In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Introducing Mark Sisson
  2. Terence Cuneo, Literal Artistic Icon
  3. Health Care Reform and the Golden Rule
  4. Jazz Goes Geriatric
  5. Budd Schulberg R.I.P.
  6. Crime Fiction Linkage
  7. Panoramic Windshields
  8. Anybody Complaining?
  9. Frank Wootton: Getting It Almost Right
  10. My Beemer's Bewildering Cockpit

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« Frank Wootton: Getting It Almost Right | Main | Panoramic Windshields »

August 04, 2009

Anybody Complaining?

Donald Pittenger writes:

Dear Blowhards --

I'm on the road, so this will be brief.

Driving up along the Columbia River where it forms the Washington-Oregon border, I've been noticing a number of power generation windmill farms. They definitely interfere with the scenic views of nature.

Perhaps the worst visual polluting farms that I've come across are those near Altamont Pass east of the Bay Area and along Interstate 10 approaching the Palm Springs area from the west.

Even though I think they're aesthetically awful, I can't recall much complaining about them in the mainstream press.

Political (or ecological) correctness is suspected. Am I missing something? Do people actually complain about wind farms and see their complaints get a wide airing?



posted by Donald at August 4, 2009


Surely you've heard of this?

Posted by: David Fleck on August 4, 2009 8:53 PM

Yes, people do complain, and if you have influence, you can successfully block wind farms. Ted Kennedy managed to stop windmills from being put up in the ocean near Martha's Vineyard, would spoil his ocean view you know. Here is the Boston Globe (older article, the "last month" part is really 3 years ago) -

But like a lot of well-to-do Cape and Islands landowners and sailing enthusiasts, Kennedy doesn't want to share his Atlantic playground with an energy facility, no matter how clean, green, and nearly unseen. Last month he secretly arranged for a poison-pill amendment, never debated in either house of Congress, to be slipped into an unrelated Coast Guard bill. It would give the governor of Massachusetts, who just happens to be a wind farm opponent, unilateral authority to veto the Cape Wind project.

When word of the amendment leaked out, environmentalists were appalled. The wind farm proposal is supported by the leading environmental organizations, and they never expected to be sandbagged by one of their legislative heroes. Even if Kennedy would prefer to see Cape Wind plant its windmills in somebody else's sailing grounds, he has always claimed to support the development of wind power (''I strongly support renewable energy, including wind energy, as a means of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and protecting the environment" -- Cape Cod Times, Aug. 8, 2003). And what happened to all those righteous words about not throwing out the rulebook in the middle of the game?

Posted by: Patrick on August 4, 2009 8:59 PM

One family seems to be especially against them:

Posted by: Ted Craig on August 4, 2009 9:08 PM

Donald, I'd like to complain:

Futile, ugly, polluting, impractical, unhealthy, hazardous, expensive, wasteful, unreliable, fetishistic, medieval, and, of course...


Posted by: Robert Townshend on August 4, 2009 9:21 PM

Absolutely yes. In Massachusetts, there has been very determined opposition to the proposed Cape Cod wind farms. It has been a huge political issue for the past decade. Opposition is both based on the visual and ecological harm ( ). The opposition has delayed construction for years, although they have finally lost in court.

Posted by: Devin Finbarr on August 4, 2009 9:40 PM

No liberals must live there. Depends on whose doing the complaining. Remember what happened off the coast of Cape Cod?

Posted by: Breezy on August 4, 2009 9:44 PM


Christopher Alexander really dislikes windmill farms, and talks about their disruptive influence on the ground's geometry in his book "The Nature of Order". The Italian critic and mayor of Salemi, Vittorio Sgarbi, is leading a one-man campaign against windfarms, which he rightly argues despoil the sacred landscape of Western Sicily.

Since it is politically incorrect to say anything against windmill farms, you probably don't hear these voices of protest. Trying to ascertain their claimed efficiency at energy generation opens up another controversy, with experts arguing both for and against their overall contribution.

