Local Officials: Wind Turbines Enhance Communities, Home Values
May 20, 2019
Or at very least, have no effect.
Big boogeyman for the wind-bagger set.
More on this topic in the vid below, start at 2:33 if pressed.
with Peter Sinclair
Or at very least, have no effect.
Big boogeyman for the wind-bagger set.
More on this topic in the vid below, start at 2:33 if pressed.
"The sharpest climate denier debunker on YouTube."
- TreeHugger
"@PeterWSinclair is a national treasure." - Brad Johnson, Publisher Hill Heat
May 21, 2019 at 10:14 am
Apparently the writer of this piece does not live in California where the leftists in SF, Oakland, Piedmont and etc, fight like mad to make sure no wind turbines are visible on the hills around them and took down several large ones close to their precious multi million dollar mansions.
May 21, 2019 at 10:22 am
No, Terry—you Moran! The “writer” and the people he spoke with all live in MICHIGAN—-that’s what the little “MI” means. And the emphasis was on farm and rural property values in the Midwest, not urbanized CA (CA = California)
Why do you waste our time with the irrelevancy of rich people behaving badly? Oh yes, I forgot, you’re a Moran!
May 21, 2019 at 1:12 pm
I would appreciate a link to these events, please.
May 21, 2019 at 1:27 pm
Ditto—put up or shut up, Terry
May 21, 2019 at 1:53 pm
The original commenter is using confirmation bias in selecting a very spoiled and entitled part of the country to support their overall beliefs, and likely wouldn’t personally support a wind tower in view of their home either (making the leftist dig moot), but I figured this probably was happening in CA, and it is:
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-san-bernardino-solar-farm-ban-climate-change-20190311-story.html
It indicates that they aren’t worried so much about their home values as they are worried about their precious patio views being spoiled. NIMBYism is a real thing and shows an example of how humans are generally screwed up in the head on their priorities.
The editorial also suggests that environmental concern about desert ecosystems is a factor. That could be the case, but the question might be put to them, either: 1) lose the ecosystem anyway due to climate change because not enough people prioritized adaptation, 2) lose power to your home because you preferred to leave the desert ecosystem unaltered, or 3) alter the desert ecosystem slightly to be a part of fighting climate change. Should be an obvious choice there, with the emphasis on ‘should’.
May 21, 2019 at 10:16 am
Nothing but good news here. Yes, it’s too bad we have to resort to wind because we have burned too much fossil fuel, but it is what it is—why don’t the wind-baggers just accept reality and give it up?
Thought a good point was made by the guy who was a hunter talking about how the wild animals and farm animals didn’t seem to be bothered at all by the turbines and walked right under them. (Too bad the dumb animals don’t know they’ere going to get cancer by doing so—-at least according to our HUGELY intelligent president).
May 23, 2019 at 12:55 am
Here’s something for those delicate “NIMBY” objectors to think on, especially those who live in proximity to the deep blue sea.
Climate change has a NIMBY problem. That’s short for “not in my backyard,” and while the threat of a warming world may finally be getting more social and political traction than ever, for most people it’s still something that happens far away, whether it’s at polar ice caps or on distant islands.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90352655/this-ai-shows-what-climate-change-could-do-to-your-house-by-2050
May 23, 2019 at 6:16 am
Wind in Texas may get stronger according to Physics World.
Climate change could boost wind power in Texas
“By 2050 the extra energy in the atmosphere is likely to boost wind-speeds across Texas, according to the team’s climate model simulations, bringing a rise in wind power generation potential of between 1 and 4%.”
https://physicsworld.com/a/climate-change-could-boost-wind-power-in-texas/
May 23, 2019 at 2:14 pm
“Wind in Texas may get stronger according to Physics World.”
Have some tumbleweeds! No really, I insist.

May 24, 2019 at 3:34 am
Why are windmills white? I ask this everywhere. If it is in support of Big Fossils, perhaps we could decorate them with flashing Christmas lights? Windmills should be dark green, on their lower half, going toward dark blue/purple on the upper half/blades. There’s not a single landscape architect worth his salt who would not tell you otherwise. Windmills are white to maximize the Nimby effect, and for no other reason. The English actually did a study, showing that white is the worst color, regarding bird deaths (insects are drawn to white at night, and the birds are drawn to the insects). In that study, a dark purple was found to be the best color to preserve the bird population.
Until someone answers me, I’ll assume windmills are white because Rupert Murdoch ordered it so. Cell towers aren’t white…. ever. They are sandy, in desert landscapes. They are green, among trees. And they are whatever a building is colored, when mounted on that building. Maybe cell towers can be colored whatever they need to be colored, so as not to unnecessarily assault the landscape viewer, because they don’t have a trillion dollar a year industry committed to their removal.
May 24, 2019 at 9:43 am
Why not paint them sky blue as so many water towers that used to be green or white have been painted in recent years—-the tower that sits in the middle of the downtown in Manassas, VA has been painted such a good sky blue that it virtually disappears under most light conditions.