Talk:Wind turbine

Free Texas Wind

I am considering removing that paragraph. It's nothing more than a gimmick. How about paying a little bit for daytime electricity and a little bit for nighttime electricity that costs the same as higher priced daytime and free nightime?--Jpatt (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2015 (EST)

I agree with removing that silly section. Texas has much less demands for energy at night, so charging more during the day and less at night is not helpful.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2015 (EST)

Instead of removing factual information, how about inserting references for dubious assertions? Tiered electrical rates have been in use for decades, this is not a gimmick. Encouraging customers to use electricity during the night when demand is lower is not helpful? Care to explain your reasoning? Why criticize something that helps everyone? --RobinBast (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2015 (EST)

I agree with Robin here. It's not a gimmick; it's just the law of supply and demand, which is an important part of the (not-government mandated) free enterprise system. I see prices change under free-market pressures all the time, and not necessarily to my personal convenience. I'd like restaurants to have lower prices when I want to eat there, but often it isn't so.

If the Texas company TXU has lower costs at night for meteorological reasons, it's reasonable, though perhaps not convenient for all customers, for it to charge less. If people can arrange for their heavy consumption to be during off-peak hours like that, everyone wins. SamHB (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2015 (EST)

References

I have tried and failed to find references for some of the dubious assertions in the article. Could someone assist? If quality references can't be found I'll remove anything that can't be verified.--RobinBast (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2015 (EST)

Deleted

This page nolonger contains content on Texas power, congresscritter support and the addition of fact tags. Frankly, there wasn't any educational value in taxpayer subsidized wind company payment plans or in glowing reviews from a Congressman. Feel free to start a page in support of wind turbines. This page will remain a counterpoint to wind energy.--Jpatt (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2015 (EST)

As a conservative, I think factual information is a huge requirement for education. Deleting factual information simply because you disagree with the reality around you is rather disturbing. This is an article about wind turbines, or at least it is titled as such. I’d like to think the pros and cons of alternative energy can be discussed in a single article, such a concept seems to upset your delicate sensibilities. Even though I’m allowed to edit the article mercilessly, I’ll pass. Please feel free to view your world through Jpatt coloured glasses. --RobinBast (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2015 (EST)

Oh Robin, so sensitive. I specialize in fact-free articles, void of reality. LOL, Nice try. Coloured, would that be British Conservative spelling? --Jpatt (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2015 (EST)

Before I left work today, I was playfully mocked by my colleagues. The liberals couldn’t understand why I, a reasonable conservative, was even reading Conservapedia. And the conservatives by asking me why I’m wasting my time with a nonsense blog. I told them I was a sucker for punishment. One of my friends told me about your edit. I was embarrassed, so was she. Why use a reference from a fringe website that is over five years old? Your American Thinker article even mentioned the 14,000 broken turbines myth. Pathetic. I thought references should be of at least minimal quality. Funny how you can notice my occasional UK spelling, I’m well traveled my good sir, but then somehow miss the crappy content of your reference. Please notice I accused you of deleting factual information, not writing fact-free articles. That being said, your ‘facts’ leave a lot to be desired. --RobinBast (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2015 (EST)

I have big doubts about Wind Turbine Syndrome (may partly be nocebo effect which is a reverse placebo effect, etc. etc.), but the subsidization of the wind energy makes me suspect that it is not economically viable.

I realize there are economic impacts of coal (health care cost and low of productivity due to health effects of pollution) and that nuclear power has risks. I suspect the public's fears associated with the various types of energy and people's resistance to change probably is adversely effecting optimal decisions to be made.

Unfortunately, liberal environmentalists are often guilty of needlessly stoking people's fears (global warming alarmism, previous global cooling alarmism, etc. etc.) and conservatives sometimes reflexively resists change (For example, conservatives were laggards at internet fundraising for their political campaigns). Conservative (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2015 (EST)

Well, I created the page Wind turbines, and intended the edit comment to say "following JPatt's suggestion to create another page". Unfortunately, it got chopped off at "following JPatt." I apologize for that. I would never just follow JPatt :-)

I'm not crazy about the solution I chose—having an article with a singular name and another with a plural name. I welcome suggestions for how to do this right. I suspect that "Wind turbine, with material that the admins don't like removed" and "Wind turbine, with material that the admins don't like included" isn't a very good solution. But we do need to have an article in which, among other things, the free market solution that TXU has followed gets mentioned, perhaps with discussion of why that may or may not be a good idea. Similarly for Walmart's action. Which also may or may not be a good idea.

@Robin: Please do not write things that insult admins or anyone else. It's a really effective way to get yourself banned, and you seem like a smart and useful person. Find a constructive way to describe what you are doing, and how you interact with your friends in describing CP. (My interactions are also, ummm, interesting.) If you want to discuss these issues with me further, without the danger of a 90/10 ban, feel free to contact me at sam4557@gmail.com SamHB (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2015 (EST)

I think the two article solution is a bad idea. The uncertain/grey areas which need more research (such as Wind Turbine Syndome) can have pro/con material along with a probabilistic explanation. The current economic viability/subsidization should be cut and dry. Any reasonably expected improvements in the technology which will affect the economics could be researched and written about. In addition, the environmental impact could be mentioned (birds killed vs. less pollutants, etc. etc.). In addition, the politics could be mentioned. Conservative (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2015 (EST)

I agree with you :-) :-) :-) The idea of having two articles, one in the singular and one in the plural, was a really bad idea. But I had to make a quick decision, and came out of my "sabbatical" to do so, because it appeared that, if I didn't do something quickly, material would be deleted, and Robin would get discouraged and would get a completely wrong idea about Conservapedia, and he would leave. A much better solution is to move the uncensored version into essay space. Would you please do that? Essays seem to be a good solution to the problems of content control that keep cropping up. Witness, for example, Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity, which has worked out very well.

@Robin: in the new article, please do not remove those things (e.g. they're an environmental disaster because they kill birds, and here's a picture of it) that you consider alarmist, untrue, outdated, or excessively biased. Just put some kind of "there are those who believe that ...." stuff around it. There is extensive discussion of this point in the Conservapedia Commandments. We should make this essay be a shining example of obeying the commandments.

@Cons: I completely agree with you on renaming the "disturbed character" page. See my voluminous comments in the archived (how convenient!) section of the talk page. My attempts to get the article focused properly fell on completely deaf ears. Perhaps this could also benefit from an essay page, one that does not elevate some 150-year-old dispute with Louis Pasteur to the status of one of the top 3 or 4 historical examples of messed-up thinking.

I'll be back on November 28, unless other emergencies crop up. Now please excuse me wile I use the preview button. OK, looks good. (As good as anything I write, that is. :-) Hitting "save". SamHB (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2015 (EST)

What a bunch of nonsense from Robin (I hope your co-worker isn't reading this). What you claim is a myth story, you side with the liberal pov. Did you even read the entire referenced article or just the date? There are many references available but you seem not to be able to find what you disagree with. Referencing a 5-year old story is the criteria for a bad source? I don't have time for your petty half-truths, enjoy editing while at work.--Jpatt (talk) 09:51, 13 November 2015 (EST)

SamHB, I didn't say the "disturbed character" article should be renamed. I merely posed a question.

Second, the creation vs. evolution and naturalism vs. supernaturalism issues are important issues and deceit and other unreasonable behavior has been exhibited by the naturalism/evolutionism camps. Conservative (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2015 (EST)

Sam, I’m against having two similarly named articles. Facts concerning energy generation are not conservative/liberal; they are facts, plain and simple. It sounds like certain people don’t want this article to be used as an educational resource. I, of course, disagree. If there is to be only one article that must conform to JPatt’s POV, then the external links section needs to be massively increased so students can have access to additional factual information. For example, instead of the article having sections about Grassley, Anschutz and Walmart, links can be provided instead. There is a wealth of information concerning the pros and cons of wind turbines and this is one way of providing students with informative instruction. One last thing, I do not have a history of removing information from CP articles, only adding content and writing constructive criticism of the content I feel is substandard.

JPatt. How to start. I read the entire American Thinker article, how else would I know about the 14,000 abandon turbines myth being stated as fact? And yes, my colleagues are watching this article and the talk page, the only one not amused is our resident birther/truther. I do not edit, half-truths or otherwise, while at work; but I do talk about CP. Wind turbine technology has moved forward by leaps and bounds over the past five years, yet any student reading your article will walk away with the impression this world is crammed with broken-down turbines. What is wrong with students realizing some conservative Republicans support wind power? Such a concept certainly does not jeopardize your world view. Or does it? Oh well, all I can do is tell my colleagues I tried and failed, they will soon forget this matter. --RobinBast (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2015 (EST)

Wind Turbine Syndrome

The Wind Turbine Syndrome paragraph contains a completely false assertion about the reference used to validate wind turbine syndrome. The reference only states the author of the report trained at Johns Hopkins. [1] Nowhere in the reference is it claimed the peer review was done by Johns Hopkins. In fact the book in question was printed by a micro-press. If in fact the contents of this book were actually peer reviewed, then why was it not printed in a peer reviewed publication?--GinnyS (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2017 (EDT)

I'd never heard of this before, so I don't have much knowledge on the subject. What I saw after some quick research was that most mainstream scientists just haven't studied it. Some have, though, and most of those agree that this is nonsense. However, some other still hold that is is verifiably true. I would be interested in reading more on this later, but it sounds like neither side has conceded to the other and both claim the evidence supports their stance. I do know that certain sound waves and patterns can affect the human brain, but I don't know if this specific application of that reality is true. Sometimes, peer reviewers do not review as well as they should, and therefore are not likely to accept anything they believe to be outrageous, even if the evidence supports it. It can therefore be sometimes difficult to get things published in some peer reviewed journals, even if they are true. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but it could be. I'm not ready to discount the possibility that this could be a genuine issue. --David B ^(TALK) 18:19, 23 July 2017 (EDT)