onsdag 16. oktober 2019

Urban heat islands nonsense debunked


THE IDEA THAT, NASA, able to get a spacecraft to Jupiter and have it arrive within 1 second of the predicted arrival time after teavelling 5 years through the solar system,


DONT HAVE ACCURATE DATA FROM GROUND STATIONS ON EARTH, BECAUSE, WAIT FOR IT, the stations are close to buildings and central-air heat pumps!?

Do you really, and I mean really, believe they have not worked around this?
 
For a start,

NASA, DONT USE RAW DATA:

Temperature measurements made with different instruments and methods over time must necessarily be adjusted to ensure high-quality records of temperature that reliably represent changes. The adjustments needed for land stations in the United States often increase the apparent long-term warming, but overall, adjustments actually reduce the global warming trend.  

NASA GISS corrects for urban heat islands. This is the reason why they don't use raw data.


If you need a more common sense dismissal of the urban bias "zombie theory,"
simply look at the regions of the planet experiencing the most rapid growth: regions of the Arctic. The greatest difference in temperatures for the long term averages where across Russia, Alaska, far north Canada and Greenland and not where major urbanisation has occurred.

The last time I checked, there are not many large cities or buildings or central-air heat pumps to bias results there.

Figure 2. Using source data from NASA/GISS, this illustration shows the amount of change in global surface temperatures in 2006 from 1885.


Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature? | Carbon Brief

Compo et al (2013) confirmed global surface air warming without using the instrumental surface temperature record, meaning the warming is real, not just confounding factors like UHI.



Hausfather et al. (2016) compared station records before and after homogenization to a more reliable network of stations which don’t need adjustment.


The results were extremely encouraging, showing that the adjustment procedure for USHCN brought it much more closely into alignment with USCRN. This is strong evidence that the adjustments are doing exactly what they were intended to do: remove the influences that don’t really tell us about temperature change, so what remains really does tell us about temperature change, not irrelevant change....... But it does show, unambiguously, that critics of the entire adjustment process have absolutely no scientific basis for their complaints."

Berkeley’s analysis focused on the question of whether this effect biases the global land average. Our UHI paper analyzing this indicates that the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero."



HOW MANY cities or central-air heat pumps ARE THERE IN THE OCEANS AND UP IN THE TROPOSPHERE?

Two long-term ocean-only temp series (with 95% conf. intervals) shows the same trend as weather stations and satellite data:



Not many building in the oceans are there?

Isolated satellite data shows same trend as weather stations and ocean data:
RSS: This is from their home page:


Not many building up in the air is it?

UAH SATELLITE DATA:

For a long time the UAH satellite data showed less warming than all the other data, but this was due to a bug in the system. When this calibration error was fixed, the data showed the same warming as the other data.

Satellite measurements of the troposphere confirm warming trend, data shows | Carbon Brief

Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998
What trend do the UAH data show now? Lets go to the UAH home page:
The University of Alabama in Huntsville



Their trend is 0.13 C per decade. Very much in tune with all the other data.
Berkeley Earth has examined 16 million monthly average temperature observations from 43,000 weather stations...The weather station data is combined with sea surface temperature data from the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre (HadSST). This ocean data is based on 355 million measurements collected by ships and buoys, including 12 million observations obtained in 2017.


"The effect of urban heating on estimates of global average land surface temperature is studied by applying an urban-rural classification based on MODIS satellite data to the Berkeley Earth temperature dataset compilation of 36,869 sites from 15 different publicly available sources.

We compare the distribution of linear temperature trends for these sites to the distribution for a rural subset of 15,594 sites chosen to be distant from all MODISidentified urban areas. While the trend distributions are broad, with one-third of the stations in the US and worldwide having a negative trend, both distributions show significant warming. Time series of the Earth’s average land temperature are estimated using the Berkeley Earth methodology applied to the full dataset and the rural subset; the difference of these is consistent with no urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.10 ± 0.24/100yr (95% confidence)."
While urban areas are undoubtedly warmer than surrounding rural areas, this has had little to no impact on warming trends.

The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites, and by natural thermometers.

Links:

Compo et al (2013) confirmed global surface air warming without using the instrumental surface temperature record, meaning the warming is real, not just confounding factors like UHI.


If you need a more common sense dismissal of the urban bias "zombie theory,"
simply look at the regions of the planet experiencing the most rapid growth: regions of the Arctic


The last time I checked, there are not many large cities to bias results there. Like the USHCN,


there is also a Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN), which according to NOAA's website:


The Urban Heat Island Effect

"The simple take-away is that while UHI and other urban-correlated biases are real (and can have a big effect), current methods of detecting and correcting localized breakpoints are generally effective in removing that bias. Blog claims that UHI explains any substantial fraction of the recent warming in the US are just not supported by the data."


________________________________________________________

Tror du at NASA, som kan sende en romsonde, Juno, i 5 år rett gjennom solsystemet til Jupiter, og få den til å finne sin bane kun 1 sekund etter skjema, ikke er i stand til å hente nøyaktige temperaturdata fra Jorden fordi "bakkestasjonene står nære noe varmt"?

La meg få opplyse deg om at NASA GISS bruker ikke rådata. Selvfølgelig har de tatt høyde for dette.

Temperaturmålinger utført med forskjellige instrumenter og metoder over tid må nødvendigvis justeres for å sikre høykvalitetsregistre av temperatur som pålitelig representerer endringer. 
F.eks må ens tasjon som står på et fjell justeres hvis den flyttes ned ved foten av fjellet.Justeringene som trengs for landstasjoner i USA øker ofte den tilsynelatende langsiktige oppvarmingen, men samlet sett reduserer justeringer faktisk den globale oppvarmingstrenden.
 
 ______________________________________________________________________________

Polar amplification is the phenomenon that any change in the greenhouse intensification tends to produce a larger change in temperature near the poles than in the planetary average.

There are no cities on the North Pole right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_amplification
https://climate.nasa.gov/

Data from oceans shows the same warming trend as ground data and satellites - there are no cities in the oceans right?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/revisiting-historical-ocean-surface-temperatures/

data from satellites shows the same warming trend as ground data and oceans - there are no cities up in the troposphere right?

http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

Posted by at Ingen kommentarer:

The 500 scientists survey nonsense debunked

A letter to the United Nations titled “There is no climate emergency” presents a short list of claims about climate change that contradict or misrepresent the evidence uncovered by geoscientists. In addition, the letter boasts that it has been signed by “500 scientists and professionals.” However, only 10 identified themselves as experts in climate science and the rest include professionals in unrelated or non-technical fields.

Six scientists analyzed the letter and estimate its overall scientific credibility to be 'very low'.

Dr. Victor Venema explained: “The text is a masterpiece: next to the political opinions expressed, every single sentence is either wrong, insignificant or irrelevant for the question whether climate change is a serious problem for humanity.”

Full debunk:

Letter signed by "500 scientists" relies on inaccurate claims about climate science

https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/l7n/500-har-underskrevet-pa-at-det-ikke-er-klimakrise-dette-sier-klimaforskere-om-oppropet

More than 500 people misunderstand climate change

Now, where do we remember those petitions and surveys from? What other polluter industry used the same tactics to sway the public?





And remember that other silly petition climate deniers loves to recycle?


Could it be the men behind that petion too, denied the link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer? And later the link between CFCs and the ozone layer?

Frederick Seitz

 […] “in the 1980s, Seitz decided to become a shill for any corporation willing to pay him enough. He, Robert Jastrow and William Nierenberg co-founded the George C. Marshall Institute (a right-wing think tank named after a famous liberal Democrat) in 1984 to hype Ronald Reagan's Star Wars program. One of the initial goals of the organization was to attack the work done by Carl Sagan and his colleagues on nuclear winter. During this time, he was also employed by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and helped spread propaganda denying links between smoking and cancer. “

“In the early '90s, Seitz joined the board of another think tank, the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), headed by another physicist-turned-shill, S. Fred Singer. Singer and Seitz's career paths were mirror images. The two co-authored a few works together, denying the dangers of ozone depletion and global warming. Through the Marshall Institute, Seitz helped Arthur Robinson spread the bogus Oregon Petition of 30,000+ "scientists" who "disagreed with the consensus on global warming." The NAS repudiated him.”

Frederick Seitz - RationalWiki

Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Would 31,000+ scientists signing a petition rejecting climate change as unscientific, be considered a consensus?


Isn’t it remarkably, everytime science is under attack, how its the same corporate polluters, the same individuals, who raises their ugly heads? Every single time?

The same people who have claim the science of global warming is "not settled",

denied the truth of studies linking smoking to lung cancer,
coal smoke to acid rain,

 and CFCs to the ozone hole.

 What a coincidence ay?

What do you do if all the world's experts disagree with you? A decades old technique perfected by the tobacco industry is to manufacture the appearance of a continued debate through fake experts. Climate change is a complicated, multi-disciplinary science and yet many of the leading voices who purport to know better than the experts have never published a single piece of climate research.

"As early as the 1950s, the groups shared scientists and publicists to downplay dangers of smoking and climate change".

Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public
Posted by at Ingen kommentarer:

torsdag 10. oktober 2019

Why we havent fixed the climate change problem yet?


Oljeindustrien bruker milliarder på lobbying, I Australia er regjeringen full av kullindustri-lobbyister som blokkerer alle klimatiltak og øser ut subsidier til kullindustrien, i USA er det mye det samme. I USA er attpåtil miljødepartementet styrt av en tidligere fossil brensel lobbyist. Her hjemme er regjeringen full av klimafornektere - vi hadde til og med nylig en oljeminister som var klimafornekter...likevel....skal en høre fra klimafornektere at "det har gått politikk i det".

JA FOR FAEN. Det har det.

La oss se på det 20ende århundre da. Hva har vi hatt siden år 1900?

HVILKET ALTERNATIV ER NÆRMEST SANNHETEN?

1. En grønn verden som består av fornybar energi over alt. Alle har solenergi på taket og en vindmølle i hagen. Alt er rent og pent og vi lever i en global diktaturstat styrt av FN og Al Gore. De rikeste menneskene i verden er gartnere og miljøaktivister.

2. Siden 1900 har verden blitt forgiftet med bly, asbest, DDT, kvikksølv, arsenikk,  teflon, nikoton, karbon  - C02 som og skyver Jorden ut av dens naturlige syklus gjennom økt drivhuseffekt.. Luftforurensing som dreper millioner hvert år etc. De rikeste folkene er å finne i fossil brensel.

Hva er nærmest det vi har hatt siden år 1900?

Hvis klimakrisen er politikk og en konspira..HVOR I HELVETE ER DENNE GRØNNE KONSPIRAEN?

SER DET IKKE MER UT SOM DET MOTSATTE?





I wonder why we havent fixed the climate change problem yet like we did the ozone and acid rain problems? Now,,,what could possible be standing in the way?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/oct/09/half-century-dither-denial-climate-crisis-timeline?CMP=share_btn_fb&fbclid=IwAR34Lx4CdN-P9vZmSGPSC6_Lm1JhkcR1TmWt1_367-PeUieim_cMQyN6FVg

Because there is a very powerful industry who, like tobacco, uses billions of dollars attacking the science, protecting their money flow.

“Ive been listening to “dire predictions” all my life, is a common denier argument. Well, maybe, and do you know why?


Oil and gas industry rewards US lawmakers who oppose environmental protections – study

Companies spent $84m on congressional campaigns in 2018, analysis of votes and political contributions shows

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/24/oil-gas-industry-us-lawmakers-campaign-donations-analysis?utm_campaign=Hot+News&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=83906183&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8_Ji8TpamwxnmQw4UfQ3j2RurAQuMULgMvUL4tQGOPORZfDeUkYJFqWcoJI9I8T1Lfk4r2aZtqVn-ap3vks_6mJq8Ttw&_hsmi=83906183&fbclid=IwAR0QLhsQqizUtjMwEyRj7rS48spY6edJhF-eimDGvwfDM1v_BZwD7-SayrA




Top oil firms spending millions lobbying to block climate change policies, says report

The Climate Denial Machine: How the Fossil Fuel Industry Blocks Climate Action.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/22/top-oil-firms-spending-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-says-report

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/revealed-20-firms-third-carbon-emissions?CMP=share_btn_fb&fbclid=IwAR0BSliqBN-

eJxRxwKddBVKppDNiVxFhgBNTK8dHjOR5xkD6vTPH50eSdvo

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/11/google-contributions-climate-change-deniers

Conservative groups may have spent up to $1bn a year on the effort to deny science and oppose action on climate change, according to the first extensive study into the anatomy of the anti-climate effort.

The anti-climate effort has been largely underwritten by conservative billionaires, often working through secretive funding networks. They have displaced corporations as the prime supporters of 91 think tanks, advocacy groups and industry associations which have worked to block action on climate change.

We are guided by an ideology so familiar and pervasive that we do not even recognise it as an ideology. It is called consumerism. It has been crafted with the help of skilful advertisers and marketers, by corporate celebrity culture, and by a media that casts us as the recipients of goods and services rather than the creators of political reality. It is locked in by transport, town planning and energy systems that make good choices all but impossible. It spreads like a stain through political systems, which have been systematically captured by lobbying and campaign finance, until political leaders cease to represent us, and work instead for the pollutocrats who fund them.

In such a system, individual choices are lost in the noise. Attempts to organise boycotts are notoriously difficult, and tend to work only when there is a narrow and immediate aim. The ideology of consumerism is highly effective at shifting blame: witness the current ranting in the billionaire press about the alleged hypocrisy of environmental activists. Everywhere I see rich westerners blaming planetary destruction on the birth rates of much poorer people, or on “the Chinese”. This individuation of responsibility, intrinsic to consumerism, blinds us to the real drivers of destruction.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/09/polluters-climate-crisis-fossil-fuel




Posted by at Ingen kommentarer:

onsdag 9. oktober 2019

The War on science / How the science of climate science got politicized.


Tired of the "the science of climate science is so political" argument from climate deniers? Well, it's true, but not for the reason deniers believe.

  • The goal of the fossil fuel industry is to keep its profits rolling in without interference by government or by new, competing energy sources. The polluters know they dont have any science to back up their arguments. So instead they use the best defence method they can. Which is to polarize and politicize the science.
  • They hid their self interests in ideology and politics to cater and pander to their tribe. Thus it’s the Denial for profit movement which is activist and political, not the science of climate science.
  • To keep their money flow going they need the public embroiled in doubt and suspicion; they need to degrade public confidence in science and scientists; they need to harm America’s future—and the world’s future—so that one of the wealthiest industries on Earth can glut and engorge itself in even more wealth.
  • The Professional Climate Denial for Profit Movement is really just free enterprise fighting regulations. It’s that classic old battle between unfettered capitalism and governments. Between free marked fundamentalists and taxes. And The Climate Denial for Profit Movement have put the science of climate science into that bag only because this science can lead to regulations. That’s it. There is nothing more to it. It has nothing to do with the science being wrong. It’s a matter of ideology and world view only. And greed. And blood money. And they’ll fight anyone and anything which interrupts their money flow.
  • It’s all about ideology. The corporate polluters have used the “it's leftist”, “it's socialism” and “ it's a tax scam” arguments since day one. NOT because such silly paranoid claims are true, or because the science is wrong, but simply because they cater to the tribe and worship right-wing conservative belief systems and unfettered anarcho capitalism and a free-market libertarian ideology -and they dont want regulations on their ability to pollute us / make money.
  • If you’re a corporate polluter and tell your tribe that something will lead to taxes, regulations and socialism, they will believe anything you tell them. If their built-in government hatred can be stimulated, they will believe in anything. They are programmed for it. Just hide your self interests in ideology and they’ll swallow your message like a dog will swallow a pill hidden in its food. It’s group think - tribalism. They will sacrifice science on their Ayn Rand altars.

 The second National Task Force report on the Rule of Law & Democracy outlines how to curb political interference in government science and fix a broken appointments process.

 "Objective data and research are essential to effective governance and democratic oversight. But over the last few decades, the safeguards meant to keep government research objective and publicly accessible have been steadily weakening. Recent administrations have manipulated the findings of government scientists and researchers, retaliated against career researchers for political reasons, invited outside special interests to shape research priorities, undermined and sidelined advisory committees staffed by scientists, and suppressed research and analysis from public view — often material that had previously been made available. In many cases, they have appeared to pay little political price for these missteps. This trend has culminated in the efforts of the current administration not only to politicize scientific and technical research on a range of topics, but also, at times, to undermine the value of objective facts themselves.
Now, we are at a crisis point, with almost weekly violations of previously respected safeguards."
  • The acting White House chief of staff reportedly instructed the secretary of commerce to have the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) — a part of the Department of Commerce — issue a misleading statement in support of the president’s false assertion about the trajectory of a hurricane, contradicting an earlier statement released by the National Weather Service. The secretary of commerce reportedly threatened to fire top NOAA officials in pressuring them to act.
  • The Department of Agriculture relocated economists across the country after they published findings showing the financial harms to farmers of the administration’s trade policies.
  • The Interior Department reassigned its top climate scientist to an accounting role after he highlighted dangers posed by climate change.
  • The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted rules that prevent leading experts from serving on science advisory boards and encourage participation by industry-affiliated researchers.
  • The White House suppressed a report showing a toxic substance that is present in several states’ water supplies endangers human health at levels far lower than previously reported by the EPA.

Six whistleblowers and ex-government scientists describe how the Trump administration made them bury climate science – and why they won’t stay quiet



Takeaways
  • Because there is a very powerful industry who, like tobacco, uses billions of dollars attacking the science, protecting their money flow.
  • “Ive been listening to “dire predictions” all my life, is a common denier argument. Well, maybe, and do you know why?

Top oil firms spending millions lobbying to block climate change policies, says report

Oil and gas industry rewards US lawmakers who oppose environmental protections – stud

Companies spent $84m on congressional campaigns in 2018, analysis of votes and political contributions shows"
https://tinyurl.com/s7se5sw

We could have fixed it by now, like we did the ozone hole and acid rain problems.
Because of global actions we see restoration of ecosystems damaged by acid rain worldwide and we are also about to recover the ozone layer as well.
“The acid rain problem in Europe and North America has largely abated because of stronger SO2 and NOx emission controls, such as the U.S. Clean Air Act of 1970, the Canada–United States Air Quality Agreement in 1991, and similar measures in Europe. In the United States the first phase of emission reductions took effect in 1995, and subsequent reductions followed”.
What Happened to Acid Rain?
After Decades Of Global Action, The Ozone Layer Is On The Road To Recovery
After Decades Of Global Action, The Ozone Layer Is On The Road To Recovery
And probably to the shock of all climate deniers out there; It was done without the installment of a global socialist illuminati dictatorship out to turn the world into a huge wind park.
In a rare — and much-needed — environmental win, a UN report says parts of the ozone layer could be fully healed by the 2030s.
Ozone at lower latitudes is not recovering, despite Antarctic ozone hole healing
THE CORRUPT REPUBLICAN PARTY:
Most republican politicians are puppets for the fossil fuel interests.
What is the current state of affairs after 70 years of this climate denial machine? In the US, at least 180 congressional members and senators are declared climate deniers. They’ve received more than US$82 million in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry and its partners.
How US climate machine has left 180 deniers in Congress - Michael West



The March 1, 2017 memo, signed by Murray and addressed to Vice President Mike Pence, lists 14 requests, including the elimination of the Obama-era Clean Power Plan; a United States withdrawal from the Paris climate change agreement; and at least a 50 percent cut to the staff at the Environmental Protection Agency. Other major overhauls include “a withdrawal and suspension” of the endangerment finding, a landmark EPA determination requiring the agency to regulate carbon emissions, and eliminating a federal tax credit for windmills and solar panels.

 https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/a-coal-executives-action-plan-for-trump-is-made-public/
Senators who urged Trump to leave Paris climate accord took millions from oil companies

THE GOVERNMENT SOCIALIST SUBSIDIES TO FOSSIL FUELS
Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF
How Large Are Global Energy Subsidies?
Global fossil fuel subsidies reach $5.2 trillion, and $29 billion in Australia
Taxpayers currently subsidize the oil industry by as much as $4.8 billion a year, with about half of that going to the big five oil companies—ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips—which get an average tax break of $3.34 on every barrel of domestic crude they produce.
Once intended to jump-start struggling domestic drillers, these incentives have become a tidy bonus for some of the world’s most profitable companies.
With Washington looking under the couch cushions for sources of new revenue, oil prices topping $100 a barrel, and the world feeling the heat from its dependence on fossil fuels, there’s been a renewed push to close these decades-old loopholes. But history suggests that Big Oil won’t let go of its perks without a brawl.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/sc...
Why are taxpayers subsidising the oil and gas companies that jeopardise our future?
Instead of hoping market forces solve the climate crisis, the government needs to stop giving tax breaks to polluters
Why are taxpayers subsidising the oil and gas companies that jeopardise our future? | Clive Lewis
Global fossil fuel subsidies totaled $544 billion in 2012, compared to only $101 billion for renewables. The International Monetary Fund estimates fossil fuel subsidies for 2015 to be $5.3 trillion - an amount equal to 6.5% of global GDP. More than 40% of this represents subsidies for coal, the most environmentally damaging of all fossil fuels. Although not good news on its face, the disproportionate funding for fossil fuels represents a tremendous opportunity to shift funding to renewable energy without an overall increase in costs.
Global Subsidies - Fossil Fuels vs. Renewables — Environmental Graphiti
Green energy feels the heat as subsidies go to fossil fuels
A new paper published in Climatic Change estimates that when we account for the pollution costs associated with our energy sources, gasoline costs an extra $3.80 per gallon, diesel an additional $4.80 per gallon, coal a further 24 cents per kilowatt-hour, and natural gas another 11 cents per kilowatt-hour that we don’t see in our fuel or energy bills.
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-ene...
ScienceDirect
How Big Oil Clings to Billions in Government Giveaways
https://www.motherjones.com/poli...
America the polluted
Corporate polluters always attack environmental laws.
These laws are made so that you and I can enjoy clean air and waters. These same laws are called “tax scams” by the polluters. The term “tax scam” will very likely be embraced by anyone who doesn’t like “the government” in the first place.
The EPA was created to protect citizens from pollutions and environmental hazards. But he EPA is now a joke in Trumps America. It’s been hijacked by fossil fuel puppets and climate deniers. FFS, their new chief is a former coal lobbyist.
Trump taps former coal lobbyist to lead EPA
Trumps America is fossil fuels America. How proud deniers must be. Let them eat mercury, as they did lead, asbestos, DDT, mercury nicotine and C02, you know, those other "hoaxes" science warned about. And as usual, these environmental laws will be renamed "tax scams" by the fossil fuels front group propaganda machine, to pander their bent over tribe of gullibles who, as usual, will swallow any anti-governmental lie they design, just because they believe being pro-government makes you a socialist.
And when fossil fuel interests get bogged down in the candy store alone, this is what happens:
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to change the way it calculates the health risks of air pollution, a shift that would make it easier to roll back a key climate change rule because it would result in far fewer predicted deaths from pollution, according to five people with knowledge of the agency’s plans.
E.P.A. Plans to Get Thousands of Pollution Deaths Off the Books by Changing Its Math
More:
President Trump has announced sweeping changes to the Endangered Species Act, changes that will benefit big polluters at the expense of America's most vulnerable animals.
President Trump Is Gutting the Endangered Species Act
Donald Trump has announced a replacement for the Clean Power Plan, one that would create hundreds of millions more tons of carbon pollution
The Oil Industry’s Covert Campaign to Rewrite American Car Emissions Rules
Mercury Limits on Coal Plants No Longer ‘Appropriate,’ EPA Says
EPA Says Limiting Mercury Pollution From Power Plants Is No Longer 'Appropriate and Necessary'
Trump's New Power Plan Comes With a Deadly Price
83 Environmental Rules Being Rolled Back Under Trump
https://www.facebook.com/yearswa...
The Trump administration has reportedly buried reports warning that climate change will harm crops and cause health problems
A running list of how President Trump is changing environmental policy
How the Trump Administration Is Torpedoing Climate Science
Trump officials weaken protections for animals near extinction
Changes to how Endangered Species Act is implemented come as world scientists warn biodiversity crisis will put humanity at risk


_____________________________________


Et partiuavhengig arbeidsutvalg, bestående av tidligere embetsmenn tilknyttet regjeringen, rapporterer om «nesten ukentlige brudd» på retningslinjer som skal beskytte objektiv forskning.

Forskningsfunn manipuleres for egen politisk vinning, særinteresser har altfor høy innflytelse, og forskere blir gjort til skyteskiver for ideologiske grunner.

Det mener et parti-uavhengig arbeidsutvalg bestående av tidligere embetsmenn i regjeringen.

Tiltak ment å sikre at offentlig forskning holdes objektiv og tilgjengelig for folk flest har blitt «stadig svakere» under de siste regjeringene, og har nådd et bunnivå under Trump, ifølge en ny rapport fra National Task Force on Rule of Law and Democracy.

Det er nå «nesten ukentlige brudd» på de tidligere så høyt verdsatte retningslinjene, heter det i rapporten.

Videre sies det at dagens regjering forsøker «ikke bare velger å gjøre politikk ut av forskning innen rekke felt, men til tider også forsøker å undergrave verdien av objektive fakta generelt sett».

https://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/verden/2019/10/09/195616983/trump-administrasjonens-krig-mot-vitenskapen-har-nadd-et-kritisk-punkt

http://online.fliphtml5.com/qydua/baaf/?fbclid=IwAR3foQ8iOch9fHctZHKiZwOXgOJQjgkFU0-9LbVQ5SFiWmD4risZ5EzQpd8#p=3

Posted by at Ingen kommentarer:
Abonner på: Innlegg (Atom)

Predatory journal list

In Scientific Publishing, Predatory publishing , also write-only publishing or deceptive publishing, is an exploitative academic publishin...