Wind Turbines being placed in important birding areas. Green energy? At what cost?

Voices from the Thedford Bog: Wind turbines are “a social experiment, a mess, a failure”

IMG_4200

Protesters joined the remaining migrating tundra swans at the Thedford Bog near Grand Bend, Lake Huron, on Sunday, April 6, 2014, to condemn plans to build a bristling barrier of industrial wind turbines in what is a designated Important Bird Area. Every March some 10-15,000 tundra swans stop at the Thedford Bog and environs to rest and feed before continuing on their migration to the western Arctic.

Waterfowl scientist Dr. Scott Petrie told CBC News in 2012:

By putting the turbines in inappropriate places, it actually is tantamount to habitat loss. You wouldn’t put an office tower next to a coastal wetland, why would you put a wind turbine there?

Monte McNaughton, Progressive Conservative Member of the Provincial Parliament of Ontario (MPP) for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, reminded the protesters that his party’s leader, Tim Hudak, has promised, if elected, to repeal the Green Energy Act, the draconian legislation that has given unprecedented rights to industrial wind turbines over people, communities and wildlife. The Green Energy Act was enacted in 2009 in part as a response to the fake planetary emergency of man-made global warming/climate change.

“Worst economic policy ever”

“Worst economic policy ever”

CLICK ON IMAGE TO PLAY VIDEO (some wind noise)

The Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne Liberal governments have allowed the Ontario landscape to be despoiled and blighted by thousands of useless industrial wind turbines. The machines, towering as high as 50-storey buildings, built on a foundation that requires 800 tons of concrete each that will remain in the ground of prime farmland forever, have been erected in the absence of any cost-benefit analysis or human health studies, and accorded special rights by the Liberal government with its elimination of environmental restrictions inconvenient to wind companies.

Premier Kathleen Wynne has promised to build thousands more of the extortionate-to-taxpayers, destructive, un-green industrial monstrosities.

Not all Physicians are afraid to tell the truth!

BRITISH MEDICAL PRACTITIONER IN THE ENERGY FIELD FOR OVER 32 YEARS SAYS TURBINES DO AFFECT HEALTH

Letter to the Editor – Blackmore Vale Magazine — April 6, 2014

I strongly contest Dr Erik Blakeley‘s comments in your recent article calling wind turbine noise as a placebo effect. As a medical practitioner in the energy field of over 32 years I disagree.

I have amassed over the last few years negative health evidence from across the globe wherever wind turbines are erected, many locals even supported their erection initially only to find their health began to deteriorate afterwards.

Apart from Canadian, American, Danish and Australian information I have articles from specialists in “sleep disorder“ from the BMJ (British Medical Association) referring to ‘wind turbine syndrome‘ . It is the ULF (Ultra Low Frequency)or ELF vibrations that cause the most harm and cannot be heard. Can Dr Blakeley deny the MoD developed and used these frequencies for “acoustic warfare“ and in Russia ULF was developed by Vladimir–Gavreau for use in the Cold War of the 1950s onward only to be banned because it was so devastating on the human organism!

We must remember each person is an individual, some more sensitive than others and this has to be respected. The global evidence that amasses are that the main symptoms are insomnia, elevated blood pressure, depression, irritability and even suicide, never mind the effects on epileptics and hyperactive children. As our whole world is comprised of energy, we live in a time of Einstein and Quantam Physics not Newton, so as to accuse locals as “fools to their symptoms“ is not only utterly insulting to their intelligence but also ignores their individual health susceptibility.

Mrs S.Gonzalez BA.,MCH.,R.S.Hom,Milborne St Andrew

Our children are their target!

STUDENTS WHO QUESTION GLOBAL WARMING GET FAILING MARKS

The Corruption of Science by Our Educators

When I went to school back in the 60′s and 70′s, I remember we were encouraged to question, examine and explore EVERYTHING, not just in science, but in other subjects as well.  In fact, I remember one of my favourite high school teachers — Ted Bridle — really pushed us to look at things in ways that was not conventional or necessarily the accepted view.  

This has stuck with me for my entire life and I always appreciate the fact that he got us to strive to be different.  I’ve had a disdain for blind lemming followers my entire life, so whether it’s just a natural part of my personality that was bolstered by Mr. Bridle, I don’t know.  That’s why the first time I heard Al Gore say that the “science was settled”, my brain immediately went into high alert. 

This is the reason that this particular news article out of Britain bothers me so much.  Any time our kids are moulded into little Stepford wives, I have a major problem with it.  Our schools are no longer education facilities, but have become Liberal indoctrination centres.  30 years from now, I imagine all students will be wearing grey uniforms with their hair tightly tied back or cut short, snapping to attention whenever their ‘teacher’ barks a command.

Instead of being progressive with our schools, we’ve actually digressed a hundred years or so, to a time when you didn’t dare question religion.

We’ve seen the results of one whole generation that has come through this indoctrination process.  Is it too late to correct the harm that is being done to their minds?  – DQ

***************

Christopher Booker — The Telegraph (UK) — April 12, 2014

Brainwashing about global warming percolates throughout the education system

Not often does a senior Cabinet minister declare that a policy long pursued by his own department is “against the law”. But that was the response of Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, to a report exposing just how profoundly our education system has been hijacked by promoters of the official group-think on global warming.

Expanding on a theme touched on here more than once over the years, the report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation by Andrew Montford and John Shade shows how generations of schoolchildren have been taught to accept as gospel nothing but a propagandist, Greenpeace-type view of the global-warming scare, so one-sided that it makes a mockery of the requirement under the 1996 Education Act that pupils only be taught in a balanced way, allowing them to form their own view of the evidence.

So relentless is this brainwashing that it percolates throughout the curriculum, so that even exam papers in French, English or religious studies can ask students to explain why the world is dangerously warming up, or why we must build more wind turbines. In 2012, I described an A-level general studies paper set by our leading exam board, AQA, asking for comment on 11 pages of propagandist “source materials”, riddled with basic errors.

A mother wrote to tell me how her intelligent son, after getting straight As on all his science papers, used his extensive knowledge of climate science to point out all their absurd distortions.   Continue reading here….

children-of-the-damned-the-children

Climate Alarmists have an agenda…..don’t be fooled!

Exploiting Human Misery and Distorting the Science: An environmentalist’s critique of “Years of Living Dangerously”

Guest essay by Jim Steele, Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University

In “Years of Living Dangerously” Hollywood’s Don Cheadle partners with Christian climate scientist Katharine Heyhoe to convince fellow Christians that they should trust the climate scientists who blame the misery brought by a Texas drought on rising CO2. Indeed in times of natural climate calamities, people suffer and become insecure as they confront nature’s awesome power.

Unfortunately that is when charlatans exploit their misery, making it truly a time of living dangerously. Quick interviews with ranchers who still believe the drought was caused naturally or by God was a feeble attempt to suggest it is religion that has blinded ranchers to the purported “science” of catastrophic climate change. Instead the documentary evoked memories of the 1956 movie “The Rainmaker.” Rancher Noah Curry tells Burt Lancaster (who is playing the Bill Starbuck the rainmaker), “We don’t believe in rainmakers!” Lancaster snaps back, “What do you believe in mistah? Dyin’ cattle?” Cheadle and Heyhoe were employing the age old rainmaker’s trick of exploiting natural catastrophes and human misery. I have documented similar ploys herehereherehereand here.  

The ranchers’ belief in natural drought cycles actually grew from life long experiences, and most will tell you the 1950-1957 drought was likely much more devastating. Even Heyhoe admits the cycle of floods one year and droughts the next is the norm for Texas. The research by ten NOAA climate scientists also supports the ranchers’ belief, and their climate models indicated that at least 80% of Texas’s drought was due to the cooling of the eastern Pacific Ocean associated with La Nina and the natural cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.1 In fact most climate scientists have shown that droughts and floods in the American southwest are the result of ocean cycles,2,3,4,5 but Cheadle and Heyhoe did not share such research. Climate models driven by CO2 had predicted extreme drying in the southwest during the 80s and 90s. But those model predictions failed due to misunderstanding ocean cycles.2 Actual observations revealed a trend of increasing precipitation during the 80s and 90s due to more El Ninos. The most recent drought has occurred as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) reversed again to its cool phase, just like devastating Texas droughts of the 50s that happened when the PDO entered its cool phase and promoted more La Ninas.

The NOAA’s models did suggest that perhaps 20% could be blamed on human caused climate change but researchers warned:

“There are various difficulties in interpreting such an analysis and assessing its relevance to understanding observations. First, no summertime warming over Texas in the long historical record has been detected, and we emphasized in this paper that the CMIP5 model-simulated Texas warming over the last century is inconsistent with observations…based on CMIP5 experiments, these estimates of changes in event probability drawn solely from CMIP5 must be viewed with great caution.1[emphasis added]

Instead of driving to west Texas, Cheadle merely had to look at the Plainview TX temperature trends found online from the US Historical Climate Network to confirm that had been no climate warming.

clip_image002

Instead, to counter the beliefs of those Christian ranchers who had actually experienced those natural drought cycles, Heyhoe and Cheadle highlighted a statistical virtual reality – a “hockey-stick graph” of global warming. But the global average temperature is a chimeraof many different climate dynamics and artificial adjustments. Droughts and heat waves are not global, but regional phenomenon. It is disturbing that Heyhoe, who has been hailed as a Christian committed to the truth in both science and faith, committed major sins of omission. The truth is there has been no climate warming in Texas. If Heyhoe was truly promoting objective climate science, she should have included the science of natural cycles and addressed why Texas had been getting wetter in the 80s and 90s and why it had not warmed during te 20th century.

But perhaps her misleading presentation was not all Heyhoe’s doing. One of the chief science advisors for this fearful climate documentary is the rabid CO2 advocate Joe Romm. Romm has previously teamed with the advocacy journal Nature to publish opinion pieces that CO2 is causing global “Dustbowlification”. Romm also uses his blog ClimateProgress to attack those scientists who have demonstrated that in fact natural ocean cycles have driven most droughts. That would explain the slanted drought presentation.

It is also the only reasonable explanation for the outlandish attempt to marry the civil war in Syria to rising CO2. Natural climate change does create insecurity. However Romm’s concern about the Dustbowlification proves slightly schizophrenic. While climate scientists have shown that the ocean surface temperatures are the best predictor of regional droughts, the extremes of the American Dust Bowl can only be explained when degradation of the landscape is also taken into account.6 Likewise the drought in Syria can not be understood without understanding how politics have altered the Syrian landscape. I thought NY Time’s journalist Thomas Freidman who has studied Middle East conflicts for decades would provide that historical background. But Freidman’s role was to marry the current Syrian drought to the simplistic notion that CO2 had caused climate change and thus the war, and landscape and political causes of stressed farmers were never brought to light.

The Syrian revolution has indeed been led by hungry displaced farmers. But to blame CO2 is simply climate fear mongering. To understand the enormous complexity of the problem I suggest reading “Unsustainable land use in Syria: Drivers of Unsustainable Land Use in the Semi-Arid Khabur River Basin, Syria”7 by Yale University’s Dr. Frank Hole. Scientist know this region’s climate is highly variable and we know from “archaeology and history that settlements in this semi-arid steppe have expanded on cycles of 200–300 years of good weather and retreated on cycles of 1000 or more years of poor weather and political instability.” Recently multiyear droughts happened in 1968–1971, 1997–1998, 1999–2000 and 2000–2001. “A drought in 1961 resulted in the loss of 80% of the camel population and nearly50% of sheep.” 7

“In 1940, the Khabur could be considered a self-sustaining steppe [a semi-arid grass and shrub land] for the pasturing of camels and sheep, with highly productive rain-fed agriculture, and equally productive gravity irrigation along stretches of the river. Fishing and hunting of wild gazelle were important contributors to the diet. Both are now extinct, with no foreseeable possibility of regeneration.” 7

A dramatic drying of this region began during the Little Ice Age, forcing many tribes to abandon fixed settlements and adopt a nomadic lifestyle. The vast steppe then became controlled by migratory tribes who pastured camels and sheep seasonally, holding the land in common according to well-established customary tribal law. The tribes migrated with sheep and camels to fresh pastures on an annual cycle, which allowed vegetation to regenerate and also support herds of gazelle. The closing of the border between Syria and Turkey in the 1940s curtailed some of the traditional movements of Syria’s nomadic tribes, which once migrated into the pastures of Turkey’s Taurus Mountains during summer.

