Stopping the Oil Sands Will NOT Help the Environment

This 2014 file photo shows a construction site at the Suncor Fort Hills oil sands mining operations near Fort McMurray, Alberta.

TODD KOROL / REUTERS

The world needs to take serious action to reduce global greenhouse-gas emissions and keep global temperature increases below 2C above pre-industrial levels. We agree on that.

But here’s the thing.

Keeping oil sands in the ground and stopping new pipelines will actually increase global GHG emissions. It sounds counter-intuitive, but bear with us.

The story starts with global energy forecasts. Even if there is very aggressive adoption of electric vehicles and renewable energy technologies – which we wholeheartedly support – the world will use more oil each year through at least 2040. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), if the world goes beyond the aggressive commitments made in Paris and achieves the 2C global goal, then oil demand would fall by 2040. Yet, oil demand will remain high for years after that.

And, since there is no shortage of oil reserves in the world, oil won’t disappear on its own any time soon. The world will use more oil even if pipelines are stopped and oil sands remain in the ground.

But, you say, oil sands need to stay in the ground because they are dirtier than other crudes. That used to be true.

In 2014 – on a well-to-wheel basis – the average oil sands barrel emitted between 6 per cent to 9 per cent more GHGs than the average barrel consumed (refined) in the United States. This number has come down over the past two years in existing facilities primarily because oil-sands projects are using less energy to produce the same amount of oil.

In fact, newer projects are proving that oil sands can compete on a low-carbon basis. The Paraffinic Froth Treatment (PFT), for example, brings oil sands GHG emissions close to the average crude; it has a low boiling point (so it requires less heat and steam) and it eliminates the need to build upgraders.

According to a 2014 IHS Markit report, the GHG intensity of oil sands crudes are the same as that of 45 per cent of crude oils supplied to U.S. refineries in 2012. Two-thirds of the crudes in this range came from Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and some U.S. domestic production. Each new oil-sands facility produces less GHG-intensive product and, ironically, it is this newer oil that would use the pipelines being protested.

If U.S. refineries – which consume heavy oil – were to take more production from the oil sands, it would most likely displace a similar crude oil with a GHG intensity in the same range. It would not replace the average U.S. barrel. If, for example, an oil-sands barrel replaced a Venezuelan Petrozuata barrel, there would be a net GHG benefit as the Venezuelan barrel has a GHG intensity that is higher than the average oil-sands barrel – and significantly higher than oil from newer oil-sands projects.

Alberta’s climate policies – which are very stringent compared with other oil producing regions – create additional incentive to drive down oil-sands emissions. Alberta now has a 100MT cap on oil-sands emissions and a $30/tonne carbon price that pushes all oil-sands facilities to perform at a level already achieved by high-performing facilities. There should be little doubt that these twin policies will decrease the carbon intensity of oil-sands facilities.

While in the past it might have made sense to protest pipelines and oil-sands projects for climate reasons, it doesn’t make sense any more.

Demand for oil and gas will remain strong for years to come; we are nowhere near peak oil supply; not all barrels of oil are created equal; new oil-sands production is cleaner than both existing oil-sands production and competing crudes; Canada is one of the only oil producing jurisdictions in the world to truly focus on reducing the GHG intensity of its barrels.

Efforts to keep the oil sands in the ground by stopping pipelines will actually increase global GHG emissions. At a minimum, oil sands will be replaced by heavy crudes with near the same carbon intensity and, since Canada has an emissions cap and incentives that other heavy oil suppliers do not, over time Canada is going to be lower carbon than the alternatives.

It is time to end the charade. Pipelines and oil-sands opposition are not a good proxy for climate action.

If we actually want to keep global temperatures below 2C above pre-industrial levels, we need to get beyond entrenched positions and focus on tackling climate change together.

As long as there is demand for oil, oil will be produced. And Canada’s oil sands oil is increasingly a better choice for climate. By far the biggest change we can all make to reduce GHG emissions is to focus on consumption and demand.

Martha Hall Findlay is the CEO of the Canada West Foundation; Trevor McLeod is the director of the Natural Resources Centre at the Canada West Foundation.

Green Energy Policies Driving Up Carbon Emissions

Ontario green policies actually driving up carbon dioxide

JACK MACLAREN, SPECIAL TO THE TORONTO SUN

FIRST POSTED: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 01, 2016 05:14 PM EST | UPDATED: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 01, 2016 05:33 PM EST

Wind turbines
Wind turbines near Strathroy, Ont., west of London. (Mike Hensen/Postmedia 

The Ontario Liberals’ Green Energy Act is meant to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by generating power from wind turbines and solar panels.

