Awww.....SHIT!

[gallantwarrior]

The irony, when a rare bird draws bird watchers from far and wide, the avid amateur ornithologists get to witness its untimely end as a result of global warming. Yes sports fans, a rare White-throated Needletail, touted as the fastest flying bird in the world was whacked to death by a wind turbine as horrified watchers looked on.
Sometimes life just sucks, doesn't it?

Birdwatchers see rare swift killed by wind turbine - Telegraph

 

[flacaltenn]

But But But --- the Royal Society for Protection of Birds just made a big statement about how wind power is GREAT for birds.. They even BOUGHT a turbine to chop some up and demonstrate..

I think the swift is gonna hit the fan here....

 

[flacaltenn]

'bout a year ago Trakar and the usual suspects were all aglow about the RSPB putting up a wind turbine after opposing sitings like they should have in sensitive areas..

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...e-protection-of-birds-plans-wind-turbine.html

How much of a bird brain do you have to be to CHEER putting TURBINES in a nature preserve?

RSPB to build wind farms on its bird reserves - Telegraph

A wildlife charity which has been a vocal opponent of wind farms is to build turbines on its own nature reserves.
By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent
3:13PM GMT 06 Dec 2008
Comment
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) is drawing up plans that will see wind turbines constructed on its estates as part of a new green energy drive.

The move, which will see the RSPB generating power for its own buildings and selling any surplus to the National Grid, is likely to anger some RSPB members who believe wind farms pose a threat to rare birds of prey.

Wouldn't be that raising money from sucking Govt wind subsidies took the fight right out of them? Would it?

 

[Mr. H.]

Sad and funny at the same time.

 

[PredFan]

bump

 

[Foxfyre]

It is sad when birds are felled by the turbines, but they are also felled by aircraft and pesticides and other things too. I'm not sure birds are an important reason to give up on wind energy. A much better reason would be that there are more efficient, effective, and economical ways to produce the energy we need.

But there has been a long-time debate on whether habitat destruction or cats provide the greatest danger for birds. Well we've always had cats and probably a lot more outdoor cats in the past than what we have now.

As for habitat destruction:

 

[daveman]

It's not like the environmental crowd really gives a damn about the environment.

NOAA Estimate of Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone Is Shockingly Large | TIME.com

The major factor driving the size of the dead zone—beyond changing flooding patterns—is the use and overuse of fertilizers in America’s rich Midwestern corn belt. The U.S. Geological Survey estimated that 153,000 metric tons of nutrients flowed down the swollen Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers during May—a 16% increase over the nutrient load average seen during the past 34 years. And as James Greiff of Bloomberg points out in a recent piece, those nutrients are used disproportionately to feed one particular crop:

The culprits behind the dead zone are many, but one deserves special attention: corn. Unlike, say, soybeans, which can grow without fertilizer, corn can’t grow without it. It takes 195 pounds of fertilizer to grow an acre of corn.

And the U.S. grows a lot of corn — more than any other country. What’s more, 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop is devoted to making ethanol, which fuel companies must blend with gasoline under a congressional mandate. The Gulf dead zone is yet another reason for Congress to kill that mandate.​

 

[Amelia]

How much of a bird brain do you have to be to CHEER putting TURBINES in a nature preserve?

^^
that!

 

[Foxfyre]

It's not like the environmental crowd really gives a damn about the environment.

NOAA Estimate of Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone Is Shockingly Large | TIME.com

The major factor driving the size of the dead zone—beyond changing flooding patterns—is the use and overuse of fertilizers in America’s rich Midwestern corn belt. The U.S. Geological Survey estimated that 153,000 metric tons of nutrients flowed down the swollen Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers during May—a 16% increase over the nutrient load average seen during the past 34 years. And as James Greiff of Bloomberg points out in a recent piece, those nutrients are used disproportionately to feed one particular crop:

The culprits behind the dead zone are many, but one deserves special attention: corn. Unlike, say, soybeans, which can grow without fertilizer, corn can’t grow without it. It takes 195 pounds of fertilizer to grow an acre of corn.

And the U.S. grows a lot of corn — more than any other country. What’s more, 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop is devoted to making ethanol, which fuel companies must blend with gasoline under a congressional mandate. The Gulf dead zone is yet another reason for Congress to kill that mandate.​

You know where there are no dead zones in the Gulf? Around those oil platforms. They are teeming with ocean life where there used to be little to none before. Ditto in Alaska--the caribou and other critters love that pipeline. In the Texas Panhandle where there were only a few jackrabbits and coyotes, there are now all sorts of game birds that didn't used to be there and amazing herds of deer and antelope where there used to be none--all after the oil fields went in. I'm not saying it was the oil that attracted them, but it sure hasn't been detrimental to them.

 

[daveman]

It's not like the environmental crowd really gives a damn about the environment.

NOAA Estimate of Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone Is Shockingly Large | TIME.com

The major factor driving the size of the dead zone—beyond changing flooding patterns—is the use and overuse of fertilizers in America’s rich Midwestern corn belt. The U.S. Geological Survey estimated that 153,000 metric tons of nutrients flowed down the swollen Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers during May—a 16% increase over the nutrient load average seen during the past 34 years. And as James Greiff of Bloomberg points out in a recent piece, those nutrients are used disproportionately to feed one particular crop:

The culprits behind the dead zone are many, but one deserves special attention: corn. Unlike, say, soybeans, which can grow without fertilizer, corn can’t grow without it. It takes 195 pounds of fertilizer to grow an acre of corn.

And the U.S. grows a lot of corn — more than any other country. What’s more, 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop is devoted to making ethanol, which fuel companies must blend with gasoline under a congressional mandate. The Gulf dead zone is yet another reason for Congress to kill that mandate.​

You know where there are no dead zones in the Gulf? Around those oil platforms. They are teeming with ocean life where there used to be little to none before. Ditto in Alaska--the caribou and other critters love that pipeline. In the Texas Panhandle where there were only a few jackrabbits and coyotes, there are now all sorts of game birds that didn't used to be there and amazing herds of deer and antelope where there used to be none--all after the oil fields went in. I'm not saying it was the oil that attracted them, but it sure hasn't been detrimental to them.

It's not that our liberal friends are ignorant, it's that they know so much that isn't so.

-- Ronald Reagan


In the event of a discrepancy between reality and a liberal, reality is wrong.

 

[gallantwarrior]

It's not like the environmental crowd really gives a damn about the environment.

NOAA Estimate of Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone Is Shockingly Large | TIME.com

The major factor driving the size of the dead zone—beyond changing flooding patterns—is the use and overuse of fertilizers in America’s rich Midwestern corn belt. The U.S. Geological Survey estimated that 153,000 metric tons of nutrients flowed down the swollen Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers during May—a 16% increase over the nutrient load average seen during the past 34 years. And as James Greiff of Bloomberg points out in a recent piece, those nutrients are used disproportionately to feed one particular crop:

The culprits behind the dead zone are many, but one deserves special attention: corn. Unlike, say, soybeans, which can grow without fertilizer, corn can’t grow without it. It takes 195 pounds of fertilizer to grow an acre of corn.

And the U.S. grows a lot of corn — more than any other country. What’s more, 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop is devoted to making ethanol, which fuel companies must blend with gasoline under a congressional mandate. The Gulf dead zone is yet another reason for Congress to kill that mandate.​

You know where there are no dead zones in the Gulf? Around those oil platforms. They are teeming with ocean life where there used to be little to none before. Ditto in Alaska--the caribou and other critters love that pipeline. In the Texas Panhandle where there were only a few jackrabbits and coyotes, there are now all sorts of game birds that didn't used to be there and amazing herds of deer and antelope where there used to be none--all after the oil fields went in. I'm not saying it was the oil that attracted them, but it sure hasn't been detrimental to them.

Up here, where they once did hard rock mining, they reclaimed the land and you can't always tell the difference. Understanding the cycles of an ecosystem helps one understand that those beautiful old growth areas are not always the best wildlife habitat. Even wildfires serve an important purpose in the respect of ecological renewal. I find it ultimately ironic that all these efforts to protect and preserve the environment have some horrific unintended consequences.

 

[Two Thumbs]

There is no source of energy that I cannot liberal into the ground.

not one

 

[ScienceRocks]

Nuclear and fusion are probably the best....

 

[Foxfyre]

It's not like the environmental crowd really gives a damn about the environment.

NOAA Estimate of Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone Is Shockingly Large | TIME.com

You know where there are no dead zones in the Gulf? Around those oil platforms. They are teeming with ocean life where there used to be little to none before. Ditto in Alaska--the caribou and other critters love that pipeline. In the Texas Panhandle where there were only a few jackrabbits and coyotes, there are now all sorts of game birds that didn't used to be there and amazing herds of deer and antelope where there used to be none--all after the oil fields went in. I'm not saying it was the oil that attracted them, but it sure hasn't been detrimental to them.

Up here, where they once did hard rock mining, they reclaimed the land and you can't always tell the difference. Understanding the cycles of an ecosystem helps one understand that those beautiful old growth areas are not always the best wildlife habitat. Even wildfires serve an important purpose in the respect of ecological renewal. I find it ultimately ironic that all these efforts to protect and preserve the environment have some horrific unintended consequences.

It wasn't all that long ago that the Spotted Owl was the poster bird for environmental extremists. They HAD TO HAVE OLD GROWTH FOREST to survive and that justified putting thousands of loggers out of work we heard again and again. At least until Spottel Owls were found nesting in K-mart signs.

The fact is that living creatures and plants have been evolving and going extinct on this planet for at least 2 billion years. Humans are also a species with every bit as much value as any other creature. But humans and all other creatures that live on Earth at this time have survived by adjusting and adapting to ever changing conditions that have never and never will stay exactly the same.

Nobody I have ever met wants to wantonly or carelessly harm the environment or the life forms that inhabit the Earth. Of course we don't want to wantonly destroy habitat or unnecessary threaten any species. But to assume that the critters we share the Earth with are unable to adapt and adjust to any changing conditions at all is just silly.

 

[daveman]

You know where there are no dead zones in the Gulf? Around those oil platforms. They are teeming with ocean life where there used to be little to none before. Ditto in Alaska--the caribou and other critters love that pipeline. In the Texas Panhandle where there were only a few jackrabbits and coyotes, there are now all sorts of game birds that didn't used to be there and amazing herds of deer and antelope where there used to be none--all after the oil fields went in. I'm not saying it was the oil that attracted them, but it sure hasn't been detrimental to them.

Up here, where they once did hard rock mining, they reclaimed the land and you can't always tell the difference. Understanding the cycles of an ecosystem helps one understand that those beautiful old growth areas are not always the best wildlife habitat. Even wildfires serve an important purpose in the respect of ecological renewal. I find it ultimately ironic that all these efforts to protect and preserve the environment have some horrific unintended consequences.

It wasn't all that long ago that the Spotted Owl was the poster bird for environmental extremists. They HAD TO HAVE OLD GROWTH FOREST to survive and that justified putting thousands of loggers out of work we heard again and again. At least until Spottel Owls were found nesting in K-mart signs.

The fact is that living creatures and plants have been evolving and going extinct on this planet for at least 2 billion years. Humans are also a species with every bit as much value as any other creature. But humans and all other creatures that live on Earth at this time have survived by adjusting and adapting to ever changing conditions that have never and never will stay exactly the same.

Nobody I have ever met wants to wantonly or carelessly harm the environment or the life forms that inhabit the Earth. Of course we don't want to wantonly destroy habitat or unnecessary threaten any species. But to assume that the critters we share the Earth with are unable to adapt and adjust to any changing conditions at all is just silly.

You have to keep in mind that in the world view of environmentalists, human being are an aberration. Apparently, we DIDN'T evolve -- we invaded. And we're not part of nature.

The most extreme of them think humans should be eliminated, in part or in whole.

That's the only thing that will make Baby Gaea happy, apparently.

 

[flacaltenn]

Wonder if we classify some of these windmills as "assault windmills"??

You know, limit them to 2 blades and 100mph blade speeds.. Nobody needs 3 blades and 200mph to kill a bird..

 

[Mr. H.]

Wonder if we classify some of these windmills as "assault windmills"??

You know, limit them to 2 blades and 100mph blade speeds.. Nobody needs 3 blades and 200mph to kill a bird..

I wonder what it would take to kill a mockingbird,

 

[Mr. H.]

I'll bet Finch would know the answer to that.

 

[flacaltenn]

Wonder if we classify some of these windmills as "assault windmills"??

You know, limit them to 2 blades and 100mph blade speeds.. Nobody needs 3 blades and 200mph to kill a bird..

I wonder what it would take to kill a mockingbird,

Joe Biden says a single shot shotgun is enough.. Give 'em single shot windmills where you have to pull the trigger and reload. That'll give the birds a fightin chance..

 

[Two Thumbs]

Nuclear and fusion are probably the best....

funny story

Last month, on yahoo, there was a story about a leading anti-nuc guy admitting that the stance against nuclear power was not fact based but all fear based.

I started a thread, but not that many cared.