Sunday, June 25, 2006
"Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe"
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists."
By Tom Harris
Canada Free Press
Monday, June 12, 2006
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth." With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter, [on right], of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts...
[Click headline for full article.]
Friday, June 09, 2006
Wind Power Comes up Short in Ontario, Canada
The letter pasted below ran June 8th in The Record, published in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada. Mr. Hess focuses on one of the primary failings of large-scale wind power,- it simply cannot be counted on to deliver energy when demand is high. For more on this and other problems wind advocates would like to ignore see The False Promises of Wind Energy.
Mr. Hess’s letter reminded me of the following question another letter writer asked a few years ago. [I saved only the text in this case, not the name of the newspaper or author unfortunately.]
"Would you employ someone - at a premium hourly rate- who only turns up for work 25% of the time, with no idea which days he might turn up, and pay to keep someone else on standby, and to cover when he’s not there?”
__________________________
Letter to the Editor,
The Record
June 8, 2006
"Wind Power is Weak"
"The recent heat wave demonstrated wind power's true potential. Published numbers from the Independent Electricity System Operator show that the current fleet of wind generators did little to add to the province's supply when it was needed most. When one looks back at a recent particularly windy day, their combined output reached 110 megawatts. During the height of last week's heat wave, on May 30 for the three peak hours that afternoon, these wind power sources produced an average output of six megawatts, or only 5.4 per cent of their geographically diverse capability."
"So how does one supply customers when the wind fails them? Other energy sources have to be in place and able to produce to cover the shortfall. Wind power does not add significant capacity to the power supply mix. Wind is mainly a means of displacing, not replacing, other sources of energy that must remain, or be built, and be available at a moment's notice."
"Next time you look at the figures presented for wind generation, compare it only to the energy it will truly displace, not the theoretical maximums that are always presented to make this option look better than it really is."
Tom Hess
Cambridge, Ontario
Mr. Hess’s letter reminded me of the following question another letter writer asked a few years ago. [I saved only the text in this case, not the name of the newspaper or author unfortunately.]
"Would you employ someone - at a premium hourly rate- who only turns up for work 25% of the time, with no idea which days he might turn up, and pay to keep someone else on standby, and to cover when he’s not there?”
__________________________
Letter to the Editor,
The Record
June 8, 2006
"Wind Power is Weak"
"The recent heat wave demonstrated wind power's true potential. Published numbers from the Independent Electricity System Operator show that the current fleet of wind generators did little to add to the province's supply when it was needed most. When one looks back at a recent particularly windy day, their combined output reached 110 megawatts. During the height of last week's heat wave, on May 30 for the three peak hours that afternoon, these wind power sources produced an average output of six megawatts, or only 5.4 per cent of their geographically diverse capability."
"So how does one supply customers when the wind fails them? Other energy sources have to be in place and able to produce to cover the shortfall. Wind power does not add significant capacity to the power supply mix. Wind is mainly a means of displacing, not replacing, other sources of energy that must remain, or be built, and be available at a moment's notice."
"Next time you look at the figures presented for wind generation, compare it only to the energy it will truly displace, not the theoretical maximums that are always presented to make this option look better than it really is."
Tom Hess
Cambridge, Ontario
