bird strikes & wind farms

[ywindythesecond]

I walk into a room and see you crouched over a dead body and there is a smoking gun on the table.

Without further investigation, can I say you shot the guy?

No more than if someone came up to me with a dead bird with a eyewitness account that I could say it got hit by a wind turbine.

No more than Tony Blair could say that weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq. (that one was for you fred )

Of course you could put a lot of evidence from other sites into a big dossier but on this occasion with this bird, with this evidence?

Sorry I can't but I admit it is a good possibility that it did happen but not that it did.

Regy
Email this man and ask him if it happened or not. (Neil Robertson)www.newpark.co.uk/contacts

Ask for the boss. Suggest he might be mistaken. Ask to interview the minibus driver, but be careful, he is quite a big chap. Look Iain Grant in the eye and tell him you dont believe what he reports. Demand to interrogate the passengers on the bus. And phone RSPB and check if the incident was reported.
Please report back on your findings.
ywindythesecond
NO EXCUSES PLEASE, JUST DO IT

[Rheghead]

Regy
Email this man and ask him if it happened or not. (Neil Robertson)www.newpark.co.uk/contacts

Ask for the boss. Suggest he might be mistaken. Ask to interview the minibus driver, but be careful, he is quite a big chap. Look Iain Grant in the eye and tell him you dont believe what he reports. Demand to interrogate the passengers on the bus. And phone RSPB and check if the incident was reported.
Please report back on your findings.
ywindythesecond
NO EXCUSES PLEASE, JUST DO IT

You fail to see my point, regardless of what he thought he saw, it is an unavoidable point in relation to eyewitness accounts etc that he may be mistaken. The example of the bogus loch ness monster which was really a lump of joiners wood is a good example. When asked to draw what they saw then some of the witnesses drew a monster's head and neck. The brain sees what it wants to see. Your bully boy tactics neither negates this effect nor impresses me and could be interpreted as a threat on the Org.

[webmannie]

Rheghead, how do you explain the fact that it is dead from a broken neck? Are you saying that it just dropped dead from the sky?

[Rheghead]

Rheghead, how do you explain the fact that it is dead from a broken neck? Are you saying that it just dropped dead from the sky?

There is a very good chance that birds can fall out of the sky. I am sure road kill birds or even gunshot birds can die from a broken neck but apart from that, has the bird been properly examined by a vet?

If a man can die from a heart attack then I am sure a bird can.

[webmannie]

There is a very good chance that birds can fall out of the sky. I am sure road kill birds or even gunshot birds can die from a broken neck but apart from that, has the bird been properly examined by a vet?

If a man can die from a heart attack then I am sure a bird can.

I do not believe for one minute that there is a very good chance, can you provide proof please.

[ywindythesecond]

Sorry Reggy

Please answer

Email this man and ask him if it happened or not. (Neil Robertson)www.newpark.co.uk/contacts

Ask for the boss. Suggest he might be mistaken. Ask to interview the minibus driver, but be careful, he is quite a big chap. Look Iain Grant in the eye and tell him you dont believe what he reports. Demand to interrogate the passengers on the bus. And phone RSPB and check if the incident was reported.
Please report back on your findings.
ywindythesecond
NO EXCUSES PLEASE, JUST DO IT

[Rheghead]

How would Neil Robertson know? He didn't witness it, and anyway the link doesn't work.

And I have told you already the witness may honestly believe that he saw a buzzard fly into the blades.

I need more facts on this case before I will categorically say that his claim is correct, though I think it is quite likely that it did. End of...

[fingalmacool]

Its a shame that any bird of prey should happen to meet their end by such a useless object as a windturbine, but hey thats progress for you NOT!!. However I must say that if one or two birds of prey fall foul of the turbines then it must be a better death than what local gamekeepers used to do to them 20 to 30 years ago, if I can recall it was shoot on sight which was far better that the gintrap on a post, stuck in the middle of the hill, which was successful beyond belief,poisoning was another method that most gamekeepers would never admit to. There seem to be few gamekeepers now and thankfully they are not allowed to do the things of the past and that shows in the population boom of the birds of prey, buts that only my opinion. Turbines are as far as I'm concerned a complete waste of time and spoiling the countryside, and hopefully like us the birds will get used to them.

[webmannie]

And I have told you already the witness may honestly believe that he saw a buzzard fly into the blades.

I need more facts on this case before I will categorically say that his claim is correct, though I think it is quite likely that it did. End of...

You have TOLD me nothing, nobody tells me, it is your opinion. I don't care for your opinion, you selectively choose details to comment on and do not listen to the whole story and when challenged you do not answer pertinent questioning. I still await your response to 'There is a very good chance that birds can fall out of the sky'

[dozy]

Webmannie .The folk in support of the turbines would rather think that Wind turbine Warriors killed the buzzard and thrown it at the blades or maybe strapped an engine to its back and remotely flew the bird to its death.
Some will say its parachute failed or it committed suicide .
Its a sad and sorry state when we would rather see an animal killed than admit we got it WRONG ......

[Rheghead]

Its a sad and sorry state when we would rather see an animal killed than admit we got it WRONG ......

Who would rather see an animal get killed than admit they got it wrong? I think any accidental death is a tragedy for these magnificent creatures whether it is via road kill, windturbines etc etc etc. It is even more galling when Town and Country types call murder over these turbines and birds when they have had a history of being the pariahs of bird of prey populations.

But has it ever occurred to anyone if those Dounreay workers were really bothered about the state of Britain's birds, how many times have they notified the RSPB for every time they've seen a dead bird by the side of the road?

It is all a storm in a tea cup which antiwindies are trying to make political capital out of it.

Just think of all the creatures that are saved via the mitigation of fossil fuels in relation to not just climate change but also acid rain etc.

[caithness lad]

In the light of the press report of a buzzard being killed by a turbine blade, is anyone researching bird strikes, around the wind farms currently operating in Caithness?

i hope they get a lot of scorries

[the second coming]

Who would rather see an animal get killed than admit they got it wrong? I think any accidental death is a tragedy for these magnificent creatures whether it is via road kill, windturbines etc etc etc. It is even more galling when Town and Country types call murder over these turbines and birds when they have had a history of being the pariahs of bird of prey populations.

But has it ever occurred to anyone if those Dounreay workers were really bothered about the state of Britain's birds, how many times have they notified the RSPB for every time they've seen a dead bird by the side of the road?

It is all a storm in a tea cup which antiwindies are trying to make political capital out of it.

Just think of all the creatures that are saved via the mitigation of fossil fuels in relation to not just climate change but also acid rain etc.

here here, rheghead, i would reply to the politically biaist antiwindies (acknowledging each to their own on visual impact) but I just cant be bothered repeating myself every time i hear folk preaching mis-information

c'mon the wind farms

c'mon the birds

boo hiss antiwindies

[kas]

Without getting in to a slagging match Rheg, I spoke to a witness at work who said, the Buzzard was hit by the turbine and fell out of the sky like a lead balloon. They went to see it and it had no apparant injuries visible, but has since heard the bird suffered a broken neck.

I do not believe he is lying about what he saw, he has no hidden interests to have to lie.

[j4bberw0ck]

More important than the number of birds killed is the fact that windfarms take away huge tracts of habitat, nesting areas and food from bird populations - that's the real killer. And we have too many internationally protected and truly endangered bird species, resident and migrant, depending on Caithness for us to wantonly sacrifice their habitat.

The developers' line that we have to sacrifice birds for the long-term goal of combatting climate change is risible and totally self-serving.

Its a sad and sorry state when we would rather see an animal killed than admit we got it WRONG ......

Interesting viewpoints. Let's assume for a minute that everything said about the cause of climate change is true. Let's also assume, as many do, that wind turbines are a major part of the answer to reducing CO2 emissions from power generation, and so combating climate change.

