88
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 45:
Line 45: + + +
no edit summary
::JPatt. How to start. I read the entire American Thinker article, how else would I know about the 14,000 abandon turbines myth being stated as fact? And yes, my colleagues are watching this article and the talk page, the only one not amused is our resident birther/truther. I do not edit, half-truths or otherwise, while at work; but I do talk about CP. Wind turbine technology has moved forward by leaps and bounds over the past five years, yet any student reading your article will walk away with the impression this world is crammed with broken-down turbines. What is wrong with students realizing some conservative Republicans support wind power? Such a concept certainly does not jeopardize your world view. Or does it? Oh well, all I can do is tell my colleagues I tried and failed, they will soon forget this matter. --[[User:RobinBast|RobinBast]] ([[User talk:RobinBast|talk]]) 11:38, 13 November 2015 (EST)
::JPatt. How to start. I read the entire American Thinker article, how else would I know about the 14,000 abandon turbines myth being stated as fact? And yes, my colleagues are watching this article and the talk page, the only one not amused is our resident birther/truther. I do not edit, half-truths or otherwise, while at work; but I do talk about CP. Wind turbine technology has moved forward by leaps and bounds over the past five years, yet any student reading your article will walk away with the impression this world is crammed with broken-down turbines. What is wrong with students realizing some conservative Republicans support wind power? Such a concept certainly does not jeopardize your world view. Or does it? Oh well, all I can do is tell my colleagues I tried and failed, they will soon forget this matter. --[[User:RobinBast|RobinBast]] ([[User talk:RobinBast|talk]]) 11:38, 13 November 2015 (EST)
==Wind Turbine Syndrome==
The Wind Turbine Syndrome paragraph contains a completely false assertion about the reference used to validate wind turbine syndrome. The reference only states the author of the report trained at Johns Hopkins. [http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/wind-turbine-syndrome/] Nowhere in the reference is it claimed the peer review was done by Johns Hopkins. In fact the book in question was printed by a micro-press. If in fact the contents of this book were actually peer reviewed, then why was it not printed in a peer reviewed publication?--[[User:GinnyS|GinnyS]] ([[User talk:GinnyS|talk]]) 17:31, 23 July 2017 (EDT)