Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/18 8:25 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2018 8:13 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/18 7:13 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2018 5:59 AM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 17:29:21 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 07:00:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Interesting. Haven't checked all the facts yet.

http://funkyimg.com/i/2MdxT.jpg

(Mainly a test of my new image display link - thanks to Luddite.)

===

Unfortunately I believe the assertion with that picture is total BS.
It's my understanding that a typical wind mill produces the same
electrical power as a 2,000 horsepower diesel generator that would
burn approximately 100 gallons of diesel fuel per hour, 2400 gallons
per day.Â* Thats 876,000 gallons per year,Â* enough diesel fuel to fill
a mile of railroad tanker cars - way more than would be needed to
produce the steel in the windmill.

Some of the fake news floating around about wind power is just
astounding and makes me wonder who is behind it and why.Â* I suppose
the usual suspects would be the petro industry.

Haven't checked those facts either.



I watched an interview with Dr. Patrick Michaels last night on
Mark Levin's Sunday evening show, "Life, Liberty and Levin".

Michaels is a highly qualifiedÂ* climatologist with academic and
professional experience that would even impress Harry.


Mark Levin is a well-known crackpot conspirationalist and Michaels is
a paid hack for the fossil fuel industry and the Cato Institute,
which, by the way, is a libertarian front for the right-wing Koch
brothers. One would not expect any of them to be supportive of the
prevailing facts and theories on climate change and its causes.

Some 98% of climate scientists believe that most of the warming
observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities,
in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and
methane.





I didn't expect anything less from you Harry.Â* Try to ignore your
political brainwashing for a moment and consider what he said.


He's a paid hack, in the employ, as it were, of the fossil fuel
industry. That's what he said, even if he didn't say it it directly.


So the other “ climatologists “ are not in the employ of a biased money
funding group?