Skip navigation



    • wootabega
    • Posted October 9, 2010 at 9:46 am
    • Permalink

    I know the comments moderator has prohibited posting youtube links in the comments section but I just really think this is needed here:

    [ You have THAT correct… we avoid You-Tube here! -Rafe C. ]

    • Max
    • Posted October 9, 2010 at 12:56 pm
    • Permalink

    And those wind-turbine “farms” are so be-yoo-tee-ful (NOT!)

    • Steve
    • Posted October 9, 2010 at 3:02 pm
    • Permalink

    Another liberal capitol project boondoggle!
    And how about that You-Tube video showing a slow flying condor getting splattered by a windmill blade? That ought to bring “a tingle” up the legs of all you ‘environmentally conscientious’ greenies!

    On a side note; Between the resurgence of abortion funding and Obama’s death panels, perhaps Zack could re-use this cartoon by just relabeling the individual wind mills and replacing the birds with people & babies.

    When private industry does not, of its own accord, go out and construct wind farms, or mass-transit rail systems, or municipal bus systems — that means these projects a big-time loosers!
    Not only do they lose & suck-up tax dollars every day they exist – they tend to nurture a culture of public employee’s who feel entitled to their endlessly secure j-o-b. More Clinton-Obama-Kennedy voters!
    And the taxpayer is getting screwed again & again!

    But the sleazy Democrats & RINO’s who vote these it, get their pockets nicely lined, or their name on something.

    In special reverence to this history of corruption, watch the W. Virginia Senatorial race.
    Bye-bye… ‘Byrd seat’-!!

    • Fry
    • Posted October 9, 2010 at 4:10 pm
    • Permalink

    A ‘teaching moment’ for a few commenter’s;
    The comment section is for posting your comments,… hopefully something that prompts good discourse. It is not about posting other peoples work, like stand-alone YouTube links or graphics.
    On a very selective basis, if your thoughts make for a good entre’ to some link, and it is not some lib-moonbat link, it might be approved.

    Our site is secure and no one’s e-mail address is ever is shared with any other party. A valid e-mail address is required for a number of reasons. No exceptions, no disposable ‘…inboxes’.

    We plan to post our posting rules in the future – they are basically common sense items.

    Thank you~
    Rafe C.

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 9, 2010 at 7:49 pm
    • Permalink

    There is a true cost of energy component when it comes to fossil fuels. Ok, got it. Yet as these new alternative energy resources come on line, I expect that since there is no harm done to the environment there will be little to no cost for the consumption of these so-called renewable’s. The bottom line is this. neo-libs know full well that alternative energy will NEVER meet our needs, and in time of war. Alternative energy will only play a small role even though our military is investing in the technology. Therefore my only conclusion is that since neo-libs know this whats the true reasoning behind the push? Other than “clean” I suspect they are looking at castrating the US to the point of a third world country. Unable to project power, or project its position in the world. The main source of our energy right now is fossil fuels. Yet we also have resources such as nuclear and shale. Both of which are regarded as evil and harmful. For if the promise for renewable’s is so great, I expect BECAUSE they are renewable to be FAR cheaper than fossil fuels. Neo-libs dont see it that way. Energy is the fuel of capitalism, and capitalism is the fuel of greed. Therefore the shared miserableness of socialism must be touted as the ONLY form of government. No one drives their own car. Individualism and liberty will be the first to go. Renewable energy is not about liberty and freedom. Its about controlling the movement of the masses. If they can’t control your travel due to powers of our constitution, the next step is to make it as expensive and unattainable as possible.

    • geeknerd
    • Posted October 9, 2010 at 8:00 pm
    • Permalink

    The best way to generate electricity without a carbon footprint, or grinding up birds, or taking up thousands of acres is NUCLEAR POWER.

    • wootabega
    • Posted October 9, 2010 at 8:16 pm
    • Permalink

    The YouTube was just a comedic clip of a television show that I felt was relevant to the subject of the comment. I just thought some people might get a laugh out of it, I didn’t have any intention of is as any legitimate claim to argument to or for the subject of said comic.

    However, I do have this picture which helps promote discourse to this particular subject.

    A link to a PDF of the cited study:

    I find the comic to be a bit closeminded on the point it makes. “Democrats created windmills and said they were a CLEAN energy source…yet look at all these dead birds! What liars, as usual.”

    Now, I guess you could just make a joke in finding the hypocrisy of an ‘environmentally friendly’ energy solution actually causing harm to wildlife, but the comic presents a fairly caustic tone towards people that would support an alternative energy source like wind turbines. I never saw comics about the Gulf Coast oil spill after many politicians clamored for off-shore oil drilling as a solution to America’s energy needs.

    Really, the fact is that birds are just dumb animals. If we just took down all these wind turbines, the birds that would be saved would just as much fly into a tall building, or be hit by a car, or be killed by a cat. I know that I would much rather have a few dead birds over a grossly polluted cesspool that harms both the ecosystem and the humans that make a living off of it.


    I hope this isn’t removed just because it presents a counterpoint to the subject of the comic. That would seem fairly suspect. I mean, I could just as easily not post any links and just post, “This comic is wrong! Wind turbines actually account for only a fraction of bird fatalities compared to buildings, vehicles, and cats!”…But then that just looks like me making a baseless claim, and I suspect an average reader would see this and think that I have no grounds or proof for my point of view.

    I understand not wanting to have just comments that are just huge YouTube blocks to speak in place of actual written discussion, but I was just trying to give people a little laugh. Who doesn’t like Futurama?

    Anyway, I hope you don’t end up truncating this link. I’m trying to present my argument with fair proof since I myself don’t have the time or resources to accurately detail the statistics of avian fatalities within a reasonable amount of time for this comments page.

    • Nillin
    • Posted October 10, 2010 at 1:02 am
    • Permalink

    How high up are turbines in comparison to bird flight paths?
    I don’t know a lot about wind turbines, but it seems that the picture shows something that’s a bit lower to the ground than what I would expect from a bird migration. Is that just artistic license, or is there a particular species of bird that’s being affected?

    • Steve
    • Posted October 10, 2010 at 8:23 am
    • Permalink

    Foremost, I could not care less about bird fatalities… and the fact that you have gone to such effort to double post this “study”, underscores how you have completely missed the point of Zack’s cartoon.
    The consequences of these idiotic wind turbines is (among other negative aspects) the deaths of some, perhaps just a few birds… which ought to get the attention of the PETA, “animal rights” sub-culture – who are another sub-set of the Democrat party support base.
    I believe Zack’s point is the ironic & idiotic consequences of liberals agenda’s. Whereas they idealize about ‘mountain-pure fresh & clean’… “renewable” energy sources, the consequences of their wind turbines does have the ironic effect killing some birds.

    In summary, this “study” reeks of being a ‘CYA’, agenda driven, biased rag sheet.
    I could give this paper to some bright high school students, and they could shred its credibility to pieces.

    For those of you who think “democrat” and “democratic” are the same word, please try to follow the following bread crumbs;

    How long have wind turbine farms been around?
    Answer: a very small number of years, compared to ALL the other sources of bird fatalities cited in this report.

    If you were putting little red push-pins on a map of the US, where are the wind turbine farms located, compared to ALL the other sources of bird fatalities?
    Answer: very few places – and if you put push pins where all the other bird fatality sources are, you may as well just spray paint the US map all red-!

    How many cars, buildings, cats, pesticides, communication towers… etc, exist around these United States?
    Answer: magnitudes more that the comparatively tiny few wind mills.

    Yet, this pathetic report shovels out just total numbers of bird fatalities.
    What a piss-poor humorless joke!

    What is a credible alternative-?
    How about the number of bird fatalities PER every 1,000 cars, or per every 1,000 buildings or for every 1,000 wind turbines?
    Now, that specific statistic is what an objective study will reveal-!

    Yet, this report shows only fatality totals. This is, Al Gore-ian sleaze, blunt & simple.

    Further evidence these three (paid for) clowns are smoking too much Thai-weed;
    “Domestic and feral cats have also been considered a major source of anthropogenic-caused mortality with estimates near 100 million annual bird deaths.”

    Definition of anthropogenic is, “caused by humans”… not frick’n cats, domestic or feral-!
    Obviously, those who put together this study (Erickson, Johnson, & Young ) have no more intuition for objective analysis or credibility than do Al Gore’s sleazy & shameless “global warming” academic’s do.

    “Words mean things, and idea’s have consequences” – is a concept that must give ‘progressives’ and liberals some severe diaper rash.

  1. Unfortunately, you are getting sucked into a leftist, green lie about wind turbines and bird kills. Bird kills represent a small fraction of a percent of the bird kills that occur each year due to human activity.

    Our pet cats do almost all the damage to wild bird populations.

