Obfuscation may be adaptive. [more]
Okay, it looks real now. Hang on to your hat. [more]
Comments sent by anyone other than a logged-in member are moderated before posting, usually within a day. Comments, if any, that don’t appear to constructive are visible in each article’s “shadow thread” visible at the bottom of the comments with a “click *here*” link. If your comment appears in neither place within a couple of days, it was a false positive for the spam detectors, and fell afoul of the automated spam filter. [more]
Bill McKibben was at the University of Texas talking divestment, which has a sort of bizarre aspect since taken literally, the university would have to divest from itself. [more]
Of all the dangers we face, from climate chaos to permanent war, none is so great as [the] deadening of our response. Joanna Macy (h/t Martin Gisser and Dan Olner – follow that link!)
Unilever, Shell, BT, and EDF Energy are among 70 leading companies today calling on governments across the globe to step up efforts to tackle climate change. The statement urges political leaders to set a timeline for achieving net zero emissions before the end of the century, design a credible strategy to transform the energy system, and create a plan to tackle the global economy’s reliance on fossil fuels. [more]
Our friend and contributor Ugo Bardi has resigned as Chief Specialty Editor of Energy Systems and Policy of the Frontiers Journal in protest against the behavior of the journal in the “Recursive Fury” case. UPDATE: Two more Frontiers editors have resigned. [more]
A series of reports on climate change is airing on the Showtime cable network in the US on Sunday evenings. If you’re in America, you can see the first episode here. It’s aimed at awakening a broad audience to the climate issue. [more]
Suggested Topic: Have you read the IPCC WG II Summary for Policymakers yet? Or are you all focused on whether Nate Silver’s choice of Roger Pielke Jr. as a climate statistician makes any sense?
Anything goes. Moderation is lighter than on other articles.
The journal has belatedly issued an explanation of the retraction that does not make them look quite as stupid at first glance. They did not retract their earlier position, though, that there were no “academic or ethical” issues with the study. Their position now emerges as incoherent, and new evidence coming out makes matters look even worse for them.
The Walker administration continues its program of reducing Wisconsin to the squalid and inequitable status of a typical red state. Dan Kaufman explains a particularly alarming environmental development in an opinion piece in the New York Times. [more]