“Combating opposition to industrial wind using Conspiracy Theory is uninformed, immature, and even comical, were the authors not taking the subject so seriously. The opponents of industrial wind will not fall prey to assertions of being paranoid or socially ‘off.’ They are conscientious, studied, well-prepared, and ready to go the full mile. There are reasons to be fighting for your own landscape, health, community, and wildlife.”
“Conspiracy theory” is a phrase tossed around mightily these days, often when people have no rebuttal to deep and real concerns about realities that are increasingly being exposed on many levels. Consider the origins of COVID, Vaccines, President Donald Trump, to name a few. (People on both sides of the argument call each other “conspiracy prey.”)
What one doesn’t expect is that opposition to industrial wind will be called out for Conspiracy. It’s an eccentric connection that authors/professors Kai Sassenberg, Matthew Hornsey, and Kevin Winter make in Anticipating and defusing the role of conspiracy beliefs in shaping opposition to wind farms published recently in Nature Energy.
The underlying assumption is that wind turbine opponents are anxious, possibly paranoid, and have “low coping skills” if they imagine harm to their communities. Additionally, the ingrates are distrustful of municipal and higher authorities.
One can agree with the distrust. But it is insulting to people, wildlife, and pristine land and water areas that do suffer harm—and all being as unnecessary as industrial wind turbines themselves. To mention that the industry worldwide is in disrepute seems moot. The very title and area of study by the professors from Australia and Germany are possibly libelous. “Tricky” and tone deaf, for sure.
Professor Hornsey‘s bio (see Appendix below) blends his interests in “mistrust and defensiveness with climate change, vaccination, evolution, and “so forth.” (The “so forth” appears to include opposition to industrial wind.)
Comments from the article:
QUOTATION ONE Australian and German researchers have found a moderate-to-large link between people who believe in conspiracy theories and rejecting wind farms. They found providing these people with more information also increased their likelihood of supporting wind power, but only if it wasn’t presented as a debate. The team says, with the urgent need for wind energy production to reach net-zero targets, preventative measures are more likely to stop these people from their oppositional opinions than just intervening later on with an info-dump.
Comment: The fix is in starting from such a pro-wind, anti-mineral-energy assumption. Why should citizens-qua-taxpayer and citizens-qua-ratepayer subsidize wind? Why should they put up with the well-known nuisances of industrial wind turbines–noise, flicker, etc.–when the giant machines are not needed to begin with? Why should the extra transmission lines be excused? A free market, anyone?
QUOTATION TWO Reaching net-zero targets requires massive increases in wind energy production, but efforts to build wind farms can meet stern local opposition. Here, inspired by related work on vaccinations, we examine whether opposition to wind farms is associated with a world view that conspiracies are common (‘conspiracy mentality’). In eight pre-registered studies (collective N = 4,170), we found moderate-to-large relationships between various indices of conspiracy beliefs and wind farm opposition. Indeed, the relationship between wind farm opposition and conspiracy beliefs was many times greater than its relationship with age, gender, education and political orientation. Information provision increased support, even among those high in conspiracy mentality. However, information provision was less effective when it was presented as a debate (that is, including negative arguments) and among participants who endorsed specific conspiracy theories about wind farms. Thus, the data suggest preventive measures are more realistic than informational interventions to curb the potentially negative impact of conspiracy beliefs.
Comment: How about focusing on those closest to wind turbines? Would any of the authors like to camp out under a turbine for a few days and report back? And it is fair for any citizen to not want government energy planning and subsidies for politically correct, economically incorrect wind. Is that a ‘conspiracy’.
QUOTATION THREE For many countries, achieving net-zero targets will require an extraordinary ramping up of energy sourced from wind. For example, when Princeton University modelled a pathway to net-zero emissions in the United States that relied entirely on renewable energy, they calculated it would require over 1 million square kilometres of land, roughly the size of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois and Louisiana combined1. In Germany, the current government agreed to designate 2% of the country’s landscape for the construction of wind farms2. The scale of escalation suggests a fundamental transformation in people’s exposure to—and relationship with—wind farms in the future. (Our note: the scale of escalation is not reasonable and will never create a fundamental transformation in people’s opposition. The impact will be inverse to what is hoped for.)
Comment: Thank you for including these facts. And you have refuted your premise of wind as the necessary savior. Machining up the landscape for unreliable, expensive, unnecessary wind power is an environmental imperative.
Robert Bryce encourages us to examine this renewables expansion in more depth.
The scale problem is equally obvious when it comes to wind. In fact, wind-energy’s scale problems are even more thorny because wind energy requires so much land.
Let’s consider the extent of the energy sprawl if the wind-energy sector were to supply that 450 terawatt-hours per year of incremental electricity demand.
The power density of wind energy is roughly two watts per square meter or about five megawatts per square mile. That means that by the end of 2011, the U.S. had covered a land area of about 9,400 square miles with wind turbines, a land area just slightly smaller than the state of Maryland. Therefore, just to keep up with the growth in global electricity demand by using wind energy alone, the global wind industry will need to cover a land area of some 35,000 square miles — about the size of Indiana — with wind turbines. And it will have to do so every year.
That metric’s still hard to grasp, so let me put it another way: in order to merely keep up with the pace of growth of global electricity use, the wind industry would have to cover 96 square miles every day, with wind turbines. That’s an area about the size of four Manhattans.
Then, the Nature Energy article refers to Net Zero: a reality check of Net Zero, shows an unobtainable pie in the sky concept, which has captured imaginations politically, and castrated or deformed energy policies world wide. The problem with SOME conspiracy “theories,” is that they profoundly challenge underlying misrepresentations, many Media promoted/Government endorsed mistakes. Galactic style misrepresentations. This is, indeed, anxiety producing.
QUOTATION FOUR Existing research suggests that people are positive about wind energy in the abstract, but when it comes to actually establishing wind farms in local communities, there has been substantial resistance, to the point where many proposals have been killed off3. In some cases, resistance has been amplified by organized campaigns of disinformation (for example, about negative health consequences of wind farms)4,5. These pockets of resistance might be early red flags for what other nations may soon experience once wind farms become a more visible and salient part of people’s lived experiences. Just as nations will need to massively ramp up investment in wind farms to meet renewable energy targets, so too does the scientific community need to ramp up its ability to anticipate (and defuse) factors that lead to wind farm resistance.
Comment: Abstract support of wind awaits a fair presentation and publicity about the problems of wind for rates, taxes, and the landscape. And particularly for local residents to the turbines.
Less and less do we hear of the NIMBY arguments. Opposition is well grounded in facts and is increasingly visible and fearless. And increasingly successful.
Conclusion
Combating opposition to industrial wind using Conspiracy Theory is uninformed, immature, and even comical, were the authors not taking the subject so seriously. The opponents of industrial wind will not fall prey to assertions of being paranoid or socially ‘off.’ They are conscientious, studied, well-prepared, and ready to go the full mile. There are reasons to be fighting for your own health, land, community, and wildlife.”
Professor Hornsey asks: “Why do people resist apparently reasonable messages?” Flip the script; Hornsey should understand basic energy issues before shortchanging and demeaning on-the-spot victims of wind power. He should question the wind industry to see who is fact-challenged and putting PR above real concerns and issues.
Appendix
Professor Hornsey writes on his bio:
Since graduating in 1999 I have published over 130 papers, and in 2018 I was elected a Fellow of the Academy of Social Scientists in Australia. A problem that I have examined throughout my career is: “Why do people resist apparently reasonable messages?” I focus on the psychology of how feelings of mistrust and threat can lead people to reject messages. These insights are then translated into concrete and do-able strategies for overcoming defensiveness. Specific examples include ARC-funded research on (1) why people embrace or resist scientific messages about climate change, vaccination, evolution, and so forth, (2) how people respond to gestures of reconciliation from transgressor groups (particularly apologies), and (3) what drives defensiveness in the face of group criticism and recommendations for change.
This professional niche begs us to investigate Hornsey further to uncover such articles as Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A. & Fielding, K. S. Relationships among conspiratorial beliefs, conservatism and climate scepticism across nations. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 614–620 (2018). Consider this quotation:
“Another ideology that has been implicated in climate scepticism is conspiratorial ideation, defined as an underlying worldview or predisposition toward viewing events and circumstances as the product of conspiracies12,13. There are a number of conspiracy beliefs about climate science, most prominent of which is that it is a hoax perpetrated by scientists who see it as an opportunity to wield influence, secure funding or act out a green/Marxist agenda13,14,15.”
People who think that “Renewable Energy” is a good idea just don’t do sums.
In 2021, the EU+UK fleet of ~384 Gigawatts of Weather-Dependent “Renewables” contributed power output of ~69 Gigawatts to the Grid: data EurObser’ER.
The recorded productivity, (actual power output divided by installed nameplate of values Wind and Solar “Renewables”) over the last decade was:
• Onshore Wind power 22.2%
• Offshore Wind power 34.9%
• Combined EU+UK Wind power 23.6%
• Solar PV 11.6%
• Resulting in ~18% productivity for the Weather-Dependent power across Europe in 2021.
“Renewables” performance should be compared to the productivity of Conventional Generation, (Fossil fuel based and Nuclear) capable of 90% productivity, when fully utilised, which:
• can run 24/7
• produce much more energy for use by civilisation than the energy they need to build and run, i.e., a good Energy Return on Energy Invested.
• can be turned on when needed to match demand
• have small land coverage
• can have massive cheap energy storage on site with no need for batteries
• can be located close to centres of demand
• use limited materials for their manufacture and installation
• according to current US EIA comparative costs Conventional power generat0rs are substantially cheaper for their power production, even at current elevated European Gas prices
The US Energy Administration (EIA) publishes comparative figures power generation technologies both for capital and long-term costs. When those costs are merged with their recorded productivities and compared to Gas-Firing for power generation, the comparative costs can be seen for each unit of power actually delivered to the grid.
The overall “Renewables” costs are roughly 10 times that of Gas-firing.
Using the same comparison, Nuclear power is still cheaper than “Renewables” but by a smaller factor, (only ~2-3 times).
When the comparative costs are combined with their measured productivity, these simple sums show that any claim that Wind and Solar power are cost competitive with Conventional fossil fuel power generation are patently false.
Would anyone sane buy a car costing about 10 times the normal price to buy and run, that can only work one day in five, when you never know which day that might be ? And then insist that its technology is the only way to power the whole economy.
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/3-graphs-say-it-all-for-renewables/
Yet another good SL article
Of over one dozen climate science and energy websites I read every day of the year, this website had the best articles this week. And the week is not even over yet. I posted links to all of them in my own climate science and energy blog column: ” Best articles I read today”
I’ve had over 364,000 page views so far, trying to spread the word on good climate scaremongering and Nut Zero articles – keep up the good work!
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/
Thank you, Richard and EDMH.
Having this excellent list of the failures and shortcomings of IW ( industrial wind) is useful in many contexts.
Just read today about the fiscal frailty of the Orsted project off of Atlantic City. The authors call for a slowdown of offshore wind…for a variety of reasons. I personally welcome any obstacles to offshore wind.
It is pretty clear that the Right Whale may or will become extinct.
https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2022/12/offshore-wind-development-nj-raises-costs-rate-payers/
Thanks for your commentary, Sherri. But the reasonable response to grifters like those touting the benefits of wind and solar to modern societies should be dismissive scorn. No sane person should be clapping to save fairies from the death they deserve from universal unbelief.
The divide between the claim that wind and solar can overall substantially reduce reliance on conventional energy sources and the reality of their actual performance is vast and unbridgeable. Wind, for example, has zero firm capacity and cannot functionally be compared with high capacity machines. The physics behind wind energy’s conversion to electricity dictates that any wind production will always be in high flux, changing its output substantially hundreds of times daily, which always sabotages an electricity grid’s prime mission of keeping supply matched to demand with high precision. As I and others have shown over the years, wind as a supplement requires vast supplementation, with significant thermal consequences.
