More Solar, Less Farmland?
It’s an issue in Minnesota. Farmers are torn over whether to give up agricultural land in favor of solar power, writes Jeff Beach in InForum.com. He covered a panel on rural issues in Redwood Falls, Minn. “Siting large solar arrays, in particular, has become a hot issue in some greater Minnesota counties. “’We’re not talking…
Thursday Links: Audubon Society, E-bike Battery Fires, Planting Trees, and More
- National Audubon Society urges transmission expansion in spite of short-term loss of birds.
- Batteries of electric bikes are causing explosions, some fatal.
- Recycling plastic sends microplastics into the atmosphere. An argument for incineration?
- Washington Post chides Republicans for urging tree-planting to address climate change. (And more.)
Liability Leads Owners of 14,000-foot Peaks to Close Off Climbers’ Access
Climbing the 14,000-foot peaks in Colorado used to be an exciting—but popular—venture. The peaks of several famous mountains were privately owned but owners were happy to have these visitors (and so were nearby towns that benefit from the hardy tourists). That changed in 2019. Writes Karen Brulliard in the Washington Post: In that case, the…
Tuesday Links: Geoengineering, Heat Waves, and Biden’s Ban on Drilling near Chaco Canyon
- Can Navajos overturn Biden’s ban on oil and gas drilling 10 miles from Chaco Canyon?
- If a carbon tax isn’t feasible, what about geoengineering? (E.g.,100 airplanes ejecting 2 million tons of sulfur into to the stratosphere?)
- Stephen Moore: The 1930s’ heatwave “was at least on par with the current surge in temperatures. Was the 1930s heat blast due to ‘climate change’ too?”
‘Shenanigans Continue in Climate Science’
Roger Pielke, Jr., describes how a peer-reviewed paper about climate change is being retracted by a scientific journal —for no legitimate reason.
“A Critical Assessment of Extreme Events Trends in Times of Global Warming” was written by Galluca Almonti and colleagues and published in January 2022 in the journal European Physical Journal Plus (EPJP).
The retraction process started because several scientists were quoted by the media (the leftwing Guardian, and one or two others) as saying it was faulty.