Greenbats

According to a new study by University of Utah and Strata Policy (a think tank) researchers, the cost of wind power relative to what the government is telling you is up to 48% more than estimates. Moreover the subsidies for wind power generation that come out of our taxpayer pockets amounts to over $5 Billion:

In the US this amounts to an annual $5 billion per year in Production Tax Credits (PTC). Here is money that could have been spent on education, healthcare, defense or, indeed, which could have been left in the pockets of taxpayers to spend as they prefer.

Instead it has been squandered on bribing rent-seeking crony-capitalists to carpet the landscape with bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes to produce energy so intermittent that it is often unavailable when needed most (on very hot or very cold days when demand for air-conditioning or heating is high) and only too available on other occasions when a glut means that wind producers actually have to pay utilities to accept their unwanted energy. This phenomenon, known as “negative pricing”, is worthwhile to wind producers because they only get their subsidy credits when they are producing power (whether it is needed or not). But clearly not worthwhile to the people who end up footing the bill: ie taxpayers.

The wind generation business is less reliable, more expensive and must be backed up by conventional generation methods continually on standby. There are myriad other quirks in the industry such as killing things that fly, making scenic landscapes an eyesore and causing anxieties to nearby residents.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world, Austrailia canceled all subsidies to wind-produced energy in that nation. The whackos in state and federal positions that dictate energy policy stateside have yet to realize how expensive and pointless wind energy production has become.

Lies told by Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama and others are not holding up to reality. The timetable for polar bear doomsday and other disasters just isn’t cooperating with the original schedule of events forecast by the Greenbat liars.

Jordan Candler, writing for The Patriot Post disclosed the polar bears continue to thrive:

In 2009, then-Sen. John Kerry said, “Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013.” In that same year, Al Gore reiterated the claim: “Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.” Without ice, polar bears have a tough time surviving, and sadly we had to bid farewell to this wonderful creature a few short years ago because we failed to heed the warning. Actually, no, that’s not at all true. Not only has the Arctic retained a considerable amount of ice in recent summers, but polar bears are thriving. Earlier this year, Dr. Susan Crockford of the Global Warming Policy Foundation discovered, “On almost every measure, things are looking good for polar bears. Scientists are finding that they are well distributed throughout their range and adapting well to changes in sea ice. Health indicators are good and they are benefiting from abundant prey.” With roughly 25,000 polar bears estimated to be roaming the Arctic, up from 5,000 in the ‘60s, the alarm should be over. But it’s not.

According to a new report from the U.S. Geological Survey, computer models suggest nearly one-third of polar bears could be wiped off the planet in 10 years as greenhouse gas emissions rise. Let’s get this straight: The same scientific lobby that warned decades ago polar bears would be extinct by now — but which instead grew in population — are now telling us that a significant percentage of bears could face eradication within a decade based on computer models. The same computer models that utterly failed to forecast the current 18-year-old global warming hiatus. That kind of logic is enough to make even a polar bear do a facepalm.

Alarmists seem to be buying in to solar influence on the climate, but only when it suits their agenda and narrative. Ace of Spades posted an article yesterday, Scientific Paradigm Breaker Roils Academy, in which they note that climate alarmists are now saying that the current solar minimum is the reason that our terrible anthropogenic global climate change is being held in check. Yet the Greenbats will refuse to acknowledge that solar maxima have contributed anything to the environment. They cherry-pick the science to suit their insanity.

We have been posting about how the sun is the major influence on climate for nine years or so, and that sunspot count is correlated to periods of warming and cooling. There is stark evidence that numbers coming out of the alarmist community have always been “adjusted.” This includes (unfortunately) federal government agencies like the National Weather Service, National Aeronautic and Space Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. All of them are taxpayer-funded doomsday sayers in the quest of complete government domination of everything.

I pray that the next administration will throttle back most of the bullsh1t, but I have my doubts about that if the RINOs keep control of the nation. Plus, in light of recent SCOTUS decisions, we may never be able to recover through the judicial process. God help us.

Instead of addressing the international and domestic issues of importance, the President creates a global warming distraction for his weekly radio address. Out-of-control spending, scandalous cabinet-level agencies running amok, Iran rapidly ramping up their nuclear weapons program and numerous other critical domestic and international issues go unmentioned in favor of the president’s proposed solution to no known problem.

This is all a subterfuge to deflect attention from the real issues mentioned above. We have cited dozens of examples that prove climate change, global disruption or whatever they are calling Global Warming these days to be a complete hoax. It’s in the numbers, stupid.

Meanwhile, the hypocrisy of Obama and some wealthy celebrity greenbats is demonstrated by the writers at Townhall.com:

Environmentalists use Earth Day as another opportunity to disparage the most important source of human prosperity and enriched quality of life – fossil fuels. Ironically, President Obama, whose method of travel makes him one of the single largest individual contributors of CO2 emissions, is once again firing up the engines of Air Force One on Earth Day. This time it’s a flight to the Florida everglades for a photo op to highlight global warming’s impact on the planet. Air Force One burns five gallons of fuel per minute. The flight to Florida will be around 150 minutes and use 750 gallons of fuel. And that doesn’t account for other military aircraft, C-17 transport planes for his fleet of limos and security vehicles, or the dozens of police escort vehicles used to move him around on the ground. It’s a very carbon laden trip for someone hoping to convince the public that CO2 emissions are responsible for global warming and the destruction of the Everglades. But this year’s Earth Day trip pales in comparison to overseas trips in 2011 and 2014, when President Obama’s travels used over 35,000 gallons of fuel and contributed 375 tons of carbon to the atmosphere.

These trips are the personification of hypocrisy, and typical of eco-hypocrites who don’t change their personnel carbon emission behavior while asking the rest of the world to do so. It’s the ‘do as I say, not as I do’ principle. President Obama is not the only environmental crusader who is producing a massive carbon footprint while decrying the use of fossil fuels. Hollywood eco-hypocrite Leonardo DiCaprio likes to talk the talk and not walk the walk. It was recently revealed that the movie star, who led the People’s Climate March in New York, flew by private jet from Los Angeles to New York six times in six weeks last year. DiCaprio, and other wealthy environmentalists like billionaire Richard Branson and Greenpeace’s Pascal Husting, want to save the planet by making it more difficult and expensive for the average person to enjoy mobility, while they jet set around the world in their private planes.

That’s the problem with their eco-ideology. The wealthy and privledged don’t have to suffer the consequences of environmental regulations that put average people out of work, and make it more difficult for the poor to maintain a basic quality of life that is dependent on the use of fossil fuels.