Rational, Intelligent Climate Scientists, are Skeptical of AGW….No wonder!

1) Lennart Bengtsson: He Knows How Little We Know
Basler Zeitung, 7 May 2014

Hans Jörg Müller

One of the most eminent climate scientists, the Swede Lennart Bengtsson, has defected to the camp of climate sceptics. For the climate debate, this could have beneficial effects.

 «Nur teilweise verstanden»: Der schwedische Klimaforscher Lennart Bengtsson mahnt zur Besonnenheit.
“Only partially understood”: The Swedish climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson calls for prudence and moderation.


How the global climate will develop in coming years and decades, and what influence mankind has upon the climate, is a question that has been discussed with almost religious fervor until a few years ago. That is, there were no discussions really; rather, one of the two parties declared the other insane: “climate denier“ was the term used for those who were of the opinion that global warming does not take place or that it may be warming less rapidly as most scientists believed. In any case, the human impact on climate change was far from proven.

The similarity between “climate denier” and Holocaust denier was intentional: the term should insinuate that anyone who deviated from the widely prevailing consensus was a crank, possibly driven by sinister motives. Above all, very few climate sceptics were leading experts, and this was probably the alarmists’ strongest argument. While climatologists and meteorologists warned and warned, those who were becalming and moderate were often economists. As one of the leading climate sceptics, one ex-politician stood out: Nigel Lawson, Britain’s former Chancellor of the Exchequer and the chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).

Thaw 

Gradually, however, the ice seems to be melting – if not at the polar caps, then at least in the climate debates: for the first time, a widely recognized expert has changed camps. Lennart Bengtsson , the Swedish climatologist, meteorologist and former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, has now joined the GWPF’s academic advisory council.

After his decision was announced Bengtsson was attacked, says Lawson, which shows what kind of emotions the issue can still generate. The reason cited by the 77-year-old scientist for his decision comes in a bone-dry scientific language: The relationship between greenhouse gases and global warming was “complex and only partially understood,” Bengtsson wrote in a commentary for the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

Apart from that, all empirical observations showed that global warming has been “no serious problem up to now.” How the climate would develop in the future only model simulations could show, and these were rather “problematic”.

Nothing is settled 

Bengtsson’s conclusion: “It would be wrong to conclude from the IPCC report and similar reports that the science is settled.” Against this background, so the professor, it would be wrong to undertake any energy transition hastily.

Bengtsson’s arguments do not sound like the radicalism of old age. Rather, he exhorts his colleagues to be more prudent and empirical. For the uninitiated, this approach may be comforting, because the climate debate has long been a highly complex issue. Now, for the first time, an expert like Bengtsson admits that he and others like him fare little better: how the world’s climate will develop in coming years and decades remains pure speculation.

Translation Philipp Mueller

2) Dispute Over Global Warming: Respected Meteorologist Joins Climate Sceptics
Spiegel Online, 5 May 2014 

Axel Bojanowski

A delicate academic matter has disrupted the climate science community: One of the most respected climatologists, Emeritus Max Planck Director Lennart
Bengtsson, has switched to the camp of climate sceptics. In this SPIEGEL ONLINE interview he explains his surprising decision.

One of the most renowned climatologists has changed sides. Lennart Bengtsson, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, one of the world’s leading climate research centres, has joined the Academic Advisory Council of theGlobal Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)…

Bengtsson has always been known for his moderate viewpoints during the hot climate debates of the 1990s. In a SPIEGEL ONLINE interview, he explained his move into the camp of skeptics.

About the person
The meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson, born in 1935, was director of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts from 1981 to 1990, then director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, one of the world’s leading climate research centers. Since his retirement in 2000, he has worked as a professor at the University of Reading in England. He has been given many awards, among them the German Environmental Award of the Federal Foundation for the Environment. He has dealt mainly with the modeling of climate and weather.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Bengtsson, why have you joined the climate sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation?

Bengtsson: I think it is important to enable a broad debate on energy and climate. We urgently need to explore realistic ways to address the scientific, technical and economic challenges in solving the energy problems of the world and the associated environmental problems.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Why do you think the lobby (sic) group GWPF is particularly suitable?

Bengtsson: Most members of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council are economists, and this is a chance for me to learn from some of these highly qualified experts in areas outside my own expertise. I want to contribute there through my meteorological knowledge to open the debate.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But the people at GWPF do not have the reputation of reconsidering their opinions. Have you also become a so-called climate sceptic?

Bengtsson: I have always been a skeptic, and I think that is what most scientists really are.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But were you not one of the alarmists 20 years ago? Do you think your position at that time was wrong?

Bengtsson: I have not fundamentally changed my opinion in this area. And I have never considered myself an alarmist, but as a scientist with a critical eye. In this sense, I have always been a skeptic. I have used most of my career to develop models for predicting the weather. I have learned the importance of forecasting validation, i.e. the verification of predictions with respect to what has really happened. So I am a friend of climate forecasts. But the review of model results is important in order to ensure their credibility.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: And here you see a demand for climate research?

Bengtsson: It is frustrating that climate science is not able to validate their simulations correctly. The warming of the Earth has been much weaker since the end of the 20th century compared to what climate models show.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But the IPCC report discusses these problems in detail.

