The New York Times reports to day that the Sierra Club wants to raze dams in the Northwest and replace them with
… wind turbines in more places, to help balance power generation by ensuring that some are always in an area where the wind is blowing, or relying more on the Northwest’s natural gas plants in combination with energy-saving measures.
This is, of course, another half-baked, hare-brained idea designed more to cause energy chaos and shortages than to provide “clean energy” and help the “endangered salmon.”
The erratic nature of wind power cannot be remedied by more windmills in more places because… well… wind power is erratic. Just because the wind isn’t blowing here doesn’t mean it’s blowing there. Then there are the problems of all those expensive transmission lines that would need to be installed for the extra windmills, the eyesore nature of windmills, their large footprint, the migratory bird-Cuisinart controversy, additional taxpayer subsidies and more.
And what’s this, the Sierra Club wants to replace low greenhouse gas emitting hydropower with fossil fuels? Are they serious? What about the planetary emergency? Is saving salmon more important than saving the world from the dreaded global warming? Didn’t Kofi Oil-for-Food Annan just say that global warming kills 300,000 people every year? And WWAGS?
Energy-saving measures? Now we get to the nut-cutting, as Lyndon Johnson used to say. “Energy-saving” is green-speak for rationing — and isn’t that what the greens really want?
Crap….sorry. The data environmentalists and the politicians used came from computer models. Models that even the programmers said are totally unreliable and can be totally manipulated.
The anti-global warming scientists are using hard, proven facts and data.
Who’s data would you trust more?
Oh, by the way, to more directly answer your question “Is there any indication of a Green Conspiracy?”…..
The founder of Greenpeace was a true fighter for protecting the environment. He was the founder and he eventually dropped his membership from the organization. He said that it has totally been twisted and the causes the organization fights for have nothing to do with the environment, and that the environment is only being used as a scapegoat to push other agendas. He got disgusted and quit.
Of course, I don’t remember exactly how he said it, but you can find a video of him if you google it….surely using Greenpeace founder. I haven’t tried, but the video is on the net to be found.
Well, I’d say under the circumstances they aren’t a bunch of misguided fools just fighting for what they think is a good thing.
The liberals have relied on only 1,000 so-called scientists to conclude that man-made global warming is a fact. Only 52 of those were actually qualified environmental scientists and many of the others were plain old beaurocrats. That’s a fact.
Since then, all we’ve heard is that scientists have come to a consensus that man-made global warming is a fact. Scientist have picked apart Al Gore’s film, pointing out a lot of lies. Unlike here in the United States, in Britain the courts have mandated that if schools show the film to students they have to also point out the proven lies in the film. In this country the libs are allowed to force the lies on our kids unchecked.
Liberal politicians have threatened to pull the liscense of any meteorologist who speaks out against global warming. A head scientist at NASA said he had no choice but to support the global warming theory because that was the only way to get funding. Since he no longer works there, he says it’s a fraud.
Over 32,000 qualified scientists have signed a petition saying that global warming is a hoax (the number might be a little off, but it’s somewhere in that range). Does that sound like a consensus to you?
I’m no scientist, but there have been so many red flags come up that there’s no way I can accept this as solid fact. I want to hear the environmentalists, the politicians, and opposing scientists have a debate.
Yet, Al Gore has been invited multiple times to science conventions to discuss the matter with scientists who have debunking evidence. He refuses to attend, and when asked about it he said that he’s not going to argue about a fact that has already been proven. Proven by who? Him and his film? HA!!
Liberal politicians and pro global warming advocates will not bring all the scientists together to come to an actual consensus one way or the other. They are forcing their agenda down our throats without the support of a LARGE section of the scientific community.
Because of these efforts to muffle the opposition and ignore them, they have no interest in making sure that their data is correct.
Why? Because it’s not about saving the planet and it’s not about CO2. It’s about forcing policy down our throats that we don’t want, all in the name of saving the planet. They aren’t idiots, but they’re counting on their voters to remain blind sheep.
Is there any indication of a Green Conspiracy, or is it just a bunch of well-intentioned people fervently defending their ideas, mistaken or otherwise?
I see little basis to deride them as civilization-destroying baddies, even if they do advocate policies that do more harm than good. Simply put, the option of reverting to primitive technology is not viewed as a realistic or desirable option except by a fringe minority, whose views are ignored (except by some who use them to misrepresent the intent of the concern for the environment).
By the way, the previous post was intentionally inane to drive a point….before anyone calls me an idiot.
The whole wind and solar replacement scenario is a joke. Environmentalists are against any alternative energy anyway. No wind, no nuclear, no nothing.
If the environmentalists get their way…. and they will under Obama, Reid and Pelosi….we will all be walking to the local government welfare office to collect our checks and foodstamps. No jobs because there won’t be any businesses to work for. Walking will be required because there will be no such thing as cars. Horses will be banned because they fart. We’ll have to eat cabbage and lettuce to survive because cows and pigs…..also fart.
There’s only two ways for this to go, in all seriousness. Either the environmentalist agenda is destroyed or mankind is destroyed. I choose for the environmentalists to be muzzled.
I think I may have misunderstood your comment as pro environmentalism. If I did, I apologize and retract my previous reply.
That didn’t make any sense, unless you mean to take out the dams. If that’s what you want to do you’re an idiot.
The environmentalists want to shut down big business and cars. The liberal elites want to shut down capitalism and install socialism. Of course, they work together because the single lie of global warming can achieve the goals of both. Neither are idiots. Shifty, crooked, propaganda pushers, liars, etc., but not idiots.
The useful idiots are the sheep that vote. All they have to do is get the media to push propaganda for them (done), get the sheep to not see the agenda (done), and get the sheep to vote for what they think is something completely different (done). Until the useful idiots going to the ballot box wake up and smell the roses, we’re screwed. The media isn’t going to do their jobs, so it looks bad to me.
So why not use nuclear power plants, then the rivers can flood all the people out naturally …
Many dams were build for flood control. Electricity is the byproduct. Green fascism is trying to create hell on earth, except for the elite. These people are IDIOTS (but they are useful, as Lenin would say).
BAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!