The People’s Cube has a short and snort-worthy satire about the green activist Justin Tree, who can’t, for the life of him, figure out what happened to the “shredded wren” that once was so popular…….prior to the arrival of the wind farm.

Worth a chuckle this morning and thanks to reader “james” for the link.

Tom Remington

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.

There are a few people in this country who don’t want the Government’s “smart meters” installed on their homes. If you are not aware of smart meters, it’s time you paid attention to something important in your life for a change.

Smart meters are an intrusion into your life, your privacy and your rights, disguised as a means of saving money and the planet. It’s a government con job as are all government programs.

It seems that in some areas, smart meters are so much loved and adored that the power company has to take armed police escorts with them in order to force the spy machines into homes not wanting them.

America: Land of the free, and home of the brave.

Tom Remington

Peter Hanson, owner/president of Great Northern Paper Co. LLC, says Roxanne Quimby’s proposed donation of 70,000 acres of her land for a National Park shouldn’t pose a problem for his paper mills, providing the Federal Government doesn’t “suddenly” come under the acquisition of even more land to control and deplete his potential resources for timber. What he is concerned about is answering to federal air quality standards with a National Park next door.

According to information in a recent Bangor News piece, “The park service would ….. have legal authority to challenge air-quality impacts from industrial developments within 60 miles of a park.” I have to admit that in my mind I’m asking, “Isn’t this the real reason Quimby and Obama want this park?” But what do I know? The U.S. House of Representatives just passed the National Defense Authorization Act that gives the president and the military the authority to arrest and detain for an indefinite amount of time, anyone, even American citizens, for suspicion they might commit or participate in perceived terror activity. So you tell me, would Obama and the people that think and act like him be manipulating to shut down these mills? Your call.

But that’s a bit off the topic of this thread. Hanson says what attracted him to purchase the mills was the amount of timber resources available or soon to come.

The top thing that drew Hanson and Cate Street to purchase the mills in September after many other investors walked away, he said, was a large supply of wood now almost harvestable on areas clear-cut decades ago.

“What attracted me to the mill is its situation in the heart of Maine’s wood basket,” Hanson said. “In the next 15 years, a huge amount of spruce and fir is coming online … All of those clear-cuts are now approaching maturity. As that happens, the wood processors that are sitting there are very well-positioned.”

All of those clear cuts are coming mature. Are these the same clear cuts that have so conveniently been evoked as viable excuses for the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and other environmental organizations, as to why there are no deer?

Assuming that Mr. Hanson is referring to a sizable amount of mature forests about to be ready for harvest, are these forests not worthy of deer habitat?

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) says the main reasons why the deer herd has suffered so is because of harsh winters and lack of habitat. Maine’s newly crafted Deer Plan states:

The most significant factors are the duration and severity of winters across the region, as well as the difficulty in maintaining suitable habitat for the coldest months on the calendar.

Use of the terms “suitable” and “quality” as they describe habitat provide for convenient escape hatches when people like me question whether all these bygone clear cuts of yesteryear are in fact, bygone. It’s also convenient to pick on those excuses that most people understand little, if any, can Maine citizens do anything about, while refusing to address the things they can do.

So if this is the case, then barring several more “severe” winters in a row, and all of these wonderful “mature” forests appearing on the Maine landscape, should hunters be expecting huge increases in the deer herd over the next 15 years? Of course not. My bet is none of these forests are “quality” habitat for deer.

Tom Remington

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?

Growing up, my father was forever angering me with his platitudes in hopes of proving his point or putting you into a context of uselessness. Growing up poor we spent many hours of many days doing physical work around home, such as firewood, weeding gardens, mowing lawns, etc. I recall sometimes being told to do things I didn’t think possible and my first and repeated reply was, “I can’t”. His scripted retort was always, “Can’t never did anything!”

Is it me and my expectations of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) are too high or has the passage and implementation of the Maine Game Plan for Deer, become a useless instrument supported by “I can’t”?

Some say I’m not fair in my criticism of MDIFW but frankly what criticism is ever considered fair when you are the target of the criticism? Criticism should always be followed by suggested remedies, which I usually try to do.

Maine sportsmen held out hope going into the last election of governor, thinking that an administration change at both the Blaine House and regime change at MDIFW, that resources and attention would shift back toward actual game management, particularly deer, addressing a decades-long downward spiral in the state’s deer population.

When all the changes took place, personnel went to work to draft an official plan to rebuild the deer herd. George Smith, former executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine and now writer and outdoor/environmental pundit, attended a long meeting with members of the MDIFW to update the progress of the Game Plan for Deer. George files an initial report on the meeting.

I did not attend the meeting so I can only comment on Smith’s perspective of what he took away from the event. In essence, Smith relates that there was little optimism for the future and little had been accomplished and little projected to take place. Perhaps he puts it best when he wrote:

expectations are now high and his [MDIFW Commissioner Chandler Woodcock] ability to deliver is low

In reference to the content of the meeting, Smith says: “A lot of time was consumed with a discussion of deer feeding problems, predator controls, and deer/vehicle collisions.”

I’m not sure that I agree, as Smith writes that the number one issue facing a depleted deer herd is habitat, it appears nothing is even being done to address that problem.

But very little time was devoted to habitat protection and enhancement – the key problem and the major reason for the state’s diminished deer population according to the agency’s wildlife staff. Surprisingly little is actually being done on this.

I guess the catch phrase here might as well be, “I can’t!” After reading this assessment, once again my blood pressure spiked and I began breaking pencils and tossing them across my office. One stuck into the screen to the side door. What I sputtered about for the next 20 minutes sort of came out something like this:

It’s all about habitat! I’m so sick and tired about hearing how everything must be blamed on habitat. Well, you know, habitat is important but nobody has ever answered my question about why if there just isn’t any deer wintering areas left there are many acres of deer wintering areas where there are no deer. I could better understand this excuse if the deer herd was near the state’s carrying capacity, but it’s not. And yet, according to George Smith nothing is planned to deal with that so………

We can’t do anything about the weather and MDIFW is not going to do anything about habitat, so………

Then logic would force a sane individual to ask, what CAN we do? Let’s take what we CAN do and prioritize it into what has the biggest negative impact on down to the least and begin there.

So once MDIFW gets done forming more task forces, putting up more signs of deer crossings, paying to fly around and count deer, reduce Any-Deer Permits, shorten the deer season, close it in some areas, raise the license fees, pray for more global warming, take the dog for a walk, go out to lunch, form another task force, walk the dog again, investigate how many deer are being killed by farmers, then perhaps they could get down to predator control or does that have any negative effect at all? Maybe they see coyotes and other predators as positive effects on the deer. I mean take the wolf. They are like the wonder drug, geritol, spandex and lycra, WD-40. I think the presence of wolves cures cancer. Can coyotes be that much different?

And I still haven’t calmed down yet!

I can’t! MDIFW doesn’t have the resources. I can’t! The demands are too high. I can’t! I can’t! I can’t! I can’t!

CAN’T NEVER DID ANYTHING!

Where’s the effort here? Who’s on board with this effort to rebuild Maine’s deer herd? Has the state really made a commitment to rebuild the deer herd? Does Maine honestly see and understand the economic as well as cultural impact the loss of a deer herd and ultimately a hunting season would have on the state?

I have to seriously question that commitment.

Recently I received an email from a gentleman who is head of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife in Utah. I shared that email with a few select recipients on my email list, including the MDIFW Commissioner Chandler Woodcock.

The email was a call to arms for Utah and other sportsmen from the Western regions of the United States, to come together in a united effort to rebuild a depleted mule deer herd. The email begins by clarifying what efforts had been done to date to fix the problem.

While more than 750,000 acres of habitat has been restored, cougar populations have been reduced, and $650,000 a year in coyote control is spent, $50 Million has been invested to fence highways with underpass crossings, still not enough has been done. It is the feeling that 80% of Utah’s deer herds are still in decline, and only 20% or so are doing well.

How many acres of this much needed habitat restoration has been done in Maine? Oh, that’s right. I can’t. What concerted efforts are underway in Maine to reduce predators, including black bears, bobcats and coyotes, even if only temporarily until the herd rebuilds? Oh, that’s right. I can’t. How much money has been put toward coyote control in Maine? Oh, that’s right. I can’t. How much has been invested in other projects around the state to protect and build the deer herd? Oh, that’s right. I can’t.

WE already know Senator Hatch has helped get tens of millions in habitat restoration money, personally toured Habitat restoration areas, won the wolf war for sportsmen etc.

In Maine, it appears the Governor has promised to do everything he can do, but when was the last time Sen. Snowe, Sen. Collins, Rep. Michaud, Rep. Pingree attended one of any meetings on the issue of rebuilding Maine’s deer herd? Or toured any deer yard? Oh, that’s right. I can’t. How about the last time one of these elected officials sent a key staff member to assist? Oh, that’s right. I can’t. When was the last United States senator or representative who “helped gets tens of millions” to help do anything with wildlife management in Maine? Oh, that’s right. I can’t.

As was written about in this email, there is an election coming up again next November. Maine sportsmen should be looking at every candidate and demanding that they have an agenda to actually do everything they can to save Maine’s deer herd or they won’t get your vote.

The overall effort here is just coming across as pathetic. Certainly there are pockets of positive accomplishes and isolated individuals doing what they can, but Maine’s overall effort is poor. The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, once the backbone of lobbying for the sportsmen is in disarray with a sinking membership and disunity among those members still hanging on. Perhaps David Trahan can right the ship. It is imperative for Maine’s future for sportsmen. The governor makes promises to “do what he can” but is he? Isn’t it time to rattle the cages of the 4 Congressional delegates and tell them it’s time for them to get involved. If Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah can “find” millions of dollars to help with restoring habitat and mule deer there, isn’t it reasonable to expect the same might be available somewhere for Maine?

Can’t never did anything. As long as the current administration in Augusta insists that there’s nothing they can do or they are doing all they can, what hope is there? To exclaim that “expectations are now high and his ability to deliver is low” is a loser attitude. There is no room for this when a state is faced with such a serious problem. But, then again, maybe the real problem is that those in high places don’t really view a lost Maine deer herd as a serious problem or even a small problem.

The Maine Game Plan for Deer is a worthless document until a strong and united effort is undertaken. It has to be more than task force creations, meetings, talk and rhetoric, while fractured small groups or individuals practice futility. It appears Maine has to learn how to build a coalition that brings everybody onto the same page. Until that happens the only rebuilding of any deer herds will be happenstance.

Maybe David Trahan, if he were to successfully pull all this together in a united and powerful force to reckon with, this would, at the same time, resolve the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine’s membership problems. Just a thought! Let me know when you are ready to fight.

Tom Remington

This morning the Heritage Foundation writes in their blog about Agenda 21:

As adopted, Agenda 21 was described as “a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.” That includes hundreds of specific goals and strategies that national and local governments are encouraged to adopt. And that translates into restrictive zoning policies that are aimed at deterring suburban growth. Ultimately, they suppress housing supply and drive up home prices, in turn imposing unnecessary costs, especially on middle- and lower-income households. These policies contributed to and aggravate the real estate bubble by putting inflationary pressures on housing prices.

I suppose either people who write this stuff are either afraid to tell the real agenda behind Agenda 21, don’t get it or think this is some futuristic thing that might happen sometime down the road. This writer acts as though he has discovered something new and that we need to keep our eyes open just in case somebody tries to sneak an Agenda 21 issue over on our hometown. Has this guy been living in a vacuum?

These Agenda 21-minded morons have been robbing us blind long before Agenda 21 came along. Maybe if this guy got out of town once in awhile he would see what those people who have actually had their land stolen, been run out of business because of senseless regulation, etc. have been dealing with for a long time. It’s a bit late to be warning these people to watch out in their own backyards.

Tom Remington

A second batch of leaked emails has been anonymously placed on a Russian server just prior to another United Nations climate summit to take place in Durban, Africa. The second batch, already dubbed “Climategate II” contains more emails believed to be part of the first batch released.

While it appears that the newly leaked emails contain nothing new, one reporter for the Daily Mail, David Rose, points out that the University of East Anglia (UEA), home of the corrupt Climate Research Center (CRU) and Tyndall Centre for Climate Research (TCCR), provided advice and consultations with the BBC as to how it should present media stories on such issues as climate, economy and other issues.

The emails seem to indicate that the BBC was intent on working with UEA to stifle any opposing views or information as it pertained to the “research” of scientists at the University. This improper, if I might be so kind, relationship between the BBC and UEA was mostly fostered by one Roger Harrabin of the BBC, who, not so coincidentally, sat on the Advisory Board at Tyndall Centre for Climate Research at the UEA.

But seriously, should any of this come as a surprise to those of us that follow this issue and others, that we understand that the entire climate change thimble-rigging is a snow job? Should it also be of any surprise that the media, in this case the BBC, is in the command and control of what is allowed to be read by the public on climate change research?

As with most reports of this nature, never do reporters step beyond the obvious. It is easy, and many reporters do this, they report on what they are allowed to report on. I know that sounds silly and senseless, but if one is willing to look beyond the comfortably palpable regurgitation of the media, they may see a more disturbing snapshot of reality.

In our arrogant predisposition, bestowed upon us by our departments of education, we merely roll our eyes and mutter some kind of disapproving mantra about a sucky press and corruption and then move on with our shallow, self-fulfilling lives.

Does it not give us reason to pause, even for the blink of an eye, and wonder if there is more to this? Shouldn’t you and I wonder to what extent this manipulation by both the media and the education/scientific realms has on our lives? If it’s done for one such cause, i.e. climate change, isn’t it a logical conclusion to know that it is done at all levels for all issues?

And if one dares to think beyond even this level, then wouldn’t the next logical progression lead us to at least ask why this becomes necessary? You should wonder what, if anything, you have willingly accepted from the media as actually the truth.

If a person is courageous enough to delve into such thoughts, then why not one step further to ask: Who controls the media and the universities; therefore every aspect of our lives?

Tom Remington

Never let money and corruption get in the way of good science. It is pointless to conjure up notions that one day money, time and effort can actually be put into the discovering of what influences our weather and thus climate, when money and corruption drives any discussion on the topic, including research.

Even after Climategate and the United Nations IPCC recanting their claims about computer modeling on climate change, those embroiled in the corruption and money-making scam continue to deny any wrong doing involved in the manipulation of data.

And now we have another in a continuing saga of confessions from climate scientists that deliberate attempts have been made to hide temperature data to serve the purpose of achieving desired results.

Professor Richard Muller, of Berkeley, California, and his colleagues from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures project team (BEST), claim the earth continues to warm and that since 1950 the globe has warmed one degree Celsius. This information put out by Muller and his cohorts was supposedly the “science” that “settled the science” on man-made global warming.

One of the scientists named in the studies that “settled the science”, Judith Curry, is now saying that Muller is hiding information that shows there has been no temperature increase globally in the past 10 years or so.

‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

According to Curry, the data collected shows that temperature increases have stopped. Muller claims temperature rises haven’t stopped but Curry says there is no scientific basis to make that claim.

Of course Muller denies Curry’s accusations. Curry describes this cover-up as an equal to Climategate, in which it came out through leaked emails that scientists through the East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit hid and manipulated data to achieve desired results.

While Muller and BEST continue to publish graphs and other reports stating there has continued a steep increase in global temperatures in the past ten years, Curry says there is no scientific evidence to support that information.

Curry says she doesn’t understand what Muller is trying to do and other scientists continue to question the validity of research done on the effects of man-produced carbon dioxide causing temperature increases.

While it is somewhat comforting to hear that more and more scientists are now becoming “skeptics”, I will not hold my breath waiting for changes that will get us on the track of real climate research. As long as huge sums of money are being given to generate biased scientific research, the power of money and corruption will continue to control the issue.

Tom Remington