Question for the other nuclear energy shills

[XemaSab]

I've been on the rosters as a nuclear energy shill for about 5 years, but I have yet to see a check.

Is there a number I should call? Who should I ask to speak to? :shrug:

I'm starting to get annoyed. I've put in a lot of hard work here pimping nuclear over the years, and I figure I'm owed at least $20. :(

[BlooInBloo]

1. I didn't even get a lousy t-shrit. :(

[joshcryer]

2. Just read David McCay's paper "Sustainable Energy — without the hot air"

I don't know of a number you can call.

[Dogmudgeon]

3. Why do you think I (mostly) stopped?

The Eeevil NuKKKular KKK0n$piracy is the CHEAPEST effing conspiracy I've ever hooked up with.

I should have listened to Mark Z. Jacobson's Mom. She pays a quarter every time you post a reference to her son's work.

--d!

[joshcryer]

4. Hahaha

:rofl:

[kristopher]

5. Are you denying that the PR firms hired by the nuclear and fossil fuel industries

Are you denying that the PR firms hired by the nuclear and fossil fuel industries are active in "the new media" of social networking and discussion forums on the internet?

Eric XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Experienced corporate communicator with new media credentials

Washington D.C. Metro Area

Current

* Vice President at CounterPoint Strategies
Past

* Contributor at The Sporting News
* Lead Blogger, NHL FanHouse at AOL Sports
* Program Manager, Web Communications at Nuclear Energy Institute
* NHL Columnist at NBC Sports.com
* Senior Writer at Nuclear Energy Institute
* Manager, Executive Communications at GXS
* Director, Editorial Services at PSINet
* Senior Manager at MCI

Eric McErlain’s Summary

After 20 years in corporate communications -- marketing communications, employee communications, speech writing, online content management and creation -- I'm looking to help clients better leverage their efforts online in media relations and reputation management.
Eric McErlain’s Specialties:

Media relations, online communications, messaging, blogging, content management, sports marketing and reputation management.

<snip>
Program Manager, Web Communications
Nuclear Energy Institute

(Non-Profit; 51-200 employees; Think Tanks industry)

April 2006 — February 2008 (1 year 11 months)

Responsible for content management across all of NEI's Web properties including public Web site, member Web site and the Blog, NEI Nuclear Notes. Completed re-design of public site in 2007. Also head NEI's online outreach activities via Blogs and other social media.

[GliderGuider]

8. I'd have thought that with all the money the renewable shills get

you could have rented yourself a sense of humour by now.

[kristopher]

10. Are you denying that the PR firms hired by the nuclear and fossil fuel industries

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x217959#217978

[GliderGuider]

11. No, I'm saying you don't have a sense of humour. n/t

[kristopher]

13. I find no humor in deceit...

Humour, in this case, is a tool, and ridicule is an attempt to discredit and diminish the significance of the problem - which isn't at all humorous.

Eric XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Experienced corporate communicator with new media credentials

Washington D.C. Metro Area

Current

* Vice President at CounterPoint Strategies
Past

* Contributor at The Sporting News
* Lead Blogger, NHL FanHouse at AOL Sports
* Program Manager, Web Communications at Nuclear Energy Institute
* NHL Columnist at NBC Sports.com
* Senior Writer at Nuclear Energy Institute
* Manager, Executive Communications at GXS
* Director, Editorial Services at PSINet
* Senior Manager at MCI

Eric McErlain’s Summary

After 20 years in corporate communications -- marketing communications, employee communications, speech writing, online content management and creation -- I'm looking to help clients better leverage their efforts online in media relations and reputation management.
Eric McErlain’s Specialties:

Media relations, online communications, messaging, blogging, content management, sports marketing and reputation management.

<snip>
Program Manager, Web Communications
Nuclear Energy Institute

(Non-Profit; 51-200 employees; Think Tanks industry)

April 2006 — February 2008 (1 year 11 months)

Responsible for content management across all of NEI's Web properties including public Web site, member Web site and the Blog, NEI Nuclear Notes. Completed re-design of public site in 2007. Also head NEI's online outreach activities via Blogs and other social media.

[GliderGuider]

16. Don't take too much umbrage, it's bad for your blood pressure. n/t

[kristopher]

18. BP 112/65

Ridicule is an attempt to discredit and diminish the significance of the problem - which isn't at all humorous.

Eric XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Experienced corporate communicator with new media credentials

Washington D.C. Metro Area

Current

* Vice President at CounterPoint Strategies
Past

* Contributor at The Sporting News
* Lead Blogger, NHL FanHouse at AOL Sports
* Program Manager, Web Communications at Nuclear Energy Institute
* NHL Columnist at NBC Sports.com
* Senior Writer at Nuclear Energy Institute
* Manager, Executive Communications at GXS
* Director, Editorial Services at PSINet
* Senior Manager at MCI

Eric McErlain’s Summary

After 20 years in corporate communications -- marketing communications, employee communications, speech writing, online content management and creation -- I'm looking to help clients better leverage their efforts online in media relations and reputation management.
Eric McErlain’s Specialties:

Media relations, online communications, messaging, blogging, content management, sports marketing and reputation management.

<snip>
Program Manager, Web Communications
Nuclear Energy Institute

(Non-Profit; 51-200 employees; Think Tanks industry)

April 2006 — February 2008 (1 year 11 months)

Responsible for content management across all of NEI's Web properties including public Web site, member Web site and the Blog, NEI Nuclear Notes. Completed re-design of public site in 2007. Also head NEI's online outreach activities via Blogs and other social media.

[XemaSab]

12. .

:D

[Dead_Parrot]

20. Are you denying renewable companies do the same thing?

http://www.csg-pr.com/services/

"We achieve measurable results through a variety of communications programs, including:

* Content Distribution
* Online Conversation
* SEO PR
* Social Bookmarking
* Video Campaign
* Event Posting
* Online Reputation Management
* Podcasts
* RSS
* Petitions"

Clients
* Alliance for Sustainable Colorado
* Clean Tech for Obama
* Clipper Windpower
* CORE Colorado
* Encorp
* Colorado Clean Tech Incubator
* Rocky Mountain Clean Tech Open
* The Greening of the 2008 DNC Convention Host Committee
* Prairie Wind Energy
* REC Solar
* Save the Poudre Coalition
* SRI in the Rockies

[joshcryer]

21. All lobbying firms do the same thing, expect nuclear to fund democrats this election cycle.

All of these firms do it. It's called fucking capitalism.

There simply is no evidence that "they" have infiltrated DU to any significant extent. It's too polarized an environment, they make more money by creating blogs, not persona to post on a forum who will have to spend a lot of time there.

[Dead_Parrot]

24. Indeed

The poutrage is hilarious, though.
:)

[kristopher]

31. Really?

As usual your conclusion has no thought nor data behind it.

Do you know how such an operation might be structured?

How would you do it if you wanted to tamp down information "help clients better leverage their efforts online in media relations and reputation management." (from the NEI guy's resume)

I'd hire a roomful of flunkies (subject knowledge isn't a prerequisite) to each work multiple sites and pay them by the post, with quality reviews to ensure they are meeting the objective of ensuring the "reputation" of the client is unsullied by negative information.

$12 an hour job?

[joshcryer]

34. So how much are you getting paid?

You are here an awful lot, especially midday when most people are working.

[Dead_Parrot]

36. He gives the impression

that he knows an awful lot about it...

[kristopher]

42. I do

- I'm an academic researcher looking at the way the entrenched energy is fighting a transition that will put them out of business.

That's why I adhere to the truth and follow the data instead of putting my own spin on it.

[Dead_Parrot]

45. So why, in your first post...

...did you fail to mention that renewable energy companies hire PR firms to engage in exactly the sort of activities you describe?

If you are adhering to the truth and following the data instead of putting your own spin on it, you must really suck at research. Took me about a minute to find that example.

Mind you, you couldn't even find out in which year Hurricane Andrew missed Guantanamo by a couple of hundred miles. Hope you're not holding out for a promotion.

[kristopher]

48. Why would I?

There is no evidence to support the assertion that the renewable industry has either the dark motives or the available capital to engage in the same type activities as the fossil, nuclear and minerals mining interests. None.

In point of fact I very often correct false information that supports renewable technologies. Also in point of fact I have never been attacked for such corrections in ANY way.

[Dead_Parrot]

51. Well, apart from the annoying fact

That I showed you a company that lists a number of renewable energy companies as clients for their assorted "new media" PR methods.

So, now that I have corrected your sucky research on energy PR, will you be the correcting the false information you posted?

[kristopher]

52. Ok so we are on the same track as your denial of the published Stanford researchers

I related their research and you said it was physically impossible to improve storage in lithium batteries to a level 10X current battereis. I showed you the peer reviewed article that led to their patents, and you still denied it.

Ergo "There is no evidence to support the assertion that the renewable industry has either the dark motives or the available capital to engage in the same type activities as the fossil, nuclear and minerals mining interests. None.

In point of fact I very often correct false information that supports renewable technologies. Also in point of fact I have never been attacked for such corrections in ANY way."

[Dead_Parrot]

54. Lol

Dude, that you still don't understand the difference between the energy density of the battery and the energy density of the energy carrier within it doesn't actually help your credentials as an "academic".

Have you even found out what "ionisation" is yet?

And when are you correcting your bollocked up research on PR? If that's what you do for a living, I would have thought you'd be right on it.

Incidentally, why does an academic researching energy policy need a full sized pickup? Do you print everything on really heavy paper?

[kristopher]

57. You persist in pursuing the same tactic of using a straw man.

I made a very specific claim - that Stanford researchers had achieved a breakthrough with lithium batteries that resulted in a 10X increase in storage over today's lithium batteries. At no time did I say or indicate that they had altered the physics of lithium itself. That iwas your attempt at spinning and discrediting my remarks.


Courtesy Nature Nanotechnology

Nanowire battery can hold 10 times the charge of existing lithium-ion
battery
BY DAN STOBER
Stanford researchers have found a way to use silicon nanowires to reinvent the rechargeable lithium-ion batteries that power laptops, iPods, video cameras, cell phones, and countless other devices.
The new technology, developed through research led by Yi Cui, assistant professor of materials science and engineering, produces 10 times the amount of electricity of existing lithium-ion, known as Li-ion, batteries. A laptop that now runs on battery for two hours could operate for 20 hours, a boon to ocean-hopping business travelers.

"It's not a small improvement," Cui said. "It's a revolutionary development...



That's pretty damned clear isn't it and what I said was an accurate depiction of the research.

[Dead_Parrot]

58. Oh deary me...

...I was discussing the amount of lithium required within the context of available resources and your plans for using BEVs for grid storage.

That you still don't understand that really is fucking funny.

Onwards!

[kristopher]

61. Bullshit.

You were denying that the researchers had achieved the breakthrough - you said it was impossible and launched into one of your interminable attempts to defend a false statement.

That makes about 16.

[Dead_Parrot]

65. ROFL.

Dude, you are the god of online entertainment.

edit: But seriously, what's with the truck?

[XemaSab]

64. I've worked for renewables

It's all about the VC.

[kristopher]

40. Basic logic refutes your attempt at diversion.

As I wrote,

There is a lack of hard evidence. However, there is a very large body of inferential data that supports the assumption that employees of large industries are posting on social networking sites.

You're attempting to disregard that evidence by employing faulty logic - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

In this case
-the basic tactic by large moneyed interests of disseminating misinformation to the public in an attempt to sway public policy is well established,

-the amounts of money known to be used for such lobbying is in the hundreds of millions of dollars,

-the stakes for the nuclear industry are literally too large to be easily comprehended,

-new media (internet) is a known focus of attention by such PR campaigns

-DU is a widely read liberal forum and EE is one of its most active topics.

Considering that the available known information creates the presumption that such a problem is at the very least a high probability, why are you so resistant to the idea?

Now you are attempting to divert attention from a group with motives for that type of activity here to a group that has no motive for that activity here at Democratic Underground.

Support for renewable energy is and has been the position of the Democratic party for a very long time; support for nuclear isn't. Renewables is where the party wants to take us, so nuclear stands to lose; not renewables.
During the primaries ONE coal lobbying group spent $35 million dollars in trying to sway public opinion against Dems. Nuclear power doesn't have that hurdle - all they have to do is hide the truth about nuclear power's third rate status as an answer to climate change while pumping the hell out of fear related to climate change.
Disinformation is in the interest of nuclear, coal and petroleum; not renewbles.


Rebuffing The Rockefellers
The Washington Post | May 29, 2008| | . This material is published under license from the Washington Post. All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Washington Post. (Hide copyright information) Copyright

Exxon Mobil yesterday fended off a revolt by descendants of company founder John D. Rockefeller Sr. at the firm's annual meeting in Dallas and defeated a shareholder resolution that would have divided the jobs of chairman and chief executive, now both held by Rex W. Tillerson.

The proposal, which was approved by 39.5 percent of shareholders, was one of four resolutions that garnered substantial shareholder support from the extended Rockefeller family, state pension funds, institutional holders and individuals, though all of the measures fell short of the majority needed. The other ...


