Windfarms kill 10-20 times more than previously thought




Red Kite at Navarre Windfarm

Red kite agonizing under wind turbine, Spain.
Courtesy of association of ecologists GURELUR, Navarre.


Wind turbines are actually slaughtering millions of birds and bats annually



The Obama administration is issuing 30-year permits for “taking” (killing) bald and golden eagles. The great birds will be legally slaughtered “unintentionally” by lethal wind turbines installed in their breeding territories, and in “dispersion areas” where their young congregate (e.g. Altamont Pass).


By chance (if you believe in coincidences), a timely government study claims wind farms will kill “only” 1.4 million birds yearly by 2030. This new report is just one of many, financed with taxpayers’ money, aimed at convincing the public that additional mortality caused by wind plants is sustainable. – It is not.


Dr. Shawn Smallwood’s 2004 study, spanning four years, estimated that California’s Altamont Pass wind “farm” killed an average of 116 Golden Eagles annually. This adds up to 2,900 dead “goldies” since it was built 25 years ago. Altamont is the biggest sinkhole for the species, but not the only one, and industry-financed research claiming that California’s GE population is stable is but a white-wash.

Beheaded Golden Eagle from Altamont Pass-  Courtesy of Darryl Miller, California

Beheaded Golden Eagle from Altamont Pass- Courtesy of Darryl Miller, California



Eagles are not the only victims. Smallwood also estimated that Altamont killed an average of 300 red-tailed hawks, 333 American kestrels and 380 burrowing owls annually – plus even more non-raptors, including 2,526 rock doves and 2,557 western meadowlarks.


In 2012, breaking the European omerta on wind farm mortality, the Spanish Ornithological Society (SEO/Birdlife) reviewed actual carcass counts from 136 monitoring studies. They concluded that Spain’s 18,000 wind turbines are killing 6-18 million birds and bats yearly.


Extrapolating that and similar (little publicized) German and Swedish studies, 39,000 U.S. wind turbines would not be killing “only” 440,000 birds (USFWS, 2009) or “just” 573,000 birds and 888,000 bats (Smallwood, 2013), but 13-39 million birds and bats every year!


However, this carnage is being covered up by self-serving and/or politically motivated government agencies, wind industry lobbyists, environmental groups and ornithologists, under a pile of misleading studies paid for with more taxpayer money.


Wildlife expert Jim Wiegand has documented how areas searched under wind turbines are still confined to 200-foot radiuses, even though modern monster turbines catapult 80% of bird and bat carcasses much further. Windfarm owners, operating under voluntary (!) USFWS guidelines, commission studies that search much-too-small areas, look only once every 30-90 days, ensuring that scavengers remove most carcasses, and ignore wounded birds that happen to be found within search perimeters.


These research protocols are designed to guarantee extremely low mortality statistics, hiding the true death tolls – and the USFWS seems inclined to let the deception continue. In addition, bird mortality data are now considered to be the property of windfarm owners, which means the public no longer has a right to know.


Nevertheless, news has leaked that eagles are being hacked to death all across America. This is hardly surprising, as raptors are attracted to wind turbines. They perch on them to rest or scan for prey. They come because turbines are often built in habitats that have abundant food (live or carrion) and good winds for gliding.

Griffon Vultures – courtesy of the association of ecologists GURELUR, Navarre, Spain
Griffon Vultures – courtesy of the association of ecologists GURELUR, Navarre, Spain



Save the Eagles International (STEI) has posted photographs of raptors perched on nacelles or nonmoving blades , and ospreys building a nest on a decommissioned turbine. Moving blades don’t deter them either: videos show a turkey vulture perched on the hub of a spinning turbine, and a griffon vulture being struck. Birds perceive areas traveled by spinning blades as open space, unaware that blade tips are moving at up to 180 mph. Many are focused on prey. These factors make wind turbines “ecological death traps,” wherever they are located.


By 2030, the United States plans to produce 20% of its electricity from wind. That’s nearly six times as much as today, from three or four times as many turbines, striking more flying creatures due to their bigger size (even the mendacious study predicting 1.4 million bird kills recognizes this). Using the higher but still underestimated level of mortality published by Smallwood in 2013, by 2030 our wind turbines would be killing over 3 million birds and 5 million bats annually.


But this is shy of reality by a factor of ten, because 90% of casualties land outside the search perimeter and are not counted. We are thus really talking about an unsustainable death toll of 30 million birds and 50 million bats a year – and more still if we factor in other hide-the-mortality tricks documented by STEI.


This carnage includes protected species that cars and cats rarely kill: eagles, hawks, falcons, owls, condors, whooping cranes, geese, bats and many others. The raptor slaughter will cause rodent populations to soar. Butchery of bats, already being decimated by White Nose Syndrome, will hammer agriculture and forestry.

Griffon Vultures, Spain

Griffon Vultures, Spain. Close up. Click to enlarge.

 

The U.S. Geological Survey says the value of pest-control services to US agriculture provided by bats ranges from $3.7 billion to as much as $53 billion yearly. These chiropters also control forest pests and serve as pollinators. A Swedish study documents their attraction from as far as nine miles away to insects that swarm around wind turbines. Hence the slaughter.


Wind lobbyists claim they need “regulatory certainty.” However, eagle “take” permits will also ensure extinction certainty – and ecological, agricultural, economic, social and health disasters that we cannot afford.


Note 1: our entire webpage was destroyed. We are reconstructing it. Given time, we will put back all the articles with all the links to reference material. If you need some urgently, please advise: save.the.eagles@gmail.com
Note 2: all comentaries were also wiped out. We explain that in the comentary below.

64 Responses to “Windfarms kill 10-20 times more than previously thought”

  • We are sorry. All previous comments to this article – there were many – have been lost. The webpage itself had been lost as well, and we are trying to reconstruct it. It will take some time before all the articles, and all the links to reference material, are back in place. In the meantime, please don’t hesitate to contact us should you need evidence documenting what we say,

  • Shawnee:

    This must be stopped. what gives humans the right to put obstacles in our animals , birds way that can kill them that’s horrible.

    • Check out how mountaintop removal coal mining has destroyed over one-half million acres of forest habitat, AND has buried over 2,000 miles of headwater streams.

      I advise anyone to take these wind turbine-related death studies with the proverbial grain of salt, but to also understand the immense loss to wildlife AND to humanity by allowing the coal industry (as well as other fossil fuel and the nuclear industry to simply exist.

      You’ll realize it comes back to the old line, “Figures don’t lie,but liars always figure.”

      Yes, wind turbines HAVE killed birds, but newer wind farms are sited to help avoid that. Hundreds of thousands of real human beings have been killed outright by coal barons or slowly by coal-fired electrical generating stations (death machines is a more accurate term).

      Fossil and nuclear industries and their bought-off friends in government have waged war on nature and humanity, and continue to do so because of the bastards and the gutless in “public” positions.” Look at the WHOLE picture. Please don’t cherry-pick.

      • You wrote: “newer wind farms are sited to help avoid that”.
        Not true. Environmental Impact Reports are commissioned by the promoters themselves, and THEY call the tune – i.e. they pick the most complacent consultants, those who will ALWAYS say that the wind farm is well-sited no matter what. I could give you a few names….

        Regarding fossil fuels: the flaw in your reasoning is that wind farms produce intermittent energy, and that there is no storage capacity for such a large amount of electricity. This means that fossil fuel power plants must be kept spinning in back up 24/7, burning fuel for nothing. And when the wind slacks, they must be ramped up, burning plenty of fuel as when a car accelerates. At the end of the day, counting as well the EXTRA energy used to manufacture this EXTRA generating capacity, wind farms cause MORE fossil fuels to be consumed than if they did not exist.

        The problem with greenies is that they don’t do their homework.

        • Paul:

          Um, there are absolutely storage solutions available for wind power.

          Batteries continue to get better all the time, and even simpler solutions such as hydro power from an enclosed system where the wind (when it’s blowing) is used to pump water into storage reservoirs at the top of a hill or mountain or storage tank, and then when there’s demand for power but no wind, the water is drained down to a bottom storage space and hydro power is generated from the falling water.

          And fossil fuel plants used for supplemental or backup power do NOT “keep spinning in the background” burning fossil fuels. That’s simply false; as loads rise or fall, the amount of fuel they burn also rises and falls as needed. Additionally, there’s not an “acceleration” issue; fossil fuel power plants can ramp up pretty quickly in terms of load supplied.

          The reality is that almost every bit of power generated from wind, solar, nuclear, or hydro is less power that we need to get from fossil fuels. That’s why the amount of fossil fuels used goes DOWN in nations as they ramp up and build more and more renewable power sources.

          All of this isn’t to deny the damage to birds that wind plants might cause- but it’s not realistic to pretend that they’re 100% evil and don’t help with the carbon problem. If we have to trade off some bird population losses for saving the planet overall, that’s a decent trade to make. They’re much more likely to go extinct from runaway climate change than they are from wind farms.

          • “Runaway climate change”? How come wind farm advocates are no longer talking about runaway global warming? Looks like the IPCC was wrong predicting global warming.
            In fact, government-paid scientists keep falsifying climate data: http://principia-scientific.org/climate-fraud-conspiracy-key-evidence-explained/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+psintl+%28Principia+Scientific+Intl+-+Current+News%29

            There is also dishonesty in your comment on batteries and storage reservoirs: both have very limited applications, and 99% of all wind farms are not backed up by batteries or reservoirs.

            The rest of your comments is pure obfuscation.

            About your last paragraph I have this to say: wind turbines are ineffective, immensely costly, destructive of biodiversity, and causing grave health problems among neighbors that are sensitive to infrasound. They are USELESS and HARMFUL, and should be scrapped.

          • Really? Batteries. Just what happens to these large batteries when they go bad. Put them in the dump I guess or burn them. Gee that’s really green. These storage sites are huge and with take a lot of rare earth materials to build. Wind is not the answer.

          • In fact, a few years ago, a battery the size of a trailer installed next to a wind turbine on Hawaï to store its intermittent energy caught fire by itself and burned to the ground.
            End of batteries for industrial-size wind turbines.

        • Jarl Thomas:

          I’m reading a lot of whining but not any suggestions for solutions.
          Good, bad or indifferent at least offer up something!

          • Wind farms destroy nature but won’t save the planet, because they are intermittent, and can’t replace fossil fuels. They are a remedy that is worse than the illness.
            The solution? – Stop building windfarms, don’t renew the subsidies (or tax credits), and spend the money instead on research. There are real, efficient solutions being developped..

        • Coal powered generation is dying under price pressure from gas and renewables. If gas turbines are used for backup, startup time is about 30 min from dead stop, less from a low load situation where fuel consumption and emissions are low, less for combustion systems. Nuclear can also load follow as can hydro.

          In short, a) companies which produce equipment for power plants are well aware of the need to be able to load follow and have solutions to the problem b) to a large extent networks extending over large distances minimize the need for backing up wind and solar c) you are wrong.

          • Not so. Germany has built lots of coal power stations to replace nuclear. Why? Because intermittent wind farms can’t replace anything: they would cause black outs every time the wind abates.
            Angela Merkel will now ditch 6000 MW of windpower because intermittence is causing havoc on their grid. Watch the wind energy scam fall apart in the not distant future.

  • Jeff Coley:

    I propose Operation Don Quixote – the removal of all windfarms.

    These boondoggles cost far more than they’ll ever produce, and for soaking the taxpayers and diverting funds into the pockets of the uber-rich politically connected cronies these Cuisinarts in the sky are making mincemeat of Mother Earth’s precious living creatures.

    This money could be better spent on schools and feeding the hungry.

    Seriously – if an oil rig killed this many birds the site would be shut down, there would be massive fines, and the executives and managers would be looking at jail time.

    • Ben:

      “These boondoggles cost far more than they’ll ever produce” – WRONG

      “..for soaking the taxpayers and diverting funds into the pockets of the uber-rich politically connected cronies – WRONG unless you exclude the fact that oil companies exist.

      “..if an oil rig killed this many birds the site would be shut down, there would be massive fines, and the executives and managers would be looking at jail time.” – HAHAHAHA, sure! Oil executives getting jail time. *Cough* Deep Water Horizon *Cough* Waste water from fracking sites *Cough* Any site in North Dakota. *Cough* No criminal charges above petty fines…

      Also, despite oil companies being the largest businesses in the world they still accept subsidies from the government…much more than wind turbine subsidies.

      You might be wondering why I’m coughing so much. It’s because of the polluted air that I’m breathing in. Although it’s not great for me, it’ even worse for small birds with smaller lungs.
      So, instead of using wind energy and trying to find a way to make birds avoid the blades, or using newer designs that are safe for birds lets just get rid of all wind turbines an let the wildlife suffocate like the rest of us. Either that or we can just destroy their habitats like usual. Or we could hunt animals with lead bullets so that when a birds eats the meat on the carcass they die from lead poisoning. Cats kill an estimated 2.4 billion birds each year (1000′s more than the highest estimate of wind mill related deaths), lets kill all of the cats! Skyscrapers in particular, but also any glass windows cause more bird death than wind mills by a significant margin as well. Lets ban glass.

      It’s amazing how so few people cared about birds but suddenly a few deaths are being caused by renewable energy wind mills and suddenly they are public enemy number 1. If you are genuinely interested in saving birds there are several big fights you have to win first. Cats, skyscrapers, electricity lines, lead poisoning and others all cause far more deaths than wind mills. If you still think wind mills are the worst then I’m afraid your bias is showing and it smells a bit oily.

      • Matt:

        But you’re alive.

        • You are correct. In 2010, the exploding oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico killed twelve employees, and poisoned our resources severely. Who went to prison over THAT/ Uh, no one, because the tail is wagging the dog, and because the fossil and nuclear industries and their bribed friends in “public” service have seen to it that crime continues to pay.

          • I refer you guys to my earlier comment where I invite you to do your homework. As I explained, wind farms do NOT reduce emissions of CO2 – or of pollutants. On the contrary. You´ll keep coughing due to the pollutants even if you build millions of wind turbines, killing all the birds and making life miserable for country people who will have to find sleep in their vicinity (the problem of infrasound emitted by these monsters).
            So, once more I say: do your homework.

      • Ken:

        I hope you don’t think your cough is caused by CO2, because on average, the concentration of CO2 in your lungs is 44,000 parts per million, aver 100 times the concentration in the atmosphere. You must be suffering from something else because CO2 is not a pollutant. It is absolutely essential to life on earth.

    • Jeff Marks:

      Mark, you are absolutely correct when you say wind turbines don’t reduce pollutants and emissions. They don’t take them in and push out clean air. They do produce energy however which I guess is good but so do coal power plant. Then again coal power plants do produce pollutants and emissions and since coal power plants in some places are slowly being replaced by wind turbines I guess they do reduce emissions in the whole equation of things. Oh well, lets just hope we don’t die from some dreaded lurgy from pollution

      • Jeff, you wrote: “coal power plants in some places are slowly being replaced by wind turbines”
        Not true, unfortunately. They are being replaced by gas-power plants. Intermittent wind turbines could not operate without the back up of either,

  • Joyce Hodges:

    Why cant they build the wind mills enclosed in a cage like a fan? STOP THE KILLING OF ALL THESE BIRDS!!

    • RNinMontana:

      Because the birds aren’t in danger of sticking their fingers in the “fan” dearie. More surface mass would kill more birds, not fewer.

      Also, the fact remains, more birds die from collisions with tall buildings, windows, cars and power lines than wind turbines. Let’s keep the wind farms and save more HUMAN lives from respiratory disease caused by exposure to fossil fuel emissions.

      • Another greenie, another person who did not do his/her homework. If he/she had, he/she would know that wind farms do NOT save on emissions. I explain why in an earlier comment above.

        • You would also be wrong

          “Researchers have carried out an environmental lifecycle assessment of 2-megawatt wind turbines mooted for a large wind farm in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. They conclude that in terms of cumulative energy payback, or the time to produce the amount of energy required of production and installation, a wind turbine with a working life of 20 years will offer a net benefit within five to eight months of being brought online.”

          https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140616093317.htm

          In terms of the emissions from manufacture of the wind turbines, once we have gone to a fossil fuel free situation, that plunges even further to zilch

          • Name one country which has ditched fossil fuels. There is none, because wind power without fossil fuels backing is dead on arrival.
            Windfarms are a SCAM from A to Z.

  • Kath:

    Ssh, don’t tell the Greenies who believe fudged figures.

    • Okay schmuck, keep believing Fox Spews and similar bullshit from those being paid off by the dirty energy industries. If you don’t care to believe what the fossil fuel and nuclear industries are doing to our land, air, water, human health, AND how much they’re stealing in subsidies from taxpayers like me and (presumably) you every year, then you’ve lost the ability to think for yourself. That’s why these industries and the folks at Fox love folks like you.

      • Quite the opposite! Greenies don’t think for themselves. They groupthink.
        People who think for themselves promptly find out that wind turbines DON’T SAVE ON POLLUTANTS.
        I explain why in an earlier comment.

        By “subsidies to coal or nuclear”, you mean the external costs (cost of cleaning the air from coal particles, or of burying nuclear waste). Yet you don’t include in the subsidies to Big Wind the cost of removing the wind turbines at the end of their short lives, AND their concrete bases (which in fact will NEVER be removed because of the cost).

        In the meantime, the price of electricity is going through the roof in Europe because of DIRECT subsidies to renewable energies. Check the graph here: https://liledyeu.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/2016-10-electricity-prices-compared-industrial.png

        Do you want the US industry to die, and millions of jobs to go to China, India etc.? (as happens in Europe?)

        • Geof:

          What amuses me is the lovely idea that oil executives are rotten mean dirty people but wind power execs are pure as the driven snow and are only doing what’s right for humanity. Who really believes that?

      • greg:

        wind and solar receive more subsidies than fossil fuel or nuclear…. talking about taxpayer support there to keep your energy bill looking cheap…just paying for the higher cost in a hidden way…

  • They want to put a wind farm off of our beach,Ocean City,Md,the company is sugar coating the situation ,by saying its going to help us ,Well all of the electric will go to WESTERN ,MARYLAND ,the jobs? ,they are bringing their own people ,the view, up to 700 turbines 10 miles off the beach , hundreds of feet high ,people dont understand we can see 30 nautical miles ,Ocean City is the WHITE MARLIN capital of the word ,we have a huge sports fishing industry ,this is going to keep people from fishing in these areas ,commercial and sport,WERE SHOOTING OURSELVES IN THE FOOT HERE.Last …..the migratory birds…

  • Connie Qualey ( ConiKat):

    My God, what next? In Colorado they’ve just sizeably increased the number of Cougars ( mountain lions) that can be killed via hunting to ” save the deer”? My property is overrun with deer! Where is this shortage? I doubt this piece of bs. We are already losing the very necessary Bees, do we need to kill off every other living thing on the planet?
    Is nothing sacred in the pursuit of more wealth? Are humans the only thing allowed to live on the planet? They were
    here long before we showed up. This world belongs to them too. This slaughter must stop! Does anyone else remember ” Silent Spring”? It may be coming sooner than anyone thinks.
    ConiKat

  • Cheri Brink:

    Where’s the petition to put a stop to this??? This is despicable! NO ONE should be allowed to kill our National bird for any reason or millions of other birds either a year for the sake of a few dollars on energy that doesn’t work anyway. Stop these asshats from killing our national birds!

    • Jeff Marks:

      Then remove your skyscrapers, power-lines and cars too because they contribute just as much or more

      • Cars and skyscrapers are useful. Wind farms are not: they produce highly variable amounts of electricity which must be compensated by fossil fuel power plants ramping their own production up and down, producing more harmful emissions in the process. The net effect is:
        -zero effect on climate
        - zero effect on pollution
        -expensive electricity bills (to pay for the subsidies)
        - millions of dead birds and bats, extinction of some species
        - neighbors who can’t sleep and die young.
        - destroyed landscapes, property values and tourism resources.
        - thousands of jobs lost due to higher electricity prices. In Spain, a study concluded: 2,2 jobs lost for one created by the wind industry.

  • Lynette Laguna:

    Solar energy and geothermal are safer for wildlife. Energy from wind is another way to make money regardless of the cost to wildlife. Greed does not discriminate between what is right and what is wrong. It is only profit above all else.

  • Conrad:

    I was just driving past a wind farm and I noticed that flocks of birds were flying under the range of the blades. I was intrigued to see this.

    This site is such a transparent attempt by the big oil industry to dissuade us from making their toxic product obsolete. How many birds (fish, seals, and ocean life) does a single oil-spill kill? How many species of frog, and coral reefs are being driven to extinction by warming? 100 times more birds and bats are killed by house cats than wind farms.

    I would suggest oil companies invest in wind farms to stay relevant and on the right side of the moral equation.

    • Hi Conrad,

      Oil industry behind this site? I wish!
      - What about taxpayers’ dollars behind Big Wind, behind mendacious “studies” on birds and wind farms, behind countless websites on useless intermittent energy like wind and solar?

      Extinction of species due to man-made global warming?
      - What warming? Watch the world turn colder as the weak 24th solar cycle causes temperatures to drop. The sun, not CO2, is the driver of climate. Billions of dollars spent on rigged climate science can’t “hide the decline”.

      Oil spills?
      - Intermittent wind energy can’t replace a single conventional energy power plant, let alone fuel cars, trucks and ships. Oil production will keep increasing no matter how many millions of wind turbines we will put up, which ruin the world in several ways. Wind turbine supporters don’t understand the first thing about the effects of intermittent energy on electricity frequencies.

      Cats kill more birds than wind turbines?
      - Cats don’t kill eagles, condors, whooping cranes, hawks, falcons, geese, swans, ducks, etc. Wind turbines do.

      Big Wind on the right side of the moral equation?
      - That’s a laugh! Wind energy is obsolete because of its intermittency, a problem that remains unsolved in spite of 30 years trying. Yet corruption keeps the gravy train of subsidies flowing towards that form of energy, which only works for sail boats because they have engines to help when the wind fails. In the case of wind turbines, those back up engines (gas power plants) use more fuel to regulate the energy produced by the erratic wind than they would supplying the grid on their own. Therefore wind farms, dear Conrad, are USELESS. They are a swindle kept alive by corruption. See:
      https://wcfn.org/2015/10/13/democratic-dice-are-loaded/
      and
      https://wcfn.org/2015/10/02/ngos-alert-g20-countries-2/

      • Ben:

        Look at Germany. They get over 30% of their power from wind turbines. Wind isn’t actually as unreliable as people think and the energy can be buffered in large reservoirs if too much is created or to be used when there isn’t enough wind. Wind doesn’t just suddenly appear and disappear. It follows known rules which allow us to predict, which reasonable accuracy, how much power is going to be generated at each wind turbine.
        In regards to this point, it’s amazing that a country as large as Germany has been able to successfully run this type of system for many years if wind turbines where, as you say, useless. The problems caused by intermittent power provided by wind turbines isn’t a big deal to a country that is technically qualified to handle it, like Germany. If you think Americans would be unable to do the same thing I can only assume that you think that Americans are not skilled enough.

        If you only care about the big birds then you’ll have to get rid of electricity power lines and hunting, specifically with lead bullets and also get rid of DDT in Mexico. If you can get rid of both of those then you can keep using Oil for a time. However, climate change will probably affect the habitats of the big birds more than they can adapt. Also, while cats don’t leaps hundreds of meters into the air to catch migrating eagles, they do eat/murder 2.4 million birds and 12 billion mammals each year. This means that those big birds have less to eat, and they can’t feed their young, so maybe you should actually care about that problem since it does actually affect the big birds.

        “What warming? Watch the world turn colder as the weak 24th solar cycle causes temperatures to drop. The sun, not CO2, is the driver of climate. Billions of dollars spent on rigged climate science can’t “hide the decline”.”

        This is the line and the one about CO2 you got most wrong in my opinion but that might just be because I’ve done more research into this subject. Despite the fact that our sun was in the lowest part of it’s cycle the climate continued to warm up. 16 of the hottest 17 years have been since 2000. The 17th one was in 1998 where the sun was at the strongest point in it’s cycle. Since the 24th solar cycle has been very weak and yet the climate has continued to warm up it clearly means that the sun isn’t the reason the earth has continued to warm up. Solar cycle 24 has had far fewer sunspots than was predicted, however, there no reason to think that this will continue. In fact, since this cycle is weak the chances that solar cycle 25 will be stronger than 24 are extremely high. For the last 8 years we’ve had a weaker than average sun and record temperatures. If the sun goes to it’s average range during the next cycle then all of those temperature records are guaranteed to be broken by even larger margins. In summary, the weak 24th cycle began in 2008 and temperatures have continued to rise and in 2/3 years the new cycle will start.

        Hide the decline refers to tree ring data. Tree rings can be used to estimate the temperature of the year since a tree grows more when it’s warm a tree ring in a warm year will be bigger, etc. This tracks very well with other techniques so scientists have a reasonable level of confidence in this technique. One group of trees followed the other groups of trees and other forms of temperature measurement until the 1980′s. At this point the tree rings stopped growing in accordance with temperature. The “hide the decline” is in reference to those tree rings. The graph showed a decline after 1980 despite the fact that actual scientific equipment showed an increase in temperature. This means that although more tests should be done to find out why these group of trees didn’t follow temperature they were outliers and the rest of the trees did. Because the scientist in question didn’t want to confuse people with a graph that showed a decline in temperature he added the real temperatures to the graph from 1980 onwards as they were recorded by scientific instruments. There was nothing insidious about it other than the fact that news organisation that should have been able to understand this, purposely pushed misinformation onto a public ill-equipped to understand it.
        In future discussions you have on this topic I would avoid mentioning “hide the decline”. It just makes you stand out as someone who hasn’t done any research on the subject even if you have.

        Finally last bit, CO2. It is in fact the main driver of our climate in the same way that arsenic would be the main driver of our deaths if we were to consume even a small amount of it. Just because something is tiny it doesn’t mean it can’t have a massive effect. Imagine a set of old measuring scales, like the scales of justice style. Now put identical weights on each side of the scale so it balances. Now add a tiny amount of weight to one side. The scales will no longer be balanced and one side will raise and the other will lower. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and although it is a tiny amount (ish) it is easily capable of disrupting the balance of our climate. We also have to worry about positive feedback and other sorts of problems that all add up to mean that CO2, although teeny and tiny, is the main driver. Also, we can’t affect the sun but we can affect CO2 so even if the Sun was the main driver, since we can’t do anything about it, we might as well move on to the second strongest driver and so on..

        • Hi Ben,

          Regarding Germany, three things must be noted:
          - They have built coal-fired power stations to balance the instability of wind-produced electricity. As a result, their CO2 emissions have gone up, not down.
          - Their electricity costs 5 times more than that produced in the US. As a result, “fuel poverty” has become a big problem for low income families; the government has to subsidize German industry so that it does not move abroad;
          and German companies now invest much more abroad than in Germany,
          - The German government is struggling with these problems, the country is going downhill very fast, but Angela Merkel continues to try and cure the country with more aspirins. It won’t work. Watch Germany get into serious trouble pretty soon.

          Regarding Global Warming: “you are wrong, moosebreath” as Johnny Carson would have said. Simply watch the world slip into global cooling mode. This has started already. It’s been colder in Moscow last week than at any time since 120 years ago. Record cold temperatures have also hit North America and much of Europe. The politically correct (mendacious) media won’t be able to keep silent about it much longer. Then you’ll hear them blame the cooling on “climate change”. – HA !!!

          • Gary Gonzalez:

            theres a difference between weather and climate. Weather is the daily temperature, it can fluctuate to each extreme rapidly whereas climate is an average of temperatures over a long period of time. You will never get an accurate reading of climate by only looking at temperature, therefore, the fact that its colder in these parts makes no difference in the overall climates. Rather, this is because of the odd weather patterns due to the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere. Instead of telling people to do homework, read a book that isn’t written by someone profiting from fossil fuels. Theres a good reason why 97% os scientists agree human activity is warming up our planet.

          • Gary says: “Theres a good reason why 97% of scientists agree human activity is warming up our planet.”
            97% is an exaggeration born from political agenda. Besides, what do medical research scientists, for instance, know about climate?
            Regarding climate scientists: almost all of them are financed by government grants, or work for universities receiving government grants. Their careers would be ruined if they said they didn’t believe CO2 causes global warming.

            Finally, climate scientists have been caught cooking the books many times: http://principia-scientific.org/climate-fraud-conspiracy-key-evidence-explained/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+psintl+%28Principia+Scientific+Intl+-+Current+News%29

  • Patrick MacDonald:

    I hate birds

  • What a tragedy that we are slaughtering and making extinct so many of our own native birds. And why? So that we can fight climate change–a change in climate temperatures that may or may NOT be affected by man’s activities on this earth. We don’t really know if mankind is truly impacting the climate, but we DO know these windmills are slaughtering our national treasures of the skies. What a tradegy!!

  • Robert Strickland:

    The environmentalist are so worried about a couple of pipelines being built that is environmental safe with the new technologies, that will create hundreds of jobs, but do they care about the birds, hell no, they want their cake and eat it too. “This carnage is being covered up by self-serving and/or politically motivated government agencies, wind industry lobbyists, environmental groups, and ornithologists, under a pile of misleading studies paid for with more taxpayer money.”

  • Kristie:

    Thank you so much for this article, I had no idea this was happening to birds across the globe! Definitely making me think twice about “renewable” energy. Many bird and bat species aren’t renewable!

    • Jeff Marks:

      Kristie, if you think this is the main cause of bird deaths you must also do some research in power-lines, skyscrapers and coal power-plants which on average kill more birds than the wind turbines

  • rohit:

    Has anyone tried designing the windmills to look like scarecrows? Or perhaps attach a scarecrow on one?

    Maybe that could help!

  • Michael Castillo:

    I have a different angle to consider after seeing who benefited from stopping the Keystone XL Pipeline. I now realize the same big money financial interests that back fossil fuel use are the same big money financial interests that back so called green energy. Thus they get our politicians to subsidize green energy technologies that MUST be backed up with fossil fuels and they make money on both sides of the issue with little regard for the climate or environment. If we were serious about going green we would ditch expensive, inefficient environment damaging technologies like wind turbines and solar collection plants and focus on developing hydrogen as a fuel.

  • Stacey:

    What if they were different colors or had lights to deter the birds??

  • […] By 2030, wind farms are projected to kill 1.4 million birds each year. […]

  • Spurwing Plover:

    I hope President Trump ends all financing of windfarms and wind turbines

  • Solar farms are preferable for renewable energy in every way. Instead of planting more turbines in planet earth, switch to solar. Wind farms are big money for big industry and kill hundreds of thousands of birds each year, in addition to adverse affects on human health and property values in many cases.

  • Jim Gwiz:

    It seems everybody is dying of air pollution. Has anybody checked the EPA data lately? At least in my area (St. Louis) air pollution is at the lowest point since EPA began testing and we are in a non-attainment zone. We have one of the largest coal plants just west, south and north of the city. A full 80% of the generation is from coal. We have not had a Red Zone day in years. At most, we get a Yellow day once every 2 or 3 years. There hasn’t been an atmospheric inversion in many years. So, is it that air pollution is some kind of religious experience? I can explain why the air is cleaner than it has ever been and only the propaganda by the EPA is keeping air pollution at some fever pitch.

    • Jeff Marks:

      Jim, perhaps do some research on the prevailing winds(which often remove pollution from the area) and perhaps system changes in the area with regards to lifestyle and transport. That could be why but if you don’t think coal has had a negative effect on air quality look what happened to China.

  • […] as many birds as the British Petroleum Gulf of Mexico oil spill did. They are projected to kill 1.4 million birds annually by 2030. Research suggests Hawaii’s five major wind turbine farms are killing endangered bats about […]

  • […] to researcher Jim Wiegand, who has dedicated his life to studying the problem, the number of birds and bats killed by […]

Leave a Reply for Stacey