The American DustBowl had been created in part when the government subsidized wheat prices to meet the demand during World War I. This resulted in a loss of native buffalo grass that sustained the semiarid American west. An area the size of state of Ohio was quickly ploughed to plant wheat. When prices fell and governments no longer guaranteed farmers a high price, many abandoned the land. Without natural vegetation to hold the soil, when the natural cycle of droughts began the Dust Bowl ensued. Similarly the “demand for grain during the Second World War encouraged expansion of Syrian agriculture. In the early 1950s, when the new Syrian State abolished tribal land tenure, that agriculture, supported by mechanical ploughs, expanded on to virgin steppe but most proved to be unproductive.” Much of the land degradation has been the result of deep that ploughing that removed native vegetation and exposed soil to wind and water erosion, as well as destroying much of its organic content. It is no coincidence that many of Syria’s revolutionary leaders are failed cotton farmers who once depended on the whims of government subsidies.7

Syria’s Khabur River is a principal tributary of the Euphrates and flows entirely within Syria. However it is largely fed from limestone springs that are recharged by precipitation that falls in the adjacent Turkish mountains. Huge increases in the use of groundwater for irrigation in both Turkey and Syria have left the fields dry that depended on drawing irrigation water from the springs and upper course of the Khabur River. Furthermore recently built dams in Turkey now control the flow of water into Syria and the amount of water allowed to reach Syria and Iraq is now wielded as a political weapon. 7

As refugees dramatically increased Syria’s population, they added greater and greater stress on a landscape already in serious decline. While regional strife increased the flow of refugees into Syria, it also limited the flow of incoming water. “In 1987, Turkey guaranteed a minimum water flow of 500 cubic metes per second and Syria, in return, promised to cooperate in security matters. A few months later, Turkey complained about terrorist activities and accused Syria of supporting. Turkey allegedly hinted at a cut in the flow of Euphrates water to Syria over Syrian support for Kurdish terrorists. In January 1990, Turkey completely stopped the flow of the Euphrates [emphasis added]. The official justification for the interruption was to fill the lake behind the Ataturk Dam and the interruption was intended to be only for one month. Behind the scenes, this interruption was an indirect threat to Syria for its continued support of the PKK. Turkey did not care about Iraq’s reaction as Syria and Iraq were bitter enemies; however, Turkey’s actions united both Iraq and Syria against it.”10

The myriad of factors stressing the revolutionary farmers is very complex. Obviously blaming Syria’s water woes on CO2 is a simple-minded ploy. But one could still argue that “unprecedented climate change” had exacerbated any problems created by bad government and landscape abuse. However as in Texas, there are no unprecedented climate trends other than those created locally by landscape abuse. Historical records of droughts in Turkey’s Anatolia and neighboring countries corroborate the data furnished by tree-ring widths to indicate that cycles of major droughts and famine events have occurred in 1725, 1757, 1887, 1890–1891, 1893–1894 and 1927–1928, long before rising CO2 could play a role. As seen in Fig. 5 the lack of recent precipitation is a minor bump in the road when compared to records over the past 350 years.9

clip_image004

And as in Texas, based on proxy data there has been no “global warming” in this region either. Tree ring researchers striving to put recent temperatures into a historical context concluded, “Low-frequency variations, which were associated with the medieval warm period and the little ice age, were identified in the winter-to- spring temperature reconstruction, however, the twentieth century warming trend found elsewhere could not be identified in our temperature proxy record.”8 [emphasis added]

clip_image005

The third segment of the documentary exposed how government corruption was destroying the Indonesian ecosystem. However anyone concerned about deforestation should ask why Harrison Ford failed to mention the most powerful driver of Indonesia’s disappearing rain forests and the endangerment of the Orangtuans. It is not climate change, but climate fear mongering. Politicians have used climate fear to justify government handouts in the form of subsidies for planting more corn in America, sugar cane in Brazil and palm oil in Indonesia. These subsidies have upset world food markets and destroyed efforts to protect wild lands. In the 2013 research article “The EU Biofuel Policy and Palm Oil: Cutting subsidies or cutting rainforest?” by The International Institute for Sustainable Development, they report the European Union alone has provided $11 billion dollars in biofuel subsidies and the bulk of that has subsidized palm oil for the biodiesel industry. I loved Harrison Ford for his ability to provide such gripping Hollywood illusions as Indiana Jones, but I am deeply troubled by his current role in distorting climate reality.

The emotional, virtual realities created by modern technology can indeed be dangerous. The speed of modern communication and the ease by which our fears can be exploited demands that we become better critical thinkers. The baby boom’s motto of the 60s to question authority is more important now than ever. We all can fall victim to our own predilections and be blinded by our beliefs. Only respectful debate can free us from our illusions. Unfortunately people like Joe Romm who are pushing climate catastrophe, also argue that the debate is over. Increasingly alarmists demand that skeptics should be banned from public forums and seek to “deny the deniers the right to deny”. They want us to only believe that the Hollywood illusions presented in “Years of Living Dangerously” are the real truth. Yet their sins of omission and the distortion of published science illustrates why, now more than ever, more climate debate is needed.

