Yes, indeed, thank you, Mark, for refocusing the discussion. The numbers below correspond to those in the recent post. My response exceeds the 350-word limit, so please go to http://www.aweo.org/Diesendorf.html for the rest.

1. I agree that many such statements are disingenuous. In fact, however, it is true, especially in areas of special beauty. In turn, developers are typically more disingenuous, claiming their sensitive concern for proper siting.

2. While some people deny global warming, the strongest argument against large-scale wind power is their miniscule potential contribution to mitigation. That coal-fired electricity is the biggest contributor to greenhouse pollution is a misstatement -- coal is the biggest source in electricity generation, but electricity generation is the source of only a fraction of our greenhouse gas emissions.

3. Subsidies need not be an issue, if wind power actually delivered substantial electricity in return. And the wrongness of subsidies for fossil fuels doesn't make subsidies to wind right; it just underscores the possibility that these subsidies are misdirected as well.

4. The issue of profits is raised because of the small benefit and the sacrifice of rural and undeveloped land. Profits, along with tax sheltering, are criticized because they appear to be based primarily on exploitation and piracy.

5. Refuted at http://www.aweo.org/Diesendorf.html

6. As wind facilities are proposed in the mountains of eastern U.S., for example, where birds and bats are indeed killed, the latter in shockingly large numbers, by existing turbines, it is right to consider that similarly sited turbines will show similar results. Most developers, as Diesendorf does, instead simply deny it's a problem. Because noise affects people to various degrees, the industry ignores the growing testimony of another very real problem in the confidence that "most" people get used to it. And there are other environmental problems, as with any industrial complex.

7. The fact is that most pro-wind arguments are right out of the industry's sales brochures and, as here, never backed by data from actual experience.

8. Nobody needs to give the pro-wind camp lessons on denigrating those who disagree with them.

Eric and Mark are members of a "not in my backyard anti-progress" pressure group. they have childish arguments and when asked for links to backup their claims they provide links to other site containing they ranting. Their continued resistance to answer real questions with answers show these people are incapable of rational thought in this area.

Kenny,

We all are for saving the planet, and NIMBIES even more so than others. And those pointing their fingers at NIMBIES should think twice: it was said at the Rio conference: the first and most important step towards an environmentally sound future is for everyone to look after his own backyard.

Indeed, individual people watching over their backyards are the best watchdogs against the devastating power of a corrupt political world, self serving bureaucracy and industrial interests awash with taxpayers' subsidies that enable them to buy their way out of trouble - like windfarm promoters killing eagles illegally with their machines, when their nests are not mysteriously burned when a windfarm permit is requested (it occured in Scotland).

I myself own no house, no property, nothing. But I love to walk the mountains of Spain, Scotland, or Australia. From where I am today, I can see the mountains of the Costa Blanca, many of them covered in snow after the cold spell we just had. 4 species of eagles survive in that rapidly shrinking wilderness, which has been classified as "Important Bird Area", plus falcons, kites, vultures, eagle owls, ospreys and a variety of migrating birds. This prompted me to fight for the protection of these mountains from the insatiable appetite of developers.

So I guess you would call me a NIMBY, eh?

And what should I call you, Kenny? - A land-wrecker? A money-grabber? A windfarm fanatic? A brainwashed global warmer?

You tell me, and I will be glad to oblige.

Note: you are the one who started this silly name-calling argument, so don't you start accusing me now of ad hominem.

And don't you dare "childish" me ever again. If you want to have a proper discussion on this very serious matter, I suggest you start behaving in a civilized and courteous manner.

MD we could ask you a similar questions. If you are totally convinced you are right why do you stoop to such tactics as suggesting those fighting windfarms have ulterior motives? Is this not denigration?
You suggest we are somehow funded by industries who may gain from our stance. This is rubbish. What evidence do you or anyone else have? None, because there is none. If you cannot prove such allegations will we get a public apology from you on this forum.
You suggest we cannot possibly be environmentalists, but of course you take the high moral ground on the environment because you are pro windfarm, end of story. What have you done personally for the environment Mark, with your own hands?
How many trees have you personally planted in the past 12 months Mark?
What have you done personally to improve bird habitats Mark?
What have you done personally to combat erosion, salinity, revegetation?

Kenny, your responses verge on abuse and your questions are childish so quite frankly you are not worth my time.

Just so there is no confusion in the minds of people just joining this forum: "MD" is Mark Diesendorf, the pro-windfarm author of the article we are debating here.

And when Nauswea criticizes "Mark", or "MD", she is not talking about me, of course.

Mark Duchamp

Although I think that the problems of energy security, increasing demand for energy and air pollution are too serious to exclude wind power from our mix of sources of electricity, I don't think it is right to ignore the concerns of NIMBY's or anybody else who has concerns about the noise, visual impact or any other aspect of anything that is goint to be built. I don't want to build a society that has energy security at the loss of individual freedom. I'd rather have the individual freedom to comment and argue to my government, than have plentiful cheap, clean electricity.

That being said if a farmer leases his land for a wind turbine, or the wind farm buys the land and the development is approved after going through all the environmental requirements, they must have the right to build and maintain the wind farm.

Cats, cars, office buildings, transmission towers, transmission lines and communication towers kill far more birds than wind turbines. It seems like it is implied that the only birds that ever die are killed by wind turbines. Loss of habitat, loss of nesting locations and changes in biodiversity also need to be considered in the health of bird populations. The pollution and land used for the generation of coal fired electricity has a far greater impact on these factors than wind farms. Still it is worth including in the analysis of any new wind farm development, the potential impact on birds just as it should be considered for transmission and communications towers.