The wind industry often accuses opponents of using "pseudo-science" when those opponents point out the significant costs (financial and otherwise) and miniscule benefits of wind energy. As I mentioned on the home page, my first indication that all was not well with the wind energy model was the serious problems with the references the industry used to "prove" their points. I was just blown away by how weak their research was. Not just weak - dishonest would be a better word. And it didn't seem to matter what the topic was, whether it be noise, birds, health, CO2, economics, whatever - much of their supporting evidence just wasn't there, no matter how loudly they said it was.

I've analyzed a number of wind industry claims and references, and as I get the time I will write up my examinations and link to them below. Note that I am not saying all wind industry claims and references are weak, but the weak ones sure seem more prominent - the good ones tend to be limited to technical issues. The following examinations are of industry (and government) publications that have been widely and publicly used to butress their various claims.

• The CanWEA/AWEA Health Review is one step above the Colby Report, but still qualifies for inclusion here.
• The Colby Report was a real disservice to public health.
• The Salford Report never even looked very hard.
• This RES Canada Advertisement looked good (of course) until you took the time to actually read their references.

• How did the New South Wales Standing Committee #5 arrive at their conclusion?
• Where did NREL's 20% by 2030 Report get their CO2 numbers?

• Canning and Simmons' report is truly dreadful, terribly dishonest.
• Hoen and Wiser's report has some major problems, not quite as bad as Canning.

My understanding of how science works was drilled into me starting with my father and continued throughout my education, and I've used those principles throughout my working life. Here's a quick summary of how I view them, slightly adapted for evaluating wind energy issues.

• Scientific "facts" are based on careful observation, experimentation, documentation and verification. Not on assertions, no matter who they come from, nor how popular they are, nor how obvious they seem.
• Scientific "truth" is an oxymoron. Anyone who uses any form of the words "science" and "prove" in the same sentence has an agenda that does not value honesty. Science never claims to know the complete and final truth about anything. There's always more that we can learn. If the uncertainty is thought to be small or insignificant we might generally consider something "true", but we must always be open to new information.
• There are times when we must act in the face of uncertainty, but we should never pretend that it doesn't exist, and if important we should try to lessen the uncertainty as best we can.
• All observations constitute possible evidence, and must not be arbitrarily discarded. Some of those observations are weak (i.e. anecdotal) and others are strong (i.e. careful experimental). If enough weak observations are carefully gathered they become stronger.
• Normally it is the job of the person making an assertion, like "wind turbines lessen CO2 emissions", to use scientific techniques to verify that assertion. Those making an assertion cannot claim it is "true until disproved".
• The main exception to this is where the assertion involves human health or the environment, where most first-world nations have adopted the precautionary principle - if there's any reason to suspect harm, you stop doing what you are doing until the question is settled in a scientific manner.
• Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You cannot claim something is false just because you have no evidence that it is true - especially if you haven't looked very hard.