06/04/2020

A History Of FLICC*: The 5 Techniques Of Science Denial

Skeptical Science - John Cook



In 2007, Mark Hoofnagle suggested on his Science Blog Denialism that denialists across a range of topics such as climate change, evolution, & HIV/AIDS all employed the same rhetorical tactics to sow confusion. The five general tactics were conspiracy, selectivity (cherry-picking), fake experts, impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts), and general fallacies of logic.

Two years later, Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee published an article in the scientific journal European Journal of Public Health titled Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? They further fleshed out Hoofnagle’s five denialist tactics and argued that we should expose to public scrutiny the tactics of denial, identifying them for what they are. I took this advice to heart and began including the five denialist tactics in my own talks about climate misinformation.

In 2013, the Australian Youth Climate Coalition invited me to give a workshop about climate misinformation at their annual summit. As I prepared my presentation, I mused on whether the five denial techniques could be adapted into a sticky, easy-to-remember acronym. I vividly remember my first attempt: beginning with Fake Experts, Unrealistic Expectations, Cherry Picking… realizing I was going in a problematic direction for a workshop for young participants. I started over and settled on FLICC: Fake experts, Logical fallacies, Impossible expectations, Cherry picking, and Conspiracy theories.

When I led a 2015 collaboration between the University of Queensland and Skeptical Science to develop the free online course Denial101x: Making Sense of Climate Science Denial, we made FLICC the underlying framework of the entire course. An important component of our debunking of the most common myths about climate change was identifying the denial techniques in each myth.

A common comment we received from students was how much they appreciated learning about FLICC.

LARGE IMAGE

Since moving to the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, I’ve continued to build the FLICC taxonomy. In my collaboration with critical thinking philosophers Peter Ellerton and David Kinkead, I was introduced to reasoning fallacies that we hadn’t included in Denial101x.

As I begun developing the Cranky Uncle game, I began a series of fallacy quizzes where I gradually built the taxonomy up as I introduced people to an ever-growing collection of denial techniques (note the differing difficulty levels between quiz #1 and quiz #8).

When Stephan Lewandowsky and I published The Conspiracy Theory Handbook, we added seven traits of conspiratorial thinking. Here is the latest version of the FLICC taxonomy (with all the icons freely available and shareable on Wikimedia):

LARGE IMAGE

When I visited Brisbane in December 2019, I asked the University of Queensland if I could record a video explaining the updated FLICC taxonomy. They agreed but once they saw my script, including explanations and definitions of each denial technique, they suggested I divide the video into a three-parter. Always a sucker for a trilogy, I agreed – here are the three videos:





As well as the videos, this post includes written definitions and examples of each denial technique. I will continue to update this table as the taxonomy evolves in the future.

