It’s hardly a new revelation that so-called wind power doesn’t perform well in general and is about worthless when it’s very cold or hot. The only person that doesn’t already know that might be Sense Seeker. I’d be more impressed if the people that promoted this follie were called to task.
Into the future, when the Formerly Great Britain is totally broke and back to the dark ages, these wind thingys will come in handy for milling wheat and corn to make flour.
But but but Progressives are the “smart” people! They looked with their wisdom into the future and saw a green paradise that we knuckle draggers couldn’t comprehend!
The failure of wind farms to function at full tilt during December forced energy suppliers to rely on coal-fired power stations to keep the lights on — meaning more greenhouse gases were produced.
Wow, it is wonderful that Louise teases out the implication of relying on coal-fired power plants. It took me a little thought, but then I got. Using coal fired plants would mean more greenhouse gases. Thanks for journalism that isn’t dumbed down!
Steve,
Have you seen this:
“Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes”
“The anthropogenic wasting of fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere shows no relation with the temperature changes even in an annual basis.”
“Monthly changes have no correspondence as would be expected if the warming was an important absorption-radiation effect of the CO2 increase.”
http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=3447&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=ijg13&utm_campaign=01
http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperDownload.aspx?FileName=IJG20100300002_69193660.pdf&paperID=3447
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/01/new-peer-reviewed-paper-absence-of-correlation-between-temperature-changes-and-co2/
I thought there was a glimmer of doubt in the article, is there to be a Damascene conversion, is the lady for turning?
Indeed, has she started reading, that would be a start, I oft’ recommend WUWT as a good start for novices and ‘luke warmers’ as Anthony calls ’em.
Come on Louise, join the winning team, be on the side of truth and integrity, open your mind.
It’s hardly a new revelation that so-called wind power doesn’t perform well in general and is about worthless when it’s very cold or hot. The only person that doesn’t already know that might be Sense Seeker. I’d be more impressed if the people that promoted this follie were called to task.
Into the future, when the Formerly Great Britain is totally broke and back to the dark ages, these wind thingys will come in handy for milling wheat and corn to make flour.
Ahhhh The Ashes, blowin’ in the wind.
But but but Progressives are the “smart” people! They looked with their wisdom into the future and saw a green paradise that we knuckle draggers couldn’t comprehend!
They can’t be WRONG! How could that happen?
They spilled Split Pea soup on the crystal ball as they were reading it! 😉
The splatter looked kinda like a windmill!
Louise was told. Now she’s going to have some sort of epiphany? I won’t welcome her to reality until I see apologies and contrition.
An obvious case of pushing a new technology that is not anywhere near being ready for prime time.
The failure of wind farms to function at full tilt during December forced energy suppliers to rely on coal-fired power stations to keep the lights on — meaning more greenhouse gases were produced.
Wow, it is wonderful that Louise teases out the implication of relying on coal-fired power plants. It took me a little thought, but then I got. Using coal fired plants would mean more greenhouse gases. Thanks for journalism that isn’t dumbed down!