climate change

[Cannavore]

There actually is a conspiracy surrounding climate change, and it's not what you'll hear from most conspiracy theorists: between 2003 and 2010, more than $7 billion were spent by conservative billionaires to fund anti-AGW organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Follow the money, indeed.

[youtube]WPsl_TuFdes[/youtube]

 

[trichrider]

G.I.G.O.

 

[Cannavore]

The Profiteers of Doom Were Wrong About Climate

View Image

More than a century from now, on current trends, today’s concentration of CO2 in the air will have doubled. How much warming will that cause? The official prediction, 1.5-4.5 Celsius degrees per CO2 doubling, is proving a substantial exaggeration.

Professor William Happer of Princeton, one of the world’s foremost physicists, says computer models of climate rely on the assumption of the CO2’s direct warming effect that is about a factor two higher, owing to incorrect representation of the microphysical interactions of CO2 molecules with other infrared photons.

As if that were not bad enough, the official story is that feedbacks triggered by direct warming roughly triple it, causing not 1 but 3 degrees’ warming per CO2 doubling. Here, too, the official story is a significant exaggeration, as Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, the world’s most knowledgeable climatologist, has demonstrated.

The wild exaggerations of both the direct CO2 warming and the supposedly more serious knock-on warming are rooted in an untruth: the falsehood that scientists know enough about how clouds form, how thunderstorms work, how air and ocean currents flow, how ice sheets behave, how soot in the air behaves.

In truth, we do not understand climate enough to make even an uneducated guess about how much global warming our adding CO2 to the air will cause. Other things being equal, we will cause some warming, but – on measurements to date – not much.

The national science academies and the UN’s climate panel have profitably contrived what the late Stephen Schneider called “scary scenarios” on the basis of inadequate knowledge. Etatiste politicians and bureaucrats have gone along with them.

A quarter of a century has passed since the panel first predicted how fast the world would warm. Measurements since then show the predictions were much overblown. But don’t take it from us. Ask any climatologist the following ten killer questions.

1: Where has the warming that the surface thermometer datasets now say has occurred in the past 18 years come from?

The official theory is that photons interacting with CO2 molecules in the upper air give off heat that warms that air, which warms the lower air, which warms the surface.

Yet the two satellite datasets show no global warming of the lower air for almost 19 of the 21 years of annual UN global-warming conferences. Even if CO2 had warmed the upper air as predicted (and the satellites show it has not), that warming could not have reached the surface through lower air that has not warmed. If the surface has warmed in the past couple of decades, as the surface datasets now pretend, CO2 cannot have been the cause.

In 2006 the late Professor Robert Carter, a down-to-earth geologist who considered global warming a non-problem, wrote in the Daily Telegraph that in eight full years (1998-2005), the Hadley Centre’s global temperature dataset showed no global warming at all.

Yet that dataset, which, like all the surface datasets, was recently adjusted to deliver the global warming that measurements did not show, now indicates a warming trend over those same eight years at a rate equivalent to more than 1.5 degrees/century.

2: Why, two years ago, did every surface temperature dataset agree with the satellites that there had been no global warming this millennium, and why, though the two satellites continue to show little or no warming, was every surface dataset altered in the two years preceding the Paris climate conference in a manner calculated to show significant warming?

3: Why do all the datasets, surface as well as satellite, show a lot less warming than predicted?

Why, even after the numerous questionable adjustments to the surface temperature datasets, has the rate of warming over the past quarter of a century been only one-third to one-half of the central prediction made by the UN’s climate panel in its 1990 First Assessment Report?


View Image

The startling temperature clock shows the UN panel’s 1990 predictions as orange and red zones meeting at the red needle representing its then central prediction that by now there should have been global warming equivalent to 2.8 degrees/century.
But the blue needles, representing the warming reported by the three much-altered surface tamperature datasets, show little more than half that warming. The green needles, representing the satellite datasets, show only a third of what the UN had predicted with “substantial confidence” in 1990.

4: Why is the gap between official over-prediction and observed reality getting wider?

An updated temperature clock shows the warming the UN’s panel predicted in its 2001 Third Assessment Report, compared with measured warming from then till 2015. The measured warming rate, represented by the green zone, is manifestly less than the warming rate since 1990, even though CO2 concentration has risen throughout.


View Image

5: Why is the gap between warming rates measured by satellite and surface datasets widening?

It is legitimate to infer that the surface datasets have been altered to try to bring the reported warming closer to the failed but (for now) still profitable predictions.

6: Why should anyone invest trillions on the basis of official predictions in 1990 and in 2001 that differ so greatly?

Plainly, this is not the “settled science” we were told it was.

7: Why has the observed rate of warming, on all datasets, been tumbling for decades notwithstanding predictions that it would at least remain stable?

One-third of all Man’s supposed warming influence on climate since 1750 has occurred since the late 1990s, yet satellites show scarce a flicker of global warming in close to 19 years. And the rate of warming from 1950 to the present is lower than the rate from 1950 to any previous year in the past half-century.

Not only the amount but also the pattern of warming fails to match predictions. To the nearest tenth of one per cent, there is no CO2 in the air. Yet the UN’s panel said in 2007 that CO2 would warm the upper air 6 miles above the tropical surface at twice or thrice the surface rate. That tropical mid-troposphere “hot-spot” (one of us gave it its name) was, we were told, the undeniable fingerprint of manmade global warming. The existence of the hot-spot would prove manmade warming.

8: So, where is the missing tropical upper-air hot-spot?

Satellites do not show it. Millions of measurements taken by balloon-borne radiosondes do not show it. Why, if warming is manmade, has there been very little difference between measured surface and upper-air warming rates for decades?
Just as it is officially predicted that CO2-driven warming will be greatest in the upper air, which will in turn warm the surface, so it is predicted that the near-surface air will warm the ocean surface, which will warm the deeps.

Yet measurements from more than 3600 automated buoys throughout the ocean that dive down a mile and a quarter and take detailed temperature and salinity profiles every ten days show that the deeper strata are warming faster than the near-surface strata.

9: Why, if CO2-driven warming ought to warm the surface ocean first, is the ocean warming from below? And why has the ocean been warming throughout the 11 full years of the ARGO dataset at a rate equivalent to only 1 degree every 430 years?

As Hal Doiron, a NASA thermal engineer, bluntly puts it: “When I look at the ocean I see one of the largest heat-sinks in the solar system. While the ocean endures there can’t be much manmade global warming.” And he had to get his heat calculations right or astronauts died.

Believers have silenced serious and legitimate scientific questions such as these by an organized, well-funded and remarkably vicious campaign of personal vilification against anyone who dares to ask any question, however polite or justifiable, about the Party Line. Most scientists, politicians and journalists have learned that they will have a quieter life if they just drift along with what most scientists privately concede is sheer exaggeration.

Believers also insist there is a “consensus” that manmade global warming is likely to prove dangerous.

10: Given that the authors of the largest ever survey of peer-reviewed opinion in learned papers marked only 64 of 11,944 papers, or 0.5%, as stating they agreed with the official “consensus” proposition that recent warming was mostly manmade, on what rational, evidence-based, scientific ground is it daily asserted that “97% of scientists” believe recent global warming is not only manmade but dangerous?

Millions die worldwide every year because they do not have cheap, clean, continuous, low-tech, coal-fired power. Given the growing and now flagrant discrepancies between prediction and observation that we have revealed here for the first time, the moral case for defunding the profiteers of climate doom and redeploying the money to give coal-fired light and heat to the world’s poorest people is overwhelming.

We are killing millions today with the scientifically baseless aim of saving thousands who are not at risk the day after tomorrow.

authored by christopher monckton, a known snake oil salesman/shill

 

[Genghis Kush]

Lord Monckton

 

[Genghis Kush]

.

 

[justanotherbozo]

authored by christopher monckton, a known snake oil salesman/shill

typical, attack the author and the poster rather than the substance of the article.

...maybe you like paying all this carbon tax bullshit but me, not so much.

bozo

...btw, i did absolutely nothing to insult you so you 'mooning' me only shows how ignorant you are you fool. ...so you go ahead and continue smearing yourself with the shit of your own ignorance rather than argue substantively.

 

[trichrider]

Based on analyses of observational data, the estimated increase in global mean temperature during the last one hundred years of between 0.3 and 0.7 °C is consistent with the projected temperature increase attributable to the observed increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases, although it cannot be ascribed in a scientifically rigorous manner to these factors alone.

http://www.scopenvironment.org/downloadpubs/scope29/statement.html

tell me how you 'project' observational data.

hint: (it's called a guess!)

purchased science.
united nations.
maurice strong.
bilderbergs.
club of rome.

Agenda 21.

sorry you haven't caught up.

denial is everything they said it would be.

 

[Genghis Kush]

factcheck.org

"Sen. Rick Santorum in September criticized the oft-cited fact that 97 percent of scientists agree that human activity is primarily responsible for warming, saying that figure is “bogus” and comes from a single study. Several surveys involving thousands of researchers have all found that the level of consensus is about 97 percent.

The 97 percent number comes from several distinct sources. The first was a 2009 survey published in the American Geophysical Union’s Eos magazine. A year later, another study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found a similar result.

Most recently, a 2013 paper published in the journal Environmental Research Letters analyzed 11,944 journal article abstracts published from 1991 to 2011 that matched the search terms “global climate change” or “global warming.” From that list of papers, the study authors identified which ones expressed a position on anthropogenic — human-caused — global warming. Of the 4,014 papers that took a position, 97.1 percent endorsed the idea that humans are causing global warming. A second analysis in that same study asked 8,547 authors to rate their papers. Did they think their papers endorsed the consensus on warming? A total of 1,189 scientists responded, rating 2,142 individual papers. The results: 97.2 percent of the papers endorsed the consensus that humans are causing global warming.

claims that “we are building an entire agenda on falsified data” has no basis in evidence. Even as these claims of data manipulation have resurfaced, there is now a general consensus that 2014 was likely the hottest single year since temperature record-keeping began. This same conclusion has been reached by NOAA and NASA, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and the World Meteorological Organization. According to NASA, nine of the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 2000, with 1998 the lone exception. "According to the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fifth assessment report that was released in 2013, it is “extremely likely” (meaning between 95 percent and 100 percent certain), that human activities caused more than half of the observed global warming between 1951 to 2010. In its summary for policymakers, the IPCC stated, “The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.” In other words, the best guess is that humans have caused essentially all of the warming that has occurred."

 

[Genghis Kush]

.

 

[Genghis Kush]

l

 

[Genghis Kush]

'

 

[Genghis Kush]

,

 

[igrowone]

doings at the arctic

doings at the arctic

for those that like observations, the arctic is having an interesting winter. this is from nsidc.org
i understand some refuse all but their own data, i'm sorry but i can't help you with that


January hits new record low in the Arctic
February 4, 2016

January Arctic sea ice extent was the lowest in the satellite record, attended by unusually high air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean and a strong negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation (AO) for the first three weeks of the month. Meanwhile in the Antarctic, this year’s extent was lower than average for January, in contrast to the record high extents in January 2015.

current radar map, ice is really not keeping up

 

[trichrider]

How the Global Warming Scare Began

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyUDGfCNC-k

[YOUTUBEIF]SyUDGfCNC-k[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[Genghis Kush]

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/1...ted-air-claims-5-5-million-lives-per-year.htm


"A new study presented at the 2016 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) showed that air pollution-related diseases such as stroke and cardiovascular diseases kill 5.5 million people globally per year making air pollution the number one environmental cause of diseases worldwide."

 

[Genghis Kush]

.

 

[igrowone]

the arctic!

the arctic!

we've just come out of the warmest year in the thermometer weather record
well, here's what's going down at the arctic, and it's getting dramatic
over the last 2 weeks(the dead of winter in February) there has been essentially no new ice formed on the arctic sea
as it stands, it's looking like a new minimum extent for winter ice creation
this could be a record shattered, not edged out
pic of current measured levels, it's worth looking at

 

[floralheart]

It's certainly heating up in here...

see what i did there

 

[Ununionized]

Basically since these KooKs have had their fake science examined they've been faced with the fact that to the LAST one of them

they believed that LESS ENERGY arriving at the SURFACE of the EARTH

emitted from an overall LARGER, COLDER, total MASS

isn't the DEFINITION of COOLING - which is what it IS.

Instead of reality based physics, they simply choose to claim it's a magic heater in their thermodynamically befuddled head.

And it's not.

The atmosphere is NOT a heater.

The atmosphere is a FRIGID, TURBULENT, LIGHT ROBBING BATH of SELF REFRIGERATING FLUIDS

which DRAMATICALLY REDUCE overall energy TO the surface

and EMIT that DRAMATICALLY REDUCED ENERGY DENSITY from an overall

LARGER
COLDER
total mass.


It's the DEFINITION of COOLING. T.W.I.C.E.

Just like when Democrats made pot illegal - they ALWAYS have a LIE about what they did.

They didn't do it.
Somebody else did it.
They didn't lie.
Their so-called science isn't the kook stuff,
REAL science is the kook stuff.

Yet JUST like POT is HEROIN the BELIEVERS in it can never overcome the fact that it's

SIMPLY
a FAKE.

Which is why hatred
and name calling

is the SOLE reference they have, once you point out what they're saying is

**GRADE C** PUBLIC SCHOOL CLASS: KooK SPEAK.

Here's another good example of how KooK the whole thing is.

Remember how everyone spent HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of DOLLARS on MISSIONS to Venus?

Tell one of them to simply TELL YOU the VENUS MISSION - that SENT BACK the INFORMATION showing us the TEMPERATURE on VENUS is HOTTER than

STANDARD
GAS EQUATIONS show it SHOULD be, but since there's a

runaway GREEN HOUSE GAS EFFECT LoL

it's far, far hotter.

TELL any one of them who starts barking it - say -

''Yeah you need to give me the Venus Mission name and tell me about,

the Venus probes whose readings sent back to the planet, confirm the ''runaway green house gas effect'' on Venus and

JUST HOW MANY DEGREES that IS.''

Say ''Since it's the greatest discovery thermodynamic law - the law WRITTEN for the ATMOSPHERE - for atmosPHERES - why is it NOBODY
can REMEMBER
the TEST QUESTION
and RIGHT ANSWER in SCHOOL? Even if you're a pubber you have to at least LOOK like you're TRYING.

Actually no, you don't. If you're a pubber you went to a political indoctrination facility that gives people D.A.R.E. stickers for promising to turn in their parents, because pot's like heroin.


But that's one that EVERY SINGLE REAL SCIENTIST should REMEMBER to ask EVERY SINGLE PhD they can CATCH who'll discuss,

the MAGIC HEATER

that makes LESS ENERGY
emit from LARGER COLDER overall mass,

and that NOT be the DEFINITION of COOLING. TWICE.


Then when they're standing there looking like they got caught AGAIN - LYING and unable to grasp the definition of a COOLER

you can say ''And while you're at it you need to explain to me while people are on the internet calculating the temperature of Mars, Venus, EARTH - RIGHT on the MONEY using

STANDARD gas EQUATIONS based on the LAW of THERMODYNAMICS WRITTEN for ATMOSPHERES.

It's so SIMPLE it makes you REALIZE

why the people who claim to BELIEVE in it can't predict which way a THERMOMETER will go.

All you have to do is add the COMPRESSION of the ATMOSPHERE

in CLASSICAL GAS EQUATIONS and *BANG* RIGHT on the MONEY.

Ask your Magic Gasser,

''WHY is it that people using TEXTBOOK GAS MECHANICS for every OTHER situation where TEMPERATURE of GAS is CALCULATED,

men all over the world calculate the temperatures of really ANY of the planets,

while YOUR cult claims

''MAGIC RUNAWAY GREAN HOWS GAiS pOWuR DUN made the LAWS of ATMOSPHERIC KIMMISTRIE not evun WERK noe MoaR! Ya'W!'' - WHY IS THAT?

WAY BACK in 1967 N.A.S.A. had scientists CALCULATE the TEMPERATURE of VENUS and they hit it RIGHT on the MONEY - not using
A.N.Y. resort to ' 'Magic, Ya'LL, GAiS.' '

That's in, I think - the Harvard Astrophysics Journal volume 149, September 1967, starting on about page 731.

That was just from a RADAR PROFILE they got
from one of the first PROBES,
so they could TELL HOW DEEP the ATMOSPHERE is.

So they could do REAL gas equation mathematics wherein the COMPRESSED GAS FLUID BATH is treated as a - YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT, a

compressed fluid bath.

I think that's the paper.

Then there's the former government employee, Harry Huffman [setting the stage no green house on venus]

who did it and showed people as he walked RIGHT ALONG CLASSIC GAS MECHANICS and : BAM:

RIGHT on the MONEY again, using

INSTRUMENT data from the VENUS PROBES instruments,

to CHECK his WORK against.

NO Green House Gas Effect needed to hit the temp

RIGHT on the money.

Then there was Magic Gas believer Steve Goddard who THOUGHT IT WAS REAL - heard about the 1967 N.A.S.A. PAPER where THEY calculated the temp of Venus with
NO
Green
House
Gas EFFECT at ALL

and he figured he'd GO through the MOTIONS: SAID the PEOPLE who DID it

must have been STONED.

He calculates the temp of VENUS, HIMSELF: SHOCKED says he can hardly believe he didn't KNOW ALL THESE YEARS:

CONFESSES:
NO green house gas effect on Venus.

At ALL.

[Steve Goddard - venus envy/hyperventilating on Venus]

Lubos MotL a Harvard astrophysicist, hears of Goddard's surprise and assertion that indeed,

STANDARD GAS EQUATIONS PROVE NO Green House Gas Effec on Venus. AT ALL.

Can't believe it himself

so he goes over Goddard's work LINE by LINE and MAKES NOTES of his OWN observations about things and checks THOSE avenues of it NOT being SO: because

MOTL ALWAYS BELIEVED IN IT, HIMSELF -

After thorough examination agrees and IS HIMSELF SHOCKED: surprised like GODDARD says ''I always THOUGHT SOMEBODY CHECKED THIS.''

Agrees: NO green house gas effect on Venus. AT ALL.

[Lubos MotL: the reference frame: hyperventilating on Venus]

This is the CORNERSTONE of the BELIEF of this cult of quacks.

The fact that the temperatures of VENUS, of MARS, of EARTH can be CALCULATED

without resort to ANY Green House Gas effect at all -

ask your Magic Gasser to EXPLAIN to you why ALL you have to do to get the temperature of the planet RIGHT ON THE MONEY

is - instead of adding ''Magic Gais''-

simply add the REAL effect: the COMPRESSION of the ATMOSPHERE and BAM:

just like all the OTHER GAS CALCULATIONS that work - combustion engines,
kilns,
jet engines,
computer cooling,
air conditioning,
furnaces,
nuclear energy cooling, EVERYTHING basically -

the REAL LAW of THERMODYNAMICS written for ATMOSPHERES

works for ATMOSPHERES
if you just TREAT them as - ATMOSPHERES.

There are so many ways these people are ridiculous for believing in the story how ''IF YOU USE FIRE, the SKY will get HOT.''

You can tell one - SHOW US ALL ANOTHER INSTANCE or just EXPLAIN a SUN WARMED ROCK
put into a FRIGID TURBULENT SUN BLOCKING BATH

to make it WARMER than NOT in a FRIGID turbulent BATH.

That's right there in ''WE don't have to CRACK a BOOK to see if you're a KooK'' country.

Then you can simply ANALYZE the situation:

planet with no atmosphere, one mode of cooling, glowing.

Add atmosphere and instantly some 20% of available sunlight energy NEVER REACHES the SURFACE.

CONDUCTION cooling is added.
CONVECTION cooling is added.

The green house gases ALONE block nearly ALL that light that never arrives, through scattering and absorption. Oxygen's scattering, creating blue skies overhead in daytime, are about 3% of that loss. Almost ALL the rest is Green House Gas created

COOLING. You can look at a graph of sunlight reaching earth with and without the atmosphere: ALL those DIPS where light doesn't reach the SURFACE are where GREEN HOUSE GASES stop it from ARRIVING through SCATTERING it and ABSORPTION of some of it.

Green House Gas Species water SOLELY and ALONE CREATES

the COOLING acceleration of convection - PHASE change REFRIGERATION of the SURFACE - AND of the entire atmospheric bath, at LARGE.

It changes phase on the surface in EVAPORATION creating COOLING to then CONVECT UPWARD to lose it's energy to lower-energy regimes above.
Then it CHANGES PHASE AGAIN to return to cool the surface FASTER than if it remained GAS.

That's Green House Gas COOLANTS CREATING TWO of the MODES of COOLING that exist simply because the ATMOSPHERE
exists.

Green House Gas COOLANT WATER lies in CHILLED OCEANIC BASINS FULL all over the PLANET. If the presence of green house gases CREATED WARMING then MORE and more WATER would fill the atmosphere as it got WARMER and WARMER because - MORE and more WATER evaporated.

Everything a Magic Gas KooK says, is laughable that they even claim they thought it is real.

You have LESS ENERGY
reaching a SURFACE
to have that surface then WASHED
and PHASE CHANGE REFRIGERATED by the VERY gases

that REDUCED energy to the surface,

to have that energy finally emit from an overall LARGER, COLDER, COMBINED, mass.

This is the DEFINITION of COOLING.

And PUBBERS are being taught that it's a MAGICAL HEATER by government employees WORLD WIDE.

RIGHT before they ''take a break'' and go to DARE class for indoctrination on how to TURN in their PARENTS

for DEVIL weed.

There's Phil Jones and his ADMISSION HEFAKED DATA for TWELVE YEARS.

Then the Met Office DEMOTING him for not telling the truth, after they SUSPENDED him and made him fess up or go to jail in his FEB 2010 BBC don't go to jail interview -

putting out THREE PAPERS in 2013 about the ''RECENT PAUSE in WARMING''

WHERE they TALK about how they've written THREE PAPERS

on the PAUSE IN GLOBAL WARMING for the past 15 YEARS since 1998.

The same people whose #1 SCIENTIST FESSES he's been FAKING WARMING for 12 YEARS

put out THREE PAPERS
three years LATER

about how it hasn't warmed for 15 YEARS.

Daily believers in the cult are publishing all that DATA

that JONES ADMITTED HE FAKED for 12 YEARS along with Mann and Trenberth and Hansen and Schmidt and Briffa - it's REAL.

really real -

just like POT is as bad as HEROIN

is real.

It's K O O K country and if you get involved with them you'll rapidly see how LITTLE they even KNOW about what their handlers are telling them to claim THEY thought was real.

It's identical to when Democrats made POT AGAINST the LAW so the country could ''make progress'' into the ''new age''.

The age of Democrat oil men like Al Gore, peddling their polluting, dangerous products - nylon, polypropylene in that case - fake wind energy and fake science in this case

- by claiming ALL the CITIZENS using the BETTER PRODUCTS: CANNABIS PRODUCTS
were SO BACKWARD that they were CRIMINALS. So they just MADE the BETTER PRODUCT CRIMINAL.

And today the VERY people claiming they don't think THAT'S HOW that HAPPENED

sign in ENCRYPTED because it's TRUE.

You're dealing with KooKs who think the DEFINITION of COOLING

is a Magic Heater in the sky. And that ''if you use fire, the SKY will get hot.''

And if they don't think that, it's even worse: they'd just as soon see another round of ''Pot is like Heroin'' than have their political leaders - who are the ONES who made pot illegal - face the fact they got caught scamming again.

 

[Ununionized]

You would think, it would dawn on someone whose political party made pot illegal and wrecked western civilization, that - another giant government scientific scam isn't in their interests.

Rich people smoked pot when it was illegal. They traveled to where they could, grew it at home, smoked it together.

POOR people who could be SAFELY BULLIED were picked on.

They don't even worry about it. It won't be them who suffers 75 years down the road when they help disrupt properly pursued science.

They don't care if their OWN KID can't even tell COLDER from HOTTER.

They care about nothing except feeling like the MOB they're with feels STRONG.

If they cared about pollution they'd object to their leaders flying around the world, owning yachts, owning anything but hybrids and electric cars.

If they cared about pollution they'd object to the HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars manufacturing of low return, polymer/metallurgy/high carbon investment fads.

The same ones squealing that the electric lines are killing them,

are encouraging OTHER people to put windmills up so large that their never ending grinding can be heard for M.I.L.E.S.

The noise from a wind farm can be heard for M.I.L.E.S.

Chopping and popping birds, they don't care. Finally they're ''empowered.''

Empowered to lie, and cheat, so their leaders, can steal from their own kids.