• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Manmade Climate Change: The Deeper Agenda

Subsidising fossil fuels leads to excessive waste and benefits the better off more than the poor. Better to spend the subsidy money on improving insulation, fuel efficiency, social welfare and on sources of renewable energy.

Insulation only helps to some extent - come the winter in Northern Europe, you need to turn the heating on. Providing social welfare payments to enable the poor and pensioners to afford to heat their homes is simply a differnt subsidy to the fossil fuel industry and a less effective one at that.

Renewables simply aren't a credible alternative at the moment.
 
Quake42 said:
Subsidising fossil fuels leads to excessive waste and benefits the better off more than the poor. Better to spend the subsidy money on improving insulation, fuel efficiency, social welfare and on sources of renewable energy.

Insulation only helps to some extent - come the winter in Northern Europe, you need to turn the heating on. Providing social welfare payments to enable the poor and pensioners to afford to heat their homes is simply a differnt subsidy to the fossil fuel industry and a less effective one at that.

Renewables simply aren't a credible alternative at the moment.
They don't take that attitude in Germany, where renewable energy is becoming a major part of the economy and jobs sector.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany

The share of electricity produced from renewable energy in Germany has increased from 6.3 percent of the national total in 2000 to over 20 percent in the first half of 2011.[1] In 2010, investments totaling 26 billion euros were made in Germany’s renewable energies sector. According to official figures, some 370,000 people in Germany were employed in the renewable energy sector in 2010, especially in small and medium sized companies. This is an increase of around 8 percent compared to 2009 (around 339,500 jobs), and well over twice the number of jobs in 2004 (160,500). About two-thirds of these jobs are attributed to the Renewable Energy Sources Act[2][3] Germany has been called "the world's first major renewable energy economy".[4] In 2010 nearly 17% (more than 100 TWH) of Germany's electricity supply (603 TWH) was produced from renewable energy sources, more than the 2010 contribution of gas-fired power plants.[5]

Renewable electricity in 2010 was 101.7 TWh including wind power 36.5 TWh, biomass and biowaste 33.5 TWh, hydropower 19.7 TWh and photovoltaic power 12.0 TWh.[6]

...
See also: http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/english/renewable_energy/aktuell/3860.php
http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,6079262,00.html
http://www.germanenergyblog.de/

I had a cousin in the UK, installing small scale wind turbines for farms and small communities, almost 20 years ago, but planning permission was a bugger.

'Jobs and the growth of a new industry sector, what's wrong with that?' He asked innocently.

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

Which shouldn't distract from the problem of fossil fuel subsidies.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/2012/jan/18/fossil-fuel-subsidy

Fossil fuel subsidies: a tour of the data

Fossil fuels are subsidised in much of the world, causing billions of tonnes of addition CO2 emissions

Guardian.co.uk. Duncan Clark. 19 January 2012

* Fatih Birol says ending fossil fuel subsidies could provide half the answer to solving climate change

One of the most surprising and alarming issues in the climate and energy arena is the fact that the fossil fuels causing global warming continue to receive substantial government support, making them artificially cheap and encouraging more of them to be consumed. It's a form of madness that my colleague Damian Carrington put his finger on recently when he wrote that "the house is ablaze and we are throwing bucket after bucket at it – buckets of petrol."

What's particularly baffling is that while government support given to environmentally beneficial renewable power sources is subject to seemingly endless media and political scrutiny, the 500% larger subsidies given to oil, gas and (to a much lesser extent) coal rarely get much attention.

...
Full text and links, at link
Well worth a read with some clear graphs.
 
They don't take that attitude in Germany, where renewable energy is becoming a major part of the economy and jobs sector.

Wikipedia suggests that Germany produces around 20% of its electircity from renewables. Impressive, but it still leaves 80% to be produced by more traditional means. "Renewables" in this case includes biomass, which of course contributes to all that nasty carbon in the atmosphere.

I would stress that I'm most certainly in favour of the development of renewable sources of energy production. I just don't think you should leave the poor and the old to freeze in the meantime.
 
Quake42 said:
...

I would stress that I'm most certainly in favour of the development of renewable sources of energy production. I just don't think you should leave the poor and the old to freeze in the meantime.
Neither do I. But, it doesn't necessarily follow that paying subsidies to fossil fuel companies actually benefits the poor and old, just as paying subsidies to prop up banks doesn't seem to be of much benefit to the public and small businesses.

Fossil fuel is unlikely to get cheaper in the future, either.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Quake42 said:
...

I would stress that I'm most certainly in favour of the development of renewable sources of energy production. I just don't think you should leave the poor and the old to freeze in the meantime.
Neither do I. But, it doesn't necessarily follow that paying subsidies to fossil fuel companies actually benefits the poor and old, just as paying subsidies to prop up banks doesn't seem to be of much benefit to the public and small businesses.

Fossil fuel is unlikely to get cheaper in the future, either.

The article you posted says the plan is to abolish the subsidy on retail fuel prices. This is going to hit the poorest hardest, which is why the plan is so unpopular in 3rd world countries. The IEA is actually claiming the fact people will not be able to afford to use as much energy is a good way to reduce CO2 output. I think this is appalling. Why don't they instead increase taxation on Big Oil and at the same time peg retail prices to prevent the whole cost being offset on the consumer? That way the industry pays, not the people, but we still get increased revenue to spend on renewables research.

If they really can make us reliant on 80-100% renewables without returning us to a pre-industrial standard of living then that's great. But this plan doesn't seem to be about that. It seems rather to be about using the excuse of "climate change" to push through legislation designed to siphon even more money from the very poor to the very rich
 
Once again, we are now entering Topsy-Turvy Land. Most of the fuel subsidies go directly into the coffers of the fossil fuel companies. The people who are already paying for those subsidies through their taxes get very little back.
http://www.treehugger.com/energy-po...idies-save-taxpayers-billions-every-year.html

Ending Fossil Fuel Subsidies Will Save Taxpayers Billions Every Year

Discovery- Tree Hugger. Mat McDermott, Energy / Energy Policy. June 18, 2012

The only people in the world who actually benefit from the government subsidies doled out to fossil fuel companies—to the tune of over $775 billion annually, in total around the world—are the fossil fuel companies themselves.

It should be obvious, and not need repeating, or be a controversial statement, but it is and is why NRDC has just released a report detailing the myriad benefits of shutting off the corporate welfare tap flowing to oil, coal, and natural gas companies.

Beyond that financial savings to taxpayers around the world, each year, NRDC outlines the following benefits of ending fossil fuel subsidies:

  • Cut carbon dioxide emissions 6% by 2020.
    Reduce overall energy demand 5% by 2020.
    Importantly, they won't hurt the poor, as the vast majority of fossil fuel subsidies are not at the consumer level, and instead benefit wealthy corporations directly and solely.

More from the NRDC on fossil fuel subsidies: NRDC Fossil Fuel Factsheet

Adding to that estimation of greenhouse gas emissions savings by 2020, it's worth noting that the IEA says ending fossil fuel subsidies would alone get us halfway to stopping dangerous climate change.

On subsidies benefiting the rich far more than the poor (topsy turvy, isn't it?) IEA chief economist Fatih Birol has said that in 2010 just 8% of fossil fuel subsidies went to the poorest 20% of people in the world, with just 11-18% of subsidies going towards lowering the prices consumers pay for fuel.
Emphasis mine.

See also:
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/fossilfuel4.pdf
 
North Carolina seems to the Fortean State today. More on the Canute Law.

The evidence for sea-level rises in North Carolina
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... ?full=true
12:02 20 June 2012 by Michael Marshall

In one US state, it is now illegal for sea level rise to speed up. Although climate models predict that sea level rise will accelerate over the coming decades, North Carolina's state senate has passed a bill saying that its Division of Coastal Management cannot "include scenarios of accelerated rates of sea level rise".

The lobby group supporting the bill, NC-20, has released a number of statements arguing that "the point of the bill is to conform rulemaking to actual scientific evidence". It says there is no indication that sea level rise has accelerated over the last few decades.

New Scientist looks at the evidence.

Are sea levels rising?
This is an easy one: yes. Levels have been rising since at least the middle of the 19th century, and over the 20th century they rose on average 1.7 millimetres per year. The rise was first reported in 1941 by oceanographer Beno Gutenberg.

Two sources of data confirm this: tide gauges and satellites. The data from tide gauges goes back more than 100 years, though it becomes increasingly patchy the further back you look. Satellites with altimeters only came online around 20 years ago, but unlike tide gauges, which are limited to coastlines, they cover much of the ocean.

Much of the rise is caused by water expanding as it warms up. Melting glaciers and crumbling ice sheets are also contributing, as is humanity's overuse of groundwater.

Is sea level rise accelerating?
This is a harder question to answer, because older records are incomplete. "It's a hot debate," says Simon Holgate of the National Oceanography Centre in Liverpool, UK. Some papers claim that the rise has accelerated over the 20th century, while others (often using the same data) say it hasn't.

"The overall sense of the community is that there's a small acceleration, but there is a lot of noise in the signal," Holgate says.

The best dataset is thought to be one compiled by John Church of CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research in Australia, and colleagues. According to a widely-cited 2006 paper, sea level rise has been accelerating at 0.013 mm/y2 since 1870 (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2005GL024826). A more recent paper, from 2011, found a smaller acceleration of 0.009 mm/y2 using data that goes back to 1860 (Surveys in Geophysics, DOI: 10.1007/s10712-011-9119-1).

By the end of the 20th century, sea level rise had accelerated to 3mm/y, compared to earlier rates around 1mm/y. But Holgate has found that some tide gauges recorded similar high rates much earlier in the century. That means it's hard to be sure that the current rates are truly out of the ordinary (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2006GL028492).

Another confounding factor is that the satellite data shows that sea level rise has slowed in the last decade. That's because strong El Niño events can temporarily slow down sea level rise, Holgate says. A powerful El Niño increases rainfall, effectively moving water from the ocean to the land. The water then takes a couple of years to get back into the ocean. Sea level rise visibly slowed in 2006 and 2010, in the aftermath of El Niño events. Such slowdowns are only temporary, and don't affect the long-term trend.

What is the evidence that sea level rise isn't accelerating?
Some studies have found no evidence of acceleration, and NC-20 cites these in its literature.

One was published last year by Robert Dean of the University of Florida, Gainesville. Dean looked at 57 US tide gauges whose records go back at least 60 years, and re-analysed other datasets. His conclusion: sea level rise has slowed down since 1930 (Journal of Coastal Research, DOI: 10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1).

Why did Dean get such different results? According to Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, it's because he started his analysis at 1930, rather than using the full dataset going back to 1870. Global temperatures cooled slightly around 1940, so sea level rise stopped accelerating. As a result, starting the analysis in 1930 gives a misleading answer.

"It's a cherry-picked date," Rahmstorf says. "If you use any other date, you see an acceleration."

Why does the acceleration matter?
If sea levels continued rising at the 20th-century rate of 1.7 mm/y, the entire 21st century would see a rise of just 17 centimetres. Such a small rise isn't without its problems, but humanity could cope.

But most predictions show much larger rises. The 2006 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted a rise of 19 to 59 centimetres by 2100, but this was known to be a lower end estimate because it didn't include the effect of melting ice caps. Ice physics were poorly modelled at the time.

We understand ice better now, but the uncertainties are still massive. Holgate says the rise could be as much as 1.5 metres by 2100, but he says that is "an extreme upper end". The linear rise mandated by North Carolina is the lowest possible, he says.

Holgate says the consensus among his colleagues is that sea levels will rise about 1 metre by 2100. That will be enough to swamp many low-lying coastal areas, displacing millions of people, unless costly sea defences are built.

It is unlikely that levels will rise more than 2 metres by 2100, because glaciers and ice sheets can only move so fast. However the rise will continue for several centuries after 2100.

What is happening to sea levels in North Carolina?
North Carolina actually has one of the world's best records of past sea levels: extensive salt marshes. Because they were frequently flooded by high tides, their sediments record changing sea levels for the past 2100 years.

Last year Rahmstorf and colleagues showed that sea levels in North Carolina have been rising at 2.1 mm/y since the late 19th century. This is by far the steepest rise seen there over the last two millennia (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1015619108).

What's more, the salt marsh data suggests that sea level rise in North Carolina has accelerated. According to a 2009 study, the speed-up began in the late 19th century (Geology, DOI: 10.1130/G30352A.1).
 
U.S. Energy Subsidies: Wind and Solar Have No Argument (IER, November 21, 2011)

A recent report of the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has put the kaput to the argument that natural gas and coal receive more federal subsidies than politically correct energies (wind, solar, and not much else). In FY 2010, wind’s $5 billion swamped oil and gas’s $654 million. Even tiny solar out-received oil and gas by one third.

But when you look at the subsidies on an energy production basis, the disparity becomes stunning (or scandalous from a taxpayer viewpoint). Wind’s 5.6 cents per kilowatthour is more than 85 times that of oil and gas combined. And solar … would you believe 13 times that of wind, making the disparity north of a thousand times?

But a second argument of renewable advocates has crept up: that government subsidies over many decades allowed the oil and gas industry to cement its perch atop the energy chain. The implication is that wind and solar may need the same long-lived subsidization to achieve commercial viability too.

Argument from History

This argument from history is errant as well.

The commercial oil industry dates to 1859, the year of the Drake well in Pennsylvania. The U.S.petroleum industry matured in the next decades and then shifted to the southwest with the discovery of the Spindletop gusher in Beaumont,Texas in 1901.

Meanwhile, a commercial petroleum industry developed abroad, a development that would lead to increasing oil imports to the U.S.and price “demoralization” for domestic producers by the late 1920s. From this period through the 1960s, the “problem” was too much oil, not too little.

Does this sound like an infant industry? Hardly! It was an industry that was ‘too good for itself’ in some ways, and certainly not one threatened by a cheaper energy source as, say, electricity was to manufactured (coal) gas in this era.

So when did government oil and gas subsidies begin in the U.S.?

Corporate taxation began in 1909, and the depletion tax writeoff began in 1913. The intangible drilling and development cost deduction began in 1917. So the classic subsidies cited by renewable apologists began a half-century after the industry was born. Direct government subsidies, such as checks written on the U.S. Treasury, were virtually nonexistent in the history of the petroleum industry.

Industry Penalization

The federal government has a long history of penalizing the industry, not only subsidizing it via the tax code. Price ceilings on oil production and the sale of petroleum products during World War II and again in the 1970s are cases in point. Also recall the Windfall Profit Tax of 1980, however short-lived.

On the natural gas side, comprehensive price controls on wellhead gas sold in interstate commerce lasted from the 1950s through the 1970s. Such controls caused predictable shortages for consumers, making not only producers but consumers victims of federal energy policy.

Moreover, the brunt of special tax favoritism was removed beginning in the 1970s. So an argument can be made that the U.S.government has reverse subsidized oil and gas in the last half-century.

Imagine if electricity from wind and solar were constrained by a federal price ceiling. Imagine is solar and wind companies were subject to an excess profits tax. Imagine if a wind-turbine exploding or a wind worker falling to his death led to a moratorium on new wind projects.

Or imagine if governments around the world suddenly announced a 50-year holiday on taxpayer favor to correspond to the sink-or-swim period of the oil industry.

Say goodbye to virtually all of industrial windpower. And the solar industry would shrink to its rightful off-grid self, where its niche applications would provide bridge energy until the place/area could graduate to (fossil-fuel) grid power.

Conclusion

Wind and solar are consumer-rejected forms of electrical power, pure and simple. They are not infant industries but perennially inferior ones. Government subsidies for any form of energy, and certainly the least economic (most dilute), is an easy budget cut for any democracy in deficit.
 
The Surprising Reason That Oil Subsidies Persist: Even Liberals Love Them (Forbes, April 25, 2012)

The summary of oil-related subsidies in the U.S. for 2010 totals $4.5 billion. That is a number often put forward; $4 billion a year or so in support for those greedy oil companies.

But look at the breakdown. The single largest expenditure is just over $1 billion for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is designed to protect the U.S. from oil shortages. The second largest category is just under $1 billion in tax exemptions for farm fuel. ...The third largest category? $570 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. (This program is classified as a petroleum subsidy because it artificially reduces the price of fuel, which helps oil companies sell more of it). Those three programs account for $2.5 billion a year in “oil subsidies.”
Please lets abolish all of these. I am 100% for it!
 
Poptech said:
Clearly, another right-wing US think-tank.
(As can be seen from their website:
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/about-us/ )

The article is based on chapters from a book, Oil, Gas & Government: The U.S. Experience (Roman & Littlefield, 1996) by Robert L. Bradley, Jr.

Who he?
Robert L. Bradley, Jr. (born June 17, 1955) is CEO and founder of the Institute for Energy Research...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Bradley,_Jr.
Well, there's a surprise! ;)
 
You want to play that game?

Pietro_Mercurios said:
http://www.desmogblog.com/eia-head-objected-politically-dictated-garbage-subsidy-report-delivers-it-anyway

EIA Head Objected to Politically Dictated “Garbage” Subsidy Report, But Delivers it Anyway

DeSmogBlog. Brendan DeMelle. 28 July 2011
The Truth about DeSmogBlog
DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by "dirty money". Since its creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dare oppose an alarmist position on global warming. Their articles frequently reference unreliable sources such as Wikipedia and Sourcewatch since they are unable to find any fact based criticisms of those they criticize in respected news sources.
 
I love this game,

Pietro_Mercurios said:
Think Progress

* Project of the American Progress Action Fund, a “sister advocacy organization” of the Center for American Progress (CAP) run by former Clinton adviser John Podesta

* Internet website dedicated to promoting “progressive” ideas, attacking the “Radical Right-Wing Agenda,” and supporting the left wing of the Democratic Party


Think Progress is a "project" of the American Progress Action Fund (APAF), a "sister advocacy organization" of the John Podesta-led Center for American Progress (CAP) and CAP's entities such as Campus Progress. It also draws freely on the resources of the George Soros-funded Media Matters website edited by David Brock.

Think Progress is an Internet blog that "pushes back, daily," by its own account, against its conservative targets, and supports the APAF agenda: to transform "progressive ideas into policy through rapid response communications, legislative action, grassroots organizing and advocacy, and partnerships with other progressive leaders throughout the country and the world." Think Progress promotes an agenda identical to that of the left wing of the Democratic Party.

"What We're Fighting For," says the Think Progress website, are: "Social and Economic Justice," "Healthy Communities," "Global Leadership" and "A Secure America." These terms are code for an agenda that is anti-capitalist, suspicious of the American military, obsessed with multilateral restraints on U.S. power, and distributionist in domestic fiscal matters.

"What We're Fighting Against," says the Think Progress website, are: "Corrupt Establishment," "Incompetent Establishment," "Braindead Media," and "Radical Right-Wing Agenda.”

The editors and main bloggers of Think Progress are Judd Legum and Christy Harvey.

Legum is the Research Director at the Center for American Progress and Co-Editor of The Progress Report, an APAF publication of news and commentary that Legum claims is emailed each weekday to 60,000 "progressive" readers. Harvey is Director of Strategic Communications at the Center for American Progress and Co-Editor of The Progress Report. She is a regular guest on Air America Radio's The Al Franken Show.

Legum and Harvey co-authored a January 2005 article with Jonathan Baskin titled "The Death Squad Option" that suggested American troops were wantonly killing or kidnapping suspect Iraqis. Drawing a parallel with Reagan policy in El Salvador in the 1980s, the authors cited a 1993 United Nations-sponsored "truth commission" report claiming that up to "90 percent of the atrocities in the conflict" were committed by the U.S.-sponsored "death squads.” "Faced with an intractable insurgency in Iraq," wrote Legum, Harvey and Baskin, "the Pentagon is returning to its bad old ways."

CAP Fellow David Sirota, who also writes for Think Progress, worked for two years as chief spokesman for Democrats on the U.S. House Appropriations Committee. Prior to that he was spokesman for independent Vermont Congressman Bernie Sanders, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the main American branch of the Socialist International and the founder of the Progressive Caucus in the House of Representatives.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

* One of America’s most influential environmentalist groups

* Responsible for the 1989 Alar hoax

Founded in 1970 on a $400,000 seed grant from the Ford Foundation, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is today one of the most influential environmentalist lobbying groups in the United States. It claims a membership of one million people, including some 400,000 Internet activists. The organization's President is Frances Beinecke, a co-founder of the New York League of Conservation Voters, a Board member of the World Resources Institute, and a former Board Chair of the Wilderness Society.

NRDC identifies ten program areas as its priorities:

(a) Clean Air and Energy: "[E]lectric power plants and motor vehicles are by far the biggest sources of air pollution and its myriad effects, from lung damage to acid rain to global warming."

(b) Global Warming: "Higher temperatures threaten dangerous consequences: drought, disease, floods, lost ecosystems. And from sweltering heat to rising seas, global warming's effects have already begun."

(c) Clean Water and Oceans: "NRDC fights to safeguard drinking water, to protect, preserve and restore our oceans, rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands and coastal waters, and to promote conservation and better water management in the arid western states."

(d) Wildlife and Fish: "The threats vary, from pollution to logging to harmful development, but the effect on wildlife is the same: shrinking habitat and the inability to survive and reproduce."

(e) Parks, Forests, and Wildlands: "[P]ollution, neglect and skyrocketing attendance have taken a toll on national parks … while the livestock, logging, mining and oil and gas industries keep up the pressure to use our last remaining public wildlands for their profit. NRDC works to secure permanent protection for millions of acres of wildlands … and reduce wood consumption and damaging forestry practices."

(f) Health and Environment: "When toxic contaminants -- such as pesticides, mercury pollution and diesel exhaust -- are released into the environment, their effect on human health can be profound. … We educate the public about the health threats …"

(g) Nuclear Weapons, Waste, and Energy: "Our overarching goal is the reduction, and ultimate elimination, of unacceptable risks to people and the environment from the exploitation of nuclear energy for both military and peaceful purposes." (NRDC is a leading member of the Nuclear Weapons Complex Consolidation Policy Group, a coalition of nuclear “watchdog” organizations that have called on the United States to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in its stockpile by 95 percent.)

(h) Cities and Green Living: "City dwellers face a wide range of environmental challenges: dirty air and water, … traffic, the impacts of industry. … We work to preserve open space and help create plans for new urban parks and incentives that revitalize central cities."

(i) U.S. Law and Policy: "NRDC's legislative team … press[es] for vital new programs to meet such difficult challenges as global warming, urban sprawl, air and water pollution, depletion of our fisheries, pesticide threats to children's health, and … disappearing wilderness and wildlife."

(j) International Issues: "Global warming pollution from power plants and cars in the United States increases the risk of floods in Europe and droughts in Asia. …."

To help communicate its message on these matters to the public, NRDC publishes a quarterly environmental magazine called On Earth and an online bulletin titled Nature's Voice.

In a joint effort in 1989 with Fenton Communications, a Washington-based public relations firm headed by David Fenton, NRDC claimed that growers who treated apples with the pesticide Alar were creating a serious health threat to consumers. For five months, NRDC flooded media outlets with accusations that Alar was a dangerous carcinogen. Eventually the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that the fear campaign was unfounded, explaining that a person would have to eat 50,000 pounds of Alar-treated apples per day over the course of a lifetime in order to ingest enough of the substance to develop cancer.

Apple growers lost some $250 million as a result of the campaign, with many smaller growers being forced out of business. NRDC fared much better. According to an internal memo written by David Fenton and later published in the Wall Street Journal: "We designed [the anti-Alar campaign] so that revenue would flow back to the Natural Resources Defense Council from the public, and we sold a book about pesticides through a 900 number and the Donahue Show. And to date there has been $700,000 in net revenue from it."

In the late 1990s, NRDC was an outspoken booster of Enron Corporation, which has since become synonymous with corporate malfeasance. For its support of environmentalist legislation like the Kyoto Protocol (a tactical move by the company aimed at eliminating its competition in the energy industry), Enron earned the praise of NRDC and other environmentalist groups. NRDC's Ralph Cavanagh said in 1997, "On environmental stewardship, our experience is that you can trust Enron. When Enron later declared bankruptcy, NRDC lawyer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., in a December 2003 Rolling Stone article titled "Crimes Against Nature," assailed the Bush administration's energy plan as a sop to corporate interests and as proof, cited the administration's alleged ties to Enron CEO Kenneth Lay.

As a tax-free corporation under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, NRDC is subject to limits on the amount of money it can disburse for the purposes of lobbying Congress. But it has found a way around such restrictions by establishing a separate lobbying arm, the NRDC Action Fund. Operating under a different section of the tax code, section 501(c)(4), the Action Fund is exempt from similar restrictions. Under the banner of "environmental action", NRDC lodges lawsuits to impede the construction of everything from highways and hydroelectric dams to nuclear power plants. The NRDC Action Fund complements this work, launching advertising campaigns to arouse grassroots support.

Philanthropic support for NRDC has risen dramatically in recent years, from just over $36 million in 1999 to more than $89 million in 2010.. As of 2010, the organization had assets of $181,427,464. NRDC receives financial backing from Pew Charitable Trusts, the Tides Foundation, the Bauman Family Foundation, the Beldon Fund, the Blue Moon Fund, the Bullitt Foundation, the Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation, the Columbia Foundation, the Compton Foundation, the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the Energy Foundation, the Vira I. Heinz Endowment, the Heinz Family Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the J.M. Kaplan Fund, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the New York Times Company Foundation, George Soros’s Open Society Institute, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Prospect Hill Foundation, the Public Welfare Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Scherman Foundation, the Surdna Foundation, the Turner Foundation, and many others.

This is such a great game thank you for this.
 
No, I came here for an argument.
 
Well, this is just depressing:

http://www.science20.com/science_20/ipc ... cial-91262

  • IPCC Gives Up On Science, Makes Grey Literature Official

    Grey' literature, which led to the "Glaciergate" scandal of 2010 when it was revealed that the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are losing ice (gone by 2035!) was stated as fact even though it was not based on evidence, will no longer be a problem for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    Because they have declared that grey literature will no longer be grey - any information they choose to use will be considered peer reviewed just by being posted on the Internet by the IPCC.

    Most rational people would simply not use grey literature after the errors of the 2007 report, to avoid controversy and therefore keep climate studies as politically agnostic as possible. It isn't like global warming deniers are ever getting through peer review, so grey literature would seem to be unnecessary, unless you feel like the ridiculous claim that African farmers are going to suffer 50% yield drops by 2020 absolutely must be included in a science report (that one was also shown to have been made up).

    Instead, they have embraced grey literature.. Makes no sense, right? Maybe it does. If I want to have fewer people living in poverty, for example, I simply redefine poverty and - presto - people are no longer poor. I could have a terrific career in politics if I simply got people to believe I cured poverty by redefining it. Redefining grey literature takes poor science and attempts to call it rich.

    It gets worse, if you care about science or the environment and would like to have constructive dialogues based on data. The IPCC have also decided to impose gender and geographical quotas on IPCC membership. So they no longer care about having the best scientists, they care about social engineering the representation of the committee. If you, like me, have a triangle in mind when thinking about culture and politics, they have shifted the IPCC away from the Excellence node and toward Fairness. Fairness is necessary, we wouldn't want people blocked out unfairly, but dictating gender and geographical representation means IPCC science is no longer a meritocracy, it is a good works program. And therefore inherently unfair to the best scientists, who can't be on the IPCC if they have the wrong genitals.

    The new rules also mean it will be required that Africa will have five members on the IPCC and North America will have only four. I don't want to come off as elitist because I was lucky enough to have been born in North America but does anyone really think Africa has 25% more top-flight climate scientists than the USA and Canada...combined? The USA alone produces 32% of the world's science.

    But that's not really what matters, say the IPCC. They believe America seems to have an advantage small countries do not; evil science media corporations, though they are overwhelmingly liberal, are still unfairly blocking out developing nation scientists from getting published, activists at the IPCC contend. With 25,000 open access journals and thousands of print ones, these researchers apparently cannot get printed and cited.

    In further revising history and casting doubt on IPCC credibility, Richard Klein from the Stockholm Environment Institute in Sweden told New Scientist journalist Fred Pearce this gender and geographical quota was always the case, and they simply formalized it. "Membership has always been based on expertise, geographical balance and gender."

    What?

    Basically, if the IPCC wanted to provide ammunition for climate change skeptics, they just handed over an entire arsenal. They are now saying the IPCC never had the best scientists in the field, they picked them based on how diverse it made the IPCC look. Why didn't the InterAcademy Council (IAC) mention that in their analysis of all the things the IPCC was doing wrong?

    Obviously this could have advantages for people other than obscure female scientists in Brazil. I can write a blog post saying something important and it could be included in an IPCC report in 2013. Unfortunately, since 2001 the prestige of being cited by the IPCC has dropped a lot.

Seriously - is this institutional suicide or what?
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Yes I do,

Pietro_Mercurios said:
The Anti Wikipedia Resource
Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection, regardless of age, education or experience. The average person is completely unaware that what they may be reading on a Wikipedia page could be completely false or intentionally misleading. And the only way to verify the information posted to Wikipedia is to independently research the subject from a reputable source. Wikipedia is thus broken by design and "truth" is simply determined by who edits last.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/
The Truth about SourceWatch
SourceWatch is a propaganda site funded by an extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate organization, the Center for Media and Democracy. Just like the untrustworthy Wikipedia the content can be written and edited by ordinary web users. Users who all conveniently share an extreme left-wing bias. SourceWatch is frequently cited by those seeking to smear individuals and organizations who do not share their extreme left-wing bias since they cannot find any legitimate criticisms from respected news sources.

Like I said, I love this game.
 
Poptech said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Yes I do,

Pietro_Mercurios said:
The Anti Wikipedia Resource
Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection, regardless of age, education or experience. The average person is completely unaware that what they may be reading on a Wikipedia page could be completely false or intentionally misleading. And the only way to verify the information posted to Wikipedia is to independently research the subject from a reputable source. Wikipedia is thus broken by design and "truth" is simply determined by who edits last.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/
The Truth about SourceWatch
SourceWatch is a propaganda site funded by an extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate organization, the Center for Media and Democracy. Just like the untrustworthy Wikipedia the content can be written and edited by ordinary web users. Users who all conveniently share an extreme left-wing bias. SourceWatch is frequently cited by those seeking to smear individuals and organizations who do not share their extreme left-wing bias since they cannot find any legitimate criticisms from respected news sources.

Like I said, I love this game.
It's when you quote yourself, that's the best.
 
Poptech said:
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Yes I do,

Pietro_Mercurios said:
The Anti Wikipedia Resource
Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection, regardless of age, education or experience. The average person is completely unaware that what they may be reading on a Wikipedia page could be completely false or intentionally misleading. And the only way to verify the information posted to Wikipedia is to independently research the subject from a reputable source. Wikipedia is thus broken by design and "truth" is simply determined by who edits last.

Like I said, I love this game.
Wikipedia- about as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/index.html

Encyclopedia Britannica didn't exactly like that, and Nature gave them a detailed rebuttal.

You shouldn't quote yourself either. Bad form. Makes your argument look weak.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
It's when you quote yourself, that's the best.
The facts don't change just because I compile them. Everything is fully cited and sourced.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
And where would you place yourself on the Cult of the Amateur scale?
I am a professional computer analyst and perform research (among other things) for a living. I never cite Wikipedia, as I do not use sources that can be edited at will by anyone with an Internet connection.
 
kamalktk said:
Wikipedia- about as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/index.html

Encyclopedia Britannica didn't exactly like that, and Nature gave them a detailed rebuttal.
Please read the response where Nature admits to not reviewing information from the core Encyclopedia Britannica, only sent summaries to reviewers and combined different web paged articles it sent to reviewers. This is disingenous as the average person assumed the core Encyclopedia was being compared not summaries from web pages or exerts from their student encyclopedia which would not be as comprehensive as the core one.

http://corporate.britannica.com/britann ... sponse.pdf

kamalktk said:
You shouldn't quote yourself either. Bad form. Makes your argument look weak.
The facts don't change just because I compile them. Everything is fully cited and sourced.
 
Poptech said:
kamalktk said:
Wikipedia- about as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/index.html

Encyclopedia Britannica didn't exactly like that, and Nature gave them a detailed rebuttal.
Please read the response where Nature admits to not reviewing information from the core Encyclopedia Britannica, only sent summaries to reviewers and combined different web paged articles it sent to reviewers. This is disingenous as the average person assumed the core Encyclopedia was being compared not summaries from web pages or exerts from their student encyclopedia which would not be as comprehensive as the core one.

http://corporate.britannica.com/britann ... sponse.pdf

kamalktk said:
You shouldn't quote yourself either. Bad form. Makes your argument look weak.
The facts don't change just because I compile them. Everything is fully cited and sourced.
And please read Nature's rebuttal of that http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/eb_advert_response_final.pdf where the went point by point over Britannica's complaint. Since this rebuttal was actually on Nature's page that I linked to, you evidently did not provide the respect of visiting my link.

Wikipedia is fully cited and sourced. This means it seems you like sources that only you can edit, as everything you write about Wikipedia is applicable to your site as well.
 
kamalktk said:
And please read Nature's rebuttal of that where the went point by point over Britannica's complaint. Since this rebuttal was actually on Nature's page that I linked to, you evidently did not provide the respect of visiting my link.
Are you serious? Did you read it? What do you think I was responding to? Again,

Please read the response where Nature admits to not reviewing information from the core Encyclopedia Britannica, only sent summaries to reviewers and combined different web paged articles it sent to reviewers. This is disingenous as the average person assumed the core Encyclopedia was being compared not summaries from web pages or exerts from their student encyclopedia which would not be as comprehensive as the core one.

Their "response" simply confirmed the complaints from Britannica,

http://corporate.britannica.com/britann ... sponse.pdf

I love how so many people are computer illiterate and believe Wikipedia to be a reliable source of information.
 
Poptech said:
kamalktk said:
And please read Nature's rebuttal of that where the went point by point over Britannica's complaint. Since this rebuttal was actually on Nature's page that I linked to, you evidently did not provide the respect of visiting my link.
Are you serious? Did you read it? What do you think I was responding to? Again,

Please read the response where Nature admits to not reviewing information from the core Encyclopedia Britannica, only sent summaries to reviewers and combined different web paged articles it sent to reviewers. This is disingenous as the average person assumed the core Encyclopedia was being compared not summaries from web pages or exerts from their student encyclopedia which would not be as comprehensive as the core one.

Their "response" simply confirmed the complaints from Britannica,

http://corporate.britannica.com/britann ... sponse.pdf

I love how so many people are computer illiterate and believe Wikipedia to be a reliable source of information.
Clearly, you once again did not read it, as Nature made things clear in it's initial article and it was only misinterpreted by Britannica (not surprising since it made Britannica look bad).

Perhaps you will read
http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/1011-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html
"The self-described "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has fared similarly well in most other studies comparing its accuracy to conventional encyclopedias, including studies by The Guardian, PC Pro, Library Journal, the Canadian Library Association, and several peer-reviewed academic studies."

or
http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2006/11/8296/
"Thomas Chesney, a Lecturer in Information Systems at the Nottingham University Business School, published the results of his own Wikipedia study in the most recent edition of the online journal First Monday, and he came up with a surprising conclusion: experts rate the articles more highly than do non-experts."

or
http://www.livescience.com/9938-study-wikipedia-pretty-accurate-hard-read.html
"Researchers found that cancer information on Wikipedia was similar in accuracy and depth to the information on a professionally peer-reviewed, patient-oriented cancer web site, the National Cancer Institute's Physician Data Query (PDQ). But the latter was written in plainer English. "

As I said, you seem to prefer sources which only you can edit, instead of a source repeatedly shown to be highly accurate, but which you do not control.

However, since you seem to be impressed by Britannica, You should note they also state that humans are changing the climate. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/235402/global-warming

Perhaps you should decry them as well?
 
kamalktk said:
Clearly, you once again did not read it, as Nature made things clear in it's initial article and it was only misinterpreted by Britannica (not surprising since it made Britannica look bad).
Oh really? You really think I did not read it? Tell me how they misinterpreted this,

http://corporate.britannica.com/britann ... sponse.pdf

Britannica: "Nature’s comments on the article “ethanol” were based on text not from the Encyclopedia Britannica but from Britannica Student Encyclopedia, a more basic work for younger readers.

http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica ... _final.pdf

Nature: Britannica claims that in one case we sent a reviewer material that did not come from any Britannica publication. When the company made this point to us in private we asked for details, but it provided none. Now Britannica has identified the review in question as being on ethanol. We have checked the original e-mail that we sent to the reviewer who looked at the Britannica article on ethanol and it is clear to us that all the reviewer’s comments refer to specific paragraphs from Britannica.
This does not address Britannica's complaint and is intentionally deceptive.



http://corporate.britannica.com/britann ... sponse.pdf

Britannica, Articles on Dolly the Sheep and Steven Wolfram reviewed by Nature were taken not from the Encyclopedia Britannica but from previous editions of the Britannica Book of the Year, which are archived on our site and clearly dated and identified. Yearbook authors are often given greater latitude to express personal views than writers of encyclopedia articles. In the Wolfram article, the Nature reviewer disagreed with Britannica’s author on the phrasing of two sentences in which point of view figured significantly, and on the basis of those disagreements Nature’s editors counted the two points as “inaccuracies” in Britannica. In addition to the fact that reviewing yearbook articles in a study of encyclopedias is inappropriate, these particular judgments were simply unfounded. The reviewer was entitled to his or her opinion about how a point might best be presented, but that opinion did not make our author’s presentation “inaccurate."

http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica ... _final.pdf

Nature: Another part of Britannica’s criticism concerns the fact that we provided material from other Britannica publications, such as the Britannica Book of the Year. This was deliberate: the aim of our story, as we made clear, was to compare the online material available from Britannica and Wikipedia. When users search Britannica online, they get results from several Britannica publications. They have no reason to think that any one is less reliable than the others. In the case of the year book, Britannica itself asks readers to reference the articles as coming from “Encyclopaedia Britannica Online” – exactly the source we set out to compare
This is admitting they did not reference the core encyclopedia, does not address Britannica's complaint and is intentionally deceptive.

Lets do this line by line since you are unwilling to admit what is irrefutably obvious.
 
kamalktk said:
As I said, you seem to prefer sources which only you can edit, instead of a source repeatedly shown to be highly accurate, but which you do not control.
Wikipedia has never been shown to be highly accurate which is an impossibility on something that can be edited at will by anyone with an Internet connection. Everytime I research a Wikipedia article I find something wrong with it.

Is the information on a Wikipedia page determined based on who edits it last?
 
Poptech said:
I love how so many people are computer illiterate and believe Wikipedia to be a reliable source of information.
Well, I love how many people don't understand Norwegian and can't believe it's not butter, but that doesn't instantly win arguments for me, either.

As with many things, Wikipedia's greatest strength is also its greatest weakness - the articles can be written,edited and cited by geniuses and lunatics alike. As a result you get a mixture of well-written, scrupulous, diligent, cutting edge and balanced information combined with spectacularly loopy ramblings. This happens on many sites. What's fun is when the spectacularly loopy ramblings seem to want to bond with the sane and balanced stuff like a trouserless drunk gatecrashing a convent Easter Vigil - now, in absolute fairness, on Wikipedia hardcore scientific stuff tends to get the outre gibberings excised pretty quickly: what's often left is pure data, itself inert and (often fleetingly) static, waiting for interpretation to put spin on it. It's the interpretations various that invariably cause the conflicts.

The point you seem to miss is that whilst Wikipedia is not gospel, neither is 99.99% of the stuff on the net - and that you can't dismiss another's argument as they cite a web source and then expect everyone else to take what you say as definitive as you cite a different web source - and often your own, at that. That's rather akin to stating "X is true! Don't take my word for it", exiting the room, putting on a hat with "my friend" written on it, re-entering the room and proclaiming that what your friend just said about X was true.

Finding neutrals on the net can be hard, but for all the flack Wikipedia often does a good job of policing itself,and as such isn't the hotbed of falsehood many make it out to be. Wariness and a pinch of salt at times, yes: but anyone who subscribes to this board knows that already about many things we hear.

Play on :).
 
Back
Top