Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds & bats a year

[James]

Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds & bats a year
Online Saturday, January 14, 2012
On 12 January 2012, at the First Scientific Congress on Wind Energy and
Wildlife Conservation in Jerez de la Frontera, Spain, the Spanish
Society of Ornithology (SEO/Birdlife) made public its estimate that,
yearly, Spain's 18,000 wind turbines may be killing 6 to 18 million
birds and bats (1). The average per turbine comes down to 333 - 1,000
deaths annually, which is a far cry from the 2 - 4 birds claimed by the
American wind industry, or the 400,000 birds a year estimated by the
American Bird Conservancy for the whole United States, which has about
twice as many turbines as Spain.


Bats are included in the Birdlife estimate, comments Mark Duchamp,
president of Save the Eagles International (STEI). "Therefore,
supposing for example that wind farms would kill twice as many bats as
they do birds, the figures would be: 111 - 333 birds per turbine per
year, and 222 - 666 bats per turbine/year. The mortality figures that
were recorded in Germany and Sweden in the early nineties are not
unusual after all", he notes. Quoting from a California Energy
Commission study: "In a summary of avian impacts at wind turbines by
Benner et al. (1993) bird deaths per turbine per year were as high as
309 in Germany and 895 in Sweden." (2)

Duchamp has always maintained that earlier studies, made when bird
mortality at windfarms wasn't such a hot potato, were more credible than
recent ones. "It is a curious business where those consultants who find
or predict the lowest mortality land all the contracts. This is what is
being asked of them, and this is what they do. This unethical conduct
has already condemned the Tasmanian Wedge-tailed eagle to extinction
(3), and more recently the Golden Eagle in the United States (4).
Another factor is the occultation of carcasses by windfarm employees, as
may be seen in the SEO/Birdlife report." (5)


The report also stresses that even a small incremental mortality for
bird species whose populations are not abundant may drive them to
extinction. "This is what I have been claiming for years", laments Mark,
who has been banned from ornithology forums as an unwelcomed messenger
of bad news. "I am now vindicated, but that won't save the birds", he
says.

SEO/Birdlife puts the blame on poor-quality environmental studies. So
did Duchamp, as early as 2004:

" ...(avian impact assessments)... are sometimes voluminous and
obfuscating, sometimes short and to the point, but mendacious always,
minimizing the avian impact. They serve the purpose that is assigned to
them: permit the erection of windfarms where the promoters want them,
regardless of bird activity in the area."(6)


Mark has long been claiming that it was foolish to allow environmental
impact assessments to be directed and controlled by wind farm
developers. It now appears he was right. The question is, he concludes:
"will this aberration be allowed to continue?"

http://tinyurl.com/6usgnys

[Ringer]

"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:4f123f27$0$15791$d94e...@news.iglou.com...

It's amazing that people who want to get rid of environmental protections
are suddenly concerned about birds and bats.

[James]

"Ringer" <byo...@peoplestel.net> wrote in message
news:rcCdnXPaIPnY3I_S...@neonova.net

Birds are my favorite critters. It's damn funny that environmentalists
would allow such windmills to kill birds but most are not
environmentalists. They only pretend to be. So fuck the impact studies
by the EPA while they hold up dams by citing a critter nobody ever heard
of and phony environmentalists too. The NGOs who claim they are in
business for mother nature are not or they would be raising hell instead
of supporting them.

[Unum]

On 1/14/2012 8:43 PM, James wrote:
>
> Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds & bats a year
> Online Saturday, January 14, 2012
> On 12 January 2012, at the First Scientific Congress on Wind Energy and
> Wildlife Conservation in Jerez de la Frontera, Spain, the Spanish Society of
> Ornithology (SEO/Birdlife) made public its estimate that, yearly, Spain's
> 18,000 wind turbines may be killing 6 to 18 million birds and bats (1). The

They "estimate that turbines ... may be killing" and then give
no supporting evidence at all. A huge amount of additional speculation
ensues.

Meanwhile we know for sure that toxic substances in coal plant
emissions kill thousands of people every year and untold animals
of all kinds.

But why would James care?

[AGWFacts]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:16:37 -0600, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com>
wrote:

> On 1/14/2012 8:43 PM, James wrote:
> >
> > Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds & bats a year

This was already debunked n this newsgroup months ago. The number
of birds killed by wind turbines every year in the USA are fewer
than can be counted.

> They "estimate that turbines ... may be killing" and then give
> no supporting evidence at all. A huge amount of additional speculation
> ensues.

In point of fact, there is no evidence that shows wind turbines
kill birds in any number worth worrying over. Manwhile, coal-
fired power plants KILL THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS EVERY YEAR.
Alarmists claim they are upset about imaginary bird deaths, yet
coal-fired power plants kill people. See, for example, one of the
first definitive studies on the subject, published in year 1976:

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.eg.01.110176.003053

Year 2000:

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~harbaugh/Readings/Environmental/Applications%20of%20Environmental%20Valuation%20for%20Determining%20Exte.pdf

Year 2001:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/293/5533/1257.short

Year 2004:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/ns/us_news-environment/t/deadly-power-plants-study-fuels-debate/

"Health problems linked to aging coal-fired power plants shorten
nearly 24,000 [America] lives a year, including 2,800 from lung
cancer, and nearly all those early deaths could be prevented if
the U.S. government adopted stricter rules, according to a study
released Wednesday."

The EPA's year 2011's plan to save 17,000 more American lives per
year:

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/pdfs/proposalfactsheet.pdf

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/172/4/501


http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/epa-finalizes-tough-new-rules-on-emissions-by-power-plants/2011/12/16/gIQAc2WTzO_story.html

> Meanwhile we know for sure that toxic substances in coal plant
> emissions kill thousands of people every year and untold animals
> of all kinds.
>
> But why would James care?

--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca

[AGWFacts]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 21:43:03 -0500, "James" <king...@iglou.com>
wrote:

> Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds & bats a year

Already debunked.

Meanwhle, coal-fired power plants kill people. See, for example,

one of the first definitive studies on the subject, published in
year 1976:

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.eg.01.110176.003053

Year 2000:

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~harbaugh/Readings/Environmental/Applications%20of%20Environmental%20Valuation%20for%20Determining%20Exte.pdf

Year 2001:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/293/5533/1257.short

Year 2004:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/ns/us_news-environment/t/deadly-power-plants-study-fuels-debate/

"Health problems linked to aging coal-fired power plants shorten
nearly 24,000 [America] lives a year, including 2,800 from lung
cancer, and nearly all those early deaths could be prevented if
the U.S. government adopted stricter rules, according to a study
released Wednesday."

The EPA's year 2011's plan to save 17,000 more American lives per
year:

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/pdfs/proposalfactsheet.pdf

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/172/4/501


http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/epa-finalizes-tough-new-rules-on-emissions-by-power-plants/2011/12/16/gIQAc2WTzO_story.html

[Earl Evleth]

On 15/01/12 7:47, in article 2et4h7ldko9vica48...@4ax.com,

"AGWFacts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:

>> Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds & bats a year
>
> This was already debunked n this newsgroup months ago. The number
> of birds killed by wind turbines every year in the USA are fewer
> than can be counted.

That US stats I posted were one bird per turbine per year. Birth
deaths from other sources far exceed the turbine deaths.

A recent article on the comeback of the California Condor Vulture
said that there are some deaths from high tension lines. I din't
think they mention turbines, the birds flying in special coastal
mountain areas, I assume the wind machines in California the Baja
are not in ths same areas.

Overall the Condors are coming back up from just a few birds to 200.
One big problem is lead bullets, ingestion of same producing high
lead levels. Phasing out lead bullets in general is not
a project favored by the hunting lobby. I think that renegade hunters
are not long shooting Condors and hawks. But some of that group
likes killing just for the fun of killing.

[Ringer]

"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message

news:4f124bad$0$15873$d94e...@news.iglou.com...

James, birds are killed all the time in this country. What makes you think
that windturbines shouldn't be used because of that alone? Did you want to
get rid of offshore oil drilling because of the gulf spill? The fact is
people are working on how to protect birds and bats by designing and siteing
wind turbines for less impact. The oil industry thinks they can do what ever
they want and the taxpayer can do the cleanup. You were pissed when Obama
made BP pay up.

[charles bash]

There has been "some talk" that the answer to windmill killings of
birds, is to install super high frequency noise generators that can't be
heard by humans but can drive birds away from the entering side of
windmills.

All future windmill designs Won't Necessarily be of the present large
diameter turbines with a few apparently slow turning blades, but which
have very high blade speed farther out towards the tip.

Maximum Blade Tip Speed - 200 miles per hour! On the largest wind
mills.
C. Bash

[Gerry Duggan]

"James" <kingko...@iglou.com> wrote:
> Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds & bats a year

Oh! The Horror!

At least coal fired generation stations, cats and tall buildings don't
kill birds and bats.

It's great that you greenies are on the job, protecting our birds and
bats!

Hug a tree for me Gomer. And say "Hi!" to Al Gore when you hand him
his toilet paper at the next meeting.


Without radical leftist greenies like you, the world would look like
the moon.


Just be thankful that Lord Monckton's cure for AIDS will soon be
available at no charge for him and all his homosexual friends like
you!

[Tom P]

So I assume you don't have a cat?

[Tom P]

http://www.evwind.es/noticias.php?id_not=15907

<quote>
Scientists deny that wind energy damage to the birds in Spain
january 15, 2012

The SEO/Birdlife multiplied by ten thousand real mortality of wind
turbines and develops a systematic campaign against the wind power
sector, though they never said anything about nuclear energy or CO2.

