How Jet Fuel Is Made From Trash | WSJ

Thanks to Ten Bears for the video on his site.    https://homelessonthehighdesert.com/2023/11/30/thorsday-tin-trombone/   This seems a win win to me, getting rid of garbage that we have no room for, and lowering harmful chemicals into the air.  I may be missing something about it, but I think this needs to be seriously looked into.   Of course the oil /gas companies will do everything they can to kill it.   And biofuels have raised the price of feed for livestock, making meat and milk cost more.   But I still like this idea.   Hugs.  Scottie

 

Sustainable aviation fuel – or SAF – helps cut down air travel’s carbon emissions. SAF is seeing a large surge in investment that could fuel its growth after the industry has spent years trying to take off with efforts to decarbonize flights.

WSJ takes a look at the SAF supply problem, and how airlines and the government are pumping money into the low-carbon fuel sector to help get this industry off the ground.

Agenda 47: Trump’s & the GOP’s Dystopian Nightmare Plan for America Revealed

Thanks to ten Bears for the link.  This is a scary and important read, and people need to understand what will happen this time if tRump and his ilk get into power again.  We must put small time bickering of age and other things aside until the threat posed by these people are gone.  If we don’t stand together and vote for Biden and other democrats in large numbers or democracy goes away and the US becomes a hell of inequality, no rights, no personal freedoms, and required living as you are ordered to do so.  The LGBTQIA will be illegal, as will other personal freedoms.  Reading material and movies will have to be state sanctioned and follow party lines, like in China.     Hugs.  Scottie


If you thought it can’t happen here, I have an old Sinclair Lewis book to share with you…

Government CAN work

What just happened in #Michigan is a testament to what can happen all over the country if we choose to elect leaders who actually care about the people. Be inspired.

Greta Thunberg On a British show. I will try to cut it to when the interview starts.

Hi, this is a wonderful display of a normal 19 year old who is autistic.  She is open about it, how it affects her daily life, how her celebrity which she is not using for her own benefit, and how she copes she mentions she really doesn’t like what she feels she has to do and often retreats to an environment that soothes her emotion distress.    One of the things she mentions is her love of beans, and eating one bean at a time, as it helps her deal.   The interview was grand.   Here is a 19 year old who could have been using her status to make millions as an influencer yet proudly admits she will use her large platform to introduce other people who have expertise or experience in fighting the climate emergency, and then she steps aside, giving them the entire stage to say what needs to be said.  

She is engaging, dare I say cute, without being called out as a sexist pig?  She laughed at the host, who was not trying to be funny because that was how it struck her.  I loved how she totally was not like other guests, she was herself.  

If I don’t clip this right and you want to hear her talk about her autism and how it affects her and her activism, please go through the video.  Oh one thing before where I start with her interview, they have kids on, and the kids love her.  To the point where the host tries to ask one of the kids if he knew who he was or wanted to talk to him and the kid was like, no, I want to talk to her.   What an ego busting moment.    Hugs, best wishes, loves.   Scottie 

Oh notice one thing, she says she doesn’t need to make money from the books and activism, because she is in what we call college or university and her country pays her not only to be there but enough to live.   Her living costs are paid because she is a student.   Think about that next time an argument about student loans comes up and how great the US is.   Hugs

Florida Experiencing Mass Exodus As DeSantis Lets State Descend Into Hell

Florida’s trend of experiencing population increases year over year is coming to an end as the state now sees a mass exodus of people fleeing the state. The main culprit is the lack of insurance companies that are willing to provide policies to homeowners in the state, leaving the hurricane-prone residents without a way to protect their property. Governor Ron DeSantis has done nothing to address this crisis as he continues his failing bid to become president. Ring of Fire’s Farron Cousins explains what’s happening.

Where was the Israeli army on October 7

This is one of the more honest videos done on the subject.  It shows just how much control Israel has over Gaza and the horrible living conditions Israel has forced the people there to live in.  It details with facts the dates that Israeli militants took over the deported over 750,000 Palestinians from their homes and lands so they could steal the land for Israel.   Then the video report shows how Israeli settlements have grown in the West Bank, and some are so large they are the size of major cities.  This mistreatment is the catalyst for the rage that keeps erupting as a desperate people with no hope, no home state, see everything taken from them as they are abused.   Killing of civilians is wrong, but it is just as wrong on both sides.  To answer the question of where was the Israeli army, guarding illegal settlements and the settlers who attack and harass Palestinians, destroying their homes, corps, and yes even killing them in an attempt to drive them out.  Why because one god says the land is Jewish, another god says the land is Muslim, and no gods are real.   Hugs

For decades, Israel has prioritized illegal settlements for Jewish Israelis in the West Bank

In the early hours of Saturday, October 7, Israelis living near the border with Gaza awoke to the sounds of Hamas fighters killing and kidnapping their neighbors. As the hours stretched on and they hid, terrified, their frantic text messages contained versions of this question: Where is the army?

To answer that question, we need to travel to the West Bank.

Watch this video to better understand how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s obsessive focus on the West Bank has left Israelis everywhere vulnerable.

Check out Vox’s coverage of the Israel-Hamas War: https://www.vox.com/2023/10/7/2390768…

Read Nathan Thrall’s latest book, “A Day in the Life of Abed Salama”: https://us.macmillan.com/books/978125…

B’Tselem has a lot of background on settler violence and Israel’s encroachment on Palestinian land: https://www.btselem.org/settler_viole… https://conquer-and-divide.btselem.org/

We used settlement data from Peace Now: https://peacenow.org.il/en/settlement…

Amnesty International put out a comprehensive report that provided background: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/…

We relied a lot on the data and research from Visualizing Palestine: https://101.visualizingpalestine.org/

We used military data compiled by Al Jazeera: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/1…

The race to mine the bottom of the ocean

There are metallic deposits scattered throughout our ocean floors — among hydrothermal vents, under the crust of seamounts, and scattered along sea plains in the form of rocks. As it happens, in our search for climate solutions, these metals have become more critical than ever to help us transition away from fossil fuels. We need them for everything like electric car batteries, copper wiring for electrification and wind turbines. Our land-based deposits have met our needs so far, but it’s unclear whether they will continue to, or whether we’ll want to keep destroying the environment to do so.

This video explains the history and the debate over mining metals in the deep sea and why one Canadian company, The Metals Company, is leading the rush there. There are huge environmental implications for digging up seafloor ecosystems as well as ethical ones: Metal-rich zones like the Clarion-Clipperton Zone lie in international waters that technically belong to everyone. A United Nations body located in Kingston, Jamaica, the International Seabed Authority, is faced with an urgent dilemma over how to regulate mining, whether the environmental harm is worth the benefits to solving our climate crisis, and how to fairly share the profits from this shared resource.

MAGA Heckler Owned – Steve Hofstetter

Let’s talk about Biden, walls, and laws….

Our 10-point scale will help you rate the biggest misinformation purveyors

https://arstechnica.com/staff/2023/09/our-new-ladapo-scale-rates-misinformation-merchants/

I got this like from a blog that Ali introduced me to.  She left the comment with the link and I checked it out.   I like the content so I decided to follow the blog.  Yes it stretches my time a bit more but also broadens my knowledge level.   The blog can be found here.    Hugs.

About


A convenient rating system to evaluate the threat posed by misinformation sources.

Our new Ladapo scale rates misinformation merchants
Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

The world has been flooded with misinformation. Falsehoods and conspiracy theories bubble up on everything from the weather to vaccines to the shape of the Earth. Purveyors of this garbage may be motivated by attention, money, or simply the appeal of sticking it to the educated elite. For people who try to keep both feet planted in the real world, it’s enough to make you want to scream. Even if you spend 24 hours a day pushing back against the wrongness on the Internet, it seems impossible to make a dent in it.

I’ve been pondering this, and I’ve decided that we need a way to target the worst sources of misinformation—a way to identify the people who are both the most wrong and the most dangerous. So, as a bit of a thought experiment, I started playing with a simplified scoring system for misinformation merchants.

I’m calling it the 10-point Ladapo scale in honor of the surgeon general of Florida, for reasons I hope are obvious. Any person can be given a score of zero or one (fractions are discouraged) for each of the following questions; scores are then totaled to provide a composite picture of just how bad any source is. To help you understand how to use it, we’ll go through the questions and provide a sense of how each should be scored. We’ll then apply the Ladapo scale to a couple of real-world examples.

