Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dan Warner on January 8, 2015 at 10:32am

"Actually I was surfing archeological sites when I came upon the article about this windmill."

Geez, how old was this windmill? (sorry, couldn't resist)

I suggest using Google for searching.  They tend to find better contextual results.

"It pays to not make assumptions in life ..."

Actually, we make assumptions daily based on the available evidence.  Whether they are correct or not is decided by the outcome.  If a stranger, normal in appearance, approaches me, I assume that he doesn't mean me harm, and do not run away.

"hopefully some day you will understand"

I hope so too, craig.  

I appreciate the good will.  I don't seem to be getting a lot of it on here.

"... as you become older."

No assumption there.  No condescension either. 

"I just thought that some balance in the "news" reporting here on GMS was needed."

I know of no pro-windmill news being reported on GMS that needs balancing.  Can you point to any?  Even my own comments are not pro-wind.

"I blew nothing out of proportion on this article"

Never accused you of it.

"Preposterous", though, while very British, was over-the-top.

"...why do you embellish your statements with rhetoric?"

"I didn't see this make the news anywhere in the US, or maybe I missed it.

We can't have bad news about wind power generation floating around in the media can we? If a similar situation presented itself during drilling or fracking we all know it would be covered and smothered on every "news" channel."

Nope, no rhetoric there.

I think what you mean to accuse me of is 'sarcasm', to which I confess unashamedly as a means of highlighting 'rhetoric' from others.

"...  fossil fuels are the prime time go to in energy production."

... as was wood during O&G's infancy.  It's just that the loggers didn't circle the wagons when the drillers showed up.

"Where the source of our energy comes from in the future can not be dictated be edict as many believe."

With the blurred line between energy and government, it already is.

"Oh btw, calling this windmill failure insignificant in the US is preposterous at best."

As I understand it, the early speculation was that the brakes failed, causing overspeed, and it shook its self apart.  The brakes on my car failed a while back (true story), and I rear-ended another vehicle.  As a result, by your logic, cars must be banned in Ireland.

I'm wondering how you would qualify the BP Gulf incident.

"I also recognize that the O+G industry isn't an angel either."

I appreciate your neutrality on the issue.

"I give all comers a fair shake,...?"

Pass

"... how about you?"

I think I'm fair in my assumptions.  I'd be interested in any evidence to the contrary.

I seem to have been wrong in my assumption as to craig's motives.  To be fair though, I only stated that it "was likely" that he was mining for propaganda.  

Still, he did feel compelled to post a link here.

...along with his non-rhetorical commentary.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by craig on January 8, 2015 at 11:33am

I don't think windmills should be banned as there are circumstances that dictate their use. They are not ready for prime time is all I'm saying.

I just get tired of the 'green folks' posting their garbage here ( like Paul) on occasion and deemed it necessary to try and balance the equation a bit.

The link I followed to the original post was actually from one of the archeological websites I frequent.

Glad to help try and keep it real here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Warner on January 8, 2015 at 12:58pm

Ok, but your quotes around "green folks" (that's a real quote), and your negative characterization of their message is inflammatory rhetoric.  It is outrageous that a man cannot show concern for, or defend his environment (or his industry) without being branded a subversive, anti-American, Communist, etc.  This type of propaganda only surfaces when there is no real wrong being done, but someone needs to create the illusion.  If it weren't for the environmental movement, the conditions here in the US would be the worst in the industrial world, as opposed to the best.

That is not to say that there isn't plenty of misguidedness in the ranks of the greenies.  I blame that on the 'if-it-bleeds-it-leads' sensationalism of the media.  I also have no problem accepting that nefarious forces are having an influence.  This, however, cannot be used as a reason to deligitimize the entire philosophy of environmentalism.

People risk their lives and freedom daily because they really are concerned (as they should be), and really do care.  I've always remained on the fence, but after shale gas here in WV I'm falling off, and it ain't into the O&G corral.

I find it ironic that the anti-wind message is largely an environmental one, which puts the O&G types in the awkward position of deciding what part of the greenies' message to embrace, and what part to propagandize against. To me, this is a clear indication of their 'flexibility' on environmental issues, based on their effect on the profit margin.

I am fully aware that anything written on GMS will dissipate like water on a hot rock, having no effect on the industry or the green movement.  My reasons for taking time to comment are the people who log in here, as I do, attempting to wend their way through the labyrinth of O&G deceipt, only to encounter the same thing here. Lives are being changed by this craze (and it is a craze, as evidenced by some of the responses), and not all of them for the better.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan on January 8, 2015 at 5:44pm

"I am fully aware that anything written on GMS will dissipate like water on a hot rock, having no effect on the industry or the green movement. My reasons for taking time to comment are the people who log in here, as I do, attempting to wend their way through the labyrinth of O&G deceipt, only to encounter the same thing here. Lives are being changed by this craze (and it is a craze, as evidenced by some of the responses), and not all of them for the better."

Then the true irony is that we all sit and use our devices that are plugged in and are connected to the internet that consumes vast amounts of power, all in the name of human enlightenment.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/technology/data-centers-waste-vas...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Warner on January 8, 2015 at 6:35pm

Kudos if you read all that; I'm not, but in scanning it, it sounds like a condemnation of either the internet or fossil fuel.

This is (or was) a discussion about the truths, half-truths, and lies regarding wind power.  If there is relevency there, you'll have to frame it for me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan on January 9, 2015 at 1:47am

No I don't

Permalink Reply by Dan Warner on January 9, 2015 at 4:05am

@ Dan

Didn't read it either, huh?

Permalink Reply by craig on January 9, 2015 at 3:21am

"...the conditions here in the US would be the worst in the industrial world,"

Sorry, but this is wrong.

They might be worse than they are now, but would be no where near what you say. If you haven't traveled outside the US much, you don't know. If you have traveled outside the US some then you would know better, or syou stayed away from the local economies.

All Big business sectors tend to sway away from being responsible guardians of the environment. We just don't need people posting that don't have a clue about an industry they consistently criticize.... people that we have no reason to look up to, like movie stars that. Why do people that have money and fame think they know more than others, especially when they live in their own little world and really don't have a clue?

I'm pissed at the O+G folks myself, but it has nothing to do with environmental concerns, as we haven't really had any locally and the concerns usually posted are false on at least one level.

If I'd know my post was going to stir up the pot like this I'd have not bothered taking my time to post it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Warner on January 9, 2015 at 6:09am

What the US or the rest of the world looks like now has little bearing on what it might look like in a hypothetical exercise.  

What is the basis for your statement?  

It seems clear to me: 

industry - stewardship = industrial pollution

most industry = most industrial pollution

What am I missing?

What is the relationship between what the countries you allude to look like, and what the US might look like, sans environmental stewardship? It seems to me that you are arguing my case.

Are we to believe that industry would have come to anything like the present level of environmental stewardship without pressure from the outside?  

As to media hype and Hollywood types, it is our choice whether we partake of the swill that comes from that kettle.  Hollywood is an industry, and it pollutes as surely as any other.

Unfortunately, this pollution, similar to the windmills', can't be seen.

Still, I have never owned a television that was shipped without a power switch.  The salient point here is that all industries, oil included, leverage the media to influence public opinion.  The stars do what their agents and PR people tell them.  If you buy it, you get what you paid for.  One of the biggest industries to use media to their advantage is the war industry.  

My position does not stem from anger with the O&G industry, though I have complaints; neither does it come from a love for windmills.  I am taking issue with those here and everywhere who would mislead folks who are trying to make life altering choices through unbiased information.

I am not taking time to refute these claims to attempt to change your mind, nor the minds of the other Don Quixote's who respond so vehemently.  Rather I am trying to balance the issues with fact-checking, for the sake of the people whose minds aren't yet closed.  Before this discussion, I knew no more about wind power than the average headline-skimmer.

That you are unconcerned by what takes place outside your immediate environment, highlights the very issue that confounds me.  To paraphrase, you are stating that you care not what happens to anyone outside your sphere.  Since you are taking issue on this thread, should we assume that you have windmills locally?  If not, then why do you care?  If you are unconcerned by what happens elsewhere, and everything's great at home, why are you angry at O&G?  I can think of only one reason; the same one that motivates the O&G cheerleaders here on GMS and elsewhere.

Truth has no 'levels'.  If a thing is false, it's all false.  The truth is the whole truth... etc.

If you never stir the pot, you can't tell what's at the bottom.

  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Thomas Lilli on January 9, 2015 at 6:41am

Dan,

I travel the world, more so the previous decade than this decade. What I will say about stewardship and industrial pollution is, from my perspective and from what little I read, the U.S. has a pretty good track record.

Now, when we compare US GDP to other nations and factor that in with our stewardship to the environment, I think we can say we are doing pretty good. I don't think its a fare comparison to just look at nations, their populations and make a comparison without factoring in our GDP which is related to our productivity.

Said another way, if we take the number of people in this country and factored in output from our industry for both domestic and foreign trade, I believe we have a competitive rate compared to other nations on a per person bases.

Permalink Reply by Dan Warner on January 9, 2015 at 7:34am

@ Thomas Lilli

Thank you for helping to support my position.  I have no quarrel that we aren't relatively the cleanest industrialized nation in the world.

I'm no economist, nor environmentalist; I am an industrialist, and I have seen first hand what corps. will do when they think no one is looking.  Nighttime releases, both air and water, soil contamination with a little sand thrown on top.  I have made several $$ working at cleaning up legacy pollution from chemical plants.

The area north of a local chem plant is a minefield of drums full of waste buried there in the 50's-60's.

When I worked there in the 80's, I drove a truck through the area, to an area where we borrowed river sand.  I was warned not to venture off the beaten path, and no excavation was to be done, except in the borrow area.  While driving through, I noticed a rusty object, fabricated out of steel plate.  It was an L shaped object, with the bottom leg flat on the ground horizontally, and the other leg vertical, in about the same proportion as the L in this text  The vertical side was about 6' tall, and had a rectangular hole at average eye-level.  I finally asked some old-timers what it was.

Turns out it was a blind.  In the 'good ol' days', (pre-EPA) the plant workers would haul haz-mat, packed in drums, out to the field and dump them.  Then high-powered rifles would be brought out, and the workers would position themselves behind the blind, firing through the 'loophole', causing the drums to explode, after which they were covered with sand.  Legend has it that not all drums were exploded, and were buried intact.

To date, this site has never been cleaned up.  It may have been 'capped', but the soil makeup is river sand, appr. 1/4 mile from the Ohio, and surrounded by cornfields.

So you see, I only report what I can verify.  I don't get my information from MSM, imdustry rags/websites, or airplane windows.  

BTW, the corp eventually sold off this facility to acquire $$ to pay off a big lawsuit in India.

Permalink Reply by craig on January 9, 2015 at 7:37am

I guess I found some things at the bottom of the pot and wish I'd left them there, where they don't show their ugly heads.

You read too much into everything you read Dan. Step back from the forest and see the trees. You might get a surprise view.

I'll not be responding anymore to this thread, as my original point has been blown into some make believe monstrosity by a certain few.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page