Feb 15, 2023

Cause & Effect

So the usual assortment of wingnuts have been all over the place bashing DOT Secretary Pete Buttigeig, and complaining about "all that infrastructure money" not being used to fix problems and prevent such calamities.

And of course, they leave out a couple of inconvenient details: While the money has been allotted, it's not yet been distributed, and these same people have been actively trying to prevent the money from being distributed (all that debt ceiling bullshit).

But that doesn't stop them from demagoguing and propagandizing the shit out of it, because they demagogue and propagandize the shit out of everything.

It fits with a standard GOP play.
  1. Prevent government from doing something
  2. Bitch about how the government isn't doing something
Wanna know what caused this particular fuckup? Deregulation.



Is Donald Trump to Blame for Ohio Train Derailment?

The derailment of a 150-car train carrying hazardous material in East Palestine, Ohio, was likely more severe because the Trump administration repealed key safety legislation, according to an industry insider.

On February 3, the Norfolk Southern Railway freight train derailed at approximately 8:55 p.m. local time before catching fire near the state border with Pennsylvania.

While there were no injuries, the train included a number of cars containing vinyl chloride, a potentially explosive colorless gas, resulting in about 5,000 people being evacuated on the orders of the Ohio and Pennsylvania governors.

Rescue workers blew holes in five railway carts on February 6, allowing them to conduct a controlled burn of vinyl chloride which released toxic chemicals into the air.

Speaking to investigative news outlet The Lever, Steven Ditmeyer, a former top official at the Federal Railroad Administration, said the "severity" of the accident was likely increased by the lack of Electronically Controlled Pneumatic (ECP) brakes.

Legislation was passed under President Obama that made it a legal requirement for trains carrying hazardous flammable materials to have ECP brakes, but this was rescinded in 2017 by the Trump administration.

The National Transportation Safety Board, a federal agency responsible for investigating rail accidents, told The Lever that the Ohio train that derailed was not fitted with ECP brakes.

"Would ECP brakes have reduced the severity of this accident? Yes," Ditmeyer said.


Referring to opposition from within the rail industry to fitting ECP brakes he added: "The railroads will test new features. But once they are told they have to do it...they don't want to spend the money."

Newsweek reached out to Donald Trump and the Norfolk Southern Railway for comment.

On Monday, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg provided an update on the accident and an ongoing investigation into its cause.

"USDOT [Department of Transportation] has been supporting the investigation led by The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Our Federal Rail Administration and Pipelines and Hazardous Materials teams were onsite within hours of the initial incident and continue to be actively engaged," Buttigieg tweeted.

"We will look to these investigation results & based on them, use all relevant authorities to ensure accountability and continue to support safety."

Buttigieg added the federal Environmental Protection Agency remained on site, where they are monitoring indoor and outdoor air quality following the release of toxic chemicals.

Strange Doin's

A lot of odd phenomena is surfacing now because of things flying around the skies of North America.

And, as usual, people are having some fun with it.

Mr Whiskers disappeared last night



Leaked video from the shoot-down in Canada


Feb 14, 2023

A Survey


Luckily (in a dangerous kinda way), as the GOP shrinks, the radical wingnuts will be entertained and feel encouraged by the illusion that their ranks are swelling.

It's not true of course, but Americans aren't exactly well schooled on such subtleties as:

A shrinking pond will make the frog look bigger ...

... so the wingnut influencers will crow about how powerful they're getting while the rubes and a double-digit percentage of normal Americans will go right along with it.


More than half of Republicans support Christian nationalism, according to a new survey

Long seen as a fringe viewpoint, Christian nationalism now has a foothold in American politics, particularly in the Republican Party — according to a new survey from the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution.

Researchers found that more than half of Republicans believe the country should be a strictly Christian nation, either adhering to the ideals of Christian nationalism (21%) or sympathizing with those views (33%).


Robert P. Jones, the president and founder of the nonpartisan PRRI, has been surveying the religious world for many years now. Recently, Jones said his group decided to start asking specifically about Christian nationalism.

"It became clear to us that this term 'Christian nationalism' was being used really across the political spectrum," he said. "So not just on the right but on the left and that it was being written about more by the media."

Christian nationalism is a worldview that claims the U.S. is a Christian nation and that the country's laws should therefore be rooted in Christian values. This point of view has long been most prominent in white evangelical spaces but lately it's been getting lip service in Republican ones, too.

During an interview at a Turning Point USA event last August, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said party leaders need to be more responsive to the base of the party, which she claimed is made up of Christian nationalists.

"We need to be the party of nationalism," she said. "I am a Christian and I say it proudly, we should be Christian nationalists."

Jones said until now it's been difficult to tell how prominent Christian nationalism is within the Republican Party.

"There was some data out there but what we saw as a need was to have a real set of data that would quantify what that term means, how many Americans really adhere to it," he said. "And we also wanted to have a more nuanced view — not just people who are hard adherents but maybe people who are sympathetic."

Jones said this is just the beginning of his group's effort to track the prevalence of these views in American views. He says over time we will have a better idea of whether these views are becoming more or less widely held.


Americans broadly don't adhere to Christian nationalism

While a majority of Republicans currently either adhere to or sympathize with Christian nationalism, the survey found that this remains a minority opinion nationwide.

According to the PRRI/Brookings study, only 10% of Americans view themselves as adherents of Christian nationalism and about 19% of Americans said they sympathize with these views.

Christian nationalism is still thriving — and is a force for returning Trump to power
Kristin Kobes Du Mez, a history professor at Calvin University, said it's important to note that this is not a novel ideology in American families.

"These ideas have been widely held throughout American history and particularly since the 1970s with the rise of the Christian Right," she said.

Du Mez said these views are mostly a reaction to changing demographics, as well as cultural and generational shifts in the U.S. As the country has become less white and Christian, she said these adherents want to hold on to their cultural and political power.

In fact, according to the survey, half of Christian nationalism adherents and nearly 4 in 10 sympathizers said they support the idea of an authoritarian leader in order to keep these Christian values in society.

"At its root there are some deeply antidemocratic impulses here," Du Mez said. "So, to see that more than half of one political party is committed to Christian nationalism I think explains a lot in terms of our ability to achieve much bipartisan agreement."


The survey also found correlations between people who hold Christian nationalist views as well as Anti-Black, anti-immigrant, antisemitic views, anti-Muslim and patriarchal views.

Republicans may need to reckon with ideology in its ranks

Tim Whitaker, founder of The New Evangelicals, grew up in the church and now spends his life trying to detangle these kinds of views from the evangelical faith.

"We need to understand that the world of Christian nationalism largely rejects pluralism, which this study shows," he said. "Most Christian nationalists — either adherents or sympathizers — either agree or strongly agree with the notion that they should live in a country full of other Christians."

Whitaker said he has faith that most Americans will continue to reject these ideas when they hear them, but he's worried about the outsized influence these views have in the Republican Party.


"The reality is that a lot of these folks — especially the adherents — are very militant in this belief that God has given them a mandate to rule over the nation," he said. "And so for them, I think that compromise is a sign of weakness and the GOP needs to understand what they are dealing with."

According to the survey, adherents of Christian nationalism say they will go to great lengths to impose their vision of the country. Jones with PRRI said they found adherents are far more likely to agree with the statement: "true patriots might have to resort to violence to save our country."


"Now is that everyone? No. It's not everyone," Jones said. "But it's a sizeable minority that is not only willing to declare themselves opposed to pluralism and democracy — but are also willing to say, 'I am willing to fight and either kill or harm my fellow Americans to keep it that way.'"

Today's Tweet



Suspect identified in Michigan State University shooting: 3 dead, 5 in critical condition

Morning dawned Tuesday on East Lansing to a rattled Michigan State University campus hours after a mass shooting left three dead and five others critically injured.

An alert was sent at 8:31 p.m. Monday, telling students to "run, hide, fight" with a report of shots fired at Berkey Hall and at the MSU Union.

Two people were killed at Berkey Hall, said university Interim Deputy Police Chief Chris Rozman. The gunman then moved to the MSU Union, where another was killed.

Students were told to shelter in place as authorities searched for the gunman. The 43-year-old suspect was Anthony McRae, Rozman said at a news conference Tuesday. McRae was found off campus early Tuesday before he could be arrested; he had died from what appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

PS) Fuck your thoughts and prayers.

An Unsurprising Surprise



Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections

Insider knowledge

For decades, some members of the fossil fuel industry tried to convince the public that a causative link between fossil fuel use and climate warming could not be made because the models used to project warming were too uncertain. Supran et al. show that one of those fossil fuel companies, ExxonMobil, had their own internal models that projected warming trajectories consistent with those forecast by the independent academic and government models. What they understood about climate models thus contradicted what they led the public to believe.

Structured Abstract

BACKGROUND

In 2015, investigative journalists discovered internal company memos indicating that Exxon oil company has known since the late 1970s that its fossil fuel products could lead to global warming with “dramatic environmental effects before the year 2050.” Additional documents then emerged showing that the US oil and gas industry’s largest trade association had likewise known since at least the 1950s, as had the coal industry since at least the 1960s, and electric utilities, Total oil company, and GM and Ford motor companies since at least the 1970s. Scholars and journalists have analyzed the texts contained in these documents, providing qualitative accounts of fossil fuel interests’ knowledge of climate science and its implications. In 2017, for instance, we demonstrated that Exxon’s internal documents, as well as peer-reviewed studies published by Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp scientists, overwhelmingly acknowledged that climate change is real and human-caused. By contrast, the majority of Mobil and ExxonMobil Corp’s public communications promoted doubt on the matter.

ADVANCES

Many of the uncovered fossil fuel industry documents include explicit projections of the amount of warming expected to occur over time in response to rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Yet, these numerical and graphical data have received little attention. Indeed, no one has systematically reviewed climate modeling projections by any fossil fuel interest. What exactly did oil and gas companies know, and how accurate did their knowledge prove to be? Here, we address these questions by reporting and analyzing all known global warming projections documented by—and in many cases modeled by—Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp scientists between 1977 and 2003.

Our results show that in private and academic circles since the late 1970s and early 1980s, ExxonMobil predicted global warming correctly and skillfully. Using established statistical techniques, we find that 63 to 83% of the climate projections reported by ExxonMobil scientists were accurate in predicting subsequent global warming. ExxonMobil’s average projected warming was 0.20° ± 0.04°C per decade, which is, within uncertainty, the same as that of independent academic and government projections published between 1970 and 2007. The average “skill score” and level of uncertainty of ExxonMobil’s climate models (67 to 75% and ±21%, respectively) were also similar to those of the independent models.
Moreover, we show that ExxonMobil scientists correctly dismissed the possibility of a coming ice age in favor of a “carbon dioxide induced ‘super-interglacial’”; accurately predicted that human-caused global warming would first be detectable in the year 2000 ± 5; and reasonably estimated how much CO2 would lead to dangerous warming.

OUTLOOK

Today, dozens of cities, counties, and states are suing oil and gas companies for their “longstanding internal scientific knowledge of the causes and consequences of climate change and public deception campaigns.” The European Parliament and the US Congress have held hearings, US President Joe Biden has committed to holding fossil fuel companies accountable, and a grassroots social movement has arisen under the moniker #ExxonKnew. 

Our findings demonstrate that ExxonMobil didn’t just know “something” about global warming decades ago—they knew as much as academic and government scientists knew. But whereas those scientists worked to communicate what they knew, ExxonMobil worked to deny it—including overemphasizing uncertainties, denigrating climate models, mythologizing global cooling, feigning ignorance about the discernibility of human-caused warming, and staying silent about the possibility of stranded fossil fuel assets in a carbon-constrained world.



Historically observed temperature change (red) and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (blue) over time, compared against global warming projections reported by ExxonMobil scientists.
(A) “Proprietary” 1982 Exxon-modeled projections.
(B) Summary of projections in seven internal company memos and five peer-reviewed publications between 1977 and 2003 (gray lines).
(C) A 1977 internally reported graph of the global warming “effect of CO2 on an interglacial scale.”
(A) and (B) display averaged historical temperature observations, whereas the historical temperature record in (C) is a smoothed Earth system model simulation of the last 150,000 years.

