If it's used as a drop-in replacement for dirtier sources, and doesn't stop any cleaner sources from being developed or used, isn't it a strict win?

Maybe switching to a somewhat cleaner source would slow down movement towards green sources, but it seems like using CH4 is an overall win given what it's a substitute for.

Coal->Natuaral Gas? Good.

Natural Gas being deployed instead of solar or wind? Bad.

Natural Gas being deployed along side solar and wind? Best case.

One day the price of natural gas is going to rise again and people are going to be stuck with combined cycle natgas generators that are too expensive to run.

I wouldn't mind wind if we started protecting the birds. I'm fond of solar, but until wind power is less destructive, I don't see why we should deploy it anywhere but off the coasts.

Cats kill more birds every year than wind turbines: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-06/u-s-eases-turbine-b...

Cats don't kill eagles, hawks, and geese.

Citation needed.

Really? How many friggin house cats can kill eagles? Hawks? Hell, a goose can damn near kill a human much less a cat. How about you find a cite for super cat the eagle slayer.

I've seen a cat take a small hawk. Eagles, probably not, but I've been surprised before.

That's got to be a damn big, atypical cat. Eagles take out foxes. Wind energy needs to address the problem it causes because it sure isn't good for the birds.

Raptors typically pounce on prey and kill it quickly. A bird on the ground (eating, say) that is surprised is far less lethal than a bird attacking. Like I said, though, probably not eagles.

I don't think you can find one bit of statistical evidence that cats kill more hawks than windmills. Windmills should be limited to places with no birds or be redesigned to not kill off the birds. Put them offshore.

Fine, the total bird death from cats is not a reason to give a pass to windmills for killing large birds that cats cannot kill. It is a "well, their meaner than me" argument.

Once you get a certain distance you out of a birds normal range. Migration patterns are easy to track and plan for.

I don't follow why "large birds that cats cannot kill" are obviously more valuable than small birds that cats can kill.

I agree that the effectiveness of the argument "cats kill more birds, so windmills can kill up to that amount" is quite limited - I wasn't the one who made that argument in the first place. It's effective only to the degree that it means if what we care about is reducing bird deaths, we might be able to make a bigger difference by looking at cats.

As it happens, though, I'm not convinced wind turbines do that much more harm than other methods of power generation. Mining for coal destroys habitat and generates pollution, &c... And wind turbines do not seem to kill all that many birds. The high end of estimates seems to be 600k (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-many-birds-do-w...) in the US. Per https://www.awea.org/Resources/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=5059 the "total number of operating utility-scale wind turbines at the end of 2012" was more than 45,100. If we assume the (conservative) 600k is actually 1 million (even more conservative), that's just a little over 22 birds per turbine per year - most of which aren't the large birds you're concerned about. I've certainly no objection to considering flight paths when placing turbines, though.

Lets be clear: not everyone is convinced that putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is even a problem.

97% of climate scientists agreeing not good enough for you?

97% of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic carbon emissions are the cause of very significant changes in our global climate. They probably also agree that it's an economic and social problem (as do I!), but they have no privileged perspective on that aspect of things (beyond an acceptance of scientific reality, which is unfortunately rarer than one might hope).

100% of priests agree there is a god.

That's not actually true. There are plenty of atheist priests as it's a job just like any other. More to the point if you survey the worlds religions you don't actually find much consensus of any kind. Just ask a shinto priest how the world was created and compare that with the native Australia dream time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamtime Even more enlightening 'God' as a concept aka a supreme higher power does not even translate into every language.

PS: Restrict it to christian priests and you still don't really find consensus. "More than 80 per cent were happy with the idea that God the Father created the world." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1403106/One-third-of-...

Existence of god is largely a question of belief and faith, not scientifically verifiable data, and I suspect nearly all priests would agree to that as well.

In 1543, 97% of learned men agreed that the sun revolved around the Earth.

Consensus alone means nothing.

The sun does revolve around the earth. Remember there are no privileged viewpoints in General relativity.

Of course it doesn't, but how that consensus was reached is. New data indicating otherwise would eventually change minds in the scientific community, as it did then. But it starts with data, not belief, or political agendas.