Carbon Scam!

The Only Dangerous Climate Change….is the Political Climate! Liberalism is Killing Us!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Cuomo says ‘we don’t get tornadoes’ in NY, but we’ve had at least 417

 
Glenn Coin | gcoin@syracuse.comBy Glenn Coin | gcoin@syracuse.com 
 
on July 15, 2014 at 11:01 AM, updated July 15, 2014 at 12:08 PM
 

Syracuse, N.Y. — Gov. Andrew Cuomo told reporters last week that the rare deadly tornado that struck Madison County on July 8 was part of a “new normal” of extreme weather.

“We don’t get tornadoes in New York, right? Anyone will tell you that,” Cuomo said at a news conference July 8 in Smithfield, where the tornado struck. “Well, we do now.”

In fact, we always have.

Since the federal government started keeping a tally in 1950, New York has had at least 417 tornadoes. That’s an average of seven per year.

“For him to say we don’t get tornadoes in New York was incorrect,” said Scott Steiger, a SUNY Oswego meteorology professor. “He didn’t do his homework. Severe weather has happened in New York for a long time.”

 

 

Tornado in Madison CountyBarbara Watson of the National Weather Service says a tornado hit Madison County town of Smithfield on July 8, 2014. Four people were killed.

New York has averaged seven tornadoes a year since 1950. The number was about five a year before 1990, and has been about 10 per year since then.

The increase could be because more tornadoes are happening or simply that more are being reported.

“Are we seeing more events or are we just knowing more about the events that we didn’t know about before?” asked Bill Bunting, operations chief at the Storm Prediction Center in Oklahoma. “I would say probably we don’t know, but a lot of it’s the reporting.”

Bunting said that smart phones and social media have made it easier for people to send evidence of tornadoes to researchers. The National Weather Service, for example,confirmed a tornado on Sunday after being sent pictures and video over Facebook.

“In my 29 years with the National Weather Service, it’s become a lot easier for us to become aware of events,” Bunting said.

The weather service has confirmed eight tornadoes in New York so far this year.

Even if more tornadoes are hitting New York, it’s not clear that’s because of climate change. Tornadoes are caused by a complicated set of factors, including thunderstorms loaded with moisture, and wind shear in the upper atmosphere.

While climate change would be expected to increase the instability of those storms, Bunting said, it might also be expected to reduce wind shear.

“The evidence that looks into whether or not severe thunderstorms or tornadoes will increase in a warming world is inconclusive,” he said.

Because the numbers of tornadoes is relatively low in New York, and because so many can pop up at the same time, the statistics fluctuate widely from year to year.
There were just four tornadoes in 2012, but 23 the year before.

Tornadoes are spawned from heavy thunderstorms that sweep across the region, so they tend to come in batches. The Smithfield tornado was the strongest of five that struck New York on July 8. On May 31, 1998, New York had 13 tornadoes.

New York’s tornadoes tend to be less intense and long-lasting than those on the plains. Tornadoes are rated on the Enhanced Fujita scale from zero to 5. New York tends to get storms from EF-0 to EF-2. The Smithfield tornado was at the top end of an EF-2, with wind speeds of 135 mph. The biggest one in New York this year was an EF-3, which hit May 23 in Warren County.

The last death from a tornado in New York before last week was September 2010, when one person was killed in Queens.

You can search our database for all New York tornadoes since 1950:

Search tips:
– Want to see all the tornadoes? Hit search without entering any search terms.
– If second search turns up nothing, make sure you cleared search terms in earlier search.
– You can search for the county or community two ways: Either enter the county or the community name. Or you can use the dropdowns.

Countries need to Follow the Aussies Lead. Stop the Financial Suicide!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Jennifer Westacott: Time to End Poorly-Designed Energy Policy

July 13, 2014 by  

Jennifer Westacott

Jennifer Westacott is the chief executive of the Business Council of Australia and has extensive policy experience in both the public and private sectors. She has occupied critical leadership positions in the New South Wales and Victorian governments. This weekend she wrote in The Australian about the devastating impact of poorly-designed energy policy on businesses and energy consumers – and the necessity to make changes now.

Repeal carbon tax to reclaim our lost advantage in energy
The Australian
12-13 July 2014

NEXT week we hope to finally get rid of a piece of badly designed public policy that has placed a serious drag on our economy — the carbon tax.

Coming from the power sharing deal between the former government and the Greens, it was a creature of a political compromise and resulted in the highest carbon tax of any country in the world. It’s not that we shouldn’t have taken action on climate change, but the carbon tax was poorly designed, it was unworkable and an example of a very poor policy process.

We might be able to farewell the carbon tax, but it is just one of a long line of green energy policies which federal and state governments have layered on top of one another that are driving up the cost of electricity.

It is the cumulative impact of these policies that is pushing up the cost of electricity and making our businesses less competitive.

Repeal of the carbon tax therefore must be the beginning of removing shortsighted schemes and programs, and the start of a process to design an integrated approach to climate change and energy policy that supports rather than weighs down our economic competitiveness and jobs.

Let’s get some facts on the table about the real costs of green energy policies on the economy.

Analysis for the Business Council by Synergies Economic Consulting and Roam Consulting of actual electricity prices across the mainland states of the National Electricity Market shows that the cost of electricity has more than doubled in the last 10 years.

This will not come as news for anyone opening their electricity bill each quarter, but what is startling about the analysis is the extent to which a plethora of green energy policies have collectively driven up the cost of electricity, particularly for business who are large consumers of electricity.

The research shows that together, the carbon tax, the Renewable Energy Target, and state-based energy efficiency schemes now account for up to 40 per cent of the total electricity bill for a large business that does not qualify for government assistance, such as non trade-exposed manufacturing, dairy farms, retail outlets and office buildings.

Even for businesses that do receive government assistance, the total cost of green energy policies on their electricity bill is 17-25 per cent. There are thousands of businesses that face the brunt of these higher costs. This erodes the competitiveness of Australia relative to the rest of the world and will be a direct hit to the living standards of all Australians.

For households, the research shows that green energy policies account for 11 per cent of an average household electricity bill. The carbon tax alone is estimated to have accounted for 6 per cent of a household electricity bill and 20 per cent for a large business, less for those that qualify for government assistance.

On top of this, the RET is estimated to cost up to almost 10 per cent of a typical electricity bill for a large business that does not receive any exemption, and 3 per cent of a typical household electricity bill.

State-based schemes, including feed-in tariffs and energy ­efficiency schemes, account for 2 per cent of a household bill and up to 12 per cent of a large business bill — for which there is no compensation available.

What the cumulative cost of these schemes highlights is that when climate change policies are developed in isolation of energy policy, it adds to the cost of reducing emissions and ultimately consumers pay more for electricity than they otherwise should.

Good energy policy should deliver reliable and competitively priced energy in the long-term interests of consumers, and include climate policy that enables lowest-cost emissions reduction that keeps us competitive with the rest of the world.

Business and households remain in the dark as to when the high-cost carbon tax will be repealed as politicians debate trade-offs with the Palmer United Party to rescind the tax. Businesses are increasingly concerned that the proposed PUP amendments will bring new levels of complexity and red tape. If the parliament is serious about reducing electricity costs, a speedy repeal with a workable process to ensure reduced electricity prices are reflected in household bills is required.

Repealing the carbon tax is the first step to putting Australia on track for an integrated approach to climate change and energy policy that supports economic competitiveness and jobs. Australia should work to reclaim our comparative advantage in energy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions in line with global ­efforts, by:

1. Providing access to least cost abatement through international permits and getting the design of the emissions reduction fund right.

2. Amending the RET to a true 20 per cent of demand by 2020 and discontinuing the scheme once all liabilities are met in 2030.

3. Integrating climate change and energy policies as part of the government’s energy white paper.

4. Ensuring that future climate change and energy policies look at the cumulative impact of new policies on the cost of energy to households, businesses and the economy as a whole.

5. Completing the outstanding energy market reform agenda initiated by the Hilmer Review, including privatising energy assets, deregulating retail prices, adopting more uniform and economically efficient reliability standards and moving to more cost-reflective electricity tariffs.

With Australia’s competitiveness slipping, and with many businesses, families and individuals struggling, it is vital that the parliament develop consensus on the big issues facing our country such as our demographic changes, the rise of technology and our declining competitiveness.

Reaching a degree of bipartisanship on the critical principles on energy and climate change policy will ensure we play our role in global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while we reclaim energy as a comparative advantage for Australia in this increasingly competitive world.

The Australian

The mandatory RET/REC scheme is nothing more then a giant TAX on all Australian power consumers: with the proceeds either channelled as corporate welfare to near bankrupt outfits like Infigen (as RECs); or pocketed by the Government, as the shortfall charge. And all of that adding $50 billion or more to power costs, for absolutely no measurable benefit whatsoever.

The mandatory RET must go now.

electricity-price-rise

Scotland’s Energy Policies are NOT Feasible, Sensible, or Sustainable!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Brian Wilson: Storm clouds gather over energy

Hunterston B nuclear power station will not be replaced when its lifespan expires Picture: Donald MacLeod

Hunterston B nuclear power station will not be replaced when its lifespan expires Picture: Donald MacLeod

  • by BRIAN WILSON
The latest self-indulgent waste of taxpayers’ money to emerge from St Andrew’s House carries the portentous title Energy Regulation in an Independent Scotland, prepared by an “Expert Commission”.

 

The clue is in the title. However “expert” these people might be, they were not entrusted with their own agenda. They were not invited to advise on whether independence makes the slightest sense in the energy context. Their remit was restricted to the hypothesis of Scotland having voted to separate.

At that point, their response becomes comical in its evasion of hard questions. Essentially, their conclusion is that everything should carry on as at present because it is in Scotland’s interests that it should. The inconvenient fact that the UK government insists the exact opposite would happen is simply ignored.

As with the currency, there is to be no “plan B”. The rest of the UK will continue to buy Scotland’s electricity output, no matter what it costs. Full stop. There is no consideration of what Scotland would be left with if they declined to do so which, in the view of my own “expert commission” is a racing certainty.

Let’s look at the Scottish Government’s existing energy policy which can be summarised as follows:

1. They hate nuclear power and there will be no replacement for Hunterston B and Torness until hell freezes over.

2. They neither know nor care what will replace the base-load from Scotland’s four thermal power stations, all due to close within a decade, since that’s tomorrow’s problem.

3. The answer is that it will probably come from England via the inter-connector but with a bit of luck the hated Hunterston B and Torness will keep going long enough to avoid that embarrassment for a few years yet.

4. English consumers will continue to fund Scottish renewables, via open-ended subsidy and infrastructure costs, regardless of whether or not we are living in separate states.

5. Er… that’s it…

The central conclusion of the Expert Commission that it would be a jolly good idea to retain a single market in electricity within our small island need not have detained them long. Who could disagree? Certainly not the English generators who will be delighted to pump as much electricity as we want into Scotland as soon as we are daft enough to have put ourselves in the position of requiring it.

Even the Expert Commission summoned all its courage to note this prospect, buried on page 34 of the report: “Under current forecast scenarios of high renewable generation installation in Scotland and closure of current coal and nuclear generation, Scotland is likely, at time of low renewables availability, to import electricity from rUK in order to continue meeting demand.”

For the past half century, Scotland has been an exporter of electricity to the rest of the UK, due mainly to our nuclear stations. Last year, we exported more than a quarter of what was produced. The triumph of Nationalist policy will be to turn us into an importer. That matters less while we are part of the same state and market but would matter – and cost – a great deal if we were not.

While importing base-load from south of the new Border, we would try to sell them our renewables. But why should they buy them? On this point, the Expert Commission is magnificent in its vagueness, dancing round the essential point that there would be no requirement whatsoever for the UK government to subsidise Scottish renewables. This was confirmed recently by the European Court of Justice in a case involving Sweden and Finland.

“An independent Scotland’s ability to maintain course towards the renewable targets and aspirations set by the current Scottish Government,” chunters the report, “will hinge on clarity as early as possible regarding continuity of current and proposed market mechanisms….”. Ah, what we need is clarity! But what if the clarity is summed up as: “No thanks – and even if we wanted to subsidise expensive Scottish renewables, our voters wouldn’t stand for it now that you’ve chosen to walk away.”?

Answer comes there none, but even the Expert Commission acknowledges there might be limits to the costs which “rUK” would pay. So what is their masterly answer to this multi-billion pound dilemma? Rest easy for the Expert Commission has sagely decreed: “These are questions which a robust agreement and strategic energy partnership between Scottish and rUK Governments will need to define”. Loosely translated, that means: “We’re sorry, we haven’t a clue”.

Casting around for precedent, the Expert Commission alights improbably on Ireland where there is a cross-border electricity market. But crucially, as they neglect to point out, there is no shared regime on subsidising renewables. All the Irish example does is confirm that Scotland would be left with a surplus of renewable energy – mostly from onshore wind farms – but without the subsidy base which currently sustains it.

I heard Alex Salmond sound-biting about Scotland as an exporter of electricity – shameless as ever, given that the surplus comes from nuclear – while England is “facing black-outs”. Ipse, they would continue to buy power from Scotland, he asserted. Well, they might buy power – they just wouldn’t subsidise our renewables, which is all we will have to sell.

England and Wales already import more power from mainland Europe than from Scotland. By 2020, the inter-connector between the UK and Europe will have doubled capacity. They will not need electricity from Scotland. Neither, according to National Grid’s evidence to the DECC Select Committee, do they need a low-carbon contribution since the biggest renewable energy projects now happening are offshore wind farms in the shallower waters of the south.

It is a pity that the Expert Commission did not break free of its shackles in order to tell the truth, which is (a) there is not the slightest reason to believe that UK Continuing would force its consumers to subsidise expensive Scottish renewables; (b) the only hope for the Scottish renewables industry is to remain part of the UK market, with subsidy to match; and (c) Scotland desperately needs a balanced energy policy rather than daft over-reliance on renewables.

I doubt if any member of the Expert Commission would disagree with a word of that. They should say so.

Incidentally, in the real world yesterday, Ofgem approved a £1.2 billion subsea link between Caithness and Moray. Anyone fancy funding that kind of investment, multiplied many times over, from within Scotland alone?

Novelty Energy Forms, Wind & Solar, Won’t Save our Planet….Think Gas….

/ 1957chev / 2 Comments

Bjørn Lomborg: Want to Save the Planet? It’s a Gas.

July 12, 2014 by  
Bjorn-Lomborg-wsj

Bjørn Lomborg: the Skeptical Environmentalist.

When it comes to assessing the costs, risks and benefits of environmental policy Bjørn Lomborg has always tried to provide balanced, detailed analysis supported by facts and evidence. The economic choices we make – about allocating scarce resources to unlimited wants – should – as Lomborg consistently points out – be made taking into account all of the costs weighed against properly measured benefits (see our post here).

Bjørn Lomborg has become one of the most high profile critics of insanely expensive and utterly pointless renewable energy policies across the globe (see our posts here and here).

Bjørn’s back –  in this piece extracted from The Australian.

Gas is greenest in the short term (truncated)
The Australian
Bjørn Lomborg
12-13 July 2014

… We often hear how the EU has managed to cut its emissions by 16 per cent since 1990. But this is true only if we ignore the implicit emissions from the increasing imports from China and elsewhere. The EU has simply shifted part of its emissions abroad, so the total emissions have been slightly increasing. The EU is committed to cutting carbon emissions by 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. This will, according to an averaging of all the available energy-economic models, cost $US280bn a year. By the end of the century (after a total cost of more than $US20 trillion), this will reduce the projected temperature increase by a mere 0.05C.

Although renewables such as solar and wind are sold almost universally as the panacea to global warming, the world has been trying to get away from renewables for the past 200 years. In 1971, 40 per cent of China’s energy came from renewables. Since then, explosive economic growth has brought solar and wind to a trifling 0.23 per cent of its energy production. By contrast, Africa gets 50 per cent of its energy from renewables and remains poor.

The overwhelming part of biomass — essentially wood and dung — has remained constant since 1971. It is the cause of up to 4.3 million global deaths from indoor air pollution. Hydro has stayed constant at about 2 per cent and geothermal at 0.5 per cent. The only real change has been the dramatic introduction of CO2-free nuclear energy in the early 70s, going from powering less than 0.5 per cent to almost 7 per cent. It has fallen somewhat out of favour, reducing its proportion to just 5 per cent.

Despite the other 81 per cent composed of fossil fuels, almost the only thing anyone talks about is the smallest sliver: the increase in solar photo­voltaic, thermal, wind, tidal, wave and ocean power, which today makes up just less than 0.5 per cent.

The price for these renewables is significant. The annual investment is estimated at $US359bn, mostly for solar and wind, which the IEA estimates are subsidised for about $US60bn more than they’re worth. The net effect of one year of subsidised solar and wind is to postpone global warming by little more than one day by the end of the century.

Renewables are likely much more expensive than their direct subsidies for two reasons. First, solar and wind need back-up power for when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. This means building almost an entire parallel, but only partially used, fossil-fuel infrastructure to handle peak energy demands. These costs are presently not attributed to renewables. Second, higher energy costs mean lower economic growth. That is why the EU’s 20 per cent renewable target will have a cost almost 10 times higher than the direct subsidies.

This is why Brookings Institute recently found that to cut CO2, it is by far the cheapest to replace coal with gas, as gas is cheap and emits less than half the CO2 per kilowatt hour. Wind and especially solar leave us worse off, even with a very high carbon tax.

And that is why it is terrible when well-intentioned people suggest powering the Third World with renewables. A new paper from the Centre for Global Development puts it clearly. If we want to help electrify the world for $US10bn, we can use it on gas and lift 90 million people out of poverty. If we use the $US10bn on renewables, we will help only 20 million people, leaving the rest in darkness and poverty.

It is not surprising that Brookings suggests we should replace coal with gas in the rich world and the Centre for Global Development that we should get gas to the poor world. Because the US is showing what gas can do.

Look at the dramatic reduction in US emissions since 2008. This shows that there is one other solution to CO2 apart from wars and recessions: fracking, a new technology to get gas out of the ground cheaper and more plentifully.

In the past six years, about 20 per cent of US coal electricity has been replaced by cheaper gas, leading to a substantial CO2 reduction. Of course, not all the US reduction is due to cheaper gas, as there was also a recession and more wind power.

The most detailed study to date indicates that gas has cut about 300Mt of the annual US CO2 emissions. Compare this to the fact all the wind turbines and solar panels in the world reduce CO2 emissions at a maximum by 275 Mt. In other words, the US shale gas revolution, by itself, has reduced global emissions more than all the well-intentioned solar and wind in the world.

To compare it with President Barack Obama’s recent plan to reduce coal-fired power plants, in the past six years fracking has achieved about two-thirds of the total reduction Obama’s plan is contemplating the next 16 years.

Moreover, fracking is not costing money but saving the US consumer $US125bn annually in cheaper energy prices. Since cheaper energy also increases economic growth, the total economic benefits are estimated at $US283bn annually, creating 2.1 million new jobs.

Fracking has local environmental issues, but these can all be addressed with good regulation. Unlike the ever costlier renewable subsidies that sooner or later will hit the iron law, fracking works because it not only cuts CO2 but makes gas cheaper, improves the economy and create unsubsidised jobs. The long-term solution to climate change is to invest much more in green energy innovation. As long as green energy is much more expensive than fossil fuels, it will always remain a niche, subsidised by rich countries to feel good. If innovation can make future green energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels everyone will switch. Economic models show that green energy R&D is by far the best long-term climate policy.

The Australian

gas

Aussie’s, Senator Madigan, a rare Species. Called “Honest Politician”.

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

 Senator Madigan….Wish we had politicians of his caliber, in Ontario!

The Tangled Web: John Madigan Exposes the Greens as a Paid-Up Wind Industry Front

July 11, 2014 by  

John Madigan

The good Senator from Victoria, John “Marshall” Madigan is on fire. Having skewered the former tobacco advertising guru – who claims to be an “expert” on well, just about everything (see our post here) – the Marshall has just launched an Exocet missile at the seedy world of hard-green-left politics and the big corporate interests that fund the Australian Greens.

The Greens have been particularly coy about where the hundreds of thousands of dollars used to fund their last Federal election campaign (including the rerun of the West Australian Senate election) came from. The key beneficiaries of that fat pile of corporate cash have been lunatics like Sarah Hanson-Young, Senator from South Australia. Sarah set out to crush SA’s favourite Greek, Nick Xenophon but, in the result, she was lucky to sneak over the line herself. Nick (a true STT Champion) polled a snicker under 25% in the South Australian Senate race (beating Labor’s vote of 22.7%) – an all-time record for an independent Senator.

But, we digress. Since the launch of Vestas’ “Act on Facts” campaign in June last year it was evident that the Greens “fortunes” had – mysteriously – improved (see this article and see our post here). Since then the Greens have been very keen to “sing” for their supper. Recently, it’s come to light that the billionaire founder of wotif.com, Graeme Wood has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Green’s coffers. And, just like Vestas, is looking to use the Greens to advance his wind farm interests, proving that the Greens truly are the best party money can buy.

