CLIMATE CHANGE THREAD, get used to it...

[dilbert firestorm]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rural-a...nd-11620251138


Rural America Gets Bad Vibrations From Big Wind
Turbines are popular so long as no one has to see their giant blades or hear the awful noise they make.
By Robert Bryce
May 5, 2021 5:45 pm ET

Wind turbines are popular—in theory. Gallup data show about 70% of Americans want “more emphasis” on wind energy. Plenty of politicians like the idea, too. President Biden’s proposed Energy Efficiency and Clean Electricity Standard calls for “tens of thousands of wind turbines.”

But where, exactly, will all those turbines be built? That question matters because local governments across the country are rejecting wind energy projects. Since 2015, about 300 government entities from Vermont to Hawaii have rejected or restricted wind projects. In March the select board in Scituate, Mass., ordered a wind turbine in the coastal town to be shut down at night from mid-May to mid-October. The problem, according to the Boston Globe: complaints from neighbors who say “they can’t sleep at night because of noise” the wind turbine makes.

The planning board in Foster, R.I., voted 5-1 on April 7 to ban wind turbines. The board took action after hearing from residents of Portsmouth, R.I., who had turbines built near their homes. The Valley Breeze newspaper reported that Portsmouth residents warned the board “about their experiences, complaining about constant noise disturbances, vibrations, and loss in home values from turbines in their neighborhood.”

These aren’t isolated examples. John Riggi, a town councilman in Yates, N.Y., has been fighting a proposed 200-megawatt wind project for seven years. He told me his community and others “are fighting to keep our lands free from environmentally destructive, culture-killing and unwanted industrial renewable-energy projects.”

These land-use conflicts are the binding constraint on the expansion of renewable-energy development in the U.S. These conflicts are coming to the fore at the same time the Biden administration is pushing a multitrillion-dollar infrastructure package that includes tens of billions of dollars in new spending on wind and solar energy as well as the construction of “thousands of miles” of high-voltage transmission lines.

Some of the fiercest fights against Big Wind are happening in the bluest states. Good luck building a wind turbine in Vermont, home of Bernie Sanders, one of the Senate’s loudest proponents of renewable energy. In New York, so many communities are rejecting wind and solar projects that Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration recently pushed through regulations that will give Albany officials authority to override the objections of local communities and issue permits for large renewable projects. In California, wind turbines are so difficult to site that most developers have simply given up trying to build new projects in the state.

The backlash against the renewable industry provides another example of the growing social divide over climate change and how much each American will be required to do to slow it. These fights are about red versus blue, rural versus urban, and big business versus small-town America.

Local governments and landowners are rejecting wind projects because of concerns about noise pollution, falling property values, ruined views and the potential loss of tourism dollars. They are implementing noise and height limits, establishing zoning setbacks, and even seeking permits to build heliports, which would prevent construction of wind turbines within a 1-mile radius of the landing pads.

Many rural governments that have implemented restrictions have been sued by wind developers. In December, Madison County, Iowa, famous for its covered wooden bridges, passed a measure that effectively bans new wind turbines. In response, MidAmerican Energy, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, sued the county.

These conflicts matter because the wind and solar industries are fueled by lucrative federal tax incentives. Between 2010 and 2029, tax breaks for wind and solar will total about $140 billion. The Biden administration is proposing a 10-year extension of those incentives.

Every form of energy production takes a toll on the environment. But it’s time for policy makers to realize that wind and solar power can’t supply the quantities of energy the U.S. economy demands at prices American consumers can afford. The problems aren’t limited to cost, intermittency, noise, the death of wildlife, or the Bunyanesque amounts of copper, steel and rare-earth elements the industry requires. The fundamental constraint is land. Places like Scituate, Foster, Yates, and Madison County are fighting wind projects because, like people everywhere, they care about and want to protect their communities.

Paving rural America with forests of giant wind turbines and oceans of solar panels won’t solve climate change. It will, however, cost trillions of dollars, blight landscapes, kill untold numbers of bats and birds, make people sick, and lead to more economic pain in rural towns and counties.

Mr. Bryce is the host of the “Power Hungry Podcast” and author of the Center of the American Experiment report “Not in Our Backyard.”

[GastonGlock]

it's textbook urban vs rural. Urban folks are all for it, rural folks don't want to dedicate land to it or look at it, but no one asked them.

Put the things on skyscrapers then if you love them so much.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by GastonGlock

it's textbook urban vs rural. Urban folks are all for it, rural folks don't want to dedicate land to it or look at it, but no one asked them.

Put the things on skyscrapers then if you love them so much.

interesting idea to put wind mills on skyscrapers. they're very practical as it turns out. too small to generate the need power.


if they built an actual windmill with large props, its going to be very noisy. not very practical.


that article pushes that "end of world" climate change bullshit.

[rexdutchman]

Inconvenient it is

[dilbert firestorm]

https://nypost.com/2021/04/24/obama-...ed-on-fallacy/

Obama administration scientist says climate ‘emergency’ is based on fallacy

By Dr. Steven E. Koonin

April 24, 2021 | 10:23am | Updated

‘The Science,” we’re told, is settled. How many times have you heard it?

Humans have broken the earth’s climate. Temperatures are rising, sea level is surging, ice is disappearing, and heat waves, storms, droughts, floods, and wildfires are an ever-worsening scourge on the world. Greenhouse gas emissions are causing all of this. And unless they’re eliminated promptly by radical changes to society and its energy systems, “The Science” says Earth is doomed.

Yes, it’s true that the globe is warming, and that humans are exerting a warming influence upon it. But beyond that — to paraphrase the classic movie “The Princess Bride” — “I do not think ‘The Science’ says what you think it says.”

For example, both research literature and government reports state clearly that heat waves in the US are now no more common than they were in 1900, and that the warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past fifty years. When I tell people this, most are incredulous. Some gasp. And some get downright hostile.

These are almost certainly not the only climate facts you haven’t heard. Here are three more that might surprise you, drawn from recent published research or assessments of climate science published by the US government and the UN:

 Humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century.
Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t shrinking any more rapidly today than it was 80 years ago.
The global area burned by wildfires has declined more than 25 percent since 2003 and 2020 was one of the lowest years on record.

Why haven’t you heard these facts before?

Most of the disconnect comes from the long game of telephone that starts with the research literature and runs through the assessment reports to the summaries of the assessment reports and on to the media coverage. There are abundant opportunities to get things wrong — both accidentally and on purpose — as the information goes through filter after filter to be packaged for various audiences. The public gets their climate information almost exclusively from the media; very few people actually read the assessment summaries, let alone the reports and research papers themselves. That’s perfectly understandable — the data and analyses are nearly impenetrable for non-experts, and the writing is not exactly gripping. As a result, most people don’t get the whole story.

Policymakers, too, have to rely on information that’s been put through several different wringers by the time it gets to them. Because most government officials are not themselves scientists, it’s up to scientists to make sure that those who make key policy decisions get an accurate, complete and transparent picture of what’s known (and unknown) about the changing climate, one undistorted by “agenda” or “narrative.” Unfortunately, getting that story straight isn’t as easy as it sounds.

I should know. That used to be my job.

I’m a scientist — I work to understand the world through measurements and observations, and then to communicate clearly both the excitement and the implications of that understanding. Early in my career, I had great fun doing this for esoteric phenomena in the realm of atoms and nuclei using high-performance computer modeling (which is also an important tool for much of climate science). But beginning in 2004, I spent about a decade turning those same methods to the subject of climate and its implications for energy technologies. I did this first as chief scientist for the oil company BP, where I focused on advancing renewable energy, and then as undersecretary for science in the Obama administration’s Department of Energy, where I helped guide the government’s investments in energy technologies and climate science. I found great satisfaction in these roles, helping to define and catalyze actions that would reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the agreed-upon imperative that would “save the planet.”

But doubts began in late 2013 when I was asked by the American Physical Society to lead an update of its public statement on climate. As part of that effort, in January 2014 I convened a workshop with a specific objective: to “stress test” the state of climate science.

I came away from the APS workshop not only surprised, but shaken by the realization that climate science was far less mature than I had supposed. Here’s what I discovered:

Humans exert a growing, but physically small, warming influence on the climate. The results from many different climate models disagree with, or even contradict, each other and many kinds of observations. In short, the science is insufficient to make useful predictions about how the climate will change over the coming decades, much less what effect our actions will have on it.

In the seven years since that workshop, I watched with dismay as the public discussions of climate and energy became increasingly distant from the science. Phrases like “climate emergency,” “climate crisis” and “climate disaster” are now routinely bandied about to support sweeping policy proposals to “fight climate change” with government interventions and subsidies. Not surprisingly, the Biden administration has made climate and energy a major priority infused throughout the government, with the appointment of John Kerry as climate envoy and proposed spending of almost $2 trillion dollars to fight this “existential threat to humanity.”

Trillion-dollar decisions about reducing human influences on the climate should be informed by an accurate understanding of scientific certainties and uncertainties. My late Nobel-prizewinning Caltech colleague Richard Feynman was one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century. At the 1974 Caltech commencement, he gave a now famous address titled “Cargo Cult Science” about the rigor scientists must adopt to avoid fooling not only themselves. “Give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another,” he implored.

Much of the public portrayal of climate science ignores the great late physicist’s advice. It is an effort to persuade rather than inform, and the information presented withholds either essential context or what doesn’t “fit.” Scientists write and too-casually review the reports, reporters uncritically repeat them, editors allow that to happen, activists and their organizations fan the fires of alarm, and experts endorse the deception by keeping silent.

As a result, the constant repetition of these and many other climate fallacies are turned into accepted truths known as “The Science.”

This article is an adapted excerpt from Dr. Koonin’s book, “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters” (BenBella Books), out May 4.

[rexdutchman]

Oh and the small fact that solar panels or made in china and are very hazardous to make dispose , and wind the blade are also hazards waste , and need replacing . Its all a cult for money not the planet

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by rexdutchman

Oh and the small fact that solar panels or made in china and are very hazardous to make dispose , and wind the blade are also hazards waste , and need replacing . Its all a cult for money not the planet

yeah, this climate change is a money scam, but it is also about control and manipulation.

[rexdutchman]

Yeah NEVER let a made up crisis go to waste ,, Likie covid

[pfunkdenver]

[bambino]

Partly cloudy tomorrow in Pittsburgh. Just like it has been for a century.

[dilbert firestorm]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...-ruse-n2590152

CBS News' Interview with Climate Scientist Exposes the Whole Ruse

Matt Vespa | @mvespa1 | Posted: May 29, 2021 1:50 AM

These people are asking us to commit to drastic lifestyle changes. They want to ban the internal combustion engine, build wind farms, go heavy on solar, and quit eating beef. Trillions in economic activity must be sacrificed to save Mother Earth. I don’t think that’s going to fly. The so-called clean or green energy alternatives are not efficient. They can’t power our economy. The environmental Left knows that but advocates for these garbage energy sources anyway. It’s all about making America poorer. A less wealthy America is a healthier Earth, so they say.

So, how do they come up with the figures? How did they pinpoint what global temperature increase we have to avoid over the next couple of years.? It’s 1.5 degrees Celsius. That’s what CBS News’ climate guru Jeff Berardelli said.

https://twitter.com/tomselliott/stat...53417676615681

When pressed on the figure and how they came up with it, Berardelli merely said it’s just the number they decided to go with right now—that’s it, dude?

Let’s go back to the 1970s. Newsweek prints a piece about how the Earth was cooling. We needed to store seeds and pack the pantries and granaries. Why? A period of re-glaciation was about to be unleashed on the North American continent. It didn’t happen. The Arctic Ice Cap was supposed to be gone by 2013. It actually grew by over 533,000 square miles. These climate cultists have been wrong before—dead wrong. They’ve predicted doomsday—and nothing happened. I’m not, nor should anyone, be willing to sacrifice trillions in economic activity to curb an already natural process. And this ‘well, we said so’ attitude doesn’t help persuade anyone. It’s a ruse, folks. Always has been, always will be. It’s the ultimate Trojan horse, and only the elite and wealthy can afford to get pinched by what this crew advocates. It's nonsense.

Now, there is nothing wrong with conservation. Hunters and those who venture outdoors regularly benefit greatly from that, but that's not what we're talking about here.

[beguilingeyes]

One of the greatest hurdles to a global problem is the world rarely acts as one. The last time I can think of was the race to end small pox.

If the Russians see the warming of the artic as a positive ( and they do), it's going to be very hard to counter act the permafrost methane release.

If the countries of the amazon see deforestation for cattle as a positive way to a better quality life ( and they do ), it won't be long before they will produce more Co2 than they absorb.

If India thinks it's in their best interest to build supercritical coal burning plants ( and they do, 20 new ones are planed to come online ) it won't be long before more people than not in India will have the comforts of the developed world.

These are just a few of increases we can easily see, what about the ones we can't?

But hey, here's some wise words to make you all feel better

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdSi9NW5u3E

[Yssup Rider]

Excellent points.

[Redhot1960]

Fun and Games with 0zombies...

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Did you hear him chat about "the science" of "manmade climate change"?

I looked around for his book and even called the publisher! Within days they were sucked off the shelf and the publisher quit printing. Wokism strikes again at Free Speech. 2022 and 2024 can't get here soon enough.