New York v. ExxonMobil — the climate fraud case

Global warming — the rise in the atmosphere’s average temperature since pre-industrial times — forms the background to the State of New York v. the ExxonMobil Corporation lawsuit.

Chart of ice core data showing CO2 levels from year 1000 to1990’s
Ice core data showing CO2 levels from year 1000 to 1990’s. Image: CSIRO

Before 1800, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere fluctuated around 280 ppm (see chart above). The level of CO2 began its steep rise around 1800 due to the heavy use of coal during the industrial revolution. By the 1990’s, the continued burning of fossil fuels had  raised the CO2 level to 350 ppm. Today the level exceeds 411 ppm (NOAA-ESRL, March 2019).

CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat from the sun, a result of the greenhouse effect. As the level of CO2 increases, so does the atmospheric temperature. The Paris Climate Agreement set a goal of “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C (3.6°F) above pre-industrial levels.” As of this date (March 2019), the average increase has already exceeded 1°C.

ExxonMobil does not deny that global warming is occurring. Nor does it deny that burning fossil fuels is the major cause of it. It is also fully aware of the various government actions being taken worldwide to limit the burning of fossil fuels. What the company is supposed to do is incorporate that knowledge into its financial statements so that investors can judge for themselves whether or not to risk their money. This requires that the company anticipate future government actions, such as, for example, the imposition of carbon taxes, and calculate their financial effects. What the lawsuit alleges is that the company lied to its investors about the potential impact of such actions. In other words, it deliberately underestimated the risks.

The New York Attorney General in her filing of October 24, 2018, against the company puts it more strongly. Exxon, the filing says, perpetrated a “longstanding fraudulent scheme … to deceive investors and the investment community … concerning the company’s management of the risks posed to its business by climate change.” Considering that the AG’s office spent three years investigating Exxon before charging it with fraud, you can bet that whatever the company is accused of doing, it won’t be easy to explain or prove in court.

Which of the parties involved in this lawsuit deserves support or sympathy? None of them. Not the investors. Not the Attorney General’s office. Certainly not ExxonMobil. Whether or not Exxon is found guilty of fraud, we know that it is guilty of pushing its product onto the market by any means it can get away with including: heavy lobbying of government; ladling out election financing to friendly politicians; feeding money to pro-industry organizations (propaganda outlets).

The internet provides investors with the same global warming information available to the Exxon Corporation. The risks of investing in the fossil fuel industry are plain to see. Signs of the industry’s slow but inevitable decline are already evident. Just how slow is anybody’s guess. Spreadsheets from corporate accountants will not aid in the guessing. The risk-free option is not to invest in the industry.

According to Bloomberg News (Oct. 24/18), the State of New York holds about $1.5 billion worth of Exxon stock. The investment includes “the state’s common retirement fund, with more than 1 million employees and retirees, and the New York State Teachers Retirement System, with nearly half a million members.” Considering that New York is a member of the U.S. Climate Alliance, and therefore supposedly committed to upholding the objectives of the 2015 Paris Agreement on limiting global warming, it strikes me as odd, hypocritical even, that the state retains its investment in a fossil fuel company, particularly one that’s being sued by its own Attorney General.

Some people say that the Trump administration’s opposition to the Paris Climate Accord, and its total support of the fossil fuel industry, should make it unnecessary for business, or the courts, or investors, to take global warming seriously. Those people are wrong. Dealing with the Trump Administration is like dealing with a monkey in a dining room leaping about spilling drinks, snatching food off plates, shitting on the table cloth. The prudent diner will wait until the monkey is removed before ordering a meal.

Gatehouse entrance to ExxonMobil headquarters, Irving TX
Gatehouse entrance to ExxonMobil headquarters, Irving TX. Image: Google

Death by Plastic

Cuvier’s Beaked Whales (Ziphius cavirostris) are known for their extreme diving abilities. Researchers using satellite-linked tags to measure the diving behavior of the species off the Southern California coast have recorded one dive to 9,816 ft (2992 m) in depth, and another lasting 137.5 minutes, “both new mammalian dive records.” The work, carried out by Gregory Scharr and colleagues of the Cascadia Research Collective, was published March 26, 2014 in the open access journal, PLOS ONE.

Phot of Cuvier’s Beaked Whale
Cuvier’s Beaked Whale. Image: Cetacean Research & Rescue Unit, Banff, Scotland.

Because of the animal’s preference for deep water, typically far from shore, the living habits of this marvellous creature are poorly understood. Most of the collected knowledge about the species comes from the study of dead specimens. A week ago (March 16), marine researchers in the Philippians learned that a young Cuvier’s Beaked Whale could hold 88 lbs (40 kg) of plastic trash in its stomach before dying of “gastric shock”.

According to an article in the National Geographic, the young 15ft long, 1,100 pound whale was still alive when it washed up on the shore of the Davao Gulf. The people who found it said it looked emaciated and was vomiting blood before it died. The magazine quotes Darrell Blatchley, the marine biologist who performed an autopsy on the body: “Plastic was just bursting out its stomach”. Blatchley describes the contents as being like two densely packed basketballs, but hard as a baseball, some of it calcified from being in the stomach for so long. The trash, 8% of the animal’s total weight, included plastic shopping bags of various sizes, rice sacks, banana bags, and tangles of nylon rope. According to the National Geographic piece, the animal’s “stomach acid, unable to break down the plastic waste, had worn holes through its stomach lining instead.”

Writing about how much plastic trash can fit inside the belly of a whale has reminded me of the email I sent last December to James Quincey, CEO of the Coca-Cola Co. concerning his talk on ‘sustainability’ published on YouTube, August 30, 2018 – see below. The Coca-Cola Company reportedly generates — world wide — about 3 million tons of plastic packaging annually, all of it destined to pollute land, sea, or air, in one form or another. What concerned me about Mr. Quincey’s comments on plastic, was that, rather than talk about alternatives, he went on about how improved ‘recycling’ of plastic waste could ultimately fix the problem of plastic waste pollution.

My email to Mr. Quincey’s was intended to remind him that recycling plastic waste is not a ‘sustainable’ solution to the pollution problem. The email listed the following three reasons why it isn’t:

First, the collection of discarded plastic is driven by local demands for the cleanup of unsightly trash, and it depends on the availability of municipal taxes and/or government subsidies to pay for the work. There are many places, including whole countries, that cannot afford decent garbage disposal, let alone the facilities needed to extract plastic from the stuff.
Second, even in places where the collection of trash is good, there is no profit motive to drive plastic recycling. The cheapest way to make plastic is to use fossil fuels – oil, gas, coal – as the raw material. It’s far more expensive to extract used plastic from garbage and then reprocess it.
Third, even if increased levels of plastic recycling could be achieved, the amount of plastic in the environment would continue to rise. That’s because recycled plastics remain in the environment as potential pollutants. For example, lawn chairs made from recycled plastic bottles eventually return to the trash pile. Recycling merely delays the pollution caused by the recycled stream.

Promoting the idea of recycling to reduce plastic pollution is a useful PR position for a corporation like Coca-Cola to adopt— in the short term. But what, I asked Mr. Quincey, is his company’s actual, sustainable, solution for the long term? I’m expecting a positive reply; something like: plastic is an abomination, a scourge, there’s no choice but to phase it out, we must use glass instead, the quicker we act the better.

I haven’t received any reply from Mr. Quincey yet, but I’ll update this post when I do.

While the whale that died from gastric shock will disintegrate and return harmlessly to the earth, the trash removed from its stomach continues to exist. Conceivably the same trash could some day find its way back into the ocean to once again kill more creatures — assuming there are any creatures left to kill. That’s the problem with plastics. Like the fossil fuels from which they are derived, once let loose into the environment, the damage they cause lasts indefinitely and becomes virtually impossible to control. Perhaps next time Mr. Quincey and his fellow Coca-Cola board members meet to discuss corporate business, they’ll consider more carefully the implications of their product-packaging decisions. To use a business jargon term, the company needs to get out ahead of the curve.

Photo of Coca-Cola Co. Board of Directors
Coca-Cola Board of Directors. James Quincey 7th From left. Image from Coca-Cola Co. website

 

Climate Bafflegab: the words Big Business uses to keep us ignorant

Bafflegab: language deliberately used to confuse, obscure, baffle

The Limits to Growth, a report commissioned by The Club of Rome, hit the book stands in 1972. Widely discussed at the time, it’s a study of industrial and population growth in relation to the supply of resources. It concluded that, unless the world changed its ways, limits to growth would become evident by the year 2072. Since its publication, more than 30 million copies of the book have sold, and it continues to generate debate to this day.

Photo of The Limits to Growth, 1st Edition cover

Question: why is the phrase ‘Limits to Growth’ so rarely mentioned in the press or elsewhere? What happened to it? Answer: Big Business, aided by its friends in government, buried it. Business leaders like to talk about growing their businesses, never about stunting them. Outside of academic circles, talk about limiting growth is considered bad taste, like spitting in public. How did Business manage to suppress the phrase so completely? Easy. It promoted an alternative phrase more to its liking. It’s called ‘Sustainable Development’, a masterpiece of bafflegab.

Google’s Ngram Viewer consists of a search engine and a database of about five million books published up to the year 2008. It provides a way to chart the frequency over time of any set of words or phrases appearing in the data set of printed texts. By choosing 1900 as the start date, and entering these three phrases, industrial development, limits to growth, and sustainable development, the Viewer generates the following chart.

Image of Google Ngram chart
Google Ngram Chart. (All) = case insensitive

The People who write books tend to use the words and phrases acceptable to the people they hope will read them. Books reflect what people are talking about at any point in time. When it was published in 1972, the Club of Rome’s book reflected the growing discomfort with industrialization. That’s when talk about ‘industrial development’ started heading downhill (see chart) and talk about ‘limits to growth’ began to gain traction. Big Business had to act fast and it did. By 1990, the new, business-friendly phrase ‘sustainable development’ had eclipsed the phrase ‘limits to growth’, and would soon take over from the phrase ‘industrial development’.

Does that mean Big Business is out of the woods, free to carry on as before? Not quite. There remains the question of global warming and its bafflegab replacement phrase ‘climate change’.  Yes, that’s right, ‘Climate change’ is a phrase chosen and promoted by Big Business in its ongoing attempt to bury the words ‘global warming’. Business hates the phrase ‘global warming’. The words imply that, not only is the world getting hotter, but that there’s no limit to how hot It will get. Business does not want to get blamed for cooking its customers. ‘Climate change’ by comparison, sounds positively benign. As President Trump has remarked, the climate could “change back again”.

Here’s what the Ngram chart shows when the phrases global warming and climate change are added.

Image of Google Ngram Chart
Google Ngram Chart (All) = case insensitive

‘Climate change’ and ‘sustainable development’, the two bafflegab phrases, are up there leading the pack, exactly where Business likes to see them. ‘Global warming’, the truthful phrase, although still in the race, is lagging.  ‘Limits to growth’, also a truthful phrase, remains lying in the dirt — for now.

New York City six years after Sandy. Is it ready for the next one?

More than six years have past since superstorm Sandy swamped New York City on October 22, 2012. If a storm of similar strength hit the city today, the streets that Sandy flooded would once again flood to the same depth. While there’s been lots of talk (and some planning), little actual construction work has been done to protect the city from another serious storm surge. However, parts of the city, lower Manhattan in particular, have been ‘hardened’ in a multitude of  ways that are generally invisible to the casual observer.

The city’s subway system suffered an estimated $4.8 billion worth of damage due to the flooding of tunnels with salt water. NY Governor Andrew Cuomo announced (May 16, 2013) plans to ‘flood-proof’ the subway and protect its critical elements against “similar storms that we expect to arrive in the future.” No easy task. The system is old and wasn’t designed with super storms and sea level rise in mind. Individual openings through which water can enter the system from the surface in flood prone areas are many — more than 3,500 according to an estimate made at the time — all of them requiring closure. The list of subway elements in need of flood proofing, included:

Station entrances, ventilator gratings, vents, elevator shafts and openings, access hatches, emergency exits, manholes, utility entrances, escalators, machine rooms, pump rooms, sewer lines, conduit ducts, utility services, lighting, HVAC systems, building entrances and other right of way equipment.

The smell and feel of fetid subway air puffing up through sidewalk gratings are sensations experienced daily by New Yorker’s. How to stop flood waters pouring down through those same gratings, was just one of the challenges faced by the Transportation Authority. One solution: metal hatches fitted under the gratings and ready to slide across the openings when needed. The following photo from 2017 shows MTA Chairman Joe Lhota, explaining the new system to the press.

Photo of MTA Chaireman and press examining subway grating flood prevention devices
MTA chairman Joe Lhota and members of the press examine subway grating flood prevention devices. Image: MTA

Because the openings are so large, flood proofing subway entrance stairways is critically important. The photo below shows an MTA employee deploying a stairwell Flex-Gate (ILC Dover Co) from its housing.

Photo of MTA employee deploying subway entrance flood prevention device
MTA employee deploying subway entrance flood prevention device. MTA Image

New York’s private sector business’s also suffered heavy damage from superstorm Sandy. Before Sandy, equipment such as electrical gear and emergency generators were typically installed in the basements of the city’s high rise buildings. That equipment was destroyed when basements flooded. Repairs took weeks, in some cases, months. Some older inhabitants of residential towers, unable to navigate dark stairwells, were trapped in their apartments for days. Architects and builders have learned from the reports. The American Copper Building provides a good example (photo below). This copper clad, residential duel-tower, built at 626 First Ave., incorporates several post-Sandy design features:

Photo of American Copper Bldg., New York City
American Copper Building.

(1) The building has no penthouse. Instead, the top floors are given over to emergency equipment designed to provide essential services to the whole building for at least a week in the event a serious storm shuts the City down. According to real estate sources, the owners, JDS Development Group (Architects: SHoP) are happy to provide the feature because, in this new age of climate change, they see it as a sales asset That compensates for the loss of penthouse revenue.
(2) Stone rather than wood is used as decorative material in the building’s lobby areas. The rational for its use is that stone will suffer less damage from being submerged in flood waters, and should therefore take less time to repair.
(3) Installing electrical gear on the second floor of new high-rise buildings rather than in their basements, guarantees that the equipment will remain safe from flood waters. This flood-proofing technique has been incorpoated into the design of the American Copper Building, as the building’s blank second-floor windows indicate (see photo below).

Photo of American Copper Building from E 36th Street
Americans Copper Building from E 36th Street. Google image

The storm that hit New York in 2012, was a category 2 hurricane. Is the city prepared for a category 3 or 4 hurricane? New Yorker’s do not want to find out.

Juliana v. United States: the battle heats up

My earlier post dated January 19th, outlined ‘Juliana v. United States’,  the youth climate lawsuit. The suit claims that the federal government, because of its ongoing failure to limit fossil fuel extraction and use, has violated the young people’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, and failed to protect the country’s public-trust resources. The case is currently held up in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals following an appeal by the government, the latest of many attempts by the Trump administration to derail the action.

Photo: James R. Browning Courthouse, San Francisco CA
James R. Browning Courthouse, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, San Francisco CA. Image: Google

On February 4th., the court agreed to begin hearings on the government’s appeal next June, in Portland, Oregon. Also on February 4th., Donald Trump nominated David Bernhardt to head the U.S. Department of the Interior. Bernhardt had become acting head following the departure of scandal-plagued Ryan Zinke.

Photo of David Bernhardt
David Bernhardt. Photo credit: D. Zalubowski/AP

It’s expected that Mr. Bernhardt, a former fossil fuel industry lobbyist, will continue to work on advancing  the President’s “energy dominance” agenda for the country. According to the New York Times, this has already involved “some of the largest rollbacks of public-land protections in the nation’s history . . .  opening millions of acres of public land and water to oil, gas and coal companies.” The Guardian of Dec. 16, 2018 quotes Natural Resources Defense Council’s Bobby McEnaney: “It’s not so much who [Mr. Bernhardt] has helped, it’s who hasn’t he helped in industry so far. The notion that he could extricate himself from benefiting his former clients is impossible.”

Reduced to its essential meaning, the young people’s lawsuit is accusing the Trump administration of ecocide — the destruction of the natural world, including all the humans in it. Underlying that accusation is the fact that, while the plaintiffs are young, the people causing the destruction are old — like Trump. It follows that while the old people have only a few years left to live, the young people have their whole lives ahead of them, provided the old people can be prevented from killing them prematurely.

Despite the Juliana lawsuit, and perhaps in spiteful reaction to it, President Trump, with the help of Mr. Bernhardt and many others like him, has actively persisted in his objective, which is to open up every square foot of the country’s federal lands to fossil fuel extraction. His current push to open the Atlantic and Pacific Outer Continental Shelves to offshore drilling, has caused even some Republican legislators to become queasy.

Map of USA showing federal lands
U.S. federal lands. Map produced by Bureau of Land Management, Washington DC

On February 7th, reacting to the Trump administration’s nose-thumbing behaviour, the Juliana plaintiffs filed an “urgent motion” in the Ninth Circuit Court, asking it to grant an injunction preventing the government (pending the resolution of its appeal) from: mining coal on federal public lands; engaging in offshore oil and gas exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf; developing new fossil fuel infrastructure such as pipelines and fossil fuel export facilities.

Accompanying and following the motion were supporting briefs from more than 30 diverse groups and individuals, including one from Zero Hour (zerohour.org) on behalf of 32,340 children who responded to an online petition.

The government filed its opposition to the plaintiffs motion on February 19th.

 

Big Oil rattled by Electric Vehicles; Senator Barrasso tries to help

Worldwide sales of electric vehicles (EVs) have been climbing steadily since 2010. While the proportion of EVs to new car sales is still less than 3% worldwide, the oil industry is disturbed by the trend in total numbers sold (see graph below).

Graph showing sales of EVs in leading markets 2011 to 2017
Sales of EVs in leading markets. Image from Wikipedia.org

Transportation is now the country’s largest source of global warming carbon dioxide. If CO2 emissions are to be reduced, EVs will have to play a major role. For oil refiners, that’s bad news. Electric Vehicles don’t run on gasoline, which means less profit at the pump.

What do giant corporations do when confronted by threats to their market dominance? The simple answer is, they buy political influence. But they also need to be helpful (in a practical way) to the politicians they aim to influence. That is, they need to show them exactly what legislation to adopt and pass into law. That’s where ALEC comes in.

ALEC, short for American Legistative Exchange Council, is a conservative, non-profit, bill-writing organization headquartered in Arlington VA. Its motto is, ‘“Limited Government, Free Markets, Federalism”. Membership includes state legislators and private sector representatives, people who get together to discuss and agree on their political objectives and then convert those objectives into the legislative language of government bills. These ‘model’ bills are then distributed to states that want to adopt them. The bills generated by ALEC reflect the politics of its right wing, conservative, Republican membership. Bills aimed at reducing corporate taxes, cutting environmental regulations, opposing gun control, introducing tough voter ID rules, and weakening labor unions, are typical of the organization’s output.

Several nations, including the U.S., have introduced incentives designed to encourage the purchase of electric vehicles. The U.S. offers a federal tax credit of up to $7,500 to people who buy new EVs., a measure that predates the Trump era. Last November, and again in December, oil industry representatives and state legislators held ALEC meetings to discuss (in private) how to kill the tax credit. According to The Guardian of 4th Dec., the participants secretly approved resolutions “supporting stripping tax benefits from electric vehicles and endorsing Donald Trump’s pro-fossil fuel energy agenda. And they voted down a proposal to limit monopoly control of the power industry, which backers said would give consumers more choice and help grow renewable electricity faster and more cheaply.”

Entities linked to the ALEC meetings included Marathon Petrolium, the nation’s largest refiner, and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers Association (AFPM). Marathon alone has reported spending close to a million dollars lobbying Congress about the EV tax credit and other issues. The fossil fuel industry’s man in Congress is John Barrasso, Republican Senator from Wyoming.

Photo of U.S. Senator John Barrasso
U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY). Image: Facebook

Barrasso heads the Senate Environment & Public Works Committe, and sits on the Energy & Natural Resources Committe. According to OpenSecrets.org Barrasso received $520,650 in campaign financing from the fossil fuel industry over the period 2013 to 2018. Last October, the Senator introduced a bill to Congress to revoke the EV tax credit and to impose a highway use fee on electric vehicles to make up for the fact that their owners  don’t pay a gasoline tax.

On March 6 of this year, Barrasso Spoke from the Senate Floor on the subject of the Democrats “Green New Deal”. He was responding to a challenge from Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), to tell the Senate what the Republicans planned to do about climate change. Here’s part of what Barrasso said (Senate Committee Press release):

It’s a plan: cut carbon through innovation, not regulation. The question is: do we believe the climate is changing? Do humans have an impact? The answer is yes to both. . . . Second, the United States and the world will continue to rely on affordable and abundant fossil fuel, including coal, to power our economies for decades to come. And we need to also rely on innovation. Not new taxes, not punishing global agreements. That’s the ultimate solution.

Interesting plan — Stick to fossil fuels and innovate. Innovate how? I’m guessing ‘green plan’ type innovations such as wind generators, photovoltaics, battery storage systems, and electric vehicles, are not what the Senator has in mind.

Four-door electric sedans currently sell In the U.S. for $30,000 and up. How will the oil industry react when prices fall? The image below shows the EV currently being built in China  by Great Wall Motors. It’s listed at around $9,000, little more than the tax credit Senator Barrasso is so keen on killing. That’s the future the oil industry will have to contend with.

Climate science bugs Trump — He reaches for the bug-off

Aerial photo of Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Maine
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine, one of several large military bases at risk from Sea Level Rise. Image credit: U.S. Navy

President Trump is vexed. Despite his well publicized positions on global warming — it’s a hoax; it doesn’t exist; etc., — elements within his own administration continue to insist that the phenomenon poses a threat to national security. For example, Daniel Coats, Director of National Intelligence, recently submitted the agency’s Worldwide Threat Assessment to the Senate Intelligence Committee for its review. The report states that “Global environmental and ecological degradation, as well as climate change, are likely to fuel competition for resources, economic distress, and social discontent through 2019 and beyond.”

The problem for Mr. Trump is what to do about these public servants who contradict his position on climate change. His natural impulse is to fire them — learned behaviour from his entertainment days. But taking that approach with the military would likely backfire. He would have to sack  a slew of senior officers. The country’s largest military bases are built on the coast and under increasing threat from sea level rise, storm surge, and hurricanes. The top brass know that and have said so publicly.

The following YouTube video from Democracy Now, shows damage caused by Hurricane Michael to Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, on October 10, 2018. It also gets New York Times journalist Dave Philipps’s take on the reaction of the Trump Administration. Hurricane Michael was the first ever on-record category-4 cyclone to hit the Florida panhandle .

If there is one thing Mr. Trump has learned during his time in office, it is that it’s not easy in a democracy to silence dissenters. Silencing them can’t be accomplished simply by decree. To succeed, even partially, directives need to be justified in some way. That’s what Mr. Trump has lacked — justification for gagging, or at least quieting, the climate change chatterers in his administration. Now he’s aiming to rectify that situation.

Photo of professor William Happer, Ph.D.
William Happer, Ph.D. Image: Heartland Inst. website

According to the Feb. 20 Washington Post, the White House is assembling a panel to assess whether climate change poses a threat to  national security. The man slated to head the panel is William Happer. Happer is an emeritus professor of physics at Princeton University. He’s also a climate change sceptic with a bee in his bonnet about carbon dioxide (CO2). While Happer agrees that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, he claims that most of the atmospheric warming that has occurred over the past century is due to natural causes, not to humans actions. He further claims that the release of CO2 from burning fossil fuels, far from being bad for the planet, is actually good for it and for the plants and humans who live on it. Happer believes that CO2 has been unfairly maligned by the scientific community. He now fancies himself as the gas’s defender in chief.

While Professor Happer’s opinions are popular among fossil fuel producers, they are music to the President’s ears. Why? Because such opinions appeal to his support base. According to David Smith reporting for the Guardian, Mr. Trump, during his address to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington on March 2, 2019, had this to say:

 “I think the  [Democrat’s] new green deal, or whatever the hell they call it. The Green New Deal, right? I encourage it. I think it’s really something that they should promote.” — laughter from the crowd — “No planes. No energy. When the wind stops blowing, that’s the end of your electric. ‘Let’s hurry up. Darling, darling, is the wind blowing today? I’d like to watch television, darling.”   —  cheers and applause from the crowd.

When the President’s climate change panel concludes its work — if it ever does — will its findings add to humanity’s sum of useful knowledge? What do you think?