Billionaires fund attacks on climate science

[logicalview]

Let's not get too focused on the wind thing, that's really not why I posted this thread. There are a lot of good arguments on both sides but I don't think this is the place for those.

No problem ST. The only reason I posted wind farm stuff was because you did. I would wager that it would be extremely difficult to form even one good argument in favour of wind farms, without relying on gross misrepresentation. I realize it is difficult to accept that what you've been fed about wind farms was a massive pack of lies, but that's the way it is. It is unfortunate that it is virtually impossible to debate the viability or necessity of wind farms as emotions get involved and of course the usual comments about "right wing" and Big Oil etc come out, as well as comments about "credibility", instead of just looking at basic facts. But of course, if the basic facts had ben looked at, no wind farms would ever get built. Nonetheless, I'll respect your request, and after this commentary from Delingpole and the highly respected Matt Ridley, I'll find other areas to post about.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation has produced yet another devastating report: this time on the economics of wind farms. Turns out they're even worse than we thought.Not only do the Bat Chomping Eco-Crucifixes (TM) ruin views, kill birds, cause bats to implode, destroy the British film industry, frighten horses, enrich rent-seeking toffs like David Cameron's father-in-law Sir Reginald Sheffield Bt, drive up electricity bills, kill jobs, create fuel poverty, cause old people to die of hypothermia, wipe out property values, drive people mad with strobing and noise pollution and enable smug liberal idiots to spout rubbish like "Oh, I don't mind them. Actually I think they're rather beautiful", but also  by 2020 they're set to drive up consumer bills in the UK alone by £120 billion.This is about ten times more than it would cost if we stuck to gas. (Which we have in abundance, just waiting to be exploited, in places like the Bowland Shale).In the latest Spectator, Matt Ridley delivers the coup-de-grace. Here's a taste:

To the nearest whole number, the percentage of the world's energy that comes from wind turbines today is: zero. Despite the regressive subsidy (pushing pensioners into fuel poverty while improving the wine cellars of grand estates), despite tearing rural communities apart, killing jobs, despoiling views, erecting pylons, felling forests, killing bats and eagles, causing industrial accidents, clogging motorways, polluting lakes in Inner Mongolia with the toxic and radioactive tailings from refining neodymium, a ton of which is in the average turbine — despite all this, the total energy generated each day by wind has yet to reach half a per cent worldwide.If wind power was going to work, it would have done so by now. The people of Britain see this quite clearly, though politicians are often wilfully deaf. The good news though is that if you look closely, you can see David Cameron's government coming to its senses about the whole fiasco. The biggest investors in offshore wind — Mitsubishi, Gamesa and Siemens — are starting to worry that the government's heart is not in wind energy any more. Vestas, which has plans for a factory in Kent, wants reassurance from the Prime Minister that there is the political will to put up turbines before it builds its factory.

Some readers may occasionally detect in my coverage of wind farms a mild hint of contempt for those involved in the wind farm industry whether as lawyers (that means you Mrs Nick Clegg), paid propagandists/disrupters (see commenters, below), rent-seekers (yep, Sir Reginald) or corporatist blood-suckers feeding off the backs of innocent taxpayers.One thing is certain: the arguments against wind farms are so abundant and well-known that ignorance is no longer a plausible excuse. If you're involved in the wind farm industry, you're a weapons-grade tosser, simple as that.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... e-thought/

[tcha]

Science changes it's beliefs all the time. After all the World used to be flat, they changed their mind on that one, and the Sun used to rotate around the Earth too.

Science does not have beliefs...
Science deals in facts. Theorems that are proposed after sufficient evidence is found to support them. Science is open to change if other evidence is found.

If you like facts you may find that the people proposing the myths e.g. sun revolves around all-important-us for after all we're God's creation. were actually people who subscribed to religious beliefs.
They tortured scientists who dared to suggest otherwise.

[Glacier]

If you like facts you may find that the people proposing the myths e.g. sun revolves around all-important-us for after all we're God's creation. were actually people who subscribed to religious beliefs.

And if you like facts you may find that the people proposing the idea that the earth revolves around the sun also subscribed to religious beliefs.

Just sayin'