NEWPORT — Torch Renewable Energy LLC is adjusting its plans for a wind and solar energy facility to accommodate the people and agencies around the proposed site, according to town manager Tim White.

Mr. White and Town Planner Bob Chambers attended a scoping meeting Tuesday in Wilmington on the company’s proposed facility for the Newport area.

Mr. White said the company has reduced the number of turbines it proposes for their facility from 50 to 40 and have rearranged some of the proposed turbines’ locations to accommodate Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point.

“The meeting went very well,” Mr. White said. He provided a rundown of the meeting as the public could not attend. The N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, which conducted the meeting, said it was closed because it was with a potential client.

“It was an exchange of information, with Torch asking what additional information they could provide,” Mr. White said.

Company officials spoke to multiple local, state, federal and military agency representatives at the scoping meeting.

The company is looking to build on deeded property: 7,000 acres belonging to the Weyerhaeuser Company of New Bern and 150 acres from an unnamed, private owner, both tracts just east of the corporate limits of Newport. In addition to the wind turbines, the facility will have a 50-75 acre solar panel farm between Little Deep Creek and Little Deep Creek Road.

According to publicly available documents from the scoping meeting, the project comes with a capital investment cost of $180-250 million. It will tap into the power grid through Duke Energy Progress, though Tammie McGee of Duke Energy Progress said in an email Thursday that Duke Energy Renewables is not directly involved in the project.

Torch Renewable Energy chose the site after reviewing nine potential locations across four counties over eight months. The company found the site near Newport avoids restricted airspaces and is in Duke Energy Progress’s service territory. The company said a facility on the site won’t impact the view on any scenic byways and will compliment forest-growing and landowner operations.

The company said the site has existing transmission potential and has a highly energetic wind resource with wind speeds of 6.5 meters per second (14.51 mph). This would allow a facility there to help meet the state’s renewable portfolio standard – a requirement to provide a certain percentage of power through renewable energy sources – of 12.5 percent by 2021. The site also has proximity to the Morehead City port and the N.C. railroad.   

Mr. White said DENR will be passing down more information to the town staff as it’s received by the department. A General Assembly bill recently made into law, H.B. 484, requires anyone who wants to create a wind energy facility to get a new state permit, established by the bill and issued by DENR.

In addition to the siting permit from DENR, Torch Renewable Energy will also need several other permits, including:

•    A state Coastal Area Management Act permit.

•    A state Erosion Control permit.

•    Pre- and post-construction state stormwater permits.

•    Newport building and conditional-use permits.

•    A Carteret County building permit.

•    A Carteret County wind energy permit.

•    A Federal Aviation Administration determination of no hazard.

•    A N.C. Division of Water Quality 401 certification.

•    A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit.  

Newport is working on new ordinance language to regulate wind energy turbines. The town planning board recommended approval to the council of a draft ordinance at the regular board meeting Oct. 21, which was turned into a special council meeting so the council could attend. The council will hold a public hearing on the ordinance at its regular council meeting Nov. 14.

The draft ordinance, if approved, would require applicants for a town building permit for building wind energy turbines to first get all necessary state permits. It would also require a minimum setback of 1,300 feet from property lines for wind turbines, plus an additional setback of 2½ feet for every foot of height on the turbines. There would also be a shutdown requirement for wind turbines if they produce noise over 45 decibels at the property line for over 48 consecutive hours.

This shutdown requirement would also apply if the turbines produce shadow flicker or light glint on any non-participating property at more than 120 seconds per day for seven consecutive days (20 hours maximum per year) and if it falls within 100 feet from an existing residence or business property. Flicker and glint may not fall on roadways; the only exception will be roads with traffic volume less than 500 vehicles per day and if the flicker or glint doesn’t fall on an intersection of public roads.

(145) comments


Wonder how much the folks will have invested in this venture?


While renewable energy isn't perfect, it's a step forward to reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources as well as drilling off of our own shores. The only people who stand to lose from renewable energies are oil companies and OPEC


dc, 180 to 250 million dollars! This is stupid. The tech and science sector already knows this wind thing is not ready due to cost, we all know this so why go thru this huge expense thats making a few very rich. Thats all this is, is making a few rich. Now also at the same don't you know a large portion of this startup money is in fact coming from the Feds and our tax dollars and thats what jerks my chain. How about that wind project at C Mast thats locked up due to no maintance and rember when the ribbon cutting party happened and how they would sell back electric? This is a MONEY MAKER FOR THE CHINA COMPANY MAKING THE WIND FANS! Its all about CHINA!


Who were the losers in Solyndra and all other renewable failures? Can't imagine how the oil companies and OPEC lost anything.

David Collins

inthemiddle , just doesn't get it. The rest of you do. Lets just hope common sense leads the way. This is doubtful with the Obama administration because he wants to be known for something. So, he is going for the Al Gore tract. Yeah, he will be known for making much ado about nothing, yet raking in millions in speaking fees.What else do you expect from an affirmative action guy . good choice guys and gals.

Capt Grumpy

Yep It won't work..... already doesn't work all over Europe!!!!!!!

If the wind does quit they can call me and I'll get in my skiff!!!!!!!!


I bet none of you have any idea where your electricity comes from, all it takes for you is flipping that switch.

What if you lived there and had to deal with health effects and poor air/drinking water? Our electricity comes from coal, particularly coal that is removed by Mountaintop Removal. We need to take steps to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and since the coast of NC has some of the highest wind potential in the country, it only makes sense to have some wind projects here.


All you have to do is read their website. Buying carbon credits, wind from Iowa, etc. for the renewable requirement stuff. Expect the real stuff comes from Duke probably generated by nuke, gas, and coal. They are probably switching coal to gas as much as possible. Believe read somewhere permits have been granted for a new nuke. Where does your's come from? Hope you keep a small carbon print like Gore so y'all can keep telling everyone else how to live, but live the way you want.


Your electric rates will increase as a result of this project.

Your health will decrease.

This project would not happen without being heavily subsidized by your tax dollars. Duke Energy will be paying much more for the electricity from a wind turbine and solar than you are now paying to Duke Energy. They will then pass that along to you in the form of higher rates.

Google the fact that currently there are over 14,000 abandoned, rusting. unsightly wind turbines in just the US. Any of the information that follows can easily be found in legitimate information sites other than the regular media.

So in about 7 years, as many of similar sites have become more of a maintenance problem and when the project managers have gotten all of the revenue they can out of it, they will become rusting monuments to our stupidity.

Nearly one million birds, bats, and eagles have been killed this year due to collisions with turbine blades in the US. Expect to see more mosquitos, fewer herons, fewer egrets, and fewer birds of prey. It's a Federal offence to kill an eagle unless you operate a wind turbine and these will kill hundreds of birds in Newport.

The wind always blows at 14 miles per hour 24 hours a day in Newport and the sun always shines all night long. Or maybe it doesn't. That's when the inefficient oil generators will need to be fired up in order to even out the power supply. How will you enjoy that sound? Many of the European wind farms resulted in a net INCREASE in oil use rather than reduce oil consumption.

Have you considered how much energy and pollution China generates to sell these to the suckers in the US? How much rare earth is mined in China for your benefit? Check the clouds of pollution billowing out of mainland China. China is so happy about wind power and solar, they are building coal fired electric plants at the rate of one a month, and without any of even the old time pollution controls much less than the ones currently being imposed upon American regulators. It's been 30 years since a new coal plant in the US.

Since it is being demonstrated by the most recent scientific data that there has been NO global warming for over 15 years, that we are having fewer severe weather events, and there is no significant sea rise exactly why do these folks want our energy prices to become unbearable for manufacturing and business. In fact the current growing concern is global cooling over the next twenty years.

Europe spent billions on non-sustainable "renewables" of wind and solar and it has dramatically increased fuel prices and made it harder for normal folks to heat their homes. People have died as a result. Those governments are dramatically backing down on subsidies because they are NOT sustainable.

So this project WILL increase your electric rates, create an eyesore that will last decades, kill wildlife, increase insect populations, and produce very little real energy.

And after trillions of dollars have been currently spent, the total global output for solar and wind powered electrical generation is less than 2% of the total amount of energy produced.

There's more explaining that needs to be done.

David Collins

inthemiddle," I bet none of you have any idea where your electricity comes from, all it takes for you is flipping that switch. "

I like just flipping the switch. In the pics, I noticed that there were roads going in and out, with no armed guards holding anyone back, should they chose to leave. Work can be messy and even dangerous but some folks chose to do it. A little like commercial fishing. Stop the poor exploited worker thing and you do realize that those mountain tops were not always there.

As far as wind projects, go for it. Get your permits in hand and go forth and generate, using your own money rather than mine, of course. Hope you do well and become a fantastically wealthy person while saving the earth from the mountain toppers.

"We need to take steps to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels,"
Where have I heard that before, yeah! it was our exalted fearless leader, just before he turned over the billions in cash to the green energy companies that took the money and then went out of business. We haven't learned a thing, have we? Scam, scam, scam . Have they returned the turbine, in Morehead, back to working yet ? I sure do miss all the electricity it generated.


Just looked up the location on Mapquest and it's TOO CLOSE TO HOMES. I'm all for wind farms that are 10 miles or more from homes (depending on size of wind farm) ~ and that land does exist here and all over the country. Don't disrupt peoples lives for green innovation. Green innovation and consideration can coexist.


Don't even get me started on the economic stronghold that coal holds in Appalachia, with those kinds of responses it sounds like you've never been to Appalachia and honestly have no legitimate reason to comment on things you know nothing about. I have worked on and visited these Mountaintop Removal sites, especially after they've been "reclaimed". Not to mention the environmental and health damage it does to the people of that region. Eastern Kentucky and Southern West Virginia is the poorest/most cancer stricken region in the US. We need other options than just fossil fuels, which will run out in just a few generations. Also, for those of you who get upset about subsidies to green energy, why aren't you so upset about the trillions of dollars spent on oil, natural gas, and coal subsidies? What aren't you upset about your tax dollars going to an over-inflated military? Why aren't you upset about the billions of tax dollars you spend on making sure large agricultural operations stay in business but small family farmers go by the wayside? There's a lot of hypocrisy going on here.


This project might be okay if it isn't financed primarily by tax dollars and they use the Bird Safe Turbines described below.

Insist on a bond for paying for removal / decommissioning when they abandon the site.

Hiding the slaughter Committed by Big Wind

The Bird Safe Wind Turbine

Hiding the Slaughter

600,000 Bats killed

Abandoned homes near turbines


Would love to see family farms stay in business. Know of a few in this area, and they seem to be doing fine. Many have sold out because the offers are too good for them to turn down for whatever reason. Large agricultural operations are like all other big business operations. Big govt and big business as usual. Current crowd believes in even bigger both and now big socialistic health care. Think oil pays out a little more than green energy and it's surely needed more and certainly works better when you really need it. What's your proposal for jobs in Appalachia?

David Collins

inthemiddle , I have always had a problem with subsidies. If a business can't make it on it's own, so be it. If we must subsidize the energy companies at least we are getting something for our money. Green energy, so far , has given us no return at all Now with that in mind, Our Defense Dept. has crawled into bed with certain industries. Eisenhower, warned us of all that. No one listened. Now everything distantly related to defense is subsidized. Not the proper thing to do at all. Farm Bills are just as bad .

No I haven't vacationed in Appalachia but know a road when I see it. People chose to do what they do and live as they wish. Want to be a coal miner, fine. The risks are well known and yes, when you live in a company town, you shop at the company store. Have seen several pitiful, tear jerking UNC tv documentaries on the plight of that place , probably has a rather shallow gene pool as well. One sort of goes along with the other.

All this back and forth will amount to nothing because the decision is going to be made by politicians, that are addicted to money. They could care less about us and really wish we would just pay taxes and shut up.


Oh there are some cases of birds dying? Well how about humans....

Local Paper Studies Stream Damage

Entire Ecosystems Being Destroyed

Human Health and Environment

Mountaintop Removal Linked to HIGH RATES OF CANCER

Wind Turbines can be designed to limit excessive sound and bird deaths, however Mountaintop Removal (where NC gets their electricity) has proven time and time again to be poisonous to the environment and the PEOPLE that live there.


Rather than wasting time and $ on green energy why isn't the EPA doing something about really important stuff like this? Seems if this country outlawed coal-fired plants the surface miners would just keep mining and exporting. Surface mining versus below ground mining has probably saved some lives but that doesn't help with the lives of the local folks getting cancer from the dirty water. Sounds like EPA isn't listening to the locals. Why? Could it be the current crop running things are too consumed with more important issues like green energy, unaffordable health care, etc.? Are there no organizations in the mountains comparable to those around here concerned about the environment and actually doing something about it? Maybe some of the coastal folks could give them some advice.

David Collins

Dude, get a grip. It ain't gonna happen tomorrow. Take a mother's little helper and get a good nights sleep.


Just listening to C-SPAN EPA hearing. It was all about the "air" and nothing about mountain tops and water. Manufacturing industry rep talked scrubbers and carbon capture and rightfully mentioning we have the technology and are cleaning the air but unless China cooperates the problem looms large. If the EPA allows and controls fracking waste why aren't they requiring similar controls for the locals in the mountains? "Wind turbines can be designed...". If they can why aren't they? Lots of "cans", but certain movements seem to apply the direness of the situation to their favorite issues. The poorest air quality I've experienced is in large cities. Don't like my well water so I filter it with a Aqua Rain Natural Water Filter. Stay away from the cities as much as possible and filter my water. Flat-lander and don't care for mountains. Respect nature which includes birds and their habitat. Believe development should be better controlled locally unlike some who are only looking $. China is now reversing their previous policy of pushing small farmers to move and work in the cities. Probably in addition to the $ aspect the reason they bought Smithfield/Murphy is to learn the operations to take back home for all the obvious reasons. They are doing well copying everything we do.


You seem to have an agenda about mountain top removal. But only in the United States. You could go to China to battle it there. No amount of solar and wind power will ever be able to replace our needs for fossil fuels in our lifetimes. You could start by only driving your electric car (electricity generated by coal and heavily subsidized by tax monies). You can install solar on your home (solar panels which uses fossil fuels to manufacture in greater quantities than it will ever save). You can buy wind turbines in from China (manufactured with sub-standard coal-burning plants and shipped here on oil-burning ships). In order to have power when the wind and sun are not available, purchase expensive storage batteries that decline in capabilities over time, need to be replaced frequently, and are very dangerous to you and the environment. Or you can own an oil-fired electrical generator) You can eliminate all plastic (made from that fossil fuel oil) but what would that leave around now. Not the computer you have in front of you. And certainly not the batteries and the automobile and most of what you own that has plastic in it. By the way, it is suggested that the replacement batteries in your coal-powered electric car will cost upwards of $7,000 to replace in about 7 years. Factor that in the fuel savings.

Because you can afford it, you have invested several hundred thousand dollars in gear that will pay for itself in idealized conditions in less than twenty years only if your buddies otherwise drive up the prices of energy for the rest of us. Even with the degradation of efficiencies of your gear you will have to have saved several times that amount again in an economy decimated by exorbitant fuel prices to buy it all again.

Or you could allow the United States businesses to develop enough local fuel and energy resources that will keep our energy always available, prices the lowest in the world and allow us to have the revenue to keep our environment the cleanest in the world.

strip mines and their processes are very heavily regulated to minimize damage and pollution. Accidents happen with anything. Would you say that because a web site that doesn't work by "accident" that ALL health care should be shut down. But, let's not digress anymore than we have.

Your links are interesting in the fact that two of them are referring to the same politically motivated "studies" by "researchers" with an obvious agenda. Their language indicates that they had pre-determined the outcome. Much like most of the politically-motivated "global warming" studies that have now been exposed as being done to politically limit our energy production, increase tax opportunities, and create centralized government control. If you have the same governmentally-funded "researchers" saying the same wrong things for twenty years, why is it necessary to continue to have such a strong religious faith in what they say.

Another link indicated in their report that their initial purpose was to criticize strip mining practices. And they did.

In the other, the "researchers" interviewed a little over 700 people by their admission and then determined that 60,000 new cases of cancer resulted from strip mining. Do you have any idea how many folks live in the mountains of Kentucky? Did you know that black lung disease is not found in any surface mining workers and the rate of fatalities is virtually nil over sub-surface mining.

I lived in Kentucky for many years as a engineer in an unrelated profession to mining. Part of my experience involved actually engineering, selling, and installing solar heating systems in the 70's. They were good and efficient systems. They had their limits. There were energy tax credits then that made them affordable. The scam artists came out in droves to sell questionable systems with inflated prices. Energy tax credits ended and so did solar, because it was not economical without subsidies. Tax credits and subsidies abound today and again the scam artists abound. It has been reported that some of the European solar and wind companies have ties to organized crime. When your tax subsidies end, so will the insanity of today, because only political motivation drives wind and solar business. Duke Energy has been mandated by government to have a percentage of their energy business come from "renewables" and that's part of the problem. They would not buy this very expensive form of energy if there was not a political mandate.

Your links show photographs of active strip mines.

Find some links to photographs of all of the reclaimed and restored areas that had been strip mined. 100% of them have been reclaimed and restored. You'll find functional recreational lands and productive retail areas that otherwise would not have been possible. Even with some of the early engineering issues with building on this type of reclaimed land, the coal companies happily restore the land to a use better than it was. I know. Yes, the EVIL coal companies. Strip mines are actually very rare. You really can't drive through Appalachia and physically see a strip mine. You have to have an aerial photograph or trespass on private land. It always has been, and is still an amazingly beautiful area through which to drive.

Those who opposed coal mining of any sort were usually outside political activists who seem to be driven by being happy to drive people out of employment and raise all of your energy prices. Guess where the coal from the mines that haven't been closed by your buddies in the EPA is going. To China on oil-powered trains and then on oil-powered ship.

Do you have any idea that the vast majority of those who live in the mountains have no qualms about strip mining because it provides jobs, community resources, and the highly reclaimed land provides a rare quantity of flat land for community development that they have desperately needed to improve their recreational opportunities.

Because this project in Newport is politically motivated, it will likely happen with vast sums of your tax money. We can only hope that bird proof, noise-abated systems are mandated by the local officials. And that local officials insist on a financial bond to be able to afford to decommission and dismantle the project when abandoned.


Ok well that was a lot of rambling but I'll try to answer some of your questions. First of all, the EPA is in my opinion, one of the most hypocritical and understaffed agencies in the US Gov. They do not get the funding or manpower to enforce all the rules and regulations of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. When the EPA started requiring coal-fired power plants to either shut down or switch to "cleaner" burning techniques, the industry had a pity party and said they could not survive with such intense regulations. Well, they got a sentence changed in the Clean Water Act during the Clinton then Bush administration that changed where the coal companies could put the waste rubble from mountaintop removal. It made it legal to dump the leftovers right into headwaters, choking the rivers and drying them up. The EPA was intended to cite and charge these companies for offenses that were in violation of the Clean Water Act but there were so many cases of it happening they claimed they didnt have the manpower. There are several organizations that are determined to making mountaintop removal illegal once again including, which teamed up with Google Earth to show detailed accounts of Mountaintop Removal sites. You might be a flat-lander and thats all fine and dandy but do not be ignorant to where your electricity comes from, because if that was happening here in another context, I do not believe you would be thrilled about it.

That's the exact location of where the town of Swansboro gets its electricity.

David Collins

inthemiddle, Are you talking about that thick black wire that goes from the town hall , straight across town and heads north west, ending up at the flat topped hill in Tennessee? Yeah, I can see it on Google Earth, they were nice enough to let me team up. It has a bright orange plug on it with a label that says " To Swansboro With Love". Always wondered about that wire.

The EPA is just like the IRS. A tool that Govt uses to punish those that see things differently. By golly, we will show them. Attack!


So Aroundawhile, because I disagree with your extremely conservative and fact-lacking ideas, I have an agenda? There is nothing I can do about what China is doing to their own landscape but I do have a voice in what happens here. I do not own an electric car, due to the fact that I could never afford one but also because they do far more environmental damage just by being created than they would ever save. There are certainly problems with solar panels (rare minerals are mined, some dangerous i.e. selenium) and wind turbines but the environmental damage caused by these alternative forms of energy are so little in comparison to the environmental and human degradation of mountaintop removal, as well as fracking, offshore drilling, tar sands extraction... most of the time if it deals with carbon you will have pollution and contamination. Maybe you lived in KY in the 70's but you obviously haven't been there recently. You can drive through Kentucky and West Virginia and clearly see MTR sites, let alone hear the blasts and breathe in the dust. Have you ever seen a reclaimed site? Not one aspect of it is reclaimed or "restored". No native vegetation, clearly unnatural stream channels, retail businesses, do you honestly think citizens like this? Why then are most of them starting petitions and protesting to the governers office to eliminate the practice? Would you want to live with eight billion gallons of toxic coal sludge sitting above your child's elementary school? It's about so much more than your "cost" of energy when people are losing their lives and their health so you can have a cheaper power bill. Coal has been the only industry in the past century in Appalachia that has provided jobs, and the government and industry have kept it that way. The workers who work these job sites do it because it's all they have to do. In all honesty, Mountaintop Removal has made it even harder on the coal miner since heavy machinery requires less hands to work it, therefore coal companies laying off a majority of their workers and blaming it on regulations. And to touch on your bit about climate change, I wont harp on it too much because you know there's several thousand independent scientists who all agree, it is not whether or not you "believe" in climate change. It's not a religion, it's empirical evidence that humans have contributed to heavier amounts of pollution in our atmosphere. The biggest culprit is coal fired power plants and the ridiculous amount of sulfer dioxide they emit into the atmosphere. Every legitimate scientific publication in the world agrees that anthropogenic pollution has attributed to an elevated rate of pollution in our atmosphere. You can hide under a rock all you want, and honestly me and you will be gone before the effects start to really take an obvious toll, but I have kids and grandkids that I am slightly fond of and would like for them to have a healthy lifetime.


Around awhile, the only health care that needs to be shut down is that unaffordable kind that has the Ds scrambling. Lol. Glad to hear your take on the reclamation, but I'll stick with the flat land around these here parts. We visit my wife's folks in the mountains occasionally, and it's a relief to get back to what those folks call boring driving. Mining isn't the only ones taking off mountain tops. They took one off to build an airport.


Appreciate your thoughts, dc. My gas MPG increased by 15% when we moved to the flatlands of the beautiful coast. That should make the inappropriately named "in the middle" happy, even if it is "fact-lacking." The usual way you can tell that those have lost in a discussion with a wildly "extreme conservative" like some of us is that the name calling begins and then fact less attacks to how it must "feel" to cause humanity to suffer.

But wait. According to the religion of "global warming," uh, "climate change," uh, "global weather disruption," uh, global cooling..." we should all be moving to the mountains because we are causing "sea level rise." I'm surprised that some folks have not already moved. I hear there's the lifestyle of simplicity and lesser in the Appalachia. You grows and kilt' your own food and live up the haller'

The name calling and spouting socialist-inspired ad hominine attacks about what have long been effective and valuable sources of energy without offering any alternative to those except to make them artificially more expensive and more heavily taxed and in shorter supply with more government involvement.

You forgot that there is no ice at the poles and that polar bears are in decline, both things that you have had to stop saying be cause just the opposite has proven true by actual facts. Ten years ago your buddies said these things were going to be true by now.

There is not one program of any complexity that has been demonstrated to reduce our dependence and requirement for fossil fuels to simply maintain our existence. The only suggestion is to raise taxes. Then to do what with it? Fund more socialism and government dependency.

It's interesting that after me providing all of the links to what factual information, there are the usual "talking points" from the low information folks who have bought into the new religion. Faith in our Creator is essential. Faith in government paid politically inspired researchers is not of God. Show me list of the "thousands" of independent researchers who are not paid by governments.

"97 per cent of warmists cite a 97 per cent that’s false"

"Global Sea Level Trend – 1.08 mm/year"

"Climate Con Artists Exploit Typhoon Haiyan "

"Cyclones, typhoons and cherry-picking"

"Australia says “No” to UN wish list of billions – will “not support socialism masquerading as environmentalism”

"Antarctica Not Melting: Ice Levels At Record High"

"Why Not to Regulate Carbon Dioxide Emissions"

So many more facts...

So much more name calling as the primary argument...


Climate Change isn't a religion, especially because it's actually been proven. I still don't think anyone has been able to definitively prove that jesus was real. You may say it's name calling but I just call it adjectives to support frustration with ignorance. Oh look, you just called me "socialist", now who's doing the name calling? You say our current sources of energy are "valuable" and "effective", have you ignored everything that I have been saying so far? They're not effective or valuable if people are losing their lives over the extraction. There's really no need for you to bring faith into the matter seeing as you cannot harness faith and turn it into an energy source, although if you could the entire south would be completely energy independent. You also like to call professional researchers who have a lot of schooling under their belt "low information", but then you cite links to websites that have no one to answer to where they are allowed to just spew whatever comes into their head. One article you posted was one guy at a newspaper in Australia giving you his opinion, thats the FARTHEST THING FROM FACT BASED INFORMATION POSSIBLE!!! So, here is some legitimate information for you, they're not hysterical or over the top, it is just facts that state what we have been learning over the past couple decades.

Regional Impacts of Climate Change

Understanding Climate Change

Climate Science

Environmental Security


You guys keep wanting to say that conservatives are living in the past.

And you attempt to demean me again by name-calling when at no time did I use a name to describe anyone. You can't deny that there are those who are socialists saying many of the things you repeat. And saying that I have ignorance again would not be name calling. Guess not.

Exactly what is the real total temperature rise globally over the last 20 years?

Exactly what is the total sea level rise over the last 20 years?

But you have a faith that something dramatic is going to happen immediately to the global climate. And that all we have to do is give the government more money. Where exactly has federal government created a program and really solved ANY issue? What federal government programs and taxes made this the most prosperous county in HISTORY?

You link to reports that are outdated and mostly supposition and conjecture rather than science. The current 2014 IPCC report in process significantly downplays what the 2010 report you show says (even though the professional politicians getting rich have amped up its rhetoric.) The third link is from a company that SELLS engineering services to those who are going to use your tax money on "renewables" and thereby get paid by the government. The last is from the Pacific Institute whose President is guilty of publically unethical behavior and who receives large amounts of funding from the government and from groups backed by George Soros, perhaps one of your favorite folks attempting to damage the United States as he short-sells stock in industries he damages.

Your "Regional Impacts..." link is a very dated report (2007) based on governmentally-funded computer models of which the Pew Research Center gets most of it's funding from government resources. If you examine how many times it uses the words "might," should," "could possibly" they are saying that these things might happen unless we pay the governments more taxes. Of course, since they are dated reports, you can now tell that virtually all of the events are not happening.

Here's some current links with actual science based on current events:

Scientists Blast Obama’s Global Warming Myth: You’re Basing Politics on Faulty Computer Models Rather than Science

Leading German Business Weekly Declares IPCC Science A Failure: “Time For A New Climate Policy”

New paper demonstrates climate models don't even have the 'basic physics' of the greenhouse effect correct

Do the Math – Count the Cash: Climate ‘disaster’ exists only in the minds and computer models of climate alarmists’

Climate Alarmists Seek Shelter From Public Storm: ‘When the data consistently conflict with their hypothesis, reputable scientists revise the hypothesis.

Gross Scientific Negligence – IPCC Ignored Huge Body Of Peer-Reviewed Literature Showing Sun’s Clear Impact

GLEICK BACK: Peter Gleick, the scientist who obtained documents from The Heartland Institute by pretending to be a board member and then leaked them to the press, has been reinstated as president of the Pacific Institute following an independent review backing up Gleick’s claim that he did not falsify any of the documents, the Pacific Institute says. A Pacific Institute spokeswoman would not tell POLITICO who conducted the review and said it would not be released, calling it a “confidential personnel matter.”


The Unbearable Lightness of the Climate Change Industrial Complex

New Subsidy Report: Subsidies for Renewables Increase 186 Percent


The Regulatory Personality in Energy Markets - Incompetency


The Return of the Chimney Sweep


Prairies vanish in the US push for green energy

David Collins

From what I get out of this is that inthemiddle wishes for someone to agree that there is such a thing as climate change. I for one do agree. One only has to look at the discovery of warm water fossils found on mountains and in the arctic along with other like discoveries. Now , the events that caused the change took place rather slowly, millions and millions of years and are still in place. Sea level rise is a fact,largely due to the nuances of evaporation and plate tectonics. We use satellites to measure various heights but if the benchmark is moving, even ever so slowly, the result is flawed. In a dynamic universe, nothing is still. Same goes here on earth. We are all in a state of constant change.

Now, I believe that inthemiddle confuses climate change with pollution of the environment, or a change in the make up of the air we breath. This we can alter and rather dramatically. This, we can also make improvements to but rest assured, with the rapidly growing population, yearning to be all that they can be, things look rather bleak. Mother Earth can only support so much human life before pulling back. Wonder when that point will be ?

Can't help but wonder, if not for all the wasted resources expended on pie in the sky schemes, could real progress have been made with what we now have and is readily available. After all, in the 60s, cars were getting 8-12 mpg and now that has gone to 22-40 mpg and even more, with better performance as well. Positive change can happen.


Germany’s Unaffordable Wind Power

Reclaiming the Moral High Ground


What About Wind Power’s Ecological Insults

Why It's The End Of The Line For Wind Power


Making corn-based ethanol badly hurting environment


Windfarm Mortality: Environmental Disinformation, Ecodamage

On the Population Time Bomb


Fossil fuels now beat wind and solar on environmental as well as economic grounds


Is this where the wood pellets will go from Morehead City? For how long before they stop and that local development is useless?
Wood-burning Power Plants: Misguided Climate Change Solution?


Noise, vibration from turbines at West Virginia wind farm continue to stir complaints

160-foot blade breaks off western NY wind turbine


350 foot tall wind mills (more than a football field tall) 40 of them?


It seems youve gone the quantity over quality route...i.e mastersource, cato...


Have I misunderstood an ad hominem response regarding and rather than offer specific instances of specific poor quality?


The Cato Institute is a thinktank that originated as the Charles Koch Foundation. They pump money into "grassroots" organizations and pretty much fund a ton of research to undermine projects that conflict with their business interests. Therefore they spend a lot of money hiring people to publish reports about how climate change is fake and neighborhoods needing to be re-segregated.


As it seems the ad hominem attacks become direct lies that are unsubstantiated as is typical of many of the persuasion that admire repeated political dishonesty in their current highest elected officials and their appointees.

Again just baseless attacks. No substance or factual information.

•The Cato Institute does not undertake lobbying efforts, back political candidates, or engage in direct political activities.
•Cato is not associated with any political organization or party — Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or other.
•Cato is a think tank, dedicated to increasing and enhancing the understanding of key public policies and to realistically analyzing their impact — positive, adverse, and other — on the tenets Cato is dedicated to protecting — individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace.
•Cato is committed to expanding civil society while reducing political society. The differences: In civil society individuals make choices about their lives while in a political society someone else makes or attempts to greatly influence those choices.
The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.

If there is no evidence that mankind has changed climate, then why would someone disparage those who try to report it by attacking their motives.

David Collins

When one has no facts, only theory, you have no choice other than to shoot the messenger.


It began as the Koch Foundation, formed by David Koch, co-owner of Koch Industries and major leader in the development of the tea party. If you want people to take you seriously I wouldn't be quoting the tea party....


This Newport project. Forty 400 foot tall windmills. Land denuded. Storm water runoff. Property values. Damage to roads during construction. Traffic re-routing. Okay with dead bald eagles now, but banning DDT to "save" raptors using faulty science in the 1970's kills 50 million third world malaria victims.

francis got inthemiddle pegged correctly. no facts. just attack.

Inaccurate continued attempts to denigrate and demean others with continued ad hominem attacks because of nothing valuable to impart.

Demonstrate anyone who you admire who is as philanthropic as the Koch Family Foundations. From one of their websites:

Progress. Prosperity. Well-Being.
Koch family foundations and philanthropy are grounded in the belief that free societies are the best generators of social progress, sustainable prosperity and well-being for all. This is possible in a system that allows people the freedom to pursue their own interests within beneficial rules of just conduct, while demonstrating personal responsibility.

Areas of Interest
Each Koch family foundation is managed independently, accepting applications and awarding grants separately.
Areas of interest vary and include:

Fostering entrepreneurship
Arts and culture
Research & education
Environmental stewardship
At-risk youth
Medical research
Human services

Where’s The Real Environmental Crisis?

Real Agenda: Global Wealth Redistribution


Ok, what you are perceiving as an attack, is merely an attempt to show you that not everything that you read on the internet is true, and that there are "grassroots" organizations funded by the billionaires (the Koch's), to undermine any type of evidence that goes against their business model.

There are seven major pollutants that we emit into our atmosphere everyday that is linked to anthropogenic activities. Vehicle fuel combustion, power plants, large agricultural operations (like the hog farms in NC), and the list goes on. VOC's are called volatile organic compounds and they are especially dangeorus because not only do they weaken the ozone layer's ability to filter UV rays coming in, they block those rays from then leaving our atmosphere which in turn creates a higher global temperature. Let alone nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide, and other components that lead to very acidic rainfall, it's obvious if you've ever been to the NC mountains where Douglas Fir's near Mt. Mitchell have all but died off. Another example that shows evidence of climate change is our oceans. They are basically large carbon sinks and sequester a lot of surplus carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This excess amount of carbon dioxide is then soaked up by all the little fishies and especially carbonates, your typical shelled organisms and corals. In excess, CO2 levels in the oceans make coral reefs and other shallow marine environments too oxygen depleted to survive and thus ecosystems are slowly eroding away, and when there is high decomposition rates in the ocean, the oceans temperatures rise. A mixture of warm oceans and unpredictable global temperatures is the perfect environment for strong weather systems to develop.

There's some facts for you. All I have seen from you are OPINION articles from newspapers and illegitimate websites with no scientific backing. My whole point to this issue is that we as humans are contributing to a change in the equilibrium of global climate and we need to take steps to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels. Now that does not mean that I am in favor of putting a massive wind farm right next to a neighborhood, but last time I checked there's quite a bit of land in NC that still hasn't been developed, and with the wind potential that NC has, its almost stupid not to make an attempt to harness it.

David Collins

Today we have a new island in the Japans. It is being formed by volcanic action. If you were to go there now, you would die. The point is that all the poisons released, by this natural event,are natural to the earth. All the demonic elements that inthemiddle speaks of occur naturally and the planet deals with them naturally. Yes, these natural events cause extinction events, always have. Just part of the evolving world we live in, or on. Not saying that we don't add to the mix but it is all a part of the nature of us. Those that feel threatened should live their lives in a more basic homespun way. This might even out any imbalance the rest of us may cause and extend our time on this rock.


Thank you. Everything the link you gave lists governmentally-funded, politically motivated articles and reports that were dated 1996 - 2009. Retired NASA's James Hansen has made predictions since the 1970 of global doom and none of them have come close to occurring. He's been arrested numerous times for breaking the law.

But if you value his opinion:

Hansen Announces That Solar And Wind Power Are Useless

Which Climate Control Technique Has The Best Chance Of Success?

More precise refutation will come when I have time.


So just because scientists (who have masters and PhD's) have their research funded by the government they are somehow less valid than the OPINION articles you keep posting. Do you really not understand what an opinion is? Climate Change has been proven by many different scientists, since a majority of them are professors doing fieldwork, their research has to be government funded. I just laid out in detail why and how our climate is changing but all you have in rhetoric is more opinion articles. Also, francis, yes all these pollutants are already present in our atmosphere it's not like we made them up. My point is that we are the reason for elevated levels of these particulates in the atmosphere. You guys did go to school at some point in your life didn't you?


Oh hey! Look I can find biased news sources too! You know whats really funny, the name of the website is called The Real News. What's even funnier is that some of it is true, until you get to the eccentric interview.


Some can't change their ridicule and attacks. It's probably still George Bush's fault. Try just one post without attacks and ridicule. Doubtful.

There is NO EVIDENCE of global warming. There are 80 computer MODELS that suggest global warming. NOT ONE has been proven accurate. For 20 years!
Global warming computer models collapse

About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus…

Climate alarmists' tactics -- exaggeration, misrepresentation, smear and scorn -- have hurt the movement more than helped it. No surprise there. Cultist are always the last to recognize the folly of their ways.

No global warming for 16 years

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Wrong about VOC's (Perhaps your scientists meant to say CFC's)
Ozone destroys VOC's, not the other way around

Wrong about ocean heat and acidification and coral damage.

New paper finds ocean crustaceans not affected by CO2 levels 8 times higher than the present

Al Gore to help lie about green energy record

You choose to ignore the lies of your scientists in CLIMATEGATE

The true "science" behind your unproven beliefs. Global Governance.


Acid rain was clearly causing some problems, but was not the wide-scale environmental disaster that had been feared.

Read this article for research about "scientific consensus" over the years


Climategate language was misunderstood by idiots

Oceans are definitely warming

We are attributing


ocean acidification

Let me know when you get out from under that rock.


Not in the middle keeps up with the name calling. No ability to stop it.

Using dated radical liberal environmentalist web sites and sites funded by government activist politicians who ultimately want global governance and thereby attempt to censor any dissenting reports. At least 100 times more government and activist money spent on this deceit than the Koch brother even posses, much less you purport they spend.

Simple questions that I hope you can be civil about:

Exactly how much are the global oceans more acid than they should be?

Exactly how much warmer is it than it was 20 years ago?

Exactly how much have the seas risen in the last 20 years?

Exactly how many billions of dollars of governmental money goes into supporting climate change?

Exactly how many dollars do the Koch Brothers donate to climate change research?

David Collins

Don't get it, The claim is that the oceans are becoming more acidic. If that were so, the shells, some beach sand and coral would be dissolved. I suspect that the claim should read, some parts of the ocean. Now, when you have volcanic or seismic activity in the sea, it releases all sorts of things in the water. The PH does change, locally. Wildlife is affected. The currents disburse and mix, as they always do. When the acidic water interacts with a basic, calcium, a balance is achieved. Natures way. Been happening since, forever. Of course humans do bring on a bit of acidification by doing what we do. Only one way to change that. Who wants to be first?

David Collins

Eagle deaths at wind turbine farm: Duke Energy agrees to pay $1 million.

This is about all these things are good at.

Govt mandates that they be built and hits you with a fine when birds are killed. Yeah, makes perfect sense. Lets build some more. Idiots!!

David Collins

Now, this is a good one. Where do these guys come from? Didn't say if mile high stadium is in imminent danger, yet!

Senator: Sports Stadiums 'at Risk from...Sea-Level Rise Effects of Climate Change'
- See more at:

Yeah, this guy really needs to run again.


Wow that is funny stuff aroundawhile. You really don't understand that our government is OWNED by people like the Koch brothers. My data is only a couple years old at most and it is BACKED BY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. Like I have said before, all you have put forth are opinion articles which are not legitimate scientific findings. But I guess that's the right-wing extremist way of doing things, scream the same thing over and over until you are blue in the face without any knowledge of what you're actually saying.


Not in the middle: We've grown to expect the continued name calling from you.

Four simple questions you refuse to provide the "scientific" answers for since it would embarrass your religion.

Virtually every one of my posts referenced scientific, peer- reviewed studies.

Your religion of faith in something that is only supported by paid radicals who have to change the data to get the answers their government funders want so that they can raise taxes. Raising taxes for income re-distribution and not for any specific program that would solve your imaginary issue.

Name one program that has been proposed other than reducing population and life styles by taxation?

Look at the post from Nov. 22. Serious questions that you have to know the answers.

Don't have the science to answer them?

Or you could just call names some more. That's what folk of your religion do.

After name calling some more, you could explain how the Koch Brothers have been influencing all of the European nations and Australia, to back off the blatantly failed concepts you have so much faith in. I know they aren't as smart as you.

Your arguments are so strong that the United Nations after 20 years still can't generate enough lies to come to a serious, acceptable agreement, even though they have the greatest interest in getting more of the American tax dollars to save us from that odorless, colorless gas of carbon dioxide which is essential and valuable for all plant growth, and thereby, human life.

Answer the questions, kindly...


Ha! Just on a lark looked at the two year old video link from not in the middle.

More old stuff, because little is being done today, because it is being better challenged by scientists.

Great comedy! Great lies and deception as has become normal from the group who put it together, the radical leftist / socialist Greenpeace organization, members of which sit in Russian prisons today because of their law breaking. The founder of Greenpeace left the organization because it had become so radically political.

Tell us what the annual expenditures are for Greenpeace and from where that money comes. You won't.


Article from highly respected scientist referencing science.

To soon be rejected, attacked and demeaned by the much more brilliant denier "not in the middle"

She quotes: "Some scientists, he says, have tended to accept dramatic scenarios and consequences even when there’s little evidence behind them. He also talks of a group of scientists who fancy themselves as the ultimate authority and who have the last word. All the exaggerations and projections of doom, gloom and disaster have led to an overall discrediting of the field."

The end of the article speaks directly to the attacks by "not in the middle"

By the way, this was written TODAY, not 3 to 10 years ago.

David Collins

"A scientist is a person who has scientific training or who works in the sciences."

Ok, doesn't say anything about being the end all authority. Discoveries are made after the fact. Explains,or best guess, why it happened. Everything else is theory and just like your hind end, everyone has one. I wonder if the janitor, that works in a science building, is a scientist.


It really is never ending with you is it? Your ignorance is blinding you from the way this world really works. Once again you post another opinion article from someone's blog with no legitimate scientific backing. You do know I could start my own blog right now, then write whatever I want on it right? Do you know what the definition of insanity is? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. You know what I suspect? I think you work in the oil/natural gas industry and want to fight tooth and nail against any renewable energy just because it goes against your agenda. Either that or you've been "aroundawhile" so long that pretty soon your generation will be gone and our country will be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Do me a favor, get out of your recliner and visit the MTR mine in West Virginia where your electricity comes from, then visit the town and talk with the people who live there and see if it doesn't change your mind.

David Collins

My, my. We do have a fixation with West Virginia. Are those banjos I hear in the background?

Full Definition of INSANITY
: a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia)
: such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility
a : extreme folly or unreasonableness
b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable


Once again "not in the middle" refuses to answer even ONE of the very simple questions.

I thought you were so much smarter than all of us and all of the scientists who have refuted all of your arguments. You can't handle the true facts or are afraid of them. I'll give you one more chance before I answer the very simple questions for you with scientific documentation (that you can then lie about or ignore).

Your style is to accuse everyone with whom gives you evidence to refute your lack of current facts with the same tactics you have been employing for weeks now in these posts. Your fellow travelers have been doing it for years to keep from addressing the real issue. You have learned those deceptions well. Congratulations. However, you have found no support from anyone here.

You just keep using names and answer no questions. That exactly proves your inability to admit to the current truths, so you say others are guilty of exactly how badly you are behaving.

Once again attack and abusive language.

Tell me more about Dr. Judith Curry, well know and highly published scientist., whom you demean because you are afraid of the scientific evidence she presents. You claim it something it is not. You do exactly what all of you climate alarmists and science deniers keep doing, and have been doing for twenty years. Not telling the truth, making up your own facts..

Only express diatribe and opinion.

Since five simple questions were too challenging for you, we'll reduce it to only TWO simple questions. Only requires two numbers and two links to your made up science.

Exactly how much warmer is the earth than it was 20 years ago?

Exactly how much have the seas risen globally in the last 20 years?

We all wait for your "science!" Or maybe we won't...


Sea Level Rise

Temperature Records

Look, it's ok to be scared of things you don't know a whole lot about. I'm sure Mr. Glenn Beck and Mr. Rush Limbaugh, who seem to think they are climate experts (without a college degree between them), have used fear mongering to intimidate you to believe their nonsense. The point is, ninety seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is being accelerated by anthropogenic activities. Elevated pollution levels in the atmosphere, sea level rise, glaciation loss, oceans warming and calcifying, the evidence is there.

And here's a little tidbit about your favorite denialist Mrs. Curry.

David Collins

Gosh, "climate change is being accelerated by anthropogenic activities". A few years back it was blamed on cow flatulence. Folks in Alaska blamed it on Opilio Crab flatulence. Some scientists even blamed the herbivore dinosaurs. Heck, everything exhales, from one end or the other, sometimes both ends at once, so I guess we all will have to tote the blame on this one. Problem solved, we all go out together, be it by suffocation, drowning or galactic disaster. Now, I know I'll sleep better tonight.

Who is Beck? Does he work for Al Gore? That is your mother ship, is it not?


"Not in the middle" continues with the deception and misrepresentation.

Name calling, demeaning others, and ad hominem attacks.

No science.

Refuses to answer simple questions with real answers.

At least not on purpose.

The old data from his links purports to show that the global sea level rise has averaged 1 millimeter per year over the last twenty years. It then uses Computer MODELS to project amazingly dramatic sea level rises of not much more than that over the next 100 years. Based on what? A computer model.

1 mm = 0.039370 in Note the decimal. That's PER YEAR.

Anyone on the coast seen the sea level rise 20 millimeters in the last twenty years?

It has been demonstrated that in order for NOAA to show a temperature rise of any kind over the last twenty years they took data from thermometers located at airports and parking lots and air conditioning units where the heat was unnaturally high. They then felt that those number need an "adjustment" to make then better. (They didn't considers but a very few places in the Artic or Antarctic). All of those "adjustments" were higher. And even with those "adjustment" the global temperatures are shown to be only
LESS THAN TWO DEGREES higher than they were twenty years ago. Without the adjustment and factoring out the airport jet blasts, those temperatures show global COOLING.

Even with his personal attacks and name calling, he continues his adamant faith in his religion of global warming. He accuses other of the same fear mongering of which he and others have been so successful until actual science began to be revealed to the public.

He attacks the very respected scientist Dr. Judith Curry. A brief lsit of her resume:

PhD The University of Chicago, Department of the Geophysical Sciences in the early 1980s. Won a major award from the American Meteorological Society in 1991 or 2 (check for details). One of the major forces behind the SHEBA experiment in the Arctic in the 1990s. Author of quite a few professional articles (see google scholar, and, no, they're not 'energy and environment' nonsense 'journals'

That was from one of HIS links attempting to demean her.

He won't tell you of the academic credentials of the MOST HIGH guru of his religion, Mr. Albert Gore, multi-millionaire from fear mongering global climate change. It is almost comical that the only course Mr. Gore was successful in were RELIGION courses. He failed every one of his science courses. His original documentary was proven in a court of law to be inaccurate and false in more than ten major points even as it was forced upon young school children.

Exactly what lies and misrepresentations have Mr. Beck and Mr. Limbaugh have been actually documented in a court of law. He would be hard pressed to actual document any lie of any kind by those two men who love our country and want it to be successful. Guess we'll see some links to some more old, dated and factually questionable blogs...

The great lie "97 per cent of scientists" has been shown to be a complete falsification that I'm surprised that it would be used. Can't face the truth, so keep repeating the lies. That's the Saul Alinsky method favored by many of that Marxist - Socialist political persuasion.

He can't provided science that the oceans are warming, but that doesn't keep him from using that fear mongering phrase. Yes, his buddies can't find the heat of global warming, so it must be hidden in the deep, deep oceans.

"Yeah, That's the Ticket," so says a former comedian.

Looking back, it turns out that a lot of scientific consensuses were wrong.

Ocean Acidification: Give It Some Time

sea level rise has decelerated 44% since 2004

Can’t Stop Themselves

Global Cooling Is Here

The Global Warming ‘Pause’ Hasn’t Gone Away

Making the scientific debate about climate scientific


Prepare for more attacks, name calling and denying the real current science from
"not in the middle."


About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus…


Did someone say something about the TP lying? Tell us all about how they have lied more than the crowd that fears them so much they called them "astro turf" in the beginning. Didn't they kind of get the latest debacle right? Guess that large group that heretofore were truly "in the middle" and that always gets stuck with the bill will just have to dig really deep this time to absorb the lies. Even they may not be "in the middle" much longer.


Well, once again, I give you facts and you choose to ignore them and spin them into fitting your agenda. Then, to back up your false claims, you feature the same opinion articles from conservative websites. It's just too easy to continue to live the comfortable life you live without worrying about the people of this country who suffer due to greed and ignorance. The facts are there and the evidence is there, what makes you think you are so much smarter than climate scientists around the world who agree that humans are the reason for sea level rise, extreme weather, and higher concentrations of pollutants in the atmosphere? I guess it must be nice to have your head in the sand and ignore all the evidence in front of you....ignorance is bliss I guess.


Just give us the REAL numbers. Answer the SIMPLE questions addressed.

If the evidence and the facts are so obvious in his favor, it would be easy to answer the questions without embarrassment. Can't.

Every time the SIMPLE questions are not answered while he accuses and attempts insult of everyone else of the ad hominem behaviors he continually and repeatedly exhibits, it highlights the futile, ineffective, and impotent responses for all to see. Not yet presented facts. Only opinion.

Everyone can see who has a head in the sand and raises false claims. The tide has turned world wide on the "evidence." (No pun intended, but that was cute.)

If "the facts are there and the evidence is there...."

Just give us the REAL numbers. Answer the SIMPLE questions.

Just give us the REAL numbers! Answer the SIMPLE questions!


‘Faith-Based IPCC Turns Science into Sin’ – ‘Climate alarmism is now and has always been a matter of faith, and not science’

'The First Church of Climate Change needs a reformation. According to its leaders, we peasants are no more qualified to understand the subtle nuances of climate science than the serfs of medieval Europe were qualified to understand the mysterious motions of the heavens. And so we are told to put our faith in the modern-day version of the papal astronomer and to never, ever question the word of the educated elite. To do so would be heresy, a sin that has the most heinous of consequences.'


The answers to all of your questions are in the IPCC report but I guess since your extremist position is blinding you from reading it yourself, or maybe you are just lazy, I guess you'll just have to "believe" in these opinion articles created by conservative think tanks which have no scientific backing whatsoever. You keep claiming your references are truth but you seem to forget anyone can put stuff on the Internet. Although its pretty obvious you are unaware of this because you like to use Wikipedia as a reference. As I said before, ignorance is bliss. Good luck to you...

David Collins

" It's just too easy to continue to live the comfortable life you live without worrying about the people of this country who suffer due to greed and ignorance."

inthemiddle, isn't this what your rants are really about ? Aren't you really on a class warfare crusade ? Tear down what works and replace it with kinder gentler devices that, while they really don't get the job done, leave us all with a warm fuzzy feeling. Fine, like I have said before, why don't you lead the pack. Cut the power and go back to nature. Erect as many Green devices as you can pay for and report back to us later. Fat chance of that, for sure.


... the brilliant "not in the middle" says he has all the answers...

But can't tell us the simple numbers...

He returns to pretending to cite the politically-driven and alarmist faith-based IPCC report (exactly which of the FIVE IPCC reports to which he is referencing, certainly not the most recent which scales back much of their politically based alarmism, because the actual and accurate science and research is catching up with them.)

Virtually all of his One World Government inspired IPCC reports have been found to be based on "data" that either doesn't match the real temperature and data readings
(they needed those important "adjustments" to make 'em much mo' righter)
or more importantly many of the "scientists" REFUSE to share the data that lead to their "findings" of global DOOM!

Refusing to share data means other reputable scientist and researchers can not duplicate the research. Not quite the true scientific method, but questionable as to why they don't want their "research" checked by real scientists.

That deception is highly supported by the continuing hiding of the real numbers by "not in the middle."

A small handful of politically-inspired IPCC individuals then determine what "science" goes into the report. They have censored any science that refutes their politically driven agenda that ultimately does nothing to solve their contrived alarm, but their only solution is to raise your taxes. And "not in the middle" can tell you that raising taxes has solved so many issues with our world. But I am sure that he more than tithes to the church of the IPCC.

That is the reason the IPCC is faced with the phrase HIDE THE DECLINE!

And "not in the middle" is learning that lesson well. Hide it. Don't disclose the real numbers.

The only real number "not in the middle" can use is personal attack and demeaning references.

It has to be embarrassing for "not in the middle."

If "the facts are there and the evidence is there...."

Just give us the REAL numbers. Answer the SIMPLE questions.

Just give us the REAL numbers! Answer the SIMPLE questions!


Just like talking to a brick wall. Look, the research has been done by scientists from all over the world who actually have Masters and P.h.D's. This research is then compiled into the known IPCC report. While you say these reports are faith-based, it is the only comprehensive report on climate statistics that is done by qualified scientists. Your "real" scientists are simply denialists who are looking for media attention. If you want the facts, LOOK AT THE IPCC REPORT YOURSELF I DO NOT NEED TO COPY AND PASTE THE ENTIRE THING. On that note, I'm done, if your brain seriously cannot comprehend an IPCC report, then there really is no hope left for you.


From the Carteret County Crossroads September 2011 newsletter, regarding the NC State Ports Authority plan to build a sulfur handling and melting facility:

"As local citizens became aware of plans for this facility several basic question areas emerged. The first questions concerned the proposed facility: Where would it be? What would it look like? What would it smell like? Would it be dangerous for the neighboring community? The second questions concerned policy and governance: Why was this kept secret? Who knew this plan was in the works? How does the permitting process work? And, do citizens have a say in the overall make-up of their community?

When details of the proposed project came to light, there was a swift and concentrated effort to stop the project at the local government and citizen level. Local business leaders, environmental groups and concerned citizens provided technical information and a summary of potential health risks to elected officials. Weighing that input, the lack of awareness of the project at all levels, and urgency for action lest the “final approval be granted in the interim”, official letters opposing the facility were written by the Town of Beaufort, Morehead City, the Carteret County Commissioners, the County Economic Development Council and others. There were concerns about the secrecy of the proposed activity, a permitting process devoid of public comment to this point, and a failure to inform local municipalities and seek agreement that the proposed facility was consistent with the area businesses, tourism, and residential development values. A citizens group, Clean County Coalition, formed with the expressed intent to block the proposed sulfur melting plant at the Morehead City Port. On July 19, 2011, about 400 citizens attended the organizational meeting of this group held at the Crystal Coast Civic Center."

Does this scenario sound familiar? The words above may be to inthemiddle. We can't pick and choose where and how we apply our conscience to topics as it pertains to our home if it does not suit our agenda.

Agree to disagree on the larger topics surrounding this wind energy project and focus on what we should ALL be focused on... providing adequate legal protections for ourselves and our home in the event industrial-scale projects of this sort do come to this county.


Continued ad hominem...

...since you repeatedly imply that your brain CAN seriously comprehend an IPCC report (beyond all of the rest of us), then it would be quite easy to quote just five simple numbers in answer to the questions posed.

You could even round them to the nearest whole number. Help us.

If "the facts are there and the evidence is there...."

Just give us the REAL numbers. Answer the SIMPLE questions.

Just give us the REAL numbers! Answer the SIMPLE questions!

Since you can't
you're taking your ball and going home.

The ball someone else paid for...

We all thank you for the entertainment we received while your have been displaying your futile efforts to continue the BIG LIE.

If "the facts are there and the evidence is there...."

Just give us the REAL numbers. Answer the SIMPLE questions.

Just give us the REAL numbers! Answer the SIMPLE questions!


As We Consume More Fossil Fuels, Air Quality Actually Improves


GISS Data Confirm Winters Definitely Getting Colder Over Northern Hemisphere Continents Since 1995!


Refutes IPCC's Sea Level Predictions


US Hurricane Drought Continues


Ice Sheets Were Smaller 3000 Years Ago


Arctic Sea Ice Extent Same As 40 Years Ago


Extreme Weather Events Are Not Increasing


decided to reject any measures of "socialism masquerading as environmentalism

Carolina Gal

So if coal is bad, that makes wind good? Whether or not you believe that global climate change is caused by man, you should base your decision on wind energy on the facts. If wind energy is not capable of replacing coal, oil, or gas then why do we need it? Why destroy undeveloped areas of Carteret County to build wind turbines that do nothing more than satisfy a state mandate and a developer's greed?

David Collins

Carolina Gal , The reason is money.


So right, Carolina Gal and francis.

There are no Natural reasons to do projects like this.

Absolutely NONE of them would happen without very large government subsidies and paying the developers much more for electricity than Duke Energy pays to produce their own electricity.

Because there is no practical manner in which to store the wind or solar generated electricity, when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine there is still the need for every bit of the gas-fired and coal-powered electricity generation plants that we have now to make up the difference. And you can't shut down the coal-fired plant for a few hours while the wind is blowing.

The primary reason this site is attractive for the developers is that a major power line runs through the middle of it now, so no new multi-millions of dollars of new electrical transmission lines need to built and maintained. People, safety, and property values don't matter as much as that.


Reviews of the second draft of the current IPCC report in progress by very respected and published scientists and specialists:

"...the models have never been “validated”, so after that they were merely “evaluated”, giving “projections” instead of “predictions”. The whole Report consisted, thus of “evaluations” by their well paid “scientists” and so do all the subsequent Reports."

"It is therefore crucial that the evidence be presented in a transparent and reproducible manner. However, this is not the case. My critique is presented in the hope and expectation that the discussion will be expanded sufficiently so as to withstand scrutiny."

"To restore some link between IPCC reports and observed reality, the report must address – but does not at present address – the now-pressing question why the key prediction of warming in earlier IPCC reports have proven to be significant exaggerations."

Carolina Gal

Inthemiddle states that the only ones that stand to lose from renewable energies are oil companies and OPEC. False. The location of this project poses a direct threat to flight patterns at Cherry Point. The impact this could have to that facility could threaten the livelihood of many county residents. Also there is the impact to the neighborhood residents' health and well being, as well as the environmental impact. What happens when a hurricane topples one of the turbines and all the fluids in it spill out into the wetlands the turbines will be pretty much sitting on. I seems Carteret County residents will do nothing but lose in this situation.


Very true Carolina Gal.


... a "quotation that gets to the heart of the matter regarding wind turbine bird slaughter:

Truth is what gets results…. Continual questioning and brainstorming … is what we call a challenge process.

The quality of this process depends on a willingness to respectfully engage in open, honest, and objective debate, to challenge the status quo, and to consider humbly any challenges to our own beliefs, proposals, and actions. This applies just as much to challengers as to those being challenged….
“As the philosopher, economist, and Anglican bishop Richard Whately observed: ‘It is one thing to wish to have truth on our side, and another thing to wish sincerely to be on the side of truth.’”

Read the science debated fairly in the rest of the article.

David Collins

November 30th, The Economist, page 8

Britain's David Cameron told advisers to "get rid of the green cr*p".
Apparently , the wind farms are not working and the German company RWE ditched the project planned for the south-west coast of Britain. Do all the fact checking you want. This stuff does not work. Why throw money at a failed system?


David Collins

As we rapidly approach 100 or more posts on this subject, my question is , just who has the final say on this project? Does anyone think "they" are listening?

High-Rise Buildings Kill More Birds than Windmills
North Carolina is one of ten states with enough potential to truly make wind power economical.

I am in favor of renewable energies, however, we need to be careful and make sure that if this project goes through, that the right steps are taken to ensure that nearby residents are safe. I know from experience that living near wind farms are not as bad as denialists make it out to be. The noise created by these turbines are actually much quieter than noise created by nearby military bases. We need to be sensible about this and ensure that this project really would benefit local residents as well as energy production for the state.

David Collins

National Geographic and NC State. Yup, no bias there.

"High-Rise Buildings Kill More Birds than Windmills"
Could be because there are more of them ? Buildings.

"The noise created by these turbines are actually much quieter than noise created by nearby military bases"
We need military bases. They bring jobs and revenue to the area, constantly. We don't need wind turbines. They are a detraction and don't work as advertised, constantly. We do not need higher utility rates to fund a white elephant.


You will find bias on both sides, however Natl Geo and a public university that specializes in technology seem like much more credible sources than have been posted here already. With that being said, NC has very high wind energy potential, we just need to ensure they will be created in a safe manner that doesn't negatively impact the environment or surrounding community. These human health concerns should mostly be focused around determining scenarios stemming from natural disasters since we are an area prone for such events, hence the weather patterns that in turn make this a viable energy source. Your rates will not increase, and just because the base provides jobs does not mean we should knock down every other industry that provides skilled jobs. I guess my point is that this could be a positive thing but all steps should be made to ensure its safety and efficiency.

David Collins

water_lover, you speak in the abstract. Potential, scenarios, viable, could be a positive thing. This is the same garbage we have been fed for years. Can't believe you haven't checked on countries that have tried this, seen the true results, all of them and finally after spending millions upon millions have given up. There is no such thing as free. Free comes with a cost that is much too dear. Thanks but no thanks.

Nat Geo is a nice magazine, lots of pretty pics and plenty of sob stories. NC State has a good engineering program but the science part is rife with agenda driven professors trying to reinvent the wheel. Pretty much like most state schools. What the heck, they have a job for life and no worries mon.


Well you're entitled to your opinion, and I respect it, I am just simply stating that I have lived next to these "monsters" many times in my life and there is a lot of false information being spread about them. Whether or not you believe a professor with a P.h.D in Engineering/Technology has less credibility than some guy writing a blog is up to you, just know that they are the ones with the resources, and the ones who are improving the design of renewable energies.

David Collins

"I have lived next to these "monsters" many times in my life" Just where would that be, perhaps Hawaii ? Many times is a lot of times. You must move around, a lot. Or perhaps it is story time.

Credibility, I would listen to someone that has lived with them close by and watched their electricity rates soar because the Govt. mandates we buy electricity at their prices. Why is that so hard to understand. This is the same thing as Obama Care. Thanks but no thanks.


I move around due to the military telling me to. I don't really have a whole lot of choice in the matter. Not Hawaii yet, but California, Kansas, and Colorado I have always lived nearby wind farms. It's my personal preference to see these over skyscrapers but thats just my opinion. My rates never grew as a result of them, and were actually relatively low compared to here. Just giving a voice to other side as there seems to be a lot of false information being spread. Devise your own opinion I just know from experience that living near them is not as bad as some have made it seem, although living near any sort of large industrial project is never great. Personally I would prefer a wind farm instead of huge shopping centers or a power plant.

David Collins

Got it. When I was on base there were no electric meters on the houses. It was free ! Off base you had the allowance which makes it pretty much free as well.

Govt puts up wind and solar stations because they are directed to by higher Govt. This doesn't make them effective, just in compliance. Just part of the crazy world of self serving Govt.


Well there are a lot of things that forced upon us by the government. Do you have a drivers license? Simply stating that it's bad because the government is trying to encourage them to be built is not exactly a valid argument.

David Collins

"Do you have a drivers license? "
Yes I do. It simply states that there is a reasonable expectation that I am competent at driving and I am who I say I am. That is not the case with these wind things. There is no reasonable expectation that they will be effective in doing their job safely. In other words, do a better job and do it cheaper or at par, than the systems they are replacing. Same goes for the solar panels. Technology is supposed to advance society, not draw it back. A trip back to Physics-101 would explain alot. Might be in a few years or so, this will become the norm but we will need large leaps in effective technology to make it happen. Of course if we manage to harness the sun, that will bring out another batch of negative issues.

"Simply stating that it's bad because the government is trying to encourage them to be built is not exactly a valid argument."
Take a look around you. The country is littered with failed Govt. schemes that have been left for the folks to clean up. Never trust Govt. farther than you can reach and always check your backside.

There is no such thing as a free lunch and beware of Trojans bearing gifts.


Any form of energy production will be accompanied by negative impacts. However, renewable energies are designed to be as minimal on the environment as possible, and are FAR better than any sort of fossil fuel extraction we have in place. Just wait until the fracking starts...

David Collins

"minimal on the environment as possible" Yes sir, there is another abstract phrase that could mean about anything. Sort of like a surgical nuclear strike. Thanks but no thanks, will stick with what I know works.

Your a little late for the frack dance.


Well honestly, you don't really have a whole lot of say in whether or not the project goes through. We just sit here and share opinions but honestly I would be surprised if the project was stopped.

And the fracking hasn't started yet, so I'm not sure how I'm late on that one.


water_lover, you attempt to disparage fracking and really can't do so with facts but only with innuendo.

Exactly why do we need to harness wind energy? All of the arguments and reasons about global warming and carbon dioxide have been proven not accurate. There is no benefit to the local community or to anyone except the developers who will spend up to 250 million dollars of tax money and be paid for producing electricity at a higher rate than for any production facility that Duke Energy has in the state of NC...

Like some of your comrades, you complain that the information you can't refute comes from "bloggers" without acknowledging that every link that has been posted by those against building eagle shredders around the Mill Pond are referencing peer-reviewed reports that fairly refute many of the claims your comrades attempt to make.

Fracking (mostly paid for by private money) has proven so successful with so little problems that more enormous amounts of energy are being produced from fracking than all of your unreliable projects dictated by government funding that are falsely claimed to be "renewable." It's the reason that we are now importing less oil and natural gas than we have in the past compared to what we produce in the United States. Massive numbers of more jobs have been created because of fracking compared to the paltry few maintenance jobs for your governmentally-funded boondoggles.

Fracking by private companies has kept energy prices so much lower than your favorite government has wanted them to be. Your favorite government wants very high energy prices so that the unreliable electricity of solar and wind power can be made a less harsh alternative. Since solar and wind power are not and can not be affordable, (and they can NEVER replace oil and natural gas) your favorite government has to subsidize with your tax money their building and force the utilities to artificially subsidize the rate paid to the developers, which in turn will drive up our energy prices.

The last link here is very informative about the amazing benefits of fracking. And there are so many more links to how fracking is amazingly successful and safe for years. Much more will be done.

Fracking Cuts Energy Costs, Raises Living Standards

fracking has created wealth and jobs

Not much renewable energy for the buck

fracking documentary: ‘Down Deep: Unearthing the Truth About Hydraulic Fracturing’


Ok, aroundawhile, will you please explain the fracking process to me?


This link was posted earlier, but is an honest video about productive, effective and very safe hydraulic fracking.
If you need more, let me know. Thank you.

Truth About Hydraulic Fracturing

Anti-fracking filmmaker accused of falsehoods

real danger that fracking will cause a major boom


Seems my earlier link is not yet posted.

Truth about hydraulic fracking:


I didn't ask for a link. I want you to explain the fracking process to me. I'm perfectly capable of doing my own research, I would like to hear you explain it yourself.


Additionally, the producer of the film was a natural gas company so that's a completely biased film.


Since we're playing this game, why don't you substantiate this:

"However, renewable energies are designed to be as minimal on the environment as possible, and are FAR better than any sort of fossil fuel extraction we have in place."

In your own words please.

David Collins

Would think a company that does fracking would know how to do it. Yeah, I am sure some egghead at Chapel Hill would give you a completely unbiased description of the process. Burning water, earthquakes, barren women, birds with three wings and all those facts.


@carteret_citizen: Fossil fuel extraction is EXTRACTING carbon from its source. So to start off you've got either some sort of drilling process or you just blow off a mountain. Then these materials have to been transported and processed into a state that can be used for energy. Let alone the amount of equipment it takes for drilling, transporting, and burning. While renewable energy systems require mining and manufacturing as well, it is nothing comparable to the environmental damage caused by extracting fossil fuels. There you go, games are fun.

@ Francis: With that logic we should let the Pharmaceutical industry make a documentary about how selling the American public insane amounts of narcotics is benefiting us...

Carolina Gal

In response to a couple of water_lover's comments..your comment " we just need to ensure they will be created in a safe manner that doesn't negatively impact the environment or surrounding community." What say do we have in how they are constructed? I am sure there is a standard they use, but what input would local people really have in how they are constructed? The local ordinances are to govern where the turbines are located, but if the developer is going to take action to reduce the ordinance setbacks and ask for variances to increase their ability to put more turbines than the ordinance allows, then how much say do we have in that ? (2) Your comment "just because the base provides jobs does not mean we should knock down every other industry that provides skilled jobs" blows my mind. If this project can have an impact on any of those base jobs then that is a major problem. It shows you do not understand or care about the impact this could have for the base. Please, call Torch Energy and ask them what the net jobs will be for this project. I am not talking about the millions of cubic yards of concrete to be delivered or the out of town folks that will come here to construct the turbines, I am talking about when the dust settles how many long term jobs will there. To look at this project a source of jobs for local people is ridiculous.(3) "I know from experience that living near wind farms are not as bad as denialists make it out to be." So, anyone who lives near a wind farm and thinks they are too loud is a denialist? The noise bothers them because they don't believe the same as you on climate change issues? Give me a break! Just look at it for what it is and be objective. Just because you are pro-wind does not mean that anywhere a developer wants to put a wind farm is fine. Proper siting is being responsible. In my opinion, improper siting has done more to harm the image of wind energy than anything and has nothing to do with one's view on global climate change.

David Collins

water_lover, " you just blow off a mountain. " Is that *-rated?

" selling the American public insane amounts of narcotics is benefiting us..."
Don't worry, be happy ? Insane amounts is a relative term and varies with each person's way of thinking and perceived need. At least with narcotics you get something for your money. Now, this has what to do with wind farms ?


@inthemid... I mean @water_lover: You aren't considering the full life cycle of the system. When is not blowing, conventional energy production sources are required. So you are not eliminating anything, and therefore, you are not saving anything. All you are doing is imposing extra costs to set up these projects on the taxpayer.


@CarolinaGal: Why defend the military so vehemently? They're the most overinflated program in our country. The jobs that would be lost from the base wouldn't be anyone actually protecting anything. Our taxes go to pay people on base to do things computers were invented to do, i.e. spreadsheets and payroll. Talk about a welfare program, the military is at the very top.

@carteret_citizen: You aren't considering how the system works....period. There is capability for storage and if these projects are put into the correct areas, there is enough energy produced to cover the times when the wind isn't blowing. I'm not saying they're the most environmentally friendly energy source we have, and it surely won't save us by itself, but incorporation of renewable energies takes away from heavy water contamination, soil pollution, air pollution, concentrated pollutants in the atmosphere, negative health effects, and so on. If there was a drilling operation in your backyard you would be singing a different tune, I'm sure of it.


@Francis: It's getting old having to spell everything out for you, but here goes. You said that it makes sense for a natural gas company to make a documentary in support of fracking because "they know what they're doing". I said that it is a biased film, and is comparable to the pharmaceutical industry making a documentary about how pill pushing is saving our lives. Jesus, keep up.


@water_lover: The only one that has NO IDEA what they are talking about when it comes to what role the military and civilian personnel play at MCAS Cherry Point is you. Frankly, I find your attitude towards them mildly disgusting. I can at least respect your differing opinions on power generation technologies, but you are crossing over into the realm of willful, vapid ignorance with your comments towards the military. Speak to the facets of this topic you at least have a passing familiarity with.

And I am considering how the system works, you are still missing something. If a wind turbine project is rated for 100 MW of power, it would have to supply that power constantly to the grid to meet the system's needs. Any shortfall, and other power sources have to pick up the slack. If the wind turbine system was producing enough energy to "cover the time when the wind isn't blowing" it would be exceeding its rated output some percentage of the time, which is statistically improbable... wind turbines are much closer to 25% of their rated capacity. The only technologies that approach 100% rated capacity are nuclear plants. So, I'm sorry, but you are overreaching with your claims below - the logic is very simple on this.

By your own admission, this technology is not perfect - and no power generation technology is. Let's drop the pretense that this has any quick or immediate savings to the planet, however... the resource and energy footprint involved in the manufacture & construction of this farms is still significant, still has an impact to the environment, and still takes years to recover before you can really say a system like this has any "net positive" on our environment. The only immediate gains out of a project like this are to the developer and the landowner(s), and it is to their wallets.

My tune would be the same regardless of what kind of industrial project they were trying to drop in my backyard. The only difference between a drilling project and wind farms, is that no one disputes the obvious concerns with a drilling project, but Torch Energy and people like you want to try and convince me that wind farms are the Second Coming. Sorry, I call BS - there are plenty of cons with the pros of "renewable" energy and I'm going to make sure my elected representatives do what's within their power to protect myself and my neighbors.

What do you have against responsibly established ordinances and healthy public scrutiny?

David Collins

Every industry has it's cheerleaders as well as detractors. At days end, what works will survive, what fails will be consigned to the dust bin. Life will move on to the next big thing.



My definition of Hydraulic Fracturing.

There are over 2000 Hydraulic Fracturing rigs producing in the state of West Virginia. Many more in the rest of the US, but WV is nearly "next door." Is your water faucet "on fire?"

This is highly proven process that has with no pollution, significantly reduced your fuel costs and uses virtually no land to safely and efficiently extract vast sums of natural gas and oil from over 1000 feet below any potable water sources, where as one HF rig will replace over 20 similar conventional oil and gas drilling and pumping rigs using 100 times less land. (one HF rig will require 40 acres, the equivalently producing wind turbine industrial complex will require over 40,000 acres in your backyard, and then still need every bit of fossil fuel to replace it's erratic and uncertain capacity when the wind doesn't blow and when the turbines have failed due to lack of maintenance and when government subsidies have dried up.)

More fossil fuel plants should be built because as the country grows, there will be a growing need for REAL energy that can NEVER be provided by your so-called "green" energy. By the way, your "green" energy requires all of the fossil fuel plants to remain in existence but operating at less than full efficiency which running a plant like that, it INCREASES the amount of pollution by running them in an inefficient, standby mode.

Carolina Gal

@water_lover..The jobs lost would be local citizens citizens losing their jobs!! What do you not understand about that?? Your comments are offensive to those employed at the base. I do not work on the base. But I will tell you this, I am from Carteret County and protecting the citizens of this county is the job of our local representatives and my only concern about this project. Think what you want about global warming, believe in wind energy if you want, rant on and on and be offensive, but at the end of the day what is best for this county it all that matters. If you don't agree with that then you need to go back from wherever you came from. All the things you seem to believe in, doesn't that all start at home? Shop local, protect the environment, be good stewards of the land. That is what I think we should do, protect local jobs, save our local environment.



You embarrassed yourself when you suggested that DDT was the same thing as "Agent Orange" in Vietnam. The former a pesticide that your government loving folks had banned and then led to the deaths of over 100 million Africans who contracted the easily preventable malaria. The latter a herbicide that exposed munitions running trails of an enemy.

You again embarrass yourself saying that there is any reasonable method of storing any electricity produced by industrial wind or solar. Batteries for storage of RESIDENTIAL and very small need "off-grid" solar and wind systems are extraordinarily expensive, have a short life, need replacement frequently, are dangerous to life and environment, and are impractical for anywhere except areas not close to REAL power lines.

You embarrass yourself when you compare the BILLIONS of dollars of revenue to the local economy form Cherry Point to the extremely negative local revenue impact and extremely negative environmental consequences that would occur from the Mill Pond eagle shredders.

You embarrass yourself when you continue to create "strawmen" to divert the conversations away from your inability to defend the indefensible.

We are ready to see more name calling from ITM and BFDR.
Have at it since that is your gift.

You learned it well from your faith masters who worship Saul Alinsky.



I'm sure you have a "definition" of fracking that will not embarrass yourself.

Give it a try.


A quote (if you want to compare the alternative to virtually no permanent jobs, no tax revenue, and a greatly net negative revenue growth resulting from wind turbine developments that will ONLY proceed with massive government expenditures):

America’s vast offshore energy reserves present an opportunity to improve our economy, increase our energy security and create tens of thousands of jobs.

According to a new study, opening the U.S. Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to offshore oil and natural gas development could turn that opportunity into reality. API’s Director of Upstream Erik Milito and the National Ocean Industries Association’s Randall Luthi outlined the study for reporters today. Milito:

“Oil and natural gas production off our Atlantic coast is a potential gold mine. Developing oil and natural gas in the Atlantic could put hundreds of thousands of Americans to work, make us more energy secure, and bring in needed revenue for the government. But none of these benefits will appear unless the federal government follows pro-development energy policies.”

According to the study, oil and natural gas development in the Atlantic OCS between 2017 and 2035 could:

Create nearly 280,000 new jobs along the East Coast and across the country.

Result in an additional $195 billion in new private investment.

Contribute up to $23.5 billion per year to the U.S. economy.

Add 1.3 million barrels of oil equivalent per day to domestic energy production, which is about 70 percent of current output from the Gulf of Mexico.

Generate $51 billion in new revenue for the government.

- See more at:


Oh here we go, it's the go to insult for people who don't really have a rhetoric, GO BACK WHERE YOU CAME FROM! Ok, Carolina Gal, I will, since I'm from Newport. I don't have anything personally against the people who work at Cherry Point, but as a whole it is extremely wasteful, and our taxes go to pay people whose jobs are pointless. Like I said, a computer can easily do payroll. @aroundawhile-exactly what i thought, no true understanding of the fracking process, and with added in misinformation tidbits. You start by drilling into the ground through sediment, shale, and the water table until you reach the oil and gas. Then a mixture of water, chemicals(that the gas companies won't release a list of), and sand are shot into the ground at a high volume to break up fissures in the rock. This is a huge waste of viable drinking water, especially since our supply of clean water is quickly dwindling. So your claim that there is NO pollution is FALSE!! Your claim that it is good for the environment and people is FALSE!!! Here are the negatives associated with fracking: groundwater contamination, air pollution (i.e. methane), soil contamination, toxic chemical exposure, large volumes of water used in water-deficient areas, fracking-induced earthquakes, waste disposal, blowouts due to gas explosion, and many more. Take your emotion out of it, sir, and look at the true facts.

(Edited by staff.)

David Collins

water_lover gets it wrong again. It's drill through the surface layer [sediment], water table and then down a mile and 1/2 or two into the shale layer. Come on dude, the info is all over the net. At least try to get it right. You are no fun at all.
The chemicals are recycled and are largely salt. In fact it is used as road de-icer in some of the northern states. Now, I can't say I am crazy about the de-icer part but what do I know.? Nothing is perfect and we may well see some six legged children and three winged ducks down the road but I doubt it.
This fixation with Cherry Point and the military leads one to believe jealousy may be at work here. Stuck in a dead end job has been known to bring this on. It may also be a case of, I don't like it so I don't want anyone else to have it. No guts no glory.


@water_lover: Still wrong about the military. Why don't you answer my question? Here I'll repeat it for you:

"What do you have against responsibly established ordinances and healthy public scrutiny?"

Since you repeatedly ignore any rebuttals about the topic at hand, which is industrial wind energy in our area, and talk about fracking, I'm guessing you have no meaningful thoughts on the matter. Talk about people who have nothing meaningful to add to the rhetoric.

Carolina Gal

It wasn't meant as an insult. Your complete lack of concern for local citizens who are employed by the base led me to believe that you probably were not from this county or you would certainly care more about it's residents. If you are from this county, then you must know many people employed there due to the large number of people who do in fact work there. I know I sure do. It seems your only response to the potential impact to Cherry Point is to say those jobs are pointless to begin with, because what else could you say? You cannot say there will be zero impact to the base. Whether or not you think those jobs are pointless, it is their job, their livelihood. It matters to them. It matters to me.

Real newporter

@water_lover: Wow! Just wow! Your belittling and condescending statements about the people who work at Cherry Point is shameful!
The fact that you could say this about your fellow citizens leads me to believe that you are in fact NOT from around here, and are nothing more than a troll.

You obviously don't know squat about what these people do and the support they give to our deployed troops abroad, as well as the operations at home.

I'm actually embarrassed that someone claiming to be from Newport would say such disrespectful things about our friends and neighbors.

Without that base and its people, the domino effects on businesses and our local economy as a whole would be crippling to say the least.

"Nothing personal against them and their pointless jobs".......You DON'T speak for my town [censored] !

Have a nice day.



EXACTLY what was not true about the documentary presenting knowledge about the economy, environmental safety and success of fracking?

If you had something, you would have used it by now...

Just give us the SIMPLE FACTS AND TRUTH...


Oh of course because we live in a military town we shouldn't denounce the military at all. Guess what, I AM RETIRED MILITARY!! I believe I earned the right to question the military when I was sent to Afghanistan, as many of you know nothing about. I have seen first hand the vast amounts of tax dollars that are wasted by our country's military. If you don't spend it, you won't get it next year is there motto. Unless you have served before, don't you dare tell me what kind of opinion I am allowed to have about our military, especially the ones who aren't actually facing combat.



still no REAL reason for wind turbines in Carteret County...

again claiming she does no name calling...

interesting "rebuttal" about fracking from it's own title:
"This case study is part of a collection of pages developed by STUDENTS in the 2012 introductory-level Geology and Human Health course in the Department of Earth Sciences, Montana State University."

Two other links are from 2003 and 2008 as simple descriptions with no science. The last link is broken so who knows what that PDF says.

The lies about fracking as started by socialists to try to disrupt the success of low energy prices from safe and effective fracking are working. You tell us of all of the pollution and ecological destruction that comes from fracking, so it must be true and fracking will be stopped REAL soon...

Your president has endorsed fracking and you believe every thing else the administration says. It's only the military you think is wasteful.

Because you and those who hate this country being energy independent and successful have virtually stopped fracking...

Or wait..... there's this.....

There's more than TWO MILLION oil and gas wells using the fracking process in just the US. Show us the environmental damage.

Hydraulic fracturing in the United States began in 1949.

[1] According to the US Department of Energy, as of 2013 at least TWO MILLION oil and gas wells in the US have been hydraulically fractured,

[2] and that currently about 95% of completed oil and gas wells in the US are being hydraulically fractured. Hydraulically fractured wells make up 43% of the oil and 67% of the current natural gas production in the United States.

[3] Environmental safety and health concerns about hydraulic fracturing emerged in the 1980s, and are still being debated at the state and federal levels, but NO REAL EVIDENCE exists for those safety concerns.

Describe to us any publically-funded, bureaucratic organization you think is run efficiently and does not waste money.

Somebody asked you to tell us how many eagle shredders were needed to replace 2 million valuable and productive wells...

One well on 40 acres of land is equivalent to wind turbines on 40,000 acres of land (and then you still need the oil and gas wells for when the wind is not blowing)

Why do we need wind turbines in Carteret County?


@water_lover - You are entitled to whatever opinion you like.

While I thank you for your service, your service history does not give you the right to dismiss the concerns and opinions of others when it comes to how potential impacts to the military in eastern NC effects our home. That's what you have been doing, and that is what people take issue with. I do not agree with your assertions regardless of your military background.

It certainly does not give you any right to diminish the service provided by active duty servicemen and civil servants. Take issue with the DoD policies set forth by our federal government if you like, but to liken those actively serving our country to "computer programs" and "spreadsheets" is demeaning. I have zero in common with you on wind energy, but I would NEVER demean you so. Consider that before you rant about what respect your opinions are entitled to and take better care with your words.

You still have not answered my questions. I'm not asking for a cited source, I'm asking your opinion on the ordinances our localities have adopted. If you do not agree with the necessity for ordinances, state them.


@carteret_citizen- You obviously haven't truly been paying attention to what I have been saying. Not once have I discredited the work of a fellow soldier or personally beraded a civil servant. My personal opinion is that many civil servants jobs are not completely necessary, however, since many of my family members are civil servants, it is not a personal attack on them. The way I got to this topic was the conversation about how much of a waste of taxpayer money green energy is, when in reality is such a small fraction compared to how much taxpayer money is wasted on the military. Also, if you had been paying attention to what I have been saying, you would know that I am completely for them following all necessary rules and regulations for creating a healthy relationship with the community. If you would take a second to quit trying to stir up some controversy maybe you would have understood.


"The jobs that would be lost from the base wouldn't be anyone actually protecting anything. Our taxes go to pay people on base to do things computers were invented to do, i.e. spreadsheets and payroll." - water_lover, 11 Dec 2013

"I don't have anything personally against the people who work at Cherry Point, but as a whole it is extremely wasteful, and our taxes go to pay people whose jobs are pointless." - water_lover, 12 Dec 2013

"Unless you have served before, don't you dare tell me what kind of opinion I am allowed to have about our military, especially the ones who aren't actually facing combat." - water_lover, 17 Dec 2013

So from the above...

1) The people at Cherry Point do not contribute to our national defense.

2) Tasks the people at Cherry Point do could be replaced by spreadsheets & payroll (programs).

3) The people at Cherry Point's jobs are wasteful and pointless.

4) They aren't actually facing combat at Cherry Point, so we are not allowed to question your opinion.

You tell me what I have missed. Several others honed in on the same comments I did... is this coincidence, or maybe we all noticed something?

You gave every impression that people, military & civilian, at Cherry Point were expendable casualties for the "greater good". If that is not what you meant... and you seem to have come back down from that in your last post... that is exactly how it came across to many readers.

Your choice of words started the controversy; I simply responded to an outrageous & inflammatory comment.

If you are all for them creating a healthy relationship with the community, how can you advocate the presence of a project that stands to potentially impact the mission of Cherry Point? An impact that not only is quantified by the income of military and civil employees, but all secondary commercial and industrial sectors who exist here because of the base? Does the math of that risk add up to you favorably?

All you've said on the matter is that it won't... do you care to substantiate that with valid reasoning?

You said that waste associated with green energy is small compared to waste associated with DoD spending. Are you 1) admitting that green energy is a wasteful endeavor and 2) seriously attempting to rationalize the addition of more wasteful spending to our government budget?

Real newporter

Thank you carteret_citizen, that pretty much nails it.

Welcome to the discussion.

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive/condescending attacks on other users or goading them. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning.