NOAA Soils Itself And Undermines Public Trust - By Decision To Back Trump On Fake Dorian Path

Trump bloviating about the fake hurricane threat to Alabama a week ago, slapped down by Birmingham National Weather Service office but supported by an "unnamed" NOAA official.

In its heyday.  the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was one of the most reliable and trustworthy science-based agencies,but evidently no longer. Not after publicly coming out in support of Donnie Dotard's fake threat (by Hurricane Dorian) to Alabama.  As noted by Bloomberg News:

"During a briefing on the storm’s threat to the U.S. East Coast, the president held up an Aug. 29 map from the National Weather Service showing initial projections of Dorian’s track into Florida. But the map had been changed -- by the president -- with a black line that extended the storm’s path beyond Florida and into southern Alabama, according to people familiar with the matter."

The story goes on to note:

"Trump repeatedly claimed on Sunday that Alabama was in Dorian’s path -- he tweeted it, repeated it at the White House, and said it again during a visit to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. But by then, the storm’s track had turned decidedly north and east.

The National Weather Service’s Birmingham office said in a tweet on Sunday that “no impacts from Hurricane Dorian will be felt across Alabama.” Trump nonetheless said his warning had been accurate."

We've since learned (WaPo, yesterday) that a week before the NOAA publicly backed Trump over its own scientists, and a top NOAA official warned its staff against "contradicting the president."   Contradicting Donnie Dotard? How about contradicting physical reality?

In an agencywide directive sent Sept. 1 to National Weather Service personnel, hours after Trump asserted, with no evidence, that Alabama “would most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated,” staff was told to “only stick with official National Hurricane Center forecasts if questions arise from some national level social media posts which hit the news this afternoon.”

They were also told not to “provide any opinion,” according to a copy of the email obtained by The Washington Post.

According to the Post:

'A NOAA meteorologist who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution said the note, understood internally to be referring to Trump, came after the National Weather Service office in Birmingham contradicted Trump by tweeting Alabama would “NOT see any impacts from the hurricane.”

Further:

"The agency sent a similar message warning scientists and meteorologists not to speak out on Sept. 4, after Trump showed a hurricane map from Aug. 29 modified with a hand-drawn, half-circle in black Sharpie around Alabama."

And:

"Late Friday afternoon, NOAA officials further angered scientists within and beyond the agency by releasing a statement, attributed to an unnamed agency spokesperson, supporting Trump’s claims on Alabama and chastising the agency’s Birmingham meteorologists for speaking in absolutes.

That statement set off a firestorm among scientists, who attacked NOAA officials for bending to Trump’s will."

At that point, the NOAA  ceased to  be a reputable federal scientific agency, and became another rubber stamp farce for Dotard- much like the EPA, and the DOJ.  Essentially, it  lost any shred of credibility, gravitas and independence.  Rather it had mutated into a disreputable arm of Trumpdom - as has the EPA, the DOJ, and other once proud federal institutions.  As the Post went on to warn:

"The firestorm surrounding the president’s hurricane statements is unprecedented in the organization’s history, and threatens to politicize something that most Americans take for granted as an objective, if flawed, part of daily life: the weather forecast"

So yet another branch of the government has been dragged into Trump's vile, contaminated orbit.

Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Union of Concerned Scientists - an organization to which I also belong, said;

"It makes me speechless that the leadership would put Trump's feelings and ego ahead of putting out accurate weather information. If we're politicizing the weather what is there left to politicize?   We're seeing this kind of clapdown on scientists across the government  and  it's been an escalating trend."

Kathryn Sullivan, a former NASA astronaut who ran NOAA under Obama, didn't mince words in her assessment of the latest incarnation of the agency, telling the Post in an earlier (Saturday) article, 'Stormy Response To NOAA Stance':

"The anonymous and disingenuous statement that NOAA tweeted out is a major breach of scientific integrity that damages the National Weather Service (NWS)"

Jane Lubchenco, who preceded Sullivan as head of NOAA told the Post in an email (ibid.):

"This looks like classic politically motivated obfuscation to justify inaccurate statements made by the boss.  It is truly sad to see political appointees undermining the superb, lifesaving work of NOAA's talented and dedicated career servants."

Meanwhile, David Titley, an atmospheric scientist who served at NOAA during the Obama years tweeted - after reviewing the NOAA defense of Trump statement:

"Perhaps the darkest day ever for leadership. Don't know how they will ever look their workforce in the eye again. Moral cowardice."

Moral cowardice indeed.

But let's take a step back and observe again this isn't the only federal agency or arm being fouled and discredited by Trump political appointees heading a service or agency.  When Joy Reed asked her assembled panel ('AM Joy') on Saturday how it could be that now the military is abetting Trump, i.e. in enriching his hotels,  Malcolm Nance delivered a robust answer: "It's not actually any generals, who despise Trump, but the political creatures appointed by Trump and able to pull select strings".  In this case, ensuring that a C-17 crew back in March ended up staying at his Turnberry, Scotland resort for a mission in March. And oh, by the way - as Joy noted- overpaying for the privilege.

But again "official Air Force" personnel insisted the crews were following strict protocol.  Which, of course, is balderdash.  There is no known protocol which says or stipulates an AF crew must stay at a given president's resort and overpay to enrich that resident  - thereby flouting the domestic emoluments clause.  But this is now the deformed universe under Trumpism.  It is yet another reason that Trump must be dumped next year, irrespective of whom the Democratic candidate may be.


See also:

Donald Trump

‘Utter Madness’: Trump’s Assault on the Truth Continues as Weather Agency Releases Unsigned Statement in His Defense

And:

Donald Trump

The Sharpie Referendum

by P.M. Carpenter | September 7, 2019 - 6:12am | 

Trump Fascists' Attack On EPA Demands Political Warfare- From Scientists Too!

"I am merely following the advice from my resident Nazi, Mr. Bannon of Breitbart.com!"

Now we know the Trump gaggle of degenerates wants war- all out political war - as Bernie Sanders endorsed in a 40 second viral video from Jan. 20th.  Yesterday, under advice from Obersturmfuhrer Steve Bannon, the Trump administration instituted a media blackout at the Environmental Protection Agency and barred staff from awarding any new contracts or grants, part of a broader communications clampdown within the executive branch.

Emails sent to EPA staff and reviewed by The Associated Press also detailed specific prohibitions banning press releases, blog updates or posts to the agency’s social media accounts. According to one directive, likely penned in Bannon's office:

"Incoming media requests will be carefully screened. Only send out critical messages, as messages can be shared broadly and end up in the press.””

These prohibitions came to light-  thanks to a defiant EPA whistle blowing staffer-  as the agency moved to delay at least 30 environmental rules finalized in the closing months of President Barack Obama’s term. This is seen as a blatant first step to seeking to kill all the regulations. Many of these will directly impact the health and well being of citizens. For example, a summary of the actions posted in the Federal Register included a long list of regulations such as updated air pollution rulings for several states, renewable fuel standards and limits on the amount of formaldehyde that can leach from wood products. Oh, the Trump bunch wants to rescind water quality standards too, so you can guzzle more fracking carcinogens like benzene and xylene.

So the time for fun and games and mere speculation of what the blowhard asshole seated in the Oval Office might do is now over. This Swine -in -Chief and his henchmen, with their shuttering of the EPA and other Agency websites, information flow have now incited full scale political warfare. This  must now be declared, as Bernie did a week ago,  until this gang of reprobates is driven from power. And that must include scientists at the assorted agencies too,

Having worked in the space science research field for over two decades, and as a member of three  professional scientific organizations, I know how averse most members are to stepping into any political arena - especially in that era . The reasons are not hard to fathom, given in that era most grant money arrived from the federal government. Hence, the desire not to 'bite" the hand that feeds you.

But this is different, given science (especially climate and environmental) is now under existential threat from the illegitimate Trump maladministration. Hence, receiving money in any form from this fascist bunch of degenerates can now only be governed by extortion or the demand to lie and produce false data to receive $$$. This can't happen. Scientists, like it or not, must now engage in their own form of resistance and political warfare - including defying the imposed Trumpster gag rules and tweeting scientific facts - like the SD Badlands National Parks site did yesterday (informing citizens that the CO2 concentration at 404.93 ppm is now the highest in 650,000 years)

Scientists have already saved many gigs of actual data, enabling its protection from the predation and destruction of the Trump fascistas. Fortunately realizing they will need to destroy the actual climate facts to be able to spout "alternative facts". But they need to go even further, and that means setting up their own information and data release sites (maybe 'dark')  for citizens to access to stay in touch with real data.  They also need to rebel against any pseudo-authority imposed in the interest of doing the right thing to protect said data and get it to larger audiences. Sympathetic media outlets can greatly help here, including Bill Maher's Real Time, or John Oliver's 'Last Week Tonight'.

Leaks of information, defying the gag rule ban, can also be salutary and advance scientific integrity.. Indeed, it was thanks to an EPA scientist that we even know about this latest Trump abomination - as he took it upon himself to inform a congressional contact. The Trumpies had issued orders that no one was to talk about it, nada, but he defied these imps to get the word out. This is how more scientists will now have to act in defiance of the Trump Nazis and assholes.

In addition, scientists ensconced in agencies like the EPA, NOAA, NASA etc. must let us know - including by blog or defiant tweet or leak, what the nefarious Trumpistas are up to. If they plan to stack the agencies with fake climate scientists they must all be outed by name, including into what agency they're being insinuated. Citizens can then clobber them daily with phone messages, emails etc. or even protest in person at their DC offices or better, in front of their homes.  Everything goes in political warfare that is within the legal framework of constitutional action.

Bottom line, scientists can no longer retreat into enclaves of pseudo objectivity  but must be fully engaged - participating in political warfare and energized resistance.  Will this be partisan? How can it be otherwise when the other side is foursquare against the science? There is no issue here, of course it will be partisan!

Meanwhile, the professional science organizations like the AGU (American Geophysical Union), and Union of Concerned Scientists, must go all out to release data and current research. This basically  compensates for what their peers at NASA, NOAA etc. may not be able to do. This will put greater pressure on outside academic centers, which must not be intimidated in releasing research or data that (i.e. in new papers) that  is sourced from the gag-hamstrung agencies.  

You can also be sure that the substance of any available research papers will be presented here in this blog. I am not part of any government agency but still read current journals and am not averse to keeping fellow citizens informed, devil take the hindmost.

We're in a new era of asymmetric warfare and I will have more to write on more general political warfare in the near future, so that all citizens can get involved in doing more than just one off marches.

Stay tuned!

'White Elephant' Missile Defense Undermines Strategic Defense

Ground-based interceptor missile at Fort Greeley, AK. Despite a $40 b price tag the system has yet to prove its efficacy.

As I noted in a post from four and a half years ago, missile defense systems are basically Rube Goldberg schemes that don't work and only deplete resources while undermining strategic defense capabilities. This may be perhaps why JFK back in August, 1963, signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty which also scrapped ABM systems. (One reason most sober historians ceased thinking of him as a "cold warrior")

Thirty years ago we had  Reagan's useless and wasteful Strategic Defense Initiative, otherwise known as   "Star Wars" which was as stupid as Bush Junior's idiotic "national missile defense" program from fourteen years ago. (Of which this new system is really a makeover holdover- displaced to Europe). The fact is that none of these missile systems-shields really work, as particle physicist Wolfgang Panofsky first noted in his articulate chapter 'MAD vs. Nuts' in Particles and Policy (American Institute of Physics, 1994).

But the worst part isn't the  "missile defense" unworkability, but that others (e.g. Russians) may bite and think it is feasible and a very REAL threat. This is the point made by Wolfgang Panofsky in his monograph, Particles and Policy, Chapter 'Mad vs. Nuts') wherein he observes that any U.S. missile defense system - practical or otherwise- will spur numerous counter measures and fully offensive nuclear systems. THIS is the stark danger we face!

The ultimate effect being to massively destabilize the nuclear balance. Panofsky himself believed that missile shields and the like were basically 'white elephants' from the get go because the physical problem of intercepting a ballistic missile was like hitting a bullet with another bullet. He was strongly convinced a better plan was to work toward mutual reduction in missile forces with monitoring to ensure compliance.

The recent missile defense experiment appears to vindicate his worries, and shows the current Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system to be a huge boondoggle.  This system on paper is designed to protect all 50 states, say from a possible North Korean ICBM attack in 10-15 years. But the results thus far are not encouraging.   Since the end of the Clinton administration there have been a total of 17 tests pitting one of the missiles against a defined target whose launch and trajectory were already known.  The GMD system operators failed to destroy the targets in nine of the tests according to a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists. And this was despite the fact they knew ahead of time when and where the target missile would be launched, its precise dimensions, expected trajectory and velocity.

Since the initial GMD system was installed at Fort Greeley, AK and Vandenburg AFB, CA, the Missile Defense Agency has performed nine tests with only three successful in destroying their targets. Despite those dismal results the MDA currently fields 26 interceptors in AK and 4 at Vandenburg, and plans to install 14 more despite a record of failure that's worsened over time.

More distressing, the GMD's track record, deplorable as it is, masks the fact that the tests don't remotely match what would happen in real world encounters.  As Panofsky even observed nearly 30 years ago, any nation capable of launching a long range missile would also be able to equip it with decoys and other countermeasures that  could foil the GMD system. Panofsky showed Reagan's old 'SDI' system was easily foiled by an ICBM capable of deploying thousands of  brilliant reflecting objects and dispersing them - as mock targets.   As Panofsky stated in his chapter 'Mad vs. Nuts'  (op. cit.):

"it is always and invariably more cost effective to defeat any given missile shield system than to defend against an array of offensive missiles."

 This was a major reason  that the  Reagan 'Star Wars' bunkum had to be scuttled (according to an American Physical Society study done ca. 1987) , i.e. the then Soviets were becoming adept at "being able to implant millions of metallic fragments in their missile nose cones for deployment in the boost phase"

There is no reason the North Koreans wouldn't be able to do the same, say ten or so years from now with an ICBM potential.

All of this was pointed out by analysts from the UCS and MIT more than 17 years ago, and as UCS senior scientist Laura Grego (echoing Wolfgang Panofsky) has said:

"The Missile Defense Agency is trying to do something akin to hitting a bullet with another bullet which has proven difficult enough to do under simplified, scripted conditions".

The whole mess was really seeded as a boondoogle when Bush & Co, way back in 2002, started this stupid program and decided to exempt it from standard Pentagon oversight procedures- insisting on fielding it within two years. The results were predictable, running up the program's price tag  - now over $40 billion - while delivering a white elephant that has never been shown to work under real world conditions.

Laura Grego again (Bulletin of UCS, Summer 2016, p. 16):

'More than ten years after it was first fielded, the GMD system still hasn't faced the kinds of conditions that would be faced in the real world."

Nevertheless (ibid.) the  "Obama administration steadfastly maintains the GMD system is ready for prime time, or at least the threat of future, hypothetical  Iranian or North Korean long range missiles."

Brian P. McKeon, principal undersecretary of defense for policy, even told the Senate Armed Services committee earlier this year that "the US homeland is currently protected against such attacks."

Of course, this is codswallop and PR if no testing evidence even exists to support the claim. But that elicits the question of how the Pentagon even ended up with such a dysfunctional program. Like other national missteps - including the NSA violating 4th amendment rights with its MUSCULAR, Xkeyscore programs - this one dates back to the aftermath of 9/11 when national security hysteria reigned.

In such an atmosphere Congress passed the Patriot Act and the Bushies used their single -minded focus on security and "bad guys" (the "Axis of Evil") to kick start the embryonic GMD program.  At the same time, the Bushies withdrew the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. That Treaty had prohibited both sides from implementing a missile defense system to protect its entire territory.  As the UCS Bulletin puts it p. 17):

"This then opened the door for then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to exempt the Missile Defense agency from standard procurement rules and testing standards in order to deploy a system within two years. That proved to be a Herculean and impractical task."

The move also removed any financial accountability for the program and the Pentagon. This after defense analyst noted as far back as 2002 that it still can't account for a missing $1.2 trillion in defense monies.   Compared to the Pentagon's testing of the Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile (6 times a year, acing more than 150 tests) the testing of the GMD system is a joke.  As noted by the UCS (ibid.):

"Nearly 15 years after the GMD system was put on the fast track, the Pentagon's own testing officials have said the system has not demonstrated operationally useful capability to defend the U.S. public from a missile attack."

In other words, contradicting Brian P. McKeon's and the Obama administration's own claims.  But one go one better, noting that back in 2010 the Obama-ites insisted the GMD system would "dissuade Iran and North Korea from developing an intercontinental ballistic missile".  But 6 years later both are continuing to develop their missile technology and many physicists expect the North Koreans to have that capacity within 10-15 years.

And again, echoing the concerns of  physicist Wolfgang Panofsky (op. cit.) the UCS Bulletin observes:

"What's more, the belief that the system can block an attack introduces another layer of risk, since it might make the United States more likely to opt for a military solution in an international crisis before exhausting diplomatic ones."

 All of this in tandem has meant that the nuclear "doomsday clock" of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists remains firmly at 3 minutes to midnight - midnight being when all hell breaks loose. 

See e.g.

http://thebulletin.org/timeline

Excerpt:

'The probability of global catastrophe is very high, and the actions needed to reduce the risks of disaster must be taken very soon.' That probability has not been reduced. The Clock ticks. Global danger looms. Wise leaders should act—immediately." See the full statement from the Science and Security Board on the 2016 time of the Doomsday Clock."

Local Profs Right Not To Debate Climate Change With Students

In the latest kerfuffle over climate change - under the "Specious debate" banner,  The Colorado Springs Gazette reported on an email sent by University of Colorado at Colorado Springs science faculty. The relevant portion of a copy (sent to The College Fix by a student in the course). is shown below:

"The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring. We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course,”

And continued:

“Opening up a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a non-debate would detract from the central concerns of environment and health addressed in this course,”

 The actual percentage was 96.2 percent  of climate specialists - as published  in a report in  Eos Transactions, Vol. 90, No. 3, p. 22, by P. T. Doran and M. Kendall-Zimmerman.

Thus, despite the hysteria of the collegians, the UCCS profs' take is fully consistent with the position statement of the American Geophysical Union - the top professional organization for actual climate scientists (as opposed to chemists, economists, engineers,  philosophers, etc.) see e.g.

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

The 'Fix's' luminaries also published other links showing other schools (e.g. Oregon) not willing to waste time with stupid and useless debates on whether AGW is real. Like typical college "reporters" they believed they were exposing some hitherto unknown nuggets when they were really retreading old ground. In most top schools the alleged "climate debates" were deep-sixed years ago when physics and other  profs realized how much valuable class time was wasted by allowing the inmates to "run the asylum" by specious appeal to climate denier codswallop.

This morning on a local (KOAA-TV) news report that was confirmed by one of the school's physics profs. As he observed, and I agree: "If they want to debate let them find another class to take, and refrain from taking any more science classes."

The Gazette, meanwhile, quoted UCCS spokesman Tom Hutton as saying:

“The faculty was very direct and straightforward in stating that the bulk of this course is going to be about human-induced climate change, and that’s going to be the primary subject of discussion. No differently than a math professor would say, ‘This class is about algebra; we’re not going to talk about geometry.’”

But in fact that's something of a false analogy, given BOTH algebra and geometry are totally legit math areas while any "science" that embraces  AGW debate or denial is NOT.  Thus, a more apt comparison would be a Numerical Analysis class in which students wish to debate Numerology. The first deals with the use of  numerical approximations (e.g. finite differences)  to obtain solutions to differential equations, for example. The last is specious and based totally on humbug whereby numbers are employed to parse occult meaning  and influences on human life.  It is similar to astrology, in other words, in being replete with codswallop masquerading as real science.

Thus, Hutton actually attempted to soft soap the profs' objection, by insinuating that in another science-related course it would be perfectly fine to debate AGW. NO it would not, since it is no more up for debate than the holocaust or the validity of Newton's Second law of motion.. If certain students wish to debate whether the holocaust actually occurred they need to have their butts kicked out of a World War II history class, and maybe go into pseudo-history or whatever. If they want to debate Newton's 2nd law then they have no place in a college physics class and need to instead enter a course like Derridian deconstruction.

If these UCCS students knew anything, or had managed to look beyond their Facebook pages, and twitter feeds, they'd have learned about Charles Keeling.  Keeling showed, from even his earliest measurements, that there is a continuous, unabated increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Right now the CO2 concentrations are approaching 420 ppm, but within a rather short time, maybe 40 years - they'll approach 580 ppm and the likely runaway greenhouse limit. From that point on there'll be no turning back, and Earth will be hurled pell-mell into becoming another Venus complete with eventual 450 C temperatures, or hot enough to melt lead.

As Tim Lueker, an oceanographer and carbon cycle researcher from the Scripps Oceanographic Institute CO₂ Group, put it 3 years ago in an interview:

"The 400-ppm threshold is a sobering milestone, and should serve as a wake-up call for all of us to support clean-energy technology and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, before it's too late for our children and grandchildren,"

With the plethora of actual research out there, one wonders why these students aren't able to think critically enough to get to the scientific facts. Well, of course, one symptom of  kool aid drinking and propaganda on the brain is the person DOES feel s/he has arrived at the truth. The problem is that it's in the form of personal beliefs, not actual data. As one female student opined on KOAA this morning,, "The professors can teach what they want, they will not change my beliefs!"

But science isn't  about beliefs, especially climate science. Sadly, the reams of propaganda spewed out by Exxon has turned many young minds into mush and now has them questioning the actual science. All this thanks to the disinformation cranked out  by Koch brothers-backed PR hacks and exposed by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Those who want to access all 340 pages of the 'Climate Deception Dossiers' can go here:

www.ucsusa.org/decadesofdeception

As usual, at the end of the Gazette's brief article, a comments section appeared with the voices of reason essentially drowned out by the know nothing peanut gallery. One of the latter actually insisted the UCCS students' "free speech" rights were being denied, if you can believe it.  But one sensible person who saw this claptrap for what it was delivered the only response possible - and most needed:

"This isn't about freedom of speech. It's about science. Ignoring/debating/ denying the scientific evidence tells me you've swallowed the kool aid served you by the likes of the Koch brothers and others in the oil industry who are trying to protect their interests at the expense of the world's survival. You've been brainwashed!"

Indeed he has been brainwashed.  The problem here is that a propagandized or "brainwashed"  brain is one that has been parasitized, as if hundreds of tapeworm cysts had spawned and displaced -destroyed neurons, e.g.

 Thus, the critical thinking centers of the frontal lobes have been ravaged and left as a waste space.  All this brain can do is to recite or parrot the assorted propaganda it has imbibed. As for nuanced thought, it is hopeless - an impossible task.

So no wonder all that it has to fall back on are its pet beliefs.  I am not saying here that the brains of these UCCS students (or Kort Patterson, for that matter) look like the brain shown. I am saying that their limited neural thresholds, diminished ability for nuanced and critical thought  would resemble the dynamics and function of a physically parasitized brain. I.e. one besieged by worm larvae and cysts.  Why then would any proper science prof want to debate such a zombie?

The students, for their part, were correct that the course catalog description was for an online elective humanities class, and that the topic varies by semester. However,  there was no reason to believe the science staff teaching it would tolerate "debates" on warming science, any more than Heinrich Eichhorn - when he taught an analogous humanities astronomy class at USF in the 70s  - would tolerate a debate on "astronomy vs. astrology". It is just plain obtuse to believe so.

The university for its part did confirm that professors teaching the course had sent an email that said some students were concerned about "the class only looking at one side", but failed to note it is an issue with only one side. Just as the holocaust is, and just as astronomy trumps astrology. It is only propaganda that deludes people into believing this issue has 'two sides'.

See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/01/our-students-at-risk-of-delusion-on.html

How The Mensa Bulletin Has Abdicated Its Responsiblities Re: Global Warming

                                                                              

It was understandably shocking to many of us some months ago on learning, from a note attached to a letter in the Mensa Bulletin by the editor, that global warming can no longer be a topic for discussion - either in the letters section or as an article.  (One single sentence mentioning global warming did sneak into the last (March)  issue, tied to the "cause of global warming" being the population tripling since 1900,  but this was in connection with an article entitled 'Medical Marvels and Moral Dilemmas' - not on global warming per se. The writer himself, a Mike Irrgang, made no reference at all to the connection of higher CO2 concentrations to more population.)

 This current Bulletin policy can probably be traced to frequently heated exchanges, mostly between those of us with a background in physics and even climate science, and a gaggle of noisy, irrepressible know nothings (who believed their Mensa level IQ alone justified their opinions). Much of this was covered in a blog post of mine from seven years ago ('How Can So Many Smart People Be So Dumb?')  e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/06/how-can-so-many-smart-people-be-so-dumb.html

As I noted in the post:

"Three months after The Mensa Bulletin published a letter of mine reinforcing the prevalent scientific view of global warming – that it was anthropogenic and continually exacerbated by increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a whole swatch of attack letters were published in the recent (June) issue. Not one supported me, and this from a society that claims it represents the top 2% of IQs (e.g. > 130 on Stanford-Binet). One person even affirmed that my letter showed Mensa to be just a “propaganda front” for global warming purveyors and so he was quitting! Now, how smart is that?

The others went off on multiple tangents, though there were at least two letters that were somewhat sensible and made cogent points, though many of these points had so many holes it was like trying to parse a message scribbled on Swiss cheese."

I've also specifically rebutted nonsense from other Mensans, including educator Marty Nemko,, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2008/04/ten-answers-for-marty-femko.html

As well as a clown named Evan J. Wright who actually pooh-poohed the idea that the oceans could absorb C02 without "turning into soda pop", see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/04/how-global-warming-deniers-get-better.html

Most of the opposing blabber I traced to the writers being victims of  Agnotology, which  is derived from the Greek 'agnosis' and hence the study of culturally constructed ignorance. This was exposed in research by Stanford historian of science Robert Proctor, who tagged it to the trend of skeptic science sown for political or economic ends - e.g. in imparting ignorance and faux skepticism. We now know almost all of this has been hatched in documents outed from the fossil fuel propaganda mills and exposed by the Union of Concerned Scientists, e.g.

www.ucsusa.org/decadesofdeception

This was even referenced by me in a reply letter to the Bulletin, before the "shut down" but which was never published. In the letter I pointed out that if Mensa truly represents the upper 2 percent of intelligence then it is incumbent on the Bulletin to embrace genuine science and not the pseudo-science of the hacks and purveyors of disinformation.

But clearly the Editor, not seeking to stir up any more heat, took the position (false as I will show) that there existed "two sides to the arguments" and he wasn't about to filter out the warming naysayers, OR give the valid respondents (including scientists) space to make the case.  By refusing to publish any letters from the latter, and in effect totally closing down the information flow via any discussion, he essentially abdicated responsibility and "punked out" in the parlance of some.

The other  problem? A slack, PR-governed media has fallen down on its job and often portrayed global warming as having "two sides". It does not, no more than the existence of the Holocaust has two sides. But in an “argument”/ "Crossfire" culture where polarization and passion naturally dominates reason, most people assume there are inevitably “two-sided” issues. 

As a corollary to this, the general false assumption follows that both sides "deserve hearings" and a balanced presentation is preferred over a “one-sided” one. The latter is always termed “biased”. This leads to the egregious media conviction that presenting "two sides" implies "Objectivity" - which is an abuse of the term.   Denying that the Holocaust occurred could never be "objective" just as denying anthropogenic global warming with its massive scientific evidence compiled over thirty years.

 In effect, there’s a colossal advantage to creating the misperception that a two-sided issue exists. For one, it confers credibility on a specious position that ordinarily would be dismissed at the outset. Thus, human global warming deniers – like Holocaust deniers – earn a gravitas, forum and respect (often via the media) they otherwise wouldn’t have.   Having achieved an essentially unearned credibility, the global warming deniers are at liberty to basically eschew evidence they can’t refute, minimize or spin the projected dire consequences into some ambiguous benefit, or exaggerate the uncertainties implicit in climatic science.

 They need only sit back and nitpick, or criticize the hard won original research without doing an ounce of creative labor on their own. This factors into their plan because they’re not out to create a counter-theory so much as induce enough doubt – via PR – to destroy the existing theory. Hence, all they need do is sit back and cast aspersions and sow seeds of doubt – and let the other side play interminable defense.

But my point is that a forum for the more intelligent in the society ought to be able to rise above this noise level, and given at least many of its members are climate specialists or know a lot more than other members, they ought to have a preponderant voice.

The Bulletin's ostrich act is especially disturbing given that climate scientists have now described February variously as featuring temperatures that were  "astronomical", "staggering" and "strange" (Denver Post, p. 13 A, Mar. 18).  February was the most above-normal month since meteorologists began keeping track in 1880, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In addition, the past three months have been the most above normal months on record  according to Jessica Blunden of the NOAA. Scientists from both NOAA and NASA have noted this departure from norms and warned the climate "may have moved into a new and hotter neighborhood".  This would likely be the cusp of the runaway Greenhouse effect.

For a so-called "high IQ society" to ignore this - as if it doesn't exist - is to act unconscionably, even if it invokes the usual excuse that "Mensa  supports no particular political or religious positions". Well, this is a scientific position, it isn't based on personal opinions. Now, with human life likely in the balance, how can a supposed society of high IQ people remain stone  silent on this critical issue? Only Mensa and its illustrious Bulletin editor, alas, will be able to answer this - but I doubt in any satisfactory way. Because IF you profess intelligence of any degree you ought to be able to recognize objective physical truth - especially when it's burning your ass off and drenching your cities with "thousand year events" from super-heated, moisture-laden atmosphere.

Hopefully, the Mensa Bulletin will rethink its position in the near future. At least Integra, the journal of Intertel, the top 1 percent IQ society, hasn't mutated into this "see no evil" nonsense.....yet.

Union of Concerned Scientists Exposes The Fraudsters On Climate Change

Part of the document retrieved from the fossil fuel doubt merchants on when "victory will be achieved."


The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)  includes thousands of genuine research scientists devoted to educating the public on actual scientific findings and what they portend, and exposing the science charlatans who seek to cloud the public mind to unfolding realities. One of the latter is that the planet is indeed getting hotter with the month of July now in the record books as the hottest ever. This as yet more research (published in Science) shows the warming "pause" never happened and hundreds of fires scorch the West with over seven million acres burning - giving a horrific preview of the world to come in the era of the runaway greenhouse (except in that case the fires will ravage the whole country and last through the year)

Their other achievement has been accessing documents that prove the climate deniers (exposed in the Naomi Oreskes' book The Merchants of Doubt) have been determined to hoodwink the public on climate change - its validity and its peril.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/eric-zuesse/63515/the-latest-science-on-global-warming



Readers will recall how I've exposed Willie Soon as one of these merchants of doubt, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/02/another-climate-scientist-fake-exposed.html

But as the latest UCS Bulletin noted, Soon is only a small part of a much bigger story, as disclosed in the UCS Report, The Climate Deception Dossiers.  The latter is the product of a year's review and analysis of a wide range of internal corporate and trade group documents.

As with the case of fracking, the perpetrators will never own up to their slimy dishonest tactics themselves, or the damage they're doing. You have to expose them by exposing their actual documents that they themselves wrote and - in essence- wherein they've admitted the havoc they're wreaking.

Like the climate deniers, the frackers were exposed in Naomi Oreskes' book, particularly the PR Departments that serve the frackers and their political backers lot.    As for documents retrieved, in one, from Southwestern Energy, the diagram clearly shows that the gas well has a cement barrier with a casing that prevents gases from migrating upwards. But this isn't a Powerpoint about well casings but rather about how cement and casings fail and allow methane gas and other substances to migrate into aquifers.  Thus, we see from their own documents how cement fails.

In the case of the climate deceivers, the UCS team drew on evidence culled from 85 documents pried loose by leaks, lawsuits and FOIA requests. It almost reminds one of the extraordinary efforts that had to be invested to pry loose the JFK assassination documents (after the JFK Records Act) that showed the fell hand of the CIA and NSA in the assassination. 

What the UCS team unearthed is absolutely appalling. Spanning three decades, the documents reveal a mammoth cover up on a par with the cover up and disinformation in the Kennedy assassination. The UCS obtained documents expose that the world's largest fossil fuel companies: BP, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Exxon Mobil, Shell  and Peabody Energy - were fully aware of the reality of climate change but continued to spend tens of millions of dollars to sow doubt and promote contrarian arguments they knew to be wrong.

Taken together, the documents show that the six companies, in conjunction with the American Petroleum Institute (API), the oil and gas industry's premier trade association - and a host of front groups - colluded to intentionally deceive the public.

One eye -opening formerly secret document revealed that scientific experts commissioned by the fraudulent "Global Climate Coalition" - had actually warned that heat-trapping gases were indeed causing global warming. But as the segment of attached document shows, these charlatans didn't want to hear it. It was more important to bamboozle the gullible public - who'd then be set against those of us with the scientific facts.

Thus, the GCC ignominiously ignored its own scientists and continued to conduct a public relations campaign to undermine national and international efforts to address global warming in a serious fashion. Among the chestnuts used by these fraudsters:

"the role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood."

Another tactic was to attribute the main cause of global warming to "solar activity" - a canard that's long since been dismissed in the astrophysics, solar physics and climate science communities. See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/06/new-evidence-sun-is-cooling-salvation.html

Those who want to access all 340 pages of the 'Climate Deception Dossiers' can go here:

www.ucsusa.org/decadesofdeception

Frackers Continue To Run Amuck - Despoiling Soil, Air and Water

A frack rig goes up in Montana - ready to despoil more air, soil and water.

Where does it end? The relentless, unregulated fracking I mean, which continues to despoil the landscape of the nation,  rapidly converting it to a de facto moonscape.  But don't take my word. A recent NDRC investigation into the oil and gas industry has identified ExxonMobil and Shell as the two top fracking violators in Colorado, West Virginia and Pennsylvania.  These companies have been placed on the 'most wanted' list and charged by state environmental groups and authorities with violations and crimes that include: illegal dumping and spills, illegal pollution of air, and contamination of drinking water - as well as failure to conduct safety tests.

The full report on the nefarious acts, released in March by NDRC and the FracTracker Alliance, shines a harsh spotlight on a renegade industry shrouded in secrecy as it not only corrupts the locations its frack wells bore into, but distant ones through which its assorted 'bomb' trains pass - any one of which could explode at any time. See e,g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/02/another-train-explosion-another-reason.html

But is anyone paying attention? Don't count on the Neoliberal gov't which is ok with the industry being shrouded in secrecy and the difficulty of gaining any access to fracking operations. So long as the proles are kept in the dark they don't have to worry or fret about the pitchforks and protests. To give an idea of the extent of the secrecy - and btw, if these operations are so great as the pro-frack ads proclaim, why the need?- the public records on violations are available in only 3 of the 36 states where fracking occurs.

According to Amy Mall, an NDRC senior policy activist:

"You'd want to know if the company or companies operating in your backyard is a responsible corporate citizen or a serial violator. But as it stands now, it's nearly impossible to uncover a company's track record"

This isn't just blowing smoke as the Union of Concerned Scientists has also made clear. The public's need to know is more urgent than ever as a growing body of evidence points to the serious and far reaching health effects of fracking.  Leave out for the moment just the 4 million gallons on average it takes to frack one well - a disaster in dry states like Colorado. Many of the chemicals used in fracking fluid are toxic and they contaminate water resources when leaked or spilled. A report in a Denver Post investigation in May of last year found:

State data also show that 12.3 percent of the past 1,000 spills (since June 24, 2012) already had contaminated groundwater before companies began cleanups.


Thanks to a trio of diligent Democrats: Henry Waxman of California, Diana DeGette of Colorado, and Edward Markey of Massachusetts, we now know the extent of the pollution of our precious watersheds thanks to the hydro-fracking industry. We know, for example, the oil and gas companies injected hundreds of millions of gallons of carcinogenic chemicals into wells in more than 13 states from 2005- 09.

According to the report, the product of an inquiry by the House Energy and Commerce Committee in 2010-11, fourteen of the nation's most active hydraulic fracturing companies used 866 million gallons of chemical fracturing products, and more than 650 of the chemicals named in the report were known carcinogens, supposedly regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. (Which was rendered toothless for fracking by lobbyists) Among the most toxic of the chemicals used (11.4 million gallons in all) were:

Benzene: a powerful bone-marrow poison (aplastic anemia) associated with leukemia, breast and uterine cancer

- Styrene, which may cause eye and mucous membrane irritation, neurotoxic effects in the central and peripheral nervous systems.

- Toluene, which may cause muscular incoordination, tremors, hearing loss, dizziness, vertigo, emotional instability and delusions, liver and kidney damage, and anemia.

- Xylene, with cancer-causing (mainly in the kidneys, liver) and neurotoxic effects, as well as reproductive abnormalities.

- Methylene chloride, which may cause cancer, liver and kidney damage, central nervous system disorders and COPD.


 As we know from Devra Davis' landmark book, The Secret History of the War on Cancer, the first two of these toxic chemicals have well known correlations to brain carcinomas and chordomas. The other two, to liver, breast and prostate cancers.

Apart from this, it has been found that the gas allowed to escape from frack wells can also leak into the ground into nearby water wells - presenting a different hazard because it is highly flammable. This was demonstrated by Josh Fox in his excellent documentary exposing the fracker criminals, 'Gasland':
 
Water catching on fire from methane having diffused into it.

While such documented flaming water from the tap has prompted numbskulls to get cheap jollies, the facts are a bit different. According to Food & Water Watch there are dozens of cases of methane leaks near drill sites that have caused houses and wells to explode.

Then there is the air pollution. According to NDRC senior scientist Miriam Rotkin-Ellman:

"The risks are not limited to what's in our drinking water. Oil and gas operations are also poisoning the air we breath."

A new analysis by NDRC pinpoints five major health threats from fracking-related air pollution, including: respiratory difficulty, nervous system impacts (brain blackouts, memory loss), blood disorders, birth defects, and cancer.

At least one state has acted on this information on behalf of its citizens. This occurred last December when Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York banned fracking in the state because of the lack of scientific evidence that it can be done safely. In doing this, Governor Cuomo broke from the Neoliberal imperative by invoking the precautionary principle.  To refresh reader memories, this entails placing the onus on the maker of the product or those performing the process to prove their product or process is safe. It is not the job of the consumer or citizens to prove they are unsafe, yet Neoliberal business has adopted this specious plank as noted by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton in  Toxic Sludge Is Good For You.

Think of it! By negating the precautionary principle the Neoliberal market is able to dump all manner of crap on unwary citizens and disarming them so that they can't fight back. "You have to prove to us there is cancer risk!" they shout. Turning the principle on its head.

But unless the rest of us fight for that principle we may all end up in early graves from some kind of cancer or other condition that shortens lifespan.   IN the 'Toxic Sludge is Good for You' book, the PR industry backing the fertilizer manufacturers argued that the people were wrong because "toxic sludge was great for crops". And besides the complainers had no proof of ill effects.   Never mind the vomiting, breakouts in rashes, sexual dysfunction, brain anomalies and convulsions, which "were just in their minds."

Fracking will not go away in other states unless we the citizens demand it and fight for it. The Neoliberals are too invested in this crap  - which really has no business even leaving the ground. It's too degraded an energy source and also doesn't deliver on its energy promise no matter what its PR rats claim.   As Richard Heinberg explains (p. 110) it in his book, 'Snake Oil: How Fracking's False Promise Imperils Our Future':

No evidence suggests that the technology of fracking has actually raised the EROEI for natural gas production. It temporarily lowered prices but only by glutting the market.

Regarding the promises for kerogen or oil shale, he writes:

"Kerogen is not oil. It is better thought of as an oil precursor that was insufficiently cooked by geologic processes. If we want to turn it into oil, we have to finish the process nature started: that involves heating the kerogen to a high temperature for a long time. And that in turn takes energy- lots of it, whether supplied by hydroelectricity, nuclear power plants, natural gas, or the kerogen itself. "