05/04/2012 | 9:27 am
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
(Will not be published)
It’s frustrating to see that first link, to a story that wildly misrepresents the findings of the study–a study which revealed only local temperature fluctuations. Wind farms have no relationship whatsoever to climate change (in contrast to the headline of the Telegraph article, “Wind farms can cause climate change”). There’s plenty of accurate press coverage of the study (like this: http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0430/Don-t-believe-the-headlines.-Wind-farms-do-not-cause-global-warming), but you’ve chosen instead to link to the most sensationalist article. Even a glance the study’s abstract (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1505.html) quickly reveals the Telegraph article to be disingenuous. I’d like to think Freakonomics would conduct that absolutely minimal due diligence before directing readers to such poppycock.
« Previous Post What Would You Do in the Worst Case? A Freakonomics Quorum
Next Post » Our Daily Bleg: Which Quotes Were Viral in 2008?
Keep up with the latest Freakonomics news and chatter at Big Buzz. And here's more:
Freakonomics® is a registered service mark of Freakonomics, LLC. All contents © 2011 Freakonomics, LLC. All rights reserved.