jbsliverer, WOW, just WOW brilliant! The video is seriously the most heartwarming effort i have seen in a long time. Chuckle, I occasionally make a fool of myself, last time a couple of years ago, maybe, by sending something to All of the addresses in my email. i have no idea who many of them are anymore (I have seldom gone to email for years, as it all got too much to organize), so the inbox has thousands. And the All goes to many long forgotten. Fool i say because, lol, for sure in some recipient eyes i would be. There would be some, or many, WTF, why is the scatterbrain sending it to all of those. LOL and there are many non-deliveries.
But i don't care. The Sen. Whitehouse video is a gem and it's going out to All, whomever many if not most of them may be. LOL It's fun in a way. ;-)
In fact if it's ok with you, i'll include the link to your post too. Why not. The more who read it the better, eh.
The four phases the good Senator outlined the fossil fuel deception ran through:
One, their own scientists' warnings. In other words they knew. That, of course, brought to mind Dark Waters
and Dupont's PFAS (PFOA) deception. Same thing. Poisoning for profit. And in reply an American who risked all, his job, his friends, his family to help an American farmer gain justice. To help others,. And to at least bring the deliberate poisoning of the American public to public notice.
The farmer died from Dupont's poison. And others. And many suffered, many still do. Just as more are suffering today from the dishonesty and deception of the fossil fuel industry. For profit.
Two, the fossil fuel companies looked at their own scientists warnings and said, oops, fuck that, not good for profits, not good for the $750 billion of public money we get from Americans each year. So they set up multi phony front companies an "armada" of front groups and, thanks to Citizens United "rivers' of dark money to influence politicians and to con the public. Decades of deceit and deception to prevent remedies.
Three, the hoax phase. Lies to it's a hoax, science is unsettled, remedies do more harm than good. Am paraphrasing and quoting Whitehouse in much of this. Sen. Whitehouse mentioned a Victory Memo, i don't recall hearing of it before:
Source Material and Background Information March 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ “Victory will be achieved when average citizens ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science.” –American Petroleum Institute, 1998
Source
This quote is from a 1998 leaked memo from the American Petroleum Institute that laid out the organization’s draft Global Climate Science Communications Plan:i
The memo describes an effort to initiate “…a national media relations programme to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science; to generate national, regional and local media on the scientific uncertainties and thereby educate and inform the public, stimulating them to raise questions with policymakers,” and the group would declare victory when:
• “Average citizens understand (recognise) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom’
• Media ‘understands’ (recognises) uncertainties in climate science
• Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extant science appear to be out of touch with reality.”
Exposing the Disinformation: Science Facts
At the time of this quote, the scientific evidence of the cause and impacts of climate change was well documented. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 in recognition of the problem of global warming. Through the IPCC, climate experts from around the world synthesize the most recent climate science findings in periodic reports. The 1995 IPCC report concluded that “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate” and that “most of these studies [assessments of statistical significance of observed global mean surface temperature trend over the last century] have detected a significant change and show that the observed warming trend is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin.” ii
More about the American Petroleum Institute (API)
The American Petroleum Institute (API) is a trade association for the oil and gas industry. API members include ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, and Shell. API’s lobbying efforts primarily focus on U.S. Federal energy and climate policies, consistently opposing federal regulations of greenhouse gases and seeking to cast doubt on climate science.iii
A 1998 leaked memo reveals a “draft communication plan” that carefully lays out the climate science misinformation strategies carried out by fossil fuel companies and their trade groups, demonstrating that these efforts were carefully planned and orchestrated by the fossil fuel industry.
The American Petroleum Institute convened a team—known as the Global Climate Science Communications Team—to develop a plan, targeting the media, schools, government officials, Congress, and other influential groups. The intention of the group, as laid out in this memo, is to initiate “…a national media relations programme to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science; to generate national, regional and local media on the scientific uncertainties and thereby educate and inform the public, stimulating them to raise questions with policymakers,” and the group would declare victory when:
• “Average citizens understand (recognise) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom”
• Media ‘understands’ (recognises) uncertainties in climate science
• Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extant science appear to be out of touch with reality.” iv
API continues to question the science of climate change in efforts to block action on limiting global warming emissions. In 2011, API and a coalition of other industry groups filed a lawsuit petitioning the EPA’s endangerment finding (which allows the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions) stating that: “The Endangerment Rule is invalid because EPA professes to be 90–99% certain that anthropogenic emissions are mostly responsible for “unusually high current planetary temperatures,” but the record does not remotely support this level of certainty.v i Coalition for Responsible Regulation, et al., v. United States Environmental Protection Agency and Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator. 2010. 09 U.S. 1322. ii Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1995. IPCC second assessment synthesis of scientific- technical information relevant to interpreting article 2 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. In IPCC Second Assessment Report, edited by Bolin, B., J.T. Houghton, G.M. Filho, R.T Watson, M.C. Zinyowera, J. Bruce, H. Lee, B. Callander, R. Moss, E. Haites, R.A. Moreno, T. Banuri, Z. Dadi, B. Gardner, J. Goldemberg, J.C. Hourcade, M. Jefferson, J. Melillo, I. Mintzer, R. Odingo, M. Parry, M. Perdomo, C. Quennet-Thielen, P. Vellinga, and N. Sundararaman. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Online at https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/climate-changes-1995/ipcc-2nd-assessment/2nd-assessment-en.pdf, accessed February 25, 2015. https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/03/APIquote1998_1.pdf ----
Toss in one of hundreds on the board: Climate change "Climate Change... From the unique vantage point in space, NASA collects critical long-term observations of our changing planet." [...]12 October 2023 Key facts * Climate change is directly contributing to humanitarian emergencies from heatwaves, wildfires, floods, tropical storms and hurricanes and they are increasing in scale, frequency and intensity. P - * Research shows that 3.6 billion people already live in areas highly susceptible to climate change. Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from undernutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress alone. P - * The direct damage costs to health (excluding costs in health-determining sectors such as agriculture and water and sanitation) is estimated to be between US$ 2–4 billion per year by 2030. P - * Areas with weak health infrastructure – mostly in developing countries – will be the least able to cope without assistance to prepare and respond. P - * Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases through better transport, food and energy use choices can result in very large gains for health, particularly through reduced air pollution. [...]Climate change impacts on health The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) concluded that climate risks are appearing faster and will become more severe sooner than previously expected, and it will be harder to adapt with increased global heating. https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173893071
That hoax phase of the fossil fuel industry conned many, yet it flopped, so next came...
Four, the switch to "pretend." They pretended to take climate change seriously while internally working against all they said publicly.
Okay, now to specifically one part of Trump's role in the poisoning of all of us. From yours:
"Trump moves ahead with selling public land to fossil-fuel industry amid coronavirus and oil price freefall https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/trump-fossil-fuel-coronavirus-oil-price-fall-us-public-lands-a9493101.html Louise Boyle New York Thursday 30 April 2020 18:56 BS ................................................................Melyssa Watson, executive director of the Wilderness Society, told The Guardian: “From rolling back EPA’s pollution standards, to pushing for more oil and gas drilling and stifling the public review process, the federal government is fast-tracking rollbacks that deserve public scrutiny." P - Last month, Environmental Protection Agency chief Andrew Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist, announced a rollback on the Obama administration’s emissions standards for vehicles, despite the decision meaning that millions more tonnes of CO2 will be added to the global warming crisis."
Trump’s EPA scraps air pollution science review panels [...]Andrew Wheeler, the acting chief of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), yesterday fired a panel of scientific experts charged with assisting the agency's latest review of air quality standards for particulate matter. He also scrapped plans to form a similar advisory panel to aid in a recently launched assessment of the ground-level ozone limits. P - Those steps, coupled with Wheeler's previously announced decision to concentrate authority in a seven-member committee made up mostly of his appointees, quickly sparked objections that the agency is intent on skewing the outcome of those reviews in favor of industry. https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=144198716
Lastly:
Zinke’s controversial, EPA-style ‘secret science’ order isn’t going over well with Democrats
"Trump’s EPA scraps air pollution science review panels "Who Is Andrew Wheeler, Trump's New EPA Chief?""
Experts worry national parks and endangered species could be heavily impacted by the proposal. [...] House Democrats are calling on Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to stand down from plans to rein in the use of confidential data when crafting agency policies, a controversial move that follows similar efforts to limit the use of science at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). [...] Rather than helping ensure “the best available science” is used in policymaking, Grijalva and his co-signers say, approaches like the one taken by the Interior Department will only favor partisan interests.
“We are skeptical that this waiver provision is anything but another layer of protection for the fossil-fuel industry at the expense of scientific integrity,” the letter emphasizes, concluding by calling on Zinke to rescind the order.
Zinke’s “open science” order appears to be following the EPA’s lead. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), a long-time denier of climate change, has used his position .. https://thinkprogress.org/zinke-rolling-back-offshore-oil-and-gas-production-safety-rules-0b1b4d6c49c4/ .. as House Science, Space, and Technology chairman to encourage so-called “secret science” orders without much success or support from his peers. Under former administrator Scott Pruitt, however, the EPA embraced such ideas and the agency has pushed ahead with efforts to implement limitations on science.
These types of policies would require decision-makers to rely only on scientific studies where the underlying data used by the researchers is made public.
A lot of data if released, however, would violate patient privacy or industry confidentiality. In many instances, it could open up scientists to attacks from individuals or industries looking to distort the data. The impact would also be to impose a dramatic burden on government officials compiling the data, effectively limiting their ability to introduce new protections for health and the environment.
Scientists and environmentalists have expressed concern that public lands and endangered species could be compromised by such limitations. A significant amount of long-established environmental research is sourced from private and confidential data, something that is largely true of scientific research more broadly.
But the Trump administration has indicated an interest in restricting the use of private data, a move that experts largely agree would hinder science — it would potentially rule out the use of valuable personal or sensitive information typically made anonymous upon publication for privacy concerns.
At the EPA under Pruitt, the agency in April proposed .. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-administrator-pruitt-proposes-rule-strengthen-science-used-epa-regulations .. a “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” rule that would have a similar impact to the one proposed at the Interior Department. While the Interior order allows more leeway and gives staff the opportunity to use science at their own discretion so long as they can explain their reasoning, Democrats nonetheless took aim at the similarities in their letter.
“Both policies threaten the suppression of scientific information not aligned with this administration’s agenda under the auspices of improving science-based decision-making,” the letter reads.
Heather Swift, an Interior agency spokesperson, defended the move to BuzzFeed News .. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zahrahirji/trump-interior-limits-science .. in October as an effort to combat criticisms of the department’s opaque decision-making process and accusations about “cherry picking” science.
“The goal is for the Department to play with its cards face-up, so that the American people can see how the Department is analyzing important public policy issues and be confident that it is using the best information available to inform its decisions,” Swift told the publication.
But Thursday’s letter argues that even outside of the new open science order, the agency seems to be actively undermining science. The letter highlights the secretary’s own conflict-laden requirements of those submitting research proposals, which are reportedly undermining the role of science in the agency.
“DOI policy also now requires the review of all cooperative agreements and grants over $50,000 by a political appointee with a bachelor’s degree in business administration and a long-standing friendship with you, but no apparent qualifications to review scientific grants,” the letter notes, referencing a report .. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/22/17767146/ryan-zinke-interior-climate-research-football-buddy .. that research proposals are being reviewed by Steve Howke, senior adviser to the Interior’s acting assistant secretary of policy, management, and budget, Scott Cameron.
Howke is a close personal friend of Zinke’s and, among other things, the pair played high school football together. Climate scientists say that Howke is holding up their research funding, which pertains to pressing topics like the role of global warming in fueling natural disasters.
Experts have largely decried so-called “secret science” efforts for years but until recently they were largely without weight. That appears to have changed at both the EPA and Interior Department, likely thanks to the influence of lawmakers like Smith.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
