The first episode of a new Showtime (US Cable channel) which will premiere April 17 starting April 13 at 10pm ET/PT." (US) [Thanks to Susan Anderson in the comments for pointing this out]. More at the website. Unfortunately others are in the years of lalala
On the coming Lewandowsky et al. vs. Frontiers (maybe, but don't put your bottom bitcoin down on it not happening)
Some, not Stephan Lewandowsky to be sure, have lost sight of the fact that Frontiers and the authors signed an agreement that was negotiated by their respective lawyers and the agreement specified the original statement accompanying the retractions
In the light of a small number of complaints received following publication of the original research article cited above, Frontiers carried out a detailed investigation of the academic, ethical and legal aspects of the work. This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did, however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article. The authors understand this decision, while they stand by their article and regret the limitations on academic freedom which can be caused by legal factors.”only for the Friday news dump to contain this amended statement on their blog
As we published in our retraction statement, a small number of complaints were received during the weeks following publication. Some of those complaints were well argued and cogent and, as a responsible publisher, our policy is to take such issues seriously. Frontiers conducted a careful and objective investigation of these complaints. Frontiers did not “cave in to threats”; in fact, Frontiers received no threats. The many months between publication and retraction should highlight the thoroughness and seriousness of the entire process.This, if anything is, a clear marker of the pressure that Frontiers is under from those unhappy with the paper being retracted in the first place and there are many of those. Super Lew (as opposed to the guy who scores goal for Borussia Dortmund this year and Bayern next) has just pointed out a few things to concentrate the minds over @ Frontiers
As a result of its investigation, which was carried out in respect of academic, ethical and legal factors, Frontiers came to the conclusion that it could not continue to carry the paper, which does not sufficiently protect the rights of the studied subjects. Specifically, the article categorizes the behaviour of identifiable individuals within the context of psychopathological characteristics. Frontiers informed the authors of the conclusions of our investigation and worked with the authors in good faith, providing them with the opportunity of submitting a new paper for peer review that would address the issues identified and that could be published simultaneously with the retraction notice.
This statement was the result of negotiations between the lawyer for Frontiers and a legal representative of the authors in the U.K., and it formed part of a formal retraction agreement signed by both parties. Although we disagreed with the journal’s decision, we were provided with sufficient information to understand it. Our position on the decision was shared by officers of the Australian Psychological Society and other organizations, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists.who also were not happy with Frontiers. Lewandowsky reports being contacted by several editors and authors who were unhappy with Frontier's actions. He pointed out to those who discussed the matter with him, that he himself continued to work on Frontiers projects, something that perhaps he will not continue to do. This case has a long paper trail.
Frontiers came to the conclusion that it could not continue to carry the paper, which does not sufficiently protect the rights of the studied subjects. Specifically, the article categorizes the behaviour of identifiable individuals within the context of psychopathological characteristics.Recursive Fury is a report on the public response on blogs to Lewandowsky, Obenauer and Gignac. Now some, not Eli to be sure, might take this as a statement that Frontiers believes one should not identify those whose public behavior identifies themselves, but what does Eli know? Certainly it will call for re-writing a bunch of papers, no longer allowed are such as
Bunny and Weasel (2015) discuss Tol-Pielke climate impact denial
TPM has a nuanced-to-muddled view on Brendan Eich, the Mozilla exec promoted to CEO last year who had in 2008 contributed $1000 to the last successful anti-gay marriage initiative in California, an action that resulted in his recent resignation.
TPM somewhat reflects my own view, especially the muddled part. This blog post is unusual for me in that as I write the beginning, I'm not sure what the conclusion will be. But here goes:
Eli's got the goods. I finally caught up on Mann's points to dismiss Steyn's counterclaims and Steyn's response - haven't read Steyn's original motion though.
Interesting that Steyn found some actual lawyers to double down on his claims rather than tell him "we'll represent you but only if you drop these stinkers." There are powerful corporate interests that don't want to be sue-able for things they say or allow others to say on their websites, so there could be corporate law firms that will represent the "can't sue us!" side.
I agree with Eli - the arguments are still stinkers. My guess is the lawyers are in it not for these claims (unless they've really fooled themselves) but for the longer game of beating Mann's suit.
On the first claim that an anti-SLAPP law provides an implied right of action, I think first that would've been discovered somewhere before, and second, the implied right, if hypothetically true, would exist for anyone who'd been SLAPPed. Sounds unlikely.
