Why Wynne Pushes Wind…..Follow the Money Trail!

October 12, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Wind Industry Welfare: How Crony Capitalism Drives the Great Wind Power Fraud

October 12, 2015 by stopthesethings

‘Wind PTC Action Hub’: Time to End Energy Cronyism
Master Resource
Robert Bradley Jr.
9 October 2015

“Without the PTC, any mandated wind generation would be an even bigger political problem because its cost inflation would be exposed. The wind-is-competitive-with-fossil-fuels hyperbole would be refuted in real time.”

Congress enacted the Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) in 1992 as a temporary measure for an “infant” industry.

Decades and nine extensions later, it is time to eliminate the PTC.

Subsidized wind power inflates electricity costs, compromises taxpayers, and destabilizes the electric grid (wind-generated electricity is intermittent).

The huge tax credit allows pricing that ruins the economics of steady, conventional generation sources. Wind power, indeed, is the perfect imperfect energy.

The PTC It is most beneficial to wealthy wind developers who are able to reduce their tax rate at the expense of the rest of us. It is past time to end corporate welfare for this mature, and in their own words,competitive, wind industry.

Obama Needs the PTC

President Obama and the EPA’s aggressive regulation of existing power plants amounts to a federal takeover of the electricity system. One of the goals of this regulation is to shift electricity from affordable and dependable sources like coal toward expensive and unreliable sources like wind. (On-grid solar does the same thing.)

Without the PTC, any mandated wind generation would be an even bigger political problem because its cost inflation would be exposed. The wind-is-competitive-with-fossil-fuels hyperbole would be refuted in real time.

Extending the Wind PTC helps Obama/EPA get away with this phase of their forced energy transformation. It is past time to let wind producers stand on their own merit.

In short, a vote for the PTC is a vote for the President’s federal energy takeover.

To this end, the American Energy Alliance has launched a Wind PTC Action Hub. Yesterday’s press release follows:

WASHINGTON — Today, the American Energy Alliance launchedwww.EndWindWelfare.org—a resource and activist hub aimed at eliminating the wind Production Tax Credit (PTC).

With this new tool, which includes a legislative tracker and an action center, AEA will encourage lawmakers to support efforts to end this taxpayer-funded handout. One feature of the hub is a video illustrating how the PTC is tied to President Obama’s new carbon dioxide regulation.

The goal of this regulation is to shift electricity generation from affordable and dependable sources like coal toward expensive and unreliable sources like wind. Obama’s plan will unavoidably raise electricity rates – hurting poor and middle class families the most. But without the PTC, mandating industrial wind power is a much more difficult task, as wind power needs handouts to survive.

Thus, Congress can take meaningful action against the Obama’s administration’s anti-energy agenda by eliminating the PTC. Watch the video below:

****

The hub’s legislative tracker shows which representatives have publicly taken a stand against the PTC, allowing Americans to thank their elected leaders for opposing this handout, or hold them accountable for supporting wind welfare.

Our action center will also serve as a resource for policymakers and activists by providing recent reports, blog posts and ongoing advocacy efforts on the PTC.
Master Resource

In Australia, exactly the same forces are at work, driven by wind industry plants inside Environment Minister, Greg Hunt’s office, like Patrick Gibbons – who just happens to be very best mates with Vesta’s little darling, Ken McAlpine.

One of STT’s operatives recently stumbled across a cache of documents – recording a mass of work done by Gibbons, McAlpine and Miles George – of near-bankrupt wind power outfit, Infigen – back then known as Babcock and Brown. This mountain of documents – including internal memos, emails, press releases and presentations given to their political targets, like then Labor leader, Mark Latham – detail efforts by the trio to downplay any likely obstacles to their plans; and to blow the claimed ‘benefits’ of Babcock and Brown’s wind farms – and a planned Vesta’s blade manufacturing plant – out of all proportion with the truth.

Babcock and Brown’s investors, shareholders and creditors all ended up more than just a little worse for wear (to the tune of about $10 billion) as a result of precisely that kind of spin-doctoring shenanigans (see our post here).

In recent times, Gibbons is still working overtime to protect the wind industry by, among other skulduggery, rigging the terms of reference for the new wind farm commissioner in his benefactors’ favour; and appointing one of their own – a former renewable industry crony – as the commissioner.

Gibbons was also in there stacking the expert panel on wind farm noise emissions with hand-picked wind industry pets, like Kym Burgermeister – a noise ‘expert’ who has been defending his wind industry clients in the usual way for years.

Gibbon’s efforts to ‘fix’ it for his wind industry mates, by derailing the work done by the Senators on the Inquiry into the great wind power fraud, has left the Senate Cross-benchers – including STT Champion, David Leyonhjelm – furious.

Wind farm watchdog’s powers ‘not enough’ for crossbench senators
The Australian
Graham Lloyd
10 October 2015

The federal government has been accused of “reneging” on its commitment to crossbench senators regarding the powers of a scientific panel established to monitor wind turbine noise and health.

Australia’s renewable energy industry has promised to co-operate with a new wind farm commissioner and independent scientific committee appointed yesterday to handle complaints, and provide advice on health concerns and low frequency noise monitoring.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the appointments honoured a deal between the government and crossbench senators after a long Senate committee investigation earlier this year.

But senator David Leyonhjelm, who was on the committee, said the government had fallen short of its promise made to ensure passage of its renewable energy target legislation.

“I welcome the appointments of both the wind commissioner and the members of the expert scientific panel,” Senator Leyonhjelm said. “However, Minister Hunt has substantially strayed from the commitment he gave to crossbench senators on 23 June in the terms of reference for the expert scientific panel released today.

“Mr Hunt has reneged on his commitment, and it is difficult to see how the crossbench will be able to believe any of his undertakings in future.”

Crossbench senators had expected the panel to have greater investigatory powers.

But under the terms of reference the committee’s role will be to “improve science and monitoring of the potential impacts of sound from wind turbines (including low frequency and infrasound) on health and the environment’’. It will provide advice on the development of Australian methodologies and frameworks in sound measurement and standards for wind farms, including in the field of infrasound and low frequency sound.

Mr Hunt appointed Andrew Dyer as National Wind Farm Commissioner for three years. Mr Dyer is a former chairman of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman Council and has worked in the renewable energy industry.

The independent scientific panel will be chaired by RMIT adjunct professor Jon Davy.
The Australian

Patrick Gibbons has been the captain of crony wind industry capitalism inside the (purportedly) Conservative Coalition; and has fought tooth-and-nail to ensure that the most colossal industry subsidy scheme in the history of the Commonwealth – that will cost all Australian power consumers $3 billion a year in higher power prices – all of which will be directed to Gibbon’s wind industry mates – is maintained:

Out to Save their Wind Industry Mates, Macfarlane & Hunt Lock-in $46 billion LRET Retail Power Tax

Thankfully, Australian banks and power retailers aren’t having a bar of it:

Let the Sun Shine In: Australia’s BIGGEST Power Retailer Determined to Kill Wind Power

Wind Industry Still Wailing About ‘Uncertainty’ as Australian Retailers Continue to Reject Wind Power ‘Deals’

Which means that Gibbons’ plans to destroy Australia’s economic future, on behalf of his mates at Infigen & Co, will eventually come to a shuddering halt:

Australia’s Most Notorious Wind Power Outfit – Infigen – Blames $304 Million Loss on the WIND

Wind Power ‘Investors’ Cut & Run from Australia as Ponzi Scheme Implodes

Any policy that is unsustainable – as America’s PTC and Australia’s LRET most clearly are – will inevitably collapse under its own weight; or be ignominiously scrapped by those that created it. And that is a fact of economic and political life.

Ontario has a Reputation…..for having a Messed Up Electricity System.

October 10, 2015 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

Canada’s Wind Power Debacle: $Billions Wasted with CO2 Emissions to Double

October 10, 2015 by stopthesethings 2 Comments

Ontario is the place where the most bizarre energy policy in the world has seen thousands of these things speared into the backyards of homes – in the most agriculturally productive part of Canada. When we say “bizarre” we mean completely bonkers.

Canada has one of the “cleanest” power generation mixes on the planet, with the vast bulk of its electricity coming from zero emissions sources such as nuclear and hydro.

Adding to the lunacy is the fact that wind power outfits are guaranteed to reap fat profits despite market conditions.

Where the wholesale market price for power in Ontario is between $30-50 per MWh, wind power generators pocket a fixed price of $135 MWh – even if there is absolutely no market for it and the Province literally has to pay neighbouring US States to take it.

Then there’s the guff about wind farms ‘saving’ the environment.

The central, endlessly repeated lie (upon which the great wind power fraud rests) is that increasing wind power generation results in decreases in CO2 emissions.

The ONLY claimed justification for wind power – that has no commercial value – apart from the subsidies that it has attracted – is that these things will ‘save’ the planet by ‘killing’ coal and gas – allowing us to go ‘fossil free’ and slash CO2 emissions to a zephyr. Well, that’s what were told ….

Now, to add insult to massive economic injury, the fact that wind power cannot – and will never – reduce CO2 emissions in the electricity sector has been rumbled in Ontario, too.

Wind energy claim that it’s clean not true in Ontario context
The Observer
Santo Giorno
25 September 2015

The wind energy lobby, the provincial government and the mainstream environmental groups continue to claim that wind-generated electricity is “clean” and therefore “good for the environment” (Sarnia Observer, Sept. 23, Turbines rising in Lambton).

