Nimue,

As far as I know the body of evidence about extremely damaging climate change to which you refer simply DOES NOT EXIST !

The world is not warming rapidly. Temperatures in 1998 were warmer than today despite all the carbon dioxide we've added since then. Sure we have warming in some regions but those effects are largely localised. Polar warming is probably due to warmer water reaching the poles and the warm water causes both ice-melt and warmer local temperatures.

Glaciers have been melting since 1850 (some earlier) and this melting could be due to an increase in cloud cover. Cloud at night traps heat and keeps air warmer.

Depending on who you talk to sea level rise is either happening at about 1mm per year or it's an illusion caused by tectonic plates rising in some areas and falling in others. (Researchers have survyed the Maldives and the sea level there is falling, not rising.)

Computer-based predictions are inaccurate. They can't even accurately predict the temperature and rainfall we've had over the last 40 years.

Produce for me some evidence of this dangerous global warming that is (a) accurate and (b) cannot be explained by natural events and I will listen to your argument.

Until that time I will continue to say that the theory of global warming is wrong and that wind turbines bring no real benefit except perhaps in remote areas where connection to the electricity grid is far too expensive.

cheers

Mark Diesendorf’s response to the anti-wind power comments, Part I

Like many anti-wind power people, Snowman exhibits the greenhouse sceptic position, a stance that is profoundly anti-environmental. At the recent international climate conference in Exeter UK, scientific evidence was presented that global climate change could be occurring faster than originally anticipated and that the changes may be even more serious than envisaged in the standard climate models. Snowman does indeed have his/her head in the sand over climate change. No amount of evidence will change such obstinance.

To address some of the other comments:

• Unless sound is channelled in some way (e.g. across water at night), it decreases as the inverse square of the distance. In other words, at double the distance the sound is reduced to one-quarter.

• The best way for the people of Toora to devalue their properties is to say loudly and clearly that something is devaluing their properties. Properly designed overseas surveys of land values indicate that communities that avoid such foolish behaviour rarely experience any devaluation from wind farms.

• If it can be proven by objective measurements that noise emissions at some Toora residences are indeed above the licensed levels, I would support those residents in demanding that the Victorian government enforce the license.

• Snowman and company are one-sided on the issue of subsidies, ignoring the huge environmental and health subsidies to coal. The European Commission's ExternE studies find that taking into account just a small part of these subsidies would almost triple the price of coal power, making it much more expensive than large-scale wind power. A similar result is obtained from the International Energy Agency’s estimates of the future cost of capturing and underground burial of carbon dioxide from coal power. I haven’t seen the unpublished German report on wind power, and neither presumably has Snowman, so it seems premature to discuss it. Anyway such reports should be interpreted in the context of the billions of dollars of financial subsidies to coal production in Germany, amounting to the equivalent of over US$100,000 per coal miner per year.

Mark Diesendorf’s response, Part II

Anti-Green asks: With 20% of Australia’s electricity coming from wind in 2040 in the Clean Energy Future for Australia scenario study (see e.g. www.wwf.org.au), where does the rest of the electricity come from? The answer is that, after implementing a variety of electricity demand reduction measures and not replacing coal-fired power stations at the ends of their operating lives, electricity supply in our principal scenario for 2040 comes from natural gas (including cogeneration) 30%, bioenergy 28%, wind 20%, black coal 9%, hydro 7% and direct solar 5%.

Efficient energy use is necessary for levelling off the growth in demand (which is driven by economic and population growth), but energy efficiency is not sufficient for the substantial reduction in emissions required.

Solar electricity contributes to peakload, where it has higher economic value to offset its high price, but is far too expensive for baseload. There is no need for nuclear power, which is a dangerous technology and more expensive than wind power.

Concerning my possible involvement with AusWEA: As a principal research scientist in CSIRO in 1980s, I was co-founder and president of the former Australasian Wind Energy Association, a society that only existed during the 1980s. It was not an industry association, but rather a society for researchers and do-it-yourself wind power enthusiasts. That society has NO connection with the current Australian Wind Energy Association (AusWEA), which is indeed an industry association. I have never been a member, employee or consultant to AusWEA or to any wind power developer.

However, I’m an author of national and State studies on “A Clean Energy Future for Australia” that are managed and currently being published by WWF. These are formally reports to the Clean Energy Future Group, whose members include the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, WWF and AusWEA. I don’t know whether AusWEA has contributed funding to the project, but I don’t think it’s relevant, since there is no direct connection and AusWEA has not influenced the content of the reports. Indeed, I have recommended much more wind energy for Australia than AusWEA.

My Wife and I went on a Sunday drive to inspect the start of a wind farm near our home. We can't wait for it to be up. Maybe if snowman and all the other know it alls are right it will drown out the noise coming from the steel mill down the road. :)
Keep up the good work Mark Diesendorf.

Mark,

How little you know about the Exeter conference! Sceptics were not invited to present their arguments and they were prevented from asking their questions to the speakers, especially questions which threatened to expose the lack of evidence for the assertions. It was simply a one-sided farce so don't try to claim it as any noble event.

How dare you say "Snowman does indeed have his/her head in the sand over climate change. No amount of evidence will change such obstinance." !

Where is YOUR evidence for global warming? How do you explain that temperatures have not exceeded 1998 levels despite the increase in carbon dioxide over the last six years.

I have asked these questions on numerous occasions in these forums and no-one has provided an answer.

I see that you have written material for the WWF. Why did you not state this at the outset so that we would know not to expect much evidence to support your assertions.

MD. It is always interesting to read the opinions of people who deal in theory castigating those of us who have to live with the reality of zealot driven government policy.
Assertions that the people of Toora have somehow devalued their own properties by talking publicly about the negative effects of living next door to a windfarm is just as reprehensible as saying a rape victim is to blame for being raped. Agents have tried putting a positive spin into advertising and I said many of the people coming to view any properties often claim to support wind energy during the initial phone call but are horrified to see just how close these giant turbines have been built to houses and quickly leave. We have many documented examples of this happening. Even a property that is for sale with a turbine on it hasn't sold. 400 metres is just too close to a house. We live in the largest and emptiest continent on earth surely we can have worlds best practise and put into legisation setbacks of 1.5 - 2 kms from dwellings, particularly in hilly areas where the sound bounces around. This would help diffuse at least some peoples concerns.
Also yes it has been proven that the company has indeed exceeded the noise standards by an independent study financed by the local Shire Council using precious ratepayers money because the State Government wouldn't do anything about it.
As far as groups being funded by the coal industry, sorry but that is just rubbish. I know most of the people involved in various Guardian Groups in South Gippsland and not one of these groups has an affiliation with the coal industry. The only affiliation I know is the Prom Coast Guardians promoting the benefits of Solar power and have managed to get a small discount for their members for a Solar HWS, they also promote energy conservation and the use of low energy light bulbs. So much for the conspiracy theory. We are just ordinary people Mark fighting for a bit of social justice.