Here’s the video of John Madigan’s speech; Hansard (transcript) follows

THE SENATE PROOF OF

ADJOURNMENT
Australian Greens
SPEECH
Wednesday, 9 July 2014

Senator John MADIGAN (Victoria) (19:24) (pdf available here):

These well-known words have been attributed to Shakespeare:

Oh, what a tangled web we weave

When first we practise to deceive!

Why is it when we look at the Greens, at green associated industries and green lobby groups that we find a tangled web? And why is it when so many of us in this place look on the Greens party – our self-righteous, moral-high-ground colleagues with their selective moral outrage – that we are filled with suspicion and distrust? In the next few minutes I would like to ask some questions in the hope that, by doing so, I can shine light into dark corners.

Why is it that the Greens amendment on funding for ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, has almost the exact same wording as the one received from the Motoring Enthusiast Party? Does a senior MEP adviser, Ben Oquist – a former staffer to Christine Milne and Bob Brown, now working for the Australia Institute – have anything to do with this? Why is the Motoring Enthusiast Party so enthusiastic about ARENA all of a sudden? What’s going on here?

And why did an adviser to Senator Muir, Glenn Druery, tell one of my staff that ARENA has no links to the wind industry when information I have since received suggests the opposite? Data given to me by the office of Minister Macfarlane contradicts this.

In fact, in ARENA’S history it has invested in research projects that definitely enable the wind industry, including more than $6 million to Hydro Tasmania for its King Island Renewable Energy Integration Project.

I have been working for three years now for independent and multidisciplinary research into the alleged health impact on residents living near wind farms. Why would Mr Druery mislead us on the issue of ARENA? It does not bode well for someone so new to the Senate, does it?

But the Greens’ tangled web does not stop there. When the Gunns pulp mill was proposed it threw the green movement into a frenzy of opposition.

In 2009, lawyer Vanessa Bleyer – the same Vanessa Bleyer who threatened me with defamation proceedings over comments I made about pro-wind poster boy Professor Simon Chapman – provided Senator Milne with legal advice re the Gunns mill in northern Tasmania. Shortly after that, Wotif entrepreneur Graeme Wood gave a pre-election donation to the Greens – the largest political donation that has ever been given to an Australian political party.

Mr Wood said his support was for ‘environmental reasons’. Incessant protesting saw Gunns eventually go into receivership. Mr Wood, lo and behold, then became one of the purchasers of the Gunns site in 2011 and he announced a proposal to build a wind farm.

Let’s join the dots: the Greens’ militant opposition to the Gunns pulp mill leads to an anti-deforestation green movement protest, which leads to Senator Milne taking legal advice from Vanessa Bleyer representing the Friends of Tamar Valley. Will Mr Wood’s proposed wind farm provide an excellent return on his political investment? Presumably. Does it all make sense?

All I have done is ask the questions about the Greens’ attacks on the Waubra Foundation, the rapidly diminishing social licence for wind farms, the growing number of coalition parliamentarians willing to speak out on job losses and the increase in electricity prices, and the antiwind activists gaining greater credibility and countering the Greens’ agenda sponsored by Mr Wood. Is Mr Wood set to make another enormous profit?

The Danish turbine manufacturer has publicly stated it is funding environmental groups and other organisations. Was this the same organisation that poured large amounts of money into Senator Hanson-Young’s last election campaign? The Greens have spoken loudly about political funding, but my late father always told me to follow the money.
Senator John Madigan (Victoria)

Spider_web_Teruel

 

No Reason to Fear Fracking! Better for us than wind turbines and solar panels!

/ 1957chev / 2 Comments

Seven Facts for Fracking Deniers

By Jeffrey Folks
 

At a recent town hall meeting in Edmond, Oklahoma, local citizens gathered to discuss the possible connection between fracking and increased seismic activity in their area.  According to one published report, members of the audience left “disappointed” that no consensus had been reached linking fracking and seismic activity.  According to the samereport, many in the audience appeared to be “hostile to the oil and gas industry.”  Even in this most oil-friendly of states, it seems, there is a rush to judgment linking fracking to every conceivable sort of damage.

Although fracking has been around for fifty years, only recently have technological advances made its widespread use economically feasible.  Now fracking is reviving the entire American economy by providing efficient fuel for new industries and slashing energy costs for consumers.  By 2015, the U.S. willbegin exporting natural gas, most of it produced by fracking.

No wonder the left is furious.  Anything that promises to restore American greatness drives leftists crazy.  Their dream of global socialism, with America brought down to the bottom of the heap, is at risk, and they have responded by targeting America’s oil and gas industry.

Having tried unsuccessfully to link fracking to groundwater contamination, opponents have turned their attention to the potential link between fracking and earthquake activity.  The problem is, even scientists who normally align with the left now admit that hydraulic fracturing itself does not and cannot cause earthquakes.  The only unresolved question is whether wastewater injection, a byproduct of current fracking procedures, may contribute to increased seismic activity.

 

Clearly, the left is engaged in an all-out effort to smear the oil and gas industry by spreading misinformation and fostering confusion – such as ignoring the difference between fracking itself and wastewater injection.  The intent of this effort is to cripple the U.S. economy by depriving it of an efficient and reliable source of energy.  The ultimate goal, as always, is to strip America of its sovereignty and subject it to the will of a communist world order.  The energy industry stands in the way of this agenda, as does every other industry operating within the free market.

Fracking is now essential to America’s energy security and economic well-being, and thus essential to the liberty of its citizens.  Like all forms of capitalist activity, it must be defended against those who plot to destroy freedom, and the best way to defend it is to separate fact from fiction.

Fact #1: Fracking, in and of itself, does not cause earthquake activity (or, for that matter, groundwater pollution or other harmful effects).

Fact #2: In some locations where fracking has taken place, there has been acoincidental increase in the number of earthquakes.  In other areas where widespread fracking has taken place, no quakes or tremors have been registered.  As authorities stated at the Edmond meeting, there exists no conclusive evidence that fracking causes earthquakes.  It should also be stressed that none of the quakes purportedly linked to fracking have seriously injured human beings or caused major property damage.

Fact #3: Even in those limited areas where earthquake activity has increased, it is impossible to know to what extent seismic activity has increased, since speculation about the connection with fracking has led to the deployment of a larger number of monitoring devices.  According to one prominent geologist, a similar increase in seismic activity may have taken place in Oklahoma in the early 1950s, though an absence of recording devices at that time makes an exact comparison impossible.  The record shows that Oklahoma has a long history of earthquake activity.  While more quakes and tremors are now being recorded, it is certain that a larger number would have been detected in the past if an equal number of monitoring devices had been deployed.

Fact #4: It is alleged that injection wells, used to dispose of fracking liquids deep underground, may be triggering seismic activity.  Most seismologists admit, however, that it is impossible at this time to prove that wastewater injection is the cause of increased earthquake activity.  As scientists study the connection between wastewater disposal and seismic activity, it may be necessary to establish better standards or develop new methods of wastewater disposal.  Energy companies are committed to following best practices in this regard.

These facts contradict the left’s attempts to demonize fracking.  As with the anti-nuclear witch hunt of the 1980s following an accident at Three Mile Island, there is the danger that states and municipalities – or the federal government through the EPA or other agencies – will impose regulations or moratoriums that shut down an important segment of our nation’s energy supply.  Had the anti-nuclear lunacy not swept the country following Three Mile Island in 1979, America would have been a lot better off.  Lost oil and gas production due to a moratorium on fracking (such as Germany has just imposed) would result in even greater harm.

Given the serious implications for U.S. energy independence and economic growth, any discussion of fracking and seismic activity needs to consider three additional facts.

Fact #5: Fracking has led to an increase in domestic oil and gas production and a major reduction in dependence on foreign oil.  Since 2005, U.S. oil production has increased from approximately 5 million to 8 million barrels per day.  Combined with increased fuel efficiency and a slight decline in miles driven, increased domestic oil production has cut dependence on foreign oil in half.  According to the International Energy Agency, the U.S. will become the world’s largest oil producer by 2015.

Fact #6: The oil and gas industry has contributed the lion’s share of job growth since 2008.  According to the American Energy Institute, as of January 2013, jobs in the oil and gas sector had increased by 26.2%, while overall employment in the five-year period had declined by 2.3%.  And unlike most jobs created in the Obama’s years, oil and gas jobs are high-paying.  In 2013, annual earnings for workers in North Dakota’s oil fields averaged $112,000.  Nationally, petroleum engineers averaged between $110,000 and $150,000 annually, with senior engineers and managers earning far more.

Fact #7: Fracking has lowered the cost of natural gas and helped to restrain price increases for oil as well.  According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency,natural gas prices peaked at $13.42 per mBtu in October 2005.  After fracking became common in the U.S., prices declined to a low of $1.99 per mBtu in April 2012, and they remain low today.  Lower energy prices have reduced costs for homes, schools, businesses, and industries.  At the same time, fracking has generated tens of billions of dollars of new revenue for states and municipalities.

Given these facts, the obvious conclusion is that government should move slowly and deliberately before imposing unnecessary restrictions on fracking, especially in the absence of evidence linking the practice to earthquakes or other ill effects.

Instead of shouting down fracking at town hall meetings, the public needs to be marching in support of this advanced technology.  Otherwise, some other nation – perhaps China or Russia – will eventually surpass us in this vital technology and reap all the rewards that fracking now provides.       

Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books on American politics and culture, including Heartland of the Imagination (2011).

 
 

The Terrifying Truth About the Faux-Green Agenda! READ THIS!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

 

We should all want to be wise and careful stewards of the beautiful planet we call home. But most of us realize that humans in general are not being good stewards. We are wasteful with our natural resources and have reduced biodiversity. Therefore, when we read about groups and organisations calling for a ‘green revolution’ and a new relationship between humanity and nature it is easy to agree with their ideas. 

However, certain aspects of the modern green movement that is permeating every segment of our society are not about protecting the environment. You don’t have to dig very deep to discover the true beliefs of the influential leaders who are using genuine concerns about the environment to promote an agenda of fear and control. Please carefully consider the implications of the opinions that they so openly and freely express:

(references and sources for the quotes below can be found here)

“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up 
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, 
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome, 
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.“
– Prof. Stephen Schneider, 
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of 
economic and environmental policy.“
– Timothy Wirth, 
President of the UN Foundation 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations 
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The models are convenient fictions 
that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame, 
climate modeler, Oxford University

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts 
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
– Al Gore,
Climate Change activist

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and
spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest
opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level.”
– Al Gore,
Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis…”
– David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the
world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a
major catastrophe that could send our entire planet’s climate system
into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods,
droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have
ever experienced – a catastrophe of our own making.” 
– Al Gore,
An Inconvenient Truth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We are getting close to catastrophic tipping points,
despite the fact that most people barely notice the warming yet.”
– Dr James Hansen,
NASA researcher

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“By the end of this century climate change will reduce the human
population to a few breeding pairs surviving near the Arctic.”
– Sir James Lovelock,
Revenge of Gaia

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Climate Change will result in a catastrophic global sea level
rise of seven meters. That’s bye-bye most of Bangladesh,
Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis.”
– Greenpeace International

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“This planet is on course for a catastrophe.
The existence of Life itself is at stake.”
– Dr Tim Flannery,
Principal Research Scientist 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Coal makes us sick. Oil makes us sick. It’s global warming. 
It’s ruining our country. It’s ruining our world.” 
– Harry Reid,
U.S. Senate majority leader

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Climate Change is the greatest threat that
human civilization has ever faced.”
– Angela Merkel,
German Chancellor

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here,
and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new 
global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.“
– Barack Obama,
US President

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We simply must do everything we can in our power to
slow down global warming before it is too late.”
– Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Governor of California

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Climate change should be seen as the
greatest challenge to ever face mankind.”
– Prince Charles

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Climate change makes us all global citizens,
we are truly all in this together.”
– Gordon Brown,
British Prime Minister

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We have reached the critical moment of decision on climate change.
Failure to act to now would be deeply and unforgivably irresponsible.
We urgently require a global environmental revolution.”
– Tony Blair,
former British PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We are close to a time when all of humankind 
will envision a global agenda that encompasses 
a kind of Global Marshall Plan to address the 
causes of poverty and suffering and 
environmental destruction all over the earth.“
– Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“In Nature organic growth proceeds according 
to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. Such a ‘master plan’ is 
missing from the process of growth and development of
the world system. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for 
sustainable growth and world development based on global 
allocation of all resources and a new global economic system.
Ten or twenty years form today it will probably be too late.”
– Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We need a new paradigm of development in 
which the environment will be a priority. 
World civilization as we know it will soon end. 
We have very little time and we must act. 
If we can address the environmental problem, 
it will have to be done within a new system, a 
new paradigm. We have to change our mindset, 
the way humankind views the world.“
– Mikhail Gorbachev,
founder of Green Cross International

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable,
indeed a sacred principle of international relations.
It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to
the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.“
– UN Commission on Global Governance report

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and
it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely.
Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well 
suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature 
of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected 
representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.” 
– Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization
and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global
community will inevitably have multiple political consequences.
Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change
in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must
assume some aspects of a world government.“
– Mikhail Gorbachev,
State of the World Forum

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“I envisage the prinicles of the Earth Charter to
be a new form of the ten commandments.
They lay the foundation for a sustainable
global earth community.“
– Mikhail Gorbachev,
co-author of The Earth Charter

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“In my view, after fifty years of service in the United Nations system,
I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper
Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present 
political and economic systems are no longer appropriate
and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet.
We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.”
– Dr Robert Muller, 
UN Assistant Secretary General,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty 
to the international community and beginning to create a 
new system of international environmental governance 
as a means of solving otherwise unmanageable crises.”
– Lester Brown,
WorldWatch Institute 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Regionalism must precede globalism.
We foresee a seamless system of governance from
local communities, individual states, regional unions
and up through to the United Nations itself.”
– UN Commission on Global Governance 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that 
fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order 
and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income.
Perhaps only a new and enlightened humanism
can permit mankind to negotiate this transition.“
– Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The alternative to the existing world order can only
emerge as a result of a new human dimension of progress. 
We envision a revolution of the mind, a new way of thinking.“
– Mikhail Gorbachev,
State of the World Forum

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We require a central organizing principle – one agreed to voluntarily.
Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations,
rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change – these are all forms of
appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that
sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation
of society will not be necessary.”
– Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Adopting a central organizing principle…
means embarking on an all-out effort to use every 
policy and program, every law and institution…
to halt the destruction of the environment.“
– Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound
reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world
has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both
governments and individuals and an unprecedented
redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift
will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences
of every human action be integrated into individual and
collective decision-making at every level.” 
– UN Agenda 21

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The current course of development is thus clearly unsustainable.
Current problems cannot be solved by piecemeal measures.
More of the same is not enough. Radical change from the
current trajectory is not an option, but an absolute necessity.
Fundamental economic, social and cultural changes that
address the root causes of poverty and environmental
degradation are required and they are required now.“
– from the Earth Charter website

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, 
which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.” 
– David Brower,
founder of Friends of the Earth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of
saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have
an ecologically sound society under socialism. 
I don’t think it is possible under capitalism” 
– Judi Bari,
principal organiser of Earth First! 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the 
industrialized civilizations collapse? 
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the
United States. De-development means bringing our
economic system into line with the realities of
ecology and the world resource situation.“
– Paul Ehrlich, 
Professor of Population Studies

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another
United States. We can’t let other countries have the same 
number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. 
We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
– Michael Oppenheimer,
Environmental Defense Fund

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty,
reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
– Professor Maurice King

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place 
for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and 
plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, 
free shackled rivers and return to wilderness 
millions of acres of presently settled land.”
– David Foreman, 
co-founder of Earth First! 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on 
human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to
discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy,
because of what we might do with it.”
– Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the
worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
– Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the 
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Our insatiable drive to rummage deep beneath
the surface of the earth is a willful expansion
of our dysfunctional civilization into Nature.”
– Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many,
doing too well economically and burning too much oil.“
– Sir James Lovelock,
BBC Interview

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to
about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure
and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species,
returning throughout the world.” 
–Dave Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First! 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the
affluent middle class – involving high meat intake,
use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning,
and suburban housing – are not sustainable.“
– Maurice Strong,
Rio Earth Summit 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, 
selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
– Michael Fox,
vice-president of The Humane Society 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Human beings, as a species, 
have no more value than slugs.” 
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a
pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
– Sir James Lovelock,
Healing Gaia

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; 
the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people.
We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to 
the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many 
apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich,
The Population Bomb 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“I don’t claim to have any special interest in natural history, 
but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in 
the number of game animals and the need to adjust 
the cull to the size of the surplus population.” 
– Prince Philip,
preface of Down to Earth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society
at the present North American material standard of living 
would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard
of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
– United Nations,
Global Biodiversity Assessment

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“A total population of 250-300 million people, 
a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Ted Turner,
founder of CNN and major UN donor

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence
more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
– Club of Rome,
Goals for Mankind

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“One America burdens the earth much more than 
twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say. 
In order to stabilize world population,we must eliminate 
350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,
but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
– Jacques Cousteau,
UNESCO Courier

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth
as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
– Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh,
patron of the World Wildlife Fund

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong.
It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The extinction of the human species may not
only be inevitable but a good thing.”
– Christopher Manes, Earth First!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival 
for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. 
Phasing out the human race will solve every 
problem on Earth – social and environmental.”
– Ingrid Newkirk,
former President of PETA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against
society, unless the parents hold a government license.
All potential parents should be required to use
contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing
antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
– David Brower, 
first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The fate of mankind, as well as of religion, depends upon
the emergence of a new faith in the future. 
Armed with such a faith, we might find 
it possible to resanctify the earth.“
– Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The greatest hope for the Earth lies in religionists and 
scientists uniting to awaken the world to its near fatal predicament
and then leading mankind out of the bewildering maze of 
international crises into the future Utopia of humanist hope.“
– Club of Rome,
Goals for Mankind

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“What an incredible planet in the universe this will be
when we will be one human family living in justice,
peace, love and harmony with our divine Earth, 
with each other and with the heavens.”
– Robert Muller, 
UN Assistant Secretary General

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The earth is literally our mother, not only because we depend on
her for nurture and shelter but even more because the human
species has been shaped by her in the womb of evolution….
Our salvation depends upon our ability
to create a religion of nature.”
– Rene Dubos, 
board member, Planetary Citizens

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Each element, plant, insect, fish and animal
represents a certain aspect of Gaia’s – and our – being.
In a way, we are Gaia’s intelligence and awareness
– currently lost in self-destructive madness.
We must acknowledge, respect and love her for being
the Mother she is to us or we deny our very selves. 
Nurture the Mother as she nurtures us.”
– Prof. Michael J. Cohen, 
Ecopsychologist

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“It is the responsibility of each human being today to 
choose between the force of darkness and the force of light.
We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed
respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.“
– Maurice Strong,
first Secretary General of UNEP

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The spirit of our planet is stirring! 
The Consciousness of Goddess Earth 
is now rising against all odds, 
in spite of millennia of suppression, 
repression and oppression inflicted on Her 
by a hubristic and misguided humanity. 

The Earth is a living entity, a biological organism 
with psychic and spiritual dimensions. 
With the expansion of the patriarchal religions 
that focused on a male God majestically 
stationed in Heaven ruling over the Earth and the 
Universe, the memory of our planet’s innate Divinity 
was repressed and banished into the 
collective unconscious of humanity.“
– Envision Earth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Still more important is the implication that the evolution of
homo sapiens, with his technological inventiveness and his
increasingly subtle communications network, has vastly increased
Gaia’s range of perception. She is now through us awake and aware
of herself. She has seen the reflection of her fair face through the
eyes of astronauts and the television cameras of orbiting spacecraft.

Our sensations of wonder and pleasure, our capacity
for conscious thought and speculation, our restless curiosity and
drive are hers to share. This new interrelationship of Gaia with man
is by no means fully established; we are not yet a truly collective
species, corralled and tamed as an integral part of the biosphere,
as we are as individual creatures. It may be that the destiny of
mankind is to become tamed, so that the fierce, destructive, and
greedy forces of tribalism and nationalism are fused into a
compulsive urge to belong to the commonwealth of all
creatures which constitutes Gaia.“
– Sir James Lovelock, 
Gaia: A New Look At Life

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Little by little a planetary prayer book is
thus being composed by an increasingly united
humanity seeking its oneness. Once again,
but this time on a universal scale, humankind is
seeking no less than its reunion with ‘divine,’
its transcendence into higher forms of life. Hindus
call our earth Brahma, or God, for they rightly
see no difference between our earth and the divine.
This ancient simple truth is slowly dawning again upon
humanity, as we are about to enter our cosmic age
and become what we were always meant to be:
the planet of god.”
– Robert Muller, 
UN Assistant Secretary General

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“What if Mary is another name for Gaia? Then her capacity for
virgin birth is no miracle . . . it is a role of Gaia since life began . . .
She is of this Universe and, conceivably, a part of God. On Earth,
she is the source of life everlasting and is alive now;
she gave birth to humankind and we are part of her.”
– Sir James Lovelock, 
Ages of Gaia

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Nature is my god. To me, nature is sacred;
trees are my temples and forests are my cathedrals.“
– Mikhail Gorbachev, 
Green Cross International

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The spiritual sense of our place in nature…
can be traced to the origins of human civilization….
The last vestige of organized goddess worship
was eliminated by Christianity.“
– Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is to succeed,
we must destroy the Judeo-Christian Religious tradition.”
– Peter Singer, founder of Animal Rights 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“I pledge allegiance to the Earth and all its sacred parts.
Its water, land and living things and all its human hearts.”
– Global Education Associates,
The Earth Pledge 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“By fostering a deep sense of connection to others and to the earth
in all its dimensions, holistic education encourages a sense of
responsibility to self to others and to the planet.“
– Global Alliance for Transforming Education

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The earth is not dead matter. She is alive.
Now begin to speak to the earth as you walk.
You can speak out loud, or just talk to her in your mind.
Send your love into her with your exhalation. Feel your
heart touching upon the heart of the planet. Say to her
whatever words come to you: Mother Earth, I love you.
Mother Earth, I bless you. May you be healed. May all
your creatures be happy. Peace to you, Mother Earth.
On behalf of the human race, I ask forgiveness
for having injured you. Forgive us, Mother Earth“
– US Student Textbook, 
“Prayer to the Earth”

Facts That the Climate Alarmists, Would Rather You Didn’t Know!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling

 

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.

Of course, 10 years is hardly enough to establish a long-term trend. Nevertheless, the 10-year cooling period does present some interesting facts.

Source: National Climatic Data Center, NOAA

First, global warming is not so dramatic and uniform as alarmists claim. For example, prominent alarmist James Hansen claimed in 2010, “Global warming on decadal time scales is continuing without letup … effectively illustrat[ing] the monotonic and substantial warming that is occurring on decadal time scales.” The word “monotonic” means, according to Merriam-Webster Online, “having the property either of never increasing or of never decreasing as the values of the independent variable or the subscripts of the terms increase.” Well, either temperatures are decreasing by 0.4 degrees Celsius every decade or they are not monotonic.

Second, for those who may point out U.S. temperatures do not equate to global temperatures, the USCRN data are entirely consistent with – and indeed lend additional evidentiary support for – the global warming stagnation of the past 17-plus years. While objective temperature data show there has been no global warming since sometime last century, the USCRN data confirm this ongoing stagnation in the United States, also.

Third, the USCRN data debunk claims that rising U.S. temperatures caused wildfires, droughts, or other extreme weather events during the past year. The objective data show droughts, wildfires, and other extreme weather events have become less frequent and severe in recent decades as our planet modestly warms. But even ignoring such objective data, it is difficult to claim global warming is causing recent U.S. droughts and wildfires when U.S. temperatures are a full 0.4 degrees Celsius colder than they were in 2005.

Even more importantly than the facts above, the USCRN provides the promise of reliable nationwide temperature data for years to come. No longer will global warming alarmists be able to hide behind thinly veiled excuses to doctor the U.S. temperature record. Now, thanks to the USCRN, the data are what the data are.

Expect global warming alarmists, now and for the foreseeable future, to howl in desperation claiming the USCRN temperature data are irrelevant.

Of course, to global warming alarmists, all real-world data are irrelevant.

The Ice-Cold Truth, about Renewable Energy…

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Dances with Unicorns.

by Pointman

This is another guest article by one of our regular commenters, Graeme No3. We homo sapiens are a tropical species but for the majority of our estimated 200,000 year existence, we’ve lived on an Earth locked in ice ages, which have always had devastating effects on us. Geologically speaking, we’re still in one but fortunately as of about 10.000 years ago we’re currently enjoying what’s called an interglacial, which in technical terms means a brief interlude when there’s an uptick in global temperatures during an ice age.

Believe it or not, but there have been millions and millions of years in the geological history of the Earth when there was little or no ice around. Life thrived in those intervals. It’s only in ice ages that life around the globe contracts and shrivels.

There is a growing body of opinion that we might be moving out of our interglacial and back into a colder world, perhaps a very much colder one. That’s happened many times before and there’s absolutely nothing to prevent it happening again. Should that turn out to be the case, this article speculates on our total energy unpreparedness for that scenario and the possible geopolitical ramifications of such a global change.

Pointman

—-<0>—

It is a truth rarely acknowledged that a young person with good intentions but no experience will believe in renewable energy. When ignorance thinks it bliss, folly is let run wild. 

Among the expensively educated who have passed from school to university and remain there, faith in ‘carbon free’ electricity is paramount. Among the Chattering Classes the same wishful belief, it cannot be called thinking, is almost universal, and reflected in the output from their favorite media provider, paid for by others. Among these self congratulating circles any thought of electricity beyond the nearest switch is of a sort of nebulous big pond of electricity which is always available. It can be replenished from any source at any time, so moving to renewables is considered easy, and resistance has sinister motives. Murmuring base load is enough to get you classified as an expert.

No one appears to know about the electricity grid on which modern life is based. There is no big pond that can be filled or emptied at leisure, it is all split second timing. Introducing unpredictable and variable generation into this environment is a consequence of hysteria based on an unproven scare campaign. Yet these hysterics daydream of a supply based entirely on “renewables”.  Verily, I say unto you “Unicorns live!”

Try to imagine life without a continuous supply of electricity; it is not called power for nothing. Power to heat or cool your living space, power for the appliances that handle so many mundane living tasks, power to communicate and to entertain around the globe. No electricity means no refrigerator, no microwave, no TV, no washing machine or dryer.  There will be no computer and no telephone; don’t think that because you carry it with you that it will work, as the radios linking the cellular network will need electricity. 

Cooling needs electricity, unless you’ve hired a punkawalla. You may think that heating can be replaced by gas, liquid or solid fuels but have a close look at your system; is that an electric fan? an electric circulating pump? And what is the ignition source for your fire or furnace? Is the timing mechanism dependent on signals through the mains connection? Ask yourself, how would you fare in the depths of winter if there was no electricity for 11 days?

And while you’re in a despondent and fearful mood, those of you with children of appropriate age may as well have a talk to them about The Facts of Life. Don’t mention sex; thanks to the internet and those sites you think they don’t know about, they will have explicit, if warped, knowledge.

No, I refer to the real facts, budgets, bills and debts which they will need to know about in the future. Explain that their mobile phone or pad needs electricity to operate the computers that route the signals AND send you the bill. Explain that debts have to be paid and that unicorns do not leave big bags of money at the bottom of the garden, even for plausible politicians. That generous credit means interest has to be paid as well as the amount borrowed, and borrowing to pay the interest only hastens bankruptcy.

Then comes the hard part. Point out that renewable energy is intermittent and expensive, and replacing 20% of cheap electricity with something costing 4 times as much pushes the whole price up, and ordinary consumer has to pay for that. About this time their eyes will glaze over and they cannot take in any more. They probably won’t believe you but you have done your duty as a parent. Take a break and a well deserved stiff drink. Let them exchange pitying glances; in years to come they may realize that you did know something.

They will need this advice in the near future for the climate is changing. No, the IPCC hasn’t finally got a prediction right! Forget ‘Climate Science’, within 5 years it will have been consigned to the rubbish bin. No, this is the real science. In the last 1,000 years the sun has gone quiet 5 times, and each time the temperature has dropped, agriculture has suffered, and a large portion of the population has died from cold, starvation, plagues or wars.

Don’t look at the pious chants of the eco-loonies as they recite the dogma of Global Warming, or whatever they call it this month, look at the actions of those who know. China has a long history and has been through many changes in the climate. They have never agreed to sign up with the IPCC to destroy their economy. Lately they have started buying up resources and agricultural land and produce in Australasia, Africa and South America.

The industrious ants are filling their larder, while Europe and the USA dance like demented grasshoppers. Russia is building nuclear powered ice breakers and casting eyes on the Ukraine – “the breadbasket of Europe”. They’ve plenty of oil and gas for those who can afford it, and vast pipelines are planned to China. Europe needs those fuels too, but will they be able to afford them when the price goes up again? And what will be Putin’s price?

Countries will need flexibility, financial reserves, political strength and credibility to adapt, yet this is what Europe lacks. For the past 25 years it has embarked on a stupid and destructive policy based on a nebulous threat. In the name of reducing emissions they have wasted hundreds of billions sending their industries abroad while spending even more on social welfare for those unemployed and without a future. And the World’s emissions have soared.

A captive breeding program for unicorns would have achieved as much, been as logical and a good deal cheaper.

California has been following the same road as Europe. Overspending by borrowing, then borrowing to pay the interest on the borrowing. Under stress expect it to declare bankruptcy, but it won’t. It will just be unable to re-pay its debts with anything other that weasel words. The result will be the same; a world-wide financial crisis that will end the US dollar’s time as the reserve currency. That will be bad news for the USA, but otherwise they will suffer less than most, although agriculture will have to move south.

There will be no more orange groves in Florida, but a lot more people fleeing the cold north. The rising population of Texas along with the antagonism against anything or anyone tarred with the “Washington” tag, by the declining populations of the western states may lead the country being split by a Union of the Western States, leaving California and the Eastern states divided. It is unlikely that Mexico will seek to reclaim Los Angeles, because that would mean inheriting the mess.

In North Africa and the Middle East not one country is self-sufficient in food, especially wheat. When the World was warmer in Roman times, Egypt and Libya were the granary of Rome. When times turned cooler and the rain bands shift south, the desert expanded. The Canadian wheat crop will be much reduced, even non-existent, during these cold years, and reduced in many other places, so the price will rise beyond the point that the populace will remain docile. They won’t be able to supply more than a fraction of their population, and their inflexible social order guarantees violent troubles. Only Turkey and Israel have the modernity and flexibility to survive the crisis.  

Europe, too, is doomed. Europe will collapse in on itself. The money, the flexibility to ride out the crisis has been thrown away on a false assumption. The chattering classes may indeed not notice any problems for a while, then pass them off as passing irritations and call for “business as usual.”  But “this time it’s different” we will be told. “World wide trade will ensure a flow of food” will be the assurance, so the supply won’t be inadequate. “Wars are a thing of the past”, will be the claim of fools. “Things aren’t that bad” and “It will all be over by Christmas” will be as true as they were the last time they were used.

The EU will go, and a vast crowd of bureaucrats will gain first hand knowledge of the difficulties of getting employed in a shrinking economy. Their supporters, the Green parties, will be in disarray by their widespread rejection and lacking influence, indeed outlawed in some countries. Nor will they be helped by the fissioning of the various states. Expect Italy to split into north and south; with South Italy overwhelmed with refugees from North Africa (and who can blame them) but law and order broken down. Lombardy will have some of the toughest borders in Europe to deter any thinking of moving north.

The takeover by Nazi-like Golden Dawn in Greece, where they invented xenophobia, will make climate refugees even more desperate to get into what was Spain. The civil wars in there would make it uninviting, with the Basque, Catalans, Galicians and the southern Union (Andalusia and Murcia) all off anybody’s holiday list. France is their only hope, and may their God help them with the mood that the National Front will be in then. A few survivors may be allowed to remain to do the menial, the dirty and the dangerous jobs.

There will be a rising tide of nationalism in Germany, which will frighten its neighbours. The Flemings (Belgium having split under the pressure) will joined with Holland and Denmark (and possibly Norway) in a self-protection league. In the east, Poland and the Baltic states will be casting nervous glances at Russia also, and talking with Finns and the Czechs about history repeating itself.

Turkey will looks very dicey once Israel supplies it with nuclear weapons, as the renewed alliance looks east towards an unstable and threatening Iran. They will hope that the internal troubles there will cause Iran to  disintegrate before the clergy starts a war.

Russia will have a second time of troubles, but there their foresight and the advantages of modern technology will operate in their favour. With plentiful oil and gas supplies they will be able to buy extra food. Life may be tough, but there will be hope and they will draw in on themselves to survive. They certainly won’t want to have anything to do with the Balkans and the troubles there. Panslavia is one thing, Pansuicide is another.

China will struggle along, having foreseen the coming crisis. Enough food can be imported because of their huge financial reserves. Indeed dribbling aid and the reduced american presence will lure more asian countries into the chinese block. That said, the tropical far east will be less affected. The Chinese will patiently gain their revenge as they let Japan slowly die.

India will not threaten China. The continued failure of the monsoon will destroy the population and any resemblance of unity. Pakistan will disappear into murderous chaos, which won’t confined to its original borders. In times of troubles politicians are too prone to think that slaughtering some of their neighbours will act as a pressure relief.

Australia will find it drier north, a help in deterring boat people. A few hundred miles of desert are an effective barrier to those trying walk to a better life uninvited, particularly if well stocked with crocodiles in the waterholes and with venomous snakes lurking in ambush. A thriving agriculture and a much bigger population will be in the well watered south. With a record crop of wheat and record prices, the economy is able to support the many lucky or prescient recent immigrants. 

NZ will be little changed and continue to beat the Aussies at rugby, and occasionally at cricket.

And what of the United Kingdom? Either united or re-united as Scotland won’t long survive on its own in the cold hard world. The upper classes still wonder what has changed. They now take their holidays in the West Indies, where it is still warm, if expensive now that the pound is worth so little. Still, the islands are exciting, if overcrowded, thanks to all those lucky enough to have had grandparents from the West Indies so they could emigrate back there.

The middle classes will be complaining about the cost of everything going up, since the pound lost so much value. The last winter, they moan, was the worst ever. They will envy the luck of their former neighbours who got into Australia before it closed its borders.

The poor will be sullen and despairing. Their life will be grim indeed after the slashing of welfare payments by the Grand Coalition (Cons. & Labour) following the last currency crisis. Tens of thousands will die of cold each winter. The poor never get the best houses. They rarely bother to vote, and increasingly against the coalition government. Surprisingly there may be an upturn in religion, with evangelical churches gaining huge attendances. Some might claim it is all the funerals the masses have attended recently that has brought them back to Christianity, others, more pragmatic, will point to the evangelicals habit of heating their meeting places and the free hot refreshments afterwards.

But the sun will not remain quiescent for long, and warming will start again after several decades. From their lairs in the Himalayas the few remaining believers of AGW will stir. The time is ripe, they will say, and soon the glaciers will dry up as predicted in the sacred books of the IPCC, and the mountain shall split and in great radiance, accompanied by seraphim and cherubim, will the prophet William Connolley appear, riding on a Unicorn. Then, and only then, will we hear the truth.

Yet again they will be wrong.

©Graeme No.3