Archive for the ‘Carol Mitchell mpp Huron Bruce’ Category

Video of Dr. Copes Speaking in Owen Sound-Wind Turbines

October 3, 2009

Editor:

As you read the article that follows, pay attention to what Bill Murdoch MPP has to say. First – the Ont. Conservative Party planned to install more wind turbines than the Liberals – stated in their 2007 election platform.

Murdoch says he opposed the GEA but he never bothered to vote against it.  When his office was asked why Murdoch was not in the House for the vote his rep said he had a prior engagement.  What could be more important than voting on the removal of Municipal rights.

Murdoch is as guilty as anyone for not standing up for the people of his riding. Why was he not holding information meetings in his riding to inform and advise his constituents about the coming folly.

Why didn’t Murdoch attend the meeting held on the 1st?  It was held just down the street form his office

Gutless, or part of the Treason taking place in this province. You decide!

Posted By Denis Langlois   Owen Sound Times

It’s too late to stop the surge of wind-farm development in Ontario, even by arguing the turbines cause illness, says Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound MPP Bill Murdoch.

“As far as what they can do about it, there really isn’t a heck of a lot,” he said yesterday.

Murdoch’s comments come a day after about 120 people attended a public meeting at the Grey Bruce Health Unit in Owen Sound about health effects of wind turbines.

The Progressive Conservative MPP said residents’ concerns will likely fall on deaf ears of policy makers and Liberal cabinet ministers at Queen’s Park, since the Green Energy Act is now law.

Asked what people can do, Murdoch initially said “not a thing. It’s over. It’s a law.”

Later, he said concerned residents can write to Premier Dalton McGuinty or the Ontario Ministry of Health. Letters to Murdoch’s office will be forwarded, he said.

“They’re pretty much euchred. I don’t know where they can go. Some will say (I) can do something about it. There’s not a thing I can do about it. It’s a law,” he said.

People who believe the giant wind turbines cause illness can seek medical attention from a doctor, retain a lawyer and sue, Murdoch said, but that will likely be a “waste of money.”

Emotions ran high at Thursday’s public meeting, which the health unit organized to provide wind turbine information to residents.

Keynote speaker Dr. Ray Copes, a director at the Ontario Agency of Health Protection and Promotion, was heckled by the crowd several times after his one-hour slide presentation revealed little new information.

People took exception to Copes’ characterization of health impacts caused by turbines as an “annoyance” and his claim no proof exists linking illness to wind turbines.

People opposed to wind farms say turbines cause health problems such as chronic sleep disturbance, dizziness, exhaustion, anxiety, depression, irritability, nausea and ringing in ears.

Medical officer of health Dr. Hazel Lynn said she is aware “suffering” is being attributed to turbines, but has no power to make or influence changes to the Green Energy Act. The health unit cannot perform in-depth studies on health claims either, she said.

Lynn criticized the act at the public meeting, saying “we need more choices” since it strips local municipalities of the authority to make decisions about turbine setbacks. The act requires a 550-metre setback from a turbine to residential properties.

Murdoch said he opposed the act at Queen’s Park for that reason.

Progressive Conservatives MPPs voted against it and Murdoch said perhaps a change in government would lead to some changes. The next provincial election is in 2011.

“There’s going to be a lot of wind turbines put up in the next two years, I would assume, within the context of that law,” he said.

The province has promised to eliminate coal-fired power by 2014 and add 975 wind turbines by 2012.

A second public meeting, organized by the health unit, is scheduled for Tuesday from 7 to 9 p.m. at Walkerton’s Jubilee Hall.

Advertisements

Wolfe Island Residents for the Environment

March 2, 2008

Read Ministry of Energy’s proposed changes i.e. all the legal requirements that will enable wind and other energy projects to be approved and erected without public consultation, under what they are calling “the substituted process”.

