Willis Hart Lies About Extremely Dangerous Nuke Power Being "Carbon Free"

Willis Hart, a big-oil-loving climate-change-denying oligarchic-stooge-talker who hates green energy (and has devoted many posts on his blog to deriding it), foolishly and incorrectly believes that nuclear power, in addition to being safe, is "carbon free".

This is a person, believe it or not, who describes the reactions to Chernobyl and Fukushima (perhaps we should rethink going forward with this extremely dangerous energy source) as "hysteria", and worries "that the hysteria involved in these two episodes was probably a lot more harmful than the actual accident itself".

Willis Hart: And you have to realize that every country has to go through its own decarbonization process. Like in America, we started with wood (a 10:1 carbon to hydrogen ratio), went to coal (4:1), started using more oil (2:1), ditto natural gas (1:2) and then ultimately nuclear which is carbon free. And my suspicion is that the Chinese are still probably better off with the gas masks than they were back in the old days starving to death in the fields. (5/16/2014 AT 10:04pm).

Unfortunately, for Willis, this statement of misfact is completely false, as is a great number of the "facts" he dissembles on his blog of misinformation...

Christian Science Monitor: Saying nuclear is carbon-free is not true... Nuclear power has more than just a little greenhouse gas attached to it, when mining uranium ore, refining and enriching fuel, building the plant, and operating it are included. A big 1,250 megawatt plant produces the equivalent of 250,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year during its life... (By Mark Clayton, Staff writer, 3/7/2007).

Also notice the false choice he presents for the people of China? It's either starving to death OR wearing gas masks due to pollution... and it the latter situation in which they are "better off"!?

Is this guy a deluded stooge for the Big Energy plutocrats who benefit polluting our environment and killing us, or what? I mean, he's constantly advocating for dirty and/or dangerous forms of energy while railing against cleaner and safer forms of energy.

OST #12. See also SWTD #128.

Channeling Willis Hart If He Was A Character in "The Day After Tomorrow"

"No, I don't believe it. This is not happening".

And then Willis would write a series of posts on his blog citing the "facts" researched by denialist "scientists" that "proved" the climate catastrophe was not happening. And then he'd go on living his life as if it wasn't. Meaning, of course, he would be one of the first to die.

Although, before he died he'd say "no, no... No I just, I just said that to avoid admitting the truth". No, just kidding. There is absolutely nothing that could happen that would cause Willis Hart to admit that he's wrong.

Granted, the movie is silly fiction, but that does not change the fact that global climate change is a very real threat caused by human-released CO2.

And in regards to doing something about that (reducing CO2 emissions), Willis Hart says "failure is definitely an option".

OST #11

An Idiot's Challenge

Willis Hart has issued a challenge to me (note: in the challenge below Mr. Hart refers to me as "the idiot").

Willis Hart: I challenge the idiot to take a course in experimental psychology or any other discipline that involves research (he would first of course have to take and pass a course in elementary statistics which in and of itself would be a huge long-shot but, yes, I will proceed) and do an experiment in which he merges two separate data sets (he pulls a Michael Mann, in other words) in an effort to support his theory (which of course is also ass-backwards in that you never try and prove a theory in science but instead reject the null hypothesis), and which he also confesses to the teacher of his actions. I challenge him to do these things and then, yes, argue with the university when the teacher either fails him or boots him out of the class for his a) dishonesty and b) impudence ('cause you know that he's gonna put forth an attitude about it). My only request here is that I be there to watch it. (5/10/2014 AT 11:04am).

I challenge Willis to argue with the university of Yale and convince them to rescind Michael Mann's MS and MPhil in physics. Think they'll listen? I mean, none of Mann's Yale instructors failed him or booted him out of their classes, so, obviously his work at Yale passed muster.

Also, I've never argued that I'm an expert in statistics or that I've ever taken any college courses that involve scientific research. I do wonder what doctorates Willis has earned, however. I'm going to guess none.

I only argue that the 97% of climate experts who agree about AGW are smarter than me. Also, that it is not likely they are involved in a conspiracy to conceal the real truth about AGW.

Apparently Willis believes he IS smarter than these scientists, however. Who knows, maybe Mann cheated in order to earn his degree? And, if that's the case, maybe the 2579 individuals with advanced degrees who agree with the consensus position also cheated to earn their degrees? That sounds plausible, right?

For the record I will be declining the idiot's challenge.

OST #10

On CO2 Atmospheric Content Increases Being Infinitesimal & Therefore Doing Nothing Not Being Risky At All

According to the "lumanarious" AGW skeptic Roy Spencer (an individual oft quoted by the blogger Willis Hart) "the idea that severe weather, snowstorms, droughts, or floods have gotten worse due to the atmosphere now having 4 parts per 10,000 CO2, rather than 3 parts per 10,000, is... sketchy" in an article from his website titled "Hey, IPCC, quit misusing the term risk".

Mr. Spencer's Number one fan agrees, saying (in a recent post) that people thinking that this infenitesimal increase will cause a global catatastrophe "is exactly what happens when science and government crawl into bed together".

But this increase is really not as small as the Hartster implies. Dr. Barry W. Brook, a research Professor at the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute, explains - on his blog "Brave New Climate" - just how LARGE this increase in the trace gas actually is...

Barry Brook: Every cubic metre of air contains roughly 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of CO2 (10 to the 22nd power), [which is] a rather large number. ... let's try to get a feel for just how large a number this is. The number of stars within the 14-billion-light-year radius of the visible universe (Hubble volume) is estimated to be thirty billion trillion, i.e., 3 x 10 to the 22nd power. Thus, a mere 3 cubic metres of air, which would sit comfortably on most dining tables, contains as many CO2 molecules as there are stars in the vast span of the visible Universe. Bearing these mind-boggling numbers in mind, it's perhaps not quite so hard to understand how trace atmospheric gases in our atmosphere really do a good job at intercepting infrared radiation. (CO2 is a trace gas, but what does that mean?).

Sounds to me like this 33.3 percent increase is actually quite large and very much a cause for concern. Also, that Mr. Spencer's assertion that something is small when it is actually large is but one reason why this dude can't be trusted. Spencer says "hey, IPCC, quit misusing the term risk", but doing nothing when CO2 levels are increasing so dramatically sounds very risky to me.

OST #9. See also SWTD #249.

On The Climate Models Being "So Inaccurate" & 97% Of Climate Scientists Being Total F*cking Morons

Blogger Willis Hart is a strident AGW denier who constantly derides as idiots and liars the scientists who concur that global climate change is occurring, man is responsible, and it is cause for concern. Case in point, the latest from Mr. Hart...

Willis Hart: On Why the Climate Models Were So Inaccurate... It was because they were based on two equally erroneous assumptions; a) that the climate is inherently stable and b) that the major driver of climate change is CO2 - assumptions that even a second year earth science student should have been able to detect were absurd but which the well-connected ruling class utterly failed to. (4/29/2014 AT 10:49pm).

I don't know, Willis. Where the climate models really "so inaccurate"? Information I've found suggests older models were inaccurate, but newer models have actually been proven to be "remarkably accurate". This is according to an analysis of climate change modeling over the past 15 years, as written up in a 3/27/2013 paper published in the journal Nature Geoscience.

The study by Professor Myles R. Allen of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford (and colleagues) reveals that the models accurately predicted temperature increases "to within a few hundredths of a degree". Unless they're lying - that sounds pretty damn accurate to me.

Also, in regards to "assumptions that even a second year earth science student should have been able to detect were absurd" - I really wonder if these scientists are so stupid - how the hell did they earn their advanced degrees? If they fail to understand facts that "even a second year earth science student should have been able to detect were absurd" - wouldn't they have flunked out of college?

Maybe I should be more offended regarding Willis' constant slandering of the VAST majority of climate scientists? I mean, Willis was outraged when he thought I dissed the "luminaries" he admires. Problem is I acknowledge the fact that Climate Science is complicated, I know very little about it, and that there is room for dissenting opinions.

Dissenting opinions that I would never support anyone attempting to silence. I just think that when 97% of scientists agree that there is a problem and if we don't act the consequences should be severe - perhaps we should listen and actually consider doing something to at least mitigate the bad consequences?

Call me a moron, but I just don't buy into the grand conspiracy as envisioned by Mr. Hart. Seems to me that the denier's belief that no actions need be taken - and that we can continue spewing as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we want without consequence - works out nicely from those whose profits might be hurt if we actually did anything.

OST #8. See also SWTD #248.

A State of Will-ful Ignorance

What follows is a somewhat accurate commentary by Libertarian blogger Will Hart (or Willis Hart), except that most "states", historically speaking, have not been democratic or represented the will of the people. As such, the following is in reality quite dishonest, in that we KNOW the Hartster is talking about the US Federal government...

Willis Hart: On the State... It is the greatest source of death and destruction known to man (it isn't even a contest), and the fact that there are still people out there who so casually want to enhance its power is exceedingly troubling. (3/29/2014 AT 12:33pm).

In response all I can say is... DUH!! The state is the only entity that has the power to wage war, so OF COURSE it would be the greatest source of death and destruction. However, in a democracy it is THE PEOPLE who make the decisions, through their elected officials... arguably. A democracy requires, of course, that THE PEOPLE are informed and actually vote.

When they do the result will be a Democratic State that is a force for good in the lives of its citizens. And when the people don't stay informed or vote, that is when the special interests step in and take advantage of an apathetic electorate. In other words, it's all up to the people, but the Hartster OF COURSE completely ignores that reality. In his mind a powerful State representing the people is just as bad as a powerful State that represents the (the problem with our democracy), or itself (the problem with an aristocracy).

At least Willis makes no distinction what so ever with his commentary. He simply (and stupidly) says "State bad". And, while it most certainly is true that, even in a representative democracy, we must be wary of a State that does not act in the interest of THE PEOPLE, the answer is not to neuter government by striping it of it's power so it can't do evil OR good. The answer is for the electorate to get politically informed and participate!

There is a way by which we can ensure that the State works for us. But the Hartster clearly does not want that, which is why he conflates a representative democratic State that truly acts as a proxy for THE PEOPLE with a State that "is the greatest source of death and destruction known to man", and advocates disempowerment instead of fixing what's wrong. Disempower the State (representing THE PEOPLE) and the only ones left with any power will be the plutocrats.

Now, Willis may be eager to give up (stop trying to fix government and disempower it... thereby disempowering THE PEOPLE) - so we can surrender completely to the oligarchs... but I sure as hell am not.

OST #7. See also SWTD #245

In Regards To The Claim That The Civil War Was Fought Over States' Rights

According to a series of recent posts by Mr. Willis V. Hart the Civil War was not fought over slavery. Tariffs on Cotton was the reason, and those tariffs were a States' Rights issue. It is, however pretty easy to disprove bullplop like this - all one has to do is take a look at the Declaration of Causes of Seceding States which all cite slavery as their reason for leaving the union.

Between the dates 12/20/1860 and 11/20/1861 13 states ratified ordinances of secession, with four states - "Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas also issuing separate declarations of causes, in which they explained their reasons for secession" (quoted from Wikipedia).

Much of the complaining has to do with the North not adhering to the Fugitive Slave Clause contained in the 4th amendment to the Constitution (see here for the complete text of all four states' declarations).

Given the fact that four states specifically cited slavery as the reason they decided to leave the union, and no state ever cited States' Rights as a reason, it can be conclusively concluded that the Civil War was fought because of slavery. Case closed. The Civil War not fought because of tariffs or States' Rights. Both assertions (made on the blog of Mr. Willis Hart) are false and a disservice to those who seek an honest accounting of history.

Because without such an honest accounting we cannot acknowledge our mistakes and learn from them - which is exactly what many who dissemble on this issue desire. They don't want us to learn from history. Their desire is that minorities should continue to be discriminated against and deprived of their voting rights. I'm not saying this is Mr. Hart's motivation, but he surely is not a part of the solution with his recent (and numerous) Ahistorical commentaries on the subject of the Civil War and slavery.

OST #6. See also SWTD #242.