wind-watch.org

[iamthebandfanman]

anybody know who runs/owns this website?
ive already done a whois on their domain and got "registration private" ... of course....

they are in my area trying to stop the proposed building of 25-100 wind turbines... was just curious where they got funding and if they had done any political contributions yet ...

[amerikat]

1. I googled some of the officers named at the bottom of their website.

It would take some time to track down their motives. Seems they just
don't like wind energy. Not sure of their political/economic leanings. I don't
have the time to help with this right now, but would like to see the results of your
research. Some seem to be associated with schools and colleges. Also check opensecrets.org for any contributions to local and national candidates. I think wind power is in it's
infancy at this point and is growing like crazy across the US. Bookmarking and hoping
to view your research results.

[kristopher]

2. They are one of the first astroturf antiwind organizations to spring up

In the early 2000s the UK shifted their subsidy support away from domestic coal mining to development of wind power. That sparked a strong backlash from their domestic coal industry its political supporters.

At about the same time, the Cape Wind project was proposed by Jim Rogers. That too got the negtive attention of some powerful people - among them the Koch brothers.

The Koch brothers organized, staffed and funded a local Cape Cod group called Save Our Sound. About the same time, the Wind Watch website popped up, providing an endless stream of anti-wind propaganda to be used by the "local" astroturf groups that were being created nearly everywhere a wind farm was proposed.

I put local in quotes because there are people who come in to these areas in order to organize opposition.

Wind Watch is almost certainly funded by ALEC affiliated groups out to preserve the energy system as it is presently designed. That includes the fossil fuel and nuclear industries as well as most utilities.

PS - how much success the opposition to the wind farm is will be largely related to how much influence your local right wing radio station has in the area and whether they oppose the project or not. They usually do oppose renewable development, but once in a while the will be honestly oriented more towards a libertarian strain of thinking that can't help but support the projects.

[Fridap]

3. astroturf?

Last edited Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Wind-Watch.org's "About" page and "About Us" FAQ don't support any of these assumptions. In fact, they clearly deny them.

You may not agree with, let alone like, their conclusions about industrial wind energy — you may even call them "useful idiots" — but they don't seem to have any other agenda than, as their banner suggests, presenting the (negative) facts about industrial wind. I would say that's an important service to counter the industry line that giant wind turbines are all benefit with no adverse effects worth considering.

[kristopher]

4. You expect astroturf groups to self-identify themselves?

You are some kind of kidder, you are. Yes, siree, you are some kind of kidder.

Hold on while I go find that information on the websites for the other "grass roots" groups the Koch brothers are responsible for.

[Kali]

5. oh man, I heard about how dangerous they are

what with mile-flinging blades and fire setting magic. and don't forget the coyotes climbing trees from the stray voltage

do you read the east county pennysaver?

[maddezmom]

8. You. Crack.

Me. Up. you forgot stray voltage that causes cancer clusters.

[jpak]

6. Paid propaganda mongers that spew lies about wind power.

Ex. - wind turbines make people sick and have seizures.

Ex.- wind turbines are inefficient.

Ex. - wind power doesn't produce significant amounts of electricity.

Ex. - wind turbines consume more energy than they produce.

Ex. - wind power requires enormous amounts of spinning reserve that emit enormous amounts of greenhouse gases.

All a pack of Koch-sucking lies.

yup

[Nihil]

7. Nice of you to sign up to DU to support them here though.

[caraher]

9. Just the visuals are a huge tipoff

The page immediately gave me flashbacks to Steve Milloy's old "Junk Science" page, complete with the homey touch of a PayPal donation button to give the impression that the site exists thanks to generous donations from a grassroots movement of concerned citizens. It's straight out of Astroturf 101; phony as a $3 bill...

Edited to add: A whois search reveals the following completely open and transparent domain registrant information, clearly indicating that the owners are proud to stand by their handiwork and be clearly identified:

Registrant Name:Registration Private
Registrant Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Registrant Street1: DomainsByProxy.com
Registrant Street2:14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Scottsdale
Registrant State/Province:Arizona
Registrant Postal Code:85260
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:[phone]
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:[phone]
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:[e-mail]

So their you go: those concerned citizens at Domains by Proxy

[Fridap]

23. Inspiring 350.org?

Domain Name:350.ORG
Sponsoring Registrar:Moniker Online Services LLC (R145-LROR)
Registrant Name:Moniker Privacy Services
Registrant Organization:Moniker Privacy Services
Registrant Street1:1800 SW 1st Avenue
Registrant Street2:Suite 440
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City ortland
Registrant State/Province:OR
Registrant Postal Code 7201
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:[phone]
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:[phone]
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:[e-mail]

The fact is that private registration is the only way to avoid opening up your e-mail to spammers.

[caraher]

24. Perhaps so (re: private registration)

Though I don't think there's anyone who finds it remotely difficult to figure out who is behind 350.org

I can't help but notice that you seem to have exceptionally narrow interests for a DUer - of your first 9 posts here, all 9 are about sticking up for this anti-wind group and its stance, mainly by picking at the edges of arguments skeptical of the group. Where I invited you to propose what you think we ought to be doing instead of building wind turbines, you offered nothing more than repeating the assertion that wind won't help. This makes it very difficult to take you seriously.

[FBaggins]

25. A new symptom of an astroturf org, eh?

[Fridap]

26. Nor is it hard to read the About page at Wind-Watch.org

Last edited Tue Sep 24, 2013, 09:51 PM - Edit history (2)

And it's true that I have heretofore never joined in at DU. And that the small-minded prejudice on display here does not inspire further participation. This post was brought to my attention by a friend who shares an interest in opposition to big wind from the left, eg, by Earth First..

Although Wind Watch appears to be politically neutral, or ecumenical, at least one paper at aweo.org by the president of Wind Watch, Eric Rosenbloom, "Exploitation and destruction: some things to know about industrial wind power" hardly seems something that the Koch brothers would support. In fact, its viewpoint appears to be well to the left of most of what I have seen at DU.

As for "assertions", that is rather what your presentation of building wind turbines as an inherent not-to-be-questioned good is: obviously harmful, yet with dubious mitigating benefit. Looking at the actual record, the best that can be said on the credit side is that building wind has driven the building of natural gas plants which are necessary to back it up: thus replacing some coal with a somewhat cleaner fossil fuel (and expanding the market for fracking!). So not really changing much in the long run. Except for opening up — with the blessing of environmentalists — more wild and open spaces to industrial development. Greenpeace close-dancing with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 350.org working on behalf of its Wall St. funders.

It is the knee-jerk and obviously desperate attempt to paint all who question the wisdom of industrial wind as rabid reactionaries that is hard to take seriously.

[Fridap]

27. Another "lefty" anti-wind essay by Wind Watch prez

Ridden by the Wind

[Fridap]

10. Wow.

These comments really are pathetic. Basically, it seems that if you blindly support wind power, you must also believe that anybody who thinks adverse impacts should not be ignored is a creation of the Koch brothers. Therefore, any sign that it might actually be a grassroots operation is proof that it isn't! The uninformed wrath displayed here suggests a very good reason for the site's owners to protect their privacy.

[FBaggins]

11. Two posts and you're already calling others' pathetic?

Wow indeed.

I can't speak to whether they're nutty on their own or someone else financing others' nuttiness (i.e., "astroturf&quot ... but I also don't see how it makes a difference. They're the wind industry's version of Busby and Gundersen. It doesn't matter how nutty they get, they'll draw funds from people who want to oppose wind (or a specific wind project).

[caraher]

12. I think I have some names now

From a blog:

Wind Wise Radio is honored to be joined by the president and vice-president of National Wind Watch , Eric Rosenbloom and David Roberson, for a conversation about their experiences at the center of the struggle against Industrial Wind in the U.S.
Since 2005, National Wind Watch (NWW) has been a indispensable resource providing a clearinghouse for information and assistance to individuals and local groups seeking the facts about industrial wind power.

Eric Rosenbloom is a science writer and editor. In 2001 Eric and family moved from New York to northeastern Vermont, where he founded his own company, Kirby Mountain Composition & Graphics. Eric has been involved since 2003 when he learned that there were plans to erect wind turbines on the ridge behind his house. At first, he was a cautious supporter of the development but as he learned more his opinion shifted. In 2005, he started up the excellent site aweo.org, which he continues to maintain and where you can find much of his writing on the subject of IWT.

David Roberson, is a galleryowner in Shelburne Falls, MA. David lived off the grid for 12 years in Hawley, Massachusetts before moving to Rowe, MA where he lives with his "wife, dogs, cats, goats, geese, and chickens."
In 2003, his seminal article, Questioning the Faith of Wind Power, was published. The article broke new ground and argued cogently against the rush to wind without rigorous analysis, and should be required reading for all those interested in these issues. In 2005, David organized the first gathering of interstate wind opponents, a weekend-long conference with participants from 10 states.

[kristopher]

13. Thanks.

The "seminal article" by Roberson was published in the letters to the editor section of "The Shelborn Falls Independent", a weekly local newspaper. It begins with this so called "fact":

Questioning the faith of wind power

If you’re against the Hoosac Wind project and similar wind farms, it doesn’t mean you’re an elitist who cares about appearance at the expense of saving the planet. Residents of this area deserve a discussion based on facts, starting with this: wind’s potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is almost incalculably small

[Fridap]

14. Maybe not almost incalculably so, but still small

Think about it: Electricity represents only one fraction of greenhouse gas emissions. Wind would replace only a fraction of that, and what it would replace is not necessarily the most polluting, but a mix, including hydro. Meanwhile, consumption continues to grow …

[kristopher]

16. Wind, solar and energy efficiency are the key elements to decarbonizing modern society

Last edited Sat Sep 21, 2013, 05:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Repeating the propaganda of the fossil and nuclear industries isn't going to change that.

Stanford Report, September 10, 2012
Wind could meet many times world's total power demand by 2030, Stanford researchers say
Adapting a sophisticated climate model, researchers show that there is plenty of wind available to supply half to several times the world's total energy needs within the next two decades.

BY ANDREW MYERS

If the world is to shift to clean energy, electricty generated by the wind will play a major role – and there is more than enough wind for that, according to new research from Stanford and the University of Delaware.

Researchers at Stanford University's School of Engineering and the University of Delaware developed the most sophisticated weather model available to show that not only is there plenty of wind over land and near to shore to provide half the world's power, but there is enough to exceed the total demand by several times, even after accounting for reductions in wind speed caused by turbines.

'The careful siting of wind farms will minimize costs and the overall impacts of a global wind infrastructure on the environment,' said Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford. 'But, as these results suggest, the saturation of wind power availability will not limit a clean-energy economy.'
The findings were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) by Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford, and Cristina Archer, an associate professor of geography and physical ocean science and engineering at the University of Delaware.

High-resolution models

In their study, Jacobson and Archer adapted the three-dimensional, atmosphere-ocean-land computer model known as GATOR-GCMOM to calculate the theoretical maximum wind power potential on the planet, taking into account wind reduction by turbines. Their model assumed wind turbines could be installed anywhere and everywhere, without regard to societal, environmental, climatic or economic considerations.

[Fridap]

18. No, using drastically less is only way

Last edited Thu Sep 19, 2013, 04:07 PM - Edit history (1)

— in transport, heating, agriculture, as well as electricity.

Repeating the propaganda of the renewable energy departments of the fossil (eg, FPL, Xcel) and nuclear (eg, GE, Siemens, EDF) industries isn't going to change that.

[Fridap]

17. Read the article, not the teaser.

"In a nutshell: Hoosac Wind's potential contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, when taken in a broader context, is almost incalculably small."

[caraher]

19. Reading the article only reinforces the view that the author is misinformed

or deliberately misinforming:

In this country, greenhouse gas emissions resulting from electrical generation are outweighed by other man-made sources 2-to-1, while anthropogenic emissions as a whole account for about 3 percent of the world total; the remaining 97 percent comes from natural sources such as oceans and bogs.

Given that, absent human activity, that 97% or so was exactly balanced by equal absorption of greenhouse gases into the ocean, etc., it's obvious that this comparison, even if the numbers are correct, is entirely inappropriate, and crafted only to minimize the significance of our unleashing fossil carbon into the air and water on a scale large enough to cause a rise of around 50% in the atmospheric CO2 level so far - a rise that shows no signs of abating.

So thanks for the invitation to dig deeper - it only confirms my negative gut reaction.

[Fridap]

20. I agree

I agree with your criticism of that statement, but that doesn't make wind any more useful in doing something about it.

[caraher]

21. It does suggest the author has nothing to contribute beyond a distaste for wind turbines

Plenty of serious analyses have shown wind in fact can provide a very significant fraction of our electricity, and that projections for the contributions of renewables are frequently serious underestimates:

Although the IEA has always been outspoken about the need to deploy more low-carbon technologies and address climate change, the organization has been known for its conservative analysis about the future growth of renewables.

For example, in 2003, it projected that non-hydro renewables would only represent 4 percent of global generation by 2030 under an aggressive policy scenario. But the industry hit that threshold in 2011 -- nearly twenty years early.

Eric Martinot, research director at the Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies, wrote in his recent Renewables Global Futures report about how the IEA and other international organizations have consistently underplayed the growth trajectory for renewables.

"Given the dynamic nature of this growth over the past decade, many past projections of renewable energy have already fallen short. For example, the International Energy Agency (IEA) in 2000 projected 34 gigawatts (GW) of wind power globally by 2010, while the actual level reached was 200 GW. The World Bank in 1996 projected 9 GW of wind power and 0.5 GW of solar PV in China by 2020, while the actual levels reached in 2011, nine years early, were 62 GW of wind power and 3 GW of solar PV. The history of energy scenarios is full of similar projections for renewable energy that proved too low by a factor of 10, or were achieved a decade earlier than expected," wrote Martinot.

The writer uses a very limited quantitative factoid to draw a demonstrably false conclusion about the usefulness of wind - not coincidentally, as part of an effort to prevent wind from being used widely enough to make a difference.

So I'm curious - if you're anti-wind, as you seem to be, what do you propose instead?

[Fridap]

22. Building wind is quite different from reducing carbon

Even connecting it to the grid has not demonstrated meaningful reductions in carbon. Wind is a nonsolution.

[Fridap]

15. Interesting

Some interesting papers at aweo.org -- thanks.