Attack the messenger? A better quesation is who is the Center for Media and Democracy, Inc............... http://www.groupsnoop.org/Center+for+Media+and+Democracy Center for Media and Democracy Introduction The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is a liberal watchdog group. It exists to investigate and malign conservative leaders, groups, and media. The Center for Media and Democracy spins the truth about conservatives and libertarians to push media and public opinion to the left. The Center for Media and Democracy often presents Americas right wing as engaging in grand conspiracies. The Center for Media and Democracy is funded by far-left ideologues including George Soros and the Ford Foundation - - - Updated - - - Sourcewatch is a leftist rag that is funded by Soros. http://www.groupsnoop.org/Center+for+Media+and+Democracy
Other power plans cause global climate change. These power plants cause a minor change in wind pattern in an extremely localized area. I don't think there is any comparison here.
Which has nothing to do with what I wrote. I do not read and never referenced Sourcewatch. Heartland is a propaganda operation, not a research operation. No honest research operation runs billboards comparing "opponents" to the Unabomber. NIPCC is headed by Fred Singer. On the plus side, he has actual credentials. But he's a quack (or a shill; not sure). Besides global warming, he thinks there's no danger in second-hand smoke, and that CFCs do not damage the ozone layer. Both positions, like his opposition to global warming, require ignoring huge amounts of scientific data and real-world experience. The NIPCC report is garbage. It's intent it is to be a "rebuttal" to the IPCC, not to be an even-handed survey of the science. The people involved in writing it are paid, unlike the IPCC, which is a volunteer effort. The NIPCC report ignores most of the actual climate science and focuses instead on any sort of contrarian result -- as if 1% of papers counteract the other 99%. Never mind that those contrarian results are *included* in the IPCC reports. The NIPCC approach is similar to someone who looks at Microsoft and only counts the company's expenditures, and then concludes that Microsoft is a money pit, losing hundreds of billions of dollars a year. It's crap, and anyone citing it has automatically lost the debate.
And you are entitled to your angry bias. I see you've attacked the messenger without scientifically disproving NIPCC's science.
The NIPCC reports are also contradictory. In some places they claim warming isn't happening; in other places they say the warming is due to natural causes. The NIPCC reports like to point to the Medieval Warm Period and claim it was warmer globally then than it is now (a position that isn't supported by the science, BTW). This ignores the fact that IF the MWP was warmer, it means the planet is sensitive to the climate factors that caused the MWP; yet their reports argue elsewhere that the planet isn't sensitive to such climate factors. It's a jumbled mess that only makes sense if you view it as an mud-throwing effort intended to generate as much confusion and doubt as possible. It's not serious science.
I did not just "attack the messenger". I pointed out specific shortcomings of the NIPCC output. If you're interested in being honest, do this: 1. Take the list of peer-reviewed papers cited in the latest NIPCC report. 2. Compare it to the list of peer-reviewed papers cited in the latest IPCC report. 3. Count the number of NIPCC-cited papers that appear in the the IPCC list, and the number of IPCC-cited papers that appear in the NIPCC list. You will see that the IPCC list contains nearly all the NIPCC-cited papers, and the ones NOT cited have usually been discredited. You will also see that the NIPCC cites a small fraction of the IPCC-cited papers. In other words, the NIPCC is cherry-picking its citations -- ignoring a huge amount of the science, and even going so far as to continue citing papers that have been discredited by other research. And THAT -- along with the internal contradictions I mentioned above -- is why the NIPCC is crap.
I said that the studies show varying results--yes, that Nature study showed a warming trend, but another study (in Indiana) mentioned a cooling trend during the day, with a warming at night. The nature study was of Texas windfarms. I don't agree with the fan drying theory, and never found evidence of it (and it makes no sense, as if anything, windmills slow down drying wind) (the actual theory from the nature Study was that the windmills mix up the air, changing the air mass characteristics) . There are too many variables to say that windmills are bad, and the way that they influence local weather is variable, depending on the area in which they are located. The Purdue study suggests that the windmills could reduce frost in crops...... http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=jpur http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=jpur
Please re-read. I said that the cumulative effects on the weather.......especially if wind farming grow significantly----are unpredictable.
We can be as intellectually dishonest as the Right and say, "It's a lot colder today than yesterday, so the climate must be changing." Unfortunately, the Left bears a burden of responsibility. They just tell their fans what they want to hear. Evidence is secondary.