Abstract

Climate projections by the fossil fuel industry have never been assessed. On the basis of company records, we quantitatively evaluated all available global warming projections documented by—and in many cases modeled by—Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp scientists between 1977 and 2003. We find that most of their projections accurately forecast warming that is consistent with subsequent observations. Their projections were also consistent with, and at least as skillful as, those of independent academic and government models. Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp also correctly rejected the prospect of a coming ice age, accurately predicted when human-caused global warming would first be detected, and reasonably estimated the “carbon budget” for holding warming below 2°C. On each of these points, however, the company’s public statements about climate science contradicted its own scientific data.

In 2015, investigative journalists uncovered internal company documents showing that Exxon scientists have been warning their executives about “potentially catastrophic” anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming since at least 1977. Researchers and journalists have subsequently unearthed additional documents showing that the US oil and gas industry writ large—by way of its trade association, the American Petroleum Institute—has been aware of potential human-caused global warming since at least the 1950s; the coal industry since at least the 1960s (4); electric utilities, Total oil company, and General Motors and Ford motor companies since at least the 1970s; and Shell oil company since at least the 1980s.
This corpus of fossil fuel documents has attracted widespread scholarly, journalistic, political, and legal attention, leading to the conclusion that the fossil fuel industry has known for decades that their products could cause dangerous global warming. In 2017, we used content analysis to demonstrate that Exxon’s internal documents, as well as peer-reviewed studies authored or coauthored by Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp scientists, overwhelmingly acknowledged that global warming is real and human-caused.

By contrast, we found that the majority of Mobil and ExxonMobil Corp’s public communications promoted doubt on the matter. Cities, counties, and states have accordingly filed dozens of lawsuits variously accusing ExxonMobil Corp and other companies of deceit and responsibility for climate damages. The attorney general of Massachusetts, for instance, alleges that ExxonMobil has had a “long-standing internal scientific knowledge of the causes and consequences of climate change” and waged “public deception campaigns” that misrepresented that knowledge. Civil society campaigns seeking to hold fossil fuel interests accountable for allegedly misleading shareholders, customers, and the public about climate science have emerged under monikers such as #ExxonKnew, #ShellKnew, and #TotalKnew.

But what exactly did the fossil fuel industry understand about the role of fossil fuels in causing global warming, and how accurate did their understanding prove to be? Several of the documents in question include explicit projections of the amount of warming that could be expected to occur over time in response to rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Yet, whereas the text of these documents has been interrogated in detail, the numerical and graphical data in them have not. Indeed, no one has systematically reported climate modeling projections by any fossil fuel interest, let alone assessed their accuracy and skill. This contrasts with academic climate models, whose performance has been extensively scrutinized.



The fuckers knew - the Dirty Fuels Cartel knew what was coming because of what they were doing.

They fucking knew.

And we've seen numerous studies of numerous smoking guns now. Class action lawsuits should be pouring in, and I should think the insurance companies would be leading the charge.

It's Not Aliens



DEEP SIGH

It’s not aliens. It’ll probably never be aliens. So stop. Please just stop.

"There is no indication of aliens or extraterrestrial activity with these recent takedowns."

Aliens have been having a moment in recent years.

For decades the notion of unidentified flying objects—UFOs—and little green men running around Roswell, New Mexico, remained comfortably confined along the fringes of societal discourse. But no longer. Serious people in the government are taking a serious look at the phenomenon.

The story of why this posture began to change begins about 15 years ago and is long and complex. (This New Yorker article is a good place to start.) But the basic gist is that then-Nevada politician Harry Reid, a powerful political figure who at times led the US Senate, began to take it seriously. So he started shoveling money at the Pentagon to study the issue.

Along the way, perhaps because of the stigma attached, the government stopped calling sightings of unidentified objects UFOs and began referring to them as unidentified anomalous phenomenon (UAP). The release of three videos in 2020 by the US Navy heightened public attention. Then, in 2021, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a much-anticipated assessment of the government's files on UAP.

This report, alas, held an unsatisfying conclusion for those who want to believe. "The limited amount of high-quality reporting on unidentified aerial phenomena hampers our ability to draw firm conclusions about the nature or intent of UAP," this report stated. In its nine pages, the report did not mention "aliens" a single time.

But the cat was out of the bag, and the government moved onward. Last December, the nation's buttoned-down space agency, NASA, named the members of a "study team" to determine how the space agency should analyze UAP. Knowing and respecting some of the members of this study team, I have no doubt that they will do good work, and we can rely on their conclusions.

Recent takedowns

All of this brings us to the recent spy balloon mania, during which US F-22 jets downed a Chinese balloon nine days ago and, subsequently, three unidentified objects over Canada and the United States. Given the lack of government transparency about what, exactly, these latter three objects were, conspiracy theories have multiplied. Misinformation, after all, loves nothing more than a vacuum.

The extent of the howls of "It must be aliens" was underlined on Monday when White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre felt compelled to address the issue during a press briefing. "There is no indication of aliens or extraterrestrial activity with these recent takedowns," she said. "I wanted to be sure the American people knew that, and it is important for us to say that from here."

So yeah, it's not aliens. Unless you believe the government is covering things up, of course.

Look, the universe is vast. It is so mind-bendingly vast that we cannot comprehend its immensity. There are billions of galaxies, and in each galaxy, there are billions of stars. One of the greatest scientific discoveries during the last two decades, thanks to the Kepler space telescope and other instruments, has confirmed that many, if not most, stars have planetary systems. So there are almost certainly billions and billions and billions of worlds out there upon which life like ours could arise.

But, in all probability, we haven't found it yet. Or rather, it hasn't found us yet, or revealed itself to us meager, carbon-based, Earth-confined wretches. Just why we haven't found it yet, by the way, is a fantastic philosophical question.

Extraordinary claims

I will close this article by referencing an astronomer and a physicist. The astronomer is Carl Sagan, perhaps the most gifted science communicator of the 20th century. He once said,
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Certainly, the existence of an intelligent species capable of traveling between stars would be an extraordinary thing. And while there is plenty of "evidence" of unidentified flying objects in our skies, there is no "extraordinary" evidence that proves the case. I'm sorry, there just is not. The truth is, almost every hyped alien sighting can eventually be explained by a rather pedestrian phenomenon.

The second quote is simply a tweet from an English physicist, Brian Cox, today: "I've always suspected that an advanced alien civilization with the technology to travel at close to light speed across interstellar distances would arrive in Earth orbit unobserved and proceed to dispatch a fleet of small, easily detectable balloons into our atmosphere."

Pretty much, Brian. Pretty much.

A Thought


It occurs to me that the wingnuts are missing a really good opportunity to combine their penchant for the ridiculous with their kinda creepy obsession over the world's sexual behavior (or is that a redundancy?).

Anyhoo - it seems like somebody should've thought about how Valentine's Day is abbreviated as "VD" so that has to mean Jesus disapproves of how the media and the globalists and the immigrant caravan are leading the pious folk away from god and whatever the fuck else they usually throw into that mashup.

Just a thought. Happy VD, everybody!

WTF, Ivan?

The stupid wasteful insanity of war.




Guided Missile Killed U.S. Aid Worker in Ukraine, Video Shows

A Times analysis suggests that an intentional strike, not an indiscriminate attack, most likely killed Pete Reed. It is unclear whether the attackers knew he was with a group of aid workers.


Roughly a minute after an American paramedic, Pete Reed, and a team of aid workers began tending to a wounded civilian in the Ukrainian city of Bakhmut on Feb. 2, they were attacked. Mr. Reed, a former U.S. Marine volunteering on the war’s front lines, was killed, and several of his colleagues were wounded.

Volunteers at the scene initially attributed the strike to indiscriminate Russian shelling. But a frame-by-frame analysis of a video taken at the location — and shared with The New York Times — shows that Mr. Reed, who was unarmed, died in a targeted strike by a guided missile almost certainly fired by Russian troops.

A short video shows a missile hitting the white van as the aid workers are nearby.

The weapon that killed Pete Reed was a guided antitank missile most likely fired by Russian troops.

It is unclear if the Russians knew the group was made up of aid workers. But its convoy had markings that should have signaled to the Russians the type of vehicles they were hitting. One of the vehicles was clearly marked with a red cross, and the type of weapon used in the attack — a laser-guided antitank missile — is usually fired when a gunman sees and selects a target.

Still, the target in this case, a white Mercedes-Benz van, did not have any clearly visible medical markings, and while the aid workers were unarmed at least one medic was wearing military-style camouflage.

The video shows Mr. Reed and the group of aid workers standing beside the white van, which they were using to transport humanitarian supplies. A missile flying parallel to the ground directly hits the van, destroying it and killing Mr. Reed.

The footage appears to show that the strike involved a Kornet antitank guided missile, which has a range of around three miles. Mr. Reed and the aid workers were at a slightly elevated position along a street that led toward the Russian front line, around two miles away.

Mr. Laidinen said that his vehicle’s dash camera had also recorded the episode, and that the footage showed a second missile strike, which was aimed at another vehicle but missed its target. The footage has yet to be made public.

A volunteer named Roma, who was standing near Mr. Reed when the missile struck and who was wounded in the blast, told The Times in an interview that there had been no military units nearby. One of the vehicles at the scene was clearly marked as an ambulance, he said.

He provided only his given name because of safety concerns.

A photograph published by The Wall Street Journal shows an injured Norwegian medic running from the scene of the attack. It also shows the ambulance marked with a red cross on a white background across the street from where Mr. Reed and other volunteers were attacked.

Experts said the type of weapon used should have enabled the attacker to identify the nature of the target. With weapons such as these, “you have an expectation that the firer is going to have the ability to differentiate between a medical worker and a combatant,” said Marc Garlasco, a war crimes investigator who is in Poland training Ukrainian teams investigating war crimes.

Mr. Garlasco added that the episode required further investigation, but that on its face it was a “potential war crime.”

A video of the aftermath shows the aid workers’ white van destroyed by the attack. Debris is strewn around the area, and a body is lying lifeless on the ground.

Bakhmut, an industrial city surrounded by salt mines with a prewar population of around 70,000 people, has been under intense bombardment since the summer. In recent weeks, Russian troops have come increasingly close to encircling the city.

With a small population of civilians still present in the city, aid workers like Mr. Reed and his teammates have served as lifelines for people sheltering in basements without heat and with dwindling rations. On Monday, the Ukrainian military said it would no longer allow aid groups into the city.

Mr. Reed and his team were alerted to the wounded civilian by Ukrainian troops that had just returned from the area. The street had been under shelling or missile attack at some point: At least one other vehicle had been destroyed in the same area, though it was unclear when, Roma said.

Ukrainian forces traverse the battlefield in all types of civilian vehicles, including privately owned sedans and school buses. It is therefore possible that Mr. Reed was targeted because his team had simply driven into a kill zone frequently targeted by Russian troops.

Today's Today

Love: a temporary insanity
which is curable by marriage.

⬇︎ click to embiggen ⬇︎











That Was Close


No word yet on whether or not United imposed an extra In-Flight Entertainment Fee.


United Flight Plummeted in Terrifying 45-Second Dive: Report

A United Airlines flight plummeted from the air and came as close as 775 feet above the Pacific Ocean in a terrifying, previously unreported incident on December 18. United Airlines Flight UA1722 dived in an “unexplained” descent at nearly 8,600 feet per minute shortly after takeoff, The Air Current reports, and lasted approximately 45 seconds before it recovered.

The flight was bound for San Francisco and had taken off from Kahului Airport in Maui at 2:29 p.m. without fuss, despite flying in stormy weather.

Analyzing available data, The Air Current said the flight reached 2,200 feet before suddenly diving. The flight was “in between radio calls with air traffic controllers in Maui” throughout the 45-second ordeal.

“The climb produced forces of nearly 2.7 times the force of gravity on the aircraft and its occupants,” the report said.

Despite the incident, the flight landed in San Francisco after climbing 33,000 feet and departed on its next flight to Chicago just over two hours later. A spokesperson for United confirmed the incident and that a formal internal safety report was filed upon landing.

The craft was also inspected before its next flight. The result led to the pilots of the plane receiving additional training.

I think I won't be traveling any time soon. Seems like shit's pretty fucked up lately.