What spans 1,600 hectares, cost $2.2 billion to build, and potentially fries hundreds of thousands of birds per year? The new BrightSource solar power plant in California’s Mojave Dessert. The plant, which uses some 350,000 garage-door-sized mirrors to focus sunlight on three boiler towers, also acts as a death ray, instantly igniting and killing any wildlife that happen to fly through the intense beam of light. Wildlife officials are concerned that this concentrated solar power plant, and others like it, could turn into “mega-trap” that decimates the ecosystem — first attracting insects, and then attracting birds that eat insects. BrightSource, in the mean time, is forging ahead with an even larger solar power plant that officials say could kill four times as many birds. Won’t somebody stop these not-so-green nature-killing maniacs?
Most of the world’s solar power is generated via photovoltaic cells — wafers of silicon sandwiched between sheets of glass that create electricity directly when struck by sunlight. Another method is concentrated solar power (alternatively called “solar thermal power”), which uses a huge number of mirrors to focus sunlight on a tower in the middle. The tower contains some kind of fluid (super-heated water, molten salt) that in turn creates electricity via a conventional steam turbine. For a while, concentrated solar was seen as the future of solar power, but photovoltaic cells are now back in vogue after large price cuts over the last few years.
Read the rest at Extreme Tech.
“While it might sound like BrightSource has created some kind of bird-blasting death ray, it’s important to keep things in perspective. Back in January, it was estimated that — in the US alone — between 365 million and 988 million birds are killed every year by crashing into windows. We’re mostly talking about domestic, low-rise windows, too — not skyscrapers. Likewise, a study last year showed that domestic cats — yes, your beloved Fluffy — are killing more than a billion birds per year in the US.”
Well, that tears it then, eh? Birds die in the millions hitting windows, so no big deal. Right? What’s a few hundred, or a few thousand, or a few hundred thousand more? We should outlaw bird feeders, and mandate widow screens before going after these power stations!!!! I think it’s ironic that most of the bird deaths are due to bird lovers having all these bird feeders in their yards, and the birds just fly right in to their windows, usually trying to get away from the feral cats I suppose. Hmm, I wonder, if a bird breaks its neck flying into a window trying to get away from the feral cat, which gets the kill score, the window or the cat? But I digress.
So the birds that get flash cooked flying in to the concentrated beams of sunlight from the mirrors deserve no consideration because so many more of them die flying in to environmentalist whacko bird lover’s windows, and from feral cats, which we can’t kill because the environmentalist whacko cat lovers won’t let us? Is that your position? Ok, that’s cool. Way to downplay and minimize!!!
>> Birds die in the millions hitting windows, so no big deal. Right? <<
Have you demonstrated any concern for the 2B+ birds already dying from other causes? No? Then it's clear you are using the 28,000/yr (max) birds dying here simply for political purposes.
And you have demonstrated concern for the birds? I don’t see it. So let’s ban bird feeders then. I don’t have bird feeders, mainly because I don’t want to clean up all the bird sh*t, but it turns out I’m saving birds by not having bird feeders! Who knew?
But you are downplaying and minimizing the fact that the “environmentally friendly” Solar and Wind industries aren’t as environmentally friendly as people were led to believe they are. This was not foreseen by the visionaries.
But now that it’s evident, we got people like you saying we don’t care about birds because we are fine with bird deaths from other things. The truth is I had no idea, and had never heard about it before. I didn’t know there were so many birds bashing their little skulls and breaking their little necks on bird lover’s windows. I never heard about that before. And why had I never heard about that before? Could it be that the vast majority of people who have bird feeders in their yards are environmentalists? I will say I don’t know that for a fact, but it seems logical to me that environmentalists would be more likely to be bird lovers and have bird feeders than not. So maybe the reason I have not heard it before is a political one?
>> many more of them die flying in to environmentalist whacko bird lover’s windows <<
Birds fly into all kinds of buildings, especially large one with reflective surfaces. Those buildings are owned by people all across the political spectrum, so blaming it on "environmentalist whackos" is dishonest. But obviously you knew that.
Just having some fun there. It makes sense to me but it doesn’t matter at all. This is still all a distraction from the point of the story. You try to make me out as some kind of monster that doesn’t care about birds, that is a lie. Sure, I’m guilty of a little hyperbole. They don’t breakdown how much avian mortality is caused by window strikes on buildings as opposed to homes with bird feeders, but I have to assume there are quite a few. The point is, as it has always been, to show that Wind and Solar are not so environmentally friendly as advertised.
Plus I don’t give a rat’s a*s if you think I don’t care about bird deaths. Weather I do, or not, is irrelevant.
Where does the “hundreds of thousands” of bird deaths come from?
“Estimates per year now range from a low of about a thousand by BrightSource to 28,000 by an expert for the Center for Biological Diversity environmental group.”
– CBC, 8/18/14
I’m surprised this blog cares about birds as in nature. But it’s heart warming. Plz keep it up!
Well that is because you buy in to the narrative created by the Left that Conservatives are bad people who hate nature, and want to destroy the planet. That’s why you’re surprised. The truth is we love nature too. We don’t worship it, or think that it’d be better off without Humans though. You’ve been fed, and you have swallowed a lot of false premises, so I’m not surprised that you’re surprised.
I think it is ironic, and hypocritical that the bird deaths are downplayed, and accepted as the price of doing business for the promise of clean energy because the ones who are behind alternative energy tend to be Leftist Environmentalists.
Don’t get me wrong, I think this type of power plant is actually pretty cool. The one in Barstow Ca. always filled me with awe every time I drove by it. You have to admit, using mirrors to focus sunlight on to a central tower to heat up a brine and use that heat to drive steam turbines is pretty darn cool. It is sad that it tends to flash cook birds in mid flight though.
You haven’t convinced me yet Neilio, far from it. The only reason they report here about these birds is to obstruct the solar industry. An industry which is preventing global warming that will wreck much more havoc on these birds. Or take pesticides for instance which kills so many more birds. But not a word about that heh.
By the way, global warming is a bi-partisan issue.
I don’t see any logic in your reasoning. The solar industry is not being obstructed by the story, far from it. The response has been to downplay and minimize the bird deaths. It’s a small price to pay for progress, don’t you know.
And where is the evidence that global warming is even happening? The birds have survived countless changes to the climate over the eons, what makes you think they would be bothered by another change in the climate?
I get so frustrated with attitudes like yours. There is no evidence that the planet is warming. Even the Met office at Hadley CRU has said the there has been no warming for 18 years. They think there is a “pause” due to oscillations in the oceans, and theorize that the heat is somehow being trapped in the deep oceans, but all of the IPCC models thus far have been wrong. The frustrating part is that all the while there have been some changes to the climate, and it is natural for the climate to change all on its own. But every time there is something different, or extreme, it is heralded as proof of AGW! But the fact remains that global temps have not risen in 18 years. How much longer must that continue before people like you realize that you are listening to Chicken Little, and the sky is not falling? According to the theory at 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere we should be experiencing a lot of warming in the atmosphere! Why isn’t it? The answer is simple. CO2 is not doing what you’ve been told it will do. You’ve been lied to, and you’ve been manipulated through propaganda and fear to support a bogus theory and you continue to support it because you are too stubborn, proud, or maybe just incapable to admit that you might be wrong.
>> And where is the evidence that global warming is even happening? <> The birds have survived countless changes to the climate over the eons, <<
Have they? Where is that evidence? Past episodes of significant climate change have seen extinctions, and, given the more rapid pace of our climate change, lots of scientists expect them this time too.
"How does climate change cause extinction?" Abigail E. Cahill et al, 17 October 2012 doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.1890
Proc. R. Soc. B
>> And where is the evidence that global warming is even happening? <<
A great summary here:
The evidence is overwhelming. (Scientists don't make strong claims without strong evidence.)
Q: 1. Is the climate changing?
A: Absolutely. It has been changing since the climate became a climate billions of years ago. So Duh!
Q: 2. Are humans responsible?
A: There is no evidence that the current changes in the climate are caused by CO2 released by Humans. In fact, if the model predictions were right, and they’re not, atmospheric content of CO2 above 400 ppm should be increasing global average temperatures at an alarming rate, which it is not. If CO2 makes the planet warmer, how can it be that 4 1/2 million years ago in the middle of the last glaciation CO2 content in the atmosphere was over 4000 ppm? Yes that’s 4 thousand parts per million! And a 100 million years before that CO2 was up in the 7000’s ppm, yes that’s thousands again! The planet didn’t boil away the oceans, or burn to a crisp, or turn into another Venus, no, 500 million years after it peaked in the 7000’s ppm what happened? The Earth went into an ice age, that’s what. So the answer is really, NO WAY!
Q: 3. How do we know the CO2 is ours?
A: I don’t dispute this at all, there has been quite a spike in CO2 in the last 50 years that corresponds with industrialization. I don’t think it is coincidental. But note, the temperature is not spiking with it. There was some correlation in the 80’s and 90’s but that stopped in 99′. Besides, any good scientist will tell you that correlation does not = causation. And I think we’re seeing that with the high CO2, and flat temperature trend.
Q: 4. How much will climate change in the future?
A: We know that the climate changes all on its own, and it may be predictable if they can solve the problems that they have with the current GCM’s. The problems they have with the current GCM’s are that they overestimate CO2 forcing, and they don’t know all of the factors that effect the climate. I mention this because the answer to this question on the page that you have linked says that the best estimates say;
“that feedbacks in total amplify the initial CO2 warming, anywhere from a little to a lot, so that the final warming from doubling CO2 is maybe 1.5-4.5°C.”
But if you look at what the models have predicted thus far it is obvious that this estimate, which is the same they use in this example, has not been accurate. Not all feedbacks are positive, and we don’t know all the true values of those feedbacks, if we are over or underestimating them, even if we know the sign.
So the answer is really we don’t know how much the climate will change, we can only be certain that it will. But that’s only because it is always changing.
Q: 5. How big of a deal is this?
A: I think it is a very big deal. The solutions that are put forth to deal with this “crisis” that is not a crisis, IMO, tend to grow government, restrict individual freedom, promote the corruption of science, and empower Leftists. That’s a big deal.
Q: 6. What, if anything, can or should we do about it?
A: i. Adapt. Well, duh, adaptation is the story of life on Earth. If we can’t adapt we perish. We’ve been adapting to the climate since we’ve been living on the planet. Although I think with modern technology adapting won’t be as difficult as it has been in the past. And if we can ever get the GSM’s right it might even be fairly painless if we know what’s coming. Which right now we really don’t know. We think we do, but the reality is that we do not.
ii. Mitigate. This is the kind of thing I mentioned above. Carbon taxes, green energy. It’s pie in the sky! Carbon taxes can’t get legislated because the legislators know how damaging that would be to the economy. And so called green energy is not as green as people want to think it is. Nothing is free. I don’t believe any of it is needed because of what I have said previously. Explain to me why we’re not boiling the oceans with 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, and I’ll consider changing my view.
iii. Geo-engineering. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,———-(infinity) I think anyone who thinks geo-engineering is a good idea needs to be locked away in a padded cell with a white jacket that has conveniently long sleeves that can be secured around the back. If you can prove to me that human released CO2 causes warming I will go around to every coal fired power plant shut them down myself before even thinking about trying to manipulate the climate on purpose. It would be the stupidest thing to do. You think we’ve messed up the climate now? Just wait until we f*ck it up more by trying to manipulate it on purpose. As it is right now, we have slightly adjusted the CO2 volume. We have tweaked the carbon cycle. We have convinced ourselves that this is having a grave effect on the climate but in reality we still don’t know for sure. Let’s not try to manipulate the climate please. Let’s not totally f*ck ourselves please.
>> But the fact remains that global temps have not risen in 18 years. <<
No, this is not a fact.
Of seven datasets, only one (RSS lower troposphere) shows no warming in 18 years. All the others show definite warming. UAH, which is measuring the same thing as RSS, finds 0.19 C of warming in 18 years.
Cowtan & Way's dataset, which many think is the best on out there (because it uses more information than the others) shows 0.22 C of surface warming in 18 years.
Oh, ok. And what did the IPCC models predict? Wasn’t it 0.6 deg. C per decade? Shouldn’t we have warmed 1.0-1.1 deg. C in 18 years? I’d hardly call a hair under 2/10’s of 1 deg. C in 18 years dangerously accelerating warming. Would you? After all isn’t that what the entire basis for the whole debate is? We’ve reached over 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2. Should we not be experiencing accelerated warming now? Where is the heat?
Update: Woops! That 0.6 deg per decade is wrong. I got that confused with the predicted 6.0 deg C warming for the century. What I was remembering was the, I think it was the, HADCRUT3 climate models from the 3rd or 4th IPCC assessment report. In it they had three scenarios. A,B, and C. A, was the worst case scenario if nothing was done to curb greenhouse gasses, or population growth, I think it said a maximum of 4.5 deg C per decade.
My point is what turned out to be reality, as far as temperatures, it was closer to scenario C, which predicted around 2 degrees warming per decade, I forget the exact figures I’ll have to try to find that somewhere, but all the warmists pointed to that and said “Oh yeah, see? That’s what we predicted, it falls right in to our projections, see? We’re not full of crap like you deniers keep telling us we are!” And so, it can’t be said that they are liars, even though ever since that assessment report came out they were saying it was going to be the high end of the worse case scenario A, until it was clear that temperatures were closer to the best case scenario C. So we get “Yeah that’s what we said it would be!” Then it’s like you were saying 0.19 deg C warming in the last 18 years is right along with what was predicted. But! You warmists think we forgot what the best case scenario C was. Well I didn’t. The best case scenario C as plotted was only supposed to happen if we cut CO2 emissions and curbed population, and switched over to renewables and did everything else the environmentalists want that hasn’t happened yet. That’s why I (laugh) 🙂
Don Easterbrook? Where can I read his papers disproving AGW? A citation please.
The faculty in his department went so far as to publish a position statement expressing their disagreement with Easterbrook:
He was also caught altering data:
>> Oh, ok. And what did the IPCC models predict? <> Wasn’t it 0.6 deg. C per decade? Shouldn’t we have warmed 1.0-1.1 deg. C in 18 years? <<
Absolutely not. It's about 0.2 C/decade, but not in the short term, where natural variability dominates.
>> Should we not be experiencing accelerated warming now? <<
We probably are, though warming is still in its early stages, where natural variability can hide a ~0.2 C/dec increase.
The warming so far, 0.8 C, is already having noticeable and negative effects. What concerns everyone is the path we're on, with the world emitting every more CO2, with no plans to stop.
Do you understand the limitations of your cartoon? I suspect not…. Do you know that almost all of that “data” came from a carbon model? That the data points are about 10 million years apart? That the data points have significant uncertainties? (Read the work of Dana Royer.)
It really is no more than a cartoon. So why are you presenting it as science?
>> I don’t dispute this at all, there has been quite a spike in CO2 in the last 50 years that corresponds with industrialization. I don’t think it is coincidental. But note, the temperature is not spiking with it. <<
Neither CO2 or temperature is "spiking." Instead, GHG radiative forcing is steadiliy increasing at 1.5% per year, Temperture is also rising, not "spiking."
You sure do mangle the science. Have you ever studied it formally?
>> Q: 4. How much will climate change in the future?
A: We know that the climate changes all on its own <<
(Sigh.) No, climate does not just "change on its own." Climate changes when it's forced to change, because energy is conserved.
Forcings include solar variability, volcanoes, changes in orbital parameters, greenhouse gases, and aerosols.
Sigh? Really? Sigh? Does that exasperate you? That’s a distinction without a difference! It’s like saying you didn’t just take a breath, you created a low pressure zone in your lungs by expanding your chest cavity with your diaphragm muscles allowing atmospheric pressure to fill the vacuum created in your lungs with atmospheric gasses, sigh.
All those factors you mention have been present and an integral part of climate forcings since the beginning of the climate and are natural. And the climate varies with those natural forcings, and will continue to do so with or with out humans. Get over yourself.
>> If CO2 makes the planet warmer, how can it be that 4 1/2 million years ago in the middle of the last glaciation CO2 content in the atmosphere was over 4000 ppm? <<
I see you fell for the lies of Patrick Moore.
Solar irradiance increases with time — about 1% every 110 Myrs. So 4.5 Myrs ago it was about 4% lower. That's about 14 W/m2, assuming the same albedo of today. Compare that to CO2's climate sensitivity, which is 3.7 W/m2 — it's about 3.5 doublings of CO2 (in the other direction).
