“Audubon’s equivocal policy on wind power ostensibly calls on wind energy developers to consider planning, siting, and operating wind farms in a manner that avoids bird carnage and supports ‘strong enforcement’ of laws protecting birds and wildlife. On the other hand, the same Audubon policy speaks about ‘species extinctions and other catastrophic effects of climate change’ and ‘pollution from fossil fuels’.”

The cover of the January-February 2016 issue of Audubon Magazine  proclaims: Arctic on the Edge: As global warming opens our most critical bird habitat, the world is closing in. In reality, it is the magazine’s writers and editors who have gone over the edge with their misleading reports on the Arctic.

This magazine is so awash in misstatements of fact and plain ignorance of history, science, and culture, that they must not go unchallenged – especially since they epitomize the false and misleading claims that have characterized far too much of the U.S.…

“EPA and ER had simply ‘miscalculated’ how much water had backed up…. We were ‘very careful.’ The highly acidic, toxic flood was ‘worse aesthetically’ than in reality. Contaminants were ‘flowing too fast to be an immediate health threat.’ … The river is ‘restoring itself’ back to ‘pre-spill conditions’. We just need a ‘focused dialogue’ moving forward.

Can anyone imagine EPA or President Obama making such statements in the wake of a private industry accident? Just recall the hysteria over the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, Deepwater Horizon (Macondo) blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, PCB contamination in the Hudson and Fox Rivers, Duke Energy coal ash spill in North Carolina, and other accidents.”

Tom Sawyer would be proud. Rarely has there been a finer whitewash than EPA’s with the Gold King Mine disaster.…

“Is global warming from burning fossil fuels sufficiently dangerous to stop its use and replace our vast, inexpensive energy sources with possibly expensive and environmentally challenged solar, wind, ethanol from corn, other biofuels, and biomass (predominately burning wood). The answer is absolutely not–or not in the least.”

Some GOP candidates have responded “I am not a scientist” when confronted by questions about climate change (global warming). President Barack Obama singled out the phrase in his 2015 State of the Union speech stating,

I’ve heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they’re not scientists; that we don’t have enough information to act. Well, I’m not a scientist, either. But you know what, I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and at NOAA, and at our major universities.

“The final analysis is: Lots of jet fuel expended but not much accomplished in getting the public alarmed enough to make themselves energy poorer. The public is not listening for good reason. They have been hearing the same thing since 1988 (27 years) and the data does not support a present or future crisis.”

To be sure, if a politician is barking about global warming, he or she has little to say about the real issues that concern Americans, from economic progress to federal budget deficit reduction. But yelp they must; the science has been going away from climate alarmism, and the economy is getting no boost from government-enabled, inferior energies (quite the opposite).

In an effort to stir up support for an economy-shrinking treaty from the UN Conference of the Parties-21 (COP-21) meeting in Paris this December, President Obama went on a whirlwind one-week tour promoting the global warming scare with many speeches, photo-ops, and newspaper columns.…