"According to the authors of this paper, they didn't do a good job of communicating the limitations of this approach to climate scientists who wanted to use it to see what would happen with temperatures."

Jan 29, 2020 at 8:40 PM Mark Hodgson

They wanted some big scary numbers to make up for their lack of evidence based science.

"Greta Thunberg files application to trademark her name"
Jan 29, 2020 at 8:40 PM Mark Hodgson

It would be presumptive of her to Trademark "St Greta".
It would be appropriate for her minders to Trademark "Greta Glove puppet"

https://www.theguardian.com/help/insideguardian/2020/jan/29/why-the-guardian-will-no-longer-accept-fossil-fuel-advertising
Jan 29, 2020 at 8:40 PM Mark Hodgson

Curious that despite The Guardian's propaganda, oil companies still considered it worthwhile to advertise to a sector of the Guardian's readers.

From Mark's Guardian clips:

We have decided that we will no longer accept advertising from fossil fuel extractive companies...

They also say such advertising would be less than 1% of their revenue, so not much of a sacrifice, is it?

Why don't they show some real gumption and ban advertising from all who sustain those evil companies by buying their products? Admittedly, that might nudge that percentage up a bit. Say to 100.

"Why the Guardian will no longer accept fossil fuel advertising"

https://www.theguardian.com/help/insideguardian/2020/jan/29/why-the-guardian-will-no-longer-accept-fossil-fuel-advertising

"Guardian Media Group has always tried to lead the way commercially, too. Five years ago, GMG made the bold decision to shift the investment portfolio of the Scott Trust Endowment fund, which supports the Guardian in perpetuity, to exclude all fossil fuel investments and began a brilliant campaign to encourage others to follow suit, called Keep It In The Ground.

The result is that fossil fuel-related investments now represent less than 1% of our total funds, and many of the fund managers with whom we work say they have created new, greener investment funds as a result of that decision.

We’ve continued to take steps wherever we can. Although we are small compared to the world’s largest companies, in October 2019, we pledged to reduce the Guardian’s emissions to net zero by 2030 - and many other businesses (such as Microsoft) are making similarly ambitious commitments. We have also been certified as a B Corporation, and later this year we will publish our plans to reduce our carbon footprint towards our net zero goal.

As we’ve considered what more our organisation can do, we realise there is another step we can take, if we’re to stay true to our values.

We have decided that we will no longer accept advertising from fossil fuel extractive companies on any of the Guardian’s websites and apps, nor in the Guardian, Observer and Guardian Weekly in print. Our decision is based on the decades-long efforts by many in that industry to prevent meaningful climate action by governments around the world."

[What?!!! After screaming climate catastrophe for the last 8 months, you've JUST realised you could stop accepting adverts from fossil fuel companies? I bet you don't stop taking adverts for foreign holidays involving long-haul flights, any time soon].

And no, of course none of his is about money:

"Greta Thunberg files application to trademark her name
Climate activist also applied to register name of climate movement Fridays for Future"

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/29/greta-thunberg-files-application-to-trademark-her-name

"The climate activist Greta Thunberg has said she has applied to register her name and that of the Fridays For Future movement she founded in 2018, which has gone global and catapulted her to international fame.

The move would allow legal action against persons or companies trying to use her name which are not in line with her values or that of her movement, she said.

“I assure you, I and the other school strikers have absolutely no interests in trademarks. But unfortunately it needs to be done,” she said on Instagram on Wednesday."

That's one savvy 17 year old. Who still believes that adults aren't behind everything she does?

Wow! Am I reading this right?

"Climate change: Worst emissions scenario 'misleading'
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51281986

"The worst-case scenario for emissions of CO2 this century is no longer plausible, say researchers.

Referred to as "business as usual", the scenario assumes a 500% increase in the use of coal, which is now considered unlikely.

Climate models suggest that this level of carbon could see warming of up to 6C by 2100, with severe impacts.

Researchers say that on current trends, a rise in temperatures of around 3C is far more likely.

How has this confusion come about?
About 10 years ago, ahead of the fifth assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), researchers developed four different scenarios to describe how carbon emissions might change over the rest of this century.

One of these clumsily titled "Representative Concentration Pathways" (RCPs), was called RCP8.5 and it was intended to show the impact of very high emissions consistent with a five fold increase in the use of coal and virtually no policies to limit CO2 emissions.

RCP 8.5 was first developed by energy researchers to help with their modelling. According to the authors of this paper, they didn't do a good job of communicating the limitations of this approach to climate scientists who wanted to use it to see what would happen with temperatures."

"Climate change emergency 'not reflected in Welsh budget'"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-51300865

"It is "hard to identify" how Welsh Government spending plans reflect its declaration of a "climate emergency", a committee of assembly members has said.

Making the declaration, in 2019, the environment minister said she hoped to trigger a "wave of action".

But the finance committee calls the approach to climate change in the 2020-21 draft budget "disappointing"."

Sadly, yet another reason not to vote Labour just now:

"PMQs: Corbyn and Johnson on climate change delay claims"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-51297957/pmqs-corbyn-and-johnson-on-climate-change-delay-claims

"Jeremy Corbyn said the government was financing oil and gas projects that produce 69m tons of carbon annually.

He said that was "nearly a sixth of the total emissions from this country alone" and the government would not meet its net zero emissions policy before 2099.

Boris Johnson said the government had "doubled" its spending on tackling climate change, and the UK has reduced its C02 emissions by 42% on 1990 levels."

I think Jeremy's information was supplied by a partnership between Greenpeace and the BBC.

Why is this story on the science & environment page?

"Brexit: Revisiting Welsh village Cwm which voted Leave"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51283306

It seems as though almost anything can feature on the BBC's science & environment page, except real science & environment stories.

Nothing improves the safety of women more than capitalism. When they can earn enough to support themselves, then they can walk away. When a wife is worth more than her ability to have kids, her husband will have more reasons to stop breeding that just concern for his wife. Society starts valuing women for more than as housekeepers and the vessels of the next generation of men.