Windmills along the lake

[Nagigator]

Wachusett Mountain in Princeton, Ma is installing 2 rather large windmills on the summit.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSFKdARjCFM

Hope this goes through!

Clarification: The Princeton Light Dept. is installing 2 windmills on the summit of Wachusett Mountain.

[SAMIAM]

Boater,that was a great and thoughtful response....I'm sending that to everyone on my mailing list.
Also, tis made a good point that, while GW is a scam...that people should be free to pursue alternative energy for their own use. I am totally in favor of that as long as the government is not shoving it down our throats.

[SAMIAM]

I'll probably get tossed for this....but I'll say it anyway. When Exxon had their oil spill, they were fined millions for the death of all the waterbirds. Shopping centers, roads, bridges and condominium projects are stopped immediately if they stumble on a single osprey nest....or an eagle or a spotted owl shows up. ACLU lawyers, with beards and Birkenstocks are all over the airwaves in vein popping rage.............but the windmill farms out west kill thousands of eagles, hawks and owls every single day, and there is not one word of outrage among the "greenies"........go figure.

[Just Sold]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

..but the windmill farms out west kill thousands of eagles, hawks and owls every single day, and there is not one word of outrage among the "greenies"........go figure.

SAMIAM that is a pretty impressive statement but I have never seen any reports of thousands of birds being killed every day by anything anywhere. I can't believe your statement to be true - I cannot even google any info that supports your statement. Better check your facts and provide confirmation of them unless you are just trolling regarding this subject.

[Whimsey]

Sadly, Samiam's assertions are accurate. See the article in the Wall Street Journal six weeks ago:

Windmills Are Killing Our Birds -- WSJ article 9-7-2009

On Aug. 13, ExxonMobil pleaded guilty in federal court to killing 85 birds that had come into contact with crude oil or other pollutants in uncovered tanks or waste-water facilities on its properties. The birds were protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which dates back to 1918. The company agreed to pay $600,000 in fines and fees.

ExxonMobil is hardly alone in running afoul of this law. Over the past two decades, federal officials have brought hundreds of similar cases against energy companies. In July, for example, the Oregon-based electric utility PacifiCorp paid $1.4 million in fines and restitution for killing 232 eagles in Wyoming over the past two years. The birds were electrocuted by poorly-designed power lines.

Yet there is one group of energy producers that are not being prosecuted for killing birds: wind-power companies. And wind-powered turbines are killing a vast number of birds every year.

A July 2008 study of the wind farm at Altamont Pass, Calif., estimated that its turbines kill an average of 80 golden eagles per year. The study, funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency, also estimated that about 10,000 birds—nearly all protected by the migratory bird act—are being whacked every year at Altamont.

Altamont's turbines, located about 30 miles east of Oakland, Calif., kill more than 100 times as many birds as Exxon's tanks, and they do so every year. But the Altamont Pass wind farm does not face the same threat of prosecution, even though the bird kills at Altamont have been repeatedly documented by biologists since the mid-1990s.

The number of birds killed by wind turbines is highly variable. And biologists believe Altamont, which uses older turbine technology, may be the worst example. But that said, the carnage there likely represents only a fraction of the number of birds killed by windmills. Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy estimates that U.S. wind turbines kill between 75,000 and 275,000 birds per year. Yet the Justice Department is not bringing cases against wind companies.

"Somebody has given the wind industry a get-out-of-jail-free card," Mr. Fry told me. "If there were even one prosecution," he added, the wind industry would be forced to take the issue seriously.

According to the American Wind Energy Association, the industry's trade association, each megawatt of installed wind-power results in the killing of between one and six birds per year. At the end of 2008, the U.S. had about 25,000 megawatts of wind turbines.

By 2030, environmental and lobby groups are pushing for the U.S. to be producing 20% of its electricity from wind. Meeting that goal, according to the Department of Energy, will require the U.S. to have about 300,000 megawatts of wind capacity, a 12-fold increase over 2008 levels. If that target is achieved, we can expect some 300,000 birds, at the least, to be killed by wind turbines each year.

On its Web site, the Wind Energy Association says that bird kills by wind turbines are a "very small fraction of those caused by other commonly accepted human activities and structures—house cats kill an estimated one billion birds annually." That may be true, but it is not much of a defense. When cats kill birds, federal law doesn't require marching them to our courthouses to hold them responsible.

During the late 1980s and early '90s, Rob Lee was one of the Fish and Wildlife Service's lead law-enforcement investigators on the problem of bird kills in Western oil fields. Now retired and living in Lubbock, Texas, Mr. Lee tells me that solving the problem in the oil fields "was easy and cheap." The oil companies only had to put netting over their tanks and waste facilities.

Why aren't wind companies prosecuted for killing eagles and other birds? "The fix here is not easy or cheap," Mr. Lee told me. He added that he doesn't expect to see any prosecutions of the politically correct wind industry.

This is a double standard that more people—and not just bird lovers—should be paying attention to. In protecting America's wildlife, federal law-enforcement officials are turning a blind eye to the harm done by "green" energy.

[Pine Island Guy]

Originally Posted by Whimsey

See the article in the Wall Street Journal six weeks ago:

Note that this is not an article by a Wall Street Journal reporter, but in the "opinion" section of the Journal written by: Mr. Bryce is the managing editor of Energy Tribune. His latest book is "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence'"

Not to say that he isn't accurate, but just to make sure the source is clear...

cheers -PIG

[Argie's Wife]

I would hazard the guess that automobiles, sliding glass doors, and domestic cats kill many more birds a year than the wind turbines. Maybe we should have no windows, keep indoor cats, and stop driving our cars?

Before someone blows a gasket.... My point isn't that I don't like wildlife and especially birds, but that everything has an unanticipated or unintended consequence on the enviroment in some way. Think about it.

And yes, of course I think that the turbine engineers could do a better job of protecting wildlife and perhaps there's some deterrent they could design so that birds, bats, and butterflies aren't endangered. Fining the companies won't help, though, as guess who really ends up paying those fines? Yup. The consumer.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Argie's Wife

I would hazard the guess that automobiles, sliding glass doors, and domestic cats kill many more birds a year than the wind turbines. Maybe we should have no windows, keep indoor cats, and stop driving our cars?

Before someone blows a gasket.... My point isn't that I don't like wildlife and especially birds, but that everything has an unanticipated or unintended consequence on the enviroment in some way. Think about it.

And yes, of course I think that the turbine engineers could do a better job of protecting wildlife and perhaps there's some deterrent they could design so that birds, bats, and butterflies aren't endangered. Fining the companies won't help, though, as guess who really ends up paying those fines? Yup. The consumer.

AW: I'm afraid you have veered into some Common Sense. BUT..We don't need no Common Sense when talking about GW .....or Wind Turbines. It just screws up the argument. Just sayin. NB

[fatlazyless]

Say, didn't that airplane which was ditched onto the Hudson River last January go down due to canada geese clogging both jet engines.

Ya know.....it's never too late for NY Attorney General Cuomo to go and indict that "hero on the Hudson" pilot for birdy manslaughter....or birdslaughter.....7 days incarceration for each dead birdy....operat'n a plane without birdy safety protection in use........ there otta be a law!

After all, birds are better than people!

[SAMIAM]

Originally Posted by Just Sold

SAMIAM that is a pretty impressive statement but I have never seen any reports of thousands of birds being killed every day by anything anywhere. I can't believe your statement to be true - I cannot even google any info that supports your statement. Better check your facts and provide confirmation of them unless you are just trolling regarding this subject.

I read it recently in either Smithsonian or National Geographic and have since thrown them out. I didn't believe it either.....It had to be the Sept or Oct mag.....probably can be seached on their website.

[Just Sold]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

I read it recently in either Smithsonian or National Geographic and have since thrown them out.I didn't believe it either.....It had to be the Sept or Oct mag.....probably can be seached on their website.

Unfortunately neither of these sources have any articles on electric power windmills killing birds that I could easily find on their web sites. Not even Mr Robert Brice's "Opinion" published in the Wall Street Journal (not an article by the WSJ) contained the claim you stated. Prior to my previous post I did search quite extensively in response to your statement "but the windmill farms out west kill thousands of eagles,hawks and owls every single day" and only found the WSJ "Opinion" by Mr. Brice.

I encourage and enjoy everyone's opinion even when it differs from mine but I get irked when people make wild and unsubstantiated claims as some, including you, have made on this site of late. There is enough misinformation to be had elsewhere so please be sure of your sources and facts when making such claims.

FYI: There is a draft report (June 2009) on the birds killed and no Eagles are listed in that report and you can review it here. Even a newspaper article in 2004 did not even come close to the accusation made in Mr. Brice's "Opinion".
http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/m...l_kb_study.pdf http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...4/ai_n9722887/

[Cobalt 25]

Well put, Just Sold!

Also, weather is not climate, so dismissing global warming because it was colder than normal last Tuesday in Peoria, Illinois, doesn't make much sense.

Peter

[SAMIAM]

I have no axe to grind on this subject, Justsold.......and I don't like your suggestion that I'm playing loose with the facts. You clearly have some kind of an agenda...........I googled up "Birds killed by windmills" and got so many pages, there is not even room to quote them. Thousands of golden eagles have been killed, as well as hawks and owls.
And please don't whine about feral cats.......don't think they could take on an eagle.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

I googled up "Birds killed by windmills"

So did I just now, and found this from the top hit:

"Studies at more recently designed wind farms tell us that bird mortality at windmills is very low. A summary indicates that the average number of birds killed annually across North America is between one and two per turbine. "

[trfour]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

I'll probably get tossed for this....but I'll say it anyway.When Exxon had their oil spill,they were fined millions for the death of all the waterbirds .Shopping centers,roads,bridges and condominium projects are stopped immediately if they stumble on a single osprey nest....or an eagle or a spotted owl shows up.ACLU lawyers,with beards and Birkenstocks are all over the airwaves in vein popping rage.............but the windmill farms out west kill thousands of eagles,hawks and owls every single day,and there is not one word of outrage among the "greenies"........go figure.

Sam, read on; http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways...omment-page-1/

[SAMIAM]

Read on....Birds and Windmills
The Whirling Blades of Wind Turbines Can be Deadly to Birds
© Rosemary Drisdelle

Oct 25, 2006
Windmills, especially older ones, in the wrong places can cause many bird deaths. Newer technology and thoughtful location of wind farms can minimize the death toll.

Anyone who has investigated the issue of bird mortality and windmills has heard of Altamont Pass, an area of rolling grasslands near San Francisco studded with 4000 wind turbines. Marching across the landscape in platoons and columns, the turbines, each with its whirling blades, resemble supersize barbed wire fencing. Estimates put the number of birds killed annually at Altamont Pass at 4,700, about 1,300 of them raptors (Golden Eagles, hawks, Burrowing Owls and other birds of prey).

