Wind Pushers Want to Evict People From Their Homes, via “Eminent domain”…

Falmouth Wind Turbines 2nd American Civil War

Falmouth Wind Turbines 2nd American Civil War

When the Town of Falmouth evicts the wind turbine neighbors and absorbs their properties through an act of eminent domain, those same townspeople will have to open their doors to their own wind power refugees. They may need to be reminded of the hard hearted turning back of the New Orleans Hurricane Katrina refugees as they tried to cross the bridge into the next parish by the Parish Sheriffs.

When civility disappears, it can get pretty brutal.

Anyone reading this needs to understand that this is the 2nd American Civil War, and it is being fought in many American communities.
The sooner the people can come to their senses about the “Falmouth Version of Climate Change BS”, the sooner they will be able to recover from this folly that is destroying them.

Already there is a significant feeling among the Town Meeting members that they are now reluctant to vote on the proposed Articles 1,2,&3 because they were not truthfully explained to them by the Select Board . (Obfuscation, anyone?)

The eminent domain presentation can be viewed on the link below Article 2 :
Board of Selectmen 10/5/15 part 2— 1:30 minute mark presentation and endorsement 2:24 minutes
http://www.fctv.org/v3/vod/board-selectmen-10515-part-2

All this erodes the people’s trust in government, and feeds anarchy. The situation in Falmouth, seized by anarchy, has behaved horribly. The very prospect, the very thought of seizing someone’s home by phony, 50% valuation, eminent domain turns one’s stomach. Some land of the free!

The noise torture :

While there are many sources of Infra-sound, most of them are generated by passing and sporadic sources, like rockets, aircraft, volcanoes, etc. Wind turbines are permanent installations. They operate at variable speeds. The kinds of noise that they produce is modulated, increases and decreases in intensity, dependent on local wind speeds. They confuse the nervous system and trigger the “fight, flight, freeze response” that all humans have hardwired into our nervous systems.

We developed this response to sense the approach of low growling lions and tigers back when we roamed the African savannah in search of food and shelter. This was a MOVING source of noise that we recognized as lethal.

Now, the wind turbines, a technological source of lethal noise, while fixed in place, produce (infra-sound and low frequency noise) in a modulated fashion, triggering the FFF response, causing a cascade of alarm hormones; adrenalin to flood the nervous system.

This may be adaptive to modern humans; case in point, some imbecile cuts you off in traffic and forces you to suddenly swerve and apply the brakes. You fuss and fume, but you are able to recover from this and continue to drive on normally.

When wind turbines sporadically impact on people in their sleep, they are aroused in a state of anxiety, and are unable to get back to sleep. This systematic sleep deprivation far exceeds any methods of interrogation so far devised, and presents these unsuspecting residents with the most exquisite form of torture yet.

When they finally seek legal redress they are met by measures of eminent domain to silence them and remove them from the state-driven wind power agenda.

Town Meeting Member Dave Moriarty discusses the upcoming Special Town Meeting concerning Wind 1
Click here to watch the youtube video : Falmouth MA Wind Turbine Fiasco 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs8SwaR4KjE&feature=youtu.be

Last please view the presentation by Attorney Chris Senie

Falmouth ZBA Sept 17 with Chris Senie -This link :
Zoning Board of Appeals September 17, 2015 Senie & Associates, P.C. Representing Impacted Neighbors
https://windwisema.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/senie-to-zba-ceasedesist-2015-09-17.pdf

What Will It Take, For People to See the Truth about the Wind Scam? Trillions wasted! $$$

Europe’s ‘Colossal Energy Disaster’: €5.7 trillion ‘Completely Wasted’ on Wind Power ‘Wishes’

pig-trough-ey

****

When the wind industry and its worshippers start chanting their mantras about the ‘wonders’ of wind, it isn’t long before they start preaching about the examples purportedly set by the Europeans; and, in particular, the Nordic nations. The latter have seen economics hit back with a vengeance; wind power investment has thoroughly collapsed:

Wind Power Investment Collapses in Sweden, Denmark, Finland & Norway

Now, Europe as a whole is counting the costs of what is a disaster on a colossal scale. Here’s NoTricksZone detailing the magnitude of the calamity. The video is in German, helpfully translated by Pierre Gosselin. Danke, Pierre.

Europe’s € 5.7 TRILLION Climate Policy Is “Very Expensive”, “Counter-Productive” And “Does Nothing For Climate” … “Completely Wasted”!
NoTricksZone
Pierre Gosselin
8 October 2015

University of Magdeburg economics professor Joachim Weimann held a presentation in Brandenburg highlighting the shortcomings of Germany’s Energiewende (transition to renewable energies) and Europe’s climate policy earlier this year.

****

****

First Weimann calls the climate issue a debate that is emotionally and ideologically charged, and that the facts are almost always suppressed. He also believes that the real facts on climate change and energy policy are unpopular among policymakers and that they all too often “deny” them.

In the presentation Weimann makes it clear that he is an alarmist, and that he believes something needs to be done rapidly.

The thrust of his presentation, however, is about Germany’s Energiewende and Europe’s climate policies, and whether they are really effective. His assessment in a nutshell: The feed-in acts are a colossal disaster.

Coal plants pay less, consumers pay much more

Weimann says that go-it-alone national CO2 reduction programs aren’t functioning and that emissions trading schemes in combination with energy feed-in acts only result in emissions being sourced out and thus lead to no emissions reductions.

In the end the price of emission certificates falls to levels that makes them ineffective. Ironically coal power plants, he says, wind up the ones profiting the most. “Coal is indirectly being subsidized by the feed-in acts,” says Weimann.

Everything about coal suddenly becomes cheap, not only its supply, but also the costs of its emissions.

Greater consumption of resources

For the consumer, however, the price of electricity becomes far more expensive. Weimann also explains that the forced feed-in of renewable energies in fact even leads to greater consumption of resources, and not less.

At the 24:20 mark Weimann presents the costs of eliminating 1 tonne of CO2 emissions for a variety of sources: for a coal power plant 1 ton reduction of CO2 costs only 8 euros, for retrofitting a car it costs 100 euros per ton, for onshore wind 150 euros, offshore wind 320 euros and solar 400 euros a ton.

This does not include the grid costs. Clearly some CO2 reduction measures make little economic sense.

Feed-in acts lead to zero climate protection

At the 26:30 mark Weimmann slams the German EEG energy feed-in act because it promotes the installation of existing technology, rather than research and development in new technology. He says:

– “For climate protection, we do not need the Energiewende.”

– “It is doing nothing for saving resources”.

– “It is also doing nothing for jobs and new technology.”

Substituting coal and nuclear a pipe dream

Next Weimann shows why it is madness to try to replace 18 nuclear power plants (total output 20 GW) with “extremely volatile” wind energy. He says there’s no chance of accomplishing this feat without storage technology, which is still nowhere in sight.

Some 437 pump storage facilities would need to be built to ensure the supply of 18 nuclear power plants – an impossible task he says. He calls stopping nuclear energy and coal energy at the same time a pipe dream.

More coal burned today than in 1990!

Because Germany has already committed to closing its remaining nuclear power plants by 2022, the country will be forced to do 2 things: 1) burn more fossil fuels, and 2) to import more of the unpopular nuclear energy.

The stunning result, so far, Weimann points out: “We are now burning more coal than in 1990!”

Weimann summarizes, saying Germany’s Energiewende resulted in:

– “No energy independence.”

– “Negative job creation.”

– “A price tag of up to 1.2 trillion euros.”

Europe: €5.7 trillion “completely wasted”

Moreover, global greenhouse gas emissions climbed 35% from 2000-2012, clearly dwarfing Europe’s 11% reduction. He says the 5.7 trillion euros committed by all of Europe so far will be “completely wasted”. He says that what is needed is an international coalition and that here Germany is doing nothing to support it.

At the end (38:00) he hands in his final assessment. Germany’s Energiewende:

– “Is very expensive”

– “Is counter-productive”

– “Has had no effect on climate”

– “Disturbs in the decommissioning of nuclear power”

NoTricksZone

Facts

The Pope Acts as a Shill for Climate Alarmists. No Regard for the Poor!

Written by PSI Staff on 21 Oct 2015

Outspoken Australian academic publishes telling new book exposing the Vatican for promoting junk science claims about man-global warming. heaven and hell The Encylical Letter of Pope Francis Laudato Si “care for our common home” was influenced by atheists, communists and green activists, claims Professor Ian Plimer, a world-renowned climate critic.

In Heaven and Hell Professor Plimer, a successful geologist and long-time critic of climate alarmists, takes Pope Francis to task, looking purely at the science rather than the theology.  Plimer shows the failure of the current Pope in his understanding of the real issues causing poverty, especially in Third World countries.

Plimer’s is a trusted voice in the heated climate debate and, as in his previous books, his new publication again shows that ‘anthropogenic global warming’ is a dangerous, ruinously expensive fiction, a ‘first-world luxury’ with no basis in scientific fact.

“The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology,” says Plimer, and while his thesis is not new, you’re unlikely to have heard it expressed with quite such vigour, certitude or wide-ranging scientific authority.

Professor Plimer tells Principia Scientific International that he “hops into Naomi Klein in this book.” (Klein is a trumpeter for the alarmist movement and recently admitted that man-made climate change is not about the science). The book is on general release from October 23, 2015.

Plimer has previously warned that:

The Climate Change Authority and the Greens want more renewables because apparently, human emissions of CO2 drive global warming. I am a patient chap, was fabulously good looking in the long ago and have a dog that’s never bitten me but please, dear readers, can someone show me from basic science and mathematics that the human emissions (3% total) of plant food (CO2) drive climate change yet the 97% of natural emissions of CO2 do not. This has never been done and I’m still waiting for the proof. It’s easy to show that human emissions of CO2 don’t drive climate change and there are many scientific arguments to show that the total atmospheric CO2 does not drive climate change.

Pope Has Overstepped His Authority….He’s Pushing the Global Warming Agenda!

