A pastoral farm scene near Traverse City, Michigan. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Theodore Roosevelt National Park is located in the Badlands of North Dakota. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
English: North-Midwest Climate zones (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
English: USDA Plant Hardiness Zones, based on climate studies (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Mississippi River from Fire Point in Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa, USA (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The betrayal by the Fourth Estate – the very linchpin of the “Green” movement.
1. Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth
2. Its first loyalty is to citizens
3. Its essence is a discipline of verification
4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover
5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power
6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise
7. It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant
8. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional
9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience
Better not ask agronomists (“extension educators” with at least a Master’s degree in agronomy sciences) or “agricultural advisors” either. Only 19% of agronomists and 12% of agricultural advisors agree that humans primarily cause climate change. Compare that to 53% of climate scientists.
–
In 2012, a total of 22 state and extension climatologists were selected through a purposive sample to represent main outlets of publicly available and location-specific climate information in the region. Nineteen of these climatologists completed a pre-interview survey that included the climate change question (see Wilke 2013). Consistent with the many disciplinary scientists in the two USDA-NIFA projects, over 90% of the climatologists agreed that climate change is occurring while none believed that it is not occurring (Table 1). Fifty-three percent [10 of 19] attributed climate change primarily to human activities.
An online survey of about 1600 private and public agricultural advisors was conducted in 2012 in four states (Indiana, Iowa, Michigan and Nebraska) in the Midwestern United States. Three-quarters of these advisors believed that climate change is occurring, with 12% [197 of 1,605] of them believing that it is mostly caused by human activities (Table 1).
Extension educators are a unique set of agricultural advisors who serve to connect and translate research from universities to farmers in order to decrease risk to the farm enterprise and increase productive capacity and resilience. Typically, Extension educators have at least a Masters degree and are trained in agronomic sciences, which may not include climate sciences. Almost 75% of the Extension educators [239 respondents] believed in climate change, with over 19% [46 of 239] attributing climate change to human activities (Table 1).
—–
http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477/T1.expansion.html
We better not ask professional engineers, geologists, and geophysicists either. Just 36% of these professionals “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”
—–
http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477/T1.expansion.html
We better not ask professional engineers, geologists, and geophysicists either. Just 36% of these professionals “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”
For those familiar with UK politics, the concept of edifice came to life with the Edstone, which was so blatantly ridiculous it may have been the single most important factor why the Labour Party so resoundingly lost the last general election.
I am always puzzled by the concept of ‘climate denier’, other than in the context of denying that a bunch of second rate supposed scientists should be allowed on such an unbelievable scale to twist and distort raw scientific data in order to perpetuate their comfy lifestyles through the peddling of unfounded scare stories.
There is something really sick in our society when teachers get demonised for demonstrating how there are always two sides to any argument. The fact that Obama believes in the tooth fairy and imminent Thermageddon does not mean he is right, even though the former is much more likely than the latter.
Teachers allowing their pupils to look at both sides of an argument? Perish the thought, as this could lead to freedom of thought and expression; both being concepts abhorred by the majority of the klimate faithful.
Peter, one of the Lefts main tactics is to take a innocuous phrase ( e.g. “gay” – which means happy ) and hijack it for other purposes. The unspoken threat is that gay = homosexual = happy and woer betide anyone who says otherwise…..or in other words a mechanism to redefine “normality” and twist it to suit their own purposes.
Likewise, by the Left attempting to hijack the concept of “right thinking” by using the loading the bases concept , namely redefining “normal” = “believe the lie of man made climate change” or else….
PC is another example – PC allows stomping all over peoples opinions by stacking the unis and schools with leftists who love PC as its basically neo-Marxism. Control the language and you control thought, control thought and you control the population. Its also a form of basically forcing people to toe their twisted concept of “normal”…..
Its just standard Leftist thuggery.
Thanks for the link: the grauniad at its most shameless.
As I understand it, the Zika virus is believed to be spread by the Aedes aegypti mosquito, the same one that was previously isolated as the carrier of yellow fever. It’s called Aedes aegypti(“Egyptian House”), because it has a flat, horizontal back, like the roof of a traditional Egyptian dwelling **, rather than the arched back associated with most mosquitoes. Yellow fever was a notorious killer in the Caribbean. In the eighteenth century, sugar plantations in the West Indies were vital to the economies of Britain, France, the Netherlands, even Denmark… Being sent to garrison any of those islands was virtually a death sentence.
If the Aedes aegypti mosquito was there in 1763, for instance, it’s not a huge surprise to find it still there in 2016. One of my more surreal experiences was to see a Nicaraguan TV soap opera, where the commercials were basically warnings about dengue fever, another gift from Aedes aegypti and something that is far from new in Central America.
I see that the Gradyawn piece also tries to revive the daft notion that malaria has been historically confined to hot countries. The name of Aigues Mortes, in southern France, possibly refers to malaria. When Shakespeare refers to the “ague”, he is almost certainly talking about malaria. Oliver Cromwell, who never travelled further afield than Ireland, died of malaria. Must have been something to do with all those 4×4 horses the Ironsides used, to get around the countryside.
** Shouldn’t climate science have analysed by now how unsuitable the traditional Egyptian house is to resist the “extreme weather”, which we must all expect on a daily basis, now and for evermore?
And the legacy media were never going to wait long before trying to link global warming and the zika virus, were they?
Call John Brignell!
I was in a big German factory in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India last October. The lights went out. The factory stopped. The wind had stopped. It’s better than nothing, which is the next level but that is not a real factory. You cannot have the power go off randomly with machinery and stay off indefinitely. Windmills were abandoned in Europe for good reason, the moment steam engines were available and with all our technology, the Greens are putting them back. There is only one word for that, but it would be moderated.
Look at this link for wind power generation here in Australia.
When the link opens, see that chart in front of you there. Press the MW button at the top right.
This shows the total power generation for every wind plant in Australia (Well, East of the WA Border anyway) and this is for yesterday Friday 12th February 2016.
The total Nameplate is just under 3700MW, and there’s around 2000 towers, two thousand of them.
Now look at the total power output for around Midday, on a work day, when total overall consumption is around 30,000MW, around the daily maximum.
Note that the total output for all those wind plants is just on 50MW. So then, that’s around 25 of those towers actually with the blades turning and delivering power to the grids across all of Eastern Australia.
25 towers spinning, out of two thousand of them. Not just at one wind plant, but for ALL of them, across the WHOLE of the Country. 25 lousy towers with the blades turning.
The Capacity factor for wind power at that time is 1.36% and all up, wind is supplying 0.16% of Australia’s total power consumption.
Okay then, wind supporters everywhere are right now saying that I’m cherry picking one time out of all the time, but hey, I don’t care.
If all you have is wind, if wind is all there is going to be ….. what the hell are you going to do when this happens at times like this?
Are you just going to tell everyone to be patient, it’ll blow again soon.
What do you do?
That’s why wind power is useless.
There’s going to be times when it’s not delivering. Power is required ALL OF THE TIME.
Note also the pretty typical delivery for wind power. It’s relatively okay from midnight through till around 8AM, and then, when power consumption is actually rising, wind power has dropped right off.
On this day, during peak consumption from 6AM till 10PM, all it can average is around 300MW, which is a CF of 8% and only 1% of the total consumption.
That’s for 16 hours.
What do you do when that happens if wind is all you’ve got?
Tony.
TdeF, presumably a /sarc tag is missing?
It is established in all but the most deliberately adjusted temperature records that ‘Global warming’ ceased in a statistically meaningful way in approximately 1998. Whether this La Nina phase will ‘break’ the pause remains up for grabs as I understand it. As for the AGW ‘hypothesis’, that has always been a politically correct construct desperately seeking both science and evidence.
The Machiavellian UN provided THEIR DEFINITION of “Climate Change” in 2000, when it was realised the catastrophic warming predicted by the IPCC models was a failing mirage of smoke and mirrors.
The UN pre-definition and subsequent installation of the term ‘climate change’™ was essential. It has also been successful in that it perfectly conflates its use in the vernacular with its institutional definition, much as the UN have also been attempting to achieve (less successfully) with their ridiculous term ‘civil society‘, deliberately conflated with civilised society.
The ONLY way ‘climate change’™ can cease is when ALL anthropogenic influences are removed from land usage and atmospheric composition. It is therefore nothing short of a shackle willingly worn by those either with their gaze fixed on the end game – power and control – or the hapless.
There always remains hope, particularly when teachers depart from the politically correct, while the internet blogosphere remains largely free and uncensored and while we have electable representatives and a functional democracy. It is by [no? AZ] means clear that the latter two can persist under the daily assault of the [snip] Fourth Estate.
We are very, very fortunate we (still) possess the tools for our time in the form of the WWW.
On the CSIRO again on their State of the Climate page, looking for something more concrete than some things have changed a little since 1910, the earliest date used by the BOM.
About us
At CSIRO we shape the future. We do this by using science to solve real issues. Our research makes a difference to industry, people, and the planet.
At CSIRO we shape the future. We do this by using science to solve real issues. Our research makes a difference to industry, people, and the planet.
We ask, we seek, we solve. We are CSIRO.
What real issue have they solved? What difference has their research made? What is an industrial research organization doing duplicating the work of the BOM?
Page after page of Climate Change but no actual insights or solutions anywhere? Just some waffle about Extreme Events. Where is this Climate Change? How can anyone be certain the climate has changed without using the data prior to 1910, especially the massive Federation drought? How do they separate Climate Change from the new science of Natural Variation? How much exactly is man made? How can so many scientists just waffle?
Maybe the teachers and he National Centre for Science Education (NCSE) should be teaching ethic and morality.
Misconduct, poor research practice, duplicate publication, and plagiarism along with incomplete, uninformative or misleading research papers are being uncovered through the entire length and breadth of science. The ‘soft sciences’ are in the forefront of this deluge of dross but the ‘hard sciences’ are not far behind. See here and here
So skepticism from teacher and pupil alike should be the correct response to any new research.
Daniel Sarewitz, director of the Consortium for Science at Arizona State University, arguing that consensus science actually hurts science, wrote (Sarewitz, D., The voice of science: let’s agree to disagree, Nature 478(7370):7, 2011)
So skepticism from teacher and pupil alike should be the correct response to any new research.
Daniel Sarewitz, director of the Consortium for Science at Arizona State University, arguing that consensus science actually hurts science, wrote (Sarewitz, D., The voice of science: let’s agree to disagree, Nature 478(7370):7, 2011)
“When scientists wish to speak with one voice, they typically do so in a most unscientific way: the consensus report.”
The problem, he notes, is that
“the process of achieving such a consensus often acts against … [science], and can undermine the very authority it seeks to protect…”
In contrast to consensus, a vigorous disagreement between experts would provide decision-makers with well-reasoned alternatives that inform and enrich discussions as a controversy evolves, keeping ideas in play and options open.
Furthermore, the problem is that the scientific consensus claims seeks to create a public expectation of infallibility and this, when found wrong, undermines and erode public confidence in science. The idea that science best expresses authority through consensus is at odds with robust scientific endeavors because science depends for progress on meeting, and struggling with, the continual challenges that our imperfect state of knowledge throws up.
Science will provide improved merit to politics if it voices the broadest set of possible interpretations, options and perspectives, as imagined by the best experts in the field, rather than forcing convergence to an alleged solidly unified opinion.
You can either teach ( the computations of ) physics or the uncomputable and never experimentally demonstrated GHG trapping of energy on the side away from a radiant source between a filter and a surface .
That’s an exclusive
or .
Once again it is satire that that hits the target:
CAGW paradigm is part of the Liberal ethos as is spending more than a country takes in taxes.
CAGW and even AGW cannot be defended scientifically which is the reason why there has never been a formal written debate to discuss the observations and analysis. It is no fun to lose a debate hence there never will be a debate.
The natural response to accepting an incorrect scientific premise, accepting unsustainable economic policies, and accepting social policies that do not work is to ban discussion of the issues in question.
It is not politically correct to question or deeply discuss the Liberal tenets.
For example it is a fact that more spending on welfare has resulted in higher percentage of single parent families, higher crime, and higher dropouts from high school (US, African American in particular).
The same result (institutionalized welfare in Canadian case based on race) is observed for the Canadian ‘indigenous’ population who receive a stipple for life based on race.
The unemployment rate for ‘Native’ Canadians (as if a child is different or better or worse based on race) is around 60%, alcoholism is around 30%, and fetal alcoholic syndrome is around 40%. The vast portion of the money that is sent to the Canadian ‘reserves’ disappears into corrupt band councils. The new Canada prime minister has vowed to stop the financial review which identified the comical third world corruption of the band councils.
The stipple for life enables the Canadian natives to live in remote regions where there are no jobs expect for government jobs which attempt to address astonishing high levels of alcoholism and social decay. It is a stupendous hopeless situation.
It takes courage to speak the truth. So far there have been few that have dared try.
12 Feb: ReutersCarbonPulse: Stian Reklev: Australian advisory firm seeks carbon aggregator role in ERF-driven offset market
The carbon advisory arm of consultancy Ndevr has teamed up with a global trading firm to offer early payments to project developers in exchange for ownership of carbon offsets.
Ndevr Carbon Reductions is seeking a bigger role in Australia’s offset market by offering upfront payment to project developers.
The government, the sole buyer of Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) via its Emissions Reductions Fund, only pays for offsets on delivery, which often takes 12-18 months after a contract is signed.
“We take ownership of the ACCUS and conduct all technical works, reporting, commission audits, take a percentage of ERF revenue for our technical support, admin services and financial services,” Ndevr director Matt Drum told Carbon Pulse.
“When the ERF revenue comes through from the government, we will pass the lion’s share over to the project owner,” he said…
Funding will be provided by a global trading firm involved in a number of carbon markets and that holds an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL), Drum said, declining to name the company…
“I think there is only a small risk for contracted projects, and over the next four years the ERF will be the primary driver of carbon reductions in Australia. Without it Australia wouldn’t have an active carbon policy,” said Drum.
http://carbon-pulse.com/15545/
The carbon advisory arm of consultancy Ndevr has teamed up with a global trading firm to offer early payments to project developers in exchange for ownership of carbon offsets.
Ndevr Carbon Reductions is seeking a bigger role in Australia’s offset market by offering upfront payment to project developers.
The government, the sole buyer of Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) via its Emissions Reductions Fund, only pays for offsets on delivery, which often takes 12-18 months after a contract is signed.
“We take ownership of the ACCUS and conduct all technical works, reporting, commission audits, take a percentage of ERF revenue for our technical support, admin services and financial services,” Ndevr director Matt Drum told Carbon Pulse.
“When the ERF revenue comes through from the government, we will pass the lion’s share over to the project owner,” he said…
Funding will be provided by a global trading firm involved in a number of carbon markets and that holds an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL), Drum said, declining to name the company…
“I think there is only a small risk for contracted projects, and over the next four years the ERF will be the primary driver of carbon reductions in Australia. Without it Australia wouldn’t have an active carbon policy,” said Drum.
http://carbon-pulse.com/15545/
LinkedIn: Matt Drum, Director, Ndevr
Summary: Matt established Ndevr’s Environmental Consulting division in May 2010 after a career with the Australian Government working on high profile carbon and energy policy reform and implementation.
Since 2010 the Melbourne based Environmental Consulting team has grown to a strong national team of policy, legal, engineering and IT professionals specialising the carbon, energy and broader sustainability fields…
Experience:
Policy and Regulatory Officer, Department of Climate Change
November 2007 – May 2010…
Policy and Regulatory Officer, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
January 2006 – November 2007
Member of the Exceptional Circumstances (EC) Drought Taskforce.
- assessing drought affected region’s climatic, production and economic conditions to determine if assistance required under the program…
https://au.linkedin.com/in/mattdrumndevr
Summary: Matt established Ndevr’s Environmental Consulting division in May 2010 after a career with the Australian Government working on high profile carbon and energy policy reform and implementation.
Since 2010 the Melbourne based Environmental Consulting team has grown to a strong national team of policy, legal, engineering and IT professionals specialising the carbon, energy and broader sustainability fields…
Experience:
Policy and Regulatory Officer, Department of Climate Change
November 2007 – May 2010…
Policy and Regulatory Officer, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
January 2006 – November 2007
Member of the Exceptional Circumstances (EC) Drought Taskforce.
- assessing drought affected region’s climatic, production and economic conditions to determine if assistance required under the program…
https://au.linkedin.com/in/mattdrumndevr
11 Feb: UK Telegraph: Welsh village to sue government over ‘alarmist’ rising sea level claim
Residents of Fairbourne, in Gwynedd, say predictions of that the sea level will rise by a metre a year have hit house prices and investment
A Welsh village is to sue the government after a climate change report suggested their community would soon be washed away by rising sea levels.
The document says Fairbourne will soon be lost to the sea, and recommends that it is “decommissioned”.
Angry villagers say predictions of that the sea level will rise by a metre a year are alarmist, and have hit house prices and investment in the village.
At a local meeting they voted overwhelmingly in favour of pursuing legal action over the controversial Shoreline Management Plan 2 (SMP2), saying it had “blighted” their community.
The plan for Fairbourne, in Gwynedd, surrounded by the Snowdonia National Park, was commissioned by Pembrokeshire and Gwynedd local authorities and signed off by the Welsh Government. It is not yet clear who would foot the bill should the legal campaign be successful…READ ALL
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/12152240/Welsh-village-to-sue-government-over-alarmist-rising-sea-level-claim.html
Residents of Fairbourne, in Gwynedd, say predictions of that the sea level will rise by a metre a year have hit house prices and investment
A Welsh village is to sue the government after a climate change report suggested their community would soon be washed away by rising sea levels.
The document says Fairbourne will soon be lost to the sea, and recommends that it is “decommissioned”.
Angry villagers say predictions of that the sea level will rise by a metre a year are alarmist, and have hit house prices and investment in the village.
At a local meeting they voted overwhelmingly in favour of pursuing legal action over the controversial Shoreline Management Plan 2 (SMP2), saying it had “blighted” their community.
The plan for Fairbourne, in Gwynedd, surrounded by the Snowdonia National Park, was commissioned by Pembrokeshire and Gwynedd local authorities and signed off by the Welsh Government. It is not yet clear who would foot the bill should the legal campaign be successful…READ ALL
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/12152240/Welsh-village-to-sue-government-over-alarmist-rising-sea-level-claim.html
12 Feb: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Eric Heyl: Saturday Q&A: Military analyst takes aim at climate change directive
Dakota Wood is The Heritage Foundation’s senior research fellow for defense programs. Wood, who spent two decades in the U.S. Marine Corps, spoke to the Trib regarding the Pentagon recently ordering commanders to prioritize climate change in military actions.
Q: What prompted this directive?
A: It’s important to keep in mind that senior civilian officials are political appointees and they’re enacting the administration’s legislative or policy agenda…
Q: So the directive ultimately might not have much impact?
A: This is a clear articulation of an administration’s policy preferences — you know, putting them into writing so you can score that as a policy win to tout your credentials for a particular constituency. But in terms of meaningful impact and improving what the military does or what the Department of Defense does, it will have zero value.
http://triblive.com/opinion/qanda/9886427-74/policy-military-administration
Dakota Wood is The Heritage Foundation’s senior research fellow for defense programs. Wood, who spent two decades in the U.S. Marine Corps, spoke to the Trib regarding the Pentagon recently ordering commanders to prioritize climate change in military actions.
Q: What prompted this directive?
A: It’s important to keep in mind that senior civilian officials are political appointees and they’re enacting the administration’s legislative or policy agenda…
Q: So the directive ultimately might not have much impact?
A: This is a clear articulation of an administration’s policy preferences — you know, putting them into writing so you can score that as a policy win to tout your credentials for a particular constituency. But in terms of meaningful impact and improving what the military does or what the Department of Defense does, it will have zero value.
http://triblive.com/opinion/qanda/9886427-74/policy-military-administration
it’s all a pretense anyway:
11 Feb: Utilities-ME: Saudi solar dream far from reality, says report
A recently-released report by Arab Petroleum Investments Corporation (APICORP) said it is unlikely that Saudi Arabia will, in the current global economy, meet its scheduled renewable energy targets…
The report added: “Policy uncertainty and the lack of an efficient regulatory framework are mainly responsible for slow progress [in those countries].
“In 2012, the King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy (KA CARE) announced plans to invest $109bn (SAR408.7bn) to produce 41GW of solar by 2032 in the Kingdom.
“But little progress has been made so far…
Qatar’s, Oman’s, and Bahrain’s investments were also recognised by the report.
However, the study lamented that “no significant additions” can be expected anytime soon from the three countries.
http://www.utilities-me.com/article-4094-saudi-solar-dream-far-from-reality-says-report/
A recently-released report by Arab Petroleum Investments Corporation (APICORP) said it is unlikely that Saudi Arabia will, in the current global economy, meet its scheduled renewable energy targets…
The report added: “Policy uncertainty and the lack of an efficient regulatory framework are mainly responsible for slow progress [in those countries].
“In 2012, the King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy (KA CARE) announced plans to invest $109bn (SAR408.7bn) to produce 41GW of solar by 2032 in the Kingdom.
“But little progress has been made so far…
Qatar’s, Oman’s, and Bahrain’s investments were also recognised by the report.
However, the study lamented that “no significant additions” can be expected anytime soon from the three countries.
http://www.utilities-me.com/article-4094-saudi-solar-dream-far-from-reality-says-report/
Posts
The outrage! One third of US teachers bring climate denial to the classroom