At the sound of the ruckus, I looked out a window to see a tractor-trailer rig hauling two of those preposterously huge 125-foot wind turbine blades north from Searsport to the site of a controversial wind farm project at Mars Hill, an endeavor commonly known by more than a few disgruntled County residents as the Great Mars Hill Mountain Defacement Boondoggle.

Upon extensive research on the wind farm industry on the Internet, talking with the Cape Cod and Vermont citizens dealing with wind farms, I have reached this conclusion. They are masters of giving the public a half-truth then guiding us to an assumption that is not true, but one they want us to believe.

No matter how high-minded, well-intentioned or politically correct wind power is, the siting of such a massive, commercial turbine on this historic property is legally and morally wrong, and a gross misuse of invaluable, limited shoreline open space in the small and dense city of Salem. Clearly the turbine is too high, too wide, too loud and too dangerous for this small island park.

When Horizon Wind LLC made significant changes like this in their proposed Dairy Hills project in Perry, Horizon was required by state law to do a Supplemental DEIS. Why should the rules be any different for Invenergy? What possible reason could the Orangeville Town Board have to allow Invenergy to bypass correct procedure?

I am disgusted by fly-by-night companies installing wind turbines and solar panels just to showcase technology (see "This Wind Turbine Should Be Turning") or because they are heavily subsidized by government tax credits. Tax incentives are meant to stimulate growth of the renewable energy sector, not feed faux energy companies who don't have a clue. If a renewable installation cannot provide return on investment without a tax crutch, the project is not viable to begin with and should not be allowed to proceed.

Regardless of the fact it will be detrimental to the residents of a small neighborhood, affect the landscape for a quarter of a century, won't reduce the usage of fossil fuels much, if any, and the many other reasons the zoning board could have used to make the decision to tell the salesmen no that just wouldn't have been thinking big. You've got to think big. And even if it all fails, oh well, the Ellis County grade-schoolers of today can clean it up in 25 years. Maybe you should ask them.

Almost 70 years ago, Vermonters decided man's hand did not need to be evident everywhere. Remember that spirit now as this state considers allowing wind turbines on ridgelines.

Gamesa's guest column last week, written by their corporate spokesman, Michael Peck, is an example of spin, half-truths and out and out untruths that Gamesa has tried to use to promote its proposed Shaffer Mountain wind plant. Gamesa starts out by referring to those opposing the Shaffer Mountain wind plant as "anti-wind advocates." Nothing could be further from the truth.

There are many forms of alternative energy. Wind-power is just one of them. Europe and other countries have dealt with it - and it's many problems for decades. Problems such as noise, shadow flicker, destruction of bird and wildlife habitat, ruination of ridge tops and pristine areas - to mention a few.

One of the great pitfalls of a generation caught up in a cause of the moment is to make mistakes that will mark our hearts, our souls, our future generations and the landscape for years to come. We may be approaching such a pitfall with the proposed development of a huge wind-tower project in the still wild, still remote and still beautiful Phillips Brook tract. Fighting a massive wind-power project at a time when anything touted as "green" is perceived as patriotism is to swim against an almost insurmountable tide.

The Windber Area Authority’s watershed and recharge area has been sentenced to death. This death sentence is being imposed by Gov. Ed Rendell, and will be executed by Gamesa Energy, Berwind Natural Resources Corporation, a few greedy private landowners, and of course the many spin-doctors needed to sway public opinion. This death-sentence will be accomplished by the ill-placement of 34 Wind Turbines, with more likely to follow, directly in the watershed and recharge area! Wind Turbines, will be placed within approximately 3,000 feet of W.A.A. well-heads!

LURC has the ability to curtail the gold rush of wind developers, feeding at the trough of federal and state subsidies, before Maine is transformed from a wild and bucolic paradise to an industrial wind wasteland. For the magic of the mountains, let's hope they do their job.

A January 18, 2007, press release from the wind industry’s Washington DC lobbyists, AWEA, repeats exaggerated claims on behalf of “wind energy” and includes quotes from several advocacy organizations. (The press release is entitled, “Wind Big Part Of Solution To Global Warming: Trade Group, Environmental Organizations.” [1]) One quote in particular stands out because it is so blatantly false. It is attributed to the Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) Air and Energy program and includes the following: “And thanks to technological breakthroughs, [wind energy] is a cost competitive, pollution-free alternative to new coal or gas fired power plants.” Two points should be noted: First, electricity from wind is NOT “cost competitive” when its true costs are counted. Widely available facts now make it very clear that............. Second, the NRDC is WRONG in its claim that electricity from wind is an “alternative to new coal or gas fired power plants.”

Facts now demonstrate that much of the information about wind energy distributed by the wind industry and its advocates simply isn't correct. The public, media and government officials have been misled. Accepting the misinformation and adopting policies based on it isn't in the best interest of electric customers, taxpayers, or the environment – even though “wind farms” are highly profitable for organizations that enjoy the huge tax breaks and subsidies. Income for landowners who lease land for turbines is often at the expense of their neighbors........Please keep in mind that electricity generated from wind has less real value than electricity generated from reliable (“dispatchable”) generating units that can be counted on to be produce electricity when it is needed to serve customers demand. (Electricity from wind is intermittent, volatile and unreliable and most likely to be available at times when it is not needed to meet high electricity demand.) If electricity generated in Kansas from wind energy were to bear anything near its true cost (and considering transmission costs discussed below) there is no realistic basis to believe that it would be competitive with electricity from reliable generating units located near population centers.

I have seen Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, read the book, and read the Stern report. As a scientist, I am appalled. Both authors present myriad dangers as truth – no doubts, a 100 per cent consensus. Yet a glance at the professional literature on glaciers, hurricanes etc. confirm that this consensus is a myth. Besides, consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science.

The environmental movement has begun to approach scientific issues with a similar zealotry typically found in religious fanaticism. A case in point: global warming................We need skeptical scientists to keep public and political passions in check. Otherwise, we devolve in our thinking to the point where unverified beliefs, held strong enough, can become idolatry.

Legitimate concerns about the administration of New Jersey's Clean Energy Program have been raised and must be addressed.

The fact is that the Scottish people - as opposed to their politicians - are waking up to the realisation that wind power is one of the greatest hoaxes of our age. But, lest we feel insulated from the tragedy about to befall the Scots, we must recall that this is only a more extreme version of a collective self-deception which now has almost all our politicians in its grip.

It is bad enough to be told by the First Minister that Scotland's landscapes are to be sacrificed to achieve irrelevant SNP targets for renewables but he now claims that another reason is to help Europe achieve theirs. I refer to the disgraceful announcement that the gateway to Scotland, the A74 at Abington, is to be covered by 152 x 406 foot (that's 90 feet taller than Big Ben) turbines spread over 11,707 acres (18.3 sq miles) of our countryside.