Claim: Trump "Denies" Climate Change Because he Hates Wind Turbines

Donald Trump, By Michael Vadon -, CC BY-SA 2.0,
Donald Trump, By Michael Vadon –, CC BY-SA 2.0,

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Tom Cheshire, Sky Technology Correspondent, has claimed that President-elect Donald Trump is a “climate denier” because of his legal battle to prevent offshore wind turbines messing up sea views at his Aberdeenshire Golf Course.

Sky Views: Why Trump denies climate change

Tom Cheshire, Technology Correspondent

When the oceans rise and the world ends, do remember to thank the RSPB for their small part in armageddon.

I’ll get round to the twitchers’ role in our doom shortly, but that doom feels closer than ever.

Mr Trump’s incoming administration will likely be the most anti-scientific and anti-technological in a while.

The President-elect is a climate change denier, one of his few consistent positions.

Trump denies climate change because he hates wind turbines. Can’t stand them.

Trump didn’t care about global warming until a renewable-energy company proposed building 33 wind turbines off the coast of Aberdeenshire. Right next to where Trump wanted to build a golf course.

For more than a decade, Trump has been fighting those turbines.

He was still lodging objections on the presidential campaign trail, after Scottish judges threw out an appeal against the development.

The golf course has been built. The wind farms still have not.

It was in 2006 that RSPB Scotland came to Trump’s aid, also opposing the wind turbines, saying they were “extremely concerned” about their effect on avian life.

Trump seized on the orniphile argument, a step on his journey to climate change sceptic.

Read more:

Is support for wind turbines and support for climate action the same thing? Sky correspondent Tom Cheshire is not alone in conflating opposition to wind turbines with climate “denial”.

Former NASA Chairman James Hansen, the granddaddy of the climate movement, whose pivotal testimony in 1988 kicked off the entire global climate scare – can you think of anyone with a stronger, more consistent track record of climate activism? Yet Hansen’s decades of crusading against fossil fuels wasn’t enough for some greens. Naomi Oreskes in 2015 accused Hansen of practicing a “strange new form of denial”, because Hansen supports nuclear power – he thinks renewables aren’t up to the job of rapidly decarbonising the economy.

Like Trump, in 2006 prominent eco-activist Robert F. Kennedy Jnr. vigorously opposed a planned offshore turbine installation which would have messed up the view.

RFK Jr. and other prominent enviros face off over Cape Cod wind farm

By Amanda Little on Jan 13, 2006

A long-simmering disagreement within the environmental community over a plan to build a massive wind farm off the coast of Cape Cod, Mass., is now boiling over into a highly public quarrel.

The four-year-old battle started heating up last summer when Greenpeace USA staged a demonstration against well-known eco-activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who’s been an outspoken opponent of the proposal for a 130-turbine wind-power project in Horseshoe Shoal, a shallow portion of Nantucket Sound south of Cape Cod. Kennedy — a senior attorney at Natural Resources Defense Council and a pioneer in the waterway-protection movement — was on a sailboat for an event with the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, which opposes the wind project. A Greenpeace vessel cruised up alongside with a banner that read, “Bobby, you’re on the wrong boat” — a stunt that was part of a larger Greenpeace campaign pressuring Kennedy to change his mind on the development. (Hear audio from the Greenpeace/Kennedy confrontation.)

Read more:

Does RFK Jr.’s opposition to offshore wind turbines in a place of scenic beauty make him a “denier”?

What does President-elect Trump think of wind turbines?

Trump: Our energy companies are a disaster right now. Coal. The coal business is – you know, there is such a thing as clean coal. Our miners are out of work – now they’re just attacking energy companies like I’ve never seen them attack anything before.

They want everything to be wind and solar. Unfortunately, it’s not working on large-scale. It’s just not working. Solar is very, very expensive. Wind is very, very expensive, and it only works when it’s windy.

Cain: Right.

Trump: Someone might need a little electricity – a lot of times, it’s the opposite season, actually. When they have it, that’s when you don’t need it. So wind is very problematic and – I’m not saying I’m against those things. I’m for everything. I’m for everything.

Cain: Right.

Trump: But they are destroying our energy companies with regulation. They’re absolutely destroying them.

Cain: But their viability has to be demonstrated before you shove it down the throats of the American people. That’s what you’re saying.

Trump: In all fairness, wind is fine. Sometimes you go – I don’t know if you’ve ever been to Palm Springs, California — it looks like a junkyard. They have all these different –

Cain: I have.

Trump: They have all these different companies and each one is made by a different group from, all from China and from Germany, by the way – not from here. And you look at all these windmills. Half of them are broken. They’re rusting and rotting. You know, you’re driving into Palm Springs, California, and it looks like a poor man’s version of Disneyland. It’s the worst thing you’ve ever seen.

And it kills all the birds. I don’t know if you know that…Thousands of birds are lying on the ground. And the eagle. You know, certain parts of California – they’ve killed so many eagles. You know, they put you in jail if you kill an eagle. And yet these windmills [kill] them by the hundreds.

Read more:

Why to skeptics oppose climate action?

The reason in my opinion, quite simply, is the green movement stuffed up – they couldn’t bring themselves to present a compelling, consistent position.

If greens had embraced nuclear power from the start, like James Hansen, I and many other skeptics would probably never have questioned predictions of imminent climate catastrophe – I would likely have been out there on the streets, joining in with the mass demonstrations, demanding an end to fossil fuels for the sake of our children’s future.

By insisting that the solution had to be renewables, which clearly aren’t up to the job, and demanding more government control of the economy, greens raised legitimate concerns that there was something very wrong with what they were advocating.

Think about it – even if you believe nuclear power is really dangerous, what harm are a few nuclear meltdowns every year, compared to the risk that carbon emissions will irreversibly destroy the entire world? The majority green position simply doesn’t make sense.

Climate skeptics do not oppose action on climate change because we hate wind turbines. Skeptics oppose climate action because green insistence on ridiculously implausible responses, to a problem which greens claim is an existential crisis, forced us to ask questions, to dig deeper, to examine and reject their utterly inadequate supporting evidence.

4 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 30, 2016 8:33 pm

Oh, come on, puleeze. Trump is knowing it’s a fraud because he like most of us knows Man made Climate change is a hoax. The Earths climate has never, EVER, been static

Janice Moore
Reply to  P M Mcdevitt (@ssbn601)
November 30, 2016 9:21 pm

If, P M, you are wondering why your comment was in m0deration for a bit, it was the word “fr@ud.” I should know. Sigh.

Reply to  Janice Moore
November 30, 2016 10:53 pm

Try d***** and your post will never see the daylight at the end of the moderators tunnel. Just saying…..

Reply to  Janice Moore
November 30, 2016 11:57 pm

Yeah, it will… just depends on how it’s used.

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 1, 2016 5:47 am

So all it takes is a slight misspell?
I wonder who let the dogs out? Now that they know the trick; time to expand the “hold for m0deration” list of bad words…
I do know, and usually just don’t mind.
Anthony’s word list is for purpose, and to my mind justified. (Oops, in m0deration, but no ill intents meant)
I do misspell most pernicious curse words, as I don’t like their common use without purpose. They’re for severe emphasis or purposes. e.g. “Nor H_ll, a fury, like a woman scorned”… or mocked…”

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 1, 2016 6:56 am

Simply putting a space between each letter is sufficient.

November 30, 2016 8:37 pm

You’ve got to be a pretty big dick to blame RSPB for climate armageddon.

Reply to  JMH
December 1, 2016 1:22 am

The RSPB have of course stopped more UK wind farm developments than any other organisation…

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 3:40 am

Can’t find any UK figures for bird deaths from bird-chomping wind turbines, but from the US Audubon Society it runs into thousands! Renewables are useless. It’s like working at one’s desk using a candle for light, yet having an angle-poise lamp on at the side just in case the candle gets blown out! Useless!

Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 5:47 am

Thank goodness.

Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 7:02 am

Yes Alan, you can’t – that’s because they are negligible, since the UK planning laws ensure they don’t get put up where they would harm birds.
Scottish Golden Eagles are thriving…
The Audobon society, like nearly all US sources and ‘Save the eagles’ quotes figures derived from one of the very few ‘dangerous to birds wind’ farms in the world – Altamont Pass
This 1980s abomination with its multiple old style small turbines on open lattice towers, in a narrow pass, across a migration route, in an eagle wintering area, with power lines which fried large birds landing on the poles, killed a lot of birds, especially eagles. And there are very few like it in the world, because we learned from it. Yet the figures from this one site are extrapolated to all wind farms, in all countries.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 7:11 am

Again I will state that wind and solar are practical alternatives on small scales where power grids are not present or where users wish to supplement the power they purchase.
Their inability as single devices to produce enough electricity to reproduce themselves during their usable life, their dependence on plastics and rare-earth metals, and the cost of constructing, maintaining and disposing of the units and the associated transmission system makes them totally wrong for supplying the power grid.

Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 12:26 pm

@ Pop Piasa
Totally correct. I have Solar Panels and enjoy a huge “return” thanks to the stupidity of the UK FIT system. The overall percentage return I get in savings and the FIT is many times the return i would be getting if the same monies were placed on deposit.
However I see the main benefit longer term will be for people wanting to go “off grid” – It is my view that Governments are scared witless of the technology that could make each individual household independent of and not reliant on – the huge utility system networks with taxes like VAT as just one example.
Governments are guilty of wasting taxpayers money on these huge monstrous white elephants so that they can keep the tax income flowing! What they should be doing is to fund research on small units and systems that would make people energy independent.
But that of course would be like Turkeys voting for Christmas…..

Bryan A
Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 2:34 pm

Some interesting Bird Mortality Data from WIKI

A 2013 meta-analysis by Smallwood identified a number of factors which result in serious under-reporting of bird and bat deaths by wind turbines. These include inefficient searches, inadequate search radius, and carcass removal by predators. To adjust the results of different studies, he applied correction factors from hundreds of carcass placement trials. His meta-analysis concluded that in 2012 in the United States, wind turbines resulted in the deaths of 888,000 bats and 573,000 birds, including 83,000 birds of prey.[78]
Also in 2013, a meta-analysis by SCott Loss and others in the journal Biological Conservation found that the likely mean number of birds killed annually in the U.S by monopole tower wind turbines was 234,000. The authors acknowledged the larger number reported by Smallwood, but noted that Smallwood’s meta-analysis did not distinguish between types of wind turbine towers. The monopole towers used almost exclusively for new wind installations have mortality rates that “increase with increasing height of monopole turbines”, but as of yet, it remains to be determined if increasingly taller monopole towers result in lower mortality per GWh

Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 4:06 pm

Good to hear that the killing is “negligible,” Griff. I suppose that means the Trump EPA can revoke all of their exemptions from the Endangered Species Act? Since they aren’t hurting anything…
(Note – need to add their Green investors to the Endangered Species List, though, since they’ll very soon be bankrupt and in jail…)

November 30, 2016 8:39 pm

I don’t oppose renewable energy. I oppose the justification of such as a viable substitute for curent energy sources. The math just doesn’t add up. On a large scale, wind and solar are oppressive and directly impact regional climate and the environment in negative ways. How many acres of black panels do you need to replace a coal power plant and have consistent reliable power? Even ants probably can’t live there!
I find it quite amazing that most climate activists I talk to think there is a direct and linear relationship between CO2 and temperature. That speaks volumes to the regurgitation of learned talking points from dubious sources from the internet, and not the climate science. Sad really……
M4GW redacted! 😉

Reply to  ossqss
December 1, 2016 12:08 am

“How many acres of black panels do you need to replace a coal power plant and have consistent reliable power?”
Here’s your answer, the scientific, or more precisely, the arithmetic (it’s not difficult enough to require mathematics) solution from the late Dr. David MacKay, a prominent British mathematician using ‘back of envelope’ calculations.
David is a self-confessed ‘greenie’ but illustrates the insanity of renewables simply and concisely. He’s also an engaging talker.
Sorry if this has been posted before.

Reply to  HotScot
December 1, 2016 2:04 am

MacKay. – 404, bad link.

Reply to  HotScot
December 1, 2016 2:26 am

Rule of thumb, with one day of storage you can generate 3 Watts per square meter of electricity approaching grid reliability. So a GW is around 3e8 square meters or around 300 square km so replacing the USAs 1000 GW capacity would require around 300,000 square km of solar panels, and they need replacing every 10 years. That implies installing 30,000,000,000 (30 Billion) solar panels each year.

Reply to  HotScot
December 1, 2016 6:06 am

Could MacKay’s reality talk, or a transliteration (if found) be added to the references page?

Reply to  HotScot
December 1, 2016 6:06 am

He never actually says renewables are “insane”. He actually makes it sound like renewables are feasible. And I guess he ha totally bought into the idea that “carbon” is bad.

Reply to  HotScot
December 1, 2016 10:07 pm

So, we need to live under a country wide size canopy of solar panels with a wind farm on top to do a substitue for the current energy needs. Oh wait, what about consistent power generation for the masses at night and or cloudy windless days. Yep, that part is still missing in the equation presented. Just look at what is happening down under for an example. Another Fail mathmatically TED talk……

November 30, 2016 8:43 pm

Hating wind farms is a good thing.
Like solar, it works somewhat on a micro-economic basis, but falls apart completely on macro measures. There is not a wind farm in the world that can pay for, keep, maintain, much less not ruin the scenery, for the electrical infrastructure of a single township on earth. In fact they now finding to their horror in CA that their is no one to pay for taking down the ghost windmills that are nothing but whirling bird killers after their rather short life. The cronies that got the capital are long gone.

Reply to  Pat Ch
November 30, 2016 11:29 pm

That is not true. NZ’s electricity is currently 80% renewable (almost 100% wind) and would be at
115% renewable were it not for a single aluminum smelter. So it is clearly possible to do it large
scale for an entire country. As for whether it spoils the views that is in the eye of the beholder. Personally
I think a landscape of giant turbines looks is better than giant cooling towers. And that the turbines have
a majesty all of their own.

Iain Reid
Reply to  Geronimo
November 30, 2016 11:51 pm

that is patently untrue if you check on Wikipedia, wind is about 7%, Hydro and Geothermal are the main renewable sources of power. Nowhere has much more than 20 to 25% power from wind despite huge installed capacity in some countries. Denmark relies on Norway’s hydro power link to back up their wind..

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Geronimo
November 30, 2016 11:57 pm

sigh …

Reply to  Geronimo
November 30, 2016 11:58 pm

>50% of NZ’s power is from Hydro, which is hardly environmentally friendly. Another 10% is geothermal, which is not cost-effectively available to everyone.Wind and solar account for >15% of the total, about on par with the maximum one can reliably get from these sources.

Rob R
Reply to  Geronimo
December 1, 2016 12:02 am

Geronimo, wind is a relatively small component of the NZ electricity market. It is 80% renewable because it is overwhemingly dominated by hydro. So its kind of like Norway. This works due to abundant rainfall, lots of rivers and plenty of pre-existing lakes in valleys formerly carved by glaciers. The other crucial component is a rather low population density. Geothermal is also significant in our electricity market. We have plenty of wind and there is potential for more power to be generated from it. But those towers are just so ugly and not many people really like them. By the way we still have potential for more hydro, but the nimbys currently have too much say, making new generation difficult.

Reply to  Geronimo
December 1, 2016 12:15 am

Clean green little New Zealand get most of its electricity from Hydro , not wind (5% in 2014). Still didn’t stop Helen Clarke signing them up for draconian Carbon reductions.

Reply to  Geronimo
December 1, 2016 12:23 am

I was fairly pro-wind turbines until a few years ago when I returned to Scotland along the M74/A74. The landscape through that route used to be awe-inspiring, even where the grey power lines and pylons blended in with the grey sky. Now it’s been ruined by the Clyde Valley Wind Farm that hits you with more turbines every mile, that stand out like a sore thumb, with many of them just standing there doing nothing.
I think more research and development money should be being spent on getting ‘personal’ wind turbines up to a more effective level. I’ve seen a few of these around; they don’t look anywhere near as bad, and they’re (obviously) sited where there are already man-made buildings (i.e. Houses) in place.
Of course, with these small turbines, there’s very little scope for for the sort of bribes that go along with planning applications for the huge monstrosities!

Reply to  Geronimo
December 1, 2016 1:32 am

115% renewable

Say what?
New Zealand population density ( in 2015) 17 people per square Kilometer.
Yeah, renewables (whatever lousy definition for renewables you are using) may work in low population density countries e. g. Iceland (3 people per square Kilometer) Canada (4) or New Zealand (17). But what about Japan (348 people per square Kilometer), China (146), or Bangladesh (1237)? How many people can survive on renewables in Bangladesh? And what do we do with the ones who cannot survive? Are you suggesting that, because you are living in a low population density country you deserve more rights and public recognition than, for instance, a japanese? Or that the geothermal power plants that work in Iceland can work in Bangladesh? or that Icelanders should be rewarded and Bangladeshis punished? Because that is what it looks like.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Geronimo
December 1, 2016 5:12 am

@ Geronimo – November 30, 2016 at 11:29 pm

I think a landscape of giant turbines looks is better than giant cooling towers.

Geronimo, me thinks you were inadvertently ……. “talking trash” with you above comment.
To wit, nuclear “cooling” towers ……. verses ………. giant “wind” turbines:
the Fort Calhoun reactor operates at 479 MW capacity for 24 hours, it will generate 11,496 megawatthours (MWh).
An average onshore wind turbine with a capacity of 2.5–3 MW can produce more than 6 million kWh in a year –
One (1) 479 MW reactor “cooling” tower …… equals ……. one hundred and sixty (160) 3 MW giant “wind” turbines, …….. [479 MW/3 MW = 160]

Reply to  Geronimo
December 1, 2016 5:49 am

Geronimo: I had no idea New Zealand had perfected large scale storage of wind and solar. How about sharing the company names that make those huge batteries, or the company that perfected the storage system used to back up an entire company. Elon Musk will be sooo jealous.

Reply to  Geronimo
December 1, 2016 5:51 am

An entire “country”. Drat my lousy typing!

Reply to  Geronimo
December 1, 2016 6:50 am

You need about 2,000 bird-chopping wind turbines to replace a nuke plant, so which is more of an eye-sore, and which is worse for the environment, is highly subjective.

Reply to  Geronimo
December 1, 2016 7:01 am

One cooling tower, or 10,000 wind turbines.
If you prefer the wind mills, than your sanity is in doubt.

George Hebbard
Reply to  Geronimo
December 1, 2016 7:41 am

Keep in mind that nuclear power WITHOUT cooling towers should be BANNED. Witness the poisoning of the Pacific Ocean by Fukushima, a disaster worse than dirty coal could ever imagine.
The low frequency “thumping” by wind turbines has also been suspected of causing psychological damage.
Water power, even with fish ladders, is a questionable good as so many New England rivers have been decimated of worthwhile fish.

Reply to  Geronimo
December 1, 2016 8:06 am


“would be at 115% renewable”

Mathematical and physical impossibility. 100% is equal to 1.0; or rephrased as the whole and complete number one is trying to represent with percentages. All of the generating capacity is 100%.
Speaking of physical impossibilities, of which you are capable…
Also, ever wonder why that aluminum smelter is not powered by wind or solar?
Can’t be done, period.
Continuous Hydro is capable of supporting smelters and other major industrial industry, but that means dedicating days to weeks of constant steady power; no reductions allowed.
Something the utilities can not do when they have to cover for renewable’s inconsistent interruptible unreliable power.

Reply to  Geronimo
December 1, 2016 9:31 am

Samuel C Cogar: your math is off. 11.5 GWh per day vs 6 GWh per year.
That is 700 times as much power generated. And the wind turbine says “As much as”, so it is likely less than the stated value.
ps, why don’t people use proper units. 6 million kWh? that is used strictly to sound like a large number. Using proper terms 6GWh is more usable and comparable. 11,496 MWh is almost as bad, 11.5 GWh is again, much easier to work with.

Reply to  Geronimo
December 1, 2016 10:00 am

George, George, George. Is it your intention to make a fool of yourself?
What poisoning of the Pacific Ocean?
You really need to learn about scale before you go ranting. Yes, there is detectable radiation in the Pacific from Fukushima. Barely. The levels detected are so far below the levels needed to cause harm that only a complete idiot would worry about it.
Regardless, I don’t know anyone who has proposed building power plants of any type without cooling towers.

Reply to  Geronimo
December 1, 2016 11:52 am

A landscape full of giant turbines, Gerondumo?
What for?
In New Zealand, they’re popping up all over, eyesores, every one. And for what?

Figure 29: Generation by technology type for 2011–2015comment image
Figure 29 shows the relative contributions from the various types of generation technologies for the years 2011 to 2015. It shows the increase in geothermal generation at the expense of thermal generation. Cogeneration was fairly stable during this period.”

Or if you prefer, and we do;
Look for the slightest smudge of dark brown in the top of the vertical bar charts:
I couldn’t see New Zealand’s wind contribution on my 24″ monitor.
There was some noise recently about $1,000/MWh charges for wind energy. Just in case, the question arises again:

“Figure 30: North Island count of price increases greater than $1,000/MWH caused by 2.5% increases in demandcomment image
Figure 30 shows the count of spot prices greater than $1,000/MWh in the North Island.”

There is another chart for South Island.
Turns out there are multiple papers written about the operators trying to keep their “spot price” for wind electrical generation from topping $1,000.
Where is your property G & G (Gerondumo and griffiepoo)? We’ll be sure to send your location in as an ideal place for wind turbines.

John Robertson
Reply to  Geronimo
December 1, 2016 7:08 pm

Which NZ would that be?
Not the one I know.
Hydro dominates.

Reply to  Geronimo
December 1, 2016 11:35 pm

Somebody claims New Zealand electricity sector is 80-115% renewable, of which almost 100% wind, and even mentions evil aluminium factories that use electricity. Can we safely assume this is a troll, and not an instance of misunderstanding?
Hydro (renewable) 54%
Gas (fossil) 20%
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 10%
Geothermal (kind-of-renewable)
Wind (renewable) 7%
Coal (fossil) 6%
Oil (fossil) 2%
Other renewable 1%
Of primary energy in NZ, only 40% is renewable. Not really a 100% wind nor ever will be.
About Al smelters (lets leave Gore out for a moment): there is a name for a process where you, using taxes or other means of political steering, drive an industry out of a country, so that it finds a place better suiting it. Several, to be certain of it.
– Greenwashing
– Local optimization
– Carbon emissions leak
– Chinese (sometimes Indonesian or you-name-it) aluminium

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Geronimo
December 2, 2016 4:38 am

Jeff in Calgary – December 1, 2016 at 9:31 am

Samuel C Cogar: your math is off. 11.5 GWh per day vs 6 GWh per year.

Jeff in Calgary, …… I knew my math was “off”……… but it mattered not a twit ……. because I was simply pointing out to Geronimo how stupidly asinine his statement was via use of the two (2) stated quantities in the two (2) links that I cited.
Iffen I had used correct mathematics ….. then a half-dozen lefty liberal dumbasses would have immediately responded ……. claiming that my cited links didn’t support my posted commentary.

Reply to  Geronimo
December 2, 2016 7:34 pm

And most of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles of the U.S. border where the wind turbines are being installed. Wind turbines need to be as close to population centres as possible. So the population density of Canada can’t be used for renewable energy projects.

Dr. Bob
Reply to  Pat Ch
December 1, 2016 7:55 am

Speaking of California, here is a photo of San Gorgonio pass in Southern California. Isn’t it pretty now that they build wind farms over all the surface area!
And there is so much more of the desert to cover with these beautiful beasts. Don’t worry about the birds and bats, they will return in a few hundred thousand years when the windmills decay and fall down from disuse.

Reply to  Dr. Bob
December 1, 2016 5:37 pm

@ Dr Bob, I sincerely hope you are wrong about both time lines, The windmills will be gone in 10 years and the birds will come back in 50-75 years as soon as the grinders stop. No one can afford to replace them without subsidies and those will disappear soon.

November 30, 2016 8:46 pm

While most on this forum are waiting for Trump’s administration to attack the AGW narrative the rest of the country…. aside from green groups …really could care less. I think Trump will put up with the green noise to help the economy and ignore the eco loons realizing they are a small minority wagging the dog.

Janice Moore
November 30, 2016 8:51 pm

1. The premises underlying this article, that climate change is: 1) a bona fide problem; and 2) that humans can do ANYTHING about it is mistaken.
Climate skeptics do not oppose action on climate change because we hate wind turbines. Skeptics oppose climate action because green insistence on ridiculously implausible responses there is no problem. And even if the constantly-changing-over-the-millenia climate were a “problem,” there is NOTHING humans can do to solve it.
Nature is in control of the climate.
The End.
2. To hate wind turbines is the only moral thing a sensible, WELL INFORMED (Trump clearly is inadequately informed, thus, he hems and haws a bit about wind being “fine”), human being can do. They slaughter birds and bats and make the landscape ugly for NOTHING. They take money from taxpayers and conventional power ratepayers (otherwise, not one single wind turbine would be built) which is MUCH needed elsewhere.
3. a. Trump hates wind turbines.
b. Trump says AGW is a bunch of hot air.
The first statement is NOT a necessary predicate to the second.
Just more easily swiped aside propaganda by the enviroprofiteers.
Wind is DONE because:
It will NEVER be needed — i.e., NO responses to AGW are needed; AGW (a.k.a. “climate change”) is a LIE.
Get over it, wind hu$tler$ (the real actors pulling the strings of the “Greens”).
Wind is done.
(and so is solar)
Bwah, ha, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
@ the Enviro-hu$tlers
What’s that I hear? The sound of sniffling and crying over your latest wind shares valuation? I don’t feel ONE BIT sorry for you, you greedy fools. Smart money got out of wind and solar LONG ago. Only the bottom feeders are still in there, green eyes so full of the slime of greed you can’t even see.
Can’t even think (as shown by your feeble attempt above).

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
November 30, 2016 9:22 pm

In the hopes that a mod will edit my comment: “… premises …are ….” . Thanking you in advance. 🙂

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 1, 2016 3:57 am

“2. To hate wind turbines is the only moral thing”
That’s right. Why slaughter innocent birds and bats when we don’t have to? Why despoil the landscape when we don’t have to?
No more windmills should be built.

Chris Wright
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 1, 2016 4:10 am

I hate wind farms for a number of reasons: these bird-chomping monsters are hopelessly unreliable and inefficient, and they destroy beautiful landscapes. Even Prince Charles, who is not noted for climate scepticism, is against wind farms. It’s even possible, according to some research, that wind power has not even reduced CO2 emissions, as if it mattered.
But I have a more philosophical objection. One of the great advances of the 19th century was that mankind made himself less vulnerable to the vagaries of Nature. Coal and gas was reliable and worked whenever needed, unlike wind power. It’s not surprising that coal quickly took over from sails for ships. Fossil fuels also brought great environmental benefits: oil probably saved the whales from complete extinction and coal probably saved the European forests from complete destruction. But now, sadly, we seem to be going backwards. Wind and solar power makes us more vulnerable to the weather: on a windless night, how much wind and solar power? We are converting power stations so that they are literally burning trees.
If Trump really can turn back this tsunami of fraud, junk science and green extremism, who knows – maybe he will turn out to be the greatest President of them all!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Chris Wright
December 1, 2016 7:04 am

… wind power has not even reduced CO2 emissions … Chris Wright
There’s a Reason the Modern Age Moved on from Windmills

In the UK, the CIVITAS group has just released an economic analysis of wind power. The scathing report confirms what we have been reporting for years here on WUWT: wind power is expensive, inefficient, does little or nothing to offset CO2, and isn’t economically viable without taxpayer funded subsidies. … Electricity Costs: the Folly of Wind-power, by economist Ruth Lea, uses Government-commissioned estimates of the costs of electricity generation in the UK to calculate the most cost-effective technologies. When all costs are included, gas-fired power is the most cost-efficient method of generating electricity in the short-term, while nuclear power stations become the most cost-efficient in the medium-term. … More here (and the report itself): h/t to Brian H.” – Anthony Watts
( )

And where is Brian H, now? And Andres Valencia? And pat? (and several others…) Hope they are okay.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Chris Wright
December 1, 2016 7:07 am

Here is the archive link (sorry for the “page not found” in above Ruth Lea article link)) for the Civitas article:

November 30, 2016 8:56 pm

OK- that’s all new and different. I didn’t know you can’t play golf if there’s a windfarm operating nearby. Is it because of the low frequency noise or is there some other reason.
Strange too, if the Kennedys aren’t into windfarms. Back in the prohibition era they were into anything that made money, especially if it involved corruption. Perhaps it’s their entrepreneurial streak coming through, causing them to reject something which is only profitable with government assistance, even if it is corrupt.

Janice Moore
Reply to  gnome
November 30, 2016 9:04 pm

gnome: You CAN play golf there. You don’t WANT to play golf there.

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 1, 2016 1:25 am

a lot of people think the windfarm is off that particular piece of shore because the Donald irritated the locals so much…
Like this man:

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 1, 2016 3:03 am

Wikipedia, one of your more “reliable” sources.

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 1, 2016 7:49 am

Hey Patrick, you can google yourself for any number of locals who he apparently bullied and annoyed… including the 92 year old grandmother whose water was allegedly cut off. There’s even a documentary on it.

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 1, 2016 8:03 am

I guess you didn’t hear about the entire neighborhood that was seized in Connecticut to build a shopping center.

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 1, 2016 8:19 am

You can also Google for people who:
A) Have worked with or for Trump,
B) Have interacted with Trump,
C) Have done business with Trump,
D) Who met with Trump,
E) Who do work with or for Trump,
And think the world of Donald Trump.
Perhaps you might have noticed griffiepoo, that simple googling for people who hate HR Clinton, can fill many pages of hits. Just reading HRC’s or HRC’s workers emails will fill pages of people with reasons to despise HRC.
In spite of HRC and DNC’s muck raking fake headlines campaign; did you notice they produced very few Trump haters?
Now, crawl back down your slimy hole, griffie.

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 1, 2016 10:05 am

Griffie, whether people do or do not like Trump, is not relevant to the question at hand.

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 1, 2016 1:56 pm

Griff: “There’s even a documentary on it.”
Poor, even by your abysmal standard.
There are documentaries on all sorts of things, Griffle.
Doesn’t make them true, though.

Reply to  catweazle666
December 2, 2016 8:21 am

Yea, remember NBC and its gas tank “documentary”?
Hey Cat – Make a “documentary” on Unicorns, and they will believe it! LOL

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 1, 2016 7:48 pm

“Griff December 1, 2016 at 7:49 am
There’s even a documentary on it.”
A documentary eh? So, there is probably a link to a video perhaps as it would not be broadcast in Australia. Care to post a link?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 2, 2016 1:03 am

“Griff December 1, 2016 at 7:49 am
Trump cut off her water supply you claim, with no evidence of such action what-so-evah! Bit like claiming a-CO2 is the driver of climate change.

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 2, 2016 10:22 am

Didn’t someone make a documentary on how all the wells in a certain town were spouting water that burned and tried to blame it on fraking? Despite the fact that the water had been burning there since before the town existed?

Lil Fella from OZ
November 30, 2016 8:58 pm

You lil beauty Mr.Trump.

Janice Moore
November 30, 2016 9:03 pm

Trump seized on the orniphile argument…

Tom Cheshire
Creating the subtle-but-there connotation that bird lovers are in the same class as the vile “–philes” so often in the news is writing so contemptible it doesn’t deserve the dignity of a response.
Mr. Worrall was GENEROUS to bring another audience in to see Cheshire’s public restroom wall scrawl.

November 30, 2016 9:04 pm

Trump is a business man. He is also very astute, and he can smell a scam a mile away. Wind scam or climate scam, they are both tools of the globalists, to enact wealth redistribution. Trump will straighten out the faux-green crowd!

Reply to  1957chev
December 1, 2016 8:50 am

Unfortunately, he has no objection to a scam if he makes money off it. See Trump University or his vitamin pyramid scheme .. have forgotten the name of that one. Ah yes, the Trump Network:
I’m really hoping no one has the brains to offer his kids a sweetheart green energy deal. He could flip in a heartbeat.
If You’re Not a Millionaire by December 2008, You Didn’t Attend My Foreclosure Workshop:comment image&f=1

November 30, 2016 9:05 pm

Trump needs to stop being diplomatic and just drive a stake through the heart of CAGW and end ALL wind and solar subsidies and stop ALL new wind/solar grid-level power plant debacles.
If wind/solar companies can compete under free-market conditions, fine. If they can’t, sayonara…
BTW, oil company tax-breaks, given to ALL companies, and govt reimbursements to oil companies for selling petroleum products below production costs are NOT “subsidies”… Allowing companies to keep more of the profits they earned in a free-market is NOT a subsidy…
Government’s only roles in business is to prosecute companies that break civil or criminal laws, and to collect reasonable corporate taxes (which should only be 10% on pre-tax profits, LESS all capital investments made that year).

Janice Moore
Reply to  SAMURAI
November 30, 2016 9:07 pm


Reply to  SAMURAI
November 30, 2016 10:43 pm

“…Trump needs to stop being diplomatic and just drive a stake through the heart…”
Agreed, but a lot of politics is about timing. It would probably be best if Trump waited until he had actually been sworn-in as President before he started doing anything. And also to “keep his powder dry” until then.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Hivemind
November 30, 2016 11:17 pm

Correct, IMO. If Trump acts now he’ll get a lot of pushback; the majority of the public believe the Narrative that the chief reason for anti-renewable sentiment is selfishness or willful ignorance or excessive pickiness about the evidence. He needs to get into office, set up a “red team” agency to present a counter-alarmist report, and to challenge prominent warmists to two sorts of debates (each on a multitude of climate-related topics): One aimed at scientific audiences, with lots of technical detail, and another aimed at the general public. The latter could focus solely or mostly on weaknesses in the warmists’ case, primarily by citing 1) instances of their bias (like their revision of Iceland’s true temperature, or their fudging of the true story about polar bears) and 2) instances of their failed predictions.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Hivemind
November 30, 2016 11:47 pm

Come to think of it, Trump should set up a “red team” (of alarmist-debunkers) right now, to start the process of critique and debate so he’ll have some basis for the initial anti-warmist decisions he’ll need to make soon after January. These would be volunteers, primarily prominent skeptics, who would only need to assemble a position paper or papers from extracts of existing material they’ve written. One paper could list those alarmist claims that can be briefly rebutted and respond with counterpoints. There much be 50 of those.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Hivemind
November 30, 2016 11:49 pm

“must” not “much”

Reply to  Hivemind
December 1, 2016 4:02 am

Good point, Hivemind. Trump is just holding his fire until he officially gets in the Office. And he wants to seem reasonable in interviews so he is a little ambiguous sometimes. The main thing to look for is what Trump does.

Reply to  Hivemind
December 1, 2016 5:52 am

Hivemind–Agreed. I guess everyone seems to believe you’re president the day after the election.

G. Karst
Reply to  Hivemind
December 1, 2016 9:35 am

This is how you cut the head off a chicken for dinner.
– catch chicken
– lay struggling chicken on chopping block
– slowly draw axe in front of chicken’s head. This slow delay of axe motion calms the chicken and …the struggling subsides
– quick and clean perform the deed. GK

Reply to  SAMURAI
December 1, 2016 1:28 am

What debacles?
How would he stop new wind/solar?
Why would he want to, if private capital pays for it?
There will still be substantial solar and wind investment in the US and absolutely no new coal power plant investment.
The solar plus battery (powerwall) costing is surely set to go low enough to trigger widespread adoption during next 4 years…

Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 2:02 am

Griff, are you for real or a parody account?
He doesn’t need to outlaw wind/solar all he has to do is stop subsidizing them and all investment will cease. He can also make existing ones pay the fines when they kill protected birds.
If anybody still wants to invest without the subsides they can. I have no objection to private investors losing their money.

Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 4:04 am

TerryS wrote: “He can also make existing ones pay the fines when they kill protected birds.”
Yes! Sounds good to me. It ought to sound good to anyone who cares about the other creatures on this planet.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 5:54 am

Griff – December 1, 2016 at 1:28 am

The solar plus battery (powerwall) costing is surely set to go low enough to trigger widespread adoption during next 4 years…

Trigger widespread adoption …………. by who, ……. Federal and State agencies who have plenty of taxpayer money for wasting on “hairbrained” ideas and political “paybacks”?
What is the actual cost to a homeowner to hire or contract a Licensed and Certified Electrical Contractor to install a “solar plus battery (powerwall) back-up system in their house or home?
And don’t forget, …….. many to most new homes constructed during the past forty (40) years do not have basements or garages ……. so “additions” would be necessary for housing the batteries, etc.
And REMEMBER, ……. “tax breaks/refunds” are only applicable iffen one is earning enough money to take advantage of them.

Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 5:56 am

Griff: In what parallel universe do you live? Powerwalls can’t power a house overnight—people stay connected to the grid even after spending $80,000 on the things. They are a FAIL at this point. Wind and solar are only built for subsidies and tax credits. Investors admit this on a regular basis. They may be built in California with its RPS (assuming anyone is left after the state starts paying for lawyers to keep illegals from being deported), but any state with a free and open grid, it’s not going to happen. Once regulations on coal are removed (which the EPA is reportedly voluntarly dropping or suspending and Trump’s not even in yet), wind and solar are dead.

Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 7:08 am

Griff has been telling people that wind/solar are about to become economical any day, for decades.

Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 1:59 pm

“Why would he want to, if private capital pays for it?”
But it doesn’t, does it?
Never has, never will.
Can you guess why?

Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 9:03 pm

Griff, basically 0 large scale solar or wind is built without direct operating subsidies.

Reply to  SAMURAI
December 1, 2016 2:01 am


The correct spelling is さようなら

Janice Moore
November 30, 2016 9:17 pm

I hate windmills, too.
{from a comment I made here: about 3.5 years ago}
… I dedicate this video to the memory of a little bird that closed its eyes for the last time this week. …
“Be” — Neil Diamond

“‘… sparrows … not one of them is forgotten by God.’” Luke 12:6.
The EXCELLENT posts above illuminating truth and destroying lies are a living memorial; that little swift did not die in vain. …

November 30, 2016 9:21 pm

They are just trying to reinforce their beliefs that anyone who disagrees with them is evil and paid off by big oil/whoever. They refuse to listen to substantive arguments, they only argue with their own strawmen.

Reply to  imamenz
December 1, 2016 6:17 am

I have been listening to a bunch of over-educated deluded idiots claiming that Trump’s victory was all about racism.
Michael Moore called Trump to win. He’s really leftist so he wasn’t happy about it but at least he knew what was going on.

Unfortunately, you are living in a bubble that comes with an adjoining echo chamber where you and your friends are convinced the American people are not going to elect an idiot for president. link

His number one reason was that Trump would win the rustbelt.
The Democrat elite were only too happy to throw the working people on the scrap heap. They have contempt for the working people. They are disgusted by the folks who live in Appalachia.

Stereotypes are ugly. They do vicious cultural work and suggest that these people are not like us. We have nothing in common. And not only do we have nothing in common, but their behaviors and their traits are so deplorable that we don’t want to have anything in common with them. We need only make fun of them. We need only neglect them. We need only degrade them. That’s all they deserve. There’s a viciousness in that that is so inhumane and also justifies so much harm to the region and its people. link

The Democrat elite think they have facts and logic on their side. The problem is that they don’t have a good handle on reality.

The Old Man
Reply to  commieBob
December 1, 2016 8:14 am

: The Democrat elite think they have facts and logic on their side. The problem is that they don’t have a good handle on reality… i.e. Boxed In without a handle.

G. Karst
Reply to  commieBob
December 2, 2016 12:16 pm

“I see”, said the blind man as he reached for his hammer and saw. GK

November 30, 2016 9:26 pm

Another blackout in South Australia.
Interconnect shut down, and there was not enough wind to carry the load.
SA caused this problem by electing far-left gullible children to government.
Let them live with the consequences.
Electricity costs will continue to rise, electricity will continue to become more and more irregular, industries will move away, the states unemployment will climb even higher..
and they will expect an even more disparate share of the nations GST than they currently get.

Reply to  AndyG55
November 30, 2016 10:57 pm

South Australia is becoming the new Tasmania. No real job industry to speak off but at least Tassie’s energy is reliable.

November 30, 2016 9:26 pm

And to flip his logic
Tom Cheshire, Sky Technology Correspondent, is a “climate believer” because he makes a good living off it…

November 30, 2016 9:54 pm

Amazing how people just love throwing out labels at one another. Pigeonholing has become a dark art, practiced by those whose brains are also avian-like.

November 30, 2016 9:58 pm


November 30, 2016 10:25 pm

“you’ve ever been to Palm Springs, California — it looks like a junkyard.”
Truer words have never been spoken. What the windfarms have done down there is kinda comical.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  JEM
December 1, 2016 6:04 am

Now just who would not appreciate the “beauty” of a wind farm?
Wind Farm from Palm Springs Amtrak Station by CalUrbanist

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
December 1, 2016 7:14 am

Maybe the people from Baotou, China, who sacrificed their environment to enable that to happen?

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
December 1, 2016 7:42 am

Neil, that’s industry….what does that have to do with a wind farm?

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
December 1, 2016 10:10 am

I believe that his point is that China industry, which is none to clean, has been providing much of the material to build these wind farms.
Ergo, they sacrificed their environment so that we could build windmills.
Regardless, I thought the Chinese were mostly producing solar panels. Their only contribution to windmills was various rare earth metals.

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
December 1, 2016 4:35 pm

woops….got it Mark

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
December 1, 2016 6:29 pm

@ Samual I hope that is not photo shopped and if that is real I a stunned people allowed that to happen They could have build a nuke and you would not have seen it!! And btw how do they even function at that density?

Reply to  asybot
December 2, 2016 8:59 am

@Asybot – It is real – and that is just part of it. They litter the landscape in the Indio pass (east of LA into the central valley) as the pass acts like a wind funnel. So they have lots of wind. But mostly, no action. The dozen or so times I have been through there, I have only seen about 1/3 operating at any given time.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
December 2, 2016 4:01 am

@ asybot, ……. check it out for yourself, …… just load Google “Image” and search for ….. “Palm Springs wind turbines”

November 30, 2016 10:28 pm

[quote]I didn’t know you can’t play golf if there’s a windfarm operating nearby. Is it because of the low
frequency noise or is there some other reason.[/quote]
I usually have no problem with the windmill. It’s the clown’s mouth that always gets me.

Roger Knights
Reply to  JEM
November 30, 2016 11:21 pm

(Explication for those who haven’t played it, he’s talking about an obstacle in a miniature golf course.)

Reply to  JEM
December 1, 2016 4:10 am

“I usually have no problem with the windmill. It’s the clown’s mouth that always gets me.”
That’s funny. That was always my reply when someone would ask me if I played golf or not. I would tell them I was a pretty good golfer until I got to that windmill. 🙂

Reply to  JEM
December 1, 2016 9:06 pm

lol & lmao😊

December 1, 2016 12:06 am

You have to be a pretty big dick to be any kind of SkyNews correspondent. (The numpty news)

December 1, 2016 12:34 am

The whole CC subject is symptomatic of one thing. The raid on democracy by minorities.
The majority must do the minorities bidding.
Brexit and the Presidential elections are two stark examples. Challenges mounted to both because the minority don’t like the results.

Reply to  HotScot
December 1, 2016 1:30 am

didn’t Trump get a minority of the popular vote?

Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 4:22 am

“didn’t Trump get a minority of the popular vote?”
Well, that depends on who you are counting. Total votes, or legal votes.
I think there is probably a pretty good chance that Trump actually did win the popular, legal vote. It’s being looked into at this time, and we will have a better handle on it in the near future.
Eleven States issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens, and none of those states ask anyone who is voting whether they are legal residents or not, and it is not very difficult for an illegal alien to vote if they are so inclined.
And of course, the Left *is* so inclined since they benefit from the illegal alien vote. Birds of a feather, flock together. The socialist of the United States see eye to eye with the socialists they are attempting to import from South America. Socialists vote for socialists.
That’s one reason Trump’s election is so important: He is going to reduce the number of illegal aliens voting in U.S. elections. If he doesn’t do this, then the result of the U.S. vote in the future will be the will of the imported South American socialists, not the will of the people born in the U.S.

Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 5:59 am

Griff: IRRELEVENT. We don’t elect with the popular vote. If we did, it would be the United States of California, New York and Texas. Founding Fathers were a lot smarter than you are (okay, bar not very high….).

Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 7:23 am

So did Hillary. Of course it doesn’t matter because neither campaign was run to maximize the popular vote.

Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 8:47 am

griffiepoo apparently didn’t read the responses to the last time he tried this false claim.
The Founding Fathers constructed the Electoral College process to try and prevent tyranny by the majority.
Whenever one side can easily mount a majority, there is no difference then between a democracy and a tyranny.
As in when three wolves and a sheep vote on what’s for dinner.
At the WSJ; one can view the map by counties where Trump won:
Trump won most of the counties in America. That establishes the “Popular Vote” as voting for Trump.
If you are talking about a popularity poll, then HRC won popularity contests in some Urban areas and a few progressive enclaves. HRC did not win those contests across the majority of American voting counties.
I’m in favor of assigning Electoral delegates by county, just to prevent tyranny by those densely populated cities; a stunt that progressives love and fortunately failed.

Reply to  ATheoK
December 2, 2016 7:50 am

Trump won 2600 counties to Hillarys 500. That is 5 out of 6 for Trump.

Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 2:06 pm

Griffle, are you aware that the silly Green party woman whatsername took sufficient votes in the swing stated to deprive Hitlery of victory?
How about that for shooting yourself in both feet?

Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 2:07 pm

Did not Bill Clinton get a minority of the popular vote? Thought that I read that somewhere – not from the BBC website obviously.

Reply to  mikewaite
December 2, 2016 8:23 am

Both times. in 92 he got 43% and in 96 he got 49%

Reply to  Griff
December 3, 2016 8:21 am

TA wrote: “Eleven States issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens”
I’m going to have to correct myself. The drivers licenses are given to legal Green card holders. They are legally in the U.S., but are not allowed to vote in U.S. elections.
The Green card system is subject to a lot of abuse and can be illegally manipulated so non-U.S. citizens can vote in U.S. elections.
Trump needs to reform the Green card system asap.

Reply to  HotScot
December 1, 2016 2:03 am

Just like in tennis where you can win a match while not winning more games in total.
They are the rules.
Do you want to change the rules because you didn’t like the result?
Do you want the election to just be a referendum and States to be ignored entirely?

Reply to  ptolemy2
December 1, 2016 4:33 am

Griff and the Left just want to rain on Trump’s parade.
It doesn’t matter whether Trump won the popular vote or not. He is the new president. The only people the popular vote matters to are the losers in this race. They are going to try to use anything they can to diminish Trump’s authority to rule, and that includes claiming he didn’t win the popular vote, which they imply means he was not legitimately elected.
Standard procedure for the Left: Demonize and denigrate the opponents always. Attack, attack, attack. That’s all they know to do. They have nothing else to offer, like good ideas that are helpful, so they get down in the gutter and do their dirty work. It’s really kind of pathetic. Flailing and striking out in all directions doesn’t seem to be too good a strategy. It certainly hasn’t worked for them lately, has it. Trump just blows them out of the water. And they keep coming back for more. And Trump’s not even president yet.

Reply to  ptolemy2
December 1, 2016 6:00 am

Another example I saw was the World Series. It goes by individual games won, not which team hit the most runs total. That’s called “rules”, which apparently the Left only invoke when it’s to their benefit.

December 1, 2016 12:36 am

Some long overdue self-doubt and soul-searching by the Journal Nature:
“Academia must resist political confirmation bias”

Gary Pearse
Reply to  ptolemy2
December 1, 2016 5:30 pm

You are going to see huge changes in institutions, global politics, science, economic issues… as a result of, first, Brexit, but more important the election of Trump. It is already happening. Trump’s position on fossil fuels resulted in Japan’s PM making an early phone call and jumping on a plane to meet him. Days later Japan announced they would be initiating an expansion of investments in fossil fuel energy sources, including fracking g projects in the US. Presently it is against US law to export petroleum- can anyone guess what was discussed at the Trump meeting?
Even though DJT is not yet president, Ford and Carrier Corporation have cancelled imminent plans to relocate plants in Mexico. Watch for a walk e of this sort of thing. Also, watch what happens when making steel and Petro chemicals find the US to be the cheapest source of energy and feed stocks. And then all other energy intensive industries get the memo.
Economic iconoclasts on the left don’t know what is in store for them. They’ve stupidly reelected old Nancy’s Pelosi as house leader again and the party is looking to move further left a la Bernie Sanders. Even the dinosaurs didn’t have hubris as one of the factors in their demise! Trump said the next election he’ll have 90% of African Am’s supporting him. I’ve come round to thinking to seeing this is not an exaggeration.

December 1, 2016 1:38 am

Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and I debated the Pembina Institute in 2002 in the PEGG. Our debate is now available at:
Our eight-point Rebuttal includes predictions that have all materialized in those countries in Western Europe that have adopted the full measure of global warming mania. My country, Canada, was foolish enough to sign the Kyoto Protocol, but then wise enough to ignore it.
[2002 article in “quotation marks”, followed by current commentary.]
On Green Energy:
8. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
Governments that adopted “green energy” schemes such as wind and solar power are finding these schemes are not green and produce little useful energy. Their energy costs are soaring and these governments are often in retreat, dropping their green energy subsidies as fast as they politically can.
So we told you so – 14 years ago.
Regardless of the serious unresolved questions of the global warming scientific debate, wind and solar power do NOT contribute reliable, economic electric power to the grid.
This is a simple and proven hypothesis, yet trillions of dollars have been wasted globally on this green energy nonsense.
Wind power is a mature technology so it is unlikely to ever become economic.
Solar power is more costly than wind power now, but major technological improvements are still possible.
We tried to explain the fatal flaws of wind power to the public and our politicians without success. I concluded a simpler message was required, so that our politicians and their green minions could understand it.
Years ago, I wrote the following:
Wind power – it doesn’t just blow – it sucks!
Solar power – stick it where the Sun don’t shine!
Apparently this is still too complicated for our politicians and the greens.
Regards to all, Allan 🙂

December 1, 2016 2:03 am
“German Chancellor Angela Merkel, fresh from taking over the presidency of the Group of 20 nations, plans to use her leverage to challenge Donald Trump’s skepticism about the value of renewable energy by pointing out where it’s a viable business.”
“”Of course I’ll say that I believe that climate change is certainly caused by humans –- and we’ll want to see if the position there develops,” Merkel said at a party meeting in Muenster, Germany, late Wednesday.
Europe’s biggest economy will create about 430,000 new jobs by 2020 as the nation’s transition to renewable energy gains economic traction, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP said in a report this month.”

Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 2:14 am

She forgot to mention that Germany will lose 4.3 million jobs, as the price-hikes and blackouts force German industry to relocate to cheaper and more reliable locations. America is looking attractive now, due to fracking and its reducing energy costs.

michael hart
Reply to  ralfellis
December 1, 2016 3:13 am

Yes, you have to question the sanity of someone who apparently believes claims that you can net increase prosperity by making energy more expensive. Even some of the green blob are quite open about regarding human economic activity as an evil which must be reduced by any methods necessary.
The more prosaic explanation here is the companies and financiers who know they can turn a profit making windmills backed by forced governmental regulation and subsidies, while the rest of industry can go hang. Bloomberg is in the vanguard of promoting this in the financial media. Michael Bloomberg is a card-carrying global warmer so we should expect what we see in the Bloomberg press. Other financial ‘studies’ to puff up the wind industry are as easy to produce as publishing death-by-CO2 in Nature magazine.

Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 2:56 am

She has lost Germany to Islam as has the EU…very insane.

Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 4:39 am

Yeah, if Merkel were intent on destroying Germany, she probably wouldn’t do much different than she is doing now. It kind of reminds me of Obama and the U.S.: If you didn’t know better, you would think Obama was deliberately trying to harm the U.S., going by all the stupid policies he supports.

Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 6:03 am

And we should be stupid lemmings and run off the cliff because Angela Merkel says it the right thing to do. I’d love to offer you some real estate that is really, really hot right now, everyone wants it and if you pass on it, people will shame you endlessly. Send name and other pertinent information to me and I’ll cut you in for a couple of million bucks. Hurry, before you’re a shamed man and forever ostracized.

Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 7:27 am

Funny how socialists are always convinced that the more money they have, the better things are for everyone.

Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 7:49 am

Europe’s biggest economy will create about 430,000 new jobs by 2020…
Well, I guess they have no plans of putting the 2 million immigrants to work then….

Reply to  Latitude
December 1, 2016 6:36 pm

+ many, plus Griff, for an economy the size of Germany 55,000 jobs a year is a joke!

Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 8:56 am

All while Merkel fires up those fossil fuel generating facilities?
griffiepoo posts more falsehoods;
a) griffie loves those progressive news sources,
b) Trump loves a good laugh,
c) I doubt Merkel likes a good Trump laugh.

Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 9:09 pm

Merkel will look pretty foolish if she is honest because she will have nothing to show as examples of successful renewable energy projects.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Griff
December 5, 2016 2:01 pm

Europe’s biggest economy will create about 430,000 new jobs by 2020 as the nation’s transition to renewable energy gains economic traction, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP said in a report this month.”

So, as usual, the promised benefits are in the future when such past promises have only led to the bills coming due.

December 1, 2016 2:10 am

For what it might be worth, brazen-hypocrite, privileged-white-Brahmin-upstart-wannabe, smash-mouth, NIMBY opposition to the Cape Cod, offshore, eyesore wind-farm was not only mounted by Robert Kennedy, Jr., but also by his Uncle, the late Senator Edward Kennedy, and–sitting down?–then Senator John Kerry, as well–all with a “scenic view” in the fight. Senator Kerry uttering the immortal, proto-Trump words, “You can’t just have someone plunk something down wherever the hell they want” (google: “mother jones blowing in the wind ted kennedy”).
And the hive can’t figure out why the “Orange Man” is impervious to even the best of their “PC-gotcha”, agit-prop zingers. Perhaps Professor Gruber’s idea that our betters can confidently rely on the “stupidity of the American voter”, has its limitations, after all?

Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 1, 2016 4:59 am

“the original was deleted from John Kerry’s website”
Well, that’s typical, isn’t it. John Kerry covering up his past. He does that a lot. But those swiftboat guys told it like it was about his Vietnam experience, much to Kerry’s chagrin. The truth hurts, doesn’t it, John.

Reply to  mike
December 1, 2016 4:50 am

“Perhaps Professor Gruber’s idea that our betters can confidently rely on the “stupidity of the American voter”, has its limitations, after all?”
I would say that has already been proven by this last election, Mike. The American voters saved themselves from being ruled over by charlatans like Gruber, and totalitarians like Hillary Clinton. We threw Gruber’s boss’ horrible legacy out the window, by rejecting his Democrat successor.
Now, we are going to overturn Obamacare and institute Trumpcare. For those who are not aware, Obamacare is one of the biggest job killers in the U.S. Killing Obamacare will be a boon to job creation. No more 39-hour weeks. No more holding your employee count below a certain arbitrary number.

Reply to  TA
December 1, 2016 6:07 am

TA: A bit early to be making such statements. Your faith in Trump may be laudible, but not very bright. It took decades to get to where we are. If you think we can change that overnight, I can’t see why you oppose wind turbines. Fantasy suits you. (Reagan had a good run, then stupid returns for decades.)

Janice Moore
Reply to  TA
December 1, 2016 1:50 pm

I can’t see

Try opening your eyes (and reading about them — enough with the links on this thread to enlighten you admirably), Reality.

Janice Moore
Reply to  TA
December 1, 2016 4:22 pm

Okay. I re-read Reality and the better reading of his or her mischaracterization of TA is that Reality thinks windmills are stupid. Good. I take back my admonition to read up on wind power’s failings. And, no, I will not apologize — it takes two to communicate and RC’s writing was part of the problem, so I don’t feel I owe an apology (as I would for a simply too-hasty read).
However, not good re: Obamacare where TA is accurate and RC is mistaken —
Most employers have only been twisting their human resource policies (including those cited by TA above) to fit the strictures of Obamacare for the past 5 years or so (many held off hoping Dope would not be re-elected in 2012). Not decades. It will only take them MONTHS to undo.
If Trump doesn’t get too “let’s make a deal” about things and acts like the CEO (instead of a politician), things can get done very swiftly and the market will react almost immediately. There are competitors out there itching to find their market niche — small, swift, hungry, competitors. If BIG HEALTH CORP. can’t turn the ship in time, Small & Nimble, Inc. will zoom in and passengers will jump aboard to get to where they want to go more quickly.

Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 6:59 am

Reality check December 1, 2016 at 6:07 am wrote: “TA: A bit early to be making such statements. Your faith in Trump may be laudible, but not very bright. It took decades to get to where we are. If you think we can change that overnight,”
No, I don’t think Trump can change our whole problematic situation overnight. But he can do some things like rescinding Obamacare, that will have large impacts on the economy.
A vigorous economy is what will pull us out of all of our problems, so any decisions which stimulate the economy, such as tax cuts and reducing government regulations, are the right decisions. We have a long way to go to dig out from under the Obama/RepublicanEliteCongress’ $20 TRLLION debt they have gotten us into, but the only way out is a vigorous economy and a penny-pinching executive.
I think we should enact a law granting the President a “Line-Item Veto Authority” so he can cut out all the waste and abuse in the federal budget which, is no doubt, a huge amont of money.
The Supreme Court ruled a line-item veto was not constitutional, but I would have to disagree, the line-item veto doesn’t give the President any more power over the Legislative Branch than it already had. The Legislative Branch can still override *any* veto of the President, if they have the numbers, so the Legislative Branch still has the final say on spending. Nothing unconstitutional about that. Congress may have to work a little harder to get some bills passed, but that’s not Unconstitutional. 🙂
But since the Supreme Court ruled, Congress will need to pass a new law if they want to streamline the budget and cut out the fat. President Trump would be the perfect person to which to give the line-item veto. He said he *likes* reading detailed financial statements. I bet he does, too. 🙂

Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 10:28 am

Janice, the President is not CEO of the country.
If Trump were to act like a CEO, then he would be as bad as Obama.
The presidency is a 100% political job, because the only power that the President has over congress, is the power to veto what they send him. He can’t force them to send him anything.

Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 10:31 am

TA, the president cannot rescind ObamaCare, only congress can do that.

Reply to  TA
December 2, 2016 2:47 pm

You are correct, MarkW. Congress is the one to do the rescinding.

December 1, 2016 2:37 am

The reasons Trump gives for opposing wind are all reasonable, and ones I share–uneconomic, intermittent, ugly, bird killers. The green blob seems to like only those things that do not really work. As Ehrlich wrote many years ago, letting society have an cheap, unlimited source of power is like giving an idiot child a machine gun.

Reply to  Tom Halla
December 1, 2016 4:53 am

Allowing the green mob access to serious political power and money has been the real world example of giving deranged children machine guns. And have you read what the poster boy of green mob derangement, Mr. Obama, has been saying lately? He has devolved into a an anti-freedom, pro-censorship thug regarding because of his climate extremism.

Reply to  hunter
December 1, 2016 5:18 am

“And have you read what the poster boy of green mob derangement, Mr. Obama, has been saying lately? He has devolved into a an anti-freedom, pro-censorship thug regarding because of his climate extremism.”
Yeah, and Obama, the worst president evah!, looks like he is going to try for the title of “Worst Ex-President Evah!”, when he leaves Office.
I think it is certain we will hear him speaking out on all the issues he holds dear (no George W here), and we may even see him marching in the street demonstrations. Yep, “worst president evah!” and possibly “worst ex-president evah!”
Carter is trying to one-up Obama. He wants Obama to recognize Palestine as a state, before he leaves Office.
I recall one poster saying a while back: “Obama is a lame duck, what harm can he do?” The poster has to realize Obama is very creative when it comes to Leftwing lunacy. And Carter is egging him on.
Carter used to be the “worst president evah!” but Obama has surpassed him many times over, and now it’s not even close.
I’ve said before I thought Obama’s activism after he leaves Office will be in vain, that noone would listen to him, but I think I have to qualify that a little, since the Democrat party has NO leader other than Obama, so the Democrat party *will* listen to him and will need him to push their agenda, so they will strongly support him in whatever he does. That doesn’t mean the Amerian people will support him, though.
The American people have already proven that they reject all of Obama’s major ideas, despite his having an approval rating over 50 percent. He got that rating because the MSM *never* criticizes him. They treat him like an innocent bystander when anything controversial comes up.
But the proof is in the polls: The American people reject Obama’s agenda, and they rejected Hillary Clinton, who would have continued that agenda.
So we may have to listen to Obama for a while longer, even after the handover, but I don’t think it is going to change the new course we are on with Trump. Obama and the Left are going to be in the rear-view mirror.

Reply to  hunter
December 1, 2016 7:51 am

Obama has always been anti-freedom pro-censorship, etc. It’s just that now that the election is over, he has no reason to hide his true feelings anymore.

December 1, 2016 3:03 am

..Some liberal colleges and cites in the U.S.A. have banned the American flag, but fly the U.N. flag instead ?

Reply to  Marcus
December 1, 2016 7:52 am

Freedom of expression still exists, despite everything the socialists have tried to do.
However, such colleges have no right to expect federal or state dollars either.

Berényi Péter
December 1, 2016 4:12 am

Climate skeptics do not oppose action on climate change because we hate wind turbines.

However, those who oppose them do not do so because they are climate skeptics, but because they hate them.
For good reasons, including
1. They emit an unbelievably high level of low frequency (~1 Hz) industrial noise, which can never be attenuated by any means and is completely unregulated, can’t even be measured by standard noise control equipment.
2. Therefore Wind Turbines can be Hazardous to Human Health
3. Their land use footprint is inherently enormous due to the low power flux density of their source.
4. Their power output is intermittent, its average is not even close to their name plate capacity and needs huge backup generators or insanely expensive storage.
5. For these reasons electricity coming from wind turbines is expensive.
6. Large swaths of countryside have to be paved over to make installation &. maintenance possible. It is an order of magnitude more expensive over sea.
7. They destroy scenic views.
8. Decommissioning is not regulated, its cost is not included in installation &. operational costs, so abandoned machines are regularly left rotting in place.
9. They kill birds &. bats en masse. Velocity of blade tips is close to the speed of sound.

Reply to  Berényi Péter
December 1, 2016 8:03 am

Except all studies have shown no health impacts from wind turbines/low frequency etc sound from them
Like this one:
None of your other points are valid either, except the subjective one they ruin views.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 7:03 pm

How about reading some actual information about infrasound.

Reply to  Griff
December 1, 2016 8:59 pm

Sorry, Griff, but that item #8 above is a deal killer for wind farms (and your silly argument, too).
I used to work in the mining industry and ALL mining/milling facilities now require a reclamation plan and bond before construction turns one shovel-full. Before that policy was implemented, operations were left abandoned and nothing was worse for the environment.
Since there is no reclamation or bonding requirements for wind farms, they too will become an eyesore, health hazard, and burden to communities. Indeed, many already have since they aren’t economically viable and are left as some of the most obtrusive “bone yards” imaginable.
One additional note: I detect a constant unethical theme to all your arguments, Griff–like you’re not willing to address the issue in a professional manner. What’s the reason? Are you paid to be so contrary that everybody is laughing at your excuses? You come off as completely ignorant regarding the subject.

Reply to  Griff
December 2, 2016 7:45 am

Where do wind turbines come from? Do you plant a whirlygig and water it so it will grow? Or is it manufactured? Seems you gloss over the pollution from that process! LOL

Berényi Péter
Reply to  Griff
December 4, 2016 1:38 pm

It has concluded the levels of frequencies found near wind farms are below the threshold of currently accepted limits.

One can say that. But only because there are no LFN &. infrasound zoning regulations, so accepted limits can be considered arbitrarily large, while any noise from real physical sources has finite amplitude.
Otherwise I would rather not open a debate over health effects of low frequency noise, because I happen to know a lot about the workings of the inner ear, including the vestibular system, while you — apparently nothing.
The dB scale is logarithmic. Sound energy is a million times higher at 100 dB, than at 40 dB.

Reply to  Berényi Péter
December 1, 2016 10:14 am

Wow, Griff, when you decide to ignore reality, you go whole hog.
They don’t have an enormous footprint?
Their power isn’t intermittent?
The output from them isn’t expensive?
They haven’t created lots of roads to first build and now service these things?
Decommissioning is regulated? Please point out where.
The fact that they kill birds and bats is well documented.

Reply to  Berényi Péter
December 1, 2016 2:34 pm

Griff: “Except all studies have shown no health impacts from wind turbines/low frequency etc sound from them”
Yet another bunch of porkie pies!
You just can’t help making stuff up, can you, Griffie?

Reply to  Berényi Péter
December 1, 2016 6:48 pm

And you didn’t even mention SEA LIFE. there absolutely no reports or findings on what they do to fish and other sea live when you talk of their impact.

December 1, 2016 4:26 am

First of all, when I want to know what someone thinks, says, or does, I will go to the source. I never trust what anybody tries to tell me about what another person thinks, says, or does because the rumor-mongers always have their own agendas.
That said, I think any dislike Trump harbors for wind turbines pales in comparison to that held by raptors, bats, migratory fowl, and humans who live within hollering range of one.

Reply to  tadchem
December 1, 2016 6:11 am

Well said. I live 8 miles from a group of said ecodestroyers. I see them out my south window daily. More can be seen from 1/2 mile up my road—about 40 or more in the distance. Blinking red lights all night long. A constant reminder of what happens when you convince people there’s a tooth fairy (no rational person can actually think these things work for any thing other than enriching huge companies and landowners with the turbines on their land.) Trump cannot hate them more than I do.

Reply to  Reality check
December 1, 2016 6:53 am

We have a line of them 28 miles long, from Wildorado past Vega to Wimberly Place (north of Adrian), all which I can see from the door to my office 38 miles from the western end. One of the things I like about Amarillo is the view, but even Don Quixote would find this file of ogres daunting.

Reply to  Reality check
December 2, 2016 8:45 pm

tadchem: Yeah, these things are visible for miles and miles and miles. It’s depressing.

December 1, 2016 4:34 am

Note that SKY News is not located where wind turbines whine. Ted Kennedy opposed offshore wind turbines as well. As for nuclear power meltdowns – in the Western world there have been
almost too few to mention, none of which harmed anyone in over 60 years of operation. Todays traditionally light water reactors are Generation 3 and an estimated 1000 times less likely to suffer a melt down. We also now have rapid response emergency centers that can, for example, airllift
equipment to any reactor, and reactors these days also have more backup devices than before.
Anyone worrying about meltdowns is wasting their time, and voicing their fears displays more about themselves than about the nuclear technology. As we see over and over, extreme environmentalists are obscenely ignorant of power technologies. They mentally manufacture disasters that have almost no likelihood of ever happening, and if they did, would not be anywhere near the severity they prophesize. Extreme environmentalists are bizarre, anal types.

Reply to  arthur4563
December 1, 2016 5:31 am

“Anyone worrying about meltdowns is wasting their time, and voicing their fears displays more about themselves than about the nuclear technology. ”
Exactly. It is not that difficult to insure that you have cooling water flowing through the reactor. The only reason the Fukushima reactor lost cooling was because the engineers didn’t supply sufficent backup options and put the electrical generators in a vulnerable position where flood waters could knock them out. Poor design can be fixed.

Reply to  arthur4563
December 1, 2016 7:55 am

The reactor that melted down in Fukushima, was already scheduled to be shutdown and mothballed.

December 1, 2016 4:46 am

Sky was doing a public service, trying to make sure that the public has a great example of “fake news’. Climate skeptics are made up of the growing number of people people who see that “fake news” and “climate change news” are synonymous.

Reply to  hunter
December 1, 2016 7:59 am

Apparently Obama gave an interview to “Mother Jones” where went on and on whining about fake news and how it impacted the election.
For those who don’t remember, a court recently found against “Mother Jones” because a story they wrote about a college rape turned out to have never happened.
I tried to find some details on this case, but surprise, surprise, google seems to have bit bucketed all stories on it.

Reply to  MarkW
December 1, 2016 8:05 am

…the Russians did it

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  MarkW
December 1, 2016 11:55 am

Are you confusing Mother Jones with The Rolling Stone ? The Rolling Stone is being sued by, IRRC, the dean at U. of Virginia for allegations she failed to react properly to the rape report, but I do not believe there is a court decision.

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
December 2, 2016 8:08 am

Yes there has been. The plaintiff won $7 million from Rolling Stone and the Author. It will be appealed. And it is just the first case (this one was from a Dean of Students who claimed defamation. The Fraternity is also suing, as is the University itself).

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  MarkW
December 1, 2016 12:48 pm

Apparently I missed the news. The suit by Associate Dean of Students Nicole Eramo was decided for the plaintiff on Nov 4th:

A federal jury on Friday found Rolling Stone writer Sabrina Rubin Erdely responsible for defamation of a former associate dean at the University of Virginia. Rolling Stone and parent company Wenner Media were found liable in a $7.5 million libel lawsuit filed in the wake of a campus rape exposé that was eventually discredited.

I bet Mark Steyn wishes the DC courts were as prompt!

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
December 2, 2016 8:11 am

Sorry Alan for my duplicate post of yours. And yes, I bet Steyn would love to get his case before this court!

Reply to  MarkW
December 1, 2016 1:34 pm

MarkW, you have confused Mother Jones and Rolling Stone. While their politics are much the same, they are different operations.

December 1, 2016 5:01 am

WOW! So now they are calling Trump a Kennedy! LOL

Bruce Cobb
December 1, 2016 5:08 am

You gotta love the disingenuous arguments of the Warmunists. The truth is, that without the anti-carbon, faux “climate change” issue propelling them, there would be no wind industry, and solar would be just a blip – certainly not remotely considered an option for grid-scale electricity. All of the other reasons for disliking wind and solar are just icing on the cake.

December 1, 2016 5:41 am

comment image: WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama’s administration is revising a federal rule that allows wind-energy companies to operate high-speed turbines for up to 30 years, even if means killing or injuring thousands of federally protected bald and golden eagles.

Reply to  Russell
December 1, 2016 6:02 am

Where are they now ALL those lefties who were losing their minds over the possibility Eagles becoming extinct.

Reply to  Russell
December 1, 2016 6:13 am

They didn’t care if eagles became extinct. They care nothing about wildlife. It’s just a means to an end. They’d line up all the polar bears and exterminate them if it furthered their agenda.

December 1, 2016 6:16 am

I agree that had the push been toward more nuclear power, CO2 could have been dramatically reduced with little or no problem. However, reducing CO2 was never the goal, as is obvious to anyone who thinks at all. Hatred of humans was the motivation and killing off as many as humans as possible was the goal. Apparently all that pollution from coal and oil was too effectively cleaned up, so a different track had to be taken. Not “clean coal” but rather “no coal”. No heat, no lights, no food all to follow.

December 1, 2016 6:37 am

To coin a phrase, “What difference does it make?” Especially since industrial wind turbines are ‘Climate Change Scarecrows’.

December 1, 2016 6:56 am

I hate Windmills too.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Elmer
December 1, 2016 1:53 pm

Oh, Elmer. I had to stop it at 18 seconds. So sad.
And all for — NOTHING.
They slaughtered those magnificent birds for nothing.
Only a sick person would think that was okay.
(and thanks for posting it even though I couldn’t bear to watch most of it)

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 1, 2016 2:41 pm

If there is any single thing that exposes the total hypocrisy of the so-called “Greens” and their utterly false pretence to care about nature and the environment, it is that film.
Utter hateful vermin the lot of them.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 1, 2016 6:15 pm

Agreed, cat.

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 1, 2016 6:55 pm

Thanks for the warning I declined (for now) watching it , I just ate dinner) Dinner btw way was great as I watched Trump’s speech in Ohio tonight, it was a masterpiece!!

December 1, 2016 2:27 pm

‘doom feels closer than ever’
Cheshire is clownish.

December 1, 2016 2:43 pm

Green activists like Oreskes live in a bubble universe of lefty discourse. They only read and talk to lefty writers. She personally hasn’t a clue about energy systems. When challenged on twitter she had to recruit buddy Mark Z Jacobson (MZJ) to defend her view on renewable energy. She’s so confident in renewables she’ll call someone a climate change denier for not supporting it 100%. Yet she knows very little about those renewables; and probably less about climate science. That was MZJ, the 100%-renewable energy hypothesist who is funded by natural gas interests: Precourt. They even call it the Precourt Institute for Energy at Stanford. It’s wildly amusing to see Oreskes standing shoulder to shoulder with natural gas funded Jacobson to denounce Hansen for not supporting 100%-renewable energy when she, herself, can’t defend renewable power against 2 or 3 twitter nuclear power advocates who don’t even have degrees in science or engineering. They just had the right numbers: real ones rather than fantasy renewable energy numbers which we see paraded around at places like ClimateProgress, SkepticalScience and other left sites.

Ian L. McQueen
December 1, 2016 3:34 pm

December 1, 2016 at 10:00 am
You wrote: “I don’t know anyone who has proposed building power plants of any type without cooling towers.”
Mark, cooling towers are needed only if there isn’t adequate cooling water available elsewhere, We have a plant on the Bay of Fundy where the water is cold enough that a cooling tower is unnecessary, and I suspect that other nuclear plants located similarly also have no need of cooling towers. (My apologies if this has already been covered in the many letters that I have not yet read.)
Ian M

Gary Pearse
December 1, 2016 4:40 pm

Practical productive people in general aren’t much for the constant cultured collective angst against getting real things done or insisting on elaborate solutions to non problems. I had a research project being done at the Ecole Polytechnique (Engineering) at the U of Montreal a few years ago when the worst demonstration crippled the U for months causing most students to lose their year. I went to Mtl to find Polytechnique hard at work. They said science, engineering and medicine didn’t join the protest! Guess what groups made up the demo?
Trump is too busy and productive to get excited by Kumbaya crises. Thankfully there are still enough unbrainwashed pragmatic folk to keep this crazy boat afloat. You get an immediate picture of the critic when you see his outrage against someone trying to protect his property and investment. Such critics don’t know that their own A55e5 are being saved by pragmatic hard workers. Like trying to save the Nile crocodile, expect the croc to be snapping at the backside of its savior.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Gary Pearse
December 1, 2016 6:34 pm

science, engineering and medicine didn’t join the protest
And that’s why criminal defense attorneys try to excuse them during jury selection. Can’t have facts and logic determining the verdict. Can’t have a keenly logical, bright, mind influencing all the “I just felt like Casey Anthony (or whatever that monster’s name is — yes, “monster” — this is a logical conclusion from the evidence known to the public, and from the lack of ANY rational reason given by any of her jurors for their verdict truly or ANY”reasonable” doubt possible given the evidence admitted) couldn’t do that to her little girl” (BARF!) jurors. Her defense attorney picked an “I just feel that human CO2 must do something enduringly significant to the climate of the earth as a whole” jury.
“I just feel …” people get a LOT of undeserved respect and deference paid them, as if feelings, per se, are meritorious.
Time to TRUMPet the fact (as Dean from Ohio got us started emphasizing recently) that THINKING people are the most truly caring people!
And, personally, I think engineers are the best (3 in particular… one, especially…)! 🙂

December 1, 2016 6:20 pm

“Mr Trump’s incoming administration will likely be the most anti-scientific and anti-technological in a while.”
Oh I don’t know about that. Coaxing such large molecules to behave so well at so many different things
seems like a bit of a technical success to me.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Zeke
December 1, 2016 6:35 pm


Reply to  Janice Moore
December 3, 2016 2:23 pm

+++Janice, t.y.–from one great fan of transportation to another (:

December 1, 2016 7:26 pm

“Mr Trump’s incoming administration will likely be the most anti-scientific and anti-technological in a while.”
One little spanner for the works. How else but by chemistry and applied science are you going to derive all of these useful products from one rock:
*cement should be on the “coke” limb
In reality it is the environmentalists who are suffering from some sort of extreme manic disorder or phobic response to chemistry and physics. I am serious. I am trying to help here.

December 1, 2016 8:42 pm

“Climate skeptics do not oppose action on climate change because we hate wind turbines.”
Climate skeptics don’t even exist, it seems obvious to me . . but hey, why actually BE skeptical, when you can just unskeptically repeat a senseless label? I pray the general public is smarter than you geniuses, and manage to figure out that you can’t possibly be what you claim you are . . I sure a hell plan on helping them if you won’t, for all out sake . .

December 2, 2016 4:50 am

The following post is from The Global Warming Policy Foundation in London, December 1, 2016.
More green energy nonsense, and the gradual awakening of the Europeans to the folly of wind and solar power. This is how all popular delusions end – first the true believers start to question the obvious folly of their ways, ever so slowly, and with extreme difficulty.
This is because global warming hysteria is NOT a scientific reality – it is a false religious belief cherished by fanatics who have no scientific competence. I say this because their predictive track record is perfectly negative – every one of their scary predictions has failed to materialize.
There is NO scientific evidence that the sensitivity of climate to increasing atmospheric CO2 will cause dangerous global warming. Some theoretical physics analyses suggest increasing CO2 may cause some warming, but that warming will probably be insignificant, This is unfortunate, because a somewhat warmer would be a better world, for both humanity AND the environment.
The only clear consequence of increased atmospheric CO2 is that plant growth has been enhanced and the planet has greened significantly. This is clearly beneficial to humanity and the environment.
Regrettably, I think Earth is about to get colder due to natural causes, and humanity and the environment both suffer in a colder world. The greater threat is that in a few thousand years (at most) we will re-enter a real Ice Age, and the most prosperous parts of our planet, virtually all Western Europe, Russia, Canada and the northern USA will be covered by continental glaciers a mile thick, just as they were about 10,000 years ago – and this Ice Age will last about 100,000 years. This will be the fourth such Ice Age cycle in the last ~400,000 years
It may be that we can prevent this Ice Age disaster by controlling the albedo of the advancing ice sheet, but maybe we cannot. This is the real threat of (natural) climate change, and the global warming fanatics could not have gotten it more wrong.
It is apparent that, in the main, we are governed by scoundrels and imbeciles.
Regards, Allan
See my above post re:
December 1, 2016 Newsletter
4) Despite Climate Change Vow, China Pushes to Dig More Coal
The New York Times, 29 November 2016
5) Fake News: China’s Coal Peak Hail As Turning Point In Climate Change Battle
The Guardian 25 July 2016
6) Germany’s Conservative Party Considers Abolishing Renewable Energy Subsidies
Der Spiegel, 29 November 2016
7) Renewables Should No Longer Have Grid Priority, Says E.U. Energy Commissioner
Handelsblatt Global, 30 November 2016
8) Dutch Parties Ditch Paris Agreement Targets
NL Times, 29 November 2016
America’s uncertain stance toward global warming under the coming administration of Donald J. Trump has given China a leading role (sic!) in the fight against climate change. But there is a problem: Even as it does so, China is scrambling to mine and burn more coal. A lack of stockpiles and worries about electricity blackouts are spurring Chinese officials to reverse curbs that once helped reduce coal production. Mines are reopening. Miners are being lured back with fatter paychecks. “I get a kick out of people in the West who think China is decarbonizing, because I see no sign of it whatsoever,” said Brock Silvers, a Shanghai banker who has previously served on the boards of two Chinese coal companies.
-Keith Bradshernov, The New York Times, 29 November 2016
The global battle against climate change has passed a historic turning point with China’s huge coal burning finally having peaked, according to senior economists. China is the world’s biggest polluter and more than tripled its coal burning from 2000 to 2013, emitting billions of tonnes of climate-warming carbon dioxide. But its coal consumption peaked in 2014, much earlier than expected, and then began falling. “I think it is a real turning point,” said Lord Nicholas Stern, an eminent climate economist at the London School of Economics, who wrote the analysis with colleagues from Tsinghua University in Beijing. “I think historians really will see [the coal peak of] 2014 as a very important event in the history of the climate and economy of the world.” –Damian Carrington, The Guardian 25 July 2016
In the run-up to next year’s general elections, Germany’s Christian Democrats (CDU) are considering a rapid end to subsides for renewable energies. Wind, solar and biogas plants would in future have to financially “stand on their own feet,” according to a draft discussion paper by the Federal Committee for Finance, Economy and Energy, seen by the German magazine Der SPIEGEL.
–Stefan Schultz, Der Spiegel, 29 November 2016
Renewable energy should no longer have top priority in Europe’s electricity grid, the E.U. energy commissioner told Handelsblatt in an exclusive interview. Miguel Arias Canete said renewable energy should have the right of way over other forms of energy only when the electricity grid is maxed out. “But when it comes to simply feeding in electricity under normal market conditions, energy from already existing plants and small projects, such as solar panels and private homes, should have priority,” Mr. Canete said. E.U. member states should also be allowed to build energy reserves from coal and gas plants under certain conditions, Mr. Canete said.
–Handelsblatt Global, 30 November 2016
Not a single political party in the Netherlands managed to go far enough in their election promises on the environment to reach the climate target set in the Paris Agreement, the Volkskrant reports based on its own analysis of the election campaigns of the Dutch parties. Even where programs embrace the Paris targets, their intentions fall short, according to the newspaper.
–Janene Pieters, NL Times, 29 November 2016

December 2, 2016 12:14 pm

As an undergrad physics student the University thought it a good thing for science students to take at least one module which wasn’t science in order to prevent people from becoming too one-dimensional. Fair enough and I took a management course which wasn’t quite as horrific as I’d originally thought. In it they taught us about groupthink and what a damaging thing that can be. The two things they brought up as classic examples of the disastrous consequences of groupthink were the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the decision to launch the Challenger space shuttle.
In a decade of so from now when people look out over the devastated economies and cultures of the West, presided over by the endless marching tombstone ranks of silenced rotting windmills there will come to mind a new standard classical definition of disastrous groupthink which will make all others – even I expect unto the ends of history itself – pale into utter insignificance.

December 2, 2016 2:46 pm

Eric, this is one man to keep an eye on and I pray and implore that the president elect does too….
He used his office as Governor of Maine to kill the competition along with Enron and get into the wind business himself and his wind efforts did receive stimulus funding which was investigated by an Obama congress…. He was also on the board of a bank in Bermuda and his son was a VP at the now “somewhat” defunct Boston based First Wind (Larry Summers had a stake in that too)… Lots more to say on this but I will leave it at that for now.

December 5, 2016 1:47 pm

Hope that Ivanka’s overture to Prince Albert is just part of the charm offensive:
Also posted in Tips and Notes.

%d bloggers like this: