Liberal corruption and incompetence.

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.

Politicians Should Be Jailed for Pushing the “Unreliable Renewables” scam!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Lunacy of Wind & Solar Power Policy: Political Incompetence or Conspiracy?

September 26, 2014 by

john kutsch

John Kutsch heads up the Thorium Energy Alliance an outfit that aims to see power generated using thorium enjoy a place at our reliable energy table.

Thorium is an abundant silver-gray element named for the Norse god of thunder. It’s less radioactive than the uranium used to power conventional nuclear plants; it produces less waste; and is more difficult to turn into nuclear weapons.

Advocates like Kutsch want to adapt traditional nuclear plants to use thorium as a fuel or replace them with a completely new kind of reactor called a liquid-fluoride thorium reactor, or LFTR (pronounced “lifter”). The LFTR would use a mixture of molten chemical salts to cool the reactor and to transfer energy from the fission reaction to a turbine.

Kutsch argues that such a system is more efficient and safer than existing plants, which use pressurized water to cool uranium fuel rods and boiling water or steam to transfer the energy they create. Kutsch says: “A molten-salt reactor is not a pressurized reactor. It doesn’t use water for cooling, so you don’t have the possibility of a hydrogen explosion, as you did in Fukushima.”

Kutsch and other advocates say that a thorium-fueled reactor burns hotter than uranium reactors, consuming more of the fuel. Kutsch says that “Ninety-nine percent of the thorium is burned up. Instead of 10,000 pounds of waste, you would have 300 pounds of waste.”

STT isn’t about to weigh into the debate about thorium, but we’re on the same page as Kutsch when he slams into the lunacy of wind power.

Here’s a video of John belting into the infantile logic of trying to rely upon power sources delivered at crazy, random intervals. Oh and it comes with a “PG” warning: John’s frustration at our political betters leads to one or two “F” bombs.

blob:https%3A//www.youtube.com/b6668f91-9d89-49a1-9a99-190b7f2f361a

Windweasels are Known Worldwide, for their Coercion, and Corruption!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

The Wind Industry: Rotten to the Core

September 25, 2014 by

dirtyrottenscoundrelsoriginal

We’ve reported on just how rotten the wind industry is – from top to bottom – and whether it’s bribery and fraud; vote rigging scandals; tax fraud; investor fraud or REC fraud – wind weasels set a uniform standard that would make most businessman blush.

In previous posts we’ve looked at how the goons that work for RATCH didn’t hesitate to invent a character – Frank Bestic – in a half-cunning attempt to infiltrate their opponents at Collector and elsewhere – see our posts here and here and here.

These boys have no shame and, apparently, moral business conduct is an “opt in” model, rather than a day-to-day proposition – like it is for most everybody else.  It’s all about “ways and means”, really.

Here’s a tale from Mexico about just how low they can go – pulled together by STT Champion, James Delingpole.

Environmental Researcher: Wind Industry Riddled with ‘Absolute Corruption’
Breitbart.com
James Delingpole
20 September 2014

A Mexican ecologist has blown the whistle on the corruption, lies and incompetence of the wind industry – and on the massive environmental damage it causes in the name of saving the planet.

Patricia Mora, a research professor in coastal ecology and fisheries science at the National Institute of Technology in Mexico, has been studying the impact of wind turbines in the Tehuantepec Isthmus in southern Mexico, an environmentally sensitive region which has the highest concentration of wind farms in Latin America.

The turbines, she says in an interview with Truthout, have had a disastrous effect on local flora and fauna.

When a project is installed, the first step is to “dismantle” the area, a process through which all surrounding vegetation is eliminated. This means the destruction of plants and sessilities – organisms that do not have stems or supporting mechanisms – and the slow displacement over time of reptiles, mammals, birds, amphibians, insects, arachnids, fungi, etc. Generally we perceive the macro scale only, that is to say, the large animals, without considering the small and even microscopic organisms…

After the construction is finalized, the indirect impact continues in the sense that ecosystems are altered and fragmented. As a result, there is a larger probability of their disappearance, due to changes in the climate and the use of soil.

Then there is the damage caused by wind turbine noise:

There is abundant information about the harm caused by the sound waves produced by wind turbines. These sound waves are not perceptible to the human ear, which makes them all the more dangerous. They are also low frequency sound waves and act upon the pineal and nervous systems, causing anxiety, depression (there is a study from the United States that found an elevated suicide rate in regions with wind farms), migraines, dizziness and vomiting, among other symptoms.

