16 June 2013

The anti-windfarm movement is coming to Canberra, with Alan Jones at its head

16 June 2013 | CapitalIdea

Yep, as reported in the Canberra Times, Well, the nutcases are coming to Canberra this coming Tuesday: “This week an anti-wind farm rally will be hosted in Canberra by controversial radio broadcaster Alan Jones.”

Getup will be hosting a counter-rally on Tuesday, noon, at Garema Place.

It would be nice to give the Coalition the message that they should stick to the science and support wind farming rather than bowing to scare campaigns and corporate interests.

Hope to see lots of us there – but I would be particularly impressed if we were joined by both Kate Lundy and Gary Humphries!

(Note: I’m not an organiser or anything, just a concerned citizen)

Join the conversation

All Comments

All Comments
Website Comments
Facebook Comments

LatestOldest

howeph12:04 am 20 Jun 13

pierce said :

As much as I might dislike Alan Jones, I’ve come to the conclusion that bringing up his personal life is pretty tacky…

I agree.

It’s not relevant to the “debate” at hand. There is no need to stoop to that level, in fact it is counter productive.

bundah6:11 pm 19 Jun 13

I’ve always understood a homophobe to be a person who has an irrational fear or hate of homosexuals which would fit in with Alan Jones listeners,quite abhorrent IMO!

Pork Hunt5:41 pm 19 Jun 13

johnboy said :

http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/freeman.asp

“I hate the word homophobia. It’s not a phobia. You are not scared. You are an asshole”

Using the words homophobia and asshole in the same statement may not be all that helpful… 🙂

Pork Hunt5:23 pm 19 Jun 13

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

pierce said :

As much as I might dislike Alan Jones, I’ve come to the conclusion that bringing up his personal life is pretty tacky, particularly given that it doesn’t appear to conflict with his public statements. (I have better things to do than listen to the man’s show but he isn’t known for an anti-gay stance, to the best of my knowledge)

Most of his listeners are the hugest homophobes you could ever meet.

Exactly what is the problem if a person has a phobia?
I work in the lift game and in the last two weeks, two people have exited a lift I was in as it filled with fellow travelers and excused themselves by stating they were feeling claustrophobic.
Coulrophobes are concerned about clowns ffs.
Why is it a crime to be a homophobe?

Reply View 1 reply

johnboy5:32 pm 19 Jun 13

http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/freeman.asp

“I hate the word homophobia. It’s not a phobia. You are not scared. You are an asshole”

Reply Hide replies

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd4:23 pm 19 Jun 13

pierce said :

As much as I might dislike Alan Jones, I’ve come to the conclusion that bringing up his personal life is pretty tacky, particularly given that it doesn’t appear to conflict with his public statements. (I have better things to do than listen to the man’s show but he isn’t known for an anti-gay stance, to the best of my knowledge)

Most of his listeners are the hugest homophobes you could ever meet.

thebrownstreak693:30 pm 19 Jun 13

Jim Jones said :

dph said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Well at least dungfungus has proven three things in this topic:

1) dungfungus does not believe in science

2) dungfungus does not know how to debate

3) dungfungus, instead of using logic, parrots anything Allan jones says.

He’s clearly a graduate of the Allan Jones school of opinions & debate.

1) Ignore fact & or credible scientific research.

2) Present opinion as fact.

3) Yell over the top of anyone who disagrees or tries to use logic.

4) suck a big buncha dix

I think you’ll find the correct term is “eata boxa cox”.

pierce3:23 pm 19 Jun 13

As much as I might dislike Alan Jones, I’ve come to the conclusion that bringing up his personal life is pretty tacky, particularly given that it doesn’t appear to conflict with his public statements. (I have better things to do than listen to the man’s show but he isn’t known for an anti-gay stance, to the best of my knowledge)

Jim Jones2:54 pm 19 Jun 13

dph said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Well at least dungfungus has proven three things in this topic:

1) dungfungus does not believe in science

2) dungfungus does not know how to debate

3) dungfungus, instead of using logic, parrots anything Allan jones says.

He’s clearly a graduate of the Allan Jones school of opinions & debate.

1) Ignore fact & or credible scientific research.

2) Present opinion as fact.

3) Yell over the top of anyone who disagrees or tries to use logic.

4) suck a big buncha dix

davo1012:36 pm 19 Jun 13

dungfungus said :

Coal fired power stations need to be close to coal fields or good bulk transport routes which are rarely found in cities.

Up to the mid-50’s coal fired power stations were in cities. It wasn’t till the development of very high voltage transmission that it became viable to build them next to the coal fields.

dungfungus said :

Wind turbines can be placed almost anywhere (even in the middle of the sea).

Not really. They need to be in areas with high enough wind speeds which discounts putting them in any of the capital cites (except Hobart) and floating wind turbines are still in the development phase.

dph2:26 pm 19 Jun 13

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Well at least dungfungus has proven three things in this topic:

1) dungfungus does not believe in science

2) dungfungus does not know how to debate

3) dungfungus, instead of using logic, parrots anything Allan jones says.

He’s clearly a graduate of the Allan Jones school of opinions & debate.

1) Ignore fact & or credible scientific research.

2) Present opinion as fact.

3) Yell over the top of anyone who disagrees or tries to use logic.

dungfungus12:44 pm 18 Jun 13

dungfungus said :

Gungahlin Al said :

dungfungus said :

Thank you. I wanted to call-out EvanJames on his pseudoscientific BS, but didn’t have the wherewithal to come-up with anything but “Shut-up, you’re full of it” so I decided to refrain from commenting. I appreciate you providing the evidence I couldn’t.

It is very entertaining following all the scientific arguments presented by so many experts, all garnished with a big dob of ego.

Why this sort of debate is pointless. Because faced with ream after ream of hard scientific debunking, the adherants just invoke personality slurs: ego, “vested interests” (yeah that one’s ironic), conspiracy (even more ironic).

dungfungus said :

Are you prepared to go back to dial-up and leave the NBN at Gungahlin and you will trade light pollution for noise pollution if you live near a wind farm. Maybe a wombat hole is where you need to be.

Wombat hole eh? Can’t debate, so insult…
Happy to trade the NBN. Because NBN Co is building 25/4 Mbps wireless/satellite for everywhere outside the fibred zones. And because I’d like my kids to be able to marvel at the Milky Way, and all it inspires. I note you were unable to furnish any details of these hobby farms going for a song though? #sadface.

Roundhead89 said :

So GetUp is holding a counter demonstration. Their version of a closing down sale, eh? I am looking forward to the climate change era ending on September 14th.

To quote Neil deGrasse Tyson; “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.”

Thalydamide was invented by a scientist, wasn’t it?

“unable to furnish any details of these hobby farms going for a song though?”

If they are not sold before the wind farms move in they remain unsold – forever (unless the buyer is blind and deaf).
Remember, a bargain is something you will later regret buying at a price you can afford.
I applaud your wish to have your kids look at the Milky Way without the light intrusions but as long as their is internet connectivity they will choose to play with their iPhones instead.

dungfungus8:33 am 18 Jun 13

DrKoresh said :

thoughtpod said :

Ok, here’s the thing. The science says that the only harm posed by wind-farms is psychsomatic, caused by heavy scare-campaigning causing anxiety-related symptoms. Basically, if someone tells you that something is going to harm you again and again in specific ways, your mind will geenrate the symptoms – sort of a reverse placebo. That’s what the anti-windfarm lobby does: it targets a town, heavily advertises specific dangers and symptoms, and then the highest anxiety residents “prove” that it was all true. Studies have shown that physical symptoms correlate strongly to the amount of scare campaigns that happen in a wind farm-zoned area.

Whereas, the science says that there is no danger. Study after study commissioned by governments and credible academic institutions agree again and again.

