Some moron at the LA Times writes an article about windmills killing birds in the ALTAMONT PASS, and you stick it up as a news story. Great.

That site is one of the oldest and most notorious, from decades back... it's a badly-chosen site... it has the oldest, and worst-for-birds turbines...  small and low and fast-spinning... though they're being replaced, year on year... and the entire global wind industry is having to face down nonsense from Rightwing coal and gas and nuclear interests because of it.

Naturally, you're all over it.

And like your other anti-environmental articles, you seem unaware or uncaring that they tend to come from Rightwing think tanks and be pretty much impervious to facts.

e.g. Efficiency? To you, it's hopeless. Because of the Jevons effect, an effect almost entirely free of empirical results. When I post up a BATCH of refutations and criticisms - and entire damn series of links blowing the hole out of your cruddy link - you're so engaging that you can't be bothered responding, but instead,you put up another blog entirely, just to link to another article on the issue. As a blogger, to post on something, get a response, refuse to respond, but then to just float on by and post up another link? Way to go.

e.g. Your long (long) series of the failures and high cost of electric vehicles and hybrids. And once again, the facts quoted seemed to come down to you had some "gut feel" about things and had some quotes from a local car dealer. 

e.g. Inflation. Who's the guy pumping up the volume on a dozen different, and equally indefensible babble-logues about "inflation"? And who seems to have no idea that this is the exact same message that the Rightwing assholes (again) are putting forward to dampen down the possibility of using monetary policy to combat unemployment? Yeah. You know who.

The only stuff you seem to dig is the Doomster shit, with the Druids and Peak Oilers and Suburban crashers all moaning on about how life is doomed. Though when confronted on particulars, you can't debate it.

Against efficiency, against renewables, against cleaner vehicles, against monetary policy to combat unemployment - you're basically a poster child for dim Right Wing propaganda pieces.

So. Housecats catch only some kinds of birds, while wind turbines are baaaaaaaad. Well... wow. I think at this point, I'm just gonna bow out before the depths of knowledge in this debate wet my sandals. 

P.S. You actually have the gall to raise this issue, and want to be taken seriously, and yet, you're... AN ARCHITECT. When if there's one profession out there which can absolutely without question be named as killing more birdlife than windmills - and of any and all descriptions - it's yours.

You need to start posting in the comedy corner.

When spring comes too early, and winter too late, thanks to carbon, the birds arrive right on schedule at the migratory waystops they have frequented for millennia, but suddenly the insects and berries are all on a different timetable, and have come and gone. Talk about angry birds.

I'll take my chances with windmills and, I suppose, even nukes.