Psst! Anyone need a wind turbine...cheap?

[MadMonk]

The Journal Record - Article

Pickens calls off massive wind farm in Texas

by John Porretto
Associated Press July 8, 2009

HOUSTON – Plans for the world’s largest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle have been scrapped, energy baron T. Boone Pickens said Tuesday, and he’s looking for a home for 687 giant wind turbines.
Pickens has already ordered the turbines, which can stand 400 feet tall – taller than most 30-story buildings.

“When I start receiving those turbines, I’ve got to ... like I said, my garage won’t hold them,” the legendary Texas oilman said. “They’ve got to go someplace.”

[Midtowner]

He's probably just calling Texas' bluff. He wants subsidies and he'll probably get 'em.

[gmwise]

We need a plan. And we need to couch it in terms that Americans understand - protecting our way of life. Not our SUVs, our lawns, our three-times-a-day meat habit, but our liberty; our right to choose what our life will look like, even in a carbon-free world. Instead of environmentalists being the dreaded parent, telling the teenaged Americans "clean up your carbon, stop eating meat, don't drive so much" we should make global climate change itself the enemy, and not because it will kill off the polar bears or raise sea level in the Phillipines, but because eventually, global climate change will tell us what to do. Always wanted to travel to Asia? Sorry, air travel is now illegal, and the rioting over lack of food, fresh water and energy make that entire region unsafe. Want your kids to go to soccer camp? Well, you can't drive them there, because gas is $30/gallon. The soccer fields have turned to dust because there is no water for irrigation, chemical fertilzers have been outlawed, and increasingly violent weather has eroded the topsoil. Want to bake Grandma a birthday cake? Well, sugar and eggs are pretty hard to come by, not to mention flour, and chocolate is a luxury for the very rich. Fossil-fueled ovens are a thing of the past, but maybe you could figure out how to bake in a solar oven.

You get the picture. The thing is, most Americans perceive that it is environmentalists who want to dictate how we live, and environmentalists who want our lives to look like the above scenarios. What we fail to understand the environmentalists failed to communicate , is that it is global warming that threatens our way of life; not just our very survival, but our ability to choose how we live. Environmentalists are just the messengers.

[MadMonk]

Wow, you have a wonderful gift for hyperbole! I'm all for being more efficient with our energy use, but that was a bit over the top.

[Insider]

Just wait a few year for WalMart to rule the world. Then, when the earth is trashed beyond recognition, we will abandon earth for a freakin' awesome space ship and cruise around space while robots clean up earth. Then, after 10-12 generations, we will return to earth and start the process over.

Nah, just kidding, that only happens in movies. Wall-E to be exact.

Actually, there is no real proof that global warming is man-made. Give me one piece of evidence. If you cite the fact that the global temperature has increased in the last few hundred years, then I will ask you about the previous 5 billion years! Look at rock samples and you will realize that the temperature of Earth has fluctuated hundreds of times in earth's history. The temperature rises dramatically (usually due to volcanic activity, seeing as how they release more 'bad stuff' than man) and then falls dramatically. IT IS NATURE! The temp will go up. The temp will go down. We have to learn to live on the earth, not make the earth live with us. I agree that we need to be cleaner (as a species), but what the dumbasses in Washington are doing it NOT IT! They are actually trying to pass the largest tax increase in history, and are hiding it behind an environmental disguise.

[DaveSkater]

Yeah, we were just having a chat about this in the politics part of the forum. The landmark bill thread....

[gmwise]

Great American streetcar scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[gmwise]

Wow, you have a wonderful gift for hyperbole! I'm all for being more efficient with our energy use, but that was a bit over the top.

I think most read my comment in the prism of bias.
I think we should test the commenter on reading comprehension of the statement they wished to take issue with.
Because its clear you didn't finished reading it.

[SoonerDave]

....
You get the picture. The thing is, most Americans perceive that it is environmentalists who want to dictate how we live, and environmentalists who want our lives to look like the above scenarios. What we fail to understand the environmentalists failed to communicate , is that it is global warming that threatens our way of life;

So we either are forbidden to travel, live, whatever, by the environmentalists, or we are forbidden by the phantom menace known as "climate change," so either way, we're screwed, right?

Some of your own ilk don't even believe the unadulterated horsecrap you're spewing. If things like cap and trade, and soak-the-rich-because-they're-all-evil-carbon-generators don't manifestly demonstrate just how "global warming..." oops, sorry, its "climate change" now, is nothing more than an admittedly well-conceived and well-executed wealth transfer scheme in addition to being the single biggest fraud perpetrated on makind, nothing will.

[MadMonk]

I think most read my comment in the prism of bias.
I think we should test the commenter on reading comprehension of the statement they wished to take issue with.
Because its clear you didn't finished reading it.

LOL, yeah I'm a bit biased against asinine statments.

...eventually, global climate change will tell us what to do. Always wanted to travel to Asia? Sorry, air travel is now illegal, and the rioting over lack of food, fresh water and energy make that entire region unsafe. Want your kids to go to soccer camp? Well, you can't drive them there, because gas is $30/gallon. The soccer fields have turned to dust because there is no water for irrigation, chemical fertilzers have been outlawed, and increasingly violent weather has eroded the topsoil. Want to bake Grandma a birthday cake? Well, sugar and eggs are pretty hard to come by, not to mention flour, and chocolate is a luxury for the very rich. Fossil-fueled ovens are a thing of the past, but maybe you could figure out how to bake in a solar oven.

If you believe I'm mistaken about your statement being over the top, explain your words for us luddites that can't comprehend your lofty imaginings. The bottom line is that your statement was an alarmist's wet dream and is about as likely to be correct as as my predition for who's winning the Super Bowl in 2025. If you really believe those statements then you have my pity, and if you don't...well then you already have my derision.

[gmwise]

My emphasis is ::The thing is, most Americans perceive that it is environmentalists who want to dictate how we live, and environmentalists who want our lives to look like the above scenarios. What we fail to understand the environmentalists failed to communicate , is that it is global warming that threatens our way of life; not just our very survival, but our ability to choose how we live.

[MadMonk]

My emphasis is ::The thing is, most Americans perceive that it is environmentalists who want to dictate how we live, and environmentalists who want our lives to look like the above scenarios. What we fail to understand the environmentalists failed to communicate , is that it is global warming that threatens our way of life; not just our very survival, but our ability to choose how we live.

I'll grant you that there are some people that believe environmentalists simply want to dictate how we live our lives, but I've never known anyone to believe that they (environmentalists) want our lives to look like your example. I'm not sure how you could come up with such an odd perception.

Your last statement above is a perfect example of how the threat of global warming to our way of life is blown way out of proportion. The primary forces effecting our "way of life choices" are the laws politicians pass that are based on such overblown predictions. There's the real danger to our freedom to choose how we live.

Now, you may believe the best way to overcome the apathy you perceive in the populace is to throw out predictions of an austere future, but anyone past college age with a working BS filter will easily screen you out. Hence, my original comment of your post being juuuust a bit over the top. I hope that clarifies things for you.

[MikeOKC]

It is surprising how many still buy the energy companies BS about how climate change isn't real. They've paid off a few scientists to go along with them and all of a sudden it's somehow not real. The scientific consensus is clear and gmwise wasn't overstating things at all. The next wars will not be over oil, but water. It all ties together and can very much alter our way of life if we do not ACT and not later, but NOW.

[MadMonk]

It's equally as surprising how many people misunderstand those who don't deny climate change happens naturally, but rather simply have serious reservations about the conclusion being presented that human beings are the primary cause and that much can be done about it anyway. The real danger is those fools who blindly support policies that do more harm than good to mankind as a whole, just because Al Gore says they should. If anything threatens our way of life, it's an increasing lack of common sense.

[MikeOKC]

It's equally as surprising how many people misunderstand those who don't deny climate change happens naturally, but rather simply have serious reservations about the conclusion being presented that human beings are the primary cause and that much can be done about it anyway. It's those types that are the real danger by blindly supporting policies that do more harm than good to mankind as a whole, just because Al Gore says it's true. If anything threatens our way of life, it's an increasing lack of common sense.

What part of scientific consensus do you not understand? Sure there's an opposing argument, but it has no supporting evidence. They can scream "fraud" and whatever, well, some people still claim we've never been to the moon! The reason climate change through human activity has a scientific consensus is that there is evidence, studies, etc. They all come back with the same message, that the industrial revolution forward has dramatically set our planet on a course with disaster. Maybe not destruction, but maybe so. But most certainly wars and famine and things we don't even want to ponder, but we have to. It's about preserving our way of life. Please understand that last part! That doesn't mean we won't have to make changes, but our way of life is not something people like me want to get rid of, it's something we want to preserve. But it won't happen if we do nothing.

[Bunty]

I think conservatives, such as Sen Inhofe, will be forever insisting that global warming is the world's biggest hoax until the water finally rises to the level of Miss Liberty's feet.

[MadMonk]

This suggestion may fall on deaf ears as it sounds like Al Gore already has you brainwashed, but you should work on developing a healthy skepticism. The "scientific consensus" you speak of is more like herd mentality. You talk about oil companes paying off scientists but apparently choose to ignore how some scientists will do whatever it takes to keep their grant money flowing. Toeing the line=research grant money. By your own standards that means that the consensus is suspect.

[SoonerDave]

I think conservatives, such as Sen Inhofe, will be forever insisting that global warming is the world's biggest hoax until the water finally rises to the level of Miss Liberty's feet.

And I hope he keeps right on doing it, because this "scientific consensus" is as faux as California's IOU's. The WSJ, about two weeks ago, ran a story about 70 scientists signing a petition to at least two different science magazines insisting they reverse their assertion(s) that the science is "settled," because it isn't.

The faux religion is revealed to be no more transparent then when unabashed scams like "cap and trade" are ramrodded through Congress, where the point isn't to reduce emissions, but to just figure out a way to make people pay the government for producing them. Its the same kind of claptrap that got DDT banned forty years ago, the same kind of claptrap that had Chicken Little's running the streets screaming we were going into an ice age twenty years ago...

[SoonerDave]

I think conservatives, such as Sen Inhofe, will be forever insisting that global warming is the world's biggest hoax until the water finally rises to the level of Miss Liberty's feet.

And I hope he keeps right on doing it, because this "scientific consensus" is as faux as Al Gore's science and the hysteria his disciples spread. The WSJ, about two weeks ago, ran a story about 70 scientists signing a petition to at least two different science magazines insisting they reverse their assertion(s) that the science is "settled," because it isn't.

The faux religion is revealed to be no more transparent then when unabashed scams like "cap and trade" are ramrodded through Congress, where the point isn't to reduce emissions, but to just figure out a way to make people pay the government for producing them. Its the same kind of claptrap that got DDT banned forty years ago, the same kind of claptrap that had Chicken Little's running the streets screaming we were going into an ice age twenty years ago...

As far as the wind turbines go, its a revelation that building a power grid capable of transferring the generated power is every bit as important as finding some slick way of producing the energy itself. Seems like I recall that some countries in Europe had tried the same thing, discovered the same problems, and abandoned a similar project some years ago.

[gmwise]

LOL soonerdave your recall is off.
Its being done in Europe.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aO042nyR0px4
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbi...919_459208.htm
as for WSJ, think about its intended audience.
This is business people who want to believe the world isnt going to hell in a handbasket, its ok to rip off the elderly's savings and tear homes away from families.
ALL FOR GREED, not for profit but for GREED.
Please try to read more then one source about topics then a few,It will get you thinking and allow you to be exposed to more then one side of the issues.
oh and try Google or whatever as search engines.
NEXT!!

[MadMonk]

LOL, I love how in the same post you disparage SoonerDave's source and then turn around and use those who's target audiences are similar.

[Stan Silliman]

Where would you rather line up?

On the Inhofe side which says do nothing and continue the status quo?

Or the side that recognizes a problem and the possibilities it could be fixed?

If global warming can be abated, forestalled, reduced, slowed down by human actions why not join in?

You'd have to be more cynical than George Carlin to think nothing could be done, therefore break out the togas. That's the Inhofe camp.

As far as windpower, it's expensive but not nearly as expensive as new coal generated power plants. And definitely, not nearly as expensive as the long term costs of foreign oil.

Most of the new buses in OKC and Norman are on natural gas. How can you be against that? How can Inhofe?

[gmwise]

LOL, I love how in the same post you disparage SoonerDave's source and then turn around and use those who's target audiences are similar.

I used more then one source.
I also showing that one can use the internet to look for more then just porn or one sided pov in a debate.
Go ahead and prove me wrong in showing how WSJ gives equal hearing or space in a debate.
The sources I used does often times show issues on not just 2 sides, but many povs.
I doubt your pov is not without the buzz words that is unique in usage.
Some just repeat the same words from one side without showing how they arrived at it or even take up the debate in their own words.
I hope I am wrong in regards to you.

[MadMonk]

I used more then one source.
I also showing that one can use the internet to look for more then just porn or one sided pov in a debate.
Go ahead and prove me wrong in showing how WSJ gives equal hearing or space in a debate.
The sources I used does often times show issues on not just 2 sides, but many povs.
I doubt your pov is not without the buzz words that is unique in usage.
Some just repeat the same words from one side without showing how they arrived at it or even take up the debate in their own words.
I hope I am wrong in regards to you.

Simmer down, I was just making a simple observation that I thought was ironic. And if the words aren't mine, I quote them. I'm sure that sometimes they aren't as clear as they could to be.