How far back into Elementary School do we have to go ...

[Jimmy Higgins]

Curious, so you are only in this thread then to protect the intellectual image of Represenative Barton?

No, I'm in this thread because I have little patience or liking for willful misrepresentation for the purpose of political points.

Well, as soon as I misrepresent him, you'll have some sort of point.

 

[laughing dog]

Hold on a moment... So because you can only understand it to mean one thing, then everyone else who thinks you're wrong must prove that your understanding of it is wrong? How does that make sense?

Do you even read what you post? You are the one who claims this is misrepresentation based on your unilateral (and incorrect) interpretation of his words.

 

[coloradoatheist]

No, I'm in this thread because I have little patience or liking for willful misrepresentation for the purpose of political points.

Well, as soon as I misrepresent him, you'll have some sort of point.

Then your beef is with the MIT scientists whose model said that wind farms on land could have a temperature affect on the areas near those wind farms.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, as soon as I misrepresent him, you'll have some sort of point.

Then your beef is with the MIT scientists whose model said that wind farms on land could have a temperature affect on the areas near those wind farms.

The paper that says the average global temperature will go up 0.15 degrees?

 

[Togo]

The paper says that covering flat land in windmills will disrupt the flow of air, increasing turbulence, and thus decreasing the wind's ability to transport heat from the land. This is really only relevant if you consider a flat continent covered in wind farms. On a smaller scale, the heat has nowhere to go. Turbines don't do anything that trees and buildings wouldn't.

Barton's statements (and I'm afraid I don't have access to the full record), appear to be making a slightly different point. He appears to be arguing that wind is finite, (which is sort of true, but well in excess of the scale of extraction a continent-wide windfarm would involve), and that this is some kind of limitation that we need to be concerned about (which is false).

What this appearance is based on is another matter. It might be that either Barton is ignorant, or that he thinks the House is ignorant. It may be that he's trying to use the study honestly and has given an impression at variance with the facts entirely unintentionally. Or it may be that, as a climate change denier and client of numerous oil firms, he has a vested interest in presenting the study in a manner that doesn't reflect its content.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Here's the paper that he was quoting from. So the beef isn't with Barton, it's with Jay Apt

http://issues.org/25-1/apt-4/

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here's the paper that he was quoting from. So the beef isn't with Barton, it's with Jay Apt

http://issues.org/25-1/apt-4/

The Report that said it may be physically possible to generate 5 TW of energy and the global temperature would increase only 0.15 degrees, though stressed much more investigation was required?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The paper says that covering flat land in windmills will disrupt the flow of air, increasing turbulence, and thus decreasing the wind's ability to transport heat from the land. This is really only relevant if you consider a flat continent covered in wind farms. On a smaller scale, the heat has nowhere to go. Turbines don't do anything that trees and buildings wouldn't.

Windmills are more effective at blocking airflow than trees and buildings. If you block *ENOUGH* airflow you will see bad things. The level required to be a problem is *FAR* beyond what we are currently generating, though.

Barton's statements (and I'm afraid I don't have access to the full record), appear to be making a slightly different point. He appears to be arguing that wind is finite, (which is sort of true, but well in excess of the scale of extraction a continent-wide windfarm would involve), and that this is some kind of limitation that we need to be concerned about (which is false).

I disagree. He's arguing about the problems it would cause. I think the issue is him not understanding the numbers and not realizing there's a lot of power for the taking without appreciable harm.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The paper says that covering flat land in windmills will disrupt the flow of air, increasing turbulence, and thus decreasing the wind's ability to transport heat from the land. This is really only relevant if you consider a flat continent covered in wind farms. On a smaller scale, the heat has nowhere to go. Turbines don't do anything that trees and buildings wouldn't.

Barton's statements (and I'm afraid I don't have access to the full record), appear to be making a slightly different point. He appears to be arguing that wind is finite, (which is sort of true, but well in excess of the scale of extraction a continent-wide windfarm would involve), and that this is some kind of limitation that we need to be concerned about (which is false).

What this appearance is based on is another matter. It might be that either Barton is ignorant, or that he thinks the House is ignorant. It may be that he's trying to use the study honestly and has given an impression at variance with the facts entirely unintentionally. Or it may be that, as a climate change denier and client of numerous oil firms, he has a vested interest in presenting the study in a manner that doesn't reflect its content.

Barton was combining two issues here. In the paper that Barton was referencing about wind being finite the author of that paper was talking about how we can't get useful wind energy everywhere at any time. We have to put the wind turbines where we the wind blows more and that wind turbines generate more energy during non-peak times. His second argument was the affect that wind farms had on the local environment. It was another study that talked about the full extent of what would happen if we got all our power from wind.