T1B

I'll see if I can't post some pics and vids tomorrow.

I went thru seriously..80mph winds and insane rain\hail.

never been so intimidated by weather before that's damn sure!

Not a good night to be camping in Noel or Roaring River this evening. In addition to a monster rotating wall that's slowly moving through the area, reports of tennis-ball-sized hail dropping in some areas.

This system should hit Springfield or just south in an hour or so and severely test my beer supply.

Weather guy sounds shocked nothing has touched down yet based on the signature, but I think he's tripping balls.

Nice 1am suit, though. He's got that going for him.

Dinsdale wrote:
Newsflash -- maybe you should have taken something beyond 100-level science.

CO2's bandwidth to absorb solar radiation is saturated at ~300ppm.

I thought this horseshit argument was abandoned long ago.....I guess not

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -argument/

the relevant points

a) You’d still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it’s the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts (b) It’s not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2, (c) Water vapor doesn’t overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there’s little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO2, and (d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models.

now if you have scientific data (and no, wattsup doesn't produce scientific data) that disputes this, then present it.....

hey but we're reaching new heights.....we've achieved a level of 400ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere, something that hasn't been seen in 3 million years......rack us I guess

http://ecowatch.com/2013/carbon-dioxide ... gh-400ppm/

88 wrote:Felix-

I've got a degree in chemistry and probably took more college-level physics classes than you have teeth.

okay

You appear to have a very elementary understanding of the greenhouse gas effect, but completely failed to appreciate that if an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is the driver of climate change, then we should be able to observe temperature increases in the atmosphere where this heat is absorbed. But there is no evidence of it. Read this: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ Try again, please.

so he's run his chart over a 33 year period and that's his proof the atmosphere temperatures haven't been rising.....jezus dude, even the most ardent of anti anthropomorphic climate change people admit the earth is getting warmer.....why don't you look at it over a little longer time span and tell me what you see.....

You also apparently do not understand why hothouse earth would be much, much more desirable to humankind than snowball earth. You mention a sauna. Why not mention a hothouse, which incidentally, is what humans use to raise plants? Plants seem to like warm, most conditions (especially as compared to icy, frozen conditions). Maybe you haven't noticed that plants happen to be the stuff we eat and the stuff that the animals we eat also eat.

and apparently you don't understand how delicately balanced the earths climate is.....

Fifteen years of failed predictions in the near term should call into question projections made by the same people over hundreds and thousands of years in the future. Or am I missing something here?

which failed predictions have climatologists been making over the last fifteen years? you see, what you're not getting here is that climate scientists are simply gathering data and analyzing it in an effort to disseminate whether the burning of fossil fuels is having a marked impact on the climatological balance of the earth.....why do you hate science

CO2 may be an important factor. Or, more likely in my opinion, it might have very little to do with climate change in comparison to other factors.

and your opinion is based on what? research of scientific journals, reading scientific papers on climate change, or do you just have a feeling based on your extensive background in chemistry

Hotter Earth with less oxygen? Dead zone? Got a paper on that? I would like to read it. Seriously.

do you know what the Permian mass extinction is?

Your main source of information is a scientific journalist.

hardly, he's a guy I've corresponded with and he has the ability to explain extremely complex science in plain language, but he's not what I'd call a source.....I read scientific papers produced by climate scientists as my primary source of information.....what's yours

Your climate change scientists cannot identify how much CO2 should be subtracted from the atmosphere to achieve any specific benefit. They simply make guesses about what might happen. And all of their guesses, which culminate in long-term disaster, are shown to be inaccurate in the near term.

they produce models, but these aren't guesses, it's based on their observations and trying to project them into the future....

CO2 might be important to climate.

make up your mind dude, either it's important or it's not.....

But it is likely not particularly important as compared to other things, like solar radiation, ocean temperature oscillations, clouds, etc.

you seem to operate under the impression that CO2 operates as some sort of independent force, instead of in conjunction with ocean temperatures, solar radiation, etc....

If your scientists cannot answer the basic questions (e.g., how much CO2 is required to produce a certain result by a certain date) and back up their assertions with reproducable experiments, then why should we listen to anything they have to say?

I'm not sure what results you're looking for...but anybody that thinks using a 33 year time frame and concluding there is no warming based on that narrow of a window, well I don't know what to tell you

Basic physics tells you that systems that exist for long periods of time tend to be stable.

and apparently 33 years is a long period of time to you

If they were not stable, they would have gone out of balance a long time ago.

like 50 years or so ago? the earths climate has gone out of balance lots of times.....

Read Dr. Spencer's papers on this issue

he's using a 33 year time frame....that's moronic

Because the amount to which humans contribute to climate change cannot presently be measured with any degree of certainty.

how much "certainty" are you looking for?

As humans, we should not destroy our habitat. But we should also not do drastic things for no good reason.

how important do you think the rainforests on the earth are to our climate?

I'm not part of any crowd, I'm not an alarmist and like I said I've got no dog in this fight other than for the sake of future generations...I'll be long gone by the time any of this causes a dramatic effect on the earths climate....

oh and if you'd like to see your main source of information on climate change eviscerated by people that actually know what they're talking about, I'd suggest this

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/0 ... ?mobile=nc

Who is to say what is normal climate in the first place? We have evidence that conditions on earth have changed and long before Homo sapiens existed, let along our technology. We are being a bit big headed to think that we can even regulate or alter climate. The current pop culture about it all is simply driven by politics and anti-capitalist thought. From my perspective, I believe the good old US of A is doing a pretty damn good job of taking care of our part of the planet and its resources.

Stand on their pencil-necks, Felix, and they'll snap like twigs. Of course these wind-up frauds like SS are on auto-pilot--not really thinking or reasoning at all, just activating the appropriate Hannity loop response. They are utterly disgusting cowards and it is perhaps an indulgence at best to slap them around. Good job, though, and well put.

88 wrote:Felix, my friend. Since you have the science all sorted out, please just tell me what should be done, and how we can measure the effectiveness of the actions taken.

the sarcasm is dripping off your post, but to answer your question
without the cooperation of the other countries of the world, there's not a lot to be done......we can try and persuade them to address the issues, but countries like China which burn coal at an alarming rate and India, which is more concerned with their economy are not particularly interested in what we have to say about it.....

we could try and persuade countries to quit destroying rainforests, but they're not going to listen to us.....nope, it won't become a problem til it comes up and kicks them in the testicles, and by then it will be too late....

so, in reality, there's not much we can do unless we can get the other large consuming nations on board.....I don't hold out much hope on that front.....

The "science" the Cult embraces:




Because if observed data doesn't jibe with your theory, just go back and change the data to make it fit.

88 wrote: 1. What to do (you ducked that by saying not everyone in the sandbox will play nice).

I don't know....I know that I personally have tried to reduce my carbon footprint, but if you're talking in the larger scale of things my suggestions would be to spend money in the development of alternate energy sources, like wind and solar power, hydrogen collected from renewable sources, invest in further refinement of biofuels, further develop natural gas as an alternate fuel source, and development of nuclear power plants...there are drawbacks to all of them, but just not as many as continuing down the path we're on......

If we take the Draconian actions that you want to impose on the entire planet's inhabitants, how can we measure scientifically the effectiveness of the actions once implemented. What is the test that validates the action or proves that it is the giant pile of hooey I believe it likely is?

who's talking about taking draconian actions to force anybody to do anything? why is it that people like you insist I want to take away your Lincoln Navigator, Cadillac Escalade, or your Ford Expedition.....if you own any of these or any other fuel sucking pigs, fucking knock yourself out.....with gas at around 4 bucks a gallon and the above noted cars getting an average of 13 to 14 miles per gallon, I'd think the cost of fuel alone would make people think twice, but whatever....

cooperative effort is what I was talking about, not .45 caliber diplomacy.....

Dinsdale wrote:The "science" the Cult embraces:




Because if observed data doesn't jibe with your theory, just go back and change the data to make it fit.

can you provide me the data behind "Steven Goddard's" graph there? don't bother looking, because he won't provide it.....he just publishes shit, says he got it from scientists, then refuses to provide the data sources.....

nobody even knows if the guy is real or just a pseudonym for one of the other deniers

I call scientists that present alternative theories with data, skeptics
I call people like Steven Goddard a denier and pretty much of an idiot....

and would this be the same guy that proclaimed that at the winters peak, the extent (not volume) of Arctic Sea Ice was almost normal, and a few months later witnessed the fastest melt on record to a new low in volume and extent?

look if you want to hook your wagon to his horses, good luck...

Sure, we know what to do, just what needs to be done in saving the planet. It starts with educating the folks who stand in the way of taking action. And that's weird frauds like you who clamp to childish (i.e., religious) notions of humanity's limits in very directly affecting the planet's ecosystem. You are a product of the long-term Koch brothers strategy of pouring money into fake "institutes" and "scientific bodies"--which dutifully produce the denialist obfuscating gibberish that you roll out in reams. Why you act the quacking puppet so eagerly remains a mystery. Except for the distinct possibility that you are in fact a simplistic right-wing jerk-off with no more basic sense than a seagull with half-order of garlic fries after the game--just stuffing your gullet with no thought beyond the next greasy mouthful.

There is no real question as to the fact of human caused Climate Change or its already measurable dire effects. China, despite burning obscene amounts of coal is in fact leading the way in solar and alternative energy development--spending far more than all other nations combined in these areas. Germany is right behind, having moved decisively away from nuclear power following the Fukashima disaster. What..?..Germany's colossal move in developing every wind, thermal, hydro, and solar angle immediately isn't on your radar? This important news isn't being pounded in your ear by the right-wing hacks who fill your flabby lobes? You didn't know?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:There is no real question as to the fact of human caused Climate Change or its already measurable dire effects.

And those measurable dire effects would be...? A detailed list would be appreciated. TIA.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:China, despite burning obscene amounts of coal is in fact leading the way in solar and alternative energy development--spending far more than all other nations combined in these areas. Germany is right behind, having moved decisively away from nuclear power following the Fukashima disaster..

So?

There's a reason why the Russkies have nuclear-tipped missiles pointed at both Beijing and Berlin, you know... The Krauts and the Chinks haven't the energy resources to sustain themselves, and must look to alternative methods to fuel their respective economies.

We DO, however, as we continue to develop our own solutions. And we do not need to shackle our own economy while we continue to do so. Dick.

88 wrote:So you don't know what to do.

didn't i say what could potentially be pursued

And you still haven't told me how to measure the success or failure of whatever it is that you end up forcing people to do.

I'm not forcing anybody to do anything...

I think we're potentially harming our planet in the future, you think I'm full of shit.....
you seem to be looking for some type of immediate overt proof that steps we might take to eliminate climate change will have tangible results that you can witness....it ain't going to happen boss, you and I will be dust long before any irreparable damage will be evidenced....

or not

fuck, we may get cratered by some rogue asteroid the size of Texas long before any of the things we as a species are doing right now.....lemmee see, an asteroid the size of Texas hitting the earth at cometary velocity....that would pretty much end the debate right there

You apparently do not like the term Draconian. But taking the cheapest, most abundant and proven energy sources away from people in favor of unproven, expensive, and yet-to-be-developed technologies is pretty Draconian, as far as I am concerned.

where have I ever said we need to take anything away from anyone....
where the fuck do you come up with this shit?

88 wrote:
I thought you were the science guy. You don't potentially pursue something if it is necessary. You do it, and then demonstrate with scientifically measured evidence that it is working. Otherwise, you are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, yo.

maybe I should have said MORE avidly pursue alternative energy sources

Please make up your mind, Felix. Either we have to pursue these drastic changes to our energy policies or we face extinction. That is what your science says. You claim the science is settled, so you are no longer able to play the "or not" card. Remember, all that sophomore in HS bullshit earlier in the thread? The "or not" card is my card. And yes, I think you are full of shit and that we will both be dust before any irreparable damages will be evidenced.

again, where have I ever said that unless drastic changes are made, we'll be extinct? why do you keep putting words in my mouth that I've never uttered......and that's not what science says, science doesn't say anything, climate scientists simply make observations and predictions about what might happen if greenhouse gasses continue to escalate.....the only thing I've claimed is that the temperature of the earth is rising and based on the data, it appears that mans burning of fossil fuels may be one of the reasons why.......the only people saying we're going to go extinct are the doom and gloom types.....I'm not one of those

I don't know. Maybe it is that your crowd favors carbon taxes, cap and trade, forced ethanol use, subsidies (i.e. corporate welfare) for technologies that cannot make it in an open market setting, the blocking of Keystone XL, the attack on fracking, the attacks on coal, CAFE standards, that kind of thing. Are you disavowing all of that?

once again, I'm not part of any "crowd"......I've stated repeatedly that carbon taxes and cap and trade are stupid ideas designed to make people boatloads of money......the whole proposal is a scam......

why do we need Keystone, we are already exporting 15 million barrels of gas per month.....and they've already shown that fracking has leeched into the drinking water and it's been demonstrated the carbon footprint of shale gas is 20 times that of coal, which is in itself a very nasty source of fuel.....coal fired plants don't want to spend the money on scrubbers, which could eliminate a lot of the carbon output but are costly and cut into the bottom line......CAFE standards, I think they're unreasonable......attainable, but not in the time frame they've given the auto industry.....

so I get that you don't think there's a problem and that's fine, we just agree to disagree......

SS, you're floating like a turd in a cesspool. How do you look in the mirror?

Papa Willie wrote:Once again, Al Gore was worth $800k in 2000, and is now a billionaire. Please try to make some sense of that. It's really easy.

Just.
Fucking.
Stop.

You troll that fucking tidbit everytime a GW topic comes up and it's false. Yeah, he's still rich as shit and made almost all of it after the elections, but you're supposed smoking gun has not been remotely accurate at any point in the lifetime of that windbag douche.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-0 ... efeat.html

That's your smoking gun that he is a billionare? Articles from three and a half years ago saying he could become one if several dominoes fall into place and one from this year saying he is on his way?



I'm not debating that he's made a fortune on snake oil. I'm saying that you read a blog years ago on what could happen and you lap it up like it's fact. Not saying your point is without merit, but base it somewhere near the realm of truth. It still holds water if you do.

Wille, that load of graphs and "studies" by paid hacks is all moot. There is no disputing that alternative energy sources are absolutely necessary as soon as possible. The Chinese know it, and so do the Germans and Japanese. The only reason you're in some fretful state of denial is ....? well, what's your excuse? Are you religious? Are you a paid shill? Just a scared moron?

As for Al Gore, just because he's made money doesn't mean he's a crook. Similarly the Solyndra "scandal" in fact contained no malfeasance or corruption at all--and none was even suggested--though of course right-wing hacks like Hannity were quick to falsely imply both corruption and that Solydra's products were somehow fake. In fact Solydra's ideas and innovations weer brilliant, though the business model was undercut by unfortunate market conditions.

You and your Tea Bagging denialist cads are the ones who should be ashamed.

I'd like to be a paid shill. Sounds like a sweet gig. How are the bennies?

felix,

The chinks are heavy into solar for one reason. They are getting rich selling it to us. If we didn't have bazillions of subsidized tax dollars to throw at it, they would drop it like a hot potatoe.

I don't have a problem with alternative energy. Just don't do it with dollars we are borrowing from our grandkids.

That's a bizarre rationale up and down. China is manufacturing and using the solar technology. As for pursuing it as a valuable national asset, of course the government should take the lead in research and utilizing all sorts of alternative energy sources. If you're concerned about wasted government spending, why aren't you focused on the largest waste, that of military spending? How about bridges and roads? Should we similarly not invest our massive national resources--i., e., the tax base of the world's largest economy--in infrastructure? Or are you just lazily riding the Tea Bagger shuttle?

"Of course massive tax cuts for the corporations aren't adding to the deficit? Huh?

Papa Willie wrote:Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

yes, they're all in it for the money........

Spray,
How many fucking times are you going to scream READ THE GRAPHS to me without reading or absorbing what I'm telling you? If you did you would see I've been agreeing with your point that the tool has gotten rich by trying to save the world from itself. Filthy rich. Could buy more meth than IRIE LAGOS could smoke or snort rich. You won't find me disagreeing with that or how he came into such good fortune.

You keep screaming AW MAH GAWD HEZ A BILLON AIR over and over again when it is categorically not true. Like I said, your point that the climate change agenda makes him one rich and disingenuous windbag always had merit, but your hyperbole keeps you from being taken seriously. Please refrain from calling me a sheep.

Lets put it this way, you may be right but you go out of your way to make yourself wrong.

Please mix in some critical thinking at least once in your life before your impending cholesterol overdose.

Papa Willie wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Wille, that load of graphs and "studies" by paid hacks is all moot. There is no disputing that alternative energy sources are absolutely necessary as soon as possible. The Chinese know it, and so do the Germans and Japanese. The only reason you're in some fretful state of denial is ....? well, what's your excuse? Are you religious? Are you a paid shill? Just a scared moron?

As for Al Gore, just because he's made money doesn't mean he's a crook. Similarly the Solyndra "scandal" in fact contained no malfeasance or corruption at all--and none was even suggested--though of course right-wing hacks like Hannity were quick to falsely imply both corruption and that Solydra's products were somehow fake. In fact Solydra's ideas and innovations weer brilliant, though the business model was undercut by unfortunate market conditions.

You and your Tea Bagging denialist cads are the ones who should be ashamed.

Aren't you the one who casually sucketh the cock of "9/11 is an inside job"? This isn't about Democrats or Republicans, dumbass. They're all doin it!

Bullshit, willers, the GOP is far more resistant to any sort of any sort of environmental policies and efforts to avoid the disaster of climate change. It's in some sort of paralyzed denial based on a blind opposition to anything that isn't a gun or weapons system for sale. As for the obviousness of 9/11 being an inside job, I'd like to see you attempt to actually defend any part of the official story. All you've got is childish babble.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: There is no disputing that alternative energy sources are absolutely necessary as soon as possible. The Chinese know it, and so do the Germans and Japanese.

You're lost, you clueless, burning piece of fuck. The Chinks, Krauts, and Japs are developing alternative energy sources because they have no choice. Meanwhile, America sits on energy resources that will fuel our economy for hundreds of years while we develop alternatives. Step in front of a bus, you ignorant pile of shit.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Bullshit, willers, the GOP is far more resistant to any sort of any sort of environmental policies and efforts to avoid the disaster of climate change.

Of course they are. Your "science" is patent horseshit. Thank God somebody has sense enough to cockblock you fucking freaks.

So, both Trupid and Willie have absolutely nothing except for childish taunts. No surprise. You're not the only one who can't defend any part of the 9/11 official story. And you can't. And similarly, like the other short-sighted right-wing punks, you can't actually discuss or examine any part of the environmental problems facing the world today. You're both curled into what is in effect an intellectual fetal position. For example, look at Trupid's idiotic assertion that Germany and Japan are moving away (as fast as possible) from nuclear power because...they lack oil reserves? Is this supposed to be an adult offering this nonsense?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:For example, look at Trupid's idiotic assertion that Germany and Japan are moving away (as fast as possible) from nuclear power because...they lack oil reserves? Is this supposed to be an adult offering this nonsense?

Well, there's a start. At least your retardation is consistent.

No, dumbass, the Japs and Krauts are developing alternative energy sources because they lack oil reserves AND they have no lebensraum to spare towards the storage of their spent fuel rods - though the cavernous confines of your Board-ripped ass and the airship-sized vacuum of your skull might just be enough to coax them into buying a decade-or-so of storage before they roll out their windmills. Oh, and the technology has been known to have its hazards. Or were you too busy shitting on police cars at an Occupy Wall Street protest to notice the tsunami that hit Japan a couple of years ago?

I noticed you dropped the Chinks from your argument... Could it be the Reds are more consumed with damming every river, stream, oxbow, canal, creek, and trickle that flows across their land in a vain hope to meet their growing energy needs? Knowing your political proclivity, you should be apoplectic. Just think of all the snail-darters they're probably killing...

You're squirming like a worm--like Hannity. Of course the tsunami caused both Japan and Germany to immediately move away from nuclear power. And why not us? Why is it that every other nation acknowledges Climate Change except for the GOP of our corporate congress? Your "science"-based denialism is nothing more than Koch brothers-funded fake "institutes"--and this is easily demonstrated. You're pathetic--and you too are entirely unable to offer anything to support any part of the 9/11 commission official story. What a joke.

Much of the rest of the country doesn't give a fuck about so cal either, but when the next earthquake hits we will donate to the Red Cross, offer up prayers, and send help. It's what we as Americans do.

smackaholic wrote:felix,

The chinks are heavy into solar for one reason. They are getting rich selling it to us.

maybe you'd better check your facts....in 2011, firms based in the United States sold roughly $3.7 billion worth of goods and services related to solar photovoltaic production, while Chinese companies exported $2.8 billion worth of similar products to the United States.....on a net basis, the United States had a $913 million surplus in sales related to the solar sector.....so, the Chinese are investing into solar.....

China is pursuing wind generation and hydroelectric production with a vengeance.....In 2010, China became the largest wind energy provider worldwide, with the installed wind power capacity reaching almost 42 GW, and when that reading was made, roughly 25% of their wind generation capacity wasn't even on line....the development of wind energy in China is unparalleled in the world....by 2020, China intends to produce 100 GW of wind power.....

China is the largest energy producer of alternative fuel sources by far.....so who do you suppose is getting rich off this in China? try and fuck the Chinese government, and they'll take you out and blow your fucking brains out......so what is it the Chinese know, that we don't?

Felix wrote:...so who do you suppose is getting rich off this in China?

Neo-communist oligarchs?

Oh, by the way, 42 gigawatts is a fart in a tornado. 80% of their electricity comes from coal, dipshit.

mvscal wrote:

Oh, by the way, 42 gigawatts is a fart in a tornado. 80% of their electricity comes from coal, dipshit.

that's not the point asshole......they're power generation from wind was virtually non-existant prior to 2004

here's how it's increased since 2005, with 2005 as the first year represented


Production (GWh) [16] 1,927 3,675 5,425 12,425 25,000 44,622 73,200

so what's the average per annum increase depicted by these numbers?

I'll save you the trouble, it demonstrates an average per annum increase of 68.14%

it took the US 19 years to achieve the same amount that it took China 7 years to produce....

they're pursuing hydro and nuclear with just as much resolve.....

Looks like round 46 with tornadoes tonight...

shit looks like its gonna get real around 3am here in Okarche!

I explained everything on page 2.

It's yet to be disputed.

Of course, my sources are peer-reviewed... so, there is that.



Game over.

M2 wrote:I explained everything on page 2.

Oh, I'm sorry. I don't believe anyone was paying attention. Well...do carry on and thanks again for your 'contribution.'

Punch and cookies in the lobby.

mvscal wrote:

M2 wrote:I explained everything on page 2.

I don't believe anyone was paying attention.

I concur.


Carry on... with how life and the democrats have fucked your life over.


I personally, enjoy taking responsibility for my life and don't blame a party or a person for my well being.


But, carry on pancho.

Papa Willie wrote:
I went and looked at your graphs and laughed my balls off. They go back a "staggering" 263 years. Your graphs are null & void compared to the graphs I provided. Why wouldn't you want to include graphs that include millions or even billions of years?

Because I'm not a dipshit ...


You still haven't figured this thing out... have you , shit for brains ?


I must admit, your stupidity is amusing.

mvscal wrote:80% of their electricity comes from coal, dipshit.

yeah, apparently Beijing is noticing some problems with coal fired power generation.....

88 wrote:Is there someone in the US telling you that you cannot build a wind farm, Felix?

the regulatory obstacles of wind farm development in the US are significant.....I'm guessing not so much in China.....

88 wrote:What regulatory obstacles exist in the US? If you own some land and want to put up a wind farm so you can supply some dopes who are willing to pay you to deliver intermittent and unreliable power, what is stopping you?

it starts with local government and goes up from there......city or county approval is necessary, then it's on to state permitting authorities which could include agricultural, conservation, environmental protection agencies, state historic preservation offices, and public utility commissions....from there, it's on to the feds....depending on where you want to develop the wind farm, you need to start with Fish and Wildlife, if there's any streams or wetlands areas, it's on to the Army Corp of Engineers where you need to secure their permission.....wading through the Army Corp is like trying to find your way through a maze that has no exit.....then NPDES permitting....if the turbines are over 200 feet in height, you need FAA approval......it's a pretty complex process for getting approval......

you can't just throw up some wind turbines and call it good.....

Don't forget Congress 88.

Teddy Kennedy is the perfect example of those guys true colors. "Oil companies and Big Oil are bad. WE need more renewable energy sources. Just don't put it anywhere around my property or state."