back to top

Roanoke Environmental Group Hands Out “Cool” Awards

Winners of this year’s Cool Citizen Awards pose with their plaques.

by Gene Marrano

The Roanoke Valley Cool Cities Coalition, which promotes alternative energy technologies and greener ways that can reduce carbon footprints – thus keeping the valley cooler – handed out its annual Cool Citizen Awards at the 2012 Affiliates Conference last week. More than 250 local businesses, individuals and non-profit groups are affiliated with Roanoke Valley Cool Cities, which was founded by Dr. Diana Christopulos and Mark McClain.

Roanoke Mayor David Bowers and City Council members Court Rosen and Bill Bestpitch were on hand at the Claude Moore Education Complex – a building renovated to LEED energy-saving standards – for the breakfast meeting last week. Also attending was Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Chairman Richard Flora, who recently cast the deciding vote when the county decided to keep paying its $1,200 ICLEI dues for the coming year. The citizens-led RC Clear group in the county is an affiliate of ICLEI; an international organization that promotes greener energy.  Flora handed out the final special achievement award.

McClain, the Cool Cities Coalition director, said Bowers had “helped us tremendously,” in getting the organization off the ground. The mayor praised Cool Cities for a program that gives low-energy CFL (compact fluorescent) light bulbs to low income families. Bowers also made it clear where he stands on green issues: “there is such a thing as global warming,” said the mayor, who urged those in attendance to “think globally [but] act locally. That’s what you folks are doing here today.”

For Christopulos the mission is simple: “we want to reduce greenhouse gases [that warm the earth]. I like sustainability. I think that’s a good word. Let’s be courageous about it [and] keep a constructive attitude.” Christopulos mentioned RC Clear’s Save-A-Ton education program, which has just been rolled out to show residents how they can reduce their household carbon footprint by a cubic ton per year.

“This is smart work to do. It’s not that hard and it’s good for the valley,” she noted. The Save-A-Ton campaign, which includes a website and advertising, recently netted several ADDY awards for the Thomas Becher Agency (tba) that designed it.

Keynote speaker Dr. Melissa Booth, who has studied life forms in the oceans from Antarctica to the North Pole, said global warming is melting the ice caps, which affects the salinity and the temperature of water. “This is a fact, this is happening,” said Booth, offering evidence as to how that affects everything from the health of coral reefs to the size of fish. “We’re playing a game by entering all of this CO2 into the atmosphere,” warned Booth, who lives on an island off the coast of Georgia.

There are already “dead zones” in the Chesapeake Bay, oxygen-deprived patches where fish no longer thrive, according to Booth. Rising sea levels, earlier spring seasons and ocean acidification are other harmful side effects of global warming. She urged politicians to stop delaying decisions on climate change and also had a related wish: “get corporate money out of politics [on environmental issues].”

Booth urged localities to encourage buildup within cities when it comes to development – not build out – in order to reduce urban sprawl and longer commute times that also mean more carbon emissions from motorists. “We have to make [these changes] now and work together by all means,” said Booth, alluding to the politically charged atmosphere when it comes to topics like global warming and green energy.

Cool Citizen Award winners included Brandon Oaks, the retirement community that was designated a “Cool Green Biz” by the Cool Cities Coalition, for an addition that was built to higher energy saving standards. Other honorees included Suzi Fortenberry of Benchmark Builders, which is constructing energy efficient houses in Roanoke County; Mark Jackson of the New River Center for Energy Research and Training; Roger Holnback, recently retired as executive director of the Western Virginia Land Trust, which works to preserve open space from development  – and Gene Marrano, cited for balanced environmental reporting in a variety of venues, including the Roanoke Star-Sentinel.

Janet Scheid, a member of the RC Clear committee, was honored for “showing courage by speaking out publicly in support of the county’s ICLEI membership, in the face of hostile opposition,” according to the written introduction for her in the awards program.

Doug and Mary McCallum were also recognized as individual Cool Citizens for erecting a small energy-producing wind turbine on their property after overcoming opposition “from radical non-environmentalists,” according to presenter Rupert Cutler, a former Roanoke City Council member and a past Cool Citizen winner himself.

Mary McCallum cited Roanoke County supervisor Charlotte Moore for helping them obtain the permits needed. “Keep spreading the word,” said McCallum. Moore has also voiced support for the proposed wind turbine farm on Poor Mountain.

The final Special Achievement award went to the Roanoke Valley-Allegheny Regional Commission, which has spearheaded efforts like RIDE Solutions, to encourage alternative means of transportation. The Regional Commission, a quasi-governmental agency that encompasses eleven local jurisdictions, has also offered free energy audits and the Partnership for a Livable Roanoke Valley – which promotes environmental quality. Executive Director Wayne Strickland said that focus is nothing new: “we’ve been working on environmental projects [since that 1970’s] … we have a lot of projects going on.”

Latest Articles


  1. Gene, I find it interesting that your article, that reads like a straight story, is written by a person who won an award from the group he is writing about…for balanced reporting. Seems like the only balance in this story is your support for this group. Gene, nice puff piece for your friends, who have amply rewarded your support. As journalism…well it’s a joke.

  2. Chip, you really need to lighten up – I mean you’ve trashed everyone from Gene Marrano to Morgan Griffith, and everyone in between on the political spectrum. Maybe you ought to find something more constructive to do in your spare time. May I suggest you join me out at the Veterans’ Hospital (I’m out there every Monday and Tuesday helping my fellow veterans and their families). Could introduce you to some real American heroes and maybe get you signed up to do some volunteer work out there instead of your venomous attacks on people who are trying to do constructive things for our community.

  3. Perhaps the doubters will like the following:
    What if climate change is a big hoax and we make a better world for nothing. Now wouldn’t that be a shame!
    Diana, Mark and the rest of the RVCCC Affiliates, thanks for all of your unselfish work to make a better world pursuing the triple bottom line by saving money, improving people’s lives and ensuring a sustainable future.

  4. #Mark McClain: I take it as a compliment that you think I’m even handed enough to give such a diverse group as Gene and Morgan a hard time when they deserve it. And media types and politicians of all stripes (I think) need watching. Do you not agree? I do find it interesting no one seems to have an issue with the obvious journalistic conflict of interest that Gene has here by reporting on an event and a group that gave him an award. I guess that doesn’t bother you? As for volunteering, I have a very full plate of volunteer and civic activities in the community. I find it interesting you assume I don’t just because part of that volunteer work (but certainly not all) revolves around keeping “journalists” honest.

  5. #Mark Howard: I am all for clean water and air. I am all against wasting time, resources and effort on reducing carbon dioxide which has no negative impact on global temperatures. Wouldn’t your efforts be better served by working on something that matters, instead of enriching GE, and other corporations and the global warming ambulance chasers in academia who are making a killing on this nonsense (with generous tax breaks/funding from the federal government)? Your logic seems to be that if there intentions are good, I should just stop complaining? Is that your position?

  6. Just thought I’d share this tidbit.

    In Virginia over the past millions of years, there have been glaciers. There have been jungles. And large portions have been underwater. Mountain ranges have sprung up and have been worn down over the eons.

    The concept that manmade carbon emissions, which makes up well less than .25% of the green house gases in the atmosphere is laughable. What is even more laughable is the concept that the efforts of one little corner of the planet could have an impact.

    If every single person on the planet lived in a cave, ate grass and leaves, never drove a car and took beano so they could cut out methane leaks, it wouldn’t make a difference.

    So nothing that the cool cities coalition group does will impact global warming as it is beyond our control. Heck they can’t even measure the impact they are having. How did handing out fliers save 200 tons of carbon emissions? Thats what theone of these groups claimed to have done.

    How is that anything but self congratulatory nonsense created by folks who have deluded themselves into thinking all of this is going to make a difference.

    It’s kind of sad…and I would let you live in your little dream world if your efforts weren’t costing me my tax dollars and ultimately my freedom as sustainable development efforts turn from voluntary to required.

  7. Energy in all of its forms is expensive and RVCCC does a good job educating the community on ways to use less energy and save a ton.

    I have always been impressed with the CFL drives that they do and the service they provide to business and schools at no cost.

    pretty cool

  8. Quite apart from the skepticism about global warming and the opportunity it offers to bloviate, there is the very real fact that electricity can be produced from the sun and wind in a cost effective manner. Other sources are limited. Nuclear is now too expensive and hydrocarbons will become so as the cost of recovery rises with diminishing supply. But the costs of renewables will fall as scale economies come into play. And that is not laughable.

  9. Kudos to the Cool Cities Coalition for all of the good work they do, and to Gene Marrano for good reporting.

    97% of climate scientists worldwide think the so-called Tea Party is mostly a group of angry, mis-informed, maladjusted white supremacists who could have formed their “party” back when an ignorant, far-right president who was running up record deficits but (purely coincidentally, I’m sure) happened to be white was in office. The other 3% receive money from the Tea Party’s Koch puppeteers.

  10. Chip T. claims that the dangerously increased and increasing CO2 level in the atmosphere is not primarily the consequence of fossil fuel burning. This implies that he knows what the actual cause is. He apparently prefers to keep his secret, in spite of how it makes him look.

  11. @Chip. I think you may be confusing Cool Cities with the county’s RC CLEAR committee. Cool Cities is a stand-alone nonprofit. One of our measurable actions has been the distribution of more than 8,000 energy-efficient light bulbs thanks to funding from our affiliates and help from the Va State Dept of Mines, Minerals and Energy, which gave us over 1,000 bulbs to distribute. The bulbs may be found in every new Habitat for Humanity home in our valley. Based on the AEP fuel mix, we are saving local citizens over $400,000 on their electricity bills and preventing the burning of more than 2 million pounds of coal. We think that is worth celebrating.

  12. # Bob. Did you read the article that was linked? It casts doubts on the findings of those 97% of scientists that appear to be wrong about the cause of global warming. Are you denyng that the earth warms and cools as part of the natural cycles of the planet? A basic 8th grade science class will fix that….As for the cause…my guess is that giant ball in the sky called the sun….which would be quite logical since we know the Sun goes through various periods of activity. I’m guessing the consensus of scientists once belived that leeches helped the sick, that the world was flat, and that the Earth was the center of the universe. Mybe once global warming scientists get off the research grant teet from government and businesses with a vested interest in perpetuating this silliness…they can admit they were wrong about this too.

  13. #Pete Any proof that I am a racist. Or Homophobic. Or taken money from the Koch brothers? That is me. Chip Tarbutton President Roanoke Tea Party. Feel free to check our website, look at our Facebook page. Don’t use the same old link to the same old article you and Diana always refer to. It is typical of the mindset of progressives to just resort to name calling and false accusations when they can’t win an argument. Way to perpetuate the stereotype.

  14. # Diana I believe that the example I used was one of the more eggregious ones used by a variety of groups. I certainly question the methodology of those numbers as AEP and you are both predisposed to show results for the tax payers money and to outdo each other on how green yuou are. I know in your mind only evil oil/coal lies about numbers. Utilities, government agencies and scientists on the hunt for grants and money never fudge the truth? I would say both sides lie about their numbers and figures to make the best case to get the governmental funds available for this. You honestly don’t think those involved in making money on green energy don’t progit from this too? You seriously think that?

  15. #Conrad It is refreshing to debate the topic instead of being called a sellout racist homophpobe. I think you are incorrect on the viability of wind and solar. Based on the failure rate, the cost of energy production per KWH and other factors, large scale wind and solar is generally not effective. It could be in the future, but I doubt they will be if companies are given tax incentives, loans and grants based on what they might produce vs. what they actuall do produce. The market will fix this issue. If this were the case there would be a stronger market for small scall windunits that are fairly effective and could reduce energy usage. But that kind of business doesn’t feed the “government/big businessback scratching you give me a tax break and I fund your campaign coffers system”. And before you say it…I OPPOSE SUBSIDIES TO OIL/COAL TOO. 🙂 I know Diana is lurking to try and get that in….

  16. Chip T. explains global warming: “As for the cause…my guess is that giant ball in the sky called the sun….which would be quite logical since we know the Sun goes through various periods of activity.”

    Well, so much for the scientific findings recognized by 97% of the scientific community.

    The sun is, of course, the heat source, but my question was on what scientific basis he considers the dangerously increased and increasing CO2 level in the atmosphere to be not primarily the consequence of fossil fuel burning.

  17. I have a question for those who handed out the CFL lightbulbs. When you gave them out, did you include instructions for proper disposal if they are broken. I am sure each of us has had a broken bulb at some point in time. This is the site from GE (who makes them) about proper disposal: It includes things like leaving the area for 15 minutes, turning off all heat and air, sealing fragments in a glass jar with metal top, and checking with the state to see if they are even allowed in the trash when sealed. It also says that the next several times you vacuum you must open all windows, turn off heat or air, and if it gets on clothing or bedding, they should all be destroyed. Were these things covered? If not, people could be in danger. It is everyone’s choice to choose these or not….but all should be informed of every aspect possible.

  18. Diana is a model facilitator in that she obfuscates or twists facts in an attempt to make her agenda valid. Cool Cities is a non-profit created by the Sierra Club – which is an ICLEI partner. ICLEI is listed as a major stakeholder by the United Nations and was instrumental in writing U.N. Agenda 21. Her denials that ICLEI, the Sierra Club or Cool Cities have no connection to the U.N. are complete fabrication.

    The figures she cites as citizen savings on electricity by distributing CFL light bulbs which prevents the burning of 2 million tons of coal sounds exactly like the ‘pie in the sky’ figures produced by ICLEI (RCCLEAR) in the county. Even if those dubious figures are correct, Diana conveniently leaves out the time frame for those savings or any other pertinent data. What you have there is the perfect propagandist with an agenda.

  19. Luther & Chip
    You poor sick puppies. Are you up to date on your vaccination shots? Actually “puppies” might be too warm and fuzzy of a word, when you spew such venom. RVCC and other like-minded organizations are simply trying to make a positive improvement and are doing so. There is no conspiracy here!
    I have learned that people who expect and assume deceit from others usually do so because they themselves are deceitful.

  20. “preventing the burning of more than 2 million pounds of coal” causing a reduction in our national demand, making it easier for China and other countries to buy that much more of coal mined in our country. Honey badger doesn’t care. He eats honey, snakes……whatever it takes to survive. China is the honey badger of the energy consuming world. It’s dramatically increasing its alternative energy usage. But, its also building new coal fired plants because it knows it must do so in order to survive and emerge as a superpower. It knows better. RVCCC, Roughly how many 450 ft tall industrial wind turbines does it take to replace an average size coal fired plant so that a stable electrical supply can be provided to customers during times of low/no wind?

  21. Mark, If we are going to have industrial wind turbines the best place for them would be (and has been) out at sea. Nobody around to complain about the sight or noise of them. Why must we put them up on top of mountain ridges and next to residential areas? Its just asking for trouble. So, I applaude those that are going to install them out at sea.

  22. #Chip: I, too have doubts about building large-scale power generation facilities of any kind, given the myriad permitting, zoning and regulatory hurdles to be overcome. That’s what did in nuclear. But imagine the following scenario: a small scale solar installation becomes available for homeowners and owners of commercial buildings with a payback period of (say) five years. That’s a 15% annual return — better than can be obtained with a bank deposit or stock market investment. It would be attractive, then, to substitute solar for at least some electricity needs. It would also be attractive enough to bring middlemen (installers, financiers) into the market to facilitate installation.

    If enough solar is substituted for conventially-generated power it would cause rate increases from power generation companies, as they are entitled by law to a certain return on their assets. That would cause solar to be even more attractive, and so on.

    Like you I oppose subsidies, tax breaks and earmarks as being corrosive to a market system and a corrupting influence to a democracy. But there is still an incrustation of building codes, homeowner’s association covenants, local ordinances and the like that are barriers to solar installations. It would be worthwhile to take a hard look at these.

  23. Exactly how was the ‘97% of climate scientist agree’ figure calculated? Is this calculation documented in any detail? What are the names of the 97%? What are the names of the 3%? What percent of the 97% are politically or monetarily motivated in any manner? I want to see detailed documentation breaking this claim down to the levels I am describing so I can be convinced it is true. Otherwise, it should be considered unsubstantiated. Surely one of you could provide a link to this information. I’m having trouble finding anything that substantiates this claim in any detail during my searches. Thanks.

    Also, if this claim is true, it means its not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It means its a consensus and unproven.

  24. Luther
    I will be happy to accommodate. I have a little cartoon that you may enjoy, but I do not know how to upload it to this blog. I can email it to you if you want to provide your email address or if you can tell me how to post it on this or another site. I guess I can post it on my FB page.
    Best Regards and I hope that some time we can sit down together, have a beer and find some common ground. Life is too short man! I think that at the end of the day we probably have more in common than not.

  25. I know I am a late arrival here. I have been out for a walk. Exhaling Co2 and thinking my bad. As if I could do anything about it. My brain is telling me go ahead and live the cycle as programed. Exhale as much as you like your associates living in the ground will like that. Thinking how can I fix this sinful relationship between Carbon and Oxygen that I am hearing. “The love that will not go away”. I am told that I am a carbon life form. That I need oxygen to live. That’s suppose to be good. I know it was really good in the back seat of my 53 Chevy as a teenager. I am inhaling our atmosphere. It is all star dust. I am made of star dust. I eat star dust. So, I am told it is all star dust. That’s it, “star dust”. Billions of star right now are blowing up creating star dust all over the place. So, Then it must be the fault of the stars causing all of this love between Carbon and Oxygen. I don’t think I can fix it folks. I believe Carbon and Oxygen will love each other forever. I think we are all in this love orgy sandwich. I believe we are all conservatives. We say it in different ways. Here in hell will are not going to fix our atmosphere. All of mankind only contributes one tenth of one percent to any sort of effect of Co2 to OUR atmosphere. Our associated life forms(of by and from star dust) do the rest. When we all get to heaven will may have an atmosphere void of Carbon and Oxygen. Those worried about that may be happy then but I doubt it. They just wish to have heaven here and now. That ain’t goonah happen here in the midst of hell. It’s ok to express about it here. Better to talk about it eye to eye. We need to do that. I will try harder to believe the believers when they practice what they preach by having all of their utilities disconnected. I can and appreciate living that way. I grew up that way on a self sufficient farm. So, far I believe the twinkle toed believers don’t know what the hell they are talking about, “so to speak”. I know they are as good as I am, They just prefer to have their heads in the sand. “WELL” More later I gottah go exhale some more Co2. “Seriously”, Respectfully “Later”

  26. Steve, “What if climate change is a big hoax and we make a better world for nothing?” : Is there absolutely no tolerance for individual liberty as the world is made into a better place to live? Local comprehensive plans / future land use plans that would make it harder for people who live in rural areas because of a UN Agenda. Discouraging the masses from living in rural areas. If I want to enjoy decent lighting that an incandescent light bulb provides and pay a little more on my electrical bill to do so I should have that choice. My government is telling me I won’t be allowed to have that choice soon. Smart meters soon taking control of the temperature in my house not because the electrical company wants to help me save money but because I apparently don’t know how to properly manage my carbon footprint and someone out there knows better. I must take a back seat to the collective and accept my new normal in this devolving nanny state. Soft tyranny with a smile!

  27. Maggie, You will likely soon be enlightened that the amount of mercury in broken light bulbs is really not of much concern when you look at the bigger picture. You see, because you are using the CFL, you are using less electricity that is powered by coal. Burning coal emits alot more mercury to the environment than the miniscule sum total of mercury from all broken CFL light bulbs. Sort of like the local Sierra Club being OK with wind turbines killing view sheds and their blades possibly killing endangered birds. Whatever it takes to stop mountain top coal removal and reduce your carbon footprint.. So, some broken CFL bulbs and dead endangered birds are really not much of a concern here.

  28. The first railroad tracks laid in this country fought the same type of ignorance, misinformation and fear, from the small vocal fringe element.
    “Ignorance is bliss” they say, but these clowns do not seem happy.

  29. @Maggie….. The answer is, “Hell no”. They could care less about the real environment. One ship load after another of Chinese mercury is arriving daily. In their delusional mind they ignore the truth and concern only with THEIR delusional truth. Like Chicken Little running around saying American mercury bad Chinese mercury good. They twinkle toe through life biting the hand that feeds them. They are spoiled to death from The Black Gold of Coal. Never tasted reality because of being spoiled too much by most likely loving parents who made sure they were never hungry. Too much play,no work and freebies makes Jack and Jill dull delusional boys and girls. If they DISCONNECT from the grid and get some dirt under their fingernails I’ll make em a sam-itch and help them help ALL create a better external environment for ALL of Our Descendants as we are under Our Constitutional Republic. Delusionville needs to be condemned to a posted no trespassing zone. So, Their Trojan Horses can never be rolled out. Again, “No Maggie” They just want to tell you how to live the way they want you to. Their way without Liberty because they think they know better. “NOTE”: THEY DON’T. “RESPECTFULLY” “LATER”

  30. Mark and Pete, I’ve asked some questions in my posts below that haven’t been answered. Does that sound ignorant? I understand that you and others here are informed. And now you’ve got your chance to enlighten me and instead you chose to ignore me? Please don’t be those guys.

  31. Foreign owned Fox News (Bazillionaire Rupert Murdoch) is the conservative puppetmaster that makes these clowns dance. Waving our American flag while spewing propaganda too suit his foreign agenda. President Reagans chief economic advisor: Bruce Barlett
    tells it honest in his book- Where the Right went Wrong.

    The clowns are to dumb to see they are just puppets for foreign interests, and Fox is the modern day Nazi propaganda machine.

    Peace out.

  32. #Mark. You finally said something I almost agree with. Fox News does stink. It has become the Mittons network. Mittons being our pet name for Mitt Romney. I completely agree that Fox is not a fair and balanced network and is often a mouth piece for the RNC.

    Can you admit that similar bias exists on the other networks? Can you admit that CNN and MSNBC are practically state organs of the DNC?

    If you can then we can have a reasonable conversation about what started this rather expansive little exchange….Gene Marrano’s story here. It is listed as a “news” article. He wrote a puffy piece about this little cool cities love fest. He does mention that he got an award from the group he is writing about, but don’t you think that fact colors his objectivity to write a “news” story?

    Gene is a good spokesperson for the Cool Cities groups but doesn’t that put him in the same league with the other journalists with an agenda? Even though in this case its a minor league.

  33. @Chip, always consider the source. I thought Gene’s article was good coverage of folks / business affiliates promoting what they support and believe. Your history of rude attacks on RVCCC and individuals serves
    only too reinforce the Roanoke Tea Party as a group of angry clowns.
    Beyond mild annoyance, your wild theories and hateful blogs are why
    nobody cares about a small group attempting to infringe on the liberties of others.


  34. #Mark…Can you give me an example fo what information you consider a wild theory? Or hateful?

    Do you need someone to tell you that there is a conflict of interest, or can you be intellectually honest to see it for yourself? So if a “real” journalist tells you that writing a news story reporting on your own awards ceremony is OK…would that make you change your mind? Or can you think for yourself?

    have sympathy for you as it is hard when you buy into something like man made Global Warming and when the lies start to unravel and you have to admit you were misled. Bless your heart. You do realize that if the Medieval Global Warming and Mini-Ice age data I linked to in an earlier post is another piece of data that continues to cut the heart out of the silly premise that carbon emissions cause global climate changes. Will you have the intellectual honesty to admit that you have been misled? I pray you do.

    You seem to be like so many people on both sides that trust one side or the other of a debate. So many people think FoxNews is bad/good. MSNBC is good/bad. Some believe that coroporations are all evil. Some believe that the government is all good.

    I always hear about consensus? When did science become a consensus building exercise? Science is about proving ideas through a rigorous scientific method. It’s about logic.

    Think about these facts for a second and you can feel free to attack them if you want.

    Man made greenhouse gases are just a fraction of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Most are naturally occuring. (True or False)

    The earth has gone through countless warming and cooling periods over millions of years. (True or False)

    If those two facts are true, then the burden of proof is on your side of this argument to show the certaintly that your disciples show regarding this theory.

    And as I mentioned….the evidence keeps piling up on two regards.

    The hockey stick model was based on false or misleading information.
    There is a lot of money and political effort tied up in propping up the consensus on global climate change

  35. @Chip, When you reffered to Charlotte Moore as a “useful idiot” on your web site, that appears hateful and a personal attack.

    When you reference British tabloid rag- UK Daily Mail as scientific data, that seems Clownish.

  36. # Mark. “In political jargon, useful idiot is a pejorative term used to describe people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they do not understand, who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause.

    The term was originally used to describe Soviet sympathizers in Western countries. The implication was that although the people in question naïvely thought of themselves as an ally of the Soviet Union, they were actually held in contempt and were being cynically used. The use of the term in political discourse has since been extended to other propagandists, especially those who are seen to unwittingly support a malignant cause which they naively believe to be a force for good.”

    Isn’t it easier to just say useful idiot as this describes Charlotte Moore to a tee in my mind.

    We certainly have bashed her along the way…but outside of calling her a socialist…(or at least a socialist enabler) I haven’t been calling her names. We held a forum with Charlotte and the other Board candidates last year and I think she will tell you that we were pleasant and fair to her in that forum.

    In fact, I thought she was really good in that forum. She has no problem saying what she believes and has no qualms about standing for her convictions. Is she tragically misled on ICLEI and other issues. Yes. Is she a lousy Board member…yes. But if using uesful idiot is going to be your litmus test for “hatred” I am guilty 100% Here is the last quote I could see on our site about Charlotte that uses that term.

    “Charlotte Moore voted to stay in ICLEI which was totally expected.
    Charlotte, if nothing else is consistent. She has bought the nonsense spewed by the environmental crowd. She is a proud useful idiot and at least she stands for something.”

    In my humble opinion useful idiocy is on the rise in the USA…so expect you’ll see me proudly label more deserving public officials with this phrase.

  37. @Chip you seem to enjoy “bashing” folks with whom you disagree.
    The wild theory on UN agenda is comical and not based in factual reports from any real news organization. Always consider the source, Tabloid rags that you reference, are not the best way to keep from looking silly.

  38. Chip you seem to enjoy “bashing” folks with whom you disagree.

    The wild theory on UN agenda is comical and not based in factual reports from any real news organization. Always consider the source, Tabloid rags that you reference, are not the best way to keep from looking silly.

  39. #Mark, I “bash” elected officials who don’t do their job…for not doing their job. As for the source of the information on the UN, the sources are almost exclusively the UN, ICLEI, and ICLEI support groups. It’s not like I’m getting this information off of ICLEI representatives always downplay the UN partership in the U.S. Read their own documents….I mean the UN general Secretary affirmed the relationship last year in a public letter. Seriously…you can make the case that the relationship isn’t dangerous. I don’t agree…but you can at least make the argument. But denying the relationship makes you look silly my friend. Just do a little research instaed of relying on clowns like Gene and Dan Casey for your information. Oh yeah…I bash journalists too. 🙂

  40. Mark,

    Here is UN Agenda 21 straight from the horse’s month. No news source required. Please listen to Maurice Strong at the opening of the 1992 Earth Summit in the video approx halfway down the page.

  41. Also, Mark, go to section II.B.12 of this Rio +20 draft document:

    where it states, “12. We note that national commitment to sustainable development has deepened. Many Governments now incorporate environmental and social issues into their economic policies, and have strengthened their commitment to sustainable development and the implementation of Agenda 21 and related agreements through national policies and plans, national legislation and institutions, and the ratification and implementation of international environmental agreements.”

    or section II.A.7:

    “7. We reaffirm our commitment to advance progress in implementation of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21, the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development and the Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, the Barbados Programme of Action and the Mauritius Strategy for Implementation. The Rio Principles shall continue to guide the international community and serve as the basis for cooperation, coherence and implementation of agreed commitments”

    All sorts of good stuff in the draft. This isn’t something that was made up. Its documentation from the horse’s mouth.”

  42. So the Roanoke TP cannot provide any documentation or reference from any real news outlet that supports their fear tactics regarding a UN agenda that has any valid effect on our community.

    Sad Clowns, Peace be with you.

  43. Roanoke TP members: put on your tin foil hat, hold your finger and thumb in the shape of an “L”on your forehead then look in a mirror.

    British tabloids and ridiculous Americanalert news play you clowns like Charley Daniels on a fiddle.

    Tarbucket has led you folks with pathetic action and dispicable lies.

  44. Mark, You are not answering my questions. Neither are your other informed friends. I have searched for quite a while to find answers to my questions. Since you and your friends are so highly informed, surely you could help out an ignorant brother. So, Let me re-iterate the questions I have asked and have received no response.:

    1. RVCCC, Roughly how many 450 ft tall industrial wind turbines does it take to replace an average size coal fired plant so that a stable electrical supply can be provided to customers during times of low/no wind?

    2. Exactly how was the ’97% of climate scientist agree’ figure calculated? Is this calculation documented in any detail? What are the names of the 97%? What are the names of the 3%? What percent of the 97% are politically or monetarily motivated in any manner? I want to see detailed documentation breaking this claim down to the levels I am describing so I can be convinced it is true.

    3. What’s your definition of a real news outlet, Mark? Do you have a list?

    I have a lot more questions saved up but lets start with these three first. Here’s your chance. I’ll let you know, though, that if you answer them I’ll have more questions that’ll throw you back on your feet for a few moments. You may even need to consult with the big guns, like Dr. McGinnis on some of it. I’ll check back here a couple of times a day to see if you are going step up to the plate.

    By the way, did you take a look at the video of Dr. Maurice Strong that I posted above? Did you have any questions or comments about that? Or, how pleased the UN is that the implementation of Agenda 21 is going so well in the Rio +20 draft quotes I also posted? Looking forward to some debate.

  45. It never fails to amaze me that some folks as so scientifically illiterate they place their personal beliefs above scienctific fact. The evidence for climate change from extremely large numbers of the scientific community is overwhelming but these nitwits would rather trust radio and television personalities like Limbaugh, O’Riley and Hannity. This continuing backward approach not only reveals a disappointing intellect, it also demonstrates the extreme selfishness prevalent in some far right wing and extreme political groups.
    If anyone is interested in debating the actual scientific, engineering or climate related facts I’d be happy to respond, but if you’re just another angry right winger I’d doubt you really care about the facts, or reality.
    Who’s first?

  46. #Bill Gregory, Let me try to answer your astute questions.
    1) Utility scale wind turbines are rated by capacity-MW (mega watt), not in height. Wind is just part of the solution although each 1.5 – 6 MW unit will reduce tons of greenhouse gas and poisons i.e. mercury, arsenic, produced by coal energy generation.
    2) This was probably just a joke in reference to your denial of real science.
    3) Not sure on “real” news outlets, I would guess the reference by your mentor Chip, of a tabloid story as scientific data speaks volumes as to the confused nature of misunderstanding “real” science.

  47. Simon,

    Thanks for trying to respond to my questions.

    1.My original question: RVCCC, Roughly how many 450 ft tall industrial wind turbines does it take to replace an average size coal fired plant so that a stable electrical supply can be provided to customers during times of low/no wind? Your response: “Utility scale wind turbines are rated by capacity-MW (mega watt), not in height. Wind is just part of the solution although each 1.5 – 6 MW unit will reduce tons of greenhouse gas and poisons i.e. mercury, arsenic, produced by coal energy generation.” My follow up: Lets assume they will be the proposed 2.5 MW GE models (450 ft tall) that are being proposed for Poor Mountain as a starting point. So, how many would be needed?

    2. My original question: Exactly how was the ’97% of climate scientist agree’ figure calculated? Is this calculation documented in any detail? What are the names of the 97%? What are the names of the 3%? What percent of the 97% are politically or monetarily motivated in any manner? I want to see detailed documentation breaking this claim down to the levels I am describing so I can be convinced it is true. Your response: “This was probably just a joke in reference to your denial of real science.” My follow up: I understand that the way it was referenced as a joke. However, my question was serious and requires a response. The local Sierra Club and RVCCC have referenced the “97% of climate scientists agree that……” claim. So, I’m asking for someone to back up that claim with some detailed documentation as I have asked in my original question. Please, someone (Mark, Jerry, Simon?), enlighten this ignorant, misinformed climate denier with some detailed evidence to back up this claim.

    3. My original question: What’s your definition of a real news outlet, Mark? Do you have a list? Your response: “Not sure on “real” news outlets, I would guess the reference by your mentor Chip, of a tabloid story as scientific data speaks volumes as to the confused nature of misunderstanding “real” science.” My response: This doesn’t answer my question. Chip is not my mentor. I came into the information I have acquired doing my own research. Mark must have a list of real news outlets since he is amongst the informed and enlightened. I was wondering if he could share this information with me.

    Please keep in mind that I’m a mechanical engineer who produces and reviews documentation daily to back up designs I’ve done or someone else has done. The documentation must be correct and detailed in the event something goes wrong with the design it must be able to stand up in court. Show me some detailed documentation and you might turn me from being a climate skeptic to a believer. There is a difference between a climate skeptic and a climate denier. The latter appears to imply close-mindedness. My mind is open. Information is flowing in from both sides of the arguement. I’m not quite a believer yet. And that is a problem especially since so much individual liberty hangs in the balance.

    So, Mark, Simon, Jerry…..someone, please provide some detailed documentation to back up question #2, and answers to questions #1 and #3. Thanks.

  48. #Bill, There is no listing for a Bill or William Gregory as being a licensed P.E. in Virginia, so I assume you have a 2 or 4 year degree in mechanical engineering without benefit of a engineers’ license. Sorta like an unlicensed plumber or pilot, not sure what weight your opinion carries to “stand up in court” as you stated. Maybe if you can obtain a license in your profession, someone might care about your questions.

  49. Now Polverino knows how to start a debate! Nitwits and angry right-wingers are hardly conducive to such though expected from this cultish group. Do you want really want to debate with fact or continue with the meager insults?

    I’ll leave you with this little nugget if you wish to continue. The sun is the driver of climate change and the question needs to be asked why ‘climate scientists’ so seldom discuss it. The answer is that they have no control over the sun and think that they have some control over the activities of humanity on this planet via carbon dioxide emissions . Most of the ‘science’ behind the global warming scare (scam) has been thoroughly discredited with the climate-gate scandals by the IPCC and the like. You can start there if you like.

  50. Simon, I’m an EIT, which means I have a 4 yr degree and passed the EIT, which makes me eligible to take the P.E. My job title is Engineer II. An Engineer I would be as you describe (only a 2 or 4 year degree w/o EIT). An Engineer III would be a P.E. I can be called to the carpet to explain any calculation I performed or documentation I produced. I brought that up to explain that I know the importance of good documentation to ‘hang your hat’ on. I have several P.E.’s and AIA’s who regularly ask me questions about my specialty in architectural and HVAC noise control. I’ve worked on projects all over the US and a few overseas. I’m also a LEED accredited professional (LEED AP). Here’s the website you can go to check that one out on me ? That’s the US Green Building Council. I was the LEED Administrator who was in charge of getting the Western Virginia Regional Jail in Salem LEED certified. Talk about a boat load of documentation.

    When is someone going to step up to the plate and give good responses to my three questions? Instead of answering my questions all I appear to see here is someone attempting to avoid my questions by trying to belittle me. Its just three questions. I’ve got plenty of others behind them.

  51. #Bill, Your question 1) is assumptive in that renewables such as wind are intended to completely replace fossil fuel generation at this point in time. Wind will suppliment and reduce the need to pollute our air and water. As to Poor mountain project, determining the number of turbine units that will be practical is beyond my or your understanding, I say the more the better.
    2) For good resource on climate change, visit and – a guide for the perplexed
    3) See 2) above.

  52. Simon,
    Thanks for taking another crack at my questions. Let’s focus on my first question.

    The Sierra Club’s goal is to retire one third of America’s coal plants by the year 2020 and replace that power with clean energy like wind and solar. The average size of a coal-fired plant in the US is 667 megawatts according to the EPA. The average solar power plant is approx 50 MW and takes up lots of surface area (hundreds of feet x hundreds of feet). Lets assume 2/3 wind and 1/3 solar to retire the 1/3 of coal plants. Let’s also conservatively assume wind turbines are only running at 60% of their rated capacity of 2.5 MW because much of the time there isn’t much wind at certain times of the year. (492 coal plants x 667 MW) x 0.33 = 108,000 MW of coal fired plants to retire by 2020. (108,000 MW x 0.66 x 0.75) = 53,460 MW. (The 0.75 assumes 25% of wind turbines will be out at sea). 53,460 MW / (2.5 MW x 0.6 efficient) = 36,000 of the land based 2.5 MW turbines. Now for solar: (108,000 MW x 0.33). 35,640MW / 50 MW per plant = 712 solar plants at 50 MW avg size. In my scenario you’d need 36,000 wind turbines + 712 solar plants to retire one third of America’s coal plants by the year 2020 and replace that power with clean energy like wind and solar. The US is 3,718,000 sq miles. 3,718,000 sq mi / (36,000 + 712) = 103 sq miles per solar farm or wind turbine. So, for every average 10 mile x 10 mile block of land in the US there will be either a huge 50 MW solar farm or a 2.5 MW wind turbine in my scenerio. 99% of those blocks would have a wind turbine. 1% of those blocks would have a solar farm. Thats using 2/3 wind and 1/3 solar.

    Lets use 5/6 wind and 1/6 solar. Using same calc above for every average 7.8 mile x 7.8 mile block of land in the US there will be either a huge 50 MW solar farm or a 2.5 MW wind turbine in my scenerio, where 99% of those blocks would have a wind turbine and 1% a solar farm.

    So, on average, there will be no escaping the sight of a 450 ft tall wind turbines or gigantic solar farm anywhere in the country if the Sierra club reaches their 2020 goal.

    Reiterating, this assumes the wind turbines are always running at 60% of their rated capacity on average, which is plenty conservative, since the idea is to retire 1/3 of all coal fired plants by 2020. It also assumes solar farms are running at 100% capacity at all times. Most will be located in the SW use.

    Do you see any flaws or big busts in my calculations and assumptions?

  53. There is a large group of scientists that disagree with your calc. Visit and learn more: and please take note of “Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Cleaan Energy”. There you can learn more on a plan to reduce coal usage by 85% by 2030.

    No intention to belittle, they do seem to have credentials and grasp of this matter that appears beyond most of us.

  54. The green supporters make me chuckle…

    If a report was written by government, academic and business entitites with a vested interest in support of oil companies it’s a scam.

    When a report is written by government, academic and business entities with a vested interest in green energy its science.

    You just read the report that sates your conscience…blindly follow it…and when you can’t refute a very legitimate argument….your come back is essentially…”well those scientists that I have chosen to trust
    know better.”

    Isn’t a better idea to not trust either side blindly and think for yourself? I’d be interested to see if someone refutes Bill’s last post on the merits…or just reverts back to blind trust or personal attacks.

  55. Right Wing Nuts aside, most believe real science over obtuse calculation that does not incorporate common sense variable. No need for “blind trust”, its just science. Personal attacks are the forte of and best resource for, those that deny scientific fact.
    If you can provide scientific data contrary to resources sent forth then please share your secret data, all will be enlightened.

  56. Chip,
    I’ve read your opinions, and especlly enjoyed your comments on man made global warming. The problem here is your ideas concerning this subject are actually right wing belief and not science. You do understand the difference in belief and scientific fact?
    Belief, especially strong beliefs such as yours,affect the way humans perceive reality. Global warming is a very real fact, and I’d be happy to discuss this if you have an open mind. No politics – just science – no opinions – just facts. Jerry

  57. #Jerry I just posted a link disputing the Hockey Stick theory with some fairly specific information. There is a lot of similar data out there, disputing these facts. That’s much more than an opinion. Care to try and defend the fthe basis for man made global warming which these studies undermine?

  58. How many lies have you been told by NBC lately? All media has a bias. You have to look at the data. Even the Huffington Post gets something right occasionally. And I’m accused of being closed minded? You guys are a hoot. Again….you still think the hockey stick graph is accurate? Really? Are you really that gullible?

  59. Simon,

    This is the only mention I see of the plan to reduce coal use 85 percent by 2030: On page 132 (chapter 7) it states, “Greater energy efficiency and use of renewable energy reduce coal use 85 percent by 2030 compared with the reference case, with most of the cuts coming from the electricity sector.”

    I see no specifics as to how this claim was arrived at in any of the chapters. No documentation detailing/itemizing how they plan to reduce coal use 85 percent by 2030. There is no mention of how many MW’s of solar and wind will be required to make this reduction. Please point out where this documentation exists in the various chapters (chapter and page).

    Besides, the Sierra Club’s plan to retire 1/3 of coal fired plants by 2020 does not compare to this group’s claim that coal use will be reduced 85% by 2030. Apples and oranges comparison. My calculation is based on what the entire US landscape might well look like (solar and wind plants everywhere) to meet the Sierra Club’s goal to retire 1/3 of coal fired power plants by 2020. The calculation is rather simple and based on readily available data. The assumptions I made are reasonable and conservative.

    Simon, If you think my calculation is not reasonable, please provide specific comments as to why you think it is not reasonable. But, stick to my original question and parameters/calculations when you are commenting, instead of confusing the issue with apples and oranges comparisons.

    Anyone else have non-demeaning comments about my calculation? Ways to make it more accurate, for example. Anyone know of another study or plan out there that actually compares to my calculation when it comes to what it is going to take to retire 1/3 of all coal fired plants by 2020 (apples to apples comparison to my calculation)?

  60. Bill, Also would recommend you forward questions to Sierra Club for clarification of their plan. If you did not find enough detail from the Union of Concerned Scientist, please contact them to address your formulae and calculations., I trust both organizations to respond without belittling your concerns.

  61. Come on, Simon. I am here to be enlightened by highly credentialed local powerhouses of alternative energy knowledge. Instead, I’m being constantly referred to some national entity or article. I thought people on this thread were informed and had the answers. Am I at the wrong place?

  62. Yes, Bill Gregory I would guess you are at the wrong place due to your apparent fear to address questions to the source such as Sierra, et al. It gives one pause to believe your intent is to ignore valid science and pursue presumptive inquiry based on your skewed agenda.

    Your statement “highly credentialed powerhouse’s” seems a bit harsh coming from someone who is not a licensed professional in their field. If you are genuine in seeking knowledge and understanding of the plans to reduce fossil fuel use, please pursue those organizations for clarification. If your intent was to look foolish, mission accomplished!

  63. Simon (assuming that is your real first name), At least you know who I am. I’m sure all of those who are involved in the climategate are highly credentialed. And look where that is heading. Your obsession with credentials is a pure distraction from getting at the truth. The truth is the truth and doesn’t need credentials to hide behind.

    I don’t have a fear of asking the Sierra Club my questions, etc so speak for yourself, not me. Apparently I am at the wrong place to get answers and intelligent response to my comments/questions. I really thought someone was going to step up to the plate and answer away. It was looking like Jerry P was going to be that person but then he disappeared. I’m not ignoring what some call valid science. I just thought those in the know here locally could enlighten me first.

  64. This is too funny! Marrano has to be thrilled that his half dozen or so readers (disciples?) are outraged enough to actually defend this egregious assault on ‘man-made global warming’ theory.

    The propaganda in this article might have been a little less odious if not for Marrano making a point about “and Gene Marrano, cited for balanced environmental reporting in a variety of venues, including the Roanoke Star-Sentinel.”

    Balanced environmental reporting? Hogwash!

  65. Bill, If you were genuine in your search for understanding, I would guess you are able although unwilling to address your “questions, and there will be more questions” to organizations that have developed plans to reduce fossil fuel use.

    You appear to have devotion to the snarky antics of the T bags. You and those of your ilk are irrelevent and pathetic. Howling for liberty while attempting to shout down the liberties of the majority.

  66. A sample patter of dozens of peer reviewed documents that support the premise that global warming is part of normal patterns that have happened for millions of years and have everything do with cycles and sun activity and very little to do with factors like greenhouse gases. The list was so long it didn’t make the cut for the site…but the rest are right here on our little old site. I’ve got plenty more where that came from….

  67. #Simon…are you really so intellectually lazy that you can’t acknowledge that Bill:

    Took numbers from the sources that you revere
    Extrapolated them in a logical manner that shows the premise of replacing huge percentage of standard coal plants with wind/solar energy seems far-fetched.

    And then you beat him up because he won’t run off and get the information independently verified? I can’t help but laugh.

    Last time I checked, when you put forth a THEORY, the burden of proof is with the group putting forth the theory. Repeating the mantra that “97% of scientists agree with this,” when overwhelming evidence (which is in part is presented in my previous post”) shows that this theory is garbage, isn’t good enough anymore.

    Especially when this nonsense is being used to justify policy decisions that are destructive both economically and for individual freedom and liberty.

  68. Once again Chip, neither you or your minnion Bill, have provided any compeling scientific data to dispute man-made global warming. Just more of the T bags’ freedom and liberty rhetoric, while attempting to shout down the liberties of the 97% that laugh at your tin foil hat.

    Please believe me, nobody cares what your small clan thinks, your group is irrelevent to the majority of American citizens.

  69. Well, now I have to thank Simon for providing the laughs (or is Simon really Marrano trying to defend his turf?). Chip Tarbutton provided you with over 50 scientific links which you undoubtedly ignored.

    So instead of 97% of scientists agreeing on global warming, we now have 97% whose liberties are being shut down by an irrelevant few tinfoil hats? Classic comedy! Keep it coming Simon!

  70. “Chip Tarbutton Roanoke Tea Party president” you espouse now to have some support for the contrarian spitle of Bill Gregory and clueless Luther. In fear to address your skewed beliefs to the source, Sierra, EPA, American Academy of Science, Union of Concerned Scientist.
    Your clownish and pseudo-intellectual attempts bring much joy to all!

    May the tin foil hat be with you

  71. Simon’s comments show the desperate nature of the global warming crowd. No one is against conservation. You are free to make whatever light bulbs you want. Forcing others to buy the bulbs is the problem.
    Consensus among scientists is meaningless. Science does not work by concensus, politics does. This demonstrates the political take over of a theory. Did Einstein have to wait for approval from other scientists for his theory of relativity? NO. The theory stands because it is supported by the facts. The Simons need to call other points of view names (Like deniers) shows their despicable nature.
    The global warming crowd is a combination,
    1.) the socialists seeing the promotion of this as a way to promote their agenda. They do not need evidence, just ridicule dissent.
    2.) The true Disciples of Al Gore environmentalists, so nieve they do not research for themselves, they believe things like concensus in science.
    3.) Those who benefit from the buy in of others into the theory. They get some direct benefit from the money invested in research or some social benefit of pretending they saved the world or know the temperature change chart of the whole planet. I bet Simon is in this group.
    The Chip & Gregs are reasonable ones. Don’t belive the attacks.

  72. As always, the dispicable comments began with the pseudo-intellectual grunts from those in the T bag clan. Good at flinging manure into the air but offended when it lands on their tin foil hats.
    Buy whatever light bulbs you prefer, and if you do not want renewable energy, call your electric utility and have them disconnect your power.
    No matter your power company, all in Virginia supply a portion of your electric with with renewable energy, and that portion will increase on a ascending rate. So like it or lump it, thats just the way it is.

  73. I don’t think Simon is in any shape to have a debate on this subject any more, much less answer any questions. He acknowledges nothing that has been put in front of him, even if it is valid. He appears to be close-minded to any contrary thought outside of his ‘box’ on this subject. He hasn’t really taught us anything we haven’t heard regularly (ie matra) over the months and years. Aside from Simon, is there anyone out there that is willing to have a discussion or debate on this issue, maybe answer a few questions without going off the deep end?

  74. Thanks for recognizing me Simon. I never was hiding that I was a board member of the RTP, since I posted my full name from jump street on this thread. Would you enlighten us with your real name now?

    I provided you (in the link above) with 50+ links to peer reviewed documents supporting my position. Despite that, you continue to call me a dolt with no scientific backing for my positions. Do you want to acknowledge that these links exist now (since you said earlier I couldn’t find one) or perhaps you can contact the Sierra Club for back up for your failing position?

    Its sad when you see the ideas you placed so much faith in get dashed apart and shown to be a sham. I pray you eventually have the discernment to recognize that you’ve ben lied to and the intellectual honesty to admit you were wrong.

    It’s OK Simon, for now you can call me a Tea bagging loser all you want since that seems to be your only defense left.

  75. #Simon. Can you stay on topic? We can argue about the wasted tax money subisdizing green energy boondoggles later. You said I couldnt find 1 peer reviewed document to support my claims. I found you dozens and dozens.Before I jump off and rip that silly green energy argument apart, can you respond to the topic at hand and admit there is scientific research a plenty that supports my assertion that global warming is primarily a of natural cycle and not primarily caused by man made greenhouse gasses.

    I know there are a bunch that slant in the other direction…but to assert there is no evidence that refutes global warming claims is a convenient lie that you have been told by those who are too deluded to recognze the truth or too invested in the money pouring into this scam.

    Those peer reviewed documents I dug up for your benefit? You remember that request SImon? That means Simon, you will have to think and read for yourself and look at the data. I know that is going to be difficult but I believe you can do it if you try.

  76. #Simon…you really are pathetic. I stated before there are documents in support of your position.

    Are you saying that this is not a peer reviewed document? It’s just not one that fits into the pre-determined result your friends in the global warming community like to present.

    Every single link I have is a peer reviewed document. Care to disprove that….Here is one right here.

  77. I’ve still never seen a good explanation for why the Tea Party got started only after a black President was elected, when their proclaimed reasons for forming were present in substantial degree beforehand.

  78. Peter,”I’ve still never seen a good explanation for why the Tea Party got started only after a black President was elected, when their proclaimed reasons for forming were present in substantial degree beforehand”

    Really?! Because of the color of his skin?

    Boiling it all down, here is the reason the Tea Party was started after he was elected:

    Any racist hater who has infiltrated the tea party venting his/her racist ways is not a part of what the tea party believes in or is.

    Here’s another reason that had been boiling on the back burner before way before he was elected:

    Every other reason the tea party was started when it did is typically a symptom of the above. (Taxed too much, Obamacare, etc)

  79. I breezed over the link you sent. It is heavily reliant on Mann’s theories…which the link I sent cast serious doubt on….

    If the hockey stick chart fails the cornerstone of the theory fails and temperature fluctuations are part of the normal planetary cycles.

    I am certain when Galileo figured out that the earth wasn’t the center of the universe…the status quo didn’t easily let go of their ideas….so I should have patience with you and your stubborness. This study just was published April 1 after all.

    That is a debate worth having perhaps if you have someone who actually understands somehting besides your mantra’s of hatred and that 97% of scientists…blah blah blah….

  80. Typical tactic of the left…change the topic when you start to lose the argument. Noone has been able to address:

    Why its not a problem with journalistic integrity for Gene to puff up a group that just gave him an award for “balanced journalism”?

    How recent studies….(50+ I posted below )cast serious doubt on the Hockey Stick theory global climate activists base their theories on impacts their claims?

    Instead you pull out the race card. We’ve addressed that before…if you had taken the time to read our website….

    A better question would be why is a Tea Party Activist like me working for the EW Jackson campaign for US Senate insteasd of Tea Party activist Jamie Radkte…who is a candidate in the same Senate race.

    Here’s a hint…it has nothing to do with race/sex etc. Can someone effectively answer the questions on the table instead of distracting with ridiculous racial charges.

  81. It is simple, neo-conservative obstructionist, EW Jackson might have a snowballs chance, Radtke not so much.

    Still waiting for your reference from a scientific organization that will support TP denial of man-made global warming. The best you have mustered is ignoring scientific evidence contrary to your failed belief.

  82. The latest data: Here is the Abstract from this peer reviewed article

    Calcium carbonate can crystallize in a hydrated form as ikaite at low temperatures. The hydration water in ikaite grown in laboratory experiments records the ?18O of ambient water, a feature potentially useful for reconstructing ?18O of local seawater. We report the first downcore ?18O record of natural ikaite hydration waters and crystals collected from the Antarctic Peninsula (AP), a region sensitive to climate fluctuations. We are able to establish the zone of ikaite formation within shallow sediments, based on porewater chemical and isotopic data. Having constrained the depth of ikaite formation and ?18O of ikaite crystals and hydration waters, we are able to infer local changes in fjord ?18O versus time during the late Holocene. This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.

  83. On the Munich Smart Grid…It is certainly and interesting concept, but from what I can tell of the story, there is only 1 windfarm in the mix…the rest are proven forms of energy generation (albeit hydroelectric is a good proven source of “green” energy) It isn’t exactly clear what the others are but they are likely some sort of fossil fuel plants…otherwise they would haven’t used the euphamistic name for the plants energy source.

    I’d be curious what % of the mix comes from the windfarm.

    You folks don’t understand that I am not against progress or alternative forms of energy. If we can find effective ways within the free market system to produce energy from wind/solar/algae or cow pies….that would be fantastic.

    But I just want the market to produce and distribute it and not have it propped up by crooked government officials making crooked deals with crooked corporations. (whether they be crooked oil companies or crooked wind mill companies working with the crooked government officials)

  84. No doubt we can all agree that we are against corruption and waste at all levels. Corruption and self-interest has always been a part of society and unfortunately it probably always will be.

    I think that our financial/social inequities largely stem from self-interest by the decision makers, whether it be government (insider trading, retirement benefits, health care, etc.) or business (huge salaries, bonuses, perks, etc.).

    I subscribe to the Quaker Business model that closely follows the golden rule and assumes all people and places are equal and have value. That is why I promote and encourage others to pursue the sustainable Triple Bottom Line, which seeks to balance economic, social and environmental measures of any endeavor.

    A good basic principal is to try to do no harm (like the medical profession).

  85. No doubt we can all agree that we are against corruption and waste at all levels. Corruption and self-interest has always been a part of society and unfortunately it probably always will be. In many parts of the world it is simply the way of doing business (SOP).

    I think that our financial/social inequities largely stem from self-interest by the decision makers, whether it be government (insider trading, retirement benefits, health care, etc.) or business (huge salaries, bonuses, perks, minimal benefits for employees, etc.).

    I subscribe to the Quaker Business model that closely follows the golden rule and assumes all people and places are equal and have value. That is why I promote and encourage others to pursue the sustainable Triple Bottom Line, which seeks to balance economic, social and environmental measures in all endeavors.

    A good basic principal is to try to do no harm (like the medical profession). Unfortunately there are many businesses that only seek profit who will sell you anything, even if it will make you sick or perhaps kill you. That amazes me!

    I know that I have strayed from the main topics of conversation, but honestly, I just am not inclined to engage in a combative dialog that appears to only try to prove who is more right than the other. I do not know absolutely for sure who is more right. Based on my experience and understanding man must be influencing our climate when you consider our population growth and rising demand for more affluent lifestyle, resulting in deforestation, CO2 emissions, water and air pollution, ozone depletion, etc. However, regardless of who is more right (and I suspect no one viewpoint is entirely correct), if more people were to follow the Quaker Business Model or pursue the Triple Bottom Line, we will be much better off now and in the future.

    I wish you all well and I hope that you can come to a mutual understanding that we are all in this together and although we have different perspectives we can find the common ground and find ways to accept our differences.

    Best Regards,

  86. There are at least 2 major issues with the sustainability model you are promoting.

    1. Much (not all) of it is predicated on the false premise of global climate change being a man made phenomenom.
    2. The model intriniscally has a high degree of governmental control as these initiatives must according to SD documentation cover “every aspect in which humans impact the environment.” How do you do that with a limited government?

    By placing an artifical sense of urgency on global warming and insisting on large levels of government intervention to meet this manufactured crisis, the recipe for abuse is in place and things like Solyndra are just the tip of the iceberg.

    Isn’t controling all human impact on the environment place us all in a box of regulations…made by govenrment officials who are hung up in red tape and inevitably corrupt.

    If power corrupts anhd absolute power corrupts absolutely, then how do you avoid an even MORE corrupt government if they can control this much of your life?

    But from a PR perspective it is brilliant I suppose, because any concerns raised about the method are met with the cry that you don’t care about the environment. I would contend the blind dash to save us from a non-existent climate crisis is distracting resources from real environmental issues. Perhaps admitting the fraud would allow us to work through ways to improve the enviornment without destroying individual liberty.

  87. This will be my last comment on this matter.
    Chip, you obviously have an issue with government involvement in dealing with climate matters so I assume that you are expressing your views to your public representatives, which is appropriate.
    All I wish to explain is that I and most of the other folks I know who are engaged in promoting sustainability are not part of a conspiracy, do not believe that our condition is artificial and are not demanding the government save us all. Just because you believe something does not make it true.

    You say you are for sustainable practices. Well, that is just what we are trying to do. We are trying to improve our environment ourselves and through other organizations. Even if climate change has nothing to do with human behavior, what is wrong with trying to build and operate better buildings, drive more efficient cars and operate fair businesses?

    What if you are wrong about climate change? What is the harm in doing nothing?
    What if you are right about climate change? What is the harm in doing what we are doing (remember we are not the government – we are private businesses and non-profits)?


  88. Why construct a policy based on a false premise and then excuse it away by saying well what harm could it do? The destruction of the economy (which is starting) and the wasted government resources to jam energy technologies that aren’t ready for prime time yet because it “feels good”

    I hve no problem with you driving a Prius. That is fine with me and I kind of like the vehicle myself. But why should I shoulder the burden of you buyng a Prius by giving you (or me) a tax break for buying one?

    These are the small choices that keep getting made with my money that will become bigger and bigger as the years go by….

    Redistribution of wealth happens everyday and we are too used to it to even notice anymore.

  89. For purpose of clarification:

    I do NOT believe that it is a false premise. You do. If you are so concerned about the economy why not help us save money & resources by promoting conservation and efficient buildings? There are plenty of effective technologies that you can implement right now.

    I do not have a Prius. Talk to your congressman about all of the tax breaks. I did not lobby for them. Why are you complaining to me about it? There are lots of things I do not like my tax money used for.

    My main point is, even if climate change is not primarily due to human activity, you have to admit that we do contribute to the greenhouse effect to some degree. You can debate all day long as to what degree. So we CAN make some difference and if you are wrong it could be a huge difference. If you cannot recognize that, then there is simply no reaching you and these discussions are pointless as they are simply a means to boost egos.

  90. If I owned a large building you would bet I would make it super energy efficient so I could save money. Who is against that? But the point of the latest posts here were that the false premise of Global Warming are causing policy decisions to be made that are harmful to the economy and freedom. You may not agree but the hundreds of peer reviewed documents that poke holes in the global warming scam don’t make this a matter of opinion….it is a matter of fact that global climate change is primarily a natural cylcle and that our small contribuitions to CO2 are not important. A sampling of these peer reviewed docs is here

    As for the Prius example, I certainly didn’t mean to infer you own a Prius…its just an example of my tax dollars being used to subsidize an item in a way that we shouldn’t be doing…but we just accept as a normal part of government. Government’s role is to protect my rights…not encourage choices in the market place.

  91. Take the lie about carbon pollution off the table and then we can talk about the other potential issues. If your first issue, carbon pollution, is based on a scam, how seriously can I take the rest of the data?

    The other issues might very well be true, partially true or complete garbage. But you told me I should be careful of the credibility of sites like this so I’ll take your advise.

    I kinda liked the coal guys will say anything ad on the front of the page. But I could say the same thing for Al Gore, IPCC reps and windpower/solar advocates.

    People will say a lot of crap to get on the government teet.

    Still no takers on discussing the article that guts the Hockey Stick trheory the whole global warming theory rests on? Or Gene Maranno’s shoddy journalism? It is hard to admit when your ideas are proven wrong. But be courageous and just admit that you’ve been had and we can move on.

  92. Simon says, Dr. C. Tarbucket, Phd, environmental science, molecular biology, chemical science, political science, and professor emeritus of grammar and macro economics: never fails to amaze or amuse.

    Stick to your on-line games, you may have some success there!

  93. Really?! Come on Green Police. Stop the soft tyranny:

    ” The EPA has instituted new rules and regulations to control greenhouse emissions by farm animals. During this tough economic time, it is unfair and irresponsible to levy such a tax on family farms, according to conservatives.

    Under Title V of the Clean Air Act, farmers would pay a hefty permit fee for animals that emit 100 tons of greenhouse gasses annually, affecting the vast majority of the nation’s livestock operations. Any farm with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs would have to obtain a permit to operate, which, according to the United State Department of Agriculture, would cover 99 percent of New York dairy production, 95 percent of its hog production and 90 percent of beef production.

    According to one organization, the New York Farm Bureau, the new permits would cost farmers well over $110 million a year, dramatically impacting the agricultural sector and economy. The tax is estimated at $175 per dairy cow, $87.50 per head of beef cattle and $20 per hog. The added financial burden on already-struggling farmers could force many family farms out of business and lead to a raise in food prices.”

  94. Simon: “Why do all the web sites referenced by Bill and his comrads have a neo-nazi agenda?”

    Simon, Are you implying the statements in those articles are false and made up? Or could it be that you deny the existence of the Rio +20 UN Executive Summary and all that it implies? Perhaps we should just ignore it like it doesn’t exist? Hey, everyone who enjoys their current standard of living in the US, please don’t educate yourself about what will be coming out of the Rio+20 gathering this summer. Something like that?


    A percentage of climate change scientists deny the man made global warming theory, too, Simon. Does that mean they are wrong? No. It does not. It means they see things differently and haven’t conformed to the popular concensus. A popular concensus that is apparently a driving force to current and future wealth redistribution on a global scale (Rio+20 UN Executive Summary). Here’s a suggestion: Why don’t you and your friends give up your standard of living to others across the globe in the name of UN social and economic justice and leave the rest of us alone?

  95. “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring about?” – Maurice Strong, Secretary-General of the UN Conference on Environment and Development—best known as the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro from 3 June to 14 June 1992 where UN Agenda 21 was born

  96. #Simon. Why? Since most of the time we are correct on issues and since you and your friends can’t win an argument on the facts, you call us tea bagging, racist, homophobic, Nazis.

    You know the formal name of the Nazi party was the national socialist party right? The evil of Communism and Naziism are closely related. Tea Party groups usually stand for individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, small government and following the Constitution. Many of us are Christian in our orientation.

    All of those ideals Socialists, Communists and Nazis all hate. We believe that all men are created equal. Nazis and Communists all believe that there are superior and inferior peoples. We want the government out of lives. Communists, Socialist and Nazis all want government control of your life. We beleive in individual liberty. Socialist, Communists and Nazis all subvert the individual to the “common” good. (Defined by the smart people for the masses)
    We believe that rights are natural and come from the creator. Communists, Socialists and Nazis all beleive they can create and alter rights at their whim because they have placed themselves in the place of God.

    Based on what little I know of your personal and political philopsophies Simon, I would say you have a lot more in common with the Nazis than we do. In fact our entire political philosophy is totally opposite of National Socialism.

    So you lost the argument and can’;t answer what we put forward. So… lets just call Bill a Nazi tea bagger.

    Joseph Goebbels would be proud of your tactic to demonize a group just because you can’t win an argument. It worked in the 1930s and sadly for some…it still works today.

  97. Yada, Yada, Yada,
    Same old story from the T cups. Fox news is your friend and is owned by foreign interests who have an agenda opposite of True Americans.
    Hitler used the same scare tactics and scape goat menu to control the opinion of the masses. Today society can see through your actions and claims of Liberty lovin, while attempting to trounce the freedom of the majority.

    T bags- you are truely pathetic and nobody cares to hear your crazy conspiricy theorem. LOL

  98. Chip: Yes, you and fellow T baggers have swallowed the bait, all your reference material is without validation from any scientific organization.
    You have not and can not provide any evidence to support the strange beliefs and denial of scientific facts you espouse. The fact that your small misguided group continues to refute science is inexplicable to me.

    Your prayers are appreciated although your fellow deniers may need your thoughs in hope to open their minds to the truth.

  99. Once again, the T baggers FAIL to provide documentation for their denial of scientific fact from any SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION.

    If and when you can provide validation from a SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION that supports your contrarian beliefs, we are all ears.

    Waiting………..Still waiting……..Still got nuthin? Almost a month now, and you still cannot provide any documentation from a legiment SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION! T cups, find another Pony to ride.

  100. Simon, You guys are the ones claiming man-made sources of carbon dioxide are causing climate change and, because of this, there is a overwhelming crisis that everyone must change their behavior to fix as soon as possible, right? So, the onus is really on you (scientific method) to provide scientific data showing that man-made sources of carbon dioxide have produced an identifiable and significant impact on global temperature. Prove your claims with the best scientific data you’ve got and allow for us to debate the data. Explain how global temperatures haven’t risen since 1998 and have been in a recent decline. Explain why Envisat shows a two year long decline in sea level:

  101. “China, where most of the coal would go, is building the equivalent of two 500-megawatt coal-fired plants each week. Although it produces twice as much coal as the United States, it has gone from a net coal exporter in 2008 to a net importer today.”

    So, as the US uses less coal, China and other countries are snapping it up. Supply and demand. Cheaper for China to buy that much more coal from us. Looks like US coal’s better days are actually ahead as China builds the equivalent of two 550 MW coal-fired plants a week.

  102. We have provided reference data from the American Academy of Science, Union of Concerned Scientist, NOAA, EPA, et al.

    The best the T baggers can come up with is FOX (faux) NEWS, a foreign owned joke with questionable agenda.

    Stll waiting…….and waiting, for any validation of Traitriot Party denial of SCIENTIFIC FACT from any SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION.

    STILL WAITING………………………………………………………………………….

  103. Simon, All of the organization name dropping by you proves nothing. Please provide LINKED STUDIES or ARTICLES where these organizations are named. What study can you guys produce to counter the fact that 12+ years of CO2 increases have been accompanied by flat to decreasing global temperatures. Its really counter to what the organizations you listed claim should have happened.

    Do you guys have a study that quantifies the human CO2 component in global warming amongst the natural variability components? Please provide a link to that if it exists. I bet you can’t.

    The IPPC computer models called for the formation of a hot spot 6 miles over the tropics because of moisture buildup trapping more greenhouse gas heat; no attempt to find it has been successful.

    So, whats up with the IPCC computer model?

  104. #SImon The burden of proof is on the groups you mention to support their THEORY. That is the way science works. Take off your Joseph Goebbels hat, go track down your scientist friends and have them respond to the latest data that invalidates the hockey stick theory. Then we can have a conversation about the science, instead of trading barbs.

  105. Roanoke T partiers once again fail to provide scientific proof from any SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION that supports their denial of fact.

    There is good reason for this, No large group of credentiled scientist would support the bizaar rantings of contrarian denial without the benefit of scientific proof.

    T cups: STILL Waiting…………………. You cannot provide scientific data that supports your misguided denial of scientific fact. Please find a new pony to ride, this one has no legs.

  106. #SImon. What is really odd is that there hundreds of peer reviewed documents that contradict the theory and these orrganizations keep ignoring these valid PEER REVIEWED documents that contradict their theory.

    You can’t even accept the possibility of the premise that organizations that have (for the sake of billions of dollars of funding) have gone all in to state that global warming is a man made phenomenon, could have an incentive to mask evidence that it ISN’T supportive of their claims?

    Not to mention the embarrasment of having organizations that you blindly follow having to admit they were wrong. That isn’t easy to do is it?

    Galileo had the same problem hundreds of years ago. Same thing, different scientific cover up. Think about it….

    Science doesn’t ignore evidence like this. They then work it in and see i the theory still holds up. Scientists with an agenda just cast it aside because the evidence isn’t convenient.

    Motive, opportunity and evidence. Sounds like I have a pretty solid case. ALl you have is blind faith in organizations with an agenda.

    Sad. But I’m still praying for you Simon.

  107. The Roanoke T partiers admission of failure in providing support from any SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION for their denial of scientific fact speaks for itself.

    Claiming to have knowledge beyond the worlds leading SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS leads one to question the T bags VALIDITY.

  108. Not sure what Roanoke Times report you refer too. Roanoke T bags cannot back-up what they say with any validation from a SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION………

    Since no SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION supports the T party claims: Logic tells me you are being obtuse inorder to gain attention for your little group.

  109. And your precious organizations keep ignoring hundreds of peer reviewed legitimate scientifc studies that invalidate their postions because they have a vested interest in the lie of global warming. We can go back and forth like this all day Simon. Not sure what this exchange is doing for you but it seems senseless to argue anymore about this since we neither one of us is goign to budge.

  110. Still got nuthin’ T baggers? The Roanoke Tea Party’s consistent reference to Nazi figure-heads confirms what many believe.

    You cannot produce documentation from any SCIENTIFIC GROUP that supports your denial of SCIENCE………………………………………………….

  111. #Simon Yawn. Sigh. You have never answered the question about the hundreds of peer reviewed scientific studies that undermine the premise of global warming these groups refuse to acknowledge. I suppose you’ll keep asking the same misleading and ridiculous question. I’ll keep asking you the correct question as a response….

    I’ve already told you why they won’t respond. Why won’t they acknowldege these studies? The studies I showed you weren’t from political folks….they are PEER REVIEWED scientific studies.

    I’m still praying for you Simon….maybe one of these days you’ll see how misled you are.




  113. #SImon…the only person on this blog that hasn’t actually answered a question posed is you. You really do look ridiculous…too bad only like 13 people see this….

    Hundreds of peer reviewed documents on my last post Which ones are invalid. And WHY?

    And no one has ever answered the original question about Gene’s journalistic integrity. Or lack there of…

    Nice try. You can cut and paste you silly answer again…no one is buying that crap.




  115. #Simon SImple question Simon, which one of the dozens of peer reviewed scientifc studies I provided you with do you consider not valid? It’s a simple question. Just point out one and let me know what issues you have with it. Or maybe you could stop cutting and pasting the same tired answer and do a little research yourself.

- Advertisement -Fox Radio CBS Sports Radio Advertisement

Latest Articles

- Advertisement -Fox Radio CBS Sports Radio Advertisement

Related Articles