J.C. Moore Online » Environmental Hall of Shame

The 2011 Environmental Hall of Fame/Shame Winners

admin — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 01:57:43 +0000

This year the contest was carried out on three websites and the votes were combined to determine those who have most affected the environment through word or deed.

The 2011 Environmental Hall of Fame Winners:

The winner is James Hansen, with 51% of the votes. His efforts opposing the XL pipeline played a pivotal role in delaying a decision and hopefully preventing the construction of the pipeline . Award: A massive presence at the 2012 Citizen’s Climate Lobby International Conference, July 22 – 24, in Washington D.C. . Make your travel plans now.

Runner-up was the EPA (31%) for standing firm in its efforts to protect the environment in spite of the political pressure it has received. Award: A duplicate of Captain America’s Shield. Though Captain America’s Shield was fictional, the EPA’s need for a shield is not. Please write your representatives about the need to protect the EPA from political attacks.

The Tulsa World (14%) was 3rd for showing great courage in defending climate science and refuting Sen. Jim Inhofe’s claim of ”victory in his efforts to debunk man-made global warming as a hoax.” Their editorial stated:” While there are scientists and politicians on both sides of the issue, those who see climate change as a genuine threat are mostly scientists and most of those who deny it are politicians.” Award: I’m renewing my subscription and I hope that if you live in the Tulsa area you will also.

Joe Romm (3%), Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, where he writes and maintains Climate Progress , an outstanding source of accurate climate science information. Award: Apparently, not many who took the poll read Joe Romm’s columns. As an award we should correct that, so please click the link above and read some of his well-written articles.

The 2011 Hall of Shame Selections:

First place goes to Halliburton (Cheney), with 57% of the votes - for the Halliburton clause in the Clean Water Act. This clause provided a loophole that allows the composition of fracking chemicals to remain secret, thanks to Cheney. Apparently, voters were dismayed that Congress could be manipulated to provide an exception to the law for a special interest at the expense of protecting the public. Prize: A big glass of water from a well next to a hydrofracking operation.

Runner up was Congressman Joe Barton of Texas,( 17%) for his apology to BP about how they were treated after the Gulf Oil spill and for trying to ban energy-efficient light bulbs because they contain mercury, even though he had fought efforts to stop mercury pollution by industries. Prize: A copy of his failing grades on the League of Conservation Voters Scorecard and, hopefully, a decline in the number of votes he receives in the next Congressional election.

There was a tie for 3rd and 4th place between Dr. Jane Lubchenco,(13%) for using bad data to set fishing catch limits and for not adequately policing BP’s drilling plans or their cleanup operations in the Gulf. Prize: A corexit oil shake. If you live on or near the gulf, please shake up a sample of the gulf water and mail it to her. It won’t hurt if she gets several.

and

Forbes Magazine (James Taylor)(13%) for a ridiculously misleading article, New NASA data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism, that described climate scientists as “alarmist” 15 times. Award: A copy of the book Ethics And Journalism and a complete ban on ever using the words ‘alarmist’ again. I will see that they get a copy of the book and I hope you will write Forbes (readers@forbes.com) about the ban and express your opinion of the article.

It is important that we keep in mind those who are heroes and villains to the environment. I wish to thank those who provided the nominations, the prize suggestions, the insightful and often humorous comments, and the votes to determine the winners. As this year goes by, please take note of those you wish to nominate for the 2012 awards.

Poll: Help Pick the 2011 Hall of Fame/Shame Awards

admin — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:54:38 +0000

Thank you for your nominations for the awards. The four top nominees for each award have been selected from those nominated by readers. Please help select the winner by voting for the nominee who you think has most affected the environment through word or deed. If you wish, please post a reason for your vote and a suggestion for other suitable gifts for your favorite candidate. Some great gifts have already been proposed. The author will buy the gifts from his copious blogging earnings, so please don’t worry about the expense. Click here for poll.

Hall of Shame Nominees:

Ø Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Head of NOAA – For using bad data to set fishing catch limits and for not adequately policing BP’s drilling plans or their cleanup operations in the Gulf. Prize: A corexit oil shake.

Ø Halliburton (Cheney), for the Halliburton clause in the Clean Water Act. It is a loophole in the Clean Water Act that allows the fracking chemicals to remain secret, thanks to Cheney. Prize: A big glass of water from a well next to a hydrofracking operation.

Ø Congressman Joe Barton of Texas, for his apology to BP about how they were treated after the Gulf Oil spill and for trying to ban energy-efficient light bulbs because they contain mercury, even though he had fought efforts to reduce industrial mercury pollution. Prize: A copy of his failing grades on the League of Conservation Voters Scorecard .

Ø Forbes Magazine (James Taylor) for a ridiculously misleading article, New NASA data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism, that described climate scientists as “alarmist” 15 times. At was classified as news, though it was clearly an opinion article. Award: A copy of the book Ethics And Journalism and a complete ban on ever using the words ‘alarmist’ again.

Hall of Fame Nominees:

Ø James Hansen, whose efforts opposing the XL played a pivotal role in delaying a decision and hopefully preventing the construction of the pipeline (see, for example, here, here, here, and here). Award: A massive presence at the 2012 Citizen’s Climate Lobby International Conference, July 22 – 24, in Washington D.C.

Ø The Tulsa World, for showing great courage in defending climate science and refuting Sen. Jim Inhofe’s claim of ”victory in his efforts to debunk man-made global warming as a hoax.” Their editorial board’s statement is classic:” While there are scientists and politicians on both sides of the issue, those who see climate change as a genuine threat are mostly scientists and most of those who deny it are politicians.” Award: (Suggestion?)

Ø The EPA, for standing firm in its efforts to protect the environment in spite of the political pressure it has received. Award: A duplicate of Captain America’s Shield.

Ø Joe Romm, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, where he writes and maintains Climate Progress , an outstanding source of accurate climate science information. Award: (Suggestion?)

Nominations were taken from three sites, and the poll was set up below.

Click here for poll.

The poll will close on February 28th.

Gaming the Peer Review System: Part 2. Exploiting Loopholes

admin — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 00:56:46 +0000

There is evidence that the authors of a recent paper may have gamed the peer review system to publish a biased climate science paper.

The Review Process: When a paper is submitted to a journal for publication, the editor removes the name of the author and sends the manuscript to several experts in the area, usually three, for review. The editor keeps the names of the reviewers confidential. If an error is found, the reviewer’s comments are returned to the author with suggestions for corrections. It is a good system for ensuring the quality of research publications, but even then papers are sometimes published that contains errors. The reviewers may miss an error, a biased editor may publish the paper in spite of flaws, or authors may exploit loopholes in a journal’s rules to get a paper published. Some journals allow the author to suggest names of reviewers and the editor often picks reviewers from the list. Most scientists submit names of reliable reviewers as it is an embarrassment to have errors found in their paper after publication. However, even if the papers are properly reviewed, the practice can bring accusations of “pal” review. Since reviewer’s names are kept confidential by the editor, it is difficult to know for sure whether that may have happened. However, there is evidence that the authors of a recent paper may have gamed the system by suggesting a set of reviewers that shared their bias. See what you think.

The paper: Last July 25th, Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell authored a paper in the rather specialized technical journal, Remote Sensing, titled “On the Misdiagnosis Of Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance“. The paper claimed “The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change. Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing, probably due to natural cloud variations.” It seems that only an expert in climatology would know what that means or what its implications were, but in three days a sensationalized version of the paper appeared on internet sites, in major business magazines, and in news articles in major newspapers. Millions of people likely read about the paper.

The Publicity: The renewed public interest in science should have made climate scientists pleased; however, they were not. Beneath the technical language is a claim that the climate sensitivity to CO2 has been misinterpreted by climate scientists because of natural cloud variations. Were it true, it would mean that natural forces, not man, were responsible for much of the observed global warming. That idea had been examined before and found to be inconsistent with the evidence, but the idea is one that some climate skeptics have been promoting. And, they are part of a well-funded pipeline that carries misinformation about climate science to major news outlets before all the facts can be known.

Forbes: One main branch of the misinformation pipeline runs through the Heartland Institute, where James Taylor is listed as a senior fellow. James Taylor once wrote articles for the tobacco industry suggesting that secondhand smoke was not harmful, and he has now turned his talents to denying the ties between rising CO2 levels and global warming. Inexplicably, James Taylor has been hired by Forbes magazine to write on energy and environmental topics. James Taylor picked up on Spencer’s paper and wrote an article for Forbes titled, New NASA Data Blows Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism. Not only was the title inaccurate and misleading, but the article was clearly an opinion article, miscategorized as news. The editors of Forbes might not have known that Spencer’s “NASA Data” was the same data that climate scientists use to reach a very different conclusion, but perhaps they should have noticed that no reasonable news story would describe climate scientists as “alarmists” 15 times. The business community considers legislation that would reduce our carbon emissions to be anti-business, and business newspapers such as Investors Business Daily, the Wall Street Journal, and Forbes often are biased toward the skeptic’s position. The bias shows up in story selection, opinions miscategorized as news, a disproportionate number of skeptics articles on opinion pages, and in sensationalized headlines. From Forbes, the article was picked up as a news story by other business magazines, Yahoo! News, MSNBC, and skeptic’s blog sites, which had a field day with the article. It is sad that millions will have read the distorted article, but few will ever read the climate scientist’s rebuttal. The article will soon sink into obscurity, but it will have accomplished it’s purpose, which was to spread doubt about climate change.

Reproducibility: Publication in a peer-reviewed journal is not the only requirement for a paper to become accepted as part of the science literature. The research must stand up to the scrutiny of other experts in the field and it must be reproducible by other scientists with comparable knowledge and skill. Spencer’s paper reached the news media before climate scientists had a chance to respond, but they soon found a number of obvious errors in the paper. Trenberth and Fasullo summed it up:”The model has no realistic ocean, no El Niño, and no hydrological cycle, and it was tuned to give the result it gave. The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper.” Given time, A.E. Dessler analyzed Spencer’s paper in detail and published a rebuttal. The abstract in Geophysical Review Letters reports the key points of his paper:

Clouds are not causing climate change;
Observations are not in disagreement with models on this point;
Previous work on this is flawed; ( referring specifically to Spencer’s paper in Remote Sensing).

Clearly, Spencer’s paper had serious methodological flaws and was not reproducible. How did the paper get through Remote Sensing’s peer review process? The answer would likely not have been found, except for the publicity.

The Catastrophe: The editor of Remote Sensing, who had been trying to build the reputation of the Journal, considered the publicity a catastrophe. The instructions in Remote Sensing asks authors to suggest five reviewers, and it is possible that Spencer could choose five skeptics. The editor would not have to pick from those, but apparently in this case he did. In the next issue of Remote Sensing, the editor, Dr. Wolfgang Wagner, resigned and issued a public apology for this article saying, “With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate skeptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements.” “The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extent also in the literature, a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers. “ And he concluded, “But, as the case presents itself now, the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors.”

Nominate Your Favorites for the 2011 Environmental Hall of Fame/Shame

admin — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:42:30 +0000

Each year, this site takes a poll to find those most deserving to receive recognition in the Environmental Hall of Fame and the Environmental Hall of Shame. Nominations are now open for those who have most affected the environment by words or action. With the ongoing debate about environmental regulations, a number of possible nominees should be easy to find. Please send your nominations for the Environmental Hall of Fame and for the Hall of Shame by e-mail through the “Contact” link. You also may place your nomination in the comment section , but if it includes a link, the spam blocker may catch it. If you wish, you may include a short reason that your nominee should be chosen and suggest a suitable gift if they win.

