In amplifying the observation that New Scientist magazine was guilty of"mischaracterising” the evidence of benefits from the Haida Ocean IronFertilization Project, the blog of Russ George is a helpful source which the NewScientist journalist could have easily used. Here are some informative comments on the science.
http://russgeorge.net/2014/06/23/worlds-first-commercial-scale-ocean-pasture-restoration/describes the project and says that as a result of the OIF work “theSE Alaska Pink catch in the fall of 2013 was a stunning 226.3 millionfish. This when a high number of 50 million fish were expected.” Thatis 450% of the catch that fishery scientists expected. http://russgeorge.net/2013/10/28/fish-came-back-next-day/describes the simple program logic: “everywhere from Alaska to the lower 48,baby salmon that swam out to sea, instead of mostly starving were treated to afeast on newly vibrant ocean pastures where once they could neither thrive norsurvive. They grew and grew and before too long they swam back to our rivers ahundred million strong.” http://russgeorge.net/2013/03/25/six-year-look-at-ne-pacific-blooms/provides satellite images showing the exact plankton growth impact of the OIF program.At http://russgeorge.net/2014/07/10/salmon-counts-break-records-alaska-columbia-river/Russ George says “This story and science of Pacific salmon numbers being at orbreaking historic abundance is of course related to my 2012 ocean ‘salmon’pasture restoration. Keep in mind that the context of salmon projectionsis based on the collective wisdom of scores of reporting scientists in many institutionswho have for decades been making salmon forecasts that have been traditionallyvery accurate with regard to salmon returns in the region.” Seeing this media “mischaracterising” by New Scientist magazine at work,it is useful to look at the history of lies that have attended media hostilityto this simple successful ocean experiment. See for example http://russgeorge.net/2013/03/22/lies-damned-lies-and-the-liars-who-tell-them/on the fictional narrative promulgated about the project by Jim Thomas of theETC Group and Martin Lukacs of the Guardian that caused the outrage and drovethe baseless UN CBD ban. But it is far worse than that. http://russgeorge.net/2013/03/30/swat-team-swarms-village-science-office-with-overwhelming-force/ explains, as summarised here using Russ George’s own published comments, thatthe main reason the Haida Salmon Restoration Project did not fully write up itsocean iron fertilization experiment was that Environment Canada arranged forthe Haida research office in Vancouver and other project locations to be raidedby police who removed scientific material. This was two days before a CBC NEWS television special attacking theproject. The raid had a search warrant which specified that they were allowedto take evidence and command assistance from everyone there. These visitorstook the entire scientific data collection of the office, notebooks and journals,electronic data, legal files, reference books, scientific paper collections,desktop notebooks, etc. These law enforcement officers said during the raid that never in theirpersonal history had they ever participated in a “raid”, their word, of thischaracter. They resisted the explanation that the Haida Project were putting ironsulphate and iron ore rock dust into its ocean pasture for a beneficial purpose. The job they were there to do was toapply overwhelming force and intimidation to a small group of villagescientists working to replenish and restore ocean productivity. Environment Canada simultaneously raidedoffices and homes all over British Columbia, the ship owners, the captains ofthe ship, Haida charitable organization. It was such a large operation the policeofficers said they had been flown in from all across Canada to conduct theraids. Despite this heavy-handed official suppression and intimidation by theGovernment of Canada, later reports on big increase in fish numbers provided aclear and simple causality illustrating the apparent success of the Haida OIFexperiment, despite its scandalous lack of institutional endorsement. I am not up to date on the legal case, but http://russgeorge.net/2013/04/17/haida-salmon-project-files-proof-with-bc-supreme-court-proving-illegal-search-and-seizure/explains the original situation. Further,http://russgeorge.net/2013/03/29/scientists-given-notice-speak-to-haida-salmon-at-your-peril/says there was an official level “embargo” on the project. “That the black list threat was and is realis made painfully clear by the very recent experience of one scientist ingovernment who did indeed help us.” Science does not generally progress throughlies, bullying and intimidation. Butthat is the modus operandi of the critics of this successful ocean ironfertilization experiment. It is reasonable to argue this shows the political barriers that lobbyists will try to put in the way of all carbon dioxide removal and other geoengineeringprojects that undermine the belief that emission reduction is the best way toaddress global warming. While obviously the science is settled on global warming, the hypothesisthat emission reduction is the best way to stabilise the climate is purelypolitical and faces the observation from MIT at http://news.mit.edu/2015/paris-commitments-insufficient-to-stabilize-climate-by-2100-1022that all Paris commitments would only reduce warming by 0.2 degrees. The ParisEmperor has no clothes. In this context we should welcome, promote and expandthe visionary activities of independent entrepreneurial scientists such as RussGeorge who are opening better ways to deliver climate stability and protectbiodiversity. Robert Tulip From: Charles H. Greene <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: geoengineering <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, 10 June 2017, 17:47 Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineering fears make scrutiny of ocean seeding test vital | New Scientist Just to set the record straight, Olive Heffernan’s New Scientist article continues a tradition of the media mischaracterizing what was observed in the Haida-supported, iron-addition study off British Columbia. While I am not an advocate of iron fertilization as a climate remediation approach, and I am especially skeptical of this particular study, the comment that there was "no evidence of benefits to the sockeye salmon population it was hoping to revive, or to the Haida community that helped fund the project” misrepresents the actual observations. There was an unusual phytoplankton bloom following the release of iron, and the salmon runs exploited by the Haida were also much stronger than usual after an appropriate time lag. Of course, the study was not truly experimental as it was not replicated, nor did it have controls. Therefore, we will never know whether the addition of iron actually led to the observed bloom and enhanced salmon runs or whether these phenomena were just coincidental and the results of other processes. The study was poorly conceived and conducted, but mischaracterizing the observations only muddies the waters further. In addition, the famous quip by John Martin occurred in Woods Hole in 1988, not 1998. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
