Wind power opposition and climate science denial

	Hornsdale Wind Farm A wind farm under construction in Mid-North South Australia
	Why accept anthropogenic climate change as reality? First, and certainly foremost, there's the science. According to NASA "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." And for those who deny the science, there are many other reasons to accept the fact that Mankind is changing the Earth's climate for the worse.

Most who are concerned about a wind farm that might be proposed to be built nearby are content to go to a local meeting or two, but a very few publicly campaign over an extended period. Others who are prominent in the campaign against wind power live nowhere near a wind farm or a proposed wind farm.

In my experience one thing that many of those who campaign against wind power have in common is that they deny the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Decades ago scientists were warning that adding billions of tonnes of greenhouse gasses to the Earth's atmosphere each year would likely cause global warming; more recently the evidence that the world is warming and the climate is rapidly changing has become irrefutable.

To not accept the reality of ACC requires a lack of knowledge of how science works or some sort of mental block against the overwhelming evidence about ACC. If those who oppose wind power are willing to ignore something as thoroughly supported by copious evidence as ACC because it does not suit their dislike of wind turbines, can they be trusted to tell the truth at all?

Not only is the climate changing due to greenhouse gas emissions, but the oceans are warming and becoming more acidic because of the huge amounts of carbon dioxide they are dissolving. Wind power reduces fossil fuel consumption and therefore carbon dioxide emissions.

As mentioned above, air pollution from coal burning is killing many thousands, or millions, of people world-wide each year and making even more very ill. A World Health Organisation report (summarised in The Guardian) states that air pollution is the world's single biggest environmental health risk. The main sources of ambient air pollution are motor vehicles and coal burning. The main sources of air pollution in homes are coal smoke and wood smoke. I've written more on this on another page on this site. Wind power (and solar and other forms of renewable energy) can largely replace the burning of coal for the generation of electricity. Also, electricity generated by renewable means can replace coal for cooking and kerosine (paraffin) for lighting in third world countries; both of which cause major health problems.

Almost all of those who campaign against wind power ignore or deny ocean acidification and the harm to people's health due to the burning of coal.

Anyone who publicly advocates a particular point of view has an ethical responsibility to tell the truth; not only that, but they have a responsibility to make themselves well informed about everything relating to the matter that they are advocating. This is especially so when the point of view being advocated has potential to harm the planet and all future generations of humanity.

Some examples of those involved in wind power opposition and climate science denial

"STT tends to leave the debate about global warming or 'climate change' to others. However, STT has always thought that if man-made CO2 emissions really were destroying the planet, then sensible governments would have moved to build nuclear power plants from the moment the Chicken Littles started wailing about the heavens collapsing."

"No I cannot. I am not a scientist. But there again, neither are you. I am an anti-wind campaigner, purely and simply – nothing more, nothing less."

"But you're just a bunch of climate change denying NIMBY's aren't you? Yes. Well, I can categorically say I am on both counts. My own thinking leads me to the conclusion that believing in man-made global warming is like pissing in a swimming pool and believing you're turning it yellow."

"No I cannot. I am not a scientist. But there again, neither are you. I am an anti-wind campaigner, purely and simply – nothing more, nothing less."

This seems a remarkably naïve, foolish and irresponsible point of view.

1. We can have knowledge about science without being scientists. I am not an astronomer, yet I believe that I can say I know that stars are made up mostly of hydrogen, because I have read that in many places and it is accepted by the great majority of astronomers. I am not a mineralogist, but I accept that marcasite and pyrite are different crystalline forms of the same compound, because a number of mineralogy sources have told me so. Similarly, we do not have to be climate scientists to have some knowledge about climate change; we can look at what the consensus view is among climate scientists.
2. She seems to be implying that any scientist is as good as any other in forming an opinion on these things. This is not so. An astronomer or a mineralogist would not necessarily know more about climate change, ocean acidification and the health impacts of air pollution than a well informed layman.
3. She is implying that since she is purely and simply an anti-wind campaigner she is under no obligation to know about climate change, ocean acidification or the great many people who are killed by air pollution from the burning of coal. This is plainly not so. If she publicly campaigns against wind power she has a moral obligation to inform herself of the implications of the alternatives.

The 'Alice in Wonderland' mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science: simulating coherence by conspiracism; published in Synthese.