In his letter (November 27), George Debono calls me "outdated" because, in his opinion, wind energy is no longer killing birds in large numbers. This is unfounded, as a visit to my website will show: birds continue to be slaughtered by wind turbines in a significant way.

Some species, like the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle, are likely to become extinct as a result. And countries like Scotland, Spain, Italy etc. will lose their eagles altogether, among other species.

What has changed is the level of control by wind farm developers over bird mortality information. Ornithologists hired by them must now agree in writing not to disclose any information obtained during their field work. The report they write is the property of the developer (or the government) which commissioned and paid for it. "Property of" means the developer can edit the report, shelve it, or hire another ornithologist to "complete" it. I have written a paper on the scandalous Lekuona report from Navarre, Spain, which is a classic in that respect - www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1223.

And then we have the spin, the half truths, and the outright fabrications.

Mr Debono says: "Migration paths and areas harbouring threatened or endangered bird species are now routinely avoided". The opposite is true. To wit Malta, which is a vital stopover for migrating birds flying over the water from Europe to Africa and back. Various endangered or threatened species will fall victim to wind turbines if these machines are allowed on or around the islands. Yet, Mr Debono, and the wind industry, would like Malta to have wind farms... He then cites huge numbers of birds being killed by other human artefacts, as a justification for more slaughters. Conveniently, he forgets the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back: wind farms in this example.

The rest of his argument centres on the usual wind lobby's claims: climate change, peaking oil, and dependency upon energy imports.

But nowhere does he mention the futility of wind-produced electricity, unreliable as it is. Indeed, the constant variations of the wind makes it necessary to double up the wind power's installed capacity with fossil fuel power stations.

Otherwise, Malta would have blackouts every time the wind drops a notch.

And as wind energy enters the grid, conventional power stations must reduce their production, emitting more C02 per KWh as this lowers their efficiency. More gasses are also spewed out when they ramp their production up and down following the vagaries of the wind. And some of them are kept spinning in stand-by mode, burning fossil fuels for nothing - just to be able to ramp up instantly when the wind drops.

This, plus the extra greenhouse gasses sent into the atmosphere to manufacture, transport, and then install the wind turbines and related infrastructure, balances the savings made by "clean wind power".

Adding insult to injury, more conventional power stations must be built for the days without wind (electricity cannot be stored on a sufficient scale: it must be produced at the same time it is consumed).

In a nutshell, wind farms produce small, erratic, unreliable amounts of electricity that must be balanced through more fossil fuel burning. They are useless, costly, and harmful to bird life and tourism. They are the biggest sham since the South Sea Bubble.