Jim Patterson and the California Valley solar ranch

April 17, 2012

Alex Alexiev


Fifth District Supervisor Jim Patterson has distributed a campaign brochure touting the fact that he “has led the effort” to approve two solar energy projects and “provide nearly 400 skilled worker positions” at the California Valley Solar Ranch (CVSR).

Since Mr. Patterson evidently considers this the major achievement of his tenure as county supervisor to date, as evidenced by the top billing given to the ranch in the brochure, it is worth looking into some other facts about this project that he prefers not to tell his presumed voters:

· CVSR will generate only 12 permanent jobs per year after construction, according to developer Sunpower Corp., after receiving a $1.2 billion federally-guaranteed loan, or $100 million per permanent job.

· Sunpower Corp. was already a majority foreign-owned company (by French oil giant Total) and was exporting jobs to Mexico (building a factory in Mexicali) when it received the federal loan and was promoted by Patterson and others.

· CVSR will not have to pay property taxes on its solar panels, depriving the county of an estimated $14 million in tax revenue a year.

· It signed a contract with PG&E to sell it electricity at approximately 50 percent above market rates, costing its rate payers, including San Luis Obispo County citizens, $463 million over the life of the contract.

· Despite these lavish subsidies, Sunpower lost $604 million in 2011 and its stock price is down over 70 percent since April 2011 and 90 percent since 2007, and, according to Total’s CEO, would already be bankrupt had it not been acquired by Total.

Mr. Patterson and like-minded officials would undoubtedly justify the huge economic costs such schemes impose on the citizens of our county by invoking the paramount objective of fighting global warming.

So let us for a minute look at how much good California can do to that effect. Even if one assumes, which I do not, that there is global warming, that it is indeed anthropogenic and that there is an urgent need to cut down CO2 emissions, nothing California or the United States, for that matter, can do will make the slightest difference in global emissions, given that China, India and 140 other countries refuse to participate.

The United States’ current emissions of green house gasses are 4.2 gigatons per year, decreasing at a rate of 5 percent per annum. California’s share is some 500 mln tons. China’s emissions are 7.7 gigatons going up at 13 percent per year. Should California decide to eliminate all of its emissions and go back to a hunter-gatherer type of society, the effect would be a one-time, 50 percent reduction of Chinese yearly emissions growth.

Alex Alexiev was a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washinton D.C. He writes for several national publications including National Review.


The author of this art9cpe, is as stated, a member of the Hudson conservative think tank that was founded by Herman Kahn, a military strategist and free market advocate (trickle down economics) and the Rand Corporation.

This is obviously a hit piece against Patterson because his seat is the only one really constested. Adam HIll’s seat is secure even though he has done some “really” dumb things.

No mention of the other members of the BOS who supported this project.

In the last election Debbie Arnold raised two times more money then Jim did. One bi g contributor gave her $20,000, another contributor gave her$18,000. She had so much money she couldn’t spend it all and was giving it to other candidates.


The main problem with the “centralized” energy production methods are that the goal of any centralized energy producer is to make a profit above all else, regardless of how that energy is produced. We have as a society subsidized fossil fuel energy production ever since electricity has been utilized as a means of providing power to businesses and homes. We subsidize those fossil fuels in that we have many people living near those plants getting sick due to the outright pollution being generated by the electrical production as well as by the after effects such as acid rain that has polluted the Atlantic Ocean resulting in the fish harvested there having a high mercury content, so much so that there are strict warnings about consuming too much fish from the northwestern area of the Atlantic ocean. The health costs of mining those fossil fuels is also another cost that society pays for, just as society pays for uninsured people who use an emergency room for primary or even last-ditch healthcare. Over the years we have put in place many systems to reduce the pollution from those fossil fuel plants, but in reality the societal costs have resulted in a form of a “subsidy” for the fossil fuel energy producers. Nuclear fuel electrical production is also highly subsidized because no company would be able to self-insure if the federal government was not there to back those plants. Centralized solar production suffers many of the same problems as other types of centralized production methods, just without the associated risks of nuclear production or the health costs of fossil fuel production. The answer is very clear, de-centralized energy production; the big problem with that? There is no “profit” for energy production companies, just a means of producing energy more cheaply without the associated health risks or potential for a nuclear release or a terrorist attack.

Some have raised the example of what Germany has done to the solar industry as an example of how solar is supposed to be a “failed” technology; in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. The conservative government of Germany has pulled the rug out from under the solar industry in Germany so they can subsidize centralized off-shore wind production, thereby ensuring that a few companies can make a profit at energy production, borne at the cost of removing the subsidies for p.v. solar panel installations that have pushed Germany into the forefront of renewable energy production. Great read here about just that issue, with a great debunking of the claim that solar is somehow a “failed” energy source. Specifically, read in the article about how much China is subsidizing their p.v. panel makers to the point of them being able to sell their product at below the cost of what it takes to make their panels.


A very thoughtful and considered comment but off-topic. What are your thoughts on the District 5 Supervisor race?


Off topic? The writer of this screed is claiming that Jim Patterson somehow responsible for the economic viability of these solar power plants, or he was instrumental in the tax arrangements; an overreach to be sure. The “topic” of Jim Patterson as the District 5 Supervisor doesn’t seem to be focus of this “article”; the writer seems to be intent on pointing out how flawed solar power is, how foolish it is to pursue unproven technology, and any government official that gets involved is tainted. My point is that the technology isn’t flawed, government intervention and/or subsidies are not only the right thing to do, we should encourage more.

I am not in District 5, but if I could vote for Jim Patterson, I would.


You missed my point. Energy policy is certainly worthy of discussion, but that’s not why this piece is here. It’s a campaign ad that should have closed with “My name is Debbie Arnold and I approved this message”.


No I did not miss your point; I do agree that this is a hit piece against Jim Patterson, but it is also a hit piece against solar power. How I read the article is that the writer would have you believe that solar power isn’t perfect, how there have been too many problems for large plants like this to succeed (which may or may not be valid) but, the writer is attempting to disparage Mr. Patterson by trying to link him to the negative aspects of these large solar plants, attempting a “two-fer” of planting in the minds of the low information voter that these plants are flawed, Mr. Patterson is involved in great depths (in the writer’s mind) therefore throw Mr. Patterson out of office. My point is that the technology is not “flawed”; these plants are not the “best use” of the area, the mindset of grouping together a large array like this to make a profit is not a positive step for society, but if the companies installing solar panels can come up with a better business model that has them putting more panels on more homes and spreading the collection of solar energy power to the grid in a de-centralized manner, all of society benefits with the exception of those trying to make a more than just profit.


Bob. Please reconsider your writing style. I think you may have had some points worthy of consideration in there but the “Wall of Text” makes it almost unreadable. The concept of paragraphs has a solid basis.


we’ll be lucky if 50% more is all we pay over the current electric rates, from what goes on out there I’d be surprised if either project gets finished, it was pushed thru with a snow job to the people of the Carissa planes, the Bechtol corp, which is headquartered out of the country would not listen to residents about the problems out there and yet still blunders on, the county has loaded the job with enverionmental rules and regulations that would make Linda Blair spin her head again, and the people riding around doing nothing but collecting a paycheck is un believable. Someone must not have read the plans very well as 5000 solar panel poles had to be jerked out of the ground because they were installed incorrectly, you would have thought that some one might have caught it at the 1000 mark, lets see what else, oh yeah the fruit cakes paid around $100,000 to plant a grain field with grass and guess what it didn’t grow so they decided to try again, they have wasted so much of our tax money out there it should be a crime. Both those projects are a farce


“Someone must not have read the plans very well as 5000 solar panel poles had to be jerked out of the ground because they were installed incorrectly,”

Not quite as expensive as the reversed reactor plans at Diablo Canyon back in the day I suspect. We are still paying for that with no end to rate hikes in site. Oh I forgot “Nuclear power will be to cheap to meter”.

Personally I think solar on existing and future rooftops is a positive step forward and not a big proponent of Corporate solar in the wild lands. Funny, sunny money.


I agree, if we took away oil subsidies and bailouts for wall street and used that money towards subsidies and bailouts for people to put solar panels on their homes, that would be money well spent instead of wasted on fat cats. Put that money in these solar panel manufacturers to drive the prices down for home solar panels so everyone can afford them.


Yea check out how well the subsidies did in Germany for solar.


They worked, subsidies primed the pump, now solar is everywhere in Europe subsidies end early, they had the intended effect. DUH.


Um did you miss the news? Germany is pulling out in a BIG way on solar. It has been a financial disaster for them. Guess you don’t get that in your biased news you must read.


Reference, please.


Mary all you have to do is go to the internet and querry. It is a know fact. Do your own homework.


In a sense, Germany’s solar energy policy is a victim of its own success.

Over a decade ago, politicians enacted a complicated subsidy system designed to kick-start the green-energy sector, which faced enormous competitive barriers when pitted against mature energy sources like coal and nuclear.

no need to thank me.


You must have been anxious to read what you wanted to hear and not grasp the whole article. I noticed you wanted to reference the first couple paragraphs with your comment about complicated subsidy system. Of course they mention later in article that it has cost a fortune (more money) on the backs of the payers and in the end wind power is cheaper. So explain why do I need to thank you??? You are right there is absolutely no reason to thank you.


I will throw in that earlier in the PV industry there was a bottleneck in getting the panels in the US due to German demand that skewed the market. A guy told me “all the panels are in Europe”. I asked if they we’re all made in Europe; he said “No, they’re made in Camarillo, they all go to Europe”. No problem anymore, all made in China.


I did a little checking around and think that there is some truth to the point you are making but it isn’t the whole story. Zaphod has some of the truth too — the solar subsidies did help make the solar panel demand large enough to help reduce prices. To the (debatable) extent that government should be involved in subsidizing industries, this would seen to be a proper use of such subsidies. Have we become so use to permanent subsidization (nuclear, oil) in this country that we regard with suspicion ending such subsidies when they have had their desired effect?

Also, with regards to Germany, their weather is not nearly as conducive to maximizing solar panel efficiency as that of California Valley.

The Gimlet Eye
Kevin Rice

The 5000 solar pedestals that needed to be relocated were the result of a mistake by the project surveyor. Who incidentally was the low bidder from Nevada.

Several well qualified survey firms from this area did not get the job….because they weren’t cheap enough. Their proposal most likely included time for quality control checks for their layout work. I’m guessing the low bidder’s proposal did not.

The cost to relocate the pedestals should be a back charge or withheld from the surveyors payment. That is, if his original contract would cover it.


Certainly agree with that. Insurance requirements for bidding on projects of this scale would be large enough to cover the expense of replacement. Of course, litigation, blame game and dealing with Nevada Inc engineering firm will drag it out.


Bechtel’s corporate headquarters are located in

San Francisco, California, USA.


According to NorCoMod the survey engineering firm is from Nevada.

The Gimlet Eye

Penguins, Polar Bears, Glaciers, Arctic Ice All Thriving

Global warming alarmists debunked yet again by reality



Alex Jones? ok


the outlines or extent of the ice is not the mass of the ice and that is what we have been losing for thirty years. (that ice drives the ocean conveyor current that governs the temperature.


Gimlet don’t confuse people with reality. It hurts their minds. I love this whole global warming that a lot here get their panties in a bunch about. They read a couple pro pieces that it is happening and then don’t want to hear any other aruguments.

I have seen quite a few interesting things in the last five years from various sources. The History Channel had a good one a few years ago called Little Ice Age. Happened about four hundred years ago and we are in a simular pattern now with ice melting up in Greenland. It snowed in New England at the time in the middle of July for about a month. Today people would scream that there is your evidence it is happening.

Or another I read in a magazine you can’t accuse of being a conservative mag. In National Geographic about five years ago showing that the North Pole was smaller in size 10000 years ago than it is now.

Another on Discovery with many Geology samples taken from past.

Or how about when the dinosars roomed the earth and it was like a hot house at around 140 degrees!!

This aren’t made up stories folks. These aren’t my stories. These are things I have read and seen by numerous sourses without a political bent.

The earth has been in flux since the beginning. The first 3 billion years the oceans where green and uninhabitable due to lack of oxygen.

People are running around with date from the last 150 years and TOTALLY disregarding the last 5 billion!!!!!! Give me a break.

The Gimlet Eye

The best documentary that I have seen is:

The great global warming swindle – Full version



These are two snippets from that link:

“Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.

The findings appear January 19 in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.

In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments.”

“Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.”

The majority (97%) of scientists understand that people are are playing a roll in climate change. Basically those that don’t believe global climate change is caused by man are PETROLEM geologists and meteorologists. Unfortunately those with the vested interest in keeping this myth that climate change is isn’t caused by man also have control over the con media which in turn are able to keep the truth from all but 58% of the population and that’s a shame/sham. People are so easily influenced by big corp $$.

CCN only wants 1 link per posts so I CCPed this from NASA’s website:

“Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent. This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.”

This is an interesting bit that I CCPed from the Huff. Report:

“According to International Business Times, a study by Yale and George Mason University found it is mainly members of the Tea Party who do not believe climate change is occurring. Legalplanet.com reported the majority of Democrats (78%), Independents (71%) and Republicans (53%) believe in global warming, while only 34% of the Tea Party agree with them.”

Ah yes, the ‘Tea Party’ that group of highly intelligent people.


Anyway, I have files and files of info on global climate change, I read a lot about it and also do a lot of very armature armature research on this topic (as hard as it is to believe, I’m not really a scientist :) ), but I’m trying not to get sucked into this, it’s like talking to tables, but I guess I did. Honestly there really isn’t any point, you will continue to believe what the petroleum industry wants you to believe, they own you, they wouldn’t want you to think independently by learning from most of the worlds top climate researchers.

The Gimlet Eye

You sound like a conspiracy theorist. I don’t put any stock in paranoia.

The Gimlet Eye

Opposition To Global Warming

Severely Suppressed

Silenced Global Warming Critics Expose Gore’s Hoax

By Lawrence Hecht

Executive Intelligence Review


Sources: Daily Mail, Canada Post and Others 3-5-7

The Gore climate machine loves to claim that there is no scientific opposition to their human-caused global warming fraud. It’s a lie. The real truth is that anyone who criticizes it is either misrepresented or silenced. Some examples:

** Prof. Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris said the list of scientists endorsing the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was a “sham,” because it included the names of panel scientists who disagreed with its exaggerated climate predictions. Reiter, an expert in malaria, told the London Daily Mail that he only got his name removed after he threatened a lawsuit. “That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” Prof. Reiter said. In a report in the Jan.-Feb. 2000 issue of {Emerging Infectious Diseases}, Reiter showed that the claim that the increase in malaria was due to climate change was absurd. Dr. Reiter contributed a Viewpoint to {21st Century Science}, Winter 2003.

** Senior French physicist and pioneer of isotope studies Claude Allegre came out against global warming last September, after having been one of its most outspoken proponents for over 15 years. His case is featured today in Canada’s National Post, in an ongoing series called “The Deniers.” Fifteen years ago, Dr. Allegre, had been among the 1,500 scientists who signed a highly publicized letter stressing that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.” But last September, in an article in {l’Express} (“The Snows of Kilimanjaro”), Allegre said that the retreat of the Kilimanjaro glacier had nothing to do with human-produced carbon dioxide, and also pointed to growth in the Antarctic glacier. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the “science is settled,” he said. A member of the U.S. and French Academies of Science, Allegre is a pioneer in the field of isotope geodynamics, a method of dating past events like the formation of the atmosphere, by isotope signatures. He participated in the Apollo lunar program, where he helped determine the age of the Moon. Allegre is also a leading figure in the Socialist Party and served as Education Minister.

** Oregon State Climatologist George Taylor is under threat of losing his job for arguing that most climate change is the result of natural variations, not human-produced carbon dioxide. Despite threats from the Governor and a pending bill in the legislatures to have him removed, sponsored by Democratic State Sen. Brad Avakian, Taylor has held firm. “If the facts change, I’ll change my mind. So far, I haven’t,” Taylor told a climate change conference at Oregon State University. Taylor has held the title of “state climatologist” since 1991, when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU.

** Chris Landsea, one of the world’s foremost experts on hurricanes, resigned from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in January 2005, in protest over their bias. He wrote an open letter shortly before the issuance of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. Dr Kevin Trenberth, the lead author of a part of the IPCC report had participated in a press conference claiming the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season was caused by greenhouse gases. Wrote Landsea: “To my knowledge none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin.”


Typoqueen says:

04/20/2012 at 9:45 pm (Edit)

“watch one of his recent appearances on Fox TV’s “Hannity and Colmes””

Is this supposed to help prove that Ball is reputable? LOL that’s rich! Sorry, there’s not enough money in the world to make me watch ‘insaHannity and token Colmes’. I’ve don’t my time, I’ve watch Sean enough I simply can’t stomach him anymore, he’s an idiot.

So Ball working for Exxon doesn’t mean anything to you eh? Guess there’s no debating you. You do understand that Exxon has a vested interest in claiming that C02 isn’t causing global warming? Are you able to get that?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0


Hey, if you going to edit it then you might has well fix the typos as well ;)


I just found the time to watch your video and now I remember that I’ve seen it before. These are just a few people from your video that I picked out and did a fast fact check on.

Prof. Ian Clark is associated with the Competitive Enterprise Institute as a ‘scientist on call’, basically another con think tank:

“With more than a $3 million annual budget, CEI is supported by both conservative foundations and corporate funding. Known corporate funders in addition to ExxonMobil include the American Petroleum Institute, Cigna Corporation, Dow Chemical, EBCO Corp, General Motors, and IBM. One of CEI’s prominent funders is conservative Richard Scaife who has provided money through the Carthage and Sara Scaife Foundations. CEI is also heavily supported by the various Koch brother foundations. (http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute

Prof. Tim Ball is associated with a right wing lobbying think tank and advisor for Exxon as well:

“He has been Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Committee to the now-defunct Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), “scientific advisor” to the Exxon-funded Friends of Science (FoS), and is associated with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP) and numerous other think tanks and right-wing organizations.”

Piers Corbyn, he uses the title of Dr. Corbyn but no one has been able to pin him down on where he received that degree or that he even has a degree. I found some of his interviews on on a few Lyndon LaRouche sites but this is basicly what he’s about:

“He is a London-based meteorologist who claims that he has a system enabling him to predict the weather with accuracy months in advance. He claims that his “solar weather technique” uses “predictable aspects of solar activity—particle and magnetic effects from the Sun to make weather forecasts MANY MONTHS ahead.”

He keeps the details of his methodology for making predictions a secret, and has been criticized for making unfounded claims about the power of his predictions, even after they turned out to be inaccurate. He has never published accuracy figures for his weather forecasts.

He is an advisor to the Campaign to Repeal the Climate Change Act ( repealtheact.org.uk )”

John Christy, also a contributor to the CEI con think tank that has ties Exxon and other petroleum corps.

I just CCPed those things, too many websites to post the links to. But as suspected, the people in your video have an agenda in most cases that agenda is locked in with oil companies. They are simply a minority of biased people that have a clear agenda, and that agenda is money and pushing the right wing talking points but certainly not based on science.

The Gimlet Eye

Timothy Ball

Environmental Consultant and Former Climatology Professor, University of Winnipeg



Dr. Timothy Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. He is also chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP). With a doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England, Dr. Ball’s comprehensive background in the field includes a strong focus on the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.

Dr. Ball is a researcher/author of scientific papers on a range of environmental issues. He has recently (December 06) co-authored a paper for the scientific journal, Ecological Complexity, with Baliunas, Dyck, Soon, Baydack, Legates, and Hancock titled “Polar bears of western Hudson Bay and climate change: Are warming spring air temperatures the ‘ultimate’ survival control factor?” He is also co-author of the book Eighteenth Century Naturalists of Hudson Bay (2004 – McGill/Queens University Press) with Dr. Stuart Houston, one of the world’s leading authorities on arctic birds.

Dr. Ball is a leader in the current global warming debate and appears regularly as a guest on radio and television – click here to watch one of his recent appearances on Fox TV’s “Hannity and Colmes”; click here to listen to his June 9, 2007 radio interview on the Nick at Night on CFRA Radio in Ottawa, Ontario.

Dr. Ball is also published frequently in leading newspapers and magazines across Canada and, increasingly, the U.S. and abroad. A measure of Dr. Ball’s impact was seen recently when, after one of his pieces was featured on the Drudge Report, a leading on-line news service (click here to see original piece), he received approximately 1,000 e-mails from the general public during the next 24 hours, 90% of which were supportive. Dr. Ball personally responded to over 500 of these, providing respondents with information as requested – as a consequence several are now NRSP supporters.

The Gimlet Eye

The Climate Science Isn’t Settled

Confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted



“Even if one assumes, which I do not, that there is global warming,”


“National Review”

Enough said.


Enough said?

You’re apparently going to dismiss a fact laden article by cherry picking two phrases that you disagree with?

Can you get beyond your bias against the author’s personal opinions and take issue (or not) with his facts?


Hudson Institute is loaded with neo-conservative “thinkers” check the funder list.


Lewis “Scooter” Libby is a former adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, later disbarred and convicted of a felony.senior VP at Hudson,

hudson home of felons and traitors sold out one of our own agents to serve this ideology.


there is always something more to say.


Don’t get me going.


Sounds so much like ALEC/Koch. One of the most disturbing points on that was this part:

“In 2002, Hudson received a grant of $173,484 from the Department of Commerce.

The Hudson Institute’s IRS Form 990 for the financial year ending on September 30, 2003 showed total revenue of $9.34 million, including over $146,000 in government grants.”

We can all imagine if dems had forced tax payers to help flip the bill for a lib ‘think tank’ there would corruptions charges all over Faux. Of course the rest of the contributors are no surprise.

Errr you make me so mad but you sure find some interesting stuff!


your mouse is underutilized! select text and search , left-click-hold> select. right-click> search =bingo.

Wikipedia is just fantastic constantly updated by an ever-growing group of editors dedicated to cataloging all the information in the world sharper sensitive historians filling in the shadows of history, or herstory


Guilt by association doesn’t stand on its own. If you make broad assumptions based on the political bent of a person, many of those assumptions are bound to be wrong. When enough assumptions are wrong, your whole argument fails.

Example: I am an old-school liberal. I’ve been a Democrat my entire voting life. I volunteered for the Obama 2008 campaign, and donated a lot of money, too. Many people assume that means I will vote for him, and all other Democratic Party candidates in 2012, and nothing could be further from the truth.

I’d rather stick needles in my eyes than vote again for Obama, and the majority of “Democrats” in the Senate (and many in the House) won’t get my support in 2012, either.

That’s because I am an issue-driven voter, not a party-driven voter.

Mr. Alexiev may be issue-driven in his opinion, as well.

Hudson Institute is a Scaife-funded organization, as is Judicial Watch and many of the other critics of climate change, renewable energy, etc.

During the Bill Clinton witch-hunt, it turned out that most of what these same Scaife-funded organizations criticized about Clinton was wrong. They were not wrong about the Lewinsky affair and the Paula Jones accusations.

Whether you think a president’s marriage infidelity is worthy of impeachment or not is another matter. I, personally, don’t, and I am still pi$$ed off about the $$$millions we wasted on the Starr inquisition.

But what they accused Clinton of, in a few areas–they were correct.

So Mr. Alexiev may also be correct on this issue. I would check it out first, however, before I discounted opinion because of the peeps he professionally hangs with.


point taken, Obama is the extension of Bush doctrine just as Clinton extended Bush doctrine.


Well, it’s either Romney or Obama. I would take Obama and Clinton over ANY one of the those that were on the repub ticket. I wish that Obama would stand up to the right but he won’t. Obama’s definitely better than the alternative. Same with Patterson, he’s much better than the alternative.


It’s “either Romney or Obama” only for those who allow the two dominant political parties in our country to choose which candidates we can vote for.


Okay, then vote for someone else, lets see how that works for you.


Obama is the right there is no left all we have is the ugly scar.


Obama is after the right every time he speaks now. Romney’s credentials overshadow Obama’s and I voted for Obama last time. Not again. As for Arnold, she’s common sense, property rights oriented and I like her ranching ties. Jim’s had his turn. New blood is needed, and it won’t hurt that she’s a woman.


Hudson is a conservative think tank.


It is enough said. Any person that still believes that we aren’t contributing to global warming isn’t worth a lengthy debate, they just don’t have the ability to debate in an educated intelligent manner. I have debated that topic in great length, provided tons of reliable resources and these (you) types close their eyes to facts. His job references at the bottom of the page make the rest of his points unreliable (I certainly wouldn’t brag those jobs). Zap just pointed out where he’s coming from, no wonder he won’t face the facts about global warming, he’s employed by people that have vested interest in spreading such lies. Not worth my time, who knows if anything he says is true and I don’t have the time or energy to look up his allegations.

Patterson is up for re-election so I’m sure that there will more mud coming down the wire.


Do you dispute the “facts” presented on CVRS. If they are wrong, then maybe you can supply the corrections. The author is not arguing “global warming”. Tell us how his facts are inaccurate.


From Typo—“they just don’t have the ability to debate in an educated intelligent manner. I have debated that topic in great length, provided tons of reliable resources and these (you) types close their eyes to facts. His job references at the bottom of the page make the rest of his points unreliable (I certainly wouldn’t brag those jobs).

Typo, these are some of Mr Alexiev’s activities in the last 20 years.

During nearly 20 years as a senior analyst with the national security division of the Rand Corporation, Alexiev directed numerous research projects for the Department of Defense and other agencies. He is the author of several books and myriad monographs and articles on national security issues. His present research focuses on issues related to Islamic extremism and terrorism. Alex Alexiev is an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C.

So,Typo, what are your credentials, jobs, publications (books and articles in national journals) that show us you could provide a more intelligent debate than this person?


I didn’t write the article. Are you saying then that you won’t criticize Obama because your credentials won’t hold up to his? Did you see zap and Al’s posts (re. Hudson Institute, COLAB)? I’m not going to play this game of repeating the same points over and over. They both bring up valid points that pretty much say it all.

When it comes to global warming my child could provide a more intelligent debate then this guy. This is a political hit piece against Patterson, nothing more.


“Did you see zap and Al’s posts (re. Hudson Institute, COLAB)? I’m not going to play this game of repeating the same points over and over. They both bring up valid points that pretty much say it all. ”

Only when your bias agrees with their’s. Most of us have an agenda, or preference at least, and we tend to believe what we want. Yours is left, others are right. Big surprise.


There’s already mud in the N. County campaign. Some of Debbie Arnold’s signs have already been destroyed. Pretty sad commentary on Patterson supporters, whoever they are. Counterproductive to say the least.


So, you actually “believe” that .00248% of anthropogenic CO2 in our atmosphere is producing dramatic shifts in the natural climate cycle. Do you also “believe” Dr. Phil Jones, the “brains” behind the hockey stick graph, when he says there’s been no warming since 1995?


Do you “believe” Dr. M. Mann of Penn State, co-contributor to the “hockey stick graph”, who states in an Email to Jones that we must “hide the decline”.

Do you “believe” the Times world atlas after they were caught exaggerating the Greenland ice retreat by a factor of 150? They claimed it was 15% when in fact it’s .1%.


Anyone stilling buying into this rubbish is a useful idiot. Sorry

The Gimlet Eye

I’ll second that. It’s all part of the information war in which we are now engaged. The truth has already come out. It’s just a matter of time before it drives the junk science from the field.


China doesn’t give a crap about anything having to do with the environment. That country will be the downfall of mankind one day.


Don’t discount America’s huge role in the destruction of our planet.


An Opinion piece brought to you by your friends at COLAB.


But is the piece well-reasoned and true?

Probably be more germane to address the message than the messenger. Do you find fault with the conclusions drawn and implied in the piece? Or did your brain slam shut once you determined it wasn’t someone from “your team?”




I have no problem with the piece although I do, by personal observation of world ocean reef structures, that global warming is happening.

Just wanted to point out that Mr, Alexiev sits on the Board of COLAB which for the most part remains pretty secretive as to its members and purpose. Certainly they are out to unseat Jim Patterson, that is a given.


Thank you for pointing that out, it’s important to know that Mr. Alexiev has an agenda. If he sits on the COLAB board then that adds quite a bit more to this story. I don’t have a problem with the piece as long as it’s pointed out as you and zap have done that author has an obvious agenda.

It’s disturbing that certain people won’t care and they will believe everything this guy says. You can lead the horses to water but you can’t make them drink. They’d rather die from dehydration than do what’s best for themselves.

Kevin Rice

THAT’S BUNK. Are you part of any groups that have an agenda? If you write a letter will you disclose all your memberships? Do other members in your group do so?

You’ve got this backwards. People write because they believe in something. People join an organization like the Sierra Club because they have common beliefs. When people write they are expressing their views. When Sierra Club members write letters should they be forced to disclose? Or, are they just writing their opinion?

It cuts both ways.


I believe climate change is a reality, as well. However, just because his opinion is wrong doesn’t mean the data he provided to support that opinion isn’t correct.

In fact, I think this opinion piece is a great demonstration of how far some op-ed writers will go to spin reality to produce the opinion they started out to prove.

Kevin Rice

When the Sierra Club publishes its membership then feel free to complain. Name ONE private organization you support that is not “secretive” (your words).

The Gimlet Eye



A discourse by G. Edward Griffin

Without notes or preparation, Griffin fields questions about the United Nations, global warming, and how these topics are tied together. Here are some of the issues covered:

Is the UN our last best hope for peace or the foundation for global feudalism? Is the UN controlled by leaders of nations or by hidden structures and power brokers? If the latter, who are they? Are American elitists motivated by love of country, desire for international harmony, or something less admirable? Is it possible to get out of the UN, or have we passed the point of no return? With regard to global warming, what is Agenda 21? Is forced population-control justified to save the planet? Is the UN’s report on global warming based on valid science? If not, then what? If the mission of the World Health Organization is not world health, then what? What are the IMF and World Bank and why should anyone care about them? What is the Freedom Force strategy for reversing the trend toward global feudalism?




Griffin has been a member and officer of the John Birch Society for much of his life and a contributing editor to its magazine, The New American. Since the 1960s, Griffin has spoken and written at length about the Society’s theory of history involving “communist and capitalist conspiracies” over banking systems (including the Federal Reserve System), American foreign policy, the Supreme Court of the United States, and the United Nations.



civil rights


all considered communist plots by the JBS at one time or another.

Fact: the United Nations were the “winners” of World War Two.

the JBS maintains ties with doctrinaire fascists via ethnic heritage groups within the GOP.

Rachel Maddow Fact checks the JBS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp7cWrw6h2c

The Gimlet Eye

He is also a documentary film producer, e.g., What in the World Are They Spraying?, the head of FFI (Freedom Force International), author of numerous books, most famously, The Creature From Jekyll Island, and is a frequent guest on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory. He has many video lectures out on the net and has done the world a great service through the years in exposing the NWO (New World Order) and the wonderful police state that they have planned for you folks. You’ll love it!







You simply must read W. Grieder’s “Secrets of the Temple” and get at least up to 1990 speed of what the Fed does.

Griffin cribbed all his FedReserve theory from Eustace Mullins a little closer to the source Eustace helped get Ezra Pound out of the St.Elizabeths federal mental hospital after WW2


Griffin also has the cure for cancer.


Um the United Nations where the winners of world war two? Tell me genius how is this possible when IN FACT the United Nations was formed as a result of two world wars in the twenty century?

Let’s look at the track record of the U.N. The FIRST war they got us into was Korean war. We are in a fifty plus year truce. Can’t think of any other wars they have sanctioned?? They have santioned actions but I am talking war.


Did the united nations win world war two?

left click> select text. right click> search.


Harry Truman announces the surrender at 40:14 in this British documentary.

The Gimlet Eye

Australia’s new global-warming tax (called the carbon tax) is about to be launched. It will crush the economy. Utility companies won’t disclose how much gas and electric bills will increase in order to pay the tax. [When it all finally comes together, it will be interesting to see what Australians will do to challenge the global-warming myth and the New World Order elites who are perpetrating it.] Activist Post 2012 Apr 11



Everyone here should start reading up on the UN’s Agenda 21. Here’s the UN source: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

The Gimlet Eye

Yep, scary, isn’t it? So scary in fact, that it’s no wonder that a lot of people don’t believe it.