Friday Funny – Limited Integrity

Josh writes:

Lots on the Green Blob’s not having to tell the truth, see the post below and at Third Sector, OESG and at Michael Robert’s blog which includes Ben Websters Times article.


Cartoons by Josh

63 thoughts on “Friday Funny – Limited Integrity

  1. … the Charities Commissioners have taken a dim view of an FoE leaflet that claimed that silica – that’s sand to you or me – used in fracking fluid was a known carcinogen.

    The truth (or lack) of that statement depends … (mostly on grain size I suspect)
    I have a bag of silica that you absolutely don’t want to breathe in (as dust). On the other hand, I have no problem with children playing in the sandbox or on the beach.
    I suspect that everything hangs on what the silica “used in fracking fluid” is precisely.

    • Aand, even if it IS! (carcinogenic) So?
      AS IF “renewables” don’t involve any known carcinogens — LAUGH — OUT — LOUD.
      Oh. I forgot. They make wind turbines and solar panels out of tofu and peanut butter.

      • They make wind turbines and solar panels out of tofu and peanut butter.

        No way dude! Peanut butter is not allowed within a hundred miles of any school that has kids younger than 25 years old. If you used it to make electricity it would probably get into the wires.

    • commieBob, you are absolutely correct – it’s the grain size that matters. Silica flour is has a grain size < 4 microns and is classified as a carcinogen. Proppants used in hydraulic fracturing need to be large enough to hold open the fracture once the pressure is reduced. The thought of using a micron sized proppant is laughable – it would do absolutely nothing. Proppants need to be much larger, on the order of 100 microns or larger, to be effective.
      So, while the FoE leaflet is technically correct in its claim about silica, it is intentionally misleading.

      • Alveolar involvement starts at particle sizes of around/circa 20 micro-meters (millionths of a meter, or +/-39 inches to those of us in the US of A) and smaller. Larger particles tend to be caught up in, and swept out by a normally-functioning muco-ciliary escalation system, to be swallowed or expelled on the street.
        Or something like that there.

    • Even worse than silica, fracking fluid also contains Di-hydrogen Monoxide!!
      PS Many, many municipal water plants use filters. A major component of those water filters is silica sand. Silica sand is used because it won’t dissolve in water.

      • I can vouch for that as I work at one such DI-hydrogen Momoxide treatment plant and there are many many tonnes of the stuff about the place in both rapid and slow sand filters, the latter are about the only things that will remove some of the more unpleasant bugs from the DI-hydrogen Momoxide such as Cryptosporidium.
        James Bull

      • I hear bad things about Oxygen Dihydride, too . . .
        Well – it’s one of those dreaded chemicals, you know . . . .

      • “Even worse than silica, fracking fluid also contains Di-hydrogen Monoxide!!”
        It’s got hydroxylic acid in it as well.
        That stuff will dissolve everything.

  2. Heh. Thanks for sharing that LOL cartoon.
    In the U.S. (wonder if it’s the same in the U.K.), you could go after FoE using an “alter ego” argument. It is often used in corporate law to hold directors/controlling shareholders/officers of closely held corps. liable. That is, the corporate entity is disregarded to hold accountable those responsible for the mal or misfeasance. The corporation (general rule is that officer liability is limited to amount invested in it) in such cases is deemed to be merely the “alter ego” of those controlling it.
    Well, if not de jure, here, there certainly is de FACTO responsibility of FoE for its subsidiary.
    Re: anyone putting you down, Josh, for mocking “limited” (intellectually) people, it is EASY to logically distinguish your satire from out-and-out denigration: you mock their using their limited capacity as an excuse to be wicked. THAT is despicable. That is, no matter how much we would OTHERWISE only pity their limitations, this particular behavior is MOCKABLE. Go, Josh!

      • ..Sorry for not explaining better Janice, it is an EXTREME form of sarcasm born somewhere in the Northern Canadian wilderness ( where we sometimes live in Igloo’s ) that loves your comment ( multiplied by a factor of 6, minus the points you just lost for making me type all this )….But we need more grant money to examine this concept ! Are you confused yet ?? Well, I definitely am !!

      • No, lol. Thanks. I kinda thought it might be that, but, wasn’t sure. Thanks for all that HARD WORK typing. I get it… now, heh. Lol, Marcus, when I REALLY TELL THEM HOW I FEEL I get a REALLY bold and loud, so, your sarcasm slipped by me. Why do you live up there? Sounds like a wonderful place to visit, but… . ?? (MYOB? Okay. …. wait a minute….. that’s my answer! Too many “Janices” asking you, “Why this?” and “Why not that?” closer to higher pop. areas!
        Take care, up there.

