Donald Trump Knows Not to Invest In Wind Turbines or Areas Infested with them!

Donald Trump vows investment if turbines scrapped

Donald Trump said he will make no further investment unless nearby wind turnbines are scrapped. Picture: PA

Donald Trump said he will make no further investment unless nearby wind turnbines are scrapped. Picture: PA

  • by JON HEBDITCH
 BILLIONAIRE tycoon Donald Trump made a flying visit to his Aberdeenshire golf course, but vowed not to invest any more money in it until a controversial turbine project was scrapped.

 

Trump, 67, said he was willing to restart work at the £750 million Menie Estate course if Aberdeen City Council chiefs “took the windfarm off the table”.

The US businessman touched down at Aberdeen International Airport yesterday morning before heading off to the links at the Menie Estate in the afternoon.

He was due to fly out to Dubai later to oversee another of his golf projects.

Trump has objected to the proposed 11-turbine development off Aberdeen Bay since it was first put forward in August last year, saying it will ruin the view for people playing on the Aberdeenshire course.

He axed plans for a luxury hotel and a second course at Menie Estate and vowed to never invest in the course again after the Scottish Government rejected his appeal against the turbine plan in February. His legal team are planning a fresh appeal.

He arrived in Ayrshire earlier this week to visit the £35.7 million Turnberry course he purchased last month.

But he said he stands by his decision not to invest any more in his resort at Menie Estate, near Balmedie, unless he wins his wind-turbine fight.

He said: “We far exceeded the promise we made to Scotland.

“We have delivered a very special golf course. People all over the world are talking about it and we are getting record bookings.

“I look forward to continuing the development – as soon as that windfarm is taken off the table.”

Vattenfall, the 75% stakeholder in the windfarm project, is looking to sell its share and Aberdeen Renewable Energy Group, which holds the remaining stake, last month handed over the running of the project to Aberdeen City Council.

Trump also plans to invest up to #36million in a golf course he has bought in the west of Ireland.

He visited Doonbeg Links, in Co Clare, before travelling to Turnberry.

The American tycoon said yesterday he was “sad” to see Scotland, where his mother was born, being “destroyed”.

He said: “Scotland is a beautiful country, but it has a death wish. Wind turbines are destroying the country.

“The council in Aberdeen should do its people a great favour and abandon this scheme, which is doomed to lose money.”

Wind Turbines are Destroying Scottish Seabirds!

‘Protect Scottish seabirds from deadly wind farms’

The RSPB said species such as the puffin, kittiwake and gannet are increasingly at risk from off-shore wind farms. Picture: Jane Barlow

The RSPB said species such as the puffin, kittiwake and gannet are increasingly at risk from off-shore wind farms. Picture: Jane Barlow

  • by ILONA AMOS
 Key marine sites must be protected immediately in a bid to stop iconic seabirds vanishing from Scotland, according to a leading conservation charity.

Scotland is home to 24 internationally important seabird species. But the latest official figures show at least nine have been in steep decline for the past 18 years.

Now a new report from RSPB Scotland is calling for the Scottish Government to set out seven new Special Protection Areas (SPAs) to safeguard food supplies for threatened birds and reduce the impacts of offshore wind farms.

As the seas are increasingly being utilised for renewable energy developments, conservationists say guidance on sensitive areas is urgently needed to address a “fundamental lack of protection” for species such as the puffin and great skua.

The RSPB is also warning that the Scottish and UK governments risk failing to meet obligations under Scottish and European laws if “urgent action” is not taken to encourage their 
survival.

Stuart Housden, director of RSPB Scotland, said: “Scotland has a fantastic opportunity to show the world that we value our wildlife and natural environment.

“Unfortunately, this is not the case when it comes to our iconic seabirds, species for which Scotland in particular has a special responsibility to protect.”

He said the seven areas are just “a first step” in creating a full network needed to satisfy the requirements of EU and Scottish legislation.

“With numerous proposed wind farm developments ‘queuing up’ in the areas that overlap key feeding sites for birds, we cannot wait any longer,” he added.

The most dramatic declines have hit the arctic skua, arctic tern and black-legged kittiwake, which have seen numbers plummet by as much as 80 per cent in recent years. Experts fear the arctic skua may disappear from the UK within a decade.

Other species of concern include the northern gannet, European shag, common guillemot and European storm petrel.

Evidence shows changes in oceanography are affecting the food “web”, causing a scarcity of prey that impacts on breeding success.

But the survival of vulnerable populations can also be threatened by badly sited marine renewable schemes and invasive alien species, according to the report.

It suggests setting out protected areas at sea can boost their chances of survival.

The recommended areas were first identified in 2012 by the government’s statutory advisors, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, and are considered vital feeding areas used by many tens of thousands of Scotland’s four million seabirds.

The government has already laid down 33 SPA colony extension sites, but experts say most of the critical areas where breeding species feed at sea remain unprotected.

The report recommends the SPAs should include colony extensions and offshore feeding areas, as both are essential for the birds to thrive.

“Without protection of these areas, breeding colonies designated as terrestrial SPAs and Sites for Special Scientific Interest risk being little more than safe places to starve, and leave seabirds unprotected through the majority of their lifecycle,” the report states.

But a spokesman insisted the Scottish Government is committed to safeguarding the nation’s seabirds.

He said: “We are confident that completion of marine SPA designations will deliver adequate site protection for seabirds.

“We recently consulted on 33 Nature Conservation Marine Protected Areas (MPA) proposals, which will provide valuable protection for our marine environment, including seabirds, in 2013.

“Six of these would include national protection for black guillemot in the marine environment, while several of the other MPA proposals include protection for habitats or species such as sand eels that support seabirds.”

The initial SPAs include sandbanks off the Firth of Forth, an area of the Pentland Firth and the sea north of St Kilda, but RSPB Scotland is set to propose further sites in coming months.

Final decisions on the MPA proposals are expected later this year.

Dangerous Wind Turbines Were a “Bust”, from the Get-go!

Council blew cash on wind turbines that don’t work

editorial image

editorial imagewind turbines built in the grounds of a school are now to be dismantled – after allegedly generating just £3.67 worth of electricity in NINE years.

Milton Keynes Council paid £170,000 for the giant turbines at Oakgrove School at Middleton .

But shortly after the school opened in 2005, the structures were switched off for health and safety reasons due to a manufacturing defect.

A source told the Citizen: “It all seems to be an extraordinary waste of money. None of it is the fault of the school itself – they’ve just been stuck with these huge things that have proved useless.”

The turbines were provided by a German company which has since gone into liquidation, leaving the council unable to get compensation.

But this week there was finally a sunny outcome to the sad saga. The council has negotiated with another contractor to remove the turbines for free and replace them with solar panels.

A council spokesman said: “These wind turbines were the subject of a nationwide recall and the school was advised by the Health and Safety Executive to turn them off and keep them switched off.”

He said the turbines would be removed during the summer holidays.

He added: “Obviously Oakgrove has very high eco-credentials so this is not an ideal solution but the removal is at nil cost to either the council or the school.”

The Faux-Green Thieves, use the Environment Fears to Extort Money!

Environmental shakedown through bastardized application of science, policy, and education

Disgruntled ex-federal employees found a way to bilk taxpayers out of millions of dollars using the flawed Endangered Species Act

  • FourCorners

Over a 3-year period, 2009-2012, Department of Justice data show American taxpayers footed the bill for more than $53 million in so-called environmental groups’ legal fees—and the actual number could be much higher. The real motivation behind the Endangered Species Act (ESA) litigation, perhaps, could have more to do with vengeance and penance than with a real desire to protect flora and fauna.

On May 7, I spoke at the Four Corners Oil and Gas Conference in Farmington, New Mexico. During the two-day event, I sat in on many of the other sessions and had conversations with dozens of attendees. I left the event with the distinct impression that the current implementation of the ESA is a major impediment to the economic growth, tax revenue, and job creation that comes with oil-and-gas development. I have written on ESA issues many times, most recently I wrote about the lesser prairie chicken’s proposed “threatened” listing (which the Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS] listed on March 27) and the Oklahoma Attorney General’s lawsuit against the federal government over the “sue and settle” tactics of FWS and the Department of the Interior.

GunnisonsagegrouseWhile at the conference, I received an email announcing that FWS has asked a federal court for a 6-month delay in making a final determination on whether to list the Gunnison sage grouse as an endangered species—moving the decision past the November elections. Up for re-election, Senator Mark Udall(D-CO) “cheered” the extension request. The E & E report states: Colorado elected leaders “fear the listing could have significant economic impacts.”

Kent Holsinger, a Colorado attorney specializing in lands, wildlife, and water, posited: “Senator Udall is among those lauding the move—perhaps because a listing decision would affect his fate in the U.S. Senate. Gunnison sage grouse populations are stable, if not on the increase. In addition, myriad state, local and private conservation efforts have been put into place over the last decade. Those efforts, and the Gunnison sage grouse, are at risk if the FWS pursues listing.”

The report continues: “WildEarth Guardians is not opposing the latest extension after Fish and Wildlife agreed to some extensive new mitigation measures that will be made in the interim, including increasing buffer zones around sage grouse breeding grounds, called leks, and deferring coal, oil and gas leasing, said Erik Molvar, a wildlife biologist with WildEarth Guardians.” It goes on to say: “But the Center for Biological Diversity, which is a party to the settlement agreements with WildEarth Guardians, said the latest extension is a bad move for the grouse, which it says has needed ESA protections for years.”

Two important items to notice in the Gunnison sage grouse story. One, the power the environmental groups wield. Two, part of appeasing the environmental groups involves “deferring coal, oil and gas leasing.”

It is widely known that these groups despise fossil fuels. The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) brags about its use of lawsuits to block development—but it is not just oil and gas they block, it is virtually all human activity.

In researching for this week’s column, I have talked to people from a variety of industry and conservation efforts. The conversations started because I read something they’d written about CBD. Whether I was talking to someone interested in protecting big horn sheep, a fishing enthusiast, or an attorney representing ranching or extractive industries, CBD seems to be a thorn in their side. All made comments similar to what Amos Eno, who has been involved in conservation for more than 40 years, told me: “CBD doesn’t care about the critters. They are creating a listing pipeline and then making money off of it.” Environmental writer Ted Williams, in a piece on wolves,called CBD: “perennial plaintiffs.”

New Mexico rancher Stephen Wilmeth directed me to a CBD profile he had written. In it he addressed how the CBD’s efforts targeted livestock grazing and sought “the removal of cattle from hundreds of miles of streams.” Wilmeth states: “CBD has elevated sue and settle tactics, injunctions, new species listings, and bad press surrounding legal action to a modern art form. Consent decrees more often than not result in closed door sessions with concessions or demands made on agency policy formulation.”

In a posting on the Society for Bighorn Sheep website titled: Legal tactics directly from the Center for Biological Diversity, board member Gary Thomas states: “The Center ranks people second. By their accounting, all human endeavors, agriculture, clean water, energy, development, recreation, materials extraction, and all human access to any space, are subordinate to the habitat requirements of all the world’s obscure animals and plants. But these selfish people don’t care about any person, plant, or animal. The Center collects obscure and unstudied species for a single purpose, specifically for use in their own genre of lawsuits. They measure their successes not by quality of life for man nor beast, but by counting wins in court like notches in the handle of a gun.”

You’d expect someone like me, an energy advocate, to dis the CBD—and I have (CBD is not too fond of me)—but how did it get such a broad-based collection of negativity from within the environmental community?

Ted Williams told me: “Environmentalists who are paying attention are not happy with CBD.” He has written the most comprehensive exposé on CBD that can be found—for which he was threatened with a lawsuit. Without Williams’ work, one has to resort to bits and pieces off the internet to put together CBD’s modus operandi—but there is plenty to choose from!

One of the most interesting ones to catch my eye was a part of the post on SheepSociety.com. There, Thomas points out the fact that the three founders of CBD are ex-Forest Service workers. He states: “To donors, their motives appear altruistic. To the informed, they look more like a 20-year quest for revenge for their firing.”

I am fairly well acquainted with CBD, but Thomas’ accusation was new to me—though it fit what I knew. (One of the very first pieces I ever wrote, when I originally got into this work seven plus years ago, was on the one and only legal victory ever won against CBD. Arizona rancher Jim Chiltonwon a defamation suit against CBD with a $600,000 settlement. Nearly everyone I talked to as a part of my research for this story mentioned Chilton’s name with reverence.

I dug around and found an interesting story from Backpacker magazine that gave credence to Thomas’ claim. The February 2003 issue features a multi-page profile on Kieran Suckling, co-founder and executive director. Addressing the three founders, who were working for the Forest Service, Backpacker reports: “All three of them were frustrated by their agencies’ inaction.” The story KieranSuckling-2012.jpgtcurry2goes on to explain how the threesome “hatched a plan” to petition the Forest Service and force it to list the spotted owl.

Then, I found a 2009 profile on Suckling in High Country News (HCN). It quotes Suckling describing how the roots of his full-time activism started while working for the Forest Service doing spotted owl surveys: “We had signed contracts saying we wouldn’t divulge owl locations, but we went the next day to the Silver City Daily Press, with a map that told our story. We were fired within seconds. That was the start of us becoming full-time activists.”

These snippets help explain Suckling’s animosity toward the Forest Service and other government agencies. CBD is gleeful over its results. It has sued government agencies hundreds of times and has won the majority of the cases—though many never go to court and are settled in a backroom deal (hence the term: “sue and settle”). Thomas writes: “They are extremely proud to report that single-handedly they deplete the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s entire annual budget, approximately $5 million, for endangered species listings year after year by forcing them to use their limited funds defending lawsuits instead of their intended purpose.”

The HCN piece describes Suckling’s approach to getting what he wants—which he explains in theNew Yorker, as “a new order in which plants and animals are part of the polity”: “The Forest Service needs our agreement to get back to work, and we are in the position of being able to powerfully negotiate the terms of releasing the injunction. … They [federal employees] feel like their careers are being mocked and destroyed—and they are. So they become much more willing to play by our rules and at least get something done. Psychological warfare is a very underappreciated aspect of environmental campaigning.”

“In CBD speak,” adds Wilmeth, “the suggestion of playing by the rules equates to its rules of manipulating positive outcomes for its mission.”

Putting the pieces together, it does appear, as Thomas asserts, that Suckling is on a 20+ year “quest for revenge” for being fired—vengeance that American taxpayers are funding.

Suckling is an interesting character. The Backpacker story cites his ex-wife, who said the following: “He’s not tethered on a daily basis to the same things you and I are tethered to.”

Tierra Curry is another name that comes up frequently in CBD coverage. CBD’s staff section of the website lists her as “senior scientist” and says she “focuses on the listing and recovery of endangered species.” As Warner Todd Huston reports: “Curry has an odd profile for an activist. She once claimed to have enjoyed dynamiting creek beds in rural Kentucky and taking perverse pleasure at sending fish and aquatic animals flying onto dry land and certain death. Now Curry spends her time filing petitions to ‘save’ some of the same animals she once enjoyed killing.”

Perhaps Curry’s frenetic listing efforts are her way of doing penance for her childhood penchant of killing critters.

The role vengeance and penance may play in CBD’s shakedown of the American public is just a hypothesis based on facts. But the dollars paid out are very real.

In an April 8, 2014, hearing before the House Committee on Natural Resources, fifth-generation rancher and attorney specializing in environmental litigation, Karen Budd-Falen talked about the need for ESA reform, as four different House bills propose: “Public information regarding payment of attorney’s fees for ESA litigation is equally difficult to access.” Addressing HR 4316—which requires a report on attorney’s fees and costs for ESA related litigation—she says: “It should not be a radical notion for the public to know how much is being paid by the federal government and to whom the check is written.”

As she reports in her testimony, Budd-Falen’s staff did an analysis of the 276-page spreadsheet run released by the Department of Justice (DOJ) listing litigation summaries in cases defended by the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Wildlife Section. She explains: “The spreadsheets are titled ‘Endangered Species Defensive Cases Active at some point during FY09-FY12 (through April 2012).’ Although the DOJ release itself contained no analysis, my legal staff calculated the following statistics.”

Budd-Falen then shows how she came up with the nearly $53 million figure of taxpayer money paid out over an approximate 3-year period. However, she then shows how her own Freedom of Information Act requests have proven “that the DOJ does not keep an accurate account of the cases it defends”—making the actual dollar figure much higher.

Budd-Falen has stated: “We believe when the curtain is raised we’ll be talking about radical environmental groups bilking the taxpayer for hundreds of millions of dollars, allegedly for ‘reimbursement for attorney fees.’”

Budd-Falen’s research shows that for groups like CBD—who sue on process not on substance—it really is about the money.

Eno believes that for the CBD, it isn’t about the critters: “CBD endangers the endangered species program on multiple fronts.

* First, their petitions and listing suits use up significant financial and personnel resources of both Office of Endangered Species and solicitors office in DOI. This means less funding and personnel devoted to species recovery.

* Second, CBD suits antagonize and jeopardize recovery programs of cooperating federal land management agencies, particularly USFS and BLM.

* Third, their suits have hampered forest and grassland management thereby inviting forest fires which endanger both human and wildlife (sage grouse) communities throughout the west.

* Fourth, CBD suits antagonize, alienate and create financial hardship for affected private land owners, thereby reducing both public support and initiatives and active assistance for listed species recovery.”

Despite numerous attempts, the ESA has not had any major revisions in more than 25 years. TheWall Street Journal states: “The ESA’s mixed record on wildlife restoration and its impact on business have made the law vulnerable to critics.” Groups like CBD have twisted the intent of the law. Reform is now essential—not just to save taxpayer dollars, but to put the focus back on actually saving the species rather than, as Wilmeth calls it: “the bastardized application of science, policy, and education.”

– See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2014/05/14/environmental-shakedown-through-bastardized-application-of-science-policy-and-education/#sthash.JPqu7obU.dpuf

Even the Aussies Know, That Hudak is the Way to GO!!!! Yaaayyyy!!!!

Ontario’s Progressive Conservative’s Leader Tim Hudak – Didn’t Drink the Kool-Aid

Jim Jones

Jim Jones was a charismatic cult leader with a colourful past who – amid allegations that he’d been physically, emotionally, and sexually abusing his acolytes at his San Francisco compound – fled the US and set up a new camp at “Jonestown”, Guyana. Close to 1,000 of his “disciples” followed him South – lured by socialist utopian promises of a “new dawn” for all those who believed in him – putting the “blind” into “blind faith”.

Jones’s cult status started early – his mum, Lynetta claimed that she’d given birth to the Messiah. He was an avid Communist and fancied himself a preacher in the league of his heroes, Billy Graham and Oral Roberts. Jones never lacked self-belief – telling worshipers he was the reincarnation of Mahatma Gandhi; as well as Jesus of Nazareth, Gotama Buddha and Vladimir Lenin: a lineup of alter-egos that most preachers would find hard to top.

In November 1978, Jim Jones encouraged his faithful band of followers to gulp down gallons of sickly-sweet, grape-flavoured Kool-Aid. Problem was, it was cordial with a “kick” – 910 of his devoted followers (including 303 children) perished from cyanide poisoning. Oops! So much for “blind faith”.

Since then, “drinking the Kool-Aid” has been a figure of speech used by Americans to cover any person or group holding an unquestioned belief, argument, or philosophy without critical examination; and also covers anyone knowingly going along with a doomed or dangerous idea because of peer pressure. Hmm, sound strangely familiar?

Well, around the globe many of our political betters have already “drunk the Kool-Aid”.

Lured by ridiculous promises of “free” energy and tens of thousands of wonderful, new “green” jobs, politicians of all hues have willingly entered economic suicide pacts – by signing up to completely unsustainable wind power policies – in Spain, Germany, the UK, the US, Australia and Canada, to name a few.

In Canada, however, there is at least one politician who obviously didn’t drink the Kool-Aid.

Tim Hudak heads up the Progressive Conservative party – which, unlike Premier Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals – has made the obvious connection between Ontario’s giant fan roll-out and spiralling power prices.

tim-hudak

Hudak has also rumbled the fact that – not only did Ontario’s wind rush fail to produce the promised “green” employment bonanza – but that the wind-power-driven escalation in power costs has killed thousands of jobs in the real economy.

Wynne’s Liberals were early Kool-Aid consumers – committing Ontario to fork out for wind power subsidies, which are among the most ludicrously generous on earth.

In the lead up to Ontario’s upcoming election Hudak is going head-to-head with Wynne and has slammed the economy-killing energy policies dreamed up by her Liberals.

Hudak is all set to take the axe to wind power subsidies – in an effort to bring spiralling power prices under control and to return Ontario to a position of economic competitiveness.

Here’s the Toronto Sun on Hudak’s plan to restore some economic sanity to Ontario’s energy policy.

Hudak will end wind, solar fiasco
Toronto Sun
13 May 2014

It’s amazing only one leader in the Ontario election campaign – the Progressive Conservative’s Tim Hudak – has promised to end the subsidization of inefficient, unreliable and expensive wind and solar power.

This is an obvious way to save taxpayers and hydro ratepayers billions of dollars in future costs.

Premier Kathleen Wynne can’t make that promise because to do so would be to admit the Liberals’ naive infatuation with green energy has been a financial disaster, as the non-partisan Auditor General of Ontario concluded in 2011.

The auditor general said the Liberals blundered into green energy with no business plan and no economic research, ignoring the advice of their own experts and costing taxpayers and electricity consumers billions of added dollars on their hydro bills for decades to come.

The auditor general not only found Liberal claims their Green Energy Act would create 50,000 jobs between 2009 and 2012 were nonsense, but that experience around the world has shown so-called green energy destroys more jobs than it creates because it inevitably leads to higher electricity prices.

As for NDP leader Andrea Horwath – who says she’ll rescind in 2016 the Liberals’ 2010 decision to add the 8% provincial sales tax to hydro bills – she propped up the Liberals as they were signing more and more wind and solar deals, literally throwing more and more public money down a black hole.

Incredibly, Wynne is promising to keep doing this if she’s elected, which is utter madness.

Hudak is the only leader of the three major parties telling the truth, noting he can’t break existing contracts the Liberals have already signed with wind and solar energy developers.

But he can stop throwing good money after bad.

Hudak is also promising to return local autonomy to municipalities so they can decide if they want wind turbines and solar panels in their communities, instead of having them rammed down their throats by the Liberals through their dictatorial Green Energy Act.

As for Liberals’ claim they replaced coal power with wind, it’s utter nonsense.

The Liberals replaced coal with nuclear power and natural gas.

Wind and solar are just another multi-billion-dollar Liberal boondoggle, to go along with their eHealth, Ornge and cancelled gas plants scandals and financial disasters.
Toronto Sun

Energy policy based on nothing more than “blind faith” was always bound to end in tears; as the Toronto Sun’s editor put it in the piece above:

[T]he Liberals blundered into green energy with no business plan and no economic research, ignoring the advice of their own experts and costing taxpayers and electricity consumers billions …

Australians needn’t consider themselves any smarter than the Canadians, on that score.

Our Federal Government signed us up to the mandatory Renewable Energy Target in 2001 without any economic research – let alone a proper cost/benefit analysis of a policy which perversely favours insanely expensive, intermittent and unreliable wind power. That process will be undertaken for the very first time in 2014 – as part of the RET Review. Better late than never, as they say.

Fortune has, however, smiled on Australia – it is, after all, the “Lucky Country” – because the RET Review panel is made up of people who clearly didn’t drink the Kool-Aid (see our posts here and here).

From what we hear emanating from Canberra, STT predicts the imminent demise of Australia’s now beleaguered, bitter and angry Wind Power Cult – and a return to energy market sanity in the very near future.

remember-jonestown-small-jpg

 

 

The Faux-Green Renewables Scam is Dripping with Outrageous subsidies!!

Big Green’s untold billions

Mainstream media don’t know Big Green has deeper pockets than Big Oil

  • Big Green follow the money CFACT Org

The “Kill Keystone XL” crowd isn’t little David up against a Big Oil Goliath. As usual, conventional wisdom isn’t wisdom when the mainstream media ask all the wrong questions with commensurate answers.

Behemoth Big Green outstrips Big Oil in expendable revenue by orders of magnitude — if you know how to follow the money.

The mainstream media don’t know how. Like most liberals, their staffs are afflicted with what 20th century futurist Herman Kahn called “Educated Incapacity” — the learned inability to understand or even perceive a problem, much less a solution.

They’ve been taught to be blind, unable to see Big Green as having more disposable money than Big Oil, so they don’t look into it.

They would never discover that the American Petroleum Institute’s IRS Form 990 for the most recent year showed $237.9 million in assets while the Natural Resources Defense Council reported $241.8 million.

Nor would they discover who started the anti-Keystone campaign in the first place. It was the $789 million Rockefeller Brothers Fund (established in 1940). The fund’s program is elaborated in a 2008 PowerPoint presentation called “The Tar Sands Campaign” by program officer Michael Northrop, who set up coordination and funding for a dozen environmental and anti-corporate attack groups to use the strategy, “raise the negatives, raise the costs, slow down and stop infrastructure, and stop pipelines.” Tom Steyer’s $100 million solo act is naive underclass nouveau cheap by comparison.

Mainstream reporters appear not to be aware of the component parts that comprise Big Green: environmentalist membership groups, nonprofit law firms, nonprofit real estate trusts (The Nature Conservancy alone holds $6 billion in assets), wealthy foundations giving prescriptive grants, and agenda-making cartels such as the 200-plus member Environmental Grantmakers Association. They each play a major socio-political role.

Invisible fact: the environmental movement is a mature, highly developed network with top leadership stewarding a vast institutional memory, a fiercely loyal cadre of competent social and political operatives, and millions of high-demographic members ready to be mobilized as needed.

That membership base is a built-in free public relations machine responsive to the push of a social media button sending politically powerful “educational” alerts that don’t show up on election reports.

Big Oil doesn’t have that, but has to pay for lobbyists, public relations firms and support groups that do show up on reports.

You don’t need expert skills to connect the dots linking Keystone XL to Alberta’s oil sands to climate change to Big Green.

On the other hand, you do need detailed knowledge to parse Big Green into its constituent parts. I spoke with CFACT senior policy analyst Paul Driessen, who said, “U.S. environmental activist groups are a $13-billion-a-year industry — and they’re all about PR and mobilizing the troops.

“Their climate change campaign alone has well over a billion dollars annually, and high-profile battles against drilling, fracking, oil sands and Keystone get a big chunk of that, as demonstrated by the Rockefeller assault.”

Driessen then identified the most-neglected of all money sources in Big Green: “The liberal foundations that give targeted grants to Big Green operations have well over $100 billion at their disposal.”

That figure is confirmed in the Foundation Center database of the Top 100 Foundations. But how much actually gets to environmental groups? The Giving USA Institute’s annual reports show $80,427,810,000 (more than $80 billion) in giving to environmental recipients from 2000 to 2012.

I checked the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and found $147.3 million in assets while environmental donor Gordon E. and Betty I. Moore Foundation posted $5.2 billion.

Driessen pointed out another unperceived sector of Big Green: government donors. “Under President Obama, government agencies have poured tens of millions into nonprofit groups for anti-hydrocarbon campaigns.”

Weather Channel co-founder John Coleman adds, “The federal government is currently spending $2.6 billion [per year] on climate change research (and only those who support the “carbon dioxide is a pollutant/major greenhouse gas’ receive funding).”

This web of ideological soul-mates, like all movements, has its share of turf wars and dissension in the ranks, but, as disclosed on conference tapes I obtained, it shares a visceral hatred of capitalism, a worshipful trust that nature knows best, and a callous belief that humans are not natural but the nemesis of all that is natural.

Lawyer Christopher Manes wrote “Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism and the Unmaking of Civilization.” Manes now practices tax litigation from his law office in Palm Springs, Calif., which he has not yet unmade.

The legal branch of Big Green is varied. Earthjustice, (formerly Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund) raked in $133.8 million in the past five years – comparable to many similar law organizations. Highly litigative attack groups receiving federal settlements are numerous and thriving, such as the Center for Biological Diversity ($29.2 million in the past five years).

It’s not unusual for heirs of big money to dream of unmaking the source of their wealth: Laura Rockefeller Chasin of the Rockefeller Family Fund once said, “It’s very hard to get rid of the money is a way that does more good than harm. One of the ways is to subsidize people who are trying to change the system and get rid of people like us.”

The money reported to the Federal Election Commission is barely the beginning of what’s really happening. It doesn’t show you Big Green’s mobilized boots on the ground, the zooming Twitter tweets, the fevered protesters, the Facebook fanatics or the celebrities preaching carbon modesty from the lounges of their private jets.

When self-righteous victims of Educated Incapacity insist that Big Oil outspends the poor little greenies, keep in mind the mountains of IRS Form 990s filed by thousands of groups, land trusts, lawyer outfits, foundations, and agenda-makers, just waiting for America to wake up and smell Big Green’s untold hundreds of billions.

____________

This article originally appeared in The Washington Examiner

– See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2014/05/14/big-greens-untold-billions/#sthash.u6BIT3H8.dpuf

Tim Hudak Promises to End Wind Scam…..other parties will continue to rob us!

D’Amato: To understand Ontario’s election,

take a careful look at your hydro bill

SEE MOREarticles from this author

It’s so easy to get sidetracked by the distractions.

Ontario Liberal Leader Kathleen Wynne goes for a morning jog in Kitchener’s Victoria Park, leaving a reporter out of breath as he tries to follow. Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak gets kicked off a Toronto subway when he tries to make an announcement, because his team didn’t get permission.

These events grab the headlines because they’re anecdotes, easy to tell. But they have nothing to do with what a political party will or won’t do for you if it wins.

On the other hand, if you look at your hydro bill, and what each party will do about it, it tells you something significant about each of them.

The cost of electricity is a key issue. Ontario’s electricity rates have soared and are now among the highest in North America.

In part, this is because of the Liberal government’s “green energy” plan that offers subsidies to those that put up wind turbines and solar panels, then sell the power back to the power grid.

Expensive electricity is stressful. There’s evidence that it’s forcing manufacturing employers out of the province. Last week, Don Walker, CEO of auto parts giant Magna International, said: “I doubt we’ll add any more plants in Ontario” in part because of electricity costs.

Full platforms have not been released by the parties yet. But here’s what each has said so far about your hydro bill:

Greens: Conservation is their focus. They’d require utilities to provide grants and “affordable” loans for people to make their homes more energy efficient.

Liberals: Their latest announcement was billed as good news for consumers, but when you check the details, it isn’t.

Their plan is to relieve consumers of the debt retirement charge from the old Ontario Hydro (nearly $8 on my last household bill of $177 over two months).

That sounds helpful, until you realize that the “clean energy benefit,” which gives customers a 10-per-cent break on the bill ($19.35 in my case), is also being eliminated. And there’ll be a 90-cents-a-month hike for most homes to subsidize low-income customers. Total impact: I’m paying $13.15 more every two months, and that’s before the cost of electricity goes up again.

New Democrats: Piecemeal policy. There’s very little so far. Leader Andrea Horwath announced Monday that she will “take the HST” off hydro bills “to put money back into the budgets of middle-class families.” Further down in the press release, it’s revealed that actually it’s only the “provincial portion” of the HST that would come off. On my bill, that’s $13.70 in savings over a two-month period.

Conservatives: Shock therapy: The plan is to bring electricity prices down, and therefore keep industrial employers here, by ending those Liberal subsidies for wind and solar costs, cutting the hydro bureaucracy (Hudak says there are 11,000 people making more than $100,000 a year) and buying cheap energy from the United States and Quebec.

This election boils down to a choice: Do you like things the way they are, or do you want big changes?

The Conservatives offer radical change. The Liberals offer their record over the past 11 years. The New Democrats offer tweaks on the Liberal program. And those basic distinctions are true of a lot more issues than just your electricity bill.

ldamato@therecord.com

Science has turned into a Propaganda Machine!!!

Shameless Climate McCarthyism on full display – scientist forced to resign

Climate McCarthyism: “Have you now or have you ever been a climate skeptic?”.

joseph-mccarthy

Hans von Storch reports on an email that I also received today, but held waiting on a statement from The GWPF. Since von Storch has already published the email, breaking my self-imposed embargo, I’ll add the GWPF statement when it becomes available.

von Storch writes:


 

In an e-mail to GWPF, Lennart Bengtsson has declared his resignation of the advisory board of GWPF. His letter reads :

“I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.”

I am reproducing this letter with permission of Lennart Bengtsson.


 

Source: http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.nl/2014/05/lennart-bengtsson-leaves-advisory-board.html

Wikipedia says:

McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means “the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism.

This sort of witch hunt for the imagined sin of being affiliated with a climate skeptics group is about as anti-science (to use the language of our detractors) as you can get.

I keep waiting for somebody in science to have this Joseph N. Welch moment, standign  up to climate bullies:

Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

Nothing will change in the rarefied air of climate debate unless people are allowed to speak their minds in science without such pressure. The next time somebody tells you that “science is pure”, show them this.

Wind Power? Wind = Powerless!

Wind Power Myths BUSTED

mythbusters2

As the Australian wind industry’s house of cards collapses, its parasites and paid spruikers – like the Clean Energy Council – have been working up a real sweat in their efforts to make a case for the retention of the mandatory Renewable Energy Target – upon which that house of cards entirely depends.

All manner of fictions are being relied upon, most of which we’ve all heard before – crackers like: wind power has REDUCED household power bills; wind power has created thousands of “green” jobs; wind power is cost competitive with conventional power generation sources; and that giant fans are literally sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere.

In this episode of STT Mythbusters, we thought we’d tackle 3 of the biggest myths peddled about wind power by its dwindling group of hard-pressed supporters.

Myth #1: “the distributed network myth”.

This is the often told tale about wind power providing “base-load” power (ie available on-demand and around-the-clock) when wind farms are spread over a large geographical area and connected to the same grid. This myth is based on the story that the “wind is always blowing somewhere” – spread fans far and wide and there will always be oodles of wonderful “free” wind power available on-demand.

Myth #2: “wind farms in Australia produce enough energy to power 1.7m homes”.

Variants of this myth pop up as: “the Woodlawn [insert name] wind farm will “power” 32,000 homes [or simply insert any made-up figure you like]” (see our post here).

Myth #3: “wind power is a substitute for fossil fuel generation sources”.

This myth is trotted out to support wild claims about wind power completely displacing coal and gas-fired power plants, thereby eliminating CO2 emissions in the electricity sector, altogether. This myth is tied up with Myth #1 – relying upon the myth that wind power provides “base-load” power. One lesser version of the myth is that wind power is capable of being a perfect substitute for coal and gas (some day) – provided that 10s of thousands of new giant fans are added to the grid.

At STT Mythbusters we don’t just tell the myths, we put them to the test. So let’s take a look at some data from the last month, courtesy ofhttp://windfarmperformance.info/.

In this episode, we’ll look at data for the entire Eastern Grid – which covers every wind farm in Victoria, Tasmania and New South Wales, as well as including the 1,203 MW of installed capacity that comes from Australia’s “wind power capital” – South Australia. All of these wind farms are connected to the Eastern Grid and together have a total installed capacity of 2,660 MW. Oh, and if our data looks a little fuzzy, click on the image, it will pop up in a new window, use your magnifier and it will look crystal clear.

Nat 16.4.14

Entire Eastern Grid – 16 April 2014 – from 8am to 12 noon (4hrs) and from 6pm to midnight (6hrs):

Total wind farm output: 8am to 12 noon – less than 165 MW, falling to 90 MW; 6pm to midnight – less than 80 MW, falling to less than 50 MW.

Output as a percentage of total installed wind farm capacity: 8am to 12 noon – 6.2%, falling to 3.3%; 6pm to midnight – 3%, falling to 1.9%.

Total demand (average): 22,000 MW.

Contribution to total demand as a percentage: 0.75%, falling to 0.22%.

Nat 17.4.14

Entire Eastern Grid – 17 April 2014 – from midnight to 11am (11hrs) and from 6pm to 9pm (3hrs):

Total wind farm output: midnight to 11am – less than 80 MW and generally less than 60 MW; 6pm to 9pm – less than 140 MW, falling to 80 MW.

Output as a percentage of total installed wind farm capacity: midnight to 11am – 3%, falling to 2.2%; 6pm to 9pm – 5.2%, falling to 3%.

Total demand (average): 22,000 MW.

Contribution to total demand as a percentage: midnight to 11am and 6pm to 9pm – between 0.27% and 0.63%.

Nat 19.4.14

Entire Eastern Grid – 19 April 2014 – from 8am to 1pm (5hrs) and from 7pm to 11pm (4hrs):

Total wind farm output: 8am to 1pm – less than 180 MW, falling to 90 MW; 7pm to 11pm – around 45 MW.

Output as a percentage of total installed wind farm capacity: 8am to 1pm – between 3.4%, and 6.7%; 7pm to 11pm – 1.7%.

Total demand (average): 19,000 MW.

Contribution to total demand as a percentage: 8am to 1pm and 7pm to 11pm – between 0.23% and 0.94%.

Nat 30.4.14

Entire Eastern Grid – 30 April 2014 – from 8am to midnight (16hrs):

Total wind farm output: 8am to midnight – never more than 380 MW, generally less than 300 MW, and falling to less than 40 MW (10pm to midnight).

Output as a percentage of total installed wind farm capacity: 8am to 10pm – between 5% and 14%; 10pm to midnight – 1.5%.

Total demand (average): 23,500 MW.

Contribution to total demand as a percentage: 8am to midnight – between 0.17% and 1.62%.

Nat 1.5.14

Entire Eastern Grid – 1 May 2014 – from midnight to 10am (10hrs):

Total wind farm output: midnight to 10am – never more than 150 MW and generally less than 100 MW.

Output as a percentage of total installed wind farm capacity: midnight to 10am – between 3.75% and 5.6%.

Total demand (average): 23,500 MW.

Contribution to total demand as a percentage: midnight to 11am – between 0.42% and 0.64%.

Nat 6.5.14

Entire Eastern Grid – 6 May 2014 – from 10am to midnight (14hrs):

Total wind farm output: from 10am to midnight – never more than 280 MW, dipping to 210 MW around 3pm.

Output as a percentage of total installed wind farm capacity: from 10am to midnight – around 10.5%, dipping to 7.8% around 3pm.

Total demand (average): 23,500 MW.

Contribution to total demand as a percentage: 10am to midnight – between 0.89% and 1.2%.

Nat 11.5.14

Entire Eastern Grid – 11 May 2014 – from 4am to 4pm (12hrs); and 5pm to midnight (7hrs):

Total wind farm output: from 4am to 4pm – never more than 370 MW; from 5pm to midnight – never more than 240 MW, dipping to 130 MW around 11pm.

Output as a percentage of total installed wind farm capacity: from 4am to 4pm – around 14%; from 5pm to midnight – around 9%, dipping to 4.9% around 11pm.

Total demand (average): 21,500 MW.

Contribution to total demand as a percentage: 4am to midnight – between 0.60% and 1.72%.

Nat 12.5.14

Entire Eastern Grid – 12 May 2014 – from midnight to 7pm (19hrs):

Total wind farm output: (from midnight to 7pm) never more than 240 MW, generally less than 170 MW and dipping to around 100 MW between 5pm and 6pm.

Output as a percentage of total installed wind farm capacity: from midnight to 7pm – no more than 9%, generally around 6.4% and dipping to 3.8% around 5pm.

Total demand (average): 23,500 MW.

Contribution to total demand as a percentage: (from midnight to 7pm) between 0.42% and 1.02%.

For more STT Mythbuster’s data see our posts here and here and hereand here and here.

Now back to the workshop with the data to test the myths.

Myth #1: “the distributed network myth”.

Eastern grid3

On the Eastern Grid Australia’s wind farms are spread from: Jamestown in the Mid-North, west to Cathedral Rocks on lower Eyre Peninsula and south to Millicent in South Australia; down to Cape Portland (Musselroe) and Woolnorth (Cape Grim) in Tasmania; all over Victoria; and right up to Cullerin on the New South Wales Tablelands.

Those wind farms have hundreds of fans spread out over a geographical expanse of 632,755 km². That’s 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.

Nowhere else in the world are so many interconnected wind farms spread over such a large geographical expanse. If there was a shred of substance to the distributed network myth, then we’d see it in the data above. But it just ain’t there.

When you have 2,660 MW of installed capacity – connected and spread over an area more than twice the size of Great Britain – producing less than 200 MW for hours on end – and, on plenty of occasions, less than half that figure – the idea that wind power is providing (or could ever provide) “base-load” power – or even power “on demand” – by having wind farms spread far and wide is just silly.

Verdict: Myth #1 – BUSTED.

Myth #2: “wind farms in Australia produce enough energy to power 1.7m homes”. 

True it is that, STT Mythbusters has only presented data from the Eastern Grid, overlooking the roughly 420 MW of installed wind farm capacity in Western Australia (which represents around 14% of the 3,080 MW Australian total). So let’s test Myth # 2 as a myth about “Eastern Australian wind farms “powering” 1.4 million homes.”

At STT Mythbusters the term “powering” means exactly what it says: that when someone – at any time – in any and all of those 1.4 million homes flicks the switch the lights go on or the kettle starts boiling.

The claim about wind farms powering 1.4 million homes depends upon all 2,660 MW of total installed capacity operating and pumping all of that power into the grid.

So, how many homes were, in fact, “powered” by wind farms on 12 May 2014 when – from midnight to 7pm (a period of 19 hours) – every single fan hooked up to the Eastern Grid never produced more than 240 MW, generally produced less than 170 MW and was producing about 100 MW around 5-6pm that day?

STT Mythbusters viewers can run the numbers on any of the data we’ve gathered, and get much the same results.

On rare and brief occasions – and then only for very short spurts – the installed wind farm capacity connected to the Eastern Grid has generated around 2,000 MW, but for the most part produces half that and much, much less.

Hundreds of times each year – for hours on end – those same wind farms collectively produce less than 5% of their installed capacity (see our post here). At the abstract level, that means that 70,000 homes (5% of 1.4 million) could be “powered” by output from wind farms. But that’s not what the myth says.

From the data seen above, there are long periods when actual output struggles to exceed more than 4% of total installed capacity, which completely demolishes Myth #2.

Verdict: Myth #2 – BUSTED.

Myth #3: “wind power is a substitute for fossil fuel generation sources”.

The data above kills this myth stone dead. Intermittent and unpredictable wind power output means that wind power is not – and can never be – a substitute for on-demand generation sources, which obviously includes gas and coal generators.

There are hundreds of occasions each year – like those seen in our data above – when, for hours on end – total wind farm output is less than 10% of installed capacity (or half that and less), but the power that householders and businesses need simply has to come from somewhere.

The alternative, of course, is for households to break out the candles and eat cold tins of baked beans while they wait for the wind to pick up. Some might see a wind power “blackout” as a good opportunity to defrost the deep freeze and everything in it. But every other day?

Widespread blackouts are relatively rare occurrences where a grid relies upon base-load gas and coal plants, with sufficient intermediate (on-demand) generating capacity to meet spikes in demand. A grid trying to rely upon wind power would collapse into chaos within 24 hours.

And it wouldn’t matter if there were 100,000 giant fans connected to the Eastern Grid – the result would be identical. As soon as the wind stops blowing, output plummets and – in the absence of coal and gas powered plants – every home and business would be plunged into silent darkness.

The critical point – as our data shows – is that wind power is not available “on-demand”; and never will be. It will never be a substitute for “on-demand” power sources, which – at the present time – in Australia means gas, coal and hydro power.

Verdict: Myth #3 – BUSTED.

bustedplacard-728291

 

If People don’t have enough food….why burn it?

The Ethanol Disaster

America’s renewables policy is bad for consumers, the environment, and the global poor.

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0)Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0)Last November, when the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) proposed moderating years of escalating mandates by reducing the amount of ethanol that must be mixed into gasoline, a top ethanol lobbyist seemed perplexed. “We’re all just sort of scratching our heads here today and wondering why this administration is telling us to burn less of a clean-burning American fuel,” Bob Dineen, head of the Renewable Fuels Association, told The New York Times

Here are a few possible reasons why: America’s ethanol requirement destroys the environment, damages car engines, increases gas prices, and contributes to the starvation of the global poor. It’s an unmitigated disaster on nearly every level.

Start with the environment. After all, when the renewable fuel standard (RFS), which since 2005 has set forth a minimum annual volume of renewable fuels nationwide, was first set, one of the primary arguments for mandating ethanol use was that it was a greener, more environmentally friendly source of fuel that released fewer greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

This turns out to be complete hogwash. Researchers have known for years that, when the entire production process is taken into account, most supposedly green biofuels actuallyemit more greenhouse gasses than traditional fuels.

Some proponents of the ethanol mandate have argued that the requirement was nonetheless necessary in order to spur demand for and development of more advanced, environmentally friendly biofuel like cellulosic ethanol, which is converted into fuel from corn-farm leftovers. But there are two serious problems with cellosic ethanol. The first is that cellulosic ethanol turns out to be rather difficult to produce; despite EPA projections that the market would produce at least 5 million gallons in 2010 and 6.6 million in 2011, the United States produced exactly zero gallons both years—and just 20,069 gallons in 2012.

The second is that cellulosic ethanol is also bad for the environment. At least in the short-term, the corn-residue biofuels release about 7 percent more greenhouse gases than traditional fuels, according to a federally funded, peer-reviewed study that appeared in the journal Nature Climate Change last month.

The environmental evidence against ethanol seems to mount almost daily: Another study published last week in Nature Geoscience found that in São Paulo, Brazil, the more ethanol that drivers used, the more local ozone levels increased. The study is particularly important because it relies on real-world measurements rather than on models, many of which predicted that increased ethanol use would cause ozone levels to decline.

To make things worse, ethanol requirements are bad for cars and drivers. Automakers say that gasoline blended with ethanol can damage vehicles by corroding fuel lines and injectors. An ethanol glut caused by a misalignment of regulatory quotas and demand has helped drive up prices at the pump. And the product is actually worse: ethanol blends are less energy dense than regular gasoline, which means that cars relying on it significantly worse mileage per gallon.

American drivers have it bad, but the global poor have it far worse. Ethanol requirements at home have helped drive up the price of food worldwide by diverting corn production to energy, which dramatically reducing the available calorie supply. A 25-gallon tank full of pure ethanol requires about 450 pounds of corn—roughly the amount of calories required to feed someone for a year. Some 40 percent of U.S. corn crops go to ethanol production, which in effect means we’re burning food for automobile fuel rather than eating it. Studies by economists at the World Bank have found that a one percent increase in world food prices correlates with a half-percent decrease in calorie consumption amongst the world’s poor. When world food prices spiked between 2007 and 2008, between 20 and 40 percentof the effect was attributable to increased global reliance on biofuels. The effect on world hunger is simply devastating.

Ethanol lobbyists are still pretending the renewable fuels mandate is a success, and Senators from corn-friendly states in the Midwest are still urging the agency not to proceed with the proposed reduction to the mandate. But at this point, ethanol requirements have few serious defenders except the people who profit from its production and the politicians who rely on those people for votes and campaign contributions.

Judging by the cut it proposed last November, even the EPA seems to be wavering. A final regulation has yet to be submitted, but the proposal would reduce the amount of renewable fuels the agency requires this year from 18.15 billion gallons to 15.2 billion gallons. That’sif the EPA sticks to its original plan. The agency is under heavy pressure to moderate its proposed cuts, or avoid them entirely.

Those cuts, if approved, would represent a productive step forward. But they wouldn’t be enough. Congress should vote to repeal the renewable fuel standard entirely. The federal government shouldn’t be telling people to burn less ethanol; it shouldn’t be telling anyone to burn any of it at all.

Frauds, Crooks and Criminals

Demonstrating daily that diversity is not strength!

Family Hype

All Things Related To The Family

DeFrock

defrock.org's principal concern is the environmental and human damage of industrial wind turbines on rural communities

Gerold's Blog

The truth shall set you free but first it will make you miserable

Politisite

Breaking Political News, Election Results, Commentary and Analysis

Canadian Common Sense

Canadian Common Sense - A Unique Perspective from Grassroots Canadians

Falmouth's Firetower Wind

a wind energy debacle

The Law is my Oyster

The Law and its Place in Society

Illinois Leaks

Edgar County Watchdogs

stubbornlyme.

My thoughts...my life...my own way.

Oppose! Swanton Wind

Proposed Wind Project on Rocky Ridge

Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

4TimesAYear's Blog

Trying to stop climate change is like trying to stop the seasons from changing. We don't control the climate; IT controls US.

Wolsten

Wandering Words

Patti Kellar

WIND WARRIOR

John Coleman's Blog

Global Warming/Climate Change is not a problem