Reposted by MasterResource
By Robert Bradley Jr. – July 16, 2021
“I admit that [Kevon Martis] gave an elaborate presentation of some very selected “facts” that completely destroyed wind turbines and their associated energy and wind energy companies. His hour-long presentation lasted just 5 seconds, in which he had something positive to say about wind turbines as “a little bit of taxpayers money for local businesses” (Don Smucker, below).
“If there was a content-related criticism in my lecture, Smucker never made it and instead resorted to basic attribution.” (Martis, below)
Industrial wind turbines: dilute. Changing. Not required. Duplicate. Taxpayer / Government Dependent. Ugly. According to. Blade shadow. Flicker light. Bird hazard. Heavy infrastructure (steel, concrete and land). Energy sprawl (service roads, long transmission to markets with loss of line). Landfill problems.
Is wind the perfect imperfect energy for the modern power grid?
——————–
With all of the government and nonprofit funding on the flip side, we’re fortunate to have a cadre of volunteers telling the truth about the grassroots to wind power. One of the most prominent is Kevon Martis, who, outside of his very serious and influential brass work, disguises himself as a cool guy, even a dilettante. [1]
Martis’ exploits have been portrayed here at MasterResource. His rebuttal of the negative allegations of an Ed Rivet was profiled last month. The scarce man has drawn the ire of Big Green, as evidenced by the statement:
Despite its folky style and positioning, on the contrary, [Kevin] Martis is a highly polished fossil fuel agent with aggressive tactics. Seneca County and all of Ohio taxpayers deserve a more honest broker than Kevon Martis.
Operation with fossil fuels? This will surprise Kevon Martis or anyone who knows him.
So here is the latest ad hominem attack against Kevon Martis (and Norman Stephens) by Don Smucker, a retired agent for the Montcalm County Extension. This is followed by their Facebook exchange.
Wind proponent Don Smucker
“Personally, I am very concerned about those outside of our county or your community who have effectively disrupted local meetings to move their agenda. I feel that this was very disadvantageous.
I agree with Dan Paris’s assessment of Norm Stephens in his April 10th letter to the Daily News. I am equally concerned about the platform we have been given Kevon Martis that many of you were listening to on April 8th.
First, why is he unwilling to reveal the source of funding for the Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition, an anti-wind organization he runs in Michigan and Ohio?
He vigorously denies being funded by fossil fuel monies, but somehow failed to mention that he is a Senior Policy Fellow of the Energy and Environment Legal Institute and is also affiliated with the Institute for Energy Research. You need to personally look at the funding history and purposes of these organizations. Is he really a spokesman for those who want to work against alternative energy sources as it will hurt their fossil fuel profits? You can decide.
But if he doesn’t reveal his funding or his role with these entities and just presents himself as a zone expert working selflessly for the good of all, then why should I believe what he’s saying?
I admit that he gave an elaborate presentation of some very elaborate “facts” that completely destroyed wind turbines and the energy companies and wind energy companies associated with them. His hour-long presentation lasted only 5 seconds, during which he said something positive about wind turbines as they “give a little taxpayers’ money to local corporations”.
As Sandra Mills told us, we have to be very careful with anyone who addresses just one side of the problem. In addition, there is another side that must be taken into account in almost every zoning argument that he puts forward so aggressively.
But it’s really not about my truth and your truth or his truth. There are objective materials put together by those who endeavor to present what credible studies say and what is replicated by other objective studies.
I’m attaching a presentation put together by Bradley Neumann, an extension educator at Michigan State University who is neither for nor against wind turbines. I am sending this pdf document in a separate email.
Please go through this and make it available to your other community officials. I feel that the townships have to deal effectively with this situation and I understand that life is tough right now and I really feel for you. But also keep this in mind:
If indeed wind turbines are needed as an inexpensive source of energy to replace our off-grid coal-fired power plants, then I think we can be reasonably certain that our nation and state will take steps to ensure they are put in place, and if that’s right, they could make the rules that we have to abide by with much less local scrutiny.
When that happens, Martis and Stephens and others like them will get what they may deserve, not what they want. And as Laura and Larry Engel recently said in their letter to the Douglas Ward, “Township officials and residents can either be proactive and keep a role in locating wind turbines, or they can react and fight among themselves, which can hinder any energy company “. who dare to venture into the area and end up doing nothing. “
Refutation: Kevon Martis
Mr. Smucker: As I’ve made clear, I have no financial ties to any fossil fuel company. I do not receive any funding from any energy interested party. And my net financial effect in helping communities resist irresponsible wind developments is about $ 100,000 over twelve years: negative.
But let’s play Mr. Smucker’s game: let’s assume that anyone with ties to fossil fuel financing is not a reliable source of information. If so, this is definitely bad news for MSU Extension.
MSU’s latest wind turbine zoning template recognizes NextEra Energy and DTE Energy for their help in developing it. DTE is the largest coal polluter in the state of Michigan and a major distributor, consumer, and retailer of natural gas. And DTE owns a fleet of coal bunkers that transport thousands of tons of coal every day from the Powder River Basin by rail to Michigan for use in their power plants.
Likewise NextEra. They are the largest utility company in the United States and have a huge fleet of gas-fired power plants.
And think of APEX “Clean” Energy, whose water Mr Smucker carries: In 2018 you took a financing round from an investment house with significant investments in the extraction of fossil fuels and power generation.
Using Mr. Smucker’s own false and offensive logic, he has discredited himself, MSU Extension, and APEX.
Second, I regularly and publicly disclose my scholarship to E&E Legal. And I make it clear that I never took instructions from E&E and never received a dime from them. But APEX doesn’t reveal their fossil compounds, does it?
In fact, Mr. Smucker’s insincere reasoning fails at first sight: instead of asking people to analyze my statements, sources and arguments, he asks people to look at the funding. This is called an ad hominem attack, an attack on the person rather than the person’s arguments.
He did not respond to the series of high-level and credible sources showing that the correct limit for wind turbine noise is below 40 dBa. None.
He made no response to the Sarlak paper I cited, published in Wind Energy magazine, which suggests that wind turbine setbacks should be significantly greater than the 1,200 ′ proposed by APEX for homes.
He did not respond to my reference to the safety manuals of several wind turbine manufacturers, which indicated that the minimum distance for evacuating employees is 1,640 ′.
Instead of an academic answer, he chose cheap character assassination. Shameful.
Does that apply to professionalism at MSU these days? Finally, Mr Smucker suggests that I should be discredited because only a few seconds I offered positive effects of the development of wind energy and the rest was negative.
His criticism of me is also to be rejected according to his own logic: His only positive comment on ME was that I was “polished”. The rest was conspiratorial slander. He has discredited himself in a circular manner.
And what about the claim that my talk will only focus on the negative effects of wind energy expansion? OF COURSE IT DOES IT! It was a zone talk!
Zoning must focus on regulating the negative effects of any development. The positive aspects do not need regulation, a point that I emphasized in my lecture that evening.
Unfortunately, Mr. Smucker is only the latest in a long line of renewable energy groupies to believe the lie that the only people who object to the irresponsible development of renewable energy take a secret check from Bob Murray of Murray Coal. Pathetic.
As a Michigan State University agent, Mr. Smucker should be trained enough to know that 1 + 1 = 2, even if the remaining cook does the math for Brother.
If there was a substantial criticism in my lecture, Smucker never made it and instead resorted to vulgar attribution. If this is the academic standard at MSU Extension these days, all I can say is “Go Blue!”
————
[1] Martis’s work was covered here:
And do you remember his 2013 post “Dear Michigan: Why Wind?” where he quoted James Hansen: “The suggestion that renewable energies quickly phase us out of fossil fuels in the United States, China, India or around the world is almost synonymous with believing in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.”
Like this:
Loading…
Comments are closed.