Professor David Bellamy �����������������������������������������

http://carbon-sense.com/2009/06/03/good-old-green-days/

�Back to the Horse and Sulky?

�

A statement/letter by Mr Viv Forbes, Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition.

On World Environment Day 5 June 2009

�

If environmentalists were really concerned for the environment, they would spend time on World Environment Day worshipping carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, not demonising it.

�

All life in the bio-sphere depends on the carbon cycle.

�

The cycle starts when plants using solar energy and photosynthesis extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere converting it into plant sugars and proteins. In that process, plants provide food for all herbivores (and vegetarians) and also for the carnivores that live on them. Plants extract carbon from the carbon dioxide and return oxygen to the atmosphere for the use of animal life. To complete the carbon cycle, the waste products and decaying bodies of all living things return the carbon to the atmosphere. Atmospheric CO2 is the key element in the cycle of life and worthy of worship on World Environment Day.

�

Life on earth evolved in times when CO2 levels were about 400% higher than at present. The current level of 386 ppm is not far above the 200 ppm level at which plants stop growing because of carbon dioxide starvation. Nurserymen know this and use gas burners to increase the CO2 level in their greenhouses and plant nurseries to 1,000 ppm or more. If the atmosphere reached this level there would be massive improvement in plant growth, with benefits for the whole environment. There is no danger to humans at this level - the CO2 levels in submarines may reach 8,000 ppm without problems for humans, and our exhaled breath has about 40,000 ppm of CO2.

�

Warmth, increased evaporation from the oceans, increased precipitation and increased CO2 would be the magic combination for a greener planet. Burning fossil fuel adds CO2 and water to the atmosphere, and helps to return the world to the verdant conditions prevailing when our great coal deposits were formed.

�

However most environmentalists, in their hatred of humanity and technology, are trying to take us back to the days of the horse and sulky. They extol the simple life where a few lucky people lived in a Garden of Eden with no nasty cars, trains, planes, engines or electricity.

�

Our pioneering ancestors lived such a life, and one grandmother summarised the feeling of many of them on �The Good Old Days� when she said:

�

�Thank God the good old days are over.�

�

For a true story about life on a genuine �green� farm in the horse and sulky days, see: �

�

Viv Forbes��

Chairman��

The Carbon Sense Coalition

MS 23� Rosewood�� Qld�� Australia�� 4340��

0754 640 533�� info@...��

��

�

Relayed by Mark Duchamp

#2318

From: mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>
Date: Sat Jun 6, 2009 10:33 pm
Subject: Global warming and self mutilation

portavozacec

" Kueter cited independent economic studies that showed the diversion of capital to emission permits from the investment in new plant and equipment in the U.S. economy would:

- reduce employment by 1.1 million jobs a year from 2012 to 2030, and more than double that job-loss in 2035.

- slash gross domestic product by an average of $491 billion a year from 2012 to 2035, and hit $662 billion in 2035 -- a total evaporation of productive output of goods and services worth more than $9.4 trillion.

- reduce average global temperatures by an insignificant 0.36º Fahrenheit by 2100 and by 0.09º F by 2050. "

�

http://thesop.org/index.php?article=16477

�

Third international conference attracts SRO crowd to Washington, DC

Washington, DC- Global warming skeptics, who for a decade have emphasized hard-science evidence to refute doomsday predictions from alarmists, added new ammunition to their arsenal Tuesday at the third International Conference on Climate Change.

More than 250 people crowded into Washington Court hotel meeting rooms to hear a dozen elite scientists refute the claim that global warming is either man-made or would have harmful effects on Earth.

But The Heartland Institute, a 25-year-old think tank that produced the three international climate conferences, also recruited seven elite economists to focus on the devastating personal and broad economic impact of legislation, sponsored by Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and headed for approval in the U.S. House, to put a cap on greenhouse gas emissions. Businesses, commercial structures, farms, and other emitters could purchase and trade the permits to emit carbon dioxide and other gases that exceed the cap.

While the scientists reported on a vast array of peer-reviewed literature that cast doubt on the causes and severity of global warming, the economists produced data that showed the cap-and-trade scheme not only wouldn`t halt the release of greenhouse gases, but would add huge costs to business activity that inevitably would be passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices.
Dr. Jeff Kueter, an economist and president of the George C. Marshall Institute, referred to Waxman-Markey as "a dismal down-payment on injuries more intrusive into our lives and economy" than ever seen before.

Kueter cited independent economic studies that showed the diversion of capital to emission permits from the investment in new plant and equipment in the U.S. economy would:

reduce employment by 1.1 million jobs a year from 2012 to 2030, and more than double that job-loss in 2035.

slash gross domestic product by an average of $491 billion a year from 2012 to 2035, and hit $662 billion in 2035 -- a total evaporation of productive output of goods and services worth more than $9.4 trillion.

reduce average global temperatures by an insignificant 0.36º Fahrenheit by 2100 and by 0.09º F by 2050.

Similar costs with negligible benefits in Waxman-Markey were cited by other economists and public officials, including Dr. David Tuerck, president of the Beacon Hill Institute and chairman of the economics department at Suffolk University in Boston, and U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla).

U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a veteran global warming skeptic, urged attendees to call Waxman-Markey a "cap-and-tax plan" that amounts to "unilateral disarmament in the economic sphere" for American businesses and workers.

Another long-time skeptic, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (D-Calif.), provoked sustained applause when he declared that the partisans of Waxman-Markey are "stampeding the public and elected officials in the biggest power grab in the history of human kind."

Economist Dr. Gabriel Calzada of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid reviewed the dismal performance of cap-and-trade mandates in Spain, where unemployment has reached a daunting 18 percent, carbon emissions are higher today than before cap-and-trade was installed, and fraud and misrepresentation of emission abatement programs are rampant.

Calzada dismissed claims that such policies have created "green jobs" in the Spanish economy and presented data that showed Spanish businesses have spent billions of dollars on carbon credits and abatement programs, resulting in two jobs being lost in the regular economy or never being created for every one job created in the "green economy."

Energy industry scholar Ben Lieberman of The Heritage Foundation rounded out the economists` dire projections by showing that by 2035, the added costs stemming from Waxman-Markey would add 58 percent to the price of gasoline at the pump, 90 percent to the typical family of four`s annual cost of electricity, 55 percent to the price of natural gas, and 56 percent to the price of heating oil.
In all, Lieberman said, the tax impact for a family of four would average $4,618 a year through 2035, creating a total additional outlay of more than $110,000 with no added benefit to the family`s quality of life or personal consumption.
Additionally, a parade of climatologists and scientists during the conference challenged the science, causes, and severity of global warming.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT professor of meteorology, reiterated premises underlying global-warming alarmism, such as dangerous increases in carbon dioxide emissions since the Industrial Revolution, rising global mean temperatures, and the slackening of the s*x drive in butterflies. Such questions, he said, "are meaningless except in the propaganda war" being waged by a compliant mainstream media and a scientific community that finds it easier "to accept authority than disputing questions that are at issue."

Dr. Patrick Michaels, a Cato Institute scholar and research professor of environmental studies at the University of Virginia, blamed some of the success of doomsday alarmism on the absence of fact-checking in mainstream media when alarmists go on a sortie.

Citing recent television and print coverage, Michaels noted faulty assertions such as Al Gore`s statement that 49 percent of the United States is in drought conditions; U.S. Sen. Harry Reid`s statement that California wildfires are a manifestation of global warming; several alarmist predictions of a three-foot rise in sea levels; and a decline in agriculture yields.

Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who has closed each of the two previous international climate conferences, once again brought the crowd to its feet in a cheering standing ovation when he concluded his typically witty speech, "... the highly placed conspirators who seek to ride the climate scare to world domination have reckoned without one thing. You. You are here, and you will not let the truth go.

"Thanks to you, it is becoming evident that the rent-seeking promoters of this great boondoggle, through the very scientific ignorance that they had sought to exploit in others, have merely deluded themselves.

"In the end, it will be here, in the United States, that the truth will first emerge. ... Not in Europe, for we are no longer free. ... It is here, in this great nation founded upon liberty, that the battle for the world`s freedom will be won."

�

For more information about the Third International Conference on Climate Change, visit the event`s Web site at http://www.heartland.org/events/WashingtonDC09/index.html or contact Dan Miller, publisher, or Tammy Nash, media relations manager, at 312/377-4000, email dmiller@... or tnash@....

---------------------------------------------

�

Forwarded �by :

�

Mark Duchamp��

Environmentalist��

Director, Climate Change and Alternative Energies

Iberica 2000

Partida La Sella, 25
03750 Pedreguer, Spain

tel�:� + 34�� 679 12 99 97

#2319

From: mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>
Date: Mon Jun 8, 2009 3:33 pm
Subject: PRESS RELEASE - IBERICA 2000

portavozacec

PRESS RELEASE�from IBERICA 2000�,� June 8th 2009

�

Denouncing false claims.

�

They would say that, would they not ?

The windpower lobby, speaking through�their international network of wind energy associations, have been claiming that wind farms lower the cost of electricity. They insist on the fact that�wind is free, but forget to say that capital costs�are so high that the kilowatts produced are three times more expensive than their market price. This is why we pay huges subsidies to windfarm owners. �But there is more.

�

Lobbyists�claim that windpower displaces electricity produced at high cost by "low merit", "peaking" plants. What they�forget to say is that wind blows more strongly at night, which means that much of the production�being displaced by wind farms is that�of base load generation, which is mainly cheap coal, or clean and cheap nuclear energy.� This would tend to increase�the average price of electricity, not reduce it.

�

And when demand is so low that electricity produced by wind farms at night cannot be�used ( or exported ), wind farms are shut off, as it occurred several times in Spain this year. How is that for waste ?

�

Another hidden cost often overlooked is that of back-up :

When wind is blowing during the day, ideally during peak hours when millions of�people arrive at their homes and switch on lights and appliances, the electricity production of expensive "peak load" generating units may be displaced by wind farm production. But the devil is in the detail : if some plants may be shut off entirely, others may be kept spinning in standby, synchronized to the Grid, burning fuel for nothing. They are kept in this mode to�be ready to resume production�instantly if the wind drops.

�

And other power plants�will see their�production only partially displaced : they will�operate at part load. In this mode they work less efficiently, burning more fuel per KWh produced. This too increases cost, and causes more emissions of a variety of gasses. They will also have to ramp their production up and down frequently, following the vagaries of the wind. If they didn't "load-follow" this way,�there would be blackouts�at every variation in wind speed. This frequent ramping causes more fuel to be burned and more gasses to be released, just like a car in city traffic. And there is more wear and tear, which also bears on the overall cost of electricity.

�

But the�main cost of back-up, which consumers will end up paying in the end, is the construction of conventional power plants duplicating the installed capacity of wind farms. For electricity cannot be stored in sufficient quantities at an acceptable cost : it must be produced in real time, dovetailing demand by the minute. So when there is no wind at all, we must rely entirely on conventional generation. It is as if wind farms did not exist.

�

In effect we must have two plants instead of one : the wind farm, and the fossil fuel plant to take its place when there is no wind. The cost of this duplication of investment is never mentioned by�governments or by the wind lobby.��In addition, it is wasteful to build power plants that will only�generate electricity�when there is no wind, or at part load when it blows below optimal speed. Fixed costs cannot be amortized, and the consumer must pick up the bill.�

�

Oh, I forgot : back up plants�will also produce�electricity when the wind blows too strongly, for wind turbines automatically shut off when wind speed�exceeds ~100 km/h.� Thermal�plants are thus kept�spinning in standby, waiting for it to happen on some windy days, burning fuel but not producing�any electricity. Another waste, another cost.

�

So when the wind lobby claims that windpower lowers the cost of electricity, it would be naive to take their word for it.� We'd have to�forget�: 1) -�the subsidies that double the�market price of wind-produced electricity, 2) - the capital costs of duplicating generation capacity for the days without wind,� 3) - the fuel burnt inefficiently or wastefully to back-up the wind farms (�and the emissions of gasses resulting from this activity ),

4) - the added wear and tear of conventional power plants.�

�

And even more fuel will be burned, and more gasses will be�emitted during the production and transportation of wind turbines, during the construction and maintenance of wind farms, and during their decommissioning.� This will be additional to the fuel burned and the�gasses�released during the construction of conventional plants, which�are needed anyways for the days without wind.

- So much for saving the planet !

�

Incidentally, the wind lobby is also�misrepresenting when it claims that the 10% drop in the market price of Spanish electricity in the early months of 2009 was�caused �by windpower. The real cause�was a drop in electricity consumption due to the recession, a drop that�reached 13.5% in April.�

�

Moral of the story :

Goliath ( the wind industry )�has billions in hard cash to produce misleading reports.

David ( Iberica 2000 )�can't compete, relying as it does on benevolent work.

�

But the truth only needs a keyboard to be told, and as long as the press remains free to publish it, there will be hope.

�

Mark Duchamp��

Director, Climate Change and Alternative Energies

Iberica 2000

Partida La Sella, 25
03750 Pedreguer, Spain

tel�:� + 34�� 679 12 99 97

save.the.eagles@...

#2320

From: mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>
Date: Tue Jun 9, 2009 12:37 pm
Subject: petition

portavozacec

Hi,

I wanted to draw your attention to this important petition that I recently signed:

"Macaulay Morrison, Save historic grave"
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Druim?e

I really think this is an important cause, and I'd like to encourage you to add your signature, too. It's free and takes less than a minute of your time.

Thanks!
---------------------------------------------

--
Mark Duchamp � � � �+ 34 � 679 12 99 97
INCONVENIENT VIDEOS : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3729

The dark side of windfarms : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1228
Pictures of windfarm victims ( eagles etc. ), of turbines on fire, of collapsed turbines, of soil & water contamination etc. : � http://spaces.msn.com/mark-duchamp

ESPA�OL :
Videos inconvenientes : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3729
La cara oscura de los parques e�licos: �www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1255
Fotos de v�ctimas de parques e�licos ( �guilas etc. ), incendios de aerogeneradores, contaminaci�n de las aguas por sus lubricantes etc. : � http://spaces.msn.com/mark-duchamp

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)

#2321

From: mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>
Date: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:02 pm
Subject: If this is not an octopus-like world conspiration, what is it ?

portavozacec

I am not fond of conspiration theories, but I find it increasingly difficult to put the idea aside when I see� highly-organized and complex lobbying actions�like the one reported below.�Himmler's propaganda machine was�small potatoes�when compared to this smart mix of publicity, moral suasion, and emotional blackmail involving the Maldives and�Africa. Yet it is a small part of a planetary lobbying effort�aimed at�making us commit to begin self-destructing our economies at the Copenhagen conference in December.�

- All of which to have an unmeasurable effect on climate change.

�

The 13 scientists make it look like it is all unquestionable. However, much like under fascist regimes, dissident scientists�

have been effectively gagged, even if they have grouped under�a worldwide organization who is the nemesis of the IPCC :�the�NIPCC.

And of course, the fact that�the world's climate has been cooling since the high of 1998 has been swept under the carpet.� Ditto with the fact

that CO2 is�not a pollutant, but a vital gas of which there is barely enough to grow our crops ( we had much more of it in the atmosphere

when the dinosaurs were enjoying a greener and more luxuriant planet).

�

What this is all about is an unprecedented money-grab in the trillions of euros/pounds/dollars, the destruction of the western economies,

and�the launching of a new utopia.� We have learned nothing from our last utopian experience, the Soviet Union.

If you don't believe me, educate yourselves about the long term costs of the cap and trade shell�game, and the real costs of windpower.

�
Here is the relation of the event :

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: gillianbishop2005 <gillianbishop@...>
Date: 2009/6/21
Subject: [VoSforum - open to all] Scotland is urged to act now to help save planet, Sunday Herald, 21 Jun 09
To: VoSforum@yahoogroups.com

Scotland is urged to act now to help save planet

EXCLUSIVE: By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor

INTERNATIONAL SCIENTISTS, campaigners and celebrities are piling pressure on the Scottish government to toughen its plans to tackle climate change.

First minister Alex Salmond, and other political leaders are being told by 13 top climate experts that the current aim to reduce emissions 34% by 2020 is "wholly inadequate". The target must be raised to at least 42% to help save the planet, they say.

The scientists' dramatic plea, to be delivered tomorrow, is the latest in an extraordinary global groundswell of voices putting mounting pressure on ministers and MSPs to strengthen their climate change bill, due for its final debate in the Scottish Parliament on Wednesday.

Business leaders, celebrities, politicians, trade unions, students, faith groups, community organisations and environmentalists have united with leaders and campaigners in developing countries such as Malawi, Ethiopia and the Maldives to demand tougher action from the Scottish government.

"Climate change is a global emergency," said president Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives, low-lying islands in the Indian Ocean which could be drowned under seas swollen by melting polar icecaps.

"The world is in danger of going into cardiac arrest, yet often we behave as if we've caught a common cold."

Stop Climate Chaos Scotland, a coalition representing two million people in 60 organisations, accuses Scottish ministers of failing the world.

"Here is an unequivocal opportunity to demonstrate real leadership and it has come up short," said the coalition chairman, Mike Robinson. "Political posturing and expediency have ruled the day."

A spokesman for the Scottish government yesterday declined to respond directly to the demands for a tougher target. "The Scottish Government is taking forward the most ambitious and comprehensive climate change legislation anywhere in the world," he said.

"Our bill sets a target of reducing Scotland's greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. Scotland is well placed to meet these challenges."

Among the Scottish celebrities pushing for action are author Iain Banks, comedian Frankie Boyle and musician KT Tunstall. Boyle said: "All of us now have a once-in-a- generation opportunity to make a difference to the future of the planet."

Mark Duchamp��

Environmentalist��

Director, Climate Change and Alternative Energies

( formerly Birds and Windfarms Research Manager )

Iberica 2000

Partida La Sella, 25
03750 Pedreguer, Spain

tel�:� + 34�� 679 12 99 97

#2322

From: mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>
Date: Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:46 am
Subject: A climate change (sceptic) bestseller

portavozacec

"Ian Plimer concludes that the climate has always been driven by the Sun....

He describes the current theory of climate change as a new ignorance filling the yawning� spiritual gap in Western�society. "

�

June 22, 2009

Heaven and Earth, A New Look at Climate Change by Professor Ian Plimer

�

By Charles Wyatt

�

Last week research led by the Met office forecast that London could have summer temperatures up to 40 degrees C by 2080. The report said that flooding, storms, droughts and heatwaves are all to become more common as a result of rising temperatures with negative impacts on health, lifestyles and the countryside. Not to be outdone the Financial Times Weekend Magazine published a piece this week by Sam Knight claiming that by 2050 hundreds of millions of people could be forced from their lands by climate change.

Those with longer memories will remember that� in the 1970s the BBC, supported by the Met Office, published a pamphlet explaining that we were on the verge of entering�a mini-ice age. The BBC may have got its reasoning right forty years ago. Crops this year have been hit badly by a very cold winter: it has�snowed in June in large parts of Western Canada and the northern parts of the�American Midwest; frosts have been reported� in Brazil and freak hailstorms in China; the vineyards of Kent have had� poor harvests due to lower than expected temperatures during the last two summers.

It is an odd background against which the Met Office adds to the general fear and confusion generated by climate change predictions. Yet this is the same Met Office that Bournemouth Council is threatening to sue because it got its weather forecast so wrong over a recent bank holiday weekend that tourists stayed away in droves.

Into this somewhat frenetic debate comes a big slab of� scientific reasoning in the shape of the� book �Heaven and Earth� by Professor Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at the� University of Adelaide is Australia�s best known geologist. He is also Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences�at the University of Melbourne where he�was Professor and Head from�1991 to 2005 and before that he was Professor and Head of Geology at the University of Newcastle in New South Wales. The sub-heading of this book is �Global Warming: The Missing Science� and it is on this� that his book is focused.

Ian Plimer set himself a Herculean task last year to� test each facet of the popular theory of� climate change and see if� they stood up to the scrutiny� of a widely experienced scientist and his peers. He had to complete the task in just under 6 months in order to fit it in with his teaching schedule at Adelaide University. His success in�so doing� took it to the best-sellers list� in Australia in very short order; it is now being published in the UK� by Quartet Books; and the US and Germany will follow.�

This is a man who knows his subjects and his previous book, The Short History of Planet Earth won the�Australian Museum�s annual� Eureka prize. He cannot be described, however, as a pure academic. Ian in intensely proud of his early years working� as a geologist in the Broken Hill mineral field in western New South Wales which is arguably the biggest and richest lead-zinc ore deposit in the world. He is the only man who has ever walked the whole 7 kms length of Broken Hill under ground. Be assured that this is nothing like a stroll down a disused train tunnel. Ian also had a mineral found there named after him � plimerite. With a wry smile at his students he points out� that plimerite is insoluble in alcohol.

His account of how he was put in place by a couple of old miners in his early days as a geologist gives a taste of the man. He walked past them to take some samples from the rockface. One of them suggested that he sat down with them for a few minutes and had a smoko. He refused, so one of them said, �if you keep going we will have to give you a biff�. He took the point and went and sat down. Two minutes later the tunnel creaked and there was a fall of 200 tonnes of rock right where he would have been sampling.

Heaven and Earth� takes a� look at climate change from the point of view of geology, archaeology, history, meteorology and astronomy. It is this multi-disciplinary approach which has been missing from the debate thus far and it is time someone of Ian�s� calibre tested the popular hypothesis that actions of humans can actually change climate.

A book such as this might be viewed as too rigidly scientific for the average reader, but that would overlook the long experience Ian Plimer has had of teaching undergraduates. Each chapter starts with a number of questions� that might come immediately to mind given the subject. On History, for instance, the first question is �are the speed and amount of modern climate change unprecedented?� The second � is�dangerous warming occurring?� And the third �is the temperature range observed in the 20th century outside the range of normal variability?�

In each case the answer is NO and the next two pages of the chapter� give the reasoning behind the answers in bold.� As an example, during the Mediaeval Warming, which took place between 900 and 1300AD the temperature in Greenland was 6�C higher than today and grain crops, cattle, sheep, farms and villages were established there. This Warming was global and there was no way it could have been caused by human action. There weren�t that many humans� around, for a start, and they did not have power stations, cars, aircraft or� ships. The rest of the chapter gives the scientific reasoning� behind every assertion and� statisticians should note that there are no fewer than� 2,311 references to work by other scientists contained in 500 pages of text.�

In the introduction to Heaven and Earth Professor Plimer takes a close look at pollution and carbon dioxide. To many people the two are inter-connected,� so CO2 is viewed in the same light as the dirt in the atmosphere caused by open combustion of poor quality carbon fuels which produce soot, smoke, ash, unburnt fuel and chemicals containing sulphur, chlorine, nitrogen, fluorine and metals.� This dirt is a million miles away from CO2 which, with oxygen, is vital to life. Carbon dioxide is plant food and without�it there would be no� greenery of any sort,� anywhere. What it is certainly not is a pollutant.�

These basic facts may be hard for many to take on board as they� are urban dwellers. They went� through school without� hearing about photosynthesis which is the means by which plants, algae and many bacteria convert�carbon dioxide and water, using energy from sunlight, into sugars for food and energy and release oxygen as a waste product. No CO2, no plants: no plants, no human or animal life. Simple as that. What few people realise also, is that oceans contain about 80 times as much CO2 dissolved in seawater as there is in the atmosphere according to Ian Plimer. Not only that, but volcanoes add massive amounts of� CO2 to the atmosphere. Nothing we can do about volcanoes.

The chapter about the Sun is worth a PhD in itself. It kicks off with the question, �does the Sun influence the world�s climate?� The answer is a very loud� YES as the Sun is the primary driving force of climate. It provides Earth and life thereon� with a staggering amount of energy and drives weather, ocean currents, and evaporation� as well as preventing the oceans from freezing or boiling. It is amazing, as Ian Plimer points out,� that the 23 climate models� of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ignore or minimise the role of the Sun. A computer is only as good as the data fed into it and here Professor Plimer appears to have identified a major flaw in the theory.

This is a fascinating book and I do not want to spoil it for readers by giving too much detail. Plimer� is trenchant in his opinions and fearless of� those� who� use political correctness to stifle all opposition.�He revels in the quasi scientists who compare anyone who questions climate change to a� holocaust denier and points out that the mind, like a parachute only works when it is� open. I received one such rant myself after mentioning climate change in a piece on the disappearance of� honey bees. A man called Peter Jason Taylor, who described himself as a climate scientist, wrote as follows: �Those who deny that climate change is happening, or claim that it is not man-made, are akin to those who deny that millions of Jews died in the holocaust, or those who believe that the earth is flat.�

When a debate is conducted at this level it is as well we have people around like Ian Plimer who are good at taking apart statements from politicians� who confuse fact with dogma as Penny Wong, Australia�s Minister for Climate Change and Water, found to her cost. Dogma is a belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.

Ian Plimer concludes that the climate has always been driven by the Sun., the Earth�s orbit and plate tectonics and the oceans, atmosphere and life respond to them. He describes the current theory of climate change as a new ignorance filling the yawning� spiritual gap in Western�society. Until last year, also,� the� world�s economy was moving at a great pace; salaries were rising; and warnings� that the battle to cut carbon emissions would prove simply to be tax under another name were ignored. In large part, of course, this was due to the� fact that man tends to develop a guilty conscience when the living is easy. It was ideal soil� in which a dubious mixture of politicians and scientists could sow the new religion of climate change, suggests Plimer.

The politics, or dogma, of climate change is, he says,�religious fundamentalism� masquerading as science. Its reasoning is� based on�computer models unrelated to observations in nature. This is strong stuff, but he is certainly not alone in his views. Russian scientists reject the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming and Oleg Sorokhtin of the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Ocean Studies�claims climate models are inaccurate as�scientific understanding of many natural climate factors such as weather and clouds is still poor. It is always worth listening to the Russians as it was they who beat the US to the punch with an unmanned landing on the moon during the space race of the 60s.

