Alec, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. You are clueless.

Same goes for hydroelectric dams, which are essentially the same concept as wind turbines. A man-made lake looks more natural than a landscape littered with stark spinning towers.

Think about all aspects of that for awhile. I am NOT pro fossil fuels, just pro-nature. “Nature” to me is keeping the landscape as close to its former state as possible. Wind turbines do the opposite. Even fracking rigs eventually come down, but turbines are meant to stay up indefinitely and are a constant reminder of industrialization.

Imagine if ANWR had permanent wind turbines in place of (temporary) oil rigs. What would “environmentalists” say about the visual blight, which they now use to argue against oil drilling there? I’m against it too, but it’s an example of the hypocrisy that surrounds wind turbines’ impact on the physical landscape.

You don’t like to look at wind turbines?

Fine, turn a blind eye to them as you seem to be doing to the effects of fossil fuel use.

You want to respect nature? Then work to get more renewable energy in place and cut our use of fossil fuels. We’ll not build wind farms in wilderness areas and in our parks. But if we don’t turn our CO2 problem around we will destroy the most beautiful of all our land, along with all the rest of our lands.

Willful blindness to the visual blight of wind turbines truly astounds me. I never knew so many “environmentalists” had little interest in keeping landscapes natural. They claim it’s just the price we must pay, but who gets to define that?

There are no perfect answers. We have to chose among the options at hand.

I happen to think wind turbines are beautiful because they, to me, are the symbol that we are starting to fight back against climate change.

The GOP just happens to be against wind power because of fossil fuel interests, but there are plenty of other reasons to be against it. Your reactionary attitude is no better than Rush Limbaugh’s.

Have you ever seen massive open pit mines?

How about enormous areas covered with coal cinders?

Colorado forests killed by bark beetles enabled by fossil-fuel produced climate change?

Thousands of acres of burned wildlands and thousands of destroyed homes?

Cattle ranches turned into desert?

Coastal cities flooded by storm surge allowed by rising sea levels?

What’s green about ” stark white skyscrapers all over the place” is that they are less ugly than the alternative.

Noise and wind flicker are only an issue if turbines are installed too close to where people live. We’ve figured out that a reasonable setback is needed.

Back in 1998, a group of German professors wrote the “Darmstadt Manifesto,” which explains the core of anti-wind sentiment (not global warming denial). Germany is still being overrun with these rural skyscrapers. They are just too big and intrusive on natural sensibilities. It’s not a trivial matter of adjusting to their presence.

Noise and shadow flicker are not trivial issues, either. Calling wind turbines “beautiful” (a common refrain) is a heavily acquired taste, often driven by the bought silence of landowners. Money makes all kinds of people clam up.

It’s a ruse that only global warming deniers are against wind turbines. They just have too many aesthetic downsides, and rarely generate at their rated capacity.

Are you claiming that his thoughts on wind propaganda have nothing to do with your think tank ATI that pays him to think?

They stink of fossil fuel money.

Want to prove me wrong?

You could start by posting an honest and inclusive cost of producing electricity with coal.

Scum of the earth.

And you can wear that t-shirt as well with your dishonest posting.

What I find most disturbing is that they would risk the future of mankind for a few scheckles.

Thanks for “outing” these frauds for what they are, Susan

Ed.