The following article is an example of what God’s Word tells us in Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
‘If you care about the working poor, about racial justice, and about climate change, you have to stop eating animals.
Is any panic more primitive than the one prompted by the thought of empty grocery store shelves? Is any relief more primitive than the one provided by comfort food?
Most everyone has been doing more cooking these days, more documenting of the cooking, and more thinking about food in general. The combination of meat shortages and President Trump’s decision to order slaughterhouses open despite the protestations of endangered workers has inspired many Americans to consider just how essential meat is.
Is it more essential than the lives of the working poor who labor to produce it? It seems so. An astonishing six out of 10 counties that the White House itself identified as coronavirus hot spots are home to the very slaughterhouses the president ordered open.
In Sioux Falls, S.D., the Smithfield pork plant, which produces some 5 percent of the country’s pork, is one of the largest hot spots in the nation. A Tyson plant in Perry, Iowa, had 730 cases of the coronavirus — nearly 60 percent of its employees. At another Tyson plant, in Waterloo, Iowa, there were 1,031 reported cases among about 2,800 workers.
Sick workers mean plant shutdowns, which has led to a backlog of animals. Some farmers are injecting pregnant sows to cause abortions. Others are forced to euthanize their animals, often by gassing or shooting them. It’s gotten bad enough that Senator Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, has asked the Trump administration to provide mental health resources to hog farmers.
Despite this grisly reality — and the widely reported effects of the factory-farm industry on America’s lands, communities, animals and human health long before this pandemic hit — only around half of Americans say they are trying to reduce their meat consumption. Meat is embedded in our culture and personal histories in ways that matter too much, from the Thanksgiving turkey to the ballpark hot dog. Meat comes with uniquely wonderful smells and tastes, with satisfactions that can almost feel like home itself. And what, if not the feeling of home, is essential?
And yet, an increasing number of people sense the inevitability of impending change.
Animal agriculture is now recognized as a leading cause of global warming. According to The Economist, a quarter of Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 say they are vegetarians or vegans, which is perhaps one reason sales of plant-based “meats” have skyrocketed, with Impossible and Beyond Burgers available everywhere from Whole Foods to White Castle.
Our hand has been reaching for the doorknob for the last few years. Covid-19 has kicked open the door.
At the very least it has forced us to look. When it comes to a subject as inconvenient as meat, it is tempting to pretend unambiguous science is advocacy, to find solace in exceptions that could never be scaled and to speak about our world as if it were theoretical.
Some of the most thoughtful people I know find ways not to give the problems of animal agriculture any thought, just as I find ways to avoid thinking about climate change and income inequality, not to mention the paradoxes in my own eating life. One of the unexpected side effects of these months of sheltering in place is that it’s hard not to think about the things that are essential to who we are.
We cannot protect our environment while continuing to eat meat regularly. This is not a refutable perspective, but a banal truism. Whether they become Whoppers or boutique grass-fed steaks, cows produce an enormous amount of greenhouse gas. If cows were a country, they would be the third-largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world.
According to the research director of Project Drawdown — a nonprofit organization dedicated to modeling solutions to address climate change — eating a plant-based diet is “the most important contribution every individual can make to reversing global warming.”
These people do NOT know the Creator as this story and other writings clearly indicate. These are those of whom Paul said in Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator
You are pretty stupid if you do not believe in evolution, climate change and the Easter Bunny. It is fascinating that ‘Apparently “‘The climate movement was very clear-eyed about just how crucial this election was, so I think that made anxiety run pretty darn high,’ said Katharine Wilkinson, editor-in-chief of Project Drawdown, a coalition of researchers and scientists who are working on climate change solutions. ‘Science tells us we don’t have time for another four years of a Trump administration. We don’t have time for four more years of bailing out failing fossil fuel companies and four more years of moving backwards.’”