Our own National Health and Medical Research Council (a VERY credible body) say in their report (http://bit.ly/14cRnm6), drawing on peer-reviewed reports from very credible institutions and researchers from Canada, UK, US and others:

· There is no reliable evidence that infrasounds below the hearing threshold produce physiological or psychological effects’ (Berglund & Lindvall 1995).
· Infrasound associated with modern wind turbines is not a source which will result in noise levels which may be injurious to the health of a wind farm neighbour (DTI, 2006). · Findings clearly show that there is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence indicating that wind turbines have an adverse impact on human health (CanWEA, 2009). · Sound from wind turbines does not pose a risk of hearing loss or any other adverse health effects in humans. Subaudible, low frequency sounds and infrasound from wind turbines do not present a risk to human health
(Colby, et al 2009).
· The Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit (Ontario, Canada) reviewed the current literature regarding the known health impacts of wind turbines in order to make an evidence-based decision. Their report concluded that current
evidence failed to demonstrate a health concern associated with wind turbines. `In summary, as long as the Ministry of Environment Guidelines for location criteria of wind farms are followed … there will be negligible adverse health impacts on Chatham-Kent citizens. Although opposition to wind farms on aesthetic grounds is a legitimate point of view, opposition to wind farms on the basis of potential adverse health consequences is not justified by the evidence’ (Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit, 2008).
· Wind energy is associated with fewer health effects than other forms of traditional energy generation and in fact will have positive health benefits (WHO, 2004). · `There are, at present, very few published and scientifically-validated cases of an SACs of wind farm noise emission being problematic … the extent of reliable published material does not, at this stage, warrant inclusion of SACs … into the noise impact assessment planning stage (EPHC, 2009).
· While a great deal of discussion about infrasound in connection with wind turbine generators exists in the media there is no verifiable evidence for infrasound and production by modern turbines (HGC Engineering, 2007).

The question is: in whose interest is it to discredit wind-farming? I’ll give you a clue: they’re funding the anti-wind farm lobby and are making a lot of political donations.

Thank you. I wanted to call-out EvanJames on his pseudoscientific BS, but didn’t have the wherewithal to come-up with anything but “Shut-up, you’re full of it” so I decided to refrain from commenting. I appreciate you providing the evidence I couldn’t.

It is very entertaining following all the scientific arguments presented by so many experts, all garnished with a big dob of ego.

DrKoresh9:58 pm 17 Jun 13

thoughtpod said :

Ok, here’s the thing. The science says that the only harm posed by wind-farms is psychsomatic, caused by heavy scare-campaigning causing anxiety-related symptoms. Basically, if someone tells you that something is going to harm you again and again in specific ways, your mind will geenrate the symptoms – sort of a reverse placebo. That’s what the anti-windfarm lobby does: it targets a town, heavily advertises specific dangers and symptoms, and then the highest anxiety residents “prove” that it was all true. Studies have shown that physical symptoms correlate strongly to the amount of scare campaigns that happen in a wind farm-zoned area.

Whereas, the science says that there is no danger. Study after study commissioned by governments and credible academic institutions agree again and again.

Our own National Health and Medical Research Council (a VERY credible body) say in their report (http://bit.ly/14cRnm6), drawing on peer-reviewed reports from very credible institutions and researchers from Canada, UK, US and others:

· There is no reliable evidence that infrasounds below the hearing threshold produce physiological or psychological effects’ (Berglund & Lindvall 1995).
· Infrasound associated with modern wind turbines is not a source which will result in noise levels which may be injurious to the health of a wind farm neighbour (DTI, 2006). · Findings clearly show that there is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence indicating that wind turbines have an adverse impact on human health (CanWEA, 2009). · Sound from wind turbines does not pose a risk of hearing loss or any other adverse health effects in humans. Subaudible, low frequency sounds and infrasound from wind turbines do not present a risk to human health
(Colby, et al 2009).
· The Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit (Ontario, Canada) reviewed the current literature regarding the known health impacts of wind turbines in order to make an evidence-based decision. Their report concluded that current
evidence failed to demonstrate a health concern associated with wind turbines. `In summary, as long as the Ministry of Environment Guidelines for location criteria of wind farms are followed … there will be negligible adverse health impacts on Chatham-Kent citizens. Although opposition to wind farms on aesthetic grounds is a legitimate point of view, opposition to wind farms on the basis of potential adverse health consequences is not justified by the evidence’ (Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit, 2008).
· Wind energy is associated with fewer health effects than other forms of traditional energy generation and in fact will have positive health benefits (WHO, 2004). · `There are, at present, very few published and scientifically-validated cases of an SACs of wind farm noise emission being problematic … the extent of reliable published material does not, at this stage, warrant inclusion of SACs … into the noise impact assessment planning stage (EPHC, 2009).
· While a great deal of discussion about infrasound in connection with wind turbine generators exists in the media there is no verifiable evidence for infrasound and production by modern turbines (HGC Engineering, 2007).

The question is: in whose interest is it to discredit wind-farming? I’ll give you a clue: they’re funding the anti-wind farm lobby and are making a lot of political donations.

Thank you. I wanted to call-out EvanJames on his pseudoscientific BS, but didn’t have the wherewithal to come-up with anything but “Shut-up, you’re full of it” so I decided to refrain from commenting. I appreciate you providing the evidence I couldn’t.

Jethro8:53 pm 17 Jun 13

neanderthalsis said :

The Axe the Tax policy does not have “and axe wind farms” as the subheading. We seem to have reached a point in the national debate where opposition to the carbon tax make you a flat earth believing climate denier who kicks baby fur seals for enjoyment and steals lollies from children.

There is no coalition policy to remove renewables, in fact, part of the Direct Action policy is to provide incentives for generators to move to renewables. Now I personally think that Direct Action is a load of old bollocks as a meaningful environmental policy but there are some aspects of it, which if combined with some aspects of the ALP policy, would make a sensible policy platform.

One of the Coalition’s major policy platforms is to establish an audit commission to identify areas of government waste and cut spending. A similar thing was done in QLD by Campbell Newman, who used it as an excuse to break an election promise not to sack public servants and sack over 14,000 of them.

I am almost certain that Abbott’s audit will be used as an excuse to jettison ‘non-core’ policies that the coalition unwillingly takes into the election, including the emissions reduction target and the direct action policy. The Abbott government will argue that Australia’s finances have been left in such a shambles by the Gillard Government that it unfortunately has no other choice.

Does anyone seriously believe that Abbott or the Libs in general hold the reduction target close to their hearts? The Direct Action policy is a cobbled together piece of junk that was created with the sole purpose of making it appear that the Liberal Party has a policy on climate change. Its words and actions makes it clear that this is simply not the case. They will use the budget as an excuse to bring an end to government action on climate change because, quite simply, they are against taking action on climate change.

I would bet good money that those policies will not make it past the first 18 months of an Abbott government.

thoughtpod8:18 pm 17 Jun 13

Ok, here’s the thing. The science says that the only harm posed by wind-farms is psychsomatic, caused by heavy scare-campaigning causing anxiety-related symptoms. Basically, if someone tells you that something is going to harm you again and again in specific ways, your mind will geenrate the symptoms – sort of a reverse placebo. That’s what the anti-windfarm lobby does: it targets a town, heavily advertises specific dangers and symptoms, and then the highest anxiety residents “prove” that it was all true. Studies have shown that physical symptoms correlate strongly to the amount of scare campaigns that happen in a wind farm-zoned area.

Whereas, the science says that there is no danger. Study after study commissioned by governments and credible academic institutions agree again and again.

Our own National Health and Medical Research Council (a VERY credible body) say in their report (http://bit.ly/14cRnm6), drawing on peer-reviewed reports from very credible institutions and researchers from Canada, UK, US and others:

· There is no reliable evidence that infrasounds below the hearing threshold produce physiological or psychological effects’ (Berglund & Lindvall 1995).
· Infrasound associated with modern wind turbines is not a source which will result in noise levels which may be injurious to the health of a wind farm neighbour (DTI, 2006). · Findings clearly show that there is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence indicating that wind turbines have an adverse impact on human health (CanWEA, 2009). · Sound from wind turbines does not pose a risk of hearing loss or any other adverse health effects in humans. Subaudible, low frequency sounds and infrasound from wind turbines do not present a risk to human health
(Colby, et al 2009).
· The Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit (Ontario, Canada) reviewed the current literature regarding the known health impacts of wind turbines in order to make an evidence-based decision. Their report concluded that current
evidence failed to demonstrate a health concern associated with wind turbines. `In summary, as long as the Ministry of Environment Guidelines for location criteria of wind farms are followed … there will be negligible adverse health impacts on Chatham-Kent citizens. Although opposition to wind farms on aesthetic grounds is a legitimate point of view, opposition to wind farms on the basis of potential adverse health consequences is not justified by the evidence’ (Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit, 2008).
· Wind energy is associated with fewer health effects than other forms of traditional energy generation and in fact will have positive health benefits (WHO, 2004). · `There are, at present, very few published and scientifically-validated cases of an SACs of wind farm noise emission being problematic … the extent of reliable published material does not, at this stage, warrant inclusion of SACs … into the noise impact assessment planning stage (EPHC, 2009).
· While a great deal of discussion about infrasound in connection with wind turbine generators exists in the media there is no verifiable evidence for infrasound and production by modern turbines (HGC Engineering, 2007).

The question is: in whose interest is it to discredit wind-farming? I’ll give you a clue: they’re funding the anti-wind farm lobby and are making a lot of political donations.

howeph11:29 am 17 Jun 13

justin heywood said :

‘….It would be nice to give the Coalition the message that they should stick to the science and support wind farming rather than bowing to scare campaigns and corporate interests.”

Opposition to Windfarms is another evil Tory plot now?

The Greens have opposed Windfarms in the past, when it suited them politically (look it up). As do such rabid know-nothing conservatives as James Lovelock.

I’m no fan of Jones, and I actually like wind farms. Can’t stand hypocrisy though.

I can’t stand hypocrisy either, but I don’t see it here.

The following political speakers will be at the anti-wind event:

– Senator John Madigan [Labor]
– Senator Nick Xenophon [Independent]
– MP Alby Schultz [Liberal]
– MP Craig Kelly [Liberal]
– Senator Chris Back [Liberal]

(3 Liberal, 1 Labor, 1 Independent)

The coalition does not have a good track record on renewables policy:

* The Liberal party rolled their leader over the planned introduction of a market mechanism to help address climate change by making fossil fules more expensive compared to renewables.

* Current Liberal party policy is to repeal the carbon tax and shut down the $10b Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

* It is unclear what the coalition will do to the Renewable Energy Target (RET). The Liberal party is under significant pressure from the Liberal state governments and utilities companies to dilute the target in order to maintain the profits and value of the existing coal and gas operations. The Coalition is in favour of yet another review of the RET and has expressed sympathy for the argument that the target should be diluted (the science of course argues that the current target is already too low).

All of the above is coalition policy that doesn’t support renewables. Therefore I don’t think that the claim “It would be nice to give the Coalition the message that they should stick to the science and support wind farming rather than bowing to scare campaigns and corporate interests” is hypocritical.

View more conversations

Featured Businesses

Lawyers

BDN Lawyers

BDN has provided legal services to to Canberra, Queanbeyan and the region for over 160 years.

Find out more

Professional Services

RSM

We share skills, insight and resources, as well as a client-centric approach that's based on a deep understanding of your business.

Find out more

Lawyers

MV Law

Through a spirit of entrepreneurialism, collaboration, and future-forward thinking, MV Law have earned an industry-leading reputation.

Find out more

Insurance Brokers

allinsure

Allinsure has been a trusted insurance advisory to thousands of Australian business owners for almost 20 years.

Find out more

Lawyers

Kamy Saeedi Law

When you need a criminal or commercial lawyer, you don’t want to take any chances. You want someone in your corner that you can trust like your life depends on it - because it does.

Find out more

Mortgage Brokers

Clarity Home Loans

A passionate team of Canberrans helping other Canberrans secure their home loans. No frills, no commissions, no brainer.

Find out more

Community Club

Canberra Southern Cross Club

We're proud to give you a place where friends and family can come together for good food and great entertainment.

Find out more

Electricians

True Connection Electrical

Since 2014, True Connection Electrical have been servicing residential and small commercial clients with reliable, trustworthy and top-quality electrical work.

Find out more

View the best of Canberra

Woden Community ServiceChristmas Appeal

The anti-windfarm movement is coming to Canberra, with Alan Jones at its head

Join the conversation

What's Trending

Featured Properties

Today's Poll

Featured Businesses

Lawyers

Professional Services

Lawyers

Insurance Brokers

Lawyers

Mortgage Brokers

Community Club

Electricians

What's On

Exhibition - Hopes and Fears: Australian Migration Stories

National Museum of Australia: Pompeii Exhibition

Joan Ross: Those trees came back to me in my dreams

Carol Jerrems: Portraits

Related Stories

Daily Digest

Woden Community Service
Christmas Appeal