Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

I Am Interested In Politics

Trump said the sound wind turbines make (he mistakingly called them windmills) causes cancer. I know we're all supposed to be used to him saying stupid nonsense by now but this just seems more crazier than his usual claims.
I remember his lawsuits over wind turbines in Scotland which could be seen from his golf course and how he lost the suit but to then come up with the claim the noise they make cause cancer seems like a very delusional way to get revenge.
If he either really believes this his mental state is worse than I thought or if people believe him after he said it I worry there truly is nothing he can say that people won't believe.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Notme123abc · 100+, M

My question comes back around for all those saying we shouldn't use wind or solar at all. Why not? No one has answered this yet, or even tried in this thread or a couple of others.
Why not start making changes now, gradually, so that we can become less dependent on fossil fuels?

I've heard it's not perfect. OK. I will give you that but neither is our current power generating system as well as our use of cars, trucks and SUV's powered by gas/oil/coal. They're VERY inefficient. See the explanation in the link below. Basically from startup (generation) to the time it gets to our homes we are looking at 40%+ losses depending on where you live.

http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-much-electricity-disappears-between-a-power-plant-and-your-plug/

Even storing the energy from Solar leads to less loss than the creation and transmission we use currently (8 to 32% depending on the storage method) the same can be said with wind storage as well with no cost for the generation.
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-solar-power-energy-consumption-emissions.html

I know people will say the cost of building turbines or adding solar is expensive. So was the cost of that generator sitting down at the local power plant (Current power plants run by coal generating 600 mW of power are being built at a cost of $2Billion for that plant. You can't tell me that's cheap.

So why not start gradually making the change?

1-25 of 103

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@Notme123abc Personally if you want to throw your money away by using wind and solar then feel free. The problem comes from government massively subsidizing inefficient energy sources to eliminate efficient energy sources. But put that aside for the moment and realize the environmental damage done by renewables. Massive damage digging the rare earths out of the ground. Massive bird kills from the windmills. Huge acreages taken out of production or wildlife habitat for solar. etc etc etc. Far cleaner with less loss of habitat and far less loss of life with non renewables.

Notme123abc · 100+, M

Wind & solar are no less efficient than fossil fuels according to the studies I've read. You can see two of them with the links above.
As for acreage that isn't usable the wind turbines take up the same foot print as an oil dregs in a farmer's field in KS. (I know as I worked around them all the time as a telephone lineman for years)
As for digging rare earth metals it's the same damage being done mining coal. It's also less damaging than the oil spills that happen every year. That oil, even the ones from the pipelines, seep into our drinking water and has to be cleaned out.
@hippyjoe. I get it, you don't WANT to change and I'm not going to change your mind. I just wish you could provide some data to back up these "FACTS" you keep spouting but I'm not sure you can. One of your peers in another thread stated they aren't going to take the time to read these links and their not going to find studies to support their viewpoint. So unless you can find facts to support the statement that solar/wind is MORE damaging and less efficient than fossil fuels I'm not going to be able to believe you and I will continue to ask you for facts to back it up.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@Notme123abc Then the studies are wrong or misleading. Wind and solar simply don't have the energy density of so called fossil fuels. As far as transportation goes electricity is a complete dud in comparison. A fellow I know has a Tesla and he wanted to drive 1000 kms. It took him two days to do it with the need to recharge. I fueled up my F150 and drove the 1000 kms without even stopping for gas. Oh and I carried a full load of tools and baggage which he couldn't do.

Notme123abc · 100+, M

@hippyjoe. Can you show me these studies that contradict this? I keep asking you (and others) for the studies countering this and I keep hearing crickets. I'm a businessman who runs on data. You want to convince me you have to show me numbers.
No one ever said the electric cars were infallible. I don't own one yet because of the lack of range and the lack of charging stations. I agree with you there.

As far as the electric grid goes it is extremely inefficient as I've sited before.

Still waiting for the studies to show that renewables aren't worth using at all.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@Notme123abc Tell you what. You point out which predictions made by the AGW croud has made that has actually come to pass. For example was the Arctic ice free in the time line predicted? Has the Arctic been ice free in our life time?

Notme123abc · 100+, M

@hippyjoe1955 No the arctic circle hasn't melted yet.
We can see via satellite imagery the ice shelves all over the world are shrinking at an incredible rate. Plus why would I want to save the arctic ice caps AFTER they are already gone? Kind of silly to me.
I found one study showing the ice shelves are melting. Can you find me a study showing they aren't? I'm betting you will refuse to do so or you can't find something that shows more than 1 year of growth in the last 20. Do you accept this challenge?
https://www.dw.com/en/polar-ice-sheets-melting-faster-than-ever/a-16432199
BTW this study below shows the reduction in the number of glaciers since 1950.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/
If we think we might need them, then we should probably do our part to keep from sending more CO2 into the atmosphere.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@Notme123abc And yet they are not shrinking. In fact Greenland gained ice over the last few years. In the billions of tons in fact. The point however is the lack of proof that climate change has anything to do with mankind. The climate has always changed and as any logician can tell you coincidence does not equal causation. If I wash my car and it rains an hour later does not prove that my washing my car caused the rain. The same applies to climate. We know it changes all the time and has since climate began.

windinhishair · 61-69, M

@Notme123abc Best not to feed the troll. Joe doesn't accept any data that indicates he is wrong. At any time. For any reason. He still thinks acid rain is a hoax, and that the ozone hole is a hoax. And that because Port Elizabeth had more ice one winter, global climate change is wrong. He'll post unsupported statements that directly contradict all studies and evidence [quote]Greenland gained ice over the last few years[/quote] but he can't and won't provide the source. The best you'll get is when he tells you to do your own research. That's when you know he's given up and is unable to counter your argument with factual information.

Notme123abc · 100+, M

@windinhishair Thanks for the heads up. So far I haven't received any data either. I just think it's funny when people like him chose to not give anything to support their viewpoint.

windinhishair · 61-69, M

@Notme123abc You never will receive any data. On any topic. It is a waste of time to continue trying.

Notme123abc · 100+, M

OK. I'll stop tilting at that windmill. :( It was fun while it lasted.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@Notme123abc Nor have you given any support for your position. I simply asked for successful predictions and you haven't provided it. As for the unread numpty the article was published a few days ago. Google is you friend.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@Notme123abc or you could follow this link

https://electroverse.net/greenland-has-gained-510-billion-tons-of-ice-over-the-last-year/

Notme123abc · 100+, M

I've provided studies on every incident you've asked for. I have asked you more than 6 times so far and not gotten one fact or piece of data. Basically tells me you only have what is being spoon fed to you by the talking heads (which means you are a puppet of the deep state) or you don't know what you are talking about.

Yes Google is my friend as well as access to 3 University Libraries that are within 2 hours of me and access to the data that is provided in the articles that I read.

I get my information from all sides of the story. I read Fox news, Infowars (not that I like this as much anymore), CNN, the Guardian and the like. That is why I am able to provide information. In two discussions you have YET to provide ANY information backed with data.

So I ask again. Please provide the data/studies for each of the responses I have asked you on. If you cannot, then I can't believe your points are any more valid than Trump saying there is a direct link between wind turbines and cancer.

Basically you have told me you are a denier and proud of it but can't put anything together to back your conclusions. I await your data for every response I have given you.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@Notme123abc Your studies are bogus. Too bad you are so poorly educated.

Notme123abc · 100+, M

@hippyjoe1955 I did read this one after it was published. I'm sooooo proud of you. You finally provided a single (note SINGLE) piece of data with a one year timeline. Someone stated on a previous post that you will miss the forest for the trees if your focus is too tight. This study is a one year study. Could you provide something that shows data over 10 years or more like I have been doing? To go down basic scientific principles one data point does not a trend make. It takes several points to actually show a trend.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@Notme123abc Yawn. The fact is that nothing your leaders have predicted have happened. They have go so far as to play around with the data. The warmest year on record is based on data not recorded!!

Notme123abc · 100+, M

"@Notme123abc Your studies are bogus. Too bad you are so poorly educated."

Now you result in name calling which is sooo beneath the discussion we were having. You have now shown that you have nothing to stand on as only those that can't back up their assertions with actual points do that. Thanks for showing the final card in your hand. At this point you have admitted you don't have anything to back your point.

If I was so poorly educated I wouldn't have been able to provide ANY data to back my assertions. That is what the intelligent people I know do and the ones I respect do.

I am open minded enough to admit when I'm wrong and open minded enough to change my mind when shown proof. I was hoping that with your fervor you would be able to provide some evidence but now I see you have none.

I'm going to work now. I hope you and everyone else here have a good weekend.

Notme123abc · 100+, M

@hippyjoe1955 Show me your data. Oh that's right you don't have ANY.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@Notme123abc It would seem you are the one lacking the data. You see I read both sides the story and then decide for myself. So I read the IPCC then read Watts up with that. I make sure I read one article from both sides of the debate. That being said I don't keep track of all the article I read simply because I read too many of them to remember. I do take notes when I see someone trying to pull a fast one or if the article makes a valid point. For instance the article about the fake data pointed out that many of the reporting stations in Africa don't have a thermometer there so they are assigned numbers. If an engineer did that building a bridge the engineer would be fired about 1 nano second after the bridge collapsed.

windinhishair · 61-69, M

@Notme123abc The article indicates that the Greenland ice sheet added about 510 billion tons of ice in a one year period. Conveniently left out is that the ice sheet lost over 9,000 billion tons in the 20th century, and more in the 21st:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/greeland-ice-melting-four-times-faster-than-thought-raising-sea-level/

But including it would put it in perspective, wouldn't it? And that would show a long-term melting trend, which would be inconvenient for Joe. It is much easier to pick a year and one small part of the earth, to contradict global climate change.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@windinhishair The point is that climate is constantly in change. Yes it lost and now it is gaining. During the medieval warm period the vikings were raising cattle on Greenland. There are no more cattle on Greenland because there is too much ice and snow.

windinhishair · 61-69, M

@hippyjoe1955 A single year does not make a trend. Nor does a small area on the planet. It is when you look at the totality of the earth's surface, and the long term data trends, that it is crystal clear that global climate is changing and warming to levels not seen in thousands of year.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@windinhishair Did I ever said it did? The point is and remains that climate is constantly changing. The Roman warm period the medieval warm period, the ice age, the little ice age. Know historical eras. Climate changes. If you think we have some sort of thermostat that we can dial up or down you are delusional.

windinhishair · 61-69, M

@hippyjoe1955 So because there are fluctuations to climate, we should do nothing to prevent a rise in temperatures not seen in human history? Now that is delusional.

1-25 of 103