Yet Altamont Pass seems to be the worst of the worst. The environment here supports high populations of ground-squirrels, and consequently high numbers of birds of prey. It is also situated in a migratory bird flyway. And because many of the turbines at Altamont are older models, with small rapidly turning blades, any birds that do fly near are more likely to meet with a sudden violent end. New windmills are much taller, lifting the blades above the flight paths of many birds, have larger, more slowly turning blades, and can do the work of four of the smaller turbines



Read more: http://birds.suite101.com/article.cf...#ixzz0V35oM6MG

[SAMIAM]

Those of you who like windmills are welcome have them.....but, please don't try to tell us that they are harmless to birds. You are culling the few stories by supporters that claim the opposite, but anyone can view the information that is out there..........

Windmills Are Killing Our Birds: One standard for oil companies, another for green energy sources.

On Aug. 13, ExxonMobil pleaded guilty in federal court to killing 85 birds that had come into contact with crude oil or other pollutants in uncovered tanks or waste-water facilities on its properties. The birds were protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which dates back to 1918. The company agreed to pay $600,000 in fines and fees.

ExxonMobil is hardly alone in running afoul of this law. Over the past two decades, federal officials have brought hundreds of similar cases against energy companies. In July, for example, the Oregon-based electric utility PacifiCorp paid $1.4 million in fines and restitution for killing 232 eagles in Wyoming over the past two years. The birds were electrocuted by poorly-designed power lines.

Yet there is one group of energy producers that are not being prosecuted for killing birds: wind-power companies. And wind-powered turbines are killing a vast number of birds every year.

A July 2008 study of the wind farm at Altamont Pass, Calif., estimated that its turbines kill an average of 80 golden eagles per year. The study, funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency, also estimated that about 10,000 birds—nearly all protected by the migratory bird act—are being whacked every year at Altamont

[Argie's Wife]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

A July 2008 study of the wind farm at Altamont Pass, Calif., estimated that its turbines kill an average of 80 golden eagles per year. The study, funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency, also estimated that about 10,000 birds—nearly all protected by the migratory bird act—are being whacked every year at Altamont

I've noticed your quotes are mainly about Altamont, CA wind turbines. Ever seen it or been out there? I have. It's huge - to say the least. It's one of the oldest sites of its kind in the US and engineering issues were realized after the installation/implementation of the site. It's been used to study the problem with the impact on birds in the area (and of course all the birds in CA are protected with a migratory bird act.) (Source HERE) I believe engineers today are avoiding doing that again - it's not been good and is supposed to be re-designed in the near future.

There have been design changes to windmills since the installation of Altamont. (Source HERE.) Oh, and they do mention that cats are a bigger threat to birds than windmills, but that windmills are more of a threat to bats than to birds. (So... set up some sonic deterrent that only bats will hear and problem solved...) There's no "whining" there, Sam, just facts.

I seriously doubt that we'll see anything like Altamont in the LR and I'm not going to.... dare I say it?... get my feathers ruffled about a couple of wind turbines in the area that aren't even in place yet. This is a science that's still developing and there's much to be learned. Personally, I think it's great that other resources are being realized and explored.

[ishoot308]

Hi Samiam;

You are 100% correct in your assessment of the Altamont wind farms. The number of bird deaths quoted are actually considered conservative and most likely are quite higher!

Yes, Altamont is the worse by far and the reason for this is it is in a migration route for birds. It was quite stupid to allow wind generating turbines to be used in such a sensitive area. The newer wind farms which are not in migration routes are not nearly as deadly to birds.

FWIW;

Dan

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

Read on....Birds and Windmills
The Whirling Blades of Wind Turbines Can be Deadly to Birds

You seen to cite multiple references to the fact that one of the first, oldest, and largest windmill installations has yielded data that shows poorly planned and installed large scale installations can be problematic.

Reading further, there seems to be much agreement that the generation of windmills being installed currently has learned much from these early sites to greatly reduce the impact to bird populations.

[SAMIAM]

Brk-Int......That me be true....I certainly hope so. I don't mean to harp on this so much, but I just don't think it's worth hurting any wild life to power up our homes when there are so many other sources. I'm all in favor of other sources of alternative energy. Solar is great and doesn't anything.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

Brk-Int......That me be true....I certainly hope so. I don't mean to harp on this so much, but I just don't think it's worth hurting any wild life to power up our homes when there are so many other sources. I'm all in favor of other sources of alternative energy. Solar is great and doesn't anything.

Understood. I think though that you might be comparing direct measurables, like dead birds on the ground, to less direct factors.

Solar cell manufacturing is a messy, chemical-ridden process. Both for the solar panels, and for the batteries that sit behind them to provide energy storage for when it is dark out. That has a lot of environmental side affects that people don't directly concentrate on.

Coal or natural gas plants have environmental side effects, and so on.

The fact is that there is no "clean" way to power our lives. Electricity is not a naturally occurring phenomenon (eliminating lighting or things that can't be properly harnessed or predicted). The only way to get electricity is to convert some element (wind, sunlight, gas, coal, etc.) into electron movement. Then, we have to carry those electrons through hundreds of miles of cable (made of metals mined from the earth) and through transformers (made of more metal, with various fluids in them), and so on.

To mangle an old Internet meme, every time you load a web page, the power company kills a kitten.

I agree that we should try to minimize the impact we make on the world with our electricity generation and distribution, but we should look at the full impact of various power options, not just the right-in-front-of-your-face impact, which does not always tell the whole story.

[Shedwannabe]

Getting back to a previous Side topic in this thread...

I was at the New Hampshire Science Teachers Association conference this weekend. One of their major issues is how to teach their students the facts about climate change when the parents are "deniers". Everyone there (except one person, who was courageous to speak up) firmly accepts that the scientific evidence is pretty clear that humans are causing global warming. The person who disagreed admitted global warming was happening, but was unconvinced how much was due to human activity and how much to natural processes. I spoke with several teachers who were exasperated with people trying to tell their kids to take it on faith that global warming wasn't happening, or who were using "quack scientists" - i.e - those without formal training in climatology - as supposed "experts" . One presenter (I forget his name) works with students and challenges them to a debate about global warming - he allows the students to dispute any part of his presentation, with the only caveat being they have to back up their dispute with scientific evidence. He reports many students do put a lot of energy into preparing for the debate, but then despair because all their points against global warming turn out to be hearsay (or "quackery" directly contradicted by scientific research. Fortunately, they are young and accept maybe they were wrong...but its the parents who are set in their (false) beliefs that are the biggest problems.

Anyway, science teachers (there) were near unanimous that climate change is one of the most important topics facing youth today, and that appropriate teaching is a high priority. They mostly see "appropriate teaching" as "relying on the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that shows climate change is human caused, and needed responses now, before it is too late.

I met one teacher who countered the argument that we can't afford the disruptions to our economy caused by taking action for climate change by noting that changing to a sustainable, green economy would be much better for our economy, when you take into account there would be less pollution control costs, less health costs due our current practice of to not taking into account the health effects of our system of economic production, and less spent on wars designed to continue our inexpensive access to fossil fuels.

So its your kids whom you are likely to be debating next about global warming...

[Pineedles]

You are a troll!

[Pineedles]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

Getting back to a previous Side topic in this thread...

I was at the New Hampshire Science Teachers Association conference this weekend. One of their major issues is how to teach their students the facts about climate change when the parents are "deniers". Everyone there (except one person, who was courageous to speak up) firmly accepts that the scientific evidence is pretty clear that humans are causing global warming. The person who disagreed admitted global warming was happening, but was unconvinced how much was due to human activity and how much to natural processes. I spoke with several teachers who were exasperated with people trying to tell their kids to take it on faith that global warming wasn't happening, or who were using "quack scientists" - i.e - those without formal training in climatology - as supposed "experts" . One presenter (I forget his name) works with students and challenges them to a debate about global warming - he allows the students to dispute any part of his presentation, with the only caveat being they have to back up their dispute with scientific evidence. He reports many students do put a lot of energy into preparing for the debate, but then despair because all their points against global warming turn out to be hearsay (or "quackery" directly contradicted by scientific research. Fortunately, they are young and accept maybe they were wrong...but its the parents who are set in their (false) beliefs that are the biggest problems.

Anyway, science teachers (there) were near unanimous that climate change is one of the most important topics facing youth today, and that appropriate teaching is a high priority. They mostly see "appropriate teaching" as "relying on the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that shows climate change is human caused, and needed responses now, before it is too late.

I met one teacher who countered the argument that we can't afford the disruptions to our economy caused by taking action for climate change by noting that changing to a sustainable, green economy would be much better for our economy, when you take into account there would be less pollution control costs, less health costs due our current practice of to not taking into account the health effects of our system of economic production, and less spent on wars designed to continue our inexpensive access to fossil fuels.

So its your kids whom you are likely to be debating next about global warming...

I wanted to make sure you couldn't "edit out your last post. This says it all--teach their students the facts about climate change when the parents are "deniers". Don't worry Shedwannabe, I overcame the lies that my children were told and they're children will also overcome the lies that "educators" like you try to infuse into our grandchildren. You will lose this battle for our children's minds eventually!

[Happy Gourmand]

.....nobody mentions nuclear power. I believe that it is the main source of electric power in many European countries. Are they wrong about it, or are we?

[Cobalt 25]

Thoughtful and informative post, Shed. I'll bet you didn't think your point would be proven so quickly!

In my opinion, the loss of some birds pales in comparison to what is happening right now on our planet. The issue is just a distraction thrown up by obstructionists. We need a variety of alternative sources of energy. I almost can't believe I'm saying this, but maybe we should look closer at nuclear power as well. THAT'S how important this issue is!

Peter

[trfour]

Originally Posted by The Phantom Gourmand

.....nobody mentions nuclear power. I believe that it is the main source of electric power in many European countries. Are they wrong about it, or are we?

Still seems to be a + - . Kind of an easy known, lookout for the fallout! #1. "Waste Containment, A Big? ! " #2. To attack us and commit mass destruction! Since 911, security, and into the future has taken on a totally new consideration.

Okay, back to # 2! "We need to neutralize al qaeda and any other extremists that are bent on executing innocent people in the world." I am a 65 year old veteran and will very happily re-up to help in the fight!

Not so easy answers in this day and age and God knows that I don't know many of them, I do know that I will continue the fight to bring the best to my loved ones and my beloved United States Of America and what I can!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

"...Boater, that was a great and thoughtful response..."

It was excellent, and can be read again here.

Originally Posted by NoBozo

"...Portsmouth has plenty of wind.... overlooking Narragansett Bay...the Sailing Capitol of the world..."

Annapolis, MD, might argue that point.

Originally Posted by NoBozo

"...The town "Voted" to do this project. I voted against..but have since become a supporter..."

This could become a trend.

It's troubling to read that France has nearly 60 Chernobyl-style nuclear plants, but no citizen actually voted for them: popular opinion, though largely favorable to nukes, was driven by Government-paid "Info-mercials".

Originally Posted by jmen24

"...Electric solar panels that are large enough to power your home and hopefully backfeed the grid are super expensive including all the components to go with them..."

My BIL (the Maytag repairman) did his roof in solar panels in northern California last year. (Doing some of the installation himself). I've emailed for an update, but I recall that his electric meter often runs backwards—and he spends months RV-camping the US during the "hottest" generating periods that peak the grid best.

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

"...Those of you who like windmills are welcome have them.....but please don't try to tell us that they are harmless to birds..."

1) Huge bird kills were recorded years ago at the newest TV towers, so even our newest digital TV reception has had unintended consequences. (And the number of towers is increasing!)

2) Two recent oil spills off New England's SE coast killed 600 Loons, so even conventional fossil fuel energy doesn't come without bird-loss costs.

3) Logging in May and June accounts for large numbers of lost birds during the breeding season.

4) I've saved even-worse accounts of bird kills, but quite a few are no longer supported on the Internet.

Originally Posted by travaler18

"...once we run out of oil, its gonna be windmills and sailboats everywhere..."

1) Our Canada and Mexico neighbors are finding new fields, but require more expensive technologies for extraction.

2) We're not going to run out of oil, but we can't $ustain our annual 4% increa$ed u$e of it!

3) Just last week, a sailboat crossed the Atlantic in three days and used no oil. (Hitting 53-MPH ).

The future looks less oil-dependent and, with a planet nearing 7 Billion (7,000-million) people, it's not too soon for wind power, tidal power, solar power and a new look at nuclear.

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

"...So its your kids whom you are likely to be debating next about global warming..."

...and...

Originally Posted by Pineedles

"...You will lose this battle for our children's minds eventually...!"

ETA:
I think member shore things "nailed it" Wednesday morning—at 4:30 AM!

Illustrator Norman Rockwell stepped away from his usual Americana themes to state MY view best in his work titled, "Russian Schoolroom". (Vicariously, that's "me", the student 2nd-from-right).

[Argie's Wife]

Is anyone else seeing the irony of this thread going 'round and 'round and 'round... like a windmill...?

[SAMIAM]

So much fun......started with windmills and now we're getting the global warming preachers. Next they'll be telling the school children that cro-magnon climate abuse caused the dinosaurs to go extinct.

[Redwing]

I do not see the "Thank you" option on these post, so please suffice it to say that I thank both SAMIAM and PINEEDLES for their insightful responses on this thread.

[Shedwannabe]

As to the idea that there is not consensus on global warming:

"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. At present, no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement. A small minority of professional associations have issued noncommittal statements." Wikipedia (Bold added)

For more info on the controversy over global warming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

(I realize these are just Wikipedia pages, but I doubt anyone wants to read the IPPC report or the RealClimate rebuttal of "deniers"

As to PineNeedles character, he took the time to send me a private email which is as follows:

"Get out of town troll!

Not a respectful message to a fellow Forum user... I realize you do not like your viewpoint being contradicted, but that is not cause to post a disrespectful private message.

[Redwing]

For the sake of a healthy discussion, I wanted to share the following link about Global Cooling, which as many of you may be aware was a great concern in the late 1960s/1970s (you may have to copy and paste into your web-browser).

http://www.lewrockwell.com/walker/walker17.html

[Pineedles]

And you think calling us and our belief quackery, is respectful?

[ITD]

I think the only chance the Global Warming movement has of survival is through fear, intimidation by name calling. Any scientist who declare the science is settled is suspect in my book.

One look at the proposed "cap and trade" solution shows that it is actually a huge tax and makes the Al Gores of the world rich while making an insignificant decrease in the supposed greenhouse gases. The impact on our economy and the poorest among us will be devastating if this junk legislation is passed.

Fortunately many if not most of us realize this and are calling out these Global Warmists.

Shed's post about some teacher's personal agendas being pushed in schools should be an eye opener to people without kids in school. It's a confirmation of what I've seen as my kids navigate through the school system. I teach my kids that there are some not so bright and some very bright people who will do and say many things true and false to push their agendas. I teach them to rely on their own instinct and common sense to separate the truth from the BS, it's amazing how resistant they are to the BS.

We're on to you and we're not falling for your fairy tales.

[Shedwannabe]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

And you think calling us and our belief quackery, is respectful?

Well, Pineedles, I didn't know that I had accused you of quackery, nor did I know what it mean for sure, so I went and looked it up.

"Dictionaries define quack as ... "one who talks pretentiously without sound knowledge of the subject discussed." [This] definitions suggest that the promotion of quackery involves deliberate deception, but many promoters sincerely believe in what they are doing. "

"Unproven methods are not necessarily quackery. Those consistent with established scientific concepts may be considered experimental. Legitimate researchers and practitioners do not promote unproven procedures in the marketplace but engage in responsible, properly-designed studies. Methods not compatible with established scientific concepts should be classified as nonsensical or disproven rather than experimental. Methods that sound scientific but are nonsensical can also be classified as pseudoscientific."

So, while I didn't call you this, the definition of quackery fits my understanding of the position you are taking on global warming. Just like the idea cigarettes were not definitely connected to cancer deaths turned out to be a promotion of various parties who had a lot to lose if they were found out, I think the evidence is pretty clear that the idea that global warming isn't definitely a (or the) major problem facing us turns out to be a promotion of various groups (US Chamber of Commerce, fossil fuel firms, etc.) who have a lot to lose if we start listening to and acting on the recommendations of impartial scientists.

My original statement in my first post on this thread was that I found it fascinating that there were still people who admitted they denied that global warming was real. I'm still fascinated.... and amazed... and deeply saddened at what increasingly appears to me to be "stick-head-in-sand" behavior. I find it hard to believe anyone reading (or knowing about) the US Academy of Sciences position, the UN's position, the position of every Academy of Science of every major country with an active research establishment can somehow say "it feels colder this winter, global warming must be bunk". I certainly don't have a degree in climatology, but when all of them are in agreement, worldwide, I trust the scientific research their discipline does, and the conclusions they reach.

[SAMIAM]

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

Getting back to a previous Side topic in this thread...

I was at the New Hampshire Science Teachers Association conference this weekend. One of their major issues is how to teach their students the facts about climate change when the parents are "deniers".
Fortunately, they are young and accept maybe they were wrong...but its the parents who are set in their (false) beliefs that are the biggest problems.

This post by Shedwannabe is disturbing. It seems as though it is an organized effort to brainwash our kids. What right does a teacher have to countermand a what a parent teaches their child? Next, we'll have kiddie police spying on their parents to report environmental crimes.............Jeesh
Um.....would it be too much to ask, since we are paying you, to stick to teaching and leave politics alone?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

the windmill farms out west kill thousands of eagles, hawks and owls every single day, and there is not one word of outrage among the "greenies"........go figure.

1) Migrating birds suffer huge losses just through Mother Nature: through ignorance, Humanity makes these losses even greater.

While loss of any birdlife is regrettable, a reduction in the number of hawks and eagle predators would result in restoring prior small bird populations.

2) We don't need to build alternative energy sources when simple conservation of our present resources could result in significant savings: why not turn out the excessive night-lighting that is consuming huge amounts of power after dark.

With our energy resources stretched so thin today, is it really necessary to illuminate everything?

[Airedale1]

I wish I had the time to give a well thought out response to some of the comments on here, but unfortunately I need to get outside and start shoveling about a foot of "global warming" off of my property.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Airedale1

I wish I had the time to give a well thought out response to some of the comments on here, but unfortunately I need to get outside and start shoveling about a foot of "global warming" off of my property.

Global Warming caused that snow, there is nothing global warming can't do.

[Rose]

Originally Posted by ITD

Global Warming caused that snow, there is nothing global warming can't do.

Global warming, whether it's anthropogenic or not, could cause some regions, such as the British Isles, to become cooler.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Rose

Global warming, whether it's anthropogenic or not, could cause some regions, such as the British Isles, to become cooler.

Is the "science settled" on anthropogenic global warming Rose?

[Yankee]

I ran across this a while back. A well respected massachusetts aerospace company is taking its ducted fan technology used in commercial jet engines and applying it to wind turbines: http://www.flodesign.org/clients.html

This is a really cool application of existing technology. There's two advantages over conventional propeller type wind turbine design: 1) a similar power level generating ducted fan design is smaller, and they can be placed closer together and 2) more importantly it will operate efficiently at both higher and lower wind velocities.

For those who wish to learn about the technology, I've attached 2 white papers published by Flodesign that discuss the aerodynamic theory.

Or watch this Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8Si-74IcrQ

It will be interesting to see if this alternative design takes off. There are other companies that are introducing similar ducted fan designs.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Here are some more pictures of global warming from about 1970. I am about 6' 2" in this picture.

[Yankee]

Originally Posted by Rose

Well, it's settled in my mind, but I know there's no use in trying to make my point here. Now I must go prep to teach my college-age students what greenhouse gases do.

Presenting your opinions as facts to your students is exactly what is wrong with our education system!

[Shedwannabe]

Originally Posted by Yankee

Presenting your opinions as facts to your students is exactly what is wrong with our education system!

I believe that is what you are doing, Yankee. The scientific community has more consensus on human caused global warming than on most other issues. If Rose is teaching college-aged students about greenhouse gases, that's because she's committed to teaching them science, not ideology, which is what your position appears to be.

A few years ago I was in Tanzania, which is definitely a third world country. I decided to go to the National Museum. The museum was four rooms total, one of which was on evolution. Despite looking like it greatly needed a face-lift, the think I marveled at was that their display on evolution was more accurate and up-to-date than many states allow their children to be taught - due to false ideology.

More power to anyone trying to lift the veil of ignorance from the youth of this world who will be inheriting the mess we leave to them due to our collective unwillingness to open our eyes. Look at social security - we are stiffing our children who will pay the bills for the moeny we use. Its pretty much the same (except a lot worse) in terms of the environment, because we will be leaving them a vastly degraded environment that may not be repairable.

[jrc]

Unfortunately for civility and science the theory of AGW has become a religion and the politics involved make further discussions difficult.

I'm dropping out of this discussion, I'm impressed that Rose has a mind open to discussion, even if she disagree's with me. I find that most AGW true believers cannot engage in rational thought and just parrot back a list of things they don't like and how they are either caused by AGW or cause AGW or both. Talking to them is like trying to convince the Jehovah's Witness who comes to my door that the Bible is fallible, you can't reason with blind faith.

One last comment, we all hear that AGW or now Climate Change is unpredictable, and some places will heat and some will cool, some wetter some drier. But the one constant is that it is always bad. It never causes anything good, even by accident.

[trfour]

Originally Posted by jrc

Unfortunately for civility and science the theory of AGW has become a religion and the politics involved make further discussions difficult.

Mind you all, I haven't any collage degrees, I do however have some years on me...
Planet, ( as in Planet Earth ), did not necessarily mean that any of our great geniuses could just jump in and shape it, ( plan it ) in any fashion that they fancied. Politics has tried and failed, and as far as I can see, Mother Nature has and will prevail.

Now and yes, we try our best to improve what we can to preserve all that we have cherished in our life times and to pass on to others. Just remember that absolute control is frivolous!

May we all keep learning, and thank you for listening,

Terry
_________________________________

[Cobalt 25]

It would seem as though few of us will be changing our minds in the near future concerning this issue.

When I read posts citing localized cold snaps as supporting their belief in the fallacy of climate change, I can certainly see the wisdom of recognizing the impossibility of reason. Weather is not climate.

Even the fact that 2010 was one of the warmest years on record plus the last decade containing some of the warmest years on record isn't enough, by itself, to conclusively prove the point. But all the rest of the scientific data certainly is.

As a former teacher, I commend Rose for sharing with her students information that will help them make decisions to guide our planet in the future.

Peter

[trfour]

Originally Posted by Cobalt 25

Weather is not climate.

Peter

That is why they are spelled differently. What is CLIMATE? Climate is the overall picture of weather. = weather's Mom has always been Mother Nature, and she rules. She is the windmill that graces and powers all of the sail boats here in the Lakes Region, and beyond... ... And I am also very thankful for www.winnipesaukee.com

Now, being born and brought up here in New England ( for the most part ) I found out early and became a weather nut. Just to let Y'All know, just how much I am enjoying this thread soooo!


Terry
____________________________________

[Pineedles]

Insulting people will never win the battle, no matter how and mighty some folks talk. There are a lot of FACTS that are in dispute. "Scientists" that lie about these supposed "facts", will never be good sources of information. People who quote these "facts" have no credibility. IMO.

[Shedwannabe]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Insulting people will never win the battle, no matter how and mighty some folks talk. There are a lot of FACTS that are in dispute. "Scientists" that lie about these supposed "facts", will never be good sources of information. People who quote these "facts" have no credibility. IMO.

Title of a private message from Pineedles to me about Global Warming/Climate Change" a while ago:

"Get out of town"

Well, it's not (necessarily) insulting, but it doesn't come across too friendly, or tolerant.

Pineedles must not have read the results of the scientific watchdog agency report, which after investigating all the data, found that the Climate Scientists had NOT lied. They do sound rather arrogant - a common character flaw, but not dishonest. While some "media" like Fox News (sic) may have reported they had lied, that doesn't make it so. Fox is not known for its retractions of its false claims.

Actually, even I think there is some chance that global warming that we see is not primarily caused by human activity. I'm not a climate scientist. I think other factors (sun activity, long term cycles, volcanic eruptions, etc.) may have a major impact. However, the trained climate scientists are near unanimous - not just US scientists, by around the world, that all data suggests human activity is the crucial element today. So I think my lack of being 100% convinced is probably the same sort of fantasy that most posters here seem to hold - that if we just say we don't believe it, maybe we are not responsible for knowing about our planet's death of its life support systems due to our unwillingness to change our behavior.

[SIKSUKR]

Al Gore called and he's looking for a co host with Kieth Olberman on his radio station.Looks like we have a few here that view the world through their eyes only in that same light.What scares you people so much that you feel you have to stop all talk of differing opinions?I welcome the others opinions and viewpoints especially if it disagrees with mine.How else does a democracy come to a decision?What burns my butt here is when I'm told that the fianl answer is in and I am somehow a persom with my head burried in the sand because I don't agree.Pretty scary scenerio.Sounds more like Middle East dictatorship to me.

[ApS]

"I cannot limit my lectures to well known facts."

Originally Posted by Shedwannabe

However, the trained climate scientists are near unanimous - not just US scientists, by around the world, that all data suggests human activity is the crucial element today.

• Still, I prefer "warm" to "cold", especially as there is little we can do about it without costing even more unemployment.

• Windmills will reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources—without raising the costs of our food—something in which the entire Department of Energy has failed. (in)

• It was Trained Climate Scientists who were unmasked to have "cooked their books". It pays to be them—Follow The Money.

[ApS]

I would have preferred that you answer my last comment:

• It was Trained Climate Scientists who were unmasked to have "cooked their books". It pays to be them—Follow The Money.

Originally Posted by Rose

"You made an erroneous conclusion based on your assumption that as someone who believes in anthropogenic global warming, I cannot limit my lectures to well known facts. There was no inference...you decided to create one. Talk about condescending. Guess what...I can. What I wrote is exactly what I taught them, and nothing more."

Writing that "I can" isn't the same thing as saying "I fully expect to".

Originally Posted by Rose

Do not misquote me like that again.

The quote was intentionally left "unattributed"—but welcome back to the discussion.

How about that misguided venture to alter the records—and how that deception enrichened Universities and scientists—both?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I would have preferred that you answer my last comment:





Writing that "I can" isn't the same thing as saying "I fully expect to".


The quote was intentionally left "unattributed"—but welcome back to the discussion.

How about that misguided venture to alter the records—and how that deception enrichened Universities and scientists—both?

Or the years and years of raw data that was "interpreted" then destroyed to "save space" by a renowned University (UAE) who's studies provide a cornerstone for AGW.

[Greene's Basin Girl]

Originally Posted by Rose

I said I'm out of the debate, and I mean that.



You're as bad as some of my students...do you read for content? What does the last sentence in my paragraph say? "What I wrote is exactly what I taught them, and nothing more."

You are both spending so much time blowing so much air you could both power a windmill.

[NoBozo]

Remember the New Math..? If 70% of the students in the class believe that 2+2=5, then It Is So. . It would be hurtful to the self esteem of the majority of the class to correct them with the truth. After all, they will figure it out sooner or later, right?

You can't carry on a reasonable and logical conversation with people who arrive at a "scientific" conclusion by Consensus. Consensus is a refusal to accept responsibility for ones Own conclusions, because Consensus is NOT Your Own conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------
Consensus: (Taken from Wikipedia) The Bold is mine.

"Consensus describes the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia. There is no single definition of what consensus means on Wikipedia, but in articles consensus is typically used to try to establish and ensure neutrality and verifiability. Editors usually reach consensus as a natural and inherent product of editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. When editors cannot reach agreement by editing, the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant talk pages" .
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I take full responsibility for stating here that Science/Math is NOT driven by Consensus. 2+2=4 ...no matter how you FEEL about it.

Feel free to look up the word Editorial. NB

[tis]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Insulting people will never win the battle, no matter how and mighty some folks talk. There are a lot of FACTS that are in dispute. "Scientists" that lie about these supposed "facts", will never be good sources of information. People who quote these "facts" have no credibility. IMO.

Perfectly said, Pineedles!

[Yankee]

Originally Posted by Rose

The Earth's atmosphere is largely transparent to solar radiation, so it is absorbed by the Earth's surface. This energy is then emitted by the Earth in the form of longwave infrared radiation. Water vapor and carbon dioxide are the two primary "greenhouse" gases in the Earth's atmosphere, and are excellent absorbers of radiation at this wavelength. This energy heats the air, and increases the rate at which it emits energy to space and back to Earth. This warms up the surface and results in greater emissions from the surface and keeps the average temperature of the Earth about 59 degrees F warmer than if it didn't occur. So if it weren't for greenhouse gases, we'd be wishing for global warming...and that's a fact.

See what happens when you assume something? But that's easier to do than asking me what I meant by what I said. And that's what's wrong with our education system...we're teaching kids to look for the easiest way to get through.

Thank you for the rather unneccessary and condecending 6th grade primer on natural science. Needless to say you miss my point. Again, I agree that human civilization is a factor in the planets climate but it is an inconvenient truth that you all but eliminate any possibility that there are other variables in the equation, or even that science knows what the equation is.

Please look at other periods in the Earth's geologic past. Even limit yourself to the last recent epochs and you'll see that there were long stretches of time where the H2O and CO2 levels in the atmosphere were much greater. Furthermore, we've only had the technology a few decades to accurately measure the variations in the sun's intensity. And I for one do not believe that we have all the answers regarding the effects of the sun's output, or the effect of infrared wavelength energy absorption in the atmosphere and therefore its propensity for climactic change.

With an increase in greenhouse gases, however they get into the atmosphere, do we really know their effects? Will the planet get warmer or colder?

And I've assumed nothing, and I do not need to ask what you meant. Your post clearly states that you will teach your students what greenhouse gases do while you strongly infer that despite the ongoing climatological debate you have decided to "teach" your students what you think instead of presenting all sides as an educator should do.

Like JRC I will now also bow out of this debate as I find it as distasteful as debating politics.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Yankee

Like JRC I will now also bow out of this debate as I find it as distasteful as debating politics.

Yankee: Please DO NOt Bail Out of this disscussion. You have the ability to put this into words... that make sense. NB

[trfour]

Originally Posted by Rose

Global warming, whether it's anthropogenic or not, could cause some regions, such as the British Isles, to become cooler.

A Rose is a Rose is a Rose is a Rose. May I add that She and Her Great wealth of knowledge is, has and always will be respected and enjoyed here!

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/0...70N2HN20110124

Also, WSI's meteorologists are predicting a notably cold spring for the entire Northern United States this year, 2011.

Keep up the great work Rose, We love you!
Terry
_________________________________

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) Migrating birds suffer huge losses just through Mother Nature: through ignorance, Humanity makes these losses even greater.

While loss of any birdlife is regrettable, a reduction in the number of hawks and eagle predators would result in restoring prior small bird populations.

2) We don't need to build alternative energy sources when simple conservation of our present resources could result in significant savings: why not turn out the excessive night-lighting that is consuming huge amounts of power after dark.

With our energy resources stretched so thin today, is it really necessary to illuminate everything?

Has anyone seen the satellite picture just like this one..Except. it's the Korean Peninsula. North Korea is completely DARK. I suggest our liberals in this country would have us emulate North Korea. THEY (our own liberals) of course would be in charge. NB ....Maybe not so funny....

http://www.paulnoll.com/Korea/History/Korean-night.html