Obama’s Green Economy Kills An Estimated 600,000 Bats In 2012

Funny how “green” energy sources which are supposed to “save the biosphere” keep killing so much life, wouldn’t you say?

(Breitbart (and before any Warmist complains about this being Breitbart, it is actually a UPI story) Wind turbines killed at least 600,000 — and possibly as many as 900,000 — bats in the United States in 2012, researchers say.

Writing in the journal BioScience, the researchers said they used sophisticated statistical techniques to infer the probable number of bat deaths at wind energy facilities from the number of dead bats found at 21 locations.

Bats, which play an important role in the ecosystem as insect-eaters, are killed at wind turbines not only by collisions with moving turbine blades but also by the trauma resulting from sudden changes in air pressure that occur near a fast-moving blade, the study said.

Study author Mark Hayes of the University of Colorado notes that 600,000 is a conservative estimate — the true number could be 50 percent higher than that — and some areas of the country might experience much higher bat fatality rates at wind energy facilities than others.

Why do Warmists, including Obama, hate bats? Why do they hate wildlife?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “Obama’s Green Economy Kills An Estimated 600,000 Bats In 2012”

  1. Cold_Front_Gumballs says:

    Cuz the libs hate life.

  2. Jl says:

    “Jeffery, paging Jeffery”…. Expect some BS excuse for this in 3…2…..

  3. Jeffery says:

    It’s gratifying when RWNJs take an interest in nature (even if only to vilify Obama).

    As pointed out in the article, bat populations in the US are under extinctive level pressures from global warming and especially a fungal disease, white nose syndrome.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nose_syndrome

    White nose syndrome has killed ten times more bats than turbines. I must have missed your article on white nose syndrome.

    It’s also gratifying when RWNJs accept computer modeling as a viable alternative to “hard” data.

    I’m glad you are finally joining progressives in protecting the Earth from man’s depredations.

  4. Jeffery says:

    It’s gratifying when RWNJs take an interest in nature (even if only to vilify Obama).

    As pointed out in the article, bat populations in the US are under extinctive level pressures from global warming and especially a fungal disease, white nose syndrome. This study supports the hypothesis that wind turbines kill significant numbers of bats, adding to the pressure.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nose_syndrome

    White nose syndrome has killed 5 to 10 times as many bats as turbines. I must have missed your article on white nose syndrome.

    It’s also gratifying when RWNJs accept computer modeling as a viable alternative to “hard” data. The scientists collected some animals and then projected by modeling to the nation as a whole.

    All forms of energy conversion have what scientists and economists call “negative externalities” – dead bats, dead birds from turbines – the end of human civilization from unfettered burning of fossil fuels.

    I’m glad you are finally joining progressives in protecting the Earth from man’s depredations, even if it’s only a temporary reprieve from your rapacious natures, and even if it’s faux concern.

  5. Dana says:

    I was so hoping that this article really meant moonbats as opposed to real bats . . . .

  6. Except White Nose is natural, “climate change” is primarily natural , while the turbines aren’t.

    Right side folks are much more caring about the environment. Instead of spreading awareness and protesting, we actually take action. We give our own money. You guys give Other People’s money.

  7. Jl says:

    Surprise-What I said in #2 came true.

  8. Cold_Front_Gumballs says:

    So, J goes on a rant against natural “white noise”, which is odd because its a natural fungal infection. But you know what? if you are a believer in CAGW, then you should want CAGW? WHY? Because:

    Pseudogymnoascus destructans can only grow in low temperatures, in the 4 to 15 °C range (39–59°F). The fungus will not tolerate temperatures above 20 °C (68 °F) and appears to be adapted to attacking hibernating bats.[24] Infection causes bats to rouse too frequently from torpor (temporary hibernation) and starve to death through excessive activity.

    Huh. Funny that.
    So, instead of being fully supportive of protecting ecosystems and wildlife, J attacks Teach and others here for doing so. He in essence defends the use of windmills and their massive wildlife impact. An impact that is given a pass by the NWS and EPA. A pass not given to other power producers. Funny that.

    He then suggest that we should disregard the statistical extrapolation taken from on-the-ground research since we climate realists don’t believe computer models and their projections of future climate change.

    Apples-Oranges buddy. Apples-Oranges.

    Computer models are not based on true on-the-ground data. Data that they do use are not real unfiltered data or are so jacked by thermister misplacement that the data is unusable.

    AGW models are based on flawed input that has produced flawed results over the last 30 years. A statistical extrapolation of research from 21 windmills sites is just that – an extrapolation. Which is why the article carries hedges and ifs and maybes. I would also suggest that the value could be 50% lower than the 600K quoted. Even that value is high don’t you think?

    How much economy was halted, prevented, banned due to the will to protect bald eagles or the grizzly? yet, we seem to not care about the deaths caused by windmills?

    I’m sure you’ll retort that carbon-based power sources kill far more birds than wind generation. I have yet to see a substantiated research. There are a lot of similar modeling papers such as this one that were done. One claimed 100 million birds die each year from building strikes. REALLY?!?!?!?! Why don’t we see dead birds all over downtowns then? Another “paper” found that a single television tower had killed 30,000 birds a year over its 29-year study. riiiiigghhtt. 30,000 / 365 days = 82 birds a day. Really??? that would be one giant pile of birds around that tower, wouldn’t ya think? Funny that.

    At least this article mentions that some areas may be higher and some lower. Some research has found some windmill sites in Europe produced no kills. It’s all location and timing and elevation.

    In 2007, there was a bill to limit windmill installation till a study could be done to determine the impact of windmills upon wildlife deaths. It was defeated. yet, that is also a mandate of NWS to conduct. They didn’t and don’t. Funny that.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10340 access attempts in the last 7 days.