CapeCodToday Blog Chowder

Barbara Durkin's clever "proposal" to memorialize Senator Kennedy by naming a federally protected ocean zone after him neatly reminds us of how anti-Cape Wind apparatchiks have worked for many years, under the table and above, in pursuit of just such a designation. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 expressly prohibits offshore renewable energy siting in any such federally designated ocean waters, providing President Obama and Governor Patrick with the fig leaf to "honor" Ted Kennedy by killing Cape Wind, one last testament to perpetual Kennedy clout and Obamanation hypocrisy.

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!

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!

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.

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?

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?

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?

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!

Ode to the All-Lie-Ants

We wiggle, we writhe,
We politick and tithe!

We scream, we yell:
"Cape Wind just go to Hell!"

We huff, we puff,
"We'll blow your windfarm down!"

We'll boast, we'll toast,
And then go back to town!

Poor Jim, you're through!
How dare you spoil our view?

We'll twist, we'll turn,
Cape Wind we'll always spurn.

Until... that day,
Our islands wash away.

The sea... and Earth,
Will have the final say.

Gosh, Neil! Are all of the Alliance apologists porcupines? Don't be so reflexively prickly, come on! Nowhere did I make fun of Dr. Abdussamatov in what I wrote? To the contrary!

As for "global warming" as a rationale for radical unilateral action by the US, here I agree with Clinton. Bill is the one who did not submit "Kyoto" to the Senate for ratification, after 90-plus Senators unequivocally said: "Don't do it!"

As I wrote, I've been tracking the issue for 25 years, and I am certain all the world will be surprised when we've read the "footnotes" on the full IPCC report, once the headlines die down. Until the full report is published and critiqued, the story is better covered by "religion" writers than we few outriders on the ranges of science and public policy. Alas.

The problem for "true believers," to whom global warming is more faith than reason, more political rationale for other actions than realization Earth is a dynamic planetary system, is that while "warming" and sea-level rise" are indeed real,
the majority of the planet's peoples are too busy surviving to put their lives and cultures in Reverse or hit the brakes.

It will be fascinating to watch Ed Markey attempt to balance Speaker Pelosi's edicts from her "Vatican" chambers pushing for "warming-related" legislation, shoving aside John Dingle and Nick Rahall in the process, with Kennedy's opposition to Cape Wind looming over 'em, the elephant in the living room.

This thread is dead. Check out the latest post: Read...Think...Write!

Thanks, Neil! That was a great reference and I've checked it out.
This is the kind of comment and discussion that won't bore our readers to intellectual paralysis.

I liked it so much I'm going to put it up on this blog as my next installment, so we can have a real discussion about it, right away. It is a viewpoint needing exposure and exposition. I'll look forward to any comments "on point" and "in bounds."

Thanks again. I'm outta here; see you in the next life... or my next blog.

Alas, we shall miss the illumination that has now departed this venerable blog, the Mother Ship having called yet another of Earth's ET visitors "home."

Pardon me, Capri, but as I understand the "rules of engagement" for CCT's blogs, the comments you've just leveled at me are, to put it conservatively, pointless, false and "out of bounds?"

What made you believe that my comment was in any way directed toward you? I was not specific. Do you have what Poe called "The Telltale Heart" about this?

Please share your personal credentials for assessing "good" journalism or otherwise? We who read your guerilla blog posts know only that you're a "nom de guerre" with time on her hands and a penchant for "trolling" CCT's blogs for Cape Wind comments, then dumping on 'em.

Are you acknowledging you're part of some political "menage a trois" for the opposition to offshore wind farms?

If so, it is self-evidently amateurish, amusing, among the most transparently contrived "disinfo" campaign most of us have EVER seen! Our national readership is laughing at such comic shenanigans.

I'd bet Jim Power and Chuck Vinick cringe every time they read stuff.

For visitors from "out of town," what we have here and on most comment zones or blogs dealing with Cape Wind is an organized crew of anti-wind apparatchik types, taking orders from a faux-Green front group of rich NIMBYs and Big Oil and Big Coal industrialists with other agendas beyond (and beneath) Cape Wind.

When offered their own blog site by a Cape Cod Today editor, the "gang" said their leaders (back on the Mother Ship?)said "No go," apparently preferring a guerilla blog hit squad to reasonable conversations "on topic." It's just a lot of "noise" to mask any "signals."

Their tactic is to insert lengthy off-topic anti-wind snippets out of context and lace their posts with vituperative irrelevance to drive away opinions, pro or con, legitimizing these discussions.

If you wish to post, simply ignore them and "write through." They are harmless visitors from another planet wishing to raise Earth's CO2 levels to habituate our world to their species. Let 'em all "come on down." Welcome to Earth!

I trust the Alliance's "blog team" will pardon me if I write something topical?

About Big Oil's move toward renewables, we must be cautious & vigilant. In the late 1980s, same thing happened as Big Oil moved on "new energy" efforts launched during Carter administration.

Big Oil bought into photovoltaics (solar cells), solar collectors for hot water, as well as "oil shale" and similar "big energy" ideas, all of which evaporated when Pres. Reagan's dentist turned Energy Secretary (Edwards) allowed the investment tax credits for installing new tech and conservation measures to expire, wiping out the "market pull," scaring off Wall Street and putting a kibosh on new manufacturing facilities.

Will BP and Shell, joined soon by our friends at ExxonMobil, and Chavez and our other "oily friends," cut our oil prices before "renewables" gain real momentum in policy and investments?

The current issue of Mother Earth News (Feb/Mar '07) has an eight-page article by Charles Komanoff titled "Whither Wind," on political and philosophical ironies of "environmentalists" opposing wind power initiatives.

It is a slightly edited version of the article (same title) Komanoff wrote for Orion Magazine in their Sept/Oct '06 issue. Komanoff's and Orion's web sites have the Orion piece plus comments and criticisms, to which Komanoff responded.

Some of the discussion centers on what Durkin semantically argues, apparently inaccurately, regarding how "wind" is a reducer of greenhouse gases & carbon.

Komanoff has some good info about Mass. and some "ironic" and unflattering info about the so-called "Alliance to Save Views of JFK's Sacred Sailing Grounds."

"Belief" is the cessation of learning, and blogs are often like CB radio of old, where everyone had access but few had much of value to say.

Facts rarely will impact "faith-based" politics and apologetics, but one must keep trying to communicate, educate and perhaps break the disinformation cycle.

Oops. Sorry. Last line should read: "as their principal fundraising rationale to major donors." The "e" got away from me. Anyway, my question stands. Do any of you know or have opinions on this?

Question: Has anyone asked the fishermen's organizations how they view the Alliance's primary fundraising objective, i.e., seeking National Marine Sanctuary designation for the Sound? In most of the (13) National Marine Sanctuary designation processes, it was the fishermen (commercial and recreational) who raised the most objections and expressed most concern, in terms of how sanctuary designation would impact on their fish harvesting.
Also, the feds are very unlikely to appreciate it if the National Marine Sanctuary program being "used" for a political "blockade," regardless of the relative value, ecologically and intrinsically, of the to-be-protected resources. There was similar backlash in some national park anti-development issues regarding "viewsheds," which prompted anti-Green sentiment and accusations of non-scientific "elitist obstructionism." Just wondering, as the Alliance is using its National Marine Sanctuary pursuit as their principal fundraising rational to major donors.

Ed Markey is a most sad case of sell-out. For decades he's been among the most vociferous opponents of nuclear power generation. Now, where does he line up? With money, power and greed.
It shows his "green paint" was simply a convenient camouflage. Cousteau Green?

As a West Virginian, I can hear that banjo music ringing through the hills! But the answer's "Blowin' in the Wind."