As to the second claim that a protection against government also applies to a private person using the court - yes Eli's right that this makes any lawsuit a state action.
The third claim of tortious use of litigation sounded theoretically plausible until I read it - they just made it up, because the common law theoretically allows that to happen. This goes to the question of when people laugh at you, what's the probability that you're Galileo versus the probability that you're Bozo the Clown.
How many wholesale revisions of the law did Steyn invent?
The value of this stuff lawyers made for Steyn is that it seems novel to me, and saying your claim is novel is a decent way to fight against the argument that it was frivolous and therefore subject to sanctions. OTOH, if Mann wins his anti-SLAPP motion then it doesn't matter how innovative Steyn's lawyers were.
One final note - if I were designing the law, I would of course allow a motion to dismiss ridiculous counterclaims like Steyn's counterclaims. I would not, however, allow an anti-SLAPP motion just over a counterclaim made solely against the fact of the plaintiff's original filing (I would allow it if the counterclaim dealt with something else). Having said that, if I were Mann or his lawyers, I would use that tool if it were available to me. They assert it is, and I don't know the law well enough to judge that.
There has been much whooing and hollering about how the recently completed IPCC Working Group II report emphasized adaptation. Some food groups were quite pleased at how the various statements about adaptation to climate change were emphasized and there was almost nothing about mitigation.
Eli went and read the banner at the top of the IPCC WGII web site. Right up at the top it says
Panel member Riggs noted that the better parts of six coastal counties today sit only 1 foot above sea level. In his opinion, it's not the slow, steady rise of the ocean but coastal storms that present the most urgent threat.
"The land along the shoreline along those areas is just being ripped out at 100 feet a storm," Riggs said. "The tipping point in my opinion is not 100 years from now at 2100, it's right now."and town officials like Nags Head Town Manager Cliff Ogburn, need guidance, someone to tell them what to plan for
"Pick the number. ... We're just waiting for somebody to decide an accurate projection," he added. "I wish people 40 years ago would have imagined that we'd have houses falling into the ocean."Which is interesting because the lege also asked the science panel to put together a report by next March. Science panel members are caught between a sense of duty and the knowledge that the commission and the legislature are shopping for the answers they want. The people going to pick the number are not exactly playing with a full deck, or more accurately they want more jokers.
"We need to hear not just one side of the facts, we need all of the facts," Baldwin (Commission Chair -ER) added. "One of the things we'll hopefully be able to do is get people with the minority opinion on there."
Before an August 2013 CRC meeting intended to fill the empty panel seats was canceled, Baldwin had nominated four men who seemed to fit this description.about the only thing that might save the situation are the fleeing insurers or the USGS laying down the truth.
One was Nicola Scafetta of Duke University, who has argued that most climate warming since the 1970s can be accounted for by natural cycles in the solar system. Another was David Burton, NC-20's own science adviser, who largely rejects the panel's previous conclusions, denying that a warming planet will bring about accelerated sea-level rise.
1. Steyn’s first counterclaim is an implied right of action under the D.C. Anti-SLAPP law. Steyn is a member of the class the statute was meant to benefit, there is no indication that the statute was not meant to create such a right of action, and a remedy for Steyn is consistent with the purposes and public policy considerations underpinning the statute.The problem is, this is pretty much what got shredded in the Mann counterclaims because they each imagine the law as Steyn would like it to be, not as it is. The first relies on an implied right, and, of course, implied to whom is always an issue and the lawyers have an answer
2. Steyn’s second counterclaim, for constitutional tort, is appropriate because Mann’s lawsuit infringing on Steyn’s First Amendment rights qualifies as state action under the Fourteenth Amendment, and the lawsuit by its very existence creates a chilling effect on free speech.
3. Steyn’s third counterclaim, for abusive litigation, is an appropriate use of the common law to remedy tortious use of the court system. It does not impinge on Mann’s right of access to the courts, which Mann’s abusive conduct has rendered unprotected.
Steyn, like other cultural commentators who routinely advocate on issues of public interest, is “one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted.”which is about a nanometer from asserting that cultural commentators can say any damn thing they want without being held to any standard of truth. That, bunny friends, is carving out a hole that any blogger can jump into and viscerates the law, but you have to work with what you have. Eli fully understands that he is working close to Lucia L. territory here, but what the heck.
Public discourse on the important subject of the extent of alleged man-made global warming should not be chilled by the threat of tort damages for expressing criticism. Rather, such public debate should be encouraged. Uninhibited and robust public debate depends on a better informed citizenry that can receive and evaluate all sides of an issue. It is essential to self-government. “[T]he First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.” That bedrock principle applies here when the courts are used by a public figure plaintiff like Mann to limit the stock of information and silence critics.The card comes out of the bottom of the deck in that last sentence, switching from scientific debate to the right to utter any untruth about others. Mann's suit was not to stop Steyn from talking about climate science, it was to stop Steyn from baselessly asserting that Mann faked his results.
| WHAN that El Nino with his shoures soote |
| The droghte of Californie hath perced to the roote, |
| And bathed every veyne in swich licour, |
| Of which vertu engendred is the flour; |
| Whan McIntyre eek with his tendre soul |
| Inspired hath in every blog and heeth |
| The bile, and Recursive Fury |
| Hath in the Wood his halfe cours y-ronne, |
| And bishps Hills maken melodye, |
| That slepen al the night with open ye, |
| (So priketh hem nature in hir corages: |
| Than longen folk to goon on searches, |
| And foia seken straunge imaginings, |
| To ferne halwes, couthe in sondry data; |
| And specially, from every shires ende |
| Of Australae, to Sydney they wende, |
| The holy blisful Reviewer for to seke, |
| That hem hath holpen, whan that they were seke. |
| Bifel that, in that sesoun on a day, Conspirate ideation whiskeed away |
Recursive Fury was theoretically strong, methodologically sound, and its analysis and conclusions – which re-examined and reaffirmed the link between conspiracist ideation and the rejection of science – were based on clear evidence. Satisfied that the paper was a solid work of scholarship that could advance our understanding of science denial and improve the effectiveness of science communication, I recommended publication. Two other independent reviewers agreed.As all the bunnies know the usual suspects raised a rukus and threatened to sue for libel. The journal called a meeting of their lawyers, the editors, and the reviewers
. . . the lawyer raised concerns about two sentences in the paper that had been the subject of threats of litigation. By the end of the 20-minute conference call, we had all agreed that, if the authors made minor modifications to these sentences, the content would remain intact and the paper could be re-published without fear of successful legal action.Sadly this did not happen and Frontiers will now have to live with the results.
Before the call ended, three academics, including me, argued that scientific journals must not be held to ransom every time someone threatens litigation. In response to our concerns, we were assured by the journal’s representatives that the legal matter would be considered settled once the two sentences had been amended as agreed.
Big Bunny Eli has been focused on something other than the disinformers Pielke, Tol and McIntyre.
That focus has also been on the snippets coming out about the practical implications of continued warming. Michael Mann recently has been giving interviews about a climate tipping point around the year 2036 (I’ll likely be reclining in my grave, so no big).
The AAAS recently produced a sobering report as well. Perhaps you have your own favorite media explainer.
For my money, the British Medical Journal has a clear-eyed editorial laying out what is before us. But there’s good news! The issue is solvable.
This is what they say is the simple things we have to do:
This is an emergency. Immediate and transformative action is needed at every level: individual, local, and national; personal, political, and financial. Countries must set aside differences and work together as a global community for the common good, and in a way that is equitable and sensitive to particular challenges of the poorest countries and most vulnerable communities.See? All we have to do is change our basic nature. That, or teach our children how to adapt to a world of greater strife and less predictable water and food supplies (techno-optimism isn’t keeping up with our needs these days). Our fifth-grade daughter is planting her own crops this year and giving the surplus to a women’s shelter, among other things.- Dano
There is an even more significant problem with Pielke’s analysis. In a nutshell, he addresses trend detection when what we need is event risk assessment. The two would be equivalent if the actuarial data was the only data available pertaining to event risk. But that is far from the case; we often have much more information about risk.unclothing Roger's nous as a political scientist. Then enter the hungry ursine
Let me illustrate this with a simple example. Suppose observations showed conclusively that the bear population in a particular forest had recently doubled. What would we think of someone who, knowing this, would nevertheless take no extra precautions in walking in the woods unless and until he saw a significant upward trend in the rate at which his neighbors were being mauled by bears?As Eli has been saying, on a proposition, 20:1 is really good odds, "statistical significance" doesn't mean that bet is ironclad or that anything less is not worth taking action on, and when you have the odds in your favor and the physics in your favor, double down.
The point here is that the number of bears in the woods is presumably much greater than the incidence of their contact with humans, so the overall bear statistics should be much more robust than any mauling statistics. The actuarial information here is the rate of mauling, while the doubling of the bear population represents a priori information. Were it possible to buy insurance against mauling, no reasonable firm supplying such insurance would ignore a doubling of the bear population, lack of any significant mauling trend notwithstanding. And even our friendly sylvan pedestrian, sticking to mauling statistics, would never wait for 95 percent confidence before adjusting his bear risk assessment. Being conservative in signal detection (insisting on high confidence that the null hypothesis is void) is the opposite of being conservative in risk assessment.
When it comes to certain types of natural hazards, there are more bears in the woods. For example, there is a clear upward trend in overall North Atlantic hurricane activity by virtually all metrics, over the past 30 years or so, though the cause of this is still uncertain. But given that only about a third of Atlantic hurricanes strike the U.S.; hurricanes do damage during a very small fraction of their typical lifetimes; and only intense hurricanes (a small fraction of the total) do significant damage, the amount of hurricane data pertinent to U.S. damage is a tiny fraction of the entire database of North Atlantic hurricanes. Thus it is hardly surprising that the upward trend in U.S. hurricane damage is of only marginal statistical significance, and Pielke’s own analysis shows that it takes several decades for such a trend to emerge.
Michael Oppenheimer summed it up, "We are all sitting ducks"
The WGII Summary for Policy Makers is available. It can be downloaded, and is not very long (44 pages including figures, about 30 pages of print). If bunnies have been paying attention a fast skim can be done. It is a sobering read, no more so than expected, perhaps less than needed. The first sentence says it all
Human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systemsHuman existence depends on those natural systems and humans are straining them to the breaking point and it is in the natural systems that the largest effects have been seen, seen, but mere harbingers of that to come.
In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Evidence of climate-change impacts is strongest and most comprehensive for natural systemsWe have been told that there is no evidence for humans affecting the climate to change precipitation and affect water resources. Sadly that is wrong
In many regions, changing precipitation or melting snow and ice are altering hydrological systems, affecting water resources in terms of quantity and quality (medium confidence). Glaciers continue to shrink almost worldwide due to climate change (high confidence), affecting runoff and water resources downstream (medium confidence). Climate change is causing permafrost warming and thawing in high-latitude regions and in high-elevation regions (high confidence).We have been told that climate change has not affected the oceans. Sadly that is wrong.
Many terrestrial, freshwater, and marine species have shifted their geographic ranges, seasonal activities, migration patterns, abundances, and species interactions in response to ongoing climate change (high confidence).
While only a few recent species extinctions have been attributed as yet to climate change (high confidence), natural global climate change at rates slower than current anthropogenic climate change caused significant ecosystem shifts and species extinctions during the past millions of years (high confidence).We have been told by those who deny the impact of climate change and those who hide from our responsiblity that food will not be a problem as increasing CO2 greens the earth. Sadly that is wrong. Not today, and certainly not tomorrow
Based on many studies covering a wide range of regions and crops, negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts (high confidence).
The smaller number of studies showing positive impacts relate mainly to high- latitude regions, though it is not yet clear whether the balance of impacts has been negative or positive in these regions (high confidence). Climate change has negatively affected wheat and maize yields for many regions and in the global aggregate (medium confidence). Effects on rice and soybean yield have been smaller in major production regions and globally, with a median change of zero across all available data, which are fewer for soy compared to the other crops. Observed impacts relate mainly to production aspects of food security rather than access or other components of food security. See Figure SPM.2C. Since AR4, several periods of rapid food and cereal price increases following climate extremes in key producing regions indicate a sensitivity of current markets to climate extremes among other factors (medium confidence).The WGII writers and governments are not ancient bunnies, they hold out hope that the challenge can be met, not without disruption, cost and tribulation, but naught like that which would happen if the world does not take action. They throw up their hands in despair if the path to a 4C world is chosen. They cannot estimate that damage.
Roger’s article also contained an implicit policy recommendation in its closing paragraph. Whether or not the recommendation was justified by Roger’s thesis and evidence, we generally prefer to avoid these kind of recommendations, and instead allow readers to draw any policy conclusions for themselves.(em added ER)That last paragraph reads
When you next hear someone tell you that worthy and useful efforts to mitigate climate change will lead to fewer natural disasters, remember these numbers and instead focus on what we can control. There is some good news to be found in the ever-mounting toll of disaster losses. As countries become richer, they are better able to deal with disasters — meaning more people are protected and fewer lose their lives. Increased property losses, it turns out, are a price worth paying.You don't have to be a bunny to see that Nate is right. So where does this put Roger, in Roger's taxonomy of the pure scientist, the science arbiter, the honest broker, the issue advocate and the stealth issue advocate, which he describes as follows
"stealth issue advocacy" occurs when scientists claim to be focusing on science but are really seeking to advance a political agenda. When such claims are made, the authority of science is used to hide a political agenda, under an assumption that science commands that which politics does not. However, when stealth issue advocacy takes place, it threatens the legitimacy of scientific advice, as people will see it simply as politics, and lose sight of the value that science does offer policy making .And he does not consider "Stealth Issue Advocacy a good thing. Nonono. And he is not shy about saying whom he considers such, c'mon down Mike Mann, and you Gavin Schmidt, and the Real Climate Crew, and Roger is not right complementary about this
Steve McIntyre, in his usual passive aggressive style been harassing the University of Western Australia to use "the coercive power of the state to force other people to give him, gratis, the fruits of their labor". In this case, of course what McIntyre wants is the data used in LOG12, Lewandowsky, Oberauer and Gignac (2012) aka Recursive Fury which had been published by Frontiers in Psychology and recently retracted because of complaints which threatened legal action. The recursive fury which had broken lose among those who felt themselves called out only recursed with the retraction, with new recurses.
However, our friends appear to have missed something. Having been retracted, the paper is no long published in it's final form, but a work in progress, that has been made available as a pre-print. It may be published in another publication, perhaps with some more work, improved treatment of the data, even more data drawing on the recurse. Thus, as a work in progress, not a published scientific paper, it is no longer subject to Freedom of Information requests.
UPDATE: Eli got it wrong, it was another paper from Lew. Steve still has the knife in the library. see the comments, and the UWA Vice Chancellor is still Faithful.
The University of Western Australia appears to have noticed tho, and sent a Dear Steve letter to dear Steve
Dear Mr McIntyre,With no surprise to any, the letter has, well, not met with a great deal of understanding in some quarters. Eli always enjoys April Fools jokes and has rebalanced his retirement portfolio to hold more popcorn futures.
I refer to your series of emails to University officers including Professor Maybery and myself (which you have copied to other recipients including the Australian Research Council) in which you request access to Professor Lewandowsky’s data.
I am aware that you have made inflammatory statements on your weblog “Climate Audit” under the heading “Lewandowsky Ghost-wrote Conclusions of UWA Ethics Investigation into “Hoax”” including attacks on the character and professionalism of University staff. It is apparent that your antagonism towards Professor Lewandowsky’s research is so unbalanced that there is no useful purpose to be served in corresponding with you further. I regard your continued correspondence to be vexatious and there will be no further response to your requests for data.
Yours faithfully,
Professor Paul Johnson,
Vice-Chancellor
You wouldn't think it would be so hard to write something that goes beyond book reports from wikipedia on the military forces, but I haven't seen much.
One decent article from Jane's notes how the Ukrainian navy and air force lost a lot of their forces in Crimea. Farley argues that the navy probably doesn't matter so much, which sounds right. What seems more disturbing is the large percentage of the Ukrainian navy personnel that defected to the Crimean/Russian side. That may indicate that the Ukrainian military isn't willing to fight if Russia attacks eastern Ukraine, and as important may be perceived by Russia as an indication that they won't face serious military opposition.
A broader Foreign Policy article discusses the (bad) shape of the Ukrainian military while not being too impressed with Russia. It concludes the window of opportunity for an invasion starts in early April (ground dry enough for off-road travel by tanks, experienced Russian military conscripts still in uniform) and ends in late May (experienced conscripts mustered out, Ukrainian elections legitimize the government).
The FP article makes sense as to what's the best window now - I still think the Russians would have thought the best window to attack was at the same time as when they went into Crimea, gaining surprise and with the Urkainian military fractured and political structure unstable. The fact that they didn't attack is therefore hopeful. OTOH, maybe they're just indecisive so far, and could change their minds.
One thing to note about the FP article is the April through May window degrades over the time period - conscripts are mustering out over time, the approach of May elections make it more obvious that Russia is trying to crush democracy, and Ukrainian military has more time to get its act together.
On what we in the West should do, Ian Brzezinski argues we should supply military aid and move up previously-scheduled joint military exercises in the Ukraine from this summer to ASAP. While sending ambiguous messages is sometimes helpful, I don't think it is in this case. If Russia invades Ukraine, we won't and shouldn't engage in direct military action to push them back - so we shouldn't have forces there in potential harm's way, not now and not this summer. OTOH, we can and should provide military assistance in case of invasion, and we can signal that to Russia now by providing military assistance now.
Cancelling summer exercises while initiating military aid should be a mixed message that isn't provocative while still confirming the cost side of the sheet as Russia considers its options.
In his interview with Matt McGrath about the IPCC WGII report, Richard Tol said
"You have a very silly statement in the draft summary that says that people who live in war-torn countries are more vulnerable to climate change, which is undoubtedly true," said Prof Tol.and in Torald Staud's description of Richard's promotional tour in Yokohoma
"But if you ask people in Syria whether they are more concerned with chemical weapons or climate change, I think they would pick chemical weapons - that is just silliness."
"It is only about the consequences of climate change and the four horsemen of the apocolypse." Tol refers to a -in his words- "very stupid" IPCC statement: People in war zones are especially vulnerable to climate risks. Tol contrasts this with a reference to the currently most gruesome war on the planet: "I believe that people in Syria fear chemical weapons more than global warming." Which is of course true, but no climatologist would disagree.Eli, old Rabett that he is, has an old saying, maybe if everyone else is panicking and you are calm, just maybe there is something you don't know. Surprisingly in this case, the Friedman unit has seen the answer in the Wikileaks dump, and it was not six months ago but more than six weeks.
I’ve been reporting on the connection between the Syrian drought and the uprising there for a Showtime documentary that will air in April, but recently our researchers came across a WikiLeaks cable that brilliantly foreshadowed how environmental stresses would fuel the uprising. Sent on Nov. 8, 2008, from the U.S. Embassy in Damascus to the State Department, the cable details how, in light of what was a devastating Syrian drought — it lasted from 2006-10 — Syria’s U.N. food and agriculture representative, Abdullah bin Yehia, was seeking drought assistance from the U.N. and wanted the U.S. to contribute. Here are some key lines:
■ “The U.N. Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs launched an appeal on September 29 requesting roughly $20.23 million to assist an estimated one million people impacted by what the U.N. describes as the country’s worst drought in four decades.”
■ “Yehia proposes to use money from the appeal to provide seed and technical assistance to 15,000 small-holding farmers in northeast Syria in an effort to preserve the social and economic fabric of this rural, agricultural community. If UNFAO efforts fail, Yehia predicts mass migration from the northeast, which could act as a multiplier on social and economic pressures already at play and undermine stability.”
■ “Yehia does not believe that the [government of Bashar al-Assad] will allow any Syrian citizen to starve. ... However, Yehia told us that the Syrian minister of agriculture ... stated publicly that economic and social fallout from the drought was ‘beyond our capacity as a country to deal with.’ What the U.N. is trying to combat through this appeal, Yehia says, is the potential for ‘social destruction’ that would accompany erosion of the agricultural industry in rural Syria. This social destruction would lead to political instability.”
Eli was aware of this, and reminded yet again by a comment from a passer by■ “Without direct assistance, Yehia predicts that most of these 15,000 small-holding farmers would be forced to depart Al Hasakah Province to seek work in larger cities in western Syria. Approximately 100,000 dependents — women, children and the elderly or infirm — would be left behind to live in poverty, he said. Children would be likely to be pulled from school, he warned, in order to seek a source of income for families left behind. In addition, the migration of 15,000 unskilled laborers would add to the social and economic pressures presently at play in major Syrian cities. A system already burdened by a large Iraqi refugee population may not be able to absorb another influx of displaced persons, Yehia explained, particularly at this time of rising costs, growing dissatisfaction of the middle class, and a perceived weakening of the social fabric and security structures that Syrians have come to expect and — in some cases — rely on.”
The previous post sets the stage for this translation of freelancer Toralf Staud's article in KlimaRetter on Richard Tol. Readers of Rabett Run will not be surprised by many of the points Staud makes, but it is all there
Posts
All Comments
I would characterize McIntyre’s denial as denying the assertion that paleo types have the foggiest clue what they are doing, mathwise. This is not conspiracy ideation, it is in the grand tradition of upholding what is correct in science. Sloppiness is not a valid scientific method, no matter your motivations.
=:)