TECHNIQUE DEFINITION EXAMPLE
Ad Hominem Attacking a person/group instead of addressing their arguments. “Climate science can’t be trusted because climate scientists are biased.”
Ambiguity Using ambiguous language in order to lead to a misleading conclusion. “Thermometer readings have uncertainty which means we don’t know whether global warming is happening.”
Anecdote Using personal experience or isolated examples instead of sound arguments or compelling evidence. “The weather is cold today—whatever happened to global warming?”
Blowfish Focusing on an inconsequential aspect of scientific research, blowing it out of proportion in order to distract from or cast doubt on the main conclusions of the research. “The hockey stick graph is invalid because it contains statistical errors.”
Bulk Fake Experts Citing large numbers of seeming experts to argue that there is no scientific consensus on a topic. “There is no expert consensus because 31,487 Americans with a science degree signed a petition saying humans aren’t disrupting climate.”
Cherry Picking Carefully selecting data that appear to confirm one position while ignoring other data that contradicts that position. “Global warming stopped in 1998.”
Contradictory Simultaneously believing in ideas that are mutually contradictory.  “The temperature record is fabricated by scientists… the temperature record shows cooling.”
Conspiracy Theory Proposing that a secret plan exists to implement a nefarious scheme such as hiding a truth. “The climategate emails prove that climate scientists have engaged in a conspiracy to deceive the public.”
Fake Debate Presenting science and pseudoscience in an adversarial format to give the false impression of an ongoing scientific debate. “Climate deniers should get equal coverage with climate scientists, providing a more balanced presentation of views.”
Fake Experts Presenting an unqualified person or institution as a source of credible information. “A retired physicist argues against the climate consensus, claiming the current weather change is just a natural occurrence.”
False Analogy Assuming that because two things are alike in some ways, they are alike in some other respect. “Climate skeptics are like Galileo who overturned the scientific consensus about geocentrism.”
False Choice Presenting two options as the only possibilities, when other possibilities exist. “CO2 lags temperature in the ice core record, proving that temperature drives CO2, not the other way around.”
Immune to evidence Re-interpreting any evidence that counters a conspiracy theory as originating from the conspiracy. “Those investigations finding climate scientists aren’t conspiring were part of the conspiracy.”
Impossible Expectations Demanding unrealistic standards of certainty before acting on the science. “Scientists can’t even predict the weather next week. How can they predict the climate in 100 years?”
Logical Fallacies Arguments where the conclusion doesn’t logically follow from the premises. Also known as a non sequitur. “Climate has changed naturally in the past so what’s happening now must be natural.”
Magnified Minority Magnifying the significance of a handful of dissenting scientists to cast doubt on an overwhelming scientific consensus. “Sure, there’s 97% consensus but Professor Smith disagrees with the consensus position.”
Misrepresentation Misrepresenting a situation or an opponent’s position in such a way as to distort understanding. “They changed the name from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ because global warming stopped happening.”
Moving Goalposts Demanding higher levels of evidence after receiving requested evidence. “Sea levels may be rising but they’re not accelerating.”
Nefarious intent Assuming that the motivations behind any presumed conspiracy are nefarious. “Climate scientists promote the climate hoax because they’re in it for the money.”
Overriding suspicion  Having a nihilistic degree of skepticism towards the official account, preventing belief in anything that doesn’t fit into the conspiracy theory.  “Show me one line of evidence for climate change… oh, that evidence is faked!”
Oversimplification Simplifying a situation in such a way as to distort understanding, leading to erroneous conclusions. “CO2 is plant food so burning fossil fuels will be good for plants.”
Persecuted victim Perceiving and presenting themselves as the victim of organized persecution. “Climate scientists are trying to take away our freedom.”
Quote Mining Taking a person’s words out-of-context in order to misrepresent their position. “Mike’s trick… to hide the decline.”
Re-interpreting randomness Believing that nothing occurs by accident, so that random events are re-interpreted as being caused by the conspiracy. “NASA’s satellite exploded? They must be trying to hide inconvenient data!”
Red Herring Deliberately diverting attention to an irrelevant point to distract from a more important point. “CO2 is a trace gas so it’s warming effect is minimal.”
Single Cause Assuming a single cause or reason when there might be multiple causes or reasons. “Climate has changed naturally in the past so what’s happening now must be natural.”
Slippery Slope Suggesting that taking a minor action will inevitably lead to major consequences. “If we implement even a modest climate policy, it will start us down the slippery slope to socialism and taking away our freedom.”
Slothful Induction Ignoring relevant evidence when coming to a conclusion. “There is no empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming.”
Something must be wrong Maintaining that “something must be wrong” and the official account is based on deception, even when specific parts of a conspiracy theory become untenable. “Ok, fine, 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming, but that’s just because they’re toeing the party line.”
Straw Man Misrepresenting or exaggerating an opponent’s position to make it easier to attack. “In the 1970s, climate scientists were predicting an ice age.”

And lastly, a bit of fun. Every year, Inside the Greenhouse hold a competition inviting people to submit climate comedy videos. In 2019, I submitted Giving Climate Denial the FLICC, which received an honorable mention.



Links
at No comments:

Rescuing The Great Barrier Reef: How Much Can Be Saved, And How Can We Do It?

The Guardian - 

As global heating makes coral bleaching a regular event, scientists are urgently seeking ways to help the world’s biggest reef survive
Zoe Richards has seen great changes in the corals off Lizard Island since she started monitoring them in 2011. Photograph: Mike Emslie

When coral scientist Zoe Richards left the Great Barrier Reef’s Lizard Island in late January, she was feeling optimistic.
Richards is a taxonomist. Since 2011 she has recorded and monitored 245 coral species at 14 locations around the island’s research station, about 270km north of Cairns.
In 2017 she saw “mass destruction of the reef”. Back-to-back mass bleaching in 2016 and 2017, and cyclones in 2014 and 2015, had wreaked havoc.
But in January, she saw thousands of new colonies of fast-growing Acropora corals that had “claimed the space” left by dead and degraded corals. In a three-year window without spiralling heat or churning cyclones, some corals were in an adolescent bloom – not mature enough to spawn, but getting close.
“It was an incredible recovery,” says Richards, of Curtin University. “But I knew if it was hit again, it would be trouble – and that’s exactly what happened.”
In 2020, mass bleaching returned to Lizard Island – perhaps not as badly as in previous years – but enough, says Richards, to turn the clock back on the recovery she had seen.
This summer has delivered a third mass bleaching for the reef in just five years. The back-to-back bleaching of 2016 and 2017 was mostly confined to the northern and central sections.
Data from aerial surveys is still being analysed, but the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has said preliminary results suggest the 2020 bleaching had a much broader footprint.
When bleaching is mild, corals can and do recover, although it can make them more susceptible to disease. But severe bleaching can kill corals. Estimates are that the 2016 bleaching killed about 29% of the reef’s shallow water corals and the 2017 event took another 19%.
Some scientists are now concerned global heating may have reached a point where tropical reefs bleach almost every year.
What this means for the reef in the coming decades is an area of live research and debate among scientists.

Can we fix it?
Scientists Guardian Australia spoke to say the reef’s fortunes hang on the answers to two questions.
The first is whether governments around the world will make deeper cuts to greenhouse gas emissions than they have already agreed and, if so, how close they will get to keeping global heating to 1.5C.
A second is whether efforts to first identify and then deploy a swathe of potential measures that could reduce the impact of rising temperatures will be successful.
What seems clear is that without some human intervention, the magic of the world’s greatest coral reef system will be lost.
Prof Peter Mumby, professor of coral reef ecology at the University of Queensland, is the chief scientist at the Great Barrier Reef Foundation – the once-small not-for-profit that was awarded a controversial $443m government grant in 2018.
I’m fearful that in the next 10 years we will see the loss of coral across the planet at phenomenal rates
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
He said the 2020 bleaching “is giving us greater pause, given it seems we can see quite frequent coral bleaching events earlier than people had previously expected”.
Mumby says bleaching events have been “patchy”, and the fact that some areas have escaped “means there’s an opportunity for management”.
What keeps the reef functioning as a single ecosystem is the way each reef connects to another through the way corals reproduce. They all either spawn, or produce larvae, that can float in the water column and settle on nearby reefs.
Mumby and colleagues have identified about 100 reefs along the GBR that are well spread, well connected to other reefs by ocean currents, and tend to experience cooler temperatures.
He says making sure those reefs stay as healthy as possible – in particular by managing outbreaks of the coral-eating crown of thorns starfish – could be crucial in keeping the wider reef viable.
The reef’s unrivalled size and diversity – almost 4,000 reefs, cays and islands stretching for more than 2,000 kilometres – gives it extra resilience, he says.
Climate change is still the reef’s biggest threat and society will need to focus on tackling it, “but there needs to be a way to adapt to how we manage reefs so that they can roll with the punches – we have to do both those things”.
The Australian Institute of Marine Sciences (AIMS) has produced an as-yet unpublished study, sent to the federal government, that reviews more than 160 different interventions that have been suggested for the reef, identifying about 40 that could be worth further study.

Heat-stressed corals off Lizard Island in February 2020. Photograph: Dr Lyle Vail, Director of the Australian Museum’s Lizard Island Research Station

Dr Lina Bay, a principal research scientists at AIMS, says one promising area of study is what’s known as “assisted gene flow”, where the spawn of corals with better tolerance for heat could be captured and then dispersed.
“Not all corals are created equal,” she says. “Some have a higher stress tolerance than others. Over many years we’ve shown that the variation in bleaching tolerance is hereditable – it gets passed from parents to offspring.”
She says these differences can exist even among the same species, meaning those corals can be selectively grown in a lab setting to promote more heat tolerance.
AIMS scientist Dr Neal Cantin has just finished a three-year experiment with one fast-growing coral species called Pocillopora acuta, which behaves like a weed by filling in the gaps when less hardy corals die off.
Starting with 90 parent specimens taken from three different parts of the Great Barrier Reef, Cantin and colleagues grew 7,500 offspring and then subjected them to rising levels of CO2 and temperatures of up to 2C warming.
Even at high temperatures, some of these corals survived, and they were able to tolerate higher levels of heat as the experiment went on.
Having a street-fighting weedy coral like this is important, says Cantin. Dead areas of coral reefs tend to get covered in algae, but Cantin says a weedy coral that can compete with the algae can then make room for slower-growing corals to also grow.
“The whole goal of a lot of these interventions is to work with species that can be successful on their own. We won’t be able to work with 600 species of corals, but we could probably work with 20 that fill the functional roles of a healthy reef community.
“You can’t deny bleaching events are becoming more frequent and more severe and they’re impacting across a bigger area than before. We can just document that demise, or we can learn from it and have some corals for future generations.”

A bleached specimen of Acropora clathrata on the Great Barrier Reef. Photograph: Zoe Richards

That demise is clear and it happens at scale, and also in detail. Zoe Richards has already seen evidence of likely local extinctions of some corals at Lizard Island. One is a spiralised plate coral – Acropora clathrata – that she hasn’t been able to find for years.
“It’s these silent extinctions that go on,” she says.
“The entire reef is operating like one big meta population with sub-populations that are connected to each other. If you successively take out nodes in that population, sooner or later you will end up with parts that don’t connect. It will be fragmented into subsets that will continue to erode in terms of diversity. It’s degradation of the [coral] community at a very large scale.”

‘At 3C, you basically have nothing’
Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, of the University of Queensland, has done pioneering work on the study of coral bleaching going back to the mid-1980s.
He remembers Lizard Island as a “picture perfect” place to do research on corals in the late 80s, when his research there found rising temperatures caused corals to lose their “symbionts” – the algae that lives in the coral and gives them much of their nutrients and colour.
The Great Barrier Reef’s first major mass bleaching event happened in 1998. There was another in 2002, and again in 2016, 2017 and 2020.
Hoegh-Guldberg says: “We knew there was a temperature effect, and we knew that temperatures were going up. At the end of the 90s, I could put those two things together.”
The year after the reef’s first mass bleaching, Hoegh-Guldberg took climate models to forecast that if greenhouse gas emissions kept growing then, by 2020, “the average bleaching event is likely to be similar or greater than the 1998 event”.
As 2020 approached, the models showed reefs across the northern, central and southern regions would see between eight and 10 bleaching events per decade.
“I wished I’d been wrong” he says. “I think I said at the time that I’d have egg on my face if I was wrong. But there’s no egg on my face.”

Corals at Lizard Island had been showing signs of recovery before this year’s bleaching. Photograph: Dr Lyle Vail, Director of the Australian Museum’s Lizard Island Research Station

Hoegh-Guldberg says manually replanting corals is uneconomic at scale but there’s merit in helping the dispersal of coral larvae, pointing to a technique being developed by a scientist at Southern Cross University that captures millions of larvae in floating pools.
But he says the main game is keeping global heating down.
“Let’s say we get to 1.5C and then we can stabilise – that’s really the last call for reefs. Corals will come back and there will be winners and losers, but you’ll have a functional reef that supports fisheries and tourism.”
The problem is that right now, government pledges under the Paris agreement are enough to raise temperatures by 3C – not 1.5C.
“At 2C all the reef-building corals have plummeted and instead you are looking at the dominance of other organisms like algae. At 3C you basically have nothing.
“I’m fearful that in the next 10 years we will see the loss of coral across the planet at phenomenal rates,” he says. “That’s what keeps me up at night.”

Links
at No comments:

(US) Polluting Industries Cash-In On COVID, Harming Climate In The Process

InsideClimate News - Georgina Gustin | James Bruggers | Kristoffer Tigue | Dan Gearino

Airlines, farmers and plastic bag makers look for relief amid the pandemic. But the coal industry, and wind and solar energy concerns, lose out in the relief bill. 
New York Mayor Bill De Blasio hands out reusable bags on Feb. 28, 2020, ahead of a plastic bag ban. The ban was postponed because of the coronavirus pandemic. Credit: Lev Radin/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images


With the attention of lawmakers and government agencies focused on the global coronavirus pandemic, polluting industries have seized on the opportunity to advance their own interests.

In the days leading up to President Donald Trump's signing of a $2.2 trillion relief bill, lobbyists descended on Washington in an attempt to squeeze as much as possible out of the U.S. Treasury.

Some industries, including agriculture and aviation, got major boosts; others, notably coal and clean energy, were left disappointed.

As the number of infections and deaths from the coronavirus pandemic continues to rise and the economic fallout starts to hit more Americans, industries are scrambling to stay afloat and save jobs. But some, critics say, are exploiting the situation to their advantage, potentially at a cost to the climate.

This week, after a request from the oil industry, the Environmental Protection Agency  issued a suspension of its enforcement of environmental laws, a move that critics say will let the industry pollute indefinitely.

Environmental and advocacy groups say they are concerned that other agencies will follow suit, allowing industries to capitalize on the crisis. And some are already trying to get what they can.


The plastics industry, for example, is using the COVID-19 pandemic to try to save what has become in many peoples' minds a global villain—the single-use plastic bag. Their actions come after a growing number of states and cities have banned plastic bags or slapped fees on their use in retail and grocery stores. Plastic bags and all kinds of other plastics are choking the oceans, with microscopic bits of plastic getting into human bodies, giving the industry a bad reputation. And plastics manufacturing and incineration are contributing  to global warming.

But seeing an opportunity in the global crisis, the Plastics Industry Association has asked the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to declare the bans on plastic bags a health risk, and "to speak out against bans on these products as a public safety risk and help stop the rush to ban these products by environmentalists and elected officials that puts consumers and workers at risk."

The industry cites studies or reports, including at least one paid for by the plastics industry, that claim dirty reusable bags spread germs. Those are findings that are disputed by others, including Greenpeace, which describes the industry efforts as "a profit-driven distraction."

But the industry is succeeding in getting some traction, at least temporarily:
  • Maine delayed its ban on single-use plastic bags from April 22 to Jan. 15, 2021.
  • New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu temporarily banned reusable bags in grocery stores, as did Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, who also lifted all local plastic bag bans in his state.
  • Charleson, South Carolina, had banned plastic bags effective on Jan. 1, but last week suspended that ban for 60 days, as part of its response to COVID-19.
New York, the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak in the United States, has delayed enforcing its new  statewide plastic bag ban until April 1, but officials said that's only because of a legal challenge unrelated to the pandemic.

Some retail stores are prohibiting their customers from using reusable bags while others still allow them, or do so only if customers fill them.

To Judith Enck, a former regional administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency who runs the Beyond Plastics campaign, the industry's efforts are unfortunate.

"I am quite disturbed that the plastics industry is exploiting this pandemic with unfounded information," Enck said, adding, "What I am most worried about is permanent repeal of plastic bag bans."


The relief package passed by Congress directs $14 billion to the country's farms through the Commodity Credit Corporation, a Depression-era program designed to stabilize farm income and ensure stable supplies of major crops. It also directs another $9.5 billion to fruit and vegetable growers, livestock producers and those farmers who sell directly to markets.

The infusions were welcomed across the board by progressive and conservative farming groups. But some advocates for climate-friendly farming are concerned that the dollars will end up with mega-farms and multinational agriculture corporations that have pushed against sustainable, climate-forward farming.

Over the last two years, the Trump administration has given American farmers nearly $28 billion in bailouts to compensate for losses linked to the administration's trade war with China. Critics said most of that went to larger farms and worry the new funds could be spent the same way.

"The defining element of this aid package is a total lack of specificity," said Eric Deeble, policy director for the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. "It's not that people didn't try to do hard work; it's just that when they tried to get specific, it started to fall apart."

That means Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue will decide who gets the aid and how much. His past record suggests it will flow to the biggest farms.

"Perdue's handling of the trade aid payments shows his preference for large-scale commodity farmers," said Ben Lillilston, director of rural strategies and climate change at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. "Within the $9.5 billion, will the bulk of the money go to big feedlots and mega-dairies? That's a big concern, given Perdue's preference for those types of operations."


Democrats had originally proposed a $50 billion stimulus measure for the airline industry that would require airlines to go carbon neutral for domestic flights by 2025 and would also provide funding to develop lower-carbon fuels. Both those measures were cut from the package passed in Congress this week, which included nearly $60 billion for airlines with no green strings attached.

The emissions-reducing measures wouldn't have been out of line with what the airline industry is already trying to do. A decade ago, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) set a number of ambitious targets to combat the industry's contributions to climate change, including binding the trade group's hundreds of member airlines to participate in carbon offset schemes starting in 2027.

Without assistance, however, those plans could take a back seat. Offset schemes could already cost airlines at least $6.2 billion a year over the next five years, according to an analysis by Citigroup.

Commercial aviation is responsible for 2.4 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions and could account for up to a quarter of the world's carbon budget by 2050, according to a 2019 study by the International Council on Clean Transportation.

But as the coronavirus outbreak has led to steep declines in air travel, many airlines have been focused on mere survival. IATA's most recent estimate projects global aviation passenger revenues this year plummeting $252 billion, or 44 percent below 2019 revenues. And the group's CEO Alexandre de Juniac this week called for $200 billion in international relief to prevent a total collapse of the industry.

Whatever gets the aviation industry that support is what's most important, said Chris Goater, IATA's manager of corporate communications. "We are primarily focused on the survival of industry at this point," he said. "If leaving provisions out of the bill enables it to be passed, then that is worth it."


The coal industry, which was in free fall long before the coronavirus hit, tried to benefit from the stimulus bill, but was left out of the package. The industry's requests—relief on taxes supporting abandoned mine clean-up and workers stricken with black lung disease and a reduction in royalty payments to the federal treasury for coal mined from federal lands—were not new and an industry spokesman said the industry will keep asking for them.

Congress in December had just fully restored the excise tax on coal that funds benefits to coal miners with black lung disease.

"It's essential that policymakers thoughtfully consider ways to ensure the coal sector can provide uninterrupted operations," said Conor Bernstein, spokesman for the National Mining Association. Friday, Bernstein said the bill has some tax provisions that will help all industries, including mining. "We will keep making the case for more specific action as the government continues to look for ways to support critical industries and lift the economy.

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican who sees himself as a friend of the coal industry, provided only a vague, one-sentence response to questions about what happened to the mining industry's request. McConnell has been "working hard" to help coal families and employers, the spokesman said.

Advocates for coal miners were incensed by the industry's requests.

Rebecca Shelton, with the Appalachian Citizen Law Center in eastern Kentucky, called the National Mining Association's request "particularly egregious" because "those with black lung disease are likely to be very vulnerable to COVID-19 and yet the industry wants to reduce funding for the trust fund that many miners with black lung disease rely upon."

The coal industry has experienced waves of bankruptcies and consolidations as it has struggled to compete with cheaper natural gas and increasingly less expensive wind and solar energy, said Chiza Vitta, an analyst with S&P Global Ratings.

As such, it is not a typical candidate for a bailout, he said.

"Normally, you give bailouts to companies that can thrive going forward," Vitta said.


Renewable energy trade groups also hoped their industries would get something in the stimulus legislation, including extensions and expansions to tax credits that had narrowly missed being included in a budget bill in December. After the tax credit proposals were not included this week, the major solar and wind trade associations issued conciliatory statements.

"As Congress continues to address the ongoing COVID-19 crisis, we appreciate that they are prioritizing relief for families and small businesses," said Abigail Ross Hopper, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association. 

Hopper said some of the aid in the legislation will help people in the solar industry, but lamented that her group did not get anywhere near what it wanted. A few days earlier, she had warned that up to 125,000 jobs—about half of the solar industry—could be lost because of the economic disruption caused by coronavirus, and asked

Tom Kiernan, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association, praised Congress for taking action to help workers, before adding that the wind industry is "disappointed clean energy sector relief did not make it into the phase three stimulus package."

Hopper and Kiernan both said they are looking to future measures to potentially provide the aid to their industries that did not make into this bill.

And lawmakers have hinted that this week's stimulus is probably not the last.

Links
at No comments: