A researched response on offshore wind

I would like to point out a few of many shortcomings in Tom Molnar's anti-offshore wind letter. I list below my counter-arguments to his complaints.

1. His complaint about this project being carried out by a foreign-owned company is irrelevant. You can find, in five minutes of internet search, that U.S. entities own tons of companies existing and doing business in other countries just as entities in other countries own businesses operating here. 

2. High offshore wind towers and big anchor foundations already exist in much larger wind farms in many places around the world and cause few problems. Any disturbance to marine life is minuscule compared to large-scale fishing operations that are already known to be overfishing the oceans. 

3. Molnar did not reference his source for marine disturbance from "harmonic resonance," but I never hear any anti-offshore wind people talk about noise from ship propellers or military SONAR pings. Do an internet search, like I did years ago, and find recognition of significant bad effects from those acoustic sounds too. Magnetic fields? Any intermediate-level undergraduate physics textbook on electrodynamics will show there are neither electric nor magnetic fields farther than a few feet from either coaxial or parallel unshielded transmission lines (my BS degree is in physics). You can confirm this too with an internet search.

4. Molnar said wind turbines have not been tested in hurricane waters. Not true. Just to be up to date, I did an internet search, before writing this essay, on the keyword string: "offshore turbine hurricane risk." I found many references to turbine survivability through Category 3 or 156 mph winds. The industry is widely aware of the probability of greater risks at higher wind speeds as well as all the other failure modes. 

5. Molnar made reference to lubricating oil in wind turbines. How much lubricating oil is used per vehicle per year in all the cars and trucks out there? How much oil leaks out of all the ships and oil rigs that are on the oceans? 

6. Bird deaths? A couple of years ago, it was found that pet cats running around outside kill more birds than wind turbine blades.

7. Molnar goes on to list numerous additional negatives or questions, without citing sources or details, or how he developed his letter beyond implying that he did the research he says everyone else should do. I do know that a politically motivated opposition movement is expanding and injecting minimally credible misinformation and flat-out disinformation into the media. Indeed, I have seen many opposition letters and articles written so similarly to Molnar's that I suspect many authors are just copying someone else's opposition kit research. In addition, this movement never lists the positive details. His letter is biased from the get-go. The main two positives about wind energy are: 1. Wind generation, along with solar, is the cheapest way to generate electricity today, and 2. Low-emission renewable electricity will help a lot to get excess greenhouse gas production under control.