Windmills and sunbeams won’t keep the lights on

Will the dark ages return to the West?

rainbowThe Obama Administration’s global warming hell-bent “Clean Power Plan” which is supposed to regulate and tax our nation away from fossil fuels to heavily subsidized “renewable” energy sources is presently a transitional bridge to nowhere.

And after all, as the President himself once said, “That’s not the American way. That’s not progress. That’s not innovation. That’s rent-seeking and trying to protect old ways of doing business and staying in the way of the future.”

Of course he wasn’t referring here to the many billions of dollars of crony capitalist government wind and solar energy charities. No, his message was targeted on those who dare to criticize his determination to replace fossil energy with anemic, unreliable, and costly non-alternatives.

Accordingly, in August he and his enthusiastically obedient EPA announced still another multibillion scheme to force utilities to obtain about 28% of all U.S. electrical capacity from renewable sources by 2030.

Yet while wind and solar combined provided less than 5% of total U.S. electricity in 2013, on the basis of that per-unit electricity production, each of them received more than 50 times more subsidy support than coal and natural gas combined.

Cutting so-called carbon “pollution” (more properly known as plant food) will come at a very high cost to electricity consumers, with coalcardisproportionate burdens falling upon economically disadvantaged residents of colder northern states.

Standard & Poor’s projects 40 to 75 gigawatts (75,000 megawatts) of coal units may be shut down by 2020. Among these, plant owners within America’s largest grid, the mid-Atlantic, plan to eliminate 11,578 MW of available output through 2015.

That’s enough to supply more than 9 million homes.

Those plants which are eventually replaced with natural gas won’t nearly make up the difference. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., which manages a Manitoba to Louisiana network, expects to see a power shortage of about 2,000 MW by 2016, with increasing deficits mounting after that. BNP in New York estimates natural gas along with some renewables will make up only about 4,000 MW that of approximately 20,000 MW of coal power losses by the end of 2015.

So, where is that replacement power going to come from? Consider wind, for example.

The quality of that power isn’t any bargain either. Unlike coal- and natural gas-fired plants, which provide reliable power when needed — including peak demand times — wind turbines only produce electricity intermittently as variable daily and seasonal weather conditions permit regardless of demand.

fireplace2That fickle output trend favors colder night-time periods rather than hot summer late afternoons when needed most.

The real kicker here is that wind has no real “capacity value.” Intermittent outputs require access to a “shadow capacity” which enables utilities to balance power grids when wind conditions aren’t optimum . . . which is most of the time.

What we don’t tend hear about is that those “spinning reserves” which equal total wind capacity are likely fueled by coal or natural gas which anti-fossil activists love to hate and wind was touted to replace.

Solar power, like wind, is a natural, free source of energy — provided that public subsidies and customers of high-priced electricity cover the costs. And like wind, there simply aren’t enough suitable utility-scale site locations, particularly near urban areas where power is needed to make much of a national supply difference.

Also like wind, reliability to meet highest demand loads presents a big problem. And besides, weren’t those “clean,” “freely renewable” sources supposed to be environmentally friendly?

Paul Driessen, a senior policy analyst for the non-profit Committee For a Constructive Tomorrow, notes that the 550-mile Atlantic pkdCoast pipeline requires only about 4,600 acres, which can be replanted with grasslands, compared with 475,000 acres required to generate the same amount of energy using 46,000 wind turbines with monstrous bird-and bat-chopping blades.

As for solar, Los Angeles recently refused to purchase power from a relatively small proposed 2,557-acre Mojave Desert project due to deleterious influences on desert tortoises and bighorn sheep.

Along with those birds, bats, tortoises, and sheep, maybe we should worry about some other vulnerable victims of the Obama EPA’s war on fossil fuels as well.

Pity those human creatures who are unable to recharge their taxpayer subsidized plug-in Obamacars when the sun isn’t shining and wind isn’t blowing at night . . . or when their blue sky planet-saving expectations are overcast.

A version of this article also appears at:


About the Author: Larry Bell

Larry Bell

CFACT Advisor Larry Bell heads the graduate program in space architecture at the University of Houston. He founded and directs the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture. He is also the author of "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax."

  1. Brin Jenkins

    The inability store electricity means we will always black out when there is no wind or daylight, however many alternative green renewable plants are commissioned. Wishes are not facts and we will go broke trying..

  2. dje3

    I 100% agree that “man made” global warming as it is being touted is a true hoax. I have researched the KNOWN historical temperature data points, average temperatures and hi-lo temps etc as far back as they are available. What I found is that the oldest data is well within the expected error for the equipment in use at the time. (remember that there were about 6 or more temperature scales in use at one time and that calibration was ONLY at 0C and 100C for the most part, the rest being divided manually on a scale).
    This leads to the fact that taken as a whole the known temperature data is limited to what, around 100 years at most and only a few fully calibrated and verified global data points then.
    We based on that information we have NO idea what is “normal” temperature cycles geologically at all. Only what comes from “educated guesses” academically by fossil and other records. Certainly we can evaluate statistically given what it known and surmised and guess what? I see no relationship that suggests greater than one sigma from a norm!
    This is significant as courts have already ruled that statistical probability can be used against a person in court for a criminal act such as murder and already has been (the odds that a given person could have three wives die of various accidental deaths as an example)! Therefore statistically speaking there is NO global warming given the range and sigma values of known weather by location geologically.
    With regard to the cost of alternative energy, lets get real. If every home from the mid belt of the US south was required to have solar hot water heat we would reduce residential use by 35% approximate. This would mean a 50% reduction in fossil fuel plants most likely. IT would also mean an increase of 20-30% in your utility bill as the utilities would not be able to support their overhead and maintenance of power lines with reduced income. We (the consumer) lose no matter what happens.
    So, the laws need to be clear that WHEN the public reduces consumption, there can be NO increase to make up for that loss in consumption in any way.
    In the end, some day we can all be off grid. At least I pray that that happens. Too bad it will end the monopolistic market of big energy..but it will probably create 2-3 times the jobs in maintenance of off grid systems.

    • Ian5

      “Therefore statistically speaking there is NO global warming”: Rubbish, the evidence and science are irrefutable. And if it’s a hoax, why would virtually every scientific academy on the planet be playing along with it?

      • dje3

        So the tens of scientists that have gone on record as man made global warming being a hoax and then been fired by the Obumer administration and other groups that they worked for were just frauds? They lost their jobs and were even blackballed from work. All to commit fraud? I doubt it. They found the discrepancies and lies and exposed them, the powerful groups that make their money this way destroyed them for doing so (can you say liberals and democrats?). Go do your research. They were paid by the ones wanting control over us and to expound on global warming, getting thier money that way. They told the truth and have no future because of it. Look it up.
        How about the raw data that is “adjusted” (yes this has been proven to exist) to fit the requirements of global warmists instead of used as raw data. Remember the current calibration of equipment is to the thousandths of a degree, this means that results in the hundreds of degree are not adjustable at all! This is fraud. It happened to data from the Patagonia area as well as others all by the US government and it was done OFFICIALLY!
        “virtually every scientific academy” is wrong as well. We are not outside any statistical boundary for warming at all. The earth does warm and cool in cycles and we are within historical (geological) data that exists. Honest and forthright groups not paid by alarmists do not come up with the same results and thier methods are statistically and time proven, not trying to fit into a model or create a model.
        As to whether we need to do the best we can to stop harming the earth in any way. Sure I agree. We have responsibility to protect her. Do we need to protect her in the way that environmentalists and industrialists say, I doubt it at all. They are about MONEY, not about the earth.
        As an example, carbon credits (now found to be fraud in most countries and the entirety of the carbon credit exchange ended there) were used to un-necessarily allow mega-polluters to continue to pollute, by purchasing credits from those that supposedly sequestered carbon they were allowed to destroy the ecology altogether, pollut rivers and oceans and cause deaths of even people and animals! THis was a money game initiated by those same groups that fire honest scientists for proving htem wrong.

        • Ian5

          “We are not outside any statistical boundary for warming at all. The earth does warm and cool in cycles and we are within historical (geological) data that exists”. No this statement is completely unfounded and misleading. And it’s not just the average global temperature, it’s the rate of change in temperature. The current rate of change is unprecedented. Look it up.

          • dje3

            We have no geological data of rates of change except in known causes. In the early 1800s a single volcanic event caused an instant climate change, three years without enough summer to grow crops just about anywhere in the temperate zones. People couldn’t heat their houses because the cost was so high and heat was necessary most of the year. Famine was the result.
            The issue is that we don’t have any real data except for about 80 years. Before that the calibration of instruments and variations in measurement systems and the lack of global data keeps us from meaningful results. In fact, it is ONLY IN THE LAST COUPLE DECADES that calibrated instrumentation taking 24 hour a day data globally in large numbers of data points exists.
            Who the hell thinks that maybe a couple decades of data can tell us anything based on a geological time line?
            Who the hell wants to believe anything that a government agency tells us when 1. It is KNOWN that they have “adjusted” data points to meet their curve and this has been PROVEN. 2. There is MONEY involved in the “spin” of what they are telling us, money to VERY SPECIFIC LIBERAL GROUPS using fake methods to “help” (i.e carbon credits,etc.).?
            I actually studied specific data sets regarding New York (one place where there seems to be a lot of data points since 1800). Interestingly enough it shows the expected heating of NY City, eventually causing some self generating weather patterns there. NYC is (I don’t have the exact numbers handy) say 6 degrees hotter than it use to be. However, upstate NY is actually several degrees COLDER than it used to be. The cold air from the north west is being pulled toward NYC faster because of the superheating in the city, cooling upstate areas. Are we affecting weather? Super cities Atlanta, NY, SF, LA, DFW, Houston, all are affecting weather patterns.
            I will tell you this, UNLESS we kill supercities and get rid of a few BILLION people there will be no way to change the fact that we add heat to the atmosphere and change weather locally and therefor globally. Turn off all air conditioners and heat sources and this will stop.
            Now, look at the actual thermal values of the SUN as it delivers heat to this planet, anything we do is NOTHING compared to small changes in Solar activity. We receive HUGE amounts of energy, trees translate that energy and cool the earth. Yet we are looking at only CO2 (a required gas that helps trees to grow faster in higher concentration). We allow stripping of entire ecosystems in tropical regions. These regions are the air conditioners and cleaning systems for the entire planet.
            Look I am bored of this conversation because you are spouting only the OFFICIAL BS that is unproven, known to be “adjusted” and the data is being used to try and fit models instead of looked at as data.
            One can NOT suggest a model and then attempt to fit data to it, one has to have enough data that any model produced FITS to within one sigma in every case before it can be considered rational. This does not exist, in fact EVERY MODEL that your “heroes” have attempted to use fails miserably.
            There is a radical group that you may want to look at.Go to read their information. I take it with a grain of salt but..when they give certain facts that are indisputable and proven, it becomes apparent that those in POWER want you to believe their lies for a reason. The reason is always POWER AND MONEY.
            Good luck to you and I hope that you begin to study the statistics and data yourself and look for where and when raw data was changed. As soon as you find changed data then everything that organization tells you will be known to be false. Remember that changed data can also be data that was EXCLUDED, as that changes the entire data set in a known population of data. This can skew data several sigma instantly.

            • Ian5

              What i’m hearing is you don’t want to accept evidence because it doesn’t fit in with your narrow ideology. Data comes in many forms…start by informing yourself. NASA’s vital signs site is a good place to start:

              And let go of your anger… the world is changing like it or not. Be part of the solution or get out of the way! 🙂

              • dje3

                What i am hearing is that you want to believe one of the organizations that fired tens of scientists, in fact many more for not towing the political lines that organization is required by liberal government officials to tout. This is FACT but you won’t read of it or care even if it is fact and everything that NASA tells you a lie!.
                Look, Research grants are NOT given to anyone that intends to show reality, only those that intend to meet the model that has been developed. In fact, as stated grants scholarships and even fellowships have been ended when scientists PROVED that the facts to NOT meet the stated official government position. Lives ruined and careers ended over truth!
                You are the one that refuses to even LOOK at anything but the official lies and doctored data (known to be doctored and adjusted as well as known to be selectively chosen data). Even oceanic temperature data has been altered or left out of data sets if it did not fit the “pattern sought”. Some of the data was from ships that use salt water intake, which gives full time data 24-7, however the heat of the ship engines skews the data at the collection point, it is a KNOWN yet used data set. Give me a break!
                Go look it up! if you are interested (which you are not you are only interested in the official version of climate).
                As I stated I am bored with you now as you only attack personally and then point only to official sites that I am telling you have altered data and missing data in the sets and that this is DOCUMENTED.
                Read up on statistics in a known population quantity and you will find what this means. change to an unknown population and delete specific data sets and treat the data as a known population…you can skew it so far as to prove anything you want.
                BTW, my area of Florida returned to its normal monsoon patterns this year along with its normal temperature patterns although the wettest recorded August in a long time. Same with many other areas.
                Don’t talk to me of California, it is entirely a desert except for the coastal range which is a temperate rain forest and goes through cycles of drought and always has. i could go on and on..but you don’t care to know facts, only to read official positions.

                • Ian5

                  “This is FACT but you won’t read of it or care even if it is fact and everything that NASA tells you a lie!”: here’s a thought for you… NASA is but one of hundreds of reputable research organization…its views on AGW are consistent with the IPCC as well as virtually every US and international scientific academy. They are all liars according to your logic. What you are talking about is akin to a conspiracy. It’s an extreme view that no reasonable person would support.

                  • dje3

                    There is an official political position of an administration and of those in power, mostly those are liberals. The entirety of what they are doing is related to power and to money, mostly invasion into your rights, water rights, property rights and administratively (vs. legislatively) passing laws. As well as costing our industry tens of billions in overhead to meet the administrative laws.
                    I can give a simple example. California environmental law required our plant to be inspected about 8 times a month, each time WE paid for it. We were never found to be outside of any specification. Additionally, as we had a paint shop we were required to have environmental essays (even though state of the art paint shop and only CA approved paints and methods are used and all records kept).
                    The state decided to check the chemical profile of our roof because we had an exhaust from the paint shop there. Over 1000 fee to us to check it. They found all kinds of chemicals there, none of which are used in our plant, now or in the past. They fined us for environmental damage.
                    Guess what, there was a train that passed by EVERY DAY alongside the plant. The train carried FEDERALLY approved materials that did not meet CA standards. The TRAIN was putting off chemicals as it passed. The state of CA has NO authority over any car on any train in the US. That is federal authority.
                    We paid an additional several thousand to have checks of nearby buildings that did not produce (sales only) and the soil along the tacks checked, We proved out point.
                    I have tried to explain it to you and you can find these truths if you care to look. The termination of fellowships and of employment of major scholars who disagree is enough to change my mind. I know too many scholars who only follow the money trail and will never publish findings against their financiers. That is the way it is. One has to live and if one can skew the numbers just a little, so what?
                    The founding fathers warned you, NEVER TRUST ANY ELECTED OFFICIAL EVER go read Jefferson and Madison and virtually all the founding fathers and best of our country. They told you what to expect. Learn from it.
                    No I don’t trust NASA, it answers to a political party and its goals change instantly when the party changes.
                    Grow up. It is nice to believe that everyone in government is about helping us and the planet, experience of even the founding fathers tells me otherwise.

                    • Ian5

                      Ok so we get that you don’t trust government, and understand that a bureaucracy can get politicized (noting that NASAs’s position on AGW wasn’t any different under GWB’s tenure. And a reminder that not all climate science is conducted by government bureaucrats). What i’m most interested in though is who do you trust? Please name some scientific organizations that you do trust. Give us a a list – or at least 4 or 5 reputable scientific organizations – and tell us why we should listen to them instead of NASA, NOAA or say, the National Academy of Sciences.

        • Ian5

          “It happened to data from the Patagonia area as well as others all by the US government and it was done OFFICIALLY!
          “virtually every scientific academy” is wrong as well”: are you talking conspiracy? Conspiracy theories are typically founded in uninformed extremism.

        • Ian5

          “Honest and forthright groups not paid by alarmists do not come up with the same results and thier methods are statistically and time proven, not trying to fit into a model or create a model”: And what groups exactly? provide us a list please.

          • dje3

            First off, you have touted yourself an knowledgable yet you refuse to even look for information yourself. I gave you one reference to a radical but good source. That source does its homework.

            As I said, I took the time to look up the actual data myself and did some statistical computations which I referenced to you.

            A simple search will reveal a lot to you but you don’t care to do it, instead you spout the DOGMA of the administration and the money grabbers. This is why we have such a problem with people such as yourself. True sheeple.

            I will get you started:


            Here is evidence that the touted problems of global warming are alarmist dreams, not reality:


            And here is the discussion of the IPPC’s 1500 page report and how it disproves that there is any statistically significant warming shown since 1995, that is 20 years!


            Here is one termination over stating global warming does not exist, believe me there are many many many more. Anyone that does not uphold the political Dogma will go through the “cleansing” cycle.


            Then of coarse there are the signatures of over 30,000 US scientists who specialize in fields related to this issue. This is NOT insignificant at all, in fact it proves that there is a concerted effort to thwart truth and forward the Dogma and official liberal position of politicians.


            Ian, it does NOT matter what NAS is comprised of politically, they MUST toe the line of have no job and be ostracized, not have any ability to obtain grants or funding.

            FOLLOW THE MONEY!

            Here is a witness statement about policy, he is a scientist that was fired for showing that it does not exist.


            And lastly, I am going to tell you that increased CO2 has caused early spring and abundant growth of plants on earth. Even increased crop productions. CO2 is NOT a greenhouse heat producing gas according to the physics of it. Instead, H20 is the BIGGEST and BEST greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. Increases in its gaseous state (clouds) can reflect immense amounts of solar heat. Lack of clouds at night can cause radiant cooling. In other words, if we were honest, then looking a the percentage of cloud coverage changes over time, day and night wold mean more than any other data. But guess what, NO ONE IS LOOKING!.
            Any one that believes in the Dogma at this time has just been DUPED.
            BTW, when I away a child we were taught that we were coming onto a global cooling and entering an ice age. Do you have nay idea how much fear that put me into? this was the “official” Dogma of the time and also the scientific consensus. All were WRONG, WHY WOULD I TRUST THE DOGMATIC POSITION NOW?

              • dje3

                Ian, you are a total ass. I told you, GO LOOK FOR THE TRUTH. You won’t. You have no background in science, have done no personal research, have sought no sources nor any RAW data. IN fact, my statements that were made because I looked up RAW data for over 200 years and crunched it were backed up in the articles. We have LESS than 100 years of usable data in 100 million years.
                That is statistically insignificant. in fact, even the BEST GUESSES of geologic surveys of climate give us nothing usable.

                You don’t get it and don’t want to. You want to eat Alice’s small pill go ahead.
                Please, don’t answer me again. I hate dealing with people who refuse to work to find anything and expect people to use Brain Power and work dealing with unarmed people like yourself.

                • Ian5

                  Wow, name calling really helpful. Calm down there fella. I asked you a pretty simple question and you haven’t provided an answer. Provide us with some reputable scientific organizations that support your outlandish view that AGW is a hoax. Then explain why virtually every scientific academy in the US and abroad recognizes AGW as as serious issue. I sent you a list. Are you saying that they have all been party to a big hoax? Are they lying? Where’s you evidence.

                  • dje3

                    I gave you links to verifiable news sources regarding virtually everything I discussed and said. A fraud is much more appropriate language. There is NO evidence of MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING, there is evidence of a few years trending increased temps in the late 20th century. There is also evidence of direct manipulation of raw data by the US government.

                    As to your attitude, please understand that over my lifetime I have read the words and wisdom of the founding fathers of this nation. We were never to trust ANY ELECTED OFFICIAL and especially be wary of bureaucrats. They all want power and or your money. ALL OF THEM.

                    As C02 is a VERY SMALL percentage of the “greenhouse” gasses in our atmosphere, and as scientists can not even agree that it is a green house gas, and as H20 is THE PREVELANT KNOWN greenhouse gas, comprising about 50% of our atmosphere…it becomes apparent that ANY model made regarding global warming must first evaluate H20…before it considers the .04% total C02 and the .0004% included increase caused by man.

                    Anyone that believes that such a small change could be so devastating is off their rocker. In fact, a single small volcanic burp has been KNOWN to increase C02 more than that!

                    Since we are on the subject, all models use some “statistically” arrived at norm for heat from the sun. 1.4 kW/m2 of energy. Any sun spot or solar flare of even eccentricity in surface of the sun can vary this by several millionths. 1.74 X 10^17 W time a few millions is still an increase (or decrease) of intense amounts of energy, we cant even measure this variance yet ( we were going to try but never launched the device). However we can see that as a percentage it could be incredibly large and wreak nasty changes on the earth.

                    The bottom line, we already KNOW that no CO2 global warming model comes close, unless we adjust data to fit it. Therefore the entire thesis is wrong. IN fact we know that other gasses such as H20 are more prevalent and act DIRECTLY on temperature, reflecting heat away in the day and capturing it at night like a blanket.

                    As heat is based on 0K and as 20C close to 300K, and as we are speaking of less than .5C, we are looking for a 0.16% change in energy by earth.Pointing at C02 for this is ludicrous to begin with. There is no foundation to pint that direction…it was randomly chosen as a MONETARY FOUNDATION POINT. there must be power and money….control and money. CO2 can easily be monitored and pointed to. If they chose nitrogen, everyone would have laughed. If they chose a poisonous gas then they would have to end all the poisonous metals and gasses released annually, arsenic etc.

                    Chose a basically stable inert gas of low concentration and you can make power and money. No relationship to reality….0.16% change in absorbed or retained heat. Spread a cloud a little more in the day…have it sit over the area longer at night…all on average and guess what, you have you .16% easily!!! Now, go figure out how much closer the sun needs to be to earth to increase energy to the earth by .16%. If you are intelligent you could actually figure it out fairly simply.

                    I can tell you that I don’t trust the government at all. My mail comes 3 weeks late at times. My property taxes are based on some “appraisal” but if I tell the tax man I will accept his offer to purchase my house at that price he will laugh and tell me my house isn’t worth a tenth of that (been there and done that).

                    if two square meters of every ten thousand square meters on earth absorbed when they should reflect it would raise the earth’s temperature more than the amount we are seeking. Same with cloud cover at night…in reverse. Figure it out for yourself the math is all available, the numbers easy to crunch for any would be interested party.

                    Look I am pretty well done here giving you some basic physics and history lessons along with some idea of WHY you need to think for yourself and find the truth through other means than the LIBERAL MEDIA and especially through the government. ALWAYS QUESTION EVERYTHING THE GOVERNMENT TELLS YOU FIRST. IT IS EASY TO LATER SAY, YUP THEY DID RIGHT, than to say, give me back my freedom, my money, or my vote and power.

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      I’m afraid your dealing with trained trolls, they are all unable to explain their belief in their own words. Little understanding, just a ready reference green bullet point sheet as arguments.

                    • dje3

                      The sad part is that most of them will tell a scientist who disproves their thesis that he is on a payroll of some obscure financial interest, while the entire global warming INDUSTRY is a false industry that was developed to RAPE you and me of money and INCREASE costs to us for all energy use.

                      They don’t even see that anyone who has published facts that diminish or disprove their thesis (many US government Employees or scientist funded by Federal Grants and or working in federal agencies) are terminated and black balled from employment in their field. This has happened to MANY good men and women who want to actually HELP us.

                      Now we have this guy Thomas something or other demanding that anyone who disagrees with the Official Government Mantra be jailed under RICO! One can teach ONLY if the person learning wants to learn and is teachable. Most of these aren’t, they just want to spew their ignorance as a religious philosophy.

                      BTW, Notice that NO ONE argued with any of my comment? I think that speaks for itself.

                    • Ian5

                      Brin, you haven’t watched the kids brittanica video yet have you! But seriously, don’t listen to me, listen to NASA or MIT or the Environmental Change Institute at Oxford University. According to you and your buddy dje3, they are all liars. How can you honestly believe that?

                    • dje3

                      Because there is money involved, Obama himself said he was gg to make the carbon exchange bigger than the NYSE. This means that this industry is DESIGNED to be bigger than all energy companies combined and Obama helped start it as a PLANNED income generation machine. It does not matter any longer what is true, or fact. They already got you on their side instead of you reading and understanding what you read.

                      As i stated a change in delivery sunlight to the earth of only a few thousandths of a percent, or a change in cloud cover or a few thousandth of a percent can change the earths temperature more than what we are talking about. Yet YOU and others are looking at a gas that has a very small percentage of out atmosphere and does not create hothouse effects unless in high amounts and exactly controlled conditions.

                      Also, as stated, anyone whose work has disproved or even questioned the government policy has been ostracized and is no longer employable or eligible for grants etc. This means that there is CONCERTED EFFORT to hide truth ad facts.

                      This means that NO scientist doing studies will ever publish anything that tell the truth. It has already happened. You can look it up but won’t.

        • Ian5

          And what evidence do you have that the NAS is comprised of left wing activists? Its conclusions conflict with your ideology so it’s just easier for you to call them left-wing activitists rather than address the scientific conclusions..

          • dje3

            Ideology? How about Science. I gave you pleanty to think of and to research. You spew back rhetoric about “ideology”.

            I also gave you LISTS of issues regarding existing scientific conclusions, they do NOT consider even the most prevalent known greenhouse gas in ANY model or evaluation, that being clouds (H20 as a condensate in out atmosphere). They do not consider the other major KNOWN greenhouse gasses either.

            I gave you the PERCENTAGE of greenhouse gas that they are using to evaluate. In ANY closed system, the FIRST evaluation MUST ALWAYS be the most prevalent and then most active. CO2 is not either by a long shot.

            The bottom line, you don’ care to become knowledgeable nor to consider facts and science and to use your own brain. Instead you wish to spout the Administration’s falsehoods back to me and attack me.

            Ian, How about you just go away, you are not worth my trouble, except that I do get to state openly the facts and that others are reading them and will understand and possibly use their own brains. This in turn will lead them to TRUTH and FACT, which I have fairly well presented in a way that they can understand, evaluate and consider, and in fact possibly investigate to make INFORMED comment and decision.

            • Ian5

              Except that most of your comment are uninformed…and you haven’t answered my previous question. Provide us with some reputable SCIENTIFIC organizations that support your outlandish view that AGW is a hoax. If you are so confident, surely you can provide 4 or 5? If you can’t do that, then your question “How about the science” is pretty empty.

              • dje3

                There arrant any organization LEFT to do that, They were ALL defunded by government and nay scientist that has published proofs, including the “adjusting of raw data” illegally by the administration has lost their jobs and funding.
                You just fail to see what is happening, it is ABOUT MONEY, not about the earth. Obama told us this when he was involved in starting the carbon exchange!
                What is wrong with you people? you don’t even read at all! you don’t study at all. I have read, studied and even evaluated over 200 years of actual data myself.
                There is NO statistical KNOWN change, we only have about 70 years of any data that is usable and only 30 years of data points in numbers that create any statistically important data. We need 10,000 years of it to even begin to understand and SINGLE cycle of erths geo history.

                  • dje3

                    I have given you the information, you can look it up or not. You can find that Obama himself was involved in the setting up of the Chicago carbon exchange and he is now using his power and office to forward that exchange with monetary benefit to him and his early supporters.
                    You can also find that in other countries carbon credits have harmed the ecology where used. Australia and other countries ended the program, the UN is on board generally and the WORST violators of ecology are using CC as a “work around” to pollute.You refuse to read the opposing information. I have read the opposing information, it does not change the information I know of and have read, not the facts regarding the physics of temperature change on earth. .4% of the gasses here are not more important that 99.6%. Not possibly from a physics standpoint, not from a logical one. Neither the differences in the delivery of energy from the Sun and its overall capture on earth. An EXTREMELY small change in captured energy from the SUN can change the earth MUCH MORE than we are seeing. This happens from cloud cover than from a minor gas int he atmosphere, one that can be monitored and therefore is used as an Income cycle by Obama and his crowd.
                    Look, there is no reason to talk to you any longer. You can find the information on the INDIVIDUALS that were funded (universities, employees of NOAA and of NASA etc that came out against the Global Warming Policy as unfounded scientifically) they were all defunded, terminated and are not able to work in their fields any longer, BLACKBALLED.

                    This means that the ENTIRETY is a witch hunt, and a political game. Currently some faces of the pro side are actually DEMANDING that ANYONE who opposes the OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT STAND be prosecuted for RICO ACT violation. This is BEYOND just political, it is INSANE.

                    You buy into it, great. Enjoy your life. I am through talking with you, Good luck to you, I would suggest that in anything you want to believe in you research the opposite side with a VERY open mind, then find out about the side you want to believe in.

                    • Ian5

                      You said scientific organizations supporting AGW “…were ALL defunded by government”. What scientific organizations? Stop back-peddling and deflecting and provide me some evidence to substantiate your rhetoric. You have provided nothing but an ideological rant and some links to rubbish media sites like american backlash, breitbart, and climatedepot. Not good enough.

  3. Roy Bailey

    Only Utopians can believe wind and solar will replace fossil fuel in the near or distant future. Bless their little hearts.

      • Roy Bailey

        CO2 is not a pollutant, Oxides of nitrogen, sulfur, etc. are.. In America, unlike some developed nations we have been doing a splendid job of cleaning the nasty stuff. Check out the history of the South Coast Air basin consisting of 5 Southern California counties as an example of cleaning the air without driving too many industries away.

