Slashdot Mirror

How about animals?

Hey - how about them animals?

It impacts animals a lot less than when woods are cleared for housing subdivisions or urban spread. There are trees growing right up to the fences around our local wind turbines. Townhouses wer put up in what used to be a wooded area a mle form us. A lot of wildlife simply went away for good.

And as for solar off grid applications - ever see how many birds are killed by power lines

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

http://archive.audubonmagazine...

http://www.eagles.org/vu-study...

You make the common mistake of believing that whatever you are accustomed to is safe, while displaying great fear of what you aren't used to.

Many birds fly 18 hours straight. Some species longer.

Cornell has some information you may want to read, as do some other sources. Birds fly before sunrise and after sunset, even in complete darkness. Some species fly right through the night during migration.

Not to mention the large amounts of pollution from the production of them. Oil's far from clean, but it's not as bad.

Citation please? I've mostly seen studies like this.

Even this article only says it's worse if the power is 100% coal, which most areas aren't.

'Hydrogen Infrastructure' is a mistake in my opinion. Hydrogen is hard to store in the densities needed, you need expensive fuel cells to burn it efficiently, and it's not an energy source. It's an energy storage system - you have to spend energy to turn something into hydrogen - the most economical is natural gas, which is actually more efficient to use as a fuel directly, or from electrolysis, which is currently much less efficient than charging a battery.

The reference is all over the net. The Audubon Magazine website itself doesn't seem to know about it: http://www.audubonmagazine.org/search/node/ted%20turner [audubonmagazine.org]

Wow so you're claiming it's false? Really? You're not actually saying he didn't say it and the interview doesn't exist, are you? Surely you can't be that stupid.

He's saying that unless a quote's verifiable as having been said by Turner, claiming that his views on a subject are X or Y might be a tiny bit intellectually dishonest...

So yes, he's asking you to prove - from an independent source, or by a transcript/video/audio of the original utterance, that he actually said that. If you don't have such evidence, please remember that you're accusing a man of holding views close to genocide of 80% of the world population. I hadn't thought to question this myself, but heck, it was late in the night when I responded...

The reference is all over the net. The Audubon Magazine website itself doesn't seem to know about it: http://www.audubonmagazine.org/search/node/ted%20turner [audubonmagazine.org]

Wow so you're claiming it's false? Really? You're not actually saying he didn't say it and the interview doesn't exist, are you? Surely you can't be that stupid.

And your own technique is a very common one,

You are right. Debunking is a common technique.

my assertion and defense of the very groups and powerful, wealthy people advocating depopulation makes your own agenda questionable to an objective observer.

I'm really curious what you would guess my agenda is...

No, seriously. Let me know.

the first quote starts on the bottom of page 21,

Now that gives it the missing context. See, you put it into a context of depopulation, but the entire chapter is about population growth, and on p. 22 it puts the necessary depth into the debate by pointing out that the relationship is varied and in some countries the per-capita emissions are even falling.

If you read the entire report - or just a few chapters - it doesn't seem to support your claim that some mysterious global elite is planning to kill most of the world population in the slightest. It's a calm review of what we know about the relationship between various factors such as population, consumption, transporation, energy consumption, etc.

As for Ted Turner's quote, it (along with the entire context and his views) was first published in an interview given in 1996 to the magazine of the American conservation organisation The Audubon Society

The reference is all over the net. The Audubon Magazine website itself doesn't seem to know about it: http://www.audubonmagazine.org/search/node/ted%20turner

Quotes get made up all the time, and once enough people are quoting it, everyone thinks it's real. There are a nice number of examples for this effect, and too few journalists who actually check the sources. In fact, one of the pet /. topics has an example: The estimate for losses to movie "piracy" are such a thing. Someone once made up a number, and that number has been quoted and re-quoted ever since, with everyone referencing someone else who only got it somewhere else, until it has so many references that it seems real.

I'm serious, I've tried to find it. Now the funny thing is - I'm not alone. Search for "interview" in the comments here:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/ted-turner-bashes-tea-party-calling-them-mean-spirited/
Someone else is asking some other one else the same question I am - and gets no reply.

So, in the language of the IntarWeb: "Pics or it didn't happen".

And yes, the burden of proof lies with you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I am highly sceptical, but I can be convinced. I took a few months to make up my mind about 9/11, for example. I used to doubt that ECHOLON was real, but as more and more evidence has surfaced that I was wrong, I've come around.

But depopulation on a massive scale? And advocated by the very people who have the most to lose from any major socio-political change? That's a crackpot theory and those spreading it are frauds and liars. And I say that in these clear words because I'm not on TV like Pen & Teller and thus I can say what I believe.

No. First of all, animals raised in human company are pretty much permanently stuck in a juvenile state. They have not been taught to fend for themselves and the urban and suburban environments aren't the same thing as "the wild" - available resources are far more restricted. Don't think that because your cat occasional brings a bird to the stoop that it could live a healthy life without any human support.

I think we should do an experiment. Release pets into the wild and see what happens.

Nature always finds a way.

One of the links from the RC wiki was broken, and (despite being a wiki) I couldn't fix it. Here:

http://audubonmagazine.org/profile/profile0505.html

Hemp isn't used for paper in China, where I reside, either. Hemp is not cultivated as anything more than a niche item in any country, even though the 1937 law you mentioned only affected the US.

Ne how, You're right hemp is basically only used in niche markets now. However prior to the 1937 act it was widely cultivated in the USA. Thomas Jefferson along with other Founding Fathers of the USA grew it on their farms. TJ even wrote the Declaration Of Independence on paper made from hemp. At one tyme he wrote farmers should be required to grow hemp, he couldn't follow through with proposing such a law though because he knew it would interfer with their rights.

As for other countries, Canada is working on being a big exporter of hemp or hemp products, headed by Alberta. Romania is a big grower and exporter of hemp, and in Europe governments subsidize hemp farmers. Audubon Magazine says it's grown in 32 countries and asks why isn't it legal in the US.

In the US the reason told to the public hemp is be made illegal is that it was called the devil's weed and it made people violent, take a look at "Reefer Madness" which depicts marijuana users as violent and going "mad". However other countries like the Soviet Union made it illegal because, as every study I have ever heard of confirms, marijuana does the opposite. It calms people down and makes them lethargic, "chill babe" or "chill dude". The SU couldn't have it's military unwilling to fight in battle.