For example, Congressman John Sullivan might be nominated in the Hall of Shame category for introducing a bill in Congress that would require the EPA to do a cost-benefit analysis on for every rule it makes. His legislation would create a huge amount of paperwork for the EPA and would make its job impossible to do, which seems to be his goal. A suitable gift might be a large piggy bank in which to keep the donations that action has earned him. Or, Congressman Frank Lucas may be nominated in the Hall of Fame category for acknowledging that climate change might affect our food supply. A suitable gift might be a crystal ball, so that he can show other members of the Congress what the future might look like if we do not act to mitigate climate change.

Nominations will be taken until January 31st, 2012. The nominees will then be listed and this site will conduct a poll in February to determine the winner in each category. The 2011 year’s winner in the Environmental Hall Fame category will receive the “Most Noble Prize in Environmental Science” and a suitable gift. The winner in the Hall of Shame category will receive the “Ignoble Prize”and a gift also. Past years winners and their gifts were:

Hall of Fame - Gift

2010 RealClimate.org - A recommendation from this site. ( Priceless)

2009 Benno Hansen, ThinkAboutIt Blogger - A Subscription to Science News.

Hall of Shame

2010 Koch Brothers - A petition to the Wizard of Oz for a social conscience.

2009 SpaceGuy, Newsvine Blogger - The movie Wall-E, his view of the future of Earth.

You may suggest a suitable prize for your nominee. Please be imaginative, as particularly thoughtful or humorous nominations will be recognized and published on this site.

The 2010 Environmental Hall of Fame/Shame Winners

admin — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:23:38 +0000

This year the contest was carried out on three websites and the results were combined. Your votes have been tabulated to determine the person who has most affected the environment through word or deed.

The 2010 Environmental Hall of Fame winner is RealClimate.org. As Physicist Retired said in his nomination, “This consortium of climate scientists has developed a comprehensive collection of data and analysis open to the public, with materials and discussions at basic, intermediate, and advanced levels of understanding. It is one of the most effective tools we currently have to combat – with real facts – the ongoing claims made by deniers.” The site will receive the Most Noble Prize in Environmental Science, a heartfelt thank you, and a recommendation from the sites where this will be posted. Arnold Schwarzenegger and John Kerry were tied for second place, and should receive, as Dowser put it, “Thanks, for standing firm. May God bless you!”

The Environmental Hall of Shame recipients are the Koch Brothers. They could use the publicity as they have been secretly funding candidates who oppose environmental regulations through their Americans for Prosperity Organization. They also clandestinely fund a number of think tanks that produce white papers, written by scientists with compromised ethics, that dispute the scientific research on climate change. They will receive the “Ignoble Prize in Environmental Science” and in the spirit of Oz, we will petition the Wizard to give them a social conscience.

Second place goes to Jane Lubchenco. As one blogger put it, ” I nominate her as a key player in the cover up of the death and destruction of the Gulf of Mexico, and in the vilification of those Marine Scientists who have concluded that there is a huge amount of oil left in the Gulf.” Her nominators were certainly the most creative in proposing prizes, and their names have been omitted, just in case. The proposed awards included: “The golden Tar Ball award . Yes , a big trophy cup over flowing with tar balls.” ”A picture of ten moon’s hanging over the side of an oil stained shrimp boat , with a For Sale sign on the shrimp boat.” “The old oil from every thing you will change the oil in this coming year. Cars, boats, motorcycles, ATVs, snowmobiles whatever sits in your garage or drive way. Think of it as a new form of recycling. Mail it to her.” Finally, someone wished to combine Jane’s award with Tony Hayward’s: “An all expense paid yacht trip for the two across the Gulf at the height of the spill, with an eternal flame lighting the bow.”

Hall of Fame Nominations and Percentage of Votes :

RealClimate.org – For providing facts to counter the propaganda by climate change deniers. (45%)

Govenor Arnold Schwarzenegger – For helping defeat Proposition 23, an effort to gut California’s environmental laws and heavily funded by Texas oilmen. (27%)

Senator John Kerry – For his efforts to usher a Cap-and -Trade bill through the .S. Senate. (27%)

China – For making real efforts to develop alternate energy sources. (0%)

Hall of Shame Nominations and Percentage of Votes :

The Koch Brothers, owners of Koch Oil – For slowing progress on a sound energy policy by funding climate change deniers. (46%)

Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Head of NOAA – For her role in the Gulf oil spill, being too friendly toward the oil companies she was to regulate, and damage to the fishing industry. (38%)

Tony Hayward, ex-chairman of BP – For decisions leading up to the oil spill and for saying, “I want my life back.” (8%)

China – For surpassing the U.S as the number one country in pollution emissions. (8%)

Remember, check www.realclimate.org for the facts on climate science. And, keep in mind those who you wish to nominate for the 2011 Awards, which will be held next December.

Poll: Vote for the 2010 Hall of Fame/Shame Candidates

admin — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 02:41:02 +0000

Your opinion is welcome. Please take the poll below.

Please vote for the nominee you think has most affected the environment through word or deed. The 2010 winners in the in the Environmental Hall of Fame poll will receive the “Most Noble Prize in Environmental Science” and a suitable gift. The winner in the Environmental Hall of Shame category will receive the “Ignoble Prize in Environmental Science” and also a mostly suitable gift. The poll will close on February 15th.

If you wish, please post a reason for your vote and a suggestion for a suitable gift for your favorite candidate. Some great gifts have already been proposed and they will be mentioned when the winners are announced. The author will buy the gifts from his copious blogging earnings so please don’t worry about the expense.

Hall of Shame Nominees:

> Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Head of NOAA – For her role in the Gulf oil spill, being in bed with the oil companies she was to regulate, and damage to the fishing industry.

>Tony Hayward, ex-chairman of BP – For decisions leading up to the oil spill and for saying, “I want my life back.”

>China – For surpassing the U.S as the number one country in pollution emissions.

>The Koch Brothers, owners of Koch Oil – For slowing progress on a sound energy policy by funding climate change deniers.

Hall of Fame Nominees:

> China – For making real efforts to develop alternate energy sources.

> RealClimate.org – For providing facts to counter the propaganda by climate change deniers.

> Govenor Arnold Schwarzenegger – For helping defeat Proposition 23, an effort to gut California’s environmental laws and heavily funded by Texas oilmen.

>Senator John Kerry – For his efforts to usher a Cap-and -Trade bill through the U.S. Senate.

Vote below. Please do not click “Vote” until you have picked a candidate from each category. Pick one Hall of Shame candidate – then scroll down, using the little microphone symbol, and pick a Hall of Fame candidate. Then click “Vote” to register your choices.

Poll is closed. See winners at http://jcmooreonline.com/2011/02/24/the-2010-environmental-hall-of-fameshame-winners/.

Nominations for the 2010 Environmental Hall of Fame/Shame

admin — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 17:55:02 +0000

Each year, this site takes a poll to see who the readers think is the most deserving person to receive recognition in the Environmental Hall of Fame or Hall of Shame. Nominations are now open for the person who has most affected the environment by words or action. With the debate on environmental regulation coming up, a number of possible nominees should appear. Please send your nominations for the Environmental Hall of Fame and for the Hall of Shame by e-mail through the “Contact” link along with a short reason that your nominee should be included. You may also suggest a suitable gift for them if they win. You may also place your nomination in the comment section, but if it includes a link, the spam blocker may catch it.

Nominees will be taken until January 15, 2011 and the nominees will then be listed and a vote taken. The 2010 year’s winner in the Environmental Hall Fame (or Shame) category will receive the “Most Noble (or Most Ignoble Prize) in Environmental Science” and a suitable gift. For instance, while last year John McCain might have deserved a framed picture of a trout swimming upstream in the Fame Category, this year he might deserve a picture of a trout flip/flopping on the bank in the Shame category. Let us hope that, after the election, he will flip back in and continue upstream. In the Hall of Fame category for instance, John Kerry might receive a gold star for his work on environmental legislation or Arnold Schwarzenegger might receive a model electric car for promoting the bigger ones.

You may suggest a suitable prize for your nominee. Please be imaginative, as particularly thoughtful or humorous nominations will be recognized and published on this site.

v Share This

Man Made Disasters: Where Were the Engineers?

admin — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 02:52:58 +0000

“Many man made disasters are caused by a failure of ethics.”

Disasters: Most man made disasters are sudden with explosion, fires, deaths, and highly visible damage. The public is outraged, the incident is investigated, blame is assigned, and laws are made to prevent it from ever happening again. It is not the same with the climate change disaster taking place. It is happening slowly, with thousands and thousands of CO2 sources, and its full effect will not be known for generations. Who is responsible for preventing the disaster? Although many individuals take responsibility on a personal level, many businesses put their short term profits first, and politicians lack the will or do not want to offend their big donors.

Scientists now have clear and convincing evidence that the climate is changing but their role, however, is limited to education and research. It is the engineers who have the knowledge and the power to respond – as they design, build, operate, and approve every major project. It may not be fair to put such responsibility on the engineers, but their ethics requires it. The most important responsibility of engineers in performing their duties, according to the Engineering Code of Ethics, is to

“Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.”

Many disasters at first seem to be failures of engineering, technology, or materials, but on further examination the real cause is often found to be a failure of ethics. Two recent major disasters could have been prevented or the damage mitigated if the engineers had followed – or been allowed to follow - their code of ethics. When technological disasters happen, the first question should be” Where were the engineers?”.

The Gulf Oil Disaster: To satisfy our need for oil, we have had to search wider, drill deeper, and take greater risks. The Deepwater Horizon platform was a technological marvel, capable of drilling oil wells where the ocean was a mile deep. As British Petroleum was completing its Maconda Well from the platform, an explosion and fire occurred. Eleven men were killed and 17 injured by the explosion and fire. The platform eventually sank, breaking the pipe. The blowout preventer, designed to shut off the oil flow in case of such a disaster, failed. Over 4.5 million gallons of oil poured into the Gulf before the flow could be stopped. The environmental damage to the oceans, wildlife, and estuaries from the oil and from the million gallons of corexit, a toxic detergent sprayed to break up the oil, may not be known for decades.

There were a number of key decisions that led up to the disaster that should have been approved by the engineers. Any one of them, had it been made with engineering ethics in mind , could have prevented the disaster or ameliorated its effect on the workers and the environment. BP claimed the explosion was caused by the gas released at the sea floor warming as it rose to the surface. However, the gas would have expanded and cooled. Clearly, there was a source of ignition at the surface. Why weren’t the ignition sources that might lead to an explosion eliminated. The workers quarters could have been explosion proof – why weren’t they? Why did Halliburton proceed with cementing the well when the results of the pressure tests were inconclusive? Why was a particular type of cement used on the well, when it had given inconclusive performance tests? Who made the disastrous decision to replace the drilling mud with seawater? Why were problems with the blowout preventer not addressed? Were early efforts directed at trying to save the well or to prevent a major oil spill disaster? Were efforts directed toward covering up the disaster rather than trying to mitigate the environmental damage? And the list of questions goes on. The most critical of which is why BP ever started drilling in a very risky and unstable zone alongside a salt dome.