    • Steve
    • Posted October 10, 2010 at 9:42 am
    • Permalink

    Before we all start weeping for bird populations~
    Consider another “anthropogenic” effect on bird populations, the food sources provided to birds from human activity;
    – countless millions of bird feeders people place outside
    – the massive amounts of farm fields and bulk grain stores that birds feed from
    – all those folks who regularly feed birds in park area’s
    – the countless seagulls that feed from tourist’s food and landfills
    – and probably many other man-provided food sources…

    So – human activity must have a large contribution to promoting bird populations.

    A parallel & well documented effect is known about deer populations-
    In Michigan, the annual deer ‘road kill’ exceeds what naturalists calculate to have been the total indigenous deer population in the same territory, before white man settled & populated what is now, Michigan.
    Ask any Michigan farmer, or see the vast area’s in Southern Michigan where large outer township area’s have endless human grown food sources, and the natural predation is basically ‘zero’.

    • wootabega
    • Posted October 10, 2010 at 10:24 am
    • Permalink

    “How many cars, buildings, cats, pesticides, communication towers… etc, exist around these United States?
    Answer: magnitudes more that the comparatively tiny few wind mills.

    Yet, this pathetic report shovels out just total numbers of bird fatalities.
    What a piss-poor humorless joke!”

    Ok, so you agree that the current effect of wind turbines on bird fatalities is negligible since their existence is much less ubiquitous compared to buildings, cars and even housecats.

    How exactly does that make the statistics of the study less credible? You deny it credibility for the quite obvious fact that, sine there are more tall buildings and fast cars than wind turbines, that of course wind turbines would be a less common source of bird fatalities… OK? That was exactly my point in the first place.

    I understood Zack’s point of pointing out the irony of it being an ‘environmentally-friendly’ energy source, yet does that bit of irony discredit its validity as an energy source? Diversity basically states in the comic that this plan should basically negate any efforts any Democrat has towards…well, anything. I’m sorry if I just can’t accept sweeping generalizations like that.

    Speaking of sweeping generalizations, though: Who the hell cares what PETA thinks? They’ll never be happy over anything, and that’s a concrete fact.

    • Steve
    • Posted October 10, 2010 at 10:57 am
    • Permalink

    This ‘study’ has no credibility because it does not give the relationship between quantities of bird kills to same unit amounts of the causes of those kills.

    Hypothetical example: let us say you have just ten (10) wind power turbines in existence… and let’s say, they emit an attractive resonance that greatly attracts birds… and birds are getting killed by the thousands, daily.
    And per this hypothetical, this is just ten wind mills.

    You still have the vast amounts of buildings, cars,… etc, that cause some bird deaths.

    In this example, when you objectively count the bird deaths in terms of “per 1000” buildings, or cars, or windmills, it becomes very clear that any given 1,000 buildings or cars are not causing the amounts of bird fatalities, as would 1,000 windmills kill.

    That – is a plainly, objective way to compare these sources of bird fatalities.

    The ‘three stooges’ in this phony study, do not present this — they offer just total quantities.
    This is purposely misleading!

    Or,… these three characters have never learned anything beyond grammar school pre-algebra.

    Sure – about 99.99…99% of Americans do not care what PETA thinks,… however they do tend to be part of the “progressive” voting base, they are among many of the ‘single issue’ groups who make up the mosaic of the Democrat base.
    These wind powered turbines exist because they are being tax payer funded due to ANOTHER, a different part of the Democrat party agenda.
    Nowhere in private industry will you find private interests investing in these wind turbines. They are a very cost-ineffective way to produce electric power for the power grid.

    I made no sweeping generalities… these conflicting interests are there, are identifiable within the greater Democrat political body.

    • wootabega
    • Posted October 10, 2010 at 8:08 pm
    • Permalink

    How exactly, in your example, do you want to apply a unit of “per 1000” with only 10 wind turbines in existence?

    I don’t find that to be a really efficient way of conducting the study since the entire issue of these bird fatalities isn’t restricted to just a single area, all containing an equal mix of wind turbines, buildings, cars, etc…

    What exactly makes your hypothetical situation objective? You even explicitly state these windmills attract birds more than normal. What exactly makes them this way? Would they attract any more birds into flying near them than power lines, or buildings?

    If you want to get technical, though: Going through the PDF file of the complete study I posted, I found stats that you might feel more comfortable with.

    Their study of fatalities at wind turbines includes a more specific breakdown of the actual rate of bird kills per turbine. Averaging out their statistics between their study sites at various wind turbine areas in the west (excluding California), upper-midwest, and east, you get an approximate rate of 2.48 dead birds per wind turbine, per year.

    Now, the study also cites data from a study in England in the ’70s that estimates about 15.1 bird kills per mile of road each year. They also cite a study from the Netherlands in 1987 that estimated an average of about 200 bird fatalities per kilometer of high tension wire each year (adjusting to miles, this is about 213.86 per mile per year).

    But all these different statistics are in different areas. All these areas have different bird populations with different determining factors of birds coming into fatal contact with these killer, man-made objects. There is no microcosm of these elements I can think of that helps present a more accurate situation for this study to be conducted in, and unless wind turbines spread across the US anytime soon (hah!), I doubt there will actually be any in this country.

    • Steve
    • Posted October 10, 2010 at 9:11 pm
    • Permalink

    Sincerely,… how long ago & what was your last math class?

    If you have only ten (10) wind turbines, and in a given survey period, let us say one year, lets grab some number, like these ten turbines have caused the death of 789 birds.

    The fatality rate is 789 birds / 10 wind mills — to get bird fatalities ‘per 1,000’, you multiply by 100/100 (anything multiplied by one is unchanged).
    So, 789/10 x 100/100 = 78,900 / 1,000
    That is: 78,900 bird deaths per 1,000 wind mills.
    Simple, objective, undeniable math… NOT subject to differences in politics or religion.

    Just a real-world example;
    When I was kid, I saw the internal (confidential) quality surveys conducted by one of the ‘Big Three’ auto makers.
    Defects & other quality problems were & are measured in “TGW per 1,000 cars – or, TGW/1,000.
    TGW = “things gone wrong”

    Defending this agenda-driven study is futile… you see lots of technical jabber, and it seems impressive – Whoopi-do!… it is garbage, a ballet of B.S. and it would not stand ten minutes of objective peer review.

    If they had any credibility, they would have measured and published number of bird fatalities per 1,000 (or some other constant denominator) for each source;
    # of building fatalities / 1,000 buildings
    # of car hit fatalities / 1,000 cars
    # of communication tower fatalities / 1,000 towers
    then… # of wind mill fatalities / 1,000 windmills
    Fatalities from something linear like power lines, or something different like pesticides cannot be logically compared either, to know quantities of buildings, cars, etc.
    Attempting this is no more reasonable than comparing a gallon to 21 feet.

    If you cannot grasp this plain – direct and objective means of analysis, then you are not used to some simple numerical reasoning – sorry, I am not being condescending,… this is just basic math-based reasoning.

    • wootabega
    • Posted October 11, 2010 at 7:08 am
    • Permalink

    What exactly is your obsession with ‘per 1,000’? I posted comparable data in my last comment (per mile of road, per wind turbine, per mile of wire), but it seems if it’s not adjusted to 1,000, it has no credibility.

    OK, I’ll go along with this. Let’s use the statistics I’ve posted:

    2.48 killed / 1 wind turbine x 1,000 = 2,480 killed / 1,000 wind turbines

    15.1 killed / 1 mile of road x 1,000 = 15,100 killed / 1,000 miles of road

    213.86 killed / 1 mile of wire x 1,000 = 213,860 killed / 1,000 miles of wire

    (Where are you getting 789 killed / 10 wind mills from? You have a source?)

    I posted all these statistics in my last comment and even told you where to find them in the PDF of the study. I am actually posting researched, cited facts, while you are just claiming yourself to be ‘objective’ with no backing whatsoever.

    You can’t have a ‘per 1,000 cars’ statistic for this kind of study, because they are moving vehicles. Every car has a chance of hitting a bird, but every car won’t hit a bird. It’s more logical to scale something static and linear like ‘per mile of road’, so it can properly be compared to a building or wind turbine.

    And how exactly are power lines not a logically comparable statistic? I posted these measurements of statistics to more accurately compare them with individual objects like buildings and wind turbines. We can’t simply count hundreds or thousands of miles of wire as one unit.

    Give me some facts, Steve. I’m actually posting some, yet you just deride them for not conforming to the types of statistics you consider viable. I actually post statistics more to your liking based on these researched facts…and you still call it illogical! All I see is you just saying it’s ‘not objective’ or ‘has no credibility’ or ‘is agenda-driven trash’. Did you even read the study? Oh, sorry, I guess it was too full of ‘technical jabber’ to be credible. I can understand how terms like “mortality rate” and “literature cited” could show just how nonobjective a study can be.

    • Steve
    • Posted October 11, 2010 at 7:23 pm
    • Permalink

    If you really, sincerely want to understand what is going on here, take a copy of that bogus study, that vacuous bar chart too, and this dialog we have had — go find some professor who teaches engineering measurements & comparative statistics, or someone who does this for a living (other than me!)… and sit down with them & a fresh pad of paper.

    Given your counter points here – you need to find someone with a saint’s level of patience, too!

    You will discover they have several similar “… obsession[s]…” that I do.

    • weSwinger
    • Posted October 11, 2010 at 11:45 pm
    • Permalink

    Quick notes from a professional energy economist:
    1) wind turbines are uneconomic. They require on line backup from generation with firm fuel supply. They are subsidized with very high priced, must-take contracts, so that when they are running they back out lower cost coal and natural gas fired power. For those who believe in AGW or Peak Oil, this may not be too much to pay. (If they could see the prices I do though, even they might demur.)
    2) wind turbines are death on raptors especially. If environmentalism were an intellectually honest religion, they would accept this under the “there ain’t no free lunch” caveat, and call these acceptable collateral damages. Instead we get statistical equivocation (wanking).
    3) before it’s demise, Enron was the largest corporate investor in wind development. Remember from above a wind MW backs out a carbon fueled MW. Enron was also the main originator of carbon credit trading, so one can see that they had a plan. Rest assured that their plan had nothing to do with anything beneficial to the planet, fellow humans or our country. Conjuring $$’s out of hot air and bullsh-t was all they were about. Now that they are off stage GE is taking their place. And like Enron, they are malignant and no longer trustworthy.

    • Steve
    • Posted October 12, 2010 at 12:49 am
    • Permalink

    With reference to
    “…wind turbines are death on raptors especially.”
    I have seen a video of a condor getting killed by a wind mill blade.
    Are you referring to the same type of bird?

    • weSwinger
    • Posted October 12, 2010 at 7:51 am
    • Permalink

    Raptors are eagles, hawks and owls. The carrion-eater vultures and condors I understand have the same problem: their great distance vision makes them look past the spinning blades as they focus on their prey or whatever meal on the ground.
    There is just no getting around the no free energy, no perpetual motion machine facts: hydro-power prevents fish from spawning, solar cells require toxic chemicals and a lot of energy to produce and windmills chop up birds. Perfection is unavailable to mortal man!
    Are these still better than coal, nuclear and natural gas? Only if you want a dramatically less energy-intensive economy. Endure several years of negative growth before maybe slow growth kicks back in.

    • ikabod
    • Posted October 12, 2010 at 8:51 am
    • Permalink

    “…wind turbines are death on raptors especially.” I believe weSwinger is refering to the new 2010 Ford Raptor. I figured those pickups where fast, just not THAT fast to take flight! Is Ford aware of this? Seriously, however I have been interested in this carbon credit sham. What a way to make a buck! Feed on the environmental guilt of some neo-lib idiot. Come up with a slick carbon to lifestyle calculator. Couple a bogus monetary linkage to the calculator, and bingo! A mostly unregulated trading industry: I thought I may get into this lucrative guilt-industry. But my ethics got in the way….. Damn.

  2. Quibbling over the statistics between Steve and Wootabega aside, Diversity’s attitude here is damning because, like nearly everyone who takes shots at environmental issues (and the dreaded environmentalists), she seems more concerned with alleged hypocrisy than with chipping in with any actual suggestions of her own to solve a very real problem. This attitude is all too common, and a major reason why the conversation is as dysfunctional as it is. The only reason the goalposts ever move at all (for instance, although the causes are still “debated,” almost every politician will now acknowledge that global warming IS happening, whereas in the 1990s that was largely not true) is because external circumstances force them to. It’s not because anyone suddenly develops a conscience and realizes that these issues are actually important.

    It’s amazing to me, honestly, that environmental issues are even considered political issues in the first place. The more I think about it, the more bizarre it is. How did we arrive at this place where the health of our planet, of the home we all live on, is debated in the same chambers that decide tax laws and immigration policies? It’s truly surreal, and a testament to how the misplaced priorities of an unscrupulous powerful few are capable of distorting the entire national understanding of an issue. They decided long ago that caring for the environment would be a political issue because healthier policies threatened their interests, and it’s as simple as that. The losers are, of course, their descendants and everyone else.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: