Friday, July 27, 2018

California Was Warned Months Ago Its Grid Could Buckle In The Heat. Now It's Happening

California’s grid operator is asking customers to limit electricity use during peak hours to help keep power flowing as a “heat dome” settles over the southwestern U.S.

But they were warned of this months ago. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) warned in May that California faced “significant risk of encountering operating conditions that could result in operating reserve shortfalls.”

Expected power demand is expected to outstrip California’s available generating capacity by about 5,000 megawatts on Tuesday, according to the California Independent System Operator (CAISO).

Why the lack of energy supplies? CAISO expects high demand for air conditioning during the heat wave to outstrip supply owing to “reduced electricity imports, tight natural gas supplies” and high wildfire risk.

The grid operator issued a flex alert to customers on Monday and began mobilizing all available generating capacity. But that’s not enough, and CAISO is asking residents and businesses to cut their power usage to prevent “rotating power outages.”

This is exactly what NERC warned about, based on CAISO’s own assessment earlier this year. NERC found an increased risk of rolling blackouts as “a result of lower hydro conditions and the retirement of 789 MW of dispatchable natural gas generation that had been available in prior summers to meet high load conditions.”

“Natural gas limitations and pipeline outages could exacerbate these conditions,” NERC found.

Tens of thousands of Californians lost power in early July when a heat wave sent temperatures soaring, recording new records in the Los Angeles area. Air conditioning use put too much strain on the grid, overloading electrical distribution.

CAISO asked customers “to conserve electricity especially during the late afternoon and evening when air conditioners typically are at peak use” for Tuesday and Wednesday when temperatures are expected to hit triple digits across much of southern California.


Greenies against the wall

The reduction in habitat from a border wall would be tiny so any serious impact on an otherwise viable population would be unlikely

Scientists in the US are warning of the potential for serious ecological consequences if Donald Trump's proposed border wall between the US and Mexico goes ahead.

The wall, which would span the majority of the border from the North Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico, will impede animal migration, shrink animal habitat and split populations of species into smaller, less viable groups, according to the 18 researchers who published their findings today in BioScience.

More than 2,500 scientists endorsed the article, which calls on the US government to "recognise and give high priority to conserving the ecological, economic, political and cultural value of the US-Mexico borderlands".

"National security can and must be pursued with an approach that conserves our natural heritage," they wrote.

The construction of a border fence between the US and Mexico began during George W Bush's presidency. At the time Congress gave the Department of Homeland Security authority to waive laws that could slow construction of the border fence, including the endangered species act (ESA) and the national environmental policy act (NEPA).

And there has reportedly been very little assessment of the environmental impacts of the various sections of border fence — adding up to 1,200 kilometres — that have since been built. Now President Trump plans to extend these various sections into a continuous barrier.

Numerous species along the US-Mexico border are already threatened with extinction, according to study author Professor Bill Ripple from Oregon State University. "There are currently 62 species that are threatened," he said.

"The Mexican grey wolf, it's threatened, and its range would be truncated [by the wall]. The jaguar, there's only a small amount of its range in the United States and that would be cut off from its range in the south. And the same with the ocelot."

The researchers identified 1,506 species with ranges on both sides of the border, including 163 mammals.

Although the border wall has garnered a lot of attention both locally and internationally, the ecological impacts have been mostly overlooked, the researchers said.

In publishing their research and petition, Professor Ripple is aiming to bring these issues to light.

"I'm hoping that some of the national leaders will take note and listen to what we're saying," he said.

"This is not just a small fence, this is a huge construction project that could span the entire border between Mexico and the United States."

Although there has been some discussion of leaving small holes in the fence for animals to pass through, this will not help larger species, Professor Tim Kiett from the University of Texas told the ABC's Science Show recently.

"Things like jaguar, jaguarundi, the pronghorn, a number of larger-bodied species could still be impacted even if there are small passageways in the barrier," Professor Kiett said.

"They move daily and seasonally. Some embark on largescale migration, but many just move about to forage, to find mates, and for other reasons, so if their movement ability is restricted that can impact their populations."

The latest International Union for the Conservation of Nature Red List, released earlier this month, names 237 species extinctions in the United States, with a further 214 listed as critically endangered.

The consequences of building a wall across the US will likely hit endangered species the hardest, and may be complicated by the impacts of climate change, Professor Ripple warned.

"The species currently threatened with extinction are of the highest concern," he said.

It has been shown that species are moving poleward away from the equator at more than 15 kilometres per year on average, as global temperatures warm.


WAKE UP Libs! It’s Impossible For Renewable Energy To Meet Our Needs

“Green energy is the way of the future” say environmental advocates. They argue that the transition away from fossil fuels is inevitable and inexorable, desirable. Some brazenly claim that the entire world could be powered by renewables as soon as 2030—assuming the governments’ subsidies don’t dry up. But is their exuberance justified? No.

Although renewable energy capacity has grown by leaps and bounds over the last three decades (wind power capacity grew on average 24.3 percent per year since 1990, and solar by 46.2 percent), renewable energy still generates an insignificant proportion of mankind’s power, and their rapid growth is not sustainable.

The truth is that after decades of beefy government subsidies wind power still meets just 0.46 percent of earth’s total energy demands, according to data from the International Energy Agency (IEA).  The data includes not only electrical energy but also the energy consumed via liquid fuels for transportation, heating, cooking, etc.  Solar farms generate even less energy.  Even when combined, the figures are minuscule: wind and solar energy together generate less than 1 percent of earth’s energy output.

Bottom line: wind and solar energy are not making a difference in the left’s crusade against fossil fuels. It would be far more cost-effective and reasonable to simply invest in more energy-efficient technology.  But of course, doing so would not line the pockets of welfare billionaires like Elon Musk, founder of the Tesla Group.

Furthermore, the rapid growth of renewable energy is unsustainable—the future will not likely be wind nor solar-powered.

Looking first at wind energy: between 2013 and 2014, again using IEA data, global energy demand grew by 2,000 terawatt-hours.  In order to meet this demand the earth would need to build 350,000 new 2-megawatt wind turbines every year—enough to entirely blanket the British Isles.  For context, that is 50 percent more turbines than have been built globally since the year 2000. Given these facts, it is extremely unlikely that the future will be wind-powered: we simply cannot build turbines fast enough, and there is just not enough land (nor continental shelf) available to farm. And unfortunately, this is not a problem that can be overcome with better technology: turbines can become only so efficient due to something called the Betz limit (which determines how much energy can be extracted from a moving fluid, ie. the atmosphere). As it stands, modern wind turbines are already very close to their physical limit.

The state of solar energy is only slightly more promising.  Recent findings reported in Business Insider suggest that humanity would need to entirely cover an equatorial region the size of Spain with solar panels in order to generate enough electricity to meet global demand by 2030.  Not only is this an enormous amount of land that could otherwise be used for agriculture—or left unmolested—but it also greatly underestimates the size of the ecological footprint, since only 20 percent of mankind’s energy consumption takes the form of electricity.  Were we to abandon fossil fuels for transportation, the area needed would be five times as large.

An additional problem is that earth lacks the mineral resources to build that many solar panels. For example, an article published in USA Today estimates that each standard 1.8 square meter solar panel requires 20 grams of silver to build—silver is essential to modern solar cells. Since there are 1 million square meters in a square kilometer, 11.1 tons of silver is needed per square kilometer of solar panels.  Spain is 506,000 square kilometers. Covering this much space with solar panels would require 5,616,600 tons of silver.  As it turns out, that is 7.2 times as much silver as is estimated to exist in Earth’s crust—never mind the fact that we would need five-times this amount to displace fossil fuels.  Granted, new technology could mitigate the need for silver, but this same logic applies to dozens of other minerals present in solar panels—they are simply too resource-hungry to be built on a global scale.

One must also remember that such massive investments in solar panels would inevitably contribute to resource scarcity: modern electronics require many of the same minerals as do solar panels.  Increased competition for a finite supply of minerals would raise the prices of our electronic goods, as well as the price of electricity.  Of course, this analysis wholly ignores the many other problems with solar and wind energy, such as the problem of intermittency and the hidden systemic risks it entails.

This is not to say wind and solar energy have no uses.  In some cases, they may be preferable to other types of energy.  For example, remote townships and homesteads can benefit greatly from local electricity production—especially since renewable energy does not require fuel. Likewise, they could be useful for providing backup capacity in the case of fuel shortages.  However, wind and solar energy are unlikely to underpin the global energy supply, especially since more cost-effective options remain on the table.

Given these facts, we can reasonably conclude that the green energy industry is little more than a corporate welfare scheme marketed under the guise of noble intentions.


Young, dumb teenage girls form doomsday cult to fight 'global warming'

The bestselling computer game of 2018 is called Far Cry 5.  It features a militant doomsday cult that takes over parts of America and tries to forcibly convince everyone that the world is about to end.  That could never happen for real in America, could it?

In a related story, a group of mostly teenage girls have formed a group with the doomsday-ish name "Zero Hour" because of their conviction that global warming is soon to destroy the world.  Do you think it's too much to compare them to the militants in Far Cry 5?  Here's a quote from their manifesto:

The elected officials must comply with the demands of the youth, therefore they must pass and enforce legislation and support policies that protect life and our future on this planet. This is a revolution.

"Demands."  "Revolution."  That sounds pretty militant to me.

Their leader is a 16-year-old named Jamie Margolin, in my opinion, a militantly brainwashed doomsday leftist.

She may seem young, but never forget that many of the Red Guards in Mao's China who committed unspeakable atrocities were young, too.  She looks grim in all her photos.  But, to be fair, would you be smiling if you thought the world was about to end?

The teenagers behind Zero Hour – an environmentally focused, creatively minded and technologically savvy nationwide coalition – are trying to build a youth-led movement to sound the alarm and call for action on climate change and environmental justice.  As sea levels rise, ice caps melt and erratic weather affects communities across the globe, they say time is running out to address climate change.

"I've always planned my future in ifs," Ms. Margolin said.  If climate change hasn't destroyed this, if the environment hasn't become that."

What has "climate change" "destroyed" that has prevented someone from doing anything?  The answer: nothing.  This single exchange showcases the doomsday ideology of Ms. Margolin.  She seriously believes that the world is about to end.

Here's what Zero Hour stands for:

1. A blockade of all fossil fuel production.  That sounds as though it could get violent.

2. Stop eating meat.  You first.  On second thought, you first, second, and third.

3. Build "radically sustainable" homes made of garbage.  What, you think I made this up?  I mean it: homes made of garbage.

4. Growing food in every neighborhood.  I'll bet the girls got this from Mao's guide to the Great Leap Forward.  They were probably missing the page where it described how that turned out.

5. Generate zero waste.  Is this science fiction or fantasy?

6. Share clothes, appliances, households, and cars.  A pilot program should begin immediately with the homeless in San Francisco.

7. Rape culture must be dismantled.  And we only just finished setting up the rape culture!  And now they want us to dismantle it.  Typical!  (Yes, this is sarcasm.)

8. Create "collectives" to promote "permaculture," which promotes eating shrubs, perennials, and annuals.  I can see the ad campaign now: "Daisies.  The other white meat."

9. Legalize hemp for "medicine."

10. Require fossil fuel companies to pay for "climate justice education" as "reparations" for the "harm" done to youth.  It's like an environmental version of Jesse Jackson's shakedown of big companies.

11. Protect Queer and Transsexuals from the sexual violence caused by fossil fuel industries.  Who knew that at very same time a power plant produces energy for thousands of homes, it is also molesting transsexuals?

12. Welcome "climate refugees."  (Any from Europe?  Probably not!)

13. End the extraction of natural resources anywhere there is wilderness or nature.  I guess that only leaves major cities to drill and mine in.

14. A recognition that capitalism, colonialism, racism, and patriarchy has led to global warming.

Notice how a whole lot of other issues have been mixed into this enviro-doomsday movement?  What was that about the patriarchy again?

By the way, men, especially white men, are curiously absent from the leadership of Zero Hour.  Of the 16 leaders of Zero Hour, none is a white man.  Only two are boys (or least they looked like boys when the photo was taken).  Why are boys so underrepresented from this doomsday cult?  Are boys not as easily brainwashed as girls?  Or are boys not suitable to join the fight against global warming, because they are trainee members of the "patriarchy"?

It's easy to dismiss this as a bunch of misguided girls.  But the earlier the brainwashing begins, the more dangerous it is to society.  That's why their ignorant adoption of doomsday ideology should be confronted, exposed, and ridiculed, regardless of their age.  With an attitude like that, Ms. Margolin should be more worried about getting a boyfriend than the ice caps melting.


The Extinction of Honest Science

Warmists' predictions of climate doom haven't come to pass or anything like it, but give them credit for agility and perseverance in always concocting a fresh scare. The latest meme to keep grants flowing and careers on track: the purported mass die-off of species large and small

With no significant warming for 20 years, the climate alarmists need better scares.  The temperature rise of about 0.8 degC in more than 100 years is not only non-scary, it’s been immensely beneficial for feeding the globe’s burgeoning population. Now  the “extreme weather” furphy  is at work, with any storm or flood attributed  by Al Gore and the Climate Council to fossil fuel emissions. There’s the purported “ocean acidification”  but I’m yet to see evidence that it has hurt a solitary crab, let alone a species.

As for sea-level rises, well, check my birthplace, Fremantle, butting the Indian Ocean: its tide gauge shows 12 cms rise in the past 120 years – compare that with 20cm for the length of my hand. To cap it off, the warmists, including the green-colonised CSIRO, have had to recognize that extra CO2  in the 30 years to 2010  has greened the earth to the extent of two and a half Australias in area.[1]

There are two handy scares still slithering around: “The Anthropocene” and “The Sixth Mass Extinction”. Both are fakes. Both are foisted on kids by green/Left educators. Both require as supposed remedies a supra-national enforcement agency run by the Left/liberal crowd, along with a roll-back of capitalist progress.

Here’s an example. I was in Chicago in 2013 and visited its great natural history centre the Field Museum (named after a 19th century $US9m donor Marshall Field). In the “Evolving Planet” gallery for kids, there was a   chart, “The Geologic Time Scale” showing the classic geologic ages (Silurian, Devonian etc) with markers for the first five extinctions. At the top it read “Today” with a picture of a metropolis, and an arrow labeled “Sixth Mass Extinction”. A red-neon “Extinction Clock” ticked over each time another species supposedly becomes extinct. In the hour or two since the gallery opened, the counter had added another 22 supposed extinctions.

The count was based not on reality but fanciful modeling 30 years ago by Harvard professor and environmental activist Dr E.O Wilson, who claimed that 30,000 species were going extinct per year. The true number of known extinctions per year among the planet’s reputed 10 million-or-so species and  averaged over the past 500 years is about two, according to the Red List of the International  Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Yet climate activists want to compare this alleged“Sixth Extinction” with the  end-Permian “great dying” (250 million years ago) and end-Cretaceous dinosaur die-off (66 million years ago).

As for  the“Anthropocene”, it refers to the present geological era in which humans supposedly dominate the planetary processes and destroy other life forms. The label was first seriously proposed in 2001 by  co-Nobelist Paul Crutzen, of ozone-hole fame. It supposedly succeeds our 11,500 year old Holocene, the brief warm spell that has fostered our agriculture and civilisation. No such era and label as “Anthropocene” has been endorsed by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS),  the global naming authority. An ICS working group (AWG) endorsed the concept in 2016, positing a start date of 1950. Most geologic eras last about three million years, so the ICS is in no hurry to make a ruling.

The AWG argument goes that thousands of years from now, geologists will uncover a fine dividing layer of “techno-fossils”from the late 20th Century, comprised of ball-point pens, CD platters and mobile phone carcasses.[2] My lost car keys may also turn up. If the ICS is unpersuaded, the “Anthropocene” claimants argue that old labeling conventions can be thrown out since we so urgently need to save the planet.

In this debasement of science, thousands of peer-reviewed papers blather about the “Anthropocene”. Publisher Elsevier has even created a learned journal, “The Anthropocene Review” where academics can flaunt their cringe-worthy research. As Canadian fact-checker Donna Laframboise puts it, “Declaring something to be the case before it has actually happened is unethical. A more scandalous example of fake news is difficult to imagine.”[3]

Contrarian papers on the topics are often binned, as biologists Peter Kareiva and Michelle Marvier have found, because reviewers worry “as much about political fallout and potential misinterpretation by the public as they do about the validity and rigor of the science.”[4]

Meanwhile  “Anthropocene” fans argue that we humans are now more powerful than traditional geologic forces like volcanos, earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis and shifting planetary orbits. At 11am on October 14, 1968, I was home at Gooseberry Hill in Perth’s Darling Ranges when my house began to shake. I’ll never forget it. The cause was a 6.9 force earthquake centred at Meckering, 100 kilometres further east. I don’t think humans can compete  with such forces, now or ever. You may disagree.

Most of the media’s environment writers have mindlessly propagated the Anthropocene concept.  New Yorker staffer Elizabeth Colbert morphed the story into a book The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History, and won a Pulitzer for it.[5] As a sample, she tells New Yorker readers about finding some bat corpses: “It struck me, as I stood there holding a bag filled with several dozen stiff, almost weightless bats, that I was watching mass extinction in action.”

Full credit, however, to Ruth Graham of the Boston Globe for her clear-eyed piece in 2014 exposing the naked activism of the “Sixth Extinction” crowd. UCAL ecologist Stephen Hubbell was surprised by the vehement reactions to his critical paper in Nature (2011) about extinction rates, she wrote. Hubbell said that some conservationists effectively told him, “Damn the data, we have an agenda …” Hubbell continued, “The only thing science has going for it is truth and the search for truth. If it loses that, it’s really lost its way.”

Most scientists in this field are also strong conservationists, Graham wrote, and many worry that airing dirty laundry about estimates (such as “40,000 species disappearing each year”) could hurt the cause. A Brazil-based extinction specialist, Richard Ladle, spoke to her of “some enormous exaggerations”. A much-publicized 2004 paper, for instance, warned that climate change could put a million species at risk by 2050. Ladle said, “If you keep on talking about very, very large figures and nothing appears to be happening, eventually that’s going to erode public confidence in conservation science.”

Reporter Graham quoted Nigel Stork, a conservation biologist at Griffith University, Qld., who argued in Science in 2013 that the extinction rate was over-stated: “If you express a view that’s different to some people, they say you’re anti-conservation, and that’s not true. Conservation is working. There have been fewer extinctions because we’ve been conserving a key part of the world.” Graham concluded:  “The swirling controversies demonstrate how even ‘science-driven’ policy can sit uneasily with the workings of science itself. Galvanizing public opinion sometimes demands single dramatic certainties, while science proceeds by estimate, correction, and argument.”

The “Anthropocene” and the “Sixth Extinction” are eviscerated in a 8000-word essay “Welcome to the Narcisscene” by Mark Sagoff in the Oakland, Ca.-based Breakthrough Journal.[6] Enough time has elapsed to run a check on scientists’ gruesome predictions of extinctions, Sagoff says. The predictions of decades ago, treated with credulity at the time, have proved ridiculous. Here’s a few of them, tabulated by Griffith’s Nigel Stork. “If some of these higher estimates were true, then we should have already witnessed the extinction of up to 50 percent of all species on Earth in the last 30 years,” Stork wrote.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature tracks species that have gone extinct. Last year’s Red List database looked at 24,230 plant species, and found only 118 had disappeared since 1500, while another 35 are extinct in the wild but survive in cultivation. To meet the criteria of a ‘mass extinction’, we’d need to lose about 18,000. At the current rate, it would take 70,000 more years.

It’s the same with insects. Take the well-studied butterflies, tiger beetles, dragonflies and damsel flies. Only three of 25,000 types have gone extinct in the past 500 years. A “mass extinction” would take 3 million years.

The IUCN manages data on 67,000 animal types. About 800 have gone extinct in the past 500 years. At this rate, it would take 25,000 years for a “mass extinction”.

All up, of 100,000 plants and animals, about two are lost per year. It would take another 34,000 years for a “mass extinction”.

Sagoff demolishes a subsidiary warmist argument: that current extinction rates are 100 to 1000 times (or even 10,000 times) the “normal” rates in the earth’s history. This seems extra scary, as it is intended to be. But a mass extinction would still take 34,000 years at the present rate, assuming no new species evolve. The argument about “1000 times ‘normal’” means that, normally, the same loss would take 34,000,000 years. It’s a  true-life version of this little joke:

An astronomer in a lecture predicts the earth will be swallowed by the sun in 8 billion years. He asks a distressed lady in the audience: “Why are you upset about something 8 billion years away?”

“Eight billion years? Oh, I thought you said 8 MILLION!”

Australian climate warriors have been influential in the debate. Sagoff’s article cites studies by Will Steffen (ANU and Climate Council) and Clive Hamilton, but wrongly describes the latter, an ethicist and one-time Greens candidate, as an ‘earth system scientist’. Hamilton  argues that  “on the side of responsibility are gathered the armies of scientific insight into Earth’s physical limits.” Against these are “mobilized the armies of avarice intrinsic to an economic structure driven by the profit motive.”[8] Well that’s telling us capitalists.

Steffen, whose research inspired the  2011 carbon tax, was lead author with Nobelist Crutzen in a discussion paper on the “Anthropocene” for the Royal Society the same year.[9] Steffen asserted that we are already at “Stage 3” of the “Anthropocene” era. Conceding that the term is only “informal”, Steffen accused humanity of not just being responsible for global warming but also of meddling with vital nitrogen, phosphorous and sulphur cycles, along with fresh water despoliation and “likely driving the sixth major extinction event in Earth history … the first caused by a biological species.”

Steffen digressed into warning of “peak oil”, citing that oil production would need to rise 26% by 2030 to meet demand. “The prospects of achieving this level of increased production in just two decades at prices that are affordable in the developing world seem highly unlikely,” he wrote, suggesting a “significant risk of a peak before 2020.” Oil was then about $US100 a barrel, today $US70 thanks to the abundance of fracked petroleum.

Steffen also warned that we are close to “peak phosphorous”, suggesting some sort of “equitable” rationing to help the third world’s food security. Rock phosphate was then about $US200 a ton, today about $US100. By the way, never take stock tips from climate scientists who claim expertise in discerning the future up to 2100.

Needless to say, Steffen saw the crises’ solution in “effective global governance” run by his like-minded colleagues at the UN or via enforceable treaties. But since the 2009 Copenhagen conference was a flop in terms of “very deep and rapid cuts to emissions” (he was writing before the 2015 Paris flop), he shifts to earnest discussion about geo-engineering to cool the earth. “Only recently a taboo topic, geo-engineering has rapidly become a serious research topic and in situ tests may subsequently be undertaken if the research shows promising approaches,” he wrote.[10] He instances pumping sulphate particles into the stratosphere as cooling agents, but concludes rather sensibly that “ultimately, the near inevitability of unforeseen consequences should give humanity pause for serious reflection before embarking on any geo-engineering approaches.”

His argument surfaces some curious ideas. Sulphur particles in the air cause more than 500,000 premature deaths per year and damage the environment, he notes. “This creates a dilemma for environmental policymakers, because emission reductions of SO2 … for health and ecological considerations, add to global warming and associated negative consequences, such as sea level rise…[C]omplete improvement in air quality could lead to a global average surface air temperature increase by 0.8◦C on most continents and 4◦C in the Arctic.” Not many people would see any “dilemma” in saving lives by cleaning up air pollution.

Steffen then launches a pre-emptive strike against “Anthropocene” and “Mass Extinction” deniers. Like sceptics of the warming doctrine, he asserts they are driven not by “evidence and explanation” but “by beliefs and values and occasionally by cynical self-interest.” Sceptics have cognitive dissonance such that the more challenged they are by facts, the more they cling to their beliefs, he claims:

“This response may become even more pronounced for the Anthropocene, when the notion of human ‘progress’ or the place of humanity in the natural world is directly challenged. In fact, the belief systems and assumptions that underpin neo-classical economic thinking, which in turn has been a major driver of the Great Acceleration [since 1950] are directly challenged by the concept of the Anthropocene.”

What economic system Steffen prefers, he doesn’t say. He finishes with, “The ultimate drivers of the Anthropocene if they continue unabated through this century, may well threaten the viability of contemporary civilization and perhaps even the future existence of Homo sapiens.”

Others, like University of Wollongong geographer Noel Castree, are even more critical of economic progress.  He writes,

“Even more than the concept of global warming, the Anthropocene is provocative because it implies that our current way of life, especially in wealthy parts of the world, is utterly unsustainable. Large companies who make profits from environmental despoliation – oil multinationals, chemical companies, car makers and countless others – have much to lose if the concept becomes linked with political agendas devoted to things like degrowth and decarbonisation.

… We don’t need the ICS’s imprimatur to appreciate that we are indeed waving goodbye to Earth as we have known it throughout human civilisation.”

I assume Professor Castree doesn’t use a car.

Sceptics have their own version of the current “Anthropocene” such as the “Narcissiscene” and “Greenoscene”. My favorite is the “Adjustoscene” where data has been altered to fit the climate models. Ruder people talk of the “Idioscene” or the “Obscene”. Keep it civil, folks.




Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here


No comments: