ShareThis Page

Sunday pops

| Saturday, Jan. 11, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

The BBC reports that a pair of wind turbines in the English town of Rushcliffe are so inefficacious (from too little wind to too-high maintenance costs) that they'll take four centuries — 405 years — to pay for themselves. That's what's known as “progressive” economics. ... Meanwhile, in Scotland, The Times of London reports that an estimated 5 million trees have been cut down over the past six years to make way for wind turbines. And this is “green” energy? ... Instapundit's Glenn Harlan Reynolds tells National Review Online that the concept of “teenagers” is “mostly a modern social invention” that took “away anything productive for them to do.” Once upon a time, Mr. Reynolds reminds, teenagers actually helped support families economically. “Now they're consumers, not producers.” Let kids be kids, of course, but let's get back to expecting teenagers to be young adults. ... Post-cold wave, it's a good opportunity to remind everyone that Time magazine, in 1974, cited scientists blaming the polar vortex phenomenon on “global cooling.” It's the same Time magazine that's now blaming “global warming” for the same thing. “Honey, throw that magazine on the fire; it's getting cold outside.” ... Ed Driscoll, posting on PJMedia (and who pointed out the above last week), also notes that climate “experts” were advocating many of the same “solutions” for “global cooling” that they now propose to fix “global warming.” How's that work?

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.