DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Fossil Fuel Folly
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2742--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: February 25, 2015, 7:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
02/24/2015 12:47 PM
Climate Denial 101, Paid-Off Scientist Exposed
HTML http://www.whydidyouwearthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tumblr_l7j9nik8Wf1qaxxwjo1_5001.jpeg
SustainableBusiness.com News
What's behind climate change denial?
Many people have long suspected that scientists who refute the
evidence are paid off and now there's proof.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
Willie Soon, a prominent scientist at Harvard-Smithsonian
Center for Astrophysics, has published "scholarly" research for
years with funding from Exxon Mobil, American Petroleum
Institute, Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, Donors Trust
and the utility, Southern Company - over $800,000 since 2008,
and over 1.2 million in the past 10 years.
He published 11 studies in nine professional publications like
Journal of Climate, and didn't mention his compensation came
from the fossil fuel industry - breaching conflict of interest
protocols.
Soon's big argument is that solar flares are causing the Earth
to warm
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif<br
/>. He's the go-to "scientist" for deniers like Senator James
Inhofe (R-OK), who now chairs the Senate Environment Committee.
When Republicans need someone to testify against the science of
climate change, he's their man - he won a "courage" award from
Heartland Institute for standing up to the vast number of
scientists that disagree with him. His testimonies have been
used to block action on climate change and incentives for
renewable energy.
The ridiculous idea that polar bears are not under stress also
comes from him, paid for by the State of Alaska and others that
don't want it listed as endangered.
In his proposals to prospective funders, Soon promises annual
"deliverables" on research published, public presentations, a
book chapter, and testimonies to Congress.
The investigation by Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations
Centre has been reported widely in the news, from The Guardian
to the New York Times.
Senator Ed Markey (D-MA)
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/cowboypistol.gif
says he will
further investigate the "denial-for-hire scheme perpetrated by
the anti-climate action cabal." He wants fossil fuel companies
and trade organizations to disclose their funding of climate
science. "The American public deserve an honest debate that
isn't polluted by the best junk science fossil fuel interests
can buy," he told the Boston Globe.
The fracking industry is also working to distort the science.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/>
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp
Climate Change Discussion
Climate Denial 101
Curious about the psychology behind climate denial and how to
communicate with climate deniers?
Take the online course, Climate Denial 101!
This 7-week course requires 1-2 hours a week of your time. You
can audit the course free of charge. The 12 instructors are
impressive - the international team includes scientists,
computer modelers, communications specialists and lecturers on
the subject. They all contribute to the Skeptical Science
website, where scientists refute the myths.
In the course description they say: You'll learn both the
science of climate change and the techniques used to distort the
science.
--- Quote ---
> "With every myth we debunk, you'll learn the critical thinking
needed to identify the fallacies associated with the myth.
Finally, armed with all this knowledge, you'll learn the
psychology of misinformation. This will equip you to effectively
respond to climate misinformation and debunk myths."
--- End Quote ---
A well-functioning democracy depends on a well-informed public,
they say.
Sign up here for Denial 101:
Website:
www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x#.VOy34ix0w_4
HTML http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26165
#Post#: 2790--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: March 6, 2015, 4:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ii9zGFDtc&feature=player_embedded
Meet the ‘Merchants of Doubt': Spin Doctors
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif<br
/>
fake Obscuring the Truth on Climate Change >:(
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/06/merchants-of-doubt-spin-doctors-climate-change/
#Post#: 3050--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: April 28, 2015, 9:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJIW5yVk__w&feature=player_embedded[/center]
[center]DOUBT IS OUR PRODUCT
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil12.gif[/center]
#Post#: 3114--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: May 10, 2015, 7:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Snowleopard, consistent climate denier for YEARS, is BACK! :P
Snowleopard (AS USUAL) says,
--- Quote ---
> My guess is that they Will Soon drop the global
warming/climate change meme as a means to implement the control
system. Likely sustainability will be the new keyword to induce
Ben Dover to accept the control agenda.
>
--- End Quote ---
For the last three years or so you have been pushing
unscientific, pro-fossil fuel propaganda like "sunspots, not
fossil fuel burning, causes global warming", "the alleged
"pause" in global warming ([i]That HAS been proven a hoax
generated by pro-fossil fuel propaganda[/i]), the "new ice age"
(see Snowleopard wanting to move "south" and making plans to
"ice skate on the Potomac" LOL!), ETC.
For those very same last three years, hard data and scientific
evidence of the horror show in the biosphere thanks to your
fossil fuel burning pals has been pouring in torrentially, YET
you still remain consistent to your climate denier "tune".
:evil4:
But let us assume for the moment that your are right and there
is no global warming. WHY DO YOU, who claim to be looking out
for we-the-people, play blind, deaf and dumb at the rip offs
we-the-people are CONSTANTLY being subjected to by your fossil
fuel PALS if, indeed, they AREN'T your pals and you aren't a
PRO-Fossil Fuel SHILL? :icon_scratch:
FACTS about global warming don't bother you.
I guess FACTS like the following TAXPAYER THEFT FINANCED BY THE
BANKS AND THE GOVERNMENT on behalf of fossil fuel bottom lines
don't bother you either. ;)
--- Quote ---
> Tt costs $1.50 per acre a year for the first five years of a
lease, and increases to $2 per acre for years 5-10 - the same as
when Eisenhower was President.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-023.gif
>
> Royalties are 12.5% of the value of the extracted coal, oil
and gas, but that ends up around 5% after loopholes, and is much
lower than the 18.75% for offshore leases (and that's also
undervalued).
> [color=red][size=12pt]
> US taxpayers are losing about $1 billion a year in royalties -
$30 billion over the past 30 years, says The Mountain Pact.
>
> Read our articles, Even At Bargain Basement Prices, No Coal
Company Bids At Auction and US Continues To Lease Our Coal for
$1 a Ton.
>
> Banks Keep Coal On Life Support
HTML http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000370273/polls_Smiley_Angry_256x256_3451_356175_answer_4_xlarge.png
>
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote ---
> For years, the world's largest banks have promised to stop
financing coal, [color=brown]but in 2014 they still supported
the industry with $144 billion - a billion less than the
previous year.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/swear1.gif
>
> Financing for coal mining actually increased from $55 billion
in 2013 to $70 billion in 2014, and financing for coal-fired
power producers dropped to $75 billion from $90 billion in 2013.
>
> Some banks have stopped financing the worst kinds of coal
mining, such as mountaintop removal in the US and the world's
largest mine in Australia.
>
> "It's outrageous for some banks to be hitching themselves to
this year's UN climate negotiations in Paris as 'climate
leaders' while they are not prepared to pull out of all coal
sector financing, end of story,"
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp<br
/>says Yann Louvel at BankTrack.
>
> Read our articles, World's Biggest Coal Miner Gets Help From
Major Banks and JP Morgan, Bank America, Citi Still Top Coal
Financiers.
