Thunder shattered the evening quiet and lightning lit up the sky outside my office. I stayed at my computer feeling secure that the surge protector would manage the extra load. Suddenly my screen lit up with a strange message:
Speaker Pelosi:
This is Mother Earth and you’ve defamed me, something I will not tolerate. This week you said,
“Mother earth is angry. She’s telling us with hurricanes on the Gulf Coast, fires in the West, whatever it is… the climate crisis is real and has an impact.”
How dare you speak in my name? How dare you defame me to deflect from the miscalculations and loony policies of your California Democrat colleagues
In ancient times I was known as the Goddess of Fresh Water and Fertility.
I gave California plenty of water to nourish the land and people, I gave you rain, but you threw it away, letting it drain into the sea instead of capturing it and treating it. Not only would you have lots of water if you did this, but you’d save money and electricity costs of pumping the water in from other states. What dams you do have, you let deteriorate so they pose an extreme hazard to those living near them, and you have not built adequate water storage facilities. Victor Davis Hanson, a true friend of mine, lays it out clearly.
Just as California’s freeways were designed to grow to meet increased traffic, the state’s vast water projects were engineered to expand with the population. Many assumed that the state would finish planned additions to the California State Water Project and its ancillaries. But in the 1960s and early 1970s, no one anticipated that the then-nascent environmental movement would one day go to court to stop most new dam construction, including the 14,000-acre Sites Reservoir on the Sacramento River near Maxwell; the Los Banos Grandes facility, along a section of the California Aqueduct in Merced County; and the Temperance Flat Reservoir, above Millerton Lake north of Fresno. Had the gigantic Klamath River diversion project not likewise been canceled in the 1970s, the resulting Aw Paw reservoir would have been the state’s largest man-made reservoir. At two-thirds the size of Lake Mead, it might have stored 15 million acre-feet of water, enough to supply San Francisco for 30 years. California’s water-storage capacity would be nearly double what it is today had these plans come to fruition. It was just as difficult to imagine that environmentalists would try to divert contracted irrigation and municipal water from already-established reservoirs. Yet they did just that, and subsequently moved to freeze California’s water-storage resources at 1970s capacities.[snip] The Green dream was not simply river restoration and beautification, however. Bay Area environmentalists also believed that vastly increased freshwater inflows would help oxygenate the San Francisco Delta, thereby enabling the survival of the Delta smelt, a three-inch baitfish, while ensuring that salmon could be reintroduced into the San Joaquin River watershed.
Ah yes, the delta smelt must be saved, even if the earth dies and the people on it must starve or flee to better-managed places.
You let rich donors and green nitwits destroy what I gave you, picking a species here and there to “save” at the cost of human lives and welfare, and you are very selective about it.
While ignoring the high energy demands of aluminum and glass production, you covered the land in solar collectors, unconcerned about the amount of water needed to keep them functioning: 1200 million gallons of water a year for just two of California’s solar power generating facilities. Nor have you considered the cost to bird life — 6,000 birds a year are fried in midair over just one of your plants in the Mojave Desert. And then there are the bird-pâté-creating wind farms. The Altamont wind farm in your state alone has killed tens of thousands of birds since put into operation.
So save the Delta smelt, but ignore the kestrels and bald eagles? Like everything else I, Mother Nature, gave you, you have mismanaged it, responding instead to the rich but dumb donors who replenish the coffers of your “green” supporters and those who hope to profit from government-sponsored projects which promise far more than they deliver, while underplaying the costs to consumers and to the earth itself.
You let your forests get overgrown so they cannot help conserve water supply. The overgrown forests reduce forest supply, preventing water from seeping down into groundwater aquifers and reservoirs. In fact, it is you and your Democrat colleagues — not climate change — that harm the forests I gave you.
I gave you lush forests to provide you and all animal life with shelter. What did you do? You managed it badly, refusing to clear the undergrowth. You blocked timber harvesting, underbrush removal, and controlled burns, leaving the forests with an excess of dried biomass so every lightning strike creates a danger of vast fires. You turned the hillsides and canyons of Southern California into tinderboxes and now from San Diego to Seattle the skies are dark with soot from forest fires that need not have been so disastrous. Doubt me? You shouldn’t.
“The U.S. Forest Service used to be a profitable federal agency,” McClintock told Grimes.
