How to Fight the Big Wind Onslaught | Wind Watch

How to Fight the Big Wind Onslaught | Wind Watch

Chapter 6. Lawsuits don’t work. They might appear to initially, but ultimately, at some level of court, they fail. With very few exceptions, lawyers and lawsuits are a waste of time, money, and mostly strategic advantage. You’re barking up the wrong tree with a lawyer. Your town board and county commissioners are poised and prepared for you to take them on legally; they’ve got attorneys on retainer and they can swallow you whole in the byzantine legal process.

Don’t bother going down that road. Dr. Martin Luther King (see below) didn’t use lawyers. Neither did Gandhi, who was a trained lawyer. Wrong strategy. If you think the Big Wind Onslaught is not on the scale of a Gandhi and King, but just a minor issue — think again. I suggest you do some reading on the English Enclosure Movement. Look for parallels [and see Chapter 12, below]. The Big Wind Onslaught is a big deal. Stop imagining otherwise.

Chapter 7. Wind energy is bullshit. Nitwits who begin their case by telling the local newspaper, “Well, Gee, we fully support renewable energy, including wind energy, and we feel wind turbines are marvelous so long as they’re placed in the right spot” — nitwits who start off their campaign with this are doomed. Wind energy, folks, is horseshit. …

Chapter 8. Wind energy works because of (a) carbon credits (an unspeakable scam), (b) federal & state subsidies of various sorts, (c) a slow bleed from your monthly energy bill (check it out), (d) PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) arrangements with communities, and (e) huge tax write-offs for wind investors, including big Wall Street banks. It does not work because it is economically feasible — it’s not — or because it produces meaningful electricity — it does not. And if I hear that it “gets us off foreign oil” I’m gonna scream. For that statement, you need not a beginning physics text, you need your head examined.

Stranded killer whales break free from Hudson Bay ice | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Stranded killer whales break free from Hudson Bay ice | Environment | guardian.co.uk

marine biologists say killer whales are moving into the Arctic in greater numbers over the last decade as the sea ice retreats due to climate change.


***

Blah blah blah climate change blah blah.

The ice is either retreating, in which case it isn't there, or it is NOT retreating, in which case it IS there. And in this case is getting thicker than ever, hence the unheard of trapping of orcas under its shell.

This- this right here, is cognitive dissonance.

Thick murderous ice is caused by the disappearance of ice.

Huh?

What do you expect from a pig but a grunt: Australia proposes accounting methods for carbon emission permits

Australia proposes accounting methods for carbon emission permits

Climate Connect News, 18 July 2012, London: Australian investors are likely to have limited access to information about the impact of carbon price on the company balance sheet if the one of the accounting standards proposed by the Australian Accounting Standards Board is implemented. The Australian Accounting Standards Board has proposed two approaches to calculate the carbon price effect on a company’s balance sheet viz. the ‘gross’ and the ‘net’.

The gross approach allows all permit holders to recognize the free emission allowances as asset at $23/tonne and carbon tax as a liability that grows at $23/tonne with emissions. The net approach, on the other hand, allows a company to recognize only the net impact of the carbon pricing scheme. The free emission allowances would have nil value and will not be mentioned in the balance sheet. The amount paid for offsetting emissions over the permissible limit would be noted as liability. Thus the investors would be presented only with the net impact of the carbon price on a company without the details of the company’s transactions in the carbon instruments.

Experts believe that the net approach is likely to be followed by companies as it is simpler and focuses on cash flow and limits disruption to financial records. 

The introduction of a cap & trade mechanism in 2015 is likely to create more difficulties. Critics predict a similar situation as in Europe’s cap & trade from 2015 because of the possible profit fluctuations from market valuations of permits.

Details available in Australian Accounting Standards Board's staff paper

Carbon Tax: are we a nation of laws or not?

And on the subject of this illegal tax, and the STUPID and possibly NEGLIGENT advice provided to state governments:

1. the carbon tax imposes unequal duties between the states (mining and non-mining states). ILLEGAL.

2. the carbon tax imposes duties and taxes over property which the Commonwealth of Australia or the entity (listed on Wall Street) claiming federal sovereignty in Australia DOES NOT OWN. The Commonwealth is treating with property and purporting to license or permit in relation to property it doesn't own. Try doing that yourself. I'll send you a cake when you get to jail.

3. in right of the Commonwealth of Australia etc. the permits ie credits or certificates that the Commonwealth will be printing is a FIAT CURRENCY and NOT any form of lawful licence. They are substituting a new currency for the money of the Federation of Australia in direct violation of the Constitution and the preserved laws of the State.

4. the Minister, currently Greg Combet but whosoever it may be, is exercising fiat power in deciding who will be forgiven the illegal debts this tax seeks to create, which is not only monstrously ultra vires, it also exceeds his Crown Minister authority, and where it does not exceed his authority to the extent it is based on the opinion unsubstantiated of people such as English major Tim Flannery and others is an arbitrary decision making process based on inappropriate assessements that are liable under administrative law, criminal law and otherwise.

5. finally and fundamentally, any State can pass a law making the Carbon Tax either illegal or unenforceable by reserving powers, stating what they really don't need to state- which is that the Carbon Tax cannot apply to State property, offends against the state excise provisions.

6. addendum- if it be shown that Green beliefs are faith based, and it's pretty clear they are, the Commonwealth is establishing a (pagan) religion.

7. socialist redistribution of wealth is NOT Australian nor is it legal. In service to foreign interests- be they Goldman Sachs or international socialism- in service to foreign interests, any officer of the Crown be shown to be so serving an alien power is guilty, attainted and open to a charge of treason.

***

Feminazi and girlymen second rate lawyers in bureaucracies WANT wealth redistribution. Any Australian State that took on the Carbon Tax would win, and handily win, as well as guranteeing the politicians who took the action an absolute landslide at the polls not to mention braggable power play status for life.

Is Wayne Swan a misshapen assclown?

Wayne Swan says he'll make further budget cuts to protect surplus target | The Australian

 The government unveiled a dramatic change of course in last night's budget, junking promised business tax cuts to pay for voter handouts to ease the impact of its carbon tax.

***

Why does a carbon tax that the fuckwit regime claims won't cause economic harm require handouts to compensate for?

Also, note that the handouts go to the underclass welfare shirkers, not taxpayers. Don't die of surprise.