Multiple media outlets, including the BBC and Reuters, claim that a recent West African heatwave would be “impossible” without global warming. This is claim is misleading and not supported by real-world data. The study cited in both articles is merely an attribution modelling study, which is not proof of the influence of climate change.
In their article on a recent heatwave in West Africa and the Sahel, Reuters reports “[t]emperatures soared so high in Mali and Burkina Faso they equated to a once in 200-year event, according to the report on the Sahel region by World Weather Attribution (WWA).”
Reuters continues: “The severity of the heatwave led WWA’s team of climate scientists to conduct a rapid analysis, which concluded the temperatures would not have been reached if industry had not warmed the planet by burning fossil fuels and other activities.”
One of World Weather Attribution’s statisticians even went so far as to say that heat waves of that intensity wouldn’t happen at all in the region in a “pre-industrial climate.” This claim is utterly unfounded, as those parts of Africa are known for being at least semi-arid, subtropical, and prone to drought and heatwaves. While temperature records are not very lengthy or complete for many parts of Africa, April is known to be the hottest month of the year for Burkina Faso in particular, and many parts of the Sahel region in general, where temperature maximums on average are above 40°C – which is what the recent heatwave brought, meaning there is not justification for claiming the recent heatwave is historically unprecedented.
Climate Realismhas frequently noted that WWA’s “rapid attribution” studies are more in the realm of fantasy than fact, as they depend on virtual models of climate conditions that do not actually exist in real life. The model of the climate that an event like the recent Sahel heatwave is compared against is one which represents how the scientists guess things would have been had it not been for the burning of fossil fuels. All of their modelling begins with the unscientific assumption that any given weather event WAS influenced in a dangerous direction by climate change. It proves absolutely nothing, because the “control group” is entirely fictional.
The BBC produced a slightly more balanced story, acknowledging that other climate experts say that El Niño is mostly to blame for at least some of the bad weather in Africa this year. Despite spending the vast majority of the article linking the heat wave to climate change, as Reuters does, the BBC at least acknowledged, “[a] separate study on drought in Southern Africa said El Niño was to blame, rather than climate change.”
So, as the Daily Sceptic pointed out in reporting on the BBC’s coverage, “… the headline could have read: Southern African drought “impossible” without El Niño. But it didn’t.”
El Niño has a wide range of effects that are often delayed in hitting Africa, lately it has been causing heatwaves and rainfall in cocoa producing countries like Ghana, which is acknowledged in other articles having to do with cocoa bean production.
In another Climate Realismpost about cocoa production, H. Sterling Burnett also points out that this kind of weather is normal for the region, writing “across the region making up West Africa, it is common, not rare, for it to have heatwaves and heavy rains, interspersed with periods of drought.” He points out that “wet heatwaves” are not uncommon.
Once again, attribution science is hardly science and proves nothing about climate change. It certainly can’t determine whether human activities caused or even contributed to any given weather event. All of this is speculative at best. Frankly the enthusiasm with which supposed journalists and prominent media outlets embrace attribution modelling studies with no questions or skepticism whatsoever is an embarrassment to the profession. The BBC and Reuters ought to know better, and they should brush up on the facts before hyping scare-stories.
The recent autumn and winter months have seen Britain beset by more than the usual number of storms, and more than average amount of rainfall. For most of us, this has been merely unpleasant weather, but it has seemingly caused rivers to breach their banks and put much farmland under water. This is a real problem in its own right. Predictably, now the waters are receding, adherents of green ideology are turning the farming drama into the climate crisis, with talk of “failed harvests” and predictions of our imminent hunger. But where is the evidence?
The Guardian, as we would expect, has been leading the alarmist chorus. “The U.K. faces food shortages and price rises as extreme weather linked to climate breakdown causes low yields on farms locally and abroad,” it proclaimed, adding that “scientists have said this is just the beginning of shocks to the food supply chain caused by climate breakdown”. “I wish people understood the urgent climate threat to our near-term food security,” mourned Associate Professor of Environmental Change at Leiden University in the Netherlands to the newspaper.
Citing his experiences as a carrot farmer, Extinction Rebellion (XR) co-founder Roger Hallam declared on X that, “I know what is going to happen – not because of these particularly bad years, but because of the speed at which things are getting worse now.” Only “urgent revolution” can save us. And this in a nutshell is what the entire green movement has long been warning us of – extreme weather that will force us into hunger, which will drive us into political extremism and social breakdown and the end of civilisation. So are these floods a warning from Gaia that she made no covenant with us, unlike that other God, and that clouds stand ready to unleash her revenge on us for our SUV sins? Are these greens latter-day Noahs, or just a ship of fools?
The problem for Hallam is that carrot production in the U.K. shows very little sign of sensitivity to climate change. Since the 1950s, carrot and turnip production has quadrupled. More significantly, yield per hectare – the indicator which is more sensitive to climate and weather – has more than tripled. If Britain was experiencing a climate-related carrot crisis, we would see this indicator plunge, rather than rise. Consequently, and contrary to fears about price rises, supermarkets are selling a kilo of British-grown carrots for 65p. ‘Wonky’ or ‘imperfect’ carrots are being sold at 45p/Kg. The struggle for carrot farmers may therefore be less high water than low prices for their products.
And the same story is revealed in UN data for nearly all British-grown vegetables. Inspection of the data reveals nothing resembling a pattern of climate change for the yield of wheat, oats, and cereals in general, onions, apples and pears, dry peas and other pulses, plums, potatoes and other roots and tubers, rapeseed, raspberries and strawberries, sugar beet and tomatoes. The only reductions in yield relate to the production of cauliflower and broccoli, and green peas. However, given that these data are significant outliers, we can for the moment assume that other reasons, perhaps economic or regulatory, better account for apparent declines in yield. Meanwhile, there is plenty of evidence in the U.K. and beyond that the era of global warming – or climate crisis – has been an era of bumper harvests.
Caution is required here. The point that sceptics rightly make to alarmists is that weather is not climate. It would be foolish to say that just because there exists no climate signal in agricultural production statistics, there is no evidence of weather affecting farming. There is.
In the 60 years of data about the production of potatoes in the U.K. there have been two unquestionable impacts of weather. The first occurred in the drought and heat years of 1975 and ’76. The second occurred in the washout year of 2012, though not, curiously, in the non-summer of 2008 and the ‘barbecue summer’ of 2009, which left the U.K. Met Office with egg on its face. However, the consequences of these disappointing years for society more broadly is very far from famine. Whereas potato famers produced 100kg of their crop per person in the U.K. in 2011, in 2012 this fell to 72Kg, the difference being made up by imports, mostly the following year. Chips and crisps may have cost slightly more, but nobody went hungry. And imports are perhaps the explanation for the gradual decline of overall production of the crop, too. Despite the ‘crisis’, potatoes are retailing for as little as 75p/kg in supermarkets.
It remains to be seen whether or not, and to what extent, recent weather events have affected agricultural production statistics. Nonetheless, farmers across the U.K. are reporting real problems. A mostly sober article in January’s Farmer’s Guide features the experiences of farmers from Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire, Essex and Lincolnshire following the deluge delivered by Storm Henk, leaving in some places the “highest flood level in more than 70 years”. Again, these are reports of serious problems that can ruin a farm. But the climate change narrative distracts from this necessary discussion. The article concludes with the words of Dr. Jonathan Clarke from the Institute for Global Sustainable Development at the University of Warwick, who claims that “there is an urgent need to consider how our society can become more resilient to the worst effects of a changing climate”. But weather conditions the same as we experienced 70 years ago are not evidence of an “urgent need” as much as they are a reminder of weather being a constant problem, and therefore of academics’ and scientists’ recent departure from both reality and historical fact.
So what has been the signal from weather? The Met Office’s data show that, for the country as a whole, March, February, December, October and September of last year brought significantly more than average rainfall. In a series of monthly data spanning 188 years, those months respectively were the 19th, 4th, 11th, 8th, and 63rd wettest of those months for England, and the 31st, 11th, 9th, 7th, and 32nd for the U.K. as a whole. Nasty for all of us, and especially difficult for famers. But does it even stand as evidence of “extreme weather”, as the Guardian claims, let alone man-made climate change-induced “extreme weather”, requiring “urgent” interventions to prevent it getting worse? Isn’t it just… you know… weather?
The worst of those months for the U.K. – the ninth wettest December – can be seen in its historical context. The Met Office provides a running average, which would seem to stand as an approximation of ‘climate change’. But despite that moving trendline, there were plenty of comparable Decembers in the mid to late 19th Century, and in the early and late 20th Century.
Moreover, the inter-annual variation of December rainfall spans nearly an entire order of magnitude, from 25mm to just under 225mm. The averaging of such noisy data does not and cannot reveal any underlying changing reality because it does not and cannot tell us anything useful – the trend is a phantom. Even if we were to follow on the Guardian’s and scientists’ injunction to eliminate emissions from fossil fuels, farmers would be no better protected from either drought or deluge. Moreover, if those trends were to be interpreted as probabilistic forecasts on which decisions are based, farmers would go bust in short order, because gambling on either more or less rain is guaranteed to produce a busted flush.
Farmers are not automata whose cyclic programming requires the same conditions each year. Farming is not a process with narrow operating thresholds that have been exceeded. Farming is an art, which requires careful judgement based on experience acquired by generations of farmers developing expertise in coping with hostile circumstances, including both different weather and market conditions.
The evidence clearly shows that continuous and increasing supplies of food are produced despite radical interannual monthly, seasonal and yearly shifts in weather, regardless of any semblance of trends in those variations. It has no doubt been a wet winter and spring. And this wetness may well have an effect on this year’s harvests. But the notion that this has anything to do with climate change, as per the framing of the Guardian‘s radical activists and equally ideologically-driven scientists, puts ideology before reality.
Many farmers have taken to social media to show videos of their submerged farms. And this speaks to the absurdity of framing first-order problems like flooding as extremely abstract climate-related phenomena, for which there exist little if any evidence. The extant raw data, which span 188 years, tell us all that we need to know: some months there is very little rain, and these months may coincide; some months there is a great deal more rain, and likewise this can add up to create a backlog that needs to be drained. That is the full extent of the data that policymakers require to develop drought and flood mitigation strategies, and those parameters are completely unchanged by climate change, if any climate metrics can be squeezed out of the data at all.
In other words, we already know how dry it can be, and we already know how wet it can be. Therefore, we know what we need to do to ensure that there is sufficient water in drought and sufficient drainage in times of excess rainfall. We know, therefore, how badly politicians are already failing at their job. Their preferences for saving us with policies that ban cars and domestic gas boilers, tax flights and cover agricultural land with turbines and solar panels will not change these parameters. And by pushing up the prices of energy and feedstocks, it will likely create an agricultural crisis where none needs to exist. Climate change is a massive distraction from our real and present problems.
Subscribe to Ben Pile’s The Net Zero Scandal Substack here.
Apparently if it wasn’t for climate change, we wouldn’t be having so much of this hot and cold weather which is stretching household finances in California.
Climate change driving demand for predatory loans, research shows
Study connects heatwaves and cold snaps to surges in payday lending, keeping people in debt and harming communities of color
Two competing payday loan stores stand on the corners of an intersection in south Los Angeles. An area of persistent poverty, south LA is also a banking desert where payday lenders fill the gap. Long lines form inside the stores on the first of the month, when rent is due.
Guillermina Molina, a 60-year-old retired housekeeper, visits the same Speedy Cash each month. During the summer months – which are becoming increasingly hot – she runs her air conditioner but frets about her utility bills. “It’s kind of hard because the [power bill] is coming up too high because you gotta have the air conditioner on,” Molina said.
During heatwaves, Molina’s daughter, Vanessa Vargas, checks in on her every day. “I don’t want to pull up to her house and find her [passed out] because of the heat,” she said.
Molina doesn’t have savings, so to cover her bills she takes out a $225 payday loan every month, paying $45 in interest on each loan. When she’s unable to pay back her loan on time, she’s charged extra. “There’s nothing left over,” Vargas said.
Extreme Weather and Low-Income Household Finance: Evidence from Payday Loans
by Shihan Xie, Victoria Wenxin Xie and Xu Zhang
This paper explores the impact of extreme weather exposures on the financial outcomes of low-income households. Using a novel dataset comprising individual-level payday loan applications and loan-level information, we find that extreme temperature days—both hot and cold—lead to surges in demand for payday loans. An increase in the number of days with extreme heat results in an increase in delinquency and default rates and a reduction of total credit issued, indicating a contraction in loan supply. These effects are especially noticeable for online payday loans. Our findings highlight the heightened financial vulnerability of low- income households to environmental shocks and underscore the need for targeted policies.Read more:
California has some of the most expensive energy in the USA because of their green energy policies.
Regardless of whether you believe in future climate catastrophes, and whether California’s climate initiatives will have a global impact, right now it would be more accurate to say that climate policy rather than climate change is creating financial hardship for low income Californians.
A long time ago I became fascinated by the obsession people have that the time they live in is of epic, overwhelming significance. I hunted around for a word that would sum this up. There isn’t one, so I invented my own: chronocentricity. It’s a form of egocentricity, a solipsistic fixation with the notion of one’s own implicit importance by living in a time of importance.
One of the curiosities of chronocentricity is that it is almost always predicated on the belief that the present is self-evidently of especial badness, replete with disasters and an imminent catastrophe of some sort, while what went before was much better.
The present is the worst of times, the past was the best of times. Nothing could sum up today’s climate catastrophising better since, as we all know, apparently the 1830s were paradise when the world was in a perfect state of equilibrium (but see the quote that ends this piece below).
Climate catastrophising is part of the human condition. It’s always been there because it’s a mechanism we use to distinguish one day from another and because it can have a dramatic impact on our survival. One can go back to Roman times and even earlier for various accounts and explanations, but they are scattered and don’t admit the creation of an organised list.
In the year AD 16, for example, the Roman General Germanicus had his fleet scattered and wrecked by a massive storm that left the survivors claiming they had seen whirlwinds and fantastic beasts (Tacitus, Annals 2.22–24, see here). The Roman natural historian Pliny the Elder supplied the invaluable information that hailstorms and whirlwinds are driven away by exposing menstrual fluid to lightning flashes, along with some other bizarre claims that a menstruating woman walking round a cornfield would lead to pests like caterpillars, worms and beetles dying (Natural History 28.76–8, see here).
Proper, coordinated climate catastrophising kicked off when early modern records and diary-keeping began, and that wasn’t really until the 17th century.
In 2023 I wrote a piece for this site about the weather described by the diarist John Evelyn (1620–1706). He was not alone.
In the Companion volume to their 1970 edition of Samuel Pepys’s diary (written 1660-9), the editors Robert Latham and William Matthews included a section about weather, providing an excellent resource for anyone wishing to find out about conditions in 17th-century England, which, as any modern sceptic knows, comes before ‘modern records began’ (The Diary of Samuel Pepys vol. X, p. 470ff).
I thought I’d take a look, because in the half century since that edition of Pepys’s Diary was published some of the texts of the time to which Latham and Matthews refer have become easily available online.
Interestingly, Latham and Matthews added an observation about those 17th-century records that resonates very well today: “As always, phenomena such as storms are amply reported, if sufficiently disastrous, in pamphlets and newspapers.” (ibid. p. 471)
These extracts are from the Diary of Ralph Josselin (1616-83), Vicar of Earl’s Colne, Essex, which featured sporadic entries from 1644-82. I’ve modernised the spelling. You’ll see right from the start that Josselin was clear the weather was a divine punishment for the sins of humanity. None of these people thought of suing the Government for breaching their human rights by failing to protect them:
1647: Among all the several judgements on this nation, God this spring, rye in the latter end of April, when rye was earing and eared, sent such blasted, terrible frosts, that the ear was frozen and so died, and cometh unto nothing: young ashes also leaved were nipped, and blacked, and those shoots died, as if the Lord would continue our want, and penury, we continuing our sins.
June 28th. Summer: Lord goeth out against us in the season, which was wonderful wet; floods every week, hay rotted abroad, much was carried away with the floods, much inned but very dirty, and dangerous for cattle; corn laid, pulled down with weeds; we never had the like in my memory, and that for the greatest part of the summer ; it continued to August 14th when it rained that it made a little flood, and commonly we had one or two floods weekly, or indeed in the meadows there was as it were a continual flood.
August 16th. A very great flood with the great rains last day and night. The season sad and threatening. Daily rains, but especially this morning, we found it exceeding August 24th wet; it caused a very great flood, abundance of hay rotten, much corn cut and not cut groweth, and yet men repent not, to give glory unto God.
September 1st, it was very wet and hindered men in the harvesting; we feared it would cause a flood.
August 31st 1649. The summer past… great inundations in Flanders, and of the Seine by Paris doing great hurt; these signs portend something.
Note Josselin’s “we never had the like in my memory”. This is a common type of phrase deployed in these older descriptions. It purports to be a factual description of how the writer personally could not recall anything similarly disastrous.
However, the real function of the phrase and others like it is to be metaphorical and suggest that nothing so catastrophic had ever happened before since the dawn of time. On June 25th 1652 Evelyn had described a storm so ghastly “as no man alive had seen the like in this age”.
Today, in our supposedly scientific age the phrase ‘since records began’ serves the same purpose. Purportedly factual, it is no more than a piece of melodrama. Neatly obscuring exactly when that was, the underlying implication is that whatever-it-was is totally unprecedented – ever – thereby ensuring the observation is worth making.
The General History of the Air by the early scientist, friend of Evelyn and co-member of the Royal Society, Robert Boyle (1627-91) was published posthumously in 1692. It included a transcript of the Register of Weather kept at Oxford by the philosopher and physician John Locke (1632-1704) between 1666 and 1683, the first serious attempt at making a statistical record, which included some of these memorable observations:
March 8th 1667: Very hard frost, Thames frozen, carts went over.
July 1673: Memorand. That from the beginning of May, till the middle of July, there was scarce one dry day, but so great rains, that produced greater floods than in the memory of man.
May 20th 1681: Cloudy, no rain from hence. till June 20th, the driest spring that hath been known, there having been no rain from the end of March to the end of June.
May 1682. Memorand. That fitting my new barometer, here the mercury was raised by addition of more in the receiver about 2/10 inch, which is almost two of my degrees, which are eight(h)s, though I suspect it still by reason of included air, a degree or two too low.
This is a particularly fascinating observation since it shows that Locke was aware his instruments were prone to error.
Boyle included other disaster stories. Here’s a letter from Fort St. George in Madras, dated January 23rd 1668, describing a storm that took place on November 22nd 1667:
The like hath not been known here in any man’s memory. The tempest of wind and rain was so exceeding violent, that nothing could stand before it; men and beasts carried into the sea by the violence of the winds and floods: the generality of the houses in this and the neighbour towns were ruined: scarce any trees left standing in gardens or elsewhere: the wall of this town laid flat in several places… no place in the fort where we could keep our persons, books or papers free from the wind or rain: nor scarcely any doors could stand against the violence of it: and we hourly feared the falling of the fort down upon us, it was so exceedingly rocked: and yet abroad we could have no shelter, nor were able to stand against it. The repairing of the damage will necessarily require a great charge.
As for Pepys himself, he threw in occasional weather reports. On May 20th 1660 he was in Holland, a member of the fleet that had sailed across to bring Charles II home:
But through badness of weather we were in great danger, and a great while before we could get to the ship, so that of all the company not one but myself that was not sick. I keeping myself in the open air, though I was soundly wet for it. This hath not been known four days together such weather at this time of year, a great while.
The following year, on June 2nd 1661, Pepys mentioned:
It began to rain (as it has done of late, so much that we begin to doubt [i.e., suspect] a famine).
Two years later it was worse. On June 26th 1663, Pepys and his cousin Roger:
walked into the King’s Bench Court, where I never was before, and there stayed an hour almost, till it had done raining, which is a sad season, that it is said there hath not been one fair day these three months, and I think it is true.
Which reminded me of a BBC News story the other day about the effect of our current endless rain on crops. I don’t doubt that farmers in this country are under considerable duress right now, but the plain fact is that such circumstances are not new – as both Josselin and Pepys demonstrate.
…it being the hottest day that ever I felt in my life, and it is confessed so by all other people the hottest they ever knew in England in the beginning of June.
It got worse. By July 11th 1665 it was “very hot beyond bearing”, which was odd because six months earlier on February 6th it had been “one of the coldest days, all say, they ever felt in England”. And then the night of July 7th-8th 1666 “proved the hottest night that ever I was in in my life, and thundered and lightened all night long and rained hard”.
Like an endless parade of modern tabloid headlines, the weather catastrophising of the 17th century provided content for diaries, pamphlets and newspapers and an excuse to point the finger at the evils of mankind.
The main effect of all this catastrophising is to obscure the truth, whatever that truth really is, and make it more likely whatever the problems are the panicked solutions either do no good or make things worse. At least back in the 17th century no-one was foolhardy enough to think the state had an obligation to protect them from the weather, and could be sued if it didn’t, or that anyone was able to change it. By 1710 John Gadbury had come up with astrological explanations for disasters in his Nauticum Astrologicum.
One thing is for certain though. Change, and adapting to it, is what we have always had to do:
“My dear Louisa must be careful of that cough,” remarked Miss Tox.
“It’s nothing,” returned Mrs Chick. “It’s merely change of weather. We must expect change.”
“Of weather?” asked Miss Tox, in her simplicity.
“Of everything,” returned Mrs Chick. “Of course we must. It’s a world of change. Anyone would surprise me very much, Lucretia, and would greatly alter my opinion of their understanding, if they attempted to contradict or evade what is so perfectly evident. Change!” exclaimed Mrs Chick, with severe philosophy. “Why, my gracious me, what is there that does not change!”Charles Dickens, Dombey and Son (1848)
Guy de la Bédoyère is a historian and writer with numerous books to his credit, among them several on the correspondence and writings of John Evelyn and Samuel Pepys.
An extraordinary story suggesting that male prostitutes in Indonesia self-identifying as ‘trans women’ are struggling to make a living due to climate change has been doing the rounds of mainstream media. The online Independent reported one sex worker complaining that “no one is coming out during the longer rainy season’, while another noted, “I no longer want to endure the heat and rain on the streets”. Needless to say, the actual data fail to give much credence to their weather woes. A lot of rain falls in tropical Indonesia but in the heaviest months of December, January and February during the period 1991-2020, the annual average of 833.6 mm was little changed from the 827.5 mm that fell 100 years ago. Over the entire period there has been an unnoticeable annual increase of 55 mm to 2,772.41 mm. Meanwhile the average annual temperature in Indonesia dropped by 0.14°C to 26°C from 2016 to 2022.
The U.K. blog Mumsnetran a thread noting the Independent’s headline “How climate change is hitting vulnerable Indonesian trans sex workers”, and asked: “Is this the most ‘woke’ headline ever”? The first comment remarked: “I don’t think I’ve seen even Titania McGrath manage to get so much oppression into so few words.” The first comment under the Independent’s original story asked: ‘Is this a Babylon Bee article”?
In fact the game being played here is a serious one, as regular readers of the Daily Sceptic will be only too well aware. The Independent story is credited to “Reuters correspondents” and is part of a global campaign to insert the fear of ‘climate change’ – human-caused of course – into almost every conceivable situation. The use of such emotional language is designed to drive up fear to support the Net Zero collectivisation. “Indonesia is particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, and trans women, who tend to face more stigma and marginalisation than trans men or other LGBTQ+ Indonesians, are also among those hardest hit by extreme weather,” reports Reuters. It is appears that as well as seeking to adapt their “precarious livelihoods” to the new “climate reality”, attempts are also being made to “raise awareness” of the challenges posed by extreme weather.
