Why Sea Level Rise May Be The Greatest Threat To Civilization - 4

I. The Basic Case

The following table (Table 1) was prepared using USGS data (Sea Level and Climate).

The table shows the maximum sea level rise (SLR) potential, should land ice melt and make its way into the sea, or calve then slide or fall into the sea.

The values in the table are sectioned off by the various locations where those potentials derive from, then those values are totalled on the bottom line:

Table 1. Potential maximum sea level rise (SLR) from the total melting / calving into the sea, of present-day glaciers and land based ice caps. Source: USGS
Location	Volume (km3)	Potential sea-level rise, (feet)	Percent of total
East Antarctic ice sheet	26,039,200	212.58	80.676
West Antarctic ice sheet	3,262,000	26.44	10.034
Antarctic Peninsula	227,100	1.51	.57306
Greenland	2,620,000	21.49	8.1556
All other (ice caps, ice fields, glaciers)	180,000	1.48	.56167
Total	32,328,300	263.5	100.00

II. The Secondary Case

Scientists say that a 1m / 3ft increase in SLR will cause catastrophic results to civilization (Why Sea Level Rise May Be The Greatest Threat To Civilization, 2, 3).

As pointed out in those three links, endangered locations include the East Coast of the United States, from Cape Cod in Massachusetts, down to Cape Hatteras in North Carolina.

Thus, I focus mostly on the locations and the dynamics which create the potential for a 1m / 3ft increase in SLR.

That is because it is a real and present danger to civilization, and is part of the big story (The Biggest Story in the World).

III. The Scope of The Case

The percentage of global ice that needs to make it to the sea as melt water, or as chunks of ice sheets or glaciers breaking off and falling into the sea, is as follows:

Total SLR potential: 263.5 ft.
SLR rise that will cause catastrophe: 3 ft.
Percentage of total: 3 ft. ÷ 263.5 ft. = (0.011385199) 1.14%

(Table 1). All that is required to make the case is pointing out that when a tiny one percent (1.14%) of the world's ice melts, then flows into the sea as melt water, or slides into the sea as ice (e.g. icebergs), then 1m / 3ft increase in SLR is done.

IV. The Chances of The Case

Any gambler would love to be able to bet on a sure thing, on a certainty, especially if the bookmakers gave better than a non-starter 1-1 spread (e.g. 2-1).

But that won't happen because it is a certainty that far more than one percent (1.14%) of the world's ice will melt or otherwise make its way to the sea.

There is no controversy about that among the scientists who work and research in this field as a career.

V. Nuclear War Is Less Likely

The odds of 1.14% of the world's ice melting is 100% certain, but according to some sources, the focus on betting odds is uncertain things:

"I rate the chance of a nuclear war within my lifetime as being fairly low"

"the relatively tiny probability of … the threat of nuclear war"

(Odds at SVA, Odds of Nuke War). If you were a gambler you could bet on nuclear war potential at SVA, but you would be at a loss to bet on SLR there:

Fig. 1 Betting odds

(ibid, cf. Bookmaking odds). The way to properly handle this type of certainty (SLR) is to take whatever steps are necessary to deal with the cause: fossil fuel use (Keep It In The Ground),

But if that fails, then the only thing left to do is prepare for the consequences (The 1% May Face The Wrath of Sea Level Rise First).

VI. Valid Betting Odds Concern The Issue of "When," not "If"

Among scientists there is a valid issue concerning when the 1m / 3ft increase in SLR will have taken place.

The major reason for this controversy has been due a lack of knowledge about Antarctica and Greenland (The Evolution of Models - 10).

This has resulted in habitual underestimations in reports, and in scientific models (The Epistemology of Goldilocks RE: Sea Level Rise, cf. The Agnotology of Sea Level Rise Via Ice Melt).

VII. Conclusion

Ongoing research is changing SLR understanding, and increasing the knowledge that we will see the 1.14% melt / calving of global ice sheets much sooner than we have proclaimed in the past (Why Sea Level Rise May Be The Greatest Threat To Civilization - 3).

And much sooner than the "when" that some still adhere to (Oil-Qaeda & MOMCOM Conspire To Commit Depraved-Heart Murder, Barry & Oil-Qaeda vs Arctic Wilderness - 2).

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.

The Question Is: How Much Acceleration Is Involved In SLR - 7?