Heaven and Earth is a book that has to�be read� by all who are interested in climate change � and all who are not. Everyone will learn a massive amount about� the Earth on which we live and what makes it work. Ian has won the respect of thousands of students, and his peers,� because his encyclopaedic knowledge of Earth Sciences is grounded in common sense combined with a lively approach to life. Small wonder that the first print run planned in the States is massive

Relayed by :

�

Mark Duchamp��

Environmentalist��

Director, Climate Change and Alternative Energies

( formerly Birds and Windfarms Research Manager )

Iberica 2000

Partida La Sella, 25
03750 Pedreguer, Spain

tel�:� + 34�� 679 12 99 97

#2323

From: mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>
Date: Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:40 am
Subject: The climate change tide is turning - Wall Street Journal

portavozacec

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

"Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting.

�

It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing."

full article here :

�

�

#2324

From: mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>
Date: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:14 am
Subject: OPEN LETTER TO SCOTTISH NATURAL HERITAGE - Prof. Bellamy & M. Duchamp

portavozacec

Original sent to Ian Jardine, Cief Executive of SNH.

�

OPEN� LETTER� TO� SCOTTISH� NATURAL� HERITAGE� (SNH)

�

co-signed by Professor David Bellamy and Mark Duchamp�

�

Dear Sirs,

�

It is disturbing to wildlife conservationists such as ourselves, and we know it is equally disturbing to our numerous Scottish friends, that you should assist in the destruction of Scotland�s remarkable and precious wilderness.� Your raison d��tre is to preserve this natural heritage ; yet you are time and again endorsing the installation of wind farms in unspoilt landscapes of great beauty, or in natural habitats that are essential to the conservation of endangered birds.�

�

Bird reserves are not even spared from this destruction.� On the Isle of Lewis, for instance, a wind farm is to be built in a designated Important Bird Area ( Park UK224 ), and another in the Lewis Peatlands Special Protection Area ( the Pentland Road road windfarm project ).

�

Your modus operandi is to object at first, then to withdraw your objection based on scientifically worthless �revised� bird mortality predictions. More disturbing still : you are helping developers to come up with these lower estimates by suggesting that they use a slightly modified variable that has the effect of minimising mortality predictions well below current available evidence of such mortality.

�

The precautionary principle is one of the cornerstones of wildlife conservation ;� but you systematically ignore it and by and large espouse the interest of developers. You tell them they can use an �avoidance factor� set so high that the resulting mortality prediction is but 10% of what it should be if real-life mortality at wind farms were taken into account.

�

We first became aware of this during Mark�s resistance against the approval of the Edinbane wind farm project, in one of Europe�s most strikingly beautiful islands : the Isle of Skye. The location was in itself a crime against Scotland�s natural heritage, but neither you nor your political masters thought anything of it.�

�

Opposition was fierce because of the danger to the eagles, another of Skye�s treasures besides a stunning landscape.� The developer�s first eagle mortality prediction was too high for comfort, so you invited him to do more studies and to review his copy, especially the mortality prediction. You too did some work, and modified a key parameter for the mortality calculations : from 95%� the �avoidance factor� was increased to 98%, which has the effect of reducing mortality predictions exponentially. You also indicated that the predicted mortality�should be no bigger than a certain number :� this was tantamount to showing the fox how to get into the hen house.

�

Helped by your clue and by the new avoidance factor you had decreed, the developer presented his new prediction and you lifted your objection, which allowed the project to be approved.� Yet the viability of the nearby Cuillins SPA, a nature reserve for golden eagles, is at stake in this tragedy.�

�

Not only did you discard the precautionary principle in this exercise :� you applied it in reverse. What conservationist in his right mind would tell a businessman something that may be summarized as follows : you predict your machines will kill too many eagles, so I�ll help you reduce your prediction by manipulating the numbers -� and for cosmetics, I�ll ask you to do some more field studies.�

�

Based on mortality evidence available from other countries, of which you are well aware,� wind turbines at Edinbane are likely to kill ~150 golden eagles over 25 years, not ~15 as predicted by the developer under your guidance. The wind farm location is a hill where young eagles are seen flying daily, at a rate of about one sighting per hour. Edinbane is known to be a �dispersion area� for eagles, i.e. one where immature birds come to hunt, soar, and interact. It is also located on a commonly used eagle flightpath from one side of the island to the other. Placing lethal wind turbines on their route is not just an aberration : it is a crime against wildlife.

�

Some will say : when a bird is killed by a wind turbine, it is an accident. There is no intent of killing, so there is no crime. But you are guilty of gross negligence, to put it mildly.� Numbers have been manipulated in order to minimise mortality prediction by an order of magnitude ( from 150 eagle-kills down to 15 ) ; the precautionary principle has been laughed at ; and the Wild Birds and Habitats Directives of the EU are being violated since there are alternative locations for the project.�

�

Eagles don�t avoid wind turbines : they are attracted to them.� In California, Dr Smallwood has observed that golden eagles fly twice as often near wind turbines than they would by chance. This explains why so many collide with the blades, which travel at up to 300 km/h at the tip. Two thousand three hundred golden eagles have been killed that way in California, and you know that : an official report confirms it.

�

You strayed even further with the white-tailed sea eagles. With your consent, at Edinbane the risk for sea eagles has been estimated to be near zero whereas it is likely that dozens will be killed during the useful life of the wind farm.� Indeed, many of these magnificent birds are being stricken dead every year by wind turbines in Norway, Sweden, Germany, and Japan. Ornithologists from these countries have sent us the statistics and the pictures.

�

In the autumn of 2003, a sea eagle was found dead next to a wind turbine on the Scottish island of Pabay, a couple of miles from Skye.� An alleged autopsy report appeared on Internet saying that the bird in question had an unusually large heart, and that its death could have been caused by a heart failure in mid air ( sic!).�

�

Again in Scotland, golden eagles have been disappearing at or around the Beinn Ghlas wind farm, yet we are asked to believe that Beinn Ghlas is a success story regarding cohabitation with eagles.� Beinn an Tuirc is another �success story� being cited in the press as evidence that eagles and wind farms, in Scotland, can live together in close contact. Yet in 2006 the male of the golden eagle breeding pair disappeared from its range at Beinn an Tuirc.

�

All of this is documented, and it is false to say that wind farms do not kill eagles in Scotland. It�s just that the public is not aware of the eagles that die or disappear near wind farms.�

�

More eagles, and other birds from protected species, will be colliding with power lines linking wind farms to the grid, resulting in more deaths.� You, SNH, never requested that this added risk be assessed for Edinbane or any other wind farm project.� Yet you do know that many birds, including eagles, are maimed or killed by overhead cables when they collide with them in poor visibility conditions. For instance, a scientific study has estimated that high tension lines kill on average 200 birds per kilometre/year� ( Koops � 1987 ).� In migration zones, the toll is higher at 400-500 birds/km/yr� ( Convention on the Conservation of� European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, BirdLife International� 2003 ).
�

Based on the Koops study,� it was estimated that high tension lines in the US could be killing 150 million birds a year, according to Mick Sagrillo of the American Wind Energy Association (2003). The same figure is also reported in Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines, a Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States - Western EcoSystems Technology Inc. (2001).

�

How many more eagles and other protected birds will die on Skye and across Scotland on account of new transmission lines built to accommodate wind farms ? You have not commissioned any study on this added hazard, as far as�we know.� Yet the Scottish golden eagle population is already in demographic difficulty ( Whitfield et al. 2006 ), and the sea eagles are even less numerous.

�

It was clearly irresponsible of you to withdraw your objection to Edinbane, and Mark denounced it many times. You are now applying the same tactics to the Eisgein and Pairc projects on the Isle of Lewis.� If approved, these wind farms may kill over one hundred eagles, plus the migrating birds who stopover for food and rest before the long journey to Iceland and Greenland.� And�on the subject of�migrating birds : you seem to be minded to endorse a large wind farm project on Shetland, an island that is a staging post for thousands of migrating birds on their route to and from the Arctic. How irresponsible of you if you do.

�

The Eisgein turbines will be erected in and around a designated Important Bird Area that arguably harbours the most important concentration of adult eagles in the whole of Scotland. But everything indicates that you are about to remove your objection to this project as you did for Edinbane.� Indeed, you have now further increased your avoidance factor to 99%, which will have the result of reducing the developer�s mortality prediction, even though with 98% it is already smaller than real life by an order of magnitude.

�

These manipulations are being done under the cover of science.� But the famous mathematician John von Neuman once wrote : �Give me four adjustable parameters and I can simulate an elephant. Give me one more and I can wag its tail.���

- Your avoidance factor is what wags the tail.

�

Besides the predictable slaughter of eagles, swans, geese and other birds protected by EU and UK legislations, the Eisgein wind farm�may have a detrimental effect on a National Scenic Area, and even possibly�on other�important tourist attractions such as�the Callanish Stones and�a unique cultural event : the "Birth of the Moon".

�

Several hundred wind farms are to be built in Scotland, yet no cumulative study of their effects on protected bird species has been made.� Eagles stand to be wiped out, but you have ignored Mark�s request to consider the cumulative impact of thousands of wind turbines on their vulnerable population.� You support the case-by-case approach, but it is a recipe for disaster. It makes a mockery of the cumulative effect principle, which is another cornerstone of wildlife conservation.

�

In the circumstances, we cannot but conclude that you are doing the opposite of what the Scottish people, who pay your salaries, are expecting you to do : that which is embedded in your name.

�

You are also projecting a degraded image of Scotland worldwide.� In the international community of wildlife conservation, your country has gained a new reputation, where spin and the reckless destruction of pristine wilderness rise above anything else.

�

Your press releases often end with this line : �Scottish Natural Heritage is the Scottish Executive's statutory advisor in respect to the conservation, enhancement, enjoyment, understanding and sustainable use of the natural heritage.�

- We think your slogan needs editing. �

�

Co-signed :

�

Professor David Bellamy��

��

Mark Duchamp

tel : +34 679 12 99 97

�

#2325

From: mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>
Date: Wed Jul 1, 2009 6:50 pm
Subject: Another sign of the turning tide ?

portavozacec

" Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status " - Laurence J. Peter, author of the Peter principle.

�

On the other hand, business is quick on its feet when it comes to recognizing mistakes and moving on.

�

To wit :

�

" BP has shut down its alternative energy headquarters in London, accepted the resignation of its clean energy boss and imposed budget cuts in moves likely to be seen by environmental critics as further signs of the oil group moving "back to petroleum". "

�

In the meantime, they will keep cashing in on the Obama green job utopia while it lasts :

�

" BP has gradually given up on plans to enter the UK wind industry and concentrated all its turbine activities on the US, where it can win tax breaks and get cheaper and easier access to land. "

�

full article :� http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/28/bp-alternative-energy

�

Mark Duchamp��

Environmentalist��

Director, Climate Change and Alternative Energies

( formerly Birds and Windfarms Research Manager )

Iberica 2000

Partida La Sella, 25
03750 Pedreguer, Spain

tel�:� + 34�� 679 12 99 97

#2326

From: Dave Bruce <dave_bruce@...>
Date: Wed Jul 1, 2009 8:49 pm
Subject: Re: Another sign of the turning tide ?

dave_bruce2001

At 19:52 01/07/2009, you wrote:

>" Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past
>the time when the quo has lost its status " -
>Laurence J. Peter, author of the Peter principle.
>
>On the other hand, business is quick on its feet
>when it comes to recognizing mistakes and moving on.

Er, much as US bankers did over Derivatives
trading in the light of e.g. the Savings & Loan scandal?

Here, Applegarth? Fred the Shred?

Come, come. Bankers at least have never learnt
anything from either experience or history and show few signs of starting now.

>  To wit :
>
>" <http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/bp>BP has
>shut down its alternative energy headquarters in
>London, accepted the resignation of its clean
>energy boss and imposed budget cuts in moves
>likely to be seen by environmental critics as
>further signs of the
><http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/oil>oil group moving "back to petroleum". "
>
>In the meantime, they will keep cashing in on
>the Obama green job utopia while it lasts :
>
>" BP has gradually given up on plans to enter
>the UK wind industry and concentrated all its
>turbine activities on the US, where it can win
>tax breaks and get cheaper and easier access to land. "

I don't see it quite like that. This off the top
of my head so don't hold me to all of it:.

Note Shell's recent plug-pulling at the London
"Dis-Array" - herd instinct and all that;

Capital is harder to raise now (even for BP) than
it was for Shell only a few months ago; investment has to be rationed;

US subsidies for wind power seem to be as mad as UK ones;

BP was too late into the "green" boom to get a
worthwhile presence in the UK on-shore bubble.
There's almost nowhere left to destroy;

It squandered � gazillions on a PR and
advertising campaign a year or two back but did
little else - under the circs, even I'd sack the
useless (whatever) who ran the local show and dump his minions on the street;

The wind industry is sabre-rattling with
Westminster over direct subsidies for the UK's
Whitehall-driven off-shore boom (as opposed to
the RO scheme, which rewards but doesn't
subsidise). The government is not well placed to
offer these and, by the time it has had to buy up
the railways and British Airways with money it
hasn't got and cannot borrow, will be even less so;

The present government is dying on its feet, a
laughing stock. (Its most powerful figure,
Mandelson, is neither elected nor electable. He
has been sacked twice (!) for corruption.) Who
knows what will happen when a politically-muddled
Tory regime tries to sort out the mess? About all
it has promised is heavy spending cuts.

In contrast, in the US, the eco-Stasi has, at
least mid-term, the upper hand (though note that
there is at least some "climate change"
opposition, albeit mostly from the loonie right -
all we have here is a couple of head-banging UKIP Euro-snouts);

BP is not subject to the "must do" side of the RO
as it is not an electricity supplier. As a
wannabe generator only, it is better placed to
pick 'n' mix scams. Don't expect a volte face
from the likes of Scottish & Southern any time soon.

I'm sure there's more. Interestingly, much US
press comment on Obama's "climate change" bill
has (rightly IMHO) dismissed it as back-door
protectionism. The Indian government has (again,
rightly) told the US to take a hike. Expect the Chinese to follow suit.

And so on.

Dave

#2327

From: mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>
Date: Thu Jul 2, 2009 5:06 am
Subject: Re: Re: Another sign of the turning tide ?

portavozacec

Fair comment. I would say in my defense that bankers are not really businessmen. They are a breed apart, closer to accountants and to bureaucrats than they are the hard-nosed businessmen who�decide the strategy of BP or Shell.

�

This is not to mean that I condone golden parachutes, abusive salaries and stock options. Not unlike the relationship between voters and elected officials, shareholders are no longer able to keep in check the abuses of the people they elect. To quote Nietzsche from memory : our civilization is exhausted.

�

Another point of interest : bankers had their arms twisted by the Clinton administration to lend�at 100% of home values, so that the underpriviledged could become homeowners. That was the birth of the sub-prime market. In a natural self-defense move the bankers then decided to spread the risk by packaging�the loans�and selling them all over the place.

�

The Cuomo story :� http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-08-05/news/how-andrew-cuomo-gave-birth-to-the-crisis-at-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac/

�

Cuomo back in the news, doing more damage to the economy�: http://www.oag.state.ny.us/media_center/2008/oct/oct23a_08.html

�

From Emeritus professor Fred Singer's newsletter :

�

6.� NY�S AG CUOMO TRIES TO UNDERMINE COAL PLANTS
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/media_center/2008/oct/oct23a_08.html
�
Press release:� NEW YORK, N.Y. (October 23, 2008) � Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, joined by
Vice President Al Gore, today announced an agreement that requires a national energy company, Dynegy
Inc. (�Dynegy�), to disclose timely and relevant information to investors about climate change risks.
�This agreement follows our landmark settlement with Xcel Energy and helps protect investors by ensuring
disclosure of potential financial risks that climate change may pose,� said Attorney General Cuomo.�
�Today we raise the bar in the industry and ensure transparency and disclosure in the marketplace.�
Investors have the right to know all the material financial risks faced by coal-fired power plants associated
with global warming and I hope and expect that other companies will follow the lead of Dynegy and Xcel.�
I commend and applaud Dynegy for working with my office to establish a standard that will improve our
environment and our marketplace over the long-term.��
Vice President Al Gore said, �Today�s settlement is a key step in the effort to solve the climate crisis.� It
requires one of our nation�s major energy companies to fully disclose to investors - from Wall Street to
Main Street - the financial risks that come with building new coal-fired power plants.� I applaud Attorney
General Cuomo for his leadership in engineering a new model to combat global warming.�
===================
SEPP comments: This �risk� is of course entirely political and due to the misguided GW hype of Al Gore.�
It will make it more costly for electric utilities to raise money to build badly needed powerplants.� Guess
who will pay the bill?
BTW, Cuomo as Sec�y of HUD (Housing and Urban Development) under Clinton browbeat the banks into
making subprime loans � a major cause of the current financial crisis.� And that�s the man McCain would
have chosen to head the SEC!

�

Cheers

�

Mark

2009/7/1 Dave Bruce <dave_bruce@...>

At 19:52 01/07/2009, you wrote:

>" Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past
>the time when the quo has lost its status " -
>Laurence J. Peter, author of the Peter principle.
>
>On the other hand, business is quick on its feet
>when it comes to recognizing mistakes and moving on.

Er, much as US bankers did over Derivatives
trading in the light of e.g. the Savings & Loan scandal?

Here, Applegarth? Fred the Shred?

Come, come. Bankers at least have never learnt
anything from either experience or history and show few signs of starting now.

> To wit :
>
>" <http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/bp>BP has

>shut down its alternative energy headquarters in
>London, accepted the resignation of its clean
>energy boss and imposed budget cuts in moves
>likely to be seen by environmental critics as
>further signs of the
><http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/oil>oil group moving "back to petroleum". "

>
>In the meantime, they will keep cashing in on
>the Obama green job utopia while it lasts :
>
>" BP has gradually given up on plans to enter
>the UK wind industry and concentrated all its
>turbine activities on the US, where it can win
>tax breaks and get cheaper and easier access to land. "

I don't see it quite like that. This off the top
of my head so don't hold me to all of it:.

Note Shell's recent plug-pulling at the London
"Dis-Array" - herd instinct and all that;

Capital is harder to raise now (even for BP) than
it was for Shell only a few months ago; investment has to be rationed;

US subsidies for wind power seem to be as mad as UK ones;

BP was too late into the "green" boom to get a
worthwhile presence in the UK on-shore bubble.
There's almost nowhere left to destroy;

It squandered � gazillions on a PR and
advertising campaign a year or two back but did
little else - under the circs, even I'd sack the
useless (whatever) who ran the local show and dump his minions on the street;

The wind industry is sabre-rattling with
Westminster over direct subsidies for the UK's
Whitehall-driven off-shore boom (as opposed to
the RO scheme, which rewards but doesn't
subsidise). The government is not well placed to
offer these and, by the time it has had to buy up
the railways and British Airways with money it
hasn't got and cannot borrow, will be even less so;

The present government is dying on its feet, a
laughing stock. (Its most powerful figure,
Mandelson, is neither elected nor electable. He
has been sacked twice (!) for corruption.) Who
knows what will happen when a politically-muddled
Tory regime tries to sort out the mess? About all
it has promised is heavy spending cuts.

In contrast, in the US, the eco-Stasi has, at
least mid-term, the upper hand (though note that
there is at least some "climate change"
opposition, albeit mostly from the loonie right -
all we have here is a couple of head-banging UKIP Euro-snouts);

BP is not subject to the "must do" side of the RO
as it is not an electricity supplier. As a
wannabe generator only, it is better placed to
pick 'n' mix scams. Don't expect a volte face
from the likes of Scottish & Southern any time soon.

I'm sure there's more. Interestingly, much US
press comment on Obama's "climate change" bill
has (rightly IMHO) dismissed it as back-door
protectionism. The Indian government has (again,
rightly) told the US to take a hike. Expect the Chinese to follow suit.

And so on.

Dave

#2328

From: mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>
Date: Fri Jul 3, 2009 8:48 am
Subject: Re: Re: Another sign of the turning tide ?

portavozacec

Another evidence that Government has a large responsibility in the dysfunctions of the capitalist system :� the SEC�hasn't been�doing its job.

It didn't do it with the subprime orgy, it didn't do it with junk bonds, it did not do it with�Madoff...��

�

In case you don't know about the Markopoulos/Madoff story :

�

....Anyways, Harry Markopolos smelled a rat and started warning the SEC about Madoff in 1999. Markopolis is a very smart guy, as you can see from his resume. CFA, CFE, securities industry executive, specialist in forensic accounting - certainly a guy that you would want to listen to if you were the SEC.

As I said, Markopolos warned the SEC about Madoff in 1999. He then met with an SEC official in 2001. Markopolos refused to back down from his stance that Madoff was a fraud, sending a damning document to the SEC in 2005. Acting in part on information supplied by Markopolos, the SEC once again investigated Madoff in 2007 and didn't find any evidence that he was operating a "Ponzi scheme".

You really have to wonder what happened at the SEC. How could they not have realized that this was a "Ponzi scheme"? I mean - it WAS a Ponzi scheme! Surely the SEC would have realized this after turning over a few stones at Madoff's operation. Was this negligence at the SEC, or something more sinister?

After reading the document sent to the SEC by Markopolos, you REALLY have to wonder just what is going on. Markopolos laid out the case against Madoff perfectly, and was proven right over and over again. Considering that the SEC supposedly investigated Madoff and his firm after talking to Markopolos, you have to wonder (again) what was going on.

Markopolos points out no less than 29 red flags in his statement to the SEC. 29! Markopolos (correctly) points out that situations like REFCO and Wood River had far less red flags.

When you read this document titled "The World's Largest Hedge Fund is a Fraud", you'll really start to wonder about the SEC. If they aren't corrupt, then they are shockingly inept.

Source: WSJ - The World's Largest Hedge Fund is a Fraud

Filed under: Hedge Fund News | Stock Market Scandals

http://www.davemanuel.com/2009/01/09/harry-markopoulos-completely-nailed-the-madoff-fraud-but-the-sec-did-nothing/

2009/7/2 mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>

Fair comment. I would say in my defense that bankers are not really businessmen. They are a breed apart, closer to accountants and to bureaucrats than they are to the hard-nosed businessmen who�decide the strategy of BP or Shell.

�

This is not to mean that I condone golden parachutes, abusive salaries and stock options. Not unlike the relationship between voters and elected officials, shareholders are no longer able to keep in check the abuses of the people they elect. To quote Nietzsche from memory : our civilization is exhausted.

�

Another point of interest : bankers had their arms twisted by the Clinton administration to lend�at 100% of home values, so that the underpriviledged could become homeowners. That was the birth of the sub-prime market. In a natural self-defense move the bankers then decided to spread the risk by packaging�the loans�and selling them all over the place.

�

The Cuomo story :� http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-08-05/news/how-andrew-cuomo-gave-birth-to-the-crisis-at-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac/

�

Cuomo back in the news, doing more damage to the economy�: http://www.oag.state.ny.us/media_center/2008/oct/oct23a_08.html

�

From Emeritus professor Fred Singer's newsletter :

�

6.� NY�S AG CUOMO TRIES TO UNDERMINE COAL PLANTS
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/media_center/2008/oct/oct23a_08.html
�
Press release:� NEW YORK, N.Y. (October 23, 2008) � Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, joined by
Vice President Al Gore, today announced an agreement that requires a national energy company, Dynegy
Inc. (�Dynegy�), to disclose timely and relevant information to investors about climate change risks.
�This agreement follows our landmark settlement with Xcel Energy and helps protect investors by ensuring
disclosure of potential financial risks that climate change may pose,� said Attorney General Cuomo.�
�Today we raise the bar in the industry and ensure transparency and disclosure in the marketplace.�
Investors have the right to know all the material financial risks faced by coal-fired power plants associated
with global warming and I hope and expect that other companies will follow the lead of Dynegy and Xcel.�
I commend and applaud Dynegy for working with my office to establish a standard that will improve our
environment and our marketplace over the long-term.��
Vice President Al Gore said, �Today�s settlement is a key step in the effort to solve the climate crisis.� It
requires one of our nation�s major energy companies to fully disclose to investors - from Wall Street to
Main Street - the financial risks that come with building new coal-fired power plants.� I applaud Attorney
General Cuomo for his leadership in engineering a new model to combat global warming.�
===================
SEPP comments: This �risk� is of course entirely political and due to the misguided GW hype of Al Gore.�
It will make it more costly for electric utilities to raise money to build badly needed powerplants.� Guess
who will pay the bill?
BTW, Cuomo as Sec�y of HUD (Housing and Urban Development) under Clinton browbeat the banks into
making subprime loans � a major cause of the current financial crisis.� And that�s the man McCain would
have chosen to head the SEC!

�

Cheers

�

Mark

2009/7/1 Dave Bruce <dave_bruce@...>

At 19:52 01/07/2009, you wrote:

>" Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past
>the time when the quo has lost its status " -
>Laurence J. Peter, author of the Peter principle.
>
>On the other hand, business is quick on its feet
>when it comes to recognizing mistakes and moving on.

Er, much as US bankers did over Derivatives
trading in the light of e.g. the Savings & Loan scandal?

Here, Applegarth? Fred the Shred?

Come, come. Bankers at least have never learnt
anything from either experience or history and show few signs of starting now.

> To wit :
>
>" <http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/bp>BP has

>shut down its alternative energy headquarters in
>London, accepted the resignation of its clean
>energy boss and imposed budget cuts in moves
>likely to be seen by environmental critics as
>further signs of the
><http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/oil>oil group moving "back to petroleum". "

>
>In the meantime, they will keep cashing in on
>the Obama green job utopia while it lasts :
>
>" BP has gradually given up on plans to enter
>the UK wind industry and concentrated all its
>turbine activities on the US, where it can win
>tax breaks and get cheaper and easier access to land. "

I don't see it quite like that. This off the top
of my head so don't hold me to all of it:.

Note Shell's recent plug-pulling at the London
"Dis-Array" - herd instinct and all that;

Capital is harder to raise now (even for BP) than
it was for Shell only a few months ago; investment has to be rationed;

US subsidies for wind power seem to be as mad as UK ones;

BP was too late into the "green" boom to get a
worthwhile presence in the UK on-shore bubble.
There's almost nowhere left to destroy;

It squandered � gazillions on a PR and
advertising campaign a year or two back but did
little else - under the circs, even I'd sack the
useless (whatever) who ran the local show and dump his minions on the street;

The wind industry is sabre-rattling with
Westminster over direct subsidies for the UK's
Whitehall-driven off-shore boom (as opposed to
the RO scheme, which rewards but doesn't
subsidise). The government is not well placed to
offer these and, by the time it has had to buy up
the railways and British Airways with money it
hasn't got and cannot borrow, will be even less so;

The present government is dying on its feet, a
laughing stock. (Its most powerful figure,
Mandelson, is neither elected nor electable. He
has been sacked twice (!) for corruption.) Who
knows what will happen when a politically-muddled
Tory regime tries to sort out the mess? About all
it has promised is heavy spending cuts.

In contrast, in the US, the eco-Stasi has, at
least mid-term, the upper hand (though note that
there is at least some "climate change"
opposition, albeit mostly from the loonie right -
all we have here is a couple of head-banging UKIP Euro-snouts);

BP is not subject to the "must do" side of the RO
as it is not an electricity supplier. As a
wannabe generator only, it is better placed to
pick 'n' mix scams. Don't expect a volte face
from the likes of Scottish & Southern any time soon.

I'm sure there's more. Interestingly, much US
press comment on Obama's "climate change" bill
has (rightly IMHO) dismissed it as back-door
protectionism. The Indian government has (again,
rightly) told the US to take a hike. Expect the Chinese to follow suit.

And so on.

Dave

--
Mark Duchamp � � � �+ 34 � 679 12 99 97
INCONVENIENT VIDEOS : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3729

The dark side of windfarms : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1228
Pictures of windfarm victims ( eagles etc. ), of turbines on fire, of collapsed turbines, of soil & water contamination etc. : � http://spaces.msn.com/mark-duchamp

ESPA�OL :
Videos inconvenientes : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3729
La cara oscura de los parques e�licos: �www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1255
Fotos de v�ctimas de parques e�licos ( �guilas etc. ), incendios de aerogeneradores, contaminaci�n de las aguas por sus lubricantes etc. : � http://spaces.msn.com/mark-duchamp

#2329

From: mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>
Date: Fri Jul 3, 2009 9:50 am
Subject: the Boston Globe

portavozacec

http://www.jeffjacoby.com/5782/no-climate-debate-yes-there-is

�

#2330

From: "mhr_kestrel" <mhr@...>
Date: Mon Jul 6, 2009 6:51 pm
Subject: Northwest wind power a threat to raptors

mhr_kestrel

Northwest wind power a threat to raptors

Sunday, July 5 | 1:00 a.m.
http://www.columbian.com/article/20090705/OPINION03/707059976/-1/OPINION

BY DAVE THIES

The Columbia Gorge Audubon Society has monitored Northwest wind power for almost
20 years. We were not surprised by the recent eagle kill The Columbian reported
May 18: "Washington wind turbines claim first known eagle victim."

The Goodnoe Hills Wind Project that is responsible for the death of the golden
eagle is sited in National Audubon Society's designated Columbia Hills Important
Bird Area in Klickitat County overlooking the Columbia River Gorge. The IBA
program is Audubon's attempt to identify and protect significant bird habitat.
Gorge Audubon conducted bird counts in the Hills, and our nomination led to its
IBA designation.

The main factor in securing the IBA designation was the intensive use of the
area by raptors. It is well known that raptors commonly fly at an altitude that
puts them at particular risk for collision with wind power blades.

Proper siting was touted as the key to green wind power. So why is wind power
being sited in an Audubon Important Bird Area, and why is that Important Bird
Area slated for border to border wind power development? The answer is simple.
Instead of proper planning, Northwest wind power is being allowed to develop
wherever infrastructure is available and politicians are agreeable.

Gorge Audubon believes wind power is already a disaster for Northwest birds. Who
is responsible for this mess?

During years of reviewing wind power permits, we found that many significant
omissions and deceptions were used to secure permits. For instance, The
Columbian story reported that the proponent for the Big Horn Wind Energy Project
in eastern Klickitat County had predicted the annual raptor mortality would be
three to four birds, whereas follow-up monitoring suggests the actual raptor
kill to be 31 to 49 birds per year. Drastically underestimating project bird
kills is likely a common method for securing wind power permits.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service tried to force the wind power industry to
solve the bird kill problem on the Columbia Hills site years ago with a warning
of criminal arrest. That problem was never solved.

Politics changed, and state and federal wildlife agencies have since stood by
and watched the Northwest wind power disaster unfold. They protested but took no
action. Now they are scrambling to "fix" the problem. If development is allowed
to continue in the Columbia Hills IBA and other areas intensively used by birds,
you will know that they have failed.

Lack of attention

Where are National Audubon Society and the environmental groups that authored
voluntary siting standards for wind power back when the industry first arrived
in the Northwest? The answer is that most of them have received Bullitt
Foundation grants and hope to receive them again. The Bullitt Foundation of
Seattle is a strong advocate of wind power. In fact, Denis Hayes, Bullitt
Foundation Director, once wrote Audubon Washington not to "monkey wrench" wind
power in the Gorge. Since then, National Audubon Society has written a few
letters protesting wind power in their Important Bird Area, but they have
ignored our pleas for the one thing that would save the Columbia Hills IBA: a
publicity campaign exposing this siting disaster.

It's time for a wind power reality check. Voluntary siting standards and
wildlife guidelines may make the authors feel good, but they do not work.
"Proper siting" has nothing to do with how wind power is actually sited. Phony
mitigation measures offered by the wind power industry are unlikely to save even
one bird. And the wildlife agencies need to find their spines.

The great hope of wind power is being squandered and turned into just another
corporate money maker for the developers and equipment suppliers. Wind power
will be joining the ranks of the other environmentally hazardous energy
producers if our political leadership fails to make changes.

Governors Gregoire and Kulongoski, and President Obama, are you listening?

Dave Thies of White Salmon is president of the Columbia Gorge Audubon Society.

#2331

From: mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>
Date: Thu Jul 9, 2009 7:00 pm
Subject: Climate terrorism

portavozacec

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8142825.stm#graph

Present cooling trend shown on a Met Office graph,�in a BBC article :

�

�

�

This is a trend reversal, which only�appears on graphs long after it actually started : in fact, global warming peaked in 1998,�more than 10 years ago.�It proves that�solar and sea current cycles are the�drivers of�climate, not CO2.�

This release�by the BBC proves that certain truths cannot be hidden beyond a certain point, at least to educated people who read the press or surf�the Net.

�

But how much longer�will the evening news on television cover up the truth ? How much longer will most politicians, with the help of television, continue to pretend that climate is in a runaway warming�mode ? How much longer will�the masses�be fed the lie that CO2 is a pollutant, instead of a gas essential to life which would green the Sahara if we had more of it�?

�

A�burden in the trillions of pounds/dollars/euros will be self-imposed�on Western economies at Copenhagen in December, leading to more economic and social misery for no benefit - except to the Al Gore companies and the green-industrial complex.

�

This is climate terrorism, and�its aim has nothing to do with saving the planet.

�

Mark Duchamp��

Environmentalist��

Director, Climate Change and Alternative Energies

( formerly Birds and Windfarms Research Manager )

Iberica 2000

Partida La Sella, 25
03750 Pedreguer, Spain

tel�:� + 34�� 679 12 99 97

#2332

From: mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>
Date: Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:44 pm
Subject: Christopher Booker reveals 2 smoking guns of manipulation and deceit by governments

portavozacec

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5804831/Climate-change-The-sun-and-the-oceans-do-not-lie.html

Climate change: The sun and the oceans do not lie

Even a compromised agreement to reduce emissions could devastate the economy - and all for a theory shot full of holes, says Christopher Booker.

�

By Christopher Booker
Published: 6:10PM BST 11 Jul 2009

Comments 115 | Comment on this article

The sun controls our climate Photo: AP

The moves now being made by the world's political establishment to lock us into December's Copenhagen treaty to halt global warming are as alarming as anything that has happened in our lifetimes. Last week in Italy, the various branches of our emerging world government, G8 and G20, agreed in principle that the world must by 2050 cut its CO2 emissions in half. Britain and the US are already committed to cutting their use of fossil fuels by more than 80 per cent. Short of an unimaginable technological revolution, this could only be achieved by closing down virtually all our economic activity: no electricity, no transport, no industry. All this is being egged on by a gigantic publicity machine, by the UN, by serried ranks of government-funded scientists, by cheerleaders such as Al Gore, last week comparing the fight against global warming to that against Hitler's Nazis, and by politicians who have no idea what they are setting in train.

What makes this even odder is that the runaway warming predicted by their computer models simply isn't happening. Last week one of the four official sources of temperature measurement, compiled from satellite data by the University of Huntsville, Alabama, showed that temperatures have now fallen to their average level since satellite data began 30 years ago.

Faced with a "consensus" view which looks increasingly implausible, a fast-growing body of reputable scientists from many countries has been coming up with a ''counter-consensus'', which holds that their fellow scientists have been looking in wholly the wrong direction to explain what is happening to the world's climate. The two factors which most plausibly explain what temperatures are actually doing are fluctuations in the radiation of the sun and the related shifting of ocean currents.

Two episodes highlight the establishment's alarm at the growing influence of this ''counter consensus''. In March, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has a key role in President Obama's plans to curb CO2 emissions, asked one of its senior policy analysts, Alan Carlin, to report on the science used to justify its policy. His 90-page paper recommended that the EPA carry out an independent review of the science, because the CO2 theory was looking indefensible, while the "counter consensus'' view � solar radiation and ocean currents � seemed to fit the data much better. Provoking a considerable stir, Carlin's report was stopped dead, on the grounds that it was too late to raise objections to what was now the EPA's official policy.

Meanwhile a remarkable drama has been unfolding in Australia, where the new Labor government has belatedly joined the "consensus'' bandwagon by introducing a bill for an emissions-curbing "cap and trade'' scheme, which would devastate Australia's economy, it being 80 per cent dependent on coal. The bill still has to pass the Senate, which is so precisely divided that the decisive vote next month may be cast by an independent Senator, Stephen Fielding. So crucial is his vote that the climate change minister, Penny Wong, agreed to see him with his four advisers, all leading Australian scientists.

Fielding put to the minister three questions. How, since temperatures have been dropping, can CO2 be blamed for them rising? What, if CO2 was the cause of recent warming, was the cause of temperatures rising higher in the past? Why, since the official computer models have been proved wrong, should we rely on them for future projections?

The written answers produced by the minister's own scientific advisers proved so woolly and full of elementary errors that Fielding's team have now published a 50-page, fully-referenced "Due Diligence'' paper tearing them apart. In light of the inadequacy of the Government's reply, the Senator has announced that he will be voting against the bill.

The wider significance of this episode is that it is the first time a Western government has allowed itself to be drawn into debating the science behind the global warming scare with expert scientists representing the "counter consensus" � and the "consensus" lost hands down.

We still have a long way to go before that Copenhagen treaty is agreed in December, and with China, India and 128 other countries still demanding trillions of dollars as the price of their co-operation, the prospect of anything but a hopelessly fudged agreement looks slim. But even a compromise could inflict devastating damage on our own economic future � all for a theory now shot so full of holes that its supporters are having to suppress free speech to defend it.

�

#2333

From: mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>
Date: Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:15 pm
Subject: Britain : seven years to a predictable collapse

portavozacec

Wind farms will be a monument to an age when our leaders collectively went off their heads

Last updated at 8:05 AM on 14th July 2009

Let us be clear: Britain is facing an unprecedented crisis. Before long, we will lose 40 per cent of our generating capacity.

And unless we come up quickly with an alternative, the lights WILL go out. Not before time, the Confederation of British Industry yesterday waded in, warning the Government it must abandon its crazy fixation with wind turbines as a way of plugging this forthcoming shortfall and instead urgently focus on far more efficient ways to meet the threat of a permanent, nationwide black-out.

There are a few contenders for the title of the maddest thing that has happened in our lifetime.�

Controversial: A wind farm near Rye, East Sussex

But a front-runner must be the way in which politicians of all parties have been seduced by the La-La Land promises of the wind power lobby.

If you still haven't made your mind up about wind power, just consider some of the inescapable facts - facts which the Government and the wind industry do their best to hide from us all.

So far we have spent billions of pounds on building just over 2,000 wind turbines - and yet they contribute barely one per cent of all the electricity that we need.

The combined output of all those 2,000 turbines put together, averaging 700 megawatts, is less than that of a single, medium-sized conventional power station.

What's more, far from being 'free', this pitiful dribble of electricity is twice as expensive as the power we get from the nuclear, gas or coal-fired power stations which currently supply well over 90 per cent of our needs - and we all pay the difference, without knowing it, through our electricity bills.

But despite its best efforts to conceal the fact that wind turbines expensively and unreliably generate only a derisory amount of electricity, the Government keeps on telling us of its megalomaniac plans to build thousands more of them - at a cost of up to �100billion.

The prime reason for this is that we are legally obliged by the European Union to generate 32 per cent of our electricity from 'renewable' sources by 2020.

Ed Miliband: Set restrictions on coal-fired power stations

And with just 11 years to go until that deadline, we hope to meet the target by building highly-subsidised wind turbines.

But this is a farce. In fact, as the Government is privately well aware, there is not the faintest hope that we can do anything of the kind - even if we wanted to.

Gordon Brown talks airily of building 4,000 offshore turbines by our target date - plus another 3,000 onshore. But this would mean sticking two of these 2,000-ton monsters, each the height of Blackpool Tower, into the seabed every day for the next 11 years.

Nowhere in the world has it proved possible to install more than one of them a week. The infrastructure simply isn't there to build more than a fraction of that figure.

Furthermore, such are the weather conditions around Britain's coasts that it is only possible to work on these projects for a few months every summer.

Then there are the 3,000 promised onshore turbines - many of which are to be erected in the most beautiful stretches of Britain's countryside.

These are meeting with so much local hostility that the Government has continually had to bend the planning rules in order to force them through over the wishes of local communities and the democratic opposition of local councils.

But wind power is not just the pipedream of deluded politicians. As the CBI was trying to warn yesterday, the real disaster of this great wind fantasy is that it has diverted attention from the genuine energy crisis now hurtling towards us at breakneck speed.

For while the Government is trying to force a scattering of useless wind turbines through the planning offices, the truth is that the rest of us will lose 40 per cent of our power stations within as little as seven years.

If this happens, and we don't have an alternative, our kettles won't boil, our computers won't work and our country will face economic meltdown.

There is little hope now of an 11th hour reprieve. Eight of our nine nuclear power stations - which presently supply 20 per cent of our electricity needs - are so old they will have to close.

Nine more large coal and oil-fired power plants will also be forced to shut down under an EU anti-pollution directive.

But more alarming still is the astonishing naivete of almost all our politicians when it comes to working out how we are going to fill the 40 per cent shortfall left in their wake. Very belatedly, the Government has said that it wants to see a new generation of nuclear reactors.

Yet there is little hope that any of them can be up and running earlier than 2020. What's more, they will have to be built by foreign-owned companies because, as recently as October 2006, the Government sold off our last world-class nuclear construction company, Westinghouse, to the Japanese at a knockdown price.

At the same time, our Energy And Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, now says he will not allow any new coal-fired power stations to be built unless they have 'carbon capture' - piping off CO2 to bury it in holes in the ground.

This technology not only doubles the price of electricity but hasn't even yet been properly developed. And so the only hope of keeping the lights on will be to build dozens more gas-fired power stations - at a time when North Sea gas is fast running out.

And then we will be forced to rely on imports from politically unreliable countries such as Russia, at a time when gas prices are likely to be soaring.

In any event, over the past 20 years, our politicians have made an even more unholy shambles of Britain's energy policy than they have of our economy - and the cost, when the chickens come to roost in a few years' time, will be almost unimaginable.

The causes of Britain's impending energy crisis are manifold. Michael Heseltine's 1992 'dash for gas', when he closed down most of our remaining coal mines because North Sea gas was still cheap and abundant, and because its CO2 emissions were only half those of coal, was one of them.

But nothing has done more to take the politicians' eye off the ball, egged on by environmentalist groups such as Friends Of The Earth and Greenpeace, than their quite incomprehensible obsession with windmills.

For these white elephants can never produce more than a fraction of the electricity we need, and by no means always when we need it - as we saw last winter when, for weeks on end, they were scarcely turning at all.

Do politicians never look outside the windows of their centrally-heated offices to see how often the wind is not blowing?

The Government has now shovelled so much money in hidden subsidies into the pockets of the turbine companies that the 'wind bonanza', promoted on a host of fraudulent claims, has become one of the greatest scams of our age.

But if and when our lights do go out, it will be important to remember just why we got carried away by such a massive blunder.

Left with a land blighted with useless towers of metal, we shall look on those windmills as a monument to the age when the politicians of Britain and Europe collectively went completely off their heads.

More from Christopher Booker...

#2334

From: mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>
Date: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:12 pm
Subject: URGENT - EPAW's president interviewed by the BBC

portavozacec

( see email below )�� PLEASE SEND TO ALL YOUR CONTACTS

... AND ADVISE THE PRESS ( BE SURE TO CUT OUT THE 2ND PARAGRAPH FIRST ! )

�

I can't advise my own contact list�as my personal computer is on the blink, and I am in a rush.

�

Cheers

�

Mark

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: EPAW - Dominique Mette <dmette@...>
Date: 2009/7/15
Subject: EPAW's president interviewed by the BBC
To: UK members <dmette@...>

Dear UK members,

�

Tomorrow Thursday at�11 AM GMT (UK time)�EPAW's president Jean-Louis Butr� will be interviewed by the BBC. We don't know if it will be in real time - Jean-Louis is out of reach at the moment.

Be sure to listen to it if you can, record it if possible, and�send your comments to the BBC about it. It is important that the BBC be aware that many of their listeners don't want windfarms and that EPAW represents many angry Brits as well as other Europeans.

Best regards,

Dominique Mette
Secretary-General

European Platform Against Windfarms
www.epaw.org

#2335

From: mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>
Date: Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:46 pm
Subject: Wind farms are a disaster and an act of lunacy - The Telegraph

portavozacec

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100003510/wind-farms-the-death-of-britain/

Apologies if you've seen it already:

�

�

Mark

#2336

From: mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>
Date: Sat Jul 18, 2009 7:09 pm
Subject: Some worthy stuff on birds and climate change

portavozacec

How National Audubon Society Deceives You - Birds and Climate Change - Christmas Count Report - Part 1 - Temperature Trend -
<http://nofreewind.blogspot.com/2009/07/how-national-audubon-society-deceives.html>

How National Audubon Society Deceives You - Birds and Climate Change -
Christmas Count Report - Part 2 - The Birds -
<http://nofreewind.blogspot.com/2009/07/how-national-audubon-society-deceives_14.html>

Mark

#2337

From: mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>
Date: Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:16 pm
Subject: Global cooling hurting potato crops from Maine to Ohio

portavozacec

http://www.examiner.com/x-3854-Cincinnati-Weather-Examiner~y2009m7d13-Deadly-and-destructive-cold

"From the BBC:� �Almost 250 children under the age of five have died in a wave of intensely cold weather in Peru�.� �This year, freezing temperatures have arrived almost 3 months earlier than usual.�� From CBC news: �Temperatures dropped to a record low in Prince Edward Island overnight Tuesday (July 7 into July 8) with reports of frost throughout the province (in southeast Canada).�� a meteorologist with Environment Canada said that to his knowledge, frost has never been reported before in July in Prince Edward Island.��

There have been individual record cold days in Chicago and Central Park, New York and New Zealand had the coldest May on record.� In addition, the Potato Famine disease (Late Blight) is striking potato and tomato plants from Maine to Ohio and it�s threatening commercial and organic farms according to Reuters news, and according to Meg McGrath, a plant pathologist at Cornell University�s extension center in New York, �Late Blight has never occurred this early and this widespread in the United States.�� The destructive disease can spread rapidly in cool, moist weather, infecting an entire field within days.� The bottom line, which is causing me increasing concern every day, is that we�re seeing much colder weather in both hemispheres and its effects on humans and agriculture."

full article here :

�

BBC article�about deadly cold snap in Peru :�http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8146995.stm

#2338

From: mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>
Date: Sat Jul 18, 2009 7:45 pm
Subject: Sleeping with the devil

portavozacec

http://www.awwi.org/home.php

�

I looked at this new�website�recommended by Stan Moore, and�clicked on "members ".

Here is the list :

�

AES Wind Generation
Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
Babcock & Brown
BP Alternative Energy
Clipper Windpower
E.ON
Environmental Defense Fund
enXco
GE Energy
Horizon Wind Energy
Iberdrola Renewables
National Audubon Society
Natural Resources Defense Council
NRG Systems
Renewable Energy Systems Americas
The Nature Conservancy
The Sierra Club
Union of Concerned Scientists
Vestas Americas

If ENRON were not defunct, they would be in this sleep-with-the-devil�list.

Take a good look at the strange bedfellows : Audubon, Sierra Club, NRDC etc.... the same people who sold out�the Tejon wildlife reserve to urban developers !

�

I am happy to see that the Peregrine Fund has declined to be included.� Have they seen the light ?

First they endorsed the Kittatinny raptor corridor project. Now this...

I am looking for another sign of their Road to Damascus�before rejoicing.

�

Spanish Birdlife SEO has been the first major�bird society to turn around and denounce the dangers of wind farms to bird life.� Congratulations to them�: better late than never !�

This makes it only more shameful to see other bird societies sleeping with the devil...

�

Mark

�

#2339

From: mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>
Date: Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:15 pm
Subject: Fwd: My letter in The Courier[ Scotland]

portavozacec

Lyn Jenkins, from Wales, regularly sends letters to editors of various papers, including Scottish ones. He's had various successes with the Scottish press ( see his latest below ). All he is asking is that more of us write such letters, and send them to a score of papers across the UK ( send the same letter 20 times ).

�

It pays to do so : Lyn has had hundreds of letters published since he started years ago. He is�our national champion in that respect, possibly our international one as well.

�

Please take his advice. Letters to the editor are the easiest way to get our arguments known�to the public. They also influence the media ( if nobody complains about windfarms, why should they change their pro-windfarm stance ? ).

�

Mark

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Lyn Jenkins <clynyrynys@...>
Date: 2009/7/18
Subject: Re: My letter in The Courier[ Scotland]
To: mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>
Cc: alun john richards <alun.richards6@...>, John Etherington <eth.pbont@...>, Ceinwen Rees <kay-rose@...>, Wyck & Toey <moelyllyn@...>, brynoilyn@..., Terry Breverton <breverton@...>, alwyn43@..., william oxenham <williamd.oxenham@...>, Ann West <annwest@...>, Angela Kelly <amk@...>

Merci beaucoups , Mark !

�

I actually sent that letter to about 20 papers and mags all over the UK.� So every "hit " counts.� Maybe some Scots "fighters"� will wake up and think� "We'll reciprocate� by sending to Welsh papers!!"

�

Why don't THEY SLAG� WIND TURBINES IN THE WESTERN MAIL??

�

It never ceases to amaze me HOW FEW�� wind� farm fighting groups EVER APPEAR� with letters in the Press. It is NOT JUST�� the Welsh groups...........where the hell are the English and Scottish groups in�� the NATIONAL�� PAPERS� or leading magazines?

�

Why don't they WRITE� AND PUT THEIR CASE??

�

I buy the Daily Mail every day, but VIRTUALLY NEVER�� see a� wind letter from ANY� "group"� in the WHOLE UK??

�

What� are they playing at?�� Individuals, like myself,�Ioan, �Dr John� ,� Alwyn, Dave Ox ,Ceinwen ,�Dave Hask� , Alun� , Mark� and others have had anti-wind letters in the Daily Mail�� and /or similar important national papers and mags ....LIKE FARMERS WEEKLY�; COUNTRY SMALLHOLDER � and TGO MAGAZINE .

�

But WHEN� do you EVER� see a Scottish Group� or English Group letter..........let alone a Welsh� group ?

�

What is the matter with them all?�� You would think that Scotland is NOT THREATENED AT ALL , by reading Press letters.

�

Why don't� THEY ALL HAVE A BLITZ ON ALL PAPERS AND MAKE EDITORS SIT UP??

�

COME ON FOR GOODNESS SAKE, YOU GROUPS !!�� LETTER-WRITING IS SIMPLE� !!� PUT THE WORDS ON AN EMAIL AND SEND TO 20 PAPERS!!

�

Lyn

�

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 3:46 PM, mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...> wrote:

Excellent letter, Lyn . Congratulations !

�

Cheers

�

Mark

2009/7/18 Lyn Jenkins <clynyrynys@...>

News Sport Letters Features Contacts Recruitment The Courier Subscriptions Ads Online Ad Features

�18 July 2009 � The Courier Letters

� � � �

Get me today's Courier

News Headlines

Airport hero John Smeaton marries

Fox News

More PO strikes could follow

More news stories...

Sport Headlines

Tiger is declawed as Watson rolls on

Drysdale and Lawrie survive Open cut

Poulter��It was horrible�

More sport stories...

Search this site

Archive

�
The myth of green energy exploded
�
Sir,�To justify the installation of yet another new wind farm, which destroys some of our finest UK hill scenery, the claim is always made by the power company that the wind farm �powers X number of homes� and therefore saves the corresponding amount of CO2 being produced at a fossil fuel power station to power that number of homes. Not so!

These claims should be examined independently, because the company that owns the fossil fuel power station and the wind farm is often one and the same.

The three largest European electricity companies, EoN of Germany (which owns Powergen), EDF of France and RWE of Germany, generate the vast bulk of their electricity, using coal, gas and nuclear �but they own the lucrative subsidy-collecting wind turbines as well.

Since the wind behaves like a yo-yo, frequently dropping in the evening after a breezy afternoon, the back-up fossil fuel power stations are, in truth, never switched off. Fossil fuel is burnt even at windy times, when paltry amounts of wind turbine electricity supposedly enter the National Grid, and supposedly replace fossil-generated electricity. So steam and CO2 is produced just the same, even if the steam is not converted into Grid electricity for a few hours.

Check it out�but don�t ask the power station owners, as they also own the wind farms. Retired power station workers have told me this fact on several occasions.
L. J. Jenkins.
Clynyrynys, Gwbert, Cardigan, Wales.

--
Lyn Jenkins

--
Mark Duchamp � � � �+ 34 � 679 12 99 97
INCONVENIENT VIDEOS : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3729

The dark side of windfarms : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1228
Pictures of windfarm victims ( eagles etc. ), of turbines on fire, of collapsed turbines, of soil & water contamination etc. : � http://spaces.msn.com/mark-duchamp

ESPA�OL :
Videos inconvenientes : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3729
La cara oscura de los parques e�licos: �www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1255
Fotos de v�ctimas de parques e�licos ( �guilas etc. ), incendios de aerogeneradores, contaminaci�n de las aguas por sus lubricantes etc. : � http://spaces.msn.com/mark-duchamp

--
Lyn Jenkins

#2340

From: mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>
Date: Sun Jul 19, 2009 5:06 pm
Subject: The penny is dropping - take courage !

portavozacec

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/dominic_lawson/article6719142.ece

�

�

From The Sunday Times

July 19, 2009

When wind power blows, jobs will fall

Dominic Lawson

You may recall the Beyond the Fringe sketch in which Squadron Leader Peter Cook tells Jonathan Miller, the doleful pilot, that he must set out on a doomed mission because �we need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war�.

I was irresistibly reminded of this by Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, in his launch of plans to cut carbon emissions by switching to �renewables� for more than 30% of our energy use. This, he claimed, would �rise to the moral challenge of climate change�.

Miliband is of the generation of politicians struggling to find a great moral cause. Earlier in the Labour administration Tony Blair thought he had found it with wars of choice far from home, but that has, to put it mildly, lost its lustre. Now it is the �war against climate change�, given additional moral potency by the notion that the greatest concentration of sufferers from global rising temperatures would be among the world�s poorest.

Miliband�s citing of Martin Luther King�s �I have a dream� speech in support of his policy of subsidising the construction of many thousands of otherwise uneconomic wind turbines might appear grotesque, even comical; but not if you genuinely believe that Britain�s switching from coal to wind power for its electricity generation will save the lives of countless Africans.

I have no idea whether Miliband truly believes that it will - but if he does, he is deluded. The UK is responsible for less than 2% of global carbon emissions - a figure set to fall sharply, regardless of what we do, as a result of the startlingly rapid industrial-isation of countries such as China and India: each year the increase in Chinese CO2 emissions alone is greater than those produced by the entire British economy. On the fashionable assumption that climate change is entirely driven by CO2 emissions, the effect on global temperatures of Britain closing every fossil fuel power station would be much smaller than the statistical margin of error: in effect, zero.

The scientists at the energy and climate change department know this, but their political masters see things differently. Gordon Brown claims: �Britain is leading the world in the battle against climate change.� Such remarks are regarded as absurd in the chancelleries of Europe: if you do take as a measure of such commitment the proportion of domestic energy already supplied by renewables, the UK occupies 25th place in the European Union league table, above only Malta and Luxembourg.

Nevertheless, there is one great merit in being a follower rather than a leader in renewable energy: we can see how other European countries have fared in the experiment. Germany has long been subsidising wind power to the extent of almost �5 billion a year. Yet recent German Green party internal e-mails leaked to Der Spiegel magazine show this has not led to a reduction of a single gram of CO2 emitted on the continent of Europe. The much-vaunted emissions trading system is one reason: Germany�s unused certificates were snapped up at negligible cost by coal producers in countries such as Poland and Slovakia, which were thus able to increase their output of greenhouse gases.

There is a second reason, which would remain even if the European emissions trading system were to be scrapped. Because the wind blows intermittently, and may be at its calmest at times of freezing weather, Germany has not been able to close a single one of its conventional power stations, despite its vast investment in wind power.

Indeed, Paul Golby, who runs the British operations of E.ON, Europe�s biggest wind-power producer, has told the government that a 90% fossil fuel or nuclear back-up will be needed for any of the National Grid�s future wind-power capacity. As Martin Fuchs, his German boss, pointed out: �The wind, sadly, does not blow where large quantities of power are required . . . on September 12 last year wind power contributed 38% of our grid power requirements at all times, but on September 30 the figure went down to 0.2%.�

The powerful wind-turbine lobby in Germany constantly harps on about the number of jobs �created� by its subsidised investment, quite ignoring the number of jobs destroyed by high-cost energy, or indeed the greater number of jobs that could be created if the same amounts were invested in more profitable activities. This is why the Bremen Energy Institute argues that �wind energy macro-economically has a negative employment impact�.

Given the run-down state of our conventional generating capacity, it is easy to see that the government�s suspiciously round number of a ��100 billion� expenditure on installing 7,000 offshore steel structures, each the height of Blackpool Tower, at a projected rate of more than two every working day over the next decade, does not begin to cover the real cost. This is why the overall price of wind energy is a multiple of that incurred by nuclear power, which is equally carbon-free but does not appeal to the moral vanity of politicians.

Admittedly, the Labour government has made a belated commitment to replacing our ageing nuclear reactors � far too late to fill the yawning energy gap that Britain faces in the coming decade. As Professor Ian Fells points out in the new Civitas pamphlet Nations Choose Prosperity: �The energy agenda is focused on carbon emissions rather than security of supply and potential costs. What is rarely considered is the consequential costs when power cuts are inflicted.� These costs are not just measured in the collapse of business, but also in human lives, especially of the elderly and infirm.

Miliband claimed last week that the result of his proposals would be an increase in costs to energy users of about 17%. However, the business and enterprise department admitted last year that Britain�s existing �climate policies� - even before Miliband�s latest Big New Idea - would add an extra 55% to energy bills. It�s obvious where this will lead: to the exit from Britain (and, indeed, Europe) of much of what remains of energy-intensive manufacturing industry - the euphemistic jargon term is �carbon leakage�.

Jeremy Nicholson, the director of the Energy Intensive Users Group, which represents such industries as steel and aluminium, is exasperated beyond measure: �A future administration will have to say in public what ministers and their officials already admit in private, that the renewables target is neither practical nor affordable. Outsourcing our emissions is not a solution to a global problem. Politicians need to understand that unilateral action will come at a terrible cost in terms of UK manufacturing jobs, investment and export revenue, for no discernible environmental gain - is that really what they want?�

On the day Nicholson said this to me, last Thursday, Anglesey Aluminium, the biggest consumer of electricity in Wales, announced that it would cease production, precisely because it could see no prospect of signing up to a long-term supply of electricity at a rate at which it could make a profit. And on the day of Miliband�s announcement, a group of Labour MPs presented a �Save Our Steel� petition, saying: �We need to make sure we act before the light goes out.�

It may well be that the English steel mills will become unable to compete globally, even at current domestic energy prices; but deliberately to make them uncompetitive is industrial vandalism - and even madness when the consequence of Miliband�s Martin Luther King moment may be the lights going out not just for producers but for all of us in our homes. This is worse than a futile gesture: it is immoral.

dominic.lawson@...

�

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)

#2341

From: sylvia wallace <sylvia.wallace@...>
Date: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:05 pm
Subject: Re: The penny is dropping - take courage !

savethebirds...

The penny has dropped with the writer�of this excellent�article.�

�

Thanks to yourself� Mark and many other hard working wind warriors beavering away both�here in EU and across the pond.� This is a�David & Goliath fight that washes away the rights of individuals and communities and it must be resisted.

�

With the Copenhagen summit due in December and what seems to be a pending tsunami in the US�, everyone needs to keep all the letters going to the newspapers.��

�

This is a propaganda war: the climate change pushers and the wind industry have gained a huge amount of ground over the last two or three weeks.� There is likely to be an even bigger push in the run up to Copenhagen in December.

�

There's one letter that was�sent in the past week where the figures are pretty well bomb proof.� Once I get�permission from the writer, I'll forward it to all because it will be necessary for everyone, including�friends across the Pond.

�

The truth about wind must not be suppressed.��The marketing wallahs and politicians are putting out a positive spin which has intensified recently, persumably because of the pending� Copenhagen summit and all these EU targets.

�

Its� an incredible situation,� so pie in the sky that even�the likes of Walter Mitty�couldn't have dreamed it....but its very clever.

�

Syl

2009/7/19 mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>

�

�

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/dominic_lawson/article6719142.ece

�

�

From The Sunday Times

July 19, 2009

When wind power blows, jobs will fall

Dominic Lawson

You may recall the Beyond the Fringe sketch in which Squadron Leader Peter Cook tells Jonathan Miller, the doleful pilot, that he must set out on a doomed mission because �we need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war�.

I was irresistibly reminded of this by Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, in his launch of plans to cut carbon emissions by switching to �renewables� for more than 30% of our energy use. This, he claimed, would �rise to the moral challenge of climate change�.

Miliband is of the generation of politicians struggling to find a great moral cause. Earlier in the Labour administration Tony Blair thought he had found it with wars of choice far from home, but that has, to put it mildly, lost its lustre. Now it is the �war against climate change�, given additional moral potency by the notion that the greatest concentration of sufferers from global rising temperatures would be among the world�s poorest.

Miliband�s citing of Martin Luther King�s �I have a dream� speech in support of his policy of subsidising the construction of many thousands of otherwise uneconomic wind turbines might appear grotesque, even comical; but not if you genuinely believe that Britain�s switching from coal to wind power for its electricity generation will save the lives of countless Africans.

I have no idea whether Miliband truly believes that it will - but if he does, he is deluded. The UK is responsible for less than 2% of global carbon emissions - a figure set to fall sharply, regardless of what we do, as a result of the startlingly rapid industrial-isation of countries such as China and India: each year the increase in Chinese CO2 emissions alone is greater than those produced by the entire British economy. On the fashionable assumption that climate change is entirely driven by CO2 emissions, the effect on global temperatures of Britain closing every fossil fuel power station would be much smaller than the statistical margin of error: in effect, zero.

The scientists at the energy and climate change department know this, but their political masters see things differently. Gordon Brown claims: �Britain is leading the world in the battle against climate change.� Such remarks are regarded as absurd in the chancelleries of Europe: if you do take as a measure of such commitment the proportion of domestic energy already supplied by renewables, the UK occupies 25th place in the European Union league table, above only Malta and Luxembourg.

Nevertheless, there is one great merit in being a follower rather than a leader in renewable energy: we can see how other European countries have fared in the experiment. Germany has long been subsidising wind power to the extent of almost �5 billion a year. Yet recent German Green party internal e-mails leaked to Der Spiegel magazine show this has not led to a reduction of a single gram of CO2 emitted on the continent of Europe. The much-vaunted emissions trading system is one reason: Germany�s unused certificates were snapped up at negligible cost by coal producers in countries such as Poland and Slovakia, which were thus able to increase their output of greenhouse gases.

There is a second reason, which would remain even if the European emissions trading system were to be scrapped. Because the wind blows intermittently, and may be at its calmest at times of freezing weather, Germany has not been able to close a single one of its conventional power stations, despite its vast investment in wind power.

Indeed, Paul Golby, who runs the British operations of E.ON, Europe�s biggest wind-power producer, has told the government that a 90% fossil fuel or nuclear back-up will be needed for any of the National Grid�s future wind-power capacity. As Martin Fuchs, his German boss, pointed out: �The wind, sadly, does not blow where large quantities of power are required . . . on September 12 last year wind power contributed 38% of our grid power requirements at all times, but on September 30 the figure went down to 0.2%.�

The powerful wind-turbine lobby in Germany constantly harps on about the number of jobs �created� by its subsidised investment, quite ignoring the number of jobs destroyed by high-cost energy, or indeed the greater number of jobs that could be created if the same amounts were invested in more profitable activities. This is why the Bremen Energy Institute argues that �wind energy macro-economically has a negative employment impact�.

Given the run-down state of our conventional generating capacity, it is easy to see that the government�s suspiciously round number of a ��100 billion� expenditure on installing 7,000 offshore steel structures, each the height of Blackpool Tower, at a projected rate of more than two every working day over the next decade, does not begin to cover the real cost. This is why the overall price of wind energy is a multiple of that incurred by nuclear power, which is equally carbon-free but does not appeal to the moral vanity of politicians.

Admittedly, the Labour government has made a belated commitment to replacing our ageing nuclear reactors � far too late to fill the yawning energy gap that Britain faces in the coming decade. As Professor Ian Fells points out in the new Civitas pamphlet Nations Choose Prosperity: �The energy agenda is focused on carbon emissions rather than security of supply and potential costs. What is rarely considered is the consequential costs when power cuts are inflicted.� These costs are not just measured in the collapse of business, but also in human lives, especially of the elderly and infirm.

Miliband claimed last week that the result of his proposals would be an increase in costs to energy users of about 17%. However, the business and enterprise department admitted last year that Britain�s existing �climate policies� - even before Miliband�s latest Big New Idea - would add an extra 55% to energy bills. It�s obvious where this will lead: to the exit from Britain (and, indeed, Europe) of much of what remains of energy-intensive manufacturing industry - the euphemistic jargon term is �carbon leakage�.

Jeremy Nicholson, the director of the Energy Intensive Users Group, which represents such industries as steel and aluminium, is exasperated beyond measure: �A future administration will have to say in public what ministers and their officials already admit in private, that the renewables target is neither practical nor affordable. Outsourcing our emissions is not a solution to a global problem. Politicians need to understand that unilateral action will come at a terrible cost in terms of UK manufacturing jobs, investment and export revenue, for no discernible environmental gain - is that really what they want?�

On the day Nicholson said this to me, last Thursday, Anglesey Aluminium, the biggest consumer of electricity in Wales, announced that it would cease production, precisely because it could see no prospect of signing up to a long-term supply of electricity at a rate at which it could make a profit. And on the day of Miliband�s announcement, a group of Labour MPs presented a �Save Our Steel� petition, saying: �We need to make sure we act before the light goes out.�

It may well be that the English steel mills will become unable to compete globally, even at current domestic energy prices; but deliberately to make them uncompetitive is industrial vandalism - and even madness when the consequence of Miliband�s Martin Luther King moment may be the lights going out not just for producers but for all of us in our homes. This is worse than a futile gesture: it is immoral.

dominic.lawson@...

�

--
Mark Duchamp � � � �+ 34 � 679 12 99 97
INCONVENIENT VIDEOS : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3729

The dark side of windfarms : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1228
Pictures of windfarm victims ( eagles etc. ), of turbines on fire, of collapsed turbines, of soil & water contamination etc. : � http://spaces.msn.com/mark-duchamp

ESPA�OL :
Videos inconvenientes : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3729
La cara oscura de los parques e�licos: �www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1255
Fotos de v�ctimas de parques e�licos ( �guilas etc. ), incendios de aerogeneradores, contaminaci�n de las aguas por sus lubricantes etc. : � http://spaces.msn.com/mark-duchamp

--
Green energy is fascism in the wind:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/29/lovelock-wind-farms

Eco friendly ? Socially Responsible ? Sustainable ? �See: Mama Abut and her baby near dead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reTAxUODTC8&feature=channel

Eco fuels �- A 21st Century Crime ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxioapZ1nww

Wind turbines:
Freezers full of dead eagles and wild birds of prey.

Biofuels:
Freezers full of dead orangutans

Sustainable Living:
Remote Communities' land under attack! Their living, �breathing, �self stocking supermarket chopped down, set on fire and destroyed. �

The true cost of being "Green".
3 indigenous communities speak out about how they are being treated. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aJZB2jNHRY

Wind power - Disturbance and or /a reckless act ?

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-3148 (Scotland)

Part 3 and Schedule 6 of the Act make amendments to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, strengthening the legal protection for threatened species. �The species protection afforded to wild birds, animals and plants is extended to include 'reckless' acts. �The protection afforded to the nests of certain, threatened, bird species is extended to all times of the year, and the disturbance of certain bird species at their lek sites is prohibited. �The Act makes it an offence to intentionally or recklessly disturb a dolphin, whale (cetacean) or basking shark, and also to sell a self-locking snare, or to possess one without reasonable excuse. �Powers are provided to Scottish Ministers to prohibit the sale of certain non-native species. �The Act amends and enhances the provisions for enforcement. �The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 is also amended.

Concerned about Wildlife ?
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1378 �(England & Wales)

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)

#2342

From: mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>
Date: Wed Jul 29, 2009 7:45 am
Subject: UK politicians turning insane ?

portavozacec

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/about_us/news/2009/240709.aspx

Wind turbines may need to be built in national parks, according to Natural England, the Government agency in charge of protecting the country's most beautiful landscapes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/5894601/Natural-England-will-consider-wind-farms-in-national-parks.html

�

The government agency Natural England replied to the Telegraph article :

�

" We are making no call for wind farms to be built in National Parks"�

and :

"In principle, larger scale initiatives ( wind farms )could be considered (in National Parks) but their impacts would have to be evaluated against very stringent criteria."�

�

- Duh !

�

�

Natural England is the government�s advisor on the natural environment.

Their job includes :

Designating National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Managing most National�Nature Reserves and notifying Sites of Special Scientific Interest

�http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/about_us/whatwedo/default.aspx

�

#2343

From: mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>
Date: Sun Aug 2, 2009 9:06 am
Subject: Anthropogenic climate change is crumbling

portavozacec

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2213/Climate-Revolt-Major-Science-Group-Startled-By-Outpouring-of-Scientists-Rejecting-ManMade-Climate-Fears-Clamor-for-Editor-to-Be-Removed

" Climate Revolt: World's Largest Science Group 'Startled' By Outpouring of Scientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears! Clamor for Editor to Be Removed!�"

�

�

'It's the beginning of the end of the alarmists' stranglehold...the carefully stacked cards are starting to fall'

�

'Once the emperor is seen to have no clothes, pretending otherwise in public becomes difficult'

�

http://www.climatedepot.com/

�

#2344

From: mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>
Date: Sun Aug 9, 2009 4:04 am
Subject: The captivating video of a crucial discovery

portavozacec

AN IMPORTANT�VIDEO

�

Svensmark et al. - A FASCINATING CLIMATE CHANGE�DISCOVERY - These scientists show us

how the sun, plus cosmic rays and their effects on cloud formation, drive climate change today

as they did in the past.� The�politically-correct�scientific journals�( an oxymoron if there ever

was one ) tried to ignore their work. But they could not�hold it forever : it got published in the end.

�

Their excellent�video :

�

Part 1:�� http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHwLoQdkL2E&feature=related
Part 2:�� http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2hckcCDy_0&feature=related
Part 3:�� http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv06IyygoUs&feature=related
Part 4:��http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y87vLJrh2AY&feature=related
Part 5:�� http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pRmbBsdhNE&feature=related

�

Emperor IPCC has no clothes.

#2345

From: mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>
Date: Sat Aug 22, 2009 5:50 pm
Subject: Fwd: Press release from EPAW - European Platform Against Windfarms

portavozacec

Light�at the end of the CWF tunnel�?

�

CWF : climate and windpower frauds

�

see below:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: EPAW <epaw.platform@...>
Date: 2009/8/22
Subject: Press release from EPAW - European Platform Against Windfarms
To: EPAW <epaw.platform@...>

BRANDENBURG� CITIZENS� PRESENT� 18� ANTI-WINDFARM� CANDIDATES� TO� THE� ELECTIONS

Press release from the European Platform Against Windfarms � EPAW

Date:� 21 August 2009

�

Reacting against the decision of the State of Brandenburg to considerably increase the already vast areas covered by windfarms, a local Volksinitiative (Popular Initiative) petition was launched, which gathered 27,000 signatures against the State's decision.��

�� Note : the State of Brandenburg is the "Land" around Berlin.� Its capital is Potsdam, and Berlin itself constitutes another Land. Germany is a federal state comprising 16 "L�nder".

�

The Brandenburg constitutional laws allow the people to present a list to the elections without forming a political party, so the Popular Initiative decided to carry their protest further. They are now presenting 18 candidates to the state elections, outside the party system.

�

They are neither "left" nor "right", and seek to remain what they are: an independent "political formation" whose platform is to oppose the further degradation of the countryside by windfarms, as well as the current water policy of their government.

�

They are not supported by any political party, and they are not looking for political alliances. They just don't want more windfarms, and would like their voice to be heard. The elections will take place on September 27th.

�

Increasingly, many politicians violate their own laws. Entire countries are handed over to powerful windpower lobbies who remodel the landscape as they see fit. Wildlife reserves and historical landmarks cease to be protected so as to accommodate private financial interests. In the circumstances, it is no surprise to see people voting against the traditional parties who have betrayed them.

�

We, the European Platform Against Windfarms, representing 360 associations from 19 European countries, give our full support to the Volksinitiative. We approve of their action and wish them a resounding success at the coming elections.

�

May reason prevail. We cannot allow the misguided policies of our present leaders to disfigure natural, monumental, and cultural Europe, turning it into an industrial wasteland from Lapland to Gibraltar. They won�t even respect World Heritage sites and monuments (such as Mont-Saint-Michel, Normandy, where we are organising an international protest march on September 26th). There appears to be no limits to the subsidised greed that has been unleashed.

�

It is high time to rethink Europe's windfarm policy.

�

EPAW

www.epaw.org�

�

Contacts:

Jean-Louis Butr�, Chairman of EPAW

3 rue des Eaux - 75016 Paris - France

Telephone: +33 680 99 38 08

contact@...

�

Mark Duchamp, Co-founder of EPAW

Telephone: +34 679 12 99 97 or +34 693 643 736

save.the.eagles@...

Thomas Jacob, Chairman and Spokesman of� "Die Volksinitiative gegen die Massenbebauung Brandenburgs mit Windenergieanlagen und die verfehlte Wasserpolitik"
Telephone: +49 171 750 63 34
jacob@...

ends

#2346

From: mark duchamp <save.the.eagles@...>
Date: Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:55 am
Subject: Taxpayer March on Washington - September 12 th

portavozacec

http://www.washingtontimesmail.com/myknnlsmk_ohgcfftfjnt.html

�

�

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: The Washington Times Marketing Showcase <member@...>
Date: 2009/8/27
Subject: Important Message from Dick Armey
To: friend of The Washington Times <save.the.eagles@...>

Below, please find a message from one of our advertisers, FreedomWorks. Periodically, we receive opportunities we believe you may want to learn about. Please note that the following message does not necessarily reflect the positions of The Washington Times.


	Dear Friend of Freedom,� I greatly appreciate this opportunity to let you know about an important event that I believe you, as someone who supports conservative ideals and principles, will want to be a part of. My organization, FreedomWorks Foundation, is a national grassroots organization of over 700,000 volunteers all across the country that has been advocating a mission of lower taxes, less government, and more freedom for 25 years.� Together with other leaders in the conservative free-market movement including the National Taxpayers Union, the Club for Growth, the Tea Party Patriots, and others, we have organized the 9-12 Taxpayer March on Washington. �True to its name, the event will take place in less than three weeks on September 12 and we expect thousands upon thousands to join us as we march down Pennsylvania Avenue to gather on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol and deliver our message of freedom. Ironically, our march will take the same route President Obama did during his inauguration, but as you might imagine our purpose is very different. We want Barrack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the other liberal elites in Congress to know that we are marching to end the era of big government.� We are taking a stand against an agenda that violates the fundamental freedoms and liberties envisioned by our Founding Fathers.� We are putting the Left on notice that we will fight against these threats, including the most immediate: a government takeover of America�s health care system and a brand new energy tax that would hit American consumers and businesses at a time when they can least afford it. I hope you will join us for this historic event.� But whether or not you can make it to DC for the march, I need your support to fend off the attacks that forces on the Left, including MoveOn.org, the AFL-CIO, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and even the White House itself, have mounted to undermine our efforts. Just a few weeks ago, MoveOn.org called out FreedomWorks by name in a communication to its members and urged them to contribute to a multi-million dollar war chest they were building to take us on.� We believe the group later organized a patch-through phone call campaign that attempted to shut down our phone system and filled the voice mail boxes of staff with offensive and threatening messages.� The DNC for weeks has been engrossed in a media smear campaign targeting both FreedomWorks and me personally, perpetrating misinformation and outright lies in an attempt to tear down our credibility. And then, the White House attacked FreedomWorks directly.� At a press gaggle aboard Air Force One just last week, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs accused us of deliberately organizing activists to disrupt town hall meetings.� This, of course, is untrue.� � But moreover, it is an insult to both FreedomWorks and the American people that have the audacity to voice concern over the Left�s proposed big government agenda items like government-run health care. This is indicative of a pattern of attack that is directly targeting our 9-12 event and seeking to silence its limited government message. That is why I am writing today to urge you to be a part of the 9-12 March on Washington, whether you can attend or not, and commit to help make it a success.� Please click here to support the march with your generous contribution.� It will help us secure necessities like barricades, audio and video equipment, and even portable restrooms, as well as to further promote the event and get more people to attend. Our goal is to literally flood Washington, D.C. with people to deliver a powerful message to �Obama and Company� that the era of big government is over.� With your help, I know we will succeed. � P.S.� With the 9-12 March on Washington less than 3 weeks away, liberals are doing everything they can to derail our event and water-down its impact.� Please commit to take part in this historic event and help ensure its success. CLICK HERE! � � � � This e-mail is a FreedomWorks action alert. You are receiving this message because you have opted in to receive email updates. � 2008 FreedomWorks. All Rights Reserved. �	�
�

You received this message because save.the.eagles@... signed up for communications from The Washington Times Showcase or a friend forwarded it to you.

To unsubscribe from this newsletter: Click Here
or send a postal request to: Washington Times, 3600 New York Ave. NE Washington, D.C. 20002

Privacy Policy | Copyright � 2009 The Washington Times. All Rights Reserved.