Residents Back In Court, to Protect Their Families & Homes Against Industrial Wind Projects!

September 21, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

TORONTO – The first court phase of a legal fight aimed at scuttling what would be one of Ontario’s largest wind-energy developments kicks off Monday with a farm family trying to force an immediate stop to its construction.

Documents filed in support of their request show Shawn and Tricia Drennan are concerned about the potential harm the 140-turbine K2 Wind project near Goderich, Ont., could cause them.

The Drennans are asking Divisional Court for an injunction against the ongoing construction of the facility pending resolution of an appeal against the project. They note Health Canada is currently doing a study to understand the impact industrial wind projects have on nearby residents.

“In effect, our government has relegated the appellants to guinea pigs in the name of green energy,” their factum states.

“The fear and anxiety with being a guinea pig is only further heightened by the knowledge that the Ontario Ministry of the Environment has placed a moratorium on off-shore wind turbines because the environmental impact on the fish is not known.”

Joining them in the construction stay application filed in London, Ont., are the Dixon and Ryan families, who are fighting the 15-turbine St. Columban wind project near Seaforth, Ont. The Dixons argue construction noise will hurt their eight-year-old daughter, who suffers from hearing hypersensitivity.

Both K2 Wind Ontario and St. Columban Energy argue their projects are safe, have the required permits, and that stopping construction now would have serious financial consequences. The say the projects underwent an extensive approval process that included two years of planning and various environmental studies.

In its factum, K2 Wind says the appeal will be heard long before the turbines are operational, so there is no immediate health threat warranting a stay.

“In contrast to the lack of harm the appellants will suffer if this motion is not granted,” the company argues, “K2 Wind could suffer serious financial consequences from even a minor delay in construction — consequences that could put the entire K2 project at risk.”

Ontario has seen several fights over wind farms. Some citizens are implacably opposed to them on the grounds they make area residents and animals ill, are an eyesore, lower property values, and are pushing up the price of electricity. Premier Kathleen Wynne and her Liberal caucus were heckled this past week at the International Plowing Match in the hamlet of Ivy, Ont, in part because of opposition to Liberal pro-wind policies.

Proponents argue wind turbines provide renewable energy, are environmentally friendly, create economic benefits, and are safe provided minimum distances to homes are maintained.

The provincial Environment Ministry approved the $850-million K2 — which would be able to power 100,000 homes — and the smaller St. Columban project, prompting the families to appeal to the Environmental Review Tribunal, which upheld the approvals.

In its decisions, the tribunal found no conclusive proof that wind turbines — a few of which are roughly 500 metres from homes — pose a health hazard to those living near them.

The three families, along with a fourth family opposed to the 92-turbine Armow wind farm near Kincardine, Ont., joined forces to appeal the tribunal decisions. The families argue the approvals process violates their constitutional rights given the potential impact on their physical and emotional health and want the project permits yanked.

The appeal itself is expected before Divisional Court in mid-November.

An unrelated battle involving a nine-turbine wind farm development south of Picton, Ont., is set to go before the province’s top court in December.

United Nations – Not What We Thought it Was, At All! Agenda 21 is Evil!

September 21, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

What the United Nations Doesn’t Want You to Know

Posted on 01 Sept 2014 @ by Brent P.

By: Brent Parrish

My friend Lt. Robert Powell from the Pacific Freedom Foundation recently emailed me about a new PowerPoint presentation he put together (compiled and written by Irving Baxter Jr.) on the murky origins of the United Nations. This is also a subject matter I’ve delved into quite deeply myself. Powell’s slides offer the history in manageable chunks, and I’ve converted the slides into web-ready images. Please feel free to share this information with others (with proper citations, of course).

Not too long ago I posted a video produced in the mid-nineties concerning a U.S. Army soldier, SPC Michael New, who refused to wear the UN insignia and uniform, or accept orders from a foreign commander under the auspices of the United Nations. New’s reasoning was simple: he pledged an oath to defend the United States and the U.S. Constitution, not the United Nations and its Charter.

The Michael New case received very little press coverage at the time. New was threatened with court-martial, but he decided to fight the charges. Unfortunately, Michael New lost the case and eventually received a court-martial and a dishonorable discharge. (Jeff Lindsay has written about New’s case. Read more here.)

In preparation for his case, Michael New did his homework. New pointed out that the U.N. does not own a land mass per se (of course, the U.N. considers the entire earth its “land mass”), but they do have most of the elements a fully-functioning government needs to have–meaning: they have a ruler (Secretary General), a governing body (the General Assembly and Security Council), a treasury/banking system (i.e. World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Bank of International Settlements, etc.), a legal system (International Criminal Court), an array of bureaucratic agencies (NGO’s), a flag, an oath of allegiance. and a charter.

The one thing the U.N. does not have is a tax. But there have been many who are calling for a global tax administered by the United Nations. In 2012, Vice President Joe Biden called for a “minimum global tax.” Furthermore, a global tax could be implemented via sweeping “climate change” regulations presently being pushed by the United Nations to supposedly reduce “carbon emissions” globally .

Recently, President Obama has threatened to use executive order to enact a sweeping “climate change accord” proposed by the U.N. in lieu of a treaty. While some argue the president does not have the authority to ratify a treaty without confirmation from the Senate, the administration is instead calling it an “accord,” as opposed to a treaty, thus attempting to bypass the Senate altogether.

Of course, one last thing needed for the United Nations to become a fully functioning global government is an all-powerful military force. In 1961, Council of Foreign Relations member and “Disarmament Adviser” to President Kennedy, John J. McCloy, authored a State Department document entitled Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World (read here), which urges the disarmament of all national military forces and the creation of a United Nations’ superforce.

– See more at: http://www.therightplanet.com/2014/09/what-the-united-nations-doesnt-want-you-to-know/#sthash.iStK2w4o.dpuf

This man, Bobby Jindal, Exposes the Truth Behind Skyrocketing Energy Costs….Outrageous

September 21, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal speaking at The Heritage Foundation to a group of reporters about his new energy plan. (Photo: Steven Purcell)

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal yesterday accused the Obama administration of making energy more expensive with the goal of making Americans more dependent on government.

“The Left, they like to tell us they are the ones [who] are following science and we’re the science deniers,” Jindal said to a small group of reporters after delivering a speech at The Heritage Foundation to debut his energy jobs plan. “But I think overall, their approach to energy is telling.”

The Republican governor said the “radical” Left wants energy to be scarce and expensive because it empowers the federal government to be more involved in Americans’ lives.

Doing so, the potential 2016 presidential candidate said, essentially allows the Obama administration to decide what kind of car you drive, what kind of home you live in, what kind of education your children receive, what kind of health care insurance is adequate for you, and what size soda you can drink.

Right now, Jindal said, America “is on the road to failure.” He said:

It’s war on coal today; it’s going to be a war on natural gas tomorrow—it’s a war on any natural energy source. [The Left] wants it to be scarce; they want it to be expensive. You can see it in their actions, you can see it in their policies.

Jindal, elected governor of Lousiana in 2008 after two terms in Congress, has presided over a state hit by the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico while still recovering from Hurricane Katrina.

The Left wants energy to be scarce and expensive. You can see it in their actions, you can see it in their policies. -@BobbyJindal

He cited what he called the Left’s “startling” views on natural gas.

“When [natural gas] was 13 dollars, boy they loved it. As soon as it became affordable, all of the sudden they decided they didn’t like it so much,” Jindal said.

>>> What Contributes to Gas Prices and Solutions to Help

Nicolas Loris, a Heritage economist who specializes in energy policy, agreed that some liberals initially supported natural gas “as a bridge fuel to take us to renewables.” But because the revolution in shale gas provided an abundance of cheap natural gas, he said, “that bridge became a lot longer than they anticipated.”

“While it may be bad news for other sources of energy,” Loris added, “the low-cost energy is great news for American families and businesses.”

>>> Commentary: Obama May Be Bypassing Congress on Climate

Jindal also cited regulations on carbon dioxide as proof of an “ideologically extreme” agenda by President Obama and other liberals. He said:

“For much of the Left, the whole debate about [carbon dioxide] is really a Trojan horse because these are folks that never did want a free market. This was a group that was always looking for an excuse to impose more government regulation, more government oversight. … This is just their latest vehicle to do it.”

Jindal’s energy plan, co-authored by Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, is called “Organizing Around Abundance: Making America an Energy Superpower” and promises to usher in an “unprecedented” era of energy development and job growth.

Here are the main points:

1. Promote responsible development of domestic energy resources and construct infrastructure to transport it.

2. Encourage technological innovation of renewables and emerging energy without picking winners and losers. In other words:Stop giving taxpayer-funded handouts to politically preferred energy sources and technologies. Let the market work.

3. Unlock the economic potential of the manufacturing renaissance by putting America’s energy resources to work.

4. Eliminate burdensome regulations such as the Obama administration’s increased carbon dioxide restrictions on power plants.

5. Bolster national security by ending policies that ban the exporting of natural resources.

6. Pursue “no regrets” policies that reduce carbon dioxide emissions without punishing the U.S. economy by putting it at a disadvantage to those of other nations.

Loris gave points to the Jindal-Flores plan for building on “what we see and know to be successful” when it comes to American energy production.

“Free market policies that open access, remove handouts and peel back burdensome regulations will reward risk-taking, stimulate economic growth and provide Americans with affordable energy,” he said.

What the nation shouldn’t pursue, Loris added, is a policy of reducing carbon dioxide.

“That assumes carbon emissions are a problem,” he said. Instead, “we can recognize that free markets that reward technological innovation can fuel the economy and reduce emissions.”

Watch this video for Jindal’s complete public remarks at The Heritage Foundation.

We Know That Windweasels Are Corrupt….. Here’s More Proof!

September 21, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCHER: WIND INDUSTRY RIDDLED WITH ‘ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION’

by JAMES DELINGPOLE 20 Sep 2014, 5:04 AM PDT 322POST A COMMENT

A Mexican ecologist has blown the whistle on the corruption, lies and incompetence of the wind industry – and on the massive environmental damage it causes in the name of saving the planet.

Patricia Mora, a research professor in coastal ecology and fisheries science at the National Institute of Technology in Mexico, has been studying the impact of wind turbines in the Tehuantepec Isthmus in southern Mexico, an environmentally sensitive region which has the highest concentration of wind farms in Latin America.

The turbines, she says in an interview with Truthout, have had a disastrous effect on local flora and fauna.

When a project is installed, the first step is to “dismantle” the area, a process through which all surrounding vegetation is eliminated. This means the destruction of plants and sessilities – organisms that do not have stems or supporting mechanisms – and the slow displacement over time of reptiles, mammals, birds, amphibians, insects, arachnids, fungi, etc. Generally we perceive the macro scale only, that is to say, the large animals, without considering the small and even microscopic organisms…

….After the construction is finalized, the indirect impact continues in the sense that ecosystems are altered and fragmented. As a result, there is a larger probability of their disappearance, due to changes in the climate and the use of soil.

Then there is the damage caused by wind turbine noise:

There is abundant information about the harm caused by the sound waves produced by wind turbines. These sound waves are not perceptible to the human ear, which makes them all the more dangerous. They are also low frequency sound waves and act upon the pineal and nervous systems, causing anxiety, depression (there is a study from the United States that found an elevated suicide rate in regions with wind farms), migraines, dizziness and vomiting, among other symptoms.

But the wind turbine operators are able to get away with it because the system is so corrupt.

What happens is absolute corruption. I have to admit that generally there are “agreements” behind closed doors between the consultants or research centers and the government offices before the studies are conducted. They fill out forms with copied information (and sometimes badly copied), lies or half truths in order to divert attention from the real project while at the same time complying with requirements on paper. Unfortunately, consultants sometimes take advantage of high unemployment and hire inexperienced people or unemployed career professionals without proper titles. Sometimes the consultants even coerce them into modifying the data.

Research centers, pressured by a lack of funding, accept these studies. It is well known that scientists recognized by CONACYT (National Counsel on Science and Technology) accept gifts from these companies, given that they need money to buy equipment for their laboratories and to fill their pocketbooks to maintain their lifestyles. This is the extent of the corruption. Upon reviewing these studies, it is clear that the findings are trash, sometimes even directly copied from other sources online. These studies tend to focus on the “benefits of the project” and do not include rigorous analysis.

The Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) does follow-up to the studies, but everything can be negotiated. The bureaucrats have the last word.

Though Professor Mora is talking specifically about Mexico, what she says applies equally well to supposedly more transparent democracies such as Britain, Australia, the US, Canada and Denmark. The wind industry is necessarily one of the most corrupt enterprises on earth because it depends for its entire existence on government favours, backhanders, dishonest environmental impact assessments and on regulators turning a blind eye to the known health problems caused by wind turbine noise. Without crony capitalism, the wind industry simply would not exist.

Here are some links to a few of Breitbart’s hits on the subject. As I can personally testify from a decade spent covering this scandal, there are few forms of life on the planet lower than those parasites who make their fortune out of bird-chomping, bat-slicing eco-crucifixes.

Famous Climate Alarmists Frequently Resort to Blatant Lies to Create Fear!

September 20, 2014 / 1957chev / 3 Comments

Margaret Atwood, Elizabeth May, Naomi Klein: Climate handmaids fail—to tell the truth

Perpetuating the massive deception of a planetary climate emergency

It goes without saying that most rational people with a reasonable amount of common sense worry about pollution and want to keep our environment healthy and habitable. So why do the radical environmentalists and the man-made climate change/anthropogenic global warming (AGW) alarmist crowd choose to outright lie about the problems facing us?

The UN’s IPCC, the extreme-green groups, the mainstream media, the UN-dependent scientists, academia, and politicians are all perpetuating the massive deception of the unproven hypothesis of man-made climate change/anthropogenic global warming, and use it as supposed evidence of a cataclysmic global emergency demanding extreme measures and the surrender of our rights, freedoms, and money.

The AGW movement, a quasi-religious, political, ideological one, is supported by many celebrity acolytes who, by virtue of being famous people, garner huge publicity for the cause whenever they parrot the climate change dogma. This high-minded entertainment fodder has ripple effects that are far from trivial. Mindless celebrity regurgitation of the man-made climate change/AGW catechism, in the seeming absence on their part of any serious effort to study the issues, has grave consequences that affect people, the environment, the economy, wildlife, human rights, and democracy. The celebrity flag-waving on behalf of the AGW movement also serves to exacerbate the corruption of science and the scientific method for political purposes. That’s when things get dangerous and evil. Michael Crichtonexplained:

“When we allow science to become political then we are lost. We will enter the internet version of the Dark Ages, an era of stifling fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don’t know any better.”

Celebrated author and poet Margaret Atwood has over half a million Twitter followers; Elizabeth May is an MP and the leader of the Green Party of Canada; Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist, syndicated columnist, and bestselling author. The three of them enjoy extensive national and international media exposure and public speaking opportunities. They are high-profile Canadians who have earned fame, honours, public respect and trust. They choose to voice their opinions on the subject of man-made climate change/AGW, a matter of public interest, on a variety of public platforms.

That being the case, shouldn’t the moral onus be on them to get at all the facts before they presume to preach to the people? Don’t they have an ethical duty to do their best to tell the truth if they want to try to influence public opinion and policy with their lecturing, moralizing, castigating, laying blame, and telling us how to live?

Atwood, May, and Klein appear to believe that the unproven hypothesis of made-made climate change/AGW is a fact beyond doubt. They tend to ascribe any and all weather events to AGW, even though the five standard global datasets (GISS, HadCRUT4, UAH, RSS, NCDC, comprising two satellite and three terrestrial datasets) that measure global warming have not recorded any increase for the last 18 years. Apparently, Atwood, May, and Klein are not aware of this 18-year-long development, or if they are, they choose not to mention it—because if they did, their doom-and-gloom exhortations would fall flat. They don’t explain that climate changes all the time, always has, always will—it’s natural.

The three celebrities demonize “carbon” and carry on about our “carbon footprint” and “carbon credits” and “carbon pollution” but never explain what they mean by “carbon.” They don’t seem to know, or choose not to acknowledge, that the “carbon” involved in the climate change debate is carbon dioxide (CO2), a harmless, invisible trace gas (constituting 0.04% of the atmosphere), vital to life on earth. Carbon dioxide is plant food—not a pollutant. And since they don’t mention that there hasn’t been any warming for 18 years, they also don’t tell you that during that time, the levels of carbon dioxide (allegedly the cause of global warming) have gone up. That’s a rather inconvenient fact if you want to demonize CO2 as the driver of man-made global warming/climate change!

Margaret Atwood: Hell on earth, a scary scenario

Last November, Margaret Atwood published an odd article on climate change in Huffington Post, in which she asserted:

“Conditions around the world are being altered much faster than was formerly predicted…It’s a scary scenario, and we’re largely unprepared.”

If, by “formerly predicted,” Atwood is referring to the dire prognostications of the UN’s IPCC faulty climate models, the truth is that every single one of them has actually turned out to be spectacularly wrong. Undeterred, Atwood doubles down and fast forwards the occurrence of the predicted conditions (she does not specify what they are) that have failed to materialize, providing no sources for her claims. The truth is that whatever weather and climate events have occurred within the last decade and a half cannot be blamed on AGW, because there hasn’t been any warming for 18 years and counting.

In the same article, Atwood makes a bizarre, not to mention irresponsible and naive suggestion. In reference to absorption of excess rainfall, she opines that “In cities, depaving could help.” (What? Would she advocate “depaving” and turning her hometown Toronto into Muddy Yorkagain?) Atwood obviously does not seem to know (or care?) that a major source of particulate pollution is unpaved roads!

Margaret Atwood regularly tweets about things related to “climate change,” by which she means man-made climate change. For example, in one tweet she asserts that climate change is partly “at root of Toledo water pollution.” In another, she urges her 529,000 Twitter followers to sign and re-tweet a petition to phase out “carbon pollution to zero,” lest “climate change accelerate beyond our control, threatening our survival.” She is also joiningDavid Suzuki’s Blue Dot tour (she’s an honourary member of the board of the David Suzuki Foundation), designed to “see every Canadian’s right to live in a healthy environment legally recognized” (emphasis added—sounds reasonable, but you can be sure that whatever “legally” really means, it will probably entail “depaving,” along with edicts, diktats, and intrusive, Big Brother smart-controls on how you may live your life).

Margaret Atwood is a President of the Rare Bird Club of BirdLife International and she has tweeted about saving vultures from poisoning, and spoken out about protecting Amherst Island (and Ostrander Point) in Ontario from industrial wind turbines:

“I was horrified to hear of the proposal to blanket Amherst Island with wind turbines…The need to reduce our carbon footprint is widely known, but the destruction of rare natural habitat and species is not the way to do it. Amherst Island is the wrong place for a windfarm. It is a very wrong place.”

Of course, as anyone who has taken a good look at the wind energy industry knows, there is no right place for the useless satanic white windmills, whichkill birds and bats in catastrophic numbers wherever they are located. Why doesn’t Atwood tell the whole truth about how all industrial wind turbines brutally slice and dice any avian creatures that get in their way (ironically while actually adding to CO2 emissions)? What kind of activist bird lover is she? And doesn’t she see all the other devastating environmental, social, and economic evils the monster machines represent? (Talk about “depaving”! Each industrial wind turbine requires an 800-ton concrete platform, and that is just the beginning of howun-green those useless, eco-dirty things really are.)

The terrible irony is that Margaret Atwood has written novels about dystopian worlds, and that with her AGW activism she seems to be helping to create a real one. She says her novels are “speculative fiction” about worlds that “could really happen.“ Atwood has written that speculative fiction can:

“…explore proposed changes in social organisation, by showing what they might actually be like for those living within them. Thus, the utopia and the dystopia, which have proved over and over again that we have a better idea about how to make hell on earth than we do about how to make heaven.”

But Atwood seems unable to recognize that the man-made climate change movement, in which she is a celebrity activist, and the AGW ideology for which she is a high-profile advocate, have been deliberately conceived and engineered as the phoney rationale for a dystopian UN objective (“hell on earth”), as outlined in its master plan for world governance, Agenda 21. This plan would curtail, if not eliminate, not only our democratic rights but also our country’s very sovereignty; it’s a plan to inventory and control everything and everyone on the planet. And this plan not only “could really happen”—it really is happening right now; in fact, it began to be slowly, stealthily implemented more than 20 years ago.

That is the real “scary scenario.”

Margaret Atwood and all the other AGW celebrity acolytes seem to be completely oblivious to the big picture as they go about aiding and abetting the greatest scientific deception of our time. Atwood has written: “There’s a new term, cli-fi (for climate fiction, a play on sci-fi), that’s being used to describe books in which an altered climate is part of the plot.” With her high-profile AGW activism she is helping to perpetuate the real-life AGW climate fiction—a fiction that in Ontario has already cost billions of dollars in the name of green energy, diverted attention and resources from genuine, urgent problems facing us, inflicted untold suffering on people, stalled the economy, blighted the environment, killed wildlife.

Those are real “hell on earth” consequences.

Elizabeth May: Giving voice to nonsense

Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada, claims:

“The Green party is the only party that bases its policies on evidence. That is why we may take positions ahead of the “group-think” curve…We have been consistent about climate policies, while other parties treat the greatest threat to our children’s future as a passing fad.”

If May’s claim about her party’s evidence-based policies is true, and she sees it as her job “to communicate the science,” why hasn’t she admitted that the evidence and science show that there has not been any global warming for 18 years? It appears that May is “consistent about climate policies” to the extent that she consistently and mindlessly (as in “group-think”) repeats false, long-ago debunked predictions (“greatest threat to our children’s future”), while apparently failing to understand, or deliberately ignoring, the latest scientific findings.

In an April interview on CBC TV, Canada’s national broadcaster, Elizabeth May lauds the IPCC, which is actually a political body masquerading as a scientific one, for part three of its Fifth Assessment Report:

“It’s science, it’s evidence, it’s not someone’s opinion…based on evidence, based on science, these aren’t a group of people who get together and look in a crystal ball…this is scientific warnings that are based on what is happening now.”

As we have mentioned, all of the climate model predictions the IPCC uses to formulate its reports for policy makers—predictions which are actually nothing more than opinions, the equivalent of looking into a crystal ball—have failed. None of the climate models have agreed with the observed data, i.e. the hard scientific evidence.

Does May not know this, or is she deliberately obfuscating the truth? Either way, it doesn’t make her look good. And by “what is happening now,” does she mean that the “serious threat,” with which she tries to scare Canadians, and “the risk for security, the risks of failed states, the risk of a collapse of civilization” are actually unfolding now, at a time when global warming, supposedly the cause of all the doom-and-gloom, has not happened for 18 years? If there hasn’t been any global warming for almost two decades, how can whatever is “happening now” have been caused by it? May’s rhetoric, misinformation, and apocalypse-mongering are deeply irresponsible, reckless, and harmful.

In the interview (see it to believe it), and in what seems like a breezily sanctimonious, arrogant, holier-than-thou tone, Elizabeth May goes on to make the astonishing statement that “99.5% of the scientists who know the issue” agree that climate change is man-made. This claim has been debunked many times over (and just like Pinocchio’s nose, the original phoney statistic of 97% seems to get bigger every time someone cites it). And yet, here is Elizabeth May on national television telling viewers something that is simply not true. Perhaps she thinks she’s in good company because everyone from President Obama down with a vested interest in maintaining the fiction continues to make the same bogus claim. Needless to say, and as usual, the CBC interviewer, in this case Peter Mansbridge—probably because he isn’t informed but given his position certainly ought to be—doesn’t challenge her on the untruth.

And it gets worse. May says that the “denier industry was invented by the fossil fuel industry lobby.” She seems to be proud of her knowledge of “the science,” as she calls it:

“I learned the climate science when I was a senior policy advisor for the Minister of the Environment in the 1980s. We were looking at all the science that was coming in from all around the world, and it was before anyone had “invented”* the idea that there was doubt. The “invention”* of doubt was a product of the fossil fuel lobby that decided after the Earth Summit and after the Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed…then they decided, oh oh, this could cut into profits, we’d better invent doubt…”

*[May employs air quotes.]

What’s astonishing here is May’s smug, self-satisfied conviction that the doubt could only have been manufactured by an avaricious, manipulative fossil fuel industry bogeyman, and not perhaps have come out of the rigorous research of honest climate scientists, (as, for example, Canadian Dr. Tim Ball), who adhere to the scientific method in which healthy, questioning, intelligent scepticism plays an indispensable role. And, if she really does know “the science” as she claims, why is she not telling the truth that there are sound scientific findings out there that invalidate the AGW hypothesis?

May also displays an unbelievably patronizing attitude about people who question the fiction that she promotes:

“So when I talk to people who aren’t convinced, I’m very respectful because I understand that a lot of good people have gotten one little bit of information that seems plausible and have allowed that to morph into their head into some level of large-scale doubt about the science. If we had a lobby that wanted to deny the laws of gravity and the media decided to give them equal voice…that’s the level of the science debate. We shouldn’t be giving voice to nonsense.”

Wow! Look at the poor saps who have that one little “plausible” thing morph into a huge, doubtful balloon in their heads! Let’s censor the ones who let it fester and want to talk to the media about it! Who is actually being granted a national platform and given voice to nonsense here? The irony is that the mainstream media, including our taxpayer-funded national broadcaster the CBC, have given scant, if any voice to the fine scientists and other experts who have not been corrupted into toeing the party line of man-made climate change.

Elizabeth May is a national political figure who holds herself out to be an expert who knows “the science,” but seems to be getting away with disseminating serious misinformation, with the CBC’s vaunted Peter Mansbridge uttering nary a peep of a challenge. This is a national disgrace. Pity the young people, because as she indicates in the interview, she speaks to (indoctrinates?) them in places where they are a captive audience, as she puts it, and they are forced to listen to her nonsensical, apocalyptic view of their future.

Naomi Klein: A death sentence for the planet

In the media and in her latest book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, Naomi Klein does a good job as an AGW alarmist, with what some might even say is histrionic fear mongering. A sampling:

“…keep warming below catastrophic levels,” “…this crisis continues to be existentially terrifying,” “…in the midst of a climate emergency,” “…we’re on a four-to-six-degree temperature trajectory. To be in decade zero, and out of time,” “…a clear and present danger to civilization, “…a death sentence for the planet,” “…a weapon of mass destruction,” “…the road we’re on…will lead us to a greater brutality..to a world of a kind of disaster apartheid I think we caught a glimpse of with Hurricane Katrina.”

When it comes to the climate, Klein also seems to have a problem understanding or telling the truth. She claims to have “immersed myself in the science and politics of climate change.” But she doesn’t appear to be interested in facts: “It’s that I don’t want quibbling about the science. This is how a lot of the debate gets derailed. I don’t want to be derailed with quibbles about how many hurricanes there were in 2012.” (Could that be because, inconveniently, statistics show that there have been a lot less hurricanes and other extreme weather events than the AGW believers claim to be the consequences of man-made climate change?) In a recentCBC radio interview, she quotes Michael Mann, “the famed climate scientist” of the Hockey Stick debacle who employed statistical tricks to produce a misleading graph of global warming history—the graph was used extensively as a propaganda tool to fuel the man-made global warming hype. Perhaps Klein doesn’t know that two Canadian researchers exposed the manipulations:

What they found was that 99% of the time you could process random data using Mann’s techniques and it would generate a Hockey Stick shape. This meant that Mann’s claim that the Hockey Stick graph represented an accurate reconstruction of the past climate was in tatters.

Given Klein’s Jewish heritage, it’s hard to understand how she can use the odious term “deniers,” with its terrible allusion to the Holocaust, when referring to the learned climate scientists and others who have demonstrated that the scientific data do not support the hypothesis of man-made global warming/climate change: “We focus too much on climate deniers,” she says. The use of this nasty ad hominem label has led to outrageous excesses, such as a sickening ad for the upcoming climate march in New York City, wherein it’s implied that respected scientists, other experts, and ordinary people who think for themselves and who happen not to agree that the scientific data support the unproven hypothesis of man-made climate change are tolerant of genocide.

Klein advocates “deep changes to our political and economic system.” She says, “Core inequalities need to be tackled through redistribution of wealth and technology” and bemoans that we seem to be “incapable of responding collectively to an existential crisis and incapable of acting collectively for a greater good.” The socialist/communist plan of action she’s apparently advocating appears to be in line with the UN’s Agenda 21 objectives, which Canadian Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (now resident of communist China when he’s not being fêted in Toronto by celebrity and former Canadian governor-general Adrienne Clarkson as “a true Canadian gem” who “invented the environment”) took a lead in formulating when he said:

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

That would be a real death sentence for the planet.

The grave consequences of celebrities thinking that star power doesn’t need the truth

Of course, Margaret Atwood, Elizabeth May, and Naomi Klein aren’t the only Canadian celebrities chastising us for not “believing in” the religion of man-made climate change or doing enough about it. There are many others, including the publicly-lionized David Suzuki, another pseudo-expert on climate science whose shocking and appalling lack of knowledge on the subject was exposed to world-wide ridicule on Australian national television last September. (Watch the video or read the transcript here.)

Do any of the celebrities ever stop to think about the damage they cause by failing to do their homework and study the issues before recklessly and irresponsibly taking their uninformed opinions on the road?

Do they have any inkling that what they say, write, tweet, or sing in public forums may help to bring about and sustain, for example, the miserable realities of trying to live amidst industrial wind turbines which have been forced on rural residents as a direct result of the deception of man-made climate change posing a planetary emergency, thus supposedly necessitating special, draconian, democratic-rights-robbing legislation which gives the wind industry unprecedented rights to despoil prime farmland, expropriate land, kill wildlife, adversely affect people’s health, destabilize the electrical grid, fracture communities, devalue property, and allows it to enjoy 20-year guaranteed, significantly above-market returns on investment, courtesy of the taxpayers?

People are suffering badly for a big, celebrity-enabled lie, and losing their rights, their jobs, their homes, their communities, their environment, their way of life, their money.

Celebrity acolytes and advocates of man-made climate change, with their hysterical exaggerations, outrageous fear mongering, blatant misinformation, and bald-faced untruths have to take a good look at themselves and their role in the terrible consequences of helping to propagate the greatest scientific deception of all time.

Even Scientists Do Not All Agree on Climate Change – It is NOT Settled!

September 20, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Sept. 19, 2014 12:19 p.m. ET

Enlarge Image

The crucial scientific question for policy isn’t whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Mitch Dobrowner

The idea that “Climate science is settled” runs through today’s popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.

My training as a computational physicist—together with a 40-year career of scientific research, advising and management in academia, government and the private sector—has afforded me an extended, up-close perspective on climate science. Detailed technical discussions during the past year with leading climate scientists have given me an even better sense of what we know, and don’t know, about climate. I have come to appreciate the daunting scientific challenge of answering the questions that policy makers and the public are asking.

The crucial scientific question for policy isn’t whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades. We know, for instance, that during the 20th century the Earth’s global average surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.

Rather, the crucial, unsettled scientific question for policy is, “How will the climate change over the next century under both natural and human influences?” Answers to that question at the global and regional levels, as well as to equally complex questions of how ecosystems and human activities will be affected, should inform our choices about energy and infrastructure.

But—here’s the catch—those questions are the hardest ones to answer. They challenge, in a fundamental way, what science can tell us about future climates.

Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere’s natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.

A second challenge to “knowing” future climate is today’s poor understanding of the oceans. The oceans, which change over decades and centuries, hold most of the climate’s heat and strongly influence the atmosphere. Unfortunately, precise, comprehensive observations of the oceans are available only for the past few decades; the reliable record is still far too short to adequately understand how the oceans will change and how that will affect climate.

A third fundamental challenge arises from feedbacks that can dramatically amplify or mute the climate’s response to human and natural influences. One important feedback, which is thought to approximately double the direct heating effect of carbon dioxide, involves water vapor, clouds and temperature.

Enlarge Image

Scientists measure the sea level of the Ross Sea in Antarctica. National Geographic/Getty Images

But feedbacks are uncertain. They depend on the details of processes such as evaporation and the flow of radiation through clouds. They cannot be determined confidently from the basic laws of physics and chemistry, so they must be verified by precise, detailed observations that are, in many cases, not yet available.

Beyond these observational challenges are those posed by the complex computer models used to project future climate. These massive programs attempt to describe the dynamics and interactions of the various components of the Earth system—the atmosphere, the oceans, the land, the ice and the biosphere of living things. While some parts of the models rely on well-tested physical laws, other parts involve technically informed estimation. Computer modeling of complex systems is as much an art as a science.

For instance, global climate models describe the Earth on a grid that is currently limited by computer capabilities to a resolution of no finer than 60 miles. (The distance from New York City to Washington, D.C., is thus covered by only four grid cells.) But processes such as cloud formation, turbulence and rain all happen on much smaller scales. These critical processes then appear in the model only through adjustable assumptions that specify, for example, how the average cloud cover depends on a grid box’s average temperature and humidity. In a given model, dozens of such assumptions must be adjusted (“tuned,” in the jargon of modelers) to reproduce both current observations and imperfectly known historical records.

We often hear that there is a “scientific consensus” about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn’t a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences. Since 1990, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has periodically surveyed the state of climate science. Each successive report from that endeavor, with contributions from thousands of scientists around the world, has come to be seen as the definitive assessment of climate science at the time of its issue.

Enlarge Image

There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. Pictured, an estuary in Patgonia. Gallery Stock

For the latest IPCC report (September 2013), its Working Group I, which focuses on physical science, uses an ensemble of some 55 different models. Although most of these models are tuned to reproduce the gross features of the Earth’s climate, the marked differences in their details and projections reflect all of the limitations that I have described. For example:

• The models differ in their descriptions of the past century’s global average surface temperature by more than three times the entire warming recorded during that time. Such mismatches are also present in many other basic climate factors, including rainfall, which is fundamental to the atmosphere’s energy balance. As a result, the models give widely varying descriptions of the climate’s inner workings. Since they disagree so markedly, no more than one of them can be right.

• Although the Earth’s average surface temperature rose sharply by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit during the last quarter of the 20th century, it has increased much more slowly for the past 16 years, even as the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen by some 25%. This surprising fact demonstrates directly that natural influences and variability are powerful enough to counteract the present warming influence exerted by human activity.

Yet the models famously fail to capture this slowing in the temperature rise. Several dozen different explanations for this failure have been offered, with ocean variability most likely playing a major role. But the whole episode continues to highlight the limits of our modeling.

• The models roughly describe the shrinking extent of Arctic sea ice observed over the past two decades, but they fail to describe the comparable growth of Antarctic sea ice, which is now at a record high.

• The models predict that the lower atmosphere in the tropics will absorb much of the heat of the warming atmosphere. But that “hot spot” has not been confidently observed, casting doubt on our understanding of the crucial feedback of water vapor on temperature.

• Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today—about one foot per century.

• A crucial measure of our knowledge of feedbacks is climate sensitivity—that is, the warming induced by a hypothetical doubling of carbon-dioxide concentration. Today’s best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars.

These and many other open questions are in fact described in the IPCC research reports, although a detailed and knowledgeable reading is sometimes required to discern them. They are not “minor” issues to be “cleaned up” by further research. Rather, they are deficiencies that erode confidence in the computer projections. Work to resolve these shortcomings in climate models should be among the top priorities for climate research.

Yet a public official reading only the IPCC’s “Summary for Policy Makers” would gain little sense of the extent or implications of these deficiencies. These are fundamental challenges to our understanding of human impacts on the climate, and they should not be dismissed with the mantra that “climate science is settled.”

While the past two decades have seen progress in climate science, the field is not yet mature enough to usefully answer the difficult and important questions being asked of it. This decidedly unsettled state highlights what should be obvious: Understanding climate, at the level of detail relevant to human influences, is a very, very difficult problem.

We can and should take steps to make climate projections more useful over time. An international commitment to a sustained global climate observation system would generate an ever-lengthening record of more precise observations. And increasingly powerful computers can allow a better understanding of the uncertainties in our models, finer model grids and more sophisticated descriptions of the processes that occur within them. The science is urgent, since we could be caught flat-footed if our understanding does not improve more rapidly than the climate itself changes.

A transparent rigor would also be a welcome development, especially given the momentous political and policy decisions at stake. That could be supported by regular, independent, “red team” reviews to stress-test and challenge the projections by focusing on their deficiencies and uncertainties; that would certainly be the best practice of the scientific method. But because the natural climate changes over decades, it will take many years to get the data needed to confidently isolate and quantify the effects of human influences.

Policy makers and the public may wish for the comfort of certainty in their climate science. But I fear that rigidly promulgating the idea that climate science is “settled” (or is a “hoax”) demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, retarding its progress in these important matters. Uncertainty is a prime mover and motivator of science and must be faced head-on. It should not be confined to hushed sidebar conversations at academic conferences.

Society’s choices in the years ahead will necessarily be based on uncertain knowledge of future climates. That uncertainty need not be an excuse for inaction. There is well-justified prudence in accelerating the development of low-emissions technologies and in cost-effective energy-efficiency measures.

But climate strategies beyond such “no regrets” efforts carry costs, risks and questions of effectiveness, so nonscientific factors inevitably enter the decision. These include our tolerance for risk and the priorities that we assign to economic development, poverty reduction, environmental quality, and intergenerational and geographical equity.

Individuals and countries can legitimately disagree about these matters, so the discussion should not be about “believing” or “denying” the science. Despite the statements of numerous scientific societies, the scientific community cannot claim any special expertise in addressing issues related to humanity’s deepest goals and values. The political and diplomatic spheres are best suited to debating and resolving such questions, and misrepresenting the current state of climate science does nothing to advance that effort.

Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself.

Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama’s first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. His previous positions include professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, as well as chief scientist of BP,BP.LN +0.42% where his work focused on renewable and low-carbon energy technologies.

Scotland Has Some Work to Do…Some Fences to Mend!

September 20, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

The ‘Party’ is over. Now we have the Country to repair!

Posted on 20/09/2014by Dougal Quixote

Whichever side of the fence you were on, the last three weeks has been a roller coaster. Now Salmond has announced his resignation and we all look to what changes will manifest themselves. With Sturgeon being promoted as his replacement we have to ask is this a coronation with Salmond’s acolyte stepping into his shoes, or will the SNP cast off the shackles of the Salmond years and look for someone new to take the country forward until the next elections.

What we have lost over the last few months is a positive direction on the wind issues. The Issues mind, not the development! Many projects already approved have been put on hold as the financiers have been concerned at the financial position of iScotland and the future of subsidies mostly paid by rUK. Now that uncertainty is removed we have already heard evidence that some of the big players are shaking off their approvals and looking to move forward. No doubt projects in the pipeline will have received a similar boost of confidence. We have two financial issues here. Will the UK address the subsidy issue and reduce the levels of public support they enjoy and is someone going to grasp the nettle of energy production and push forward with new gas power station and fracking at the same time re-addressing the mothballing and/or closure of coal fired generation. The Issue is the sustainability and cost of renewable energy at a time when the UK, business and residents, needs affordable energy to compete in the world and to protect the less affluent in a population. Without doubt wind power, onshore and off is at a cost the country cannot afford.

What we have seen/missed is that over the last few weeks wind energy production has been at an all time low. The dreitch days of mists and fog covering the UK has exposed the futility of wind is a reliable energy source. However the press have been concentrated on the Scottish problem and Salmond’s promised departure; he has been the comeback kid many times before; has created it’s own chorus of breast beating from the media. Where was this lovely little Charlie Chaplin figure the young reporters are painting? The Nasty party, as some refer to the modern day SNP, was created in his image. Personable at times, yes, but unpleasant, arrogant and abrasive to anyone, friend or foe, that didn’t dance to his tune. The guy is not dead. We have no cause to eulogise him. On two issues, The Independence Referendum and the Wind Farms, he divided Scotland in two. Those divisions, both mental and physical, will take a generation or more to heal! Scotland needs to shake of the last three years of division and re-energise itself with the things it does well.

And wind ain’t one of them!

We need now to hold the Government to their word on Wild Lands; Rannoch Moor and Stronelairg; and to re-address the planning rules that allow Energy Consents to over-rule local planning decisions. We need to look at Planning Appeals and make it a level playing field where the community can challenge approvals as the developers can challenge refusals.We need to make appeals a road of last resort when rules have been broken not an automatic route for developers who are frustrated when applications are refused on good grounds. We also need to make sure that councils are protected from costs on appeal for doing what they have been democratically appointed to do but impose punitive costs on developers for spurious appeals. We need to make the planning fair for communities which means no repetitive applications and some respite for communities attacked by cumulative applications. Councils should be empowered to ‘paint’ no go zones where applications are simply barred due to impact on local communities who have been under “attack” from the wind farm developers. We should also demand a complete ban on extensions. When a wind farm reduces the number of turbines to get approval, surely it is nonsense to allow an extension application sometimes before the original erection is completed!

September 20, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Germany’s Offshore Wind Power Debacle

September 19, 2014 by stopthesethings

The Germans went into wind power harder and faster than anyone else – and the cost of doing so is catching up with a vengeance. The subsidies have been colossal, the impacts on the electricity market chaotic and – contrary to the purpose of the policy – CO2 emissions are rising fast (seeour post here).

Some 800,000 German homes have been disconnected from the grid – casualties of Germany’s out of control renewables policy. A further 7 million households are left struggling to pay their power bills – forced to choose between heating and eating – victims of what is euphemistically called “fuel poverty”. In response, Germans have picked up their axes and have headed to their forests in order to improve their sense of energy security – although foresters apparently take the view that this self-help measure is nothing more than blatant timber theft (see our post here).

One justification put up by the wind industry for the social and economic chaos caused by spiralling power costs was the claim that investment in wind power would create a “new” economy with millions of groovy “green” jobs. Rather than resulting in an employment bonanza, the billions in subsidies needed to support Germany’s “green” dreaming has forced once competitive industry head to the US – where power prices are 1/3 of Germany’s (see our posts here and here and here) – taking thousands of real jobs with them. And – to add insult to injury – the so-called “green” jobs miracle has collapsed in a fiasco of failed ventures and dashed hopes – simply because the jobs “created” were heavily subsidised and, therefore, unsustainable (see our post here).

Not only is Germany’s wind rush causing economic and social chaos, its efforts to generate wind power offshore have turned into an insanely costly debacle. Here’s the Canada Free Press on just how ludicrous the German’s love of giant fans has become.

Wind Turbines but no Power
Canada Free Press
Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser
13 September 2014

The first large scale wind-power installation, some 100 km (65 miles) offshore the northwest coast of Germany has finally been connected to the grid. The Offshore-Windpark Deutsche Bucht is a wind farm with a total of 80 wind turbine towers, each with a hub height of 100 m (300 ft.) above the sea and a combined design output of some 400 Megawatts in electric power.

Connection to the Grid

Because of delays in getting the underwater cabling and connection to the power grid on land, the whole power park was standing idle for the last two years. In order to prevent potential damage to gear boxes and turbines, each tower was supplied with energy from small gasoline-powered electricity generators for that time.

Several years behind schedule, the Bard 1 wind farm finally came altogether in March 2014. The wind farm was connected to the electric grid and started to deliver energy. Alas, it did not last very long. In March, the separate AC-to-DC converter station at the facility suffered a “meltdown.” A new converter installed a few days ago was shut down not much later without explanation.

HVDC Converters

The alternating current (AC) coming from the turbines cannot be directly transmitted to the grid. Instead, it needs to be converted to high voltage direct current (HVDC) first. In principle, that is a straight forward task and has been solved for a long time. All the high-tension electric power transmission lines around the world use such HVDC converters. So what’s the problem with the wind farm converter?

In contrast to a steady one-source input, like from a nuclear or coal-fired power plant, a wind farm has many smaller sources with the output of each constantly varying with conditions like wind direction, wind speed and blade angle. Such variations lead to destabilizing energy-oscillations in the whole system that cannot be handled by the current converters. To make matters worse, the engineers have yet to fully understand the nature of the problem and to come up with any solution for it.

Investor Worries

In short, the power that may be in the offshore wind (if and when it blows) cannot easily be controlled and converted into anything useful at this time. With Germany’s plans for another 10,000 offshore turbines some investors are getting a bit worried about the possibility of unsolvable systemic problems with such far-offshore wind power systems.

Of course, one has to ask why wind power installations have enjoyed the attention of investors to begin with. It was all based on the tax write-offs and guaranteed energy feed-in tariffs some governments in Europe and elsewhere bestowed upon them. Both in the U.S. and Canada such government schemes for “alternative energy” are still in full bloom.

In contrast, other countries have seen the light and are going in the opposite direction, building new coal-fired and nuclear power plants as fast as they can.

New Power Plants

While in the U.S. coal mines are closing down and the miners being laid off, the opposite is happening elsewhere on the globe. China, India, France and Hungary, to name a few, are building new power plants based on coal and/or nuclear fuel. Even Japan, which closed down its nuclear power plants after the Fukushima sea quake, is set to restart several reactors next month. On a global scale, however, coal is still the king in terms of stationary electric power generation.

Despite a consumption of 90 million barrels of oil per day, the world needs more coal than ever, about 8,000 million tons per year. Most of that is used for electric power, the rest mainly for heating. Obviously, with estimated reserves many multiples of that annual consumption, the world is not going to run out of coal tomorrow. In the long run though, I think nuclear power is the way to go for electricity generation.

Real “Alternatives”

The world has enough uranium resources to satisfy the demand for several hundred years alone. Then there is the potential for thorium-based reactors, with a potential fuel supply in the U.S. for another 1,000 years. The holy grail of energy independence, however, would be controlled nuclear fusion. If that can be achieved, the earth would have an unlimited power supply. Now that would really be “alternative power.”

The highly touted, government-subsidized, unreliable, intermittent and expensive “alternative power” schemes currently in vogue are nothing but a phenomenal waste of money. As evident from the described wind farm in Germany, the required technology is not in place at this time, perhaps may never be.

I suggest a simple solution for the problem: a truly “alternative government.”
Canada Free Press

Official Report, (Hansard) Committee for the Environment, Wind Energy Inquiry….Ireland

September 18, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Official Report (Hansard)

Session: 2014/2015

Date: Thursday, 11 September 2014

Committee for the Environment

Wind Energy Inquiry: Mrs Ursula Walsh, University of Ulster

The Chairperson: I welcome Mrs Ursula Walsh from the University of Ulster, who has been appointed as our special adviser on acoustics, and invite her to make a five- or 10-minute presentation to the Committee, after which members will have an opportunity to ask questions. Thank you very much for your hard work; you have done a very big piece of work.

Mrs Ursula Walsh (University of Ulster): Good afternoon. I want to give you a brief overview of my paper and, perhaps, explain a couple of terms, after which we can have a discussion.

Noise is quite complex. Sound becomes noise when it becomes unwanted. People’s perceptions of noise are related not just to the volume of the noise but to its pitch or frequency and character. Two noises might be at the same volume, but one might be much more annoying than the other because of its character and fluctuations, which I will talk about. It also depends on the time of day. Obviously, if people’s sleep is disturbed, it is much more annoying than it perhaps would be during the day.

There is a human reaction to the annoyance caused by wind turbine noise. Sometimes, people are more annoyed because they feel a lack of control or they have feelings of injustice that they are not being heard or believed. Therefore, there is a subjective element to it. However, some people’s being more sensitive to noise than others has not been found so much with wind turbine noise.

Some of the general terms that you come across in all the noise guidance are not everyday terms, so the inquiry asked me to explain some of them. Leq is, more or less, the average sound. If you get all the sounds together, it is an average. L90, which is referred to extensively in the wind turbine guidance ETSU, is more or less the background noise remaining when you remove the noisiest elements. It would not be your average noise; it would be the remaining noise. It would be low-level noise, about two decibels lower than Leq.

When you see those terms and there is a small subscript “A”, as in LAeq, that “A” means that it has been adjusted, weighted. The “A” gives more weighting to high-frequency noise and removes decibels in low-frequency noise. In other words, it will give you a reading that makes higher-frequency noise more important. It diminishes low-frequency noise. That “A” weighting means that some pitches are enhanced and lower ones are diminished, if that is clear.

Noise comprises pressure waves and they spread out in the environment. They are affected by weather, so on still nights noise will travel better than on windy days. It also depends on the landscape. With distance, high frequencies and high pitches are absorbed in the atmosphere much more than low frequencies and low pitches.

If an airplane is going past you, for example, you will hear the low-frequency element; you will hear the drone. You will hear not high-pitched noises but low-pitches noises even though the noise, if you were beside the airplane, would have high and low frequencies. At a distance, you tend to hear the lower frequencies.

Wind turbine noise is mainly dominated by aerodynamic noise — the swish of the blades going round in the air — and most of the noise from wind turbines is that swishing. To some extent, it is unavoidable. It is the nature of the machine. You can get mechanical noise if there are faults, but we are mainly talking about aerodynamic noise, the swish. The recent designs of turbines have a better blade angle going into the air. It is like any newer, more modern machine; it would tend to be quieter than older machines. They have a better design. However, larger turbines are louder and have more low-frequency noise. So, the more modern ones are quieter, but the larger ones, of course, are going to be louder.

It is not a steady noise, like your fridge at home, and you may not notice it until it suddenly kicks off. A fridge makes is a steady noise and is not that noticeable. Wind turbine noise has a fluctuation. It goes up and down a little bit. The ETSU guidance, published in 1997, acknowledged there was some fluctuation, but bigger wind turbines have been found to have more fluctuations and more in the lower-frequency range.

The ETSU guidance relies very much on the British Standards Institution’s BS 4142, which says that more emphasis should be put on the fluctuations. If a noise is not steady, you have to account for that. It is likely to be more annoying if it fluctuates. I am talking about amplitude modulation, which is up and down — non-steady because it is not steady. The standard says to take account of that and add in another five decibels for the annoyance as it is not a steady noise. When the ETSU guidance was published in 1997, it did not recognise the degree of fluctuations that we now know the larger machines are capable of. ETSU is the assessment and rating of noise from wind turbines. Our planning and policy statement refers to ETSU.

The evidence base has expanded a lot since the ETSU guidelines were published in 1997. A lot more is known about wind turbine noise and annoyance. Also since 1997, the World Health Organization has reduced its recommended indoor night-time noise from 35 decibels to 30 decibels. They reckon that for people not to have their sleep disturbed, it should be 30 decibels.

The ETSU guidance talks a lot about the L90 measure. As I mentioned, that is not the average sound level, it is the lower sound level. ETSU uses L90, the lower level, for both turbine noise and background noise. That is very unusual. All the other guidance that I have read and all the other standards use LAeq. They all use the average; so this is quite unusual for ETSU. When the ETSU guidance was written, it was recommended that it should be reviewed within two years; however, it has not been reviewed. Some of the people who actually wrote the ETSU guidance have subsequently published a paper saying that it might underestimate the noise. So, the people who wrote the ETSU guidance have reservations and reckon that it needs to be updated in the light of current knowledge.

Basically, the reason I think that the ETSU guidance should be revised — apart from the fact that its authors think so — is that the quieter the environment, the more disturbing the noise is. So, it is not necessarily about the actual noise level; it is about the difference between the background noise — what you are used to — and the source noise. It is the difference between the background noise level and the source, not necessarily the absolute, noise level. So, something in the centre of Belfast may not be very annoying, but if it were in the countryside the exact same noise would be annoying. That is what the British standard says as well: it is the difference between the background noise and the source noise. ETSU refers to that; however, it then says that in low-noise environments you may not use that approach. So, I think that ETSU needs to be clarified: why it is usually the difference between the background noise and the actual wind noise, and why sometimes the background noise is not considered. That needs further explanation. ETSU needs to be updated with regard to the World Health Organization’s changes, and more consideration needs to be given to those fluctuations.

Let me turn to some particular issues which you asked me about. Anecdotally, I have heard from several sources, although I do not have evidence, that Northern Ireland is in receipt of older wind turbines, refurbished from other countries. Three academic and professional sources have told me that Northern Ireland is getting refurbished wind turbines. Obviously, those turbines do not benefit from the more recent designs and they may show signs of wear and tear. For example, the blade may have indentations, holes or wear which make it noisier. Apparently, some websites that market reconditioned turbines highlight Northern Ireland as a potential market. I query why such turbines, which are perhaps no longer acceptable in other countries, are acceptable here. Other industries have to show use of best available technology with regard to noise. With refurbished turbines in use, I would query whether we are getting the best technology as defined in the report. Also, with regard to noise, it is a defence to prove use of best practicable means. Again, I think it would be worth looking into the refurbished, reconditioned turbines.

You were asking me in my brief whether the developer should carry out ongoing noise monitoring. My report states that that would identify any increases in noise and any increases beyond what was anticipated. Such noise could be identified and remedied, so I recommend ongoing monitoring by the developer.

You also ask me about setting planning conditions. It is very common for environmental health to advise the Planning Service on planning conditions with regard to noise. There are model planning conditions for noise in guidance provided by the Institute of Acoustics. Use of that would be common.

You also asked me about the environmental health profession’s knowledge of acoustics and noise. My report says that there is a great deal of expertise in acoustics in Northern Ireland’s environmental health profession. Many of them have the postgraduate diploma in acoustics, are members of the Institute of Acoustics and sit on the institute’s advisory committees. However, even though there will be fewer and larger councils shortly in Northern Ireland, there is a considerable and time-consuming administrative and human resources burden due to commenting on planning applications on wind turbines. So, there is a burden on councils.

My report suggests that there should be a more strategic approach to wind turbine planning permission, rather than planning permission being granted on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis. There should be an overview and strategic approach to where we want turbines to be rather than those that pop up intermittently.

I think that we should refer to the Danish policy. In Denmark, there is the subsidy scheme for replacement of wind turbines as they become less efficient and, as I mentioned, noisier. Newer ones are less noisy. They replace wind turbines and have a replacement scheme. They are really going towards offshore, rather than onshore, wind turbines. They do acknowledge that there have been complaints in Denmark. Maybe we might not think that other countries complain about noise. They have a loss-of-value scheme for dwellings, so that, if your dwelling is badly affected by wind-turbine noise, there is a compensation scheme. There is an option to purchase at least 20%. So, if a wind turbine is being erected near your house, you have the option to purchase a portion of that turbine so that you will then have an economic interest in it. One of the reasons why people feel particularly aggrieved is when they feel that they have no control and that there is an injustice. We might benefit from the experiences of the Danish.

I was also asked to compare wind turbine noise to road traffic noise and other industrial noise. Wind turbine noise has been found to be more annoying than industrial and road traffic noise. At significant roads and industrial areas, the noise has to be mapped and action plans put in place. With road traffic noise, if a road is being significantly upgraded and your house is nearby, you can get money towards insulation and there is a compensation scheme in place. However, I would say that comparing wind turbine noise with industrial or road traffic noise is like apples and oranges because they are different characters. Road traffic noise tends to go down at night. Roads would not be as noisy at night. So, it is different.

In summary, the ETSU guidance actually permits louder noise at night than it does during the day. Again, anecdotally, I have been told that some operators actually increase their production of electricity at night when they are allowed to emit louder noise levels than during the day. That seems like another reason why the guidance could do with being reviewed and revised.

The Chairperson: Thank you, Ursula. There is certainly a lot of food for thought. That was very informative. You mentioned issues like ETSU-R-97’s being quite out of date, needing to be reviewed and all of that, but this is the first time that I have heard about us using reconditioned turbines. Maybe that is something that we need to write to the Department about. What you are saying is anecdotal. To what extent do we know that we buy reconditioned turbines from others?

Mrs Walsh: I do not know.

The Chairperson: So, when developers make planning applications, do they have to tell the planners that they are for reconditioned turbines?

Mrs Walsh: As far as I know, they identify the make and model of the turbines.

The Chairperson: OK. So, the Department should know and be able to tell us how many what you would call “new turbines” are being installed here that are actually old turbines?

Mrs Walsh: Yes.

The Chairperson: That is something quite significant.

Mr Milne: You mentioned Denmark. Is it possible for us to get a more detailed report on how Denmark operates the system of renewable energies through wind?

Mrs Walsh: How Denmark operates what?

Mr Milne: You said that Denmark has moved away from turbines and more to offshore. Can we get a more detailed report on what you said regarding Denmark?

Mrs Walsh: I have a document here about wind turbines in Denmark. It is produced by the Danish Government and is on my references list. That document is available. It is quite a straightforward document. It is quite easy reading. It does not give the minute detail about how, for example, compensation schemes operate in practice. It does not go into great detail about Denmark’s move towards offshore. I was in Denmark in the summer, and several people told me, “We’re going offshore”. However, when I looked it up, it did not exactly say that they were definitely and conclusively going offshore, but they were saying that this committee is committed more to a policy of offshore turbines.

Mr Milne: Here, we talk about community benefits, and I like the idea you mentioned that, in Denmark, if a wind turbine is put up beside you, you get maybe up to 20% of buy-in to that building. Here, communities are given a few pounds or pennies to buy them off. That is why I would like to see a more detailed document on what is happening in Denmark.

Mrs Walsh: As I said, there is that document. It is called ‘Wind Turbines in Denmark’, and it gives the main information about that but does not give the detail on exactly how those schemes work.

The Chairperson: We can ask Suzie in research to look into it. Suzie has produced a couple of research papers for us.

Mr Boylan: Ursula, thank you for your presentation. I was only signalling that I wanted to ask a question. Sorry about that.

The Chairperson: It was my fault. Ian puts his hand up higher.

Mr Boylan: There is a main point here that you have exposed. You brought up some good points on open space and how sound travels. Clearly, most of these are in the open countryside. Your main point is about the ETSU-R-97, which sounds like something out of a sci-fi movie. The point is that, when people have been making presentations to this Committee, they have been saying to us that there have been issues. Clearly, you have exposed those people who have been through that process and said that there are problems with it. That leads me on to say that I know that we have good acoustic professionals here, but, if they are judging all of this, or refusing that, on that policy, which, clearly, does not seem to be fit for purpose, there is a challenge for us to ask more questions. Is it your view now that most of the information is leading us to be judging something on a policy or recommendations that are not fit for purpose and that Planning Service and whoever else is using ETSU-R-97 to gauge all of these decisions?

Mrs Walsh: I think ETSU needs to be reviewed and revised in view of the fact that the knowledge has changed a lot. There has been a lot more knowledge on wind turbine noise since then, and the World Health Organization has asked for particular consideration to be given to low-frequency noise. I think that there is more low-frequency noise in the larger turbines than in 1997, when turbines were not generally as large as they are now. They are getting bigger. I think that the guidance needs to be revised. As I said, ETSU refers to the British Standards Institution’s BS4142, and it is being revised currently. Currently, it is being said that maybe more weight needs to be given to these fluctuations and tones, so ETSU would benefit from the upcoming revision of the British Standard.

Mr Boylan: Where is that element of it — the review? Is it soon? The reason I ask you that is because there are going to be a number of decisions over the next twelve months or the next two approvals. There could be a retrospective challenge to whatever system people want to use. I would safely say now that, at this moment in time, given the evidence that you have brought to us in relation to ETSU-R-97, there could be challenges to those approvals that have already taken place because the guidance was not actually fit for purpose. Is that a fair assumption? Where are we in terms of the new review? There are going to be new decisions made or new approvals given over the next 12 months, or maybe more than that, before the new figures are actually in place.

Mrs Walsh: It does not give enough weighting to the fluctuations and the amplitude modulation. It does not give enough significance to the annoyance level of that.

Mr Boylan: So, basically, we as a Committee need to ask questions about approvals. It is not really fit for purpose, given what we have heard today.

The Chairperson: Do you know why? As you said, it was meant to be reviewed after two years. Why is it still not being reviewed 17 years on? What is the reason for not reviewing it?

Mrs Walsh: I do not know. The Institute of Acoustics did bring out a guide to ETSU but it was outside the remit of the institute to look at noise levels and noise limits. Further guidance on it has been produced, but certain core issues were not addressed because it was outside the remit of the review committee.

The Chairperson: Thank you very much. That was a lot of information. Your issue about taking a strategic approach has been given to us over and over by planning personnel. There are just too many ad hoc applications, with single turbines everywhere. Thank you very much indeed.

This New Book Will Have the Greenie’s Head’s Spinning!

September 18, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

ABOUT FACE!’ NEW BOOK PROMOTES INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CO2

Written by PSI Staff

As ever-more scientists denounce misguided attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the evidence grows that more CO2 in the atmosphere, not less, is best.

A new book ‘About Face!’ by two respected scientists and an economist makes the case for adding more CO2 to earth’s atmosphere.

The scientists are Madhav Khandekar in Canada and Cliff Ollier in Australia, plus economist Arthur Middleton Hughes in the USA. They show us why CO2 is essential to all life on earth. It is plant food.

The authors say, “We believe that the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere the bigger and better plants will grow all over the world. Three million people die each year because the prices of food are too high for them. We want to increase CO2 in the atmosphere and reduce world malnutrition.”

The Authors’ Synopsis

This book is highly controversial as billions of dollars are involved in ethanol and climate control. The Obama Administration is planning to shut down all coal fired electric plants because they emit CO2 in amounts more than the EPA permits. This will cost more than $300 billion dollars and result in more than 100,000 unemployed. We say that such actions are unnecessary and wrong.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issues periodic reports that predict the warming of the earth and that the warming will raise the level of the oceans, and bring on wild weather such as hurricanes, droughts, floods, tornadoes, etc. None of this is true. It has no scientific basis.

Today, more than one million people die from malaria in Africa and other less developed areas. None die from malaria in the US, Europe, Australia or other developed countries where the mosquitos that spread malaria have been wiped out using DDT.

The US and UN have forbidden these less developed areas to use DDT. This must be changed. More than three million people die from malnutrition because of the high price of food partly due to 14% of the world corn crop being converted to ethanol. We cite studies that show that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere by 300 ppm will increase food production by 36% in every country in the world on all continents.

This increase can result from abandoning the thousands of laws and regulations that inhibit emission of CO2. Carbon dioxide is a harmless, odorless, tasteless gas that is essential to photosynthesis – the basis of plant growth – without which life on earth would end.

Copies of ‘About Face!’ are available to buy securely online now at secure.mybookorders.com

	How The Climate Grif… on There is NO Global Warming…
	Bob Bateman on Government-Induced Climaphobia…
	William Hooi on Germany’s Renewable Energy Dis…
	Jessica on Issues for Landowners to Consi…
	Raymond on Poorest Families Left Powerles…

"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising…

Children Deserve Protection!

Return to sanity!

Residents Back In Court, to Protect Their Families & Homes Against Industrial Wind Projects!

Court asked to stop construction of huge Ontario wind farm pending appeal

United Nations – Not What We Thought it Was, At All! Agenda 21 is Evil!

This man, Bobby Jindal, Exposes the Truth Behind Skyrocketing Energy Costs….Outrageous

Bobby Jindal: How the ‘Radical Left’ Uses Energy Costs to Control Americans

We Know That Windweasels Are Corrupt….. Here’s More Proof!

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCHER: WIND INDUSTRY RIDDLED WITH ‘ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION’

A Mexican ecologist has blown the whistle on the corruption, lies and incompetence of the wind industry – and on the massive environmental damage it causes in the name of saving the planet.

Famous Climate Alarmists Frequently Resort to Blatant Lies to Create Fear!

Margaret Atwood, Elizabeth May, Naomi Klein: Climate handmaids fail—to tell the truth

Even Scientists Do Not All Agree on Climate Change – It is NOT Settled!

Climate Science Is Not Settled

Scotland Has Some Work to Do…Some Fences to Mend!

The ‘Party’ is over. Now we have the Country to repair!

Germany’s Offshore Wind Power Debacle

Official Report, (Hansard) Committee for the Environment, Wind Energy Inquiry….Ireland

Official Report (Hansard)

Committee for the Environment

Wind Energy Inquiry: Mrs Ursula Walsh, University of Ulster

This New Book Will Have the Greenie’s Head’s Spinning!

ABOUT FACE!’ NEW BOOK PROMOTES INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CO2

The Authors’ Synopsis