Literature Cited

1.Hoerling et al (2013) Anatomy of an Extreme Event. Journal of Climate, vol. 26

2. Dai (2012) The influence of the inter-decadal Pacific oscillation on US precipitation during 1923–2010. Climate Dynamics, vol

3. Seager, R. et al. (2008) Drought in the Southeastern United States: Causes, Variability over the Last Millennium, and the Potential for Future Hydroclimate Change. Journal of Climate, vol. 22, p. 5021-5047.

4. Cook, E., et al., (2004) Long-Term Aridity Changes in the Western United States. Science 306, 1015-1018.

5. Herweijer,C., et al., (2007) North American Droughts of the Last Millennium from a Gridded Network of Tree-Ring Data. Journal of Climate, vol. 20, p. 1353-1376.

6. Cook, B., et al., (2011) Atmospheric circulation anomalies during two persistent North American droughts: 1932–1939 and 1948–1957. Climate Dynamics, vol. 36, p. 2339–2355

7. Hole (2009) Unsustainable land use in Syria Drivers of Unsustainable Land Use in the Semi-Arid

Khabur River Basin, Syria. Geographical Research March 2009 47(1):4–14

8. Heinrich (2013) Winter-to-spring temperature dynamics in Turkey derived from tree rings since AD 1125. Clim Dyn 41:1685–1701

9. Akkemik (2005) A preliminary reconstruction (A.D. 1635–2000) of spring precipitation

using oak tree rings in the western Black Sea region of Turkey. Int J Biometeorol 49:297–302

10. Hipel (2014) Strategic Investigations of Water Conflicts in the MiddleEast. Group Decis Negot (2014) 23:355–376

11. (2013) The EU Biofuel Policy and Palm Oil: Cutting subsidies or cutting rainforest?” The International Institute for Sustainable Development

Wind pushers deny, but the truth is known!

Alan Jones interviews Professor Alec Salt on turbine noise impacts

Researchers

Crack Neuro-Physiologist, Professor Alec Salt was interviewed by Alan Jones last week and laid out – in clear and simple terms just why so many people are suffering the adverse heath impacts caused by turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound.

Oh, and Alan gives the great wind power fraud a little curry from the first bounce.

Alan has a little radio show that more than just a few Australians tune into each morning. Syndicated through over 77 Stations and with close to 2 million listeners Countrywide – AJ as he’s known – is one of those people that leads the political charge on many issues that really affect ordinary Australians and which the rest of the press ignore.

To hear the interview click on the player below.

The transcript follows:

Alan Jones: Look if you sat where I sit, you would not believe the correspondence that comes across my desk in relation to household bills, and we talked about health insurance recently, but in particular electricity prices. Businesses and individuals just saying simply ‘something has to give’. Why are they the way that they are?

Well the carbon dioxide tax is one of the issues, but as I said last night on the show with Richo on Sky news the Renewable Energy Target says that we have to have 40% of our electricity power from renewable energy by 2035. Just that. Don’t worry about the consequences of this. Over and above the carbon dioxide tax consumers are paying in New South Wales at least $200 a year each more for these green subsidies.

Now Tony Abbott brilliantly, not long after he became Prime Minister, and during the election campaign said he wasn’t going to run down the road with a bucket of money after Holden. He told SPC Ardmona there was no taxpayers money. He told Toyota there was no tax payers money. Why then it is their taxpayers money for wind power and solar power?

As I said on television last night, Richo and I could run a business if the costs was picked up by the taxpayer. And as Alby Schultz said, now retired from the Federal seat of Hume, to be replaced by the quite brilliant newcomer Angus Taylor, Alby Schultz said that in Hume alone,  one Federal seat, the turbines subsidies are between $500 million and a billion dollars a year. $10 billion over 10 years. Billion! As he said you can rebuild the Goulburn hospital for $150 million. You can fix mobile and TV blackspots for $2 million. You can duplicate the Barton Highway for $600 million and this is the age when we were supposed to be ending entitlements. As John McEnroe would say, ‘you can’t be serious’. This must end.

I’ve got endless letters from business people. Just one alone – an industrial user the other day, got a $244,000 electricity bill. $32,500 attributable to renewable energy targets. $45,000 for the carbon tax. Every individual faces higher electricity bills due to a carbon dioxide tax and this Renewable Energy Target.

This is all this CO2 rubbish that we’ve gone on with. The sheer cost of this ideological nonsense especially when we have brown coal reserves that would last 539 years, black coal reserves which would last for 111 years and we are sabotaging our greatest competitive advantage – cheap energy – by pushing the price of power through the roof and business knows this. Big business writes to me. I don’t know why they don’t write to government? Surely if you wanted to harm your country you would put your energy security at risk. The idea that you could power a modern economy with giant steel wind turbines and solar energy verges on criminal stupidity.

I mentioned recently that Professor Hughes from Edinburgh University calculated the UK bill for wind energy by 2020 will cost British consumers a staggering 120 billion dollars. Here according to the rubbish peddled since Rudd became Prime Minister, before the end of this decade, it’s 2014 now, we’ll have spent $17 billion erecting between 7 to 10,000 wind turbines. You’re paying.

Worldwide they are waking up  about the cost of this and what it’s doing to health. And this renewable energy nonsense has got no currency in Europe. Germany and China are pushing ahead with new coal-fired electricity plants because of political and public concern over the cost of renewable energy and the health consequences of wind turbines. Britain’s once Conservative-led government is in open revolt. And even Energy Australia’s Chief Executive, Richard McIndoe said two years ago, there is no social licence to ramp up the construction of wind farms so rapidly, he said. We are just going to end up flat on our face, from a social licence prospective because the social licence isn’t there.

But these things are everywhere, in every state in Australia. Conga lines of them. The deputy chief health officer of Victoria refuses to conduct a health impact statement. People have been getting sick for years. No one assesses the noise inside peoples’ homes. Under government guidelines it doesn’t have to be measured. And this is going on all over Australia.

Anne Gardner in the middle of this wretched Macarthur wind farm in Victoria wrote to AGL and said, ‘come down here for a few nights, stay with us, stay with the Jan Hetherington, stay with Ron Gelbart, stay with Simon and Louise Manifold. Stay with Maria and Colin Linke. 140 turbines of enormous size. She wrote to Scott Thomas the general manager of power development with AGL. She said ‘I wonder how you would feel if you and your wife were affected in the same way that we’ve been impacted over the last few months?
This monster is destroying us.’  This is from a health perspective.

Yet it if it weren’t for government subsidies wind power would never ever be cost-effective. Wind turbines are technological and economic white elephants. And of course when the wind doesn’t blow, no electricity. They’re expensive and inefficient. And they are unhealthy. Now the wind industry itself is proof that there are unhealthy because wind companies are paying people to put these wind turbines on their property and then sign them to secrecy.

Listen to this letter which came to me. One contract, quote, can’t tell you who the poor bugger was, because he would get blown away, but the contract says this the landholder, he’s had to sign up, this is in his contract. The landholder acknowledges and agrees, that it accepts the noise impacts which the landholder also agrees will not cause him or her nuisance. And agrees that he or she will not make any claim, objection or complaint and releases the developer from any claim of liability. The bloke doesn’t know what to do. Wind turbine renewable energy – this is Pink Batts, the Building the Education Revolution and NBN  altogether – and yet, nothing is being done. Tony Abbott has to scrap this stuff immediately.

Well, you then get the AMA on March 18, releasing a position paper on wind farms. The AMA do you mind, no listed authors. No information that has anything to do with health research. But the AMA supporting wind farm development applications, and there’s been an outcry from across the world. A South Australian Doctor, Dr Gary Hopkins, has 30 years experience as a physician. He wrote to the AMA – quote – ‘I am rendered speechless by your irresponsible, ill researched, ill advised and reckless statement that those who might suffer physical effects from the presence of wind turbines, are suffering a psychological condition, anxiety. Your very statement itself causes anxiety in those likely to be affected.’

This is the AMA, in bed with the wind turbine industry.

And as I’ve said many times if these things didn’t cause ill-health, why wouldn’t we put them in Macquarie Street? Or Parramatta Road? Or Collins Street Melbourne? In Kings Park in the middle of Perth, if they didn’t cause any problems in relation to health? There are people all over Australia are writing to me about this health issue. I don’t know why they don’t write to government, but they’re desperate. They have become refugees in their own homes. In their own land.

The Irish Department of health recently warned people who live near wind turbines that they risk having their health and psychological well-being compromised. The deputy chief medical officer in Ireland said, ‘there is a consistent cluster of symptoms related to wind turbine syndrome which occurs in a number of people in the vicinity of industrial wind turbines’ you see, wind turbine syndrome. This is when they’re in earshot of the noise made by these blades as they spin around. And these blades make what are called infra-sound vibrations, and you can’t consciously hear them, but they have an effect on the inner ear. And they cause fatigue and dizziness and headaches and insomnia and all the rest of it.

Yet AGL recently sent, yes in the same AGL from up Gloucester way, sent a letter to 12 medical centres in south-west Victoria, AGL, they are wind turbine vandals too, 12 medical centres in south-western Victoria, in November 2012, the letters have just come to light. I’ve got a copy of it. They’ve informed doctors that there was no evidence of health impacts from wind turbines and that should any patient present with symptoms, that they attribute to AGL’s turbines AGL recommends the doctors tell patients to consult either AGL or the AGL website. The website also indicates that wind turbines have no impact on health. This is a large Australian Company, AGL, attempting to influence medical doctors – and it has  in a significant part of Victoria, violating the privacy of patients resulting in doctors neglecting patient illness and refusing to help sick people. Where is government? Stands by.

Professor Alec Salt is an eminent world authority from the Washington University School of Medicine. In a journal last week, called Acoustics Today, he said the measurement of turbine noise used by the wind industry, and all Australian regulatory agencies was highly misleading as it masked the level of infra-sound. Yet here we have our own AMA stating
that sub-audible infra-sound cannot cause health effects. On the line from Missouri, Saint Louis, Professor Salt. Professor Alec Salt good morning.

Alec Salt: Good morning.

Alan Jones: You’ve got expertise in this field, what do you make of the AMA?

Alec Salt: Their position is – it’s very cleverly crafted words. They talk about whether the health effects are accepted and basically any scientific issue, there is always a degree of acceptance. If you look at either global warming or evolution, there are some people that don’t accept these things. So the point is that, they’re sheltering behind very carefully crafted words. There is good evidence …

Alan Jones: Yes, good evidence, go on.

Alec Salt: Yes there is good evidence, we have good evidence that this sound is definitely picked up by the ear. I mean the sounds that you can’t hear, the infrasounds down to 1 Hz or something, that’s one cycle per second, we know that this is detected by the ear at quite low levels and even though you don’t hear it, it is still stimulating the ear and potentially affecting you in other ways.

Alan Jones: And what does it do to people?

Alec Salt: Well, from our perspective, it may account for the sleep disturbance people have, like thunderstorms wake you up you know even though they are far away, thunderstorms wake people up because it’s the low frequency of the thunderstorm that you’re detecting. So the point is if, they, wind turbines generate a lot of low frequency like this, it’s potentially it’s going through pathways that lead to disturbing of sleep.

Alan Jones: So what impact, I mean does this have, could this have on pregnant women, on children, on the elderly, on neighbours?

Alec Salt: Well obviously if you’re, if you’re disturbing people’s lives there are other symptoms people have – that we think the sound is generating a condition called endolymphic hydrops in the ear and this gives rise to symptoms like dizziness, you feel like you are seasick so there is nausea, mild nausea feeling slightly dizzy and upset. I mean if people are living like that long term, then of course it’s going to be bad for the health.

Alan Jones: Yes. But the AGL, one of the proponents of wind farming here, sends a letter to 12 medical centres in south-west Victoria informing doctors that there is no evidence of
health impacts from wind turbines and tells them what they should do if patients present with symptoms. What would you say to that?

Alec Salt: I’m appalled by it. I mean, basically the medical profession claims the acoustician should be protecting people from these things. So the idea that the medical profession is saying is telling these people to go away, it’s in their imagination, it’s a nocebo effect, all this claptrap that they tell people. I mean, it’s outrageous to be honest. Basically, people should, I mean if you go to a doctor with most other ailments, they will consider it and try to find the cause of the problem.

Alan Jones: Didn’t we have this with tobacco and asbestos where massive amounts of money were made to persuade the world that there were no consequences of tobacco smoking.

Alec Salt: And that’s exactly the problem now that you have a very powerful and well funded industry that is trying to protect their turf, to protect their financial interests. And eventually science will prove what is going on. But it requires scientists who are not affected by the money that’s sloshing around supporting these things.

Alan Jones: Professor Salt, we will leave it there, and I am glad that we have spoken to you, but we may need to speak again.

Alec Salt: OK.

Alan Jones: Can I just say though that I was sent a quote the other day from the novelist Emile Zola, “if you shut up truth and bury it under the ground it well but grow and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way.’ And this may well be the fate of those politicians and others who have turned a blind eye to the problems associated with wind turbines, coal seam gas and the lot of it. I don’t apologise for alerting you to these issues. Everyone I meet says ‘well I wouldn’t want to live in a coal seam gas field’, every one I speak to, ‘well I wouldn’t like to live next to a wind turbine’. What do we do as Australians? Just let other people suffer? Not Alan Jones.

011012-Alan-Jones

Trying to correct the misinformation given out by the wind pushers!

Informed farmers coalition to educate farmers on wind turbine projects

Credit:  By: staff | Amboy News Informed | Posted: Tuesday, Apr 8th, 2014 | www.amboynews.com ~~

WALNUT – The Informed Farmers Coalition (IFC), a group of Lee, Bureau and Whiteside county landowners and citizens, is working to spread awareness about wind turbine project development and the adverse effects it may have on these communities. The group is hoping to raise awareness about the Green River and Walnut Ridge turbine projects owned by Geronimo Energy. Geronimo is currently contacting area farmers to sign new contracts with the company. IFC wants to make sure all area farmers understand the facts concerning wind farm development.

“The Informed Farmers have spent the last three years attempting to educate local citizens on the problems and challenges associated with Wind Turbine Developments. In that time more and more information has become available and the public has become more informed. However, turbine developers continue to mislead the public about problems that continue to exist with wind development. That fact, in addition to a renewed effort to reach new landowners by a subsequent buyer of two local projects, causes us to renew our efforts to make sure the citizens of our local community are informed,” said Kendall Guither, IFC spokesperson.

Many families are speaking up and sharing their personal experience with a wind turbine project near their home. Ted Hartke is a landowner who learned the hard way that the benefits do not outweigh the hardships. He says his entire family has been negatively affected by the turbines on their property.

“I never had any concerns about the wind project being built near my home and had initially thought that the project would be good for my community and my children’s school,” stated Hartke. “But then the turbines turned on and the noise began hurting my wife and kids. Because of wind turbine noise, our entire family suffered major sleep deprivation and then we all began developing health problems. My children struggled at school, and my wife and I began having difficulty with our memory and ability to concentrate and function at work.”

There are both health and financial risks involved in allowing a wind turbine to be built on one’s property. It has been reported that noise and shadow flicker from the turbines can cause sleep deprivation, vertigo, stress and nausea. The financial risks can include the cost associated with decommissioning, damage to a farmer’s land and the increased cost of spraying pesticides.

The IFC urges landowners to contact them to discuss these issues as well as many more associated with these turbines. A concerned farmer should also discuss the pros and cons with their friends and neighbors as well as have an attorney look at any contract before signing.

For more information please contact informedfarmers@yahoo.com or consult the website http://www.wind-watch.org.

Never trust a wind weasel…..they will say anything!

UK: WIND DEVELOPER ‘MISLEAD PUBLIC’ OVER CONTROVERSIAL WIND FARM (WHAT A SURPRISE)

Developer ‘misled public’ over controversial wind farm off Isle of Wight

Campaigners ask Planning Inspectorate to throw out application for Navitus Bay wind farm, which would have up to 194 turbines and be visible from the Jurassic Coast

Emily Gosden — Energy Editor, Telegraph (UK) — April 13, 2014

Developers of a massive wind farm off the Isle of Wight have misled the public over its appearance and impact on the economy, according to campaigners who argue it will ruin views from some of Britain’s finest coastlines.

Plans for the Navitus Bay offshore wind farm, a vast development of up to 194 turbines that has sparked fierce local opposition, were submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on Thursday.

Campaigners have written to the Inspectorate claiming it should not even consider the application as it stands because the developer “failed to consult adequately”.

Dr Andrew Langley of the Challenge Navitus group claims the consultation provided “incomplete, unclear and even misleading information”.

Navitus Bay Development Ltd – a joint venture between French energy giant EDF and Eneco of the Netherlands – announced in February it was scaling back the size of the farm in light of opposition during the consultation.

However, Dr Langley said it might have been forced to make further changes had the public been fully appraised of the project.

The revised proposal for the £3bn wind farm would still span 59 square miles. The turbines would be between 580 and 656 feet tall and would be visible from the shore, including from Durlston Head on the Jurassic Coast, just 9 miles away, and the Needles on the Isle of Wight, less than 11 miles away.  Continue reading full article here…..


The turbines could be between 580 and 656 feet tall and would be visible from the shore including from the Needles on the Isle of Wight, less than 11 miles away.

De-programme your kids when they come home from school….

Schools “climate-brainwash” children, reveals report (United Kingdom)

Apr 9, 2014

school

.
Editor’s note
:  If you’re not familiar with the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), you’re missing out.  Click here for their statement, “Who we are.”  Clickhere for their Board of Trustees.  And here for the Academic Advisory Council.

Basically the GWPF is a group of former high level U.K. government officials, Members of Parliament, and a host of scholars from heavy-weight universities, worldwide, who are alarmed at the hysteria and brainwashing being orchestrated by energy corporations (read:  Wall St. banks) who have much to gain.  (Note:  The GWPF does not accept money from any energy company or donor representing the interests of an energy company.  In other words, it is not a front for Big Oil or Big Wind or Big Nuclear, or Big Anything for that matter.)

The GWPF does not deny climate change; indeed, its members cover the entire spectrum, from those who are convinced it’s chiefly human-caused to those who think the whole thing is moonshine.  Listen carefully to what I’m saying:  The GWPF is insisting on real science, not agenda-driven science.  It is insisting on rational decisions, not “climate dogma,” as we chart our future.  Their goal is to tone down the rhetoric, strip ideology out of climate science, and remove the corporate financial agenda and government power-grabbing from the whole climate conversation.

As a retired professional historian, I agree.  History is loaded with paroxysms of mass hysteria about one “belief system” or “cause” or “noble ideal” after another — with results that were always disastrous.  That’s not all:  Someone always got very wealthy and powerful from championing that noble ideal or doctrine or to-kill-for worthy cause.  Someone always morphed into a tyrant and became completely corrupt, and did incalculable damage, from being the “savior-in-chief” of humanity — whatever the issue du jour.

I warn you:  Don’t let this happen!  I see the GWPF as a sane voice in the gathering madness of “Oh my god, the earth is about to incinerate as a result of human misbehavior, and governments and corporations and schools need to do something about it, NOW!”  This is a recipe for dictatorship.  Tyranny.  Big Brother.  Totalitarianism.  The likes of which humanity has never seen.

Anyhow, the GWPF has just issued a stunning document on how children in British public schools are being brainwashed (greenwashed) about global warming.  Again, I caution you:  The GWPF is not taking a position “yea” or “nay” on global warming; it’s stripping the discussion of junk, agenda-driven science, corporate interference, and political opportunism and imperialist ambition.

“Imperialism”?  Yes, as with natural gas fracking becoming a weapon, a tool of public policy over who supplies Eastern Europe, especially the Ukraine, with fuel.  When matters of empire, politics, ideology, or corporate profit enter the debate — be it wind energy, fracking, solar power, oil, nuclear — science and reason immediately become corrupt and, frankly, dangerous.  Readers of this blog have witnessed this aplenty in the wind energy uproar — rife with ideologically-driven science and medicine.

greenwash
.

“Climate Control:  Brainwashing in Schools”

— by Andrew Montford & John Shade
.
_ (Click here for PDF of the report, here for its appendices, and here for a link.)

Children are being treated as political targets by activists who wish to change society in fundamental ways. This is unacceptable whether or not they are successful — from the Introduction, p. 10.

A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the dominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, an aristocracy, or a majority of the existing generation; in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by a natural tendency to one over the body — John Stuart Mill, “On Liberty.”

The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read.  The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think.  The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling — Thomas Sowell, “Inside American Education.”

.
Foreword
 by Professor Terence Kealy, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Buckingham

Politicians and political activists have always wanted to control the schools, for obvious reasons. St Francis Xavier of the Jesuits may or may not have said ‘give me the child until he is seven and I’ll give you the man’ but too many politicians have wanted the child until he or she is seventeen, just to make sure.

In this impressive paper Andrew Montford and John Shade have shown how effectively eco-activism appears to have captured our schools’ curriculums. It is of course true that the greenhouse effect is based on good physics, but even better physics recognises that the globe is a complex system and that many different effects – not just the greenhouse effect – will influence the climate. And since we cannot yet model the world’s climate with confidence, we must be suspicious of the certainty with which eco-activists seek to influence the schools’ curriculums.

Eco-activism is, as Montford and Shade have shown, only the most recent example of attempted curriculum-capture by political activists, so we need to construct institutions to protect the schools from such capture. Montford and Shade have invoked the horrible examples of education under the communist regimes of Eastern Europe or China, and in so doing they point the way to the only solid future – democracy.

Educational researchers such as EG West (Education and the State, 1965) and James Tooley (The Beautiful Tree, 2009) have shown how the nationalisation of the schools in England and Wales during the 19th century was a mistake, which neither increased the expenditure per pupil nor fostered social justice – it only handed the schools over to John Stuart Mill’s ‘dominant power in government.’

But the nationalisation of the schools is now effectively irreversible, so how can we protect the curriculum within it? One harbinger is provided by the UK Statistics Authority, which is funded by government but which reports not to a minister but directly to Parliament. Thus its independence is optimised. Perhaps we now need a Curriculum Authority, reporting to Parliament via a select committee, because by its nature a legislature can foster a wider range of views than can the executive branch of government.

In the meantime, let us echo the call from Montford and Shade for an independent review of our current climate curriculum, because if – as the title of their paper suggests – schools are indoctrinating rather than educating, we have a problem.

.
Executive summary

We have found examples of serious errors, misleading claims, and bias through inadequate treatment of climate issues in school teaching materials. These include many widely-used textbooks, teaching-support resources, and pupil projects.

We find instances of eco-activism being given a free rein within schools and at the events schools encourage their pupils to attend. In every case of concern, the slant is on scares, on raising fears, followed by the promotion of detailed guidance on how pupils should live, as well as on what they should think. In some instances, we find encouragement to create ‘little political activists’ in schools by creating a burden of responsibility for action on their part to ‘save the planet’, not least by putting pressure on their parents.

The National Curriculum has recently been reviewed by the government, but the proposed changes seem unlikely to prevent such practices.

Surveys show that many children are upset and frightened by what they are told is happening to the climate.

Teachers and administrators have a fairly free hand to choose textbooks, other materials, visiting speakers and school trips for pupils provided they fit in with curricular goals. This raises the risk that some may select alarming and politi- cally loaded sources in order to win children over to the ‘environmental cause’. This ‘cause’ is often presented through the notion of ‘sustainability’, a poorly- defined catchword covering political and personal actions for which funda- mental criticism is rarely entertained.5 Many campaigning NGOs and other organisations with vested interests such as energy companies proffer teach- ing materials and other resources for use in schools. Some of it is presumably being used.

There are clear grounds for very serious concern. We therefore call upon the Secretary of State for Education and his counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to undertake urgent inquiries into climate change education in our schools. Only a systematic evaluation of what is going on can determine the extent of the indoctrination as well as the emotional and educational harm to pupils that is undoubtedly resulting.

 

 

Can’t trust the climate fear mongers!

nomoreliesblog

Debunking the lies that support the wind farm scam

Search

The global warming flapdoodle …

 

and the global COOLING evidence

Global warming has been the cry of government climate scientists since the 1980′s. But actual government data proves global cooling has taken over from warming during this century, as per the official U.S. satellite records (see graph).

2014 02  NOAA temperature anomalies graph
Global land and ocean temperature anomalies as at February 2014
Anomalies are with respect to the 20th century average
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

  
What’s interesting about this graph? Well, first we see that, since 1977, the world temperature has been consistently hotter than the 20th century average. But if we look more closely, we can see that the heat has been abating since 1998.

This data has been collected by NCDC (National Climatic Data Center) which is part of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), a scientific agency of the US Administration. NOAA is an international leader for temperature data. The two others are NASA’s GISS in the US, and the UK’s University of East Anglia’s CRU (Climate Research Unit), working jointly with the Hadley Center (of the Met Office).

The GISS webpage cannot be accessed presently at:http://www.data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp, but HAD-CRUT did publish their graphs for February, which confirm the new cooling trend:http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf

Government-financed scientists, who collect and interpret the data, have in the past done their best to “hide the decline” (Climategate). Today, unfortunately, climate science continues to be corrupted by billions of dollars of government money. NOAA are arguably less corrupt than the other two, but they are still very much so in the way they present things. On their webpage below we can read: “Arctic winter sea ice extent is 5th smallest since 1979″. It would have been more objective to say: “… is larger than in 2012, and the 5th smallest since 1979″.

NOAA arctic sea ice winter 2013 5th smallest on record
NOAA: “Arctic winter sea ice extent is 5th smallest since 1979″



The following title, on the other hand, was objective: “Surface melt on Greenland Ice Sheet back near average in 2013.”
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/2013-arctic-report-card-surface-melt-greenland-ice-sheet-back-near

NOAA Greenland melt back to average in 2013
NOAA: Greenland melt back near average in 2013

 
Anyway, what’s interesting is that we are witnessing a reversal of the warming trend. This was expected by “climate skeptic” scientists, who’ve been arguing for years that cooling and warming follow the variations of solar activity, not the emissions of CO2.

As solar radiation has been declining lately, it is not surprising that world temperature should be declining as well. Never mind the ritual IPCC flapdoodle* – political gesticulation meant to scare us into accepting carbon taxes and subsidies to the wind farm scam. Politicians won’t give up dishing out money to the wind industry, as part of it is returned to finance their electoral campaigns. They LOVE that “green” revolving door.

* flapdoodle: nonsense. Originally, “the stuff they feed fools on”, 1833.

In fact, we are half-way into solar cycle 24 (the sun’s activity follows cyclical patterns, the shortest lasting 10-13-year). Solar cycle 24 happens to be the weakest in 100 years. We are presently near or past its peak, and from the graph below you can see how low it is in comparison to the previous cycle.

Solar cycle 24 to Feb 2014
NOAA: Solar cycle 24 is peaking much lower than the previous one

 
As we pass the peak, more cooling is to be expected. If solar cycle 25 is weaker still than # 24, temperatures could drop to the level of the Little Ice Age, a cold period from 1550 to 1850, which saw the Thames frozen solid, and crops rotting in the fields from too much rain. This prompted many Europeans to emigrate to America. In France, which was Europe’s grain basket, starving Parisians took to the streets asking for bread. Soon they developed a fancy for the guillotine, and executed their rulers. This begs the question: will history repeat itself?

If a “little ice age” would happen now, with 7 billion people on earth plus 75 million added every year, skyrocketing food prices and mass starvation would ensue. Yet, foolishly, our governments keep wasting money on ineffective wind turbines to cool (sic) the climate. Perhaps they do deserve the guillotine after all?

This article is also published here: http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-global-warming-flapdoodle-and-the-global-cooling-evidence.htm

Wind Turbine Companies don’t want to clean up their mess!

NORTH DAKOTA WANTS FINANCIAL ASSURANCE THAT WIND TURBINES WILL BE TAKEN DOWN IN 20 YEARS. NEXTERA BALKS.

“The goal is to ensure that after a wind turbine has generated its last kilowatt, the owner has a plan – and the financial means – to restore the landscape to its original condition.”

Mike Nowatzki — InForum — April 12, 2014

When wind turbines stop turning

BISMARCK – For more than a decade, they have towered like workhorses over the prairie, their spinning blades catching the wind and converting it to electricity.

Now, for the first time, the North Dakota Public Service Commission is considering whether to require operators of the state’s oldest commercial wind turbines to provide some form of financial assurance to cover the costs of retiring the turbines when they reach the end of their lifespan.

The goal is to ensure that after a wind turbine has generated its last kilowatt, the owner has a plan – and the financial means – to restore the landscape to its original condition.

“It’s a really good idea, and there has to be something where if a company walks away, that the ability is there to put the land back the way it was,” PSC Chairman Brian Kalk said.

But not everyone thinks such financial guarantees are necessary, including NextEra Energy Resources, whose wind projects near Edgeley and Kulm are part of the PSC’s review of decommissioning plans.  Continue reading here….

.

65981-money-changer-shows-some-one-hundred-u-s-dollar-bills-at-an-exchange-b