Sign a Wind Contract in Haste….Repent at Your Leisure!

Concerned about health affects of wind turbines

The wind companies have talked to people in McBain and I believe they know there are problems with noise and with health. Why don’t they take action? Why didn’t they tell us about the health problems before we signed leases?

I signed a wind turbine lease in 2008. If I had known then what I know now, I wouldn’t have signed.

Since the turbines went up I have had frequent headaches lasting three days. I never had these before. My mother has ringing in her ears and headaches. I have spoken to others in the community who have been affected by the turbines. One has dizzy spells. Another does not feel healthy until she leaves McBain. They are now planning on moving, but have been told by realtors that they will have trouble selling their home because of the turbines.

Because it takes so long for the entire wind farm to become operational, the signs of how the turbines worsen health and quality of life take a long time to be noticed. One person I talked with thought her dizziness was “just getting older,” but this person is young.

Why hasn’t anyone spoken out before? People are afraid of being shunned. They don’t want anyone to know they are having problems.

Is money more important than health? Is this what we gave away for $10,000 a turbine and monthly payments, with leases that will never end? We gave up our beautiful community, we are giving up our health, our electric bills have risen, and there doesn’t seem to be anyway out except leaving.

The wind companies have talked to people in McBain and I believe they know there are problems with noise and with health. Why don’t they take action? Why didn’t they tell us about the health problems before we signed leases?

I now believe that the only safe place for turbines is at least a mile and a half from anyone’s home


Source: http://www.cadillacnews.com…

JUN192014

Global Warming Alarmists Have an Agenda…Mother Nature refuses to Co-operate!

THE GLOBAL WARMING HIATUS?

CLIMATE MODELS ALL WRONGLY PREDICTED

WARMING, SO LET’S CALL IT A DISCREPANCY

Ross McKitrick — Financial Post — June 17, 2014

While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) still uses the iconic word “unequivocal” to describe warming of the climate system over the past century, a new word has slipped into its lexicon: the “hiatus.” They have begun referring, with a bit of hesitant throat-clearing, to “the warming hiatus since 1998.”

Both satellites and surface records show that sometime around 2000, temperature data ceased its upward path and leveled off. Over the past 100 years there is a statistically significant upward trend in the data amounting to about 0.7 oC per century. If one looks only at the past 15 years though, there is no trend.

A leveling-off period is not, on its own, the least bit remarkable. What makes it remarkable is that it coincides with 20 years of rapidly rising atmospheric greenhouse gas levels. Since 1990, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen 13%, from 354 parts per million (ppm) to just under 400 ppm.

According to the IPCC, estimated “radiative forcing” of greenhouse gases (the term it uses to describe the expected heating effect) increased by 43% after 2005. Climate models all predicted that this should have led to warming of the lower troposphere and surface. Instead, temperatures flatlined and even started declining. This is the important point about the pause in warming. Indeed, the word that ought to have entered the IPCC lexicon is not “hiatus” but “discrepancy.”   Continue reading here……

Webshots_Daily_Photo_200704_02_52238-2

Proof That Climate Change is Much Older than the Industrial Age!

Receding Swiss Glaciers Reveal 4000 Year Old Forests

– Warmists Try To Suppress Findings

JUNE 21, 2014
 By Paul Homewood

 

As many sources, including HH Lamb, have pointed out, back in the Bronze Age around 2000BC, the climate in the Alps was much warmer than now.

It is therefore no surprise to find direct evidence of this from geologist Dr. Christian Schlüchter, Professor emeritus at the University of Bern in Switzerland.

Larry Bell at Newsmax has the story:

 

Dr. Christian Schlüchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy.

This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century. As he concluded, the region had once been much warmer than today, with “a wild landscape and wide flowing river.”

Dr. Schlüchter’s report might have been more conveniently dismissed by the entrenched global warming establishment were it not for his distinguished reputation as a giant in the field of geology and paleoclimatology who has authored/coauthored more than 250 papers and is a professor emeritus at the University of Bern in Switzerland.

Then he made himself even more unpopular thanks to a recent interview titled “Our Society is Fundamentally Dishonest” which appeared in the Swiss publication Der Bund where he criticized the U.N.-dominated institutional climate science hierarchy for extreme tunnel vision and political contamination.

Following the ancient forest evidence discovery Schlüchter became a target of scorn. As he observes in the interview, “I wasn’t supposed to find that chunk of wood because I didn’t belong to the close-knit circle of Holocene and climate researchers. My findings thus caught many experts off guard: Now an ‘amateur’ had found something that the [more recent time-focused] Holocene and climate experts should have found.”

Other evidence exists that there is really nothing new about dramatic glacier advances and retreats. In fact the Alps were nearly glacier-free again about 2,000 years ago. Schlüchter points out that “the forest line was much higher than it is today; there were hardly any glaciers. Nowhere in the detailed travel accounts from Roman times are glaciers mentioned.”

Schlüchter criticizes his critics for focusing on a time period which is “indeed too short.” His studies and analyses of a Rhone glacier area reveal that “the rock surface had [previously] been ice-free 5,800 of the last 10,000 years.”

Such changes can occur very rapidly. His research team was stunned to find trunks of huge trees near the edge of Mont Miné Glacier which had all died in just a single year. They determined that time to be 8,200 years ago based upon oxygen isotopes in the Greenland ice which showed marked cooling.

Casting serious doubt upon alarmist U.N.-IPCC projections that the Alps will be nearly glacier-free by 2100, Schlüchter poses several challenging questions: “Why did the glaciers retreat in the middle of the 19th century, although the large CO2 increase in the atmosphere came later? Why did the Earth ‘tip’ in such a short time into a warming phase? Why did glaciers again advance in the 1880s, 1920s, and 1980s? . . . Sooner or later climate science will have to answer the question why the retreat of the glacier at the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850 was so rapid.”

Although we witness ongoing IPCC attempts to blame such developments upon evil fossil-fueled CO2 emissions, that notion fails to answer these questions. Instead, Schlüchter believes that the sun is the principal long-term driver of climate change, with tectonics and volcanoes acting as significant contributors.

Regarding IPCC integrity with strong suspicion, Schlüchter recounts a meeting in England that he was “accidentally” invited to which was led by “someone of the East Anglia Climate Center who had come under fire in the wake of the Climategate e-mails.”

As he describes it: “The leader of the meeting spoke like some kind of Father. He was seated at a table in front of those gathered and he took messages. He commented on them either benevolently or dismissively.”

Schlüchter’s view of the proceeding took a final nosedive towards the end of the discussion. As he noted: “Lastly it was about tips on research funding proposals and where to submit them best. For me it was impressive to see how the leader of the meeting collected and selected information.”

As a number of other prominent climate scientists I know will attest, there’s one broadly recognized universal tip for those seeking government funding. All proposals with any real prospects for success should somehow link climate change with human activities rather than to natural causes. Even better, those human influences should intone dangerous consequences.

Schlüchter warns that the reputation of science is becoming more and more damaged as politics and money gain influence. He concludes, “For me it also gets down to the credibility of science . . . Today many natural scientists are helping hands of politicians, and are no longer scientists who occupy themselves with new knowledge and data. And that worries me.”

Yes. That should worry everyone.

 

 

 

 The only real surprise in this story is why the so-called “experts”, that he was up against, were so surprised by his findings. There is ample evidence from HH Lamb and others that temperatures in this part of the world were higher then than now. Apart from anything else, there is the body of Oetzi the iceman, which was discovered a few years ago in a glacier, high up in the Alps, near the Austro-Italian border, at an altitude of about 10,000 feet. Oetzi had attempted to cross the Alps about 5000 years ago.

 

 

 

 

Anyone, with the slightest knowledge of the Alps, would know that nobody these days would attempt to cross a glacier at this height with the sort of clothing and equipment available to Oetzi.

In 2008, the BBC offered a fuller explanation.

 

Melting alpine glaciers are revealing fascinating clues to Neolithic life in the high mountains.

And, as a conference of archaeologists and climatologists meeting in the Swiss capital Berne has been discussing, the finds are also providing key indicators to climate change.

Everyone knows the story of Oetzi the Ice Man, found in a glacier on the Austrian-Italian border in 1991. Oetzi was discovered at an altitude of over 3,000m.

He lived in about 3,300 BC, leading to speculation that the Alps may have had more human habitation than previously suspected.

Now, more dramatic findings from the 2,756m Schnidejoch glacier in Switzerland have confirmed the theory.

It all started at the end of the long hot summer of 2003, when a Swiss couple, hiking across a melting Schnidejoch, came across a piece of wood that aroused their curiosity.

They took it down with them, and gave it to canton Berne’s archaeological department, where careful examination and carbon dating revealed the piece of wood to be an arrow quiver made of birch bark, dating from about 3000 BC.

Unique findings

“Finds in the Alps are very rare anyway,” explains Albert Hafner, chief archaeologist with the canton of Berne. “But this is unique; we don’t know of a quiver like this anywhere else in the world.”

At first, the news of the find was kept quiet; historians feared treasure hunters on the Schnidejoch as the ice melted. But teams of archaeologists went up, and more and more artefacts were discovered.

Leather (University of Berne)

The ice has protected the leather for thousands of years

“We now have the complete bow equipment, quiver and arrows,” says Mr Hafner “And we have, surprisingly, a lot of organic material like leather, parts of shoes and a trouser leg, that we wouldn’t normally find.”

And the finds are not confined to 3000 BC. Some of the leather found, and a fragment of a wooden bowl, date from 4500 BC, older even than Oetzi, making them the oldest objects ever found in the Alps.

And from later periods, a Bronze Age pin has been discovered, as well as Roman coins and a fibula, and items dating from the early Middle Ages.

Key to climate change

What fascinates scientists about the age of the finds is that they correspond to times when climate specialists have already calculated the Earth was going through an especially warm period, caused by fluctuations in the orbital pattern of the Earth in relation to the Sun.

At these times, historians now speculate, the high mountain regions became accessible to humans.

 

The Roman coins found on the Schnidejoch are being seen as proof that the Romans used this route to cross the Alps from Italy to their territories in northern Europe. Interestingly, one of the Earth’s chillier periods coincides with the decline of the Roman empire.

 

 

As the Earth cooled and the glaciers grew again, the Schnidejoch and other passes like it would have been blocked by ice. So did fluctuations in the Earth’s climate contribute to the fall of the Roman empire?

“Well that may be stretching things a bit,” laughs Martin Grosjean. “But what we do know is that the climate has fluctuated throughout history; in the past the driving force for the changes was the Earth’s orbital pattern, now the driving force is green house gas emissions.”

Global patterns

For Martin Grosjean, the leather items found on the Schnidejoch, dated at over 5,000 years old, are proof, if any more were needed, that the Earth is now warming up.

“The leather is the jewel among the finds,” he says. “If leather is exposed to the weather, to sun, wind and rain, it disintegrates almost immediately.

Tool reconstruction (University of Berne)

Bit by bit, the Neolithic way of life is being revealed

“The fact that we still find these 5,000-year-old pieces of leather tells us they were protected by the ice all this time, and that the glaciers have never been smaller than in the year 2003 and the years following.”

Scientists and archaeologists from all over the world attended the conference in Berne to hear about the Schnidejoch findings, and present research of their own.

Patterns have begun to emerge: researchers in Canada’s Yukon region have found evidence of Neolithic farming and domesticated animals at high altitudes.

Again, they correspond with the calculations climatologists have made about the Earth’s warmer periods.

Unexpected history

In Norway, Atle Nesje has been analysing glaciers for the past 25 years. His calculations for the Norwegian icefields show a similar shrinkage and growth pattern to the alpine glaciers.

“Now these archaeological findings seem to fit quite nicely with our glacier reconstructions,” he says. “This is very important in the debate about climate change in the past, the present, and also in the future.”

Shoe reconstruction (BBC)

A reconstruction of the shoes these mountain people used to wear

For historians however, the Schnidejoch is unexpected evidence that early man was far more at home in the high Alps than had been previously thought.

“In 1991, we were completely surprised by Oetzi,” remembers Albert Hafner. “Up to then, we had always thought the Alps were not used, that people never went there.

“Now with Schnidejoch we know they were rather keen on mountaineering. It was a big challenge for them; look at the shoes, no Goretex for them. But we know they went up regularly.”

 

 

 

 

The reality is straightforward. The Alps, and regions elsewhere, were much warmer than now around 5000 years ago, and, indeed, for most of the time before that going back to the end of the Ice Age. There is absolutely no evidence at all that suggests current temperatures are, in any way, unusual.

Enviro-wackos Just Want to Scare People. It Doesn’t Have to be True!

Moore’s Law: CO2 Good; Climate Change Bunk; Greens Follow Religious Fundamentalism

 

Dr-Moore-Photo-2010-120x180[1]

“Climate change” is a theory for which there is “no scientific proof at all” says the co-founder of Greenpeace. And the green movement has become a “combination of extreme political ideology and religious fundamentalism rolled into one.” 

Patrick Moore, a Canadian environmentalist who helped found Greenpeace in the Seventies but subsequently left in protest at its increasingly extreme, anti-scientific, anti-capitalist stance, argues that the green position on climate change fails the most basic principles of the scientific method.

“The certainty among many scientists that humans are the main cause of climate change, including global warming, is not based on the replication of observable events. It is based on just two things, the theoretical effect of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, predominantly carbon dioxide, and the predictions of computer models using those theoretical calculations. There is no scientific “proof” at all.”

Moore goes on to list some key facts about “climate change” which are ignored by true believers.

1. The concentration of CO2 in the global atmosphere is lower today, even including human emissions, than it has been during most of the existence of life on Earth.

2. The global climate has been much warmer than it is today during most of the existence of life on Earth. Today we are in an interglacial period of the Pleistocene Ice Age that began 2.5 million years ago and has not ended.

An Innocent Life is Gone….Another Victim of the Wind Scam!!!

Dear Ontario Government, how “serious and irreversible” is a death?

I saw this story early this morning. I hesitate to use the word ‘story’ – it’s not a news story, it’s a life gone way too early, and family that will suffer and hope that their son will recover, while having already lost their daughter. Two weeks ago, before I moved out of province,  I lived my whole life about a kilometre from the crash that killed this young local woman, and critically injured her brother. Extremely tragic, so hard to imagine. Some may think it was another unavoidable death on our roads. That it was not.

The car left Napperton Dr., (North of Kerwood) rolled and hit a hydro pole. That hydro pole… wasn’t there 6 months ago. That hydro pole had no reason being there, except that a wind developer, WPD, struck a deal with Hydro One to relocate the poles, that had been safely in a farmers field for decades, far from the road, on to the County road Right of Way (ROW), where they could colocate their lines on it. You may recall some of the photos earlier this year of this very stretch of road as the lines were going up. The turbines for these poles have not been installed, yet, but have full approval and will probably go in this summer.

[Here are some pictures of WPD’s Napier Wind project poles being installed – you can see the former poles safely out in the farmers field.]

And they aren’t the only new poles in the area. Anyone who has driven down Kerwood Rd lately knows that this is just the new norm, for dozens of kilometres. Those lines on Kerwood and Elginfield Rd would be NextEra and Suncor’s. I’m infuriated that these companies have been allowed to compromise our community’s safety.

[Pictures from along Kerwood Rd. of NextEra/Suncor poles]

It’s not that we didn’t try to stop these poles from being installed so close to our roads. A presentation was made to Middlesex County as well as taking our concerns to the OEB. And protests. All of this fell on deaf ears. Those who allowed these poles understood the risks. The county eventually hammered out a road user agreement that was used for all the wind turbine infrastructure on their ROW. Including the poles that killed this woman last night.

It measures 168” (4.27m) from edge of roadway to the face of the pole – this is less than 5m which would be the minimum for a road with a design speed of 80 – 90 km/h and according to the Middlesex County submissions to the OEB last year, it should be at least 5m – but realistically, even that is too close. These poles aren’t in compliance, which leads me to wonder… is the OPP taking this into account in their investigations?

The same situation exists south of Kerwood where the poles are actually in the road shoulder – that’s unacceptable for a road with a design speed of 110km/h. But who’s checking anyways?

My anger then surfaces in these questions, maybe to the ERT, maybe to the MOE, the wind developers, or even to the Premier herself:

How “serious and irreversible” is this woman’s death?

Did the infrastructure in this project cause her death?

If those poles were not there, would she have stood a chance of survival?

And how the hell is one supposed to predict and prove without a doubt that
a) the wind company won’t comply with the setbacks and
b) that this particular accident was going to happen?

Are we supposed to just let these accidents happen FIRST and then act (or not)? This is my worst nightmare, watching this unfold in the community I was born and raised.

This is why I couldn’t stay – and still this hurts too much, even watching from afar. I knew it would be just one casualty after another, and not a damn thing I could do about it when the government has stacked every thing it has against protecting your communities health and safety. Rest in peace Michelle Day.

School Head Warns of Dangers from Close Proximity to Wind Turbines!

 

School head raises concerns over proximity of turbines.

Published date: 17 June 2014 | 

Published by: Staff reporter
Read more articles by Staff reporterEmail reporter

 

A HEADTEACHER has written to parents alerting them to a wind turbine proposed for a site less than two miles from the school.
Lakelands Academy headteacher Ian Sanders wrote to parents to raise awareness of the 99.7-metre turbine application for land off Ellesmere Road near Tetchill.
He wrote that the application is “a concerning planning development which is being proposed very close to the site of the academy.
“Quite apart from the aesthetic impact on the countryside, there has been concern raised by communities, in areas where such turbines have been sited, over the potential health issues associated with the subsonic sound that turbines of this magnitude generate. On a practical note, the generation of subsonic sound may also disturb the concentration of students in lessons and during public examinations,” he added.

Applicant Angela Williams, who runs agricultural business Seven Sisters along with her husband, Robert, said she does not believe the turbine will have adverse effects on health.
She said: “In terms of health implications I haven’t heard anything about turbines to suggest that it will be detrimental to health.
“It is a very quiet machine and the manufacturers have done a lot of research into the aesthetic and other effects of the turbine,” she added.
Nicol Perryman, from Intech Clean Energy UK added: “I believe the school is around 1.2km away from the site. When we were looking at the site of the turbine we looked at impacts to do with health and noise and shadow flicker were taken into account.
“The school is well outside the affected area. There can be impacts if people live close to turbines but all properties are outside that area of impact.”

CCSAGE Will Have Their Day In Appeals Court! Awesome!

Court of appeal to hear Prince Edward County turtle case

11th hour reprieve

For immediate release, June 20, 2014, Picton

Court of Appeal to Hear Prince Edward County Turtle Case

The Ontario Court of Appeal has granted leave and will hear the case involving the threatened Blanding’s turtles of Ostrander Point. In July of 2013, the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal revoked the approval issued by the Ministry of the Environment to Ostrander Point GP. to operate nine wind turbines, citing “serious and irreversible harm” to the turtle population. In February 2014, the Divisional Court reversed that ruling.

Today, the Court of Appeal indicated that it will hear the appeal of this decision. “This is an important step forward in the public’s efforts to protect one of the Province’s most ecologically sensitive habitats” said Myrna Wood, representing the Appellant Prince Edward County Field Naturalists (PECFN). In March 2014, the Court of Appeal also halted further construction at the site. The granting of leave to appeal today will continue that stay.

“It normally takes at least a few months for an appeal to be heard. Everyone is looking forward to moving ahead” said Eric Gillespie, legal counsel for PECFN.

Global Warming Alarmists Willing to Lie, to Push Their Agenda!

President Obama wants to stake his legacy on fighting global warming even if he has to fake it, which he does.

whitfieldThat inconvenient truth will get a hearing Thursday by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and it won’t be pretty. The Subcommittee on Energy and Power, led by Rep. Ed Whitfield  (R-KY), will convene the “Standing up for Jobs and Affordable Energy” hearing, an appropriate nickname for the expected slice-and-dice of “EPA’s Proposed carbon dioxide regulations for power plants.”

In early June President Obama’s heavy-handed Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a radical plan to destroy existing U.S. coal-fired power plants by imposing a deliberately impossible carbon dioxide emission limit — reduction of 30% by 2030.

