The last few days have been really interesting in terms of trying to understand the psyche of many of the ‘antis’ who post on this site. Given that almost all the ‘Landscape Guardians’ sites are defunct, and there is probably only one active LG site where debate is allowed/ going on, lots of them gravitate to ours, and then get obsessed with trying to convince us of the error of our thinking.
Its intriguing to watch how these antis engage in the debate. To take one example, a person has been making significant claims of late, like the suggestion that the 2 turbines at Leonards Hill has (already) ‘knocked down’ land prices in the area. Yet when repeatedly asked for some info to back this claim up, he wriggles away, simply unable to respond directly. This type of grand claim/ no substance approach is repeated over and over, and can be infuriating if you’re trying to have serious conversations about wind energy.
Ben recently reminded me of this great quote from Mark Diesendorf, Deputy Director of the Institute of Environmental Studies, University of NSW in the paper “The Base Load Fallacy and other Fallacies disseminated by Renewable Energy Deniers”. You can find the relevant section of his paper here.
It’s like he wrote this piece after watching ‘debate’ on this site. Sadly it is a common occurrence in the renewables conversation:
“Unlike genuine skeptics, deniers are not open to rational argument. They repeat claims that have previously been refuted, time and time again, by renewable energy scientists and engineers, as if repetition of a false statement somehow makes it true. They look for molehills in renewable energy systems and blow them up to mountains.
If they cannot refute a particular observation by rational argument, they try to cast doubt on the result by introducing irrelevant material that obfuscates the issue. They insinuate arguments rather than state them clearly and unambiguously. Then, when questioned incisively about their insinuations, they back off and shift ground.”
If you follow back some of the comments in the ‘soapbox‘ section, this is exactly the pattern that has been going on.