SNH Bully - Ogilvie
Nomen Nescio
SNH Bully - Ogilvie
Michael J Davis
>
>SNH Bully - Ogilvie
>
Stupid and puerile comments by people too rude to give their proper
names.
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<Please note that the Reply-To: address will remain in use for at least 30
days, but the sender and from addresses are not valid.>
<><
John M.
> Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> was inspired to say
>
> >SNH Bully - Ogilvie
>
> Stupid and puerile comments by people too rude to give their proper
> names.
It's the infamous Pete. Now he's out of the slammer but still under
probation, he's being very careful. But he just can't overcome his
personal demons and has to throw in something now and again.
mark
Mind you, Ogilvie has shown on other forums (raptor conservation, wind
turbines birds, UKbirdnet) how canny he is by getting his opponents
banned from these fora. I should know : he got me ousted from all
three.
This way he can spread his pro windfarm misrepresentations without
being challenged. Not very brave in my view.
Mark
Michael J Davis
>On 28 Sep, 09:13, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sep 24, 12:47�pm, Michael J Davis <mjduse...@trustsof.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> was inspired to say
>>
>> > >SNH Bully - �Ogilvie
>>
>> > Stupid and puerile comments by people too rude to give their proper
>> > names.
>>
>> It's the infamous Pete. Now he's out of the slammer but still under
>> probation, he's being very careful. But he just can't overcome his
>> personal demons and has to throw in something now and again.
>
>Mind you, Ogilvie has shown on other forums (raptor conservation, wind
>turbines birds, UKbirdnet) how canny he is by getting his opponents
>banned from these fora. I should know : he got me ousted from all
>three.
If that's true it can be discussed maturely in public; silly anonymous
comments do not help intelligent discussion.
>
>This way he can spread his pro windfarm misrepresentations without
>being challenged. Not very brave in my view.
And your favourite quote is:-
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it
exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong
remedy."
- Ernest Benn
;-)
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<><
"It gets real lonely as a moderate activist, standing there
alone with a sign that reads, 'Reasonable informed discussion
of the issues as soon as feasible!' " -- David Brake
<><
mark
> mark <save.the.eag...@gmail.com> was inspired to say
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am all for reasonable informed discussion. Let's see if you are.
Here is an important topic:
What will be the effect of 500 windfarms in Scotland, 100 of which
will be sited within golden eagle breeding areas.
There are 430 breeding pairs of GE in Scotland, and the population is
already in "demographic difficulty" due to persecution (Whitfield et
al 2006). Any additional cause of death will accelerate its decline.
Eagles are among the birds most likely to collide with wind turbines,
as evidenced by mortality statistics worldwide, form Australia to
California, and from Germany to Japan. www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3071
I am saying we should not, in the circumstances, build 100 windfarms
within their their breeding territories.
Do you think any different, Mike ? Anyone ?
Let's have a reasonable discussion on this topic, can we ?
Mark Duchamp
President, Save the Eagles International
Michael J Davis
>On 30 Sep, 11:48, Michael J Davis <mjduse...@trustsof.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> If that's true it can be discussed maturely in public; silly anonymous
>> comments do not help intelligent discussion.
>
Your unsubstantiated claim was about the *obstruction by MO* of
information on bird casualties relating to windfarms. You can change the
topic to something much more constructive. (As I've done in this
header.)
I've asked questions on this ng about this before.
>Here is an important topic:
>
>What will be the effect of 500 windfarms in Scotland, 100 of which
>will be sited within golden eagle breeding areas.
>
>There are 430 breeding pairs of GE in Scotland, and the population is
>already in "demographic difficulty" due to persecution (Whitfield et
>al 2006). Any additional cause of death will accelerate its decline.
>
>Eagles are among the birds most likely to collide with wind turbines,
>as evidenced by mortality statistics worldwide, form Australia to
>California, and from Germany to Japan.
>www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3071
Is there any evidence of the mortality of eagles in areas not populated
by windfarms, or is no one looking? We need comparative figures, not
selected information.
Mind you I agree that the injuries shown on your site are horrendous.
How much is because of the layout of turbines in line - creating an
inescapable barrier, how much on a random basis?
>
>I am saying we should not, in the circumstances, build 100 windfarms
>within their their breeding territories.
>
>Do you think any different, Mike ? Anyone ?
No I've been expressing doubts for years and have lent my vote to
various pressure groups.
>Let's have a reasonable discussion on this topic, can we ?
Now you've changed it to something useful.
One question MO and I discussed a couple of years ago, is "Is there any
evidence that the vertical Danish design of turbine might be better for
bird safety than the large propellor type?"
If not, who is doing work to discover it?
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<>{
"The very man who has argued you down,
will sometimes be found, years later,
to have been influenced by what you said." CSLewis
<>{
Mike Coon
> Mind you I agree that the injuries shown on your site are horrendous.
> How much is because of the layout of turbines in line - creating an
> inescapable barrier, how much on a random basis?
Surely there has to be a sufficient gap between turbines such that their
similar-speed blade rotations do not interfere with each other, generating
vibration, whatever the wind direction. Does this not provide space for any
bird to fly through (assuming it is looking where it is going and can see
the blades)?
Mike.
--
If reply address is invalid, remove spurious "@" and substitute "plus"
where needed.
John M.
> mark <save.the.eag...@gmail.com> was inspired to say
>
> >On 30 Sep, 11:48, Michael J Davis <mjduse...@trustsof.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> If that's true it can be discussed maturely in public; silly anonymous
> >> comments do not help intelligent discussion.
>
> >I am all for reasonable informed discussion. Let's see if you are.
>
> Your unsubstantiated claim was about the *obstruction by MO* of
> information on bird casualties relating to windfarms. You can change the
> topic to something much more constructive. (As I've done in this
> header.)
>
> I've asked questions on this ng about this before.
>
> >Here is an important topic:
>
> >What will be the effect of 500 windfarms in Scotland, 100 of which
> >will be sited within golden eagle breeding areas.
>
> >There are 430 breeding pairs of GE in Scotland, and the population is
> >already in "demographic difficulty" due to persecution (Whitfield et
> >al 2006). Any additional cause of death will accelerate its decline.
>
> >Eagles are among the birds most likely to collide with wind turbines,
> >as evidenced by mortality statistics worldwide, form Australia to
> >California, and from Germany to Japan.
> >www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3071
>
> Is there any evidence of the mortality of eagles in areas not populated
> by windfarms, or is no one looking? We need comparative figures, not
> selected information.
It isn't exactly the kind of situation for finding comparisons, in
which one wishes to match like with like. The only possibility I can
think of is to look at "circumstances of recovery" from the reported
finding details for ringed birds.
>
> Mind you I agree that the injuries shown on your site are horrendous.
> How much is because of the layout of turbines in line - creating an
> inescapable barrier, how much on a random basis?
>
> >I am saying we should not, in the circumstances, build 100 windfarms
> >within their their breeding territories.
>
> >Do you think any different, Mike ? Anyone ?
>
> No I've been expressing doubts for years and have lent my vote to
> various pressure groups.
>
> >Let's have a reasonable discussion on this topic, can we ?
>
> Now you've changed it to something useful.
>
> One question MO and I discussed a couple of years ago, is "Is there any
> evidence that the vertical Danish design of turbine might be better for
> bird safety than the large propellor type?"
VAWT has a lot going for it IMO, but there is yet to be a large trial
anywhere. HAWTs have got an unfortunate head start and will surely
dominate even if another design is proved to be superior. Remember
Betamax video - all the commentators said it was a superior format to
VHS. *nix OSes are rated by geeks above MS DOS/Windows, yet only MAC
Leopard/Snow Leopard have (partly) made it - perhaps because of the
Apple product lock-in.
> If not, who is doing work to discover it?
Further development of HAWT will be more cost-effective for companies
searching for profit over everything.
I see the one remaining window to stop the "turblight". Rapid
development of cost-effective rooftop micro-generation. This is most
likely to happen in the USA, and I see already a company has produced
and intends to market as from today a small, enclosed HAWT that
utilises static coils and blade-tip magnets.
