Saturday

9.9 out of 10 based on 17 ratings

If climate change is making turbulence worse, pilots and planes haven’t noticed…

By Jo Nova

The monster called “climate change turbulence” is an imaginary phantom

At any moment there are something like 10,000 boxes cruising in the air that know when they strike turbulence.  Rumors are that these are even staffed with sentient beings.  If Climate Change was making turbulence worse, you’d think pilots would have noticed?  But instead of reporting what pilots said, which is that nothing has changed, almost all the media coverage about turbulence comes from models or cherry picked reanalysis of angels dancing at 197 hectopascals over the North Atlantic.

The European Space Agency even puts sensors on planes. With 40 million flights per year, tracked by radar and monitored by satellite, and reported by pilots as well,  if there were trends in clear air turbulence on passenger planes, there would be a mountain of data, and we’d hear all about it. Instead all they have are modeled guesstimates and slightly worse conditions over the North Atlantic.

Pilots report that incidents of air turbulence are the same now as they always were

Paul Homewood has found the US National Transportation Safety Board Report, and actual pilot reports (PIREP data). Basically, in thirty years of flights and after more than half of mankinds total fossil fueled emissions have been emitted, there’s no trend at all.

To be fair, it could just be that we’re getting better at predicting turbulence so pilots are better at avoiding it. But if we’re going to headline newspapers with scary stories of flight turbulence (and if we actually care about people) the most important data might be the stuff that comes from planes.

The Australian ABC blamed it all on the Ogre du Jour:

Climate change is fuelling turbulence on some of our most common flight paths

They found a Professor Troy Todd Lane at Melbourne Uni who talks about studies which come from Reading University. One found more clear air turbulence over the North Atlantic in the last 40 years. But it also found less turbulence over South East Asia (see the figure from Prosser el al below). Using Believer-Correlation-Science —  if climate change causes more turbulence, then it also causes less. Looks like extra emissions of CO2 saved lives on the Singapore Airlines flight. By the same reasoning, burn oil and protect planes in South East Asia? Clearly the ABC team didn’t look at the paper, and also clearly, they didn’t ask Prof Lane any difficult questions. What do we pay them or him for — witchcraft? “See the tea-leaves on the map…”

Furthermore, when the ABC says “our most common flight paths” (headlined above) they’re not talking about our Australian flights. Who is this “our”?

It’s like there is no world outside the North Atlantic.

Turbulence changing in the skies

The change in ERA5’s 197 hPa annual-mean diagnostic-mean moderate-or-greater (MOG) clear-air turbulence (CAT) probability over 1979–2020, showing (a) the absolute change and (b) the relative change. The changes are diagnosed from the linear trend. Stippling indicates statistical significance at the p = 0.05 level, according to a two-sided Wald test (Fahrmeir et al., 2022) applied to the absolute change. | Prosser et al

 

The Prosser et al paper was deceptively headlined “Evidence for Large Increases in Clear-Air Turbulence Over the Past Four Decades” but it could as easily have said the opposite.  They dismissed the pilot reports with barely one line:

Pilot reports (PIREPs) have a longer record, but are not quantitative, and the geographical distribution of CAT based on PIREPs is limited in spatial and temporal extent (Wolff & Sharman, 2008). — Prosser et al 2023

Supposedly the point of the Prosser paper was to help aircraft and passengers, but actual reports from pilots: “who cares?”

The other paper quoted by the ABC was a 2017 study also from the University of Reading, and it was nothing but climate modeling and magical unverified, unvalidated, fiction:

A 2017 study predicted that severe turbulence will become two to three times more common over the North Atlantic by 2050-2080 because of climate change. However, the same study predicted a smaller increase of 50 per cent for severe turbulence over Australia.

Right there in the abstract, the 2017 paper admits its all games with calculators — no data needed

It’s pure fantasy extracted from models we know can’t predict cloud formation at all, or water vapor at the heights that planes fly at. Their universal predictions of increasing humidity in the upper troposphere are legendary failures.  The missing hot spot was called “a fingerprint” of man-made climate change right up until 28 million weatherballoons showed it didn’t happen.

Reading Uni has a lot to answer for. One of the most prominent scientists pushing predictions of turbulent doom is Paul Williams, who wrote the 2017 paper and at least two further ones. He predicted a 55% rise in air turbulence over the North Atlantic.  But Rupa Subramanya in The Free Press, writes that extra data wiped out the trend:

In 2017, he co-authored a study that received a lot of attention, because it predicted that a rise in atmospheric CO2 could double, or even triple, incidences of severe clear air turbulence. He also published a much-publicized paper in 2022 arguing that wind speed changes over the North Atlantic had increased in the last few decades—the basis for arguing that clear air turbulence will get worse. And in another widely reported paper, published in 2023, Williams predicted a 55 percent increase in clear air turbulence over the North Atlantic.

But how solid is his link between clear air turbulence and climate change? Earlier this year, Williams co-authored a letter to the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, which walked back the findings of his 2022 paper. If we include new data, the letter explained, the increase in wind speeds above the North Atlantic ceases to be “statistically significant.”

Where were the headlines New data shows the professor was wrong?

Climate models will be useful when they figure out convection, clouds, rain, humidity, storms…

Professor Lane says most of the turbulence in the tropical regions comes from thunderstorms, which are intensely more intense I tell you.

He lives by a kindergarten climate rule where “energy = catastrophe”, thus:

“With a warmer atmosphere, the atmosphere can hold more water, which can lead to those most intense thunderstorms being more intense with climate change. As those thunderstorms become more intense, they can also generate more intense turbulence.”

Except that the biggest-storms-of-all are not more intense. Since the Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Energy Index started in 1970 CO2 has risen from an ideal 325ppm to an apocalytic 425ppm and the global population has doubled. Fifty years of reckless “pollution” have been and gone and yet cyclones are still the same?

Prof Lane doesn’t appear to realize the water vapor hasn’t made it to the upper troposphere and even if it had, “more energy” is not always a disaster. There’s not as much energy in Antarctica, but no one wants to live there, and we hear they still have storms.

Details matter. The lower troposphere has gained water vapor from the ocean as the system warmed, but it hasn’t increased in the upper troposphere where the modelers desperately need it to rise (and where those planes fly). The extra water vapor means the amount of energy held in the air is larger, but does that mean convection has increased or become more stable? After all, it’s not the total energy that creates instability, it’s the difference between two regions that causes the chaos.

REFERENCE

Prosser et al (2023) Evidence for Large Increases in Clear-Air Turbulence Over the Past Four Decades, 08 June 2023, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL103814

Williams, P.D. Increased light, moderate, and severe clear-air turbulence in response to climate change. Adv. Atmos. Sci. 34, 576–586 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-017-6268-2

9.9 out of 10 based on 76 ratings

Friday

9.8 out of 10 based on 17 ratings

Auroras anyone? The big sunspot cluster returns and it is grumpy

By Jo Nova

The big sunspot cluster that created the auroras a few weeks ago is very likely just over the horizon on the sun, and it appears to have spat out a doozy of an X2.9 flare to announce its return. While we can’t see the sunspot cluster itself yet, astronomers estimate that it is the same angry AR3664 set that has been circling across the far side of the sun for the last two weeks.  This hyperactive region launched the X class flares that produced auroras on May 10th that were so powerful they lit up the skies far from the poles in Florida and Queensland.

The solar storm was big enough that it reached down and twiddled with compasses on the sea floor as far as 2.7 kilometers (1.7 miles) underwater. So we are left with the paradox that solar weather controls half the groundwater refill in China, shows up in patterns of lightning in Japan, and somehow correlates with jellyfish plagues on Earth, but can’t possibly cause climate change. Apparently, our air conditioners can contribute to a heatwave but the vast electro-magnetic dynamo 333,000 times heavier than Earth can not. We know this because a foreign committee in Geneva says so, and they have skill-less models to prove it.

The global climate models agree that the effect of the solar-magnetic-wind and electric-field is exactly 0.0 degrees (per doubling of their NSF grants).

Some very active sunspots may last for months and each full rotation of the sun takes 27 days, so it may do a few laps and we may get more bites at this cherry. Or, if the sun is particularly grumpy, it may get more bites at us.

As the sun rotates we’ll see more of what is probably AR3664, though to confuse things, when it rolls over the horizon it will promptly get a new number-name. (It has and is now “AR13697”). It’s difficult to track what happens to every sunspot cluster as they travel across the far side of the sun, so all sunspots shifting into view are automatically given a new number. Though according to Daisy Dobrijevic at Space.com “scientists can track the sunspot’s progress across the sun’s far side by observing how it affects the sun’s vibrations or seismic echoes, using helioseismology data.” Sounds tricky. You’d think we’d have a camera on an asteroid on the far side recording the other half of sun, but we don’t. We spent $100 billion trying to blame a fertilizer for our storms, but a lot less than that trying to understand the sun.

As it happens, some officials at NASA even think the May aurora show was  “one of the strongest auroras in 500 years”. They argue that some 7 different coronal mass ejections traveling at 3 million miles per hour, piled up together on the way and arrived all at once. In the last 70 years the other two big events were in 1958 and 2003. The Carrington event was so big it was seen in the Caribbean.

People who want to see an aurora may get lucky in the next two weeks if a flare is ejected in our direction

For those keen to see an aurora, look out for notices of a large X Class flares. Depending on how fast the ejections travel, the charged particles usually arrive here about two days later, but may come anytime from 15 hours to 4 or 5 days later. Once the particles hit the satellites at the Lagrange point the instruments give us about 15 to 45 minutes of warning. The Lagrange point is 1.5 million miles away from Earth towards the Sun in an area where gravitational and centripetal forces equal out, and it takes very little fuel for the satellites to maintain their position. It is the closest thing to a parking spot in space where our space-cars won’t roll away if we’re not looking.

Check the Glendale App for information or sign up for email alerts from the Australian Space Weather Forecasting Centre for aurora or from SpaceWeatherLive. Some bright spark set up Aurorasaurus to track aurora related tweets. Apparently they correlate quite well with geomagnetic indices. If only people were tweeting 150 years ago.

For the record: Solar flares are graded B, C, M and X class, with X being the largest and each grade putting out ten times more energy than the grade before. Within each grade there are nine log divisions (Eg. M1, M2 etc.) There is no upper limit on X class flares and the one in 2003 overloaded the instruments (which max out at X17). It was later estimated to be X45, which sounds like it could have eaten the earth. The flares in May were smaller, like X4.5 and X5.8 but conglomerate.

X class flares can trigger planet wide radio blackouts and potentially widespread auroras.

UPDATE: Auroras are a fickle tool for measuring solar activity as only the ones aligned the opposite way to Earths magnetic field will generate the color-show in the sky.

“The degree of magnetic disturbance from a CME [coronal mass ejection] depends on the CME’s magnetic field and Earth’s. If the CME’s magnetic field is aligned with Earth’s, pointing from south to north the CME will pass on by with little effect. However, if the CME is aligned in the opposite direction it can cause Earth’s magnetic field to be reorganized, triggering large geomagnetic storms. “ Space.com

The direction of the solar wind interplanetary magnetic field is called the clock angle, and to see an aurora we need the “Bz” to be negative. Since the sun flips its own magnetic field with each cycle, perhaps one orientation is more likely to generate auroras than the other? Some Russians claim that “odd numbered” solar cycles are more exciting for aurora watchers (and this is an odd numbered cycle — number 25). It maybe no accident that the last big auroras were 21 years ago at the peak of the last solar maximum with the solar north pointed in the same direction as it is now. So get your fill now of auroras if you can. It may be 22 years between drinks, so to speak.

UPDATE #2: Sorry — thinking about it, the sun flips magnetic poles at solar maxima (ie. soon) not at solar minima but we label the “cycles” from solar minima to minima. Hence each 11 year Schwabe cycle will be half North-South, then the sun will flip to South-North for the second half. So it doesn’t necessarily follow that odd or even solar cycles will be better or worse for auroras. There is probably a 22 year pattern for auroras but it will be split across Schwabe cycles.

Thanks to Willie Soon.

 

 

 

9.9 out of 10 based on 73 ratings

Thursday

8.9 out of 10 based on 16 ratings

Offshore Wind Turbines Could Mess With Ships’ Radar Signals

By Jo Nova

But who needs radar right?

We found out last year that offshore wind turbines scramble Air Force Radars. RAF pilots already use the turbines in training exercises to help them hide. But ships also use radar and a new study quietly reported a couple of years ago that offshore wind turbines will interfere with shipping radar, may cause collisions, and interfere with search and rescue. The 2022 report was from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in the US.

But it’s OK right, we just need to upgrade all the old radar systems, keep boats out of the area, or wrap the blades of the turbines in the same material we use on stealth aircraft. (That will add to the costs of wind power). No doubt GPS and AI systems can help, but radar adds an independent and well developed layer of safety. Who wants to purely rely on the satellite connection on a stormy night?

And after we’ve built all the wind towers, upgraded the boats and planes, then we can build the second and third generation of turbines and fill holes in the ground with the waste from the first. After we’ve paid for that and for the collisions and lives lost, and the whales killed, and the porpoises deafened, we hope that in one hundred years the rain will be more evenly spread, and the storms more well behaved. It’s like the neolithic raindances never ended.

You never know, maybe some groups will benefit from the radar noise —  like drug runners, pirates and people smugglers?

Unfortunately wind turbines are usually built close to shore, where our shipping lanes often are…

Offshore Wind Turbines Could Mess With Ships’ Radar Signals

Eric Niiler, Wired, March 2022

It turns out that massive wind turbines may interfere with marine radar systems, making it risky for both big ships passing through shipping channels near offshore wind farms and smaller vessels navigating around them. While European and Asian nations have relied on offshore wind power for more than a decade, the big wind farms proposed off the US continental shelf are larger and spaced further apart, meaning that ships are more likely to be operating nearby. These farms are proposed along the East Coast from Massachusetts to North Carolina, as well as for a handful of locations off the California coast, according to data from the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

A panel of experts convened by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded in a report issued last week that wind turbines can create two different problems. First, their steel towers can reflect electromagnetic waves, interfering with ships’ navigational radar systems in ways that might obscure a nearby boat.

The turbine’s rotating blades can also create a form of interference similar to the Doppler effect, in which sound waves shorten as a moving object approaches the observer. In this case, the spinning blades shorten and distort the radar signals sent from passing ships and can produce what’s called “blade flash” on a ship’s radar screen. These flashes can create false images that look like boats and could confuse a human radar operator on the bridge.

“If you have something that’s moving toward you and you are illuminating it with a radar signal, then the signal that is returned will actually have what’s called a phase shift. Essentially, it appears that you have the object coming closer,” says Jennifer Bernhard, professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and a member of the National Academies panel that produced the report. Bernhard says that phenomena does not completely block the radar image, “but it does create clutter “…

There are no easy answers:

While the report offered some ways for mitigation, it noted that there is “no simple modification” that could allow marine vessel radar to operate in “the complex environments of a fully populated continental shelf wind farm.”

Deadly open-seas collisions and hampered search and rescue efforts

Disrupted radar systems are not mere hassles of dealing with cluttered displays. They can result in deadly open-seas collisions. The turbines can “cast radar shadows, obfuscating smaller vessels exiting wind facilities in the vicinity of deep draft vessels in Traffic Separation Schemes.”

The US Coast Guard wrote about this last year:

Offshore Wind Energy: A Rising Challenge to Coast Guard Operations

… offshore wind turbines have been shown to affect the capabilities of the Coast Guard’s Search and Rescue Optimal Planning System (SAROPS), which is used for drift modeling and search planning. The oscillating rotor blades and generator of a wind turbine emit high levels of electromagnetic interference that can affect high frequency radar capabilities around an [offshore renewable energy installation] (OREI).

The map suggests multiple wind plants could severely limit radar operation:

Offshore wind turbines and radar

 

Report: Wind Turbine Generator Impacts to Marine Vessel Radar

h/t David Maddison

 

 

9.9 out of 10 based on 72 ratings

Wednesday

8.7 out of 10 based on 14 ratings

Tuesday

8.5 out of 10 based on 27 ratings

We have World Class windless weather: Today 95% of wind turbines on the continent of Australia are failing

By Jo Nova

There is no saving the Australian wind industry from a high pressure cell

Right now 19 out of 20 wind turbines are essentially towers of fiberglass waste

Australia has built 11.5 GW of theoretical total wind power capacity on the National Energy Market (NEM) spread across 80 locations on the Eastern Seaboard, and at one point today only 4.1% of it was working.  Another gigawatt of generation on the Western side is only generating at 3 – 5% capacity.

The green bar below represents total wind generation today compared to the total power consumed (the black line).

NEM Wind generation May 27, 2024. Australia.

Total wind generation for the NEM in Australia.

The Australian government is telling us “we’re different” to other countries struggling to make wind and solar work. We supposedly have “world-class resources” and “natural advantages in renewables“. But we also have world-class high pressure cells that stop wind generation across the entire nation simultaneously. On days like these, it doesn’t matter much whether we have 1,000 wind turbines or 10,000 if 95% of them are failing.

Compared to Europe, we have a natural disadvantage in wind power — there’s no one to rescue us when we screw up. We’re surrounded by vast oceans which make interconnectors prohibitively long, expensive and a strategic security risk for communist ships that might drag anchors accidentally-on-purpose through a region with long sub-sea cables. (Which is apparently what happened in the Baltic Sea last year).

So where exactly can we build another thousand wind turbines that would work on a day like today? Macquarie Island or Antarctica?

High pressure weather cell stops all wind production May 2024

 

And it’s not just one day. So far for May 2024 wind generation has been unusually low about half the time.

On May 25th at one point the entire generation was just 221MW or 2% of total wind power capacity. So that’s 98% useless.

Wind power production for the month of May 2024, Australia. Graph.

Australia has 11GW wind power “capacity” and 5% of that is working.

 

There’s no extension cord long enough to get to the land at the top of The Renewable Faraway tree where we have dependable wind

Over in Western Australia, total wind production this minute (1pm WA time) is 30MW. So even a new cable 2,000 kilometers long from Perth to South Australia won’t save the national grid. It’s not blowing in WA either. Wind power is only supplying 1.5% of the total electricity on the Western Wholesale Market for Perth and South West Australia. The total installed capacity of wind power in the West is about 1 GW, so it is supplying only 3 to 5% of that.

Macquarie Island is 2,500 kilometers from the closest Australian capital city, and Casey base Antarctica is 3,500 kilometers away.  It’s 2,000 kilometers direct to New Zealand, which is bad enough, but parts of the Tasman Sea are 5km deep. They don’t call it the “abyss” for nothing.  In any case, wind speeds over New Zealand right now are only 1 – 7 km/hr. (At about 3pm EST Australia).

For the record, the National Energy Grid connects the Eastern five states of Australia and 90% of the population and is running at about 25GW in late autumn. The South West grid is a tenth of that, and all those other dots, apart from Darwin, are “microgrids”. In some parts of Australia all we need is one diesel generator, and we’ll put it on the national map. Kings Canyon, for example is just 1.1MW. The square is vastly larger than the town.

Today the 24 hour fuel mix on the NEM is 72% coal, and 9% gas.

Australian electricity grid, map.

Source: 2009 Map.

 

 

9.7 out of 10 based on 113 ratings

Monday

8.3 out of 10 based on 27 ratings

Sunday

8 out of 10 based on 22 ratings

So much for “peer review” — Wiley shuts down 19 science journals and retracts 11,000 gobbledygook papers

Science Communication pollution. Media. Marketing.

By Jo Nova

Proving that unpaid anonymous review is worth every cent, the 217 year old Wiley science publisher “peer reviewed” 11,300 papers that were fake, and didn’t even notice. It’s not just a scam, it’s an industry. Naked “gobbledygook sandwiches” got past peer review, and the expert reviewers didn’t so much as blink.

Big Government and Big Money has captured science and strangled it. The more money they pour in, the worse it gets. John Wiley and Sons is a US $2 billion dollar machine, but they got used by criminal gangs to launder fake “science” as something real.

Things are so bad, fake scientists pay professional cheating services who use AI to create papers and torture the words so they look “original”. Thus a paper on  ‘breast cancer’ becomes a discovery about “bosom peril” and a ‘naïve Bayes’ classifier became a ‘gullible Bayes’. An ant colony was labeled an ‘underground creepy crawly state’.

And what do we make of the flag to clamor ratio? Well, old fashioned scientists might call it ‘signal to noise’. The nonsense never ends.

A ‘random forest’ is not always the same thing as an ‘irregular backwoods’ or an ‘arbitrary timberland’ — especially if you’re writing a paper on machine learning and decision trees.

The most shocking thing is that no human brain even ran a late-night Friday-eye over the words before they passed the hallowed peer review and entered the sacred halls of scientific literature. Even a wine-soaked third year undergrad on work experience would surely have raised an eyebrow when local average energy became “territorial normal vitality”. And when a random value became an ‘irregular esteem’. Let me just generate some irregular esteem for you in Python?

If there was such a thing as scientific stand-up comedy, we could get plenty of material, not by asking ChatGPT to be funny, but by asking it to cheat. Where else could you talk about a mean square mistake?

Wiley — a mega publisher of science articles has admitted that 19 journals are so worthless, thanks to potential fraud, that they have to close them down. And the industry is now developing AI tools to catch the AI fakes (makes you feel all warm inside?)

Flood of Fake Science Forces Multiple Journal Closures tainted by fraud

EMIL LENDOF THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

By Nidhi Subbaraman, May 14, 2024

Fake studies have flooded the publishers of top scientific journals, leading to thousands of retractions and millions of dollars in lost revenue. The biggest hit has come to Wiley, a 217-year-old publisher based in Hoboken, N.J., which Tuesday will announce that it is closing 19 journals, some of which were infected by large-scale research fraud.

In the past two years, Wiley has retracted more than 11,300 papers that appeared compromised, according to a spokesperson, and closed four journals. It isn’t alone: At least two other publishers have retracted hundreds of suspect papers each. Several others have pulled smaller clusters of bad papers.

Although this large-scale fraud represents a small percentage of submissions to journals, it threatens the legitimacy of the nearly $30 billion academic publishing industry and the credibility of science as a whole.

Scientific papers typically include citations that acknowledge work that informed the research, but the suspect papers included lists of irrelevant references. Multiple papers included technical-sounding passages inserted midway through, what Bishop called an “AI gobbledygook sandwich.” Nearly identical contact emails in one cluster of studies were all registered to a university in China where few if any of the authors were based. It appeared that all came from the same source.

One of those tools, the “Problematic Paper Screener,” run by Guillaume Cabanac, a computer-science researcher who studies scholarly publishing at the Université Toulouse III-Paul Sabatier in France, scans the breadth of the published literature, some 130 million papers, looking for a range of red flags including “tortured phrases.”

Cabanac and his colleagues realized that researchers who wanted to avoid plagiarism detectors had swapped out key scientific terms for synonyms from automatic text generators, leading to comically misfit phrases. “Breast cancer” became “bosom peril”; “fluid dynamics” became “gooey stream”; “artificial intelligence” became “counterfeit consciousness.” The tool is publicly available.

Generative AI has just handed them a winning lottery ticket,” Eggleton of IOP Publishing said. “They can do it really cheap, at scale, and the detection methods are not where we need them to be. I can only see that challenge increasing.”

The ABC in Australia even wrote about this, but only because it worries about the loss of public faith in its pet universities:

For the ABC, peer review is like the Bible, and universities are the Church. The public must believe!

So the ABC makes excuses… Oh! Those poor poor universities, forced to become billion dollar businesses selling defacto Australian-citizenships to children of rich Chinese families.  If only they got more money, their Vice Chancellors wouldn’t have to make do with million dollar salaries, and punishing professors who pointed out fraud, and they’d have time to do research and prevent the fraud instead.

Wiley’s ‘fake science’ scandal is just the latest chapter in a broader crisis of trust universities must address

By Linton Besser, ABC News

It [the Wiley debacle] also illustrates what is just another front in a much broader crisis of trust confronting universities and scientific institutions worldwide.

For decades now, teaching standards and academic integrity have been under siege at universities which, bereft of public funding, have turned to the very lucrative business of selling degrees to international students.

Grappling with pupils whose English is inadequate, tertiary institutions have become accustomed to routine cheating and plagiarism scandals. Another fraud perfected by the internet age.

This infection — the commodification of scholarship, the industrialisation of cheating — has now spread to the heart of scientific, higher research.

With careers defined by the lustre of their peer-reviewed titles, researchers the world over are under enormous pressure to publish.

Suffer the researchers who are forced to pay for fake papers just so they can “do their job”? Sack the lot.

The ABC is part of the reason science is corrupt to the core. The ABC Science Unit is paid to hold junk-science’s feet to the fire, instead it provides cover for the pagan witchcraft that passes for modern research.

The rot at Wiley started decades ago, but it got caught when it spent US $298 million on an Egyptian publishing house called Hindawi. We could say we hope no babies were hurt by fake papers but we know bad science already kills people. What we need are not “peer reviewed” papers but actual live face to face debate. Only when the best of both sides have to answer questions, with the data will we get real science:

In March, it revealed to the NYSE a $US9 million ($13.5 million) plunge in research revenue after being forced to “pause” the publication of so-called “special issue” journals by its Hindawi imprint, which it had acquired in 2021 for US$298 million ($450 million).

Its statement noted the Hindawi program, which comprised some 250 journals, had been “suspended temporarily due to the presence in certain special issues of compromised articles”.

Many of these suspect papers purported to be serious medical studies, including examinations of drug resistance in newborns with pneumonia and the value of MRI scans in the diagnosis of early liver disease. The journals involved included Disease Markers, BioMed Research International and Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience.

The problem is only becoming more urgent. The recent explosion of artificial intelligence raises the stakes even further. A researcher at University College London recently found more than 1 per cent of all scientific articles published last year, some 60,000 papers, were likely written by a computer.

In some sectors, it’s worse. Almost one out of every five computer science papers published in the past four years may not have been written by humans.

Even if one in five computer science papers are written by computers, this is just the tip of the iceberg of the rot at the core of “peer reviewed research”. The real rot is not the minor fraudsters making papers that no one reads to pad out their curriculum vitae. It’s the institutional parasites taking billions from taxpayers to create modeled garbage to justify the theft of trillions. But that’s another story.

PS: Who knew, academic journals were a $30 billion dollar industry?

h/t SharperinOz

 

 

 

9.8 out of 10 based on 134 ratings

Saturday

9.4 out of 10 based on 12 ratings

EVs twice as likely to kill pedestrians (and who knows how many cats, dogs, ducks and wombats?)

Pedestrian, car.

By Jo Nova

Saving the world with silent killers

A new study shows electric cars are twice as likely to hit pedestrians compared to petrol and diesel cars. Presumably this is because EVs are so quiet. Though it’s also possible the dash interfaces are hideous, and some menu options are more deadly and distracting than others. Or perhaps EV drivers are more stressed or feeling nauseous? The study didn’t investigate that.

Amazingly the data was from six to ten years ago in the UK, so countless people have died in the interim, and if it is just a noise issue, it could have been fixed, or at least investigated. Where is the precautionary principle when you need it?

And if electric cars are killing more people in cities, we would presume that Fido and Spot would be a part of the carnage too. But who would know what the car-pet-kill tally was? Well, manufacturers might — they own the camera footage, but no one is even asking that question. Animals have rights you know, but they don’t donate to Greenpeace.

The Greens are rushing headlong to roll out the auto-weather-saving-machines across the countryside, and they might be killing wallabies and spotted quolls too but who cares, right? It’s not like anyone has done that study, or the Greens are worried about flattening a few rare endangered animals on their road to redemption.

Apparently, it makes sense if a few extra people and pets die now to save someone else who might suffer in one hundred years, maybe, if the computer models are right, and if EVs  reduce emissions, and if emissions matter in the first place. All of which is unlikely. But rush, sprint, hurry to force those EVs onto the road. Even if they kidnap people, or kill children, it’s all for a good cause.

Electric Cars Twice As Likely To Hit Pedestrians, According to New Study

Scitech Daily

Study reveals a higher risk of accidents in urban areas across Great Britain from 2013 to 2017. Researchers call for measures to mitigate this risk as fossil-fuel vehicles are phased out.

A study has found that pedestrians are twice as likely to be hit by electric or hybrid vehicles compared to those powered by petrol or diesel. The research, which was published on May 21, 2024, in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, examined casualty rates in Great Britain from 2013 to 2017.

The risk is greater in urban areas, and governments must take steps to mitigate this safety hazard as they proceed to phase out fossil-fueled vehicles to improve air quality and curb climate change, urge the researchers.

Road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death for children and young people, and 1 in 4 road traffic deaths are of pedestrians, they note. Amid the ongoing shift to electric and hybrid cars, concerns have been raised that these vehicles may pose more of a safety hazard to pedestrians than fossil-fuelled cars because they are quieter, particularly in urban areas where background ambient noise levels are higher.

the researchers calculate that between 2013 and 2017, the average annual casualty rates of pedestrians per 100 million miles of road travel were 5.16 for electric and hybrid vehicles and 2.40 for petrol and diesel vehicles.

Perhaps it’s really the fault of all those young inexperienced drivers?

And younger, less experienced drivers are more likely to be involved in a road traffic collision and are also more likely to own an electric car, possibly accounting for some of the observed heightened risk associated with these vehicles, they suggest.

Sure. These are the same careless teenagers who were “more likely” to splash $100 K on a Tesla Model S in 2016, right? What are these researchers thinking?

The only thing we know for sure is that the rush to force EVs on us has nothing to do with morality or compassion. It’s not about saving lives or protecting fluffy mammals. The Greens don’t care about those lives now, let alone the people of the future.

______________________

More tales from the EV files:

 

10 out of 10 based on 86 ratings

Friday

9.4 out of 10 based on 14 ratings

Nuclear versus Renewables: The only cost that matters is the one the customers pay

By Jo Nova

Games with levelized guesses don’t take all the hidden costs into account

Prize of the day for national policy research goes to Nick Cater, who managed to ridicule our billion dollar national science agency, the CSIRO, with a newspaper column.

The CSIRO put out a report proclaiming that nuclear power would be impossible before 2040 and cost “twice as much” as renewables. But Nick Cater just compared electricity in New South Wales to Finland to prove their 129 pages of modeled costs were wrong:

Finland’s clean, Green nuclear power a lesson for Labor

On Saturday….  Electricity generation in NSW was releasing 750g of carbon into the atmosphere per megawatt hour of electricity. In Finland, it was 35g.

If the CSIRO’s GenCost report is to be believed, Finnish electricity prices should have gone through the roof a year ago when its newest reactor was turned on. They did not. The retail price of electricity in Finland, which is indexed to the spot market, came down almost immediately.

Were Energy Minister Chris Bowen to spend a few days in Finland, he might realise almost everything he says about nuclear is complete and utter nonsense. This might be why he spent his time in Europe last year trying to sell green hydrogen to the Germans.

All over Europe the countries with the most solar and wind power have the highest prices

Modeling electricity costs is ripe for the plucking, so the only costs that count are the real ones that customers pay. According to Eurostat data on electricity prices  in the EU last year, some countries were paying twice as much as others. And the cheapest electricity was in countries using coal power or lands with lots of hydroelectricity and plenty of water.

European electricity prices households 2023. EU

And if nuclear power was “eight times” more expensive than solar and wind, why is that Germany pays so much more for electricity than France does?

Germany, Italy, Poland, and Greece are all pricey but none of them have nuclear plants (yet).

Serbia has cheap electricity and it is nearly 70% coal powered. Norway has cheap electricity and 100,000 natural Fjords for hydroelectricity.

Look who has solar power and expensive electricity:

Things aren’t working out well for Greece, Germany and Italy.

 

Look who has wind power too

Denmark has a lot of wind, but it also has seven interconnectors to countries with cheap reliable hydro and nuclear power. We don’t.

CSIRO artificially pumped up the cost of building a nuclear plant in Australia because it would be a new industry here. Did they do that for technologies that are barely invented like hydrogen and batteries too? They claim it would take 15 years to build one plant, yet the French built 56 plants in 15 years, and that was 40 years ago. The average build time then, without faxes, flip phones and “the internet” was just 7 years, yet somehow they got it done. Do the CSIRO think they can get away with publishing this kind of incompetent partisan hackery and Australians won’t find out?

 

9.9 out of 10 based on 108 ratings

Thursday

8.7 out of 10 based on 15 ratings

Tell the world, the Dutch tractor protests and a War on Net Zero won

Dutch Netherlands Farmers Protest

By Jo Nova

Six months after Geert Wilders won the Dutch election he has finally negotiated an agreement with a few minor parties to form government and the unthinkable has happened. The centre-of-the-road conservatives (referred to as “far right extremists”) got elected to unwind the worst excesses of the totalitarian left. Henceforth, the forced farm reclamations will stop, mandated heat pumps are out, electric car subsidies are going and in a brave scientific move, no one will be culling livestock to change the weather. The Netherlands won’t have to pursue stronger environmental policies than the rest of the EU so their leaders can show off at cocktail parties and get jobs with the UN. The Netherlands will still be tied to crazy EU rules, but those elections are coming next month. And official government ministers are so much harder to ignore in EU negotiations. The landscape has changed.

The Telegraph in the UK gets the message: The Tories should go to war on Net Zero. This applies everywhere else too. Tony Abbott didn’t win a 90 seat landslide victory in Australia by trying to do half a carbon tax. He won because he said he would Axe the Tax. (And Stop the Boats.)

The political candidate who goes to war on Stupid Plans has the freedom to point out the all the stupidity. The weaker man with a halfway plan is still agreeing with the witchcraft, he’s just suggesting a different spell. No wonder it doesn’t sell.

To arrange the deal Wilders gave up the Prime Ministership (a win no doubt for the namecalling mud slingers), but he appears to be the one in charge nonetheless. We hope he gets his day…

h/t to NetZeroWatch

Dutch farmers force heat pumps about-turn

The Telegraph

The Netherlands will tear up rules forcing homeowners to buy heat pumps as part of a war on net zero by Geert Wilders and the Dutch farmers’ party.

Six months after his shock election victory, Mr Wilders this week struck an agreement to usher in a Right-wing coalition government of four parties. “We are writing history,” he said as he announced the programme for the new government.

The new coalition marks the first time that a party focused on the interests of the agricultural sector has got into power in the Netherlands. Earlier this year, mass farmers’ protests swept Europe.

The coalition pact includes pledges to reverse green policies introduced under the previous government to hit EU climate targets, including compulsory buyouts of polluting farms. It also plans to end subsidies for electric cars in 2025 and rejects an EU demand that the Dutch reduce livestock numbers to cut pollution.

The Tories should go to war on net zero excess

Editorial, The Telegraph

But now even Western countries are starting to turn against the worst excesses of the green movement. The new Dutch coalition has released its programme for government, and at the heart of it are a swathe of pro-consumer, pro-energy security policies, reversing some of the bizarre environmental schemes introduced by its predecessors.

Among them was a programme to compulsorily purchase farms to meet EU climate targets. The result was a farmers’ revolt and a new insurgent political party. The coalition agreement tears up rules forcing homeowners to buy heat pumps, and scraps an obligation that the Netherlands should pursue a “more ambitious environment policy” than the rest of Europe.

Young voters are shifting right and breaking “taboos”

Geert Wilders party did better among 18 – 35 year olds than among some older groups. If all ages matched the younger vote his party would have won four more seats.

At Politico writers are worried that trends like this, which are also seen in Portugul and France mean the “taboos against voting for populist anti-immigration parties is fading”. Which begs the question of who decided that was taboo in the first place?

Their biggest fear is that even young voters are breaking out of their educational pens. They paint this as a devious “far right” opportunity, instead of what it really is, the young rebelling against a lifetime of propaganda. The old jargon and namecalling formula to bully the workers into submission isn’t working any more.

Geert Wilders turned all corners of Dutch Society into far right voters

By Hanne Cokelaere and Eva Hartog,  Politico

Across Europe, far right parties are advancing with support from young — and first time — voters. Despite being one of the EU’s wealthiest countries, the Netherlands’ shortage of affordable housing has become a key concern. Amid rising prices, many have an increasingly cynical outlook on life. Unlike their parents and grandparents, this generation feels less restricted by party loyalties, making them more of a wild card and therefore an attractive pool of new voters for anti-establishment candidates.

“The older voter, who was still loyal, is dying; younger voters are going in all directions,” said Josse de Voogd, a Dutch researcher who has made electoral geography his specialty.

For far-right parties, that presents an opportunity.

Wilders’ success took many by surprise, but it is indicative of a broader trend: The taboo of voting for populist, anti-immigration parties is fading. In the June EU election, the European Parliament’s Identity and Democracy group is projected to reap the electoral benefits of increasingly broad support; also among young voters.

In Portugal, exit polls from the March election suggested that under-30s accounted for approximately 25 percent of those who voted for the far-right Chega party.

Young voters are looking for a strong leader and few men are as strong as Geert Wilders — the man who received countless death threats and lives under permanent guard, but keeps going.

It is easy to imagine the new Prime Minister (whoever that is) living in the shadow of the real leader, the man who takes risks.

9.9 out of 10 based on 126 ratings

Wednesday

9 out of 10 based on 11 ratings

Green left gets uneasy that Jeff Bezos is giving $10 billion to stop climate change — is that a “conflict of interest”?

Rain of Bezos Climate Money

By Jo Nova

Finally, the Green-left activists are starting to ask if Big Money is distorting their own environmental efforts

Twenty years too late, a few on the green patsy environmental side are starting to feel “uneasy” about the billions of dollars gifted into their accounts by the nice caring bankers and oligarchs. The money thrown at believers is so obscenely big even they are raising eyebrows.

After smearing skeptics as shills for Big Oil, a few on the left are wondering if funds 300 times larger just from one man might be a bit concentrated. The Bezos Earth Fund has $10,000 million dollars in total to give away but in the last three decades of climate debate the evil Exxon only gave skeptics a grand total of $30 million dollars. Now they worry?

They wonder if Jeff Bezos is controlling too much of the environmental charity funding, and that he really wants to set up carbon offset schemes which greens fear will be “greenwashed” corrupted and a waste of time. This is quite a rare hint that a few in the environmental circles are just starting to be suspicious that they are being used to support other money making agendas.

But this is a crack in the door for skeptics to wedge:

The Bezos Earth fund has pumped billions into climate and nature projects. So why are experts uneasy?

By Patrick Greenfield, The Guardian

Launched with a skeleton team in February 2020, the Bezos Earth Fund aims to give away $10bn (£7.9bn) of the Amazon founder’s $200bn personal fortune to combat the climate crisis and biodiversity loss by the end of the decade. So far, it has issued more than 230 grants worth $2bn, funding initiatives from AI environmental solutions to clean energy for disadvantaged communities.

In the process, the Bezos Earth Fund has become one of the most influential voices in the climate and biodiversity sector, with its fellows, advisers and directors a high-profile presence at international negotiations.

 

 Bezos Earth Fund logo. Climate Money

Now they worry about the conflict of interest?

But privately in the climate and biodiversity sector, the mood around the Bezos Earth Fund has turned to one of growing unease. Researchers, climate policy advisers and NGO staff voiced concerns about the level of influence the organisation holds over critical environmental institutions for halting climate change and biodiversity loss, many of which now count Bezos Earth Fund among their biggest funders. Some did not want to be named due to concerns about the consequences for their own funding.

“We have seen millions of dollars paid to conservation and climate organisations. So many have taken money from the Bezos Earth Fund and I find it really worrying. There is obviously a risk of a conflict of interest,” says Holger Hoffmann-Riem from the Swiss NGO Go for Impact. “The credibility of the system relies on independence.”

The system needs independence indeed, but where were they when science needed independence? They were in bed with the bankers and bureaucrats, demanding carbon credits to save the world.

The aim of the Big Banker class was always to establish a carbon fiat currency brokered by them. It was potentially a $7 Trillion dollar money making venture (for bankers). Wouldn’t you love to be paid to profit from an invisible product where no one needed delivery of anything, yet you could claim to be saving the world? The only “commodity” in this market are paper certificates issued by third world bureaucrats, and checked by people who want jobs with the UN or HSBC? (We all know what HSBC is looking for in an employee, and it isn’t “independence”. (Remember Stuart Kirk’s story?)

More signs that the Green left are starting to fragment

Does Jeff Bezos really want to save the world? Green gravy train troughers are afraid to ask out loud:

One climate policy expert, speaking on the condition of anonymity, says: “In the few years since it started distributing enormous amounts of money for climate change and conservation, Bezos Earth Fund has established influence over many major initiatives and their board members.

“At this point, Bezos Earth Fund’s enormous presence in the climate and conservation space starts to look less philanthropical, and more like an attempt to take over the corporate governance system for its own interests and agenda.”

Things are cracking up in the Carbonista cabal because the impossible Net Zero targets can only be met by buying carbon credits from countries who have a massive dirty emissions industry they can clean up cheaply or who can fake it. The true (delusional but more honest) Greens sense that there is something wrong with this international money market idea. After all, people close to home won’t have to give up their air conditioners and cars if they can just pay some slave in Malawi to do it for them. Hence there was a big dummy-spit when Bezos group was seen supporting “carbon offsets”:

Many in the conservation and climate world say their concerns crystallised this year, when a bitter internal row erupted at the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), one of the world’s most important climate certification organisations. The SBTi, which received an $18m grant from Bezos in 2021, is the organisation responsible for assessing whether some of the world’s leading companies are decarbonising in line with the Paris agreement.

In April, the SBTi board unexpectedly announced plans to allow companies to meet their climate targets with carbon offsets from the unregulated voluntary carbon market for indirect emissions. The move provoked internal fury. Staff and technical advisers said they were not consulted about the announcement and warned it could open the door to greenwashing.

They expressed fears that the science-based process was being sidelined in favour of more company-friendly policies with weaker standards, with large polluters allowed to buy offsets instead of cutting emissions. Dozens of SBTi staff called for the resignation of the CEO, Luiz Fernando do Amaral, and board members, including the Bezos fellow Iván Duque, in an internal letter.

But ponder this –a lot of the green-left-industrial complex don’t want a real free market in carbon either. The renewables industry wants a half-baked one to support them, but doesn’t want want a full open free market in carbon because the sell products that are expensively stupid ways to reduce CO2. So if there is anything resembling a free market in carbon credits, they might lose market share to all the cheaper options. When Australia had a carbon auction system small tree farms used to win the bidding at $14 a ton of carbon “saved”. While wind and solar power were costing hundreds of dollars a ton.  And electric vehicles are even worse.

So other big money guys who are using the greens have an interest in making sure the carbon market isn’t too free and only certain “low emissions” schemes can be accepted.

From the Bezos Fund site — obviously they don’t want a real free market, they want a rigged one, as long as they get to do the rigging, eh?

“The market economy can play a valuable role in shifting to a green future, but free markets alone can simply perpetuate past pollution and depletion. The Bezos Earth Fund is working to accelerate changes in goods and financial markets to create a virtuous cycle of investment, prosperity, jobs, innovation, emission reductions and ecosystem protection.”

But when you have $10 billion dollars to give away and Big Bankers for friends, what’s to say you can’t rig the market?

Related stories on Bankers in Climate Change

 

10 out of 10 based on 83 ratings