Now let's assume for a minute that climate change is potentially catastrophic and will lead to wholesale extinctions of plants and animals in (say) the north of Scotland - including, potentially, birds of prey.

So, no wind farms means fewer "accidental" bird deaths. Yayyyy!!

But woops, no wind farms means wholesale extinctions, surely? Booooo!!

So, pro-bird lobby, what's the lesser evil? What compromise would you agree as reasonable?

[webmannie]

Yes Interesting Viewpoint, i'd like to 'assume' also

Lets assume that everything said about climate change is not true and it is cyclic. Lets also assume that wind turbines are no answer to countering Co2 emmissions, due to poor efficiency.

WOW no extinction, no 'accidental' bird deaths yaaay, let's all go to the pub and celebrate. We've solved the worlds ails and we can sleep easy tonight.

We can all put forward assumptions, it is proven facts we need. The top environmental scientists in the world cannot even agree whether 'global warming' is caused by us, what chance have we.

I think the thread should be closed, there is nothing further to be gained.

The bird is dead, end of story. It'll probably end up 'stuffed' by a taxidermist and on show in somebodys home (have you taken a picture of it yet G?).

[j4bberw0ck]

I'm as cynical as you about the underlying causes of climate change, but you've completely missed the point of my argument.

Which was that if we accept the prevailing "wisdom", then ultimately a choice has to be made between the occasional buzzard / hen harrier / starling / whatever getting a clonk on the head from a turbine, and all buzzards / hen harriers / starlings / whatever dying out through habitat destruction..

So, which is preferable? Simple as that. And your answer is................?

[Rheghead]

We can all put forward assumptions, it is proven facts we need. The top environmental scientists in the world cannot even agree whether 'global warming' is caused by us, what chance have we.

There is just a few points I'd like to make to that.

There is absolutely no scientific doubt that CO2 and the other GHGs are causing climate change. Even the most vocal of the credible sceptics do accept that. Where the big uncertainties are due to the role of the positive and negative feedbacks which can either enhance the effects of the role of GHGs or they can negate them.

For example, more heat will produce more snow and rain which will cool the Earth, a negative feedback, more heat will melt ice cover over the oceans and land thus absorbing more heat, a positive feedback.

What has happened though is that the oil industry has took advantage of this uncertainty for its own needs and turned it around to promote the idea that climate science is not science if there is uncertainty. That is unintellectual claptrap because the only scientific certainty in this universe is that there will always be uncertainty, in everything.

Also, the Bush administration has been proved to have covered up or gagged scientific evidence from reaching the Public in the US, this will hamper Public support in the fight against climate change by encouraging a climate of ignorance.

Another off topic thought has entered my head, if the Bible belt of the US is the richest in oil, how can American geologists and the oil industry cohorts wrestle their religious concience regarding evolution and their knowledge of geological timescales and the fossil record???

[j4bberw0ck]

Another off topic thought has entered my head, if the Bible belt of the US is the richest in oil, how can American geologists and the oil industry cohorts wrestle their religious concience regarding evolution and their knowledge of geological timescales and the fossil record???

Because they say that if you had (for instance) a large drum of water and shovelled in an evenly mixed amount of soil containing bones, rocks of different sorts and all the other stuff you find when you dig up the ground, gave it all a mighty stir and left it for a few thousand years, you'd see exactly what we see today - strata, different rocks at different levels, oil deposits etc etc.

No, I don't understand it, either.

[dozy]

I have got some results back to-day and the figures have be checked against the Climate Charge Study .
The change in weather and wind patterns across the North of Brittain over the next 5-15 years will make Wind Turbines only 12% efficient (thats less than half what they are touted at now ),as the wind will drop to below operating speeds and then swing to speeds outside the turbines safe working range .
All that Steel ,concrete and Landscape wasted on a power source that will hardly boil a kettle ...It would be funny if it was private money but its the Taxpayer that will foot the bill yet again ....