How Do We Know What We Think We Know - Essay Example

How do we know what we think we know? A typical day may start with a quick check if any important emails have come in during the night. The ride to work is accompanied with either a news talk program or overly enthusiastic DJs forcing us to pay attention to what's going on through their mindless babble between songs. The workday is filled with tidbits of news information floating in - gossip, posts on Facebook pages, televisions playing in the lunchtime restaurant, more email, or perhaps relevant news to your company is posted on the company home page. The ride home is much like the ride to work followed by an evening of sit-coms, news breaks, and perhaps a nightly dose of Jon Stewart or Stephan Colbert. Most of us get our daily news from a variety of sources. At one time, these sources were limited to perhaps one of three nightly news programs and/or one of a few available newspapers. Everyone essentially read or heard the same thing. Today, news is available everywhere, from serious news programs to satire comedy to internet web pages to Twitter text messages. What holds true for our general news also holds true for what we think of scientific news. New approaches, policies, and inventions are quickly reported on and then we're off to a new topic. If they've managed to capture our attention at all, we always have the option of Googling for them during the commercial breaks and are then at the mercy of the search engine spiders, delivering ranked results based on the highest bidder or the most popular. What we know about the world of science today is largely based on where we get our information from. This, in turn, strongly influences our decisions when voting in elections, when choosing to support various non-profit or beginning businesses, and in shaping our overall view of the world and where it's heading. Yet how do we know that information is correct? What is it about the way that the news is conveyed that convinces us we have been given the truth? In order to resist naive belief and make better decisions for ourselves and the world at large, we need to carefully examine the scientific stories we read, such as those which warn of global warming, as a means of understanding the various ways journalists use words to shape our understanding. The problem of global warming has been written about since at least the 1970s, but it is starting to gain some ground in more recent years as evidence becomes harder to deny or refute. For example, an article in the New York Times published in March 2012 uses terms that make it clear the author is still trying to convince his readers that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity and yet provide few options as to what else might be contributing to the evidence found. The evidence that the author is attempting to convince his audience is found in the second sentence of the article: "Warnings from the scientific community are becoming louder, as an increasing body of science points to rising dangers from the ongoing buildup of human-related greenhouse gases - produced mainly by the burning of fossil fuels and forests." Not only does the author squarely place blame on "human-related greenhouse gases," leaving no room for argument or other possibilities, the sources of these gases are specifically named, further removing any possibility for argument. While it is possible that the author simply chose this form of expression as a means of concisely identifying his topic in keeping with Grice's (1975) maxim of quantity, to provide just as much information as necessary to make the meaning clear, it also reveals evidence of previous conversation. For example, it is not necessarily important that the term human-related be included in the above quoted sentence to remain in accord with Grice's maxim, yet the inclusion here suggests either recency (Garrod and Anderson, 1987), in that the author may have been recently discussing the issue and had a need to so identify the types of greenhouse gases at play; or frequency of use (Garrod and Doherty, 1994), in which the author is attempting to reinforce a specific conceptualization regarding the issue at hand. While the bulk of the article discusses the technological, economic and political issues surrounding the subject of global warming, the fact that the first two paragraphs strongly address the scientific evidence that it is human-related reveals the degree to which the author expects opposition. Many of the same techniques are employed in other articles that discuss the same topic from a different perspective, such as when attempting to convey a purely scientific understanding rather than a general news focus. Like the New York Times article, the Union of Concerned Scientists (2012) start their article on global warming with an assertion that this change in the atmospheric temperatures of the planet is caused by human activity. However, their approach in attempting to inspire action is much different from that taken in the New York Times article. Rather than an overview of what is being done on a national level, the Union of Concerned Scientists (2012) attempts to provide a rounded discussion of the issue by defining it, discussing the science that supports it, offering a consensus of the opposing opinions, and offering some possible, workable solutions. In structuring their article in this way, the writers are using a very old argument structure sometimes referred to as the classical oration (Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz, 2010). This form of argument style has been effective for thousands of years because it works to address those elements that people care about in a way that asserts a winning and a losing side to the discussion. "The structure is powerful because it covers all the bases: readers or listeners want to know what your subject is, how you intend to cover it, and what evidence you have to offer" (173), but it also presents some common points of opposition in a way that enables the speaker/writer to address them while continuing to bring the audience to a conclusion favorable to the writer's position. The main sections of this type of argument are an introduction that gains the reader's attention, background information such as a definition of the problem, the line of argument outlining good reasoning as to why a contention is made, alternative arguments which presents the opposing viewpoints and points to holes in their logic, and finishes by offering a solution or making a call to action. These categories match almost exactly with the major headings of this article. Reading through these articles focused on the idea of global warming, it seems obvious that this climate change is actually occurring, but there remain many people convinced it is nothing more than a gigantic hoax, a conspiracy perpetrated by most of the world's scientists, theorists, and politicians in a bid to pull money out of currently working energy systems to stick in their own pockets. Part of the reason so many of these people remain convinced is because of counter-articles such as one written by Rosie Taylor in Mail Online (2012). In this article, the author takes one fact from scientific studies in a limited, specialized area and conflates it to suggest that the technology of alternative energy is actually contributing to the problem of global warming to an even greater degree than greenhouse gases. She cites studies that show average temperatures in the local area of large wind farms have increased in temperature by an average of seven degrees Celsius during the past 10 years as compared to the average global temperature increase of just eight degrees Celsius (Taylor, 2012). While she is careful to point out that the scientists in the cited study "warned that firm conclusions should not be drawn until more research has been carried out," Taylor then goes on to discuss how "some scientists have suggested" wind farms could be used as a means of climate control. The line of reasoning used here could be referred to as an informal logical fallacy, specifically one in which the correlation does not imply causation (Pirie, 2006:41). The lack of specific citations for these other scientists as well as the inconclusive nature of the one study specifically cited weakens this argument tremendously, particularly when other articles, such as one written by Brad Plummer (2012) in the Washington Post attempt to expose the logical jumps of such stories. Analyzing the various science articles available to the average layperson, it is clear that a variety of linguistic and rhetorical devices are at play to influence the way we think about things. By understanding how words are used to shape our understandings, seeing how arguments are presented to encourage us to agree with one or another side, it becomes clear that our understandings are not as much our own conclusions as we tend to believe. Frequency of use is very effective in this particular debate to encourage individuals to subscribe to the belief in a concept that can only be discussed on a scientific basis. The entire concept of global warming is one that can only take shape on paper, but by using the same term over and over again, the idea is slowly starting to take hold and sink in. In addition, the method of argument is having an effect on our political and social discussions regarding the topic, frequently referring to the same ideas and relying on classic techniques of persuasion. However, this is confidence building as compared to other arguments built on little more than false logic and indefinite terms. Understanding that these terms are helping to shape our worldview and our view of how we know what we know makes it all the more important that we pay attention to what we read and hear and use our powers of critical thought to distinguish which side is more grounded and supported by fact. Works Cited Garrod, S. and Anderson, A. 1987. Saying what you mean in dialog: A study in conceptual and semantic co- ordination. Cognition. 27:181-218. Garrod, S. and Doherty, G. 1994. Conversations, co-ordination and convention: An empirical investigation of how groups establish linguistic conventions. Cognition. 53:181-215. Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation (from the William James lectures, Harvard University, 1967). In P. Cole and J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press:41-58. Lunsford, A.A. and Ruszkiewicz, J.J. 2010. Everything's an Argument. New York: Bedford St. Martin's Press. Pirie, Madsen. 2006. How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic. Continuum International Publishing Group. Plumer, Brad. 2012. No, wind farms are not causing global warming. Washington Post. April 30. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/no-wind-farms-are-not-causing- global-warming/2012/04/30/gIQAMl2GsT_blog.html?wprss=rss_ezra-klein, accessed June 19, 2012. Taylor, Rosie. 2012. Wind farms make climate change worse: Turbines actually heat up local areas. Mail Online. April 29. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2137170/Wind- farms-link-rising-temperatures-detrimental-impact-wildlife-weather-say-scientists.html, accessed June 19, 2012. Union of Concerned Scientists. 2012. Global Warming. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/, accessed June 19, 2012. New York Times. 2012. Global Warming and Climate Change. March 27. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html, accessed June 19, 2012. Appendix A Global Warming & Climate Change Steen Ulrik Johannessen/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images Updated: March 27, 2012 Global warming has become perhaps the most complicated issue facing world leaders. Warnings from the scientific community are becoming louder, as an increasing body of science points to rising dangers from the ongoing buildup of human-related greenhouse gases — produced mainly by the burning of fossil fuels and forests. Global emissions of carbon dioxide jumped by the largest amount on record in 2010, upending the notion that the brief decline during the recession might persist through the recovery. Emissions rose 5.9 percent in 2010, according to the Global Carbon Project, an international collaboration of scientists. The increase solidified a trend of ever-rising emissions that scientists fear will make it difficult, if not impossible, to forestall severe climate change in coming decades. However, the technological, economic and political issues that have to be resolved before a concerted worldwide effort to reduce emissions can begin have gotten no simpler, particularly in the face of a global economic slowdown. For almost two decades, the United Nations has sponsored annual global talks, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, an international treaty signed by 194 countries to cooperatively discuss global climate change and its impact. The conferences operate on the principle of consensus, meaning that any of the participating nations can hold up an agreement. The conflicts and controversies discussed are monotonously familiar: the differing obligations of industrialized and developing nations, the question of who will pay to help poor nations adapt, the urgency of protecting tropical forests and the need to rapidly develop and deploy clean energy technology. But the meetings have often ended in disillusionment, with incremental political progress but little real impact on the climate. The negotiating process itself has come under fire from some quarters, including the poorest nations who believe their needs are being neglected in the fight among the major economic powers. Criticism has also come from a small but vocal band of climate-change skeptics, many of them members of the United States Congress, who doubt the existence of human influence on the climate and ridicule international efforts to deal with it. A Global Initiative Led by the U.S. In mid-February 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was expected to announce a new international effort focused on reducing emissions of common pollutants that contribute to rapid climate change and widespread health problems. Impatient with the slow pace of international negotiations, the United States and a small group of countries — Bangladesh, Canada, Ghana, Mexico and Sweden as well as the United Nations Environment Program — are starting a program that will address short-lived pollutants like soot (also referred to as black carbon), methane and hydrofluorocarbons that have an outsize influence on global warming, accounting for 30 to 40 percent of global warming. Soot from diesel exhausts and the burning of wood, agricultural waste and dung for heating and cooking causes an estimated two million premature deaths a year, particularly in the poorest countries Scientists say that concerted action on these substances can reduce global temperatures by 0.5 degrees Celsius by 2050 and prevent millions of cases of lung and heart disease by 2030. The United States intends to contribute $12 million and Canada $3 million over two years to get the program off the ground and to help recruit other countries to participate. The United Nations Environment Program will run the project. Officials hope that by tackling these fast-acting, climate-changing agents they can get results quicker than through the laborious and highly political negotiations conducted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2011 Global Talks in Durban At the 2011 conference delegates from about 200 nations gathered together in Durban, South Africa. One of the issues left unresolved was the future of the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 agreement that requires major industrialized nations to meet targets on emissions reduction but imposes no mandates on developing countries, including emerging economic powers and sources of global greenhouse gas emissions like China, India, Brazil and South Africa. The United States is not a party to the protocol, having refused to even consider ratifying it because of those asymmetrical obligations. Some major countries, including Canada, Japan and Russia, have said they will not agree to an extension of the protocol next year unless the unbalanced requirements of developing and developed countries are changed. That is similar to the United States’ position, which is that any successor treaty must apply equally to all major economies. Expectations for the meeting were low, and it ended with modest accomplishments: the promise to work toward a new global treaty in coming years and the establishment of a new climate fund. The deal on a future treaty renewed the Kyoto Protocol for several more years. But it also began a process for replacing the protocol with something that treats all countries — including the economic powerhouses China, India and Brazil — equally. The future treaty deal was the most highly contested element of a package of agreements that emerged from the extended talks among the nations here. The expiration date of the protocol — 2017 or 2020 — and the terms of any agreement that replaces it will be negotiated at future sessions. The delegates also agreed on the creation of a fund to help poor countries adapt to climate change — though the precise sources of the money have yet to be determined — and to measures involving the preservation of tropical forests and the development of clean-energy technology. The reserve, called the Green Climate Fund, would help mobilize a promised $100 billion a year in public and private financing by 2020 to assist developing countries in adapting to climate change and converting to clean energy sources. 2010 Global Talks in Cancún The United Nations conference on climate change in Cancún, Mexico, produced only modest achievements but ended with the toughest issues unresolved. The package that was approved, known as the Cancún Agreements, set up a new fund to help poor countries adapt to climate changes, created new mechanisms for transfer of clean energy technology, provided compensation for the preservation of tropical forests and strengthened the emissions reductions pledges that came out of the U.N. climate change meeting in Copenhagen in 2009. The conference approved the agreement over the objections of Bolivia, which condemned the pact as too weak. But those protests did not block its acceptance. Delegates from island states and the least-developed countries warmly welcomed the pact because it would start the flow of billions of dollars to assist them in adopting cleaner energy systems and adapting to inevitable changes in the climate, like sea rise and drought. But where the promised aid from wealthy nations — $100 billion — would come from was left unresolved. The E.U. Gets Tough With Airline Emissions In December 2011, the European Union’s highest court endorsed the bloc’s plan to begin charging the world’s biggest airlines for their greenhouse gas emissions from Jan. 1, 2012, setting the stage for a potentially costly trade war with the United States, China and other countries. A group of United States airlines had argued that forcing them to participate in the potentially costly emissions-trading system infringed on national sovereignty and conflicted with existing international aviation treaties. But in a final ruling , the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg affirmed an opinion issued in October by its advocate general, who had rejected their claim. The court’s decision came amid increasing pressure from some of the biggest trading partners of the 27-member bloc to suspend or amend application of the legislation to expressly exclude non-E.U. countries — at least initially. Failing that, several governments have vowed to take their own legal action or retaliate with countervailing trade measures. Although airlines initially will receive most of the permits they will need for free, the European Union estimates that ticket prices could rise by as much as €12, or nearly $16, on some long-haul flights to cover the cost of additional permits required. Airlines for America, an industry lobby group and one of the plaintiffs in the case, said that its members would be required to pay more than $3.1 billion to the E.U. between 2012 and 2020. It said its members would comply with the system “under protest,” but would also review options for pursuing the case in Britain’s High Court, which had referred the original complaint to the European court in 2009. The European initiative involves folding aviation into the Union’s six-year-old Emissions Trading System, in which polluters can buy and sell a limited quantity of permits, each representing a ton of carbon dioxide. The legislation mandates that airlines account for their emissions for the entirety of any flight that takes off from — or lands at — any airport in the 27-member bloc. The goal, European officials have said, is to speed up the adoption of greener technologies at a time when air traffic, which represents about 3 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, is growing much faster than gains in efficiency. The U.S. and Climate Change The United States has been criticized at the United Nations gatherings for years, in part because of its rejection of the Kyoto framework and in part because it has not adopted a comprehensive domestic program for reducing its own greenhouse gas emissions. President Obama has pledged to reduce American emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, but his preferred approach, a nationwide cap-and-trade system for carbon pollution, was passed by the House in 2009 but died in the Senate the next year. United States emissions are down about 6 percent over the past five years, largely because of the drop in industrial and electricity production caused by the recession. In January 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency began imposing regulations related to greenhouse gas emissions. The immediate effect on utilities, refiners and major manufacturers was minor, with the new rules applying only to those planning to build large new facilities or make major modifications to existing plants. Over the next decade, however, the agency plans to regulate virtually all sources of greenhouse gases, imposing efficiency and emissions requirements on nearly every industry and every region. A Draft Rule Stands in the Way of New Coal-Fired Plants In March 2012, the E.P.A. unveiled a draft rule that would limit carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants to 1,000 pounds per megawatt-hour. Recently built power plants fired by natural gas already easily meet the new standards, so the rule presents little obstacle for new gas plants. But coal-fired plants face a far greater challenge, since no easily accessible technology can bring their emissions under the limit. Coal-fired plants are a major source emissions associated with global warming. The new rules do not apply to existing plants. The declining price of natural gas has made it the fuel of choice in recent years for companies planning new plants. The E.P.A.’s move follows a shift that is already unfolding in the electric power market. The proposed rule is rooted in a 2007 directive from the Supreme Court instructing the E.P.A. to decide whether carbon dioxide was a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. In late 2009, the agency declared that it was, and so had to be regulated. It took more than two years for the agency to work out the regulatory details. To open an avenue to companies still planning to build coal plants, for example, the E.P.A. said it would allow new ones to begin operating with higher levels of emissions as long as the average annual emissions over a period of 30 years met the standard. Environmental groups generally applauded the standards, although some expressed disappointment with the agency’s decision not to regulate existing power plants for the moment. Steps Toward a Response The debate over climate questions pales next to the fight over what to do, or not do, in a world where fossil fuels still underpin both rich and emerging economies. With the completion of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Earth Summit in 1992, the world’s nations pledged to avoid dangerously disrupting the climate through the buildup of greenhouse gases, but they never defined how much warming was too much. Nonetheless, recognizing that the original climate treaty was proving ineffective, all of the world’s industrialized countries except for the United States accepted binding restrictions on their greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, which was negotiated in Japan in 1997. That accord took effect in 2005 and its gas restrictions expire in 2012. The United States signed the treaty, but it was never submitted for ratification in the face of overwhelming opposition in the Senate because the pact required no steps by China or other fast-growing developing countries. It took until 2009 for the leaders of the world’s largest economic powers to agree on a dangerous climate threshold: an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) from the average global temperature recorded just before the Industrial Revolution kicked into gear. (This translates into an increase of 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit above the Earth’s current average temperature, about 59 degrees.) The Group of 8 industrial powers also agreed in 2009 to a goal of reducing global emissions 50 percent by 2050, with the richest countries leading the way by cutting their emissions 80 percent. But they did not set a baseline from which to measure that reduction, and so far firm interim targets — which many climate scientists say would be more meaningful — have not been defined. At the same time, fast-growing emerging economic powerhouses, led by China and India, opposed taking on mandatory obligations to curb their emissions. They said they will do what they can to rein in growth in emissions — as long as their economies do not suffer.  In many ways, the debate over global climate policy is a result of a global “climate divide.’' Emissions of carbon dioxide per person range from less than 2 tons per year in India, where 400 million people lack access to electricity, to more than 20 in the United States. The richest countries are also best able to use wealth and technology to insulate themselves from climate hazards, while the poorest, which have done the least to cause the problem, are the most exposed. Background Scientists learned long ago that the earth’s climate has powerfully shaped the history of the human species — biologically, culturally and geographically. But only in the last few decades has research revealed that humans can be a powerful influence on the climate, as well.   A growing body of scientific evidence indicates that since 1950, the world’s climate has been warming, primarily as a result of emissions from unfettered burning of fossil fuels and the razing of tropical forests. Such activity adds to the atmosphere’s invisible blanket of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping “greenhouse” gases. Recent research has shown that methane, which flows from landfills, livestock and oil and gas facilities, is a close second to carbon dioxide as an impact on the atmosphere. That conclusion has emerged through a broad body of analysis in fields as disparate as glaciology, the study of glacial formations, and palynology, the study of the distribution of pollen grains in lake mud. It is based on a host of assessments by the world’s leading organizations of climate and earth scientists. In the last several years, the scientific case that the rising human influence on climate could become disruptive has become particularly robust. Some fluctuations in the earth’s temperature are inevitable regardless of human activity — because of decades-long ocean cycles, for example. But centuries of rising temperatures and seas lie ahead if the release of emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation continues unabated, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore. In addition, a report released by the I.P.C.C. in November 2011 predicted that global warming will cause more dangerous and “unprecedented extreme weather” in the future. Despite the scientific consensus on these basic conclusions, enormously important details remain murky. That reality has been seized upon by some groups and scientists disputing the overall consensus and opposing changes in energy policies. For example, estimates of the amount of warming that would result from a doubling of greenhouse gas concentrations (compared to the level just before the Industrial Revolution got under way in the early 19th century) range from 3.6 degrees to 8 degrees Fahrenheit. The intergovernmental climate panel said it could not rule out even higher temperatures. While the low end could probably be tolerated, the high end would almost certainly result in calamitous, long-lasting disruptions of ecosystems and economies, a host of studies have concluded. A wide range of economists and earth scientists say that level of risk justifies an aggressive response. Other questions have persisted despite a century-long accumulation of studies pointing to human-driven warming. The rate and extent at which sea levels will rise in this century as ice sheets erode remains highly uncertain, even as the long-term forecast of centuries of retreating shorelines remains intact. Scientists are struggling more than ever to disentangle how the heat building in the seas and atmosphere will affect the strength and number of tropical cyclones. The latest science suggests there will be more hurricanes and typhoons that reach the most dangerous categories of intensity, but fewer storms overall. Appendix B Global Warming The Earth is warming and human activity is the primary cause. Climate disruptions put our food and water supply at risk, endanger our health, jeopardize our national security, and threaten other basic human needs. Some impacts—such as record high temperatures, melting glaciers, and severe flooding and droughts—are already becoming increasingly common across the country and around the world. So far, our national leaders are failing to act quickly to reduce heat-trapping emissions. However, there is much we can do to protect the health and economic well-being of current and future generations from the consequences of the heat-trapping emissions caused when we burn coal, oil, and gas to generate electricity, drive our cars, and fuel our businesses. Our country is at a crossroads: the United States can act responsibly and seize the opportunity to lead by developing new, innovative solutions, as well as immediately putting to use the many practical solutions we have at our disposal today; or we can choose to do nothing and deal with severe consequences later. At UCS we believe the choice is clear. It is time to push forward toward a brighter, cleaner future. What is Global Warming? When CO2 and other heat-trapping emissions are released into the air, they act like a blanket, holding heat in our atmosphere and warming the planet. Overloading our atmosphere with carbon has far-reaching effects for people everywhere. Learn more Global Warming Science & Impacts What does the science say about global warming and what are the connections between climate data and the changes we see around us—and those we expect to see in the future? Learn more Global Warming Contrarians Why has it been so difficult to achieve meaningful solutions? Media pundits, partisan think tanks, and special interest groups funded by fossil fuel and related industries raise doubts about the truth of global warming. These deniers downplay and distort the evidence of climate change, demand policies that allow industries to continue polluting, and attempt to undercut existing pollution standards. UCS fights misrepresentations of global warming, providing sound, science-based evidence to set the record straight. Learn more Global Warming Solutions Who can reduce global warming emissions? We can—together. Our individual efforts are important, but the biggest impact on climate change will come from large-scale changes—well-reasoned international, national, and regional policies; thoughtful, systematic efforts to reduce polluting fossil fuel energy sources and unsound land use practices; and steady progress toward a green, sustainable future. Learn more Support Our Work For more than 20 years, UCS has worked with leading experts to educate United States decision makers and the public about global warming, and implement practical solutions at an international, national, regional, and state levels. UCS recently helped defend California's landmark global warming law from attacks by Texas oil companies. You can help support this work: Appendix C Wind farms make climate change WORSE: Turbines actually heat up local areas Air temperatures around four of the world's largest wind farms have increased by 0.72C in a decade Earth's average temperature has risen by 0.8C since 1900 By Rosie Taylor PUBLISHED: 20:51 EST, 29 April 2012 | UPDATED: 02:48 EST, 30 April 2012 Wind turbines could warm local climates up to ten times faster than the natural rate, a study has shown. Air temperatures around four of the world’s largest wind farms have increased by up to 0.72C in a decade, researchers have found. In contrast, Earth’s average temperature has warmed by only 0.8C since 1900. In a spin: Researchers found air temperatures around four of the world's largest wind farms had increased by up to 0.72C in a decade. In contrast, Earth's average temperature has warmed by only 0.8C since 1900 As more wind farms are built, temperature increases may have a long-term impact on wildlife and regional weather patterns, with experts warning that the effects from large farms could alter wind and rainfall patterns. Scientists at the State University of New York at Albany studied satellite data of the areas around the wind farms, in Texas, from 2003 to 2011. Publishing their findings in the scientific journal Nature, they said: ‘We attribute this warming primarily to wind farms.   More... World's largest wind farm with turbines taller than the Wembley Arch will 'blight' England’s only World Heritage site Royals' £1m wind farm hypocrisy: 45 wind turbines described by Charles as a 'horrendous blot' to be built on Crown land ‘The temperature change could be due to the effects of the energy expelled by farms and the movement and turbulence generated by turbine rotors. ‘These changes, if spatially large enough, may have noticeable impacts on local to regional weather and climate.’ But they warned that firm conclusions should not be drawn until more research had been carried out. As more wind farms are built, temperature increases may have a long-term impact on wildlife and regional weather patterns Some scientists have suggested that giant wind farms, comprising hundreds of thousands of turbines, would not only alter the weather but could be used to control it. Britain currently has about 3,500 wind turbines, but there are plans to increase this to 10,000 onshore machines and 4,300 offshore by 2020. The world’s wind farms last year had the capacity to produce 238 gigawatts of electricity at any one time – a 21 per cent rise on 2010. Capacity is expected to reach nearly 500 gigawatts by the end of 2016 as more turbines are built, according to the Global Wind Energy Council. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2137170/Wind-farms-link-rising-temperatures-detrimental-impact-wildlife-weather-say-scientists.html#ixzz1yQ4LaW7b Read More