The Pentagong Show

The Pentagong Show
United State of Terror: Is Drone War Fair?

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

"Go to the Devil!", Blares Pravda.

The Horror of fossil fools.

In this morning's NYT, we're treated to two stories that demonstrate the questionable news stories of the NYT, one right on top of the other:

Russians No Longer Dispute Olympic Doping Operation

The response from Pravda:

Russian Sports Minister Pavel Kolobkov questioned the (NYT's) interpretation of Anna Antseliovich's words immediately.

"Our position in relation to this situation remains the same. I assume that The New York Times has misinterpreted the words from Anna Antseliovich. I think one needs to ask her to explain what she wanted to say," the minister told TASS.

The Kremlin has also commented on the article. Putin's press secretary Dmitry Peskov said the Kremlin strongly denies the involvement in the state in the use of doping by Russian athletes.
"From the very beginning, of course, we have denied any involvement of the state, the government, departments, services, or agencies in the possible use of doping by athletes," Peskov said.

The second headline:

California, at Forefront of Climate Fight, Won't Back Down to Trump

 In this quite extensive article detailing the stance of the 10'th largest economy in the world, the State of California's self-portrait as a leader in the fight against climate change is not only hailed as accurate, but puts California in the light of a stalwart opponent of such deniers as those being appointed to the new Trump Tower of Power elite.

Stating that, "Domestically, California has long been a leader on vehicle emissions" (which is true; only Texas spews more poisonous, polluting gases from its autos' exhaust pipes), they pretend to believe that such standards were introduced to fight against climate change (they weren't) even though they have only INcreased vehicular traffic since they were passed. Because, as there is no transportation infrastructure besides the automobile in the vast majority of the state, other than airplane travel (which is a far greater polluter per vehicular mile), their transportation sector is a 20'th century fossil-fueled fossil. So, while implying that therefore California is a leader in reducing greenhouse gases because of its more stringent exhaust regulations, the article omits the fact that the very legislation that cut down on the individual exhaust, was followed by an explosion in the number and size of the vehicles plying California's roadways, thereby causing the aggregate amount of greenhouse gases exhausted into the atmosphere to actually increase.

But, as pointed out in the last post, if it doesn't follow the narrative, it 's not deemed to be News Fit to Print. A further demonstration of which is the fact that, although the referenced article is quite long, there is absolutely no mention of the fact (one of which most of the urban Californian elites who really believe this trope are completely unaware of ) that California is the country's second largest producer and refiner of petroleum and its products, its industry leaders having lobbied heavily to convince Obama to lift the ban on oil exports that had been in place since 1973.

This allows California to become the stalwart leader of the clean energy meme while simultaneously enriching itself and filling its state's coffers with tax receipts from the export of every last drop it can squeeze out (California is also one of the leading fracking states, despite its known history of earthquakes).

So when the same newspaper that says Russia no longer disputes the doping operation of which it's accused, and you think well, just because Pravda disagrees, it is after all, Pravda, remember that it is after all, the NYT, and they have their own agenda, too, and, as the article about California shows, when the data doesn't agree with their narrative, that data is simply omitted. After all, how can being the second largest oil-producing state, one that has ensured it can now export its oil reserves until the last drop is exhausted, have anything but a salutary effect on Global Warming?

But as California's governor made clear at Copout21, even as Porter Ranch was spewing out more methane than even the North Dakota Bakken formation, whose flaring of methane is on such a monstrous scale it can be seen from space, Jerry Brown, fully cognizant of what was happening in his home State, had the audacity to  proclaim that:

"For governments to sit and do nothing, accepting 'business as usual', is unacceptable. "States should do something to reduce their carbon footprint", he urged (apparently that "something" is giving free rein to Fracking companies to squeeze out every last drop of hydrocarbons left in the ground).

He goes on to insist that:

"Tens of trillions of dollars will be wasted and the lives of hundreds of millions of people will be impacted if we don't stop the horror of burning fossil fuels and replace it with renewable energy."

 All the while knowing that, under his administration, which gave its blessing to the Porter Ranch project, the worst disaster in the history of energy exploration, had already been spewing unburned fossil fuel (a far worse horror, as it is providing 25 times the warming potential of the CO2 that would have resulted if it had actually been burned to generate energy) into the atmosphere for two months.

There seems to be a battle going on between whether the people in the Trump camp who are right-wing conspiracy theorists that claim climate change is a hoax, are worse, or the self-congratulatory Climate Change opponents, such as the hypocritical, spotlight-basking Jerry Brown, who actually believe their own rhetoric even as their lifestyle and the industry on which that lifestyle depends, flies in the face of reality as determinedly as any Hoaxer's inane belief in crackpot conspiracy theory does.

Post a Comment