Despite millions of extant wind turbines around the world now challenging delusional Don Quixotes, there is NO evidence they have reduced fossil fuel production–anywhere. What their existence has done is to reinforce the long standing claim that the more wind, the more need for fossil fuels, all things considered.
The only functional use for the renewables du jour is as tax shelters for the wealthy noblesse who feel obliged only to shuck and jive the dim and dumb.
We need more punditry declaiming on the merits of renewables’ tax sheltering abilities compared to other such portfolios. With this, we’d at least be getting a bit of reality. And not the blush of pixie dust from post modern energy critics.
Onshore and offshore wind, is dumb and dumber.
They only generate intermittent electricity and still need oil as all the parts of wind turbines are made from the derivatives that are manufactured from crude oil.
Rid the world of oil also rids the world of wind turbines !!
Thanks, Jon. As ever, your commentary is delivered with panache, and using “molars and incisors.” Your command of the description is superb. As ever.
It is ever, as Warren Buffett commented: “We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them.”
It’s hard to imagine the dough that gets dumped into GREEN schemes. Billions, trillions. On and offshore, it’s a ridiculous, fatuous, ignoble endeavor.
Thanks, Ronald. It’s true. Dumb and Dumber. Hard to imagine that there remains some glitter….for SOME, the gold diggers. Thanks for pointing out the fossil fuels required to build, manufacture, maintain, and hopefully decommission.
If one can imagine such gargantuan waste,. I don’t know if you saw this yesterday: the yachtsman in France, charged for transgressing into the limit zone of a wind factory. They said, he or she, stole some of their energy; by diverting some of THEIR assets, the wind. Incredible. I have to wonder how many of these events there are now. They called it, Commercial Losses.
Quote: Following the expiry of a European Union derogation on interference with offshore wind installations, sailors can now be prosecuted for inflicting commercial losses on energy companies for the disruption of the airflow over turbines.
The yachtsman, who can’t be named for legal reasons, was sailing upwind of an East Coast wind farm whilst crossing the Thames estuary when he was intercepted by the wind farm patrol vessel and served with a notice of damages.”
It puzzles me somewhat to hear from some that they would like them all offshore, and some want them on shore, and the message needs to be tweaked: they don’t belong ANYWHERE. Excuse the caps.
Story from Mary Chalke
https://www.foxnews.com/us/video-shows-nyc-surfers-trying-save-whale-washed-up-beach?fbclid=IwAR1Fkpsp8M2mgXEBtIXSUaUhbMgCwXD4984_jPUz-gc3SapHJlOpySRJey0
In wind turbine land: nothing is sacred.
Thank you Sherri Lange for taking authors/professors Kai Sassenberg, Matthew Hornsey, and Kevin Winters to task for their pure poppycock. The folly that is defined by the dangers and inefficiency of Industrial Wind Turbines has been well-reported and documented by many expert engineers and scientists worldwide, and as many of the commentators have articulated here.
The assertion that the scientific community should defuse factors that lead to wind farm resistance, is pure communism.
Thanks again to Sherri Lange for writing the piece and to MasterResource for staying front and center on this file.
Thank you Sherri Lange for taking authors/professors Kai Sassenberg, Matthew Hornsey, and Kevin Winters to task for their pure poppycock. The folly that is defined by the dangers and inefficiency of Industrial Wind Turbines has been well-reported and documented by many expert engineers and scientists worldwide, and also as many of the commentators have articulated here.
The assertion that the scientific community should defuse factors that lead to wind farm resistance, is pure communism.
Thanks again to Sherri Lange for writing the piece and to MasterResource for staying front and center on this file.
Many thanks, Michael. Absolutely not the “job” of the academic world or scientists to ‘defuse’ anything at all related to the angst around industrial wind. And to term this negative objection field to “conspiracy,” is fairly oblique and even as noted, comical. Takes quite a stretch to imagine that good honest people, protecting their livestock, farms, communities, would indulge in paranoid thinking, when they have enough nails on the stick, to defeat every notion of a non performing factory in an agricultural area, or anywhere. Do communities and individuals protesting have anxiety regarding the particulars coming their way? Of course. Anyone with half a brain, and not in the pocket, will naturally be deeply concerned. A way of life, may be threatened, is threatened, beyond imagining. Families are split, some members indulging in the paycheck from hosting turbines. Others fighting furiously to kill projects. As noted in the piece, the undercurrent of this sophistry is indeed to convey that objectors are part of that spectrum of persons perhaps subject to overthinking, paranoia, “off ness.” Clumping of objectors in this manner is facile and downright wrong. Thanks again for your cogent comment.
As an editor three blogs where I recommend the best articles I’ve read that day, on a variety of subjects, my job is made easier by consistently good websites and consistently good authors. My small list of gold star authors includes Sherry Lange on wind energy — authors who are so consistently good I can recommend their articles before I read them, and then I read them twice.
Perhaps we can fight the climate religion with the ridicule they attack us with:
You won’t do this, because you are obviously too nice … but I’m not.
I was a former juvenile delinquent:
I’m thinking of calling wind turbines” Bird and bat shredders”
I have been using “windmills” for many years.
And “unreliables” for solar and wind combined.
I’ve called climate computer models “computer games for the past 25 years.
And for the past few years,I’ve been using the term “Nut Zero”
Climate change scaremongering, and the Nut Zero panic reaction to the imaginary coming climate crisis, deserve as little respect as possible. I’m good at that. These subjects are not about science and energy — they’re about increasing government control of the private sector. The beliefs of a coming climate change crisis, and using unreliables for an electric grid, were not created with facts, data and logic, so can not be refuted with facts, data and logic.
With “climate change”, we are facing a secular religious movement. Hopefully Australia, England and Germany will be the canaries in the coalmine. Cold weather for a few years may be our only hope. Meanwhile, we need to learn how to discuss climate science and electric grid engineering in simple terms. Someday the time will come when more people are willing to listen.
that will be after the brownouts and blackouts increase. Right now most people are victims of the Appeal to Authority logic fallacy and confirmation bias for climate change and Nut Zero.
End of ranting and raving for today!
Richard Greene
Bingham Farms, Michigan
http://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/
Thanks Richard Greene.
Your rant is exactly up my alley!
Love your terminology Nut Zero and so on. Using appropriate phrases and mocking this corruption is very useful. Grabs attention.
The climate hysteria is going to be hard to dispel, I fear, as our kids are being thoroughly indoctrinated. But as the world contracts and the conversation expands, toss in a few brown outs and energy scarcity, food shortages, the penny will drop. Especially if Mother Nature shows her colder side…which is the likely scenario.
I don’t know if you have read Joe Fone’s “Climate Change, Natural or Manmade”?
What a romp through climate history! Amazing and at times comical.
Am going to look at your blog now.
Thank you so much for all your comments.
There is little to nothing that I can add to these amazing comments to an even more amazing article- Thanks to Sherri and all. I recently held a dying bat in the palm of my hand as it passed away quietly. It wasn’t due to a wind turbine, but it made my mind turn to the horrific slaughter of birds, waterfowl, and these tiny mammals from this destructive, fraudulent, pretty much worthless wind industry (other than the financial benefit to developers). If that makes me paranoid, then for the past 12 years of opposing, fighting hard against this scum industry, I am proud to be in such good company. My short comments here are not much compared to all that has been said, but I am speaking from both my brain and my heart.
Suzanne Albright, what a poignant testimony to your hard work in the wind turbine fight. It could not be more meaningful to me personally, because it was my concern over bats that led me pell-mell into the fight of my life. Along with many others, so wonderful, so dedicated. You included. The deconstruction of nature, flying creatures, is well under way, and unless some full stop occurs, it will be beyond extremely problematic.
Very touching, and of course the dignity you gave the little fellow or gal in last minutes of life, is significant.
Thank you!
Thanks for your kind words, Sherri. Flying animals represent a major reason to OPPOSE industrial wind turbines. Back when we were actively fighting the LEEDCo project in Lake Erie, it was the Western Cuyahoga Audubon Society who sought me to write about this issue, which I did, “Flying Animals Deserve to be Safe Over Lake Erie”, one of my better articles. Sadly, it was the WCAS leadership who ultimately blocked the publication! The problem is worsening as offshore wind energy (an oxymoron) continues to be pursued. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Read this blog and all of the supportive comments! Wind energy’s time has come and gone, regarding effectiveness and how “clean” and renewable it is! Where is the evidence? NOWHERE.
Suzanne…your writing on wind turbine impacts, including fires, is deeply important.
It is this kind of unswerving warrior dedication that keeps, for example, the Great Lakes turbine free, at least until now, and I fully believe they will remain so.
One more legal foray remains in play. And likely more consternation from Canada should attempts to pollute Lake Erie continue. Plus immense political pressure US side now too.
I also believe they’ve run out of $$$.
If you haven’t had a chance to read Suzanne’s piece on flying animals, here it is.
Greatlakeswindtruth.org/ newsworthy/suzanne-albright-features-flying-insects-butterflies-at-risk-with-icebreaker
I hope I did not make the battle against the coming climate religion sound nearly impossible to win.
I started reading about climate science in 1997, and added energy about subjects ten years ago.
My first article on climate change was in 2007 in my former newsletter ECONOMIC LOGIC.
I spent the first 10 years assuming most people would never believe 100 year climate predictions and fake scientists like Al Gore. I was wrong.
Never forget:
The Climate Howlers in government agencies have the wild guess predictions of doom repeated by the mass media, professors and teachers, all acting like trained parrots.
The Climate Howlers live in climate fantasyland.
The Climate Howlers do not control the weather or climate.
We Climate Realists “own” those.
We Climate realists live in climate realityland.
That’s a better place to live.
What is climate change?
It really means 50 years of always wrong predictions of climate doom.
Wrong predictions, not reality.
Wrong predictions are NOT science.
Would any sensible person want to be on that team of Climate Howler losers?
I wanted to add Climate Howlers to my list of ridicule names
I believe David Stockman invented that term
I love it (a neighbor’s dog howls a lot)
Must be a leftist dog
Or a dumb dog (I repeat myself).
Richard, thanks again. The more we educate about Climate, the motherlode of lies, the faster the air will clear. And saner heads will prevail.
Just got this in from AU
You may wish to distribute it: the footage is haunting and tragic. World class biological treasures and forests about to be cleared/ are being cleared, for wind turbine factories. Over in AU, they still at times refer to them as “farms.”
I really hope these videos get traction!
SEE BELOW
Hi all Wind Farm Living,
Send your local politician an email.
Tell them they have to find another way….
Because at the moment they are subsidizing the killing of our country.
From: A Group
Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2022 10:15 PM
To: All Australia
Subject: Attention city dwellers and especially journalists
The videos below show how wind projects are carving up the landscape and destroying Australia’s fauna and flora. They were prepared by Steven Nowakowski, an environmentalist who supported renewable energy until he saw the destruction wrought on the environment by the Kaban Wind Project.
Short Upper Burdekin Film https://vimeo.com/706882264
Short Kaban Film https://vimeo.com/633451905
Short Chalumbin Film https://vimeo.com/582415839
People who live in the city mostly have no idea of the destructive footprint of wind and solar facilities. Look at the train of human and environmental damage through the life cycle of RE factories. The Dark side of RE, a survey by Bill Stinson of The Energy Realists of Australia.
https://www.flickerpower.com/index.php
BASIC INFORMATION PACK TO EXPLAIN ENERGY REALISM
https://www.flickerpower.com/images/INFORMATION_PACK_14.pdf
Rafe Champion
http://www.the-rathouse.com
Who owns Kaban wind farm?
The Queensland government’s green energy utility, CleanCo, has signed a 15-year offtake deal to purchase 100 per cent of the output from the wind farm. Deputy Premier Steven Miles on Tuesday marked the project as the first for the Sunshine State’s first renewable energy zone, the Northern Queensland REZ.Oct 4, 2022
https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/projects/kaban-green-power-hub/
Hi again Richard. I left a reply yesterday, but it is not posted. So will just acknowledge your notes again. THANKS.
You are so bang on re climate lies. The motherlode leading to all, almost all, other fearful behavior and promotion of compliance.
I wondered if you had seen the blog from AU, where they are fighting massively large wind factories in pristine forested areas.
The videos below show how wind projects are carving up the landscape and destroying Australia’s fauna and flora. They were prepared by Steven Nowakowski, an environmentalist who supported renewable energy until he saw the destruction wrought on the environment by the Kaban Wind Project.
Short Upper Burdekin Film https://vimeo.com/706882264
Short Kaban Film https://vimeo.com/633451905
Short Chalumbin Film https://vimeo.com/582415839
People who live in the city mostly have no idea of the destructive footprint of wind and solar facilities. Look at the train of human and environmental damage through the life cycle of RE factories. The Dark side of RE, a survey by Bill Stinson of The Energy Realists of Australia.
https://www.flickerpower.com/index.php
BASIC INFORMATION PACK TO EXPLAIN ENERGY REALISM
https://www.flickerpower.com/images/INFORMATION_PACK_14.pdf
Thanks for all the links, Sherri. I was already following articles in Quadrant, AU Spectator, JoNova and Rafe Champion to keep track of Australia. I read at least two dozen articles every morning of every day and post links to, and some quotes from, best ones on my three blogs.
I’m always looking for new sources of information. My goal is to explain climate science and energy as simply as possible, with a few insults of leftists thrown in, for when more people are willing to listen. Thanks to the UK, Germany and Australia, I believe there will be more people listening after this winter.
However, I also believe Nut Zero was designed to fail. The failure of the Nut Zero project, recognized in a few years, will be spun as a new climate emergency. And climate scaremongering always leads to more government and less freedom. Covid scaremongering too.
I rarely make predictions — predictions are so often wrong, and they are the house of cards foundation for climate change scaremongering. Climate science already has far too many predictions.
My only climate prediction was in 1997, when I correctly predicted “The climate will get warmer, unless it gets colder”. I thought that was a great summary of climate history, and I should have received a Nobel Prize, but I didn’t know the right people!
I’m hoping this comment eventually shows up. According to my calculations, there is a 50% chance this comment will show up, eventually, and a 50% chance that it will be sent to Mars.
As an audiophile since the 1960s, I’m always searching for new (to me) songs on YouTube.
Try this video by two amateurs, who do a good job on a Dire Straits song I’ve always liked:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcVJrul4sOA
Thanks, again, Richard. 50% chance of the comment getting to Mars. LOL
Love your comments. Thanks for the link.
Here’s one more comment from Joanne Levesque.
“You may post and use my name if that helps – as it is my truth based on my experiences with “all things wind”…
Hi Sherri, I hope all is well!
I do believe in conspiracies and I can attest to the fact that the wind industry fits the definition seen in the article of interest, linked below. The wind industry has plotted all along to promote their product via serious errors, omissions and misrepresentations of fact. A Conspiracy Against Truth – Ethics & Public Policy Center (eppc.org)
Quotes of note:
1) “Merriam-Webster defines a conspiracy theory as a:
“theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators.”
2) “Let me offer an alternative definition: A conspiracy theory is a theory for how an alleged set of bizarre circumstances came to be or how obvious falsehoods gained mass acceptance due to the work of powerful actors.” A very Merry Christmas to you and yours!
And with this, I wish all commenters and our Editor, a very Merry Christmas!