But the wind turbine operators are able to get away with it because the system is so corrupt.

What happens is absolute corruption. I have to admit that generally there are “agreements” behind closed doors between the consultants or research centers and the government offices before the studies are conducted. They fill out forms with copied information (and sometimes badly copied), lies or half truths in order to divert attention from the real project while at the same time complying with requirements on paper. Unfortunately, consultants sometimes take advantage of high unemployment and hire inexperienced people or unemployed career professionals without proper titles. Sometimes the consultants even coerce them into modifying the data.

Research centers, pressured by a lack of funding, accept these studies. It is well known that scientists recognized by CONACYT (National Counsel on Science and Technology) accept gifts from these companies, given that they need money to buy equipment for their laboratories and to fill their pocketbooks to maintain their lifestyles. This is the extent of the corruption. Upon reviewing these studies, it is clear that the findings are trash, sometimes even directly copied from other sources online. These studies tend to focus on the “benefits of the project” and do not include rigorous analysis.

The Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) does follow-up to the studies, but everything can be negotiated. The bureaucrats have the last word.

Though Professor Mora is talking specifically about Mexico, what she says applies equally well to supposedly more transparent democracies such as Britain, Australia, the US, Canada and Denmark. The wind industry is necessarily one of the most corrupt enterprises on earth because it depends for its entire existence on government favours, backhanders, dishonest environmental impact assessments and on regulators turning a blind eye to the known health problems caused by wind turbine noise. Without crony capitalism, the wind industry simply would not exist.

Here are some links to a few of Breitbart’s hits on the subject. As I can personally testify from a decade spent covering this scandal, there are few forms of life on the planet lower than those parasites who make their fortune out of bird-chomping, bat-slicing eco-crucifixes.
Breitbart.com

james-delingpole_3334

AGENDA 21….WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!! Fight Agenda 21!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

AGENDA 21: THE ROCKEFELLERS ARE BUILDING HUMAN SETTLEMENT ZONES

MARCH 27, 2014  

According to many “experts”, such as the World Health Organization, and the United Nations, 70% of the world’s population will be living in cities, by 2050.  Usually left out of the reporting of this statistic, are the determining factors that will be causing people to move off of rural land, and into the crowded cities.  What would make so many people leave their quiet, rural community, to go and live in a city, that is becoming evermore crowded, or what would stop someone that is living in a crowded city, from moving to a more quiet, rural community?  Surely more than 30% of the people in the world will want to have their own piece of land, with a house, away from the city, in 2050.

What these organizations are not telling you is that a massive shift of the population into cities is not a random projection, but a planned goal of many of the world’s top “leaders”, and leading organizations.  By causing an increase in the cost of owning, and living on, property in rural areas (property tax, car tax, utilities, etc.), governments will cause a shift of population from rural communities to the city.  This is one of the goals of United Nations Agenda 21.  Agenda 21 is a massive plan, or program of action, for the 21st century, developed by the United Nations, and connected organizations, that would require every resource in the world, including humans, to be collectivized, and controlled.  If you have never heard of, or are looking to become more familiar with, UN Agenda 21, I have read, and analyzed, the document, and have written a report titled, A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 – United Nations Program of Action, which I highly recommend.

In the following report I will be attempting to convey to the reader, the reality that Agenda 21 has made its way into our local communities, pushed using friendly-sounding terms like “livable communities”, “complete streets”, and “resilient cities”, and is being used to cause a demographic shift, away from rural communities, and into cities, as envisioned, and planned, by the United Nations….

http://www.thegoodmanchronicle.com/2014/03/agenda-21-rockefellers-are-building.html

This is a continuation of the great ripoff of the 1930’s by other means.  And it implies depopulation, psychological control (by obstetrical abuse, circumcision, “diet, injections, and injunctions”) and social regimentation.

Communists Masquerading as Environmentalists…..Watermelons!

/ 1957chev / 2 Comments

Climate Movement Drops Mask, Admits Communist Agenda

September 23rd, 2014 – 4:31 pm

Communists along with a few environmental groups staged a “People’s Climate Rally” in Oakland, California on Sunday, September 21, in conjunction with the larger “People’s Climate March” in New York City on the same day.

Wait — did I say communists? Isn’t that a bit of an exaggeration?
Well…no.

At the New York event, many people noticed that gee, there sure are a lot of communists at this march. But in Oakland — always on the cutting edge — the entire “climate change” movement at last fully, irrevocably and overtly embraced communism as its stated goal. Any concerns about “optics” or operating in “stealth mode” were abandoned.

The “climate change” “crisis” is now nothing but the latest justification for “total revolution” and getting rid of capitalism forever.
Yes, capitalism itself is the problem. The primary message of the People’s Climate Rally was this: Climate change is caused by capitalism, and merely attempting to reform capitalism will not stop global warming; it is impossible to work within the existing system if we want to save the planet. We must replace it with a new social and economic system entirely.

Until recently, those attacking the capitalist system as the cause of global warming were intentionally a little vague as to what will replace it if we are to solve the problem. But on Sunday in Oakland, that curtain was drawn back and the new system was finally revealed: Communism. Or at least hardcore socialism as Marx defined it — the necessary transitional phase before true complete communism (i.e. no private property, no families, no individualism). Most countries we tend to think of as “communist” actually self-defined as “socialist”: The USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, for example, was (as its name reveals) socialist. I point out this detail in case anybody reading this article thinks that the “socialism” advocated at the rally was merely some kind of squishy soft-hearted semi-capitalism; no, it is the same type of socialism one finds in places generally thought of as communist.

Below you will find irrefutable proof that communist ideologies, organizations and phraseologies have completely moved to the forefront of the “climate change” movement. (I was originally tempted to say that the communists, as they are wont to do, have merely “co-opted” environmentalism. But that would imply that the goal of global warming scaremongering was something other than “destroying capitalism” in the first place. At this point I now know that destroying capitalism has always been the goal; the only thing that changed on Sunday is that the mask was dropped.)

This proof will necessarily entail posting a lot of photographs; in situations like this, the only way to conclusively demonstrate a point is through repetition of evidence. One could summarize the evidence with a few shorthand images, but that would leave open the possibility that the case was being overstated. To quash that counter-argument before it arises, I will post lots and lots and lots and lots of images from all over the rally, from the sponsors, to the attendees, to the booths, to the speakers, to show beyond any doubt that the entire rally was thoroughly saturated with communism and socialism to the point where these ideologies were the overarching theme of the event.

Ready? All the photos below were taken at the People’s Climate Rally in Oakland on September 21, 2014.
As you enter the rally you encounter booths hosted by Socialist Action, a Trotskyist/Marxist group…
…and the Communist Party USA, a Marxist-Leninist political party who like to think of themselves as the communists, since they’ve been around for almost a century…
…and the Revolutionary Communist Party USA, a Maoist political cult devoted to overthrowing the United States in a total revolution.

Along the way, you encounter the rally’s attendees, carrying signs advocating concepts like…
…”eco-socialism,” which I nominate as “word of the day,” since the theme of the rally was the fusion of ecology with socialism.
“Another Big, Fat, straight, Midwestern, White Man for WORLD REVOLUTION.”
“Capitali$m is Destroying the Environment.”

Do I even need to point out that socialist and communist countries like China, the Soviet Union, North Korea and elsewhere have absolutely appalling environmental histories, past present and future, which far exceed in ecological destruction anything encountered in capitalist societies? No, I don’t need to point that out, because you already know it. You do — but apparently the people at this rally live in a fantasy world where “socialism” is the opposite of “pollution.”
“Capitalism is Killing the Planet. FIGHT FOR A SOCIALIST FUTURE!” This same message from the International Socialist Organization, a self-professed Marxist/Leninist/Trotskyist revolutionary group, was also prominent at the New York climate march.

If you enter the rally from the other side, you encounter
The Socialist Alternative, one of the few socialist parties to actually have a member elected to public office in mainstream society…
…The Democratic Socialists of America, a comparatively mild-mannered group who want to make America communist via peaceful democratic transition instead of the violent revolution advocated by most other extreme left revolutionary parties….
…and Freedom Socialist, a lesser-known group who nonetheless managed to gain control of the coveted “socialism.com” URL which they use to promote their radical feminist version of communism in “the living tradition of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky.”

Many of these Marxist, communist and socialist groups, by the way, were official sponsors of the event. They weren’t hangers-on — they helped to organize the rally.
Children were encouraged to hang out in the protest’s kid-friendly zone, where they could draw their own signs promoting “revolution.”

Had enough? Sorry. I apologize. Because we’re just getting started with the proof that communists dominate the narrative of the climate change movement.

Everywhere I turned, I encountered people with the message, “System Change, Not Climate Change.” If anything, this was the motto of the entire rally.

Anyone Who Believes We Are In A Climate Catastrophe, I Think Is Deluding Themselves”…Dr. Caleb Rossiter

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming

Climate Statistics Professor Dr. Caleb Rossiter of American University: ‘Obama has long been delusional on this issue. Anyone who believes we are in a climate catastrophe I think is deluding themselves.’

Rossiter on his conversion to a climate skeptic: ‘You are very isolated on the Democratic Party on the left — one is, I am — for having this conclusion of analysis…I would say since 2004 I’ve been very lonely. I’ve been lonely working on the Hill for the Democratic Party.’

 Rossiter on Gore’s film: ‘I think it’s a wonderful teaching tool because it shows how we don’t do science. Gore’s irresponsible.’

On Gore winning the Nobel: ‘Worst Nobel Prize for peace since Henry Kissinger.’

Rossiter: ‘My blood simply boils too hot when I read the blather, daily, about climate catastrophe. It boggles the mind that I could be certain that I know what caused a half degree rise in the last hundred fifty years. It’s simply not large enough to find a physical cause.’

By: – Climate DepotSeptember 23, 2014 12:29 AM with 8 comments

Climate Depot Exclusive

As President Obama attends the UN Summit climate summit in New York City, a fellow member of his Democratic Party, who is also a scientist, is publicity renouncing the Presidents climate change claims as “delusional.” Rossiter reversed his view on man-made climate change and now says belief in a climate catastrophe is “simply not logical.”

Climate Statistics Professor Dr. Caleb Rossiter of American University, is an outspoken anti-war activist, has a flawless progressive record on a range of political issues – and he is a climate skeptic.  Rossiter is a former Democratic congressional candidate and he campaigned against U.S. backed wars in Central America and Southern Africa.

In an exclusive interview for the upcoming documentary Climate Hustle, Rossiter, an adjunct professor in American University’s Department of Mathematics and Statistics, explained how he converted his views from accepting to challenging the so-called “consensus” on climate change after examining the scientific evidence.  Rossiter has taught courses in climate statistics and holds a PhD in policy analysis and a masters degree in mathematics. (Note: The upcoming climate documentary will reveal how politically progressive scientists and other former warmists are now challenging the “consensus” claims of man-made global warming. See: Watch Now: Morano on TV (humbly) promotes new climate film: ‘We are going to have the greatest climate documentary of al-l-l-l-l ti-i-i-ime!’)

“If we had this interview ten years ago, I would have said I never thought about climate and I assumed all the scientist’s reporting and telling a president and a prime minister in England are right,” Rossiter explained. (Note: Rossiter was joined this week by one of President Obama’s own scientists in expressing skepticism on global warming. See: Obama’s Own Scientist Runs Cold on Warming – Outs Himself as a Skeptic! – Physicist Dr. Steven E. Koonin, Undersecretary for Science during Obama’s first term and former professor of theoretical physics at Caltech)

Fired for ‘Diverging’ on Climate: Progressive Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd calling global warming ‘unproved science’

When Rossiter called global warming “unproved science” in a Wall Street Journal OpEd in May 2014, he found that his credentials as a long-time progressive could not trump his climate skepticism. He was immediately terminated due to his ‘diverging’ climate views from his 23 year fellowship at the liberal group Institute for Policy Studies. See: Fired for ‘Diverging’ on Climate: Progressive Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd calling global warming ‘unproved science’

Rossiter, whose research has focused on the construction of climate models and the statistical evidence of extreme weather,  started to suspect that climate-change data was what he termed “dubious” 10 years ago while teaching statistics at American University.

“So, doubling carbon dioxide, the higher you get, the less effect you get.  So logically, in a complex system, like atmosphere, you’re going lot of feedbacks that you don’t have much forcing at a certain point.  We really don’t know. It’s very hard to model, models are run way past their usefulness, because they are tuned,” Rossiter explained.

As a progress anti-war Democrat, Rossiter has found his climate skepticism ostracized him.

“I would say since 2004 I’ve been very lonely. I’ve been lonely working on the Hill for the Democratic Party. I thought I was the only person in the room with all my colleagues and all the members of Congress on our foreign affairs committee who held these views about the weakness of the data on climate change and the need to keep Africa developing,” he said.

Obama is ‘delusional’ on climate change

Rossiter has declared: “My blood simply boils too hot when I read the blather, daily, about climate catastrophe.”

“Obama has long been delusional on this issue,” Rossiter declared.

“Anyone who believes we are in a climate catastrophe I think is deluding themselves,” he explained.

He mocked President Obama’s claim that his Presidency will slow the rise of the oceans.

“So when President Obama says, ‘this will be the time that the water started to recede because I’m elected’, that reminds me of King Canute — who took all his advisers to the shores of England and said ‘see how powerful I am? Tell the waters to go out’ and the tides were coming in,” Rossiter said.

Rossiter is disgusted by the way political leaders have portrayed climate science.

“I find it irresponsible, but I find that’s what politicians do, try to seize onto one cause and show the other effect without looking at the other possible intervening variables that’s what we do all the time,” Rossiter said.

Excerpts of Rossiter’s interview adapted from the upcoming Climate Hustle documentary (set for early 2015 release):

As a man of the political Left, Rossiter has felt lonely with his climate skepticism.

“You are very isolated on the Democratic Party on the left — one is, I am — for having this conclusion of analysis — I don’t call it a belief because I feel that I am analyzing — and you’re very isolated in the conservative circles if you believe as Newt Gingrich did for a very brief period that you need to have carbon trading to control this threat,” Rossiter told Climate Depot’s Marc Morano in the interview.

Rossiter bristles when asked about Al Gore and his film “An Inconvenient Truth.”

“Worst Nobel Prize for peace since Henry Kissinger,” Rossiter declared.

Rossiter gives Gore’s film a failing grade in science.

“I think it’s a wonderful teaching tool because it shows how we don’t do science,” he explained.

“Gore’s irresponsible. He pretends carbon dioxide is driving temperature when temperature is driving carbon dioxide. He does all these crazy things, he vilifies people. He does nothing different, from what the president of our country, president Obama, advised by John Holden, the top scientist in the county does every day,” he said.

Rossiter sees Al Gore as a political centrist.

“I had battled Mr. Gore so much in the 1980’s. He is a Dixie — he is part of the Democratic Leadership Council, conservative on foreign policy, as proved by his opposition to us in all these issues,” Rossiter explained.

Rossiter chastised his colleagues on the political Left for “hopping into bed” with Gore when it comes to climate change.

“I know why the left is supporting Al Gore on this when they didn’t on anything else, it’s because it give them the lever to move away from an industrial society to what they call a postindustrial society,” he said.

Progressive using global warming issue to ‘dismember the carbon-driven capitalism’

Rossiter says the political Left in the U.S. is using climate fears to achieve a “welcome license to dismember the carbon-driven capitalism.”

“They want to use the concern about the climate catastrophe is what they called Archimedes  giant lever to move away from industrialization toward this postindustrial non-fossil fuel, non-corporate world,” he said.

Rossiter dismisses CO2 as the climate control knob.

“We always, as humans, are looking for cause-and-effect but it’s extremely difficult to find a complex system like the Earth’s climate of over thousands years,” he explained.

“It boggles the mind that I could be certain that I know what caused a half degree rise in the last hundred fifty years. It’s simply not large enough to find a physical cause,” he said. (Note: Other scientists agree. See: Top Swedish Climate Scientist Says Warming Not Noticeable: ‘The warming we have had last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all’)

Rossiter had harsh words for the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC and its claim that they were 95% certainty of human caused climate change.

“When the IPCC uses words like very likely, like 95% likely or somewhat like, about 90% — that’s an alarm bell for people who know statistics. We never use those words — 95% certainty — unless we have a standard deviation and we are estimating how often we get within two standard deviations of the mean. That’s the nature of statistics,” he explained.

When Rossiter called global warming “unproved science” in a Wall Street Journal OpEd, he found that his credentials as a long-time progressive could not trump his climate skepticism. He was immediately terminated due to his ‘diverging’ climate views from his 23 year fellowship at the liberal group Institute for Policy Studies. See: Fired for ‘Diverging’ on Climate: Progressive Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd calling global warming ‘unproved science’

“At the Institute of Policy Studies I was obviously very lonely because nobody would debate me and finally fired me for having an article in Wall Street Journal,” Rossiter said.

“Two days later I was handed my walking papers from 23 years association with that think tank,” he added.

“They felt that it was best that I’ve been terminated because my views on African development and climate change and climate justice were divergent from theirs. So I’m willing to express my opinions and have them come out. This is the first time I’ve expressed an opinion that was alien to the left,” he said.

Rossiter says the left has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to dissent on global warming.

“One item out of everything that is the agenda for the institute policy studies I’ve expressed disagreement with and I’m gone,” he noted.

Rossiter’s failure to follow his colleagues on the Left on the claims of global warming has left him isolated.

“What we are supposed to do as professors is follow the data to our conclusion, and then put it out there to be debated,” he explained.

But his colleagues refuse to debate global warming.

“I have been invited the Union of concerned scientists, Greenpeace, Institute for policy studies, random members of Congress who I knew I worked up there on the Hill, to come to my classes to A.U. to debate — they simply refused,” he said.

Rossiter says refusal to debate is part of a strategy.

“There was an agreement among the groups who believe strongly that there’s the catastrophic climate change not to debate, and not to engage in a debate because it gives a credit to those of us who have questions about the certainty which they operate,” he said.

“It is absolutely true that the money available for global warming statements and research is driving academia right now and people line up to get it. I know it from scientists. I know it’s absolutely true,” he noted.

“But it’s nothing new. If you were here 100 years ago and I was in the psychology department, I’d be telling you about the science of craniology – that black people are stupider than white people, that West Europeans are smarter and more creative than Eastern Europeans — and this is called phrenology,” he said.

“And all the data and statistics that they could line up supported it, and everybody believed it. And anybody outside phrenology didn’t believe it. Academia is no different from anywhere else. We wimp out when we are under pressure; we do,” Rossiter said.

More Rossiter quotes appearing in Climate Hustle:

Rossiter pressure in academia to conform on global warming: “It is deadly to your career to be a young dissenter. But a young person, I can tell you by being here on the campus, if you’re in the sciences and environmental studies you are going to be seen as such a kook (if you are a climate skeptic). It will definitely hurt you. See, I don’t care! I don’t give a monkey’s uncle. I’m old enough that I’m just going to say what’s on my mind. I’ll get by, but if I were early in my career, I know that I would be tagged as a kind of crazy, extremist, denialist, and it would hurt my academic career; there’s no question about it.

Rossiter on IPCC: For the IPCC to say nothing else can explain (global warming except mankind’s CO2) is the opposite of what we do in science. We are trying to test the known hypothesis that there is no effect to anthropogenic warming. And in order to do that, you have to have data that removes all the other causes — factors out all the other elements, and isolate yours. It is simply not true; it is simply not true that you can only model how temperature has changed from 1850 to today using a doubling of carbon dioxide levels.  I can model it for you with baseball statistics from that same period, if you give me enough time to scrub the models.

Related Links: 

Another Prominent Scientist Dissents! Fmr. NASA Scientist Dr. Les Woodcock ‘Laughs’ at Global Warming – ‘Global warming is nonsense’ Top Prof. Declares

Green Guru James Lovelock on Climate Change: ‘I don’t think anybody really knows what’s happening. They just guess’ – Lovelock Reverses Himself on Global Warming

More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

Top Swedish Climate Scientist Says Warming Not Noticeable: ‘The warming we have had last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all’ – Award-Winning Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of UN IPCC: ‘We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified’

‘High Priestess of Global Warming’ No More! Former Warmist Climate Scientist Judith Curry Admits To Being ‘Duped Into Supporting IPCC’ – ‘If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic’

German Meteorologist reverses belief in man-made global warming: Now calls idea that CO2 Can Regulate Climate ‘Sheer Absurdity’ — ‘Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us’

UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report – Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

‘Some of the most formidable opponents of climate hysteria include politically liberal physics Nobel laureate, Ivar Giaever; Freeman Dyson; father of the Gaia Hypothesis, James Lovelock — ‘Left-center chemist, Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the fathers of the German environmental movement’

Flashback: Left-wing Env. Scientist Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement: Declares it a ‘corrupt social phenomenon…strictly an imaginary problem of the 1st World middleclass’

Visiting With Prime Minister Harper…

/ 1957chev / 3 Comments

Another step forward, in my fight to protect our children….

Meeting with the Prime Minister, was a very exciting experience.  In person, you see the true warmth and caring, in his personality.  He has a wonderful sense of humour, and is very easy to speak with!   Now that we have met, I can begin the process, of sharing my information, and seeking his assistance!  The Provincial Liberals have not made any avenues available, to protect our children, or citizens of any age, from wind turbines being placed too close to their homes, and in fact, are denying the negative effects, their wind projects are having on people.  We need to look for help, Federally, because this is indeed, a health issue.  One more step forward!   Shellie Correia

Meeting with the Prime Minister...

Meeting with the Prime Minister…

Nothing Clean, or Green, about Industrial Wind Turbines!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Clean Energy’s Dirty Secrets

By Rupert Darwall
September 23, 2014 3:00 AM
Renewable energy has become a potent rallying cry uniting Hollywood and the Beltway. “We can move our economy town by town, state by state to renewable energy and a sustainable future,” Leonardo DiCaprio says in his eight-minute climate movie Carbon, released in August. In his fiscal-showdown speech during his first term, in April 2011, President Obama put Paul Ryan’s proposals for a 70 percent cut in clean energy at the top of his list of reprehensible and unnecessary reductions. “These aren’t the kind of cuts you make when you’re trying to get rid of some waste or find extra savings in the budget,” he said. “These are the kinds of cuts that tell us we can’t afford the America that I believe in and I think you believe in.”

In May of this year, President Obama declared the shift to clean energy a “fight” that was about shaping the sector “that is probably going to have more to do with how well our economy succeeds than just about any other.” At least on that, the president was right. If we get energy wrong, America will throw away the world-leading energy advantages bestowed on it by geology, technology, and capitalism.

Presenting the administration’s Clean Power Plan, EPA administrator Gina McCarthy admitted it was not about pollution control. “It’s about investments inrenewables and clean energy,” she told the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in July. “This is an investment strategy.” The president’s favorite corporate-tax inverter has a different take on the nature of the investment opportunity. “We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms,” Warren Buffett told Berkshire Hathaway’s investors. “That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.” While wind investors hoover up the $23 production tax credit per megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity produced, the real costs of intermittent renewables such as wind and solar are many times greater. And they’re not even good at what they’re meant to do — reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Deriving a large proportion of energy from renewables is proving extremely costly for Germany. Last year, Peter Altmaier, then the energy and environment Minister and now one of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s closest advisers, said that Germany’s effort to decarbonize electricity generation could cost one trillion euros by the end of the 2030s. Not that you would necessarily see that from Germany’s carbon dioxide emissions. Despite lower economic growth in Germany than in the U.S., German emissions have been rising seven times faster — up 9.3 percent between 2009 and 2013 compared with 1.3 percent for the United States.

Indeed, renewable energy provides a textbook case of what the French 19th-century economist Frédéric Bastiat meant when he described the difference between a bad economist and a good one: The bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen. The visible effect of renewables is their use of “free” wind, sun, and running water. All that’s needed to transition from a world of dark, satanic power stations to a clean, low-carbon world are temporary subsidies until renewable power becomes competitive. Hailing the closure of nuclear-power plants in the Midwest due to a glut of wind power, Howard Learner of Chicago’s Environmental Law and Policy Center last year declared: “It’s a matter of economic competitiveness.” This is the story told by Bastiat’s bad economists.

The closure of a nuclear-power station shows that something is amiss. Nuclear-power stations emit no carbon dioxide. Their running costs are low and much of the costs are unavoidable whether the stations are kept open or closed — construction and commissioning at the front-end, de-commissioning at the back. Since 2008, the output of America’s nuclear-power stations has fallen by 0.480 billion MWh, a decline of 6 percent. In a properly functioning market, this shouldn’t be happening.

Advocates of renewables are getting excited about falling costs of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels. According to the Department of Energy (DoE), PV costs have fallen by two thirds since 2010 and the cost of solar-generated electricity has fallen from $21.4 per MWh in 2010 to $11.2 per MWh in 2013, leading the DoE toclaim that solar will be “fully cost-competitive” by the end of the decade.” A growing number of Bastiat’s “good” economists have been looking behind the visible costs of renewables. They reveal a very different picture. A 2010 paper by MIT professor Paul Joskow, a leading economist in the field, shows why the DoE’s cost-competitiveness claim is thoroughly misleading. Using levelized costs (life-cycle costs per MWh) to assess the economics of intermittent energy gives the wrong answer because they ignore the changes in the value of electricity throughout the day and the costs of coping with unpredictable renewable energy.

To the life-cycle cost of renewables must be added short-term balancing and longer-term-capacity adequacy to match supply to demand. Because renewables output depends on the weather, an electricity system with a high proportion of renewables needs much more generating capacity. Without renewables, Britain would need 22GW of new capacity to replace aging coal and nuclear-power stations. With renewables, Britain will need 50GW, i.e., 28 GW extra to deal with the intermittency problem. And the more renewables in the system, the worse the problem is. A 2012 analysis by the OECD illustrates the problems caused by the increase in cost due to the increasing scale of wind and solar power. For onshore wind with 10 percent penetration (meaning that wind supplies 10 percent of the energy in that market), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) estimates extra balancing and adequacy costs of $7.61 per MWh rising to $11.14 per MWh at 30 percent penetration.

Levelized costs also ignore extra spending on grid infrastructure. Texas is the leading wind state, accounting for nearly 22 percent of the nation’s wind-generated electricity.  Transmitting electricity from wind farms in the rural north and west of the state to cities such as Dallas and Houston caused grid congestion. The state decided to have consumers back the inaptly named Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ) grid program to give wind investors a windfall subsidy in the form of access to nearly 3,600 miles of transmission lines. Subsidies via grid infrastructure spending can be more costly than overt plant-level subsidies. Bill Peacock and Josiah Neeley of the Texas Public Policy Foundation reckon that CREZ costs attributable to wind amount to $6.8 billion. This compares to plant-level subsidies of $4.14 billion in the ten years between 2005 and 2015.

Perhaps the dirtiest secret of renewables is how ineffective they are at displacing carbon dioxide emissions. Brookings senior fellow Charles Frank has calculated that replacing coal with modern combined-cycle gas turbines cuts 2.6 times more emissions than using wind does, and cuts four times as many emissions as solar.  If anything, these figures are likely to be too generous to renewables. Frank uses conservative assumptions about the energy consumed for balancing and cycling (starting up or shutting down gas-fired plants). Based on recent research, Edinburgh University’s Professor Gordon Hughes found that balancing costs are nearly ten times higher than Frank’s assumptions and that cycling reduces the amount of CO2 up to 50 percent more than wind turbines do (relative to the classic grid-average method of calculation used by most official bodies such as the International Energy Agency).

The most insidious and destructive effect of renewables, however, is on the wholesale electricity markets. Intermittent renewables, particularly wind, can flood the market at random times of day with zero marginal-cost electricity. The production tax credit means that renewable investors make money from negative prices down to minus $23 per MWh. Episodes of negative prices are evidence of an electricity market that isn’t working. They imply that what is being produced is garbage — someone has to be paid to take the electricity away.

Negative prices crush incentives to invest in the conventional capacity needed to keep the power on when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. The OECD report warns that gas, coal, and nuclear-power stations would experience lower electricity prices, reduced load factors, and higher costs because of intermittent renewables. To avoid the risk of “green outs” caused by inadequate investment in conventional and nuclear capacity, governments and regulators have to intervene and construct capacity markets to redress the distortion created by renewables. These don’t come cheap. In the case of Texas, the Brattle Group estimates that a capacity market would cost Texans an extra $3.2 billion a year.

Unseen system costs highlight a critical flaw in the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. With the exception of Texas, electricity systems cross state boundaries. Yet the EPA’s approach, in the words of Gina McCarthy, is to provide states with a flexible path toward compliance. One state’s mandates affect all the other states served by the same system, so the impacts of renewables are on systems, rather than states. Thus the EPA approach risks sparking energy wars between states, illustrating the cluelessness of the EPA and the dangers of allowing an environment agency to craft energy policy. Already North Dakota has refused to co-fund the costs of Minnesota’s renewable energy mandate, which is costing North Dakotans an extra $5.7 million a year. Yet for the EPA to recognize the systems costs of renewables would be to destroy any objective justification for them.

The bad economist, Bastiat wrote, pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil. Across the Atlantic, the calamity of renewable energy is becoming more visible each day. It will not be only good economists who see that imitating Europe would be a colossal blunder.

— Rupert Darwall is the author of The Age of Global Warming: A History.