Month: September 2023

Matt Ridley: Why won’t Greenpeace admit that wind turbines may be killing whales?

By Paul Homewood

 

Who cares about whales? Whales might be dying because of sonar surveying, but Greenpeace simply ignores the science that doesn’t suit it.

So far last year, 71 whales have washed up dead on the shores of New England and neighbouring states. The rate seems to have risen in recent years along with a growth in the number of offshore wind turbines. A small group of concerned citizens have started to campaign against the turbines on behalf of the whales, and the journalist Michael Shellenberger has made a short film about their efforts called Thrown to the Wind.

The evidence gathered by the scientists in the film is far from conclusive: it’s a correlation that could be a coincidence. But it’s not a mad idea that wind farms threaten whales. For a start, the industry has meant increased traffic in the areas where the whales feed, which could well have led to more collisions between whale and ship.
More worryingly, the sonar surveying that precedes wind-farm deployment – to map the seabed and its geology – creates a loud, continuous banging noise that could be disorienting or stressful for the whales. Shellenberger’s documentary shows scientists apparently recording far higher noise levels from the survey ships, and at greater distances, than are permitted by the authorities.
Moreover, when it comes to investigating what killed each whale, the US government relies on a non-profit organisation called the Atlantic Marine Conservation Society. This, the film reveals, has several board members connected to the wind industry – and to the wind developer Equinor in particular.

You or I might take the view that we should wait and see if better evidence emerges that wind turbines are killing whales. But the big environmental pressure groups like Greenpeace – which in its early years, remember, ran a Save the Whales campaign – don’t believe in waiting for evidence. They revere the ‘precautionary principle’, the whole point of which is that industries should be assumed to be guilty until proved innocent. Lack of definitive evidence must never be used to excuse a potentially devastating environmental vandal.

So has Greenpeace enthusiastically joined the campaign against offshore wind farms, demanding a precautionary pause till we can be sure they’re not killing the whales? Er, no. Quite the reverse. When somebody tweeted about the issue this week, Greenpeace was quick to dismiss it, sounding like the most shameless corporate toady and directing readers to a statement on its website: ‘In response to a tragic spate of whale deaths along the East Coast, anti-science media such as Fox News, long beholden to fossil fuel corporations, has amplified the baseless claims made – with no supporting evidence – by a small group of local mayors that offshore wind farming is somehow to blame.’
‘No supporting evidence’ – a phrase you never heard Greenpeace use about genetically modified crops in its long campaign against them. The organisation, you see, long ago stopped caring much about conservation and became obsessed (when not managing its nine-figure annual budgets) with carbon dioxide. This brought it great riches in grants and made it a crony of the big companies it used to rail against, in this case Big Wind. Thus does the world turn.

In recent years whale numbers have boomed, thanks to protection from whaling. Humpbacks now gather in pods hundreds strong and in many areas are back to population levels last seen before whaling began. So a few deaths may not matter that much, or may just be an inevitable by-product of a larger population. Perhaps that’s Greenpeace’s view.
But the same is not true of North Atlantic right whales, once probably the most common species in that ocean. The number of these great, dark, slow sea-buffalos has fallen to dangerously low levels. There are fewer than 340 left, and falling. It’s therefore neglectful of the US government – let alone Greenpeace – to be so blasé about the possibility, however remote, of the wind industry killing or even disturbing them.

In any case, it is not just whales that wind turbines kill. The slaughtering by their spinning blades of bats and eagles and other birds of prey on land, and of gannets and divers at sea, is well documented. Satellite-tagged eagles in southern Scotland now avoid places with wind farms, denying themselves large areas of hills. Yet there is barely a peep from Big Green about this.
The irritation that Greenpeace exudes in its comments on the whale issue suggests that it is not enjoying being hoist by its own precautionary petard.

https://netzerowatch.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=0c1eee18a7&e=4961da7cb1

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/4eDGV8O

September 14, 2023 at 09:03AM

The Wolf and the Lamb — Alimonti et al. 2022

Guest Opinion by Kip Hansen — 13 September 2023

The reputation of the entire scientific enterprise has been sullied by the recent scandal regarding a paper whose opinions so offended the ClimateGate Gang that they, the climate bullies, pressured one on the world’s leading publishers of scientific journals to retract a peer-reviewed paper – not because it was wrong; not because it was methodologically unsound; not because other researchers countered the paper with scientific arguments – no, simply because “some people  didn’t like the conclusions” in the paper.  Those offended, the ClimateGate gang, appearing in this round of scandal are Greg Holland  ; Lisa Alexander ; Steve Sherwood ; Michael Mann ; Friederike Otto ; Stefan Rahmstorf, took their tears of outrage to the climate-collusion mass media and cried:  “How dare they disagree with us!”

Springer/Nature’s editors and publishers shamefully caved in to the pressure and retracted the paper after a messy and irregular additional review. 

[ Why is this essay titled “The Wolf and the Lamb”?  The explanation is at the end. ]

The whole story has been previously covered here at WUWT over time:

A Critical Assessment of Extreme Events Trends in Times of Global Warming

Team Climate Crisis Resorts to Bullying, Again

The Climategate Gang Rides Again! (see the update at the end)

Roger Pielke Jr. concurrently ran coverage at his substack site:

“Think of the Implications of Publishing”

THREAD: Extended peer review of the “No Climate Emergency” paper. Should it be retracted?

The Alimonti Addendum

During this time, I have been communicating with Gianluca Alimonti, lead author, about the retraction attempt (at first) and the final retraction by Springer.  Alimonti et al. writes today:  “We, the four authors, have just written a report that clarifies the whole issue.”

“A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF EXTREME EVENTS TRENDS IN TIMES OF GLOBAL WARMING — Brief history of the troubled life of the article and its retraction”

The entire document (hereafter ‘Brief History’) is available from the WUWT servers as a .pdf at the above link.

Please be aware that English is not the author’s first language, they speak and write Italian, so some of the sentence structures and word choices read a little uncomfortably.

Here are some excerpts from the Brief History document::

Since Alimonti et al. 2022 deals with the concept of a “climate emergency”,  their Brief History includes a helpful definitional footnote:

“1 This is what IPCC AR6 says on the climate crisis: “Also, some media outlets have recently adopted and  promoted terms and phrases stronger than the more neutral ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’, including  ‘climate crisis’, ‘global heating’, and ‘climate emergency’. Google searches on those terms, and on ‘climate  action’, increased 20-fold in 2019, when large social movements such as School Strikes for Climate gained  worldwide attention” [p. 173].”

The chronology begins with:

“1. 30 Sep. 2022: approximately nine months after the publication of our article in the international  scientific journal EPJ Plus (European Physical Journal – Plus), which took place after having passed a  regular peer review process, in September 2022 the article was placed “under dispute” (with a  message of caution to readers reported on the EPJ-Plus website), on the base of personal opinions  expressed by some scientists to a journalist of The Guardian newspaper –  (which constitutes a rather  anomalous procedure in the scientific field)” .

Then onto:

 “6) including the original article reviewer, two out of three reviewers (but Prof. Pielke in his reconstruction of the story carried out on the basis of information received from a whistleblower –  see the links at the bottom of this document – speaks of four reviewers out of five…) expressed a  positive evaluation. Despite the majority of positive evaluations, an adjudicator has been  contacted and with what we believe is a very weak and cherry picked analysis on our original  article (although we had agreed that there would have been no other revisions of the original  article) he/she recommended not to publish the Addendum and to retract our original article.”

And lastly, I’ll add:

“7) 13 July 2023: on the base of the evaluation of the adjudicator who, as written in his/her report,  “has not been asked to comment on the original paper” (“excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta”  would be natural to say…) the Editor wrote us on July the 13th that, after an in-depth consultation  with the Publisher, not only our Addendum would not have been published but also that our original  article would have been retracted. (and here we ask ourselves what qualification the publisher  had to enter into this decision-making process)”

For the Latin-handicapped (such as I) “[Excusatio non petita accusatio manifesta (An unprovoked excuse is an obvious accusation)]” – [ source – as a title to a paper at NIH ]

 As part of their comment on the retraction notice:

“Note that our conclusions are in perfect agreement with what emerges from Tab 12.12 of IPCC  AR6 (attached) which summarizes the variations in the extreme events already observable today or  which, according to IPCC forecasts, will become observable in the near future (between now and  2050 and between 2050 and 2100), obtained using a very drastic scenario, today considered unrealistic  (RCP 8.5). In the table, the prevalence of white areas where significant confidence in the  direction of change does not exist today and in many cases should not emerge even by 2100, stands  out and all the extreme events considered in our article are in agreement with this IPCC table.“

The table being referred to here is:

[ click image for larger view in new tab ]

Most of you will be familiar with this table from IPCC AR6.  Pielke Jr. has expounded on this table and its relation to the much-touted Climate Emergency.

Alimonti and his co-authors conclude with this:

Conclusions    In conclusion, we observe that the moral of the story is found in the ending of “The Wolf and the  Lamb”, the famous fairy tale by Phaedrus: “Lupus et agnus ad eundem rivum venerant… superior  stabat lupus, longeque inferior agnus.… Atque ita correptum lacerat iniusta nece. Haec propter illos  scripta est homines fabula qui fictis causis innocentes opprimunt.”

The Latin is tricky to translate with an online translator, which results in “The wolf and the lamb had come to the same stream… the wolf stood higher, and the lamb was far lower… And so he tore the prey and killed it unjustly. This story was written because of those men who oppress the innocent with false causes.”  The translation does not make a lot of sense to me, but it refers to this fable, found in Aesop and in both the Greek of Babrius and the Latin of Phaedrus, as “The Wolf and the Lamb”. The Wiki entry offers this phrasing:

“A wolf comes upon a lamb while both are drinking from a stream and, in order to justify taking its life, accuses it of various misdemeanors, all of which the lamb proves to be impossible. Losing patience, the wolf replies that the offenses must have been committed by some other member of the lamb’s family and that it does not propose to delay its meal by inquiring any further.”

And adds that “The morals drawn there are that the tyrant can always find an excuse for his tyranny and that the unjust will not listen to the reasoning of the innocent.

A fable and moral thus proven once again by the ClimateGate Tyrants in the story of Alimonti et al. 2022.

# # # # #

 Author’s Comment:

I had hoped that with climate science had gotten beyond this sort of tragic misbehavior.  The silence of other scientists in the field has been  even more appalling that the original offense.   But the same bad actors just don’t seem to be able to restrain their lesser natures.  Shall I name them?  Michael Mann, Greg Holland, Lisa Alexander, Steve Sherwood, Friederike Otto, Stefan Rahmstorf.  Others may have been involved in this incident, names unknown.

Nonetheless, Gianluca Alimonti and Luigi Mariani subsequently published another paper, “Is the number of global natural disasters increasing?”.   They answer, as I and many others have concluded:  “No, the number of natural disasters is not increasing!”

Thanks for reading.

# # # # #

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/J3vMmtg

September 14, 2023 at 08:01AM

‘We’ve cut carbon emissions by decimating working-class communities’: the leader of the GMB union on the folly of net zero

By Paul Homewood

 

 

Since Smith became general secretary two years ago, he has made it his priority to point out the problems with Westminster’s net-zero targets. He believes the blind rush for a green revolution is harming those who can least afford it: ‘We’ve cut carbon emissions by decimating working-class communities.’

Last week there should have been a great victory for the British turbine industry. Auctions were held for offshore wind power, asking companies to bid for the right to supply electricity at £44 per megawatt hour – a third of the price offered eight years ago. The government and the renewables lobby hoped that a successful auction would show that wind power could compete with fossil fuels. Instead, developers worried that they couldn’t turn a profit on the amount they would be paid for energy. There wasn’t a single bid.


‘It was very embarrassing,’ says Gary Smith, leader of the GMB union. ‘Whitehall told us wind was getting cheaper and cheaper. Now there will be no bids for the next round of licences because the wind industry can’t afford to put up the projects.’ The auction flop was humiliating not only for the government but also for Sir Keir Starmer, who has said he wants a net-zero carbon electricity system by 2030, along with no more licences for North Sea oil- and gas-drilling.


Starmer’s 2030 deadline is ‘impossible’, says Smith. ‘I don’t even worry about it. It can-not be done.’ No amount of enthusiasm can overcome these particular hurdles. ‘The National Grid can’t get [undersea] cables. There are four suppliers of cables in the globe, they’re all booked out to 2030.’
GMB is one of the biggest union donors to the Labour party, but when it comes to oil, Smith’s position is closer to the Tories. ‘There will be more drilling in the North Sea,’ he says. ‘What are we going to do? Put up the infrastructure and have nothing to plug in? It’ll look great, but we’ll be watching it in the dark.’
It’s a point you’re unlikely to hear made in the House of Commons. ‘The renewables lobby is very wealthy and powerful,’ says Smith. ‘I think people on the left, for good intentions, have got hoodwinked into a lot of this.’


Smith has been a GMB member for his entire working life. He joined at 16 when he was a gas service engineer in Edinburgh. Since he became general secretary two years ago, he has made it his priority to point out the problems with Westminster’s net-zero targets. He believes the blind rush for a green revolution is harming those who can least afford it: ‘We’ve cut carbon emissions bydecimating working-class communities.’


He describes the green levies that have added £170 a year to every household bill as a modern-day poll tax, ‘disproportionately paid for by the poorest’. ‘The poor pay the same as everybody else. It doesn’t matter if you’re in a leaky, freezing council house. You’re paying basically the same for renewables.’
These kinds of impositions might be tolerated, he says, if there were any sign of the ‘green jobs’ promised by every government since Tony Blair. ‘Communities up and down the east coast can see wind farms,’ says Smith. ‘But they can’t point to the jobs.’ Much of the green work seems to be either London-based lobbying, or clearing away the animal casualties of wind-farm blades: ‘It’s usually a man in a rowing boat, sweeping up the dead birds.’


What’s gone wrong with the green jobs initiative? Smith’s answer is simple – everything is built elsewhere, then imported to the UK. ‘Our energy infrastructure is now built in China, it’s built in Indonesia, it’s built in the Middle East, and, ironically, in sovereign oil and gas wealth-fund backyards.’ It often feels like a betrayal of what’s been promised. ‘We’ve got a wind farm going up ten miles off Fife – it’s been built in Indonesia. We took taxpayers’ money to go to court to overturn a ban on the wind farm, to get [planning] consent… As soon as it’s consented, the project’s sold and the work we’re promised is shipped off to Indonesia.’


Smith castigates the Conservatives for an ‘ideological bent’ towards the kinds of economic systems that lead to the importing of goods and outsourcing of jobs. But he insists the GMB is not a protectionist organisation. ‘I know the history of our union,’ he says. ‘When we introduce protectionism, [there’s an] impact that has on working people and unions – it’s not what we’re about. What we want to see is a fairer trading relationship. And let’s stop talking about this as if market economics is somehow driving it. It’s not. We’ve had a communist state skewing the global economy.’
This brings Smith to his greatest frustration: China and the Tories’ approach to it. ‘The fact that a lot of [imports are] coming from an increasingly authoritarian, non-market economy in China seems to have escaped the economic debate,’ he says. ‘We are hugely dependent on food imports and on energy imports. And we want to be a trading nation, but we’ve become increasingly dependent on places like China because we can’t [secure] our energy future.’
Full story

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/9uemWcB

September 14, 2023 at 07:57AM

Keep Virginia’s lights on! CFACT submission on natural gas generating plants

Wind and solar are wholly inadequate to Virginia’s energy needs.  CFACT explains the hard math that explains Virginia’s need to generate abundant, efficient electricity.

The post Keep Virginia’s lights on! CFACT submission on natural gas generating plants appeared first on CFACT.

via CFACT

https://ift.tt/VmKCX6r

September 14, 2023 at 07:50AM