Friday, March 30, 2012

Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global warming? The whole of the Earth heated up in medieval times without human CO2 emissions, says new study

MailOnline by Ted Thornhill
View Original Article HERE










  • Evidence was found in a rare mineral that records global temperatures
  • Warming was far-reaching and NOT limited to Europe
  • Throws doubt on orthodoxies around 'global warming'

  • Current theories of the causes and impact of global warming have been thrown into question by a new study which shows that during medieval times areas as far apart as Europe and Antarctica both warmed up.

    It then cooled down naturally and there was even a 'mini ice age'.

    A team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University in New York state, has found that the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasn’t just confined to Europe.

    In fact, it extended all the way down to Antarctica MORE.................




    Thursday, March 29, 2012

    Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe


    Scientific American by Gary Stix
    View Original Article HERE

    Almost six years ago, I was the editor of a single-topic issue on energy for Scientific American that included an article by Princeton University’s Robert Socolow that set out a well-reasoned plan for how to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations below a planet-livable threshold of 560 ppm. The issue came replete with technical solutions that ranged from a hydrogen economy to space-based solar. MORE........

    Tuesday, March 27, 2012

    FANTASTIC VICTORY FOR LANDOWNERS & LIBERTY!

    WND Exclusive by Bob Unruh
    View Original Article HERE

    This is the beginning of pushing back an abusive bureaucracy.

    The Environmental Protection Agency cannot issue a “drive-by” decision that a parcel of land is a protected wetlands and prohibit the owner from using it, and then refuse to hear any challenges to such decisions.

    So says the U.S. Supreme Court.


    MORE...........

    Monday, March 26, 2012

    Wind farms: even worse than we thought…

    The Telegraph by James Delingpole

    View Original Article HERE

    The Global Warming Policy Foundation has produced yet another devastating report: this time on the economics of wind farms. Turns out they're even worse than we thought.

    Not only do the Bat Chomping Eco-Crucifixes (TM) ruin views, kill birds, cause bats to implode, destroy the British film industry, frighten horses, enrich rent-seeking toffs like David Cameron's father-in-law Sir Reginald Sheffield Bt, drive up electricity bills, kill jobs, create fuel poverty, cause old people to die of hypothermia, wipe out property values, drive people mad with strobing and noise pollution and enable smug liberal idiots to spout rubbish like "Oh, I don't mind them. Actually I think they're rather beautiful", but also by 2020 they're set to drive up consumer bills in the UK alone by £120 billion.

    This is about ten times more than it would cost if we stuck to gas. (Which we have in abundance, just waiting to be exploited, in places like the Bowland Shale).

    In the latest Spectator, Matt Ridley delivers the coup-de-grace. Here's a taste:

    To the nearest whole number, the percentage of the world's energy that comes from wind turbines today is: zero. Despite the regressive subsidy (pushing pensioners into fuel poverty while improving the wine cellars of grand estates), despite tearing rural communities apart, killing jobs, despoiling views, erecting pylons, felling forests, killing bats and eagles, causing industrial accidents, clogging motorways, polluting lakes in Inner Mongolia with the toxic and radioactive tailings from refining neodymium, a ton of which is in the average turbine — despite all this, the total energy generated each day by wind has yet to reach half a per cent worldwide.

    (Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...

    Friday, March 23, 2012

    Firm sells solar panels - to itself, taxpayers pay


    The Examiner Washington by Timothy P. Carney

    A heavily subsidized solar company received a U.S. taxpayer loan guarantee to sell solar panels to itself.

    First Solar is the company. The subsidy came from the Export-Import Bank, which President Obama and Harry Reid are currently fighting to extend and expand. The underlying issue is how Obama's insistence on green-energy subsidies and export subsidies manifests itself as rank corporate welfare.

    Here's the road of subsidies these solar panels followed from Perrysburg, Ohio, to St. Clair, Ontario. MORE.............

    Tuesday, March 20, 2012

    UPDATE 1-Chevron executives barred from leaving Brazil over spill

    Reuters by Guillermo Parra-Bernal and Jeb Blount


    Here's another reason gasoline prices have gotten so high. Regulation of the oil production business has become mostly political. In this case, a minor oil spill that might have come from natural causes could lead to criminal prosecutions in Brazil. Could it be that countries are extorting money from oil companies through huge fines?

    * Chevron halts output after navy spots oil stains

    * Regulator ANP allows Chevron to stop production

    * Spill in November led to $11.1 billion civil suit (Recasts to add court decision, production halt)


    SAO PAULO/RIO DE JANEIRO, March 17 (Reuters) - A Brazilian court on Saturday barred 17 executives from Chevron and Transocean from leaving Brazil, pending criminal charges related to a high-profile oil spill last November.

    A federal judge in Rio de Janeiro state granted a request from prosecutors who are pressing for charges against both firms, a spokesman for prosecutor Eduardo Oliveira said in a phone interview. George Buck, who heads Chevron's Brazil unit, and the other 16 executives must turn in their passports to the police within 24 hours, the spokesman said.

    Charges are expected to be filed on Tuesday or Wednesday, according to the prosecutors' press office.

    MORE............

    Thursday, March 15, 2012

    Time to Review Delaware Renewable Energy Program

    Caesar Rodney Institute


    DIRECTOR - David T. Stevenson, Director






    Delaware electricity consumers will pay an extra $38 million this year because of state mandates which force the use of expensive solar, fuel cell, and wind power. This cost could rise to $300 million by 2025 adding $275 a year to residential electric bills. A bill in the Delaware House of Representatives, HB247, sponsored by Representative Greg Lavelle would freeze the use of these alternative energy sources and allow time for a policy review. Evidence is mounting theses alternative sources do not provide substantial environmental benefits and the extra cost falls mainly on the poor and middle class.



    Germany’s Economic Minister, Phillipp Roesler, has said the country’s generous subsidies solar are a threat to the economy. Germany has spent $130 billion, $10 billion last year alone, on subsidies but solar energy only supplies 0.3% of the country’s energy needs. Short days and cloudy weather have resulted in almost no solar power production in the last month. It is estimated this huge effort will delay the impact of global warming by only a single day by the end of the century using the United Nations climate studies.



    In view of developments around the world a review of energy policy seems timely:



    · Germany, with nearly 40% of the world’s solar installations, is mulling legislation that would rapidly end government subsidies


    · Italy will stop accepting new solar installations into its subsidy program later this year


    · Spain has suspended renewable energy subsidies


    · The Netherlands ended renewable energy subsidies last year


    · The UK is considering major reductions in subsidies


    · Ohio is considering repealing its Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)


    · Maine’s Governor is recommending major reductions in its RPS



    A recent CRI article, “How to Rebuild Delaware’s Electric Generation Capacity”, pointed out, for the same investment, building new natural gas generating plants would reduce air pollution ten times more than solar power. The electricity produced by the natural gas generating facilities would cost about a quarter as much as solar and would add 3500 more jobs to the Delaware economy.



    Delaware, which requires 3.5 % of electricity be supplied by solar by 2025, has the highest percentage requirement for solar energy for states east of the Mississippi. Only twelve of those twenty-eight jurisdictions have solar carve outs in their RPS programs. Eight of those twelve require 1% or less. Delaware is out of step. Onshore wind power only costs about a third as much as solar power. Delaware should end its forced use of wind, fuel cell, and solar power. At the very least, the solar carve out should be repealed.

    Wednesday, March 14, 2012

    Government-subsidized green light bulb carries costly price tag

    The Washington Post with Bloomberg by Peter Whorisky

    View Original Article HERE


    The U.S. government last year announced a $10 million award, dubbed the “L Prize,” for any manufacturer that could create a “green” but affordable light bulb.

    Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the prize would spur industry to offer the costly bulbs, known as LEDs, at prices “affordable for American families.” There was also a “Buy America” component. Portions of the bulb would have to be made in the United States.

    MORE.............

    Monday, March 12, 2012

    Bad Karma: Our Fisker Karma plug-in hybrid breaks down

    Anybody for a Fisker?

    ConsumerReports.org

    View Article and Video HERE


    Our Fisker Karma cost us $107,850. It is super sleek, high-tech—and now it’s broken.

    We have owned our car for just a few days; it has less than 200 miles on its odometer. While doing speedometer calibration runs on our test track (a procedure we do for every test car before putting it in service by driving the car at a constant 65 mph between two measured points), the dashboard flashed a message and sounded a “bing“ showing a major fault. Our technician got the car off the track and put it into Park to go through the owner’s manual to interpret the warning. At that point, the transmission went into Neutral and wouldn’t engage any gear through its electronic shifter except Park and Neutral.

    We let the car sit for about an hour and restarted it. We could now engage Drive and the same error message disappeared. After moving it only a few feet the error message reappeared and when we tried to engage Reverse the transmission went straight to Park and again no motion gear could be engaged. After calling the dealer, which is about 100 miles away, they promptly sent a flatbed tow truck to haul away the disabled Fisker.

    We buy about 80 cars a year and this is the first time in memory that we have had a car that is undriveable before it has finished our check-in process.

    Building an all-new car company from the ground up is a monumental challenge, especially for a car with innovative drivetrain technology like the Karma. Designing, engineering, certification, manufacturing, and distributing an all-new car pose giant hurtles for a start-up company.

    We encountered other problems with a Karma press car that visited the track for a few hours, and we have heard of problems at press events. In addition, we see that some owners are experiencing a variety of issues, as evidenced by forums such as FiskerBuzz.com.

    When we get the car back, we’ll film a First Drive video with our more traditional initial impressions. But so far, Fisker ownership is proving to be a bumpy ride.

    Friday, March 9, 2012

    Green Firms Get Fed Cash, Give Execs Bonuses, FailPresident Obama's Department of Energy helped finance several green energy companies that later fell


    ABC News - View Original Article and Video HERE

    President Obama's Department of Energy helped finance several green energy companies that later fell into bankruptcy -- but not before the firms doled out six-figure bonuses and payouts to top executives, a Center for Public Integrity and ABC News investigation found.

    Take, for instance, Beacon Power Corp., the second recipient of an Energy Department loan guarantee in 2009. In March 2010, the Massachusetts energy storage company paid cash bonuses of $259,285 to three executives in part due to progress made on the $43 million energy loan, Securities and Exchange Commission records show. Last October, Beacon Power filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

    EnerDel, maker of lithium-ion battery systems, landed a $118.5 million energy grant in August 2009. About one-and-a-half years later, Vice President Joe Biden toured a company plant in Indiana and heralded its taxpayer-supported expansion as one of the "100 Recovery Act Projects That Are Changing America."

    Two months after Biden's visit, EnerDel corporate parent Ener1 paid $725,000 in bonuses to three executives -- including $450,000 to then-CEO Charles Gassenheimer, who led Biden on the tour. This January, Ener1 filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.


    At least two other firms that benefited from Energy Department funding -- one a $500,000 grant, the other a $535 million loan guarantee -- handed out hefty payouts to executives and later went bankrupt.


    The Department of Energy, asked about the payments examined by the Center and ABC, said it is troubled by the practice and intends to convey that message to loan recipients.

    "We don't begrudge companies or their executives for their success, but it is irresponsible for executives to be awarded bonus compensation when their workers are losing their jobs," said department spokeswoman Jen Stutsman. "We take our role as stewards of taxpayer dollars very seriously, and as such, we will make clear to loan recipients our view that funds should not be directed toward executive bonuses when the rest of the company is facing financial difficulty."

    The bonuses and bankruptcies come against a growing wave of trouble for companies financed with Energy Department dollars. Of the first 12 loan guarantees the department announced, for instance, two firms filed for bankruptcy, a third has faced layoffs and a fourth deal never closed.

    The nonprofit Citizens Against Government Waste counts nearly 20 energy companies that have gotten federal loan guarantees or grants that have run into financial trouble ranging from layoffs to losses to bankruptcies. An outside consultant hired by the White House said the Energy Department's loan pool includes $2.7 billion in potentially risky loans and suggests the agency hire a "chief risk officer" to help minimize problems.

    To watchdogs, the pattern of firms awarding bonuses only to file for bankruptcy raises questions about how well the Energy Department chose its winners, and how thoroughly it kept an eye on them once selected.

    "Giving a bonus to the executives under these circumstances is rewarding failure with our money with no chance of getting it back," said Leslie Paige, spokeswoman for the nonpartisan Citizens Against Government Waste.

    "Taxpayers need some representation here. They didn't really get it."

    The setbacks have sharpened the focus on the president's environmental mission, already under scrutiny following the collapse of Solyndra Inc., the first recipient of an Obama green energy loan.

    Solyndra, bankruptcy records show, was among the companies doling out thousands in executive payments -- in its case, just months prior to its late August collapse and early September bankruptcy. As a criminal investigation and House inquiry continue into the company's implosion, the government must navigate bankruptcy proceedings in hopes of recovering a piece of its $535 million investment.

    In interviews, executives with companies backed by public dollars defended the payments as proper. Some said bonuses were granted for work done in a previous year, before financial storm clouds had fully developed, and that the executive cash infusions were sometimes linked to broad corporate milestones.

    One company executive said the Energy Department explicitly allows for federal funds to be used to pay out executive bonuses.

    DOE does not set salaries and benefits of companies it backs, "but we do closely scrutinize all of the expenses submitted by the companies before they are reimbursed to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being used appropriately," said spokeswoman Stutsman. "Funds are paid out as the work is actually completed."

    Secretary Steven Chu declined an interview request. The department has long defended the green energy movement as a way for government to help spur development of cutting-edge products that aid the environment and economy. Sometimes, they say, investments in potential game-changing technologies simply don't work. The potential default rate, they say, is within the parameters set by Congress.


    Yet some members of Congress -- already concerned about lucrative paydays at bankrupt Solyndra -- say they're particularly troubled that failed companies backed by Energy Department funds would pay bonuses at all.

    "Any company that's going into bankruptcy or any executive that ran a company into bankruptcy shouldn't be getting bonuses in the first place," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, former chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. "In the case where there might be federal grants or federal loans, I would be very concerned."

    Grassley added: "The purpose of our grants for energy or almost any other grant of government is for the purpose of innovation. It's not for the purpose of feathering the nest of a private company executive."

    Bruce Kogut, director of the Sanford C. Bernstein Center for Leadership and Ethics at the Columbia Business School, said it is not uncommon for corporate bonuses to be awarded when executives meet key achievement milestones.

    "The problematic issue," Professor Kogut said, is giving out bonuses "near the time of bankruptcy."

    Solyndra executives, bankruptcy records show, pocketed thousands in payments just months before the company dismissed 1,100 workers. At least 17 company executives received two sets of payments -- ranging from $37,000 to $60,000 per payment -- on the same days in April and July 2011. The insider payments, reported last year in the San Jose Mercury News, came as the company catapulted toward bankruptcy in early September. A Solyndra spokesman did not reply to interview requests.

    Solyndra's crash last August put a sharp focus on the selection process the Energy Department follows in awarding taxpayer dollars. The administration backed the upstart firm despite concerns even from some government officials worried about Solyndra's financial viability, email records show. And energy officials committed to the financing before all due diligence was in hand.

    Not as well-known are three other firms backed by Energy Department dollars -- ranging from $500,000 to $118.5 million -- that also suffered financial downturns. As with Solyndra, each corporate entity rewarded executives prior to its bankruptcy filing.

    One example: Ener1, whose subsidiary EnerDel won the $118.5 million Energy Department grant in 2009 to help expand its manufacturing plant. The company also received supportive write-ups on the DOE website.

    Vice President Biden's January 2011 visit to the company's Greenfield, Indiana, plant was part of the government's "White House to Main Street Tour."

    "This Administration is forging a new path forward by making sure America doesn't just lead in the 21st Century, but dominates in the 21st Century," Biden said after a tour with Ener1 CEO Gassenheimer. "We're not just creating new jobs -- but sparking whole new industries that will ensure our competitiveness for decades to come -- industries like electric vehicle manufacturing."

    A White House report listed the EnerDel project as No. 67 among the "100 Recovery Projects that are Changing America."

    In March 2011, Gassenheimer was awarded a $450,000 bonus, SEC records show. Two other Ener1 executives pocketed bonuses of $225,000 and $50,000 for a total payout of $725,000.

    In January 2012, one year after Biden's visit, Ener1 filed for bankruptcy, citing $73.9 million in assets and $90.5 million in debts.


    Energy officials noted that while the bonuses were paid to executives from Ener1, the government grant went to a subsidiary called EnerDel, which was not part of the bankruptcy case. But the two are closely related -- bankruptcy records show EnerDel now provides all of the employees for the parent company. And the distinction is new for the Energy Department -- a press release touting Biden's visit referred to the parent company Ener1 as the recipient of administration support, not EnerDel.

    Gassenheimer, reached for an interview, said he could not comment. He is no longer with Ener1.

    A company spokesman said the bonuses were paid through Ener1, the corporate holding company, not EnerDel. DOE said the subsidiary's project is on schedule, and an Ener1 spokesman said the battery company aims to get back on its feet through reorganization.

    Beacon Power's bonuses were specifically linked to executives' progress in landing the company's $43 million Energy Department loan guarantee in 2009.

    Securing the loan was among the measures used to establish how much executives would pocket in bonuses, company SEC filings show. "The DOE loan application was approved by the credit review board, making us the first public company and the second of 16 applicants to receive the commitment," the document notes.

    President and Chief Executive Officer F. William Capp received a $133,256 cash bonus in March 2010. Two other company officials pocketed combined bonuses that month of $126,029.

    In an interview, Capp said the company's pay structure was reasonable and that executives took pay cuts in a bid to help Beacon Power survive.

    "The record is clear on that. The executives have not enriched themselves," Capp said. "We all agreed to take a 20 percent reduction in pay just to make the funds last longer in order to keep the team together. There's hardly been self-enrichment."

    Last week regulators approved Beacon Power's sale to an equity firm that should help it repay $25 million of the $39 million Beacon had drawn down from the loan. The company, under new ownership, plans to continue operating the 20-megawatt flywheel energy storage plant in Stephentown, New York, a project the department said would "ensure the reliable delivery of renewable energy to the electricity grid." It hopes to build a second plant in Pennsylvania.

    Capp blamed the bankruptcy on a variety of factors, including government fears about restructuring loans after Solyndra filed for bankruptcy. His firm, he said, got swept up in "Hurricane Solyndra."

    Other energy companies struggled in the storm.

    Among them: SpectraWatt, a New York state manufacturer of silicon solar cells. In 2009, SpectraWatt secured a $500,000 grant from the DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory Photovoltaic Technology Pre-Incubator program. In March 2010, U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis and a local congressman toured the company's Hudson Valley Research Park in Hopewell Junction, N.Y., highlighting the wave of coming green jobs.

    "President Obama and I understand and believe that the first thing we have to do to turn the economy around is provide American families with good jobs," Secy. Solis said, according to a SpectraWatt press release. "That is why we are committed to investing in greening our economy."


    Yet, not long after, the company's momentum suddenly halted.

    Last August, SpectraWatt filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

    "It all happened so quickly," Richard J. Haug, SpectraWatt's President and COO, said in an interview. The company's innovative technology, he said, butted up against changing market and pricing conditions, competition from the Chinese -- and the fact that some early investors did not follow through.


    "They couldn't locate any new money," he said. "It was very disappointing."

    While the DOE's early grant supported research and development, Haug said, a later funding request was denied. Last March, he said, the company laid off its workforce and effectively shut down. "It became increasingly difficult for us to make any more money. By the end of 2010 we basically dropped down to a cash level … that by March we would be out of business," Haug said.

    In March, the big payouts began. Five company executives, including Haug, received six-figure payments in late March or early April 2011, bankruptcy records show. The five "insider payments" totaled more than $745,000.

    Haug said the payouts were not bonuses, but accrued vacation and pay for executives that had been spelled out in severance agreements. "There were no golden parachutes," he said. "This was a very straightforward very honest group of people. I'd go to work with them again anytime."

    Energy officials noted that their early investment in SpectraWatt was relatively small compared to other project financing. Late last year, the company held auctions to sell off its plant and property.

    In recent weeks, several other companies backed by DOE dollars have encountered deep financial woes.

    At least six Energy Department loan and grant recipients -- from electric car maker Fisker Automotive to electric-car battery maker A123 Systems to Colorado-based Abound Solar -- have laid off workers or suffered financial woes. Those setbacks come on top of the companies that have already filed for bankruptcy.

    Administration officials, from Obama on down, say they continue to support the green energy mission. "There were going to be some companies that did not work out," Obama told reporters in October, after Solyndra's meltdown. "All I can say is the Department of Energy made these decisions based on their best judgments."

    Wednesday, March 7, 2012

    Energy Secretary Chu Admits Administration OK with High Gas Prices

    YAHOO! News by Mark Whittington
    View Original Article HERE

    COMMENTARY President Barack Obama's Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu uttered the kind of Washington gaffe that consists of telling the truth when inconvenient. According to Politico, Chu admitted to a House committee that the administration is not interested in lowering gas prices.
    Chu, along with the Obama administration, regards the spike in gas prices as a feature rather than a bug. High gas prices provide an incentive for alternate energy technology, a priority for the White House, and a decrease in reliance on oil for energy.
    The Heritage Foundation points out that hammering the American consumer with high gas prices to make electric and hybrid cars more appealing is consistent with Obama administration policy and Chu's philosophy. That explains the refusal to allow the building of the Keystone XL pipeline and to allow drilling in wide areas of the U.S. and offshore areas.
    The consequences of the policy are not likely to be of benefit to the Obama administration. The Republican National Committee has already issued a video highlighting the spike in gas prices and the failure of the administration to address the issue.
    Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has issued a half-hour video touting an energy plan he claims would result in $2.50 a gallon gasoline. The plan is based on unfettered drilling for oil and gas instead of a reliance on green energy. Gingrich has also savaged Obama's touting of algae based biofuel as "weird."
    Chu has likely highlighted an issue Republicans are going to pick up and run with. Americans are not going to be appreciative of schemes to hit them in the wallet so the American economy can shift to green energy. Besides American traditional adherence to the free market, the idea of being fleeced by a deliberate government policy is likely to be greeted with anger.
    Add into the mix green energy fiascos like Solyndra, and Chu might well have kindled a full blown scandal.
    How the Obama administration reacts to the expected firestorm is open to question. Green energy is as part of its fundamental religion as is universal health care, another unpopular Obama policy. If it tries to bull ahead, the electorate will likely punish Obama and the Democrats. If it tries to backtrack, Obama looks weak and facilitating, and likely will still not appease gas strapped Americans experiencing price shock at the gas pump.

    Tuesday, March 6, 2012

    Green company gets $390M subsidies, lays off 125

    The Examiner, WASHINGTON by Joel Hehrke

    View Original Article HERE

    A123 Systems, an electric car battery company once touted as a stimulus "success story" by former Gov. Jennifer Granhom, D-Mich., has laid off 125 employees since receiving $390 million in government subsidies -- but is still handing out big pay raises to company executives.

    "[T]he company has laid off 125 employees and had a net loss of $172 million through the first three quarters of 2011," the Mackinac Center for Public Policy reports, observing that the company's primary customer, Fisker Automotive, is also struggling financially. "Yet, this month A123’s Compensation Committee approved a $30,000 raise for [Chief Financial Officer David] Prystash just days after Fisker Automotive announced the U.S. Energy Department had cut off what was left of its $528.7 million loan it had previously received."

    This month has seen significant pay boosts for other A123 executives, as well:

    Robert Johnson, vice president of the energy solutions group, got a 20.7 percent pay increase going from $331,250 to $400,000, while Jason Forcier, vice president of the automotive solutions group, saw his pay increase from $331,250 to $350,000. Prystash’s raise was 8.5 percent, going from $350,000 to $380,000.

    "It looks like they are trying to pad their top people’s wallets in case something really bad happens," Paul Chesser, associate fellow for the National Legal & Policy Center, suggested.

    The Department of Energy gave the battery company $249.1 million in grant money, while the Michigan government provided A123 with another $141 million in tax credits and subsidies, according to the Mackinac Center.

    Monday, March 5, 2012

    Documents: PETA kills more than 95 percent of pets in its care

    THE DAILY CALLER by Alexandra Myers


    Documents published online this month show that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, an organization known for its uncompromising animal-rights positions, killed more than 95 percent of the pets in its care in 2011.
    The documents, obtained from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, were published online by the Center for Consumer Freedom, a non-profit organization that runs online campaigns targeting groups that antagonize food producers.
    Fifteen years’ worth of similar records show that since 1998 PETA has killed more than 27,000 animals at its headquarters in Norfolk, VA.
    In a February 16 statement, the Center said PETA killed 1,911 cats and dogs last year, finding homes for only 24 pets.
    “PETA hasn’t slowed down its slaughterhouse operation,” said Rick Berman, CCF’s executive director. “It appears PETA is more concerned with funding its media and advertising antics than finding suitable homes for these dogs and cats.”
    In a statement, Berman added that PETA has a $37 million dollar annual budget.
    His organization runs PETAkillsAnimals.com, which reports that in 2010 a resident of Virginia called PETA and asked if there was an animal shelter at the group’s headquarters. PETA responded that there was not



    The Virginian, the website reports, then called his state’s agriculture department. Dr. Daniel Kovich investigated, and conducted an inspection of PETA’s headquarters.
    “The facility does not contain sufficient animal enclosures to routinely house the number of animals annually reported as taken into custody,” Kovich concluded in his report.
    Kovich also determined that PETA employees kill 84 percent of the animals in their custody within 24 hours of receiving them.
    “[PETA’s] primary purpose,” Kovich wrote, “is not to find permanent adoptive homes for animals.”
    PETA media liaison Jane Dollinger told The Daily Caller in an email that “most of the animals we take in are society’s rejects; aggressive, on death’s door, or somehow unadoptable.”
    Dollinger did not dispute her organization’s sky-high euthanasia rate, but insisted PETA only kills dogs and cats because of “injury, illness, age, aggression, or because no good homes exist for them.”
    PETA’s own history, however, shows that this has not always been the case.
    In 2005, two PETA employees described as “adorable” and “perfect” some of the dogs and cats they killed in the back of a PETA-owned van. The two were arrested after police witnessed them tossing the animals’ dead bodies into a North Carolina dumpster.
    PETA had no comment when the Daily Caller asked what sort of effort it routinely makes to find adoptive homes for animals in its care.

    Sunday, March 4, 2012

    Heartland Institute Rebuts Outlandish New York Times Story on Stolen and Fake Documents Heartland Institute Rebuts Outlandish New York Times Story on

    The Heartland Institute by Joe Bast

    View Original Article HERE

    One of the few places to get honest reporting on climate change has been attacked.

    Justin Gillis and Leslie Kaufman authored a piece in the New York Times today titled “Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science.” I say “authored” and not “reported,” because this story is filled with false assertions, innuendo, and outright lies. I will break it down, from the top.

    Leaked documents suggest that an organization known for attacking climate science

    Actually, we’ve produced more sound research on climate change than all but a very small number of very elite government and university-based organizations. Climate Change Reconsidered alone is 2 volumes totaling more than 1,200 pages of pure science and economic analysis.

    is planning a new push to undermine the teaching of global warming in public schools,

    Actually, we’re trying to make the “teaching of global warming” much more rigorous by replacing propaganda and agenda-driven rhetoric with real science.

    the latest indication that climate change is becoming a part of the nation’s culture wars.

    “Culture wars”? we aren’t part of the religious right!! I suspect the reporter has a key programmed to spit out this line whenever writing about a “conservative” group!

    The documents, from a nonprofit organization in Chicago called the Heartland Institute, outline plans to promote a curriculum that would cast doubt on the scientific finding that fossil fuel emissions endanger the long-term welfare of the planet. “Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective,” one document said.

    Actually, we’re sharing the real opinions of real scientists on the causes, consequences, and likely future trajectory of climate change, and of economists and other policy experts on what should be done about it, if anything. And of course principals and teachers are biased… most are liberal Democrats, and large majorities of liberal Democrats believe in man-made global warming.

    While the documents offer a rare glimpse of the internal thinking motivating the campaign against climate science, defenders of science education were preparing for battle even before the leak. Efforts to undermine climate-science instruction are beginning to spread across the country, they said, and they fear a long fight similar to that over the teaching of evolution in public schools.

    “A rare glimpse”? We’ve been completely open about our efforts to oppose global warming alarmism, writing repeatedly about it in our newsletter the Heartlander, in our monthly public policy newspaper Environment & Climate News, in the prefaces of the two volumes of Climate Change Reconsidered, and many other places. The lamestream media have censored us, completely refused to report on our activities, and now they report a “rare glimpse” of what we’re up to? Please! We’ve hosted 6 international conferences attended by over 3,000 people. I’ve given opening remarks at every one. What we are doing is no secret, in fact has been highly effective.

    In a statement, the Heartland Institute acknowledged that some of its internal documents had been stolen. But it said its president had not had time to read the versions being circulated on the Internet on Tuesday and Wednesday and was therefore not in a position to say whether they had been altered. Heartland did declare one two-page document to be a forgery, although its tone and content closely matched that of other documents that the group did not dispute.

    This is a false statement that we will demand be retracted. There is no “match.” The forged memo attributes motives and describes projects that are purely mythical and totally false.

    In an apparent confirmation that much of the material, more than 100 pages, was authentic, the group apologized to donors whose names became public as a result of the leak.

    We are apologizing because some donors were named, not because the document is authentic. We do not yet know if this document, and others that were stolen, have been modified before they were posted.

    The documents included many details of the group’s operations, including salaries, recent personnel actions and fund-raising plans and setbacks. They were sent by e-mail to leading climate activists this week by someone using the name “Heartland insider” and were quickly reposted to many climate-related Web sites.

    The stolen and forged documents were immediately posted, apparently by DeSmogBlog within HOURS of the forged document being written, with no effort made to contact us to assess their authenticity. Some were plainly marked “confidential,” and they were obviously stolen documents. It was an extreme lapse of journalistic ethics, and in some cases probably a criminal act, for many bloggers and “journalists” to do this. DeSmogBlog continues to keep the documents on its Web site.

    Heartland said the documents were not from an insider but were obtained by a caller pretending to be a board member of the group who was switching to a new e-mail address. “We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes,” the organization said. Although best-known nationally for its attacks on climate science, Heartland styles itself as a libertarian organization with interests in a wide range of public-policy issues. The documents say that it expects to raise $7.7 million this year.

    “Styles itself”? We in fact address a wide range of topics, and always have. Our work on climate change is less than a quarter of our annual budget. We are major players on school reform, health care reform, and telecom issues. Geeze!

    The documents raise questions about whether the group has undertaken partisan political activities, a potential violation of federal tax law governing nonprofit groups. For instance, the documents outline “Operation Angry Badger,” a plan to spend $612,000 to influence the outcome of recall elections and related fights this year in Wisconsin over the role of public-sector unions.

    We are doing educational programs on Wisconsin’s collective bargaining reform, which is obviously within our 501(c)3 designation.

    Tax lawyers said Wednesday that tax-exempt groups were allowed to undertake some types of lobbying and political education, but that because they are subsidized by taxpayers, they are prohibited from direct involvement in political campaigns.

    Absolutely nothing in the memo suggested or implied “direct involvement in political campaigns.” This is a red herring, a slur masquerading as an “observation.”

    The documents also show that the group has received money from some of the nation’s largest corporations, including several that have long favored action to combat climate change.

    The documents typically say that those donations were earmarked for projects unrelated to climate change, like publishing right-leaning newsletters on drug and technology policy. Nonetheless, several of the companies hastened on Wednesday to disassociate themselves from the organization’s climate stance.

    “We absolutely do not endorse or support their views on the environment or climate change,” said Sarah Alspach, a spokeswoman for GlaxoSmithKline, a multinational drug company shown in the documents as contributing $50,000 in the past two years to support a medical newsletter.

    A spokesman for Microsoft, another listed donor, said that the company believes that “climate change is a serious issue that demands immediate worldwide action.” The company is shown in the documents as having contributed $59,908 last year to a Heartland technology newsletter. But the Microsoft spokesman, Mark Murray, said the gift was not a cash contribution but rather the value of free software, which Microsoft gives to thousands of nonprofit groups.

    Gosh, maybe Heartland really does devote three-quarters of its efforts to issues other than global warming, which is why three-quarters of its donors have no interest in global warming. But no, that possibility was rejected earlier.

    Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the Heartland documents was what they did not contain: evidence of contributions from the major publicly traded oil companies, long suspected by environmentalists of secretly financing efforts to undermine climate science.

    The one and only completely truthful line in this article.

    But oil interests were nonetheless represented. The documents say that the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation contributed $25,000 last year and was expected to contribute $200,000 this year. Mr. Koch is one of two brothers who have been prominent supporters of libertarian causes as well as other charitable endeavors. They control Koch Industries, one of the country’s largest private companies and a major oil refiner.

    Why not report, as others have, that the $25,000 gift was earmarked for our work on health care, not climate change? Or that the increase is similarly expected to be earmarked for health care reform?

    The documents suggest that Heartland has spent several million dollars in the past five years in its efforts to undermine climate science, much of that coming from a person referred to repeatedly in the documents as “the Anonymous Donor.” A guessing game erupted Wednesday about who that might be.

    Our mission is not to “undermine climate science,” and even a superficial examination of our corpus of work should persuade anyone with half a brain that we are sincere. Our mission is to report climate science (and economics) more objectively than the environmentalists and left-wing nuts who are using the issue to support their legislative agendas.

    The documents say that over four years ending in 2013, the group expects to have spent some $1.6 million on financing the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, an entity that publishes periodic reports attacking climate science and holds lavish annual conferences. (Environmental groups refer to the conferences as “Denialpalooza.”)

    It’s astounding that this would appear in a “news” story. We are not “attacking climate science,” we are defending it from advocates of an unrelated social and economic agenda. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate change (NIPCC) does not “host lavish annual conferences.” I’m not sure it has ever held a conference. Heartland, though, has hosted 6 international conferences. And the only organization that calls these conferences “Denialpalooza” is DeSmogBlog, which is not an environmental group but a for-profit PR firm created to attack conservatives and libertarians.

    Heartland’s latest idea, the documents say, is a plan to create a curriculum for public schools intended to cast doubt on mainstream climate science and budgeted at $200,000 this year. The curriculum would claim, for instance, that “whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy.”

    It is in fact not a scientific controversy. The vast majority of climate scientists say that emissions generated by humans are changing the climate and putting the planet at long-term risk, although they are uncertain about the exact magnitude of that risk. Whether and how to rein in emissions of greenhouse gases has become a major political controversy in the United States, however.

    The first clause is simply false. No survey of climate scientists exists that supports this claim. The second part is honest – there is extensive uncertainty about how much risk and whether it merits action. This is a rare admission by the New York Times.

    The National Center for Science Education, a group that has had notable success in fighting for accurate teaching of evolution in the public schools, has recently added climate change to its agenda in response to pleas from teachers who say they feel pressure to water down the science.

    Great, another left-wing organization wants to politicize curriculum. Heartland has never commented on the teaching of evolution, and we want to upgrade, not “water down,” how climate is taught in schools.

    Mark S. McCaffrey, programs and policy director for the group, which is in Oakland, Calif., said the Heartland documents revealed that “they continue to promote confusion, doubt and debate where there really is none.”

    Thursday, March 1, 2012

    Fakegate – A Few Thoughts From A Humble Scientist

    The Heartland Institute by Rich Trzupek

    View Original Article HERE


    As a fellow trained in the sciences (chemistry) and who reveres the scientific method, I followed Dr. Peter Gleick’s pathetic, mean-spirited attempt to demean and degrade the Heartland Institute with a mixed sense of disgust and sadness. The former because I have nothing but contempt for a man trained in the sciences who stoops to such underhanded, dishonorable tactics as part of a continuing effort to silence people with whom he disagrees. Sadness, because – like so many others who share my particular views – the work that Heartland does is so important to maintaining scientific integrity in a world rushing to embrace the 21st century version of Lysenkoism.

    Heartland is an oasis of independent thinking in a desert of close-mindedness. Where else is a fellow like me – someone who understands the theories behind so-called “climate change”, but who has serious questions about the data that purports to prove the hypothesis – to turn? The mainstream media isn’t interested in my views or my questions, nor are the large, powerful environmental organizations who keep their tame stable of journalists toeing the party line. Even my erstwhile professional organization, the American Chemical Society, feels obliged to abandon the scientific method when it comes to climate issues, officially quashing any dissenting opinions or research that do not fall in line with global warming goodthink. My brother Larry and I both resigned from the ACS over this policy, just as many other scientists have resigned from their particular professional organizations for the same reason.

    The official party line that people like Peter Gleick relentlessly shove down the throats of gullible, ignorant journalists maintains that people like me are either: 1) ignorant, or 2) in the pocket of some mysterious, nefarious conspirators bent on destroying the planet for the sake of a few dollars more profit. I know neither to be true, but that doesn’t matter. Guys like Gleick give people like me a simple choice: agree with him or shut the hell up. There are no other options in his world.

    He and so many like him cling to the fiction that there is an enormous, corporate-funded Goliath attacking scientific integrity, while the tiny, brave defenders of climate science naturally assume the David role. It’s appealing imagery, especially in a nation that admires the underdog as much as America, but it’s exactly backwards. By any measure, organizations that share Gleick’s belief in catastrophic, man-made climate change are the giants, not Heartland and its few allies. They have far more money, they get the mainstream media to parrot their messages and, every bit as important, the bulk of research funding flows in their direction. Moreover, in this country at least, they’re actually getting what they want: coal boilers are shutting down by the score, cars are getting smaller and more fuel efficient by government diktat and the massive power of the EPA continues to drive greenhouse gas emissions down, no matter what damage it does to the economy.

    Yet none of that is enough for people like Peter Gleick. They can’t abide even one dissenting voice in the wilderness. Their arrogance of their convictions knows no bounds, so if they can’t prove that an evil conspiracy stands in their way, they’ll invent one. It’s revolting, but sadly representative of the many academics who believe they alone retain a monopoly of truth.

    Fortunately, the Gleicks of the world aren’t representative of all academics, even in climate science. Brave voices like Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Craig Idso and Dr. William Gray (just to name a very few) continue to make themselves heard, despite the thundering din of alarmists that seek to drown them out. Heartland is a conduit that attracts those kinds of important researchers, along with lesser lights such as myself who want to continue to grow in knowledge, no matter where that journey leads. It’s a safe haven for those who believe in independent, critical thinking, not only with respect to the environment, but with respect to economic issues, health care and many other issues that are so important to the nation today.

    For that reason alone I would be proud to be associated with the Heartland Institute and to contribute whatever of my talents and experience that I can to it. But there is also this: Heartland is not some big, impersonal behemoth lumbering down the public policy road. It’s people. Moreover, it’s good people. There is a family feeling at Heartland that strikes you the moment you go to one of their events. Joe and Diane Bast are as friendly, hard-working and personable as anyone you could hope to meet. They are the down-home honesty of the Midwest personified. And their approach – one that I am sure is the legacy of Heartland’s founder, the late Dave Padden – is infectious. You see it throughout the organization. These are people that you cannot help both like and respect in equal parts.

    Allow me to close with a prediction. As tough of a week as I know it’s been for all the good folks at Heartland, I am sure that they will emerge stronger than ever. Peter Gleick’s petulant, childish actions have shown once again just how his ilk will stop at no repugnant end in an attempt to get their way, while Joe Bast, Jim Lakely and the rest of the crew at Heartland have responded with class, coolness and a firm resolve to have the truth be heard. Ironically, the contrast between the two approaches is representative of the division that separates us on the issue of climate change and by exposing it even further, Peter Gleick has inadvertently done even more damage to the foolish crusade he holds so dear.