Health Organizations Finally Realizing Wind Turbines Are Not Good –

“They cut a forest of half-truths to build a house of lies.” Jon Boone, environmentalist and former dean of the college of Arts and Science at University of Maryland. One of many statement’s he’s made about the wind industry.

As soon as Mr. Barnard volunteers to have one of these giants planted in his backyard, maybe I’ll start to give his opinion & “facts” some credence. Until that time…..it’s just like static in the background. I’m sure he’ll respond with, “Well, I live in a town, so that’s not possible, but IF I lived in the country, I’d welcome an industrial turbine as my neighbor”. Funny how most of those in favor of wind energy don’t have to pony up anything for it…….

They are building these to save us from global warming (man made style). But check out this petition with more than 30 thousand scientists saying its all lies. 9 thousand of them are Phd level.
http://www.petitionproject.org/

This Barnard dude looks like he just made up his little group so he could have a platform to spread industry-speak. It’s just him and a couple of friends who have the same interest in spreading green-wash lies. How much pollution was spread digging the rare earth minerals for these contraptions? Oh…that’s over in China so we can’t see that 1000 square miles are completely dead from this disaster. Yeah..that’s really caring about the environment isn’t it?

Mike Barnard is a disgusting vile individual who (for reasons known only to him) loves to spend his days trolling the internet spreading lies and misinformation about the wind industry. He professes that he has no financial interest in this activity, but it’s common knowledge by now that the only ones who still support this ill-advised, costly, environmentally damaging form of energy are those who either have a financial stake in the game or the green dupes who are too lazy to do their own research and find out how incredibly destructive these industrial machines are from the beginning to the end.

When you spread industrial size machinery too close to people and expect them to live around it, you’ll have problems. That is fairly obvious. Denials from industry ‘experts’ or self appointed green envirowackos are expected. Just because expensive studies are not done yet really doesn’t negate the likelihood that large industrial machines might cause health problems when people live too close to them. I’ll bet Mr. Barnard doesn’t anywhere near wind turbine zones. I’m willing to take people’s word for it they’re being hurt because its their experience to tell about.

Of course the loonies come out as soon as anyone tries raise a concern about the holy grail (wind energy). Mr. Barnard is a senior fellow at something called energy and policy institute. It states their goal is to go after anyone and investigate them if they speak against green energy because they assume that person must work for fossil fuel or be funded by fossil fuel. Interestingly the “energy and policy institute” has no physical address and no way to determine who is funding them. Not very transparent for a group that says it is trying to foster transparent discussions about energy. Just sayin…if you aren’t living it you’re not real. Barnard lists no real credentials for his involvement in energy issues either (business architect for IBM doesn’t cut it really). So .for me …Barnard’s comments = NOT REAL. For all I know its a boiler room operation to astroturf the issue for some PR firm that does work for the industry.

To Mr. Barnard,
You may not remember that anyone in the 1940s and 50s who said cigarette smoke was a health danger was laughed off the stage as a fear monger. You may also not remember that doctors and other scientists were paid by the industry to write in peer reviewed journals such as New England Journal of Medicine, et. al.,pretending that cigarette smoke posed no harm. Some of them even said it was good for your health.
My point is that when human profit motives are involved, science has taken a back seat many times. What industries stand to gain by shifting the economy of the world to a “new technology”? Wasn’t it the club of Rome back in the late 60s that said it needed to manufacture a crisis to “bring the world together”, and then named environmental problems as their choice?
Of course the climate is changing. But when one volcano spews more co2 than all of man’s activities in a year you cannot be serious when you blame man for the changes. That is so much rubbish it smells too rotten to even be funny in the least. Now I will grant you that most people are so ignorant they don’t understand how co2 could never cause global warming. Common people are easily fooled because they don’t understand science.
Cause and effect are hard to pin down, and easily the blame is laid at the alter of a false god (co2) Water vapor holds in far more heat than co2 ever could. Oh, yes, water vapor is a function of the sun heating the oceans and is out of the scope of man to control. Darn…the scientists will have to put up some other lie that is more easily foisted off on the dumbed down public. The lie of man-made global warming through co2 and man’s industrial activities.
As for the “consensus” of science, gosh..that was the same religious orthodoxy that kept everyone believing the earth was flat now wasn’t it? Anyone who dared challenge the “consensus” of the self-proclaimed protectors of science were burned at the stake. The talk of consensus is the antithesis of science. Anyone who subscribes to an idea by consensus is not a scientist but instead a cheerleader for someone’s claims.
True scientists test claims and make their own findings, and those who are disagreeing with the “consensus” are far more believable than their faith-based counterparts who are hoping to convince you of an idea because lots of other people subscribe to that same idea. How many of these so-called scientists stand to benefit monetarily from staying in the orthodoxy? How much orthodoxy has blinded science to the true answers we need? How long will the faith-based believers in wind and climate orthodoxy remain stuck in a flat-earth consensus religion?
Some good reading for Mr. Barnard and anyone else who doesn’t understand what I’m saying here would be the book “Trust Us, We’re Experts.” You’ll soon learn who is behind orthodoxies and expert manipulations.

Well, the ‘Divisions Director’ is ignoring the 20 literature reviews worldwide which have found no harm from wind turbines, as well as the 47 of 48 court cases in the USA, Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand which found no harm from wind farms as well.
barnardonwind.com/2013/02/17/wind-farms-dont-make-people-sick-so-why-the-complaints…
barnardonwind.com/2014/02/23/wind-energy-health-concerns-fail-the-test-of-law-repeatedly…
Add to that the ‘Division Director’ is apparently a global warming denier who ignores the 97% of climate science papers and 98% of climate scientists who agree that “It’s real, it’s us and it’s serious” as a conservative finance guy in the US recently put it, and you start to see a pattern.
theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange…
Sorry, a medical industry guy who obviously isn’t interested in reality based decision making isn’t that great a choice to quote.