First Class Hypocrite

That's your interpretation!

And yet he said elsewhere-

"To erect a large wind turbine on the Broadbury Ridge above the Carey and Wolfe Valleys is industrial vandalism that will diminish the regard with which the countryside is held and make the region vulnerable to urban development and unsustainable farming."
http://stopthesethings.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/james-lovelock.pdf


While he also says-
"If wind energy were the one practical and affordable answer to global heating then I would grit my teeth at the loss of the countryside and accept it."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen.../lovelock-wind

As I said, the definition of hypocrisy has clearly been changed without telling the rest of us.

Those blinded with the "greatness" of their heroes never can.

 

Sorry, was the question too hard? Has he written personal letters to planning boards in other parts of Britain criticising the erection of wind turbines or not? If not, why has he only done so now when one is proposed for his own back yard?

 

Just another example of how clueless we are about consumption. Here in the USA, we have the sun, we have 2 massive oceans as our boarders and wind, yet we burn oil and coal to make electricity ! If I recall, the UK is an island. Tap into the potential of the oceans. Our 2 countries could take the lead in this emerging industry. It won't happen overnight but set a goal for 10% renewable for each decade.

IMO... Nuclear plants are the perfect example of Russian Roulette. If Mr. Lovelock thinks wind turbines will scar the land, wait until a nuclear plant blows up ! Along with the Germans, the Japanese are rejecting the use of nuclear poison. Neither country has a rich supply of natural resources. I hope they revolutionize the industry.

 

I'd like to see more hydro-electric schemes personally, we're not exactly short of mountains or rivers.

 

Not unless he's changed his name to James Lovelock. Any chance you could stop trolling and say something sensible for a change?

 

At last, something sensible.

 

The lengths you'll go to to prove an initial assertion are absolutely fascinating.
Look him up anywhere except that out-of-context single line quote you hang your hat on, and he is opposed to Wind-power, and has been for a while.
QED: Calling him a hypocrite for opposing a wind turbine is incorrect, wrong, innacurate, false, etc. etc.

No hero of mine, but an interesting chap who's pinged the radar from time to time, and I feel accusations of hypocrisy on anyone usually demand a tad more evidence than nit-picking single lines from a lifetime of output.

 

It's oil money.

 

The bottom line with all energy sources is simply... the bottom line. When an alternative energy requires government subsidies, then it isn't worth doing - if it was, it wouldn't require the subsidy. When oil and coal are no longer cost effective (which will happen eventually as supplies fall off), then they will by replaced by the next cheapest alternative. Until then, it's a waste of money.

 

A quote from his own letter is hardly out of context.

And yet you single-handedly launch a fanatical defence of him, proving that greens can't abide criticism. At least we cleared that up

 

Is there no end to this mindless and unquestioning acceptance of the lies printed in the Daily Mail?

I buy the Mail so I suppose I am a hypocrite but so what-everyone is.
I think it is obsessed with Immigrants, Gay issues, welfare payments, attacking Cameron and promoting far right/UKIP type loony views in every opinion piece.
However the news coverage is better than most and provided you use your common sense and ignore the blatant bias it is a 'good' paper.
Oh that others could see past the garbage...........