Up until the mid-1970s, we managed our national forests according to well-established and time-tested forest management practices. But 40 years ago, we replaced these sound management practices with what can only be described as a doctrine of benign neglect. Ponderous, Byzantine laws and regulations administered by a growing cadre of ideological zealots in our land management agencies promised to save the environment. The advocates of this doctrine have dominated our law, our policies, our courts and our federal agencies ever since.
But these zealots have not protected the forests. They have destroyed them. The consequences are far-reaching.
Did you or Governor Newsom look at the North American fire map? James Woods did and asks why does “climate change” stop at the Canadian border? I gave you ample supplies of oil and natural gas which you’ve done everything possible to refuse, instead stupidly buying electricity from elsewhere and pretending that solar energy and windmills will supply the difference though, of course, they cannot. (I must say with the electrical grid now holding on with a wing and a prayer and rolling blackouts I’m laughing at folks who cannot fuel up their electric cars. Like Iowahawk, I suppose they can cut just cut holes in their floorboards and peddle along by foot like a Fred Flintstone car. Oowners who doubtless fought to close the very clean San Onofre nuclear power generating station to save the planet while using electricity provided from outside the state produced by the very fossil fuels you abjure.)
Don’t imagine I’ll venture into a California courtroom to sue you for defamation. I have other plans.
“Hydroxychloroquine is a cheap, safe, anti-malarial drug,” says Andrew Bolt. “It has been used for decades.”
Some studies show it can cut deaths by up to a third, in some cases it can cut the number of deaths in half, especially when taken early, and taken with zinc.
It may even be universally effective when taken before hospitalization.
“Why are you prevented from taking a drug -that – could – save – your – life?”
“Hundreds of people are dying without a drug that could potentially cure them.”
“This is culture war turned deadly.”
“The jury is in,” says Rowan Dean. “If you look at all the studies, hydroxychloroquine is consistently effective against Covid-19 when used early in the right combination of other drugs.”
Today we plot the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) data for Northern Europe for the month of August, 2020.
We have selected this region because it is the home of 17-year old climate alarmist/activist Greta Thunberg, who thinks the planet is heating up rapidly and so we’re all doomed.
We plot the data for the stations for which the JMA has sufficient data going back over 2 decades. First we plot the August data for Sweden, Greta’s home country:
Five of the 6 stations plotted show a cooling trend. So it’s a mystery how Greta thinks her country is warming up. The data suggest that summers have been shortening a bit. Over the course of Greta’s life, she has yet to see warming in August.
Next we examine Norway, Greta’s western neighbor:
Data: JMA
Here we see 6 of the 11 stations have seen an August cooling trend over the past quarter century. The colder stations have warmed somewhat, while the warmer ones have cooled. Overall, no warming to speak of, really.
The story is similar in Finland (further from the Atlantic), but here the colder stations have cooled, while the warmer stations have warmed slightly – but statistically insignificantly:
Data: JMA
Finally we plot the data for the emerald island, Ireland, next to the tempestuous Atlantic:
Data: JMA
Four of the six stations in Ireland have been cooling in August. Those warming have done so insignificantly. Overall the emerald island has been cooling during the month of August since 1983!
Much fuss has been made in the UK, not least by teachers’ unions, about recommencing physical school attendance. As this issue applies to many countries, I thought it worth highlighting research findings in Europe.
While it is evident that school age children can be infected by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, it is extremely rare for them to become seriously ill with COVID-19, and their risk of dying as a result of infection is almost zero. The relevant issue is therefore how much children’s contribution to the spread of COVID-19 to adults, by themselves or via other children, is affected by school attendance.
A report last month “COVID-19 in children and the role of school settings in COVID-19 transmission” by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control analyses evidence from many countries and throws light on these questions. Some key summary conclusions that it reaches on various important issues are as follows:
Overview of outbreaks and transmission in childcare school settings: experiences from Member States[i]
In summary, clusters in educational facilities were identified in several of the 15 reporting countries, however those that occurred were limited in number and size, and were rather exceptional events. Several countries specifically said that they had no indication that school settings played a significant role in the transmission of COVID-19. Secondary transmission in schools, either from child-to-child or from child-to-adult, was perceived to be rare. Countries where schools had re-opened by the time of the survey stated that they had not seen an increase in cases in these settings.
Overview of outbreaks and transmission in school settings: evidence from the literature
What is the evidence of transmission between children within the school setting?
The conclusion from these investigations is that child-to-child transmission in schools is uncommon and not the primary cause of SARS-CoV-2 infection of children whose infection onset coincides with the period during which they are attending school.
What is the evidence of transmission from children (students) to adults (teacher/staff) within the school setting?
Where COVID-19 in children was detected and contacts followed-up, no adult contacts in the school setting have been detected as SARS-CoV-2 positive during the follow-up period. The conclusion from these investigations is that children are not the primary drivers of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to adults in the school setting.
What is the evidence of transmission from adults (teacher/staff) to children (students) within the school setting?
While there is evidence of transmission from adults to children in household settings, there is little evidence of this occurring within the school setting.
What is the evidence of transmission between adults (teacher/staff) within the school setting?
The conclusion from these investigations is that adults are not at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 within the school setting than the risk in the community or household.
What is the effect of school openings on transmission to the community/household?
There is limited evidence that schools are driving transmission of COVID-19 within the community, however there are indications that community transmission is imported into or reflected in the school setting.
There was one outbreak in Israel after school reopening, however the sequence of infection was not reported. Although Ireland closed schools relatively early in the epidemic, data there suggests that schools would be a minor source of infection for children:
An analysis of the probable origin for transmission of COVID-19 infection in outbreaks that have involved children in Ireland indicated that the most common setting was the home, followed by workplaces, travel and residential institutions, with none of the childhood cases linked to outbreaks in schools.
Evidence from EU/EEA countries that kept pre- and primary schools/day care open or reopened schools early on
The ECDC report includes the following information:
Iceland kept both childcare institutions and primary schools open throughout the spring term and the rates of SARS-CoV-2 in children under 15 years old remained low compared to rates in the older age groups. Physical distancing rules did not apply to childcare institutions and primary school children.
Similarly, the Netherlands did not see a sudden increase in their reproductive number or detect significant outbreaks, when primary schools and childcare facilities opened on 11 May, with moderately high notification rates at national level. Children up to and including 12 years did not have to keep 1.5 metres apart from each other or from adults, and this measure was applied in childcare and primary education settings. Children aged 13 to 18 years did not have to physically distance from one another.
Denmark reopened childcare and primary education on 15 April, with moderately high overall notification rates at national level, and did not report any increase in the reproductive number, or detect important school outbreaks. Denmark recommended splitting classes into smaller groups, keeping two metres between children, hand hygiene, and teaching more classes outside.
Comparison between Sweden and Finland
As in other areas, some of the most useful evidence involves Sweden, which never closed schools for children under 16. In July its Public Health Authority published a report (English version here) comparing COVID-19 in children between Sweden and Finland, where almost all physical school attendance was stopped from mid-March to mid-May. Key findings in the study are:
Closing schools had no measurable effect
There is no difference in the overall incidence of the laboratory confirmed covid-19 cases in the age group 1-19 years in the two countries and the number of laboratory confirmed cases does not fluctuate with school closure or change in testing policy in Finland.[ii]
Closure or not of schools had no measurable direct impact on the number of laboratory confirmed cases in school-aged children in Finland or Sweden.
Transmission by children seems low
Outbreak investigations in Finland have not shown children to be contributing much in terms of transmission:
In the contact tracings in primary schools in Finland, there has been hardly any evidence of children infecting other persons. The Swedish comparison of number of reported cases among staff in day care and primary school to number of cases in other professions does not show any increased risk for teachers.[iii] This also indicates that the role of children in propagating this infection is likely to be small. Various papers on contact tracing have also found that children rarely are the first case in family clusters.
Impacts of school closures on the health and well-being of children
The ECDC report also highlights some negative impacts of school closures on the health and well-being of children, on top of the harm to their education, saying:
A number of organisations have identified various negative impacts on children’s wellbeing, learning opportunities and safety caused by school closures. These range from the interruption of learning and the exacerbation of disparities and mental health issues to an increased risk of domestic violence. The negative impacts particularly affect children from vulnerable and marginalised population groups.
Other health aspects, both physical and mental, also need consideration. For many students living in poverty, schools are not only a place for learning, but also for healthy eating, and therefore researchers warn that school closures will exacerbate food insecurity. Research has highlighted that the active social life that children aged 2–10 years have at school helps them to learn from peers and has a positive impact on their personality and sense of identity, while disruptions of close peer relationships have been associated with depression, guilt, and anger in children. Furthermore, school and extracurricular activities provide structure, meaning and a daily rhythm for children and youth. For those suffering from anxiety and depression, the loss of such activities can worsen symptoms and reinforce social withdrawal and feelings of hopelessness.
Conclusions
The evidence shows that concerns about recommencing physical school attendance are misplaced, at least if moderate social distancing measures (not requiring mask wearing, and only for child-adult contact) are mandated.
It also seems pretty clear that the original decisions by almost all European countries to close schools were, in retrospect, ill-judged measures that caused more harm than good, at least in relation to children under 16 years old.
Nicholas Lewis 10 September 2020
[i] Based on a survey of EU/EEA and UK countries, 15 of which responded.
[ii] In Sweden, the number of laboratory confirmed cases is affected by change in testing policy.
[iii] The relative risk of teachers catching COVID-19, compared to that in other professions, was 0.9 for day care, 1.1 for primary school (in neither case being statistically significant), and 0.7 for secondary school (just significantly lower than 1).
Originally posted here, where a pdf copy is also available
Update September 13, 2020: This reprint of a post three years ago shows nothing has changed, except for the worse.
It is often said that truth is the first casualty in the fog of war. That is especially true of the war against fossil fuels and smoke from wildfires. The forests are burning in California, Oregon and Washington, all of them steeped in liberal, progressive and post-modern ideology. There are human reasons that fires are out of control in those places, and it is not due to CO2 emissions. As we shall see, Zinke is right and Brown is wrong. Some truths the media are not telling you in their drive to blame global warming/climate change. Text below is excerpted from sources linked at the end.
1. The World and the US are not burning.
The geographic extent of this summer’s forest fires won’t come close to the aggregate record for the U.S. Far from it. Yes, there are some terrible fires now burning in California, Oregon, and elsewhere, and the total burnt area this summer in the U.S. is likely to exceed the 2017 total. But as the chart above shows, the burnt area in 2017 was less than 20% of the record set way back in 1930. The same is true of the global burnt area, which has declined over many decades.
“Analysis of charcoal records in sediments [31] and isotope-ratio records in ice cores [32] suggest that global biomass burning during the past century has been lower than at any time in the past 2000 years. Although the magnitude of the actual differences between pre-industrial and current biomass burning rates may not be as pronounced as suggested by those studies [33], modelling approaches agree with a general decrease of global fire activity at least in past centuries [34]. In spite of this, fire is often quoted as an increasing issue around the globe [11,26–29].”
People have a tendency to exaggerate the significance of current events. Perhaps the youthful can be forgiven for thinking hot summers are a new phenomenon. Incredibly, more “seasoned” folks are often subject to the same fallacies. The fires in California have so impressed climate alarmists that many of them truly believe global warming is the cause of forest fires in recent years, including the confused bureaucrats at Cal Fire, the state’s firefighting agency. Of course, the fires have given fresh fuel to self-interested climate activists and pressure groups, an opportunity for greater exaggeration of an ongoing scare story.
This year, however, and not for the first time, a high-pressure system has been parked over the West, bringing southern winds up the coast along with warmer waters from the south, keeping things warm and dry inland. It’s just weather, though a few arsonists and careless individuals always seem to contribute to the conflagrations. Beyond all that, the impact of a warmer climate on the tendency for biomass to burn is considered ambiguous for realistic climate scenarios.
2. Public forests are no longer managed due to litigation.
According to a 2014 white paper titled; ‘Twenty Years of Forest Service Land Management Litigation’, by Amanda M.A. Miner, Robert W. Malmsheimer, and Denise M. Keele: “This study provides a comprehensive analysis of USDA Forest Service litigation from 1989 to 2008. Using a census and improved analyses, we document the final outcome of the 1125 land management cases filed in federal court. The Forest Service won 53.8% of these cases, lost 23.3%, and settled 22.9%. It won 64.0% of the 669 cases decided by a judge based on cases’ merits. The agency was more likely to lose and settle cases during the last six years; the number of cases initiated during this time varied greatly. The Pacific Northwest region along with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had the most frequent occurrence of cases. Litigants generally challenged vegetative management (e.g. logging) projects, most often by alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act. The results document the continued influence of the legal system on national forest management and describe the complexity of this litigation.”
There is abundant evidence to support the position that when any forest project posits vegetative management in forests as a pretense for a logging operation, salvage or otherwise, litigation is likely to ensue, and in addition to NEPA, the USFS uses the Property Clause to address any potential removal of ‘forest products’. Nevertheless, the USFS currently spends more than 50% of its total budget on wildfire suppression alone; about $1.8 billion annually, while there is scant spending for wildfire prevention.
3. Mega fires are the unnatural result of fire suppression.
And what of the “mega-fires” burning in the West, like the huge Mendocino Complex Fire and last year’s Thomas Fire? Unfortunately, many decades of fire suppression measures — prohibitions on logging, grazing, and controlled burns — have left the forests with too much dead wood and debris, especially on public lands. From the last link:
“Oregon, like much of the western U.S., was ravaged by massive wildfires in the 1930s during the Dust Bowl drought. Megafires were largely contained due to logging and policies to actively manage forests, but there’s been an increasing trend since the 1980s of larger fires.
Active management of the forests and logging kept fires at bay for decades, but that largely ended in the 1980s over concerns too many old growth trees and the northern spotted owl. Lawsuits from environmental groups hamstrung logging and government planners cut back on thinning trees and road maintenance.
[Bob] Zybach [a forester] said Native Americans used controlled burns to manage the landscape in Oregon, Washington and northern California for thousands of years. Tribes would burn up to 1 million acres a year on the west coast to prime the land for hunting and grazing, Zybach’s research has shown.
‘The Indians had lots of big fires, but they were controlled,’ Zybach said. ‘It’s the lack of Indian burning, the lack of grazing’ and other active management techniques that caused fires to become more destructive in the 19th and early 20th centuries before logging operations and forest management techniques got fires under control in the mid-20th Century.”
4. Bad federal forest administration started in 1990s.
Bob Zybach feels like a broken record. Decades ago he warned government officials allowing Oregon’s forests to grow unchecked by proper management would result in catastrophic wildfires.
While some want to blame global warming for the uptick in catastrophic wildfires, Zybach said a change in forest management policies is the main reason Americans are seeing a return to more intense fires, particularly in the Pacific Northwest and California where millions of acres of protected forests stand.
“We knew exactly what would happen if we just walked away,” Zybach, an experienced forester with a PhD in environmental science, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Zybach spent two decades as a reforestation contractor before heading to graduate school in the 1990s. Then the Clinton administration in 1994 introduced its plan to protect old growth trees and spotted owls by strictly limiting logging. Less logging also meant government foresters weren’t doing as much active management of forests — thinnings, prescribed burns and other activities to reduce wildfire risk.
Zybach told Evergreen magazine that year the Clinton administration’s plan for “naturally functioning ecosystems” free of human interference ignored history and would fuel “wildfires reminiscent of the Tillamook burn, the 1910 fires and the Yellowstone fire.”
Between 1952 and 1987, western Oregon saw only one major fire above 10,000 acres. The region’s relatively fire-free streak ended with the Silver Complex Fire of 1987 that burned more than 100,000 acres in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness area, torching rare plants and trees the federal government set aside to protect from human activities. The area has burned several more times since the 1980s.
“Mostly fuels were removed through logging, active management — which they stopped — and grazing,” Zybach said in an interview. “You take away logging, grazing and maintenance, and you get firebombs.”
Now, Oregonians are dealing with 13 wildfires engulfing 185,000 acres. California is battling nine fires scorching more than 577,000 acres, mostly in the northern forested parts of the state managed by federal agencies.
The Mendocino Complex Fire quickly spread to become the largest wildfire in California since the 1930s, engulfing more than 283,000 acres. The previous wildfire record was set by 2017’s Thomas Fire that scorched 281,893 acres in Southern California.
While bad fires still happen on state and private lands, most of the massive blazes happen on or around lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service and other federal agencies, Zybach said. Poor management has turned western forests into “slow-motion time bombs,” he said.
A feller buncher removing small trees that act as fuel ladders and transmit fire into the forest canopy.
5. True environmentalism is not nature love, but nature management.
While wildfires do happen across the country, poor management by western states has served to turn entire regions into tinderboxes. By letting nature play out its course so close to civilization, this is the course California and Oregon have taken.
Many in heartland America and along the Eastern Seaboard often see logging and firelines if they travel to a rural area. This is part and parcel of life outside of the city, where everyone knows that because of a few minor eyesores their houses and communities are safer from the primal fury of wildfires.
In other words, leaving the forests to “nature,” and protecting the endangered Spotted Owl created denser forests––300-400 trees per acre rather than 50-80–– with more fuel from the 129 million diseased and dead trees that create more intense and destructive fires. Yet California spends more than ten times as much money on electric vehicle subsidies ($335 million) than on reducing fuel in a mere 60,000 of 33 million acres of forests ($30 million).
Rancher Ross Frank worries that funding to fight fires in Western communities like Chumstick, Wash., has crowded out important land management work. Rowan Moore Gerety/Northwest Public Radio
Once again, global warming “science” is a camouflage for political ideology and gratifying myths about nature and human interactions with it. On the one hand, progressives seek “crises” that justify more government regulation and intrusion that limit citizen autonomy and increase government power. On the other, well-nourished moderns protected by technology from nature’s cruel indifference to all life can afford to indulge myths that give them psychic gratification at little cost to their daily lives.
As usual, bad cultural ideas lie behind these policies and attitudes. Most important is the modern fantasy that before civilization human beings lived in harmony and balance with nature. The rise of cities and agriculture began the rupture with the environment, “disenchanting” nature and reducing it to mere resources to be exploited for profit. In the early 19thcentury, the growth of science that led to the industrial revolution inspired the Romantic movement to contrast industrialism’s “Satanic mills” and the “shades of the prison-house,” with a superior natural world and its “beauteous forms.” In an increasingly secular age, nature now became the Garden of Eden, and technology and science the signs of the fall that has banished us from the paradise enjoyed by humanity before civilization.
The untouched nature glorified by romantic environmentalism, then, is not our home. Ever since the cave men, humans have altered nature to make it more conducive to human survival and flourishing. After the retreat of the ice sheets changed the environment and animal species on which people had depended for food, humans in at least four different regions of the world independently invented agriculture to better manage the food supply. Nor did the American Indians, for example, live “lightly on the land” in a pristine “forest primeval.” They used fire to shape their environment for their own benefit. They burned forests to clear land for cultivation, to create pathways to control the migration of bison and other game, and to promote the growth of trees more useful for them.
Remaining trees and vegetation on the forest floor are more vigorous after removal of small trees for fuels reduction.
And today we continue to improve cultivation techniques and foods to make them more reliable, abundant, and nutritious, not to mention more various and safe. We have been so successful at managing our food supply that today one person out of ten provides food that used to require nine out of ten, obesity has become the plague of poverty, and famines result from political dysfunction rather than nature.
That’s why untouched nature, the wild forests filled with predators, has not been our home. The cultivated nature improved by our creative minds has. True environmentalism is not nature love, but nature management: applying skill and technique to make nature more useful for humans, at the same time conserving resources so that those who come after us will be able to survive. Managing resources and exploiting them for our benefit without destroying them is how we should approach the natural world. We should not squander resources or degrade them, not because of nature, but because when we do so, we are endangering the well-being of ourselves and future generations.
Conclusion
The annual burnt area from wildfires has declined over the past ninety years both in the U.S. and globally. Even this year’s wildfires are unlikely to come close to the average burn extent of the 1930s. The large wildfires this year are due to a combination of decades of poor forest management along with a weather pattern that has trapped warm, dry air over the West. The contention that global warming has played a causal role in the pattern is balderdash, but apparently that explanation seems plausible to the uninformed, and it is typical of the propaganda put forward by climate change interests.
Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. View more
Cookies settings
Accept
Privacy & Cookie policy
Privacy & Cookies policy
Cookies list
Cookie name
Active
Wer wir sind
Textvorschlag: Die Adresse unserer Website ist: https://climate-science.press.
Kommentare
Textvorschlag: Wenn Besucher Kommentare auf der Website schreiben, sammeln wir die Daten, die im Kommentar-Formular angezeigt werden, außerdem die IP-Adresse des Besuchers und den User-Agent-String (damit wird der Browser identifiziert), um die Erkennung von Spam zu unterstützen.
Aus deiner E-Mail-Adresse kann eine anonymisierte Zeichenfolge erstellt (auch Hash genannt) und dem Gravatar-Dienst übergeben werden, um zu prüfen, ob du diesen benutzt. Die Datenschutzerklärung des Gravatar-Dienstes findest du hier: https://automattic.com/privacy/. Nachdem dein Kommentar freigegeben wurde, ist dein Profilbild öffentlich im Kontext deines Kommentars sichtbar.
Medien
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein registrierter Benutzer bist und Fotos auf diese Website lädst, solltest du vermeiden, Fotos mit einem EXIF-GPS-Standort hochzuladen. Besucher dieser Website könnten Fotos, die auf dieser Website gespeichert sind, herunterladen und deren Standort-Informationen extrahieren.
Cookies
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar auf unserer Website schreibst, kann das eine Einwilligung sein, deinen Namen, E-Mail-Adresse und Website in Cookies zu speichern. Dies ist eine Komfortfunktion, damit du nicht, wenn du einen weiteren Kommentar schreibst, all diese Daten erneut eingeben musst. Diese Cookies werden ein Jahr lang gespeichert.
Falls du ein Konto hast und dich auf dieser Website anmeldest, werden wir ein temporäres Cookie setzen, um festzustellen, ob dein Browser Cookies akzeptiert. Dieses Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und wird verworfen, wenn du deinen Browser schließt.
Wenn du dich anmeldest, werden wir einige Cookies einrichten, um deine Anmeldeinformationen und Anzeigeoptionen zu speichern. Anmelde-Cookies verfallen nach zwei Tagen und Cookies für die Anzeigeoptionen nach einem Jahr. Falls du bei der Anmeldung „Angemeldet bleiben“ auswählst, wird deine Anmeldung zwei Wochen lang aufrechterhalten. Mit der Abmeldung aus deinem Konto werden die Anmelde-Cookies gelöscht.
Wenn du einen Artikel bearbeitest oder veröffentlichst, wird ein zusätzlicher Cookie in deinem Browser gespeichert. Dieser Cookie enthält keine personenbezogenen Daten und verweist nur auf die Beitrags-ID des Artikels, den du gerade bearbeitet hast. Der Cookie verfällt nach einem Tag.
Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites
Textvorschlag: Beiträge auf dieser Website können eingebettete Inhalte beinhalten (z. B. Videos, Bilder, Beiträge etc.). Eingebettete Inhalte von anderen Websites verhalten sich exakt so, als ob der Besucher die andere Website besucht hätte.
Diese Websites können Daten über dich sammeln, Cookies benutzen, zusätzliche Tracking-Dienste von Dritten einbetten und deine Interaktion mit diesem eingebetteten Inhalt aufzeichnen, inklusive deiner Interaktion mit dem eingebetteten Inhalt, falls du ein Konto hast und auf dieser Website angemeldet bist.
Mit wem wir deine Daten teilen
Textvorschlag: Wenn du eine Zurücksetzung des Passworts beantragst, wird deine IP-Adresse in der E-Mail zur Zurücksetzung enthalten sein.
Wie lange wir deine Daten speichern
Textvorschlag: Wenn du einen Kommentar schreibst, wird dieser inklusive Metadaten zeitlich unbegrenzt gespeichert. Auf diese Art können wir Folgekommentare automatisch erkennen und freigeben, anstatt sie in einer Moderations-Warteschlange festzuhalten.
Für Benutzer, die sich auf unserer Website registrieren, speichern wir zusätzlich die persönlichen Informationen, die sie in ihren Benutzerprofilen angeben. Alle Benutzer können jederzeit ihre persönlichen Informationen einsehen, verändern oder löschen (der Benutzername kann nicht verändert werden). Administratoren der Website können diese Informationen ebenfalls einsehen und verändern.
Welche Rechte du an deinen Daten hast
Textvorschlag: Wenn du ein Konto auf dieser Website besitzt oder Kommentare geschrieben hast, kannst du einen Export deiner personenbezogenen Daten bei uns anfordern, inklusive aller Daten, die du uns mitgeteilt hast. Darüber hinaus kannst du die Löschung aller personenbezogenen Daten, die wir von dir gespeichert haben, anfordern. Dies umfasst nicht die Daten, die wir aufgrund administrativer, rechtlicher oder sicherheitsrelevanter Notwendigkeiten aufbewahren müssen.
Wohin deine Daten gesendet werden
Textvorschlag: Besucher-Kommentare könnten von einem automatisierten Dienst zur Spam-Erkennung untersucht werden.