This claim is simply not true in the context of Ontario’s electricity sector.

With every megawatt-hour of wind-produced electricity accepted into the Ontario grid, the province is in fact substituting electricity that produces an average of 40 kg CO2 per megawatt-hour (from gas turbines operating ONLY during peak demand) with electricity that produces an average of 200 kg CO2 per megawatt-hour (from gas turbines that MUST operate whenever the wind stops blowing).

If the provincial government continues to promote wind energy, as outlined in their 2013 Long Term Energy Plan, the increasing amounts of wind-generated electricity will cause CO2 emissions from Ontario’s electricity sector to double between 2016 and 2032.

These are the findings in an annual report titled “Ontario’s Electricity Dilemma” by the two Ontario engineering societies – the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE) and the Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO). Available here: Ontario’s Electricity Dilemma – Achieving Low Emissions at Reasonable Electricity Rates

The latest edition, published in April 2015, can be found here:http://www.ospe.on.ca/?page=pres_lib#peo

The CO2 emission numbers were calculated using published data from the grid’s system operator, the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO).

These two engineering societies are not against renewables like wind energy. Their report contains a number of suggestions on how the province can better integrate renewable energy sources into the grid.

The increase in CO2 emission results directly from the government’s decision to give wind-generated electricity first access to our grid regardless of demand, regardless of the fact that our current generating capacity is 30 per cent above base load demand, regardless of the fact that because wind electricity is intermittent, only gas-powered generating plants ramp up fast enough to maintain grid stability, regardless of the fact that clean energy with zero CO2 emission – hydro and nuclear – is being dumped.

Let’s look at what this means locally. Suncor’s 100 MW Cedar Point project has an annual real capacity of about 30 MW because the wind doesn’t always blow; so it will produce about 262,800 megawatt-hours of electricity in one year.

This amount of electricity from our other sources – nuclear/hydro/gas – would result in the yearly emission of 10,500 metric tons of CO2.

The same output from Suncor’s Cedar Point project will result in yearly emissions of 52,560 metric tons of CO2 emission because additional gas-generated electricity is required. This is an INCREASE of 42,000 metric tons of CO2 each year for the next 20 years. Had this project not been built, the environment would be cleaner by that amount.

Our two engineering societies should be commended for producing this report. It reminds us that the provincial government has never undertaken a financial cost/benefit analysis, or an environmental cost/benefit analysis of its Green Energy Act; and so it continues with a program that has enormous financial and social costs; a program that will actually increase CO2 emissions and worsen the effects of climate change.
The Observer

We note The Observer’s concerns about ‘climate change’.

Of course, the climate “changes” – change is endogenous to the model. Whether that change is significant or “dangerous”, as the most strident hysterics would have us believe, is yet to be seen. Humans have tolerated severe ice ages and, somehow, miraculously managed to survive. If the planet warms, as we’ve been lately warned, STT is pretty confident we will survive that too: it’s called “adaptation” – a feature of humanity, oft referred to as “ingenuity”.

However, in the main, we leave the topic of global warming or climate change (whichever is your poison) to others.

STT takes the position that man-made emissions of CO2 may increase atmospheric temperatures. But we don’t concede that wind power has made – or is even capable of making – one jot of difference to CO2 emissions in the electricity sector; principally because it is NOT – and will never be – an ‘alternative’ to conventional generation systems, which are always and everywhere available on demand:

The Wind Power Fraud (in pictures): Part 2 – The Whole Eastern Grid Debacle

STT seeks to completely disconnect claims for and against global warming, and wind power generation.

As wind power can only ever be delivered (if at all) at crazy, random intervals it will never amount to a meaningful power source and will always require 100% of its capacity to be backed up 100% of the time with fossil fuel generation sources; in Australia, principally coal-fired plant. As a result, wind power generation will never “displace”, let alone “replace” fossil fuel generation sources.

Contrary to the anti-fossil fuel squad’s ranting, there isn’t a ‘choice’ between wind power and fossil fuel power generation: there’s a ‘choice’ between wind power (with fossil fuel powered back-up equal to 100% of its capacity) and relying on wind power alone. If you’re ready to ‘pick’ the latter, expect to be sitting freezing (or boiling) in the dark more than 60% of the time.

Wind power isn’t a ‘system’, it’s ‘chaos’ – the pictures tell the story: this is the ‘output’ from every wind farm connected to the Eastern Grid (based in NSW, VIC, TAS & SA – and with a combined installed capacity of 3,669MW) during May.

From The Observer’s observations, the wind has about the same level of reliability in Ontario, as elsewhere. With the cost running into the hundreds of $billions; and nothing to show for it, power punters in Ontario could be forgiven for feeling like they’ve been fleeced.

Rural Dweller Want to Run the Windpushers out of Town!!

October 6, 2015October 6, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Democracy in Action: Vermonters Vent Fury at Planned Wind Power Project

October 6, 2015 by stopthesethings Leave a Comment

****

Remember all those glowing stories about wind power outfits being welcomed into rural communities with open arms? You know, tales about how farmers are dying to have turbines lined up all over their properties? How locals can’t wait to pick up some of the thousands of permanent,high paying jobs on offer? How developers are viewed with the kind of reverence reserved for Royalty?

No?

We’ve forgotten them too.

It’s ‘outrage’ that’s become the order of the day. With the wind industry facing growing and increasingly hostile hordes, their teams of community ‘liaison’ officers have taken to literally thumping their message home, setting the muscle on to old-age pensioners and disabled farmers:

Wind Industry Belting its ‘Message’ Home: Trustpower’s Thugs Assault 79-Year-Old Pensioner & Disabled Farmer

It’s a sure sign that the wind industry’s ‘game’ is lost.

Pro-(real)farming, pro-family, pro-community and pro-(real)power groups have an air of ascendancy now; they’re angry, they’re organised, and they aren’t about to be taken for fools any longer. Here’s another example of people fighting back against the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time.

Vermont town set for protest vote against wind turbines
Vermont Watchdog
Bruce Parker
1 October 2015

IRASBURG, Vt. — The ongoing clash between Vermonters and Big Wind is set for a slugfest Thursday night as Irasburg residents will attempt a protest vote against two 500-foot wind turbines to be sited atop the ridgeline of nearby Kidder Hill.

In a special Selectboard meeting at 6:30 p.m. at Irasburg’s Town Hall, voters will cast ballots to answer the following question: “Shall Kidder Hill, or any other ridgelines of the town of Irasburg, Vermont, be used for development by industrial wind turbine projects?”

A no vote would be a setback for David Blittersdorf, whose Kidder Hill Community Wind company plans to construct the 5-megawatt electricity-generating towers to provide power for approximately 2,100 homes in the area.

“We have 421 signatures opposing this project,” said Ron Holland, a local resident, and member of the Irasburg Ridgeline Alliance, which led a petition drive against the turbines.

Holland, who helped expose broad opposition to the project, said a no vote would launch a sustained revolt by residents who are determined to protect local ridgelines.

“It will send a very clear message to the administration of the state of Vermont, and to Mr. Blittersdorf, that he can expect total noncooperation from the citizens of Irasburg.”

While Blittersdorf has yet to present his plan to regulators at the Public Service Board, the green energy mogul told a meeting of Addison County Democrats in June that Vermonters can expect wind turbines on one-third of Vermont’s ridgelines as part of the state’s goal to become 90 percent renewable-powered by 2050. A YouTube video of the meeting went viral across Vermont.

Residents who oppose the project say unsightly turbines would negatively affect property values and generate unhealthy amounts of noise in the community. Holland said he’s equally concerned by the sale of Vermont’s ridgelines to developers whose biggest supporters are well-funded politicians.

“This is an alliance between state interests and business interests that excludes towns in the decision-making process. This is being foisted on us and we have no say,” Holland said, referring to the town’s lack of authority to block energy projects.

“The policies that have been developed are a textbook example of crony capitalism. There are far less expensive, far less polluting, far less destructive options available that don’t make money for the people that control Vermont utilities. But they haven’t been considered.”

Asked for evidence of a state-business alliance, Holland said Blittersdorf is a major donor to Gov. Peter Shumlin, House Speaker Shap Smith and Joint Energy Committee Chair Rep. Tony Klein.

Blittersdorf did not return Watchdog’s request for comment. However, the green energy CEO is scheduled to give a speech defending Kidder Hill Community Wind prior to the vote.

Wind turbine opponents also have politicians in the fight.

State Sen. John Rodgers, D-Essex/Orleans, who represents Irasburg and other towns in the Northeast Kingdom, is a vocal critic of unregulated siting of renewable energy projects.

“The Northeast Kingdom has become the dumping ground for every ill-conceived, poorly sited renewable energy project the developers can dream up,” Rodgers said in a news release. “Environmental and energy issues are real, but we know that there are far more effective ways to address them without ruining the quality of life that defines us as Vermonters.”

Rodgers is a rare Democrat. Given that the state’s Democratic legislative majority overwhelmingly supports industrial scale renewables, blocking controversial wind turbines rests with local citizens.

For Irasburg residents like Rebecca Boulanger, it’s the feeling of powerlessness that has stoked the flames of anger in the small town.

“Here in Vermont, where we’re known worldwide for our town-meeting democracy, it is inconceivable that a decision with so many irreversible consequences for our citizens would be made without regard for the democratic process,” she said.

But for Holland, who said he expects a win Thursday night, protecting Vermont’s pristine ridgelines is simply about being a good neighbor.

“If your neighbor’s house is on fire, you go and help put it out. These people’s homes are going to be destroyed in terms of what happens in the environment around there, and so the neighbors are coming to the rescue.”
Vermont Watchdog

What was forecast by the community defenders themselves was realised at the meeting that took place a few nights later; where 96% of voters made plain their outright hostility to the great wind power fraud. No surprises there!

What was surprising is how the Editor of the local rag reported on the community’s clear expression of outrage.

Over the last few years, the media’s attitude and approach to the wind industry has ranged from fawning acquiescence to foaming eco-fascism.

In the former guise, journos would simply parrot the propaganda handed to them by wind power outfits, their parasites and spruikers: recounting complete fictions such as this project “will power 200,000 homes, save gazillions of tonnes of CO2 and all for free”. The resultant gushing drivel, arising from the combination of the scribes’ inherent laziness and infantile gullibility.

At the extreme end of the spectrum were journalists that attacked anyone with the temerity to challenge the Wind Gods; and the infallibility of the high priests that faithfully serve them.

Now, however, journalists too, have worked out the fickle nature of the Wind Gods; and that the wind industry’s high priests have all the credibility and moral fibre you’d expect from deranged cult leaders – of the same class as Jim Jones and David Koresh:

Vesta’s Ken McAlpine Forced to Apoligise to Dr Sarah Laurie for …. well, just being ‘Ken’

Wind Industry’s Propaganda King – Simon Chapman Forced to Apologise to Dr Sarah Laurie for False & Malicious Taunts

In the early days, newspaper editors took the deluded and warm and fuzzy view that everyone simply loves wind power to bits.

Now that community defenders – in places like Vermont and Rye Park in New South Wales – have joined forces and shown that the great majority would, rather than hugging them, simply love to blow these things to bits, newspapers have, for obvious commercial reasons, sided with the great majority. It’s pretty hard to sell newspapers thumping wind industry propaganda to a population, where 90% have worked out that the wind power pitch is utter bunkum.

Instead, newspapers are calling the wind industry for what it is: the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time.

Here’s an example from The Caledonian Record, as it recounts the backlash against wind power and Vermont and slaughters the developer’s high-handed arrogance, lies, treachery and deceit.

Editorial: Blowing Blittersdorff Away
The Caledonian Record
3 October 2015

On Thursday night hundreds of people packed into the Irasburg Town Hall to tell renewable energy developer David Blittersdorf they don’t want his industrial wind towers in their town. Out of 285 voters, 274 said “NO” to wind development in town.

Dr. Ron Holland, the town’s moderator, also presented a folder of petitions to the select board, signed by 481 voters, asking the select board to take a formal stand against wind development. Dr. Holland also spoke about a formal organization formed to challenge Blittersdorf’s plan — the Irasburg Ridgeline Alliance — and reasons for their opposition. Among them: the health effects of living near towers, the effect on property values, aesthetics, and their utter failure to reduce carbon emissions.

Blittersdorf didn’t attend the meeting but sent a strongly worded email that we translated to say — “I believe in renewable energy, I know what my property rights are, and I don’t care what Irasburg thinks.”

Blittersdorf has gotten filthy rich on renewable energy subsidies and mandates. In fact, he’s had a hand in writing many of the rules and laws that benefit his companies directly. Nobody in Vermont, that we know of, has gotten richer from gaming the rigged system than Blittersdorf. He knows how to cash in both as a developer and as a manufacturer of renewable energy systems.

He says he’s on a crusade to save the world. But anyone as involved in green energy as Blittersdorf is knows that the small benefit of wind energy can’t ever justify their overall inefficiency or heavily subsidized expense.

He knows wind projects are a bad fit for Vermont’s climate, make no sense economically, and yield zero impact on net carbon footprint.

He knows, because of well-known and understood transmission and infrastructure limitations, the New England grid operator has to limit the amount of power it can absorb from Vermont’s boutique projects.

He knows that taxpayers and ratepayers are getting fleeced at every turn of the turbine.

He knows that there aren’t “green jobs” associated with power generation.

He knows that after a quarter decade, and billions of tax subsidies through the wind Production Tax Credit, that wind farms aren’t competitive anywhere in the United States.

He knows that his developments are irreconcilable with the spirit, and the letter, of Act 250 land protections.

He knows wind tax credits (as one critic explained) “are nothing more than a cost imposed on all taxpayers in order to accommodate development of a politically well-connected, high-priced, low-value resource that cannot meet our electric capacity needs.”

He knows most of the state’s carbon footprint derives from vehicles and heating our homes in winter. As such, expensive and inefficient wind projects yield no meaningful effect on aggregate carbon emissions.

He knows wind energy is notoriously intermittent and unreliable, requiring fossil-fuel powered backup plants when the wind doesn’t blow.

He knows Shumlin’s grand plan that calls for Vermont’s energy use to come from 90 percent renewable sources by 2050 is not only unachievable, but the tax subsidies that it will require in the intervening failed effort to reach it will cost Vermont taxpayers an unforgivable and unsustainable fortune.

He knows wind is only a winner for developers – earning tax credits, naked subsidies, and guaranteed (fixed) consumption by ratepayers.

He knows wind projects distort energy markets and require such intensive energy to develop that nobody believes them to actually be “green.”

He knows, despite his invocation of property rights, that wind development is the ultimate zoning issue and has enormous impact on surrounding communities.

He knows that those communities are being torn apart by bad public policy, big government subsidies and a misguided pursuit of “green energy.”

Of course Blittersdorf knows all of this. What he might not know is that Northeast Kingdom residents won’t suffer fools. And they’ve gotten better over the years, and from hard experience, at protecting themselves from predatory developers.

Everyone now understands that this isn’t about the environment or global warming. It’s a naked money grab.

And we all stand with Irasburg in saying bureaucrats, investors and hotshot energy lobbyists shouldn’t have more say about what happens in our communities than the people actually living here.
The Caledonian Record

Winning this war involves winning skirmishes and battles: house by house, village by village and town by town.

Education is the key; facts the key weapon.

The endless lies tossed up by the wind industry and its parasites just don’t wash anymore: these days, people are switched on to the fraud; and angry for having been taken for gullible country bumpkins.

Once reasonable people are introduced to the facts about the insane costs of intermittent and unreliable wind power they cease to support it.

When they learn of the senseless slaughter of millions of birds and bats, and the tragic suffering caused to hard working rural people by giant fans, reasonable people start to bristle.

But when they learn that – contrary to the ONLY “justification” for the $billions filched from power consumer and taxpayers and directed as perpetual subsidies to wind power outfits – wind power INCREASES CO2 emissions in the electricity sector – rather than decreasing them, as claimed – their attitude stiffens to the point of hostility to those behind the fraud and those hell-bent on sustaining it.

In our travels we’ve met plenty of people that started out in favour of wind power and turned against it. But we’ve yet to meet anyone who started out opposed to wind power, who later became a supporter. Funny about that.

Present the facts to reasonable people – and they’ll want to know how the scam got started in the first place and why it hasn’t been stopped in its tracks already?

Once communities and their newspapers turn against the great wind power fraud, they’ll never turn back.

Get angry, get organised and make some noise. These are your homes, your families and your communities. Fight them; and they will flee.

Brits Beginning to Hold Wind Pushers Accountable!

October 2, 2015 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

Brits to Force £2 Wind Power Outfits to Hold £Millions in Reserve to Pay Damages to Victims & for Decommissioning

August 26, 2015 by stopthesethings

***

In a stunningly brilliant legislative move, David Davis MP recently introduced a Bill in UK’s Parliament which will allow Britons to enforce judgments against wind power outfits; and which will ensure the removal of these things when they grind to an inevitable halt within the next decade or so – whether because the massive subsidies they run on are chopped; or because they have flamed out; rusted out; thrown their blades to the four winds; or have simply collapsed in heaps.

The standard corporate structures used by wind power outfits involve a parent company – like Infigen, say – usually as a holding company, with a subsidiary, which usually takes on the name of the wind farm (threatened or realised), such as Cherry Tree Wind Farm Pty Ltd (a wholly owned subsidiary of Infigen – going nowhere, thanks to its inability to obtain a Power Purchase Agreement).

The subsidiary is lumbered with all the current debts and other liabilities, which are loaded up in such a way as to exceed its assets (as long as the wind farm is operating, the parent sees that sufficient cash flushes through the subsidiary for it to remain technically solvent, at least in the short term).

In the event that a creditor pursues the subsidiary for any substantial claim, the parent (or related holding company) simply sits back and watches its subsidiary wind up in insolvency; leaving the creditor(s) without so much as a penny to pinch. Infigen has done it all before, back when it was called “Babcock and Brown”.

Among the class of creditors seeking to recover, are wind farm neighbours who successfully sue the windfarm operator (ie the subsidiary company) and who obtain a substantial award of damages for nuisance.

In David Davis’s speech below, he refers to the case of Julian and Jane Davis who successfully obtained a £2 million out of court settlement from a wind farm operator, for noise nuisance; and the resultant loss of property value (the home became uninhabitable due to low-frequency noise, infrasound and vibration).

The Particulars of Julian and Jane Davis’ Claim are available here: Davis Complaint Particulars of Claim

And Jane Davis’ Statement (detailing their unsettling experiences and entirely unnecessary suffering) is available here: davis-noise-statement

So, the next time you’ve got some wind industry parasite mouthing off that there has never been a successful claim against a wind power outfit, simply flick them a link to this post.

The other reason for setting up £2 subsidiary companies (in Australia referred to as $2 companies) of little or no real value, is to avoid (by winding up in insolvency) liability to clean up the mess after the rort is all over and done with.

***

While planning authorities often talk about obtaining what are called “decommissioning bonds”, whatever promises are made, are given by the subsidiary (not the parent), which is designed to have no assets available to cover the cost of decommissioning; whenever that inevitable event takes place. Hence, the thousands of wind turbines scattered all over California and Hawaii, left rusting as monuments to our political betters’ collective stupidity (see our post here).

To avoid that event, David Davis introduced the “Public Nuisance from Wind Farms (Mandatory Liability Cover) Bill”, which is to be voted on sometime next month. Here’s David’s speech as he introduces the Bill – video and then audio (Hansard – Transcript follows).

***

****

Audio Player

00:00

Public Nuisance from Wind Farms (Mandatory Liability Cover) Bill
David Davis
21 July 2015
House of Commons Hansard

Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con): I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring a Bill to require the Secretary of State to make provision about obligations on wind farm operators in respect of financial cover for potential liabilities arising from cause of public nuisance; and for connected purposes.

Wind farms are contentious. Some argue passionately that they are a great public good and the solution to global warming while others equally passionately believe they are a waste of money. This Bill takes no side in that debate. It is narrowly defined to one aspect of public interest; it requires the operators of wind farms, who are in receipt of £797 million of public subsidy a year, to organise their affairs so that they are able to meet the costs of any nuisance imposed on people living near them.

In 1995 the World Health Organisation recommended that to prevent sleep interruption low frequency noise should not exceed 30 decibels. However, in 1996 the Government’s Energy Technology Support Unit—ETSU—set the noise limit for wind turbines at 43 decibels. That is an enormous difference; on the logarithmic decibel scale it is approximately double the WHO limit. We still use those standards today.

In the last five years no planning application was refused on noise-related grounds, but there have been 600 noise-related incidents arising from wind farm operations. The majority of complaints arise as a result of amplitude modulation, which is the loud, continuous thumping or swishing noise regularly described by those living near wind farms.

Numerous studies have identified that sleep is disturbed on a regular basis even at distances over 1 km away from turbines, yet under the ETSU standards turbines can be installed just 600 metres away from residential property. The wind farm companies are acutely aware of this, and all the more so since a member of the public, Jane Davis, sued a wind farm near her home for noise nuisance. The matter was settled out of court, and there is a gagging order preventing us from knowing the details, but the settlement is rumoured to have been in the region of £2 million.

Since this case, some dubious measures have been taken by the industry to obstruct perfectly legitimate claims for nuisance. The use of shell companies in the wind industry seems to be the commonest trick. The parent company provides a loan to a specially created subsidiary to set up the wind farm, then leaves it in control of operations. The subsidiary’s balance sheet typically comprises the wind farm physical assets, but they are more than offset by a very large loan from the parent company, with a resulting net liability. Profits from energy generation and large amounts of public subsidy are siphoned off to the parent company. The subsidiary is left as a financial shell, with very few liquid assets and total liabilities greater than total assets. That makes it impossible to bring litigation against a wind farm, simply because there is nothing to win from them. As such companies have negative net assets, even liquidating them would generate no cash to pay either damages or a legal bill.

One of my constituents bought his house in my constituency to enjoy a quiet retirement with his wife. After living there for more than a decade a 10-turbine wind farm was built near the house. The closest windmill is just over 600 metres from his home. He was assured at the planning stage that the wind farm would not trouble him, yet he has suffered the misery of regular noise and turbine blade flicker which has rendered his home almost unliveable. The low frequency noise from the turbines easily penetrates the double glazing. The couple have had to change bedrooms in order to sleep, but even so the persistent noise from the wind farm has taken its toll on his wife’s health; she now suffers heart palpitations and is prescribed anti-depressants on a permanent basis by her doctor.

My constituent, fearing his retirement has been ruined and his home thoroughly devalued, attempted to use his legal insurance to claim for nuisance from the wind farm operators. While there was a good chance of success in court, the company’s finances were organised so that there was no realistic prospect of recovering either damages or the legal costs of bringing the case. That being so, his insurers would, quite understandably, not cover his legal costs. That is despite the fact that the eventual owner of the wind farm is AES, a multibillion dollar international company involved partly in renewables but largely in coal and gas, that paid its chief executive $8.4 million last year. It laughably claims in its annual report to be a “World’s Most Ethical Company”.

It is not alone in its hypocrisy. In March I raised this disreputable practice with Falck Renewables, prospective operators of a wind farm near my own village in my constituency. I asked it whether it was going to do the same. It did not reply.

My constituents have no way to recover the tranquillity of the lives that they thought they were going to enjoy when they first moved to rural Yorkshire. They can neither sell their house nor get any financial recompense to enable them to afford to move, so they are trapped in this misery.

My point is a simple one. My constituents are just individual representatives of a situation that is repeated up and down the country. Wind farm companies must be adequately capitalised so that there can be a reasonable prospect of financial success for prospective litigants whose way of life they have damaged.

It is not only the noise that is a nuisance, of course. When the sun is low in the sky behind a turbine it creates a “strobe effect” which can be harmful to health and wellbeing, and there are also now concerns that some wind farms could be abandoned at the end of their operational lifespan, creating another sort of visual blight, this time in perpetuity.

The simple solution that I propose in this Bill is to require wind farm-operating companies to hold enough cash in hand to manage a legal case at any time, and in addition a financial bond—a guarantee, or insurance policy—as a security against potential liabilities, including all public nuisance and final decommissioning costs.

Any wind farm that fails to do that should lose its right to subsidy—which, as I said, amounted to £797 million in one year for the industry.

This would ensure that citizens could reasonably sue when they suffer damage, but, just as importantly, it would be a strong incentive for the companies to operate wind farms in such a way as to avoid public nuisance, which is causing great distress in some cases, and would mean that when the turbines are decommissioned there is money or insurance to cover the cost of clearing the wind farm, avoiding a situation whereby the local council has to pick up the bill.

Whatever our stance on onshore wind, companies in receipt of public subsidy should be required to meet their public responsibilities. This measure seeks to ensure that the big wind farm companies can truly be held liable when they are at fault and gives families the protection they deserve. I beg to move.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Mr David Davis, supported by Chris Heaton-Harris, Tom Pursglove, John Mann and Jim Shannon, present the Bill

Mr David Davis accordingly presented the Bill

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be presented (Bill 62).

Public Nuisance from Wind Farms (Mandatory Liability Cover) Bill

Corruption in the Wind Industry, is NO secret!

October 1, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

US Justice Dept Takes on Wind Power Outfits’ Bribery & Corruption

October 1, 2015 by stopthesethings

****

Lies, treachery and deceit are the hallmarks of the wind industry – fraud of all manner of descriptions is de rigueur for wind power outfits; and whether it’s bribery and fraud; vote rigging scandals; tax fraud; investor fraud or REC fraud – crooks and corruption rule.

These boys are the grand masters of fleecing customers andshareholders; and hood-winking rural communities alike – see our postshere and here and here.

Bribery is standard practice; deployed to get unwilling locals and venal council members on-side:

UK Wind Industry Turns to Bribery as it Fails to “Win Brit’s Hearts & Minds”

However, as anger turns to fury, not only are rural communities refusing to be bought off with trinkets and blankets, they’ve called the wind industry’s efforts to ‘grease’ the wheels of ‘democracy’ for precisely what it is: corruption. Much to the wind industry’s horror.

Wind energy projects opponents try new tactic
The Whig: Kingston Whig-Standard
Elliot Ferguson
20 September 2015

DENBIGH — A group fighting proposed wind energy projects in Lennox and Addington County filed a complaint with the United States Justice Department against the project’s American parent companies.

The complaint was filed earlier this month by John Laforet of the public relations firm Broadview Strategy Group Inc. and supported by the group Bon Echo Area Residents Against Wind Turbines (BEARAT).

The complaint alleged that Florida-based NextEra Energy and Colorado-based Renewable Energy Systems Americas violated the United States’ Foreign Corrupt Practices Act when their Canadian subsidiaries offered financial compensation in exchange for resolutions of municipal support.

“I was taken fairly aback by the money-for-votes approach that both NextEra and RES Canada took when dealing with councils,” said Laforet, who was president of Wind Concerns Ontario from 2000 to 2011.

“Unlike community benefit or vibrancy agreements that exist elsewhere in Ontario, these are being negotiated as a condition of a support resolution which will then benefit the proponent in receiving a contract from the provincial government.

“It’s no longer a goodwill measure, its a transaction. Money for support.”

The U.S. Department of Justice declined to comment about Laforet’s complaint.

Steve Stengel, a spokesperson for NextEra Energy Canada, said in an email to the Whig-Standard that the Justice Department complaint will not stand up to scrutiny.

“The claims of Mr. Carruthers and Mr. Laforet are completely without merit,” Stengel said. “NextEra Energy, Inc. and its affiliates work tirelessly to ensure that all contracts with local municipalities, entities, and individuals fully adhere to all Canadian and U.S. laws.”

Peter Clibbon, senior vice-president with RES Canada, said in an email that the company has not received a copy of the complaint.

“As a matter of policy, the company does not comment on pending litigation,” he said.

Provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibit officials with American companies from making “payments to foreign government officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business.”

Laforet said that law should apply to American companies’ Canadian subsidiaries.

Protests and petitions by community groups across Ontario have failed to prevent wind energy projects from being built, said Ashby Lake resident Dan Carruthers, co-chair of the Bon Echo Area Residents Against Wind Turbines.

The Justice Department complaint is an effort to try something that hadn’t been tried before, he said.

“What we wanted to do was stay on step ahead of the proponents,” he said.

“We need to have a very novel approach to this problem, something that hasn’t been tried, something that will put these proponents off guard but is going to be effective.”

Carruthers said the complaint is meant to make the projects too unattractive for the Independent Electricity System Operator to approve.

“We want to make the North Frontenac-Addington Highlands proposals stink so much, just so toxic from a political and public relations point of view, that they are just going to say ‘We don’t want to touch this, we’re just going to stick it to the bottom of the pile. There are easier ones to pick,’” Carruthers said.

A community benefits package are fairly common with large renewable energy projects like these, said Queen’s University geography professor Warren Mabee, and are a good way to compensate the community and give residents a sense of ownership.

But Mabee said the justice department complaint is a tactic that he has never seen from an anti-turbine group.

“It could get very sticky,” said Mabee, director of Queen’s University’s Institute for Energy and Environmental Policy. “In all likelihood this is totally innocent and it is just a strategy by the companies to drive these projects forward with as few bumps as possible but it may backfire on them.”

Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator in the coming months is to award about 565 megawatts of new renewable energy contracts, including 300 megawatts of wind energy.

IESO spokesperson Alexandra Campbell said there are certain mandatory requirements that companies must meet in order for an application to be considered, including holding a public meeting and making sure local residents are informed about the project.

Community benefit agreements are not considered part of the mandatory process, she said.

“In terms of the project proponents’ discussions or engagements with either individuals or the municipality, we don’t have rules or are involved in those,” Campbell said.

“If a proponent and a municipality have met, talked about needs or there have been agreements, that is not something we are a part of. We sort of say ‘Do you have community support? Show us the documentation.’ And that is kind of the end of our role.”

NextEra and RES-Canada are among more than 40 companies approved to bid for the renewable energy contracts from the Ontario government.

RES-Canada is proposing to build 170-megawatt Denbigh Wind LP and NextEra Energy Canada is proposing its 200-megawatt Northpoint II project in Addington Highlands Township.

According to the minutes of the June 15 township council meeting, Stephen Cookson of RES-Canada told councillors the company would provide $25,000 in bursaries, $30,000 a year during development and an ongoing community benefit fund of $2,000 per megawatt in the project.

In a June 5 presentation to council, a delegation from NextEra Energy Canada told councillors the company would offer annually $1,750 per megawatt produced.

Both companies asked for a resolution of support from council, which would strengthen their applications to the Independent Electricity System Operator.

Addington Highlands Township council voted 3-2 in favour of supporting both projects on July 20.
The Whig

Renewables are “Novelty Energy”. Nuclear Power is Clean, and Can Do the Job!

September 30, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Aussie Nuclear Industry: “renewables won’t get us across the line”

Eric Worrall

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The nuclear industry has announced plans to lobby the Australian government, to advocate nuclear power as an affordable, practical alternative to renewables.

According to The Guardian;

The Australian Nuclear Association (ANA) will accompany Danny Roderick, chief executive of the leading US nuclear technology firm Westinghouse, to talk to government ministers and business leaders in Canberra and Sydney next week.

Roderick said nuclear power could help produce “clean, reliable, affordable electricity for more people”.

“We’d like to help Australia explore ways to create jobs and economic opportunity that are also good for the environment,” he said.

…

“My concern is that renewables won’t get us across the line in terms of emissions reduction,” said Rob Parker, the president of the ANA. “Nuclear is more reliable and it has a smaller resources footprint than renewables.

“Until we approach the issue of carbon abatement honestly, we won’t replace coal because it is the cheapest fuel we have. Nuclear is dead until we acknowledge carbon abatement is the main issue. We already pay a premium for renewables but we need to go further or we’ll just keep burning coal.”

In my opinion, the last thing Australia needs is any form of new energy infrastructure investment, except where driven by economic demand. In one decade, Australia went from paying one of the cheapest electricity rates in the world, to paying some of the most expensive rates in the world, thanks largely to government green energy initiatives.

If Australia’s newly greened government is determined to waste taxpayer’s money on CO2 emissions reduction, nuclear power at least has the advantage that it works. You can convert a modern economy to nuclear power without ruining it. France for example,generates around 75% of their electricity from nuclear power.

By contrast, spending money on renewables is unlikely to deliver any value whatsoever. According to a report produced by top Google engineers, major scientific advances would be required to make renewable energy useful.

Wind Power Generation….as Fickle as the Weather!

September 30, 2015 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

US Wind Power Outfits Curse ‘El Niño’ for Massive & Mounting Losses

September 30, 2015 by stopthesethings

****

STT has likened it to the great corporate Ponzi schemes, pointing out, just once or twice, that the wind industry is little more than the most recent and elaborate effort to fleece gullible investors, in a list that dates back to “corporate investment classics”, like the South-Sea Bubble and Dutch tulip mania.

In the wind industry, the scam is all about pitching bogus projected returns (based on overblown wind “forecasts”) (see our posts here andhere and here and here); claiming that wind turbines will run for 25 years, without the need for so much as an oil change (see our posts hereand here and here); and telling investors that massive government mandated subsidy schemes will outlast religion (see our posts here andhere and here).

In Britain, Wind Prospect Group has stopped paying dividends to its bond holders and has prevented them from cashing them in to recover their capital outlay:

Got Money in the Great Wind Power Ponzi Scheme? Then, Grab it & Get Out Now!

In Australia, one of the wind industry’s BIG players – Pacific Hydro – managed to rack up an annual loss of $700 million, last year; in circumstances where the subsidy scheme – on which its profits depend – hadn’t changed at all (see our post here).

Also in Australia, so-called ‘community wind farm’ operators have taken thousands for dupes, with wild claims about whopping profits to be had – all while ‘saving the planet’, of course:

Wind Power ‘Investors’ Cut & Run from Australia as Ponzi Scheme Implodes

At the heart of every great Ponzi scheme sits the “excuse”. Ploys, such as asking shareholders and creditors for “patience” – as the overblown, promised returns (surprise, surprise) fail to materialize.

And the scammers will happily toss up any other pitch capable of stalling those about to be fleeced, while the scheme’s organisers get ready to flee with their loot. The more scurrilous adding some gleeful touch to their pleas for ‘patience’, such as “don’t call us, we’ll call you”; or “the weather’s especially nice this time of year in [insert name of tropical paradise, with no Australian/American extradition treaty]”, say?

Over the last few months, the wind industry – facing calamitous financial results – has taken to blaming – of all things – the weather. Yep, that’s right it’s all the wind’s fault:

Australia’s Most Notorious Wind Power Outfit – Infigen – Blames $304 Million Loss on the WIND

Wind Power Ponzi Scheme Running Out of Puff

In America, US wind power outfits have taken to cursing El Niño – a naturally occurring phenomenon – that has seen winds slacken and losses mount among wind power outfits in the US. The delicious irony appears to be lost on the Neanderthals that people the wind industry, as this little article demonstrates.

El Niño Buffers US Wind Power ‘Dreams’
Wall Street Daily
Tim Maverick
21 September 2015

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) made it official last week. The current El Niño is classified as a strong event.

An El Niño falls into the “strong” category if weekly sea surface temperatures depart from the average by more than two degrees Celsius.

In fact, this El Niño has nudged ahead of the 1997 El Niño as the strongest in the modern era!

Meteorologists believe this occurrence is actually the most potent since 1948. And it’s expected to persist through winter and into spring.

Every El Niño’s effects are different. At the moment, this one is having a surprisingly negative effect on the wind power industry in the United States.

A Little Too Quiet

You see, this occurrence of El Niño has produced the weakest winds across the United States in 40 years. Forecasters say this situation will continue and may even worsen through the spring of 2016.

This might not seem like such a big deal, at first. Wind isn’t a huge part of our country’s power generation, right? Not so fast.

Wind is no longer just a mere marginal source of power for the electric industry. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, wind power installations in the United States surged 800% last year. Our country is now the second largest user of wind power technology, behind only China.

Wind accounted for 4.4% of U.S. power generation in 2014. That’s up from just 1.9% five years ago. In some states, wind makes up an even larger chunk of power generation. Wind provides nearly 10% of electricity production in Texas and 7% in California.

The overall effect of these calm conditions is that electric output from U.S. wind farms fell by 6% in the first half of this year. That happened despite wind power capacity rising by 9%.

Overall, U.S. wind farms operated at only about a third of their total generating capacity in the first half of 2015.

An Ill Wind for Some Utilities

The lack of wind has had very real effects on some utilities, and also on some yieldcos.

These include the likes of NextEra Energy (NEE), NextEra Energy Partners (NEP), NRG Energy (NRG), NRG Yield (NYLD), Pattern Energy (PEGI), and even Duke Energy (DUK).

It’s a serious matter for these firms. The CEO of NRG Energy, David Crane, told analysts last month, “We never anticipated a drop-off in the wind resource as we have witnessed over the past six months.”

Even the rating agency Standard & Poor’s is weighing in. After downgrading some wind farm bonds, S&P stated, “Although our current expectation is that the wind resource will revert back to historical averages, at this time it is unclear when this will happen.”

It’s already been a tough 2015. Year to date, NEE is 10 % lower, PEGI fell 16.5%, DUK is down 18%, NEP fell 23%, NRG is down 31.5%, and NYLD is down a whopping 69%.

Of course, utilities have been hit by the rising interest rate expectations. But the lack of strong breezes in the United States has given a little tailwind to the downside for the wind power-related stocks.

Obviously, El Niño will eventually subside and wind patterns across the country will return to normal.

But until then, the wind power generation industry in the United States will continue to suffer. Shareholders in the wind-related yieldcos and utilities will continue to take a battering for an unknown amount of time.

Maybe they can somehow tap into the hot air generated by opponents of President Obama’s Clean Power Plan. They’re having a field day right now with the Plan’s heavy reliance on fickle breezes.

Good investing, Tim Maverick
Wall Street Daily

It’s a ‘fickle’ thing; to be sure. The picture above tells the woeful – weather driven – story of the performance during June 2015 of all wind farms connected to Australia’s Eastern Grid: with a combined capacity of 3,669MW – spanning 4 States and a geographical expanse of 632,755 km² – an area which is 2.75 times the combined area of England (130,395 km²) Scotland (78,387 km²) and Wales (20,761 km²) of 229,543 km². ‘Impressive’, don’t you think?

However, for the wind industry to air its dirty laundry in public demonstrates just how gormless these boys are.

You see, the whole subsidy-fuelled rort runs on “belief”.

“Belief” that a wholly weather dependent power generation source can provide meaningful electricity around the clock.

Until recently, the wind industry, its parasites and spruikers have maintained the line that the “wind is always blowing somewhere” and is, therefore, able to provide baseload power; “powering” millions of homes for “free”. The more deluded among them claiming that it can do so at prices even cheaper than the cheapest of all, coal-fired power (for a trip to fantasy-land tap into the nitwits over at ruin-economy).

But, now that bankers, investors and creditors have worked out that their debts and investments are in the hands of the Wind Gods – the scammers have been forced to come clean and admit that they have just about as much control over their financial situation, as they have over the weather. Funny about that.

Government-Induced Climaphobia Based on Faulty, Inaccurate Computer Climate Models.

September 29, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Home Current NewsTime To Stop The Insanity Of Wasting Time and Money On More Climate Models?

SEP

TIME TO STOP THE INSANITY OF WASTING TIME AND MONEY ON MORE CLIMATE MODELS?

Written by Dr Tim Ball, Climatologist on 28 Sep 2015

Nearly every single climate model prediction, projection or whatever else they want to call them has been wrong. Weather forecasts beyond 72 hours typically deteriorate into their error bands. The UK Met Office summer forecast was wrong again. broken computer

I have lost track of the number of times they were wrong. Apparently, the British Broadcasting Corporation had enough as they stopped using their services. They are not just marginally wrong. Invariably, the weather is the inverse of their forecast.Short, medium, and long-term climate forecasts are wrong more than 50 percent of the time so that a correct one is a no better than a random event.

Global and or regional forecasts are often equally incorrect. If there were a climate model that made even 60 percent accurate forecasts, everybody would use it. Since there is no single accurate climate model forecast, the IPCC resorts to averaging out their model forecasts as if, somehow, the errors would cancel each other out and the average of forecasts would be representative.

Short term climate forecasts no better than the Old Farmers Almanac

Climate models and their forecasts have been unmitigated failures that would cause an automatic cessation in any other enterprise. Unless, of course, it was another government funded, fiasco. Daily weather forecasts are improved from when modern forecasting began in World War I. However, even short term climate forecasts appear no better than the Old Farmers Almanac, which appeared in 1792, using moon, sun, and other astronomical and terrestrial indicators.

I have written and often spoken about the key role of the models in creating and perpetuating the catastrophic AGW mythology. People were shocked by the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), but most don’t know that the actual instructions to “hide the decline” in the tree ring portion of the hockey stick graph were in the computer code. It is one reason that people translate the Garbage In, Garbage Out (GIGO) acronym as Gospel in, Gospel Out when speaking of climate models.

I am tired of the continued pretense that climate models can produce accurate forecasts in a chaotic system. Sadly, the pretense occurs on both sides of the scientific debate. The reality is the models don’t work and can’t work for many reasons, including the most fundamental; lack of data, lack of knowledge of major mechanisms, lack of knowledge of basic physical processes, lack of ability to represent physical mechanisms like turbulence in mathematical form, and lack of computer capacity.

Bob Tisdale summarized the problems in his 2013 book Climate Models Fail. It is time to stop wasting time and money and put people and computers to more important uses.The only thing that keeps people working on the models is government funding, either at weather offices or in academia. Without this funding computer modelers would not dominate the study of climate.

Without the funding, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could not exist. Many of the people involved in climate modeling were not familiar with or had no training in climatology or climate science. They were graduates of computer modeling programs looking for a challenging opportunity with large amounts of funding available and access to large computers.

The atmosphere and later the oceans fit the bill. Now they put the two together to continue the fiasco. Unfortunately, it is all at massive expense to society. Those expenses include the computers and the modeling time but worse the cost of applying the failed results to global energy and environmental issues.

Let’s stop pretending and wasting money and time. Remove that funding and nobody would spend private money to work on climate forecast models.

I used to argue that there was some small value in playing with climate models in a laboratory, with only a scientific responsibility for the accuracy, feasibility, and applicability. It is clear they do not fulfill those responsibilities. Now I realize that position was wrong. When model results are used as the sole basis for government policy, there is no value.

It is a massive cost and detriment to society, which is what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was specifically designed to do.The IPCC has one small value. It illustrates all the problems identified in the previous comments. Laboratory-generated climate models are manipulated outside of even basic scientific rigor in government weather offices or academia, and then become the basis of public policy through the Summary for Policymakers (SPM).

Another value of the IPCC Physical Science Basis Reports is they provide a detailed listing of why models can’t and don’t work. Too bad few read or understand them. If they did, they would realize the limitations are such that they preclude any chance of success. Just a partial examination illustrates the point.

Data

The IPCC people knew of the data limitations from the start, but it didn’t stop them building models.In 1993, Stephen Schneider, a primary player in the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis and the use of models went beyond doubt to certainty when he said,“Uncertainty about important feedback mechanisms is one reason why the ultimate goal of climate modeling – forecasting reliably the future of key variables such as temperature and rainfall patterns – is not realizable.”A February 3, 1999, US National Research Council Report said,“Deficiencies in the accuracy, quality and continuity of the records place serious limitations on the confidence that can be placed in the research results.”

To which Kevin Trenberth responded,

“It’s very clear we do not have a climate observing system….This may come as a shock to many people who assume that we do know adequately what’s going on with the climate, but we don’t.”

Two Directors of the CRU, Tom Wigley, and Phil Jones said,“Many of the uncertainties surrounding the causes of climate change will never be resolved because the necessary data are lacking.”

70% of the world is oceans and there are virtually no stations

The Poles are critical in the dynamics of driving the atmosphere and creating climate yet there are virtually no stations in 15 million km2 of the Arctic Ocean or for the 14 million km2 of Antarctica. Approximately 85% of the surface has no weather data.

The IPCC acknowledge the limitations by claiming a single station data are representative of conditions within a 1200km radius. Is that a valid assumption? I don’t think it is.

But it isn’t just lack of data at the surface. Actually, it is not data for the surface, but for a range of altitudes above the surface between 1.25 to 2 m and as researchers from Geiger (Climate Near the Ground) on show this is markedly different from actual surface temperatures as measured at the few microclimate stations that exist.

Arguably US surface stations are best, but Anthony Watts diligent study shows that only 7.9 percent of them accurate to less than 1°C. (Figure 1) To put that in perspective, in the 2001 IPCC Report Jones claimed a 0.6°C increase over 120 years was beyond a natural increase. That also underscores the fact that most of the instrumental record temperatures were measured to 0.5°C.

tball fig 1

Other basic data, including precipitation, barometric pressure, wind speed, and direction are worse than the temperature data. For example, in Africa there are only 1152 weather watch stations, which are one-eighth the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) recommended minimum density.

As I noted in an earlier paper, lack of data for all phases of water alone guarantees the failure of IPCC projections.The models attempt to simulate a three-dimensional atmosphere, but there is virtually no data above the surface.

The modelers think we are foolish enough to believe the argument that more layers in the model will solve the problem, but it doesn’t matter if you have no data.

Major Mechanisms

During my career as a climatologist, several mechanisms of weather and climate were either discovered or measured, supposedly with sufficient accuracy for application in a model. These include, El Nino/La Nina (ENSO), the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), the Antarctic Oscillation (AAO), the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), Dansgaard-Oeschger Oscillation (D-O), Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO), Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD), among others.

Milankovitch Effect not included in IPCC models

Despite this, we are still unclear about the mechanisms associated with the Hadley Cell and the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ), which are essentially the entire tropical climate mechanisms. The Milankovitch Effect remains controversial and is not included in IPCC models.

The Cosmic Theory appears to provide an answer to the relationship between sunspots, global temperature, and precipitation but is similarly ignored by the IPCC.

They do not deal with the Monsoon mechanism well as they note,“In short, most AOGCMs do not simulate the spatial or intra-seasonal variation of monsoon precipitation accurately.”There is very limited knowledge of the major oceanic circulations at the surface and in the depths. There are virtually no measures of the volumes of heat transferred or how they change over time, including measures of geothermal heat.

Physical Mechanisms

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

That comment is sufficient to argue for cessation of the waste of time and money. Add the second and related problem identified by Essex and McKitrick in Taken By Storm and it is confirmed.

Climate research is anything but a routine application of classical theories like fluid mechanics, even though some may be tempted to think it is. It has to be regarded in the “exotic’ category of scientific problems in part because we are trying to look for scientifically meaningful structure that no one can see or has ever seen, and may not even exist.“In this regard it is crucial to bear in mind that there is no experimental set up for global climate, so all we really have are those first principles.

You can take all the measurements you want today, fill terabytes of disk space if you want, but that does not serve as an experimental apparatus. Engineering apparatus can be controlled, and those running them can make measurements of known variables over a range of controlled physically relevant conditions.

In contrast, we have only today’s climate to sample directly, provided we are clever enough to even know how to average middle realm data in a physically meaningful way to represent climate. In short, global climate is not treatable by any conventional means.”

Computer capacity

Modelers claim computers are getting better, and all they need are bigger, faster computers. It can’t make any difference, but they continue to waste money. In 2012, Cray introduced the promotionally named Gaea supercomputer (Figure 2).

It has a 1.1 petaflops capacity. FLOPS means Floating-Point Operations per Second, and peta is 1016 (or a thousand) million floating-point operations per second. Jagadish Shukla says the challenge is“We must be able to run climate models at the same resolution as weather prediction models, which may have horizontal resolutions of 3-5 km within the next 5 years. This will require computers with peak capability of about 100 petaflops.”Regardless of the computer capacity it is meaningless without data for the model.

tball fig 2

Failed Forecasts, (Predictions, Projections)

Figure 3 shows the IPCC failed forecast. They call them projections, but the public believes they are forecasts. Either way, they are consistently wrong. Notice the labels added to Hayden’s graph taken from the Summary for Policymakers. As the error range increase in the actual data the Summary claims it is improving. One of the computer models used for the IPCC forecast belongs to Environment Canada. Their forecasts are the worst of all of those averaged results used by the IPCC (Figure 4).

tball fig 3

tball fig 4

The Canadian disaster is not surprising as their one-year forecast assessment indicates. They make a one –year forecast and provide a map indicating the percentage of accuracy against the average for the period 1981-2010 (Figure 5).

tball fig 5

The Canadian average accuracy percentage is shown in the bottom left as 41.5 percent. That is the best they can achieve after some thirty years of developing the models. Other countries results are no better.

In a New Scientist report Tim Palmer, a leading climate modeller at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading England said:“I don’t want to undermine the IPCC, but the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain.”

The Cost – “The sum expended must be well over $100 billion”

Joanne Nova has done most research on the cost of climate research to the US government.“In total, over the last 20 years, by the end of fiscal year 2009, the US government will have poured in $32 billion for climate research—and another $36 billion for development of climate-related technologies.

These are actual dollars, obtained from government reports, and not adjusted for inflation. It does not include funding from other governments. The real total can only grow.”There is no doubt that number grew, and the world total is likely double the US amount as this commentator claims.“

However, at least I can add a reliable half-billion pounds to Joanne Nova’s $79 billion – plus we know already that the EU Framework 7 programme includes €1.9 billion on direct climate change research. Framework 6 runs to €769 million. If we take all the Annex 1 countries, the sum expended must be well over $100 billion.”These are just the computer modeling costs.

The economic and social costs are much higher and virtually impossible to calculate.

As Paul Driessen explains“As with its polar counterparts, 90% of the titanic climate funding iceberg is invisible to most citizens, businessmen and politicians.”It’s no wonder Larry Bell can say,“The U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) can’t figure out what benefits taxpayers are getting from the many billions of dollars spent each year on policies that are purportedly aimed at addressing climate change.”

If it is impossible for a supposedly sophisticated agency like US GAO to determine the costs, then there is no hope for a global assessment. There is little doubt the direct cost is measured in trillions of dollars. That does not include the lost opportunities for development and lives continuing in poverty.

All this because of the falsified results from completely failed computer model prediction, projections or whatever they want to call them.It is time to stop the insanity, which in climate science is the repetition of creating computer models that don’t and can’t work? I think so.“Those who have knowledge don’t predict. Those who do predict don’t have knowledge.” Tzu, Lao (6th Century BC)

See Dr Ball’s website here:drtimball.com

Dr Tim F Ball:

B.A., (Honours), Gold Medal Winner, University of Winnipeg, 1970

M.A., University of Manitoba, 1971

Ph.D. (Doctor of Science), Queen Mary College, University of London (England), 1982Career

1996 to Now – Environmentalist, Public Speaker, Consultant, Author, columnist.

1988-96 Professor, University of Winnipeg

1984-88 Associate Professor, University of Winnipeg

1982-84 Assistant Professor, University of Winnipeg

1977-78 Acting Dean of Students

1972-82 Lecturer, Department of Geography, University of Winnipeg

1971-72 Instructor, Geography Department, University of Winnipeg

Dr Ball has authored more than 80 significant publications.

See list here:

http://drtimball.com/_files/dr-tim-ball-CV.pdf

September 28, 2015September 28, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Wind Industry Fraud & Corruption Exposed: Pacific Hydro & Acciona Defrauding the Commonwealth

September 28, 2015 by stopthesethings

****

Following up on Senator John Madigan’s brilliant exposé of criminal fraud and corruption in Australia’s wind industry, which we covered in this post:

Pacific Hydro & Acciona’s Acoustic ‘Consultant’ Fakes ‘Compliance’ Reports for Non-Compliant Wind Farms

Alan Jones went to town on his 2GB Breakfast Show that – some 2 million listeners tune in to – via 77 stations across the Country.

Alan has been belting the great wind power fraud since June 2013, calling all and sundry to account. And this interview with John Madigan is no exception. You can read the transcript that follows….

Alan Jones OM: The date today is September 24. On Tuesday the 15th of September Senator John Madigan rose in the Parliament of Australia to make a speech. Now remember, this is all about carbon dioxide, and I’ve explained what that’s about – 0.038% of all the air, say 0.04%, is carbon dioxide. Human beings produce only 3% of that. 3% of 0.04 of a percent and Australia produces 1% of the 3%. So about one 10 millionth of CO2 in the air is produced by Australians.

As a consequence of that this mad obsession with renewable energy, wind, solar which we can’t afford, which are many times dearer than coal-fired power. Which are killing manufacturing because they’ve increased massively the price of energy. And your electricity bills. As Terry McCrann said to me years ago, this represents a national suicide note.

Well on September 15th, Senator John Madigan rose in the Parliament, his opening sentence was this “Tonight I speak about corruption and fraud in the power generation industry”. Who cares? Corruption and fraud.

Now before I go to Senator Madigan, let me remind you of a simple example of that. There’s a wind farm down near Goulburn, the Gullen Range wind farm. Believe me it’s completely illegal. Owned by Chinese Company, Goldwind. 69 of its 73 turbines have been built in areas that weren’t approved. Some were more than 180 metres from their original positions. Many were within the 2 km limit of residential homes. But the government of New South Wales is recommending that the Planning Assessment Commission approve the turbines on the basis that, well the company had reached financial settlement with 2 aggrieved property owners. How gutless is government? Are we so committed to this renewable energy nonsense and so frightened of the Chinese, that they’ve erected turbines in breach of their licence and it’s just business as usual.

The Labour government, prior to O’Farrell, had signed off on this Chinese outfit Goldwind’s appointment of an independent environmental monitor to oversee the turbine placement. Swallowed that hook line and sinker. Without knowing that the so-called expert was a Director of a consultancy firm that actually worked on the wind farm’s development. So technically this mob say well, we had approval. Goldwind should be told to rip up the turbines. They’ve put them in place in breach of their licence simple as that. If you are driving a car in breach of your licence they’ll take you, your keys and your car away from you. The same should apply to this mob.

Well may Senator Madigan say “Tonight I speak about corruption and fraud in the power generation industry.” This is what he’s talking about. Only a week ago Graham Lloyd, the Environment editor of The Australian, Graham Lloyd is a fearless reporter and he wrote, all levels of government have been duped by sham compliance reports which have allowed major wind farms to breach noise limits and collect millions of dollars in subsidies, that’s your money. He was quoting John Madigan.

John Madigan has just blown the whistle on what he said was a corrupt system of wind farm noise assessments and he singled out International noise consultants, Marshall Day and its consultant Christophe Delaire, who have been involved in more than 50 wind farm projects. Senator Madigan told the Senate this outfit MDA , the consultants commercial arrangements with wind farm operators Acciona and Pacific Hydro, had “adversely impacted the independence of its reports and the legitimacy of its conclusions.” In other words, the so called independent consultant is tied up with the proponent. With the proponent. So it’s signs off for the proponent and as a result they qualify for your money.

Senator Madigan was speaking in support of a Labour recommendation in its dissenting report to the Senate inquiry into wind farms and health. That wind companies should use independent consultants to assess post-construction. Now that’s a keyword, post-, well hyphenated word, post-construction noise compliance. Now this is a scandal but don’t expect anyone down there, they’re all furry and fluffy and warm and fuzzy about renewable energy. Now we’ve got the global warming advocates in the saddle in Canberra, so it will be renewable energy at any price. And that means break the law.

You’ve heard me talk about the awful predicament of people living in the vicinity of these wind farms. Especially in Victoria. You’ve heard me say that if they weren’t injurious to health, well put them in Macquarie Street. Put them on Bondi Beach. Put them in Collins Street Melbourne. Queens Street Brisbane. I’ve had a million and one letters from people about the Cape Bridgwater wind farm in Victoria.

John Madigan said in the Parliament “In 2006 Marshall Day Acoustics, with the consultant Christophe Delaire, prepared a – and this is the other key phrase – pre-construction noise impact assessment for the Cape Bridgewater wind farm. Pre-construction. The report predicted that compliance could not be achieved at Cape Bridgewater wind farm without of a rating 13 of the 29 turbines in reduced operational noise modes.

Now just think for a moment, ‘oh god now what’s this got to do with me?’ just imagine if you were living here beside this stuff. People become refugees in their own homes. But this so called independent report said – compliance could not be achieved at Cape Bridgewater. That’s before they were built.

As Madigan said, Senator Madigan, “before it was even built, developers knew that this wind farm would operate in breach of its permit unless adjustments were made”. But Delaire told the Committee of Inquiry, “following measurements on-site it was found the noise optimisation was not required.”

Asks Senator Madigan, “How did Delaire’s expert pre-construction and post-construction reports come to draw such contrasting conclusions?” He answers his own question. He said “The answer is simple, Pacific Hydro did not noise optimise its turbines at Cape Bridgewater, because they knew they didn’t have to. They only had to commission a post-construction noise report to say the wind farm was compliant. On both occasions Pacific Hydro got exactly the report they wanted from Marshall Day Acoustics, but the compliance assessments were not compliant with the standard and neither were the reports.”

Is that corruption? John Madigan, Senator, is on the line. John Madigan good morning.

Senator John Madigan: Good morning Alan.

Alan Jones OM: You’re talking into an empty tank. Eh? Unbelievable.

Senator John Madigan: Yes Alan, its very disconcerting and with any project Alan, as you well know, there is little point in giving permission for a wind farm to operate under certain conditions, or any industrial plant unless compliance with those conditions can be demonstrated and that what we’re being told is correct, so that people can have faith.

Alan Jones OM: That’s it. To put it in lingo that the people who are listening to you, who don’t listen to wind farms understand, you are talking about corruption. If this was in the trade union movement, we’d have Royal Commission. In the trade union movement. Taking money from others to which they weren’t entitled. That is what this is about. Corruption in the union movement. Oh yes we’ll have a Royal commission. Here we have, in relation to wind farms, the developers knew the wind farm would be operating in breach of its permit unless adjustments were made but they were able to get a post-construction report which miraculously came to the opposite conclusion.

Senator John Madigan: It’s just gob-smacking Alan, and it is there for all to see. I suggest to your listeners that, you know that the speech that I gave in the Senate is there on Hansard, I suggest people go and read it. As you and I both know, Alan how litigious these people are.

Alan Jones OM: Oh yeah they’ve got plenty of money. Don’t this mob, don’t this mob, Marshall Day Acoustics, on their website boast, not Madigan’s words, not Jones’ words, but they boast “they’ve got a proven record of successful wind farm approvals”. In other words, get us to investigate it and we’ll get you the green light. We write it, we’re regarded as independent, we’re regarded as authoritative and governments swallow it hook, line and sinker ‘cos they are on the renewable energy gravy train. That’s the guts of it isn’t it?

Senator John Madigan: That’s pretty much what I’ve said Alan.

Alan Jones OM: And people are lying, people are lying, basically. There was a pre-construction report which said you’re going to have to change here you’re not going to compliant. The original report identified non-compliance at multiple homes and at every wind speed. That’s the original report pre-construction. That didn’t satisfy the client. So suddenly on the 22nd of July 2009 – and John Madigan told the Parliament this – the same mob, Marshall Day Acoustics, issued revised monthly reports for every house and every month – but those reports were to Pacific Hydro’s satisfaction. The exact opposite of what they’d originally found. It’s beyond belief. This is trade, this is Dyson Heydon revisited.

Senator John Madigan: It’s beyond belief. As you’ve said Alan, we hear a lot about corruption in the union movement. You and I know there there are disreputable unionists as has been proven. This needs to be, that needs to be stamped out. But so does corruption anywhere, wherever it be, politicians, wherever it be, local government, Councillors, wherever it be, a company, any sort of company, that is acting disreputably, or outside of the law, or taking people down, ripping people off, should be held to account.

Alan Jones OM: Absolutely.

Senator John Madigan: And you can’t say the corruption only exists in the union, because Alan, its everywhere.

Alan Jones OM: Correct. Correct. Now in 2006, I’ll just repeat, and analysis by this mob, Marshall Day Acoustics, this is about Cape Bridgewater, these poor people write to me every day, compliance with the standard (I won’t go into detail about the standard, it happens to be a New Zealand standard forget all that, that’s irrelevant). There is a standard which applies to the granting of the permit to have these wind turbines. Compliance could not be achieved at Cape Bridgewater without operating 13 of the 29 wind turbines in reduced noise modes. Reduce, you can’t, its non-compliant. But a post-construction report cleared the wind farm. And then the government accepts the post-construction must report, and your money, millions of dollars of your money, subsidy payments are made to the operators. And Marshall Day Acoustics Chief Executive Peter Fearnside, said in relation to Senator John Madigan, “we’ve decided not to respond to Madigan’s comments in the Senate”. I mean where on earth? And anyway John the other thing here is Tony Abbott rightly said he wasn’t going to chase Holden down the road with an open cheque book, why are we chasing these people down the road with an open cheque-book anyway?

Senator John Madigan: Well you know Alan, as you’ve pointed out this is a industry that receives millions of dollars from consumers, through higher power prices. Now why?

Alan Jones OM: On the basis of fraudulent reports.

Senator John Madigan: And with the car industry leaving Australia, Alan, as you know I’m a great supporter of Australian manufacturing and if you were to have a look at how much the car industry was receiving and then analysed the social and economic benefits that flowed from that back to government through tax receipts, skills for people, for apprentices.

Alan Jones OM: You could justify giving the car industry the money, but not this mob.

Senator John Madigan: Well you know as I say Alan very dubious social, economic and environmental outcomes.

Alan Jones OM: That’s it.

Senator John Madigan: And that’s me being polite.

Alan Jones OM: That’s being polite. It’s what you said at the start, it’s what you said at the start, of your speech, and you made a very emphatic statement at the start of the speech when you simply said, and I’m finding that those words again, what were they, you said the whole thing is corrupt. “Tonight I speak about corruption and fraud in the power generation industry.” Well Dyson Heyden is talking about it in the union movement.

John, we’ll keep at it. Don’t worry I have written and I am saying to you Josh Frydenberg, you’re the Minister for wind farms, you’re on notice, you’re on notice. And the first thing it you have to do is read Senator Madigan’s speech.

John Madigan thank you for the work you’re doing, it’s much appreciated.

2GB

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

September 24, 2015September 24, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

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

	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!

not financially feasible

Why Wynne Pushes Wind…..Follow the Money Trail!

Wind Industry Welfare: How Crony Capitalism Drives the Great Wind Power Fraud

Ontario has a Reputation…..for having a Messed Up Electricity System.

Canada’s Wind Power Debacle: $Billions Wasted with CO2 Emissions to Double

Rural Dweller Want to Run the Windpushers out of Town!!

Democracy in Action: Vermonters Vent Fury at Planned Wind Power Project

Brits Beginning to Hold Wind Pushers Accountable!

Brits to Force £2 Wind Power Outfits to Hold £Millions in Reserve to Pay Damages to Victims & for Decommissioning

Corruption in the Wind Industry, is NO secret!

US Justice Dept Takes on Wind Power Outfits’ Bribery & Corruption

Renewables are “Novelty Energy”. Nuclear Power is Clean, and Can Do the Job!

Aussie Nuclear Industry: “renewables won’t get us across the line”

Wind Power Generation….as Fickle as the Weather!

US Wind Power Outfits Curse ‘El Niño’ for Massive & Mounting Losses

Government-Induced Climaphobia Based on Faulty, Inaccurate Computer Climate Models.

TIME TO STOP THE INSANITY OF WASTING TIME AND MONEY ON MORE CLIMATE MODELS?

Short term climate forecasts no better than the Old Farmers Almanac

Data

70% of the world is oceans and there are virtually no stations

Major Mechanisms

Milankovitch Effect not included in IPCC models

Physical Mechanisms

Computer capacity

Failed Forecasts, (Predictions, Projections)

The Cost – “The sum expended must be well over $100 billion”

Dr Tim F Ball:

Wind Industry Fraud & Corruption Exposed: Pacific Hydro & Acciona Defrauding the Commonwealth

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