Street walking in a Muslim-majority country undoubtedly has perils, but to use such a situation to blame the climate is ridiculous. As we have noted, the climate in Indonesia has been remarkably stable over the last century – a tad more warmth, and more or less the same amount of rain.
The above World Bank graph plots a five-year smoothed average temperature in Indonesia since the start of the last century. In common with other countries in the tropics, the warming has been around half that seen in the heavily urbanised lands further north. The average temperature in 2022 at 26°C was only 0.5°C higher than the 1922 recording of 25.5°C.
Looking at the aggregated accumulation precipitation data from the World Bank above shows little change going back over 100 years, and certainly nothing that would have been obvious to the local inhabitants. According to the Independent account, sex workers in the rainforest region of West Java “are among the most affected by extreme weather”, and there is no doubt rainfall is slightly higher at the 1,000 metre elevation. But light relief is also available since the average annual temperature is over 2°C cooler than the country as a whole.
Of course Reuters has considerable form when it comes to whipping up political fear of a changing climate. Over the last two years, the Reuters Institute has been running the Oxford Climate Journalism Network that has seen over 400 journalists from across the world take lengthy sabbaticals to be indoctrinated into the campaign to push a climate ‘emergency’ narrative into every imaginable story. Currently undergoing such education is Marco Silva from the BBC Verify unit. One past course speaker has speculated on the need for “fines and imprisonment” for expressing scepticism about “well-supported” science. Delegates are groomed to “move beyond their siloed past” as climate journalists into a strategic position within newsrooms, “combining expertise with collaboration”.
Billionaire funds also back Covering Climate Now, an operation run out of the Columbia Journalism Review in New York and supported by media operations including Reuters, the Guardian, Bloomberg and Agence France-Presse. It claims to feed over 500 media outlets with written stories and narratives. It seeks a “reframing” of the way poodle journalists cover climate change. In other words, the relentless amplification for obvious political and cultural purposes of an invented climate emergency by constant story catastrophisation of the climate.
In passing, it might be observed that calling a journalist a journalist does not necessarily mean that he/him/she/her/they is a journalist.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’sEnvironment Editor.
Apparently “… denialism is standing up for industrial capitalism. … poorly educated men (and to the regional communities built around them) …” are the drivers of modern climate denial.
Never mind the science, News Corp has strengthened its climate denialism machine
Climate crisis denial can come in many forms — and Murdoch’s empire has all bases covered. CHRISTOPHER WARREN APR 02, 2024
The News Corp climate denial machine — all those cogs in its opinion pages finely tuned to reverse Aesop’s fable and repeatedly croak out: “No wolf here!” — has a problem. Extreme weather events have made it all but impossible to ignore the climate wolf threatening to blow our houses down.
…
They’ve reengineered the underlying denialism, too. Sure, they say now, the climate may be changing, but it’s not our fault. It’s not, as the cloistered academics would say, “anthropogenic”.
If global heating is not caused by humans burning fossil fuels, why would humans be able to do anything about it? (And, just in case, why not go, umm, nukular?)
…
“Attribution” has always been the weakest form of denialism, raising doubts rather than definitively rejecting. But as a recent US study found, its danger lies in being the gateway drug to a more full-blown repudiation of the science itself.
…
Why did climate denial suddenly become a touchstone for the global right? …
… It’s been tagged “the anti-reflexivity thesis“, which is the argument that denialism is standing up for industrial capitalism.
It appeals to a certain old-style machismo — the good ol’ days of physical, manual jobs that matter for poorly educated men (and to the regional communities built around them).
The person who wrote this vile outpouring of ignorance and contempt for rural people and people who work with their hands is a former president of the International Federation of Journalists – which in my opinion goes a long way towards explaining why large sectors of society don’t trust establishment media.
Christopher Warren implies advocacy of nuclear energy is an expression of industrial capitalist supporter ignorance, but real ignorance is denying that nuclear energy is a serious option. Nuclear works in france, which still generates around 70% of their electricity from affordable zero carbon nuclear. Are the French much smarter than everyone else on the planet? Or is copying the French nuclear success something any advanced nation could reasonably attempt to do?
But the idea that climate denial is motivated by irrational support for industrial capitalism is the crowning absurdity of Christopher’s article. From a study referenced by the article;
Anti-Reflexivity and Climate Change Skepticism in the US General Public
Aaron M. McCright Lyman Briggs College and Department of Sociology Michigan State University, Michigan, United States
Abstract
The leading theoretical explanation for the mobilization of organized climate change denial is the Anti-Reflexivity Thesis, which characterizes the climate change denial countermovement as a collective force defending the industrial capitalist system. In this study, I demonstrate that the Anti-Reflexivity Thesis also provides theoretical purchase for explaining patterns of climate change skepticism among regular citizens. Analyzing nationally representative survey data from multiple waves of the University of Texas Energy Poll, I examine key predictors of climate change skepticism within the US general public. Identification with or trust in groups representing the industrial capitalist system increases the likelihood of climate change skepticism. Also, identification with or trust in groups representing forces of reflexivity (e.g., the environmental movement and scientific community) decreases the likelihood of such skepticism. Further, this study finds that climate change skeptics report policy preferences, voting intentions, and behavioral intentions generally supportive of the existing fossil fuels–based industrial capitalist system.Read more: https://search.informit.org/doi/epdf/10.3316/informit.324791340628136
The study above defines anti-reflexivity as “… Reflexive Modernization Theory (e.g., Beck, 1992; Giddens, 1990; see also Rosa, Renn, & McCright, 2014) characterizes the current era of late modernity as a distinct stage of advanced industrial society where institutions suffer from legitimacy crises brought on by their inability to effectively solve the ecological and technological problems of modernization. …”
The idea, the “anti-reflexity thesis“, that opposition to climate policies comes from people who miss “the good old days”, who have lost their jobs and way of life because of social and technological progress, this fiction runs deep in liberal circles. The idea has even made it into television series. The following is character Tom Kirkman from the series “Designated Survivor”explaining why industrial jobs are disappearing from the USA and will never return.
But industrial employment didn’t disappear, it was lost to China.
If the reason for job losses in the USA was automation and technological progress, manufacturing would all still all be happening in the USA. The real reason lots of industrial activity moved to China and other parts of Asia, is because China prioritises affordable energy over green fantasies – even their solar panel manufacturing industry is powered by coal.
Green policies are the real job killers, not technology and progress – and people who are most affected by green policies, farmers and industry workers whose profitability utterly depends on affordable energy, are naturally opponents of policies which are wrecking their livelihoods.
Perhaps none of this matters to comfortable establishment media journalists who have no hesitation heaping contempt and scorn on anyone who gets their hands dirty, or anyone who objects to whatever latest green lunacy they champion. Because who cares what happens to farmers and factory workers right? Everyone knows food comes from supermarkets, and most of the stuff they care about is imported.
The climate events of 2022-24 have been “truly extraordinary”, notes Dr. Javier Vinós writing in Dr. Judith Curry’s online blog. The rare convergence of a number of events “that may not be repeated for hundreds or even thousands of years” represents a “unique learning opportunity” for climatologists. Interestingly, Dr. Vinós downplays the roll of the current El Niño. He says that the January 2022 Hunga Tonga underwater volcanic eruption, that boosted upper atmospheric water vapour by a remarkable 10%, is the most likely cause of the recent warming, which in turn led to an unprecedented three sudden stratospheric warming events. As the excess water leaves the atmosphere, observes Vinós, it will induce a cooling effect at the surface potentially lowering temperatures for the next three to four years.
The Hunga Tonga eruption was an extraordinary event since it blasted an enormous amount of water vapour into the upper atmosphere without the usual volcanic ash. Dust particles spread throughout the atmosphere can have a temporary cooling effect, as in 1815 with the Mount Tambora explosion, but water vapour has warming properties and is considered the most potent ‘greenhouse’ gas. “Unlike the lower troposphere, where the greenhouse effect is relatively saturated, the stratosphere, well above the Earth’s average emission altitude (about 6 km), experiences a much more pronounced effect from the addition of water vapour,” he observes.
The unusual weather events over the last few months have been catnip to alarmists in the general ranks of media, science and politics. The strictures of following the Net Zero political agenda mean that large swathes of climate science are ‘settled’ and out of bounds for discussion. All the changes in the weather and climate are due to humans using hydrocarbons, state the authorities. The constant catastrophising of the recent weather has largely ignored natural variation, and so the heat transfers of El Niño and the boosting of water vapour from Hunga Tonga are relegated to subsidiary footnotes.
Climate scientists were initially shocked by the ferocity of the Hunga Tunga eruption and the huge plume of water that suddenly shot into the upper atmosphere. Within months a group of European scientists drew attention to the scale of the discharge. They concluded that the unique nature and magnitude of the global stratospheric perturbation caused by the volcano “ranks it among the most remarkable climatic events in the modern observational era, with a range of potential long-lasting repercussions for stratospheric composition and climate”. Since that date there does not appear to have been a great deal of debate about the subject published in the scientific press. The cynical might conclude that there is not a big demand for anything that might dent all the recent weather propaganda helpfully propping up Net Zero.
Never before have we witnessed an undersea volcanic eruption with a plume capable of reaching the stratosphere and depositing a large amount of vapourised water, states Dr. Vinós.
The above drawing shows the dramatic increase in water vapour since the start of 2022. It illustrates the movement of the volcanic water from the tropical regions to the mid and high latitudes where it will gradually leave the atmosphere in the coming years. Vinós poses the question, why did it take so long to detect atmospheric changes, and he suggest the answers lie in very quick longitudinal spread but much slower travel though the latitudes. This would appear to be borne out in the differences shown in the above illustration between 2022 and 2023. In addition there are seasonal variations to be taken into account. The eruption of Tambora provides a precedent in that the famous ‘year without a summer’ occurred 12 months after the April 1815 eruption.
Looking forward, Vinós says we should see a reversing of all the warming caused by the Hunga Tonga volcano. Heat alarmists have made hay of late, with the Financial Times‘s ‘Editorial Board’ recently pontificating that the climate threat “is now moving into uncharted territory”. But other factors are looming that could start a period of significant cooling. These include the decline in solar activity after the maximum of Solar Cycle 25 and a future ocean current shift of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. “These are indeed interesting times in terms of climate dynamics,” observes Vinós. Meanwhile a lively scientific discussion is to be found under the article on Dr. Curry’s site.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
Rising media star ‘Jim’ Dale (real name Noel Roger Dale) from British Weather Services (limited company dissolved) with a 40-year old proficiency certificate in thermometer reading from the Royal Navy can be relied upon to turn almost every bad weather event into the harbinger of complete climate collapse. Whatever the data thrown at him disproving his barking claims, ‘Jim’ carries on regardless. It is a comic tour de force, not to be missed. Unfortunately this ‘Daleification’ of climate change is common throughout mainstream media. A recent extreme weather report written by the physicist Dr. Ralph B. Alexander notes that much of the fault for the erroneous perception that such events are becoming worse can be attributed to the mainstream media, “eager to promote the latest climate scare”. He argues that the failure by climate reporters to put today’s extremes in a true historical perspective “is contributing to the belief that weather extremes are on the rise when they are not”.
Published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Dr. Alexander argues: “Constant repetition of a false belief can, over time, create the illusion of truth – a phenomenon well known to psychologists and one exploited by propogandists. The falsehood can even become a ‘noble lie’ when exploited for political purposes.”
Of course, as regular readers of the Daily Sceptic are aware, bad or ‘extreme’ weather events are the main propaganda tools used to nudge global populations to accept the collectivist Net Zero project. It has long been realised that global warming doesn’t inspire the required levels of instant fear with temperatures rising, falling and pausing in both the near, historical and paleoclimatic record, mostly out of line with whatever the trace gas carbon dioxide is doing. It is difficult to raise the required panic when there is little more to show for 40 years of gentle warming than slightly milder winters and a substantially greener planet.
Dr. Alexander brings a vital historical perspective to the subject. Drawing on newspaper archives, he gives multiple examples of past extremes that match or exceed anything experienced in the present day. Collective memories of extreme weather are “short-lived”, he notes.
For instance, heatwaves of the past few decades pale into insignificance to those of the 1930s. The record shows that the heat wave was not just confined to the U.S. ‘Dust Bowl’ but extended throughout much of North America, as well as France, India and Australia. Major floods today are observed to be no more common nor deadly or disruptive than any of the thousands of floods in the past. Hurricanes overall have shown a decreasing trend around the globe, and the frequency of their landfalling has not changed for at least 50 years. The deadliest U.S. hurricane in recorded history killed an estimated 8-12,000 people in Galveston in 1900. As a comparison, the death toll of the category five Hurricane Ian, which deluged much of Florida in 2022 with a storm surge as high as Galveston, was just 156.
The biggest problem that Carry-on ‘Jim’ and the rest of mainstream media face in using extreme weather to push a political agenda is that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is lukewarm, or of “low confidence”, in attributing human involvement in a wide range of weather-related events.
The above table is published in the IPCC latest assessment report and it shows there is little or no evidence that the following have been, or will be out to 2100, affected by human-caused climate change: river floods, heavy rain and pluvial floods, landslides, drought (all types), fire ‘weather’, severe wind storms, tropical cyclones, sand and dust storms, heavy snowfall and ice storms, hail, snow avalanche, coastal flooding and erosion, and marine heatwaves. As can be seen, this doesn’t leave much for the alarmists to get their teeth into, but ‘Daleification’ takes care of that by just ignoring all the findings.
Irritation with the caution of the IPCC has naturally led to a gap in the climate catastrophe market, and this explains the rise of so-called weather attribution studies. These use computer models to process imaginary atmospheres and come up with pseudoscientific findings claiming individual events are caused by humans. The best known, World Weather Attribution, is based at Imperial College, is funded by green billionaire Jeremy Grantham and is widely quoted in the popular prints. In Dr. Alexander’s view, the misconception that extreme events are on the rise is “further amplified” by these studies. “Such studies, while fashionable, use highly questionable methodology that has several shortcomings,” he observes.
In his excellent, well-researched report, Dr. Alexander goes back and quotes from many historical sources. The ‘noble lie’ is well covered in mainstream media, but, notes the author, “history tells a different story”.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
The Met Office is refusing to retract a claim made by a senior meteorologist on BBC Radio 5 Live that storms in the U.K. are becoming “more intense” due to climate change. This is despite admitting in Freedom of Information (FOI) documents that it had no evidence to back up the claim. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) noted the “false” claim seriously misled the public and demanded a retraction. The Daily Scepticcovered the story last Thursday and has since contacted the Met Office on three occasions seeking a response. “False information of this kind does much to induce climate anxiety in the population and I am sure you would agree such errors should be corrected by any reputable organisation,” it was noted. No reply was received – no retraction has been forthcoming.
The storm claim was made by Met Office spokesman Clare Nasir on January 22nd and led to an FOI request for an explanation by the investigative journalist Paul Homewood. The Met Office replied that it was unable to answer the request due to the fact that the information “is not held”. Interestingly, the Met Office’s own 2022 climate report noted that the last two decades have seen fewer occurrences of maximum wind speeds in the 40, 50, 60 knot bands than previous decades. The Daily Sceptic report went viral on social media with almost 3,000 retweets on X, while GWPF’s demand for retraction was covered by the Scottish Daily Express.
The lack of action by the state-funded Met Office is very interesting. Extreme weather is now the major go-to explanation for the opinion that humans largely control the climate, despite a general lack of scientific evidence. Backing away from this ‘settled’ narrative risks damaging a potent tool nudging populations across the world towards the collectivist Net Zero political project. Mainstream media usually take care to fudge their reporting of any direct link, using phrases such as ‘scientists say’ and sprinkling words ‘could’ and ‘might’ in the copy. The mistake Nasir made was to forget this basic requirement of broadcast fearmongering.
There appears to be an arrogance around the Met Office, an arrogance it shares with many other organisations and scientists promoting Net Zero. At the heart of this assumed superiority is the ludicrous claim that the science around human-caused climate change is ‘settled’. As a result of this, it seems many have lost the ability to debate their work with anyone taking an inquiring position. The scientific process has largely broken down in the climate science world. Secure in the knowledge that it will not be challenged, almost anything can be said on legacy media from a ‘consensus’ narrative point of view to promote the supra-national aims of Net Zero. On the legal front, this arrogance was in evidence in the summing up in the recent Mann v Steyn defamation trial in Washington D.C. The jury should award punitive damages to Michael Mann, inventor of the temperature ‘hockey stick’ graph, “so that in future no one will dare engage in climate denialism”, said Mann’s defending lawyer.
It is possible that if the Met Office is obliged to explain or retract what was after all just a routine scare broadcast on a tame state-reliant media outlet, it might be forced into more substantial scientific debate. How it abolished the global temperature pause from 2000-2014 by adding 30% extra warming on a retrospective basis to its HadCRUT5 record, and why it insists on promoting temperature records from busy U.K. airbases, are two subjects that spring immediately to mind.
Ineffable superiority was certainly on display when the Daily Sceptic recently reported that the Met Office was considered ditching the measurement of changes in temperature using data from the past 30 years in favour of a measurement compiled with 10 years’ past data and 10 years’ future modelled estimates. This was designed to promote a possible earlier breach of the political 1.5°C threshold. Lead author Professor Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts at the Met Office, tweeted a ‘rebuttal’ on X, noting we had taken three weeks to review the paper. “Or are they just very slow readers? I suppose our paper does use big words like ‘temperature’ so maybe they had to get grown-ups to help,” he added.
Why is the Met Office struggling to come up with any evidence to back up its claim that bad weather is caused by climate change? Because there is precious little of it. “People are going absolutely nuts these days about extreme weather,” writes the distinguished academic and science writer Roger Pielke Jr. “Every event, anywhere, is now readily associated with climate change and a portent of a climate out of control, apocalyptic even. I’ve long given up hope that the actual science of climate and extreme weather will be fairly reported or discussed in policy – nowadays, climate change is just too seductive and politically expedient,” he notes.
In its latest ‘Sixth Assessment Report‘, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that attempts to discern human involvement in severe storms outside natural variation remain of “low confidence”. In fact, it is unable to find human involvement in a wide range of weather-related events, not just in the past but out to the turn of this century.
Beyond natural variability, the IPCC, much to the disappointment of alarmists, has concluded there is little or no evidence that the following events (table above) are or will be affected by human-caused climate change: river floods, heavy rain and pluvial floods, landslides, drought (all types), fire ‘weather’, severe wind storms (Met Office please note), tropical cyclones, sand and dust storms, heavy snowfall and ice storms, hail, snow avalanche, coastal flooding and erosion, and marine heatwaves.
Perhaps the Met Office doesn’t want to apologise for misleading the public over winter storms – it might put down an unwelcome marker for mea culpas becoming general across the entire media and climate front.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’sEnvironment Editor.
The Met Office has been unable to back up a claim that storms in the U.K. are “more intense” due to the effects of climate change. The claim was made by senior Met Office meteorologist Claire Nasir on January 22nd on BBC 5 Live Breakfast in the aftermath of Storm Isha, and led to a freedom of information request for an explanation by investigative journalist Paul Homewood. The Met Office has replied that it is unable to answer the request due to the fact that the information “is not held”.
In fact the Met Office could have addressed the claim that storms are growing in intensity by referring to its own ‘State of the Climate 2022’ report:
The most recent two decades have seen fewer occurrences of maximum gust speeds above these thresholds [40/50/60 knots] than during previous decades, particularly comparing the period before and after 2000. This earlier period [before 2000] also included among the most severe storms experienced in the U.K. in the observational records including the ‘Burns Day Storm’ of January 25th 1990, the ‘Boxing Day Storm’ of December 26th 1998 and the ‘Great Storm’ of October 16th 1987. Any comparison of storms is complex as it depends on severity, spatial extent and duration. Storm Eunice [in 2022] was the most severe storm to affect England and Wales since February 2014, but even so, these storms of the 1980s and 1990s were much more severe.
An explanation for the remarks broadcast unchallenged on the BBC was provided by the Met Office, “in order to provide advice and assistance”. The statement about more intense storms being due to climate change was, the Met Office explains, in reference to “our published U.K. Climate Projections, looking at projections in the future”. This is straight out laughable, since it seeks to justify a statement firmly in the present with waffle about future modelled projections. Paul Homewood comments that it is “small wonder that so many have little confidence in the Met Office anymore”. Meanwhile, the Global Warming Policy Foundation has demanded that the Met Office retracts the “false ‘more intense storms’ claim”. The foundation notes that there is no compelling trend in maximum gust speeds recorded in the U.K. since 1969.
Of course these remarks by Claire Nasir are just the latest in a long line of scares that are being spread by state-funded operations promoting the collectivist Net Zero project. In the mainstream media there is little or no push back on often outrageous and improbable claims of climate collapse and potential future human misery.
In December, the headlines were full of the news that London could suffer an endemic dengue plague by 2060 due to changes in the climate. The claim from the Health Security Agency arose from a computer model fed with an implausible rise in temperature of 3-4°C within 80 years. Paul Reiter, retired Professor of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, called the claims “entirely fictional” and “shameless”. Andrew Montford of Net Zero Watch commented that science is being misused to generate fear and to ‘nudge’ us in a desired direction. “This kind of shameful disinformation brings the Civil Service into disrepute,” he said.
The cynical might observe that climate Armageddonites know they are unlikely to be challenged on any claim on climate change, however improbable. In mainstream media, politics and academia, the science is ‘settled’. As a matter of policy, the BBC no longer gives airtime to anyone challenging the politicised narrative. As a result, many scientists seem to have lost the ability to engage in a rational debate with anyone taking a sceptical view of their work. Last December, the Daily Sceptic reported on a paper from the Met Office that proposed a radical new method of calculating climate temperature change. The scientific method of calculating trends over 30 years was to be ditched and replaced with 10 years of actual data merged with model projections for the next decade. The motive behind this controversial move was obvious since the hope would be to claim an earlier breach of the 1.5°C political threshold. The paper was led by Professor Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts at the Met Office, and this is what he tweeted as a rebuttal.
The only mainstream broadcast media outlets in the U.K. offering a platform for sceptical discussion of climate change and its role in promoting Net Zero are Talk TV and GB News. Almost all salaried academics working in ‘climate science’ subscribe to the ‘settled’ narrative and will not debate with people they frequently term ‘deniers’. In fact they hide behind this and similar abuse because they fear a forensic examination of much of their fearmongering. Not to put too fine a point on it, they are scared of what might happen in an uncontrolled debating environment. Perish the thought that Professor Betts might be asked to explain how he keeps a straight face when promoting the Met Office’s 40.3°C U.K. temperature ‘record’. The one recorded for 60 seconds on July 19th 2022 by a runway at RAF Coningsby as three Typhoon jets were landing.
To ‘balance’ their coverage, and seemingly to keep the state regulator Ofcom happy, Talk TV and GB News are forced to give a platform to people inhabiting the more colourful end of the climate spectrum. Step forward Jim Dale, one time Royal Navy weather observer, who can be relied upon to point to any bad weather event or natural disaster such a wildfires and claim it is all due to a human-caused collapsing climate. Any reference to actual data is met with shouty denial and frequent abuse. The regular brawls on Nana Akua’s GB News Sunday show with retired hydrologist Paul Burgess are a classic of their kind.
Let’s call it the Daleification of climate science, and as we can see it is not just confined to our eponymous hero.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’sEnvironment Editor.
Share this:
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.