Bengtsson: Yes, but it does not do so sufficiently critical. I have great respect for the scientific work that goes into the IPCC reports. But I see no need for the endeavor of the IPCC to achieve a consensus. I think it is essential that there are areas of society where a consensus cannot be enforced. Especially in an area like the climate system, which is incompletely understood, a consensus is meaningless.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: You complain about the strong tendencies towards politicisation in climate research. Why do you join now a political (sic) organisation?

Bengtsson: I was fascinated my whole life by predictions and frustrated by our inability to make forecasts. I do not think it makes sense to think for our generation that we will solve the problems of the future – for the simply reason that we do not know future problems. Let us do a thought experiment and go back to May 1914: Let us try from the perspective of that point in time to make an action plan for the next hundred years – it would be pointless!

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Do you suggest we should carry on with business as usual just because forecasts are complicated?

Bengtsson: No, but I think the best and perhaps only sensible policy for the future is to prepare society for adaptation and change. In 25 years the world will have nine to ten billion people. This will require twice as much primary energy as today. We need to foster new science and technology. We need a more open approach, especially here in Europe, which includes the issues of nuclear energy and genetic engineering, in order to supply the growing world population with energy and food.

Translation Philipp Mueller 

3) Judith Curry: U.S. National Climate Assessment Report
Climate Etc., 6 May 2014

My main conclusion from reading the U.S. National Climate Assessment Report  report is this:  the phrase ‘climate change’ is now officially meaningless. The report effectively implies that there is no climate change other than what is caused by humans, and that extreme weather events are equivalent to climate change. Any increase in adverse impacts from extreme weather events or sea level rise is caused by humans. Possible scenarios of future climate change depend only on emissions scenarios that are translated into warming by climate models that produce far more warming than has recently been observed.

Some of the basic underlying climate science and impacts reported is contradictory to the recent IPCC AR5 reports.  Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger have written a 134 page critique of a draft of the NCADAC report [link].

Even in the efforts to spin extreme weather events as alarming and caused by humans, Roger Pielke Jr. has tweeted the following quotes from the Report:

  • “There has been no universal trend in the overall extent of drought across the continental U.S. since 1900″
  • “Other trends in severe storms, including the intensity & frequency of tornadoes, hail, and damaging thunderstorm winds, are uncertain”
  • “lack of any clear trend in landfall frequency along the U.S. eastern and Gulf coasts”
  • “when averaging over the entire contiguous U.S., there is no overall trend in flood magnitudes”
As a I wrote in a previous post on a draft of the report, the focus should be on the final Chapter 29: Research Agenda, which outlines what we DON’T know.  Chapter 28 Adaptation is also pretty good.  Chapter 27 Mitigation is also not bad, and can hardly be said to make a strong case for mitigation.  Chapter 26 on Decision Support is also ok, with one exception: they assume the only scenarios of future climate are tied to CO2 emissions scenarios.

An interesting feature of the report is Traceable Accounts – for each major conclusion a Traceable Account is given that describes the Key Message Process, Description of evidence base, New information and remaining uncertainties, Assessment of confidence based on evidence.  The entertainment value comes in reading the description of very substantial uncertainties, and then seeing ‘very high confidence’.  This exercise, while in principle is a good one, in practice only serves to highlight the absurdity of the ‘very high confidence’ levels in this report.

White House

Apparently President Obama is embracing this Report, and the issue of climate change, in a big way, see this WaPo article For President Obama A Renewed Focus On Climate.  Motherboard has an interesting article How extreme weather convinced Obama to fight climate change.

In an interesting move, Obama Taps TV Meteorologists to Roll Out New Climate Report, which describes how Obama is giving interviews to some TV weathermen.  It will be interesting to see how this strategy plays out, since TV weathermen tend to be pretty skeptical of AGW.

The politics on this are interesting also, see especially these two articles
White house set to lay out climate risks as it touts U.S. energy boom
Podesta:  Congress can’t stop Obama on global warming

JC reflections

While there is some useful analysis in the report, it is hidden behind a false premise that any change in the 20th century has been caused by AGW.  Worse yet is the spin being put on this by the Obama administration.  The Washington Post asks the following question: Does National Climate Assessment lack necessary nuance? In a word, YES.

The failure to imagine future extreme events and climate scenarios, other than those that are driven by CO2 emissions and simulated by deficient climate models, has the potential to increase our vulnerability to future climate surprises (see my recent presentation on this Generating possibility distributions of scenarios for regional climate change).  As an example, the Report highlights the shrinking of winter ice in the Great Lakes:  presently, in May, Lake Superior is 30% cover by ice, which is apparently unprecedented in the historical record.

The big question is whether the big push by the White House on climate change will be able to compete with this new interview with Monica Lewinsky 🙂

4) We Can Easily Adapt To Sea Level Changes, New Report Says
Breitbart London, 7 May 2014

James Delingpole

Attempts to stem sea level rises by reducing CO2 levels in order to “combat” global warming are a complete waste of time says a new report by two of the world’s leading oceanographic scientists.

Over the last 150 years, average global sea levels have risen by around 1.8 mm – a continuation of the melting of the ice sheets which began 17,000 years ago.

Satellite measurements (which began in 1992) put the rate higher – at 3mm per year. But there is no evidence whatsoever to support the doomsday claims made by Al Gore in 2006 that sea levels will rise by 20 feet by the end of the century, nor even the more modest prediction by James Hansen that they will rise by 5 metres.

Such modest rises, argue oceanographer Willem P de Lange and marine geologist Bob Carter in their report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, are far better dealt with by adaptation than by costly, ineffectual schemes to decarbonise the global economy.

They say:

No justification exists for continuing to base sea-level policy and coastal management regulation upon the outcomes of deterministic or semi-empirical sea-level modelling. Such modelling remains speculative rather than predictive. The practice of using a global rate of sea-level change to manage specific coastal locations worldwide is irrational and should be abandoned.

It is irrational not least because it is based on a complete misunderstanding of the causes and nature of sea-level rises. There are parts of the world where the sea level is rising, others where it is falling – and this is dependent as much on what the land is doing (tectonic change) as on what the sea is doing.

In other words – a point once made very effectively by Canute – it is absurdly egotistical of man to imagine that he has the power to control something as vast as the sea. The best he can hope to do is to adapt, as previous generations have done, either by deciding to shore up eroding coastal areas or abandon them and move further inland.

And for those still in doubt, here is what Vincent Courtillot, Emeritus professor of geophysics at Paris Diderot University has to say in his introduction to the report:

Sea level change is a naturally occurring process. Since the last glacial maximum, some 18,000 years ago, de-glaciation has taken place and this natural global warming has led to sea-level rise of on average 120 m or so. At some times, pulses of melt water coming from large peri-glacial lakes led to rates of sea level rise as high as 3 m per century. The rate slowed down some 7000 years ago and since then has been naturally fluctuating by only a few metres. The remaining global sea-level rise has been about 20 cm in the 20th century. Has this led to global disasters? The answer is no. If the projected rise over the 21st century is double what was seen in the 20th, is it likely that it will result in global disasters? Again, the answer is most likely no; human ingenuity, innovation and engineering, and the proper material and financial resources should solve local problems if and when they arrive, as they have in the 20th century.

Austrian Medical Association Not Willing to turn a Blind Eye to Wind Turbine Victims!

Austrian Medical Association Issues Warning,

Calls for Comprehensive

Studies on Wind Turbine Noise

AUSTRIA — National Noise Day 30th April, 2014:

The Medical Chamber (equivalent to the Austrian Medical Association) is issuing a warning on behalf of large-scale wind turbine installations. The Chamber is calling for comprehensive studies on potential negative health effects as well as minimum safety distances to populated areas.

Vienna — Noise problems, caused by the operation of wind turbines, are drawing increasingly more attention from scientists. This was pointed out todday, Wednesday, by the Medical Chamber on the occasion of the International Noise Awareness Day. The Medical Chambe is now calling for comprehensive studies on potential negative health effects as well as a minimum safety distance to populated areas.

Wind power plants are — as opposed to individual wind turbines — very large scale operations and clustered into “wind parks”. The rotor diameter of current turbines can measure up to 114 metres — almost the length of a soccer pitch. Rotational speeds of the rotor blades lie in between 270 and 300km/h, which is causing distinct acoustic patterns and noise.

This is the point the Medical Chamber is making: “It has to be our objective to prevent sleep disorders, psychological effects and irreversible hearing damages, as they are also caused by wind farms” says Piero Lercher, the Chamber’s spokesperson for environmental medicine.

As complaints from residents about excessive and especially low-frequency noise and infrasound near wind farms are mounting, full scale investigations of potentially health-damaging effects are indispensable.

The phenomena currently observed in connection with the operations of large-scale wind power plants justify the demand for adequate safety distances — which is consistent with most expert’s view on following a precautionary principle on that issue. Says Lercher: impairments of well-being have to be taken seriously from a medical perspective, even if they are frequently attributed to a so-called “nocebo” phenomenon.

Lercher requires from manufacturers the use of environmentally friendly technologies and substances. “For example, so-called “permanently exited generators” contain large amounts of rare earths, whose mining processes lead to toxic and radioactive contaminations of vast areas in the mining regions” warns the environmental physician.

Source: http://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20140430_OTS0071/tag-des-laerms-aerztekammer-warnt-vor-gross-dimensionierten-windkraftanlagen

Faux-Green Energy is Killing our Wildlife, and Destroying Significant Birding Areas.

Red kites agonizing under wind turbines, State of Navarre, Spain.
- courtesy of GURELUR

HOW MUCH WILDLIFE CAN USA AFFORD TO KILL?

America’s wind farms are actually slaughtering millions of birds and bats annually

By Mark Duchamp

Screen-shot-2014-03-18-at-3.43.47-PMThe Obama administration is issuing 30-year permits for “taking” (killing) bald and golden eagles. The great birds will be legally slaughtered “unintentionally” by lethal wind turbines installed in their breeding territories, and in “dispersion areas” where their young congregate (e.g. Altamont Pass).

By chance (if you believe in coincidences), a timely government study claims wind farms will kill “only” 1.4 million birds yearly by 2030. This new report is just one of many, financed with taxpayers’ money, aimed at convincing the public that additional mortality caused by wind plants is sustainable. – It is not.

Dr. Shawn Smallwood’s 2004 study, spanning four years, estimated that California’s Altamont Pass wind “farm” killed an average of 116 Golden Eagles annually. This adds up to 2,900 dead “goldies” since it was built 25 years ago. Altamont is the biggest sinkhole for the species, but not the only one, and industry-financed research claiming that California’s GE population is stable is but a white-wash.

Beheaded Golden Eagle from Altamont Pass-  Courtesy of Darryl Miller, California

Eagles are not the only victims. Smallwood also estimated that Altamont killed an average of 300 red-tailed hawks, 333 American kestrels and 380 burrowing owls annually – plus even more non-raptors, including 2,526 rock doves and 2,557 western meadowlarks.

In 2012, breaking the European omerta on wind farm mortality, the Spanish Ornithological Society (SEO/Birdlife) reviewed actual carcass counts from 136 monitoring studies. They concluded that Spain’s 18,000 wind turbines are killing 6-18 million birds and bats yearly.

Extrapolating that and similar (little publicized) German and Swedish studies, 39,000 U.S. wind turbines would not be killing “only” 440,000 birds (USFWS, 2009) or “just” 573,000 birds and 888,000 bats (Smallwood, 2013), but 13-39 million birds and bats every year!

However, this carnage is being covered up by self-serving and/or politically motivated government agencies, wind industry lobbyists, environmental groups and ornithologists, under a pile of misleading studies paid for with more taxpayer money.

Wildlife expert Jim Wiegand has documented how areas searched under wind turbines are still confined to 200-foot radiuses, even though modern monster turbines catapult 90% of bird and bat carcasses much further. Windfarm owners, operating under voluntary(!) USFWS guidelines, commission studies that search much-too-small areas, look only once every 30-90 days, ensuring that scavengers remove most carcasses, and ignore wounded birds that happen to be found within search perimeters. (Details at MasterResource.org)

These research protocols are designed to guarantee extremely low mortality statistics, hiding the true death tolls – and the USFWS seems inclined to let the deception continue. In addition, bird mortality data are now considered to be the property of windfarm owners, which means the public no longer has a right to know.

Nevertheless, news has leaked that eagles are being hacked to death all across America. This is hardly surprising, as raptors are attracted to wind turbines. They perch on them to rest or scan for prey. They come because turbines are often built in habitats that have abundant food (live or carrion) and good winds for gliding.

Griffon Vultures – courtesy of the association of ecologists GURELUR, Navarre, Spain

Save the Eagles International (STEI) has posted photographs of raptors perched on nacelles or nonmoving blades, and ospreys building a nest on a decommissioned turbine. Moving blades don’t deter them either: videos show a turkey vulture perched on the hub of a spinning turbine, and a griffon vulture being struck. Birds perceive areas traveled by spinning blades as open space, unaware that blade tips are moving at up to 180 mph. Many are focused on prey. These factors make wind turbines “ecological death traps,” wherever they are located.

By 2030, the United States plans to produce 20% of its electricity from wind. That’s nearly six times as much as today, from three or four times as many turbines, striking more flying creatures due to their bigger size (even the mendacious study predicting 1.4 million bird kills recognizes this). Using the higher but still underestimated level of mortality published by Smallwood in 2013, by 2030 our wind turbines would be killing over 3 million birds and 5 million bats annually.

But this is shy of reality by a factor of ten, because 90% of casualties land outside the search perimeter and are not counted. We are thus really talking about an unsustainable death toll of 30 million birds and 50 million bats a year – and more still if we factor in other hide-the-mortality tricks documented by STEI.

This carnage includes protected species that cars and cats rarely kill: eagles, hawks, falcons, owls, condors, whooping cranes, geese, bats and many others. The raptor slaughter will cause rodent populations to soar. Butchery of bats, already being decimated by White Nose Syndrome, will hammer agriculture.

The U.S. Geological Survey says the value of pest-control services to US agriculture provided by bats ranges from $3.7 billion to as much as $53 billion yearly. These chiropters also control forest pests and serve as pollinators. A Swedish study documents their attraction from as far as nine miles away to insects that swarm around wind turbines. Hence the slaughter.

Wind lobbyists claim they need “regulatory certainty.” However, eagle “take” permits will also ensure extinction certainty – and ecological, agricultural, economic and social disasters that America cannot afford.
____________

Mark Duchamp is president of Save the Eagles International, a nonprofit conservation organization:www.SaveTheEaglesInternational.org and Chairman of WCFN, the World Council for Nature – www.wcfn.org

(Image at top of page: Red kites agonizing under wind turbines, State of Navarre, Spain. – courtesy of the association of ecologists GURELUR, Navarre, Spain)

Dirty Electricity from Industrial Wind Turbines….Another Health Risk!!

Wind Farm

Excerpted from

Modern Wind Turbines Generate Dangerously “Dirty” Electricity

By Catherine Kleiber

Waveforms and picture courtesy of David Colling

Wind turbines are causing serious health problems. These health problems are often associated, by the people having them, with the flicker and the noise from the wind turbines. This often leads to reports being discounted.

Residents of the area around the Ripley Wind Farm in Ontario where Enercon E82 wind turbines are installed feel that the turbines are making them ill. Residents suffer from ringing in the ears, headaches, sleeplessness, dangerously elevated blood pressure (requiring medication), heart palpitations, itching in the ears, eye watering, earaches, and pressure on the chest causing them to fight to breathe. The symptoms disappear when the residents leave the area. Four residents were forced to move out of their homes, the symptoms were so bad. Residents also complain of poor radio, TV and satellite dish reception. There is no radio reception under or near the power lines from the wind turbines because there is too much interference. Local farmers have found that they get headaches driving along near those power lines.

The waveforms below were taken at one of the residences in the area. The first waveform was taken before the wind farm started operation. (As you can see, a ground current problem existed even before the wind farm started.) The frequency profile of the neutral to earth voltage changed dramatically after the wind farm became operational (second waveform). There are far more high and very high frequencies present; indicated by the increased spikiness of the waveform.

As demonstrated by these waveforms, wind turbines are extremely electrically polluting. Studies and anecdotal reports associate electrical pollution with a similar set of symptoms to those experienced by the residents of the area (1, 2, 3). The symptoms associated with electrical pollution are caused by overexposure to high frequencies and are known as radio wave sickness (4). Technical papers discuss the fact that it requires only very small amounts of high frequency signals (either from transients or communications) on wiring to induce significant electrical currents in the human body. They support findings of human health problems caused by exposure to even small amounts of high frequencies (5, 6). The specific symptoms experienced depend on both the frequencies present and the body type and height of the person being exposed. Increased risk of cancer is associated with exposure to both “dirty” power on wires and electrical ground currents (7, 8). Animals also experience health problems related to electrical pollution exposures. Dairy cow’s milk production and health suffers as exposure to high frequency transients increases (9, 10).

Suncor and Acciona have tried to some degree to correct the problem at the Ripley Wind Farm. They buried the collector line from the turbine near some of the most badly affected homes and gave the homes a separate distribution line. They also put an insulator between the neutral line and the grounding grid for the wind farm. As you can see, from the waveform below, it helped somewhat. It reduced the high frequencies being induced on the distribution system by the proximity of the collectors and the high frequencies put directly on the neutral by the tie to the wind farm grounding grid. However, it is still not as good as before the wind farm installation and neither is their health.

This is not the only wind farm that seems to be causing serious health problems for local residents. The Enercon E82 does not seem to be unique in its design or problems. Wind turbines generate a sine wave of variable frequency in order to be able to take advantage of the full range of wind speeds. However, the grid only operates at 60Hz, so the variable frequency is converted to DC and then an inverter is used to convert the DC signal to 60 Hz AC. This is the signal that is put on the power line. Most inverters generate an extremely “dirty” signal, which is a 60Hz waveform polluted with a lot of high frequency transients. The previous waveforms are examples of this. The people in this house were so sick at home with the wind turbines running that they had to abandon their home and move elsewhere while they waited for the problem to be fixed. The changes made by the wind farm combined with a neutral isolation device installed by the homeowners has made the home livable, but their health is still affected by the operation of the wind turbines.

More information about electrical pollution and health can be found atwww.electricalpollution.com. The author can be contacted with questions about electrical pollution at webmaster@electricalpollution.com.

References:

  1. Havas M, Olstad A. 2008. Power quality affects teacher wellbeing and student behavior in three Minnesota Schools, Science of the Total Environment, July.
  2. Havas M. 2006. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: biological effects of dirty electricity with emphasis on diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Electromagnetic Biology Medicine 25(4):259-68.
  3. Havas M. 2008. Dirty Electricity Elevates Blood Sugar Among Electrically Sensitive Diabetics and May Explain Brittle Diabetes. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 27:135-146.
  4. Milham S, Morgan L. 2008 A New Electromagnetic Exposure Metric: High Frequency Voltage Transients Associated With Increased Cancer Incidence in Teachers in a California School. American Journal of Industrial Medicine.
  5. Wertheimer N, Leeper E. 1979. Electrical wiring configurations and childhood cancer. Am J Epidemiol 109(3):273-284.
  6. Marha K, Musil J, and Tuha H. Electromagnetic Fields and the Life Environment. Institute of Industrial Hygience and Occupational Diseases, Prague. San Francisco Press 1971. SBN 911302-13-7
  7. Ozen, S. 2007. Low-frequency Transient Electric and Magnetic Fields Coupling to Child Body, Radiation Protection Dosimetry (2007), pp. 1-6.
  8. Vignati, M. and L. Giuliani, 1997. Radiofrequency exposure near high-voltage lines. Environ Health Perspect 105(Suppl 6):1569-1573 (1997)
  9. Hillman D. Relationship of Electric Power Quality to Milk Production of Dairy Herds, 2003 American society of Agricultural Engineers Annual International Meeting, 27- 30 July 2003, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, Paper Number: 033116
  10. Rogers D.M. 2006. BC Hydro Deals with Farm Neutral to Earth Voltage. September.

The only known cure for Radio Wave Sickness is to stop being exposed to high frequencies.

The Conservatives will Allow Democracy at the Municipal Level, once again!!!

A PC government will not allow connection of Gilead and wpd wind projects to the grid

For release April 30, 2014

MPP Todd Smith confirms that a PC government will not allow connection of proposed County wind projects to the grid

Prince Edward County, ON — Responding to a request for clarification by CCSAGE Naturally Green regarding the PC Party’s position on wind projects currently “in the pipeline”, local MPP Todd Smith has confirmed by letter that, under a PC government, such projects will not be allowed to proceed if there is no municipal consent.

Smith referred to the text of Bill 42, the Affordable Energy and Restoration of Local Decision Making Act, introduced by Tim Hudak in the Ontario Legislature in 2012. Smith said, “The intention here is quite clear that, regardless of where in the process a project is, provided a project is not connected to the grid, it is our intention not to go ahead with it unless it has municipal consent. Clearly, the projects planned for Prince Edward County do not have municipal consent and thus, would be cancelled.”

Smith reconfirmed the PC Party’s position after consultation with Tim Hudak, and taking account of County Council’s “not a willing host” motion passed on April 23, 2013.

Following receipt of Smith’s letter, Gary Mooney of CCSAGE said, “From the day that he was elected, Todd has been 100% supportive of the several County groups opposing wind turbines on grounds of adverse effects on human health, the natural environment, heritage, property values, the local economy and municipal control. We couldn’t ask more from our MPP.”

Smith’s statement covers both Gilead Power’s 9-turbine Ostrander Point project, already given REA approval but still under appeal, and wpd Canada’s 29-turbine White Pines project, currently undergoing technical review by the Ministry of the Environment.

Informed of the contents of Smith’s letter, Mayor Peter Mertens had this to say, “We are greatly indebted to Todd for his close attention to the concerns of County residents and business owners, and for his support of the position of County Council.”

The exchange of letters between CCSAGE and Todd Smith can be viewed here and here, and the media release on CCSAGE letterhead here.

-30-

For more information, contact Gary Mooney at gary.mooney@actel.ca or 613-919-8765.

The CCSAGE Naturally Green website is at www.ccsage.wordpress.com .

Joe Hockey points out the Futility of Wind Turbines!

Joe Hockey keen to scrap Infigen’s “utterly offensive” Lake George Wind Farm

joe hockey 2

In our last post we covered the Alan Jone’s interview with Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey that’s sent the wind industry and its parasites into a tailspin.

Apart from the fact that Joe detests the very sight of these things, the Treasurer made it abundantly clear that when the Coalition talks about ending the “age of entitlement” it includes the fat pile of subsidies in the form of Renewable Energy Certificates being gouged from unwilling (or, rather, unknowing) Australian power consumers – and set to be delivered to wind power generators for another 17 years.

The mandatory RET/REC scheme started operation in 2001. RECs are issued to wind power generators from the moment a turbine starts delivering power to the grid – and will (under the current legislation) continue to be issued until 2031. So, there are giant fans that went up in 2001 that have the potential to collect RECs every year for 30 years – 1 for every MW delivered to the grid: 30 years is clearly “ages” of “entitlement”.

STT is hard pressed to think of any “infant” industry subsidy (and that’s what it was pitched as) that’s paid at precisely the same rate for more than a generation. That’s probably why we call the mandatory RET the most ludicrous energy policy ever devised. It is inherently unsustainable – and any policy that’s unsustainable is doomed to fail.

Anyway, back to the reaction to Joe’s comments. The Fairfax press have gone ballistic – resorting to the standard tactic of calling Joe a “climate change denier”. Once upon a time, it used to be called “global warming” but the inconvenient fact that the World’s thermometers haven’t budged for 17 years has seen that label drop off the radar.

Although, the grand prize for abusing the English language has to go to shadow Climate Change Minister, Labor’s Mark Butler – who, in theWeekend Australian was quoted as saying that Joe Hockey: “had joined the ranks of the Coalition’s caucus of climate deniers”.

Now, clearly, that’s a far more serious charge than simply questioning the true cause(s) of “climate change” – whatever that is. However, we’re pretty sure that Joe Hockey – and all other members of the Coalition will grudgingly concede that there is such a thing as the “climate”.

The continued efforts of Labor and the hard-green-left to paint giant fans as the only “solution” to “global warming” or “climate change” (call it what you will) are, of course, infantile nonsense.

We’ll return to this theme in a moment. But, first, here is an uncharacteristically objective piece from the ABC covering Joe Hockey’s full frontal assault on the wind industry.

Joe Hockey says wind turbines ‘utterly offensive’, flags budget cuts to clean energy schemes
ABC Online
Latika Bourke
2 May 2014

Government sources have moved to reassure the energy sector that they have no plans to close down the Clean Energy Regulator, despite Treasurer Joe Hockey saying it is in the Government’s sights.

Mr Hockey made the comment while launching an attack on wind farms, saying he finds the giant turbines “utterly offensive” but is powerless to close down those operating outside Canberra.

Speaking to Macquarie Radio, Mr Hockey was being asked about whether the Government would target clean energy programs in its quest for massive spending cuts.

“Well, they say get rid of the clean energy regulator, and we are,” he said.

He then mounted an attack on wind farms, specifically the wind turbines operating outside the national capital.

“If I can be a little indulgent please, I drive to Canberra to go to Parliament, I drive myself and I must say I find those wind turbines around Lake George to be utterly offensive,” he said.

“I think they’re just a blight on the landscape.”

Infigen Energy, which owns the turbines, says the farm is capable of producing 189 megawatts of wind power, which is used to supply Sydney’s desalination plant.

It falls in the electorate of Hume, which is represented by the Liberal MP Angus Taylor.

He has told the ABC he does not support wind farms either but for different reasons.

“The economics don’t work. Right now wind requires massive subsidies over and above other means of reducing carbon emissions,” he told the ABC.

“This is not about their appearance; this about their cost and we all pay.”

Asked if he would cut Government subsidies to wind farms, in line with the Government’s stance on corporate welfare, Mr Hockey said he could not stop the Bungendore wind turbines from spinning.

“We can’t knock those ones off because they’re into locked-in schemes and there is a certain contractual obligation I’m told associated with those things,” he said.

But Mr Hockey hinted new climate and green energy schemes could be on the chopping block come budget night.

“You will see in the budget that we have addressed the massive duplication that you have just talked about and the vast number of agencies that are involved doing the same thing,” he said.

“We are addressing that in the budget, [and] we are considering that very carefully.”

But a Government source has told the ABC that the Clean Energy Regulator [CER] will not be one of them.

The CER will oversee and enforce the Coalition’s Direct Action policy.

The Government is abolishing other climate change programs and schemes, including the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and Climate Commission.
ABC Online

Nice work there from Angus “the Enforcer” Taylor – precisely what you’d expect from a Rhodes Scholar with a love of hard numbers and a hatred of “corporate welfare” that matches his hatred of giant fans.

But we can’t let this comment from our favourite whipping boys, Infigen go unnoticed:

Infigen Energy, which owns the turbines, says the farm is capableof producing 189 megawatts of wind power, which is used to supply Sydney’s desalination plant.

The wind farms which Joe Hockey finds so “utterly offensive” and “a blight on the landscape” – and being referred to by Infigen in the extract above – are “Capital” and “Woodlawn” on the shores of Lake George, north of Canberra. So let’s have a quick look at their last Report Card to see that they’re really “capable of”.

REPORT CARD: CAPITAL & WOODLAWN

Dear Mr and Mrs Infigen,

Please find below our assessment of your children’s performance for Term 1. As Capital and Woodlawn have worked jointly, we have assessed their performance jointly.

ASSESSMENT – GRADE:

We have included several pieces of their recently submitted assessable work. This work was drawn from work set over the last month to date: April/May 2014.

Capital’s performance is shown by the red line; Woodlawn’s performance is shown by the purple line; and their combined performance is shown by the grey line. If you have any trouble reading their work, click on the graph – it will pop up in a new window, use your magnifier to enlarge it and all will become clear.

Capital 8.4.14

GRADE: Fail.

COMMENT: When power was needed most in the middle of the day, Capital and Woodlawn showed no interest in their set task, instead annoying grid managers with a couple of spurts of less than 20 MW of their combined capacity of 188 MW.

Captital 9.4.14

GRADE: Fail.

COMMENT: Again, Capital and Woodlawn appear to have no interest in applying themselves. A momentary spurt of 30 MW – which is no more than 16% of what they claim to be capable of – is totally unsatisfactory. And by choosing to work late at night or in the early hours of the morning, yet again, they are simply disrupting others trying to enjoy their homes and sleep.

Capital 16.4.14

GRADE: Fail.

COMMENT: A marginally better effort, but at 1am, as they know, there is no demand for their output and all they are doing is sending the dispatch price towards zero and engaging in “predatory pricing” – punishing the diligent students (coal, gas and hydro) who are always prepared to work around the clock.

Capital 17.4.14

GRADE: Fail.

COMMENT: As per above. Two brief and tiny spurts of 8 MW is simply nuisance value for grid managers, forced by the RET to take those insignificant efforts ahead of base-load power; they have been repeatedly warned about destabilizing the grid by this kind of behaviour.

Captial 19.4.14

GRADE: Fail.

COMMENTS: Sporadic efforts like this make a mockery of the claims made by Capital and Woodlawn to be serious substitutes for coal, gas and hydro power. They have been asked to provide a report explaining where the power came from on this occasion – and the hundreds of other occasions – when they failed to apply themselves: they are yet to provide any sensible explanation.

Captital 1.5.14

GRADE: Fail.

COMMENT: Capital and Woodlawn continue to frustrate with their poor attitude to carrying out set tasks. Two fleeting spurts of less than 8 MW is totally unsatisfactory. They have been spoken to many times about their failure to perform even the simplest tasks required of them. This pitiful effort takes to 6 the number of times in less than 24 days when Capital and Woodlawn have completely failed in their set tasks.

ATTITUDE & BEHAVIOUR:

Capital and Woodlawn are on their final warning concerning their poor attitude and unsettling behaviours. They have been repeatedly warned about telling lies, half-truths and spreading misinformation about their performance; and their relationships with other students leaves much to be desired.

Despite repeated warnings, Woodlawn keeps claiming that it “powers” 32,000 homes and saves over 138,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions every year (here is a note seized in class). It is evident from Woodlawn’s continued and repeated failure to perform (as summarised above) that these wild claims are nothing but complete fiction.

As Woodlawn well knows, its persistent failure to deliver any meaningful power to those homes – hundreds of times each year – has threatened to leave their owners freezing (or boiling) in the dark.

Woodlawn is also well aware that while it was slacking off, the power it failed to deliver was all made up by “spinning reserve” from base-load gas and coal thermal generators and highly inefficient Open Cycle Gas Turbines – which spew out 3-4 times the CO2 per unit of power generated, compared to a modern coal-fired plant. These simple and unassailable facts mean that its claims about reducing CO2 emissions are patent nonsense. We sent these notes home last month about spinning reserve and OCGTs.

Capital has performed no better.

Capital continues to claim that it “powers” the Sydney Desalination Plant (this was found scrawled on the blackboard).

As Capital well knows it fails to “power” so much as a kettle for hours and days on end, hundreds of times each year – the abysmal examples above make that plain.

And, despite repeated warnings about lying, Capital is acutely aware that its claims about “powering” the Sydney Desalination Plant are doubly wrong.

First, because any power Capital has bothered to produce is dispatched into the same Eastern Grid – along with power from every other generation plant connected to that grid: an electron produced by a coal-fired plant and Capital is indistinguishable. Any power generated by Capital is simply lost in the system and, therefore, its claim to be the exclusive provider of “power” to the Sydney Desalination Plant is simply nonsense.

And second, because the Sydney Desalination Plant has not produced a single drop of desalinated water since July 2012 it, therefore, has had no need for Capital’s power for almost 2 years (another helpful student sentus this report on the mothballed Desal plant – see the section headed “Operation”).

All of which raises the question of what Capital is “powering” when it finds itself bothered to apply itself to its assigned task?

Capital and Woodlawn have also demonstrated a range of unsettling and anti-social behaviours. They continue to falsely claim that the noise they generate is no louder than listening to a refrigerator 500m away (for an example of what they really sound like – when they’re working – click here).

Because of their erratic work habits – generating most of their power at night-time when there is simply no demand for it – they continue to disturb and annoy other students trying to sleep and enjoy their homes. This behaviour, in particular, demonstrates a lack of empathy and emotional intelligence (for just one example of the impact Capital and Woodlawn’s thoughtless behaviour is having on others – click here).

In an effort to correct their behaviour in this regard, we recommend that both Capital and Woodlawn attend the counselling sessions that the school has previously offered to them.

Capital and Woodlawn have also been repeatedly warned about stealing people’s lunch money. Their excuse that it is not really “money” because they’re only taking Renewable Energy Certificates is unsatisfactory.

Whenever challenged, they continue to lie about the cost of the power they do (on rare occasions) manage to produce by pointing to the dispatch price – which is totally irrelevant to power consumers, who – thanks to under-performers like Capital and Woodlawn – now pay among the highest retail power prices in the world (see page 11).

And they refuse to mention at all the rates paid under their Power Purchase Agreements with retailers – which are 3-4 times higher than the diligent and consistent students, coal, gas and hydro. Capital and Woodlawn also ignore the cost of coal/gas thermal generators maintaining spinning reserve (wasting mountains of coal and gas every year) and the cost of running insanely expensive OCGTs – both needed to keep the power flowing to customers when Capital and Woodlawn continually fail to deliver – costs which are all ultimately added to power consumers’ bills, crippling energy intensive businesses and harming poor and vulnerable families.

Capital and Woodlawn continue to disappoint with their erratic performance; their continued lies, half-truths and misinformation about their performance; and the callous way that they treat their neighbours trying to sleep at night time. We find their repeated promises to perform better next time hollow and tiresome.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT:

FAIL.

LAKE GEORGE HIGH SCHOOL

Principal: A. Power-Consumer

May 2014.

report-card

Agenda 21….At the Municipal Level! Fight it!

 

Municipal Primer:

Agenda 21 Guide-Book

The Municipal Primer is the Agenda 21 guide-book for municipalities.

The municipal governments are doing the bidding of international

globalists……… not you. Please read and pass along. Don’t forget to send

a copy to your local council.

No longer can your elected officials hide or deny Agenda 21.

Municipal Primer pdf

There is a Lot of Unwarranted Alarmism Concerning Fracking!

How Risky Is Fracking?

April 28, 2014

Environmentalists have targeted fracking, lambasting it as a danger and an environmental hazard, but those concerns are largely overblown. While there are real risks due to fracking, actual occurrences are rare, say Terry Anderson and Carson Bruno of the Hoover Institution.

The three main concerns with fracking involve water use, water contamination and seismic activity.

  • Water use: There are concerns that fracking will deplete water supplies, as a fracking well uses somewhere between 2 million and 5 million gallons of water, with up to 80 percent of that water staying below the earth’s surface. However, that number needs to be put into perspective — New York City uses 5 million gallons of water in just six minutes. While dry, western states undoubtedly have concerns about water usage, developing water markets and defining property rights would best lead to efficient water use.
  • Water contamination: There is little evidence to support claims that fracturing fluids could contaminate groundwater. Studies from Duke University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Environmental Protection Agency all found no evidence of fracking fluid contamination in local water sources. As for methane leakage — the other potential contamination source — studies indicate that high methane levels found near fracking wells are either naturally occurring, or are the product of poor well design, a problem easily remedied.
  • Induced seismic activity: Will fracking cause earthquakes? In theory, it is possible that improper water disposal could cause seismic activity. Even so, it is unlikely that such an earthquake would be significant and would, instead, be felt only by persons at rest.

Moreover, the risks of fracking should always be weighed against the benefits. North Dakota — whose unemployment rate moved only from 3 percent to 4 percent during the Great Recession, largely escaping the problems seen by the rest of the nation — has been at the center of the fracking boom, with oil and gas production rising 58 percent between December 2007 and June 2009.

Oil and gas production due to fracking offers massive benefits to the rest of the economy, not just North Dakota. According to IHS Global Insight, by 2020, fracking could yield an additional $417 billion to the U.S. economy, employing close to 3 million Americans.

Even though fracking risks are rare, they should be addressed. But addressing them does not mean imposing a moratorium on the practice or implementing burdensome regulations.

Source: Terry Anderson and Carson Bruno, “Risky Hydraulic Fracturing?” Hoover Institution, April 15, 2014.

Wake-up People. Climate Alarmism is a Government Tool!!!

A Big Threat To The Global Warming Consensus

The global warming “consensus” has been maintained by silencing scientists through funding. Those who don’t tow the line, don’t get paid. 97% of scientists understand that.

But as more scientists retire, their interest turns towards setting the record straight. Once they are out of the clutch of the government propaganda ponzi scheme, they unleash.

ScreenHunter_105 May. 02 04.44

www.nzcpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Global-Warming-Dr-David-Kear.pdf