Is the person spreading misinformation where anyone will see it? A zero score here, representing a completely harmless individual, might be the person who keeps ranting to bots in an IRC channel that the last human left in 2012. Anybody who gives a press conference that the national media attends earns a one, as do people who find their place as talking heads or on the op-ed pages of The New York Times.

Does anyone care about the topic of the misinformation? If your conspiracy du jour somehow links the color of orange used on traffic cones to the sale of balsa wood model aircraft, congratulations, you pose no threat and rate a zero. If it involves who won the presidential election, you’re looking at a one here.

Is the subject easy to understand? Misunderstanding quantum chromodynamics, a subject many physicists fear, is not at all surprising. Getting things wrong about evolution, which is simple enough that textbooks explain its basics to pre-teens, is far less excusable and would thus get a one.

Is accurate information easy to find? Self-correction is only a possibility if the correct information is available. One can kind of understand holding false beliefs about a top-secret military technology. But when any search engine will pull up a dozen accurate FAQs on the topic you’re misinforming people about, you have earned your one.

Just how badly wrong is the argument? It continues to astonish me that there are people who apparently believe the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist. That level of detachment from reality should set the high end of the scale for wrongness. To get a zero (which is good here!), I’d allow even being mostly right but wrong about some details.

Is the misinformer promoting fake experts? Nobody can be an expert in everything, so we all find ourselves deferring to the expertise of others on some complicated topics. That makes assessing a source’s credibility critical. Unless you can tell an expert from a crackpot, you’re likely to find yourself relying on a climate “expert” who can’t reason scientifically. Like one who thinks dowsing works or one who happens to be a creationist or a former coal lobbyist. If so, you’ll have earned a point for relying on unreliable expertise—and increasing the reach of other serial misinformers.

Will people be harmed by the confusion created? If it turns out we’re living in a false quantum vacuum, everyone will die when the Universe finds a new ground state, and there would be nothing anyone could do about it. Misinforming people about the topic would have no influence on their ultimate fate, so you could lie to your heart’s content here and still earn a zero. That is very much not the case when it comes to issues like climate change or the pandemic. Putting people in danger earns you a one.

Should the individual know better? Anyone who is actually in the field they’re misinforming about, like Ladapo himself, obviously earns a one. But high scores also go to people who could easily access better information. It’s safe to say that every op-ed columnist at a major newspaper could easily call up scientists or other experts and have complicated topics explained to them. If someone refused to talk to experts because their feelings were hurt by people telling them they’re wrong, well, their score of one is probably best presented by a middle finger. Only the person who would struggle to access quality information truly earns their zero.

 
 
Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo speaks at a press conference in Rockledge, Florida, on August 3, 2022.
Enlarge / Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo speaks at a press conference in Rockledge, Florida, on August 3, 2022.

Is the person using their own authority to mislead? It’s one thing to rely on a fake expert like Nils-Axel Mörner to make bad arguments. It’s a different thing entirely to be Nils-Axel Mörner. Or Joseph Ladapo (who, if we allowed bonus points, would earn them for dragging down all the credentialed scientists at his agency with him). A point also goes to people who try to use their PhD in physics or similar subjects to intimidate anyone who disagrees with them. “I’ve done a lot of Googling” earns a score that is equal to the amount of respect it deserves: zero.

Is the misinformation effective? In Florida, COVID death rates were higher among Republicans after vaccines became available, which suggests that the anti-vaccine messaging from the state’s Republican leadership is doing exactly what it’s expected to do. Misinformation about the climate has been so pervasive that it took until the Biden administration for the US to have a climate policy that wasn’t predicated on making things worse. These are signs that the misinformation is working, and its purveyors deserve their ones.

Let’s look at how this works in practice. Ladapo earns a point for spewing misinformation in nationally televised press conferences, enabled by his credentials as a Surgeon General (+1 there). He gets another point for misinforming about vaccines, which people care about. Both vaccines and the protection offered by the COVID vaccines are easy to understand (“not dead” is a pretty clear concept) and easy to find, so two more points there. His argument is wrong enough that he may have violated his university’s research ethics guidelines, so another point there, plus one more for him being able to know better. Dead Floridians attest to the harm and effectiveness of his misinformation. About the only thing I haven’t seen him do is use fake experts.

A near-perfect 9 out of 10 tells us that Ladapo demonstrates an impressive combination of wrongness and risk. It raises so many questions about his judgment that he probably shouldn’t be trusted about any subject. (You may nitpick naming the scale after someone who doesn’t achieve a perfect score on it, but remember, the issue here is misinformation—it would be inappropriate for the name to be completely accurate.)

A test case

To get a better sense for the use of the scale, I’ll use it on a less obvious candidate: Washington Post opinion columnist George Will. Will is an interesting case because he has a reputation as an intellectual and deep thinker, and he remains generally popular within the establishment of what you might call traditional conservatives in the post-Trump environment. And he generally reserves his arguments for policy matters, which are more opinion-based than fact-based.

But Will has had a thing for climate change, revisiting it semi-regularly for over a decade and invariably spouting blatant misinformation when he has. Here he is back in 2009, belittling scientists for saying that an apparent pause in warming was something that’s both temporary and inevitable when you superimpose short-term randomness on a long-term trend. Despite Will claiming that “evidence of warming becomes more elusive,” it is now obvious that the scientists were right. And he was still going on in 2021, suggesting we can’t even manage to establish basic facts. “Science has limited ability to disentangle human and natural influences on climate changes,” he said at the time. He’s published a number of very stupid things in between.

But is that enough to qualify Will as laughably wrong and dangerous? Let’s find out.

 
 

First, a focus on climate change guarantees someone a substantial number of points. It’s a subject people care about, accurate information is just about everywhere, people will clearly be harmed as a result of the misinformation, and it’s painfully clear that the misinformation has helped delay any action to limit the damage. That’s four points right there.

But Will doesn’t stop grabbing points. He has published his errors in places like the Washington Post and Newsweek, ensuring that it will be widely read (another point). He’s relied on fake experts like Steve Koonin and Bjorn Lomborg, who have had their arguments widely criticized in places Will could easily find if he chose to. He could easily get scientists to explain where he’s making errors, but as noted above, he seems to be comfortable simply dismissing their statements—and apparently hasn’t learned anything from the fact that the scientists turned out to be right. So there’s another point for being in a position where he clearly should know better but can’t be bothered to learn. We’re up to seven.

How badly wrong is Will? He devoted an entire column to the idea that the climate has changed in the past without human influence, so we can’t be confident that it’s changing now because of human influence. That is mind-numbingly ignorant. It’s the equivalent of arguing that, since lakes have formed free from human intervention, we can’t be certain that dams are doing anything.

I wish I could award him more than one point for just how awful that argument is, but rules are rules. Still, it does lead to another point: it’s not difficult to understand that the argument is wrong. Nobody is likely to have any problem recognizing that some things can happen due to either natural or human causes and that we can generally tell the two apart. It should be easy to understand this, so Will earns the point for failing to do so.

That’s nine points. The only thing that keeps him from outscoring Ladapo himself is the fact that Will doesn’t seem to have any special credentials he’s using to give his misinformation added weight. He may have a reputation as an intellectual—although, given all this evidence, it astonishes me that he’s retained it—but there are no formal credentials for intellectualism.

Still, in the end, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that, like Ladapo, Will is spreading blatant misinformation about a topic that poses a great deal of danger to many people and that his arguments are so laughably bad that we should question whether he can provide quality information about anything. Yet people still give him a pass and treat his opinions as worthy of attention. It mystifies me.

There are limits

The fact that Ladapo and Will achieve the same score highlights the limits of this scale. It’s about misinformation alone, and there are factors beyond that that can be critical to understanding the threat someone poses. Ladapo is actually in a position where he can set policy, and for most people, the risks posed by COVID are more immediate than those from our changing climate. Will is just one voice in a large chorus of climate misinformers. So Ladapo is a much more dangerous figure at the moment.

Despite its limits, I think the scale is a helpful way to think about how context makes some sources of misinformation far more dangerous than others. And it reflects the finding that, in some cases, the most widely disseminated misinformation comes from a limited number of sources.

Still, I have little doubt this scoring system could be improved. Please feel free to suggest additional factors that should be considered in the comments.