iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-29--What are you looking at blogs for?

What are you looking at blogs for?

Over at Making Science Public , Jennifer Metcalfe has a post on her recent paper , “ Chanting to the choir : the dialogical failure of antithetical climate change blogs ” , which has received some critical comment from the usual suspects .
Metcalfe ’ s study aims to estimate the management and quality of blog commentary at Jo Nova ’ s blog , to compare it with Skeptical Science .
It adds to a substantial volume of work produced by researchers who seem , in my view , unduly preoccupied with blogs , with unauthorised discussions , and with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , it is interesting that such studies draw the ire of adjacent , if not entirely convergent perspectives .
On the angry Consensus Enforcers ’ point of view , the mere act of comparison of “ credible ” sources of comment and unauthorised commentary risks giving undue credibility to the non-credible .
Even worse , Metcalfe finds parallels in the treatment of commenters from outside the ‘ publics ’ created by the respective blogs .
I.e .
Metcalfe discovers that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commenter who shall be known only as Ren Kice appears on the MSP blog with a theory of credibility , to defend the universe against ‘ false balance ’ .
In the circular terms of the special pleader , bent double with his head up his arse , SKS is right because it is right , and therefore , it can do as it pleases , whereas the lesser , non-credible commenters are subject to different rules of engagement .
The rights and responsibilities of those possessing ‘ credibility ’ are for them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But in my dealings with my far-superiors , I have always been struck by their shared characteristics .
Such wisdom that falls from the dizzying heights that are claimed by the climate-anointed alone usually falls to Earth with more grace , you see .
I found all this interesting , because You will respect mah authoritah !
is what Kice was banging on about during my first contact with him , way , way back in 2013 .
His hypothesis has not improved at all .
But neither has science studies apparently made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to post a comment at MSP , but there were technical issues .
I have posted it here instead .
In reference to the enduring attempt to ‘ keep the conversation civil ’ while emphasising ‘ the relative credibility ’ of sites and their authors , blogs , climate blog archaeologists hoping to establish the functioning of such virtue and ethics may wish to visit the discussion under my 2013 blog post at http : //www.climate-resistance.org/2013/07/tom-curtis-doesnt-understand-the-97-paper.html .
That post was itself spawned from my own contribution to Making Science Public , which discussed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the climate ‘ debate ’ ( such as it is ) to become a battle of received wisdoms , ultimately at the expense of wisdom — the putative and contested objects of ‘ science ’ fading from the substance of those debates the more they emphasised ‘ credibility ’ .
It was there , too , seven years ago , that the commenter was so driven to emphasise my lack of credibility — I am not a climate scientist — that he failed to notice the problem that the approval of two climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own argument .
As he wrote , Perhaps worse , he ( not a climate scientist ) was driven then to depend on the opinion of a ( failed ) academic philosopher , a PHd candidate psychologist and a non-climate non-scientist ( co-authors of the disputed work ) for doubling down on his ‘ keeping the conversation civil ’ .
All of them had been angered by the suggestion ( from a non-climate-scientist equal ) that the 97 % survey had been poorly-conceived , and further enraged that such a view had received @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It turns out that ‘ credibility ’ has nothing to do with ‘ credibility ’ .
Seven years has perhaps not been sufficient time for deeper reflection on what ‘ credibility ’ might mean for the evaluation of contested perspectives in debates .
It remains under-theorised , other than for some cod cognitive science that hypothesises a ‘ gateway belief model ’ of science communication , under the logic of which the expression of unauthorised opinion is an existential danger to the human race and all life on Earth .
Any project @ @ @ @ @ @ @ therefore be not unfairly compared to medieval scholasticism and its adherents compared to an angry mad clergy , concerned by the moral and political authority of an institution waning in the face of challenges to its objective and normative claims .
‘ Civility ’ might mean not speaking out of turn in a political order that demands deference and obedience .
‘ Credibility ’ might mean proximity to political authority .
Evidence that this is the correct interpretation of those terms exists in the prolific output of the project .
There is barely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it has not been over-represented .
A project which is intent on establishing an orthodoxy — rather than persuading through debate — is manifestly a project which is advanced in bad faith .
Hence it finds itself booted out of conversations which would be civil without its help — and which usually are , on the very rare occasions where it has been absent .
That is to say that the point of the project is to poison debate across lines of disagreement , which could otherwise be both possible and good-natured .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ expression of denial , but to deny its expression by punishing any provider of a platform for discussion across those lines that might seemingly lend the unorthodox argument “ credibility ” , as though debate itself was apostasy .
Heated squabbles are of course an enduring characteristic of the Internet .
Hence , it should not be a surprise that online discussion fora do *tend* to develop particular cultures as one or other ‘ public ’ begins to dominate .
The above is a preamble that may , therefore , look like so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lifetime of such heated debates .
But the point ( which I also made in 2013 ) is that the quality of climate debate does not improve as one moves away from the Internet .
It is notable also that the dominant players in the broader climate wars are people based in universities , with letters before and after their name , often occupying very senior positions in institutional science and policymaking .
I.e .
they are not anonymous trolls , in basements , without anything better to do , though you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their arguments in public .
It is furthermore notable that , in contrast to the blogosphere , there are no counterparts — “ deniers ” , in the study ’ s terminology — in the broader public sphere .
That is to say that “ deniers ” , in most of the world , including in the UK and Europe , have almost zero presence , much less formal representation on campuses , in institutional or commercial science , in mainstream political parties , in a constellation of civil-society organisations , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media .
Yet many of those seemingly respectable panjandrums will tell you otherwise , with a straight face , from institutions bearing the names of billionaire benefactors , that a conspiracy of private interests have distorted the public debate .
Needless to say , they are unable to quantify their claims , much less to put those quantities into comparison with a project the scale of the climate agenda : supranational organisations , almost all western governments , all of the universities , all political parties and so on — and all their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ active climate ‘ denial ’ bloggers and commenters as there are researchers active in the science communications and science studies fields that make such blogs the object of their study ?
It seems very possible to me that there are not .
And yet this possibility should invite a further comparison : the resources available to researchers are vastly greater than those available to bloggers .
I write this comment on the research on time borrowed from scraping a living — as do most climate bloggers .
Are my counterparts ?
Many , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ and ‘ credibility , ’ are tenured .
In contrast , I can think of fewer than half a dozen FTE positions in the UK which are given to criticism of the climate agenda at all , none of which enjoy anything at all that resembles tenure .
Yet there seems to be an endless stream of ‘ science communicators ’ desperate to lead the public towards ecological utopia .
There are armies of NGO hacks .
There are hundreds of ‘ civil society ’ organisations and think tanks , in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if they have taken a position on climate , have taken the pro-consensus position .
Your chances of getting a job at any of those organisations , if you have a detectable sceptic view of the climate debate are zero .
What I am suggesting here is that any ‘ research ’ which makes “ denial ” the object of its study begins from an position of abandoning any sense of proportion .
Researchers are forced to study ‘ denial ’ blogs because there is almost no other expression of ‘ denial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denial ’ vexes researchers and their funders .
Isn ’ t that worthy of study ?
Why does it provoke such institutional rage ?
What is the proportion ?
How many green vs brown FTEs are there , engaged in *formal* climate debates ?
What are the resources available to them ?
I suggests that the difference is at least three , and perhaps as many as six orders of magnitude — even more if we are comparing bloggers to the whole enterprise .
Blogs are seemingly the primary vehicle of climate scepticism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agenda is an annual conference , attended by nearly every government , every NGO , every global corporation , thousands of activists , scientists and journalists , from which critics are all but banned .
And that is just the start of the pro climate agenda ’ s formal expression .
The disparity is sufficient to call academic preoccupation with ‘ denial ’ a madness .
It is a constant source of amazement to me , therefore , that recalcitrant climate bloggers are the object of “ research ” , which takes for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predominant orthodoxy : “ science ” versus “ denial ” .
It seems implausible to me that a scientific hypothesis could unite so many hitherto disparate and counter-posed public organisations , nations , institutions and enterprises without a great deal of ideological glue .
There is evidently more going on than ‘ science ’ , and thus ‘ research ’ is much more than it claims to be .
Why are academic researchers so interested in establishing a critical understanding of ‘ denial ’ , but not of the far , far , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dynamics of blogs of interest to academics , but not the dynamics of intergovernmental fora and academia ?
Why are the psychological profiles of ‘ deniers ’ a matter for cognitive scientists , but not the psyches of green alarmists , spivs and chancers ?
Oh , and scientists ?
Added to the failure to bring a sense of proportion to research , then , there exists a failure of good faith — ‘ ethics ’ , if you will .
So much research on how ‘ denial ’ is expressed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it may be defeated .
But so little academic commentary is concerned with what has been said , and what it has been said in response to .
No , it is not just a response to the claim ‘ climate change is real ’ .
It is just as much a response to an orthodoxy , the ascendancy of which has gone without scrutiny of any kind , as rooted in ideology as any 20th century political movement , the facts and consequences of which most academics seem wilfully blind .
Full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dangerous ideological movement , made all the more dangerous by blindness to itself , and that is my motivation .
Guess what… Academia produces its own ‘ publics ’ .
Try it .
Try being a critic of sustainability at any one of a number of ‘ research ’ organisations whose mission statement is ‘ sustainability ’ .
Try getting a grant for a study which reflects critically on , rather than promotes sustainability , from the ESRC .
Try going to an academic conference and expressing a view that runs counter to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Try getting a paper on it published .
See for yourself if blogs are any more or less hostile to alternative perspectives than academe .
If there are any substantial differences between what you observe in blogs and what can be seen on any campus , I will be surprised , and will agree that the dynamics of blogs are more worthy of study than the dynamics of research organisations , leaving aside the fact that ‘ research ’ organisations are called on to inform policy-making processes , and are funded by public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whereas blogs — not ‘ denial ’ blogs , anyhow — are not .
And try the other fora too — the broadcasters , the civil society organisations , the political parties… And then tell me that blog-based research is of any consequence , and not a motivated distraction .

Over at Making Science Public, Jennifer Metcalfe has a post on her recent paper, “Chanting to the choir: the dialogical failure of antithetical climate change blogs”, which has received some critical comment from the usual suspects.
Metcalfe’s study aims to estimate the management and quality of blog commentary at Jo Nova’s blog, to compare it with Skeptical Science. It adds to a substantial volume of work produced by researchers who seem, in my view, unduly preoccupied with blogs, with unauthorised discussions, and with ‘denial’. But for all that, it is interesting that such studies draw the ire of adjacent, if not entirely convergent perspectives. On the angry Consensus Enforcers’ point of view, the mere act of comparison of “credible” sources of comment and unauthorised commentary risks giving undue credibility to the non-credible. Even worse, Metcalfe finds parallels in the treatment of commenters from outside the ‘publics’ created by the respective blogs. I.e. Metcalfe discovers that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
This is, of course, verboten. A commenter who shall be known only as Ren Kice appears on the MSP blog with a theory of credibility, to defend the universe against ‘false balance’. In the circular terms of the special pleader, bent double with his head up his arse, SKS is right because it is right, and therefore, it can do as it pleases, whereas the lesser, non-credible commenters are subject to different rules of engagement.
The rights and responsibilities of those possessing ‘credibility’ are for them alone to decide, of course. But in my dealings with my far-superiors, I have always been struck by their shared characteristics. Such wisdom that falls from the dizzying heights that are claimed by the climate-anointed alone usually falls to Earth with more grace, you see.
I found all this interesting, because You will respect mah authoritah! is what Kice was banging on about during my first contact with him, way, way back in 2013. His hypothesis has not improved at all. But neither has science studies apparently made much progress, either.
I tried to post a comment at MSP, but there were technical issues. I have posted it here instead.
—
In reference to the enduring attempt to ‘keep the conversation civil’ while emphasising ‘the relative credibility’ of sites and their authors, blogs, climate blog archaeologists hoping to establish the functioning of such virtue and ethics may wish to visit the discussion under my 2013 blog post at
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2013/07/tom-curtis-doesnt-understand-the-97-paper.html.
That post was itself spawned from my own contribution to Making Science Public, which discussed precisely that issue — the tendency of the climate ‘debate’ (such as it is) to become a battle of received wisdoms, ultimately at the expense of wisdom — the putative and contested objects of ‘science’ fading from the substance of those debates the more they emphasised ‘credibility’.
It was there, too, seven years ago, that the commenter was so driven to emphasise my lack of credibility — I am not a climate scientist — that he failed to notice the problem that the approval of two climate scientists of my post created for his own argument. As he wrote,
“The real problem seems to be that they feel that their views (in general) should have the same credibility as those of professional climate scientists…”
Perhaps worse, he (not a climate scientist) was driven then to depend on the opinion of a (failed) academic philosopher, a PHd candidate psychologist and a non-climate non-scientist (co-authors of the disputed work) for doubling down on his ‘keeping the conversation civil’. All of them had been angered by the suggestion (from a non-climate-scientist equal) that the 97% survey had been poorly-conceived, and further enraged that such a view had received approval from ‘professional climate scientists’.
It turns out that ‘credibility’ has nothing to do with ‘credibility’.
Seven years has perhaps not been sufficient time for deeper reflection on what ‘credibility’ might mean for the evaluation of contested perspectives in debates. It remains under-theorised, other than for some cod cognitive science that hypothesises a ‘gateway belief model’ of science communication, under the logic of which the expression of unauthorised opinion is an existential danger to the human race and all life on Earth. Any project that begins from such a premise can therefore be not unfairly compared to medieval scholasticism and its adherents compared to an angry mad clergy, concerned by the moral and political authority of an institution waning in the face of challenges to its objective and normative claims.
(NB, the comparison here is not between anyone and Galilei, but between self-appointed Enforcers of a new orthodoxy, and the excesses of the old Church. It is the fact of criticism, not its substance, which drives such anger.)
‘Civility’ might mean not speaking out of turn in a political order that demands deference and obedience. ‘Credibility’ might mean proximity to political authority. Evidence that this is the correct interpretation of those terms exists in the prolific output of the project. There is barely an online discussion of consequence in which it has not been over-represented. A project which is intent on establishing an orthodoxy — rather than persuading through debate — is manifestly a project which is advanced in bad faith. Hence it finds itself booted out of conversations which would be civil without its help — and which usually are, on the very rare occasions where it has been absent. That is to say that the point of the project is to poison debate across lines of disagreement, which could otherwise be both possible and good-natured. The point is not to punish the expression of denial, but to deny its expression by punishing any provider of a platform for discussion across those lines that might seemingly lend the unorthodox argument “credibility”, as though debate itself was apostasy.
Heated squabbles are of course an enduring characteristic of the Internet. Hence, it should not be a surprise that online discussion fora do *tend* to develop particular cultures as one or other ‘public’ begins to dominate. The above is a preamble that may, therefore, look like so much he-said-she-said — bitterness generated by half a lifetime of such heated debates. But the point (which I also made in 2013) is that the quality of climate debate does not improve as one moves away from the Internet. It is notable also that the dominant players in the broader climate wars are people based in universities, with letters before and after their name, often occupying very senior positions in institutional science and policymaking. I.e. they are not anonymous trolls, in basements, without anything better to do, though you would not know it from the quality of their arguments in public.
It is furthermore notable that, in contrast to the blogosphere, there are no counterparts — “deniers”, in the study’s terminology — in the broader public sphere. That is to say that “deniers”, in most of the world, including in the UK and Europe, have almost zero presence, much less formal representation on campuses, in institutional or commercial science, in mainstream political parties, in a constellation of civil-society organisations, in corporate lobbying, and on broadcast news media. Yet many of those seemingly respectable panjandrums will tell you otherwise, with a straight face, from institutions bearing the names of billionaire benefactors, that a conspiracy of private interests have distorted the public debate. Needless to say, they are unable to quantify their claims, much less to put those quantities into comparison with a project the scale of the climate agenda: supranational organisations, almost all western governments, all of the universities, all political parties and so on — and all their resources.
Are there even as many active climate ‘denial’ bloggers and commenters as there are researchers active in the science communications and science studies fields that make such blogs the object of their study? It seems very possible to me that there are not. And yet this possibility should invite a further comparison: the resources available to researchers are vastly greater than those available to bloggers. I write this comment on the research on time borrowed from scraping a living — as do most climate bloggers. Are my counterparts? Many,including the one preoccupied by ‘civility’ and ‘credibility,’ are tenured. In contrast, I can think of fewer than half a dozen FTE positions in the UK which are given to criticism of the climate agenda at all, none of which enjoy anything at all that resembles tenure.
Yet there seems to be an endless stream of ‘science communicators’ desperate to lead the public towards ecological utopia. There are armies of NGO hacks. There are hundreds of ‘civil society’ organisations and think tanks, in the UK alone, almost all of which, if they have taken a position on climate, have taken the pro-consensus position. Your chances of getting a job at any of those organisations, if you have a detectable sceptic view of the climate debate are zero.
What I am suggesting here is that any ‘research’ which makes “denial” the object of its study begins from an position of abandoning any sense of proportion. Researchers are forced to study ‘denial’ blogs because there is almost no other expression of ‘denial’ in public life. Yet ‘denial’ vexes researchers and their funders. Isn’t that worthy of study? Why does it provoke such institutional rage?
What is the proportion? How many green vs brown FTEs are there, engaged in *formal* climate debates? What are the resources available to them? I suggests that the difference is at least three, and perhaps as many as six orders of magnitude — even more if we are comparing bloggers to the whole enterprise. Blogs are seemingly the primary vehicle of climate scepticism, whereas the focus of the climate agenda is an annual conference, attended by nearly every government, every NGO, every global corporation, thousands of activists, scientists and journalists, from which critics are all but banned. And that is just the start of the pro climate agenda’s formal expression.
The disparity is sufficient to call academic preoccupation with ‘denial’ a madness.
It is a constant source of amazement to me, therefore, that recalcitrant climate bloggers are the object of “research”, which takes for granted the dominant categories of that overwhelmingly predominant orthodoxy: “science” versus “denial”. It seems implausible to me that a scientific hypothesis could unite so many hitherto disparate and counter-posed public organisations, nations, institutions and enterprises without a great deal of ideological glue. There is evidently more going on than ‘science’, and thus ‘research’ is much more than it claims to be.
Why are academic researchers so interested in establishing a critical understanding of ‘denial’, but not of the far, far, far more consequential orthodoxy? Why are the dynamics of blogs of interest to academics, but not the dynamics of intergovernmental fora and academia? Why are the psychological profiles of ‘deniers’ a matter for cognitive scientists, but not the psyches of green alarmists, spivs and chancers? Oh, and scientists?
Added to the failure to bring a sense of proportion to research, then, there exists a failure of good faith — ‘ethics’, if you will. So much research on how ‘denial’ is expressed, what motivates its expression, and how it may be defeated. But so little academic commentary is concerned with what has been said, and what it has been said in response to. No, it is not just a response to the claim ‘climate change is real’. It is just as much a response to an orthodoxy, the ascendancy of which has gone without scrutiny of any kind, as rooted in ideology as any 20th century political movement, the facts and consequences of which most academics seem wilfully blind.
Full disclosure: I think it is a dangerous ideological movement, made all the more dangerous by blindness to itself, and that is my motivation.
Guess what… Academia produces its own ‘publics’. Try it. Try being a critic of sustainability at any one of a number of ‘research’ organisations whose mission statement is ‘sustainability’. Try getting a grant for a study which reflects critically on, rather than promotes sustainability, from the ESRC. Try going to an academic conference and expressing a view that runs counter to the conference’s prevailing orthodoxy. Try getting a paper on it published. See for yourself if blogs are any more or less hostile to alternative perspectives than academe. If there are any substantial differences between what you observe in blogs and what can be seen on any campus, I will be surprised, and will agree that the dynamics of blogs are more worthy of study than the dynamics of research organisations, leaving aside the fact that ‘research’ organisations are called on to inform policy-making processes, and are funded by public money and legacies from politically-oriented philanthropic foundations whereas blogs — not ‘denial’ blogs, anyhow — are not.
And try the other fora too — the broadcasters, the civil society organisations, the political parties… And then tell me that blog-based research is of any consequence, and not a motivated distraction.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-29--New report: Change coming to the Canadian Arctic — but it’s no looming catastrophe

A review of a newly-released ( 22 April 2020 , on Earth Day ) report commissioned by Canada ’ s Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the state of the Arctic seas published today in the National Post is a must read .
It highlights the report ’ s emphasis that while the changes going on in our northern seas are indeed marked , they do not necessarily spell doom .
Oddly , polar bears are primarily represented in the report by an overview account of the special case of Western Hudson Bay – an outlier among Canadian subpopulations – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decline in body condition blamed on recent sea ice changes that is not supported by any recent data ( Crockford 2020 ) .
Here is a taste of the essay by Terence Corcoran ( 29 April 2020 ) , my bold : Niemi said during my interview that the report was not intended to be a forecasting document .
Instead , through 190 pages based on the work of more than 50 federal researchers , the report cautiously portrays the vast Arctic region of Canada as something of an unknown planet ready to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the report , Canada ’ s Oceans New : Arctic Ecosystems , repeatedly notes that scientific understanding of the region is limited and “ filled with major gaps ” that need to be filled .
Rather than portray the Canadian Arctic as a collapsing ecosystem facing climate disaster and species extinction , the report serves as a basis for serious science and social research into a dynamic non-static ever-changing environment .
“ The Arctic , on a global scale , is changing but the type and speed of changes are not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state of Canadian Arctic ecosystems is necessary to explain and manage present conditions and future changes .
The state of an ecosystem describes conditions in a specific location — both the normal conditions and how they change over time.
” The public report is not an alarmist call for action to save a collapsing frozen , pristine environmental stereotype .
The fact is that little is known about the Canadian Arctic and there is much to learn .
“ There has been little long-term , sustained scientific monitoring of ocean conditions and species @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a result , scientific evidence is limited to identify , explain and predict ecosystem changes across the Canadian Arctic.
” The report is a welcome cool-headed antidote to the sensational portrayal of the Arctic as a melting disaster that ’ s killing polar bears .
As Niemi put it during our interview , “ the Arctic is characterized as being very different from year to year .
Those differences are normal .
I think that ’ s something important in scientific and Inuit knowledge.
” Read the rest here .
Other views on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here ( US media apparently found the topic uninteresting ) .
I ’ ve had a quick look at the report ( it ’ s 189 pages long , with 44 co-authors ; the summary is 30 pages ) .
Its focus is describing current conditions and does seem to largely resist prediction .
Regarding the status of polar bear subpopulations in Canada , this report oddly cites the 2016 IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group report that reflects the pessimistic American view of the topic ( Durner et al .
2018 ) rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produced by Canadian biologists ( discussed in Crockford 2020 ) .
The report also highlights the status of the Western Hudson Bay polar bear subpopulation , including the claim a decline in numbers professed to be a response to less summer sea ice , but does not mention the Kane Basin survey that showed a marked increase in population size in response to a similar decline in ice ( SWG 2016 ) .
Also conspicuous by its absence is the overview report on Canadian polar bear status that included Inuit traditional knowledge ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The WH polar bear ‘ case study ’ provided ( written Evan Richardson ) repeats the oft-cited ‘ decline in body condition caused by reduced sea ice ’ claim , and cites as support a single decades-old paper ( Stirling et al .
1999 ) .
That paper also falsely predicted polar bears would be devastated by declining sea ice based on documented declines in body condition that had been underway before sea ice declined ( Crockford 2019 ) .
However , the ‘ case study ’ cites no recent evidence because , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there is none : data on body condition has not been published since 2004 ( Crockford 2019 , 2020 ) .
COSEWIC ( Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada ) .
2018 .
COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Polar Bear Ursus maritimus in Canada .
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada .
Ottawa .
PDF here .
https : //www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/species-risk-public-registry/cosewic-assessments-status-reports/polar-bear-2018.html Crockford , S.J .
2019 .
The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened .
Global Warming Policy Foundation , London .
Available in paperback @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
2020 .
State of the Polar Bear Report 2019 .
Global Warming Policy Foundation Report 39 , London .
PDF here .
Durner , G.M.
, Laidre , K.L , and York , G.S .
( eds ) .
2018 .
Polar Bears : Proceedings of the 18th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group , 7–11 June 2016 , Anchorage , Alaska .
Gland , Switzerland and Cambridge , UK : IUCN .
Pdf here .
Niemi , A. , Ferguson , S. , Hedges , K. , Melling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ayles , B. , Azetsu-Scott , K. , Coupel , P. , Deslauriers , D. , Devred , E. , Doniol-Valcroze , T. , Dunmall , K. , Eert , J. , Galbraith , P. , Geoffroy , M. , Gilchrist , G. , Hennin , H. , Howland , K. , Kendall , M. , Kohlbach , D. , Lea , E. , Loseto , L. , Majewski , A. , Marcoux , M. , Matthews , C. , McNicholl , D. , Mosnier , A. , Mundy , C.J.
, Ogloff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Richards , C. , Richardson , E. , Reist , R. , Roy , V. , Sawatzky , C. , Scharffenberg , K. , Tallman , R. , Tremblay , J-É.
, Tufts , T. , Watt , C. , Williams , W. , Worden , E. , Yurkowski , D. , Zimmerman , S. 2019 .
State of Canada ’ s Arctic Seas .
Can .
Tech .
Rep .
Fish .
Aquat .
Sci .
3344 : xv + 189 p. http : //www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/soto-rceo/arctic-arctique/publications/public-report/index-eng.html PDF here , Summary document here , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Arctic Ecosystems ” but no authors are provided .
A separate document of only the ‘ case studies ’ is here and the ‘ Infographics ’ are found here .
Stirling , I. , Lunn , N. J. , and Iacozza , J .
1999 .
Long-term trends in the population ecology of polar bears in Western Hudson Bay in relation to climatic change .
Arctic 52 : 294–306 .
doi : 10.14430/arctic935 .
SWG [ Scientific Working Group to the Canada-Greenland Joint Commission on Polar Bear ] .
2016 .
Re-Assessment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Polar Bear Subpopulations : Final Report to the Canada-Greenland Joint Commission on Polar Bear .
+636 pp .
http : //www.gov.nu.ca/documents-publications/349 York , J. , Dowsley , M. , Cornwell , A. , Kuc , M. and Taylor , M. 2016 .
Demographic and traditional knowledge perspectives on the current status of Canadian polar bear subpopulations .
Ecology and Evolution 6 ( 9 ) :2897-2924 .
DOI : 10.1002/ece3.2030

A review of a newly-released (22 April 2020, on Earth Day) report commissioned by Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the state of the Arctic seas published today in the National Post is a must read. It highlights the report’s emphasis that while the changes going on in our northern seas are indeed marked, they do not necessarily spell doom.
Oddly, polar bears are primarily represented in the report by an overview account of the special case of Western Hudson Bay – an outlier among Canadian subpopulations – that puts special emphasis on the claimed decline in body condition blamed on recent sea ice changes that is not supported by any recent data (Crockford 2020).
Here is a taste of the essay by Terence Corcoran (29 April 2020), my bold:
Niemi said during my interview that the report was not intended to be a forecasting document. Instead, through 190 pages based on the work of more than 50 federal researchers, the report cautiously portrays the vast Arctic region of Canada as something of an unknown planet ready to be discovered. The 30-page public summary of the report, Canada’s Oceans New: Arctic Ecosystems, repeatedly notes that scientific understanding of the region is limited and “filled with major gaps” that need to be filled. Rather than portray the Canadian Arctic as a collapsing ecosystem facing climate disaster and species extinction, the report serves as a basis for serious science and social research into a dynamic non-static ever-changing environment. “The Arctic, on a global scale, is changing but the type and speed of changes are not the same in all locations. Understanding the state of Canadian Arctic ecosystems is necessary to explain and manage present conditions and future changes. The state of an ecosystem describes conditions in a specific location — both the normal conditions and how they change over time.” The public report is not an alarmist call for action to save a collapsing frozen, pristine environmental stereotype. The fact is that little is known about the Canadian Arctic and there is much to learn. “There has been little long-term, sustained scientific monitoring of ocean conditions and species in Canada’s Arctic. As a result, scientific evidence is limited to identify, explain and predict ecosystem changes across the Canadian Arctic.” The report is a welcome cool-headed antidote to the sensational portrayal of the Arctic as a melting disaster that’s killing polar bears. As Niemi put it during our interview, “the Arctic is characterized as being very different from year to year. Those differences are normal. I think that’s something important in scientific and Inuit knowledge.”
Read the rest here. Other views on the report can be found here and here (US media apparently found the topic uninteresting).
I’ve had a quick look at the report (it’s 189 pages long, with 44 co-authors; the summary is 30 pages). Its focus is describing current conditions and does seem to largely resist prediction. Regarding the status of polar bear subpopulations in Canada, this report oddly cites the 2016 IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group report that reflects the pessimistic American view of the topic (Durner et al. 2018) rather than the more nuanced 2018 COSEWIC report produced by Canadian biologists (discussed in Crockford 2020).
The report also highlights the status of the Western Hudson Bay polar bear subpopulation, including the claim a decline in numbers professed to be a response to less summer sea ice, but does not mention the Kane Basin survey that showed a marked increase in population size in response to a similar decline in ice (SWG 2016). Also conspicuous by its absence is the overview report on Canadian polar bear status that included Inuit traditional knowledge (York et al. 2016).
The WH polar bear ‘case study’ provided (written Evan Richardson) repeats the oft-cited ‘decline in body condition caused by reduced sea ice’ claim, and cites as support a single decades-old paper (Stirling et al. 1999). That paper also falsely predicted polar bears would be devastated by declining sea ice based on documented declines in body condition that had been underway before sea ice declined (Crockford 2019). However, the ‘case study’ cites no recent evidence because, as I’ve mentioned numerous times, there is none: data on body condition has not been published since 2004 (Crockford 2019, 2020).
References
COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2018. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Polar Bear Ursus maritimus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. PDF here. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/species-risk-public-registry/cosewic-assessments-status-reports/polar-bear-2018.html
Crockford, S.J. 2019. The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened. Global Warming Policy Foundation, London. Available in paperback and ebook formats.
Crockford, S.J. 2020. State of the Polar Bear Report 2019. Global Warming Policy Foundation Report 39, London. PDF here.
Durner, G.M., Laidre, K.L, and York, G.S. (eds). 2018. Polar Bears: Proceedings of the 18th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, 7–11 June 2016, Anchorage, Alaska. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. Pdf here.
Niemi, A., Ferguson, S., Hedges, K., Melling, H., Michel, C., Ayles, B., Azetsu-Scott, K., Coupel, P., Deslauriers, D., Devred, E., Doniol-Valcroze, T., Dunmall, K., Eert, J., Galbraith, P., Geoffroy, M., Gilchrist, G., Hennin, H., Howland, K., Kendall, M., Kohlbach, D., Lea, E., Loseto, L., Majewski, A., Marcoux, M., Matthews, C., McNicholl, D., Mosnier, A., Mundy, C.J., Ogloff, W., Perrie, W., Richards, C., Richardson, E., Reist, R., Roy, V., Sawatzky, C., Scharffenberg, K., Tallman, R., Tremblay, J-É., Tufts, T., Watt, C., Williams, W., Worden, E., Yurkowski, D., Zimmerman, S. 2019. State of Canada’s Arctic Seas. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 3344: xv + 189 p. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/soto-rceo/arctic-arctique/publications/public-report/index-eng.html PDF here, Summary document here, called “Canada’s Oceans Now: Arctic Ecosystems” but no authors are provided. A separate document of only the ‘case studies’ is here and the ‘Infographics’ are found here.
Stirling, I., Lunn, N. J., and Iacozza, J. 1999. Long-term trends in the population ecology of polar bears in Western Hudson Bay in relation to climatic change. Arctic 52: 294–306. doi: 10.14430/arctic935.
SWG [Scientific Working Group to the Canada-Greenland Joint Commission on Polar Bear]. 2016. Re-Assessment of the Baffin Bay and Kane Basin Polar Bear Subpopulations: Final Report to the Canada-Greenland Joint Commission on Polar Bear. +636 pp. http://www.gov.nu.ca/documents-publications/349
York, J., Dowsley, M., Cornwell, A., Kuc, M. and Taylor, M. 2016. Demographic and traditional knowledge perspectives on the current status of Canadian polar bear subpopulations. Ecology and Evolution 6(9):2897-2924. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.2030
via polarbearscience
https://ift.tt/2SkAtn6
April 29, 2020 at 02:00PM


Wilfred Beckerman Obituary

Professor Wilfred Beckerman died on 18th April at the great age of 94 years and 11 months .
He was a highly distinguished economist , writer and teacher and was admired by generations of students at Balliol College , Oxford and at UCL .
He continued to teach at UCL until his death – his professional career covered an extraordinary 70 years .
He took his PhD at Cambridge in 1950 and subsequently worked in Paris for the OEEC/OECD , then in the UK for the National Institute of Economic and Social Research .
In 1964 he became a Fellow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appointed Economic Advisor to Anthony Crossland , President of the Board of Trade in the Wilson Labour Government .
From 1969 to 1975 he was Professor of Political Economy and Head of the Department of Political Economy at University College London .
In 1975 he returned to Oxford as Fellow of Balliol College , until reaching the mandatory retirement age of 67 in 1992 .
He did not welcome retirement and accepted an invitation back to UCL to teach a course in Environmental Economics and Ethics with his wife , the philosopher Joanna @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unique third year undergraduate course called Ethics in Applied Economics , which was taught as a dialogue between a philosopher and an economist .
According to Professor Beckerman ’ s obituary writer at UCL , “ both of these modules were among the most popular and intellectually stimulating modules ever taught in UCL economics ” .
Professor Beckerman ’ s inspiring video introduction to the 2019 Ethics in Applied Economics course can still be seen at https : //www.ucl.ac.uk/economics/study/undergraduate/module-list/ethics-applied-economics-econ0033 .
Wilfred wrote succinctly and clearly .
He collaborated with mathematical economists and econometricians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but like most great economists , and too few professional ones , he expressed his thoughts in plain English and did not over-rate the utility of mathematical models as a means of explaining or predicting human economic behaviour .
He was a strict and rigorous teacher , but popular and dedicated .
It must have been during Anthony Crossland ’ s tenure as Secretary of State for the Environment from 1974 to 1976 that Wilfred achieved what he described as “ preventing the Labour Party from going Green ” – he told me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by enlisting the support of trade union leaders and headed off a potential lurch towards unilateral pricing by the UK of a supposedly global externality .
He joked that his influence had dwindled by the time the Labour Government passed the most expensive and least examined legislation in UK history – the Climate Change Act 2008 .
Wilfred ’ s publications , books and papers , covered what at first glance might look like an unconnected variety of subjects – determinants of economic growth , the 1966-70 Labour economic record , poverty , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of economics – but there were unifying themes running between them .
His “ Introduction to National Income Analysis ” was for many a standard undergraduate text book about the measurement of GDP , but this measurement and definitional or conceptual challenge was intertwined with his work on the reduction of poverty and the questions he asked about the meaning of “ sustainable development ” .
What will be of most interest to readers of the GWPF website is Wilfred ’ s large number of publications on environmental economics .
He worked in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in the early 1970s .
His first book on the subject , “ In Defence of Economic Growth ” ( 1974 ) was a rebuttal of the arguments that economic growth makes us less happy and entails social costs which reduce the quality of life , and of resource depletion arguments , advanced most prominently then by the notorious Club of Rome ’ s “ The Limits to Growth ” 1972 report .
On environmental policy , he took the common sense view @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reducing the social costs of damage to the environment and that economic growth generally reduces environmental harm rather than increases it .
On resource depletion , he was an economist – he understood that firms don ’ t discover or own more resources than they can get a return from over a fairly short period , which is why estimates of available mineral or fossil fuel resources are always wrong , and he understood that relative prices reflect scarcity and abundance and therefore determine the economic utility of different resources .
He said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not .
If they are , then the only way to ensure that they last for ever is to stop using them ” .
My favourite Beckerman quote on resource depletion is “ modern civilisation has survived without any supplies at all of Beckermonium , the product named after my grandfather , who failed to discover it in the nineteenth century ” ( both of these quotes are from “ A Poverty of Reason ” ) As an undergraduate student of Wilfred ’ s in 1976 , I duly read “ In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Club of Rome report ) but I did not understand the importance of the issues addressed until 35 years later , after reading everything I could find about global warming and other scare stories .
I then stumbled across the large number of other books and papers which Wilfred had written on the subject – between 1990 and 2003 he published half a dozen books and extended papers “ blowing the whistle on the Greens ” ( a 1995 subtitle ) .
The last book , “ A Poverty of Reason : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2003 ) , is my favourite .
In its brief 76 pages of clearly written text , it demolishes many of the shibboleths of environmentalism , as evidenced by the chapter titles – what is sustainable development , resource depletion , energy & biodiversity , climate change , the precautionary principle , regulation & protectionism , the ethics of sustainable development .
I expect that most GWPF readers will recognise these subjects as the key political and economic issues which policy makers dealing with environmental issues should address , but seldom do .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nigel Lawson ’ s 2006 lecture “ The Economics and Politics of Climate Change .
An Appeal to Reason ” and his 2008 book “ An Appeal to Reason : A Cool Look at Global Warming ” were giving a nod to the title of Wilfred ’ s book ; they certainly must have agreed on many points .
Wilfred ’ s publications and academic work after “ A Poverty of Reason ” – remember that he was 78 when that was published in 2003 – turned towards applied ethics and his main @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Applied Ethics ” ( 2010 & 2017 ) which accompanied his UCL courses .
This wasn ’ t a departure from the themes of the environmental economics ; all of them were focussed on ethical principles – e.g .
how much of our GDP should we invest today in the hope that we make our descendants better off , what are the right discount rates to use to assess precautionary principle motivated investments .
Rather , I suspect that like many enlightened but prudent intellectuals , he sought a broader canvas on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might find a reception , recognising that whether he was right or not about environmental issues , the audience had gone in a different direction , maybe temporarily .
If Wilfred ’ s writing and ideas had not gone against the grain of what in my view are the very foolish political views about environmentalism which are popular at the moment , then I think he would have enjoyed a much higher profile as a public intellectual .
I rather suspect that this didn ’ t bother him too much , that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mind to row against the tide and did not mistake popularity for success .
But I hope and expect that he will have the last word from beyond the grave .
The post Wilfred Beckerman Obituary appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF ) .

Professor Wilfred Beckerman died on 18th April at the great age of 94 years and 11 months. He was a highly distinguished economist, writer and teacher and was admired by generations of students at Balliol College, Oxford and at UCL. He continued to teach at UCL until his death – his professional career covered an extraordinary 70 years.
Wilfred Beckerman at Trinity College, Cambridge, in 2017. Image source: The Guardian
He took his PhD at Cambridge in 1950 and subsequently worked in Paris for the OEEC/OECD, then in the UK for the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. In 1964 he became a Fellow of Balliol and then in 1967 was appointed Economic Advisor to Anthony Crossland, President of the Board of Trade in the Wilson Labour Government. From 1969 to 1975 he was Professor of Political Economy and Head of the Department of Political Economy at University College London. In 1975 he returned to Oxford as Fellow of Balliol College, until reaching the mandatory retirement age of 67 in 1992. He did not welcome retirement and accepted an invitation back to UCL to teach a course in Environmental Economics and Ethics with his wife, the philosopher Joanna Pasek. The couple also introduced a unique third year undergraduate course called Ethics in Applied Economics, which was taught as a dialogue between a philosopher and an economist. According to Professor Beckerman’s obituary writer at UCL, “both of these modules were among the most popular and intellectually stimulating modules ever taught in UCL economics”. Professor Beckerman’s inspiring video introduction to the 2019 Ethics in Applied Economics course can still be seen at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/economics/study/undergraduate/module-list/ethics-applied-economics-econ0033.
Wilfred wrote succinctly and clearly. He collaborated with mathematical economists and econometricians when he felt he had to, but like most great economists, and too few professional ones, he expressed his thoughts in plain English and did not over-rate the utility of mathematical models as a means of explaining or predicting human economic behaviour. He was a strict and rigorous teacher, but popular and dedicated.
It must have been during Anthony Crossland’s tenure as Secretary of State for the Environment from 1974 to 1976 that Wilfred achieved what he described as “preventing the Labour Party from going Green” – he told me in 2012 that he had achieved this by enlisting the support of trade union leaders and headed off a potential lurch towards unilateral pricing by the UK of a supposedly global externality. He joked that his influence had dwindled by the time the Labour Government passed the most expensive and least examined legislation in UK history – the Climate Change Act 2008.
Wilfred’s publications, books and papers, covered what at first glance might look like an unconnected variety of subjects – determinants of economic growth, the 1966-70 Labour economic record, poverty, the economics of environmentalism, the ethics of economics – but there were unifying themes running between them. His “Introduction to National Income Analysis” was for many a standard undergraduate text book about the measurement of GDP, but this measurement and definitional or conceptual challenge was intertwined with his work on the reduction of poverty and the questions he asked about the meaning of “sustainable development”.
What will be of most interest to readers of the GWPF website is Wilfred’s large number of publications on environmental economics. He worked in this field in the 1960s and he was a member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in the early 1970s.
His first book on the subject, “In Defence of Economic Growth” (1974) was a rebuttal of the arguments that economic growth makes us less happy and entails social costs which reduce the quality of life, and of resource depletion arguments, advanced most prominently then by the notorious Club of Rome’s “The Limits to Growth” 1972 report. On environmental policy, he took the common sense view that prosperity leads to greater expenditure on reducing the social costs of damage to the environment and that economic growth generally reduces environmental harm rather than increases it. On resource depletion, he was an economist – he understood that firms don’t discover or own more resources than they can get a return from over a fairly short period, which is why estimates of available mineral or fossil fuel resources are always wrong, and he understood that relative prices reflect scarcity and abundance and therefore determine the economic utility of different resources. He said “Resources are either finite or they are not. If they are, then the only way to ensure that they last for ever is to stop using them”. My favourite Beckerman quote on resource depletion is “modern civilisation has survived without any supplies at all of Beckermonium, the product named after my grandfather, who failed to discover it in the nineteenth century” (both of these quotes are from “A Poverty of Reason”)
As an undergraduate student of Wilfred’s in 1976, I duly read “In Defence of Economic Growth” (and the Club of Rome report) but I did not understand the importance of the issues addressed until 35 years later, after reading everything I could find about global warming and other scare stories. I then stumbled across the large number of other books and papers which Wilfred had written on the subject – between 1990 and 2003 he published half a dozen books and extended papers “blowing the whistle on the Greens” (a 1995 subtitle).
The last book, “A Poverty of Reason: Sustainable Development and Economic Growth” (2003), is my favourite. In its brief 76 pages of clearly written text, it demolishes many of the shibboleths of environmentalism, as evidenced by the chapter titles – what is sustainable development, resource depletion, energy & biodiversity, climate change, the precautionary principle, regulation & protectionism, the ethics of sustainable development. I expect that most GWPF readers will recognise these subjects as the key political and economic issues which policy makers dealing with environmental issues should address, but seldom do. I sometimes wonder if the titles of Nigel Lawson’s 2006 lecture “The Economics and Politics of Climate Change. An Appeal to Reason” and his 2008 book “An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming” were giving a nod to the title of Wilfred’s book; they certainly must have agreed on many points.
Wilfred’s publications and academic work after “A Poverty of Reason” – remember that he was 78 when that was published in 2003 – turned towards applied ethics and his main publication was a textbook called “Economics as Applied Ethics” (2010 & 2017) which accompanied his UCL courses. This wasn’t a departure from the themes of the environmental economics; all of them were focussed on ethical principles – e.g. how much of our GDP should we invest today in the hope that we make our descendants better off, what are the right discount rates to use to assess precautionary principle motivated investments. Rather, I suspect that like many enlightened but prudent intellectuals, he sought a broader canvas on which to develop his ideas where they might find a reception, recognising that whether he was right or not about environmental issues, the audience had gone in a different direction, maybe temporarily.
If Wilfred’s writing and ideas had not gone against the grain of what in my view are the very foolish political views about environmentalism which are popular at the moment, then I think he would have enjoyed a much higher profile as a public intellectual. I rather suspect that this didn’t bother him too much, that he had the moral courage and strength of mind to row against the tide and did not mistake popularity for success. But I hope and expect that he will have the last word from beyond the grave.
Guy Leech, 29 April 2020
The post Wilfred Beckerman Obituary appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
https://ift.tt/3bTetYk
April 29, 2020 at 12:59PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-29--Canada Bends the Curve April 28 Update

Canada Bends the Curve April 28 Update

Kung Flu in Canada is reported at Coronavirus disease ( COVID-19 ) : Outbreak update The image presents coronavirus data as of the latest statistics complete to April 28 , 2020 .
Note that Quebec accounts for half of all cases and deaths , most of them in Montreal , and mostly elderly residents in group homes .
From the underlying data we can see that this covid 19 outbreak started toward the end of the annual flu season .
Here are the daily reported tests , cases , and deaths smoothed with 7 day averaging .
Note how cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daily rates of testing , then held steady April 4 to 15 as testing declined slightly .
Both testing and new cases then rose peaking on April 22 with 1806 new cases .
Since then testing has ramped up sharply while new cases have tailed off to 1657 yesterday .
Deaths per day have been flat at 146 in the last week .
( All daily figures are averages of the 7 day period ending with the stated date . )
Tests also peaked at 26,417 on April 28 , about twice the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cumulative graph shows how the proportions held during this period .
Out of a total 754,800 tests , 50,015 ( 6.6 % ) cases were detected , the same rate holding since April 20 .
2815 have died ( 5.7 % of cases ) .
With coronavirus sucking all the air out of room globally , I got interested in looking at how the Canadian national flu seasons compare with the new Wuhan virus .
The analysis is important since there are many nations at higher latitudes that are in equilibrium relative to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of new viruses .
Where I live in Canada , we have winter outbreaks every year , but are protected by a combination of sanitary practices , health care system and annual vaccines , contributing to herd immunity .
For example , 2018-19 was slightly higher than a typical year , with this pattern : The various flu types are noted , all together making a total of 48,818 influenza detections during the 2018-19 season .
A total of 946 hospitalizations were reported by CIRN-SOS sentinels that season ( age = or > @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reports A total of 137 ( 14 % ) ICU admissions and 65 ( 7 % ) deaths were reported .
The seasonality is obvious , as is the social resilience , when we have the antibodies in place .
For further background , look at the latest Respiratory Virus Report for week 13 ending March 28 , 2020 .
[ In this Respiratory Virus Report , the number of detections of coronavirus reflects only seasonal human coronaviruses , not the novel pandemic coronavirus ( SARS-CoV2 ) that causes COVID-19 .
Kung Flu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] For the period shown in the graph , 320560 flu tests were done , resulting in 32751 type A positives and 22683 type B positives .
That is a ratio of 17 % of tests confirming conventional flu infection cases .
Public Health Canada went on to say in reporting March 22 to 28 , 2020 ( week 13 ) : The percentage of tests positive for influenza fell below 5 % this week .
This suggests that Canada is nearing the end of the 2019-2020 influenza season at the national level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mind ] Summary : It ’ s true that total cases and deaths are still rising , and everyone should practice sanitary behaviors and social distancing .
But it appears that we are weathering this storm and have the resources to beat it .
Let us hope for reasonable governance , Spring weather and a return to economic normalcy .
The Calgary Herald reports U of C researchers to begin hydroxychloroquine trial on COVID-19 patients .
Excerpts in italics with my bold .
A provincewide clinical trial led by the University of Calgary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drug hydroxychloroquine on COVID-19 patients , with the goal of reducing pressure on hospitals and preventing further infections .
“ There is minimal evidence for use of hydroxychloroquine to use it , but there is enough ( evidence ) to study it , ” said Metz , the acting facility medical director at Foothills Medical Centre and a professor in the department of clinical neurosciences at the Cumming School of Medicine .
“ It just has to be done .
If this drug does , indeed , reduce the severity and help people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us in flattening the curve.
” The “ HOPE ” trial , to begin April 15 , will target 1,600 Alberta outpatients who have tested positive for COVID-19 and are at risk of developing severe symptoms .
The study will determine if hydroxychloroquine can prevent hospitalization for those at highest risk of developing a severe illness .
Participants will give their permission to Alberta Health Services after testing positive for COVID-19 and provide their contact information to U of C researchers .
They ’ ll then be screened for safety and eligibility through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electronic health record .
Those patients accepted will be sent hydroxychloroquine to their homes and will be required to take the drug over a five-day period .
Researchers will follow up with participants seven and 30 days after starting the treatment .
Metz said timing of the trial is crucial and must begin within 96 hours of confirmation of a positive COVID-19 result , and within 12 days of symptom onset .
Should the drug prove effective , it may reduce the pressures that COVID-19 is expected to put on the health-care system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people out of hospital , then we ’ re not going to have that huge rise in hospitalizations and more people can get better at home , ” she said .
“ Our system will get back to normal life or whatever we choose to move to in the future .
“ We ’ ll be able to get there if we find this works.
” The ACT COVID-19 program consists of two parallel trials evaluating azithromycin and chloroquine therapy ( ACT ) versus usual care in outpatients and inpatients who have tested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an open-label , parallel group , randomized controlled trial with an adaptive design .
Adaptive design features include adaptive intervention arms and adaptive sample size based on new and emerging data .
Experimental : Azithromycin and Chloroquine Therapy ( ACT ) Chloroquine ( Adults with a bodyweight ≥ 50 kg : 500 mg twice daily for 7 days ; Adults with a bodyweight < 50 kg : 500 mg twice daily on days 1 and 2 , followed by 500 mg once daily for days 3-7 ) , plus Azithromycin ( 500 mg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daily for 4 days ) Source : ClinicalTrials.gov

Kung Flu in Canada is reported at Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Outbreak update
The image presents coronavirus data as of the latest statistics complete to April 28, 2020. Note that Quebec accounts for half of all cases and deaths, most of them in Montreal, and mostly elderly residents in group homes. From the underlying data we can see that this covid 19 outbreak started toward the end of the annual flu season. Here are the daily reported tests, cases, and deaths smoothed with 7 day averaging.
Note how cases early on rose along with the higher daily rates of testing, then held steady April 4 to 15 as testing declined slightly. Both testing and new cases then rose peaking on April 22 with 1806 new cases. Since then testing has ramped up sharply while new cases have tailed off to 1657 yesterday. Deaths per day have been flat at 146 in the last week. (All daily figures are averages of the 7 day period ending with the stated date.) Tests also peaked at 26,417 on April 28, about twice the daily number when April started.
The cumulative graph shows how the proportions held during this period.
Out of a total 754,800 tests, 50,015 (6.6%) cases were detected, the same rate holding since April 20. 2815 have died (5.7% of cases).
Background from Previous Post
With coronavirus sucking all the air out of room globally, I got interested in looking at how the Canadian national flu seasons compare with the new Wuhan virus. The analysis is important since there are many nations at higher latitudes that are in equilibrium relative to infectious diseases, but vulnerable to outbreaks of new viruses. Where I live in Canada, we have winter outbreaks every year, but are protected by a combination of sanitary practices, health care system and annual vaccines, contributing to herd immunity.
For example, 2018-19 was slightly higher than a typical year, with this pattern:
The various flu types are noted, all together making a total of 48,818 influenza detections during the 2018-19 season. A total of 946 hospitalizations were reported by CIRN-SOS sentinels that season (age = or >16). Source: Annual Influenza Reports
A total of 137 (14%) ICU admissions and 65 (7%) deaths were reported. The seasonality is obvious, as is the social resilience, when we have the antibodies in place.
For further background, look at the latest Respiratory Virus Report for week 13 ending March 28, 2020. [In this Respiratory Virus Report, the number of detections of coronavirus reflects only seasonal human coronaviruses, not the novel pandemic coronavirus (SARS-CoV2) that causes COVID-19. Kung Flu statistics are above at the beginning.]
For the period shown in the graph, 320560 flu tests were done, resulting in 32751 type A positives and 22683 type B positives. That is a ratio of 17% of tests confirming conventional flu infection cases. Public Health Canada went on to say in reporting March 22 to 28, 2020 (week 13):
The percentage of tests positive for influenza fell below 5% this week. This suggests that Canada is nearing the end of the 2019-2020 influenza season at the national level. [Keep that 5% in mind]
Summary: It’s true that total cases and deaths are still rising, and everyone should practice sanitary behaviors and social distancing. But it appears that we are weathering this storm and have the resources to beat it. Let us hope for reasonable governance, Spring weather and a return to economic normalcy.
Postscript: Good News from Calgary and Hamilton
The Calgary Herald reports U of C researchers to begin hydroxychloroquine trial on COVID-19 patients. Excerpts in italics with my bold.
A provincewide clinical trial led by the University of Calgary will test the effectiveness of the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine on COVID-19 patients, with the goal of reducing pressure on hospitals and preventing further infections.
“There is minimal evidence for use of hydroxychloroquine to use it, but there is enough (evidence) to study it,” said Metz, the acting facility medical director at Foothills Medical Centre and a professor in the department of clinical neurosciences at the Cumming School of Medicine.
“It just has to be done. If this drug does, indeed, reduce the severity and help people get better faster, it can help us in flattening the curve.”
The “HOPE” trial, to begin April 15, will target 1,600 Alberta outpatients who have tested positive for COVID-19 and are at risk of developing severe symptoms. The study will determine if hydroxychloroquine can prevent hospitalization for those at highest risk of developing a severe illness.
Participants will give their permission to Alberta Health Services after testing positive for COVID-19 and provide their contact information to U of C researchers. They’ll then be screened for safety and eligibility through a telephone interview and review of their electronic health record.
Those patients accepted will be sent hydroxychloroquine to their homes and will be required to take the drug over a five-day period. Researchers will follow up with participants seven and 30 days after starting the treatment.
Metz said timing of the trial is crucial and must begin within 96 hours of confirmation of a positive COVID-19 result, and within 12 days of symptom onset.
Should the drug prove effective, it may reduce the pressures that COVID-19 is expected to put on the health-care system.
“If we can keep more people out of hospital, then we’re not going to have that huge rise in hospitalizations and more people can get better at home,” she said. “Our system will get back to normal life or whatever we choose to move to in the future.
“We’ll be able to get there if we find this works.”
Hamilton Health Services starting an Anti-Covid19 study this month
Title: Anti-Coronavirus Therapies to Prevent Progression of COVID-19, a Randomized Trial
The ACT COVID-19 program consists of two parallel trials evaluating azithromycin and chloroquine therapy (ACT) versus usual care in outpatients and inpatients who have tested positive for COVID-19. The trial is an open-label, parallel group, randomized controlled trial with an adaptive design. Adaptive design features include adaptive intervention arms and adaptive sample size based on new and emerging data.
Experimental: Azithromycin and Chloroquine Therapy (ACT)
Chloroquine (Adults with a bodyweight ≥ 50 kg: 500 mg twice daily for 7 days; Adults with a bodyweight < 50 kg: 500 mg twice daily on days 1 and 2, followed by 500 mg once daily for days 3-7), plus Azithromycin (500 mg on day 1 followed by 250 mg daily for 4 days) Source: ClinicalTrials.gov
Some coronavirus humor.
via Science Matters
https://ift.tt/2YiKzcc
April 29, 2020 at 12:58PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-29--PM2.5 fraudsters move to change the biological plausibility narrative?

I was reading an article upcoming in this week ’ s New York Times Magazine when I was struck by a possible effort by the PM2.5 fraudsters to change their narrative .
Whatever one thinks of the epidemiology studies on PM2.5 — and I think they are fraud — biological plausibility is still needed to support the notion that PM2.5 kills .
As presented in more detail in “ Scare Pollution ” there is no biological plausibility supporting the notion that PM2.5 kills because carbon particles are innocuous in the lung .
Yet the PM2.5 fraudsters have so far maintained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entering the blood stream via the lungs where they supposedly cause fatal inflammation .
This is all imaginary BS made-up to support the fraudulent epidemiology .
There is , in fact , no scientific data to back up the fatal inflammation hypothesis .
So I came to this passage in the NYTimes article — note the use of the term “ lung-corroding.
” Now the use of this term “ lung-corroding ” may just be accidental by the NYTimes reporter — or it could be that the Harvard fraudsters talking to the NYTimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change the biological plausibility narrative on PM2.5 .
Maybe they read “ Scare Pollution ” and know that the only fatal air pollution incidents the world has ever seen all involve acid gases that essentially corroded the lungs of victims .
The reason no one dies anymore from even the worst air quality in the world is because , even in the worst air , the levels of acid gases ( like sulfur dioxide ) are all within a safe range .
So are the fraudsters now trying to claim that PM2.5 corrodes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for .

I was reading an article upcoming in this week’s New York Times Magazine when I was struck by a possible effort by the PM2.5 fraudsters to change their narrative.
Whatever one thinks of the epidemiology studies on PM2.5 — and I think they are fraud — biological plausibility is still needed to support the notion that PM2.5 kills. As presented in more detail in “Scare Pollution” there is no biological plausibility supporting the notion that PM2.5 kills because carbon particles are innocuous in the lung.
Yet the PM2.5 fraudsters have so far maintained that tiny PM2.5 molecules wreak havoc by entering the blood stream via the lungs where they supposedly cause fatal inflammation. This is all imaginary BS made-up to support the fraudulent epidemiology. There is, in fact, no scientific data to back up the fatal inflammation hypothesis.
So I came to this passage in the NYTimes article — note the use of the term “lung-corroding.”
Now the use of this term “lung-corroding” may just be accidental by the NYTimes reporter — or it could be that the Harvard fraudsters talking to the NYTimes reporter used this term to try to change the biological plausibility narrative on PM2.5.
Maybe they read “Scare Pollution” and know that the only fatal air pollution incidents the world has ever seen all involve acid gases that essentially corroded the lungs of victims.
The reason no one dies anymore from even the worst air quality in the world is because, even in the worst air, the levels of acid gases (like sulfur dioxide) are all within a safe range.
So are the fraudsters now trying to claim that PM2.5 corrodes the lung? Something to watch out for.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-04-29--Warming Stalls As Global Temperatures To Dip, La Nina To Develop. Alaska Sees Little March Warming

The latest NCEP GFS global temperature anomaly plot shows a sudden cool down is expected for the globe by May @ @ @ @ @ trend since the beginning of the year .
Hat-tip : Snowfan .
Meanwhile some models @ @ @ @ @ thresholds could be met by September 2020 , which would further cool the globe .
@ @ @ @ @ North and South Poles and saw there are few signs of continued warming , and @ @ @ @ @ steady for a decade .
At Antarctica , sea ice has even trended upward over @ @ @ @ @ Japanese blogger Kirye has also looked at the untampered March data of 12 stations in @ @ @ @ @ Agency ( JMA ) .
Examined were the stations for which the JMA had sufficient @ @ @ @ @ the 12 stations follows : Seven of 12 stations in Alaska have had a cooling @ @ @ @ @ !

The latest NCEP GFS global temperature anomaly plot shows a sudden cool down is expected for the globe by May 6, with a downward trend since the beginning of the year. Hat-tip: Snowfan.
Meanwhile some models are now suggesting La Niña thresholds could be met by September 2020, which would further cool the globe.
Alaska March not warming
Yesterday we looked at the North and South Poles and saw there are few signs of continued warming, and that polar ice has remained steady for a decade. At Antarctica, sea ice has even trended upward over the past 40 years.
Japanese blogger Kirye has also looked at the untampered March data of 12 stations in Alaska from the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA). Examined were the stations for which the JMA had sufficient data. The plot of the 12 stations follows:
Data Source: JMA
Seven of 12 stations in Alaska have had a cooling trend for March since 1983!
Donate – choose an amount
via NoTricksZone
https://ift.tt/2We23Ut
April 29, 2020 at 12:36PM