Vesta’s Ken McAlpine Forced to Apologise to Dr Sarah Laurie for …. well, just being ‘Ken’

Vestas turbine on fire

Not the only Vestas ‘asset’ in trouble …

****

In Australia, struggling Danish turbine maker, Vestas is in more trouble than Ned Kelly at Glenrowan. With construction of wind farms at a standstill; and the very few developers hoping to press on with projects, plumping for cheaper versions of these things – made in India and China, Vesta’s Australian adventure is little more than a looming disaster.

But, its problems are not purely commercial.

Oh no. Its efforts to ‘win hearts and minds’ in this country have turned into an abject failure.

Its ‘Act on Facts’ campaign fell flat; not least because one of its key front men, a former tobacco advertising guru, self-immolated before the Senate Inquiry, with the Senators’ finding that he was thoroughly un-qualified on anything other than, well, ‘tobacco advertising’, really. His stocks sank even lower when he was forced to apologise for publishing complete falsehoods about STT Champion, Dr Sarah Laurie, claiming that she had been struck off for “unprofessional conduct”, when nothing could be further from the truth:

Wind Industry’s Propaganda King – Simon Chapman Forced to Apologise to Dr Sarah Laurie for False & Malicious Taunts

Now, the guru’s best mate, Ken McAlpine has been forced to do the same. And, rightly so.

CORRECTION AND APOLOGY FROM KEN MCALPINE TO SARAH LAURIE

I am a consultant Special Advisor to Vestas Australian Wind Technology Pty Ltd. On 19 March 2014, I uploaded the following allegations on Twitter concerning Sarah Laurie:

NOT DROWNING, RANTING: Deregistered “Dr” Sarah Laurie doesn’t like the medicine dished up by @ama_media: waubrafoundaton.org.au/resources/open

At the time that I uploaded the Tweet, I was employed by Vestas Australian Wind Technology Pty Ltd. The thrust of my allegations is that Sarah Laurie had given cause to the Medical Board of Australia to deregister her as a medical practitioner, on account of unprofessional conduct and that Sarah Laurie is not entitled to use the title “Dr”.

These allegations were made without foundation and are entirely false.

Laurie is not deregistered and has never been sanctioned by the Medical Board of Australia.

I understand that Sarah Laurie allowed her registration as a medical practitioner to lapse for personal reasons; and, accordingly, does not currently practice as such. By reason of her academic qualifications, Sarah Laurie is entitled to use the title “Dr”. I sincerely apologise to Sarah Laurie for the harm, embarrassment and distress caused by my allegations, which I unreservedly retract.

Ken McAlpine
Special Advisor, Public Affairs,
Vestas Australian Wind Technology Pty Ltd

mcalpine

Vesta’s head prat forced to eat a little humble pie.

****

Dr Sarah Laurie has been the voice for rural communities set upon by the wind industry. For over 5 years, she has been advocating for an Australian ‘fair go’ for people trying to get a decent night’s sleep in their own homes; and, to that end, has relentlessly sought to get relevant, meaningful and enforceable noise standards drawn up to cover all industrial noise sources, including wind turbines:

Senate Wind Farm Inquiry – Dr Sarah Laurie says: “Kill the Noise & give Neighbours a Fair Go”

Fortitude, resilience, stoicism, fearlessness, and an overall desire to let right be done: terms that only begin to capture the essence of a remarkable woman.

Set upon by the attack dogs that help run media and political interference for the wind industry, Sarah has been subjected to more than her fair share of utterly unwarranted, vilification and abuse. And the lion’s share of that has been generated, or orchestrated, by the guru and his mate, McAlpine.

The guru, along with fellow wind power propagandists, McAlpine, Infigen’s Ketan Joshi and the Sydney Morning Herald’s Peter Hannam sent Tweets to their band of intellectually challenged followers, asserting that Dr Laurie had been “deregistered”; implying that she had engaged in professional misconduct, causing the Medical Board to chop her registration.

For no apparent reason – save malice – Joshi and Hannam sent the malicious Tweet (first sent by McAlpine) around once more during the guru’s appearance before the Senate Inquiry. In a “we’re not going to take it any more” move, in response, Sarah Laurie sent in her legal attack dogs, who forced the guru to eat a very generous serving of humble pie. And, now, she’s extracted the same from Vesta’s McAlpine.

McAlpine’s fitting apology exposes a long-running campaign to discredit Dr Laurie, who has spoken out for residents affected by noise from wind turbines and other industrial sources through the Waubra Foundation.

What Sarah said about the guru’s personal attacks on her professional integrity apply with equal force to McAlpine – as “just [another] example of a broader strategy employed by the wind industry to denigrate, marginalise and, therefore, exclude from public and political discourse anyone sincerely investigating a worldwide public health issue”.

Quite right, Sarah. The gutter tactics employed by McAlpine and others in the wind industry, received special attention from the Senators on the wind farm Inquiry who noted in their report:

The need for civility in public debate

As the committee noted in its interim report (paragraph 1.13), it is disappointed that renewable energy advocates, wind farm developers and operators, public officials and academics continue to denigrate those who claim that wind turbines have caused their ill-health.

Even elected representatives seeking to inquire into these effects have been the target of derision. The committee draws attention to comments from RATCH Australia Pty Ltd at the public hearing in Cairns (see Committee Hansard, Mr Hallenstein, 18 May 2015, p.4) and from Vestas Pty Ltd at the public hearing in Melbourne (see Committee Hansard, Mr McAlpine, 9 June 2015, p. 24).

Mr McAlpine had tweeted prior to the hearing: ‘Happy World Environment Day to all the delightfully nutty anti-wind activists out there.’

The committee notes that RATCH Australia provided a formal apology to the committee for comments made at the public hearing. This apology was accepted.

Vestas and McAlpine apparently lacked the common sense and grace to make any such apology to the Senators.

Here’s what incensed the committee about McAlpine’s glib, disingenuous, arrogant, condescending and dare we say it callous attitude to the Senators on the committee; and, in turn, Vestas thousands of unnecessary victims.

Senator LEYONHJELM: You are turbine designers though. You manufacture them. Your submission is from the perspective of a turbine manufacturer. Your submission is mainly acting as cheerleader for renewable energy, which is—we have heard from so many witnesses—the same story. What I want to know about from you guys is something that other witnesses cannot tell us, not something that we have heard from 10 other witnesses. Turbine design is your field. Can you design a turbine which does not emit infrasound.

Mr Nielsen: I cannot speak on behalf of 1,000 engineers in a R&D department.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Can you design in a turbine that emits less infrasound than the current ones?

Mr Nielsen: I do not know.

CHAIR: You do not know?

Mr Nielsen: No.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Who does?

Mr Nielsen: Our R&D department.

Mr McAlpine: Let us put it in context here. The company optimises its turbines in all kinds of ways. Most of those ways are directed at lowering the cost of energy across the lifespan of the wind turbine. Other advances are to reduce the amount of parts that cannot be recycled. Other design changes over the years have been directed at reducing the amount of audible noise. I do not understand your particular fascination with infrasound.

Senator LEYONHJELM: You don’t? Did you hear the previous witnesses?

Senator DAY: ‘A fascination’? We just heard some very emotional and very intense—

CHAIR: Senator Xenophon has joined us via teleconference.

Senator LEYONHJELM: If infrasound is making people sick, and that is what they say—

Mr McAlpine: Sorry, can I just pull you up there. Who is “they?”

Senator LEYONHJELM: Were you here for the previous witnesses?

Mr McAlpine: I came in on the tail end of it. Are you talking about the last particular witnesses at the last session?

Senator LEYONHJELM: If you are following this inquiry you will know that we have heard from a number of witnesses who make that claim. You can check the Hansard.

Mr McAlpine: It just seemed pretty general. You are putting something to us that seems pretty general without identifying who says infrasound is bad for people’s health?

Senator LEYONHJELM: Are you denying that people are claiming to be made sick by infrasound?

Mr McAlpine: I do not deny people are claiming it.

Senator LEYONHJELM: I am saying to you people are telling us that infrasound makes people sick. Are you disputing they are saying that?

Mr McAlpine: No, I am agreeing. Which people said it?

Senator LEYONHJELM: People are telling us that infrasound makes people sick. A federal department said in 2009 that excessive levels of infrasound can make people sick. Do you think Vestas has a legal liability to not make people sick because of the omission of infrasound?

Mr McAlpine: Vestas has an obligation to comply with all sorts of legislation including occupational health and safety legislation. I put it to you that we have got thousands of workers in turbines all around the world, day in day out. If anyone was going to be made sick by whatever you are talking about here, it would be the people at close range to these machines. What I am putting to you is that we do not have dozens, hundreds, thousands of people being made sick by infrasound as you suggest. So why do you think it would be any worse for anyone even further away from a turbine?

Senator LEYONHJELM: Are you familiar with the laws of tort for negligence? It is not statutory obligation. If you knew or ought to have known that you are causing harm to people, you still are liable for it. Do you have any concerns along those lines?

Mr McAlpine: No we do not. We get audited each year and we get asked that same question and the answer is the same. ….

CHAIR: I was just having a look at the community engagement guidelines from the Clean Energy Council. I note that Vestas, RATCH-Australia, Infigen and several others are members of the Clean Energy Council. The community engagement guidelines for the Australian wind industry quite plainly instruct representatives of the CEC to:

… prepare themselves for answering questions but also for building constructive relationships. For this, some aspects to consider are:

speak plainly but in a respectful and balanced way

acknowledge concerns and never dismiss a question as illegitimate or a myth

Is this insulting tweet that you put out last week representative of what your company considers to be ‘respectful’ communication? Does Vestas share your view that rural residents concerned about impacts arising from the operation of wind turbines are ‘nutty’? On 4 June I note that you said ‘Happy World Environment Day to all the delightfully nutty anti-wind activists out there.’ Did you or did you not post that comment? Is that the policy of Vestas?

Mr McAlpine: That is a personal account, but I do not resile from those views. That view is about the anti-wind activists who are spreading misinformation and fear through rural communities. I do not back off from that one bit.

CHAIR: In July 2011, Mr McAlpine, you and others of the CEC membership spoke at the Grattan Institute’s forum ‘The future of wind energy in Australia’. At the forum, Mr Jonathan Upson from Infigen Energy, who the committee heard from in Canberra, referred to something that you said.

As Ken mentioned, the largest public relations issue for the industry as the moment is the theory of an ex-doctor that infrasound or low frequency noise from wind turbines is likely to make anyone within 10km of a wind turbine sick. This story has been going for well over a year. It has legs as they say in the business. Imagine how quick this story would fade if the media included the following facts every time Sarah Laurie was interviewed. She is not a registered doctor, therefore she cannot legally diagnose any medical condition.

In the submission you prepared on behalf of Vestas for the New South Wales draft planning guidelines for wind farms, you mentioned Dr Laurie in relation to health concerns:

Certainly the anti-wind farm activist groups refuse to accept the peer-reviewed evidence on this topic and have continued to rely on the scaremongering of unregistered doctor Sarah Laurie and information they have harvested from various anti-wind websites.

If you knew that Dr Sarah Laurie was unregistered in March 2012, why did you put out a tweet on social media in March 2014 referring to Dr Laurie as deregistered with inverted commas around the title of doctor?

Mr McAlpine: I am not sure what your point is.

CHAIR: The point is that Dr Sarah Laurie was not deregistered. You knew that she was unregistered in March 2012, but in March 2014 you referred to her as deregistered—why is that?

Mr McAlpine: I cannot recall why, but I will note that she was the subject of a number of complaints to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. That is going back two or three years. The actual circumstances under which she ceased to practice—

CHAIR: There is a big difference between ‘deregistered’ and ‘unregistered’—is there not?

Mr McAlpine: There can be.

CHAIR: Sorry?

Mr McAlpine: I do not know the circumstances of her being unregistered.

CHAIR: There is a difference. Isn’t it a slur to claim that somebody is deregistered?

Mr McAlpine: Well, you seem upset by it.

CHAIR: I am asking you a question. Is there in your mind a difference between ‘deregistered’ and ‘unregistered’?

Mr McAlpine: I am not sure how this relates to the terms of reference for this inquiry.

Senator LEYONHJELM: It goes to your credibility, Mr McAlpine—the same as not knowing the answers to my questions. What Senator Madigan is explaining is that you are really not a very good advocate for wind energy. Your behaviour would suggest you are either ignorant or obnoxious or both.

Mr McAlpine: Consider that in the context of some of your reported language, Senator.

Senator LEYONHJELM: I see.

Mr McAlpine: You do not seem averse to the odd slur or the odd expletive here and there. You do not like my answers and that is fine, but, as I was pointing out to the chair, you have a set of terms of reference here and I suggest you stick to them.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Really? You are going to tell us how to do our job? Fascinating!

Senator XENOPHON: I think the terms of reference refer to any related matters, in any event. Mr McAlpine, Vestas noise policy states:

Vestas also recommends that governments supplement relative noise limits with a low absolute maximum limit in areas of very low background noise (e.g. quiet countryside), which ensures minimal noise disturbance for turbine neighbours also in these places.

That is a pretty uncontroversial statement on the part of your company.

Mr McAlpine: Sorry—what is your question, Senator?

Senator XENOPHON: My question is: are you familiar with that particular noise policy?

Mr McAlpine: No. You may have to table that some other time and submit a question on notice. I do not have that document in front of me.

Senator XENOPHON: I am reading from a document called Vestas policy on noise from wind turbines, and it says, in the final paragraph of the document:

Vestas also recommends that governments supplement relative noise limits with a low absolute maximum limit in areas of very low background noise (e.g. quiet countryside), which ensures minimal noise disturbance for turbine neighbours also in these places.

Can you tell me whether you are familiar with that document?

Mr McAlpine: Perhaps I will answer generally. I am not familiar with that document and you have not mentioned a date, but the point in that paragraph stands. There are a number of jurisdictions where noise limits differ between daytime and night-time, depending on the distance from the turbines. That differs across jurisdictions both here and overseas.

Senator XENOPHON: Sure. I do not have the date of the document, but it is from the Vestas website, as I understand, but I am happy for you to take that on notice. I thought it just seemed to be a reasonable statement in the context of noise policy.

Following from that, given that Vestas wind turbines have been used at a number of Australian wind developments where there have been claims of sleep disturbance and adverse health effects are reported by residents—in particular Energy Australia’s Waterloo wind development in South Australia and AGL’s Macarthur wind development in Victoria—would Vestas, as a general policy, have any difficulty in fully cooperating with independent researchers or regulators by providing all relevant operational and other data required to assist either investigators or regulators getting to the bottom of those claims of sleep disturbance and other health effects that have been alleged?

Mr McAlpine: Vestas has already done that for many years and continues to do so. We work with our customers, who hold the planning permits and only assets, and cooperate with them and independent researchers and companies to check the data, verify it and submit it to the relevant authorities. In South Australia the EPA is the relevant authority and it has done a lot of work investigating questions around the Waterloo wind farm. Similarly I understand that for the Macarthur wind farm the operator, which at the relevant time was AGL, has also worked with third-party bodies to collect and share data both with the state authorities, I believe, and with the local council, Moyne Shire.

Senator XENOPHON: As a general principle, though, you do not have an issue with providing data that could be seen to be relevant by researchers or by regulators in terms of issues of absolute noise, including infrasound?

Mr McAlpine: As a general principle, we already do it and have participated in much of that work.

Senator XENOPHON: You mentioned Sarah Laurie in terms of complaints made against her. To your knowledge, is that based on the public record, or on information that you have obtained?

Mr McAlpine: It is information I have obtained, but I suppose we should all be a little careful here because of the nature of this. You would not want to be breaching the Privacy Act in nominating who has made complaints.

Senator XENOPHON: I suggest that you may already have done that by making those assertions about Sarah Laurie. Just because someone has had a complaint against them does not mean that that complaint has any reasonable basis. I am not aware of—

Mr McAlpine: I do not think that that is the case. That was based on news reports at the time. I can supply those to the committee if you want to check that later on. It is not a breach of any privacy legislation.

Senator XENOPHON: You are not aware of the nature of those complaints, are you? Do you have any knowledge in addition to the public information available about Sarah Laurie?

Mr McAlpine: No. I would be prepared to provide it on notice. I know that this did get reported a couple of years ago. I can find those news reports and anything else that AHPRA has said in response.

Senator XENOPHON: It is a relatively new system. My final question in respect of this is: are you aware of the nature of any of the complaints other than from the public information? In other words, do you know some of the complainants or do you have any additional knowledge about some of the complaints made against Sarah Laurie?

Mr McAlpine: No. I tend to rely on the public reports of such things. Any other knowledge I have would, if supplied here, probably breach the Privacy Act.

Senator XENOPHON: So you do have some other knowledge about those complaints? I am not asking the details of that knowledge.

Mr McAlpine: Yes, but I would not want to supply the names for fear of breaching that act.

Senator XENOPHON: I am not asking you to supply the names. I am asking whether you have received information other than the information that is publicly available about Sarah Laurie. Is that right?

Mr McAlpine: About the complaints, yes.

Senator XENOPHON: Right, so you do have a particular or inside knowledge that is not available to members of the public.

Mr McAlpine: That is correct.

Senator CANAVAN: I want to go to the central issue here. To clarify, Mr McAlpine, do you work for Vestas?

Mr McAlpine: Yes, I do.

Senator CANAVAN: Are you employed by them or are you an adviser to them—what is the relationship here?

Mr McAlpine: All of the above. Until the end of last year I was a full-time employee of the company. These days I am a contractor.

Senator CANAVAN: Okay. So you are now a lobbyist or an advisory firm?

Mr McAlpine: That is correct.

Hansard, 9 June 2015 [available here].

It takes some audacity to pull lines like “can I just pull you up there” or “you have a set of terms of reference here and I suggest you stick to them” to a Parliamentary Committee. Little wonder then that the Senators leading the questioning wanted to jump the table and throttle him!

Where McAlpine fluffs and fudges about alleged ‘complaints’ purportedly made to the Medical Board about Sarah Laurie, the only ‘complaint’ was one deliberately cooked up by McAlpine’s mates in the so-called ‘Public Health Alliance‘ – the ones that appeared with him on the podium at the launch of Vesta’s “Act on Facts” propaganda campaign. As McAlpine acknowledges in his Correction and Apology above, his:

“allegations [about Sarah Laurie] were made without foundation and are entirely false.

Sarah Laurie is not deregistered and has never been sanctioned by the Medical Board of Australia.”

So much for the “Facts”, hey Ken?

The ‘audit’ mentioned by McAlpine would, of course, be to the same ‘rigourous’ standards applied by the likes of Marshall Day Acoustics – who will happily erase out inconvenient little facts; like wind farm “noise levels exceed the NZ noise limits” and “the NZ limits are significantly exceeded” – as directed by their paymasters who would be …??? That’s right, the offenders themselves:

Pacific Hydro & Acciona’s Acoustic ‘Consultant’ Fakes ‘Compliance’ Reports for Non-Compliant Wind Farms

At AGL’s Macarthur disaster – another non-compliant wind farm – 140, 3 MW Vestas V112s, drive the neighbours nuts, night after night. Cutting out the middle-man, Vestas has recently engaged its very own pet acoustic consultant to generate ‘compliance’ reports; no doubt to its paymasters’ ultimate satisfaction.

As to the Senate Committee’s “fascination” with infrasound, these boys are hardly Robinson Crusoe. You might have heard of America’s National Aeronautics and Space Administration – more usually referred to as ‘NASA’ (you might remember them for minor scientific moments, such as landing a couple of blokes on the moon and returning them safely to earth?). Well, NASA spent a decade investigating wind turbine generated infrasound and low-frequency noise; and its impacts on human beings:

Three Decades of Wind Industry Deception: A Chronology of a Global Conspiracy of Silence and Subterfuge

McAlpine’s employer, Vestas spent the next 30 years covering it up; and lying about it when that research was brought to light, by none other than STT.

But, even earlier, back in 2004, Vestas knew they were in serious trouble, when Vesta’s Erik Sloth delivered this paper:

vestas sloth

The Sloth paper is available here.

As is the wind industry norm, Vestas wasn’t about to leave anything to chance, so it has infiltrated government departments and planning authorities; bullying them in order to avoid the imposition of any proper noise regulations.

In Denmark, Vestas head, Ditlev Engel set out to intimidate its government with this letter, in which he makes it crystal clear that Vestas has no interest in any of its human victims, anywhere; Engel asserting that:

I am writing this letter to express my concern regarding the limits for low frequency noise from wind turbines now being proposed.

Back in January 2011 we applauded the announcement of the new regulations regarding low frequency noise and the fact that you also then emphasised that those regulations would not be tightened and that it was a question of improving the security in connection with the installation of wind turbines. Accordingly, the reaction from the industry branch back in January 2011 was positive, although as an industry we were uneasy about having heavier demands imposed on us and other industries.

When the new regulations were then published on 26.05.2011 we were of course convinced of your initial point of view. As a result, we were extremely surprised to find that the proposed new regulations do in fact include a significant and severe tightening of the previous noise regulations.

In fact, according to analyses, the most economical turbines, 3 MW category, are the ones that will be strongly affected by the new rules. This applies to open terrain in particular, where in future low frequency noise will dictate and increase the distance requirements and neighbours for close to half of the projects that we are already aware of over the next 2 to 3 years. ….

The letter goes on to threaten the Danish government that the imposition of any sensible rules, in favour of its citizens, would be the end for Vesta’s business. Predictably, Vestas got its way: the changes that were made had no serious impact on Vesta’s customer’s ability to lob 3 MW turbines within a few hundred metres of homes; and the amended rules went on to prohibit the measurement of low frequency noise inside homes. The result of pandering to Vestas, is that the Danish wind industry has been buying up houses and whole villages, and bulldozing them:

This Town is ‘coming like a Ghost Town: Wind Industry Buys Up & Bulldozes Whole Danish Villages

In Australia – following Ditlev Engel’s lead – it was Ken McAlpine jumping to the wind industry’s ‘rescue’.

