The head of the NRDC just put this article out on Cleantechnica the point of which was to assert that toxic 'natural' gas was the bench mark lowest price energy source and we were stuck with it until at least 2035, when the reality is even with endless subsidies it can't compete on cost or anything else anywhere nor will it ever do so in the future and its only pure fraud that keeps it going in any jurisdiction. She goes on to say 'conservation' is even cheaper than natural gas- implying that massively overpriced radically subsidized toxic 'natural' gas is somehow cheap or cost competitive. It is as stupid as the assertion that gasoline could ever be 'cheap,' or implying that its cost isn't totally intermittent and always going up. Its like they assert the listener is stupid while they utter this nonsense and think if they say it enough both premises will be accepted. She goes on to say that 'conservation' makes sense because scheduled natural gas pipelines and projects won't even be necessary by 2035 because of green energy, in essence trying slip in or make accepted that current projects are somehow necessary and will be necessary for the next 15 years. Cleantechnica has what appear to be some regular shill writers like Steve Hanley (he writes stuff like NG article from time to time) but it is amazing that Zach doesn't filter out the crap shill writers and articles. Watchdog agencies also note NRDC doesn't disclose its sources of money because are likely fossil fuel based. There should be a way to shut front groups pretending to be charities. The phrasing was just like the stupid criminal ideology type phrasing for 'organic' food where the poisoned toxified food should be labeled tainted or pesticided or 'fossil fueled' but instead they reverse the phrasing to make their compromised products that cause sickness not the issue and rely on idiot "no evidence for" claims when they suppress research or sue, over and over again the "there is no evidence for" claim as if their expert all knowing religious status were increased by uttering this- how could anyone ever claim 'there is no evidence for,' it suggest all possibility has been exhausted or they are somehow familiar with all the evidence the universe has presented and that the present state of ignorance should prevail no matter the case for rest of time because they have made a pronouncement and that all questions can only be raised by their anointed priesthood.
