Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Shale and water | Main | Stern not related to environment »

The low-down on windfarms

The Scottish Wild Land Group has published a special edition of its members magazine devoted to the desecration of the landscape by windfarms. This has been made available to everybody here.

It features articles by Pat Swords, Helen McDade from the John Muir Trust, and John Constable from the Renewable Energy Foundation, among many others.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (25)

The link does not seem to be working

Jun 24, 2013 at 2:39 PM | Unregistered Commenterpesadia

It's a direct link to a largish PDF file, so won't appear immediately.

Jun 24, 2013 at 2:41 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp


got it thanks

Jun 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM | Unregistered Commenterpesadia

And an article by Christine Lovelock, James Lovelock's daughter, who is a strong campaigner in north Devon.

Jun 24, 2013 at 3:01 PM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Will be interesting to see what The Scotsman - normally reliably pro-wind - makes of this. Or maybe it'll just ignore it.

Jun 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

On a quick first look, it seems to an awful lot of good sense.

But it does not seem to question the "CO2 = CAGW" myth - perhaps rightly if it's publishers want it to achieve their objectives.

Jun 24, 2013 at 5:17 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

It is long since past time for people who care about the environment to push back against the blight and destruction of wind mills.

Jun 24, 2013 at 5:53 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Page 17 of the report - "a picture is worth a thousand words"

Jun 24, 2013 at 6:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterMD

Martin A:

I daresay you're right about it containing a lot of good sense. And I will certainly read it to find out.

But, at my initial attempt, I gave up after reading this in the opening Editorial:

We are frequently told that the problems associated with wind farms are necessary ‘collateral damage’ as a consequence of our country’s essential fight against anthropogenic climate change. While we recognise the urgent need for such a fight, we are not convinced that the tactics being employed are justified or even helpful, making their collateral damage little better than wanton vandalism.
[My emphasis]

That's a lot more than merely not questioning 'the "CO2 = CAGW" myth'.

Jun 24, 2013 at 7:18 PM | Registered CommenterRobin Guenier

The report is missing something. It should have a dedication - "to Alex Salmond without whom this work would not have been possible." After all, as it says on page 18:

Thanks to Mr Salmond's enthusiasm for turbines (he recently that tourists will come here just to see them) Scotland's countryside is carrying the main burden of the UK's wind energy programme.

If anyone in the Scottish tourist industry agrees with Alex Salmond they ought to hold a competition. The first prize would be one week touring Scotland's wind farms; the second prize - two weeks!

Jun 24, 2013 at 7:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoy

I am a mountaineer and love the Scottish countryside (although not always the attendant rain and midges!). However, the issue is not whether wind farms look pretty (they don't) but that they are an economically dumb solution to a probably non-problem.

I suspect that many of the contributors would have howled with outrage if the egregious example of a classic graphic fallacy (page17) were to be used for a purpose they didn't approve of. It amuses me to see them use it.

Jun 24, 2013 at 7:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve

Martin A:

I daresay you're right about it containing a lot of good sense. And I will certainly read it to find out.

But, at my initial attempt, I gave up after reading this in the opening Editorial:

(...)While we recognise the urgent need for such a fight(...)

[My emphasis]

That's a lot more than merely not questioning 'the "CO2 = CAGW" myth'.
Jun 24, 2013 at 7:18 PM Robin Guenier

You are right. I agree.

Two thoughts:

1. If you look at things as seen from the outside world, with the Royal Society, the Met Office, the United Nations, 97% of scientists, the BBC, and every school science teacher, presenting a seamless tapestry spelling out that "CO2 = CAGW" is an established scientific fact, it would be surprising if the publishers pointed out that this is without evidence and the Royal Society, the Met Office, the United Nations, 97% of scientists, the BBC, and every school science teacher are in fact all talking rubbish, despite your and my belief that it's fact.

2. The document paints the clearest and most lucid picture I have yet come across of some aspects of the impact of The Madness. This document will probably change little or nothing on its own but a succession of publications like this will play their part in bringing the eventual end of the great delusion.

Jun 24, 2013 at 8:23 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin A:

Re your first thought - I wouldn't for a moment expect (or wish) the Editorial to spell out a reasoned criticism of the CAGW mantra. That would be provocative and likely to undermine any good that might be done by the publication. But to go to the other extreme and overtly endorse both the mantra and the need for urgent action is disappointing - quite possibly an example of Stockholm syndrome. It would have been perfectly possible to have phrased the matter in a neutral, nuanced and non provocative manner.

Re your second thought - sounds encouraging. This battle will be won by such small steps.

Jun 24, 2013 at 8:56 PM | Registered CommenterRobin Guenier

Wind turbines are simply a charade being a regressive form of tax that transfers wealth from energy users, many of whom are poor, to wealthy landowners. Any impact on the environment is secondary and minor. One day we will all look back and laugh. Well, the landowners will. The legacy for our children is that they have to pay the subsidies.

Jun 24, 2013 at 9:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterArgusfreak

Big Story: Some freak at the White House has deleted a message from Steve Goddard First Amendment breach (tax paid site) check it out its breaking now

Jun 24, 2013 at 10:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterEliza

Major alert.

The most bizarre and ridiculous green edict yet !!!!

Scottish island malt whisky distillers have been told to stop using peat as part of their distillation process.

This ingredient made them distinct from the Speyside malts for example.

Ardbeg, Bunnahabhain, Laphroaig, Lagavulin, Bowmore and several other single malt will no longer taste the same.

This to combat climate change.

The lunatics are in full control of the asylum

Jun 24, 2013 at 10:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterBryan

Now the warmists have gone too far, way, way too for. Not just a bridge too far but an ocean too far. THEY HAVE MESSED WITH THE TASTE OF SCOTCH WHISKEY. This goofiness will doom AGW!!!!

Jun 24, 2013 at 11:40 PM | Unregistered Commenterstan stendera


Jun 24, 2013 at 11:41 PM | Unregistered Commenterstan stendera

Perhaps these Brits are the only lucky ones not forced to subsidise their wind energy- we've already done that for them with our precious ring fenced foreign aid budget, to the tune of £29,800/head:

'£1.49 million spent since 2006 on a wind turbine scheme on Pitcairn, an island in the Pacific Ocean settled by the Bounty mutineers, which has a population of about 50 and where electricity has been provided by a diesel generator'

Bet they still need the diesel generator though.

Jun 25, 2013 at 12:35 AM | Registered CommenterPharos

Scottish island malt whisky distillers have been told to stop using peat as part of their distillation process
The Sixties gave us "That Was The Week That Was" - I remember enjoying its anarchic humour.
Now we're afflicted by "The Weak-minded That Rule us"
Peat and Duds brought up to date is no longer funny!
Time to say Goodbye..
To democracy, common-sense and political sanity.
A thousand years of progress and struggle p*ssed away by a greedy, self-seeking and sanctimonius bunch of thieving bast*rds.
I can understand the motives of the politicians- Vote for me and I'll rule over you - Scorpions can't help themselves.
But, the journalists and media commentators, how did they sink so low?
Sorry folks - I wiz only acting under orders - didn't work in the forties and won't work in the present.
Brown Coal and Draxian tree-chopping may be better for our children and their children than durdy peat in our national drink but if we could take the latter and turn it into a fuel that would be classified as a bio-renewable then 5-star Scotch may just become the tank-topper of the future.

Jun 25, 2013 at 12:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoyFOMR

Of all the Green lunacy out there, the destruction of the Scottish landscape is the most profoundly depressing act of all

Jun 25, 2013 at 2:04 AM | Registered CommenterAndy Scrase

As I suspected. Totally ignored by The Scotsman.

I wonder why? (innocent face).

Jun 25, 2013 at 6:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

No need to worry, I assume they can carry on shipping the peat to the Goa distillery.

Jun 25, 2013 at 7:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterRob Burton

It is the cheerful, enthusiastic and rent seeking destruction of the wide open spaces by AGW fanatics that is the biggest indicator that they and their political cronies do not give a fig about the environment, wildlife, or the climate.

Jun 25, 2013 at 10:07 AM | Unregistered Commenterlurker, passing through laughing

I started reading the article but gave up as they agreed that we must ration our energy usage because wind farms will not deliver and are expensive. I do agree with Mr. Scrase above the damage to the land will be permanent, the foundations will be almost impossible to get rid of and by then the ground will be ruined completely. Wind Farms will destroy the Scottish Countryside, well done Salmond, that should do wonders for the tourist industry!

Jun 25, 2013 at 11:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterDerek Buxton

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>