Challenge of Inexpert Experts
Over the past several years, anti-wind campaigners without credentials or experience related to wind energy and its effects on humans have attempted to elevate themselves into the role of expert witnesses in civil suits, Environmental Review Tribunals (ERT) in Canada, and Environmental Resources and Development (ERD) proceedings in Australia. This report singles out 16 individuals based on the courts’ dismissal of their expertise or evidence.
- Sarah Laurie
- Dr. Nina Pierpont
- Dr. Robert McMurtry
- Dr. Michael Nissenbaum
- Dr. Carl Phillips
- Dr. Daniel Shepherd
- Bill Palmer
- Mike McCann
- Ben Lansink
- Richard James
- Eric Erhard
- Les Huson
- Dr. Colin Hansen
- Dr. Adrian Upton
- Debbie Shubat
- Lori Davies
These 16 individuals and the lawyers who attempt to bring them into court have overstated the relevance of their credentials, as well as the depth and breadth of their expertise. These individuals lacked expertise and substantial evidence as detailed by courts around the world. Their claim that wind farms impact human health is dismissed in nearly every hearing, or given little weight by the judges. Additionally, these non-experts often introduce hundreds of pages of what they term evidence, but the vast majority of the documents are poorly constructed opinion pieces by other non-experts. The documents can usually be found on websites maintained by wind energy opponents. They often attempt to introduce “studies” that are methodologically and statistically weak. As more anti-wind experts continue to appear, often pushing the same material, we expect more testimony from anti-wind “experts” will be rejected. This evidence takes significant time and court resources to assess and discount; therefore, the trend to disqualify their evidence early in legal proceedings is important.
This page is part of EPI’s report, “Wind Health Impacts Dismissed in Court” published in August 2014.