Friday, June 27, 2014
The science writer Nigel Calder has died, aged 82, after a short illness.
Nigel Calder was an influential science writer and a former editor of the British science magazine New Scientist. Nigel Calder died of cancer on 25 June 2014 at his home in Crawley, West Sussex, England. He co-wrote with Henrik Svensmark the book The Chilling Stars which explains to the layman Svensmarks' theory of climate change driven by the flux of galactic cosmic rays on Earth which affects Earth's cloud cover. The Chilling Stars also provides an excellent synopsis of the history of climate variation on our planet. CO2 has very little to do with climate change despite the current politically driven hysteria about it. If you have an open mind, read this book!
Monday, June 23, 2014
Spring: the season of renewal
The woods and marshes around Gainesville are
full of new life, brought forth thanks to the Sun and CO2 in the
atmosphere. Here is a very young Common Gallinule exploring its lush
environment:
Offshore windfarms harmful to marine life
Article in Environmental Research Letters shows harmful effects of offshore wind farms on marine life.
American Bird Conservancy Sues Feds Over 30-Year Eagle Kill Rule
On June 19, 2014, the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) filed suit
in federal court against the Department of the Interior (DOI),
charging DOI with multiple violations of federal law in connection with
its December 9, 2013, final regulation that allows wind energy
companies and others to obtain 30-year permits to kill eagles without
prosecution by the federal government.
RSPB Scotland intensifies its campaign against Flow Country wind farm proposal
Britain's Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), which is usually pro-wind power, has criticized plans to
build 47 wind turbines in Flow Country in the Scottish Highlands, home
to the rare Wood Sandpiper (Tringa glareola), which has only thirty
pairs of birds nesting in the whole of the UK.
 |
| The wood sandpiper is one of Britain's rarest breeding birds - image: Gordon Biggs |
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
The Global CO2 Paranoia Cult Strikes Again
Lennart Bengtsson, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, was forced to resign from the Board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (an organization skeptical of the predictions of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) due to political pressure from academic followers of the Global CO2 Paranoia Cult. Here is the reaction from GWPF and the letter of resignation:
Comment from GWPF:
Lennart Bengtsson Resigns: GWPF Voices Shock and Concern at the Extent of Intolerance within the Climate Science Community
• Date: 14/05/14 The Global Warming Policy Foundation
It is with great regret, and profound shock, that we have received Professor Lennart Bengtsson’s letter of resignation from his membership of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council.
The Foundation, while of course respecting Professor Bengtsson’s decision, notes with deep concern the disgraceful intolerance within the climate science community which has prompted his resignation.
Professor Bengtsson’s letter of resignation from our Academic Advisory Council was sent to its chairman, Professor David Henderson. His letter and Professor Henderson’s response are attached below.
Dr Benny Peiser, Director, The Global Warming Policy Foundation
Letter of resignation from the GWPF:
Dear Professor Henderson,
I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.
I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.
Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.
With my best regards
Lennart Bengtsson
Reply from GWPF's David Henderson:
Dear Professor Bengtsson,
I have just seen your letter to me, resigning from the position which you had accepted just three weeks ago, as a member of the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s Academic Advisory Council.
Your letter came as a surprise and a shock. I greatly regret your decision, and I know that my regret will be shared by all my colleagues on the Council.
Your resignation is not only a sad event for us in the Foundation: it is also a matter of profound and much wider concern. The reactions that you speak of, and which have forced you to reconsider the decision to join us, reveal a degree of intolerance, and a rejection of the principle of open scientific inquiry, which are truly shocking. They are evidence of a situation which the Global Warming Policy Foundation was created to remedy.
In your recent published interview with Marcel Crok, you said that ‘if I cannot stand my own opinions, life will become completely unbearable’. All of us on the Council will feel deep sympathy with you in an ordeal which you should never have had to endure.
With great regret, and all good wishes for the future.
Comment from GWPF:
Lennart Bengtsson Resigns: GWPF Voices Shock and Concern at the Extent of Intolerance within the Climate Science Community
• Date: 14/05/14 The Global Warming Policy Foundation
It is with great regret, and profound shock, that we have received Professor Lennart Bengtsson’s letter of resignation from his membership of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council.
The Foundation, while of course respecting Professor Bengtsson’s decision, notes with deep concern the disgraceful intolerance within the climate science community which has prompted his resignation.
Professor Bengtsson’s letter of resignation from our Academic Advisory Council was sent to its chairman, Professor David Henderson. His letter and Professor Henderson’s response are attached below.
Dr Benny Peiser, Director, The Global Warming Policy Foundation
Letter of resignation from the GWPF:
Dear Professor Henderson,
I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.
I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.
Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.
With my best regards
Lennart Bengtsson
Reply from GWPF's David Henderson:
Dear Professor Bengtsson,
I have just seen your letter to me, resigning from the position which you had accepted just three weeks ago, as a member of the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s Academic Advisory Council.
Your letter came as a surprise and a shock. I greatly regret your decision, and I know that my regret will be shared by all my colleagues on the Council.
Your resignation is not only a sad event for us in the Foundation: it is also a matter of profound and much wider concern. The reactions that you speak of, and which have forced you to reconsider the decision to join us, reveal a degree of intolerance, and a rejection of the principle of open scientific inquiry, which are truly shocking. They are evidence of a situation which the Global Warming Policy Foundation was created to remedy.
In your recent published interview with Marcel Crok, you said that ‘if I cannot stand my own opinions, life will become completely unbearable’. All of us on the Council will feel deep sympathy with you in an ordeal which you should never have had to endure.
With great regret, and all good wishes for the future.
Monday, May 12, 2014
Yet another stupid idea motivated by CO2 paranoia: burning biomass to produce electricity
Burning biomass to
produce electricity is uneconomical without subsidies and it is highly
polluting too as it is not subject to the same emission controls that
coal plants are required to comply with. A veritable who-is-who of US
ecologists, including the much estimated Edwin O. Wilson, has written a
letter to the UK's Secretary of Energy and Climate Change to protest
against UK's biomass energy subsidies and (forced) consumption requirements that are decimating forests in the Southeastern USA. The letter points out that:
1) Wood pellets are not a “carbon neutral” process as is usually claimed.
2) It can take new trees up to 55 years to offset the carbon released from burning wood pellets.
3) Logging, by disturbing the soil, may result in a much greater release of carbon to the atmosphere, than previously thought.
4) There is no guarantee that new forests will be planted to replace harvested trees.
5) Planting of new forests is happening anyway, and acts as an important carbon sink. To claim this benefit for biomass would be double counting.
6) Trees that die off naturally return the carbon to the soil, and therefore are another carbon sink. Burning this wood instead diminishes this sink, whether new trees are planted or not.
7) Other serious environmental problems are created by the destruction of these forests.
Paul Homewood points out that biomass plants set up between now and 2019 in the UK will receive a guaranteed Strike Price of £105/MWh, at 2012 prices, and indexed linked, for 15 years. The current wholesale price of electricity is about £50/MWh, so clearly the subsidy is the only thing that makes biomass operation economically viable.
(H/t to Paul Homewood )
2) It can take new trees up to 55 years to offset the carbon released from burning wood pellets.
3) Logging, by disturbing the soil, may result in a much greater release of carbon to the atmosphere, than previously thought.
4) There is no guarantee that new forests will be planted to replace harvested trees.
5) Planting of new forests is happening anyway, and acts as an important carbon sink. To claim this benefit for biomass would be double counting.
6) Trees that die off naturally return the carbon to the soil, and therefore are another carbon sink. Burning this wood instead diminishes this sink, whether new trees are planted or not.
7) Other serious environmental problems are created by the destruction of these forests.
Paul Homewood points out that biomass plants set up between now and 2019 in the UK will receive a guaranteed Strike Price of £105/MWh, at 2012 prices, and indexed linked, for 15 years. The current wholesale price of electricity is about £50/MWh, so clearly the subsidy is the only thing that makes biomass operation economically viable.
(H/t to Paul Homewood )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)