A few media outlets, including CNN and BBC, have run recent articles talking about flooding in Dubai, claiming that climate change made the storms worse. This is false. There is no evidence that climate change made the rain more extreme, instead, evidence actually indicates that El Niño and even cloud seeding may have contributed.
CNN’s writer says global warming is the likely driver of heavy rainfall in Dubai “because the atmosphere in a 1.2-degree warmer world can now hold 8.4% more moisture, which is making extreme rain events more intense.”
These claims are nonsense, and worse, non-scientific, for the simple reason that not only does data not show that heavy rainfall is becoming more intense or common, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) doesn’t even claim that any sign whatsoever will even begin to emerge, according to their own projections, until well into the future.
As discussed by meteorologist Anthony Watts in a previous Climate Realism post on the extreme rain in Dubai, the latest claims from the IPCC’s 6th Assessment Report show that “heavy precipitation and pluvial flooding” has not yet emerged in the current “historical period.” They have found no climate signal related to heavy rain. (See figure below)
Figure 1 – Table 12.12 | on Page 90 – Chapter 12 of the UN IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. Emergence of Climate Impact Drivers (CIDs)
Even if there was a climate signal in the broader data, the modelling done by WWA does not reflect real-world conditions and actually proves nothing at all. Again, several previous posts at Climate Realism (here, here, and here, as samples) have discussed in detail the issues with weather attribution “science.”
The best description of how these attribution studies work was given by statistician Dr. William Briggs in a paper compiled by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Dr. Briggs wrote:
All attribution studies work around the same basic theme. . . . A model of the climate as it does not exist, but which is claimed to represent what the climate would look like had mankind not ‘interfered’ with it, is run many times. The outputs from these runs is examined for some ‘bad’ or ‘extreme’ event, such as higher temperatures or increased numbers of hurricanes making landfall, or rainfall exceeding some amount. The frequency with which these bad events occur in the model is noted. Next, a model of the climate as it is said to now exist is run many times. This model represents global warming. The frequencies from the same bad events in the model are again noted. The frequencies between the models are then compared. If the model of the current climate has a greater frequency of the bad event than the imaginary (called ‘counterfactual’) climate, the event is said to be caused by global warming, in whole or in part.
Fundamentally, attribution science cannot be proof of human influences on the weather via climate change, because it begins with the assumption that any given weather event is being influenced by climate change. In other words, the model is designed with the outcome in mind, making it impossible for them to “discover” anything to the contrary. In WWA’s rapidly produced attribution studies the question is never whether climate change contributed to a particular extreme weather event, but rather only, how much additional ferocity did it cause.
The WWA models cannot prove that the heavy rain in Dubai, and resultant flooding, was caused by climate change at all, much less attribute a particular percentage of the rain to climate change.
Both the BBC and CNN grudgingly acknowledge but play down the role El Niño had in the storms and flooding, despite the fact that it is a much more likely to be a contributing factor for the heavy rainfall than long-term climate change. El Niño has a significant influence on weather patterns around the world, including the United Arab Emirates. A 2016 study found that El Niño has been associated with extreme rainfall in UAE during multiple years, going back to 1982.
Although recent reports have seen the government backpedaling on this claim, when the flood stories first broke, a UAE National Center of Meteorology scientist admitted to Bloomberg that cloud seeding experiments were being run in the days leading up to the storms. This may also have played a role.
It is remarkable that journalists continue to fall for the attribution modelling con, assuming they are seeking the truth when it comes to the impact of the modest warming of the past century. However, if these journalists are instead intending to act as just a mouthpiece for weather attribution propaganda in furtherance of the climate crisis narrative, then they are guilty of knowingly deceiving their audiences who may lack the background knowledge allowing them to recognize that attribution modelling, as currently practiced, is unscientific. In either case, the BBC and CNN are misleading their readers.
A mainstay of the green lobby in the face of its growing number of critics is that climate sceptics are funded by oil, gas and coal interests. By claiming that commentators such as yours truly are merely the PR front for Big Oil, green campaigners feel that they have excused themselves from the need to make rational arguments. Profit, not reason, they claim, drives scrutiny of the climate agenda. But not only do their accusations lack any evidence, they ignore the much greater flow of money between private interests and green lobbyists. So, what’s in it for them?
If only we were funded by Big Oil, perhaps I would be as wealthy as Britain’s top green officials, such as the outgoing Chief Executive of the U.K. Climate Change Committee (CCC), Chris Stark. The civil servant’s total salary and benefits for the financial year 2020-21 amounted to a whopping £400,000. That’s more than the annual total income for the organisation at number one in the green demonology – the Global Warming Policy Foundation – for four out of the last five years. The CCC’s former Chairman, John Gummer, restyled as Lord Deben, was revealed to have made £600,000 from his business dealings with green companies, which he failed to declare in the register of interests – profits that helped him employ a butler, no less, at his Suffolk mansion. Gummer’s predecessor at the CCC, Lord Adair Turner, saves the planet by heating the swimming pool at his country retreat using solar power.
But as it happens, our alleged fossil fuel overlords are really quite mean. According to green activist sleuths InfluenceMap, the biggest oil companies in the world spend approximately $200 million per year on climate-related propaganda. That’s a lot of money, right? However, despite this being framed as ‘denial’ by InfluenceMap’s coreligionists, the group’s investigations expose no such thing. Rather than finding receipts, InfluenceMap’s analysis merely estimates the costs of its enemies’ advertising and lobbying campaigns – mere guesswork, in other words, forms the backbone of its research. And rather than finding ‘denial’, that analysis includes lobbying in support of Net Zero policies and global agreements. Using actual receipts, not merely estimates, I counted the total grants made by the organisations that fund InfluenceMap to green campaigning organisations. It amounted to over $1.2 billion per year – six times more than InfluenceMap guesses their enemies allegedly spend. And that is not even a remotely exhaustive survey of the green blob.
With so much money sloshing between billionaire philanthropists and ersatz ‘civil society’ organisations, the question must be, what is the quid pro quo? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, after all. And if one can peddle misinformation on behalf of oil barons, one can peddle great big fat lies for green billionaires too.
Real estate is one of the under-explored issues at the centre of green blob business plans. Despite green claims to prioritise ‘efficiency’, green policies massively decrease the productivity of land. And there is nothing that a rent-seeker values more than scarcity. Consider, for instance, the 1.5km2 physical footprint of Hinkley Point C, the 3.2 gigawatt nuclear power station being developed in Somerset. An onshore windfarm with the same output, albeit unreliable (since the wind is variable), would occupy an area a thousand times larger. Even the Guardian recognises the swindle, reporting that the Crown Estate made £443 million in 2022, thanks in large part to the seabed it rents out to offshore wind farms. In the 2010s it was pointed out that the then-Prime Minister’s father-in-law, Sir Reginal Sheffield, made £600,000 per year from rents charged to two wind farms on his land. The upper classes are so keen on green because the relics of feudalism profit from neo-feudalism.
Zealots gotta zealot. And society has always had to deal with ideological zealots of one kind or another, who service the interests of their masters by confecting ideological imperatives. As Joel Kotkin, Martin Durkin and Vivek Ramaswamy have all documented in their analyses of the emerging political order, a new clerisy has been established as society’s moral guardians, standing between the eco-billionaires and the rest of us to enforce adherence to green diktats and other elite ideologies. Occupying countless positions across the non-wealth-creating sectors in the Civil Service, civil society, the ‘third sector’, academia and the news media, these culture war front-liners are nonetheless extremely well paid.
Greenpeace is currently hiring a Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-racism Lead for its London HQ, and will pay up to £66,192 per annum. Climb the greasy green pole to become a director of the ‘charity’, and you can expect renumeration of £95,000. Last year, the Telegraph revealed that the Vice Chancellor of Imperial College – the source of all dodgy air pollution, Covid and climate modelling – was paid a basic salary of £365,000, but earned as much as £527,400 for overseeing the prestigious institution’s crystal ball-ocks factory. The wellspring of green ideological garbage, the Guardian, claims to be supported by its readers, “not billionaire backed”, and its favourite green godfather, George Monbiot, routinely rails against mega-wealthy conspiracies that threaten to slow our slide into eco-austerity. But the newspaper is supported by a host of philanthropists directly and through its own ‘foundation’. Bill Gates’s donations to the newspaper total an equivalent of $116 per reader of the print edition. And the BBC’s role in reproducing official orthodoxy needs no rehearsal here, nor do its staffers’ generous renumeration packages.
Suffice it to say that not only are there great rewards available in the public and third sectors in roles advancing the green agenda, there are also significant punishments for those who question it. Don’t expect academic freedom to extend to scepticism of ‘climate science’ or politics. And don’t expect career advancement in the Civil Service if you believe that democracy is of greater importance than Net Zero targets. Aspiring journalists who express heterodox views won’t get anywhere near the BBC or the legacy news broadcasters, whose commitments to the agenda are plainly stated. And of course, nearly all of civil society is committed to silencing the idea that today’s society is built on affordable energy.
Hegemony is a complex idea, but put simply, political elites need to seem to be about something other than power for the sake of power. There is no mistaking the fact that intergovernmental agencies and the institutions of globalism are all aligned with the green agenda. As an earnest and aspiring young globalist wonk explained to me once, “global problems need global solutions”. But the reverse of such glibness is also true: global solutions need global problems. The World Bank and the IMF, the United Nations and its constellation of agencies, the European Union and more have all championed the cause of saving the planet, more to bolster or rescue their authority than to deliver any actual benefits. Stories that serve that political agenda are required, lest the rhetorical phrases of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, like “global boiling” and “code red for humanity”, be made to look like extremely ridiculous unscientific hyperbole.
ESG – Environmental, Social and Governance – is the successor to the notion of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) that businesses should be about more than profit. But more than CSR, ESG has become a tradeable commodity in its own right, as well as a near quasi-religious movement. In its simplest form, ESG is about rehabilitating the public image of billionaires, corporations and hyper-accumulations of capital – hedge funds. To me, at least, billionaire virtue-signalling was always implausible. The Rockefellers, for example, are alleged to have funded both Nazi eugenics research programmes and the United Nations’ Third World population reduction programmes in the early days of the green agenda, but now claim to “promote the well-being of humanity”. Similarly, currency speculator George Soros bet against the pound in the 1990s, leading to recession and a wave of unemployment, but now his foundation claims to help solve the world’s problems, including by funding the ironically-titled Open Democracy media platform. In the same vein, British billionaire hedge funder Christopher Hohn, with the assistance of a young Rishi Sunak, helped to bring about the collapse of RBS, leaving Hohn and Sunak with a fortunes in their pockets, and the public with a £45 billion bail out bill. But just four year later, he was knighted for services to philanthropy.
Such billionaires, and Michael Bloomberg and Richard Branson too, have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into funding organisations that promote ESG. For the most part, this involves generating hype around the idea that ESG products, being perfectly in tune with ‘nature’, are likely to yield a better return than investments in dirty brown hydrocarbon energy. But it also involves generating fear both of climate change itself and of the consequences of failing to respond obediently to the encroachment of ESG into policymaking. As a result, ESG campaigning organisations corral sheep-like investors into acting as a force for activism, in turn making corporations the instruments of ESG lobbyists. The most notable victim of this mobilisation was Nigel Farage, who was debanked by Coutts/RBS (the same RBS bailed out by the U.K. taxpayer) – a problem which has seen reported incidences increase by 44% over the last year, according to the U.K. Financial Ombudsman. Individuals, small businesses and even corporations are thus policed by financial institutions, a new and unaccountable form of governance, which is in turn able to decide who may and who may not make money, and on what basis.
So there we have it – four key ways in which the unimpeachable cause of saving the planet is in fact driven by the same old lust for money, power and influence. The stories are much deeper and broader than can be covered here, of course – this article could be 100 times longer. But what I hope it shows is that whereas green mythology posits a somewhat 19th Century view of climate sceptics defending particular interests against progressive policymaking, those same arguments can be held against the bastions of green ideology, too. That includes their favoured news media channels, institutional science, public broadcasters, charities, NGOs and think tanks. For if an oil baron may not fund a public project, why should an eco-billionaire be free to turn civil society into a constellation of corporate lobbying outfits?
The balance of evidence, as measured by pounds and dollars, suggests that the green lobby has been doing precisely what it has accused the reliable energy sector of doing. Meanwhile, there exists little more than unfounded conspiracy theory to back up green claims that private interests drive scepticism. After all, even those infamous deniers, the Koch Brothers, were revealed to have billions of dollars invested in green tech by Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs in Planet of the Humans. The world is not as simple as wacky green fear-mongers like Chris Packham would have BBC audiences believe.
Subscribe to Ben Pile’s The Net Zero Scandal Substack here.
London, 22 March – A new report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation challenges the popular but mistaken belief that weather extremes – such as flooding, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires – are more common and more intense today because of climate change.
Drawing on newspaper archives and long-term observational data, the report, written by Dr Ralph Alexander, documents multiple examples of past extremes that matched or exceeded anything experienced in the present-day world. Dr Ralph Alexander said: “That so many people are unaware of past extremes shows that collective memories of extreme weather are short-lived.” “The perception that extreme weather events are increasing in frequency and severity is primarily a consequence of new information technology – the Internet and smart phones – which have revolutionised communication and made us much more aware of such disasters in all corners of the world than we were 50 or 100 years ago.”
Bankrupt, blackout Britain where the ever-expanding ranks of the poor get clobbered, open borders place intolerable burdens on public spending and services, the rich spivs get richer backing heavily-subsidised energy white elephants – and those of a certain age look back to the good old days of the 1970s. That isn’t quite how Professor Gordon Hughes spells it out in his excellent new report that crunches the energy transition numbers of the collectivist Net Zero project, but it might be considered a fair summation of reading between the lines.
The insanity of Net Zero becomes clearer by the day. The idea that hydrocarbons – a natural resource whose use from medicines to reliable energy is ubiquitous in modern industrial society – can be removed within less than 30 years is ridiculous. In his report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Professor Hughes concerns himself with the transition from hydrocarbons to ‘green’ technologies such as wind and solar. Forget all the politically-inspired low-ball figures of transition, he is suggesting. Looking at you, Climate Change Committee. It is likely that the amount of new investment needed for the transition will be a minimum of 5% of gross domestic product for the next 20 years, and might exceed 7.5%. Gordon Hughes is a former World Bank economist, and is Professor of Economics at the University of Edinburgh.
There is no chance of borrowing such an “astronomical” amount, notes Hughes, and the only viable way to raise the cash for new capital expenditure would be a two decades-long reduction in private consumption of up to 10%. “Such a shock has never occurred in the last century outside war, and even then never for more than a decade,” he notes.
Recent polling in the U.S. has shown that the desire of a majority of citizens to pay for Net Zero barely stretches to more than the ‘chump’ change in their back pockets. “Commitment to the energy transition is a classic ‘luxury belief’ held most strongly by those who are sufficiently well-off not to worry about the costs… Indeed at least some of those who promote the transition most strongly are among those who expect to gain from the business opportunities.” On this latter point, Hughes was possibly recalling the recent activities of rising media star Dale Vince (£110 million in wind subsidies to date, and counting).
Politicians sometimes blather about the pioneering role taken by European countries in Net Zero. Hughes points out that leaders in China and India are not fools. “Posturing about targets that are patently not achievable and might be economically ruinous is unlikely to convince anyone, although most will be too polite to point this out,” he observed.
Writing a foreword, Lord Frost identified a make-believe world inhabited by Net Zero proponents where it is claimed costs will magically come down, new technologies will somehow be invented and promised green growth will pay for everything. “But they never give any evidence for believing this – and, where we can check what they say, for example in the real costs of wind power, we can see that these cost reductions are simply not happening,” he said.
On the immigration front, Hughes notes a 1% increase in the British population every year. He notes that 4% of GDP must be invested every year in new (not replacement) capital per head. Of course nothing like this is being spent and capital per head is falling rapidly. “Just maintaining the amounts of capital per head will eat up an amount of investment equivalent to that required for the energy transition,” he states.
Squeezing domestic consumption, in other words making the already squeezed poor even poorer by removing all their remaining luxuries in life (older cars, cheap foreign holidays, meat), is the only realistic way to fund the enormous sums required for the Net Zero energy transition. Possibly a glimmer of reality is creeping into political circles with the opposition Labour party having gone through “agonies” and ditched its £28 billion a year green deal. “Clearly, they concluded that it was impossible to sell an increase in the tax burden of that magnitude to a reluctant electorate,” he said. In fact, the sums involved in the Labour plan were only a fifth of the estimated cost of transition.
Any future Government wishing to travel the path of Net Zero must make the choices of reducing public services and mandating savage cuts in household expenditure. Needless to say, the general population is in almost total ignorance about these realities. Hughes notes that the electorate has given no indication that they are willing to bear the costs involved. “Indeed until now all they have been told is that there are few or no trade-offs required, and technology will somehow magically solve everything.”
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’sEnvironment Editor.
The alarmist media bought it at the time, which may well have been the idea. – – – A new paper from the Global Warming Policy Foundation reveals that the IPCC’s 2013 report contained a remarkable logical fallacy, says Climate Change Dispatch.
The author, Professor Norman Fenton, shows that the authors of the Summary for Policymakers claimed, with 95% certainty, that more than half of the warming observed since 1950 had been caused by man.
But as Professor Fenton explains, their logic in reaching this conclusion was fatally flawed.
“Given the observed temperature increase, and the output from their computer simulations of the climate system, the IPCC rejected the idea that less than half the warming was man-made. They said there was less than a 5% chance that this was true.”
“But they then turned this around and concluded that there was a 95% chance that more than half of observed warming was man-made.”
This is an example of what is known as the Prosecutor’s Fallacy, in which the probability of a hypothesis given certain evidence is mistakenly taken to be the same as the probability of the evidence given the hypothesis.
If an animal is a cat, there is a very high probability that it has four legs. However, if an animal has four legs, we cannot conclude that it is a cat. It’s a classic error, and is precisely what the IPCC has done.”
Renowned, multi-award winning science writer Dr. David Whitehouse – who has an asteroid named after him – has slammed the New Scientist as “offensive and prejudicial” for rejecting a feature it commissioned from him on the Earth’s inner core after it discovered that he serves on the Academic Advisory Board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The GWPF is a climate contrarian think tank founded by the former Conservative Chancellor Nigel Lawson.
In an email exchange seen by the Daily Sceptic, Daniel Cousins, Head of Features at the New Scientist, made the focus of the proposed piece clear:
…it would be first about how we’ve finally confirmed the existence of this inner core… then I guess it becomes about what we know about it’s structure (speculation about iron crystals, etc.) and how it formed… And finally, I guess we’d want to explore what the various scenarios for how it formed might inform how we think about habitability on other planets.
However, just 21 minutes after the commission was agreed, Dr. Whitehouse received a follow-up email from Mr. Cousins informing him that his affiliation with the GWPF rendered him “unsuitable” to write for the magazine:
Hi David,
I am writing with bad news, I’m afraid.
Barely a moment after I sent the email around my colleagues regarding that commission, one of my managers called to ask me if I was aware that you are on the board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and therefore not someone we can having writing for us.
I am of course as disappointed as you, because this is a good idea for a story – and we now can’t do aid [sic] story, because it not be fair [sic] to have someone else report and write it. Regardless, we can no longer proceed.
Clearly, I should have done my due diligence on this – and I am sorry to have wasted your time.
Thanks,Dan
Dr. Whitehouse wrote to Nina Wright, the New Scientist’s Chief Executive, demanding an explanation:
The reason given for the cancellation of the contract was stated to be my association with the Global Warming Policy Foundation – a policy organisation that is in broad agreement with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In the absence of any further explanation, it is clear that New Scientist has censored and reneged on a contract based solely on my professional affiliation. The cancellation of the article, which was on a completely unrelated topic, after it was negotiated and commissioned, is offensive and prejudicial treatment. More alarmingly, it could be taken as evidence of New Scientist exhibiting media bias and a cancel culture that would belittle its reputation.
Eventually, the Editor-in-Chief, Emily Wilson, responded:
…whilst it is a matter of regret that the New Scientist was not able to proceed with the proposed commission, we do not agree that the cancelling of the commission was “offensive” or “prejudicial”. Furthermore, any suggestion of a media bias is firmly denied.
Instead, it is simply the case that each and every item published in the New Scientist is done so at the Editor’s discretion and with the final approval of the Editor.
Needless to say, Dr. Whitehouse was unimpressed by this explanation:
Your reply completely fails to address the serious issues I have raised of media bias and censorship at New Scientist.
Having been an editor myself, and at one time was approached to consider applying for the Editorship of New Scientist, I find your lengthy explanation of the rights of an editor rather patronising. New Scientist can cancel a commission for whatever reason it wants, but in this instance you told me the reason. It had nothing to do with the subject or the quality of the commissioned article about which you were very enthusiastic, and having written a book on the topic I was an ideal contributor.
The reason New Scientist gave for cancelation after the commission was agreed, along with submission date, possible publication date and fee, was, you wrote, that you had just become aware of my association with a think tank – the Global Warming Policy Foundation – that, as its name suggests, considers climate change policy. The GWPF is supportive of the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change. Whilst I understand that some of NewScientist’s environmental reporters would take issue with the GWPF on some matters, science thrives on debate and scrutiny. Developing policy of course depends upon many factors of which science is but one.
According to New Scientist’s intolerance this meant that I should be censored even though the commissioned article was about a subject about as far removed from climate change as it is possible to get.
In so doing New Scientist has demonstrated clear prejudice, censorship and a no-platforming seen so often in examples of cancel culture. It is irrelevant you maintaining a firm denial of media bias when it was clearly expressed on two occasions in the email New Scientist sent me. I am sure anyone who reads the email would be in no doubt as to its prejudicial nature.
The snub echoes one received by Professor Norman Fenton earlier this month and reported in the Daily Sceptic when an NHS conference cancelled his presentation over an unrelated “Twitter vaccine controversy”, citing fears that “it may distract”.
The cancellation of eminent science writers and statisticians like Dr. Whitehouse and Professor Fenton for ‘wrongthink’ highlights the ever-shrinking boundaries of the discourse around science and medicine and the unwillingness of science’s gatekeepers to challenge groupthink and politically sensitive dogmas. As Dr. Whitehouse says, “science thrives on debate and scrutiny”. Silencing those who challenge prevailing orthodoxies was the approach favoured by the Catholic church in 17th Century Italy and is completely at odds with the scientific method.
Stop Press: The corruption of science by politics is the theme of a brilliant essay in the July/August edition of the Skeptical Inquirer by the scientists Jerry Coyne and Luana Moraja, who raise the alarm about the capture of biology (their subject) by critical social justice ideology. They argue that “the science that has brought us so much progress and understanding… is endangered by political dogma strangling our essential tradition of open research and scientific communication”.
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.
