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. Thats 876,000 gallons per year, 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. 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 qualified climatologist with academic and
professional experience that would even impress Harry.

He offered very interesting facts and rebuttals to the claims of
the doom and gloom aspects of climate change that are so widely
spread by scientists. He doesn't deny the fact that climate change
exists but insists that it's a naturally occurring process that
actually has benefits to the balance of nature on the planet.

For example, the higher levels of CO2 (greenhouse effect) is promoting
the new "green" growth on earth with the most visible affects being
the rain forests that have been destroyed by mankind over the years.
The greenhouse effect is also promoting grassland and grazing fields
in areas that have become dry and barren over the years.

He points to a study consisting of 32 world scientists representing
many nations and their predictions of global warming. The problem is
that the average of all these predictions are at least 10 times higher
than what has actually happend, based on real measurements.

He also gave a history lesson as to why the federal government has
become the main source of funding for these research programs.
It was following WWII and the development of the atomic bomb.
Before he died Roosevelt recognized the benefit of having key
scientists addressing a problem and promoted the establishment
of a federally financed Academy of Science. Thus began the
government funding of grants, etc. The problem is that (according
to Michaels) the government ends up putting a bias on what
the results of these scientific studies produce and the scientists
feel compelled to support the government's position in order to
continue receiving funding.

He pointed out a 2014 study about hurricanes for example. Much is
talked about in scientific groups and then repeated by the media that
global warming is causing storms like hurricanes to become more frequent
and increasing in strength. The 2014 report he cited contained data
from 1980 to 2009 and showed a general strengthening of hurricanes
during that period that supports the global warming argument. But then
he pointed out that those years were "cherry picked" to produce the
results wanted. The report was released in 2014 yet the data used
started in 1980 and ended in 2009. Reason? Because if you include
data from 2009 to 2014 or any data prior to 1980, the results indicate
that overall the hurricane strength has not changed at all.

Here's some of his credentials:

https://www.cato.org/people/patrick-michaels