August 18, 2019

My Study Suggests Republicans Cause Decreased Amounts of Snowfall

The title above suggests that perhaps the author has lost his mind, or to some they might think he is starting to get it back. Regardless, even I’ll admit that perhaps making the conclusion that republicans cause less snow is ridiculous.

In my “study”, I’m “suggesting” that my observations are that republicans in Maine took over the Blaine House and Congress. In the first full year of this political reshuffling, I also witnessed the fact that the Pine Tree State has seen very little snow. Therefore, I’m “suggesting” from my “study” that it must be republicans that cause decreased amounts of snowfall.

Utterly ridiculous isn’t it……..well, unless of course you are a global warming cultist. (It’s a given that GW cultists hate republicans too.)

Such should be the case in a recent “study” that “suggests” that increased levels of mercury in the Northeast caused a handful of songbirds to stop reproducing. According to JunkScience, the study is junk science.

All the researchers did in this first-of-its-kind study was to correlate mercury levels with claimed reproductive failure in a small number of wrens — without taking any other measurements or observations of any other substances and/or conditions. They set out to blame mercury and, lo and behold, they succeeded (sic).

So, the next time you are gazing at your bird feeder and see a wren or two, know that there would have been more wrens in your feeder if republicans hadn’t taken the political advantage in Maine.

Tom Remington

Share

EPA Chief Jackson: Global Warming Causes Terrorism

One can take that statement on face value or you can search for truth and honesty and discover that American political policies kill human beings.

In a report filed at JunkScience, Environmental Protection Administration head, Lisa Jackson, is claiming that poor environmental quality creates poverty which in turn leads to terrorism. It’s unfortunate that she can’t tell the truth that the countries socialistic policies ensure that people will remain in squalor, not because of poor environmental quality but because of social programs that are not designed to allow people to step out of that dearth. Instead they are guaranteed to remain there provided you are a good subject and mind what the government tells you to do.

Tom Remington

Share

Climate Alarmists Still Beating Their Drum. 2011 Coolest in Over Decade.

From JunkScience.com comes an AP report that states: ““Global temperature in 2011 was lower than in 1998,” NASA climate scientist James Hansen admits in the GISS report. However, he adds that nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred in the 21st century, and that 2011 was cooled by a moderately strong La Niña.”

Does anyone remember taking science classes in grade school? Does anyone remember one of the first things we were taught? I didn’t think so. We were taught that in scientific experiments there always needs to be constants. Otherwise, what is there left to compare change to?

As shameful and disgusting as it is, people around the globe have been forced into being skeptical of any data put out by any climate scientists. There is so much money and politics behind climate science, the corruption renders news reports, like the one linked to here, as completely laughable. Why should we believe any of their crap?

But, beside that, consider the poor science in and of itself. In this report, these scientists are attempting to convince people the world is warming at a rapid rate and of course, even without any proof, they blame it on carbon dioxide. They base their conclusion of a rapidly warming globe on temperatures that are “above the average”.

What they fail to tell us are two extremely important items that render their conclusions something even an 8th grade science teacher would give a student a poor grade for. Climate scientists base their average temperature on records kept for the past 132 years. To a 5-year-old, 132 years seems like a long time but in climatological ranks, 132 is barely a blink of the eye.

Therefore, my 8th grade science teacher would question my conclusions as to how I obtained an “average” temperature, especially if I was trying to convince the teacher it applied to the planet since day one. I might have gotten a passing grade if I had explained that having only records for 132 years, it would be unreliable to trust my average extended out over millenniums.

The second issue involves the equipment, locations and methods of temperature taking over the 132 years. If a scientist could not have used the exact same locations, under the exact same conditions, using the exact same equipment, collecting data using the exact same methods, can it honestly be totally reliable scientific conclusions? Shouldn’t there at least be asterisks attached to certain data to explain differences?

Climate science is too young with far too many unanswered questions to be making brash statements and providing unsubstantiated conclusions about our climate, what’s causing any change and what direction it is headed in.

Please, continue the research but give us a friggin break on the political sheep dip!

Tom Remington

Share

Alaska – Cold and Snowy. More Than Normal?

Below are some photographs depicting some of the cold and snow in the Anchorage area. Last week I received one report that Valdez, Alaska, a coastal town of just over 4,000 people that sits east of Anchorage, currently has 321 inches of snow. Make no mistake about it, that’s a lot of snow. However, according to Valdez websites, the average annual snowfall is about 360 inches. It’s still early in the winter season though.

And, this morning I heard on the news that Nome, Alaska was having difficulty getting heating fuel into the town because of the cold. The report said Alaska was currently experiencing the coldest winter in 40 years. In parts of the winter, Nome’s average daily high is 5.7 degrees.


Photo by Al Remington


Photo by Al Remington


Photo by Al Remington

Share

Al Gore is the “Chicken Little” of Climate Change

Much like the squealing of a slipping alternator belt on a car, Al Gore continues his whining about how the world is going to come to an end if we don’t take his version of climate change more serious. The below video depicts his relentless, unsubstantiated whining about how the planet is the hottest its ever been, that arctic ice is all gone and half of the world is on fire, all because people have given up on the sky is falling fear mongering.

What’s interesting is that Al Gore is like an ignorant Chicken Little, who is clueless, not only that the sky really isn’t falling, but he doesn’t even know the way to the king’s house. Regardless, he whines and whines to anyone willing to listen and give him all their money while saying, “No really! The sky IS falling. You gotta trust me on this one!”

Here’s a reminder of the up and down life of AlGore:

Share

Windfall – A Movie About the Atrocities of Wind Turbines

Over the past few days, I have been posting short articles and photographs that depict the realities of what is happening when the push for so-called green energy, i.e. wind power, is upon the citizens of this nation and in particular the state of Maine.

You can find previous postings here and here.

Below is a movie trailer that is promoting a soon to be released movie that exposes much of the truth behind wind power. As a reader commented yesterday, most people take the easy road of the “conventional view” on issues such as wind energy. They are told that wind energy is clean, produces no carbon dioxide and will drive down our electric bills. The truths are being hidden and for good reasons. To find them a person must exert effort and that’s not being done.

Wind energy is a destruction of our environment, a huge contradiction as to the purpose of the creation. In addition to the environmental destruction of ripping up our forests and fields, the erosion that comes with construction, the exposures of more harmful light into our bodies of water, the destruction of fisheries and wildlife, the effects of “flicker” and the continuous dull roar of spinning blades, wind turbines are a pollutant – visually, audibly and environmentally.

It is hoped this film will help in the battle to educate the people BEFORE the wind towers invade our landscapes.

Tom Remington

Share

Why Do Environmentalists Support the Destruction and Pollution Caused by Wind Energy?

*Update* Since the posting of this article, I have since posted a short movie trailer video called “Windfall” about the facts behind wind energy.

What I don’t understand are the contradictions and hypocrisy surrounding wind energy. Most people who support wind energy also support ideals like clean water, clear air, the environment in general, land preservation, keeping landscapes “natural”, reduction of noise pollution, non destruction of our ecosystems. And yet, they support wind turbine energy. Why?

Often environmental preservationists consider hunters and trappers as the enemy, although these two groups have done more to conserve our environment than perhaps all environmental groups who have come after them. Often environmentalists paint hunters and trappers as consumers of natural resources and yet many, many, many of those fighting against the environmental destruction, including physically, visually and audibly, of wind energy are the hunters, trappers and outdoor sportspeople. So which groups are the radicals?

Here is another example of what is being foisted onto Maine people. A few days ago, I reported on wind turbines that were constructed on the Record Hill area of Roxbury, Maine. This is a follow-up post to that report.

I received more photos with short commentary from Albert Ladd who lives a short distance from the Roxbury wind towers. He provided readers with pictures for the previous post. Mr. Ladd is a hunter and trapper in the region. Below is a short report he filed with me and provided 4 photographs to go along with his commentary.

“Today I went in on the Bunker Pond road to set up a beaver colony [trapping]. Now I’m roughly a half mile from the towers. Cold quiet and no wind down where I was. The sound [from the turbines] is more of a rumble and somewhat sounds like a truck coming and coming, but never gets any closer. I stopped at Bunker like one commenter told of doing [previous article]. There are no camps on Bunker, and it’s a good thing as the noise is quite loud and I bet constant most of the time.

The pictures show the towers and one shows the top of the beaver house [photo 1] with a tower or two seen through the trees [photo 2 & 3]. The rocks are on one of 3 roads that go close to the towers on the way into Bunker [photo 4]. All 3 have been blocked off like this, and I do believe one had a bridge pulled.

I’ve listened to several people through the years that said they’ve drove right up to these towers and heard no sound at all. –RIGHHHHT!

For ever on now the forest around here will have this near constant drone! What a criminal thing to do. Never thought I’d dislike them this much.”

Share

The “Intellectual Rubbish” of “Ecosystems” and “Balance of Nature”

*Editor’s Note:* Yesterday I received an email from a member of a communication network who questioned what tactics were going to be necessary to correct this perpetuated myth of “natural regulation” or “natural balance”. For those not familiar with these terms, essentially the self-appointed custodians of the forests have fabricated the idea that if man would just simply go away, then our fields and forests would self regulate into some elevated form of nirvana. Yesterday, in the same email, I coined the title for such believers as sufferers of “UPEPS” or Utopian Philosophy Ecosystem Perfection Syndrome.

UPEPS has run rampant across this land and how I got UPEPS was from information provided to me by Dr. Valerius Geist, professor emeritus, University of Calgary. This email prompted me to research my archives to reread what I wrote just about one year ago about the balance of nature.

Here’s is a republication of that article. Please do yourselves a favor and follow the links and take the time to understand about positive and negative feedback loops and how those relate to our everyday lives. And then ask yourself if nature can “balance” itself if man would just bug out.

Today, we learned that Dr. Valerius Geist, a foremost wildlife scientist, “Denounced Ecosystem Management“. In his condemnation he described the belief in “Utopian philosophy of ecosystem perfection absent of all human activity” as “intellectual rubbish”. He also challenges, in a way, those not stricken with “intellectual laziness” to “Know the difference between positive and negative feed back, and you are on the way of understanding both homeostasis in individuals and stochastic non-determinism in ecosystems.”

I would like to take a layman’s stab at explaining about ecosystems and the myth of nature balancing itself. As with everything I write, I don’t ask readers to simply believe what I write but to do some research and make their own determinations.

Of late, I have composed a couple articles in reference to “natural regulation, here and here. The theory of “natural regulation” can just as easily be described in the same fashion as Dr. Geist used above; “utopian philosophy of ecosystem perfection absent of all human activity.” Or, in words we can all understand – just leave it alone and let things go as they will.

Part of the problem is that all people have been subjected to the use of the word, “ecosystem” to describe a landscape where flora and fauna live together in perfect harmony. “Eco” being a hip word these days (I assumed derived from ecology) and the “system” I am willing to wager is very much misunderstood. Many people, if engaged in some kind of biology discussion, might think of a system as their own body; a composition of organs and tissues all working together, the result of which is a living, breathing and walking specimen of human being.

Unfortunately the “system” in ecosystem is only used as a means of classification, or dare I say, should be used in that way. Regardless, the term in and of itself is quite misleading.

Dr. Geist spoke of “know[ing] the difference between positive and negative feed back”. This information can easily be obtained by doing searches Online but perhaps it’s much easier to find than understand. As individual humans (animals), our system (body) works to maintain “homeostasis” – “to maintain internal stability, owing to the coordinated response of its parts to any situation or stimulus tending to disturb its normal condition or function”. The responses to those disturbances are what are known as “negative feedback loops“, working to reverse or negate those disturbances. Dr. Geist says this is why “individuals are individuals”, i.e. “because they are controlled by negative feed back – negative!“.

In the contrast, as is pointed out by Geist, groups of organisms living together, in what is now too commonly referred to as that somewhat mythical “ecosystem”, are “never controlled but instead are subjected to “whims and randomness of positive feed back”.

Positive feedback loops, logically would be the counterpart to negative feedback loops. In the positive feedback loop, the body senses changes or disturbances and reacts to actually speed up the change. Some examples of this in humans might be a heart attack, clotting of blood, or even labor pains.

Dr. Geist tells us that if we can gain a solid understanding of the differences between positive feedback loops and negative feedback loops, then we might better understand “both homeostasis in individuals and stochastic non-determinism in ecosystems”.

Stochastic as it would apply to our “ecosystems” involves “a random variable or variables“.

Our ecosystems, so used, is a conglomeration of organisms all subjected to the influences of random variables that are forever changing. Geist describes those random variables as: “whims and randomness of positive feed back.”

If in our minds we can envision that our world is comprised of multiple pockets of habitat of varying sizes, each abutting and/or overlapping, or even standing apart, comprised of diverse species of plant and animals (including man) and all being subjected to random variables, it becomes much more difficult to seriously give credit to a “balance of nature”.

Tom Remington

Share

Wind Turbines: An Example of Placing Ideology In Someone Else’ Back Yard

Say what you will about the pros and cons of this foolishness we call wind energy. I’ve heard and read people argue relentlessly about whether it is cost effective, etc. but the damned things are an eyesore and a destruction of the environment. What kind of a moron would believe that in order to save the environment we must destroy more than the end result will realize us? Forget that question. I already know the answer. I deal with these people on a daily basis.

Consider rural Maine and the intrusion into the pursuit of life and liberty that comes from forcing wind turbines onto the landscape. The following photos and information was provided to me by Albert Ladd who lives in the area where these wind turbines have been erected.

In the Roxbury/Byron area, 22 wind turbines have been installed on Record Hill. Record Hill sits east of Ellis Pond and Southeast of Little Ellis or Garland Pond. Garland Pond has approximately 70+ summer camps that sit mostly on the northern end of the pond. Now many of those camp owners will be able to see some or all of the 22 turbines on Record Hill.

The first photograph below shows Ellis Pond and Little Ellis Pond. The Red line to the east of Ellis Pond is the line of 22 wind turbines. If you look closely, on the northern end of Little Ellis Pond, you’ll see a red splotch or an arrow-looking mark. This is the location the photographer, Ladd, was standing when he took the second photograph below.

Notice also on the Google map, a straight yellow line that runs near the north end of Record Hill and also intersects the northern part of Ellis Pond. That line is the town line of Roxbury, Maine and Byron, Maine. The Town of Byron voted out any wind turbines, Roxbury did not. In addition, the camp owners of Little Ellis Pond voted against wind turbines and now see what they have to stare at when they are at their camps.

Share

I’m So Glad Wind Turbines Are Environmentally Good

What happens when the prairies catch afire and race across thousands of acres of land? What happens in states like Maine, where these monsters litter the tops of mountain ridges surrounded by some of the most densely forested land anywhere in the United States? What happens when your house burns down? Are we suppose to just say we need to “go green”? Idiots!! Saving the planet are we?

And why doesn’t crap like this make the news?

Share