unaffordable renewables

Big Green Lie – Tells it Like It Is!!!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Why the Liberals won the election and why this Province is nothing more than a “banana republic”!

Posted: June 22, 2014

Sad days in Ontario. Greed, apathy and an intentional dismembering of our Democracy over many decades by various Governments has finally exposed all that’s wrong with allowing an unfettered gang of power mongers and corrupt industrialists to run a Province.

Short term for a place like this on this planet: banana republic

\

Courtesy Bing

One can’t call these past few decades as being ruled by politicians, who are nothing more than “puppets” doing the bidding of their backroom masters, “managed, handled and groomed” to say whatever they are told, all 3 parties that have held the reins of power in this Province. The end result of this type of leadership?……….a bankrupt, divided and lost society with little or no way out from a future mortgaged to the hilt!

The only solution for any “sanity” or financial stability is for people to move and relocate somewhere else in canada that may offer some light.

Sad days in Ontario!!!!

Ontario’s worrying banana republic problem

The Ontario legislature operates under a set of rules that make it nearly impossible for a single opposition party to move motions of non-confidence. This is not normal and it is not democratic.

PETER LOEWEN June 21/2014

Imagine a friend just returned from a country you knew nothing about. During her visit, your friend took an interest in the country’s politics and the election they just held. Suppose she told you the following.

First, the governing party had a leader who, under accusation of major political corruption and the threat of sanction by the legislature, suspended that same legislature until his successor could be chosen. His successor, despite inheriting a government under police investigation, was able to survive nearly two years.

If your mind was an inquiring one, you might want to know how a party could survive in such conditions. Your friend tells you that despite holding only a minority of seats, they were able to routinely buy off the third party through policy concessions. Worse, they’d been able to avoid tests of confidence because these are essentially impossible to move under the rules of the legislature.

Things get stranger and they get worse. When the government was finally brought down, they were returned with a majority government. Now, the counting was fair and the party’s campaign was above board. But alongside their campaign was a massive one run by unions and interest groups. Those groups seemed sometimes indistinguishable from the campaign personnel of the governing party. And those same unions were preparing to negotiate labour agreements with the party in power. These fellow-travellers could raise and spend money without limit and effectively without oversight.

This cake comes with icing. The provincial police force actively inserted itself into the campaign, releasing information about investigations into the governing party. At the same time, the police union campaigned against the principal opposition party……………………………

MORE to this Story in Ottawa Citizen of June 21/2014

Noise Levels In Homes Near Wind Turbines Are Intolerable for Many!!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Bad news on wind turbine noise

Credit:  The Tablelander | 17/06/2014 | ~~

 

The Mount Emerald wind farm developers should be ashamed. They have released an impact assessment for public comment, including an updated noise report that proposes noise levels even higher than their original plan.

Commenting on the original plan, the Council’s noise expert stated that at night residents would hear wind farm noise on a consistent basis. He stated that individuals susceptible to sleep disturbance or low frequency pressure variations will be affected up to 3km away, and residents at greater distances may also be affected. He recommended the wind farm should NOT be approved as it couldn’t meet Queensland’s noise regulations.

So why have the developers submitted an even noisier plan? They expect our community to endure noise which would not be permitted for any other industrial project in rural Queensland including mines, factories, refineries and power plants.

We want to know our families will be safe from the effects of noise from industrial wind turbines. Unfortunately, at this stage, the National Health and Medical Research Council can offer us no guarantees. The only Australian research accepted for review by the Research Council reports on the adverse health effects (including sleep disturbance, tinnitus, headaches) being experienced by residents living within 10km of large turbines. These reports are consistent with the findings of two other surveys conducted at Australian wind farm sites. Some Australian families have been forced to leave their homes as they can no longer tolerate the noise and vibration from large-scale turbines, such as the ones proposed for Mt Emerald. More information can be found here: www.waubrafoundation.org.au

Now is your first and last opportunity to comment on the wind farm’s social, economic and environmental impacts by making a submission about the developers’ reports, see: (www.mtemeraldwindfarm.com.au/pages/technical_eis_docs.html) Be warned: there are thousands of pages to read and the developers have only given us until 2 July 2014 to make submissions. You must make sure your views are heard, and copy your comments to the Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney (deputypremier@ministerial.qld.gov.au).

We are not happy with the developer’s consultation process so we have posted surveys to property owners within 5km of the Mount Emerald site. A substantial number have been returned but there are still some outstanding. If you haven’t had a chance to return your form or you’ve lost yours, please contact tablelandswta@gmail.com or phone 4093 4392 for assistance. Even if you have filled out a survey, make sure you write a separate submission on the developer’s impact assessment.

Stephen Lavis
Spokesperson
Tablelands Wind Turbine Action

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

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

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

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

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

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

Posted on June 21, 2014 by 

 

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.

Wind Turbines will NEVER Be Ready for Prime Time!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK

If you can’t explain the ‘pause’, you can’t explain the cause…

 

Friday, June 20, 2014

 

Study finds wind power increases costs of electricity production and CO2 emissions

A study from EIKE, the European Institute of Climate & Energy, finds based upon the experience in Germany and the fundamental statistical principles that intermittent and unpredictable wind power cannot serve as a baseline power source, wind power peaks are often wasted and have no correlation with power demand, there is no available means of storing wasted wind power peaks, and thus, the costs of electricity production and CO2 emissions [from firing up the fossil fuel baseline power required] will greatly increase, not decrease, due to wind power.

Google translation, not edited:

Correlation of the feed-in from wind turbines makes base load capacity in Germany impossible

by Dr. – Ing Detlef Ahlborn

When it comes to studies, to develop strategies to secure electricity supply of so-called renewable energies, one finds invariably only vague statements. In this paper it is shown why a strategy for achieving a secure electricity supply from wind turbines can not be developed, and in a country the size of Germany is not developable. Each of these strategies will fail to physical laws and fundamental principles of mathematical statistics. Below is this to be justified in a clear way.

 

Base load, medium load, peak load. Image. Amprion

With the current expansion are all wind and solar energy plants in Germany together not baseload. A corresponding popular scientific study was published by the author on the Internet at http://www.vernunftkraft.de/statistik/. There, the statement was made that “the secured capacity of all wind turbines is to be recognized in Germany together with zero.” This case has now occurred, as the entire wind power on March 13, 2014, to 34 MW (which is one-thousandth of installed capacity or rated output of 34.000MW) has fallen. The practical total failure of wind power is therefore now occurred in Germany.

At this consensus among engineers and scientists can not be shaken, and finally the Einspeisekurven of all wind turbines in Germany are publicly available.

It is therefore not surprising that there is only “vague statements” in relevant studies here. To this fact, the lobby pushes gathered around with their subordinate institutions with semi-specific generalities.

Performs an expansion of wind power for smoothing the supply?

In the evaluation of the further expansion to an equalization of the supply, the estimates vary widely among scientists. The sense after about IWES in Kassel considers that a further expansion for smoothing and thus to equalize the supply leads. So it says in the verfertigten in Kassel on IWES “Agora short study of the development of wind energy in Germany” for example: “A large-scale distribution of plants consequently leads to a smoothing of supply.”

Anyone who has ever dealt with mathematical statistics, sees “at first sight” that this thesis is mathematically unsustainable. The dispersion or variability of a random size, such as the number thrown eyes of a sequence of 50 tosses of a cube is “measured” in mathematics by the so-called variance. If one performs this cube experiment with 2 dice (and thus the expansion of wind power includes in this experiment, because the dice are rolled with more cubes) and forms the sum of the spots numbers and consider the scattering of this sum, it is found that the scattering ( and increases the variance!) the sum and does not sink. This statement is evident, because the numbers fluctuate in a cube 1-6, with two litters 2-12. Underlying this is the addition theorem for the variance of mathematical statistics.He says that the variance of a sum of random numbers as the sum of the variances of the individual random numbers.With each summand the variance and thus the scattering and, ultimately, the variability increases.

The conclusion at this point is beyond doubt:

An expansion of wind power increases the dispersion of the feed. The team fielded by IWES scientists claim for smoothing is in clear contradiction with unique sets of mathematical statistics. The claim is simply wrong!

If the infeed is perpetuated by the expansion of wind power?

Looking at the issue of complementarity of wind turbines to a “stabilization” of the feed, should be brought to see more detail. However, the deeper connections of mathematical statistics are “somewhat tricky” (new German: more sophisticated): The described dice experiment, we now want to carry with 3, 4, 5, and finally with a very large number of dice and the sum of the reflected eyes Numbers consider it. This sum we want to make in thought, because the feeds of all individual wind turbines are added in our grid completely analogous in every moment. If the following statements we perform this experiment with 50 cubes immediately clear:

  • As the sum of the number is very rarely 50 or 300 shown because it is very unlikely that 50 times the number of eyes will fall 1 or 6,
  • The number 175 is frequent, because there are many combinations of eyes figures that lead to the sum of 175.
Figure SEQ Figure \ * ARABIC 1 Total number of eyes at 50 cubes

If one evaluates the frequency distribution of this sum from, it can be seen that this sum is distributed approximately according to the known normal distribution Gaussian. This

Knowledge is the statement of a fundamental theorem of mathematical statistics, known as the “Central Limit Theorem”. He states the following: If one forms the sum of a large number of random numbers, then this sum follows a normal distribution, the more accurate the larger the number of summands. In the described experiment cube ie the sum of the figures eyes to the value of 175 will vary, the minimum value can be 50, the maximum value may be 300. If one were to interpret the sum of the eyes numbers than the sum formed from 50 individual feeds the feed services, you can initially set the statement can be made that this imaginary random “performance” is baseload, because she never falls practically to zero and varies about a mean value. The course of 50 litters in succession formed the sum is shown in Figure 1. It can be seen that the sums eye number varies around a mean value, and practically never drops to small values.

Figure SEQ Figure \ * ARABIC 2 The actual supply of wind turbines in Germany

Now the electric grid in Germany is the sum of the feeds from 24,000 wind turbines. The number of these summands so statistically exceeds the number being used here of 50 cubes by orders of magnitude. Due to the aforementioned dice experiment is therefore to be expected that the sum of the sources leads to a smooth curve, which would resemble the one in Figure 1, at least.

This is without a doubt not the case: The course of the feed shows the known fluctuation behavior with the extreme fluctuations of injected power. In addition, the total supply of all wind turbines Germany does not follow the normal distribution Gaussian (Figure 3). Thus the course of the actual feed-in is initially very evidently contrary to the statements that would be expected of the central limit theorem of mathematical statistics for the fed wind power

The transfer of the results for the simple cube experiment on the total supply of the wind turbines is obviously unjustified.

Now what is the problem?

First, the injected power of a single windmill is distributed differently than the eyes number of dice. The latter is uniformly distributed, ie each eye number is equally likely = 1/6, corresponding to a probability of 16.67%. In a small wind turbine performance are much more likely than large ones. However, this is not the reason for the deviation of the curves, finally you can generalize the “central limit theorem” of statistics on any kind of distribution. [1]

The difference between the test cubes with 50 dice and adding the feeds from 24000 (!) Wind turbines is that the reflected eyes of each number cube “has nothing to do” with that of another cube. The values ​​of all dices are thrown independently in the statistical sense. This statement does not apply to supplies, the individual wind turbines because the wind speed at various wind turbine locations are similar in virtually any weather conditions in large areas, ie the individual feeds are not statistically independent. When the wind blows strongly in the north of Hesse, which is virtually always in the south of Hesse the case. This statement is also obvious in the usual size of low pressure areas and apply mutatis mutandis to each state. This simple fact causes high as well as low feeds at the same time virtually always occur in large areas. It is said that the feeds are correlated with one another, ie, in large-scale environment of a randomly chosen reference system can be traced back the feeds of all plants in this a reference plant. If you know the power fed a reference system, so you can determine the capacities of all stations in the large-scale environment of the performance of the reference system with high probability. This fact, the content of the statistical correlation. For the entire area of ​​Germany corresponds each reference system in a statistical sense just a cube from the cube experiment in which the question is asked, by how many reference systems shown feeding into Germany can be so understood. This number measures the intensity of the correlation. If this number is small, the correlation is strong, this number is large, the correlation is fairly weak. The cube experiment has shown: the larger the number, the better the feeds can be offset with each other. If this number is small, however, a mutual compensation of the feeds is possible in principle, benefits may but fall again and again to very small values, because it frequently occurs in less than 5 independent reference systems that supply all systems decreases to very small values. In this case, the total supply is in principle not baseload. In this context, wind turbines have another problem: low performance are very common, and are therefore very likely high performances are rare, and are therefore unlikely. This fact is then reflected in the frequency distribution of the total feed, which is shown in Figure 3.

Figure SEQ Figure \ * ARABIC 4 Frequency of actual and calculated from three reference plants feed

This distribution is not normally distributed without any doubt according to Gauss, from which it can be immediately concluded that their analysis to a small enough number of independent reference systems.

It can be shown that this “small number” is only at 3, ie the total sum feed in Germany can be traced back to only three reference plants. This relationship is shown in Figure 4. The feeds all plants are therefore among themselves highly correlated. Thus, although these three reference systems are not mutually correlated, all 23997 remaining plants can be traced back to these three reference systems. Published in the named Agora study on page 13 knowledge, “that plants can complement each other in different locations” is certainly correct, however it does not follow that the complementarity of the different feeds to a base load. As they say in mathematics, the condition of statistical independence of two power supplies for the base load capacity is necessary but not sufficient.

It does not matter whether individual plants can complement each other in different locations (that are statistically independent from each other), but how large is the number of facilities that are statistically independent from each other in different locations. If the total supply of all equipment can currently be traced back to only 3 statistically independent reference plants in Germany, can not reasonably be expected that the number of reference plants and thus statistically independent feeds will grow significantly due to the construction of facilities.

An expansion of wind power due to the proven strong dependence of the feeds themselves not help to stabilize the performance. The prepared by IWES on behalf of Agora claim would be desirable, but turns out to be incorrect and contrary to the central limit theorem, a fundamental theorem of mathematical statistics, which was proved in 1922 by the mathematician Lindenberg.

Conclusion:

1 Because of the fundamental principles of mathematical statistics the summary feed-in from wind turbines in the area of ​​Germany is in principle not baseload. The development of wind power in our country can not and will not change anything essential.

  • 2 The power peaks will increase due to the expansion of wind power further and further exacerbate the known problems of overproduction of non-recyclable stream of evils such as the so-called negative prices in the stock market.
  • 3 There are no large technically available memory efficient technology for the use of the rising power peaks, so that the power supply without power plants in the background can not be operated. It does not matter whether they are operated with gas, lignite or hard coal. The exit from the nuclear power plants will force an expansion of conventional power plants. The costs associated with electricity production and carbon dioxide emissions will increase and not decrease.

 

[1] Those skilled in the art: In the mathematical literature, this message is known as a Lyapunov condition.

CCSAGE Will Have Their Day In Appeals Court! Awesome!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Court of appeal to hear Prince Edward County turtle case

JUN 20

Posted by 

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!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

June 19, 2014 by Ron Arnold

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!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

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

VA bureaucrats obsessed over green energy installation

Posted on June 20, 2014 by 

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!!!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

The Washington Post verifies ‘the pause’ in global warming

Posted on June 20, 2014 by 

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.

Wind Pushers Don’t Feel Obligated, to “Obey Laws”!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Turbines spin without approval in West Lincoln

Ministry says company is ‘operating out of compliance’

Turbines spin without approval in West Lincoln

Turbines spin without approval in West Lincoln

Grimsby Lincoln News

By  Amanda Moore

WEST LINCOLN — They’ve only been running a few days and already residents living near wind turbines say they are feeling the effects.

“I don’t hear the refrigerator or anything anymore,” said Zlata Zoretic, seated at neighbour Wendy Veldman’s kitchen table Tuesday afternoon. “Just this low hum.”

Zoretic said she has felt pressure in her ears since the turbines in the HAF Wind Energy Project were turned on June 12. Her bedroom window gives her an uninterrupted view of the turbine that is just 640 metres from her home.

“Is it in my head? I don’t know,” she said. “It’s driving me crazy.”

The turbines were switched on without warning last week for a 24-hour and have not stopped turning since.

Project proponents,  Vineland Power Inc. and Rankin Wind Energy, notified the Ministry of Environment last week that they intended to turn the turbines on for a 24-hour test period. The company had also indicated at the time that it was considering starting up operations, said a ministry spokesperson.

“The ministry has told the company not to operate while the amendment application is under review,” said Kim Groombridge, MOE district supervisor for Niagara. “They are operating out of compliance.”

The project was delayed after it was discovered that several of the turbines were built closer than the 95-metre property line setback. The West Lincoln Glanbrook Wind Action Group used a rangefinder to measure the distances between the towering turbines and neighbouring property lines. It found four of the five turbines infract the minimum setback — the height of the tower from base to hub, which in this case is 95 metres.

Property owner Anne Meinen said the location of the turbine impedes on her ability to farm her land — something she has been doing for more than 40 years. She said the location limits her aerial abilities for seeding and spraying her land as well as prohibits the use of new technology she has been looking into.

“I am very concerned that the presence of this turbine so close will not enable me to utilize these production tools and will therefore limit my ability to operate my farming business,” she wrote to the ministry. “I believe that begging for forgiveness rather than asking for permission is a poor way to do business that should not be rewarded.”

Of the women in the room, Carole Kaufhold lives closest to the wind turbines. Her Sixteen Road home is just 553 metres from turbine No. 3 — just three metres over the provincial limit of 550.

Kaufhold has had a severe case of anxiety since the turbines went into operation.

“I became very anxious and irritated,” she said of returning home from work to find the blades swooping through the air. “My heart has been pounding, it’s hard to concentrate.”

Kaufhold said she feels nauseous every time she looks at the turbines.

All claim the turbines are much louder than the low hum — like that of a refrigerator — they were told about.

Anne Fairfield said she heard a low-pitched whine coming from the machine nearest her home around 3 a.m. on Sunday. Her partner, Ed Engel, can feel the vibrations in his bedroom which faces the turbine.

Fairfield and Engel along with Kaufhold and her husband participated in a pre-commissioning sleep study being conducted by a graduate student at the University of Waterloo. Though it was uncomfortable and awkward to sleep hooked up to a bunch of machines, all agree there is value in participating in a study which could show the impacts of industrial wind turbines on sleep. A total of 22 people are involved in the study and a second round of testing will be completed now that the turbines are in operation.

The residents hope the results prove that turbines do impact human health — a claim they have been making since they learned of the project in 2010.

“I’ve had PTSD — pre-turbine stress disorder — since Aug. 25, 2010,” said Fairfield, mentioning the date of the first public meeting held on the project. “It’s very stressful. All I do is worry and wonder.”

Fairfield is most concerned about a gas well near her home that is only five metres from a collector line for the project.

Though the turbines are now spinning near her country home, Veldman isn’t done fighting.

“I’m not going to stop calling until they take them down,” she said. “I’m not going to listen to the squealing and girding of the turbines. I’m used to agricultural noise, this isn’t agriculture. This is industrial noise.

“It has to stop,” she said. “I don’t want to see anymore.”

The ministry’s investigations and enforcement branch is investigating the matter, said Groombridge as the project is still under review by the ministry and has not been approved for operation.

The turbines were shut down as of 5 p.m. June 18.