      • LOL…Janice if you ever did tell us something that you really didn’t feel, we’d alert the mods because surely it couldn’t be YOU on the other end of your name! 🙂 I suspect Marcus would be the first one to make the call too! (little imp that he is! 🙂 )
        Every so often we seem to get an influx of folks to these parts that don’t like it when posters here speak truthfully and openly, and don’t couch it in some kind of political correctness or do it exactly as they think it SHOULD have been done. I like knowing who those people are right up front. Takes the guesswork out of some things, ya know?
        Great cartoon as always Josh!

      • Aphan, your forthright, highly accurate, illuminating, comments do much to expose such strain-at-a-gnat toads. Keep on wielding that sharp, flashing, sword for science truth, O Warrior Aphan!
        And, thanks for the 🙂 !

      • @ Marcus 11 45 am,”somewhere in the Northern Canadian wilderness ( where we sometimes live in Igloo’s ) , Marcus be careful living in those Di-Hydrogen-Monoxcide, laced buildings, that material is soon to be banned!

  3. Well it seems to me the Green Blob wouldn’t be the Green Blob if “it” were telling the truth or “its” message was truthful.
    Like in: “Climate Change activist caught in a lie” is a tautology.

    • Indeed. And it would not be THAT green if it were not…. all wet. lololol
      (Note for English-not-first language folks: “all wet” = in error)

    • Speaking of lies and “limited integrity”, it seems that our old friend and mastermind in this “sport” – Prof. Lewandowsky – has found a new pupil and follower:
      Note the Acknowledgments from David Robert Grimes at the end of his new example of an old smearing trick:
      “… As the author is a physicist rather than a psychologist, I am indebted to Profs. Stephan Lewandowsky and Ted Goertzel and Ms. Mathilde Hernu for their valuable input on conspiratorial thinking…”
      The special idea of his smearing paper is the clever combination of sound statistical math with plain lies, that is to say, with primitive and obviously wrong claims that climate skeptics would think that
      a) there is no climate change or “climate change is a hoax”
      b) the IPCC driven and irrational climate change ALARMISM should be a conspiracy.
      Of course, nearly all serious IPCC skeptics know that the climate changes constantly and that there is some human influence to it. The question is only how much and whether it will become really dangerous.
      Furthermore, there is almost no climate skeptic who would think the mindless alarmism in this field is the outcome of a conspiracy. In reality we all know that this mega hype is just a psychological easy explainable result of collective hysteria and a ruling and career-enhancing “zeitgeist” ideology, just in the same way as in the witch hunt madness 500 years ago or as in some successful political ideologies of the 20th century.
      Thus we see in this paper of David Robert Grimes again one of the meanest tricks of political motivated smearing:
      Just lie brutally about the beliefs of your enemy and then scourge him for that alleged opinion…

      • @ Gentle Tramp, I read part of the article and it is actually terrifying. I doubt that many people would understand how the methods these people so blatantly use work against them.

    • Globs in Northern Canada are just frozen versions of American Blobs that really have no idea what to do when they get cold/frozen !! In other words..Liberals !

  4. Janice, he might live in the Northern Canadian wilderness – but he probably does not. Many of us Canadians have come across Americans who think that ALL of Canada is wilderness, covered in snow 100% of the time, that we all live in igloos (even though most of us live less than 200 miles from the border), and the RCMP (Mounties) ride around in their dress uniforms all the time. So we sometimes mock them – and not always gently. I lived “up north” for almost 20 years, but we were still south of Alaska.

    • Lol, thanks Monna (good to hear from you, again — I was so amazed that you remembered me, you whom I had never “spoken to” before!). That Marcus… heh. And I understand! Being from (laugh out loud — this is so weird to me I can’t help but chuckle) Washington STATE (if you don’t emphasize that, they think you are from D.C. and that was a very funny comedy-of-errors-conversation I had one time…), waaaay out west….., from time to time I run into people (or hear them on TV) who ACTUALLY BELIEVE it is very primitive out here and that our grandparents ran all the Indians off “their” land and their reservation land grants are big prisons which they can’t leave and we non-Indians live in log cabins and many people don’t have phones.
      Until recently, I lived all my life about 1.5 hour’s drive down I-5 from Canada. Observations of Vancouver, B.C. and Victoria, B.C. prevent one from EVER having a climate model view of Canadian population distribution.

      • And what would “a climate model view of Canadian population distribution” look like? I’m intrigued.

        • Monna Manhas

          And what would “a climate model view of Canadian population distribution” look like? I’m intrigued.

          It would spread all of the Canadians out over the entire Arctic Ocean up to latitude 80, half of Greenland to the east, and Alaska to the west, and down south about 400 km. See, where there are people, the Canadian don’t need to be averaged out, but where there are no people you have to spread them out to cover as much area as possible.
          Now, every person is averaged (er, corrected) in age and weight and waist circumference as well. But their height is extrapolated out based on the growth rate from 0-35 years old, extrapolated of course from zero to 70 years old evenly each year.
          Now, weight is averaged by everybody’s weight divided by the average height x 3.14159265358979 x the (average waist radius)^2,
          NASA/GISS methods and its process for manufacturing global average temperature plots are as meaningless: Their Holy Grail is to cover as much area of the earth as possible with as much red as possible. They cannot allow themselves to admit they do not “know” the actual measured temperatures anywhere – because that apparently weakens their publicity – and so their Mercator projections must show as much area as possible. Regardless of how they have to manipulate their data to obtain that objective.

      • R. A. Cook — LOL. +1! Love it! Esp. the pie making the waist get VERY fat! lololol
        You answered far better than I, but, to respond:
        A “climate model view of” is a little phrase I just coined today (for myself, I mean — likely others have already thought of it) that means: waaaaaaaay off, as in laughably divergent, from reality, esp. reality as envisioned by the ignorant. For instance, the climate model view of Fords would be a vehicle engine that never had an oil leak. LOLOLOLOL. Or…. a climate model view of Detroit, Michigan would (with code programmed with the assumption, higher taxes => more jobs) be “what a thriving local economy — socialist policies work!”
        Thank you for your interest.
        Your U.S. Ally for Science Truth,
        P.S. To Tobias Smit — SERIOUSLY! Wow. Must have been climate model “scientists.” Thanks for sharing. lol 🙂

      • P.S. Re: Detroit — left out the main “driver” there, much-higher-than-market wages and benefits due to unions… shot themselves in the foot, but, then, socialism/unionism always does — and the “elite” are long gone with a big bag of loot stashed in their trunk.

      • Thank you RACook and Janice for your enlightening and humourous responses. I enjoyed them very much.

      • RACook, can I quote you on your climate model of Canadian population distribution? It’s awesome.

      • “Janice Moore
        January 29, 2016 at 6:43 pm
        P.S. Re: Detroit — left out the main “driver” there, much-higher-than-market wages and benefits due to unions… shot themselves in the foot,…”
        And is exactly what is happening to the car industry here in Australia. To make a car here in Aus costs 2 times as much as in the EU and 4 times as much as in Asia. In fact, no car will be made in Australia from this year onwards, and as cited at the time, energy and labour costs were the driver behind the termination of car making by Holden (GM) and Ford. There may be assembly plants, as was the case in New Zealand (NZ), but, as in NZ that didn’t last when tariffs on imports were dropped (Winston Peters if I recall). But no manufacturing. And that is largely due to unions and *socialism*. Some people just don’t get it!

    • @ Monna 1:29 pm. That is so true. Many years ago 4 of us headed to the border to buy some beer ( as in those days beer wasn’t sold in Canada on long weekends) When we got to the crossing there was a truck and trailer with snow mobiles on it and two guys that wanted to now where all the snow was, One of us said ” well it’s only another 1500 miles to Alaska” and I doubt at that time of year if there was any snow there either It was the August 1 long week end and the crossing was actually in the one part of Canada recognized as a desert! We laughed all the way home ( although I guess they could have stayed in the US and gone to Glacier Nat Park)

      • Many years ago you knew if it was summer as the rain was warm but with 2015 being the warmest eva year will the rain be cold now.
        As for the flooding most of that is caused by the EA (environment agency) blindly following EU instructions to male rivers more natural by not dredging and clearing weeds and trees that clog them some Cumbrian river beds are now 3-6 ft higher than they were a few years ago meaning there is less room for flood flows. Don’t you just love bureaucrats.
        James Bull

  5. The job of Baghdad Bob was not to convey how the war was going, it was to convey how Saddam’s army was destroying the infidel invaders regardless of how the war was going.
    The anti-fossil-fuel-climate-change rabble-rousers have the same job, and so the truth is not only not necessary but irrelevant. The best propaganda works regardless of any relation to the truth.

    • Yes, “the best propaganda works … ,” for a time… . Then, the truth comes out. IN THE END, truth wins.
      “They are not near Baghdad… .”

      Truth overwhelms lies, like an ocean wave engulfing a leaky rowboat. And the AGWers are running out of bailing buckets and chewing gum.

      • Janice, running out of bailing buckets means you are doing the bailing all wrong. The bucket will remove more than one bucketful!!

      • Most thought it was actually made from some soft of stone when in fact it was fibreglass! Just goes to show how “plastic” these regimes are.
        [True. Mohs of the harder stones are always more regime than the soft of ones. .mod]

  6. Small lecture: Quartz chemically is SiO2, aka silica. The crust of the earth is just over 60% composed of silica. Although it occurs as an essential part of a large number of minerals, quartz [which is used in fracking] makes up 26% of the earth. It is the dominant mineral in most sands, quartzites and sandstones and makes up about 25% of granites and other ‘acid’ igneous and metamorphic rocks. The mineral is essentially inert, but in micron to sub-micron sizes it can be lodged in the lungs and cause silicosis – damage to cells and abnormal cell growth around tiny grains.
    Not mentioned in biased reports on silica and health, is that MOST mineral and other hard grains (manufactured stuff) also are hazardous at micron to submicron sizes. These and most of the micron sizes of silica get that size by manufacture – blasting, grinding to silica flour, etc as do such things as such as glass, glazes, etc. Cigarette smoke is 2 microns (a micron is a millionth of a metre or a thousandth of a millimetre or there are about 25000 microns in an inch). This is why dust masks are de rigueur in almost all manufacturing plants, processes and handling situations.
    Natural sands for use in fracking must be high purity (typically 98% SiO2) and the minimum sizes for the finest grains used is 140 microns (1/7 of a millimetre – still quite gritty but used only for natural gas fracks). Oil fracks require larger grains, the most popular being 50USmesh or 300 microns but coarser sizes up to 12USmesh or 1,680 microns (1.68 millimetres – table sugar is 70% greater 400microns). They must be also be rounded grains, meaning no sharp corners, and they must be near spherical (equidimensional). They have specs for ”roundness” and ”sphericity”. The sands are high quality, having literally millions of years of natural washing and wave agitation to break up cracked or weakened grains, the survivors having high strength. They are also mono-crystalline – one crystal per grain.
    What happened to the finer grain sands in a sand beach or industrial sand deposit. These were separated out by the action of moving water and deposited elsewhere as siltstone and admixed in clays. The very finest, the dangerous sizes? – they were dissolved in river and seawater! Silica has a solubility of 0.12grams/liter equivalent to two thirds of an ounce per oil barrel of water. Anyway, the EPA has the most stringent specs for permissible amounts of <5micron grains and industry is rarely non compliant.

  7. Gary – Spot on observation. To say ‘silica dust is a carcinogen’ is only a partial truth – and the required EPA/OSHA dust control (nuisance dust) standards in the USA (and similar requirements for dust control in the workplace exist in much of the modern nations) do apply for unbagging/decanting silica based materials used in all industrial processes…and 95% to 100% efficient air filtering facepiece respiratory protection(99.97% efficiency to trap mono-dispersed particulates down to 0.3 microns, or the definition of true HEPA filtration) is the requirement for all employers when there is no previous exposure air monitoring available to prove a ‘negative exposure assessment’ for activities on the job where exposure above a permissible exposure limit or threshold limit value (amount or airborne dust exposure) may be encountered. This is the requirement for those handling the silica material; there also are EPA/NESHAP(National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants) standards for ‘no visible emissions’ during handling that apply as well. So, willy-nilly, haphazard dispersement of dust is not only illegal, most contractors employ (either as contract or directly on the payroll) Industrial Hygiene Professionals to review work processes and write project-specific Health, Safety, and Work Plans to cover these types of exposure potentials.
    So, to say a material is carcinogenic, while true during uncontrolled exposure scenarios, is disingenuous when used in context with an industrial operation (especially in the USA/Britain) where environmental and worker protection controls, along with regulatory inspection and potential for monetary violation for non-compliance do in fact exist. Another point would be, the silica as it sits is not carcinogenic, that is until uncontrolled dust generation has occurred and a human has breathed in enough material over a long enough time period to cause a medically observable response to the exposure (the old ‘dose-response’).
    Not many people in the general populace know these facts. They only see ‘fracking uses carcinogens’.
    So, the natural extrapolation – ‘fracking causes cancer’…..the twits know just what they are doing….
    Yours in WUWT,
    Michael C. Roberts

Comments are closed.