Best wishes,

Posted by: Nikos Salingaros on August 4, 2009 10:32 PM

Factories in China are visual pollution in the extreme, but they are what is going to make China the world-power they are about to be.

Snarky comment aside, I'd prefer we built 2 new large nuclear plants in every state, switch to plug-in hybrid cars, and be done with the energy question once and for all, but that isn't going to happen.

Cap-n-trade is going to make coal too expensive. Each state does not recieve the same amount of "allowances" under cap-n-trade. California gets 145% of the allowances it needs, while Tennessee recieves only 73% of the allowances it needs. So Tennessee has to "buy" allowances from California for the right to have electricity. See how that shit works? Its just a tax on the red states to pay for blue state NAM populations and their exceedingly high transfer payment costs. So you are going to be seeing windmills and solar dishes in more and more places to try and make as much carbon-negative electricity because various states will be FORCED to do so economically.

P.S. Windmills and Tall Solar dishes (like 50 feet above the ground), will end up probably being used on farms, whereby the sun and rain can still get through to the ground, but the farmer can make extra dough from the wind and sun high above his fields. I wouldn't be suprised if we dont start seeing this A LOT in the near future. blame the damned hippies who keep suing us everytime we try to build nuclear plants (quick, France gets 80% of her energy from nuclear power). That would end this problem very quickly, BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOOO, lawsuits stop us.

P.S.S. China and India (and Russia) have to be laughing their heads off at us over this carbon-dioxide-phobia. Those countries are going to keep on burning coal for decades while laughing at our uneccessary expenses and poindexter-twisted schemes. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid dont know wealth-creation from community-organizing.

Posted by: miles on August 5, 2009 12:51 AM

I confess I find them fascinating. They're common here in the Southwest, but not always immediately accepted. A current kerfluffle here in NM involves a proposed cluster situated on top of a mesa on one of the most scenic passes on I-25 to Santa Fe. The residents in that area oppose it for that reason, as well the proximity to their properties. They claim the structures pose some kind of hazard to people if they're located too close, but I can't recall the actual basis for that claim. On one of my visits a few years ago to my home state, IL, I saw the first windfarm that I'd ever seen there, somewhere in central to north central IL. Most of IL is fairly conservative, so it was an unexpectedly progressive change, but then again, in the flatlands of IL something like a big windfarm is propably viewed as great visual relief from the endless monotony of corn ; ) kind of like great installations of utilitarian sculpture.

Posted by: KR on August 5, 2009 1:41 AM

I first saw these demoralizing things driving back home from Arizona via California. It was awful to see them lining the hills. I hike and use both sides of the Gorge and find their encroachment miserable.

I have no reply to these things.

Posted by: Larry on August 5, 2009 1:54 AM

I always found the sight of those ranks of white whirling sails appearing over the rolling hills at Altamont exhilirating and beautiful, back when I lived in the Bay Area. They are futuristic and yet also recognisably an ancient rural technology. 'Correctness' does not seem an adequate account of their appeal. True, I do not find electricity pylons appealing in the same way, and certainly that can't be completely explained by the different look of the things (though the white of the windmills, the absence of cables cutting across the sky, the sculpting of the blades versus the angularity of the pylon construction do seem more elegant). It is also the way that the relationship of the object to the view is different: the windmill engages with the flow of air - it is integrated into and working with the very elements of the scene's beauty (the air - the sky) - whereas the pylon imposes itself upon them without participating. Painters who celebrate landscape have long incorporated windmills into their pictures.

Posted by: Mark on August 5, 2009 6:40 AM

High tension electrical power transmission lines, petroleum tank farms, mining operations (especially mountain top removal for coal), oil drilling rigs and power generating facilities that burn coal, oil or nuclear fuels, not to mention large highways, airports, rail yards, cargo container facilities, prisons and a host of other human activities are all aesthetically unpleasant and might also be considered dangerous, unhealthy, or have other negative attributes.

All generally create controversy, protest, and complaints by those citizens who must view and be impacted by them on a frequent or daily basis. These NIMBY protests might include everything from speaking out at public meetings to protesters chaining themselves to various objects in attempts to slow or stop the construction of whatever large project is about to arrive in a particular neighborhood and are covered by local news outlets. These complaints tend to be ignored by media beyond the immediate local area.

In short, political correctness (or commercial self interest) is no more (or less) at work in the coverage (or lack thereof) of protests and NIMBY campaigns against wind farms as against mountain top removal mining, super max prisons, and other large scale projects. It is also far easier to find contrarians who will argue large-scale wind and solar power farms ARE aesthetically pleasing than it is to find similar contrary views expressed about oil rigs, tank farms and all the rest.

Posted by: Chris White on August 5, 2009 8:26 AM

I've found it an acquired visual taste.
Initially repulsed, I now find the looking pleasing. No local resistance, other than to regulate seback distances from the road, homes, and property lines.

I'd gladly put a wind turbine in my own yard if I could avoid never using those green Chinese light bulbs.

Posted by: jz on August 5, 2009 9:03 AM

There is a big argument coming from some more aesthetically aware folks. There is a plan to build a windmill farm in sight of the Kennedy compound, however the Kennedys are having no part of it. They will not allow windmills within the view of their property.
There are also battles raging about keeping windmills out of site of the New Jersey shore and other places as far as I know.
I would expect that if there are any landholders with high value property in the line of sight to the windmills in the Altamont Pass, they were probably not happy with the project.

Posted by: Quints on August 5, 2009 9:17 AM

Yeah, people in the Banning/Beaumont Pass area complain about the windmills, and not just because of the aesthetics. They're noisy. Big time.

Posted by: Dick Cabeza on August 5, 2009 9:48 AM

Giant windmills still have a strange, sci-fi evocativeness to me, so I haven't yet experienced the aesthetic revulsion - just the faint unease. I don't recall any real eyesores on past drives along the Columbia. Are they relatively recent? I do notice that wind farms are proliferating in lovely, dreamy Western Iowa. On my last drive they still looked stark, strange and interesting - but on the prairie you get used to the look of such necessary things as looming, hulking water-towers, so perhaps my eye has been trained to be more accepting. I can see that a point can be reached where they'll just be quotidian eyesores, though.

I don't know how much NIMBY-ism has affected wind-farm placement, but people may be willing to tolerate more ugly visuals in exchange for reduced pollution.

Posted by: Moira Breen on August 5, 2009 9:59 AM

My wife and I traveled frequently through the Altamont Pass on our way to the Sierras when we lived in San Francisco in the 80s. I remember watching the first windmills go up, then hundreds more following over the decade. I can only imagine what it's like now. I actually got out of my car one day to listen to them. Eerie. They are definitely an eyesore. No one in his right mind would want to live anywhere near such a place. I noticed over the years that about one third of them were always still at any given time. Were they down for repair? I heard there were some problems with those early models and that a lot of money was lost in those investments. Anyone know if the problem has been fixed? Are large numbers of them still down for repair?

Donald, I just crossed Washington state twice last week, and while in the Kennewick area I saw many, many windmills. They're coming for you!

Posted by: Charlton Griffin on August 5, 2009 11:01 AM

Two stretches of I-80 in central and western Iowa are also ruined by the damned things. And big chunks of eastern Wyoming, also. Although in Wyoming the landscape is so big it almost swallows those towers and blades. Any landscape of moderate proportions is ruined by them. What I'll never understand (naive of me, I guess) is how people are willing to impose such a terrible eyesore on themselves for a buck.

Posted by: ricpic on August 5, 2009 11:32 AM

At Altamont Pass you are missing an appreciation of the energetic punctuation the windmills give to the landscape. Their perpendicularity notes the change from the flatness of the San Joaquin Valley into the hills of the Bay Area, pleasantly marking the border between two separate geographic and cultural regions.

Posted by: David Richardson on August 5, 2009 11:59 AM

My final thoughts: I'd rather look at a wind farm than some other more conventional energy technology. The stacks of nuclear plants have always given me the eeby-jeebies. Electrical infrastructure, as has been noted above, is worse to look at than the windfarms, and MUCH more ubiquitous--we're just so accustomed to seeing it all over that we're desensitized to its ugliness. I don't see why it's such a big deal; just put them in places, like parts of the southwest and west, where there isn't soul for MILES around but there is an abundance of wind.

"...Snarky comment aside, I'd prefer we built 2 new large nuclear plants in every state, switch to plug-in hybrid cars, and be done with the energy question once and for all, but that isn't going to happen..."

Great, as long as each state buries its own nuclear waste within its own boundaries.

Posted by: KR on August 5, 2009 12:29 PM

I grew up with windmills dotting the landscape in rural Nebraska, so maybe I'm more prepared to see them as not so ugly. I like 'em, and view them as a kind of sculptural installation on par with Christo's works. At least they aren't poisoning the atmosphere.

Posted by: Steve on August 5, 2009 12:44 PM

They are much loathed in Britain; people have had some success at blocking their construction. They also have one nasty effect: it seems that they omit a low frequency noise that many of us can't detect, but those who can are driven to despair by.

Posted by: dearieme on August 5, 2009 12:46 PM

I agree that nuclear power is the way to go. However, it is unlikely to get much play in the Pacific Northwest because the W.P.P.S.S. (whoops!) debacle in the 70's and early 80's essentially "poisoned the well" for nuclear power.

Being a Northwest guy, you remember whoops. don't you?

Posted by: kurt9 on August 5, 2009 1:55 PM

I grew up close to the Altamont Pass, so I've lived with those wind farms all my life. It's a pretty barren stretch of land where they are, and personally, I kind of like the way they look, but it could be just because I'm so used to them. However, wind power isn't the avenue we should be going down, IMO. I'm with Miles. A few nuclear plants in each state.

Posted by: JV on August 5, 2009 2:58 PM

Chris White:

In short, political correctness (or commercial self interest) is no more (or less) at work in the coverage (or lack thereof) of protests and NIMBY campaigns against wind farms as against mountain top removal mining, super max prisons, and other large scale projects. It is also far easier to find contrarians who will argue large-scale wind and solar power farms ARE aesthetically pleasing than it is to find similar contrary views expressed about oil rigs, tank farms and all the rest.

It seems to me like the second sentence quoted above is prima facie evidence against the truth of the first one.

Posted by: Vladimir on August 5, 2009 4:15 PM

Would negative comments about windmills based on their aesthetic disruption of the view while hiking or driving be considered a blatantly SWPL stance?

Why individuals who hale roughly from the socially libertarian, fiscally conservative, anti-big government, political neighborhood support nuclear power, so often vehemently, is a mystery. It would appear that a quasi-religious belief in technology coupled to a similar devotional stance toward the "free" market overrides all other considerations except "efficiency". Among the myriad of criticisms and critiques of nuclear are these: it is highly politicized and tightly bound to the realm of international control and oversight; it is a creature of and dependent upon a robust federal government; more and larger nuclear power plants increase the availability of lethal by-products and the likelihood some will find its way into the wrong hands; this legitimate security concern requires extraordinary, and many secret, efforts to police and protect, further expanding the role of big government; all of these facets and more add directly and (more critically) indirectly to the to cost of nuclear not only over the building phase and productive life of the plant but also through the necessary decay time for radioactive waste, something that stretches an historically unprecedented length of time into the future.

It is similarly curious that socially libertarian, fiscally conservative, anti-big government types are so opposed to wind farms. If areas not well suited for development along other lines can be put into productive use, why not? Most of the arguments against them I see above are virtually identical to the ones made by Ted Kennedy et al. The more decentralized sources of power the better. Let a million solar panels, methane burners, wind generators, micro-hydro plants, biomass boilers, and co-generators bloom.

Posted by: Chris White on August 5, 2009 4:34 PM

Wind turbines are a passing phase. Tidal and wave turbines will replace them on coasts, and will be a more reliable source of power. And they will be invisible, for the most part.

Posted by: Richard S. Wheeler on August 5, 2009 5:59 PM

Nuclear power is not popular in the Pacific Northwest not only due to the usual anti-nuclear hysteria. But also due to the experience of W.P.P.S.S. (whoops!) in the 70's and early 80's. Anyone who grew up in the Pacific Northwest will remember this debacle and how many people lost their life savings in the municipal utility bonds that were issued to pay for plants 4 and 5, which were never built. 15% of our electricity bills are still being used to cover this debacle.

I noticed that W.P.P.S.S. changed its name to Energy Northwest. I guess they got tired of being called whoops.

Posted by: kurt9 on August 5, 2009 7:13 PM

I've seen them near Palm Springs, and though they won't win any awards for beauty, I can't say they're near as bad as the casinos around there.

Why complain about wind farms when any random commercial strip in America is enough to make you tear your eyes out?

Posted by: Todd Fletcher on August 5, 2009 9:14 PM

I grew up with windfarms near my home, including one massive one. When oil was cheap in the 90s, they dismantled them, and it was a bit sad for me. Now they're saying they might put them up again.

To tell the truth, I'm not a kneejerk greeny, but considering how expensive oil is here in the middle of the Pacific, and how nuclear isn't feasible on small islands, geothermal and wind seem to make a lot of damn sense. It is essentially energy free for the taking.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on August 6, 2009 3:14 AM

My mother has gotten to be quite a softie about critters as she has gotten older, especially things what fly, and she contributes to numerous wildlife organizations. When I visit her, I occasionally flip through her various bird-and-bat publications, and I can tell you that crowd is absolutely up in arms about windfarming. If you believe what they say, there is apparently massive suppression of data on the effects of these monstrosities on migratory bird populations and especially on bats, who have their sonars totally jammed when they get in close proximity. There are groups who try to go carcass-counting at the bottom of the windmills but I understand reliable figures are hard to come by, and it's very much in the interest of the power companies to keep this sort of thing hush hush, and also, alas, in the interest of the larger, richer, and more powerful green groups, too, as old fashioned wildlife conservation doesn't have much to offer international Marxist conspiracies, I guess.

Posted by: ERM on August 6, 2009 6:09 AM

Vladimir – How exactly is it prima facie evidence of political correctness to suggest that wind generators may be considered more aesthetically pleasing than super max prisons or mountain top removal mining? Isn't it possible that they simply ARE more aesthetically pleasing?

Similarly, might it not be said that adopting an anti-PC stance is virtually required to maintain credibility among various right leaning groups, regardless of the actual substance of the views deemed PC? If "green" is a buzzword for leftists it must therefore be properly politically (in)correct to oppose "green" power like wind generators. Forget discussing or considering the technical, safety, security, sustainability, supply chain, and centralization of power (figuratively and literally) issues as regards electrical energy production, since some on the left support wind power, there must be something wrong with it.

The fundamental criticism of alternative, renewable, clean, energy sources seems to be that they, unlike nuclear or coal, can't power millions of customers with one or two giant power plants. Why such centralization, with the monopolistic control it gives to one or two companies, the need for greater government involvement, the massive scale of disruption when the plant goes down, and all the rest is considered a positive rather than a negative remains beyond me.

Posted by: Chris White on August 6, 2009 12:13 PM

I dunno, I LIKE wind farms, I think they are very ascetically pleasing to the eye. There's a whole line of them on a ridge outside Scranton, PA that takes my breath away every time we come around the curve and they come clearly into view. They're graceful, quiet and they don't belch filthy smoke into the air like the old coal plants did.

But, then, I'm not an angry curmudgeon who blasts everything new simply because it came from those godless lefties.

Posted by: Upstate Guy on August 6, 2009 1:37 PM

The Dutch were leaders in windmill technology into the early 19th century. Then they found the steam engine, powered first by wood and then coal, and never looked back.

How appropriate, then, that the left has embraced this outdated and laughably inefficient form of "clean energy". They are clearly eyesores, and not only that, they provide no steady or reliable electrical power (imagine, something as critical as a power grid dependent on--the weather?). Unlike power lines, which can be buried underground (also gas and oil pipelines), these things must stay above ground to function.

The amazing thing about windmills is that they are a solution to a non-existent problem--power generation that issues no CO2. All that CO2 is proven to be is plant food. It surely is no poison gas, and the lunatics who think it causes some kind of change in climate have yet to prove their case, in spite of 40 billion dollars of useless research and counting.

Also, these things are so inefficient that they are only built when the government basically gives money away to get them put up. They are expensive, inefficient eyesores put up by government corporate welfare. Sweet.

I'll take mountaintop coal mining anyday. At least you can plant after you strip out the coal, and the land will regenerate. In addition, I'm not afraid of my shadow, and don't expect the world to perfectly safe. I'm like 99% of people--I'm willing to live with the miniscule risk or bother of burning coal (which mostly produces CO2 and water vapor--completely harmless combustion products) for the abundant cheap energy.

Posted by: B on August 7, 2009 2:19 AM

B offers more faith based assertions; first, rejection of the scientific consensus regarding the role of CO2 in global climate change based on faith in those scientists holding the minority opinion; second, ignoring the well-known damages caused by other by-products of cola mining itself, in addition to those that result from burning coal; third, the massive government subsidies that have propped up the mining and nuclear power industries for generations. For all the rhetorical embellishments, this keeps reducing to a simplistic political calculus: If liberals accept x, then x must be wrong, therefore any theories that refute x must be correct.

FWIW (and around here I accept that it ain't worth much) for all the complaining that goes on about how I and others who lean somewhat more leftward than the pack refuse to address points raised (an assertion I don't entirely accept) I am still waiting for anyone to attempt an explanation as to how limiting ourselves primarily to coal and nuclear power sources, which are highly centralized, require robust government support and oversight, have long term pollution and waste storage issues, and, in the case of nuclear, are subject to international oversight with significant security concerns, are consistent with having a smaller central government and all the rest of the ideals associated with the libertarian right.

As my previous comments indicate, no one who supports wind generation is making the case that it will ever replace all other forms of generating power, rather that a highly diversified and decentralized approach to power generation is better both ecologically and in terms of coming closer to overall energy self-sufficiency. Rather than one or two highly centralized industries with extremely tight ties to the government agencies that are supposed to regulate them and the support of elected officials who rely on those industries for substantial campaign contributions why not support a full range of different options?

And, to return, however quixotically, to the actual topic of the original post, I seriously question the aesthetic taste of anyone who would argue that mountaintop removal mining is more attractive than a wind farm. But then again, only hillbillies are really impacted by mountaintop removal mining, so who cares?

Posted by: Chris White on August 7, 2009 11:44 AM

The difference between the esthetic aspects of conventional power systems and wind farms is that wind farms cover far more area. Thus they are visually far more obtrusive.

KR: "The stacks of nuclear plants have always given me the eeby-jeebies." Why? Should this irrational phobia control public policy?

B: Not all windpower systems are built with government subsidies. Some are built with private funds to satisfy government mandates for "renewable energy". That is, the government tells private utilities to build them or pay huge penalties. Building a few windmills becomes a regulatory expense.

Posted by: RIch Rostrom on August 7, 2009 9:23 PM

Chris White,

There is no "consensus" on CO2 having any effect on climate at all. To not understand this is to not understand the science. There is however, a scientific consensus that CO2 is plant food. Please don't provide a laundry list of supposedly "scientfic" agencies that get money from the government. They have a conflict of interest--they have to support the global warming hypothesis to get more money. That's not objectivity. And they've been caught fudging and faking data to do it.

I don't think that just because you are a liberal, your views are wrong. I think you are just wrong, period. You are also an habitual liar and won't concede any point in a debate, no matter how badly wrong you are proven to be.

Again you dishonestly assert that people not liking wind farms is due to political partisnship rather than the fact that wind farms are grossly inefficient, unreliable, and wastes of land and money. These are facts that can be easily proven if you compare one form of energy generation to another. But you won't do that.

Since you are rather fond of wasting other people's money on complete nonsense, and will never admit you are wrong about anything, I don't expect this to sink in.

So go screw yourself. I'm sick of arguing with a lying hippie. Lie to somebody else and waste their time.

Rich Rostrom,

Yes, that's true. Once again we have the government mandating gigantic wastes of money.

Hey, remember that big "acid rain" scare back in the late 80's? There was a govermental panel of about 700 scientists that studied that and concluded that there was little if any effect on the environment from the smoke put out by coal power plants. The "acidic" lakes were naturally acidic, due to decaying plant life around them and runoff through that into the lakes.

Also, rainwater is naturally acidic, having a pH around 5.5 or so.

So the whole thing was a big lie. But the legislation passed that severely restricted bituminous coal in the midwest states has stayed on the books. It decimated the industry in those states. Now they have to get coal from out west to burn, shipping it hundreds and hundreds of miles, hurting the "environment" out west with strip mining, while almost all of the coal in the midwest is underground.

See? More waste and harm, all due to false environmentalism and alarmism.

Posted by: B on August 8, 2009 4:16 PM

Personally, I don't have a problem with windmillls as visual pollution. It's billboards and fast food signs I hate. Least windmills provide energy.

Of course, I know some people don't like them for this reason but it's not like power plants are pretty to look at and some windy places, like the eastern plains of Wyoming, there's not much to look at anyway so I'd imagine they'd improve the scenerey by breaking up the monotony.

Posted by: Ed on August 8, 2009 5:32 PM

Ah yes, the unassailable argument ... don't provide a laundry list of supposedly "scientific" agencies that get money from the government. They have a conflict of interest--they have to support the global warming hypothesis to get more money. This POV works out well for B and others doesn't it? If I or someone else use expert references, pointing to the various scientific agencies, study groups, and conferences, nationally and internationally, that have linked CO2 release to climate change, then we're "lying hippies" using tainted sources, if we don't provide such data we've failed to show any evidence to support our contentions. Pretty neat there, B. Of course, counter arguments, such as asking where critics of the hypothesis get their funding, are similarly dismissed or ignored.

Please review my comments B, I've already accepted the "efficiency" difference, but found it wanting as an argument for nuclear and against wind et al because of other considerations, none of which you seem willing ... or perhaps capable of ... addressing. Let's just take one, since you have such a disdain for government involvement in these issues how does nuclear, which requires the greatest amount of government support and involvement throughout every step from the mining of uranium through the extraordinarily long waste storage time, beat those energy sources ... like wind ... that can, and often are, entirely private and decentralized?

It does seem to be a common debating point among certain of those who comment here when engaging someone who does not back down or slink away to toss in a personal insult or two. If I get sufficiently steamed to send back an insult of my own, then the pack can attack based on my rudeness, if I ignore it then I "prove" I'm a wuss and can be dismissed. It is all so junior high school. B calls me a liar. I call B a fool and the tool of the global corporatist elite.

Posted by: Chris White on August 9, 2009 7:58 AM

Chris White,

The acronym government agencies are fudging the data. They haven't proven anything. They haven't linked anything. In fact, they have proven the opposite, that CO2 has nothing to do with climate whatsoever. That's what their data shows when its analyzed by an objective third party. That's why so many scientists OUTSIDE of the alphabet soup agencies say its all hogwash.

Why don't YOU prove to me that CO2 is a climate changer? Don't point to anybody else--YOU prove it with the data that exists. Convince me with data.

You can't, because you don't understand the science. That's why you point to everybody else. And that's why you have no credibility--you don't understand the science. You can't tell right from wrong. You just support anybody who says what you want--that industrial society is bad. And that you wear a halo.

Wind farms are losers because they stink at generating energy and are offered as a solution to a non-existent problem. That's the entire argument.

And they also are ugly, and ruin the environment you say you love. Again you are the hypocrite.

Posted by: B on August 9, 2009 11:12 PM

Seriously? Why assume political correctness is afoot when maybe you're the only one who cares, hmmm? It ain't all about you, babe.

Posted by: Ray Butlers on August 11, 2009 1:29 PM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?