Despite this overwhelming public wish, a tiny planning decision committee (PDC) of four AMs overthrew the inquiry inspector's finding against the wind farm. To add insult to this undemocratic injury, WAG has now proposed that the PDC procedure shall be scrapped. One can only hope the new procedure will bend more to the will of the people.

It is not misleading to quote the Government's own figure for saving of the UK's CO2 emission by renewable power generation, mainly wind. This is just 9.2 million tonnes a year by 2010 and is less than the emission from a single medium-sized coal fired power station. More to the point, it is less than 0.0004 of global total CO2 emission and stands no chance of altering atmospheric CO2 concentration, still less deflecting climate change.

One cannot expect much more than the usual "green tears in red eyes" from its chief executive formerly employed by Greenpeace, and its continual misleading information on targets, supply to homes, capacity factors - and putting the blame on everyone else. In these days of the expectancy of apologies all round, they do not apologise for all the heartache they bring to residents of previously happy communities, where the dreaded windfarm applications tear them apart, devalue their property and cause health problems.

The only proven source of the steady base load electricity necessary for a modern society to function is nuclear fission. James Lovelock - deeply pessimistic about the effects of what he calls global heating - recognises this. However, Greenpeace and others stick to their long-established opposition to nuclear power. Some people see bio-fuels as an important component of a lower-carbon future. Others believe they are a distraction and cause more environmental problems than they solve. Of course, these are not the only options, but they illustrate the point that specific technologies should not to be rejected out of hand. It is ludicrous to suggest that we could rely on wind and solar power entirely. And the agenda for some seems to be to eliminate all private transport and scale back international trade enormously, to take us back to smaller, self-contained economic units; the very reverse of a globalisation trend which has been in progress for centuries.

Some will say that this is a false choice and that we can do without nuclear or fossil fuel burning. But the technologies that everyone hopes will deliver large quantities of renewable power - wave, tidal, offshore wind - are still years away from being proven to reliably deliver large quantities of power. The other less-polluting sources of power - clean coal and gas with carbon capture and storage - are not even at the demonstration stage yet. Even if these technologies do turn out to work in a technical sense, they have still to be shown to be economic. As last week's row about ScottishPower's electricity prices shows, people expect their electricity to be both reliable and cheap. The party manifestos are full of admirable talk about turning Scotland into Europe's green energy power house, how we can be much more energy efficient and how we can turn our homes into little power stations with rooftop turbines, solar panels, etc. None of this answers the really critical question: can enough of this be delivered quickly enough to close the energy gap which looms in 2015? I have yet to see convincing evidence that it can.

As the integrity of our electrical power supply is "the" essential element if we wish to remain an industrial power, why do we allow the "naive" green movement and our hapless politicians to bend science to fit their preconceived over-simplified analogies?

The recent decision of the Carmarthenshire Council planning committee to grant permission for 10 wind generators on land adjacent to Blaengwen Farm, Pencader, is both incomprehensible and shameful. There is no technological, engineering or environmental sense for the provision of on-shore, sporadic, electrical wind generation in Wales. Nor is there any sense for off-shore generation either. Perhaps Carmarthenshire Council should get better acquainted with the facts surrounding wind power.

Furthermore, I recently drove past Blaen Bowi when the weather was very still and misty. Smoke was rising vertically, high into the sky, from a nearby chimney. Yet when I drove past the wind turbines , a mile along the road, the turbine located 120 metres from the road was turning very fast. I was so astounded that I got out of the car. There was not a breeze. It was obvious that the turbine was being motored by the fossil fuels of the National Grid, not wind. Do people realise that a computer button can be pressed in Germany to spin wind turbines in the UK? That is real spin.

The recent decision of the Carmarthen planning committee to grant permission for 10 wind generators on land adjacent to Blaengwen Farm, Pencader is both incomprehensible and shameful. There is absolutely no technological, engineering or environmental sense for the provision of on-shore, sporadic, electrical wind generation in Wales. Nor is there any sense for off-shore generation either. Perhaps Carmarthenshire Council should get better acquainted with the facts surrounding wind power.

Common sense and democracy in the Highlands of Scotland finally died on the 17 April 2007 with the injustice carried out by the Highland Council Planning committee.

So I'm afraid wind turbines on the Assynt Foundation land will do three things: destroy the iconic scenery, destroy the environment and divide the community. The one thing they might do in addition is make (subsidy) money, which is what all wind farm developers really want. Don't come up with the lame excuse of global warming. Say it straight. It's the money.

Television's Wales This Week presented a programme (February 2) about wind turbines in the Bridgend area and the result of the telephone voting recorded 72 per cent against the turbines and only 28 per cent for them. This was four times the response the programme has had on any issue. For Lewis, Scotland, 11,400 representations were made against having the turbines and fewer than 60 for them. These figures represent the truth, represent real people .

Nothing illustrates more graphically the erosion of our democratic rights than the way the wind industry is conducted. Age-old laws that have served to protect our environment are being swept aside - why? The politicians responsible for this will say they have to make it easier for these foreign developers to push through their plans to industrialise our uplands and mountains with massive turbines.

In Ireland we too have wind farms, but they are always located away from local habitations. Wales should follow Ireland's lead and not let big business bully small communities into accepting eyesores that are far worse than the slag heaps that dotted the upper Afan valley up to the late '60s.

Nothing can erase this UK-wide report from the historical record, but there are now claims that a new survey by Oxford Brookes University and RICS shows that windfarms do not impact on property value. Ifwe look carefully at this survey, it is based on two small windfarms in Cornwall where the turbines are less than 60m tall compared with the present industry standard of 120m and proposals by Gamesa for 180m (600 ft) giants in south Wales. The authors of this new report are more honest than the windpower developers with their warning that: "... as more windfarms are built, more property will become proximate. Therefore, a cautious approach should be adopted until a larger and more in-depth study can be undertaken." The wind promoters understandably ignore this "health warning".

I must reply to the letter from Simon Pipkin, project manager at Gamesa Energy UK, in a recent Observer. He should have declared an interest because, unlike the people of Gilfach Goch who have nothing to gain from the Gamesa development, he and Gamesa UK have everything to gain by way of the massive subsidies that will be paid for by us. So whatever he says must be weighed against the fact that it is in his interest to sell the idea that wind farms are needed. Like many of the politicians, he insults our intelligence by suggesting these wind farms will save the planet. He claims the development will prevent 26,900 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions each year - I suspect he got that figure out of a Christmas cracker.

Massey University, Palmerston, New Zealand, has recently published a survey showing that 80 per cent of people who live within 3km of wind turbines in Manawatu, near Palmerston, find them intrusive and 73 percent think them unattractive.......... Our politicians need to take the temperature of public opinion rather than fallaciously trust that a few UK windmills might alter the warmth of the planet.

We have an alternative theory - applications are being turned down because local authorities have the good sense not to permit them in areas of environmental sensitivity, or local beauty spots. What worthwhile purpose would be achieved by damaging local environments in the name of environmentalism? If windfarm developers want a better response from local councils, it's simple: be far more careful about where you plan the turbines.

On the subject of future electricity generation in Scotland, politicians of all the major parties are indulging in hypocrisy and wishful thinking. Labour is promising us 50% renewable generation by 2050, the SNP 60%, the Greens 80% and the LibDems 100%. However, not one of these parties can tell us how they propose to achieve this, other than vague mumblings about wind, which is unreliable, and wave and tidal, both of which are unproven.

Windpower is nothing more than green tokenism and vast areas of our landscapes are being trashed in the process.