Hitler, Climategate, and the carbon tax
mark
the hottest development in global warming since the climate started to
cool.
OG
"mark" <save.th...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ce4b679c-deb1-447f...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
'started to cool' LOL!
mark
> In article <7p7shqFnp...@mid.individual.net>, OG
> <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> writes
>
> >"mark" <save.the.eag...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> last Ice Age began :-))
>
> But not much to do with birdwatching in the UK, so I apologise for
> continuing an OT thread!
>
> --
> Malcolm
It has plenty to do with birdwatching, since you pretend that the
climate is warming and will cause countless extinctions.
Will global cooling cause extinctions too ? An Ice Age sure would,
whereas warming would be in fact beneficial. But with the likes of Al
Gore, Michael Mann and Phil Jones, science has become a political
instrument. And so has ornithology, I´m afraid.
Mark
John M.
> On 21 Dec, 08:48, Malcolm <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <7p7shqFnp...@mid.individual.net>, OG
> > <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> writes
>
> > >"mark" <save.the.eag...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:ce4b679c-deb1-447f...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> > >> To enjoy this video, you need to know a few things about Climategate,
> > >> the hottest development in global warming since the climate started to
> > >> cool.
>
> > >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8O-E_GN0Kg
>
> > >'started to cool' LOL!
>
> > Quite. I really do doubt that it is the "hottest development" since the
> > last Ice Age began :-))
>
> > But not much to do with birdwatching in the UK, so I apologise for
> > continuing an OT thread!
>
> > --
> > Malcolm
>
> It has plenty to do with birdwatching, since you pretend that the
> climate is warming and will cause countless extinctions.
Nobody is "pretending" anything. Careful, painstaking, plodding,
thoughtful people called scientists, thousands of them, have
ascertained that it is indeed warming. They have also determined that
it is due to a number of causes. One of which - an important one - is
human activity.
Live with it.
mark
> Nobody is "pretending" anything. Careful, painstaking, plodding,
> thoughtful people called scientists, thousands of them, have
> ascertained that it is indeed warming. They have also determined that
> it is due to a number of causes. One of which - an important one - is
> human activity.
>
> Live with it.
"Thousands of them" is a misrepresentation.
Here is what John McLean ( a climate data analyst based in Melbourne,
Australia ) and Tom Harris ( Ottawa-based Executive Director of the
International Climate Science Coalition ) have to say about that :
(excerpt )
" An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the
frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to
support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG
I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most
of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”
In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this
statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and
Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62
reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected
by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55
had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who
appear impartial."
full article here : http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968
Mark Duchamp
John M.
> On 23 Dec, 18:12, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Nobody is "pretending" anything. Careful, painstaking, plodding,
> > thoughtful people called scientists, thousands of them, have
> > ascertained that it is indeed warming. They have also determined that
> > it is due to a number of causes. One of which - an important one - is
> > human activity.
>
> > Live with it.
>
> "Thousands of them" is a misrepresentation.
Err... no. You only need to google an appropriate search phrase to get
a list of websites with titles of peer-reviewed publications. Then
start counting the names. You'll get well past a thousand without too
much skipping from duplication.
> Here is what John McLean ( a climate data analyst based in Melbourne,
> Australia ) and Tom Harris ( Ottawa-based Executive Director of the
> International Climate Science Coalition ) have to say about that :
> (excerpt )
>
> " An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the
> frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to
> support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG
> I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most
> of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”
>
> In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this
> statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and
> Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62
> reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected
> by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55
> had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who
> appear impartial."
>
> full article here : http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968
What has denialist cant got to do with the fact that cutting-edge
research is being carried out in field and laboratories by dedicated,
active scientists worldwide - thousands of them?
John M.
> John M. <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
>
>
> >On Dec 23, 8:49 pm, mark <save.the.eag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 23 Dec, 18:12, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> > Nobody is "pretending" anything. Careful, painstaking, plodding,
> >> > thoughtful people called scientists, thousands of them, have
> >> > ascertained that it is indeed warming. They have also determined that
> >> > it is due to a number of causes. One of which - an important one - is
> >> > human activity.
>
> >> > Live with it.
>
> >> "Thousands of them" is a misrepresentation.
>
> >Err... no. You only need to google an appropriate search phrase to get
> >a list of websites with titles of peer-reviewed publications. Then
> >start counting the names. You'll get well past a thousand without too
> >much skipping from duplication.
>
> >> Here is what John McLean ( a climate data analyst based in Melbourne,
> >> Australia ) and Tom Harris ( Ottawa-based Executive Director of the
> >> International Climate Science Coalition ) have to say about that :
> >> (excerpt )
>
> >What has denialist cant got to do with the fact that cutting-edge
> >research is being carried out in field and laboratories by dedicated,
> >active scientists worldwide - thousands of them?
>
> has a very cogent article in it:
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7276/full/nature08649.html
>
> And, of course, the evidence of global warming so clearly demonstrated
> by earlier migration arrivals by birds, earlier breeding seasons and
> gradual northward range expansions in the northern hemisphere (evidenced
> by lareg and growing numbers of published papers) are without
> explanation by global warming deniers.
Indeed. How are Scotland's Reed Warbler and Nuthatch doing and will
Cetti's Warbler and Little Egret soon follow? How long before the
first breeding Cattle Egret in UK or Ireland?
If I'd asked these Qs fifty years ago I'd have been labelled a nutter.
Of course, I have been labelled a nutter more times than you can shake
a stick at, but not for asking these Qs.
mark
> John M. <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >> On 23 Dec, 18:12, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> > Nobody is "pretending" anything. Careful, painstaking, plodding,
> >> > thoughtful people called scientists, thousands of them, have
> >> > ascertained that it is indeed warming. They have also determined that
> >> > it is due to a number of causes. One of which - an important one - is
> >> > human activity.
>
> >> > Live with it.
>
> >> "Thousands of them" is a misrepresentation.
>
> >Err... no. You only need to google an appropriate search phrase to get
> >a list of websites with titles of peer-reviewed publications. Then
> >start counting the names. You'll get well past a thousand without too
> >much skipping from duplication.
>
> >> Here is what John McLean ( a climate data analyst based in Melbourne,
> >> Australia ) and Tom Harris ( Ottawa-based Executive Director of the
> >> International Climate Science Coalition ) have to say about that :
> >> (excerpt )
>
> >What has denialist cant got to do with the fact that cutting-edge
> >research is being carried out in field and laboratories by dedicated,
> >active scientists worldwide - thousands of them?
>
> has a very cogent article in it:
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7276/full/nature08649.html
>
> And, of course, the evidence of global warming so clearly demonstrated
> by earlier migration arrivals by birds, earlier breeding seasons and
> gradual northward range expansions in the northern hemisphere (evidenced
> by lareg and growing numbers of published papers) are without
> explanation by global warming deniers.
>
> Malcolm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Scientists paid to write reports demonstrating global warming do not
produce good science. They only produce what will ensure they stay on
the gravy train of research funding. And if it has to be misleading
science in order to please the politicians who dish out the money,
then this is what we get.
Honest scientists who tell it like it is get sidelined, blacklisted,
and labelled as "deniers".
Science has become politic : dogma trumps evidence as in the dark
ages.
Authors of bad science have no trouble finding scientists willing to
rubber stamp peer review them, for billions in research money are made
available every year to climatologists and other specialists. And to
get a piece of the action, they must show that they "believe" in
global warming, and this means writing or peer reviewing reports and
articles that stick to the dogma.
The same applies to ornithologists and windfarms. This explains the
cover up about the death of eagles and other protected birds around
the world :
www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1875
Climategate has shown how such scientists will cherry pick data to
prove that global warming is real, and manipulate graphs, silence
dissenters, and finally destroy their raw data so that no one can
prove their fraud.
Science has been tarnished by their shameful behaviour.
History is also being rewritten, so as to make the Medieval Warm
Period disappear from the records. It was indeed embarrassing for the
warmists to be confronted with evidence that the climate was
substantially warmer one thousand years ago ( when Vikings led by Erik
the Red founded a colony on Greenland - whose south shores were green
then. They had to leave 300 years later when the planet's climate
cooled ).
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119745
So, how do we keep a cool head amidst all this global warming hysteria
based on fraud and bad science ? Well, the best way is to look at
first hand evidence. Has the sea level been rising on a seashore
familiar to you ? Are the winters really mild, or do we have early
snow and bitter cold temperatures ? Are the summers too hot, or are
they wet and miserable ?
Another way is to look at the weather in the rest of the world. The
media, and Internet, can help us do that. Here is an interesting
example :
http://www.iceagenow.com/
The important thing is to realise that we can no longer trust climate
science on these things : huge amounts of money have corrupted it.
And so they have ornithology where windfarms and global warming are
concerned.
Mark
John M.
> John M. <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
>
>
> >Indeed. How are Scotland's Reed Warbler and Nuthatch doing and will
> >Cetti's Warbler and Little Egret soon follow?
>
> white. It is for camouflage in the snow :-)
>
> >How long before the
> >first breeding Cattle Egret in UK or Ireland?
>
Oh...really. I missed that one. Or forgot it!!
> >If I'd asked these Qs fifty years ago I'd have been labelled a nutter.
> >Of course, I have been labelled a nutter more times than you can shake
> >a stick at, but not for asking these Qs.
>
> Of *course* not.
John M.
>
> So, how do we keep a cool head amidst all this global warming hysteria
> based on fraud and bad science ? Well, the best way is to look at
> first hand evidence. Has the sea level been rising on a seashore
> familiar to you ? Are the winters really mild, or do we have early
> snow and bitter cold temperatures ? Are the summers too hot, or are
> they wet and miserable ?
>
> Another way is to look at the weather in the rest of the world. The
> media, and Internet, can help us do that.
Good idea. Here's the data that show November 2009 was the warmest
since records began.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
So much for denialists like you with your "global cooling"
Here is an interesting
> example :http://www.iceagenow.com/
Very interesting as it prints lies such as this:
This oped has not a single piece of data in it, hardly surprising as
it is totally wrong and the author must know it. I've heard of lying
for Jebus is common, but lying for Exxon is rapidly overhauling it.
> The important thing is to realise that we can no longer trust climate
> science on these things : huge amounts of money have corrupted it.
That would appear to be true when you see the money flowing from
Evangelicals into the Heartland Institute, Global Warming Policy
Foundation, etc., etc. Now minor climatologists stuck in the rut as
office juniors have got the chance to advance themselves. All they
need is a Ph.D. from any old university in any vaguely scientific
discipline ,plus a willingness to sell their integrity.
> And so they have ornithology where windfarms and global warming are
> concerned.
If windfarms are your target, stick with that. Climate change is a
strawman and you will never gain the ear of important players
concerning bird kills at turbines if you go down that route.
mark
>
> This oped has not a single piece of data in it, hardly surprising as
> it is totally wrong and the author must know it. I've heard of lying
> for Jebus is common, but lying for Exxon is rapidly overhauling it.
>
> > The important thing is to realise that we can no longer trust climate
> > science on these things : huge amounts of money have corrupted it.
>
> That would appear to be true when you see the money flowing from
> Evangelicals into the Heartland Institute, Global Warming Policy
> Foundation, etc., etc. Now minor climatologists stuck in the rut as
> office juniors have got the chance to advance themselves. All they
> need is a Ph.D. from any old university in any vaguely scientific
> discipline ,plus a willingness to sell their integrity.
>
> > And so they have ornithology where windfarms and global warming are
> > concerned.
>
> If windfarms are your target, stick with that. Climate change is a
> strawman and you will never gain the ear of important players
>
> - Show quoted text -
Funding from Exxon and other lobbies against the Climate Fraud is 2
orders of magnitude smaller than funding from the UN, the US, the UK,
France, Germany etc. in favour of it.
Is a scientist more credible according to where the money comes from ?
In my book, a scientist is credible if he doesn't manipulate or
destroy embarrassing data, as CRU scientists did. Just as an
ornithologist is credible if he doesn't cover up birdkills at
windfarms, as is being done in Scotland, in the UK, in France, just
about everywhere. There's money in it !
I wrote a number of articles on this scandal. Try this one :
The Shame of Scotland
www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3426
And here's an EXCELLENT video that sums it all up very well :
http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=EAV7NHZcEcY
DON'T MISS IT !
About your remark : "Climate change is a strawman and you will never
gain the ear of important players concerning bird kills at turbines if
you go down that route"
Good of you to admit AGW is a "strawman".
BTW, I tried to get the " important players' " ear for 7 years,
without success.
As the saying goes : there's no one so blind as he who doesn't want to
see.
Malcolm should know : he is one of them (ornithological adviser to SNH
- watch him nitpick on this... He is also the top nitpicker on all
bird forums, that's his tactic to avoid talking about the substance of
criticisms against him - I know him very well, after years of boxing
with his shadow - how else do you box with a systematic dodger, who
even gets his emails eraced after 6 days to cover his tracks ? ).
You also said this : " Here's the data that show November 2009 was the
warmest since records began".
When did these records begin? A mere one hundred years ago ? It was
warmer 1000 years ago !
They tried to erace the Medieval Warm Period, remember, when
temperatures were warmer, WITHOUT HUMAN INFLUENCE.
- Do a Google on "Climategate" , you'll get an education about what
has been going on with these climate crooks.
Also this : http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119745
Mark
John M.
> orders of magnitude smaller than funding from the UN, the US, the UK,
> France, Germany etc. in favour of it.
Are you brain damaged, or what. Don't you understand that the last
thing government wants to hear is that there is a problem with the
climate. They fund research to discover the extent of the problem, and
the very last thing they want to hear is that it is bigger than we
imagine.
> Is a scientist more credible according to where the money comes from ?
> In my book, a scientist is credible if he doesn't manipulate or
> destroy embarrassing data, as CRU scientists did.
That's a pretty damming accusation, for which you offer no shred of
evidence. I hope you have a good lawyer should the victims of your
"gossip" decide to sue, as I hope they will.
Just as an
> ornithologist is credible if he doesn't cover up birdkills at
> windfarms, as is being done in Scotland, in the UK, in France, just
> about everywhere. There's money in it !
>
> I wrote a number of articles on this scandal. Try this one :
> The Shame of Scotlandwww.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3426
>
> And here's an EXCELLENT video that sums it all up very well :http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=EAV7NHZcEcY
> DON'T MISS IT !
>
> About your remark : "Climate change is a strawman and you will never
> gain the ear of important players concerning bird kills at turbines if
> you go down that route"
>
> Good of you to admit AGW is a "strawman".
It's your strawman. I merely identified you promulgating it. It still
has nothing to do with bird kill at turbines about which I am, like
you, very upset. Particularly as my local pair of Golden Eagles has
disappeared.
> BTW, I tried to get the " important players' " ear for 7 years,
> without success.
> As the saying goes : there's no one so blind as he who doesn't want to
> see.
>
> Malcolm should know : he is one of them (ornithological adviser to SNH
> - watch him nitpick on this... He is also the top nitpicker on all
> bird forums, that's his tactic to avoid talking about the substance of
> criticisms against him - I know him very well, after years of boxing
> with his shadow - how else do you box with a systematic dodger, who
> even gets his emails eraced after 6 days to cover his tracks ? ).
>
> You also said this : " Here's the data that show November 2009 was the
> warmest since records began".
> When did these records begin? A mere one hundred years ago ? It was
> warmer 1000 years ago !
There were no records 1000 years ago, so we only have proxies. These
have very wide margins of confidence associated with the temperatures
quoted.
> They tried to erace the Medieval Warm Period, remember, when
> temperatures were warmer, WITHOUT HUMAN INFLUENCE.
> - Do a Google on "Climategate" , you'll get an education about what
> has been going on with these climate crooks.
> Also this : http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119745
It has been over 5 weeks since the story broke, and absolutely nothing
at all has been found to suggest wrongdoing. You'd better hope that
lawyer of yours is up to snuff if you keep on libelling these people.
mark
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Brain damaged, me ?
People who resort to ad hominem do so because they have lost the
argument.
Ciao baby !
And get an education : Climategate is all over the internet.
Have a happy new year with your head in the sand.
Mark
Turnstone
<5eb7ee5a-cabc-4458...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, mark
<save.th...@gmail.com> writes
>On 29 Dec, 21:49, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 11:13�pm, mark <save.the.eag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 26 Dec, 18:44, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Dec 25, 9:30�pm, mark <save.the.eag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On 25 Dec, 13:38, Malcolm <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > In article
>> > > > > <1d9c6d3a-7966-447e-8873-ae22ed70e...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>> > > > > John M. <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>>
>> > > > > >On Dec 23, 8:49�pm, mark <save.the.eag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > >> On 23 Dec, 18:12, "John M."
>> > > > > >><john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > >> > Nobody is "pretending" anything. Careful, painstaking, plodding,
>> > > > > >> > thoughtful people called scientists, thousands of them, have
>> > > > > >> > ascertained that it is indeed warming. They have also
>> > > > > >> >determined that
>> > > > > >> > it is due to a number of causes. One of which - an
>> > > > > >> >important one - is
>> > > > > >> > human activity.
>>
>> > > > > >> > Live with it.
>>
>> > > > > >> "Thousands of them" is a misrepresentation.
>>
>> > > > > >Err... no. You only need to google an appropriate search
>> > > > > >phrase to get
>> > > > > >a list of websites with titles of peer-reviewed publications. Then
>> > > > > >st
>
>Brain damaged, me ?
>
>People who resort to ad hominem do so because they have lost the
>argument.
>
>Ciao baby !
>
>And get an education : Climategate is all over the internet.
>
>Have a happy new year with your head in the sand.
>
>Mark
Total mental constipation coupled with literary diarrhoea and
conceptual blindness is a dangerous combination. Poor eagles need a
coherent champion. Really fed up with your various ravings, Mark. Plonk!
--
Turnstone
John M.
> In message
The really sad thing is that there are hundreds if not thousands of
people like Mark - clueless about everything, but seeing a bandwagon
cannot resist the urge to jump on it. As you say, with Mark as their
champion, eagles have no chance.
John M.
> On 29 Dec, 21:49, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 28, 11:13 pm, mark <save.the.eag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 26 Dec, 18:44, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
<snip of a load of redundant stuff>
>
> > > They tried to erace the Medieval Warm Period, remember, when
> > > temperatures were warmer, WITHOUT HUMAN INFLUENCE.
> > > - Do a Google on "Climategate" , you'll get an education about what
> > > has been going on with these climate crooks.
> > > Also this : http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119745
>
> > It has been over 5 weeks since the story broke, and absolutely nothing
> > at all has been found to suggest wrongdoing. You'd better hope that
> > lawyer of yours is up to snuff if you keep on libelling these people.
> Brain damaged, me ?
Yes, you. It screams at me from every line you post.
> People who resort to ad hominem do so because they have lost the
> argument.
Quote Mark,
"Now you see it, now you don't. The Ogilvie bird is out : he delivered
his song, but is ensuring it is not taped, for people might check him
for consistencies later on, when he changes tack. He doesn't answer
questions either : that too could lead to evidence of inconsistency in
his arguments."
This explains the yellow warning at the beginning of his message :
"Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
This message will be removed from Groups in 3 days (11 Oct, 21:01). "
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.birdwatching/msg/c856d4169bb4102e
Yes, Mark, you lost the argument by creating a real ad hominem.
> Ciao baby !
>
> And get an education : Climategate is all over the internet.
Yet it isn't in the courts, which would tell one who isn't brain
damaged something.
> Have a happy new year with your head in the sand.
Err... isn't that ad hominem? Now, what was it you were saying about
ad homs....
Michael J Davis
>People who resort to ad hominem do so because they have lost the
>argument.
>
>
>Have a happy new year with your head in the sand.
QED!
--
Michael J Davis
<><
"It gets real lonely as a moderate activist, standing there
alone with a sign that reads, 'Reasonable informed discussion
of the issues as soon as feasible!' " -- David Brake
<><
John M.
> mark <save.the.eag...@gmail.com> was inspired to say
>
> >People who resort to ad hominem do so because they have lost the
> >argument.
>
> ...
>
> >Have a happy new year with your head in the sand.
>
> QED!
You know, Michael, it can quickly become inextricably difficult trying
to explain to a total twerp why he, or she, is one. But good luck with
that anyway ;-)
HNY to all.
mark
> <save.the.eag...@gmail.com> writes
>
> - Show quoted text -
As I said : insults are no substitute for argument.
Mark
mark
>
> - Show quoted text -
The eagles may have few chances with me, but they have even less
chances with you. When is the last time you wrote a complaint to
Brussels about the windfarms projects targetting Scotland's top eagle
habitats at Eisgein, Pairc, Edinbane, Ben Aketil etc. where they will
kill hundreds of eagles over the years.
These are projects that your friend Ogilvie supports and protects. By
supporting him you are an accomplice in the crime.
As for jumping on a bandwagon, you seem to forget you are cheerleading
on the global warming puppet show, where a Nobel peace price was
awarded to the author of a scientifically misleading movie, and
another to a warmonger.
Mark
John M.
Ben Stein got a Nobel for "Expelled"? I never knew that
> and another to a warmonger.
Blair got a Nobel for ignoring intelligence reports.?I never knew
that.
mark
>
> - Show quoted text -
Salmond should receive the Nobel Peace prize too : he plans to create
20,000 green jobs.
This reminds me of the Spanish experience with green jobs :
WHAT HAPPENED TO SPAIN’S GREEN JOBS?
NC Media Watch, 4 January 2010
<http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/2010/01/what-happened-to-spains-
green-jobs.html>
Russ Steele
The Sunday San Francisco Chronicle Business section has this story on
unemployment soaring among Spain's youth by Nelson D. Schwartz, New
York Times. As you will recall, Spain was on the forefront of going
green. While Spain has traditionally suffered from relatively high
unemployment, double the 9.8 percent average for the European Union,
but the sharpest increase has been among young people. It has jumped
from 17.5 percent three years ago to the current 42.9 percent.
Unemployment soars among Spain's youth
"Like hundreds of thousands of other young people, Jesus Pesquero
Penas dropped out of school to go to work when the Spanish economy was
booming. But since he was laid off from his construction job two years
ago, he has been living on unemployment benefits. Now Penas finds
himself part of a lost generation in Spain, where unemployment among
people ages 16-24 is 42.9 percent, the highest in Europe, and more
than double the overall rate."
Where are all the promised green jobs? How could this happen when
Spain was on the leading edge in the EU to convert to a sustainable
life style free from their oil addiction, by adopting wind and solar
power. California Governor has often pointed to Spain as a example for
California to follow.
"Adding to Spain's woes, its government is unable to inject more
stimulus and offer further support for job creation while its economy
languishes as one of the weakest in Europe. The outlook on Spanish
sovereign debt was recently downgraded, and the government is moving
to raise taxes and cut spending."
As I have written before, every green job in Spain created through
government subsidies resulted in the loss of 2.5 jobs in the regular
economic sectors. Details here. Though not mentioned in the NYT
article one has to wonder how much going green contributed to the job
losses in the youth sector?
"In part, Spain is paying the price for its efforts to make it easier
to put young people to work. In recent years, a disproportionate share
of Spanish youth were employed on temporary contracts. So they were
the easiest to lay off when the economy sank, said Alfonso Prieto,
deputy director general of employment studies at the Ministry of Labor
and Social Affairs."
Again, one has to ask were those temporary employment contracts funded
with government subsidies for green jobs? Will the same happen in
California, if we create job with government subsidies? We have one of
the highest unemployment rates in the nation and the Governor is
seeking green subsidies a Federal bailout? We should all be aware of
the Spanish experience.