Bread Causes Global Warming
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAThttps://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com
By Paul Homewood
h/t Dave Ward
We have already been told we should not eat meat, as this contributes to global warming.
Now according to the EDP, we can’t eat bread either!
I wonder what they expect us to eat then. Cake?
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT http://ift.tt/16C5B6P
March 1, 2017 at 09:15PM
Climate Change will suck the flavour from your daily bread
via JoNovahttp://joannenova.com.au
Climate Change threatens to make bread less tasty
Over at The Conversation the panic is rising. Life is not going to be the same. Get ready for the bland future — if we stop all plant breeding tomorrow, and don’t change our fertilizers at all, it possible, by 2050, in dry years, wheat may have a 6% decrease in protein.
It’s that serious.
Everyone likes the high protein kind of wheat, and it’s worth more. Glenn Fitzgerald, at The Conversation argues that Australian wheat is going to be lower in protein, and downgraded, making us less competitive and our farmers poorer. (Cynics among us note that authors at The Conversation only seem to care about farmers when climate change might hurt them, not when climate-change-action actually sends them broke, makes them homeless or puts them in jail. Y’know — whatever.)
As for Australia’s export earnings, I say, forgive me, but I thought the CO2 elevation was a global thing — so unless we are competing with aliens and intergalactic wheat, color me unconcerned. All the wheat producers on Earth will be dealing with the same issue.
How to make a good thing sound bad
The bottom line in biology is […]
via JoNova http://ift.tt/1hXVl6V
March 1, 2017 at 08:51PM
The rise (and fall?) of instant distinction
via Climate Scepticismhttp://cliscep.com
Increasingly, the middle classes rely on super-inflated distinction as a solution to political and economic hardships. But the bubble might be bursting. There can’t be many now who’ve never heard of Milo. So as you probably know he just got in trouble again, but this time big trouble, losing a book deal and job as a […]
via Climate Scepticism http://cliscep.com
March 1, 2017 at 08:39PM
Groupthink Rife In British Academia: Increased Risk Of Systematic Bias In Science
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)http://www.thegwpf.com
People with right-wing and conservative views are underrepresented in British universities, making up less than 12% of academics, even though 50% of the general public vote for right-wing parties, risking systematic biases in scholarship.
The paper offers a number of explanations for how the world of academia has become so homogenous, discrediting the notion that smarter people are uniformly more left wing—in fact, the top 5% of intelligence is split along roughly the same political lines as the population at large.
Studies from the US reveal that conservative academics are discriminated against in grant reviews and hiring decisions, and more than 80% of conservative academics feel that there is a hostile climate towards their beliefs at work.
The report warns that without more ideological diversity in academia, the rejection of left-liberal values will increasingly equate to denying objective facts. It may also cause a right-wing backlash, with right-leaning governments defunding universities they see as ideological opponents rather than apolitical scholars.
Further adverse consequence of ideological homogeneity include the curtailing of free speech on campus, with 90% of British universities censoring speech in some form last year; biased research with areas deemed politically unpalatable ignored, mischaracterized and angrily expostulated; and skewed teaching, with economic textbooks already giving market failure six times as much coverage as government failure and only half recognising its presence at all.
The report urges universities to commit to ideological diversity with the same fervour they commit to gender, class and race diversity, and asks that academics be alert to double standards and the risk of bias in their work, embracing adversarial collaborations within the field. An increasingly homogenous academy, it warns, will lose the trust of the public and the right wing governments funding its research.
Ben Southwood, Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute, said: “Conservatives have left the academy. You find a fair few libertarians—people with economically right-wing but socially liberal views—but hardly any who admit to being socially conservative.
“In principle, political views shouldn’t affect good scholarship, and it probably doesn’t matter if all our physicists are communists—unless they are passing nuclear secrets to foreign powers. But we should be less sanguine if all sociologists or anthropologists are, as they seem to be, there are obvious ways their views could infect their scholarship.
“No one is suggesting quotas, but we should be mindful of too much intellectual homogeneity. As John Stuart Mill pointed out, we need to air views in order to find out what’s true.”
Noah Carl, author of the report and researcher at Nuffield College, Oxford, said: “It cannot have escaped the notice of anyone who has spent time in British academia, especially in the social sciences and humanities, that there is a sizable left-liberal skew. One rarely encounters a fellow academic who supports the Conservatives, and I have never met one who supports UKIP.
“While differences in personality and interests appear to explain some of the left-liberal skew, discrimination may also be a factor. Moreover, growing evidence from the empirical literature indicates that the academy’s sizable left-liberal skew has had an adverse impact on scholarship.
“Universities are supposed to be places where perspectives are challenged, arguments are picked apart, and all ideas are up for discussion. This ideal is very difficult to achieve when the vast majority of scholars adhere to the same ideological precepts.”
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com
March 1, 2017 at 08:29PM
Iowa Climate Science Education 