>
> Read, The End of Coal, the Coal Finance Report Card 2015,
which ranks the banks:
>
> Website: www.ran.org/coalreportcard
HTML http://www.ran.org/coalreportcard
>
>
HTML http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26288
HTML http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26288
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-100515195005.jpeg
[b]Snowleopard, I am not buying the agnotology that you are
selling. ;)[/b]
HTML http://socialmedianz.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/misleading-car-sale.jpg
Agnotology: Part one of six parts
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/who-can-you-trust/resisting-brainwashing-propaganda/msg2849/#msg2849
Agnotology: Part two of six parts
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/who-can-you-trust/resisting-brainwashing-propaganda/msg2853/#msg2853
Agnotology: Part three of six parts
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/who-can-you-trust/resisting-brainwashing-propaganda/msg2858/#msg2858
Agnotology: Part four of six parts
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/who-can-you-trust/resisting-brainwashing-propaganda/msg2867/#msg2867
Agnotology: Part five of six parts
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/who-can-you-trust/resisting-brainwashing-propaganda/msg2876/#msg2876
Agnotology: Part six of six parts
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/who-can-you-trust/resisting-brainwashing-propaganda/msg2891/#msg2891
#Post#: 3116--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: May 11, 2015, 5:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.plugincars.com/sites/default/files/kwh-meter-620.jpg
Residential rate =
HTML http://elqahera-trading.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/dollar-sign-thumbnail1.jpg<br
/> :P Commerical and industrial rates =
HTML http://elqahera-trading.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/dollar-sign-thumbnail1.jpg<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
The Fantasy of Electric Rates: Time to Educate Ratepayers [/I]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/reading.gif
[i]Scott Sklar, The Stella Group
May 11, 2015 | 2 Comments
Many electric utilities are flexing their political muscles
against solar net metering and state renewable portfolio
standards (RPS). Their main issue is that other consumers are
subsidizing solar (and renewables), particularly pointing to
lower-income consumers. I have already written about the
numerous studies that disprove those allegations, but that is
not what this article is about.
There are several fantasies about electricity rates, and it is
time to address “ratepayers subsidizing solar.” The corollary is
“at no other time do ratepayers subsidize other ratepayers.” I
am here to tell you, dear readers, that this belief is hogwash.
Cross-ratepayer subsidies occur every single day in every
utility service territory.
Fantasy One: There Is One Electric Rate
In many states, residential ratepayers have one homogenized
rate, and commercial/industrial/institutional (CII) ratepayers
have a series of electric sub-rates called demand charges (rates
increase over a certain level of electric use), peak and season
rates, and in de-regulated states “spot” or “ratchet” rates
(which are time-specific rates) and some even have time-of-use
(TOU) rates. So in states where residential customers have a
singular rate, those CII ratepayers subsidize residential rates.
Fantasy Two: There Are No Cross-rate Subsidies
Every utility in their service area allows large industrial,
commercial, and institutional customers receive lower electric
rates. In fact, these large players negotiate with the electric
utility on what rate they expect when they move a facility or
building into an area. The larger they are, the lower electric
rates they get.
According to the Energy Information Administration, 2014
electric utility rates for New England stand at 17.98/kWh for
residential while commercial is 14.04/kWh and industrial is
10.97/kWh, which is the only electric rate that went down from
the year prior. Pacific coast rates are at 13.81/kWh for
residential and 8.51/kWh for industrial, while West South
Central states are at 11.01/kWh for residential, 8.17/kWh for
commercial and 5.75/kWh for industrial.
In fact there is a whole industry of consultants that represent
companies to negotiate lower electric rates with their electric
utilities. One such consultant advertises: “Our energy
consultants routinely negotiate with utilities to generate
savings for companies. These negotiations extend beyond tariff
rates into other utility opportunities, incentives and programs
that involve: obtaining preferable contract terms and developing
specialized rates.”
Manuals for officials from commercial and industry that move or
open new facilities routinely state: “Electricity price
negotiations: In contrast to negotiating your interconnection
agreement, you may have more bargaining flexibility in
negotiating your price for electricity. In some locations, all
electricity prices will be defined by pre-determined tariff
rates. However, ideally you'll find a "negotiated rate tariff,"
which lays out the structure of the agreement but leaves blanks
for the actual prices. This means the door is open for you to
negotiate on price.”
A February 2014 story in Business reported:
--- Quote ---
> Florida Power & Light Co. received the go-ahead from
regulators Tuesday to negotiate discounted rates for industrial
and commercial customers with a load of 2 megawatts or more
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gifin
hopes of bringing
more large power users to its territory. State regulators
unanimously approved what’s known as a commercial/industrial
service rider that gives FPL the flexibility to negotiate prices
with customers within those parameters. Those eligible would
either be companies are at risk of leaving FPL’s territory for
less expensive service outside of Florida or firms weighing
locating in Florida versus other states.
