What manner of environmentalists might these be that claim woody biomass power plants are more damaging to the atmosphere than coal-burning plants?
The full report [warning sizable .pdf file] of the Manomet Center for Conservation Science provides less support than a Victoria's Secret bra and is surely less revealing.
It is of a piece with the Duesberg cult's claim that the HIV retrovirus does not cause AIDS though far more threatening to the lives and health of earthlings.
The Biomass Power Association is requesting an apology [for a misleading report]
That apology is about as likely as one from Orly Taitz to our President for Orly's birther mythology. Both Orly and the Manomet scientists are impervious to facts and data.
The Manomet study completely ignores waste wood fuels for the first 109 pages, Cleaves said, addressing them almost as an afterthought on page 110: "All bioenergy technologies, even biomass electric power compared to natural gas electric, looks favorable when biomass waste wood is compared to fossil fuel alternatives."
Guess I better do something soon about that other cataract. I overlooked that gem.
Hope the author isn't fired.
"Ground truth" we called it back in the old photogrammetric sweat shop when stereo models were adjusted to geographic or grid coordinates.
Things didn't always go so swell even then, like when we adjusted a model to a point picked on a cloud in an arctic area.
But we tried with what we had.
But the purported scientists at Manomet had no use whatever for ground truth. No one clears forest for woody biomass. Biomass energy crops are a different matter but even then the woody biomass is waste.
Gov. Patrick Deval and the Sierra Club and BP and various other environmentalists may be delighted with the Manomet study but maybe you shouldn't be if you care a whit about the planet and its living things.
Best, Terry