Politics of Global Warming

[Tyger]

There are threads that have - and are, albeit in abeyance - discussing the validity of the science substanding Global Warming/AGW/Catastrophic Global Warming. There is also a thread that is exploring the world emerging under the aegis of all that, without debate on the science, presuming the science is accurate.

However there is not a thread exploring the politics of Global Warming, which is considerable.

My newsfeed keeps me abreast of most elements in this area - and some interesting articles have been showing up that I thought warranted a new thread. What prompted the decision was an article that indicated (apparently) a decision by editors to close down the voices of those keen to bring the skeptics' voice to the table. I admit to being initially startled. I would not anticipate this - given that the current US Congress is full of deniers and the assumption was that we were in for a 'bumpy ride' around issues of Global Warming for the next two years. But something else seems to be afoot - what really is, appears to be otherwise on closer inspection.

I offer these articles for a fuller picture around the politics of this topic.

The above said, there is internal evidence that this could be a planted article, that will then get referenced as back-up for other articles. I am reminded of Dick Cheney going on 'Meet the Press' and quoting the New York Times's article the previous day about WMD's to back up what he was saying about WMD's. The New York Times article was a 'plant', so Cheney was effectively quoting himself - even though the Times article was actually not saying what Cheney said it was. We seem to find ourselves in a similar situation here. Not saying it is, just that I am speculating that.

First the article, then the analysis -

Reporters told to stop interviewing 'irrelevant' climate change critics
BY PAUL BEDARD | FEBRUARY 10, 2015
LINK: Reporters told to stop interviewing 'irrelevant' climate change critics | WashingtonExaminer.com

TEXT: "A new study of how environmental reporters cover global warming and climate change reveals that they see the issue as one America has endorsed and, as a result, no longer include critics in their reports because they are “generally irrelevant.” And the orders are coming from editors. What’s more, the study from George Mason University found that climate change reporters are weaving their coverage into stories on broader issues to get around editors who don’t want a lot of reports on global warming.

"The study in the authoritative trade magazine Journalism dubbed getting both sides on the climate change issue “false balance.” The study is available by subscription. In “Covering global warming in dubious times: Environmental reporters in the new media ecosystem,” the study authors interviewed nearly a dozen seasoned climate change reporters in the dwindling world of environmental journalism.

"The reporters described how their field was getting hit by newsroom cuts and always under fire because climate change stories are both incremental and bad news. But they said that the fight over climate change is over, that America believes it is happening, and that critics are no longer being interviewed. “As one reporter said, ‘there is pretty much understanding across the board in the United States media now that this is real, this is true, it’s happening, [and] we’re responsible. That debate is over.’ For this reason, he concluded, ‘in this day and age, including climate denialists in a story about climate change is generally irrelevant,’” said the study.

"The anonymous journalists told the scholars that “this practice of ignoring skeptics was largely supported by their managers and editors. In fact, one reporter’s news organization had recently developed an explicit editorial policy discouraging reporters from quoting climate change deniers in environment or science coverage.” The only paper mentioned in the study was the New York Times.

"The study said that how media covers climate change determines what many people believe, and ignoring criticism is a big deal. “If accurate, this claim of a shift away from the ‘false balance’ coverage of the past is potentially quite significant, because research also suggests that how journalists choose to cover and frame climate change matters. In short, decisions about who to source, how to communicate uncertainty, and even choices of basic terminology can subtly shape how the public understands the issue, including, as numerous studies suggest, their overall level of knowledge as well as their specific views on the causes of climate change, the severity of the problem, and the level of consensus among scientist,” said the study.

"Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist."


The 'Washington Examiner' is LINK: The Washington Examiner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TEXT: "The Washington Examiner is a political journalism publication based in Washington, D.C., that distributes its content via daily online reports and a weekly magazine. It is owned by MediaDC, a subsidiary of Clarity Media Group, which is owned by Denver billionaire Philip Anschutz and which also owns the influential conservative opinion magazine The Weekly Standard. From 2005 to mid-2013, the Examiner published a daily tabloid-sized newspaper, distributed free throughout the Washington, D.C., metro area, largely focused on local news and conservative commentary. The local newspaper ceased publication on June 14, 2013, and its content began to focus exclusively on national politics, switching its print edition from a daily newspaper to a weekly magazine format." "...right-wing tilt of its editorial pages and sensationalist front-page headlines..."

Wiki states that: "The neutrality of this article's introduction is disputed."

The problem that arises here is that the report being discussed doesn't actually say what the article is reporting (as far as I can determine). Rather than talking about deniers being silenced, it is reporting on what reporters do to get their climate change articles past editors. There is a difference.

Covering global warming in dubious times: Environmental reporters in the new media ecosystem
LINK: Covering global warming in dubious times: Environmental reporters in the new media ecosystem
TEXT: "ABSTRACT - With every Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, the predicted consequences of global warming become increasingly dire. Yet public engagement on the issue, particularly in the United States, lags far behind what is required for collective action. There is therefore an urgent need for vigorous and engaging journalism on climate science and policy-making. Unfortunately, the profession of journalism is currently experiencing an unprecedented period of ferment, as media firms experiment with new ways to expand profits in a rapidly changing media ecosystem. Drawing on in-depth interviews, this article examines how environmental journalists have coped with the challenge of covering climate change in the context of a restructuring news industry. The interviews reveal that, despite the challenges they face – particularly regarding the complexity of the issue and their own economic insecurity – environmental journalists have developed a number of creative strategies for getting climate change stories past editors and in front of audiences. A concluding section draws on a cultural industries approach to studying media institutions in order to evaluate both the promise and limits of these individual acts of creativity."

 

[Tyger]

Very long, intriguing article -

The Pentagon & Climate Change: How Deniers Put National Security at Risk: The leaders of our armed forces know what's coming next – but deniers in Congress are ignoring the warnings
By Jeff Goodell February 12, 2015
LINK: The Pentagon and Climate Change: Is National Security at Risk? | Rolling Stone

 

[Tyger]

Obama Tells the Truth About Climate Change. Oops?
LINK:Terrorism vs climate change: Obama says global warming impacts more people than terrorism—he’s right.

TEXT: "Climate change got only a passing mention in President Obama’s lengthy Voxinterview, but what at first seemed like a largely forgettable exchange has since generated a decent amount of buzz in Washington. Asked whether the media “sometimes overstates” the risks posed by terrorism when compared to things like global warming and epidemic disease, the president responded, “Absolutely.”

"That was a somewhat politically risky response given the flak Obama took for his no-show at last month’s Paris unity march. It drew the predictable response from Mike Huckabee, who quipped on Fox News, “I assure you that a beheading is much worse than a sunburn.” And it also led to a prolonged back-and-forth between White House press secretary Josh Earnest and ABC News’ Jonathan Karl at Tuesday’s briefing, during which Earnest fleshed out Obama’s position like so: "The point that the president is making is that there are many more people on an annual basis who have to confront the impact, the direct impact on their lives of climate change or on the spread of a disease than on terrorism.”

"Which leads me to two points, the first of which the New Republic’s Rebecca Leber makes for me—the numbers back up Obama’s general take. A 2012 DARA International report, commissioned by 20 governments, estimated that climate change causes an average of 400,000 deaths each year—a total that could grow to more than 600,000 by 2030. “Inaction on climate change,” the report concludes, “can be considered a leading global cause of death.” Global warming’s reach grows exponentially larger when you consider more than just fatalities. According to DARA, “250 million people face the pressures of sea-level rise; 30 million people are affected by more extreme weather, especially flooding; 25 million people are affected by permafrost thawing; and 5 million people are pressured by desertification.”

"Terrorism doesn’t even begin to approach those numbers. According to the Global Terrorism Index compiled by the Institute for Economics and Peace, there were nearly 18,000 deaths from terrorist attacks in 2013. The report itself concedes that even though terrorism is on the rise, it claims 40 times fewer lives globally than homicide. Only roughly half of terrorist attacks include a fatality, so the true number of those impacted is surely higher, but it’s impossible to imagine the total could approach DARA’s climate figures.

"My second point is that we’ve actually heard a version of this public-health sales pitch from Obama before. During this past summer’s rollout of the EPA’s historic climate initiative, the president and his allies went to great lengths to reframe the climate change debate around the health of our children and the elderly, as opposed to the fate of the polar bears and the melting ice caps that have long served as the de facto mascots of the climate movement.

"There’s evidence that was a smart move. A 2012 research report from Yale University’s Project on Climate Change Communication found that placing the conversation within a public-health frame was more likely “to elicit emotional reactions consistent with support for climate change mitigation and adaptation” than a traditional environmental frame, or even one focused on national security. More importantly was whom the health pitch spoke to loudest: Americans who to varying degrees haven’t made up their minds about just how pressing a threat man-made climate change is.

"Still, it’s not entirely clear if this is a battle the White House wants to have, or just Obama speaking truth off the cuff. Hyping the public-health benefits of addressing climate change is one thing, but the introduction of terrorism into the conversation at least gives the impression that Obama is prioritizing one above the other. The numbers may support doing just that, but it’s unclear if that’s a message Americans are eager to hear. In a Pew Research Center poll last month, global warming came in second from the bottom on a list of Americans’ 23 top policy priorities for 2015. Terrorism, meanwhile, came in first."

 

[Charlie Prime]

AGW is a global tax scheme to transfer wealth from poor people to rich people.

It's a brilliant scam. I'm working to get in on it.

 

[Tyger]

AGW is a global tax scheme to transfer wealth from poor people to rich people.

Don't just assert, explain how the scheme works.

 

[Charlie Prime]

Don't just assert, explain how the scheme works.

It works just like the old scheme of indulgences the Catholic Church employed.

Humans are born filthy sinners. Their very existence produces the sin of carbon emissions. Humans pop out of the womb sinning against God/Gaia.

Fortunately, there exists a class of learned Priests who posses the unique ability to sell forgiveness for sin in the form of indulgences/carbon credits. This technocratic priest class builds highly regressive Carbon Taxes into every human activity such as growing food, staying warm, or moving across the land.

These regressive sin taxes are then extracted from poor people and transferred to the super-rich. The super-rich then use this wealth as power to control and tax ever larger amounts of human activity.

It's brilliant.

 

[Charlie Prime]

My newsfeed keeps me abreast of most elements in this area -

That's well and good, but you aren't really helping the earth unless you purchase Carbon Credits.

The average American emits 20 tons of carbon per year. I will sell you 20 Carbon Credits for the low, one-time price of $16 per ton if you buy 20. If you buy less than 20, I'll sell them to you for $17 each.

How many would you like Tyger?

 

[manxman]

You were warned by one of your greatest statesmen, who could it see coming.

Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation

Eisenhower’s true words still ring valid today, with the great global warming scam.


The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project funding, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

 

[manxman]

Articles: Climate Change Hysteria and the Madness of Crowds


Shakespeare’s Hamlet pondered the eternal conundrum of competing choices. His “Aye, there’s the rub” nicely summarizes the conflicts inherent in the present socio/political/scientific arena of climate discussions.

Years of relentless doomsday prognostications by a variety of public voices spanning the political-scientific spectrum have found their mark in a gullible and guilt-prone public. There is a Medusa-like quality in the serpentine web of doomsday prophets, including members of the Club of Rome, Paul Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb,” and the current White House science advisor, John Holdren. In the U.S., Rachel Carson proclaimed DDT to be environmental enemy number one, and inspired Al Gore to discover “Inconvenient Truths,” later found to be not so truthful. Al Gore’s contribution to making climate change a co-equal amongst the four horsemen of the apocalypse is matched by M. Mann’s reinterpretation of global temperature history. Repeated refutations of “faulty” science and failed predictions of climate calamities have not deterred these marketers of doom. Cut the head off, yet it lives on.

Sustainability, population control, and redistributive-based social justice were offered as moral justifications for the one-world governance needed to solve one-world problems, as posited by the UK’s Barbara Ward. Answering this “cri de coeur,” the U.N. global bureaucrats crafted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as the instrument by which life-sustaining carbon dioxide would be reinvented as the most dangerous threat to the world. Our current Federal government is more certain than ever that “the science is settled,” and that the global climate bears the human stain of excessive consumption of fossil fuels. An unelected Federal agency, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has assumed the role of guardian of public health via arbitrary edicts regulating all things atmospheric, in addition to all surface waters. Those wishing to pursue independent traditional scientific inquiry and reproducibility of EPA claimed findings have noted an adamant shyness by the EPA in producing the requested original data.

“Fear and loathing” is no longer confined to Las Vegas, but has been turned into a self-hate/guilt propaganda tool by doomsday prophets and fear profiteers. Humans are carbon -- based life forms intertwined in the biological interdependence upon green plant production of oxygen and consumption of carbon dioxide. Thus the guilt stage is set for humans to be declared a living source of this newly-defined carbon pollution, and therefore enemies of mother Earth. According to the Club of Rome: "The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself." Population control is the implied remedy.

More recently, a trio of financial market heavyweights has entered the climate change propaganda fray with their “Risky Business” media blitz. Perhaps somewhat jealous of the huge financial profits that Al Gore‘s Generation Investment Management (GIM) made from his doomsday climate predictions and inconvenient truth campaign, these risk experts have their own updated scare story. Business will lead the way, they say: “We believe that American businesses should play an active role in helping the public sector determine how best to react to the risks and costs posed by climate change, and how to set the rules that move the country forward in a new, more sustainable direction.” Trust us, we are from the government has been usurped by a “trust us, we are from business.” These risk experts and their companies have reaped huge financial rewards by profitably defining and pricing risk, and then getting the public to pay insurance premiums to protect itself from the hypothetical risk. The greater the hyped risk, the greater the corporate insurance profit.

Countering this climate doomsday propaganda has been a number of scientists and independent organizations. Manipulation of the historical temperature record by our own government agencies has been documented. Such revisions serve to make the historical record conform to the political aims and views of our Federal government, that global warming is occurring and is linked to fossil fuel use. Proliferation of internet access has provided the new open public soap box, independent of traditional media, itself fully in the climate panic mode. Web sites maintained by Anthony Watts, Marc Morano, and Steve Milloy are just a few of many striving to get the unpoliticized science before the public.

In this admittedly truncated history of climate change propaganda and counterargument, there is contained the conundrum originally mentioned. Incomplete climate science, unsubstantiated claims in place of traditional scientific proof, political policy dogma, social equity objectives, and businesses feeding off the largess of government and public fear continue to receive scant criticism in the general media. The public has downgraded its concern with “climate change” when polled, yet it continues to elect politicians dedicated to enacting a governmental cure for climate change. Businesses profit from proclaiming that they are “green.” Renewable is the key word for obtaining government largesse.

For the public at large, scientific truth alone does not trump feelings of environmental guilt and demands that politicians take care of the presumptive problem. Scientific validity in these matters is an essential, but not adequate response to change the public’s emotional concerns for “clean air,” “clean energy,” and a “healthy environment for themselves and their children.”

Economist Julian Simon reflected upon the failure of the news media to report his debunking of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s “vanishing farmland scam” in his 1999 book, Hoodwinking the Nation. Most of the rest of the book deals with the conundrum of the public’s propensity to accept “false bad news.” In the intervening 15 years there is little evidence that this peculiar human trait has changed; bad news still sells; bad news still drives charitable public donations.

Even earlier, Charles Mackay provided historical evidence for the peculiar behavior and beliefs of large crowds in his 1841 book, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. It contains an insightful account of the “Tulipomania” craze of the mid-1600s. When considering the current climate change craze, reflect upon Mackay’s observation that: “We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first.”

So perhaps climate change hysteria may yet have to burn itself out much like a disease pandemic. Meanwhile traditional science-backed climate studies will continue to have an uphill fight against the propensities of human nature and the madness of crowds.

 

[Tyger]

The Pentagon & Climate Change: How Deniers Put National Security at Risk
The leaders of our armed forces know what's coming next – but deniers in Congress are ignoring the warnings
By Jeff Goodell February 12, 2015
LINK: Page 8 of The Pentagon and Climate Change: Is National Security at Risk? | Rolling Stone

TEXT: "Rear Adm. Jonathan White, the Navy's chief oceanographer and head of its climate-change task force, is one of the most knowledgeable people in the military about what's actually happening on our rapidly heating planet. Whenever another officer or a congressperson corners White and presses him about why he spends so much time thinking about climate change, he doesn't even try to explain thermal expansion of the oceans or ice dynamics in the Arctic. "I just take them down to Norfolk," White says. "When you see what's going on down there, it gives you a sense of what climate change means to the Navy — and to America. And you can see why we're concerned."

"Those who talk most about climate change — scientists, politicians, environmental activists — tend to frame the discussion in economic and moral terms. But last month, in a dramatic turn, President Obama talked about climate change in an explicitly military context: "The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security," he said in his State of the Union address. "We should act like it." "

 

[Tyger]

China, the Climate and the Fate of the Planet
If the world's biggest polluter doesn't radically reduce the amount of coal it burns, nothing anyone does to stabilize the climate will matter. Inside the slow, frustrating — and maybe even hopeful — struggle to find a new way forward
By Jeff Goodell September 15, 2014
LINK: China, the Climate and the Fate of the Planet | Rolling Stone

TEXT: "The blunt truth is that what China decides to do in the next decade will likely determine whether or not mankind can halt – or at least ameliorate – global warming. The view among a number of prominent climate scientists is that if China's emissions peak around 2025, we may – just barely – have a shot at stabilizing the climate before all hell breaks loose. But the Chinese have resisted international pressure to curb their emissions. For years, they have used the argument that they are poor, the West is rich, and that the high levels of carbon in the atmosphere were caused by America's and Europe's 200-year-long fossilfuel binge. Climate change is your problem, they argued – you deal with it. But that logic doesn't hold anymore. China is set to become the largest economy in the world this year, and in 2006, it passed the U.S. as the planet's largest carbon polluter. China now dumps 10 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. That number is expected to grow to 15 billion tons by 2030, dwarfing the pollution of the rest of the world. If that happens, then the chances that the world will cut carbon pollution quickly enough to avert dangerous climate change is, according to Kevin Anderson, deputy director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in the U.K., "virtually zero." "

 

[Tyger]

Fossil Fuel Donations Largely Absent From Newspapers' Coverage Of Keystone XL
February 3, 2015
LINK: http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/02/03/fossil-fuel-donations-largely-absent-from-newsp/202394

TEXT: "A Media Matters review of several major newspapers found that their coverage of congressional efforts to force approval of the Keystone XL pipeline has been missing an essential component of the story: the hundreds of millions of dollars that the fossil fuel industry spent in the midterm elections to elect members of Congress who support Keystone XL and other aspects of the oil industry's agenda. Of the newspapers reviewed, only The New York Times tied congressional support for Keystone XL back to the fossil fuel industry's campaign contributions.

Fossil Fuel Interests Spent Vast Amounts To Lay Groundwork For Industry-Friendly Congress
Fossil Fuel Industry Spent Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars During 2014 Election Cycle. According to an analysis from the Center for American Progress, the coal, oil, gas and electric utility industries spent at least $721 million during the 2014 midterm election cycle, with a goal of "putting industry-friendly politicians in charge of both chambers and laying the groundwork for the new Congress to advance special-interest priorities such as approving the Keystone XL pipeline":

According to an analysis of contributions and lobbying data from the Center for Responsive Politics and advertising spending data from Kantar Media Intelligence/CMAG, as published by the Atlas Project, the fossil-fuel industry directly invested $721 million--and perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars more through contributions to outside groups--in order to secure a Congress of its choosing and a friendly energy agenda. Of these investments, the fossil-fuel industry directly contributed more than $64 million to candidates and political parties, spent more than $163 million on television ads across the country, and paid almost $500 million to Washington lobbyists in the two years leading up to the November 2014 elections. [Center for American Progress, 12/22/14]​

Legislation Passed Senate, House That Would Force Construction Of The Keystone XL Pipeline. The first agenda item of the new GOP-controlled Senate was to pass a bill forcing approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to refineries at the Gulf of Mexico. President Obama has announced that he will veto the bill, which passed the Senate on January 29 and must be reconciled with a similar House version before reaching the President's desk. The Huffington Post reported:

The Senate voted Thursday afternoon to approve a bill authorizing construction of the Keystone XL pipeline over the presidential approval process, capping off weeks of debate over amendments.

Following the vote, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) praised the passage, calling it a victory "for jobs in this country, for energy security, for good trade relationships with our neighbor in Canada."

"For all the right reasons, it was important that we pass this legislation in front of us here today," said Murkowski.

The bill passed by a vote of 62 to 36, with all Republicans and nine Democrats voting in favor. The House approved similar legislation earlier this month. It's unclear at this point whether the two chambers will need to conference on a bill, or whether the House will pass the Senate bill as amended.

But the bill is destined for a veto either way, as the White House has said President Barack Obama will not sign it into law. [Huffington Post, 1/29/15]​

Senators And Representatives Voting In Favor Of Keystone XL Received Much More Fossil Fuel Money Than Those Voting Against. Think Progress reported that according to Oil Change International, the Senators voting in favor of the recent Keystone XL bill have received more than $31 million over their careers from the oil and gas industry, compared to under $2.7 million in career contributions for the Senators who voted against the bill. Put another way, the 62 Senators voting in favor of the pipeline have taken, on average, seven times more oil and gas industry money than the 36 Senators who voted against it. Similarly, the Representatives that voted in favor of the House version of the Keystone XL bill received 8.5 times more oil and gas industry money in the 2014 election cycle, on average, than those voting against the bill. ThinkProgress, 1/29/15; Oil Change International, 1/29/15 via Facebook; Oil Change International, 1/9/15 via Twitter]

The New Republic: Keystone XL Debate Shows "The Kochs Are Already Getting What They Paid For In Congress." The New Republic's Rebecca Leber explained that the passage of the Keystone XL bill exemplifies the energy industry's influence on Congress -- particularly, that of the oil-giant Koch brothers' network:

Just one month into the new Congress, and already the Kochs' fossil fuel interests--which include oil pipelines and refineries--have neatly aligned with Republican priorities. The Koch network's campaign for and against Keystone amendments not only offers a preview of future energy battles, but demonstrate their difficult-to-quantify political influence.

In January, three conservative groups --Heritage Action, American Energy Alliance (AEA), and Americans for Prosperity (AFP) -- combined for a total of seven key vote alerts on amendments that would count in their congressional scorecards. The alerts serve as a warning: If a senator votes against the group's interest, he or she risks future attacks from the right. All three groups are tied to the Kochs: AFP is considered the brothers' "main political arm," and they have contributed to Heritage and AEA.

[...]

All three groups endorsed the overall Keystone XL bill, of course. Koch Industries stands to gain financially from the pipeline's construction, because the behemoth company owns an estimated 1.1 million acres of leases for Canada's tar sands and the pipeline would likely boost development there. [The New Republic, 2/1/15]​

Newspapers Largely Ignored Fossil Fuel Industry's Influence On Congressional Keystone XL Debate

Fossil Fuel Industry Spending Not Mentioned In Recent Keystone XL Coverage By Several Major Newspapers. According to Media Matters' review, the Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post ignored the fossil fuel industry's spending to influence Congress in their reporting of Keystone XL since January 1.

By Contrast, The New York Times Explained How Fossil Fuel Industry Influenced Keystone XL Outcome. Of the U.S. newspapers and wires included in this analysis, The New York Times was the only outlet that provided coverage of the fossil fuel industry's influence on the recent congressional debate over Keystone XL, via one article and two op-eds:

The New York Times reported on January 15 that the Koch brothers' political advocacy group Americans for Prosperity "spent big to help Republicans take control of Congress" and that the group would continue "to press Congress into action on approving the Keystone XL pipeline." [The New York Times, 1/15/15]

In a January 8 op-ed, contributing op-ed writer Timothy Egan wrote: "The Koch brothers Congress, purchased with the help of about $100 million from the political network of the billionaire energy producers, got down to its first order of business this week: trying to hold off the future." The first example Egan cited was that Congress "is trying to rush through the Keystone XL pipeline to carry oil from the dirty tar sands of Canada to the Gulf Coast." [The New York Times, 1/8/15]

Paul Krugman stated in a January 11 op-ed: "It should come as no surprise that the very first move of the new Republican Senate is an attempt to push President Obama into approving the Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry oil from Canadian tar sands. After all, debts must be paid, and the oil and gas industry -- which gave 87 percent of its 2014 campaign contributions to the G.O.P. -- expects to be rewarded for its support." [The New York Times, 1/11/15]​

LA Times, Washington Post Each Ran Articles That Mentioned Fossil Fuel Spending And Keystone XL -- But Did Not Connect The Two. The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post both published interest pieces within the time frame of this study that mentioned the fossil fuel industry's electoral spending and the Keystone XL pipeline but did not make the connection between the industry's financial influence and congressional support for the pipeline:

The Los Angeles Times published an interview with climate change activist and billionaire Tom Steyer in which he differentiated between his electoral and the outside groups spending on behalf of the fossil fuel industry. Steyer stated that the fossil fuel industry has been spending "to maintain the dirty energy status quo in Congress in the past two years," in part through "dark money groups" that are not required to report or disclose their expenditures and donors. Later in the interview, the Los Angeles Times asked Steyer about Keystone XL being "on Congress' agenda," but not in the context of electoral spending. [Los Angeles Times, 1/20/15]

The Washington Post published a biographical feature on Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), the head of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which noted that Inhofe "aims to take center stage" on a variety of issues including Keystone XL, and later noted that the oil and gas industry is Inhofe's top source of campaign money. But the article made no connection between the two subjects. [The Washington Post, 1/8/15] ​

Newspapers Also Failed To Cover Senate Amendment That Would Require Tar Sands Financial Disclosure

CAP Report: Fossil Fuels Contributed Through "Dark Money" Groups. In addition to direct campaign contributions and other disclosed expenditures, the fossil fuel industry provided significant financial support for candidates in the midterm elections through use of "dark money groups" that do not disclose their donors, as detailed in a report from the Center for American Progress. From the report:

Oil, gas, and coal interests are also reported to have funneled an unknown amount of money through so-called dark-money groups that are not required to disclose their donors, such as organizations in the Koch network. The top six Koch-backed organizations planned to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the midterm elections; the National Journal reported that the Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Partners Action Fund alone spent a "combined $100 million on competitive races in 2014." Not only are these Koch-network organizations directly funded by oil and gas industries, adding hundreds of millions of dollars more to estimates of fossil-fuel spending, but these major players also lobby on energy and environmental issues promoting pro-coal, oil, and gas priorities. [Center for American Progress, 12/22/15]​

Whitehouse Amendment Would Have Required Disclosure Of "Dark Money" Contributions From Tar Sands Industry. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) sponsored an amendment to the Senate Keystone XL bill that would have required campaign finance disclosures by companies that make more than $1 million from tar sands production. It was voted down 52 to 44. From Sen. Whitehouse's floor remarks describing the amendment:

We know that since Citizens United there has been a torrent of corporate money poured into our elections, and a great deal of it has come from the fossil fuel industry. We know also that beside that torrent of disclosed money has been another torrent of dark money that has poured into our elections. We don't know quite where that has come from, but there are plenty of reasons to suspect and to suggest that money has also come from the fossil fuel industry.

[...]

This amendment would require that companies that will make more than $1 million off of the Keystone Pipeline should meet the disclosure obligations that we have voted on before in the Senate. These are disclosure obligations that Republican Senators have often supported in the past. [Senate.gov, accessed 2/2/15; Congress.gov, 1/27/15]​

Whitehouse Amendment Was Ignored By Newspapers. Sen. Whitehouse's amendment was not mentioned in any of the newspapers included in this study.

METHODOLOGY: Media Matters analyzed articles from the Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post by searching in Nexis and Factiva for (Keystone XL) and (lobby! or campaign! or donor or contribut! or congress or senate or vote or house or gop) from January 1 through February 2, 2015. Letters to the editor, blogs, and news briefs were not included in this study.

 

[Charlie Prime]

Oh. I see. No discussion on a discussion forum.

This thread is to be another of your personal drive-by graffiti walls.

One such thread isn't rude and selfish enough.

 

[Tyger]

It works just like the old scheme of indulgences the Catholic Church employed. Humans are born filthy sinners. Their very existence produces the sin of carbon emissions. Humans pop out of the womb sinning against God/Gaia. Fortunately, there exists a class of learned Priests who posses the unique ability to sell forgiveness for sin in the form of indulgences/carbon credits. This technocratic priest class builds highly regressive Carbon Taxes into every human activity such as growing food, staying warm, or moving across the land. These regressive sin taxes are then extracted from poor people and transferred to the super-rich. The super-rich then use this wealth as power to control and tax ever larger amounts of human activity. It's brilliant.

That's well and good, but you aren't really helping the earth unless you purchase Carbon Credits. The average American emits 20 tons of carbon per year. I will sell you 20 Carbon Credits for the low, one-time price of $16 per ton if you buy 20. If you buy less than 20, I'll sell them to you for $17 each. How many would you like Tyger?

Oh. I see. No discussion on a discussion forum.

This thread is to be another of your personal drive-by graffiti walls.

One such thread isn't rude and selfish enough.

Please look at your previous two posts. What in those posts is one to respond to? There is nothing much there but nonsense imo. Plus I don't have much interest in carbon tax. To each his own, correct? We all respond to what interests us, and to posters whose views we find interesting, not so? We are all free.

As for the graffiti wall comment, I'm not aware that I have such. Your comment itself is 'rude' - why would I respond to someone whose first line of discussion is rudeness?

Every thread has a topic. When I first arrived on this chat site, posting on a thread outside the parameters of the thread topic was something I was sanctioned for by other forum members (not even moderators). I do not recall forum members indicating that such an attitude on their part was 'selfish' or 'rude'.

As far as I know, every thread can be posted to. There are no threads on this site that are off-limits to anyone. I assume you are referencing the Climate Change threads? Not so? Fact is, in that situation - amongst a plethora of Climate Change threads, just one has been dedicated to one aspect of the situation, and that is the situation you object to? That if you come on that thread you keep to the topic? How onerous for you. Fact is, unless that restriction is firmly in place, there are certain posters who will sand-bag the thread with off-topic posts. A bit like - since you are fond of religious similes - the Westboro Church members making their presence (and opinion) known regardless of appropriateness.

I think your posts require no comment. They are examples of the politics associated with Climate Change. 'Nuf said.

 

[Charlie Prime]

In your "New World: Climate Change" thread you attempt to prohibit discussion of climate change.

You said in that thread that you post multi-page articles which you said YOU HAVEN'T EVEN READ.

In the online discussion world, such spamming is normally considered the apex of conceit and rudeness, and such spam is not tolerated in moderated forums. It has been that way since I began posting on alt.science on USENET in 1988.

I've seen you drive many good and interesting posters off this Paracast forum due to your spam, incoherent lack of reasoning, and piles of logical fallacies.

Your behavior drives away good posters. People are not willing to invest the time and energy to craft a good discussion when they know a thread can be destroyed at any time by you on your whim. That harms this forum.

 

[Stagger Lee]

It works just like the old scheme of indulgences the Catholic Church employed.

Humans are born filthy sinners. Their very existence produces the sin of carbon emissions. Humans pop out of the womb sinning against God/Gaia.

Fortunately, there exists a class of learned Priests who posses the unique ability to sell forgiveness for sin in the form of indulgences/carbon credits. This technocratic priest class builds highly regressive Carbon Taxes into every human activity such as growing food, staying warm, or moving across the land.

These regressive sin taxes are then extracted from poor people and transferred to the super-rich. The super-rich then use this wealth as power to control and tax ever larger amounts of human activity.

It's brilliant.

Could this be why I received a $1200 dollar electric bill last year for the month of February? We switched providers in the fall of that year to save money on electric bill. That provider jack up it's rates in the winter months putting our 1000 sq ft. ranch home in the thousands to heat last winter. We are still paying it off.

 

[Tyger]

In your "New World: Climate Change" thread you attempt to prohibit discussion of climate change.

That thread is the only thread on this chat site that is for discussion of Climate Change as fact. The only thread. There are scads of climate change threads that have debated the science. It appears that you object to allowing the discussion of climate change as fact on one solitary thread. In fact, it is those like yourself who are attempting to prohibit discussion of climate change along a particular vein.

You said in that thread that you post multi-page articles which you said YOU HAVEN'T EVEN READ.

Please give the post number where I said that. It's possible I posted a link to something I was in the middle of reading once or twice - and said so - but I do not post what I haven't read in general. I have to have read what I post, else I wouldn't be able to highlight and cross reference articles the way I do btw.

In the online discussion world, such spamming is normally considered the apex of conceit and rudeness, and such spam is not tolerated in moderated forums. It has been that way since I began posting on alt.science on USENET in 1988.

I am not spamming, that's why it is 'tolerated'. If you have that degree of experience on the internet, you know that the 'good 'ol days' of spamming wars and high end trolling can no longer be engaged in. Some posters here - perhaps you yourself - miss those days when you could drive other posters into oblivion with nonsense like your next sentence below.

I've seen you drive many good and interesting posters off this Paracast forum due to your spam, incoherent lack of reasoning, and piles of logical fallacies.

I seriously doubt a rare poster like me who does not post across the board would have any influence on posters staying or going. I suspect that the 'interesting posters' you mention - care to name them? - left for quite other reasons.

Also, interesting accusations - provocative - meant to illicit the time honored (from the USENET days) flame war. Sadly, it is you yourself, in my experience, that I have noted engages in questionable reasoning. It's your business. I leave you alone - have you noticed that? Since I determined that you do not really have an intelligent grasp of ideas, and are pretty deluded in some areas, I make no attempt to have a conversation with you. Sorry to be so blunt.

You've made a decision to come out swinging at me. If you do so, I do respond (to an extent) and will name what you are doing. Generally I leave posters like you alone. If you impede my ability to post, I will stand up for myself. That is what trolls hate. I'm not saying you're trolling right now, but it's coming close to something very much like that.

Your behavior drives away good posters. People are not willing to invest the time and energy to craft a good discussion when they know a thread can be destroyed at any time by you on your whim. That harms this forum.

Serious accusation. Care to back all that up with 'chapter and verse' examples? Meaning - thread links, post numbers - real examples of me destroying a thread on a whim and driving away good posters. I'm interested.

 

[manxman]

That thread is the only thread on this chat site that is for discussion of Climate Change as fact. The only thread. There are scads of climate change threads that have debated the science. It appears that you object to allowing the discussion of climate change as fact on one solitary thread. In fact, it is those like yourself who are attempting to prohibit discussion of climate change along a particular vein.

This is just typical of the nonsense peddled.

Firstly you dictate your rules, catastrophic climate change is a given, and no science talk.

Then you post about nothing but the science, apart from abit of politics, and telling us about you being a scientist ofcourse, and understanding the scientific method better than us.

Its nothing more than a sophistical p1ss-take, your own alarmist graffiti wall, its your hysterical beliefs that are in the minority here, theres no reason with you.

Catastrophic climate change theory is based on runaway global warming theory, which is based on the greenhouse effect theory.

They are STILL to this day ALL theory, thats what normal people grasp.

Take the hysterical bull about, the ''research'' about us being 15yrs until the human apocalypse, its all true and really happening with you, so you have to warn people over multi-threads, with no dissent permissible, and when its you in the minority, and a very tiny minority aswell unless you believe alot of us think theres an impending apocolypse in 15yrs time.

Normal people can see the first 15yrs of the 30 havent warmed the planet one iota, and the IPCC say the hiatus may last another 10yrs, Normal people dont see an apocalypse happening in the following 5yrs, those postings are just pure billy miere fantasy belief system, pure and simple.

Every post you make as fact on the subject is sophistical, as 'all' your 'facts' are just fragments of theories, this is the very basics you dont grasp.


And another thing i didnt realise i have been talking with a teenage female, of course i should have realised it, i do now charlie pointed it out.
I wont be bothering with the hysterics infuture.

................................





Heres a perfect example of how you used that 'private' thread to take the p1ss totally.
You made a post about deep ocean warming and cited some professor, and you were quickly shot down with the nasa argo float data, which nasa said shows zero temperature rise.

That was in the none private thread, so you made 5 postings in a row about the same professor, saying the same things,.
And still saying the same to his students, proudly trumpeting his false science and conclusions, and viewing it as some kind of victory, who would want their kids taught science by him ?, i mean really, is he a victory for climate change.

Just as blatant as you like,run away to 'your' thread and make not one post but 5 **** you posts in a row.
Goggs is blind to it, and your pester power wins, grown-ups dont pester.

Where you can make 5 posts about deep ocean warming, if i post a link to nasa argo.
You freak out, pester Goggs, Goggs deletes it, because somehow argo is about the ''science''.

Whereas sciency vids or quoting professors talking about psuedo-science isnt against your rules, it has its own magical catagory
You do see it is you trying to stifle debate, and for good reason, nothing you post pass's the sophistry sniff test.





All 5 posts just junk science, presented as well researched fact, when posted with the full knowledge it was false assertion, pure sophistical bullsh1t, nor is it the only example, same as the 1000 word postings about SS, and how wonderfully balanced it is, just pure taunting nonsense, and again Goggs is blind to the taunting.

I mean SS balanced, fringe activism balanced, its an insult to the intelligence.
Like saying the british nationalist party has a balanced view on immigration.

They do, if you agree with them, most people do not.

 

[manxman]

Could this be why I received a $1200 dollar electric bill last year for the month of February? We switched providers in the fall of that year to save money on electric bill. That provider jack up it's rates in the winter months putting our 1000 sq ft. ranch home in the thousands to heat last winter. We are still paying it off.

Sheesh, ah well, thats climate change for ya, funny enough weve had a mild winter, we use around 10kwh a day average, 16.1p, and with extras final 18p kwh, i have the july/aug/sept here, £147.11 [ 820kwh ]with promp payment discount, heating is by oil, about £30 a week mid winter months, about £800 a year now [1000ltr] its cheap, oil is only used to heat the water 7 months of the year, pretty cheap all the same.

This quarters bill last year was 179.99 [jan/feb/march]. that rise is lighting and central heating water pump, pumping hot water round radiators all day.

I thought you yanks got your gas cheap, our electric is oil generated.

 

[Tyger]

This is just typical of the nonsense peddled.

What exactly is nonsense about stating the facts?

Firstly you dictate your rules, catastrophic climate change is a given, and no science talk.

No one is dictating anything. Anyone can start a thread. That the OP has say-so about a thread's parameters is a given on this chat site.

Plus this is why conversing with you is so tiresome: you apparently cannot read text and understand what you read. I never said catastrophic climate change was a given, nor that there was to be no science talk. (Gracious but that one thread bothers you!) I said - listen carefully please - that the thread was not for the debate of the science because there are innumerable threads for that. The thread was for the purposes of looking at climate change as an accepted fact. Catastrophic climate change is but one view among many.

Then you post about nothing but the science, apart from abit of politics, and telling us about you being a scientist of course, and understanding the scientific method better than us.

Since your initial statements are false, your follow-up falls apart. As for the ad hominem - ascribing to me statements, and claims, I never made - I won't bother with them here. This is when you start taking up too much time.

Its nothing more than a sophistical p1ss-take, your own alarmist graffiti wall, its your hysterical beliefs that are in the minority here, theres no reason with you.

Interesting series of sentiments. First off, I am not an alarmist. It is you who appears to be very afraid. Beats me why but you mention being afraid a lot. I'm not sure Climate Change is a topic you can discuss with dispassion, as a result.

Second, I am unaware that having an interest in a particular vein of science amounts to 'hysterical beliefs'. Science is not about beliefs, per se, though assumptions play an unavoidable role. Your own viewpoint is riddled with assumptions. Unavoidable.

Third, even if I were a minority in my opinions here, why should that matter? It's unclear what you are suggesting. If someone is in the minority does that mean they should no longer post? If someone has a minority view, does that make them wrong? But I'm not sure how you are making the determination that I am a minority. Are you going by the fact that every debate that has occurred on the site has gone silent because those of the one opinion regarding the validity of Climate Change were mindlessly heckled and subsequently driven into silence to escape the abuse heaped upon them? I am not a minority in my thinking - I am just a minority in that I do not allow myself to be bullied into silence.

Catastrophic climate change theory is based on runaway global warming theory, which is based on the greenhouse effect theory.

Here you are basically talking to yourself, because you are most certainly not talking to me. Have fun.

They are STILL to this day ALL theory, thats what normal people grasp.

If you say so. Methinks you misunderstand what scientific theory actually is. It's possible you think a theory is not a 'real' description - but I'm not going to pursue it with you because I have no interest. Does that hurt your feelings?

Take the hysterical bull about, the ''research'' about us being 15 yrs until the human apocalypse,

Clearly this is an unpopular idea with you - then don't read it. It's that simple. I read lots of stuff. I don't believe everything I read, but I am interested in what I read. Do you believe everything you read on this chat site? I don't, but I still read. I'm not sure what offends you so about the extreme views. I think they're interesting to read. Why not?

its all true and really happening with you, so you have to warn people over multi-threads, with no dissent permissible,

Here we go yet again. Do you think if you repeat this stuff enough times, it will become true? Nothing is 'all true and really happening'. I am not warning people. For pity's sake, get a grip. These are ideas. No more, no less. Are you not interested in ideas? I am thinking not.

I have not 'warned' people over 'multi-threads'. (You are such a fearful man!) Dissent is certainly possible. Look at all the climate change threads where dissent took place. Dissent took place in such a way and to such a point as to choke off all conversation. Every single climate change thread has been shut down by the sand-bagging of a few deniers. Pretty sad state of affairs.

and when its you in the minority, and a very tiny minority as well unless you believe a lot of us think there's an impending apocolypse in 15yrs time.

I haven't a clue what people think (nor do you). I do know what I think. I also know that you haven't a clue what I think. We've never had a conversation about this - though you appear to be trying to back me into one. Not interested.

Normal people can see the first 15yrs of the 30 havent warmed the planet one iota

Well, good for 'normal' people, God love 'um. Sad to say, the facts are the planet has warmed at least an 'iota'.

and the IPCC say the hiatus may last another 10yrs

Ooooh! You are quoting the IPCC. How'd that happen? My understanding was that you felt the IPCC were the devil's spawn.

Normal people don't see an apocalypse happening in the following 5yrs

Good for them. The world needs more 'normal' people. Hear hear!

those postings are just pure billy mere fantasy belief system, pure and simple.

I think you mean the ideas conveyed are in your opinion a 'fantasy belief system'. That's okay. I think it's a reasonable opinion to have. Do you need me to pat you on the head to say that it's okay if you don't agree with a particular scientist's interpretation of the data? You can and still remain in good standing among all 'normal' people.

Every post you make as fact on the subject is sophistical

Since when is what I post 'as fact'? It is you who don't 'get it'. (Sophistical? Learned a new word, did we?)

as 'all' your 'facts' are just fragments of theories, this is the very basics you don't grasp.

What I do or do not grasp is unknown to you because you do not listen. You haven't a clue.

Now you're just banging away with a two-by-four. You are arguing broadly and without focus.

And another thing I didn't realize I have been talking with a teenage female, of course I should have realised it, I do now charlie pointed it out. I wont be bothering with the hysterics in future.

Ah, I see. At one point you thought I was male - which of course explains all the horrendous homophobic comments you were making when you and Pixel were having a bit of fun trolling my posts on the climate change thread.

Now you believe I am female - because Charlie set you straight, hmmm - and that means? What a joke.

If only I could be assured that you would cease your stalking - somehow, I think you won't. Had I known that I need only present as a female to get you disinterested, I would have done it long ago. Sorry, chum.