Use solid science before making decision on turbines

Owen Sound Sun Times

I read Mr. Glennie’s letter declaring that most people support industrial wind turbines. Maybe he is using the poll commissioned and paid for by the wind industry. Wind companies also like to display this poll at their two required promotional public meetings.

I have seen a number of polls by local papers and radio stations from across this province asking one clear and simple question requiring a yes or no to turbines. Results show most do not want industrial wind turbines.

You are quick to dismiss health concerns Mr. Glennie. I doubt that you have ever spoken to any of the people who’ve had their lives and health so tragically effected by the startup of turbines nearby. Your cold dismissal and lack of concern for what these people have been through is chilling.

The adverse health effects people have experienced from the few turbine installations in Ontario can’t be denied. I have spoken to or received mail from at least 200 people who were brave enough to speak out about what was happening to them even in the face of dimsighted and dimwitted words that try to deny or make light of what is happening to them.

They are not imaginary people spouting “pseudo-scientific” information as you put it Mr. Glennie. They are hard-working people who have been terribly hurt. There is peer reviewed science to tell you all about it if you take time to look.

How ludicrous is it to use a poll as one of the reasons to move forward with an energy policy that hurts all of us in one way or another?

I would prefer to use available solid science before making a decision to put thousands more turbines up in our province.

Lorrie Gillis Flesherton

5 thoughts on “Use solid science before making decision on turbines

  1. The natives used to say: “Never judge a man until you walk a mile in his moccasins.”
    In the past we said: “Never judge a man until you walk a mile in his shoes.”

    To the windy greenies we can say: “Never say industrial wind turbines are quiet till you have lived beside them for a month!”

    In fact, I think it should be MANDATORY for ALL wind farm owners and operators to live where they work!

    B.B.W.

  2. Speaking about using solid science when making decisions here is one for all of you: Daily Mail, Dec.29,10

    60,000 of Yorkshire’s clean and green eco-nut condensing boilers failed in the big deep freeze. Already 8 million condensing boilers are in homes as it is illegal to fit any other kind.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1342357/central-heating-break-big-freeze-heres-.html

    So the U.K. has 8 million eco-nut heating boilers to go along with their ~ 3,000 eco-nut wind turbines.

  3. JO NOVA CLAIMS THAT ONTARIO IS A TIN POT DICTATORSHIP!

    *****************************************

    “Here in Australia we’re copying techniques from tin-pot tyrannies. ”

    “In the end, the main job of the MCCC is Public Relations”

    The MCCC have dutifully met and produced 11 principles — Bob busts them all on on Quadrant but I couldn’t resist doing my small version here too:

    1. Environmental effectiveness: The mechanism should be capable of delivering reductions in carbon pollution…

    Pollution? There are literally hundreds of papers showing how plant life on Earth loves CO2 (Earths Biosphere is Booming), grows faster and greener, yields more food and feeds more people. So can anyone name that paper that shows that CO2 probably causes more than 1.2 degrees of warming?

    2. Economic efficiency: A mechanism to price carbon should harness the most cost-effective pollution reduction options…

    How many $trillion does each 0.1 degree of global cooling cost, and can we afford to run that planetary air-conditioning system?

    3. Budget neutrality…

    The deceptive thing about a “price” on carbon is that it sucks money from the public via corporations instead of their tax installments. It’s budget neutral for the government but budget negative for the humans.

    4. Competitiveness of Australian industries: blah blah blah…

    The worlds largest economies are not having a bar of this self-imposed handicap. Not China, not the US, not Japan. The price of carbon dioxide in these countries is $0. (Handily, that is the only number that is equal in all currencies. Zero US Dollars = Zero Yen, Zero Yuan, Zero Pounds Sterling, and Zero ounces of gold.)

    5. Energy security: Introduction of the carbon price should be accompanied by measures that are necessary for maintaining energy security.

    Destroying industry in Australia is a good way to promote energy security. We won’t be buying energy from the House of Saud if China does it for us.

    6. Investment certainty: A mechanism to price carbon should provide businesses with the confidence needed to undertake long-term investments …

    Here’s a radical idea: the ultimate “investment certainty” would come with a policy of a ten year guarantee of No Carbon Tax, and No Carbon Price. Cost of implementation: $0. (That number again, this is too easy).

    7. Fairness: The introduction of a carbon price will affect Australian households and communities. Assistance should be provided to those households and communities most needing help to adjust to a carbon price, while striving to maintain incentives to change behavior and reduce pollution.

    “Fairness” is where the government doesn’t take our money to pay for services we don’t need.

    8. Flexibility: Internationally, climate change policy is continuing to evolve. A mechanism to price carbon should be sufficiently flexible …

    Exactly — that’s why the last thing we need is an inflexible trading scheme. Once it’s in, it creates a vast array of vested interests and property rights. It’s damn near impossible to remove, and if the rest of the world isn’t suicidally stupid in adopting it after we do we’ll be stuck with this handicap ad infinitum.

    9. Administrative simplicity: A mechanism to price carbon should be designed with a view to minimising both compliance costs and implementation risks.

    To minimize the cost and risks, abolish the MCCC, abandon the carbon price, close down the Dept of Climate Change. The committee can’t possibly beat that.

    10. Clear accountabilities: A mechanism with transparent scheme rules and clear accountabilities will help promote business and community confidence in carbon pricing.

    Transparent and accountable? Answer one question: Where is the peer reviewed empirical evidence that net climate feedbacks are positive at current temperatures and levels of CO2?

    11. Supports Australia’s international objectives and obligations: An effective global solution requires action from all major emitters… and [to] be consistent with Australia’s foreign policy and trade objectives.

    Is this the coded part of the MCCC that effectively nullifies the rest? The get-out-of-jail clause “we would have done it, but the rest of the world… tut tut tut… chose not too”?

    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/01/eleven-principles-to-advance-us-to-a-third-world-nation/

    ***********************

    OK! OK! So I stretched the truth a Teensy, Teensy bit…

    But, she could have compared Australian policies to our Ontario Policies. She could have mentioned McGuinty, Smitherman et all by name…

    I don’t think the story would have changed in any meaningful way…

    Do you?

Comments are closed.