There’s only here that’s clueless, and that’s you Mr Marlow.
Anybody with half a braincell was warning about this years ago, so where were you then?
There’s also a genuine question to be asked about whether the UK needs more renewable energy at present. Sir Keir claims that a state-backed energy provider will give the UK “real energy independence” but if the shift to clean power is accelerated, as he is suggesting without also building the massive infrastructure that is required, there is a risk that Britain becomes more reliant on fossil fuel imports, not less.
Better perhaps to concentrate on modernising the grid and building the vast electricity storage facilities required to store wind and solar-generated electricity before we double down on renewables. That means more batteries, advanced compressed air energy storage, pumped hydroelectric dams, and underground salt caverns for collecting hydrogen.
Even now Clueless Ben does not grasp the fact the batteries and other forms of storage are far too small to make the slightest difference when the wind stops blowing for weeks on end.
The only possible solution is mass storage of hydrogen. But he does not tell us where all of this hydrogen will actually come from – presumably he thinks you can pluck it out of thin air.
There is only one viable solution, and that is to embark on an emergency expansion of our CCGT fleet, and immediately abandon any further expansion of renewables.
“Barriers” to climate action include pressure to travel, and a lack of financial incentives to embrace low carbon approaches to research.
Climate change: university researchers feel powerless to take action – survey
Published: January 31, 2024 2.38am AEDT Briony Latter Researcher in Climate Change Engagement, Cardiff University
University researchers in the UK, across all disciplines and at all career stages, are struggling to take action against climate change despite wanting to do so.
Many academics worry about climate change but face several barriers to changing their habits, including the pressure to travel. In one case, a climate researcher conducting field work abroad wanted to use slower and more sustainable forms of transport rather than fly back to work at a research institute in Germany. He was fired.
Gianluca Grimalda
…
The majority think their university does not give them enough information about how to conduct research in a sustainable way. Funding processes, such as applications for grants to carry out research, do not incentivise low-carbon approaches either, they say.
…
Different barriers to climate action appear at different career stages. Early career researchers in particular lack institutional support (such as job security or the encouragement to act), are involved in few projects about climate change (whether as part of research or outside of their roles) and feel uncertain about what they can do.
Mid-career researchers were more likely to complain of a high workload thwarting their ambitions. When asked if senior researchers should have a high responsibility for addressing climate change in universities, senior researchers themselves were more likely to think so than early and mid-career researchers, suggesting that they recognise their own potential role.
Why are academics yielding to pressure to travel frequently, if every flight brings us closer to a lethal climate tipping point? Why is keeping their job so important, if the world is on the brink of climate catastrophe?
Why do university academics want OTHERS to spoon-feed them information on how they can be more carbon neutral? Why can’t they take 5 minutes to look up low carbon lifestyle and professional alternatives for themselves?
If this pathetic effort is all the energy and concern university academics can muster to address the alleged climate crisis, there is no reason for the rest of us care.
What will the death of the green energy illusion look like? From time to time (see, for example, here and here) I have described a vision where some state or country runs headlong into a “green energy wall” — an impassable barricade of physical impossibility, characterized by scarcity and blackouts, into which the country crashes suddenly. Among the net zero zealot countries I have identified as the leading candidates for imminently hitting such a wall are Germany and the UK.
But perhaps, instead of a sudden crash, the demise of the green energy illusion will look more like a slow but steady decline, a gradual withering of economic activity and prosperity. In this scenario, high energy prices brought about by energy restrictions drive important industries out of business and, as good jobs disappear and energy prices increase, the people gradually and inexorably get poorer. Recent events in the UK and Germany seem to point in the direction of this type of scenario.
The latest edition of the GWPF’s Net Zero Watch Newsletter has the headline “Net Zero is dying.” (Go here and follow the link for your own copy of the newsletter. Full disclosure — I am on the board of the American affiliate of the GWPF.). Nine linked news articles from the past couple of days all deal with recent instances of industrial decline in the UK and Germany, each one a consequence of energy prices intentionally driven upward in the pursuit of “net zero.”
Several of the pieces cover the impending closure of the Port Talbot steelworks in Wales, with the loss of up to 2,500 jobs. Illustrative is a January 19 piece in the Daily Telegraph by Allison Pearson, headline “Port Talbot has been sacrificed to the angry god of net zero.”Although the Telegraph is behind paywall, the NZW Newsletter has a lengthy excerpt. Here is a part:
The high price of UK energy makes Port Talbot uncompetitive. . . . [N]et zero. That absurd and misanthropic creed . . . calls British workers losing their jobs “progress” while their carbon will now be emitted in India and China. . . . [The UK will now be] the only G7 nation with no first-class steel manufacturing – are they serious? You might almost get the impression the nation was run by a fifth column plotting its downfall.
In another item in the current Newsletter, GWPF points to its own warnings of what was coming from 2016 and 2021. From 2016:
“As an energy-intensive manufacturer of internationally traded commodities, the steel sector is particularly sensitive to energy costs. It is the first to feel the pain of the UK’s climate policies, but it will not be the last. [Steel] and the energy-intensive sector more broadly can be regarded as a miner’s canary, giving early warning of general economic damage as the costs of climate policies are passed through from energy to all other sectors of the economy.”
[T]he underlying and fundamental cause [of the ongoing closure of the steel industry in the UK] is the uncompetitiveness of all heavy industry in the UK, and for this government is itself largely to blame. GWPF has long predicted that Britain’s unilateral climate policies were making it all but impossible to operate heavy industry the UK.
Elsewhere in the Newsletter, the focus is Germany. A January 19 piece from the Times of London has the headline “What’s gone wrong with Germany?” Again it’s behind paywall; but the overall picture is a combination of self-inflicted consumer pain and equally self-inflicted industrial decline brought about by senseless mandates and high energy prices from the so-called “energy transition.” Excerpt:
The coalition has been plagued by unforced errors, typified by a hugely unpopular attempt to force homeowners to install heat pumps instead of gas or oil boilers. It has been riddled with public infighting and has presided over the worst economic performance in the G7.
That Times article does not go into detail on the industrial decline. But for some specifics consider this piece from July 13, 2023 from Politico, headline “Rust Belt on the Rhine.” Example:
Chemical giant BASF has been a pillar of German business for more than 150 years, underpinning the country’s industrial rise with a steady stream of innovation that helped make “Made in Germany” the envy of the world. But its latest moonshot — a $10 billion investment in a state-of-the-art complex the company claims will be the gold standard for sustainable production — isn’t going up in Germany. Instead, it’s being erected 9,000 kilometers away in China. . . . [BASF] is scaling back in Germany. In February, the company announced the shutdown of a fertilizer plant in its hometown of Ludwigshafen and other facilities, which led to about 2,600 job cuts. . . . [T]he company lost €130 million in Germany last year.
The explanation? From Politico:
Confronted by a toxic cocktail of high energy costs, worker shortages and reams of red tape, many of Germany’s biggest companies — from giants like Volkswagen and Siemens to a host of lesser-known, smaller ones — are experiencing a rude awakening and scrambling for greener pastures in North America and Asia.
Politico notes that in the 15 years since the 2008/09 recession, the U.S. economy has grown by some 76%, while the German economy has grown by only 19%. Oh, that is the same period of Germany’s “Energiewende,” which has included forcing electricity prices to go to triple the U.S. level.
For the big picture of the German industrial situation, here is a chart from YCharts.com, showing the trend over the last 5 years:
After you eliminate the steep Covid-induced valley of 2020-21, you are left with a decline that is steady and inexorable.
Frankly, the UK and Germany would be better off hitting a hard wall, which could wake them up in time to potentially turn things around. The current situation of steady ongoing decline is inflicting damage that may well not be reversible. Even if energy prices suddenly come down in the UK by a factor of 3 or more, is anyone going to re-build Port Talbot once it has been dismantled?
Net zero may be dying, but so are the economies of the UK and Germany. I just hope that the U.S. can be rescued in time.
Every time they have to ramp up the alarm, as their efforts to scare us fail.
So let’s be very clear about one thing – this is not a hurricane, which specifically is a tropical cyclone, something that feeds off the warmth of the ocean. According to NOAA, they need the following conditions to form:
This new storm, Isha, is actually an Extratropical Cyclone, which gets its power from the temperature difference between cold polar air and warm tropical air. In other words, a common or garden depression, which can be small and weak, or big and powerful:
The claim that Isha has hurricane force winds is particularly disingenuous. Sustained (average) winds of 74 mph over the open ocean are nothing unusual at all at this time of year, and will be much stronger than anything hitting land, even on top of The Needles. And sustained winds are not gusts.
Gusts of 50 to 60 mph are generally expected inland, again nothing unusual. The worst of the winds are expected in the west of Scotland and West Wales:
If we look at the latest Met Office forecast for Sunday evening, Glasgow might get gusts of 52 mph, but average winds are much lower at 25 mph.
It looks a bit windier down in Aberystwyth, gusts of 61 mph and average winds of 33 mph. No doubt a few locations will see stronger winds, but this is just another gale of the sort we see every winter. A hurricane it ain’t!
Following the launch of the first hydrogen allocation round (HAR1) in July 2022, we have selected the successful projects to be offered contracts. We are pleased to announce 11 successful projects, totalling 125MW capacity.
HAR1 puts the UK in a leading position internationally: this represents the largest number of commercial scale green hydrogen production projects announced at once anywhere in Europe. This round will provide over £2 billion of revenue support from the Hydrogen Production Business Model, which will start to be paid once projects become operational. Over £90 million from the Net Zero Hydrogen Fund has been allocated to support the construction of these projects.
We have conducted a robust allocation process to ensure only deliverable projects that represent value for money are awarded contracts. The 11 projects have been agreed at a weighted average [footnote 1] strike price of £241/MWh (£175/MWh in 2012 prices). This compares well to the strike prices of other nascent technologies such as floating offshore wind and tidal stream.
Government delivered HAR1 to time, and we expect that first projects will become operational from 2025. Combined with our commitments to further Hydrogen Allocation Rounds, this gives hydrogen developers, investors and supply chain companies the certainty they need to commit to the UK.
The CfD prices of £241/MWh compare to the current wholesale cost of natural gas at around £34/MWh.
The amount of hydrogen these projects will make is miniscule, about 1 TWh even if they work at 100% capacity. UK consumption of gas is over 800 TWh annually. £2 billion is a lot of money to pay out for so little, and presumably will be added to our gas bills, in the same way that subsidies for wind power are added to electricity bills.
What is interesting is that the strike prices will be flexed to changes in the market price of gas:
The schemes all appear to be electrolysers, and they all claim that only renewable electricity will be used, an absurd assumption! None of them say what they will do when there is not enough wind and solar power to meet demand – will they idle their plants, or will they carry on as usual taking whatever power the grid can supply?
How the DESNZ can claim it represents value for money is a mystery! And to pretend they are nascent technologies is also untrue, because electrolysis is a well established process.
But it’s our money they are spending, not their own, so why worry?
Above all though, this lifts the lid on just how horribly expensive green energy is. Remember too that the renewable power they claim they will use is already subsidised heavily. So £241/MWh understates the true cost.
Mr Rotherham said: “We anticipated that we would encounter some teething issues and disruption during the delivery of our new station and trains, but I’ll be the first to say that services on the Kirkby line have fallen short of the standards that our passengers deserve.
“While I cannot undo the disruption that passengers have already faced, I hope this gesture demonstrates our appreciation for their patience and understanding.”
The mayor’s office said passengers who bought tickets at Fazakerley, Kirkby or Headbolt Lane stations will receive a letter with information about how to claim their money back in full.
In October, the new £80m Headbolt Lane station was opened to serve the battery-powered trains.
Last year was a wet one in England & Wales, the 7th wettest on record. (The UK series has a similar result).
We routinely hear claims that the climate is wetter because a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture, (while also being told we will get more droughts!). However the fact that we have had similarly wet years in the distant past, such as 1768, 1852, 1872, 1877, 1882, 1903 and 1960, rather demolishes that argument.
The major factor behind last year’s high rainfall was that the number of rain days was also one of the highest on record since 1931, when Met Office daily data begins. In short, annual rainfall was high because of weather, not climate.
The daily rainfall data also strongly indicated persistence rather than extreme rainfall. Only day exceeded 20mm, and there are no long term trends. That solitary day was during Storm Babet, when 22.76 fell.
October was the wettest month with 177.6mm, and was the first and only month since 2014 to exceed 170mm. Again, there was nothing unusual at all about this
One particular thing intrigued me, and this was the comparison with 1960, when there were some truly dreadful floods throughout the autumn – certainly much worse than anything we saw in 2023.
On an annual basis, the two years were indistinguishable, 1195mm in 1960 and 1195mm last year.
But a monthly comparison reveals that 1960 was notably drier in March and April. Between August and November, however, 1960 was 14% wetter.
The key event for the UK will be an election in May, at which Labour will win a majority. I think it will be a small majority, but it will be a majority nonetheless. This result might be a double-edged sword: it will offer the possibility of opposition to bonkers plans actually having some bite, but on the other hand it may lead to the Conservatives not learning the lesson the sceptics would like them to learn. The Budget will be a sad last throw of the dice in which the Chancellor will not even throw the dice. How nice it would have been for the government to cut the green crap and dare the opposition to promise to reinstate it. But that is not the path we are on. The likely bribe will be an increase in the personal allowance, probably by a grand, starting with the new tax year. Labour still wins. The present government has gone through more incarnations than Doctor Who and is exhausted, at the end of its tether.
Labour’s stated policy is a prescription for national destruction, but the optimist in me says that it will run aground on the shoals of reality before too much damage is done. This depends, as I may have mentioned before, on the extent to which we the great unwashed will swallow the gaslighting BS that they are shovelling down our throats. What we believe causes our woes – whether some external force or government policy – is a key matter for the country. You already know that I believe that, when it comes to climate change, the “cure” is worse than the disease. The disease is mild, and the cure is no cure at all, but poison. Alas too few are persuaded of that view for now. Too many fall for the seductive idea that because wind turbines produce free electricity, then the more of them you have, the cheaper electricity becomes. This is a completely wrong idea, but the germ of truth that it holds appears to have the power to override more complex arguments around what a civilised nation requires from its electricity grid. I expect Labour to quadruple down on stupid, but there are a couple of other factors here. The first is that there is no magic wand that can instantly produce serried ranks of wind turbines up hill and down dale. Even a manic approach to renewables will produce pain that escalates only gradually. The second point is the corollary of the first: as the roll out is slow, as the difficulty of hiding the true drivers of our woes grows slowly, slow will be the dawning of the realisation that we are sawing off the branch we are sitting on.
Earlier crunches are inbound, and we know that whenever people are personally affected by Net Zero BS, they begin to oppose it. A generalised and theoretical approval of the goal of Net Zero becomes a particular and concrete opposition to at least one part of it when each of us realises that our part in all this is not as a mere bystander. The challenge for sceptics is to help people to connect the dots. What are the earlier crunches? We have the boiler tax, where because boiler manufacturers are going to be fined if they do not meet their quota of heat pumps, they will be forced to cross-subsidise heat pumps by upping the price of gas boilers – i.e. the heating systems people actually want to buy. It may only be a few hundred quid initially, but even this may have an effect on public opinion disproportionate to its effect on folks’ pockets. So far the true costs of climate policy to the ordinary punter have been kept well hidden. In 2024 it can be hidden no more. Now at last it comes to the fore.
At the same time as the advent of the boiler tax, we will have the ICE vehicle tax – a rather more daunting 15 grand for each vehicle beyond the manufacturer’s quota. By how much manufacturers will be over, and how much they plan to cross-subsidise their EVs is to me an imponderable matter for now. It may be that small petrol cars will be wiped out by the policy. But again the hit on folks’ pockets and freedoms will be impossible to keep hidden.
My prediction: by the end of next year we in the UK will be in a worse position climate policy-wise than we are now, and there will as yet be little gain in momentum for a change of course. I think there will be glimmers of hope. As they say, hope dies last. Which means I think that good sense will win out in the end, even if it takes a hell of a kicking along the way.
Please do append your predictions for 2024, particularly if mine seem off beam.
Let the turn in the year be a time for optimism and good health to all Clisceppers.
The National Grid have proudly announced the launch of the Viking Link, which will send electricity to and fro between here and Denmark:
Working with Energinet, the Danish power grid operator, we are proud to announce the launch of our record-breaking electricity interconnector between the UK and Denmark, Viking Link.
Viking Link is the world’s longest subsea and land interconnector, travelling 475 miles to join Bicker Fen substation in Lincolnshire with Revsing substation in southern Jutland, Denmark. Denmark has one of the world’s highest proportions of wind generation, so it is the perfect country to connect to, sharing clean electricity and helping the UK and EU meet 2050 net zero emission targets.
There will be huge benefits for UK consumers including cheaper, greener power and increased energy security, as the UK can call on additional power from Denmark when needed.
Initially, Viking Link will be operating at a capacity of 800MW before increasing over time to 1.4GW, powering up to 2.5 million UK homes and bringing over £500 million of cumulative savings for UK consumers over the next decade. National Grid and Energinet will be working together to bring the asset up to full capacity over the coming year.
While it may give us access to cheap wind power when there is a glut of it in Denmark, it certainly will do little to enhance energy security, as they claim.
Has it not occurred to the National Grid that when the wind is not blowing here, there is a good chance it is not blowing in Denmark either?
Remember that cold start to December, when high pressure was in charge? Wind power in Britain collapsed to well below 2 GW, a tiny fraction of its normal output:
What power we can manage to get hold of at times of low wind will be astronomically expensive. And if we try to export our surplus wind at times of glut, it will be at a loss, which the public will ultimately pay for.
No doubt it will be a nice little earner for the National Grid. But it the public who will have to pick up the bill!
I have a theory – which I may have mentioned before in these pages – that a sizeable chunk of the threat that climate change poses to the natural world could be demonstrated to be an illusion by pure logic, if anyone had the time, or as importantly the inclination, to collect the data.
There is a well-known principle in human life that looks matter. You can call this “beauty bias” if you like, or “ugly people are unfairly deemed malevolent at a glance.” Something similar occurs in the human perception of animals. Cute things are vulnerable, and horrible things are dangerous. It’s an instinct we have. See here for a discussion. There are odd-balls like me who like spiders. But that just means that the horror most people have of arachnids then rubs off on the arachnologist.
I allege that because scientists are humans and not disinterested automatons, they are more likely to look for threats against cute animals, and to look for reasons why horrible animals will spread. So goes my theory. And it would be easy to test, simply by canvassing the literature.
The climate “crisis” being the alpha and omega of threats to the natural world now, horrible creatures will swarm in the warm future, while cute things will inevitably dwindle in overbearing heat.
An example of a creature that unequivocally falls into the “horrible” caste is the mosquito, which, given the above, will therefore become more abundant and invade areas it is presently absent from, bringing with it nasty viruses or protozoans.
A BRIEF ECOLOGY LESSON (FEEL FREE TO FAST FORWARD)
You can describe the available places that a particular species might live using the concept called the “niche.” There are two main kinds.
The first is the fundamental niche, which can be thought of as an n-dimensional space with each dimension defined by some environmental parameter or another. The most obvious would be the maximum and minimum temperatures that a particular species can tolerate. There are also things like salinity and humidity and rather more intangible meteorological phenomena like rainfall. This envelope encloses the range of environments that our species could potentially inhabit.
The second kind is the realised niche. This is the subset of the fundamental niche that is actually occupied by the relevant species. As an example, there are some kinds of plant that are restricted to saltmarsh. But most of these could happily grow inland given the chance. Inland, they are easily crowded out by more vigorous species; but on the saltmarsh, their higher environmental tolerance gives them a place they can grow where the more vigorous species cannot.
END OF ECOLOGY LESSON
Using climate models, if you believe that sort of thing, you can map the present and future fundamental niche of a particular species, given information about its environmental tolerances. You can also map its realised niche from existing occurrence data, and give an impression of what its realised niche might be given a particular climate change scenario.
This is not as easy as it sounds. To take another saltmarsh example: if we think sea level is going to rise, that might mean that the realised niche of sea aster will move up the marsh. Will it though? The places into which we think sea aster is going to spread are already occupied by coarse grasses. Perhaps these will be less vigorous with an inundation or two a year – but perhaps not. Whether the community will change is not an easy matter to decide.
With that as a preamble, you’re probably beginning to wonder What The Hell Jit is on about this time. Well, I’m on about this:
THE STAR: KILLER MOZZIE TAKEOVER
DAILY MAIL: DENGUE FEVER ‘TO REACH UK’
THE SCOTSMAN: CLIMATE CHANGE COULD BRING FEVER
DAILY RECORD: TROPIC BUGS TO STRIKE UK
DAILY EXPRESS: TIGER MOSQUITOES COULD BRING DENGUE FEVER TO UK AS CLIMATE HEATS UP
THE GUARDIAN: HEALTH AGENCY SAYS CLIMATE CRISIS COULD CAUSE 10,000 EXTRA DEATHS A YEAR IN UK
A couple of weeks ago the UK Health Security Agency put out a giant report about the effects of climate change on health in, er, the UK. It can be had here. There was lots in it. But most of the papers picked up on the killer mosquito angle.
The story goes like this. There is a mosquito called Aedes albopictus, (the Asian tiger! It’s stripy, and comes from Asia, and it bites humans, get it? However, there are other stripy kinds, which could cause confusion to the non-specialist punter) which is known to transmit dengue, which will become established in the UK because Teh Climate Crisis will make the UK climate suitable for it, which will therefore lead to it transmitting dengue to hapless UK citizens minding their own business.
As it happens, the report itself is not as hysterical as the headlines. But it does itself no favours.
Here is the chain of reasoning:
A. albopictus is not in the UK.
The UK is currently not within the fundamental niche of A. albopictus, which is why it is not here.
A. albopictus has arrived in the UK and will arrive here again and again but has not established itself because it is too cold here, and would not, except…
With climate change, the UK will become suitable for A. albopictus, so that one of these colonisation events will result in the mosquito finally establishing itself.
Because A. albopictus is known to transmit dengue, it will transmit dengue when it becomes established here.
Dengue will become established in the UK, and people will die needlessly.
We have to reduce “carbon” emissions.
There are a number of problems here. According to the estimate of Proestus et al 2015, the UK is already almost entirely suitable habitat for the UK. Under those estimates, climate change makes no difference to the probability of establishment of the mosquito, even using the deprecated RCP8.5 Armageddon scenario (spot the difference in the two maps below). And if it is true that the UK is not currently suitable, it perhaps would have been better if the UKHSA had not also used RCP8.5 scenario to predict future temperatures.
Habitat suitability for A. albopictus now according to Proestus et alHabitat suitability for A. albopictus in about 2050 according to Proestus et al
The next point is that even though a habitat is physically suitable (remembering the fundamental niche concept) it does not follow necessarily that a species will become established, because ecological interactions come into play (the realised niche). There are already plenty of mosquitoes in the genus Aedes in the UK, and it is at least plausible that the newcomer will fail to establish because of competition with the incumbents, particularly through the production of low-fitness hybrids (so-called “satyrisation” – discussed in relation to this species and A. aegypti by Lounibos & Juliano 2018). If the mosquitoes do become established, there is no reason to suppose that dengue will become established. One particular problem is that to transmit dengue, a mosquito has to bite an infected human, and then bite a non-infected human. As the only source of dengue is imported humans, this process is inevitably a rare and therefore unlikely occurrence. Humans in the UK just do not get bitten as much as people in some parts of the world, because we have better-quality housing (pro tem) than many parts of the world. There may be little flare-ups of dengue based around one individual, but it seems unlikely that this will persist. This is particularly the case because we have this thing called winter, which would enable infected individuals to clear the virus before mosquitoes become active in the following summer. That is the case come hell, high water, or RCP8.5.
In my estimation, there is not a cat’s chance in hell that dengue will become established in the UK. I would not, however, be surprised if A. albopictus becomes established here. But there is no need to panic. Introduced species are by and large not as terrifying as they are predicted to be. What proportion of introduced species live up to the hype around their arrival is another interesting topic.
As for satyrisation reducing the fitness of invasive mosquitoes: do satyrs have low fitness? Remember folks, it has nothing to do with their looks. It’s all about how well they play the flute.
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.
