JULY 13, 2008
In a June 28 article about an anti-wind turbine speaker addressing Cape Vincent's anti-wind group and "the public," why was there no public announcement of this meeting? I've talked to several residents in the Cape Vincent area, town and village representatives, and no one knew about this meeting.
Apparently, this was an exclusive meeting, with the anti-wind group inviting only the press and probably a select group of policymakers who they felt would help their cause.
Why was the wider public not invited to this exclusive meeting? I can think of some reasons:
First, despite all of the money and rumor-spreading the anti-wind group has devoted to their misinformation campaign, the wider public of Cape Vincent has not proven to be as gullible as the anti-wind group first assumed.
After more than three years of the anti-wind group's moneyed efforts to increase their numbers beyond the couple dozen core members, they have not persuaded the wider public to swallow their misinformation.
The anti-wind group probably didn't invite the wider public to their meeting because they didn't want their expensive anti-wind speaker and the press to see how small the anti-wind minority in Cape Vincent really is.
If select policymakers were invited, I hope they realize that no dissenting voices were allowed at this meeting. The majority of Cape Vincent has remained pro-wind because, with all the anti-wind group's propaganda and hired speakers, it's been easy to recognize the inaccuracy and shortsightedness in their rumors and research.
Secondly, I've noticed when discussing wind energy, the anti-wind group's preferred mode of communication is not two-way conversation. The anti-wind group avoids face-to-face dialogue altogether. They do not want their opinions challenged. They especially do not want the accuracy of their research challenged.
The anti-wind group does not want to be asked whether they've thoroughly weighed all the pros and cons in allowing wind turbines in Cape Vincent. Whenever you disprove the anti-wind group's arguments with indisputable facts, or ask them for the source of their supposed facts, they will change the subject.
The anti-wind group wants to be able to present one supposed "expert" that denounces wind energy, but they do not want to be questioned about the financial compensation they've provided the supposed expert. They especially don't want to be asked to present a consensus of experts that all unanimously denounce wind energy.