User talk:SDalley
Your bias is showing[edit]
Did you really think you could trash the facts on what the nuclear lobby has been spending (i.e. $650+M) from the Wind power article? The material you removed was accurately cited by referring to its original source. Take this as a warning that your conduct repeated will be treated as vandalism. HarryZilber (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Re: your bias is showing[edit]
You sound like you are judge, jury and executioner. Am I allowed a say?
The "facts" asserted in the reference in question are of dubious validity. From the reference: "The year-by-year totals represent lobbying dollars reported to the Senate Office of Public Records by members of the Nuclear Engineering Institute and utilities that currently own or operate a nuclear power plant". But it does not follow that it was lobbying for nuclear. We can look at some other references to find out who the biggest donors actually were, e.g. http://www.energyboom.com/policy/clean-energy-lobby-dwarfed-billion-dollar-fossil-fuel-expenditures-washington and http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?year=2009&id=E08 . Southern Company, Florida Power & Light, Duke Energy, PG&E head the list. While they do own and operate nuclear plants, far more of their energy comes from coal and gas. We could more safely assume that the lobbying was fossil-fuel related. Florida P&L also have large amounts of solar! And the others have lots of wind as well. Perhaps the lobbying $ also went on renewables promotion? See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Power_%26_Light#Taxes_Paid .
So you see, I would be perfectly justified in correcting the lobbying references. When the reference is of such poor quality as http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/nuclear-energy-lobbying-push/story/nuclear-energy-working-hard-win-support/ it would make good sense to altogether remove all references to nuclear energy lobbying, which don't really belong in an article on wind power anyway.
Hope this helps.