The Stupid, it Blows

April 5, 2019

Mike Mann in Newsweek:

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.

80 Responses to “The Stupid, it Blows”

  1. Sir Charles Says:

    So true.

    BTW, here a selection of last week’s new climate related research articles:

    => New research, March 25-31, 2019

  2. Sir Charles Says:

    Even when it fails, the Trump administration’s headlong rush to expand fossil fuels can have a chilling effect on human lives. Sabrina Shankman takes us to the North Slope, where Alaska Native villages and subsistence hunters see their way of life under threat as oil and gas drilling encroaches. A judge’s ruling restoring limits on offshore drilling brought some relief, but only on one front.

    Dan Gearino goes inside America’s national labs to explore the impact that the president’s latest attempt to decimate funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency work is having on innovation and U.S. clean energy leadership.

    => InsideClimate News

  3. rabiddoomsayer Says:

    From a country that tells bullied children with access to guns to “Man up and do something about it” what more can you expect?

    • Sir Charles Says:

      This year $700bn are announced. That includes a $160 billion boost in defense spending over two years. More than $2,000 per capita.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Defense spending is totally irrelevant in the context of this post, Chucky. Are you up to your anti-American bullshit again? For that matter, what is RDS’s point in posting what he did? Guns and children?

        WHEN are you going to answer the question I’ve asked you MANY times?. Tell us what you think is GOOD about America.

        • rabiddoomsayer Says:

          Defense spending is relevant, the argument is always we can’t afford green initiatives, can’t afford healthcare, or pay rises, or education.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            I wonder what countries are threatening the US that you need to spend more than $2,100 per capita per year. I believe it’s just paranoia of the folks who are most obsessed with weapons?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            We can’t afford those things not because defense spending is too high, which it admittedly is, but because we don’t tax the rich and corporations enough.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            It’s not or either. It’s both.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Sorry, Chucky, but the present state of the world leaves us little choice but to spend significant money on defense, if not quite as much as we now do. The tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations were “optional”, meaning that they were not made because of any need, but to get those folks on Trump’s side (money is thicker than blood or patriotism). They will be paid for by cutting funds to almost every branch of the government besides defense, including Social Security, Medicare, and other programs that benefit the 99%.

            BTW, it would be expected that a Russian Troll would advocate for a weaker America, defense-wise. After all, Putin’s new cold war may heat up some day, and it would be to his advantage if we were weakened.

            PS Are you sure your bosses at the Troll Factory would approve of your new “push”, Chucky? It seems like you’re overdoing it a bit lately.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            You’re just confirming that you folks are absolute paranoid. See Projection and the graph I posted above. No more to say, dumb old guy.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            No more to say? Typical Chucky. Throw out your bullshit and refuse to talk about it when taken to task.

  4. cannot reblog without commenting.

    Solar And Wind Energy Cheaper Than Oil, Gas, Nuclear And Coal; Solar Plus Wind Energy Disrupting Fossil Fuel And Nuclear Energy Monopolies, World Can Be Nuclear And Carbon Free By 2050, Be Part Of The Energy Revolution

    • Sir Charles Says:

      Building new nuclear is a long road. We don’t have the time for that 20th century technology which leaves another toxic legacy for hundreds of thousands of years. Money is better being invested in renewable energy.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Chucky has now posted this graph umpteen times. One might ask why, especially since it is such “old news”. Could it be that he is attempting to “brainwash” people by constant repetition of a graph that is really meaningless but seems to push RE?

        The only graphs that matter are those that show fossil fuel use is UP, WAY up, GHG emissions are increasing, RE is still a very small portion of the mix, and the burning of my favorite monster under the bed, COAL, is NOT declining. Chucky the brainwasher says “We don’t have the time for that 20th century technology…..Money is better being invested in renewable energy”. We don’t have time PERIOD.

        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—-modus operandi is to keep people milling around yammering about RE while you run pipelines under the North Sea to send Russian gas to Germany. That NG being used to replace nuclear power. Isn’t it nice how the puzzle pieces come together sometimes?

    • dumboldguy Says:

      By 2050? That’s 31 years from now. Look at what all the indicators of AGW have done since 31 years ago (since 1988) and project that forward. That’s why so many have set the “point of no return” at ~2030 (or even 2025). If we don’t get moving soon, the Green Road ends in a boiling hot swamp.

  5. jimbills Says:

    Trump’s issues with wind power specifically date back at least to 2006:

    He personally encouraged Nigel Farage to oppose wind power:

    He doesn’t consider coal mining and oil drilling to be a blight on the landscape. But then, he doesn’t tend to buy golf courses right next to them, and if he doesn’t have to look at them, it isn’t important.

    • jimbills Says:

      He also hasn’t considered other things ruining the view of the landscape (first photo):

      And building oil platforms all up and down the U.S. coast is totally fine:

      • Sir Charles Says:

        Not to forget that climate change denier wants to build a sea wall in Ireland to protect his golf course from rising sea levels. Guys like him only care about themselves. They don’t give a sh!t about their fellow citizens, leave alone any other human beings. Well done, USA.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Give it up, Chucky. The Scots have far bigger complaints than the Irish and the offshore drilling problem in the US is BIG. Your whining adds nothing to jimbill’s two excellent posts. (Other than to get noticed and get in yet another anti-American dig, of course).

          And what’s with the “Well done, USA.”? Trump is NOT the USA—he’s just another rich guy taking more than his share—that’s a problem everywhere, isn’t it?

          • Sir Charles Says:

            Wasn’t your Tramp elected by the people of The USA? So you wanna tell us there is no democracy in the USA? I could agree with the latter.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Could Chucky be drinking already? (He’d like us to believe it’s Guinness, but it’s really vodka from you-know-where). I’ll repeat:

            “And what’s with the “Well done, USA.”? Trump is NOT the USA—he’s just another rich guy taking more than his share—that’s a problem everywhere, isn’t it?”

            In his incoherence, Chucky somehow wanders off into Trump being the president rather than a rich guy taking more than his share in Scotland and Ireland, and then babbles about “no democracy in the USA?” Omnologos couldn’t have said it worse/better, so I’ll give Chucky a huge WHAT? in Omno’s memory.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            Well. When the USA consists by the majority of @rseholes like you, dumb old guy, then I proudly admit, yes, I’m anti American.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            That seals it—Chucky IS quite inebriated—or at least enough that his runaway narcissism has driven him to make a truly STUPID comment. He has now stated that the majority of Americans are assholes and that 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.

            Yoo-Hoo, Chucky’s bosses!! Are you watching?—Chucky is really f**king it up—send him home to sober up. Better yet, fire his dumb ass before he screws up your whole operation—you need have the first team on board as you get ready to interfere in our next election, not the JV.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            You’re not even able to grasp the English language, . So why should I bother

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Even though the statement “When the USA consists by the majority of assholes like you, dumb old guy, then I proudly admit, yes, I’m anti American” is 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.

            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.


          • dumboldguy Says:

            Perhaps Cucky’s deepest thought ever on Crock. Seven whole letters, in two monosyllabic words, and THREE periods. It will take some time to plumb the depths of this one, Cucky.

          • Your fallacy is the non sequitur

  6. dumboldguy Says:

    Chucky seems to think posting a pic of some “old guy” is funny. I believe in informing rather than making jokes. FYI, heeeeeere’s Chucky!

    • Every single post of yours has contained an ad homimen attack. We have not used such attacks against you (please look up the difference between an insult, a descriptive and an ad hominem)

      You have zero arguments and zero figures supporting your case. Instead you offer only baseless and incoherent hatred of commentators on this blog. The 2 adjectives are not ad hominem attacks nor is the characterisation of your posts as hatred.

      Baseless = you have no grounds for your hatred

      incoherent = lacking orderly continuity, arrangement or relevance (pace Merriam Webster)

      • dumboldguy Says:

        EVERY single post of mine contains an ad hominem? WRONG!
        WE (do you meant you and Cucky?) Who else?
        I have ZERO arguments and ZERO figures supporting my “case”? WRONG!
        My posts are HATRED? WRONG!

        If anyone here is “incoherent”, it’s YOU, and that is NOT an ad hominem because it’s a statement of FACT.

        BTW, if you ever want to be taken seriously, you need to move beyond using Merriam-Webster, which is more of a high school level dictionary these days. If you did, you would find a much broader definition such as these terms, at least half of which describe your comment perfectly.

        “….of spoken or written language) expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear, confused, muddled, hard to follow, disjointed, disconnected, unconnected, disordered, mixed up, garbled, jumbled, scrambled,
        unable to speak intelligibly.delirious, raving, babbling, hysterical, irrational”

        BTW, I DO hope that some day you will express thanks for my efforts to help you overcome your Dunning-Kruger. I’m trying to HELP you.

        • Caps lock indicates a pointless intent to shout, common in posts by the irrational and the angry. Yet again you have demonstrated both facets of your character. Additionally your reply has been jumbled and fragmented, showing no progression in thought.

          I have pointed precisely to your ad homs in the past and here is another – “Dunning Kruger.” There is zero evidence of that and your use of it demonstrates not only fallacious arguments but also a total misunderstanding of the concept

          You attempt to poison the well (another fallacy) by your characterisation of Merriam Webster as a “high school level dictionary” when it is, in fact the primary reference for the usage of American English words; but you are not interested in reality, only in attempting to score points. You would have found a other reasons to criticise even if I had used the 20 volume OED.

          Please be aware that if you continue to respond in the same manner as you have in the past you will provide yet more evidence of your near derangement.

  7. rabiddoomsayer Says:

    Electric power is spreading, electric boats are not new but here is another one:

    Save the diesel for the farms

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Nice, but if they hit the “goback” button and had the boats pulled by horses walking on the banks (or had horses on treadmills in the boats), they could save ALL the diesel for the farms.

      • Your fallacy is the non sequitur an irrelevant addition to the post with the attempt to belittle a useful example

        This appears to be yet another example of your irrational hatred

        No this is not an ad hominem

        • dumboldguy Says:

          I’m sorry to see that SG is back, and demonstrating to all his inability to make a coherent argument or properly identify logic fails.

          It also appears that HE is the one with an “irrational hatred” for anyone who steps on his toes. If he were not so blinded, he would have seen the word NICE at the beginning of my comment, a sincere compliment to those who are making a small effort to improve the world with electric barges and a thank you to RDS for sharing.

          I also did not “belittle”, but merely pointed out that an “old” way just might be better for the environment than what some might see as the the over-application of a “technological fix”.

          Why don’t you just go away, SG? Go to WUWT where you will be considered a genius rather than keep coming back to Crock and proving yurself a fool?

          • An extended and meaningless ad hominem attack. You suggest you go away and take some lessons from the evangelical Christians who have tried the same sort of tactic.

  8. redskylite Says:

    It must be the record CO2 Atmospheric CO2 concentrations getting to posters minds, all we need now is a dose of textual diarrhea from “A. Thorpe” to make this posting completely unreadable.

    Play some music . . .


  9. Another factor supporting wind is the short lead time required for such projects. In the UK, from initial proposal to coming on stream it is typically 24-36 months including all planning and aviation consultation. Gas plants have lead times of about 5 years but this is hugely site dependent as cooling water and gas supply offer obstacles to such construction.

    Additionally wind benefits from being amenable to construction at sea

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: