French Herder Believes Family Health Ailments, 400 Dead Cows “Clearly Linked” To Nearby Wind Park

By P Gosselin on 16. January 2021 Share this…

More than 400 cows have died mysteriously since a wind park was built near a herd in 2012. Local residents also suffering health issues: “permanent fatigue, muscle aches, headaches, insomnia”

Earlier we wrote about the adverse health impacts of wind turbines and on humans and animals, read here and here. Also search NTZ zone using the search word “infrasound”.

Cause unknown

Recently French farmer Didier Potiron reported that 400 of his cows had died since a wind park was built close by in 2012. Veterinarians cannot find a cause and remain puzzled. People are also feeling ill.

According to French site, “In Puceul, near Nozay (Loire-Atlantique), cow breeders Didier and Murielle Potiron registered in mid-December 2020 their 400th dead cow since the construction of the wind farm.” Since the unusual deaths began in 2012, that’s a rate of about 1 lost cow a week.

Image: © Potiron family.

Three more deaths in January

Then on January 4th, 2021, the Potiron family announced that three more cows had died – again due to unknown reasons. Since the wind park was built, the family has seen significant excess mortality among the herd, and health issues among the family.

The Potiron family have even stopped autopsies being performed by the veterinary school in Nantes because they always got the answer: “no explanation as to the cause of death”.

“Clearly linked” to nearby wind park

“For Didier and Murielle Potiron, but also for their neighbor breeder Céline Bouvet, the origin of this excess mortality of their animals is clearly linked to the nearby wind turbines,” reports actu.fe. All the more so since they themselves have been suffering the effects on their health for all these years: permanent fatigue, muscle aches, headaches, insomnia… so many problems that disappear as soon as they move away from their farms.”

The family pushed to shut down the wind park for seven days, but the wind park operator refused, reminding that the park “complies with French installation standards”.

A New Abnormal of Rolling Blackouts Under Biden Energy Plan

By Professor Larry Bell October 5th, 2020

Share the Out Loud Truth:

Power blackouts that rolled across California cities and towns during an August 13-14 heat wave offer a warning glimpse of much more dire consequences we can absolutely count on occurring with enactment of the Biden campaign’s “Build Back Better” proposal to immediately eliminate fracking on all public lands, and virtually eliminate fossil-fueled power plants over the next 15 years.

In concert with the aspirational Green New Deal co-sponsored by his running mate Senator Kamala Harris, D-Calif., Biden’s plan calls for humongous expenditures in renewable energy, including installing 500 million solar panels and manufacturing 60,000 wind turbines.

Add to this that Biden proposes to have taxpayers finance a half-million electric car chargers across America – along with funding to help car makers convert their factories to electric vehicle (EV) production.

Meanwhile, California Gov. Gavin Newson has now ordered his state to ban new gas vehicles by 2035 in order to weaponize its gigantic car market as a hammer to force automakers to concentrate on EVs.

All of this, of course, will shift even greater energy demand from petroleum to the electrical power sector. Producing and recharging those EVs will require that energy sufficiency is constantly available. That wasn’t the case when that August heatwave left millions of perspiring Californians in the dark as power demand outstripped supplies.

Now imagine adding several tens of thousands of EVs to drain further dwindling supplies of reliable energy. Not explained are any bright ideas regarding how to recharge all those power-hungry plug-ins on windless nights.

For a reality check, let’s first recognize that about 80 percent of all U.S. energy (always measured in BTUs) comes from fossil sources, with another 8.6 percent contributed by nuclear. Of that total U.S. energy amount, solar and wind combined presently contribute barely over three percent, with solar contributing less than 0.1 percent.

Even the best wind power and sunlight systems produce energy averaged over the year at 25%-30% of the time or less. By comparison, conventional natural gas plants have very high availability in the 80%-95% range, and often higher.

Wind and solar energy intermittency demand an equal amount of “spinning reserve” power typically provided by natural gas turbines that must be inefficiently throttled up and down like a car driving in stop-and-go traffic to balance the energy grid.

Any excess energy that is produced must either be dumped or stored for times when it will be useful – like, for example at night when large populations of EV owners will simultaneously wish to replenish their large power-thirsty batteries.

There’s also another big problem with producing those batteries.

China controls about 70% of the world’s lithium supply and 83% of the anodes to make them. And a lithium project that has been seeking approval to mine the material in a Nevada desert has been blocked from doing so for more than a decade by environmental groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity.

Nevertheless, limited capacities and unreliability issues aside (and they are big ones), wasn’t that “green energy” still supposed to be environmentally clean?

Certainly not when we consider what goes into making those systems.

As reported by my friend Mark Mills at the Manhattan Institute, building wind turbines and solar panels to generate electricity, as well as batteries to fuel electric vehicles, requires, on average, more than 10 times the quantity of materials, compared with building equivalent systems using hydrocarbons to deliver the same amount of energy.

Consider the massive material requirements needed to replace a single 100-MW gas-fired turbine about the size of a typical residential house with at least 20 wind turbines, each about the size of the Washington Monument and covering about 10 square miles of land.

Wind and solar power also require huge amounts of more land and expansive transmission lines to deliver electricity from remote sites to high power demand metropolitan centers. Those long-distance power transfers also add significant transmission losses.

The wind alternative would consume about 30,000 tons of iron ore and 50,000 tons of concrete, as well as 900 tons of non-recyclable plastics for the huge blades. A solar plant with the same output – enough power to supply about 75,000 homes – would require half again more tonnage in cement, steel and glass.

Adding to that, also imagine periodically replacing a utility-scale battery storage system for that same 100-MW wind farm comprising at least 10,000 tons of Tesla-class batteries. Producing each of them requires mining, moving, and processing more than 500,000 pounds of materials using hydrocarbon-fueled equipment. This amounts to some 20 times more than the 25,000 pounds of petroleum that an internal combustion engine uses over the life of a car.

Applied for transportation, and averaged over a 1,000 pound EV battery life, imagine that each mile of driving an electric vehicle “consumes” about five pounds of earth moved by hydrocarbon powered devices, whereas a comparable petroleum-fueled vehicle only consumes about 0.2 pounds of liquids per mile.

Again, for comparison with hydrocarbons, it requires the energy equivalent of about 100 barrels of oil to fabricate a quantity of storage batteries that can store a single barrel of oil-equivalent energy. Put still another way, about 60 pounds of batteries are needed to store the energy equivalent to that in one pound of hydrocarbons.

Mark Mills reminds us that by 2050, with current plans, the quantity of worn-out, non-recyclable solar panels will double the tonnage of all today’s global plastic waste, along with over 3 million tons per year of unrecyclable plastics from worn-out wind turbine blades.

By 2030, more than 10 million tons per year of batteries, including rare earth elements such as dysprosium they contain, will become landfill garbage.

As a 2017 World Bank study concludes, “Technologies assumed to populate the clean energy shift … are in fact significantly more material intensive in their composition than current traditional fossil-fuel-based energy supply systems.”

In addition, banning gasoline vehicles is going to cost California lots of funding needed for roads and public works, including the state’s bullet train to nowhere.  The state currently collects about $8 billion in fuel taxes and $3 billion in cap-and trade revenues annually.

Getting to 100% electric by 2035 will require massively more money for subsidies to pay for those cars and an enormous vehicle-charging network to expand from a mere 6.2% of the auto market represented by EV sales last year.

Finally, as for wind, solar and EV’s eliminating either “carbon pollution” or climate change, don’t believe that for a moment. The only thing “green” about any of them will come from the pocketbooks of taxpayer subsidies and hiked-up energy cost consumers.

Share the Out Loud Truth:

Share This Story, Let’s Get Loud Together!


About the Author: Professor Larry Bell

Larry Bell is an endowed professor of space architecture at the University of Houston where he founded the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture (SICSA) and the graduate program in space architecture. He is the author of several books, including “Reinventing Ourselves: How Technology is Rapidly and Radically Transforming Humanity” (2019), “Thinking Whole: Rejecting Half-Witted Left & Right Brain Limitations” (2018), “Reflections on Oceans and Puddles: One Hundred Reasons to be Enthusiastic, Grateful and Hopeful” (2017), “Cosmic Musings: Contemplating Life Beyond Self” (2016), and “Scared Witless: Prophets and Profits of Climate Doom” (2015). He is currently working on a new book with Buzz Aldrin, “Beyond Footprints and Flagpoles.”

Just Who Is The Real Blue-Collar President?

Stephen Moore | Oct 6, 2020 | Commentary | 

Just Who Is the Real Blue-Collar President?

One thing we learned from the debate in Cleveland last Tuesday, when Trump wasn’t interrupting, is that Joe Biden makes up numbers on the fly. There was a lot of fibbing going on. Consider this exchange between the two candidates:

BIDEN: We handed (Trump) a booming economy. He blew it. He blew it.

TRUMP: It wasn’t booming.

WALLACE: Sir, wait. Is it fair to say he blew it when … there was record low unemployment before COVID?

BIDEN: Yeah. Yeah, because what he did, even before COVID, manufacturing went in the hole. Manufacturing went in the hole.

He went on to say that President Barack Obama created manufacturing jobs, but they fell under President Donald Trump.

The claim that Trump “blew it” when he became president is quite a claim given that the unemployment rate, the poverty rate, the interest rate and the inflation rate hit all-time lows in 2019, according to the Census Bureau and the Department of Labor. Employment, wages, median incomes and wealth hit an all-time high. Median households saw a $6,400 gain in real income in three years under Trump, compared with the approximately $4,000 increase made in eight years under Obama and Biden. As one who served as an economic adviser for Trump, I can say definitively that these were exactly the results from our tax cuts, deregulation efforts and pro-America energy policies. They worked like a charm.

One of our proudest results was the surge in blue-collar employment under Trump.

Here are the numbers for the eight years of Obama’s presidency and the first three years under Trump (prepandemic):


Obama: -192,000

Trump: 475,000


Obama: -112,000

Trump: 63,000


Obama: 280,000

Trump: 746,000

Yes, under the early months of the pandemic, when government-imposed shutdowns ground industrial production to a virtual halt, the factories were bolted shut. That would have happened if Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Mother Teresa or Hillary Clinton were president during this public health crisis. What matters is the status of blue-collar jobs before the pandemic and since the economy has started to reopen.

Since the shutdowns ended, blue-collar jobs have been surging back. Several hundred thousand manufacturing jobs have come back, and many factories and construction sites now have “for hire” signs in the windows.

Biden is right that we still need to get hundreds of thousands of these high-paying blue-collar jobs back in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and New Jersey, among other states. Trump wants to do that by continuing to cut taxes and promote American energy production. Biden wants to do it by raising taxes by $4 trillion. Americans will have to decide which approach will work better.

Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and an economic consultant with FreedomWorks. He is the co-author of “Trumponomics: Inside the America First Plan to Revive the American Economy.”

German Power Prices Soar; Taxes, Green Fees Make Up 54% Of Cost


Thanks to the Energiewende (transition to green energies), which is tantamount to a vegan energy diet, Germany’s electricity prices have soared 27% over the past decade to become the most expensive in Europe, if not the world, according to the STROM-REPORT.

Taxes, surcharges, and a catalog of other fees make up 53.6% of Germany’s electricity price, only Denmark has a higher share at 67.8%.

Only five European countries have seen electricity prices drop over the last 10 years.

Soaring prices in Latvia and Great Britain

No country has seen electricity rates rise more than in Latvia and Great Britain, where the price has risen a whopping 55% and 46% respectively over the past 10 years.’

Source: Infografik “Strompreise in Europa 2020”,, Creative Commons License CC-BY-ND

What’s behind the high electricity prices? According to the STROM-REPORT:

“The biggest intra-European differences are caused by taxes and duties. The EU average is 36.6%. But the values vary from country to country and are highest in Denmark with 63.7%.

“In Germany, where the government-induced price components also account for more than half [52.3%] of the price, the EEG levy, which enables the expansion of renewable energies, is included at 21.5%.”

Read more at No Tricks Zone

California’s on fire, and so are climate change alarmists

California Policy Center

California’s on fire, and so are climate change alarmists: Fires are burning out of control in California, and the environmentalists and Sacramento politicians are seizing the opportunity to blame global warming. They’re laying the groundwork for new legislation that will transfer even more power to the state and government unions.

Gov. Newsom said this week that he has “no patience” for those skeptical that the historic fires are anything other than a direct result of climate change: “You may not believe it intellectually, but your own eyes, your own experiences, tell a different story….” To paraphrase Groucho Marx: Who are you going to believe, Newsom or your lying brain?

Former coal and oil investor Tom Steyer added, “We didn’t have to be here. Corruption and inaction are what got us here, and only immediate, bold, transformational action will prevent these climate tragedies from getting even worse.” Climate change is real, but is it the sole culprit of the fires ravaging the state?

Green radicals are responsible for red forests: In his most recent analysis, CPC contributor Edward Ring brings much-needed balance to the discussion. He explains how the environmental movement fiercely prevented – and continues to prevent – basic forest management. Ed is an expert in this field. Before cofounding CPC, he founded and the popular “GoingGreen” investor conferences. His piece is required reading for anyone looking for a more nuanced view of why the state is on fire. He writes:In 1999, the Associated Press reported that forestry experts had long agreed that “clearing undergrowth would save trees,” and that “years of aggressive firefighting have allowed brush to flourish that would have been cleared away by wildfires.” But very little was done. And now fires of unprecedented size are raging across the Western United States.

“Sen. Feinstein blames Sierra Club for blocking wildfire bill,” reads the provocative headline on a 2002 story in California’s Napa Valley Register. Feinstein had brokered a congressional consensus on legislation to thin “overstocked” forests close to homes and communities, but could not overcome the environmental lobby’s disagreement over expediting the permit process to thin forests everywhere else.

Fire suppression along with too many environmentalist-inspired bureaucratic barriers to controlled burns and undergrowth removal turned the hillsides and canyons of Southern California into tinderboxes.
Climate change spares private forests: Katy Grimes, editor of the California Globe, points out that the disparate impact of climate change on public and private forests suggests another factor is at play, namely the lack of proper forest management in government-run forests:
 For decades, traditional forest management was scientific and successful, until ideological, preservationist zealots wormed their way into government and began the 40-year overhaul of sound federal forest management through abuse of the Endangered Species Act and the no-use movement…Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) … has warned, “Our forests are now catastrophically overgrown, often carrying four times the number of trees the land can support.  In this stressed and weakened condition, our forests are easy prey for drought, disease, pestilence and fire…. Forest fires, fueled by decades of pent up overgrowth are now increasing in their frequency and intensity and destruction… Excess timber will come out of the forest in one of only two ways.  It is either carried out or it burns out….”The same climate change impacts private lands as public lands, but private forests are not burning down because they are properly managed. Or if a fire does break out on privately managed forest land, it is often extinguished more quickly and easily because the trees aren’t so close together and the underbrush has been cleared away. 

Unions have cartelized firefighting: As Steven Greenhut explains in Reason, firefighter unions’ exorbitant compensation demands have led to fewer boots on the ground. Citing CPC’s own analysis, Steve argues that if firefighters were paid a market salary, California would have a lot more troops necessary to fight these fires:
 Frankly, union power drives state and local firefighting policies. The median compensation package for firefighters has topped $240,000 a year in some locales. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection firefighters earn less, but their packages still total nearly $150,000 a year. The number of California firefighters who receive compensation packages above $500,000 a year is mind-blowing. Obviously, if the state spends scarce resources in this manner, it will have fewer resources to hire additional firefighters and buy equipment that’s now in short supply…

We all appreciate the work that firefighters do, especially during another grueling fire season, but we shouldn’t forget that firefighting resource shortages are caused by a legislature that is more interested in preserving union wage levels than in creating a firefighting system that works best for the public.

Firefighters unions block fire suppression strategy: Over at Flash Report, Richard Rider explains his decades-long quest for a simple yet significant fire suppression strategy: supplemental volunteer firefighters:
 The most significant reform I have proposed — over and over through the years — is the establishment of a large supplementary volunteer fire brigade for just such conflagrations.

Our professional firefighters need our help. But the sad part is that they definitely don’t WANT our help.  For brush fires, they want “boots on the ground,” but only UNION boots on the ground.  Their goal is to get California governments to hire more professional union firefighters at $180K+ cost annually — to sit around at more and more firehouses 24/7 until — every few years — a major brush fire sweeps the area.  And even then, they will not be able to save most homes in such a fire.

Jordan Bruneau
Communications Director

Climate Change Barely Registers Among Americans’ List of Top Concerns, Gallup Poll Shows

H. Sterling Burnett

Just 1 percent of Americans surveyed identified the combined category of “Climate change/Environment/Pollution” as “the most important problem facing this country today,” in a newly released Gallup poll.

Coronavirus the Top Concern

The Wuhan Coronavirus remained the top concern among the 1007 adults polled by Gallup between July 1 and July 23, with 30 percent of those surveyed identifying it as “the most important problem facing the country today.” “Government/Poor Leadership,” came in a distant second among the list of concerns, with 23 percent of respondents saying it is the top problem facing the nation.

All economic problems combined were identified by 9 percent of those polled as the most important problem facing the country, with 4 percent saying the “Economy in general” is the top problem and 2 percent saying “Unemployment/Jobs” is the nation’s top concern.

With protests and riots continuing to plague parts of the county, “Race Relations/Racism” ranked as the third most important problem facing the country, with 16 percent of respondents listing it as such. This represents a significant increase in concern about race relations since April, at which time only 1 percent those polled said it was America’s top problem.

Climate Ties for Last

Only 1 percent of those polled identified all environmental issues combined, including climate change, as the most important problem facing the country.

This result indicates strong disagreement with Democrat Party leaders who regularly refer to climate change as the most dangerous threat facing the United States and the world, and with presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, who said, “There’s no more consequential challenge that we must meet in the next decade than the onrushing climate crisis,” when presenting his Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice.

Five percent of poll respondents ranked “Crime/Violence” as the nation’s most important problem, 3 percent cited the “Judicial System/Courts/Laws,” and 2 percent said “Ethics/Morals/Religious/Family Decline,” “Lack of respect for each other,” “The media,” or “Healthcare” is the most important problem facing the country, ahead of environmental problems in general and climate change in particular.

This article was originally published at

Kamala’s Dangerous Agenda

By Peter Murphy CFACT

Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden, has made his vice presidential choice, and he chose wisely among a half dozen considerations who are women of color: U.S. Senator Kamala Harris of California. Congratulations to her.

Sen. Harris is a “wise” choice from a Democratic political standpoint – she is presentable on the national stage and malleable on policy issues. She also fully embraces man-made global warming to the extent America and the world should rapidly transition to “renewable” energy from carbon-emitting fossil fuels. Hence, Sen. Harris readily signed on as a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal early in 2019.

Ms. Harris’ own presidential campaign crashed and burned last year for reasons that do not reflect well on her, as reported in the New York Times at the time. Nonetheless, the experience prepares her for this new, high profile role.

I met Sen. Harris at an event in New York in early 2017 shortly after she became Senator. Her presence left me no doubt she was running for president, as had another first-term senator named Barack Obama. Her similar ambition has thus far borne fruit.

As I have written, the Democratic Party is all in on an extreme climate agenda. Nearly every candidate who ran for the Party’s presidential nomination proposed some version of the Green New Deal, which only differed on how many trillions of dollars it would cost.

Neither Biden nor Harris is a political “moderate” or “pragmatic” despite the coordinated, dishonest attempts by mainstream media organs to label them such. Rather, they are liberal politicians who reflect the prevailing positions and progressive direction of their Democratic Party; Harris even more so, according to her most leftward Senate voting record.  They are who they are – why pretend otherwise?  This is not the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton in the 1990’s, much less the economic Party of JFK in the early 1960’s.

In 36 years as a U.S. senator from Delaware, Joe Biden was not among the Senate’s extreme environmentalists. None of that matters today, as he has dutifully evolved.  His climate agenda reflects the extremist vision of Sen. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Kamala Harris made her bones (figuratively speaking) in San Francisco politics, is now thrice elected statewide, and a leader of California’s political class. The state’s energy and environmental policies are her policies for the nation.

Sen. Harris’ home state leads the way in environmental extremism. CFACT has well documented the costly and destructive climate policies of the Golden state, which has the nation’s highest energy costs and is driving away the middle class and businesses to other states. California is steadily becoming an unlivable place unless you are super-wealthy (e.g., Hollywood actors and Silicon Valley techies) on the public payroll, or dependent on the state’s vast welfare system.

On the issue of hydro-fracturing of natural gas, Sen. Harris supports a nationwide ban, which goes further to the extreme than her own state that allows it on a limited basis. Her stance also contrasts with the Obama administration, which understood its economic and political importance, and Biden, who has more recently equivocated on the issue.

According to the Global Energy Institute, a nationwide fracking ban would eliminate more than 19 million jobs by 2025 and reduce America’s economy by $7 trillion. Energy prices would sharply increase, not just for natural gas, and would add nearly $5,700 to the cost of living for the average American. Plus, carbon emissions, the bane of all things global warming, would increase since the global production and consumption of oil and coal would expand.  [Addendum:  Vlad Putin’s Russia, a major oil producer, would be delighted, along with Middle Eastern dictatorships like Iran.]

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris embrace climate extremism because it is Democratic Party dogma and a priority of its billionaire donor class. Accordingly, they are no less committed to “fighting climate change” by reordering the nation’s economy, with the job losses, higher cost of living, and curtailment of freedom that would result.

Not since 1944 has a vice-presidential nominee loomed so large. That year, President Franklin Roosevelt, whose physical health was rapidly declining, replaced incumbent V.P. Henry Wallace, a socialist, with Sen. Harry Truman. Eleven weeks into the new term, FDR died and Truman became president.

If elected president, Joe Biden will turn 78 and be older than was Ronald Reagan at the end of his eight-year presidency. His cognitive decline is increasingly obvious. A President Harris could come soon, without Biden physically dying.  Such would make history, and have transformative, deleterious consequences if she or Biden beforehand impose their climate policies on America.

Polar bears thriving

Is The Demise Of Polar Bears being Exaggerated?
Ross Clark, The Spectator, 23 July 2020

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could debate climate change for five minutes without hearing about polar bears or being subjected to footage of them perched precariously on a melting ice floe?

But that is a little too much to expect. Polar bears have become the pin-ups of climate change, the poor creatures who are supposed to jolt us out of thinking about abstract concepts and make us weep that our own selfishness is condemning these magnificent animals to a painful and hungry end.

Needless to say, the Guardian and BBC jumped on the opportunity for more polar bear coverage when a paper appeared in the journal Nature Climate Change, predicting that a high carbon emissions scenario ‘will jeopardise the persistence of all but a few high-Arctic subpopulations by 2100.’ The paper uses a new predictive model by Peter Molnar of the University of Toronto.

A BBC report, as usual, upgraded the claims made in the paper in order to state: ‘Polar bears will be wiped out by the end of the century unless more is done to tackle climate change, a study predicts.’ Except that the paper doesn’t quite say that. The high emissions scenario used in the study isn’t what would happen if the world continued on its current trajectory of fossil fuel use. Instead it uses a worst-case scenario called ‘RCP8.5’ dreamed up in 2014, which envisages that coal-burning will globally increase fivefold between now and 2100. This could be a challenge, because it would mean burning through more coal than, according to some estimates, exists on Earth. In fact, global coal-burning likely peaked in 2013. Even Nature Climate Changes’ mother journal Nature published a think piece in January calling for scientists and campaigners to stop using RCP8.5 as a ‘business as usual’ scenario, on the grounds that it is highly improbable.

But even if we were to jack up carbon emissions to the level envisaged by RCP8.5, and Arctic sea ice was to melt in accordance with the models, would it really mean the end of most polar bear populations? Given that polar bears feed on seals they catch by punching through sea ice, this may seem a reasonable claim. Yet the relationship between sea ice and polar bear population isn’t quite so simple.

A lot of the assumptions about polar bears and sea ice have been made on the back of the animals’ decline in the Western Hudson Bay area of Canada. Compared with the 1980s, sea ice there now breaks up on average two weeks earlier and refreezes a week later. As a result, polar bears are spending five months on land – where they struggle to find food – rather than four as before. Their estimated numbers fell by 22 per cent between 1987 and 2004, although this has levelled off since then. Polar bear numbers have also been falling in Canada’s Southern Beaufort Sea.

Yet it is a very different story in the Barents Sea, which lies to the north of Scandinavia and European Russia. There, the retreat of seasonal sea ice has been far more dramatic – it now hangs around, on average, 21 weeks less than it did 40 years ago. Yet polar bear numbers are stable. On Svalbard their numbers have increased by 40 percent – and the females seem to be in better physical condition now than they were 15 years ago. It is a different story, too, in the Chukchi Sea, which lies to the north of Alaska and Russia’s far east. There, sea ice forms for 41 days fewer than it did 40 years ago – yet the polar bear population seems to be stable, with no decline in the bears’ physical condition. The Kane Basin, off north western Greenland, has lost 53 days’ of sea ice in recent decades, yet the estimated number of polar bears more than doubled between 1997 and 2013.

All of which seems to indicate that polar bears, like many other creatures, have proved rather adaptable to changes in their environment. The assumption that they can only catch seals through sea ice, and will inevitably decline if their opportunities to do this disappear, seems simply to be wrong. Somehow or other, most populations of polar bears are finding enough to eat.

The end of polar bears has been predicted many times before. Indeed, one of the authors of the Nature Climate Change paper, Steven Armstrup, claimed in 2007 that the decline of sea ice would lead to a two thirds reduction in polar bear numbers by the middle of this century. The failure of overall polar bear populations to follow this downward trend, in spite of a decline is sea ice, was documented in a book The Polar Bear Catastrophe that Never Happened by anthropologist Susan Crockford. What happened to her follows a familiar story for those who refuse to toe the line on climate change: shortly after publication last year she was relieved of the post of Adjunct Assistant Professor at Victoria University, which she had held for 15 years.

The Denial by Ross Clark will be published by Lume Books in September.

Biden’s New energy Plan Is Terrible

Center of the American Experiment – Biden’s New energy Plan Is Terrible

Written by Isaac Orr in Energy, Environment on July 16, 2020

On Tuesday, July 14, 2020, presumptive Democratic candidate Joe Biden released his updated plan for energy, which calls for expanding renewable energy mandates to meet a 100 percent carbon-free electric grid by 2035, spending billions of dollars on wind turbines, solar panels, and battery storage, an ill-conceived plan to make the entire fleet of school buses electric, a dedication to money-losing energy efficiency projects, subsidizing electric vehicles (EVs), and using taxpayer dollars to build EV charging stations.

A child’s Christmas list to Santa Claus is more realistic than this plan, but it is necessary for us to take a look at the enormous costs and immeasurably small benefits that would accrue from these policies.

What’s the Point?

Any time a politician says they are going to be spending your money, you should demand to know what you will get in return, but this isn’t what the Biden campaign has done. If the whole point of this slightly-watered-down Green New Deal is to prevent climate change, then American taxpayers should be told how much global warming this initiative would potentially prevent, and at what cost.

This information was omitted is because his policy plan would have enormous costs for no measurable benefits.

Unfathomable Costs, Immeasurably Small Benefits

Biden’s energy plan calls for spending $2 trillion in his first term, but it is crucial to remember that this figure only accounts for what the federal government would be spending on these programs. The $2 trillion figure does not account for the additional trillions of dollars American families and businesses would be forced to pay for their energy under these policies, which will make $2 trillion look like a bargain.

Despite an enormous price tag, the policies will have no measurable impact on global warming.

According to climate scientist Pat Michaels, even if the United States were wiped off the face of the planet tomorrow, it would only avert 0.052°C by 2050 and 0.137°C by 2100, which is an amount so small that it is not even scientifically detectable.

Your Green New Electric Bill Is Out of This World

Biden’s plan claims it will “achieve carbon-pollution free energy in electricity generation by 2035.” To accomplish this, “Biden will scale up best practices from state-level clean energy standards.” As we’ve seen here in Minnesota, renewable energy mandates have caused our electricity prices to increase nearly 30 percent faster than the national average. Rather than scaling up these mandates, this should be an example of what not to do.


Impossibly Expensive Batteries, Anyone?

Another key focus of Biden’s plan is to invest in battery storage. But as we have discussed in the past, battery storage is an impossibly expensive fantasy. A slide created by Xcel Energy for the Midwestern Governors Association shows that electricity prices would exponentially increase the cost of electricity in the United States if the grid were to be powered by only wind turbines, solar panels, and battery storage.

california-price-of-electricity-with-100-percent-renewable-and-storage-Xcel-Energy-Midwestern-Governors-Association-1 (1)

If America were to try and use these three technologies to provide 100 percent of our electricity, the nation’s annual electric bill would grow from about $397 billion in 2019, to $6.6 trillion dollars every single year, an annual increase of $6.2 trillion.

This is the equivalent of every man, woman, and child in the country paying an additional $19,000 per year for their electricity, and it is important to remember that these are low end estimates, because they don’t account for the cost of transmission lines, distribution systems, or other costs that are associated with retail electricity rates.


A Lonely Nod To Sanity

In what is perhaps the one nod to sanity in Biden’s plan: it does not call for the elimination of existing nuclear power plants and it allows the United States to “leverage” existing hydroelectric resources into the future.

While this is good news and could avert some of the highest costs involved with a grid powered by 100 percent wind, solar, and battery storage, the plight of nuclear power could be greatly harmed by adding millions of solar panels and tens of thousands of wind turbines to the system because adding these sources of energy will increase the odds that power prices will turn negative, eroding the economics of nuclear plants.

The map below was produced by the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley Labs (LBL) and it shows the prevalence of negative prices on the electric grid. According to LBL:

“…Growth in wind and solar had a more consequential impact on prices in some locations and in altering how prices change based on the hour of the day and season. Specifically, growth in wind and solar impacted time-of-day and seasonal pricing patterns, growth in the frequency of negative prices was correlated geographically with deployment of wind and solar (Figure ES-2), and negative prices in high-wind and high-solar regions occurred most frequently in hours with high wind and solar output.”

Negative prices hurt coal and nuclear plants the most because these technologies are not able to quickly increase or decrease their electricity output to adapt to price changes. As a result, coal and nuclear plants are increasingly put in positions where they are selling electricity at a loss on the market because they are unable to reduce their electricity output when high wind and solar output force prices into the red.

Unlike other sources of electricity, wind facilities are able to keep selling electricity at negative prices because they are subsidized by the federal government. In fact, a wind producer can sell electricity at up to -$23 per megawatt hour (MWh) and still make money. In contrast, a coal or nuclear plant would be losing $23 per MWh.

Greatly increasing the amount of wind and solar on the grid, which is what Biden clearly wants to do, will ultimately undermine the ability of coal and nuclear plants to remain in business long term. The result is a grid like California’s, which is heavy on wind and solar during the day, but dependent upon natural gas and electricity imports from saner states (that use a combination of coal, natural gas, and nuclear power to produce their power) to keep the lights on.


What About The Rest of Our Energy?

The costs discussed above are incomplete because they are just a rough estimate of what it would cost to replace the electricity we currently generate with a mixture of technologies including coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, and other renewables with a combination of wind, solar, and battery storage. The estimates above do not even begin to contemplate the enormous amount of energy the United States consumes in the form of oil for transportation, and natural gas for home heating.

This is significant, because according to EIA, oil accounted for 37 percent of all the energy consumed in the United States in 2019, and natural gas accounted for 32 percent. If we were to make a rough estimate of what it would cost to completely electrify these energy sources, the nation’s energy bill would be roughly $10.6 trillion per year, or $32,000 per man, woman, and child.

This is half of the country’s gross domestic product.


These are massive costs for zero measurable environmental benefits.

Subsidizing Electric Vehicles and Charging Stations

Biden’s plan also call for subsidizing electric vehicles (EVs) and building 500,000 EV charging stations. As we have documented many times before, these types of subsidies primarily benefit white, wealthy, liberals, and raise the cost of driving for everyone else. According to EIA, 67 percent of EV owners make more than $100,000 per year, and only 3 percent of those earning less than $25,000 own an EV.

This means EV subsidies are a wealth transfer from low-income families to the wealthy.


EV chargers are also very expensive, with the fastest chargers costing $50,000 per charger. Contrast this with replacing a gasoline pump, which costs $260 to $1,000 per unit. This means Biden wants to spend $25 billion on a project that likely won’t even replace the number of gasoline pumps we already have in existence today.


Biden’s plan is the epitome of the broken window fallacy. It is based on the idea that we can grow the economy by destroying it and rebuilding it over and over again. This does not bring about prosperity for anyone; just ask the Minneapolis City Council if they think the arson and destruction of businesses will be a “stimulus” for the City’s economy.

Former warmist Shellenberger rips Biden-Sanders climate plan

July 8, 2020

‘Extremely radical, terrible for workers, & the environment’ – Former warmist Shellenberger rips Biden-Sanders climate plan: – Plan ‘unscientifically blames climate change for flood, storm, & fire, damage’

Biden-Sanders climate plan:

– unscientifically blames climate change for flood, storm, & fire, damage

– would raise energy prices & increase unemployment

– would kill off nuclear, largest source of clean nrg

– would increase killing of bald eagles & whooping cranes

Both the IPCC & a major new study for the leading journal, Environmental Hazards, finds “little evidence to support claims that any part of the overall increase in global economic losses documented on climate time scales can be attributed to human-caused changes in climate”Image

The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California


The entire first paragraph of the Biden-Sanders climate plan is total and utter pseudoscience, on par with astrology and the belief that wifi and 5G are giving us cancer

The document literally claims that dams failed in Michigan because of climate change.Image

Biden-Sanders plan calls for massive expansion of solar and wind, which increased energy costs

– 6x more in Calif. than in rest of US

– 50% in Germany over last decade

– by $125 *BILLION* in US states with renewable energy standards, according to Univ. of Chicago studyImageImageImageImage

Nuclear-heavy France generates electricity that is 10x less CO2-intensive than Germany for nearly half the cost

But Biden-Sanders climate plan would kill off nuclear energy, which is 55% of zero-emissions energy

Thus B-S climate plan is not about reducing emissions or climateImageImage

The Biden Climate Plan falsely claims investing “tens of billions” into energy efficiency will pay for itself

But the last time the government did this, “the upfront investment costs [were] about twice the actual energy savings,” according to major study


Powering the US on 100% percent renewables would increase the amount of land required for energy from 0.5% today to 25-50%, according to the largest study to date, by Vaclav Smil, the widely respected analyst…

Industrial wind and transmission projects are being blocked by grassroots environmentalists — often Democrats — seeking to save endangered species.ImageImage

What you’re proposing, @AOC @JohnKerry @JoeBiden @BernieSanders is extremely radical, terrible for workers, and terrible for the environment.

And we tried it already. Before the Green New Deal, I helped create the New Apollo Project. It was a disaster:…

The Biden-Sanders climate plan is identical to the climate plan of @JohnKerry when he ran for president in 2004. You might recall how that turned out.

Please consider learning from the past rather than making the same mistakes Democrats have been making for decades