Jump to content

wind turbines kill more birds than BP oil spill


cooltigger21

Recommended Posts

Environmentalists got all bent out if shape over the birds that died as a result of the BP oil spill. In the same time span "environmentally friendly" wind turbines have killed even more. They don't seem to mind that. http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/20/wind-turbines-kill-more-birds-than-bp-oil-spill/

Link to comment
Share on other sites





Oh no! You are stepping on PCers mantra !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For comparison, how many birds are killed by simply flying into buildings every year? How about cats?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, environmentalists oppose oil spills so logically, they aren't concerned about windmill strikes. :-\

This sort of dumb-ass perspective was tailored for the audience of simple-minded people. The sort of people with a strong egotistical susceptibility for exaggerated identity politics that support their pathetic partisan paradigms.

So it's certainly no surprise to see TinyTim's prompt confirmation. :-\

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no! You are stepping on PCers mantra !!!

I told you so. Lock step Libs never waiver from marching orders. Priceless !!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For comparison, how many birds are killed by simply flying into buildings every year? How about cats?

tumblr_m9c5wwmckg1ru1wbho3_250.gif

Note to moron: Cats can't fly!!! Bwahahaha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For comparison, how many birds are killed by simply flying into buildings every year? How about cats?

tumblr_m9c5wwmckg1ru1wbho3_250.gif

Note to moron: Cats can't fly!!! Bwahahaha

They don't have to. They still kill 1.4 to 3.7 billion (that's billion, with a B )birds annually. Roughly a billion are killed by flying into buildings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For comparison, how many birds are killed by simply flying into buildings every year? How about cats?

tumblr_m9c5wwmckg1ru1wbho3_250.gif

Note to moron: Cats can't fly!!! Bwahahaha

They don't have to. They still kill 1.4 to 3.7 billion (that's billion, with a B )birds annually. Roughly a billion are killed by flying into buildings.

If that were Muslims little War Timmy would be inserting all sorts of dancing bananas...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For comparison, how many birds are killed by simply flying into buildings every year? How about cats?

tumblr_m9c5wwmckg1ru1wbho3_250.gif

Note to moron: Cats can't fly!!! Bwahahaha

flying-cat-at-girl.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For comparison, how many birds are killed by simply flying into buildings every year? How about cats?

tumblr_m9c5wwmckg1ru1wbho3_250.gif

Note to moron: Cats can't fly!!! Bwahahaha

flying-cat-at-girl.jpg

:laugh:

200_s.gif

Flying_cat_balls.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sewing circle e-mail hotline has you ladies working overtime!! Bwahahahaha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We haven't even gotten to the ones incinerated by solar farms. That's estimated to be around 30,000 a year. That is lowballing it I think. Birds killed by evil big oil is bad. Birds !killed by wind turbines and solar farms are just a necessary sacrifice for the environmental movement to save us from climate change or whatever they have decided to call it today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apples and oranges...

The BP spill was a single event, an accident of (hopefully) improbable odds. The primary casualties were water-dwelling species and some on land (both wildlife, and humans suffering economically). It is not even logical to assume there would be equally significant damage in the air. How many fish do wind turbines kill every year? (And to be fair, off-shore wind farms probably do kill some--not with their blades of course, but other ecological effects due to their presence and maintenance.)

The other statistic, turbine-caused bird deaths, is measuring an ongoing effect, not a singular unique event of catastrophic proportions. A more appropriate analogue would be to compare the regular annual casualties from other on-going sources--not only buildings, solar farms, or cats, as has been mentioned--but the environmental consequences of other energy sources: deaths from flying through smokestack exhausts, deaths from regular minor oil spills, effects of hydroelectric plants on the ecosystem or breeding, regular effects of tankers or drilling on sea bird colonies, etc. How about power plants that attract manatees into warm water and the propellers of motorboats? My point is that there is no scientific basis for comparing a one-time catastrophic event to annual, recurring attrition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apples and oranges...

The BP spill was a single event, an accident of (hopefully) improbable odds. The primary casualties were water-dwelling species and some on land (both wildlife, and humans suffering economically). It is not even logical to assume there would be equally significant damage in the air. How many fish do wind turbines kill every year? (And to be fair, off-shore wind farms probably do kill some--not with their blades of course, but other ecological effects due to their presence and maintenance.)

The other statistic, turbine-caused bird deaths, is measuring an ongoing effect, not a singular unique event of catastrophic proportions. A more appropriate analogue would be to compare the regular annual casualties from other on-going sources--not only buildings, solar farms, or cats, as has been mentioned--but the environmental consequences of other energy sources: deaths from flying through smokestack exhausts, deaths from regular minor oil spills, effects of hydroelectric plants on the ecosystem or breeding, regular effects of tankers or drilling on sea bird colonies, etc. How about power plants that attract manatees into warm water and the propellers of motorboats? My point is that there is no scientific basis for comparing a one-time catastrophic event to annual, recurring attrition.

Cooltigger be like........but......OBAMA!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is sssooo funny on so many levels... :lol:/>

Right?

Besides, though, can you honestly tell me that this little birdy is innocent?

j0i1y8.jpg

Sure! Looks like a harmless little Marty Feldman bird!

Marty-Feldman-1-.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apples and oranges...

The BP spill was a single event, an accident of (hopefully) improbable odds. The primary casualties were water-dwelling species and some on land (both wildlife, and humans suffering economically). It is not even logical to assume there would be equally significant damage in the air. How many fish do wind turbines kill every year? (And to be fair, off-shore wind farms probably do kill some--not with their blades of course, but other ecological effects due to their presence and maintenance.)

The other statistic, turbine-caused bird deaths, is measuring an ongoing effect, not a singular unique event of catastrophic proportions. A more appropriate analogue would be to compare the regular annual casualties from other on-going sources--not only buildings, solar farms, or cats, as has been mentioned--but the environmental consequences of other energy sources: deaths from flying through smokestack exhausts, deaths from regular minor oil spills, effects of hydroelectric plants on the ecosystem or breeding, regular effects of tankers or drilling on sea bird colonies, etc. How about power plants that attract manatees into warm water and the propellers of motorboats? My point is that there is no scientific basis for comparing a one-time catastrophic event to annual, recurring attrition.

I'm just having fun watching you liberals try to make all kinds of excuses about this. I'm not the one all hyped up about the wonder of wind power and solar power. Evidently its ok to kill birds as long as it is done by an environmentally friendly wind turbine or solar panel. The environmentally friendly part is a joke in and of itself.I'm not the one that thinks oil is evil and needs to be done away with. Same goes for coal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apples and oranges...

The BP spill was a single event, an accident of (hopefully) improbable odds. The primary casualties were water-dwelling species and some on land (both wildlife, and humans suffering economically). It is not even logical to assume there would be equally significant damage in the air. How many fish do wind turbines kill every year? (And to be fair, off-shore wind farms probably do kill some--not with their blades of course, but other ecological effects due to their presence and maintenance.)

The other statistic, turbine-caused bird deaths, is measuring an ongoing effect, not a singular unique event of catastrophic proportions. A more appropriate analogue would be to compare the regular annual casualties from other on-going sources--not only buildings, solar farms, or cats, as has been mentioned--but the environmental consequences of other energy sources: deaths from flying through smokestack exhausts, deaths from regular minor oil spills, effects of hydroelectric plants on the ecosystem or breeding, regular effects of tankers or drilling on sea bird colonies, etc. How about power plants that attract manatees into warm water and the propellers of motorboats? My point is that there is no scientific basis for comparing a one-time catastrophic event to annual, recurring attrition.

I'm just having fun watching you liberals try to make all kinds of excuses about this. I'm not the one all hyped up about the wonder of wind power and solar power. Evidently its ok to kill birds as long as it is done by an environmentally friendly wind turbine or solar panel. The environmentally friendly part is a joke in and of itself.I'm not the one that thinks oil is evil and needs to be done away with. Same goes for coal.

Who's making excuses? And I haven't heard anyone say bird deaths caused by turbines are "okay" because "green" is a friendlier way to die. No energy sources, indeed no human endeavor, is ever going to be perfect or completely free of negative effects.

I'm neither defending nor attacking a particular technology. We have to make our decisions based on the relative merits and flaws of all competing technologies.

My only points were points of logic, not statements about the pros and cons of oil, coal, wind, solar, nuclear, etc.:

1. It's illogical to expect water pollution to have similar aerial consequences as wind turbines.

2. And there is little statistical value in comparing a singular catastrophic event to regular, ongoing attrition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

blog_bird_fatalities.jpg

Helpful chart. Here I am whipping out numbers of bird deaths due to human activity numbered in the billions. Maybe your chart will help. :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Members Online

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...