Fig. 1 2015 Lowest Year Early-On

This year has seen early low Arctic Sea Ice levels (Fig. 1).

It is at a point where the trend line is showing that, without an acceleration in the 2015 current melt rate, the 2012 level will (at least temporarily) take first place again.

And it looks like that could happen in a few days.

That is, if 2015 stays on its current trajectory, this year's melt rate will result in a drop below the 2012 rate, which is the current historical record low year for Arctic Sea Ice cover.

In Fig. 2 the current trend is shown by the light blue line, then is projected out (red line) to where it is going without any acceleration.

Fig. 2 Trend line projection

In Fig. 3 the required acceleration is shown as a red line curving below the 2012 melt rate at this time of year back then.

So, it remains to be seen whether the 2015 melt rate will increase to stay in the lead.

In this series I have tried to make the point that the rate of acceleration varies all the time, like traffic at an intersection with congestion.

Some times the traffic moves slower, sometimes it accelerates, but the unknown is when each will happen.

Fig. 3 Acceleration Needed to beat 2012

Once it happens it is easier to calculate how long it will take to finally get through the jam.

In the present scenario, the 2015 melt will have to imitate the 2012 pattern.

That would require an acceleration at this time, as the 2012 season did at this time (Fig. 3).

All that can be said is that it is not clear which way things will go in June because there are some cooler trends and some warmer trends, each of which could play the deciding role in causing acceleration or causing a slow down in the melt.

Let's review the impact of acceleration in terms of the Hansen 5, 7, and 10 year  doubling (acceleration), and the Dredd Blog sea level rise (SLR) 3 yr. doubling model (The Evolution of Models - 10).

And for grins, the 2 yr. doubling (The Question Is: How Much Acceleration Is Involved In SLR - 5?).

Acceleration per NOAA

The effect that 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10 year doubling has is that it determines when SLR reaches the 1 m / 3 ft. level:

10 yr = 2067
7 yr = 2055
5 yr = 2045
3 yr = 2035
2 yr = 2031

(The Question Is: How Much Acceleration Is Involved In SLR - 5?).  We focus most on 1 m / 3ft. because it is a point where many locations that are tidal will experience serious problems, especially with coastal infrastructure and ports (The 1% May Face The Wrath of Sea Level Rise First).

So, what does sea ice have to do with it?

The Arctic will warm faster (acceleration) when the ice cover melts and the darker ocean begins to absorb sunlight in contrast to the ice reflecting sunlight.

And that is why we watch the sea ice cover melt rate to see if 2015 will take the lead from 2012 as the year closest to the year when there is no ice cover on the Arctic Ocean.

---

Fig. 4 2015 compared to 2012

UPDATES: On about June 13, the 2015 extent line increased above the 2012 extent line as projected (see Fig. 2).

This year's tracking of the Arctic Ice Extent is here.

As of about June 22, 2015, the extent continued as projected in Fig. 2 (compare Fig. 4).

Basically this year is oscillating back and forth between being the lowest ice extent on record, to then falling back behind 2012 (which has been the record low extent year so far).

Notice that the heading of the NSIDC graph is entitled "Arctic Sea Ice Extent (Area of ocean with at least 15% sea ice)" because "extent" and "area" mean the same thing mathematically (a = l * w or  e = l * w).

Extent and area do not indicate how much ice there is, only how much ocean is covered, so they are expressed in km² or mi², while the quantity of ice is called "volume" (v = l * w * h) and is expressed as km³ or mi³ (How Fifth Graders Calculate Ice Volume, 2, 3, 4).

Whether 2015 or 2012 will be the record low extent looks like a toss-up at this point.

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.

Barry & Oil-Qaeda vs Arctic Wilderness - 2

The Drilling Goes Viral

Introduction

This series has been about the folly of the Obama Administration's concept for their "planned" Arctic drilling.

Add to that the admin's folly of subjecting itself to Oil-Qaeda.

It is a plan that will rape and pillage the Arctic Environment of the Earth in the pursuit of the poison that they know is destroying civilization (Oil-Qaeda & MOMCOM Conspire To Commit Depraved-Heart Murder, Civilization Is Now On Suicide Watch, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).

While they do this, they claim to be climate change believers, but at the same time they are the driving force of "drill baby drill" psychopathology of the pathogenic toxin producers.

In other words, a psychopathic hypocrisy is their overarching policy, while they want to be

"I said hard a starboard"

seen as cool climate change dudes and dudettes.

The first post in this series detailed the results of their first attempt to implement the policy folly (Barry & Oil-Qaeda vs Arctic Wilderness), which of course ended in a disaster.

But, at least the disaster was not an environmental disaster of any great proportion, because they only had to make an emergency exit from the Arctic, and an emergency grounding on Kodiak Island in the Gulf of Alaska.

It was a policy disaster as well as being a policy of psychopaths (When You Are Governed By Psychopaths, 2, 3, 4).

All of the studies, drilling on site, recording of dangers lurking in the deep, and printing and storing of the scientific data did not prevent the greatest environmental disaster in U.S. history (Saga of Deepwater Horizon Continues).

Worse Than Deepwater Horizon Pathology

In the years that led up to the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe, which we will never recover from, at least there were serious studies with which to ascertain the dangers involved in deep water drilling there:

That research focused on the dangers inherent in the deepwater drilling in the GOM as a result of methane hydrates commonly found there, including substantial analysis of various sorts (the index is 163 pages):

NOTE: This document contains a listing of all published reports and professional presentations relating to work supported by DOE’s Methane Hydrates R&D program. While many of these reports are “shared” publications, with support being obtained from several funding sources, we have endeavored to include only those reports in which the DOE's contribution was meaningful and substantial.

(Index To Research Papers,  page 163 [Wayback Machine copy, they "lost" it]). We could spend years reviewing all the material, so I chose to focus on only a few issues, issues related directly to the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe.

(Danger Lurks In The Deep Water, cf. 2, 3). Of course you may be thinking, "it is a no brainer" to study-up before venturing into danger.

But the permitted Arctic drilling is being done without any studies I know of specifically on the bottom of the Chukchi Sea, where Shell Oil is being allowed to drill again.

The studies I know of have been done on the North Slope, on land, and perhaps shallow water near shore (USGS, Hydrate Resources on the North Slope).

So, "hi ho hi ho it's off to work we go" in a potential mine field.

Other Dangers At Sea Level Are Still There

The reason Shell Oil abandoned the drilling attempt a couple of years ago was because of an ice attack.

Yes, "old ice" formations moved in threatening to assault the drilling rig, so they had to get out of there pronto.

This is still a grave danger to ships of any kind, including oil drilling rigs or even ice breakers.

Other dangers are large waves that have not been seen before (Swelling Waves Could Hasten Demise of Arctic Sea Ice).

Conclusion

I will have to keep it short today.

But I will keep an eye on the developments, hoping against hope that they will come to their senses.

UPDATE: Shell poison rig leaves Seattle (Guardian).

The previous post in this series is here.

---

---

Agnotology: The Surge - 17

Fig. Zero Trufiness Galore

I. Shill Team Six

Today, I want to talk about Shill Team Six of the Agnotology Army, and their Project Nuuk 'em.

Shill Team Six is a hit team of the Heartland Institute.

The Heartland Institute is the illegitimate hybrid offspring of the Marshall Institute (see the video at the bottom of the post, and Section IV below).

They have a cultural history steeped in the deadly addictions to tobacco smoke and fossil fuels, leading to the deaths of millions of people around the world (compare Symbolic Racism: A Look At The Science - 9, A History of Oil Addiction - 4).

Their old motto was "the first carton is free" which has morphed into "the first barrel is free."

II. Meet The Team

One blog has identified Inhofe's Warriors in Shill Team Six, as well as providing information about them:

Steven Goddard is one of several climate change skeptics cc'd on an email from S. Fred Singer in hopes of countering the documentary film “Merchants of Doubt,” which exposes the network of climate change skeptics and deniers trying to delay legislative action on climate change.

The October, 2014 email was leaked to journalists before the documentary was released. “Can I sue for damages?” Singer asked in the email. “Can we get an injunction against the documentary?”

InsideClimate News reports in their article “Leaked Email Reveals Who's Who List of Climate Denialists,” how “Many of those copied on the email thread, such as Singer and communications specialist Steven Milloy, have financial ties to the tobacco, chemical, and oil and gas industries and have worked to defend them since the 1990s.” [13]

InsideClimate News also documented all those who were cc'd on the email, including the following skeptics and groups:

• Ron Arnold
• Timothy Ball
• Joseph “Joe” Bast
• Joe Bastardi
• Michael Bastasch
• William Briggs
• Russell Cook
• Judith Curry
• Joe D'Aleo
• James Delingpole
• David Paul Driessen
• James Enstrom
• Steve Goddard
• Pierre Gosselin
• Greenie Watch
• William Happer
• Jim Lakely
• Patrick J. Michaels
• Steven J. Milloy
• Christopher Monckton
• Marc Morano
• Joanne Nova
• Roger Pielke Sr. (Or Roger Pielke Jr. - Unclear in Email)
• Thomas P. Sheahen
• S. Fred Singer
• Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon
• Roy Spencer
• James Taylor
• Anthony Watts

DeSmogBlog covered the emails here: “Merchants of Doubt Film Debuts, Textbook Denial Attack Campaign Led By Fred Singer Ensues” and DeSmogBlog also archived a full copy of the Singer email thread (PDF).

(DeSmogBlog). These activist denialists are ignorance generators, thus they are proper subjects for the Agnotology Discipline.

III. Captain Amurky

Once upon a time one of them evidently fancied himself as their captain.

The agnotology subject Steven Goddard née Tony Heller was dishonourably discharged

Fig. 1 Nuuk's Coldest Winter?

as it were (Heartland Institute Ices Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard).

So, I decided to check out some of the characteristics of their practices, beginning with him.

I went over to the blog called "Real Science" (one of their characteristics is to name things the opposite of what they really are).

Once I got there I read a post that was titled "Nuuk, Greenland Having Its Coldest Year On Record" which contained a photo of Nuuk purporting to show Nuuk's coldest year on record (What is up with the standing water that had not frozen in Fig. 1?).

Curious about his assertions, since water freezes in Nuuk even in mild winters, I made and posted the comment shown in Fig. 2 below.

Just in case you can't read the text in Fig. 2, which is a screen grab converted into a graphic image, the text of that comment is as follows:

Is that standing water in the photo of Nuuk?

Since this is the space age, consider the satellite measurements of ice volume:

“Measurements from ESA’s CryoSat mission have been used to map the height of the huge ice sheets that blanket Greenland and Antarctica and show how they are changing. New results reveal combined ice volume loss at an unprecedented rate of 500 cubic kilometres a year.
…

Fig. 2 (click to enlarge)

The resulting maps reveal that Greenland alone is reducing in volume by about 375 cubic kilometres a year.
…
The researchers say the ice sheets’ annual contribution to sea-level rise has doubled since 2009. [Table 1 type contribution – i.e. thermal sea level rise (additional) is not included in that doubling]

Glaciologist Angelika Humbert, another of the study’s authors, added, “Since 2009, the volume loss in Greenland has increased by a factor of about two and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet by a factor of three.” (Will This Float Your Boat – 5, quoting ESA Cryosat website).

After posting that comment, I noticed that it contained the statement "Your comment is awaiting moderation" written on it by that blog.

It was posted several days ago, and is still awaiting "moderation," and has not been posted as of the time of today's Dredd Blog post.

He must think it is a radical (not moderate) comment, even though the final sentence in his post is:

"Look for climate experts to take pictures of glaciers calving into the ocean, and claim that it is an indication that Greenland is melting down. Because they are crooks, not scientists."

(Real Science). Oh yeah, that is "real science" for you (if an expert says glaciers calving in Greenland is evidence of global warming induced climate change, they are criminals, not real scientists).

But if I ask about Nuuk, Greenland's coldest winter ever with standing, unfrozen water, that is not "moderate?"

Where is nuke happy Shill Team Six going with this, "Nuuk Greenland?"

IV. Shill Team Six Is An Outlaw Group

The law of the United States is that global warming induced climate change is real.

Greenhouse gases must be regulated in order to protect the public from people like Shill Team Six and its support of Oil-Qaeda, according to the U.S. Supreme Court:

Based on respected scientific opinion that a well-documented rise in global temperatures and attendant climatological and environmental changes have resulted from a significant increase in the atmospheric concentration of “greenhouse gases,” a group of private organizations petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin regulating the emissions of four such gases, including carbon dioxide, under §202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, which requires that the EPA “shall by regulation prescribe . . . standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class . . . of new motor vehicles . . . which in [the EPA Administrator’s] judgment cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution . . . reasonably . . . anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” 42 U. S. C. §7521(a)(1). The Act defines “air pollutant” to include “any air pollution agent . . . , including any physical, chemical . . . substance . . . emitted into . . . the ambient air.” §7602(g). EPA ultimately denied the petition, reasoning that (1) the Act does not authorize it to issue mandatory regulations to address global climate change, and (2) even if it had the authority to set greenhouse gas emission standards, it would have been unwise to do so at that time because a causal link between greenhouse gases and the increase in global surface air temperatures was not unequivocally established.
...
Massachusetts and other state and local governments, sought review in the D. C. Circuit [... which held...] that the EPA Administrator properly exercised his discretion in denying the rulemaking petition.
...
[Supreme Court Conclusion:] The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

(Global Warming Induced Climate Change Is A Matter of Law). A new study done by skeptics confirms global warming, reports the Wall Street Journal.

The propaganda organization, The Heartland Institute, has taken up the job of global warming induced climate change denialism.

V. Conclusion

The study of agnotology takes us back over a century, as detailed in the video below.

The current surge of agnotology shows that denialism continues unabated, filling the land with ignorance (Tracking Public Knowledge & Perceptions About the Arctic).

Ignorance of AGW is the basic ingredient of many now living in a civilization that is in the throes of a suicide watch (Civilization Is Now On Suicide Watch, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.

---

Key times in the video below:
(Note: GW = global warming; GG = greenhouse gas, CC = climate change)

00:40 - Schwarzenegger (hypocrite): no debate, GW is happening.
06:20 - Proper amount of GG is good, keeps us warm.
07:00 - Too much GG is a bad thing.
07:09 - Tyndall in mid 1800's began research into GG.
07:45 - Arrhenius did first degree calculations re: CO₂ content.
08:25 - Callendar discovered GG increases in 1930's.
09:02 - Hulburt accord in 1930's.
09:43 - Depression / war stopped GG research.
10:00 - Gilbert N. Plass developed CO₂ atmospheric calculations.
10:49 - Suess & Revelle do paper in 1957 warning of GW dangers.
12:30 - Dr. Revelle warned of polar ice cap melt in TIME interview.
13:25 - CO₂ levels discovered to be high.
16:30 - Lyndon Johnson in 1965 says fossil fuels causing GW.
17:00 - GW, CC not political originally.
18:20 - White of NOAA, 1978, warns of GW dangers.
20:52 - Polar Areas to be impacted 4 times more than other areas. 
24:20 - IPCC formed in 1979 with consensus on GW.
26:00 - Bush I signed GW treaty.
26:45 - Denial of GW begins.
27:40 - Luntz injects GW denial propaganda into political debate.
28:25 - Oil baron Cheney propagates GW denial.
29:00 - Oil companies do massive scale denial propaganda.
29:30 - Marshall Institute
30:30 - Marshall Institute formed to support Reagan SDI (star wars)
32:50 - Marshall Institute "cigarettes not related to cancer".
36:50 - Marshall Institute does GW denial campaign.
42:54 - Marshall member Seitz worked for big tobacco.
47:20 - Singer of Marshall Institute politically attacks GW.
53:35 - Cigarette smoking is ok rhetoric applied to GW science.

---

On The Origin of "Conspiracy Theory" - 6

In this series I have been detailing the robust life of official conspiracy theories found in serious government business.

It is interesting that denial of conspiracy theory in the pop culture's knowledge base, created by the media, is not shared with the one place that most requires proof.

That place is a good trial court.

Yes, in one of the three branches of government, the judicial branch (the courts),  you have to be able to give legal evidence for what you say took place in reality.

The other two branches of government (administrative and legislative) not so much so.

For example, if you allege the following:

"Every month, Occidental and Chevron directly pump 2.63 times more toxic waste water into the San Joaquin Aquifer than oil released into the Gulf during the entire BP spill. The California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) plans to allow them to continue for another 21 months. This lawsuit is brought to stop the poisoning of the San Joaquin aquifer and to remediate the damage already done to the farmland of Kern County."

(CPOAW vs Occidental Oil & Gas, p. 1, emphasis added). To win the case that averment must be supported with evidence necessary for a court or jury to be convinced of its veracity.

That allegation in a real complaint in a real federal court in California seems unbelievable (because of our psychological proclivities), but the next one attempts to top it:

"Defendants Brown [Gov. of California], Nechodom, Kustic, Oviatt, DOGGR, WSPA, CIPA, OCCIDENTAL OIL AND GAS CORPORATION, CHEVRON U.S.A. INC., and others known and unknown, being persons employed by and associated with the Enterprise did unlawfully, knowingly, and intentionally conduct and participate, directly and directly in the conduct, management, and operation of the affairs of the Enterprise, which was engaged in and affected interstate and foreign commerce through racketeering activity that included numerous acts indictable under 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy to defraud the United States); 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 (intimidation of any person engaged in free exercise of speech or any Constitutional right); 1341 (mail fraud) , 1343 (wire fraud), 1346.43 (honest services), 1512 (b) (intimidating and threatening witnesses), and 1513(b) (intimidating and threatening witnesses)."

(ibid, Complaint, pp. 43-44, emphasis added). You may be wondering what this has to do with conspiracy theories.

The official conspiracy theory alleged in the complaint is as follows:

"G. The Conspiracy

Beginning in 2011, the Oil Companies kept close attention to the EPA audit.

The Oil Companies knew that they ignored the regulations to protect underground water, and if the public knew of the risks, the Oil Companies would face massive liability for potential contamination of groundwater (historical and future). The Oil Companies also knew that they needed government approvals to engage in hydraulic fracturing. If the public knew of their failure to comply with underground injection control (UIC) requirements for waste water, the Oil Companies would be subject to greater scrutiny for hydraulic fracturing – waste water from fracking includes added chemicals.

The Oil Companies also knew that they needed landowners to approve the hydraulic fracturing, and if these landowners knew of these problems, landowners would not allow the Oil Companies to proceed with actions that would damage the farms and water supplies. By at least October 27, 2011, the Oil Companies agreed that no company would provide DOGGR with the documents to show protection of fresh water including (1) geological studies; (2) engineering studies; or (3) casing diagrams. This continues to the present day.

In early October of 2011, Occidental also directly contacted Governor Brown and told him to fire Miller and Chernow. Brown’s office then requested records about the permitting process as it related to Occidental. On October 14, 2011, Chernow sent documents regarding Occidental’s California operations to the senior officials handling the inquiry from Governor Brown. Chernow emailed that he was “willing to follow any direction as required. If direction is different than what the Department is currently pursuing, I would appreciate as explicit direction as possible.”

Less than a week later, on October 19, 2011, Occidental started reporting that “it cannot get the permits it needs for new drilling projects in California.” This was a misrepresentation of the problems arising from Occidental’s own decision not to follow the law.

On October 27, 2011, Occidental’s environmental engineer admitted to Chernow it had “the necessary information . . . However, he’s been told to stand down (by a lawyer is all I know) and not give us anything. There is apparently a meeting in Bakersfield at Oxy’s offices this afternoon to discuss whether they give us what we need or continue to give us nothing.”

Governor Brown’s office and his senior advisor, Cliff Rechtschaffen, scheduled a meeting with Miller and Chernow held the next day. Rechtschaffen notified them that DOGGR must immediately fast track permit approval. His team presented a document entitled the Temporary Assistance Program or TAP. Miller sought guidance from the United States Environmental Protection Agency about the list of demands.

The EPA representative reviewed and commented on it, and Miller responding by writing ... “I agree with your point that this has similarities to what was prepared by [Western States Petroleum Association ] WSPA.”

On November 2, 2011, Miller and Chernow went to another meeting which Rechtschaffen joined over the phone. Miller told Rechtschaffen the proposal violated the Safe Drinking Water Act. Rechtschaffen told her this was an order from Governor Brown."

(ibid, Complaint, pp. 43-44, emphasis added). Earlier in this series I explained that a conspiracy theory of the case is a very common type of case in the courts:

In fact, you might be surprised how many conspiracy theories are handled by the federal and state governments on a daily basis:

Over one-quarter of all federal criminal prosecutions and a large number of state cases involve prosecutions for conspiracy.

(Conspiracy Theory, 112 Yale L.J. 1307 (2003), Preface,  emphasis added). That is a lot of real, serious as a heart attack, beyond a reasonable doubt, and well documented occurrences of "conspiracy theories" going on in reality before the eyes of anyone who wants to see them.

(On The Origin of "Conspiracy Theory"). The injection of toxins into the aquifer that is drinking water, as well as water for agriculture that feeds millions of people, is difficult for our minds to understand.

Some reality is perplexing enough to bring denying minds into existence every day now.

The previous post in this series is here.

---

Conspiracy Theory, by Nick Jonas & The Administration, lyrics here.

---