Washington Window

I didn't know Cape Cod Today had a Washington correspondent. Cool!

Sorry MMS workers. Party's over with the oil-and-gas reps. Back to work.

This just in:

Monpo is an...

ALIEN!

I found an EXCELLENT vid about
aliens + ufos.

This one has almost 400,000+ hits and it's
only 4 wks old!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlLN_Jcg1pc

And let's not forget Buzz Aldrin belting
an obnoxious "moon hoax nut"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQKxAqpjroo

Someone actually "flagged" this vid for violent content which is total BS.

It'll read "confirm birthdate"-- just click it--- means nothing.

The beauty of this vid is that even though Aldrin was caught on tape
punching this guy AND it was
shown to the cops, they flat-out REFUSED to arrest Aldrin.

Bart Sibrel is the dope who got punched, and deservedly so.
I think he actually tried to sue Aldrin later and the
whole thing "backfired" on him.

The comments on this vid are inspiring,
even if the language is a little salty.
Mine (Randy Wilharm) are still there too.

Also:

Mythbusters refute moon hoax (10min):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUeS59u9xkQ

For the "believers".

Thanks windmill~~ I did pass the link along to Chris Knowles... If you folks're not reading his SecretSun and SolarSatellite blogs every day you oughta have your dots connected!
http://secretsun.blogspot.com/search/label/Space%20Colonization
http://secretsun.blogspot.com/search/label/UFOs
http://secretsun.blogspot.com/search/label/Gus%20Grissom

Jump in any time Ned. You must have read this.

there is something very wrong with the photo of the mayflower and the wind tower. the tower with rotors is well over 400 feet high, maybe closer to 500 feet. there is nothing on the mayflower that would be even half that height. the scale of this simulation is deceptive.

capri: "The Army Corp has been replaced by the MMS. A rose is a rose by any other name." to justify Audra Parker using the 'need more time' quote on npr.

So, what you're saying is: no matter who is permitting the project, no matter how long the process has gone on, 'we need more time.'

I guess if I believed in the 'terrible' consequences of wind power & had nothing of substance to show real damages, stalling by any other name would still be the best ploy.

Wind resouce could offset real, health damaging emissions. Every 30 days we delay offsetting these poisons (prove me wrong, please) another person dies a premature death. (Harvard medical research) as well as birth defects (United Way) # of Asthma suffers and severity of attacks (American lung society) etc.

The entirety of negative claims made by your ilk have not materialzed in any thing less than the tiniest fraction of the real damage from oil, coal, & thier method of extraction.

renewables=long term stability!

The stock market's value short term value is predicated far more on opionion than actual value, where as over the long haul you'll have a far better view on the real value of goods & services.

Did anyone catch 'the Point' on npr for windfarm debate? Audra Parker revealed the true nature of the Alliance by repeating a quote from state agencies pleading for more time to consider the project. It was then revealed the quote was a few years out of date, she left out that the quote was directed @ the Army corp. of Engineers.

So very typical of wind oposition misrepresenting what ever is in reach, spinning it thier way when the facts just don't line up to thier world view.

Like, complaining that the decommissioning process is flawed because regulatory steps are in the wrong order, a different order than how other construction projects are bonded.

The Alliance, faced with a good report, can only stall for time hoping for another desperate back room deal.

I'm listening!

Capri:

Regarding your excellent point about the decommissioning of the wind turbines; and that this information is missing from the FEIR:

The Peer Review Committee, consisting of six internationally recognized experts in wind energy generation, had this to say about Cape Wind and decommissioning to the USACE, on September 30, 2003:

“From an environmental point of view, the largest risk that reviewers see is a failed project leaving behind an offshore wind farm that is not operational, without sufficient income to address essential maintenance. An abandoned wind farm at sea would seem to be the worst possible environmental outcome.”

Ringo:

Cape Wind is under review within the National Environmental Policy Act. NEPA asserts that it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings and; to attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences.

A true NEPA review will prevent a project that presents risk to public safety; adverse impact to cultural and aesthetic values; and that would cause degradation of this environment.

Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs noted significant shortcomings in the draft Environmental Impact Statement and wrote a 26-page decision outlining additional work areas to be addressed by the applicant, Cape Wind.

This project draft Environmental Impact Statement was also found grossly deficient by federal agencies, and was given a “Category 3 – Inadequate” rating by EPA Region 1.

As I’m sure your readers are acutely aware by now, there is no room for debate with any of these anti-wind farm vigilantes.
They made their mind up before any review that this does not fit in with their idea of use in Nantucket Sound.
They will never, ever be supportive of any wind turbines in Nantucket Sound period.
As far as I’m concerned they are a huge waste of time but since you have a blog with potential comments you will continue to be plagued.
They don’t trust NEPA, MEPA or any agency that determines any thing favorable regarding the project.
You are really wasting your breath.

Dick,

It’s really great to see you are skeptical about sea level rise and maybe Al Gore’s crusade too. I had my doubts before I got to the theater. He is a nice guy but he lost me when he told the cute story about how he first heard of plate tectonics. It could not have happened that way in the 50’s or 60’s. He does not deserve a ‘pass.’

And on his Oscar-

Last night I found an online ‘open letter’ to Al from some guy named Stephen Bassett. It goes into the L. Rockefeller “Initiative”- very surprising considering you had direct involvement, just as you say above.

Bassett believes Al Gore should have done the “right thing” at the Academy Awards and revealed to the world the truth behind, “...energy and propulsion systems of crashed vehicles of extraterrestrial origin… sequestered in government research facilities… reserved for weaponry, not for global warming response.”

You say your work on this wasn’t about “ETs”, but “intelligence projects.”

Is that just a “deep” cover story?

Mattmesi:

I agree with your position that we need spare Nantucket Sound from industrial development as a first step.

Some places are just not suitable for an industrial scale wind facility. Nantucket Sound should be under consideration for the Heritage Tourism program by the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

The developer, Cape Wind, has selected one of the world's finest surviving examples of a historic whaling port as we did not map and zone the ocean areas for alternative use-First. Due to our negligence, we are looking at potential haphazard development of our precious and finite resource, as development is being directed by developers.

Cape Wind, for all of its "merits" is at most a symbolic step toward offshore renewable energy in the United States. The project will not stop or curb any global warming events, including sea-level rise. That is not to say society and Cape Codders shouldn't care about posterity and act on behalf of nataure. It just means that the first place to start saving is Nantucket Sound from industrial development.

No problem reconciling at all, Barbara.

The first comment is an attempt at a thoughtful contribution to dialogue.

The second citation was satire pointed at hypocrites who oppose Cape Wind but who on the national level promote the myth that global warming causes current weather "peak events," the way Bobby K. blamed Bush for Hurricane Katrina in a German magazine. Kennedy Krime Klan as spokespersons for ANY cause? Unhelpful!

See my comment to Dona, above, for more on "philosophy."
And thank you for visiting us again. I found your IBD citation right on point. Appreciate your sharing it!

Dick:

Regarding your comment:

"Investors and market forces don't appreciate "good intentions" or planet preserving decisions, unless everyone is compelled to play by the same rules by enforced policies."

Average citizens are not so different.
Many of us are wisely skeptical, and don't appreciate "good intentions" as much as we do fact based planet preserving decisions. And, many of us would prefer that Cape Wind was compelled to play by the same rules as other alternative energy projects. A "no-bid" deal, exclusive to Cape Wind, serves the developer, not the citizens.

Your comments below are challenging to reconcile:

"Global warming, sea level rise and hurricanes really don't play any part in the Cape Wind siting controversy, either pro or con, and Al Gore, for whatever reason, is running far ahead of the scientific consensus on "melt."

“When the Cape gets its Katrina, don't call me, call Durkin or Dona or Neil.”

You're welcome, Dona. As to Cape Wind, I see what Jim is attempting as a right thing to try, perfectly legal and in a spirit of renewable energy alternatives.

But I do understand your opposition and your "come from," given that my wife is a wildlife management scientist, a true Nature Girl from the git-go. We live on a farm with 8 chickens, 2 goats, horses and other critters, near a wooded park with a large lake. (Only 30 mi. from DC)

Nothing Jim and CWA can do will make the project acceptable to you in terms of risk to the raptors and wildlife on whose behalf you work. That's a given.

On our "news side," CCT's job is to serve as guardians of process. In the past, some opponents have been overtly dishonest, using gross distortion, half-truths or untruths to fight their fight.

MMS & wind advocates worry that in the anti-Cape Wind battle, wind power as a viable alternative may be undermined.

That's a focus of our future coverage. If CWA meets applicable criteria, the decision is about "competing values."

Maverick,

Nowhere did I seriously suggest the Cape will be underwater any time soon. Others who are using "global warming and sea level rise" as political justifications for radical energy policy shifts are claiming that, as is Al Gore in his Oscar movie.

Early considerations (circa 1982, etc.) hypothesized dramatic ocean rises in their worst-case scenarios, purely speculative, if the West Antarctic Ice Sheet slid off its bedrock substrate; but those were revised downward in the later 1980s, by Hansen at NASA and others.

Such catastrophic prognostications are politically untenable and just incomprehensible, more akin to tsunamis, earthquakes and potential asteroid collisions. There's little to nothing we can do about them other than worry and freak people out needlessly, so we should concentrate on what we can measure and take some rational steps to move toward energy diversity and planetary environmental mitigation as technology and economics converge.

Carl,
Your approach is consistent with that of folks promoting the "precautionary principle," i.e., if it moves us into a better, longer-term energy future, what's the problem?

But Wall Street and Big Energy, having a lot of amortization and new capital invesment to handle, can't afford to play it like that. Investors and market forces don't appreciate "good intentions" or planet preserving decisions, unless everyone is compelled to play by the same rules by enforced policies.

Global warming, sea level rise and hurricanes really don't play any part in the Cape Wind siting controversy, either pro or con, and Al Gore, for whatever reason, is running far ahead of the scientific consensus on "melt."

He and his backers seem to be following the "precautionary principle" as being a justification for "emergency" policy shifts that: 1.) aren't going to happen any time soon; and 2.) are too expensive when considered internationally. Kyoto was a "mess" because it wasn't "real" or at all equitable!

Aren't the causes of global warming secondary to actually doing something about it? I believe we should embrace soultions that also chart us in a direction of less harmful emissions, less chance of oil spills, more independance from unstable oil producing countries & less health care costs.

Simple math, if this wind farm displaces 1,000,000 tons of co2 each year with little to no enviromental damage, then lets get it going! If this windfarm works, it opens the doors for wind powering a vast majority of the East coast in 20 years.

If we can shut down oil and coal plants and just have gas fired and other renewables to fill in the valleys of wind, we have a much better America to live in.

An America that leads the world away from wholesale greenhouse gas production is a reality within our grasp.

The temperature is rising, all fault aside, CO2 makes it worse, ergo, lets produce less of it.

-Carl B. Freeman

The Facts Also Rise
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Tuesday, February 06, 2007
“Climate Change: A funny thing happened on the way to the global warming apocalypse: Scientists are getting less worried about sea level rises. Not that you'd know from coverage of the latest scientific consensus report.”
“Global warming enthusiasts constantly spin out fearsome tales that human-caused warming will melt the polar ice caps, cause the oceans to rise by 20 feet or more and devastate major cities around the world.”
“While Gore & Co. make it look like this melt could happen, no credible scientist believes it. As environmental reporter Gregg Easterbrook put it, "Gore says the entire Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets could melt rapidly; the film then jumps to animation of Manhattan flooded. Well, all that ice might melt really fast, and a UFO might land in London too."
“Given the record of global warming scientists, and Earth's own long-term climate record, these are big assumptions indeed.”

Dick...your comment:

"All opinions, pro or con, related to what we are discussing, are always welcome!"

I respect your background. Please explain to me why Cape Cod will be underwater in the next thousand years.
And why the West is high and dry after thousands of years underwater as part of the world's oceans.

I'm sure if you feel so confident predicting the future it won't be hard to play " Monday Morning Quarterback " with regard to my query.

Thanks,
Jack

Dick,
It was entertaining to read your 5:58 pm comment explaining your distaste for personal attacks.

You have elevated that sort of thing to new heights around here, and I dare say you seem to be very proud of it. Here is a sample of what you wrote above, in case you forgot;

“Jim Gordon ….isn't playing rough enough with his critics…. [t]he "usual suspects," dumping out their boilerplate critiques, out-of-context snippets and diatribes laced with personal invective belying their ignorance…[t]hen along comes "this guy,"

This guy would like to ask you a simple question; you deleted Dona’s comments, my comment, and even your own mid-afternoon comment about hurricanes.

Why?

Dick writes-

“When the Cape gets its Katrina, don't call me, call Durkin or Dona or Neil.”

Ah, Dick…..

What happened to all those predictions- almost guarantees- we heard a while back about “more intense, more frequent,” hurricanes?

It was the mildest period for tropical storms in ten years.

Was it just a dud?

Or was it also a HUGE disappointment for all “doom and gloom” prophets?

HMMMMM! delete this Dick.

Dick F...Thanks for your insight or lack thereof.

F..k Cape Cod. It is a blip on the radar screen of life.

Please tell me why the West is a desert versus a living ocean.

You are the biggest shill and fraud Walter has brought to the party.

Neil: regarding the hurricanes. You seem to expect me to "defend" claims by global warming advocates that all the hurricanes are going to intensify?

I've seen quite a few weather analysts on TV who repeatedly assert that cycles in hurricane frequency and intensity are not directly tied to long-wave climate changes, whatever their causes.

The problem for the most rabid global warming "fundamentalists" is that they are ascribing every anomaly to this as a rationale or "driver" for policies I don't believe are relevant to planet-level trends; I've not seen scientists saying that they are. To the contrary.

Just below is the comment I posted. It was 'up' for about 20 minutes and then it just vanished into cyberspace.

It was like it happened right before my very eyes. I swear.

I guess the 'truth is out there,' but out of fashion here.

----------------

Dick writes-

“When the Cape gets its Katrina, don't call me, call Durkin or Dona or Neil.”

Ah, Dick…..

What happened to all those predictions- almost guarantees- we heard a while back about “more intense, more frequent,” hurricanes?

It was the mildest period for tropical storms in ten years.

Was it just a dud?

Or was it also a HUGE disappointment for all “doom and gloom” prophets?

What do you think?

Neil, do you feel "erased?" Seems not.

The personal attacks and "cross-chats" having nothing to do with the topic do not add to the conversation and don't belong here. They intrude on the chain of thought and are a hinderance to any others who might wish to join in. All opinions, pro or con, related to what we are discussing, are always welcome!

Now, where were we...

You had asked about sea-level rise and have put forward Dr. Abdussamatov's perspective about Mars, I believe? As I told you, I find this interesting and a good basis to explore "global warming" and sea-level rise as are being used as justifications for Cape Wind, correct?

And do you believe RFK, Jr.'s approach on a "global" scale is helped by his actions toward Cape Wind? Why/why not?

Are there any offshore areas where windfarms might be OK? Hilton Head? Virginia Beach? Rehoboth? Ocean City?

What should MMS be looking at in the wider picture, beyond just the Sound?

Dick, are you erasing comments or is it someone else?

WB...Thanks for Jack C, Dick F, and Chuck K.

You have given "The Three Windbags" a forum. They remind me of "The Three Stooges".

All experts. Would one of them please explain why the plains and plateaus of the West were at one time an underwater living ocean and today just a desert. Was the change caused by the burning of fossil fuel.

I love you Walter but this group is over the top. As I am a fisherman can I have the right to Troll?

If the beauty of Cape Cod didn't exist nor would CCT. Please don't grab short term ad dollars at the expense of what brought all of us here.

Thanks,
Jack

Neil, follow up your query:

"Dick, if you are not a 'UFO believer,' why would you contact the Clinton White house three times about UFO’s, all independently of that foundation you once worked for?

"Were you hoping to get them to release something you also believed was being withheld from the public?..."

Reply: Nope, wasn't free-lancing, just passing files and primary info in so
WH contacts were fully informed about elements of "project" about which they weren't aware may have been structured to expose Clintons to media ridicule.

Pres. Clinton wasn't being well served by "spooks" he'd inherited, lurking in Rockefeller's "UFO" disclosure effort.

FOIA in 1998. Essence is all online.
Not classified; I'm all "open source."

Just a simple country journalist, Neil, following a really good story down the rabbit hole to Wonderland. Nothing new.

As Forrest Gump put it: "That's all I'm going to say about thaaat." (Here & now)

Sea level rise, anyone?

Dick sez-

“All of this "planet saving" is getting way too serious, if you ask me. Geeze!”

But that’s why you’ve joined us here, isn’t it?

Me, I’d like to see the three Farley/Clinton UFO communications

Or is it all Ultra Top Secret?

Do I need to file a FOIA request?

There once was a man named Dick Farley
his views on wind farms were quite gnarly
he then met Neil Good
they argued real good
but I'm smokin' herb like Bob Marley

Dick, if you are not a “UFO believer", why would you contact the Clinton White house three times about UFO’s, all independently of that foundation you once worked for?

Were you hoping to get them to release something you also believed was being withheld from the public? Seems to me there is a good story here.

Following is from your blog post above-

“This is a very big deal”

“One of the most fun aspects of having a "blog" in cyberspace is the capacity for discovery and exploration of what other people on our planet are doing and saying, thinking and wondering.”

“…tell us about it, respectfully…”

More on sea rise or fall, ice melting, etc., to follow.

No, Neil. I'm not being prickly or sensitive about the "UFO" gig. That's a drill been going on sixty years, but still no ETs, no "saucers" and lots of hot air. Maybe merits a separate blog.

Some true-believers say "UFO" secrecy is all about "The Government" hiding exotic energy technologies so Big Oil and Big Coal and BIG Nuclear aren't displaced by the "ET's gifts" to us.

Here's one for you: Dennis Kucinich in the late 1980s apparently believed or was told -- he's a very close friend of Shirley MacLaine; no I'm not joking -- and Dennis was told by a trance channel medium he was doing his good works on behalf of ETs from the Pleiades. Alas.

Check out Dennis's current efforts on "Peace in Space," Googled easily.
His allies are under "Exopolitics."
He's running for President again, too.

If he gets any traction, we'll have to bring out the "ET" contingent, I guess.


Now, can we get back to sea level rise and "fun" stuff about huffing, puffing and blowing down wind farms, and such?

I was not jumping to any conclusions about what you believe in beyond 'wind energy' Dick.

As you say, “Don’t be so prickly!”

That other stuff does sound ‘other worldly.’

And no, Neil. I'm not a "UFO believer."

From 1991 into 1994, I was Director of Project Development for the nonprofit Human Potential Foundation, chaired by then Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Claiborne I. Pell (D-RI) and funded principally by philanthropists Laurance S. Rockefeller and HRH Prince Hans Adam II, of Liechtenstein.

One of the interests of Mr. Rockefeller was to encourage Pres. Clinton to attempt the disclosure of what our government knew about so-called "UFOs." This has been fully discussed elsewhere on the web, easily located as you have done, but in sum: It wasn't about flying ETs, but clandestine military and intelligence projects involving potential human rights abuses on unwilling and unwitting US citizens.

I also served as liaison between Human Potential Foundation and Dr. John Mack at Harvard, who you'll recall got into the topic of supposed "alien abductions," with funding from Mr. Rockefeller.

This was not about "ET aliens," either, as psychiatrist John Mack (now deceased) was an expert on "borderline states."

Neil, back at you!
You cited IPCC statement, sea level rise, or lack thereof, and asked what I thought about it. Here goes:

Polar melt, whatever its cause, results in slight ocean level rise some report.

Catastrophic inundation fears aren't supported by many climate scientists.

Relatively gradual sea level rise is steady since last Ice Age glacial melt.

Coastlines experience higher "peak events," like hurricane storm surges playing havoc with our short-sighted coastal zone "planning," as a result.

Catastrophic sea level rise has been postulated by some, Hansen at NASA in particular, based on work by Woodwell, et al., in the early '80s, although Jim Hansen revised scenarios downward in later '80s and early '90s. Still maybe.

Worst scenario posits sudden slippage of West Antarctic Ice Sheet -- ten percent of continent's ice cover -- into the sea after becoming unstable because of "lubricant" effects of meltwater on the bedrock substrate.

If that happened? Yikes! Dive, Dive!

Dick, are you the same Dick Farley who wrote for the American UFO Newsletter?

Noting personal at all, I’m just interested in learning where you are coming from. Maybe you know…

A Google search found this;

“…one of the Foundation's former staff members, Dick Farley, has made an independent contact with the White House on the UFO subject. Farley wrote me that as of a month ago he had sent three different packets of material that detailed the complete activities of the foundation in support of Mr. Rockefeller and his interest in the declassification of government materials related to the UFO phenomena.”