|Protocole de Kyoto, fiasco 2009 Copenhagen... (Photo credit: Pierre Marcel)|
|Southeastern Georgia? (LOC) (Photo credit: The Library of Congress)|
|FCC Open Meeting - Broadband Plan (Photo credit: wiredbike)|
|SHANKSVILLE, PA - SEPTEMBER 10: Ken Salazar, George W. Bush, Laura Bush, Bill Clinton, Jill Biden and Vice President Joe Biden walk along the Wall of Names at the Flight 93 Memorial, September 10, 2011 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The Flight 93 National Memorial was formally dedicated with Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, Speaker of the House John Boehner and members of Congress in attendance. An estimated crowd of 5,000 watched as the memorial wall was unveiled with the names of the 40 passengers on the plane that crashed on September 11, 2001. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)|
|English: Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shared the 2007 Nobel Prize together with Al Gore, at a conference in Vienna, 22 June 2009. Photo by Mikhail Evstafiev (Photo credit: Wikipedia)|
|MET Office (Photo credit: NguyenDai)|
Posted on March 3, 2012 by SOYLENT GREENI saw this first at Ozclimatesense, but the link is to Simon at ACM because he has created a new site to allow Aussies to fight this–while they still can…
They will have the power to impose a “code of ethics”, force you to print views you don’t agree with as part of a ‘right of reply’, take you to court, and even make you take pieces down! Even personal blogs that get only 40 hits a day will be covered! To make matters worse, the SuperRegulator “would not have to give reasons for its decisions” and the decisions “would not be subject to appeal.” Even climate change websites in other countries like Watt’s Up With That will be covered by this!
While this super-regulatory agency is ostensibly designed to quash all anti-government policy speech, it is clearly aimed at climate skeptic blogs–and they really don’t like Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair…
4.33 One of the conclusions reached in the report was this: The two biggest News Ltd tabloids—the Herald Sun and the Daily Telegraph—have been so biased in their coverage that it is fair to say they ‘campaigned’ against the (CO2 Tax) policy rather than covered it.
Soylent Green new site
And leads off with pron
Not content to merely bankrupt the coal industry, His Wholly Reluctance has decided that all energy prices need to “necessarily skyrocket.”
To that end he has ordered his minion Ken Salazar to put 11 million acres specifically set aside by congress for oil production off-limits to…wait for it…oil production.
Salazar says his plan “will help the industry bring energy safely to market from this remote location, while also protecting wildlife and subsistence rights of Alaska Natives.” He added that the proposal will expand “safe and responsible oil and gas development, and builds on our efforts to help companies develop the infrastructure that’s needed to bring supplies online.”And what is he putting on federal land instead? You guessed it–Batshredders and Unicorn Fart Collectors.
The Interior Department set aside about 285,000 acres for commercial-scale solar in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah. The federal government will offer incentives for development, help facilitate access to existing or planned electric infrastructure and ease the permitting process in the 17 zones.
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it
Professor Judith Curry, who is the head
of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech
university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer
models used to predict* future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.
- The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
- This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996
In turn, we treat our backs as fragile, delicate structures prone to damage and ‘require endless instructions on how to sit, stand, bend, work and lift’.
‘People also often misdiagnose themselves, or accept a mistaken diagnosis that attributes their back pain to an injury that occurred long ago that suddenly flares up again,’ he adds.
As a result of all this, we become anxious about our backs, says Sinfield. And that anxiety is creating what he calls Tension Related Pain (TRP).
This is where a slow accumulation of anxiety and stress over many months, even years, can cause the arrangement of muscles, nerves, tendons and ligaments to tighten and change — restricting blood and oxygen supply.
‘Muscles deprived of oxygen can build up deposits of lactic acid, triggering pain, spasm, tingling or numbness,’ he says, adding that this pain can easily be confused with the pain that caused the back problem in the first place.
All this prevents patients from recognising that pain is harmless muscle tension which, he says, can be dissipated through exercise (to stretch and build muscle, boosting blood and oxygen flow), relaxation and knowledge.
Knowledge means learning to stop worrying about your pain, and thinking about the impact of emotions on your health.
Unfortunately, he says, ‘as a result of the powerful and widespread misconception that backs are inherently fragile, most people will reject a diagnosis of TRP.
They refuse to believe their pain is not only from a physical cause and they fear a TRP diagnosis somehow reveals them as being emotionally weak.’
These views about the origins of back pain are controversial. But many experts agree that tension can exacerbate long-term pain, even if their explanation for why this happens differs from the one Sinfield proposes.
Chinese government held off because it disapproves of the EU’s intention to regulate greenhouse emissions of foreign airlines operating to and from the 27-country bloc
The Freedom of Information documents received recently from the University of Western Australia (and discussed here) suggest that Prof Lewandowsky submitted a substantial amendment to an existing Ethics Committee ("EC") approval, which had already been used for one study, in order to use it for the now infamous "moon landing denier" paper (see here).
The amendment was approved by an administrative officer in the EC in less than 24 hours, and I currently have an email in to the head of UWA's Ethics Office with a number of questions regarding the conduct of the approval of the amendment. The text of the email is reproduced at the end of this post.
However, notwithstanding the above, I have spent a little time researching the Australian National Statement of Ethical Conduct in Human Research (which can be found here). The introduction provides some background to the Statement's purpose:
The purpose of this National Statement is to promote ethically good human research. Fulfilment of this purpose requires that participants be accorded the respect and protection that is due to them. It also involves the fostering of research that is of benefit to the community......
The National Statement is therefore designed to clarify the responsibilities of:
The National Statement will help them to meet their responsibilities: to identify issues of ethics that arise in the design, review and conduct of human research, to deliberate about those ethical issues, and to justify decisions about them.
- institutions and researchers for the ethical design, conduct and dissemination of results of human research; and
- review bodies in the ethical review of research.
Does the research raise questions regarding "respect"? Given Prof Lewandowsky is on the record, well prior to the research being carried out, that he was of the opinion that climate scepticism was linked to far-fetched conspiracy theory ideation (see here), it could be argued that there was a substantial risk of humiliation or disrespectful treatment of participants, given that it may be argued that the intention of the research was to make that link - which in itself is objectively demeaning (either to the participants or a subset of the "wider community"). Even if it did not reach the threshold for "harm" could be regarded at least as a "discomfort".
The emails to "sceptical blogs" stated:
" … I am seeking your assistance with a web-based survey of attitudes towards climate science (and other sciences) and skepticism [sic]. The survey has been approved by the University's ethics committee and carries no risks for participants."We will see what kind of approval the survey received in due course, no doubt.
What benefits did the research provide? Evidence that climate sceptics have a psychological inability to accept climate science, linked to an acceptance of wacky conspiracy theories? It would be easy to reach the conclusion that the purpose of the research was simply to confirm a belief already held and portray sceptics in a negative light, in order to make a political point.
Campaigns rise as carbon tax comes into play
Hat Tip Haunting the Library
- Ignore the Elephant, Blame the Mouse: Global Warming and Food Security.
- Farmers to be Paid to Stop Cows Farting? New Carbon Credit Plan Floated.
- UK Electricity “Set to Become Unaffordable” Within 3 Years Independent Report Finds.
The two men, who have devoted their lives to scientific research, say they depend on the scientific method and peer review to judge the quality of the research that underscores their findings. The climate predictions are based on 10 of the 20 climate models developed independently worldwide that all show the world is getting warmer.
UK Met Office accused of Propaganda: 'Notice (Central England temp) graph begins just before 1780. Yet CET series actually began in 1659, so why did not Met show full graph?'