Print

[ducksoup]

John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton of PR Watch argue that the term "junk science" has come to be used to deride scientific findings that stand in the way of short-term corporate profits. In their book Trust Us, We're Experts (2001), they write that industries have launched multi-million-dollar campaigns to position certain theories as "junk science" in the popular mind, often failing to employ the scientific method themselves. For example, the tobacco industry has used the term "junk science" to describe research demonstrating the harmful effects of smoking and second-hand smoke, through the vehicle of various "astroturf groups".

The term "junk science" was popularized by Fox News commentator Steven Milloy, who used it to attack the results of credible scientific research on global warming, ozone depletion, passive smoking and many other topics. The credibility of Milloy's website junkscience.com was questioned by Paul D. Thacker, a writer for The New Republic, in the wake of evidence that Milloy had received funding from Philip Morris, RJR Tobacco, and Exxon Mobil.[10][11][12] Thacker also noted that Milloy was receiving almost $100,000 a year in consulting fees from Philip Morris while he criticized the evidence regarding the hazards of second-hand smoke as "junk science". Following the publication of this article the Cato Institute, which had hosted the junkscience.com site, ceased its association with the site and removed Milloy from its list of adjunct scholars.

Another recipient of corporate funding, from both the tobacco industry and ExxonMobil, has been Fred Singer.[citation needed] His overall position is one of distrust of government regulation, and that market principles and incentives are sufficient to protect the environment and conserve resources. In the 1970s, he downplayed the energy crisis.[citation needed] In several papers in the 1990s and 2000s he questioned the link between UV-B and melanoma rates,[citation needed] and that between CFCs and stratospheric ozone loss.[citation needed] He has questioned the link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer,[citation needed] and has been an outspoken opponent of the mainstream scientific view on climate change. Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway named Singer in their book, Merchants of Doubt, as one of three contrarian physicists—along with Fred Seitz and Bill Nierenberg—who regularly position themselves as skeptics, with their views being given equal time by the media.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science

Those that claim “junk science” are just repeating the lies propagated by big corporations for short term MONEY.  It is just an attempt to get stupid people to believe that the real experts are wrong when they ARE NOT.

Faux news is doing such a bang up job lying to the public isn’t it?

[old salt]

The answer is simple for either side.  For you it is keep your head buried under the sand and repeat the lies of those you idolize.  For others it is to do something... anything other than play pretend nothing is wrong and the problem will just go away on its own. 

The cost is equally easy. Money or human life extinction.  What would you do if you were told you had cancer?  Would you spend all the money you had trying to reverse it, or would you just hoard your cash and die quick?  Please don’t answer that, I am too afraid of the answer.

The answer is simple, but you can't identify the problem.
The cost is easy, but you can't put a number on it.
And you have no solution.

So you've got nothing.

Ahhh, so there it is, you are the expert and only one and your OPINION outweighs  all of those that studied their whole lives and know what they are talking about.  After all they disagree with your view of the sand under the ground so they are ALL wrong.

Those aren't opinions (the fact that we are better guardians than ever before).  What did I write in those 3 sentences that warranted your above reply?  But I'm to believe experts who fudge their data to promote their agenda on my dime?

and you are betting the lives of everyone, and those that would have eventually been born on your under the sand opinion.

I'm not betting on anything.  I'm saying we are doing plenty.  Just not enough to suit you.

Prove it.  Just because you CHOOSE to ignore fact, doesn’t mean it isn’t.

What is it you want me to prove? 

Really? ? ?  That is what your so called NOT JUNK SCIENCE tells you?  That an earthquake can make the planet warmer year after year?  Your non junk science experts tell you that a single solar flare can raise temperatures of the whole planet every year and every next year?  Your not junk science experts tell you that a volcano will raise the temperature of the whole planet every year no matter how cold the volcano is now? 

I don't need science, or junk science to tell me that a natural disaster could change the environment.

 
The right wing noise machine sure is pushing the “junk science” lies well.    Science by consensus... LOL  I guess that is why you float in space instead of stay on the ground.  That damn science of consensus is just junk science and gravity does not exist.  The hilarious thing is the ones claiming junk science use the REAL junk science.  But, if you had an open mind you would see that.  Whatever, you listen to your idols that tell you what to think and don’t you worry any over it.
-------------------------------
Yep, and no matter how good the facts, you still keep your closed mind firmly buried in the sand.

You keep spouting right wing talking points, when it has no bearing on this discussion.   You think i'm using junk science to prove something, when I'm not trying to prove anything.  It's you green freaks that can't prove squat.

You keep mentioning facts that have been dubunked.

Why don't you get your head out of the sand and look over some of the links I had posted.

Again, you can't identify the problem, or the solution, or the cost.

[old salt]

Here you go Duck, try this one:  http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/

I know it's not wikipedia, so your browser may not work.

[jbs49238]

Wow....the ignorance is just astounding.  The science you call "junk science" is anything but that.  There is a direct, and obvious, correlation to increased green house gasses and inscreased temperature change.  That's basic scientific knowledge.  If you want to destroy the world and use up it's finite resources....well I can't say what I want to on that.

Do you realize that the earth is a finite resource?  Do you realize that there's only so much fossil fuel that will go around?  Do you realize that we're destroying our HOME at an insane rate?  That should be enough motivation for you people.  You're taking a dump on your own floors by not recognizing the FACTS that are climate change.  As far as I'm concerned you can crap all over your house, but if I'm living with you, I'm not going to let it happen. 

Your entire post is conjecture.

If their is a direct correlation between the consu,ption of greenhouse gases and the warming of the earth then what caused the spike in the 1400's?  Greenhouse gases?  And that spike was much warmer.

The earth does not have "finite" resources, that is another myth.  We still have no idea of the amount of resources we do have and fossil fuels are a renewable source.  Ever wonder what happens to all that material that decomposes into the ground?  Do we use too much?  Probably and I say lets use other forms of it.  But I will not favor crippling the economy and taxing the middle class into oblivion (because lets face it, that is where EVERY tax increase lands regardless of its intended target) so we can continue to fund the junk science called the end of the earth industry.

And enough with the endless faux news BS rebuttals with no substance.  Very tiresome.

[ducksoup]

The answer is simple, but you can't identify the problem.
The cost is easy, but you can't put a number on it.
And you have no solution.

So you've got nothing.

The problem has ben identified, you just choose to ignore FACT.
The cost is the extinction of the human race.  How much money is that worth?
The solutions are multiple and have been stated by many here.  Again, you CHOOSE to ignore fact.

Those aren't opinions (the fact that we are better guardians than ever before).  What did I write in those 3 sentences that warranted your above reply?  But I'm to believe experts who fudge their data to promote their agenda on my dime?

I say we've been better guardians of the earth than ever before. We're not belching out black smoke like we used to, nor are we dumping into the rivers anymore (or not as much). We recycle. And the preventative maintenance list goes on.

Your OPINION is that we pollute less than horrendously bad as in the past.  Wow, so nice.  Does your OPINION include all of time as well like your historical record high temperature too?

Experts that fudge data?  You mean as claimed by those that got caught fudging the data PURPOSEFULLY to try and claim fact is not fact? 

I'm not betting on anything.  I'm saying we are doing plenty.  Just not enough to suit you.

Oh, but you are.  You are betting that the experts are all wrong and you and the junk science distorters are right.  If you are wrong we all pay with life.  If those that understand science are wrong, we end up with clean cheap energy.

What is it you want me to prove?

We've spent billions and 40+ years trying to justify wind and solar. It's just not there yet (economically practical). When it is, we'll embrace it.

Both parts of your claim.  That 40 years has proven that wind and solar are economically impractical.  From real science please, not the faux news liars.  And then the proof that the right will ever accept it until after it is done and proves correct.

 

I don't need science, or junk science to tell me that a natural disaster could change the environment.

 

Your clam is that those COULD be a reason we are warming, which does admit that we are by the way.  The problem is you use temporary events to try to explain non ending results.  Besides, I have never heard of an earthquake ever raising temperatures even a half degree for even the short time of or after one.