Scientists deny that wind energy damage to the birds in Spain
The president of the Foundation and exper of Centro Superior de
Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Miguel Ferrer, said that wind farms
are not dangerous to birds and has stated that "only a few wind
turbines" are causing deaths among birds.

Speaking on the occasion of the first Iberian Congress on Wind Energy
and Wildlife Conservation, held in Jerez on Thursday, the expert noted
that the deaths of birds colliding with wind turbines have a
distribution "heterogeneous" and added that in the recent years has
reduced mortality by 68%, refuting the organization Seo / Birdlife,
which exhibited at the scientific conference that wind turbines could be
causing a mortality between 6 and 18 million individuals between the
species of birds and bats, a ten thousand times more than the actual figure.

Ferrer exemplified how in Tarifa, point of passage of thousands of birds
migrating from Europe to Africa, the mortality rate stands copies at an
annual rate of 0.3 birds per wind turbine. In the same vein, the
Minister of Environment of the Junta, Juan Jose Diaz Trillo, said that
the security measures coordinated between wind farm producers and his
department had been reduced the mortality by almost 50 % in the last
five years, and 40% of other species.

The scientist Miguel Ferrer said that the figures provided in the study
of SEO/Birdlife only take into account the "points of accumulation of
accidents." According to the researcher, the data offered by SEO /
Birdlife can not be extrapolated to the whole wind farm plants "because
it is as if the black spots on the roads are extrapolated to the whole
road network and is a very high figure."

</quote>

[Unum]

Wow that totally wipes out James' brainless cut and paste from
a right wing lie site doesn't it.

Funny that we don't see him in this thread now.

[welldone]

"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote:
>They only pretend to be. So fuck the impact studies
>by the EPA while they hold up dams by citing a critter nobody ever heard
>of and phony environmentalists too. The NGOs who claim they are in
>business for mother nature are not or they would be raising hell instead
>of supporting them.
>

environmentalists are only using the environment as an argument of
convenience. their real agenda is to hobble the West's economy.

seed money for such shenanigans was provided years ago by the Stalin
regime in the then-USSR. the same voices now have new sources of
funding, and they make WAY more money for pursuing their
emotionally-based attacks than they would in any "real" job.
---
--> "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" <--
--> Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net <--

[gordo]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 19:28:18 -0800, welldone <well...@wellhoned.com>
wrote:

>"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote:
>>They only pretend to be. So fuck the impact studies
>>by the EPA while they hold up dams by citing a critter nobody ever heard
>>of and phony environmentalists too. The NGOs who claim they are in
>>business for mother nature are not or they would be raising hell instead
>>of supporting them.
>>
>environmentalists are only using the environment as an argument of
>convenience. their real agenda is to hobble the West's economy.

Very stupid statement.

>seed money for such shenanigans was provided years ago by the Stalin
>regime in the then-USSR. the same voices now have new sources of
>funding, and they make WAY more money for pursuing their
>emotionally-based attacks than they would in any "real" job.

You make a lot of crap up don't you. You have nothing left so you
bring in Stalin. That sure impressed a lot of countries in the world
who have all agreed to cut CO2 in the atmosphere from burning fossil
fuels.

[Tom P]

There's nothing like balanced reporting. I checked out the Spanish
website of the organizers
http://www.energiaeolicayfauna.atlantacongress.org/ but there are no
presentations on-line, it would be interesting to cross-check how SEO
supposedly got their figures wrong by a factor of 10,000.
I checked out if there are any other weblinks, there are various
Spanish press reports about the meeting taking place but no scare
stories about birdkills. The SEO website itself mentions the conference
- but nothing about massive birdkills.
http://www.seo.org/home_articulo.cfm?id=6076

[James]

"gordo" <grme...@shaw.ca.remove> wrote in message
news:3q97h7d5599ha4vct...@4ax.com

Stalin? You brought that up. Not me, but I will if you want me to.
You never read these things anyway.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

> website of the organizershttp://www.energiaeolicayfauna.atlantacongress.org/but there are no

> presentations on-line, it would be interesting to cross-check how SEO
> supposedly got their figures wrong by a factor of 10,000.
>   I checked out if there are any other weblinks, there are various
> Spanish press reports about the meeting taking place but no scare
> stories about birdkills. The SEO website itself mentions the conference
> - but nothing about massive birdkills.http://www.seo.org/home_articulo.cfm?id=6076

You might ask James to explain why he quoted canadafreepress, a
notorious right-wing denialist site, instead of checking it out
himself, but he just runs and hides from such quesrtions.

[James]

<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7f0d0b30-11bd-43bf...@k28g2000yqc.googlegroups.com

For the same reason you quote the dummies from NASA, NOAA, IPCC etc.left
wing sites.

[gordo]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:06:36 -0500, "James" <king...@iglou.com>
wrote:

><erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:7f0d0b30-11bd-43bf...@k28g2000yqc.googlegroups.com
>> On Jan 16, 6:31 am, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>>> On 01/16/2012 04:22 AM, Unum wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 1/15/2012 2:43 PM, Tom P wrote:
>>>>> On 01/15/2012 03:43 AM, James wrote:
>>>
>

snip just to see what silly James has posted.

>> You might ask James to explain why he quoted canadafreepress, a
>> notorious right-wing denialist site, instead of checking it out
>> himself, but he just runs and hides from such quesrtions.
>
>For the same reason you quote the dummies from NASA, NOAA, IPCC etc.left
>wing sites.

Here is the point. Should anyone respond to someone so stupid as to
call the scientists at NASA,NOAA, the contributors to the IPCC etc as
being dummies? I give full credit to Dr Singer and Dr Ball as not
being dummies. Even Lord Hee Haw is not a dummy. James you are a
dummy.

[Monkey Clumps]

On Jan 15, 1:47 am, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:16:37 -0600, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 1/14/2012 8:43 PM, James wrote:
>
> > > Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds & bats a year
>
> This was already debunked n this newsgroup months ago. The number
> of birds killed by wind turbines every year in the USA are fewer
> than can be counted.
>
> > They "estimate that turbines ... may be killing" and then give
> > no supporting evidence at all. A huge amount of additional speculation
> > ensues.
>
> In point of fact, there is no evidence that shows wind turbines
> kill birds in any number worth worrying over. Manwhile, coal-
> fired power plants KILL THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS EVERY YEAR.

Those studies are bullshit. I'll bet you can't find one person who
was "killed" by air pollution from power plant. Not one.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

They die from respiratory disease, heart disease, cancer, etc., that
the emissions from power plants cause or worsen. No, you can't point
to a person and say "a power plant killed him" any more than you can
definitely say "smoking killed this person."

Learn about the field of epidemiology.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On Jan 16, 9:06 pm, "James" <kingko...@iglou.com> wrote:
> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Wow, yeah, that socialist putting a man on the moon, and that
socialist weather monitoring.

Or maybe you don't believe we actually put a man on the moon...

[Monkey Clumps]

On Jan 17, 9:47 am, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

If someone was a heavy smoker and dies from lung cancer you won't get
an argument from me that smoking did in fact kill that person. People
say smoking killed so and so all the time. Finding names would not be
hard at all.

Smoking a cigarette exposes your lungs to combustion products that
have to be several orders of magnitude more concentrated than the
dilute emissions from power plants. That's why finding names is
impossible. Its because those studies are bullshit and there really
aren't any "victims" of power plant emissions. Until you can produce
some names of "victims", they will remain bullshit.

>
> Learn about the field of epidemiology.

Soft science bullshit. I have no doubt you could craft a study to
reach any stupid conclusion you want. I'm sure cow flatulence could
be shown to cause a few thousand deaths a year as well.

[Tom P]

On 01/17/2012 03:45 PM, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 16, 9:06 pm, "James"<kingko...@iglou.com> wrote:
>> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:7f0d0b30-11bd-43bf...@k28g2000yqc.googlegroups.com
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 16, 6:31 am, Tom P<werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>>>> On 01/16/2012 04:22 AM, Unum wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 1/15/2012 2:43 PM, Tom P wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/15/2012 03:43 AM, James wrote:
>>

>>>>>>> Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds& bats a year

This blog
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/bs-detector-wind-farm-bird-kills-in-spain/
discusses the press report in the CFP as well what may be the paper in
question - http://www.seo.org/media/docs/Manual_molinos.pdf
It would appear from this paper that the *estimated* mortality rate
is 1000's of times higher than the *observed* mortality rate because the
vast majority of dead birds never get to be seen by the ornithologists -
they get eaten by predators - although of course nobody really knows
what the ratio is.
Nevertheless, the CFP and James, normally well known for his criticism
of sloppy atmospheric research - is quite happy to take this sheer
guesswork at face value for the indisputed truth.

[Unum]

On 1/17/2012 12:03 PM, Monkey Clumps wrote:
> On Jan 17, 9:47 am, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"
> <erschroedin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 17, 8:24 am, Monkey Clumps<spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 15, 1:47 am, AGWFacts<AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:16:37 -0600, Unum<non...@yourbusiness.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 1/14/2012 8:43 PM, James wrote:
>>

>>>>>> Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds& bats a year

Only to the utterly ignorant.

>> Learn about the field of epidemiology.
>
> Soft science bullshit. I have no doubt you could craft a study to
> reach any stupid conclusion you want. I'm sure cow flatulence could
> be shown to cause a few thousand deaths a year as well.

As usual, monkeyshit is totally uninformed about all of this
and yet still blurts out a load of garbage. Power plants emit
known toxins in massive quantities. Even omitting CO2 there is
a long list including sulphur and nitrogen oxides, mercury,
carbon monoxide, fine particulates, and VOC's. This is not any
form of "soft science". Its a fact, and even the power plant
operators admit it.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/1e5ab1124055f3b28525781f0042ed40/55615df6595fbfa3852578550050942f!OpenDocument

"pollution control technologies to cut harmful emissions of mercury,
arsenic, chromium, nickel and acid gases, while preventing as many
as 17,000 premature deaths and 11,000 heart attacks a year. The
new proposed standards would also provide particular health benefits
for children, preventing 120,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms
and about 11,000 fewer cases of acute bronchitis among children
each year. The proposed standards would also avert more than 12,000
emergency room visits and hospital admissions and 850,000 fewer
days of work missed due to illness."

Why does monkeyshit hate humanity so much?

[Monkey Clumps]

It certainly is. Using statistics to project values from untested
assumptions is the the bread and butter of soft science. That's
totally what is going on with these reports. These toxins are so
dilute they are negligible, asshole. That's why you claim 17,000
deaths but can't dig up a single name of a victim. There are none.

> Its a fact, and even the power plant
> operators admit it.

Where?

>
> http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/1e5ab1124055f3b28525781f0042...

>
> "pollution control technologies to cut harmful emissions of mercury,
> arsenic, chromium, nickel and acid gases, while preventing as many
> as 17,000 premature deaths and 11,000 heart attacks a year. The
> new proposed standards would also provide particular health benefits
> for children, preventing 120,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms
> and about 11,000 fewer cases of acute bronchitis among children
> each year. The proposed standards would also avert more than 12,000
> emergency room visits and hospital admissions and 850,000 fewer
> days of work missed due to illness."
>

Get me some names of the the victims or fuck off with your bullshit
numbers.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

I keep asking this question when a nonscientist here makes such a
claim -- why do most scientists in the field disagree?

> That's why you claim 17,000
> deaths but can't dig up a single name of a victim. There are none.
>
> > Its a fact, and even the power plant
> > operators admit it.
>
> Where?
>
>
>
> >http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/1e5ab1124055f3b28525781f0042...
>
> > "pollution control technologies to cut harmful emissions of mercury,
> > arsenic, chromium, nickel and acid gases, while preventing as many
> > as 17,000 premature deaths and 11,000 heart attacks a year. The
> > new proposed standards would also provide particular health benefits
> > for children, preventing 120,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms
> > and about 11,000 fewer cases of acute bronchitis among children
> > each year. The proposed standards would also avert more than 12,000
> > emergency room visits and hospital admissions and 850,000 fewer
> > days of work missed due to illness."
>
> Get me some names of the the victims or fuck off with your bullshit
> numbers.

Nutter.

[Monkey Clumps]

On Jan 17, 4:12 pm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

Have you taken a poll? You have no idea what most scientists think.

>
>
> > That's why you claim 17,000
> > deaths but can't dig up a single name of a victim. There are none.
>
> > > Its a fact, and even the power plant
> > > operators admit it.
>
> > Where?
>
> > >http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/1e5ab1124055f3b28525781f0042...
>
> > > "pollution control technologies to cut harmful emissions of mercury,
> > > arsenic, chromium, nickel and acid gases, while preventing as many
> > > as 17,000 premature deaths and 11,000 heart attacks a year. The
> > > new proposed standards would also provide particular health benefits
> > > for children, preventing 120,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms
> > > and about 11,000 fewer cases of acute bronchitis among children
> > > each year. The proposed standards would also avert more than 12,000
> > > emergency room visits and hospital admissions and 850,000 fewer
> > > days of work missed due to illness."
>
> > Get me some names of the the victims or fuck off with your bullshit
> > numbers.
>
> Nutter.

You lose.

[Unum]

Fossil fuel power plants, particularly coal, do in fact emit
a huge amount of toxins. No statistics involved there so your
remark is brainless as usual.

> totally what is going on with these reports. These toxins are so
> dilute they are negligible, asshole. That's why you claim 17,000
> deaths but can't dig up a single name of a victim. There are none.

"so dilute they are negligible", lol! Can't provide a single cite
for any of your crap?

The only issue that can seriously be challenged is exactly how many
fatalities and health impairments are being caused. Never have seen
a single claim that its zero other than from random monkeyshit
fruitcakes on the newsgroups.

>> Its a fact, and even the power plant
>> operators admit it.
>
> Where?

I'll be glad to provide additional cites when you come up
with something to support your garbage. Power plant emissions
are a matter of record. No controversy whatsoever.

>> http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/1e5ab1124055f3b28525781f0042...
>>
>> "pollution control technologies to cut harmful emissions of mercury,
>> arsenic, chromium, nickel and acid gases, while preventing as many
>> as 17,000 premature deaths and 11,000 heart attacks a year. The
>> new proposed standards would also provide particular health benefits
>> for children, preventing 120,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms
>> and about 11,000 fewer cases of acute bronchitis among children
>> each year. The proposed standards would also avert more than 12,000
>> emergency room visits and hospital admissions and 850,000 fewer
>> days of work missed due to illness."
>>
>
> Get me some names of the the victims or fuck off with your bullshit
> numbers.

Nobody cares what you think, jackass. Meanwhile, evil little
pricks like yourself should have to breathe a special cocktail
of the air-borne toxins that you claim are so harmless.

[Monkey Clumps]

The assumption is that the concentrations are high enough to cause
harm you dumb fuck. You don't think concentrations matter? Water is a
toxin too if you drink enough of it. Statistics were certainly
involved with the projections. Do think they actually went out and
counted victims? That would be a laugh.

>
> > totally what is going on with these reports.  These toxins are so
> > dilute they are negligible, asshole.  That's why you claim 17,000
> > deaths but can't dig up a single name of a victim. There are none.
>
> "so dilute they are negligible", lol! Can't provide a single cite
> for any of your crap?

I don't need to. The burden of proof is on you to show that power
plant emissions kill people. I threw down the gauntlet to you
greentards to come up with names of actual victims and so far you have
come up with Jack Squat.

>
> The only issue that can seriously be challenged is exactly how many
> fatalities and health impairments are being caused. Never have seen
> a single claim that its zero other than from random monkeyshit
> fruitcakes on the newsgroups.

So show me some names. *Real* people who have died, not 17,000 fake
statistic people.

>
> >> Its a fact, and even the power plant
> >> operators admit it.
>
> > Where?
>
> I'll be glad to provide additional cites when you come up
> with something to support your garbage. Power plant emissions
> are a matter of record. No controversy whatsoever.

The issue is whether they kill thousands of people a year. If they do
lets see some names.

>
> >>http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/1e5ab1124055f3b28525781f0042...
>
> >> "pollution control technologies to cut harmful emissions of mercury,
> >> arsenic, chromium, nickel and acid gases, while preventing as many
> >> as 17,000 premature deaths and 11,000 heart attacks a year. The
> >> new proposed standards would also provide particular health benefits
> >> for children, preventing 120,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms
> >> and about 11,000 fewer cases of acute bronchitis among children
> >> each year. The proposed standards would also avert more than 12,000
> >> emergency room visits and hospital admissions and 850,000 fewer
> >> days of work missed due to illness."
>
> > Get me some names of the the victims or fuck off with your bullshit
> > numbers.
>
> Nobody cares what you think, jackass. Meanwhile, evil little
> pricks like yourself should have to breathe a special cocktail
> of the air-borne toxins that you claim are so harmless.

We all breath the special cocktail you speak of, dipshit. Its called
the atmosphere. I'm not too worried about it killing me.

[James]

"gordo" <grme...@shaw.ca.remove> wrote in message

news:31eah7hn4rot285ir...@4ax.com

Go to your little happy place.

[James]

"Tom P" <wero...@freent.dd> wrote in message
news:9nlufe...@mid.individual.net

You just keep listening to the American Wind Association.

[James]

<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:87fd396c-0224-4647...@l17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com

Or point to a thermometer and say it's because of global warming

[gordo]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:36:50 -0600, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com>

Along with the other toxic crap there is also radiation being spewed
out. More by far than a nuclear plant operating at full capacity.

[Unum]

'The assumption', lol. Keep on backpedaling jackass. I asserted
that fossil fuel power plants "emit known toxins in massive quantities".
No argument from you on that apparently, so as usual you have nothing
but a big fat yap.

> toxin too if you drink enough of it. Statistics were certainly
> involved with the projections. Do think they actually went out and
> counted victims? That would be a laugh.

Sorry dirtbag, but counts of people who are afflicted with respiratory
diseases associated with air pollution are commonly performed and
comparisons can easily be made between areas with clean air and those
where it is dirty. The difference is striking, and I hope dipshits
like yourself live in the dirty places.

>>> totally what is going on with these reports. These toxins are so
>>> dilute they are negligible, asshole. That's why you claim 17,000
>>> deaths but can't dig up a single name of a victim. There are none.
>>
>> "so dilute they are negligible", lol! Can't provide a single cite
>> for any of your crap?
>
> I don't need to. The burden of proof is on you to show that power
> plant emissions kill people. I threw down the gauntlet to you
> greentards to come up with names of actual victims and so far you have
> come up with Jack Squat.

Lol, as usual you have absolutely nothing to back up your remarks.

Victims of respiratory diseases are not published as far as I know. Why
is this so important to you exactly? Do you need one of their relatives
to come over and kick the crap out of you?

>> The only issue that can seriously be challenged is exactly how many
>> fatalities and health impairments are being caused. Never have seen
>> a single claim that its zero other than from random monkeyshit
>> fruitcakes on the newsgroups.
>
> So show me some names. *Real* people who have died, not 17,000 fake
> statistic people.

Take the number of people who would have died without air pollution,
subtract that from the number who actually did die, and you will
get a lot of names. Take your pick.

>>>> Its a fact, and even the power plant
>>>> operators admit it.
>>
>>> Where?
>>
>> I'll be glad to provide additional cites when you come up
>> with something to support your garbage. Power plant emissions
>> are a matter of record. No controversy whatsoever.
>
> The issue is whether they kill thousands of people a year. If they do
> lets see some names.

See above.

>>>> http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/1e5ab1124055f3b28525781f0042...
>>
>>>> "pollution control technologies to cut harmful emissions of mercury,
>>>> arsenic, chromium, nickel and acid gases, while preventing as many
>>>> as 17,000 premature deaths and 11,000 heart attacks a year. The
>>>> new proposed standards would also provide particular health benefits
>>>> for children, preventing 120,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms
>>>> and about 11,000 fewer cases of acute bronchitis among children
>>>> each year. The proposed standards would also avert more than 12,000
>>>> emergency room visits and hospital admissions and 850,000 fewer
>>>> days of work missed due to illness."
>>
>>> Get me some names of the the victims or fuck off with your bullshit
>>> numbers.
>>
>> Nobody cares what you think, jackass. Meanwhile, evil little
>> pricks like yourself should have to breathe a special cocktail
>> of the air-borne toxins that you claim are so harmless.
>
> We all breath the special cocktail you speak of, dipshit. Its called
> the atmosphere. I'm not too worried about it killing me.

I'm not too worried either you evil little prick, but if there's
a way to speed it along I hope it comes to you.

[Unum]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

'By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal
power plants produce heaps of radiation'

'individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to
a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put
these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters
360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural
and man-made sources'

[Monkey Clumps]

More insults and nonsense from Dumbum and still he can't produce a
single name of a victim of power plant emissions. Pretty sad. Sort of
odd when he claims there should be tens of thousands to choose from.
Well I guess that's what happens when you call a bullshitter on his
bullshit.

[Monkey Clumps]

> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-rad...

>
> 'By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal
> power plants produce heaps of radiation'
>
> 'individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to
> a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put
> these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters
> 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural
> and man-made sources'

1.9 compared to 360? Hmm. Sounds like fly ash radiation is nearly
inconsequential, doesn't it? What's the problem? Of course all you
have to do is mention the word radiation and greentards work
themselves into a lather. Its fun to watch.

[Tom P]

Who? Never heard of them. I would just like to make a few points -
- why did the Canada Free Press cite a presentation made at an obscure
conference in Spain while failing to report on the criticism voiced
about the paper at the same conference?
- why did James cite the CFP, knowing full well how biased this organ is?
- why did James not bother to check the accuracy of the paper being
quoted, in view of the dramatically exaggerated claims being made?

[Unum]

get a lot of names. Take your pick. Do you need one of their relatives

[Unum]

"Nearly inconsequential" unless you happen to be the person who
gets cancer from it. In your case justice would be served.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

Actually there have been polls taken. Plus, we know what scientists
believe in 2 other ways:

1. What the elected leaders of their professional societies and
national academies of sciences say.
2. From examining what scientists publish in journals.
All 3 of these tell us that almost all scientists agree AGW is real.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

Like al Qaida attack's on NY was inconsequential compared to the
number of people who die every year in the US anyway.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

"At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in
individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a
unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the
two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six
millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the
area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal
plants."

[James]

"Tom P" <wero...@freent.dd> wrote in message

news:9no0jj...@mid.individual.net

For the same reason that the msm doesn't report any rebuttals to AGW
news.

> - why did James cite the CFP, knowing full well how biased this
> organ is?

I don't know that other than your word.

> - why did James not bother to check the accuracy of the paper being
> quoted, in view of the dramatically exaggerated claims being made?

Nobody here does that very much.

My apologies. It's the American 'Wind Energy Association'
http://www.awea.org/ Both terms are used.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

You denialists better get your excuses straight. Most denialists say
CO2 is never ever a pollutant.

>  Statistics were certainly
> involved with the projections.  Do think they actually went out and
> counted victims?  That would be a laugh.

No, they measure the affect and use epidemiology to determine the
numbers affected.

>
>
>
> > > totally what is going on with these reports.  These toxins are so
> > > dilute they are negligible, asshole.  That's why you claim 17,000
> > > deaths but can't dig up a single name of a victim. There are none.
>
> > "so dilute they are negligible", lol! Can't provide a single cite
> > for any of your crap?
>
> I don't need to.  The burden of proof is on you to show that power
> plant emissions kill people.

Read the scientific journals. Especially those in the field of
epidemiology.

> I threw down the gauntlet to you
> greentards to come up with names of actual victims and so far you have
> come up with Jack Squat.

Because you make silly demands like this.

Famous last words. Bet those who worked with asbestos once said that.

[Monkey Clumps]

How do you intend to conjure up the number of "people who would have
died without air pollution"? That is an impossible thing to know.
The foundation of all of this is is a bunch of made-up bullshit. You
are just too stupid to realize that.

[Monkey Clumps]

On Jan 18, 11:35 am, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

The question was about whether powerplant emissions kill thousands of
people a year, not about AGW. Take your brain off cruise control.

[Monkey Clumps]

On Jan 18, 11:39 am, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

Meanwhile, the government considers below 5000 millirems to be safe,
making your concerns about 18 millirems a complete joke. Face it, its
not significant when you consider that background radiation is 300
millirems a year. Its just another greentard scare story with no
teeth.

[Monkey Clumps]

On Jan 18, 11:37 am, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

Do they measure the affects at the extremely dilute concentrations
that you have for power plant emissions? I doubt it, because they
would never see any effects. I suspect they don't really have the
relevant data and are basing everything on much higher concentrations.

>
>
>
> > > > totally what is going on with these reports.  These toxins are so
> > > > dilute they are negligible, asshole.  That's why you claim 17,000
> > > > deaths but can't dig up a single name of a victim. There are none.
>
> > > "so dilute they are negligible", lol! Can't provide a single cite
> > > for any of your crap?
>
> > I don't need to.  The burden of proof is on you to show that power
> > plant emissions kill people.
>
> Read the scientific journals.  Especially those in the field of
> epidemiology.

Lots of junk science comes out of that field. This is a fine example.

>
> > I threw down the gauntlet to you
> > greentards to come up with names of actual victims and so far you have
> > come up with Jack Squat.
>
> Because you make silly demands like this.

If you are going to claim that something *kills* thousands of people,
then asking for the name of an actual victim is perfectly reasonable.
Otherwise how do we know its not all a load of bullshit?

Well asbestos was blown out of proportion, but at least there you had
real people and in a few cases some of them had a real condition. How
come you can't come up with any real people for the victims of
powerplant emissions?

[Monkey Clumps]

On Jan 18, 11:40 am, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

In the case of al Qaida's attack, real people were victims and we can
even look up their names. Compare this to the thousands of make-
believe victims supposedly dying from powerplant emissions. You can't
come up with one name because they are not real.

[Monkey Clumps]

Considering the government considers levels under 5000 to be safe, I'm
really not going to lose sleep over 1.9. Only a complete dumbass
greentard like you would do that.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

LOL. Your only acquaintance with science is surfing past the Science
channel on TV.

>
>
> > > I threw down the gauntlet to you
> > > greentards to come up with names of actual victims and so far you have
> > > come up with Jack Squat.
>
> > Because you make silly demands like this.
>
> If you are going to claim that something *kills* thousands of people,
> then asking for the name of an actual victim is perfectly reasonable.

So, it's so utterly silly it raises the question, "Are you 6 years
old"?

> Otherwise how do we know its not all a load of bullshit?

So if you don't know the name of someone who died from cancer, that
might be a load of BS?

Actually it was blown into lungs, causing deaths.

>but at least there you had
> real people and in a few cases some of them had a real condition.

But can you prove any one of them died from asbestos and not something
else? That's what you are demanding.

> How
> come you can't come up with any real people for the victims of
> powerplant emissions?

It's a silly question. The emissions CAUSE things like respiratory
disease, which is then the cause of death.

If you give someone poison which causes a heart attack, the heart
attack is the cause of death, for example.

[erschro...@gmail.com]

OK, ask mothers how many want their children to live in such an area
or subsist on such a diet.

[James]

"Monkey Clumps" <spaceb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a8b18dcb-cdbb-453a...@u20g2000yqb.googlegroups.com

I hear that the AGW crowd is busy staffing the hospitals with their own
people to claim the deaths there are due to bad air.

Just kidding but I wouldn't be surprised.

[Monkey Clumps]

On Jan 18, 5:27 pm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

[Monkey Clumps]

On Jan 18, 5:27 pm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

Wrong. I am asking for names of victims. Can't you read? In the
case of asbestos the names of victims aren't too hard to come by.
They are the ones who sued.

>
> > How
> > come you can't come up with any real people for the victims of
> > powerplant emissions?
>
> It's a silly question.  The emissions CAUSE things like respiratory
> disease, which is then the cause of death.
>
> If you give someone poison which causes a heart attack, the heart
> attack is the cause of death, for example.

Wow, talk about avoiding a question. You would make a politician
blush. Let me lay this out real clear for for you. You claim that
power plant emissions kill thousands a year. Show me one real person
who was a victim of power plant emissions. I bet you can't because
there aren't any.

The reason the trial lawyers aren't suing power companies for
emissions like they did for asbestos is they know they don't have a
case and would be laughed out of court. That is saying something
considering what they got away with regarding asbestos.

[Unum]

I'm not seeing you cite anything therefor your remark is nothing other
than the usual brainless yapping, but in fact there are incremental
increases in cancer rates even at low radiation levels.

Meanwhile the government also reports the number of human fatalities
resulting from power plant emissions, and since you claim to believe
them on radiation the emission numbers must also be correct. Not very
bright are you.

[Unum]

You are merely too stupid to understand how easy this is to do.

Some areas are in the vicinity of coal plants and are afflicted
with polluted air. Other places aren't. The difference in mortality
resulting from respiratory diseases can clearly be measured.

Here's a report commissioned by the Bush administration that details
the techniques. Still waiting for you to come up with a single thing
to support your assertions. You better come up with something, you
pathetic little dumbass, but its obvious that won't be happening.

http://www.abtassociates.com/reports/rockefeller_pm_study_final_v2.pdf

"Power plants are large emitters of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
nitrogen oxides (NOx), particularly in the Midwest, where power
plants dominate air pollution emissions. Perhaps the most hazardous
contribution of these gaseous air emissions is the formation of
secondary fine particulate matter. Over the past decade, numerous
studies have linked particulate matter (PM) to a wide range of
adverse human health effects, ranging from premature death, hospital
admissions and asthma attacks to chronic bronchitis.

This report estimates these adverse health effects, in particular
focusing on those associated with particulate air pollution from
eight electric utility systems. Exhibit ES-1 presents a map with
the locations of the power plants in these eight systems."

[Monkey Clumps]

These reports don't mean anything. Its all estimates and guesswork
done by people who have an agenda. I asked you to back up the claims
of thousands dead with some names of the victims. You haven't been
able to come up with any. My point stands. Buh bye.

[Monkey Clumps]

On Jan 18, 5:24 pm, "erschroedin...@gmail.com"

You call yourself a scientist. 50 to 200 percent higher than a number
that is totally safe may still be totally safe. In this case it is.
It is nowhere near what is considered dangerous levels. That's what
matters, fool.

[Unum]

Not interested in what you asked for, and your point is utterly
bogus. Run away now.

[Unum]

Lol, 200 percent higher than safe may still be totally safe, what
a maroon. As usual, monkeyshit speaks from total ignorance.

5000 millirems/year is simply the federal occupational limit
for radiation exposure. This doesn't imply that its "safe", and
in fact there is no "safe" amount of radiation. Even the normal
ambient background radiation (uncontaminated by coal emissions)
results in some number of cancer deaths.

[Monkey Clumps]

Please stay indoors in a lead-lined room then. Idiot.

Meanwhile 1.9 millirems remains inconsequential.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1994/safe-0105.html

>
> Meanwhile the government also reports the number of human fatalities
> resulting from power plant emissions, and since you claim to believe
> them on radiation the emission numbers must also be correct. Not very
> bright are you.

I'm sure every government report is 100% correct. <rolls eyes> I'll
believe the claims about human fatalities when I find out who actually
died. So far no one can produce a single name of a real victim.
Things that make you go hmmm...

[Monkey Clumps]

1.9 millirem is three orders of magnitude less than the federal limit
and two orders less than the background. The fact that you can't
understand that this makes it inconsequential is a perfect
illustration of how greentards are so goddamn stupid.

Get in your lead-lined box and shut your hole if you are so concerned
about radiation.

[Unum]

Merely pointing out that your remark about radiation safety
was brainlessly incorrect. Just like everything else you say.

> Get in your lead-lined box and shut your hole if you are so concerned
> about radiation.

Here's hoping you get what you so richly deserve.

[Monkey Clumps]

> ...
>
> read more »

[AGWFacts]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:47:35 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org>

wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:16:37 -0600, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 1/14/2012 8:43 PM, James wrote:
> > >

> > > Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds & bats a year

>
> This was already debunked n this newsgroup months ago. The number
> of birds killed by wind turbines every year in the USA are fewer
> than can be counted.
>
> > They "estimate that turbines ... may be killing" and then give
> > no supporting evidence at all. A huge amount of additional speculation
> > ensues.
>
> In point of fact, there is no evidence that shows wind turbines
> kill birds in any number worth worrying over. Manwhile, coal-
> fired power plants KILL THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS EVERY YEAR.

> Alarmists claim they are upset about imaginary bird deaths, yet
> coal-fired power plants kill people. See, for example, one of the
> first definitive studies on the subject, published in year 1976:
>
> http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.eg.01.110176.003053
>
> Year 2000:
>
> http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~harbaugh/Readings/Environmental/Applications%20of%20Environmental%20Valuation%20for%20Determining%20Exte.pdf
>
> Year 2001:
>
> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/293/5533/1257.short
>
> Year 2004:
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/ns/us_news-environment/t/deadly-power-plants-study-fuels-debate/
>
> "Health problems linked to aging coal-fired power plants shorten
> nearly 24,000 [America] lives a year, including 2,800 from lung
> cancer, and nearly all those early deaths could be prevented if
> the U.S. government adopted stricter rules, according to a study
> released Wednesday."
>
> The EPA's year 2011's plan to save 17,000 more American lives per
> year:
>
> http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/pdfs/proposalfactsheet.pdf
>
> http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/172/4/501
>
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/epa-finalizes-tough-new-rules-on-emissions-by-power-plants/2011/12/16/gIQAc2WTzO_story.html
>
>
>
>
> > Meanwhile we know for sure that toxic substances in coal plant
> > emissions kill thousands of people every year and untold animals
> > of all kinds.
> >
> > But why would James care?


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 09:42:20 +0100, Earl Evleth
<evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> On 15/01/12 7:47, in article 2et4h7ldko9vica48...@4ax.com,

> "AGWFacts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> >> Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds & bats a year
> >
> > This was already debunked n this newsgroup months ago. The number
> > of birds killed by wind turbines every year in the USA are fewer
> > than can be counted.

> That US stats I posted were one bird per turbine per year.

Indeed, and thank you: I get a copy of that post. In fact it is
less than one bird per turbine per year.

Meanwhile, domestic cats kill birds by the millions every year. We
should get rid of cats.

According to the report "Of Birds and Men," 5 out of 6 birds
starve to death within less than a year after hatching.

> Birth deaths from other sources far exceed the turbine deaths.

Of course. But these hysterical clowns like "james" here wants
people to believe otherwise, for political reasons.

> A recent article on the comeback of the California Condor Vulture
> said that there are some deaths from high tension lines. I din't
> think they mention turbines, the birds flying in special coastal
> mountain areas, I assume the wind machines in California the Baja
> are not in ths same areas.

Birds of prey have suffered mortality rates at a very high rate
due to power lines; in some counties people have built artificial
nests for these birds on top of power poles.

> Overall the Condors are coming back up from just a few birds to 200.
> One big problem is lead bullets, ingestion of same producing high
> lead levels. Phasing out lead bullets in general is not
> a project favored by the hunting lobby. I think that renegade hunters
> are not long shooting Condors and hawks. But some of that group
> likes killing just for the fun of killing.

"Free market" slaves like "james" here love lead poisoning. One
anti-America legislature just filed a bill that would prevent
victims of lead poisoning from suing for regress of injuries.

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 12:33:11 -0500, C6...@webtv.net (charles bash)
wrote:

> There has been "some talk" that the answer to windmill killings of
> birds, is to install super high frequency noise generators that can't be
> heard by humans but can drive birds away from the entering side of
> windmills.

The number of birds killed by wind turbines is so iny (less than
one bird per turbine per year), only an idiot would think it's a
problem.

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 21:43:31 +0100, Tom P <wero...@freent.dd>
wrote:

> On 01/15/2012 03:43 AM, James wrote:

... nothing true.


> http://www.evwind.es/noticias.php?id_not=15907
>
> <quote>
> Scientists deny that wind energy damage to the birds in Spain
> january 15, 2012
>
> The SEO/Birdlife multiplied by ten thousand real mortality of wind
> turbines and develops a systematic campaign against the wind power
> sector, though they never said anything about nuclear energy or CO2.
>
> Scientists deny that wind energy damage to the birds in Spain
> The president of the Foundation and exper of Centro Superior de
> Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Miguel Ferrer, said that wind farms
> are not dangerous to birds and has stated that "only a few wind
> turbines" are causing deaths among birds.
>
> Speaking on the occasion of the first Iberian Congress on Wind Energy
> and Wildlife Conservation, held in Jerez on Thursday, the expert noted
> that the deaths of birds colliding with wind turbines have a
> distribution "heterogeneous" and added that in the recent years has
> reduced mortality by 68%, refuting the organization Seo / Birdlife,
> which exhibited at the scientific conference that wind turbines could be
> causing a mortality between 6 and 18 million individuals between the
> species of birds and bats, a ten thousand times more than the actual figure.
>
> Ferrer exemplified how in Tarifa, point of passage of thousands of birds
> migrating from Europe to Africa, the mortality rate stands copies at an
> annual rate of 0.3 birds per wind turbine. In the same vein, the
> Minister of Environment of the Junta, Juan Jose Diaz Trillo, said that
> the security measures coordinated between wind farm producers and his
> department had been reduced the mortality by almost 50 % in the last
> five years, and 40% of other species.
>
> The scientist Miguel Ferrer said that the figures provided in the study
> of SEO/Birdlife only take into account the "points of accumulation of
> accidents." According to the researcher, the data offered by SEO /
> Birdlife can not be extrapolated to the whole wind farm plants "because
> it is as if the black spots on the roads are extrapolated to the whole
> road network and is a very high figure."
>
> </quote>

Thank you.

Rememeber the tens of thousands of brds that died last year in
several parts of the United States? The USDA finally admitted they
were responsible. They used Starlicide to kill what they called
"pest birds."

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 21:22:44 -0600, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com>
wrote:

> On 1/15/2012 2:43 PM, Tom P wrote:
> > On 01/15/2012 03:43 AM, James wrote:

> >> Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds & bats a year

> Wow that totally wipes out James' brainless cut and paste from
> a right wing lie site doesn't it.
>
> Funny that we don't see him in this thread now.

The lie 'james' posted had already been refuted in this newsgroup.
The rate of mortality is less than one bird per turbine per year;
however, the rate of mortality for coal-fired power plants in the
United States is more than 17,000 *HUMANS* per year: something
'james' is not at all concerned about.

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 19:28:18 -0800, welldone
<well...@wellhoned.com> wrote:

> environmentalists are only using the environment as an argument of
> convenience. their real agenda is to hobble the West's economy.

Hysterical Alarmist.

[AGWFacts]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:24:18 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps
<spaceb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:47:35 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>

> > On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:16:37 -0600, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com>

> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 1/14/2012 8:43 PM, James wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds & bats a year
> >

> > This was already debunked n this newsgroup months ago. The number
> > of birds killed by wind turbines every year in the USA are fewer
> > than can be counted.
> >

> Those studies are bullshit.

They are? Then write a paper on the subject pointing to the flaws,
and submit it to a science journal for peer review! IT'S YOUR DUTY
TO CORRECT ALL OF THE EXPERTS WHEN THEY ARE WRONG!

> I'll bet you can't find one person who was killed by air pollution
> from power plant. Not one.

I'll take that bet. I have $10,000 that says I can "find" (i.e.,
produce an official document) stating exactly that.

[Monkey Clumps]

On Jan 19, 2:03 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:24:18 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps
>
>
>

> <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:47:35 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:16:37 -0600, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On 1/14/2012 8:43 PM, James wrote:
>
> > > > > Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds & bats a year
>
> > > This was already debunked n this newsgroup months ago. The number
> > > of birds killed by wind turbines every year in the USA are fewer
> > > than can be counted.
>
> > > > They "estimate that turbines ... may be killing" and then give
> > > > no supporting evidence at all. A huge amount of additional speculation
> > > > ensues.
>
> > > In point of fact, there is no evidence that shows wind turbines
> > > kill birds in any number worth worrying over. Manwhile, coal-
> > > fired power plants KILL THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS EVERY YEAR.
> > > Alarmists claim they are upset about imaginary bird deaths, yet
> > > coal-fired power plants kill people. See, for example, one of the
> > > first definitive studies on the subject, published in year 1976:
>
> > >http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.eg.01.110176.003053
>
> > > Year 2000:
>

> > >http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~harbaugh/Readings/Environmental/Applicat...

>
> > > Year 2001:
>
> > >http://www.sciencemag.org/content/293/5533/1257.short
>
> > > Year 2004:
>

> > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/ns/us_news-environment/t/deadly-p...

>
> > > "Health problems linked to aging coal-fired power plants shorten
> > > nearly 24,000 [America] lives a year, including 2,800 from lung
> > > cancer, and nearly all those early deaths could be prevented if
> > > the U.S. government adopted stricter rules, according to a study
> > > released Wednesday."
>
> > > The EPA's year 2011's plan to save 17,000 more American lives per
> > > year:
>

> > >http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/pdfs/proposalfactsheet...
>
> > >http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/172/4/501
>
> > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/epa-finalizes-t...

> > Those studies are bullshit.
>
> They are? Then write a paper on the subject pointing to the flaws,
> and submit it to a science journal for peer review! IT'S YOUR DUTY
> TO CORRECT ALL OF THE EXPERTS WHEN THEY ARE WRONG!
>
> > I'll bet you can't find one person who was killed by air pollution
> > from power plant.  Not one.
>
> I'll take that bet. I have $10,000 that says I can "find" (i.e.,
> produce an official document) stating exactly that.
>
> --
> "I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three...  and CO2 levels

> to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- caton...@sympatico.ca

I'm not going to pay you to find something that should be easy to come
by (assuming the reports about thousands of emission fatalities are
true). If you have some evidence, show it. Otherwise sit down with
the other greentard dummies who have produced squat.

[Unum]

On 1/19/2012 1:20 PM, Monkey Clumps wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2:03 pm, AGWFacts<AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:24:18 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps
>>
>>
>>
>> <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:47:35 -0700, AGWFacts<AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:16:37 -0600, Unum<non...@yourbusiness.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 1/14/2012 8:43 PM, James wrote:
>>

>>>>>> Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds& bats a year

In other words, monkeyshit is running away from the bet.

[Monkey Clumps]

Sit down and shut your hole. You're king of the dummies.

[Unum]

Lol he ran away from the bet.

[James]

"Tom P" <wero...@freent.dd> wrote in message
news:9ngs3k...@mid.individual.net

> On 01/15/2012 03:43 AM, James wrote:
>>
>> Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds & bats a year

>> Online Saturday, January 14, 2012
>> On 12 January 2012, at the First Scientific Congress on Wind Energy
>> and Wildlife Conservation in Jerez de la Frontera, Spain, the Spanish
>> Society of Ornithology (SEO/Birdlife) made public its estimate that,
>> yearly, Spain's 18,000 wind turbines may be killing 6 to 18 million
>> birds and bats (1). The average per turbine comes down to 333 - 1,000
>> deaths annually, which is a far cry from the 2 - 4 birds claimed by
>> the American wind industry, or the 400,000 birds a year estimated by
>> the American Bird Conservancy for the whole United States, which has
>> about twice as many turbines as Spain.
>>
>>
>> Bats are included in the Birdlife estimate, comments Mark Duchamp,
>> president of Save the Eagles International (STEI). "Therefore,
>> supposing for example that wind farms would kill twice as many bats
>> as they do birds, the figures would be: 111 - 333 birds per turbine
>> per year, and 222 - 666 bats per turbine/year. The mortality figures
>> that were recorded in Germany and Sweden in the early nineties are
>> not unusual
>> after all", he notes. Quoting from a California Energy Commission
>> study: "In a summary of avian impacts at wind turbines by Benner et
>> al. (1993) bird deaths per turbine per year were as high as 309 in
>> Germany and 895 in Sweden." (2)
>>
>> Duchamp has always maintained that earlier studies, made when bird
>> mortality at windfarms wasn't such a hot potato, were more credible
>> than recent ones. "It is a curious business where those consultants
>> who find or predict the lowest mortality land all the contracts. This
>> is what
>> is being asked of them, and this is what they do. This unethical
>> conduct has already condemned the Tasmanian Wedge-tailed eagle to
>> extinction
>> (3), and more recently the Golden Eagle in the United States (4).
>> Another factor is the occultation of carcasses by windfarm
>> employees, as may be seen in the SEO/Birdlife report." (5)
>>
>>
>> The report also stresses that even a small incremental mortality for
>> bird species whose populations are not abundant may drive them to
>> extinction. "This is what I have been claiming for years", laments
>> Mark, who has been banned from ornithology forums as an unwelcomed
>> messenger of bad news. "I am now vindicated, but that won't save the
>> birds",
>> he says. SEO/Birdlife puts the blame on poor-quality environmental
>> studies. So
>> did Duchamp, as early as 2004:
>>
>> " ...(avian impact assessments)... are sometimes voluminous and
>> obfuscating, sometimes short and to the point, but mendacious always,
>> minimizing the avian impact. They serve the purpose that is assigned
>> to them: permit the erection of windfarms where the promoters want
>> them, regardless of bird activity in the area."(6)
>>
>>
>> Mark has long been claiming that it was foolish to allow
>> environmental impact assessments to be directed and controlled by
>> wind farm developers. It now appears he was right. The question is,
>> he
>> concludes: "will this aberration be allowed to continue?"
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6usgnys
>>
>
> http://www.evwind.es/noticias.php?id_not=15907

From a wind energy organisation, of which you conveniently left out the
link.

[gordo]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:57:24 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org>
wrote:

A little clarity about the bird kills. We deal with an average and we
deal with the location of the kills. The siting of the generators
means that some of them are in the path of critical migration routes
and also where endangered or rare species are of concern.The number
game is misleading. There are organizations who spend much time
discussing these problems and James should join one of them and get
educated and perhaps even help. They work on solutions and are finding
them.

[AGWFacts]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:20:06 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps
<spaceb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:24:18 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps

> > <spaceb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >
> > > On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:47:35 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:16:37 -0600, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 1/14/2012 8:43 PM, James wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds & bats a year
> > > >
> > > > This was already debunked n this newsgroup months ago. The number
> > > > of birds killed by wind turbines every year in the USA are fewer
> > > > than can be counted.
> > > >
> > > > > They "estimate that turbines ... may be killing" and then give
> > > > > no supporting evidence at all. A huge amount of additional speculation
> > > > > ensues.
> > > >
> > > > In point of fact, there is no evidence that shows wind turbines
> > > > kill birds in any number worth worrying over. Manwhile, coal-
> > > > fired power plants KILL THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS EVERY YEAR.
> > > > Alarmists claim they are upset about imaginary bird deaths, yet
> > > > coal-fired power plants kill people. See, for example, one of the
> > > > first definitive studies on the subject, published in year 1976:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.eg.01.110176.003053
> > > >
> > > > Year 2000:
> > > >

> > > > http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~harbaugh/Readings/Environmental/Applications%20of%20Environmental%20Valuation%20for%20Determining%20Exte.pdf

> > > >
> > > > Year 2001:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.sciencemag.org/content/293/5533/1257.short
> > > >
> > > > Year 2004:
> > > >

> > > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/ns/us_news-environment/t/deadly-power-plants-study-fuels-debate/

> > > >
> > > > "Health problems linked to aging coal-fired power plants shorten
> > > > nearly 24,000 [America] lives a year, including 2,800 from lung
> > > > cancer, and nearly all those early deaths could be prevented if
> > > > the U.S. government adopted stricter rules, according to a study
> > > > released Wednesday."
> > > >
> > > > The EPA's year 2011's plan to save 17,000 more American lives per
> > > > year:
> > > >

> > > > http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/pdfs/proposalfactsheet.pdf
> > > >
> > > > http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/172/4/501
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/epa-finalizes-tough-new-rules-on-emissions-by-power-plants/2011/12/16/gIQAc2WTzO_story.html
> >

> > > Those studies are bullshit.
> >
> > They are? Then write a paper on the subject pointing to the flaws,
> > and submit it to a science journal for peer review! IT'S YOUR DUTY
> > TO CORRECT ALL OF THE EXPERTS WHEN THEY ARE WRONG!
> >
> > > I'll bet you can't find one person who was killed by air pollution
> > > from power plant. Not one.
> >
> > I'll take that bet. I have $10,000 that says I can "find" (i.e.,
> > produce an official document) stating exactly that.

> I'm not going to pay you to find something that should be easy to come
> by (assuming the reports about thousands of emission fatalities are
> true).

I have a death certificate in my office safe issued by the Navajo
County Coroners's Office that lists the cause of death as
pollution from the Navajo power station. For $10,000 I will scan
it in and send the image to you.

> If you have some evidence, show it.

$10,000.

> Otherwise sit down withthe other greentard dummies who have produced squat.

Huh?

--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels

to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca

[AGWFacts]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:26:10 -0600, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com>
wrote:

> On 1/19/2012 1:20 PM, Monkey Clumps wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:24:18 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps

> > <spaceb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >
> > > > On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:47:35 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:16:37 -0600, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 1/14/2012 8:43 PM, James wrote:
> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds & bats a year

> > > > >
> > > > > This was already debunked n this newsgroup months ago. The number
> > > > > of birds killed by wind turbines every year in the USA are fewer
> > > > > than can be counted.
> > > > >
> > > > > > They "estimate that turbines ... may be killing" and then give
> > > > > > no supporting evidence at all. A huge amount of additional speculation
> > > > > > ensues.
> > > > >
> > > > > In point of fact, there is no evidence that shows wind turbines
> > > > > kill birds in any number worth worrying over. Manwhile, coal-
> > > > > fired power plants KILL THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS EVERY YEAR.
> > > > > Alarmists claim they are upset about imaginary bird deaths, yet
> > > > > coal-fired power plants kill people. See, for example, one of the
> > > > > first definitive studies on the subject, published in year 1976:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.eg.01.110176.003053
> > > > >
> > > > > Year 2000:
> > > > >

> > > > > http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~harbaugh/Readings/Environmental/Applications%20of%20Environmental%20Valuation%20for%20Determining%20Exte.pdf

> > > > >
> > > > > Year 2001:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.sciencemag.org/content/293/5533/1257.short
> > > > >
> > > > > Year 2004:
> > > > >

> > > > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/ns/us_news-environment/t/deadly-power-plants-study-fuels-debate/

> > > > >
> > > > > "Health problems linked to aging coal-fired power plants shorten
> > > > > nearly 24,000 [America] lives a year, including 2,800 from lung
> > > > > cancer, and nearly all those early deaths could be prevented if
> > > > > the U.S. government adopted stricter rules, according to a study
> > > > > released Wednesday."
> > > > >
> > > > > The EPA's year 2011's plan to save 17,000 more American lives per
> > > > > year:
> > > > >

> > > > > http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/pdfs/proposalfactsheet.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/172/4/501
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/epa-finalizes-tough-new-rules-on-emissions-by-power-plants/2011/12/16/gIQAc2WTzO_story.html
> > >

> > > > Those studies are bullshit.
> > >
> > > They are? Then write a paper on the subject pointing to the flaws,
> > > and submit it to a science journal for peer review! IT'S YOUR DUTY
> > > TO CORRECT ALL OF THE EXPERTS WHEN THEY ARE WRONG!
> > >
> > > > I'll bet you can't find one person who was killed by air pollution
> > > > from power plant. Not one.
> > >
> > > I'll take that bet. I have $10,000 that says I can "find" (i.e.,
> > > produce an official document) stating exactly that.

> > I'm not going to pay you to find something that should be easy to come
> > by (assuming the reports about thousands of emission fatalities are
> > true). If you have some evidence, show it. Otherwise sit down with
> > the other greentard dummies who have produced squat.

Notice how the hysterical nutcase forgot to produce evidence
showing all of these studies (listed above) are "bullshit."

> In other words, monkeyshit is running away from the bet.

The clown would never accept the evidence, in the form of
coronor's reports, that coal-fired power plants kill people....
even after I posted the evidence (see above links). People down-
wind of coal-fired power plants have a higher mortality rate, and
in some places at astoundingly higer rate.

In the 1960s several counties in the USA started listing pollution
as the cause of death for many children and elderly victims; this
prompted the creation of the EPA. Pollution was still being listed
as the cause of deaths in the 1970s.

--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels

to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca

[Monkey Clumps]

On Jan 20, 1:54 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:26:10 -0600, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 1/19/2012 1:20 PM, Monkey Clumps wrote:
> > > On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:24:18 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps

> > > <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> > > > > On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:47:35 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:16:37 -0600, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 1/14/2012 8:43 PM, James wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds & bats a year
>
> > > > > > This was already debunked n this newsgroup months ago. The number
> > > > > > of birds killed by wind turbines every year in the USA are fewer
> > > > > > than can be counted.
>
> > > > > > > They "estimate that turbines ... may be killing" and then give
> > > > > > > no supporting evidence at all. A huge amount of additional speculation
> > > > > > > ensues.
>
> > > > > > In point of fact, there is no evidence that shows wind turbines
> > > > > > kill birds in any number worth worrying over. Manwhile, coal-
> > > > > > fired power plants KILL THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS EVERY YEAR.
> > > > > > Alarmists claim they are upset about imaginary bird deaths, yet
> > > > > > coal-fired power plants kill people. See, for example, one of the
> > > > > > first definitive studies on the subject, published in year 1976:
>
> > > > > >http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.eg.01.110176.003053
>
> > > > > > Year 2000:
>

> > > > > >http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~harbaugh/Readings/Environmental/Applicat...

>
> > > > > > Year 2001:
>
> > > > > >http://www.sciencemag.org/content/293/5533/1257.short
>
> > > > > > Year 2004:
>

> > > > > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/ns/us_news-environment/t/deadly-p...

>
> > > > > > "Health problems linked to aging coal-fired power plants shorten
> > > > > > nearly 24,000 [America] lives a year, including 2,800 from lung
> > > > > > cancer, and nearly all those early deaths could be prevented if
> > > > > > the U.S. government adopted stricter rules, according to a study
> > > > > > released Wednesday."
>
> > > > > > The EPA's year 2011's plan to save 17,000 more American lives per
> > > > > > year:
>

> > > > > >http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/pdfs/proposalfactsheet...
>
> > > > > >http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/172/4/501
>
> > > > > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/epa-finalizes-t...
>

> > > > > Those studies are bullshit.
>
> > > > They are? Then write a paper on the subject pointing to the flaws,
> > > > and submit it to a science journal for peer review! IT'S YOUR DUTY
> > > > TO CORRECT ALL OF THE EXPERTS WHEN THEY ARE WRONG!
>
> > > > > I'll bet you can't find one person who was killed by air pollution
> > > > > from power plant.  Not one.
>
> > > > I'll take that bet. I have $10,000 that says I can "find" (i.e.,
> > > > produce an official document) stating exactly that.
> > > I'm not going to pay you to find something that should be easy to come
> > > by (assuming the reports about thousands of emission fatalities are
> > > true).  If you have some evidence, show it.  Otherwise sit down with
> > > the other greentard dummies who have produced squat.
>
> Notice how the hysterical nutcase forgot to produce evidence
> showing all of these studies (listed above) are "bullshit."
>
> > In other words, monkeyshit is running away from the bet.
>
> The clown would never accept the evidence, in the form of
> coronor's reports, that coal-fired power plants kill people....
> even after I posted the evidence (see above links).

I looked at the links. They provide no evidence of real people who
have died from powerplant emissions.

[Monkey Clumps]

On Jan 20, 1:47 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:20:06 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps
>
>
>
> <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:24:18 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps

> > > <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> > > > On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:47:35 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:16:37 -0600, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 1/14/2012 8:43 PM, James wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds & bats a year
>
> > > > > This was already debunked n this newsgroup months ago. The number
> > > > > of birds killed by wind turbines every year in the USA are fewer
> > > > > than can be counted.
>
> > > > > > They "estimate that turbines ... may be killing" and then give
> > > > > > no supporting evidence at all. A huge amount of additional speculation
> > > > > > ensues.
>
> > > > > In point of fact, there is no evidence that shows wind turbines
> > > > > kill birds in any number worth worrying over. Manwhile, coal-
> > > > > fired power plants KILL THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS EVERY YEAR.
> > > > > Alarmists claim they are upset about imaginary bird deaths, yet
> > > > > coal-fired power plants kill people. See, for example, one of the
> > > > > first definitive studies on the subject, published in year 1976:
>
> > > > >http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.eg.01.110176.003053
>
> > > > > Year 2000:
>

> > > > >http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~harbaugh/Readings/Environmental/Applicat...

>
> > > > > Year 2001:
>
> > > > >http://www.sciencemag.org/content/293/5533/1257.short
>
> > > > > Year 2004:
>

> > > > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/ns/us_news-environment/t/deadly-p...

>
> > > > > "Health problems linked to aging coal-fired power plants shorten
> > > > > nearly 24,000 [America] lives a year, including 2,800 from lung
> > > > > cancer, and nearly all those early deaths could be prevented if
> > > > > the U.S. government adopted stricter rules, according to a study
> > > > > released Wednesday."
>
> > > > > The EPA's year 2011's plan to save 17,000 more American lives per
> > > > > year:
>

> > > > >http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/pdfs/proposalfactsheet...
>
> > > > >http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/172/4/501
>
> > > > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/epa-finalizes-t...
>

> > > > Those studies are bullshit.
>
> > > They are? Then write a paper on the subject pointing to the flaws,
> > > and submit it to a science journal for peer review! IT'S YOUR DUTY
> > > TO CORRECT ALL OF THE EXPERTS WHEN THEY ARE WRONG!
>
> > > > I'll bet you can't find one person who was killed by air pollution
> > > > from power plant.  Not one.
>
> > > I'll take that bet. I have $10,000 that says I can "find" (i.e.,
> > > produce an official document) stating exactly that.
> > I'm not going to pay you to find something that should be easy to come
> > by (assuming the reports about thousands of emission fatalities are
> > true).
>
> I have a death certificate in my office safe issued by the Navajo
> County Coroners's Office that lists the cause of death as
> pollution from the Navajo power station. For $10,000 I will scan
> it in and send the image to you.

I would love to know how the coroner isolated powerplant emissions as
the cause of death. Did the victim climb the smoke stack and stick
his head in? Sounds like some silly activist nonsense to me.

>
> > If you have some evidence, show it.
>
> $10,000.

The checks in the mail. Now post the evidence or STFU.

>
> > Otherwise sit down withthe other greentard dummies who have produced squat.
>
> Huh?

Exactly.

[Unum]

On 1/20/2012 2:07 PM, Monkey Clumps wrote:
> On Jan 20, 1:47 pm, AGWFacts<AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:20:06 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps
>>
>>
>>
>> <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:24:18 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps
>>>> <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:47:35 -0700, AGWFacts<AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:16:37 -0600, Unum<non...@yourbusiness.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On 1/14/2012 8:43 PM, James wrote:
>>

>>>>>>>> Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds& bats a year

Obvious lie.

>>> Otherwise sit down withthe other greentard dummies who have produced squat.
>>
>> Huh?
>
> Exactly.

Lol, monkeyshit ran away from the bet.

[AGWFacts]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:07:38 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps
<spaceb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:47:24 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:20:06 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps
> > <spaceb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:24:18 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps

> > > > <spaceb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > >
> > > > > On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:47:35 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:16:37 -0600, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 1/14/2012 8:43 PM, James wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds & bats a year
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This was already debunked n this newsgroup months ago. The number
> > > > > > of birds killed by wind turbines every year in the USA are fewer
> > > > > > than can be counted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > They "estimate that turbines ... may be killing" and then give
> > > > > > > no supporting evidence at all. A huge amount of additional speculation
> > > > > > > ensues.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In point of fact, there is no evidence that shows wind turbines
> > > > > > kill birds in any number worth worrying over. Manwhile, coal-
> > > > > > fired power plants KILL THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS EVERY YEAR.
> > > > > > Alarmists claim they are upset about imaginary bird deaths, yet
> > > > > > coal-fired power plants kill people. See, for example, one of the
> > > > > > first definitive studies on the subject, published in year 1976:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.eg.01.110176.003053
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Year 2000:
> > > > > >

> > > > > > http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~harbaugh/Readings/Environmental/Applications%20of%20Environmental%20Valuation%20for%20Determining%20Exte.pdf

> > > > > >
> > > > > > Year 2001:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.sciencemag.org/content/293/5533/1257.short
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Year 2004:
> > > > > >

> > > > > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/ns/us_news-environment/t/deadly-power-plants-study-fuels-debate/

> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Health problems linked to aging coal-fired power plants shorten
> > > > > > nearly 24,000 [America] lives a year, including 2,800 from lung
> > > > > > cancer, and nearly all those early deaths could be prevented if
> > > > > > the U.S. government adopted stricter rules, according to a study
> > > > > > released Wednesday."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The EPA's year 2011's plan to save 17,000 more American lives per
> > > > > > year:
> > > > > >

> > > > > > http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/pdfs/proposalfactsheet.pdf
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/172/4/501
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/epa-finalizes-tough-new-rules-on-emissions-by-power-plants/2011/12/16/gIQAc2WTzO_story.html
> > > >

> > > > > Those studies are bullshit.
> > > >
> > > > They are? Then write a paper on the subject pointing to the flaws,
> > > > and submit it to a science journal for peer review! IT'S YOUR DUTY
> > > > TO CORRECT ALL OF THE EXPERTS WHEN THEY ARE WRONG!
> > > >
> > > > > I'll bet you can't find one person who was killed by air pollution
> > > > > from power plant. Not one.
> > > >
> > > > I'll take that bet. I have $10,000 that says I can "find" (i.e.,
> > > > produce an official document) stating exactly that.
> >
> > > I'm not going to pay you to find something that should be easy to come
> > > by (assuming the reports about thousands of emission fatalities are
> > > true).
> >
> > I have a death certificate in my office safe issued by the Navajo
> > County Coroners's Office that lists the cause of death as
> > pollution from the Navajo power station. For $10,000 I will scan
> > it in and send the image to you.
> >

> > > If you have some evidence, show it.
> >
> > $10,000.
> >

> > > Otherwise sit down withthe other greentard dummies who have produced squat.
> >
> > Huh?

> I would love to know how the coroner isolated powerplant emissions as
> the cause of death.

No, you would not want to know; education and science frightens
the piss out of you because you realize you are not intelligent
enough to understand anything.

$10,000. Put up or shut up, alarmist nutter

> Did the victim climb the smoke stack and stick
> his head in? Sounds like some silly activist nonsense to me.

[Monkey Clumps]

On Jan 21, 12:57 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:07:38 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps
>
>
>

> <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:47:24 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:20:06 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps
> > > <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:24:18 -0800 (PST), Monkey Clumps

> > > > > <spacebrai...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> > > > > > On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:47:35 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:16:37 -0600, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On 1/14/2012 8:43 PM, James wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds & bats a year
>
> > > > > > > This was already debunked n this newsgroup months ago. The number
> > > > > > > of birds killed by wind turbines every year in the USA are fewer
> > > > > > > than can be counted.
>
> > > > > > > > They "estimate that turbines ... may be killing" and then give
> > > > > > > > no supporting evidence at all. A huge amount of additional speculation
> > > > > > > > ensues.
>
> > > > > > > In point of fact, there is no evidence that shows wind turbines
> > > > > > > kill birds in any number worth worrying over. Manwhile, coal-
> > > > > > > fired power plants KILL THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS EVERY YEAR.
> > > > > > > Alarmists claim they are upset about imaginary bird deaths, yet
> > > > > > > coal-fired power plants kill people. See, for example, one of the
> > > > > > > first definitive studies on the subject, published in year 1976:
>
> > > > > > >http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.eg.01.110176.003053
>
> > > > > > > Year 2000:
>

> > > > > > >http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~harbaugh/Readings/Environmental/Applicat...

>
> > > > > > > Year 2001:
>
> > > > > > >http://www.sciencemag.org/content/293/5533/1257.short
>
> > > > > > > Year 2004:
>

> > > > > > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/ns/us_news-environment/t/deadly-p...

>
> > > > > > > "Health problems linked to aging coal-fired power plants shorten
> > > > > > > nearly 24,000 [America] lives a year, including 2,800 from lung
> > > > > > > cancer, and nearly all those early deaths could be prevented if
> > > > > > > the U.S. government adopted stricter rules, according to a study
> > > > > > > released Wednesday."
>
> > > > > > > The EPA's year 2011's plan to save 17,000 more American lives per
> > > > > > > year:
>

> > > > > > >http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/pdfs/proposalfactsheet...
>
> > > > > > >http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/172/4/501
>
> > > > > > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/epa-finalizes-t...
>

> > > > > > Those studies are bullshit.
>
> > > > > They are? Then write a paper on the subject pointing to the flaws,
> > > > > and submit it to a science journal for peer review! IT'S YOUR DUTY
> > > > > TO CORRECT ALL OF THE EXPERTS WHEN THEY ARE WRONG!
>
> > > > > > I'll bet you can't find one person who was killed by air pollution
> > > > > > from power plant.  Not one.
>
> > > > > I'll take that bet. I have $10,000 that says I can "find" (i.e.,
> > > > > produce an official document) stating exactly that.
>
> > > > I'm not going to pay you to find something that should be easy to come
> > > > by (assuming the reports about thousands of emission fatalities are
> > > > true).
>
> > > I have a death certificate in my office safe issued by the Navajo
> > > County Coroners's Office that lists the cause of death as
> > > pollution from the Navajo power station. For $10,000 I will scan
> > > it in and send the image to you.
>
> > > > If you have some evidence, show it.
>
> > > $10,000.
>
> > > > Otherwise sit down withthe other greentard dummies who have produced squat.
>
> > > Huh?
> > I would love to know how the coroner isolated powerplant emissions as
> > the cause of death.
>
> No, you would not want to know; education and science frightens
> the piss out of you because you realize you are not intelligent
> enough to understand anything.

Yeah right. Its amazing that this doctor could not only isolate power
plant emissions as the cause of death but was even able to determine
the exact source of the emissions. That's some serious forensic
pathology there. Its also amazing that an MD felt it was appropriate
to name said source on the death certificate.

Which all begs the question... what sort of backward-ass inbred shit
hole do you live in? I'm guessing the local coroner is also the local
barber, dry cleaner and gas pump attendant.

>
> $10,000. Put up or shut up, alarmist nutter

Alarmist? Are you still mixing up skeptic and alarmist? Its been a
while, so refresh my memory. How, in your warped logic, am I the
alarmist? This should be good.