          • Roy Bailey

            It is a gas of life. Look it up. Of course if the volume of CO2 exceeds the volume of O2 in a given space, you will or course suffocate.

              • Roy Bailey

                You entitled to believe what you wish. I will not denigrate you or call you names as climate cultists are prone to spew.

                  • Roy Bailey

                    %he autocratic EPA decided without debate that CO2 is a gross pollutant. Has the EPA or any other government body produced .solutions for all those CO2-producing
                    volcanoes, hot springs and geysers, carbonate rocks, rivers, lakes, ice
                    caps and glaciers, not to mention petroleum and natural gas trapped in
                    the earth?

                    • dje3

                      Actually it is NOT a pollutant. In fact over 90 percent of CO2 existing in free form on the planet is native to the planet and this atmosphere, it may be as much as 99.x% but, wee only have about 100 years (really less than 50) of data to go by.
                      We know that there were MANY more plants millennia ago and that the amount of CO2 we have today would not have sustained them at all. Therefore there is a high probability that we might be in a CO2 deficit! Wouldn’t that just tweak your titties the wrong way? I mean finding out that you were so wrong and instead of diverting a perceived disaster you created one?

                      By the same definition, OXYGEN is a pollutant as well as H2O. One has to be careful about that kind of slippery slope. I mean, what would happen if the cloud cover increased by an average of say, 3%…or decreased? We would see a heating or cooling the likes of which would make your head spin.

                      I suggest you start doing scientific studies and research yourself instead of spouting unfounded fact.

                    • Dano2

                      Too late. It is already listed as a pollutant. Shame you weren’t part of oral arguments or the science team preparing the brief, eh?

                      And CO2 deficit!




                    • dje3

                      Listed by a bureaucracy only, not by law. There is a question whether the bureau had authority at all without congressional approval, besides which it was ordered by the President. The founding fathers warned us about this.

                      People that believe the man-made global warming lie are stating BS like this all the time. They state that anyone opposed is “pro oil” or pro-big business. They forget that OBAMA himself was involved in obtaining 1M in funding and starting the un-authorized Chicago Carbon Exchange program. he stated when it started that HE would make the carbon exchange BIGGER than the NYSE!

                      So, it is obvious that the current President is using the media, NASA and NOAA and other government agency to forward HIS project for personal gain of himself and his cronies.

                      Before you begin to SPOUT BS, find out the TRUTH about who and what you are supporting. Then find out the facts about the science (in this case the total lack of science involved) and ALWAYS read up on opposing views annd facts with an open mind. Then you MIGHT be able to BEGIN to evaluate.

                      I have now given you the tools to look up truth and scientific facts, I have shown you the direction to look and how to look there. I have given you basic facts regarding the argument and finally have given you the name of the person who has the MOST POWER and MOST to gain financially. I have told you about the entirety of the fraud against the people of the US and the WORLD.

                      If you are not intelligent enough to thank me and tell me that you will begin to study this yourself and to find out the truth, then that is ON YOU and the destruction of lifestyle and Global Economy, as well as possible destruction of the EARTH for financial gain under the color of GREEN may ensue.

                      Good Luck to you.

                • Brin Jenkins

                  These guys do so, I tied conversing with them only to be told to get an education, well I have one, and at 80 grow intolerant of mindless green goons. Note his next comment about educating yourself!

              • dje3

                Stop cutting down the forests and the trees will use that C02 so fast you wont believe it. IN fact in nurseries (plant growing) they have been using CO2 for years to speed growth.

                In fact recent crops have been much more productive than in the past, EVEN NASA AND THE US GOVERNMENT ATTRIBUTE THIS PARTLY TO HIGHER CO2 LEVELS. So this pollutant is helping feed man? yeah, right.


                drink too much water and it can be poisonous…what do you want ian? to argue? GO AWAY NOW.

        • dje3

          thank you. You are so correct in fact higher CO2 concentrations are known to cause plants to grow faster, therefore a self adjusting system exists, provided we don’t strip the planet of its tropical forests.

      • Brin Jenkins

        Only by idiots like you. Show us how it might work, show us how you can balance the supply and load or shut up with your greenie rubbish. You have only studied the greens version of pseudo science and not reality.

    • Evan Pallesen

      Yes. The new generation of nuclear plants that burn all the unwanted “nuclear wastes” of the first generation plants while producing none of their own are the true “alternative energy source” of the 21st century.

0 Pings & Trackbacks