EcoRadio

Author: admin

  • Still moving Heaven and Earth to get answers from Plimer

     

    I told him that I was unqualified to answer his questions. Unlike him, I make no pretence of being a climate scientist. But that was not the end of the matter, as you can see below.

    Anyway, I kept pressing him for some answers. On 14 August, I received this reply:

    Dear Mr Monbiot,

    There are seven versions of Heaven and Earth and only my Australian publisher and I know the differences in diagrams, references and text between the seven. It has taken some time to look at your questions and determine which version was used for compilation of the questions. Can you please confirm that you have actually read Heaven and Earth and that your questions derive from that reading.

    I am aware that Damian Carrington has a copy, that John Vidal had two and that you will receive a copy on Monday.

    Kind regards,
    Ian Plimer

    This was odd because, judging by the notes made from Heaven and Earth by people in Australia and elsewhere, all editions of his book appear to have the same diagrams, the same references and the same text, with the same page and reference numbers. I was able immediately to compare what people said about his book with my own edition and find the relevant text in moments. Are we really to believe that he was unable to do this? That he couldn’t locate the text and page numbers I cited in his own book?

    It looks to me like another feeble excuse for not answering my questions. Anyway, I told him that I had indeed suffered the misfortune of reading his book, and that the edition I owned is a hardback, which has a black cover with a picture of a ball of cracked mud on the front. I reminded him that I was still waiting. I heard nothing until 20 August, when he sent me this:

    Dear Mr Monbiot,
    I too have been away on field work.
    Can you please give me an indication when I will get the answers to my questions of science and why you will not debate me on the Michael Medved radio show?

    Kind regards,
    Ian Plimer

    Here is my reply, sent yesterday (Tuesday 1 September):

    Dear Ian,

    Please accept my apologies for not replying before. I am recovering from surgery.

    You ask: “Can you please give me an indication when I will get the answers to my questions of science”.

    I told you in my last post that “I am unqualified to answer them” and “you’re asking the wrong person”.

    Fortunately, however, someone far better qualified than either me or you – Gavin Schmidt of NASA – has stepped into the breach and answered them on my behalf.

    As Gavin remarks, your questions are

    “quite transparently a device to avoid dealing with Monbiot’s questions”

    and they are

    “designed to lead to an argument along the lines of ‘Monbiot can’t answer these questions and so knows nothing about the science (and by the way, please don’t notice that I can’t cite any sources for my nonsense or even acknowledge that I can’t answer these questions either)’.”

    What Schmidt shows is that some of your questions are pure pseudoscientific gobbledegook. As he notes, “The throwing around of irrelevant geologic terms and undefined jargon is simply done in order to appear more knowledgeable than your interlocutor.”

    The remainder can be answered immediately – as Schmidt has done – because the information you seek has already been provided by other means.

    In all cases they raise grave doubts about your judgment and your scientific competence. Some of them give cause for concern even about your abilities as a geologist, let alone your extravagant claims to expertise in other branches of science. In desperately seeking to avoid my questions, you have dragged your own name still further through the mud.

    Please regard Gavin’s response as my final answer to your 13 questions – I can’t do better than him.

    Other people have also engaged with your questions, such as Chris Colose, Greenfyre and Andrew Dodds.

    Here’s the wiki page set up to address them.

    You must be flattered by all the attention.

    In the meantime, my questions remain unanswered. In fact, this appears to have been the sole purpose of your time-wasting exercise.

    My questions concern only what you purport to know. You made precise and specific claims in your book. Many of them are either unsourced or blatantly misrepresent your sources. I have simply asked you to cite your sources and explain your statements. This should be quick and easy to do – if you have a leg to stand on. The longer you delay and seek to distract, evade and bluster, the more obvious it becomes that you cannot answer them.

    You also ask: “Why you will not debate me on the Michael Medved radio show?”

    I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never heard of the Michael Medved show and no one has contacted me on its behalf. We have agreed to conduct a public debate sponsored by the Guardian and the Spectator. This can go ahead when you have answered my questions and agreed that we may cross-examine each other. You have so far done neither.

    So to concentrate your mind, I am now giving you a deadline. You have already had almost a month in which to answer my questions, which I put to you on Thursday 6 August. I am now giving you a further ten days. If you have not sent me precise and specific answers to each of my questions by Friday 11 September, I will conclude that you have thrown in the towel and chickened out of the debate.

    With my best wishes,
    George

    So will he answer them, or has the dog now eaten his homework? Watch this space.

    www.monbiot.com

  • US Climate change bill faces fresh delays

     

    However, that vote now looks set to face further delays after Senate Democrats announced yesterday that the latest version of the legislation would not be unveiled until “later in September”.

    A Senate vote on the bill, which had originally been passed by the House of Representatives back in June, was originally expected back in July only to see it delayed until early September.

    The latest delays were attributed to the on-going row over President Obama’s healthcare reforms and continued opposition to the bill from some Democrat Senators who have demanded concessions designed to support carbon intensive US industries.

    Critics said that any further delays would seriously undermine the US position at forthcoming international climate change talks in Copenhagen in December.

    A spokesman for Senate majority leader Harry Reid said that he fully expected the Senate to have “ample time to consider this comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation before the end of the year”.

    There was better news, however, for the proposed bill after a Washington-Post ABC news poll of over 1,000 adults which found that 57% support the president’s handling of energy policy.

    Moreover, 58% of respondents said they would support an emissions cap-and-trade scheme if it only results in modest increases in energy bills of $10 a month, while only 15% agreed with repeated Republican claims that the bill would kill off jobs.

    There was also a ringing endorsement for the president’s energy efficiency measures, with over 80% supporting legal requirements for car manufacturers to improve vehicle fuel efficiency and over 70% supporting federal requirements to conserve commercial and domestic energy use.

    The results will be welcomed by supporters of the bill who have been engaged in an increasingly fraught battle with lobby groups opposed to the legislation, several of whom have been accused of engaging in underhand tactics designed to exaggerate the scale of opposition to the bill.

  • $11 Million Dedicated to Water Power Research

    – National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo., for the design and testing of marine and hydrokinetic devices.
    – Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M., to increase the reliability and cost-effectiveness of marine and hydrokinetic devices.
    – Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Sequim, Wash., to identify, analyze, and predict environmental impacts of marine and hydrokinetic energy production.
    – Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M., to quantify the magnitude of environmental changes caused by marine and hydrokinetic technologies.
    – Argonne National Laboratory in Argonne, Ill., to develop and demonstrate models for optimizing the efficiency and environmental performance of hydropower plants.
    – Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tenn., to evaluate fish-friendly turbine designs and measure greenhouse gas emissions in reservoirs across the country.

    Also, the DOE recently announced plans to provide $37 million in economic stimulus funds for clean-energy research and development projects. (HydroWorld 8/26/09) Companies with less than 500 employees are eligible for the grants.

  • Offshore Wind Farms Could Power 37 Million Homes by 2020

     

    Based on an analysis of more than 700 projects and prospects in the company’s database, ODS-Petrodata forecasts US $61.4 billion of capital expenditure in the sector between now and 2014. For 2016 to 2020, total capital expenditure could be double that.

    “Although the credit crisis and other constraints have tempered the market, there is clearly a huge business opportunity here,” says David Gault, Renewables Manager at ODS-Petrodata. “These are big industrial projects, and it will take lots of equipment, manpower and innovation to get them built. Now is a great time for companies in other sectors, such as offshore oil and gas, to assess whether they can grab a piece of the action.”

    Bottlenecks in the supply chain are already being relieved by new entrants the report says. Several emerging European manufacturers of offshore-rated turbines will challenge the dominance of Siemens and Vestas in the next few years, and will later be joined by a batch of Asian manufacturers, including South Korean conglomerates such as Hyundai Heavy Industries and as many as 10 Chinese firms.

    The UK currently leads the way for both installed capacity and projects under construction, but it may experience a lull in activity in 2013 and 2014. Germany will more than take up the slack, and will go on to become the industry’s power house from 2014 onwards. China and the U.S. will also be very significant players in the longer term.

    For more details about the report, click here.

  • New ETU report shows gross energy feed-in tariffs would create 22.500 jobs.

    New ETU report shows gross energy feed-in tariff would create 22,500
    jobs
    Greens call on government to act now

    Launching a report commissioned by the Electrical Trades Union of
    Victoria in Melbourne, the Australian Greens today called on the Rudd
    government to introduce a gross national feed-in tariff for renewable
    energy as community support for this measure grows.

    Australian Greens Leader Senator Bob Brown said that the report shows
    that over 22,500 jobs would be created by introducing a national gross
    feed-in tariff for solar energy.

    “The report shows thousands of new jobs would be created by the
    introduction of this scheme – jobs for installers and electricians, and
    jobs in retail and in marketing. The employment benefits would be spread
    around the country,” Senator Brown said.

    “And a gross national feed-in tariff has the support of the Electrical
    Trades Union because they recognise it is a sensible, jobs-rich approach
    to the essential transformation to a zero-emissions economy in
    Australia. And this report confirms that.”

    Greens Senator Christine Milne introduced her Renewable Energy Amendment
    (Feed-In Tariff for Electricity) Bill in November last year. Despite
    both the Government and the Coalition speaking in favour of Senator
    Milne’s bill, the Government has not taken any action to bring a
    national focus in this important area.

    “Prime Minister Rudd will have a chance to support the Greens’ bill in
    the House of Representatives where it has been introduced by Independent
    MP Rob Oakeshott.”

    “A gross national feed-in tariff gives certainty to investors in all
    sources and scales of renewable energy generation. It would quickly
    bring renewables, including solar energy, to the point where they can
    challenge the dominance of the coal industry,” Senator Brown said.

    More information:  Russell Kelly 0438 376 082

    —
    Another message from the Greens Media mailing list.

    Too many messages? Don’t unsubscribe – try switching to a daily digest.
    You can unsubscribe or change your subscription settings here:
    <http://lists.greens.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/options/media>
    Or send an email to <media-unsubscribe@lists.greens.org.au>

  • Climate Camp protesters blockade Royal Bank of Scotland building

     

    The activists on the trading floor were taken out of the building after police medics used solvents to remove the glue, said Elly Robson, one of the protesters blockading the entrance.

    “RBS is a publicy owned bank which is taking environmental action which is not in the public interest,” she said. “The people on the trading floor managed to get this message right to the bank’s bosses.”

    There had been no arrests, and police had made no attempt to remove those blockading the entrance, she said.

    Also today, another group of activists from the Climate Camp, which set up on Wednesday on common land at Blackheath, south-east London, protested at the office building occupied by Edelman, an international PR company that has among its clients the energy firm E.ON.

    A group of naked demonstrators stood in a window of the building on Victoria Street, in central London, covering themselves in a banner saying “Climate lies uncovered”.

    A member of the camp’s media team, Richard Howlett, said there were two other actions taking place. One was a march around the City, in which indigenous Canadian activists were protesting at environmental damage caused by the exploitation of tar sands in the country.

    Another group was marching from the Climate Camp towards the Bank of England, he said, adding: “Whether or not that turns into another direct action, we’ll have to wait and see.”

    The Climate Camp at Blackheath is the fourth annual incarnation of the temporary environmental protest site. In previous years, it has set up at two coal-fired power stations and Heathrow airport.

    Over the last five days, 1,000 or more people have stayed at the site, which has been fitted out with marquees, communal kitchens and compost toilets. The camp has also been used as a base from which to launch protests against organisations perceived to be harming the environment.

    Unlike in previous years, the camp is not ending with a mass demonstration. Instead, those attending are being encouraged to go to E.ON’s Ratcliffe-on-Soar coal-fuelled power station in Nottinghamshire on 17 and 18 October.

    In April, police arrested 114 people on suspicion of conspiracy to cause criminal damage and aggravated trespass in an apparent attempt to pre-empt a protest at the plant.

    The arrests, and the policing of the G20 protests earlier in April, which included a Climate Camp action, prompted widespread criticism and claims of brutality. The Metropolitan police promised a “community-style” approach to the Blackheath camp, and have thus far kept a low profile.

    “With the relative lack of pressure from police, we have been able to spend a lot of time at Climate Camp preparing people for the direct action in October,” Howlett said.