U.K. voters’ decision to exit the European Union sent shock waves through world markets today, including the energy sector. The consensus from policymakers, clean-energy advocates, and analysts was that while “Brexit” will not completely derail the EU’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions under the Paris climate accord, it will certainly throw a spanner in the works.
READ AT: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601776/brexit-brings-chaos-to-europes-clean-energy-goals/
On June 1, OSPE sent a letter to Premier Wynne imploring the government to consult with engineers before implementing its cap-and-trade program. On June 14, OSPE received a response from the Premier that appeared to be a form letter intended for critics of the Climate Change Action Plan. The Premier’s response did not address OSPE’s main concern that the government does not consult with engineers before implementing policy.
So yesterday, OSPE sent a second letter to Kathleen Wynne:
READ AT: https://blog.ospe.on.ca/advocacy/letters-premier-wynne/
In an effort to address climate change, governments have pursued policies that seek to reduce greenhouse gases. alternative energy including wind power, has been proposed by some as the preferred approach. Few would debate the need to reduce air pollution, but the reduction is important not only for efficiency but also for health protection. The topic of adverse health effects is the environs of Industrial Wind Turbines (AHE/IWT) has proven to be controversial and can present physicians with challenges regarding the management of an exposure to IWT. Rural physicians in particular must be aware of the possibility of people presenting to their practices with a variety of sometimes confusing complainants. An earlier version of the diagnostic criteria for AHE/IWT was published in Aug 2011. A revised case definition and a model for a study to establish a confirmed diagnosis is proposed.
[The healthcare practitioner applying the criteria must be licensed to take a medical or health history and to make a diagnosis. Physicians should consider that children are also affected but in ways sufficiently different from adults}
Read the entire report here:
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCHER: WIND INDUSTRY RIDDLED WITH ‘ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION’
Written by James Delingpole, breitbart.com
A Mexican ecologist has blown the whistle on the corruption, lies and incompetence of the wind industry – and on the massive environmental damage it causes in the name of saving the planet.
Patricia Mora, a research professor in coastal ecology and fisheries science at the National Institute of Technology in Mexico, has been studying the impact of wind turbines in the Tehuantepec Isthmus in southern Mexico, an environmentally sensitive region which has the highest concentration of wind farms in Latin America.
When a project is installed, the first step is to “dismantle” the area, a process through which all surrounding vegetation is eliminated. This means the destruction of plants and sessilities – organisms that do not have stems or supporting mechanisms – and the slow displacement over time of reptiles, mammals, birds, amphibians, insects, arachnids, fungi, etc. Generally we perceive the macro scale only, that is to say, the large animals, without considering the small and even microscopic organisms…
….After the construction is finalized, the indirect impact continues in the sense that ecosystems are altered and fragmented. As a result, there is a larger probability of their disappearance, due to changes in the climate and the use of soil.
The turbines, she says in an interview with Truthout, have had a disastrous effect on local flora and fauna. Read more.
By Charles Krauthammer National Post February 21, 2014
Computer models of climate change have been dead wrong, yet alarmists aim to quell debate.
I repeat: I’m not a global-warming believer. I’m not a global-warming denier. I’ve long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30, or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.
“The debate is settled,” asserted propagandist-in-chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. “Climate change is a fact.” Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge. Take a non-climate example. It was long assumed that mammograms help reduce breast cancer deaths. This fact was so settled that Obamacare requires every insurance plan to offer mammograms (for free, no less).
Now we learn from a massive randomized study — 90,000 women followed for 25 years — that mammograms may have no effect on breast-cancer deaths. Indeed, one out of five of of those diagnosed by mammogram receives unnecessary radiation, chemo, or surgery.
So much for settledness. And climate is less well understood than breast cancer. If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? And how is it that the great physicist Freeman Dyson, who did some climate research in the late 1970s, thinks today’s climate-change Cassandras are hopelessly mistaken? Read rest of article here.
Patrick Michaels Forbes Feb. 3,2014
Will the overselling of climate change lead to a new scientific dark age? That’s the question being posed in the latest issue of an Australian literary journal, Quadrant, by Garth Paltridge, one of the world’s most respected atmospheric scientists.
Paltridge was a Chief Research Scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO). The latter is Australia’s equivalent of the National Science Foundation, our massive Federal Laboratory network, and all the governmental agency science branches rolled into one.
Paltridge lays out the well-known uncertainties in climate forecasting. These include our inability to properly simulate clouds that are anything like what we see in the real world, the embarrassing lack of average surface warming now in its 17th year, and the fumbling (and contradictory) attempts to explain it away.
Read the rest of this article here.
You must see this interesting set of graphs. It shows how simple it is to tweak information, to suit your agenda. It looks reasonable, at first glance….LOL!
An article which digs deeper into the question about what the “Grassroots” issues are and potentially “What we NEED” to be addressing in the debate about Siting of a Turbine vs Fundamental Benefits for all…
Excerpts from the Article ring true for the Mothers Against Wind Turbines…Although the distance of people from the turbines is a significant issue for those currently suffering…the FACTS remain that:
Industrial Wind Turbines:
— They will not solve our energy issues (e.g. they most certainly do not reduce our dependence on imported oil).
— They are not, and never can be, a viable substitute for conventional energy sources (e.g. because they are not reliable, have no Capacity Value, are much more expensive, etc.).
— They will not solve our environmental problems (e.g. contrary to popular perception, they do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions in any meaningful way, due to their inherent limitations as an energy source).
Should we pursue the path to change the public perception of wind energy and call into question the fundamental viability of it? I say yes.
Read original article here: http://www.masterresource.org/2010/06/eric-bibler-to-the-grassroots/