WIND POWER. Is it time for some honesty?

[John D]

Originally Posted by Manders

It's not an attitude, its how nature works.

When did 'windturbines' become a part of nature ????????????
It is an attitude when someone makes a statement as you have.
So very sad that someone interested in 'wild about Britain' can think that way.

John D
Zenfolio | John's Wild World

[rossy]

Originally Posted by John D

When did 'windturbines' become a part of nature ????????????
It is an attitude when someone makes a statement as you have.
So very sad that someone interested in 'wild about Britain' can think that way.

John D
Zenfolio | John's Wild World

ditto john d. i think manders looks in the mirror and argues with him or herself. and im pretty certain that he or she isnt one bit intrested in wildlife. its a no brainer for me . i just laugh it off. absolutely clueless. rossy.

[rossy]

Originally Posted by Manders

Well put it this way, you have about as much chance of having domestic cats banned as you have of getting wind turbines banned by using the 'total bird deaths argument'.

another boring statement. i get the feeling your digging a big hole and you arent going to get out. as your starting to scrape the barrel, going down the cat route, trying to get some back up. rossy.

[Brocakat]

Come on chaps & chapesses - let's keep it civilised.

[PMG]

Stop feeding the Troll ......... we don't want what was a perfectly legitimate and logical thread closed due to this persons sense of 'fun' so lets all stop rising to the bait and ignore until they go away

[stigofthedump]

Originally Posted by PMG

Stop feeding the Troll ......... we don't want what was a perfectly legitimate and logical thread closed due to this persons sense of 'fun' so lets all stop rising to the bait and ignore until they go away

My thoughts exactly Pauline.


Vince

[Manders]

If this thread has any point at all its to help understand and formulate rational arguments for and against wind turbines isnt it?

The point here which seems to have escaped some of you, is that arguments involving birds, needs to be more focused than simply quoting total deaths. The arguments need to focus on how it affects the most endangered bird species, which was the point of my original post.

So far, i've not heard any rational argument against that statement. Its not due to any sense of 'fun'. Its actually down to sincere attempt to put forward rational arguments that various organisations might actually take notice of and influence policy.

[Dorts]

Originally Posted by Manders

The arguments need to focus on how it affects the most endangered bird species, which was the point of my original post.
So far, i've not heard any rational argument against that statement.

Then maybe it would help if you re-read my post #120, which ended with this paragraph:
"With the proposed building of large-scale wind farms in isolated areas of Scotland, the danger to Golden and White-tailed Sea Eagles is great. These birds don't start breeding until 4-5 years old and incubate for over 40 days. They only lay every 2-3 years. So even single deaths will have a great effect on potential population numbers."
I certainly don't consider my comments to be 'irrational'.

The problems we have with wind-power has been well discussed in this thread. And when, in time, it is realised that wind is never going to be the answer to a 'green revolution' in power generation, (as I am sure it will), and the subsidies are no more, other down-sides, such as the great dangers to Eagles for example, will take on a very different weight than they do now. So simply to dismiss out of hand the likely deaths of many millions of birds over the coming years is somewhat naive.

When it's fully realised that it is the cost of wind-power installation and subsidies that is putting up the fuel bills, and that reliability is not as was expected, it will only take a few of the tabloids to take up the cudgel with stories of Golden Eagle populations becoming endangered, pictures of dead birds etc. for the public to see it as a 'last straw'.
So the danger to bird populations needs to be told. Brick by brick do foundations fall, and the deaths of millions of birds could yet prove to be a brick too far.
Dorts.

[stigofthedump]

[quote=Dorts;872980.
So the danger to bird populations needs to be told. Brick by brick do foundations fall, and the deaths of millions of birds could yet prove to be a brick too far.
Dorts.[/QUOTE]

Indeed, well said Dorts.


Vince

[Manders]

I allready said more than once I agree with what you posted re Sea Eagles and the like. I disagree with your point about subsidies, it is dwindling resources (namely oil and gas) that is pushing up fuel prices not subsidies. (although subsidies are paid through taxes but thats another discussion).

For the majority of bird species, population density is controlled by nesting site and food availability, not by accidental deaths however large the number may at first seem. (except sea eagles and other apex predators).

My view is, that an argument that goes something allong the lines that at worst 'wind turbines would account for <0.1% of all bird deaths in a single year', or words to that effect, just doesnt carry much weight and is too easily rebutted.