After more than 6 weeks of research and mucking through skull-exploding, mind numbing distortions, contortions, and misrepresentations of this story, I’ve finally finished my video on that most toxic meme  that came out of the enormous nothing-burger called  “climate-gate”  — the phrase “hide the decline”.

Like Obama’s birth certificate, the truth will never make a dent on the committed crazies of climate denial, but I think this is worth watching for citizens, bloggers, or researchers who are trying to get their arms around the story, and appreciate how much the media helped, or hurt, understanding of the issue.

Working on this, plus keeping up with the Fukushima story, has been a huge time sink, but I hope now to get back to more regular video releases.

A common line of thought among deniers is that the costs of mitigating climate change are so steep as to preclude even thinking about the problem.

What’s missing from this logic is, we will be spending trillions of dollars on new infrastructure throughout the world in coming decades – the question to ask is whether that spending locks us into current patterns of fossil fuel dependance, inevitable shortages, pollution, war and climate catastrophe.

A new report from the American Security Project examines the costs of doing nothing about climate change, broken down into regional impacts across the US.

Former Gov. Christine Todd Whitman (R-NJ), a former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under George W. Bush,  who serves on the Board of Directors at the American Security Project (ASP), said: “Too often the debate about climate breaks down over cost, with many Americans rightfully concerned about what limiting pollution would do to our economy.  But what this series of reports shows is that there is a cost on the other side of the ledger, too.  There will be costs to our economic security from climate change—and significant ones at that—if we do nothing but continue business as usual.”

Why you can’t just pour concrete on the reactors and walk away, why the health risks may be much larger than reported, and why the exclusion zone is not nearly large enough.

There are a number of questions about what may have caused the explosion at the Unit 3 reactor, that made it so much more violent than the other explosions we witnessed.  In the absence of good information, which is clearly being withheld, speculation is rampant – Arnie Gunderson explains why.

Japan Times reports:

A contamination map revealing radiation levels at about 150 places in the Fukushima No. 1 power plant was released Saturday by troubled Tokyo Electric Power Co.

The beleaguered utility, known as Tepco, updates the data periodically to help its workers navigate radiation hazards at the crippled nuclear plant in Fukushima Prefecture. The power plant lost its cooling systems when it was hit by the mega-quake and tsunami on March 11.

The updated maps and data on areas near the four crisis-hit reactors are also sent to the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry and the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency and posted at its crisis center in the prefecture.

One finding acquired from the map’s data as of Wednesday night is that a piece of concrete debris near the No. 3 reactor was emitting a nearly lethal 900 millisieverts per hour of radiation.

So don’t pass up northeast Japan’s spectacular scenery – just plug these coordinates into your GPS to avoid the occasional lethal concrete lumps.

MIT materials scientist Angela Belcher speaking at a CalTech Tedx event in honor of Richard Feynman.

This will probably bear multiple listenings – but at the very least, a mind blowing 11 minutes is guaranteed.

A “reformed climate skeptic”, Curt Stager is a paleoclimatologist who’s latest book, Deep Future, is a look forward at the next 100,000 years of life on earth.

He’s interviewed by the indispensable Thom Hartmann.