Protesting Wind Farms: Our Template Letter

Written by Hans Schreuder

As more citizens protest to local planners against unwanted and unneeded wind farms, Hans Schreuder shares with readers his submission to one foolhardy authority.no wind farms

Dear Planning Department,

Re: Proposed Wind Farm

As a retired analytical scientist, having studied the issues surrounding so-called “man-made global warming” for the past eight years and living within the visual range of the proposed wind turbines, I feel it is my duty to inform you of the following scientific facts, government policy based on government scientists notwithstanding.

Chancellor George Osborn MP made this statement last week – “We’ve got to make more cuts. That’s why 2014 is the year of hard truths – the year when Britain faces a choice” – and one hard truth is that “man-made climate change” does not exist other than in computer programmes and the corridors of power in academia and politics.

These are but a small selection of hard truths:

1. In the absence of any discernible global warming since 1998, despite a continued increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, the name of the issue was changed to “man-made climate change”, which then got even further distorted to “man-made climate variation” or any number of variants along those lines. The mass-hypnosis by most of the mainstream media has now got the public so far that the mention of just the word “climate change” insidiously implies “man-made climate change”.

2. Since the first mention of “man-made global warming” and despite billions of dollars and Pounds having been spent on the issue, there is not one single scientifically acceptable item of evidence to link any temperature change or any climate change to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide. What is scientific fact is that natural changes in earth’s climate, driven mostly by solar events coupled with earth’s position within our solar system, have an effect upon the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, but never ever the other way around! Horse pulls cart; cart does not push horse.

3. The entire so-called “scientific basis” for CO2 driven temperatures and or climate change is 100% false; it’s like looking in a mirror: the truth is the exact opposite of what governmental climate scientists will have you believe. Let anyone prove beyond a shadow of doubt that CO2 in the open atmosphere causes warming! They can’t because it’s impossible! An experiment in a bottle to prove that CO2 is a “warming gas” is a criminal distortion of the truth! Out in the open atmosphere, CO2 acts in exactly the opposite way: a coolant! It has to, based on it very physical properties of radiating.

4. The amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide that is produced as a result of human actions amounts to a mere 3% of the total, a figure proposed by the UN IPCC. The other 97% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is a perfectly naturally occurring increase due to past natural climate change and which has been adequately reported on in scientific literature.

 Not wanting to drown you in scientific facts, allow me to instead to suggest that you invite your best scientific adviser(s) to a meeting where they can set out their reasons for the “man-made” tag in what is a perfectly naturally occurring climate change scenario that has been recorded and scientifically investigated for centuries. After that I will explain where it all went wrong and that there is no such mechanism as “man-made” climate change.

Taking the above into account, there is thus no need at all for one more wind turbine.

It may also interest you that a Dutch study of wind turbines has proved that when all factors are taken into account, a wind turbine adds to the total amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide and not any reduction! The study reports:

“The alleged savings provided by wind projects that could cover 20%, 40% or 60% of the electricity demand during favourable winds are not just negligible, they are even negative, when the most known relevant factors are taken into account. As we remarked before, there is substantial evidence that a life time of 15 year is not an exaggeration. We mentioned the park that had to be renewed after 12 years. That was an onshore development. The projects to be constructed off shore operate under more difficult circumstances. Therefore we conclude: NON-SUSTAINABLE – A 300 MW nameplate wind project near Schiphol on August 28, 2011, a normal windy day, during 21,5 h would have increased the amount of natural gas needed for the electricity production of 500 MW with 47150 m3 gas. This would have caused an extra emission of 117,9 ton CO2 into the atmosphere.” (http://www.clepair.net/windSchiphol.html)

There is so much more to consider than just the “nameplate capacity” of any turbine. Best performance figures rate any turbine at only 30% efficient, at most! Would you run a car or a train that only moved for one-third of its journey?

Finally, the indiscriminate slaughter of bats and birds does not seem to bother the proponents of wind turbines and neither does the prospect of ice shards being projected at 100 miles per hour onto a major trunk road as and when weather conditions are just right. All it takes is one instance and one fatal accident when prevention is easy to achieve.

The reasons for constructing any turbine seem only to take a narrow view of all issues to consider, government subsidies being a major one – making the consumer pay twice for the same amount of power.

Please see through the hype that surrounds wind turbines: they are not “green” at all, are not environmentally friendly at all and are most certainly not sustainable. Serious and long-term damaging ground and air pollution caused during extraction of the minerals used and processes to make the magnets in Mongolia and China is conveniently kept from sight, as is the human suffering of the local population in those far-away places where labour is exceedingly cheap.

Yours sincerely,

Hans Schreuder

Senior Fellow

Principia Scientific International

Comments (1)

  • Avatar

    John Marshall

    |

    Brilliant letter, but will be ignored. I have tried, through my MP Sir Peter Tapsell a known sceptic, to get any reaction let alone action and got nowhere.

Comments are closed