scandals

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!

Bob Chiarelli Back Again?…. What’s Up With That?

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Return of Ontario’s Six Billion Dollar Man

Posted by  on 24 June 2014, 4:07 pm

Bob Chiarelli is back as the Wynne government’s Energy Minister.

Last December, I started the series “Chiarelli: Ontario’s Six Billion Dollar Man” to track some of Bob wacky assertions about energy in Ontario.

The first edition of this series addressed his claim that Ontario’s electricity exports have earned profits of $6 billion. My question was picked up by Steve Paikin at TVO and Minister Chiarelli eventually explained that he relies on the Toronto Sun for his research on electricity export economics, as discussed in the third edition of this series.

The second edition challenged his repetition of the longstanding junk claim from the Liberals that Ontario has cut health care and environmental costs of $4.4 billion per year by closing coal plants, four of which have effective scrubbers drastically reducing hazardous emissions.

The fifth edition of this series lampooned the Minister’s claims that OPG profits have paid $7 billion toward the cost of education in Ontario.

I have also asked the Minister a number of questions on Twitter, none of which has elicited any response from him. These include:

April 4, 2014 in response to a tweet from Minister Chiarelli announcing an industrial power rate subsidy program: “Hey @Bob_Chiarelli you subsidize industrials while ordering more junk wind/solar/bio/storage. Double hit 4 small user
http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/sites/default/files/news/MC-2014-852.pdf”

April 15, 2014: “Hey @Bob_Chiarelli, once Thunder Bay GS is running on “advanced biomass” what will the power cost?”

April 25, 2014: “Hey @Bob_Chiarelli, ON exports at a loss, pays gens to not produce & you just ordered more gen contracts. How does conservation save money?”

– See more at: http://www.tomadamsenergy.com/2014/06/24/return-of-ontarios-six-billion-dollar-man/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=return-of-ontarios-six-billion-dollar-man#sthash.J8pj85xT.dpuf

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

 

Scotland’s Tories Smart Enough to Know That a Larger Setback is Required!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Tories insist no wind turbines within 2km of homes

Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson.

 

The party warns that turbine numbers in Scotland will rise to more than 5,000 as the SNP moves ahead with plans to generate all of Scotland’s electricity from green energy sources like wind, wave and hydro.

The Nationalist government says it backs two-thirds of local decisions on turbines and the renewables industry provides “essential jobs and investment”.

However, Tory leader Ruth Davidson will say: “It is not fair that anyone should have to live in the shadow of a turbine.

“The SNP may think it’s acceptable to plaster the countryside with windfarms, spoiling the scenery, but the least it could do is offer some kind of quality control on the policy.

“Invoking the two kilometre limit would simply be enforcing the rules that are there, but in too many cases have been ignored.”

Local planning guidelines suggest a two kilometre distance, but this is repeatedly ignored.

The Scottish Conservatives will call on the SNP to ensure legislation is properly enforced to better protect the value of people’s homes. The plan would apply only to new turbines, not those already built.

The Tories will unveil an energy policy titled Power And Responsibility. They will say the Government has “overshot” its own energy targets years early, and could be producing up to 134 per cent of electricity for renewable sources before long.

The party will also urge ministers to carry out a rigid health assessment of turbines to reassure communities living nearby.

There are an estimated 1,996 operational turbines across Scotland, a figure expected to rise to 3,295 once those already given consent come into operation.

A further 1,873 are in planning, meaning Scotland could have a combined total of 5,168 turbines in coming years, not including those yet to be submitted to planners.

An inquiry by Holyrood’s economy committee earlier this year found there was no “robust” evidence that windfarms were a threat to the tourism industry, as suggested by US tycoon Donald Trump, who criticised an offshore development adjacent to his Aberdeenshire golf resort.

The Government said it has “yet to receive any credible, peer-reviewed evidence that wind turbines adversely impact health” even though studies have found that industrial turbine developments “disturbed the sleep and caused daytime sleepiness and impaired mental health in residents living within 1.4km”.

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

Global Warming Alarmists Give “Honest” Scientists a Bad Name!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Scam Of The Century: NOAA Busted Manipulating Global Temperature Data To Give Appearance Of Global Warming…

lean_2865887b.jpg

Via Telegraph:

When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster.

But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data.

In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

 

PCC MPP Lisa McLeod, Talks About Fresh Leadership for the Conservatives!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Ontario Tories need fresh leadership: PC MPP Lisa MacLeod
A revitalized Ontario Progressive Conservative Party is important not just for PC supporters, but for all Ontarians

 

By: Lisa MacLeod Published on Mon Jun 23 2014

Ontario voters sent the Progressive Conservative Party a strong message on June 12. Despite the undeniable weaknesses of the Liberal government’s record and its credibility-stretching plan to spend more while still balancing the books, voters returned the Liberals with a majority.

 

That tells PCs that we let Ontario down by not offering an alternative that more voters were prepared to accept. We have a lot of work to do over the next four years. The party needs renewal, a new direction, and most important, fresh leadership.

 

For PCs, this is the time to look forward and face those challenges, not to indulge in endless dissection of the 2014 campaign. We must spend our energy preparing for the election in 2018, not refighting the election just past.

 

The most important decision in front of our party is choosing a new leader. There is no rush to make that choice. It’s more important that we get this right, for our party and for our province. A leadership convention will provide that opportunity.

 

We need a person who understands urban, suburban and rural concerns, one who gets the complex makeup of this province. In my own riding of Nepean-Carleton, I represent new immigrant communities, expanding suburbs and a large rural area. I also take the lead on the urban issues that affect Ottawa, our second largest city. Nepean-Carleton is a microcosm of the growing and changing Ontario that our party must represent.

 

Some in the party are looking for a quick decision on a new leader, but the challenge is not just choosing a leader. It is revitalizing our party. If we are to win the next election, the Ontario PC Party must become a broader, bigger, activist organization. It must become a movement for change. Our new leader must have wide support, not just from party elites, but from the members themselves.

 

A revitalized PC party is important not just for Conservative supporters, but for all Ontarians. Our province needs a party that will offer affordable, practical solutions to improving our health care and our children’s education, and do it within the context of reasonable taxes and a balanced budget.

 

All major parties agree that we can’t continue to pay for our services with borrowed money. The next few years will show if the Liberals can break their debt dependence. If they cannot, Ontarians will be looking for a party that they can trust to deliver the services we all need, and do it within a sustainable budget supported by an expanding economy.

 

Our most recent PC platform has been criticized for talking too much about numbers and not enough about people. Fact-based decision making is important, but we can’t overlook the human side. I’m a suburban soccer mom. I care about my child’s school, our local hospital and whether our community is safe, just like so many other Ontarians do.

 

Ontarians need a party that knows how to make their lives better in measurable ways. For example, the Schools First policy that I put forward as education critic would ensure that schools get built sooner in our rapidly expanding suburbs. Youth mental health and home care for seniors are areas that cry out for real service, not lip service. These two vulnerable groups need more help, and they aren’t getting it.

 

The 2014 Ontario election campaign will be remembered for its attack ads, and what people felt were a lack of real choices. As a province, we can’t do that again. The PC Party has a responsibility to deliver a strong and broadly acceptable choice the next time. That work starts now. Let’s embrace the challenge and deliver for Ontarians.

 

Lisa MacLeod is the Progressive Conservative MPP for Nepean-Carleton.