Wind Victim Speaks Out About the NIMBY Label!!!

Outsourcing windmill energy is a ‘not in my backyard’ mentality

Oct 07, 2016

To the Editor:

I address this primarily to Mr. Saltonstall and Dr. Francis: Think about this for a moment, please: Hideaway Village in Bourne and the industrial wind turbine neighbors in Plymouth will NEVER be able to “go back to how they were before.” The Stone Estate, in Marion’s estimation, was untouchable, but it was OK to put the 268 homes of Hideaway Village in harm’s way as long as your town did not have to suffer the consequences, the noise annoyance, the loss of private property rights, the loss in property value and the Stone Estate remained “whole.”

The people of Bourne had a right to be freaking out, whether over their roads or over what they knew would occur once those turbines reached the MannProject site in Plymouth. The people on the Bourne side of the project were not part of the process.

Would the residents of Marion have been happy to have that tonnage and vibration brought over their roadways and past the Stone Estate? (Based on the sense of well-being displayed at being able to just go back to your old ways if the MannProject did not work for Marion as expressed in the “success for Marion” article, I think not.)

On both the Bourne side and the Plymouth side of the MannProject, people have begun to feel the impacts of the industrial wind machines that were allowed to be built in Plymouth.

The mentality displayed by the people of Marion in this article is the worst sort of Nimbyism and truly is reflective of, “It is OK to ruin other people’s lives, and I go along with the industrial wind turbine mandates and agenda as long as it is not in my backyard, in my hometown, in the place I call home.”

In 2011, at the time Marion was considering a turbine and rejected it, my neighbors and I were in the process of considering the Moon Island (Quincy) Project. At the time, we knew very little about industrial wind turbines other than what the developer and the pro wind people told us. When the time came closer to making a decision, we began to do our homework in order to ask the right questions and make a good decision.

Not unlike Marion, we learned very quickly about the Falmouth issue. We learned very quickly about negative health impacts from places around the world; we learned about strobing and noise, and at the time we did not even consider the damage the heavy equipment would do to our only access road. Not unlike Marion, we did not feel industrial wind turbines made very good neighbors. As a neighborhood, we were instrumental in rejection of the Moon Island Project for some of the very same reasons that Marion rejected the Great Hill Project.

It is truly unfortunate that people, all people, have not been made aware of the truths of the industrial wind turbine mandates and agenda. It is a costly experiment. It will never change global warming or climate change. I would like to think that the people of Marion, or any other community where they are considering purchasing “energy” produced by another city or town, would turn down the offer by a developer because they knew that someone else was going to be put in harm’s way based on their own knowledge and research. And, if they know nothing about industrial wind turbine “hazards” that minimally they would take the time to learn about the subject before they rejected or signed onto the Power Purchase Agreement. Had there been no takers, the MannProject would not exist.

My connection with the MannProject comes as a result of the Moon Island Project. Since that time, I and others became advocates for industrial wind turbine victims and support groups who are fighting industrial wind turbines in their backyards.

Marie Stamos
Quincy

Advertisements

Wind Company offers to buy out homes nearest wind turbines…3000 ft. or less.

St. Albans Messenger; August 9, 2016

Company offers to buy homes nearest turbines

By TOM BENTON

Messenger Staff Writer

SWANTON — The developers behind the Swanton Wind Project announced Thursday morning they have finally submitted their application for a Certificate of Public Good from the Public Service Board (PSB).

Travis and Ashley Belisle, the developers, also announced the application includes a post-construction buy-out option for neighbors living within 3,000 feet of a turbine.

They estimated approximately 20 homes fall within that range.

Above, Swanton Wind developer Ashley Belisle, center, speaks at yesterday’s press conference, flanked by, from left, her husband and co-developer Travis Belisle, the project’s attorney, Anthony Iarrapino, and VERA Vice President Martha Staskus. Below, The Swanton Wind Project’s opponents stood by the roadside outside yesterday’s press conference, waving signs and giving honking drivers the thumbs-up.

TOM BENTON, St. Albans Messenger


Martha Staskus, the Vice President of Vermont Environmental Research Associates (VERA), called the buy-out option “unprecedented.” She said the option showed that the Belisles are listening to the project’s opponents.

“That’s what’s different from other wind project proposals,” she said.

Homeowners who purchased Rocky Ridge property from the Belisles were notified at the time of their purchase that the Belisles were considering building wind turbines.

The Belisles said they are confident they can quickly re-sell any homes vacated per the buy-out option. They said another home has sold since Swanton Wind issued their 45-day notice of intent to file their application about a year ago.

When asked why the filing process had taken so much longer than 45 days, Travis said, “Good things take time.”

He said the numerous environmental studies required for the project had delayed their filing, as well as public hearings and discussion in Swanton. Travis said the Swanton Wind developers had been “unfairly accused” of “fast-tracking” the project, so they slowed the application process to appease those concerned.

“There was fast-tracking only by opponents,” he said. The project may include up to seven wind turbines, clearing 35 acres of woodlands surrounding Rocky Ridge. The project’s lawyer, Anthony Iarrapino, said all but 10 of those acres would be allowed to re-grow after the construction.

The Belisles estimate they would annually contribute approximately $150,000 inpayments to the Town of Swanton, should the application be approved. That figure is based on similar payments made by Vermont’s five other wind projects to their “host communities.”

A press release issued by Swanton Wind, LLC noted that those financial contributions from the project could pay for all of the town’s police or library budgets, and 99 percent of the town’s fire department and fire truck replacement budget.

The project’s turbines would generate up to 20 megawatts (mW) of zero-emission power, enough to “meet the needs” of more than 7,000 Vermonters, according to the press release.

At yesterday’s press conference, held before the ridgeline where the turbines would stand, Iarrapino reiterated that the project has been engineered to avoid all wetlands.

The press release further notes that the project meets all applicable state stormwater management standards, that a comprehensive study found no rare, threatened or endangered plant or animal species within or near the project’s limits and that sound studies indicate the project will adhere to the PSB’s recently adopted sound limits — which the press release notes are “more stringent than those recommended by the World Health Organization.”

Iarrapino said the highest exterior sound level modeled by sound studies on the proposed project site was 43 decibels (dB). The PSB’s sound standards prohibit exterior sound above 45 dB.

Iarrapino said those conducting the study couldn’t “model every resident’s interior [sound levels] at the moment,” but he assumed interior sound levels would hover around 30 dB.

Staskus pointed to a “sound level” application on her phone, which said the average sound level throughout the press conference was 55 dB, thanks to a strong wind that at one point tossed the developers’ visual aids to the dirt.

“As you can see, it’s a great spot for wind,” Ashley quipped.

The press conference including something publicly unseen since the Belisles announced the project in summer 2015: a neighbor in favor of the turbines.

“One of the things we say in the navy is semper Gumby,” Chris Maynard said. “It means ‘always flexible.’” Maynard lives along the ridgeline. The idea of several turbines stretching nearly 500-feet into the air doesn’t faze him.

“It’s change,” he said. “It doesn’t bother me. You know? You make a little sacrifice for the greater good.”

Maynard told reporters that when his family bought the nearby land in 2011, there were “two things” all Vermonters could expect — short summers and cold winters. Now, Maynard said, that’s changed.

He praised the state’s “ambitious approach” to fighting climate change, and said what the Belisles are trying to accomplish “is in the spirit of Vermont.”

Maynard even celebrated the controversy surrounding the project, saying “Vermonters openly debating and expressing their opinions” was another Green Mountain tradition of which to be proud.

That controversy included a “symbolic vote” in the town of Swanton in November 2015, when residents voted 731 to 160 against the project. Travis pointed out that less than 25 percent of the town’s registered voters took part in that vote.

“A large majority had no opinion or were in favor and didn’t come out,” he said.

He estimated it will cost $40 million to construct the turbines, if their application is approved. That figure is “a big nut to chew,” he said.

Travis noted the Belisles have invested a “large portion” of their life savings in the project, and said they would need to seek investors in the project from here on forward.

Iarrapino said he expects a pre-hearing conference from the PSB within the next 30 days. Interested parties can seek formal party status during that conference and provide input on scheduling the series of hearings required by the application process.

Iarrapino said that based on past projects, he expected it could take up to a year before the PSB makes a final decision.

At the foot of the hill below the press conference, opponents of the project stood waiting, bearing signs opposing the project and industrial wind itself — among them, Christine and Dustin Lang, Rocky Ridge residents and the project’s most outspoken opponents.

Christine called the buy-out option a “huge step,” but Dustin said it was “fractioning.”

“They’re leaving Fairfield out to dry,” he said.

Patty Rainville, who stood at the roadside giving thumbs up to passing vehicles honking in support, said offering the buyout to residents within 3,000 feet of the turbines “doesn’t include hardly anybody.”

“It’s a token offering,” she said. “It’s a WTF thing to me.”

Chris Maynard, whose property lies in close proximity to the proposed project, speaks out in favor of it at a press conference Thursday. Before him sits the application document for the Certificate of Public Good.

TOM BENTON, St. Albans Messenger

Wind Pushers Struggle to Avoid Accountability….

Falmouth Wind Turbine Trial Doctors Expert Testimony May Be Tossed

Falmouth residents of the multiple lawsuits are seeking protection from adverse health effects, and loss of use and value of their property


Falmouth Wind Turbine Trial Doctors Expert Testimony May Be Tossed

In Falmouth residents of the multiple lawsuits are seeking protection from adverse health effects, and loss of use and value of their property, by requiring illegally permitted wind turbines be placed away from their properties.

The Massachusetts court system recently this week showed one of multiple lawsuits filed over the wind turbines was scheduled to be heard from September 12 to September 16. The trial has been postponed again and the only thing on the court website is: ” On 09/12/2016 Opposition to to Motion in Limine to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Dr. Robert McCunney filed by Town of Falmouth”

A motion in limine is a motion filed by a party to a lawsuit which asks the court for an order or ruling limiting or preventing certain evidence from being presented by the other side at the trial of the case.

The town is asking to exclude expert testimony of Dr. Robert McCunney ? Isn’t Dr. Robert McCunney the expert witness for the Town of Falmouth wind turbine number one ?

The original court file date is June 5, 2013. The case number is 1372CV00281 Town of Falmouth vs. Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals et al.

I am no legal scholar but it appears from the posting on the court docket the Town of Falmouth is asking the courts to throw out testimony from their own wind turbine expert a doctor ?

Over time as the Falmouth wind turbine lawsuits have dragged through the court system for six years worldwide the setbacks are increasing and even doctors have changed their views on setbacks because of human annoyance or today what is called infra sound or low frequency noise.

Nils Bolgen the wind turbine director at the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center uses 2000 feet as the standard setbacks today.

Falmouth taxpayers are paying up to $300,000.00 every six months for wind turbine litigation and this is the strategy ?

It appears today that the safe setbacks to commercial megawatt wind turbines is five times the height of the turbines or in the case of one wind turbine such as Falmouth it would be 3000 feet. The Town of Falmouth has two wind turbines. Dr. Robert J. McCunney, a medical doctor and a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology an expert witness for the Town of Falmouth Wind turbine number 1 permit . Wind turbines should be five ( 5 ) times the height of the turbines

Quote : “He said any measurable health effects, referred to in some circles as “wind turbine syndrome,” are in fact the result of stress reactions to a sound an individual finds objectionable or annoying. For that reason, he noted, some communities in the US observe a noise mitigation setback standard of five times the height of the turbine – more than three times the distance recommended by the CCC.”

Above quote from Enterprise Published: 01/28/11http://archive.capenews.net/communities/region/news/827

The Cape Cod Commissions wind turbine rules today are nearly identical to expert testimony which is hard evidence to overcome.Dr. Robert McCunney (expert witness for the Town Of Falmouth) graphical presented to the board why nearly 3000’ was necessary between industrial wind turbines and residents.

As a paid consultant by the Town of Falmouth , Dr. McCunney’s recently updated power point presentation appeared in conflict with his personal sentiments offered to the board. Contradictions and compromises to previously held positions by the good doctor are notable.As matter of note regarding Dr. McCunney’s power power presentation almost 200 residential homes are within 3000’ of Wind 1 and Wind 2

——————————————————————————————————

Falmouth, Massachusetts 2010

Article :

The next time McCunney appeared on my radar was his July 15, 2010 appearance in Falmouth .

It was a meeting before a number of people, some of whom had experienced first-hand the effects of living close to (in this case, just one!) a wind turbine. They were curious if their symptoms – all of which should be familiar to us by now – were due to the noise or were “in their heads”.

His explanation indicated their symptoms were due to annoyance, which in turn was due to their dislike of turbines. He had no explanation why presumably disinterested kids as well as people on record as supporting turbines were also having problems. He also ignores the possibility that maybe the annoyance leads to the dislike instead of the wind industry’s preferred other way around.I thought his statements were disingenuous enough that I started a posting on his activities.

File under annoyance. The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center is aware of two distinct types of noise from wind turbines. First regulatory noise measured in decibels and second human annoyance or today what is called infra sound or low frequency noise

http://windfarmrealities.org/?p=548

Note # Town Meeting Member Dave Moriarty interviews

Nobody signed Up for This, When the Decided to Live in the Country!

https://www.dropbox.com/sc/k8mfojy3tcdqpd5/AADYUon4071P3nQ3CKwS3oNra?oref=e&n=486001235

My son and I went for a drive into town.  He took some pics along the way.  At one time, these would have been beautiful shots of a rural, peaceful countryside.  Today, they are documenting the ongoing destruction of rural Ontario, by the Liberal Party, and their Green/greed Energy Act!

 

When the wind turbines do start up, it will be more than visual assaults, they will be emitting noise/infrasound.

Government Agenda Won’t Stop at Wind Turbines! Next…Private Property!

Gilmor vs. Goliath: Conservation groups seek to overturn precedent-setting court decision allowing family to build home

Buttrey Ditch

Graeme Frisque — The Banner

Buttrey drain, a drainage ditch located on the Gilmor’s property is the reason the lot was deemed part of a floodplain in the first place. It is also the source of safety concerns alleged by the Nottawasaga Conservation Authority.

Orangeville Banner

By Graeme Frisque

A precedent-setting court decision that could affect anyone in the province owning property in environmentally protected areas is currently making its way through the Ontario Court of Appeals.

It all started in 2009 when Alex and Tania Gilmor began the permit process to build a home on their property in Amaranth, a small community of roughly 4,000 residents about 15 minutes northwest of Orangeville.

The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority denied that application and a proceeding appeal, and for the last seven years the Gilmors have been fighting for permission to build on their land.

After another appeal to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) was denied via tribunal in July 2013, the Gilmors appealed that decision in Ontario Superior Court, finally winning the right to build their home in September 2015.

But the story doesn’t end there. The respondents — NVCA and the Township of Amaranth — have decided to appeal the court’s decision through an intervener.

Conservation Ontario, a not-for-profit lobby group that represents all 36 of Ontario’s conservation authorities, was approved as intervener by the court and a leave for appeal from the NVCA and Conservation Ontario was granted in February 2016, sending the matter back to the courts.

A portion of the Gilmor’s lot, located at 555106 Mono-Amaranth Townline Road, is part of a designated floodplain and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the NVCA.

According to court records, the area was designated an environmentally protected area many years after it was originally subdivided into 10-acre lots in the 1960s, and very few lots in the area remain vacant. There are existing houses on either side of the Gilmor’s property and across the road.

The area was deemed an environmentally protected area due to a small drainage ditch called “Buttrey Drain”, which crosses the Gilmor’s lot behind the proposed build site.

The drainage ditch also passes through a neighbour’s property — where a house already exists — and then proceeds to a culvert under the public road, eventually connecting to a creek, part of the Nottawasaga River system.

When they first purchased the land there was an existing driveway, shed and garden on the property and neighbours had been allowed to build houses prior to their application to do so.

Despite the proposed house being in an area on the property where flooding poses no risk, the Gilmor’s application to build was denied on the basis of flooding and safety concerns.

“Unfortunately, we cannot provide any detail about the NVCA’s position as this matter is before the courts, other than we are confident the NVCA has upheld its responsibilities as required by the Conservation Authorities Act,” said Doug Lougheed, NVCA Chair and Innisfil town councillor.

Justice Sean F. Dunphy disagreed after hearing the Gilmor’s appeal, overturning the NVCA and tribunal decisions on the matter to refuse the appropriate permits.

In his decision, Justice Dunphy pointed out an expert analysis undertaken as part of the permit process showed little-to-no flood or safety risk, even in the event of a “hypothetical extreme event” such as the “Timmins Storm” — a standard comparable used by the NVCA when assessing risk in the event of a worst-case scenario regional storm.

“(The Gilmors) provided extensive expert evidence establishing the lack of any adverse effects impact (on) their proposed building on flood control,” said Justice Dunphy.

“The methodology and quality of their expert evidence has not been challenged. Indeed, the NVCA utilized the data produced by the Gilmors’ experts in preparing their own studies,” he added.

Furthermore, the judge ruled the tribunal who originally upheld the NVCA’s decision erred by judging the case on the basis of a general ban on development in environmentally protected areas, which is not the case.

Conservation authorities routinely allow construction and development in floodplains and other environmentally sensitive areas they oversee, as long as additional mandated steps are taken to address any environmental concerns.

However, the concerns the NVCA had with Gilmor’s application is not of an environmental nature, but of public safety — namely, flood safety — and the judge found those concerns to be baseless.

The NVCA appears to have no problem with construction on the site, as their proposed resolution was to have the Gilmors build a 600-metre driveway to the back of the property outside of the flood plain. Something Justice Dunphy called “ironic”.

“The proposed driveway would be approximately 600 metres long and proceed over the existing drainage ditch and across wetlands to the rear of the Gilmor’s property to higher land,” he said.

“Further, the fill necessary to build up the required road that distance would have a much more significant impact on the ability of the land to handle a flood and thus create still more regulatory approval challenges,” added Justice Dunphy.

Justice Dunphy concluded the NVCA acted outside of its legislated powers by denying the Gilmor’s permit application and interpreted its own internal standards as matters of law.

“A general prohibition on developments without consideration of the impact, if any, of such developments on flood control in the particular circumstances of each case, would have been beyond the jurisdiction of the NVCA to enact … and it cannot acquire such jurisdiction by misinterpreting its own regulation,” he said.

And it appears it is on this basis — and not the Gilmor’s safety or right to build on their land — that the NVCA and the now intervening Conservation Ontario have chosen to so vigorously oppose the court’s decision.

“As this matter deals with a provincial priority for flood protection, NVCA has vigorously pursued leave to appeal before the Ontario Court of Appeal,” said NCVA Chair Lougheed.

“Conservation Ontario has sought intervener status as this appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal has implications for all of Ontario’s 36 Conservation Authorities, as it may affect how certain provisions of the Conservation Authorities Act are interpreted,” added Lougheed.

As for the Gilmors, according to Elizabeth Marshall of the Ontario Landowners Association (OLA), after seven years of wrangling and legal fees, the family is giving up the fight.

“They aren’t speaking to anyone anymore. They have chosen not to get a lawyer for the appeal. They are at the point where they are ready to throw themselves at the mercy of the court,” she said.

As a result, OLA president Tom Black said the group sought intervener status on the Gilmors’ behalf in order to keep up the fight — which was denied.

“The win was rather historic and we thought it should be defended,” said Black, who added the group continues to seek an intervener they would support willing to pick up the mantle.

In the meantime — at least in the opinion of one Ontario Superior Court Justice — the Gilmors continue to have their rights trampled.

West Lincoln Resident Asks for Help from Prov. to Correct Wind Turbine Transmission Pole Dangers

Honourable Steven Del Duca :
We are residents of West Niagara. Over the past few years, despite a constant battle against the project, we have been inundated with 77 industrial wind turbines.
They are so massive that they loom on the once pastoral horizon….taller than the Skylon Tower in Niagara Falls.
To date the turbines have not started running because the infrastructure necessary for the transmission of power in still in progress.
The infrastructure is what concerns me. Perhaps you can assure me that the system has been checked for safety under the MTO guidelines.
Our community is predominantly rural. Our roads are narrow and must allow for the passage of cars, trucks, school buses and immense farm equipment.
The roads are now lined with huge transmission poles, very close to the road.  Along the roads, guardrails have been installed between the poles and the roads.
Now there is virtually no soft shoulder to cushion the traffic. Farm equipment will block the roads, with no opportunity for vehicles to pass.
In winter there will be no place for snow to be piled at the side of the roads.
Hence the roads will be virtually impassable in the summer due to farm traffic and in the winter with piles of snow. (And we get a lot of snow!!!)
Snowplows will find it impossible to clear the roads safely. There will be no room.
If a driver has a mishap and hits the guardrails or transmission poles…there will be no mercy…there will be a fatality.
The structures are so close to the roads.
My entire family lives in this rural community. My grandchildren ride the school buses who use these roads.
My children use these roads daily to access Highway 20.
I know driving will be unsafe to the point of critically dangerous.
I believe this is your area of expertise.
Can you please come out and inspect this project in West Lincoln???  I know the provincial government is responsible for the welfare and safety of residents.
These roads will be a nightmare with the potential for death.
We await your response,
Susan and Ross Smith
RR 2 Smithville, Ontario
L0R2A0

Wind-Bullies Hate it, When Their Victims Fight Back!

German Daily ‘Die Welt’: “People Rebelling Against Wind Power”…Viewed As “A Destructive Force”

 

The July 24, 2016 print edition of national flagship daily Die Welt wrote a feature story on how German citizens are becoming fed up with the widespread crony capitalism of the wind energy business and are thus now mobilizing a fierce rebellion. The German daily writes of health issues for people living in their vicinity.

The article starts by featuring technology fan Volker Tschischke, who was once an ardent proponent of renewable energy – until wind turbines were built close to his residence and encircled his home village of Etteln. Now he leads a citizens initiative against the construction of wind parkc. The turbines “have driven him to resistance“, Die Welt writes.

Local politicians are no longer serving the interests of the local people, but rather “are rolling out the red carpet for wind power companies” and appear to be “no longer listening to the people and about the concerns of their everyday lives,” the national German daily writes.

A “destructive force”

Die Welt describes an Energiewende (transition to renewable energies) that is “dividing the people“, where those who live in big cities and thus not effected by the blight are open to wind parks, while those living in the countryside are fed up and fiercely resisting them. Die Welt reports that people across rural Germany “no longer view the Energiewende as a necessary national project, but as a destructive force.”

Now, ever so gradually, it even appears that Berlin is getting the message as leading parties see their poll numbers dropping. Die Welt writes that Berlin is now throttling the expansion of wind parks and working to “deescalate the conflict“.

“Ruined and destroyed for generations”

As an example of blight and destruction, Die Welt cites the area surrounding the central city of Paderborn, quoting a local resident who is thinking about packing up and leaving: “Here the living area is being ruined and destroyed for generations.”

Even though Berlin is scrambling to put the brakes on the uncontrolled spread of wind turbine littering across the rural landscape, local residents often remain powerless against the mighty wind industrialists and projects that have already been proposed. And even when local political leaders side up with their residents against the parks, Die Welt describes a David versus Goliath fight:

On one side there’s the mayor of the town and some of his staff, and on the other side there are corporation-like companies that hire staffs of lawyers.”

In such cases the big wind companies have an easy time pile-driving their projects through, Die Welt writes.

Opponents resort to sabotage

Also wind park developers often promise towns and villages cash-flow from wind projects, But as Die Welt reports, most never end up seeing any money. “The promise of business tax revenue is a ‘large fairy tale’.”

Die Welt also adds that wind park opponents are often labeled “grumblers“, “troublemakers” or “Energiewende blockers who use ludicrous ways to try to stop the success of the Energiewende.”

The conflict has even escalated to the point where opponents have even sabotaged a wind measurement instrument used to check the feasibility of a possible future project. Farmers are even blocking deforestation equipment with their tractors, Die Welt reports.

Lawless, Wild West conditions

In other locations it seems that wind energy development resembles the Wild West where there is a complete lack of law and order. Town have corrupted the planning, permitting and building process. Die Welt writes sometimes sleazy towns act as planner, permitting authority, builder and operator all in one. Nothing stands in the way. There are no checks and balances. Only a few profiteers. The German daily writes:

The county of Aurich is a stakeholder in wind park projects. For the investor that is totally practical. He is thus practically the funder, impact study conductor and project approver all in one.”

Whether its solar power or wind energy, there’s a common thread: A very select few are profiting hugely while the rest of society are left to clean up a huge industrial, financial and environmental mess.

– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/08/02/german-daily-die-welt-people-rebelling-against-wind-power-viewed-as-a-destructive-force/#sthash.W5OVUeXF.dpuf

Family Hype

All Things Related To The Family

DeFrock

A new look at the Wind Industry

Gerold's Blog

The truth shall set you free but first it will make you miserable

PolitiSite

24 Years of Political Commentary, Election Coverage, Polling Analysis and Media Appearances.

Birds and Blades

Broken Wing, The Book

Canadian Common Sense

Canadian Common Sense - A Unique Perspective from Grassroots Canadians

Falmouth's Firetower Wind

a wind energy debacle

The Law is my Oyster

The Law and its Place in Society

Illinois Leaks

“Edgar County Watchdogs"

stubbornlyme.

My thoughts...my life...my own way.

Oppose! Swanton Wind

Proposed Wind Project on Rocky Ridge

Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

4TimesAYear's Blog

Trying to stop climate change is like trying to stop the seasons from changing. We don't control the climate; IT controls US.

Wolsten

Wandering Words

Patti Kellar

WIND WARRIOR

John Coleman's Blog

Global Warming/Climate Change is not a problem