[Editor note: Part II’s video on Jane talking about wind energy with her town supervisor is tomorrow.]
In my thirty plus years of working on environmental issues, I’ve learned a few things. One is that our “representatives” are often anything but. Another is that government bureaucrats have little interest in taking initiative, no matter how much sense it might make.
Yet another is that “environmental” organizations are much less interested in the environment then they might lead you to believe.
Yet still another insight is that active support from a sufficient number of citizens can be enough to offset these other liabilities. Put another way, if we do not get sufficient support from fellow citizens, our campaign objective has little chance for success. Phrased differently: the success of our campaign has more to do with the support we get, than the merits of what we are trying to do.…
[Note this post is the most popular article ever published on Master Resource. It has been now been significantly updated. Go here to see the current version.]
Trying to pin down the arguments of wind promoters is a bit like trying to grab a greased balloon. Just when you think you’ve got a handle on it, it squirts away. Let’s take a quick highlight review of how things have evolved.
…1 – Wind energy was abandoned well over a hundred years ago, as it was totally inconsistent with our burgeoning more modern needs of power, even in the late 1800s. When we throw the switch, we expect that the lights will go on — 100% of the time. It’s not possible for wind energy, by itself, to ever do this, which is one of the main reasons it was relegated to the dust bin of antiquated technologies (along with such other inadequate sources like horse power).
I was recently informed of a website called “Skeptical Science” run by a Mr. John Cook. As a scientist (physicist), I decided to check it out to see what I could learn. I started with the assumption that Mr. Cook was a competent and well-intentioned person. After some looking around there, here’s what I found out and concluded.
The first red flag is the fact that Science (by definition) is skeptical, so why the repetition in the name? It’s something like naming a site “The attractive fashion model”.
Of more concern is the fact that (c0ntrary to what one might be led to believe by the title) the site is actually focused against skeptical scientists — specifically those who have the temerity to question anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Hmmm.…