Agenda 21

Global Warming!! Just a fear tactic used to push the socialist Agenda 21.

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

GLOBAL WARMING STUDY RIDICULED AFTER TEMPERATURES DROP

by  26 Jun 2014, 8:53 AM PDT 20POST A COMMENT

A UK Met Office study that predicted temperatures would rise by up to half a degree centigrade over the past 10 years faces ridicule after it was revealed that temperatures actually dropped over that period.

The peer-reviewed study by Doug M. Smith et al, entitled “Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model” – and whichfeatured in the journal Science – also incorrectly predicted that several years over the past decade would see record heat.

The paper says:

“…predict further warming during the coming decade, with the year 2014 predicted to be 0.30° ± 0.21°C [5 to 95% confidence interval (CI)] warmer than the observed value for 2004. Furthermore, at least half of the years after 2009 are predicted to be warmer than 1998, the warmest year currently on record.”

However, now we are able to analyse the data on how temperatures really changed, we can see that there was actually a cooling of 0.014 degrees over the past 10 years, which is below even the lowest estimate.

Also, not a single year was warmer than 1998, despite the paper predicting that at least three years would be.

The above chart (credit: Kalte Sonne) shows the Met Office’s observed data (thin grey line) with the Smith et al predictions (red and blue lines) and the real trend (thick black line) overlaid. We can clearly see that not only does to real trend fall well outside the range of Smith et al’s predictions, it actually drops slightly.

Writing for the German climate blog Die Kalte Sonne, scientist Frank Bosse says that the Smith et al study failed to take into account known ocean cycles and other natural factors.

Smith has since written another paper, taking more factors into account, but Bosse writes that the range of uncertainty in it makes it “more or less useless”.

In a translation by NoTricksZone, Bosse concludes:

“As long as man is unable to determine with the needed precision the role natural variability plays in our observed climate, calculating the impact of greenhouse gases will remain prophecy. Do you feel guilty that you are still using incandescent light bulbs? Don’t fret over it!”

 

Citizens Fight the Unjust Green Energy Act, and the Lib. Gov’t

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Government cannot just let Goliath win

Government cannot just let Goliath win

Government cannot just let Goliath win

Grimsby Lincoln News

By  Amanda Moore

I really didn’t think David had a chance.

No offence to David — in this case, an ordinary group of citizens who have spent an extraordinary amount of time becoming pseudo-experts on all things industrial wind turbines — but at first there didn’t appear even the slightest chance of stopping the threat of wind power. It certainly seemed that way when the turbines began to rise from the rural landscape last fall. Though I understood your efforts, it seemed as though they were futile.

Yet you pushed on, and because of you operation of the project was stalled, and the project’s status went from approved to awaiting approval.

Four out of the five were built closer to neighbouring property lines than the stipulated distance — the height of the turbine from base to hub. That’s an 80 per cent error rate. If that was a math test, they’d have failed miserably.

If your neighbour builds a shed or fence too close to your property, there are steps that you can take to correct that action. But when the something they built too close is a 95-metre tall metal tower weighing 205 metric tonnes (plus the blades), it’s a little tricky. But in this case, I don’t know how the provincial government can justify letting this madness continue.

Land owner Anne Meinen wrote to the ministry to tell them; the location of one of the turbines is impacting her ability to farm her land — something she has done for more than 40 years. One of the turbines encroaches on two of her property lines (the property is L-shaped) and limits her use of aerial technology. Meinen made these points clear in her comments on the amendment that project proponents Vineland Power Inc. and Rankin Wind Energy filed after their mapping error was discovered.

Meinen and many of the other residents didn’t want the wind turbines in the first place. One drive around the site of the towering whirly birds will clearly give you the impression of a 100 per cent neighbour disapproval rating. So to have to just accept that big business can get it wrong and still get a rubber stamp is a slap in the face of the supposed democracy we have in this country.

When former premier Dalton McGuinty said he was going to get rid of the NIMBY crowd (Not In My Backyard), I don’t think he realized just how much people are willing to fight for their rights. Rights that we have today because our forefathers fought for them. McGuinty and his Green Energy Act may have enabled big business to move ahead with their wind agendas, but it didn’t quiet the bystanders. They are doing anything but standing down, and it’s paying off.

The latest disrespect shown by big business may be the stone that helps David take Goliath down; without consent from the Ministry of the Environment, the project was turned on, on June 12. They were told that doing so would be out of compliance, but that didn’t seem to matter.

It seems that big business thinks it can walk all over the residents without any recourse, and there hasn’t been any up until this point. When it was discovered the turbines were not built to the specified setbacks the province said that’s OK, you can file an amendment. A slap on the wrist that for some, is not enough.

What will happen now? Wind turbines are turned on without warning, without permission. What recourse is there for that? Premier Wynne, you say you became the minister of agriculture to fix your party’s broken relationship with rural Ontario. Now is the time to prove you were serious. How can you let big business stomp on the toes of innocent rural residents? Of Ontarians who chose to live in the country for the peace and quiet, not for the whomp, whomp, whomp of industrial wind turbines?

Your Green Energy Act has done more to harm the concept of green energy than it has in convincing Ontarians to embrace it. The township’s efforts to attract young families is thwarted by the bad reputation the wind turbines have garnered.

Municipalities like West Lincoln and Wainfleet have turned down applications for solar projects to express their dismay at the Act. That certainly is not helping Ontario, or anyone else end their reliance on draconian oil burning technology.

Solar, biomass, hydroelectricity and yes, even wind all have a place in Ontario but there needs to be more thought on how to implement these technologies in a way that is both affordable and appropriate. Ontarians deserve a clean environment but they don’t deserve to pay the price of ludicrous subsidies to live with technology they don’t want. Perhaps it is time for government sponsored programs which install solar panels on Ontarians roofs to minimize reliance on central power generation stations.

Premier Wynne, it is now up to you to do the right thing. Will you let big business step all over the little Davids who have little more than stones to cast at the business giants threatening their peaceful environment or will you take a stand? If you rubber stamp this project you are setting a dangerous precedent in this province. By approving the amendment, you are telling big business it is OK to break the rules. You are saying it’s OK for Goliath to pick on David with no recourse.

There is an Agenda Behind the Global Warming Scam!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

George Will: “Global Warming Is Socialism By The Back Door”

George Will sits down with The Daily Caller‘s Jamie Weinstein.

GEORGE WILL: Global warming is socialism by the back door. The whole point of global warming is that it’s a rationalization for progressives to do what progressives want to do, which is concentrate more and more power in Washington, more and more Washington power in the executive branch, more and more executive branch power in independent czars and agencies to micromanage the lives of the American people — our shower heads, our toilets, our bathtubs, our garden hoses. Everything becomes involved in the exigencies of rescuing the planet.

Second, global warming is a religion in the sense that it’s a series of propositions that can’t be refuted. It’s very ironic that the global warming alarmists say, “We are the real defenders of science,” and then they adopt the absolute reverse of the scientific attitude, which is openness to evidence. You cannot refute what they say.

I own a house in Kiawah Island, South Carolina, facing the Atlantic, where the hurricanes come from. After Katrina, the global warming people said, “This is just a sign of the violent weather that’s going to become more common because of global warming.” Well, that certainly interested me. Of course, since then, there’s been a collapse of hurricane activity.

I was a columnist in the 1970s when Newsweek, Time, all sorts of media outlets said the real problem is global cooling. I remember the Washington Post reporting that the armadillos were going south to escape the coming chill, the threat of glaciation over northern Europe. We’ve been through this before. You say, “What happened to global cooling?” They say, “Well, our models were wrong.” Now we’re supposed to risk several trillion dollars of global growth and spending on new models that might be wrong?

One other thing, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced a report. The New Yorker, which is impeccably alarmed about global warming, the writer being their specialist began her story something like this: “In a report that should be but unfortunately will not be viewed as the final word in climate science.” Now, just think about that. The final word in microbiology, the final word in quantum mechanics. There are no final words in science. But there you have the deeply anti-scientific temper of the global warming advocacy groups: Final words.

 

 

Professional Engineer Knows This Rush to Renewables is NOT Rational….

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Power station’s demise ‘a destruction of British engineering’

5:00pm Wednesday 25th June 2014

By Ben Holgate

THE engineer responsible for turning Didcot A power station both on and off does not want to witness it being blown up, believing the environmental strategy behind its closure is flawed.

“The answer is no. I want to be as far away from it as possible,” said Lyn Bowen.

“I suppose locals see it as a spectacle. I see it as destruction of British engineering.”

Didcot residents are expected to rise early to watch the dawn explosion on Sunday, July 27, when the three southern cooling towers are due to come down in the first phase of demolition.

As reported in yesterday’s Oxford Mail, RWE npower has refused to disclose the specific time three of the six iconic towers will be demolished in an attempt to minimise the number of onlookers.

The three remaining towers will be demolished at a later date.

Mr Bowen, 74, from East Hanney, near Wantage, remains bitterly disappointed at the decommissioning of the power station, which had been a large part of his life for 23 years.

The father-of-two worked there as a charge engineer until 1993, when he retired.

In March last year, he returned briefly to switch off Didcot A for good, giving an emotional thumbs-down signal to staff members.

It was a poignant moment, as almost 43 years earlier Mr Bowen had switched on the power station in September, 1970.

Didcot A closed as part of a nationwide switch to gas-fired power stations, which are less

environmentally damaging, and gas-fired Didcot B power station remains.

The move is the result of a European Union directive to lower carbon emissions, but Mr Bowen disputes the policy’s benefits.

“We need these power stations. We’ve got ourselves in a bit of a hole,” he said.

“Coal-fired power stations should never close down.”

Mr Bowen believes the UK should not have wound down its coal-mining industry, as there is “plenty of coal left” underground.

“It’s a shame, as the coal used at Didcot was coming from Siberia,” he said.

He regards nuclear power as dangerous and estimates it would take 2,300 wind turbines to generate the same amount of electricity

that Didcot A supplied.   “It’s all political, I’m afraid,” he added.

“I haven’t stopped campaigning with politicians to get my view across.”

Didcot’s three southern cooling towers will be demolished next month, followed by more explosions to clear the site over the

next two years.  The main buildings are to be blown up in 2015, and the northern cooling towers dismantled in 2016.

Meanwhile, Birmingham-based Coleman & Company, which is contracted to demolish the power station, announced the firm

has commissioned six large demolition specification excavators from Liebherr Great Britain for the project.

Coleman & Company chose Liebherr, which it has worked with in the past, after consulting with four manufacturers.

Managing director Mark Coleman said Libherr was the only manufacturer that was able to meet all of his firm’s requirements,

and that Liebherr was a leader in the production of bespoke demolition equipment.

Coleman & Company is one of the UK’s largest demolition contractors.

The Didcot demolition includes six 325ft cooling towers, office blocks, boilers, a turbine hall and a 200-metre chimney.

Clowes Developments (UK) Ltd, which has struck a deal with npower to buy a large part of the site, has been told it should

concentrate on using the land for business.  Clowes said some of the land could be used for housing.

But Vale of White Horse District Council leader Matthew Barber and members of Didcot Town Council have said they think the site

should be used for businesses.   Mr Barber said a lot of work would have to be done at the site before any building work could start.

Our top stories:

Update: Fire at Didcot Power Station earmarked for demolition + pictures and video

8:50pm Wednesday 25th June 2014 in News

Oxford Mail: Fire at Didcot Power Station earmarked for demolitionFire at Didcot Power Station earmarked for demolition

A FIRE has broken out in a transformer at Didcot A Power Station.

Crews were called out to the power station at about 4.30pm today.

Three cooling towers at the plant are to be demolished on July 27.

An Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue Service spokeswoman said firefighters were still on the scene, including three senior fire officers.

When it Comes to Wind Turbines, All the Rules are Thrown Out….

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

First Nation returns to court seeking injunction against wind farm

Credit:  June 24, 2014 | www.tbnewswatch.com ~~

 

THUNDER BAY – The Fort William First Nation, Horizon Wind Inc., and the province were back in a Thunder Bay Courtroom Monday.

Fort William First Nation is seeking an injunction against the Ministry of Environment and other provincial ministries.

The First Nation alleges Crown ministries have failed in their duty to consult over the proposed Big Thunder Wind Park.

The First Nation has also filed Judicial Reviews against the province.

On Monday they were seeking an injunction to prevent the Ministry of Environment from approving Horizon Wind’s project until those Judicial Reviews are heard.

Lawyers representing the Crown argued there is still consultation underway. But that comes as news to the First Nation, which says there has been no meaningful talks ongoing.

The Judge reserved her decision on the injunction.

It could be weeks or months before a decision is rendered.

Representatives of the First Nation believe the Ministry of Environment is on the verge of approving the wind farm, despite the concerns they have raised.

It’s Not a Theory….It’s a FACT! Agenda 21 is a Serious Threat!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

The Conspiracy Theory

Posted on 25/06/2014by 

In the Politics of Energy and the Global Warming Agenda we come across certain terms which reflect where we as a Society have gone:

conspiracy theoryCognitive Dissonance – The tendency to resist information that we don’t want to think about, because if we did it would conflict with an illusion we have ought into – and perhaps require us to act in ways that are outside our comfort zone – Lean Festinger

Common Purpose – A UK ‘Charity’ specialising in Behavioural Modification. An elitest pro-EU political organisation helping to replace democracy in UK, and worldwide, with CP chosen ‘elite’ leaders. In truth, their hidden networks and political objectives are undermining and destroying our democratic society. Google their ‘graduates’.You will be alarmed.

Common Good – The political expediency that Politicians actions are in support of the common good. In that way there is no room for individuals. It is their definition of Democracy.

Agenda 21 – said to be a major tool of the New World order, conceived in 1992 in Rio De Janiero at the “UN Earth Summit.” its original aim was “Sustainable Development”. However there have been worrying glimpses of something much more invasive: “global land use, global education and global population control and reduction” The true objectives of Agenda 21, revealed, include an end to national sovereignty; restructure of the family unit which means basically the state will take care of your children, with a keen eye toward indoctrinating them into state control over family allegiance; abolition of private property. Looking at the SNP moves to provide every child a state guardian and their new Land Reforms does question whether this is as far fetched and conspiracy theory as we first think. After all the IPCC and AGW could be considered the first steps down the road of global governance. The actions of the EU in attempting to foist a Federal Europe on us. The removal of state veto and the power of the EU elite.

The Bilderberg Group – Bilderberg Club is an annual private conference of approximately 120–150 political leaders and experts from industry, finance, academia and the media.The Group is not democratic or accountable to the people of the world. Yet the decisions taken by this group affect every human being on earth, now and far ahead into the future. And Bilderberg Group meetings are never reported in the news.

Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” And, “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”
The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose their values and desires on others. These people represent such a group, and they are not saints as individuals; in fact, quite the opposite, unfortunately

Now we need to consider where common sense and conspiracy theory diverge. And that I will leave you to ponder!

Greenpeace….Do as they say, not as they do? Rubbish!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Greenpeace executive flies 250 miles to work

Environmental group campaigns to curb growth in air travel but defends paying a senior executive to commute 250 miles to work by plane

Greenpeace argues for curbs on “the growth in aviation” which it says “is ruining our chances of stopping dangerous climate change”. Photo: PA
Emily Gosden

By , Energy Editor

One of Greenpeace’s most senior executives commutes 250 miles to work by plane, despite the environmental group’s campaign to curb air travel, it has emerged.

Pascal Husting, Greenpeace International’s international programme director, said he began “commuting between Luxembourg and Amsterdam” when he took the job in 2012 and currently made the round trip about twice a month.

The flights, at 250 euros for a round trip, are funded by Greenpeace, despite its campaign to curb “the growth in aviation”, which it says “is ruining our chances of stopping dangerous climate change”.

One Greenpeace volunteer on Monday described Mr Husting’s travel arrangements as “almost unbelievable”.

Another said they were cancelling their payments to support Greenpeace in the wake of the disclosure and series of other damaging revelations of of disarray and financial mismanagement at the organisation, in documents leaked to the Guardian newspaper.

Greenpeace was last week forced to apologise for a “serious error of judgment” after it emerged that it had lost £3m of public donations when a member of staff took part in unauthorised currency dealing.

Each round-trip commute Mr Husting makes would generate 142kg of carbon dioxide emissions, according to airline KLM.

That implies that over the past two years his commuting may have been responsible for 7.4 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions – the equivalent of consuming 17 barrels of oil, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency.

But Mr Husting defended the arrangement, telling the Telegraph that while he would “rather not take” the journey it was necessary as it would otherwise be “a twelve hour round trip by train”.

“I spend half my life on skype and video conference calls,” he said. “But as a senior manager, the people who work in my team sometimes need to meet me in the flesh, that’s why I’ve been going to Amsterdam twice a month while my team was being restructured.”

He said that from September he would switch to making the trip once a month by train due to “the work of restructuring my team coming to an end, and with my kids a little older”.

The head of Greenpeace in the UK on Monday denied that funding Mr Husting’s commute showed a lack of integrity.

Writing in a blog, John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said: “As for Pascal’s air travel. Well it’s a really tough one. Was it the right decision to allow him to use air travel to try to balance his job with the needs of his family for a while?

“For me, it feels like it gets to the heart of a really big question. What kind of compromises do you make in your efforts to try to make the world a better place?

“I think there is a line there. Honesty and integrity to the values that are at the heart of the good you’re trying to do in the world cannot be allowed to slip away. For what it’s worth, I don’t think we’ve crossed that line here at Greenpeace.”

But Richard Lancaster, who said he had been volunteering with Greenpeace since the 1980s, responded: “I volunteer with Greenpeace but work in the commercial world and if I took a job in another country I’d expect to move to where the job is and if I couldn’t for family reasons I wouldn’t take the job – so I find Pascal’s travel arrangements almost unbelievable.”

Another respondent to Mr Sauven’s blog – which also addresses concerns over Greenpeace’s management – wrote: “So disappointed. Hardly had 2 pennies to rub together but have supported GP [Greenpeace] for 35+ years. Cancelling dd [direct debit] for while.”

Greenpeace campaigns to curb the growth in polluting air travel and end “needless” domestic flights. In a briefing on “the problem with aviation”, the group says: “In terms of damage to the climate, flying is 10 times worse than taking the train.”

Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace’s top executive director, told the Guardian that while Mr Husting “wishes there was an express train between his home and his office… it would currently be a 12-hour round trip by train”.

“Pascal has a young family in Luxembourg. When he was offered the new role he couldn’t move his family to Amsterdam straight away. He’d be the first to say he hates the commute, hates having to fly, but right now he hasn’t got much of an option until he can move.”

Greenpeace argues that it does not want to “stop people from flying” but does “want to prevent the number of flights from growing to dangerous levels”.

It alleges that flying remains largely the preserve of the wealthy, citing a study showing “cheap flights haven’t created better access to air travel for the poor; they’ve just allowed people with more money to fly more often”.

Wind Weasels Don’t Want You to Hear…..the Truth!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

The Battle for Mt Emerald FNQ: What’s the Price

for the Sound of Your Silence?

June 25, 2014 by 

John Madigan

Proving the adage that you can never keep a good man down, Senator John Madigan has bobbed up in Far North Queensland and walked straight into a hornet’s nest – this time over gag clauses in land contracts for properties being sold next door to a wind farm by the developer of that wind farm. Here’s The Cairns Post on the brewing rumble for Mt Emerald.

Senator queries wind farm ‘gag’ clause while in Cairns
The Cairns Post
Daniel Bateman
21 June 2014

A VICTORIAN Senator has questioned why the property developer behind a Tableland wind farm has any need to ban residents from speaking out about the project.

Developer Port Bajool Pty Ltd has placed a clause in its contracts of sale for properties at Oaky Creek Farms, stating there be no objection to the proposed $380 million Mt Emerald Wind Farm.

The developer claims the clause merely ensured buyers were fully aware of the proposed wind farm prior to purchasing property.

The State Government has called in the application for the development from the Mareeba Shire Council and is expected to decide if it will proceed by the end of the year.

Ballarat-based Democratic Labour Party Senator John Madigan, in Cairns this week for the AUSVEG convention, said he sympathised with residents living near the proposed wind farm.

Mr Madigan described the developer’s claims of transparency as “a load of crap”.

“These gag clauses: if this was as pure as driven snow, why do you need gag clauses?” he said.

Cook MP David Kempton denied residents had been forced to sign gag orders.

“There’s no gag order. I reckon (opponents) are playing with that to try and make it look like (the developer) is something he isn’t,” he said.
The Cairns Post

So, what’s all the fuss about? Why don’t we start by having a look at the clause in question?

Set out below is an extract from the “Contracts for Sale” for properties at Oaky Creek Farms, Mutchilba (Queensland, Australia).  These properties are being sold by Port Bajool Pty Ltd. Port Bajool Pty Ltd is the owner of the property (situated on Mt Emerald) – on which RATCH (aka RACL, a subsidiary of Thailand’s biggest power producer) is planning to construct a 63 turbine wind farm (aka the High Road Wind Farm) – and Port Bajool Pty Ltd is also a partner with RATCH in the $2.00 company, Mt Emerald Wind Farm Pty Ltd. The properties at Oaky Creek Farms are all within a 5km radius of proposed turbines, as identified on RATCH’s “Surrounding Residences” map.

Here’s the offending clause:

No Objection to Wind Farm

The Vendor discloses that certain feasibility studies (including geotechnical surveys and construction and operation of monitoring equipment) and a development application or procedure have been or may be made in respect to the use or development of Lot 7 SP235244 for construction of wind electricity power generation (by means of a connected group of wind turbine generators, together with associated electrical infrastructure and connection equipment). The Purchaser must not object to any application or procedure made or initiated by or on behalf of the Vendor or a third party in respect of any use or development of Lot 7 SP235244. The Purchaser acknowledges that the Purchaser will not be materially prejudiced by the development or use of Lot 7 SP 235244 as a “wind farm” for the generation of electrical power.

The clause is pretty straightforward – a purchaser of land from the joint-developer of the wind farm signs away any right to object to any application or procedure made in respect of any use or development on the site of the proposed wind farm: Lot 7 SP235244.

The purchaser also effectively signs away their private law rights (such as nuisance or negligence caused by wind turbine noise, say) by acknowledging that they “will not be materially prejudiced by the development or use” of the site “as a “wind farm” for the generation of electrical power.”

The purchaser’s agreement not to object to any application or procedure made by the developer in respect of any use of the site – combined with the acknowledgement that the purchaser “will not be materially prejudiced by the development or use” of the site as a wind farm – can be fairly described as a “gag clause”. While there are much tougher versions around, this one is probably tough enough for the developer’s purposes (see our post here).

In practical effect, the purchaser would not be entitled to raise any objection to the wind farm at all. To object would be a breach of the Contract for Sale; and an objection would include any negative or disparaging statement made about the use or operation of the site as a wind farm. This would not be limited to statements made during the planning process, but would extend to cover any application or procedure made by the developer during the life of the wind farm.

Moreover, should the purchaser take action (including legal action) in relation to any complaint concerning negative impacts caused by the operation of the wind farm, the purchaser will breach that part of the clause that acknowledges that they “will not be materially prejudiced by the development or use” of the site as a wind farm. Were the purchaser to make their complaint to the press, for example, the developer may also assert that this breaches that same acknowledgement; and would, therefore, constitute a breach of contract.

Whichever way you slice it, the clause is Draconian. And, if wind farms make such wonderful neighbours, obviously unnecessary, surely? A point well made by John “Marshall” Madigan in the piece above.

But don’t just take our word for it, the Tablelands Regional Council received legal advice (click here for the advice) in relation to the Ratch’s High Road Wind Farm development. In apparent response to the clause set out above (and clauses like it) the advice was as follows (see page 18):

We do recommend that Council make HRWF (High Road Wind Farm) aware that in conducting any negotiations they couldn’t stifle comments from residents who are likely to be affected. The Court [inBunnings Building Supplies Pty Ltd v Redland Shire Council and Ors[2000] QPELR 193, paras [30] and [32]] has warned:

“The Council should have the opportunity to assess the application in the light of the informed attitude of interested parties, especially local residents and most especially those living closest to the site who would mostly be affected. That informed attitude may well be perverted by a developer who uses the cheque book … In this case the cheque book approach to potential submitters has not affected the merits of the various arguments on the disputed issues. I take the opportunity, however, to deplore it in the strongest terms. Should this approach manifest itself in other application, the Court will have to examine the ramifications in detail. Could it have the effect of vitiating the public notification stage, requiring re-notification? Might it amount to an abuse of process?”

We note that the [noise] Standard recommends that a regulatory authority set criteria that is flexible to account for existing agreements between landowners. We do not agree with this approach.

Now, some might quibble and say – referring to the concept of freedom of contract – that where parties willingly enter agreements they should be bound to honour them, no matter what their terms.

Call us sticklers for fairness – but that principle no longer holds where the beneficiary of a punitive clause has deliberately engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct.  And there is no party more likely to mislead or deceive than the prospective wind farm developer; and the “softer” the target, the easier the ruse.

Lies and deception work a treat if your audience is a 60 something farmer’s wife living on an isolated property and of the class that accepts people at face value.  The targets come from places where people (who want to function and remain in these communities) just don’t lie.  So they can’t pick it when the wind developer’s goons drop in for that one-on-one chat over a cuppa and start lying before the scones are popped on the table.

These are the private consultations where the unwitting victim is told that: “no, wind turbines aren’t noisy – they make the same noise as a fridge at 500m.” They’re told that: “our proposed wind farm will meet the toughestnoise standards in the world“; that: “the only people that complain arethose that aren’t getting paid“; that: “modern wind turbines don’t produce infrasound“; that: “the NHMRC said that the evidence proves that there are no adverse health effects from wind turbines”.  And so on and so on …. The same pitches have, no doubt, been made to prospective purchasers of properties at Oaky Creek Farms.

As a general rule, only those that have been forced to live with incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infra-sound for an extended period have the faintest idea as to what it’s like to live in a sonic torture trap (see our posts here and here).

A wind farm developer will never admit that turbine noise is a problem – it’s what they pay their pet acoustic consultants big-money to deflect or bury – victims can expect to hear pitches like the one that says listening to wind turbine noise is just like listening to waves lapping on a moonlit beach.

A wind farm developer who is also selling lifestyle properties right next door has a double incentive to gild the lily.

No wonder this one’s keen to buy the buyer’s silence.

NASA Climate Alarmists Went As Far As “Faking Data”, To Suit Their Agenda!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

GLOBAL WARMING DATA FAKED BY GOVERNMENT,

TO FIT CLIMATE CHANGE FICTIONS

Mike Adams — Natural News — June 23, 2014

When drug companies are caught faking clinical trial data, no one is surprised anymore. When vaccine manufacturers spike their human trial samples with animal antibodies to make sure their vaccines appear to work, we all just figure that’s how they do business: lying, cheating, deceiving and violating the law.

Now, in what might be the largest scientific fraud ever uncovered, NASA and the NOAA have been caught red-handed altering historical temperature data to produce a “climate change narrative” that defies reality. This finding, originally documented on the Real Science website, is detailed here.

We now know that historical temperature data for the continental United States were deliberately altered by NASA and NOAA scientists in a politically-motivated attempt to rewrite history and claim global warming is causing U.S. temperatures to trend upward. The data actually show that we are in a cooling trend, not a warming trend (see charts below).

This story is starting to break worldwide right now across the media, with The Telegraph now reporting (1), “NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been ‘adjusting’ its record by replacing real temperatures with data ‘fabricated’ by computer models.”

Because the actual historical temperature record doesn’t fit the frenzied, doomsday narrative of global warming being fronted today on the political stage, the data were simply altered using “computer models” and then published as fact.

Here’s the proof of the climate change fraud

Here’s the chart of U.S. temperatures published by NASA in 1999. It shows the highest temperatures actually occurred in the 1930′s, followed by a cooling trend ramping downward to the year 2000:  (Click here to see altered charts and continue reading….)

Actual correct data from the EPA website showing the 1930's heat wave

 

Governments Colluded With Wind Industry, to Hide Truth About Wind Turbine Noise!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Low-frequency noise on the line

Credit:  Peter Skeel Hjorth, June 13, 2014. jyllands-posten.dk ~~

 

The government, parliament and all others were fooled by the country’s wind turbine giants and the Environmental Protection Agency, who worked in close cooperation to design the rules for the low-frequency noise limit of 20 decibels, and had them approved politically.

During the course of the proceedings, the EPA itself delivered the evidence that a world-leading noise researcher, Professor Henrik Møller at Aalborg University, was right, and that the EPA had been wrong about the problems of low-frequency wind turbine noise.

The central official of the EPA has retired. He was the link to the wind turbine industry, but not the only person responsible for what was happening. What remains now is a Danish EPA with a huge problem needing explanation. Henrik Møller is now fired.

With a red – i.e. urgent – briefing, the EPA warned the then Minister of the Environment, Karen Ellemann, on May 6, 2011, that » the new turbines from the industry do not comply with the EPA’s recommended low-frequency limit «. There was a very good reason for the briefing being marked red.

Because the Minister had earlier in a reply to parliament said the exactly opposite: » (…) when wind turbines comply with the usual noise limits, the low-frequency noise will not give problems, « she wrote while referring to a report which the private consulting company Delta had prepared for the EPA. The same was said over and over again by the EPA.

Both the EPA and the wind energy industry had taken great care to downplay the significance of low-frequency wind turbine noise, which in the population had given, and gives, rise to widespread concern. The situation was therefore delicate for the EPA.

If you dig yourself through the many acts below the surface, the preparation of the Danish wind turbine statutory order appears in a completely new light, with foul play in the process and other critical conditions that have not been exposed so far.

In the spring of 2011, the parties behind the parliament resolution on the national test center for offshore wind turbines in Thy had demanded a new low-frequency noise limit, and the EPA had started a review of the wind turbine statutory order.

At an initial meeting at Delta in Aarhus, all the participants were from the wind energy industry with the exception of the EPA representative. It was thus the wind turbine industry representatives who discussed and planned how to proceed. They found that it would be fine with a limit of 20 decibels, which is the limit for other industrial noise sources at night. Wind turbines run, as we all know, also during the night.

» But it depends on the overall objective that the new limit should not impose new restrictions on wind turbines. What is possible to establish today should also be possible after the summer; it’s a challenge, « says the minutes from the EPA.

Neither Professor Henrik Møller nor others from the country’s qualified and most independent institution for noise attended the meeting. There had been talks with them a few days before, but at that time no specific plans were on the table. There were fine intentions of good cooperation, but that never got off the ground. Henrik Møller and his colleagues heard nothing more on the matter before the rules had been designed.

If the critics were heard, it could end up with rules that would push wind turbines further away from neighbors. That this, for example, would create problems for the most economical turbine from Vestas, because it was not technically possible to reduce the noise, is documented in the personal letter, then CEO Ditlev Engel sent to the Minister of the Environment later in the process. The wind turbine industry had therefore a clear interest in seeing that the noise limit did not lead to tightened distance requirements.

From Siemens and Vestas the EPA received confidential noise data for a number of large industrial turbines and made confidential consequence analyzes. These showed that the low-frequency noise would often be more than 20 decibels. Now the EPA was left with a Gordian knot, since the Minister insisted that the limit should be 20 decibels.

After this, the EPA held a number of meetings with the Danish Wind Industry Association, Vestas and Siemens. So says the central official’s calendar. But there are apparently no minutes of what was discussed at these meetings. At least, the EPA has to date been unable to find any.

After these meetings, on 23 May 2011, the EPA issued a draft of a revised statutory order. In several stages, the sound insulation figures had been changed. Without further explanation they had now been increased again.

The sound insulation figures describe how well noise is transmitted to the interior of a house. The original numbers stem from measurements made in 1996, when quite simply a noise source was put up in the garden and the sound measured on the other side of the wall inside a number of houses. A high sound insulation figure means a good sound insulation and a low means poor sound insulation.

The use of sound insulation figures and the measurement method for low-frequency noise indoors have been key issues in the professional disagreement between Professor Henrik Møller and the EPA.

In addition to increasing the sound insulation figures, the EPA had introduced a prescribed uncertainty of 2 decibels – i.e. the low-frequency noise may exceed the noise limit by 2 decibels under inspection once the turbine has been set up. An inspection does not consist of a measurement at the neighbors, as one might think, but a measurement close to the turbine and then a calculation of the noise at the neighbor. In this way, the Gordian knot was cut.

At the same time, Aalborg University was underway with an update of a previous report, and the media had made inquiries. The EPA sent another urgent red briefing to the minister, bearing in handwriting » URGENT – political parties’ spokesmen to be informed today «. This means that the spokesmen had to approve the draft before the contents of the report from Aalborg University became known. The critical noise researchers should not be heard.

At that time, there had been a long-term professional disagreement on low-frequency wind turbine noise between researchers at Aalborg University and the EPA’s leading noise expert. Among other things, they had diverging opinions on the how the sound insulation for low-frequency wind turbine noise should be measured.

The EPA used a measurement method that should be applied carefully in order to be suitable. However, it was used incorrectly, said amongst others Henrik Møller. When used properly it may very well be suitable. But it is difficult to use in practice. And this was precisely where things went wrong.

In a so-called technical pre-hearing on the draft order, Professor Dorte Hammershøi from Aalborg University wondered about the interest to relax the rules as much as possible. » If the rules are not properly worked out, it may well be that you comply with them, but neighbors still cannot sleep at night, « she said, according to the report.

In 2008, Delta published a summary report for the Danish Energy Agency. Its professional quality is disputable. It is muddy and lacks consistency in tables and figures. However, it shows that the large turbines are unable to meet the noise limit of 20 decibels.

In 2010, Delta came to the opposite conclusion in a final report to the Danish Energy Agency. Now the noise from the large turbines had decreased to 20 decibels. The Minister has explained that other (higher) sound insulation figures had been used. That explains why the noise from the large turbines was lower. However, at the same time, the noise from small turbines had increased. This is not trustworthy. And the whole thing was just calculations. Not a single measurement of wind turbine noise indoors had been made.

Professor Henrik Møller and his staff were unable to get the numbers in the report to fit. They did further calculations and reached the conclusion that low-frequency noise from large wind turbines is a problem. And that is exactly the report the EPA would forestall politically.

The political parties got a noise limit of 20 decibels – and the wind energy industry got what they wanted. But essential preconditions had been changed behind closed doors.

The political process was guided with a steady hand by a central government official in close collaboration with the wind energy industry, so the mandatory noise limit will have no real impact – just as Delta later happened to reveal in a report to the Norwegian Ministry of the Environment – by mere eagerness to tell the Norwegians that are no problems with low-frequency wind turbine noise. The bottom line remains unchanged: Wind turbines make noise, and the low-frequency noise is a problem for the neighbors.

Also see:  The perfect political crime