4 ms·

I want you all to read this article he wrote on wind energy and tell me seriously that he is arguing in good faith: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellen

I want you all to read this article he wrote on wind energy and tell me seriously that he is arguing in good faith: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/06/26/why-wind-turbines-threaten-endangered-species-with-extinction/#6517461f64b4 https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/06/26...

6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
Okay, I read it. I think he is arguing in good faith. Why don't you?
SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
I'm not terribly informed on research about wind farms and the damage they may - or may not - do to birds, bats and insects, so its not really obvious to me here what is clearly bad faith, in that article.
abvdasker 7y ago
Another comment points out that he basically works for the US nuclear lobby (not that I think there's anything wrong with Nuclear). It's pretty clear reading this that he has a hidden agenda.
johnmorrison 7y ago
Wind energy is not a good idea, I think Mike is arguing in good faith here and absolutely right. Nuclear, solar, hydro, even natural gas are all better solutions in the ways that matter. Wind is the least reliable resource of out of them all and we seriously shouldn't be generating our energy from intermolecular kinetic interactions, that is the lowest level of density. There's a reason the whole world adopted fossil fuels - the breaking of chemical bonds allowed us to harness unprecedented amounts of power. Not to mention wind turbines, as the industry stands right now, rely on an increasingly ridiculous amount of sulfur hexafluoride being placed in effective GHG landmines, posing an unknown threat to global temperatures. They also aren't exactly safe to humans. People die trying to fix burning wind turbines. The physics are bad, the economics are bad, and the tech is bad. We really don't need wind.

4 ms·

I want you all to read this article he wrote on wind energy and tell me seriously that he is arguing in good faith: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellen

by empath75 7y ago

6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
Okay, I read it. I think he is arguing in good faith. Why don't you?
SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
I'm not terribly informed on research about wind farms and the damage they may - or may not - do to birds, bats and insects, so its not really obvious to me here what is clearly bad faith, in that article.
abvdasker 7y ago
Another comment points out that he basically works for the US nuclear lobby (not that I think there's anything wrong with Nuclear). It's pretty clear reading this that he has a hidden agenda.
johnmorrison 7y ago
Wind energy is not a good idea, I think Mike is arguing in good faith here and absolutely right. Nuclear, solar, hydro, even natural gas are all better solutions in the ways that matter. Wind is the least reliable resource of out of them all and we seriously shouldn't be generating our energy from intermolecular kinetic interactions, that is the lowest level of density. There's a reason the whole world adopted fossil fuels - the breaking of chemical bonds allowed us to harness unprecedented amounts of power. Not to mention wind turbines, as the industry stands right now, rely on an increasingly ridiculous amount of sulfur hexafluoride being placed in effective GHG landmines, posing an unknown threat to global temperatures. They also aren't exactly safe to humans. People die trying to fix burning wind turbines. The physics are bad, the economics are bad, and the tech is bad. We really don't need wind.