Wind Industry research is a "Game of LIES" and it has been for several decades. Sadly, this scientific research fraud needs to be brought out in court and to date it never has. After reading the wimpy comments submitted to Ohio the other day by NAPAW, I decided to post comments with a lot more meat to them. Here is one of many wimpy examples I noticed in the Lake Erie NAPAW comments..... "Please note that collision mortality “estimates” were formed from land-based wind projects both sides of the border." Here is the way it should have be written because every word it true..... "Attention must be brought to the fact that collision mortality “estimates” are taken from fraudulent data collected using this industry's contrived research methodologies around land-based wind projects on both sides of the border." This is a heads up. NAPAW could do far better and their comments are designed to lose. For starters NAPAW needs to stop kissing their all crooked butts. If opponents of this project do not attack the blatant research fraud surrounding this project and the industry, the Icebreaker legal challenges will turn out just like Amherst Island and there will be turbines on Lake Erie. NAPAW was also involved in the failed and wimpy Amherst Island legal challenge. .......................... Chairman Asim Haque, and Matt Butler,
The intent of this letter is to make sure that you both understand that the wind industry has a long history of consistently fraudulent and nonscientific research. This statement is very easy to prove so please review my enclosed attachments where some of this proof it is given. These attachments are just a glimpse of what this industry falsely and deceptively considers research.
I have looked over the radar studies as well as this recent USGS opinion…. “Evaluation of Icebreaker Wind project vendor proposals for radar-based radar monitoring of flying animals”
I want to point out that the Lake Erie radar studies are so riddled with ambiguity, that every bit of their target data collection should be considered inaccurate and dismissed. Especially since this industry produces nonscientific research that consistently creates reasons to exclude vital data. The radar studies and research conducted for the Ice Breaker project are filled with “their reasons” to exclude important bird migration data and information.
Then there are the obvious conflicts interest associated with the contrived study methodologies chosen for this industry's fake research. This pattern goes back decades. GS radar evaluation as shown below, relies entirely on the opinions of those with horrendous conflicts of interest and a history of non-scientific research.
From the USGS opinion………….
“The evaluation is narrowly defined. Documents reviewed for this opinion include
the LEEDCo RFI, all vendor responses to the RFI, vendor responses to US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) questions, USFWS suggested study characteristics, the
WEST, Inc review of RFI responses, and some LEEDCo application figures and
exhibits. The report is also informed by discussions with LEEDCo/WEST and biologists
within the USFWS. The evaluation was based solely on the ability of these systems to
provide quality data toward the goal of understanding the biology of the airspace under
review; no consideration was given to vendor cost estimates.”
When one looks closely, this entire USGS review explains why radar under these conditions is worthless and completely unreliable for an accurate scientific assessment of onsite conditions. Vital data will be missed even if seasonal timing is right. Of course, this is exactly what this industry wants. Their history of fraudulent research proves it.
From the USGS opinion ………….
Missing data can occur for a variety of not necessarily independent reasons
including limits to radar equipment, loss of power, malfunction of data gathering
equipment, unfavorable data gathering conditions (IV.c, IV.e), and human error. The
impact may be local; for example, most magnetron-based radars used in biological
research experience a brief period of time during transmission when the radar is
essentially deaf to its own echoes. This period is called a main bang or simply bang,
and as a result, targets very near the radar are generally undetectable. Data impacts
also occur at a seasonal scale; for example, a standard for how much data is necessary
to adequately represent seasonal vertebrate movement (≥80%) has been proposed for
this project. There is concern that excessive loss of data may render observations
related to migratory passage moot if they fail to capture the occasional yet unpredictable
large movements that almost inevitably occur with songbird migration. While
considerable effort should be made to ensure a robust operation is in place, data loss or
drop outs will likely occur.”
When analyzing theses radar studies, a multitude of excuses are given to exclude vital target data, but these are not scientifically valid decisions that coincide with actual conditions in the field. It is not stated but this dismissal of data renders the study results meaningless unless your intent is to create a false impression.
As I clearly explain in the attachments, turbines are far more deadly than the wind energy developers will admit. For this reason, considerable and credible research efforts that are guaranteed to capture the occasional yet unpredictable large movement of birds should be mandatory because hundreds of thousands of birds are using the region of the planned Lake Erie turbines. But these mandatory conditions do not exist with this industry’s research.
Every effort must be made to ensure that scientifically robust research is conducted and accurate migration documentation is made so these species are not dismissed by fake wind industry research. Do not let nonscientific research eliminate them as target data losses or drop outs. To be accurate a flock or massive number of birds must never be labeled or dismissed as single targets, insects or clutter, yet this is being done in wind industry radar studies.
In addition, these radar studies will never be accurate without frequent or even daily year-round observations conducted by ethical experts. Especially missing is a credible compilation of the daily observed data and notes. Some of these need to be conducted with aircraft. In true wildlife research, observations from good faith efforts should never be excluded. But in wind industry research these observations are dismissed. Some conveniently labeled as incidental, others deliberately left off the table.
Do the right thing and make sure credible research is conducted so the coming impacts of this project can be properly evaluated. If you rely on experts representing wind industry interests and rely the opinions of government agencies that have allowed all this fake research to take place, this task is not possible.
If you have any questions or need more input, please feel free to contact me.
Jim Wiegand - Wildlife Biologist