Posts Tagged ‘scam’

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

Advertisements

Ontario Hydro – The Future

April 28, 2009

This video spoof of BC Hydro should be looked at as a warning for people living in Ontario.

The “Green Cult” has too much say in the operation of our electrical generation system.

This must STOP!

Protest at the Enbridge Wind Farm

April 13, 2009

Heartland Institute-Second Annual

February 9, 2009

Editor: The global warming scam is so easy to figure out it borders on the ridiculous.

I’ve been posting about the scam for over two years now.

Here it is in a nut shell – the Club Of  Rome – “we came up with the idea”.

IPCC – produced models to fit the idea.

Not based on science – unless you call JUNK science, science.

I hope that helped you understand Global Warming.

.

The Heartland Institute has produced a short video to advertise the upcoming Second International Conference on Climate Change which takes place in New York in early March.

Words From Environmental Leaders

February 8, 2009

Editor: Understand the true desires of the leaders of the environmental movement.

Their hatred of humanity is amazing

They hate Christianity

They hate the way you live

They hate you

Their words not mine

Doctor calls for health study

February 2, 2009

Doctor calls for health studies on windmill farms

By JOHN MINER, SUN MEDIA

When London surgeon Robert McMurtry decided to build a house, he wanted to go green — geothermal heating, solar panels for hot water and a wind turbine for electricity.

But when he started reading about wind turbines, the former dean of medicine at the University of Western Ontario said he had a change of heart.

“I thought, ‘Holy Toledo, there are some issues here.’ ”

Dozens of wind turbines have already been built or proposed in Southwestern Ontario, as Queen’s Park tries to wean Ontario off dirty coal-fired electricity plants and reduce its reliance on nuclear power.

McMurtry is calling for health studies into the wind turbine farms popping up across Ontario with backing by the provincial government. With towers nearly 100 metres tall, and blades half that long, the turbines can be an imposing sight, even from afar.


fctAdTag(“bigbox”,MyGenericTagVar,1);
<!– –>

“At minimum, they should be doing a survey of people around wind farms and getting a sense of how many people are complaining of problems,” he said.

“If there is enough evidence, they should mount a formal epidemiological study,” McMurtry said.

In the U.S. and Western Europe especially, where wind farms are more advanced than in Canada, complaints abound about the low-frequency sound the giant windmills generate.

In Canada, Ontario is one of the only provinces with any regulations governing wind farms, requiring a noise-impact assessment for areas up to 1,000 metres from the wind turbine.

McMurtry is concerned about the health complaints he’s heard from people living near wind farms, including sleep disturbance from the noise of the giant turbine blades.

“Once you have sleep disturbance for a few days, you aren’t going to be feeling well,” he said.

Last week, the province announced it’s backing six new wind farm projects, including three in Chatham-Kent, that are expected to create 558 jobs.

Total investment in the new farms is expected to reach $1.32 billion.

McMurtry, who has taken his concerns to Ontario Energy Minister George Smitherman, said it’s going to be an uphill battle to convince people to look hard at the health implications because turbines have become closely associated with green energy.

“It has got an iconic, symbolic status that really carries a lot of weight and there is a very powerful, worldwide lobby group behind it,” he said.

McMurtry said turbines smaller than the ones being installed may be better than the monsters now going up.

“Harness the wind safely. Let’s look at other alternatives. There are better, smarter options,” he added.

Monica Elmes, of the Chatham-Kent Wind Action Group, an organization opposed to the wind farms, said the turbines will be an unreliable, intermittent source of electricity and a waste of taxpayers’ money.

“All Ontario residents are truly the losers in this scam,” Elmes said in an e-mail.

For the latest local coverage, read The London Free Press on the web or in print.

Video of the Ripley wind farm

Cash blown in the wind

January 5, 2009

Editor:

The govt. of Ont. is wasting the tax dollars of hard working people at an alarming rate, yet the media remains silent. The taxpayer has become an unwitting investor. The only problem is they will see no stock certificate and no return on their investment. They will however see higher utility rates. This theft needs to stop NOW!

The story below refers to the goings on in Oregon but the same story is being played out all over North America.

.

I want to thank Klockarman from Glore Lied for this story.

Cash blown in the wind; in pursuit of green energy Oregon is wasting millions of tax dollars on risky ventures and prosperous businesses

Kudos to The Oregonian today for taking off their green-colored goggles for a moment, and investigating a massive waste of the state’s taxpayer dollars.

Harry Esteve reports:

Oregon taxpayers are shelling out tens of millions of dollars to subsidize green energy projects, making the state a magnet for solar and wind companies.

But an investigation by The Oregonian shows that the money also is going to risky ventures with questionable environmental benefits and to prosperous companies that need no incentives but are cashing in anyway.



The handouts come from Oregon’s Business Energy Tax Credit program — the state’s fastest growing tax shelter. The credits are so easy to obtain that more than 4,000 applicants have lined up to get them whether they need them or not. Klondike Wind Farms, for example, seeks $44 million in state tax breaks even though eastern Oregon’s wind-blown geography has proved a profitable turbine location, subsidies or no.

“It’s gotten out of hand,” says Chuck Sheketoff, director of the Oregon Center for Public Policy, which studies the impact of state tax policies on low-income residents. “It’s being scammed. It’s not serving its purpose.”

