As explained on our New Members page, we are really fighting a Public Relations (PR) issue. In addition to understanding and utilizing good communication techniques to win these fights, we need to be fully aware of when and how they are being used against us.
Proponents of unscientific energy policies have utilized a variety of PR techniques to deceive the public (and their representatives). At first glance most of these seem to make some sense — but that’s the basis of any con! We need to be able to see through clever deceptions and get to realities. [“By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail” ― Benjamin Franklin.] Here are just a few PR sleights-of-hand that you will likely come across…
Advocating that wind energy should be “Part of the Mix”…
Of course, when proponents are asked exactly WHY it should be, they don’t have any real answers. They just have some instinctive feeling that “variety is good,” or that “doing something is better than doing nothing.” Not necessarily! Here’s an analogy:
Let’s say that a college student comes into the doctor’s office complaining of miscellaneous health problems. The doctor asks about his diet. The student says it’s primarily McDonald’s hamburgers, Kentucky Fried Chicken dinners, and Dominos’ pizzas. The doctor says that the student needs more variety in his diet.
The student goes back to campus, and adds Twinkies to his fast-food dinners, saying that’s what the doctor ordered. That’s about how much sense adding industrial wind turbines to our grid system makes.
Indeed our energy source diet could be better! But making an improvement means: 1) really replacing some of the less desirable stuff, and 2) substituting something that is genuinely better.
Adding a source that has trivial value, and numerous liabilities, is not any type of legitimate solution. We’d categorize such proposals as Twinkie thinking.
Advocating an “All of the Above” energy policy…
The problem with this slogan is that it bypasses the scientific assessment that we should be advocating as the basis for our energy choices. The only energy sources we should be allowing on the grid are those that are: technically sound (e.g. reliable), economical, and environmentally friendly.
An “All of the Above” policy makes no such distinctions, as when we include ALL options, that would mean:
How do we advance our economy and our society by allowing unreliable, expensive, and environmentally ruinous power sources on the grid?
Who really benefits from an “All of the Above” policy? Well it certainly is not taxpayers, ratepayers, or the environment. The primary beneficiaries are foreign conglomerates who supply us with energy sources that are unreliable, expensive and environmentally devastating — plus China who we will owe an even larger debt to! All of the Sensible is the obvious answer.
Advocating that “The Playing Field Needs to be Leveled”…
Once legislators have grasped the merits of the All of the Sensible concept, the foolishness of the “leveling the playing field” idea also becomes apparent. Exactly why should the playing field be leveled between good and bad products? The fact that anyone is even considering such an adjustment, shows the level of absurditey that is rampant today.
Another perspective is also pertinent here. Exactly why should the playing field be leveled between different types of products? For example, should the 18-wheeler trucks and golf cart playing field be leveled?
A good start for responding to any of these types of propaganda is to begin by asking “why“? Then pay close attention to the answer, as it will rarely make any real sense. [See this study.] This list of Twenty Things identifies several other popular misdirections employed by wind promoters — and the facts. Be prepared.
See info about this and other billboards on our Billboards page.