Tag: panic

Aztec Politics: Trump sacrificed 200K by Downplaying Covid-19 to save the Stock Market from Panic

When Trump says he did not what to “panic” the “country,” what he really means is that he did not want to drive down the stock market. In all the commentary I heard about the phrase in the media yesterday, I heard no one make this point. People were disgusted with Trump’s two-facedness, which certainly cost tens of thousands of American lives. But they still took his statement at face value as an expression of concern for the people.

Aztec Politics: Trump sacrificed 200K by Downplaying Covid-19 to save the Stock Market from Panic

White House Could Alter Virus Briefings To Limit Trump Role | HuffPost

04/24/2020 11:53 pm ET
White House Could Alter Virus Briefings To Limit Trump Role
There have been discussions within the White House about changing the format of the briefings to curtail the president’s role, according to several sources.

The president remained behind closed doors after advisers reportedly warned him that the briefings were hurting his campaign

Trump says briefings ‘not worth the effort’ amid fallout from disinfectant comments

White House Could Alter Virus Briefings To Limit Trump Role | HuffPost

Old Dog Thoughts- Panic so easy to start so fucking hard to stop. Are The Dutch Danes Fins and Norwegians doing the same? Why aren’t the Singaporeans behaving badly? Americans are hoarding and buying guns.

Fighting Fake News with REAL, 19/3/20; This disease reveals the inadequacy of Capitalism; Fake News and Opportunism;

A government reeking of corruption hits the panic button. – » The Australian Independent Media Network

Coronavirus-panic sweeps the nation. There’s barely a bottle of Dettol hand sanitizer left on a metal supermarket shelf across the land. Panic buying of toilet paper, pasta and rice turns ugly. A fight erupts in a Western Sydney Woolworths. Two Bankstown women, aged 23 and 60 are charged with affray.

Whilst no injury seems to have been sustained, the same cannot be said of the Morrison government which ends the week reeking of corruption after misleading the senate over changes to its rorted sports grants after it had entered caretaker mode 11 April 2019, whilst former Sports Minister Bridget McKenzie departs from the script by insisting she knows nothing of changes made in her name after caretaker mode commenced.

Sport Australia has refused to answer forty questions, which officials took on notice, effectively denying a senate committee request and failing to meet its Friday deadline. Former Health Department Head, Glenys Beauchamp, did comply but she’s destroyed all of her personal notes following her resignation in January. Genius.

Adding injury to insult, Attorney-General Porter has to be corrected by his own department on his misunderstanding of his own paper tiger DIY federal anti-corruption body he’s been drafting since 2018. Then, from up shit creek, there’s a hullabaloo about all that bushfire crisis money being as scarce as rocking-horse poo. Labor’s Murray Watt makes a convincing case that Scotty’s $2 billion dollar fund doesn’t even exist.

But you can be sure the virus will be made to take the blame for four years of its own, woeful, economic mismanagement. And the welfare of business mates and wealth creators will matter far more than that of households or pensioners or wage and salary earners. And we’ll never stop hearing about how wonderful it is.

And it’ll be no good asking about sports rorts corruption and illegality or anything unconstitutional because the PM’s presser will always be about something else.

via A government reeking of corruption hits the panic button. – » The Australian Independent Media Network

‘A complete forgery’: Martin felt sick when he read the email about the art sale

Orsen Welles film described the secondary world of art as Fake unlike Trump his description had some substance. There is often more in the selling than the art. Andrew Bolt loves this social space  (ODT)

A quick glance at the seller’s business card should have set off alarm bells for clients about to pay thousands of dollars for the artwork she was offering. Not only is her own name spelled incorrectly: “Laura Loiuse Johnson” but she is the director of an art gallery that does not exist.

There is no John Street Galleries in Sydney’s Woollahra, as her business card suggests, and no such business name is recorded with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

‘A complete forgery’: Martin felt sick when he read the email about the art sale

Climate science denialists in tailspin over hottest years: Tony Abbott’s top business advisor Maurice Newman wrongly claimed a UK charity had blamed the deaths of elderly people on renewable energy policies , Maurice Newman, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s top business advisor, thinks human caused climate change is a myth

Maurice Newman, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott's top business advisor, thinks human caused climate change is a myth.

All the recent declarations that 2014 was the hottest year on record seems to have prompted a spate of panic denial among climate change contrarians, denialists and ideologues.

We’ve had a declaration of one of the “most extraordinary scandals of our time” from UK climate science manglers Christopher Booker and James Delingpole.

The accusation is that climate scientists have been “fiddling” the world’s temperature data with the express motivation of showing the world is warmer than it really is.

This was sparked by a blog from a retired accountant and climate sceptic who “discovered” that data from three temperature stations in Paraguay had been altered when NASA compiled its global temperature record.

Fellow Guardian blogger Dana Nuccitelli has a rundown.

But more on this in a bit, because I’d like to turn to the button-down mind of Maurice Newman, Tony Abbott’s handpicked chief business advisor.

Newman, who thinks human-caused climate change is a “myth” and a “delusion”, also bought into the great new conspiracy that climate scientists are fiddling temperature data.

But Newman also decided he would try and pin the deaths of thousands of British pensioners at the feet of renewable energy policies and “political elites” who back action to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Writing in The Australian (where else?), Newman claimed:

It is a fact, according to British charity Age UK, 3.5 million elderly Britons are at risk from winter cold. It is estimated 25,000 “excess winter deaths” across Britain will result from the inability of the poor to afford power because renewable energy policies have driven it beyond reach.

Back in the real world, the poor are dying of the cold while the political elites and their friends bask in the warmth of cosy conferences, taxpayer subsidies and research grants.

Did Age UK really say those excess winter deaths would result from “the inability of the poor to afford power because renewable energy policies have driven it beyond reach”, as Newman claimed?

I sent Newman’s article to Age UK and asked them about this claim. They sent me a statement from the charity’s director Caroline Abrahams. She said:

The sad fact is that many of these deaths could have been prevented. Cold homes, caused by a number of factors including poor insulation and high energy costs, are a major cause of excess winter deaths.

In the short term we would urge all older people to claim the benefits they’re entitled to so they can afford to turn the heating up and stay warm.

However the only long-term solution to this problem is an ambitious government-led programme to bring all our housing up to a high energy efficiency standard.

Notice there’s no mention of “renewable energy policies” which Newman claimed the charity had blamed for driving energy prices higher.
Advertisement

In fact, the charity says the key to reducing the risk of death from cold among pensioners is to improve the energy efficiency of their homes.

Newman is not only misrepresenting the charity’s position, he appears to be making up positions that the charity simply does not hold.

But what about those high energy prices in the UK mentioned by the charity?

Research from the UK’s government-backed Committee on Climate Change found that between 2004 and 2011 the average annual energy bill in the UK went up from £610 to £970.

Only £30 of that £360 increase was due to costs related to low-carbon power generation.

Most of the increase, the analysis said, was down to higher gas prices and network costs (maintaining poles and wires).

In my view, Newman’s attempt to pin the blame for the deaths of UK pensioners on renewable energy policies is either disgustingly dishonest or pathetically sloppy.

Of course this isn’t the first time Maurice Newman has misrepresented research to service his paranoia and conspiracy theories over climate change.

We’ve played this game of whack-a-mole before.
Hottest years and warming trends

In January, analysis of global temperature data from NASA found that 2014 was likely the hottest year on record, although the fine print shows that statistically it tied for first place with 2010 and 2005.

Tying for NASA’s fourth hottest year were 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2013.

According to NASA’s analysis, the 15 warmest years on record have all occurred from 1998 onwards (the year at which many ‘sceptics’ claim, wrongly, that global warming stopped).

The UK’s MetOffice also put 2014 as a tie for the warmest year on record.

The Japanese Meteorological Agency had 2014 as outright warmest, as did the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (there’s a good explainer on different measures of global temperature at NASA’s Earth Matters blog).

Analysis of satellite measurements of the lower troposphere also had 2014 in the top ten warmest years.

As the World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General Michael Jarraud pointed out, the ranking of any individual year isn’t as important as the longer term trend.

Fourteen of the fifteen hottest years have all been this century. We expect global warming to continue, given that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the increasing heat content of the oceans are committing us to a warmer future.

Conspiracy time

All this talk of hottest years put the climate denialist community into a tailspin, with Booker, Delingpole, Newman and others claiming the whole thing was a scam.

Again I’d refer you to Dana Nuccitelli’s analysis. But let’s be absolutely crystal clear about what is being alleged.

The allegation is that climate scientists in agencies across the world are altering temperature data taken by some thermometers and that this alteration is motivated entirely to make it look as though the world has been warming more than it really has.

There is not a shred of evidence for this global conspiracy. There is no secret tape of climate scientists and meteorologists huddled together agreeing how this elaborate scam will be pulled off. No email trail where scientists discuss the records they’ll choose. No grand scam hidden in the methodology.

At the same time, there is more than ample information in the public domain – where it has been for many years – showing how global temperature records are put together from the millions of pieces of data generated by thermometers across the planet on land and floating in oceans.

Neither do these so called ‘sceptics’ (generally they are not sceptics) mention the rapid and accelerating melting of ice sheets at both poles, the heat build up in the world’s oceans or the rising sea levels – all of which are clear signals of a warming planet before you’ve even shot a glance at a thermometer.

What some conservative commentators and bloggers are doing is denying or discarding this information and replacing it with innuendo and a conspiracy theory for which they have no evidence.

The reason there’s no evidence for it is because this conspiracy theory is pathetic and embarrassing bunk.

In August 2014 we saw this exact same evidence-free conspiracy theory play out after Australia experienced its hottest year in the Bureau of Meteorology’s record going back to 1910

The claim then was the same – that scientists had been selectively employing a technique with the deliberate aim of making things appear warmer

Again, it is not a secret that some temperature readings do undergo changes – and those changes can return higher or lower values.

As a NASA spokesperson explained to Media Matters, “the largest adjustment in the global surface temperature record occurs over the oceans” and this “actually lowers global temperature trends”.
Why change data?

But why would you selectively change some data collected by thermometers when you analyse it?

When networks of weather stations were set up around the world, they were not designed to be a long-term record of the climate. Rather, they were there to record the weather from one day to the next.

Let’s say that you have a record of temperature readings from a weather station at, oh I don’t know, Denierville (not an actual place).

In Denierville, temperature readings are written down every day for decades, with only the occasional missing day.

For that temperature to give a true reflection of Denierville’s climate over the decades, you need to know a few things.

For example, was the temperature taken at the same time each day? Was the thermometer always in the same place, or was it moved across town or around the corner in a shadier spot? Have trees or buildings popped up around the thermometer, or have they been taken down?

How about if your thermometer was out in the open air in full sun but sometime ago was placed inside a box or a piece of standard equipment (like a Stevenson Screen), biasing the new temperatures low? Would you allow for that?

What if you want your Denierville temperatures to be part of a network of climate records? Were your thermometers calibrated and checked in the same way as all the others?

Unless you make allowances for things like this, then the raw data you plot on a graph becomes unreliable as a consistent record of Denierville’s climate over time.

What if you plot all the temperatures and notice a jump in the data where things suddenly get hotter or colder?

Do you ignore that, or do you check to see if the thermometer was changed or moved or if other temperature stations in the region also show the same jumps around the same time?

If the other temperature stations don’t show the same jumps, suggesting its not a natural change but something else, what do you do then?

Should scientists just ignore all of this or make an allowance for it?

If you decide to allow for changes like this, are you part of a global conspiracy, or are you just doing solid science?

As climate scientist Professor Neville Nicholls explained to me last year:

A scientist can’t ignore those effects. It’s not science to just go ahead and plot that raw data.

But what if you did plot the raw data anyway?

A member of the team of global temperature analysts at Berkeley Earth, Zeke Hausfather, was curious.

Does it confirm the suspicions of the climate science denialists? I’ll let you decide.