Letters: Wind farms unfit for any back yard

As he is also chief executive of the Crieff Hydro, I wonder if he would remain of the same opinion if he were to find a development proposal for an industrial-scale wind farm on the doorstep, and in full view from the windows and grounds of said hotel, and what the reaction of the guests might be if the wind farm was then to be given planning permission and be constructed.

Neil McKinnon

Tulchan Garden

Glenalmond, Perth

I note the misuse of the term “Nimby” in your letters pages and some blogs, applied, usually pejoratively, those who oppose wind energy developments.

The expression “Not In My Back Yard” was coined to describe people who wished for some outcome, but without themselves having to suffer its inconvenience.

Thus the Nimbies of the renewables debate are those politicians and urban residents who extol the virtue and beauty of windmills, secure in the knowledge that their own homes and health will not be threatened by them.

Those of us who oppose inappropriately sited and expensively subsidised turbines do not wish to see them in anyone’s back yard.

Indeed, I would even stretch my personal charity to extend this to Mr Salmond’s own, salutary and well-deserved though the experience of living next door to a wind farm would be for him.

Jack W Ponton

Earlston

Berwickshire

Renewable UK’s assertion that its survey showed 67 per cent of people supported wind power in the UK (your report, 20 April) needs a very close look.

Such a statement is quite misleading and a bit useless unless survey details are spelled out.

These include: was any distinction made between off-and onshore installations; how many people were actually asked for their views; were they selected by age, gender, being from a particular town or group of towns, not being from the rural areas most adversely affected by onshore wind; or just inner-city dwellers least likely to be affected?

Was the fact that onshore turbines are already being erected just 400 metres from some residential settlements highlighted?

Was it explained that subsidies are reliably reported to cancel out financial returns? Was it explained that permanent back-up power plants are needed for when the wind does not blow?

Joe Darby

Cullicudden

Dingwall, Ross-shire

Once again Clark Cross peddles the lie that global temperatures have not increased for 15 years.

It is true that, if you take the land temperatures from the exceptionally hot year of 1998 in isolation, ignore all the data that precede and follow it (particularly the hotter years of 2005 and 2010), and compare them to today’s land temperatures, you could just about squeeze that conclusion, but it requires a genuine ignorance of statistics and dismissal of data to come to that conclusion.

In any case, there are strong influences from known factors on short-term variations in global temperature, including the El Niño Southern Oscillation and volcanic aerosols – we saw an apparent decrease in global temperatures from 1940 through to 1980, only to be followed by a persistent increase ever since.

When these short-term effects are accounted for, as in Foster and Rahmstorf (Environmental Research Letters 6 (2011)), what results is a clear, persistent and ongoing temperature rise.

However, surface temperatures are only part of the story. Global warming is, by definition, global.

The atmosphere, too, is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy, polar and glacial ice absorb heat to melt.

You need to view the Earth’s entire heat content to get the full perspective, and not simply focus on a selected set of data.

(Dr) Gavin Whittaker

Heriot

Borders

Clearly, Mr John Eoin Douglas believes that it is permissible to be extremely offensive towards any of your correspondents who hold opposing opinions to his, on any subject (Letters, 19 April).

Interestingly, the word that follows “bumpkin” in my dictionary succinctly describes Mr Douglas!

A A Miller

Clackmae Road

Edinburgh