The Importance Of Hearing Opposing Opinions

20171031_151953

Disappointingly, nobody has so far dared venture an opposing point of view in the comments section of this blog, despite open invitations to all those whose pro-wind policies and propaganda I have criticised. The best dialogue has thus far all come from fellow Wind Warriors!

Hence it’s left for me to debate myself, to try and come up with my own antitheses to the points made on this blog. This requires a degree of empathy: genuinely trying to step inside the shoes of those who might have the opposite opinion, attempting to see the world through their eyes, and trying to consider how my plain speaking makes you readers feel. It really does matter how we make people feel – I know, because this whole blog is all about how wind turbines make ME feel, and I myself took issue with the emotionless man from Friends Of The Earth at the Gorpley planning meeting who seemed too technocratic in his approach, too dismissive of human emotion, too stuck on a list of numbers on a piece of paper, and not passionate enough about the magic of the wild, unspoilt moors.

The trick, of course, is to have head and heart in lockstep. As long as emotions are tightly attached to facts and science, we are functioning exactly the way we were intended. Amygdala hijacks (if you’ve forgotten, they’re sudden, intense rushes of negative emotion, aka temper tantrums, freakouts, meltdowns etc etc) are perfectly explicable and in keeping with the laws of nature. Annoy your cat if you don’t believe me! The scratch marks on your arm will be a direct result of science and feelings coming together in your moggie’s brain.

I have to prove that my negative feelings have a rational, logical and scientifically explainable cause. What I ask those with the opposite opinion to do is to pick apart where the negative emotions displayed in this blog seem out of alignment with hard science, and that’s where the high-level intellectual discourse and detective work come in. My words are evidence that wind turbines have had a negative impact on my feelings; the challenge is to work out, with hard science, what the exact physiological process is. Is it triggered by the look, the sound, the concept etc? Is it only when things go wrong that symptoms set in (eg corruption, malpractice etc), or is it the very essence of wind turbines working exactly as they are meant to that sets me off?

This blog is basically an extended and public journal of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy on myself, done in public to submit the findings for “peer review”, and also to provide inspiration and support to those who might also be suffering, but haven’t got the time or wherewithal to really go to town on the topic. On a wider note, it’s also part of my concerted effort to remove any stigma about mental health being something only people with problems need to concern themselves with. Far from it, we should all be mindful of our mental health at all times, in exactly the same way we are conscious of our physical health.

Feel free to call me names if you don’t like reading what I have to say, but a much more useful and constructive use of time would be to cross-examine me forensically, in order to prove which of my claims don’t stack up scientifically..

Because I rarely talk about wind energy outside the context of a serious in-depth discussion with those who have some knowledge of the topic, I can only draw upon a handful of real-life, pro-wind points of view to challenge my own opinions. They derive mainly from two sources: (a) those who have proven with their actions that they support wind turbines – whether it be developers, councils, landowners or advertisers; and (b) comments in online debates, which offer scant information about the identity of the posters, merely the opinions themselves.

Not that I want to stalk them or attack them on the street for supporting wind; but it would be nice to get some more information about the demographics of those who post pro-wind comments on web forums, even nicer still to engage with them in a more detailed discourse on the topic. What sort of areas do they live in? Where are their nearest turbines? On what do they base their opinions about wind energy? How old are they? Are they for real or are they part of an astroturf campaign? As it is, I just have to guess and intuit from the limited information available.

There is another awkward question that I’d love to be asked from these mysterious posters on The Guardian. You’ll get a better debate here between I and I than you will on the whole Grauniad website, so grab some popcorn…

I certainly wasn’t bothered in the slightest by having someone in The Guardian call my opening post “Bollocks” (presumably that also includes the 63 peer-reviewed examples of “bollocks” I linked to!); far from it, I wanted to reach out and talk more to this person, to find out why they thought what they did, and to ask them if, say, a Drive-Thru McDonalds taking over their local nature reserve would be equally as “majestic” as a power station on a mountain?! Sadly, The Guardian yanked me out the room before I’d even taken off my coat and gloves!

So here’s the question:

Taking their comments at face value, there are still an awful lot of people on The Guardian’s website who like wind farms and don’t have a problem with them. Why is your opinion more important than theirs? Why should the government favour your anti-wind farm position over those who like wind farms?

It’s precisely because wind farm supporters’ opinions are important to me that I try to engage with them and find out more about what makes them tick! I just want to learn WHY they think what they think, and what I would say to everyone is: if you found out your reason for thinking something was based on a lie, or merely false claims with no real basis on reality, would you still think it?

Were someone to put their hands up and say, “You know, I realise the wind industry really isn’t “saving the planet” as it claims, but, that said, I still like the look of turbines; moors are kind of boring and these metallic spiders make the skyline more interesting…”, that’d be a valid, intellectually-sound, if aesthetically-challenged, viewpoint. It’s one I call the “Guilty Pleasure” viewpoint, and each of us has things we know logically to be wrong, but we still like. That’s fine, that’s part of being human! It’s why we call gorgeous chocolate gateau “Death By Chocolate” om nom… but would you really take someone seriously who claimed chocolate cake could replace toothpaste; for optimum dental health simply stuff your face with cake all afternoon?!

I sometimes wonder if I do the flipside: that the very act of being a Wind Warrior is in itself a Guilty Pleasure, that the science really is settled that wind turbines are a force for good, and it’s just an excuse for me to prance about like some cheesy TV cop, wasting everyone’s time and energy when science and progress are clearly against me? I ask myself this every day, when even I wonder if this is an absurd topic to devote so much time and effort to. However the self-doubt lasts precisely as long as it takes for my news feed to pop up with some new incident of gratuitous eco-destruction and crimes against humanity. Stuff like this:

https://stopthesethings.com/2017/11/20/outrageous-wind-farm-plan-for-battlefield-graveyard-draws-fury-from-french-australians/

Therefore, rather than shutting out opposing opinions, l’d rather reach out and specifically ask those supporters of wind power WHY they like it so much. Do stories like the above have any bearing on their support for wind power schemes? What would make them stop supporting them? I’ve even done this myself regarding Sajid Javid, and I’ve kept it all up there as an example of critical thinking in action. I spent the first half of a blog entry singing his praises, before returning at the end of the blog to say I’ve found out more information that has modified my opinion somewhat; I still like him and give him the benefit of the doubt, but blindly supporting him would have unintended consequences were I not to acknowledge that he might want to build loads of houses all over the countryside.

That’s what I ask of wind supporters. Do some critical thinking and let me know where you draw the line. Wind turbines on Arthur’s Seat? Great Gable? Mam Tor??? Let’s work together to come to an agreement about what is acceptable and what’s not. Nuance and keeping an open mind are essential, whilst never losing sight of our core beliefs… If we MUST have wind turbines, let’s have a proper conversation about where to put them, what their effects are, do they actually do what it says on the tin, and what penalties are in place should they do more harm than good?

To prove the point even further about the need to deal with opposing opinions, here’s (gasp) a video that looks, on the surface, like a pure Win for wind energy. I’d be lying were I not to incorporate this into the discourse…

See, I’ll always give voice to those opposite opinions! The retort to that one is actually quite easy, in fact. Of course Scotland’s wind capacity is at an all-time high, there’s more wind turbines built than they’ve ever had before! If I buy more speakers I can play my music louder, duh. Plaster the countryside with millions of turbines and I daresay when the wind blows you will indeed be able to generate more electricity than if you had fewer turbines, that goes without saying.

The trouble is, when you have days like these…

http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/15664722.Good_day_is_bad_for_renewables/

And what happens when, no matter how much wind power you can generate, you still end up with higher CO2 emissions???

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/10/10/why-arent-renewables-decreasing-germanys-carbon-emissions/#46490e1768e1

So, let’s just recap. I’m not saying my opinions on wind farms are any more important than anyone else’s and that we shouldn’t listen to pro-wind supporters, or that they should be “splattered” for daring to have an opinion that I don’t share. Rather than belittle or sideline those who might have an opposing opinion, I am proactively reaching out to them to learn more about WHY they support wind energy.

I’ve merely presented scientific evidence that wind farms increase incidences of suicide, they lower property prices and spoil landscapes, they don’t work almost 75% of the time, and even when they do work, they don’t actually lower CO2 emissions.

I’m simply asking if any of this changes anyone’s opinion about wind farms. Now you know that they trigger suicides, they destroy the natural wilderness, and they don’t even lower CO2 emissions anyway… what exactly about them DO you like???

EDIT: Craven Council have replied to my FOI Request, and their short (but relatively prompt) reply only confirms what I’ve been saying all along: they keep no performance metrics for the turbines under their jurisdiction, they allow them with absolutely no knowledge of whether they do any good or not.

THIS IS MADNESS!

“I confirm that the Council does not hold any recorded information to answer your request. However, to be helpful you may wish to contact the National Grid who may have details on surplus energy provided to the Grid by such wind turbines:

https://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/contact-us “ 

Well thanks for replying Craven… yet again you make my point for me:

EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL! EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL! EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL!

Essentially Craven are saying, “Don’t look at us to take responsibility for the turbines on our watch. We just allow them to infect our countryside. We don’t have a clue whether they actually do any good or not. And it’s not our issue anyway…” Well it damn well should be!

And what’s all this about “surplus energy supplied to the Grid by such wind turbines”? What does “surplus” mean?

“More than what is needed or used; excess”

So it appears that Craven Council have just admitted (perhaps deliberately, although they couldn’t possibly comment…) that any energy produced by wind turbines is totally surplus to requirements, totally superfluous, totally unnecessary and of absolutely no benefit whatsoever to an efficient and effective energy supply. What a complete and utter waste of space!

Advertisements

Kirklees & Craven Councils – Sh*tting On Their Own Doorsteps!

20171113_144915.jpg

The more I think about it, the more I’m troubled by The Guardian deleting my comments, and their total lack of response to my email.

Just stop and think through what has transpired:

In the comments section below an article about the impact of wind turbines, The Guardian secretly deleted three links to scientific research proving their harmful effects.

These links ARE the news, for crying out loud, not the inane drivel churned out by the Grauniad’s fourth-division partisan hacks! And I have better subbing skills, to boot. Whoever deleted my comments must have a very dark heart indeed. Whoever has read my email and failed to respond must too have a very dubious set of ethics (why give out the Reader’s Editor’s email address if you’re not going to reply to messages from readers?).

What a nasty bunch of people at The Guardian, a total disgrace to the noble profession of journalism. It takes a special kind of twisted misanthropy to promote the use of wind turbines whilst deliberately covering up the scientific evidence that they increase incidences of suicide. Here’s that evidence again, no apologies for repeating it over and over:

https://peakproductionscouk.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/beaa6-turbine_zou201710.pdf

THAT is the real news!

Luckily, nature is on hand to restore some balance to the distorted techno-bubble in which these Guardian columnists reside. And guess what, it appears as if nature has struck again! I could not believe my eyes when I spotted a couple of workers in high-vis jackets astride the nacelle of one of the dreaded Scammonden Three I’ve contacted Kirklees Council about. As I say in the following video, nobody climbs a turbine for fun, so the chances are there’s some fault or other. That said, I can’t rule out routine maintenance (maybe even as a direct result of my drawing the risks of the turbine to the attention of the council).

Here are the planning documents for the Scammonden Three. Clear as mud, aren’t they?!

http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/beta/planning-applications/search-for-planning-applications/detail.aspx?id=20122f91075

http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/beta/planning-applications/search-for-planning-applications/detail.aspx?id=2012%2f90540

These documents reveal that the person behind the turbines is none other than my nemesis Matthew Titmarsh (sorry Tidmarsh), head honcho of turbine manufacturers DC21 – is that as in Agenda 21? I’ve bantered with Matthew before, he knows me and my work, and he knows I’m out to close down his business. That’s his van and his handiwork in my avatar photo… my facial expression says it all.

I suspect, deep down, Matthew might even grudgingly respect me, the way Columbo villains grudgingly respect the Lieutenant’s tenacity and sleuthing skills!

b77kjDr

One thing’s for sure: two of the turbines I’ve had under close surveillance have mysteriously stopped working since I started blogging about them. Spooky! Check out my video “Toxic Turbines In Scammonden”. What powers have I unleashed??? Is the downtime of these toxic turbines factored into the capacity claims of the manufacturers, one wonders?

I’ve not yet got round to debunking this classic trope of turbine fraud. It’s along the lines of broadband sales-pitch: the total “capacity” is normally quoted, as in: “The new wind farm has the capacity to power 5,000 homes”. What this really means is that, working at top speed, without a break, from the very moment they are erected until the very moment they are taken down, if the wind blew constantly (but not too hard), the turbines could potentially generate a certain amount of power. How this relates to homes isn’t clear.

What happens to the actual generated output when the wind stops, however, or when the men in high-vis jackets have to switch off the turbine in order to prevent its blades flying off?

A more useful figure is the “capacity factor”, which unsurprisingly is rarely quoted. The capacity factor is the percentage of the total capacity actually achievable, and get this, you rarely find a capacity factor of more than 30% of the total capacity. Scout Moor’s is 27%, so instantly our 5,000 homes powered by wind turbines is down to around 1,300. Or, if you prefer, the 5,000 homes being powered for barely 100 a days of the year, with nobody knowing in advance exactly which days those will be!

Each of you reading has the capacity to win a million pounds on the Lottery. Try asking the bank manager for a loan based on this capacity alone! I have the capacity to date a different supermodel every night. I have the capacity to rob a bank or jump off a cliff. I certainly have the capacity to spend the rest of my life bombing wind turbines!

What really counts is the ACTUAL ACHIEVED PERFORMANCE, under real-life conditions. (When it comes to destroying turbines, needless to say, my capacity factor is limited to words, not explosives!)

Looking at the falling-apart wind infrastructure around Scammonden, the capacity factor of each faulty turbine is currently ZERO!

I’ve a new council to pick a bone with. Craven Council, watch your inbox for some Freedom of Information requests relating to the horrific turbine at Sandford Farm. Reading through the article below, I see yet again it’s a struggling business relying on the turbine to survive. How??? I would dearly love to know how the turbine actually makes money for the farm. How well has it performed? How much less CO2 is there in the atmosphere since the imposition of this ghastly turbine upon the Dales?

Where are the stats, goddammit?

And what, pray tell, was turning the blades at the time I caught the turbine spinning rapidly in very light winds?

Maybe if we didn’t allow the supermarket chains like Tesco to greenwash their way to profit, smaller businesses like Sandford Farm wouldn’t need turbine subsidies to survive!

http://www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/10976288.Planners_approve_100ft_wind_turbine_at_Rathmell/

It’s not just the Sandford Farm turbine that has got my gander up, it’s the dozens of inappropriate turbines dotted around the countryside south of Skipton. The whole area between Addingham, Crosshills, Cowling and Earby has been transformed from rolling green hills into a revolting, industrialised toilet. Yet again the wind turbines make the area look tired, degraded, deprived, shabby and second-rate.

Whatever electricity is generated by wind turbines is merely energy transferred away from nature, humanity and the Earth.

Yet again we’ve found a way of de-energising the planet for money. This latest scam goes by the name of “clean, green energy”. Clean as in laundered money; Green as in dollar bills. 

What a sick joke.

How to game the system… it’s all here in DC21’s website. “Turn the wind on your land into REVENUE”.

https://www.dc21group.com/

Fetch the suitcase from the van, Rodney…

Series 4

EDIT: Yet again I wonder if I’m coming across as too harsh and sarcastic. It’s just about punchy prose that gives people a bit of a jolt. I mentioned capacity factors; well on the afternoon of 15th November 2017, the capacity factor of every single wind turbine I spotted, from Knostrop, Leeds to Tow Law, County Durham (visible from 20 miles away!) was a big fat ZERO. Check the stats, if you can, but not a single wind turbine for a good hundred miles was spinning yesterday afternoon. Not a single home in the North East was powered by the wind. Not even enough power to bake a stottie!

EDIT 2: Some late news updates. Firstly, a massive thank-you to one of my very favourite websites, Australia’s Stop These Things, who have linked to one of my posts. “STT welcomes Britain’s Peak Protection Force”, they write. In return, STT are given a very warm welcome here! Feel free to add to the discourse any time 🙂

https://stopthesethings.com/2017/11/17/what-the-wind-industry-doesnt-want-anyone-to-know/

I’ve also had contact from Greece, yet again proving that defeating the wind scam is a global process; however rather than being top-down or with an external locus of control, it’s a grass roots network of independently-minded localists each drawing upon their own experiences, and using shared truths to bring on board fellow travellers. I’ve been forwarded this link, which is well worth a read.

http://www.defenddemocracy.press/the-united-nations-climate-change-conferences-and-action-by-citizens-by-wayne-hall/

This is a very entertaining read that’ll make you laugh AND think!

http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2017/11/15/the-climate-alarmists-definitely-dont-believe-their-own-propaganda

More truths that probably won’t make their way into The Guardian. Germany’s CO2 emissions continue to climb, despite having led the way (into the abyss, some might say) with the rollout of massive wind energy projects.

http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2017/11/energiewende-has-made-things-worse-for-climate-says-report.html

WIND ENERGY IS BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT!

The Guardian: Sinister Propaganda & Fake News

crane-1

It’s been a couple of weeks since my last entry, a nice little hiatus in which hopefully any readers have brought themselves up to speed with the plethora of evidence against wind energy and its destructive impacts. I’ve not come into contact with that many turbines since my last entry, just the usual horrendous and dangerous blight that lines long stretches of our motorways.

I’m pleased to report that the broken turbine next to the Scammonden viaduct currently remains broken, its three blades lying lifeless on the ground and its naked nacelle exposed to the elements. Will anyone bother fixing it? I shall keep you posted. Let’s hope that whatever has afflicted this turbine spreads and takes out the remainder of the unwelcome turbines around Kirklees and Calderdale. I’m certain that by the end of the year, just over six weeks from now, more of these turbines will fail. As always, I will be quick on the scene to take video footage of any accidents.

My several M62 journeys have afforded me regular views of Scout Moor, Crook Hill and the various single turbines on the hillsides immediately north of Manchester. There is a whole swathe of Green Belt that has been trashed by these inappropriate turbines, the two off Ashworth Road near Rochdale in particular casting a negative shadow over the otherwise scenic Pennine foothills.

WHAT KIND OF DISEASED MIND THINKS IT’S ACCEPTABLE TO INFLICT THESE MONSTERS ON THE PUBLIC?

I’ve also been down to London a couple of times since writing, taking me out of my current home patch and back to my Southern roots. Both the A1 and M1 link West Yorkshire with London: heading south, the A1(M) splits adjacent to Hook Moor Wind Farm, a horrid and dangerous affair rejected THREE TIMES by Leeds City Council, and once again only approved on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate under their abysmal and probably corrupt old methodology (the one still largely prevalent in Scotland that says: whatever a wind developer wants, a wind developer gets, and to hell with the general public).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-16116701

I generally prefer the A1 as there is far less wind blight than the M1, large parts of which are now almost undrivable due to the hazardous wind blight that dominates the landscape between Lutterworth and Northampton, hundreds of massive turbines with their flashing red lights (“Devil’s Eyes”, the locals call them apparently) stretching off as far as the eye can see. One of these turbines, in particular, caught my attention and sparked another One-Man campaign.

I’m referring to the horrible turbine at the Tesco Distribution Centre near Daventry, accompanied by a misanthropic and anti-democratic banner “Less CO2 emissions using wind turbines”. Despite my best efforts to have this banner forcibly removed – so far I’ve contacted Tesco head office, the local Planning Department, the Highways Agency and the Advertising Standards Agency to complain about its offensive, bias-motivated hate speech – it’s still there leering at motorists and sticking two fingers up at nature lovers. Oh well, it’s living proof of the kind of people who promote wind turbines: huge great capitalist corporations like Tesco who can use them as a greenwashing/money-laundering tool.

Lesson for activists: don’t be discouraged by a lack of support from the authorities when you alert them to a new issue. Technological and administrative processes will always be more adept at dealing with known issues over unknown ones. I see this at work constantly – there are templates for how to deal with known and understood issues, but the moment you step outside the Overton Window and present someone with a new and unaccounted-for problem, then you get the tumbleweed treatment. But don’t get discouraged, because eventually when enough people start to experience the same issue, often after a serious failure of some sort, solutions will soon be found.

And so, even if right now nobody is directly forcing Tesco to remove the offensive poster, in terms of the wider war Tesco is on the losing side; it’s just taking longer for them to acknowledge how badly they’ve screwed up. Maybe this is a symptom of their problems as a corporation – they don’t listen to the public, they’re not honest, they’re basically a terrible company with whom I’ve not shopped for over a year now.

http://peak-productions.co.uk/tescotorture.html

Only a fool, or a horsemeat fan, would shop at Tescos.

The A1 corridor has generally avoided the worst of the wind blight, other than the two horrifying wind farms near Doncaster, and at the other end, the truly nauseating wind farm near Biggleswade. YUK! There are also several lone turbines between Worksop and Grantham, yet again disgusting and totally out of place, rendering vast areas of the countryside unpleasant and inhospitable. Wind turbines are truly a pox on an area.

So that’s the real-life turbines I’ve encountered these last couple of weeks. The main development in the news has been Communities Secretary Sajid Javid once again proving himself to be spot-on in his judgement.

http://lincolnshirereporter.co.uk/2017/11/government-steps-in-to-stop-new-wind-farm-in-lincolnshire/

What a LEGEND! I’ve always had a soft spot for the Rochdale-born MP, ever since his secretary empathetically responded to my Rooley Moor objection letter. saying that although Mr Javid couldn’t formally help me as I didn’t live in the constituency myself, he most certainly took on board my views. I’ll say! Every now and then I hear the salient points from my letter repeated in Mr Javid’s own words. Either he’s just naturally on my wavelength (great minds think alike and all that!), or else he’e genuinely listened to what we Wind Warriors have been telling him all this time, and realised there might actually be something in what we’re saying.

SAJID-JAVID_2880378b.jpg

Now we come to the main point of today’s entry: as always I’m writing the full truth as I understand it, because truth is its own reward. The truth is a thing of beauty and spirituality, the sun that lights up and energises human consciousness. Maybe it’s a personal thing, and I really don’t mean to sound like I’m virtue-signalling in any way, but the truth is pretty much the only thing I’m interested in. I’d rather go through life alone yet wedded to the truth, rather than fall for any kind of illusion whatsoever, and this is one of the worst qualities of wind turbines – they bring lies and untruth into my safe space, causing amygdala hijacks and adverse physiological reactions with their creepy deceptions and covert hostility.

I now have another piece of evidence, through sheer luck witnessed by an impartial observer, that there are Dishonest Bananas out there deliberately and systematically misleading the public about the negative impacts of wind energy. My witness is a dear friend of mine, an incredibly clever man who used to work on security systems for the Ministry of Defence, ie someone who knows a thing or two about logic, science and technology. For what it’s worth, my friend is not a Wind Warrior, indeed I encourage him to play Devil’s Advocate and to logic-chop my hypotheses. He wants hard facts, evidence and valid reasons for opposing wind blight; like everyone he supports the idea of clean, green energy, and originally gave full support to the rollout of wind farms. I’ve only semi-persuaded him of their horrors, which is good, because, once again: HONESTY! I don’t want fake support, it’s not what this intellectual odyssey is all about. It’s about getting to the truth of the matter.

I once again refer to my role model Lieutenant Columbo: what motivates him above all is to prove, with incontrovertible evidence, that whatever lies he’s been told are false. And that’s how it is with me. Hit me with some truths and I’ll incorporate them into my understanding of the world. I gain absolutely nothing from expressing myself within an echo chamber; although it gives me emotional support and boosts my confidence by sharing my findings with fellow Wind Warriors, what I want more than anything is to peel away the soft support for wind amongst casual observers, and to bring previously pro-wind supporters around to the side of nature and truth. You must all know by now, I’m equally happy to shift my stance if it can be proven that I’m believing lies and basing my own views upon untruths.

I was alerted to a debate on The Guardian’s website, which I thought might be fertile ground for engaging with some wind supporters and planting some seeds of truth. As you can see, I’ve linked to The Guardian several times, including in my very last post. I’ve not previously been biased against The Guardian, although I did remark upon how comments are disabled on some of its more dubious opinion pieces.

I now realise that The Guardian is really NOT interested in an honest exchange of opinions, as for reasons best known to itself, it decided to delete my perfectly civil, inoffensive comments (right in front of my witness’s eyes). Because there was hardly any direct speech in my initial comment, merely some useful links to scientific research that I thought would forward the discussion, I can repeat verbatim what I typed, and let you be the judge of exactly why the Guardian might have decided to pull my comments within seconds.

The “debate”:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/11/brighton-rampion-wind-farm-turbines-renewables#comment-108069496

My contribution, which sparked a couple of replies before deletion:

“Scientific evidence that wind turbines increase rates of suicide: ‘Current technology uses wind turbines’ blade aerodynamics to convert wind energy to electricity. This process generates significant low-frequency noise that reportedly results in residents’ sleep disruptions, among other annoyance symptoms. However, the existence and the importance of wind farms’ health effects on a population scale remain unknown. Exploiting over 800 utility-scale wind turbine installation events in the United States from 2001-2013, I show robust evidence that wind farms lead to significant increases in suicide.’

http://www.eric-zou.com/s/turbine_zou201710.pdf

Scientific evidence that people would rather live further away from wind turbines:

http://www.spatialeconomics.ac.uk/textonly/SERC/publications/download/sercdp0159.pdf

63 peer-reviewed articles proving health problems associated with wind turbines:

http://windvictimsontario.com/10/post/2015/04/63-peer-reviewed-articles-regarding-impairment-of-health-in-general-and-relating-to-industrial-wind-turbines.html

Go ahead and screw yourselves up, but not me (or the whales), thanks.”

Someone rapidly replied, calling my post “Bollocks”, before going on to say: “There are four beautiful turbines near me and I’ve not topped myself yet.”

Now bear in mind that this is the apparently progressive Guardian, so one might have assumed that issues relating to suicide and mental health would be treated with a smidgen less callous indifference. But, as I have said repeatedly throughout this blog, when it comes to wind turbines, normal standards don’t apply, and the nature-destroying, humanity-harming predatory corporations that would otherwise be on the receiving end of the progressives’ ire have miraculously been transformed into planet-saving Messiahs who can do no wrong. Nowadays at The Guardian, it’s us poor victims of eco-vandals who are laughed at and ridiculed, while the bulldozers are cheered on.

WHERE’S YOUR HEAD AT, GUARDIAN READERS?

Lest it be forgotten, The Guardian is as capitalist and corporate as McDonalds and Coca-Cola. It sells fantasy. It won’t take you very long perusing their website before intrusive pop-ups start asking you for money to support their “independent journalism.” Yet someone truly independent like me, who brings real news and scientific research to the debate, free of charge, has their contributions instantly deleted!

I simply asked the chap who claimed to live near these four wonderful turbines for some more details about them, so I could do my own research into what makes their design such a success story. My comment was gone within seconds. No insults, no rudeness, no bad language, rather a genuine attempt to enter into an intelligent discourse with someone with an opposing view. Our opening salvos should be seen as just that – the real debate should come after the initial introductions, as we settle down into a full and fearless exchange of ideas, in pursuit of some shared consensus about the nature of reality.

The Guardian blocked the discourse after barely two messages each. How does that move the dialogue forward? Why would The Guardian block links to peer-reviewed scientific research? What is their agenda? I received no notification that my comments were in breach of any rules, they simply disappeared into the ether as if I’d never posted them!

If the science is wrong, then here’s the perfect opportunity to debunk it. There’s no way on earth I would continue to promulgate information I knew to be false! The net result of just rubbing out the science is that The Guardian has proven itself to be untrustworthy. Even if people disagree with some of my opinions, the objective truth is that I have clearly done my research and know my topic inside out. I am equipped with dates, places, policies, scientific research and personal contact with wind victims all across the world. Surely someone with my experience and passion for this topic should be welcomed with open arms into any debate about wind farms? What kind of debate is it when those who are most interested in the topic, those who have done the most research and fieldwork, are not even allowed to take part?

The answer is, it’s not a debate. It’s not motivated by truth, it’s motivated by a hidden agenda. Maybe there is an acceptable level of disagreement tolerated (anything incoherent that makes dissenters look stupid!), but in my case the simple and intellectually honest act of linking to the latest scientific research was deemed beyond the pale.

It’s almost like The Guardian’s biggest enemy is science itself.

More than that, The Guardian has revealed itself to be an enemy of nature. How any truly Green-minded individual could support this fake news rag is a mystery. The scientific research I have drawn upon really does exist, that’s the truth. The research might be flawed, possibly, in which case the voice of nature would be to draw attention to those flaws and move the research forward, applying the Hegelian Dialectic principle of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. As with all debates, whenever I come across a thesis I disagree with, I try and present the antithesis. Science, truth, rationality and reason are all about the synthesis – factoring in all those awkward contradictions to arrive at a one-size-fits-all axiom of inarguable truth! In this case – my antithesis to the central thesis of The Guardian’s viewpoint was simply erased from history.

What they should have done is kept my comments up there and allowed people to fire logical shots at any flaws in the research. We could have batted the dialogue backwards and forwards, really getting under the skin of the topic, before gradually reaching some level of agreement. The Guardian denied its readers the opportunity to experience the voice of nature, instead it has created an artificial bubble of non-reality in order to make profit from the fantasies of its readership.

As my ex-MoD friend pointed out so succinctly, what’s more important to The Guardian (and maybe all media outlets) is to reinforce the existing beliefs of their core readership, than simply to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

That’s where this blog comes in. And, as always, priority is always given to those who disagree. I actively want you to reach out and express opposing opinions to mine!

I can’t think of any circumstances whatsoever in which I’d delete a single comment on here, even if “offensive” in anyway. If that’s what I make someone feel with my words, then that’s the true voice of nature. I’d be lying to you all, and above all myself, were I to delete any comments that arise from my think-pieces!

EDIT: I’ve emailed The Guardian with a link to this piece, and I’ve invited them to reply to my allegations. They have yet to respond. But surely that says it all: once again I am being totally transparent and hospitable, welcoming even those I vehemently disagree with to have their say and to move the dialogue forward. I’ve said in black and white, repeatedly, that if the facts change I’ll change my opinion. I love everyone, it’s not PERSONAL, just an intellectual battle of ideas, with the best idea going ahead and shaping government policy. Luckily, the man who actually makes the decisions, Mr Javid, is a beacon of rationality and reason in an ocean of delusion, deception and detachment from nature.

I hope this proves the difference between my approach and that of The Guardian: I invite them to express themselves, I welcome them to my forum and offer them the right to reply. The Guardian, on the other hand, sneakily delete comments they don’t like, and shut out those with the wrong opinions (I’ve had confirmation that this has happened to others as well). As a result, their comments section is artificial, unnatural, contrived, skewed, flawed.

There’s a word for The Guardian’s approach: BIGOTRY.

Bigotry: “intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself”

On the issue of wind energy, comment is truly free on my website. Literally everyone reading is encouraged to have their say, particularly those with an opposing opinion. I might actually learn something from those contributors bringing new information into the discourse! Whereas The Guardian’s website is an exercise in pure, closed-minded bigotry.

I hope everyone reading can spot the difference and figure out whose approach is the more honest, natural and true!

_98788710_metro16-11-17copy.jpg

EDIT 2: Hmmmm. I may have been a bit hasty in my unqualified support for Sajid Javid! A few days since this post (it’s now the 17th November) and I see Mr Javid has ruffled a few feathers with his intent to launch a massive house building programme. Surely this is the antithesis to my own BANANA (Build Absolutely None Anywhere Near Anyone) stance? If it was Sajid who used the word NIMBY, rather than the sub-editors at Metro, then WE REALLY NEED TO TALK!

Luckily I’m not a bigot. Luckily I don’t shut out opinions that differ from mine, but instead I engage with them, I deal with them head-on, and I really try and get under the skin of the antithesis to my original thesis, as always in search of synthesis.

Do we really need new homes? Why? What reason is there that the population has outgrown the buildings available? Is it that we are having more and more babies, with families getting bigger and bigger? Or is it that there are more families to house? If so, where did these new families come from? Have we stemmed the increase in our population, or is it still rising?

Anyone have any ideas why our population has risen so dramatically since 1997?

The synthesis to the house building problem is to ensure we pick the right locations. Nobody wants to live higher than 300 metres above sea level in the UK, unless they’re a glutton for ice-driving, so our uplands should be safe. I’m more worried about the Green Belts that separate our urban areas.

Being totally intellectually honest about it, where I’m sat right now was once upon a time fields. Vast swathes of North Leeds were built upon relatively high altitude open moorland (the clue is in the names: Moortown, Moorallerton, Tinshill, Cookridge etc), yet now these formerly green fields have been covered in suburban sprawl.

Indeed my town of birth, Crowborough, is an urban Marilyn (see my post “I Was Born On A Marilyn”). A few hundred years ago it’d have been part of the ancient Forest of Anderida, now it’s a medium-sized town housing 25,000 people. The trig point is in somebody’s back garden! So everywhere was countryside once upon a time. Where do we draw the line?

I’m starting to think the best synthesis of all would be an actual face-to-face meeting and interview with Sajid Javid, preferably on film, in which I can put my questions to him. Even if I fundamentally disagree with the house building policy – and I’d need to chat with him first of all to work out exactly what he wants to do, and where, before knowing whether I agree or not – I’d thoroughly enjoy the intellectual discourse with a man who clearly has a strong point of view about the wellbeing of the UK. A letter to his secretary will follow…let’s see if we can hook up the first ever MindWind video interview with an MP!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/16/sajid-javid-calls-giant-leap-new-homes-built-challenge-philip/ 

EDIT 02/06/19: The dreaded wind turbine at the Tesco Distribution Centre has been conspicuously stationary for weeks, if not months. Last time I drove past, it was literally the only turbine amongst several others in close proximity not to be spinning. I’m calling it out as, if not broken, well, inactive for an extended period of time. NOT lowering CO2 emissions! I told you the poster was a bad idea, Tescos, but you thought you knew best, you wouldn’t listen to the Voice of Nature. When will you people learn? Sigh…