According to McClatchy News, if you ever want to ski the Alps or dive the Great Barrier Reef, you'd better do it soon because global warming will make both impossible in the years to come.
Never mind that Europe received more snow this winter than it has in many years, as such facts are totally irrelevant to climate alarmists thanks to the propagandist practices of their hero Nobel Laureate Al Gore.
In an article entitled "10 Places to go Before Global Warming Hits Hard," McClatchy's Judy Wiley did her darnedest to get people to travel the world regardless of the obvious hypocrisy in such behavior adding to the so-called problem (emphasis added):
The brilliant coral off the coast of Australia could be largely gone by 2050, says a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And the cost of snowmaking equipment in the Alps is already forcing operators to invest in more snowmaking equipment (or stay shut), says Forbestraveler.com.The attention lately focused on these changes, and the overall issue of global warming, has already prompted one latter-day oracle to predict we will travel differently in 2008 and beyond.
"Let's face it, Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" and the time-lapse photography were not lost on a number of people," says Ann Mack, director of trendspotting for JWT, the nation's largest advertising agency. "And increasingly, people are wanting to see these sights of the world before they change shape or change form. As global warming is rising up the world's agenda, ecotourists are flocking to previously ignored places."
It's been called climate sightseeing, a kind of farewell tour of Earth's greatest hits. Hard data is not available — determining exactly why people go where they do is next to impossible. But a clear interest in ecotourism, coupled with much greater accessibility to places like the Earth's poles, means more people are visiting faraway and endangered sites, whatever their motives.
Honestly, is there any industry in America that isn't going to jump on this fad in order to make money from folks believing the junk science?
Yes, that was a rhetorical question.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Slick ;Get over that high priced airfare and go before it's GONE
May 18, 2008 - 12:36 ET by upcountrywater150% above "normal" snow pack in Colorado, I'm going rafting!
Humm checking the weather today; it's going to be COLD for another 2 months!
The POPE says, GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
Liberals/need/help/IranianUranium/<sleep>
May 18th 2008 and less than 65 degrees
May 18, 2008 - 14:12 ET by Big WallyIn New Jersey. Of course the Global Warming crowd are blaming it on a shift in Ocean currents.
(Folks we are in trouble, "Mark Levin" 03/26/08)
Stop Global warming now...
May 18, 2008 - 12:51 ET by CobraMan...or all the Reese's will melt!
Title of McClatchy
May 18, 2008 - 12:55 ET by MikeBTitle of McClatchy newspaper article in the year 2015: "10 Places to go Before the Glaciers Wipe Them Out Forever."
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Amish Eco-Tours coming soon
May 18, 2008 - 13:02 ET by mom_roxWell, Noel, this is not hypocritical because assuredly these caring tourists will sail, row/paddle, glide, bike or walk to these far-away destination sites. (I'm not certain about using animals as a means of transportation - still waiting on PETA's declaration.)
I'm surprised Al Gore hasn't declared airline frequent flyer programs as "destroying the planet".
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw, 1944
Woops! We screwed up again!
May 18, 2008 - 13:20 ET by RackieOne place you must see soon before it .... ?
Well, see for yourself.
The burbs of Cleveland
May 18, 2008 - 13:38 ET by PewahI didn't notice the headline and went straight into the story where I read that more than 50 people suffered stab wounds, etc. and were taken to a hospital in a suburb of Cleveland. I then viewed the photo of the young man running through a dilapidated neighborhood and had to laugh because it still took me a brief moment to figure out that this wasn't a photo taken in N.E. Ohio....lol.
"the cost of snowmaking
May 18, 2008 - 13:34 ET by Cortillaen"the cost of snowmaking equipment in the Alps is already forcing operators to invest in more snowmaking equipment"
Wait, what? Does this statement make any sense at all?
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -
One place the libs and Global Warming types
May 18, 2008 - 13:53 ET by jefflebowskimay want to visit is Fantasyland. No SUV's, power plants, airplanes, air conditioning....just a bunch of old worn out hippies from the s 60's sitting around in huts. Paradise!
This just in
May 19, 2008 - 08:52 ET by ahusserfrom the Global warming wafflers. Surprise, surprise there will be less hurricanes not more because of global warming.