SPECIAL REPORT The VATICAN ADVISORS: An Unholy Alliance with the UN Global Warming Agenda September 2015 In the preparation and promotion of its widely touted encyclical, Laudato Si: On Care for Our Common Home, the Vatican relied on advisors who can only be described as the most extreme elements in the global warming debate. These climate advisors are so far out of the mainstream they even make some of their fellow climate activists cringe. Many of these advisors oppose individual freedom and market economics and stand against traditional family values. The Vatican and Pope Francis did not allow dissent or alternative perspectives to be heard during the creation and promotion of the encyclical. The Vatican only listened to activist voices within the climate movement. Even more startling, many of the Vatican’s key climate advisors have promoted policies directly at odds with Catholic doctrine and beliefs. The proceedings of the Vatican climate workshop included activists like Naomi Oreskes, Peter Wadhams, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, and UN advisor Jeffrey Sachs. Pope Francis’ advisors, and the UN climate agenda he is aligning himself with, are strong supporters of development restrictions, contraceptives, population control, and abortion. Despite these strange bedfellows, the encyclical is clear in condemning abortion, contraception, and population control. There has been nothing short of an “Unholy Alliance” between the Vatican and promoters of man-made climate fear. The Vatican advisors can only be described as a brew of anti-capitalist, pro-population control advocates who allow no dissent and are way out of the mainstream of even the global warming establishment. Here are profiles of some of the key radical voices with whom the Vatican has associated itself. http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/02/02/pope-francis-apparently-doesnt-know-un-ipcc-climate-objective-contradicts-catholic-doctrine/ http://www.casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en/publications/extraseries/sustainable.html http://www.climatedepot.com/2012/02/07/read-all-about-it-climate-depots-round-up-of-uns-sustainable-development-efforts/ http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01/27/gore-fertility-management-is-needed-in-africa-to-help-control-the-proliferation-of-unusual-weather/ http://www.casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en/publications/extraseries/sustainable.html UN Advisor Jeffrey Sachs Jeffrey Sachs, a special advisor to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, participated in a 2014 Vatican workshop on sustainability as well as in the Vatican summit on climate that took place in April 2015. Sachs was reportedly the author of the Pontifical statement, Climate Change and the Common Good: A Statement of the Problem and the Demand for Transformative Solutions, issued on April 29, 2015. Sachs, who is also the director of The Earth Institute, believes climate skeptics are responsible for the deaths of people due to alleged man-made, global warming driven, extreme storms. Sachs tweeted on November 10, 2014, that “Climate liars like Rupert Murdoch & the Koch Brothers have more & more blood on their hands as climate disasters claim lives across the world.” Sachs is such a devoted salesman for UN “solutions” to global warming that he declared: “We’ve got six months to save the world or we’re all doomed.” Many of Sachs’ views are at odds with Catholic teachings. Catholic activist Liz Yore detailed Sachs’ view on overpopulation. “At a 2007 international lecture, Sachs claimed that ‘we are bursting at the seams.’ The focus of Sachs’ overpopulation mantra is primarily the continent of Africa. He argues that if only poor African countries would just lower their fertility rate, the world and Africa would thrive economically. This fear mongering is nothing new. Sachs is standing on the shoulders of Paul Ehrlich, architect of the ‘sky is falling’ deception perpetrated in his 1968 book, The Population Bomb.” Yore concluded: It is “incomprehensible that the Vatican would be duped into thinking that the United Nations and its Millennium and Sustainable Development goals share common solutions for the world’s problems. The Catholic Church welcomes children as a gift from God. The UN Secretary General and Jeffrey Sachs want to limit children.” 2 http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/02/02/pope-francis-apparently-doesnt-know-un-ipcc-climate-objective-contradicts-catholic-doctrine/ http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/06/20/update-vatican-banned-skeptical-french-scientist-from-climate-summit-they-did-not-want-to-hear-an-off-note/ http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/06/20/update-vatican-banned-skeptical-french-scientist-from-climate-summit-they-did-not-want-to-hear-an-off-note/ 3 In 2009, Sachs addressed the annual conference of the Party of European Socialists. He described the “profound honor” of addressing the far-Left Party of European Socialists and said they were heirs and leaders of the most successful economic and political system in the world — Social Democracy. Social equity, environmental sustainability, and fiscal redistribution are the successful elements in managing a just society, Sachs maintained. This is, he argues, in marked contrast to the U.S., whose taxes are too low and where the poor are ignored. In 2009, in advance of the Copenhagen UN climate meeting, Sachs called for a carbon levy, claiming that millions were suffering because of drought caused by Western-induced climate change. Sachs has advocated for a carbon tax and a financial transactions tax, a global health fund, a global education fund, and a global climate fund. Sachs’ Earth Institute at Columbia has included members of an external advisory board such as George Soros and Rajendra Pachauri (former UN IPCC chairman). Soros has funded Sachs via his Open Society Institute. German climate adviser Hans Joachim Schellnhuber Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who has called for the “creation of a CO2 budget for every person on the planet,” was appointed a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in June 2015 and was one of the four presenters of Pope Francis’ new encyclical on the environment. Schellnhuber was also a key player at the Vatican climate presentation in 2014. Schellnhuber is an atheist who believes in “Gaia, but not in God.” In 2015, Schellnhuber boasted about having climate skeptics excluded from participating in drafting the Pope’s climate encyclical. The April 2015 Vatican climate summit in Rome banned a skeptical French scientist from attending because the organizers reportedly “did not want to hear an off note” during the summit. Schellnhuber is a scientific activist who is mocked even by his fellow warmist colleagues. See: Warmist Ray Bradley trashes prominent warmist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber for “spouting bullsh*t”; Phil Jones says “We all agree on that.” At a meeting in Japan in 2004, Scientist Tom Wigley found prominent EU warmist Schellnhuber to be “a bit of a laughing stock among these people.” Schellnhuber has also declared human society needs to be managed by an elite group of “wise men.” He referred to this idea as his “master plan” for the “great transformation” of global society. Schellnhuber’s views on population also are at odds with Catholic teachings. Echoing the claims of overpopulation guru Paul Ehrlich, he has claimed that when the Earth reaches nine billion people, which is projected to occur soon, “the Earth will explode” due to resource depletion. Schellnhuber also berates those who disagree with him, calling his critics “vicious liars” and mocking Americans as “climate illiterate” for being skeptics. 4 Naomi Oreskes Climate historian Naomi Oreskes has been actively involved in helping produce the Papal encyclical. Oreskes wrote the introduction to Pope Francis’ book version of the encyclical. See: Papal Encyclical book w/ introduction by Naomi Oreskes. Oreskes is perhaps best known for her calls for placing restrictions on the freedom of speech of global warming skeptics. Oreskes believes climate skeptics who dissent from the UN/Gore climate alarmist point of view should be prosecuted as mobsters for their tobacco lobbyist style tactics. See: Merchants of Smear: Prosecute Skeptics Like Gangsters?! Warmist Naomi Oreskes likes the idea of having climate ‘deniers’ prosecuted under the RICO act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act). Critics of Oreskes fired back that it is Oreskes herself – not the skeptics — who uses the tactics of the tobacco lobby. As a researcher, Oreskes’ body of work has not fared well among her peers. She has been criticized by warmist and skeptical scientists alike. See: Statistician from the U. of Mass Amherst performs very polite savaging of claims of Naomi Oreskes. Warmist scientist Tom Wigley wrote that Oreskes’ work is “useless”. Wigley wrote: “Analyses like these by people who don’t know the field are useless. A good example is Naomi Oreskes’ work.” 5 Warmist scientist William M. Connolley slammed Oreskes for “silly” and “shoddy” work. Connolley, a former UN IPCC scientist, wrote that he “eventually concluded that Oreskes was hopelessly wrong.” He explained that a highprofile Oreskes “paper seems to have been written around pre-arranged conclusions…it is unlikely that anyone outside the incestuous field of climate history scholarship will notice or care.” Others have been equally as uncharitable in describing Oreskes’ research. See: Warmist Naomi Oreskes taken down — “consistently misrepresents the meaning of statistical significance and confidence intervals” – “Oreskes, the historian, gets the history wrong” Oreskes has been undeterred, continually ratcheting up climate alarmism to the point of silliness. See: Forget Polar Bears, cats & dogs to die! Warmist Naomi Oreskes prophesizes the climate deaths of puppies and kittens – Oreskes: “The loss of pet cats and dogs garnered particular attention among wealthy Westerners, but what was anomalous in 2023 soon became the new normal.” Sadly, Pope Francis is allowing Oreskes, who equates climate change to a “Nazi atomic bomb,” to write the introduction to the book form of his encyclical. Prof. Peter Wadhams Another key advisor to Pope Francis is Cambridge University Professor Peter Wadhams. Wadhams is a scientist and activist whose views are so extreme that even many of his fellow global warming advocates distance themselves from him. In 2014, NASA’s lead global warming scientist Dr. Gavin Schmidt ridiculed Wadhams for “using graphs with ridiculous projections with no basis in physics.” Wadhams’s fellow warmist colleagues have also piled on and ridiculed him, claiming Wadhams “uses anecdotal…very, very poor data; not credible plots…no physics behind his extrapolations.” One of his colleagues even chided: “Hasn’t Wadhams already predicted four of the last zero ice-free summers?” 6 Wadhams was at the center of international controversy in 2015, when he suggested three global warming scientists were assassinated by the oil industry. These claims were wholly unsubstantiated. See: Cambridge professor Peter Wadhams insists three scientists have been assassinated. Wadhams later tried to claim his comments about the deaths were “completely off the record.” Other colleagues have also criticized Wadhams. See: German Scientists: Former IPCC Author Peter Wadhams Showing Pattern Of Irrationality …”Extremely Far-Fringe Corner” Pope Francis has also reached out to climate activist and anti-capitalist crusader Naomi Klein. See: Pope Francis recruits ‘ferocious critic’ of capitalism — Naomi Klein — in climate battle Klein was brought into the Vatican climate process by one of the Pope’s key aides, Cardinal Peter Turkson, to lead a high-level conference. Klein, described by the Washington Post as a “secular” feminist, is a “ferocious critic” of 21st century capitalism. Klein believes: “To fight climate change we must fight capitalism.” Klein explained: “There is still time to avoid catastrophic warming but not within the rules of capitalism as they are currently constructed.” Klein is author of the book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate. She has declared that “Capitalism is irreconcilable with a livable climate.” She also noted: “Dealing with the climate crisis will require a completely different economic system.” Klein’s anti-capitalist advocacy clearly places her science as subservient to her politics. During the panel discussion at an event at the People’s Climate March, Klein was asked: “Even if climate change issue did not exist, you would be calling for same structural changes?” Klein responded: “Yeah.” Naomi Klein 7 8 1875 Eye Street NW 5th Floor Washington, DC 20006 http://www.cfact.org http://www.climatedepot.com Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore criticized Pope Francis for sounding like Naomi Klein. Klein has also claimed that “It’s Clear” Climate Change Is Making Racism Worse.

Lefty Pope Getting Involved in the Climate Scam….Who’d Have Ever Thought?

THE CLIMATE HAS BEEN CHANGING SINCE GENESIS 1:1, SO WHY IS POPE FRANCIS SUDDENLY SO CONCERNED?
By Gene J. Koprowski on 9.21.15
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) tells Townhall.com that he is planning to boycott the Congressional address of Pope Francis this week. The reason? The Congressman is concerned that the speech is going to be completely politically correct, not traditionally Christian in focus. He also is outraged that the secular progressives at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) helped co-write His Holiness’ environmental encyclical earlier this year, and does not want to offer even tacit support for that ideological document.

“Media reports indicate His Holiness instead intends to focus the brunt of his speech on climate change–a climate that has been changing since first created in Genesis. More troubling is the fact that this climate change talk has adopted all of the socialist talking points, wrapped false science and ideology into climate justice and is being presented to guilt people into leftist policies. If the Pope stuck to standard Christian theology, I would be the first in line,” wrote Rep. Gosar. “If the Pope spoke out with moral authority against violent Islam, I would be there cheering him on. If the Pope urged the Western nations to rescue persecuted Christians in the Middle East, I would back him wholeheartedly. But when the Pope chooses to act and talk like a leftist politician, then he can expect to be treated like one. Artist and columnist Maureen Mullarkey effectively communicated this fallacy stating, ‘When papal preferences, masked in a Christian idiom, align themselves with ideological agendas (e.g. radical environmentalism) [they] impinge on democratic freedoms and the sanctity of the individual.’”
Concluded the Congressman, “the earth’s climate has been changing since God created it, with or without man. On that, we should all agree. In Pope Francis’ encyclical on the environment (written with the consultation of that great seminary the EPA and its embattled head Gina McCarthy), he condemned anyone skeptical of the link between human activity and climate change and adopted the false science being propagated by the Left. If the Pope wants to devote his life to fighting climate change then he can do so in his personal time. But to promote questionable science as Catholic dogma is ridiculous.”

We Must Fight Back Against Government-Induced Climaphobia! Our lives depend upon it…

OP/Ed: The climate scare’s ‘useful idiots’

firefighters-fire
Industry leaders must stop feeding the fires that are burning down their homes

By Tom Harris

A useful idiot is someone who supports one side of a philosophical debate while unaware of the overarching agenda driving the ideology they promote.

The term was used during the Cold War to describe communist sympathizers in the West. They were accused of viewing themselves as standing for benign socialism and allies of the Soviet Union, when they were actually scorned by the Soviets who used them as tools to help weaken democratic nations.

Climate activists undoubtedly regard many industry leaders as useful idiots on the climate front. Although seriously threatened by the global warming movement, most energy and manufacturing organizations try to appease campaigners by using biased and misleading language that unwittingly supports climate alarmism, destroys jobs, and impairs the well-being of millions.

Here are some examples.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business federation, sensibly opposes the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP). Yet the Chamber inadvertently promotes it on its website, asserting, “We support efforts to reduce greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions through a comprehensive legislative solution that does not harm the economy, recogniz[ing] that the problem is international in scope…”

The Chamber cites findings by Cato Institute climate experts Chip Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels that the new EPA rule would result in “an estimated 0.018 degrees Centigrade reduction by the year 2100.” The Chamber correctly concludes, “it’s essentially undetectable.”

So why would it advocate “a comprehensive legislative solution” to GHG emissions? The CPP will have no discernible impact on climate and yet, according to Chamber President and CEO Thomas J. Donohue, will “impose tens of billions in annual compliance costs, and reduce our nation’s global competitiveness.” That means any carbon dioxide (CO2) reduction plan that might have significant climatic impact would almost certainly destroy the U.S. economy. A “solution that does not harm the economy” undoubtedly does not exist.

The Chamber’s contention that the “the problem is international in scope” is true only if climate change is being driven by humanity’s GHG emissions. If it isn’t—and the Chamber should do nothing to promote the idea that it is—then climate change is obviously a regional problem, and each region should adapt to whatever is happening in their area, independent of global trends.

Similarly, the 35,000-member United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) officially opposes the CPP but unintentionally supports it in the points they suggest mine workers bring up in their own letters to newspapers and government representatives. For example, the union suggests workers write, “No one can deny that greenhouse gas emissions represent a problem that needs to be addressed.”

The reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change demonstrate that thousands of climate experts dispute the idea that CO2 emissions are a serious problem. UMWA executives are not qualified to judge these scientists wrong, and it clearly sabotages their members’ interests to do so.

Duke Energy, the largest electric power company in the United States, says on its website that it is “committed to finding new ways to confront one of our industry’s biggest challenges – global climate change.” While regulations to restrict CO2 emissions present serious challenges to the industry, trends in an imaginary “global” climate have no impact on the sector.

Yet Lynn Good, Duke’s President and CEO, promised to work with state officials to keep moving toward “a lower carbon future” and said in her April 15 open letter to stakeholders that the company is “advocating for climate change policies that reduce emissions.”

While all corporations must follow applicable government regulations, they are under no obligation to encourage them. Considering that a significant fraction of the power Duke generates comes from natural gas and coal, both significant CO2 sources, it makes no sense for the company to urge tighter CO2 controls. While coal is the primary target of the EPA right now, gas will undoubtedly come under increasing attack as the new rules eliminate coal power.

Arch Coal, one of the world’s largest coal producers and marketers, also has clear reasons to fear the consequences of the global warming scare. Yet in its August 3 press release Senior Vice President of Strategy and Public Policy Deck Slone said, “To truly address the threat of climate change, these [developing] countries will need low-cost, low-carbon mitigation tools for fossil fuels.” Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

While these groups have obviously decided that it is not in their interests to contest the official excuse for the CPP—the supposed threat of CO2 emissions—it is a serious strategic mistake for them to promote it. Effective leaders know that you can never satisfy those whose ultimate agenda includes eliminating you.

Industry must stop acting as useful idiots who feed the fires burning down their homes.


Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition.

– See more at: http://westmorelandtimes.com/news/17081/17/oped-the-climate-scares-useful-idiots/#sthash.WxjlfBS0.dpuf

Government-Induced Climaphobia….There’s a Reason for it, but it’s NOT the Climate!

CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS ARE AS BAD AS HITLER’. YALE HISTORY PROFESSOR GOES FULL GODWIN

If you don’t believe in climate change you’re as bad as Hitler.

There. I’ve just precised a long article which appeared in the New York Times over the weekend with the title The Next Genocide.

Rather worryingly it was the work not of some fruitcake environmental activist but of someone who really ought to know better – a professor of history, at Yale no less, called Timothy Snyder.

It starts dramatically with an Einsatzgruppe commander lifting a Jewish child in the air and saying: “You must die so that we can live.”

This is a classic move from the liberal-left playbook. Sock ‘em with an emotive image which lays out the terms of your argument, viz: every time you say you don’t believe in climate change another baby dies. And, oh, by the way, did I also mention it makes you a Nazi?

Well, I suppose Professor Snyder has got to find some way of selling his books. Really, though, if he’d tried to write a bestseller called Little Red Cook: How To Diet The Mao Great Famine Way or Back To The Land: Rediscover Your Inner Peasant With Pol Pot orDying for Success: 10 No Nonsense Boardroom Tips from Joseph Stalin he could scarcely have misrepresented history to more dubious ends.

Yes, the Nazis were very green. Snyder got that bit right. They passed the first national environmental laws: the Reich Nature Protection Law of 1935. They were big on organic food (Himmler wanted his SS to eat nothing but). They were into animal rights. (In 1933 Goering said that anyone found guilty of animal cruelty or experimentation should be sent to concentration camps. No really). And of course Hitler himself was mostly vegetarian and fiercely anti-smoking.

But where Snyder goes completely wrong is with paragraphs like this:

Hitler spread ecological panic by claiming that only land would bring Germany security and by denying the science that promised alternatives to war. By polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the United States has done more than any other nation to bring about the next ecological panic, yet it is the only country where climate science is still resisted by certain political and business elites. These deniers tend to present the empirical findings of scientists as a conspiracy and question the validity of science — an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s.

His argument is so weird, incoherent and far-off here that you half expect him to go on to explain how it was the Jews who were responsible for the Holocaust and how Churchill provoked World War II.

Certainly, the way he chooses to put  “deniers” in the same category as Hitler could scarcely be further off-beam.

As I put it in Watermelons:

There’s only one side of this debate which believes its cause is so just and urgent that it relieves them of the need to observe any standards of decency. There’s only one side which thinks it’s OK to: rig public enquiries, hound blameless people out of their jobs, breach Freedom of Information laws, abuse the scientific method, lie, threaten, bribe, cheat, adopt nakedly political positions in taxpayer-funded academic and advisory posts that ought to be strictly neutral, trample on property rights, destroy rainforests, drive up food prices (causing unrest in the Middle East and starvation in the Third World), raise taxes, remove personal freedoms, artificially raise energy prices, featherbed rent-seekers, blight landscapes, deceive voters, twist evidence, force everyone to use expensive, dim light bulbs, frighten schoolchildren, bully adults, increase unemployment, destroy democratic accountability, take control of global governance and impose a New World Order.

In other words Professor Snyder, it’s your friends the greens who are the true heirs to Nazism. They’re the ones fomenting the crisis of hysteria which has led to so much bad policy, environmental destruction and human misery.

And the good guys – the heirs to the people who stood up to the Nazis – are all those deniers you so casually malign.

They’re the ones who’ve checked their facts, rejected Malthusianism and pessimism, who recognise that the best hope for the planet is by harnessing human ingenuity and energy, not by trying to constrain and curtail it.

But obviously, you’d need to be a serious historian to be aware of these subtleties.

Tom Harris, Exec. Director of Int. Climate Science Coalition, Talks to John Counsell, of CFRA, in Ottawa.

Tom Harris speaks on Radio, to John Counsell, of CFRA Radio Stn., in Ottawa

I believe this is one of the all time biggest frauds perpetrated on people world-wide. Wealth transference, from rate payers, to governments and rich investors. We are not improving our environment, in any way. There is no net benefit to wind or solar, over traditional energy sources, burned cleanly, especially hydro and nuclear, which are rejected in favour of this “novelty energy”! The corruption inherent in this incestuous relationship between governments and the renewables industry, has to be investigated. It is a scam! We are being robbed blind. Energy poverty is a reality for many people.  Shellie Correia

Climate Change Rhetoric is Nothing More Than a Cover for Wealth Redistribution.

Nine Experts Slam EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy’s ‘Clean Power Plan’ Speech
Like a river in Colorado, the EPA is poisoning the climate debate.
by Tom Harris
August 24, 2015
Anyone trying to understand why the climate change debate has become so toxic need look no further than the August 11 speech by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy.

In her presentation at the Resources for the Future (RFF) Policy Leadership Forum, her first public appearance since the August 3 release of the EPA’s “Clean Power Plan“ (CPP), McCarthy demonstrated everything that is wrong with the Obama administration’s approach to the issue. The EPA employs error-riddled interpretations of climate science and economics, and couples this with language designed to trick the public and the press into thinking the plan is something it is not.
————-

A Biased Host

The forum started with an introduction by Dr. Raymond Kopp, RFF’s Energy & Climate Economics co-director, who told the audience:

As many of you know, we’re not an advocacy organization. We’re not cheerleaders for any particular policy or point of view. Our goal is really to provide the best scholarly research to the policy community so it can develop the most efficient, efficacious, affordable, and best public policies possible.

Laudable goals indeed … but Kopp immediately betrayed RFF’s supposed objectives when he next said:

The Clean Power Plan in its current form as a final rule is likely the most significant development in U.S. history with respect to climate change. I don’t think any of us believe otherwise. It is a tremendously substantial rule and one that will have significant impact.

[Developing the rule] took a lot of hard work by many people inside and outside of government and it took an awful lot of leadership and luckily Gina McCarthy was available, ready, and willing to undertake that leadership role and for that we are most thankful.

Addressing McCarthy directly, Kopp concluded:

Thank you for getting the job done, for doing it exceedingly well, and shepherding the Clean Power Plan through all of these hurdles that were necessary to bring it to a final rule today. And, I think, thank you for doing it in an environment where the politics and the rhetoric really make this job as difficult as possible.

Considering Kopp’s remarks, it is not surprising that, according to RFF Forum attendee Dr. Alan Carlin — former EPA senior analyst and manager, and past chairman of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club — “RFF went all out to prevent me from handing out my comments and to keep out any skeptical comments from the Q&A.”

So much for RFF’s claim to not be “cheerleaders for any particular policy or point of view.”

—————

EPA Misrepresents Climate Science

McCarthy started the climate change part of her presentation with a politically correct assertion:

Climate change is one of the most important issues that we face. It is a global challenge but, in many ways, it’s also very personal to all of us because it affects everything and everyone we know and we love.

Climate change is, of course, a regional challenge, not a global one.

There is no super being straddling the planet, experiencing global trends. All that matters is what is happening — increases or decreases in the incidence of floods and droughts, heat waves and cold spells, and so on — in regions where people, plants, and animals are found. For example, what sense would it make for a community to prepare for a global sea level rise if, in that particular region, sea level was falling?

New Zealand-based renewable energy consultant Bryan Leyland pointed out:

Climate change has been a problem to mankind for hundreds of thousands of years. But we survived the last ice age, compared with which, the recent change in climate is but a minor wiggle. The greatest climate risk we face at the moment is a high probability that we are entering a period of cooling comparable to the Little Ice Age.

Many scientists agree with Leyland. For example, Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Connecticut, explained:

The Earth is on a descent into the next 100,000-year ice age. For the moment, the glaciers seem to be in retreat, but they are not remnants of the last ice age. They have been growing during the last 8,000 years.

High-resolution spectroscopy specialist Dr. John Nicol, former senior lecturer of physics and dean of science at James Cook University in Australia, elaborated:

Since 1997, the Earth has not warmed but has, in fact, very slightly cooled even though atmospheric CO2 levels have been increasing. McCarthy’s assertion that climate change is “very personal to all of us” clearly demonstrates her emotional rather than the scientific approach to this non-issue.

————–

Gina McCarthy next said:

By now we all know that climate change is driven in large part by carbon pollution and it leads to more extreme heat, cold, storms, fires, and floods.

Referring to carbon dioxide (CO2) as “carbon pollution” is one of the most common rhetorical tricks employed by the Obama administration. In the EPA’s news release announcing the CPP, they referenced “carbon pollution” five times in the release’s first four sentences.

Calling the gas “carbon” encourages the public to think of it as something dirty, like graphite or soot — which really are carbon.

Calling CO2 by its proper name would help the public remember that it is a non-toxic, odorless, invisible gas essential to plant photosynthesis. It is no more pollution than is water vapor, by far the principal greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. The EPA website is riddled with this “carbon” deception.

Leyland replied to the EPA chief:

It is shocking that McCarthy does not understand the difference between carbon dioxide — a harmless gas that benefits agriculture — and genuine pollutants like particulates, sulphur dioxide and the like emitted from old obsolete power stations. Modern coal-fired stations do not emit these pollutants.

McCarthy is not fit to head the EPA if she doesn’t know such basic science. Regardless, neither theory nor observations support the EPA chief’s claim that CO2 rise causes “more extreme heat, cold, storms, fires and floods.” Hyderabad, India-based Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy — formerly chief technical advisor for the UN World Meteorological Organization and author of Climate Change – Myths & Realities — said that McCarthy’s statement is “not true”:

Extreme heat, cold, storms and floods are part of natural variation. These are modified by local general circulation patterns existing over different parts of the globe over different seasons.

Nicol also contested McCarthy’s assertion:

Not only is the claim that CO2 is to blame [for increases in extreme weather] wrong, but the contradictory statements regarding these weather events, which are NO different from those of 200 years ago, demonstrates the desperation of lobby groups trying to maintain this myth.

If the world were to warm appreciably due to increasing CO2 emissions, temperatures at high latitudes are forecast to rise the most, reducing the difference between arctic and tropical temperatures. Since this differential drives weather, we should see weaker midlatitude cyclones in a warmer world — and thus fewer extremes in weather, not more.

Indeed, the lack of extreme weather increase with global warming is one of the few areas of agreement between the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). In 2012, the IPCC asserted that a relationship between global warming and wildfires, rainfall, storms, hurricanes, and other extreme weather events has not been demonstrated. In their latest assessment report (Sep 2013), IPCC scientists concluded that they had only “low confidence” that “damaging increases will occur in either drought or tropical cyclone activity” as a result of global warming.

The Sep 2013 NIPCC report concluded the same, asserting:

In no case has a convincing relationship been established between warming over the past 100 years and increases in any of these extreme events.

NIPCC report chapter lead author Dr. Timothy Ball, environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, explained that the EPA is taking the approach that American journalist Farhad Manjoo identified in his book True Enough: Learning To Live in a Post-Fact Society:

You create your theory then hire experts. The EPA agenda is political, not scientific.

Climate Change Is Normal

McCarthy then told the RFF Forum:

For farmers who are strained by the drought, for families with homes in the path of a wildfire, for small businesses along our coastlines, climate change is indeed very personal.

Nicol labeled these comments “utter rubbish,” writing:

Farmers do not believe in Global Warming or Climate Change as spruced by the human-caused global warming industry. Farmers have mostly been on their properties since they were children and have also been given detailed accounts of the weather and the seasons from when their great-grandfathers began farming.

This fact upsets those who try to claim that there are obvious changes. Farmers will tell you that the seasons come in cycles and any season we have now has been seen in the past — possibly 100 years ago.

Reddy also replied to McCarthy:

These [phenomena McCarthy lists] are associated with human actions on nature — land use and land cover changes, pollution (air, water, soil, and food) and adulterated foods, etc. For example, recent devastations in Jammu & Kashmir and Himalayan states of India were associated with occupation/building houses on river banks.

—————

McCarthy continued:

We all know that climate change is impacting us today and will continue to get worse if we don’t take action.

The EPA chief knows full well that this is not true.

After intense questioning from Representative Mike Pompeo (R-KS) at the September 18, 2013 hearing of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, McCarthy admitted that the CPP will have essentially no impact on climate. Hayden agreed:

Even if the restrictions were enacted, the effect on worldwide temperature would be too tiny to measure.

——————

McCarthy Suppresses Open Scientific Debate

McCarthy said:

We are way past any further discussion or debate.

Scientists are as sure that humans are causing climate change as they are that cigarette smoke causes lung cancer. So, unless you want to debate that point, don’t debate about climate change any longer because it is our moral responsibility to act.

Comparing the science linking cigarette smoke and cancer with the science of climate change is ridiculous. Climate science is becoming more uncertain as the field advances — we don’t even know if warming or cooling lies ahead.

University of Western Ontario applied mathematician Dr. Chris Essex, an expert in the mathematical models that are the basis of the climate scare, explained:

Climate is one of the most challenging open problems in modern science. Some knowledgeable scientists believe that the climate problem can never be solved.

The NIPCC reports list hundreds of peer-reviewed science papers that show that much of what we thought we knew about climate is wrong or highly debatable. In particular, the lack of global warming over the past 18 years, a period during which CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has risen 10%, shows there is something seriously wrong with the human-caused warming theory.

Reddy responded to McCarthy’s statement:

We still need to discuss global warming science since the IPCC is not sure of the correct sensitivity factor that relates anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases to temperature rise.

This is illustrated by the fact that they changed the sensitivity factor [the temperature rise in degrees Celsius forecast to occur due to a doubling of CO2], from 1.95 in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007) to 1.55 in their Fifth Assessment Report (2013).

They are merely employing trial and error, and not physical process paths.

Ball points out what the IPCC itself admitted in its Third Assessment Report (2001):

In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

John Nicol said of the scientists who support McCarthy’s position:

They are mistaken since they do not have a proper understanding of the spectroscopic behavior of carbon dioxide or its interactions in a mixture of other gases — oxygen and nitrogen.

—————

McCarthy next told the audience that Obama:

… reminded us that, while we are the first generation to feel the impacts of climate change, we are the last that can effectively do something about it.

Nicol answered:

We are not the first people to experience climate change. The Navajo in America, civilizations in the Middle East, and many others moved across continents to escape climate change-related events which were totally the responsibility of Nature and caused huge upheaval.

The changes claimed to be perceived today are, by comparison, trivial.

Carbon dioxide is not causing changes to the climate — Nature causes changes and always has, always will.

Ball asked:

How on Earth did we ever survive the climate change that has gone on for five billion years?

Of course, the idea that we can do something about it speaks to the arrogant godlessness of Obama and the environmentalists. If you get rid of God, you have to play God, and Obama’s angels are the bureaucrats like McCarthy. It’s interesting that another McCarthy, Mary, said: “Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, [is] the modern form of despotism.”

————

McCarthy concluded her comments:

Science has spoken on this. A low-carbon future is inevitable. We’re sending exactly the right signals on what, at least EPA believes to be, a future of lower pollution that is essential for public health and the environment.

Nicol replied:

Advocates for the destruction of society and world control of our societies are the actual offenders who have spoken on this.

Real and demonstrable science shows that a low carbon future will have no influence on the world’s climate and will destroy our ability to care for the world’s poor.

Energy is essential for the distribution of health and wealth to the poorer nations. This means that coal-fired power is essential, as recognized by the world’s largest economies, China and India.

Who are we to dictate the living standards of these and other nations?

Leyland added:

The main effect of the drive for a low carbon future is that energy will become more and more expensive and more and more people will die in the winter from the cold and in summer because they cannot afford to run the air conditioning.

The health effects would be seriously negative. The environmental effects will be a reduction in plant growth that could cost the agricultural economy trillions of dollars.

CPP’s Fictitious Health and Financial Benefits

McCarthy made numerous excited claims about the health impacts of the new climate rule:

As a result [of the CPP], in 2030, we are going to be avoiding thousands of premature deaths and hospital admissions, tens of thousands of asthma attacks and hundreds of thousands of missed school days and missed work days.

But the CPP does not regulate pollution. It regulates CO2, which has no detrimental impact on human health.

Only by assuming that enabling the CPP will force the closure of coal-fired electricity stations – and that that will reduce pollution emissions – can one claim the health benefits claimed by McCarthy. As explained by William Yeatman, environmental policy expert and editor of the Cooler Heads Coalition:

[This is] an EPA scam, known as “co-benefits,” by which the agency has justified a number of recent highly politicized regulations.

[T]here are entire sections of the Clean Air Act given to the regulation of particulate matter and nitrogen oxides. There is, therefore, neither a public health purpose nor a need for EPA to use a climate plan to regulate particulate matter and nitrogen oxides emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Furthermore, Yeatman demonstrates that the EPA’s methodology for estimating health benefits of the Clean Air Act “is based almost entirely on controversial, ‘secret’ science.” Not only do their forecasts of lives saved make no sense, but the agency refuses to release the data used to make these calculations. Carlin labeled the supposed health benefits of the CPP “dubious if not imaginary,” and asked:

If these benefits actually exist, why has EPA not already obtained them directly and more efficiently using “conventional” pollutant regulations?

McCarthy concluded her presentation by claiming that in 2030, as a result of the CPP:

The average American family will start seeing $85 in annual savings on their utility bills.

This is lunacy. Independent climate researcher Willis Eschenbach demonstrated on Watts Up With That that the CPP will almost quadruple U.S. electricity prices by 2030 if the Obama administration’s latest CO2 rule is fully implemented. As seen in Figure 1 below, Eschenbach calculated that “renewable” capacity per capita accounts for 84% of electricity cost variations between European countries (about €1 trillion has been spent so far in Europe on the installation of renewable energy technologies for electricity generation).

Figure 1: Electricity costs as a function of per capita installed renewable capacity. Wind and solar only, excludes hydropower.

Eschenbach explained:

We get about 4% of our electricity from wind and solar. He [Obama] wants to jack it to 28%, meaning we need seven times the installed capacity. Currently we have about 231 kW/capita of installed wind and solar (see Figure 1).

So Obama’s plan will require that we have a little less than seven times that, 1537 kW/capita. And assuming that we can extend the relationship we see in Figure 1, this means that the average price of electricity in the U.S. will perforce go up to no less than 43 cents per kilowatt-hour [the current average U.S. price of electricity is about 12 cents per kilowatt-hour] (This includes the hidden 1.4 cents/kW cost due to the five cents per kilowatt-hour subsidy paid to the solar/wind producers).

In January 2008, Obama, then a candidate for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, told the San Francisco Chronicle that under his energy plan “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Eschenbach and other analysts (for example, here and here) show that the CPP will finally allow the president to fulfill this promise.

Climate Hoax Must Be Confronted

Dr. Jay Lehr, science director at The Heartland Institute, summed up the situation well:

There is no science behind the idea that man controls the climate. Yet, billions of dollars are being diverted from our taxes to scam artists for renewable energy, fallacious mathematical model research, and political rewards.

It is a scam that dwarfs all others that have come before. And this will continue unabated for years to come until the public rises up in dissent.

Rather than just go with the flow or try to game the system to their advantage, industry leaders, scientists, and ordinary citizens must speak out against the climate scare that threatens America. If they do not, operatives such as Gina McCarthy will have free rein to enable the president’s disastrous climate plans.

Global Warming is Socialism, Through the Back Door! Don’t Fall For It!

George Will: “Global Warming Is Socialism By The Back Door”

George Will sits down with The Daily Caller‘s Jamie Weinstein.

GEORGE WILL: Global warming is socialism by the back door. The whole point of global warming is that it’s a rationalization for progressives to do what progressives want to do, which is concentrate more and more power in Washington, more and more Washington power in the executive branch, more and more executive branch power in independent czars and agencies to micromanage the lives of the American people — our shower heads, our toilets, our bathtubs, our garden hoses. Everything becomes involved in the exigencies of rescuing the planet.

Second, global warming is a religion in the sense that it’s a series of propositions that can’t be refuted. It’s very ironic that the global warming alarmists say, “We are the real defenders of science,” and then they adopt the absolute reverse of the scientific attitude, which is openness to evidence. You cannot refute what they say.

I own a house in Kiawah Island, South Carolina, facing the Atlantic, where the hurricanes come from. After Katrina, the global warming people said, “This is just a sign of the violent weather that’s going to become more common because of global warming.” Well, that certainly interested me. Of course, since then, there’s been a collapse of hurricane activity.

I was a columnist in the 1970s when Newsweek, Time, all sorts of media outlets said the real problem is global cooling. I remember the Washington Post reporting that the armadillos were going south to escape the coming chill, the threat of glaciation over northern Europe. We’ve been through this before. You say, “What happened to global cooling?” They say, “Well, our models were wrong.” Now we’re supposed to risk several trillion dollars of global growth and spending on new models that might be wrong?

One other thing, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced a report. The New Yorker, which is impeccably alarmed about global warming, the writer being their specialist began her story something like this: “In a report that should be but unfortunately will not be viewed as the final word in climate science.” Now, just think about that. The final word in microbiology, the final word in quantum mechanics. There are no final words in science. But there you have the deeply anti-scientific temper of the global warming advocacy groups: Final words.

Frauds, Crooks and Criminals

Demonstrating daily that diversity is not strength!

DeFrock

A new look at the Wind Industry

Gerold's Blog

The truth shall set you free but first it will make you miserable

PolitiSite

Pioneer in Political Commentary, Election Coverage, Polling Analysis and Fact-Checking

Canadian Common Sense

Canadian Common Sense - A Unique Perspective from Grassroots Canadians

Falmouth's Firetower Wind

a wind energy debacle

The Law is my Oyster

The Law and its Place in Society

Illinois Leaks

Edgar County Watchdogs

stubbornlyme.

My thoughts...my life...my own way.

Oppose! Swanton Wind

Proposed Wind Project on Rocky Ridge

Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

4TimesAYear's Blog

Trying to stop climate change is like trying to stop the seasons from changing. We don't control the climate; IT controls US.

Wolsten

Wandering Words

Patti Kellar

WIND WARRIOR

John Coleman's Blog

Global Warming/Climate Change is not a problem