Blog

At the Lincolnshire Environmental Awards, noted British conservationist Dr. David Bellamy dismissed wind farms cost effectiveness as “rubbish” and portrayed the supposed benefits of wind farms in reducing CO2 levels as a “ridiculous claim.”

Bellamy expressed outrage at global warming scare tactics and commented, “The latest is that global warming is a bigger threat than international terrorism. Tell that to the people of New York.” Dr. Bellamy also questioned the science suggesting that atmospheric CO2 increases raise global temperature, saying, “A paper called Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the last Glacial Termination, has proven that increases in temperature are in fact responsible for increases in CO2 levels. Not the other way round as claimed by the wind lobby.”

The famed environmental campaigner also castigated the economics of the wind industry, saying that the argument that wind power will have a significant effect on reducing CO2 concentrations, “is a complete non-starter when you consider that Britain has about 1,060 turbines that produce about 0.35 per cent of our electricity needs. With only 28 per cent of our CO2 emissions coming from the production of electricity, this means that these turbines displace less than 0.1 per cent of total CO2 emissions.”

Dr. Bellamy also pointed out that, “The thousands of turbines in Denmark have resulted in them having the dearest electricity in Europe – more than double the price here” (Lincolnshire Echo, June 12).

An analytical speech and paper debunking the claims of wind power by Glenn R. Schleede, a well-known energy consultant, will be discussed in the next issue.

This highly unusual admission comes as the result of an article by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, associate professor of economics at the University of Guelph, that exposed serious errors in data and methodology.  The editors of Nature agreed and required Mann et al. to fix their mistakes.

“Corrigendum: Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries” ends with an extraordinary statement: “None of these errors affect our previously published results.”  McIntyre and McKitrick dispute this statement: “We have done the calculations and can assert categorically that the claim is false. We have made a journal submission to this effect and will explain the matter fully when that paper is published.”

It is also important to realize that this correction was not published as an Addendum, which, according to Natures published policy, is the case when “Authors inadvertently omitted significant information available to them at the time” but which does “not contradict the original publication,” as would surely be the case if MBH are correct in their assertion. Corrigenda are only published, “If the scientific accuracy or reproducibility of the original paper is compromised.”

Up until this climbdown, Mann, an assistant professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, had ferociously defended his hockey-stick papers and had launched several ad hominem attacks on McIntyre and McKitrick.  The corrigendum listed five references, but not the paper by McIntyre and McKitrick (“Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series,” Energy and Environment 14(6)) that first drew attention to his mistakes.

The hockey-stick purports to show that the global mean temperature was relatively constant through the first nine hundred years of the past millennium and then rose sharply in the twentieth century.  It was featured as proof of global warming in the U. N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report.  A number of papers have been published that challenge either the hockey sticks reconstruction of past temperatures (e.g., Esper et al., Science, 2002) or Manns handling of data in general (e.g. Chapman et al, Geophysical Research Letters, 2004).

Mann had to publish another correction to his published work in June in the Journal of Geophysical Results, following complaints from other paleoclimatologists that his methodology in another paper did not show as big a warming trend from the end of the Little Ice Age as is necessary. In other words, Mann underestimated how cold the Little Ice Age was.

An overlooked study suggests that evidence from the Great Barrier Reef in Australia points to corals being strengthened, not weakened, by rising temperatures.

The study directly contradicts earlier findings by Kleypas et al. (1999) that received considerable media attention for its conclusion that the rising CO2 content of the Earths atmosphere would lower the saturation state of the carbonate mineral aragonite in the surface waters of the worlds oceans and lead to weaker, more fragile, and slower growing coral reefs.

The Center comments, “In light of these real-world empirical-based calculations, and in stark contrast to the doom-and-gloom prognostications of the world’s climate alarmists, Lough and Barnes thus conclude that coral calcification rates may have already significantly increased along the GBR in response to global climate change.  And they are likely to increase even more, we would add, if the air’s CO2 content and temperature continue to rise in the years ahead.”