“Massively Altered” …German Professor Examines NASA GISS Temperature Datasets!

No Tricks Zone

Veteran journalist Günter Ederer* writes a piece reporting that massive alterations have been found in the NASA GISS temperature data series, citing a comprehensive analysis conducted by a leading German scientist. These results are now available to the public.


Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert. Source: University of Paderborn

Ederer reports not long ago retired geologist and data computation expert Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert began looking at the data behind the global warming claims, and especially the datasets of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS).

Ewert painstakingly examined and tabulated the reams of archived data from 1153 stations that go back to 1881 – which NASA has publicly available – data that the UN IPCC uses to base its conclusion that man is heating the Earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. According to Ederer, what Professor Ewert found is “unbelievable”:

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”

Ederer writes that Ewert particularly found alterations at stations in the Arctic. Professor Ewert randomly selected 120 stations from all over the world and compared the 2010 archived data to the 2012 data and found that they had been tampered to produce warming.

The old data showed regular cycles of warming and cooling over the period, even as atmospheric CO2 concentration rose from 0.03% to 0.04%. According to the original NASA datasets, Ederer writes, the mean global temperature cooled from 13.8°C in 1881 to 12.9°C in 1895. Then it rose to 14.3°C by 1905 and fell back under 12.9°C by 1920, rose to 13.9°C by 1930, fell to 13° by 1975 before rising to 14°C by 2000. By 2010 the temperature fell back to 13.2°C.

But then came the “massive” altering of data, which also altered the entire overall trend for the period. According to journalist Ederer, Ewert uncovered 10 different methods NASA used to alter the data. The 6 most often used methods were:

• Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
• Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
• Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
• Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
• Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
• With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.

The methods were employed for stations such as Darwin, Australia and Palma de Mallorca, for example, where cooling trends were suddenly transformed into warming.

Ewert then discovered that NASA having altered the datasets once in March 2012 was not enough. Alterations were made again in August 2012, and yet again in December 2012. For Palma de Majorca: “Now because of the new datasets it has gotten even warmer. Now they show a warming of +0.01202°C per year.”

Using earlier NASA data, globe is in fact cooling

The veteran German journalist Ederer writes that the media reports of ongoing global warming are in fact not based on reality at all, but rather on “the constantly altered temperatures of the earlier decades.” Ederer adds:

Thus the issue of man-made global warming has taken on a whole new meaning: Yes, it is always man-made if the data are adjusted to fit the theory. The meticulous work by Ewert has predecessors, and fits a series of scandals and contradictions that are simply being ignored by the political supporters of man-made climate change.”

Ederer also brings up the analysis by American meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts who examined 6000 NASA measurement stations and found an abundance of measurement irregularities stemming in large part from serious siting issues. According to Ederer the findings by Professor Ewert are in close agreement with those of Watts and D’Aleo.

Ederer writes of the overall findings by Professor Ewert:

Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C […]. The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cooling of 0.3739°C since 2000.”

Ederer summarizes that in view of the magnitude of the scandal, one would think that there would be in investigation. Yet he does not believe this will be the case because the global warming has turned into a trillion-dollar industry and that that too much is tied to it.

All datasets are available to the public at any time. The studies by Prof. Ewert may be requested by e-mail: ewert.fk@t-online.de.

*Günter Ederer is a former journalist for ARD and ZDF German Television and has won numerous awards internationally.


Greenland Was Much Warmer In The Past

Posted on by

Actual scientists (as opposed to the shameless propagandists who currently work at NASA) know that Greenland was much warmer in the past.


See video by clicking here VIDEO


Scientists have long known this for a very long time.


TimesMachine: January 22, 1934 – NYTimes.com

Except for a short spike from 1990 to 2010, temperatures in southwest Greenland have been generally declining since that article was written – and are now just as cool as they were in the 19th century.


Meanwhile, the fraudsters working for NASA continue to spread propaganda ahead of Paris.


The glacier NASA is lying about in their most recent propaganda is growing, not “coming undone.”


NASA has degenerated into a mindless propaganda machine for the White House, who simply make “facts” up to serve the liar-in-chief’s political agenda.

Terrorism and a cold winter refugee crisis

Not only did President Obama assert the morning of the latest Paris massacre that “ISIS is contained.” Along with Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and other global warming alarmists, he continues to insist that climate change is the gravest threat facing mankind, nature and our planet. This article underscores how false those assertions are.

Fossil fuels actually contribute very little to climate change, which is driven by powerful natural forces over which we have no control. Cold weather kills twenty times more people than hot weather. And Middle Eastern refugees streaming into Europe could face bone-rattling, lethal cold weather, if another Siberian Express roars in from the Arctic. THAT is what Paris climate conferees should address – not how to abolish hydrocarbon use, further hogtie economies, keep 1.3 billion people forever impoverished, and redistribute the world’s wealth.

Thank you for posting our article, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues.Please credit Joe D’Aleo, Allan MacRae and Madhav Khandekar for their contributions to it.

Best regards,



Terrorism and a cold winter refugee crisis

A brutal cold spell could kill refugees. Paris COP21 delegates need to discuss this climate issue.

Paul Driessen and Joe D’Aleo

Even after the latest Paris massacres – and previous radical Islamist atrocities in the USA, France, Britain, Canada, Spain, India, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria and elsewhere – politicians absurdly say hypothetical manmade global warming is the greatest threat facing humanity. In reality, fossil fuel contributions to climate change pose few dangers to people or planet, and winters kill 20 times more people than hot weather.

After being assured snowy winters would soon be something only read about in history books, Europe was shaken by five brutally cold winters this past decade. Thousands died, because they were homeless, lived in drafty homes with poor heating systems, or could not afford adequate fuel.

It could happen again, with even worse consequences. “Millions of desperate people are on the march,” Walter Russell Mead recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal. “Sunni refugees driven out by the barbarity of the Assad regime in Syria, Christians and Yazidis fleeing the pornographic violence of Islamic State, millions more of all faiths and no faith fleeing poverty and oppression without end.”

Where are they heading? Mostly not into neighboring Arab countries, most of which have yanked their welcome mats. Instead, if they’re not staying in Turkey, they’re going north to Europe – into the path the extremely cold “Siberian Express” has increasingly taken. Germany alone could face the challenge of feeding and sheltering 800,000 to 1,000,000 freezing refugees this winter.

If a blast of frigid Siberian air should hit, temperatures in parts of eastern and northern Europe and the western Former Soviet Union could become 70 degrees F (39C) colder than cold spells in much of the Middle East. During the coldest Siberian outbreaks, it gets as lethally cold as -40F (-40C).

Northern and eastern Europeans are largely acclimated to such cold. However, for refugees from regions where winters average 20 to 30 degrees warmer, makeshift houses or tents will make their sojourn a bone-chilling experience. Europe’s exorbitant energy costs, resulting from its obeisance to climate chaos credos, could make this an even worse humanitarian crisis.

However, to listen to the UN, many world leaders, environmental NGOs, scientists from the climate alarm industry, and their sycophant media – especially on the eve of their Paris 2015 global warming summit – threats from cold weather are not supposed to happen. Just 15 years ago, the German paper Spiegel proclaimed, “Good-bye winter: In Germany bitter cold winters are now a thing of the past.” That same year, a British Climate Research Unit scientist said “children aren’t going to know what snow is.”

The media dutifully repeated similar claims each year, until unbelievably cold, snowy winters began hitting in 2008/09. In December 2010, England had its second-coldest December since 1659, amid the Little Ice Age. For five years, 2008-2013, snow paralyzed travel in England and northern and western Europe. Not surprisingly, the same media then blamed manmade global warming for the harsh winters.

In reality, natural Atlantic Ocean cycles lasting around 60 years control winter temperatures in Europe and Eastern North America. When the North Atlantic warms, “blocking high pressure systems” largely prevent warm Atlantic air from reaching Europe.

There is also a strong correlation between the sun’s geomagnetic activity and these blocking-induced cold winters in Europe. The five brutally cold winters ending in 2012/13 had the lowest level of solar geomagnetic activity in the entire record, dating back some 90 years.

When the North Atlantic is warm and the sun’s geomagnetic patterns are weak, these blocking patterns keep warmer Atlantic air out of Europe. Frigid air from off deep snows in Siberia can then more easily invade from the east, bringing sub-zero cold and heavy snows. That’s what happened from 2008 to 2013.

The ocean and solar factors eased in 2013, and the last two years have seen more Atlantic air and milder winters. However both solar and ocean patterns are starting to return to the situation where cold invasions are more likely. That could usher in nasty surprises for the Middle Eastern refugees.

Even this year’s early winter October cold brought news stories about Syrian children becoming sick amid exposure to colder weather than they were used to. In Austria, adults and children alike were already complaining about the weather and wishing they could go home.

In fact, cold weather kills 20 times more people than hot weather, according to a Lancet medical journal studythat analyzed 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. It should be required reading for the 40,000-plus bureaucrats, politicians, activists and promoters who will soon descend on Paris, to enjoy five-star hotels and restaurants while blathering endlessly about dire threats of global warming.

They should ponder the fact that the Lancet study reflects normal societies in peaceful countries. Even there, many more people die each year during the four winter months than in the eight non-winter months. Indeed, there even the United States experiences some 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths per year.

In the United Kingdom, the winter death rate is about twice as high as in the USA: excess winter deaths range up to 50,000 per year – due to the UK’s poorer home insulation and heating systems, and much higher energy costs caused by its climate and renewable energy policies.

The refugees’ excess winter death toll could well be even greater, due to the high cost of European energy and the migrants’ extreme poverty, poor nutrition, inadequate clothing and blankets, preexisting diseases, and makeshift housing: tents, trailers and other dwellings that have little or no insulation or central heat.

Systematic misinformation about the dangers of fossil fuels and hot versus cold weather has helped make this crisis much worse than needs be. Climate alarmists will thus bear the blame for thousands of avoidable deaths among refugees this winter, especially if the Siberian Express invades once again.

The Paris climate conferees need to focus on humanity’s real and immediate dangers: this rapidly growing refugee crisis, abysmal EU economies and job losses – and the billions worldwide who still lack the adequate, reliable, affordable energy required to end their crushing poverty, malnutrition, disease and early death, by ensuring clean water, proper sanitation, modern hospitals, lights, refrigerators and plentiful food. The climate conferees must address the following much more pressing questions.

How is climate change more important than safeguarding refugees who are already suffering from cold weather? Should conferees be focused on hypothetical future manmade climate chaos, while EU nations squabble over who will take how many refugees and potential terrorists, amid a possible winter crisis? What contingency plans do they have for another bout of frigid weather possibly invading the continent?

When a million refugees are freezing in squalid conditions with inadequate shelter, food, heat, clothing and medical care, and 1.3 billion people still do not have electricity – why would the world commit to spending billions on alleged future global warming catastrophes? As Bjorn Lomborg puts it, why would the world also want to give up nearly $1 trillion in GDP every year for the rest of this century, to avert a total hypothetical (computer modeled) temperature rise of just 0.306 degrees C (0.558 F) by 2100?

Where will the money come from to combat growing war and terrorism, aid the millions displaced by these horrors, rebuild devastated cities, put millions of people back to work, and bring electricity and better lives to billions of others – if we continue this obsession over global warming? Do humans really play a big enough roll in climate change to justify these incomprehensible price tags? Where is the actual evidence? Not computer models or press releases – the actual evidence?

It would be an unconscionable crime against humanity, if the nations gathering in Paris implement policies to protect our planet’s energy-deprived masses from hypothetical manmade climate disasters decades from now, by perpetuating poverty and disease that kill millions more people tomorrow.

These are the real reasons climate change is a critical moral issue. We need to we recognize that, and stop playing games with people’s lives. We must acknowledge that horrific computer model scenarios do not reflect planetary reality – and must not guide energy policy.

Joe D’Aleo is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist and American Meteorological Society Fellow and co-founder of The Weather Channel. Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow. Climate experts Allan MacRae and Madhav Khandekar contributed to this article.


Is ‘climate change’ really the world’s most pressing problem? (OPINION)

By Gordon Fulks

Famed Nobel laureate in physics Richard Feynman once described science as “the belief in the ignorance of experts.” The very first scientific society, The Royal Society, adopted the motto: “Take nobody’s word for it.” Questioning is the stock-in-trade of scientists; it is the way we discover new things and the way we keep science honest. Without the ability to question conclusions, science degenerates into politics and pseudo-religion.

Yet fanatical proponents of the prevailing climate paradigm, like historian Naomi Oreskes, argue that such questioning is equivalent to the tobacco companies questioning the link between smoking and lung cancer. That is pure political nonsense, because the arbiter in science is always robust data, not opinion. And we scientists relish the opportunity to point out again the very sturdy statistical links between smoking and lung cancer.

The problem with climate science is that the robust data that should backup the alarming conclusions of the establishment are not there. In fact the robust data show no link between man-made CO2 and global temperature. To be sure, propagandists are forever promoting natural climate variations as “proof.” But these are merely proof that our climate continues to cycle in response to natural forces, as it always has. The Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warm Periods were all warmer than the Modern Warm Period and had nothing to do with our ancestors pulling their chariots with Hummers. This simple logic puts those scientists who earn their living from climate hysteria on the defensive.

Knowing that the robust data is running solidly against them, they are looking elsewhere for a way to win the argument. Climate modelers who have been predicting far more warming than has been observed are particularly on the defensive, because their failures are well documented. To try to salvage something, they have asked President Barack Obama to invoke the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) act to prosecute as mobsters their fellow scientists who dare to disagree with them. When 20 scientists, led by Professor Jagadish Shukla of George Mason University, demanded such action, hurricane expert Peter Webster told atmospheric sciences Professor Judith Curry of Georgia Tech that these scientists had “signed the death warrant for science.” And Lamar Smith, R-Texas, began a congressional inquiry to question such a brazen attack on science and those who practice it. No one imagined how this drama would unfold. It soon became apparent that Shukla had diverted a portion of his $63 million in government contract funds to his family. It seems he was not content with just a lucrative salary.

This scandal is unfolding as the United Nations is about to convene another climate conference in Paris later this month. To make matters worse, well-known French TV meteorologist Philippe Verdier was abruptly removed from French government television for writing a book charging that we “are hostage to a planetary scandal over climate change – a war machine whose aim is to keep us in fear.”

Will these latest scandals overshadow the Paris conference, as the “Climategate” scandal hung heavily over the Copenhagen conference? My sense is that the participants are now very well-practiced at weathering the perpetual setbacks swirling around them. Total denial has worked for them in the past. Why not now?

What will slow them down is the enormity of what they demand: enormous payments to developing nations and enormous curtailment of industrial activity in the developed world, further shifting it to those developing nations. None of this legitimately addresses any concerns about carbon dioxide, however misguided. It only shifts carbon emissions from one location to another, giving corrupt politicians and bureaucrats a chance to claim success before people realize that they have been duped again by the pervasive propaganda.

One can only hope that Paris will finally mark the unraveling of the vast and greedy climate cartel. The world must move on to far more pressing — and real — problems.

Gordon J. Fulks lives in Corbett and can be reached at gordonfulks@hotmail.com. He holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago’s Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research.

A Resolution To Defend Billions of Lives: WE SAY NO TO PARIS COP21

The following resolution was released yesterday by the Schiller Institute, with the intention of rapidly collecting signatures from qualified professionals, political leaders, and ordinary citizens internationally. The main posting of the resolution can be found here, as well as the downloadable leaflet for signatures.

The conditions of life for billions of people depend upon rejecting the agenda being presented at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference to be held in Paris this December. The COP21 Paris initiative to adopt a legally binding agreement to reduce CO2 emissions must be rejected on two grounds: the scientific reality that mankind’s activity is not going to cause catastrophic climate change, and the very real, lethal consequences of the CO2 reduction programs being demanded.

There is no legitimate basis for having the COP21 conference. Put an end to this now!

Despite the climate-change narrative being presented by an extremely well-funded, top-down propaganda campaign, there is an immense amount of solid scientific evidence which clearly contradicts and/or refutes the claims of coming catastrophic climate change caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases. For example, satellite measurements have shown that there has been no average rise in global temperatures for over 18 years, despite the fact that human greenhouse gas emissions have been increasing at an accelerating rate. This underscores the reality that the climate simply does not respond to CO2 levels in the way claimed by climate alarmists; said otherwise, the Earth’s climate system is not highly sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Because many climate models are using these false assumptions of high climate sensitivity to CO2, the predictions of these climate models have been consistently wrong, and with each year they are diverging further from reality. The gradual changes in the climate that have occurred over the recent decades, and the gradual changes which will continue to occur in the future, are not and will not be a cause for alarm. Most of these changes are natural, and any impact mankind may have would be relatively minor. A healthy and growing world economy will be able to adapt to these changes.

We must also recognize that CO2 is not a pollutant—it is an essential part of the biosphere. Because the present atmospheric CO2 levels are well below the optimum for plant growth, human-caused increases in CO2 concentrations are already contributing to increases in agricultural productivity and natural plant growth—creating a measurably greener planet.

But the Paris 2015 summit is not only about nations potentially wasting time and resources on a phantom problem existing only inside computer models—the ugly reality is that the CO2 reduction programs being proposed would increase poverty, lower living conditions, and accelerate death rates around the world. The world simply cannot support a growing population with improving conditions of life using only solar, wind, and other forms of so-called “green” energy.

More to the point, this scheme is being intensely promoted by modern followers of the population reduction ideology popularized by Thomas Malthus. Organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund/World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) have repeatedly declared that current human population is billions of individuals beyond the Earth’s ”carrying capacity,” and must therefore be reduced by some billions of people. The present push for a CO2 reduction program is deeply rooted in this Malthusian ideological motivation. But Malthus was wrong in the Eighteenth Century, and his followers are wrong today.

Energy-intensive scientific, technological, and economic growth is essential to human existence. This can be measured by transitions to higher levels of energy flux-density, per capita and per area. Such progress, growth, and development is a universal right, and CO2 emissions are presently a vital part of that process for the overwhelming majority of the world’s population. The adoption of a legally binding CO2 reduction scheme at the COP21 conference in Paris will condemn billions of people to a lower quality of life, with higher death rates, greater poverty, and no ability to exercise their inherent human right to participate in the creation of a better future for society as a whole.

This is deeply immoral.

For these reasons the CO2 reduction scheme of the COP21 conference in Paris must be rejected.

Believing the impossible

Scientific Alliance

In Alice through the Looking Glass, the White Queen famously said that she could believe six impossible things before breakfast. It often seems as though some people are following her example. Many things may be eminently desirable, but wishing for them is not the same as achieving them. Believing that a particular wrong or injustice can be completely eliminated often does no good. In too many cases, the best can be the enemy of the good.

Poverty, for example, is one of the great scourges of the world, but creating a well-financed, high profile campaign such as Make Poverty History has not made poor people noticeably better off since it was launched in 2005. The campaign – in effect, not new, but a high-profile relaunch of existing efforts – called for ‘trade justice’, debt relief and more and smarter aid. All well-intentioned, but not really addressing the major issues. When bad governance, corruption and conflict lie at the heart of the problem for many countries such interventions can do little to ease the problem.

Poverty is a particular problem in the developing world, but there are pockets of poverty even in the most prosperous societies. If rich European countries cannot eliminate poverty at home, how can they hope to do so in the developing world?

Of course, this is all to some extent a question of definition. Campaigners are generally talking about absolute poverty, which the World Bank currently defines as living on less than $1.90 a day. But that doesn’t mean that all is fine and dandy for someone with $2 a day. In rich countries, on the other hand, poverty is defined in relative terms. In the UK, for example, a child is considered impoverished if they live in a household with less than 60% of the average income.

Either way, there is no clear-cut line which distinguishes the poor from the adequately well-off. And, using the UK definition, poverty can never be abolished without almost total income equality across all households. To talk of making poverty history when the root causes are so difficult to address and poverty itself is so difficult to define is not really helpful.

Climate change is a completely different issue, but the same attitude still prevails in some quarters. It seems there are quite a number of people who think that agreed targets must automatically be achievable. But, too often, they represent more of a leap of faith than something which can be realistically achieved. At best, they can be regarded as aspirational, but the language of climate change mitigation policy – ‘must’, ‘vital to avoid catastrophe’ etc – strongly suggests that they are considered as much more than that.

Take two examples. We see that The EU can achieve zero CO2 emissions by 2050 and that G7 leaders agree to phase out fossil fuel use by the end of the century. Anabelle Jaeger, a Green Party regional councillor for the Provence-Alpes-Cote d’Azur and member of the Environment Commission of the Committee of the Regions, is the lady who believes that decarbonisation is possible in the next 35 years. She is the author of a draft opinion on COP21 which calls for precisely this. In her words It is an ambitious position that has real support from the Committee of the Regions. We would not propose this if it was not possible. If we, as local authorities, can do this, then Europe as a whole can do it too.” This certainly seems to be a leap of faith rather than a fully planned transition.

Such enthusiasm from the Green Party at a regional level is perhaps understandable. But what about the leaders of the G7 agreeing to phase out the use of fossil fuels by 2100, following their summit in Bavaria in June? The communique (Think Ahead, Act Together) was actually not quite as precise as that. Climate change, energy and the environment appeared on page 12 of the 17-page document, following a range of more immediately pressing issues, including health. The relevant statement was “…we emphasize that deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required with a decarbonisation of the global economy over the course of this century.”

Along with this goes a commitment to seek “…a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) applicable to all parties that is ambitious, robust, inclusive and reflects evolving national circumstances.”

G7 leaders appear to be trying to keep the show on the road, without making cast-iron commitments. But the nature of the statements made, and the likely wording of any final resolution from Paris (not that this is ever likely to be truly legally binding on signatories) raises expectations among campaigners that swingeing emissions reductions can and will be achieved.

The reality is that any objective assessment shows we currently do not have the technology to achieve net zero emissions without severe disruption of advanced economies and without erecting barriers to the development of poorer countries. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous. Not that this is necessarily a problem for some on the far Left. Evo Morales, Bolivia’s president, for example, has put forward a contribution to COP21 which suggests that for a lasting solution to the climate crisis, we must destroy capitalism.

Fortunately, this is not a view shared by many other world leaders. But other commentators suggest similarly radical approaches are called for; for example, Venkatesh Rao in The Atlantic: Why solving climate change will be like mobilizing for a war. In this vision, authoritarian technocrats marshal society’s resources in a focussed effort to achieve what would otherwise be unrealisable goals.

For those of us who would rather remain democratic control over politics, this is still the same as saying something is, at the current stage of development, impossible to achieve. Much more meaningful and useful progress is likely to be made by identifying the technical roadblocks and working on solutions than simply ploughing more and more resources into technology which cannot meet the goal. In the case of climate change, swamping the country with wind farms and solar arrays can never be the answer unless an economic energy storage system is available on a vast scale.

Massachusetts Commercial Wind :News Media Untrustworthy

Background of the extensive misleading media commercial wind renewable energy campaign carried out in Massachusetts.

The public continues to express skepticism about what they see, hear and read in the media.


Massachusetts bet big on land based commercial wind turbines. The state created a monster called the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative today known as the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center.

The agency was tasked with getting 2000 megawatts of commercial wind energy by the year 2020. A single commercial wind turbine has a rating of around 1 or 2 megawatts.

In order to achieve the renewable energy agenda the state politicians called for a real all out war on fossil fuels and they are fighting the war just like a real war. The war calls for agencies of the state to look the other way when it comes to enforcing laws that affect the installation and operation of commercial wind turbines. That equates to taking your health and your property rights for the “Agenda.”

Today it is an established fact families and communities throughout Cape Cod and our commonwealth are being severely affected by land-based wind turbines. Individuals have developed health problems. Real estate prices have dropped. Otherwise peaceful towns are in an uproar over existing and proposed turbines.
Falmouth is ground zero for poorly placed commercial megawatt wind turbines in the United States.

Would it surprise anyone in Massachusetts to report on corrupt hiring and promotion practices within the state or political connections in obtaining state jobs of course not.

How many people have gone to work for the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center and then gone on to work for commercial wind turbine companies. The MassCEC is a stepping stone to a promise of a higher paying job. One hand washes the other for a six figure job.

The news media in Massachusetts has a cute trick when it comes to commercial wind turbines. The majority of news reports only report positive news about commercial wind never any negative news. They call this reporting by omission or just plain lying to the public.

The former Massachusetts Attorney General sat on her hands while the wind turbine industry created a second class group of citizens in Massachusetts called the wind turbine victims. These citizens health and property rights are considered collateral damage on the war on fossil fuels by our politicians and news media. Their health and property rights were taken with no notice or compensation.

The former Massachusetts Attorney General now works for a law firm that specializes in wind turbine installations.

Now comes the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal that started out at 35 million in 2010. The news media has the general population of Massachusetts thinking the terminal is complete at 113 million. Don’t believe it ! It’s an outright lie !

The terminal remains incomplete. It has two temporary entrances on Blackmer Street because of a radio station that had to be moved off four acres of toxic land. There are no large walking type cranes and the rail link is half a mile away.

The hurricane gates have an opening of 150 feet but only a legal opening of 120 feet. Commercial wind turbine “ jack-up” barges don’t fit through the gates.
The public was told Cape Wind was going to build and construct wind turbines in New Bedford. Cape Wind never had a Bureau of Ocean Energy Management permit to build in New Bedford. The BOEM permit was issued ten years ago for Quonset Point, Rhode Island.

Quonset Point, RI has two 1500 foot wide channels to the ocean. During World War II the base could handle 4 full size US Battle Ships at one time. Deepwater Wind is currently using Quonset Point as its construction and assembly area. Compare that to New Bedford Harbor with a legal opening of 120 feet at the hurricane gate.

The former editor of a local New Bedford newspaper is also a wind turbine consultant. Your local news media in Falmouth told you the town Falmouth Harbor was going to host Cape Wind. Every town and city on the coast of Massachusetts was told they were going to profit somehow by Cape Wind.

The state and media does a good job of hiding spending. The bonds borrowing with intersest is costing taxpayers $187,500.00 a month for the next thirty years on the incomplete financial fiasco at the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal.

The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center months ago put out an RFP, Request for Proposal to operate the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal. The MassCEC has refused to announce the operator that was awarded the bid.
Who could afford to lease the terminal for more than the $187,500.00 a month in bond payments being paid by taxpayers.

Massachusetts next week is considering more spending on ocean wind turbine projects.

The New Bedford port if it was built with Cape Wind in mind with smaller 3.6 megawatt ocean wind turbines what now? Today ocean wind turbines are nearing 10 megawatts three times the size of Cape Wind.

The seeds of public distrust were sown long before the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal financial fiasco. The poorly placed land based turbines led the way to the credibility crisis in the news media.

The news media has hit a low point with Massachusetts citizens and taxpayers over commercial wind. We are now reluctant to trust the news media in this regard. After all, more and more citizens each year don’t think they can trust the press at all.

The Massachusetts legislature next week is about to multiply the land and ocean wind turbine financial fiasco by ten times what happened in the past ten years.