I can’t remember having written a letter to a newspaper before. I, too, have been following the debate in The Gazette regarding ‘man-made global warming’.
I consider myself to be a rational, intelligent and well-educated woman.
Like all your previous correspondents, whom, I have to assume in the absence of any claims to the contrary, are, like me, unqualified in the ways of climatology, I, too, have had to form my opinion by reading the same books, features, papers, newspaper articles and all the other written and verbal submissions that are available to them. I started out with an open mind.
I, too, have seen and considered the lies, deceit, fabrications and other dishonourable behaviour by many involved in the promotion of the warming argument like the ‘important peer reviewed paper’ reputedly by a ‘scientist/climatologist’ that, in fact, turned out to have been the homework of a student that had been copied from the internet.
I have also noted that the ‘scientist’ who is head of the International Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, is not a scientist or climatologist. He is, in fact, a railway engineer. He has faced demands to stand down as a result of the IPCC releasing erroneous and scaremongering reports etc on projected glacier-melt reports etc, which were seriously flawed.
He, at least, acknowledged there had been no warming for 17 years, later toned down after peer pressure. I have also noted The Hadley Centre/CRU records which show no warming for 18 years (v.3) or 19 years (v.4) and the RSS satellite dataset showing no warming for 23 years.
I, too, have noted the unforgivable use of the word ‘deniers’, given to anyone who doesn’t agree with the orthodoxy in order to discredit them.
The words used to describe the other side such as warmists and ecomentalists are mild in comparison.
I have also noted the way anyone who questions the superior virtue of the warmists’ higher morality is subject to a vitriolic verbal assault.
I, too, have also seen the truly awful dishonesty of many politicians who are pushing the global warming theme and have vested financial interests in doing so.
I, too, saw the reports on how the ‘green impact’ of the manufacture of wind turbines was completely distorted to get them accepted. The calculations were based on a lifespan of 25 years, which, after acceptance, was reduced to eight to 10 years.
The predictions of the energy they could produce was based on the maximum output and didn’t take into account that when the wind was frequently not strong enough, they couldn’t produce anything, or when it was too strong, they had to be switched off. I could go on.
All of this does not convince me, nor, I have to say, anyone else in my social circle, but I do recognise that any potentially damaging emissions should be reduced. However, this debate needs to be put aside for the moment and it is purely incidental whether or not one believes in global warming or not.
What is of paramount importance to the people of Northumberland is the wind turbine debacle.
No one in their right mind can possibly truthfully think that they are the right way to cut carbon emissions, such is their huge inefficiency.
I read accusations that people who protest against them are just ‘nimbies’. In my humble opinion, every person on the planet, just about, is a nimby when something threatens their home environment. I also see the use of the words ‘inappropriately-placed windfarms’.
They are all inappropriately placed, no matter where they are. They dramatically affect the environment, the landscape, wildlife, jobs and many, many people.
The people who push for windfarms for other people to suffer have been described as IDAMs, (it doesn’t affect me) but despite this, the indefensible waste of our money on these inefficient turbines is truly shocking.
I know there are a lot of people in Northumberland who would love to support the people of Belford in their fight against their turbine threat, but who are frightened that if they do and the application for nine turbines is blocked, it may mean they are instead built near them.
Hugely subsidised wind turbines are a failed experiment that have cost taxpayers, and are continuing to cost taxpayers, massively, for very little return. It is truly a very divisive and damaging policy which is leading to a lot of anger and resentment and it really has to stop. If shale gas and oil can give us some real respite until another truly efficient renewable energy source is developed, then we have to accept it.
Name and address supplied.