From: Loran <loran@invalid.net>
Newsgroups: can.politics,alt.global-warming,alt.politics
Subject: Re: Wind Turbine Foundation Failure
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 11:20:52 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Dhu on Gate wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0700, Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2024-05-28 22:24, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>
>>> Netherlands: When conducting a life cycle assessment of a wind turbine, or any other product, researchers
>>> begin by diagramming each stage of its existence, from manufacturing through end-of-life disposal.
>>>
>>> This wind turbine didn't do so well, it didn't freeze up or catch on fire, it blew over... from the wind.
>>>
>>> https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1795322848283885568/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/YRMG79-Fu6CkN_Et.mp4?tag=12
>>>
>>> https://i.imgur.com/ckg40xl.jpeg
>>
>> So just so we're all clear...
>>
>> ...what with the losers trying to deflect...
>>
>> ...the claim that this was a foundation failure was pure bullshit.
>>
>> :-)
>
> Oh? An' yer the EXPURT we're sposed to believe? Tell us about
> your credentials as an Engineer/Physicist or mebbe just provide
> some credible evidence for your claims.
>
> Dhu
>
>
Plus a failure is a failure regardless of where on the tower it occurs.
See: Texas ice storm failures.
This obfuscatory argumentation is the systematic use of attachment
minutiae to deny the severity of the failure.
They can't deny the downed turbines, so they mince words over:
@ How many failed
@ Which components failed
@ What % of the power supply the constitute
...and on and on and on...
Alan took the bolt bait because he was quick to want some easy denial to
harp on.
But he fails to realize that was put in his lap for just that reason
alone - to demonstrate his lack of concern for the overall failures, but
rather his fealty to complete denialism.
As such he has been hook,line, and sinker'd.
A denial bot is more easily dismissed when it's identified with hooked
bait in its mouth.