Climate fear mongers

More Fear Mongering from the Eco-Terrorists! Now it’s our Wildlife…

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Baseless claim from WWF: Half of global wildlife lost, says new WWF report

/ September 30, 2014

from the World Wildlife Fund | World Wildlife Fund issues 10th edition of ‘The Living Planet Report,’ a science-based assessment of the planet’s health

Washington, DC – Monday, September 29: Between 1970 and 2010 populations of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish around the globe dropped 52 percent, says the 2014 Living Planet Report released today by World Wildlife Fund (WWF). This biodiversity loss occurs disproportionately in low-income countries—and correlates with the increasing resource use of high-income countries.

In addition to the precipitous decline in wildlife populations the report’s data point to other warning signs about the overall health of the planet. The amount of carbon in our atmosphere has risen to levels not seen in more than a million years, triggering climate change that is already destabilizing ecosystems. High concentrations of reactive nitrogen are degrading lands, rivers and oceans. Stress on already scarce water supplies is increasing. And more than 60 percent of the essential “services” provided by nature, from our forests to our seas, are in decline.

african-elephant

“We’re gradually destroying our planet’s ability to support our way of life,” said Carter Roberts, president and CEO of WWF. “But we already have the knowledge and tools to avoid the worst predictions. We all live on a finite planet and its time we started acting within those limits.”

The Living Planet Report, WWF’s biennial flagship publication, measures trends in three major areas:

  • populations of more than ten thousand vertebrate species;
  • human ecological footprint, a measure of consumption of goods, greenhouse gas emissions; and
  • existing biocapacity, the amount of natural resources for producing food, freshwater, and sequestering carbon.

“There is a lot of data in this report and it can seem very overwhelming and complex,” said Jon Hoekstra, chief scientist at WWF. “What’s not complicated are the clear trends we’re seeing — 39 percent of terrestrial wildlife gone, 39 percent of marine wildlife gone, 76 percent of freshwater wildlife gone – all in the past 40 years.”

The report says that the majority of high-income countries are increasingly consuming more per person than the planet can accommodate; maintaining per capita ecological footprints greater than the amount of biocapacity available per person. People in middle- and low-income countries have seen little increase in their per capita footprints over the same time period.

While high-income countries show a 10 percent increase in biodiversity, the rest of the world is seeing dramatic declines. Middle-income countries show 18 percent declines, and low-income countries show 58 percent declines. Latin America shows the biggest decline in biodiversity, with species populations falling by 83 percent.

“High-income countries use five times the ecological resources of low-income countries, but low income countries are suffering the greatest ecosystem losses,” said Keya Chatterjee, WWF’s senior director of footprint. “In effect, wealthy nations are outsourcing resource depletion.”

The report underscores that the declining trends are not inevitable. To achieve globally sustainable development, each country’s per capita ecological footprint must be less than the per capita biocapacity available on the planet, while maintaining a decent standard of living.

At the conclusion of the report, WWF recommends the following actions:

  1. Accelerate shift to smarter food and energy production
  2. Reduce ecological footprint through responsible consumption at the personal, corporate and government levels
  3. Value natural capital as a cornerstone of policy and development decisions
###
Why is this a baseless claim? Read this: Where Are The Corpses?

Huge Congratulations to Marita Noon! Check this Out!

/ 1957chev / 2 Comments

For immediate release: September 29, 2014.
Commentary by Marita Noon
Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great Inc.
Contact: 505.239.8998, marita@responsiblenergy.org
Words: 1250

People’s Climate March Wants to Change the System, not the Weather
Americans are generous people. We want to believe the best in others. We’ve tried to accept the narrative out of the White House that Islam is a peaceful religion. There’s been talk of the good Muslims reining in the bad—before they ruin the reputation of all Muslims. But then, the Islamic extremists have posted videos of innocent Americans—even a Brit and a Frenchman—being beheaded.

It has now reached our homeland: Oklahoma. News reports show Alton Nolen, a recent convert to Islam, who, on Friday, beheaded a former coworker and stabbed another before his rampage was stopped when the company’s COO shot him.

American’s patience has worn thin as extremists have taken over. Mosques, fearing potential retaliatory violence, are taking extra security precautions to protect Muslims who gather there. Saad Mohammad, a spokesman for the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City, said any anti-Muslim sentiments local residents might have could be heightened due to the beheadings and violence overseas by Islamic State militants.

Earlier this year, General Iyad Ameen Madani, Organization of Islamic Cooperation Secretary, in his address at the 25th Session of the Arab Summit, told the audience: “Extremist voices and groups have hijacked Islam and misappropriated the right to speak on its behalf.” He referenced the “discord and mutual killings which have gained ground in our ranks” as “a war where there is no victor but it will invite perils for all,” and defended “Islam with its established values and aspirations and with its advocacy of justice, equality, concord, coexistence and mutuality,” as totally unrelated to the extremists and to their “ideologies and what they call for.”

Much like Madani sees that his belief system has been hijacked by extremists, and is publically saying so, sincere lovers of nature need to speak up, as anti-eco sentiments are heightened by extremists, who have hijacked the environmental movement, as evidenced by the September 21 People’s Climate March in New York City and the subsequent UN Climate Summit. In HotAir.com, Noah Rothman states: “The modern climate alarmism movement has been hijacked by the remnants of those who still adhere to the defunct tenets of revolutionary Marxism.”

Much like Americans have wanted to believe the war on terrorism was over and that Al-Qaida was on the run, they’ve previously accepted the “green” narrative coming out of the White House. After all, everyone wants clean air and water. No one wants to be against a critter.

ISIS has shown that Islamic extremists are alive and well—and are a growing threat. The People’s Climate March revealed the true colors of eco-extremists—and their growing threat.

The People’s Climate March had little to do with the climate. The eco-extremists want to “change the system.”

While reported numbers vary, hundreds of thousands of people clogged (and littered) the streets of New York City. The parade had grand marshals like actors Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo and politicos Al Gore and Robert Kennedy Jr. But, it also had an astonishing assortment of anti-American, anti-capitalism, and anti-free marketeers, who showcased for all of America what the environmental movement has become. In Human Events, the menagerie was described this way: “If you’re in favor of totalitarian power, sympathetic to America’s enemies, dubious about representative democracy, hostile to free markets, or you just get turned on by fantasizing about violent revolution, there was a place for you at this march.”

Marchers carried a banner stating: “Capitalism is the disease, socialism is the cure.” Others: “Capitalism is killing the planet. Fight for a socialist future.”

Hydraulic fracturing—which is uniquely responsible for U.S. carbon dioxide emissions dropping to the lowest in 20 years—was victimized: “Make fracking a crime.” Marchers held signs saying: “Fracking = Climate Change. Ban fracking now.”

Speaking of crimes, Robert Kennedy, Jr., in an interview at the Climate March, told Climate Depot’s Marc Morano that he wishes there was a law to punish global warming skeptics. He’s previously called coal companies “criminal enterprises” and declared CEO’s “should be in jail… for all of eternity.”

Interviews with participants in the March revealed sentiments such as: “corporations have to be reined in” and we’re “building a revolution for a whole new society—a new socialist society.”

A man in a cow costume carried a sign: “I fart. Therefore, I am the problem.” Bob Linden, the host of the nationally syndicated radio program Go Vegan, stated: “if 50 to 85 percent of us switch to veganism by 2020, scientists tell us we can save the planet from climate change.”

Unfortunately, you won’t see any of this in the mainstream media. The New York Times slide show of the event features a pictorial display of flower wreaths being strung, and of children and happy dancers.

In a piece titled: “Rockets Red Glare Distract Nation From UN Climate Summit and Import of Global Climate Protests,” the Huffington Post laments: “the critically important UN Climate Summit in New York has had to compete on mainstream media with the far more dramatic war coverage.” It continues: “the climate’s fate is far more important to the world even than the desperately needed military campaign by the U.S. and its allies to eradicate barbaric ISIL terrorists from Syria and Iraq.”

The Christian Science Monitor reported: “just as the climate movement has captured global attention, major leaders are shifting their attention elsewhere.” Regarding last week’s UN meeting that followed the Climate March, it stated: “The UN meeting is likely to be overshadowed by the new war on the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.”

The new war in Iraq and Syria, waged by Islamic extremists, centers on hate for all things Western and a desire to change systems of government to an Islamic caliphate. The shocking displays of violence have sounded an alarm that has awakened Americans and exposed the inconsistency and inaccuracy of most messaging coming from the Obama Administration.

The People’s Climate March also centers on hate and a desire to change the government. One description of the March said: “These people are defined by what they hate, and a big part of what they hate is capitalism.” Another offered this explanation of the participants: “the aimless in search of personal meaning complement the ranks of a movement which promises personal purpose.”

During a panel discussion held in conjunction with the March, Naomi Klein, author of “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate,” was asked: “Even if the climate change issue did not exist, you would be calling for the same structural changes.” Her answer: “Yeah.”

I know every Muslim isn’t a terrorist and every person who cares about the planet isn’t an eco-extremist, but as ISIS has changed American’s view—and Islamic leaders, such as, Madani, are unhappy that “Extremist voices and groups have hijacked Islam and misappropriated the right to speak on its behalf”—the Climate March made clear that extremist voices have hijacked the environmental movement. Our patience has worn thin, and we no longer trust Obama’s clean, green message.

National Geographic summed up the March this way: “Despite all the enthusiasm displayed in New York and elsewhere on a muggy September Sunday, public opinion polls consistently show that climate change is not a high priority for most Americans.”

Americans are smarter than the collection of anti-capitalism satellite groups think. They’ve seen through the rhetoric and realize, as the Climate March made clear: it is not about Climate Change, it is about system change.

These eco-extremists showed their true colors: green on the outside, red on the inside. Watermelons.

(A version of this content was originally published on Breitbart.com)

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.

I am a bit tardy in getting you my column today as I was confirming the particulars with my editor (I’ve never had an “editor” before). He told me: “We basically run original, exclusive content, so there’s not a lot of precedent for sending out stuff that runs here first.” Here’s the deal. I wrote my usual, long, connect-the-dots style piece. He edited it, cutting it down by almost 50 percent. It’s good. I am happy with it. However, trimming it does remove some of the secondary messaging. Breitbart has agreed that I can send you both the full version and the version posted on Breitbart.com. In either case, please post the version you choose with the verbiage I’ve included. They ask that their version be posted with the first several paragraphs and then a link to Breitbart.com—which is how I am sending their version to you. If you choose the full version, please be sure to include “A version of this content was originally published on Breitbart.com”—and be sure to include the link. I trust that there will be refinements in the arrangements as the weeks go on.

With all that said, as always, the full version of People’s Climate March Wants to Change the System, not the Weather is attached and pasted-in-below. I’ve also attached the Breitbart version.

Thanks for your understanding. Please post, pass on, and/or personally enjoy whichever version of People’s Climate March Wants to Change the System, not the Weather works for you.

Marita Noon

Main Stream Media Refuses to Report the Truth About Climate Change.

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

The Obvious Failures of Climate Science That Mainstream Media Ignores

/ September 30, 2014

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale –

The National Science Foundation press release Cause of California drought linked to climate change found its way into the mainstream media, with science reporters around the globe adding their hype. That press release is based on the recently published study Swain et al. (2014) “The Extraordinary California Drought of 2013/2014: Character, Context and the Role of Climate Change”, which can be found in the Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS report)Vol. 95, No. 9, September 2014, Explaining Extreme Events of 2013 From A Climate Perspective.

I’ll publish a few comments about Swain et al. (2014) in a few days. But this post is not about that paper.

THE CALIFORNIA DROUGHT – WHO’S TO BLAME FOR THE LACK OF PREPAREDNESS?

As I was reading Anthony Watts excellent post about Swain et al. (2014), Claim: Cause of California drought linked to climate change – not one mention of ENSO or El Niño, a number of reoccurring thoughts replayed, thoughts that have struck me numerous times as the Western States drought unfolded last year and intensified this year.

Was California prepared for a drought?

Obviously, California was not prepared for a drought this intense, and the impacts of that lack of preparedness on California residents will grow much worse if the drought continues.

Why wasn’t California prepared for a short-term (multiyear) drought this intense?

The realistic blame should be the focus of climate science in general under the direction of the IPCC. In the opening paragraph of the IPCC’s History webpage, they state (my boldface and caps):

Today the IPCC’s role is as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, “…to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant tounderstanding the scientific basis of risk of HUMAN-INDUCED climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

The fact that the IPCC has focused all of their efforts on “understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change” is very important. The IPCC has never realistically tried to determine if natural factors could have caused most of the warming the Earth has experienced over the past century. For decades, they’ve worn blinders that blocked their views of everything other than the possible impacts of carbon dioxide. The role of the IPCC has always been to prepare reports that support the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels. As a result, that’s where all of the research money goes. The decision to only study human-induced global warming is a political choice, not a scientific one. In efforts to justify agendas, politicians around the world jumped on the climate change stump and funded computer model-based studies of human-induced global warming…to the tune of billions of dollars annually.

Because of that political agenda, the latest and greatest climate models still cannot simulate the basic underlying processes that govern the naturally occurring, coupled ocean-atmosphere processes like ENSO (El Niños and La Niñas), like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation…processes that have strong influences on temperature and precipitation in west coast states. So there is no possible way climate models, as they exist today, could forecast what precipitation might be like in the future there. And that basic problem will persist until there is a redirection of climate-research funding. Yes, funding. Research follows the money.

What value do climate model-based studies provide?

None.

The paper Pierce et al. (2013) The Key Role of Heavy Precipitation Events in Climate Model Disagreements of Future Annual Precipitation Changes in California provides an overview of why the climate models have no value when it comes to forecasts like California drought. In their abstract Pierce et al. write (my boldface and caps):

Of the 25 downscaled model projections examined here, 21 agree that precipitation frequency will DECREASE by the 2060s, with a mean reduction of 6–14 days yr−1. This reduces California’s mean annual precipitation by about 5.7%. Partly offsetting this, 16 of the 25 projections agree that daily precipitation intensity will INCREASE, which accounts for a model average 5.3% increase in annual precipitation. Between these conflicting tendencies, 12 projections show drier annual conditions by the 2060s and 13 show wetter.

[Hat tip to blogger “Jimbo” on the WUWT thread Claim: Cause of California drought linked to climate change – not one mention of ENSO or El Niño.]

So some climate models say that daily precipitation intensity will increase and others say it will decrease. In other words, the climate science community is clueless about what the future might bring for west coast precipitation.

Some might say that climatologists for the State of California and other west coast states have been hampered by climate science. It’s tough to make recommendations to state and local governments for long-term planning when the climate science community provides them with nothing to work with.

Is California prepared for a drought that lasts multiple decades or even centuries?

Anthony Watts’s post included a graph from a paleoclimatological study of West Coast drought that showed past droughts have lasted for hundreds of years. For the original graph and discussion, see Figure 10 of Cook et al. (2007) North American drought: Reconstructions, causes, and consequences. (Note: That’s not the John Cook from SkepticalScience.)

Now I hate to make you think about bad news. But if it’s happened in the past, can it happen again?

Why are mainstream media simply parroting press releases?

Climate-change news reports have become echo chambers of the press releases put out by colleges, universities and government research agencies. Individual reporters might provide a more in-depth report by asking the scientist-authors for a few extra word of wisdom.

But why aren’t the media asking the tough questions, like:

  • Why weren’t west-coast residents warned 10 or 15 years ago that a severe drought is just a weather anomaly away?
  • Why aren’t there enough desalinization plants in place to supplement rainfall deficits?
  • Why are the people of the west coast protesting for, and why are state governments funding, more wind farms and solar arrays when they need something more basic to maintain life there, water?

Seems to me we may very soon be seeing a reversal of Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath, with vast flocks of California residents migrating back to the Midwest, which also is subject to periodic droughts.

Poor planning on the parts of a few—based on politically motivated, unsound science—may make for emergencies for millions.

Fighting an Imaginary Green Catastrophe, is costing us a Fortune!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Fight against climate change ‘may cause more harm than global warming’

Owen Paterson, who was sacked as environment secretary in David Cameron’s reshuffle, claimed that the fight against climate change did more harm than global warming
  • Owen Paterson
    Owen Paterson, who was sacked as environment secretary in David Cameron’s reshuffle, claimed that the fight against climate change did more harm than global warming Will Oliver/Getty Images
Matt Dathan
Published at 7:46PM, September 28 2014

Measures to combat climate change may be causing more damage than current global warming, a former environment secretary has said.

Owen Paterson, who was sacked in David Cameron’s reshuffle in July, attacked what he described as a “wicked green blob” of environmentalists for failing to explain the pause in global warming.

“There has not been a temperature increase now for probably 18 years, some people say 26 years,” he told a fringe event at the Conservative party conference. “So the pause is old enough to vote, the pause is old enough to join the army, the pause is old enough

One of The Undeniable Facts About Wind Turbines….No Wind….No Power!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Brits Rumble Frightening Energy Fact: Wind Power Depends on the (ur, ahem) Wind …

September 30, 2014 by

turbine collapse 9

Power from wind turbines slumps – due to lack of wind
The Telegraph
Emily Gosden
25 September 2014

Electricity output from UK wind farms falls by a fifth due to unusually low wind speeds

Power produced by wind farms slumped by a fifth in the second quarter of this year, despite hundreds of new turbines being built – because it wasn’t very windy.

Official Government statistics published on Thursday show that in the three months to the end of June, the amount of electricity produced by offshore wind farms fell by 22 per cent, to 2 terawatt-hours (TWh), compared with the same period the year before.

Yet the number of offshore wind turbines operating grew significantly – with 4.1 gigawatts (GW) of capacity installed in the seas around the UK by June this year, up from 3.5GW by June 2013.

Power output from onshore wind farms also fell, by 17 per cent to 3.22 TWh. The fall came despite dozens of new wind farms being built, increasing onshore wind capacity by 14 per cent over the same period.

There was 8GW of onshore capacity at the end of June, 1GW more than a year before.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said that the impact of increased capacity was “out-weighed by that of very low wind speeds”.

“Average wind speeds were 1.6 knots lower than a year earlier, and the lowest for quarter two for four years. Average wind speeds in June were the lowest for any month in the last 14 years,” it said.

About 900 turbines were constructed on and offshore over the course of 2013, according to Renewable UK.

Dr John Constable, director of the Renewable Energy Foundation, which publishes data on the sector and is critical of subsidy costs, said: “The latest DECC data is further confirmation that wind power output is highly variable over all timescales, minutes, hours, months, and even from year to year.

“These variabilities are physically manageable but they have highly significant negative economic impacts on the rest of the power generation fleet, whose market is made very uncertain, and these uncertainties ultimately mean much higher costs for consumers.”

While wind power output fell, the amount of electricity generated from solar farms soared by 67 per cent, to 1.2TWh.

The rise was in line with a near-identical increase in the amount of solar capacity installed.

Ministers have admitted that solar farms have been installed far more rapidly than they had expected, thanks to costs falling and developers taking advantage of generous subsidies.

In May they announced they were closing a subsidy scheme two years earlier than planned to stop the spread of the farms, which critics say are blighting the countryside.

Ministers originally anticipated between 2.4-4GW of large-scale solar being installed by 2020. Yet the latest DECC statistics show that the upper end of that range has now been exceeded, with 4.1GW installed by the end of June.

A spokesman for the wind industry trade association RenewableUK said: “Although it’s no secret that there are some periods that are even windier than others, the wider statistics show that wind energy is generating increasing amounts of clean electricity for British homes and businesses year on year.

“When you look at the last twelve months as a whole, generation from renewable sources in the UK went up to just over 17 per cent – up from 13 per cent in the previous 12 months. The lion’s share of that came from onshore and offshore wind – just over 50 per cent of it.

“In August, wind energy outstripped coal and nuclear for several days, and hit at all time 24-hour record high of 22 per cent of the UK’s electricity needs.

“National Grid has no problem taking clean power generated by wind whenever it’s available as often as it can, and it can predict exactly where the power will come from in advance with pinpoint accuracy. Every unit of electricity we generate from wind offsets a unit from polluting fossil fuels, so anyone who cares about climate change knows that we need to make the most of it whenever we can.”

One green power company, Infinis Energy, reported last month that its onshore wind farms had exported a third less power in the three months to June, compared to the same period the year before, blaming “low wind speeds experienced across the UK throughout the period”.

However, it said it would be “well placed to benefit from recovering wind speeds when they occur”.
The Telegraph

The wind industry and its parasites are always quick to wax lyrical about those few hours when the wind blew consistently and added a little meaningful power to the grid, but – like the gambler that only ever talks about his wins – these hucksters never seem able to front up to the hundreds of occasions when wind power output collapses for hours and even days on end (see our post here).

STT loves the cyclone of spin from RenewableUK when it talks about some periods being windier than others and telling power punters to look “at the last 12 months as a whole” – in an effort to varnish up the infantile nonsense of trying to rely on intermittent and unreliable wind power. You don’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to rumble the fact that wind power will always be delivered at crazy, random intervals and – on plenty of occasions – won’t be delivered at all.

yacht

Notable too is the breezy optimism from wind power outfit, Infinis Energy when it talks about being “well placed to benefit from recovering wind speeds when they occur”.

In the meantime, their erstwhile customers are supposed to be “well placed” sitting freezing in the dark, apparently.

The wind industry parades as an answer to global warming (now known as climate change) and does so by wrapping itself in the “alternative” energy tag. Which begs the question: “alternative” to what?

When it comes to their demand for electricity, the power consumer has a couple of basic needs: when they hit the light switch they assume illumination will shortly follow and that when the kettle is kicked into gear it’ll be boiling soon thereafter. And the power consumer assumes that these – and similar actions in a household or business – will be open to them at any time of the night or day, every day of the year.

Neonatal_ICU

For conventional generators, delivering power on the basic terms outlined above is a doddle: delivering base-load power around the clock, rain, hail or shine is just good business. It’s what the customer wants and is prepared to pay for, so it makes good sense to deliver on-demand.

But for wind power generators it’s never about how much the customer wants or when they want it, it’s always and everywhere about the vagaries of the wind. When the wind speed increases to 25 m/s, turbines are automatically shut-off to protect the blades and bearings; and below 6-7 m/s turbines are incapable of producing any power at all.

It’s no wonder that the Brits have noticed that wind power is nothing more than a sick joke.

Even with the most geographically widespread grid-connected set of wind farms in the world (the 3,342 MW of wind power capacity connected to Australia’s Eastern grid across SA, Victoria, Tasmania and NSW) there are dozens of occasions each year when total wind power output struggles to top 2% of installed capacity – and hundreds when it fails to muster even 5% (see our posts here and here and here).

Now, if the power consumer was given advance warning of when these total output failures were going to occur, they might simply reconsider their selfish demands of having illumination after dark or that hot cuppa in the morning. That way, they might still consider wind power as some kind of “alternative” for conventional power?

But, so far, power consumers remain stubbornly selfish; wedded to the idea that when they hit the switch, their power needs will be satisfied that very instant (the cheek, hey?).

And that’s where the myth about wind power being some kind of “alternative” falls in a heap.

Unless you’re prepared to live like stone-age hermits, power delivered at the whim of mother nature (which in practical terms means no power at all, hundreds of times each year) is NO alternative for power delivered on-demand; anytime of the day or night; every single day of the year – and in volumes sufficient to satisfy all consumers connected to the same network, at the same time.

RenewableUK’s waffle about past wind power output averages over time is patent nonsense: for most people power consumption is a here-and-now kind of thing. In the absence of a conventional generation system with adequate capacity to satisfy demand, modern economies would quickly descend into chaos if left to rely on a power generation system entirely dependent on the weather.

But it’s the howlers contained in this quote that take the glittering prize:

“National Grid has no problem taking clean power generated by wind whenever it’s available as often as it can, and it can predict exactly where the power will come from in advance with pinpoint accuracy. Every unit of electricity we generate from wind offsets a unit from polluting fossil fuels, so anyone who cares about climate change knows that we need to make the most of it whenever we can.”

STT’s not sure what the benefit of predicting complete collapses in wind power output “with pinpoint accuracy” might be. Unless it’s meant to remind us that behind every single MW of wind power capacity there’s an equal amount of fossil fuel generating capacity kept ready and waiting (burning mountains of coal and gas) to take up the slack? When infants are left to their own devices it’s always nice to know there are adults around to take responsibility; except in this case, we’re forced to pay twice: once with massive subsidies to wind power outfits that simply can’t be relied on to stump up power when it’s needed; and again for the conventional generation capacity essential to keeping the grid up and running. So far, so costly and pointless.

Then there’s the descent to the old “climate change” chestnut.

Nowhere in the world has the wind industry provided any actual proof that it has in fact reduced CO2 emissions in the electricity sector. When we talk about “proof” we’re not talking about smoke and mirrors “modelling” based on long-term average wind farm output – which ignores the extra gas and coal being burnt (and wasted) in order to balance the grid to account for wild fluctuations in wind power output (see our post here); and to maintain additional “spinning reserve” (seeour post here) to account for complete collapses in wind power output – as seen in this post.

As we have pointed out just once or twice – the need for 100% of wind power capacity to be backed up 100% of the time by fossil fuel generation sources means that wind power cannot and will never reduce CO2 emissions in the electricity sector (see our posts here and hereand here and here and here and here and here).

E.ON operates numerous transmission grids in Germany and, therefore, has the unenviable task of being forced to integrate the wildly fluctuating and unpredictable output from wind power generators, while trying to keep the German grid from collapsing (E.ON sets out a number of the headaches caused by intermittent wind power in the Summary of this paper at page 4). Dealing with the fantasy that wind power is an alternative to conventional generation sources, E.ON says:

“Wind energy is only able to replace traditional power stations to a limited extent. Their dependence on the prevailing wind conditions means that wind power has a limited load factor even when technically available. It is not possible to guarantee its use for the continual cover of electricity consumption. Consequently, traditional power stations with capacities equal to 90% of the installed wind power capacity must be permanently online [and burning fuel] in order to guarantee power supply at all times.”

STT is happy to go all out and say that in Australia wind power requires 100% of its capacity to be backed up 100% of the time by conventional generation sources. As just one recent example, on 3 consecutive days (20, 21 and 22 July 2014) the total output from all of the wind farms connected to the Eastern Grid (total capacity of 2,952 MW – and spread over 4 states, SA, Victoria, Tasmania and NSW) was a derisory 20 MW (or 0.67% of installed capacity) for hours on end (see our post here). The 99.33% of wind power output that went AWOL for hours (at various times, 3 days straight) was, instead, all supplied by conventional generators; the vast bulk of which came from coal and gas plants, with the balance coming from hydro.

And Britain is no different (see our post here).

For wind power to reduce CO2 emissions in the electricity sector it has be a true “substitute” for conventional generation sources. Because it can’t be delivered “on-demand” (can’t be stored) and is only “available” at crazy, random intervals (if at all) wind power will never be a substitute for conventional generation sources (see our post here).

Perhaps the reason that the wind industry has never produced a shred of evidence (anywhere) to show that wind power has reduced CO2 emissions in the electricity sector is simply because it can’t. Running counter to wind industry claims about wind power abating CO2 emissions, the result of trying to incorporate wind power into a coal/gas fired grid is increased CO2 emissions (see our post here and thisEuropean paper here; this Irish paper here; this English paper here; thisAmerican article and this Dutch study here).

Wind power has NOTHING to do with CO2 emissions abatement in the electricity sector; and, therefore, has NOTHING to do with global warming (or climate change) – which means there is simply no justification for the massive stream of subsidies filched from power consumers and tax payers and directed to wind power outfits.

And now the stats are in, the wind industry is struggling to maintain the ruse that wind power is a credible source of electricity at all.

Reminiscent of uptight hotelier, Basil Fawlty trying to pin fault for the chaos he caused on his bemused guests, the German wind industry have started cursing the wind for not blowing (see our post here) and now their British counterparts have been reduced to the same tactic.

Some might call the wind industry “pathetic” – but that would be to ignore the $billions stolen from power punters around the globe and the grief caused to thousands of previously peaceful rural communities.

STT calls it the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time.

Definition of fraud

New York Climate Alarmist Convention……Epic Fail!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

NY Climate Spin: Putting on a brave face

/ 4 hours ago September 29, 2014

We met to talk about CO2, and got a forest agreement –

Eric Worrall writes:

Now that its all over, the climate spinners are already hard at work, desperately trying to reframe the New York climate shambles as a win for the environment.

According to “The Australian”, a major Aussie daily newspaper;

“Yet this year’s summit seemed different. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon brought together heads of state, NGOs and business leaders from major global companies such as Unilever, Coca-Cola and Asia Pulp & Paper to sign a declaration to safeguard the world’s forests. … The declaration is a commitment to act, not just to speak. Action on this scale will, though, require collaboration on an unprecedented level. A crucial phrase in the New York Declaration is: “We commit to doing our part to achieve the following outcomes in partnership.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/climate-change-talk-is-over-its-time-to-act/story-e6frg9if-1227073204287

However, a declaration to save forests is truly an empty, painless piece of spin. Forests are already recovering worldwide, thanks to globalisation, cheap energy and economic development. In a mirror of our own economic history, large scale urbanisation of countries such as Brazil and Panama, driven by the creation of new jobs in the cities, is luring the younger generation to abandon subsistence farms hacked out of the jungle.

The abandoned farms, contrary to green propaganda, very quickly revert back to a state almost indistinguishable from the original virgin forest.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/tropical-comeback-can-new-growth-save-the-amazon-rainforest-a-642199.html

In fact, the only places where forests are not recovering, are places where perverse incentives are encouraging an increase in agriculture.

One of the biggest of these perverse incentives is biofuel subsidies, which are motivating global corporations to clear fell large plots of tropical forest, to make way for palm oil plantations.

http://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/illegal-palm-oil-plantations-threaten-protected-forests

Stepping back from the forest non issue, there is another aspect of the NY climate conference spin which I find disturbing – the continuous emphasis on the need for “widespread collaboration” and “unprecedented cooperation”. Every time I see a reference to how everyone has to allegedly strive to sacrifice their own interests, and work together for a common eco-goal, to save the world, I remember something the famous author Terry Pratchett once said;

“Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions.”

Thankfully, for now at least, people appear to be following Pratchett’s sage advice.

Jihadis and Warmunists….Both want to Destroy Our Way of Life!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

September 28, 2014
Jihadis and Warmunists: Brothers Under the Skin
By Clarice Feldman
Watching the parade of the naïve, the far left, and their energy-hogging celebrity manipulators marching in New York City this week, I was struck by how much these true believers had in common with jihadis, a notion reinforced by Purdue Professor Louis Rene Beres’ description of jihadis in Gatestone Institute and my friend “Ignatz’s’” comment at Just One Minute.

Both movements seem to these authors to be a means of denying death and change and making the mortal, immortal and the insignificant individual life, a significant force when massed with others.

If this is true — and I think it is — we cannot defeat these irrational movements in the ordinary ways. New strategies are called for.

Jihadis

Beres’ argument (and you should read it all to fully understand it) is, in sum, that the bloody depredations of jihadism provide its adherents with a “delusion of immortality” and a “religious justification” for erotic satisfaction.

If this is the case, he says, we cannot stifle its advance by treating terrorism simply as a normal striving for land or politics or strategy. It’s a different kind of enemy.

Among more “normal” conflict scenarios, America, Europe and Israel now need to consider mega-threats of both unconventional war and unconventional terrorism. Faced with determined adversaries — who are not only willing to die, but who actively seek their own “deaths” in order to live forever — Washington and Jerusalem should finally address the what needs to be done in addition to military remediation.

Sustained and selective armed force against IS and related Jihadist targets is certainly necessary and appropriate. However, it is also important to remind our leaders that force always needs to be combined with reinforcing efforts to convince these terrorists that their expected martyrdom is ultimately just an elaborate fiction.

Jihadists, in killing Americans, Israelis, and all other “unbelievers,” may not even intend to commit evil, so much as to do themselves and Allah good — and to do so with an absolute purity of heart. In their view, waging Holy War can never be shameful; it can only be heroic.

Going forward, our main task should be to systematically undermine these fantasies and doctrinal “underpinnings.” In conjunction with the recommended nuanced persuasions of military firepower, it can be done.

Warmunists

The New York demonstration, full as it was of communist organizers and sympathizers, inspired one wag to argue the marchers really were warmunists — that is, far left-wingers posing as environmentalists. (Any question respecting their commitment to environmentalism and keeping the planet clean were resolved by shots of the mounds of trash they left behind while purporting to save the planet.)

Ignatz made observations about the marchers which strike me as related to Beres’ comments about jihadis:

Lefties love to talk about revolution, “cause change” fundamental transformations, progress, etc., but they are the most retrograde reactionaries imaginable. They want a one-time revolution to cement and codify utter stasis.

People who talk about change are scared to death of the creative destruction of free markets. People who worship Darwinian progress, which after all implies millions of extinctions, want to save every single evolutionary cul-de-sac of a species they can find living in some pothole or cave somewhere. Their desire to somehow fix our climate to an optimum they have arbitrarily decided is in all our interests is obvious. Less obvious is their desire for the tranquility and stultifying sameness of socialism, not because it’s fair but because it’s predictable and controllable and therefore not as disruptive and scary. They seek the perennial childlike state of someone else supplying their security while they indulge their pleasures, presumably because they regret ever having to grow up.

These fools of all ages are on a children’s crusade to compel the adults of the world to create an actual real-world Neverland for them where nothing ever changes, they’ll never age and they can pretend they’re somehow going to be the magical ones picked by fate to cheat death.

The jihadis’ “heresy” charges against those who oppose their tyranny is simply another version of the warmunists’ “treason”. If you had any doubt about that, here’s Robert F Kennedy, Jr, who disproves his existential claims about climate warming by flying in private planes to warn us we will perish if we don’t stop using conventional energy.

Kennedy lamented in an interview with Climate Depot, [he]is not permitted by law to “punish” or to imprison those who disagree with him — and this, he proposed, is a problem of existential proportions. Were he to have his way, Kennedy admitted, he would cheer the prosecution of a host of “treasonous” figures — among them a number of unspecified “politicians”; those bêtes noires of the global Left, Kansas’s own Koch Brothers; “the oil industry and the Republican echo chamber”; and, for good measure, anybody else whose estimation of the threat posed by fossil fuels has provoked them into “selling out the public trust.” Those who contend that global warming “does not exist,” Kennedy claimed, are guilty of “a criminal offense — and they ought to be serving time for it.”
Just as Eric Hoffer warned us a half century ago about all mass movements in his book The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements such movements thrive in climates where individual opportunities are limited. He said then that they had not had much purchase in the United States because capitalism and our Constitution permitted so much advancement and freedom. Don’t the warmunists and the jihadis imperviousness to reality and fact share a common root? Doesn’t the drive of both to convert us all to their way of thinking echo Hoffer’s belief that the death denier “strengthen[s] his own faith by converting others”? Can you think of a better explanation, for example, of Kennedy’s tyrannical wish?

As anti-capitalist laws and regulations cooked up by this administration impoverish the middle class and shrink it while expanding the numbers now on the dole and pc restrictions of free speech in the workplace and colleges strangle us, do you suppose the climate for pernicious mass movements will grow or will it shrink?

I think we need to redouble our efforts to separate fact from fiction here and abroad even as we undertake warfare in the Middle East and to strengthen free markets and free speech rights here even though to do so means challenging in every available forum the ridiculous notions of the adherents of both of these mass movements.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/09/9_27_2014_18_33.html##ixzz3Ef1vqfKg
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Climate Scientist Calls For Common Sense, Not Alarmism, in the Handling of the Environment.

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Richard Lindzen–MIT hot shot on climate–declaims on the issues and warns us

Posted on September 27, 2014 by

Who am I to even comment on the eloquence of Richard Lindzen, who has tried–lord how he’s tried, to educate people on climate science done by real scientists.

Here he provides some wisdom on the mess that is the debate on Anthropogenic Warming.

I would add, as a humble physician–warm is better, what’s the damn panic about a few degrees of warming?

Dr. Lindzen:

Reflections on Rapid Response to Unjustified Climate Alarm
The Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science today kicks off its rapid response center that
will identify and correct inappropriate and generally bizarre claims on behalf of climate alarm. I
wish them luck in this worthy enterprise, but more will surely be needed to deal with this issue.
To be sure, there is an important role for such a center. It is not to convince the ‘believers.’ Nor
do I think that there is any longer a significant body of sincere and intelligent individuals who
are simply trying to assess the evidence. As far as I can tell, the issue has largely polarized that
relatively small portion of the population that has chosen to care about the issue. The remainder
quite reasonably have chosen to remain outside the polarization. Thus the purpose of a rapid
response Center will be to reassure those who realize that this is a fishy issue, that there remain
scientists who are still concerned with the integrity of science. There is also a crucial role in
informing those who wish to avoid the conflict as to what is at stake. While these are important
functions, there are other issues that I feel a think tank ought to consider. Moreover, there is a
danger that rapid response to trivial claims lends unwarranted seriousness to these claims.
Climate alarm belongs to a class of issues characterized by a claim for which there is no
evidence, that nonetheless appeals strongly to one or more interests or prejudices. Once the
issue is adopted, evidence becomes irrelevant. Instead, the believer sees what he believes.
Anything can serve as a supporting omen. Three very different previous examples come to mind
(though there are many more examples that could be cited): Malthus’ theory of overpopulation,
social Darwinism and the Dreyfus Affair. Although each of these issues engendered opposition,
only the Dreyfus Affair led to widespread societal polarization. More commonly, only the
‘believers’ are sufficiently driven to form a movement. We will briefly review these examples
(though each has been subject to book length analyses), but the issue of climate alarm is
somewhat special in that it appeals to a sizeable number of interests, and has strong claims on the
scientific community. It also has the potential to cause exceptional harm to an unprecedented
number of people. This has led to persistent opposition amidst widespread lack of interest.
However, all these issues are characterized by profound immorality pretending to virtue.
Malthus’ peculiar theory wherein the claimed linear growth of food loses out to the exponential
growth of population has maintained continuous popularity in the faculty lounge for about two
centuries. It is, therefore, worth noting that Malthus had no evidence that food supply would
increase only linearly. Nor did he have evidence for exponential population growth. Malthus
initially went so far as to estimate an e-folding time for population of 25 years, based on the
population of North America, and ignoring the role of immigration. Although Malthus, himself,
eventually acknowledged these problems, the enthusiasm for his anti-human conclusions remains
strong. Neither the green revolution nor the diminution of famine amidst increasing population
dissuades them. The fact that Chad is poor and the Netherlands is rich never strikes the believer
as odd. Apparently, the growth of cities, the movement of workers from the farm to the city,
and, for much of the developed world, immigration, all served to convince people of means that
there were too many other people around, and Malthusian theory formed a framework for
something they were (and are) eager to believe.
Social Darwinism and its corollary, eugenics, represents another case of a theory without support
that was widely accepted with, at times, horrid consequences. Darwin’s “The Origin of the
Species” had immense influence. It presented a theory whereby natural selection and what were
essentially mutations could account for biological evolution. While it offered valuable insights
into the development of finch beaks, it was hardly meant to describe societal evolution.
Nevertheless, the notion of ‘survival of the fittest’ applied to society had obvious appeal to those
who perceived themselves to be the fittest and who naturally regarded the application as
scientifically justified. It was a small step to eugenics which was the counterpart of modern day
environmentalism during the first third of the twentieth century, and was supported by all the
‘best’ people (including George Bernard Shaw, Margaret Sanger, Alexander Graham Bell, and
Theodore Roosevelt) despite the fact that there actually was a mathematical theorem (the Hardy-
Weinberg Theorem) that showed that the impact of eugenics on the gene pool would be
negligible. Needless to add, mathematics is of no importance to the ‘best’ people. Malthusian
population fears continue to the present, but eugenics was rendered unfashionable by the obvious
implications presented by the Nazis.
While science is a common vehicle for such misuse, the Dreyfus Affair shows that other vehicles
exist. In 1894, Captain Alfred Dreyfus was accused of passing secret French military
information to the Germans. There was, in fact, no evidence to support this accusation.
Nevertheless, there was again a strong desire on the part of many people in France to believe the
accusation. To be sure, there was the endemic anti-Semitism in France. However, there was
also the humiliation of France’s loss in the Franco-Prussian War, and the desire to blame such
loss not on the army, but on the perfidy of a group that some considered to be ‘outside’. (The
Nazis’ ‘stab in the back’ theory for the German loss in WW1 represents a similar instinct).
Dreyfus was tried (several times) and sentenced to Devil’s Island. Prominent Frenchmen (Emile
Zola in particular) , incensed by the obvious injustice campaigned for Dreyfus, and the issue
literally split France in half (partly because the conflict between Catholics and Secularists also
entered the Affair). Dreyfus was eventually exonerated after the identification of the actual spy
became undeniable.
The current issue of global warming/climate change is extreme in terms of the number of special
interests that opportunistically have strong interests in believing in the claims of catastrophe
despite the lack of evidence. In no particular order, there are the leftist economists for whom
global warming represents a market failure, there are the UN apparatchiks for whom global
warming is the route to global governance, there are third world dictators who see guilt over
global warming as providing a convenient claim on aid (ie, the transfer of wealth from the poor
in rich countries to the wealthy in poor countries), there are the environmental activists who love
any issue that has the capacity to frighten the gullible into making hefty contributions to their
numerous NGOs, there are the crony capitalists who see the opportunity to cash in on the
immense sums being made available for ‘sustainable’ energy, there are the government
regulators for whom the control of a natural product of breathing is a dream come true, there are
newly minted billionaires who find the issue of ‘saving the planet’ appropriately suitable to their
grandiose pretensions, etc., etc. Strange as it may seem, even the fossil fuel industry is generally
willing to go along. After all, they realize better than most, that there is no current replacement
for fossil fuels. The closest possibilities, nuclear and hydro, are despised by the
environmentalists. As long as fossil fuel companies have a level playing field, and can pass
expenses to the consumers, they are satisfied. Given the nature of corporate overhead, the latter
can even form a profit center. The situation within science itself is equally grim. Huge sums of
government and private funding have become available to what was initially a small backwater
field. Science becomes easy when emphasis is on malleable models supported by hugely
uncertain data that can be readily found ‘consistent’ with the models supplemented by fervidly
imagined catastrophic ‘implications.’ Indeed, uncertainty is often exaggerated for just this
purpose. Opposition within the scientific community is immediately met with ad hominem
attacks, loss of funding, and difficulty in publishing.
Of course, science is not the only victim of this situation. Affordable energy has been the
primary vehicle for the greatest advance in human welfare in human history. This issue
promises to deny this to the over 1 billion humans who still lack electricity. For billions more
energy will be much less affordable leading to increased poverty. Poverty, itself, is a major
factor in reduced life expectancy. It requires a peculiarly ugly obtuseness to ignore the
fundamental immorality of this issue.
Although all these issues have strong political consequences, it is by no means clear that their
origin is, itself, political. I would suggest that a more likely situation is that politics is always
opportunistically seeking some cause that fits its needs. However, once an illusional issue
becomes a passionate belief, it becomes impervious to argument. Given how dangerous some
illusional positions are, it is an important problem to know how to avoid them. This is a problem
that is truly worthy of Cato’s attention. Rapid response can only do so much; belief seems to
inevitably trump objective reality when one is free to choose ones narrative.
Richard S. Lindzen
Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Emeritus, MIT
Distinguished Senior Fellow, Cato Institute
September 14, 2014

Climate Change Alarmists Cannot Handle the Truth! We Are Not In Control of the Climate!!!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Federal Study Confirms Climate Change is Natural, Not Caused by Humans

September 25, 2014 By

Obama-Climate-Change
New federal study confirms that climate change is caused by nature, not by man. Released even while President Obama was saying the opposite at the United Nations.
What is the the world’s biggest problem?
President Obama told the United Nations that it’s not terrorism, poverty or disease, but global warming and climate change that he claims will have the most dramatic impact on our future.
On the same day, the National Academy of Science published a new study that shows 80% of climate change on the West Coast is due to natural causes and is not caused by humans.
The official study is by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, working with the University of Washington,
Plus global temperatures have been cooling for 18 years now.
Obama promotes billions in crony capitalism for green energy, higher electric rates, and raising costs of autos and appliances , all based on scaring us into thinking there’s no other way to save the planet.
Thankfully, despite efforts to silence them, now some brave scientists are promoting truth rather than propaganda.
With insights, I’m Ernest Istook.

“Earth Friendly Energy”, is not as Clean or Green as they Claim!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment
By Deroy Murdock
September 26, 2014 
Environmentalists worship solar energy and wind power as Earth-friendly answers to their ecological prayers. Tortoises, bats, butterflies, and bald eagles beg to differ.

Perhaps because solar panels and industrial wind farms lack emissions, they seem “clean.” Despite their pristine appearance, however, these “green” electricity sources hammer Mother Nature — often fatally.

Southern California’s Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System.

Consider the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in California’s Mojave Desert. As Carolyn Lochhead wrote on September 7 in the San Francisco Chronicle, Ivanpah occupies 3,500 previously untouched federal acres. It features 300,000 mirrors that focus sunlight on three 40-story towers of power. Inside, 900-degree temperatures yield steam, propel turbines, and generate electricity for140,000 homes.

Ivanpah’s environmental toll is stunning:

• BrightSource Energy, the project’s owner, could have rehabilitated a brownfield, an abandoned commercial site, or a decommissioned military base. Instead, BrightSource developed 5.5 square miles of virgin desert.

• Lochhead reports that “scientists now say desert soils contain vast stores of carbon that are unleashed by construction of solar facilities.”

• Tortoises native to that area became refugees once BrightSource relocated them en masse.

• Kit-fox dens were flattened during construction.

• Monarch butterflies and birds should avoid Ivanpah at all costs. Those who traverse its highly concentrated sunbeams often ignite. Center for Biological Diversity ecologist K. Shawn Smallwood told the California Energy Commission last July that Ivanpah will roast an estimated 28,380 birds annually.

This MacGillivray’s Warbler suffered fatal burns at the Ivanpah solar plant in October 2013. Photo: Associated Press/U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Ivanpah cost $2.2 billion, including a $1.6 billion federal loan. For its next trick, BrightSource envisions a bigger installation near Joshua Tree National Park — within a migratory path for protected peregrine falcons, golden eagles, and some 100 other bird species.

Meanwhile, environmentalists call wind power as benign as a summer breeze. In fact, wind farms have become avian killing fields. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service reports that “wind turbines may kill a half a million birds a year.” Wind blows away another 600,000 bats annually, primarily through lung hemorrhaging. While these “flying vampires” look scary, most are insectivores and vegetarians. Bats actually serve mankind by pollinating crops and devouring mosquitoes. Fewer bats mean more mosquitoes. Swell.

USF&WS explains also that “eagles appear to be particularly susceptible. Large numbers of golden eagles have been killed by wind turbines in the western states,” as have smaller numbers of bald eagles. Team Obama — which could not care less about America’s beautiful, majestic national symbol — almost never prosecuteswind companies for violating the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Even worse, Obama is granting wind-farm operators 30-year federal eagle-killing permits, to continue their mayhem — all in the name of “clean” energy.

Long before they are installed — which itself consumes open fields — windmills abuse the Earth.

To evaluate any energy technology, “we must remember that it’s a process, starting with mining the materials necessary for the machines,” Alex Epstein notes in his forthcoming Penguin book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. Epstein observes that windmill manufacturing requires “hazardous substances like hydrofluoric acid in order to get usable rare earth elements.”

The Daily Mail’s Simon Parry toured Baotou, China, a source of neodymium, the main ingredient in wind turbines’ electromagnets. He discovered “a five-mile wide ‘tailing’ lake. It has killed farmland for miles around, made thousands of people ill, and put one of China’s key waterways in jeopardy.”

This toxic lake in Baotou, China, is filled with pollution from neodymium factories, which are crucial to wind-turbine production.

Parry added:

This vast, hissing cauldron of chemicals is the dumping ground for seven million tons a year of mined rare earth after it has been doused in acid and chemicals and processed through red-hot furnaces to extract its components.

The lake instantly assaults your senses. Stand on the black crust for just seconds and your eyes water and a powerful, acrid stench fills your lungs.

For hours after our visit, my stomach lurched and my head throbbed. We were there for only one hour, but those who live in Mr. Yan’s village of Dalahai, and other villages around, breathe in the same poison every day.

Environmentalists should stop hallucinating about “sustainable” power sources that unleash puppies and rainbows at no cost to air, water, habitat, and wildlife. “Clean energy” hurts nature. Those who believe otherwise live in Fantasyland.

— Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University.