We didn’t know “Science” had an opinion on American elections. But it might have one on John Kerry being in charge without understanding even the most basic aspects of the subject. Remember, he’s also the man who said that “You could just as easily replace the words ‘climate change’ with ‘COVID-19’; it is truly the tale of two pandemics deferred, denied, and distorted…. The financial devastation of climate-change-related disasters has increased 150 percent, costing the world $2.25 trillion. It’s projected to grow exponentially if the world stays on today’s unsustainable trajectory. Yes, climate change is a threat multiplier for pandemic diseases, and zoonotic diseases…” and on down the list of exaggerations and errors, all of it second or third hand.’https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2020/12/02/picture-a-security-blanket/
The United Nations is an Islamic/Communist institution and as such is a DIVIDER of Nations rather than UNITER! In 2007 the United Nations adopted the ‘Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)‘. What does the Declaration emphasize? ‘The document emphasizes the rights of indigenous peoples to live in dignity, to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions and to pursue their self-determined development, in keeping with their own needs and aspirations.’https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/faq_drips_en.pdf
Here in Australia Islam has sought to make itself look like a friend of indigenous people even having on one Muslim web site the following logo of the Islamic Crescent and an Aboriginal boomerang.
A quick study of Islam will show that other cultures are always subordinate to Islam.
Now, staying with Australia and the UN’s promotion of Indigenous Peoples there is each year here in Australia what is called NAIDOC week. ‘NAIDOC stands for ‘National Aborigines and Islanders Day Observance Committee’ and this year’s theme is: “Always Was, Always Will Be”. This statement recognises that First Nations people have occupied and cared for this continent for over 65,000 years and were the first explorers, navigators, engineers, farmers, botanists, scientists, diplomats, astronomers and artists.
NAIDOC has grown from one day to a full week of celebrations (from the 8-15 of November) and is not just for our Indigenous communities but a celebration for all Australians.
Note the highlighted eight words above. The first is 65,00 years. That is an evolutionary thesis but not a factual known number. That number of 65,000 is based on assumption and guess work! The second two words are Indigenous tradition. Traditions are good depending on the tradition but does one really believe most indigenous people wish to go back to how they once lived!?
The third is spiritual connection. Now, that is a drawback to paganism and animism. This is clearly not good in that the Creator Himself said I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. It is brutal to tell a people anything else. Thirdly note the ever present promotion of climate change. These six words are used to promote a bias against Europeans, the Christian faith and true science.
The United Nations’ UNDRIP is de-visive, deceiving, destructive and devilish.
‘Never mind ballots arriving by the hundreds of thousands at 4 a.m. after “counting was stopped for the night,” but only in swing states. Never mind voting machines that, apparently, any moderately talented nerd can hack and cook. Never mind “tranches” of votes, by the thousands and all for Biden, erroneously stacking the tallies because of “upload malfunctions.” Never mind same-day registration, ballot harvesting, no voter ID requirements, or missing signatures and postmarks. Never mind that Trump earned nearly 6 million votes in California, a 35 percent improvement over his 2016 performance, actually increasing his share of total votes from 31.6 to 34.3 percent, yet lost in fracking Pennsylvania.
Never mind. Prepare for a Biden presidency, and a Biden cabinet.
In other words, just rely on the “nonpartisan” experts and ignore your lying eyes. Assume Joe Biden really is speaking from the “Office of the President-Elect” and assume what he proclaims today will become policy on January 21. Consider the gang that will surround this amiable but senescent old crook. In particular, consider Biden’s incoming cabinet, undoubtedly destined to include a mandatory assortment of race-baiting blowhards, gender obsessed fanatics, gun grabbers, abortion extremists, government union overseers, ambulance chasers, corporate cronies, Chinese operatives, bankers, billionaires, and grasping bureaucrats.
And while you’re at it, consider Biden’s choice for “climate czar”—John Forbes Kerry.
The first thing to understand about Kerry is that he is an inside member of the establishment uniparty that was horrified by Trump’s impudent decision to actually take seriously his job as president of the United States. Kerry, who married into the aristocratic Heinz family, has a personal net worth estimated in excess of $250 million. Unlike Trump, Kerry is both a partner and a puppet in the American oligarchy, which means he will do whatever is in his personal best interests, as well as whatever he is told to do. Rarely if ever will those agenda items diverge.
Whether it involves prosecuting yet another endless overseas war, or, more to the point, morphing the great American COVID lockdown into phase two—the great American climate lockdown—Kerry will put the oligarchy first, and America last. Count on it.
The beating that ordinary Americans have taken over the past year understandably has diverted their attention from the coming “climate emergency.” Americans have watched helplessly as well-funded, violent mobs pulled down symbols of their heritage, while looting and vandalizing property, sometimes burning buildings to the ground, bellowing intense hatred for every cherished American institution and tradition. Americans watched as the media either ignored this orchestrated nationwide mayhem, or downplayed it, or even pretended it was caused by Trump and his supporters.
Americans have endured a virus that has killed hundreds of thousands, prompted an endless “lockdown,” and driven hundreds of thousands into bankruptcy and madness. There’s no end in sight.
‘According to the Washington Post, which he owns, Jeff Bezos of Amazon has just given $791 million to climate activists, with $9 billion to follow. Which isn’t chump change even to him. It certainly isn’t to us, though unfortunately we’re not the climate activists he has in mind. So let’s finally put to rest the meme that climate deniers are lavishly paid hacks picking on the poor underfunded alarmists, which is not just a conspiracy theory but one that flies with particular chutzpah in the face of the evidence.
It’s curious to hear over and over again that in addition to being venal scoundrels we have disappeared entirely. As Bill McKibben just asserted, saying of “classic climate denial” that “Outside of the Trump Administration and the right wing of the Republican Party, that’s now a dead letter”. Well, to coin a phrase, “We’re not dead yet”.
Of course not having Jeff Bezos’ deep pockets to raid, while still needing to pay the rent, we must keep gently reminding you to chip in what you can. Bezos clearly doesn’t expect the alarmists to work for free, and neither should those who want to encourage the few left who are fool enough to push back against the tide.
That preliminary point dealt with, the key thing is that if we were in it for the money, we wouldn’t be climate skeptics. We’d be alarmists. Look at their fancy professorships with tenure and six-figure salaries and defined-benefit pensions and their attitude of superiority. Look at their billion dollar foundations and lavish granting programs. Look at their multimillion dollar government grants and recall Eisenhower’s warning “that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite”. Look at the kudos they enjoy from the jet set. And then just when you’re thinking life couldn’t get any better, Jeff Bezos drops by with billions in subsidies.
Or maybe they weren’t thinking it couldn’t get any better. According to the Post, “’Climate change is the biggest crisis facing humanity but, despite lots of great work, has been an underfunded area of philanthropy,’ said Jules Kortenhorst, head of the Rocky Mountain Institute, which received $10 million.” To which we at CDN can only say that if you were feeling all underfunded and impoverished there at RMI with your 260 staff members and your funding from four U.S. government agencies, the California Energy Commission, the City of Boulder, the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, the UN and the World Bank before Jeff dropped by with the latest $10 mill to add to your annual $55 million budget, we’ll swap your clothes for our barrel just as soon as we carve the word “irony” into it.
Now Bezos is a private individual and, as we believe in liberty, we think he is entitled to make money selling people things they want, and then to spend that money as he chooses. Not just legally, though certainly we support private property rights. Morally. We didn’t found Amazon or make it work, he did. And while there are certainly pitfalls in having money, ways to spend it that are not good for the soul, it is impossible to spend money in virtuous ways unless one gets to choose how to spend it. (We might add that, life being what it is, rich people like everyone else very often have to make mistakes before they can learn lessons.)
So it’s his money and he can spend it on whatever he likes. Including climate alarmism times ten. But what he cannot do, and neither can anyone else, is tell lies. For instance that the alarmists are David and the deniers are Goliath, or that they are Bob Cratchit and we are Scrooge and Marley.
The politicians are alarmists. The professors are alarmists. The bankers are alarmists. Even the oil companies are alarmists (and much good may it do them). The movie stars are alarmists, with few exceptions. The rock stars are alarmists. They have the money and the prestige and the money and also the money. So at least stop with the character assassination and instead try to explain why with all that money, you’re having so much trouble persuading people and your computer models don’t work.’https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2020/11/25/well-take-a-cheque/
God said While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease Genesis 8:22.
‘Among the supposed horrors of climate change you can list, well, everything from giant jellyfish to itchier poison ivy to soggy pork chops, bad chocolate and the disappearance of beaches on which to savour a Foster’s. But don’t forget bad computer models, including the one that said beaches were going fast and would go faster; it turns out they were based on bad assumptions and used to justify worse policy. It really is getting silly.
According to The Times, the European Commission study predicting the end of sand as we know it was badly flawed and caused, of all things, “unnecessary alarm”. And in such a basic way that it almost looks deliberate although as we have repeatedly stressed, one should never ascribe to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity. What new research has discovered about beaches is, in plain language, that they are sandy strips at the edge of the sea and so if the sea rises, the beach that is washed away at the low edge will be replaced by new beach at the high edge.
It cannot have been easy to miss this point. But the EC study apparently managed it through a combination of elaborate techniques, beginning with assuming rising seas washed sediment away rather than depositing it. (Were this true, we must observe, the steady sea rise since the end of the last glaciation would have finished off the beaches long before Henry Ford got to work on them; once again the inability to think through basic historical points is among the most glaring weaknesses of climate alarmists.)
The earlier study then seems to have assumed that people would do the dumbest stuff possible in response to eroding beaches, like walling them in so they had nowhere to grow. (Among other things it said Australia was the worst-affected country because it has over 7,000 miles of beaches. But of course most of them are not in built-up areas so those beaches have endless outback into which to retreat.) And then it suggested some even dumber stuff like trying to pump sand back out of the water as if Mr. Ocean weren’t big enough to wash it all away again with a sneer.
Now of course it is true that in Britain, for instance, if the beaches keep retreating they will eventually meet at the top of the last sandy hill and vanish like a sand castle before an incoming tide. But if all of Britain goes under because of rising seas, from man-made causes, natural ones or both, the big problem won’t be not being able to relax on the beach as it happens. If on the other hand the world continues to see the same slow rise in sea levels that it appears to have seen for many centuries, long before man-made GHGs were a thing, then the new study reveals that the old study repeats another familiar and unhelpful alarmist habit: Having misidentified the problem, it then recommends actions that would make the situation worse. As the new study says, “As sea level rises, shoreline retreat must, and will, happen. Beaches, however, will survive. The biggest threat to the continued existence of beaches is coastal defence structures that limit their ability to migrate.”
So as always, let’s combine a sober assessment of the problem with a sensible solution. Among the major drawbacks of climate alarmism is that, in part by relying on computer models that simply assume what they set out to prove, it diverts far too much time, energy and money to “stopping climate change” which is neither possible nor desirable, and away from mitigating any really undesirable impacts of it at acceptable cost while also giving sustained attention to other environmental problems from smog to plastic in the oceans that are both real and manageable.’https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2020/11/25/on-the-beach/
‘Wind developers face liability in the millions for the nuisance caused by unrelenting, turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound.
Litigation is where the rubber hits the road: myths get replaced with facts; evidence overtakes spin and propaganda. Court rooms (and where they determine the facts, juries) strike fear into the (ordinarily icy) hearts of those that stand behind or run with wind power outfits.
Wherever in the world civil actions have been pursued in nuisance and negligence, wind power outfits have bent over backwards to settle out of court.
Sure, wind power operators have deep pockets (obscenely stuffed with the massive subsidies drawn from their victims, among others). But they have never won a common-law case demonstrating that wind farms do not cause noise nuisance.
Back in February this year, three siblings managed to secure €225,000 from the wind power outfit responsible for the turbine noise that for some to leave their family home in Cork. Again, the matter was settled without a trial – due to the dread that the wind industry holds of a binding judicial precedent, which would cost them hundreds of $millions around the globe, as a result of the thousands of claims that would naturally follow.
The team from JoNova pick up on the result of the case from Cork, but take a different tack, by begging the question: if a thumping, grinding cacophony of low-frequency wind turbine noise can drive human beings insane, what on earth is doing to Ireland’s native fauna, such as Red Deer, Squirrels, or Pine Martens?
€225,000 reasons mammals need a 1km exclusion zone from wind towers Jo Nova Blog Jo Nova 7 October 2020
Laura David and Jack Kelleher had to leave their family farm at Gowlane North, Donoughmore, Cork, four years ago after a shuddering, flickery 10-turbine wind farm began operating a bit more than 700 metres from their home.
They suffered from “nosebleeds, ear aches, skin rashes, swollen and painful hands, loss of power in their limbs, sleep disturbance, and headaches.” Naturally, they moved into a hotel, and then found a new home eight miles away, and took it to the High Court.
Family in Cork win a €225k payout:
by Ann O’Loughlin, IrishTimes
Two brothers and a sister from the same family who claimed they suffered illness as a result of noise, vibrations and shadow flicker from a Cork windfarm have settled their High Court actions for a total of €225,000.
The settlements which were without an admission of liability were approved by Ms Justice Leonie Reynolds and occurred after mediation.
The defendants had denied all the claims they had been allegedly negligent resulting in the siblings becoming ill. They also denied that noise, shadow flicker and vibration from the windfarm had intruded onto the family’s farm.
The rest of the family have other claims still outstanding.
If industrial infrasound has this effect on people what does it do to the endangered Red Deer, Squirrels, or Pine Martens of Ireland? We’re waiting for the Green screams of protest outside wind farm developments in 3…2…1… or does no Greenie care because it’s not about homeless furry critters, and never has been — it’s just about impressing their friends at dinner parties? And right now, apparently nothing impresses friends at dinner more than acting as a blind marketing agent for multinational renewable corporations.
If wind turbine operators must pay out people within a 1km radius (or more), and if turbines aren’t too good for the cows, sheep, deer, whales, or bats either, then these charges are just another hidden cost of wind power. Wind power consumes more land, and more legal funds.
A member of the Conservative Party ‘Rishi Sunak is considering plans to charge motorists for every mile they drive on Britain’s roads to fill a £40billion tax hole left by a push to electric cars, according to reports.
The Chancellor is reportedly ‘very interested’ in the idea of a national road pricing scheme – which would steer motorists into a new ‘pay-as-you-drive’ type system.
Road pricing in England is limited to schemes such as the M6 Toll in the Midlands, the Dartford crossing on the M25, London’s Congestion Zone and a handful of small tunnels and bridges.
But a national scheme is now being considered amid fears a switch to electric vehicles will leave a massive tax shortfall from the loss of key revenue raisers such as Fuel Duty and Vehicle Excise Duty, according to the Times. […]
‘The real climate refugees are those forced to abandoned their homes thanks to a grinding, pulsing cacophony of wind turbine generated low-frequency noise and infra-sound.
The climate catastrophists wail about millions being displaced by rising tides and chaotic weather. But it’s their obsession with chaotically intermittent wind power, that’s causing a real rural exodus.
The bucolic Dutch landscape – which thrives, notwithstanding that a third of it is below sea level – has been carpeted with these things over the last generation; homes have been encircled; entire villages surrounded. The families that occupy these, once peaceful abodes, are driven mad by wind turbine noise and, in far too many cases, they’re simply driven out of their homes, forever.
It’s a story which is as sad as it is familiar to rural communities, across the globe.
Victims are told by the ruthless and cynical that profit from the greatest scam on earth, that they’re just ‘collateral damage’ and treated by those paid and empowered to protect them, as wind industry roadkill.
For a taste of what your wind powered future looks like, let’s head to the Netherlands.
First Dutch climate refugees fleeing wind turbines: “The noise is unbearable” Global Warming Policy Forum translated from De Telegraaf Edwin Timmer 2 November 2020
AMSTERDAM – The first Dutch climate refugees are a fact. Not because of wet feet, but because citizens cannot cope with the noise of wind farms.
Residents close to biomass power stations also complain bitterly. Are health and the environment in the Netherlands subordinate to our climate goals? “I do see a similarity with the Groningen gas and the Limburg mines: energy interests outweigh other interests.”
Every time he sent his Connexxion public transport bus across the Haringvliet Bridge, Claus aan de Wiel looked to the northwest with concern. Towards five windturbines two hundred meters high, ten kilometers away, near Piershil. “How’s the wind? Isn’t it too windy? What will it be like when I get home? ” Will it be another evening where the turbine noise rumbles like a rolling, roaring surf above the TV? “I never slept a wink. Sometimes I got back on the bus after only three and a half hours of sleep. ”
Windfear Windfear. The bus driver and his partner Ine van den Dool suffered from it after the Spui wind farm was set up five hundred meters from their house. The initiator still boasted about the Rolls-Royce among the windturbines – so quiet. “But we were shocked. The noise was unbearable. The house was built by my parents, I grew up there and thought I would only leave between six planks, but we could not stand it ”, says Aan de Wiel. Sound waves banged on the facades from three sides. Even the moles disappeared from their garden.
Van den Dool loved the greenery and space in the Hoeksche Waard. “It was a heavenly, healing place. Where we sat in the garden with friends until late. The wind farm has distroyed that. It was as if a jet plane kept circling overhead. I developed severe asthma and could not stop coughing at night. As if my body was screaming: this is not safe, you have to get out of here. ” And so the pair left. As a climate refugee in their own country.
Turbine noise It is the compression of air when a wick sweeps past the mast that makes the typical turbine noise. “Our noise standards for wind turbines are much more flexible than in neighboring countries,” says Fred Jansen from Schagen. Ten years ago, as chairman of the National Critical Platform for Wind Energy, he already opposed the cabinet’s new noise standards. According to Jansen, they only work in favor of wind farm builders. “Local residents are the victims.”
The World Health Organization recommends that the wind turbine noise for local residents be kept below an average of 45 decibels per day (45 L-den). Louder noise “is associated with adverse health effects,” according to the 2018 report “Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region”. However, Dutch law allows an average of 47 decibels during the day, and peaks well above 50 decibels. Since every three decibels means a doubling, that saves a sip on a drink, Janssen believes.
Sound expert Marcel Blankvoort confirms the Dutch exceptional position. Our country works with averages, where other Western European countries, apart from Norway, allow a maximum peak load on the facade. “And we don’t include background noise. Elsewhere, a turbine in an industrial estate is allowed to make more noise than in the countryside, because there is more noise there anyway. Here, the same standard applies everywhere. That is why wind turbines in a previously quiet polder are more likely to be perceived as a deterioration in the living environment. ” In the ‘Nijpelsian landscape’ (named after the architect of the Dutch climate agreement), full of wind farms, those sound waves hit more and more citizens.
It is not only wind energy that the government is helping, on paper, to halve CO2 emissions by 2030. Subsidizing the burning of woody biomass also helps the accountants in The Hague to comply with the Paris Agreement. Billions of euros in subsidies have already been promised for hundreds of biomass plants. But the nuisance for local residents has caused a fierce social debate about wood burning.
“Recently our bedroom was full of smoke again,” says Rini Ruitenschild from Ede. He lives with his family at a distance of one hundred and eighty meters from one of the local biomass plants, which does not burn gas but wood for district heating. “It is not the first time. My wife has a lung problem. If your whole house is full of dirty air again, then you will become unruly. ” Officially, the heat company adheres to the rules.
That also applies in Zaandam. But residents of the senior apartment De IJdoorn are done with it. From the eleventh floor, Co and Jeanne Meester regularly see smoke drifting from the much lower chimney of the biomass power plant about two hundred meters away. “The stench is unbearable. How do you get it into your head to place such a thing in the middle of a residential area, right next to a school and close to a hospital? ”Says Meester. “We are concerned about the effect on our health and that of my flatmates.”
Health issues The disadvantages of wood burning for energy have been known for years, says Fenna Swart of the Clean Air Committee. “It’s expensive, it destroys ecosystems and it’s bad for biodiversity. In addition, the emission of wood combustion causes air pollution. We don’t even have standards for ultrafine particles entering our lungs. And then there are other substances of very high concern that no filter will help against. It is not without reason that people who cook on wood in developing countries develop health problems. And we are now returning to that on a large scale, in the Netherlands and throughout Europe. ”
The Dutch Lung Foundation is also concerned about health effects and regularly receives complaints about biomass burners. In the summer, the Foundation responded with satisfaction to the “phasing out of the use of woody biomass”, as the Social Economic Council, an important advisory board tot the Dutch government, wishes. “But we don’t see anything of that phase-out yet,” Swart criticizes. “Because Minister Eric Wiebes fails to make it concrete with an end date and buy-out schemes. The House of Representatives stands by. Industry and politics are holding on to each other and our health is in check.”
“Wind turbine syndrome” In Piershil, Ine van den Dool searched for an explanation for her physical complaints since the wind turbines were running. She came across the “wind turbine syndrome”, a term coined by the American doctor Nina Pierpont. Scientifically, there is still much discussion, but Pierpont registered a list of identical complaints for several people who live near wind turbines: sleep disturbance, headache, tinnitus, dizziness, nausea, irritation and cardiac arrhythmias. “Very recognizable. Falling asleep and staying asleep was no longer possible. I fled the house as often as I could. ”
Dutch doctors are also stirring gradually. Some GPs, such as Sylvia van Manen in the magazine Medisch Contact, already warn against the effects of low-frequency noise, shadow cast and flashing red lights at night. The Leiden University Medical Center recently recognized a worsening of heart disease due to low-frequency sound. “If there are so many indications that it is wrong, then we should investigate further, right?”, says Fred Jansen of the Critical Platform Wind Energy. “Or at least follow the WHO advice. But yes, that would mean that fewer windmills would fit in the Netherlands. ”
Energy interests At the Cauberg Huygen engineering firm, Marcel Blankvoort works as a knowledge leader for wind farm developers as well as for interest groups who oppose it. “It is always a trade-off between several interests, including those of residents and energy generation. It is clear, however, that our government has made its choices about noise standards in such a way that sustainability through the energy transition is possible. I do see a similarity with Groningen gas and the Limburg mines: energy interests again outweigh others. ”
The climate refugees from Piershil have moved to a quieter place on Goeree-Overflakkee since the summer. They are the sixth family within two years to move from Oudendijk. Aan de Wiel now says he feels a lot calmer on the bus. “I now understand the gigantic stress situation we were living in. It was as if I was there waiting for my death; once at home I didn’t feel like doing anything anymore. But if they tear down those turbines tomorrow, I’d love to return. I miss the place I used to be. ”
“We are no longer ‘bunker citizens’, agrees his partner. “We couldn’t sleep there with the window open, nor sit in the garden. Here we live outside again. And we sleep like marmots, as if we need to sleep in for a century. ” Within two weeks after the move, Van den Dool was off the drug Ventolin, because her asthma complaints disappeared like snow in the sun. ‘Is that a coincidence? No, it proves to me what an abnormal life we had to live under the violence of those rotten turbines.”’https://stopthesethings.com/2020/11/17/climate-refugees-dutch-families-abandon-homes-to-escape-excruciating-wind-turbine-noise/
‘In 1979 the Communist Party of China introduced a ‘One-Child Policy’ in aa attempt to control China’s population growth – a policy that subsequently ended in 2015.To enforce this policy, the communists used propaganda and harsh punishments – requiring the use of contraception, abortion, and sterilization to ensure compliance, and imposed enormous fines for violations. Large propaganda billboards were installed throughout the nation to reinforce the message. However in 2020, Climate Alarmists are now copying the Chinese Communists, and have started installing large billboards promoting the same ‘one-child’ message. While it may be argued that Chinese Communist’s Policy was adopted to halt population growth, there is no such argument in western countries today, as most countries have such a low fertility rate which will result in their populations decreasing to such an extent that mass migration from developing nations is required just to maintain stable population. Climate Alarmists peddling a ‘’one-child Policy’’ in Western Nations are merely promoting the suicide of our societies. And they are doing so with lies and misinformation. We need to wake-up quickly to realise how mad and dangerous these Climate Alarmists truely are.’https://www.facebook.com/CraigKellyMP
whatyareckon 