Youth who research Find Truth

First video is from a young Canadian exposing Gore and Global Warming

Second video from young American exposing T Boone Pickens wind farms and politicians

Al Gore urges civil disobedience to stop coal plants

Editor: Is this an offense?

If it’s not an offense, then I would like to take this opportunity to encourage all those affected by Wind turbines to accept Al,the con man,Gore’s invitation to engage in civil disobedience.  If’s it good enough for Gore then I guess it’s good enough for the rest of us.

After all Global warming just like Gore is a complete fraud.

The History of the Global Warming Scare

Global Warming is a Scam and it’s Time to Wake Up!

Esquire Calls Al Gore A Lunatic

Al Gore and Maurice Strong – Con Artists Extraordinaire!

T Boone Pickens Has an Energy Plan for America- So Did Enron

Wind Energy – Can it last? – The Scam Continues For Now

Gore urges civil disobedience to stop coal plants

Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:29pm EDT

By Michelle Nichols

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Nobel Peace Prize winner and environmental crusader Al Gore urged young people on Wednesday to engage in civil disobedience to stop the construction of coal plants without the ability to store carbon.

The former U.S. vice president, whose climate change documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” won an Academy Award, told a philanthropic meeting in New York City that “the world has lost ground to the climate crisis.”

“If you’re a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration,” Gore told the Clinton Global Initiative gathering to loud applause.

“I believe for a carbon company to spend money convincing the stock-buying public that the risk from the global climate crisis is not that great represents a form of stock fraud because they are misrepresenting a material fact,” he said. “I hope these state attorney generals around the country will take some action on that.”

The government says about 28 coal plants are under construction in the United States. Another 20 projects have permits or are near the start of construction.

Scientists say carbon gases from burning fossil fuel for power and transport are a key factor in global warming.

Carbon capture and storage could give coal power an extended lease on life by keeping power plants’ greenhouse gas emissions out of the atmosphere and easing climate change.

But no commercial-scale project exists anywhere to demonstrate the technology, partly because it is expected to increase up-front capital costs by an additional 50 percent.

So-called geo-sequestration of carbon sees carbon dioxide liquefied and pumped into underground rock layers for long term storage.

(Additional reporting by Timothy Gardner; Editing by Christine Kearney and Xavier Briand)

© Thomson Reuters 2008. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world.

Nancy Pelosi–conspirator in pearls – Delivering American sovereignty over to the United Nations

Judi McLeod, Editor-Owner

Judi McLeod Canada Free Press.com and Toronto Free Pressfounding editor Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 25 years experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard and the former Brampton Daily Times.

Monday, November 13, 2006

Queen of the Democrats Nancy Pelosi will deliver the sovereignty of her own country over to the United Nations. In fact, she’s been working on it since 1992.

An untold story, the 66-year-old’s Resolution 166 has been one of steadfast steps on a long road to stealthy success.

To understand her infinite patience in getting where she wanted to be, one must go back to the beginning.

“On August 5, 1992, Nancy Pelosi (CA) introduced a concurrent resolution in Congress (H.CON.RES. 353), saying that the United States of America should reform all domestic and foreign policy to adhere to the agreements of the Earth Summit, develop a national strategy to implement Agenda 21, and regularly report to the United Nations our progress on that path. (www.freedom21santacruz.net, Sept. 10, 2004).

Nancy Pelosi, Maurice Strong
“Undaunted by slow going in Congress, Nancy Pelosi returned to the
House floor on March 29, 1993 and introduced a joint resolution
(H.J.RES 166) to renew the call for the United States to “assume a
strong leadership role in implementing…Agenda 21 and other Earth Summit
agreements.” Pelosi eventually gathered 67 co-sponsors for her bill, 32
of whom are still in Congress.”

As freedom21santacruz.net writer Michael Park points out, researchers on the subject could content themselves that Pelosi’s fancy work got bogged down in subcommittee purgatory, but they would be wrong.

Pelosi’s revolutionary resolutions were picked up by an incoming President Bill Clinton, who on June 14, 1993, with only six months in office, signed an executive order establishing the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD)–which would carry out the exact functions called for in Pelosi’s earlier resolutions.

The fix was now in even though many average Americans knew nothing about it.

Were Republicans asleep at the switch when in a widely circulated White House press release, Clinton announced that the Council’s primary goals would be to:

. “Educate the public about the far-reaching opportunities in sustainable development”; “Recognize outstanding sustainable development achievements through an annual Presidential award,” among other things?

Courtesy of Clinton’s President’s Council on Sustainable Development, Agenda 21 policy recommendations filtered into every federal agency in America. Many of those agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), had their own representative in attendance at the Rio Earth Summit and were already acting upon Agenda 21, but this new source of support from the White House gave extra clout to their activities.

Anti-American, Canadian environmental guru Maurice Strong was the godfather of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. Strong–who more than a decade later was to be driven off the radar screen when his alleged ties to the UN Oil-for-Food scandal became public–was the one-man force who pulled the wool over the world’s eyes with Agenda 21. At Rio, dubbed “the mother of all summits” while his occultist wife, Hanne was “tapping into Mother Earth’s energy”, hubby looked after the serious business of setting policy on sustainable development for the entire world. Hanne staged a three-week vigil with ‘Wisdomkeepers’, a group of “global transformationalists”. “Through round-the-clock sacred fire, drumbeat and meditation, the group helped hold the “energy pattern” for the duration of the summit.”

And if that sounds like the kind of bunk more befitting to fast-buck hucksters, very few among world leaders and the tens of thousands attending the summit blinked an eye.

We don’t know whether Madam Pelosi danced Hanne’s occultist dance, but she was unquestionably first off the mark in shepherding Agenda 21 through American Congress.

Continue reading article at CFP

T. Boone hard-wired for subsidies

Editor:
Picken-s your pockets and Gore-ing your rights. What a team.
Are Picken’s TV ads part of Al Gore’s 300 million media campaign?
They’re sitting back counting their sheep. Are you one?


Jerry Taylor,
Financial Post

Published: Thursday, July 24, 2008

Virtually every claim made by T. Boone
Pickens to justify the lavish subsidies he is seeking for his wind
energy investments is flat wrong.

First, oil imports are not the
cause of high gasoline prices. On the contrary, oil imports serve to
keep gasoline prices down. After all, we import oil for a reason —
it’s cheaper than the domestic alternative. If we were to restrict our
energy diet to energy produced in the United States, it would make
domestic energy producers (like Mr. Pickens) far richer and energy
consumers (the rest of us) far poorer, and GDP would be reduced as
well. While one can understand why Mr. Pickens is attracted to the idea
of “energy independence,” for the rest of us, keeping the country open
to imported goods is pro-consumer, whether we’re talking about oil,
steel, textiles or athletic shoes.

Second, we are no more forced
to rely on the “goodwill” of foreign oil producers when we shop for
petroleum than we are forced to rely on the “goodwill” of supermarkets
when we shop for eggs and milk. Oil producers export crude oil because
it’s a great way to make money — and for many, the only way to make
money. And once that oil is in the global marketplace, market actors,
not oil producers, dictate where it goes. Hence, we are betting on
producer greed — which is a pretty safe bet.

Third, if wind
energy were a sensible economic investment, it would not need the
lavish federal and state subsidies already in place or the additional
largesse sought after by Mr. Pickens. Likewise, if compressed natural
gas (CNG) vehicles are an economically sensible alternative to
conventional gasoline-powered vehicles, then no government “master
plan” is necessary to deliver them to market. Price signals will induce
investors to invest and consumers to buy, without government having to
lift a finger. The same goes for all the other energy-related R&D
Mr. Pickens would like the taxpayer to dole out. If that R&D is
promising, it will be pursued, whether government subsidizes it or not.

Fourth,
if reducing our carbon footprint is the goal, then the most direct and
efficient means of reducing that footprint is to impose a tax on carbon
emissions and then leave it to the market to sort out how to most
efficiently order affairs under those new prices. Maybe it will mean
windmills and CNG, but maybe not. Perhaps it will mean more nuclear
power, new hydrogen-powered fuel cells, “clean” coal, the emergence of
cellulosic ethanol, battery-powered cars or hybrids — or a
continuation of the existing energy base but less consumption as a
consequence.

Of course, if the market were to go into any of
those directions, Mr. Pickens would be out a lot of money, which is
probably why he wants to hard-wire the market to consume the things
he’s investing in and have the government lavish him with subsidies in
the course of doing so. I wish Mr. Pickens well in his wind energy
business, but I see no reason why taxpayers, ratepayers or consumers
ought to be forced to sacrifice in order to fatten his already ample
bank account. – Jerry Taylor is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

More From National Post

Wind turbine marketers are full of hot air

Editor:
As happy as I am to see this article show up in a “Mainstream Canadian Newspaper”, I still have to ask-why has it taken so long to expose the scam that is the wind industry?
Hell, Enron started this scam years ago. Google- Enron, Al Gore, Maurice Strong and Bill Clinton. Like the media never noticed what was going on.

I’ve noticed the Globe and Mail reading my blog lately ‘site tracker’ and that’s good. But, why does it take so long to get a story out. People have been sending the mainstream papers this same information for years. Why have they remained silent for so long?

Billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted, landscapes ruined and peoples lives destroyed, while the media sat on the information.
I called the head office of CanWea two years ago this coming Nov. I told them the wind scam would be shut down within two years. I still believe it is possible.
It’s time for journalists to shake the cobwebs from their brains, remember the journalistic oath and get back to doing what they are supposed to do- inform the public of the truth.

Leave the lies and bullshit to the politicians and industry.
As J. Lennon said “Just give me the truth”

Anyway, I thank Mr. Reynolds for this story. Good work-even if it’s years late.

NEIL REYNOLDS

Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — Republican presidential candidate
Senator John McCain travelled to Oregon in mid-May to deliver the
definitive climate change speech of his campaign. He spoke in Portland,
at the U.S. headquarters of Vestas Wind Systems AS, a Danish company
that markets wind turbines around the world. He started on a
self-deprecating note. “Today is a kind of test run for this company,”
he said. “They’ve got wind technicians here, wind studies and all these
wind turbines. But there’s no wind. So now I know why they asked me to
come and give a speech.”

It was perhaps his most perceptive statement of the day. Five
sentences later, Mr. McCain made perhaps his least perceptive. “Wind,”
he said, “is a predictable source of energy.”

Really? Define predictable. Wind turbines operate occasionally with
remarkable efficiency at 100 per cent capacity. More often, they
operate with 20 per cent capacity. Once in a while, they operate with
subzero capacity – taking electricity from the grid to keep themselves
running until they get hit again by a restless wind.

British energy consultant Hugh Sharman, based in Denmark, documented
wind power’s capacity for subzero performance in a report published by
Civil Engineering magazine in 2005. With more wind power per capita
than any other country, Denmark (population 5.4 million) is the world’s
showroom nation for this highly fashionable form of renewable energy.

Why, then, does Denmark export almost all of its wind power – at a
revenue loss? Why, then, does Denmark still operate all of its
conventional coal-fired power plants? In a phrase, Mr. Sharman says,
the reason is Denmark’s “wildly fluctuating wind power.”

It turns out that Denmark’s vast array of turbines often produce
minimal electricity when demand is high, maximum electricity when
demand is low. Basing his analysis on data from a single year (2002),
Mr. Sharman reported that wind power produced less than 1 per cent of
the country’s electricity supply on 54 different days. On one of these
54 days, the wind turbines took more power from the grid than they
produced. (Wind turbines consume considerable electricity whether winds
are blowing or not blowing.)

British author and energy analyst Tony Lodge makes the same point in
a report by the Centre for Policy Studies, a London think tank. “Not a
single conventional power plant has been closed in the period that
Danish wind farms have been developed,” he says. “Because of the
intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants
have had to be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand
for electricity and to provide backup.”

Mr. Lodge says it is not practical to turn coal-fired plants off and
on as winds rise and fall – because ramping them up consumes more fuel
(and emits more carbon dioxide) than running them at a constant rate.
Thus Denmark relies almost exclusively on coal-fired plants for its own
consumption and exports its wind power at whatever off-peak price it
can get.

Only 3.3 per cent of Denmark’s wind power gets “accepted” on the
grid for domestic consumption. In 2003, Denmark exported 84 per cent of
its wind-generated electricity at money-losing rates. And CO{-2}? In
2006, Denmark produced 36 per cent more carbon emissions than the year
before.

Messrs. McCain, Dion and Pickens notwithstanding, winds do not blow
predictably. Without an energy storage battery the size of Mount
Everest, most wind-powered electricity will be wasted and will almost
certainly increase a country’s carbon emissions – albeit inadvertently.
When your power plant operates at only 20 per cent capacity (or less),
you have to build four or five times as many plants as you need. For
reliable backup, you still need either coal, gas or nuclear power – all
of which are cheaper than wind.

The conclusion seems self-evident. Apparently it isn’t. Fortunately,
you can test wind power for yourself. Go outside on a hot and humid
day. Feel the breeze. Or don’t

The Globe and Mail

T Boone Pickens Has an Energy Plan for America- So Did Enron

T Boone Pickens has an energy plan for America.

Is everybody eating a big bowl of STUPID for breakfast every morning-or what?

Wind backed up with natural gas.
Where have I heard that before?

Oh ya I remember, it was an Enron scam.

Who was involved? Google Enron,Al Gore, Maurice Strong and Bill Clinton.

The Enron -global warming-wind energy scam reminds me of the old Eiffel tower scam.

The con artist convinced people he had a contract to sell the tower for scrap. The scam was so outrageous people believed him.
It worked so good the first time he did it again.

Enron scam repeated- paid for by taxpayer subsidy.

T Boone Pickens is smart, the public- dumb as a box of rocks.

Al Gore is going to save the world and T Boone Pickens is going to fix the energy crisis.

Right.

If you want the truth read Agenda 21-follow the link to Global green agenda.
Another must read is Cloak of Green.
Both found here

Enjoy the day and the scam, but be sure to  open up your eyes.