Aussies Axe the Carbon Tax! Finally! It’s Gone!

July 17, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Posted on July 16, 2014 by Guest Blogger

An ill-fated foray that never made much sense

Guest opinion by Phillip Hutchings

With perhaps a few more grandstanding shenanigans in our Federal Senate this week, Australia’s two-year experiment with a Carbon Tax will soon end. Legislation to kill the tax, which was brought in by the left-leaning Labor-Greens coalition in mid-2012, is now being finalised by our one year-old conservative Government.

That carbon tax has cost three prime ministerships, confused the voting population, and achieved pretty much nothing. Other market dynamics have been far more important in changing Australia’s greenhouse emissions, yet it’s politically insensitive to mention them.

The sanctimoniousness of such a tax in Australia is breathtaking. We are an energy heavy-weight, the world’s largest exporter of coal. Soon we will also be the world’s largest exporter of liquefied natural gas. At the same time as our Labor prime ministers were being successively culled by infighting over the carbon tax, the world’s biggest oil & gas companies were directing more than two-thirds of global investment in LNG production into Australia, the biggest investment boom ever in this country.

We are an economy built on the world’s hunger for fossil fuels. Yet with our gas and coal sources being either offshore or in remote locations, these vital export industries are mostly hidden from Australian voters.

The carbon tax itself was a lightweight. The theory underlying a carbon tax is to provide a long term price signal to drive a change in the industrial and consumer behaviour. On this score, the Australian tax was doomed to failure. After all, politically it had to appeal to the latte-sipping lefties, but without affecting their wallets.

The outcome – a watered-down policy that was all noise and no effect.

To minimise the economic fall-out, the Labor-Green Government limited the carbon tax to large industrial emitters (more than 25,000 CO₂e/yr). Road transport and agriculture was exempt. Put together, that meant only about 185 companies in Australia’s US$ 1.5 trillion economy had to comply. And even those few were only lightly touched.

Industries which are “trade exposed” such as cement or aluminium smelting were mostly excused. They got either 66% or 94.5% of their carbon cost covered by the award of free units.

Just over one-third of Australia’s carbon emissions come from coal-fired electricity generators. And the dirtiest electricity comes from the aging brown-coal plants in Victoria – with almost double the emissions of modern gas-fired plants. Yet being located in a Labor-voting union heartland, they too got off lightly with the first half of their emissions effectively carbon- tax free. Nice.

None of which gave much incentive at all for carbon reduction. It’s hard to see any evidence at all of industries making long term investments in lower carbon-emitting factories or generating plants.

The domestic airlines got slugged with an extra 6 c/litre fuel excise, surely as crude a carbon tax as you can get. How was that supposed to reduce emissions? Yep, sure, aircraft fleets get renewed over time, and you bet, fuel efficiency is a factor when selecting alternative aircraft. But a surcharge on fuel itself was not going to change Qantas’ emissions.

So as a policy instrument, Australia’s carbon tax was never going to change emissions itself. It was a neutered program, raising Government revenue but not effective in changing behaviour.

Source – Quarterly Update of Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory: December 2013 Australia’s National Greenhouse Account

Yet, Australia’s greenhouse emissions have been declining for almost eight years. After decades of steady increase, that pause in carbon emissions since 2007 is striking. And it started six years before the carbon tax was implemented. It’s pretty easy to find the main reason for that – a steady fall in national electricity consumption. Latest figures show that Australia’s electricity use is at the lowest level since 2006. And with three-quarters of Australia’s electricity coming from carbon-intensive coal-fired sources, the fall in electricity use has led directly to a pause in carbon emissions.

But what caused Australian consumers to wind back their power use over the past eight years? Simple price elasticity, that’s what. There’s been huge investment in the network, the poles and wires to deliver (as opposed to generate) electricity. In most states, that led to a doubling of retail electricity prices. And yes, consumers did respond to that price signal, changing from electrical profligacy to parsimony. Nothing to do with the carbon tax, it was the regulated electricity supply industry recouping their capital investment.

What did we learn from this? The theory behind a carbon tax works fine – provide a price signal, and the consumer responds. It’s just that in this case, it was nothing to do with the carbon tax and all to do with regulated utilities doubling power prices as they caught up on network investment.

Here’s another little perverse change. Some years ago, I helped a fledgling gas producer negotiate a long term gas sales contract for electricity generation. The customer was a state Government-owned electricity generator, then setting up a new flagship and clean gas-fired generation plant. That helped shift the state’s generation sources ten years ago away from dirty coal, and into cleaner gas.

Yet earlier this year, that generator announced the closure of its gas generation in favour of dirtier coal generation. The reason? With three large export LNG plants now being commissioned for export, that gas is worth more for sale to China than for powering my fridge. In effect, a state Government snubbed its nose at the intent, let alone the price signal, from the Federal carbon tax.

So as a policy instrument, Australia’s carbon tax has been a failure. It never could have worked. And politically, it’s been a graveyard. Let’s hope politicians and bureaucrats from more enlightened jurisdictions study it and learn.

Australia’s carbon tax – no wonder it’s about to be buried.

This is What We Need. More People to Stand Up, and Speak the Truth!

July 16, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Though Scorned by Colleagues, a Climate-ChangeSkeptic Is Unbowed

John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, with the weather data he recorded daily while growing up in Fresno, Calif., in the 1960s.

ROB CULPEPPER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES

By MICHAEL WINES

JULY 15, 2014

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, says he remembers the morning he spotted a well-known colleague at a gathering of climate experts.

“I walked over and held out my hand to greet him,” Dr. Christy recalled. “He looked me in the eye, and he said, ‘No.’ I said, ‘Come on, shake hands with me.’ And he said, ‘No.’ ”

Dr. Christy is an outlier on what the vast majority of his colleagues consider to be a matter of consensus: that global warming is both settled science and a dire threat. He regards it as neither. Not that the earth is not heating up. It is, he says, and carbon dioxide spewed from power plants, automobiles and other sources is at least partly responsible.

But in speeches, congressional testimony and peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals, he argues that predictions of future warming have been greatly overstated and that humans have weathered warmer stretches without perishing. Dr. Christy’s willingness to publicize his views, often strongly, has also hurt his standing among scientists who tend to be suspicious of those with high profiles. His frequent appearances on Capitol Hill have almost always been at the request of Republican legislators opposed to addressing climate change.

“I detest words like ‘contrarian’ and ‘denier,’ ” he said. “I’m a data-driven climate scientist. Every time I hear that phrase, ‘The science is settled,’ I say I can easily demonstrate that that is false, because this is the climate — right here. The science is not settled.”

Dr. Christy was pointing to a chart comparing seven computer projections of global atmospheric temperatures based on measurements taken by satellites and weather balloons. The projections traced a sharp upward slope; the actual measurements, however, ticked up only slightly.

Such charts — there are others, sometimes less dramatic but more or less accepted by the large majority of climate scientists — are the essence of the divide between that group on one side and Dr. Christy and a handful of other respected scientists on the other.

“Almost anyone would say the temperature rise seen over the last 35 years is less than the latest round of models suggests should have happened,” said Carl Mears, the senior research scientist at Remote Sensing Systems, a California firm that analyzes satellite climate readings.

“Where the disagreement comes is that Dr. Christy says the climate models are worthless and that there must be something wrong with the basic model, whereas there are actually a lot of other possibilities,” Dr. Mears said. Among them, he said, are natural variations in the climate and rising trade winds that have helped funnel atmospheric heat into the ocean.

Dr. Christy has drawn the scorn of his colleagues partly because they believe that so much is at stake and that he is providing legitimacy to those who refuse to acknowledge that. If the models are imprecise, they argue, the science behind them is compelling, and it is very likely that the world has only a few decades to stave off potentially catastrophic warming.

And if he is wrong, there is no redo.

“It’s kind of like telling a little girl who’s trying to run across a busy street to catch a school bus to go for it, knowing there’s a substantial chance that she’ll be killed,” said Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “She might make it. But it’s a big gamble to take.”

By contrast, Dr. Christy argues that reining in carbon emissions is both futile and unnecessary, and that money is better spent adapting to what he says will be moderately higher temperatures. Among other initiatives, he said, the authorities could limit development in coastal and hurricane-prone areas, expand flood plains, make manufactured housing more resistant to tornadoes and high winds, and make farms in arid regions less dependent on imported water — or move production to rainier places.

Dr. Christy’s scenario is not completely out of the realm of possibility, his critics say, but it is highly unlikely.

In interviews, prominent scientists, while disagreeing with Dr. Christy, took pains to acknowledge his credentials. They are substantial: Dr. Christy, 63, has researched climate issues for 27 years and was a lead author — in essence, an editor — of a section of the 2001 report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the definitive assessment of the state of global warming. With a colleague at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Dr. Roy Spencer, he received NASA’s medal for exceptional scientific achievement in 1991 for building a global temperature database.

That model, which concluded that a layer of the atmosphere was unexpectedly cooling, was revised to show slight warming after other scientists documented flaws in its methodology. It has become something of a scientific tit for tat. Dr. Christy and Dr. Spencer’s own recalculations scaled back the amount of warming, leading to further assaults on their methodology.

Dr. Christy’s response sits on his bookshelf: a thick stack of yellowed paper with the daily weather data he began recording in Fresno, Calif., in the 1960s. It was his first data set, he said, the foundation of a conviction that “you have to know what’s happening before you know why it’s happening, and that comes back to data.”

Dr. Christy says he became fascinated with weather as a fifth grader when a snowstorm hit Fresno in 1961. By his high school junior year, he had taught himself Fortran, the first widely used programming language, and had programmed a school computer to make weather predictions. After earning a degree in mathematics at California State University, Fresno, he became an evangelical Christian missionary in Kenya, married and returned as pastor of a mission church in South Dakota.

There, as a part-time college math teacher, he found his true calling. He left the pastoral position, earned a doctorate in atmospheric sciences at the University of Illinois and moved to Alabama.

And while his work has been widely published, he has often been vilified by his peers. Dr. Christy is mentioned, usually critically, in dozens of the so-called Climategate emails that were hacked from the computers of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Center, the British keeper of global temperature records, in 2009.

“John Christy has made a scientific career out of being wrong,” one prominent climate scientist, Benjamin D. Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, wrote in one 2008 email. “He’s not even a third-rate scientist.”

Another email included a photographic collage showing Dr. Christy and other scientists who question the extent of global warming, some stranded on a tiny ice floe labeled “North Pole” and others buoyed in the sea by a life jacket and a yellow rubber ducky. A cartoon balloon depicts three of them saying, “Global warming is a hoax.”

Some, including those who disagree with Dr. Christy, are dismayed by the treatment.

“Show me two scientists who agree on everything,” said Peter Thorne, a senior researcher at Norway’s Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center who wrote a 2005 research article on climate change with Dr. Christy. “We may disagree over what we are finding, but we should be playing the ball and not the man.”

Dr. Christy has been dismissed in environmental circles as a pawn of the fossil-fuel industry who distorts science to fit his own ideology. (“I don’t take money from industries,” he said.)

He says he worries that his climate stances are affecting his chances of publishing future research and winning grants. The largest of them, a four-year Department of Energy stipend to investigate discrepancies between climate models and real-world data, expires in September.

“There’s a climate establishment,” Dr. Christy said. “And I’m not in it.”

Climate Alarmism is a Fraudulent scam! Read this!

July 16, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Two Simple Questions for Al Gore

By Joe Bastardi · Jul. 16, 2014

Al Gore is at it again. He was just in Australia (he should hire Weatherbell.com to help him avoid the “Gore effect” – Brisbane recorded its coldest temperature in 103 years during his stay) and told BBC, “This [climate change] is the biggest crisis our civilization faces.”

A statement like that, which echoes much of what State Secretary John Kerry says, is very serious indeed, so perhaps Al Gore should answer a couple of basic questions.

Some points first. CO2 in the atmosphere is portrayed in proportions that distort it in the same way a picture of an ant under a microscope would distort its size in relation to the environment around it.

A pretty intimidating creature.

Next, CO2 has no linkage with the globe temperature in the geological time scale, nor in recent times (as the Pacific started to cool, so did temperatures), as plainly seen in the charts below.

Left is CO2 vs. temps, middle: model busts, and right: closeups of latest temps

The CO2 graphics are on a scale similar to showing an ant under a microscope and then claiming these monster creatures are taking over earth. The correct scale of CO2, since it is measured in parts per million, is to show it on a scale from zero to a million instead of the way it is portrayed most commonly, which makes it look like increases can take over the world. It is 400 parts permillion total and increases 1.8 parts per million a year. Since it is impossible to create a chart like that in millions, and CO2 would not show up anyway because its contribution is so small, I will try to be more realistic. It looks more like the following chart in relation to the total atmosphere. In this case, I will use the graphic of CO2 as a percentage of the atmosphere (.04%).

Another way of putting it: Here is Beaver Stadium at Penn. State filled to capacity with 107,000 people.

The current percentage of atmospheric CO2 is equivalent to picking 43 people out of 107,000. The yearly increase from the U.S.: ¼ to 1/3 person to that crowd.

Consider this: The yearly increase in the level of CO2 from all sources is 1.8 ppm. (ppm = parts per million). There are arguments as to how much of this is due to man. To make sure that I give my opponents the benefit of a doubt, I will assume all of that increase is because of man.

Now remember, the heat capacity of the atmosphere is only 1/1000th of the ocean’s. That means when we are talking man’s input of CO2 into the entire planetary climate system, the fact is the part we put into the air only has 1/100th of the greenhouse gas effect, the primary one being water vapor. Water vapor makes up just 4% of the atmosphere, and the atmosphere only has 1/1000th the heat capacity of the ocean. Common sense reasoning shows that the effect of CO2 has to be boxed in by all this. But let’s continue, shall we?

The EPA estimates that the U.S. contributes about 1/5th of the CO2 man emits, which would be .20 x 1.8 ppm, or .36 (that’s point 36) ppm. I am not going to use smaller estimates of the U.S. contribution, which are as low as 10%. As I said, I am assuming all the increase is from man, which is also arguable. But I want to consider the worst case scenario.

So let’s keep this short and sweet. Two question for Mr. Gore:

1.) What is the perfect temperature for the planet?

2.) Do you really believe that the U.S.‘ contribution of .36 parts per million of CO2 has any provably measurable effect on weather/climate?

Joe Bastardi

Renewable Energy Targets Must Go….It’s a SCAM!!!

July 16, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Burchell Wilson: Sectors Should Join to Beat the RET

July 16, 2014 by stopthesethings

Burchell Wilson is an extraordinary economist and holds the chief economist role at the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. He writes today in the Australian;

Sectors should join to beat RET
Burchell Wilson
The Australian
17 July 2014

A QUIET but effective lobbying campaign is under way by the Australian Aluminium Council to deflect the unnecessary economic damage being inflicted on the industry by a dramatically expanded renewable energy target.

Rather than tackle Labor’s hidden carbon tax head-on, representatives of the aluminium industry understandably are seeking to exempt themselves from the fatal toll the RET is inflicting on Australian producers of aluminium.

From a political economy perspective the strategy adopted by the sector makes sense and would appear to be an attractive option, at least as far as the aluminium industry is concerned.

However, exempting aluminium refiners and smelters alone from the RET has the effect of shifting the cost of the scheme on to other energy users. It may allow aluminium producers to save hundreds of millions of dollars in energy costs, yet it unfortunately heaps the cost burden of the scheme further sideways on to mums and dads and small-business operators at the expense of the broader community.

The likelihood that those who would be asked to bear the cost of these exemptions will provide sufficient political resistance to these proposals is limited. Small businesses are too busy keeping their heads above water to be overly engaged in policy machinations and most households are focused on putting food on the table and ensuring their kids get the best chance in life.

Similar behaviour by sectoral interests was seen around the imposition of the carbon tax. Rather than opposing bad policy outright, many focused instead through necessity on carving themselves out of the policy to minimise exposure. As a political dynamic this is one reason so many policy failures get up in the first instance. There can be only limited effective opposition to bad policy when industry sectors focus instead on narrowly targeted campaigns to moderate their own impacts.

All of which serves to highlight the importance of broad-based industry associations in the political environment as advocates for good economic policy. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry represents the interests of a large base of energy users in the business community covering 300,000 businesses and acts on their behalf to ensure their views are considered in the national policy debate. The broad interests of industry in relation to the RET also happens to largely coincide with those of household energy users; both groups would benefit considerably from the scheme being phased out or scaled back.

The RET operates to drive up electricity prices for the sake of high-cost carbon abatement opportunities. Soon to be released modelling for ACCI by Deloitte Access Economics shows this will not only impose costs on energy consumers directly, it will also lead to broader economic damage to the Australian economy to the tune of $30 billion across the remaining life of the scheme. Jobs and investment will also be a casualty of the RET due to the loss of competitiveness it inflicts on Australian industry. The chief beneficiaries of the RET are in the wind industry, which will pocket $37bn in subsidies until 2030, or about $2.5bn a year on average.

Rather than seeking an exemption for individual sectors, ACCI is seeking wholesale reform of the RET on behalf of all energy users. Just as Palmer United Party senator Jacqui Lambie wants to see the entire state of Tasmania exempted from the scheme, ACCI believes the most appropriate exemption is one for the entire country.
The Australian

A reminder of Burchell’s cracking interview on the ABC’s 7.30 with Sarah Ferguson broadcast on 17 February 2014 (see our post here) – transcript follows.

****
Transcript:
SARAH FERGUSON, PRESENTER: A day after US Secretary of State John Kerry described climate change as perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction, the Abbott Government has today taken another step towards overhauling the climate policies left over from Labor’s years in power. The Government has announced a major review of the impact of clean energy on retail power prices. It’ll be headed by a self-confessed global warming sceptic, businessman Dick Warburton. And it’s widely expected to result in a decision to wind back the current Renewable Energy Target, which aims to ensure that 20 per cent of Australia’s power comes from renewable sources like wind and solar by the year 2020. Industry groups are lobbying for the target to be abolished or cut. Among them is the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Its chief economist, Burchell Wilson, joined me earlier from Canberra. Burchell Wilson, thank you very much for joining the program.

BURCHELL WILSON, AUST. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY: You’re welcome.

SARAH FERGUSON: There was a substantial review of the Renewable Energy Target in 2012. Why do we need another review so soon after?

BURCHELL WILSON: Well the review is scheduled by legislation to take place in 2014, so obviously it has a parliamentary mandate to take place. But the other thing about the scheme is there needs to be more clarity around the cost it’s imposing on consumers, the cost it’s imposing on industry and the sort of inefficiencies it’s giving rise to in the energy sector.

SARAH FERGUSON: What about those people who are investing in the renewable sector, are they not part of the Chamber of Commerce as well?

BURCHELL WILSON: Look, the problem with the Renewable Energy Target is it’s imposing a cost of $1.6 billion across the economy. It amounts to about five per cent of household energy costs now and that’s just going to mushroom over time as the scheme continues to be rolled out.

SARAH FERGUSON: Let’s just talk about the domestic cost for a minute because the Climate Change Authority did look at the consequences of scrapping the target, if that were to happen as a result of the review, and they found that the effect on domestic energy prices would be negligible. Why do you say it’s such an important factor in this decision to review the target then?

BURCHELL WILSON: Look, you’ve had a range of regulatory authorities around the country come out in recent – in recent months and say – and tell us that the cost of the RET to average households is around $102 per annum, which is about five per cent of their electricity bill …

SARAH FERGUSON: And how much of that is covered by government compensation?

BURCHELL WILSON: None of it. It’s all – it’s a consumer subsidy. Taxpayers don’t foot the bill, energy users do. That just makes it more insidious. It’s not on the budget anywhere. It’s a cost to consumers that they don’t really know that they’re wearing.

SARAH FERGUSON: Is $100 a year a good enough reason to consider scrapping the Renewable Energy Target, if that is indeed one of the factors at play here?

BURCHELL WILSON: Look, the problem with the Renewable Energy Target is it’s a very inefficient way of abating carbon. The Productivity Commission’s told us – told us this. It’s costing up to $525 per tonne to abate carbon under the renewable energy target. There are low-cost alternatives available and, effectively, we’re undermining our emissions reduction effort by persisting with the Renewable Energy Target.

SARAH FERGUSON: Would you like to see it scrapped?

BURCHELL WILSON: Ah, we need to see it wound back in terms of its ambition and gradually phased out would be desirable from the perspective of industry and energy users.

SARAH FERGUSON: Phased out over what period? What are you actually calling for here?

BURCHELL WILSON: Look, this has to be examined as part of the review. There needs to be some provision made for the sunk investment under the scheme, but over time we should be winding this back, allowing the sunk investment to naturally decay and fall away and allow the renewable sector to compete on an even – on a level footing with baseload generators and efficient sources of energy.

SARAH FERGUSON: And is that something that you can realistically expect, were you to wind back the Renewable Energy Target in the short term, as you propose?

BURCHELL WILSON: Look, if people want to consume renewable energy, there are schemes available for them to opt in on a voluntary basis, but mandating this cost on consumers without providing any sort of level of clarity around the costs they’re imposing is bad policy and it’s bad for energy users.

SARAH FERGUSON: Let’s just have a look at the make-up of the panel who are going to consider this review. Dick Warburton is a self-avowed sceptic. His views on the subjects are well known. Is he an appropriate person to be leading this review?

BURCHELL WILSON: Absolutely. Dick led the charge against Australia having the highest carbon tax in the world. You’ll realise that Australians per capita pay $380 per head under the carbon tax, whereas Europeans under the ETS, they’re paying about $1.50. So there is no comparison between what we’re doing domestically and the efforts that are taking place abroad. We are an outlier.

SARAH FERGUSON: Just stay with the make-up of the panel for the moment. We’ve also got Brian Fisher, who has a long history of being opposed to pricing mechanisms in this area. It does sound as though the outcome of the review is to some extent preordained?

BURCHELL WILSON: Brian Fisher is a first-rate economist, one of the best in the country. If he – I don’t think he has any predetermined views on the matter, but he will approach this like an economist and he will …

SARAH FERGUSON: But a long history of opposition to pricing mechanisms for tackling climate change.

BURCHELL WILSON: Well, I don’t know if that’s true, but what he will tell you is the Renewable Energy Target is high-cost, it’s inefficient as a means of abating carbon, and if that’s your primary objective with respect to the RET, then we should scrap it altogether.

SARAH FERGUSON: What do you expect the outcome of the review to be?

BURCHELL WILSON: Look, we’re hopeful that at least the scale of the ambition for the Renewable Energy Target will be scaled back, but also hopeful that there’ll be some provision made for phasing the thing out over time and putting the renewable sector on a competitive footing with other forms of generation.

SARAH FERGUSON: It’s not going to be an an even footing though because if you remove the mandated target, that’s going to harm investor confidence in the renewable sector, isn’t it?

BURCHELL WILSON: Look, the Renewable Energy Target is – it’s corporate welfare on a massive scale directed towards the renewable sector. I don’t know why anyone would have any level of sympathy for businesses that – they don’t employ many people, that they don’t export anything and they’ve surreptitiously imposed these massive costs on energy consumers for the sake of lining their own profits.

SARAH FERGUSON: Do you have any sympathy for investors in the renewable energy sector in Australia tonight?

BURCHELL WILSON: Ah, well, they’ve run quite a disingenuous campaign in recent years, they’ve hidden the cost of the RET and they’re finally experiencing a level of accountability. I think that’s entirely appropriate and it’s strong leadership from the Prime Minister, the Industry Minister and the Environment Minister in putting the RET on the table and having an honest examination of the issue.

SARAH FERGUSON: Thank you very much indeed, Burchell Wilson, for joining us. We’ll see how the review pans out.

BURCHELL WILSON: Thanks very much.
ABC 7.30

STT says: “Hats off Burchell.”

A Light at the End the Tunnel, for Americans!

July 16, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Checkmate, ObamaCare

Posted on November 25, 2013 by Rob

The collision is unavoidable. Barack’s pathological narcissism will ultimately face the fierce, direct opposition of the political best interests of Hillary (and Bill) Clinton, most House Democrats and virtually all Senate Democrats in 2014 and 2016. These two massive, ideological forces will rip apart the Democrat Party and badly weaken the mainstream media’s corrosive influence in America. The widespread toxicity of ObamaCare will impact all federal elections, driving the majority of office seeking Democrats to choose self-preservation and party-preservation over saving Obama’s personal legacy.

Checkmate. America wins.

The expanding nightmare of ObamaCare, with policy cancellation victims exceeding five million in 2013, will explode to an estimated one hundred and twenty million policy cancellation victims in 2014. The mounting political pressure on all politicians to reverse and repeal the wealth evaporating impact of Obama’s healthcare tyranny is absolutely unavoidable. Within one month of the disastrous, public debut of the “Affordable” Care Act, thirty-nine Democrats (approximately 20 percent of all House Democrats) swiftly turned their back on Barack’s legacy legislation.

Thanks to Harry Reid and Barack Obama recently exercising the “nuclear option” in the Senate, Republicans and Democrats need only cast 51 Senate votes to repeal ObamaCare in January, 2015. This repeal vote will happen. And Obama will veto this effort, attempting to spin the vote as an egregious assault on his legacy. He will also enlist his fellow travelers to decry this bi-partisan Senate repeal effort as further evidence that America is an inherently racist nation. Desperation is all that remains. He will fail as even his media cheerleaders capitulate to reality.

Not Iran, immigration reform nor gun control diversions will wag this dog from biting Obama and the Democrat party in their rear ends.

Could This Be the Dawning of Better Days for the UK? End the Greenscam~!

July 15, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

UK’s new energy and environment ministers opposed green energy

Matthew Hancock called for cuts to wind power subsidies while Liz Truss claimed renewable power was damaging the economy…

Britain's new minister for energy, nusiness and enterprise, Matthew Hancock at 10 Downing Street on July 15, 2014. — Britain’s new minister for energy, business and enterprise, Matthew Hancock, at 10 Downing Street. Photograph: Suzanne Plunkett/Reuters

The new set of Conservative environment and energy ministers announced on Tuesday bring a track record of opposing renewable energy, having fought against wind and solar farms, enthusiastically backed fracking and argued that green subsidies damage the economy.

New energy minister, Matthew Hancock, signed a letter to David Cameron in 2012 demanding that subsidies for onshore windfarms were slashed. “I support renewable energy but we need to do it in a way that gives the most value for money and that does not destroy our natural environment,” he said at the time.

Hancock, who takes over from Michael Fallon, also opposed new turbines in his Suffolk constituency, arguing: “The visual and other impact of the proposed turbines is completely unacceptable in this attractive rural corner of Suffolk.”

New environment secretary and former Shell employee, Liz Truss, dismissed clean renewable energy as “extremely expensive” and said it was damaging the economy during an appearance on BBC Question Time last October.

“We do need to look at the green taxes because at the moment they are incentivising particular forms of energy that are extremely expensive,” she said. “I would like to see the rolling back of green taxes because it is wrong that we are implementing green taxes faster than other countries. We may be potentially exporting jobs out of the country as our energy is so expensive.”

In 2009, as deputy director of the free-market thinktank Reform, Truss said energy infrastructure in Britain was being damaged by politicians’ obsession with green technology: “Vast amounts of taxpayers’ money are being spent subsidising uneconomic activity,” she said. Research from the London School of Economics recently concluded that green policies were not harming economic growth.

Truss will have a key role in regulating the environmental safety of shale gas exploration and has said fracking would benefit people living nearby. “We need to make sure shale gas is being exploited in this country, which will benefit local communities,” she said on BBC Question Time. As well as fracking, Truss backed “renewable” nuclear power as a way to “hit green targets”.

In her first statement since being appointed as environment secretary, Truss said: “I look forward to tackling the important issues facing our rural communities including championing British food, protecting people from flooding and improving the environment.” She did not mention fracking or the controversial badger cull, which she has supported in parliamentary votes.

Truss, Hancock and another new appointee to the Department of Energy and Climate Change, Amber Rudd, all face conflicts between their new ministerial responsibilities and their previous constituency work.

Truss has spoken out about insufficient flood protection for farmland in her Norfolk South West constituency. But she is now responsible for flood defences and faces a £500m hole in the budget needed to keep pace with the rising flood risk being driven by climate change.

Truss has also been a vocal opponent of an energy-from-waste project – an incinerator – at Kings Lynn. She has opposed solar farms being built and also complained the energy secretary Ed Davey that subsidies helping crops to used to generate energy was making straw difficult to get for pig farmers.

One of the most contentious issues Truss faces will be over the badger
cull. Her East Anglian constituency is far from the bovine TB hotspots in
the west of the UK, but she has been keenly involved in rural issues – for
instance, she is pro-hunting.

Lord Krebs, chair of the sub-group of the Committee on Climate Change that
looks at adaptation to the effects of global warming, said at a meeting of
the all-party environment group in Westminster on Tuesday that he would
wait for a private conversation with Truss before advising her on that.

But he did say that he would offer his advice on badgers and bovine TB – a
subject which the prominent zoologist examined in detail for the previous
Labour government, finding that a cull was not likely to solve the
problem.

He told the Guardian: “I would say don’t be so focused on killing badgers
(as a way of controlling the disease) but go back and look at all the
policy options.”

Hancock has opposed both windfarms and new housing developments, while Rudd has raised her constituents safety fears about the Dungeness nuclear power plant in her constituency. Rudd, whose represents the coastal constituency of Hastings and Rye, has been praised by campaigners for supporting sustainable fishing and has raised questions about how government energy efficiency programmes would help social housing.

The Renewable Energy Association said it looked forward to working with Truss, Hancock and Rudd. The trade body’s chief executive, Dr Nina Skorupska, said of the outgoing Greg Barker, who Rudd replaces: “Not only did he bring stability to the department, he also brought passion and enthusiasm.”

Truss, Hancock and Rudd appear not to have made any public statements about climate change.

U.K.’s Dept. of Energy, gets it’s proper name back!! Climate change is dropped!! Smart move!

July 15, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

UK David Cameron Culls Greens From Government

JUL 15

Posted by Tory Aardvark

The year is 2007 and the whole world is in the grip of global warming fear, the Anthropogenic Global Warming boondoggle has almost reached its high water mark and every slimy, self serving politician across the globe is scrambling to be Green.

What is perceived to be vote winning Green tokenism runs amok, so much so that in the UK opposition leader David Cameron has a small wind turbine installed on the side of his house so the whole world can be assured of his Green credentials. This was short lived display of Dave’s Green credentials as the builders put the turbine in the wrong place and breached the planning consent as Cameron’s home is in a conservation area, it is difficult not to laugh when a stunt blows up in a politicians face.

The problem faced by all those politicians that were conned by the junk science of the warming alarmists is how to distance themselves from something voters across the western world no longer buy in to, or even worry about anymore.

No politician is ever going to hold up their hand and say “I was wrong“, instead Green issues are quietly dropped from the Agenda and the heretical voices of the non believers in Climate Religion start to be heard.

In a major Cabinet reshuffle in preparation for the forthcoming General Election, Cameron has quietly culled the believers in Climate Religion from the Government, and as to be expected the UK Guardian is outraged:

The new set of Conservative environment and energy ministers announced on Tuesday bring a track record of opposing renewable energy, having fought against wind and solar farms, enthusiastically backed fracking and argued that green subsidies damage the economy.

Matthew Hancock the new energy minister, was one of the signatories to the letter sent to Cameron by 100 of his MPs demanding that Green taxation for bird choppers be slashed.

New energy minister, Matthew Hancock, signed a letter to David Cameron in 2012 demanding that subsidies for onshore wind farms were slashed.“I support renewable energy but we need to do it in a way that gives the most value for money and that does not destroy our natural environment,” he said at the time.

Hancock, who takes over from Michael Fallon, also opposed new turbines in his Suffolk constituency, arguing: “The visual and other impact of the proposed turbines is completely unacceptable in this attractive rural corner of Suffolk.”

New environment secretary Liz Truss, who once perpetrated the heinous crime of working for Shell has already said that renewables are too expensive and damage the economy.

New environment secretary and former Shell employee, Liz Truss, dismissed clean renewable energy as “extremely expensive” and said it was damaging the economy during an appearance on BBC Question Time last October.

“We do need to look at the green taxes because at the moment they are incentivising particular forms of energy that are extremely expensive,” she said. “I would like to see the rolling back of green taxes because it is wrong that we are implementing green taxes faster than other countries. We may be potentially exporting jobs out of the country as our energy is so expensive.”

As far back as 2009 Truss could see that Green subsidies caused energy poverty and loss of jobs:

In 2009, as deputy director of the free-market think-tank Reform, Truss said energy infrastructure in Britain was being damaged by politicians’ obsession with green technology: “Vast amounts of taxpayers’ money are being spent subsidising uneconomic activity,” she said. Research from the London School of Economics recently concluded that green policies were not harming economic growth.

No surprises that a left leaning organization like the LSE that believes in Man Made Global Warming would find that renewable energy subsidies were not harmful.

Truss it appears is an enthusiastic supporter of fracking:

Truss will have a key role in regulating the environmental safety of shale gas exploration and has said fracking would benefit people living nearby. “We need to make sure shale gas is being exploited in this country, which will benefit local communities,” she said on BBC Question Time.

There is room for cautious optimism that the circus is being taken back from the clowns, if Cameron is serious about the Green rollback in the UK then renaming the Department Of Energy and Climate Change, the Department of Energy as it once was, would go along way to show the nightmare of the Green insanity is nearly over.

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

July 15, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

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

Storm damage in Smithfield Governor Andrew Cuomo and Senator Dave Valesky look over the damage in the Smithfield area. Ellen M. Blalock | eblalock@syracuse.com

By 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.

Wind Turbines…..Killing Machines! Good for, NOTHING!

July 15, 2014 / 1957chev / 5 Comments

JIM WIEGAND, WIND PROBLEMS

EXPOSING THE WIND INDUSTRY GENOCIDE

APRIL 7, 2014 17 COMMENTS

By Jim Wiegand

For those that have the mistaken belief that wind is green, clean, or in some way a noble venture, reality couldn’t be any further from the truth. There is nothing commendable about hiding the slaughter to millions of protected bird and bats each year.

Most of public is unaware of this because at industrial wind farms there is no transparency. With gag orders, high security, and studies being conducted by the industry’s own biologists, the public has no way of really knowing anything. Under these conditions information is filtered and the industry can report what they believe the public will accept.

Rigging Search Area Size

For decades I have been doing research and making astute wildlife observations. I have the expertise to see what others can not and when analyzing this industry’s studies, I see one sided environmental documents.

From my research and analysis I now have several thousand carcass distance records from turbine blade strikes. These records are from the years 1990 -2010 and none were taken from industry studies conducted with grossly undersized search areas. Search areas for these studies ranged from 50-105 meters from towers. The wind turbines I looked at ranged in size from 65 kW up to 1.5 MW.

Part of a White Tailed Sea Eagle - Courtesy Save The Eagles — Part of a White Tailed Sea Eagle – Courtesy Save The Eagles

These carcass distance records are from the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, Montezuma Hills Wind Resource Area, Buena Vista wind project, Foote Rim Creek Rim Wind Project, Cedar Ridge Wind Farm, Forward Energy Center, and the Blue Sky Green Field wind project. From these carcass records it can be seen that most carcasses upon impact are launched beyond a turbines blade tip length away from towers. In fact this number is about 60% -70% depending on the study being looked at. This still does not take into consideration that search areas for most of these studies were too small for the size of turbine being studied. Several of the studies even mention this.

The average carcass distance from turbine towers recorded in these studies ranges from about 1 1/2 – 3 times the blade length of these turbines. Many of these turbines were only about 100 feet tall when including blades of about 8.5 meters in length. Hundreds of the other turbines I analyzed were about 300-400 feet at the tip of the rotor sweep.

But the industry has evolved and newer studies do not use larger search areas for their much larger turbines.

For the sake of comparison I will comment on some of the recent mortality studies that have been conducted by Stantec. The Stantec studies are important because in my opinion they represent the worst of the worst that this industry has to offer. In the last few years the average carcass distance reported by Stantec in their mortality studies at Wolfe Island, Kibby Mountain, Laurel Mountain, and Georgia Mountain in the Northeast, is about the same distance that was reported from the smallest 65-100 kw turbines at Altamont. But there are huge differences between the turbines studied by Stantec and these smallest turbines. The turbines they write reports for are 40-50 times larger. They reach 250-350 feet higher into the sky, they have blades that reach out 50 meters or more in all directions, and their deadly blade tip speeds are much faster.

All of these factors are important in mortality studies because they contribute to greater blade impact force, more carcass drift from the higher altitudes, and impact points much further out from turbine towers. In one case the blade tip impact points were as much as 47 meters further away (56 total) from turbine towers. Add into the equation that some of these the turbines are located on ridge lines and the carcasses thrown towards the downward slopes will to drift even further.

White Tailed Sea Eagle Corpse stuck in a tree - Courtesy Jim Wiegand — White Tailed Sea Eagle Corpse stuck in a tree – Courtesy Save The Eagles

Yet every one of these Stantec’s mortality studies defies the Laws of Motion and Gravity because the industry’s own data proves that any carcass hit by a turbine blade has a much better than 50/50 odds or 1 out of 2 chance of this carcass landing at a distance beyond a turbines blade length.

For the hundreds of carcasses reported in the Stantec studies, only a handful have been reported past the turbine blade length and the average carcass distance disclosed is about half the distance of the turbine blade length. The odds of this reported carcass distribution to have actually occurred around these huge turbines is so high that it can not be calculated. In other words the numbers are impossible.

In years to come college math and physics classes will have fun analyzing all this. They can apply different wind speeds, acceleration, and points of impact to the wind turbine carcasses distance equation. The combinations are endless but one thing is certain they will understand that most of the carcasses being smacked with 200 mph blade tip speed will fly beyond a turbine’s blade length.

Below is an image of data taken from a 3 year study showing the carcasses distribution for 505 carcasses found in the Montezuma Wind Resource Area. The turbines are 1.5 MW and the search methodology used search areas of 105 meters from towers. The carcasses distance data was reliable for the point I am making but the study still had severe flaws that underreported mortality estimates. When looking at this data readers will see that I have added some notes.

Rigging the Data

The industry is using many tricks and manipulations to make carcasses disappear from around their turbines. None of this is scientific and I see differences in nearly every study I look at. The changes in their studies are predicated on how much mortality needs to be hidden. The most recent wind industry studies are the most appalling and this is because with the industry’s huge turbines they need far more carcasses to vanish.

From the previous information I have provided it should be quite obvious that the industry studies are unreliable because search areas are far too small. But there is much more. So much more that I can not put everything in this article or even ten articles. I have chosen to expose some of the manipulation of search plots and touch on the manipulation of carcass data.

In the image below it is fairly self-explanatory and easy to understand. The industry instead of using round search areas and thoroughly searching them has come up with a devious method to hide carcass data, the square search plot. It can be any size they choose but generally an area 120 – 160 meters on all sides. It may not even be square and the turbine may or may not be centered in the plot. The square search plot is used to give the illusion of a much bigger search area while avoiding the majority of carcasses expected to land within the designated searchable area around the turbine.

Not only are these square plots far too small, the data collected from these plots is easily manipulated. These plots may be fully searched but in most cases they are not and “proportions of area searched” are developed for the wind industry’s contrived mortality formulas. I have seen proportion of area searched for the furthest point declared at 100 percent as in the Maple Ridge Wind Farm study. But what the report is not putting in the formulas is that they only searched 100 percent of the area out to the furthest corner of the plot, the carcasses, the data, and the mortality from the full the declared annulus was avoided.

In the calculation of the proportion area searched, carcasses found at the furthest points can boost the numbers dramatically. In the image below I show how these carcasses when found and properly calculated can really boost the reported mortality with very small overall search areas.

This information was taken from a mortality study conducted in Wisconsin at the Cedar Ridge wind farm. I took the actual area searched and made corrections for the reported carcasses in relation to the proportion of the area actually searched.

From looking at just the search area data, 18 turbines are killing approximately 1100 birds per year and this does not take into consideration that the search areas should have been 150-175 meters from towers. It also does not taken into consideration searcher efficiency and other factors that boost the mortality numbers. This project has 41 turbines and the actual yearly fatality to birds and bats is many thousands.

For these 18 turbines in 2010 they reported an estimate of 216 bird fatalities.

This study did show that the majority of carcasses land past the turbine blades but how the data collected was processed, hid thousands of birds and bats being killed at this site. They not only used the square search plot ploy but they barely even looked around these turbines. They also discarded important carcasses by labelling them as “incidental”.

Remains of Two Peregrine Falcons killed by Spanish Wind - Courtesy Save the Eagles — Remains of Two Peregrine Falcons killed by Spanish Wind – Courtesy Save the Eagles

In any wind industry study if carcasses are labeled “incidental” it is a major red flag that the study is critically flawed. The word “incidental” is trump card exclusion for wind industry studies. All the carcasses shown in the square plot image are considered incidentals by the industry even though they are finding them dead or crippled on a regular basis.

Honest studies would suggest moving the search areas out to locate and include them in the data.

A high percentage of the raptors found during wind industry studies are dismissed as being incidental. Even the study that produced the data in the first image dismissed golden eagles found as far away as 200 meters because they were found beyond the 105 meter search areas.

Since 2004 Altamont Pass has been excluding dozens of golden eagles from their mortality estimates killed by turbines because they have been placed in the incidental category. How do these most of these dead eagles get placed in the incidental category? Wind personnel go around and pick them up along with other dead raptors ahead of the people doing “standardized surveys”.

An honest survey would never allow any wind personnel to touch a carcass but this takes place at every wind farm.

Immature Bald eagle - Courtesy Save the Eagles — Immature Bald eagle – Courtesy Save the Eagles

What I have pointed out is just a taste of what it is like to read through a wind industry study. It is a dreadful journey, but it must be done to save species from what is coming from this industry. The tricks may change from study to study but the end product is still the same, most of the wind turbine mortality is being hidden. For the wind industry there is no standardized research methodology and they make it up as they go along. The only thing I see in wind industry studies that is truly standardized is a very clear pattern of these studies being rigged to hide mortality.

All of this is allowed to take place because the industry has been handed voluntary regulations from the upper levels of our government agencies. It is time for everyone to take note and to start asking the hard questions because these turbines are contributing to species extinction faster than any other source of energy.

Jim Wiegand is an independent wildlife expert with decades of field observations and analytical work. He is vice president of the US region of Save the Eagles International, an organization devoted to researching, protecting and preserving avian species threatened by human encroachment and development.

(Image at top of Page: Golden eagle =Беркут (Aquila chrysaetos) Source=http://www.flickr.com/photos/chuckthephotographer/2391751046/; Author=Chuck Abbe, cc-by-2.0, Courtesy Wikipedia)

Can Ontario Survive 4 More Years of Liberal Mismanagement?

July 15, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

WYNNE GOVERNMENT GAMBLING ONTARIO’S FUTURE. AGAIN.

Wynne Government Gambling Ontario’s Future. Again.
Budget 2.0 still hikes taxes, borrows at record levels, and puts future taxpayers at risk of massive service cuts and tax hikes

TORONTO, ON: The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) is disappointed with the Wynne government for reintroducing the same risky budget that not only triggered an election, but also caused a credit rating agency to lower the province’s credit rating outlook from stable to negative.

“The May Day budget was a reckless and irresponsible fiscal plan for Ontario,” said CTF’s Ontario director Candice Malcolm. “By growing program spending and relying heavily on borrowing, the government is putting us all at risk of a debt crisis, and putting future taxpayers on the hook for today’s mistakes.”

Ontario’s credit rating was already downgraded following the 2012 budget. Moody’s once again lowered Ontario’s credit outlook on July 2, 2014, following the election outcome, signalling future downgrades that will make future borrowing more expensive for taxpayers.

The new Ontario budget, like the old one, still spends $130.4 billion and features income tax hikes, new taxes on flying and tobacco, a new payroll tax, a new borrowing scheme for subways in Toronto, corporate welfare slush funds, and a $12.5 billion deficit.

“Their plan is a gamble,” said Malcolm. “They are hoping desperately, and against the odds, that by borrowing and implementing a tax-and-spend agenda, it will somehow spur economic growth to balance the budget in two years. That is the equivalent of a person on the verge of bankruptcy taking a cash advance from their credit card, going to a casino, and putting it all on 25 red.”

Ontario has run seven straight deficits and borrows more than any other provincial or state level government in the world. Our per capita provincial debt has surpassed $20,000.

“The Wynne government is in denial. After consecutive deficits, record debt, wasted stimulus spending, and out-of-control borrowing, Ontario is no better off,” said Malcolm. “But they stubbornly continue to repeat the same mistakes and ignore warnings from their own civil servants, banks, professors, and economists.

“They are purposely ignoring widespread economic concerns and doubling down on their failed ideas. It’s a recipe for disaster,” concluded Malcolm.

CMalcolm-sm.jpg
By Candice Malcolm
Posted: July 14, 2014

	How The Climate Grif… on There is NO Global Warming…
	Bob Bateman on Government-Induced Climaphobia…
	William Hooi on Germany’s Renewable Energy Dis…
	Jessica on Issues for Landowners to Consi…
	Raymond on Poorest Families Left Powerles…

"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising…

Children Deserve Protection!

Events- upcoming!

Aussies Axe the Carbon Tax! Finally! It’s Gone!

This is What We Need. More People to Stand Up, and Speak the Truth!

Though Scorned by Colleagues, a Climate-ChangeSkeptic Is Unbowed

JULY 15, 2014

Climate Alarmism is a Fraudulent scam! Read this!

Two Simple Questions for Al Gore

Renewable Energy Targets Must Go….It’s a SCAM!!!

Burchell Wilson: Sectors Should Join to Beat the RET

A Light at the End the Tunnel, for Americans!

Checkmate, ObamaCare

Could This Be the Dawning of Better Days for the UK? End the Greenscam~!

UK’s new energy and environment ministers opposed green energy

U.K.’s Dept. of Energy, gets it’s proper name back!! Climate change is dropped!! Smart move!

UK David Cameron Culls Greens From Government

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

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

Wind Turbines…..Killing Machines! Good for, NOTHING!

EXPOSING THE WIND INDUSTRY GENOCIDE

Can Ontario Survive 4 More Years of Liberal Mismanagement?

Two Simple Questions for Al Gore

Burchell Wilson: Sectors Should Join to Beat the RET

Checkmate, ObamaCare

Share:

UK’s new energy and environment ministers opposed green energy

UK David Cameron Culls Greens From Government

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