They claim useable power at wind speeds down to 2 mph! But time to
amortisation of cost through savings on purchases from the grid is the
crucial factor. IF one borrows the money to buy one, and pays the
interest + capital through savings during the expected lifetime, then
it's break even.
I've widened the discussion to uk.e.c as there has been some
discussion there too.
John M.
> Michael J Davis wrote:
> > Mind you I agree that the injuries shown on your site are horrendous.
> > How much is because of the layout of turbines in line - creating an
> > inescapable barrier, how much on a random basis?
>
> Surely there has to be a sufficient gap between turbines such that their
> similar-speed blade rotations do not interfere with each other, generating
> vibration, whatever the wind direction. Does this not provide space for any
> bird to fly through (assuming it is looking where it is going and can see
> the blades)?
The blade tips move very quickly - 100mph plus even in quite light
winds
mark
> mark <save.the.eag...@gmail.com> was inspired to say
The reality we are facing today is the propeller-type turbine and
massive bird-strikes, something in the order of 250 million a year -
see:
http://www.epaw.org/documents.php?lang=en&article=b0
It is pointless to speculate about another type of turbine when the
steam-roller of the propeller-turbine industry has started to blanket
Scotland and much of the western world with bird-chopping
infrastructure.
Reasonable discussions must address reality, and with this in mind I
have proposed we discuss the Malcolm Ogilvie-approved construction of
c100 windfarms within golden eagle breeding territories in Scotland.
So I repeat my question : do you approve of Malcolm's policy, which is
basically that of Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), the quango he
advises on such issues ?
In this regard, the following may be of interest :
http://www.epaw.org/documents.php?lang=en&article=b2
Mark Duchamp
Michael J Davis
>On 1 Oct, 13:41, Michael J Davis <mjduse...@trustsof.co.uk> wrote:
>> mark <save.the.eag...@gmail.com> was inspired to say
>>
>massive bird-strikes, something in the order of 250 million a year -
>see:
>http://www.epaw.org/documents.php?lang=en&article=b0
>
>It is pointless to speculate about another type of turbine when the
>steam-roller of the propeller-turbine industry has started to blanket
>Scotland and much of the western world with bird-chopping
>infrastructure.
>
>Reasonable discussions must address reality, and with this in mind I
>have proposed we discuss the Malcolm Ogilvie-approved construction of
>c100 windfarms within golden eagle breeding territories in Scotland.
>
>So I repeat my question : do you approve of Malcolm's policy, which is
>basically that of Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), the quango he
>advises on such issues ?
>
>In this regard, the following may be of interest :
>
>http://www.epaw.org/documents.php?lang=en&article=b2
Thanks for posting those. I find the arguments pretty unscientific,
based on the multiplication of an assumed number of bird kills into a
massive figure.
The larger figure is based on an assumed number of HT power lines, while
the lesser figure relates to turbine bird strikes. So let's ask about
the HT power lines of which there are already a vast number across
Europe. Why are you not campaigning against these?
Have you real evidence of the rates of kills on power lines? - We have a
fair number around a substation in farmland near my house (in the
Pennines) but am not aware of any significant bird losses.
I assume (because I cannot find references in your literature) that you
are referring to large birds (say crow/rook sized or above) but at no
point is this clarified.
When David Bellamy visited us a few years to protest against the largest
on-shore wind farm to be built in England (now within three miles of my
house) his arguments were about water table shift and the effect on the
moorland, only a passing reference was made about bird strikes. (We are
not on major migration routes of larger birds.)
I'm not arguing against your case - but I am saying that some simple and
clear science might well be preferable to the talk. As it is the level
of invective in your statements detracts from the rationale of your
case.
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<><
Christians don't drop litter; they pick it up. (Gen 2:15)
<><
Christina Websell
"Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:1da4ec52a5053a28...@dizum.com...
Are you being a nuisance on here now? as well as the other groups?
<sigh>
mark
> In article
> <63933e21-f78b-4b05-a53a-d6fcf3fc1...@l9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, mark
> <save.the.eag...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >I am all for reasonable informed discussion. Let's see if you are.
> >Here is an important topic:
>
> >What will be the effect of 500 windfarms in Scotland, 100 of which
> >will be sited within golden eagle breeding areas.
>
>
> There are not going to be 500 windfarms in Scotland - ever. And nor will
> there be 100 windfarms within golden eagle breeding areas - ever.
>
> Mark is completely unable to produce the slightest evidence that either
> figure is remotely true whereas this paper, published in Biological
> Conservation vol 131 (2006) 359–369, provides conclusive evidence to
> the contrary.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Spatial association as an indicator of the potential for
> future interactions between wind energy developments
> and golden eagles Aquila chrysaetos in Scotland
>
> By Alan H. Fielding, D. Philip Whitfield, David R.A. McLeod
>
> Abstract
> Despite their environmental benefits in generating electricity without
> emission of ‘greenhouse’ gases, wind farms have attracted
> controversy with regard to their impacts on birds, especially golden
> eagles Aquila chrysaetos. Evidence from USA studies suggest eagle
> fatalities through collision with turbines may be the main potential
> impact whereas for breeding eagles in Scotland displacement from wind
> farm areas (indirect habitat loss) may be the primary impact. In this
> study, we examined the co-occurrence potential for golden eagles and
> wind farms in Scotland by documenting the spatial association between
> wind farm proposals and breeding eagle territories and areas potentially
> suitable for non-breeding eagles. Although there were records for over
> 500
> wind farm proposals at various stages of development, relatively few
> coincided with eagle territories (ca. 4% of territories had a proposal
> within 3 km of territory centre). Similarly, only 2% of habitat
> predicted to be suitable for non-breeding eagles overlapped
> with proposed or installed wind farm areas. Moreover, estimates of the
> potential for electricity generation from all wind farm proposals, with
> respect to government targets for renewable energy supplies, suggested
> most proposals were unlikely to be constructed.
> We conclude that in comparison with other constraints on Scotland’s
> golden eagles, notably persecution, wind farms should not represent a
> serious concern if best practice in planning their location and
> minimising their impact are maintained. Potential future regional
> pressures on breeding eagles from wind farms are highlighted, however,
> and uncertainty of impact with respect to displacement or collision
> fatalities requires continued scrutiny.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Here are a couple of other facts.
>
> I have not got Mark "ousted" from a single forum or mailing list. I do
> not have that power, only moderators do. If Mark has got himself
> "ousted" from any of them then it is because of his behaviour on them
> and in particular because of his personal attacks on anyone who disputes
> his claims. Furthermore, he has been banned from forums to which I have
> never even subscribed.
>
> The following statement by Mark "Reasonable discussions must address
> reality, and with this in mind I have proposed we discuss the Malcolm
> Ogilvie-approved construction of c100 windfarms within golden eagle
> sentence contains no reality. Not only have I not "approved" the
> construction of a single windfarm, the 100 windfarms he mentions don't
> exist and won't ever exist.
>
> --
> Malcolm
REPLY
Now you see it, now you don't. The Ogilvie bird is out : he delivered
his song, but is ensuring it is not taped, for people might check him
for consistencies later on, when he changes tack. He doesn't answer
questions either : that too could lead to evidence of inconsistency in
his arguments.
This explains the yellow warning at the beginning of his message :
"Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
This message will be removed from Groups in 3 days (11 Oct, 21:01). "
I, on the other hand, have recorded my song for everyone to hear, at
anytime of day and night. Unlike the Ogilvie bird, I am not afraid of
being proved inconsistent. Check this : THE SHAME OF SCOTLAND
www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3426
There are more such songs, in case you have an interest in what is
really happening in Scotland (the culling of the eagle population by
windfarms).
Don't let yourself be fooled by someone who is unable to face his
opponent in a normal, open discussion, who does not answer questions,
who goes into silence when cornered by rational arguments, but comes
out later parroting the very arguments he was unable to justify in
the discussion he abandoned earlier, and who complains to the
moderator when accused of being intellectually dishonest - an "insult"
as he puts it.
That's when I get banned from forums, for the wind industry has a long
hand, a hand that distributes euros, dollars, whatever is needed to
gag my voice, the voice of the eagles that are being slaughtered by
their useless machines.
Read the new book : The Wind Farm Scam, by Dr Etherington, retired
professor of ecology.
Mark Duchamp
Environmentalist