In his typically overweening style, McAlpine pleaded Vesta’s case to the New South Wales Department of Planning – in an intimidating submission pitched back in March 2012. At that point, the NSW Planning Department was considering rules that would have covered low-frequency noise and infrasound, but McAlpine was having none of it. McAlpine’s bullying submission is available here.

Despite his company’s glaringly obvious awareness of the problem of its turbines – particularly the larger 3 MW versions – creating annoying and debilitating low-frequency noise and infrasound, McAlpine set out to pressure the NSW Planning Department into accepting that it is:

unnecessary to require the prediction and monitoring of low frequency noise emissions from wind turbines”.

Of course it’s “unnecessary”. That’s why Vestas so ‘warmly’ welcomed the concept of tougher low-frequency noise regulations back in Denmark; with hundreds of now uninhabitable homes being bought up and bulldozed, as a result.

If wind turbines don’t produce low-frequency noise and infrasound, then Vestas and the operators of their products should be completely untroubled by noise standards aimed at controlling any such emissions – standards that might allow people like Clive and Trina Gare, Sonia Trist, Jan Hetherington and Annie Gardner to sleep soundly in their own beds:

SA Farmers Paid $1 Million to Host 19 Turbines Tell Senate they “Would Never Do it Again” due to “Unbearable” Sleep-Destroying Noise

Three Magnificent Women Take On Australia’s Monstrous Wind Power Outfits & their Pathetic Political Backers

Instead, when faced with the FACTS, the likes of McAlpine – and his ilk – pitch up arguments that there is no problem with low-frequency noise and infrasound, at all; delivered with the same persuasion, internal logic and consistency of Little Britain’s vacillating Queen of Darkley Noone, Vicky Pollard, whenever she’s put on the spot.

Vicky-Pollard-2136549

Yeh, but no, but. Vestas turbines don’t produce no infrasound, but don’t you go settin’ no limits for it – cos there is none, so there.

About stopthesethings

We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.

Comments

  1. Ken Oath, this guy is a lightweight. What a weak little man.
    Must have really been shaking in his boots to have to issue an apology.
    Dr Laurie should take him and simple simon to court for damages just to see them squirm, after all they have already admitted their guilt with the apology.

  2. Martin Hayles says:

    As someone among many challenging the absurdity and wilful criminal neglect of the wind industry, McAlpine and his arrogance and insolence tend to leave this writer with a sense and feeling of wanting to question the need for his head to be connected to the rest of him.

    Such a willing lack of empathy and utter contempt for his fellow travellers of the experience called human, leaves one to contemplate what it is this creature is made of.
    Certainly not that of the good people I have met with the intent of righting an obvious wrong.

    A pox on you McAlpine and your fellow disgraces.

    Justice will prevail

  3. Stunning reporting STT.

    McAlpine comes across like Hannibal Lecter, a very nasty character indeed, nurtured by a toxic uncaring and vindictive Wind Industry and their echo chamber of sociopathic spinmasters.

    He was clearly spooked by the courageous senators’ unflinching search for the truth. Truth and honesty do not appear to be virtues he or the industry are comfortable with.

    I think Bruce is correct. Their squirming is only going to get worse as they are forced to confront their lies! Bravo Dr Laurie!!

  4. Ken McAlpine, act on facts, go on, act on facts. The only fact is you are full of s#@t, and dog s#$t at that. That Simon turd is in the same class as you Ken. You windweasel grubs are squirming in crap now, and I hope it gets a lot worse for you all. Before it is all over you will know what it feels like to have the boot on the other foot.

    Happy squirming.

  5. An excellent piece, STT.

    We also recall that at the start of Vestas’ so-called Act on Facts campaign, they were going to bring anti wind campaigners into line, weren’t they?

    Starting with Australia, as your country was ‘a hot-bed of anti wind activity’ and then smashing us in other countries, including the UK.

    Indeed they spent money having universities establish who was who on the anti wind campaign front, information which we would gladly have provided buckshee.

    As we said at the time, ‘bring it on’.

    It seems that they had no more success with bringing Dr Sarah Laurie and the Senate Inquiry into line than they did with campaigners!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: