA, claiming an independent review panel for air quality regulations isn’t actually independent. Their reason is that members of the panel have received funding from the EPA for past studies.
 Obviously, that’s ridiculous, since public and private funding are vastly different in terms of conflict of interest. 
 So what does a real conflict of interest look like? For a prime example, look no further than the plaintiffs EELI is representing: The Western States Trucking Association (WSTA) and Dr. James Enstrom.
 Now, the WSTA has a legitimate stake here, as the regulation in question deals with particulate matter emissions from trucks, so the organization's members would face a cost to upgrade their trucks to meet stricter EPA standards. Fine.
 But who is Dr. James Enstrom? Oh, he's just your run of the mill epidemiologist who took funding from tobacco giant Philip Morris and produced a study in 2003 downplaying the connection between second-hand smoke and cancer. Enstrom was such a pivotal player in the pro-smoking propaganda that when the Department of Justice wrapped up its successful RICO case against the tobacco industry, it dedicated an entire chapter to Enstrom—one of just three researchers to receive such a distinction. (H/T DeSmog)


 A search of his name in the Tobacco Industry Documents database returns over 500,000 results.
An LA Times article notes that Enstrom became “Exhibit A” in the fight between the tobacco industry and anti-smoking activists, a prime example of how the tobacco industry funded friendly studies for PR and lobbying purposes.
 Since then, Dr. Enstrom has turned his attention to other epidemiology questions, namely the dangers from particulate matter. And who funded his work? None other than an electric utility group, which used his study to argue against stricter PM standards that would force utilities to reduce the pollution from coal plants.  (

So even as the fossil fuel industry fights off RICO accusations and denies the tobacco parallels, its surrogate EELI is fighting to give “Exhibit A” from the tobacco corruption case a chance to use his industry-funded science to shape the EPA’s regulations. 
 Though connecting the dots between tobacco corruption and fossil fuels looks like a colossal own-goal, maybe EELI isn’t as foolish as this makes them seem. After all, if the fossil fuel industry needs to defend itself from a RICO suit like the tobacco industry did, surely EELI will offer their services? 
 And odds are slim they’d do it pro bono…   ;)
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on May 20, 2016, 02:55:58 pm
Watson, the CEO of Chevron, just wrote an amazing bit of Orwellian discourse (behind the fossil fuel industry enabler Wall Street Journal paywall) titled, "The Morality of Oil".

It should have been titled, "The Immorality of Oil Executives".

Watson is a textbook example of what Camus observed many years ago.

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on May 20, 2016, 03:45:32 pm

Fossil Fuel Industry-Funded Attorneys General Try to Block Exxon Climate Fraud Probe

Elliott Negin, Union of Concerned Scientists | May 20, 2016 11:31 am

You could call it the battle of the attorneys general: One side representing the public interest (, exactly what attorneys general are supposed to do; the other side representing the special interests  (  ( , exactly what they are not supposed to do.

In late March, 17 attorneys general held a press conference to announce they will defend the new federal rule curbing power plant carbon emissions and investigate energy companies that may have misled investors and the public about climate risks. They call themselves AGs United for Clean Power and so far attorneys general from California, Massachusetts, New York and the Virgin Islands have launched investigations of ExxonMobil, the world’s largest publicly traded oil company, for fraud.

In response, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange decided to push back. On May 16, they intervened on behalf of ExxonMobil to quash one of the investigations of the Irving, Texas-based company, accusing AGs United for Clean Power of trying to stifle the “debate” over climate science.


Paxton and Strange filed their intervention plea  ( in a case that ExxonMobil brought against Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker in a Fort Worth district court. The company maintains Walker’s subpoena demanding internal climate change-related records violates its right to speak freely and be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Paxton called Walker’s investigation a “fishing expedition of the worst kind,” representing “an effort to punish Exxon for daring to hold an opinion on climate change that differs from that of radical environmentalists.” Echoing Paxton, Strange charged the “fundamental right of freedom of speech is under assault by an attorney general pursuing an agenda against a business that doesn’t share his views on the environment.”


Fishing expedition? Free speech?

The facts say otherwise.

Like the other three investigations, Walker’s probe followed the release of documents by the Union of Concerned Scientists, InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times revealing that Exxon scientists conducted cutting-edge climate research decades ago and warned top management of the potentially catastrophic risks posed by global warming. Regardless, the company publicly emphasized uncertainty about climate science for years and, to a certain extent, still does. Furthermore, it has been financing a network of advocacy groups and think tanks to spread disinformation about climate science and the viability of renewable energy for the last two decades.

Based on that preliminary evidence, there is strong justification for Walker and the other AGs to investigate further.

As for the free speech argument, Walker and the other AGs have subpoenaed internal company documents to determine whether ExxonMobil’s statements to investors regarding climate risks contradicted what it was hearing from its own scientists. If so, ExxonMobil could be guilty of fraud and fraud is not protected by the First Amendment.

Surely Paxton and Strange, the chief legal officers in their states, are aware of that. And, according to Robert Percival, director of the Environmental Law Program at University of Maryland’s law school, their “political grandstanding” will likely have no impact on the case.

So why are they ( ( making such a fuss?    (

Follow the Money  (

Both Paxton and Strange are from energy-producing states and, no surprise, they receive generous campaign funding from electric utilities and fossil fuel industries
. That might help explain a few things.

follow_money_exxon (graphic at article link)

SNIPPET of the Exxon MONEY ACTION (Climate Denier Liars 'R' US  :evil4:):
Organization ExxonMobil Funding (1998-2014)

AEI American Enterprise Institute $3,770,000
CEI Competitive Enterprise Institute $2,005,000
ALEC American Legislative Exchange Council $1,730,200
American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research $1,729,523
Frontiers of Freedom $1,272,000
Annapolis Center $1,153,500
Atlas Economic Research Foundation $1,082,500
National Black Chamber of Commerce $1,025,000
US Chamber of Commerce Foundation $1,000,000

Paxton was first elected Texas’ attorney general in 2014. Before that, he served in the Texas House of Representatives for 10 years and the Texas Senate for two. During the 12 years he spent at the state house, he received only $69,000 in campaign contributions from oil and gas companies. But when he ran for attorney general, they contributed $929,000, nearly twice as much as any other sector. The energy companies that chipped in for his run for attorney general included Chesapeake Energy, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Koch Industries, Marathon Oil and Phillips 66. ExxonMobil sat out Paxton’s 2014 campaign, but between December 2006 and October 2012, the company’s political action committee gave him $3,250, according to state ethics disclosure filings. Not much, but the rest of the industry has more than made up for it.

Strange became Alabama’s attorney general in 2010. In 2014, mining, oil and gas and electric companies and their trade associations collectively donated $177,850 to his reelection campaign, placing them among his top contributors. His benefactors that year included the American Coal Association, American Gas Association and Koch Industries, but his biggest energy industry supporter was Alabama Power, which gave him a whopping $72,500.

Alabama Power is a subsidiary of Southern Company, one of the nation’s largest electric utilities. Three of the company’s coal-fired power plants are the biggest carbon emitters in the country. Two are located near Atlanta and the third, near Birmingham, is operated by Alabama Power. Southern Company’s support for the climate science denier network, meanwhile, goes back more than 20 years. And just last year it was revealed that the company had been secretly funding dubious research conducted by climate contrarian aerospace engineer Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon since 2005. Soon’s studies concluded that solar activity is the main cause of global warming and carbon emissions have little or no impact.

Given the support Strange gets from Southern Company, Koch Industries and other interested parties, perhaps it’s no coincidence that the day after the AGs for Clean Power held their press conference, he issued a joint press release with Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt insisting there is a lively debate over the reality of climate change. “Reasonable minds can disagree about the science behind global warming and disagree they do,” they said. The debate “should not be silenced with threats of criminal prosecution by those who believe that their position is the only correct one and that all dissenting voices must therefore be intimidated and coerced into silence.”

Leaving aside the fact that reasonable minds at this point do not disagree about climate science, the AGs for Clean Power investigations are not about debating the science of global warming. They are about something quite different: when scientists told energy companies about the risks of climate change and what company executives did in response.

Paxton, Strange and Pruitt Have an AG Coalition, Too  (

All but one of the 17 attorneys general behind AGs for Clean Power belong to the Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA). But Paxton, Strange and Pruitt have their own coalition, the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA). Both associations get their share of corporate support, but the coal, oil and gas and electric utility industries have placed most of their bets on RAGA.

DAGA gets relatively limited support from the energy industry. Since January 2015, for example, it has received $80,000 from that sector, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. Its top energy industry donor was the American Petroleum Institute (API), the oil and gas industry’s primary trade association, which donated $25,000.

By comparison, RAGA pulled in more than $800,000 from coal, oil and gas and utilities over the same time frame, according to Center for Responsive Politics data. The top RAGA donor was coal giant Murray Energy, which chipped in $250,000. Two years ago, Murray Energy CEO Bob Murray unsuccessfully sued the Environmental Protection Agency over the Clean Power Plan, charging that the agency has been “lying” about the reality of global warming and that the Earth is actually cooling. Koch Industries, meanwhile, donated $125,400. The coal, oil and gas conglomerate’s co-owner, Charles Koch, recently told ABC News that “the evidence is overwhelming” that the climate is “changing in a mild and manageable way.” Other major energy industry RAGA funders included API and ExxonMobil, which each donated $50,000 and Southern Company, which contributed $35,000.

The industry’s support for RAGA has paid off big time—for both sides. According to a December 2014 New York Times exposé on the secret links between the energy industry and attorneys general, AGs “in at least a dozen states are working with energy companies and other corporate interests, which in turn are providing them with record amounts for their political campaigns, including at least $16 million” in 2014. Those AGs include Paxton, Strange and Pruitt.

The Times found that Pruitt and other energy industry-funded AGs have invited industry lobbyists to draft letters for them to send to federal agencies, promoted energy industry-written bills in their state legislatures and joined energy companies as plaintiffs in court challenges. Strange, Pruitt and other RAGA attorneys general even went so far as to file an amicus brief in support of Bob Murray’s challenge to the Clean Power Plan.

Legal experts told the Times that the scope of the AGs’ collaboration with the energy industry is “unprecedented” and “threatens the integrity of the office.”

“When you use a public office, pretty shamelessly, to vouch for a private party with substantial financial interest without the disclosure of the true authorship, that is a dangerous practice,” said David B. Frohnmayer, a Republican who served as Oregon’s attorney general for a decade. Terry Goddard, a Democrat who served two terms as Arizona’s attorney general, agreed. “It is a magnificent and noble institution, the office of attorney general, as it is truly the lawyer for the people. That independence is clearly at risk here.”

Goddard got that right. By definition, attorneys general are the “people’s lawyer” and their duties include investigating—and suing—companies that flout state laws. That is exactly what AGs in California, Massachusetts, New York and the Virgin Islands are doing. By intervening on behalf of ExxonMobil, Paxton and Strange are trying to stop Claude Walker from doing his job. If they were truly independent and took the responsibility of their office seriously, they would open ExxonMobil investigations of their own.

Elliott Negin is a senior writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists. Unless otherwise noted, all campaign contribution data came from the National Institute on Money in State Politics website.

Agelbert NOTE: A bullshit artist for the fossil fuel industry trots out the "Exxon is a great investment" style propaganda (along with the MKing style "you are hypocrite" straw grasping). I explained the facts to her.  ;D


1Wausaugirl1    (

If someone doesn't like Exxon Mobil, then perhaps they: 1) shouldn't buy their gas or natural gas or plastics (ha ha - good luck with that!) 2) don't buy their stock (one of the few dividend aristocrats remaining) and 3) check your 401K for mutual funds and get rid of all of good performers (because they are the ones that have XOM in them). These liberal, showboating, hypocritical (do you use any petroleum related products? anywhere lately?) Attorney Generals make me sick. Go after someone else - like big Pharma.
agelbert > 1Wausaugirl1

People HAVE been selling fossil fuel stocks. People ARE using less and less fossil fuels for everything from heating to transportation..

That is why the fossil fuel industry has been steadily losing energy market share and that is why reputable asset management firms like IMPAX have, with a recent 7 year stock tracking study, recommended and acted on TOTAL divestment from the DOOMED fossil fuel industry and its stocks.

Do you know why Exxon hasn't tanked? It is because their soon to not be CEO anymore, Tillerson, under harsh criticism for doing this, SPENT over 2 BILLION DOLLARS of the corporation's funds in BUYING BACK STOCK to keep the price from cratering.

So, whether people like you want to believe it or not, it's OVER for the polluting bastards running the fossil fuel industry.

But, hey, feel free to back up the truck and buy lots of fossil fuel stocks! There really is one born every minute. But I'm not one of them.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on June 13, 2016, 03:25:31 pm
Uncovered Documents Reveal MSNBC Show Worked to Promote Fracking

Steve Horn, DeSmogBlog | June 13, 2016 1:37 pm

Cable TV network MSNBC has made headlines in recent days for apparently moving away from its “Lean Forward” progressive brand, catering instead to a more center-to-right-leaning crowd.

“People might start accusing us of leaning too far to the right,” the station says in a new advertisement featuring MSNBC’s conservative personalities—an array of Republican identities such as Michael Steele, Steve Schmidt and Ben Ginsberg.

But on the issue of hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) for shale oil and gas, documents from 2011 obtained under Oklahoma’s Open Records Act demonstrate that the network saw itself as a promoter of both the controversial drilling method and natural gas vehicles.

NBCUniversal, at the time, was owned on a 49-percent basis by the natural gas utility and electricity company General Electric (GE) and is now wholly owned by Comcast.

The documents, obtained from Oklahoma State University (OSU), relate to the filming of an episode of The Dylan Ratigan Show on the OSU campus in April 2011. The episode came two and a half years before the network announced in late-2013 that its website would run native advertisements (content that looks like original news) on behalf of fracking lobbying group America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA). ANGA is now part of the American Petroleum Institute (API).

That episode of Ratigan’s show featured oil and gas industry hedge fund tycoon T. Boone Pickens, who now serves as a fundraiser for Republican Party presidential candidate Donald Trump and who was stumping at the time for his pro-fracking “Pickens Plan.” The emails offer a rare look inside the making of an episode of a popular MSNBC show and a glimpse into a future business relationship, too.

“Steel on Wheels”

The April 2011 episode of Ratigan was part of a broader “Steel on Wheels” tour MSNBC pushed at the time featuring Ratigan, whose show is no longer on-air. The tour, conducted on a bus and catching media attention for being a sponsored partnership with steel company Nucor, looked to find “solutions to the most pressing problems facing America today.”


“I am committed to getting this country back on track for the benefit of all Americans ( and ‘Steel on Wheels’ is the perfect vehicle to show how we can make that happen,” Ratigan said in a statement announcing the partnership between Nucor and MSNBC. “There is no better partner for this than Nucor and their visionary CEO Dan DiMicco, a man who is as dedicated to his own extraordinary employees as he is to helping get all of America working again.”

The relationship between Nucor and MSNBC was described at the time by Ad Week as “a first of its kind partnership.” Mediaite, a media outlet that covers the U.S. media apparatus, described one on-air segment of the tour as something which “easily could have been confused for a human resources video to boost Nucor employee morale.”

“Not Josh Fox”

“Steel on Wheels”  ( focused on finding solutions to many problems ailing the U.S., including health care, education, manufacturing, public works and energy.

At the center of the energy portion sat T. Boone Pickens, the Pickens Plan, Clean Energy Fuels and promotion of natural gas vehicles. Days after the three-day (March 30-April 1) energy portion of the “Steel on Wheels” tour ended, Congress introduced the Pickens-promoted NAT GAS Act on April 6, which offered subsidies to the industry to produce gas-powered automobiles and ended up not passing.

A planning document for the three-day energy segment shows that anti-fracking voices, such as that of Josh Fox—director and producer of the two Gasland documentaries and of the forthcoming film How to Let Go of the World: and Love All the Things Climate Can’t Change—would not have a slot on the three days of energy-focused episodes. Natural gas receives an explicit mention as a “solution.”

Though Josh Fox gets mentioned as a potential guest who will not receive an invitation, prospective guests listed on the document included climate change denier and U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), former Shell North America CEO John Hoffmeister and Pickens.

Fox ended up as a guest on the show on March 31, 2011. But he was treated in a hostile manner by Ratigan when Fox pointed out that Pickens had money riding on the fracking boom and that the fracking boom could lead to global climate change chaos, water impacts and human health impacts.

“I get it, you believe that natural gas will ruin the universe and can’t be solved,” Ratigan  ( exclaimed to Fox in closing out the segment. “I want to have a conversation to solve the problem with you. I’m not looking to have a propaganda speech from you more than I am from Boone Pickens or anybody else.”

Pickens though, interviewed the day before Fox on Ratigan’s show, received a much friendlier reception.  ;)

Photo credit: Oklahoma State University (copy of letter at article link)

“The goal of the Steel on Wheels Energy Summit is to capitalize on the emerging opportunity to address America’s energy problem,” the document reads. “[With] (s)ignificant disruptions in the Middle East and unprecedented opportunities here in the U.S., Free America would culminate its quest to find jobs and solutions for America by highlighting ENERGY as a trillion-dollar problem that we CAN solve and in the process create jobs, capture trillions of value, and create lasting nation (sic) security—and it is (sic) problem both businesses and politicians are ready to tackle.”

“Our Cause”

On March 24, 2011, MSNBC public relations employee Tanya Hayre emailed Jay Rosser—vice president of public affairs for BP Capital, a hedge fund owned by Pickens—to introduce herself and get the ball rolling on logistics for the following week’s episodes and the events surrounding them. In that email, she referred to the need to “drum up press” in service to “further promot[ing] our cause/discussion” and then asked if Pickens could speak with reporters in order to complete that task.

Photo credit: Oklahoma State University (copy of letter at article link)

GE’s business interests in natural gas and gas-powered vehicles went unmentioned in the segment, an interview between Ratigan and Pickens, which took place at OSU. OSU’s football stadium is named after Pickens and he is a major donor to the university.

In that interview, Ratigan showered praise on Pickens and called him a “patriot” while not mentioning where Pickens makes his money: from both investing in the natural gas industry and owning a major natural gas vehicles fueling station company, Clean Energy Fuels Corporation, that was actively lobbying for the NAT GAS Act at the time.

“My recollection is that I was approached by Dylan’s team wanting to factor energy into one of their town halls,” Rosser said via email. “I connected them with OSU, Boone’s alma mater [but] didn’t have any meaningful input into the program outside of Boone’s direct participation (i.e., speaking format, etc.).”

In November 2012, a year and a half after Ratigan’s shale gas-promoting stint at OSU, Pickens’ gas fueling station company Clean Energy Fuels Corporation bought some of GE’s natural gas vehicle fueling equipment as part of its “America’s Natural Gas Highway” marketing effort.

“GE is proud to be partnering with Clean Energy  (  Fuels to develop natural gas infrastructure in the U.S. Clean Energy is an industry leader in pioneering a new way for America to fuel its vehicles and to further gain energy independence,” GE Chairman and CEO Jeff Immelt said in a press release announcing the deal. “With an abundance of cleaner, more affordable natural gas here in the U.S., this is an important opportunity for GE to join Clean Energy in changing the way America drives.”

The two companies would later sign another business deal in October 2013, linking them in the effort to beef up the number of natural gas-powered trucks on U.S. highways. GE also promotes its “CNG in a Box” (compressed natural gas) vehicles fueling station equipment on its website.

Lean Right: “They Already Do”

Cenk Uygur, founder and show host of the popular YouTube-based The Young Turks Network and former MSNBC show host, reacted to the news of MSNBC’s looming rightward shift by giving a contrarian take on the announcement. In the past, Uygur said he left MSNBC when he was told by CEO Phil Griffin that “We’re the establishment, and it would be cool to be like outsiders, but we’re not, we’re insiders, and we have to act like it.”

Right-wing in the Fox News sense of the term? Not quite.

But right-leaning in terms of being a corporate-owned media outlet with business interests that often converge with the stories they cover? As the case of T. Boone Pickens, Dylan Ratigan and OSU shows, without a doubt.

“MSNBC is a good case study on the parameters of mainstream media. There are certain lines you can’t cross and when people do, there’s consequences,” Michael Arria, author of the book Medium Blue: The Politics of MSNBC,  said in an email. “Everyone I researched for my book seemed extremely earnest about what they’re doing. Someone like Maddow seems genuinely convinced she can do any story she wants.”

Ratigan did not respond to multiple requests for comment.


Agelbert COMMENT: This is Par for the Course for the fossil fuel industry double talking, "we are all gonna die without our fossil fuel loyal servant and savior of civilization", SCC (social Cost of Carbon) IGNORING, energy math gaming, propaganda.

The FACT that the methane leaks from oil and gas drilling have been DELIBERATELY low balled BY the EPA should tell you all you need to know.

QUOTES from a recent EchoWatch article:

Specifically, wrote NC WARN in a press statement, “Dr. David Allen , then-head of EPA’s Science Advisory Board, has led an ongoing, three-year effort to cover up underreporting of the primary device, the Bacharach Hi-Flow Sampler and a second device used to measure gas releases from equipment across the natural gas industry. Allen is also on the faculty of the University of Texas at Austin, where he has been funded by the oil and gas industries for years.”

“The EPA’s failure to order feasible reductions of methane leaks and venting has robbed humanity of crucial years to slow the climate crisis,” said Jim Warren, director of NC WARN. “The cover-up by Allen’s team has allowed the industry to dig in for years of delay in cutting emissions—at the worst possible time.”

The cover-up was discovered by NC WARN, the group wrote in its complaint, when it became aware that the very inventor of the Bacharach Hi-Flow Sampler, an engineer named Touché Howard, had been attempting to blow the whistle for years on the crucial instrument’s malfunctioning. The critical failure causes the instrument to under-report methane emissions “up to 100-fold,” the organization wrote.

The complaint describes Howard’s repeated attempts to warn the EPA and Allen about the instrument and the silence he received in response.

“It appears that the goal of the [University of Texas] team was not to critically examine the problems but to convince [Environmental Defense Fund, who co-authored the study] and its production committee members that no problems existed, ” NC WARN added.

The entire argument of ANYBODY defending fossil fuels is that one should continue an abusive relationship with a psychopath because the first couple of dates were a lot of fun, WHICH INCLUDES the biosphere math challenged, codependent mental illness based notion that we cannot live without that psychopath.

IF the fossil fuel industry had a product that could compete on a level energy playing field with Renewable Energy, they would not CONTINUALLY stoop to this mendacity, propaganda and government corruption of pollution energy stats and energy math.

The method in the fossil fuel industry criminal modus operandi exposes their recognition that fossil fuels CANNOT compete with Renewable Energy on a level, full disclosure, energy playing field.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on June 13, 2016, 07:28:10 pm

For those who can still add and subtract, the following FACTS about fossil fuel ERoEI thermodynamic efficiency (That is, the Fossil fuel ERoEI math, that Gail Tverberg and at least 54% of the Renewable Energy survey participants swear by, including Palloy, DELIBERATELY IGNORES THE FACT that, in the real world of the science of thermodynamics, Energy RETURN MINUS WASTE HEAT EQUALS work (as defined by physics) )  reveal the error of assuming fossil fuels have a higher ERoEI than Renewable Energy technologies.

The fossil fuel industry originated disingenuous trick is to FIRST hammer the "high energy density" (excluding waste heat, of course) Hess Law based thermodynamics into us while avoiding discussions of waste heat like the plague. When they have established the FALSE MEME that fossil fuels have a "higher energy density" than Renewable Energy technologies, they cleverly create a false equivalence between the cherry picked "higher" fossil fuels ERoEI and "higher" MONETARY Profits.  (

Massive Fossil Fuel Industry Welfare Queen Subsides, COSTS to we-the-people, which are TOTALLY UNRELATED to ERoEI thermodynamics, ALWAYS make it to the "higher" MONETARY profits happy talk.  ;)

However, the SCC (social Cost of Carbon), like waste heat thermodynamics, never gets included in the fossil fuel ERoEI happy talk OR the false equivalence "higher" MONETARY Profits fossil fuel happy talk, even though ALL MONETARY INVESTMENT DECISIONS, on which energy sources to use, are based on ALL COSTS.

HELLO? Is anybody there?

If we are going to talk about how much MONEY to invest in an energy source, based on how much MONEY it will cost to DO THAT, and how much MONEY we can get in a RETURN on our IVESTMENT, it is customary (if you aren't Gail Tverberg doing the ( bidding of the fossil fuel industry) to SUBTRACT all the COSTS of said energy source.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on June 18, 2016, 04:51:36 pm
The MKing & MattS Screen IDs are now re-enabled and back in the member list.  Moriarty should be able to post with either ID now as before.  If he is unable to do that (I can't see why not, all the switches are in the same place they were before) then he can register a new ID MKing2 to post up. However, it is fairly pointless if he is not going to admit his identity, he'll just get another cooling off period.

Agreed. I think MKing is a worshipper of, and possible propaganda water carrier for, Hamm, the world class billionaire ass hole Fracker. MKing has SAID he actually SPOKE with Hamm. I believe MKing wasn't, as is his wont, stretching the truth to puff up his importance.

Can ANYBODY confirm or deny that MKing is a Hamm hired gun? Eddie? RE? Surly? Monsta?

Harold Hamm shown denying all knowledge of, or ties with, MKing.   (

Can ANYBODY confirm or deny that MKing is a Hamm hired gun? Eddie? RE? Surly? Monsta?

We cannot CONFIRM anything, that is the whole reason for this dispute.  All we can do is speculate given the investigations we have undertaken to feret out the IRL Identity of the poster IDed as MKing.  How you managed to miss this I cannot grasp, but the general consensus is that MKing's real identity is Dan Jarvie, Chief Geochemist for EOG Resources.

This is only speculation though and cannot be confirmed unless MKing himself admits this.  I have made this a non-negotiable criteria for his continued participation.  Either he comes clean with his IRL Identity, or he is perpetually in Cold Storage.



I probably missed it because I have a condition reflex developed by years of dealing with double talking bullshit artists. There is only so much time in one day.  Unlike you, I do not enjoy perpetually sparring with people that have ZERO to add to the benefit of humanity. Therefore, I have generally ignored most of his posts and any discussions about him.

I understand grappling with those types is a type of challenge for you that you enjoy. Good for you. You are doing yeoman's service for the rest of us that lack the patience to slap those liars around for the good of humanity.

Now that I have a name, I'll see what I can dig up about times, places and posts. That is, when I'm not busy posting news of value, unlike the verbal, self serving puffery fecal effluent that MKing has ALWAYS posted here (i.e. the Doomstead Diner).
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on June 18, 2016, 05:02:14 pm
Agelbert NOTE: Cross posted form the Doomstead Diner because it applies here.  8)

Also, anyone. like GO, who considers this a platform for corner bar BSing just for fun should certainly not get upset about whether or not some other member of the peanut gallery is given da bidness.

If there was no real merit in the discussions here, I would NOT BE HERE. I resent any claim that we are just BSing here to pass the time of day.

Well kindly forgive me Agelbert for my dimness.

Ass hole me was under the impression that the intimacies you shared with us; your career in aviation, your horrible first marriage, the pictures of your lovely blue colored home, details about your happier second marriage and descriptions of your wonderful wife, your cat and how sad you were at it's death,etc., were all part of a general form of discussion with your friends at the Diner that I, in my ignorance, would have considered bullshitting, chewing the fat, telling a little something about myself to other members as a way of getting to say this is a peek at who I am and a way of introducing your persona to other Diners. It's what I have always like about the Diner, our software set up that allows us to converse freely and personably on a open forum. To get to know one another and develop a kinship or better understanding of why we think the way we do, this is why Reddit does not appeal to me at all.

Forgive me, sorry you resented my false impression of our friendly tavern like atmosphere.  I had no idea that glimpses into your private life were matters of great merit and seriousness, sorry.

In closing  one of  scenes you described from your past comes to me, the one where your Father used to go play golf every Sunday and was too cheap to hire a caddy, and how he used to say to you, Agelbert, "YOU P I S S TOO LOUD". That one really stuck with me, your Dad must have been quite an interesting personality.                                 Regards, GO                   
  (  (  (    (

My old man had me pegged, for sure!   (

I understand your point of view. I apologize for mistaking your definition of BSing as meritless communication. I see that, it being you remember what I have posted as the sincere TRUTH of my experiences, rather than double talk and actual BULLSHIT by too many propagandists (you do remember the "new ice age" BULLSHIT from Snowleopard, don't you?), I feel rewarded because you consider me a credible source of information (and not just about my own experiences). That is the best compliment anyone can provide to my posts.  (

You are right about merit in friendly and truthful conversation. I strongly disagree with you about giving free reign to propagandist bullshitters on a mission to defend profit over planet and a greed based "real world".

I appreciate your input and am always grateful to you for your excellent posts, including many pictorial displays of the sad plight of modern civilization.     (

Much of what too many believe in their embrace of a nostalgia for a past time is basically a myth. I am certain you do not, or at least you should not, in good conscience, support maudlin and mendacious attempts to wish for the "good old days". People like MKing do that. That really is BULLSHIT.

I was a pretty happy kid growing up in Kansas believing in a make believe world constructed by TPTB. I grew up.

This mythical narrative is disseminated in films, on television, by the press, in churches, in universities and by the state. It is a lie. But it is a lie that works.

And it works because it is what we want. It appeals to our fantasies about ourselves:
that we are a virtuous people,
that God has blessed us above others,
that we have the highest form of civilization,
that we have been anointed to police the world and make it safe,
that we are the most powerful and righteous nation on earth,
that we are always assured of victory,
that we have a right to kill in the name of nationalist values—values determined by our naked self-interest and that we conveniently define as universal. - Chris Hedges (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on June 18, 2016, 05:16:47 pm
WSJ Ads Call Out WSJ’s Climate Denial  (   (

The Wall Street Journal’s opinion page is perhaps the most influential outlet for climate denial and rarely gives its readers accurate information about how fossil fuels cause global warming.

A new ad campaign from The Partnership for Responsible Growth seeks to fix that, giving readers real facts on climate change and driving them to to learn about solutions.

Yesterday, they kicked off the campaign with a quarter-page ad in the Journal’s opinion section featuring the headline: “Exxon’s CEO says fossil fuels are raising temperatures and sea levels. Why won’t the Wall Street Journal?” (Good question!)

The Washington Post has the ad for you to see, as well as the inside scoop (, revealing tidbits such as how the paper charged nearly $10,000 more for the first ad that calls out the WSJ than it did for the next dozen that don’t explicitly reference the paper. (The WSJ disputes that claim, responding that the first ad is simply full price while the rest are discounted…)  (

The Post story also points to a white paper that underpins the claims in the ad that the Journal’s editorial board has never acknowledged the reality of climate change. Turns out that in at least 201 editorials going back to 1997, not once has the editorial board explicitly admitted fossil fuels cause climate change. And not only are pieces usually scientifically inaccurate, the Journal also routinely fails to disclose to readers that op-ed authors work for fossil-fuel funded think tanks. So not only are there errors, but given the funding bias of authors, those frequent errors might not be accidents…

The white paper is an analysis of  over 600 pieces of content ( on the WSJ’s opinion page, each judged according to whether or not it provides the reader with mainstream climate science or fringe denial. Out of the 602 editorials, columns and op-eds, only 44 reflect the consensus or call for climate action. So while 97 percent of climate scientists agree fossil fuels cause climate change, readers of the Journal’s opinion page get the opposite impression as 93 percent of its content runs counter to the consensus.

The paper is an absolute must-read, a ten page intellectual tour de force from the exceptionally smart, perhaps too-kind, incredibly witty, and might we add, spectacularly good-looking people at Climate Nexus. They’re the best, whoever authored this white paper. Clearly top-notch folks. Real high energy winners, for sure.

So while it’s no surprise that the WSJ’s opinion page is a hotbed of climate inaccuracies, this sort of quantification lays bare their pro-pollution bias. (

But the ads also show the Journal is willing to print the truth about climate change… So long as you pay them something like $30,000. 


Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on June 18, 2016, 05:47:14 pm
Agelbert said
I was a pretty happy kid growing up in Kansas believing in a make believe world constructed by TPTB. I grew up

You weren't the only one that grew up AG, what a painful experience that was for many of us who believed in the Fairy tales taught us.

AG you were at your best when you were discussing the Legal Code and what it really meant in that argument, one of the very few, where we were both on the opposite side of Ashvin, a rare position for me to be in.

I still laugh my arse off remembering your jokes and parody of what the legal code and system really were, and how corrupt and money tainted they had become.  You showed me your true argumentative genius then, because it was something I could truly understand, where most of your arguments in science and math. like your latest exchanges with Palloy, are over my head. Your description of lawyers, the legal code, and the legal system we find ourselves was done with such sarcasm, truth, and interspersed with comic relief that I still laugh whenever it comes to mind.  :laugh: :exp-laugh: :exp-laugh:

What an attorney you would have been had you chosen law for a profession. F Lee Bailey himself would have shied from sparring with you.  ;D

Thank you so much, GO.    ( In today's world, attorneys with a conscience don't do well. So perhaps I would have done better taking up comedy.   ( It appears that gallows humor has a great future in our society.  ;)

Now that I have a name, I'll see what I can dig up about times, places and posts.

No shortage of material out there to dig up AG.    (  You can have a field day here with this.

I feel like I just let loose the hounds.  LOL


You got it, bro.   ( 
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on June 18, 2016, 06:01:47 pm
Note to GO: It is possible that there are still a few lawyers with a conscience left in the USA.  :o  ;D

June 16, 2016
Mass Attorney General Issues Exxon-Related Subpoenas

It’s been a little while since we’ve covered the #ExxonKnew investigations, so here’s something new: Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey has issued civil investigative demands for Exxon’s communications with some think tanks and activists organizations, including Heritage Foundation and Americans for Prosperity. She’s asking for 40 years worth of internal communications, according a copy of the subpoena-like request obtained by the denier’s favorite “reporter”, Michael Bastasch at the Daily Caller, whose headline boasts of this “EXCLUSIVE” get. (Less than an hour after the Daily Caller story's publication, Politico PRO had the story, and even included links to the documents. Unlike Bastasch though, it informs readers that ExxonMobil has filed an injunction against Healey’s investigation.)

As per usual, even with this “exclusive,” Bastasch gets key facts wrong. He says, “there’s a huge problem with Healey’s subpoena that shows just how broad this investigation has become” and claims that Americans for Prosperity and Beacon Hill Institute have never gotten money from ExxonMobil.

But a quick search shows that Americans for Prosperity's predecessor Citizens for A Sound Economy got hundreds of thousands from ExxonMobil. The history is admittedly a little complicated for a churnalist like Bastasch to follow. But, fortunately, Sourcewatch lays it out: in 2004, ExxonMobil-funded Citizens for a Sound Economy split, part of it merging with Empower America to form the Dick Armey-led and more GOP-controlled FreedomWorks, while the David Koch branch formed Americans for Prosperity. Hmm, guess it’s not so complicated after all, if the group in question simply went by another name when it was funded by ExxonMobil.

And although Beacon Hill Institute itself hasn’t (yet?) been proven to have received ExxonMobil money, its President/Executive Director David G. Tuerck was a policy expert for Heritage Foundation and Heartland, and was at one point director of the Center for Research and Advertising at the ExxonMobil-funded American Enterprise Institute. Teurck/Beacon Hill have produced numerous anti-renewable papers to be used to oppose cap and trade and fight renewables. In 2012, the Portland Press Herald reported that Maine Gov. Paul LePage relied on a Beacon Hill report to justify his opposition to a renewable portfolio standard, apparently unaware of its fossil fuel funding. So Teurck has past ties to ExxonMobil money, and has since produced “research” used in coordinated efforts (  ( to undercut public support for renewable energy.

Were Bastasch a respectable reporter, he might have spent just a few minutes googling and then refrained from falsely suggesting that neither group has ties to ExxonMobil money. Instead he simply published the claim, likely fed to him by whomever sent him the subpoena, and fulfilled his role as a dutiful purveyor of the Exxon-defense narrative.

This is exxactly the sort of thing that should serve as a learning exxperience for Bastasch, proving he should not to get too exxicted about exxclusives from Exxon et al.’s exxpert defenders. It should teach him to exxamine their exxamples of how these AGs are supposedly acting exxtra-legally. He should be exxtremely embarrassed, since there’s no exxcuse for not fact-checking. Really, it’s sad that this even needed to be exxplained.


Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on June 22, 2016, 02:36:42 pm
Koch Brothers Continue to Fund Climate Change Denial Machine, Spend $21M to Defend Exxon

Connor Gibson, Greenpeace | June 22, 2016 9:06 am

The Kochs have spent more than $88 million in traceable funding to groups attacking climate change science, policy and regulation. Of that total, $21 million went to groups that recently bought a full page New York Times advertisement defending ExxonMobil from government investigations into its systematic misrepresentation of climate science.

The signatories of this New York Times ad from May 2016, defending ExxonMobil from investigations into its climate denial campaigns, have received a total of $10 million from Exxon and $21 million from Koch foundations.

If you’re an executive at a big oil company watching as ExxonMobil is finally exposed for studying climate change, covering up the science and spreading misinformation, you’re probably worried now that state attorneys general are knocking on Exxon’s door.

Charles and David Koch must be worried, anyway. Their foundations gave more than $21 million to the people and groups that signed a recent, full page New York Times advertisement that defends ExxonMobil’s longstanding efforts to ruin the public’s understanding of climate change science.

Here Are the Numbers:


For comparison, Exxon itself spent half as much on the same people and groups, $10.1 million; money that the front groups spent on tactics like … a $100,000-or-so full page ad buy in the New York Times. (More info at Climate Investigations Center from my former colleague, Kert Davies).

The ringleader group behind the letter, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), is of particular interest. Exxon dumped CEI for its unsupportable climate stance back in 2006, a crushing blow for the aggressive beltway front group that continued to humiliate CEI staff for years.

But it appears that CEI is loyal to the cause of climate denial, despite being abandoned by Exxon a decade ago. Other financiers, like the Koch family and several coal and oil companies may explain why the denial campaign was sustained.

Traceable funds only represent a portion of the Koch family’s contributions to CEI. At CEI’s annual fundraising events, Koch Industries’ lobbying subsidiary has been listed as a sponsor. Full-disclosure tax filings published by PR Watch revealed that Koch Industries directly paid Americans for Prosperity, the Texas Public Policy Foundation and other organizations.

PR Watch discovered another revelation in the full-disclosure tax documents that were leaked. Apparently, David Koch likes to cut CEI $100,000 checks straight from his own coffers. David Koch’s money was not sent through his nonprofit foundation, which would have had to report the grants to CEI.

This incomplete patchwork of previously-undisclosed funds from Koch Industries and David Koch adds $3,124,834 to the accounting on groups that co-signed the CEI ad. This raises the question: who else is just cutting a direct check to the climate deniers?

And then there’s the “Dark Money ATM” sister groups, DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund. The DonorsTrust franchise is run by CEI’s former president, Lawson Bader, who helps donors—including Koch—anonymize tens of millions of dollars that go to dozens of front groups each year. DonorsTrust & Capital Fund have funneled millions of dark money dollars to CEI.

But that’s still not the end of the financial trail. Other mechanisms used by Charles Koch and his army of donor friends include Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, a dark money umbrella group that has hidden hundreds of millions of dollars in politically-charged cash, shuffled between various trusts, nonprofits and limited liability corporations.

For the deep history, check out Kert Davies’ post for the Climate Investigations Center, which spurred my own interest in the sponsors of the recent New York Times ad. Kert details the crucial history of some of the letter’s signatories, the role they have served in the climate denial machine over the years and the exact documents that inform his understanding.

I have reproduced Kert’s ExxonSecrets map (below) of the players involved, as it helps show how a small group of people funded by a few oil and coal companies can cast a shadow that is deceptively deep. The tobacco industry crafted this deceptive model and fossil fuel companies have innovated it since. It helps that the same people doing tobacco science denial moved on to climate science denial.


One of those tobacco denial alumni, lawyer Steve Milloy, himself an aggressive defender of ExxonMobil, knows that a small group of people can have an outsized impact with enough funding—even in the face of 97-99 percent of the world’s climate scientists. Milloy once said, “There’s really only about 25 of us doing this. A core group of skeptics. It’s a ragtag bunch, very Continental Army  ;).”  (
Legal team meets to plan climate denial strategy

This indicates that folks like Milloy aren’t just deceiving the public, but themselves. If I was taking Charles Koch’s money to attack science, I too would probably have to constantly remind myself of my American heroics.

Mr. Koch is as awkward as ever in his half-hearted attempts to understand climate change science (you’d think a MIT alumnus would get it), he has been wary of climate laws and regulations for a long time.

That’s probably why he has rained cash on the organizations that stage the fight, groups that have given room for a top U.S. CEO, with a background in chemical engineering, to demonstrate such scientific ignorance. Since 1997, the Kochs have spent more than $88 million in traceable dollars into the network of groups that attack climate science, the scientists doing the research, the potential policy solutions and the champions of those policies.

ExxonSecrets Map of the Players:
exxon_750 (at article Link) Click on image for larger size

Connor Gibson does research for Greenpeace’s Investigations team. He focuses on polluting industries, their front groups and PR operatives, particularly focusing on the Koch Brothers.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on June 23, 2016, 05:51:23 pm
The Oracle of Oil Book Review (,7413.msg106499.html#msg106499)
The "Oracle" of OIL?


This quote tells you all you need to know about the "objectivity" of this fossil fuel worshipping puff piece book:
... abracadabra and/or dreams of a 100% replacement of fossil fuel energy with renewable ("renewable") energy,

The normal and expected MKing style mockery and derision of clean energy, as usual, makes its sine qua non presence into these fossil fuel industry happy talk propaganda pieces.


Speaking of MKing, is he Dan Jarvie or not? Only their hairdresser knows.

I have been unsuccessful in finding out if Dan Jarvie raced motorcycles in his youth. That data point would have gone a long way to identify MKing as Danny boy.

But there are some similarities I wish to point out, though they don't confirm MKing as anything but having the same line of happy talk and ego inflating puffery as Dan Jarvie.

Specifically, I wish to remind the readers about MKing's claims that:

1) INNOVATIONS in cost reduction "high" technology by the Frackers has lowered costs, placing them (EOG Resources, perhaps?) in a position to make big bucks when ("history of oil" based view ) the "turnaround" comes.

2) The "innovations" are part of MKing's "world class geochemist" contributions to making Fracking more profitable. SO, MKing is a credentialed "genius that should get a raise from his boss and our recognition for all that wonderful ingenuity he has come up with to make our lives more comfortable".

Well, EOG Resources, HAS come up with some "innovations" that put them slightly ahead of the Fracker pack. IF MKing is Danny boy, then it is expected that he would crow about said "high tech" innovations.

The following is instructive. It shows you how techniques that have been known to any oil industry rough neck with two brain cells to rub together for over 40 years (at least!) have been rebranded as "innovations" by a world class BULLSHITTER for the fossil fuel industry that also happens to be a geochemist specializing in "unconventional" shale gas geochemistry.

 Some thoughts on the possibility that MKing's real identity is Dan Jarvie, Chief Geochemist for EOG Resources.

A fellow like Mking would fit right in at EOG Resources.

WHY? Because, EOG Resources is the successor to Enron Oil & Gas Company (crooks and liars). LOL!

The following quotes from a Motley Fool article about EOG oil and gas pig policies fit with what  MKing (Dan Jarvie?) has been smugly posting.

"EOG Resources spent the bulk of 2015 working to get its costs down. It did this by becoming more efficient as well as by focusing on new innovations that are targeting the best spots of an oil and gas reservoir. This is yielding lower well costs as well as higher well output, which are two of the key drivers of drilling returns."

What "new innovations"?   :icon_scratch:

Well, the geochemists working there are being more careful about where to drill, which allegedly saves the company money. After 20 plus years of working as geochemists, MKing and friends discovered a rather ancient 20th century technique called thermal imaging. Yes, computers make the display more snazzy, but it is BALONEY to call this an "innovation".


"EOG Resources puts together a heat map, so to speak, of where the best hydrocarbon-bearing rocks lie and then targets those sweet spots."

This sounds more like MKing happy talk than reality, but the other "innovation"  discussed below has actually improved well output.

"EOG Resources is finding that by using more sand in a well, known as a high-density well, it is producing greater quantities of oil than it had been in legacy wells."

As you can see, this "high tech" method of throwing sand at the production problem is part of the "world class geochemist" knowledge skill set that that can only come from credentialed fine fellows and years of study.  LOL!
The fact that EOG owns a sand mine may have had something to do with this "innovation".'

"This is a trend that actually plays into EOG Resources strength as it has vertically integrated so that it owns a sand mine, which gives it unparalleled access to sand so that it can more easily test out volume concentrations on new wells." (

But a closer look at the EOG MO (that this article doesn't want to talk about  ;)), is how oil and gas pigs weather downturns by pulling out their extensive accounting grab bag of tax breaks thanks to the coerced generosity of we-the-people.

And no mention about what cherry picking well drilling sites and using more sand does to the environment, of course. That too, is another invisible bit of subsidy swag that we-the-people are providing to help these crooks "weather the downturn".

So, attaboys for "after tax" improvements in the bottom line lack proper investor perspective when "before tax" accounting fun and games are not included.

Adding sand to high speed drilling operations may be a great excuse to throw some accelerated depreciation added tax deductions to drilling equipment.  :evil4: That is a neat trick because they have a lot of idle equipment that nobody wants to buy (see: stranded rig asset over stranded shale oil "asset") so they can kill two birds with one stone, so to speak, by putting their equipment through the sand meat grinder in a cannibalizing effort to get more production while they game their tax picture.

 That fits perfectly the MKing's oft published pride in his "survival of the fittest" (screwing the taxpayer to stay "profitable" is expected and laudable "apex predator" behavior) religion.   ( (

EOG bet on an oil price rebound in 2016 while putting a lid on production in 2015. That fits with the "weathering a downturn" statements of MKing (Dan Jarvie?). They kept drilling but they didn't put new wells in production.

They need $65 a barrel to open the floodgates of production. Motley fool discussed this and patted them on the back. That explains MKing's crowing about the oil price popping up to $50. But since EOG needs $65, that also explains MKing's "calm assurance" that the price will go a lot higher.

The problem for the EOG post Enron crooks and liars is that the oil price isn't cooperating.  ;D

"The hold-up is getting oil prices to cooperate, which is a problem because the company is waiting until it sees a sustainable oil price above $65 a barrel before it unleashes a gusher of growth. At the moment, that means crude oil would need to more than double. While that's a possibility before the end of the year, it's not likely going to happen anytime soon. That would delay the company's ability to drive robust growth in 2016 because it will take time before its inventory of wells can be completed and new ones drilled. In other words, while EOG Resources can ramp its production much sooner and at a faster pace than its peers, it's not as if it can just flip the switch on growth.

Investor takeaway

EOG Resources' ability to deliver its best year yet boils down to what happens with the price of oil. If it rallies sharply before mid-summer, then the company could set a production record before the year is out. However, if oil stays lower for longer, we could start to see EOG Resources slowly begin to complete some of its uncompleted well inventory just to manage its decline rate, which would mute its upside potential when oil does finally rally." (

Don't Expect MKing or Motley Fool to tell the whole truth about EOG Resources.

The Motley Fool owns shares of Devon Energy and EOG Resources.

Below, please find, a pep talk cheerleading EOG that MKing, if he is Dan Jarvie, Chief Geochemist for EOG Resources, will not hesitate to peddle as prudent, measured, real world, responsible fossil fuel industry behavior:

"While its peers were growing just to grow last year, EOG Resources (NYSE: EOG) said on the outset that it was "not interested in accelerating crude oil production in a low-price environment." Instead, the company focused on improving its returns. That's because unlike its peers, EOG Resources puts much less emphasis on growth, which is only an 8% weighting for executive bonuses, and a much higher weight on returns on capital, relative stock price, and spending.

Those incentives paid off for both the company and its shareholders, with EOG Resources' stock vastly outperforming its peers and the price of crude oil last year. That's after the company's focus on innovation and efficiency enabled it to significantly improve its well returns. In fact, now more than a quarter of its drilling inventory is profitable at a $30 oil price, which is something that seemed unimaginable just a few years ago.

That type of returns-weighted incentive plan really needs to become the standard across the industry going forward." (

The claim that EOG can make a profit from more than a quarter of its drilling inventory at a $30 oil price is a lie. They can't. They know it. Motley Fool knows it. Don't believe this baloney. It's accounting sleight of hand of the most craven and GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) mocking sort. But oil and gas pigs are quite skilled at unethical accounting snake oil.

Here's some more Happy talk from the horse's mouth, so to speak:

EOG Resources changing strategy to get more crude out of stubborn shale

Posted by Collin Eaton
Date: May 06, 2016

HOUSTON – EOG Resources says it can get “triple-digit” returns at $60 a barrel oil, a sign the company has whittled down drilling costs as it moves rigs to its most profitable spots.

Outlining a new strategy, the Houston oil company said Friday it has pointed its drill bits at its top-shelf locations in South Texas’ Eagle Ford Shale and elsewhere that get a minimum 30 percent return at $40 oil.

“Our shift to premium is permanent and not simply a temporary high-grading process in a low-commodity price environment,” EOG Resources Chief Executive Bill Thomas told investors. “If history is any indication, we will continue to push the oil price needed for triple-digit returns even lower.” (

NOTE the focus on HISTORY. MKing loves to talk about HISTORY. These people have their heads so far up their oil and gas profit over planet HISTORY ASS, that they cannot compute the climate change catastrophe that they are exacerbating to save there lives.

Getting back to the question of whether MKing is Dan Jarvie, Chief Geochemist for EOG Resources, the above quoted Motley Fool happy talk is a useful tool.

Also, please observe that, true to their ENRON heritage, EOG is very big on "relative stock price". Observe MKing's post frequency and tone when the price goes down sharply and when the price spikes. This will provide data points, though it will still lack speculation free proof.

A fellow like MKing simply cannot avoid talking his book. That much is obvious from his repeated crowing about his "high intelligence and world class credentials".

Even if he reads this, he will not be able, despite his ample skills at duplicitous rhetoric, hide his joy with a high stock price or his woe with a cratering one. The EOG stock price and MKing behavior is now one of my hobbies.

There are other links that can be tested to confirm whether or not MKing (Danny boy?) works for EOG. I'm working on that.

EOG Resources, Inc. is a petroleum and natural gas exploration company headquartered in the Heritage Plaza building in Houston, Texas.

Tell us MKing, how many Houston construction gantry towers can you see from Heritage Plaza? Perhaps that is what you use to come with your "scientifically based" prudent, studied and measured anecdotal conclusion that the economy of Houston isn't in the shitter.

Dateline 2030: A day at a museum in Houston
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on June 23, 2016, 07:22:57 pm
Agelbert NOTE: This is cross posted from another forum where the lawyer liar and pseudo Christian, Ashvin is currently peddling the Christian TALK in his accustomed sanctimonious hypocritical fashion.

He may be going to Hell, but God does not celebrate that fact and neither should we. We most certainly should not cross our fingers and hope that more bankers or any other "ledge leaners" follow suit.

How do you know He doesn't celebrate? You have God on Speed Dial?  He made the rules.


Yeah and he communicated those rules to us clearly in his revelation.

"This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people."

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness, but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

If he wants ALL people to know the truth and repent and be saved, and sacrificed his only son to achieve that purpose, and NOT all people know the truth, repent and are saved, then obviously he is not happy about that. Simple logic here.

Here's some simple logic that the nameless learned counselor has derided as the unproven hyperbole of wide eyed 'sky is falling' "conspiracy theorists". The fellow below knows a thing or two about Christianity and Christian moral imperatives (if you engage in wilful ignorance of them, you are in sin). Of course a Calvinist pseudo Christian might take issue with such a "judgmental" point of view.

Learned counselor claimed a fellow I was debating called Alan was "reasonable". Below please find, a 278 day plus old direct quote from the last post on that debate where I addressed, in my "unreasonable fashion", the questions put forth by learned counsel.

Said questions were allegedly based on the excuse that learned counsel, a very intelligent and well read individual (that has apparently been living in a climate science news blackout bunker for several years), had not had time to research the global warming issue in his busy life.

Here I continue to address your questions with a post from Eddie that I comment on.

Because of that 40 year time lag, it is simply impossible, even with drastic measures to stop the continued increase in deleterious effects of global warming for that length of time, even if we go 100% green today. IOW, we have to go to more than 100% green to actually address the baked in time lag. We have go to, say 130% or so, so as to rapidly return the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels. This is certainly not limited just to CO2 reduction. Many other toxic products of industry must be eliminated somehow.

A lot of people missed the memo on this, but I've read it from a number of sources I trust.

Exactly. AS David Wasdell states in the following video, if you wish to actually ameliorate the existential threat from catastrophic climate change, you must use the projected climate condition of about 40 years from now as your target, not what is observed at present. Acting on the present guarantees failure due to the fact that the feedback mechanisms are moving faster than the policies to ameliorate climate change. This is politically very unpalatable. But it is the only approach with science behind it. IOW, if the IPCC predicted 470 ppm of CO2 and a 2 degree C increase by 2055, then drastic action to eliminate any target above that must be taken now.

Of course, that is not happening. Every day that isn't happening makes it more and more difficult to deal with. (

David Wasdell, Director of the Meridian Programme, is a world-renowned expert in the dynamics of climate change. He is also a reviewer of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports and the author of numerous papers and presentations on climate change and related topics.

Kevin Anderson, former Director of the Tyndall Centre (the UK's top academic institute researching climate change), said that a global society (like the one we have now) is not possible with our present level of technology in 4degree C or higher world. And that's where we are going, despite the IPCC figures all revolving about an alleged agreement (with no teeth, no enforcement and all voluntary carbon limits. LOL!) by the piggy countries s of taking measures to keep the planet  below 2 degrees C. Collapse is baked in, so to speak, thanks to government piecemeal incremental measures.

Back to David Wasdell, he clearly and calmly stated that the 30 or so positive feedback loops, if not addressed with absolute limits on carbon output, including even foregoing even biofuels, approximately 80% of life on Earth may die. If that isn't an existential threat, I don't know what is.

Ashvin asked,

What are the chances that scientific technology will progress quickly enough to offer viable solutions (I believe you say this is a very good chance)?'

According to both the scientists I mentioned, we do not have the technology to stop this catastrophe at this time, once the runaway greenhouse positive feedback loops push us past a certain point. Some say we have passed it. Due to the 40 year bake and the paltry government measures being employed, it sure looks that way. Drastic measures to stop emitting CO2 might change that equation.

But it is not realistic to expect governments to engage in them. When large masses of people are dying and a public outcry is sounded, it will be about 40 years too late.

All that said, there are technofix types that claim we just have to put a pack of aerosols up there and cool the planet like volcanic eruptions have partially done in the past. There is evidence that our government has been doing just that since 2000. It doesn't seem to be working. Maybe it's just a conspiracy theory, but some very obvious man made 'cloud' grids have been videoed for some time. And, they are not jet contrails.

Another less messy and much more expensive approach is to block out a portion of the sunlight reaching earth with some giant aluminum vapor coated, 1 mil thick, polyester film a few thousand miles in diameter to cool the planet. But we have no way of knowing whether such a simple solution would not trigger some, even worse, unforeseen climate effect. It certainly is true that the massive sun shield qualifies in the 'any port in the N.T.H.E. storm' category.

But it would do nothing to eliminate the other industrial toxins, unrelated to CO2, that have upped the probability of getting cancer in our lives from 1 in 10 back in 1950 to 1 in 2 (for men) and 1 in 3 (for women) at present. And no, that isn't because we "live longer" ( check the social Security stats and you will find the longevity increase applies to the top 20% wage earners. The bottom 80% "longevity increase" looks like a rounding error.  :P). ; it's because we are subject to more pollutants in our food, air and water from birth than any humans in history. 

We have a plethora of severe problems and the rug the gooberment keeps trying to sweep them under is starting to look like Mount Everest.

-What are the chances that the above technology, or other mitigating policies, will be implemented by corporations and governments which can make a difference when push comes to shove (I believe you say this is a low chance, but quite possible)?

-What are any other known or as of yet unknown factors which may serve to mitigate the destructive trends?

Well, here's the situation, according to Professor Emeritus Richard Somerville  Please note that he is a very conservative scientist. But he makes it clear how serious the urgency is BECAUSE of the limitations of our technology and government reaction times.

The above graph is discussing the procedure to limit the damage to 2 degrees C. That was in 2013. He explained that the required carbon limits, if not enforced by 2020, will basically be impossible to implement. We are passing by 2015 with no end in site to the INCREASE in carbon pollution.

As he said, once the window is closed, it will remain closed. That is a scientist's way of stating an existential threat. He understands the technology. He understands what will happen when we cannot hope to stop the positive feedback mechanisms from overwhelming reforms. He understands that will head us to 4 degrees C or more. That is a dire threat to our species, and literally millions of other species we share this planet with.


Notice how the IPCC sea level rise predictions only fit the data at the extreme end. It is not logical to think that they aren't erring on the side of caution. They are. Therefore, only the most extreme scenarios they come up with can be considered 'in the ball park'.

Every time a report comes out, they have to admit that, yeah, the ice melted more than predicted and several other predictions were a bit on the, uh, conservative side. Each report published every 7 or 8 years gets a little more real. Consequently, it is prudent to assume that a worse than their worse case scenario is highly probable.

That is why I believe firmly that mankind faces an existential threat from Global Warming AND all the other industrial pollution factors degrading the biosphere.

That is why I focused initially on extinctions with Alan. When the extinction rate of species in our biosphere is 1,000 to 10,000 the normal background rate of the last ten thousand years (at least!), it's logical to then assume our species faces an existential threat.

This extinction rate cannot be neatly approached as the product of a single cause. Our society is lousy at dealing with multiple causes. It's like we are as bad as crows (they can't count above three).

But  there are thousands of toxic chemicals, radionuclides and aerosols, along with the CO2 damage that have joined together to drown us in our industrial effluents. CO2 pollution is what we should all agree on. As you can see from Alan's posts, even that is like pulling teeth.

Also, there are too many corporations stuck in the incremental measures approach to expect them to own up the their responsibility to future generations. I just posted an article on the good and the bad corporations. But the 'good" are STILL not at 100% renewable energy. And the bad ones are worse than ever. :emthdown:

It's hard to communicate this threat dispassionately. I do the best I can. We are in a world of trouble.

These are the web sites Professor Emeritus Richard Somerville recommends for reliable information. I hang around RealClimate regularly. I have posted articles from RealClimate here during the last year and have recommended it to all readers. They are the ones who are now looking very hard at the meltwater tunneling by supercritical water (liquid water several degrees below freezing due to massive glacier pressures lubricating glacier movement) beneath Greenland glaciers that is NOT addressed in any of the IPCC predictions that David Wasdell discussed.

They cover all the climate bases. RealClimate is staffed exclusively by climate scientists.


Ashvin went away. He never answered. I'm certain he is a busy fellow, but considering the importance of this issue, the fact that he could not find the time in 278 days to drop in and view it is prima facie evidence of willful denial and ignorance of this issue.

His excuse that he "hadn't had the time to research the issue" is a sophist canard. IOW, it's a cheap dodge and a LIE to disguise the fact that he is on the denier side of this issue, and wants to STAY there.

I am posting this here because he came to this forum and mocked, derided and insulted me as a wide eyed conspiracy theorist, as is his ridicule laced wont.

I am NOT posting this here to give him an opportunity to answer. He is now banned from my forum for his abysmal lack of objectivity and serial mendacity.

I post it here so that the disingenuous MO of this lawyer LIAR pseudo Christian, which includes, among other sophist unethical tricks, faking an intellectually honest interest in an issue (that he only wishes to ridicule though attack the messenger chicanery) is exposed for all to see objectively.

An accomplished sophist will look at the following quotes that expose them and immediately set about trying to attack one of the authors as a "nut case" if possible. (  Anything to avoid admitting they are in willful denial.


It is therefore inexcusable that some members of Congress and other politicians continue to ignore or plead ignorance to the irrefutable science, and dangers, of climate change.

We know the continued argument in their echo chamber, that the science is unclear or the dangers are not real, is a lie — a dangerous lie.

The science is clear. Already, 2015 is the hottest year to date and might top 2014 as the hottest year on record, and carbon dioxide has reached its highest level in 800,000 years. These record-breaking events are related: carbon dioxide and global temperatures are rising together, thanks to human activities. - Rep. A preponderance of "H"'s Johnson (D-Ga.)

“No matter how busy you may think you are, you must find time for reading, or surrender yourself to self-chosen ignorance.”  - Atwood H. Townsend

“The sin which is unpardonable is knowingly and wilfully to reject truth, to fear knowledge lest that knowledge pander not to thy prejudices.”  - Aleister Crowley
“People are stupid. They will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true.” - Terry Goodkind

“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjaming Franklin

“But you can't make people listen. They have to come round in their own time, wondering what happened and why the world blew up around them. It can't last.” - Ray Bradbury

Alan's GRAB BAG of DENIER excuses that ASHVIN has no problems with:


Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on June 24, 2016, 09:21:54 pm
Bouncing Around The Room: From Exxon to GOP to Koch And Back

John Cook, lead author of the 97% consensus study that’s been downloaded half a million times, has a guest post up at DeSmog that’s a simple history of climate denial featuring interviews with some experts and other great tidbits.

Another enlightening tidbit about the interconnected world of climate denial comes from POLITICO’s Morning Energy newsletter. Yesterday, it carried the news that Kristina Baum will be leaving her position as spokeswoman for the Senate Environment and Public Works Republicans    (, chaired by Jim “The Greatest Hoax” Inhofe (R-OK), to be communications director for the House Science Committee, chaired by Lamar "witch-hunter” Smith (R-TX), who has a history of employing Koch and Exxon operatives. Politico notes that Baum previously worked for Platts and DCI Group.

DCI Group is one of the public relations firms that’s been targeted in the #ExxonKnew subpoenas. (Small update there: ExxonMobil’s suit against the Virgin Islands will be held in federal, not state court, a loss for Exxon.   ( A request for info concerning DCI Group makes sense, as it is has ExxonMobil as a client (and also represents Big Tobacco, Koch-funded groups, the coal industry and others). Specifically, DCI was the publisher of Tech Central Station, a now-defunct website that peddled pro-polluter propaganda including climate change denial as though it were news.

Baum is replacing Zachary Kurz, who has recently moved to the the Cause of Action Institute, which is funded by donations from the Koch-favorites Franklin Center and Donors Trust, and is run by a former attorney for the Koch Foundation and House Oversight Committee’s Rep. Darrell “Unicorn Award For Denial" ( Issa (R-CA).

With all these GOP ties to what Bill McKibben describes as potentially “the largest corporate scandal in history,” ( it’s no wonder that Koch-backed groups, various GOP AGs and House members (all 13 of which are recipients of ExxonMobil money) defend ExxonMobil so vigorously.

The term “revolving door” comes to mind, but that suggests there are actually walls between these groups. A more apt metaphor might be that there’s no door separating them, and operatives   ( go from one employee to the other, just bouncing around the room.

Agelbert Note: The LIST of (most, but not all) organizations in our country that are traitors to the USA and future generations because they peddle climate change denier propaganda:

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on July 08, 2016, 08:45:08 pm

July 8, 2016

Emulate to Undermine: Utility Industry ( Propaganda in Action
Back in April, we talked about a DeSmog review of a new book that examined How Propaganda Works. It’s a great book, but one steeped in jargon that in some ways disguises a relatively simple definition of propaganda: language that emulates some ideal, but in a context that undermines that very concept.
Since then, we’ve read the book, and started noticing when propaganda pops up. For example, back in March, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) hired a crisis communications expert to try to help utilities rebrand. By the sounds of a story in E&E, they’ve begun rolling out these new terms in order to, supposedly, help customers understand the services provided by utilities as part of what they’re calling the Lexicon Project.
Some of the changes in word choice seem benign and helpful in making the jargon more understandable, like using “24/7 power sources” instead of “baseload generation” or “renewable” instead of “green” energy. But some of the choices provide a perfect example of clever propaganda that obfuscates instead of clarifying and, if used widely, prevents the public from being able to communicate clearly.
One particular choice stands out: Their attempt to rebrand “rooftop solar” as “private solar.” The intended connotation is perfectly clear, as “privatization” is the selling off of a once-public service to the private sector, like social security privatization or private prisons, both topics that don’t generally engender goodwill from the public. But rooftop solar is the exact opposite, because it takes the power (literally) out of the hands of the corporations and utilities and gives it to the public. That’s why solar is often referred to as the democratization of electricity. Because instead of giant fossil-fuel-fired plants creating electricity, it’s thousands of individual rooftop systems owned or leased by regular people.
By describing the decentralized ability of citizens to take the generation of energy into their own hands with a term that is most often used in reference to corporate takeover of public services, EEI is supposedly trying to be more clear, while in fact deliberately confusing the public. They’re trying to describe something good for the public and bad for Big Business with a word that describes something often considered exactly the opposite.
So keep an eye out for this sort of doublespeak that uses language as a tool to achieve its own goals at your expense. If all the world’s a stage, then words can be used as a prop-to-gain-an upper hand.

Agelbert NOTE: Orwellian discourse by ethically challenged sophists specializing in duplicity and doubletalk laced with serial mendacity is used by con artist snakes in the grass who pretend to be "in favor" of Renewable Energy in order to undermine any support for the replacement of fossil fuel dirty energy infrastructure with Renewable Energy.

I know a at least two sophists (one a lawyer and the other a mathematician) who engage in this type of chicanery on a routine basis. They are slick, but they are basically back stabbing, double talking, fossil fuel industry defending "political language" spewing LIARS.


Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on July 21, 2016, 06:25:51 pm
July 21, 2016

Denier Roundup

Those who derived their power from profits found science-based health and environmental regulations an affront to their business models. Exploiting the postmodern concept that there is no objectivity enabled authoritarians to push their public policy agendas with PR instead of relying on scientific evidence to justify their positions.

Harold Hamm (
Harold Hamm:  Sergeant in the War on Science

Last night, oil tycoon Harold Hamm addressed the Republican National Convention. Since this post was written before his speech, we won’t address what was said. Instead, we’ll provide just a bit of history on Hamm and the wider sociopolitical history that has led us to a campaign season where facts have fallen by the wayside and emotional rhetoric have risen in importance.
Hamm is the billionaire CEO of the oil company Continental Resources. Before being identified as a potential candidate for a cabinet position and “Trump’s energy whisperer,” Hamm was in the news a year ago for his attempt to silence scientists who were linking Oklahoma’s massive uptick in earthquakes (from one-ish a year in 2009 to over 500 in 2014) to the massive uptick in fracking operations. Hamm apparently  ;) tried to get a University of Oklahoma scientist fired ( for doing their job in pursuing the science that might interfere with his profits. 
This brings us to the larger point of science as a counterbalance to power.
It’s the major theme in Shawn Otto’s newest book, The War on Science: Who’s waging it, Why it matters, What we can do about it. (

Otto traces the history of science and politics, starting with the “self-evident” nature of our rights within the Declaration of Independence. Science’s search for the underlying truth of nature, Otto writes, has always been a political force. Not in the partisan sense, but in the power sense. “Science is the great equalizer,” Otto told us via email. “It underpins the whole argument for democracy. But it’s also political, because it either confirms or disrupts somebody’s vested interests, and those people tend to fight back when science suggests certain laws or regulations they don’t like."
Fast-forward to the 20th century, when science ended World War II with the power of the atomic bomb. In the ensuing years, science enjoyed the financial support of the military and retreated from the public sphere, as it no longer needed public engagement for funding.
At the same time, the public was growing increasingly wary of science, the cause of their children’s pointless “duck and cover” drills in case of nuclear attack.

Meanwhile, in the humanitarian departments of academia, the postmodernist movement was questioning the fundamental nature of science as a way to discover objective truth, portraying it as just another “metanarrative” -- a story told by the ruling class in order to retain power.


This thinking worked its way into journalism schools, where reporters  ( learned ( that there is no such thing( as objectivity , and creating the conditions where false balance thrives and industry   ( spokespeople  ( given equal time and consideration as real scientists
This postmodernism, mostly a leftist concept, provided the intellectual underpinning for the larger war on science by the axis of industry and religious forces who coopted that language to insist we “teach the controversy.” Those who derived their power from religion found evolution and stem cells to be affronts to the sacred notion of a creator.

Those who derived their power from profits found science-based health and environmental regulations an affront to their business models. Exploiting the postmodern concept that there is no objectivity enabled authoritarians to push their public policy agendas with PR instead of relying on scientific evidence to justify their positions.

Which brings us back to this election cycle and the celebration of a man who has attempted to use his power to silence the science that threatens his profits. Instead of being run out of democratic society for this blatant display of authoritarianism, Hamm’s been given direct access to a candidate, a prime time speaking slot at the convention, and possibly a cabinet position.  (  ( 

Unlike most books of its type, The War on Science offers up a robust battle plan to restore science to its rightful place as an objective arbiter of the reality we all share, and upon which policy decisions must be made.
It won’t be an easy fight, but it’s one we can’t afford to lose. As the government scales of checks and balances are increasingly tilted in favor of the rich and powerful, science offers the strongest anti-authoritarian weapon available to restore power to the people.

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on July 25, 2016, 11:53:59 pm
How Big Oil (
taught Big Tobacco ( to bend science (

By Matt Smith

July 24, 2016 | 9:50 am

Over the past year, revelations about what the giants of the US petroleum industry knew decades ago about climate change have had a familiar ring to them.

Several observers picked up an echo of the same pattern that forced the American tobacco industry into a multi-billion-dollar court settlement in the 1990s: trying to cast doubt on the risks of the product, and denying publicly the hazards their own scientists told companies about privately.

Turns out there may be a reason for that.

Legal researchers have found stacks of documents they say demonstrate that as people started to worry about the toll cigarettes were taking on smokers, the cigarette makers turned to the same playbook the oil companies had written to head off worries about what the carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels were doing to Earth's atmosphere.

"It shocked us. Not once, but over and over again"

That was a surprise to Carroll Muffett, the head of the Center for Environmental Law. It wasn't news that the two industries had collaborated, but most people had assumed that the strategy had spread the other way—that Big Tobacco had pioneered the plan, and Big Oil had run with it later.

"It shocked us. Not once, but over and over again," said Muffett, whose researchers have spent four years digging through corporate and university archives to assemble what they're calling the "Smoke and Fumes" papers. "But, in retrospect, it shouldn't have."

Other researchers have pointed to connections between the oil and tobacco industries in the last decade. Gretchen Goldman, lead analyst at the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the new documents reinforce those other links, but with a twist.

"This sort of flips it on its head—that it was the oil industry playbook that tobacco took, and they arguably were less good at it than oil," she said.

Muffett's organization has spent four years digging into the oil industry's early research into carbon emissions and climate change. This week saw the release of the third round of documents in the "Smoke and Fumes" project, which outlines what American petroleum companies knew about the dangers of carbon emissions long before climate change became the hot-button issue it is today.

Muffett said the two industries often acted as corporate frenemies, with embattled tobacco executives sometimes expressing jealousy of their petro-colleagues. At other times, they tried to shift responsibility for their products' problems to one another.

"Over and over again we see this mutual finger-pointing that, because it increases uncertainty, redounds to the benefit of both industries," Muffett said.

Tobacco companies like Philip Morris turned in the 1950s to oil giants like Shell and the corporate ancestors of today's Exxon Mobil for help analyzing what was in cigarette smoke and tar, the documents show. Shell and Exxon also designed cigarette filters using petroleum-derived fibers, the documents show. The oil industry was also trying to fend off concerns about air pollution and the use of lead as a gasoline additive, a battle it finally lost in the 1970s.

Related: Meet the 'Rented White Coats' Who Defend Toxic Chemicals (

Muffett said that technology-sharing relationship soon led to the industries sharing a PR strategy as well.  (

"The tobacco industry is the very poster child for a corporate cover-up, the very poster child for a corporate and industrywide conspiracy," he added. "The relevance of these documents is they demonstrate the tobacco industry in turn was looking to and learning from oil."

Maybe, maybe not, said tobacco historian Louis Kyriakoudes, now director of the Albert Gore Research Center at Middle Tennessee State University. For instance, the tobacco industry knew before the 1950s that there were problems with its products, he said.

"This is an exciting line of research, and it's an exciting arrow pointing us in a direction," said Kyriakoudes, who testified in several of the lawsuits against the tobacco industry. But he said the question of who first wrote the playbook is less important than how the plays were run.


"These are common techniques that are being used by two powerful industries, and are continuing to be used by these industries even to this day"

"By the 1950s, it's clear the both have a common origin in terms of strategy, setting a pattern of using science against the truth as opposed to using science to promote the truth," Kyriakoudes said. "These are common techniques that are being used by two powerful industries, and are continuing to be used by these industries even to this day."

The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's leading trade association, did not respond to a request for comment. Nor did tobacco giant Philip Morris, whose executives feature prominently in the documents.

But ExxonMobil spokesman Alan Jeffers told VICE News via e-mail, "We reject long-discredited conspiracy theories that attempt to portray legitimate scientific observations and differences on policy approaches as climate denial. We rejected them when they were made a decade ago, and we reject them today."

Prosecutors in at least 17 US states and territories are investigating whether ExxonMobil misled investors about climate change and its potential impact on the company's bottom line. The company now says the risk is "clear and warrants action," but has resisted shareholder efforts to asses just how risky it is.

The first "Smoke and Fumes" installment documented how leading researchers had verified the effects of carbon dioxide and other byproducts of burning oil, gas and coal on the atmosphere by the 1950s; the second, released in May, showed how the industry had explored technologies to reduce emissions in the 1960s—but ultimately decided to raise doubts about the science of climate change instead.

Goldman said the documents suggest that while Exxon "might have been one of the bigger actors" in that strategy, "it wasn't the only actor in it." And as with the tobacco industry, any future court cases could force oil companies to open up their own records.

"To me, what this does is sheds a much brighter light on that deep and long connection between the two industries, and shows it's a little more organized and intentional than at least what I'd seen before," she said.

The Fossil Fuelers   DID THE Climate Trashing, human health depleteing 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!  (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on August 03, 2016, 07:46:48 pm


Trump ( Takes Cheep Shots at Renewables
At a rally in Pennsylvania on Monday, Donald Trump made some feather-ruffling remarks about renewable energy, directing criticisms at wind and solar power.
“The wind kills all your birds. All your birds, killed. ( You know, the environmentalists never talk about that,” Trump reportedly said.
Actually, environmentalists do talk about that, especially when they’re forced to rebuff bird-brained arguments by repeat deniers.
An estimated 970 million birds crash into buildings ( annually. By comparison, wind turbines kill approximately 500,000 birds a year, according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. A 2013 study found that fossil fuel plants ( “pose a much greater threat to birds and avian wildlife than wind farms.”
Trump also said that solar is “so expensive” and “not working so good.”  (  It seems that Trump decided to wing it instead of actually checking the facts, because according to SEIA, the cost of solar has actually fallen 70 percent in the past 10 years and rooftop solar is already at grid parity in 20 states. The US also reached the milestone of one million solar installations nationwide in May, so we’d say it’s working pretty well.

Honestly, we’re a little surprised Trump is even worried about the birds, considering he’s run a-fowl of them before...

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on August 04, 2016, 02:39:11 pm

Deniers Want Clexit After Brexit

There’s a new denial group ( on the scene -- this one is intent on ensuring that the world doesn’t enter into “costly and dangerous” climate action pacts like the Paris Agreement.
The oh-so-cleverly named Clexit (climate exit) was “inspired by” Brexit, the UK’s decision to leave the European Union and set out on their own. The founders of Clexit are names you’ve seen here before: Christopher Monckton of the UK, Australia’s Viv Forbes, and good old, homegrown Marc Morano.  (
According to the campaign’s website:
“If the Paris climate accord is ratified, or enforced locally by compliant governments, it will strangle the leading economies of the world with pointless carbon taxes and costly climate and energy policies, all with no sound basis in evidence or science.”


Where do we even begin? Maybe it would be prudent to remind the Clexit crew that after Brexit, their glamorous inspiration, the British economy absolutely tanked. Similarly, climate change has huge financial implications for the global economy and could cause up to $24 trillion in economic damage in the worst case scenario. (

Of course, this worst case scenario would be exactly what Clexit is asking for: if governments backed out of the Paris climate accord, took no action and let climate change cause extreme havoc.
As for the “no sound basis in evidence or science,” we’ll just point back, as we often do, to the 97% of scientists who agree on human-made climate change (and the consensus on this consensus).
There are a lot more classic denier tropes on the site, ranging from “CO2 is good for the planet!” to “The Green Climate Fund is just bribes!” Too many for us to go through one-by-one, but we encourage you to go take a look ( and have a good laugh.

 We’re probably hoping for too much if after Brexit and Clexit, we could get a Dexit: a denial exit.  (

Agelbert NOTE: Message to the polluter funded, biosphere math challenged greed balls supporting Clexit:

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on August 05, 2016, 03:35:24 pm
Agelbert NOTE: RE the handle for a fellow that correctly believes that polluters should be dealt with terminally.


Deniers Want Clexit After Brexit

There’s a new denial group ( on the scene -- this one is intent on ensuring that the world doesn’t enter into “costly and dangerous” climate action pacts like the Paris Agreement.

Here's me doing my RE imitation:

History has examples of how to deal with fascists--



From your lips to God's ears. Prison is too good for those bastards. 
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on August 07, 2016, 06:22:20 pm
False.  She just plays one on tv.

Gail on TV does the Polite Actuary thing.  In the commentariat of OFW, it becomes evident she is an Uber Doomer by the Group Think that pervades that commentary and her own posting to the commentariat..


Gail speaks with a forked tongue.  If she really is the Uber Doomer you say she is, she could throw the Etp model at her regular crowd like a pile of fresh, red meat.  It is *WAY* scarier than her own ****.  But maybe she just really thinks she is right.  If she is not being a totally disingenuous hatchet woman, then she is an obvious idiot who doesn't understand the first thing about physics or the elegant physics model she so eagerly attempts to discredit.  Either way, Gail is useless, RE.

---Futilitist 8)

Gail Tverberg IS a certified Actuary. She is ALSO a shill for the fossil fuel industry. So, I find myself agreeing with Futility incorporated that Gail is consistently disingenuous, although I certainly do not think she is stupid. She is not math challenged as long as that math EXCLUDES the SCC (Social Cost of Carbon)   ( IOW she is BIOSPHERE math challenged, like a certain mathematician here.  ;)

So, hot breaking Etp news and controversy, my interview with Gail the fork tongued actuary, the ongoing Etp COVER UP at, the new Chang and Eng collapse analogy, and the possible deep psychological implications of the Etp forecast are not interesting enough for you, RE?  How about those graphics?  I don't think you are giving me enough credit here.  I think I am bringing some pretty cool content to this site.  I went away for a couple of days and you guys totally dropped the ball.  The thread sat dormant for 2 or 3 days, check the time stamps.  So why am I the only one responsible for this thread? I think you should come up with something original. 

---Futilitist 8)

But as to Futility Incorporated's claim that there are "no responsible people here" simply because they don't want to worship at the altar of an OCD narcissist suffering from illusions of grandeur and serial empathy deficit disordered gratuitous spewing of of ad hominem horse hockey, uh, SEE BELOW:
(                (                     (

I ( am not concerned about lasting here.  (

Glad to hear it.  You are back in the hole.


Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on September 11, 2016, 02:14:24 pm
“With the risks of detection in mind, defendants embarked on a strategy to deflect scrutiny.  (

Sorrell sues VW over ‘massive fraud’

Sep. 8, 2016, 5:16 pm by Erin Mansfield 22 Comments

The state of Vermont is suing Volkswagen and its subsidiaries, claiming the car company committed a massive fraud, broke environmental laws and that a proposed settlement of $3 million offered in June to address consumer complaints was “wholly inadequate.”

Attorney General Bill Sorrell held a press conference Thursday to announce the lawsuit in Vermont Superior Court and condemn the company for conducting “a massive and intentional fraud” when it advertised “clean” and “green” vehicles to Vermonters.

The company admitted in September 2015 that it advertised cars as clean diesel  ( but in fact built them with equipment called “defeat devices” designed to cheat on emissions tests. The company also allegedly manipulated the cars’ diagnostic equipment to conceal those defeat devices.

Approximately 3,400 affected Volkswagens, Audis, and Porches with 2-liter and 3-liter engines are registered in Vermont, Sorrell said. That’s the second-highest number of affected cars per capita of all the states in the country, behind Oregon.

A spokesperson for the company said in a statement: “Volkswagen is committed to reaching a fair and efficient resolution of remaining federal and state diesel claims in the United States.”

“We have received Vermont’s complaint, and will respond appropriately,” the spokesperson said.

Sorrell said Vermont is serious about its complaint.

“This was not a mistake,” he said. “This was not a ‘whoops’ situation. This was intentional fraud on a massive scale. We look forward to our day in court and to prove their liability, prove how we’ve been harmed in the state, and see that justice is done.”

Vermont’s case alleges an extensive coverup that was openly discussed the company’s executives and charges the company and its subsidiaries with nine violations of state law, including Vermont’s clean air laws and the Vermont Consumer Protection Act.

Filing the lawsuit means that Vermont has rejected $2.9 million that the company offered if the state agreed not to sue under the Consumer Protection Act. Sorrell said he is not seeking a specific amount of money, but there could be thousands or hundreds of thousands of violations, which each carry a fine of $10,000.

“With all due respect to those state and federal officials who negotiated the proposed national settlement, we just find the consumer protection arena inadequate,” Sorrell said. “We think the nature of the conduct, the impact on Vermonters, the amount of advertising—the false advertising—in Vermont, deserves stiffer penalties.”

While some states have sued for either consumer protection or environmental issues, the lawsuit makes Vermont just the second state to sue Volkswagen under both its consumer protection laws and environmental laws. The other state is New Jersey, which sued in February.

Vermont has always retained the right to sue Volkswagen under its own clean air laws, Sorrell said, because Vermont has a federal legal designation as a state with more-stringent environmental standards than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Filing the lawsuit under Vermont’s clean air laws also does not affect the state’s ability to accept up to $17.8 million from a separate environmental settlement, which was set up as a federally managed trust fund for states to use for specific emission-reduction purposes.

Deb Markowitz, the secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources, said the federal government negotiated that environmental settlement with big cities in mind, but Vermont wanted changes because it also gets diesel emissions from sawmills and farm equipment.

Even though Vermont gets diesel emissions from different sources, she praised residents for choosing to drive clean cars, and she said their choice to drive clean cars helps the state meet regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency.

“We rely on the laws that we have in place that hold our auto manufacturers accountable to standards,” Markowitz said. “We rely on that. And when we find that there is a fraud that has been committed, it really matters for Vermont.”

“We are still in attainment of all of the air standards that the EPA sets for the state, but year to year, we get close to that attainment level,” she said. “It matters what people are driving.”

Alleged 17-month coverup

Sorrell alleges that Volkswagen’s top executives openly discussed the existence of “defeat devices,” often calling them “acoustic functions,” but kept information from federal regulators when asked about certain irregularities.

The devices were in several different models of vehicles, known as Generation 1, 2, and 3, according to the lawsuit, but federal regulators started to catch on to emissions problems when the company sought approval for Generation 3 vehicles.

At that point, according to the lawsuit, the company’s head of quality assurance, Frank Tuch, wrote in a letter: “A thorough explanation for the dramatic increase in NOx emissions cannot be given to the authorities.”

“It can be assumed that the authorities will then investigate the VW systems to determine whether Volkswagen implemented a test detection system in the engine control unit software (so-called defeat device),” the letter said.

The attorney general writes: “With the risks of detection in mind, defendants embarked on a strategy to deflect scrutiny.  ( Defendants publicly denied that the unlawful vehicles failed emissions requirements. They neutrally acknowledged the existence of the problem without explaining its known cause to authorities.”

The company then started “covertly managing” the issue in the Generation 3 issue, while “attempting to downplay the scope and severity of the problems” with Generations 1 and 2 by issuing “sham software recalls” on those older vehicles, according to the lawsuit.

Sorrell says the dual strategy “to mislead and confuse regulators and the public about the fact that their installation of the defeat devices was the true cause of the high real-driving NOx emissions” lasted for 17 months, until September 2015, when the company admitted the violations.

The attorney general says that, even when Volkswagen admitted problems in vehicles with 2-liter engines, the company “continued to deny the existence of defeat devices” in cars with 3-liter engines. The Environmental Protection Agency revealed those issues in November.

Allegedly deceptive advertisements

The Vermont lawsuit identifies an extensive list of individual advertisements that Volkswagen used to sell the TDI Clean Diesel cars, and even targets window stickers that were put on new cars as individual violations of the Consumer Protection Act.

One ad campaign said the notion that diesel was dirty and noxious was an “old wives’ tale.” Other taglines included “Diesel has really cleaned up its act” and “Diesel, it’s no longer a dirty word.”

“From 2009 through 2015, defendants spent hundreds of millions of dollars to develop and place Internet, television and print advertisements that highlighted the fuel efficiency, performance, and environmental hygiene of the unlawful vehicles,” the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit says that the ad campaign calling dirty diesel an “old wives tale” received more than 9.9 million views, 13.5 million impressions on Tumblr, and more than 5 million impressions on Twitter. “Within just six hours of posting, the ‘dirty’ video alone got over 80,000 views,” the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit identifies ads that ran during “multiple Super Bowls,” misleading press releases that described those advertisements to reporters, and marketing brochures full of “misstatements about the effectiveness of the emissions control systems.”

The lawsuit says the window stickers placed on each affected diesel vehicle in Vermont identified average “smog ratings” when the NOx emissions “actually exceeded applicable standards by up to 40 times.”
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on September 22, 2016, 01:05:39 pm

From Congress to a Car in California, Chevron’s Covert PR and Lobbying Efforts
 Good news everyone! The Paris Agreement is virtually certain to come into effect this year, so the need to drastically reduce carbon pollution is no longer merely academic or theoretical -- it’s real and it’s happening. This gives an even greater impetus to the SEC investigation into ExxonMobil, as they figure out just what impact an 80 percent reduction in emissions by 2050 will have on the oil giant. And of course, what ExxonMobil is telling investors about that now, inevitability.
 With renewable energy now making up 30 percent of the world’s electricity generation capacity, the clean energy future is increasingly looking like a clean energy present.
 But don’t expect the fossil fuel industry to welcome this development with open arms. And for those living in Richmond, California, don’t even expect to see it in your local paper. This is not only because the Richmond Standard is hyper-focused on Richmond, but, more importantly, because the Richmond Standard isn’t actually a newspaper so much as an advertising arm of Chevron. (Which has a refinery in Richmond, leading to such stories as “Clouds over Chevron refinery today only steam.”)
That a company can and would create something that looks like a news outlet out of thin air (or smoggy, polluted air) is one of the many unfortunate side effects of the media industry struggling to survive, as evidenced by the recent widespread layoffs at the local up to the international level. As these news publications face continued difficulties, corporate interests are stepping up -- and not in the way you might hope. We’ve talked about the Koch network before, and it seems they are envious of Chevron’s ability to run a local newspaper out of one man’s car. Literally.
 DeSmogBlog’s Sharon Kelly wrote a great, in-depth story ( the faux-newspaper and the Koch network’s admiration for it. The Richmond Standard has the look of a real news site, but in reality it lacks all the infrastructure of one. There is no difference between opinion and reporting staff, because everything is done by just one employee. There is no investigative reporting, just a man with a laptop who is always on the hunt -- not for the next scoop but for reliable WiFi. There is no journalistic integrity -- because there’s no journalist.
 Unfortunately, local media isn’t the only place where Chevron seems to have a sleeper cell of sorts. For those wondering why Rep. Lamar Smith’s House Science Committee is so adamant in defending fossil fuel interests, his campaign donations aren’t the only reason. It seems that a couple years ago, one of   Chevron’s top lobbyists, Stephen Sayle, took a government gig  ( as the Chief of Staff for the House Science Committee.
 If “native advertising” is content that looks like a regular story but is actually an advertisement, then what’s a whole publication that is actually a corporate product? “Native publishing?” And when a lobbyist becomes a high-ranking bureaucrat overseeing an issue of vital importance to his former employer, “revolving door” just doesn’t quite seem to capture the full extent of the picture. Is that more like “native lobbying?”
Maybe the company will get into “native movies” next to explain this political maneuvering and media manipulation. If so, we suggest they call it “Citizen Chevron.”
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on October 12, 2016, 01:43:17 pm

UCS Grades Exxon & Others; IRS Gets Exxon & ALEC Complaint
 The #ExxonKnew story continues with a new complaint to the IRS by CMD and Common Cause alleging in a letter and filing that instead of being an educational outfit that serves the public good, ALEC functions as a public relations and lobbying tool of ExxonMobil.
 The filing details, with 240 exhibits, how ALEC’s climate denial and anti-renewable efforts are conducive to ExxonMobil’s fossil-fuel-based business, and insists that the company’s $1.7 million in donations are more of an advertising expense than a charitable donation. It also shows how ALEC drafts model legislation for like-minded lawmakers, which has resulted in resolutions in 22 states opposing the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, among other things.
 And while other fossil-fuel-funded groups are already crying foul about alleged IRS persecution, they for some strange reason neglect to mention that the myth that the IRS unfairly targeted Tea Party groups has been debunked by a Senate investigation ( But it seems as though they think that any potential enforcement of the rules is persecution if it goes against their fossil fuel friends.
 Speaking of which, ExxonMobil and other major fossil fuel companies are the subject of a  new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists ( grades their efforts on a handful of climate-related issues. From disclosing climate risk to their engagement with denial groups, the report found that while some companies do better than others, none are facing the reality in an intelligent way. The company’s shareholders, then, might want to pressure them to take a smarter approach to climate risk management.
 Because fossil fuel companies might be able to survive in a carbon-constrained world, but only if they face the future honestly. If they stop with the denial and start planning for the clean energy economy that the Paris Agreement makes more certain, shareholders stand a chance of continued profits. But if they refuse to wise up, then there are likely significant losses ahead.
 Similarly, ALEC might take the IRS complaint as a reason to update its approach, so that it’s not engaging in just-plain-wrong denial but is instead using more intelligent and scientifically honest ways to engage in the policy debate. Which wouldn’t be great if it meant they continue being successful in blocking climate action, but as the saying (sort of) goes, better to be a smart ALEC than a dumb ALEC.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on November 02, 2016, 08:04:29 pm
The Doubt Machine: Inside The Koch Brothers' War on Climate Science​ (

Narrated by esteemed actor Emma Thompson, ​the documentary "The Doubt Machine: Inside the Koch Brothers' War on Climate Science" reveals how the Koch Brothers have used their vast wealth to ensure the American political system takes no action on climate change,​ ​and are​ ​attempting​ to buy the 2016 Congressional elections.

The Fossil Fuelers   DID THE Climate Trashing, human health depleteing 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!   ( 

WATCH NOW: The New Film on The Koch Brothers' War on Climate Science
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on November 07, 2016, 12:37:31 pm
Climate| Nov. 02, 2016 10:23AM EST

Big Oil     (
Puts New Shade of Lipstick (  on Climate Denial Pig

Oil Change International
By Andy Rowell

"You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."

The history of Big Oil's climate denial campaign is littered with slightly progressive sounding front groups trying to give the impression that the industry cares about climate change.

From the Global Climate Coalition, the Climate Council, the Global Climate Science Team to the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, the industry has repeatedly tried to create an illusion that it's taking climate change seriously while undermining any meaningful action.

Take the Climate Change Coalition, which was active in the nineties. It was no coalition of concerned citizens, but was made up of BP, Shell, Exxon and Texaco, and its aim was to derail climate action.

The newest manifestation is the Oil & Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI) which will announce its latest plans to solve climate change on Nov. 4, the day the Paris agreement comes into effect.

According to a press release, "The OGCI will announce details of the next phase in their collective action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

So what is the OGCI (

Formed in 2014, the initiative says it is "a CEO-led organization designed to catalyze practical action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is currently made up of ten oil and gas companies that aim to lead the industry response to climate change."

Those companies include BP, BG Group, Saudi Aramco, Shell and Statoil, among others.

The initial discussions were held at the World Economic Forum in Davos. "It carries the vision of Oil and Gas companies working together collaboratively and sharing best practices and technical solutions to address climate change and sustainable energy."

The website for the OGCI was set up by Daniela Barat Head of Legal, at the World Economic Forum. She is an ex-tobacco lawyer. (

The PR company handling the account is Edelman, one of the world's largest PR companies. Although last year Edelman publicly stated that it will no longer work with coal producers and climate change deniers. (  (  This was in response to the company being caught "flat-footed" in 2014 when other major PR firms had taken a stance against climate denial. Edelman had also been caught setting up front groups in support of the proposed Energy East tar sands pipeline.  (

Meanwhile in the UK, the company has been criticized for providing services to the UK Task Force on Shale Gas, which has been panned by its critics for being pro-fracking.

The only good news from a climate perspective is that the OGCI does not include the biggest climate dinosaur of the lot: Exxon. I have written twice in the last week about Exxon's climate denial campaign and its humiliating reserve write down.

But that is where the good news runs out.

It is not hard to find a fundamental flaw in the OGCI's position. Oil companies must maximize shareholder return  by drilling for oil and gas , which in turn causes climate change.(  So their core business is fundamentally at odds with climate change action.

OGCI members produce more than one-fifth of global oil and gas production, and have a vested interest in making sure they carry on producing.

One of the companies is Saudi Aramco, the Saudi oil company, which states on its website, for example: "Our oil fields are some of the largest on the planet—and the world relies on us to manage them responsibly … Today, the production of this essential energy resource remains at the core of our business, and we supply more crude oil to the global economy than any other oil producer, producing nearly 1 in every 8 barrels of world oil production."

While oil production remains at the "core" of its business, Aramco is unlikely to lobby for any meaningful action on climate.

Take another company, Statoil. There is a global push to kick Big Oil out of the Arctic, a region where there are huge risks exploring for oil and where the effects of climate change are being very keenly felt.

Statoil talks about the need for climate change action but is heading further into the Arctic. In September this year, the Wall Street Journal reported that Statoil "was pushing deeper into the Arctic, shopping for Barents Sea drilling licenses in a bid to add resources and maintain output over the coming decades."

Moreover BP and Shell, which often try and promote their progressive climate credentials, have both been found to be lobbying against climate action too.

In April last year, the Guardian reported how Shell had "successfully lobbied to undermine European renewable energy targets." As far back as October 2011, the oil giant was lobbying the European Commission "to scrap the bloc's existing formula for linking carbon-cutting goals with binding renewable energy laws."

Nor is BP any better. In 2013, BP basically threatened the commission that if it went ahead and regulated the importation of dirty tar sands crude from Canada or clamped down on dirty power plants and accelerated the introduction of renewable energy, then "energy-intensive industries, such as refining and petrochemicals" would "relocate outside the EU with a correspondingly detrimental impact on security of supply, jobs [and] growth." The commission later abandoned or weakened the key proposals.

Last year, a survey by the UK-based non-profit, Influence Map, concluded that BP was Europe's "strongest advocate of dirty energy, opposing even mild measures to raise carbon trading prices."

Thomas O'Neill, Influence Map's research director said at the time: "BP has been consistently opposed to all the main forms of climate change regulation. There is very little positivity coming out of them and they are a board member of several obstructionist trade associations, some of which give a very dubious account of climate science."

We are witnessing a new form of climate denial. As Seth Klein & Shannon Daub from the Corporate Mapping Project noted in September 2016. "Thankfully, the climate deniers have now mostly been exposed and repudiated … That's the good news. The bad news is we face a new form of climate denialism—more nuanced and insidious, but just as dangerous."

"In the new form of denialism, the fossil fuel industry and our political leaders assure us  ;) that they understand and accept the scientific warnings about climate change—but they are in denial about what this scientific reality means for policy and/or continue to block progress in less visible ways."

And that is what the OGCI and its member companies are doing. In the run up to the Paris climate talks, the Guardian reported that "The heads of 10 major oil and gas companies have denied they are paying lip service to climate change initiatives while conducting business as usual."

The oil industry is conducting business as usual but trying to tell you it is acting on climate change. With the OGCI, they are purely painting a new shade of lipstick on the industry's climate denial efforts that have been going on for decades.

Jeff Biss · Northern Illinois University

Deniers are the enemy, pure and simple. Of course, the core problem lay with regular Americans who buy the denier argument because they are ideologues and have no interest in sustainability nor responsibility as they feel entitled to do whatever they want to do.

Agelbert NOTE: Apologies to owners of those fine intelligent animals, that many of us eat, called swine or pigs. Pigs are beautiful in their own way and certainly not responsible for the stupidity and hide bound, boundlessly greedy, stubborn, insane magical thinking the fossil fuelers engage in to avoid facing their criminal responsibility for trashing our biosphere and engineering, through buy em' or bop em' corrupt government influence, their welfare queen "subsidies".

Pigs are not conscience free parasites. Big Oil is not run by pigs; it is run by conscience free parasites.


Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on December 04, 2016, 03:27:22 pm

Anti-Elon Musk Campaign Has Big Ties to Big Energy  (

Lorraine Chow


The "Stop Elon" website is a giant hit piece on Musk's several companies and his endeavors. Its about page states:

"Elon Musk has defrauded the American Taxpayer out of over $4.9 Billion in the form of subsidies, grants, and other favors. ( We are challenging not just Elon, but the entire culture of corporations making billions of dollars off of the American people for almost zero return to the consumer. CEO's like Musk are taking advantage of Americans, and it is our intention to end their free ride."  

The $4.9 billion figure stems from a debunked Los Angeles Times story. While Musk said that government subsidies are "helpful" they are also "not necessary" for his company to run. He pointed out that $4.9 billion is from "adding up everything that's ever happened and including things that will take the next 20 years."

Musk suggested that the Times report was planted after the International Monetary Fund's staggering report that the fossil fuel industry receives more than $5 trillion in subsidies a year. During a talk in May, the sustainable transport/clean energy advocate urged a revolt against Big Energy for allegedly feeding negative stories about his work to the press.

"We need to appeal to the people—educate people to sort of revolt against this and to fight the propaganda of the fossil fuel industry which is unrelenting and enormous," Musk said.

Agelbert NOTE: See below for the Musk proper action we-the-people must take in order to rid ourselves of the Fossil Fuel Big Fish.  ;D

Agelbert NOTE: EXCELLENT Comments!

Jeff Del Castilho

This is just the beginning. IMO, Elon has been flying under the radar for a long time, even despite recent successes. He single handedly could take the world off of oil as well as infinitely increase humankind's chances of survival, all in a single lifetime - and with style and grace. I don't think the world yet realizes the greatness they are witnessing. When big oil and fossil and their cronies finally catch on that they are being brought down, I fear there will be far worse than internet propaganda against his efforts.

I mean he built and electric car company in the middle of a recession in the most expensive part of the world to live. The car was one of the best products ever made, looks fantastic, holds 7 and is the fastest production vehicle ever. Best part - it runs on sunshine!

I'm a fan in case it wasn't obvious.

Like · Reply · 25 · Nov 26, 2016 12:02am · Edited

Michelle Kingsbury · Sales Executive at Temple-Inland

so am I

Like · Reply · 4 · Nov 26, 2016 7:14am

John Thaller · Essex Catholic High School

Elon will simply pick up and leave the country, develop his company elsewhere. He is not obligated to do business here, and if he is threatened then by all means he should go elsewhere. With the departure, he will take all his technical smarts, his patents, his business plans, and many jobs, and plant them somewhere else where it will prosper. In the mean time the US will have lost the race again like we did solar panels and wind turbines. We will be stuck with a $300 billion trade deficit by oil, will continue to spread mercury, lead, cadmium, vanadium and other bad chemicals in the air by burning coal. We will give up the 180,000 in the clean energy business, perhaps saving 60,000 in the coal industry. Go for it folks, it's only our future.

Like · Reply · 8 · Nov 26, 2016 4:50am

Nigel Franks

The USA lost the lead in Solar PV and wind energy thanks to the fossil fuel companies.

Like · Reply · Nov 27, 2016 12:01pm

Pascal Molineaux · Professor at Universidad Javeriana Cali

The big weight dinosaurs are feeling the heat of inevitability... Big Dirty Fossil Fuel - hugely propped during the years by generous tax subsidies, incentives and breaks, by policies meant to bolster their profit margins and reduce costs, and vociferously upheld by kowtowing politicians, is now afraid. They see the trend, they know public opinion is shifting, they see the dark future for their gunk. So what do they do? Start a smear campaign against potential competition. Finance a denial of fact and science. Ensure their kowtowing politicians get elected and friendly policies get bored in. They couldn't give a f...t for anything else but their bottom line. They will be called out and lose. Elon Musk is a true pioneer, of the likes of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Those that are so dimwitted as to refuse the inevitability of the coming energy revolution are dinosaurs and will end in the dust heap of history. Good riddance.   (


Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on February 11, 2017, 10:23:08 pm

This Man (  Kick-Started the First Fossil Fuel-Funded Campaigns to Attack Climate Science (
Saturday, February 11, 2017 
By Graham Readfearn, DeSmogBlog | Report


Harvard University Professor Naomi Oreskes, an expert on the history of organized climate science denial and co-author of the book Merchants of Doubt, said the ICE campaign was a key moment in the movement's history.

"ICE was very important because it was one of the first attempts to question and challenge the science, for political reasons, and to try to block policy action," she told DeSmog.

"It shows how this network functions: do research to find out how best to undermine public confidence in the science as a means to undermine public support for policy action. Then create a front group with an attractive name -- Informed Citizens for the Environment -- that makes it seem like a grassroots movement. But in fact ICE was wholly-funded by the coal industry."

Palmer's next venture, the Greening Earth Society, ( produced videos and materials that looked to propagandize the science linking fossil fuel burning to dangerous climate change on two fronts.

The coal-funded group told the public that adding CO2 would only be beneficial to trees and food crops and, in any case, the computer models that they claimed drove climate science (but don't) could not be trusted.

One Western Fuels Association "greening earth" video ended with this wonderfully vague assertion: "It is not inconceivable that the vitality of our entire biosphere could rise by a full order of magnitude over the next few centuries."

Many of the talking points that were developed and polished in those early campaigns, as well as the contrarian scientists and fake experts that endorsed them, are still around today.

Palmer joined coal giant Peabody Energy in 2001 as its head of government relations and, later, a special advisor to the company's leadership.

In June 2016, it emerged that Peabody had been funding an entire network of climate science denial groups -- funding which those groups had kept secret.  (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on February 16, 2017, 05:11:46 pm


GOP Begins “Modernizing” Anti-Environment Propaganda
Continuing to demonstrate that while his skin looks thick and leathery, it’s actually as paper-thin as the resumes of many of his cabinet appointees and advisors, President Trump continues to pretend that negative press or outlets that expose Russian connections to his administration are fake, while giving actual fake news outlets like Breitbart prime real estate. The administration is making a habit of only calling on conservative outlets as a way to avoid critical questions, having done so exclusively for the past three press conferences. It’s gotten so bad that reporters have started trying to shouting real questions afterwards, only to be ignored. (But at least Acosta tried…)
Trump’s continued attempts at co-opting of the term “fake news” as a tool to delegitimize the press is a textbook use of propaganda. From Hitler to Stalin, some of history’s most infamous dictators routinely turned words upside down to strip them of their meaning and confuse the public.  (

The latest example of this tactic will be on full view in the House today, when the Energy and Commerce committee holds a 10am hearing on “Modernizing Environmental Laws.” With speakers from the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, and Chairman Shimkus quoted in the press release as looking forward to “practical reforms to promote the expansion of domestic infrastructure and manufacturing”, it’s unlikely the witnesses there who actually care about environmental protection will drive the conversation.
But despite what Steve Bannon thinks, the press is smart, and it’s unlikely that this “modernizing” language will to pass unchallenged by the media. Ari Phillips has taken the charge with a great piece that pulls back the propaganda to explain “What GOP lawmakers mean when they talk about modernizing the Endangered Species Act.” (
For those wondering, it appears “modernizing” something means destroying it to benefit industry.  (
While it may seem silly and obvious to smart folks like Phillips that “modernization” is just an empty euphemism meant to conceal unpopular policy positions, this election proved the power of propaganda. We should all do everything we can to hold those in power accountable and keep the public apprised of the truth.

 Otherwise, Trump might succeed in “modernizing” ( America.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: Grace Adams on February 17, 2017, 10:33:32 am
Unfortunately, fossil fuel industry has huge political clout and is more likely to accuse its opponents of propaganda lying about fossil fuel and making it stick than those who want more renewable energy and less greenhouse emissions are to get their message across. Fortunately, electric utilities are also too big to fail and buying renewable energy in large amounts now that it is actually cheaper than fossil fuel.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on February 17, 2017, 02:03:54 pm
Unfortunately, fossil fuel industry has huge political clout and is more likely to accuse its opponents of propaganda lying about fossil fuel and making it stick than those who want more renewable energy and less greenhouse emissions are to get their message across. Fortunately, electric utilities are also too big to fail and buying renewable energy in large amounts now that it is actually cheaper than fossil fuel.

Agreed. By the way, Grace, I have made you and administrator here too. So, if I become absent due to health reasons, I welcome any actions of yours here.  (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on March 02, 2017, 10:59:04 pm

Published on Sep 16, 2016

Prof J Kroth: The Coming Disaster - November 17, 2015

Why is the city of Atherton, California which boasts of being a wealthy, liberal, West Coast Ecological "capital" actually far less supportive of diminishing Climate Change than is a place like lower middle class Humboldt County? How is it that the cloud of pollution due to use of coal in China contributes to our smog in Los Angeles?

Prof. Jerry Kroth outlines the huge level of denial about global warming that exists in American culture. Corporate media propaganda, from Glenn Beck to Michael Savage, has so savaged American public consciousness that close to 30 percent of Americans now believe global warming to be a hoax or a liberal conspiracy.

Only 2 % of Canadians shares these beliefs]. Based on his latest book Duped! Delusion, denial, and the American dream, Dr. Kroth dissects the delusory beliefs of both the right and the left.

There is still hope and still time that we could mitigate what is coming, but the remedies are far more radical than anything we have supposed, and success is not likely in view of the present level of propaganda wafting across our airways. More at
Original title: Psychology and global warming why we can't seem to prevent the coming disaster revised 2016
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on March 14, 2017, 07:06:02 pm

The fossil fuel industry's ( invisible colonization of academia

Corporate capture of academic research by the fossil fuel industry is an elephant in the room and a threat to tackling climate change.


Fossil fuel interests – oil, gas, and coal companies, fossil-fueled utilities, and fossil fuel investors - have colonized nearly every nook and cranny of energy and climate policy research in American universities, and much of energy science too. And they have done so quietly, without the general public’s knowledge.

For comparison, imagine if public health research were funded predominantly by the tobacco industry. It doesn’t take a neurosurgeon to understand the folly of making policy or science research financially dependent on the very industry it may regulate or negatively affect. Harvard’s school of public health no longer takes funding from the tobacco industry for that very reason. Yet such conflicts of interest are not only rife in energy and climate research, they are the norm.

This norm is no accident: it is the product of a public relations strategy to neutralize science and target those whom ExxonMobil dubbed “Informed Influentials,” and it comes straight out of Big Tobacco’s playbook. The myriad benefits of this strategy to the fossil fuel industry (and its effects on academic research) range from benign to insidious to unconscionable, but the big picture is simple: academia has a problem.

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on March 23, 2017, 03:26:52 pm
The Forces Driving Middle-Aged White People's 'Deaths Of Despair'

March 23, 2017 5:00 AM ET
Heard on Morning Edition

Jessica Boddy

In 2015, when researchers Ann Case and Angus Deaton discovered that death rates had been rising dramatically since 1999 among middle-aged white Americans, they weren't sure why people were dying younger, reversing decades of longer life expectancy.

Now the husband-and-wife economists say they have a better understanding of what's causing these "deaths of despair" by suicide, drugs and alcohol.


In a follow-up to their groundbreaking 2015 work, they say that a lack of steady, well-paying jobs for whites without college degrees has caused pain, distress and social dysfunction to build up over time. The mortality rate for that group, ages 45 to 54, increased by a half-percent each year from 1999 to 2013.

But whites with college degrees haven't suffered the same lack of economic opportunity, and haven't seen the same loss of life expectancy. The study was published Thursday in Brookings Papers on Economic Activity.

Case and Deaton, who are both at Princeton University, spoke with NPR's David Greene about what's driving these trends. The interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Interview Highlights

On the original discovery of rising mortality rates for middle-aged whites

Deaton: Mortality rates have been going down forever. There's been a huge increase in life expectancy and reduction in mortality over 100 years or more, and then for all of this to suddenly go into reverse [for whites aged 45 to 54], we thought it must be wrong. We spent weeks checking out numbers because we just couldn't believe that this could have happened, or that if it had, someone else must have already noticed. It seems like we were right and that no one else had picked it up.

We knew the proximate causes — we know what they were dying from. We knew suicides were going up rapidly, and that overdoses mostly from prescription drugs were going up, and that alcoholic liver disease was going up. The deeper questions were why those were happening — there's obviously some underlying malaise, reasons for which we [didn't] know.

On what's driving these early deaths

Case: These deaths of despair have been accompanied by reduced labor force participation, reduced marriage rates, increases in reports of poor health and poor mental health. So we are beginning to thread a story in that it's possible that [the trend is] consistent with the labor market collapsing for people with less than a college degree. In turn, those people are being less able to form stable marriages, and in turn that has effects on the kind of economic and social supports that people need in order to thrive.

In general, the longer you're in the labor force, the more you earn — in part because you understand your job better and you're more efficient at your job, you've had on-the-job training, you belong to a union, and so your wages go up with age. That's happened less and less the later and later you've been born and the later you enter this labor market.

Deaton: We're thinking of this in terms of something that's been going on for a long time, something that's emerged as the iceberg has risen out of the water. We think of this as part of the decline of the white working class. If you go back to the early '70s when you had the so-called blue-collar aristocrats, those jobs have slowly crumbled away and many more men are finding themselves in a much more hostile labor market with lower wages, lower quality and less permanent jobs. That's made it harder for them to get married. They don't get to know their own kids. There's a lot of social dysfunction building up over time. There's a sense that these people have lost this sense of status and belonging. And these are classic preconditions for suicide.

Case: The rates of suicide are much higher among men [than women]. And drug overdoses and alcohol-related liver death are higher among men, too. But the [mortality] trends are identical for men and women with a high school degree or less. So we think of this as people, either quickly with a gun or slowly with drugs and alcohol, are killing themselves. Under that body count there's a lot of social dysfunction that we think ultimately we may be able to pin to poor job prospects over the life course.

On how mortality rates differ among races   (  (

Deaton: Hispanics [have always had lower mortality rates] than whites. It's a bit of a puzzle that's not fully resolved, to put it mildly. It's always been true that mortality rates have been higher and life expectancy shorter for African Americans than for whites. What is happening now is that gap is closing and, for some groups, it's actually crossed. What we see in the new work is if you compare whites with a high school degree or less, at least their mortality rates are now higher than mortality rates for African Americans as a whole. If you compare whites with a high school degree or less with blacks with a high school degree or less, their mortality rates have converged. It's as if poorly educated whites have now taken over from blacks as the lowest rung of society in terms of mortality rates.

Agelbert RANT: Since WHEN are "Hispanics" a RACE!!!? Hispanics share some culture but are from ALL RACES! Hispanics are NOT considered a "race", but an ETHNIC GROUP. Yes, "race" is an unscientific concept itself because we are all one species, but the term "race" has always been associated with skin color, NOT CULTURE or LANGUAGE (until Trump, that is). You just read an NPR article making the thoroughly unscientific BACKDOOR allegation that "whites" can not be "Hispanics".  ( What next, the old "one drip of black blood makes you a you know what" revival from a century ago? I guess they've been listening to Trump (Trump ( said, "What the hell is a white Hispanic?".).  So it goes in our brave new world of racist Trump pseudo science. (

On the geography of mortality rates

Case: There's not a part of the country that has not been touched by this. We like to make the comparison between Nevada and Utah to look at the extent to which good health behaviors lead to longer life. Two thirds of Utahans are Mormons. They don't drink, they don't smoke, and they don't drink tea or coffee. Two thirds of Nevadans live in Las Vegas paradise, where there is a little more of everything, so the heart disease mortality rates are twice as high in Nevada as they are in Utah.

But both states are [in the] top 10 for deaths of despair. Utah has had a terrifically hard time dealing with the opioid crisis, and suicide rates [are] going up as well. There's a lot of surprise here in parts of the country that we weren't really expecting to see. (

Agelbert NOTE: If you think the racists who wish to demonize Hispanics won't use the above article to further excuse the current baseless and abusive racist attack on Hispanic Americans as well as immigrants from south of the border, you do not understand how to interpret propaganda. This article makes "whites" feel underprivileged and also makes them angry at GUESS WHO?

Also, this article FAILS to point out the FACT that the study TOTALLY ignores pollution from fossil fuels, pesticides, nuclear power plants and various endocrine disrupting toxins the chemical and pharmaceutical industries have been gratuitously showering Americans with for about a century. Any fool can see that the increased cancer rates can certainly bring MANY families into despair from people that could not maintain jobs, not simply because the jobs were not available. There are MUCH MORE "white" people (i.e. non-Hispanics of European descent) in the USA than ANY OTHER KIND of HOMO SAP. Consequently, THAT cohort will be the FIRST to show increased mortality when there is increased mortality. Any statistician can play with the numbers in the cohorts to make one group look more affected than the other. (

My point is that, while the underlying premise of article is true (life spans are decreasing for various reasons among the 45-54 age group of Americans), the cherry picking exercise singling out Hispanics is just that. A complete study that shows all the other irritants I mentioned would definitely reveal that Hispanics have, overall, HIGHER mortality rates than the "whites" in the study.

So, a problem is pointed at to make "whites " WORRY. Now why would they want to do that, except out the kindness of their soul and concern for all red blooded Americans?  (  ( Then, in a very innocuous sounding way,  a FINGER is pointed, NOT at the CAUSE of the problem, but at the designated SCAPE GOAT (Hispanic cohort), that is even more affected by the problem than the "whites".  :o

Not only is this a great divide and conquer tactic (, but it makes the TOTALLY FALSE argument that pollution cannot be considered as the CAUSE because there is one cohort that is doing "just fine and dandy". That's how National Pentagon Radio "works". Have a nice day.

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on April 01, 2017, 02:37:46 pm

As the climate becomes more unstable, the media becomes more silent
How Broadcast Networks Covered Climate Change In 2016 
( (, March 17, 2017

In 2016, evening newscasts and Sunday shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as Fox Broadcast Co.'s Fox News Sunday, collectively decreased their total coverage of climate change by 66 percent compared to 2015, even though there were a host of important climate-related stories, including the announcement of 2015 as the hottest year on record, the signing of the Paris climate agreement, and numerous climate-related extreme weather events. There were also two presidential candidates to cover, and they held diametrically opposed positions on the Clean Power Plan, the Paris climate agreement, and even on whether climate change is a real, human-caused phenomenon. Apart from PBS, the networks also failed to devote significant coverage to climate-related policies, but they still found the time to uncritically air climate denial -- the majority of which came from now-President Donald Trump and his team.

Total Climate Coverage On Broadcast Networks Cratered In 2016

Combined Climate Coverage On ABC, CBS, NBC, And Fox News Sunday Decreased Significantly From 2015 To 2016, Despite Ample Opportunity To Cover Climate Change. In 2016, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday* aired a combined 50 minutes of climate coverage on their evening and Sunday news programs, which was 96 minutes less than in 2015 -- a drop of about 66 percent.

*Fox Broadcast Co. does not air a nightly news program

As was the case in 2015, ABC aired the least amount of climate coverage in 2016, covering the topic for just six minutes, about seven minutes less than in 2015. All the other major networks also significantly reduced their coverage from the previous year, with NBC showing the biggest decrease (from 50 minutes in 2015 to 10 minutes in 2016), followed by Fox (39 minutes in 2015 to seven minutes in 2016) and CBS (from 45 minutes in 2015 to 27 minutes in 2016).

Networks Had Ample Opportunity To Cover Climate Change In 2016. Despite the pronounced decline in climate coverage, the networks had ample opportunity to cover climate change in 2016. As The New York Times reported, in 2016, climate change took on “a prominence it has never before had in a presidential general election” given the stark contrast between the candidates’ views. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump had a long track record of climate denial and differed with Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton on a range of important climate issues, including the Paris climate agreement, the Clean Power Plan, and the continued use of coal as an energy source, with Trump pledging that he would put coal miners “back to work” and Clinton proposing a plan that would help coal communities transition to clean energy. Additionally, there were also a host of non-election climate stories worthy of coverage in 2016, including extreme weather events tied to climate change, like Hurricane Matthew and the record-breaking rainfall and flooding in Louisiana (which the American Red Cross described as “the worst natural disaster to strike the United States since Superstorm Sandy”); the signing of the Paris climate agreement and the U.N. climate summit in Morocco; the official announcement from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that 2015 was the hottest year on record by far; and investigations by state attorneys general into whether ExxonMobil committed fraud by misleading the public on climate change. [The New York Times, 8/1/16; Media Matters, 5/26/16; The Huffington Post, 9/8/16;, 9/15/16; Media Matters, 3/15/16, 10/7/16, 8/17/16; The Huffington Post, 4/22/16; The Guardian, 4/22/16; InsideClimate News, 11/3/16; The New York Times, 1/20/16; InsideClimate News, 12/28/16]

ABC, CBS, NBC, And Fox Failed To Discuss Climate-Related Ramifications Of A Clinton Or Trump Presidency Until After The Election. ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News Sunday did not air a single segment informing viewers of what to expect on climate change and climate-related policies or issues under a Trump or Clinton administration. While these outlets did devote a significant amount of coverage to Trump’s presidency, airing 25 segments informing viewers about the ramifications or actions of a Trump administration as they relate to climate change, all of these segments aired after the election. Examples of post-election coverage include a PBS NewsHour segment about Trump’s selection of Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Pruitt’s history of climate denial and ties to the fossil fuel industry; a CBS Evening News segment about Trump appointing climate denier Myron Ebell to his EPA transition team; and an NBC Nightly News report on Trump’s promise to roll back President Barack Obama’s executive actions on climate change. [PBS NewsHour, 12/7/16; CBS Evening News, 11/15/16; NBC Nightly News, 11/9/16**]

**We included citations of specific shows when we described the content of a segment. We did not include show citations for general tallies. We linked to episodes that were available online but listed only the date for those that were not.

PBS NewsHour Was The Only Show To Discuss Climate Ramifications Of A Clinton Or Trump Presidency Prior To The Election. PBS NewsHour*** was the only show in our study that examined what impact a Trump or a Clinton presidency would have on climate-related issues and policies before the election. On the September 7 edition of PBS NewsHour, correspondent William Brangham discussed “what a Clinton or Trump administration might mean with regards to climate change” with The New York Times’ Coral Davenport and The Washington Post’s Chris Mooney. And a September 22 segment explored “what the early days of a Trump presidency might look like” and featured Judy Woodruff interviewing Evan Osnos of The New Yorker about whether Trump would renounce the Paris climate agreement. [PBS NewsHour, 9/22/16, 9/7/16]

***Unlike the nightly news shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC that air for a half hour seven days a week, PBS NewsHour airs five days a week and is a half hour longer.

Tyndall Report Found No Discussion Of Climate Change In Issues Coverage During Campaign. The Tyndall Report, which tracks the broadcast networks' weeknight newscasts, analyzed election-related issues coverage on the major networks’ weeknight newscasts and found no issues coverage devoted to climate change in 2016 up through October 25. The Tyndall Report defines election-related issues coverage as that which “takes a public policy, outlines the societal problem that needs to be addressed, describes the candidates' platform positions and proposed solutions, and evaluates their efficacy.” [The Intercept, 2/24/17; Media Matters, 10/26/16; Tyndall Report, 10/25/16]

Networks Aired A Disproportionate Amount Of Climate Coverage After Election Day. In the roughly 45 weeks before the November 8 election, the networks aired a total of 55 segments about climate change -- roughly one per week. After the election, the networks aired 32 climate-related segments over approximately seven weeks till the end of the year -- about five stories per week.

Networks Ignored Links Between Climate Change And National Security And Rarely Addressed Economic And Public Health Impacts, But Some Detailed Impacts On Extreme Weather And Plants And Wildlife.

Networks Did Not Air A Single Segment On Link To National Security. Numerous military and intelligence organizations have sounded the alarm on climate change’s connection to national security. A September 2016 report prepared by the National Intelligence Council and coordinated with the U.S. intelligence community stated, “Climate change and its resulting effects are likely to pose wide-ranging national security challenges for the United States and other countries over the next 20 years.” And following Trump’s election victory, “a bipartisan group of defense experts and former military leaders sent Trump’s transition team a briefing book urging the president-elect to consider climate change as a grave threat to national security,” E&E News reported. Yet the national security implications of climate change never came up in any of the networks’ climate coverage for 2016. [Media Matters, 1/13/17; Scientific American, 11/15/16]

PBS Was The Only Network To Address Economic Impacts Of Climate Change. PBS was the only network to report on the economic impacts of climate change. Two segments about Washington state’s carbon tax ballot initiative that aired on the April 21 and October 20 editions of PBS NewsHour featured the president of the Washington State Labor Council explaining that Washington’s shellfish industry “has left the state and gone to Hawaii because the acid levels in the ocean has risen so much.” And on the November 17 edition of PBS NewsHour, correspondent William Brangham reported that 365 American companies “have written to the president-elect imploring him to uphold the Paris accords and warning -- quote -- ‘Failure to build a low-carbon economy puts American prosperity at risk.’” [PBS NewsHour, 4/21/16, 10/20/16, 11/17/16]

Networks Rarely Addressed How Climate Change Impacts Public Health.

The World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Climate Assessment have all concluded that climate change has a significant influence on human health and disease. And as 2016 saw the first local spread of the Zika virus in the continental United States, Climate Signals found that “climate change creates new risks for human exposure to vector-borne diseases such as Zika, particularly in the United States where rising heat and humidity are increasing the number of days annually in which disease vectors thrive.” However, only two segments on NBC Nightly News dealt with the link between climate change and public health -- no other network covered the issue. In a January 18 report about the spread of Zika, correspondent Tom Costello noted, “Researchers are also studying whether climate change and El Nino are causing certain mosquitoes populations to grow.” And a July 4 report about a massive algae bloom creating a toxic emergency in Florida featured correspondent Gabe Gutierrez explaining, “The debate is raging over what`s to blame for this latest growth, but scientists say there are many factors including population growth and climate change.” [World Health Organization, accessed 3/21/17;, accessed 3/21/17; National Climate Assessment, accessed 3/21/17; Climate Signals, 8/23/16; NBC Nightly News, 1/18/16, 7/4/16]

CBS And ABC Rarely Covered Climate Link To Extreme Weather, While NBC And Fox Ignored It Completely. 2016 saw no shortages of extreme weather events influenced by climate change, with Hurricane Matthew making landfall on the East Coast; wildfires -- which have become a consistent threat thanks, in part, to climate change -- charring more than 100,000 acres in seven states in the Southeast; and record rainfall and flooding in Louisiana causing what the American Red Cross called “the worst natural disaster to strike the United States since Superstorm Sandy.” Yet NBC and Fox never addressed the link between climate change and extreme weather, while CBS did so in four segments and ABC did so in just one segment. By contrast, PBS NewsHour aired eight segments dealing with the link between climate change and extreme weather. [The Weather Channel, 10/9/16; Media Matters, 10/6/16; The New York Times, 11/29/16; Climate Central, 11/23/16; Media Matters, 8/17/16]

PBS Led The Networks In Stories Detailing Climate Impacts On Plants And Wildlife.

PBS provided the most coverage of climate impacts on plants and wildlife (six segments), followed by CBS and NBC (three segments each), and ABC (one segment). Examples of this reporting included a “Climate Diaries” segment on CBS Evening News about how climate change is “taking a toll on endangered mountain gorillas” in Central Africa by making their food supply less predictable and forcing human populations searching for water into their territory and an NBC Nightly News segment about how Yellowstone grizzlies are threatened because one of their food sources -- seeds from whitebark pine trees -- has been decimated by climate change. Another example was a PBS NewsHour segment reporting that “two-fifths of bees, butterflies, and related pollinating species are heading toward extinction” thanks to “a range of factors, ranging from pesticide use to climate change to habitat loss.” [CBS Evening News, 11/17/16; NBC Nightly News, 5/22/16; PBS NewsHour, 2/26/16]

Specific Climate-Related Policies Received Sparse Coverage Outside Of PBS

The Clean Power Plan Was Almost Completely Ignored On Sunday Shows And Received Sparse Coverage On Nightly News Shows. The broadcast networks provided scant coverage of the Clean Power Plan even though Trump had promised during the campaign to eliminate the policy. The Clean Power Plan establishes the first-ever federal limits on carbon pollution from power plants and serves as the linchpin of President Obama’s program to meet the nation’s emissions reduction obligation under the Paris agreement. Fox News Sunday was the only Sunday show to feature a climate-related segment on the Clean Power Plan, in which Washington Post editorial writer Charles Lane claimed that the Democrats’ focus on the plan is an example of how “environmentalism in a crucial way worked against the Democratic Party this year,” because Trump carried coal-dependent states in the election. But contrary to Lane’s claim, numerous polls conducted in the run-up to the election indicated that a majority of Americans consider climate change an important issue and favor government action to address it. On nightly news shows, ABC was the only network that did not air a climate-related segment on the plan, while PBS NewsHour covered the Clean Power Plan the most (seven segments), followed by CBS Evening News (three segments) and NBC Nightly News (two segments). [, 9/15/16; The White House, 8/3/15; The New York Times, 3/2/16; Fox News Sunday, 11/13/16; Media Matters, 11/29/16]

PBS Far Outpaced Networks In Coverage Of U.N. Climate Agreement And Summits. In 2016, world leaders met on Earth Day for the signing ceremony of the Paris climate agreement reached by 195 nations and later again in Morocco for talks about implementing the climate accord. In Trump’s first major speech on energy policy, in May, he vowed that he would “cancel” the Paris climate agreement. But after the election he told The New York Times, “I have an open mind to it.” Despite these developments, PBS was the only network to devote significant coverage to the U.N. climate agreement and U.N. climate-related summits, doing so in 21 segments, while CBS aired five segments, NBC and ABC aired just three, and Fox aired just two. [USA Today, 4/22/16; The New York Times, 12/12/15; InsideClimate News, 11/3/16;, 5/27/16;, 5/26/16; The New York Times, 11/23/16]

CBS, NBC, And Fox Addressed The Climate Impacts Of The Keystone XL Pipeline Only Once, While ABC And PBS Failed To Do So At All. During the campaign, Clinton and Trump staked out opposing positions on whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport tar sands oil that is 17 percent dirtier than average and would “increase emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases linked to global warming” from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast. Yet there was a dearth of coverage on Keystone XL’s link to climate change, with CBS, NBC, and Fox each airing just one segment that connected Keystone XL to climate change and ABC and PBS ignoring the topic completely. The networks also ignored Keystone XL more broadly -- airing just four additional non-climate-related segments on the pipeline. [Business Insider, 9/25/16; Media Matters, 1/15/15]

Fox Was The Only Network To Cover The Dakota Access Pipeline In A Climate Context. The Standing Rock Sioux and other Native American tribes, as well as environmental activists, protested against the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline in 2016, citing, among other concerns, the impact a continued buildup of oil infrastructure would have on climate change. Yet Fox was the sole network to cover the Dakota Access pipeline in a climate context. On the December 11 edition of Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace previewed his upcoming interview with Trump by saying that he would “ask [Trump] to clear up exactly where he stands on climate change.” After returning from a commercial break, Wallace said to the Trump, “Let me ask you a couple specific questions. Will you still pull out of the Paris climate agreement, which has been signed by more than 100 countries to reduce carbon emissions? Will you restart the Dakota Access pipeline, which the Army just stopped?” To which Trump replied that he was “studying” the Paris climate agreement and would “have [Dakota Access] solved very quickly” when he takes office. ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS did air multiple segments on the Dakota Access pipeline (airing eight, 10, four, and 10 segments, respectively), but none of these segments linked it to climate change. [MPR News, 12/7/16; Time, 12/1/16, 10/28/16; Fox News Sunday, 12/11/16]

Major Networks Completely Ignored The “Exxon Knew” Story. Reports from InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times revealed that Exxon’s own scientists had confirmed by the early 1980s that fossil fuel pollution was causing climate change, yet Exxon-funded organizations helped manufacture doubt about the causes of climate change for decades afterward in what became known as the “Exxon knew” scandal. The reports prompted the attorneys general in New York, California, and Massachusetts to each launch investigations of Exxon, as well as countersuits from Exxon and subpoenas from members of Congress in defense of Exxon. Yet none of the networks covered any of these developments over the course of 2016. [Media Matters, 9/1/16; InsideClimate News, 12/28/16]

CBS, Fox, And PBS Uncritically Aired Climate Science Denial In 2016 -- All Of Which Came From Trump Or Trump Officials (

CBS, Fox, And PBS Aired A Combined Five Segments That Included Unrebutted Climate Science Denial In 2016 -- All From Trump Or Trump Officials. In 2016, CBS Evening News, PBS NewsHour, and Fox News Sunday aired a combined five segments that misled audiences by featuring climate science denial. Half of Fox News Sunday’s climate-related segments included climate denial. In every instance, it was Trump or Trump officials promoting denial.

• On the September 27 edition of CBS Evening News, correspondent Julianna Goldman fact-checked a portion of the September 26 presidential debate in which Clinton stated, “Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. I think it’s real,” and Trump interjected, “I did not. I did not. … I do not say that.” Goldman noted that Trump had in fact tweeted that climate change is a hoax, but she did not fact-check the veracity of Trump’s statement that climate change was a hoax. [CBS Evening News, 9/27/16; Media Matters, 5/26/16]

• On the November 9 edition of PBS NewsHour, during a segment on world leaders’ reactions to Trump’s election victory, correspondent Margaret Warner reported, “Also in question is America’s participation in the Paris climate accord. Trump has called climate change a hoax, and while it would take four years to formally pull out of the agreement, there are no sanctions in place for ignoring it.” And in a report on the ways in which Trump would dismantle environmental policy on the November 17 edition of PBS NewsHour, correspondent William Brangham stated, “Trump has repeatedly expressed his own skepticism about climate change, like in this 2012 tweet, when he said: ‘The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing noncompetitive.’ Two years later, he wrote: ‘Global warming is an expensive hoax.’" In neither instance did the correspondent note that Trump’s statements are at odds with the scientific consensus that climate change is real and human-caused. [PBS NewsHour, 11/9/16, 11/17/16]

• Shortly after Trump’s interview with The New York Times in which he stated that he had an “open mind” ( on climate change and the Paris climate agreement, Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace asked Trump’s incoming chief of staff, Reince Priebus, how flexible Trump would be on his campaign promises. Priebus answered that as “far as this issue on climate change -- the only thing he was saying after being asked a few questions about it is, look, he'll have an open mind about it but he has his default position, which [is that] most of it is a bunch of bunk (, but he'll have an open mind and listen to people.” Priebus then moved on to discuss the potential nomination of Jim Mattis as defense secretary before Wallace concluded the interview. And during Wallace’s interview with Trump on the December 11 edition of Fox News Sunday, Trump declared that “nobody really knows” whether human-induced climate change is happening. Wallace didn’t challenge Trump’s claim that blatantly misrepresents the consensus of the world’s leading scientific institutions that human activities such as burning fossil fuels are the main cause of global warming. [The New York Times, 11/23/16; Fox News Sunday, 11/27/16, 12/11/16;, accessed 3/21/17]

Other Nightly News Segments On PBS, CBS, And NBC Also Included Climate Science Denial, But Reporters Pushed Back On Those Claims, Noting That They Conflicted With Established Climate Science. Segments on PBS, CBS, and NBC nightly news shows also included climate denial, but reporters noted that that these statements were at odds with established climate science.

• In a segment about Trump selecting Scott Pruitt as his nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency on the December 8 edition of PBS NewsHour, anchor Judy Woodruff reported, “Pruitt is in sync with President-elect Trump on a range of issues, including his skepticism about man-made global warming. Writing in the National Review this year, he said: ‘That debate is far from settled. ( Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming.’ In fact, the vast majority of scientists agree that human activity contributes to global warming, all of which underscores questions about whether a Trump administration will refuse to abide by the Paris accords on greenhouse gas emissions.” And on the December 14 edition of PBS NewsHour, Woodruff asked Sean Spicer, who was then communications director for the Republican National Committee, “Does the president-elect still believe, as he said on the campaign trail, that the science behind climate change is still not settled, in other words, something that most climate scientists say is absolutely correct?” Spicer replied by denying the consensus on human-caused climate change, stating that Trump “understands that there’s elements of man, mankind, that affect climate, but the exact impact of it and what has to be done to change that is something there is some dispute about within the community, not just science, but within the industry.” [PBS NewsHour, 12/8/16, 12/14/16]

• A November 15 CBS Evening News segment on the appointment of climate denier Myron Ebell to Trump’s EPA transition team featured footage of Trump calling climate change a “hoax,” followed by correspondent Chip Reid stating, “President-elect Donald Trump has left little doubt where he stands on the issue of climate change. He wants a dramatic increase in the production of coal and oil, which he says will create jobs. And his EPA transition team is being led by Myron Ebell, a leading climate change skeptic. Ebell, who is not a scientist, disagrees with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who say the driving force behind the warming planet is the burning of fossil fuels.” [CBS Evening News, 11/15/16]

• The December 14 edition of ABC’s World News Tonight featured footage of Trump transition official Anthony Scaramucci denying climate change by arguing, “There was overwhelming science that the Earth was flat. ... We get a lot of things wrong in the scientific community.” Correspondent Brian Ross introduced Scaramucci’s comments as “a Trump transition official continu[ing] the public assault on established science.” [ABC’s World News Tonight, 11/14/16]

Because hosts or correspondents on these programs noted that the statements in question contradicted mainstream climate science, they were not counted as denial in our study.

Climate Scientists Were Completely Absent From ABC’s World News Tonight … Again

For The Second Consecutive Year, ABC’s World News Tonight Did Not Feature A Single Scientist In Its Climate Coverage. ABC’s World News Tonight did not feature a single scientist in its climate coverage for the second year in a row. By contrast, NBC Nightly News and CBS Evening News featured five and six scientists, respectively, and PBS NewsHour featured 18.

Sunday Shows Did Not Feature A Single Scientist In Climate-Related Coverage. After featuring just two scientists over a five-year period from 2009 to 2013, the Sunday shows featured seven scientists in 2014 alone, and then backslid in 2015, quoting or interviewing just two scientists (4 percent of all Sunday show guests). In 2016, that backslide continued, with the Sunday shows featuring no scientists in their climate-related coverage.

PBS And CBS Frequently Aired Coverage Related To Climate-Related Scientific Research, While NBC And ABC Did So Less Often. PBS and CBS far outpaced their counterparts in the number of segments focusing on climate-related scientific research that they aired on nightly news shows. PBS NewsHour aired 10 segments on climate-related scientific research, including a segment that featured scientists explaining climate change’s influence on wildfires in Southern California and flooding in Louisiana; CBS Evening News aired seven segments on climate-related research, including a segment featuring interviews with scientists who discovered unprecedented rates of sea ice melt in the Arctic Circle. Conversely, NBC Nightly News aired just three segments on climate-related research, and ABC’s World News Tonight aired just two. None of the Sunday shows featured any segments on climate-related scientific research. [PBS NewsHour, 8/17/16; CBS Evening News, 3/4/16]


Sunday Shows’ Climate Coverage Dropped By 85 Percent

Every Network’s Sunday Show Significantly Decreased Its Climate Coverage. After dropping slightly from a high of 81 minutes of coverage in 2014 to 73 minutes in 2015, the Sunday shows’ climate coverage dropped 85 percent to just 11 minutes of coverage in 2016 -- the third-lowest amount in the eight-year time frame Media Matters has examined. Every network saw significant declines in Sunday show coverage, with Fox leading the way (down 32 minutes from the previous year), followed by NBC (down 17 minutes), CBS (down 10 minutes), and ABC (down four minutes).

Bernie Sanders Brought Up Climate Change Four Times As Much As Hosts Did On ABC, CBS, And NBC Sunday Shows. On every Sunday show except Fox News Sunday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) brought up climate change significantly more often than the hosts themselves did. ABC’s This Week, CBS’ Face the Nation, and NBC’s Meet the Press aired a combined five segments in which the hosts brought up climate change, while Bernie Sanders brought up climate change 21 times during his appearances on those shows. Because our study counted only those segments where a media figure brought up or discussed climate change, those 21 segments were not counted in this study's overall network tallies.

Nightly News Shows On ABC, CBS, and NBC Aired Roughly Half As Much Climate Coverage As They Did In 2015

NBC Nightly News And CBS Evening News Significantly Decreased Climate Coverage, And ABC Once Again Lagged Behind Network Counterparts. The nightly news shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC collectively decreased their climate coverage from approximately 73 minutes in 2015 to just over 39 minutes in 2016 -- a drop of 46 percent. NBC Nightly News had the biggest drop in climate coverage, decreasing by about 22 minutes, followed by CBS Evening News, which had a drop of approximately nine minutes. ABC’s World News Tonight, which aired significantly less climate coverage than its competitors in 2014 and 2015, once again continued its downward trend, dropping even further from roughly seven minutes of climate coverage in 2015 to just four minutes in 2016.

For Second Year In A Row, PBS Aired More Climate Coverage Than All Other Nightly News Programs Combined. For the second consecutive year, PBS NewsHour aired more segments addressing climate change than the other nightly news shows combined. PBS NewsHour aired 46 climate-related segments, while ABC (five), CBS (19), and NBC (12) aired a combined 36 climate-related nightly news segments. However, PBS NewsHour’s climate coverage decreased from 2015, when the network aired 58 climate-related segments.

CBS And NBC Nightly News Shows Have Stepped Up Climate Coverage In Early Months Of 2017  (  ::)

In 2017 So Far, CBS Evening News Has Already Aired More Than Half The Amount Of Climate Coverage It Did In All Of 2016. In the first few months of 2017, CBS Evening News has already aired about 17 minutes of climate-related coverage, just eight minutes less than the show aired for all of 2016. In fact, CBS Evening News aired nearly half as much climate coverage as it did in all of 2016 in just one week of 2017; this coverage was during a series of climate-related reports from Antarctica for its “Climate Diaries” series. [Media Matters, 2/13/17]

In Early Months Of 2017, NBC Nightly News Has Already Aired Nearly Half As Much Climate Coverage As It Did In All Of 2016. In just over two months, NBC Nightly News has already aired about five minutes of climate-related coverage, roughly half as much as the show aired for all of 2016.


This report analyzes coverage of "climate change" or "global warming" between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016, on four Sunday news shows (ABC's This Week, CBS' Face the Nation, NBC's Meet the Press, and Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday) and four nightly news programs (ABC's World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, and PBS NewsHour) based on Nexis transcripts. Fox Broadcasting Co. airs Fox News Sunday but does not air a nightly news equivalent; Fox News is a separate cable channel. PBS NewsHour is a half-hour longer than its network nightly news counterparts, but it airs five days a week, compared to seven days a week for the other nightly news shows (PBS NewsHour Weekend was not included in this analysis). In one instance, Nexis categorized a segment that did not mention "climate change" or "global warming" as being about climate change; because the segment provided other clear indications that it was indeed about climate change, it was included. To identify the number of segments networks aired on the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, we used the search terms Keystone w/20 pipe! And Dakota w/20 pipe!.

Our analysis includes any segment devoted to climate change, as well as any substantial mention (more than one paragraph of a news transcript or a definitive statement by a media figure) about climate change impacts or actions. The study did not include instances in which a non-media figure brought up climate change without being prompted to do so by a media figure unless the media figure subsequently addressed climate change. We defined media figures as hosts, anchors, correspondents, and recurring guest panelists. The study also does not include teasers if they were for segments that aired later on the same program. We acquired time stamps from iQ media and applied them generously for nightly news segments when the overall topic was related to climate change. For instance, if a nightly news segment about an extreme weather event mentioned climate change briefly, the entire segment was counted as climate coverage. However, if a significant portion of the segment was not related to climate change, such as a report on the pope giving a speech about climate change, immigration, religious freedom, and outreach to Cuba, only the portions of the segment that discussed climate change were counted. For the Sunday shows, which often feature wide-ranging discussions on multiple topics, we used only the relevant portion of such conversations. All coverage figures have been rounded to the nearest minute. Because PBS NewsHour is an hour-long show and the other networks’ nightly news programs are half-hour shows, our analysis compared PBS NewsHour's climate coverage to other nightly news programs' coverage in terms of topics covered and number of segments, but not in terms of number of minutes.

Research intern Katherine Hess and Sarah Wasko contributed to this study.

Agelbert NOTE: NOW you KNOW why the Trump Fossil Fuel Fascist Wrecking Crew  (  is in such a hurry to DEFUND PBS.  (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on April 03, 2017, 03:39:52 pm

US politicians held an insane and embarrassing hearing just to attack climate science
Mihai Andrei March 30, 2017

The hearing, led by Chair of the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology Lamar Smith, descended into an old-fashioned bullying of science, with Smith and his peers stepping way out of bounds just to make it seem that scientists have no idea what they’re doing — and they themselves, the politicians, are much better informed.

Climate change has been associated with droughts and water scarcity. Image in Public Domain.

In the US, anti-science is winning, at least at a political level. Just after President Donald Trump ordered a massive rollback of rules that limited carbon emissions, and a few weeks after he released a budget proposal which aims to slash funding for science and health agencies, the Trump administration made it clear once more that they have no regard for science or the environment. The mock hearing, called “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method,” was basically a series of accusations and name calling, with Lamar Smith especially saying that climate scientists use “alarmist findings that are wrongfully reported as facts.”

“Much of climate science today appears to be based more on exaggerations, personal agendas, and questionable predictions than on the scientific method,” Smith said.

Smith, who has received more than $600,000 from the fossil fuel industry during his career in Congress (like almost all climate change deniers), is well known for conducting “witch hunts” against scientists. In the past, he has threatened to prosecute the NOAA if they don’t release public information about how their studies are conducted — which might not sound that unreasonable if the information wasn’t already public. I guess this just goes to show how well-informed Smith is. But back to the hearing. Michael Mann — a Penn State University professor of atmospheric science who has been repeatedly threatened for his work on climate change — was the only climate scientist participating at the hearing.

Lamar S. Smith ( , member of the United States House of Representatives, did his best to make it look like climate scientists don’t know what they’re doing.

Several colleagues have urged Mann to boycott this hearing, as everyone was well-aware that it’s basically a charade.

“In the past, the science community has participated in these hearings, even though questioning the basics of climate change is akin to holding a hearing to examine whether the Earth orbits the sun,” wrote David Titley, a professor in the department of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, in the Washington Post on Tuesday, the eve of the hearing. Enough!”

But in a room stacked with career politicians and lawyers, Mann ( was the only non-denier scientist, and he felt that injecting some science into a hearing that was “ostensibly supposed to be about science” was necessary.

Michael Mann was the only scientist chosen to represent what’s basically a consensus on climate change. Image credits: Karl Withakay.

Judith Curry (, a former professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology, who has retired from academia due to what she calls the poisonous nature of the scientific discussion around human-caused global warming, turned to paraphrasing Donald Trump  ( to emphasize her points:

“Let’s make scientific debate about climate change great again,” she said.

When asked about the Antarctic Ice, Curry highlighted the limits of her knowledge, by giving a bizarrely vague answer focusing uncertainties due to past measurement issues and regional differences. Mann was quick to tell her that we now have satellites (called GRACE) that measure ice, so we clearly know we’re losing ice. Another scientist present at the debate, Roger Pielke, who doesn’t currently study climate science, seemed to take a more reasonable position and even argued for a carbon tax at one point, though he is well known for publishing a piece where he states that the price of disasters is rising, but not because of climate change. Criticism of that piece led his editor to respond and publish a rebuttal.

Three out of the four scientists present at the hearing are at the fringe of science, Judith included. Considering that 97% of scientists agree that man-made global warming is a thing, it’s at least strange that 75% (3 out of 4) are climate change deniers. It’s almost like the hearing’s opinions were predetermined and they don’t really care about the science, isn’t it?

“For a balanced panel we would need 96 more Dr. Manns,” said Democrat Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon.

But this was just the beginning, the best was yet to come. Smith objected to Mann quoting articles from Science magazine, stating that Science “is not known as an objective magazine.” I’m surprised he didn’t call it fake news. Not long after that, the name calling began. California Republican Dana Rohrabacher likened the tactics of climate scientists to the those of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, while Georgia Republican Barry Loudermilk said of Mann:

“We could say you’re a denier of natural change.”

Yes, this totally looks like natural change to me.  ;)  Image credits: Hanno / Wiki Commons.

Mann stood his ground, and he too accused the politicians of being swayed by the money they receive from fossil fuel companies. Basically, he tried to present science and objective facts to some of the biggest climate change deniers in Congress. By the end, it was clear that the scientific reality is not enough for Lamar Smith (, who said that scientists have lost their way, and that:

“Their ultimate goal,” he said, “is to promote a personal agenda, even if the evidence doesn’t support it.” (

Ironically, despite overwhelming evidence, despite decades and decades of thorough research done by thousands of people, Smith, like EPA chief Scott Pruitt, believes that the science is not in yet. It’s almost like he has a personal agenda that he’s pursuing, even against all the evidence. But hey, who needs facts when you have alternative facts?



At the end of the day, objective observers will easily discern the scientific reality from the bias. But what happens in the US is extremely worrying. The country is the world’s second largest polluter, and any backtrack of environmental issues will have drastic consequences not only for Americans themselves but for the rest of the world as well.

Agelbert NOTE: Please observe that the fossil fuel TOOL Smith and his bought and paid for pals are using the Orwellian technique championed by Karl Rove. THAT IS, to accuse your opponent of your OWN greed based modus operandi.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on April 06, 2017, 07:30:22 pm
Scientist Exposes Mendacious Anti-Global Warming Propaganda in 1990!

Published on Apr 5, 2017

Climate scientist Stephen Schneider talks climate change.

Dr. Stephen Schneider is one of the most notable and outspoken scientists on the topic of climate change. His moderate and scientific approach to explaining climate change has helped congressmen, journalists, and citizens understand the complex, and often contradictory, issues related to global warming. In this ever timely talk, Dr. Schneider goes over the many different portrayals of climate change in the media and explains how to distinguish hype from science.

He argues that in order to have a functional democracy, voters must understand the basics of these important issues so that they can make informed decisions. This talk is part of the Walter Orr Roberts Public Lecture Series presented by the Aspen Global Change Institute. Recorded in Aspen, CO on July 30, 1990.

Release via (

Agelbert NOTE: The fossil fuel industry funded LIE claiming that global warming is not "proven" to be occurring (i.e. DOUBT is their product) involves a propaganda playbook developed in the 1980s. That's right, there is NOTHING new about their crooked pitch. 

In the above video (1990 lecture), Climate Scientist Stephen Schneider exposes this mendacious methodology. For example, an article claims that US temperature records from 1895 to 1988 show "no warming trend". The problem is that the article left out the word "GLOBAL" in that headline. SO, the headline FOOLED people into ASS-U-ME-ing that "there ain't no GLOBAL warming trend" (even though deep in the article, TOWARDS THE END, the reporter did say that 1988 was the HOTTEST year in the average GLOBAL temperature since 1895.) You see, the US covers only 2% of the global surface (that ain't mentioned in the article, of course ( ).

Forbes and other "objective"   (  news outlets then do follow ups (in blitz style) by hurling ridicule at anyone who could entertain the very idea that Global Warming could be occurring  (i.e. "Panic" and a "textbook overreaction"). 

My, my, aren't these propagandist liars and crooks clever...

Watch the whole video and you will see that the exact same pattern of duplicity and disingenuous doubletalk has corrosively continued helping profit the polluters and destroy our democracy and biosphere to this day.  (

Since these were the early days in this anti-climate science fossil fuel industry crusade, the scientist is being polite as to who is behind all this BULLSHIT. But even then, all you had to do was follow the fossil fuel money.  (   (

The Fossil Fuelers   DID THE Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!    (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on April 07, 2017, 06:47:33 pm
What we need to do is diagnose and then treat.  I just provided the diagnosis.  The treatment protocol is not to kill them, or fumigate, but to deprive them of positions of so-called "leadership".

How do you propose to do that?  They'll just maintain their power by force and kill you if you try to deprive them of their power and control.


Have you ever been outdoors in a swampy area with an ungodly number of mosquitoes?  I mean a fog of mosquitoes?  Millions and millions of 'em?

The problem, as RE pointed out, is that the top dirty dogs always game the system. But I go a step further. I claim the problem is that DOUBLETALK and LYING that undermines scientific objectivity is destroying human civilization. WHY? Because, if there is no standard for what is CORRECT and what is INCORRECT, chaos and collapse is guaranteed (eventually - it takes a while for the mountain of mendacity to blow society apart).

We have reached a stage in which it's "okay" to LIE if you make a lot of money from it BECAUSE you are preserving profits for corporations who's products are deleterious to the biosphere in general (and humans in particular). It's NOT "okay". It's NEVER going to be "okay". All these heinous tactics exposed in the following video like attacking the objective scientist messenger, giving equal time to fringe opinions of in uncredentialed "experts" (funded by industry polluters WITHOUT full disclosure of funding), distorted statistics, cherry picking "positive" aspects of a pollutant (without a shred of scientific proof), media blitzes repeating the same lie (following by a back page retraction published weeks later in only one source), ETC. MUST result in charges AND criminal prosecution EVERY TIME they publish self serving BULLSHIT that harms the public welfare.

Otherwise, THEY WILL CONTINUE TO RUIN ANY OPPOTUNITY FOR GOVERNMENT AND SOCIETY TO ACT to prevent all the crimes corporations wishing to disguise the damage their products do (e.g. GMOs, makeup, pharmaceuticals, fossil fuels, Tobacco, etc. - it's a LONG list BECAUSE it's a list of CAPITALIST "success" stories).

Agelbert NOTE: The following METER READING is sine qua non for those who champion the above mendacious strategy:
  (             (

Stunning film exposes climate "sceptics" Merchants Of Doubt

Published on Aug 30, 2016

Merchants of Doubt is a 2014 American documentary film directed by Robert Kenner and inspired by the 2010 book of the same name by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway.

The film traces the use of public relations tactics that were originally developed by the tobacco industry to protect their business from research indicating health risks from smoking.

The most prominent of these tactics is the cultivation of scientists ( and others ( who successfully cast doubt on the scientific results.




Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on April 07, 2017, 09:51:56 pm
What we need to do is diagnose and then treat.  I just provided the diagnosis.  The treatment protocol is not to kill them, or fumigate, but to deprive them of positions of so-called "leadership".

How do you propose to do that?  They'll just maintain their power by force and kill you if you try to deprive them of their power and control.


Have you ever been outdoors in a swampy area with an ungodly number of mosquitoes?  I mean a fog of mosquitoes?  Millions and millions of 'em?

We have reached a stage in which it's "okay" to LIE if you make a lot of money from it BECAUSE you are preserving profits for corporations who's products are deleterious to the biosphere in general (and humans in particular).

Who says it's okay to lie?

Who says it's okay to maim, poison, kill, destroy...?

Who says. What authority is saying this? 

Is it okay to spit in the faces of strangers on the streets, too, then to stomp on their toes or feet with big, heavy boots?  Is it okay to punch strangers in the nose?

Who says this is okay?

The folks who are running the show and have the most money.


So, let me get this straight....  Some guy with a lot of money shows up and says "This here pile of horse manure isn't really a pile of horse manure at all, but is rather an excellent gourmet meal," we're supposed to get down on all fours and eat that ****? 


PLEASE, watch the video I posted. THERE you will see people BRAGGING about making money from bullying scientists and undermining, or even worse, lying about the science and distorting it so much that the public believe (see Orwell) the EXACT OPPOSITE! Watch Marc Morano GIGGLE about death threats to scientists spawned by his propaganda.

WATCH O' Keef, former head of the infamous Marshall Institute, ADMIT that he is a PAID LOBBYIST for Exxon (even though he never said it to the public). WATCH that bastard smile when he is asked if he would have the George C. Marshall Institute STOP denying climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels if he is paid enough by Environmentalists. He answered, "They can't afford me.".  (



I guarantee you will learn a LOT about how GOOD, Honest people fall for this ****!

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on April 07, 2017, 10:40:11 pm
Shorter video: Merchants of DOUBT

The name for what these unethical BASTARDS do is AGNOTOLOGY.



Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on April 08, 2017, 03:50:31 pm
Thanks for posting the vid Merch's of doubt ....
I watched it awhile back but I think it's time to see it again.

you are  welcome AZ. I just wish I could convince you that the fossil fuel industry is THE culprit here. 

"Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Those who are the puppet masters of this world, don't give a crap about their puppets they play with. It has been this way for many, many, many years. I see it as a cycle, except this time around the whole world is involved almost simultaneously, and we have maybe caused our own extinction. So there have always been periods of great chaos and tragedy, so that  humans keep evolving past their (mega ) habits. We are alive during a great transition of enormous importance though this time around.

Well said, Knarf. But I don't share your confidence that this will work out okay.  :(

One could even read "Merchants of Doubt" ;) I read it long ago and although I was slightly aware of the Big Tobacco's lies it was astonishing to see the exact same "scientists" and "experts" who were casting doubt on Tobacco's harmful effects then went over to Big Oil and helped them cast doubt on Climate Change. I sometimes think Corporations are more pernicious than their lackeys in government, then I remember whose fingers (small?) are on the nuclear trigger.

All true.  :(  I hear ya.  Things just seem to get better and better for the most evil bastards that walk the earth. And now they've got the Supremely Fascist Court the empathy deficit disordered psychos have dreamed of. If you watch that full video I posted, you will see Putin doing a fist pump with Tillerson towards the end. I suspect there are a lot of fist pumps in fossil fuel Fascist board rooms going on right now. Here's one of them having some coffee:

The ancient past is most likely prologue.

Tomorrow is Yesterday...
I just got a call from Trump. He said BUY on Monday. The mahket is going to the MOON now that we have our main man in the fossil fuel Supreme Court. We ARE GONNA GET RICHER THAN EVAH NOW! (


The forests won’t fix our CO2 problem — in fact, they’ll scrub less than we assumed

Alexandru Micu March 7, 2017

Carbon dioxide absorption by growing biosphere may have been overestimated up to now, a new study concludes. This is due to previous estimates not taking into account the limiting factor of essential nutrients on plant development.

Image via Pixabay.

One effect of rising concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere is that plants have more of the gas — a prime source of carbon — to metabolize, improving growth rates. It also raises average temperatures in cold areas, promoting plant growth. Satellite imagery has shown that while growth has declined in some areas, our planet is getting greener overall.

Climate scientists have pointed out that this increased quantity of plants will be able to scrub even more CO2 out of the atmosphere, forming a natural carbon sink, and helping mitigate our emissions. But they have overestimated just how much the biosphere will grow, and thus how much more carbon it will soak. By testing the effect of higher CO2 levels on forests growing in tropical and subtropical soils, a team from the Western Sydney University in Australia has found that the biosphere will likely grow less than what previous estimates have projected.

Plenty of carbon, scarce phosphorus

The team, led by David Ellsworth of Western Sydney University in Australia, says that forests will absorb around a tenth less CO2 than previously expected, meaning CO2 levels will rise even faster than our current models predict. The main limiting factor opposing CO2’s fertilizing effect is the lack of phosphorous in tropical and subtropical regions, they explain.

To determine how much the biosphere will grow, the team artificially raised CO2 levels in six plots of a mature eucalyptus forest near Sydney, which were growing in characteristically phosphorus-poor soil. The plots were covered in a mix of individuals of diverse species and ages.

ALSO READ  NASA satellite spots mile-long iceberg breaking off from Antarctic glacier

Previous similar work in temperate forests (whose soils are much richer in phosphorus) found that CO2 increase could boost growth by as much as 20%. Ellsworth’s team found no evidence of growth boost in their plots at all. They attribute this difference to the limiting effect of phosphorous (a key nutrient) on growth. The results are backed by previous results, showing plant growth in the past 30 years didn’t see as much an increase as we estimated.

Another (very) limiting factor is human activity. Although some forests will grow faster if left to their own devices, we have a pretty consistent habit of cutting them down. Martin Brandt et al. show that while there’s overall more woody vegetation in Africa, the effects of warmer climate and rising levels of CO2 are offset by deforestation for raw materials and arable land in highly populated, humid areas, leading to a decrease in woody vegetation for these regions. The biggest increase in forests was seen in dry areas with low human populations, but it’s unclear if this makes up for the losses in vegetation elsewhere.

Ellsworth also points out that an increase in plant growth doesn’t necessarily translate to an increase in CO2 absorption and storage by plants.

Where does this leave us? Well, while it would be a nice turn of events it seems unlikely that the trees will clean our mess. So overall the situation takes a turn for the worse. Our best bet, as up to now, is to limit emissions and find ways to sequester CO2. In the meantime, we should also try as much as possible to mitigate the damage.

The full paper “Elevated CO2 does not increase eucalypt forest productivity on a low-phosphorus soil” has been published in the journal Nature Climate Change. (

Agelbert NOTE: The above is objective scientific reporting. Unfortunately for those of us in the reality based community, the probability of seeing or reading about this in Fox News (and most other media in the USA   :P ) is about 7%.


You say that ain't so? You say that was way back in 2012 and "people are better informed by the media today".  (



Most Americans believe climate change is real but the media war on science clearly shows its teeth

Tibi Puiu April 7, 2017

On Wednesday, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D) gave his 163rd “Time to Wake Up” address on climate change in front of his colleagues from Congress informing them that most Americans believe climate change is real. Whitehouse cited a recent study released by Yale University scientists to highlight the gap between what lawmakers say and do in Congress and what their constituents really think and expect from their elected representatives. (

According to the Yale study, 70% of Americans believe in climate change. That might sound like good news but there are a couple of caveats that we need to pay attention to. For instance, the same study found only 53% of Americans believe climate change is caused by human activity. In other words, one in two people thinks the direction climate is heading is completely natural or impossible to influence, which is just borderline better than outright climate change denial.

Counties where adults discuss global warming at least occasionally. The west part of the country is far more involved in the climate change conversation. Credit: Yale University.

Agelbert NOTE: Vermont is, like much of the west, part of the reality based community.   (

What can explain these stats in light of an overwhelming scientific consensus? It’s the media war on science, of course. The Yale survey found 49 percent of people thought that “most scientists think global warming is happening,” when in fact 97% of climate scientists agree climate change is not only happening but is caused by humans. It reminds me of the confusion around the health risks of smoking tobacco. Despite the fact that ever since the freaking 1950s an overwhelming majority of doctors cautioned patients that smoking can kill, the general public was polarized by Big Tobacco marketing campaigns and bogus cherry-picked studies made by ill-intentioned scientists or no real scientists at all, for that matter. Almost everyone nowadays knows smoking kills and it would be silly to think otherwise because you just can’t keep the lid on this kind of thing for too long — but just a few decades ago things weren’t that clear in the eyes of the general public.

So the confusion among the general public is understandable when you realize the country’s biggest broadcast networks collectively aired shows or news covering climate change for no more than 50 minutes for the whole year of 2016. That’s how much time the planet and the livelihoods of millions of species are worth to them. When they do talk about climate change or events under a climate change lens, often there are no real scientists invited to the discussion or, worse, they air climate denialism.

With half the population of the country dazed and confused, this Presidential Administration feels legitimized to undo policies that were actually helping the environment and enacting policies that will make it worse. The most recent attack on climate and science, in general, was last week’s executive order to destroy the Clean Power Act under which hundreds of new power plants would have been closed and replaced with renewable energy. The idea is to make ‘coal great again’, you know, last century’s tech which has been getting killed by the market for years. Reviving coal use is like trying to put back horse drive carriages on the road. Pure lunacy, just like one of the most embarrassing anti-science hearing ever that took place recently. Last week was a ‘good one’.

“Typical for this insider friendly administration. It’s a polluter’s wish list that’s terrible for the American people. ‘Sad,’ as the President would say,” Sen. Whitehouse spoke in front of Congress colleagues.

“The question of carbon dioxide as a polluter has been settled by the Supreme Court. So you have as a matter of law a dangerous pollutant and under the law it must be regulated. So this performance by the Trump show is a waste of time because ultimately lawyers and courts will give ‘the law’ — the final say,” he later added.

Yet again, it seems policy makers act with total impunity against the wishes of their constituents. The Yale study found 82 percent of respondents said the country should fund research into renewable energy sources. Moreover, 75 percent said the government should regulate CO2 as a pollutant.

ALSO READ  Trump orders media blackout at the EPA, tells employees to 'cut climate change webpage' (

If you feel justifiably underrepresented by these recent developments, don’t stand idle. Write to your senator letting him or her know that what you care about stands in stark contrast to Congress and Oval Office action. But before you do that, talk to your friends and family about this. A previous study found two-thirds of Americans are worried about climate change but rarely talk about it publically.   ( (

ANOTHER Agelbert NOTE: The REASON Americans don't talk about their worries on climate change publicly is BECAUSE of the media propaganda blitz funded BY THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY. It's called Cognitive dissonance through AGNOTOLOGY. (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on April 23, 2017, 04:48:27 pm

Fox News Gets Schooled By Nebraska Farmer on Dangers of the Keystone XL Pipeline (


Trump's support for Keystone rests on a foundation of disinformation. Independent analysts agree that the the project would create about thirty-five permanent jobs. But even if it created more, that wouldn't justify destroying communities and the livelihoods of private citizens.

Snippet 2:

Smith     ( We all want to achieve energy independence in this country. This was an effort and a step in that direction. How do you achieve that?"

Tanderup: Well first of all, this is not American oil, and it is going across America...

Smith ( "But it's coming from Canada, rather than the Middle East, would be the argument."

Tanderup: "That’s true, but it’s going across America to be refined and exported, which is not for America’s use."

Full story:

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on May 09, 2017, 11:53:13 pm

May 9, 2017

TRUMP: Trump to nominate two energy regulators (The Hill, Politico), Perez jabs Trump’s ‘aggressive stupidity’ on environment (The Hill)

EPA: The US Environmental Protection Agency is slowly turning its back on everything it was set up to protect (Quartz), EPA seeks delay of California waiver suit (Politico Pro $), EPA strips one science board, while likely eyeing a bigger prize (InsideClimate News), latest changes at EPA have scientists on alert (LA Times $)

METHANE: GOP under pressure as Senate weighs vote on drilling rule (AP), Portman to back resolution overturning BLM methane rule (Politico Pro $), Dem senator: Possible methane vote would be ‘a huge step backward’ (The Hill), Congressional anti-rule push may live on after methane vote (E&E $)

WEATHER: Near record amount of April showers drench US last month (AP, USA Today), swath of states experiencing hottest year to date (Climate Central), spring's early arrival is a troubling indicator of climate change (PRI)

IMPACTS: Climate change erodes thin safety margins at Calif. dam (Greenwire $), flooding in the Mississippi Delta is climate change in action (Nexus Media News), carbon pollution is suffocating ocean life and speeding up the next mass extinction (ThinkProgress)

SOLUTIONS: Inside NYC's plan to fight climate change through architecture (Fast Co.Design), cleaner fuel hoard seen rising as nations grapple with pollution (Bloomberg)

PIPELINES: Pipeline spill by Dakota Access company could have a ‘deadly effect’ (Washington Post $, Ohio Dispatch News)

LOCAL RENEWABLES: Minnesota officials release new data on the state’s growing solar industry (Midwest Energy News), in another departure from Christie, Guadagno wants N.J. to re-join RGGI (Politico Pro NJ $)

INT'L RENEWABLES: Europe's $6.9 billion coal subsidies 'better spent on technologies of the future' (Thomson Reuters Foundation), renewables offer cheaper, more reliable power for Philippines' small islands: report (Thomson Reuters Foundation), full tilt: giant offshore wind farm opens in North Sea (AFP), Germans may face higher power costs on exit from nuclear energy (Bloomberg)

RESEARCH & BUDGET: MI congresswoman: Trump budget could shutter emissions lab (AP), Trump's budget would eliminate a key funder of research on coastal pollution (NPR), visit this interactive climate website, before the Trump administration scrubs it too (Mashable)

AGRICULTURE: America’s farmers are caught between the changing climate and Trump’s denial (ThinkProgress)

INT'L: As droughts worsen, phones and radios lead way to water for Niger's herders (Thomson Reuters Foundation), a parable from down under for US climate scientists (New York Times $)

FINANCE: Lawmakers, advocates press for fossil fuel divestment by state, city pension funds (Politico Pro NY $), green bonds need global standards (FT $)
•Planet could breach 1.5C warming limit within 10 years, but be aware of caveats (The Guardian, Graham Readfearn column)

•Trump is waging a war on millennials (Washington Post, Katherine Rampell column $)

•Senators, protect Arizonans from toxic air pollution (Arizona Republic, Michelle Laverman op-ed)

•To curb climate change, we need to protect and expand US forests (The Conversation, William Moomaw op-ed)


Bradley & Barre & Kochs are Scary, But Look as their Garden Grows

A new study published in PLOS One last week confirms the idea that you can inoculate an audience against further lies by teaching them about misinformation. By explaining false balance to an audience, like the history of tobacco’s “fake experts,” the audience is less likely to fall for the various tricks deniers will use to turn the public against real experts.

For a great (and timely) example of fake experts, let's look at the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s letter ( urging Trump to abandon the Paris agreement. It’s signed by representatives of forty free-market groups, which to the untrained eye might appear to be credible experts. But to those savvy in the ways of fossil-fuel front groups, these are no different than the infamous “20,679 Physicians say ‘Luckies are less irritating’” ad, a relic of Big Tobacco's decades-long campaign to mislead the public. In fact, the inoculation study used this example to show how fake experts have long been used to convince the public to act against its own best interest. (

Far from being unbiased and independent experts  (, the group of forty signatories may as well have signed “Sincerely, The Kochs. (” But the Kochs aren’t the only ones who deserve our attention. There are other big names at play in this world, like Trump funders and string pullers, the Mercers. (Interesting side note: Mercer’s company is being sued by a former employee who was fired for comments critical of Mercer’s politics, particularly regarding comments about Bob Mercer expressing his opposition to the Civil Rights Act.)

Specifically, documents published last week by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel revealed two relatively obscure funders behind CEI. In an in-depth investigation rising out of hacked internal documents, the Journal-Sentinel looks at the (relatively successful) efforts of the Lynn and Harry Bradley Foundation to grow beyond Wisconsin and into a national, Koch-like network.

The Bradley Foundation is quite similar to the Kochs. Like the Kochs’ father, Harry Bradley was an OG of the John Birch Society (which, like their ideological brother Bob Mercer, was also opposed to the Civil Rights Act.) Like the Kochs and Mercers, the Bradley foundation supports a long list of right-wing groups, as well as a number of respectable, Milwaukee-based civic institutions. But among the listings for children’s theaters and orchestra donations are hefty sums to groups like CEI.

We know this because one of the documents leaked is a 2014 grant funding proposal where CEI asks Bradley to renew its giving. In it, CEI brags about their close work with other Bradley-supported groups, as well as listing out some of CEI’s other funders- the Koch and Scaife Foundations, as well as Exxon Mobil- who has claimed they stopped funding deniers like CEI years go, meaning either that’s not true, or CEI is listing defunct support.

 Getting a special shout-out from CEI is Barre Seid, who has anonymously “been among [CEI’s] biggest supporters.” Seid’s alleged anonymous giving to other groups like Heartland has been touched on elsewhere in leaked documents, so this is a thread interested parties might want to start tugging.

 Another interesting tidbit? When describing themselves in public, groups like CEI are always careful to describe themselves as “free-market” groups   (, not political ones. This distinction is important, since their tax-deductible 501c(3) status prohibits partisan political activity.

But apparently CEI is willing to let the “free-market” fig leaf fall behind closed doors, as the document refers to CEI’s Cooler Heads Coalition, chaired by scorned Trump advisor Myron Ebell. The document describes Ebell’s work as bringing together “scholars and activists from almost every major right-of-center organization in Washington, D.C.”

This then brings us back to the coalition letter, led by Ebell and signed by “Forty Free-Market Groups.” Are all these groups and their legally non-partisan remit the same “right-of-center” groups CEI brags about to its funder?

Perhaps someone should give the IRS a heads up, and we’ll c(3) what they say...  (  (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on June 14, 2017, 06:58:12 pm
How To Handle Trolls — Cleantech Communication Handbook

June 14th, 2017 by Zachary Shahan  ;D
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on June 16, 2017, 09:07:24 pm

New Denier Study So Bad Even Deniers are Somewhat Skeptical  :D

It goes without saying that peer review is an important safeguard against shoddy pseudoscience. Peer reviewers are so vital to the scientific endeavour that they recently got their own monument!
But peer review is not a perfect process. It’s necessary to ensure quality science, of course. but sometimes peer review goes wrong. For example, a journal whose editor is a climate denier with ties to Heartland recently published a paper claiming to refute the greenhouse theory. The paper is so bad that one scientist told DeSmog it is “laughable,” in part because the paper takes issue with the fact that greenhouses have glass roofs, and the atmosphere does not.   (
Seriously.  ;D
So although deniers try to downplay the importance of the consensus to claim that a vast global conspiracy keeps their work out of peer-reviewed journals, it’s not impossible for their shoddy science to get published.
Most recently, Daily Caller’s Michael Bastasch,our favorite Koch operative masquerading as a reporter, covered a new study by “veteran statistician Stan Young” claiming to “expose huge flaws in EPA science.”  Surprisingly, Bastasch included a number of reasons to question the accuracy of the study. The post starts with an indication that Young’s study had been shopped around for three years before being peer-review published. Bastasch also includes a quote from reviewers who rejected the study from other journals, and a surprisingly lengthy section about the EPA’s decades-old establishment of the lethality of PM 2.5 pollution.
Bastasch mentions that the backstory on the struggle for this paper to pass peer review comes from a book, Scare Pollution ( For some reason, he fails to mention that this book is written by Steve Milloy, the guy who wrote columns for Fox News until it was revealed that he was a tobacco industry lobbyist before becoming a fossil fuel booster. While Milloy does not appear to be an author of the study, he refers to it on his site JunkScience as “My California study” (the research is based on California health info).
The Milloy connection hints at the backstory behind the study, which is an attempt to debunk the seminal Six Cities study from Harvard that established the link between pollution and mortality. Because of its use by the EPA as a justification for regulations, the Six Cities study has long been a target for anti-EPA and pro-industry forces, particularly Lamar Smith.
While we haven’t yet dug into the details of the study, we hope some of you smart people do soon. It will likely make an appearance in Congress the next time someone wants to argue against EPA regulations.  (
And when even their denier peers include multiple red flags about how it struggled to pass peer-review, it shouldn’t be too hard to debunk this study purporting to debunk decades of studies.  (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on July 01, 2017, 03:07:39 pm
Statoil  ( to Develop Carbon Capture and Storage System Off Norway

June 30, 2017 by gCaptain

Agelbert NOTE: The above is a technofix Big Oil Scam. I will explain WHY after you have waded through the Big Oil Pie in the Sky (  Happy Talk Propaganda article  ( below.

Norwegian oil and gas company Statoil has been assigned the task of developing a carbon storage facility offshore Norway, in what could be the world’s first storage site to receive carbon dioxide from several industrial sources.

The storage project is part of Norwegian government’s efforts to develop full-scale carbon capture and storage in Norway. The project was assigned by the Norwegian state-owned carbon capture technology firm Gassnova.   ( (

According to Statoil, the system will capture CO2 from three onshore industrial facilities in Eastern Norway and transport CO2 by ship from the capture area to a receiving plant onshore located somewhere on the west coast of Norway. At the receiving plant, CO2 will the be pumped over from the ship to tanks onshore before being sent through pipelines on the seabed to several injection wells east of the Troll field on the Norwegian Outer Continental Shelf, Statoil said.

Several possible locations for the receiving plant will be evaluated and a final decision will be based on criteria such as safety, costs and expansion flexibility, Statoil added. (

In addition, the storage solution ( to be evaluated   ( will have the potential to receive CO2 from both Norwegian and European emission sources, according to Statoil.
Statoil says that studies performed in 2016 show that it is technically feasible to realize a carbon capture and storage chain in Norway, and technologies for carbon capture and storage in geological formations are also well known and established.

Future carbon storage could also benefit the hydrogen market, as hydrogen produced from natural gas generates CO2 as a by-product.


“Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an important tool to reduce carbon emissions ( and to achieve the global climate targets as defined in the Paris Agreement,” says Irene Rummelhoff, Statoil’s executive vice president for New Energy Solutions. “The CCS project that has been assigned to us will require an entirely new collaboration model with carbon capture from several industrial sources, carbon transportation by ships, and carbon storage 1000-2000 meters below the seabed. In addition, this may be the start of the world’s first CCS network across national borders. Much work remains, but if we are successful, this may open new business opportunities both for Statoil, our collaboration partners and Norwegian industry.”    (

The next phase of the project, to be performed by Statoil, will involve concept and pre-engineering studies in order to evaluate the possibilities in more detail and to get accurate cost estimates towards a possible investment decision, which could be made by the Norwegian Parliament in 2019.
“The next big tasks are developing technology, regulations and general commercial conditions that may stimulate an extensive roll-out of CCS,” says Rummelhoff.

FACT CHECK by Agelbert: Why is ALL the above an excellent example of irrational, suicidal, and cynical propaganda by Big Oil for the exclusive purpose of clinging to their profit over planet polluting 'business model'?

1. Well, to begin with, there is NO DEBATE about the deleterious effects on the biosphere of the 'business model' of the Fossil Fuel Industry (see below).

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is now around 410 Parts Per Million (PPM). That tiny amount in our atmosphere is already over 60 PPM above the limit (i.e. 350 PPM) to avoid massive extinctions, a huge rise in sea level, marine species killing acidification and routine 30 meter high wave tossed oceans. So what? Aren't they going to REDUCE the amount of CO2 out there? ???  NO, THEY ARE NOT!   (   See explanation below:

2. The most technically advanced method of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere is now used by the Military Submarine fleets throughout the world. The U.S. Navy has the absolute state of the art CO2 scrubbing technology. In fact, the PRIMARY reason U.S. subs need to surface is to get fresh air and purge the CO2.

Yes, they need to surface to get food and other supplies, but they CANNOT allow the  CO2 to get above 8 THOUSAND PPM (not 410 PPM) because the crew will suffer permanent cognitive and respiratory damage.  SO WHAT? Eight thousand PPM is a lot more than we have to 'worry' about in our atmosphere. A piddly 410 PPM is no concern of ours, right? WRONG!  See "1." above:

The point is that there is NO TECHNOLOGY in existence that can get the CO2 in the atmosphere BELOW 5 THOUSAND PPM. That is the best the U.S. Navy (and probably every other navy with submarines) can do.

But even that modern CO2 scrubbing technology is time limited. How come? Because, despite the scrubbing, the present technology cannot prevent the CO2 concentration from gradually rising until it approaches 8,000 PPM, thereby requiring the submarine to surface in order to avoid crew damage.

So, ANYONE claiming, as Statoil does in the above article, that "technologies for carbon capture and storage in geological formations are well known and established" is dissembling, to put it mildly. 

Yes, you CAN pump CO2 into geological formations. BUT, you can NEVER extract (i.e. capture) enough CO2 from our atmosphere to get anywhere NEAR less than 5000 PPM, never mind the 350 PPM that we MUST return to. (

IOW, this is another SUBSIDIZED Big Oil move to get we-the-people to pay for a "carbon capture solution" that DOESN'T EVEN WORK, except as a clever, mendacious and cynical excuse to continue burning fossil fuels. (

Notice, for example, that many of those geological formations they plan to pump liquified CO2 into just happen to be places where Big Oil is NOW extracting fossil fuels from. Isn't that amazingly convenient? The Polluter Trolls want to charge you for putting CO2 in their aptly named Troll field. ( These bastards have absolutely no shame. ( They pollute the planet and then they propose a pie in the sky geological formation carbon storage "solution" that we-the-people have to pay THEM for! (

3. This "carbon capture NONsolution" subsidy is simply a way to avoid responsibility. The CAN store but they CANNOT, as of yet, CAPTURE the PROPORTION of atmospheric Carbon dioxide needed to mitigate Catastrophic climate change. This is the type of half truth double talk the fossil fuel industry crooks and liars are infamous for since they took lessons from the tobacco propagandists.

It is just another unethical slick propaganda move to try to rebrand Big Oil and Gas as the "problem solving savior" when they are the profit over people and planet problem cause AND perpetuator!

There is presently NO OTHER METHOD under present technology, besides CEASING to burn fossils, available to mitigate climate change Catastrophe during this sixth Mass Extinction that we have entered.

But, but couldn't we just hope for a technical miracle from the fossil fuel industry?  ( ( The Fossil fuelers have, for about 40 years now, written thousands and thousands of articles about how Renewable Energy was "pie in the energy sky" and "was not ready for prime time". They claimed (and still claim) that they were just being "prudent" and "real world" about what was "doable" and what "wasn't". They claimed they would happily support Renewable Energy when it was, uh, "cost effective". But, alas, they just couldn't, for our own good, OF COURSE, support "unproven" technologies. (
We have all read them. Most of us   (  actually believed that tripe a few decades ago.

But, many of us finally figured out their tobacco corporation inspired profit over people and planet propaganda game. We all NOW know that all that FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt propaganda technique) was deliberate for the express purpose of delaying the Renewable Energy Revolution.
They lied serially and continually to defend their polluting business model.

So why should we give them the hopium benefit of the doubt for a technology, NOT YET INVENTED, when they attacked Renewable Energy technologies that had already been invented for decades? The increases in efficiency of Renewable Energy technologies came in spite of all the road blocks placed deliberately by the fossil fuel industry to strangle and destroy Renewable Energy technologies, not because of any good will or concern for the biosphere on the part of the polluters.

To those who believe the Fossil Fuel Industry can be trusted to act ethically for the good of society, the kitty below has a question for you:


Finally, even if there was a technofix to get us back to 350 PPM from 410 PPM while continuing the 'business as usual' (IPCC RCP-8.5) burning of fossil fuels, it would merely kick the resource can down the road. A future generation would find itself where those submarines are (but without a place to surface to) when their vaunted CO2 scrubbing technology could no longer hold back the massive collapse of civilization, along with the extinction of most, if not all, high order vertebrate species on the planet.


Technofixes, so far, have always eventually failed because the central issue is an ethical one, not a resource availability one, which is merely the symptom of unethical behavior by TPTB. Technofixes have just kicked the resource can down the road.

While we ARE tool makers, and will never escape that propensity to tinker, we also can choose to be ethical about our tools or unethical. If technology is applied ethically (i.e. by ensuring the protection of ALL the species affected that are known to provide a healthy habitat for humans), then technology could be a wise choice. However, if we don't learn to add and subtract with biosphere math, we are doomed.

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on July 10, 2017, 05:58:39 pm

Here’s the Goop on Fake News, From Mainstream Media to Human-Pig Hybrids

Sometimes fake news is obvious, but sometimes it’s more subtle. For example, it’s not hard to tell that conspiracy theorist extraordinaire Alex Jones’s recent “reporting” on talking human/pig/gorilla hybrids is pretty obviously and entertainingly fake.

Slightly more believable-looking are fake news stories with clear ideological bents. In a piece from last month, the Huffington Post’s Alex Kaufman highlights a Daily Caller story that falsely blames offshore wind turbines for whale deaths, using the impacts of the construction process to support its claim. As Kaufman points out, construction on the turbines ended last year. The whale died a few weeks ago. See the problem?  ;)

But politically-biased press aren’t the only game in town, and the mainstream media isn’t totally innocent of falling for fake news. Sometimes, aggregators like Yahoo will pick up a fake story. For example, Alex Kaplan at Media Matters points out that lYahoo ran a made up story last week claiming the UN chief said Trump was right about the Paris Agreement. The supposed quote appears to only exist in the mind of the headline writer, as it doesn’t appear in the story, or anywhere else. Because it’s fake.

What’s worse, though, is when otherwise trusted sources actively promote or disseminate the sort of denial we expect from the Daily Caller and Alex Jones. Rebecca Leber and Jeremy Schulman explored this problem in a recent piece for Mother Jones, and created a timeline of mainstream media’s climate-denying fake news. ( It’s a great illustration of how the fossil fuel industry  ( has gamed media to prey on their instinct for (false) balance, controversy and lies-as-opinions. And sadly, based on the example of Bret Stephens being hired by NYT and now MSNBC, it doesn’t look like this is going to come to an end any time soon. (

But don’t worry, dear reader. You can continue to count on us to highlight this fake news and call out the denial and false balance. Especially because we’ll be staying far, far away from all the weird, supposedly brain-boosting “medicinal” products sold at Alex Jones’ InfoWars store--which is apparently the same type of stuff sold at Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop website.

Actually, maybe all those exotic herbs and mushrooms explain the human-pig-gorilla hybrids Jones was so worked up about... (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on July 11, 2017, 06:32:24 pm
Coal baron says carbon capture and storage ‘does not work’ and ‘is just cover for the politicians.’


Robert Murray, CEO of Murray Energy. CREDIT: AP/Douglas C. Pizac

While President Donald Trump continues to tout “clean” coal, coal baron Robert Murray says it’s just a fantasy.

“Carbon capture and sequestration does not work. It’s a pseudonym for ‘no coal,’” the CEO of Murray Energy, the country’s largest privately held coal-mining company, told E&E News.

Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), also called carbon capture and storage, is the process of trapping carbon dioxide from a power plant (during or after burning a hydrocarbon like coal) and then storing it permanently, usually underground.

It’s a technically challenging and expensive process — especially problematic in an era of cheap natural gas and renewable energy. Mississippi pulled the plug on one of the country’s biggest CCS efforts last month after the company spent billions on trying, and failing, to make it work.

While many clean energy analysts (including me) have long been dubious of CCS for economic, environmental, and practical reasons, the coal industry has touted “clean coal” as the long-term savior of the industry in a carbon-constrained world.

That’s why it’s so stunning a top coal CEO like Murray would now say that clean coal isn’t a real thing.

“It is neither practical nor economic, carbon capture and sequestration,” he said last week. “It is just cover for the politicians, both Republicans and Democrats that say, ‘Look what I did for coal,’ knowing all the time that it doesn’t help coal at all.” (

And this is from a guy who is a member of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity    ( — which has spent tens of millions of dollars trying to persuade the public that clean coal is the solution to global warming.

The Clean Coal Smoke Screen - Center for American Progress (

Posted on View details of ACCCE investment in carbon capture and storage Download this report (pdf) A series of feel… (

If, as Murray says, CCS is “neither practical nor economic,” then coal clearly has no future. Two years ago the nations of the world agreed in Paris to bring global CO2 emissions down to zero in the second half of this century — the only way to avoid multiple, irreversible catastrophic climate impacts.

And if we won’t be using coal in the foreseeable future, then we need to start an orderly reduction of existing coal plants — in contrast to Murray’s support for team Trump’s plan to boost coal use. It makes little or no sense to keep building new coal plants, since they will have to be shuttered prematurely and replaced with carbon-free energy. All that wasted capital would be better spent on sustainable carbon-free sources from the start. This is precisely the calculus that more and more countries are starting to make today, including China.

The coal industry has pushed CCS and “clean coal” for years. But coal baron Murray just let the cat out of the bag: Clean coal is a fiction. (

Coal baron says carbon capture and storage ‘does not work’ and ‘is just cover for the politicians.’


Robert Murray, CEO of Murray Energy. CREDIT: AP/Douglas C. Pizac

This, in re that **** monster:

Yep.  :( Thank you Knarf and Surly, for spreading the word about how badly this country (and the world) has been SUCKERED by these profit over people and planet fossil fuel industry liars and crooks.

The Fossil Fuelers   DID THE Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!    (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on July 22, 2017, 06:35:46 pm
Zero Hedge is packed with Fossil Fuel Industry cheerleaders for all things polluting which never tires of attacking EVs and Renewable Energy

Karl Rove (

Agelbert NOTE:
Karl Rove always advocated accusing the oponent of having YOUR WEAKNESS, before he could attack you with it. Zero Hedge must have studied Karl Rove.  :evil4:

Below is a list of articles stuffed with bold faced lies and totally unsubstantiated claims about Renewable Energy that ACTUALLY APPLY to fossil fuels, NOT Clean energy.

Controversy Explodes over Renewable Energy Post Carbon Institute
July 11, 2017

Making Coal Great Again | Zero Hedge   (
June 17, 2017

More Solar Jobs Is A Curse, Not A Blessing | Zero Hedge (
June 6, 1917

Exposing The Renewable Fuels Con | Zero Hedge (
May 7, 2017

Renewable Lies And The Deception Of Dutch ... - Zero Hedge(
February 6, 2017

Destroying The "Wind & Solar Will Save Us" Delusion | Zero Hedge  ( (
January 21, 2017

Alberta Warns Trump Of Retaliation If Energy ... - Zero Hedge
April 25, 2017

Germany Struggles With Too Much Renewable Energy ( | Zero Hedge
August 15, 2015

The fossil fuel industry OWNS ZERO HEDGE  (  ( Don't listen to a word they say about ENERGY in general and EVs in PARTICULAR!   

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on July 27, 2017, 05:16:57 pm
Koch Brothers Video Smears Electric Cars. Can You Spot The Lies?

July 27th, 2017 by Steve Hanley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agelbert NOTE: Don't miss the comments!  ( (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on August 07, 2017, 02:25:19 pm

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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



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

But telling bold face crocodile tear laden lies has never stopped the brain washers that so many here smugly worship.   (
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on August 07, 2017, 08:43:00 pm
Demystifying Three Climate Lies - The Road to Decarbonisation | Thomas Stocker | TEDxBern

TEDx Talks

Published on Oct 13, 2016

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

Thomas Stocker graduated from ETH Zürich in 1987 and held research positions in London, Montreal and New York. Since 1993 he is Professor of Climate and Environmental Physics at the University of Bern. This research group is leading in the reconstruction of greenhouse gas concentrations from polar ice cores and the simulation of past and future climate changes. From 2008 to 2015 he co-chaired Working Group I of the IPCC, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on August 27, 2017, 04:24:43 pm
Agelbert NOTE: The following several posts are from a thread on another forum. I post them here to show how exercised people who refuse to believe the facts can get when a fossil fuel shill they consider an "energy expert" is accused of defamatory activity to  undermine the danger of near term human extinction from using polluting energy sources. I am the accuser. Some agreed that Nicole Foss was peddling attack the messenger libel. Some did not. So it goes.

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



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

August 26, 2017

To all-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

Derrick Jensen, Deep Green Resistance

Lierre Keith, Deep Green Resistance

Cory Morningstar, Wrong Kind of Green

Forrest Palmer, Wrong Kind of Green

Luke Orsborne, Wrong Kind of Green



Psychiatrist, researcher, teacher, and author Judith Herman:

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

Something is clearly wrong here. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As usual, Nicole Foss is SHILLING for the fossil fuel industry, nothing more.




Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on August 27, 2017, 04:27:12 pm
I don't know much about Guy as a person.  I just know his angle on NTHE, which I disagree with.  However, it appears to me that this is hitting below the belt.  If it's consensual than it's nobodies business accept the participants in the consensual act.  If it's ****, than it's a police matter. 
For a Prophet of Doom, consensual sex is purely a private matter.

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on August 27, 2017, 04:28:39 pm
I don't know what occured in this incident with this woman, I only know about the behavior patterns that Nicole observed over a couple of years and told me about in confidence.  I promised not to reveal any of this stuff.

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on August 27, 2017, 04:29:51 pm
Counselors of all kinds are notorious for ethics violations. Seen that movie about the life of Carl Jung and his patient who had to be spanked to get off?

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on August 27, 2017, 04:32:16 pm
When Foss talks, I aleays check the BS meter (see below for the reading on her latest effluent).

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



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

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

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



Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on August 27, 2017, 04:35:16 pm
When Foss talks, I aleays check the BS meter (see below for the reading on her latest effluent).

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


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

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

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

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

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

I'm not buyin' any of it.

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on August 27, 2017, 04:37:44 pm
I don't know much about Guy as a person.  I just know his angle on NTHE, which I disagree with.  However, it appears to me that this is hitting below the belt.  If it's consensual than it's nobodies business accept the participants in the consensual act.  If it's ****, than it's a police matter. 
For a Prophet of Doom, consensual sex is purely a private matter.

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on August 27, 2017, 04:40:25 pm
When Foss talks, I aleays check the BS meter (see below for the reading on her latest effluent).

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


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

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

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





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


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. (

Title: Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
Post by: AGelbert on August 27, 2017, 04:43:11 pm