Rare bird last seen in Britain 22 years ago reappears - only to be killed by wind turbine

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2013 7:44 PM GMT
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2350267/Rare-bird-white-throated-needletail-killed-wind-turbine-crowd-twitchers.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2013 9:47 PM GMT
    That's a tad bit ironic that a wind turbine (something that is supposed to help the environment) actually harmed and killed a bird. Poor little guy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2013 9:52 PM GMT
    Well I just laughed more than I should.

    Hahahaha.

    So much for its éntre. Hahahaha!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2013 10:46 PM GMT
    mrap2 saidWell I just laughed more than I should.

    Hahahaha.
    So much for its éntre. Hahahaha!


    Second this. Just picturing a group of ppl squealing with excitement then becoming dead quiet as the rare bird is struck down by a wind turbine... Makes me laugh uncontrollably for some reason.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2013 10:55 PM GMT
    Yet another ridiculous anti-green post from Riddler78. Funny how he overlooks the thousands of animals killed in the U.S. each year from oil and natural gas production. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2013 11:00 PM GMT
    credo saidYet another ridiculous anti-green post from Riddler78. Funny how he overlooks the thousands of animals killed in the U.S. each year from oil and natural gas production. icon_rolleyes.gif


    What are the stats on that?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2013 11:06 PM GMT
    Is it wrong, that I cannot stop laughing?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2013 11:51 PM GMT
    chefBH said
    credo saidYet another ridiculous anti-green post from Riddler78. Funny how he overlooks the thousands of animals killed in the U.S. each year from oil and natural gas production. icon_rolleyes.gif


    What are the stats on that?


    Here's an example, however they got a pass. Apparently killing the wildlife without deliberately trying to kill the wildlife means it's OK.

    http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/migratorybirds03012012/
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2605

    Jul 01, 2013 12:32 AM GMT
    meninlove said
    chefBH said
    credo saidYet another ridiculous anti-green post from Riddler78. Funny how he overlooks the thousands of animals killed in the U.S. each year from oil and natural gas production. icon_rolleyes.gif


    What are the stats on that?


    Here's an example, however they got a pass. Apparently killing the wildlife without deliberately trying to kill the wildlife means it's OK.

    http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/migratorybirds03012012/


    Good article.

    The tabloid press in the UK notes the rare and exceptional rather than the commonplace, thus distorting the true picture.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2013 12:39 AM GMT
    "Oh, the irony..." Riddler chortled as this headline came across his news feed. He smiled to himself, thinking how deeply he could inhale the taints of his pro-Capitalist drinking buddies as he related the anecdote to them. "'Wow, what a one-two punch,'" he rehearsed, continuing, "and I'll be a hero to SouthBeach's sock puppet chefBH."

    Talking to himself as though his anti-gay cohorts cared what he thought when he wasn't outsourcing North American jobs to Asia wasn't the only self-pleasure he got while reading the story. With his right hand occupied by his sweaty three-button mouse, his left hand slid into his jeans and found his own dead hummingbird, twitching to life at the thought of his buddies' own Keystone pipelines.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2013 12:49 AM GMT
    Misleading article. The bird is uncommonly found in western Europe. It is not rare in other parts of the world. It's not like some supposedly extinct species was discovered to be alive only to be killed by a man-made wind turbine.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2013 1:00 AM GMT
    search4more saidMisleading article.
    It doesn't matter that the article is misleading. All that matters is that it follows Riddler's--har, har--narrative. "Take that, you tree-hugging enviro-Fascists!"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2013 1:42 AM GMT
    Deer often get hit by cars - I guess we should not use cars anymore....and how about those geese that collided with that plane that had to land in the Hudson because of it? Hmm.


    "Ornithologists estimate that up to 100 million birds are killed each year by collisions with windows. "

    http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/faq/attracting/challenges/window_collisions
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2013 1:53 AM GMT
    Maybe we should give up all things electronic, since electricity is produced by coal, oil, and gas. That'll save a few birdies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2013 1:53 AM GMT
    Stan24 saidDeer often get hit by cars - I guess we should not use cars anymore....and how about those geese that collided with that plane that had to land in the Hudson because of it? Hmm.


    "Ornithologists estimate that up to 100 million birds are killed each year by collisions with windows. "

    http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/faq/attracting/challenges/window_collisions



    oh gods, my parents had windows all across the back of their old house and the neighbors used to have a few dozen "trash trees" in their back yard which yielded berries. The berries on these trees wouldn't fall however and would instead remain on the branches and ferment. The birds would take over the trees, eat all of the berries, crap blue on EVERYTHING that wasn't under cover and then fly into the windows for a week.
  • TheBizMan

    Posts: 4091

    Jul 01, 2013 2:00 AM GMT
    Damn liberals and their wind turbines! icon_evil.gif

  • Jul 01, 2013 2:22 AM GMT
    Interesting article. Bird impacts from wind turbines, especially "guy-ed" turbines (where long cables are used to stabilize the structures), are well documented. Studies in the western US show local declines in large raptors, including Golden Eagles and Red-tailed Hawks. Bats fare even worse, as the drop in pressure near the blades actually causes their chests to implode.

    That being said, renewable energy (such as wind, solar, tidal, etc) is still preferable to fracking, natural gas pipelines, and coal. Just a thought.

    Also, I agree that the title is completely misleading. Definitely a shock-and-awe article, instead of actual science.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2013 2:28 AM GMT
    [quote]
    That being said, renewable energy (such as wind, solar, tidal, etc) is still preferable to fracking, natural gas pipelines, and coal. Just a thought.

    [/quote]


    Renewable energy is great, but it cannot produce more than a small fraction of the power required. Even then, only under ideal conditions.

  • Jul 01, 2013 2:43 AM GMT
    Blakes, you're right. At current standard, and with the technology available, renewable sources of energy can't keep up. But that's the problem, right? How do you boost efficiency of a longer-term solution, when it's so easy and relatively cheap to burn coal or natural gas?

    And then there's the issue of some "green" methods still causing wildlife impacts. Even something as simple as using a vertical wind turbine (imagine a metal whirlwind) would cut down on mortality of birds and bats.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2013 2:55 AM GMT
    First, I would hardly consider the Daily Mail to be a reliable source of information. Their science reporting in particular (which this would sort of qualify as) is notoriously bad. Second, we have to look at the bigger picture. Even neglecting global warming, I suspect that the number of animals saved by not having to extract fossil fuels or uranium (just talking about the mining process here, ignore the radioactivity) would far outnumber those killed by wind turbines. Including the effects of global warming then it would be no contest.

    As for statements about whether renewable energy could keep up: my understanding is that technically it could but it would be expensive. Almost certainly not as expensive as doing nothing, but companies and even governments don't incorporate those costs into their calculations. With a sufficiently large program (likely needing to be government run) we could in principle be using mostly renewable energy in a few decades. This would, of course, be a massive undertaking. The task of really trying to cut CO2 emissions has been compared to the effort needed to engage in the World Wars. It will require deficit financing (unless you want to get really radical and nationalize the oil companies or something...) But for the deficit hawks, here is where the war analogy really comes in. During a war, you never hear a general say that "Oh, our budget has been cut and we can't afford to bomb Berlin today." During a war you will pay whatever is necessary to survive win. If we are serious about tackling climate change then we will most likely have to do the same.

    Okay, now that this rant is over, I'm going to run and hide.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2013 3:41 AM GMT
    This has all the makings of a Monty Python skit. There must be some more White-throated Needletails around there somewhere...icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2013 3:42 AM GMT
    AstroGeek saidFirst, I would hardly consider the Daily Mail to be a reliable source of information. Their science reporting in particular (which this would sort of qualify as) is notoriously bad. Second, we have to look at the bigger picture. Even neglecting global warming, I suspect that the number of animals saved by not having to extract fossil fuels or uranium (just talking about the mining process here, ignore the radioactivity) would far outnumber those killed by wind turbines. Including the effects of global warming then it would be no contest.

    As for statements about whether renewable energy could keep up: my understanding is that technically it could but it would be expensive. Almost certainly not as expensive as doing nothing, but companies and even governments don't incorporate those costs into their calculations. With a sufficiently large program (likely needing to be government run) we could in principle be using mostly renewable energy in a few decades. This would, of course, be a massive undertaking. The task of really trying to cut CO2 emissions has been compared to the effort needed to engage in the World Wars. It will require deficit financing (unless you want to get really radical and nationalize the oil companies or something...) But for the deficit hawks, here is where the war analogy really comes in. During a war, you never hear a general say that "Oh, our budget has been cut and we can't afford to bomb Berlin today." During a war you will pay whatever is necessary to survive win. If we are serious about tackling climate change then we will most likely have to do the same.

    Okay, now that this rant is over, I'm going to run and hide.


    Dude, lighten up...icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2013 11:37 AM GMT
    TheBizMan saidDamn liberals and their wind turbines! icon_evil.gif


    Basically, just another right-wing fueled story by the Daily Mail.

    AstroGeek saidFirst, I would hardly consider the Daily Mail to be a reliable source of information.


    It's not, at my university it's top of the list of websites not to reference as it's deemed 'incredibly unreliable'. We had a lecturer threaten us, saying if we chose to reference it we'd lose all marks possibly gained through referencing.
  • FitGwynedd

    Posts: 1468

    Jul 01, 2013 12:00 PM GMT
    Anyone who reads the daily mail should not be taken seriously.
  • FitGwynedd

    Posts: 1468

    Jul 01, 2013 12:01 PM GMT
    Sparks said
    TheBizMan saidDamn liberals and their wind turbines! icon_evil.gif


    Basically, just another right-wing fueled story by the Daily Mail.

    AstroGeek saidFirst, I would hardly consider the Daily Mail to be a reliable source of information.


    It's not, at my university it's top of the list of websites not to reference as it's deemed 'incredibly unreliable'. We had a lecturer threaten us, saying if we chose to reference it we'd lose all marks possibly gained through referencing.


    Who the fuck would reference the Daily Mail!?