The Telegraph gives us a report on wind farms altering the climate…..not just locally but potentially regionally…Biased BBC’s Alan reports….
Wind farms can cause climate change, finds new study. Wind farms can cause climate change, according to new research, that shows for the first time the new technology is already pushing up temperatures. This could have long term effects on wildlife living in the immediate areas of larger wind farms. It could also affect regional weather patterns as warmer areas affect the formation of cloud and even wind speeds.
Richard Black also reports the same story…however he uses language designed to reduce the impression that anything significant is going on……

Blackwash 1:
‘Recognising that this could wrongly be interpreted as suggesting the local temperature will continue to rise….’
You don’t want to ‘wrongly’ interpret anything do you? …however the caveat was that this was only wrong if no more turbines were built…but  ‘Nature’ tells us….’The wind industry in the United States has experienced a remarkably rapid expansion of capacity in recent years and this fast growth is expected to continue in the future.’….so expect more warming.

Blackwash 2:
‘…the scale of the effect they saw is equivalent to a warming of about 0.72C per decade.’
Black manages to miss out the word ‘significant’ in relation to warming as used in the original Nature magazine report…..’Our results show a significant warming trend of up to 0.72°C per decade.’

Blackwash 3:
‘Dr Zhou and his colleagues believe the turbine blades are simply stirring up the air…’
Nice use of the word ‘simply’….only a fool would think anything different!

Blackwash 4:
They suggest that turbines in other places might not produce the same value of ground temperature change.
Wind farms can affect weather in their immediate locality, raising night-time temperatures on the ground.
They used satellite data to show that land around newly constructed wind farms warmed more than next-door areas.
That’s three times he’s made sure we are told this is purely and ‘simply’ a very small, local occurrence….however Nature says this…’These changes, if spatially large enough, may have noticeable impacts on local to regional weather and climate.’

Only subtle changes but they alter the whole narrative from possibly meaningful conclusions about how wind farms may affect climate to Black’s preferred ‘nothing to see here’ approach.

Black and Co like to tell us that minute, trace elements of CO2 in the atmosphere, 95%+ naturally occurring, have enormous climate changing properties….but are quick to minimise any possible detrimental effects of their grand solutions to this apparent CO2 problem.

Black, I always imagine as Hitler at the end of the war closeted in his bunker ordering around his imaginary armies to defeat the Russian hordes based on information from his generals who tell him what he wants to hear.

What they don’t seem to have told him is the below via ‘Bishop Hill’….
Green groups funded by big wind
The Mail on Sunday (not online) carries the news that several prominent Scottish environmental groups are sponsored by wind farm companies.

Environment group WWF Scotland admitted that it had received more than £22,500 in the past year from one of the UK’s biggest energy firms, Scottish and Southern Energy.

It has apparently also been revealed that Friends of the Earth Scotland are supported by Scottish Power Renewables, while the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Scotland is also in the pay of big wind.
Amusing therefore to see this report issued jointly by the three organisations saying that fears over the reliability of wind power are overdone. Money talks, I guess.’

Funny how he hasn’t mentioned it yet….but is normally very quick to attempt to accuse ‘sceptic’ groups of taking funding from interested bodies.

Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to BLACKWASHING…

  1. Funny, I always see Black as Chemical Ali – the ultimate ‘denier’. As Nato forces rampaged through Baghdad, he promised that they were being forced back, and a victory for Saddam was within sight!


  2. Ben says:

    So, that’s one good thing about wind turbines, they warm the climate up a bit. They are still monstrously expensive eyesores, but you can’t have everything.

    I can’t understand how Black gets away with the incredibly transparent one-sided nonsense. Anyone who wasn’t a zealot must be able to see that even if they were inclined to worry about AGW.


  3. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Gosh, one might suspect that Black doesn’t trust the science or something…..


    • Backwoodsman says:

      And hot on the heels of him having to explain away the expanding glaciers !!!!!


  4. Mailman says:

    Comical Ali you mean. Chemical Ali was a mass murdering price of scum…which no doubt the comrades in the BBC would have loved.




  5. Span Ows says:

    Alan and others have missed the most significant bias from Black: the title of his piece:

    “Wind farms affect local weather

    ‘weather’ and ‘climate’ are different things and he is using it intentionally to play down this news.


  6. eadwulf says:

    Seems the multi-million pound super computers at the Met are not churning out the right result.
    “The forecast for average UK rainfall slightly favours drier-than-average conditions for April-May-June as a whole, and also slightly favours April being the
    driest of the 3 months.”


    • Richard Pinder says:

      The more powerful the computers, the more detailed the fiction becomes. Its why Dr Who is better than it was in the 70,s.


  7. Old Goat says:

    How are you chaps in the UK doing with your flood-drought?

    I see the Met Office are trying to cover their horrendously inaccurate arses again: