Comment posted on RSPB Scotland finds UK Minister’s comments on Hunterston ‘hugely disappointing’ by Webcraft
@barmore
Thanks for that link – I had seen the video before but it brought back memories. I used to fly microlights.
Webcraft also commented
- barmore,
Unchecked global warming and climate change is going to inconvenience our feathered friends far more than a couple of barrages.
Britain’s birds are being driven northwards to extinction at an accelerating rate because of global warming.
Scientists have calculated that the average range of British birds will move 550 kilometres (340 miles) to the north by 2100 as the climate heats up.
Birds with ranges in Scotland or in mountain regions will be wiped out – such as the snow bunting, which today survives only on the Cairngorm plateau. The Scottish crossbill, the only bird species unique to the British Isles, is also likely to perish.
You really do need to take the long view . . .
- Fascinating how unpopular you become if you dare to criticise the RSPB
- Alex,
The reason I mentioned 1998 is because that is the benchmark for all the pathetic deniers – because it was the warmest year ever so far they claim that this proves warming has stopped. There is no logic in it, but this ‘fact’ with its ‘supporting’ graph with a straight line drawn between 1998 and 2011 is trotted out over and over again.
At least when we get a hotter year than 1998 it will put an end to that particularly stupid non-argument. I don’t think we are likely to have to wait long.
- Clearly, then, El Nino events are what is driving global warming.
An idiotic comment at best . . .
It’s enough to make you wish Simon and K1 were back.
- Oh dear me webcraft, the salient point is both the Met Office and NASA have said that the global climate has been cooling.
That is not what they have been saying at all, though some newspapers may have chosen to report recent events under that sort of sensationalist headline. If you choose to get your climate science from the Daily Mail then expect to be misled or misdirected (or both).
Over and over again deniers of AGW post graphs showing ‘the world has not warmed since 1998‘, proving this by drawing a striaght line from 1998 to 2011. 1998 was the hottest year to date, but there is no reason to believe that it will hold that position for much longer.
1997/1998 saw a very strong El Nino event. It is only a matter of time – and not very much of it – before we see the next big El Nino, and when we do we will have ‘the hottest year ever’ and the deniers will have to find some other mindless mantra to repeat endlessly.
Have a look at this article, which covers this issue in more depth.
On the other points you raise, I don’t disagree with you on reforestation, but I am in favour of carbon taxes as price seems to be the only way to influence mass behaviours in the rather sad society we currently live in.
Recent comments by Webcraft
- First Minister’s choice not to condemn mob behaviour proves Farage point
You can listen to Steve Byrne’s song written to commemorate the event here: - Home Secretary’s whole life sentences for police killers pressures Scottish Government to respond
Saint Theresa.Latest canonisation in the Lynda Henderson pantheon.
I rather think she (TM) gives most Scots the dry boak.
- SNP departures from administration – was money a factor?
How hard do you think it is to doctor an anonymously sent copy of an email ? - SNP endgame: they ALL walked
Newsroom says:This now brings Argyll and Bute and its electors hard up against the issue of whether there is any legitimate role for party politics in Argyll and Bute
I would say a more important question might be whether there is any role for local government in Argyll and Bute. Maybe it is time for direct rule from Holyrood.
- SNP Constituency Association Convener’s email tells a tale
It’s emblematic and is being read that way.Only by you.
powered by SEO Super Comments
While I have no wish to see a new coal fired power station at Hunterston I do have to take issue with the implication that the RSPB should be recognised as a voice of reason on energy matters.
All the RSPB care about is birds, to the exclusion of the welfare of the human population of these islands. Let us not forget that it was the RSPB who were largely instrumental in defeating the Severn Barrage proposal – which would have generated 5% of the UK’s electricity, with no emissions.
. . . and of course the RSPB are also objecting to the proposal to construct a tidal barrage in the Solway. Same thing – a few wading birds might be temporarily inconvenienced.
So while yes it is 100% fair to say that “Peel are not known for an energetic commitment to corporate social responsibility” I am afraid that exactly the same charge can be levelled at the RSPB.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You are suggesting the RSPB has rather more power than it actually has. Yes, they were one among many organisations objecting to the Severn Barrage on conservation grounds, and now to the Solway Barrage, but to say that they were “largely instrumental” in defeating the former is tripe. What defeated the Severn Barrage was cost. However, there is also the not so little matter that both estuaries are protected to the highest level under European legislation and the Government can only avoid hefty penalties for irreversibly damaging such sites by declaring a “national need”.
And the reason both sites are so protected is because the number and variety of birds using them are of international importance – they both stand out in comparison with similar wetlands across Europe. Your further suggestion that “a few wading birds might be temporarily inconvenienced” is risible. They would be permanently denied the use of the tidal mudflats on which they depend. And they aren’t Britain’s birds, they are birds that come from North America, Greenland, Europe and even Asia.
Finally (probably for now!), you say that the “All the RSPB care about is birds, to the exclusion of the welfare of the human population of these islands”. You should know that the RSPB’s membership amounts to over 1,000,000, and so they speak for more than 1% of “the human population of these islands”. Do you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Your further suggestion that “a few wading birds might be temporarily inconvenienced” is risible. They would be permanently denied the use of the tidal mudflats on which they depend. And they aren’t Britain’s birds, they are birds that come from North America, Greenland, Europe and even Asia.
These birds would soon find new mudflats, as has happened elsewhere.
Interestingly you start by saying that the RSPB had negligible influence in the stopping of the barrage but go on to say that they have over a million members.
So what – who cares how many members they have? They are a well-financed, ludicrously influential bunch of twitchers answerable to no-one, obsessed with their little feathered friends to the exclusion of all else. The only reason they have got away with their nonsense for so long is by appealing to the rest of the environmental movement. It is time they were exposed for what they are – petty minded hobby-obsessed progress-resisting reactionaries who wield an obscene amount of influence.
Don’t get me wrong, I like birds as much as anyone. We have a bird table, encourage them in the garden etc – but I also recognise that the interests of the people of this country in terms of energy security and climate change mitigation may on occasion override the needs of a handful of birds.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Webcraft
You have claimed that “These birds would soon find new mudflats, as has happened elsewhere”. This is further arrant nonsense. There is not an infinite supply of mudflats to which displaced birds can go. There is a very finite and rapidly diminishing supply as reclamation proceeds apace throughout the world.
Your opinion of the RSPB is about as far from the reality as is your knowledge of wading birds and mudflats.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Your opinion of the RSPB is about as far from the reality as is your knowledge of wading birds and mudflats.”……same applies to his knowledge of Global Warming and renewables if you look further down the thread.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So,how many more objections do they need?
Politicions in bed with bankers……and business in bed with Governments.Why am I not surprised!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Most of the objections have been ‘ bought ‘ from the Internet and are not from locals. If you are going to build a new Power Station – where better than a site where you have already built two and all the supply infrastructure is to hand. Carbon Capture has to be investigated – if it works great – if not we have to move on. There is a small test area being set aside North of Oban – lets see what the results are before,as usual, condemning the whole thing from a position of no knowledge.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just to say the objections are not from “outside” the area. Fairlie Largs and Millport Community Council’s ALL objected as well as others as a whole to the plans based on several counts including,
1. What was being built was a coal plant— the technology to deal with so – called carbon capture has not been developed yet ! Power developed sent down south
2. The air pollutants in the area including Largs would increase by 10X. To try and reduce this as a problem the developer chose to increase the height of the chimney stack. Hardly cutting edge technology.
3. There would be a detrimental effect on tourism in the area.
4. Many others but check out the objections listed by North Ayrshire Coast residents.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’d say Largs, Millport and Cumbrae residents were local.
Not sure if the need for a “new Power Station” is required for Scotlands consumers. If it is to supply south of the border with electricity then I am sure the good people of Ayrshire will suggest they site the power station down there. The objective is to reduce emissions so basically we need to reduce this form of energy production. Does no one remeber watching Doomwatch on the tellie all those years ago !!!1
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If the pollution we are worried about is CO2, then we need to take a reality check. We produce 0.17% of global emmissions, deforestation accounts for 17%, yet we continue to peddle the myth of wilderness Scotland when we are a deforested ecological slum. Global warming was not caused by CO2, the temperature rise started before the CO2 rise and we are still being conned.
However, this may all fade into insignificance, the recent figures from the Met Office, which mirror NASA’s, is that the earth has been cooling for the last 15 years. This would confirm that those who queeried the original assumptions and calculations to determine the effect of CO2 on Global warming were correct to do so.
Politicians are no longer talking about global warming but they are quite correctly now talking about climate change, and if NASA and the Met Office are to be believed we are about to face the biggest challenge to climate for hundreds of years. The Solar Cycle (25) looks to be very, very weak possibly dropping the global temperature by as much as 2 degrees Celcius. Further, the North Atlantic Oscillation looks to be entering a negative phase which means we will be experiencing colder and dryer weather.
So, we should be more concerned about the lies and misinformation the warming alarmist peddle, after all it only takes one black swan to disprove the theory that all swans are white. How much more disparity between the date and the ‘models’ do we need to realise we are being conned?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh dearie me – we have a climate change denier in our midst, and what a crock they are peddling here.
This nonsense is based on a report by the Met Office which was then sensationalised by the Daily Mail.
Even the Mail in the same article was foced to publish the telling paragraph below:
Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’
I for one am sick of the deniers trotting out the same old nonsense over and over again. The world is going to get substantially warmer and we need to decarbonise the world economy – get over it!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh dear me webcraft, the salient point is both the Met Office and NASA have said that the global climate has been cooling. I am not a climate change denier, I believe we are going through a major change to the earth’s climate it is just that I feel conned by the warmists, to whose band I belonged, when I saw the data from impartial sources. I also felt uneasy when people who were trying to have a structural debate were shouted down and personally abused by the warming campaign. If the data was robust there was no need to try and sugeest they alternative arguments were made by nutters. I suggest a good paper by David Archibald, (Energy and Environment, Vol 17, no 1, 2006), looking at the solar 24 and 25 cycles.
And once again I say at 0.17% of CO2 global contribution Scotland’s input is small compared to deforestation at 17%, and this is more than that produced by transport. If we place a priority on reducing global CO2, whether or not we agree on its role in Climate Change, then let’s look at the functionally important sources and tackle these. We have a deforested landscape in Scotland, a carbon bank in waiting, never mind all the other important effects of forest, so lets start saving with this bank in a substatial way and stop punative taxation on the sources which are small in comparison. Climate change denier I am not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Further, the warming argument, like you, has said the world is going to get substantially warmer and have been saying this for some time. NASA’s data suggest that it is not getting warmer. How long will it have to either continue cooling, or remain constant, before the warming argument reviews its position. It only takes one black swan to disprove the theory that all swans are white.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh dear me webcraft, the salient point is both the Met Office and NASA have said that the global climate has been cooling.
That is not what they have been saying at all, though some newspapers may have chosen to report recent events under that sort of sensationalist headline. If you choose to get your climate science from the Daily Mail then expect to be misled or misdirected (or both).
Over and over again deniers of AGW post graphs showing ‘the world has not warmed since 1998‘, proving this by drawing a striaght line from 1998 to 2011. 1998 was the hottest year to date, but there is no reason to believe that it will hold that position for much longer.
1997/1998 saw a very strong El Nino event. It is only a matter of time – and not very much of it – before we see the next big El Nino, and when we do we will have ‘the hottest year ever’ and the deniers will have to find some other mindless mantra to repeat endlessly.
Have a look at this article, which covers this issue in more depth.
On the other points you raise, I don’t disagree with you on reforestation, but I am in favour of carbon taxes as price seems to be the only way to influence mass behaviours in the rather sad society we currently live in.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Clearly, then, El Nino events are what is driving global warming.
So lets stop all this rubbish talk about decarbonising and covering Scotland with totally inefficient windfarms and get on with life creating jobs and reliable energy for Scotland.
Those man-made global warming freaks are, in my opinion, merely suffering from low self esteem like Jeremiah.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Clearly, then, El Nino events are what is driving global warming.
An idiotic comment at best . . .
It’s enough to make you wish Simon and K1 were back.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That’s a point – where is Kintyre1? Did he leave along with Simon? Is there more to this than meets the eye? Are they one and the same? Well that’s got me going,I’ll never sleep tonight.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Maybe kintyre1 and Simon are skulking in Lanzarote to escape the winter. Probably sharing an apartment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well if they are they’ve definitely left a pal behind to ‘thumbs down’ anyone who mentions them!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
An idiotic comment (nice !) was it? So who wrote:
“1998 was the hottest year to date, but there is no reason to believe that it will hold that position for much longer.
1997/1998 saw a very strong El Nino event. It is only a matter of time – and not very much of it – before we see the next big El Nino, and when we do we will have ‘the hottest year ever’”
None other than Webcraft. Looks like its him who needs to read an idiot’s guide to logic.
The same Webcraft who moans that the RSPB are:
“…. a well-financed, ludicrously influential bunch of twitchers answerable to no-one, obsessed with their little feathered friends to the exclusion of all else. ….petty minded hobby-obsessed progress-resisting reactionaries who wield an obscene amount of influence.”
And he has the sheer gall to call my comment about El Nino “idiotic at best”.
Takes all sorts I suppose.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Having criticised Webcraft for his attitude to the RSPB (and knowledge of wading birds and mudflats), I’m very much on his side when it comes to telling climate warming deniers that they are ignorant of the facts, though he should certainly move on from talking about 1998.
This comes via Wikipedia from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center:
“The list of warmest years on record is dominated by years from this millennium; each of the last 11 years (2001–2011) features as one of the 12 warmest on record. Global temperatures are affected by the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), with the extremes of El Niño and La Niña leading respectively to unusually warm and cool years. 2010 as an El Niño topped the previous record set in the El Niño year of 1998. While 2011 as an La Niña year was cooler, it was still the 11th warmest year since records began in 1880. Over the more recent record, 2011 was the warmest “La Niña year” in the period from 1950 to 2011, and was close to the global temperatures of 1997 which was not at the lowest point of the cycle.”
Anyone who believes that the global climate is cooling, and I can’t find the evidence for that despite NASA and the Met Office being offered as sources, has their head in the (increasingly warm) sand.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Alex,
The reason I mentioned 1998 is because that is the benchmark for all the pathetic deniers – because it was the warmest year ever so far they claim that this proves warming has stopped. There is no logic in it, but this ‘fact’ with its ‘supporting’ graph with a straight line drawn between 1998 and 2011 is trotted out over and over again.
At least when we get a hotter year than 1998 it will put an end to that particularly stupid non-argument. I don’t think we are likely to have to wait long.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Talk of ‘warmest’ and ‘hotter’ – isn’t this discussion a bit misleading if – as widely predicted – one of the effects of global warming will be collapse of the Gulf Stream, resulting in Argyll acquiring a subarctic climate?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What we see on a year on year basis is weather. When you mean results over a long time series you get a picture of climate. As individuals we experience weather rather than climate and that can distort our appreciation of the data.
There is absolutely no doubt in mainstream climatologists that we are in a period of rapid climate change and the overall global trend is one of warming. Perhaps the most worrying aspect of current factors is that we are in a period of very low solar activity (ie rather less energy coming from the Sun than is normal). This is worrying as we may see an accelerated warming as the Sun moves into a more active part of its cycle.
Scientists don’t understand all aspects of global climate and what drives it. Models are just that and there are a huge number of variables feeding into the climate system. We frankly do not understand how the Sun works and we are still some way from a complete understanding of ocean currents, biological feedback systems, the effect of sulphur emissions and the influence of volcanic activity. However, the data points to us being in an unusual period of rapid warming and this correlates with human activities releasing large amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. One in three of the molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere at this very moment is the result of human activities.
What is the most sensible strategy:
1: Do nothing and hope for the best
2: Reduce emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases?
If we follow strategy 2 and climate change turns out to have been the largest ever error in modern science then what have we lost?
If we follow strategy 1 and the scientists are right then we end up with rapid and accelerating climate change little of which is good for our species.
Better, I would suggest, to play safe than be sorry.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Fascinating how unpopular you become if you dare to criticise the RSPB
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Since I was a small boy I have been interested in birds but I am also extremely wary about the activities of the RSPB which is a hugely influential Country Life organisation that often prioritises our feathered friends against the interests of rural natives.
I recommend the book Isles of the West by Ian Mitchell as an entertaining though highly personalised account of the way that RSPB behaves in the Western Isles.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@webcraft One of the many gaps we have in our knowledge of the planet we live on, and of the relationships which nature provides, is the effect of man. Now, with gross human overpopulation, the few of us who try to make room for nature are fighting a losing battle.
It should not be about man’s “need” (squanders so much) of energy. Balance; resources for all – not just for humans – is something we have to recognise for all of us who live here. Yes, RSPB, SNH and others may be an inconvenience for some humans. To me, their existence, along with others, are the only excuse we have for mitigating the damage we have done.
Those of us who continue to fight for our non-human neighbours understand this. Until the human race curtails its expansion, and associated plundering of the planet’s resources, we will witness ever more species in decline. You may say: “what are a few birds…” Those birds, those insects, that balance keeps this planet alive.
Without the insects to pollinate, man has very few days to live. Without insects, avians will die out. Without avians……
So, for man, another coal-powered facility? another nuclear facility? more genetically-engineered plants?
Apologies: perhaps in the minority here. Thought the other side should have a say
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
barmore,
Unchecked global warming and climate change is going to inconvenience our feathered friends far more than a couple of barrages.
Britain’s birds are being driven northwards to extinction at an accelerating rate because of global warming.
Scientists have calculated that the average range of British birds will move 550 kilometres (340 miles) to the north by 2100 as the climate heats up.
Birds with ranges in Scotland or in mountain regions will be wiped out – such as the snow bunting, which today survives only on the Cairngorm plateau. The Scottish crossbill, the only bird species unique to the British Isles, is also likely to perish.
You really do need to take the long view . . .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@webcraft
A Long view: from USA…shows how man can do something to mitigate….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouCzFvENDdY&feature=uploademail
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@barmore
Thanks for that link – I had seen the video before but it brought back memories. I used to fly microlights.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tom Allison is the CEO/Chairman of Peel Holdings/Ports (i.e. owner of Clydeport who own the Hunterston site and Ayrshire Power who want to build the coal plant at Hunterston) …and in May 2010 became a major backer of…the Scottish Conservatives! Literally days after the Scottish Party and Dave Cameron dumped their North Ayrshire candidate for Westminster who adamantly refused to stop objecting to…the coal plant at Huntertson! Coincidence? Check the link…
http://www.scottishconservatives.com/news/news/leading-scottish-businessman-publicly-declares/442
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
…might also explain Tory Provost and Tory Party insider Pat McPhee voting through three massive 600ft high windmills on the Hunterston site against the wishes of Cumbrae and Largs residents (and Tories) which will add further despoilation to the tourist industry in Millport and Largs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0