>
--- End Quote ---
The bottom line is that when these large energy users receive
lower negotiated rates — and this happens in every utility
service territory — guess who is subsidizing the richest
ratepayers in the world? Answer: Other ratepayers, usually small
business and residential ratepayers.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp
Fantasy Three: Utilities Can Strong Arm the Political Process
for Electric Rates
On April 17th, The Texas Senate has voted to eliminate the
state's RPS and its Competitive Renewable Energy Zone (CREZ)
program, two initiatives that were instrumental in driving a
huge growth of wind power and an expanding market for solar, as
well.
While only one House of the Texas legislature acted so far this
year, Kansas repealed its RPS in the state legislature this
year. Midwest Energy news reported, “It’s the fourth consecutive
year that renewable-energy opponents such as Wichita-based Koch
Industries and the Kansas Chamber of Commerce have attempted to
downsize or eliminate the requirement that investor-owned
utilities derive increasing proportions of their energy from
renewable sources.”
Bottom line: Due to flatter consumer demand and much higher
consumer adoption of energy efficiency and on-site electrical
generation, the old electric utility model is taking a licking.
Most electric utilities are frantically using their political
clout, just as MaBell did to stall deregulation and cellular.
But while large industrial and commercial ratepayers get huge
electric rate reductions subsidized by other ratepayers, does
anyone hear a call for standby charges due to rate shifts to
other customers? No. Only solar users receive that designation
in some states due to a very sophisticated
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/>campaign by electric utilities. ;)
I personally have no problem with large electric users or solar
users benefitting from their clout or personal entrepreneurism.
But I do strongly object to policymakers and regulators focusing
on the smallest side of the rate shift, rather than the largest
– and implementing fees (standby charges) to address the much
smaller impact on rates than the large users.
Many legislatures and regulatory commissions are falling for
this dual standard ;)on the guise that they need to make the
standard electric utility model viable.
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg
But in fact, their job should be focused on what’s best for all
ratepayers to provide reliable, clean, and affordable (over the
long term) from their electricity delivery system.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
Sadly, most are failing that consumer/ratepayer test. And it’s
our job as electric ratepayers to put our foot down on shifting
penalties to energy savers rather than a more flexible, agile,
electric delivery system we all deserve.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/cowboypistol.gifhttp://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2015/05/the-fantasy-of-electric-rates-time-to-educate-ratepayers
#Post#: 3273--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 9, 2015, 6:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: knarf link ---
>
>
HTML http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/6/9/1433843702040/e7006a9e-e56b-48c6-85b5-95625ce8cfc2-620x372.jpeg
>
> Secretive donors gave US climate denial groups $125m over
three years >:(
>
>
HTML http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/09/secretive-donors-gave-us-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 3346--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 22, 2015, 4:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Good Vermonters tear a fossil fueler Vermonter's propaganda
piece to bits!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gifhttp://www.pic4ever.com/images/swear1.gif
--- Quote ---
>
> Jeff Noordsy
>
> June 21, 2015 at 7:42 pm
>
>
> To those who are following the recent cavalcade of
commentaries and op/ed pieces favoring the pipeline I’m guessing
that you too are taking note that NONE of the proponents are
mentioning the cost of the project. Should we not, as taxpayers
or ratepayers, consider the costs of a project versus the
benefits? That’s certainly what we all do as homeowners, but the
gas company is hoping that they will not be scrutinized in this
manner. The simple fact is that the gas company is asking
(demanding, actually) 40,000 or so already overburdened Vermont
taxpayers to write a $154 million dollar check that MIGHT
provide service to 3000 Vermont homes. That simply does not make
sound economic sense. No matter your feelings about energy in
general or natural gas in particular, this project’s costs far
exceed the benefits. There’s a reason that the proponents will
not speak directly to that issue.
>
>
>
> Jane Palmer
>
> June 21, 2015 at 9:28 pm
>
>
> While the author of this opinion piece has many impressive
credentials, it doesn’t appear she has used any of what she must
have learned through her experience in terms of how to filter
out hype and propaganda from truth and reality. This piece reads
just like a PR release from Vermont Gas. In fact, she uses most
of the same phrases and comparisons and statistics. Problem is,
she most likely got those so called “facts” directly from
Vermont Gas! Forgive me if I am wrong, but she didn’t reference
any studies or articles in her opinion piece.
> Everyone is entitled to their opinion…but it would be more
interesting to read something someone actually thought about
instead of just parroting back what they “learn” from the
advertising and press releases from the company that stands to
gain from the project.
> As someone who acknowledges climate change and the need to
wean ourselves off of fossil fuel, Ms Nystrom Meyer should know
it makes no sense at all to spend over $154 million to hook up
less than 3000 new customers. Since the author lives in
Colchester, she should be pressuring VGS to deliver gas to her
area and other parts of Chittenden and Franklin Counties that
don’t currently have gas but could be hooked up without the
insane expense of building a transmission line.
>
>
> Philip Beliveau
>
> June 21, 2015 at 9:31 pm
>
>
> Wow sounds like you just got a new job with Vt gas. Nice job
of cherry picking the numbers you like to support the position
that lines your pockets. What about the cost of converting
furnaces etc? What about the fact that existing customers will
be paying for this pipeline? Does that obliterate the savings
they have enjoyed? What about that this pipe will cost 180
million to serve 3000 customers? When is the price to high? What
about the other states that are experiencing earth quakes and
water contamination? Is it ok for Vt to benefit when other
states suffer the consequences? Either you know better or you
are being paid to look the other way. Sad!
>
>
>
> Sally Burrell
>
> June 21, 2015 at 10:57 pm
>
>
> We need to discuss methane as well as CO2 when comparing GHG
emissions. Methane is 80 times more potent as a Green House Gas
than CO2. Extracting natural gas releases a significant amount
of methane into the atmosphere and actually makes natural gas a
poor choice compared to oil, propane and even coal. VGS
customers may have enjoyed better rates in the past, but rates
are fluctuating and generally rising. The same savings are no
longer available. Many ratepayers will be paying well beyond
their means to cover the pipeline if it is built. We were not as
aware a decade ago of the overall societal and environmental
costs of using fossil fuels. Now that we know better, it doesn’t
make sense to put long term infrastructure into the ground for a
fuel that causes more destruction, expense and climate chaos for
our future. Renewable sources are steadily being developed and
implemented around the world. We need to transition to a more
sustainable energy system starting now.
>
>
> Chuck Reiss
>
> June 21, 2015 at 11:12 pm
>
>
> Karen Meyer it appears to have decided of the two “solid”
arguments the new gas pipeline is the more solid of the two.
Based on savings of course. It also appears she has cherry
picked her facts to support her argument. Or perhaps she does
not have all the facts she needs. Facts like we can and are
taking older homes and converting them to renewable energy, by
way of conservation, heat pumps and solar pv (on site or
community based). Reducing a household’s energy load any where
from 80 – 100%. and in some cases making the home owner cash
positive on a monthly basis. This is what the comparison should
be, not choosing between a polluting and a less polluting fuel
source. This type of half analysis is exactly what Vermont Gas
is hoping for. They are so far down the path to a fossil fuel
dependent future for Vermont, the idea that we actually have
alternatives that are really clean and less expensive for the
Vermont home owner only wreaks havoc with their corporate model
of keeping us dependent on their infrastructure. So lets learn
the facts before we sit in judgement of the more solid argument.
>
>
> Don Peterson
>
> June 22, 2015 at 8:22 am
>
>
> Ms Nystrom might have had a long career in public service but
she has failed to grasp that the “Public” has changed
dramatically. The public can meet and share ideas in ways that
were not possible ten years ago. Collective wisdom in this case
trumps the status quo.
>
> We expect higher levels of transparency, competence and public
utility than perhaps she is used to. It’s a wake up call for
bureaucrats everywhere.
>
> Why she would place her weight behind this poorly executed
project is a mystery. No doubt someone asked her to help out.
>
>
> Joel R. Davidson
>
> June 22, 2015 at 8:35 am
>
>
> This pipeline project has become to costly to have any benefit
to the customers or State taxpayers. Stop it now before we get
in too deep to back out. New technologies will soon make propane
and natural gas an outdated source of fuel. The solar farms,
while unsightly to some will work effectively with hydrogen
based system. Fuel cells are a viable option. If the storage and
safety concerns can be overcome hydrogen will be the “green”
fuel of choice. It is in endless supply here on earth and
produces pure water as a byproduct. There is no need for major
pipelines and solar energy can help produce large quantities
over time that can be stored where produced. Hydrogen fueled
cars already exist although efficiency needs improvement. How
many readers have not produced hydrogen in a school lab using
electrolysis? There are now much more effective methods of
producing hydrogen. See links below
>
>
HTML http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3706/20140225/scientists-discover-cheaper-way-to-make-hydrogen-fuel.htm
HTML http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3706/20140225/scientists-discover-cheaper-way-to-make-hydrogen-fuel.htm
>
>
HTML http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_production_delivery.html
HTML http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_production_delivery.html
>
> Joel
>
>
> Peter Burmeister
>
> June 22, 2015 at 11:21 am
>
>
> Fossil based fuels, including natural gas, are an obsolete
technology. To continue to invest in distribution systems at the
price of hundreds of millions of dollars, only to be building a
21st century equivalent of an Erie Canal, is absurd. The
environmental cost of encouraging the burning of carbon is
enormous. Certainly our best minds can find far more viable and
less devastating solutions to the problem of home heating during
the Vermont winter.
--- End Quote ---
[center]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/looksmiley.gif
[/center]
Karen Nystrom Meyer: Solid arguments
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif
HTML http://vtdigger.org/2015/06/21/karen-nystrom-meyer-solid-arguments/
HTML http://vtdigger.org/2015/06/21/karen-nystrom-meyer-solid-arguments/
To fossil fueler Karen Nystrom, my neighbor in Colchester,
Vermont.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-090315203150.png
#Post#: 3348--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 22, 2015, 7:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
New Report Exposes Dark Money Funneling to Climate Change Denial
Groups
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg
SNIPPET 1:
The network of corporate-funded right wing think tanks in
America is massive. The money that flows to these organizations
is even more massive than the networks themselves, and it flows
in almost total secrecy thanks to Donors Trust and ]Donors
Capital Fund.
HTML http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/unnamed.jpg
According to the report, a staggering sum of $125 million has
been given to these organizations that deny climate change over
the last three years. Photo credit: Shutterstock
HTML http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/funding.jpg
SNIPPET 2:
A few of the groups listed in the report include:
•The Federalist Society, a networking group for conservative
lawyers and justices which calls on states to reject the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency authority to regulate carbon
pollution, received $8.7 million over the past three years.
•The State Policy Network, a network of ultra-conservative think
tanks, received a total of $8.2 million over the last three
years.
•Think tanks allied with the State Policy Network have worked
with the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a
pro-business lobby, which has sought legislation to penalize
homeowners who install solar panels.
•The Hudson Institute, a Washington think tank whose climate
expert opposes cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, took in $7.9
million over three years.
•The Heartland Institute, which sent a delegation to Rome in
April to try to upstage meetings between the Pope and the UN
Chief Ban Ki Moon on climate change, received $3.8 million.
•The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has received $4.3
million over three years, claims on its website that climate
change is its biggest program.
•The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, whose communications
director is Marc Morano, took $3.7 million from donors in
2012—its most ever. A year later, however, the organization
received $325,000.
Full article:
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/reading.gif
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/22/dark-money-climate-denial/
#Post#: 3434--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: July 9, 2015, 12:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[move]
Internal Documents Expose Fossil Fuel Industry’s Decades of
Deception on Climate Change[/move]
Elliott Negin, Union of Concerned Scientists | July 9, 2015 8:51
am
Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse created a stir recently
when he speculated that fossil fuel companies may be violating
federal racketeering law by colluding to defraud the public
about the threat posed by carbon pollution.
A new report reveals that some of the top carbon polluters were
fully aware of the reality of climate change but continued to
spend tens of millions of dollars to promote contrarian
arguments they knew to be wrong.
Whitehouse likened their actions to those of the tobacco
companies that conspired to manufacture doubt about the link
between smoking and disease when they were all too aware of it.
In 2006, a federal district court ruled that the tobacco
industry’s deceptive campaign to maximize its profits by
hoodwinking the public amounted to a racketeering enterprise.
Whitehouse may be among the first to suggest that the fossil
fuel industry is flouting the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), but he’s not the first to point out
the parallels between the tobacco industry’s fraudulent campaign
and the fossil fuel industry’s efforts to quash government
action on climate change.
Back in 2007, a Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report
revealed that ExxonMobil—then the world’s largest publicly
traded oil and gas company—had spent $16 million between 1998
and 2005 on a network of more than 40 front groups to try to
discredit mainstream climate science. Billionaire industrialists
Charles and David Koch, meanwhile, were outed by a 2010
Greenpeace report revealing they spent significantly more than
ExxonMobil between 2005 and 2008 on virtually the same groups.
Many of those groups and the scientists affiliated with them had
previously shilled for the tobacco industry.
Despite their outsized role, ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers
are just a part of a much bigger story, according to a new UCS
report, “The Climate Deception Dossiers.” After spending nearly
a year reviewing a wide range of internal corporate and trade
association documents pried loose by leaks, lawsuits and Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) requests, UCS researchers have
compiled a broader tale of deceit.
Drawing on evidence culled from 85 documents, the report reveals
that ExxonMobil and five other top carbon polluters—BP, Chevron,
ConocoPhillips, coal giant Peabody Energy and Royal Dutch
Shell—were fully aware of the reality of climate change but
continued to spend tens of millions of dollars to promote
contrarian arguments they knew to be wrong. Taken together, the
documents show that these six companies—in conjunction with the
American Petroleum Institute (API), the oil and gas industry’s
premier trade association, and a host of front groups—have known
for at least two decades that their products are harmful and
have intentionally deceived the public about the climate change
threat.
Exxon Recognized Carbon Emissions Problem 34 Years Ago
HTML http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000370273/polls_Smiley_Angry_256x256_3451_356175_answer_4_xlarge.png
The collected documents reveal the fossil fuel industry campaign
has relied on a variety of deceptive practices, including
creating phony grassroots groups, secretly funding purportedly
independent scientists, and even forging letters from nonprofit
advocacy groups to lobby members of Congress.
Read the other two pages of this excellent and revealing article
at link:
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/reading.gif
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/09/fossil-fuel-industry-climate-change/
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX0-yiZAbBI&feature=player_embedded
#Post#: 3475--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: July 17, 2015, 1:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Dossier shows how oil firms sowed climate doubt
>
> Top oil companies accepted the realities of climate science in
their internal deliberations decades ago, even while outwardly
denying the link between carbon pollution and global warming,
according to a dossier released last week by the Union of
Concerned Scientists. Their refusal to concede that the use of
their product endangers the public reminds Sen. Sheldon
Whitehouse (D-RI) of the tobacco executives of yesteryear who
denied the relationship between smoking and lung disease.
Although most Republicans toe that line, one GOP senator’s
embrace of clean energy as a way to solve the climate challenge
has earned her hefty contributions from a North Carolina
entrepreneur.
> [center]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/reading.gif[/center]
> - See more at:
HTML http://climatesolutions.org/article/1436890756-community-solar-gets-boost-electric-jet-crosses-channel#sthash.phdmr24f.dpuf
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 7 of 30
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page