All County, All the Time Since 2010 MAKE THIS YOUR PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY HOME...PAGE!  Wednesday, January 27th, 2021

The ugly side of wind power

The following by Prince Edward County resident Garth Manning, a member of the CCSAGE Steering Committee, was first published in the National Post on Friday, July 6, 2012.  


Imagine 38 industrial wind turbines being erected in Toronto’s High Park, each taller than Ottawa’s Peace Tower or the Royal York Hotel, and sitting atop massive concrete bases, on land that had been cleared and bulldozed flat. Plus, imagine the erection of sub-stations and transmission lines to connect the turbines with the hydro grid. In other words: An industrial wasteland from Bloor Street down several kilometers to the Queensway.

Of course, this could never happen – because the justifiable outrage and uproar of urban Torontonians would reduce Queen’s Park to metaphorical rubble.

Why then does nobody – except local residents – appear to care about an even worse disaster developing in Prince Edward County, Ont., a mere two hours drive east of Toronto, a community dependent on agriculture, tourism, small businesses and artisans of every persuasion, including the famous Sandbanks and a burgeoning wine and hospitality industry?

The first nine of the 38 turbines we’re supposed to get could come from Gilead Power, to be installed on Ontario Crown land administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources, smack in the middle of an internationally recognized bird area and athwart the largest migration path of birds, bats, raptors and butterflies in the province. On the ground, there are at least three recognized endangered species. Many of the flying migrants will be slaughtered by the massive blades, and the land animals endangered or harassed by preparatory bulldozing.

Apart from all of this being an egregious breach of basic common sense and of the Ministry’s own mission statement, it would represent a conflict of interest whereby Ontario issues licences to Gilead to operate, in exchange for which it receives from Gilead annual payments (derived from public funds) as rent for each turbine, for a possible maximum of 35 years.

The next 29 turbines are promoted by WPD Canada, owned in Germany. They would blanket the south part of the County, placing virtually every house there within 2 km of a turbine.

Ontario’s Green Energy Act overrides any municipal or community input or control, and is stacked in favour of wind developers. Its authors seem not to have cared about basic rights. They just bash ahead despite evidence that turbines provide little in the way of jobs, reduce property values, make some homes unsaleable, affect the health and social well-being of locals and kill migrating birds and endangered species. Ontario “green energy” policies promote all this – despite the fact that turbines can’t exist without massive subsidization by all Ontario residents through taxes and an add-on to each hydro bill. Our descendants here in Prince Edward County will inherit a devastated local economy, landscape and way of life, not to mention an increasing (province-wide) financial burden to pay for wind-company profits.

Garth Manning lives in Prince Edward County. He is a retired lawyer, and a former President of the Ontario Bar Association. He has never been a member of any political party.

Filed Under: Letters and Opinion

About the Author:

RSSComments (43)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. Chris Keen says:

    More grist for the mill:

    “Data from Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator shows that wind energy, which still amounts to a tiny percentage of the province’s energy supply, is remarkably inefficient in terms of producing at capacity when it is needed.

    Throughout the past week of considerable heat, the province’s nuclear reactors have typically generated energy at better than 98% of their capacity at all hours of the day. Other sources of energy, like coal, run close to 15% of capacity in the middle of the night, but are cranked up to 75% of capacity in the heat of day, when demand is highest. Wind, meanwhile, typically generates best in the wee hours of the morning, then drops off during the day. Last Friday, the province’s wind installations generated at 17% of capacity — that was the high point — between midnight and 1 a.m. By 11 a.m., right when the province’s time-of-use rates increase to reflect higher demand, wind was down to 4.5% of capacity. That’s not an outlier, either: wind production routinely dips during the day, when it could best be used. On Monday, wind sources were generating at 15% of capacity at midnight. They were down to 1.4% of capacity by 11 a.m. By 6 p.m., near the highest demand of the day, it was up to … 6% of capacity.

    Given such weak performance, it’s fair to wonder whether the Liberal attachment to wind turbines, which has contributed to a pummeling of the party in the province’s rural areas, has been worth all the trouble.”

    Scot Stinson – National Post

  2. Doris Lane says:

    Chris Keen kudos for posting the article about Health Canada studies.

  3. Chris Keen says:

    Although the Harper government has shown a propensity to shun science and statistics, apparently Health Canada is still able to undertake scientific studies. I would suggest that the existence of this study indicates that there may be validity to the health concerns many people have expressed. That being the case, no IWT development should be permitted until this study is completed and published.

    “Health Canada | Health Canada Announces Wind Turbine Noise and Health Study:

    OTTAWA, July 10, 2012 /CNW/ – Health Canada, in collaboration with Statistics Canada, will conduct a research study that will explore the relationship between wind turbine noise and health effects reported by, and objectively measured in, people living near wind power developments.

    “This study is in response to questions from residents living near wind farms about possible health effects of low frequency noise generated by wind turbines,” said the Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of Health. “As always, our Government is putting the health and safety of Canadians first and this study will do just that by painting a more complete picture of the potential health impacts of wind turbine noise.”

    Health Canada is aware of health-related complaints from individuals living in close proximity to wind turbine establishments. The study is being designed with support from external experts, specializing in areas including noise, health assessment, clinical medicine and epidemiology.

    The proposed research design and methodology was posted on Health Canada’s web site today for a 30-day public comment period. Feedback obtained will be reviewed by the design committee, compiled and published to the website, along with the design committee’s responses.

    The study will be focused on an initially targeted sample size of 2,000 dwellings selected from 8-12 wind turbine installation facilities in Canada. In addition to taking physical measurements from participants, such as blood pressure, investigators will conduct face-to-face interviews and take noise measurements inside and outside of some homes to validate sound modelling.

    Health Canada has expertise in measuring noise and assessing the health impacts of noise because of its role in administering the Radiation Emitting Devices Act (REDA). As defined under REDA, noise is a form of radiation.

    The study results are expected to be published in 2014.

    More information available at Health Canada.”

  4. Ray Hobson says:

    I say again …… you are welcome to your own opinions but not your own facts.
    In most business proposals, the presenter supplies facts to make a case for their plan. In the IWT case, the Ontario minority Government has partnered with the Developers/presenters. The Liberals have even changed legislation to remove checks and balances thereby allowing the developers/carpetbaggers to continue with few significant legal challenges. (To date)
    Even though the Developers put forth debatable opinions and few facts; those of us against IWT are expected to prove the business proposal is a sham. I believe this to be true, even though the current Ontario Energy policy debate process is backward. Around the world Wind Energy is losing credence as a Green activity AND IWT has never been sustainable as a business case.
    If you do not believe me, “John Droz”, has many fine examples and point-counter-point arguments. Please Google him and then watch some of his slideshows. However, in order to be truly critical you will need to overcome any “Cognitive Dissonance” that may be present.
    As one example Mr. Droz poses the question:
    How can so many people, including our own Government, falsely believe that IWTs are Green?

    Answer (summarized by me from his slides):
    Are all priests holy? Are all lawyers honest? Are all scientists promoters of science? Note that there is no penalty for making unscientific claims!

    Galileo was persecuted for saying the Earth went around the Sun. Remember that stomach ulcers have only recently been proven to be the result of a virus, not acids. Both cases illustrate worldwide popular & long standing consensus beliefs that were eventually proven false.

    For me the answer above was provocative and I began to dig deeper into our Government’s proclamations.

    How about you? Everyone posting here obviously has passion; however please note that in Debate you usually wait for a misstep by your “opponent” since the Goal is to win.

    Instead of debate, let’s have a Dialogue where the Goal is expanded understanding.