Upon examination, the rule offers no real benefit to anyone — beyond EPA’s armed enforcers — but costs everyone, which prompted the subcommittee hearing.

Whitfield set the hearing’s tone in a news release: “Under the guise of regulating power plants, President Obama’s agency is seeking to expand its regulatory reach over the entire electricity sector.  Committee members are concerned over EPA’s unprecedented reach, and the potential of this plan to increase electricity prices, eliminate U.S. jobs, and threaten grid reliability, with no meaningful effect on future climate patterns.”

The panel will examine only one witness: Janet McCabe, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation.

Whitfield is deeply committed to oversight of this rule. In an email exchange, he told me, “This is a very important hearing, as it will be the first timemccabe President Obama’s radical EPA comes to the Hill to defend the agency’s latest proposed rule designed to shut-down coal-fired power plants — a rule the Administration is pushing through without Congress’ direction or approval, despite its potential to completely disrupt our energy sector and cripple our economy.”

I asked about some of the highly controversial legal and policy issues surrounding this proposal. Whitfield said, “We have questions for Ms. McCabe about her agency’s authority and overreach in writing this proposed rule and how EPA’s actions will impact Americans and their jobs and pocketbooks.”

The record of EPA’s testimony before Congress invites cynicism, for it is without honor or conscience, not to mention the absence of facts. McCabe, as did her predecessor Gina McCarthy – now EPA boss – will predictably deflect tough questions because the truth would outrage most Americans and deny Obama his nightmare legacy. We can expect mischaracterization, obfuscation, and flat-out lies.

Whitfield appears unlikely to put up with that.  He said, “As I have promised repeatedly, Obama’s assault on affordable electricity will not go unchecked.”

McCabe faces a tough sell with this proposed rule: Everything EPA has said about its benefits has been ignominiously debunked, some from unlikely quarters. For example, the EPA’s claim that the rule will create $30 billion in climate benefits by 2030 has been deflated by the liberal Brookings Institution.  In a report, “Determining the Proper Scope of Climate Change Benefits,” Brookings fellow Ted Gayer and Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi revealed that the EPA cleverly selected an “apples and oranges” methodology that overstates the benefits so the regulation looks more attractive.

The “apples” are $30 billion in benefits worldwide and the “oranges” are the American taxpayers who pay the whole world’s bill.

It’s something like asking New York City to pay the water bill for every toilet flush in China – and pleading America’s public health and welfare to convince New Yorkers to pay up.

We can thank the Obama Administration’s shameful Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon for developing those “worldwide guidelines” in 2010 to deliberately swindle the American people. Even Democratic President Bill Clinton wouldn’t allow that, issuing Executive Order 12866 in 1993 that requires regulations to benefit the U.S. citizenry only, not the world.

To see through Obama’s slimy stratagem, the Brookings scholars did an “apples and apples” comparison on his proposed anti-coal rule, and found the domestic benefit amount is only about $2.1 billion at the lowest, ranging up to an optimistic $6.9 billion at the top. But the estimated compliance cost is $7.3 billion.

Get it? In the best of all possible Obama worlds, American taxpayers are down nearly half a billion bucks and missing 40% of their electricity.

The Brookings report concluded that estimated climate benefits are “largely conjecture and certainly overstated.” And we’re expecting McCabe to tell the truth about that under oath?

I hope Whitfield gets around to asking McCabe about how much the once-respected-but-now-turned-shill American Lung Association loves the EPA. The ALA ought to love the Obama administration a lot: ALA’s 591 federal grants amount to $43,016,875, according to USASpending.gov. As a cogent post on JunkScience.com said, “EPA owns the American Lung Association.”

ala2But not entirely: Big Green foundations own a substantial chunk too: The Foundation Search database posts 2,806 grants to ALA totaling more than $76 million, with millions coming from Environmental Grantmakers Association members, tagged with purpose statements like pushing the EPA to hit coal-fired power plants, do media advocacy and grassroots organizing.

Come to the American Lung Association for all your propaganda needs.

Thursday’s McCabe testimony comes on the heels of collapsed UN negotiations to repair failing global carbon markets, the International Monetary Fund‘s slashed forecast of U.S. economic growth to a shocking 2%, and the headline-grabbing opposition of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Australian leader Tony Abbott to “climate measures that would destroy their economies,” which our Climate Cultist in Chief Obama seems insanely eager to embrace.

Memo to McCabe: the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

———————

– See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2014/06/19/house-panel-hopes-to-air-inconvenient-truths-about-epas-war-on-coal/#sthash.jN0vDBqI.dpuf

More Proof, that Green/Greed Energy, is All About the Money!

Failure of the primary mission at the VA – vets died while

VA bureaucrats obsessed over green energy installation

VA-Phoenix solar panels

Green energy gets the green light while people that served our country with honor have to wait in line, dying while waiting.

For example, does anyone other than Eco-zealots give a flying f about having solar car ports at the VA?

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) at its Phoenix Medical Center in Phoenix, Arizona, plans to install a 3.003-megawatt (MW) DC solar electric system. This project will expand a 630-kW carport system currently under construction by SunWize Systems at the site.

It seems to me that the VA has failed their primary mission, and in a spectacularly bad way. Nobody other than eco-zealots gives a rats-ass if your office is sustainable – but they DO want you to adhere to your primary mission take care of veterans.  The word “shameful” doesn’t begin to describe the FUBAR at the VA. – Anthony

From the Washington Times Opinion Section: 

The administrators at the Veterans Administration have apparently been busy while old soldiers waited to see a doctor, after all. Serving those who served is not necessarily a priority, but saving the planet is Job 1. Solar panels and windmills can be more important than the touch of a healing hand.

The department early on set up an Office of Green Management Programs designed to “help VA facilities nationwide recognize opportunities to green VA, and to reward innovative ‘green’ practices and efforts by individual facilities and staff within the VA.” This sometimes means paying more attention to greening the department and saving the polar ice caps than to health care.

In the department’s words, it adopted a far more important mission to “become more energy efficient and sustainable, focusing primarily on renewable energy, energy and water efficiency, [carbon-dioxide] emissions reduction, and sustainable buildings.”

Washington Post Dares to Tell the Truth about the “Warming Hiatus”? Wow!!!

The Washington Post verifies ‘the pause’ in global warming

Jason Samenow sends word of a new article in WaPo that does some of the same sort ofsurface temperature analyses we see right here on WUWT. Seeing what a good job Matt Rogers did in his defense against claims of cherry picking, statistical significance woes, and Trenberthian masking, it made me wonder; “How long before he gets called into the chief editors office at WaPo and reassigned to be the correspondent covering Botswana?”


Global warming of the Earth’s surface has decelerated – Matt Rogers, Capital Weather Gang

The recently-released National Climate Assessment (NCA) from the U.S. government offers considerable cause for concern for climate calamity, but downplays the decelerating trend in global surface temperature in the 2000s, which I document here.

 

Many climate scientists are currently working to figure out what is causing the slowdown, because if it continues, it would call into question the legitimacy of many climate model projections (and inversely offer some good news for our planet).

An article in Nature earlier this year discusses some of the possible causes for what some have to referred to as the global warming “pause” or “hiatus”.  Explanations include the quietest solar cycle in over a hundred years, increases in Asian pollution, more effective oceanic heat absorption, and even volcanic activity. Indeed, a peer-reviewed paper published in February estimates that about 15 percent of the pause can be attributed to increased volcanism. But some have questioned whether the pause or deceleration is even occurring at all.

 Verifying the pause

You can see the pause (or deceleration in warming) yourself by simply grabbing the freely available data from NASA and NOAA. For the chart below, I took the annual global temperature difference from average (or anomaly) and calculated the change from the prior year. So the very first data point is the change from 2000 to 2001 and so on. One sign of data validation is that the trends are the same on both datasets.  Both of these government sources show a slight downward slope since 2000:

(Matt Rogers)

You can see some of the spikes associated with El Niño events (when heat was released into the atmosphere from warmer than normal ocean temperatures in the tropical Pacific) that occurred in 2004-05 and 2009-10. But the warm changes have generally been decreasing while cool changes have grown.