text:
I encountered an issue where activating the FAQ You plugin (version 2.0.1) causes the admin page go white screen. And whenever you deactivate it, admin page goes back to normal again.
Here's how I solved it.
1. I found out that this line from /wp-content/plugins/faq-you/faq.php causes the error:
$questions = $wpdb->get_results("SELECT * FROM ".$wpdb->prefix."ot_faq_questions WHERE answer='' ORDER BY id DESC");
2. I replaced that line with these:
$query = $wpdb->prepare( "SELECT * FROM %s WHERE answer='' ORDER BY id DESC", "{$wpdb->prefix}ot_faq_questions" );
$questions = $wpdb->get_results( $query );


text:
Richie Sambora Reportedly Fired From Bon Jovi Tour
The rumors continue to fly regarding Richie Sambora's absence from the latest Bon Jovi tour.
The rumors continue to fly regarding Richie Sambora's absence from the latest Bon Jovi tour.
'Slippery When Wet' made Bon Jovi international superstars, but not before they went through three wildly different concepts for the album artwork.
Some New York music fans are crying foul after Jon Bon Jovi abruptly canceled an upcoming appearance at the New York State Fair but kept a date to play a fundraiser for Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
Bon Jovi guitarist Richie Sambora isn't currently working with the band, but that doesn't mean he isn't working. Sambora surprised everyone by dropping the link to a new song on Twitter recently. 'Come Back as Me' came on Monday, during a conversation with his followers.
In addition to barbecues, vacations and oppressive humidity, July always brings with it a spell of best-of-the-year-so-far lists. The newest one of interest to classic rock fans reveals that Bon Jovi, Bruce Springsteen and the Rolling Stones have taken win, place and show in the list of the Top Grossing Concert Acts for the first half of 2013.
It's been tough for hardcore Bon Jovi fans to watch Richie Sambora sit out the band's latest tour (and feud with Jon Bon Jovi in the press), but all hope is not lost.
Bon Jovi's 2013 tour has been marred by the absence of Richie Sambora (and all the rumors and public feuding), but for the band's true fans, it's still all about the music -- and at Wednesday night's (June 19) concert in Gdansk, Poland, it provided the soundtrack to one Jovi-lovin' couple's engagement.
The boys in Bon Jovi sure are keeping busy this year. Fresh from a string of European concerts, the Jersey-based rockers have announced a run of North American tour dates this fall. These dates will comprise the second leg of the North American shows that began in February and ran through April before the group headed overseas.
After laying low for a few weeks, Richie Sambora has decided to speak up about his recent departure from the Bon Jovi lineup -- and it sounds like fans may need to start preparing for the possibility that he may never return.
Jon Bon Jovi knows it's a hard, lonely life for a rock 'n' roll cowboy -- especially one whose pardner has vanished and the press won't stop asking him why.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Begin New Search
Refine Last Search
Cemetery Lookup
Add Burial Records
Help with Find A Grave
Top Contributors
Success Stories
Community Forums
Find A Grave Store
Log In
ad feedback
ad feedback
member for 4 years, 7 months, 23 days
Add to MyFriends
Bio and Links
I have been researching my family history since 1973. Find A Grave is a great resource. Surnames important to me: Harp, Hoagey, Swavely, Krause, Sheafer, Kline, Keeney, Irvin. Most of our family was in Pennsylvania.
Oakland Cemetery has over 15,000 known interments. The Bureau County Genealogical Society has maps and caretaker records for this cemetery. The BCGS has very good information on all the cemeteries in the county.
I enjoy the search and challenge of finding the graves. Photo requests get my highest priority. When I go out to fulfill a photo request, I photograph all the markers in the family plot. The rules I follow; "Photograph the grave/gravesite "in-situ", or as it appears in that moment in time. The purpose is to show the grave as it is, be it dirty, cluttered, broken, or pristine. It is not your job to clean it, clear it, fix it, or decorate it. The graves are not yours to do as you please. Remember, one person's "good deed" just might be another person's vandalism. Go take lots of photos...but do it like an anthropologist and do not disturb the grave site. -AJ" Mar. 10, 2013
When time permits, if a memorial does not exist I create one. I also search for some records to tie the people together and add a bio. I have a backlog of photos to create memorials. Each trip involves multiple cememteries and normally 300 to 500 photos.
If you would like to use my photos, please ask. I have recently experienced some issues with my photos being used inappropriately. I want to share, but I want to know who, what, where, how? the photos will be used. Transfers and edits, please use the EDIT tab.
Leave Public Message
Contributions to
Find A Grave
19,383 Memorials Added
19,477 Memorials Managed
80 Memorials/Week
48,846 Photos
10 Photo Requests
7,222 Volunteer Photos Taken
218 Virtual Flowers
15 Virtual Cemeteries
1 Famous Bio
3 Fame Ratings
8 Friends
Search Contributor's Records
First Name
Last Name
Virtual Cemeteries
1x Ggrandparents
2x great grand parents
3x G grand parents
4x Ggrandparents
5x G grandparents
6x G grandparents
7x G Grandparents
Bureau County pioneers
Bureau County White Bronz...
View all Virtual Cemeteries...
Find A Grave Friends
B.J. Waters
K. Roberts
Lenora C
Lynne S
Terenda Curtis ...
Messages left for Har37x (1769)
Leave Message
Sarah Miller - Mt. Bloom C.
I am trying to reconcile this Sarah and not having a lot of luck, but there is a picture on this site of a tall stone that also appears for Mary S., wife of John Miller. These two plus Elisha & Mary E had lots of children who died and these stones of all these children has escaped me over many years.
Added by
on Jul 18, 2016 6:54 PM
Janice Melton Knotter
Harlan Shook & wife Martha
I recently sent an edit for this couple and this morning sent a correction to my first request. Sorry to add to your burden. I know how much time Find a Grave entries can take, but I do so appreciate them. I very much appreciate the gravestone photo for my Great Uncle Harlan Shook and would like to use it in my records and on my Ancestry tree. When I save gravestone photos from Find a Grave I identify them in this fashion. "Shook, Harlan R 1895-1942 & Martha Eickmeier 1901-1991 gravestone photo Elm Lawn Memorial Park provided by Har37x from Find a Grave." Is there some other way you would want the photo identified?
Added by
Janice Melton Knotter
on Jul 13, 2016 7:45 AM
Jan Dahlquist
Oscar Selander
hard to believe there were two Oscar Selanders born in 1878- thanks for the photo- turns out "mine" died in 1945.
Added by
Jan Dahlquist
on Jul 08, 2016 7:13 PM
Thank you for the transfers. Pat
Added by
on Jul 07, 2016 10:51 AM
Pics of tombstones
I am asking if it is okay to copy pics of stones you have taken of our many family members, mainly in the Bureau County area. There are too many to ask individually or even to transfer. I only want these to put in the Family Tree Maker program. I have many of these in my files that I've taken myself, but there are so many more that you have. There are a few entries I would love to have transferred to us of grandparents and parents, but will go through channels for those. Thanks for your consideration. Pat.
Added by
on Jul 06, 2016 10:55 AM
Good Oman
Field, Harry & Elizabeth
Will you please add the headstone photos that you have on Harry Field #163270596 onto his wife's memorial page #166321074. Thank you, Robyn
Added by
Good Oman
on Jul 02, 2016 2:34 AM
Christine Anderson
Added by
on Jun 27, 2016 7:05 PM
Verdie Anderson
Thank you so much for the photo of his grave. We were at the Oakland Cemetery and could not find markers for his or his parents' graves (my great-grandparents). I didn't have the correct year of his birth so I really appreciate your help.
Marilyn Mertens
Hot Springs Village, Arkansas
Added by
on Jun 26, 2016 5:59 PM
Tom Pottenger
Roy and Dorothy Skaggs in Oakland
Thank you so VERY much for your efforts to find, photograph and post the photos to their memorials. It means a lot for my family history, and to family who were close to them.
Added by
Tom Pottenger
on Jun 25, 2016 12:07 PM
Jacki Klawonn
Grant Headstone
Thank you so much for the picture of the Grant headstone and also for your time involved with Find A Grave.
Added by
Jacki Klawonn
on Jun 25, 2016 4:36 AM
View all messages...
Privacy Statement
Terms of Service
ad feedback


text:
After upgrading to Online Backup 2.2.10 backing up has stopped working. The backup log is below. I backup using the 'download' option.
A possible cause is that upgrading Online Backup to 2.2.10 initially failed, perhaps because I had the plugin's folder open in Windows Explorer. However reinstalling successfully hasn't helped.
I've tried reinstalling Online Backup again but the same backup error persists.
I upgraded another plugin at the same time, which I have tried deactivating but that hasn't helped.
I usually upgrade as soon as a new version becomes available.
All backups have been successful with previous versions.
Event Log
Activity ID: 55
Activity Type: Manual Backup
Settings: Downloaded
Completion: Failed
Backup Size: 0 B (0 files)
Total Size: 0 B (0 files)
Start Time: 5th Nov 2012 11.00.26 AM
End Time: 5th Nov 2012 11.09.09 AM
5th Nov 2012 11.09.09 AM
The backup failed: A database operation failed.
5th Nov 2012 11.09.09 AM
A database operation failed.
Please try reinstalling the plugin - in most cases this will repair the database.
Please contact support if the issue persists, providing the complete event log for the activity. Diagnostic information follows:
Failed at: 1173(C:\Users\neil.xxxx\Documents\Websites\www.hodgeclemco.dev\wp-content\plugins\wponlinebackup\include\files.php)
WPDB error: An entry for a file was inserted into the database but couldn't be found afterwards! Hexdump of the file name is: c390e2809cc390c2bec390c2bbc391c692c390c2b1c391e280b9c390c2b52dc391e280a6c390c2bec390c2bbc390c2bcc391e280b92d313530783135302e6a7067
When escaped for insertion: c33fe23f3fc33fc23fc33fc23fc33fc63fc33fc23fc33fe23f3fc33fc23f2dc33fe23f3fc33fc23fc33fc23fc33fc23fc33fe23f3f2d313530783135302e6a7067 (??????????????????????????????-??????????????????????-150x150.jpg)
. Last query: SELECT counter, name_bin FROM
wp_wponlinebackup_items WHERE bin = 2 AND parent_id = 5776 AND type = 1 AND name = '??????????????????????????????-??????????????????????-150x150.jpg'
5th Nov 2012 11.01.04 AM
Folder /www.hodgeclemco.dev/wp-content/plugins/wponlinebackup/tmp was excluded. (Online Backup for WordPress temporary backup directory)
5th Nov 2012 11.00.30 AM
Database backup completed.
5th Nov 2012 11.00.28 AM
Initialisation completed.
5th Nov 2012 11.00.28 AM
Previous downloadable backup deleted.
5th Nov 2012 11.00.28 AM
Backup starting...


text:
Congratulations and welcome to the wondrous joys of twins and multiples! We understand the unique joys and challenges of having twins and multiples and our club is here to support you through all of the stages – from pregnancy to infants to toddlerhood, and up. Our club membership is consisted of both new and experienced moms in the Greater Grand Rapids, MI area.
Our club was born in August of 1970. At the first meeting there were eight moms present. By the end of the year that number had grown to 32… And today we are 60+ members strong!!! Our club exists to provide support to moms of multiples. We do that in many ways and some of our member benefits include:
- Monthly Meetings – crafts, pampering, a twins panel, and more (location and times are listed here)
- Mom Social Events – a monthly night out for moms!
- Couple's Night Out – a night out for couples!
- Family Social Events – holiday events, such as an Easter Egg Hunt, and a Christmas fundraiser!
- Volunteer Support Moms – to help you with any and all questions!
- Garage sales – hosted twice each year in the Spring and Fall
- Member-to-Member sales – hosted prior to each monthly meeting
- Newsletter – with lots of great information
- And so much more!
The best place to keep up on what is going on with our club is to join us on our Facebook page! https://www.facebook.com/groups/GRMOTC/
Information about membership, our events, and all of our member benefits can be located throughout our website. If you have any questions, you can also email us at email@example.com
Thank you!


text:
Calif. drug stakeout ends in freeway gunfire
By Tony Perry
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
Watch related BluTube video Meth addict running down highway
SAN DIEGO, Calif. — Two people were killed and six wounded, including a state drug agent, during an incident Saturday night that began with the surveillance of two drug suspects and ended with a suspect running onto Interstate 805 and exchanging gunfire with San Diego police, officials said.
Lt. Kevin Rooney said the incident began when San Diego police responded to a call from agents of the state Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement. The agents had been watching two drug suspects when one suspect went into a home in the Corridor neighborhood and shot six people, one fatally, police said.
Copyright © 2013 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
Full story: Calif. drug stakeout ends in freeway gunfire
Join the discussion
Latest Product News
NYPD upgrades protective equipment after Texas, La. ambush killings
Video: Cuffed suspect opens fire in back of cruiser, is killed by police


text:
Me and my mate are building our first SaaS!
I did a version before with gradients and shadows but honestly it looked like shit and I was trying too hard so I deleted everything, took a breath and worked slower to try and do something flat.
Easier to build and nicer to look at (i think)
The placement of the project and feedback button is weird, I'll prob move them closer to the user button.
Full pixels attached.
keyboard shortcuts:
L or F like
post comment
Show and tell for designers
What are you working on? Dribbble is a community of designers sharing screenshots of their work, process, and projects.
Copyright © 2009–2016 Dribbble LLC. All screenshots © their respective owners. Shipped from Salem, Mass. USA.


text:
Fantasy Football WR Rankings for 2013
Wide Receivers are deep this season, but I still find myself trying to grab a top 10 guy if at all possible, while still getting the running backs I want. Of course getting the cake and having it and eating and digesting and well, you get the picture, isn't all that easy. Wait, yeah it is. I bought a cake the other day and ate it right up. I'm not sure anyone ever really looked into that metaphor. Anyway, here are my wide receiver rankings!
(#1) Calvin Johnson
His touchdown numbers were down last season. Just think about that for a second.
(#2) Dez Bryant
Dez was an absolute beast to finish 2012. Looks like he finally figured it out.
(#3) A.J. Green
If the Bengals set foot in the red zone, Green is getting a call.
(#4) Brandon Marshall
He's still the main target in an even more upbeat offense.
(#5) Julio Jones
If he can put together 16 weeks of consistent football he's a top 3 wide receiver.
(#6) Demaryius Thomas
Welker could take away a few targets, but will help the targets he does see become more productive. The Broncos will have plenty of fantasy love to pass around.
(#7) Larry Fitzgerald
He's too good to be held down again and Bruce Arians and Carson Palmer will make sure of that.
(#8) Andre Johnson
Johnson finished last season strong and should pick right back up where he left off.
(#9) Vincent Jackson
VJax moved to a new team not known for a great passing offense last season and had a career year. He's that good.
(#10) Percy Harvin
He's such an explosive player from every part of the field, that if Seattle uses him well, he could be a top 5 fantasy player.
(#11) Jordy Nelson
Nelson missed 5 games and still had 7 touchdowns last season. He's a top receiver with Rodgers at the helm and Greg Jennings gone.
(#12) Victor Cruz
Cruz proved last season he's not a flash in the pan and now that he's inked a contract I feel safe drafting him here.
(#13) Randall Cobb
Like Harvin, Cobb is a dynamic talent that can make things happen all over the field. Touchdowns might be hard to come by, but he will get enough targets to make them happen.
(#14) Roddy White
He's as steady as they go. More upside in PPR with Jones taking some touchdowns away, but he's not going anywhere.
(#15) Dwayne Bowe
He's the main threat for the Chiefs in the passing game and Andy Reid loves the passing game.
(#16) Hakeem Nicks
He has all the skills in the world, but can't seem to stay on the field. He's too good to let fall far though.
(#17) Marques Colston
He's about as steady as a receiver gets. Every year besides '08, when he was injured, he has topped 1,ooo receiving yards and 7 touchdowns.
(#18) Steve Smith
He was inconsistent last season, but finished strong and doesn't have many receivers that will take away targets. And I think he might be immortal.
(#19) Eric Decker
Decker will still be a touchdown hog, but could lose a few targets to Wes Welker.
(#20) Pierre Garcon
We need to keep an eye on his health, but if he seems healthy, he can be a top 10 guy and will shoot up the rankings board.
(#21) Danny Amendola
There are a lot of targets left on the field with Welker in Denver and Hernandez in the Bristol County House of Corrections. If Amendola can stay healthy he can get a huge chunk of them.
(#22) Antonio Brown
It's hard to get a good feel for how productive the Steelers offense will be, but Ben Roethlisberger will get the ball to Brown often.
(#23) Mike Wallace
I like Wallace this season. Much like Vincent Jackson last year, I think Wallace can take his deep receiving game on the road. When Roethlsiberger played last season he had 8 TDs in 13 games. Ryan Tannehill is no slouch on the deep ball either.
(#24) Ty Hilton
Luck will continue to improve and Hilton should improve his drop percentage. Over the last 9 games of 2012 he was the 9th best fantasy wide receiver.
(#25) Reggie Wayne
I like Hilton to nudge Wayne out in fantasy this season. He put up good fantasy numbers last season, but had to do it on way too many targets, targets he won't see this year.
(#26) Wes Welker
It will be hard for him to get as many targets as he is used to, but Manning's arm isn't what it once was and he'll be happy to use Welker early and often on quick patterns. He will move up in my PPR rankings.
(#27) Torrey Smith
I want to rank him higher, but that offense is fairly inconsistent for receivers. The loss of Anquan Boldin helps a little, but I'm still wary.
(#28) Danario Alexander
I'm staying away from the Chargers unless I get good value in drafts. I love Alexander, but he's still a high injury risk and I don't usually believe in the term "injury risk."
(#29) DeSean Jackson
Chip Kelly's offense is custom fit for Jackson. If they can get rolling he could return to prominence.
(#30) James Jones
He relied on touchdowns last season for his fantasy relevance, but he still has a quarterback who can get him those touchdowns. I just rather not risk the regression to the mean.
(#31) Cecil Shorts
The loss of Justin Blackmon for the first four games will help get Shorts started and he showed a ton of ability last season.
(#32) Greg Jennings
I think Jennings still is a talented receiver and could really outplay his ADP if everything comes together, but he is still risky with Christian Ponder throwing him the ball.
(#33) Josh Gordon
I like him. He'll be inconsistent, but I see Norv Turner making this passing offense relevant again.
(#34) Kenny Britt
Britt has a a ton of upside and a megaton of downside, but he should be healthy to start this season and he's playing for a contract.
(#35) Miles Austin
Austin feels like a lost player in the NFL right now. His hamstring issues seem to be following him around. Of course if he's healthy all season he outplays this ranking by a good margin.
(#36) Mike Williams
Williams is a steady player who is targeted a lot in the red zone. He needs those TDs to be fantasy relevant, but it's not fluky that he gets them.
(#37) Steve Johnson
I'm weary of the Bills passing game this season. It's Spiller or nobody for me.
(#38) Tavon Austin
Plenty of room for Austin to make an impact this season and if he can come close to his ceiling, he's a steal this late.
(#39) Jeremy Maclin
He's yet to put a season together that I think he's capable of. If the team thrives under Kelly, this could be the year.
Note: Maclin has been diagnosed with a torn ACL since this article was written. Needless to say, do not draft Jeremy Maclin this year.
(#40) Lance Moore
He has knack for getting in the end zone and Drew Brees throws the ball more than a human should be able.
(#41) Sidney Rice
He's still talented and youngish. The concern is always health.
(#42) Denarius Moore
I'm in the middle of a tier of players that are pretty interchangeable at this point. Moore has a ton of ability and upside, but is maddening to own on a team that won't move the ball much.
(#43) Anquan Boldin
The loss of Crabtree most likely makes Boldin a more consistent fantasy player, but I still think his ceiling is low.
(#44) Emmanuel Sanders
He'll be the #2 receiver with a pretty good quarterback and Heath Miller most likely starting the season on the PUP list.
(#45) Aaron Dobson
If he wins the job in New England he will no doubt be in an offense that can make a player a fantasy star. He could ride the bench all year, but his upside is worth the risk this late.
(#46) Ryan Broyles
I like him a lot in this offense, especially if the reports of his ACL recovery are accurate.
(#47) Justin Blackmon
Blackmon is suspended for the first 4 games, but played well last season and should be able to contribute when he returns.
(#48) Michael Floyd
I am a fan of Floyd's and think Palmer helps him a little. At this point I think it's fine to reach for a guy you like.
(#49) Reuben Randle
With Nicks unable to stay healthy, Randle should see work in a good offense.
(#50) Kendall Wright
The Titans have some good young receivers and he's probably the best of the lot, but they'll need to take a big step forward as an offense for the secondary guys to have fantasy relevance.
(#51) Chris Givens
Givens has a lot of talent on a team with a bunch of young players with a lot of talent. Predicting how they fit together is extremely tough right now, but I'd take him over a boring, low ceiling dude.
(#52) Santonio Holmes
Who knows what will happen for sure at quarterback in New York, but Holmes is their best receiver and if he's healthy will lead the team.
(#53) Alshon Jeffery
Jeffery is a good possession and red zone receiver, but will be competing with Bennett and Marshall for TDs.
(#54) Darrius Heyward-Bey
If DHB gets it together in Indy, he could have some value with Luck throwing him the ball. He has some bust potential, but I have a feeling I'll own him on quite a few teams.
(#55) Vincent Brown
As long as he's healthy he should be starting and really, whoever can stay healthy for the always injured Chargers receivers could produce.
(#56) Cordarrelle Patterson
Patterson's ability to create with the ball in his hands is great. If he starts and get targets in the slot, he will surprise a lot of people.
(#57) Greg Little
If the Norv Turner offense can get moving in Cleveland, Little could have some value, especially if he can get a leg up on Gordon for targets.
(#58) Brian Hartline
He showed that he is a capable receiver last season and is a better fit as the #2 guy to Wallace than as a #1, but he's allergic to the end zone.
(#59) Jeremy Kerley
Could be the Jets best option at receiver if Holmes doesn't heal well. Kind of sad, but might have value in PPR leagues.
(#60) Brandon LaFell
LaFell doesn't seem talented enough to rise above his position in this offense, but he is the #2 receiver.
(#61) DeAndre Hopkins
Should start across from Andre Johnson week one which is a nice place to be. The Texans run first offense is what will slow him down the most.
(#62) Brian Quick
If that offense can click, there could be room for some fantasy up and comers like Quick, but that's a big if.
(#63) Markus Wheaton
Haley's offense is a quick learn. Wheaton could make strides this year.
(#64) Golden Tate
Tate is a good player, but lost a lot of work when Percy Harvin became a Seahawk. This offense is stacked, but won't be in many shootouts with their defense being one of the best in the game.
(#65) Nate Burleson
Burleson's value comes from the pass often Lions. He can't create on his own.
(#66) Keenan Allen
Allen could see significant time for the Chargers with the injury ward they have at wide receiver.
(#67) Mohamed Sanu
Being across from Green can't hurt.
(#68) Malcom Floyd
I think Brown and DA are the guys to own in SD.
(#69) Joseph Morgan
He will stretch the field and have a few good games, but he'll need an injury to get enough targets to be valuable.
(#70) Andre Roberts
I like Michael Floyd to beat Roberts out for targets this season. Bruce Arians can make many receivers fantasy relevant, but the offensive line may have something to say about that.
(#71) Stephen Hill
They have little at QB, but the fact that the Jets didn't draft a WR shows they have faith in Hill as the #2.
(#72) Jarius Wright
The additions of Jennings and Patterson killed Wright's value. He'll need one of them to go away.
(#73) Justin Hunter
Will need some help to get targets.
(#74) Leonard Hankerson
Hank didn't live up to my expectations last season, but he's still young.
(#75) Aldrick Robinson
He might be the deep threat RGIII needs.
(#76) Robert Woods
He should be starting day one, but Spiller, Jackson and Johnson are the main weapons and Manuel or Kolb will have trouble getting Woods enough targets.
(#77) Rod Streater
Oakland looks to be a bit of a fantasy wasteland in the passing game this season with Matt Flynn at the helm.
(#78) Nate Washington
Time to give the youngsters a shot.


text:
7 Reviews
I've been making this recipe for years and my family loves it. I have much better success with it when I reduce the amount of breadcrumbs and increase the moisture (more butter when sauteing the onions and pepper). I also add more oil with frying. It helps with the flavor. I always use a rotisserie chicken, and the sauce is a must!
Good recipe. Though I am a slower chopper than average, we thought the cakes were okay, but we really enjoyed the sauce and garnishes/toppings with them. It made a nice compliment. I did have a little , and I mean little trouble though keeping these together. All in all they were nicely seasoned. Made for Zaar Stars.
I don't know if this recipe NEEDS the sauce to taste good, but I figured I'd try it without it. Just using the patty portion of this recipe did not go over well. The flavor was OK, not wonderful and the consistency was crumby and dry. It tasted like fried breadcrumbs with a tiny bit of flavor. I'm sure I did something wrong as the other reviews seem positive.
The taste was awesome! I will have to say that it wasn't as easy and quick as I would like it, however I did use my food processor to chop the chicken. I added capers to the remoulade sauce but other than that I followed the recipe exactly. My boys absolutely thought this was the greatest! Made for 1-2-3 Hits.
Excellent! We really enjoyed this recipe. Wonderful flavors. I used four cooked boneless skinless chicken breast halves and shredded them in the food processor. I substituted sour cream for the mayonnaise. I accidently used 3 garlic cloves in the chicken cakes, but that was ok because we love garlic. I used Creole Mustard and Emeril's Creole Seasoning. I was confused about the amount of ground red pepper in this recipe because the ingredient list shows 1 teaspoon but the directions state to use only 1/4 teaspoon in the sauce...it doesn't look like the remaining 3/4 teaspoon is called for anywhere. In any case, I only used 1/8 teaspoon ground red pepper in the Remoulade sauce because my husband is heat sensitive. He loved the sauce and is currently thinking of how he can use up the remaining sauce tomorrow :-) Thank you for the recipe...we will definitely be making it again. I served it with Easy Garlic Rice. Made for Every Day is a Holiday.
This was far from quick and easy for me. Saying that I'm the slowest chopper ever. I had problems with the way the recipe was written and made some mistakes because of it (my fault) The 1 tsp of ground red pepper didn't have divided to warn you and the creole mustard, I think should have read 3 tablespoons, divided. Just would have made the recipe easier to read and follow. I ended up adding 1 tsp of ground red pepper to the Remoulade Sauce (my fault) The flavor was excellent (I used Creole Mustard for the Creole Mustard) Had a little trouble with the cakes separating and the edges crumbling off during the frying process. (May use an extra egg next time). All in all this was a very nice recipe with excellent flavor, even with the 1 tsp of cayenne pepper in the Remoulade Sauce. Thanks for sharing. Made for PRMR :)
I went shopping sunday and dragged hubby with me. By the time we got home he was hungry and not in the best of moods. I was able to put this together really quick and it put him back in good mood. Delicious and simple. Made for ZWT5.


text:
Letter from Ben Santer in Support of Tom Karl, Climate Scientist Under Attack by Lamar Smith
Message from Ben Santer: Here is a message of support I sent to Tom Karl on November 17, 2015. I remain deeply concerned by the unwarranted Congressional scrutiny that the 2015 Karl et al. Science paper continues to receive.
I have no concerns about public distribution of this letter.
Dr. Thomas R. Karl
Director, National Center for Environmental Information
Veach-Baley Federal Building
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801-5001
Dear Tom,
I just wanted to express my gratitude and scientific appreciation for the critical research you and your NCEI colleagues have performed over the last several decades. You have been pioneers in many different areas: in producing observational estimates of global-scale changes in land and ocean surface temperatures, in identifying non-climatic artifacts in temperature measurements, in developing rigorous scientific methods of adjusting for such artifacts, and in accounting for the incomplete, time-varying coverage of observations.
NCEI has made its surface temperature data sets freely and openly available to the entire climate science community, thus enabling important research on the nature and causes of climate change, climate variability, and climate model evaluation. NCEI staff have clearly and thoroughly documented each surface temperature data set that NCEI has released – in scientific publications, in presentations to policymakers and professional societies, and in extensive online material. No scientific organization has done a more thorough or transparent job in developing and analyzing observations of 20th and early 21st century changes in Earth's climate.
I am deeply concerned that NCEI's science is now being subjected to Congressional scrutiny and criticism. Such scrutiny and criticism is not warranted. The leadership of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology should understand that science is dynamic rather than static. All observational temperature data sets have evolved in important ways over time, in tandem with improvements in the ability to identify and adjust for inhomogeneities introduced by changing measurement systems, changing measurement practices, and changes in the spatial coverage of measurements. This is true not only for surface temperature data sets, but also for measurements of the heat content of the world's oceans, and for satellite-based estimates of temperature change in Earth's lower and upper atmosphere. Evolution of observational temperature data sets is a normal, on-going scientific process. It is not evidence of non-scientific behavior.
If our country is to take informed decisions on how to address problems arising from human perturbations to the climate system, we need access to the best-available scientific information on how Earth's climate has actually changed. NCEI provides such critically important information to the scientific community, policymakers, and the public. You and your NCEI colleagues deserve our sincere thanks and our continued support.
With best regards,
Ben Santer
Distinguished Member of Scientific Staff, Lawrence Livermore National Lab
Member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences
John Kasich Tells Pope: Climate Change Is 'Some Theory That's Not Proven'
On Meet the Press this Sunday, Republican presidential candidate Gov. John Kasich (R-Ohio) rejected the science of fossil-fueled global warming. Kasich told host Chuck Todd that manmade climate change is "some theory that's not proven", in response to a question about Pope Francis, who recently authored the influential climate encyclical, Laudato Si'.
CHUCK TODD: You brought up the environment. [Pope Francis] is somebody who believes that climate change is manmade and that man needs to do something about it. Do you agree with him?
GOVERNOR JOHN KASICH: Well, I think that man absolutely affects the environment. But as to whether, you know, what the impact is, the overall impact, I think that's a legitimate debate. But what I do think is, you know, in my state of Ohio, you know, we preciously take care of Lake Erie. We've reduced emissions by 30% over the last ten years. We believe in alternative energy. So of course we have to be sensitive to it. But we don't want to destroy people's jobs based on some theory that's not proven.
Todd did not correct Kasich, moving on to a question about conservative activist Erick Erickson.
The National Journal's Clare Foran published an attempt by the Kasich campaign to deny Kasich's climate denial: "The governor has long believed climate change is real and we need to so something about it. The debate over exact percentages of why it is happening is less important than what can be done about it. We know it is real, we know man has an impact, and we know we need to do something."
In reality, the carbon-dioxide greenhouse effect is a physical fact known since the 1800s. The only scientifically plausible systematic explanation for the rapid and continuing warming of the planetary climate since 1950 is industrial greenhouse pollution. The world's national scientific societies and the world's practicing climate scientists are in overwhelming agreement about this fact.
The First Law of Climate Policy
The First Law of Climate Policy: Global warming won't stop until we stop burning fossil fuels.
Charles Koch Affirms He's A Climate Denier
In an interview with USA Today, petrochemical baron Charles Koch reiterated his rejection of the scientific consensus on industrial global warming.
"You can plausibly say that CO2 has contributed" to the planet's warming, he told USA Today reporter Fredreka Schouten, but he sees "no evidence" to support "this theory that it's going to be catastrophic."
Koch may have been forced to admit that carbon-dioxide pollution is warming the planet by research he funded—the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study, which replicated previous global temperature reconstructions.
In fact, the only scientifically plausible systematic explanation for the rapid and continuing warming of the planetary climate since 1950 is industrial greenhouse pollution. The world's national scientific societies and the world's practicing climate scientists are in overwhelming agreement that dangerous impacts of global warming are already being observed, and globally catastrophic impacts are inevitable if further carbon dioxide pollution is not curtailed.
The $100 billion fortune of the Koch brothers is built upon decades of greenhouse pollution. To protect their business, the Kochs have spent billions supporting a vast infrastructure of politicians and advocacy organizations to reject the science of climate change and prevent regulation of climate pollutants.
UPDATE: Greenpeace's Connor Gibson has more.
Influential Climate Denier Jeffrey Salmon Manages Department of Energy's Science Grants and Budget
Jeffrey T. Salmon in 2008
At the time, Salmon was the executive director of the ExxonMobil-funded George C. Marshall Institute.
Under his direction, the Marshall Institute was a major purveyor of climate denial, rejecting the scientific consensus and arguing against any limits on carbon dioxide pollution. Salmon instituted the practice of accepting corporate contributions at Marshall, starting with Exxon. In a 1996 appearance on CNN, Salmon said, "If you want to reduce carbon emissions for some reason, let's hear that reason; let's not hear that it's global warming, which there's no indication that human action is contributing to." In 1993, Salmon wrote that there is "no solid scientific evidence to support the theory that the earth is warming because of man-made greenhouse gases." In 1992, a Salmon op-ed in USA Today claimed, "New findings suggest that the greenhouse problem is a non-problem."
A George W. Bush appointee to the Department of Energy, Salmon moved over into his current position in July 2008. As a civil-service job, Salmon's position is protected from removal by the current administration, an example of the practice known as "burrowing." Salmon served in the Department of Energy for the entire Bush administration, starting in March 2001, as Senior Policy Advisor to Secretary Spencer Abraham. In 2002, he joined the Office of Science as the Chief of Staff to the Director of the Office of Science Ray Orbach. In 2006, when the Energy Policy Act of 2005 created the office of the Under Secretary for Science, he became the Associate Under Secretary below Orbach.
Under Obama's first Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, much of the Department of Energy's science research funding was directed through the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), funded by the 2009 stimulus bill.
Salmon, who has a doctorate in politics, was a speechwriter for both Dick Cheney when he was secretary of defense.
VIDEO: Legislators Choke with Laughter as Florida Official Struggles to Avoid Saying "Climate Change"
Florida Gov. Rick Scott's secret climate-change gag rule turned a state legislative hearing into a screwball farce last Thursday. Legislators chortled as the state's top emergency-management official struggled under the dry questioning of state Sen. Jeff Clemens (D-Lake Worth) to avoid saying the words "climate change." At one point, Clemens offered a suggestion to Bryan Koon, director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management, recommending Floridians use the euphemism "atmospheric re-employment" as one that would be more acceptable to the governor, an outspoken denier of the science that the continued burning of fossil fuels is destabilizing the climate system and threatening Florida with rapid sea level rise.
The hearing room of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism, and Economic Development broke out with laughter, including the legislator sitting next to Clemens, Sen. Jeff Brandes (R-St. Petersburg).
The conversation about the new FEMA guidelines that include climate change considerations continued, with Clemens needling Koon's apparent fear of saying the words "climate change."
"My understanding at this point is that future versions of our mitigation plan will be required to have language discussing that issue," Koon said.
"What issue is that?" Clemens replied.
"Uh, the issue you mentioned earlier, regarding, um . . ."
At this point, the chair of the committee, Sen. Jack Latvala (R-Clearwater), doubled over in his chair, choking with laughter.
A spokesman told the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting: "The Florida Division of Emergency Management does not have any policy which prohibits the use of the words 'climate change.' "
The exchange was featured on The Daily Show's Wednesday episode. Stewart piled on with other climate-change euphemisms, including "moisture inconvenience" and "state-wide jacuzzification."
CLEMENS: You were in DC last time when we went through this particular issue and as you said these are federal funds. Are you familiar with the new procedures FEMA issued just this week dealing with climate change and the, the fact that they're going to be requesting or demanding that states have a climate change plan before they're going to, to issue some of these preparedness dollars?
KOON: I am.
CLEMENS: Is this going to affect those moneys at all?
KOON: It will not. That, that one refers to, uh, a state's hazard mitigation plan which is done every five years, uh, and the next iterations of them will required to have, uh, language to that effect.
OFF-CAMERA: What were those words, Mr. Chairman? What were the words you were using?"
CLEMENS: I used 'climate change,' but I'm suggesting that maybe as a state we use 'atmospheric re-employment.' That might be something that the governor would . . .
CLEMENS: So, my worry obviously is with these dollars even in a more general sense to make sure we as a state have to come up with some sort of plan to keep our preparedness dollars for hurricanes. I'm assuming that's something you're going to speak with the governor about, and trying to take up, so we don't lose our dollars in the future.
KOON: Yes, Senator. Our next state mitigation plan is due to the feds in 2018 so we have some time, uh, in which to have that conversation.
CLEMENS: Even though that takes place, the edict starts in March of 2016 we only have to . . .
KOON: That's right, but my understanding at this point is that future versions of our mitigation plan will be required to have language discussing that issue.
CLEMENS: What issue is that?
KOON: Uh, the issue you mentioned earlier, regarding, um . . .
CLEMENS: I'm going to turn the chair back over. Well, maybe I shouldn't right now.
Secretary of State John Kerry Calls Climate Inaction "Just Plain Immoral"
In a passionate address yesterday, Secretary of State John Kerry called inaction on carbon pollution "just plain immoral," as it is "gambling with the future of Earth itself." Kerry's remarks were made at the Atlantic Council in Washington, D.C., setting the stage for this December's international climate negotiations in Paris.
"Lincoln took risks, Gandhi took risks, Churchill took risks, Dr. King took risks, Mandela took risks, but that doesn't mean that every risk-taker is a role model. It's one thing to risk a career or a life on behalf of a principle or to save or liberate a population," Kerry said. "It's quite another to wager the well-being of generations and life itself simply to continue satisfying the appetites of the present or to insist on a course of inaction long after all the available evidence has pointed to the folly of that path."
"Gambling with the future of Earth itself when we know full well what the outcome would be is beyond reckless," he continued. "It is just plain immoral."
"And it is a risk that no one should take. We need to face reality. There is no planet B."
Kerry also called for a renewed global commitment to cutting carbon pollution to avoid the 2-degree-Celsius warming threshold agreed to by President Obama. Using language that could have practical policy implications, Kerry argued that energy-investment decisions must "include the long-term cost of carbon pollution."
It is time, my friends, for people to do real cost accounting. The bottom line is that we can't only factor in the price of immediate energy needs. We have to include the long-term cost of carbon pollution. We have to factor in the cost of survival. And if we do, we will find that pursuing clean energy now is far more affordable than paying for the consequences of climate change later.
Such decisions notably include the long-awaited Presidential determination on the Keystone XL tar-sands pipeline, which if built would have the carbon-pollution impact of 40 new coal-fired power plants.
The Secretary of State made reference to the news uncovered by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting that Florida governor Rick Scott's administration censored use of the words "climate change," "global warming," and "sea level rise."
So when science tells us that our climate is changing and humans beings are largely causing that change, by what right do people stand up and just say, "Well, I dispute that" or "I deny that elementary truth?" And yet, there are those who do so. Literally a couple of days ago, I read about some state officials who are actually trying to ban the use of the term "climate change" in public documents because they're not willing to face the facts.
Now folks, we literally do not have the time to waste debating whether we can say "climate change." We have to talk about how we solve climate change. Because no matter how much people want to bury their heads in the sand, it will not alter the fact that 97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible. I have been involved in public policy debates now for 40-plus years, whatever, since the 1960s. It is rare, rare, rare – I can tell you after 28 years-plus in the Senate – to get a super majority of studies to agree on anything. But 97 percent, over 20-plus years – that's a dramatic statement of fact that no one of good conscience has a right to ignore.
Climate activist group Forecast the Facts is petitioning for an investigation.
Kerry's speech had one factual misstep – he claimed that the first Senate hearings on climate change were held in 1988, when Dr. James Hansen famously warned Congress that global warming was already measurably affecting the climate.
Climate change is an issue that is personal to me, and it has been since the 1980s, when we were organizing the very first climate hearings in the Senate. In fact, it really predates that, going back to Earth Day when I'd come back from Vietnam. It was the first political thing I began to organize in Massachusetts, when citizens started to make a solid statement in this country. And I might add that's before we even had an Environmental Protection Agency or a Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking Water Act or a Marine Mammal Protection Act or a Coastal Zone Management Act. It all came out of that kind of citizen movement. And that's what we have to be involved in now. And the reason for that is simple: For decades now, the science has been screaming at us, warning us, trying to compel us to act.
And I just want to underscore that for a moment. It may seem obvious to you, but it isn't to some. Science is and has long been crystal clear when it comes to climate change. Al Gore, Tim Wirth, and a group of us organized the first hearings in the Senate on this, 1988. We heard Jim Hansen stand in – sit in front of us and tell us it's happening now, 1988. So we're not talking about news reports or blog posts or even speeches that some cabinet secretary might give at a think tank. We're talking about a fact-based, evidence-supported, peer-reviewed science. And yet, if you listen to some people in Washington or elsewhere, you'd think there's a question about whether climate change really is a problem or whether we really need to respond to it.
In fact, the first Senate hearings on climate change were 11 years earlier in 1977, when the science subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Technology held a series of four hearings on the National Climate Program Act. The first House hearings on the same act of legislation were a year earlier.
The risk of fossil-fueled climate change was brought to the Congress's attention by President Lyndon B. Johnson in his February 8, 1965 address on the environment, now over fifty years ago.
Transcript of full remarks:
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, good morning, everybody. Fred, thank you very, very much for a very generous introduction. I'm delighted to be here with everybody. Distinguished ambassadors who are here this morning, thank you for taking time to represent your countries and come here and share your concern about this critical issue.
And I'm delighted to be accompanied by our envoy on climate, who's been toiling away in the fields for a long time now in helping to shape President Obama's and the State Department's policy on this, Todd Stern. Todd, thanks for your many efforts on it.
Fred, thank you for leadership here at the Atlantic Council. I think Fred has demonstrated that he seems to always have the ability to have his finger on the most critical issues of the day, not just today actually, but of tomorrow. And as a result, we can always count on the Atlantic Council to be ahead of the curve and to be challenging all of us to think. So we appreciate very much what you do. And thank you, all of you, who are on the board and/or a part of and committed to the efforts of the council.
I have to add you also have an impeccable eye for talent. I was not surprised to hear that you had the good sense to hire Ambassador Richard Morningstar. He's one of the most experienced global energy experts and a good friend of mine and Massachusetts – a son of Massachusetts. And now that he's the director of the new Global Energy Center, you couldn't be in better hands. And secondly, my former legislative assistant on energy and climate and then went to the White House, Heather Zichal, is part of this great family of effort on climate. So I think we're kind of a family here this morning, in fact.
It's clear that from Venezuela to Iraq to Ukraine, there is no shortage of energy challenges in the world today. And we've had many conversations recently. I was in Brussels. We had an U.S.-EU energy summit, where we laid out an agenda for how we can liberate some of these countries from their one-country dependency in the case of Russia and others. It has huge strategic importance. But I have to tell you, at the top of the list of energy challenges is climate change. And that is why the Road to Paris series, the very first hosted by the center, is so very important, and I am really delighted to be here and be a part of it.
As Fred mentioned, climate change is an issue that is personal to me, and it has been since the 1980s, when we were organizing the very first climate hearings in the Senate. In fact, it really predates that, going back to Earth Day when I'd come back from Vietnam. It was the first political thing I began to organize in Massachusetts, when citizens started to make a solid statement in this country. And I might add that's before we even had an Environmental Protection Agency or a Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking Water Act or a Marine Mammal Protection Act or a Coastal Zone Management Act. It all came out of that kind of citizen movement. And that's what we have to be involved in now. And the reason for that is simple: For decades now, the science has been screaming at us, warning us, trying to compel us to act.
And I just want to underscore that for a moment. It may seem obvious to you, but it isn't to some. Science is and has long been crystal clear when it comes to climate change. Al Gore, Tim Wirth, and a group of us organized the first hearings in the Senate on this, 1988. We heard Jim Hansen stand in – sit in front of us and tell us it's happening now, 1988. So we're not talking about news reports or blog posts or even speeches that some cabinet secretary might give at a think tank. We're talking about a fact-based, evidence-supported, peer-reviewed science. And yet, if you listen to some people in Washington or elsewhere, you'd think there's a question about whether climate change really is a problem or whether we really need to respond to it.
So stop for a minute and just think about the basics. When an apple falls from a tree, it will drop toward the ground. We know that because of the basic laws of physics. Science tells us that gravity exists, and no one disputes that. Science also tells us that when the water temperature drops below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, it turns to ice. No one disputes that.
So when science tells us that our climate is changing and humans beings are largely causing that change, by what right do people stand up and just say, "Well, I dispute that" or "I deny that elementary truth?" And yet, there are those who do so. Literally a couple of days ago, I read about some state officials who are actually trying to ban the use of the term "climate change" in public documents because they're not willing to face the facts.
Now folks, we literally do not have the time to waste debating whether we can say "climate change." We have to talk about how we solve climate change. Because no matter how much people want to bury their heads in the sand, it will not alter the fact that 97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible. I have been involved in public policy debates now for 40-plus years, whatever, since the 1960s. It is rare, rare, rare – I can tell you after 28 years-plus in the Senate – to get a super majority of studies to agree on anything. But 97 percent, over 20-plus years – that's a dramatic statement of fact that no one of good conscience has a right to ignore.
But what's really troubling is that those same scientists are telling us what's going to happen, not just the fact of it being there, but they're telling us what's coming at us. These scientists also agree that if we continue to march like robots down the path that we're on, the world as we know it will be transformed dramatically for the worse. And we can expect that sea levels will continue rising to dangerous levels. We will see nations moved as a consequence in the Pacific and elsewhere – Bangladesh, countries that are low.
We will see large swaths of cities and even some countries under water. We can expect more intense and frequent extreme weather events like hurricanes and typhoons. We can expect disruptions to the global agricultural sector that will threaten job security for millions of farmers and undermine food security for millions of families. We can expect prolonged droughts and resource shortages, which have the potential to fan the flames of conflict in areas that are already troubled by longstanding political, economic, religious, ideological, sectarian disputes. Imagine when they're complicated by the absence of water and food.
These are the consequences of climate change, and this is the magnitude of what we are up against. And measured against the array of global threats we face today – and there are many. Terrorism, extremism, epidemics, poverty, nuclear proliferation, all challenges that respect no borders – climate change belongs on that very same list. It is, indeed, one of the biggest threats facing our planet today. And even top military personnel have designated it as a security threat to not just the United States but the world. And no one who has truly considered the science, no one who has truly listened objectively to our national security experts, could reach a different conclusion.
So yes, this is personal to me. But you know what? The bottom line is it ought to be personal to everybody, every man, woman, child, businessperson, student, grandparent, wherever we live, whatever our calling, whatever our personal background might be. This issue affects everyone on the planet. And if any challenge requires global cooperation and urgent action, this is it.
Make no mistake, this is a critical year. And that is why this Road to Paris series is so important. The science tells us we still have a window of time to prevent the worst impacts of climate change, but that window is closing quickly. We're already in a mode where we're looking at mitigation, not just prevention. In December, the world will come together at the UN Climate Conference in Paris, and we will see whether or not we can muster the collective political will to reach an ambitious, comprehensive agreement.
Now even those of us who are most involved in the negotiations – and Todd and I have talked to this, and talked about it with the President – we all understand. We know that even the agreement we're trying to reach in Paris will not completely and totally be able to eliminate the threat. It's not going to. But it is an absolutely vital first step, and it would be a breakthrough demonstration that countries across the globe now recognize the problem and the need for each and every one of us to contribute to a solution. And it will set the market moving; it will change attitudes; it will change governments. And then progressively, no one can quite measure what the exponential productivity of all of that effort will produce. So we have nine short months to come together around the kind of agreement that will put us on the right path.
Now rest assured – not a threat, but a statement of fact – if we fail, future generations will not and should not forgive those who ignore this moment, no matter their reasoning. Future generations will judge our effort not just as a policy failure but as a collective moral failure of historic consequence. And they will want to know how world leaders could possibly have been so blind or so ignorant or so ideological or so dysfunctional and, frankly, so stubborn that we failed to act on knowledge that was confirmed by so many scientists, in so many studies, over such a long period of time, and documented by so much evidence.
The truth is we will have no excuse. You don't need to be a scientist to see that the world is already changing and feeling the impacts of global climate change and significantly. Many of the things I mentioned a moment ago are already beginning to unfold before our eyes. Just look around you. Fourteen of the fifteen warmest years on record in all of history have occurred since 2000, in all of recorded history. Last year was the warmest of all. And I think if you stop and think about it, it seems that almost every next year becomes one of the hottest on record.
And with added heat comes an altered environment. It's not particularly complicated. I don't mean to sound haughty, but think about it for a minute. Life on Earth would not exist without a greenhouse effect. That is what has kept the average temperature up, until recently, at 57 degrees Fahrenheit, because there is this greenhouse effect. And it was called the greenhouse effect because it does exactly what a greenhouse does. When the sun pours in and bounces off at a different angle, it goes back up at a different angle. That can't escape, and that warms things – a very simple proposition.
Now it's difficult to tell whether one specific storm or one specific drought is solely caused by climate change, or a specific moment, but the growing number of extreme events scientists tell us is a clear signal to all of us. Recently Southeastern Brazil has been experiencing a crippling drought, the worst the region has seen in 80 years. The situation is so dire that families in Sao Paulo have been drilling through their basement floors in search of groundwater.
And the historic droughts in some parts of the world are matched only by historic floods in others. Malawi is currently in the midst of a disaster in which more than 150 people have died. Tens of thousands of people have been stranded by the rushing waters, cut off from food, clean water, healthcare, and thousands more have been forced from their homes.
This is happening now. It's not a future event. And you can find countries, places – in fact, California, where they've had 100-year, 500-year droughts and massive fires and so forth as a consequence of the changes. Ask any scientist who studies the movement of species, and they'll tell you how species are moving steadily north, fish moving. Everything is changing. It's happening before our eyes, and that's the first reason there is no excuse for ignoring this problem.
The second reason is that, unlike some of challenges that we face – I can readily attest to this – this one has a ready-made solution. The solution is not a mystery. It's staring us in the face. It's called energy policy. Energy policy. That's the solution to climate change. And with the right choices, at the right speed, you can actually prevent the worst effects of climate change from crippling us forever. If we make the switch to a global, clean-energy economy a priority, if we think more creatively about how we power our cars, heat our homes, operate our businesses, then we still have time to prevent the worst consequences of climate change. It really is as simple as that. But getting there is proving not to be as simple.
So what, more specifically, do we need to do? I'm not going to come here and just describe the problem. What do we need to do?
To begin with, we need leaders with the political courage to make the tough, but necessary, policy choices that will help us all find the right path. And I am pleased to say and proud to serve with a President who has accepted that challenge, who has taken this head on. Today, thanks to President Obama's Climate Action Plan, the United States is well on its way to meeting our international commitments to seriously cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. And that's because we're going straight to the largest sources of pollution. We're targeting emissions from transportation and power sources, which account for about 60 percent of the dangerous greenhouse gases that we release. And we're also tackling smaller opportunities in every sector of the economy in order to be able to address every greenhouse gas.
The President has put in place standards to double the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks on American roads. We've also proposed regulations that will curb carbon pollution from new and existing power plants.
But it's not enough just to address the pollution generated by dirty sources of energy; we also have to invest in cleaner alternatives. Since President Obama took office, the United States has upped its wind energy production more than threefold and increased our solar energy generation more than tenfold. We've also become smarter about the way we use energy in our homes and businesses.
And this is by far the most ambitious set of climate actions that the United States of America has ever undertaken. And it's a large part of why today we're emitting less than we have in two decades. It's also the reason that we were able to recently announce the goal of reducing emissions by 26 to 28 percent, from 2005 levels, and accomplish that by year 2025. And that will put us squarely on the road to a more sustainable and prosperous economy. Now, this upper end target would also enable us to be able to cut our emissions by 83 percent by mid-century, which is what scientists say we need to do in order to prevent warming from exceeding the threshold level of 2 degrees centigrade, Celsius.
But I can't emphasize this enough, no single country, not even the United States, can solve this problem or foot this bill alone. And that isn't just rhetoric. It's physically impossible. Think of it this way: Even if every single American bikes to work or carpooled to school, or used only solar panels to power their homes; if we each planted a dozen trees, every American; if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions – guess what? That still wouldn't be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world. The same would be true if China went to zero emissions but others continued with business as usual. It's not enough for one country or even a few countries to reduce emissions if their neighbors are unwilling to do their share. So when I say we need a global solution, I mean it. Anything less won't work.
Now of course, industrialized countries, obviously, play a major role in bringing about a clean-energy future. And the days of the Industrial Revolution all the way through the last century – obviously the industrial countries benefitted by developing and growing, but they also created the basic template for this problem. But even if all the industrial countries stopped today, it doesn't solve the problem. And it certainly is a signal that other countries shouldn't go off and repeat the mistakes of the past. We have to remember that, today, almost two-thirds of global emissions come from developing nations. So it is imperative that developing nations be part of the solution also.
Now I want to make this very, very clear. In economic terms, this is not a choice between bad and worse. Some people like to demagogue this issue. They want to tell you, "Oh, we can't afford to do this." Nothing could be further from the truth. We can't afford not to do it. And in fact, the economics will show you that it is better in the long run to do it and cheaper in the long run. So this is not a choice between bad and worse, not at all. Ultimately, this is a choice between growing or shrinking an economy. Pursuing cleaner, more efficient energy is actually the only way that nations around the world can build the kind of economies that are going to thrive for decades to come.
And here's why. Coal and oil are only cheap ways to power a nation in the very near term. But if you look a little further down you road, you begin to see an entirely different story. When you think about the real numbers over time, the costs of those outdated energy sources actually pile up very quickly.
Start with the economic impacts related to agriculture and food security and how scientists estimate that the changing climate is going to cause yields of crops like rice and maize and wheat to fall by 2 percent every decade. Consider what that means for millions of farmers around the world and the inflationary impact that will have on food prices. Now factor in how that would also exacerbate global challenges like hunger and malnutrition that we already face. Add to that the other long-term health-related problems caused by dirty air – asthma is an example, which predominantly affects children and already costs Americans an estimated $50 billion annually. The greatest single cause of young American children being hospitalized in the course of a summer in the United States is environmentally-induced asthma, and that costs billions.
The reality is that carbon-based air pollution contributes to the deaths of at least 4.5 million people every year. No part of that is inexpensive. And any nation that argues that it simply can't afford to invest in the alternative and renewable energy needs to take a second look at what they're paying for, consider the sizable costs that are associated with rebuilding in the wake of devastating weather events. In 2012 alone, extreme weather cost the United States nearly $120 billion in damages. When Typhoon Haiyan hit the Philippines a little over a year ago, the cost of responding exceeded $10 billion. And that's just the bill for the storm damage. Think of the added health care costs, the expenses that result from agricultural and environmental degradation. It is time, my friends, for people to do real cost accounting.
The bottom line is that we can't only factor in the price of immediate energy needs. We have to include the long-term cost of carbon pollution. We have to factor in the cost of survival. And if we do, we will find that pursuing clean energy now is far more affordable than paying for the consequences of climate change later.
But there's another piece of reality to take into account. And as you can see, these arguments begin to compound and grow, become irrefutable, frankly. Clean energy is not only the solution to climate change – guess what? It's also one of the greatest economic opportunities of all time. Want to put people to work? This is the way you put people to work. The global energy market of the future is poised to be the largest market the world has ever known. We're talking about a $6 trillion market today, with four to five billion users today. That will grow to nine billion users over the next few decades. By comparison, the great driver of wealth creation in this country in the 1990s, when super-billionaires and millionaires were created and every income level of America went up, that was a technology market. And it was a $1 trillion market with only a billion users – just to get a sense of the possibilities here.
Between now and 2035, investment in the energy sector is expected to reach nearly $17 trillion. That's more than the entire GDP of China and you just have to imagine the opportunities for clean energy. Imagine the businesses that could be launched, the jobs that will be created in every corner of the globe. And by the way, the United States of America, in the year 2015, doesn't even have a national grid. We have a great big gaping hole in the middle of our country. You can't sell energy from the wind farm in Massachusetts or in Minnesota to another part of the country, because we can't transmit it. Think of the jobs in creating that grid. Actually, you don't have to imagine it. All you have to do is look at the results that we are already seeing in places like my home state of Massachusetts.
In 2007, we set a couple of goals. We pledged to build 2,000 megawatts of wind power capacity by 2020, and more than 250 megawatts of solar power by 2017. It was pretty ambitious. It was unprecedented. But we knew that the potential benefits to the state were enormous.
Fast forward to today, and Massachusetts has increased renewable energy by 400 percent in the last four years alone. We used a bulk purchasing program for residential solar to help keep prices low for residents and businesses across the state. And because of that, today there are residential solar installations in 350 of Massachusetts's 351 cities and towns. Today, the commonwealth's clean energy economy is a $10 billion industry that has grown by 10.5 percent over the past year and 47 percent since 2010. It employs nearly 100,000 people at 6,000 firms, and it's the perfect example of how quickly this transformation could happen and how far its benefits reach.
If we put our minds to it, folks, if we make the right decisions and forge the right partnerships, we can bring these kinds of benefits to communities across the United States and around the globe. To get there, all nations have to be smarter about how we use energy, invest in energy, and encourage businesses to make smart energy choices as well.
Now, we'll have to invest in new technology, and that will help us bring renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and hydro not only to the communities where those resources are abundant, but to every community in every country on every continent. We'll have to stop government money from going towards nonrenewable energy sources, like coal and oil. It makes no sense to be subsidizing that. Which is why the United States has been helping to drive efforts in the G-20 and APEC to phase out wasteful fossil fuel subsidies.
And we've actually taken steps to prevent now global financial institutions from funding dirty power plants and putting public money into those things that we know are going to go in the wrong direction. We'll have to strengthen legal and regulatory frameworks in countries overseas to help spur investment in places where it's insufficient. It's much easier for businesses to deploy capital when they have confidence in the local legal and regulatory policy. And to attract money, we need to control risk. The more you can minimize the risk, the greater confidence people, investors will have to bring their capital to the table.
We also have to continue to push for the world's highest standards in the environmental chapters of the trade agreements that we're pursuing, just like we are doing in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And just like labor standards in other agreements, these environmental agreements have to be really fully enforceable.
Finally, we have to find more ways for the private and the public sector to work together to make the most of the innovative technology that entrepreneurs are developing here in the United States and around the world. And this is the idea that is behind the White House announcement that they made last month, the Clean Energy Investment Initiative. Its starting goal is to attract $2 billion in private sector investment to be put toward clean energy climate change solutions.
Now, the good news is much of the technology that we need is already out there. And it's becoming faster and faster, easier to access and cheaper to access. A report that the Department of Energy released this morning actually projects that in the United States, wind power is going to be directly competitive with conventional energy technologies within the next 10 years. None of this, therefore, none of what I have said, is beyond our capacity. It's not a pipe dream; it's a reality. It's right there. And it's up to us to grab it. The question is whether or not it is beyond our collective resolve.
Now, we have seen some encouraging progress, frankly, over the past few months. During President Obama's trip to New Delhi early this year, and Fred referred to it in his introduction, India – well, both China and India – the President – affirmed its far-reaching solar energy target, and our two nations agreed on a number of climate and clean energy initiatives. We also committed to working closely together to achieve a successful global agreement in Paris. So India is joined in that challenge.
And that came on the heels of the historic announcement in China that the United States and China, the world's two largest emitters of carbon pollution – two countries, by the way, long regarded as the leaders of opposing camps in the climate negotiations – have now found common ground on this issue. And I joined President Obama as he stood next to President Xi, and Todd was there when we unveiled our respective ambitious post-2020 mitigation commitments. That is an enormous achievement.
And it had an impact. It was felt in Lima at the COP meeting in Lima recently, and had an impact on the ability to move towards Paris with greater momentum. Around the same time, the EU announced its target as well, which means we now have strong commitments from the three largest emitters in the world.
Now we need more and more nations to follow suit and announce their ambitious mitigation targets as well. And because this has to be a truly all-hands-on-deck effort, I invite all of our partners – businesses and industry groups, mayors, governors throughout the country and around the world to announce their own targets, their commitments leading up to Paris, so we can set an example and create a grassroots movement towards success. This will help us come forward with plans that will help every country be able to reach their goals.
Now I am keenly aware that we can do a better job of engaging the private sector and our partners at the sub-national level of government in this effort. And I can tell you today that I plan to make certain in the next months that that happens. I know many of you have already made impressive announcements, those of you engaged in business or on the boards of an enterprise or eleemosynary or educational institutions. And you've helped to lay out how we can combat climate change, and I thank you for doing that. But now it's time to build on those pledges. Let us know how you are doing. I say let us know through the State Department, through state.gov, and how we can help you make progress. And this is the kind of shared resolve that will help ensure that we are successful in Paris and beyond.
In closing, I ask you to consider one basic question. Suppose stretching your imaginations, as it will have to be, that somehow those 97 percent of studies that I just talked about – suppose that somehow they were wrong about climate change in the end. Hard to understand after 20 years of 97 percent, but imagine it. I just want you to imagine it. What are the consequences we would face for taking the actions that we're talking about, and based on the notion that those might be correct? I'll tell you what the consequences are. You'll create an extraordinary number of jobs, you'll kick our economies into gear all around the world, because we'll be taking advantage of one of the biggest business opportunities the world has ever known.
We'll have healthier people. Those billions of dollars of costs in the summer and at hospitals and for emphysema, lung disease, particulate cancer, will be reduced because we'll be eliminating a lot of the toxic pollution coming from smoke stacks and tall pipes. Air will be cleaner. You can actually see your city. We'll have a more secure world because it'll be far easier for countries to attain the long-lasting energy independence and security they thrive – they need to thrive and not be blackmailed by another nation, cut off, their economy turned into turmoil because they can't have the independence they need and the guarantees of energy supply.
We will live up in the course of all of that to our moral responsibility to leave the planet Earth in better condition than we were handed it, to live up to even scripture which calls on us to protect planet Earth. These – all of these things are the so-called consequences of global action to address climate change. What's the other side of that question? What will happen if we do nothing and the climate skeptics are wrong and the delayers are wrong and the people who calculate cost without taking everything into account are wrong? The answer to that is pretty straightforward: utter catastrophe, life as we know it on Earth.
So I through my life have believed that you can take certain kinds of risks in the course of public affairs and life. My heroes are people who dared to take on great challenges without knowing for certain what the outcome would be. Lincoln took risks, Gandhi took risks, Churchill took risks, Dr. King took risks, Mandela took risks, but that doesn't mean that every risk-taker is a role model. It's one thing to risk a career or a life on behalf of a principle or to save or liberate a population. It's quite another to wager the well-being of generations and life itself simply to continue satisfying the appetites of the present or to insist on a course of inaction long after all the available evidence has pointed to the folly of that path. Gambling with the future of Earth itself when we know full well what the outcome would be is beyond reckless. It is just plain immoral. And it is a risk that no one should take. We need to face reality. There is no planet B.
So I'm not suggesting it's going to be easy in these next months or even these next few years. If it were, we would have solved this decades ago when the science first revealed the facts of what we were facing. But it is crunch time now. We've used up our hall passes, our excuses. We've used up too much valuable time. We know what we have to do. And I am confident that we can find a way to summon the resolve that we need to tackle this shared threat. And we can reach an agreement in Paris, we can carve out a path toward a clean energy future, we can meet this challenge. That is our charge for ourselves and for our children and grandchildren, and it is a charge we must keep. Thank you all. (Applause.)
MR. KEMPE: I wanted to thank Secretary Kerry for his significant, passionate, focused remarks, important remarks that I think will really set up the road to Paris, but really way beyond that. We understand that you have to rush out to a very important meeting at the White House. I do want to ask just one question to close this off, and if you can broaden this to the energy world at large. We're seeing falling prices, we've got the U.S. energy boom. How are you looking at the impact of both of those things in context of this? What is the geopolitics of these falling prices and the rise of America as really the leading, if not a leading energy producer in the world?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, the impact is very significant, obviously. It's certainly affected Russia's income and the current situation in Russia. It's affected the situation in Iran. It's affected the budgets of those producing states. It has potential on some sides to strategically be helpful and the potential on other sides to be strategically damaging. For instance, if Petrocaribe were to fall because of events in Venezuela or because of price and so forth, we could wind up with a serious humanitarian challenge on our – in our near neighborhood.
And so there are a lot of pluses and minuses of it, but you have to remember the primary reason for America's good fortune in this turnaround right now is LNG. It's the production of gas and fracking and what's happened in terms of our independence, at least – and we're also producing more oil, by the way, at the same time. And we've become one of the world's largest, if not the largest energy producer. That's positive as long as we're on a road to deal with the problem I just laid out here today.
But remember, while LNG is 50 percent less carbon-intensive than oil, it's nevertheless carbon, and it has its impact. So it's a movement in the right direction, but in the end, we're going to have to do all the things I just talked about, which is move to sustainable, renewable, alternative other kinds of energy that don't have that problem. And the way the world is going right now because of the dependency – another negative impact of that is that it has greatly reduced the price of coal, and therefore in certain countries, people are just going on a price basis and racing to coal. And that means we have a number of coal-fired power plants coming online in various countries at a rate that is simply destructive. And they're not coming on with the latest technology in all cases.
There is no such thing in the end as absolutely clean coal. And so we have a challenge with respect to what we're going to do. There are technologies that significantly clean coal, and when put in place, that's very helpful. And if you can do carbon sequestration and storage, which isn't happening enough – there's a way to use it – but it's, in the marketplace, I think, going to be far more expensive in the end than these other technologies which are coming online to produce other things at a far better cost. As I mentioned to you, wind is about to be in the next 10 years competitive with other energy. So that's going to be an enormous transformation.
But what really has to happen here is the setting of a goal through the Paris agreement so that people suddenly see that countries everywhere are moving in this direction, and then the marketplace begins to move. That's when innovators and entrepreneurs and investors start to say this is the future and it takes hold, and that accelerates the process itself. And when that begins to happen, that's when this $6 trillion market and the ultimately 9 billion users component of this really kicks in and takes over.
So it's a mixed bag for the moment, but I think we certainly see the roadmap to move in the right direction. Thank you.
Coal Giant Southern Company Claims It Will No Longer 'Engage In Influencing the Science' of Climate Change
The massive coal-powered utility Southern Company, recently revealed as a top funder of Harvard-Smithsonian climate denier Willie Soon, claims it is getting out of the business of climate denial. Southern Company's contract with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics included conditions giving it oversight over Soon's research and a pledge to keep its funding secret.The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy reports:
We have been given assurance that Southern Company takes responsibility for the funding but stated that upper management did not have direct knowledge of this activity. We also appreciate the perspective that the funding contract with Dr. Soon was of a recurring nature and that Southern has stated that they will not renew funding contracts in this line of research. Southern further acknowledges that going forward, it is does not want to "engage in influencing the science."
Although Southern Company may cease directly financing the very few legitimate scientists who promote disinformation about man-made cliamte change, it's doubtful the company will stop supporting the massive climate-denial infrastructure that is nearly indistinguishable from the American right. In the 2014 cycle, Southern Company made hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to climate-science-denying Republicans. The utility giant has spent over $130 million since 2004 lobbying Congress, with a focus on blocking the regulation of coal pollution.
In 2014, Southern Company ran a "sponsored content" series on The New Republic's website, entitled "Powering the Future, Honoring the Past," which celebrated the utility's "secure energy mix" of "the full portfolio of energy resources: nuclear, twenty-first-century coal, natural gas, renewables, and energy efficiency."
"Corporate responsibility is part of our DNA," one of the Southern Company "sponsored content" public-relations pieces claimed.
In a separate article, the New Republic's Rebecca Leber criticized the Southern Company-Willie Soon relationship.
Rep. Grijalva Asks for Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures from GOP's Go-To Climate Science Witnesses
Climate-disinformation academics (clockwise from top left): Willie Soon, David Legates, Judith Curry, Robert Balling, Steven Hayward, Roger Pielke Jr, Richard Lindzen, John Christy
Over the weekend, multiple news organizations reported on the undisclosed funding of Harvard-Smithsonian's Dr. Willie Soon by Koch Industries, Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, and other greenhouse polluters. "There are just so many things that we do not know about how the climate really works and what are the factors that cause it to change," Soon testified before the U.S. Senate in 2003, "to really jump to the conclusion that it will all be CO2."
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, is asking the universities of seven academics, some of whom are climate scientists, others social scientists, who are part of a small stable of repeat Republican witnesses on climate science and policy.
Soon and the targets of this investigation have appeared at least three dozen times before Congress over the past twenty-five years to question the scientific need to limit greenhouse pollution.
"I am hopeful that disclosure of a few key pieces of information will establish the impartiality of climate research and policy recommendations published in your institution's name and assist me and my colleagues in making better law," Grijalva wrote. "Companies with a direct financial interest in climate and air quality standards are funding environmental research that influences state and federal regulations and shapes public understanding of climate science. These conflicts should be clear to stakeholders, including policymakers who use scientific information to make decisions. My colleagues and I cannot perform our duties if research or testimony provided to us is influenced by undisclosed financial relationships."
The letters request the institutions' disclosure policies, drafts and communications relating to Congressional testimony, and sources of external funding for the academics in question.
The disclosure requests are needed because Congressional "truth in testimony" rules require witnesses to disclose government funding sources, but not private or corporate funding. Under Republican control, the rules are unevenly implemented, with not-for-profit witnesses required to submit pages of additional disclosures, while corporate-sector witnesses are not.
The seven academics who dispute the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming who have been asked to disclose their funding are (dates of Congressional testimony in parentheses):
- David Legates, Department of Agricultural Economics & Statistics, University of Delaware climatologist (6/3/14, 7/29/03, 3/13/02)
- John Christy, University of Alabama atmospheric scientist (12/11/13, 9/20/12, 8/1/12, 3/31/11, 3/8/11, 2/25/09, 7/27/06 (video), 7/20/06, 5/13/03, 5/2/01, 5/17/00, 7/10/97)
- Judith Curry, Georgia Institute of Technology climatologist (1/16/14, 4/25/13, 11/17/10, 4/26/07, 7/20/06)
- Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology atmospheric physicist (11/17/10, 5/2/01, 7/10/97, 1991 (Senate), 10/8/91)
- Robert C Balling Jr, Arizona State University geographer (3/6/96; North Carolina Legislature 3/20/06)
- Roger Pielke Jr, University of Colorado political scientist (12/11/13, 7/18/13, 7/20/06, 5/16/07, 1/30/07 (video), 7/20/06, 3/13/02)
- Steven Hayward, School of Public Policy, Pepperdine University historian (5/25/11, 10/7/09, 4/22/09, 3/12/09, 3/17/99)
Update: Further appearances by Curry, Pielke Jr, and Christy in 2006 and 2007 have been added (h/t Dr. Curry).
Canadian Paper Found Guilty of Defaming Climate Scientist Andrew Weaver with "Climategate" Smears
The conservative Canadian newspaper National Post and several of its reporters have been found guilty of defaming a climate scientist in numerous articles that attacked his character. The defendants - the Post, its publisher Gordon Fisher, and its journalists Terence Corcoran, Peter Foster, and Kevin Libin - have to retract all their articles about climate scientist Andrew Weaver and pay $50,000 in general damages jointly.
The judge in the case, Justice Emily Burke, did not find the defendants guilty of malice, merely that they "deliberately created a negative impression of Dr. Weaver" because of their climate-change denial and "have been careless or indifferent to the accuracy of the facts."
Dr. Andrew Weaver is one of the world's pre-eminent paleoclimatologists, a professor at the University of Victoria since 1992. He has spent considerable time working to educate the public on climate change, writing Keeping Our Cool: Canada in a Warming World in 2008 and acting as a lead author for every IPCC report since 1995. During the
In a series of articles and editorials, the Post claimed Weaver, as "Canada's warmist spinner-in-chief," was part of a global scientific conspiracy to concoct fear about fossil-fueled global warming. This "Climategate" smear against varied climate scientists was promoted by conservative media worldwide during the 2009 Copenhagen climate talks. While other scientists were being smeared following the hacking of a set of email correspondence, Weaver was the victim of an office break-in. The Post then falsely claimed Weaver blamed the oil industry for the burglary. The Post also falsely claimed Weaver was trying to dissociate himself from the IPCC and was generally corrupt and deceitful. In 2010, Weaver filed suit against the Post, after years of asking for corrections and retractions.
Justice Burke found the defendants' claims that their articles did not defame Weaver's character completely unconvincing. She found, instead, they lied and defamed Dr. Weaver. According to Burke, they "altered the complexion of the facts and omitted facts sufficiently fundamental that they undermine the accuracy of the facts expressed in the commentary to the extent the facts cannot be properly regarded as a true statement of the facts."
As she wrote in her decision:
Essentially, the allegations of the defamatory character of the words in the four articles can be summarized as the following innuendos or inferences that Dr. Weaver:
(a) attempted to divert public attention from the IPCC and Climategate scandal by fabricating stories about the involvement of the fossil fuel industry with respect to the break-ins at his office, theft of emails from a UK University, and hack attacks at the Centre;
(b) engaged in deceptive misconduct in the news media to do so;
(c) engaged in willful manipulation and distortion of scientific data for the purposes of deceiving the public in order to promote a public agenda;
(d) in doing so, is motivated by a corrupt interest in receiving government funding and financial rewards;
(e) is wilfully concealing scientific climate data;
(f) knows or believes the IPCC reports concerning global warming are unscientific and fraudulent and seeks to avoid personal accountability for the manipulation/distortion of those reports by disassociating himself from that organization;
(g) has deceitfully or incompetently linked current weather and temperature events with global warming;
(h) authored a deceitful and manipulative work of agitation propaganda known as The Copenhagen Diagnosis; and
(i) is untrustworthy, unscientific and incompetent.
As of this writing, the National Post has not yet removed the offending articles from its website.
The full judgment can be found here.