Global Warming is about giving your government more regulatory powerand your eventual enslavment.

On Oct 17, 10:31*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 07:58:00 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
You didn't limit your previous comments to an entire species of birds,
did you? What species?

What I said, specifically, was:

Personally, I place more value on an entire species of bird (eagle,
osprey, etc) than I do on the number of lives lost to malaria. That's a
matter of personal philosophy, however. It has nothing to do with
science.

Unadulterated BS based upon a ridiculous book
written by an overwrought Green with no expertise in the field.
"Silent Spring" indeed. What bird species were "wiped out" in the US
during the extensive use of DDT to control mosquitoes?

What I said above is all I said. I didn't say that any species was wiped
out (although it seems quite certain that a number of raptor species
were well on their way, and that because of the overuse or misuse of
DDT). BTW, I also said that I wasn't opposed to the use of DDT, and that
most of the problems it has caused have been the result of years of
misuse (which not only resulted in the near extinction of some valuable
species, but also produced a high level of resistance in mosquitoes and
may ultimately result in more human suffering).

Even if the massive turbines wipe out "an entire species" of migrating
birds?

Well, that's why we are wise to consider the environmental effects of
large projects. My position would be that if enough birds were killed to
cause a species to go extinct (particularly a very distinct species), an
extremely high value would need to be demonstrated by the project. More
than I think could reasonably be shown. If the overall population of the
bird species was only slightly or moderately affected, such a project
might well be acceptable.

You can't honestly believe there's a valid argument here? We don't have
the physical resources to build enough wind turbines to measurably
reduce the energy from any wind pattern.

And you base this statement on ?????

Common sense. Winds near the ground are the lowest speed winds, up to
tens of kilometers high. Turbines only extract a few percent at most of
the wind energy, and only from a fairly small cross section of the total
volume of the farm. And the biggest farms we could build would cover
only a tiny fraction of the Earth's surface. Any small forest or
mountain is obviously going to have a much greater impact on wind
patterns than a turbine farm.

There are any number of environmental tradeoffs to consider when it
comes to wind power generation, but the effects of removing a bit of
kinetic energy from natural air currents is not one of them.

Specifics please. What have been the results of environmental studies
on the deployment of massive wind farms as espoused by the Greens?
Have there been ANY studies?

Of course. Even the most cursory web search would answer that question.
Wind farms are evaluated for their impact on birds and animals, on their
effects on groundwater, on secondary effects from the transport of
power, on their true efficiency based on the energy cost of building and
maintaining the turbines, and more.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

Ah, selective clipping of my message, responses consisting of banal
generalities and selective answers-the last resort of those spouting
nonsense.