The shred of evidence you have been waiting for is in post #39 of this thread had you actually been looking for it and not relying upon what you have seen as you drove past a windfarm somewhere. It took all of about 20 seconds to google BTW.
No more evidence than you have that man is causing all the global warming that occurs. I simply said.....that it makes sense that anything we do will have some amount of negative consequences. None of it's perfect...and there are trade-offs. If you think pouring money into green energy is the answer to our energy requirements over the next 50 or 60 years, it's just not true. Plus, at least 1/2 of the global warming going on now is due to natural causes. The jet stream.....which as you know is about the earth's spinning....has more to do with our weather and climate changes than man does. But on the question of how much energy wind turbines and solar panels could possibly create even if we went 100% to those green energies.......it would meet just 3.7% of our projected requirement in 2050.” Not to mention be much more costly. Does a scientist with THESE credentials hold any credibility for you??? Or do only Obama's government paid scientist the only ones you'll believe? I think I know the answer. "Tom Tamarkin is the founder & CEO of USCL and EnergyCite®. In the 1970s Tom was an undergraduate student at Northern Arizona University, majoring in physics with a dual minor of chemistry and applied mathematics. Tom is credited with inventing the electrical utility smart grid-Smart Meter in 1991… well before the concept of the smart grid became popular. In 1992, Public Power Magazine published an article which has become the basis for the “smart meter” which is now the cornerstone of the current U.S. Department of Energy utility stimulus grants program with emphasis on energy conservation and awareness." Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1243235/20...inquisitr-special-report/#UgElX2OuIpZhMTOz.99 BTW, he says we use up the fossil fuels within 50 or 60 years.....but says that it's not "green energy" that is the answer......but that the longer term solution is energy produced from controlled fusion. Then he goes on to explain it. And the study says that even if one used all modes of alternative green energy.....On April 9, 2010 our company’s 2050 Projected Alternative Energy Supply & Demand Study was published. The study concluded that: “Using all realistic modes of alternative energy—solar/photovoltaic, hydroelectric, geothermal, tidal, wind, and biomass—alternative energy would provide the energy to meet just 3.7% of our projected requirement in 2050.”
No, you're not missing anything. The article I linked wasn't meant to be the entire or final explanation about wind turbines. I linked it for a different view.....based on what one smart woman believes.....and based on what I see with my own eyes. AND we don't know what the effect would be IF we saw these in huge numbers. Plus, wind and solar cannot replace fossil fuels in meeting our future energy needs. They just can't.
As for the part where someone cites a study where it was found that the air temp. over wind and solar installations was recorded at something like +1.7 deg. F..... Please. Are we expected to believe that this could possibly have any effect on anything? If you want to really scare yourself, drive along a highway that is surrounded by barren land in some places, and by irrigated fields in other places. You'll find that the areas near irrigation are several degrees cooler! OMG!!!! Both solar and wind tech are young. I think it's wise at this time to get the land set aside for them and let the tech develop. If you're interested in this kinda' stuff, and excellent web site to follow is this: http://www.greencarcongress.com It was there where I learned a few years back that there is a German company that only works with wind power that sends compressed air into depleted oil and gas wells. That way, the reserve of compressed air acts as the buffer to continue providing power while the windmills are not producing. Of course, the compressed air is used to power air motors, that turn generators. Solar can be used in the same way.
Our climate depends on wind currents to survive, just as the ocean depends on ocean currents to keep the ocean in proper functioning delivering warm water and salt to the right places. With wind currents these turbines act like giant fans that blow air to the wrong areas of the world and depriving cool moisturizing air to the other parts.
I don't believe wind turbines change the weather and I think they are beautiful. OP needs to come up with some evidence and not just a reference to some woman in an article. If the turbines were killing wind, then less moisture would be leaving the area. They are still in a big drought all over West Texas. Nature is huge. It will take more than a few thousand wind generators to change the weather. That's like saying generators using the waves will destroy the tides.
Thank you- I missed that post of yours- always good to see some shred of evidence a mere 39 posts into the thread. Interesting study- I noticed this quote: However Prof Zhou pointed out the most extreme changes were just at night and the overall changes may be smaller. Also, it is much smaller than the estimated change caused by other factors such as man made global warming.
Cars, trucks, trains and aeroplanes kill a lot of wildlife too and, with the possible exception of trains, also negatively impact the environment in a far more toxic fashion. They are also "ugly and intrusive". Do you want to see them banned? I happen to think wind turbines are lovely things.
There should be an equivalent of Godwin's law when someone inserts Gore into the climate discussion. I propose Topical's law.
I see. So you folks are just maintaining his work for him by mentioning him every third paragraph. I always thought you did this because it was a handy way of avoiding science while making your belief-based non arguments.
LMAO...That's funny. You people don't believe in man-made climate change when it comes to billions of people producing millions of tons of greenhouse gasses, but suddenly a few windmills are enough to cause climate change.
It's funny that the cons suddenly care about a few birds hitting windmills but we have never heard a peep out of them in all the years that oil spills and coal pollution have been killing wildlife, fish and causing health problems in people from all the smog.
Really? Perhaps a reminder of the Montreal Protocol might be in order. This was in response to the effect man was exerting on our fragile ozone layer and was, and continues to be, an effective counter. A serious depletion of protective ozone would lead to exposure to unfiltered uV radiation, an increase in skin cancers, crop depletion and a negative effect on the marine ecosystem's food chain which would ultimately impact all of us. This was no conspiracy; it was real. We caused the change and we had the power-and the will-to do something about it. http://theconversation.com/saving-the-ozone-layer-why-the-montreal-protocol-worked-9249
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/press-releases/ Report Finds Global Warming Causes No Net Harm to Environment or Human Health Independent review of climate science contradicts alarmist views of United Nations report The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) today released Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts. The 1,062-page report contains thousands of citations to peer-reviewed scientific literature and concludes rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels are causing no net harm to the global environment or to human health and often finds the opposite: net benefits to plants, including important food crops, and to animals and human health. Click here to read the full report in digital form (PDF). An 18-page Summary for Policymakers is available here. Print versions of the full report and the summary will be released by NIPCC in Washington, DC the week of April 7. Individual chapters of the full report can be downloaded at the Climate Change Reconsidered Web site. (Look at middle of page and scroll down.) Among the findings in Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts: dotAtmospheric carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a non-toxic, non-irritating, and natural component of the atmosphere. Long-term CO2 enrichment studies confirm the findings of shorter-term experiments, demonstrating numerous growth-enhancing, water-conserving, and stress-alleviating effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on plants growing in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. dotThere is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefitting from rising agricultural productivity around the world, including in parts of Asia and Africa where the need for increased food supplies is most critical. Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels play a key role in the realization of such benefits. dotRising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels do not pose a significant threat to aquatic life. Many aquatic species have shown considerable tolerance to temperatures and CO2 values predicted for the next few centuries, and many have demonstrated a likelihood of positive responses in empirical studies. Any projected adverse impacts of rising temperatures or declining seawater and freshwater pH levels (acidification) will be largely mitigated through phenotypic adaptation or evolution during the many decades to centuries it is expected to take for pH levels to fall. dotA modest warming of the planet will result in a net reduction of human mortality from temperature-related events. More lives are saved by global warming via the amelioration of cold-related deaths than are lost due to excessive heat. Global warming will have a negligible influence on human morbidity and the spread of infectious diseases. NIPCC scientists and experts from Washington, DC-based think tanks will be in Washington the week of April 7 to publicly release the final two volumes of the Climate Change Reconsidered II series: Biological Impacts, which is available online at www.climatechangereconsidered.org, and Human Welfare, Energy, and Policies, which will become available online during the coming week.
Uh huh. And I'm supposed to accept pronouncements from an organisation funded by a right-wing think tank, (Heartland Institute) and corporations with vested interests, and set up by a climate change sceptic as a reliable and impartial source? http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...limate-denier-think-tank-heartland-institute/
And people are supposed to accept crap from a group of pseudo scientists funded by governments with agendas?
Which "pseudo-scientists" are those? Names please. What "agenda" did the conservative government under Ronald Reagan cleave to when it signed up to the Montreal Protocol-another climate change initiative. See, there was I thinking that conservatives, as a matter of principle, were all for denial under any circumstances. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=35639
Sourcewatch? Talk about reliable................ http://www.undueinfluence.com/sourcewatch.htm Ron Arnold's Left Tracking Library SourceWatch and PR Watch projects of Center for Media and Democracy, Inc. Watching SourceWatch: Incorporated by John Stauber on December 30, 1993, SourceWatch's parent - the Center for Media and Democracy, Inc. - made its reputation with rants alleging corporate misdeeds in using public relations to manipulate public opinion. The shrill anti-corporate rhetoric attracted powerful left-wing foundations with similar anti-corporate agendas. Two-dozen foundations then poured millions into into the Center to pay for manipulating public opinion leftward. See the chart below for details. The Center for Media and Democracy has received at least 70 foundation grants totaling at least $2,520,994, which makes its plea, "Your financial support, in any amount, is crucial to the continuation of this collaborative website and our innovate work documenting the people and issues behind the news," sound a little silly, unless they're begging big foundations. Stauber's Center appears to be an employment haven for radicals untroubled by the strings of elite foundation grants, essentially doing on the left what corporations do on the right. SourceWatch never reveals who theyre taking money from or how much they get. They also don't tell you that nearly three-fourths of their annual revenue goes into the pockets of their people - salaries, benefits, and payments. This profile remedies that omission. Center for Media and Democracy (501(c)(3) public charity) 520 UNIVERSITY AVE #227 MADISON , WI 53703 2008 Income: $904,678 2008 Assets: $516,119 Paid $619, 674 for salaries and $105,370 to contractors ($725,044) in 2008 Received at least 70 foundation grants totaling at least $2,520,994 www.prwatch.org Phone: (60-260-9713 Email contact: editor@prwatch.org EIN: 39-1777402 Incorporated December 30, 1993 Exempt since 1994 Self-description: Through its investigative journalism, books, website and public addresses the Center assists citizens, academics and journalists to understand how the modern public relations industry works to manipulate media, public opinion and public policy. The Please contribute to SourceWatch page states: We do not accept grants from for-profit corporations or government agencies. Actual: Works with articles, blog posts, websites and books, to manipulate media, public opinion and public policy leftward with millions from left-wing foundation grants. Run for nearly 15 years by two men, John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, and their shifting staff, the Center's rhetoric is primarily in the alarmist-to-apocalyptic range of the shrillness spectrum. Even the not-so-right-leaning Village Voice said of Rampton and Stauber: "These guys come from the far side of liberal." They also have an odd sense of journalistic ethics: Their website at http://prwatch.org/node/5965 says, "You cannot underestimate the importance of truth-tellers in our society in an age when the truth is swept under the bed, kept in the closet, or recycled to come out as government spin and corporate propaganda. Journalist Bill Moyers, speaking about the importance of the Center for Media and Democracys work at a reception for CMD in April 2005. They swept the truth under the bed that Bill Moyers, as president of the wealthy foundation, the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, had just given CMD $150,000 To fund Source Watch Organization and online collaborative to further media democracy and citizen journalism (actual grant description) And gave them another $100,000 in 2006, total: $250,000, a quarter of a million. So CMD was "keeping in the closet" the truth that Bill Moyers in his role as philanthropist gave them $150,000 so Bill Moyers in his role as journalist could tout a voice for his personal, visceral hatred of corporations. See the profile of Bill Moyers for more examples of his sponsored anti-corporate propaganda. Paying people to generate your applause lines is not something your average journalist does. Ethical or not, "truth-tellers" John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton took the money and furthered "media democracy and citizen journalism," against "government spin and corporate propaganda," sponsored by the dividends from shares of stock in the Schumann portfolio - ExxonMobil, Chevron, Marathon Oil, Royal Dutch Shell A, and Anadarko Petroleum, among many, many other big corporations. See the table below for details. John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton produced six books that clearly spell out just how far left they are from "liberal," which are worth reading just to see how they think. - - - Updated - - - Your link has been trashed as unreliable............. http://www.undueinfluence.com/sourcewatch.htm Ron Arnold's Left Tracking Library SourceWatch and PR Watch projects of Center for Media and Democracy, Inc. Watching SourceWatch: Incorporated by John Stauber on December 30, 1993, SourceWatch's parent - the Center for Media and Democracy, Inc. - made its reputation with rants alleging corporate misdeeds in using public relations to manipulate public opinion. The shrill anti-corporate rhetoric attracted powerful left-wing foundations with similar anti-corporate agendas. Two-dozen foundations then poured millions into into the Center to pay for manipulating public opinion leftward. See the chart below for details. The Center for Media and Democracy has received at least 70 foundation grants totaling at least $2,520,994, which makes its plea, "Your financial support, in any amount, is crucial to the continuation of this collaborative website and our innovate work documenting the people and issues behind the news," sound a little silly, unless they're begging big foundations. Stauber's Center appears to be an employment haven for radicals untroubled by the strings of elite foundation grants, essentially doing on the left what corporations do on the right. SourceWatch never reveals who they’re taking money from or how much they get. They also don't tell you that nearly three-fourths of their annual revenue goes into the pockets of their people - salaries, benefits, and payments. This profile remedies that omission.
Who is Ron Arnold? I also note from a brief appraisal of your link that he is prone to trashing anyone who has an interest in human rights, exposing corporate fraud, the environment and the "far left". In short, a conservative shill.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...ists-slam-and-ridicule-un-ipcc-climate-report Monday, 30 September 2013 12:02 Top Scientists Slam and Ridicule UN IPCC Climate Report Written by Alex Newman Top Scientists Slam and Ridicule UN IPCC Climate Report Moments after the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) released a summary of its latest global-warming report on September 27, top climate scientists and experts were already reading through it and trashing the methods, findings, claims, and more. In fact, based on leaked drafts of the controversial report, critics had been debunking and ridiculing the UN’s climate claims for weeks prior to the official release. Once the summary report was officially released in Stockholm, the deluge of criticism accelerated, with more than a few top scientists calling for the UN IPCC to be disbanded entirely. The latest climate document claimed that despite more than 16 years of essentially no increase in global temperatures in defiance of UN theories and predictions, politically selected IPCC experts were more certain than ever that humans were to blame for global warming — 95 percent sure, to be precise. While it is not entirely clear how the IPCC calculated the “percent” certainty, the claim has confused some of the world’s most respected climate scientists. “How they can justify this is beyond me,” noted Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. “It makes no sense that the IPCC was claiming that its confidence in its forecasts and conclusions has increased,” Dr. Curry was also quoted as saying in news reports. “This is incomprehensible to me; the IPCC projections are overconfident, especially given the report’s admitted areas of doubt. The consensus-seeking process used by the IPCC creates and amplifies biases in the science. It should be abandoned in favor of a more traditional review that presents arguments for and against — which would better support scientific progress, and be more useful for policy makers.”
A source that only looks at contrarian research, unlike the IPCC that looks at everything. Citing Heartland crap is the way deniers admit they have nothing.
