Archive for the ‘News Busters’ Category

Wind power: Another look

December 17, 2008

Editor:

The letter below, Wind power: Another Look by Dr Ruth Pugh DC reiterates what people have been saying for years.

The wind industry and govt. got the public to accept the idea of wind farms by using the brainwashing techniques of repetition and perception and they have been relentless in their efforts.

You can’t turn on a TV pick, up a paper or listen to the radio without being exposed to the propaganda machine selling ‘wind energy’.

My nephew dropped by and downloaded a racing game and sure enough, as he was racing around, there they were – wind turbines along the side of the road.

I called the office of CanWEA in Ottawa just over two years ago and told Britt (communications director) that the wind industry would be over in two years.  I couldn’t see how the perception could last any longer.

By the way Mr. Hornung (president of CanWEA) – Britt said you would call me back to discuss my concerns – I’m still waiting.

Once I discovered the depth of the deception and the political connections, I realized it would take some very dedicated people to bring the truth to the average person.

Those people are now in place and more are joining everyday, in the effort to expose the wind industry for what it is, and they are committed to their goal.

Perception is a tool used to sell product and ideas.  Perception and reality are seldom the same.

In the movie about Enron, there is a statement ” As long as the perception holds – it is the truth.” Truth finally caught up with Enron. (Enron and the Environmental Movement)

Paul Watson co-founder of Greenpeace said “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true”.

Enron collapsed and so will the wind industry, because truth will eventually win out over perception.

Enjoy the Holidays and begin the new year with a rested and renewed spirit.

Ron Stephens

http://www.windfarms.wordpress.com

Wind power: Another look

Concerning wind energy and the proposed wind farms in Oxford county, certainly health hazards to those who live near wind farms is a consideration. However, let’s look at the legitimacy and desirability of wind power as a source of energy.

At first glance wind power seems like a clean, renewable source of energy, part of the solution for global warming.

However, wind power is unpredictable. Energy from industrial wind power can not be stored. Thus, when the wind is not blowing consistently the wind turbines must be backed up by conventional power sources. The most effective backup is natural gas generators. How often does the wind not reach Base Load electricity demands? The existing wind turbines in Ontario in 2006 and 2007 reached less than 10 per cent of what the system demanded over 50 per cent of the time.

Ms. Schofield suggested looking at the successful use of wind energy in Europe. In Germany and Spain, natural gas generators are installed to offset the unpredictable output from the wind. The generators output nearly matches the wind turbines output. Protests in France, Denmark and Holland have caused stiff restrictions to be placed on further wind turbine construction. In June 2008, an independent study of the success of wind turbines in the U.K. determined that wind power was “expensive, unreliable, and not saving any natural gas.” In the U.S., Senator Alexander looked at independent studies and determined that wind power provided “puny amounts of high-cost unreliable power.” No fossil fuel facilities have been shut down or not built due to the roughly 50,000 world-wide wind turbines.

So on top of health hazards, devaluing real estate, and the cost to consumers and taxpayers to pay for government subsidies and tax breaks for these wind farms, we find out that they don’t even provide the “green” power we’d like to believe they did. Not that’s a con.

The risks of allowing these wind farms in Oxford County far outweigh any benefits.

Dr Ruth Pugh DC

Woodstock

Woodstock Sentinel-Review

17 December 2008

Advertisements

NYT Takes on Al Gore and Climate Alarmists…Happy New Year!

January 1, 2008

Editor:
Welcome to 2008-the year the media does it’s job. Not likely, but we can keep their feet to the fire.
Just before Xmas I was listening to A Chanel News from London Ont. They were saying that the reason for the layoffs in the manufacturing sector was because of the “high Canadian dollar”. A few days later, when gas prices spiked, the same “news head” reported that the spike in the gas price was due to the “low Canadian dollar”. He went on to say the dollar had dropped 12 points. While it is true the dollar had dropped from it’s all time high,it was in fact still about par with the American dollar and the same as it was when they reported the reason for the layoffs.
I mention this because, as you read the story from News Busters, you will see another example of how the media works. This time from the BBC on the subject of global warming.

I was reading the novel 1984 by George Orwell, first published in 1949.  A book everyone should read. An example of the media  from 1984. Instead of the news saying “chocolate ration will stay at 30”. The news was changed to say rations will be increased from 20 to 25. The next day people were saying how great it was that their rations had been increased, even though they were decreased by 5

Welcome to 1984- Excuse me, I mean 2008.

The entire world can be powered by wind farms if we believe

NYT Takes on Al Gore and Climate Alarmists…Happy New Year!

Photo of Noel Sheppard.
By Noel Sheppard | January 1, 2008 – 10:29 ET

The new year is beginning with some very serious shots being fired across the bow of the manmade global warming myth and at alarmists using it to advance their deplorable agendas.

Moments after Investor’s Business Daily presaged that “2008 just might be the year the so-called scientific consensus that man is causing the Earth to warm begins to crack,” the New York Times of all entities published a rather shocking piece pointing fingers at folks like Nobel Laureate Al Gore for being part of a group of “activists, journalists and publicity-savvy scientists who selectively monitor the globe looking for newsworthy evidence of a new form of sinfulness, burning fossil fuels.”

This from the New York Times?

Hold on tightly to your seats, folks, for the shocks in this piece came early and often (emphasis added throughout):

Today’s interpreters of the weather are what social scientists call availability entrepreneurs: the activists, journalists and publicity-savvy scientists who selectively monitor the globe looking for newsworthy evidence of a new form of sinfulness, burning fossil fuels.

A year ago, British meteorologists made headlines predicting that the buildup of greenhouse gases would help make 2007 the hottest year on record. At year’s end, even though the British scientists reported the global temperature average was not a new record – it was actually lower than any year since 2001 – the BBC confidently proclaimed, “2007 Data Confirms Warming Trend.”

When the Arctic sea ice last year hit the lowest level ever recorded by satellites, it was big news and heralded as a sign that the whole planet was warming. When the Antarctic sea ice last year reached the highest level ever recorded by satellites, it was pretty much ignored. A large part of Antarctica has been cooling recently, but most coverage of that continent has focused on one small part that has warmed.

When Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans in 2005, it was supposed to be a harbinger of the stormier world predicted by some climate modelers. When the next two hurricane seasons were fairly calm – by some measures, last season in the Northern Hemisphere was the calmest in three decades – the availability entrepreneurs changed the subject. Droughts in California and Australia became the new harbingers of climate change (never mind that a warmer planet is projected to have more, not less, precipitation over all).

Checking that link to make sure it really goes to a Times piece? I understand, I’ve checked it about nine times, and I still don’t believe it:

When judging risks, we often go wrong by using what’s called the availability heuristic: we gauge a danger according to how many examples of it are readily available in our minds. Thus we overestimate the odds of dying in a terrorist attack or a plane crash because we’ve seen such dramatic deaths so often on television; we underestimate the risks of dying from a stroke because we don’t have so many vivid images readily available.

Slow warming doesn’t make for memorable images on television or in people’s minds, so activists, journalists and scientists have looked to hurricanes, wild fires and starving polar bears instead. They have used these images to start an “availability cascade,” a term coined by Timur Kuran, a professor of economics and law at the University of Southern California, and Cass R. Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago.

The availability cascade is a self-perpetuating process: the more attention a danger gets, the more worried people become, leading to more news coverage and more fear. Once the images of Sept. 11 made terrorism seem a major threat, the press and the police lavished attention on potential new attacks and supposed plots. After Three Mile Island and “The China Syndrome,” minor malfunctions at nuclear power plants suddenly became newsworthy.

And, of course, those that have invested huge amounts of money in green alternatives as well as carbon credit manufacturers – Saint Albert Gore, for example! – benefit tremendously every time attention is drawn to a weather-related issue that can be used to incite fear in the population:

Many people concerned about climate change,” Dr. Sunstein says, “want to create an availability cascade by fixing an incident in people’s minds. Hurricane Katrina is just an early example; there will be others. I don’t doubt that climate change is real and that it presents a serious threat, but there’s a danger that any ‘consensus’ on particular events or specific findings is, in part, a cascade.”

Once a cascade is under way, it becomes tough to sort out risks because experts become reluctant to dispute the popular wisdom, and are ignored if they do. Now that the melting Arctic has become the symbol of global warming, there’s not much interest in hearing other explanations of why the ice is melting – or why the globe’s other pole isn’t melting, too.

Amazingly, at this point Times author John Tierney addressed studies previously reported by NewsBusters while similarly pointing out how absurd the media’s lack of coverage of said items was:

Global warming has an impact on both polar regions, but they’re also strongly influenced by regional weather patterns and ocean currents. Two studies by NASA and university scientists last year concluded that much of the recent melting of Arctic sea ice was related to a cyclical change in ocean currents and winds, but those studies got relatively little attention – and were certainly no match for the images of struggling polar bears so popular with availability entrepreneurs.

Could have read that at NewsBusters, right? Same with this:

Roger A. Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, recently noted the very different reception received last year by two conflicting papers on the link between hurricanes and global warming. He counted 79 news articles about a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, and only 3 news articles about one in a far more prestigious journal, Nature.

Guess which paper jibed with the theory – and image of Katrina – presented by Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”?

It was, of course, the paper in the more obscure journal, which suggested that global warming is creating more hurricanes. The paper in Nature concluded that global warming has a minimal effect on hurricanes. It was published in December – by coincidence, the same week that Mr. Gore received his Nobel Peace Prize.

Incredible. Suddenly, the New York Times is acting as a media analyst exposing liberal bias. How exciting.

Yet, Tierney wasn’t done, for in his conclusion, he pointed his pen at the man most responsible for inciting all this hysteria:

In his acceptance speech, Mr. Gore didn’t dwell on the complexities of the hurricane debate. Nor, in his roundup of the 2007 weather, did he mention how calm the hurricane season had been. Instead, he alluded somewhat mysteriously to “stronger storms in the Atlantic and Pacific,” and focused on other kinds of disasters, like “massive droughts” and “massive flooding.”

“In the last few months,” Mr. Gore said, “it has been harder and harder to misinterpret the signs that our world is spinning out of kilter.” But he was being too modest. Thanks to availability entrepreneurs like him, misinterpreting the weather is getting easier and easier.

So true. Hopefully such will become less easy in 2008 if more writers like Tierney start acting like journalists instead of the green advocates they’ve been since Gore’s schlockumentary was released in early 2006.

After all, it will truly be a happy new year if newspapers like the Times regularly publish articles tearing to shreds the deceptions fostered by Gore and his sycophants thereby shedding light on this issue, and, just maybe, allowing America to prevent a recurrence of the kind of costly foolishness that halted the construction of nuclear power plants decades ago.

News Busters

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

October 13, 2007

Photo of Noel Sheppard.

By Noel Sheppard | October 9, 2007 – 00:55 ET

Here’s something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore’s schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth” contains at least eleven material falsehoods.

It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won’t be discussing this Tuesday morning, wouldn’t you agree?

For those that haven’t been following this case, a British truck driver filed a lawsuit to prevent the airing of Gore’s alarmist detritus in England’s public schools.

According to the website of the political party the plaintiff, Stewart Dimmock, belongs to (ecstatic emphasis added throughout, h/t Marc Morano):

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

How marvelous. And what are those inaccuracies?

  • The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
  • The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
  • The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
  • The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
  • The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
  • The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
  • The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
  • The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
  • The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
  • The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
  • The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

In the end, a climate change skeptic in the States must hope that an American truck driver files such a lawsuit here so that a U.S. judge can make similar determinations.

Of course, even if one could find such an impartial jurist, our media wouldn’t find it newsworthy, would they?

—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.