Alle gelegenheidsargumenten windlobby over vogelmoord weerlegd

Zeearend gedood door windmolen. 'Vogelbescherming is voor grootschalige inzet van windenergie als het maar op de goede plaats komt'.

Het bestaat Vogelbescherming Nederland en Imares-eendenkenner Mardik Leopold de grootschalige aanplant van windmolens te verdedigen want’in het verkeer gaan veel meer vogels dood’. Niet geheel verrassend deed Leopold met Imares windfarm-vogelonderzoek betaald door overheid en industrie.

Windfarms zijn de druppel voor grote langzaam voortplantende soorten
Dergelijke windfarmsofisten tonen hun morele failliet, volgens de échte natuurbeschermers als Mark Duchamp van ‘Save the Eagles International‘. Hier somt hij alle argumenten van prowindfarm-sofisten op vergezeld van een rebuttal:

The cats-and-buildings-kill-more-birds argument:
WCFN and STEI do not deny that domestic cats, buildings, cars, telecommunication towers, power lines, and other man-related hazards are responsible (for the moment) for more bird deaths than are wind turbines. But this is an invalid justification, explains Duchamp, because:

• Nobody should be allowed to kill eagles “because power lines kill more of them”. It is completely absurd, and a measure of the sophistry being used by the wind industry to excuse their killings.
• Windfarms cause more power lines to be built, often in sensitive natural habitats, decimating more endangered birds like (for instance) great bustards (grote trap RZ) in Spain (4).

• In a world where so many birds are being killed because of human activities, with their numbers dwindling as a result, wind turbines are the legendary drop that spills the glass. They already are (spilling the glass) for some endangered species such as the Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagle (6), the Great Bustard (4), etc. Save the Eagles International has warned the international community about this threat (7).
• Bird species that found a haven far away from the usual man-made hazards are now being invaded by wind turbines in their own natural reserves (e.g. IBA’s and national parks, as on Campobello Island). It is irresponsibility bordering on madness, or more simply, a perverse form of pork-barrel politics – perverse in the sense that it doesn’t benefit communities, but harms them instead.
• Cats and buildings mostly kill common birds, like sparrows, finches, thrushes, etc. whereas wind turbines and their power lines kill eagles, falcons, cranes, and other rare birds [met een langzamere reproductie RZ].
• Cats, cars, buildings etc. don’t kill bats, but wind turbines do: millions of them yearly (5), whose dwindling populations are of conservation concern. It so happens that bats are attracted by turbine vibrations, and/or by insects attracted by their lights. This will have dire consequences on agriculture, causing an increased use of pesticides, with more bird deaths and higher food prices as a result.
• The number of wind turbines throughout the world, if the industry has its way, will be multiplied by 10-20 times. Wind turbines will be omnipresent. Hundreds of thousands of kilometers of new high-tension lines will be built just for them. These are as deadly to birds as are the windfarms themselves, especially to large birds like eagles, geese, cranes etc. There won’t be any safe place for bird life. Many bird and bat species will become extinct as a result, with unfathomed consequences for the conservation of the natural world as we know it, and things that depend on it like our agriculture.

Conclusion:
When asked why bird societies have not warned the world about these dangers, Mark replied: “ornithologists need an income like anyone else. The tragedy is that they can only get one from the wind industry or the government, and of course they can’t bite the hand that feeds them. On the other hand, WCFN and STEI have no financial ties with anyone. We are unpaid volunteers, so we can tell the truth.”

Groene energie met vogelbloed gekleurd
De Britse RSPB is totaal verrot door haar geldzucht. Bijvoorbeeld via RSPB energy, waarbij ze per klant die ze aanbrengen bij de vogelschreddersindustrie 10 Britse ponden krijgen. De geldzucht van de moderne natuurbeweging toont haar failliet als natuurbeschermer.

De echte natuurbescherming is financieel onafhankelijk van de overheid, en houdt zich ver van de klimaatkerk. Daarom kunnen wij sceptici ook schrijven en zeggen wat we willen, en is de moderne milieu- en klimaatwetenschap van klimaatprostituees vergeven.