Unlike President Trump’s inability to pronounce the word “origins,” his recurring anti-windbloviating isn’t a sign of mental decline. Sure, it is stupid and wrong to say the sound of wind causes cancer (just who is the “alarmist” by the way?) or reduces real estate values (it doesn’t.) But it’s also dangerous. This and other anti-science campaigns like the ones against vaccinations and evolution are not just silly ignorance. They’re weaponized stupidity.
Trump’s tirades aren’t reflective of any deeply held belief or well-informed opinion, but instead appear to be informed by, and in service of, Big Oil’s anti-wind propaganda. For decades fossil fuel companies have attacked clean and renewable competition, from working to block local wind power installations to fighting state policies promoting wind. Key to that effort is spreading myths about wind power’s potential as well as its progress, which our Fox News President predictably regurgitates.
For example, take Trump’s bizarre recurring joke were he pretends to be someone who watches a lot of television (ok—no need to suspend disbelief on that part,) but has to turn it off when the wind isn’t blowing. Trump’s own Department of Energy debunks that ridiculous reliability argument (hi, batteries!) along with other energy myths. Wind power kills less birds than other forms of energy, it poses no human health threat, and it is increasingly more competitive than fossil fuels.
The sad irony of Trump’s weaponized stupidity is that it hurts the rural communities and red states who are benefiting “bigly” from wind power. For example, on November 9, 2016, the very day Trump was elected President, the Omaha World-Herald published a story about how “wind has saved family farms across a wide swath of the heartland
In 2017, wind farm developers were paying ranchers and farmers some $267 million to lease their farmland for wind turbines. And what’s more, all 10 of the top wind-powered congressional districts elected Republicans, while the five states that derived over a quarter of their power from wind were the Trump strongholds of Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, and North and South Dakota.
It’s not just money saved—it’s also money earned. In 2017, there were over 150,000 peopleemployed in the rural midwest doing wind and other renewable energy and efficiency work. More, in most of the states, than employed by fossil fuels. Nationally, Trump’s “beautiful coal” employs only half as many people as wind’s 107,000 jobs.
And like all those red states, the Department of Defense has similarly been benefiting from more than a thousand renewable energy projects as of 2015. By 2017, the largest military base in the U.S. got nearly half its electricity from renewables. Fort Hood’s $2.5 million a year in savings translates to more than $150 million over 30 years of wind and solar power use.
So if wind (and solar) are reliable enough for the military and creating jobs for red states, while saving family farmers across rural America, then why does President Trump seem to hate it so much?
Maybe because it messes with his coif?More likely, it’s because Trump’s administration has hired former employees and beneficiaries of the shadowy Koch network like Scott Pruitt. And after scandals took down Pruitt (and former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke,) Trump replaced him with former fossil fuel lobbyist Andrew Wheeler. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Just beneath Trump’s wind-blown stupidity, then, lies oily fingerprints. Government agencies intended to protect the public from pollution are now being run by former lobbyists of those very polluters. Fox News meet hen house.
And it seems that might be who’s running Trump’s mouth, too. We can do better than this, America.
Just an observation about “dumoldguy” and his posts
Ad hominem – “Are you up to your anti-American bullshit again?”
Non sequitur and moving goalposts (also unnecessary capitalisation) – “WHEN are you going to answer the question I’ve asked you MANY times?. Tell us what you think is GOOD about America.”
Unsupported assertion, attempt to belittle – “Sorry, Chucky, but the present state of the world leaves us little choice but to spend significant money on defense,”
Ad hominem and moving the goalposts – “No more to say? Typical Chucky. Throw out your bullshit and refuse to talk about it when taken to task”
Ad hominem – “Chucky has now posted this graph umpteen times”
Ad hominem – “Could it be that he is attempting to “brainwash” people”
Poisoning the well unsupported assertion – “… repetition of a graph that is really meaningless
Ad hominem – “Chucky the brainwasher”
Poisoning the well – “Back to Chucky’s brainwashing. Is he really an advocate for RE? Could be, but based on the sum total of his postings on Crock, I think it’s just as likely that he’s a shill for fossil fuels, specifically Russian fossil fuels”
Ad hominem and an outright lie – “You already posted this graph that is nothing more in the context of this thread than a gratuitous bit of anti-American propaganda. Why don’t you respond with some SUBSTANCE instead?”
Non sequitur – “Give it up, Chucky. The Scots have far bigger complaints than the Irish and the offshore drilling problem in the US is BIG.”
Ad hominem – “Other than to get noticed and get in yet another anti-American dig, of course”
Ad hominem and poisoning the well – “Could Chucky be drinking already? (He’d like us to believe it’s Guinness, but it’s really vodka from you-know-where).”
Ad hominem (because describing the person rather than the arguments) – “In his incoherence …”
Cherry picking – “… and then babbles about “no democracy in the USA?”
Ad hominem – “Chucky IS quite inebriated”
Cherry picking a response to your question and actions – “He has now stated that the majority of Americans are assholes”
Non Sequitur, poisoning the well and ad hominem – “… he is proud to be anti-American, proving my contention that he is a troll for our enemies, NOT someone who is concerned about climate change. He should be banned from this site”
Poisoning the well and ad hominem – “Yoo-Hoo, Chucky’s bosses!! … to interfere in our next election, not the JV.”
Nit picking – “AWK (awkward in red pencil English teacher notation) and grammatically incorrect (use of “by” instead of “of”), it can be interpreted in no other way than the way I have interpreted it.”
Incoherent and meaningless, unnecessary capitalisation – “WTF are you talking about when you imply that it’s me rather than YOU that doesn’t grasp the language? And yes, don’t “bother” to mess with the bull (dog) any more. You’ve got so many holes in you from “feeling the horns” that you’re looking like a lace curtain Irishman.
(WOOF!)”
Many thanks for this list. This was just on this page? Shouldn’t make one wonder that I’m sometimes hitting back harshly. I will try to ignore this dumboldguy again. Maybe I will better succeed from now on 😉
Cheers.
Just this page – and not all of his misrepresentations and deflections
Speaking of “deflections”, here’s a little “steampunk” color for the uninitiated. Looking at the crowd here, SG looks awfully old to be steam punk. A case of arrested development? He’s attracted to weird young chicks?
https://youtu.be/SQDpeW-7GrM
Libel, cherrypicking and an ad hominem. Tactics practiced by the puritanical and the foolish
It seems that, as these are all you have, you know you have lost the argument.
Oh and all ages take part in SP you pitiful little ignoramus. Not an ad homimen a precise description of my view of the lack of knowledge you have displayed
[youtube=https://youtu.be/watch?v=Mgr44mWsWug&w=640&h=360]
Turned on the computer this AM and found FIVE posts from SG, only one of them remotely connected to climate change or the denial thereof. They ALL, including this one, prove yet again what a DUNCE SG is, and that he is a Dunning-Kruger sufferer of the first order. Chucky IS smart enough to know when to back off and declare a truce, SG unfortunately is not.
To refresh everyone on the D-K Effect, it is defined as:
“In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority comes from the inability of low-ability people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence”.
Lots of biggish words there—to help SG, here’s the definition of the only one that is not in common use among the intelligent and educated: “metacognition–awareness and understanding of one’s own thought processes”—-he is definitely lacking there.
SG has read an abridged version of “Logic for Fifth Graders” and has become FIXATED on “ad hominem”, “poisoning the well”, and “straw man”. He throws them out even though he has NO real idea of what they mean and often misapplies them, as he did so egregiously here.
Perhaps he should take some writing courses as I have (in addition to the logic course he so badly needs) and pay particular attention when they get to the topic of FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE, which I DO use quite often.
Speaking of “direct lies”, “A direct lie, you have discussed no science and offered no evidence” is one of the biggest falsehoods SG could have come up with. I have been coming to Crock for many years, and almost everyone here but SG KNOWS that I “discuss science and give evidence” EXCEPT when I take time out to “sheep dog” whatever moron arrives to crud up the site. I have done that with both Chucky and redskylite today. Did SG notice? Would he care to join the discussion of fusion power that we’re attempting to have?
If you have been to writing courses ask for your money back.
No matter what the source of my analysis of your repetitive nonsense you have still committed logical fallacies and indulged in pointless vituperation. I repeat if you have actually attended writing coursed you must ask for your money back
Please advise how I have misapplied the term “ad hominem” i.e. put up or shut up.
You have supplied no evidence or backup for your assertions
No you have not used “figurative language, you have insulted and demeaned others. My personal view of you is that you are sick.
Dunning-Kruger please identify where I have over-estimated my expertise i.e put up ot shut up
Another rambling, disjointed and incoherent comment from SG. Again, since it’s not clear what he’s talking about, I’ll respond to just parts of it.
“If you have been to writing courses ask for your money back”.
What qualifies you to make that judgement, SG? FYI, I had to take English for Science Majors as an undergrad because they were worried we couldn’t communicate with non-science types (I married an English teacher, though). I spent my entire working career in academia, where the written and spoken words are king. Our merit pay teacher evaluation system was based on sitting in classes and observing EVERY word and action and writing it down. Written evaluations often made the difference between a teacher getting a 10% raise (or not). Our observation and writing skills were put to a severe test because of the $$$$ involved. One principal I worked with (a former English teacher (and former English Subject Supervisor, if you know what that is) thought so much of my writing skills that she asked me to help other administrators with their writing and proofread their stuff (and HERS).
Tell us what writing courses you’ve taken and how much and what type of writing you’ve done on the job. Justify your opinion.
Dunning-Kruger please identify where I have over-estimated my expertise i.e put up ot shut up
What qualified me to make that judgment?
The quality of your writing, your dependence upon multiple logical fallacies, your incomprehension of what constitutes a logical fallacy and, not least, your ridiculous habit of using insults and belittling those you happen not to agree with.
To be honest I think you are lying about your background
SG wants to dispute that he is a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger Effect, yet he keeps babbling on about logic when he has NO understanding of the topic, a classic illustration of the concept.
He says he thinks he is “qualified to make that judgment” and yet again backs up his bald assertion (half-assed opinion) with nothing but his own half-assed and unsupported opinions—the bald assertion is one of the most childish of logical fallacies. Say it and keep saying it and it becomes true! WRONG!
He has therefore dragged us into another of the logical fallacies—-the circular argument—-which is just chasing one’s own tail. It’s time to end this stupidity—go ahead and have the last (stupid) word, SG, and then put on your Demented Rooster suit and strut about the barnyard crowing about your imagined victory. Don’t fall in any abandoned mine shafts.
“To be honest I think you are lying about your background”, says SG. That is SO clueless it requires one last comment.
It’s yet another statement of half-assed opinion—a bald assertion (in addition to showing how impotent SG feels). HONEST? The only thing “honest” about SG is his magnificent display of D-K. He THINKS? Since SG has shown that his “thinking skills” are quite limited, we’ll have to surmise that it’s his reptilian brain speaking out of emotion here—deep down he knows that he has had the s**t kicked out of him and can’t handle it—-poor baby—so he whines. LYING? The ultimate defense against a lie is the truth—show us where I’ve lied. My BACKGROUND? It is what it is, nothing particularly out of the ordinary among educated Americans, but it makes me INFINITELY more qualified than SG to comment about almost anything under the sun. SG has NEVER told us about his background beyond that he is an atheist that can’t prove God doesn’t exist, that he likes to harass good Christian ladies, and that he lives in a fantasy world called steam punk. Too bad he didn’t tell us some lies about HIS background so that we could stack them up against MY lies and see who was more believable.
Sorry extended an hominem & poisoning the well fallacies do not make you right. You have made claims about your background but the claim cannot be the evidence for the claim.
Instead we look at your actual abilities and your failure to comprehend what you are doing. Your repeated misrepresentations, non sequiturs, moving goalposts and straw man attacks are signs of someone who has never comprehended rational argument and is only interested in attacking those he perceives, somehow, as opposing him.
Your normal response to this would be to accuse me (without evidence) of incoherence or to denigrate a hobby or to denigrate my atheist activism
You are a joke, there are people who are apologists for nuclear power who occasionally make valid points: you are not one of them.
Sorry, my comment was meant to go with SG’s 11:51 comment, not this one. Much of what I said there pertains here as well, especially re: SG’s misuse of cherrypicking and ad hominem.
And now SG is a legal expert? Talking to us about LIBEL? LMAO! How many times have you been to court, SG?
And babbling about “Tactics practiced by the puritanical and the foolish”? WTF does that mean and what does it have to do with ANYTHING?
Regarding his logic expertise, he is once again guilty of the BALD ASSERTION, saying “It seems that, as these are all you have, you know you have lost the argument”, although the AWK and incoherence of the “you” references makes his meaning not totally clear.
And this “pitiful little ignoramus” (is THAT an ad hominem?) is not surprised that people of all ages participate in steam punk—people of all ages participate in MANY foolish and useless activities that are just self-indulgence and really don’t matter. Standing on street corners preaching about atheism and bothering good Christian women is another, and that’s not an ad homimen either.
No, I’m a human who pays attention to the laws and definitions of slander and libel. Your attack me implying an unhealthy interest in underage women is as fine an exemplar of slander as I have ever seen. Your rhetorical tactics are those practiced by the (sexually) puritanical and the foolish. The meaning was clear from context.
You have not offered any reasons or defenses of your attacks on myself or Sir Charles therefore I am justified in seeing the source of your mallice an inability to otherwise defend your arguments.
No, it is not an ad hominem to describe your ignorance of a minor counter culture as pitiful as you have displayed precisely that.
Another example of your senseledd putitanism is describing activities you seem not to understand as “foolish and useless”.
I don’t bother “good Christian women,” If you had bothered to read the post you would see it was the “good” Christian woman bothering me.
I learnt that slander is spoken and libel is written.
Ad a barrister friend of mine characterised it “Libel is legible slander is said”
Yes, that’s a mnemonic for remembering the difference for those who need such help. I have discussed the slander/libel concept with the lawyers who are among my friends and neighbors, along with the ones in my family (which group includes one judge). It’s always good to listen to people with expertise and incorporate what they say into your data base.
Please identify any way in which your implication regarding myself and underage women was not slander
Your attacks of Sir Charles verge on slander
I think the lawyers amongst your friends and neighbours are as mythical as the writing course
Oh, following on from that and still no example of how I have misused the term “ad hominem” in respect of your arguments
There is so much gibberish and incoherence in this comment that it’s hard to reply.
SG is being emotional and lashing out irrationally–he simply CANNOT abide someone pointing out his inadequacies. I will address only some of his crap here—the part that I can clearly identify. It is simply untrue that SG “pays attention to the laws and definitions of slander and libel”—-if he did, he wouldn’t be going on so and making such outright STUPID (and incoherent) comments as this:
“Your attack me implying an unhealthy interest in underage women is as fine an exemplar of slander as I have ever seen. Your rhetorical tactics are those practiced by the (sexually) puritanical and the foolish. The meaning was clear from context”.
Where in the words “attracted to weird young chicks” is there ANY implication of an “unhealthy interest in underage women”? The “chicks” in the video all look to be well beyond the age of consent in the UK, and the “unhealthy” is a value judgement that springs from YOUR subconscious, not from my words. BTW, have you forgotten what your barrister friend told you—we’re talking about written defamation here—that’s libel, not slander—-how can we talk about it if you can’t keep it straight?
SG also needs to get hi nose out of the MW and look at the conteporary usage of worlds—-tha languge lives in the NOW, not in the fantasy world of the past. I.E.,
chick (n.) informal terms for a (young) woman. Synonyms: wench. miss. doll. missy. young lady. girl. skirt. young woman.
chick The nicest way to refer to any female. Used respectfully like this in Australia. A completely non-derrogatory comment, that in general (most chick’s I’ve talked to) is non-offensive to women and better than most alternative’s.
Nothing “underage” at all there.
Here’s a portion of an essay from 10 years ago on ad hominem by GALT, a commenter on a DARPA research site we were both on.
“Calling someone an idiot when you have explained the evidence five times and they still refuse to address it, or provide counterexamples, is not an ad hominem attack, but rather a statement of fact. Similarly, tacking an insult onto the end of any argument might be bad form, but it doesn’t automatically make it an ad hominem. It’s only an ad hominem if you say the other person must be wrong because they are an idiot – not the other way round”.
“A criticism is also not an ad hominem argument if a person’s merits are actually the topic of the argument. For example, “you’re drunk,” might be an ad hominem if used in an argument about epistemology – being impaired might stop you thinking straight, but it doesn’t automatically make you wrong. On the other hand, however, it would be a quite persuasive argument if used to support the proposition that the person shouldn’t drive as it has a direct relationship to the issue at hand.”
BTW, GALT was the first person I knew to use the term WIFI, short for “Willfully Ignorant, Functional Illiterate”. He would have loved to meet SG.
Gibberish = Straw man.
I asked you to identify, in any way, how your charge regarding myself and under age women was not slander. You have not been able to do so despite my request being stated in plain English.
You have still not identified anywhere where I misused the term “ad hominem” instead you have just moved the goalposts and explained instead that you do not think you are not using an ad hominem because it is just an added insult. Unfortunately for you you are attacking the person and not their arguments hence despite your denial you are committing an ad hominem fallacy. If you cannot understand that I suggest you go back to school.
From this it seems you are either a deliberate liar or a very accomplished self deceiver. There may be other possibilities, among them a weak educational background or some cognitive debility, but nothing indicates you hold any understanding of the things you are discussing
Did you not read this? Is it not clear that this makes VERY clear that no slander (really libel) existed? Why can’t you see that?
“Where in the words “attracted to weird young chicks” is there ANY implication of an “unhealthy interest in underage women”? The “chicks” in the video all look to be well beyond the age of consent in the UK, and the “unhealthy” is a value judgement that springs from YOUR subconscious, not from my words. BTW, have you forgotten what your barrister friend told you—we’re talking about written defamation here—that’s libel, not slander—-how can we talk about it if you can’t keep it straight?
“SG also needs to get hi nose out of the MW and look at the conteporary usage of worlds—-tha languge lives in the NOW, not in the fantasy world of the past. I.E.,
c”hick (n.) informal terms for a (young) woman. Synonyms: wench. miss. doll. missy. young lady. girl. skirt. young woman.
chick The nicest way to refer to any female. Used respectfully like this in Australia. A completely non-derrogatory comment, that in general (most chick’s I’ve talked to) is non-offensive to women and better than most alternative’s.
“Nothing “underage” at all there”.
Yep, you got that right. And SG thinks that anything written on this or other blogs can be libelous. LMAO!
That’s just another example of his ignorance—he is no lawyer, obviously. I need to take my daily “old guy” nap now—-I’ll be back later to comment on SG’s other foolishness.
ROTFLMAO! Chucky is paddling around in the roiling cesspool of SG’s stupidity, trying to keep his head above water and attempting to use as “cover” for the strategic withdrawal Chucky should have made LONG ago. And “hitting back harshly” is priceless also, considering that Chucky was hanging on the ropes and near death until SG took the cover off his cesspool and invited Chucky to jump in—LOL.
I wish Chucky luck in succeeding at his efforts to “ignore”. For my part, I will continue to talk climate change science with him as long as he doesn’t post irrelevancies that make him look like a Russian Troll and refrains from posting the SAME graphs and articles time after time. Otherwise, I will be forced to go into “sheepdog” mode again and drive him away (WOOF!).
Straw man, poisoning the well and ad hominem – ROTFLMAO! Chucky is paddling around in the roiling cesspool of SG’s stupidity,
Straw man, assertion without evidence ad hominem – … trying to keep his head above water and attempting to use as “cover” for the strategic withdrawal Chucky should have made LONG ago. And “hitting back harshly” is priceless also, considering that Chucky was hanging on the ropes and near death until SG took the cover off his cesspool and invited Chucky to jump in—LOL.
A direct lie, you have discussed no science and offered no evidence – For my part, I will continue to talk climate change science
Straw man, pointless capitalisation, ad hominem, poisoning the well – “…as long as he doesn’t post irrelevancies that make him look like a Russian Troll and refrains from posting the SAME graphs and articles time after time. Otherwise, I will be forced to go into “sheepdog” mode again and drive him away (WOOF!).
Most of this has been addressed in other comments. It would take many hours to respond to this incoherent mish-mosh line by line, and I’m not going to waste the time. Other than to say it just reinforces the idea that SG has lost his way (if he ever had a “way”). All he wants to do is fight with me? On a climate change site? What is he trying to prove?
BTW, i just discovered that I forgot to respond to this somewhere.
“Dunning-Kruger please identify where I have over-estimated my expertise i.e put up ot (sic) shut up”
It speaks for itself that he isn’t self-aware enough to know the answer. Let’s see—Law, Logic, climate science, communication skills, word definitions, reading, writing, common sense in general, insulting abilities, and being an atheist all come quickly to mind. Enough?
One very important point about wind (and PV) is the very short lead time required for projects to be completed. In the UK a new wind farm or solar park, with battery or other storage, have lead times to completion and commissioning of just 2 years 3 being more common. Additionally they can (with marginally longer lead times) be sited at sea.
Non-renewable sources have massive lead times of 8-12 years to commissioning, requiring heavy infrastructure for their feedstock. They are only possible at a limited number of sites due to the necessity of supplying cooling waters, being out of the reach of flood waters and storm surges as well and needing geologically stable ground far beyond that required for renewables.
Conventional nuclear power stations in the UK have a lead time that is, at a minimum, 10 years
The fantasy of using unproven designs such as molten salt (thorium) reactors extends such lead times by another 5-10 years due to the need to have prototypes prove themselves.
There is, however an even bigger fantasy, that of the fusion reactor which, as always, is only “20 years away”. Even if this were true (unlikely in my opinion) the shortest time until such a reactor could be commissioned would be 30 years.
The only comment among the many that SG made today that is related to climate change rather than defending his ego and narcissism. And it’s not bad, even though most of us will learn nothing new from it since it’s very basic knowledge.
SG starts to lose it when he inserts “fantasy” into the paragraph on molten salt reactors. They are not a fantasy at all—they have been shown to work, and would be far closer to being “proven” if the anti-nukers hadn’t gotten in the way.
SG also misuses the word “fantasy” when taking about fusion. Fusion is NOT a fantasy—-the sun that gives the Earth life, the uncounted numbers of stars, and the existence of H-bombs are PROOF that fusion works, and it is NOT a fantasy to think that just perhaps-maybe-possibly some day we WILL harness a known physical concept tthat can save the planet
And of course, SG spouts off about “his opinion” (Dunning-Kruger sufferers are quite find of their “opinions”) and says that “30 is more likely than 20”—LMAO again!—-where did he pull THAT number from?
Sorry to pick at you a bit, SG—as I said, you DID try—maybe some day you’ll get it totally right. And remember, I’m here to help you—“once a teacher, always a teacher” etc.
What’s your contribution to climate change here, except your narcissistic and meaningless rant?
How about my comments about molten salt reactors and fusion in this very comment? They are statements of FACT meant to counter SG’s ignorant OPINIONS on those things, and are therefore “contributions” to Crockers’ understanding of climate change solutions. What “contribution” does this snark of yours make to ANYTHING?
I’m counting 50 posts of you in the last 48 hours. None of them is climate related.
Count again, Chucky—there have been several, including some to YOU. And may I ask why you are injecting yuourself into this war SG is having with himself? Seems rather foolish for someone who just extracted himself from some embarrassment and said he was going to “ignore” me.
Meanwhile Trump or NoTrump wind turbines are stopping yet more GHG emissions around the world.
With a coastline of more than 3,000 km and located in the monsoonal climate zone, Vietnam has one of the best wind potentials in Southeast Asia region. Turbine delivery is expected to commence around the last quarter of 2019.
https://www.energycentral.com/news/vestas-wins-first-v150-42-mw-order-southeast-asia-project-vietnam
Has anyone noticed the similarity of Trump and Boris Johnson when their hair flies in the wind?
No, but now that you brought it up, I looked at some images of Boris, and when the wind blows, there is some resemblance, especially when Boris was a bit heavier—-then he DID look more like our fat pig of a fake president. (To see images of a “real” president and his hair, google Dwight D. Eisenhower).
I think the difference is that Boris treats his hair as “real” and Trump does not. Boris has a full head of hair, and although he might pay it more attention, it is what it is. Trump has had scalp surgery to move around what little hair he had and now he combs it into a charade of a “manly mane” to shore up his narcissism and HUGE ego. Big difference