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.
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.”
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?
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.”
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
I think it's because of blogspot.com, it has been repeatedly blocked by the chinese government, just like youtube, facebook, twitter...
ReplyDeleteServices 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.
ReplyDeleteLots of free Blog services out of China, including blogspot, are blocked by the Great Firewall of China. reference link
ReplyDeletePeople in red China can try to subscribe to the rss of Klimazwiebel using Google Reader. (https://www.google.com/reader)
ReplyDeleteYou got a cable? Really? Like with the messenger boy from The Sound of Music?
ReplyDeleteReiner (#2): a move to a google-idependent blogserver (most probably wordpress-based) is already into consideration, independent of the China case.
ReplyDeleteIt'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.”
ReplyDeleteRoddy - 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?
ReplyDeleteHans - 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.
ReplyDeleteIn 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!!
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?
ReplyDeleteHans, 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.
ReplyDeleteChina 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!
"would compel us to allow net immigration to keep labour force up?"
ReplyDeleteJust make compulsory retirement illegal. Lots of us would like to go on working in our 70s.
Yesterday I got 11 visitors from China, which was a record for me. Normally it's zero.
ReplyDeletethe 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).
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ghost I was joking about the scientific difference between the sites.
ReplyDeleteI've often been moderated on realclimate. just for your information.
can't we introduce a "like" and a "dislike" button?
ReplyDeleteDefinitely "like" P Gosselin's comment. 11 Chinese - did they come by bus? Incredible! Congrats!
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.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
About moderation:
ReplyDelete"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?