More details here:
You repeatedly mangle the science. Repeatedly. And yet you're cocksure about your conclusions, convinced everyone else is drastically wrong, writing above, "You’ve been lied to, and you’ve been manipulated through propaganda and fear to support a bogus theory and you continue to support it because you are too stubborn, proud, or maybe just incapable to admit that you might be wrong."
You don't even get the simpliest parts of the science right, yet you're oh-so-sure you know more than all the professional scientists of the last 100 years, National Academies of Science, all the major scientific organizations, and so on.
It might look it, but it's not funny. It's pathetic, really. And oh-so-typical of conservatives in today's America,.
That doesn’t make any sense. So the solar irradiance was roughly 4% less than today but the CO2 levels were >10 times what they are today. I’m not good at math but even I can see that does not add up. 1366-14=1352, so the “solar constant” was about 1.352 kW/m sq, right? Why would 14 fewer w/m sq allow for no global warming due to CO2? I’m sorry that’s 4000+ ppm of CO2! I don’t care how many degrees you have, or how smart you think you are. But that is just a stupid argument. And if I, a lowly HVAC tech, with a pitiful AAS degree can see that, then maybe you should start covering pet shows.
I’m sorry but that is just a ridiculous argument. Are you trying to tell me that 14 W/m sq less energy is going to negate all that CO2 warming? So would a doubling of CO2 back then to 8000+ cause any warming? That is just vacuous. The whole theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming hinges upon the claimed property of CO2 to absorb heat and warm the atmosphere. I’m sorry is that just a property of CO2 that it just picked up recently? Apparently, it didn’t have that property back then, but now it does! I would rethink that answer if I were you.
I know that going back that far into history it is hard to determine what the CO2 levels, and temperatures actually were. I don’t know what proxies they have to determine those. But by the same token we don’t “know” exactly where the landmasses were due to continental drift, sure we have some pretty good calculations, and cool looking animations, but we don’t know how accurate those are. And the TSI is a result of our best calculations so we don’t even know if that’s right, there may be factors that we are not aware about.
I’m saying that from what has been reconstructed from that time period to the best of our knowledge it appears that high levels of CO2 did not cause the planet to burn to a crisp. You can come up with excuses all day long about albedo and TSI but it does not negate the alleged role of CO2. According to the theory of AGW, that high a level of CO2 should have trapped all of the available heat and boiled away the oceans, and turned Mother Earth into another Venus. Or are you saying that CO2’s heat trapping capability is finite? Because what my point is, ultimately, that today with the current TSI and albedo that is what is said about CO2. That the more we add to the atmosphere the hotter the planet will become. So is that right or not?
I didn’t get this from Patrick Moore. How have I mangled the science? What have I got wrong? What I can see that you have got wrong is talking about CO2’s climate sensitivity as though it is a set value.
“For a coupled atmosphere-ocean global climate model the climate sensitivity is an emergent property: it is not a model parameter, but rather a result of a combination of model physics and parameters.” http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Climate+sensitivity
So who is mangling the science? You don’t know what the value of CO2’s climate sensitivity is due to the model physics and parameters. Yet you think you know what it is! For someone who claims he has greater knowledge than I do, that’s pretty pathetic.
>> accepted as the price of doing business for the promise of clean energy because the ones who are behind alternative energy tend to be Leftist Environmentalists. <<
This article goes into great depth about some environmentalists view of this, as well as the government's and the owners:
The fact is, ALL forms of energy generation have negative externalities. Choosing energy sources requires acknowledging this, and doing the best to minimize them.
BTW, how many birds are suffering and dying from climate change? Oil spills? Habitat destruction from coals's mountaintop removal, or the Alberta tar sands?
“The fact is, ALL forms of energy generation have negative externalities.” -DA
(That is the correct way to indicate a quote BTW, with quotation marks not arrows.)
I am not arguing against that. My point is that Wind and Solar are supposed to be environmentally friendly when they are not. Period.
This bird killing argument is the least of the issues with this idiotic system. How many square feet of otherwise usable land are WASTED on these stupid solar installations? Hey Global Warming Cooling Disruption retards, keeping that land EMPTY or in use for agriculture NATURALLY SCRUBS CARBON, not that a naturally recycled element actually needs “scrubbing”, from the ecosystem. And it doesn’t take boatloads of TOXIC HEAVY METAL and chemical pollution of a much more serious kind to do that. Solar is just another idiotic way to sell out our economy to the Chinese while doing worthless feel good NOTHING about a non-existent “problem” and forcing taxpayers to subsidize your personal utility bills. Propped up by disproven “science” by grant seeking leaches and their brain dead sheeple head bobbing useful idiots.
>> How many square feet of otherwise usable land are WASTED on these stupid solar installations? <<
Usable land?? Have you ever been to the Mojave Desert???
The Mojave is a great place. I spent three years there I love the desert. But there is plenty of space there, and not a lot of people. Just a lot of joshua trees, and desert tortoises. The only problem I have with solar power of any kind is that it is not available all the time and therefore are not reliable. The same with wind power. How can we rely on these energy sources to provide the power we need to live? Bottom line is we can’t.
>> But there is plenty of space there, and not a lot of people. <<
And it's not suitable for farming or Walmarts. The Mojave Desert is just fine the way it is — we don't need to pave over every square foot of the planet.
“we don’t need to pave over every square foot of the planet.”- DA
I think it is a good point that Wind and Solar take up large swaths of land. Much, much larger than say a coal, or natural gas fired power plant. And just because you don’t feel like the desert has any worth doesn’t mean that it has no worth to everyone.
I think it is hypocritical to say you want to save the planet except for the deserts, because you don’t like the desert you don’t care if they pave it over and place reflectors, and wind turbines all over it.
What if wave motion power generators were the alternative energy du jour? Would you want to see all of the coastlines used up and paved over for wave motion power generators? Beaches aren’t suitable for farming or Wallmarts either. I think not.
>> The only problem I have with solar power of any kind is that it is not available all the time and therefore are not reliable. <<
Technology Review, April 2014:
"Smart Wind and Solar Power
Big data and artificial intelligence are producing ultra-accurate forecasts that will make it feasible to integrate much more renewable energy into the grid."
NY Times, 5/5/14:
“Now a team of scientists has tried to quantify the extent of damage inflicted on the gulf’s bird population from the [Gulf] oil spill caused by the explosion. Based on models using publicly available data, the studies estimated that about 800,000 birds died in coastal and offshore waters.”
Thanks DA- very excellent work. Finally someone worthy to counter the many lame arguments on this site.
Now, if you really care about birds . . .
“That estimate had a more sweeping methodology, though, with the study’s author including everything from coal mining to production — and bird deaths from climate change that coal emissions produce.”
Bird deaths from climate change? Really? How many birds have died from climate change, and how do they die? I mean we know that birds, and bats, fly into turbine blades; death by blunt force trauma. And the the concentrated light beams fry the birds (good thing the bats only come out at night), from the solar collectors so; death by flash cooking. How exactly does coal kill birds? I want to know exactly the method of death. Is it asphyxiation? Is it suffocation? is it sleep apnea? Specifics, precise causes, not general guesses.
Maybe you should look into that and get back to us.
You might have followed the links to the original works:
The avian benefits of wind energy: A 2009 update
Benjamin K. Sovacool, Renewable Energy Volume 49, January 2013, Pages 19–24.
Be sure to read section 4.2, “4.2. Coal, oil, and natural gas power plants,” which extrapolate from statistical sampling.
Oh, ok. From the wind energy and electric vehicle review page. There’s no bias there. Come on. Do you have an authoritative source for that? Cuz I think that’s a bunch of crap.
So let’s just downplay those flying fricassees!!!!
Mr. Neilio, the high number of bird deaths from coal came from a peer reviewed study. The way in which you simply brush this aside really proves that you really don’t care about birds at all and you only want to make the renewable energy industry look bad.
Peer reviewed? Oh, gee, that means it’s written in stone by God’s unearthly fire then! Oh, wait. So peer reviewed means a study is the unmitigated truth, unless of course it is something you disagree with. Remember back in May, I provided a link when you asked;
“Does anybody here know of peer-reviewed papers in the last year proving global warming is a scam? I haven’t seen them.”
I responded with this;
And you dismissed it without even looking at it. You said the link was from 2009, and I said the content is updated. To my knowledge you have not looked at any of those papers so don’t give me this garbage about peer review when you won’t even look at a peer reviewed paper that may even remotely say something you don’t believe. That is the epitome of hypocrisy.
Read this then tell me how great peer review is. Again!
But the truth is, you couldn’t come up with a peer reviewed paper denying global warming. And to only come up with an updated, not peer reviewed update to an old paper is all that you have? Well, case closed really. It means you have NOTHING.
What are you talking about? There are more than 1,350 peer reviewed papers listed at the link!!! Are some more than a year old? Yes, I would say most of them are. But their age does not invalidate them. The fact that you think there is just one paper at that link tells me that you didn’t even look at it. What does that say about you? You claim you want some evidence, and when presented with some you balk, and hem and haw about it, and you don’t even look at it. What are you afraid of?
And as far as killing birds goes, I think it is sad. I like birds, and animals, and nature. I felt awful when I killed a deer when it jumped out in front of my truck. I took no pleasure in that at all. But the fact remains that the vast majority of birds that are killed by anything other than natural causes is window strikes. And those generally happen at houses that have bird feeders. Are you going to ban bird feeders?
I actually think that it is a little lame to try to attack the solar and wind industries because of the birds that can get killed by the apparatus, but it is fair game to point out the environmental impacts from these supposedly environmentally friendly industries. It does carry the aroma of hypocrisy.
Blocking legitimate comments, based simply on their content, is always an admission of defeat.
I found a bunch of your comments in the spam file. I marked them as “not spam” so you should see them now. I didn’t put them there and I don’t know how they got there. I may not like you very much, and we disagree on pretty much everything, but I would never try to silence you. As long as you are civil, and you stick to the issues, I am not going to delete your posts.
7 of your comments went to the spam file because they were all the same, and had the same link. I think it was automatic. I really think you need to tone it down a little and wait for a response before you continue. I can’t sit at my computer like you do, I have a day job that I am too busy fixing refrigerators and don’t have access to a computer to keep up with all the comments you post. If you look at everyone else’s posts you’ll see that they are not rapid fire 5-10 posts every day. You have posted more comments here in 5 days than most of the regulars post in a month. So please keep that in mind. Maybe take a break and wait for a reply before demanding answers. Also keep in mind that this is a topical opinion blog and not a scientific blog. Maybe it’s not what you are used to, or maybe you are trying to be disruptive, I don’t know. So just chill the f*ck out.
We employ a number of methods to prevent spam and foul language. Please review posting rules here: http://www.globalclimatescam.com/posting-comments/
In addition, a comment may be held for moderation for frequency of posting, excessive URLs and other things. If your comment conforms to the site rules and doesn’t appear right away, it’s because the site saw something it found suspicious and set it aside for human eyes to evaluate before approving.
Generally, as long as you use the same email address when posting comments, they will go straight through once you’ve had your first comment approved by a moderator.
Many of my comments are no longer getting through.
What bias is demonstrated in the Sovacool paper?
The paper is full of citations to studies. So is this easy-to-find paper by the same author on the same subject:
This easy-to-find paper by the same author on the same subject has lots of citations to studies:
The whole point of this story is not to compare how many birds die by what method. We know there are bird deaths due to many things and the worst killer of birds is people with bird feeders in their yards. Whatever. The whole point of the story is to point out that wind and solar, the supposed environmentally friendly power industries, have an environmental impact. That’s it.
LOL. DA and Feister shot you down big time, and you end admitting defeat basically. In your own way of course. I only wish I could have had the time and intelligence to do what they’ve done here a long time ago. I was just an annoyance, they are the real deal.
What are you talking about? The story is about birds getting fried. Then you get DA and Feister splitting hairs about what kills however many birds and I point out the story is pointing out that this so called environmentally friendly industry isn’t as environmentally friendly as it claims. How is that admitting defeat? I mean seriously. What kills the most birds by far? Window strikes. Why? Because a lot of people have bird feeders in their yards and when the birds get spooked they fly into the window because it looks to them a good place to find a hiding spot, or whatever, and they break their necks because they can’t see the glass.
So riddle me this. Who are the vast majority of the people who have bird feeders in their yards? People on the Right, or people on the Left?