Mount Etna: BBC crew caught up in volcano blast 

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
http://ift.tt/1WIzElD

Mount Etna, Sicily

Etna is known to be very active but this may have been an unusually large eruption by its own standards.

A BBC team and a number of tourists have suffered minor injuries after being caught up in an incident on the erupting volcano Mount Etna in Sicily, reports BBC News.

“Many injured – some head injuries, burns, cuts and bruises,” tweeted BBC science reporter Rebecca Morelle. Lava flow mixed with steam had caused a huge explosion, which pelted the group with boiling rocks and steam, she said.

About eight people had been injured, with some evacuated from the mountain by rescue teams, she added.

“BBC team all ok – some cuts/ bruises and burns. Very shaken though – it was extremely scary,” she relayed in one of a series of tweets as she ran down the mountain.

The BBC reporter said a volcanologist at the scene told her it was the most dangerous incident he had experienced in his 30-year-career.

She said a guide had suffered a dislocated shoulder, while a 78-year-old woman had been very close to the blast, but managed to get away safely.

Members of the group ran away from the blast, trying to reach the safety of a snow mobile, she added.
. . .
The Catania operation centre of Italy’s volcanology institute confirmed that three of its volcanologists had been on the mountain when the explosion took place, and said some had suffered injuries, but gave no detail.

Mount Etna, which is Europe’s tallest active volcano, spewed lava up into the sky in the early hours of Thursday morning, for the third time in three weeks.

Full report: Mount Etna: BBC crew caught up in volcano blast – BBC News

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop http://ift.tt/1WIzElD

March 16, 2017 at 09:09AM

The Bolt Report

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

By Paul Homewood

The admirable Andrew Bolt has the latest on South Australia’s energy crisis.

Well worth watching for 5 minutes:

http://ift.tt/2mz4rC0

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

March 16, 2017 at 07:24AM

A Particularly Troublesome Aspect of Climate Alarmism

via Carlin Economics and Science
http://ift.tt/1gVT2t3

Last week EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt stated that:

“I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”

I can only applaud Pruitt’s thoughtful comments. But in fact there is not just uncertainty as Pruitt said, but actual evidence that there are no significant effects of rising human-caused emissions or atmospheric CO₂ levels on global temperatures. The Climate-Industrial Complex (CIC) has responded to Pruitt’s comments with all its usual propaganda concerning 97% of scientists, sea level rise, scientific “consensus,” etc., all of which are either incorrect, misleading, or irrelevant to the CIC’s assertion that human activity is the primary contributor to global warming.

The Particularly Troublesome Aspect

The CIC response suggests what a serious problem the CIC has created by its climate alarmist propaganda. They have told the public, politicians, and the press that “global warming” (alias “climate change”) is primarily due to human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide, and that if this continues at current levels that this will result in catastrophic global warming. Since carbon dioxide from human sources comes primarily from human use of energy, they claim that such use must be restricted if not ended.

There are many problems with this argument. First, most CO₂ originates primarily from sources other than humans. Second, the CIC has never proven that this hypothesis is valid science even though they are the ones arguing for huge public expenditures to implement their desired policies. Third, climate skeptics have shown that every alarmist argument is contradicted by science. Fourth, a recent study concludes that the basic alarmist hypothesis is scientifically incorrect by showing that increases in atmospheric CO₂ levels have no statistically significant effect on global temperatures. Fifth, the governmental actions the CIC proposes would have no measurable effect on global warming, and probably none at all, at a very high cost to taxpayers and ratepayers, particularly less well-to-do ones.

The Underlying Cause

The major problem arises from the fact that the CIC has been making scientifically invalid statements about climate for decades and is unwilling to admit that they have been wrong. Unfortunately, this misleading propaganda has persuaded many people, particularly Democrats in blue states. These attempts to mislead the public may well have huge adverse effects on the climate issue, the future of blue/red politics, public trust in the press and public officials, serious damage to the economy and the environment, and even whether science will continue to be judged by using the scientific method. But how can there be a rational discussion of what is basically a scientific issue given the overwhelming level of misinformation promulgated by the CIC? This has to be one of the very unfortunate effects of the CIC’s long campaign to promote climate alarmism. There is a great need to find a solution, but it will be very difficult.

Pruitt has made an important beginning, but much more unequivocal statements from public officials together with references to the abundant evidence available for it will be needed if decades of misleading CIC propaganda are to be overcome.

via Carlin Economics and Science http://ift.tt/1gVT2t3

March 16, 2017 at 06:42AM

Climate-Dollar bragging is over: funding goes underground to avoid “climate-axe”.

via JoNova
http://ift.tt/1hXVl6V

Once upon a time governments bragged about how much they spent on “climate change”. Every Climate Quiz or tin-pot-program to insulate a chicken-run was wrapped under the Climate Action banner so that politicians could claim they were saving the world. Nowadays voters have voted for the guy who called it a hoax,  and the funding’s gone underground because he was going to boast about how much climate funding he’d cut.

When I wrote Climate Money in 2009, a lot of the spending was already documented, under the Climate Change Science Program or by the GAO. How times have changed.

To Protect Climate Money, Obama Stashed It Where It’s Hard to Find

 President Donald Trump will find the job of reining in spending on climate initiatives made harder by an Obama-era policy of dispersing billions of dollars in programs across dozens of agencies — in part so they couldn’t easily be cut.

Climate change is so important that no one even estimates what the government spends on it:

The last time the Congressional Research Service estimated total federal spending on climate was in 2013. It concluded 18 agencies had climate-related activities, and calculated $77 billion in spending […]

via JoNova http://ift.tt/1hXVl6V

March 16, 2017 at 06:22AM