FreedomWorks Report: How environmentalist push anti-energy agenda

Portland, OR – FreedomWorks Oregon’s Campaign for Affordable and Reliable Energy (CARE) has joined with the FreedomWorks Foundation to publish and distribute a report to help policymakers understand how extremists hijack the public policy process to further their anti-energy agenda. Radical Environmental Obstructionism will be distributed across Oregon to legislators, mayors, public officials, and key public policymakers.

High energy prices hurt Oregon families and cost the community jobs. Looking to the future, Oregon needs to have a diverse portfolio of energy choices, such as geothermal, wave, hydro, natural gas, and wind power to support long term economic growth and ease family budgets. Too often sensible energy projects are blocked by a handful of individuals in Oregon, and Radical Environmental Obstructionism explains how they abuse the system to advance their agenda.

Radical Environmental Obstructionism details how the traditional environmental movement was hijacked and the impact of fringe radicalism on wind, wave, natural gas, and geothermal development. The paper also details energy options in Oregon, beneficial projects that have been blocked and abuse of the legal system. It also describes the “smoke and mirrors” tactics used by extremists to appear to be a broad-based movement when in reality it is only a handful of people.

FreedomWorks Oregon Director Russ Walker commented:

“Radical Environmental Obstructionism shows that Oregon has unique geographic opportunities to meet its current and future energy needs while also protecting the environment. The biggest obstacle to developing and delivering safe, clean, and reliable energy is radical fringe activists, and Radical Environmental Obstructionism exposes these individuals as a radical minority that does not represent the best interests of Oregon’s families.”

Radical Environmental Obstructionism is available at the campaign website www.LightsOnOregon.com

The CARE campaign is part of a larger, multi-million dollar, national effort that FreedomWorks has engaged in to make concerned citizens aware of the need to unlock domestic and emerging sources of energy for American consumers. FreedomWorks is a grassroots organization with over a half a million members nationwide and over 30,000 activists in Oregon dedicated to lower taxes, less government, and more freedom.

-30-

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:40 | Posted in Measure 37 | 10 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Jerry

    We do not need as much energy as other cities due to having light rail.
    We are a shining beacon to the world.
    I stand proud.

  • David Appell

    > High energy prices hurt Oregon families

    So do high rates of carbon emission, an externality never figured into anyone’s burning of fossil fuels. How much will Oregon families be hurt when their timber moves to Canada, when beetles infest what trees are here, when hypoxic zones gather on their shores and grapes can no longer be grown in the Williamette Valley?

  • Anonymous

    Like so many other misguided souls who attribute everything they see to AGW David the lost has declared that the ocean dead zones are from global warming.
    He tries to sound more informed by using the more scientific name “hypoxic zone” but he is illinformed, has no qualifications, has done no research, he has no sceince, no peer reviews or anything else.

    “Grapes no longer grown in the Willammette Valley”?

    Oh yeah they’ll be under water right?

  • dean

    Merry Christmas…even to Mr or Ms Anonymous.

    I wonder if anyone bothered to read the report. I skimmed it. It s a rather bizarre paper that does not seem grounded in the reality that Oregon is in fact experimenting with and depolying alternative energy projects all over, especially wind power, which the authors of the report seem to thnk has been stymied by “extremists.” Yes, on occasion local and regional groups, including landowners and commercial fishers who are anything but extreme oppose specific projects in specific locations, but they usually accep modification rather than take a zero compromise attitude.

    Anyway…the paper is much ado about absolutely nothing. Oregon is developing energy projects left right and center, and “radical environmentalists” are not stopping much of anything.

  • John in Oregon

    I had intended originally to comment directly on the content of the Freedom Works study. Then I happened across a letter which commented on “Global Warming” the underlying issue of energy inaccessibility.

    The letter from Dr. Frank Tipler. Dept. of Physics at Tulane University, is extraordinary in that in its discussion of the intersection of Government, political power, and science it touches on the overarching problem of a system out of control. The combination of government and science

    As a rule I usually present selected portions here. However in this case I believe Dr. Tipler should receive a full airing of his publicly released letter to William Katz.

    =====================

    As regards global warming, my view is essentially the same as yours: Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a scam, with no basis in science.

    A few comments on my own particular view of global warming:

    (1) I am particularly annoyed by the claims that the “the debate is over,” because this was exactly the claim originally made against the Copernican theory of the Solar System. Copernicus’ opponents said the idea that the Earth was the third planet from the Sun was advanced by Aristrachus in 300 B.C. (true), and had been definitely refuted by 100 A.D. The debate is over! Sorry, it wasn’t: the Earth IS the third planet.

    (2) It is obvious that anthropogenic global warming is not science at all, because a scientific theory makes non-obvious predictions which are then compared with observations that the average person can check for himself. As we both know from our own observations, AGW theory has spectacularly failed to do this. The theory has predicted steadily increasing global temperatures, and this has been refuted by experience. NOW the global warmers claim that the Earth will enter a cooling period. In other words, whether the ice caps melt, or expand — whatever happens — the AGW theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology.

    (3) In contrast, the alternative theory, that the increase and decrease of the Earth’s average temperature in the near term follows the sunspot number, agrees (roughly) with observation. And the observations were predicted before they occurred. This is good science.

    (4) I emphasized in point (2) that the average person has to be able to check the observations. I emphasize this because I no longer trust “scientists” to report observations correctly. I think the data is adjusted to confirm, as far as possible, AGW. We’ve seen many recent cases where the data was cooked in climate studies. In one case, Hanson and company claimed that October 2008 was the warmest October on record. Watts looked at the data, and discovered that Hanson and company had used September’s temperatures for Russia rather than October’s. I’m not surprised to learn that September is hotter than October in the Northern hemisphere.

    It snowed here in New Orleans last week and it was the second heaviest snowfall I’ve seen in the 25 years I’ve lived in New Orleans. According to the local newspaper, it was the earliest snow had fallen in New Orleans since records were kept, beginning in 1850. I myself have looked at the relative predictive power of Copernicus’s theory and the then rival Ptolemaic theory. Copernicus was on the average twice as accurate, and the average person of the time could tell. Similarly, anybody today can check the number of sunspots. Or rather the lack of them. When I first starting teaching astronomy at Tulane in the early 1980’s, I would show sunspots to my students by pointing a small $25 reflecting telescope at the Sun, and focusing the Sun’s image on the wall of the classroom. Sunspots were obviously in the image on the wall. I can’t do this experiment today, because there are no sunspots.

    (5) Another shocking thing about the AGW theory is that it is generating a loss of true scientific knowledge. The great astronomer William Herschel, the discoverer of the planet Uranus, observed in the early 1800’s that warm weather was correlated with sunspot number. Herschel noticed that warmer weather meant better crops, and thus fewer sunspots meant higher grain prices. The AGW people are trying to do a disappearing act on these observations. Some are trying to deny the existence of the Maunder Minimum.

    (6) AGW supporters are also bringing back the Inquisition, where the power of the state is used to silence one’s scientific opponents. The case of Bjorn Lomborg is illustrative. Lomborg is a tenured professor of mathematics in Denmark. Shortly after his book, “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” was published by Cambridge University Press, Lomborg was charged and convicted (later reversed) of scientific fraud for being critical of the “consensus” view on AGW and other environmental questions. Had the conviction been upheld, Lomborg would have been fired. Stillman Drake, the world’s leading Galileo scholar, demonstrates in his book “Galileo: A Very Short Introduction” (Oxford University Press, 2001) that it was not theologians, but rather his fellow physicists (then called “natural philosophers”), who manipulated the Inquisition into trying and convicting Galileo. The “out-of-the-mainsteam” Galileo had the gall to prove the consensus view, the Aristotlean theory, wrong by devising simple experiments that anyone could do. Galileo’s fellow scientists first tried to refute him by argument from authority. They failed. Then these “scientists” tried calling Galileo names, but this made no impression on the average person, who could see with his own eyes that Galileo was right. Finally, Galileo’s fellow “scientists” called in the Inquisition to silence him.

    I find it very disturbing that part of the Danish Inquisition’s case against Lomborg was written by John Holdren, Obama’s new science advisor. Holdren has recently written that people like Lomborg are “dangerous.” I think it is people like Holdren who are dangerous, because they are willing to use state power to silence their scientific opponents.

    (7) I agree with Dick Lindzen that the AGW nonsense is generated by government funding of science. If a guy agrees with AGW, then he can get a government contract. If he is a skeptic, then no contract. There is a professor at Tulane, with a Ph.D in paleoclimatology, who is as skeptical as I am about AGW, but he’d never be considered for tenure at Tulane because of his professional opinion. No government contracts, no tenure.

    (8) This is why I am astounded that people who should know better, like Newt Gingrich, advocate increased government funding for scientific research. We had better science, and a more rapid advance of science, in the early part of the 20th century when there was no centralized government funding for science. Einstein discovered relativity on his own time, while he was employed as a patent clerk. Where are the Einsteins of today? They would never be able to get a university job — Einstein’s idea that time duration depended on the observer was very much opposed to the “consensus” view of the time. Einstein’s idea that light was composed of particles (now called “photons”) was also considered crazy by all physicists when he first published the idea. At least then he could publish the idea. Now a refereed journal would never even consider a paper written by a patent clerk, and all 1905 physics referees would agree that relativity and quantum mechanics were nonsense, definitely against the overwhelming consensus view. So journals would reject Einstein’s papers if he were to write them today.

    Science is an economic good like everything else, and it is very bad for production of high quality goods for the government to control the means of production. Why can’t Newt Gingrich understand this? Milton Friedman understood it, and advocated cutting off government funding for science.

    Dr. Frank Tipler.

    =====================

    HT to William Katz at Urgent Aggenda.

    Its important to note here Dr. Tipler “emphasized in point (2) that the average person has to be able to check the observations. I emphasize this because I no longer trust “scientists” to report observations correctly.”

    That task has now fallen to Web News sites such as the Catalyst.

  • Pingback: Togel online()

  • Pingback: casino online()

  • Pingback: bandarq()

  • Pingback: domino 99()

  • Pingback: sexy()

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)