Twitchers flocking to see rare bird saw it killed by wind turbine

[falcata]

It's kind of annoying that people don't realize that natural resources are renewable. Some take longer than others to renew, but they are all renewable. Of course, that term usage has been getting on my nerves for a while now.

Anyway, one of the entire purposes of moving forward is doing more work with less resources, not taking up hundreds of acres of land to get the same output you get from one coal plant. That is just stupid.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the actual definition of the term before becoming annoyed with term usage.

any natural resource from the Earth that exists in limited supply and cannot be replaced if it is used up; also, any natural resource that cannot be replenished by natural means at the same rates that it is consumed

I feel a lot of thought didn't really go into your last statement. Can you imagine how much unused land is out there in the United States, and how little it would really affect of the productivity of the land in most areas they would be placed? Not to mention we often also do off-shore wind turbines which I don't believe are getting too much in anybody's way.

 

[ksu_aviator]

So are you attempting to argue that the death of a few birds is in fact worse than the destruction of a whole ecosystem?

Nope. You are stating that the lack of windmills will lead to the destruction of an entire eco system. That simply isn't true.

Because quite honestly I feel the implied meaning of my question, not statement, is quite clear. Perhaps it is you that misinterpreted me.

Perhaps you misinterpreted your own words?

 

[falcata]

Well since we aren't destroying any ecosystem...

If you're referencing wind then yes, but if you're referencing oil then may I ask if you've ever heard of these?

Exxon Valdez oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deepwater Horizon oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exxon sued over Arkansas oil spill - Americas - Al Jazeera English

 

[flogger]

As we move away from more potentially harmful energy sources like petroleum we will be much less likely to have spills or accidents that will likewise destroy whole ecosystems, as we have seen in Alaska, the Gulf coast, and Arkansas.

Of course I recognize that we need a definite transition from non-renewable to renewable resources, but it's a change we need to start making nonetheless.

So by blighting some of our planets most beautiful places with these economically useless monstrosities we are actually saving it ? :bs

 

[Henrin]

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the actual definition of the term before becoming annoyed with term usage.

How does that make it any less annoying?

Renewable- capable of being renewed.

No matter how you wish to wiggle out of it the resources of the earth are renewable. Yes, you could use them up faster than the process allows, but that doesn't make them not renewable somehow. It just means you might be dead before they renew.

I feel a lot of thought didn't really go into your last statement. Can you imagine how much unused land is out there in the United States, and how little it would really affect of the productivity of the land in most areas they would be placed? Not to mention we often also do off-shore wind turbines which I don't believe are getting too much in anybody's way.

That argument is just stupid. Filling acres and acres of land with turbines when you could use not even close to that amount of land to build one coal plant makes no economic sense nor does it make any sense in terms of production uses.

As for offshore turbines you are still wasting money to build something that is insufficient and needlessly wasteful. All you did now was waste space on the water instead of land.

 

[captainawesome]

So by blighting some of our planets most beautiful places with these economically useless monstrosities we are actually saving it ? :bs

We are buying less oil from crazies in the middle east and terrorists get less petro dollars. That is a good thing.

 

[falcata]

Nope. You are stating that the lack of windmills will lead to the destruction of an entire eco system. That simply isn't true.



Perhaps you misinterpreted your own words?

Excuse me, but I made no such statement, and you suggest that I misinterpreted my own words? Either you take me for an idiot or you don't understand what you are suggesting.

I will now say though that consequently that statement is true, however is it a direct correlation? Of course not, but as a result from moving towards renewable resources such as wind we will stop such disasters such as oil spills from ruining our ecosystems.

 

[flogger]

We are buying less oil from crazies in the middle east and terrorists get less petro dollars. That is a good thing.

And by all means as long as the wind keeps blowing and you are prepared to pay far more for your energy thats just dandy for you . Just dont volunteer the rest of us to take the same hit

 

[falcata]

So by blighting some of our planets most beautiful places with these economically useless monstrosities we are actually saving it ? :bs

You're complaining about the scenery? Please give me a break.

 

[captainawesome]

And by all means as long as the wind keeps blowing and you are prepared to pay far more for your energy thats just dandy for you . Just dont volunteer the rest of us to take the same hit

Well if cheap gas is worth giving Saudi Wahabbi terrorists billions to buy weapons dandy for you.

 

[falcata]

How does that make it any less annoying?

Renewable- capable of being renewed.

No matter how you wish to wiggle out of it the resources of the earth are renewable. Yes, you could use them up faster than the process allows, but that doesn't make them not renewable somehow. It just means you might be dead before they renew.



That argument is just stupid. Filling acres and acres of land with turbines when you could use not even close to that amount of land to build one coal plant makes no economic sense nor does it make any sense in terms of production uses.

As for offshore turbines you are still wasting money to build something that is insufficient and needlessly wasteful. All you did now was waste space on the water instead of land.

So you are in-fact arguing against the dictionary definition of non-renewable resources?

I'm sure you are aware of the concept of supply and demand. So please tell me what would happen if the suply happened to run out?

 

[flogger]

You're complaining about the scenery? Please give me a break.

Sorry but I certainly wont give you a break . I'm Scottish and our most beautiful areas are being permanently wrecked by these useless monstrosities, not by temporary oil spills. Tourism is pretty much all we have left to sell here and even that is now being taken away from us.

Well if cheap gas is worth giving Saudi Wahabbi terrorists billions to buy weapons dandy for you.

We've been getting oil and gas from them for decades so what ?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

So by blighting some of our planets most beautiful places with these economically useless monstrosities we are actually saving it ? :bs

*yawn* - tired, old argument when someone's sitting in their home on a ****ING COMPUTER.

It's funny how the windmills are a blight - but the roads, the cars, the houses in that picture are probably considered to be part of the scenery and quit pretty in the setting - near the water.

 

[captainawesome]

Sorry but I certainly wont give you a break . I'm Scottish and our most beautiful areas are being permanently wrecked by these useless monstrosities, not by temporary oil spills. Tourism is pretty much all we have left to sell here and even that is now being taken away from us.

View attachment 67149591View attachment 67149592View attachment 67149593



We've been getting oil and gas from them for decades so what ?

9/11 for one. Paid for with Saudi Petro Dollars. Yeah cheap oil.

 

[flogger]

9/11 for one. Paid for with Saudi Petro Dollars. Yeah cheap oil.

If you cant keep your puppets under control thats your problem :roll:

 

[Aunt Spiker]

If you cant keep your puppets under control thats your problem :roll:

... if the windmills were airplanes would you even notice?

 

[flogger]

*yawn* - tired, old argument when someone's sitting in their home on a ****ING COMPUTER.

It's funny how the windmills are a blight - but the roads, the cars, the houses in that picture are probably considered to be part of the scenery and quit pretty in the setting - near the water.

Well we could always wrap up industrial society and go back to the caves but there not enough room in them now for all of us :roll:

 

[captainawesome]

If you cant keep your puppets under control thats your problem :roll:

OK. Well there are going to be more wind mills anyway.

 

[Fisher]

No problem. As long as somebody has a DNA sample we can make more. They are going to try that with the DoDo I read somewheres in the internet, so it has to be true.

 

[flogger]

... if the windmills were airplanes would you even notice?

Nobody is going to flock to Scotland in those airplanes to watch our wind turbines. This is more of the usual greenie anti human rhetoric I've heard so often here. You guys believe the Earth is too precious and fragile for us to be allowed to exist upon it with any quality of life. Any impediment you can think of to oppose human progress or aspiration must be implemented however much it costs us all. Wind turbines and renewables in general are a fine example of this

 

[Aunt Spiker]

So by blighting some of our planets most beautiful places with these economically useless monstrosities we are actually saving it ? :bs

Well we could always wrap up industrial society and go back to the caves but there not enough room in them now for all of us :roll:

Nobody is going to flock to Scotland in those airplanes to watch our wind turbines. This is more of the usual greenie anti human rhetoric I've heard so often here. You guys believe the Earth is too precious and fragile for us to be allowed to exist upon it with any quality of life. Any impediment you can think of to oppose human progress or aspiration must be implemented however much it costs us all. Wind turbines and renewables in general are a fine example of this

Make up your mind - you're conflicting yourself.

You're saying that they're economically useless monstrosities blighting our planet. . . and then you say that other people are being the greenies and opposing human progress/aspiration . . . yet those others are the ones implementing impediments.

Are the turbines and renewables the impediments - or are they a means of existing with any quality of life?

You know - I've spent a ridiculous amount of time driving through Oklahoma. You know there was never a day in which the wind was not blowing? . . . certain areas are populated with wind turbines and solar fields because it's WINDY and SUNNY and nothing much else in Oklahoma :shrug:

I think it's odd that you favor coal burning simply because you don't SEE it on a hillside.

You're actually favoring an unobstructed hillside view over actually - possibly - making a bit of a dip in the amount of coal/fossil fuels used to charge that little computer of your right up.

 

[flogger]

Make up your mind - you're conflicting yourself.

You're saying that they're economically useless monstrosities blighting our planet. . . and then you say that other people are being the greenies and opposing human progress/aspiration . . . yet those others are the ones implementing impediments.

Are the turbines and renewables the impediments - or are they a means of existing with any quality of life?

You know - I've spent a ridiculous amount of time driving through Oklahoma. You know there was never a day in which the wind was not blowing? . . . certain areas are populated with wind turbines and solar fields because it's WINDY and SUNNY and nothing much else in Oklahoma :shrug:

I think it's odd that you favor coal burning simply because you don't SEE it on a hillside.

I favour what is practically and economically viable which renewables are not . I dont swallow the line that we must destroy the beauty our environment with them in order to save it.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I favour what is practically and economically viable which renewables are not . I dont swallow the line that we must destroy the beauty our environment with them in order to save it.

Your view conflicts - pick a side and stay there. You're favoring economically viable options (which changes depending on WHERE you are) . . . over appearances. . . and claiming that somehow in the end - the environment matters.

 

[flogger]

Your view conflicts - pick a side and stay there. You're favoring economically viable options (which changes depending on WHERE you are) . . . over appearances. . . and claiming that somehow in the end - the environment matters.

Of course the environment matters. But once environmental concerns start to become more important than the progress of our own species its then I have concerns. Far too many eco mentalists today see us as a blight on the biosphere rather than a legitimate part of it frankly.

 

[Henrin]

So you are in-fact arguing against the dictionary definition of non-renewable resources?

I'm sure you are aware of the concept of supply and demand. So please tell me what would happen if the suply happened to run out?

I'm arguing against the very idea. All natural resources renew given enough time. Could we run out in the mean time? Yes. Is it likely any time soon? No.