We already know this has turned into a wasteful boondoggle — just look at your hydro bill. But there’s another problem with the Green Energy Act, which I was shocked to learn about.

A 2015 report from the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE) makes the alarming case that Ontario green energy policy is actually driving up carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

Wind and solar energy seem like good, clean sources of energy. But wind power is intermittent, and about 40% of the generated power arrives when load demand is low. Solar energy is also intermittent and capacity is very low. All this means that wind and solar power are expensive and unreliable.

Basically, windmills and solar panels only produce power when the wind blows and the sun shines. They need backup in the form of other power sources to provide constant electricity when you need it. Ontario has gone with natural gas backup because that is the cheapest source of energy currently available. Other options were available, including nuclear and hydro plants, but natural gas was chosen.

This is unfortunate because nuclear and hydro do not emit CO2, but natural gas does. So as we dial down nuclear and hydro, we are doubling up on CO2 emissions from natural gas.

According to OSPE, Ontario currently produces electricity at less than 40 grams of CO2 per kWh. But wind and solar with natural gas backup release about 200 grams of CO2 per kWh.

Now, the trouble of building all the windmills and solar panels wouldn’t be so bad if it were actually worthwhile. But it isn’t. We do not have a cheap and effective way of storing the energy generated by wind and solar power. Simply put, storage is too expensive at the moment.

Adding solar and wind power to the Ontario grid just doesn’t make environmental or economic sense. Continuing to add wind and solar can only be justified on ideological grounds.

Admittedly, the Wynne government announced a halt to further wind and solar contracts. I’m not sure how long they’ll put their ideology on hold, but this is a short-term solution anyway.

We need to use more of our cheaper hydroelectric and nuclear power. And we need to stop exporting power abroad at low prices.

We all want to do the right thing for our environment and we all want clean air to breathe and water to drink. I sincerely believe it is important we strive for a cleaner and safer future.

But no one likes being misled or lied to. The Ontario Liberal government’s Green Energy Act is an environmental and economic disaster. As both a farmer and a civil engineer, I know about protecting the environment as well as long-term sustainability. Farming teaches you to understand the risks and benefits of co-operating with Mother Nature. Similarly, engineers are required to build things: We build things to last, and we do so in the public interest.

So I think most Ontarians would agree with me when I say that we need to have affordable, clean, reliable, and sustainable sources of energy which do not increase CO2.

Unfortunately the Green Energy Act just hasn’t got it right.

— MacLaren is the MPP for Carleton-Mississippi Mills 

Terence Corcoran Talks About the Wind Fiasco Perpetrated by Ontario’s Liberals!

Ontario’s electricity, “carnage”, “a train wreck”, electricity costs double to reduce carbon at $250/ton

 Boondoggle: How Ontario’s pursuit of renewables broke their electricity system

Financial Post, Terence Corcoran

The Green industry has done over Ontario consumers. Government control of the electricity market was “cheered on by a growing industrial complex of wind and solar promoters backed by a large contingent of financial firms, big name consultants, fee-collecting law firms and major corporations. All were anxious to play a lucrative role fulfilling renewables objectives”.

Ontario was going to be the North American leader in renewable energy. It would save lives, create jobs, cost nothing, but instead the electricity bills have doubled, no lives were saved and the only jobs created were temporary (and almost certainly cost more jobs in other areas due to high electricity costs). The only “success” for the extra wind and solar power that’s locked into the grid is that it has “saved” some meaningless CO2 emissions at the exorbitant, flagrant cost of $250 per ton. Green energy was supposed to save $4.4billion in healthcare and other costs, but virtually none of that materialized.

Canada, electricity, supply, demand, costs.Costs have gone from 5.5c a KWh in 2006 to 11c KWh in 2016. (How is it still so incredibly cheap ask Aussies? We are the largest coal exporters in the world and have some of the largest uranium reserves but Australians pay from 25c to 36c per KWh* and the currencies are 1:1).

According to Terence Corcoran things are so on the nose that the premier can’t even mention hydro without getting booed. The costs of going green have been estimated at $170 billion over 30 years, and while smog has decreased somewhat, no one is sure whether that was due to the coal stations closing in Ontario, or is linked to US changes. In any case, the coal plants could have been fitted with smog-cleaning gear for a tiny fraction of the cost.

The Ontario government has finally started canceling new wind projects, but there are long term contracts for current wind farms that go on for years. Jan Carr was head of the Ontario Power Authority and says the government is “finally waking up to Ontario’s electricity carnage.”

Ontario’s Society of Professional Engineers has issued many reports describing how dismal the green policies are, but the Premier’s office appear to have been fooled completely by the Green machine. A former head of the OSPE, Paul Acchione, says“because they know how to turn a light bulb on and off, they’ll issue policy statements on the most complex engineering system on the planet”. He said the Premier’s office was pretty much running the grid and “hiring political scientists and environmentalists because they thought they were the experts”. (Does Australia have an OSPE equivalent, wonders Jo?)

But demand for electricity has cratered as the prearranged contracts for green energy have surged, and Canadians are paying for expensive electricity that comes at the wrong time of day and isn’t needed.

In a normal market when supply outstrips demand, prices are supposed to fall. But put a government in charge and the most expensive provider can get a guarantee to get paid, even if their product isn’t needed.

A bunch of parasites fooled the Premier and they are getting rich by selling expensive electrons that are supposed to change the weather 50 years from now.

h/t to Clipe, Pat and David B.

________________

*Australia retail prices. For cost estimates read AMEC’s 2015 report.  Each State is listed in the summary pages viii to xii, “In 2014/15, a representative consumer [in WA] using 5,229 kWh per year paid the government-set price and had an annual bill of $1,319 exclusive of GST. “  “In 2014/15, a representative consumer [in SA] on the representative standing offer using 5,000 kWh per year had a total annual bill of $1,811 exclusive of GST.”

Parasitic Wind…..Merely a “Novelty” Source of Energy! (and the novelty has worn off)…

Wind Power: The Parasitic Power Producer

mosquito-7192_lores

Promoting Parasitic Power Producers
carbon-sense.com
Viv Forbes
17 July 2014

Wind and solar are parasitic power producers, unable to survive in a modern electricity grid without the back-up of stand-alone electricity generators such as hydro, coal, gas or nuclear. And like all parasites, they weaken their hosts, causing increased operating and transmission costs and reduced profits for all participants in the grid.

Without subsidies, few large wind/solar plants would be built; and without mandated targets, few would get connected to the grid.

Green zealots posing as energy engineers should be free to play with their green energy toys at their own expense, on their own properties, but the rest of us should not be saddled with their costs and unreliability.
We should stop promoting parasitic power producers. As a first step, all green energy subsidies and targets should be abolished.

For those who wish to read more:

Wind Power Chaos in Germany:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9559656/Germanys-wind-power-chaos-should-be-a-warning-to-the-UK.html

The reality of green energy:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/18/the-stark-reality-of-green-techs-solar-and-wind-contribution-to-world-energy/

Blowing Our Dollars in the Wind

Wind energy produces costly, intermittent, unpredictable electricity. But Government subsidies and mandates have encouraged a massive gamble on wind investments in Australia – over $7 billion has already been spent and another $30 billion is proposed.

This expenditure is justified by the claim that by using wind energy there will be less carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere which will help to prevent dangerous global warming.

Incredibly, this claim is not supported by any credible cost-benefit analysis – a searching enquiry is well overdue. Here is a summary of things that should be included in the enquiry.

Firstly, no one knows how much global warming is related to carbon dioxide and how much is due to natural variability. However, the historical record shows that carbon dioxide is not the most important factor, and no one knows whether net climate feedbacks are positive or negative. In many ways, the biosphere and humanity would benefit from more warmth, more carbon dioxide and more moisture in the atmosphere.

However, let’s assume that reducing man’s production of carbon dioxide is a sensible goal and consider whether wind power is likely to achieve it. To do this we need to look at the whole life cycle of a wind tower.

Wind turbines are not just big simple windmills – they are massive complex machines whose manufacture and construction consume much energy and many expensive materials. These include steel for the tower, concrete for the footings, fibre glass for the nacelle, rare metals for the electro-magnets, steel and copper for the machinery, high quality lubricating oils for the gears, fibre-glass or aluminium for the blades, titanium and other materials for weather-proof paints, copper, aluminium and steel for the transmission lines and support towers, and gravel for the access roads.

There is a long production chain for each of these materials. Mining and mineral extraction rely on diesel power for mobile equipment and electrical power for haulage, hoisting, crushing, grinding, milling, smelting, refining. These processes need 24/7 reliable electric power which, in Australia, is most likely to come from coal.

These raw materials then have to be transported to many specialised manufacturing plants, again using large quantities of energy, generating more carbon dioxide.

Then comes the construction phase, starting with building a network of access roads, clearance of transmission routes, and excavation of the massive footings for the towers. Have a look here at the massive amount of steel, concrete and energy consumed in constructing the foundations for just one tower: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX0RhjeLlCs

Not one tonne of steel or concrete can be produced without releasing carbon dioxide in the process.

Almost all of the energy used during construction will come from diesel fuel, with increased production of carbon dioxide.

Moreover, every bit of land cleared results in the production of carbon dioxide as the plant material dozed out of the way rots or is burnt, and the exposed soil loses its humus to oxidation.

Once the turbine starts operating the many towers, transmission lines and access roads need more maintenance and repair than a traditional power plant that produces concentrated energy from one small plot of land using a small number of huge, well-tested, well protected machines. Turbines usually operate in windy, exposed, isolated locations. Blades need to be cleaned using large specialised cranes; towers and machinery need regular inspection and maintenance; and mobile equipment and manpower needs to be on standby for lightning strikes, fires or accidents. All of these activities require diesel powered equipment which produces more carbon dioxide.

Even when they do produce energy, wind towers often produce it at times when demand is low – at night for example. There is no benefit in this unwanted production, but it is usually counted as saving carbon fuels.

Every wind farm also needs backup power to cover the 65%-plus of wind generating capacity that is lost because the wind is not blowing, or blowing such a gale that the turbines have to shut down.

In Australia, most backup is provided by coal or gas plants which are forced to operate intermittently to offset the erratic winds. Coal plants and many gas plants cannot switch on and off quickly but must maintain steam pressure and “spinning reserve” in order to swing in quickly when the fickle wind drops. This causes grid instability and increases the carbon dioxide produced per unit of electricity. This waste should be debited to the wind farm that caused it.

Wind turbines also consume energy from the grid when they are idle – for lubrication, heating, cooling, lights, metering, hydraulic brakes, energising the electro-magnets, even to keep the blades turning lazily (to prevent warping) and to maintain line voltage when there is no wind.

A one-month study of the Wonthaggi wind farm in Australia found that the facility consumed more electricity than it produced for 16% of the period studied. A detailed study in USA showed that 8.3% of total wind energy produced was consumed by the towers themselves. This is not usually counted in the carbon equation.

The service life of wind towers is far shorter than traditional power plants. Already many European wind farms have reached the end of their life and contractors are now gearing up for a new boom in the wind farm demolition and scrap removal business. This phase is likely to pose dangers for the environment and require much diesel powered equipment producing yet more carbon dioxide.

Most estimates of carbon dioxide “saved” by using wind power look solely at the carbon dioxide that would be produced by a coal-fired station producing the rated capacity of the wind turbine. They generally ignore all the other ways in which wind power increases carbon energy usage, and they ignore the fact that wind farms seldom produce name-plate capacity.

When all the above factors are taken into account over the life of the wind turbine, only a very few turbines in good wind locations are likely to save any carbon dioxide. Most will be either break-even or be carbon-negative – the massive investment in wind may achieve zero climate “benefits” at great cost.

Entrepreneurs or consumers who choose wind power should be free to do so but taxpayers and electricity consumers should not be forced to subsidise their choices for questionable reasons.

People who claim climate sainthood for wind energy should be required to prove this by detailed life-of-project analysis before getting legislative support and subsidies.

Otherwise we are just blowing our dollars in the wind.

For those who wish to read more:
 
UK Wind farms will create more carbon dioxide than they save:
 
 
Wind energy does little to reduce carbon dioxide emissions:
 
 
The High Cost of reducing carbon dioxide using wind energy:
 
 
Wind power does not avoid significant amounts of greenhouse gas emissions:
 
 
and
 
 
 
Why Wind Won’t Work:
 
 
Energy Consumption in Wind Facilities:
 
 
Growing Problem of Grid Instability:
 
 
Contractors prepare for US81M boom in decommissioning North Sea wind farms:
 
 
Time to End Wind Power Corporate Welfare:
 

Viv Forbes
17 July 2014
carbon-sense.com

Money Wasted

This is the Result of Politicians, Thinking They are Scientists!…..Disaster!

The physics of a boiling kettle – my question to the commission!

2fa36b2
MY WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE COMMISSION:

“I understand that the Commission proposes to introduce measures to limit the power of electric kettles. Is this the case?

Does the Commission have any grasp of the basic physics of boiling a kettle?

Is the Commission aware that so far as the water itself is concerned, it takes just the same energy to boil a litre of water slowly as to boil it quickly?

Is the Commission aware that in boiling it slowly, over a longer time, more waste heat will be lost to the environment through conduction, convection and radiation?

Does the Commission therefore recognise that this proposal will increase electricity consumption, generate more waste heat, and tend to increase emissions, both of CO2 and water vapour?”

 

Residents File a “Class-Action” lawsuit, to Block Wind Turbines!

Residents File Class-Action Lawsuit to Block

Wind Turbines Near Kingfisher

 
 

 
p. 17
 
 

 
p. 18
 
 

Seven landowners filed a class-action lawsuit this week to prevent wind turbines from being built near their homes in Canadian and Kingfisher counties.

In the complaint, which is embedded above, the landowners claim that planned wind farm projects controlled by Virginia-based Apex Clean Energy would create a nuisance, devalue their property and adversely affect their health.

The landowners who brought the lawsuit all live within three miles of the planned wind farm, and, in many cases, own property within the “no-build” zone of the planned locations of the 500-foot-tall turbines. From the complaint, with bullets added for readability:An organization that opposes wind projects in the two counties, the Oklahoma Wind Action Association, brought the lawsuit on behalf of the landowners. The suit was filed Aug. 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

  • … Industrial Wind Turbine manufacturers recommend a minimum setback or safety zone of three (3) times turbine height—in this case fifteen hundred (1500) feet—between any home and an Industrial Wind Turbine for safety purposes in case of catastrophic failure of one or more components, not to protect against adverse effects resulting from noise.
  • As a result, Industrial Wind Turbines, by their own safety standards, create a de facto “no-build” zone in a fifteen hundred (1500) radius surrounding the Turbine. In many instances, this “no-build” zone overlaps with the property of landowners who have no agreement with Defendants.
  • This invasion of Plaintiffs’ right to use and enjoy their property requires Defendants to obtain an easement from the landowner that restricts their ability to construct upon any property within the fifteen hundred (1500) feet of the Industrial Wind Turbine. Otherwise, Defendants’ Industrial Wind Turbines will interfere with Plaintiffs’ ability to use their property as they wish safely.
  • Defendants have undertaken no effort to obtain such easements and Plaintiffs will be left with a cloud upon their titles.

The wind energy industry is booming in Oklahoma, which was the country’s fourth-largest wind-power producer in 2013. But there has been consierable resistance to some wind farm projects, including the Apex projects planned for Canadian and Kingfisher counties.

In December 2013, officials in the nearby city of Piedmont approved an agreement with Apex to settle a heated, year-long fight to block wind farm construction near the city. Officials in Kingfisher, too, are negotioating with Apex on a similar setback agreement, according to the lawsuit.

On Sept. 11, the Oklahoma Corporation will hold its first public meeting to discuss potential statewide rules for the wind energy industry, an action requested by Sen. President Pro Tempore Brian Bingman, R-Sapulpa, which was spurred by vocal opposition to proposed wind farm projects in Osage and Craig counties.

 

Hard to Believe Governments Could Be So Stupid!!

Littlejohn, Bacofoil & Exploding Manhole Covers – You Could Not Make It Up!

JULY 9, 2014
 

By Paul Homewood

  

bccomics-globalwarming

 

Littlejohn on top form!

 

So far, so typical. Last week spectators at Wimbledon were being treated for sunstroke as temperatures soared into the 80s.

On Saturday the heavens opened, as they usually do after a heatwave, soaking the motor racing at Silverstone and Henley Regatta.

By the end of this week, the Met Office is predicting it will be Phew, What A Scorcher! time again. It’s called the British summer.

Not according to the Government, it isn’t. Officially, we don’t have weather any more.

We have ‘climate change’, a catch-all excuse for everything from raising taxes and refusing to empty the bins to exploding manhole covers.

That’s right, exploding manhole covers. The Health and Safety Executive has warned pedestrians to be on the alert after a series of manhole cover explosions in London’s West End.

There have been 64 such incidents already this year, compared with just nine in 2011. ‘Experts’ blame the ‘wettest winter on record’ for rainwater damaging underground electric cables.

The heavy rainfall, which brought flooding to many parts of the country, is naturally attributed to ‘climate change’, which is also allegedly responsible for last week’s hot weather and the subsequent deluge at the weekend.

Self-appointed ‘experts’ refuse to acknowledge that we had extreme weather before ‘man-made global warming’ was invented.

You don’t have to go as far back as the 17th century, when ice fairs were held on the frozen River Thames and vineyards flourished across the South of England.

Within living memory, we had the famous floods of 1953, the big freeze ten years later, and the unusually dry summers of 1976 and 1977.

Even then, the Government thought it had to do something. Denis Howell, a former football referee turned MP, was appointed Minister of Drought.

Within three days of him taking the job, it started to rain heavily and he was made Minister of Floods. During the harsh winter of 1978/9, his job description changed again and he became Minister for Snow.

You couldn’t make it up.

I seem to remember Denis importing an American Indian medicine man to perform a rain dance, which at least kept us all entertained.

Today’s political class thinks the answer to unpredictable weather is to close perfectly serviceable coal-fired power stations, litter the landscape with useless windmills and jack up the cost of fuel to meet ‘green’ energy targets.

They also assume the right to lecture us about our behaviour. An outfit called ‘Public Health England’ has taken it upon itself to draw up a ‘Heatwave Plan 2014’ to be distributed to all homes.

I only became aware of this patronising drivel when Mail reader Tony Singleton sent me a copy of a leaflet which had been pushed through his letter box by Devon County Council’s ‘Emergency Management’ team.

It begins: ‘Although many of us enjoy the sunshine, as a result of climate change we are increasingly likely to experience summer temperatures that may be harmful to health.’

We are instructed to obey a shopping list of precautions to keep us safe. For instance: ‘Keep out of the sun between 11am and 3pm. If you have to go out in the heat, walk in the shade, apply sunscreen and wear a hat and light scarf.

‘Eat cold foods, particularly salads. Take a cool shower, bath or body wash. Sprinkle water over the skin or clothing or keep a damp cloth on the back of your neck.’ (I never leave home without one.)

As if this isn’t sufficiently insulting to our intelligence, we are also told how to act in our own homes.

‘Close curtains that receive morning and afternoon sun. However, care should be taken with metal blinds and dark curtains, as these can absorb heat. Consider replacing or putting reflective material in between them and the window space.’

What? Covering your windows with Bacofoil is normally associated with lunatics who are convinced they are being targeted by invisible death rays from alien space ships. It’s the kind of thing which gets people sectioned.

Now, though, it appears to be official Government policy. After reading this rubbish, I presumed it couldn’t be confined only to Devon.

I was right. The Heatwave Plan 2014 has been adopted by councils and NHS Trusts all over Britain as part of a national action plan.

I’ve stumbled across websites called ‘Norfolk Prepared’ and ‘Staffordshire Prepared’ giving identical advice.

The author of this extraordinary 45-page document is Professor  Sally C. Davies, Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health.

She has drawn on the expertise of a wide range of healthcare ‘professionals’ from across the public sector. It even contains advice to Muslims on how to avoid becoming dehydrated in the event of a heat wave coinciding with fasting during Ramadan.

They think of everything, don’t they? It was only a matter of time before the ‘climate change’ and ‘diversity’ agendas collided. Goodness knows how much all this madness is costing us.

Meanwhile, in other news, the BBC has decided to stop giving airtime to ‘unqualified climate change deniers’ and the EU is issuing new recycling rules and demanding higher petrol taxes to ‘combat climate change’.

American ‘climate change experts’ have been exposed for fiddling temperature records to make it appear the past was colder than it actually was. Oh, and, far from melting, as the warmist computer models predicted, Antarctic sea ice has hit record levels.

Still, that won’t stop us being lectured like naughty children on the need to wear a hat and cover our windows with Bacofoil.

Curiously, the Heatwave Plan 2014 has nothing to offer about coping with exploding manhole covers.

 

 

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2684001/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-The-sun-got-hat-break-Bacofoil.html

Frauds, Crooks and Criminals

Demonstrating daily that diversity is not strength!

DeFrock

A new look at the Wind Industry

Gerold's Blog

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

PolitiSite

24 Years of Political Commentary, Election Coverage, Polling Analysis and Media Appearances.

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