|
First the link:
http://jp.dk/uknews/article2015323.ece
Another link:
Google Docs
Ok so its about the Liberal/conservative think tank CEPOS making a report where the conclusion was that windmills (or was it danish windmills) wont do the job, therefore we should quit investing in windmills.
And why would anyone propose such a stupid thing one may ask.
The answer should be hard to find because it makes no sense, but its not.
The answer is that CEPOS got funded by Institute for Energy Research (IPR)which got their money from the coal and the oil industry. This is fucked!!!
The report got a lot of attention in the US!!
Meanwhile danish scientist took the task to look for miss information in the report made by CEPOS and they deem it ful of mistakes.
So you see this is a big scandale. Windmillgate anyone?
Also dont listen to anyone who are against saving the climate, the chances that they got their money from the oil and coal industry is extremely high.
|
How is it both a liberal AND conservative think tank...
|
i dont know the difference between liberal and conservative sry because in danish its like 2 words for the same thing.
|
On March 20 2010 00:36 exeexe wrote:
i dont know the difference between liberal and conservative sry because in danish its like 2 words for the same thing.
Hahaha
That is so deep
|
you broke the layout. 
And yes. This is sad, but propaganda like this is everywhere. Like literally.
|
Just to remove any misunderstanding, CEPOS is apparently a CONSERVATIVE think-tank.
So title is wrong. I don't get how you confused it. It says conservative think thank outright in the first line of the article you linked.
|
liberal / conservative - who cares, its not the issue here 
|
I care, because I'm liberal, and I certainly don't want to be associated with those dirty conservatives.
<.<
|
On March 20 2010 00:41 love1another wrote:you broke the layout. And yes. This is sad, but propaganda like this is everywhere. Like literally.
I just think more people should be more aware of this because if it was the other way around, scientist making global warming more dangerous than it is, there would be huge headlines everywhere.
|
On March 20 2010 00:45 Conquest101 wrote:
I care, because I'm liberal, and I certainly don't want to be associated with those dirty conservatives.
<.<
i see
|
lol, of course windmills won't do the job and are inefficient on so many levels. And I'm not even from Denmark.
|
On March 20 2010 00:43 exeexe wrote:liberal / conservative - who cares, its not the issue here
plus, im pretty sure that even the most liberal american politicians barely pass for moderate by you guys
the American stereotype owns abroad haha
|
the way america uses 'liberal' is the opposite of how the rest of the world uses it for those of you that are confused
liberal in america means left-wing, liberal in europe means neoliberal as in anti-regulation
|
On March 20 2010 01:58 zeppelin wrote:
the way america uses 'liberal' is the opposite of how the rest of the world uses it for those of you that are confused
liberal in america means left-wing, liberal in europe means neoliberal as in anti-regulation
yeah and US left wing in Europe is really no more than the center lol - just to enhance the confusion even further.
|
On March 20 2010 01:06 ondik wrote:
lol, of course windmills won't do the job and are inefficient on so many levels. And I'm not even from Denmark.
Lol yeah free energy is so inefficient compared to oil and coal. Good thing we have someone not from denmark to clear that up
|
Wind energy is good but also circumstantial. They can very rarely run at full generating capacity, and obviously can be susceptible to weather conditions. Texas recently replaced a huge chunk of their generation (4000MW+) with windmills and then they ran into major shortage problems and price spikes when the wind died down unexpectedly.
|
On March 20 2010 02:03 malathion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2010 01:06 ondik wrote:
lol, of course windmills won't do the job and are inefficient on so many levels. And I'm not even from Denmark. Lol yeah free energy is so inefficient compared to oil and coal. Good thing we have someone not from denmark to clear that up
Good thing you know LCA and got exactly the point i was talking about.
|
On March 20 2010 01:58 zeppelin wrote:
the way america uses 'liberal' is the opposite of how the rest of the world uses it for those of you that are confused
liberal in america means left-wing, liberal in europe means neoliberal as in anti-regulation
I hate this. Wish America would use the same political terminology as the rest of the world.
Mind you, us Canadians are kind of guilty as well thanks to you guys... T_T
|
The term "liberal" is incredibly vague and really doesn't have much left-right connotation in and of itself. Pretty much everyone who believes in the necessity of a constitutionally limited state which exists only to serve its people can be labeled a liberal.
I would say its use has been badly distorted by both communities.
|
Just because funding comes from somewhere that may have a vested interest in a certain outcome does not mean that the research is negatively impacted. The money needs to come from somewhere, and those interested in the figures are more likely to pay for it.
You can't say that just because a study funded by big pharma found that homeopathy is a joke that it's "totally not true" and "zomg hidden agenda", big pharma is interested in health (among other thing$) and will therefore be the ones to pay for it.
Most research funding comes from the government or private companies, but companies aren't going to pay to research shit they don't care about, so it usually comes to the government. But if the government were to fund research about the windmills they support then "totally not true" and "zomg hidden agenda". Sometimes this stuff is legit.
|
Any number of researchers (even one) > Think-tanks
I have to remember where I saw this but the same so-called scientists that advocate that no climate change is occurring ARE THE SAME that alleged smoking didn't cause cancer.
EDIT: Article detailing that the deniers of climate change are using the sames techniques as the tobacco industry:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
But what I have discovered while researching this issue is that the corporate funding of lobby groups denying that manmade climate change is taking place was initiated not by Exxon, or by any other firm directly involved in the fossil fuel industry. It was started by the tobacco company Philip Morris
|
On March 20 2010 04:35 Caos2 wrote:Any number of researchers (even one) > Think-tanks I have to remember where I saw this but the same so-called scientists that advocate that no climate change is occurring ARE THE SAME that alleged smoking didn't cause cancer. EDIT: Article detailing that the deniers of climate change are using the sames techniques as the tobacco industry: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2Show nested quote +
But what I have discovered while researching this issue is that the corporate funding of lobby groups denying that manmade climate change is taking place was initiated not by Exxon, or by any other firm directly involved in the fossil fuel industry. It was started by the tobacco company Philip Morris
You do realize that think tanks are staffed by researchers, right?
|
On March 20 2010 04:35 Caos2 wrote:
I have to remember where I saw this but the same so-called scientists that advocate that no climate change is occurring ARE THE SAME that alleged smoking didn't cause cancer.
Yeah this is no secret. There are countless of videoes on utube mentioning this :D Worth a watch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
