The Ministers, the DECC and the Wind Industry target all objections to wind energy as NIMBYism and, when pushed, scream that we are Climate DENIERS. The choice of words is insulting and chosen for effect. Climate deniers are linked with holocaust deniers in the eyes of the green caucus and as the “proven science” is a consensus how dare anyone challenge it. Any scientist will tell you that consensus is a political word, not a scientific one. What is more to question AGW is not a denier per se but someone who considers the computer models that the IPCC and their ilk rely on bear little resemblance to real world experience. There is now a strong consensus of world class scientists that object to any agreed theory. Many of the original “scientists” behind the IPCC’s original policy state that it was not peer reviewed research that they espoused but only an opinion. That so many billions has been flushed down the pan on opinions is a disgrace, but a very profitable one for the likes of Gore and Paucholi as well as the thousands of landowners and developers who jumped on the bandwagon. Never has so much of our money been spent on a technology that provides so little real benefit. Likewise the term NIMBY is a political one originally addressed to politicians who objected to proposals in their constituency, less they lose votes, but were quite happy if the project went elsewhere. As to NIMBY, is it such an insult. If the residents of an area are not willing to protect their own back yard it questions whether they have any respect or love for it. And if they don’t, who will? Experience has shown that those questioning the efficacy of wind, be it in their back yard, the wild lands or the iconic elements of our country are far from nimbys but well educated and knowledgeable people, often engineers, medical professionals and scientists in their own right, who have looked beyond the hype and found it wanting. Those promoting wind however are often driven by huge profits or a part of the green wash generation who have never questioned the application, performance and cost to the wider population. For those new to the argument, The Scientific Alliance has produce a paper, “Wind Turbines, The Facts”. This will explain many issues and the basic opposition of the scientists to a flawed technology. Similar papers are available from the engineering world.
- Wind Industry Lies About Falling Costs Backfire: MPs Demand End to Subsidies for Wind Power
- I’ve got to take my problem to the United Nations
- I think you may enjoy this
- The Scottish Wind-Power Racket
- Cnoc an Neas
- Zero Gain
- How to really annoy your neighbours. Buy an electric car!
- Stranded Assets
- Reality – Personified
Wind V. Coal
Quote of the Decade
"The trouble with wind farms is that they have a very large spatial footprint for a piddling little bit of electricity. You would need 8oo turbines to produce the output of a coal-fired power station."
Sir Martin Holgate, Chief Scientist at the Department of the Environment of the British Government - October 2004
Death by a Thousand Turbines
- Energy Consents
- Kilmorack Wind Fm
- Political Comments
- The Blimp
- The Dummies Guide
Einstein on Consensus in ScienceAs Einstein once said,"It does not take a hundred scientists to prove me right ( consensus ?). It only takes one to prove me wrong"
- 133,825 views
Most recent comments
andreasmarciniak on I think you may enjoy thi… andreasmarciniak on The Scottish Wind-Power R… andreasmarciniak on Cnoc an Neas andreasmarciniak on Zero Gain douglas pocock on Power to the Pococks
Swamped by a Hundred Hydros