Jacques, Peter., “The Rearguard of Modernity: Environmental Skepticism as a Struggle
Of Citizenship” Global Environmental Politics 6:1, February2006

Jacques, Peter, J., Dunlap, riley, E., Freeman, Mark., The Organisation of Denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental skepticism”. Environmental Politics, 17:3, 349-385

Michaels, David. “Doubt is Their Product”. Scientific American, June 2005, 96-10

[joshcryer]

47. Obama has shown support for nuclear.

And even you must admit that it has to be used in future plans towards renewable energy.

To say that the Democratic party is against it in all its forms is ridiculous, especially as they accept lobbying money from nuclear firms in the next cycle.

Yes, they will accept lobbying money. Watch.

[kristopher]

49. Of course he does.

He supports research into next generation (as do I) and he supports subsidies to the extent that it is a political necessity.

McCain & Co campaigned on building at least a hundred new nuclear plants, Obama wriggled around and voiced just enough support to not give Limpballs etal a target.

Huge difference.

Nuclear will play a role - it is expected be maintained at 20% of our capacity. That means building a few as older plants are retired but that is a far cry from maintianing the system of centralized generation that nuclear claims is essential. Rewiring the machine is going to put them out of business naturally.

[joshcryer]

76. We'll see. You are pretty optimistic about an energy source that, say, in China, will be several...

...magnitudes less powerful than their nuclear developments. But we'll have to see since the newest generation of nuclear plants is only just starting to be built. Foundations laid, etc.

edit, fixed wording on a sentence.

[XemaSab]

66. Let's use your numbers for a moment

How about you tell me two things.

Tell me how much energy the biggest wind farm on the planet generates, and tell me how much energy the smallest commercial nuke on the planet generates.

Your numbers.

Let's hear them.

[kristopher]

107. Those numbers have no relevance to the choice of future technologies to meet our needs.

But that is Nnad's favorite line of nonsense. It is nothing but a rehash of the "If man were meant to fly he'd have wings" line of reasoning.

The factors below are important, as is cost; which is another area where renewables are definitively superior to nuclear.

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[XemaSab]

111. Isn't that the denier journal?

:shrug:

[XemaSab]

62. I'd be thrilled to get $12 an hour

Taliskers is NOT cheap.

[Dead_Parrot]

69. Maybe you could work nights?

:hide:

[XemaSab]

71. I have a friend who used to "work nights"

$100 an hour is a pretty good deal, all things considered.

Certainly a lot better paying than shilling for the energy corps. :P

[Dead_Parrot]

72. Plus, you can work from home... nt

[XemaSab]

74. You can work from anywhere you want to work

;)

[Dead_Parrot]

82. well, almost anywhere

The vicar may disapprove.

[XemaSab]

85. If the vicar wants to join in, I'll have to charge extra

;)

I mean, um, a person would have to charge extra. Yeah. :hide:

[Dead_Parrot]

88. Whoever that person might be. Indeed.

Although the randy old bugger looks like he might be up for a bulk discount.

[XemaSab]

56. "Fucking" capitalism?

I'm taking grammar this semester, and I swear the word "fucking" is just there to tell you that a noun is on its way. :D

[Dead_Parrot]

63. I used to know a girl, worked evenings...

She was certainly a fucking capitalist. Credit lines, bulk purchase, tax offsets, the works.
:D

[XemaSab]

67. Was she a night boner?

I've heard that's a well-paying line of work. ;)

[Dead_Parrot]

68. If the price was right, I'm sure

:D

[joshcryer]

81. Democratic Senators recieve more nuclear industry contributions:

http://washingtonindependent.com/52477/nuclear-industry-donations-target-moderate-dems

Nuclear Industry Donations Target Moderate Dems

A TWI analysis of 2009 campaign contributions by nuclear advocacy groups suggests this is indeed their strategy. This week, political action committees, which raise money for candidates, filed their monthly reports to the Federal Election Commission. The numbers reveal that the two biggest industry donors to congressional candidates, the Nuclear Energy Institute and General Atomics, made most of their contributions to Democrats, and particularly moderate and conservative Democrats.

This marks a break from recent trends. Since 2000, both groups had sent a large majority of their donations to Republicans in every election cycle. In 2007-2008, for example, even with Democrats in control of Congress, the Nuclear Energy Institute gave money to 25 Republican and 15 Democratic senators and Senate candidates. In 2009, it has donated to eight Democratic senators and just five Republicans.

Expect more of this. Indeed, expect next years climate bill to give nuclear subsidies.



We'll see how well nuclear does if it gets loan guarantees comparable to renewables:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2bSu8n8ZbFI/SwFo9B2NilI/AAAAAAAAAaQ/9lbnrpahiCc/s1600/Loan+Volumes+for+DOE+Loan+Guarantee+Program.png

This is capitalism in a Democratic-Republic, this is how it works.

[kristopher]

We're making progress!

From we've gone from attempts to ridicule to the claim that"everybody does it".

So do you really think there is a logical reason that renewable industries would NEED to salt the liberal blogosphere with people pushing false information about renewables?

Are you really saying that?

[joshcryer]

35. I don't think I ever ridiculed the claim. I take it seriously, it is a pretty strong allegation.

I consider most of the E&E posters here friends or at least comrades, what you are saying insults those who post here and don't agree with you, misinformed or not. I'm not going to flame, say, Nederland for being uninformed about IPCC AR4 not including arctic melt in its seawater rise calculations. Others here in that very thread deemed to call him a shill for nuclear (see: you called him that).

Basically you show paranoia without evidence, this is unfortunate, as discussions could be better if such behavior wasn't by default.

[Dead_Parrot]

37. Wow, your english comprehension sucks

I was asking you if renewable energy companies had PR firms "active in "the new media" of social networking and discussion forums on the internet".

With some rather solid evidence that that do.

As to whether renewable energy companies are "salting the liberal blogosphere with people pushing false information about renewables", you tell us: You seem to know all about it.

[kristopher]

38. That is the implication of your words, do you deny it?

Don't try pulling a GWB and claiming that inferences don't count. You've done it again in your last post, "As to whether renewable energy companies are "salting the liberal blogosphere with people pushing false information about renewables", you tell us: You seem to know all about it."

[Dead_Parrot]

39. Dude, I never mentioned anything about "pushing false information"

That's all yours.

Putting words into people mouths then trying to compare them to shrubby is totally asswards.
Again, trolling or stupid, which are you?

[kristopher]

41. Your communications skills suck

You wrote (#20) "Are you denying renewable companies do the same thing?"

Since the "thing" being done is the pushing of false information, your meaning is explicit.

[Dead_Parrot]

43. Nobody had mentioned false information at that point

Why on earth would my post refer to it?

[kristopher]

44. This is like you denying the Stanford reseacher's claims about their battery imporvements, isn't it?

WTF do you think "shills" do?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=217959&mesg_id=217959

[Dead_Parrot]

46. Nice dodge. Very smooth.

lol

[kristopher]

50. Answer the question - what do you think shills do?

[Dead_Parrot]

55. Oh, I dunno...

...Hang around in forums recommending a massive build-out of "transitional" fossil fuel infrastructure while insulting everyone who thinks it's unnecessary?

Just a wild guess, you tell me.

[kristopher]

59. Using blatant falsehoods is the only thng you've got, isn't it...

I'd guess you've engaged in prevarication at least 15 times on this thread alone.

Pathetic.

[Dead_Parrot]

60. shrug

You asked me what I thought. I gave you an honest answer. Your problem.

[Dead_Parrot]

6. I just got a new Jag. It's awesome

The powerful and secretive New Zealand Nuclear Megacorp has discovered that by not actually building any reactors, they've got lots of cash left over for us shills.

The investors aren't too happy of course, but since we've got all their money, what are they going to do about it? We've got all the good lawers. And the judges. We even brought the courthouse for a laugh.

lulz all the way to the bank. (which we own).

[hunter]

7. Most of the no-nuke gas and coal shills work for free.

It's only a select few (Lovins, et al.) who get paid. And the religious fanatics among them are worse than Scientologists -- nasty as hell if you piss them off.

[pscot]

9. An old college roomy of mine

ended up as a spokes-shill for Illinois Con-Ed. He was pretty well compensated. You must be doing something wrong. Maybe you need to work on your sincerity.

[XemaSab]

14. When have I ever not been 100% sincere?

:shrug::P

[kristopher]

15. Are you denying that the PR firms hired by the nuclear and fossil fuel industries

Eric XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Experienced corporate communicator with new media credentials

Washington D.C. Metro Area

Current

* Vice President at CounterPoint Strategies
Past

* Contributor at The Sporting News
* Lead Blogger, NHL FanHouse at AOL Sports
* Program Manager, Web Communications at Nuclear Energy Institute
* NHL Columnist at NBC Sports.com
* Senior Writer at Nuclear Energy Institute
* Manager, Executive Communications at GXS
* Director, Editorial Services at PSINet
* Senior Manager at MCI

Eric McErlain’s Summary

After 20 years in corporate communications -- marketing communications, employee communications, speech writing, online content management and creation -- I'm looking to help clients better leverage their efforts online in media relations and reputation management.
Eric McErlain’s Specialties:

Media relations, online communications, messaging, blogging, content management, sports marketing and reputation management.

<snip>
Program Manager, Web Communications
Nuclear Energy Institute

(Non-Profit; 51-200 employees; Think Tanks industry)

April 2006 — February 2008 (1 year 11 months)

Responsible for content management across all of NEI's Web properties including public Web site, member Web site and the Blog, NEI Nuclear Notes. Completed re-design of public site in 2007. Also head NEI's online outreach activities via Blogs and other social media.

[XemaSab]

17. See post #11

:D

[kristopher]

19. .

Ridicule is an attempt to discredit and diminish the significance of the problem - which isn't at all humorous.

Eric XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Experienced corporate communicator with new media credentials

Washington D.C. Metro Area

Current

* Vice President at CounterPoint Strategies
Past

* Contributor at The Sporting News
* Lead Blogger, NHL FanHouse at AOL Sports
* Program Manager, Web Communications at Nuclear Energy Institute
* NHL Columnist at NBC Sports.com
* Senior Writer at Nuclear Energy Institute
* Manager, Executive Communications at GXS
* Director, Editorial Services at PSINet
* Senior Manager at MCI

Eric McErlain’s Summary

After 20 years in corporate communications -- marketing communications, employee communications, speech writing, online content management and creation -- I'm looking to help clients better leverage their efforts online in media relations and reputation management.
Eric McErlain’s Specialties:

Media relations, online communications, messaging, blogging, content management, sports marketing and reputation management.

<snip>
Program Manager, Web Communications
Nuclear Energy Institute

(Non-Profit; 51-200 employees; Think Tanks industry)

April 2006 — February 2008 (1 year 11 months)

Responsible for content management across all of NEI's Web properties including public Web site, member Web site and the Blog, NEI Nuclear Notes. Completed re-design of public site in 2007. Also head NEI's online outreach activities via Blogs and other social media.

[joshcryer]

23. So you have evidence that they post here? Please tell us about it.

They should be banned if there exist evidence of such an effort.

[kristopher]

29. That's the crux of the problem

There is a lack of hard evidence. However, there is a very large body of inferential data that supports the assumption that employees of large industries are posting on social networking sites.

You're attempting to disregard that evidence by employing faulty logic - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

In this case
-the basic tactic by large moneyed interests of disseminating misinformation to the public in an attempt to sway public policy is well established,

-the amounts of money known to be used for such lobbying is in the hundreds of millions of dollars,

-the stakes for the nuclear industry are literally too large to be easily comprehended,

-new media (internet) is a known focus of attention by such PR campaigns

-DU is a widely read liberal forum and EE is one of its most active topics.

Considering that the available known information creates the presumption that such a problem is at the very least a high probability, why are you so resistant to the idea?

[joshcryer]

80. "There is a lack of hard evidence." Then perhaps you should STFU?

Until you have actual evidence you are just shit stirring and insulting half of the posters here. This is E&E, not E&Kristopher's-version-of-what-energy-systems-the-Democratic-Party-supports.



Amazing isn't it? Hilariously amazing, really.

[kristopher]

106. .

There is a very large body of inferential data that supports the assumption that employees of large industries are posting on social networking sites.

You're attempting to disregard that evidence by employing faulty logic - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

In this case
-the basic tactic by large moneyed interests of disseminating misinformation to the public in an attempt to sway public policy is well established,

-the amounts of money known to be used for such lobbying is in the hundreds of millions of dollars,

-the stakes for the nuclear industry are literally too large to be easily comprehended,

-new media (internet) is a known focus of attention by such PR campaigns

-DU is a widely read liberal forum and EE is one of its most active topics.

Considering that the available known information creates the presumption that such a problem is at the very least a high probability, why are you so resistant to the idea?"

[XemaSab]

83. If anybody here is getting paid

he or she should be dismissed summarily.

I've never seen such a group of sad anoraks in my life. :D

[Dead_Parrot]

86. It's a raincoat, thank you very much

The hood is most practical.

[XemaSab]

87. Like I said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aRKZFR5imM

[Dead_Parrot]

89. Sounds far too exciting for me

Where's my slippers?

[petronius]

92. I suspect (although she can speak for herself, of course), that the OP was making a DU-specific

comment about how posters on certain topics are accused of being paid shills. Whether or not such marketing campaigns exist on the internet is neither here nor there - unless someone can show that an actual DU poster being accused really is a marketer...

[freddie mertz]

98. Probably impossible to prove one way or another....

Fortunately, the pollution industry, like most other agencies of evil, can always rely on a steady supply of "useful idiots" who will post their ridiculous talking points out of personal conviction (heavily leavened with gullibility, of course).

[joshcryer]

101. There is very little to gain with an anti-environment position, you won't get far here.

What we have are different technologies and different perspectives, and while some do use false arguments or misinformed positions, it is not as if they could possibly be a paid poster. The thing is that the posters being called out are pro environment, and most of them have been around DU long enough so that if they did have spurious positions that didn't fall in line with progressive ideals, they'd be tombstoned by now.

The irony is that the people doing the calling out are in fact the biggest supporters of fossil interests here.

[joshcryer]

99. And, if such evidence exists, the poster should be banned immediately. This is a very strong claim.

It's a big deal on my site. I ban such marketers instantly. Their IPs are perma banned, and reported to the StopForumSpam database.

[GliderGuider]

22. Here's a close-up picture of all the money I've made so far

[joshcryer]

25. I love you GG.

Can you believe we're almost on the same side at this point?

We're fucked. Going to have to build rotating armed turrets on my property so if anyone tries to come on it I can shoot 'em when the seas rise and the oil runs out and people need food and I don't have enough to go around. :(

[GliderGuider]

27. If we were truly on the same side

The turrets would be remote controlled so you could activate them from your meditation room.

Nothing says "interdependent co-arising" like a .50 with thermal sights.

[joshcryer]

28. They'll be motion automated, kill anything bigger than a prairie dog!

Though I suppose I'd have to give a fair warning to anyone approaching, otherwise I would be a little evil.

I am actually quite serious about buying land and living their self-sufficiently, growing my own food, composting my own waste. I was going to do that before I realized that .2% world renewable investment isn't going to save us from 4-5C. Really, it's not. And I don't consider activism useful tactic to solving the problem, so the likelihood of fixing it is gloom as fuck.

I can still dream about magical technology saving the day though. :(

[GliderGuider]

30. I hear you.

I share your perspective. Current technology won't save the day, and environmental activism so far has been a waste of time and energy. We appear to be past a variety of tipping points. So what's a person to do while we wait for the Polywells to arrive? My own answer on the home page of my web site: http://www.paulchefurka.ca

It's not much consolation, but I know exactly how you feel.

[joshcryer]

79. I think technology can fix it, but it's clear we don't have the social or political will to do so.

We got people arguing on a forum against major government interaction (WWII level manufacturing), and for the same system that got us here to begin with.

The money being tossed to renewables is nothing, absolutely nothing compared to the money being used to destroy the planet. And it seems as if that simply isn't about to change any time soon, certainly before we hit a 4 to 5C rise in temperature, at which point it will be far too late for billions of people who would have been living below the new sea level. It's very nasty.

If we can build the magical technology I got derided for mentioning and if we can transition our economy to one that more resembles an ecology, both of which are physically possible, and technologically realizable, then we may be OK. We have to wait for those developments. I am trying to develop it, others in the community are trying to do it, but we're just a few hundred people at most, we may not succeed in time for it to matter. We're talking 15 years for double CO2 emissions and 3.0C guaranteed. 22 years for 4.0C, guaranteed. That is a very short time frame here.

Me, I don't hold out much hope for Polywell working, if it worked then I could do the equations, they rely on too many esoteric and unlikely mechanisms for it to work. What we need, in my mind, is automation ability. Put some robots out in a desert and they build a solar field by themselves, by simple replication. Crazy, scifi shit. Stuff you get mocked for just mentioning.

[XemaSab]

84. Word

n/t

[XemaSab]

70. That's what the three large dogs are for

I pity the fool who goes up against my pups.

Springer x Golden Retriever.

German Shepherd x Border Collie.

Heeler x Boxer.

I honestly couldn't tell you which one you would stand the better chance against. My 105 pound guy is the most mellow, but the 35 pound girl would be the most likely to get the first strike in. And the 65 pound girl would be more than happy to finish the job.

Like I said, I pity the fool. :D

[Dead_Parrot]

73. Note to self

Bring 3 pieces of bacon.

[XemaSab]

75. What are you going to use to bribe the other two?

:P

[joshcryer]

77. HAHA, I thought the same thing. 3 pieces of bacon for those dogs?

Might as well bring three grapes (dunno about you but my shitzu loves grapes, I know, I know, they're bad for dogs). :D

[Dead_Parrot]

78. Any self respecting dog...

...will eat the bacon in 0.32 seconds, then spend the next half hour licking the ground in case they missed a bit.

Unless you're using unsmoked bacon, but that's thievery 101. ;)

[Dead_Parrot]

26. ROFL

Brilliant :D

[XemaSab]

53. .

:D

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[GliderGuider]

33. Here GrovelBot, have a shilling.

Now don't say I never gave you nothin'.

[Nihil]

109. I was going to say that I'm obviously too old ...

... I remember when "shilling" was a noun rather than a verb ...
:shrug:

[kristopher]

114. We should celebrate your longevity...

Word Origin & History

shill
1916, "one who acts as a decoy for a gambler, auctioneer, etc." (probably originally circus or carnival argot), probably a shortened form of shillaber (1913) with the same meaning, origin unknown. The verb is attested from 1914.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shill

[Nihil]

115. Learn & live!

Thanks for the update. I'd heard of "a shill" but only became aware
of the verb usage comparatively recently and didn't realise that it
had such a history.
:hi:

[freddie mertz]

90. Maybe they will build a waste-disposal site in your back yard.

I certainly hope so... I'm sure your kids will LOVE it...

"Glowy...."

[GliderGuider]

91. Well, at least they'd pay us for the privilege

Unlike all all this dreary time we have to spend at our keyboards for free...

I want my 30 pieces of silver, dammit! They promised!

[freddie mertz]

94. How much would be enough?

I'm sure you could find a neighborhood more that is more "agreeable" (poor, far from public view), if you really DO have connections in the industry.

[GliderGuider]

96. Hmm. Check in with kristopher, up-thread.

Maybe you two could pool your resources and split a sense of humour. He'll use it on odd-numbered days, you get it on evens.

[freddie mertz]

97. I have a very good sense of humor, thank you...

One has to, to live a world like this, where coal and oil and nuclear flacks try to con people into thinking the energy they provide can be "safe"....

[Nihil]

108. You were on form this weekend weren't you?

:rofl:
:toast:

[GliderGuider]

110. Havin' some fun, yes indeed.

A touch of weekend bachelorhood now and again is good for a boy.

[hunter]

93. Disposing of toxic waste in the air and water is so much better...

dixiegrrrrl's E/E post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=218121&mesg_id=218121

Nasa image: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=40941

Remember, mercury has a half-life of forever and the kids who breathe and drink it won't be so bright as they might have been.

"Glowy"

[freddie mertz]

95. Are you suggesting that nuclear waste is something we should not be concerned about?

PS I live only a couple of hours away from Three Mile Island.

[Dead_Parrot]

105. By all means be concerned, but keep a little perspective

Nuclear waste just sits around looking boring, waiting for us to decide if we should recycle it or bury it.



Fossil fuel waste, on the other hand, is turning the oceans to acid, melting the icecaps and causing massive shifts in the remaining biosphere.


(this is for a global increase of 2.8C - i.e, optimistic)

I know which one I find more scary.

[kristopher]

113. Summing up your arguments for nuclear energy

You are saying that nuclear waste is bad but global warming is worse, therefore we should accept nuclear waste as the price of taking action on global warming.

Since renewable energy GHG emissions are equal to or less than nuclear energy;

and since renewable energy is less expensive than nuclear;

and since renewable energy can be deployed much more rapidly than nuclear energy;

and since renewable energy does not produce wastes posing anywhere near the level of threat resulting from nuclear wastes;

and since renewable energy has no possibility of being used to accelerate or encourage nuclear weapons proliferation;

you believe we should use nuclear energy.

[joshcryer]

102. Waste disposal is in big concrete cylinders, standing next to one the radiation from the sun...

...is more harmful. (Thanks to the whole ozone depletion thing.)

So, I wouldn't mind one iota.

[philly_bob]

100. UNREC Because attempt at humor didn't work for some.

Apparently, too sensitive a subject for some DUers. I thought it was mildly amusing, but I don't know XemaSab's posting record.

[joshcryer]

103. XemaSab is awesome.

They meant no ill intent whatsoever. Just got tired of the recent drama over nuclear. I'm sure it'll blow over. I, for one, am done arguing it.

[XemaSab]

104. Thanks!

:D

[wtmusic]

112. NEI sent me a digital picture frame but it doesn't work.

Where do I return this thing? "Free Gift" my ass...I should have picked the desk clock.