You keep spouting right wing talking points, when it has no bearing on this discussion.   You think i'm using junk science to prove something, when I'm not trying to prove anything.  It's you green freaks that can't prove squat.

It has absolutely everything to do with it.  Big corps and faux news, the right wing echo machine has paid people to make up LIES in an attempt to get stupid people from listening to true experts that have real facts.  You are using “junk science” in a false attempt to claim that real science and real fact are falsities.

You keep mentioning facts that have been dubunked.

  Just because you swallow the lies doesn’t actually debunk anything.  When more than 90% of all of the real experts agree that many things are actual fact, it is pretty good data.  When a big oil company hires stooges to make up lies to supposedly debunk them it is not good science in any way.

Why don't you get your head out of the sand and look over some of the links I had posted.

You really think I am afraid of reading what the oil companies paid to have said?  You think I am afraid to look at what both sides say?  Well, maybe you do, but that is not reality either.

Again, you can't identify the problem, or the solution, or the cost.

If you repeat a lie often enough, some stupid people will swallow it whole.  The problem is identified, even if you refuse to look beyond what faux news tells you.  The solutions have been presented, and still you listen to your right wing handles on what to think and what lies to swallow whole.  The cost is so great that you won’t even admit that it is possible.  Oh, you mean money, well, I guess your corporate people might still be around with all the money and no people to exploit.

[ducksoup]

Here you go Duck, try this one:  http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/

I know it's not wikipedia, so your browser may not work.

Thanks I will read them at another time.  Wen you going to read the real experts so you are balanced?  You quote lies well, but refuse real facts.

[ducksoup]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

The Medieval Warm Epoch was only the northern hemisphere and we passed that warming a long time ago.  But, I am sure that you will call that “junk science” since it is contrary to the faux news spin.

[ducksoup]

Global warming deniers same as those who argue tobacco is good for your health
By Peter Goodman / For the Sun-News
Posted: 07/08/2012 02:28:10 AM MDT

Widespread record high temperatures and record storms suggest a question to ask Steve Pearce or his people:
Does Rep. Pearce recognize yet that our climate is changing in dangerous ways and that our activities at least contribute to this change?
The last time I looked, Pearce called climate change "something that can't be validated." As support for that view, he offered a clown from Canada whom the Calgary Herald accurately described as "a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than a practicing scientist."
Since then, some interesting things have happened.
One was a conference in Santa Fe sponsored by "Global Warming skeptics." Global warming skeptic and prominent scientist Richard Muller reported on a two-year study he'd done that was partially funded by the Charles Koch Foundation, a major funder of global warming deniers and Tea Party groups. (The Koch brothers run a large company that produces sizeable greenhouse gas emissions, and they oppose governmental efforts to limit or regulate those emissions and dent their sizeable fortunes.)
Muller was troubled by "Climategate," the flap over hacked e-mails of British scientists that seemed to cast doubt on their objectivity. Using climate-change-skeptic theories, Muller retraced their measurements to disprove them — but found out their measurements were right. His numbers match those of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.
The skeptics' theories involved claims that weather stations' unreliability and the "heat islands" created by cities were creating an inaccurate appearance of global warming that accurate measurements would disprove. Muller now says that while those were reasonable questions, his figures validate previous figures showing the earth has warmed significantly since the 1950s.
That is, a reputable scientist motivated by his skepticism about climate change, and funded by folks who hoped he'd poke serious holes in the general view, took a hard look and found that the scientific numbers were right.
Of course, scientific consensus can be wrong. Most reputable scientists in 1902 doubted man would ever be able to fly, electric shock therapy is no longer the go-to treatment for emotional problems, and eggs are either terribly dangerous or wonderfully healthy depending on the decade.
Still, there's no apparent reason to suspect the kind of scientific conspiracy some of Mr. Pearce's allies allege. Unlike the days when science said the world was flat, the Catholic Church doesn't have an Inquisition terrorizing scientists who might wish to dissent. Further, although Mr. Pearce's allies like to claim scientists hew to the majority view to get grant money, the real money is on the other side. Pearce backers such as the Koch Brothers will fork over vast sums to anyone who can concoct a remotely viable objection to the scientific consensus that climate change is a serious and imminent problem.
With an impressive array of scientists on one side, along with the U.S. military, and few or no credentialed scientists on the other, one naturally wonders why Mr. Pearce still doubts global warming. Equally naturally, we notice that his position, while unsupported by the evidence to date, is a convenient one for his most powerful financial backers.
Fact is, Representative Pearce is beginning to look like some North Carolina congressman still inshttp://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-opinion/ci_21031263/their-view-global-warming-deniers-same-those-whoisting that tobacco is harmless to smokers.

[ducksoup]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[ducksoup]

The debate is over about whether or not climate change is real. Irrefutable evidence from around the world—including extreme weather events, record temperatures, retreating glaciers and rising sea levels—all point to the fact that climate change is happening now and at rates much faster than previously thought.

The overwhelming majority of scientists who study climate change agree that human activity is responsible for changing the climate. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is one of the largest bodies of international scientists ever assembled to study a scientific issue, involving more than 2,500 scientists from more than 130 countries. The IPCC has concluded that most of the warming observed during the past 50 years is attributable to human activities. Its findings have been publicly endorsed by the national academies of science of all G-8 nations, as well as those of China, India and Brazil.

Who are the climate change deniers?
 Despite the international scientific community's consensus on climate change, a small number of critics continue to deny that climate change exists or that humans are causing it. Widely known as climate change "skeptics" or "deniers", these individuals are generally not climate scientists and do not debate the science with the climate scientists directly—for example, by publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals, or participating in international conferences on climate science. Instead, they focus their attention on the media, the general public and policy-makers with the goal of delaying action on climate change.



Not surprisingly, the deniers have received significant funding from coal and oil companies, including ExxonMobil. They also have well-documented connections with public relations firms that have set up industry-funded lobby groups to, in the words of one leaked memo, "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)."
 
Over the years, the deniers have employed a wide range of arguments against taking action on climate change, some of which contradict each other. For example, they have claimed that:
 • Climate change is not occurring
• The global climate is actually getting colder
• The global climate is getting warmer, but not because of human activities
• The global climate is getting warmer, in part because of human activities, but this will create greater benefits than costs
• The global climate is getting warmer, in part because of human activities, but the impacts are not sufficient to require any policy response

After 15 years of increasingly definitive scientific studies attesting to the reality and significance of global climate change, the deniers' tactics have shifted. Many deniers no longer deny that climate change is happening, but instead argue that the cost of taking action is too high—or even worse, that it is too late to take action. All of these arguments are false and are rejected by the scientific community at large.

To gain an understanding of the level of scientific consensus on climate change, one study examined every article on climate change published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over a 10-year period. Of the 928 articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening and is human-induced.

These findings contrast dramatically with the popular media's reporting on climate change. One study analyzed coverage of climate change in four influential American newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times and Wall Street Journal) over a 14-year period. It found that more than half of the articles discussing climate change gave equal weight to the scientifically discredited views of the deniers.

This discrepancy is largely due to the media's drive for "balance" in reporting. Journalists are trained to identify one position on any issue, and then seek out a conflicting position, providing both sides with roughly equal attention. Unfortunately, this "balance" does not always correspond with the actual prevalence of each view within society, and can result in unintended bias. This has been the case with reporting on climate change, and as a result, many people believe that the reality of climate change is still being debated by scientists when it is not.

While some level of debate is useful when looking at major social problems, society must eventually move on and actually address the issue. To do nothing about the problem of climate change is akin to letting a fire burn down a building because the precise temperature of the flames is unknown, or to not address the problem of smoking because one or two doctors still claim that it does not cause lung cancer. As the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) acknowledges, a lack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for delaying an immediate response that will, at a reasonable cost, prevent dangerous consequences in the climate system.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-change-basics/climate-change-deniers/

[ducksoup]

Willard Anthony Watts[1] (born 1958)[2] is an American meteorologist[3][4] (AMS seal holder, retired),[5][1] president of IntelliWeather Inc.,[6] editor of the blog, Watts Up With That?,[7] and founder of the SurfaceStations.org project that documents the siting of weather stations across the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)

He is funded by the Heartland Institute “an American conservative and libertarian[2] public policy think tank based in Chicago, which advocates free market policies.[3][4][5][6] The Institute is designated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit by the Internal Revenue Service and has a full-time staff of 40, including editors and senior fellows.[7] The Institute was founded in 1984 and conducts research and advocacy work on issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, tobacco policy, hydraulic fracturing[8] global warming, information technology, and free-market environmentalism.
In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks, and to lobby against government public-health reforms.[9][10][11] More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the science of climate change, and was described by the New York Times as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism."[12] The Institute has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics,[13] and has been reported to promote public school curricula challenging the scientific consensus on climate change.[14]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute

Just finding who is backing OS’s website recommendation before I start reading.

[ducksoup]

The first I clicked.


Dr. Curry gets props from the skeptical community because she had the courage to invite Steve McIntyre to give a presentation at Georgia Tech, for which she took criticism. Her letter is insightful and addresses troubling issues. We can all learn something from it. – Anthony
 
An open letter to graduate students and young scientists in fields related to climate research – By Dr. Judith A. Curry, Georgia Tech
 
Based upon feedback that I’ve received from graduate students at Georgia Tech, I suspect that you are confused, troubled, or worried by what you have been reading about ClimateGate and the contents of the hacked CRU emails. After spending considerable time reading the hacked emails and other posts in the blogosphere, I wrote an essay that calls for greater transparency in climate data and other methods used in climate research. The essay is posted over at climateaudit.org (you can read it at http://camirror.wordpress.com/ 2009/ 11/ 22/ curry-on-the-credibility-of-climate-research/ ).
 
What has been noticeably absent so far in the ClimateGate discussion is a public reaffirmation by climate researchers of our basic research values: the rigors of the scientific method (including reproducibility), research integrity and ethics, open minds, and critical thinking. Under no circumstances should we ever sacrifice any of these values; the CRU emails, however, appear to violate them.
 
My motivation for communicating on this issue in the blogosphere comes from emails that I received from Georgia Tech graduate students and alums. As a result of my post on climateaudit, I started receiving emails from graduate students from other universities. I post the content of one of the emails here, without reference to the student’s name or institution:
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hi Dr. Curry,
 
I am a young climate researcher (just received my master’s degree from xxx University) and have been very troubled by the emails that were released from CRU. I just want to applaud and support your response on climateaudit.org [95% of it ]. Your statement represents exactly how I have felt as I slowly enter this community. The content of some of the emails literally made me stop and wonder if I should continue with my PhD applications for fall 2010, in this science. I was so troubled by how our fellow scientists within the climate community have been dealing with opposing voices (on both sides). I hope we can all learn from this and truly feel that we are going to need voices like yours to fix these problems in the coming months and years.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the heart of this issue is how climate researchers deal with skeptics. I have served my time in the “trenches of the climate war” in the context of the debate on hurricanes and global warming. There is no question that there is a political noise machine in existence that feeds on research and statements from climate change skeptics. In grappling with this issue, I would argue that there are three strategies for dealing with skeptics:
 
 
 

1. Retreat into the ivory tower
 2. Circle the wagons/point guns outward: ad hominem/appeal to motive attacks; appeal to authority; isolate the enemy through lack of access to data; peer review process
 3. Take the “high ground:” engage the skeptics on our own terms (conferences, blogosphere); make data/methods available/transparent; clarify the uncertainties; openly declare our values
 
Most scientists retreat into the ivory tower. The CRU emails reflect elements of the circling of wagons strategy. For the past 3 years, I have been trying to figure out how to engage skeptics effectively in the context of #3, which I think is a method that can be effective in countering the arguments of skeptics, while at the same time being consistent with our core research values. Some of the things that I’ve tried in my quest to understand skeptics and more effectively counter misinformation include posting at skeptical blogs, such as climateaudit, and inviting prominent skeptics to give seminars at Georgia Tech. I have received significant heat from some colleagues for doing this (I’ve been told that I am legitimizing the skeptics and misleading my students), but I think we need to try things like this if we are to develop effective strategies for dealing with skeptics and if we are to teach students to think critically.
 
If climate science is to uphold core research values and be credible to public, we need to respond to any critique of data or methodology that emerges from analysis by other scientists. Ignoring skeptics coming from outside the field is inappropriate; Einstein did not start his research career at Princeton, but rather at a post office. I’m not implying that climate researchers need to keep defending against the same arguments over and over again. Scientists claim that they would never get any research done if they had to continuously respond to skeptics. The counter to that argument is to make all of your data, metadata, and code openly available. Doing this will minimize the time spent responding to skeptics; try it! If anyone identifies an actual error in your data or methodology, acknowledge it and fix the problem. Doing this would keep molehills from growing into mountains that involve congressional hearings, lawyers, etc.
 
So with this reaffirmation of core climate research values, I encourage you to discuss the ideas and issues raised here with your fellow students and professors. Your professors may disagree with me; there are likely to be many perspectives on this. I hope that others will share their wisdom and provide ideas and guidance for dealing with these issues. Spend some time perusing the blogosphere (both skeptical and pro AGW blogs) to get a sense of the political issues surrounding our field. A better understanding of the enormous policy implications of our field should imbue in all of us a greater responsibility for upholding the highest standards of research ethics. Hone your communications skills; we all need to communicate more effectively. Publish your data as supplementary material or post on a public website. And keep your mind open and sharpen your critical thinking skills. My very best wishes to you in your studies, research, and professional development. I look forward to engaging with you in a dialogue on this topic.
 
Judith Curry
 Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
 Georgia Institute of Technology
 
References:
 
My past public statements on climate change can be found at my website http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/climate/policy.htm
 
My paper on “Mixing politics and science in testing the hypothesis that greenhouse warming is a causing an increase in global hurricane intensity” can be found at
 http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_BAMS87.pdf
 
My presentation on the integrity of climate research can be found at
 http://www.pacinst.org/ topics/ integrity_of_science/ AGU_IntegrityofScience_Curry.pdf

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/an-open-letter-from-dr-judith-curry-on-climate-science/

[Baby Hitler]

If we were to take all the BILLIONS of dollars given to the Oil and Coal industries, and instead invest those same dollars into Green industries (Solar and wind) at least we would be making an attempt to stop polluting, we would be investing in new technologies, and creating new jobs.

[ell]

Fermi is an example of how industry can change the climate. Here is an old report I found interesting. Any new info on it would be appreciated.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:9QPhq4nvQzcJ:deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/5205/5/bac3781.0001.001.pdf+fermi+monroe&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgZMQFqN9D0jHDMwwJWaexFyPSxZ6wFtwE0DWqZXz9R-6VovzmE1Iuyg4fMPe4GKWV4dWydlCoq_jdHnd9-O1oLGmIVjK0k2qRU5vHCAHA7abGlA28McpLqS22wCGSzJScMeqaD&sig=AHIEtbTUv6S42j-3huCUvy5EN9V_-dbl9Q

The Prediction of Prolonged Temperature Inversions Near the Western Shore of Lake Erie
Maurice E. Graves
Technical Report No. 6
ORA PROJECT 03632
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN
November 1962

Well, that takes care of Fermi I.  What have you got to show Fermi II is causing temperature inversions in Lake Erie?  Fermi II uses closed loop cooling, using lake water for make up.

[sammy]

If we were to take all the BILLIONS of dollars given to the Oil and Coal industries, and instead invest those same dollars into Green industries (Solar and wind) at least we would be making an attempt to stop polluting, we would be investing in new technologies, and creating new jobs.

Let's see; half a billion to Solyndra didn't turn out too well,wind farms almost always run into the NIMBY's, and solar on a scale to take the place of one coal-fired plant would need more acres than would be available in the area where the power would actually be needed. NEXT!