Kerry: No more farms for African starving kids because it causes Global Warming

So our wizard had much to say to enlighten the African Leaders at the recent summit. Better for you to stay in the stone age and starve. I am sure this impressed many of the tyrant leaders who are more than happy to dispense with their inhabitants. Climate Change is top on the list for Africa.

 

Rachael Carson debunked, millions died, now on to Climate Change?

There is a lesson for us here in the debunking of the dreaded DDT, whose ban has resulted in the death of millions of people. Are we going to walk head long into the Climate Change doom and gloom scenario as well? Burning our food (corn) for fuel which inflates the world’s cost, hits the poor the heaviest. First they came for our crapper, then the light bulb, our shower head, then the wood stove.Take our coal away. The smart meters come because they know we will have to have our power rationed. The EPA in now looking into the dangers of fracking. We know where this is going.

In this excellently written piece, Rachael Carson is compared to Pol Pot. There are few who are more responsible for mass genocide than Rachael Carson.

Carson’s bestselling brand of junk science and misanthropic, anti-capitalist doom-mongering has provided the model for the international green movement.

“In fact DeWitt’s research had shown the exact opposite:”

“DeWitt reported no significant difference in egg hatching between birds fed DDT and birds not fed DDT. Carson omitted mentioning DeWitt’s report that DDT-fed pheasants hatched about 50 percent more eggs than “control” pheasants.”

DDT doesn’t cause cancer. (Carson blamed DDT for something that was actually, later research found, caused by aflatoxin, a toxic by-product of fungi). Nor does it damage bird reproduction. In 1971-72 an EPA judge concluded after seven months and 9,000 pages of testimony:

In 2006, the WHO tacitly acknowledged its mistake by partially rescinding the ban. “We must take a position based on the science and the data. One of the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual spraying. Of the dozen or so insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most effective is DDT,” said Arata Kochi of WHO.

The Telegraph reports:

Yesterday would have been her 102nd birthday and I’m sorry I missed it, but my sharp-eyed fellow-traveller David Hinz at The Minority Report celebrated with a lively dance on the old fraud’s grave. He doesn’t mince his words: Rachel Carson – poster girl of the international eco movement – was a “mass murderer” to rival Stalin and Pol Pot.

Was she really responsible for the deaths of as many as 50 million people? That’s just an estimate. What we do know is that her landmark 1962 bestseller Silent Spring – the book that set a million and one green activists on the path of eco righteousness – was responsible for the worldwide ban on the insecticide DDT, the most effective preventative against the mosquitos which spread the world’s deadliest disease, Malaria. In this way countless millions of people, mostly Third World children, were condemned to death in the name of ecological correctness.

Rather as so many people do now with the global warming/climate change story, readers in the 1960s just couldn’t get enough of Rachel Carson’s apocalyptic predictions of man-made eco doom. There might, she claimed, be a cancer epidemic which would hit ‘practically 100 per cent’ of the human population; bird life would be wiped out. And all because of the evil DDT. As a result of this scare-mongering DDT was banned first by an eco-activist administrator at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), subsequently by the UN and the World Health Organisation.

Problem was, few if any of the claims made by Carson were true. They were derived from a complete misrepresentation of research by Dr James DeWitt

Read more The Telegraph :

Solar panels on White House roof light 22 lightbulbs

While Obama uses as an example the wonders of solar panels, we have just come to learn how effective they are. How many millions were spent on the new installation? Of course they cite security reasons as to why they cannot tell us how much they spent. Here we go:

Slightly less than the 44 kilowatt hours per day that will be produced by the new solar panels adorning the White House. According to data from TradeWind Energy, one 100-watt light bulb running for 20 hours will use two kilowatt-hours of electricity (100 watts x 20 hours = 2,000 watt-hours = 2 kWh).

In other words, the White House installed enough solar panels to power twenty-two 100-watt light bulbs for 20 hours each day. And if you’ve ever been inside the White House, or seen it from a distance, you’ll notice it’s lit up like a klieg light.  Excerpted from Boston.com:

Citing security and other concerns, the White House won’t say how many panels now encase the top of 1600 Pennania Ave. or how much they cost. But the panels are expected to generate 6.3 kilowatts of solar power whenever the sun shines, the White House said, improving the building’s energy efficiency.

…snip…

The project required technicians to first drill down to the concrete on the White House roof, then use epoxy glue and threaded rods to install a gridded subassembly onto which the solar panels could be secured. The solar components, converters and the labor to install the panels were all domestic, the White House said, declining to name any of the companies involved in the project.

If the average American knew how much this cost the taxpayer, they’d realize this is not cost-effective at all. Which is specifically why the White House refuses to release the numbers.

Obama seeks to use his personal example to spur American families and businesses to do more to reduce reliance on foreign energy and cut emissions blamed for global warming.

The new solar array, not seen since the Jimmy Carter Administration, and later, George W. Bush (who used it to power a maintenance building and heat some pool water), will be able to power 22 100-watt bulbs for 20 hours (unless it rains, snows, or is a cloudy day), far less than his two predecessors.

“Being at the White House, we do have some security concerns. We can’t cover the entire roof, although that would be good from an energy savings standpoint,” said James Doherty, the White House usher

The only way this would be energy efficient is if Obama covered the entire roof, and all the acres of land surrounding the White House, and threw in a couple of wind turbines. But that would be plain ugly for one of the most prestigious presidential residences.

But not ugly enough for Americans to spend vast amounts of money to cover their roofs with solar panels and other so-called clean technology.

H/T: Commie Blaster: Solar Panels on White House Can Only Power 6 Light Bulbs

EPA McCarthy will ‘go after’ critics who question agency

Please let me know Ms McCarthy, just what do you have in mind when you claim you plan to “go after your critics?  Send in the IRS? Already done? You are the same person who stacked the deck with your cronies with your faux science. The EPA now has become the almost if not the most dangerous agency of this regime. The story has been out there, but take a look at how she has stacked the deck last year.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy will go after a “small but vocal group of critics” who say the agency relies on “secret science” for its regulations — a charge made frequently by Sen. David Vitter and House Science Chairman Lamar Smith — during a speech this morning at the National Academy of Sciences.

“Those critics conjure up claims of ‘EPA secret science’— but it’s not really about EPA science or secrets. It’s about challenging the credibility of world-renowned scientists and institutions like Harvard University and the American Cancer Society,” McCarthy will, according to excerpts previewed for ME.

She adds: “It’s about claiming that research is secret if researchers protect confidential personal health data from those who are not qualified to analyze it — and won’t agree to protect it. If EPA is being accused of ‘secret science’ because we rely on real scientists to conduct research, and independent scientists to peer review it, and scientists who’ve spent a lifetime studying the science to reproduce it — then so be it.”

Vitter: “leadership is willfully ignoring the big picture and defending EPA’s practices of using science that is, in fact, secret due to the refusal of the agency to share the underlying data with Congress and the American public,” said Vitter.

“We’re not asking, and we’ve never asked, for personal health information, and it is inexcusable for EPA to justify billions of dollars of economically significant regulations on science that is kept hidden from independent reanalysis and congressional oversight,” Vitter added.

Earlier  Massisve EPA propsed land grab underway, rigged and corrupt October 21, 2013 — bunkerville

What happens when Washington’s top environmental policymaker packs a government advisory board with federal grant recipients so she can regulate virtually every acre in the United States of America?

Smith and Stewart accuse EPA of “pushing through a rule with vast economic and regulatory implications before the agency’s Science Advisory Board has had an opportunity to review the underlying science.”

EPA says its rule-making will be based on the final version of the SAB’s scientific assessment

Catch 22: The SAB is paid to verify whether the EPA report is technically accurate but the panel has not yet been provided with the proposed rule, even though the Office of Management and Budget has it.

McCarthy took no chances with letting hard-headed state or local water officials in, despite nominees from the Arizona Department of Water Resources, Missouri Dept. of Conservation, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Ventura County Watershed Protection District, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, New York City Dept of Environmental Protection, and the State of Wyoming.

But here’s the worst part of it: Half of McCarthy’s choices received EPA grants in the last 10 years!  

H/T: http://www.teapartycrusaders.com/u-s-politics/epa-chief-promises-go-republicans-question-agency-science/#teapartycrusaders.com

Bunkerville and Bundy – the real story about the fight and timeline

Mark Levin last night gave a superb explanation and history of the Bundy and Bunkerville showdown.  For anyone who really wants to understand, do take the time to listen to his explanation of how there is more than one kind of BLM land, and it was the re-classification of this land that started this mess.

In short, Levin calls it an abuse of power and believes the BLM should stop referring to the land as a conservation area and allow Bundy’s cattle to continue grazing on the land just as it has for the last 100 years or so.

He cites the Washington Post as doing a “pretty good outline” of giving the history.

Excerpts from the Washington Post:

Everything you need to know about the long fight between 

1989: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists the desert tortoise as an endangered species. A year later, its designation was changed to “threatened.”

March 1993: The Washington Post publishes a story about the federal government’s efforts to protect the desert tortoise in Nevada. Near Las Vegas, the Bureau of Land Management designated hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land for strict conservation efforts.

“Among the conservation measures required,” according to the Post’s coverage, “are the elimination of livestock grazing and strict limits on off-road vehicle use in the protected tortoise habitat. Two weeks ago, the managers of the plan completed the task of purchasing grazing privileges from cattle ranchers who formerly used BLM land.”

Many people were not impressed by the new conservation plan. “Cliven Bundy, whose family homesteaded his ranch in 1877 and who accuses the government of a ‘land grab,’ are digging in for a fight and say they will not willingly sell their grazing privileges to create another preserve.” People who use the desert to prospect for minerals and to race motorcycles and jeeps also feel shortchanged. “‘It was shoved down our throat,’ said Mark Trinko, who represents off-road vehicle users on the committee that oversees the plan.”

April 1995: The fight between the Bureau of Land Management and the ranchers who want to use the federal land without fees or oversight is growing more tense, according to a story published in USA Today.

The reason that things were ramping up? Counties were starting to challenge federal ownership of land. In 1991, Catron County in New Mexico passed an ordinance that claimed state ownership and local management of public land in the state. Thirty five counties followed suit. Nye County, Nevada, became the first to act on its legislated threat. The county commissioner bulldozed his way down a closed national forest road. Forest rangers soon followed, who the county commissioner threatened to arrest if they interfered.

At this point, Cliven Bundy had racked up $31,000 in fees for grazing on federal land without a permit. Helicopters often hover over his herd, counting up the cows so he can be fined appropriately. “They’ve taken their authority and abused it,” Bundy said. “I’m not being regulated to death anymore.”

March 18, 1996: The federal government, which owns 87 percent of the land in Nevada,  is still worried about potential violence if they try to remove illegally grazing cattle from protected land. Two more pipebombs had exploded in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management offices in the past two years. The Justice Department has 12 lawsuits pending against Nevada cattle ranchers. A federal court in the state struck down the Nye County ordinance that caused trouble the year before. Not that ranchers took that as reason to stand down, however. One local resident told USA Today,”A single district court decision in one district doesn’t settle it. It’s just a single day in the year of a revolutionary war. We’re going to continue on with the fight.” Bundy is also continuing to graze on federal lands. “I’m still saying the state of Nevada owns that land, and the federal government has been an encroacher. I’m not moving my cattle. We have … rights.”

 

 

EPA mandates reducing cow fart emissions

Never underestimate the absurdity of this regime in destroying any viable industry in America.  Mark this down as a big one. Can you only imagine what this will cost farmers? What the cost of milk and milk by-products will cost? It apparently is not bad enough to destroy the automotive industry with their new standards. Let us go after the poor cow.

As part of its plan to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, the Obama administration is targeting the dairy industry to reduce methane emissions in their operations.

“Of all domestic animal types, beef and dairy cattle were by far the largest emitters of [methane],” according to an EPA analysis charting greenhouse gas emissions in 2012. Cows and other animals produce methane through digestion, which ferments the food of animals.

“During digestion, microbes resident in an animal’s digestive system ferment food consumed by the animal,” the EPA notes. “This microbial fermentation process, referred to as enteric fermentation, produces [methane] as a byproduct, which can be exhaled or eructated by the animal.”

This comes despite falling methane emission levels across the economy since 1990.

The White House has proposed cutting methane emissions from the dairy industry by 25 percent by 2020. Although U.S. agriculture only accounts for about 9 percent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, it makes up a sizeable portion of methane emissions — which is a very potent greenhouse gas.

Some of these methane emissions come from cow flatulence, exhaling and belching — other livestock animals release methane as well.

Read more: BREIBART

Obama and Feinstein helped create an artificial drought in California

Obama deliberately denied water to the San Joaquin Valley. Now he wants to give Billions to his faux Climate Change after he and the EPA created the problem. Here is an old post that should put your hair on fire. During the Bush administration, Feinstein went nuts that she was not informed that she was not in charge of denying water to the much-needed agricultural region.

Barack Obama to Veto Bill That Will Provide Water To California Drought Region

March 1, 2012 — bunkerville

Let us now start in on our food supply. create artificial droughts, bankrupt farmers so that Con Agra can come in. Makes sense, the Obama method of changing our form of government.So the Dems were against the water before they were for it, and now against it. They were for it when they needed some important CA House Dems to vote for Obamacare Brazen Boxer Feinstein reverse now want water for California farmers:

 …All for Obamacare and getting two more votes. Sorry Delta Smelt, you lost to Obamacare and our corrupt government. What could not be done by a vote is now done by a dictatorship. And that is what we have.

The video of Feinstein is  before she was for  water  but then again, maybe the smelt is worth a vote or two.

A federal judge ruled on in December 2010 that the liberal study that forced California officials to cutback on water to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta was based on faulty science.

Despite this Barack Obama said he would veto any Congressional bill that would “reverse the progress” (drought) in the San Joaquin Valley. Investor’s reported, via HotAir:

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1837, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act because the bill would unravel decades of work to forge consensus, solutions, and settlements that equitably address some of California’s most complex water challenges.

Uploaded on Sep 23, 2009

Senator Dianne Feinstein votes against sending water to California Farmers because of  two inch delta smelt fish saying it’s like Pearl Harbor.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 749 other followers

%d bloggers like this: