Calhan Wind Farm Presentation
Big Green Radicals
From: Big Green
“Colorado is ground zero for the fracking debate. That’s why national environmental groups are turning their attention and their checkbooks to the state, trying to gin up support for several anti-fracking ballot initiatives that would advance their radical agendas. But rather than being up front about their support and agendas, these groups are resorting to deceptive practices to trick Colorado voters into siding with them.
For example, knowing that its radical agenda would be unpalatable to Coloradans, big green’s out-of-state agitators founded the “local” group Frack Free Colorado (FFC). In addition to receiving generous support from out of state funders, FFC shared Water Defense’s Manhattan-based press secretary Ana Tinsely up until last year. And FFC’s leader, Russell Mendell, worked for Water Defense as recently as 2012 and didn’t even move to Colorado until that year.
That’s not to say that FFC doesn’t work hard to maintain the fiction that it’s a grassroots group. Following Water Defense’s bragging about the role it played in helping to pass several Colorado fracking bans in 2013, FFC deleted all mentions of Water Defense from its website. FFC also keeps quiet about its other outside Colorado founding members, including Food & Water Watch, Fractivist.com (run by a Sierra Club operative), and Patagonia, a California clothier. Unfortunately for big green’s agenda, Coloradans know the difference between grassroots and astroturf.
Big green groups are also deceptively using the Trojan Horse strategy to advance their radical agenda. Rather than present their true motivations – a complete ban on responsible energy development – they advance the notion of mere “local control.” (Surely they have been told that this doesn’t sound as radical to Coloradans, who – as poll after poll shows – overwhelmingly favor responsible energy development.) Of course, local control is anything but: City, county, or statewide bans violate one’s local property rights, the sanctity upon which Colorado and the country was founded.
This is a dangerous game that big green is playing. As its deceptive practices are exposed, it risks real backlash from Colorado voters, who hate deceptive groups pretending to be from Colorado even more than they hate outside groups themselves.”
Project Veritas stings anti-frackers
expensive government wasteland
Now, see, your average Leftist will look at this hot mess of a conclusion and get a warm feeling in her belly that the government is out there on the forefront of pollution, actively protecting her.
But the language says nothing, does nothing, solves nothing, recommends no specific remediation, and only suggests that it would be good if some unspecified person kept thinking about something unspecified, to move the world forward in an expedient manner toward a goal that could take a very long time to accomplish – that we already know! – undo the effects of man.
The ultimate irony is all of those EPA goals will involve reestablishing a prior status or condition to the environment – that is, turn the clock backward – the only way the EPA knows to go forward. But since we’ve all seen where we’ve been, why on earth do we need a huge expensive government agency to tell us what we already know?
“Moving forward with the end in mind.” Good grief! Make up an acronym – an RAO in this case – and feed it to the rubes out there in flyover country. This stuff rivals the brilliant pronouncements of Peter Sellers’ Chauncey Gardner character.
God only knows how much this study cost. But I guess if it helps a Leftist sleep better at night, it must be worth it because there’s just no other point to this pablum.
environmysticism
“Nothing like a predefined optimal state of the world exists that we should, for some reason, preserve and protect. The state of the world is the result of spontaneous interactions of a great number of cosmic, geological, climatic, and other factors, as well as of the effect of living organisms, which always look for the best conditions for their reproduction. The equilibrium that exists in nature is a dynamic one.
The environmentalists’ attitude toward nature is analogous to the Marxist approach to economics. The aim in both cases is to replace the free, spontaneous evolution of the world (and humankind) by the would-be optimal, central, or–using today’s fashionable adjective–global planning of world development. Much as in the case of Communism, this approach is utopian and would lead to results completely different from the intended ones. Like other utopias, this one can never materialize, and efforts to make it materialize can only be carried out through restrictions of freedom, through the dictates of a small, elitist minority over the overwhelming majority.”
Vaclav Klaus, Blue Planet in Green Shackles, 2007.
Tools
The enviro-Left allow themselves to be led around by the nose by legal-minded activists attempting to impose their policies through clever language.
Those who’ve gone to law school know the mechanics of persuasive writing and how the English language with its vast arsenal of hyperbolic and descriptive devices, can be applied to any position about any subject whatsoever. There are no limits and few rules. The Constitution guarantees defendants receive a zealous defense, even going so far as to appoint public defenders free of charge. So lawyers train to defend the impossible in order to convince juries and get their clients off.
Environmental activists use those same techniques out of the courtroom to sway public opinion to side with the environmental belief system. Like defense lawyers, they don’t have to coordinate their arguments with objective truth. All they have to do is win because there’s huge money on the table and they aim to take a share of it.
Even if they get a policy wrong, disruptive matters will simply fall to numerous venues populated by self-anointed planning and regulatory bureaucrats to sort out – people who write book-loads of rules to tell us exactly how the great unwashed population was specifically meant to be controlled – for our health, safety and welfare of course.
Carving through these thickets of commands to open a path back to constitutional governmental limitations and our civil rights can be a daunting task, often requiring advanced educations that most voters don’t possess, just to get a word in edgewise.
I wouldn’t propose any speech limitations to change this system, for such powers would only lead to worse corruptions. But at the same time, one has to wonder whether the great majority of environmental activists, untrained to tell the difference between slick propaganda and founded language, have any clue how they get used.
Post by Brooks Imperial.
intensity X intelligence = a constant
Post by Brooks Imperial.
Eugenics and the Left
Eugenics – From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Today, eugenics is regarded by some as a brutal movement which inflicted human rights violations on millions.[29] Some practices engaged in the name of eugenics, such as attacks on reputation and violations of privacy, reproductive rights, the right to life, the right to found a family, and the right to freedom from discrimination, are today classified as violations of human rights.
The practice of negative racial aspects of eugenics, after World War II, fell within the definition of the new international crime of genocide, set out in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.[30]
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also proclaims “the prohibition of eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at selection of persons”.[31]
The Genocidal Duck Whisperers of the Post-Human Left
Pick up a copy of Obama’s $3.9 trillion budget and there among the TSA fee hikes, Medicare payment cuts and the $400 million for the Department of Homeland Security to fight Global Warming is a curious little item.
On Page 930 of the budget that never ends is $575 million for “family planning/reproductive health” worldwide especially in “areas where population growth threatens biodiversity or endangered species.”
The idea that the way to protect insects, fish and animals is by preventing human beings from having children is part of an approach known as Population, Health and Environment (PHE) which integrates population control into environmentalist initiatives.
PHE dates back to the 1980s and is practiced by mainstream organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund. The Smithsonian’s Woodrow Wilson Center, which is funded partly by the US government, aggressively champions PHE eugenics and USAID funds PHE programs and distributes PHE training manuals derived in part from Wilson Center materials.
PHE had been baked into Congressional bills such as the Global Sexual and Reproductive Health Act of 2013 co-sponsored by Debbie Wasserman-Shultz and Sheila Jackson-Lee which urged meeting United Nations Millennium Development Goals by using birth control as, among other things, a means of “ensuring environmental sustainability”.
Obama’s budget is more open about its PHE eugenics agenda. While PHE backers usually claim that they want to reduce population to prevent famine and promote gender equality, the PHE budget request explicitly states that its goal is to reduce human population growth for the sake of the animals, without any of the usual misleading language about feminism and clean water.
The budget is a blunt assertion of post-Human values by an administration that has become notorious for its fanatical environmentalism, sacrificing people on the altar of Green ideology.
Post by Brooks Imperial.
A Chicken Endangers Boom In Oil And Gas
Lawsuit Challenges Use Of Endangered Species To Stop Energy Boom
Fracking Outrage Management
Fracking Risk Communication
by Peter M. Sandman
This paper by Peter Sandman breaks down the message mechanics of both the pro and anti fracking interests. By doing so Sandman outlines a paradigm whereby we can navigate – manage – the confrontations and polarized rhetoric heard in Elbert Country for the past 3 years, and impacted communities all over the world.
It is most refreshing to discover that the terms of the debate are not limited by, or adequately defined by, the extremists – and that solution vectors exist that can satisfy all stakeholders.
Bailey assumes too much
In his Oil & Gas regulus opus, Christopher Bailey assumes too much.
In a first-pass careful reading, the assumptions I noticed are:
- Operators intend to pollute to the extent regulations permit.
- Drinking groundwater may be contaminated at the surface.
- Drilling of water sampling wells is a cost-free option.
- Regulations can compensate for imperfect knowledge.
- Because something is permitted to happen, means that it will happen.
- Things that might happen, will happen, without any historical evidence.
- Any information an Operator produces is contaminated by its personal interest.
- Water loaded to pits is not sampled and tested.
- Well casing integrity is not tested and is assumed to leak.
- Regulatory exceptions are cited without any historical evidence of usage.
- Regulatory exceptions are cited without any citations.
- If regulations aren’t duplicated within each regulatory body, they go away at some point.
- The logical outcome of any argument against a COGCC rule construct is assumed to exist in fact, without any evidence.
- Possible harms are treated as proven.
- Temporal harms are treated as permanent.
- Suppositions are treated as findings.
Local enviros will love his analysis because it affirms all of their prejudices. They seem to be an earnest bunch but their standards for proof, logic, and evidence, need considerable work. It’s too bad the New Plains’ attempt to sell Bailey’s essay did not address any of the substantive weaknesses of his analysis.
Oh, and Bailey’s regulatory MOU suggestions are in operational conflict with COGCC regs.
hyperbolic times
Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh
Polite debate is no longer the accepted norm in our society. The liberal left is not tolerating divergent opinions, they want them eliminated. Outrageous labels, personal threats, and even violence have escalated during what used to be polite discourse and disagreements of opinion. [Read more…]
peter pan enviros
www.gazette.com/articles/gas-153054-oil-hickenlooper.html
“Sure, some residential property owners would love to control that which they did not buy. Five-year-olds share their philosophy: “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine.”
So they try to stand between minerals and their owners. It is, effectively, attempted theft. Local politicians stand far more to gain by backing the property thieves — local voters who outnumber the mineral owners.
“What planner, what affected neighborhood or elected official is not going to want to get rid of or make it impossibly hard to get to those minerals?” Hickenlooper asked.
Given the temptation for local politicians to aid and abet property deprivation, oil and gas owners have only state government to protect the property rights guaranteed them in the Fourth and Fifth amendments and at least 15 other clauses in the Constitution.”
From: Governor stands up to bullies
“The governor should not waste a lot of energy trying to convince these extremists of anything.”
Neither should anyone else.
Rick Blotter of Agate
He doesn’t want it, so no one should have it.
Katy bar the door
Enviros fool themselves over the purported dangers to the environment from oil and gas fracturing. The only thing this technology puts at risk is their ability to control society through fear. Environmentalism requires that man pose a continuing threat to the earth. For them, man is essentially evil, destructive and polluting. He damages everything he touches. Enviros built a trillion dollar industry on this myth, and any evidence to the contrary must be ruthlessly suppressed. No tactics are off limits in this final battle for our very survival—and the protection of their rice bowl.
Oil and gas fracturing pops the balloon of environmental mythology with a pin of proven technology. Rather than merely promising betterment, fracturing delivers, and this genuinely threatens environmentalists. In Jonas Nightingale’s words in the movie Leap of Faith, “I know the real thing when I see it.” When enviros look out above their denial, they know it too.
Meanwhile, science, causation, the direction of time, basic physics, language definitions, human nature–these building blocks of civilization must all bow to the higher objectives of the mission. Reality must give way to the higher purposes of gaia lovers, busy replacing God with a new supreme being. They practice new ritual sacrifices in new church buildings full of think tanks and symposiums attended by enviro high priests and their legal staffs. They sanctify their objectives in fervent reliance on metaphysical constructs much like those held in traditional religions.
These modern gnostic practitioners, possessors of true knowledge—not the stuff most people hold as commonly true—lead the Church of Environmentalism. Most hold high office in the adjunct Church of Social Justice, as well as the Perpetual Church of Totalitarian Light, the Church for Reconstructed Sexuality, the Church for Cultural Equivocation, the Church for Economic Liberation from Capital, the Church for Recreational Mental Adjustment Through Chemistry, the Church for Aliens Spawned Earthly Life, as well as numerous smaller ad hoc conclaves. Go fishing with one of these worms and you’ll tip over the whole can.
Due to the fluid notions of deterministic causation that all these churches share, symposiums begun under the auspices of one church usually develop into general sessions for the advancement of all related modalities. Practitioners find this a real benefit—like getting something for nothing—except in these cases it’s getting nothing for nothing. But that’s okay, inside their klatches they remain a cheerful bunch who practice abundant love and happiness among each other.
Non-initiated skeptics only see the prickly shell that new age cults present to outsiders. This shell protects insider believers from the intrusion of information that could lead to schisms and defections from the ranks. An unfortunate side effect of their self-referential domain is a growing disconnection from reality feedback that, over time, might help them improve the efficacy of their belief systems. But this begs a larger question, already answered through their modifications to many of the informing constructs that normally lead to provable objective knowledge.
In the long run, and not withstanding the fervency of environmentalists’ beliefs, their willful dodges will play out and the rules that govern the universe will hold sway. In the short run, Katy bar the door because this party is just getting started. Again.
But let’s not lose sight of the forest for the trees. It is the enforcement of beliefs through intimidation, coercion and legal compunction to achieve pre-ordained secular outcomes that offends far more than the substance of their conclusions. A conservative might have no problem arriving at some point in the Left’s universe of acceptable ends, provided they got there from substantiated, proven evidence.
Ironically, while professing unfathomable degrees of faith in their objectives, on the issues the Left have claimed dominion over they grant no faith to mankind. They do not allow people to voluntarily make up their own minds. And this is quite odd for a group of people who call themselves humanist.
B_Imperial
Patriotic luddite statist enviro. . .
. . .Tony Corrado spread his large flag like a blanket over a whole basket of spaghetti-intertwined Leftist mythologies. To rebut;
- Conservatives are not parochial, that is, limited in their scope or outlook.
- No one, and no collection of individuals working together, intend to adversely impact or despoil the environment.
- Conservatives do not define what it means for a Leftist to be patriotic.
- No one wants to deplete our energy reserves. In fact, history has shown that as technology improves, reserves of energy and all minerals, including water, go up.
- Profit, capital formation, innovation, and investment in capital equipment, make the modern world possible: the world where people live longer, happier, safer, more peaceful lives. Without the necessities for a good life in place, few people would see nature as tranquil and beautiful.
- Regulatory planning by non-stakeholders gave us suburban sprawl, expensive mass transits to nowhere, and continues to force expensive economic dislocations throughout the country that materially degrade American capacity in countless enterprises, and quality of life.
- Governments should not intervene in markets. Law appropriately defines the elemental terms for all economic transactions. Beyond that, law used to direct the substance of those transactions is a corruption of our Constitution.
- Trust the outcome of voluntary markets. Don’t trust people who think they know more than the collected wisdom of free people, each acting in their own best interest.
B_Imperial
Left protect tyrants money source
The Global Plot Vs. U.S. Fracking
Investors.com Posted 10/03/2012 06:39 PM ET
Geopolitics: What do Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin, Gulf oil sheiks and President Obama have in common? They all want to halt the U.S. energy revolution in fracking. No wonder so many of them are endorsing Obama. [Read more…]
