Windpushers Tell Many Lies, to Achieve Their Nasty Goals…

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Hammering Wind Industry Myths: the ‘In-a-Nutshell’ Version

May 27, 2015 by

Facts

****

Here’s a sold little wrap-up on the great wind power fraud from Mary Kay Barton – it’s so clear and thumpingly sound for STT to add, would only detract. Hats off, Mary. Over to you.

Wind energy myths spun by lobbyists and salesmen
Principia Scientific
Mary Kay Barton
13 May 2015

Industrial wind energy is a net loser: economically, environmentally, technologically and civilly.

A recent letter in my local paper by American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) representative Tom Vinson is typical of wind industry sales propaganda. It deserves correction.

This is the reality:  Industrial wind energy is a NET LOSER – economically, environmentally, technically and civilly. Let’s examine how.

Economically:

New York State (NYS) has some of the highest electricity rates in the United States – a whopping 53% above the national average. This is due in large part to throwing hundreds of billions of our taxpayer and ratepayer dollars into the wind. High electricity costs drive people and businesses out of the state, and ultimately hurt poor families the most.

A NYS resident using 6,500 kWh of electricity annually will pay about $400 per year more for their electricity than if our electricity prices were at the national average. That’s over $3.2 BILLION dollars annually that will not be spent in the rest of the state economy.

Why destroy entire towns, when just one single 450-MW gas-fired combined-cycle generating unit located near New York City (NYC) – where the power is needed – operating at only 60% of its capacity, would provide more electricity than all of NYS’s wind factories combined.

Furthermore, that one 450 MW gas-fired unit would only require about one-fourth of the capital costs – and would not bring all the negative civil, economic, environmental, human health and property value impacts that are caused by the sprawling industrial wind factories. Nor would it require all the additional transmission lines to NYC.

The Institute for Energy Research tallied the numbers and found that each wind job costs $11.45 million and costs more than four jobs that are lost elsewhere in the economy, because of all the subsidies and the resulting “skyrocketing” cost of electricity. In fact, on a unit of production basis, wind is subsidized over 52 times more than conventional ‘fossil’ fuels.

In the United Kingdom, David Cameron has finally awakened to the folly of wasting billions on the failed technology of wind. He recently declared, “We will scrap funds for wind farms.”

Environmentally:

According to the AWEA, the USA has some 45,100 Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs). Remotely sited IWTs are located far from urban centers where the power is needed. This requires a spider web of new transmission lines (at ratepayers’ expense), which exponentially adds to the needless bird and bat deaths caused by IWTs themselves.

Additionally, sprawling industrial wind factories cause massive habitat fragmentation, which is cited as one of the main reasons for species decline worldwide.

Studies show MILLIONS of birds and bats are being slaughtered annually by these giant “Cuisinarts of the sky,” as a Sierra official dubbed IWTs in a rare moment of candor.

Governor Cuomo’s environmental hypocrisy is also worth noting. Cuomo is supporting “dimming the lights” in New York City to help stop migrating birds from becoming disoriented and crashing into buildings. Yet simultaneously, Cuomo is pushing for many more giant bird-chopping wind turbines – with 600-foot-high blinking red lights, along the shores of Lake Ontario (a major migratory bird flyway), and across rural New York State.

Technically:

Because wind provides NO capacity value, or firm capacity (specified amounts of power on demand), wind requires constant “shadow capacity” from our reliable, dispatchable baseload generators to cover for wind’s inherent volatile, skittering flux on the grid.  Therefore, wind cannot replace those conventional generation sources.  Instead, wind locks us into dependence on fossil fuels – and represents a redundancy (two duplicate sources of electricity), which Big Wind CEO Patrick Jenevein admitted “turns ratepayers and taxpayers into double-payers for the same product.”

The list of accidents, blade failures (throwing debris over a half mile), fires (ten times more than the wind industry previously admitted) and other problems is updated quarterly at a website in the UK. This lengthy and growing list is evidence of why giant, moving machines do NOT belong anywhere near where people live.

Even the AWEA admits that the life of a typical wind turbine is only 10 to 13 years (January 2006: North American Wind Power). This is substantiated by studies on these short-lived lemons.

Adding insult to injury, the actual output of all of New York State’s wind factories combined has been averaging a pathetic 23 percent.  If IWTs were cars, they would have been correctly dubbed ‘lemons’ and relegated to the junkyard a long time ago.

Civilly:

The only thing that has ever been reliably generated by industrial wind is complete and utter civil discord. Neighbor is pitted against neighbor, and even family member against family member. Sprawling industrial wind factories have totally divided communities, which is already apparent in towns across NYS and the country.  It is the job of good government to foresee and prevent this kind of civil discord – not to promote it.

Regarding human health, NYS officials admitted at a 2009 NYSERDA meeting on wind that they knew “infrasound” from wind turbines was a problem worldwide. The growing list of problems globally highlights that these problems are only getting worse.

At the NYSERDA meeting, a former noise control engineer for the New York State Public Service Commission, Dr. Dan Driscoll, testified that ‘infrasound’ (sounds below 20 Hz) are sounds you can’t hear, but the body can feel.

Dr. Driscoll said that ‘infrasound’ is NOT blocked by walls, and it can very negatively affect the human body – especially after prolonged, continuous exposure.  He said symptoms include headache, nausea, sleeplessness, dizziness, ringing in the ears and other maladies.

NYS Department of Health official Dr. Jan Storm testified that, despite knowing the global nature of the “infrasound” problem, NYS still had not done any health studies (despite having federal money available to do so). Here we are sixyears later, and indefensibly, NYS officials still have not called for any independent studies to assure the protection of New York State citizens.

“The Golden Rule,” as espoused by Rotary International’s excellent ‘Four-Way Test’ of the things we think, say and do, should be the moral and ethical standard our public servants aspire to uphold.  The test asks:

1.      Is it the truth?

2.      Is it fair to all concerned?

3.      Will it build goodwill and better friendships?

4.      Will it be beneficial to all concerned?

When applied to the industrial wind issue, the answers are a resounding, “NO!”
Principia Scientific

turbine fire

The 97% Consensus Theory, is Based on Misinformation, and Weasel words….

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Claim that 97% of scientists support climate alarm cannot be supported

Ross McKitrick, Special to Financial Post | May 25, 2015 | Last Updated:May 25 7:45 PM ET
More from Special to Financial Post

Ross McKitrick: Cook, being a PhD student in psychology with a background in communication studies, is hardly in a position to dismiss the membership of the American Meteorological Society as “fake experts.”

AP Photo/The Bakersfield Californian, Casey ChristieRoss McKitrick: Cook, being a PhD student in psychology with a background in communication studies, is hardly in a position to dismiss the membership of the American Meteorological Society as “fake experts.

This study design may simply be a circular argument 

In my column I pointed out that people who invoke the 97 per cent consensus often leave vague what is actually being agreed upon. John Cook does this too: Note that his wording is consistent with a range of interpretations, including that greenhouse gases definitely cause only a tiny bit of global warming.

Manufacturing doubt about climate consensus

Scientists have observed distinctive greenhouse patterns such as winters warming faster than summers and a cooling upper atmosphere.

He cannot claim that 97 per cent of scientists believe greenhouse gases cause a lot of warming and that this is a big problem, since the surveys either didn’t ask this, or did but didn’t find 97 per cent support.

Cook, being a PhD student in psychology with a background in communication studies, is hardly in a position to dismiss the membership of the American Meteorological Society as “fake experts.” As to fakery, I would refer readers to the analysis of Cook’s work by social psychologist Jose Duarte, noting that the word “fraud” appears 21 times in that essay alone, and it is not even the harshest of Duarte’s essays on Cook’s discredited methods. Economist Richard Tol has also published detailed excoriations of Cook’s work at as well as in the peer-reviewed literature, as have others.

The Illinois study asked 10,257 Earth Scientists “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” The question was vague to the point of meaninglessness. It only refers to “a,” not “the,” factor; it only refers to “human activity” in general, thus conflating land use change, conventional air pollution emissions and greenhouse gases; and it only refers to “changing” mean temperatures (since 1800), without specifying a portion of the total observed. So someone who thinks greenhouse gases caused only a small fraction of the warming would answer Yes, as would someone who thought they drove it all.

The Illinois authors received 3,146 responses. After seeing the answers they selected only 77 as being relevant, and of these 75 (97 per cent) said Yes. What puzzles me is why two answered No. And why the authors asked 10,257 experts for their views when they only considered 77 qualified to answer.

The Princeton study started with 1,372 experts and found that 97 of the ones they deemed the top-100 publishing scientists in the climatology field were also contributors to the IPCC or had signed statements supporting the IPCC position. Hence 97 per cent yadda yadda. But this study design may simply be a circular argument, since the top climatology journals are not double-blind, so it can be difficult for critics of the IPCC to get their papers published. In other words, this result might simply be a measure of the level of clique-citation and group think in the sample they selected. In this regard it is quite noteworthy that the AMS and Netherlands surveys were anonymous and they found nowhere near 97 per cent support for the IPCC conclusion.

Government-induced Climaphobia…..Gov’t Lies, and their “useful Idiots” swear to it!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research

Posted on May 25, 2015

by Judith Curry

The main intellectual fault in all these cases is failing to be responsive to genuine empirical concerns, because doing so would make one’s political point weaker or undermine a cherished ideological perspective. – Heather Douglas

I have spoken often and publicly about my concerns about the integrity of climate research.  When I have used the words ‘integrity of research’, I have been referring generally to the adherence of the Mertonian norms of science and a general sense of ‘trustworthiness’.

The role of values in scientific research, and whether research is value laden or should be value free, is a subject of extensive debate.  A perspective on all this that makes sense to me is that provided by philosopher Heather Douglas.

Heather Douglas

Scientific integrity in a politicized world, by Heather Douglas.  See also HD’s talk on youtube. Excerpts:

As of late, the term “scientific integrity” has been used as an overly broad slogan encompassing everything good in research ethics. In this paper, I provide a more precise and narrow account, where scientific integrity consists of proper reasoning processes and handling of evidence essential to doing science. Scientific integrity here consists of a respect for the underlying empirical basis of science, and it is this scientists are often most concerned to protect against transgressions, whether those transgressions arise from external pressures (e.g., politicization) or internal violations (e.g., fabrication of data to further one’s scientific career).

If this value of science is to be protected, evidence must be able to challenge currently held views. This requirement creates certain demands for the structure of how other values (whether ethical, social, political, or cognitive) can play a role in science.

Depending on where one is in the scientific process, values have different legitimate roles they can play, with legitimacy determined by the need to protect the value of science. Consider the following two roles values can play in our reasoning: direct and indirect. In the direct role, values are a reason in themselves for our decisions. They evaluate our options and tell us which we should choose. An indirect role for all kinds of values (political, social, ethical, cognitive) is needed and acceptable throughout the scientific process. Science is thus a value-saturated process.

This view of values in science can now provide us with a clear definition of scientific integrity. First, as described here, scientific integrity is a quality of individual scientists, their reasoning, and particular pieces of scientific work. Thus, a person, a paper, a report can all be said to have scientific integrity. The crucial requirement for scientific integrity is the maintenance of the proper roles for values in science. Most centrally, an indirect role only for values in science is demanded for the internal reasoning of science. When deciding how to characterize evidence, how to analyze data, and how to interpret results, values should never play a direct role, but an indirect role only. This keeps values from being reasons in themselves for choices when interpreting data and results. In addition, values should not direct methodological choices to pre-determined outcomes, nor should they direct dissemination choices to cherry-pick results. This restriction on the role of values, to the indirect role only at these crucial locations in the scientific process, is necessary to protect the value of science itself, given the reason we do science is to gain reliable empirical knowledge. We do science to discover things about the world, not to win arguments. Protecting scientific integrity as so defined thus protects the value of science.

What does this view of scientific integrity mean for our understanding of the politicization of science? Clearly, political forces could cause a scientist, either voluntarily or through coercion, to violate the proper roles for values in science and thus violate scientific integrity. Examples of this include scientists pressured to (or for their own political purposes deciding to) fabricate evidence, cherry-pick evidence, distort results, or stick to a claim even when known criticisms which fatally undermine the claim remain unaddressed. The main intellectual fault in all these cases is failing to be responsive to genuine empirical concerns, because doing so would make one’s political point weaker or undermine a cherished ideological perspective. It is to utilize a direct role for values and have that determine one’s results. It is to use the prima facie reliability and authority of science, which rests on its robust critical practices and evidential bases, and to throw away a concern for the source of science’s reliability in favor of the mere veneer of authority. It is to turn science into a sham. No wonder scientists get so upset when violations of scientific integrity occur.

For example, a failure to respond to criticisms raised repeatedly and pointedly is a clear indication of a problem. If a scientist, or a political leader using science, insists on making a point based on evidence even when clear criticisms undermining their use of that evidence have been raised, and they fail to respond to those criticisms, one is warranted in suspecting that the cherry-picked evidence is but a smokescreen for a deeply held value commitment serving an improper direct role, and that ultimately, the evidence is irrelevant.

Violations can also be detected in overt or covert interference with the activities of scientists. Political actors may not like the results produced by scientists, but their response should not be to declare them by fiat to be otherwise. Instead, politicians can legitimately question whether the evidence is sufficient to support certain policies, whether other policy options might be preferable, or whether value commitments should demand contrary courses of action.

In addition, one needs to assess whether a sufficiently diverse range of scientists (to ensure adequate criticisms of each other’s work are being raised) are working on a range of projects that do not just serve a narrow set of interests. If power and money draw the efforts of scientists into a narrow range of projects, society will not be well served. Even if the science being done is performed with perfect integrity, the results may be distorted and politicized simply because they are the only results available. This is a much harder problem to track and assess, and has not been the main area of concern with the politicization of science. But I suspect it will become a key area of debate in the coming decades.

JC comments: Points that I find to be particularly insightful and relevant to climate science include:

• If this value of science is to be protected, evidence must be able to challenge currently held views.  Premature declarations of ‘consensus’ and attempts to marginalize those that disagree have become institutionalized in climate science, with strong statements of advocacy being made by professional societies (e.g. AGU, APS).

• . . . failing to be responsive to genuine empirical concerns, because doing so would make one’s political point weaker or undermine a cherished ideological perspective. JC: Climate science is rife with such examples, the most notorious example being the ‘hockey stick’. Another example is Lindzen’s iris hypothesis (which is the topic of a forthcoming post).

• If a scientist, or a political leader using science, insists on making a point based on evidence even when clear criticisms undermining their use of that evidence have been raised, and they fail to respond to those criticisms, one is warranted in suspecting that the cherry-picked evidence is but a smokescreen for a deeply held value commitment serving an improper direct role, and that ultimately, the evidence is irrelevant.  JC: Well this pretty much sums up the approach being used by President Obama and his advisors with regard to climate change.

•  One needs to assess whether a sufficiently diverse range of scientists (to ensure adequate criticisms of each other’s work are being raised) are working on a range of projects that do not just serve a narrow set of interests. JC: This is an issue of key importance for climate science, which was raised recently by the post Is federal funding biasing climate research?

Joe Duarte

Of direct relevance to the concerns raised by Hayward, Joe Duarte writes aboutIdeologically-fueled research, pursuant  to a comment on his recently published research Political diversity will improve social science.  Duarte focuses on an example from the social sciences, but these ideas easily generalize to climate research.  Excerpts:

If you believe your ideology is true, but look out upon the world and see that large numbers of people don’t embrace it, it can be frustrating. You have a list of issues you think must be urgently addressed by society, yet society is not addressing them, perhaps doesn’t even see them as problems to begin with. This can create a lot of dissonance – why don’t people see what we see or think as we think? One way to resolve that dissonance is to assume that there must be something wrong those people, that there must be “causes” behind their positions other than simple disagreement, much less any wisdom on their part. So the next step is to inventory the uncharitable reasons why people don’t embrace your ideology, the ideology you just know is true and noble.

Environmentalism is a rather new political ideology, and possibly a religion or a substitute for traditional religion, and it’s alarming that social psychologists are promoting it and trying to convert people to it. Embracing new, abstract, and somewhat ambiguous values like “nature” and “the environment” is just assumed to be equivalent to rationality or something. Environmentalist values are contested by scholars all over the place (though not so vigorously within academia), but the field seems unaware of this, and unaware of their status as values, as ideological tenets, as opposed to descriptive beliefs about the world.

What’s more, we often see researchers declare outright that their motivation is to advance their ideology, to spark political action, and so forth. I think it’s impossible to argue that the field is not biased when researchers declare themselves to be political activists and that their research is an outlet for said activism.

This researcher has already decided that holding a particular position that she disfavors has a certain class of “causes”, including behavioral and neural bases. She has pre-emptively shrunk reality, the reality that she will allow herself to see. Rather, she is extremely likely to find what she is looking for.

Science requires us to be more sober than this. We can’t go in having decided already what kinds of causes must be in force.

It seems to be in the nature of ideology to convert ideological tenets and value judgments into descriptive facts/concepts in the mind of the ideologue. It’s a good protective immune system for an ideology to have, to pre-emptively marginalize and de-legitimize dissent as corrupt or ignorant and thus deter one’s members from closely examining alternative schools. In any case, a valid social science needs to immunize itself from this sort of ideological embedding.

 JC reflections

The ideology that I am concerned about is what I have termed UNFCCC/IPCC ideology.  In the way that I have defined it, there is nothing wrong per se with an ideology; the problem is with ideologues – absence of doubt, intolerance of debate, appeal to authority, desire to convince others of the ideological ‘truth’, and willingness to punish those that don’t concur.

If the community of scientific researchers was sufficiently diverse to accommodate a range of ideological perspectives,  ideology wouldn’t have much impact on the overall scientific oeuvre.  However, when a single ideology is adopted by the professional societies and enforced by the political party in power, then we have a serious problem.

As an individual scientist, navigating all this in a highly politicized environment can be a real land mine.  But the problems – with only a few exceptions – aren’t with individual climate scientists, but with the institutionalization by professional societies of a particular ideology, the general liberal bias at universities, and arguable biases in federal funding of climate research.

It is very good to see philosophers and social scientists tackling these issues; it would be even better to see non-partisans from these fields analyze the situation in climate science.

Turkish Court has the Decency to Protect Residents from Wind Turbine Noise!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Turkish Court Shuts Down 50 Turbines: Yaylaköy Residents Delighted at 1st Chance to Sleep in Years

May 26, 2015 by

turk1

****

One of the myths pedalled by Australia’s self-appointed wind farm noise, sleep and health ‘expert’ (a former tobacco advertising guru) is that the known and obvious adverse health impacts from incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound are a cooked-up “phenomenon”, exclusive to the English speaking world. Trouble with that little tale is that’s been scotched by the Danes:

Vestas’ Danish Victims Lay Out the FACTS

Denmark Calls Halt to More Wind Farm Harm

And the Germans:

German Medicos Demand Moratorium on New Wind Farms

And the Tawainese:

Winning Taiwanese Hearts and Minds?

And, now the Turks. As this article lays out – in terms so simple, that even tobacco advertising gurus should be capable of understanding them.

50 operating wind turbines stopped by the court!
BurGün
18 May 2015

turk2

****

The Administrative Court in Ankara has ruled that fifty operating wind turbines in Karaburun be stopped. The locals of Yaylaköy, Karaburun are delighted with the court decision. It is 20 days since the wind turbines stopped working.

From the beginning of the struggle to protect their village from the adverse affects from the Wind Power Plants that are spreading all over the peninsula, the local people have finally received good news.

The Administrative Court, ruled in April that even if fifty wind turbines are already operating, the activities have to be halted since the environmental damage is irreversible. First an EIA report will have to be issued. The wind turbine company’s request to continue to run their turbines meanwhile, was also denied by the court.

‘THE FIRST DECISION’

The lawyer Cem Altiparmak said the decision would be a first in the country. Mr. Altiparmak states that there are very few court cases related to renewable energy.

In this area the law is insufficient, there are no precedents, so we have to live it to get experience. “A number of license revocation proceedings have started in our country. Our court ruling is one of the first and will have an impact on up-coming cases.

What has happened?

İzmir Governorship Provincial Directorate of Environment and Urban Development, had issued a “EIA Not Required” to install 166 MW in the Karaburun Peninsula.

8 years later when EMRA issued a new license for another 50 turbines to the same company leaning on the same “EIA Not Required” document, the residents of Yaylaköy and the environmental movement Karaburun City Council sued EMRA – The Energy Market Regulatory Authority.

The court ruled that this is against the law and if allowed to operate the damages will irreversible therefore all operations have to be stopped until an EIA investigation has been performed.

The court decision has given hope to the local people as well as other people in Cesme, Bodrum, Datca and Urla where wind turbines projects are being planned without any public consultation. All these projects have been issued with an EIA Not Required”.

Hopefully this Wind turbine project will not be able to operate again and for the first time in years the people in Yaylaköy are able to sleep comfortably and we will continue to work for that, says one man from the village.
BurGün

turk3

Open Submission by Carmen Krogh, regarding the ERT for Niagara Region Wind Corp.

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

By Carmen Krogh, BScPharm
May 25, 2015
To Whom It May Concern
Re: ERT Case No. 14-096 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW TRIBUNAL IN THE
MATTER OF an appeal by Mothers Against Wind Turbines Inc and Renewable
Energy Approval No. 4353- 9HMP2R issued by the Director, Ministry of the
Environment, on November 6, 2014 to Niagara Region Wind Corporation.
This Commentary is public and may be shared.
I declare no potential conflicts of interest and have received no financial support with respect
to the research and authorship of this Commentary.
1. ERT Case No. 14-096 states the onus on the Appellant:
[8] Pursuant to s. 145.2.1 of the EPA, the onus is on the Appellant to establish that
engaging in the Project in accordance with the REA will cause serious harm to human
health and/or serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural
environment. (Page 4)
2. The ERT dismissed the Appeal:
[9] For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that the Appellant has failed to meet
either the Health Test or the Environmental Test and has not established the necessary
elements of a s. 7 Charter violation and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed. (Page 4)
3. Ms. Shellie Correia, mother of Joey, testified during this ERT and provided a letter from
her son’s specialist, a Behavioral Pediatrician.
Joey has been under the specialist care for 8 years and is diagnosed with a “Sensory
Processing Disorder”.
Excessive, uncontrollable noise can lead to sensory overload and Joey’s specialist noted
that Joey “is exceptionally more vulnerable”.
With respect to his condition, the specialist states “Wind turbines concern me, given my
strong knowledge of neurobiology.”

4. Other members of the community testified regarding their concerns associated with
children being exposed to IWTs while at home, at school (or both), or while visiting.
5. Ms Correia provided additional citations such as Joey’s Individual Education Plan in
support of his risk factors and that of children in general. See the Appendix below.
6. Ms Correia has advised Premier Wynne, Energy Minister Chiarelli, the Approval Holder
and the project manager, and many others in an effort to protect her son and other
children from harm.
7. Several 3 MWatt IWTs will be in close proximity, with one of the turbines 550 metres
from the family home.
8. Joey and other children will have to travel past transmission lines while attending school
and for other purposes.
9. In its Decision, the ERT states:
[119] In response to Ms. Correia’s concerns about the impact of noise on her son who
has “developmental issues, including ADHD, anxiety and serious processing issues
(mainly, but not exclusively aural)”, Dr. McCunney said that he is unaware of any
scientific literature that suggests that wind turbine noise would adversely affect the
health of a child with these developmental disorders. (Page 28)
10. Dr. Robert McCunney testified on behalf of the Approval Holder. His qualification states:
[95] On agreement of the parties, Dr. McCunney was qualified by the Tribunal as a
medical doctor specializing in occupational and environmental medicine with
particular expertise in the health implications of noise exposure. He provided expert
opinion evidence on behalf of the Approval Holder. (Page 21)
11. Based on this qualification, indications are that Dr. McCunney was not appearing as a
Behavioral Pediatrician, specializing in assessment and care of children with
developmental and mental health problems.
12. Regarding noise in general, the World Health Organization has identified the fetus,
babies, children and youth including those with pre-existing medical conditions and
special needs as a vulnerable population group.
World Health Organization, Children and Noise, Children’s Health and the
Environment, WHO Training Package for the Health Sector, http://www.who.int/ceh

Commentary ERT Case No. 14-096
By Carmen Krogh, BScPharm, May 25, 2015
Any errors or omissions are unintended.
13.
Another WHO reference relating to children states:
Noise is an underestimated threat that can cause a number of short- and long-term
health problems, such as for example sleep disturbance, cardiovascular effects, poorer
work and school performance, hearing impairment, etc.
World Health Organization Noise Facts and Figures
health/noise/facts-and-figures
14.
Stansfeld and Matheson (2003) state:
It is likely that children represent a group which is particularly vulnerable to the non-
auditory health effects of noise. They have less cognitive capacity to understand and
anticipate stressors and lack well-developed coping strategies. Moreover, in view of
the fact that children are still developing both physically and cognitively, there is a
possible risk that exposure to an environmental stressor such as noise may have
irreversible negative consequences for this group…
Stephen A Stansfeld and Mark P Matheson (2003), Noise pollution: non-auditory
effects on health, British Medical Bulletin 2003; 68: 243–257 DOI:
10.1093/bmb/ldg033
Additional citations on children’s risk factors from exposure to noise in general are available.
Conclusion
Research indicates the fetus, babies, children and youth including those with pre-existing
medical conditions and special needs are a vulnerable population group to the effects of noise
exposure in general.
The specialist who has diagnosed and treats Joey states:
I, as a “normal brain” (or typical brain) individual would not want this risk to my
mental health (or my children’s) in my neighbourhood. The placement of these
devices must be thoughtful and, of course, “first, do no harm.”
And that:
In a developed society like Canada, we must advocate and protect the most vulnerable
members. Joey, and all our children deserve our thoughtful and ethical best.
Commentary ERT Case No. 14-096
By Carmen Krogh, BScPharm, May 25, 2015
Any errors or omissions are unintended
4
The World Health Organization comments it is not necessary to wait for full scientific proof
before taking action:
…where there is a reasonable possibility that public health will be damaged, action
should be taken to protect public health without awaiting full scientific proof.
World Health Organization, Guidelines for Community Noise, WHO (1999).
The Policy Interpretation Network on Children’s Health and Environment comments on the
precautionary principle:
Policies that may protect children’s health or may minimise irreversible health effects
should be implemented, and policies or measures should be applied based on the
precautionary principle, in accordance with the Declaration of the WHO Fourth
Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health in Budapest in 2004.
Report WP7 Summary PINCHE policy recommendations Policy Interpretation
Network on Children’s Health and Environment (PINCHE) Policy Interpretation
Network on Children’s Health and Environment QLK4-2002-02395
The Council of Canadian Academies Panel states in its assessment of IWT noise:
…that there is a paucity of research on sensitive populations, such as children and
infants and people affected by clinical conditions that may lead to an increased
sensitivity to sound.
Council of Canadian Academies (2015) Understanding the Evidence: Wind Turbine
Noise, The Expert Panel on Wind Turbine Noise and Human Health, Executive
Summary, Page xvii.
This raises the question whether Appellants and concerned families will be expected to wait
until children-based research demonstrates that “engaging in the Renewable Energy Project
in accordance with the Renewable Energy Approval “will cause serious harm to human
health” (“Health Test”).
If so, are there any potential legal-ethical concerns?
Respectfully,
Carmen Krogh, BScPharm
Ontario, Canada
Commentary ERT Case No. 14-096
By Carmen Krogh, BScPharm, May 25, 2015
Any errors or omissions are unintended
5
Appendix: documents provided to the ERT
1.Open Submission on Risk of Harm to Children May 15/2013
2 Open submission on Risk of Harm to Children Dec 27/2012
3 Letter from Carmen Krogh, requesting help from PM Harper and Peter Mckay Re: UN
Rights of the Child.
4 Arline L. Bronzaft, Noise from Wind Turbines: Potential health Effects on Children.
5 Welfare of Children at Risk, Due to Wind Turbines, Parents Reporting.
6 Joey Correia’s Individual Education Plan
7 Letter from Dr. Calvert, Joey’s Specialist, Regarding Sensory Processing Issues.
8 Information about Auditory Processing Disorder – From Website, KidsHealth from
Nemours
8a Letter from Retired Special Education teacher, Susan Smith, Re: Children & Wind turbines
8b Letter from School Superintendent, William C. Mulvaney
9 Brett Horner’s Open letter to health Canada, (Discontinue Ongoing Experiments)
10 Dr. Sarah Laurie’s Concerns Re: Health Canada Study
11 Ways to Improve Future Health Studies – Multi-Municipal Wind Turbine Working Group.
12 “Critique on Infrasound Study”, by Jerry Punch
13 Dr. Maria Alves-Pereira on Vibro-Acoustic Disease
14 Canadian Journal of Rural Medicine – Industrial Wind Turbines, and Health Effects.
15 Summary of 21 Peer-Reviewed Articles on Adverse Health Effects, on IWT’s.
16 Mothers Against Wind Turbines…Call for a Moratorium.
17 Open Letter/Press Release from N.A.P.A.W.
18 Victim’s Statement’s, from Wind Victims Ontario
19 Letter to PM Harper and Peter McKay, Minister of Justice
20 Letter to Dr. Murray, and Dr. Weiss.
21 Letter to Premier Kathleen Wynne, May 6
22 Letter to Premier Kathleen Wynne, Apr. 18
23 Letter to Steve Klose, M.O.E.
24 Letter to Ombudsman, Andre Marin
25 Attempts to Speak with NRWC.
26 Speeches Read at Local and Regional Councils, to Appeal for Help

Government-induced Climaphobia Strikes Again!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Tom Harris explains why the climate promises are a joke

Posted on May 25, 2015  

Harris is an engineer with a special interest in Climate studies and GHG agreements. Here he explains the hypocrisy of the Lima “promises” on reductions in emissions.

It’s like any agreement with a leftist agenda, the words hide the intentions. In any international “promise” on GHG no verification, no enforcement–window dressing.

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/05/23/harpers-climate-pledge-is-hot-air

Harper’s climate pledge is hot air

Canada has no way to ensure developing nations keep their commitments

Tom Harris, Guest Columnist

First posted: Saturday, May 23, 2015 07:00 PM EDT | Updated: Saturday, May 23, 2015 11:51 AM EDT

In announcing the Stephen Harper government’s new greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets earlier this month, Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq said Canada will “work with our international partners to establish an international agreement in Paris that includes meaningful and transparent commitments from all major emitters.”

But Canadians are being tricked.

Any GHG emission reduction pledges made by developing countries in Paris later this year will almost certainly not be enforced.

Written in bureaucratese, the convoluted first sentence in last December’s “Lima Call for Climate Action”, the United Nations’ last major climate change agreement, indicated exactly that.

It reads: “The Conference of the Parties, Reiterating that the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) shall be under the Convention and guided by its principles…”

The ADP are the back room negotiators who are drafting the text for the big climate deal to be signed in Paris in December.

The “Convention” refers to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), signed by former Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney and hundreds of other world leaders at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992.

And the ADP’s work will adhere to the UNFCCC, including its critical Article 4: “The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology and will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties.”

So, under any treaty based on the UNFCCC (which all UN climate agreements are), developing countries will keep their emission reduction commitments only if we in the developed world pay them enough and give them enough of our technology.

Also implied in the article is that, even if we give them everything we promise, developing countries may simply forget about their GHG targets if they interfere with their “first and overriding priorities” of “economic and social development and poverty eradication.”

Developed nations like Canada, on the other hand, do not have this option. We must keep our emission reduction commitments no matter how it impacts our economies.

It is not as if the UN has been hiding this “firewall” between developing and developed nations.

It has told us repeatedly in UN climate change agreements in Copenhagen, Cancun, Durban and Lima that, “development and poverty eradication”, not emission reduction, takes top billing for developing countries.

Actions to significantly reduce GHG emissions would entail dramatically cutting back on the use of coal, the source of 81% of China’s electricity and 71% of India’s.

As coal is by far the least expensive source of electric power in most of the world, reducing GHG emissions by restricting coal use would unquestionably interfere with development priorities.

So, developing countries simply won’t do it, citing the UNFCCC in support of their actions.

Some commentators have speculated that tougher requirements will be imposed by the UN on poor nations over time as they develop.

The only way this can happen is if there are substantial revisions to the UNFCCC treaty.

China, India, and other developing countries have clearly indicated they will not allow this to happen any time soon.

Chinese negotiator Su Wei summed up the stance of developing nations when he explained that the purpose of the Paris agreement is to “reinforce and enhance” the 1992 convention, not rewrite it.

Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in part because it lacked legally binding GHG targets for developing countries.

So why is the Harper government supporting a process that will result in our country being stuck in another Kyoto?

— Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition, which opposes the hypothesis carbon dioxide emissions from human activities are known to cause climate problems

Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech.)
Executive Director,
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Ontario
K2A 4E2
Canada

Governments that Refuse to Protect Citizens, Should be Charged With Negligence!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

German doctors push to halt building of wind turbines

The “parliament” of Germany’s medical profession has called on its leaders to support a halt to further wind farm developments near housing until more research has been undertaken into the possible health impacts of low-frequency noise from wind turbines.

German doctors want more research into the health effects of wind turbines. Source: AP

By Graham Lloyd, Environment Editor, Sydney

The issue was debated at the German Medical Assembly in Frankfurt on Friday and transferred to the executive board of the German Medical Association.

Association policy adviser Adrian Alexander Jakel confirmed a motion calling for ­research had been forwarded to the board “for further action”.

Germany is considered a world leader in adopting renewable ener­gy and the minutes of the Medical Assembly meeting said that, with the phase-out of nuclear power, more wind energy would be used in future. But it said the entir­e life cycle of renewable technologies, from the initial raw mater­ial supply to disposal and the planning and risk considerations, should be considered in advance.

The Medical Assembly motion said this required “scientifically sound findings of potential health effects, and a deliberate balance between benefit and validity to be able to make conscious weightings between the benefits and of the disadvantages and risks”.

“In particular regarding emissions in the low frequency and infra­sound range there are no reliab­le independent studies that investigate field measurement methodology suitable for this sound field below the threshold of hearing,” they said.

The assembly called for the federal government to close the gaps in knowledge about the health effec­ts of infrasound and low-frequenc­y sound from wind turbines through scientific research.

It said research should clarify open questions concerning meas­urement methods and, where approp­riate, adjust regulations to “allow the expansion and the operation of wind turbines wisely, carefully, with integrated expertise, sustainability and overall societal responsibility”.

It said the health effects of infra­sound (below 20 Hz) and low-frequency sound (below 100 Hz) in relation to emissions from wind turbines were “still open questions’’, as were “the effects of noise below the hearing threshold or lower frequencies with increasing exposure duration”. The assembly said the erection of more turbines close to settlements should be stopped until there was reliable data to exclude a safety hazard.

Liberal Hack, Mike Crawley, exposed!

/ 1957chev / 1 Comment

Creepy Crawley. Liberal Carpetbagger for wind turbines.

yourwardnews's avatarYour Ward News

Mike Crawley, Liberal Party Politics and Industrial Wind Turbines

1297339249391_ORIGINAL

Hansard Snippets referencing Mike Crawley and the advance of Industrial Wind Turbines Into Ontario (What’s a few million between friends!)

Here are a few excerpts regarding Mr. Crawley from the Ontario Legislature:

Mr. Runciman: Once again the Premier clearly avoided the questions dealing with adherence to bid requirements. We’re talking about a contract that provided a company headed by a prominent Liberal with a guaranteed 20-year, $66,000-a-day contract. This is a very lucrative deal, and the hard-working taxpayers of Ontario have a right to know if this contract was awarded appropriately.

Today I received information indicating that Mr. Mike Crawley, the president of AIM PowerGen, sent an e-mail in the midst of the bid process to various parties encouraging their attendance at the energy minister’s fundraiser at $5,000 a pop. Premier, I’m sending copies of this material over to you and…

View original post 1,309 more words

Good to See Sanity Returning to Britain….

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

UK’s Wind Industry in Meltdown: Cameron to Flush-Out DECC’s Detritus

May 23, 2015 by

SWITZERLAND-WEF-DAVOS-CAMERON

****

The wind industry’s current form reminds STT of Simon Pegg’s character in ‘How to Lose Friends and Alienate People‘, Sidney Young – blunt, gormless, and ready to pull out all stops to ensure every one who counts hates him.

Now that they’ve lost the grip on the game in countries where they thought they had things sewn up, they’ve been reduced to abusing those who have the ability to make or break them. STT thinks they’re just working through the 5 stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance (see our post here).

David Cameron has just won an election promising to end all subsidies to on-shore wind power:

UK Elections: Brit’s Deliverance from its Wind Power Disaster

In the US, ‘wind power’ states have cut their state based subsidies to wind power outfits (or are well on the path of doing so); and Republicans are out to prevent the extension of the Federal government’s PTC wind power subsidy:

2015: the Wind Industry’s ‘Annus Horribilis’; or Time to Sink the Boots In

US Republicans Line Up to Can Subsidies for Wind Power

In Germany, consumers and industry are fed up with escalating power prices:

German’s Top Daily – Bild – says Time to Chop Massive Subsidies for Wind Power

And, on Vesta’s home turf, Denmark, the government’s brewing and massive legal liability to wind farm neighbours has resulted in a full-blown moratorium on planning permits for new wind farms:

Denmark Calls Halt to More Wind Farm Harm

brat

****

The response from the wind industry has been just what you’d expect from a bunch of immature brats, that couldn’t survive for a second without a massive and endless stream of subsidies filched from taxpayers and power consumers. Here’s yet another childish wind industry outburst – this time from Britain.

Cameron Puts Wind-Farm Opponent at Junior U.K. Energy Post
Bloomberg Business
Alex Morales
12 May 2015

Prime Minister David Cameron named a vocal opponent of onshore wind farms to a junior post in the U.K. energy department, reinforcing his Conservative government’s effort to halt the spread of turbines in rural areas.

Andrea Leadsom, who has campaigned against “intrusive wind farms” in South Northamptonshire constituency in central England, will report to Amber Rudd, who was named as the Cabinet minister in charge of energy on Monday.

The two will work to balance Britain’s growing energy needs and stricter pollution rules against the demands of rural voters who voted overwhelmingly for the Conservatives. Some of those voters have raised concerns about the spread of wind farms that they say blight the landscape under the previous two governments, which encouraged the technology as the cheapest way to generate low-carbon electricity at scale.

“Whilst renewable energy has an important part to play in providing energy for our 21st century needs, we have got to stop building incredible insensitive and intrusive wind farms on top of local communities,” Leadsom says on her website. “In the future, I want to see a proper consultation process and the opportunity for communities to say no.”

Rudd, who was promoted from a junior ministerial role to lead the Department of Energy & Climate Change, worked with the Liberal Democrats in the previous coalition government and stuck closely to the government script encouraging all forms of energy, especially renewables and nuclear power.

If Rudd’s appointment reassured the renewable energy industry about the continuity of government policy to cut carbon emissions, Leadsom’s elevation is a reminder of the manifesto promise Cameron’s party made to halt subsidies to wind developments on land.

Before the election, those promises prompted Ecotricity Group Ltd. Chief Executive Officer Dale Vince, a donor to the opposition Labour Party, to call the Conservatives “an existential threat to the renewable energy industry.”

Leadsom’s appointment was announced on the Twitter feed of Cameron’s office. Her role hasn’t yet been defined, and so far she’s the only junior minister to be named at DECC. Previously, two ministers Rudd and Matthew Hancock, served as junior ministers at the department.

Hancock was moved to a role at the Cabinet Office in charge of civil service reform.
Bloomberg Business

Just a tiny whiff of panic from the wind industry’s parasites there. And just what you’d expect from Ecotricity’s Dale Vince, when he wails about the Conservatives being “an existential threat to the renewable energy industry.” We’ve covered Dale Vince’s faux claims to be the environment’s best friend:

The Guardian Caught Out Pumping Dale Vince’s Bogus Wind Power Propaganda

Although, this time around, we can’t fault Vince’s analysis: Vince and his cronies are doomed.

Cameron’s Tory-Only line up gives him the chance to follow through on the clear-as-crystal promise to “halt subsidies to wind developments on land”.

It’s that humungous policy shift that spells the beginning of the end for the wind industry in Britain.

The promise to allow communities to reject wind farms adds nothing, in practical effect – a bit like stabbing a corpse, really. Without an endless stream of guaranteed subsidies, rent-seekers like Dale Vince will disappear in a heartbeat; the wind industry will die a natural death.

With Britain turning on the wind industry, pretty soon it’ll have no “friends” left to alienate anywhere at all.

Andrea Leadsom