Wednesday, 18 September 2013

Windfarms going the way of mobile phone towers

You could be forgiven for thinking that I have an axe to grind on the topic of windfarms. I think this is the third post I have made about them, mostly in response to websites like www.stopthesethings.com.


(My new favorite post is this one:
"Secret report on wind farms to reveal turbines have slashed ‘billions’ from the value of rural homes The Daily Mail 23 August 2013 Wind farms have slashed ‘billions’ from the value of rural homes, a secret Government report is expected to disclose. " 
Read: "Secret Report," "expected to disclose" and the best of it. "The Daily Mail.")

So you can imagine my satisfaction to read this article on InDaily (S Chapman, "Money: the 'cure' for wind turbine syndrome", InDaily, 18 September 2013). Its conclusion was that in the late 90s, there were huge fears about mobile phone towers causing harm to humans. Welp, you can see that all the mobile towers were cut down, and their land sewn with salt... oh wait, no.

Which brings me back to grinding axes, and conspiracies. Ok, I just brought that up, but have a look at the 'stopthesethings' site.


Mixed in amongst the Motivational 'love thy neighbour' posts is a disturbing trend in their writing. Starting with a post called "Sarah Laurine on Alan Jone's [sic] show" (link here) on 16 September 2013 (anonymous) is this gem:
"Sarah Laurie was interviewed by Alan Jones last week. Alan has a little radio show that more than just a few Australians tune into each morning. Syndicated through over 77 Stations and with close to 2 million listeners Countrywide – AJ as he’s known – is one of those people that leads the political charge on many issues that really affect ordinary Australians and which the rest of the press ignore.For a truly brilliant interview click on the player below or watch the movie (non-flash devices)."
I posted a link to the InDaily report on the above thread, but discovered that my comments would be moderated. I will keep an eye on the thread to see if it gets published!

I have previously blogged about how rhetorical arguments and inflated verbiage actually detracts from a debate. Take this for example: I want to convince you that the sky is green, and I have a study which supports that supposition. Here are two arguments.

"Dr Green's report, released on XYZ Publishing on 24 June 2013, surprisingly supported the argument that the sky was green, rather than the generally accepted blue."
And this:
"NEW EVIDENCE! Dr Green proves that the sky is obviously green with incontrovertible evidence. There can't be any doubt in anyone's mind any more, the evidence is overwhelming!"
Now, I am overblowing things a little. For a start, the bigoted, inane fanatic in the second line probably wouldn't understand the word 'incontrovertible' without the assistance of urbandictionary.com, but you see the difference.

With that in mind, have a read of these headlines:

  • "Hold on Macarthur - the Coalition-Cavalry are coming"
  • "Australia dodges an energy price spiral bullet"
    • "With the Coalition about to take the reins - and the line up taking control of the Senate next July even more hostile to the great wind power fraud than we could have hoped for..."
  • "Sarah Laurie on Alan Jone's Show."
Firstly, notice the tendency to think the Libs are going to stop the wind farms? Might have something to do with a lack of a science minister! (#noscienceminister)

Then look at how self-congratulatory the whole site is... from having a counter showing blog 'hits' to this post:
Nine months on, we’ve just hit quarter of a million 270,000 280,000 views. We’ve given our loyal readers 333 357 367 posts which spell out – in clear and simple terms – the economic and environmental nonsense that is wind power – and the harm caused to communities around the world by giant fans.

("280,000 hits and still going strong" August 11 2013, anonymous)

None of this self-congratulatory, self-aggrandising rhetoric gives anything to support the claims they make. I remain hopeful of finding a wind-power skeptic who can speak without shouting, or point to any non-anecdotal evidence in support of their claims.

No comments:

Post a Comment