gopher.createaforum.com/1/forums/renewablerevolution/p/19/5

DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Fossil Fuel Folly
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2421--------------------------------------------------
The &quot;Welfare&quot; of Society has always been the alibi of
tyrants part 1 of 2
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: December 20, 2014, 3:50 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
HTML http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mborgeson/mborgeson112514a.png
Fossil fuel fascist MKing Propagandist types
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif 
SNIPPET:
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.
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/12/leaked-internal-presentation-details-the-oil-industrys-campaign-to-stop-clean-energy
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/12/leaked-internal-presentation-details-the-oil-industrys-campaign-to-stop-clean-energy
Agelbert NOTE: The comments are WORLD
CLASS!
HTML http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb029.gif
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[size=18pt] do to the rest of humanity who
do not sit at their table?
[/size]
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
HTML http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/2thumbs.gif(OMG), every time one of these associations finds itself in print.
After all, it is a given.... or as they say in
finance,[color=red] its already baked in..
[/color]PJ van Staden
December 4, 2014
The welfare of society was always the alibi of tyrants
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
,
...talking about
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg wolves in sheep clothing.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif

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
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/swear1.gif 
HTML http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/2thumbs.gif, 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
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6869.gifhttp://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2194.gifhttp://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6348.gif, 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"!!!!??
...*!#"x!!!!!
John Nistler
December 4, 2014
Anyone who did not expect a battle or war between the fossil
fuel industry and renewable energy [i]must not be experienced
with history. [/i]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: ...as has, the true concept of telling a lie, along with
Ethics, Integrity and ones true beliefs as in sticking to them
despite public opinion....
.....Bill
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...
[color=blue]The "Welfare" of Society has always been the alibi
of tyrants part 2 of 2
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/fossil-fuel-folly/fossil-fuel-propaganda-modus-operandi/msg2422/#msg2422
#Post#: 2422--------------------------------------------------
The &quot;Welfare&quot; of society has always been the alibi of
Tyrants part 2 of 2
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: December 20, 2014, 3:51 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.
.....Bill
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.
[b]
PJ van Staden [/b]
December 6, 2014
@ MARIA KITTY
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.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp 
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
now....so...let'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!
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.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif
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....
.....Bill
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.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2955.gif

If our species listens to you, we will make it. If not, we
won't.
#Post#: 2488--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: January 2, 2015, 9:38 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.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/reading.gif
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
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif
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
HTML http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/renewable-energy-now-cheaper-than-new-fossil-fuels-in-australia/
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!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
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!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif

3. Renewable electricity is bad for the environment
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif
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
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-026.gif
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.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif
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
HTML http://theconversation.com/renewable-energy-can-provide-baseload-power-heres-how-2221.
So, once again we find that this myth is busted!
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp 
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?
HTML http://www.ethicalswitch.com/myth-busters-the-top-4-myths-about-renewable-energy-debunked/
#Post#: 2498--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: January 4, 2015, 2:56 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.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png[b]
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).
--- Quote ---
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2011/07/july-19-2011-fracking-our-future.html
HTML http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2011/07/july-19-2011-fracking-our-future.html
[b]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.
HTML http://elqahera-trading.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/dollar-sign-thumbnail1.jpg 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.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png
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:
--- Quote ---
> [size=12pt]July 9, 2012 at 3:48 am #4515
> Ra�l Ilargi Meijer
> Agelbert,
> 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.
> [/size]
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://www.theautomaticearth.com/peak-oil-a-dialogue-with-george-monbiot/#ixzz20DL0Ft2s
HTML http://www.theautomaticearth.com/peak-oil-a-dialogue-with-george-monbiot/#ixzz20DL0Ft2s
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
--- Quote ---
> Renewables represent a drop in the bucket of global supply.
--- End Quote ---

(Phase 1)
--- Quote ---
> Energy from renewable resources�wind, water, the sun,
biomass and geothermal energy�is inexhaustible and clean.
Renewable energy currently constitutes 15% of the global energy
mix.
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://www.sustainableenergyforall.org/objectives/renewable-energy
HTML http://www.sustainableenergyforall.org/objectives/renewable-energy
--- Quote ---
> They are having no effect whatsoever on fossil fuel prices.
--- End Quote ---

(Phase 2) So the huge demand destruction in fossil fuels this
past year was ONLY related to the depression we have been in
since 2008!!? Why then, didn't said demand destruction occur
THEN? Why did that demand destruction DOVETAIL with the
explosive growth of energy and wind in the USA in 2011 and 2012?
--- Quote ---
> Charts: The Smart Money Is on Renewable Energy
> �By Tim McDonnell
> Mon Apr. 22, 2013
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/04/charts-renewable-energy-fossil-fuels
HTML http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/04/charts-renewable-energy-fossil-fuels
--- Quote ---
> IEA Predicts Wind to Double and Solar Solar to Triple in 6
Years
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/wind-and-solar-energy-rush-goes-global-130712.htm
HTML http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/wind-and-solar-energy-rush-goes-global-130712.htm
--- Quote ---
> The European Investment Bank (EIB), the world�s largest public
financial institution, has announced that, effective
immediately, it will no longer finance most coal-, lignite- and
oil-fired power stations in an effort to help Europe meet its
climate targets.
--- End Quote ---

HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/07/european-investment-bank-cuts-lending-to-fossil-plants-supports-renewables?cmpid=rss
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/07/european-investment-bank-cuts-lending-to-fossil-plants-supports-renewables?cmpid=rss
--- Quote ---
> They are more expensive than fossil fuels
--- End Quote ---

(phase 3)
--- Quote ---
> When you account for the effects which are not reflected in
the market price of fossil fuels, like air pollution and health
impacts, the true cost of coal and other fossil fuels is higher
than the cost of most renewable energy technologies.
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://www.skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-is-too-expensive.htm
HTML http://www.skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-is-too-expensive.htm
--- Quote ---
> In the July 2011 PE magazine article �Why We Need Rational
Selection of Energy Projects,� the author stated that
�photovoltaic electricity generation cannot be an energy source
for the future� because photovoltaics require more energy than
they produce
> (during their lifetime), thus their �Energy Return Ratio (ERR)
is less than 1:1.�
>
> Statements to this effect were not uncommon in the 1980s,
based on some early PV prototypes. However, today�s PVs return
far more energy than that embodied in the life cycle of a solar
system (see Figure 1).
>
> Their energy payback times (EPBT)�the time it takes to produce
all the energy used in their life cycles�currently are between
six months to two years, depending on the location/solar
irradiation and the technology. And with expected life times of
30 years, their ERRs are in the range of 60:1 to 15:1, depending
on the location and the technology, thus returning 15 to 60
times more energy than the energy they use. Here is a basic
tutorial on the subject.
--- End Quote ---

HTML http://www.clca.columbia.edu/236_PE_Magazine_Fthenakis_2_10_12.pdf
HTML http://www.clca.columbia.edu/236_PE_Magazine_Fthenakis_2_10_12.pdf
--- Quote ---
> because of their very low EROEI
--- End Quote ---
(phase 3) See above. The EROEI of fossil fuels is lower than
Renewable energy EROEI.
HTML http://www.skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-is-too-expensive.htm
HTML http://www.skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-is-too-expensive.htm
--- Quote ---
> However, today�s PVs return far more energy than that embodied
in the life cycle of a solar system (see Figure 1).
>
> Their energy payback times (EPBT)�the time it takes to produce
all the energy used in their life cycles�currently are between
six months to two years, depending on the location/solar
irradiation and the technology. And with expected life times of
30 years, their ERRs are in the range of 60:1 to 15:1, depending
on the location and the technology, thus returning 15 to 60
times more energy than the energy they use. Here is a basic
tutorial on the subject.
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote ---
> Energy Payback Time = (Emat+Emanuf+Etrans+Einst+EEOL) /
(Eagen�Eaoper)
> where,
> Emat: Primary energy demand to produce materials comprising PV
system
> Emanuf: Primary energy demand to manufacture PV system
> Etrans: Primary energy demand to transport materials used
during the life cycle
> Einst: Primary energy demand to install the system
> EEOL: Primary energy demand for end-of-life management
> Eagen: Annual electricity generation in primary energy terms
> Eaoper: Annual energy demand for operation and maintenance in
primary energy terms
>
> [size=14pt]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..
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://www.clca.columbia.edu/236_PE_Magazine_Fthenakis_2_10_12.pdf
HTML http://www.clca.columbia.edu/236_PE_Magazine_Fthenakis_2_10_12.pdf
--- Quote ---
> and very large fossil fuel dependency.
--- End Quote ---

(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
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/assets/images/story/2013/5/16/1-large-penetration-of-renewable-energy-in-selected-markets.jpg
Electric Grid Renewable energy Penetration in Selected Markets
Although we technically do not have PV manufacturing plants or
Wind turbine manufacturers driving EV trucks or mining with EV
machines as well as powering their factories with wind and PV or
some other renewable energy, it's just a matter of time.
WHY? Because of the HIGH EROEI of Renewable Energy devices. They
pay for themselves in a few years and then, as long as they are
properly maintained, last a number of decades while using ZERO
fossil fuels throughout the entire period.
The fossil fuel powered internal combustion machine is not
competitive with Renewable Energy technolgies UNLESS fossil
fuels retain their massive subsidies and continue to limit the
market penetration of renewable energy systems in the USA and
elseware with the threadbare excuse, and untrue allegation, that
they are "too intermittent".
--- Quote ---
> [size=10pt] The Great Transition, Part I: From Fossil Fuels to
Renewable Energy
> Lester R. Brown
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2012/update107
HTML http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2012/update107
--- Quote ---
> [color=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.
--- End Quote ---

[b][i]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.
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg25945#msg25945
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg25945#msg25945
--- Quote ---
> For As Long As The Sun Shines: The Non-Crisis of PV Module
Reliability
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_06_26_For_As_Long_As_The_Sun_Shines
HTML http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_06_26_For_As_Long_As_The_Sun_Shines
--- Quote ---
> The demand and price collapse will kill much of renewable
development,
--- End Quote ---

Prices have gone up for fossil fuels even as demand has gone
down. This has actually spurred the switch to renewables , not
dampened it.
--- Quote ---
> Retail Prices (Dollars per Gallon) 2012-2013
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://www.eia.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp
HTML http://www.eia.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp
--- Quote ---
> Volatile fossil fuel prices make renewable energy more
attractive
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/blog/fossil-fuel-prices-renewable-energy-attractive
HTML http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/blog/fossil-fuel-prices-renewable-energy-attractive
--- Quote ---
> especially at a large scale.
--- End Quote ---

(phase 3)
--- Quote ---
> To date, we've committed over $1 billion to renewable energy
project investments, signed ... It may also be more feasible to
build larger power installations .... and match their demand
with utility-scale solution
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/www.google.com/en/us/green/pdf/renewable-energy-options.pdf
HTML http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/www.google.com/en/us/green/pdf/renewable-energy-options.pdf 
--- Quote ---
> You cannot run an industrial society on intermittent energy
sources with low EROEI.
--- End Quote ---
The Renewable energy blend eliminates intermittency and the low
EROEI claim has been proven, not just inaccurate, but the exact
reverse.
HTML http://www.skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-is-too-expensive.htm
HTML http://www.skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-is-too-expensive.htm
Continued on next post in this thread:
#Post#: 2499--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: January 4, 2015, 2:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Second part of 3 parts:
--- Quote ---
> CSP technology can also be coupled with energy storage, one of
the hottest topics in the renewable energy industry this year.
Plants that include energy storage with molten salt can store
solar power and dispatch it in the early evening and into the
night. Tex Wilkins from the CSP Alliance thinks this application
could make PV, which is often viewed as a threat to CSP, a
complimentary technology. "The ability of CSP with storage to
dispatch its power to the grid in the early morning and evening
can combine with daytime PV to spread out the use of solar power
from the time people get up early in the morning until they go
to bed late at night," he explained. Wilkins said that in five
years most CSP plants will include energy storage. Van Scoter
from eSolar said in five years he expects that most CSP projects
will include molten salt or ISCC technology. "There is also a
high potential for projects involving industrial process heat,
EOR and desalination," he said.
> All CSP experts said that utilities are just beginning to
recognize CSP's value - a renewable energy able to provide base
load, dispatchable power. According to SkyFuel's Mason, "This
attribute of CSP is its main differentiator from PV and wind,
and will ensure its increasing uptake in the power market."
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote ---
> Intermittency Of Renewables?� Not So Much
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://cleantechnica.com/2013/07/21/intermittency-of-renewable-energy/
HTML http://cleantechnica.com/2013/07/21/intermittency-of-renewable-energy/
--- Quote ---
> For As Long As The Sun Shines: The Non-Crisis of PV Module
Reliability
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_06_26_For_As_Long_As_The_Sun_Shines
HTML http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_06_26_For_As_Long_As_The_Sun_Shines
--- Quote ---
> Feed in tariffs are already being cut worldwide, and without
them renewable power is not competitive.
--- End Quote ---

This is a generalization and is inaccurate as well.
It is also a faulty comparison. The MASSIVE subsidies fossil and
nuclear fules get dwarf any feed in tariff "advantage" for
Renewable energy.
If all fossil and nuclear fuel subsidies were removed, the
ridiculously tiny Renewable Energy subsidies in the form of feed
in tariffs and other paltry incentives would be even less
significant than they are now.
I know you are adverse to feed in tariffs. It is not logical for
you to be adverse to FIT and not ALSO be adverse to fossil fuel
subsidies like THESE:
Expensing of Intangible Drilling Costs
Percentage Depletion Allowance
Deduction for Tertiary Injectants
Geological and Geophysical Expenditures
Exception for passive loss limitations for oil and gas
Enhanced oil recovery credit
Marginal oil well credit
You eliminate ALL THE ABOVE and the pittance that FIT represents
can be eliminated quite easily, thank you very much. Just google
fossil fuel and nuclear power subsidies to date in the USA alone
and then look at the tiny sliver of a percentage of subsidies
for renewables to date.
Of course, fossil fuel industries want renewable enrgy to go
away and are doing everything possible to make that happen.
Eliminating FIT would be one step to that goal while keeping
fossil fuel subsidies intact.
--- Quote ---
> Said Brian Jennings, ACE executive vice president, in a
release, �If oil companies cannot stand on their own two feet
after 100 years of clinging to certain taxpayer subsidies,
Congress shouldn�t hurt American consumers by repealing the RFS,
a policy that helps level the playing field with oil a little
bit by giving people affordable and renewable fuel choices.�
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2013/03/big-oils-100-year-incentive-birthday-bash-hosted-by-biofuels
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2013/03/big-oils-100-year-incentive-birthday-bash-hosted-by-biofuels
--- Quote ---
> Since we cannot run this society on renewables, our society
will have to change.
--- End Quote ---

A logical conclusion based on the low EROEI incorrect premise
and the intermittency incorrect premise.
With an incorrect premise, you will always come to the wrong
conclusion.
The fact that renewable energy has grown in leaps and bounds for
over three years now is proof that it is a more profitable
energy source, as well as being non-polluting after manufacture,
than the poisonous fossil fuels.
The renewable energy percentage use targets are INCREASING, not
decreasing as you incorrectly believe. Here's just one example:
--- Quote ---
> Vermont may have more foresight than other states it its
ambitious 90% renewable energy target by 2050, but it�s really
the sign of a paradigm shift in energy, says Dave.
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://www.ilsr.org/vermonts-standard-offer-renewable-energy-program-episode-10-local-energy-rules-podcast/
HTML http://www.ilsr.org/vermonts-standard-offer-renewable-energy-program-episode-10-local-energy-rules-podcast/ 
--- Quote ---
> Prepare For Disruptive Solar Technology
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote ---
> In 2013, the landscape is drastically different. Solar power
is here to stay, and the major manufacturers should be motivated
to make big moves.
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://seekingalpha.com/article/1504552-prepare-for-disruptive-solar-technology
HTML http://seekingalpha.com/article/1504552-prepare-for-disruptive-solar-technology
--- Quote ---
> We will have to learn to live within our means.
--- End Quote ---
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. [/I]
--- Quote ---
> This article was not about poisoned aquifers. I have written
about that before though. I cannot cover everything in every
article or there would be no focus. Of course fracking is
obscene, the environmental risks are huge and a few well
connected individuals are making a killing from the ponzi
scheme. The price collapse will eventually prevent it, just not
right now when there is still money to be made.
--- End Quote ---
[i]Yes, the environmental risks, and damages as well, are
already huge. Fracking adds insult to injury. It's time to stop
supporting this biosphere killing technology, regardless of the
fossil fuel industry's stranglehold on governments and policy.
--- Quote ---
> The country is in the midst of an unprecedented oil and gas
drilling rush�brought on by a controversial technology called
hydraulic fracturing or fracking.
> Along with this fracking-enabled oil and gas rush have come
troubling reports of poisoned drinking water, polluted air,
mysterious animal deaths, industrial disasters and explosions.
We call them Fraccidents.
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://earthjustice.org/features/campaigns/fracking-across-the-united-states
HTML http://earthjustice.org/features/campaigns/fracking-across-the-united-states
--- Quote ---
> The numbers are bad even with externalities excluded, and are
of course much worse with them. Some of these things are very
difficult to quantify, and over-quantification doesn't really
help anyway.
--- End Quote ---
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:
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg5905#msg5905
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg5905#msg5905
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg5923#msg5923
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg5923#msg5923
--- Quote ---
> 'Fracking' Mobilizes Uranium in Marcellus Shale, UB Research
Finds
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2010/10/11885.html
HTML http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2010/10/11885.html
Continued in next post on this thread:
#Post#: 2500--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: January 4, 2015, 2:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Third of 3 parts:
--- Quote ---
> This is real politik - the way the world really works.
--- End Quote ---
You mean that's the way the POLITICAL WORLD works.
The planet and the biosphere, according to serious, objective,
proven environmental science, will become uninhabitable if we
do not stop burning fossil fuels within a couple of decades (See
video above in this document of panel of scientists where one
British Scientist actually says that the REAL, "real world" is
about to overwhelm the perception managed "real politik, real
world" the fossil fuel industry and most of mankind falsely
believe they live in. Note: Part 2 of that video is extremely
informative as well.).
The intransigence of the fossil fuel industry in this matter is
a given. They wish to avoid liability for the damage they have
casued so they have, for several decades, (See the George C.
Marshal Institute) launched a campaign of disinformation to
claim there is NO climate threat whatsoever.
The disinformation has used the scare tactic that we are running
out of fossil fuels. Sure, according to latest estimates, we
have about 37 years left of oil and slightly over 100 years of
coal.
I certainly think those numbers don't translate into an imminent
collapse UNLESS the fossil fuel fascists (that isn't hyperbole)
engineer one as an additional scare tactic.
Don't tell me the industry famous for contrived price shocks and
oil resource wars is not capable of that.
Here's a PRIME example of what the fossil fuel industry has done
to the USA and the world:
A quote from the following Peer Reviewed book:
Dilworth (2010-03-12). Too Smart for our Own Good (pp. 399-400).
Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
--- Quote ---
> "As suggested earlier, war, for example, which represents a
cost for society, is a source of profit to capitalists. In this
way we can partly understand e.g. the American military
expenditures in the Persian Gulf area. Already before the first
Gulf War, i.e. in 1985, the United States spent $47 billion
projecting power into the region. If seen as being spent to
obtain Gulf oil, It AMOUNTED TO $468 PER BARREL, or 18 TIMES the
$27 or so that at that time was paid for the oil itself.
>
> In fact, if Americans had spent as much to make buildings
heat-tight as they spent in ONE YEAR at the end of the 1980s on
the military forces meant to protect the Middle Eastern oil
fields, THEY COULD HAVE ELIMINATED THE NEED TO IMPORT OIL from
the Middle East.
>
> So why have they not done so? Because, while the $468 per
barrel may be seen as being a cost the American taxpayers had to
bear, and a negative social effect those living in the Gulf area
had to bear, it meant only profits for American capitalists. "
--- End Quote ---
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'�tat 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.
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/08/13/sexual-dimorphism-powerstructures-and-environmental-consequences-of-human-behaviors/
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/08/13/sexual-dimorphism-powerstructures-and-environmental-consequences-of-human-behaviors/
If the crash program to switch to renewable energy is to begin
soon, I expect the trigger for the crash program will be the
first ice free arctic summer (according to my estimates
:icon_mrgreen:) in 2017.
So I would use that future melting now as a rallying point to
wake people up and join in the effort to ban fossil fuels from
planet earth. Expect the fossil fuelers to counter that polar
ice melting catastrophic reality with propaganda about what a
"wonderful" thing it is to have a new ocean to shorten ship
traveling (i.e. TANKERS) distances. So it goes.
But if things go well for humanity and the 1% galvanize to save
the biosphere and their stuff :icon_mrgreen:, we will witness
the dismantelling of the centralized fossil fuel infrastructure,
it's use and, more importantly, the relinquishing of political
power worldwide by big oil.
--- Quote ---
>
> 15 April 2013
> James Hansen
>
> 1. Exaggeration?
>
> I have been told of specific well-respected people who have
asserted that "Jim Hansen exaggerates" the magnitude and
imminence of the climate threat. If only that were true, I would
be happy.
> "Magnitude and imminence" compose most of the climate
story.[b]
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130415_Exaggerations.pdf
HTML http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130415_Exaggerations.pdf
--- Quote ---
> It's about money and power.
--- End Quote ---

[b]Correct. It has ALWAYS been about POWER (which always brings
easy money).
It has NEVER been about ENERGY beyond CONTROLLING the spigot to
we-the-people.
That's why the fossil fuel industry simply didn't switch to the
much more profitable and economical renewable energy
technologies long ago (they certainly have the money to do so);
they simply could not figure out a way to retain POWER and
CONTROL with a distributed, rather than a centralized energy
system.
--- Quote ---
> The expansion phase of the bubble concealed that for a while
by floating many boats temporarily.
--- End Quote ---
No comment except that the forces of nature will overwhelm any
bubble mechanics that corrupt central bankers or Wall Street can
come up with.
The importance of financial activity pales in the face of
climate change.
--- Quote ---
> I wish that wasn't the way it worked, but it does, whether we
like it or not. All we can do is to understand our situation and
make the best of it.
--- End Quote ---

Renewable Energy is making life and profits more and more
difficult for the fossil fuel corporations.
But you are right that they run the corrupt system and do not
want to cede their power (even if it kills all of us).
--- Quote ---
> [B]Robert F. Kennedy Jr:[/B] 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.
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/06/interview-with-robert-f-kennedy-jr-on-environmental-activism-democratization-of-energy-more/
HTML http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/06/interview-with-robert-f-kennedy-jr-on-environmental-activism-democratization-of-energy-more/
This ends my response and rebuttal of your statements and
predicitons.
<------------------------------------------------------>
[b]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?[/b]
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.)
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-106.gifA 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.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-015.gif
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,559.msg63084.html#msg63084
#Post#: 2501--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: January 4, 2015, 3:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
MKing SEZ,
--- Quote ---
> 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 then...instead...it turned out that drill baby drill WORKED?
Mathz can be tricky!
--- End Quote ---
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 SHIT 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.
HTML http://web2.utc.edu/~fbp972/educ575/wq04MichaelKavur/image002.jpg
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.
HTML http://greatneck.k12.ny.us/gnps/shs/dept/science/krauz/marino_bio_notes/Ecology_files/image006.gif
Pictorial lesson plan for informing the uninformed: The
"logical" choices presented by the profit over planet
evolutionary dead enders to the propagandized chumps:
HTML http://ecology.iww.org/images/SMcMillan1.jpg
Short cognitive time horizons are not conducive to Homo SAP
species perpetuation. 8)
#Post#: 2519--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: January 8, 2015, 5:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010914214256.png
Carbon Counterattack
How Big Oil Is Responding to the Anti-Carbon Moment
SNIPPET 1:
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
350.org 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.
HTML http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/2thumbs.gif

[b]Once upon a time,[/b] 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.
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif

HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif
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.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/snapoutofit.gif
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)
SNIPPET 2:
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
HTML http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg
Propelling the New Global Middle Class
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif
Carbon Humanitarianism
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg
We Can Do It Better
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif

HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil12.gif
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
HTML http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-t-klare/carbon-counterattack_b_6435896.html
SNIPPET 3:
Facing the Challenge
HTML http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb029.gif
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.
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif 
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg
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:
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif 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.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/p8.gif

HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs2277341.gif
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.
SNIPPET 4:
Someday, it will also be seen as one of the more striking lies
on whatever�s left of the historical record.
HTML http://images.zaazu.com/img/Incredible-Hulk-animated-animation-male-smiley-emoticon-000342-large.gif 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.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-031014020143.png
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
michaelklare.com.
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.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-106.gif
[move]Please pass it on. Future generations are counting on all
you ranting bunnies
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-028.gif[/move]
#Post#: 2701--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: February 20, 2015, 6:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW-NadlTFIA&feature=player_embedded
Must read related Greenpeace article at link:
HTML http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/2thumbs.gif
SNIPPET:
--- Quote ---
>
> 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.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300714025456.bmp
>
> 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.
HTML http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000370273/polls_Smiley_Angry_256x256_3451_356175_answer_4_xlarge.png
--- End Quote ---
World�s Biggest PR Firm Quits American Oil Lobby
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/02/20/edelman-quits-american-oil-lobby/
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgQf5KOWLo8&feature=player_embedded
#Post#: 2722--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: February 23, 2015, 5:38 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.
[center]
[IMG width=640
height=360]
HTML http://www.thehoopsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Wei-Hock-Soon.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]Willie Soon DOING what HE DOES.
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif [/center]
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.�
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png 
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.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/02/23/climate-deniers-funding-fossil-fuel-industry/
*****************************************************
Page 6 of 30
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page