TRULY GREEN? How Germany’s #Energiewende Is Destroying Nature

Germany_s Energiewende is destroying nature

“The destruction of nature by the land-hungry wind and biogas industries is the opposite of what the environmental movement used to fight for: just as the communists made workers unfree and poor, the Greens have destroyed our landscapes and killed millions of birds and bats.” Michael Miersch, German Wildlife Foundation

 

WIKIPEDIA describes Germany’s “Energiewende” (German for energy transition) as the following:

The Energiewende is the transition by Germany to a low carbon, environmentally sound, reliable, and affordable energy supply. The new system will rely heavily on renewable energy, energy efficiency, and energy demand management. 
*
BASIC research into each of the virtues ascribed by Energiewende shows that not one of the fundamental ‘energy transition’ goals have been realised. In fact, the opposite in all cases has been stunningly achieved:
*
“LOW CARBON”
Online Swiss daily, Basler Zeitung cites an “expert team” by McKinsey consulting group, which not long ago found that the German energy policy has fallen far short of its aims: Emissions of climate-harmful carbon dioxide are not going down, but rather are increasing, as is power consumption even though it was supposed to go down because of efficiency measures.”
IF the justification for taxpayer subsidies that will top €1 TRILLION was cutting CO2 emissions, the report card for 2016 on Germany’s Energiewende is a massive FAIL!

EXCLUSIVE: German Emissions Increase in 2016 Due to Nuclear Plant Closure — Environmental Progress

German emissions increased in 2016 for a second year in a row as a result of the country closing one of its nuclear plants and replacing it with coal and natural gas, a new Environmental Progress analysis finds.

German emissions would have declined had it not closed a nuclear plant and replaced it with coal and natural gas. 

Not only did new solar and wind not make up for the lost nuclear, the percentage of time during 2016 that solar and wind produced electricity declined dramatically

Germany added a whopping 10 percent more wind turbine capacity and 2.5 percent more solar panel capacity between 2015 and 2016, but generated less than one percent more electricity from wind and generated one percent less electricity from solar.

The reason is because Germany had significantly less sunshine and wind in 2016 than 2015.

EXCLUSIVE: German Emissions Increase in 2016 Due to Nuclear Plant Closure — Environmental Progress

(See also: Numbers don’t lie: Germany’s Energiewende has had zero impact on emissions – at best | Watts Up With That?)
*
“RELIABLE”
THE mad obsession with unreliable-energy by global warming theory-obsessed politicians has led to an unprecedented power crisis in Australia too. Problems began in the 60% unreliable-energy, utopian state of South Australia, with three major blackouts last summer (one of them statewide), regular load-shedding and now officially the highest power prices in the world. And, so it goes in Germany: the attempt to run on sunshine and breezes has led to skyrocketing power prices, energy poverty and a grid on the brink of collapse. NoTricksZone on the German debacle:

Today the task has become a challenging balancing act. According to Manager Magazin, facility manager Volker Weinreich says “we have to intervene more often than ever to keep the power grid stable. We are getting closer and closer to the limit.”

The reason for the grid instability: the growing amount of erratic renewable energy being fed in, foremost wind and sun. Manager Magazin writes that there are always four workers monitoring the frequency at the Tennet control center, just outside Hannover, making sure that it stays near 50 Hz. Too much instability would mean a the “worst imaginable disaster: grid collapse and blackout“.

Weinreich describes how on stormy days wind parks are forced to shut down to keep the grid from frying. And the more wind turbines that come online, the more often wind parks need to be shut down. This makes them even more inefficient.

Not only do wind and solar feed in their power on a part-time basis, but now so do the conventional power plants as well — all according to the whims of the weather. An d too often they run at levels well below peak efficiency. The costs of all the inefficiencies get passed on to the consumers. Tens of thousands have been forced into “energy poverty”.

1400 interventions
Weinreich reports that the grid is so unstable that in 2015 it was necessary for Tennet to intervene some 1400 times. In the old conventional power days, it used to be only “a few times a year“.

Germany’s Energiewende Nightmare: Grid Collapse Looms Due to Erratic Wind & Solar – STOP THESE THINGS

*
“AFFORDABLE ENERGY SUPPLY”
Germany’s Energiewende has only succeeded in massively elevating Germany’s consumer power prices, making its power almost twice as expensive as power in neighboring France, which relies heavily on nuclear. While France’s power is half the cost, the country also emits far less CO2 from electricity production.
europe-power-prices-2
THE correlation between skyrocketing power prices and high roll-outs of unreliable-energy by country is stark:

electricitypriceseuropeRE per capita EUrstudioscreensnapz027

Data Source | Watts Up With That?

Fuel-Poverty Related : 

*

“ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND”

Via GWPF:

GERMANY’S green energy transition is destroying vast swathes of nature, agricultural lands and forests. In the name of climate policy, rare birds and endangered species are being killed while much of the countryside is transformed into industrial parks.

Michael Miersch from the Deutsche Wildtier Stiftung recently gave a talk in the House of Lords about renewable energy’s devastating impact on wildlife and the environment in Germany and other parts of the world. 

About the author Michael Miersch is director of Deutsche Wildtier Stiftung (German Wildlife Foundation), a non-profit organisation devoted the protection of wildlife in Gemany. He is a professional journalist who worked for more than three decades for national newpapers, magazines and TV-stations, amongst others Die Welt, Die Zeit and WDR (public TV). He has written several books about nature, science and politics, some of which have become bestsellers. This paper is based on a speech given on 24 October 2017 in the House of Lords.

(Climatism bolds and selected highlights from report)

Are Wind Power and Biofuels Really Green? How Germany’s ‘Energy Transition’ is destroying wildlife and forests Michael Miersch

It is one hundred years since the Russian Revolution, known officially in communist countries as ‘The Great Socialist October Revolution’. The one time I visited East Germany, a friend there said, ‘the name contains four lies’.

First, it wasn’t great. It was a coup, led by Leon Trotsky, that took place at night, so that most inhabitants of St Petersburg didn’t even notice.

Second, it wasn’t socialist, at least not in the sense that it brought freedom and prosperity to the working class.

Third, it wasn’t a revolution, but instead – as I said – a night-time coup by an armed militia, which occupied strategically important buildings in St Petersburg. And fourth, it didn’t happen in October but, according to the Gregorian calendar, in November.

Today, whenever I hear the phrase ‘green energy’, I think of this old joke. In Germany, electricity from wind power and biogas is called ‘eco-power’, ‘bio-power’ or even ‘natural electricity’. These names contain many lies too, and I would like to tell you about them.

First though, there is another parallel between green energy and the Russian Revolution. The communists promised the workers everything and gave them nothing. Anyone who was not ideologically blind could see that the workers in western capitalist countries were much better off than their counterparts in communist eastern Europe. The German Green Party was founded in 1980. The Greens promised to save nature. They wanted to be the protectors of forests, birds and rivers. But their policies have led to the most widespread destruction of nature in Germany since the Second World War. No industry consumes as much land as the generation of ‘natural electricity’.

Without the pressure from the Greens and their friends in the environmental NGOs, the German governments of chancellors Helmut Kohl, Gerhard Schröder and Angela Merkel would not have pushed the expansion of wind power, bioenergy and solar energy as much as they did. As our former Minister of Agriculture from the Green Party, Renate Künast, once said: ‘Farmers will be the oil barons of the future!’ She and her party pushed for massive subsidies for growing energy crops. The destruction of nature by the land-hungry wind and biogas industries is the opposite of what the environmental movement used to fight for: just as the communists made workers unfree and poor, the Greens have destroyed our landscapes and killed millions of birds and bats.

Wind power lobbyists say the numbers are small compared to the millions of birds that collide with windows, cars, power lines and other obstacles. But this is a fallacy, because the argument ignores which species are affected. If ten city pigeons fly into windows or cars, it has no effect on the population of pigeons. But when a breeding red kite is chopped up by a rotor blade, it represents a significant loss for the species in the region.

If one red kite is caught in a rotor every eight years, then the 28,000 turbines in existence at present will kill 3500 birds. In a total population of only 15,000 breeding pairs in Germany, that’s a dramatic loss. According to a 2013 study commissioned by the Brandenburg State Environment Office, rotor blades killed about 300 red kites each year in this one state alone.

If the German climate protection plan is implemented as planned and the number of turbines is doubled, the red kite could soon be extinct in Germany. The plan would mean one turbine every 2.7 km on average all over Germany, each one 200 m tall, without regard for landscapes, lakes, mountains, forests or cities.

The PROGRESS study showed that even a widespread raptor like the common buzzard would be threatened if wind power is expanded as planned. Birds that aren’t killed by the rotor blades are often driven away. One of these wind power refugees is the black stork, a very shy forest bird. When 170 turbines were installed in the Vogelsberg region in the state of Hesse, nine of the 14 pairs of black storks in the region simply disappeared.

If the argument that windows and other obstacles kill even more birds is very misleading, when it comes to bats the argument is completely wrong. Since bats use ultrasound to navigate, they almost never collide with any barriers. They can even fly through spinning rotor blades without getting hit. But even so, they fall dead from the sky. The cause is barotrauma: Their lungs burst because of the pressure drop behind the rotors. This happens to about 240,000 bats each year.

The actual number is probably much higher, because they often fly a little longer before they die and their little cadavers are eaten. Whenever there was a construction project in Germany such as a motorway, bridge, airport, office park or residential building, the presence of a bat colony could hold up the project in the courts for years, or prevent it altogether.

Yet when the wind industry kills masses of these animals, there is no such outrage. The supporters of the German energy transition brush aside all collateral damage to the environment, such as dead bats, with the argument that global climate disaster must be prevented.

Truly Green? How Germany’s ‘Energy Transition’ Is Destroying Nature | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

Read all of Michael Miersch’s brilliant and defining speech given on 24 October 2017 in the House of Lords, here…

•••

Michael Miersch Related :

Energiewende Related :

Unreliable-Energy & Climate Fraud Related :

Advertisements

CLIMATE CHANGE – The Most Massive Scientific Fraud In Human History

GlobalWarmingFraud

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.“ – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

THIS brilliant piece of research and writing by, Leo Goldstein. Defeat Climate Alarmism, represents a truly definitive guide to what is, undoubtedly, the greatest pseudoscientific fraud ever perpetrated upon mankind – the empirically unproven theory of man-made “Global Warming” aka “Climate Change” aka “Climate Disruption”…

SUCH an important and pivotal (quick) read that needs to be spread far and wide, over and over and over again…


Those who can make you believe absurdities
can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire

Climate Realism Against Alarmism

A Realist Side of the Climate Debate. CO2 is a product of human breath and is plant food, NOT a pollutant.

CLIMATE alarmism is a gigantic fraud: it only survives by suppressing dissent and by spending tens of billions of dollars of public money every year on pseudo-scientific propaganda. Climate pseudo-science is wrong on physics, biology, meteorology, mathematics, computer sciences, and almost everything else. And even if the “climate science” were perfectly correct, climate alarmism politics would still be a tyranny and betrayal. Alarmists demand that the US and other Western countries unilaterally decrease their carbon dioxide emissions, while allowing unlimited increase to China and all other countries, which already emit more than 70% of carbon dioxide and almost 100% of other infrared-absorbing gases and soot.How could this happen? Carbon dioxide is exhaled by humans with each breath. How could the idea to call it a “pollutant” and to regulate its “emissions” get such traction in our society? How could a mad suicidal cult and its preachers obtain so much power in the academia and media, and become a cornerstone of the Democrats’ political platform, in the 21st century?

Many factors were in play.

  1. This takeover did not happen overnight, but took some 30-40 years.
  1. Climate alarmism was born and acquired power abroad. It was led by a bunch of non-governmental organizations of the environmentalist and “global governance” persuasion, acting in cahoots with certain United Nations agencies. It infiltrated the US through American branches of foreign NGOs and their fellow travelers, such as NRDC and EDF. Climate alarmism made a huge leap in 1993, when its fanatical disciple Al Gore became the Vice President. Nevertheless, climate alarmism has always been and remains an essentially foreign phenomenon.For example, the infamous Congressional testimony delivered by Dr. James Hansen in 1988, on invitation from Senator Wirth, was instigated by foreign enviros and diplomats in the run-up to the Toronto conference that happened a few weeks later. The climate dogma had been developing largely in lawless UN agencies and unaccountable transnational organizations, often using them as an extra-territorial operational base when national public demanded answers about its mischief.
  1. There is indeed a strong consensus among foreign governments in support of climate alarmism. This consensus has nothing to do with the science. Many governments are promised “reparations” from the United States for alleged harm; other countries expect to benefit from the damage to North American oil & gas exploration inflicted by climate alarmism; and another group of countries enjoys immunity from limitations that climate treaties impose on Europe and North America and receive fringe benefits in the form of outsourced manufacturing and/or preferential trade terms. Finally, many European countries are ruled by coalitions including influential Green Parties, and the rest are too small to resist.
  1. Over the last 8-10 years, climate alarmism has achieved its huge scale by spending tens of billions of dollars on its own public relations, including payments to public relations firms, pseudo-scientists, corrupt academics, university administrators, journalists, and media outlets. It has also created its own institutions with scientific-sounding names and taken over formerly highly-regarded organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences. Climate alarmism continues to demand more and more money, and spends most of it on self-promotion and intimidating its opponents.
  1. The leaders and pseudo-scientists of climate alarmism are driven by many motives. Fear of just punishment is quickly becoming the leading motive, as it should be. Their crimes start with tax evasion, theft of hundreds of billions of dollars, inflicting economic damage on the order of trillions of dollars, include an attempt to murder millions of Americans by shutting down the national energy infrastructure, and possibly include high treason. It is likely that they hide the truth even from their nominal party leaders – Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. That makes the current situation even more dangerous and unpredictable.
  1. The foreign interference, money, and some confusion about the subject matter were not the only factors in the meteoric rise of climate alarmism. Since the late 1980s, the global warming agenda has been accepted by the left as “their cause,” and received unconditional support. The majority of the scientists leaned left, and many of them accepted the alarmist claims (which were much more reasonable then than today) of the environmentalists and general media without suspicion. These scientists also bore old prejudices against conservatives, to whom they attributed all kinds of anti-scientific leanings. Although these prejudices provided enough breeding ground for alarmism, the scientific community successfully resisted climate alarmism in 1990’s. The Oregon Petition, signed by more than 30,000 scientists and other professionals knowledgeable in sciences, is just one example.
  1. In 2001, even the International Panel on Climate Change acknowledged that carbon dioxide emissions did not cause harmful climate change. It reacted to this “discovery” by removing the word “anthropogenic” from its definition of “climate change.” That did not stop climate alarmism from gaining momentum. Instead, climate alarmism finally parted ways with science, and declared its dogma to be the undisputed truth.
  1. Scientifically illiterate Al Gore was responsible for the science in the Clinton–Gore administration from 1993-2001. He evaluated scientists according to their agreement with his views on global warming. Not surprisingly, his appointments and budget decisions had effect of deadly poison, administered to the American scientific enterprise. (To tell the truth, it was not all Al Gore’s fault. The scientific enterprise came under fire from many directions, from the academic “social constructivism” theory to “diversity” politics.) The scientific institutions, already leaning left before Al Gore, just fell to the left after his reign.
  1. George W. Bush was too naïve to fight cunning enviros on the government payroll posing as scientists, and was allowed too little time for that anyway. Concerned with maintaining national unity in the aftermath of the enemy attack on 9/11, he appointed Democrat John Marburger as his scientific advisor (Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy). Marburger let government-financed scientific institutions slide further down and to the left, but his appointment did not save Bush from the usual accusations of “manipulating science for political purposes,” “censoring scientific results,” and “silencing the science,” all slogans shouted by the Union of Con Scientists and the rest of the attack pack.
  1. In 1997, the US Senate rejected the Kyoto pact, instigated by climate alarmism, by a 95–0 vote. The main reason was its discriminatory terms against the US. But these terms, demanding unilateral emission cuts by the US and few other countries, were more like an insult added to an injury. The injury was the corruption of the science by environmentalist quackery, of which the global warming catastrophism was just the latest example. This vote proved to be a palliative treatment. Many politically active leftist scientists, including distinguished ones, remained committed to the totalitarian ideals, wanted Congress to accept their beliefs as the science, and called for Congress to restore science to its appropriate place in government. But the First Amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The leftist scientists either did not understand the First Amendment, decided that it applied only to religion of the “ordinary folk” and not to them, or were egged on by their comrades whose “science” needed “a place in the government” because it took place neither in nature nor in the lab. When the Senate passed a resolution not addressing alarmist beliefs directly, these scientists probably concluded that the Senators did not have scientific arguments against the alarmist beliefs, and acted out of some ulterior political motives. And they accepted the alarmist claims (which were much more moderate then than today) as real science, and opposition to them as politically or financially motivated. Since many of these scientists were quite distinguished and sincere in their ignorance and hubris, their opinion carried much weight with their colleagues.
  1. The lawless nature of the IPCC and other UN agencies allowed climate alarmists to pull off a trick which would be impossible in any national forum. It was like the “telephone” game played by kids. Scientists at the bottom of the IPCC structure were saying one thing, while Greenpeace and its accomplices at the top of the IPCC structure were telling the public something entirely different, and invoking the authority of the scientists. When elected officials disagreed with the Greenpeace allegations, many legitimate scientists thought that the politicians misunderstood the science, and sharply criticized them. The leftist media was only too happy to amplify such criticism.One example is the play on the definition of “climate change.” If climate change is understood as “dangerous anthropogenic global warming,” as in the UN Framework Agreement on Climate Change, then climate change does not happen. If climate change is defined to include natural climate variations, according to the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001), then it happens and has been happening for billions of years, but is not alarming. And there are dozens or hundreds of mutually incompatible definitions of climate change, produced by climate alarmists and by scientists trying to get crumbs from the alarmist table.
  1. The extreme left apparently took over the Democratic Party in 2002-2005. The DNC started to court the foreign vote openly. Internet made that courting easy and convenient. Democrat Congresspersons welcomed foreign “observers” at the US elections. Al Gore started a hedge fund called Generation Investment Management in the UK, and founded an exchange to trade hot air (voluntary carbon credits). Gore and his minions publicly fantasized that the hot air would become the hottest commodity of the 21st century, and prepped themselves to become multi-billionaires. Unfortunately, they did not stop at fantasizing, but attracted some serious money, and put it at work to scare us into buying those carbon credits. In 2006, following Al Gore’s fraudumentary An Inconvenient Truth, climate alarmism started its own offensive against the US on the American soil. This offensive has been going surprisingly successfully, and led to the current situation.
  1. The recent Attorneys General gambit is a show of desperation, rather than strength. Greenpeace, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and whoever else behind them have sacrificed three state Attorneys General – Eric Schneiderman, Maura Healey, and Kamala Harris – as if they were merely pawns.  Maybe they were.  Those who press an analogy between the energy companies and the tobacco companies just expose themselves as either hopelessly crazy or craftily malicious. Those who act on that analogy are either criminals or enemy agents. Tobacco is a harmful, addictive, and useless (for everybody but the smokers) product. This is why the unconstitutional and corrupt prosecution of the tobacco companies was successful twenty years ago. Oil, gas, and coal are exactly opposite to tobacco. They are energy sources necessary for the existence of civilized society, on which the lives of the majority of Americans depend. And not everybody in this country is an idiot, thinking that the power of his or her dreams can replace electricity and gasoline.By the way, the climate alarmist lobby opposes nuclear power and hydro power as fiercely as it opposes fossil fuels.

Climate alarmism’s Tower of Babel is falling. It is voluntarily supported by the Obama regime from inside, and by the Guardian from outside. The Guardian used to be a respectable newspaper of the British Left, but dropped to the tabloid level and is awaiting indictment for espionage. Other supporters of climatism are in it only for the money, or because they are chained to it as galley slaves to their oars, or because they are too stupid to run away from the falling tower.

Use the Climate Sanity Search to learn more.

(Climatism bolds)

Welcome | Climate Realism Against Alarmism

H/t @tan123

•••

Climate Chnage Fraud Related :


The New American: “New Film Exposes Communist Roots of “Sustainability” Agenda”

green-agenda

Sustainability is Malthusianism for the 21st Century | Climatism

ATMOSPHERIC Physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, knows the politics and ideology behind the CO2-centricity that beleaguers the man-made climate change agenda. His summary goes to the very heart of why Carbon Dioxide has become the centre-piece of the ‘global’ climate debate:

“FOR A LOT of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…”
•••
“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.

And, BEWARE those sweet-sounding words designed by the UN’s deep-green, Agenda 21 program :

– “Sustainability” and
– “Smart Growth”

Related :

HyperLink News Site

View original post


Another climate scare debunked. Professor urges calm

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about
?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

un-logo-communist-1.jpg

•••

via Andrew Bolt :

Professor Michael Asten urges calm – and a bit of honesty in the warming debate :

UN climate agency is exaggerating the effects of El Nino

  • THE AUSTRALIAN
  • NOVEMBER 28, 2015 12:00AM


The UN climate agency, the World Meteorological Organisation, has predictably hyped the global warming associated with this El Nino to encourage political leaders to action in next week’s Paris climate conference (”UN tips 2015 as hottest year”, 26/11).

However, its press release overlooks the full WMO discussion which notes that this El Nino is similar to three significant events in 1972-73, 1982-83 and 1997-98. It is not an unprecedented event, and past experience shows that prediction of the progress of El Ninos is notoriously difficult. The WMO quotes only surface temperature data, which may be subject to upward biases from meteorological stations sited in cities and ships that are thermal sources. The two data sets of lower atmosphere temperatures as measured globally using weather balloons and satellites were not used by the WMO, but they show a less alarming result — there is no upward statistical trend in global temperatures over the past 18 years, a feature much discussed in scientific journals as “the pause”.

Empirical scientists should be alarmed that while the most commonly quoted climate models predict a global temperature increase of 3C per century over this time, it is not happening. Rather than being panicked by the WMO press release, Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt and their opposite numbers represented in Paris would serve us well by pausing their deliberations until science delivers a global temperature model consistent with measurement.

•••

“The Pause” related :

UN (Paris COP21) related :


Keeping Tabs On What Bill Gates Thinks About Sustainability

“By the time we see that climate change is really bad, your ability to fix it is extremely limited… The carbon gets up there, but the heating effect is delayed. And then the effect of that heat on the species and ecosystem is delayed. That means that even when you turn virtuous, things are actually going to get worse for quite a while.”

Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Rio+20 Earth Summit, 1992.

 

•••

Bill Gates on Sustainability …

gates boat

Climate control …

Mr. Gates actually got my attention earlier this week because of some comments he has made about our collective responsibility to address climate change and well as for a $5.4 million investment he personally has put toward addressing geoengineering technology that could combat the problem.

Keeping tabs on what Bill Gates thinks about sustainability – SmartPlanet

 

$5.4 million well spent …

clip_image002_thumb

Global Temperature Update – Still no global warming for 17 years 10 months | Watts Up With That?

H/t to The Galileo Movement

See Also :

 


 

UN Agenda 21 and ICLEI Sustainability :

UN Agenda 21 and ICLEI Sustainability Operations in Australia :


John Holdren: Abuse of Office, Power, and Science for a Political Agenda

For more on ‘environmentalist’ John Holdren and the myth of ‘over-population’ see:

 

Watts Up With That?

Guest opinion by Dr. Tim Ball

Recently, in reply to a charge that John Holdren made false claims about climate change by Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) ruled he was expressing his “personal opinion” not “a comprehensive review of the scientific literature”. The charge is correct and the ruling false. It may be his personal opinion, but it was given from the White House in his position as adviser to the President.

View original post 1,910 more words


The Disturbing Correlation Between Atmospheric CO2 And Temperature In The 21st Century