All Ministries apparently should abdicate all their regulatory and approval responsibilities in favour of this new “substituted process”, and in this new perfect, energy driven world, the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) will become the sole approval authority for siting and environmental issues.  The new “Environmental Assessment Report”, or EAR, as they are calling it, will take care of all these permitting delays by removing municipalities and other stakeholders from the entire process in the name of the public good – ie must have new energy at all costs.  Our democratic rights are being taken away from us. Please write to the Ministry of Energy to make known your position to this proposed change.

http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/index.cfm?fuseaction=electricity.reports
Go to – Agency Review Panel: Phase 2 Report

Visit Wolfe Island Residents for the Environment

Wel’s windfarm critic has plenty of hits at hearing

February 28, 2008

 Editor:
Meet Sean Cox, a man with attitude. The right attitude. Forget about being polite. Get your message through to the dim witted politicians that are supposed to be looking out for the best interests of their constituents. Take no crap, they work for you. Make sure they understand this fact loud and clear. Call them at home, show up at their doors. Make their lives as miserable as they are attempting to makes yours.

WAKE THEM UP AND MAKE THEM LISTEN

Wel’s windfarm critic has plenty of hits at hearing

The more Wel Networks’ proposed Te Uku wind farm is investigated, the worse it looks, says one of the project’s most vociferous critics.

Aotea Harbour aerodynamicist Sean Cox the man most responsible for the project’s hearing still running returned to Ngaruawahia yesterday to take another crack at Wel’s application to build and operate a 28-turbine wind farm.

With a mix of pointy-headed science and gratuitous insults, he delivered a 212 hour dissertation on the problems with wind farms, Wel Networks, the Resource Management Act process, and new trends in the energy sector.

Earlier Wel Networks had painted him as an unreliable witness who lacked credibility, but Mr Cox scored plenty of hits in concluding the wind farm was “an economic and power supply disaster”.

“If it had been built a year ago it would not have earned enough in the last year at wholesale power rates to get close to covering its interest payments,” he said.

He believed Wel’s economic modelling took no account of damage from adverse weather, legal action from future realised health effects, obsolescence due to improved alternate technology, or reduced income through technological change or altered government policies.

“Wind power is now obsolete for the North Island,” he said, in tabling economic models for alternate power projects.

And there was an ominous warning for Wel if they did proceed. “Should these turbines be built, they will be the best monitored ones in the world. Every watt of power, every squeak of sound, every whiff of subsonics and every bird they kill will be recorded. Then we will see who was right.”

Mr Cox, a wind farm pioneer and designer of fighter aircraft for British Aerospace, refused to give his full qualifications to the hearing.

“Just call me Mr Cox. Far too much weight is given to qualifications and it disadvantages ordinary people. Take the evidence as I have presented it.

By Bruce Holloway

Waikato Times

The Sad Legacy Of David Suzuki

February 12, 2008

The Sad Legacy Of David Suzuki

By Dr. Tim Ball  Monday, February 11, 2008

David Suzuki's LegacySo David Suzuki’s next ‘Nature Challenge’ is apparently challenging students to determine if there isn’t some “legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing [about climate change] is a criminal act”, to quote the National Post (Feb  7, 2008).

It appears that a religious fervor for protecting nature has transformed Canada’s leading environmentalist into an emotional bully intolerant of anyone, including other scientists, who don’t see things his way.

Over the years, I’ve heard and read statements by David Suzuki that are too often misleading or incorrect, especially about climate. He, and many like him, claim natural events are unnatural thus guaranteeing that they appear right. What he conveniently overlooks, and may have learned had he remained a scientist rather than becoming an activist, is that nature and climate frequently change dramatically and in very short time periods.
Suzuki gets away with this misinterpretation by fully exploiting the false authority of his claimed and cultivated position as a scientist and environmentalist. He does this despite the fact that he deliberately abandoned his university research position in the 1980s and has no more qualifications as an environmentalist than many of us.

Indeed, it is arrogant for people such as Suzuki to claim that they are environmentalists as if it were some sort of exclusive club, inferring they care and the rest of us don’t. It is more likely he, and those who work with him, are pushing a political agenda to create the world they want. H. L. Mencken, one of the most influential American writers of the early 20th century, said, “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”

Suzuki’s image is being increasingly tarnished as evidence accumulates against his positions and statements. This was bound to happen with climate because he ignores the standard scientific method, which tries to disprove hypotheses. As Richard Lindzen said about the hypothesis that human addition of CO2 would cause significant global warming; the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.

Despite personal attacks and a campaign of disinformation by alarmists, it is science that is destroying the human-caused climate change hypothesis. The disinformation of alarmists, Suzuki included, has gone through many phases–the now familiar ‘consensus’ argument, the ad hominem attacks (’climate deniers’, ‘climate criminals’, ‘international outlaws’, etc.) to presenting misinformation to political leaders.

The latest position is that ‘the science is settled’.

In February of last year, Suzuki stormed out of an AM640 Toronto radio interview when interviewer, John Oakley, made the accurate observation that global warming science is not a “totally settled issue.” Besides Suzuki’s aggressive behavior, his promotion of certainty in a field scientists understand to be immature, is counterproductive to climate research. If the science is settled then why is there literally a deluge of scientific papers coming out on the topic? If the science is settled, then this all must be an enormous waste of money.

Suzuki raised the spin to a professional level when he teamed up with James Hoggan of Hoggan and Associates, one of Canada’s largest public relations firms. According to Hoggan’s Web site, “Hoggan has provided strategic communications services to the DSF [David Suzuki Foundation] for more than 15 years, providing communications advice on salmon farming, climate change, forest preservation and international conservation projects.

Hoggan continues to provide ongoing support to the DSF Nature Challenge and its Capital Contribution campaign. Hoggan also recently prepared a report for the DSF Board based on extensive national research on how to guide the evolution of the DSF’s communications strategy to help become more effective in building broad-based support among decision makers, opinion leaders and other influential Canadians.”

It would be hard to imagine a closer relationship between supposedly distinct entities that that which exists between Hoggan and Suzuki. Hoggan and Associates list the David Suzuki Foundation as one of their “Research Sponsors” and Hoggan himself has served on the Board of the DSF for the past 11 years, now even replacing Suzuki as Chair of the Foundation.

According to the DSF 2006 annual report, Hoggan and Associates is a large financial donor to the Suzuki Foundation and Hoggan has personally arranged “a future gift” to the society.

Not surprisingly, Suzuki regularly boosts Hoggan’s global warming projects in the media and Hoggan is quick to use his project to attack those of us who dare disagree with Suzuki. That Hoggan’s project has been funded by an Alberta-based lawyer who has pleaded guilty to multi-million dollar money laundering charges seems to bother no one.

Complete article at CFP (Canadian Free Press) 

Wind turbine noise

February 7, 2008

A short video

Our Life is Hell

Premier, Dalton McGuinty Talks About Renewable Energy For Ontario

January 14, 2008

Editor:
I would like to thank Lynne, for sending me the Hansard below. Just what is Premier, Dalton McGuinty up to.

pinn_mcguintyhr370.jpgAccording to our Premier, Dalton McGuinty
Ontario Hansard – 19-April2006
“I think the member opposite knows that when it comes to natural gas, prices there tend to be volatile, and it remains a significant contributor to global warming. Wind turbines: We are investing heavily in those, but again, those are an expensive form of electricity and they’re not reliable, because sometimes obviously the wind does not blow. When it comes to solar, those tend to be expensive as well.”

So Mr. Premiere, instead of building a cost effective reliable electrical system for Ont., you have decided to do the exact opposite. Why?

You say, “natural gas, prices there tend to be volatile, and it remains a significant contributor to global warming”.

Building thousands of megawatts of gas plants, will result in a significant, unnecessary cost, with little or no benefit to the environment. Installing the scrubbers on the coal plants would have brought down the emissions very close to that of the, to be built gas plants, at a fraction of the cost. In fact, by not installing the scrubbers on the coal plants you have put the health of the people of Ont. at risk.

You go on to say
Ontario Hansard – 19-April2006
“But we’re not just sitting on our hands as we weigh these important issues before us. Let me tell you about some of the exciting news that we have by way of creating new wind farms in Ontario. We’ve announced three new wind farms in the last month alone. At Erie Shores, there’s a new wind farm with 66 turbines producing 99 megawatts of power for 25,000 homes. The first phase of a new wind farm outside Goderich is now up. That’s 22 turbines producing enough power for 12,000 homes. And the first phase of a new wind farm is now up outside Shelburne, Ontario: 45 turbines producing 67.5 megawatts. That’s enough to power 18,000 homes”.

Your statement above sounds good, but it’s not exactly honest. According to the Independent Electricity System Operator — “For capacity planning purposes, wind generation has a dependable capacity contribution of 10% of the listed figures.”
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Monday 10 April 2006

According to you, the wind farms listed above, produce enough energy to power 55,000 homes, but the IESO says they have a real capacity to power only 5,500 homes.

How long would a auto company get away with advertising “our car gets 60 mpg”, when in reality it only gets 6 mpg. Not long. So why is the govt. allowed to misrepresent in such an overt manner?
You call wind energy, “expensive and not reliable”. Why are you building them?

A new report predicts that energy costs could rise as much as 70 per cent if natural gas generation replaces the four coal plants. But McGuinty said that’s the cost of cleaner air.

“The single greatest contributor to greenhouse gases in the province of Ontario is coal-fired generation so we’re going to do something about that,” he said.

You also said, “natural gas, prices there tend to be volatile, and it remains a significant contributor to global warming”

I had the opportunity to talk with one of your energy advisors about a year ago. He says that the gas plants are more dangerous to health than coal plants with scrubbers installed. Apparently the particulate from the gas plants is much finer and harder for the body to deal with. I was also told gas plants are great emitters of ground level ozone, which is very hard on people with asthma or other breathing problems.

Our manufacturers in Ont. are losing jobs because of the high dollar, while at the same time, Mr. McGuinty, you are doing everything in your power to drive up the cost of electricity. Any significant rise in the cost of power will drive industry out of Ont., and they won’t likely return.

Mr. McGuinty, you recently went to Ottawa looking for Federal Govt. aid to help the manufacturing sector in Ont., while at the same time you are building an electrical system that is sure to drive industry out of the Province or into bankruptcy.

Who are you working for anyway? The people of Ont. or the Maurice Strong agenda. So far, it looks like Strong has your attention. You are obviously not listening to your own energy advisors.

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP

Further reading material

T h e E 8 r e c o mm e n d a t i o n s

green-agrenda-quotes

Mr. McGuinty, you already know the devastating affect your “Green” polices are having on people and their property values, and you seem convinced, by your own words, that your energy polices are badly flawed, “expensive and unreliable”.

Yet, you continue down this path of destruction for the Ont. economy. Why?

Global Warming the Fraud Continues in 2008

January 9, 2008

2008 will be the year that the climate alarmists will be discredited
Media Promotes Global Warming Alarmism by Jack Kelly at RealClearPolitics via Yahoo News:

About this time last year, Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit of East Anglia University in Britain, predicted 2007 would be the warmest year on record.

It didn’t turn out that way. 2007 was only the 9th warmest year since global temperature readings were first made in 1861.

2007 was also the coldest year of this century, noted Czech physicist Lubos Motl.

Both global warming alarmists like Dr. Jones and skeptics like Dr. Motl forecast that this year will be slightly cooler than last year. If so, that means it will be a decade since the high water mark in global temperature was set in 1998.

And the trend line is down. Average global temperature in 2007 was lower than for 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002 and 2001. November of last year was the coldest month since January of 2000, and December was colder still. “Global warming has stopped,” said David Whitehouse, former science editor for the BBC. “It’s not a viewpoint or a skeptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact.”

But observational fact matters little to global warming alarmists, particularly to those in the news media. “In 2008, your television will bring you image after image of natural havoc linked to global warming,” said John Tierney, who writes a science column for the New York Times. “You will be told that such bizarre weather must be a sign of dangerous climate change — and that these images are a mere preview of what’s in store unless we act quickly to cool the planet.”

“Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter,” said Steven Guibeault of Greenpeace. There is no dispute among scientists that the planet warmed about 0.3 degrees Celsius between 1980 and 1998. What is in dispute is what caused the warming, and whether it will continue. The alarmists say the warming was caused chiefly by emissions of carbon dioxide from our automobiles and factories, and that, consequently, it will continue at an ever increasing rate unless we humans change our behavior. The skeptics say the warming trend was caused chiefly by natural cycles, and that it is at or near its end.

“The earth is at the peak of one of its passing warm spells,” said Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. It’ll start getting cold by 2012, and really, really cold around 2041, he predicts.

The news media promote global warming alarmism through selective reporting. Dr. Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado noted that a paper published in an obscure scientific journal that argued there was a link between hurricanes and global warming generated 79 news articles, while a paper that debunked the connection published in a far more prestigious journal generated only three.

“When the Arctic sea ice last year hit the lowest level ever recorded by satellites, it was big news and heralded as a sign the planet was warming,” Mr. Tierney wrote. “When the Antarctic sea ice last year reached the highest level ever recorded by satellites, it was pretty much ignored.”

Two studies published last year which indicated the melting of Arctic sea ice was due more to cyclical changes in ocean currents and winds than to planetary warming also attracted little attention, Mr. Tierney noted.

And though the record melting of Arctic sea ice this summer was widely reported, the record growth of Arctic sea ice this fall (58,000 square miles of ice each day for 10 straight days) was not.

More than 400 scientists — many of them members of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — challenge the claims of the leading global warming alarmist, former Vice President and now Nobel laureate Al Gore, said a report issued by the Republicans on the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works committee last month. Kailee Kreider, a spokeswoman for Mr. Gore, said there criticisms should be discounted because 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from the Exxon Mobil Corp.

It’s Mr. Gore who is the crook, says French physicist Claude Allegre in a new book. He’s made millions in an eco-business based on phony science, Dr. Allegre charges.

Mr. Gore isn’t alone, says Weather Channel founder John Coleman: “Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming,” Mr. Coleman wrote. “Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going…In time, in a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.”

Wind Generator and Wind Generating Facility Ordinance for Trempealeau County

December 18, 2007

Editor:
Reading the letter below showed me the real life problems associated with wind farms being sited too close to homes. That was just over a year ago. Anyone trying to convince any level of govt knows the frustration they have endured in their fight for reason. Mr. Monfils warned us and it seems fitting that the first realistic, not perfect, setbacks in North America should be passed in Mr. Monfils State of Wisconsin

This letter was written by Mr. Monfils, Lincoln Town Board Chairman, about living near wind turbines in Kewaunee County, Wisconsin. He wrote it hoping that it will help other communities facing wind power plant proposals. problems-associated-with-wind-turbines

Please make sure everyone gets a copy of this new ordinance

Wind Generator and Wind Generating Facility Ordinance for Trempealeau County

Setbacks: The following setbacks and separation requirements shall apply to Commercial Wind Turbines.
(a) Public Roads: Each Wind Turbine shall be set back from the nearest public road and its right of way a distance no less than two (2) times its Total Height.
(b) Railroads: Each Wind Turbine shall be set back from all railroads and their right of way a distance of no less than two (2) times its Total Height.
(c) Wind Turbine spacing: Each Wind Turbine shall have a separation distance from other Wind Turbines equal to one and two-tenths (1.2) times the total height of the tallest Wind Turbine.
(d) Communication and electrical lines: Each Wind Turbine shall be set back from the nearest above-ground public electric power line or telephone line a distance no less than two (2) times its Total Height.
(e) Inhabited structures: Each Wind Turbine shall be set back from the nearest structure used as a residence, school, hospital, church, place of employment or public library, a distance no less than one (1) mile, unless mitigation has taken place and agreed by owner/operator and affected property owners involved and recorded in the Trempealeau County Register of Deeds office which describes the benefited and burdened properties and which advises all subsequent owners of the burdened property.
(f) Property lines: Each Wind Turbine shall be set back from the nearest property line a distance no less than one-half (½) mile, unless mitigation has taken place and agreed by owner/operator and affected property owners involved, and recorded in the
Trempealeau County Register of Deeds office which describes the benefited and burdened properties and which advises all subsequent owners of the burdened property.
Click link to read complete document.

wind_ordinance doc

Ontario blows it

November 20, 2007

 From the Editor

Finally – someone in the media prints the truth about wind energy. Now, will the rest of the media follow suit and force this calamity into the open. Not only are consumers going to be adversely affected, so is industry. You could find yourself on the unemployment line when your industry moves out of the province seeking better electrical rates. Anyone that understands the electrical needs of Ont. knows that putting the scrubbers on the coal plants and building nuclear is the answer. You don’t need to fear Global Warming, you need to fear the unnecessary increase in your electric bills and the possible loss of your job. Wind Energy as proposed by the Ont. govt. is at best a mistake and at worst in can be viewed as a SCAM against the citizens of this province.

Please Wake up and Stand up.

You can do it if you try. 

Erratic wind power brings huge costs

Tom Adams And FranCois Cadieux, Financial Post

Published: Tuesday, November 20, 2007

For all its strengths, we now have enough information to conclude that wind power in Ontario is a disaster for consumers.

Ontario is poorly suited to host wind power.

Predicting wind output changes has proven difficult, but one pattern is clear:Winds tend to be calm when consumers need electricity most. Ontarians use the most electricity in summer — the weakest season for wind. In July and August of 2006 and 2007, Ontario was frequently becalmed and average monthly output fell within the lowly 13% to 19% range. Although winter is the strongest season, on the coldest days, when we use most power, wind output tends to be poorest. Over the typical day, wind output peaks around midnight and bottoms out around 8 a.m., contrary to our daily consumption pattern.

Diversifying the geographic location of wind farms has provided little output stability because, even when widely dispersed, output from individual farms tends to rise and fall in sync. Although limited data is available, the production pattern of New York’s largest wind farm appears to closely match the hourly output of Ontario’s overall wind production. New York’s farm even matches fairly closely the output of a similar farm at Sault St. Marie, 840 kilometres away.

Connecting wind power to the grid is also costly. The first of many high-voltage transmission investments mainly directed at wind is currently pegged at $635-million. Connecting large wind generators to low-voltage distribution networks will require costly re-engineering. Whether high voltage or low, grid connections must be vastly oversized relative to average wind output to support infrequent bursts of full production.

Without radical technological advances, wind power will only burden Ontario consumers. – Tom Adams is an independent energy advisor and Francois Cadieux is an engineering science student at the University of Toronto.

Financial Post for the full story

Health Care in Huron Bruce Gets a Failing Grade

October 8, 2007

 by Ron Stephens

The percentage of people in Huron Bruce without a family doctor remains at unacceptable levels. Why?

Both the Liberal and Conservative parties want to introduce private health care. Starve the system long enough and pretty soon private health care starts to look good.

If you want good health care you must demand it. Competing against each other for doctors by attempting to bribe them is demeaning for both the communities and the doctors, It is also a losers game. The solution I have come up with is very simple. Fast track the foreign doctors already in the province but not practicing, they are assigned a community and paid on a graduated scale until they reach full pay at the end of five years. With any luck they have become a part of the community and are happy to continue to live and practice in their new home town. It is important that people entering medical school are screened so that the ones who put health care ahead of money get the positions in the schools. Those doctors will be less likely to leave to chase the money. The doctors must be well paid, but money should not be their first priority.

Our health care system will never work if the powers that be continue to be allowed undermine it.