Trump's Dept. of Energy Witchhunt

[Ryan MF]

First understand that MOST people are hard working and honest. Dishonesty makes the news because it's an exceptional event. However, dishonesty should not get you more money or accolades, especially in the academic or scientific community. It should be punished.

Anyone following green technology should have heard of examples of corruption. Let's spend the limited resources on effective programs, not for people's winter houses in Palm Beach.

1) Scientific American, 8/2010 - ..."In fact, heating hot water alone accounts for 17 percent of U.S. energy use, according to the DoE..."
Rubbish used in an attempt to kick start the solar water heating industry with the help of the gov't.

2) Hien T. Tran (Fake PhD, faked emissions data) of CARB - Look anywhere. http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/tran040909.pdf
Only after his fraud was made public did CARB decide to slap his wrist, lightly. The guy who ratted him out was fired for it.

3) Toyota has funded many university studies and given donations to these institutions in exchange the right results. Last one was based on 20 cars in Rome IIRC indicating Priuses actually get 94 mpg. Another "proved" that due to coal power plants the Prius was greener than EV's in the US as a whole. Creative statistics.

You can find these same attitude in some posts on this site. If you 'believe', that is to 'say words', of the correct policy, or one endorses the "correct" politicians, your actions cannot be questioned. You are immune. You can drive a Panzer tank running on baby seal oil to your private 747 and go to Italy and back to check on the status of your 11mpg Lamborghini without question, as long as you vote for somebody who said "the environment is an important issue". What you do is not important, how honest you are is not important, but what you 'believe' is the important factor.


Cliff Notes: It is OK to lie or steal as long as you are wearing the correct lapel pin.

I don't get your point. So let's take it as true that there are people in the DOE who made a mistake or are charlatans or whatever. Are you implying that because of that climate change is made up or the vast majority of scientists who study it are wrong?

I think you are missing the forest for the trees.

 

[nwdiver]

He wanted to know who was drawing the largest DOE salaries among other things. Fact finding or witch-hunt?

The DOE has ask for a 10% increase is funding for 2017. That exceeds inflation by quite a bit.

Here's the About Us DOE page intro:



What few people realize is that this mega-bureaucracy was supposed to deal with nuclear programs. Now it does everything from gene therapy research to micro-electronics, and is growing in size and scope each year.

How do you get that.... from this;

'It asked for a list of all department employees or contractors who have attended any meetings on the social cost of carbon, a measurement that federal agencies use to weigh the costs and benefits of new energy and environment regulations. It also asked for all publications written by employees at the department's 17 national laboratories for the past three years.'

Sure sounds like they want to know who has done work on climate change. Nothing about honesty or salaries.

 

[SageBrush]

You mean Rex Tillerson? The guy who supports a carbon tax and believes in climate change?

Here is the current policy position of Exxon-Mobil (my bolding):

Our position on climate change
We have the same concerns as people everywhere – and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.
​

So there you have it: about as far reaching as li'l bush in 2007, and meant to say continue business as usual while throwing some money at "research" that might increase company profits and is good for PR.

More to the point: it is beyond moronic to think that the CEO of XOM is anything but a fossil fuel advocate who will use the political power of the SoS to 'drill baby, drill.'

I am curious though: if you view my concern over Tillerson as hyperbole, how do you view trump's statements that AGW is a Chinese conspiracy ?

 

[Ryan MF]

Here is the current policy position of Exxon-Mobil (my bolding):

Our position on climate change
We have the same concerns as people everywhere – and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.
​

So there you have it: about as far reaching as li'l bush in 2007, and meant to say continue business as usual while throwing some money at "research" that might increase company profits and is good for PR.

More to the point: it is beyond moronic to think that the CEO of XOM is anything but a fossil fuel advocate who will use the political power of the SoS to 'drill baby, drill.'

I am curious though: if you view my concern over Tillerson as hyperbole, how do you view trump's statements that AGW is a Chinese conspiracy ?

Further to this point, XOM was one of the major companies that was aware of climate change since the 70's and has funded climate change denial research to spread the idea that there is not scientific consensus:

Beginning in 2004, the descendants of John D. Rockefeller, led mainly by his great-grandchildren, through letters, meetings, and shareholder resolutions, attempted to get ExxonMobil to acknowledge climate change, to abandon climate denial, and to shift towards clean energy.[86][87] In 2013, responding to a shareholder resolution calling for emissions reductions, CEO Rex Tillerson asked, "What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?"[88]

ExxonMobil climate change controversy - Wikipedia

 

[ecarfan]

So there you have it: about as far reaching as li'l bush in 2007, and meant to say continue business as usual while throwing some money at "research" that might increase company profits and is good for PR.

Agreed. Exxon-Mobil's public position on climate change is meaningless public relations obfuscation. This is the case for all fossil-fuel extraction companies.

It is obvious that Trump picked Tillerson because their views align on that issue and others.

 

[Pollux]

You mean Rex Tillerson? The guy who supports a carbon tax and believes in climate change? You people and your hyperbole make me sick.

Dear @hockeythug,

Your post sent me googling away. There are many, many hits and a lot of them are essentially repeats of each other. The closest useful hit I've found so far is a report in the Guardian on a speech Tillerson made several years ago: Climate change fears overblown, says ExxonMobil boss

I'd summarize his position, as quoted by The Guardian rather than by any direct examination of a speech transcript, as "yes, man-made climate change is a real thing but we can adapt". In my words, not his: "no biggie".

As for his position on a carbon tax, I've found multiple hits relating to one or more speeches he made in 2009, in which he appears to advocate a carbon tax. That's encouraging... although I will reserve judgement until we see how hard he fights if he becomes part of an administration led by someone who appears very much to discount anthropogenic climate change.

Finally, although you didn't specifically address this point, there's the question of Exxon Mobil's previous and perhaps current support of organizations and studies that appear to have been designed to obfuscate the carbon emissions issue (similar to, and even perhaps with some of the same individuals as, the prior FUD campaign by tobacco companies). However, I don't think there will be enough evidence to decide whether Exxon Mobil did indeed sponsor such FUD unless and until a thorough investigation is carried out by a third party such as one or more state attorneys general.

Do you have more recent citations to support your statement?

Thanks,
Alan

 

[Pollux]

First understand that MOST people are hard working and honest.

Agreed.

Dishonesty makes the news because it's an exceptional event. However, dishonesty should not get you more money or accolades, especially in the academic or scientific community. It should be punished.

Agreed.

Anyone following green technology should have heard of examples of corruption.

I can't claim to be an expert in green technology but I do try to pay some attention. Sadly, I am less informed than you are, and can't call to mind the examples that are so familiar to you.

Let's spend the limited resources on effective programs, not for people's winter houses in Palm Beach.

I agree... although I'm not sure how this statement is relevant to our current discussion.

1) Scientific American, 8/2010 - ..."In fact, heating hot water alone accounts for 17 percent of U.S. energy use, according to the DoE..."
Rubbish used in an attempt to kick start the solar water heating industry with the help of the gov't.

I located the August, 2010 Scientific American here at August 2010

Sadly, it's not available without a purchase, which I'm not yet willing to make. That said, the issue found at the URL I just listed does make available for free its table of contents. Which article were you thinking of? None of the Features or Departments listed has an obvious title or description that links with hot water heating.

As for your claim that the Scientific American article is "rubbish used in an attempt to kick start the solar water heating industry", I am skeptical until I can see the actual article.

2) Hien T. Tran (Fake PhD, faked emissions data) of CARB - Look anywhere. http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/tran040909.pdf
Only after his fraud was made public did CARB decide to slap his wrist, lightly. The guy who ratted him out was fired for it.

Interesting story. I don't know what to make of the "faked emissions data" claim, as the initial set of hits I found on that come from websites that appear to be more than a little biased. I just learned new phrases such as "warmer politics" and "greentard agenda", which IMHO are labels meant to short-circuit the thinking process.

I'm not sure what to make of "The Scientific Integrity Institute", the organization hosting the PDF you cite, which appears to be the creation of James Enstrom, who himself has been entangled in issues surrounding the sponsorship of some of his studies by the tobacco industry, and in turn the use of those studies by that industry. From Wikipedia, James Enstrom - Wikipedia:

BMJ study and controversy[edit]
In 1996, Enstrom requested that the tobacco industry provide him with funds to conduct research into the health effects of passive smoking. From 1997 to 1998, he received three tobacco industry grants, the combined value of which was $700,000; most of this money was dedicated to his study on passive smoking.[7] This study, published in BMJ in 2003, concluded that "The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."[7][8] This study used data from one of the American Cancer Society's databases, which Enstrom had requested and received from the society.[9] Michael Thun of the American Cancer Society criticized Enstrom for not informing the ACS that he had requested or received funding from the tobacco industry.[7] In September 2006, the ACS sent the University of California, Los Angeles a letter charging Enstrom with misrepresenting scientific evidence to deny that passive smoking was harmful.[9]

In 2006, prosecutors in a federal racketeering case filed documents which stated that Enstrom had received $94,500 from the tobacco industry between 1992 and 1997.[1] The following year, the judge in this case, Gladys Kessler, ruled that major tobacco companies were guilty of racketeering and misleading the public regarding the dangers of second-hand smoke, citing the paper co-authored by Enstrom in the BMJ as evidence of this.[7]

Moreover, Enstrom and/or his supporters argue that Enstrom's termination by the University of California was related to Enstrom's exposure of Hien T. Tran, whereas the University and others argue that his termination was related to the issue of his passive smoking research funded by tobacco interests, and his failure to disclose same.

In my mind, there's a significant question mark around the, well, integrity of The Scientific Integrity Institute.

I would note that the PDF offered up also notes that Hien T. Tran was demoted two levels within the CARB organization, which may not be the punishment you would wish for but IMHO isn't a light wrist slap either.

3) Toyota has funded many university studies and given donations to these institutions in exchange the right results. Last one was based on 20 cars in Rome IIRC indicating Priuses actually get 94 mpg. Another "proved" that due to coal power plants the Prius was greener than EV's in the US as a whole. Creative statistics.

Citation(s)?

By the way, my personal opinion from looking at various DOE statistics and analyses performed by others is that EVs are generally superior to Priuses or other hybrids even in heavily fossil fuel-derived energy regions. And, unlikes Priuses or other hybrids, an EV is the only vehicle whose emissions "performance" can IMPROVE over time, as the electricity used for the EV itself "improves".

You can find these same attitude in some posts on this site. If you 'believe', that is to 'say words', of the correct policy, or one endorses the "correct" politicians, your actions cannot be questioned. You are immune. You can drive a Panzer tank running on baby seal oil to your private 747 and go to Italy and back to check on the status of your 11mpg Lamborghini without question, as long as you vote for somebody who said "the environment is an important issue". What you do is not important, how honest you are is not important, but what you 'believe' is the important factor.
Cliff Notes: It is OK to lie or steal as long as you are wearing the correct lapel pin.

I don't know what to do with the above statements.

Thank you for your response.

Alan

 

[Pollux]

Quite a reaction there, McRat. Yours is so rambling a post that it's not possible to refute it completely; here, however, are two specific points.

1. That Scientific American article you cite dealt with a minor whodunit - specifically, with what happened to the hot water panels that had graced the Carter White House. For those interested, the article's title was "Where Did the Carter White House's Solar Panels Go?" It neither was nor had any pretense to be a rigorous piece. That said, the "17 percent" mentioned is not at all "rubbish". The correct datum is that of US household energy usage, 17.7 percent is devoted to heating water*. Definitely a misstep by the article's author but there is nothing there to crucify anyone, most particularly because the whole article was couched around household consumption. *Citation here, by the way: Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) - Data - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

2. Hien Tran? A minor statistician faked his diploma (rather, purchased one) to get a job. The work he performed was satisfactory. So where's your scandal?

Your concluding paragraph is as nonsensical as it is inflammatory. Zero points for your ability to supply reasoned discourse.

@AudubonB, I labored long to produce a response considerably less useful than yours. :-( Thanks for the link, data and summary (point #1) and the reasonable summary (point #2).

Alan

 

[evp]

Another "scientist" with a paper mill PhD published numbers that indicate 1/2 of Californians will be dead by 2016 from diesel fuel. When it was discovered he falsified his PhD to get a raise and a promotion, and it was found he made up the numbers, NOBODY in CARB took any action. Well... no action until the press found out. Then they slapped his hand. The false study is still in use because it allows for a bigger budget for CARB.

Documentation please. Make sure it's not written by Putin's minions.

 

[hockeythug]

Dear @hockeythug,

Your post sent me googling away. There are many, many hits and a lot of them are essentially repeats of each other. The closest useful hit I've found so far is a report in the Guardian on a speech Tillerson made several years ago: Climate change fears overblown, says ExxonMobil boss

I'd summarize his position, as quoted by The Guardian rather than by any direct examination of a speech transcript, as "yes, man-made climate change is a real thing but we can adapt". In my words, not his: "no biggie".

As for his position on a carbon tax, I've found multiple hits relating to one or more speeches he made in 2009, in which he appears to advocate a carbon tax. That's encouraging... although I will reserve judgement until we see how hard he fights if he becomes part of an administration led by someone who appears very much to discount anthropogenic climate change.

Finally, although you didn't specifically address this point, there's the question of Exxon Mobil's previous and perhaps current support of organizations and studies that appear to have been designed to obfuscate the carbon emissions issue (similar to, and even perhaps with some of the same individuals as, the prior FUD campaign by tobacco companies). However, I don't think there will be enough evidence to decide whether Exxon Mobil did indeed sponsor such FUD unless and until a thorough investigation is carried out by a third party such as one or more state attorneys general.

Do you have more recent citations to support your statement?

Thanks,
Alan

He also testified in Congress in 2010. Your point is? That he didn't say those things yesterday? I doubt you would believe anything a Trump cabinet member said anyways. Liberals had no problem bringing up stuff Trump said 20 years ago and claiming it was relevant.

 

[ecarfan]

Liberals had no problem bringing up stuff Trump said 20 years ago and claiming it was relevant.

Anything a presidential candidate said in their adult life is relevant to evaluating their suitability for the office. That includes speeches Clinton made to Wall Street firms over the past several years as well as statements made by Trump when he was 50 years old, an age when most people have reached some semblance of maturity and are capable of exercising at least some degree of responsible judgement. Or not...

 

[Owner]

Since over 99% of all real climate scientists hold that opinion, those who work in NOAA and NASA may well lose their jobs in the near future and we will lose the valuable work they are doing.

I know someone who works at NASA who just yesterday told his sons that climate change may be a natural thing due to the ebb and flow of the earth!

One of the sons is very concerned about the climate and brought up the subject.

Dad / NASA guy proudly says he is a Hillbilly as that is where he is from. His familial loyalty is what makes him say these crazy things; he did not vote for Drumpf thankfully. Is there anything one can say to these folks?

 

[Pollux]

He also testified in Congress in 2010. Your point is? That he didn't say those things yesterday?

Yes, I do indeed wonder what his position is today versus 6-7 years ago.

I doubt you would believe anything a Trump cabinet member said anyways.

On what basis do you make this assertion about me?

Liberals had no problem bringing up stuff Trump said 20 years ago and claiming it was relevant.

IMHO, the game of finding old quotes or positions knows no partisan boundaries. I think it's especially troubling when arguing against someone who has changed his/her position. Is that a "flip/flop" or an "evolution"? Seems very much to be in the eye of the beholder.

Thanks,
Alan

 

[voyager]

Look no further, fear no more, all is fine... Trump just appointed Rick "Oops" Perry as head of the DOE.

 

[SageBrush]

DOE gives the middle finger to the trumpers:

"The U.S. Energy Department said on Tuesday it will not comply with a request from President-elect Donald Trump's Energy Department transition team for the names of people who have worked on climate change and the professional society memberships of lab workers."

U.S. Energy Department balks at Trump request for names on climate change

Good for them. We are going to need a lot more people to stand up and say No to Science Denialism in Action in the years ahead.

Regarding Perry:
During his 2012 presidential campaign, Perry regularly questioned climate science, saying that it hadn't been settled. "There are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects," Perry claimed during one New Hampshire campaign stop. He called the EPA a "cemetery for jobs." In his pre-campaign book, Fed Up!, Perry referred to efforts to tackle global warming as "hysteria" and described the science a "contrived phony mess."
Rick Perry Knows 3 Things About Global Warming: It's a Hoax, He's Not a Scientist, and…We Forget

So far, as expected: Flat Earthers running the DOE and EPA

 

[AudubonB]

Holy Cow.
You know, when you are an employee of the government and a superior makes such a request, it is not a request. It's a non-negotiable order.

Just like a "request" for your tax returns from the 300 million to whom you report....

 

[Bangor Bob]

Holy Cow.
You know, when you are an employee of the government and a superior makes such a request, it is not a request. It's a non-negotiable order.

Just like a "request" for your tax returns from the 300 million to whom you report....

They're (the Trump crew) are not their superiors yet, and those who would be required to answer are out of work on Jan 20th anyway (or as soon as a new appointee is confirmed).

 

[AudubonB]

Good point.

 

[nwdiver]

I'm pretty sure that when Trump thinks of people to nominate to head these agencies his 'thoughts' begin with 'wouldn't it be funny if...'

Rick Perry forgets DOE.... now nominated to lead it...

 

[ggies07]

DOE gives the middle finger to the trumpers:

"The U.S. Energy Department said on Tuesday it will not comply with a request from President-elect Donald Trump's Energy Department transition team for the names of people who have worked on climate change and the professional society memberships of lab workers."

U.S. Energy Department balks at Trump request for names on climate change

Good for them. We are going to need a lot more people to stand up and say No to Science Denialism in Action in the years ahead.

Regarding Perry:
During his 2012 presidential campaign, Perry regularly questioned climate science, saying that it hadn't been settled. "There are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects," Perry claimed during one New Hampshire campaign stop. He called the EPA a "cemetery for jobs." In his pre-campaign book, Fed Up!, Perry referred to efforts to tackle global warming as "hysteria" and described the science a "contrived phony mess."
Rick Perry Knows 3 Things About Global Warming: It's a Hoax, He's Not a Scientist, and…We Forget

So far, as expected: Flat Earthers running the DOE and EPA

We need to dig and dig hard at these nut jobs. They are in it for the short-term as this shows the flip-flopping they like to do. Shows difference from 2006 to 2008 to 2012.