Good News: Wind Farms Get A Pass For Killing Eagles

So far, I can’t find any environmental groups, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, NRDC, Earth First, etc, who are outraged by this. Some link to news articles, but have offered no articles themselves

This is sustainable?(USA Today) The Obama administration said Friday it will allow some companies to kill or injure bald and golden eagles for up to 30 years without penalty, an effort to spur development and investment in green energy while balancing its environmental consequences.

The change, requested by the wind energy industry, will provide legal protection for the lifespan of wind farms and other projects for which companies obtain a permit and make efforts to avoid killing the birds.

This is all to save the environment or something.

“This is not a program to kill eagles,” said John Anderson, the director of siting policy at the American Wind Energy Association. “This permit program is about conservation.”

Conserving them by killing them. Right. But, hey, look, the AP found one group which is upset

“Instead of balancing the need for conservation and renewable energy, Interior wrote the wind industry a blank check,” said Audubon President and CEO David Yarnold in a statement. The group said it will challenge the decision.

All to provide miniscule power while putting a blight on the landscape. Average delivered power is roughly 30-40% with very low power density (megawatts per square mile), since you need huge tracks of land/sea for the farm. Compare that to natural gas, which has an average delivered power in the upper 80’s, with an extremely high power density.

From page 193 of The Mad, Mad, Mad World Of Climatism.

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

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

37 Responses to “Good News: Wind Farms Get A Pass For Killing Eagles”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Agreed. Fossil fuels are a very dense energy source, and wind power has its own negative externalities, but – burning fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas – it’s been in all the papers. We’ve increased atmospheric CO2 over 40% in the past century causing a significant increase in the Earth’s heat content, reflected in the increase in mean surface temperature.

    We have done a terrible job of assigning the true cost of fossil fuel use to the responsible parties. The common citizens of the Earth are paying the price.

    We either need to find a way to re-capture carbon from the atmosphere and/or slow or stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Wind power is not THE answer, but it is part of the answer.

  2. So Jeffrey has no problem with eagles (and other birds) being killed for his cult.

    But has Jeff given up his own usage of fossil fuels?

  3. Pete says:

    The best question I have heard for the warmists is: “Do you dry your clothes in a dryer or hang them on a line to dry in the sun?” Most won’t even go to the trouble to line dry their laundry.

  4. Jeffery says:


    Why do you consider that a relevant question, much less the best?

    This is a well known logical fallacy used in arguments and debate. It’s an extension of an ad hominem attack, implying that the behavior of your debate opponent, even if hypocritical, refutes your opponent’s argument.

    Obviously, whether I line dry my clothes (we don’t) has absolutely NO BEARING on the debate about global warming. NADA, ZERO, ZIP. It’s a distracting debate tactic, used by those who do not wish to discuss the topic.

    The Pirate uses this flawed “reasoning” often in arguing about global warming and taxes, but that doesn’t mean that you should. He is wrong as are you. It’s the equivalent of arguing that you win an argument because your opponent’s picture looks like a middle aged woman.

    The Earth is warming because of our adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and this will have greater and greater impacts (mostly negative) on human civilization.

    Explain how someone’s laundry practices argues for or against that theory?

  5. Shorter Jeff: I refuse to practice what I preach, and how dare you expose my hypocrisy!

  6. Jeffery says:

    Oh Pirate, you’re such a pill.

    Of course, you have no idea what I practice. And as I pointed out, it is irrelevant to the debate.

    Here it is again, in case you missed the first time:

    “Obviously, whether I line dry my clothes (we don’t) has absolutely NO BEARING on the debate about global warming. NADA, ZERO, ZIP. It’s a distracting debate tactic, used by those who do not wish to discuss the topic.”

    You want to win an argument by name-calling not by honest debate. Global warming is a hoax because Jeffery uses an electric clothes dryer! LOL! Double LOL!!

    You previously admitted that you constructed a straw-man argument to invalidate the arguments of climate realists: The Pirate maintains that ANY use of fossil fuels by a climate realist constitutes hypocrisy and REFUTES the Theory of AGW!! Any use! What a non sequitur! Triple LOL!!!

    You use 3 logical fallacies in a single argument! ad hominem, strawman and non sequitur! The high school you attended (surely, they wouldn’t have let you graduate) owes your parents some cash money. But a GED is nothing to be ashamed of.

    Be a man, and refute the Theory of AGW with facts and evidence.

    Here’s a start. The Earth is warming because of humankind’s generation of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels. Keep it simple, stoopid. All a genius like you has to do is break the logical link and you’ll be hailed as a scientific genius such as da Vinci, Newton, Arrhenius or Einstein! Never heard of Svante Arrhenius? Look him up, you should find it interesting.

  7. gitarcarver says:

    Jeffy wrote:

    Of course, you have no idea what I practice.


    Comment by Jeffery
    2013-12-07 10:04:26

    Obviously, whether I line dry my clothes (we don’t)

  8. Jeffery says:


    wah! wah!

    Poor baby. Always changing the subject because he can’t hang with the big boys.

  9. Frozen_Now_Gumballs says:

    dear god, that makes my head hurt J. Your insanity and clear obfuscations is like my boy when he was a little tike and believed that anything he said, especially if it was a lie, was the truth and that everyone would believe it. If he said he did not make the mess in his room, then I should believe him.

    Just because you say you didn’t say something doesn’t mean its true.

    And, just because you dont care about the deaths of eagles, doesn’t mean you don’t care about limiting carbon-based power sources for us humans. And we should know that since you don’t care for humanity, that we should be OK with your hating eagles and other rare and endangered birds too.

    Because, you SAY you care for the environment. Thus, reality just shouldn’t matter.

  10. david7134 says:

    Name one article anywhere were CO2 is definitely shown to be increasing the temperature of the earth. I have seen associations, but that is not science. I have seen computer simulations, but that is not science. What I am looking for is the one article that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that a small rise in the concentration of CO2 is associated with temperature rise. Again, not the fact that the CO2 is rising, and not the fact that the temperature is rising, but the actual science. Don’t include methane or water vapor. Don’t show little graph’s, give me the article that nails it. Just like the discovery of penicillin killing bacteria. I can’t find any of this myself despite copious research. All I find is liberal talking points and a desire for controlling everyone on earth with CO2 taxation.

  11. Jeffery says:


    To my knowledge there is no one original research paper that proves that CO2 is responsible for global warming, but I could be wrong. Similarly, there is no one paper proving the Theory of Evolution, but only the most scientifically illiterate would use that as evidence that the process of evolution isn’t occurring. Can you point me to the single paper that proves the Theory of Gravity?

    It’s been understood for over a century that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. It’s been shown that the wavelengths absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere are reduced when measured in the upper atmosphere, hence CO2 is absorbing heat (infrared radiation) released from the Earth.

  12. Frozen_Now_Gumballs says:

    Thank you J for fully attacking the warmist’s position. Glad to know that you will now no longer be a science ignorer.

    Similarly, there is no one paper proving the Theory of Evolution, but only the most scientifically illiterate would use that as evidence that the process of evolution isn’t occurring.

    Again, thank you for stating the obvious. And no, evolution is not occurring. Never has. Never will. The main point of Darwin was “adaptation”. That is Something completely different than evolution.

    But, it is good to know that even you will say something truthful even if it does oppose your whole reason for your cult. Yet, we know that you will continue to attack those who doubt Evolution and those who doubt CO2 is solely responsible for our world’s warmth. You just can’t help being a hypocrite.

  13. david7134 says:

    Sorry Jeff, but I actually can give that information, it is readily available. Your situation is much like the cholesterol myth. Look that up.

  14. jl says:

    J- “You want to win an argument by name-calling instead of debate.” That’s a good one, Jeffery. This from the guy who regularly uses “fossilists”, “denialists”, and “skeptics”. It’ called projection, Jeffery. Just more hypocrisy from the folks who are for the environment but are ok with killing eagles.

  15. Jeffery says:


    I’m well aware that I mock you lads – I try to give as well as I get – so it’s hardly projection. The difference is that I also discuss the topic and present evidence while you rely on logical fallacies as a substitute for debate – and you don’t recognize it – THAT’s projection!

    Environmentalists are most concerned with animal populations and less so with individual animals. If you really cared about eagles – or humans, for that matter – you’d at least consider the evidence for global warming. Did you consider that global warming may be a bigger threat than wind farms? Did you read the article that The Pirate posted, because he misled you.

    You would make policy decisions based on your ideology, not evidence.

  16. Jl says:

    So in other words Jeffery, you can’t refute that you’re a hypocrite. Notice that you don’t deny it but just say “well, you guys do it to.” And I have considered the evidence- it’s not there. Speaking of evidence, there’s all kinds of evidence that wind mills kill eagles, yet you’re concerned with what “may” happen with global warming- with no evidence.

  17. Jeffery says:


    Why would I even try to refute being a hypocrite? It is not relevant to the debate, even a little. It’s a distraction.

    Well lads, if you don’t accept the evidence for evolution, of course you won’t accept the evidence for global warming.

    This is like stumbling onto a lost tribe! No understanding of the scientific method, no understanding of basic economics, no understanding of logic, no understanding of honest debate, no human compassion – just pure ideological hatred!

    Hey david – Would you say there is more evidence for evolution, global warming and gravity than there is for the existence of God?

  18. gitarcarver says:

    Why would I even try to refute being a hypocrite?

    If you were a person of integrity as you (laughably) claim, you would try to refute it on mere principle.

    It is not relevant to the debate, even a little.

    It is relevant to the convictions of the people pushing the agenda of global warming, income redistribution, etc.

    People like you keep telling us what the rest of the people in this world must do yet you won’t do much of anything in your own life.

    People who truly believe in something will act on the strength of their convictions.

    The fact that you won’t means that you are either a hypocrite (which we know) or the foundation upon which you build your convictions is suspect.

    The relevancy is there.

    You just refuse to see it.

  19. Frozen_Now_Gumballs says:

    Well, being a hypocrite certainly has relevancy to your credibility.

    I’m not David, but I’ll answer that last: No, NO, Yes, Yes.

    First and last are mutually exclusive in my opinion. Two and Three are not associated with each other or the other two. Or are you trying to be funny and suggest that those who do not believe in the fantasy view of climate that we also don’t believe in gravity?!!??

    The fact that blatant evidence of gravity is proof enough, is the same reasoning we use for our climate. Observable proof is evidence enough. It is not our side that is faking and lying about data. It is not our side that is using falsified, untested models to try and show that global warming is real. Yet, those same models don’t even show the current trend in temps since the the mid 90s. Yet, your side continues to insist (and worse, believe) that they actively and accurately reflect reality.

  20. Jeffery says:


    You’re welcome, but I didn’t undercut or refute the overwhelming evidence in support of man-made global warming in the least. I told you what I think is the truth, but I could be wrong. There may be a single scientific article with original research showing that CO2 is directly responsible for the Earth’s warming but if so, I’m not aware of it. I guess if we could find a way to suddenly reduce CO2 back to 280 ppm we could then measure the amount of heat being re-radiated out to space with our satellites. It’s clear that the opposite experiment where increasing atmospheric CO2 to 400 ppm reduced the heat re-radiated back into space. Where is that heat if not in the Earth or atmosphere? Do you believe the evidence identifying the electromagnetic spectrum accumulated over the past centuries?

    Concerning evolution, what is your understanding of how the diversity of life on Earth developed? Dinosaurs? Fossils? Fossil fuels? Conservation of DNA sequences, protein structures? Mitochondrial DNA?

  21. Frozen_Now_Gumballs says:

    windmills are allowed to kill eagles, and you want to get in to a existential discussion?

  22. Jeffery says:


    Evidence for gravity?? Are you nuts? What evidence?

    If you drop a 10 ton steel block in the ocean it is strongly attracted to to Earth’s surface (consistent with your “theory” of gravity). That same steel block, if hammered into an open shape suspends in space as if by magic, inconsistent with your “theory”. Birds, airplanes and helium balloons all refute your theory!

    If you drop an aircraft carrier from 100 meters, the Earth attracts it over land but not over water! Do you think that water blocks or modifies gravitational attraction?

    Can you show me one scientific paper that directly shows how the Earth holds some objects tight to its surface (people, cars, steel blocks, logs, bears) but not other objects (birds, helium, hydrogen, airplanes, rockets)? Even more weird, the Earth holds helium in its atmosphere, but as soon as you put it in a balloon, it seems repelled by Earth and shoots up to the stratosphere!

    What is the physical mechanism for this weird attraction?

    I think there are too many holes in your theory. I see a lot of correlation, this related to that, but no good explanation for how it happens.

  23. Jeffery says:


    I don’t think existential means what you think it means.

    Global warming will kill more than eagles.

  24. Frozen_Now_Gumballs says:

    what the hell have you been smoking? Whatever it is, stop it. It is eating your brain cells, the few you have left. You are not making any sense whatsoever.

  25. Jeffery says:


    The Bald Eagle was endangered decades ago before there were windfarms.

    Now, with many windfarms, the Bald Eagle population has recovered and the species has been taken off the endangered species list.

    One could conclude that windfarms are good for eagle populations, but I think changing Bald Eagle populations are just “natural” changes about which we can do little.

  26. Jeffery says:


    Not sure what information you claim to have.

    Here’s what popped up searching your cholesterol myth.

  27. Jeffery says:


    Sounds as if you’re having an existential crisis.

  28. Frozen_Now_Gumballs says:

  29. david7134 says:

    You have shown yourself to be a little man. Now, as to God, that is belief, there is no science and never will be. In global warming and any other science, there is proof, not belief. If you use the term belief, then you are outside of the spectrum of science. As an example, when I talk about evolution, I do not say I believe in evolution or even that it is a theory. Evolution has passed the scientific tenants and accepted as a law of science. Period. As to the cholesterol myth, you looked in one, non-scientific area of the dubious internet–grow up.

  30. gitarcarver says:

    Now, with many windfarms, the Bald Eagle population has recovered and the species has been taken off the endangered species list.

    Patently false.

    The bald eagles were removed from the endangered species list in 2007, before wind farms became prevalent.

    Bald eagle mating pairs have declined since wind farms started to become more and more prevalent.

    This is just another run around established law by Obama.

  31. Frozen_Now_Gumballs says:

    This approval for killing by windmills, is not just for Bald Eagles, but for all protected and endangered birds.

    Info on CA Bald Eagles at least.

    I still find it rather ironic that J defends the killing of protected and endangered birds, when his complete point for living is to point out how humans are bad for animal life.

  32. jl says:

    Why should I refute being a hypocrite? It’s not relevant to the debate.” More reading comprehension problems, I see. Again, you contradict what you yourself wrote. You complain of name-calling and not debating, which you regularly do yourself. So if you’re name-calling, which you do all the time, it means you’re not debating- according to your own “rules”. Not debating is very relevant to this topic, wouldn’t you agree? Amazing that one person can get so much wrong in one sentence. Keep trying.

  33. Jeffery says:


    I did not discuss beliefs, but evidence. Rational humans do not believe in magic, fairies, miracles, gods and angels. That doesn’t mean that we understand most of nature – we don’t. But lack of understanding is not evidence of magic.

    I actually know quite a bit about cholesterol. What are you getting at?

  34. Jeffery says:


    You have no idea about my “complete point for living”. As I’ve said repeatedly, my concern regarding global warming is for human civilization.

    You’re a conservative liar, but that’s redundant.

    And as always, you refuse to debate the topic.

  35. Jeffery says:


    You’re wrong again. Name-calling doesn’t preclude debating the topic. You choose to repeatedly change the subject, name-call, attack, attack, attack.

  36. Frozen_Now_Gumballs says:

    And as always, you refuse to debate the topic.

    You choose to repeatedly change the subject,

    I’m sorry, who keeps bringing up religion, gravity, etc. on a topic involving windmills killing birds?

    You want to win an argument by name-calling not by honest debate.

    And yet, Teach never called you names.

    Explain how someone’s laundry practices argues for or against that theory?

    As always, J misses the point of Teach’s posts. It is not the “theory” that Teach attacks most of the time in posts like this. He is making fun of those hypocrites who are pushing the theory of CAGW as the means of Earth’s destruction, yet, refuse to live like they believe that the earth is in danger. And the CAGw’ers push the theory that a reduction or elimination of carbon from one’s personal life is the only means to save Earth, yet never live like that themselves.

    The fact that you continue to change subjects away from the main topic shows your defense of the hypocrite’s actions. It also points to your own hypocrisy.

  37. Jeffery says:


    You don’t understand the scientific method as evidenced by your ignorant statements about the process of evolution.

    Why would I trust anything you have to say? You have no intellectual mooring. This explains your belief in magical mechanisms for a changing climate.

Pirate's Cove