Even banks and big corporations that have nothing to do with renewable energy are grabbing the tax breaks. Under the state’s generous incentives, groups and companies that qualify for tax credits can turn around and sell them. Most do. Standard Insurance, for example, paid $2.5 million to Flakeboard, an Albany mill that makes composite wood. In exchange, Standard gets to use $3.5 million in tax credits the mill received for building a wood-burning boiler that can generate electricity.

Oregon’s energy tax credits began as a small, targeted program aimed at conservation and efficiency. It kicked into high gear after the 2007 legislative session, when Kulongoski pushed for some of the biggest tax breaks offered anywhere in the nation.

Under the 2007 rules, companies could apply for up to 50 percent of the cost of the project, up to a limit of $20 million, as long as they could show the project would save energy or produce renewable energy or fuel alternatives.



At the time, state officials projected the changes would add $2 million to a projected $23 million hit on the state’s two-year budget. They were wrong. Less than two years later, the program is costing taxpayers $78 million. And that figure easily could triple again. State records show more than 4,400 applications pending for the credits, for projects worth $716 million.

Read it all at The Oregonian.

Visit Klockarman at Glore Lied

Carbon Offsets for Dummies

January 4, 2009

The Carbon Credit Offset Scam Explained

I’ve been waiting for someone to make a video like this. This, is how much sense Al Gore’s Carbon Credit scam makes. Tom Nelson found it.

In the Do As I Say Cult, all that matters is that you feel good about yourself. They don’t seem to understand, a fart is a fart. And just because some other guy is paid not to fart in another country, it doesn’t cover up the fact that you farted here. (and probably a lot more than the normal person)

Global Warming the Big LIE!

December 21, 2008

R J Stephens

Why do the global warming fanatics keep pushing the lie?

Global warming was the vehicle chosen to push for a New World Order. It was chosen as ‘the common enemy’ because –  without a common enemy to fight – you have no reason to give up your rights and they (the UN)  lose their power over you.

That’s why they keep pushing-  regardless of  how obvious the lie has become.

Instead of bombing us into submission – the idea was to use concern for the  environment and our very survival as a species as a way to get the population to succumb to their wishes.

Throughout history fear has been used as a motivating factor- used by the elites to get the masses to follow their agenda. Global Warming is just another example of the use of fear.

Are you prepared to give up your rights because of  a false FEAR?

Below are a few links to recent stories on Global Warming and the ramifications for you and your family if you decide to remain asleep.

Our own governments are doing everything in their power to help in the creation of the NWO

Remember the old saying – Better dead than Red – Wake up or be ruled by the Commies at the UN!

.

19 Dec 2008 – Wrong, Wrong, Wrong About CO2 [The Cult of Global Warming keeps repeating the same lies over and over ’til everyone believes. Algore has The One believing now, but the facts prove him wrong

19 Dec 2008 – More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

19 Dec 2008 – More Global Warming – Snow In Vegas And Malibu

18 Dec 2008 – Obama’s Energy Team Has Its Own ‘Inconvenient Truths’

18 Dec 2008 – Frosty The Snowman And Algore [Has an embedded video on the web page]

18 Dec 2008 – The 12 Days Of Global Warming [Has an embedded video on the web page]

17 Dec 2008 – ‘Twas The Night Before Christmas, The New Version

17 Dec 2008 – Scientists Debunk Global Warming

17 Dec 2008 – Global Warming’s Last Gasp

17 Dec 2008 – Lower Temperatures Indicate Global Warming?

Please visit the Global Warming Hoax

My 500th Post

December 20, 2008

To celebrate my 500th post I decided to re-post my first.

In my fist post I posed the Question – Are wind farms a scam.

After much research, time and effort, I can confidently answer my own question with a resounding YES.

Is global warming a scam as well?  – YES.

If you want to be ruled by unelected officials from the UN then embrace the scam.

If  you want freedom for your country you must  reject the UN – One World Order and One World Religion.

Get to work educating your friends and neighbors.

Wishing everyone a very merry Christmas!

.

Beware! The Green Shirts Are Here

Agenda 21 Explained

Global Warming?

A United Green Religion

The Earth Charter and the Ark of the Ga

32K Scientists reject AGW “consensus”

Merry Christmas Poem – Time for everyone to Wake Up!

Carbon Trade Swindle Behind Gore Hoax

Will People Ever Learn?


.

Are Wind Farms a scam?

Posted on October 19, 2006. Filed under: Canadian wind farms, Canadian wind industry, Canadian wind news, Canadian wind power, Carol Mitchell MPP wind farms, Dwight Duncan wind farm wind energy Kincardine, Enbridge wind farm, Enbridge wind farm in Kincardine Ont., Energy Minister Dwight Duncan, Ontario wind energy, Ontario wind farms, Ontario wind industry, Ontario wind news, Ontario wind power, atomcat, wind farm Bruce County, wind farm in Kincardine | Edit This

I would like you to learn all you can about Wind Farms and Wind Energy.

Why the big rush for wind power?

Which Green is it about?

Is it about Green energy or is it about the Green money?

I hoped it was about Green Energy but the more I investigate the matter the more it looks like it’s about the Green Money.

You decide.

“Big money” discovers the huge tax breaks

Make a Comment

Make A Comment: ( 1 so far )