Archive for the ‘Environment’ Category

Winds Turbines and Health

September 28, 2009

Editor:

Fairchild Television contacted me in June and in July their film crew came to the Ripley wind farm to shoot a feature about the negative affects of living near wind turbines.

Originally over 12 minutes I edited it so only the English parts remain. If I can get it translated I will post more of the video.

I wish to thank Sherona and her crew for making the trip from Toronto, also Fairchild Television for the original production.

National Round Table – Agenda 21

July 21, 2009

Please take the time to read the bio’s of the members – half way down the page under members.
You cannot fight wind farms unless you understand the depth of the treason that has descended upon this country.

Emerging from the famous Brundtland Report, “Our Common Future”,1987 the NRTEE became a model for convening diverse and competing interests around one table to create consensus ideas and suggestions for sustainable development.

The Round Table will be providing leadership in the new way we must think of the relationship between the environment and the economy and the new way we must act.
Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, October 1988 Since its creation in 1988, concerns about climate change, air quality, and water availability have made Canadians and their governments increasingly aware of the need to reconcile economic and environmental challenges as they have become increasingly interlinked.

Excerpt from the 1993 NRTEE Act

The purpose of the Round Table is to play the role of catalyst in identifying, explaining and promoting, in all sectors of Canadian society and in all regions of Canada, principles and practices of sustainable development.


Global Warming It's a Good Thing

July 16, 2009

Are the deserts getting greener?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned recently that rising global temperatures could cut West African agricultural production by up to 50% by the year 2020.

But satellite images from the last 15 years do seem to show a recovery of vegetation in the Southern Sahara, although the Sahel Belt, the semi-arid tropical savannah to the south of the desert, remains fragile.

Full story at the BBC

David Suzuki Speaks in 1972 People = Maggots

July 3, 2009

Suzuki has been spinning the same crap for a very long time.  The man makes his living by instilling fear, mostly in young minds. Global warming is a fraud and Suzuki knows it. Or, he’s a complete fool and should be banned from the media. Meet David Suzuki – 1972 at the age of 32

Carol Mitchell Huron-Bruce MPP Missing ?

June 23, 2009

Editor:

Carol Mitchell, through her office staff, was invited to attend the taping of a television program at the Ripley wind farm.  She never showed up. Granted the invite was on short notice but there was concern for her when she failed to show.

On the evening of June 22, it was understood  she was scheduled  to attend a Wind Turbine regulations public meeting in Port Elgin where approximately 180 citizens anticipated her arrival .  She did not show up.

I don’t wish to alarm anyone by calling the police  at this time. If you know of her whereabouts please ask her to contact me.

Carol Mitchell may or may not be sporting a small green tattoo.

Your attention in this matter is appreciated!

Carol Mitchell Liberal MPP

The above artricle is satire !

Cull or be Culled

June 20, 2009

In case you don’t get the message in the cartoon let me help you out. The message is simple, Cull Humans. This is the message that is being presented to children. Humanity is bad for the earth and the human numbers must be reduced. I say this because when I read the comments on You Tube it is obvious some don’t get the message.

‘Cull or be Culled’ presented by Nancy Branscombe, City Councillor, London Ontario, Bringing transparency and accountability to London City Council. Follow Nancy on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/nanbran!

Playing politics with global warming

June 12, 2009

Editor:

One more reason to question global warming.

We are being manipulated into accepting a global carbon tax propagated by dubious science.

If they succeed in their “EVIL” scheme, your life and the lives of your children will be negatively impacted forever.

Think about it!  A tax on ever aspect of your life because without carbon NOTHING exists.

Playing politics with global warming

Mark W. Hendrickson

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is widely regarded in the media as the ultimate authority on climate change. Created by two divisions of the United Nations, and recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, its pronouncements are received as if they come down from Mount Olympus or Mount Sinai. The common presumption is that the IPCC has assembled the best scientific knowledge.

Let’s take a closer look at this organization to see whether it merits such uncritical deference.

The IPCC’s Feb. 2007 report stated: It is “very likely” that human activity is causing global warming. Why then, just two months later, did the vice chair of the IPCC, Yuri Izrael, write, “the panic over global warming is totally unjustified;” “there is no serious threat to the climate;” and humanity is “hypothetically … more threatened by cold than by global warming?”

IPCC press releases have warned about increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere, yet Dr. Vincent Gray, a member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and [the] level of gases in the atmosphere.”

A 2001 IPCC report presented 245 potential scenarios. The media publicity that followed focused on the most extreme scenario, prompting the report’s lead author, atmospheric scientist Dr. John Christy, to rebuke media sensationalism and affirm, “The world is in much better shape than this doomsday scenario paints … the worst-case scenario [is] not going to happen.”

Clearly, the IPCC does not speak as one voice when leading scientists on its panel contradict its official position. The solution to this apparent riddle lies in the structure of the IPCC itself.

What the media report are the policymakers’ summaries, not the far lengthier reports prepared by scientists. The policymakers’ summaries are produced by a committee of 51 government appointees, many of whom are not scientists.

The policymakers’ summaries are presented as the “consensus” of 2,500 scientists who have contributed input to the IPCC’s scientific reports. “Consensus” does NOT mean that all of the scientists endorse the policymakers’ summaries.

In fact, some of the 2,500 scientists have resigned in protest against those summaries. Other contributing scientists, such as the individuals quoted above, publicly contradict the assertions of the policymakers’ summaries.

To better understand the “consensus” presented in the policymakers’ summaries, it is helpful to be aware of the structure of the IPCC. Those who compose the summaries are given considerable latitude to modify the scientific reports.

Page four of Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work states: “Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group of the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.”

In other words, when there is a discrepancy between what the scientists say and what the authors of the policymakers’ summaries want to say, the latter prevails.

Here is a specific example: One policymakers’ summary omitted several important unequivocal conclusions contained in the scientists’ report, including, “No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of observed climate change] to anthropogenic [i.e., man-made] causes,” and “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

These significant revisions were made, according to IPCC officials quoted in Nature magazine, “to ensure that it [the report] conformed to a policymakers’ summary.”

Elsewhere, Rule 3 of IPCC procedures states: “Documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments.”

In practice, IPCC sometimes bypasses scientific peer review, and the policymakers’ summaries reflect only governmental (political) review.

This shouldn’t be surprising. After all, the IPCC is a political, not a scientific, entity. It is the “Inter-GOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change,” not a “global SCIENTISTS’ panel.”

Also, “consensus” is a political phenomenon, a compromise, whereas scientific truth is not subject to obtaining a political majority.

(Actually, 31,000 scientists have signed a petition protesting the “consensus” that human activity is dangerously altering the Earth’s climate. Consider that against the 2,500 scientists cited by IPCC — many of whom publicly refute IPCC’s press releases.)

To its credit, the IPCC debunks many of the alarmist exaggerations of radical greens. However, its scientific authority remains irreparably compromised by political tampering.

When a U.S. State Department official writes to the co-chair of the IPCC that “it is essential that … chapter authors be prevailed upon to modify their text in an appropriate manner,” the political character of IPCC is plain.

The sponsors of the IPCC, the United Nations, and liberal American politicians all share the goal of reducing Americans’ wealth by capping our consumption of energy with a binding international climate change treaty. They are willing to resort to scientific fraud to further their goal.

In the words of Al Gore’s ally, former Under-Secretary of State Tim Wirth, “Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing” by reducing Americans’ consumption of fossil fuels. Keep that in mind whenever the IPCC is cited in support of a climate treaty.

[Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and contributing scholar with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City (Penn.) College.]

The Citizen

Ontario Goes Green – Green Homes

June 8, 2009

The McGuinty govt. of Ontario has gone all the way in an attempt to save the planet by introducing the “Green Homes Plan”

In order to be truly Green, no manufactured building materials will be allowed in new homes.

Here are just a couple of the new models that will be available soon.

This home will be of interest  to the first time home buyer or those looking to downsize after retirement.

Below is a new complex and will be of special interest to those with a busy lifestyle. Besides all the other benefits of living in a MUD HUT you can see the community clothes drying facilities in the center courtyard.

Thank you Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Smitherman for your help in making Ontario a “Green Province” we can be all proud of.

Sorry if we questioned your vision.  Some thought you were an idiot.

Well, you proved us wrong!

In only a couple of weeks our new Green Homes will be powered  intermittently by Majestic wind turbines and we will have light and electricity………………sometimes.

Pugwash wind farm dead

June 8, 2009

Editor:

I would like to commend Lisa of the Pugwash wind farm blog for all her hard work. Having read her blog from time to time I know she has put up with more than her share of ugly comments and even threats as she worked to inform the local population about real problems concerning wind turbines. Lisa, I hope this is the end to the wind farm threat in your area.

Pugwash wind farm dead

Last week at the candidate forum organised by the Pugwash Chamber of Commerce, Warden Keith Hunter stated that because of local opposition to a proposed wind “farm” on the Gulf Shore, it did not go ahead. He said he helped intervene on our behalf in a conversation with (then) Minister of Environment, Mark Parent. All four candidates agreed that turbines should not intrude on the neighbouring property owners. People should be able to enjoy their properties. They all agreed that wind energy, along with other forms of renewable energy, is part of what we should be doing as a Province to reduce greenhouse gases but, for a variety of reasons, they should not be placed too close to homes. Pugwash windfarm

Why did it take so long to come to this decision?

There is an election coming up and it appears all the candidates are feeling the pressure of the electorate.

All the candidates say they want more renewable energy but they all backed down from the Pugwash windfarm. Is pressure the only thing that gets the attention of our elected officials. It appears that way. We need politicians that can think for themselves not those that merely react to pressure.

Anyway, it seems they are all still riding the “global warming/climate change train”.  I guess they will change their minds on that as soon as the public wakes up to the scam and puts the pressure on their elected officials. Until that time they will continue to be spokespersons for the UN/Gore/Suzuki scam.

What the politicians are saying to get your vote Amherst Daily

Global Warming the Big LIE!

Green Jobs Being Created

May 30, 2009

The “ECO-COPS” are coming to a city or town near you.

Don’t forget to smile when you receive your ticket. The money goes to help “Mother Earth”.

You were bad so you must pay.

The Govt. would like to thank all those too stupid to understand the massive Fascist scam taking place.

Without you it would be impossible to move the AGENDA forward.

Let us bow our heads and give praise to GAIA.

The Sheeple shall inherit the EARTH – HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!