Sunday, November 7, 2010

cable from China ...

Klimazwiebel is not accessible in China - censored. However, RealClimate is not ...

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think it's because of blogspot.com, it has been repeatedly blocked by the chinese government, just like youtube, facebook, twitter...

Reiner Grundmann said...

Services connected to Google are affected and blogspot is part of this. Maybe we should move the blog to another platform? Our user survey indicated very little traffic from Asia as far as I remember.

Anonymous said...

Lots of free Blog services out of China, including blogspot, are blocked by the Great Firewall of China. reference link

Anonymous said...

People in red China can try to subscribe to the rss of Klimazwiebel using Google Reader. (https://www.google.com/reader)

Polytroll said...

You got a cable? Really? Like with the messenger boy from The Sound of Music?

Rob said...

Reiner (#2): a move to a google-idependent blogserver (most probably wordpress-based) is already into consideration, independent of the China case.

Roddy said...

It's nothing to do with any of the above, it's due to Michael Mann, who has told the Chinese that you are part of the “[P]owerful special interests in the fossil fuel industry . . . have invested millions of dollars in well-honed disinformation campaigns to convince the public and policy makers that human-caused climate change is either a hoax, or not nearly the threat that the scientific community has established it to be.”

Hans von Storch said...

Roddy - that sounds plausible. But why would "the Chinese" react to such an information in this way? What would be the strategic advantage of such a censorship?

Roddy said...

Hans - you're right, I couldn't remember whether the Chinese were in favour of global mitigation or not. As we know, they are not in favour, preferring economic growth when it comes to that particular trade-off, and hence, stay with me here, stay with me, they allow Realclimate through because any regular reader is driven screaming into the arms of the sceptics by the religious dogma - oh no, I've drifted onto Curry turf now - and so they keep their domestic population from wanting windmills.

In any event I got the wrong Michael Mann quote, he's become rent-a-quote recently, and also, it appears, Hercule Poirot.

“The criminal theft, release, and misrepresentation of private emails from the University of East Anglia immediately prior to the Copenhagen Climate Summit last December was part of a carefully orchestrated smear campaign against the climate science community timed to thwart any binding international agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions.”

That's quite a claim!!

Hans von Storch said...

But, Roddy, you have to admit that the Chinese 1-child policy has reduced the number of actors involved in economic release of greenhouse gases massively - I guess the number compares to the population of Europe. Note that non-born children have neither kids nor grandkids themselves. Would that qualify as an efficient mitigation policy, which people in Europe should try to imitate?

Roddy said...

Hans, I've never looked at that in detail, although a strict population policy is certainly one mitigation lever. Interesting. So here's some quick internet browsing.

China 1950 563 million
China now 1,330 million
The policy came into place in 1979.

"... the rule has been estimated to have reduced population growth in the country of 1.3 billion by as much as 300 million people over its first twenty years." - ie your Europe number. Since 1960 India has nearly trebled, China doubled, so that seems in the ballpark.

source http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/chinapopulation.htm

There is an oddity in that China's fertility rate is now 1.7, which should mean a shrinking population, ceteris paribus, but China is expected to continue to grow to 2030, largely (it seems) through increasing life expectancy.

You ask should we (Europe) copy that policy? Given our already low fertility rate and stable population that would imply falling population, with some nasty (economic) consequences?

"The extremely low fertility has already caused radical changes in countries' age distributions. Many countries now face the very real possibility that up to one-third of their population will be over age 65. Many are already seeing more deaths than births each year-and population decline." source http://www.prb.org/Articles/2007/newfertilityrates.aspx

Difficult for us to cut our fertility rate further, quite probably undesirable economically, and would compel us to allow net immigration to keep labour force up? We face (see French protests recently) objections to delaying retirement age as it is!

Don Cox said...

"would compel us to allow net immigration to keep labour force up?"

Just make compulsory retirement illegal. Lots of us would like to go on working in our 70s.

P Gosselin said...

Yesterday I got 11 visitors from China, which was a record for me. Normally it's zero.

ghost said...

the interesting point is another, IMHO: some seem to think realclimate and zwiebel are on different sides of the climate discussion (or however you want to express it).

I do not think that. Both are scientific blogs with a slightly different focus and in some questions the authors might have different opinions. That's it. There is no fundamental difference between the sites.

I actually like the natural science part more, which is stronger in realclimate. @Zwiebel are also very interesting posts. And both sites allow a direct interaction with the scientists. What do I want more? ;)

PS: and if some so-called "skeptic" thinks that realclimate censors comments: get a life.

Roddy said...

ghost I was joking about the scientific difference between the sites.

I've often been moderated on realclimate. just for your information.

Werner Krauss said...

can't we introduce a "like" and a "dislike" button?
Definitely "like" P Gosselin's comment. 11 Chinese - did they come by bus? Incredible! Congrats!

Roddy said...

ghost - just for your interest I was moderated three times yesterday asking mike (mann?) a perfectly polite and relevant question about Atlantic hurricanes, responding to an in-line reply of his to another comment.

I don't know why people pretend RC doesn't moderate. I understand moderation of moronic, off topic, abusive etc, but I like to think my comments are not that, at least by comparison with others.

itisi69 said...

About moderation:

"Leugner des Klimawandels in der Regierungskoalition"

http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/index.php/dadgd/article/gruene_kleine_anfrage_zwecks_aushebelung_der_meinungsfreiheit/

Grün- oder Braunhemden?