Obviously, what happened cannot be changed but, as the investigation into the cause continues, it is important to know who made the key decisions and why. The role of the management in the decision making was to make a profit for the company and to weigh the benefits and risk against the costs. The role of the government in the disaster is clouded by the cozy nature of the relationship between the regulators and the oil companies it was charged to regulate. The role of the engineers should have been, first and foremost, to protect the public.

The Challenger: It was a different type of disaster, but it has some important lessons as the Challenger Space Shuttle is one of the most studied disasters. Most people think that an engineering failure led to the disaster, but in fact, it was a failure of ethics. One difficult problem in the design of the space shuttle was how to transport the large fuel tanks to the launch site. Morton Thiokol won the contract by designing fuel tanks that could be transported to the site in sections and sealed back together with rubber O-rings. The O-rings were effective down to 40°F, but below that, the rubber stiffens and its ability to seal the tanks had not been tested.

The January 1986 Challenger launch was to carry Christa McAuliffe, the teacher the year, into space. The weather had been cool and uncooperative in Florida that January and there had been several delays in the launch. President Reagan was planning to include the education aspect of the shuttle launch in his State of the Union speech and, for that and other reasons, pressure was building on the shuttle team to proceed with the launch. However, the temperature was predicted to be 29°F on the morning of January 28 and the engineers strongly recommended against the launch. The decision whether to launch was the responsibility of Bob Lund, the vice president of engineering for Morton Thiokol. On the advice of his engineers, he recommended against the launch.

However, Jerald Mason, the general manager of Morton Thiokol, called a meeting to discuss the decision. He asked Bob Lund to “Take off your engineering hat and put on your management hat.” He was asking Lund, in effect, to put aside his engineering ethics and weigh the very unlikely possibility of an accident against the public relations benefits of launching on schedule. Apparently, that argument worked as Lund approved the launch, despite the fact that the predicted launch temperature was outside of the operational specifications. At 59 seconds into the launch, the O-rings failed and the rocket exploded, plunging the Challenger into the ocean and killing all seven astronauts. It was the worst disaster in the U.S. space program’s history.

“Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.” In our increasingly technical world, the public, you, me and everyone else, must trust our safety to the engineers who design, test, and make decisions about the products we use. Engineering schools now include the study of professional ethics in the curriculum and try to convey to students their importance. However, in some instances, engineers do not follow their ethical code because of financial rewards, job security issues, peer pressure, or company loyalty. Many ethical violations are discovered and investigated only when they lead to a major disaster. But, what about environmental disasters whose full effect may not be be known until far into the future? It is particularly important that engineers begin to see protecting the environment as part of their ethical obligation to protect the public.

The Green Dragon : Is Global Warming a Religion?

admin — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 18:23:30 +0000

How can a book go wrong with this introduction by Publius Redux? “Now, here is a novel analysis of the undercurrent of urgency and irrationality characteristic of climate doomsayers’ prophecy. This explains the haunting familiarity of the preaching and proselytizing we have endured from the climate change fearmongers.” (1)

Publius is introducing The Green Dragon by Dr. James Wanliss (2), a book about how environmentalism is committed to “the reconstruction of a pagan world order” and “rejection of Christian spirituality.” The author argues that the environmental movement “is a religion with a vision of sin and repentance, heaven and hell. It even has a special vocabulary, with words like ‘sustainability’ and ‘carbon neutral.’ Its saints are Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

That would certainly add to Al Gore’s list of accomplishments, Vice President, acclaimed movie director, Nobel Prize Winner, now possibly a Saint. I’m not sure how you can Canonize the entire IPCC, or Al Gore while he is living, but reality is apparently not a problem here.

Dr. Wanliss is upset by the strength of the Christian environmental movement which is based upon good stewardship. He blames this on the National Council of Churches as he goes on “Both professing Protestants and Roman Catholics bear a burden of guilt for the current political mess we are in with the global warming and other hysterias,” he argues. “If the church had not turned from the gospel of Jesus Christ it is unlikely the Green Dragon would have been able to so deeply sink its fangs into our lives.”

Perhaps that’s a bit dramatic, but there’s more: “There has been, in past decades, a cosmic shift towards a social climate that begins to favor the environment — polar bears, trees, and bugs — over human beings.” Well, where would we be without the bears, trees, environment, and umm … bugs?

He continues “environmentalists have infiltrated Christian higher education by careful placement of teachers and teaching materials on environmental activism in schools associated with the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. Little by little the wolves try to douse Christian resistance and lead sheep by troubled waters to accept the inevitability of a divine environmental movement.” And, according to him, they want to “synthesize a Christian environmentalism that can succeed “only by exorcising truth, and ultimately, by expelling Christianity.”

It’s hard to argue with that. Instead we’ll just fast forward to the reception Dr. Wanliss, Pablius, and their followers get when they stand before the Pearly Gates.

St. Peter: Why are all of you here?

Dr. Wanliss: We exposed the Global Warmists as pagans. We have saved Christianity from their influence. We’re here to claim our rightful place in heaven.

St. Peter, looking into a large black book: Hmmm. It says under Dr James Wanliss – “Poor stewardship, led a movement whose followers damaged the Earth that God had given man.”

Dr. Wanliss, looking nervous: We didn’t know it would turn out that way. Pollution is invisible – the changes to the Earth were so small at first – and we thought CO2 was only a plant food.

St. Peter: We gave you Science so you would understand those things. Didn’t you study it?

Dr. Wanliss: You know how those Global Warming scientists are, always going around casting doubt on our beliefs. You can’t be a Global Warmist scientist and be a Christian.

St. Peter, peering over his glasses: I don’t know. We’ve let a lot of them into Heaven. Who are you to judge them? And, he thundered, God is a little upset about that damage to the Earth.

Dr. Wanless, looking distraught: Are you going to send us to, to …?

St Peter: No, no. That’s not the punishment for poor stewardship. We’re going to send you back to Earth so you can clean up the mess you helped make of it.

Dr. Wanliss: But, but.. it’s hot down there and it’s certainly not a pleasant place to live. How would we know what to do?

St Peter, with a dismissive gesture: Some of you are scientists. Maybe you’ll get it right next time. We’ll check on you in 50 years. Poof!

(1) http://depantzd.newsvine.com/_news/2009/12/24/3674500-climate-the-new-god-of-left-wing-christianity (This article is now listed as “removed by the Newsvine community”).

(2)http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2009/ss_politics0954_12_10.asp

Can the Wall Street Journal Be Trusted?

admin — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:41:10 +0000

This guest article is a letter by a small businessman sent to the Wall Street Journal:

The Wall Street Journal has published many articles on climate change. Most all claimed the science was unreliable and discredited the scientist, whose emails were stolen. However three investigations have cleared the scientist. I have both a major in Journalism & Business and I am ashamed of the yellow journalism the Wall Street journal has discredited itself with in this area. Is it that Rupert Murdock’s News Corporation* backs the skeptics; is it his desire for sensationalistic headlines; or, is it the paper has incompetent or biased writers and editors in the area of climate science?

I fear the one paper I buy almost daily at the newsstand and depend on for business information has lost its credibility. How can I make reasonable business decisions without undistorted facts. I have been a businessman for 30 years in the oilfield through boom and bust. How can I depend on the world’s top business paper if it does not investigate and check its facts. Now, the question is “Can I depend on your paper to give me the facts I need for my small oilfield drilling service to survive?”

At this juncture, I wonder if I can count on the Wall Street Journal to make your grievous errors right? At age 57, I hope so for my children’s and my grandchildren’s sake. I want them to have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink at a cost of 4/10 of 1 percent of their income in the future, as I do now.

Guest author: David Moore

*Editors note: Rupert Murdoch also owns Fox News and the NY Post.