  5. Doris Lane says:

    38 and still coming. Is this the most responses we have ever had?
    No one, mentions all thr solar panels we have in the county
    if they are hooked up they must be doing OK these days but I understand that they are expensive. I never quote the cost of anything, I leave that up to Gary Mooney.
    All the best to everyone who is taking the time to enter this debate.
    I find that working on the lap top is a good break from mulching the garden in the sun :.)

  6. Beth says:

    Play Nice David, I’m trying too.

  7. David Norman says:

    Beth, in acknowledgement of your more constructive rhetoric, although suspiciously bipolar, your call for a Prince Edward County contribution to “green” energy sans Industrial Wind Turbines, is a welcomed but mute initiative given that there would be no such compromise with the current ideological focus of our Ontario Government. There have been in years past many such proposals put forward to no avail. I’m quite sure many of us are willing to contribute, however, we must first be allowed, by law, with legislative representation and endorsement, to do so. Biogas fueled electricity generation is both a viable and an accommodating carbon neutral option for rural Ontario. Not only does this truly create jobs and strengthen rural economies, the byproduct of Biogas production is an organic fertilizer rich in phosphate and nitrogen. In the case that you are not aware, peak phosphate production is expected within this decade, with the prices rising steadily. The availability of mineral phosphate fertilizer for our world’s industrial agriculture is of great concern. Already, the two primary mineral phosphate sources, both in geopolitical unstable foreign countries are already deep into mineral phosphate layers that are increasingly laden with heavy metals. This is a far greater threat to our survival and food security than peak oil. Being able to operate your microwave in the wee hours off of IWT power will be of no value with no food to zap. Of course you could always turn on the flat screen, watch the food channel reruns and dream, at least while your still conscious. Although, on reflection, you might have some luck scrounging for squab under an IWT.

  8. Beth says:

    Thanks Adam B and David Norman for setting out and answering my question and I agree both options are definitely viable.

    Hemp Oil would definitely provide a safer alternative to Coal, Oil or Gas fired production, and with the proper technology development the emissions could theoretically be reduced to close to nil.

    Adam, I absolutely agree, small scale solar and wind turbine production are a proposal I fully support, I just wish it was economically more feasible.

    Gary, while you may personally not want to give as much weight to someone’s opinion who chooses not to use their last name, it does not negate said opinion. There are very likely personal or professional reasons that decision has been made.

    Doris, FYI, I’m not Donna.

    Virginia, Thanks for the offer of coffee, however I will decline.

    Ken, I saw that cartoon when I was taking a course in Sustainable Development last year and I still find it amusing.

    Despite all the arguing and bickering, I am sure we can all agree that although the current energy production level are sufficient to supply the existing needs, it cannot be guaranteed that this will be the same in 5, 10 years or longer. Existing facilities will eventually become obsolete and it will not be economically feasible to update all of them. We must consider alternate means of energy production; unfortunately most alternate means do have negative impacts that offset the positive impacts.

    As a community, if we residents of Prince Edward County want to say we care about our environment we must be willing to contribute. That means we as a community must be willing to accept some things we may or may not choose. Let me say for the sake of argument (not necessarily my opinion) that the IWTs are the horrible items being claimed. If that is the case, what other large scale green energy can be operated here; if in addition a program can be put in place to see the development of small scale production?

    This is the dialogue and discourse I would love to see and Adam and David have started, let’s keep it going.

  9. Gary Mooney says:

    Ken Globe: Absolutely, not in our backyards. Planning principles 101 say that you don’t mix residential and industrial uses. You have industrial parks for the latter.

    Prince Edward County already has a nuisance / noise bylaw that deals with noise, vibrations and lights that would shut down any wind turbine situated next to a residential property, if the provincial government had not overriden it.

    What the pro-wind folk and the wind developers conveniently ignore is the need for compensation for people who are suffering ill health, loss of quiet enjoyment and reduced property values when turbines are erected next door.

    By the way, are you a leasing landowner? If not, is your home within 2 km of one or more proposed turbine?

  10. Ken Globe says:

    Doris Lane wrote “I am not saying that there is no place these turbines can be put–but not in PEC”

    In other words “Not in my backyard”…

  11. cHRiS says:

    yeah, right doris!

  12. cHRiS says:

    @bj: windmills are for milling and petite compared to the i.w.t’s in question. other untrue statements, despite use of a last name, indicate you need more info.to make a fair appraisal. whats it like to live on a windfarm?

    @jd: read up to – “This report was prepared for a wind developer ” – thats a really big copy/paste!

  13. Doris Lane says:

    Bill they are not windmills. thy are industrial type turbines 40 stories high. You can’t tell me that wildlife will not be disturbed if they go ahead with Gilead
    Go out to the army reserve road and see what is happening in the woods to the north of the road
    I have been to wolfe island 4 times during the differwnt stages of development. There are a couple of fields where a road goes up to the turbine and fields around it are used by a farmer but this will not be the case in PEC.
    According to a survey there are more birds etc killed on Wolfe island than anywhere else as it is in the migratory
    path the same as PEC
    I am not saying that there is no place these turbines can be put–but not in PEC

  14. Bill Jensen says:

    What a load – has the author ever even been to see a wind farm? The towers don’t ruin the landscape at all. Farmers farm right up to them, trees and wildlife are essentially undisturbed. The only impact comes from building the small utility roads to their base – something I don’t hear local residents complaining about for any other developments… Its just a windmill, not a polluting factory, a condo, or a golf course all of which actually cause air and water impacts. Best to put your energy into an issue that actually matters to our community.

  15. Marnie says:

    Oh get real Gary. In what universe is someone going to sue for libel because they have been called myopic and selfish? A man of Mr. Manning’s stature has far broader shoulders than that.

    Good manners should prompt all of us to refrain from name-calling on this site but to suggest that Donna could be sued for her comment is ludicrous. I might suggest there is a hint of pomposity in your most recent post, but that might trigger a law suit.

  16. Doris Lane says:

    Well things were getting a little slow on County live but Garth’s article sure stirred “the old pot”
    However I do not like to see a gentleman of the stature
    of Garth defamed.
    I think we have a few people who may work for a wind company
    To the gentleman who likes to vacation near turbines–go to Wolfe Island lots of empty houses there

  17. JD says:

    From a report by the Centre for Economics and Business Research. Unlike the Alvarez report which was widely panned (Paid for by Fossil Fuel) or the Verso Economics report which had ludicrous assumptions this report has stood up well to critisism. This report was prepared for a wind developer who operates world wide.

    Executive Summary
    In 2010 the Offshore Valuation Group set out to measure the value of the UK’s offshore renewable
    energy resource. The Group concluded that, by harnessing less than a third of that resource, the UK
    could, by 2050:
    • Generate the electricity equivalent of 1bn barrels of oil a year;
    • Reduce its CO2 emissions by 1bn tonnes; and
    • Create over 145,000 new jobs.

    This report by the Centre for Economics and Business Research (Cebr) builds on that work by
    exploring the impact of planned investment in offshore wind electricity generation in the UK. It
    concludes that that investment can be expected:
    • By 2015, to increase UK GDP by 0.2%, and create over 45,000 full time jobs, delivering
    employment and economic growth at a time of economic fragility.
    • By 2020, to double that GDP contribution to 0.4%, and the number of people employed to
    over 97,000.
    • By 2030, in addition to adding 0.6% GDP growth, and creating 173,000 jobs, the sector will
    deliver an increase in net exports of £18.8 billion, sufficient to fill nearly 75% of the UK’s
    current balance of trade deficit. These benefits will accrue from pursuing current moderate
    build out rates of offshore wind. A more aggressive, but achievable, approach could see an
    annual 1% uplift to GDP, the creation of over 200,000 jobs and an increase in net exports of
    £22.5 billion – almost enough to entirely plug the country’s balance of trade deficit.

    At the request of Mainstream Renewable Power (Mainstream), Cebr has investigated the economic
    impact of investment in offshore wind capacity. The fruit of our lengthy investigation is contained
    within the pages of this report, and is summarised in this preamble. The assessment is scenariobased
    and produces different estimates of the expected impacts for different realisations of offshore
    wind capacity.

  18. David Norman says:

    Gary, you raise an interesting and confounding issue with your last comment. Donna is simply “aping” the rhetoric of our Provincial Government and several vocal Environmental Non Governmental Organizations… and I firmly believe in “her?” right and the necessity for Donna to do so. Unfortunately members of our elected Provincial Government are not subject, by Legislation, to the same strict personal libel constraints as the general public. Like the land owners who are leasing out their land to Industrial Wind Turbine developers, their personal liabilities in this regard are unavoidable, unlike the Corporate entities responsible who can simply disappear in some form of financial dissolution.
    Just as an aside, I use a modified version of language diplomatics software to analyze commentary. It points out rhetorical structural and grammatical consistencies and when correlated to other related commentary suggests both the presence of plagiarism and possible authorship pseudonyms. Similar more advanced language diplomatics software is used by law enforcement and intelligence agencies as well as large Corporations and Public Relations agencies who specialize in internet communications.

  19. Adam Bramburger says:

    To Beth’s question about how Prince Edward County can deal with climate change, there was a proposal put forward by a group from Big Island a few years back which advocated small-scale wind and solar development as well as conservation. I believe it was called the Green Alternative Plan and information is available here… http://tgap.wordpress.com/

    To me, also, it may be a case of the province spending differently. Instead of heavy subsidies for industrial wind and solar, perhaps funding could be put into retrofitting homes and industry to use less power (though even then, Ontario doesn’t have a supply shortage). Instead of setting the targets for such grants so high no one could afford them (I think the threshold for the latest program was a $10,000 renovation), perhaps another program could entice people to conserve.

    I think there’s also some good literature somewhere on this site from former Ontario Green energy critic Treat Hull about ways to successfully counter climate change while not spending money Ontario doesn’t have to do so.

  20. Martin says:

    For the past couple of years, I have gone out of my way to book vacations in areas that have lots of wind turbines. I find them majestic and soothing. It’s a shame that the setbacks are so high that it’s impossible to build them in cities, where they would be appreciated.

    I happen to be knowledgeable about Ontario’s power system and know that wind turbines are essential and economical. We could have a battle of the figures here, but the power engineers have already done all of that. I’m talking about people who enjoy the sight of those whirligigawatts.

    I am thinking of putting together a web site and maybe a reservation service that would cater to people like me who like being near them, to make it easy for us to find places like that.

  21. Chris Keen says:

    Virginia – make sure it’s Fair Trade!

  22. virginia says:

    Silly me. Another exercise in pointlessness.
    ” Goodbye and thanks for all the fish.”
    Donna and Beth, want to have coffee some time?

  23. Gary Mooney says:

    Under the rules of this site, anyone is free to include her* full name or not. When the full name is not provided, many readers will place less weight on the information and opinions of the author.

    When the author does not provide her full name, she should not be permitted to engage in a personal attack on anyone else, because that person has no ability to pursue a legal remedy.

    Case in point: Donna [full name not provided] has labelled Garth Manning as “myopic and selfish”.

    Definition of libel: A published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation.

    Garth is a lawyer by profession, and is better equipped than most to pursue a libel action. However, without an ability to identify the offender, he cannot do so.

    This gives anyone who does not provide her full name the opportunity to defame someone with little fear of recourse. But it a cowardly thing to do.

    Note: There may be an opportunity for recourse if the site administrator can identify the person, or if others in the community are able to do so.

    * References to the feminine case should be interpreted as including the masculine case as well.

  24. David Norman says:

    Thank you for asking Beth! In reply to your condescending rhetoric… my commentary was simply in reply to the assertions regarding anthrogenic Climate Change. I did not assert that Climate Change has not occurred, but replied to the erroneous claims of scientific verification of the anthrogenic contributing factors. However, despite your apparent narcissistic arrogance I offer the following scenario as a more organic carbon neutral solution: Extensive cropping of hemp is a far more efficient and quicker way of preserving our environment by achieving carbon sequestration and lessening the production of other greenhouse gases, particularly when replacing grain and fodder crops for animal meat and dairy production. In this process we create highly nutritious food in the form of hemp seed, oil and flour, biodegradable products such as hemp insulation, hempcrete, fibre for cloth, paper and plastics. The additional benefits are that hemp prospers even on marginal agricultural land, is extremely drought tolerant and, does not require the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides which have been recognized as human carcinogens and are otherwise wreaking havoc on animal life. As a rotational crop it conditions the soil and reduces the need for the chemical additives required by other food crops. As well, hemp cropping is an extraordinarily effective manner to achieve soil remediation of heavy metals and other introduced toxic soil pollutants such as cyanide and Bisphenol A, thus helping to cleanse the water table. As an aside, in areas where extensive hemp cropping occurs, there is a noted increase in bird populations, particularly songbirds. Hemp cropping is also a most efficient way to produce fuel sources such as ethanol, biodiesel and biogas for electrical energy generation. Prince Edward County represents an ideal setting for this industry. With some industrial hemp infrastructure, like that in Manitoba, achieved at far less cost than just even just the Ostrander IWT development, many jobs would be created and farmers would benefit from a certainty of cash crop remuneration with far less risk and energy output.

  25. chaamjamal says:

    cagw is quackery
    as unscientific as one can get

  26. Doris Lane says:

    The problem Virgina is that IWT’s are not really green energy–there is too much use of disel fuel in their production–trucks trucks and more trucks–construction equipment and who knows what else goes into the production of these monsters
    what is green about the destruction of habitat?
    There are other species on this earth that are as important as the human race. The earth does not belong to us–we are suppose to leave a small footprint. We are suppose to live in harmony with nature not destroy it

  27. jason says:

    This has already happened to the shores of lake erie near Erieau and Wheatly. These huge towers are everywhere there. Their blinking red lights a constant at night and a blight on what was once a great shoreline and farmland. none of the residents wanted it, except the few that profited from having them on their land but that didn’t matter. The ontario government bought this fake green technology hook line and sinker. The cost of these things, it will take decades just to break even with. Not to mention all the materials that go into them. And for what? To have them be outdated technology in ten years from now? We’ve been sold out under the phoney guise of clean green.

  28. Beth says:

    You too David Norman, funny how you didn’t offer any options either. Climate Change is real, there is an anthropological history of climate change. Yes the Earth does follow natural heating and cooling cycles. There is also evidence that the natural cycle has been speed up.

    You don’t want the question asked based on Climate Change, ok, let me re-phrase. What contribution to, or form of Green Energy Production, is viable for Prince Edward County?

  29. David Norman says:

    Please virginia, tell us what science is! After all, your own emphasis on your degree in English is your stated credibility. Emotional rhetoric can be a powerful tool and is a function of the evolutionary development of human language… one need only look at the extent to which Industrial Wind Turbine development propaganda, premised on the hypothetical projections of anthrogenic Climate Change could possibly mitigate this supposition to see that it is not about logical precision but rhetorical effect.

  30. virginia says:

    Enough. None of this is science. Retired lawyers have no special knowledge of anything, except perhaps, the law.
    All I see is a lot of emotional reaction. Oh, and silly verbosity that means nothing.

  31. Mark da Silva says:

    Although I can agree with both sides of the argument, I still feel that doing something is better than doing nothing. Can we all agree that our fossil fuel supplies are dwindling?
    I believe we all have a duty as inhabitants of earth to reduce reuse and recycle. It is the easiest way to combat the evil giant that is the industrialized world we live in. For over a century we have been using and abusing the environment that we live in at an astronomical rate. Some people will say it is in the name of quality of life, some use convenience, some even have the audacity to think that it is their right. I can’t say that I’d like a wind farm in my back yard, but I can guarantee you that I would fight tooth and nail if anyone proposed a Nuclear power plant or coal fired station in it either. Wind farms will never be the complete answer to our energy needs/problems, neither will solar farms or hydro stations. I have always viewed these as PART of the solution, combined with open minds and forward thinking. I think we need to spend more time thinking of alternatives and less time bickering about progress. I have been doing some reading on the economic viablilty of wind farms and it isn’t as pretty as some might lead us to believe. Our energy WILL cost a lot more in the not so distant future. Is that a huge problem though? If we reduce reuse and recycle will we still be as affected by it? Is cost the only thing to consider? When I buy organic produce(which can cost considerably more), cost is not the only thing I am thinking of. Lack of chemicals, hormones and such is what’s on my mind. I am glad that organic farming doesn’t kill migratory birds though. Can’t say that I am completely sold on the argument that wind farms kill birds, and putting them there endangers already endeangered species. Find me a patch of land and I can find you at least 2 endangered species on it. At some point doesn’t survival of the fittest come into play? Modifying rules and regulations around hunting could save more birds than windmills kill.
    How many animals/birds do coal fired stations and nuclear plants kill on a daily basis? How about our highways?
    All I am really tring to say is, which is the lesser of the two evils here? Unfortunately our capitalist society is driven by money and greed and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. The ability to have harnessed energy(electricity) in our lives is not a right it is a luxury. If you think I am wrong please stop paying your energy bill and see if the energy company takes that as a valid reason to not shut off your power. Whether we continue to use coal or nuclear or wind for our electrical needs, one thing is a given…costs WILL rise, birds will still die, people will still pollute, property values will rise and fall and I will still sleep at night. My name is Mark da Silva, but that doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things

  32. David Norman says:

    Anyone who speaks of Climate Change, and in this case I assume they are speaking of anthrogenic Climate Change, as a scientific fact is at best a heckler and at worst ignorant. At this time anthrogenic Climate Change is little more than an (linearity) hypothesis constructed by humans who are considered scientists, to try to explain, using a narrative, a sparse collection of seemingly related facts derived from very limited data. Despite being widely accepted as a guideline in setting standards for protecting public health, a linearity hypothesis is not an expression of scientific knowledge. This is an attempt to create a model of an extremely complex reality that while it presents a credible explanation is demonstrably not of any scientific statistical value in prediction. This is hypostatized science and there are no currently existing computer Climate Change models, anthrogenic or otherwise, which can possibly justify the alarmism and interventions attributed to this hypothesized catastrophe… there is simply too much missing data and far too many failed predictions. For a “scientist” to state anthrogenic Climate Change as a fact is fraudulent.
    It is essential to distinguish between scientific knowledge and belief/opinion.

  33. Beth says:

    And neither Terry Sprague or Doris Lane answered my question.

    What can Prince Edward County do to affect climate change?

  34. Doris Lane says:

    Since Beth and Donna do not use their last names are you one and the same person–who knows–
    Read Ray Hobson’s comment great comment and he is right on and look both names and a picture

  35. Now, now, Doris – be nice. If we used our last names, we wouldn’t be able to create the illusion of support of these monstrosities by signing in with up to four different aliases!

  36. Beth says:

    Can you tell me Doris, why a last name needs to be posted and how will a last name affect Donna’s opinion?

    IWT’s,Large Scale Solar Energy Production and Large Scale Hydro Generation……… All forms of Green Energy production have some form of negative impact on the environment, they also have forms of positive impact. We cannot continue to rely upon nuclear, gas or coal fired energy production and must develop alternate means of energy production. It is a responsibility of all members of society.

    Yes currently we may be producing enough energy, can you say that the current means will continue to supply enough demand, given the current trend of global warming and our insatiable need for electrical energy to produce our 1st world energy needs in 5 years, 10 year or longer?

    I ask that although many people who will comment on this site are against IWT’s & Large Scale Solar installations, what can Prince Edward County do as a community, do to affect climate change; because that is what we are dealing with. And if you know anything, climate change will affect the breeding grounds of all the birds and turtles and the health of all our residents long term, more than the IWT’s ever will.

    Thanks for listening, and yup, no last name, perhaps many rebuttals, and you know what, I’m ok with that.

  37. Ray Hobson says:

    Good man Garth!

    When it comes to Industrial Wind Turbines (IWT) there are many opinions pro vs. con. Which side do you believe and are you actively supportive?

    Make no mistake, everyone is affected! High electricity prices are painful for every household monthly bill plus devalued property values directly affect net worth plus high rates drive away manufacturing plants/jobs. Most of us tend to believe or wish to believe that big Government would have good reasons related to the betterment of society as a whole to impose IWT on us. Everyone is welcome to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

    Here are some of the facts;

    •The Auditor General’s most recent report shows Ontario lost $1.8 billion selling our surplus power to Quebec and the United States over the past six years.
    •Having the second-highest energy prices in North America continues taking its toll in Ontario. Several weeks ago, General Motors announced it was moving production of the Equinox and Impala from Oshawa to the United States, impacting 2,000 Ontario jobs. High energy costs were cited as one of the factors for the decision by G.M.
    •Unpredictable and undispatchable, wind can provide for neither baseload nor peak load situations. Wind can only be an occasional supplement that itself requires much supplementation.
    •It is bald faced lying when Premier Dalton McGuinty repeatedly says that the turbine setback requirements in Ontario are “some of the toughest in the world” and “the best in North America.”

    Given all the facts not just those above, I believe that wind energy is the opposite of green technology.
    •Conservation — Reduce, Re-use, Recycle — is green, a frugal approach that makes sense.
    •Wind energy — Unreliable, Inefficient, Expensive — is anti-green, a bad approach that makes no sense.

    Please review all the IWT facts, as I am confident you will then feel as I do. Then let your voice be heard.

    Politicians got us into this mess and politicians should correct this unsustainable policy.

  38. Doris Lane says:

    Donna—“a myopic and selfish view’
    That is what you think that Garth Manning has
    You obviously have never met the gentleman and know nothing of his outstanding ability. What a dreadful way to speak about anyone and maybe you are including Gary Mooney in this too, Gary is outstanding in his field as well
    Do you have a last name Donna most of us put our last name

  39. Donna says:

    “If someone is only going to read one article on how wind energy development harms rural Ontario in general and Prince Edward County in particular, this is it.”

    They would do much better to read the truth of real scientific data on climate change and its devastating effects that are already occurring around the world. We all need to consider the health of the entire planet and future generations, not merely a myopic and selfish local view.

  40. Doris Lane says:

    As Gary says this the one article that everyone should read
    Had the privlege of hearing Garth speak and he certainly knows his subject well
    Well done Sir.

  41. Gary Mooney says:

    If someone is only going to read one article on how wind energy development harms rural Ontario in general and Prince Edward County in particular, this is it.

    Please forward on to family, friends and Anyone else you know.

  42. Suzanne Lucas says:

    Well said sir. I hope the comparison to the development of High Park gets the attention of our urban friends.

OPP reports
lottery winners
FIRE
SCHOOL
Elizabeth Crombie Christine Henden
Tony Scott Sharon Armitage

HOME     LOCAL     MARKETPLACE     COMMUNITY     CONTACT US
© Copyright Prince Edward County News countylive.ca 2021 • All rights reserved.