Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/...wind-turbines/
Quick summary: Germany is about to clear cut 120,000 trees in a 1000 year old growth forest in order to provide space for a huge wind turbine installation-- all in the name of saving the environment.
You would think that in the "Green Living" forum posters would seek sources that aren't ideologically biased against alternative energy and environmentalism in general. But no!
Try this one: "..Paschold, who is from the area himself, has built wind farms in Canada, France and other parts of Germany. Now he plans to build 18 wind turbines here in the Reinhardswald. Overall, the forest is 20,000 hectares, but Paschold only wants to use 14 hectares where drought and a beetle infestation have killed the trees for his turbines..."
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/...wind-turbines/
Quick summary: Germany is about to clear cut 120,000 trees in a 1000 year old growth forest in order to provide space for a huge wind turbine installation-- all in the name of saving the environment.
You would think that in the "Green Living" forum posters would seek sources that aren't ideologically biased against alternative energy and environmentalism in general. But no!
Try this one: "..Paschold, who is from the area himself, has built wind farms in Canada, France and other parts of Germany. Now he plans to build 18 wind turbines here in the Reinhardswald. Overall, the forest is 20,000 hectares, but Paschold only wants to use 14 hectares where drought and a beetle infestation have killed the trees for his turbines..."
Well. The North Slope Reserve is 23 MILLION acres and the govt here has blocked developments that require less than 2 acres.....What,s the difference? Oil wells take out less habitat and don,t kill birds, insects or bats.
What many naive supporters of woke environmentalism don,t understand is that for the most part most such efforts ARE simply efforts to satisfy political and economic agenda. Cf- the sue & settle motif, or the mere 4%of revenues that are actually spent by most environmental charities/organizations on their stated goals.
BTW- that source you decry is not biased. Articles and responses are written by scientists who have collected data, analysed it critically and drawn valid, defensible conclusions....as opposed to The Greenies who form an opinion based on fantasy and then try to find sources of misinformation to support their unobtainable dreams and agenda.
The site most certainly is biased. It’s one of the most prominent climate change denying sites on the internet.
And your quick summary was either grossly inaccurate or duplicitous. The developer would only be cutting dead trees, their demise possibly the result of the climate change “Watts Up” denies.
The site most certainly is biased. It’s one of the most prominent climate change denying sites on the internet.
And your quick summary was either grossly inaccurate or duplicitous. The developer would only be cutting dead trees, their demise possibly the result of the climate change “Watts Up” denies.
You are confusing "biased" with valid, evidence based conclusions.
That site does not "deny" CO2 induced GW. They put it into mathematically correct perspective, and given the benefits of higher CO2 levels and a warmer planet, there's no reason to limit CO2 production.....Beyond that, they give sound engineering & economic perspective to the impossibility of achieving the Golden Fleece (with emphasis on the fleece part) of Net Zero.
Those of us with a sound background in the sciences see the validity of their arguments and thru the pseudoscience of the political set.
The site most certainly is biased. It’s one of the most prominent climate change denying sites on the internet.
And your quick summary was either grossly inaccurate or duplicitous. The developer would only be cutting dead trees, their demise possibly the result of the climate change “Watts Up” denies.
You are confusing "biased" with valid, evidence based conclusions.
That site does not "deny" CO2 induced GW. They put it into mathematically correct perspective, and given the benefits of higher CO2 levels and a warmer planet, there's no reason to limit CO2 production.....Beyond that, they give sound engineering & economic perspective to the impossibility of achieving the Golden Fleece (with emphasis on the fleece part) of Net Zero.
Those of us with a sound background in the sciences see the validity of their arguments (or have come to the same conclusions by our own analyses) and thru the pseudoscience of the political set.
Saw an old George Carlin on youtube the other day called "Saving The Planet".
A must watch for even for environmentalists. You might just get a laugh
Cutting the dead tree is worse than cutting a healthy one. At least you can use the wood.
Not so. Wood always has a variety of uses regardless of if it comes from a dead tree that was cut down after it died or if it comes from a healthy tree that was cut down before it died. They just have different uses to be put to in accordance with whatever the condition of the wood is at the time it is cut down.
.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
