Apple to Build Two of the World's Largest Wind Turbines in Net-Zero Climate Impact Pledge

[ericwn]

Well, they will destroy the bird population

Sure, the entire population.

 

[ericwn]

Good. We'll install 25 of them in your backyard and then you can marvel at them each morning upon waking. Would you like that?

I’ll prefer the marvellous sights of the older coal plants and the lovely tunes they play.

 

[cmaier]

I just came here for the wind cancer comments. I wasn't disappointed. The same people telling us not to let our lives be ruled by fear are also terrified about the suburbs and plane-loads of "thugs."

Somehow i skipped all the messages in this thread up until this one, and saw “wind cancer.”

Now my mind is reeling to try and construct the details of the conspiracy theory based on just those two words.

 

[ericwn]

Somehow i skipped all the messages in this thread up until this one, and saw “wind cancer.”

Now my mind is reeling to try and construct the details of the conspiracy theory based on just those two words.

It’s a well kept secret of the aviation industry. All pilots get cancer, didn’t you know?

 

[Tech198]

Good Apple are continuing to keep up their side of the bargain....

Now do the same wth climate change.

 

[quatermass]

All around hilarious. Thanks for this comedy piece.
CCP virus, ROFL.

you forgot to recommend the bleach brand you use for your morning drink!

No, Pedszan is correct. None of the climate models have made any useful or accurate predictions. How do we now? Because we can now compare actual data over many years vs the output from climate models. What we see is that all climate models run too hot - that is, they forecast too much heating, because the basic assumptions underpinning them are incorrect. You should be worried by this, as these models are what is being used to define energy and taxation policies - policies we'll all be paying for.

 

[ericwn]

No, Pedszan is correct. None of the climate models have made any useful or accurate predictions. How do we now? Because we can now compare actual data over many years vs the output from climate models. What we see is that all climate models run too hot - that is, they forecast too much heating, because the basic assumptions underpinning them are incorrect. You should be worried by this, as these models are what is being used to define energy and taxation policies - policies we'll all be paying for.

I was specifically pointing at the opinion piece about the virus. Science of course is worth improving and models and expectations change as the world changes and progresses.

It’s 2020 and population hasn’t risen to a degree where there isn’t enough food for the majority. In fact, farming technology has improved in the decades as well.

The oceans haven’t risen high enough to rid us of Venice or the Netherlands, yet.

WWIII has not happened.

In turn, the ice age that some expected didn’t turn up either.

Science is a work in progress especially when dealing with complex situations that are influenced by many different factors at once.

 

[Baymowe335]

I had no idea a single wind turbine could generate enough power for 10,000 homes.

Sure they cause cancer but we need more, lots more.

Except those homes would still need alternate sources when the wind isn’t blowing and industry takes a lot more power.

Wind power is great, but it’s not enough.

Nuclear is the best solution.

 

[Colonel Blimp]

The basic raw unpopular truth is that Global Climate Change, just like we've seen with the CCP Virus, is and has always been based upon models. And the models have never been correct. You can go back and find fear mongering about climate change for countless decades. Indeed, in the 70s, the basic fear was an ice age was coming. Search for "letter to nixon from brown university about ice age" (without the quotes)

Compare today's temperatures with the 1930s (high) or the 1970s (lows) and you will find that we are rather comfortably between those two "extremes" which, historically over 2000+ year time frames are not the historic highs or lows (i.e. Medieval Warm Period)

You can also look at "catastrophic" weather events and find that we are having fewer and smaller not more and bigger as the fear mongers claim....

If you really want to dig into climate change, all the data is at NOAAs FTP site. Go find it and analyze it yourself; otherwise you are just assuming "the experts" are unbiased which we've seen (e.g. HCQ retracted "scientific" studies) is not true.

Wow, didn’t know that.

I guess it’s back to clean coal, then!

/s

 

[quatermass]

I was specifically pointing at the opinion piece about the virus. Science of course is worth improving and models and expectations change as the world changes and progresses.

It’s 2020 and population hasn’t risen to a degree where there isn’t enough food for the majority. In fact, farming technology has improved in the decades as well.

The oceans haven’t risen high enough to rid us of Venice or the Netherlands, yet.

WWIII has not happened.

In turn, the ice age that some expected didn’t turn up either.

Science is a work in progress especially when dealing with complex situations that are influenced by many different factors at once.

Agreed - so when someone states that "the science is settled" then they don't understand how science works. It's never settled. Your theory isn't worth anything if it's not falsifiable. And as they late, great Richard Feynman put it; if your theory disagrees with observation, then it's wrong. It doesn't matter who you are, how smart you are, how many letters you have after you name, it's wrong".

Unfortunately, the climate worriers win no matter what happens.
1. Climate continues to warm, despite emissions cuts: "It's not working! We must do more! More cuts! More taxes!"
2. Climate stops warming: "See? It's working! We must do more! More cuts! More taxes!"

Completely missing the point that it's an entirely natural phenomena, human beings have little, if any, influence over it, it's diabolically complex and unpredictable (interaction of two turbulent fluids - the atmosphere and the ocean), has happened before, that the temperature doesn't follow the CO2 concentration, etc., etc. Just hope we get working fusin before too long then it'll all be moot anyway.

 

[ericwn]

Agreed - so when someone states that "the science is settled" then they don't understand how science works. It's never settled. Your theory isn't worth anything if it's not falsifiable. And as they late, great Richard Feynman put it; if your theory disagrees with observation, then it's wrong. It doesn't matter who you are, how smart you are, how many letters you have after you name, it's wrong".

Unfortunately, the climate worriers win no matter what happens.
1. Climate continues to warm, despite emissions cuts: "It's not working! We must do more! More cuts! More taxes!"
2. Climate stops warming: "See? It's working! We must do more! More cuts! More taxes!"

Completely missing the point that it's an entirely natural phenomena, human beings have little, if any, influence over it, it's diabolically complex and unpredictable (interaction of two turbulent fluids - the atmosphere and the ocean), has happened before, that the temperature doesn't follow the CO2 concentration, etc., etc. Just hope we get working fusin before too long then it'll all be moot anyway.

Good point. It will actually be quite interesting what would happen if we were able to all tap unlimited affordable energy (that doesn’t kill us or our offspring). But that’s more for a Michio Kaku book than for a MR forum