I have skied 46 years
May 18, 2008 - 13:58 ET by Lancasters Saved UsI have skied 46 years straight without missing one. I had the second best day on the slopes last week at Sunshine (In Alberta) Foot and a half of fresh powder over a good base, and few people there to get in my way.. I hope more people believe this.
Interesting conflating of arguments
May 18, 2008 - 14:13 ET by Giles Winterbourne"Never mind that Europe received more snow this winter than it has in
many years, as such facts are totally irrelevant to climate alarmists
thanks to the propagandist practices of their hero Nobel Laureate Al Gore."
Interesting conflating of arguments.....
First; local isn't global. Second; one year is not a trend. So we have weather being posited as climate. Speak of 'junk science'...
Then we have the elimination of virtually every major science organization, a large majority of the scientific field with expertise, and the majority of the world's governments agreeing with NASA and IPCC findings of Anthropogenic Global Warming by stating it is all Al Gore's propaganda. Interesting rhetoric, and how many logical fallacies?
Man-made bogeyman
May 18, 2008 - 14:56 ET by dboKeep believing in "The Dream" Giles. It will keep you young at heart. http://www.junkscien...
-
May 18, 2008 - 16:02 ET by dahliatraversGiles, man is responsible for only 6% of greenhouse gasses generated.
Let's set aside all of the ways that the theory of AGW has not stood up to scientific scrutiny. And let's set aside the warming going on on other bodies in this solar system. We will stipulate for a moment that the 6% of greenhouse gasses man generates is, indeed, the tipping point for global warming here on Earth. Would you not agree that the only sure way to cure it is to return technologically and lifestyle-wise to the point when global warming had not started; i.e., the mid to late 1800's?
And is that what you propose?
another fear-mongering aspect
May 18, 2008 - 18:10 ET by Giles WinterbourneNope, read the literature. There are plenty of ways to cut CO2 emissions without going back to the 'mid to late 1800's'. Wind and solar electricity, better factory and home construction standards, improved gas mileage in cars and trucks, more efficient lighting and appliances, better transportation designs, improved recycling, better distribution systems.
The 'back to mid to late 1800's' meme is a conservative talking point used to induce fear rather than opening a genuine discussion on the best ways to move forward.
But, you know that.
And, why link to a West Virginia fossil site with no evidence of credibility or expertise when there are far better sites? E.g. :EIE.DOE, EPA, NASA, NOAA.
Also, geocraft/ WV fossil discussion misses the bit about the sharp increase since the 1850's, neglects to mention that oceans have been, but probably not going to continue, to absorb some of the anthropogenic CO, and that there isn't a continuing buffer to absorb the increasing imbalance as we continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere.
The denier skeptic delayer argument would be so much more credible if there were actual science that was credible and reliable to back it up
-
May 18, 2008 - 18:47 ET by dahliatraversThe 'back to mid to late 1800's' meme is a conservative talking point used to induce fear rather than opening a genuine discussion on the best ways to move forward.
Actually, no, I thought of that all by my little self by carrying out the theory of AGW to its logical conclusion. I honestly wish I had more time to read - lots of things, including like-minded literature on this subject.
Items:
#1 - How much of man's greenhouse gasses will be reduced by the measures in your first paragraph? Keep in mind that carbon dioxide is the greatest greenhouse gas in terms of quantity, not strength of impact - that being methane (excluding water vapor).
#2 - If the answer to #1 is anything other than 100%, how do we know it will be sufficient to stop global warming? If the theory is that man is causing global warming by his 6% greenhouse gas contribution, that's quite a small tipping point. Prove that if man's contribution becomes, for example, 3%, that it will do the trick and global warming will be stopped.
#3 - That there should be "a genuine discussion on the best ways to move forward" is a false premise. Why would we move forward on a phenomenon that has not been shown to be man's doing, to be in his capability of reversing or even desireable to reverse? Not only are far more deaths by cold than by heat, the price to be paid to drive that 6% to an effective level is draconian.
First: Review the science
May 18, 2008 - 18:58 ET by Giles WinterbourneFirst:
Review the science on H20 vapor and methane. Then review some reliable sources on the science on the forcings and feedbacks of CO2. Or, take those discussion points to a science site and see how they fly.
Do a google on 'back to 1880's' or similar dates and note where they are coming from.
Otherwise, you're just posing questions from an ill-informed arguement; esp #3.
Rather than randomly throw
May 18, 2008 - 20:21 ET by FoolicanRather than randomly throw links and saying "Google this," why not provide hard information in your post? Other than that, I agree with you. The science is settled.
-
May 18, 2008 - 20:38 ET by dahliatravers... You have nothing of substance with which to respond to #1 & #2? No studies, no measurements? Then, presumably there is no answer to be had. That just leaves the following question:
Why would we attempt to do something a.) without knowing what the goal should be and b.) without knowing whether it would be effective?
Devil's advocate
May 18, 2008 - 20:49 ET by FoolicanIn response to B, the counter-argument goes that "why should we install a burglar alarm if we live in a safe neighborhood?" and therefore it's better to be safe than sorry. (However, that would be one expensive burglar alarm.)
Then why has Al Gore attributed Burmese cyclones to global warming?
You cited a non-science
May 18, 2008 - 21:43 ET by Giles WinterbourneYou cited a non-science site for the basis of your arguement. I'm suggesting that a review of real science will inform your thinking better. If I were to post a set of links to science resources, the most likely rejoinder would be that they are biased. Hence, look it up yourself at sites you feel comfortable with. But check your understanding by posting your assumptions at a science site or two or three and see how they are responded to.
There is a lot more science out there to read up on.
since you can so easily
May 18, 2008 - 21:49 ET bysince you can so easily answer these questions, then answer them. Continuing to deal in the rhetorical game (and logical fallicy) of appealling to authority only makes you less credible. And when you do so having dismissed the authority of 31,000 credentialed signatories it reveals your hypocrasy.
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
-
May 18, 2008 - 22:19 ET by dahliatraversBotg! Nice to see you.
hi dashing D : ) it would
May 19, 2008 - 20:26 ET byhi dashing D : )
it would seem Giles would just as soon avoid the logic?
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
Rhetoric?
May 20, 2008 - 02:26 ET by harry flashmanWhat the hell are you talkin' about? I can't, for a second, imagine why they call you asswholes, elitists.
flash
May 20, 2008 - 19:57 ET byi even identified the rhetorical gambit used by Giles.
wazzup with the names?
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
-
May 18, 2008 - 21:55 ET by dahliatraversYou and I are having a dialogue, Giles. I didn't send you to research my points. If there is a study someplace that has quantified the level at which man's greenhouse gasses cease to be a factor in global warming (stipulating for a moment that they are), kindly provide the link.
Further, if you are questioning the percentage of greenhouse gasses which man contributes, kindly also provide a link to the percentage which you feel is correct.
non-science site with no credibility
May 19, 2008 - 02:45 ET by Giles WinterbourneYou posted a single link to a non-science site with no credibility, no listing of expertise, and on top of that, they say they use data from the DoE but don't bother to link to the source.
If you need resources for the basic science:
Beyond that, I'm not sure why you feel compelled to argue the science that has been well established. Which is why I suggested you do some basic research and or try out your arguments on a science site.
Giles, We have plenty of Sites...
May 19, 2008 - 09:40 ET by PopularTechThey just don't include your alarmist propaganda:
Climate Audit (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Canada)
Environmental Capital (The Wall Street Journal)
ICECAP (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, USA)
Junk Science (Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences, USA)
The Reference Frame (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Czech Republic)
Watts Up With That? (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, USA)
- SurfaceStations.org
World Climate Report (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, USA)
Scientists:
Climate Police (Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, USA)
Climate Science (Roger A. Pielke, Ph.D. Meteorology, USA)
Comment & Information on Climate Change (Robert (Bob) M. Carter, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Paleontology, Australia)
EcoMyths (Graham Smith, Associate Professor of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Canada)
Global Warming Politics (Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus of Biogeography, University of London, UK)
Greenie Watch (John J. Ray, Ph.D. Psychology, Mensa Member, Australia)
Johnston's Archive - Environmental Topics (Wm. Robert Johnston, B.A. Astronomy, M.S. Physics, USA)
Number Watch (John Brignell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus Electronics & Computer Science, UK)
Prometheus - The Science Policy Blog (Roger A. Pielke (Jr.), Ph.D. Political Science, USA)
Ross McKitrick (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, Canada)
Science & Environmental Policy Project (S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, USA)
ScienceBits (Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Israel)
Science is Broken (Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA)
The Global Warming Challenge (J. Scott Armstrong, B.A. Applied Science, B.S. Industrial Engineering, Ph.D. MIT, USA)
The Politics and Environment Blog (Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D. Biology, Australia)
William M. Briggs (William M. Briggs, B.S. Meteorology and Math, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Statistics, USA)
Climate Change Fraud
Climate Skeptic
CO2 Science
CO2 Skeptics
E-Team
Environment North Carolina
Facts on Energy
Global Warming.org
Global Warming and the Climate
Global Warming Debunking News and Views
Global Warming Petition Project
Global Warming Heartland
Global Warming Hyperbole
Global Warming Hysteria
Global Warming Information Center
Global Warming Skeptics
Models, Methods, Software
Not by Fire but by Ice
Planet Gore
Ponder the Maunder
US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee
Spiked - Environment
Still Waiting for Greenhouse
TCS Daily - Energy and Environment
- Global Warming Links
- Science Roundtable
The Global Warming Hoax
Warming Scare Tactics
Warwick Hughes - Free Lance Science Research
- Errors in IPCC Climate Science Blog
Organizations:
AccuWeather - Global Warming (USA)
American Enterprise Institute - Climate Change (USA)
American Land Rights Association (USA)
Cato Institute - Global Warming (USA)
Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change
Competitive Enterprise Institute - Climate Change (USA)
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE) (USA)
Friends of Science (Canada)
Frontier Center for Public Policy - Climate Change (Canada)
International Climate Science Coalition (Canada)
George C. Marshall Institute - Climate Change (USA)
Heartland Institute - Global Warming (USA)
National Center for Policy Analysis - E-Team (USA)
National Center for Public Policy Research - Environment (USA)
Natural Resources Stewardship Project (Canada)
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (New Zealand)
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (USA)
Pacific Research Institute - Environment (USA)
Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) (USA)
Science & Public Policy Institute (USA)
The Association of British Drivers - Environment (UK)
The Australian APEC Study Centre - Environment (Australia)
The Center for Science and Public Policy (USA)
The Fraser Institute - Environment (Canada)
The Heritage Foundation - Energy and Environment (USA)
The Independent Institute - Environment (USA)
The Lavoisier Group (Australia)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Wow.
May 19, 2008 - 10:12 ET by FoolicanOh, my. Is this going to become another link war? I remember how well that turned out on a previous global warming thread...
Global Bullsit
May 20, 2008 - 02:10 ET by harry flashmanYou mean - 31,000 scientists ain't enough?
31,000 vs. the Goracle and the Noble Commite?
Jeeze - lemme think about this for a while.
It's a toughie.
-
May 19, 2008 - 20:15 ET by dahliatraversYou're real good at dodging questions, aren't you, Giles? Inasmuch as you have not identified which of those sites answers my questions, I have no obligation to endlessly go fishing for answers that may or may not be there.
Let us try a second time. Kindly stay on point. What percentage of greenhouse gasses does man generate? Please provide a link that corresponds to your answer.
anthropogenic CO2 is in addition to the natural cycle
May 20, 2008 - 01:09 ET by Giles WinterbourneYou are the one that stated an amount, using a non-science source for support. Since you are so intent upon proceeding with some 'proof' or another based on that, it really is up to you to make sure you are using a reliable measure. If you feel that a site with no mention of expertise, no record of credibility, meets your needs, run with it. Might be an interesting experience to try it at a science site.
Couple of things to think about; Why would geocraft /WV fossils not feel the need to not use more current statistics? Why does the author not link to where those statistics, current or outdated, came from? Do those numbers show up in any other research?
Sorry that you feel so put upon to click on a link. But you are the one asking me to prove your statistic.
A major bit being missed is that anthropogenic CO2 (and other gases) are in addition to the natural cycle. Combine that with the length of time we have been emitting them, the increasing amount per capita, and global population growth. Oceans have be absorbing a great deal, but indicators are that they are, or are very close to, saturated..
But, it you feel your climate science expertise is greater than the average researcher whose work is being cited in IPCC, go right ahead and make your point. But rather than trying to impress a bunch of non-scientists here, why not go on a real science site or two and give it a whirl?
Sorry, but this is sounding way too much like the commercial with the guy holding the cheese knife and asking the doc, "Shouldn't you be doing this?"
31,000 Anti-Global Warming Scientists
May 20, 2008 - 01:33 ET by harry flashmanWill sign on today AGAINST "Global Warming" - and the MSM will ignore it - 31,000!!!!
And the MSM and dufus Kool-Aid drinkers will STILL believe.
In St. Paul and the GORACLE do we believe!
Paul & Simon
May 20, 2008 - 02:22 ET by harry flashman"And the sounds of silence..."
"Hello darkness, my old friend... "
You Goreists - ya got nothin' - nada. 'Cept the ability to scare the crap out of your own constuency - how you keep gettin' elected. The Tamanny Template.
-
May 20, 2008 - 19:53 ET by dahliatraversBut rather than trying to impress a bunch of non-scientists here
You have challenged in a passive-aggressive way my assertion of the percentage of greenhouse gasses which man generates yet you steadfastly refuse to provide a counter percentage. I, therefore, conclude that 6% is correct, especially as you have repeatedly attempted to draw our conversation elsewhere. Further, your attempts to portray me as not scientific are laughable in view of your repeated refusal to address the most fundamental and important data point underlying the Precious Theory. There is nothing more unscientific than ducking data.
Secondly, your above assertion is dead wrong. I am interested in impressing no one.
As you have misunderstood and mischaracterized my motive in conversing with you and you further refuse to come to grips in our discussions with the most basic fact of AGW - the percentage of man's greenhouse gasses - it is clear that further conversation with you is pointless.
Dahlia
May 20, 2008 - 20:06 ET by Free StinkerDahlia - it's more liek 0.3% human effect . . . :-) Below is from my "Dissent" list
Carbon Dioxide accounts for about 4.2-8.4% of the greenhouse effect. Multiply that by the 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually that Humans can claim responsibility for, and you get a huge 0.2856% of global warming that is human related. Got that? Even if we ignore the fact that Global warming stopped in 1998, worse case is that humans only are responsible for 0.3%
Zero point three percent. PAY ATTENTION LIBERALS!
"Don't forget to vote this fall. Not for McCain, not ever, but there might be a Conservative Rep or Senator that Needs Your Vote" --Free Stinker
-
May 20, 2008 - 20:20 ET by dahliatraversThank you, Free.
Let's see, global warming stopped in 1998. And now, in 2008, AGW advocates have said, oopsie, we're going to have another ten years of cooling/no warming.
If the theory is that all of the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses we are generating (more and more) causes warming, how can a twenty year suspension of the warming trend be accounted for?
That's the problem in a nutshell.
May 20, 2008 - 20:50 ET by Giles Winterbourne"...my assertion of the percentage of greenhouse gasses.."
That's the problem in a nutshell, so to speak. Your assertion. You were going to start a scientific discussion without citing any sort of reliable reference. Really, geocraft, with no link to sources?
So, don't try to impress the NB bunch. But why are you here rather than arguing the science at a science site?
Debunking Giles' Propaganda: Wind, Solar, Recycling ect...
May 19, 2008 - 09:52 ET by PopularTechWind:
- Wind Power is intermittent (wind farms must rely on conventional power plants to back up their supply)
- Wind Power costs twice as much as electricity generated from fossil fuels (the levelized cost of a kilowatt hour is 3.53 cents for coal, 5.47 cents for gas, 5.94 cents for nuclear and 6.64 cents for wind unsubsidized)
- Wind Power is not economically feasible without subsidies (subsidized at 1.9 cents per kilowatt hour in the United States)
- Wind Power equals only about 0.28% of the United State's energy supply (40% Oil, 23% Coal, 23% Natural Gas, 8% Nuclear and 0.28% Wind)
- Wind Energy cannot be harnessed to meet the timing of electricity demands (avoiding blackouts requires production and demand on an electrical grid be equal every second, so operators need gas-fired "load-following" generators that can adjust instantly)
- Wind Energy cannot be stored (unless batteries are used)
- Wind Farms are often located in remote locations, far from cities where the electricity is needed (this increases trasmission costs)
- Wind Farms can effect weather patterns (the turbulence from large wind farms creates warmer, drier conditions at the surface)
- Wind Farms can be eyesores (community members often complain about the blinding strobe-light sensation that takes place on wind farms at dawn and dusk)
- Wind Farms can produce noise pollution
- Wind Farms can interfere with radar
- Wind Farms have a devastating effect on birds (an estimated 44,000 birds have been killed over the past two decades by wind turbines in the Altamont Pass, east of San Francisco)
- Wind Farms need 100 times more land area than conventional power plants (to produce 1,000 MW of power, a wind farm would require approximately 192,000 acres, or 300 square miles; a nuclear plant needs less than 1,700 acres, or 2.65 square miles (within its security perimeter fence); and a coal powered plant takes up about 1,950 acres, 3.05 square miles)
- Wind Turbines have to be shut off in high winds or temperatures (wind turbines shut off in over 50mph winds or 100 degree temperatures)
- Wind Turbines can be dangerous (turbines can collapse, catch fire and the blades can break off)
Living Next Door to a Wind Farm, Australia (Video) (10min)
Wind Farms - Not In My Back Yard (Video) (5min) (John Stossel, 20/20)
Wind - Catch the Wind, Change the Weather (The New York Times)
Wind - Energy Answer is Not 'Blowing in the Wind' (The Heartland Institute)
Wind - Hot Air and Wind (Cato Institute)
Wind - Loss of Wind Causes Texas Power Grid Emergency (Reuters)
Wind - Greenpeace Opposes Wind Farm Plan (BBC)
Wind - Problems With Wind Power (National Center for Policy Analysis)
Wind - The True Cost of Electricity from Wind Power And Windmill "Availability" Factors (Glen R. Schleede, Minnesotans For Sustainability)
Wind - Wind Energy Will Not Reduce US Oil Dependence (Glen R. Schleede, Minnesotans For Sustainability)
Wind - Wind Farm Claims Are So Much Hot Air (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Wind - Wind Farms May Not Lower Air Pollution, Study Suggests (The New York Times)
Wind - Wind Power: Red Not Green (National Center for Policy Analysis)
Birds - Altamont Pass Settlement Fails to Reduce Bird Kills (The Heartland Institute)
Birds - Coastal wind farm would destroy bird haven say protesters (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Birds - Eagles Killed By Wind Farm Blades (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Birds - Enviro Group Sues Wind Farm to Stop Bird Deaths (The Heartland Institute)
Birds - Rare Bird Killed By Wide Turbine (BBC)
Birds - Sea Eagles Being Killed by Wind Turbines (The Daily Telegraph)
Birds - Turbine Expansion Said to Threaten Birds (FOXNews)
Birds - Wind Farm 'Hits Eagle Numbers' (BBC)
Birds - Wind Farms May Threaten Whooping Cranes (Associated Press)
Birds - Wind Farm Threat to Bird Species (BBC)
Birds - Wind Turbines Hazardous to Birds, Bats (UPI)
Birds - Wind Turbines Taking Toll on Birds of Prey (USA Today)
Eyesore - Blow Back Over 'Eyesore' Wind Farms (ABC News)
Eyesore - Wind Farm? Not Off My Back Porch (ABC News)
Eyesore - Wind Farms Worst Eyesore in UK (BBC)
Noise - Are wind farm turbines making people sick? Some say yes (The Kansas City Star)
Noise - Family says wind farm noise made them sick (Fort Frances Times Online)
Noise - Flicker noise from turbines a worry for Montreathmont plans (Brechin Advertiser, UK)
Noise - Wind Farm Noise 'Harms Health' (Yorkshire Post, UK)
Noise - Wind Farms 'Make People Sick Who Live Up to A Mile Away' (The Daily Telegraph)
Noise - Wind turbines 'are ruining our quality of life' (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Noise - Wind Turbine Syndrome (Nina Pierpont, B.A Biology, Ph.D. Population Biology, M.D. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine)
Radar - Wind Farm Blow to Radar Systems (BBC)
Radar - Wind Farm Fears For Ships' Radar (BBC)
Radar - Wind Farms 'A Threat to National Security' (The Times, UK)
Radar - Wind Farms Disrupt Radar Images (BBC)
Radar - Wind Farms 'Grounded By Air Safety Fears' (The Times, UK)
Radar - Wind Farms Threat to MoD Radar (The Press Association)
Radar - Windmill Projects Stilled For Now (USA Today)
Unsafe - The Dangers of Wind Power (BusinessWeek)
Unsafe - Danish Climate Minister Demands Explanation for Violent Wind Turbine Collapse (The Jutland Post, Denmark)
Unsafe - Danish Wind Turbine Rips Itself Apart (Video Close-up )
Unsafe - Danish Wind Turbine Rips Itself Apart (Video Wide-angle)
Unsafe - 242-foot Wind Turbine Snaps in Half, Killing a Worker at Top, Oregon (The Oregonian)
Unsafe - Big Chunk of Turbine Blade Shears Off (West Morning News, UK)
Unsafe - Blazing Turbine Falls Into Field, UK (BBC)
Unsafe - Danger Claim As Turbine Blade Snaps Off, UK (Berwickshire News)
Unsafe - Fire Damages Wind Turbine Near Garner, Iowa (Globe Gazette)
Unsafe - Man Dies After 100ft Turbine Fall, UK (BBC)
Unsafe - Two Giant Vestas Wind Turbines Collapse, UK (off-grid)
Unsafe - Unexpected Shrapnel From A Wind Turbine, UK (Habitat21)
Unsafe - Wind Farm Fears As Blade Snaps, UK (The Times, UK)
Unsafe - Wind Farm Fire Caused Blackout, Australia (News Limited, Australia)
Unsafe - Wind Turbine Catches Fire: Mount Storm, West Virginia (West Virginia Firefighters)
Unsafe - Wind Turbine Falls Near Weatherford, Oklahoma (The Oklahoman)
Unsafe - Wind Turbine on Fire, California (Video)
Unsafe - Wind Turbine on Fire (Video)
Solar:
- Solar Power is the most expensive way to generate electricity (the levelized cost of a kilowatt hour is 3.53 cents for coal, 5.47 cents for gas, 5.94 cents for nuclear, 6.64 cents for wind and 35-50 cents for solar unsubsidized) (Source)
- Commonly Available Solar Panels Are Only 12% Efficient (Source)
Solar - Cloudy Outlook For Solar Panels: Costs Substantially Eclipse Benefits, Study Shows (Science Daily)
Solar - Expert Foresees 10 More Years Of Research & Development To Make Solar Energy Competitive (Science Daily)
Solar - Solar Power Problems Part 1 - Solar Power Presents Many Hurdles to Consumers (The Heartland Institute)
Solar - Solar Power Problems Part 2 - Home Solar Power Fails Due to Practical Difficulties (The Heartland Institute)
Solar - Solar Power Problems Part 3 - Inefficiencies Deter Widespread Use of Solar Power (The Heartland Institute)
Solar - Solar-Powered Welfare (Cato Institute)
Solar - The False Promises of Solar Energy (Michael R. Fox, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry)
Solar - The Problems With Solar Power (Worcester Business Journal)
Recycling:
Bullshit! - Recycling (Video) (29min)
Recycling is Garbage (The New York Times)
- Every community recycling program in America today costs more than the revenue it generates (Source)
- The market for most products manufactured from recycled materials is largely supported by government subsidies or government programs requiring recycled content in certain products (Source)
- The value of recycled materials on the open market has declined dramatically in recent years, and in many cases there is no market at all (Source)
- Manufacturing paper, glass, and plastic from recycled materials uses appreciably more energy and water and produces as much or more air pollution as manufacturing from raw materials (Source)
- We are not running out of or will we ever run out of any of the resources we recycle (Source)
- We are not cutting down “endangered forests” today to make paper. We plant far more trees than we harvest each year. Wood is in ample supply (Source)
- U.S. Forest land area increased from 747 million acres in 1997 to 749 in 2002 (U.S. Forest Service)
- Since the 1950s, timber growth has consistently exceeded harvest (U.S. Forest Service)
- We are not running out of landfill space. All the garbage we will generate in the next 10 centuries will require less than 35 square miles to a height of only 300 feet (Source)
- Landfills are no longer a threat to the environment or public health. State-of-the-art landfills, with redundant clay and plastic liners and leachate collection systems, have now replaced all of our previously
unsafe dumps (Source)
- Landfills can be excellent neighbors, contributing wonderful parklands and golf courses to our communities (Source)
Fuel Efficiency:
Don't Raise CAFE Standards (Cato Institute)
Public Transportation:
5 Myths About Suburbia and Our Car-Happy Culture (Reason Magazine)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Well, they say lotteries are a tax on the stupid.
May 18, 2008 - 14:30 ET by R D HelmAs I have now lost all intellectual patience with the AGW crowd, given the mounting evidence that completely refutes their assertions, I now place them in the same category as lottery players.
If some savvy, business-minded person has come up with a way to separate eco-tourists from their money, then God bless 'em. :-)
Travel Plans
May 18, 2008 - 14:41 ET by GlobalWarmingInsanityHow about we vacation on the Gulf coast so that we can see a hurricane up close before global warming kills them all?
Another new study out today says GW will mean fewer hurricanes.
GlobalWarmingInsanity.com
Hurricanes
May 18, 2008 - 14:49 ET by BlondeWait a cotton pickin' minute. GW means fewer, but stronger hurricanes. Or maybe reduced intensity....oh wait, we're talking about 2080!
This is sooooo stupid. The weather guessers can't tell me whether it will rain on Wednesday, but they're sure about "climate change" in the year 2080.
Color me unimpressed.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Translation:
May 18, 2008 - 14:48 ET by CrashGET OUT AND ENJOY LIFE BURNING ALL THE FOSSEL FUEL YOU CAN BY TRAVELING THE GLOBE NOW. OTHERWISE, TOURISM WILL DIE AND WE'LL LOSE ADVERTISERS. JUST REMEMBER TO TAKE PHOTO'S TO SHOW YOUR GRANDCHILDREN'S CHILDREN.
Al Gore can't control his waist size, but, the heat of the universe is only a belt notch away.
You guys are SO wrong on
May 18, 2008 - 16:26 ET by ckc1227You guys are SO wrong on this issue. Prince Charles said so.
HA! Got Wood?
May 18, 2008 - 18:26 ET by CrashI read that article and thought, perhaps the half-wit prince should tear down London - instead of trying so hard to preserve it - turn it into an overgrown forest as it was before his ancestors made ships and other creature comforts.
The air quality in London
May 18, 2008 - 18:42 ET by Lancasters Saved UsThe air quality in London was worse in the 15th century. If Charles is right, we better not have a single forest fire or volcano, as these things emit more C02 than a boatload of burning Priuses. I think he said we have 18 months to turn things around before the point of no return. Hopefully I can squeeze in two more good seasons skiing in Alberta.
-
May 18, 2008 - 22:27 ET by dahliatraversMcClatchy News left off Place #11 to visit before global warming hits:
The Antarctic Ice Sheet.
... oh, wait, that's right.
"Honestly, is there any
May 20, 2008 - 02:51 ET by harry flashman"Honestly, is there any industry in America that isn't going to jump on this fad in order to make money from folks believing the junk science? "
" You can never go broke underestimating the taste or the intelligence of the American people." P.T. Barnum.
Obambi has convinced the American people that Reagan won the Cold War through "negotiation" - bullsh!t!
Reagan won the Cold War because he walked away from the Russians at Rekyavik!
Naievete? Obambi? Kumbaya? Sweetness & Light?
This guy is in his first at bat in the big leagues, unfortunately for the "fans" of the US of A, it's the bottom of the ninth and there's two outs.
The American Voter is the manager - wattaya do, Obambi?
Whattya do, American Manager?