Science “censorship”

the-times-logo

The Times, 26 April 2016:

Matt Ridley (“Climate change lobby wants to kill free speech”, Opinion, Apr 25) describes one form of censorship: here is another.  For 30 months now a small group of Fellows of the Royal Society, including me, have sought on several occasions formal meeting of the society to discuss downsides of the current unsophisticated mitigations of climate change that actually increase global carbon dioxide emissions in some cases.  The closure of UK aluminium smelters, and now maybe steel, compensated by imports from China, is pure folly.  In that period the Royal Society has found time for several more meetings on the downsides of climate change but our request keeps getting kicked down the road without any adequate explanation.

The collapse of many alternative energy companies worldwide was entirely predictable on basic scientific and engineering grounds, and the Royal Society is in dereliction of its duty to warn and advise governments, investors and the public of what it knew within its ranks.

Michael J. Kelly, FRS

Prince Philip Professor of Technology

University of Cambridge

Advertisements

Boris “has failed to tackle air pollution”

Times, 26 February 2016:

Absent from Jenni Russell’s list of Boris’ failures as Mayor of London is his indifference to the public health disaster posed by air pollution (Will the real Boris Johnson please stand up Feb 25)  The recent report by the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Pediatric and Child health attributes 40,000 premature deaths annually in the UK to air pollution which in London is very largely the result of diesel emissions.

There is a lot that Boris could have done including the replacement of diesel engines in buses and taxis with LPG which reduces particulate emissions by 99 per cent. Or he could have extended the low emissions zone. Or he could have banned the most polluting taxis that fail Euro 5 standards. He did none of these things which is why Oxford Street has the highest levels of pollution in Europe — and why Boris is unfit for public office.

Dr Robin Russell-Jones
Former Chairman Campaign for Lead Free Air
Stoke Poges, Bucks

 

Osborne and his pledge on malaria

Times, 26 January 2016 (text in bold not published):

It is hard to imagine a more surreal headline than “Osborne in £3bn vow to beat malaria”(Jan 25). Malaria may be on the retreat in some areas of the world, but it is also advancing into new territories as a result of climate change.

The Anopheles mosquito requires a minimum temperature to complete its breeding cycle, so in Kenya for example, cases of malaria are being recorded at higher altitude in previously unaffected, and non-immune populations. It is also spreading further North and there is no reason  to think that Europe will remain a malaria-free zone.

If he wants to refurbish his image, then the Chancellor should have picked a tropical disease that is not made worse by his hostility to renewables and his promotion of fracking.

Dr Robin Russell-Jones
Stoke Poges,Buckinghamshire

Crime down

Times, 5 January 2015:

Ross Clark fails to recognise the evidence linking the removal of lead from petrol with the fall in violent crime (“Murders are down and we don’t know why”, Jan 3). Lead burden is most dangerous in utero and infancy, so high levels of exposure can be expected to manifest themselves in dysfunctional behaviour among teenagers and young adults 20 years later. In the US, lead was removed from petrol in the late Seventies and violent crime fell dramatically in the Nineties. In the UK lead was removed between 1985 and 1995 and we are seeing the benefits two decades later.

Dr Robin Russell-Jones FRCP FRCPath
Former chairman, Campaign for Lead Free Air

Fracking tactics

The Times, 24 Oct 2014:

The tactics being used by fracking companies  are identical to those previously employed by the tobacco industry (Ex-environment boss in fracking study Oct 22) It is entirely predictable that Cuadrilla and other shale gas companies would employ Chris Smith and even an ex-director of Greenpeace in order to lend credibility to studies that are funded by the industry itself, but none of this alters the fact that fracking is about producing fossil fuels which pose as great a threat to the environment as smoking does to public health. Last year the leading medical journals in the UK followed the lead of their US counterparts in refusing to publish any more medical papers that had been funded by the tobacco industry. It is only a matter of time before the same principle is applied to the fossil fuel industry.

Dr Robin Russell-Jones
Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire

There is no link to the original article as it is behind a paywall.

Shale Gas

The Times, 23 September 2013:
Your claim that shale gas is better for the environment than coal does not stack up (Frack Baby Frack July 20) as shale gas (methane) is a potent greenhouse gas, twenty times more powerful than CO2 over a 100 year time frame. Whilst  burning gas releases less CO2 per unit of energy than coal, this benefit is negated by releases of methane during the fracking process. Calculations published by Professor Tom Wigley in the journal  Climatic Change in 2011 show that unless fugitive emissions  of methane are kept below 2%, then shale gas is no better than coal from a global warming perspective. In the US fugitive emissions have been running at around 7%, and the fossil fuel industry has been strenuously resisting methane control legislation proposed by the EPA. This explains why shale gas in the US is cheap, but also means that America’s new energy mix is making climate change worse not better.
There is no link to the original article as it is behind a paywall.

Climate change

The Times, 19 September 2013 (the section in bold was cut.  There is no link to the original article as it is behind a paywall):

The findings of the UK Energy Research Council make grim reading for anyone who thinks that we live in a rational world ( Number of climate change sceptics soars as support for alternative energy wanes Sept 19) Whilst climate change deniers have quadrupled, the scientific evidence is going in the opposite direction. In their second report (1995) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that it was more than 50% likely that man-made emissions were contributing to climate change. In their third report (2001) that figure had become 66%, 90% in their fourth report (2007) and now 95% in their latest  report. The fourth IPCC report had 152 lead authors, over 500 contributing authors, over 600 reviewers and received more than 30,000 comments; in other words this was the closest that the world community could get to a scientific consensus.

Sadly this consensus is not reflected in the columns of most newspapers in the UK, and the Times must accept its part of the blame for giving so much space to columnists whose views pay scant regard to the scientific evidence ( Tim Montgomerie “The Green’s Cant Defy Gravity” July 22; Alice Thompson “The Greens have had it ” Sept 11 and  Matt Ridley, May 20, July 4, and August 15 plus your own  leader  “Frack baby frack” of July 20). Newspapers may enjoy stirring controversy, but civilisation as we know it will not survive  the addition of  33 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. It is future generations who will pay the price for our denial of the obvious.