Duke Energy Load Sheet: Fill & Download for Free

Why Climate Prediction is a Wicked Difficult ProblemShould we relocate populations in anticipation of imminent sea level rise?My opinion from 25 years of researching climate is: No.The current rate of sea level rise is low and is not increasing according to both NASA satellite measurements and historical tide gauge records.The probability of a catastrophic ice sheet collapse on land (the only event that would trigger sea level rise) is very low. Predictions of this are very uncertain and are not the basis for taking drastic action now. Even in the worst case, it would take many years for major sea level rise to occur.Other major climate events are far more likely. The top two would be a major volcanic eruption and/or a solar minimum. See belowWe need to dispassionately study the (very new and still evolving) science of climate without the biases of self serving media, political groups or conspiracy cults. How can a non-scientist trust science?My path from climate alarm to climate science realistIn 1988, Dr. James Hansen, the leading scientific authority on climate change working for the US government, testified before congress with dire warnings about “imminent” climate disaster.In the 90s, I met one of the main promoters of Anthropogenic Global Warming, Dr. Steven Schneider, at Stanford. I listened to his speeches and believing that he was a credible scientist, I became plenty scared myself. I gave a speech at my Rotary Club and told anyone who would listen about the urgent action we needed to take.One day a good friend and consummate scientist with unimpeachable ethics was hired by the Australian government to develop a comprehensive carbon cycle model for their prospective cap and trade program. We both celebrated his new role in preventing anthropogenic climate change.Some time later, he began sending emails talking about how the science behind the now-infamous “hockey stick” climate chart was fraudulent and how so-called scientists were using science to create fear and promote their political goals. This created a disturbing cognitive dissonance for me and my friend.I learned from the Climategate Emails (read them in the original, not articles about them) and other articles that they had written, that Dr. Schneider and others in that lot were unconcerned with science and driven by radical political ideology. I read with dismay an article of his from 1989 in Discover magazine:"That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."I discovered that during the 70s, the very same scientists had been promoting global cooling and the coming ice age as an existential threat, requiring that we dump carbon on the ice caps to deliberately melt them.However, CO2, which involves the global energy supply, was a far bigger target which might be used to bring civilization to its knees.Learn and read beyond the scary headlinesI realized that the only way to truly understand and form intelligent opinions was to study the actual science. I began reading the actual scientific papers, not the press releases or clickbait headlines. I learned to identify and avoid biased zealot blog sites (observe the extended diatribe in the comments to this post). When I did this, my entire view of the subject changed.First, appeals to authority and claims of consensus are not valid bases for judging scientific facts or debating climate science. Ideas I had accepted as coming from an unquestioned authorities were validly challenged by other authorities. When I read the actual paper that initiated the “97% of scientists agree” meme, I was shocked to discover the methodology of the survey was an outright fraud. Google it and the critiques for yourself. (Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' ).Scientists are professional skeptics. “Prove it” is their mantra. No two scientists will agree the details of anything, much less 97%. Theories that can withstand criticism by the most knowledgable skeptics are what have brought us all of the scientific and technological advances of our modern age.Challenge every factI learned that before accepting anything as a fact, I needed to understand all the arguments both for and against it. I needed to know if the information was cherry picked, the start and end dates for a time series were jiggered, the scale was exaggerated, if significant contrary conditions were left out, how big the error window is and more. One quickly realizes how much uncertainty and room for interpretation there is in the entire scientific enterprise and how the devil is in the details.As Einstein is credited with saying, it doesn’t matter if a million scientists agree with your theory, if one can disprove it. Skepticism is the heart and soul of science.In addition, “belief,” is a philosophical/religious concept, which has no standing in scientific discussion. The scientific method was invented to eliminate just such “fallacies of discourse” as Plato discussed more than 2000 years ago.Climate science is very young. For example, our knowledge of the Arctic ice extent (and most everything else about climate) only goes back to the 1980s and the first sophisticated satellites. Science has no direct knowledge of the range of variation that the Arctic has experienced in the past. There are hundreds more examples of our incomplete knowledge of climate.What time is it?There is an old Chinese proverb - Man with one watch knows the time. Man with two, not sure.Ironically, the more research that is done, the less certain our knowledge becomes, as we learn about the vast subtlety and chaotic interaction of the climate mechanisms. We have discovered thousands of “watches” and none of them keeps the same time. Every question that is answered begets 10 new questions.Some studies show that Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice, others show that they are gaining. Which watch do you want to trust with the future of humanity?What time will it be in 2100?According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, climate is “…a coupled, non-linear chaotic system and therefore the long term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” Meaning that small changes at the input make huge differences in outcomes.Kevin Trenberth, a leading climate modeler for the US and the UN IPCC, demonstrated that a one-one trillionth degree change in the input temperature to a climate model can completely change the results of the run. Of the thousands of variables that go into climate models, only a relatively few are based on actual observation. Many are “parameterized” based on best guesses. They are tweaked to provide more “realistic” output. Dozens of runs are averaged to create an approximate imitation of what the climate has done in the past. Since the real world (the input conditions) is changing constantly, are these models watches we can trust for accurate prediction? Is it going to rain next week? Um, not sure. How about in 2100?Mother Gaia is pulling very big leversSome levers are huge, like the El Nino Southern Oscillation, the largest weather events on the earth. They potentially release massive amounts of heat into the atmosphere. The 1997–98 and 2016-17 super El Ninos raised global temperatures significantly. No scientist can predict El Ninos from year to year, much less decades in the future. As happened in 97/98, any one extraordinary event can send the global climate on a new course, never to return and impossible for models to predict in advance.As detailed below, there are both natural cycles and probabilistic events that could change the climate dramatically regardless of anything we try to do about it.No one has all the answersMany alarmists claim that anyone who dares question their perceived wisdom of our imminent demise are science deniers. I would propose that just the opposite is true. Those who base their opinions on headlines, beliefs, confirmation bias and zealot cult blogs are the real science deniers. I should know, I went through that period myself.The point of all this is that science is not about speculation and what MIGHT happen. To have informed opinions, you have to follow the money, read the real science with a skeptical eye and get beyond the political hype and clickbait headlines.I predict you will be better informed, less certain and better able to understand both the inherent stability and unpredictability of our wonderful planet’s climate system. Personally, I have found the study both fascinating and fulfilling with discovery of both the insane complexity and intricate beauty that is our natural world.I wrote a short piece addressing the question of how a non-scientist can trust science. The article discusses the scientific method and some fallacies in arguments about it.The earth’s climate is a combination of cyclical, probabilistic and evolutionary forces.Cycles (all those watches)Day and nightTidesSeasonsThe global water cycle (95% of all greenhouse gas - Some processes create positive feedback with increasing temperature, some negative feedback, especially from cloud formation, which is not accurately modeled in climate models. No one knows for sure, but my bet would be that water is the great climate stabilizer)The global CO2 cycle (thousands of sources and sinks, many natural sources greater than human-produced CO2)Orbital mechanics (Milankovitch cycles, proposed as the mechanism behind the regular 100,000 year glacial/warm cycles over the last 4 million years, but our knowledge is incomplete)Ocean temperature oscillations (Atlantic Decadal Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation - quasi-periodic)Ocean current oscillations (Souther Ocean current, thermohaline circulation)Solar cycles (11 years, correlations with climate but not proven causations)Unpredictable semi-periodic cycles like El Nino, La NinaMovement of the magnetic poles (recently the north magnetic pole began moving much faster than ever before. This affects the interaction of the atmosphere and the solar wind, which in turn affects the climate, future unknown)Thousands of geological, atmospheric and oceanic cycles that are only vaguely understoodMany of the earth’s cycles interact with each other and are changed by those interactions, making prediction technically impossible.Probabilistic eventsAsteroid strikesSolar flares (a large one like the Carrington Event of 1859 could wipe out electric grids and damage anything runs on electricity, including the satellites we all depend on. A similar flare just missed the earth in 2012)Volcanos (Tambora, 1815; Krakatau, 1885; it’s been awhile since we had a really big one. They seriously disrupt the climate for years)Solar minimum - Since the 1960s, sunspot activity has been diminishing rapidly with each (on average) 11 year cycle. The next cycle, which will probably peak around 2024, might hit close to zero. The last time this happened (the Maunder Minimum, 1650–1715), coincided with a “little ice age,” bringing famine, wars, with advancing glaciers burying towns and much suffering. The ice on the Thames River in London was so thick that entire neighborhoods of businesses sprang up on the ice. However, correlation is not causation. Scientists are divided about whether the cause was the solar minimum or increased volcanism, or whether they were all related. Although weaker, the later Dalton minimum coincided with cooling that dragged on until the 20th Century. Many climate scientists think that the current warming is just the recovery from the low temperatures previously. This is a long standing and complex argument in climate science.EvolutionThere is no such thing as a steady state or "ideal" climate. The climate evolves but never returns to any previous state. Trying to make it do so is as fruitless as trying to un-burn a fire, or un-mix your coffee and cream. Think of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans as giant swirling coffee cups, heated by the sun, with sugar and cream and millions of other ingredients constantly being mixed together.As the UN IPCC clearly stated: “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”IPCC Assessment Report, 2001, Chapter 14, page 3Humans have survived and adapted through a long series of glacial cycles and warmings - Sea levels falling and then suddenly rising more than 400 feet. Glaciers a mile thick covering much of the northern continents. CO2 levels so low it was hard to grow plants for food.Whatever surprises the future climate holds for us, I predict that we will adapt to them as we always have.Elephants in the human living roomConsensus on global climate action is technically impossible30 years after his testimony before the US congress, Dr. Hansen says that the real hoax is governments pretending to do something about climate change, but not really. He also believes that nuclear energy is the ultimate answer and that renewables will never be a comprehensive solution.I propose that this universal failure to act (despite posturing) is not a matter of moral weakness or lobbying by the fossil fuel industry. Instead, it is a structural feature of all human societies - families, tribes, clans and governments exist to ensure the maximum access to energy for their members/citizens at the lowest cost in order that those citizens can grow, reproduce and evolve at the maximum rate and contribute to the success of the entity itself. Therefore, any nation state is only empowered to act for the clear benefit its own citizens.Treaties, alliances and agreements are negotiated with the purpose of benefiting the citizens of the party countries, not all countries. Inequality is a fundamental characteristic of not only all life forms, but the universe itself. Without it, the universe would be the gray undifferentiated soup predicted by the second law of thermodynamics. The more recent Constructal Law (1996, Professor Adrian Bejan of Duke University www.contructal.org) shows why energetic flow systems evolve and why life forms function the way they do.For this reason, I am certain that there will never be any coordinated global climate action undertaken.My analysis is based on several factors:Game theory - wealth inequality precludes global agreementsPhysics - all living organisms need a constantly increasingly supply of energy and will fight to get itHuman social dynamics - From the first two, no human group will give up its energy-wealth for the benefit of another group - wars are fought to gain benefits at the expense of another. And humans love their wars.I have posted a fuller discussion of this topic hereWe need a lot more food and energy in the futureThe greening of the planet thanks to extra warmth and CO2 is already evident and proven by NASA and many peer reviewed scientific studies.NASA Satellite earth monitoring - increased productivity between 1982 and 2015I have personally been to Morocco and seen millions of new trees and acres of new fields planted around the edge of the Sahara where they would not grow before. By what rationale would we deliberately shut down new food supplies? We are going to need a lot more productive agriculture in the coming decades.New agriculture in Morocco on the edge of the Sahara desert.As for acidification of the ocean killing off organisms with calcium shells, one study done on coral reefs that have natural CO2 seeps and much higher local carbonic acid levels showed that some species thrived more and some less, but the ecosystems were healthy and stable. Other studies are showing just the opposite of what the alarmists predicted:“Coccolithophores--tiny calcifying plants that are part of the foundation of the marine food web--have been increasing in relative abundance in the North Atlantic over the last 45 years, as carbon input into ocean waters has increased. Their relative abundance has increased 10 times, or by an order of magnitude, during this sampling period, report researchers.” [my bold].Some have argued that taking fossil plant carbon from the ground and burning it creates more trees, which can themselves be burned. Thus we are actually adding to the global sustainable energy supply by recycling ancient forests into new ones which can be harvested and recycled indefinitely.We need more energy to improve global standards of livingMost of the people on earth live in energy poverty. In every country, wealth (standard of living) is directly and provably related to per capita energy consumption. In order to bring the world population up to a reasonable standard of living, how much energy will be required? Fill in the blanks yourself, but I would estimate 3-5 times more than is currently produced, at least until India’s population peaks sometime before 2100.Improved standard of living limits population growthImproved standard of living is also the proven method of stopping population growth. Bringing as many people as possible up to a better standard of living as quickly as possible will pay big dividends in reducing the future population load and cumulative energy requirements.Figurative illustration of the population growth vs energy use curve. Adapted from the paper “The Physics of Blood and Money”, by Professor Adrian Bejan of Duke University and Dr. Marcelo ErreraSo, bottom line, I would propose that rather than fiddling around the edges with costly and ineffective band aids, taxes and fantasies of global action, we need to be much more aggressive in coming up with real, practical and cheap new energy sources (much cheaper than fossil fuels) - that will work without the assumption of global cooperation, a global command economy, or massive population extermination.In the spirit of “peer review by Quora” I welcome thoughtful comments and criticism if it is related to points in the article. Please state the point you are responding to.Replies that have no relevance to the article or are just venom spewing incoherent ad hominem trolling from cult blogs will be deleted without comment.

These are the benefits woman get once they loose weight to be more attractive;1. Food will taste better.ShutterstockGet this: After losing weight, your dinner may taste even better. Overweight people have less taste sensitivity than their slimmer counterparts. The experts behind the report say this might be because taste buds become dulled with overuse.Eat This! TipTry healthy foods you never enjoyed before. In your trimmer frame, they'll become new favorites which will assist you maintain your weight loss within the end of the day .2. You would possibly be ready to toss your meds.ShutterstockYou already know that reaching a healthy weight can keep off things like heart condition and diabetes, but did you recognize that losing weight also can help improve the symptoms of your current conditions? meaning you would possibly be ready to take lower doses of your current medications or stop taking certain meds altogether. (Which will prevent plenty of cash!) sign up together with your M.D. and see what sorts of changes he or she thinks the slimmer you would possibly enjoy .3. Your drive will improve.ShutterstockNope, it isn't just your imagination. As your BMI dips, you're more easily aroused—and it's all because of rising testosterone levels. In one Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism study, heavier men had T-levels like gents nearly a full decade older. you'll also feel less self-conscious within the nude, which may increase your desire to urge it on, too.4. you'll enjoy sex more too.If you thought sex felt great before you reduce , wait until you go at it in your new, leaner bod! during a Duke University center survey of 1,210 people of varying weights, obese people were 25 times more likely to report dissatisfaction with their time between the sheets than their leaner counterparts. the simplest news of all? within the study, a mere 10 percent loss of weight was shown to skyrocket sexual satisfaction. So, albeit you are not quite where you would like to be together with your physique yet, you'll still reap the rewards within the bedroom. And to form your romp even hotter, make certain to nosh on a couple of of those foods for better sex!4. Your job will seem easier.ShutterstockSlimmer bod, smarter brain? Maybe. Heavier men have poorer cognitive skills than trimmer men, consistent with a study published within the journal Frontiers in Nutrition.5. The couch will seem less appealing.Before you lost weight, those extra LBs were straining your joints and weighing you down—literally. So it's really no wonder you were tired and craving couch time on the reg. Now that you've got shed the load, however, your joints will probably be less achy and your energy levels will rise, making your oh-so-squishy couch seem less appealing. to urge more of this, Read More.

What is the current state of affairs after 70 years of this climate denial machine? In the US, at least 180 congressional members and senators are declared climate deniers. They’ve received more than US$82 million in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry and its partners.Q: How much money bribe from oil and gas industry does it take to claim that “climate scientists are in it for the money”?A: $763,331Climate scientists slam Rick Santorum's "conspiracy theory" that they're in it for the moneyWhen you have received $763,331 from oil and gas companies, I guess its mandatory to claim that "climate scientists are in it for the money" right?LOLOil & Gas: Money to CongressThe goal of the fossil fuel industry is to keep its profits rolling in without interference by government or by new, competing energy sources.To do this they need the public embroiled in doubt and suspicion; they need to degrade public confidence in science and scientists; they need to harm America’s future—and the world’s future—so that one of the wealthiest industries on Earth can engorge itself in even more wealth.https://cleantechnica.com/2016/0...The Dake Page :"Denialists know that they have no valid scientific argument; if they did they would present it in scientific journals, conferences, and debates. Their goal isn’t to demonstrate science, it is to manipulate public opinion. That is what lobbyists do, and they do it well. Their goal is to create the illusion of debate, the façade of uncertainty. By continuing the “discussion,” such as it is, in the media, they win. They know that a majority of the public won't understand the intricacies of the science, either by choice or by its complexity. Denialists know that the public will get an overall sense of whether the science is settled or not, and that it is on this vague feeling the public will make judgments as to whether immediate action is needed. Perception is more important than fact, and illusion of reality is much more powerful than actual reality. [...] What is critical in this game is not what the science tells us, it’s the fact that to the public it appears as if there are two sides arguing with each other. Two sides + arguing = not settled.THE MAIN PLAYERS: THE KOCHS AND EXXON MOBILThe Kochs are probably the main founders of the american denial machine. Their agenda is to undermine all science which comes into “conflict” with their self interests. They are mega big polluters. And they have paid politicians to “do nothing about global warming”. (Watch the video)The origin of climate denial:Mont Pelerin Society Revealed As Home To Leading Pushers Of Climate Science DenialDuke University history professor Nancy MacLean suggests some answers in her new book Democracy in Chains: the Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America.The book documents how wealthy conservatives, in particular petrochemical billionaire Charles Koch, teamed up with neoliberal academics with the objective, MacLean says, of undermining the functions of government in the United States.MacLean’s central character is the late James McGill Buchanan, a political theorist and economist who won a Nobel award in 1986 for his development of “public choice theory”.Buchanan and Koch developed and propagated their ideas through a private organisation called the Mont Pelerin Society (MPS) – an influential group known as the “neoliberal thought collective” that was established in 1947 by famed free market economist Friedrich Hayek. Buchanan was a former president and joined in 1957. Koch, who has poured millions into groups attacking mainstream climate science, joined MPS in 1970.MPS has about 500 members in more than 40 countries.In the US it has many members who also work at think tanks that push climate science misinformation and attack renewable energy.This ongoing billion dollar attack on science from polluters industry think tanks and front groups have unfortunately undermined peoples trust in science and scientists.How Exxon Mobil, Koch brothers created a culture of climate doubt.Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate changeAbstractDrawing on large-scale computational data and methods, this research demonstrates how polarization efforts are influenced by a patterned network of political and financial actors. These dynamics, which have been notoriously difficult to quantify, are illustrated here with a computational analysis of climate change politics in the United States. The comprehensive data include all individual and organizational actors in the climate change countermovement (164 organizations), as well as all written and verbal texts produced by this network between 1993–2013 (40,785 texts, more than 39 million words). Two main findings emerge. First, that organizations with corporate funding were more likely to have written and disseminated texts meant to polarize the climate change issue. Second, and more importantly, that corporate funding influences the actual thematic content of these polarization efforts, and the discursive prevalence of that thematic content over time. These findings provide new, and comprehensive, confirmation of dynamics long thought to be at the root of climate change politics and discourse. Beyond the specifics of climate change, this paper has important implications for understanding ideological polarization more generally, and the increasing role of private funding in determining why certain polarizing themes are created and amplified. Lastly, the paper suggests that future studies build on the novel approach taken here that integrates large-scale textual analysis with social networks.https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/...__________________________________________________________________How Fossil Fuel Money Made Climate Change Denial the Word of God_______________________________________________________The shocker!!The moment when ExxonMobil admits they funded climate denier think tanks:You gotta see this to believe it. About 6 mins into video.OIL INDUSTRIES AND TOBACCO INDUSTRIES USED THE SAME METHODS TO UNDERMINE THE SCIENCETobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public"As early as the 1950s, the groups shared scientists and publicists to downplay dangers of smoking and climate change".Merchants of Doubt is a 2014 American documentary film directed by Robert Kenner.The film traces the use of public relations tactics that were originally developed by the tobacco industry to protect their business from research indicating health risks from smoking. The most prominent of these tactics is the cultivation of scientists and others who successfully cast doubt on the scientific results.LETS LOOK AT THE MONEY SPENT:A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that over the last 20 years, private funding has had an important influence on the overall polarization of climate change as a topic in the United States.Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate changeTruth is these interests are spending billions on lobbying officials:"Lobbying is conducted away from the public eye," explained Brulle. "There is no open debate or refutation of viewpoints offered by professional lobbyists meeting in private with government officials. Control over the nature and flow of information to government decision-makers can be significantly altered by the lobbying process and creates a situation of systematically distorted communication. This process may limit the communication of accurate scientific information in the decision-making process."As the study concludes, “the environmental organization and the renewable energy sectors were outspent by the corporate sectors involved in the production or use of fossil fuels by a ratio of approximately 10 to 1.”How lobbyists buy climate change legislationThe money spent on anti science propaganda campaigns and attacks on climate science is riddicilous:AbstractThis paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.https://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.htmlhttp://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial EffortExclusive: Billionaires secretly fund attacks on climate scienceSenators who urged Trump to leave Paris climate accord took millions from oil companiesHOW THE 2% RICH KEEPS THEIR 98% SHEEPLE “SATISFIED”To pander their gullible “people on the streets” its often enough to label environmental laws for “tax scams”. This will trigger their tribe into believing its about them. Thats how they have kept america polluted for 100 years.The amount of spent money has been staggering. Between 2005 and 2008, the Kochs alone spent nearly $25m on organizations fighting climate reform. One study by a Drexel University professor found 140 conservative foundations had spent $558m over seven years for the same purpose.[...] The genius of this strategy was to “turn corporate self-interest into a movement among people on the streets”."The AEI was one of dozens of the new think tanks bankrolled by hundreds of millions from the Kochs and their allies. Sold to the public as quasi-scholarly organizations, their real function was to legitimize the right to pollute for oil, gas and coal companies, and to argue for ever more tax cuts for the people who created them.Here is the method they use to pander and exploit “people on the streets”:Kochs’ “grand strategist Richard Fink:“We want to decrease regulations. Why? It’s because we can make more profit, O.K.? Yeah, and cut government spending so we don’t have to pay so much taxes. There’s truth in that.” But to the “middle third” these positions seemed motivated not by ideological principle but by greed.The rich donors who made up the Koch network, Fink said, needed to persuade moderate, undecided voters that their intent was generous. “We’ve got to convince these people we mean well, and that we’re good people,” Fink said.Fink was brutally honest about how unpopular the views of his wealthy audience were. “When we focus on decreasing government spending,” he said, and on “over-criminalization and decreasing taxes, it doesn’t do it, O.K.? . . . They’re not responding, and don’t like it.”But he pointed out that if anyone in America knew how to sell something it should be the successful business leaders in the Koch network. “We get business,” he told the audience. “What do we do? We want to find out what the customer wants, right? Not what we want them to buy!”The company’s internal research had shown that Americans wanted a clean environment, widespread good health, high standards of living, security, freedom, peace, and opportunity for both themselves and others. This posed a problem, given that the Kochs and their network opposed environmental regulation and government action on global warming, and supported privatizing Social Security and health care.But Fink had a solution. “This is going to sound a little strange,” he acknowledged. “So you’ll have to bear with me.” The Koch network, he said, needed to present its free-market ideology as an apolitical and altruistic reform movement to enhance the quality of life—as “a movement for well-being.” The network should make the case that free markets forged a path to happiness, whereas big government led to tyranny, Fascism, and even Nazism. Arguing that an increase in the minimum wage would cause higher unemployment, Fink told his audience that unemployment in Germany during the nineteen-twenties had led to the rise “of the Third Reich.”New Koch: Rebranding the Billionaire BrothersHere lies the real scam:The hysterical, polemic, paranoid conspiratorial and desperate feigned "us against them" conservative alt-right wingnut ideological free marked fundamentalist libertarian Ayn Rand anti-government anti-regulation tax alarmism demagogy junk with its mandatory and predictable attacks on unwanted (climate) science and smear against scientists and competing green energy, filtered through think tanks and astroturf orgs by their wolf pack attackers, Opinion Piece writers, fake experts and their media-accomplices, all recycled by echo chamber denier blogs and You-Tube-videos by amateur deniers and boys room conspiracy drivlers and web-trolls,-are really only asewer stream of cynical polluters industry self interests,camouflaged as a political right / left struggle -drag queened in a convulsively socialist witch hunt, posing like its about the "people on the street", the workers (their gullible sheeple) and "the poor people of the world",but the real agenda isto legitimize the right to pollute for oil, gas and coal companies, and to argue for ever more tax cuts for the free marked fundamentalists who created them so they can continue to make shitloads of money by ruining public health and add to the damages of CC.Private corporations take the profit while the environment and public health takes the bill.The amount of spent money has been staggering. Between 2005 and 2008, the Kochs alone spent nearly $25m on organizations fighting climate reform. One study by a Drexel University professor found 140 conservative foundations had spent $558m over seven years for the same purpose.[...] The genius of this strategy was to “turn corporate self-interest into a movement among people on the streets”.Dark Money review: Nazi oil, the Koch brothers and a right wing revolutionTesting Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average CitizensMultivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.If policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.https://goo.gl/SX9y38America are run by the polluters and their puppet politicians.The same mighty polluters which have kept America polluted for 100 years with lead, asbestos, DDT, mercury ,nicotine and now C02.HOW DO WE RECOGNIZE THE POLLUTERS AND THEIR PUPPETS?You recognize them when they start to attack environmental laws.They always attack environmental laws.These laws are made so that you and I can enjoy clean air and waters. These same laws are called “tax scams” by the polluters. The term “tax scam” will very likely be embraced by anyone who doesn’t like “the government” in the first place.The EPA was created to protect citizens from pollutions and environmental hazards. But he EPA is now a joke in Trumps America. It’s been hijacked by fossil fuel puppets and climate deniers. FFS, their new chief is a former coal lobbyist.Trump taps former coal lobbyist to lead EPATrumps America is fossil fuels America. How proud deniers must be. Leat them eat mercury, as they did lead, asbestos, DDT, nicotine and C02, you know, those other "hoaxes" science warned about. And as usual, these environmental laws will be renamed "tax scams" by the fossil fuels front group propaganda machine, to pander their bent over tribe of gullibles who, as usual, will swallow any anti-governmental lie they design, just because they believe being pro-government makes you a socialist.The corruption knows no limits:When Mother Jones first reported in December 2017 that the Environmental Protection Agency had hired a hyper-partisan GOP opposition research firm known for its aggressive tactics to handle the agency’s news-clipping work, the politically appointed flacks in the agency’s press office insisted the decision was about saving money and the hiring had been handled through normal procurement channels. As we reported Thursday, we now know that was not the case. Internal emails obtained by FOIA show that political appointees in the EPA press office demanded career staff push through the hiring of Definers Public Affairs—best known for its work for Republican campaigns and recently for its role as Facebook’s attack dog on Capitol Hill, which included attempts to smear George Soros for his critiques of the social media network.Now, thanks to another batch of internal emails, we have even more evidence that the motivation for hiring Definers came from the top agency political appointees who were ticked off at the old service, because it was collecting too many news clips that portrayed then-EPA administrator Scott Pruitt negatively.- Russ Choma & Rebecca Leber, Politics, Mother Jones, Jan 7, 2019The EPA hired GOP oppo firm because it was sick of "fake news"And when fossil fuel interests get bogged down in the candy store alone, this is what happens:Donald Trump has announced a replacement for the Clean Power Plan, one that would create hundreds of millions more tons of carbon pollutionThe Oil Industry’s Covert Campaign to Rewrite American Car Emissions RulesPublic Citizen report on Koch-Trump connectionsMercury Limits on Coal Plants No Longer ‘Appropriate,’ EPA SaysEPA Says Limiting Mercury Pollution From Power Plants Is No Longer 'Appropriate and Necessary'Trump's New Power Plan Comes With a Deadly Price76 Environmental Rules on the Way Out Under TrumpThe Trump Administration’s War on Wildlife Should Be a ScandalNational Parks Getting Trashed During Government Shutdownhttps://www.facebook.com/yearswa...Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate changeAmerica the pollutedLets explain how climate science became a political and ideological issue.The polluters know they dont have any science to back up their arguments. So instead they use the best defence method they can. Which is to polarize and politizise the science.Polluters industry will resist regulation that makes its operations more expensive.Thats why cynical industries and free marked fundamentalists which are dependant on polluting the environment in order to make their profit - will accuse anyone and anything and everyone, including governments, of using "politics" to try and "stop" them polluting.The Oil and coal Industry does not want to give up it’s cash cow.The polluter industries are accusing the climate science of being so "political", but they themselves have deliberately worked to make it appear as political. Because they have no science to defend themselves, this is their only defense against those who try to stop their pollution. To get a focus away from the fact that basic physics alone is 100% clear our CO2 causes climate change.It's much easier for them to defend themselves when their own interests are wrapped up in ideology and politics.The science was not politicized until the implications of doing something about it were realized by those who saw a harmful side of doing so to their particular concern. That usually involves big money but also becomes a threat to ideologies which abhor government interference into free market capitalism. Effective global warming intervention necessarily requires that the governing bodies of the world unite in the effort in a comprehensive and coordinated way.(Russel Swan)When think tanks and fossil fuel front groups started to lobby for the fossil fuel self interests 30 years ago, the first thing they did was to camouflage those interests as an anti government anti regulation anti tax ideological anti socialist "struggle".They connected their audience’s underlying ideologies to climate change: Because cutting GHG emissions requires intervention regulation or increased taxation of carbon emissions—that curtail free market economics, people whose identity and worldview centers around free markets became particularly likely to reject the findings from climate science when the logic was laid bare.How Is Climate Change Denial Still a Thing?Non-science free market lobbying groups have a long history of setting up fake front organizations and now blogger networks to saturate the public domain with intentional misinformation.Back in the late 1980s, when it became pretty clear that there was no persistent Soviet threat, conservatives needed a new bogeyman, and they found it in the environmental movement. “Green is the new Red,” became a common phrase in the conservative magazines of that era. Rather than suggesting that America strip away protections designed to keep air and water clean, commentators and pols railed against controls on less visible threats, like pesticides, ozone holes, and global warming. Cries for environmental regulation were twisted into calls for socialism and the end of economic progress.Conservative think tanks and politicians took up the mantle of climate change denial and, for more than 25 years, they’ve kept at it. Just like tobacco industry did before them.Accepting that climate change is real and bad is fundamentally harder to do for those who have benefited from industrial capitalism, which runs on cheap fossil fuels. It’s doubly hard for conservatives, who by definition tend to resist change more than liberals.Climate change is a side effect of industrial capitalism. Industrialized nations were built with energy from cheap fossil fuels, and this released enormous amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.This is what economists call an externality — a consequence that is not built into the cost. There are market solutions to externality problems, like carbon taxes or carbon trading schemes, which incentivise industries that don’t pollute as much. These are the sort of solutions that conservatives tend to like, but implementing any solution means acknowledging the problem in the first place."It’s not surprising that high-profile deniers are almost exclusively conservative white men, since they have most benefited from the industrial capitalist system, and therefore have the most skin in the game when it comes to protecting the powers that be — even if they aren’t those powers."[...] “conservative white males are likely to favour protection of the current industrial capitalist order which has historically served them well”. It added that “heightened emotional and psychic investment in defending in-group claims may translate into misperceived understanding about problems like climate change that threaten the continued order of the system.”Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United StatesHow Is Climate Change Denial Still a Thing?http://journals.plos.org/plosone...Smearing scientists and undermining "unwanted" science which comes into conflict with self interests and ideology, is all part of the denial propaganda machine:"Cynicism about the motives of public servants, including government-backed climate scientists, can be traced to a group of neoliberals and their ‘toxic’ ideas".On the origins of environmental bullshit"The concerted effort to discredit the scientific consensus over man-made global warming has been continuing for two decades in the United States, and shows no sign of weakening. It is very often described as an attempt on the part of corporate America, most notably the fossil fuel industries, to hinder governmental regulations on their activities. While emphasising this dimension of the US climate denial movement, this article also aims to show the complexity of the movement, rather than the mere defence of the narrowly-defined and short-term economic interests of the oil and gas industries, by shedding light on two additional factors which have been instrumental in blocking strong climate action. First, climate denial stems from the strong ideological commitment of small-government conservatives and libertarians to laisser-faire and their strong opposition to regulation. Second, in order to disarm their opponents, US climate deniers often rest their case on the defence of the American way of life, defined by high consumption and ever-expanding material prosperity. It is the contention of this article, therefore, that the US climate denial movement is best understood as a combination of these three trends."https://journals.openedition.org...Emails show cooperation among EPA and climate-change deniersWASHINGTON (AP) — Newly released emails show senior Environmental Protection Agency officials working closely with a conservative group that dismisses climate change to rally like-minded people for public hearings on science and global warming, counter negative news coverage and tout Administrator Scott Pruitt’s stewardship of the agency.John Konkus, EPA’s deputy associate administrator for public affairs, repeatedly reached out to senior staffers at the Heartland Institute, according to the emails.“If you send a list, we will make sure an invitation is sent,” Konkus wrote to then-Heartland president Joseph Bast in May 2017, seeking suggestions on scientists and economists the EPA could invite to an annual EPA public hearing on the agency’s science standards.Follow-up emails show Konkus and the Heartland Institute mustering scores of potential invitees known for rejecting scientific warnings of man-made climate-change, including from groups like Plants Need CO2, The Right Climate Stuff, and Junk Science.The emails underscore how Pruitt and senior agency officials have sought to surround themselves with people who share their vision of curbing environmental regulation and enforcement, leading to complaints from environmentalists that he is ignoring the conclusions of the majority of scientists in and out of his agency especially when it comes to climate-changing carbon emissions.Emails show cooperation among EPA, climate-change deniersLeak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate scienceRoger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Do you think that some scientists have been persuaded by elements of the industrial behemoth that global warming is fake or overstated?Anthony Watts - SourceWatchDeniers favorite fossil fuel think tank front group, the Heartland Institutes view on tobacco and tobacco smoking. Sound familiar?Heartland Institute 2018:"The public health community's campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science".Heartland Institute 2018:"The anti-smoking movement is hardly a grassroots phenomenon: It is largely funded by taxpayers and a few major foundations with left-liberal agendas."Heartland Institute 2018:“The association between (second hand) tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.Heartland Institute 2018:"There are many reasons to be skeptical about what professional anti-smoking advocates say. They personally profit by exaggerating the health threats of smoking and winning passage of higher taxes and bans on smoking in public places."More:Anti-smoking activists give smokers a stark choice: Stop smoking or die! In fact, there is a third path: reduce the harm by shifting to less-hazardous products that provide similar enjoymentLitigation against the tobacco industry is an example of lawsuit abuse, and has “loaded the gun” for lawsuits against other industries.Smoking bans hurt small businesses and violate private property rights.Appeals to “protect the children” don’t justify the war being waged against adult smokers.Smoker's Lounge | Heartland Institute“They did everything that becomes known as the signature of the tobacco industry,” said David Rosner, who has helped anti-lead lawsuits and co-wrote the 2013 book “Lead Wars.” “In fact, they were really pioneered by the lead industries. … The (Lead Industries Association) can take credit for creating this giant doubt industry.”While evidence about the harmful effects of asbestos continued to grow, so did the influence of the asbestos companies. Between 1940 and 1980, the business expanded into a multibillion dollar industry that employed more than 200,000 people.The success of these companies hinged on keeping the health risks of asbestos a secret — but it was asbestos workers and consumers who paid the price. In order to keep the industry alive and prosperous, many companies took steps to ensure miners, factory workers and the public knew nothing about the true dangers of asbestos.http://theweek.com/captured/7307...Jeremy Grantham, the longtime investor famous for calling the last two major bubbles in the market, is urging capitalists and "mainstream economists" to recognize the looming threat of climate change."Capitalism and mainstream economics simply cannot deal with these problems. Mainstream economics largely ignore [them]," Grantham, who co-founded GMO in 1977, said Tuesday in an impassioned speech at the Morningstar Investment Conference in Chicago. "We deforest the land, we degrade our soils, we pollute and overuse our water and we treat air like an open sewer, and we do it all off the balance sheet."This negligence is due in large part to how short-sighted corporations can be, Grantham said. "Anything that happens to a corporation over 25 years out doesn't exist for them, therefore, as I like to say, grandchildren have no value" to them, he said.- Fred Imbert, CNBC, June 13, 2018https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/13/...______________________________________________________SUMMARY:The polluters industry - a timeline:1900-2000: LEADLead is good for us and not dangerous to children and if you dont bend over and enjoy it youre attacking our industry and our desire to make shitloads of money by ruining public health and your campaign to demonize LEAD is based on junk science and you are probably a leftist government communist out to tax and regulate us out of businessOIL COMPANY DUPONT AND GENERAL MOTORS KNEW LEAD GAS WAS A KNOWN POISON WHEN THEY PUT IT IN GASOLINE AS AN ANTI-KNOCK AGENT.(Ethanol couldn’t be patented and offered no viable profit for GM, so they were on the lookout for new additives to use. Marketing tetraethyl lead or TEL under the name “Ethyl” (because lead was already known to be poisonous), GM expected to rake in massive amounts of money.)For decades auto and oil companies denied that lead posed any health risks.1930s-1990s ASBESTOSAsbestos is good for us and if you dont bend over and enjoy it youre attacking our industry and our desire to make shitloads of money by ruining public health and your campaign to demonize asbestos is based on junk science and you are probably a leftist government communist out to tax and regulate us out of business."As is often the case with environmental scares, the asbestos “cure” was pushed well ahead of a complete diagnosis. Research has confirmed that asbestos workers who do not use protective breathing apparatus suffer increased health risks. For the remaining 99+ percent of the U.S. population, however, asbestos health risks are virtually nil."https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/testimony-on-asbestos-litigation-1Massive Asbestos Cover-Up by World's Industrial Giants1940s-1960s: DDTDDT is good for us and if you dont bend over and enjoy it youre attacking our industry and our desire to make shitloads of money by ruining public health and your campaign to demonize DDT is based on junk science and you are probably a leftist government communist out to tax and regulate us out of business.Ruthless Power and Deleterious Politics: From DDT to Roundup1950s-1980s: NICOTINENicotine is good for us and is not addictive nor related to lung cancer and if you dont bend over and enjoy it you're attacking our industry and our desire to make shitloads of money by ruining public health and your campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science and you are probably a leftist government communist out to tax and regulate us out of businessTobacco industry intentionally manipulates cigarettes to make them more addictive."A federal court has ordered Altria, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, Lorillard and Philip Morris USA to make this statement about the health effects of smoking."Then the bad news begins to flow."Smoking causes heart disease, emphysema, acute myeloid leukemia and cancer of the mouth, esophagus, larynx, lung, stomach, kidney, bladder and pancreas."Heartland Institute 2018:"The public health community's campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science".1990s-2018: C02C02 is good for us and not related to pollution and climate change and if you dont bend over and enjoy it you're attacking our industry and our desire to make shitloads of money by ruining public health and your campaign to demonize fossil fuels is based on junk science and you are probably a leftist government communist out to tax and regulate us out of business.The US supreme court ruled that carbon dioxide IS a pollutant is 2007.Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years AgoShell Knew Fossil Fuels Created Climate Change Risks Back in 1980s, Internal Documents ShowTHE END RESULTIS AMERICA NOW HAVE HALF A POPULATION WHO ARE IN DISTRUST OF SCIENCE AND SCIENTISTSJournalist Charles P. Pierce, Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free :"The rise of idiot America today represents - for profit mainly, but also and more cynically, for political advantage in the pursuit of power - the breakdown of a consensus that the pursuit of knowledge is a good. It also represents the ascendancy of the notion that the people whom we should trust the least are the people who best know what they are talking about. In the new media age, everybody is an expert."Richard Hofstadter, who won a Pulitzer Prize in 1964 for his book, Anti-Intellectualism In American Life, describes“how the vast underlying foundations of anti-elite, anti-reason and anti-science have been infused into America's political and social fabric.”Tom Nichols’ bok, “The Death of Expertise:“The culture and our educational system have created a generation that has little experience being told they are objectively wrong. Everyone feels they are entitled to be right. Combine this with the illusion of knowledge provided by Google, and everyone thinks they are their own expert in anything.”The War On Science from this administration is shameful and devastating to the United States reputation as a pioneer science nation as well as for the US's further ability to develop new technology mankind needs to progress .Antiscience attitudes and policies actively hurt science's ability to do great things.The "Best and the Brightest" no longer come to US universities to study or do research, because there is simply too little funding of the sciences,Its become tribal. Often its enough for the polluters to label environmental laws for “tax scams”, and their tribe will have another reason to hate the government.Everything about the claim, “global warming (climate change) is a scam”, can be directly linked to fossil fuel front groups, think tanks and their echo chamber denier blogs.Every singe time you follow the trail back, this is where you gonna end up. EVERY SINGLE TIME.To some nonsense about how C02, their monetary crane and Holy Grail, is “good for us”. Everything the professional climate deniers have ever written about this matter, has this one purpose; to protect C02. To portrait C02 as “ a gift from God”.They duped us with leadThey duped us with asbestosThey duped us with DDTThey duped us with nicotineAre we gonna let the mighty polluters run us all over..AGAIN?Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why is opposition to climate science more common in the United States than other countries?Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to How do the Koch brothers feel about global warming and pollution?