Voices from the Thedford Bog: Wind turbines are “a social experiment, a mess, a failure”


Protesters joined the remaining migrating tundra swans at the Thedford Bog near Grand Bend, Lake Huron, on Sunday, April 6, 2014, to condemn plans to build a bristling barrier of industrial wind turbines in what is a designated Important Bird Area. Every March some 10-15,000 tundra swans stop at the Thedford Bog and environs to rest and feed before continuing on their migration to the western Arctic.

Waterfowl scientist Dr. Scott Petrie told CBC News in 2012:

By putting the turbines in inappropriate places, it actually is tantamount to habitat loss. You wouldn’t put an office tower next to a coastal wetland, why would you put a wind turbine there?

Monte McNaughton, Progressive Conservative Member of the Provincial Parliament of Ontario (MPP) for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, reminded the protesters that his party’s leader, Tim Hudak, has promised, if elected, to repeal the Green Energy Act, the draconian legislation that has given unprecedented rights to industrial wind turbines over people, communities and wildlife. The Green Energy Act was enacted in 2009 in part as a response to the fake planetary emergency of man-made global warming/climate change.

CLICK ON IMAGE TO PLAY VIDEO (some wind noise)

The Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne Liberal governments have allowed the Ontario landscape to be despoiled and blighted by thousands of useless industrial wind turbines. The machines, towering as high as 50-storey buildings, built on a foundation that requires 800 tons of concrete each that will remain in the ground of prime farmland forever, have been erected in the absence of any cost-benefit analysis or human health studies, and accorded special rights by the Liberal government with its elimination of environmental restrictions inconvenient to wind companies.

Premier Kathleen Wynne has promised to build thousands more of the extortionate-to-taxpayers, destructive, un-green industrial monstrosities.


13 responses to “Voices from the Thedford Bog: Wind turbines are “a social experiment, a mess, a failure””

  1. windfarmresearch says :

    Are the swans still there? Do they return in the fall?

    • FauxGreen says :

      No, the swans have left, as you can see on this calendar posted by the Lambton Heritage Museum – http://www.lclmg.org/lclmg/Default.aspx?tabid=127 – click “Migration Report”. This year the swans were late in arriving, due to the prolonged presence of ice and snow on the bog, and the majority lingered only two days before departing. You can check the museum’s archived migration report calendars – http://www.lclmg.org/lclmg/Default.aspx?tabid=128 – to judge what the swans’ usual window of arrival is (mid-March) – click the arrows on either side of the month heading.

      We’ve read that in the fall the swans travel back to the eastern U.S. shores in smaller family groups, not en masse as in the spring.

  2. Lois Lane - MAWT says :

    Reblogged this on Mothers Against Wind Turbines .

  3. SickOfLies says :

    Be very careful the PC party is full blown agenda 21 just like the NDP and Liberals. You need to listen for the key words such as sustainability and carbon footprint. We all know these things were false and revealed by Snowden and others. If the PC party gets rid of the Green energy act I will bet it will be replaced with some thing even worse as it will now have everyones input from all the courts and comments to make it a way that you will not be able to defend against it. The time is not to try one of the other parties and leave these 3 behind. There is no sense in beaten a dead horse. Change can only begin with YOU!

  4. cornwallwindwatch says :

    Reblogged this on Cornwall Wind Watch.

  5. Pete says :

    “Turbines Kill Birds”… so do cars.

  6. Respect Silence says :

    It’s always good to find anti wind power articles but it’s disappointing to see so many of them laced with global warming denial, which gives ammo to critics who pigeonhole wind farm opponents as anti-science. Many rural folk lack a solid science education, so they (as common victims of wind projects) are prone to favor simplistic angles. Nothing against non college graduates who do honest work, but climatologists aren’t conspiring against you!

    To win this fight, please avoid pseudo-scientific conspiracy theories and dumbed-down slogans. CO2 was known as the primary heat-trapping gas long before modern wind turbines existed. They weren’t invented expressly to fight AGW, rather as an interesting new way to make electricity. The problem arose when they grew too big and spread too far, becoming just another large construction industry,

    Back to the global warming denial: Without any CO2 the Earth would be a frozen, uninhabitable place, so calling CO2 a “trace gas” ignores what it actually accomplishes. Upsetting the CO2 balance is risky business, and that’s exactly what people are doing with normally buried carbon sources. There’s no logical way to wish that out of existence.


    • FauxGreen says :

      Patronizing and condescending comment about the relative science literacy of “rural folk”!

      Suggest you do your homework and study the empirical data on carbon dioxide and climate:

      “In 1927, CO2 levels were very low. An endless series of disasters struck the world, and glaciers were rapidly melting. What we can conclude from all this is :
      1 The climate was not better at lower levels of CO2
      2 The climate would not get better if we reduced CO2 levels
      3 The NASA temperature record is complete garbage”

      • Respect Silence says :

        You’re quoting the usual guys who’ve decided to not believe climatologists. Do you want us to burn more FINITE oil as some sort of protest against the EPA? What point does waste prove, regardless of AGW? I don’t understand the purpose of climate-denial, except to be contrarian just to annoy others. Creationism is often involved but some evangelicals are facing up to the evidence of what CO2 is actually doing now.

        You quote Steven Goddard (“1927…”) without attribution. I wonder if he ever mentions 1928? The previous year just seemed to be a fluke for disasters and there’s little context about ALL the world’s glaciers, which sure weren’t melting like they are now. Fully researching why Goddard dwells on 1927 would reveal other flawed logic.

        https://skepticalscience.com/Part-Three-Response-to-Goddard.html (shows his tactics)

        This non-liberal source might get you thinking: https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm (not just Al Gore making a documentary out of the blue)

        You folks are making the war against wind power lose credibility, and it’s no trivial loss with so much land at stake. You may as well protest vandalism while ignoring arson.


      • FauxGreen says :

        For the “usual guys” it’s not a question of belief but rather of empirical evidence and data obtained by the scientific method.

        The “In 1927…” quotation clearly comes from the links above it, one of which contains Tiny Heller’s name (i.e. Steven Goddard).

        Deliberate, calculated demonization of life-giving carbon dioxide as a “pollutant” frying the earth, used as rationale for what is the massive deception of manmade global warming, is the sole reason we have to combat the scourge of useless, destructive industrial wind turbines.

      • Respect Silence says :

        “Deliberate, calculated demonization of life-giving carbon dioxide as a “pollutant” frying the earth…..”

        CO2 is only “life giving” in the context of plant growth! Atmospheric warming is an entirely different function of the CO2 molecule, based on how the atoms vibrate when hit by infrared radiation. That you choose to confuse those two issues shows a lack of critical thinking. You could just as well claim that eating absurd amounts of food is healthy and “life giving” just because food (up to a point) keeps us alive. Everything in moderation!

        https://www.google.com/search?q=co2+molecule+atoms+vibration (explains mechanism of how CO2 traps heat)


        Wind turbines were not originally invented to combat AGW. They were pursued in the 1970’s to help replace oil for direct reasons (which they do a mediocre job of). This was after U.S. conventional oil production peaked and we were at the mercy of the Middle East (current shale fracking is a desperate run on tighter rock formations, not the end of Peak Oil). Back in the 70s, small cars got popular and there was strong interest in new technologies to reduce oil dependence.

        Wind was an obvious choice but it started becoming a monster about 20 years ago, even though global warming fears still weren’t the sole reason. I’d actually find wind turbines interesting IF they were only sited in urban areas with other skyscrapers. Their contrast with rural life and wilderness is why they’re so sinister.

        Did you know that “Promised Land” (2012) was originally going to be about wind developers? I wish they’d do a sequel with their original script. It shows that Big Oil is very similar to Big Wind. You’re trying to defend one business that’s embedded in the other. I’m saying study what CO2 actually does vs. anti-regulatory rhetoric that ignores physics.


      • Respect Silence says :

        I dug more into Steven Goddard aka Tony Heller (why use both names?) and he comes off as flaky in manner: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=tony+heller+goddard+climate

        He lacks scientific expertise in climatology, being a geology and electronics major. Both of those fields tend to be about manipulating nature for industry, like the wind power business itself. Geologists are often in the fossil fuel business or help with other construction permits. Some who actually respect nature become teachers or naturalists.

        I can handle “lukewarmers” like Matt Ridley (UK) but not people who simply choose to ignore all evidence that doesn’t suit them. They usually share an anti-regulation ideology that doesn’t care what the regulations are actually for. It’s the same mindset that claims the only purpose of speed limits is revenue collection, not public safety. Or when the wind business claims that noise is trivial to public health.

Leave a Reply


WordPress.com Logo


Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: