Archive for November, 2007

Evel Knievel Legendary US daredevil Dies at 69

November 30, 2007


From the Editor:

You thrilled millions over the years.





Evel Knievel in 1977

Knievel famously attempted to jump Snake River Canyon

Legendary US daredevil Evel Knievel has died at the age of 69, his granddaughter has said. Knievel had suffered ill-health, including diabetes and pulmonary fibrosis – an incurable lung condition – for several years.

He underwent a liver transplant, after nearly dying of hepatitis C, in 1999.

Knievel gained cult status performing death-defying stunts in the 1960s and 70s, including an attempted motorcycle jump over Snake River Canyon in Idaho.

Rocket-powered bike

Obiturary – Evel Knievel

Worldwide rush for wind power could result in massive debt

November 30, 2007

Posted November 30, 2007

As told in a recent ad, a Johnsburg farmer who will host wind turbines now has many regrets.

He regrets having been the “lure” to draw in other unsuspecting landowners. He regrets that he has allowed fields to be subdivided, road base to be spread on land once picked bare of rocks, costly tiling to be cut up. He regrets that he’s no longer the person who controls his own land and is now told where to go by security guards. He regrets the divide he has created between friends, between neighbors and between family members.

He regrets not having looked into all the ramifications first. That farmer is now locked in to a binding contract. But there are many landowners who have not yet suffered this fate.

Calumet County Citizens for Responsible Energy asks that landowners considering a contract first step back and study the issues. As with any financial transaction, don’t put a lot of trust in those who stand to gain financially.

Look for Web sites and information from those experiencing the effects of this worldwide “gold” rush for wind power. People across world are rebelling. They’re finding that they’ve lost control of their land and their lives. And they’re in danger of financial hardship if these companies dissolve.

Our irresponsible government representatives are forcing this “windfall” for wind investors on us. Their knee-jerk reaction to the global climate change alarms will cause billions of dollars to be wasted, lives to be ruined, and environments degraded for what is, in actuality, a very inefficient energy source.

With a declining tax base and state and U.S. legislators driving us further into massive debt, taxpayer subsidies for wind will be impossible to maintain.

And with the subsidies gone, what will you be left hosting?

Don Bangert,



November 27, 2007

Disillusioned by David Suzuki’s latest pronouncements, Shawn Blore senses an eco-generation gap widening.

It’s the doers vs. the doomsayers.

by Shawn Blore

David Suzuki hates my neighbourhood. Not my current one, but the one I want to move to, a community I and others of my generation intend to design and build on a little piece of poisoned industrial land on the southeast shore of False Creek. Suzuki hates this plan, so much so that he’s written an open letter condemning the concept, and had his words enlarged and posted two metres high just inside the doors of the Mountain Equipment Co-op. Below his letter there’s a petition calling for my new home to be eliminated in favour of a park. We had planned to make this land into a community, one reflecting many of our values: a walkable, dense, mixed neighbourhood of modest dwellings, a neighbourhood that generates its own energy so far as possible, and deals with the mucky business of waste-water treatment on site. The short form label given this kind of neighbourhood is “sustainable.”

David Suzuki, environmentalist sans pareil, sees no value in any of this. “Vancouver’s population of people and cars,” he writes in his letter, “already exceeds anything that is sustainable. Our ecological footprint is huge. To talk about ‘sustainable housing’ for 5,000 more people is an oxymoron. It fails to recognize what sustainable means. I support you in your efforts to make an urban forest in that area.”

The wound would be deep and bitter, had not the disillusionment been scabbing over for so long. Suzuki was an early idol of mine, as he was to many of my contemporaries, born as we were in the ’60s and raised in the early environmental flowering of the 1970s. He was not the first Canadian environmentalist by any means, but he was the first to embrace electronic media – television in particular – and for that he became the prophet of an entire generation.

I, we, all of us Gen X-ers ate it up. When the applause finally quieted, I was one of the first to make my way to the microphone stand for a question. What can we young people do, I asked, the tremour of revelation in my voice, to avoid this great calamity? A preacher at an oldtime revival would have whisked me into the back and shown me how to make religion a part of my every waking moment. Suzuki had a different answer. By the time someone has reached university age, he said, they’ve been so corrupted, they’ve got so much invested in the system, that there’s really not much hope they can change. That’s why, he said, I’m focusing most of my efforts now on children. For them I think there’s hope.

For us, went the obvious corollary, the only thing waiting was the Pit. Had I been smarter I might have asked just what he was doing there, then, besides padding his bank account with speaking fees. Had I possessed more of the cynicism my generation is said to own in spades, I might have noted other discrepancies in Suzuki’s message: the Ontario-born resident of Kitsilano, calling on people to live in one place for life; the jet-setting conference-goer, bemoaning the rise of airplane travel.

But I was then neither sharp nor particularly wise; for a time I took his message to heart. The Pit it was, until a purer generation could be raised.

For the socially minded there would he rooftop and community gardens, nourished by water collected in rain barrels. The gardens would provide a hedge against food security, and a place for folks to gather and gossip. There would also be a community centers, day-care spaces close to people’s home, a restored habitat along the shoreline, and countless spots to meet and greet on the street. Most importantly, the success of the development would be evaluated using a new full-cost accounting framework, one that finally internalized many of the costs conventional development now sloughs off onto mother nature, or the rest of us taxpayers at large. The city – and interested onlookers would be able to judge in the cold light of economics whether sustainable development was financially feasible. It was a bold yet coherent vision, as yet unrealized anywhere on the globe.

The casual ignorance of Suzuki’s missive is astonishing. Take only his misuse of the term “ecological footprint.” The very concept – an analytical tool for measuring human impact on the environment in terms of land area was invented by a Gen-X technocrat, Swiss-born engineer Mathis Wackernagel, while he was completing his PhD at the University of British Columbia.

As for Suzuki’s hypocrisy, that was simply breathtaking, particularly in light of the fund-raising letter he recently sent me. “Dear Friend,” he begins. “Over the past few years I’ve read more than 20,000 letters from people all over the world responding to my television and radio programs. Most agree strongly with my message that the life-support systems of the planet are being radically disrupted.
“But most people ask: What can I DO?…”
Suzuki goes on to identify a four-step program for achieving sustainability: defining the biological necessities of life, developing visions of sustainable societies, outlining a range of choices for making the transition to those societies “without a total upheaval in our lives,” and communicating those strategies to a wide audience.

Not much different from the False Creek process. So why then is Suzuki campaigning against something he says he needs my money to accomplish? Partly, I believe, for the simple reason that it’s not Arcadia, that classical Greco-Roman idyll of pastoral purity Like so many environmentalists of his generation, Suzuki seems to envision a sustainable world made up of small towns and tiny villages only, with the vast majority of humanity eking out a living with hand-made tools on self-supporting peasant farms. But like so many of those who articulate this vision, Suzuki has never actually ever tried it.

The other reason Suzuki hates the False Creek vision, I believe, is because deep in his heart he’s a Maximalist. His vision is of a grand and glorious broom sweeping the polluted stables clean in a single Herculean stroke. As with all Maximalists, he has nothing but impatience for those who – seeing no such instrument in sight – set to work with the tools at hand to clean up the mess, one scoop at a time if necessary.

And measurable. Estimating conservatively, it’s likely that a Southeast False Creek dweller’s ecological footprint would be at least 25-per-cent smaller than the standard Suburban-driving suburbanite’s. Now consider that the vast majority of the world resources are consumed in the first world. If the False Creek model were to catch on and spread to the point that, say, 10 per cent of new housing in the North America incorporated substantial elements of the False Creek model, the result might be as much as single percentage point drop in world resource consumption. Not enough. Far from it. But not bad for one little project. It certainly beats waving a little jar over your head and wailing about the coming apocalypse.

Barring further interventions, the False Creek plan is scheduled to go before Vancouver city council in July. And so, may I post a six-foot-high sign of my own?

Dear Dr. Suzuki, your performance with regards to the proposed sustainable community in southeast False Creek has confused and discouraged a group of politicians who were bravely following the proper course. You’ve damaged – perhaps fatally – efforts to create a better kind of city. To improve things, butt out. Let another, quieter, more practical generation take up the hard job of making real improvements to the world. There is no better place to begin, we believe, than the little strip of poisoned industrial land, on the southeast shore of False Creek.

Click the link for the full article
Shawn Blore writes frequently about sustainability issues

Wind energy: beware, turbulence ahead

November 22, 2007

[Bernard Viau was the editor of the national newsletter for the Green Party of Canada. When he posted an article denouncing wind in early July, Green Party of Canada Opposes Placing Industrial Wind Farms too Close to Homesthere was such a backlash that he resigned his post.]

Wind farm projects are growing like mushrooms after a rainy day, but the air is turbulent in the wind industry. Industrial wind farms are not as nice and green as promoters want us to believe. Like an opponent puts it : “There is more here than immediately meets the eye with industrial wind generators, and often the devil is in the details.”

Pugwash in Nova Scotia, Wolfe Island in Ontario, Saint-Arsene in Quebec, and Edinbane in Scotland are actually living very stressful times. These small places are being called names by both industrialists and environmentalists because of their opposition to a green energy project.

Lots of other small places have the same problem in the world : Carrolltown in New York, Cairnbrook in Pennsylvania, Chilton in Wisconsin, Glenrock in Wyoming, Saint-Joseph in Manitoba, Greensburg in Kansas, Benjamin in West Virginia, Mount Hays in British Columbia, Sevenmile Hill in Oregon, Bagthorpe in England and many others.

Wind farm projects are growing like mushrooms after a rainy day, but the air is turbulent in the wind industry. Industrial wind farms are not as nice and green as promoters want us to believe. Like an opponent puts it : “There is more here than immediately meets the eye with industrial wind generators, and often the devil is in the details.”

Like a lot of other countries, Canada is actually facing a rush of private wind energy companies. Don’t be fooled, the money promoters are investing in wind energy has nothing to do with the environment. What these astute industrialists want is clear : profit from government Green Energy Projects, grab all incentive money available, commit as little as possible to local economy and then run or sell their wind farms to large income funds. All political parties are praising the wind energy but all, including the Green Party, are carefully avoiding the tough questions. The truth is that our politicians are misinformed, naïve and gullible. They all want to be known as green because nowadays for everyone, green is the politically correct colour to wear. The story is the same whether you live in Canada, in Australia, in Scotland or in France.

Don’t misunderstand me ! I believe that making a profit is a sign of good management. I have no anti-capitalistic thinking and I believe that the wealth of nations is built by entrepreneurs but I also strongly believe in responsible investment. A few years ago, I did sell one of the first Canadian tax shelter in the wind energy when I worked as a investment broker. Don’t give me that grap thinking about what is good for the economy and the global market. Buying garlic from China at the supermarket instead of buying it from local producers is totally stupid from a common sense point of view and some wind farms also defy pure common sense as you will see.

Most wind energy projects are industrial in size, ranging from 30 to 150 turbines. Simple people are often blinded by the very words “wind energy”. They cannot imagine that one could oppose so green a project as a wind farm. Well, I’m opposed to some industrial wind farm projects and for good reasons ! Wind farms do have downside effects : on the landscape, on health, on property value and also on our energy supply.

Wind farms may be built on private land but they affect the landscape, which is common property, so to speak. We judge things according to their potential return on investment. It is then only normal that promoters are at loss when one speaks of the “value” of a landscape. In Europe, citizens are complaining that miles of landscape have already been destroyed by wind farms and that people have been forced to leave their homes for health reasons. Let’s face it, a wind farm is like a forest of huge towers with intermittent headlights on top of them for airplanes ; nobody can miss them ! Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder but still, some landscape are exceptional and we need to protect them ; a wind farm project in front of Niagara Falls would certainly not gain public support in Canada.

The French National Academy of Medicine has called for a moratorium of all industrial wind farms within one and a half kilometers of any residence, because they felt there was a risk for people exposed to the sounds generated by the turbines. The United Kingdom Noise Association recommends the same. A number of health issues have already been raised and researchers have found a cluster of symptoms near industrial wind turbines : headaches, dizziness, nausea, exhaustion, anxiety, anger and irritability.

The wind industry has been trying to convince everyone that there is no problem with bird kills but independent scientific reports of bird and bat deaths near a wind facility estimates the annual death toll between three and six thousand, far worse than anything the wind industry is ready to admit publicly.

It is a well known fact in Europe that land value near a wind farm declines immediately because nobody wants to live near a forest of huge towers. A wind farm is different from the idyllic postcard we mentally have of wind mills in Holland and a wind farm is not a tourist attraction. A wind farm area is a ghetto area, land prices go down. In Danemark, the liberal government is about to pass a bill to give compensation for land loss value to people living near a new wind turbine.

The construction of a wind farm also implies a lot of cement ; a sea of cement would give a better picture. Thousands of very long, broad and heavy trucks will damage all the network of roads. Who will pay the bill ? In 30 years, if the promoters have not declared bankruptcy to avoid paying for dismantling the towers, the cement foundations will be left to the grandchildren of the original owners. Promoters should put money in trust to cover end-of-life dismantling ; a form of asset fund for future generations.

By nature, wind is erratic. An expert who spent his whole life working in generating stations says that “wind power can never become part of any large power grid, it is nothing more than an unreliable add on which is a serious nuisance to grid operators.” A wind farm produces little electricity and adds almost nothing to our generating capacity but yes, it is green and more importantly, it has the favour of politicians around the world.

Promoters say that their wind farm brings an economic windfall, but 75% of the expenses are for the turbines built by multinationals. The truth is that local entrepreneurs will provide the sand, the gravel and the donuts. The company pays royalties to the farmers for their land but prices vary a lot depending on how gullible people are and contracts are secrets of the trade. Farmers often realize later on that all the drainage system is modified and that their lands are permanently damaged for crops. An industrial wind farm creates few jobs locally because the turbines can be monitored by a technician working far away in an office filled with computers.

During public hearings, two promoters were recently scolded by the commissioners for having failed to mention and supply critical information, for not having notified residents affected, for having frequently changed site plans without consulting the township and for failing to comply with several regulations, showing in fact no regard for the environment or for the residents. This is the reality Wolfe Island near Kingston Ontario is actually living and there are hundreds of other cases around the world.

Urban environmentalists, unaware of the real issues, are often saying that any opposition to wind farm project is wrong. If greedy promoters and big shareholders had their way, public enquiries would never be necessary. It is not a question of NIMBY (not in my backyard) attitude. One company in Ontario has a wind farm project right in front of a wildlife protected area. Some far-west entrepreneurs would like to construct wind farms right in your frontyard. The landscape, the local environment and public opinion are being ignored, this is totally unacceptable for society as well as detrimental to the wind industry in general.

These huge towers will still be on our landscape when today’s decision makers are dead. In June of last year, during public hearings by an environmental commission, we proposed that wind farms should be moved away from cultivated lands, away from rivers, from migratory corridors, scenic landscape and heavily populated areas. The best place for wind turbines is the seashore like in Holland. Substantial indemnities should go to repair the road system and standards should be set for the contracts with the farmers. Local residents should be paid on a system based on proximity to the turbine rather than on a system based on straight rent because landscape is a form of common space which belongs to everyone. Municipalities have to become partners with the wind industry. Power utilities should have standard offer contracts that permits local participation. Large wind farm projects, especially those over 100 turbines, should be moved in Canada’s northlands or on the shores of large hydroelectrical reservoirs.

Some will say that the wind farms are replacing coal fired generating plants or nuclear generators. This is not the case. We have better alternatives. Geothermal energy is the greenest and most economical alternative to meet our heating requirements while solar energy is the best one for our energy requirements. Wind energy projects have several downside effects. Why is it that the protection of multinationals and the wind industry’s interests override the protection of wildlife, the environment, local public opinion as well as pure common sense ? The answer is that money talks.

The people building wind farms are not environmentalists but astute promoters who want to profit from green subsidies using tax shelters. These companies feel that they should be able to do as they like without regard for the stakeholders. Milton Friedman would be proud of them for he once wrote that an officer of a company who cares about anything else but maximizing shareholders dividends is to be considered as a subversive element. How could he receive a Nobel prize in Economy ?

Because of greedy promoters, large industrial wind farms are rapidly becoming anti-environmental because they are symbols, not of our respect for the environment but of industrial domination over our resources. The situation is the same in every modern country of the world. Only China has no opposition to the wind industry, but is opposition really possible in China ? The best options for our heating and energy requirements are clearly solar and geothermal energies. Governments should transfer tax credits from wind to geothermal and solar energy. They should also start seriously to promote the use of these green energy in all public buildings and give strong fiscal incentives to companies working in the energy efficiency field. Wind farms are unreliable and are not the best solution to the world energy problems.

If you ever wake up in the middle of a 100 turbine wind farm project, you will not be fighting alone.

Bernard Viau

August 4, 2007

OMB dashes hopes for quick start on turbines

November 22, 2007

[ News Watch Home ]


Any hope Canadian Hydro Developers Inc. might have had for an early start to the Melancthon II wind farm project appears to have been effectively dashed by a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board.

OMB member Norman Jackson has generally decided conditionally in favour of the Melancthon II wind turbines planned for Amaranth Township, but has withheld his order pending a resolution of noise complaints at the transformer substation, among other things, and wants a continuation of the hearing to resolve the specific issues.

Beyond noise from the transformers, Mr. Jackson wants a continuation of the hearing at some point prior to issuing his order. The outstanding issues to be dealt with at that time include construction drawings, de-icing measures, a decommissioning agreement and an amenities agreement.

Neither the guardedly favourable decision nor the withholding was entirely unexpected. During the hearing, Mr. Jackson had cited the Provincial Policy Statement on wind energy as something of a higher authority than his. At the conclusion of the hearing on Oct. 18, there was an understanding that the order would be withheld. The township had agreed in principle to the turbines at the outset of the hearing.

Also during the hearing, Mr. Jackson had indicated his dissatisfaction with the Ministry of Environment’s issuance of a Certificate of Approval for the first of two transformers at the substation in the face of noise complaints from several neighbours.

The transformer noise appears in Mr. Jackson’s conclusions as the gravest of concerns. He indicates that he is doubtful that the noise can be overcome:

“The Board is not satisfied with the increased level of noise site planning through berms nd noise walls and other mitigation measures that the result in the combined transformer site will be an improvement rather than a continuation or worsening of the present hum so graphically described by witnesses and parties in this hearing,” he says.

“This is based upon past mitigative actions and results from the first generator (transformer) that warrant continued monitoring and independence in reporting.”

He goes on to indicate that he wants the noise issue, with respect to the first one, to be completely resolved before he approves a second one.

As well, consistent with his earlier expression of dissatisfaction with Ministry of Environment regulations on noise, he said: “The Board appreciates the work of officials but when the analysis is incomplete (continued monitoring) and the approval process seems to change in midstream, it causes the Board to carefully review its jurisdiction in this case….”

The resolution of the transformer noise issue might be sufficiently complicated that it would require removing the first transformer and reinstalling it some distance below grade – a suggestion that Mr. Jackson notes as having been made late in the hearing.

Outside the noise issues, Mr. Jackson found that CHD had dealt satisfactorily with several other matters, including aerodromes. On aerodromes, he was satisfied with a 2.5- kilometre setback from each end of unregistered ones, plus 600 metres on both sides of the airstrip. Those separations are increased for a few specific ones, such as four kilometres from the ends of runways at Burbank, Kot, Briggs and Pomeroy fields.

Some of those, he found, are in excess of Transport Canada recommendations. He found the planning to be “reasonable and to represent good planning.”

The required Amenities Agreement would be an amount of money paid directly to the township, such that it needn’t be shared with the county or school boards. The decision doesn’t say it, but CHD and the township appear to have agreed to an annual payment of $4,000 per turbine (in addition to the industrial tax on the installations).

Although the order has been withheld, the township during the hearings appeared fully in agreement with site-specific OP amendments for 22 turbines.

Orangeville Citizen

22 November 2007

Ontario blows it

November 20, 2007

 From the Editor

Finally – someone in the media prints the truth about wind energy. Now, will the rest of the media follow suit and force this calamity into the open. Not only are consumers going to be adversely affected, so is industry. You could find yourself on the unemployment line when your industry moves out of the province seeking better electrical rates. Anyone that understands the electrical needs of Ont. knows that putting the scrubbers on the coal plants and building nuclear is the answer. You don’t need to fear Global Warming, you need to fear the unnecessary increase in your electric bills and the possible loss of your job. Wind Energy as proposed by the Ont. govt. is at best a mistake and at worst in can be viewed as a SCAM against the citizens of this province.

