Archive for the ‘NewsBusters’ Category

500 Dead Ducks vs 30,000 Dead Birds

May 4, 2008

Editor:

According to the Edmonton Journal 500 ducks died after landing in a toxic tailing pond at the Syncrude oilsands project in northern Alberta.

From the Journal

“As the week wore on and photos of oily ducks hit front pages and newscasts, Stelmach tried to downplay the issue with what he called perspective.

“It’s well known that on an annual basis, the minimum number of birds killed by wind turbines is around 30,000 (in the United States),” he said Thursday”. Full story at the Journal

He has a point. Why do 500 ducks killed by the oil industry cause such an outrage and the death of thousands of birds and bats killed by wind turbines have no impact on the public.

Is it because the ducks were killed by the oil industry?

If the environmentalists are outraged over the duck kill they should be outraged over the thousands of birds and bats killed by wind turbines.

If the oilsands are to be fined for the ducks killed then the wind industry should be fined for every bird and bat killed. Sounds fair to me.

I hate to see any animal hurt or suffer and those that hurt animals should be penalized.

People are at risk from both industries just like the birds. But you never hear or read about the people affected. Have people become less important than animals? The answer according to the UN is yes. They want to see a 4 billion reduction in the number of people on the earth. That is sustainability to the elites. Read Agenda 21

People downstream of the oilsands are suffering health problems. When a doctor notified Health Canada he was told there was no problem and to shut up. The doctor couldn’t believe that Health Canada didn’t launch an investigation.

People living near wind turbines also suffer health problems. They are described both by the govt, and the industry as Nibmys and complainers. They are neither. They cannot believe no one has ordered a health study.

In both cases the govt. has crawled into bed with industry. It’s ironic that even though they are in bed together, it is the public that is getting F@#&ed in both cases.

Health Canada refuses to do a health study on the oilsands or the wind turbnes.

Duck covered in oil

Eagle killed by a wind turbine

The d’Etremont family of Nova Scotia was driven from their home by the wind turbines.

People fighting wind farms need your support. Give it to them

You may be fighting a wind farm in the future.

Al Gore is lying to you. David Suzuki is lying to you. Any govt. pushing wind farms is lying to you. Global warming is a fraud. You have been told the truth. Don’t like it. Tough. Read Agenda 21

This blog is not supported by the fossil fuel or nuclear industry so don’t send me any ignorant comments. I don’t have time for stupid people.

Do your own research.


Advertisements

New coal plants bury 'Kyoto'

December 17, 2007

New coal plants bury ‘Kyoto’

New greenhouse-gas emissions from China, India, and the US will swamp cuts from the Kyoto treaty.

| Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
So much for Kyoto.

The official treaty to curb greenhouse-gas emissions hasn’t gone into effect yet and already three countries are planning to build nearly 850 new coal-fired plants, which would pump up to five times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the Kyoto Protocol aims to reduce.

The magnitude of that imbalance is staggering. Environmentalists have long called the treaty a symbolic rather than practical victory in the fight against global warming. But even many of them do not appear aware of the coming tidal wave of greenhouse-gas emissions by nations not under Kyoto restrictions.

By 2012, the plants in three key countries – China, India, and the United States – are expected to emit as much as an extra 2.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide, according to a Monitor analysis of power-plant construction data. In contrast, Kyoto countries by that year are supposed to have cut their CO2 emissions by some 483 million tons.

The findings suggest that critics of the treaty, including the Bush administration, may be correct when they claim the treaty is hopelessly flawed because it doesn’t limit emissions from the developing world. But they also suggest that the world is on the cusp of creating a huge new infrastructure that will pump out enormous amounts of CO2 for the next six decades.

Without strong US leadership, it’s unlikely that technology to cut CO2 emissions will be ready in time for the power-plant construction boom, many say.

“If all those power plants are online by 2012, then obviously it completely cancels out any gains from Kyoto,” says Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler with the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

The reason for the dramatic imbalance is coal. Just a few years ago, economists and environmentalists still pictured a world shifting steadily from “dirty” coal-fired power plants to “cleaner” natural-gas turbines. But the fast-rising price of natural gas and other factors abruptly changed that picture. Now the world is facing a tidal wave of new power plants fired by coal, experts say. “China and India are building coal-fired capacity as fast as they can,” says Christopher Bergesen, who tracks power plant construction for Platts, the energy publishing division of McGraw- Hill.

China is the dominant player. The country is on track to add 562 coal-fired plants – nearly half the world total of plants expected to come online in the next eight years. India could add 213such plants; the US, 72. ( See chart below.)

Altogether, those three nations are set to add up to 327,000 megawatts by 2012 – three quarters of the new capacity in the global pipeline and roughly equal to the output of today’s US coal-fired generating fleet.

Continue reading story at Christian Science Monitor

 

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.