8 ms·

Somebody must be benfitting immensely it these gigantic solar and wind farms are built, such that some people zealously prop them up disregarding the local faun

Somebody must be benfitting immensely it these gigantic solar and wind farms are built, such that some people zealously prop them up disregarding the local fauna, flora and well-being of the residents. And it's not talked enough

alex_lav 3y ago
If you think the wellbeing of local residents is bad with wind power, wait till you hear about climate change...
- unnamed76ri 3y ago
  According to the alarmists, I’m pretty sure the climate was supposed to have killed us all several times over by now.
  - voisin 3y ago
    Not sure if you’ve been watching the news this summer, but tens of thousands of acres have burned, thousands of people uprooted from their homes, the skies filled with thick smoke, and numerous people have died. So perhaps the alarmists weren’t effective enough, but the fact that they were sounding the alarm doesn’t seem ridiculous to me.
    - Tao3300 3y ago
      Were this summer's wildfires caused or worsened by climate change? Please share your sources.
      - voisin 3y ago
        Well, the science shows that this was the hottest June and July in something like 10,000 years, and the oceans are the warmest they’ve ever been. Most of North America is in a drought. Is your answer that unless we can draw a direct causal link with certainty, these things must be treated as totally unrelated?
        Tao3300 3y ago
        It's an unloaded question. I want to know how the two are connected and according to whom.
    - unnamed76ri 3y ago
      Look up historical data for acreage burned in wildfires and then let’s talk. History is a lot longer than your lifetime and the present thing the media tells you to panic about.
  - acdha 3y ago
    Now try the actual scientists who’ve been making accurate predictions since the 80s. Yes, you can always find a nut in any movement but we’re at least 40 years into “extreme weather will be more common, causing crop and ecosystem failures if we don’t do anything”. Just because the fossil fuel companies paid people to lie about it doesn’t mean that the scientists were wrong.
    - nvm0n2 3y ago
      James Hansen, an actual climatologist, was predicting in the early 90s that New York would be partly underwater by 2010 and battered by gale-force winds so strong the windows would be boarded up. When that didn't happen he claimed he'd never made any such prediction and the people who claimed he did were making it up. Then he pushed out the date that was meant to happen to 2030. New York isn't going to be underwater by 2030 either. That's how it works with these people. They make bad predictions, pretend they never did, and then re-make them but this time it's another 20 years out. You only have to pull this stunt once to cover an entire career of prognostication and grants.
      - defrost 3y ago
        > When that didn't happen he claimed he'd never made any such prediction but thanks to the internet and archives etc you can provide a link to the publication that quoted him on that, right? I'd like to see the actual quote, in context. The New Yorker in 1989 quotes Hansen [0]: given a global temperature increase of between one and a half and five and a half degrees Celsius, should raise sea level a foot, according to James Hansen. It is by now widely accepted that sea level will rise significantly over the next decades. The E.P.A. has estimated that it will rise between five and seven feet by 2100, and speculated about worst-case scenarios that might lead to an eleven foot rise; the National Academy of Sciences has been more conservative; other researchers have turned in even scarier numbers. Suffice it to say that included in the range of guesses of almost every panel and scientist studying the problem is an increase in global sea level of better than three feet over the next century. and he is absolutely NOT saying that "that New York would be partly underwater by 2010" .. although New York has certainly badly flooded on several occasions since 1989. [0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1989/09/11/the-end-of-nature https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1989/09/11/the-end-of-nat...
whats_a_quasar 3y ago
> Somebody must be benfitting immensely it these gigantic solar and wind farms are built Yes, the developers and the landowners benefit. The landowners get license fees or sell the land to the developers, then the developers build solar and sell power to the utilities. It's not a conspiracy, that's how infrastructure works.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  > Yes, the developers and the landowners and the consumers of electrical power benefit. I think this is a consistent expansion of your point. Renewable power is cheap. People really like cheap power. Not just developers and landowners. Again, not a conspiracy, just like any other commodity.

alex_lav 3y ago

If you think the wellbeing of local residents is bad with wind power, wait till you hear about climate change...

unnamed76ri 3y ago
According to the alarmists, I’m pretty sure the climate was supposed to have killed us all several times over by now.
- voisin 3y ago
  Not sure if you’ve been watching the news this summer, but tens of thousands of acres have burned, thousands of people uprooted from their homes, the skies filled with thick smoke, and numerous people have died. So perhaps the alarmists weren’t effective enough, but the fact that they were sounding the alarm doesn’t seem ridiculous to me.
  - Tao3300 3y ago
    Were this summer's wildfires caused or worsened by climate change? Please share your sources.
    - voisin 3y ago
      Well, the science shows that this was the hottest June and July in something like 10,000 years, and the oceans are the warmest they’ve ever been. Most of North America is in a drought. Is your answer that unless we can draw a direct causal link with certainty, these things must be treated as totally unrelated?
      - Tao3300 3y ago
        It's an unloaded question. I want to know how the two are connected and according to whom.
  - unnamed76ri 3y ago
    Look up historical data for acreage burned in wildfires and then let’s talk. History is a lot longer than your lifetime and the present thing the media tells you to panic about.
- acdha 3y ago
  Now try the actual scientists who’ve been making accurate predictions since the 80s. Yes, you can always find a nut in any movement but we’re at least 40 years into “extreme weather will be more common, causing crop and ecosystem failures if we don’t do anything”. Just because the fossil fuel companies paid people to lie about it doesn’t mean that the scientists were wrong.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    James Hansen, an actual climatologist, was predicting in the early 90s that New York would be partly underwater by 2010 and battered by gale-force winds so strong the windows would be boarded up. When that didn't happen he claimed he'd never made any such prediction and the people who claimed he did were making it up. Then he pushed out the date that was meant to happen to 2030. New York isn't going to be underwater by 2030 either. That's how it works with these people. They make bad predictions, pretend they never did, and then re-make them but this time it's another 20 years out. You only have to pull this stunt once to cover an entire career of prognostication and grants.
    - defrost 3y ago
      > When that didn't happen he claimed he'd never made any such prediction but thanks to the internet and archives etc you can provide a link to the publication that quoted him on that, right? I'd like to see the actual quote, in context. The New Yorker in 1989 quotes Hansen [0]: given a global temperature increase of between one and a half and five and a half degrees Celsius, should raise sea level a foot, according to James Hansen. It is by now widely accepted that sea level will rise significantly over the next decades. The E.P.A. has estimated that it will rise between five and seven feet by 2100, and speculated about worst-case scenarios that might lead to an eleven foot rise; the National Academy of Sciences has been more conservative; other researchers have turned in even scarier numbers. Suffice it to say that included in the range of guesses of almost every panel and scientist studying the problem is an increase in global sea level of better than three feet over the next century. and he is absolutely NOT saying that "that New York would be partly underwater by 2010" .. although New York has certainly badly flooded on several occasions since 1989. [0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1989/09/11/the-end-of-nature https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1989/09/11/the-end-of-nat...

whats_a_quasar 3y ago

> Somebody must be benfitting immensely it these gigantic solar and wind farms are built Yes, the developers and the landowners benefit. The landowners get license fees or sell the land to the developers, then the developers build solar and sell power to the utilities. It's not a conspiracy, that's how infrastructure works.

sanderjd 3y ago
> Yes, the developers and the landowners and the consumers of electrical power benefit. I think this is a consistent expansion of your point. Renewable power is cheap. People really like cheap power. Not just developers and landowners. Again, not a conspiracy, just like any other commodity.