Please Wake up and Stand up.

You can do it if you try. 

Erratic wind power brings huge costs

Tom Adams And FranCois Cadieux, Financial Post

Published: Tuesday, November 20, 2007

For all its strengths, we now have enough information to conclude that wind power in Ontario is a disaster for consumers.

Ontario is poorly suited to host wind power.

Predicting wind output changes has proven difficult, but one pattern is clear:Winds tend to be calm when consumers need electricity most. Ontarians use the most electricity in summer — the weakest season for wind. In July and August of 2006 and 2007, Ontario was frequently becalmed and average monthly output fell within the lowly 13% to 19% range. Although winter is the strongest season, on the coldest days, when we use most power, wind output tends to be poorest. Over the typical day, wind output peaks around midnight and bottoms out around 8 a.m., contrary to our daily consumption pattern.

Diversifying the geographic location of wind farms has provided little output stability because, even when widely dispersed, output from individual farms tends to rise and fall in sync. Although limited data is available, the production pattern of New York’s largest wind farm appears to closely match the hourly output of Ontario’s overall wind production. New York’s farm even matches fairly closely the output of a similar farm at Sault St. Marie, 840 kilometres away.

Connecting wind power to the grid is also costly. The first of many high-voltage transmission investments mainly directed at wind is currently pegged at $635-million. Connecting large wind generators to low-voltage distribution networks will require costly re-engineering. Whether high voltage or low, grid connections must be vastly oversized relative to average wind output to support infrequent bursts of full production.

Without radical technological advances, wind power will only burden Ontario consumers. – Tom Adams is an independent energy advisor and Francois Cadieux is an engineering science student at the University of Toronto.

Financial Post for the full story

Couple issues wind warning at the mall

November 15, 2007

From the Editor:

I had the pleasure of meeting Daniel when he was in Ont. to testify at an OMB hearing in Kincardine. He continues to fight for the rights of his family and I ask everyone to support him in his fight for justice. More and more lives are being destroyed as more families are being forced from their homes by the wind industry, with the help of govt. This must stop.

Nova Scotia Couple issues wind warning at the mall; Display informs public about family’s experience living next to turbines

A Yarmouth County couple who claim they were driven from their home by one of their neighbours — in this case a giant electricity-generating wind turbine — are now out shopping for support.

Daniel d’Entremont and his wife Carolyn spent about nine hours behind an information table they set up in the Yarmouth Mall one day last week in an effort to publicize their plight.

Daniel & Carolyn d'Entremont“I think it was a success,” Mr. d’Entremont said. “I think it opened the eyes of a lot of people.”

The family asserts that health risks have forced them to move from their Lower West Pubnico home, where the closest of 17 wind turbines spins just 350 metres from their back porch.

The family decided to move last year with their six children back to the home of Carolyn’s parents in Abrams River, about 35 kilometres from the wind farm at Pubnico Point that’s oper ated by Atlantic Wind Power Corp. Ltd. The constant swooshing sound from the turbines was making everyone in the home sick, Mr. d’Entremont said.

The couple distributed literature to passing shoppers during their full day and evening in the Yarmouth Mall.

“What really struck me was the amount of people who didn’t realize there was a problem,” he said. “A lot of people just didn’t know.

“We want (more) public awareness of the dangers and we’re hoping the company will step up and correct the problem they’ve created here.”

This is happening all over Canada. Time to say NO! Full Story

The d’Entremont home click pic to enlarge.

Gore to join private equity firm

November 12, 2007

The story is from the BBC the links are mine.

Gore to join private equity firm

Al Gore

Al Gore is mobilising money as well as opinion in his climate fight

Al Gore is to become a partner of a US private equity firm with a history of supporting “green technology”. The ex vice-president and environmental activist is to join the board of Kleiner, Perkins, Caulfield and Byers.

He will lead investments in alternative energy sources and firms involved in areas such as recycling, alternative fuel and water purification.

Mr Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last month for his work as a climate change campaigner.

Is Al Gore a Chronic Liar?

In the fall of 1968 Al Gore claimed that he’d influenced the nomination acceptance speech of Hubert Humphrey through conversations with a Chicago Sun columnist. Al Gore asserted he was Humphrey’s ghost writer, but the columnist said that he had nothing to do with that speech. Al Gore’s claim wasn’t true.

Technological solutions

Mr Gore won an Oscar for his documentary An Inconvenient Truth which warned of the imminent and catastrophic danger to the planet of global warming.

A conservative think-tank in New Zealand has written to the president of the America’s Academy Awards asking that the Oscar awarded to the director of an Inconvenient Truth be taken back.

Mr Gore is already heavily involved in supporting energy technology solutions through his investment fund Generation Investment Management (GIM).

From the BBC

Weather Channel boss calls global warming 'the greatest scam in history

November 11, 2007

 From the editor

I am getting ready to boycott  the Canadian Weather Channel. They are more of a propaganda machine than a weather station. 

Maybe they should rename it the

David Suzuki – Al Gore


This story is from the Telegraph, be sure to go to the comment page. 

By Our Foreign Staff

Last Updated: 11:01am GMT 09/11/2007

Have your say Read comments

The founder of the The Weather Channel in the US has described the concept of global warming as ‘the greatest scam in history’ and accused global media of colluding with ‘environmental extremists’ to alarm the public.

  • The deceit behind global warming
  • Climate change is like ‘World War Three’
  • “It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM,” John Coleman wrote in an article published on ICECAP, the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, which is known for challenging widely published theories on global warming.

    The maverick weather forecaster is known for his regular critic of widely accepted global warming theories. The Weather Channel broadcasts weather forecasts and weather-related news in the US 24 hours a day. for the rest of the story

    Industrial wind turbine development to end

    November 6, 2007

    From the editor

    I would like to thank the President of France for using his office to do the right thing for his people. The  people of France have worked very hard to get the govt. to change its position on wind energy. The people of Canada, the USA and every other country that is being bastardized by bad energy policy need to stand and be counted, just like the people of France.

    Will our media even acknowledge this story?

    A job well done President Sarkozy and a special thank you to all those who worked so hard to shine the light on the reality of the wind industry.

    France, Press Releases

    Sarkozy announces new wind turbine policy

    Industrial wind turbine development to end in rural and wild areas

    The Sustainable Environment Federation (FED), with the heritage and countryside associations who demonstrated in Paris on October 6 against industrial wind energy, are pleased by President Sarkozy’s redirection of French policy concerning wind turbines and renewable energy.

    In his comments at the closure of the « Grenelle de l’environnement », the president of the republic announced the end of the « rush » that has characterized French policy on wind turbines up to now and that ultimately means degradation of the environment. New wind turbines will be installed first in industrial farm fields and far from emblematic locales.

    Eric Rosenbloom of  Kirby Mountain corrected a term in the translation, which you should read, les friches industrielles are “brownfields” not “industrial farm fields“. (That limits development even more!)

    In an improvisation that was not in the prepared text provided to the press, M. Sarkozy turned to José-Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, and added : « Frankly, when I see some European countries, it doesn’t make me envious ».

    The president of the republic also announced acceleration of research into energies of the future.

    This new policy marks the end of industrial wind turbine installations in rural and wild areas. This is a relief for the 800 villages and 52 departments represented in the October 6 demonstration. It is also a powerful contribution to the image of France and shows Europe that an energy policy can reconcile the fight against global warming and respect for the countryside and every life.


    The 1500 demonstrators on October 6 brought six demands. Many of them have been accepted : publicize the true numbers of wind energy development (M. Borloo [environment minister] has committed to this), protect public health from wind turbine nuisance, protect the cultural and natural heritage of France, restore peace in the villages, commit to an effective energy strategy.

    The sixth concerns the financial scandal of the price of wind-generated electricity. The highly elevated price encourages the production of intermittent energy which does not promote the reduction of greenhouse gases. It will lead to speculative pressure for the few areas in France that meet the criteria of the new policy.

    Just as the president announced that the policy of supporting biofuels will be reviewed, price support for wind turbines needs to be reviewed.

    Fédération Environnement Durable
    Les Associations de Patrimoine

    Télécharger le communiqué de presse en Français
    Download this translation