Blatant Hypocricy of the Greens

[wirebender]

Poor loki, such self delusion. Your original argument was"

"This isn't about hypocrisy in a wind vs fossil debate ... it's really about how dumb birds are, and the fact that you can't slow something down enough so these stupid birds will stop hitting them."

You have been proven dishonest in your characterization of the speed of wind turbines and nothing you have said since has altered that dishonesty. You claimed that they were going so slow that it must be the stupidity of birds that was causing their deaths. Mathematics proves you wrong and your continued attempt to justify your oriiginal statement only serves to prove your dishonesty.

Sorry guy. I have said nothing that has been proven wrong while you have yet to say anything that has been proven right.

 

[LOki]

Haven't you seen the PSA describing what happens to your brains when they're on drugs?

Stop huffing the glue, son.

The actual fact of the matter--that you surely discovered while you were out disingenuously cherry-picking the support for your fatuous point--is that stationary objects kill more birds than wind turbine rotors do.

And when I say wind turbine rotors, I actually mean the blades that are really part of the rotor which you dishonestly refuse to acknowledge.

This is also true for the your bullshit about the math proving me wrong ... it doesn't, and your refusal to accept this patently obvious truth is just another example of your denial of reality.

You see retard, what you claim your math "proves" is that a 150' long rotor blade turning a 15 rpm is harder to see than a 10' rotor blade turning at 15 rpm. It's just not true. And you know it.

And with the exceptions of your calculation for the tip speed of a 300' rotor, and the reporting of your cherry-picked bird mortality data from a 5 year old story, literally EVERYTHING you've posted is wrong and have been proven wrong--including your knowledge of what constitutes a wind turbine rotor, and not the least of which are your accusations regarding my knowledge of wind turbines.

 

[Old Rocks]

One can depend on ol' Bent for misinformation and lies.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sat and looked at over a 1000 of the big turbines from one veiwpoint south of Wasco, and they are still putting them up. Really good paying jobs, also.

PayScale - Wind Turbine Technician Wages, Hourly Wage Rate

Lovely machines to watch, just lazily churning out power. No dirt put into the air, no holes in the ground, no polluted rivers, or lead, mercury, and arsenic put into the bodies of our children. And they are getting cheaper, while dirty poisonous coal is getting more expensive.

 

[wirebender]

Sat and looked at over a 1000 of the big turbines from one veiwpoint south of Wasco, and they are still putting them up. Really good paying jobs, also.

PayScale - Wind Turbine Technician Wages, Hourly Wage Rate

Lovely machines to watch, just lazily churning out power. No dirt put into the air, no holes in the ground, no polluted rivers, or lead, mercury, and arsenic put into the bodies of our children. And they are getting cheaper, while dirty poisonous coal is getting more expensive.

And the dead eagles, hawks, condors, and vultures, not to mention the miagratory birds and bats don't bother you in the least. Lovely.

 

[wirebender]

And when I say wind turbine rotors, I actually mean the blades that are really part of the rotor which you dishonestly refuse to acknowledge.]/quote]

Actually loki, the blade has several parts, but the rotor isn't one of them.

This is also true for the your bullshit about the math proving me wrong ... it doesn't, and your refusal to accept this patently obvious truth is just another example of your denial of reality.

Really? Care to point out any mathematical error on my part? I didn't think so.

You see retard, what you claim your math "proves" is that a 150' long rotor blade turning a 15 rpm is harder to see than a 10' rotor blade turning at 15 rpm. It's just not true. And you know it.

Really? Using the formula v=2(PI)r/t we see that the blade tip of the 150' blade is travelling at 166.6 miles per hour while the blade tip of the 10' blade is travelling at 15.7 miles per hour. Are you making the claim that an object moving in excess of 160 miles per hour is as easy to see as an object moving at less than 20 miles per hour? Again, you prove unquestionably that you don't know jack about wind turbines.

Explain how that might be loki. Explain the physics and the optics and lets see your math.

 

[LOki]

And when I say wind turbine rotors, I actually mean the blades that are really part of the rotor which you dishonestly refuse to acknowledge.

Actually loki, the blade has several parts, but the rotor isn't one of them.

Explain that to a turbine engineer.

You see, retard--and this has been explained and proven to you with pictures, no less--the ROTOR, i.e. the part that rotates, has several parts: the blades are part of the rotor.

Rotor:
The blades and the hub together are called the rotor.

Your persistent denial of this patently verifiable fact is evidence that you are an intellectually dishonest retard of the very first order.

This is also true for the your bullshit about the math proving me wrong ... it doesn't, and your refusal to accept this patently obvious truth is just another example of your denial of reality.

Really? Care to point out any mathematical error on my part? I didn't think so.

I'm not disputing your math. Your math is correct. It just does not demonstrate that the larger a rotor gets, the more difficult it becomes to see it.

Your dishonest insistence that it does is just more evidence that you're an intellectually dishonest retard.

You see retard, what you claim your math "proves" is that a 150' long rotor blade turning a 15 rpm is harder to see than a 10' rotor blade turning at 15 rpm. It's just not true. And you know it.

Really? Using the formula v=2(PI)r/t we see that the blade tip of the 150' blade is travelling at 166.6 miles per hour while the blade tip of the 10' blade is travelling at 15.7 miles per hour. Are you making the claim that an object moving in excess of 160 miles per hour is as easy to see as an object moving at less than 20 miles per hour? Again, you prove unquestionably that you don't know jack about wind turbines.

Actually, you are just providing additional evidence that you're a retard.

The rotor is spinning, it is not moving anywhere, there is no net change of position, the rotor has zero velocity. If the objects in question are the same size retard, then you might have a point--depending upon the size of the objects. You see retard, a 20' rotor with a tip speed of 160 mph is likely to be invisible, but that's because of the rate of rotation, not the tip speed.

You are insisting that a 300' rotor spinning at 15 rpm is harder to see than a 20' rotor spinning at 15 rpm. It's just not true. And you know it--proving you're an intellectually dishonest retard.

A baseball, orbiting the earth at 2277 mph would be very difficult to see, I'll grant you that; but that speed doesn't render the ******* moon invisible--no matter how you do the math to figure it's speed. What you are literally demanding--like a retard--is that (spinning at 15 rpm) a 300' rotor is harder to see than a 20' rotor, BECAUSE IT IS BIGGER. It's an idiot's claim, and you're the idiot making the claim.

Explain how that might be loki. Explain the physics and the optics and lets see your math.

All you have to do is look at a 300' rotor spinning at 15 rpm--just ******* look at one--and you'll discover that only a complete and dishonest denial of reality could lead you to conclude that your ridiculous math "proof" renders that turbine rotor invisible. Proving all the more conclusively that you're an intellectually dishonest retard.

 

[IanC]

birds in nature get no practice dodging objects going 100+ mph. it only makes it worse that most of the blade is moving slower.

 

[LOki]

birds in nature get no practice dodging objects going 100+ mph. it only makes it worse that most of the blade is moving slower.

Do birds in nature get any practice dodging stationary objects? Because collisions with stationary objects kill more birds that collisions with turbine blades.

 

[TakePart]

This is an interesting discussions but I was wondering what exactly everyone thinks is the hypocrisy? What evidence/proof do you guys have to back your claims? I am very curious about this.

--TakePart

 

[westwall]

Yeah. You keep saying this for some reason. As if I am disputing the tip speed. Why don't you show us all you can figure it again, as if doing so will prove that you can't see 150' a turbine blade tip that is on a rotor spinning at 15 rpm.

The fact that you are being so deceptive says a great deal about you.

I am not being deceptive. I have committed no deception.

The tips are moving fast, the rotor is spinning slowly. 15 rpm IS spinning slowly; the fact that you refuse to acknowledge this obvious point of reality suggests you are obstinately retarded.

I am not being deceptive. You're just being retarded.

Only the tips are going that fast, retard. Why don't you calculate the blade speed 10' feet from the hub? Still going 160 mph? 15 rpm is pretty leisurely ... it's one revolution every 4 seconds.

Have you ever seen 160 miles per hour up close? Of course not.

Again, you literally have no idea what you're talking about.

So we have established that you are dishonest and a marxist. What else does anyone need to know?

No such thing has been established. You have just established that you're a retard. A retard in denial of reality; and a retard that flings baseless accusations at his intellectual superiors to console his retarded self esteem.

You're username is Loki, the Norse God of mischief, lies, and trickery, you expect us to believe you?