Wind Farm Seeks Permit to KILL GOLDEN EAGLES

[westwall]

Do you suppose that the conservative concern for killing birds will result in Tea Party Congress members proposing outlawing Thanksgiving?

why would they

Do you know how many birds die in the lead up to Thanksgiving?????

How many of those are endangered?

 

[westwall]

No sir, golden eagles are not endangered:

United States Fish and Wildlife Service list of endangered species of mammals and birds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They are, however, a protected species, and as the NBC video showed, every effort is being made to protect them.

Ahhhhh yes, the ever popular semantics wars. What happens when a protected species loses 50% of its population?

Though I must say I finally figured it out. You idiots are always going on about how the human population needs to be reduced and I finally figured out that before you can start sacrificing people to your pagan Gods you are practicing on wildlife like other savages....

 

[PMZ]

why would they

Do you know how many birds die in the lead up to Thanksgiving?????

How many of those are endangered?

All of them!

 

[gallantwarrior]

Why are the inherent risks associated with producing energy from "green" sources deemed acceptable?

In an ideal world, there would be no risk at all to producing energy. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world. But the risks associated with most alternative energy sources are demonstrably less than those associated with traditional energy sources. Let's give a clue here - that is one of the reasons why they are the alternatives, one of the reasons why we are gravitating towards those sources and away from traditional sources.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need energy. The temperature would stay the same balmy 70F, day or night. It would only rain at night, when everyone was safely tucked into they leafy nests, hung safely from giant trees. Food would grow, ripe for the picking and in such perfect abundance we would never need to consume our fellow creatures. Everyone would love everyone else and we'd all live together in perfect harmony. We would suffer no pain, no hunger, no envy of what others had 'cause of course, we'd all have exactly the same things everyone else had, no need to redistribute one person's good to others. No one would have to work, or toil, or labor. Nothing would have to be earned, so there would be no need for income equality.
Alas, Shangri La was lost. Eden was lost. Atlantis was lost. Too bad this isn't the ideal world.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Beg to differ. Windmills do not move air, they are moved by air. Both buildings and windmills obstruct air flow. The amount of disruption is dependent on the area (facing the wind) and the configuration or shape of the object. Buildings, due to their more angular shape and their width, would generally be more disruptive to flow. Height, is, of course a factor. A two story house will not have as much effect as a 300 foot windmill.

Although both transfer energy out the atmosphere, neither nor both does so to a sufficient degree to affect the weather to a detectable degree.

They do move air, as the air propels the turbines, they change the airflow around them. That is why the are set so far apart. There is a lot of turbulence, you might try going to a wind farm and get educated.

They do move air, as the air propels the turbines, they change the airflow around them.

certainly

Couldn't be any clearer than that. Thanks.

 

[westwall]

Do you know how many birds die in the lead up to Thanksgiving?????

How many of those are endangered?

All of them!

Really? Corporate raised turkey are endangered?

 

[jon_berzerk]

The fact is that windfarms killing birds is a tiny fraction of the issue of bird deaths due to human causes, and yet you people single out windfarms to the exclusion of every other cause. How many birds are killed by gun owners, for instance? You deniers are desperate to try to use such an issue to stop the use of alternative energy.

Because wind turbines are THE primary source of man caused death for endangered species you incompetent fool. Sparrows aren't exactly endangered are they? When's the last time you saw a cat kill a red tailed hawk? When's the last time you saw a building leap out and kill an endangered bat? Hmmm?

The fact is if you want to drive the various raptor species to extinction then the windmill is the perfect weapon to do it.

PROVE ME WRONG!

When's the last time you saw a cat kill a red tailed hawk?


much like the fox hawks will make a meal of the puddy cat

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gSHhwejpDg]Hawk eats cat - YouTube[/ame]

 

[jon_berzerk]

yes golden eagles doing this fall victim

to the domestic cat


Warning graphic

graphic content

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz7FFlFy8eM]Golden Eagle dragging mountains goats off cliffs. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PMZ]

Why are the inherent risks associated with producing energy from "green" sources deemed acceptable?

In an ideal world, there would be no risk at all to producing energy. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world. But the risks associated with most alternative energy sources are demonstrably less than those associated with traditional energy sources. Let's give a clue here - that is one of the reasons why they are the alternatives, one of the reasons why we are gravitating towards those sources and away from traditional sources.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need energy. The temperature would stay the same balmy 70F, day or night. It would only rain at night, when everyone was safely tucked into they leafy nests, hung safely from giant trees. Food would grow, ripe for the picking and in such perfect abundance we would never need to consume our fellow creatures. Everyone would love everyone else and we'd all live together in perfect harmony. We would suffer no pain, no hunger, no envy of what others had 'cause of course, we'd all have exactly the same things everyone else had, no need to redistribute one person's good to others. No one would have to work, or toil, or labor. Nothing would have to be earned, so there would be no need for income equality.
Alas, Shangri La was lost. Eden was lost. Atlantis was lost. Too bad this isn't the ideal world.

It isn't, thanks to free will coupled to ignorance and gullibility and self-centeredness and irresponsiblity. That’s why the American electorate is in the process of excorcising those traits from our government.

That's why Boehner is toast.

That’s why the return to competent government and progress is at hand.

 

[PMZ]

How many of those are endangered?

All of them!

Really? Corporate raised turkey are endangered?

I'm talking about butchered birds not corporate raised turkey conservatives.

 

[westwall]

In an ideal world, there would be no risk at all to producing energy. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world. But the risks associated with most alternative energy sources are demonstrably less than those associated with traditional energy sources. Let's give a clue here - that is one of the reasons why they are the alternatives, one of the reasons why we are gravitating towards those sources and away from traditional sources.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need energy. The temperature would stay the same balmy 70F, day or night. It would only rain at night, when everyone was safely tucked into they leafy nests, hung safely from giant trees. Food would grow, ripe for the picking and in such perfect abundance we would never need to consume our fellow creatures. Everyone would love everyone else and we'd all live together in perfect harmony. We would suffer no pain, no hunger, no envy of what others had 'cause of course, we'd all have exactly the same things everyone else had, no need to redistribute one person's good to others. No one would have to work, or toil, or labor. Nothing would have to be earned, so there would be no need for income equality.
Alas, Shangri La was lost. Eden was lost. Atlantis was lost. Too bad this isn't the ideal world.

It isn't, thanks to free will coupled to ignorance and gullibility and self-centeredness and irresponsiblity. That’s why the American electorate is in the process of excorcising those traits from our government.

That's why Boehner is toast.

That’s why the return to competent government and progress is at hand.

Funny how your guys "progress" always ends up with millions dead.

 

[westwall]

All of them!

Really? Corporate raised turkey are endangered?

I'm talking about butchered birds not corporate raised turkey conservatives.

Yes, we know you were talking out your ass...as usual..

 

[SSDD]

Two i have not ignored any facts because you have not shown any

you post quite a bit opinion but not much more

Then please address this, which I have posted for you four times now, and which you have ignored each time.

As I informed you several times now, windmills kill 0.003% of all birds killed by humans in the US. Also, wind mills kill less birds each year, down by1/3 in the past decade in some countries.

btw. I apologise if the quote was not yours, but it was in your statement. If you were quoting someone else, the comment was not marked as a quote.

What percentage of "all things human" are windmills. Of all the human structures on earth that kill birds, what percentage do windmills account for? Looked at in that light, it is clear that windmills are a bane on wildlife that flies.

 

[SSDD]

You'll have to show me evidence that petroleum facilities are getting fined far and wide for bird deaths because I conducted environmental assessments and investigations of such facilities throughout the 1990s and 2000s and never saw bird kills as a serious compliance issue at any except at certain facilities such as oil and wastewater pits.

FOX News - Top Stories - FLIGHT OF HYPOCRISY? Feds Fine Oil Firms, Ignore Wind Farms Killing Birds

Oil Companies Prosecuted for Avian Deaths but Wind Companies Kill Birds With Impunity

Bird Death Fines Depend On Who Kills The Birds

Big Oil pays big bucks for bird kills, while wind farms breathe easy | Alaska Dispatch

Following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, BP was fined $100 million for the damage it caused to bird populations in the area, both migratory and resident. A similar punishment was doled out to Exxon Mobil Corp. in the wake of its 1989 spill from the Exxon Valdez tanker in Alaska's Prince William Sound. In that incident, an estimated 250,000 sea birds and about 250 eagles were killed, about half of the predicted number killed each year by wind turbine activity.

he AP notes that it can be difficult to nail down the exact number of birds killed each year by wind turbines because companies are not required to report bird kills.

It doesn't take much research to find the evidence that you claim to be unaware of. The fact that you claim to have been involved in such investigation and remain unaware speaks volumes.

 

[SSDD]

Buildings do, in fact, alter wind flow, and present much larger obstacles for birds than windfarms (which is why so many birds are killed by them), so what, exactly, is your point here?

Buildings do not consist of blades moving in excess of 100 mph.

 

[orogenicman]

Buildings do, in fact, alter wind flow, and present much larger obstacles for birds than windfarms (which is why so many birds are killed by them), so what, exactly, is your point here?

Buildings do not consist of blades moving in excess of 100 mph.

They don't have to be. All they have to do is stand in the flight paths of migratory birds and block the way. All their glass covered facades have to do is be confusing to the vision of birds and BLOCK the way. All they have to do is create wind tunnels around their structures and direct where birds can and cannot fly when in their vicinity.

 

[PMZ]

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need energy. The temperature would stay the same balmy 70F, day or night. It would only rain at night, when everyone was safely tucked into they leafy nests, hung safely from giant trees. Food would grow, ripe for the picking and in such perfect abundance we would never need to consume our fellow creatures. Everyone would love everyone else and we'd all live together in perfect harmony. We would suffer no pain, no hunger, no envy of what others had 'cause of course, we'd all have exactly the same things everyone else had, no need to redistribute one person's good to others. No one would have to work, or toil, or labor. Nothing would have to be earned, so there would be no need for income equality.
Alas, Shangri La was lost. Eden was lost. Atlantis was lost. Too bad this isn't the ideal world.

It isn't, thanks to free will coupled to ignorance and gullibility and self-centeredness and irresponsiblity. That’s why the American electorate is in the process of excorcising those traits from our government.

That's why Boehner is toast.

That’s why the return to competent government and progress is at hand.

Funny how your guys "progress" always ends up with millions dead.

You're thinking of the Bushman's war on Islam.

Be specific about progress resulting in millions dead.

As near as I can tell solving problems before there are millions dead is what liberals add to humanity.

 

[PMZ]

Two i have not ignored any facts because you have not shown any

you post quite a bit opinion but not much more

Then please address this, which I have posted for you four times now, and which you have ignored each time.

As I informed you several times now, windmills kill 0.003% of all birds killed by humans in the US. Also, wind mills kill less birds each year, down by1/3 in the past decade in some countries.

btw. I apologise if the quote was not yours, but it was in your statement. If you were quoting someone else, the comment was not marked as a quote.

What percentage of "all things human" are windmills. Of all the human structures on earth that kill birds, what percentage do windmills account for? Looked at in that light, it is clear that windmills are a bane on wildlife that flies.

You didn't supply any data at all! How does what you want to be true make anything clear?

 

[gallantwarrior]

The fact is that windfarms killing birds is a tiny fraction of the issue of bird deaths due to human causes, and yet you people single out windfarms to the exclusion of every other cause. How many birds are killed by gun owners, for instance? You deniers are desperate to try to use such an issue to stop the use of alternative energy.

Because wind turbines are THE primary source of man caused death for endangered species you incompetent fool. Sparrows aren't exactly endangered are they? When's the last time you saw a cat kill a red tailed hawk? When's the last time you saw a building leap out and kill an endangered bat? Hmmm?

The fact is if you want to drive the various raptor species to extinction then the windmill is the perfect weapon to do it.

PROVE ME WRONG!

When's the last time you saw a cat kill a red tailed hawk?


much like the fox hawks will make a meal of the puddy cat

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gSHhwejpDg]Hawk eats cat - YouTube[/ame]

It's not clear whether the hawk had killed what appears to be a kitten. I will say, in Alaska, it happens all the time that eagles take cats and small dogs. Every spring, I worry about the nearby nesting pair of eagles that are quite capable of grabbing up my kid goats for a meal. For a large part, eagles are scavengers.

 

[westwall]

It isn't, thanks to free will coupled to ignorance and gullibility and self-centeredness and irresponsiblity. That’s why the American electorate is in the process of excorcising those traits from our government.

That's why Boehner is toast.

That’s why the return to competent government and progress is at hand.

Funny how your guys "progress" always ends up with millions dead.

You're thinking of the Bushman's war on Islam.

Be specific about progress resulting in millions dead.

As near as I can tell solving problems before there are millions dead is what liberals add to humanity.

Just as progressives were generally enthusiastic about socialist movements in the Soviet Union and Europe, they were also overwhelmingly supportive of the fascist movements in Italy and Germany during the 1920s and 1930s. “In many respects,” writes journalist Jonah Goldberg, “the founding fathers of modern liberalism, the men and women who laid the intellectual groundwork of the New Deal and the welfare state, thought that fascism sounded like ... a worthwhile 'experiment'”:

•H. G. Wells, one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century, said in 1932 that progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.” Regarding totalitarianism, he stated: “I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic.” Calling for a “‘Phoenix Rebirth’ of Liberalism” under the umbrella of “Liberal Fascism,” Wells said: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.”
•The poet Wallace Stevens pronounced himself “pro-Mussolini personally.”
•The eminent historian Charles Beard wrote of Mussolini’s efforts: “Beyond question, an amazing experiment is being made [in Italy], an experiment in reconciling individualism and socialism.”
•Muckraking journalists almost universally admired Mussolini. Lincoln Steffens, for one, said that Italian fascism made Western democracy, by comparison, look like a system run by “petty persons with petty purposes.” Mussolini, Steffens proclaimed reverently, had been “formed” by God “out of the rib of Italy.”
•McClure’s Magazine founder Samuel McClure, an important figure in the muckraking movement, described Italian fascism as “a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.”
•After having vistited Italy and interviewed Mussolini in 1926, the American humorist Will Rogers, who was informally dubbed “Ambassador-at-Large of the United States” by the National Press Club, said of the fascist dictator: “I’m pretty high on that bird.” “Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government,” Rogers wrote, “that is, if you have the right dictator.”
•Reporter Ida Tarbell was deeply impressed by Mussolini's attitudes regarding labor, affectionately dubbing him “a despot with a dimple.”
•NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois saw National Socialism as a worthy model for economic organization. The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, he wrote, had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937 DuBois stated: “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”
•FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: “It's the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious.”
•New Republic editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was “trying out the economics of fascism.”
•Playwright George Bernard Shaw hailed Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as the world’s great “progressive” leaders because they “did things,” unlike the leaders of those “putrefying corpses” called parliamentary democracies.


PROGRESSIVE SUPPORT FOR RUSSIA'S BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION

Progressives generally greeted the 1917 Bolshevik revolution in Russia with great enthusiasm, embracing it as a worthy effort to create a socialist utopia. In the 1920s and 1930s, a host of credulous progressive journalists traveled to Russia to chronicle the the revolution's afterglow, so as to inform Americans about the historic significance of what was transpiring there. According to author Jonah Goldberg: “Most liberals saw the Bolsheviks as a popular and progressive movement.... Nearly the entire liberal elite, including much of FDR's Brain Trust, made the pilgrimage to Moscow to take admiring notes on the Soviet experiment.”


Progressive Support for Italian and German Fascism - Discover the Networks




Two Instances of an Anti-Peasant Mode of Development

Agorist Quarterly - Joseph Stromberg - English Enclosures and Soviet Collectivization



Yes, I can go on and on about "progressives" and how they and their policies always seem to end up with millions and millions of dead people.