The United Kingdom’s House of Lords are an unlikely bunch to be bundled under the banner of “alarmist” or even “warmist”. Nevertheless their Select Committee on the Arctic has just published a report entitled “Responding to a Changing Arctic“, and in this video the chairman of that committee, Lord Teverson, briefly outlines their findings:
Note that he starts by saying that:
Absolutely the obvious thing first of all is that with the temperatures going up [in the Arctic] at twice the rate of the rest of the world the thing that everybody is seeing is reduction in sea ice which has reduced quite substantially over recent years, and of course a lot of the Arctic is land and we have the melting ice on Greenland particularly, which is causing sea level rises in the rest of the world.
In order to get that message across the committee has also produced the following infographic:
which shows how the temperature over land has been increasing whilst the sea ice extent in the Arctic has been declining. The committee have also made all the learned evidence they received whilst producing their report publicly available. Professor Andy Shepherd from the University of Leeds told the committee that:
The majority of sea ice changes witnessed in “the past 50 or 60 years” could be attributed to greenhouse gas emissions and their effect on temperatures in the Arctic region.
and:
Suggested that the length of the solar melt season had increased by around five days per decade, causing additional melting and retreat of the ice.
How strange then, that David Rose made no mention of any of this when reporting Prof. Shepherd’s views in his “Myth of Arctic meltdown” article of August 31st 2014?
How strange also, that Christopher Booker maintained in his “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever” article of February 8th 2015 that:
The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.
Regular readers will recall that we recently sent The Telegraph a lesson or two about global surface temperature “adjustments”, both of which included “a video by a scientist who has studied such matters”. It seems nobody at The Telegraph, and particularly Christopher Booker, bothered to watch it or do the homework assignments. The stated view of Jess McAree, Head of Editorial Compliance at the Telegraph Media Group, is that:
Only the most egregious inaccuracy could be significantly misleading.
We therefore take great pleasure in welcoming Dr. Kevin Cowtan from the University of York, the “scientist” mentioned above, who has kindly allowed us to reprint an article of his originally published at Skeptical Science. Please read on below the fold, and don’t forget to do your homework!
There has been a vigorous discussion of weather station calibration adjustments in the media over the past few weeks. While these adjustments don’t have a big effect on the global temperature record, they are needed to obtain consistent local records from equipment which has changed over time. Despite this, the Telegraph has produced two highly misleading stories about the station adjustments, the second including the demonstrably false claim that they are responsible for the recent rapid warming of the Arctic.
In the following video I show why this claim is wrong. But more importantly, I demonstrate three tools to allow you to test claims like this for yourself.
The central error in the Telegraph story is the attribution of Arctic warming (and somehow sea ice loss) to weather station adjustments. This conclusion is based on a survey of two dozen weather stations. But you can of course demonstrate anything you want by cherry picking your data, in this case in the selection of stations. The solution to cherry picking is to look at all of the relevant data – in this case all of the station records in the Arctic and surrounding region. I downloaded both the raw and adjusted temperature records from NOAA, and took the difference to determine the adjustments which had been applied. Then I calculated the trend in the adjustment averaged over the stations in each grid cell on the globe, to determine whether the adjustments were increasing or decreasing the temperature trend. The results are shown for the last 50 and 100 years in the following two figures:
Trend in weather station adjustments over the period 1965-2014, averaged by grid cell. Warm colours show upwards adjustments over time, cold colour downwards. For cells with less than 50 years of data, the trend is over the available period.
Trend in weather station adjustments over the period 1915-2014, averaged by grid cell. Warm colours show upwards adjustments over time, cold colour downwards. For cells with less than 100 years of data, the trend is over the available period.
In the video I demonstrate three tools which are useful in understanding and evaluating temperature adjustments:
A GHCN (global historical climatology network) station report browser. GHCN provide graphical reports on the adjustments made to each station record, but you need to know the station ID to find them. I have created an interactive map to make this easier.
The majority of cells show no significant adjustment. The largest adjustments are in the high Arctic, but are downwards, i.e. they reduce the warming trend. This is the opposite of what is claimed in the Telegraph story. You can check these stations using the GHCN station browser.
The upward adjustments to the Iceland stations, referred to in the Telegraph, predate the late 20th century warming. They occur mostly in the 1960’s, so they only appear in the centennial map. Berkeley Earth show a rather different pattern of adjustments for these stations.
Iceland is a particularly difficult case, with a small network of stations on an island isolated from the larger continental networks. The location of Iceland with respect to the North Atlantic Drift, which carries warm water from the tropics towards the poles, may also contribute to the temperature series being mismatched with records from Greenland or Scotland. However given that the Iceland contribution is weighted according to land area in the global records, the impact of this uncertainty is minimal. Global warming is evaluated on the basis of the land-ocean temperature record; the impact of adjustments on recent warming is minimal, and on the whole record it is small compared to the total amount of warming. As Zeke Hausfather has noted, the land temperature adjustments in the early record are smaller than and in the opposite direction to the sea surface temperature adjustments.
Impact of the weather stations adjustments on the global land-ocean temperature record, calculated using the Skeptical Science temperature record calculator in ‘CRU’ mode.
Manual recalibration of the Iceland records may make an interesting citizen science project. Most of the stations show good agreement since 1970, however they diverge in the earlier record. The challenge is to work out the minimum number of adjustments required to bring them into agreement over the whole period. But the answer may not be unique, and noise and geographical differences may also cause problems. To facilitate this challenge, I’ve made annualized data available for the eight stations as a spreadsheet file.
In the video I demonstrate three tools which are useful in understanding and evaluating temperature adjustments:
A GHCN (global historical climatology network) station report browser. GHCN provide graphical reports on the adjustments made to each station record, but you need to know the station ID to find them. I have created an interactive map to make this easier.
The Berkeley Earth station browser. The Berkeley Earth station reports provide additional information to help you understand why particular adjustments have been made.
The Skeptical Science temperature record calculator. This allows you to construct your own version of the temperature record, using either adjusted or unadjusted data for both the land and sea surface temperatures.
Data for the temperature calculator may be obtained from the following sources:
The GHCN station data. For daily average temperature data, look for the ‘tavg’ files. The ‘qca’ files are adjusted temperatures, and the ‘qcu’ files are unadjusted temperatures. The files are stored in ‘.tar.gz’ archives, and may be extracted using most freely available unzip software.
Finally, here are some interesting papers discussing why adjustments are required.
Menne et al (2009) The U.S. historical climatology network monthly temperature data, version 2.
Bohm et al (2010) The early instrumental warm-bias: a solution for long central European temperature series 1760–2007.
Brunet et al (2010) The minimization of the screen bias from ancient Western Mediterranean air temperature records: an exploratory statistical analysis.
Ellis (1890) On the difference produced in the mean temperature derived from daily maximum and minimum readings, as depending on the time at which the thermometers are read
Finally, for the moment at least, and lapsing back into our by now familiar (and adversarial?) style:
I’ve just had a long phone conversation with John Wellington of the Mail on Sunday. He assures me he is fit and well and back in his hot seat there, but that the long standing bone that I’ve been eager to pick with the Mail Online about Victoria Woollaston’s January 21st article entitled “Is climate change really that dangerous? Predictions are ‘very greatly exaggerated’, claims study” is the responsibility of Tal Gottesman. Here’s a brief extract of the article, to give you a little taste:
The paper, ‘Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model’, was written by Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, astrophysicist and geoscientist Willie Soon, Professor of Geography at the University of Delaware David Legates, and statistician Dr Matt Briggs.
It has been peer reviewed and is published in the journal Science Bulletin.
Mathematical equations used for large climate model typically require supercomputers that perform calculations quickly – some make more than 80 million calculations an hour.
and here’s the accompanying “infographic”:
I’ve been trying to get in touch with Vicky and/or her editor for several weeks now, so this is a big step forward! After a series of phone calls and emails that elicited no response “Willie SoonGate” broke earlier this week, so….
which also elicited no response, so following John’s phone call:
Hello Tal,
John was kind enough to telephone me and pass on your email address.
Further to the correspondence copied below you will note that I have had a singular lack of success directing my enquiries on the above topic to the generic MailOnline editorial address.
At the risk of repeating myself repeating myself
How do you suggest we go about starting a conversation?
If you could please outline what the issue is, we will ensure your complaint is investigated immediately.
Yours sincerely
MailOnline
Us:
Dear Madam,
Your understanding is (at long last) correct!
My first complaint is that I have received no previous response, not even an acknowledgement, to my emails of January 26th, February 2nd and February 23rd 2015. Can I safely assume that conversation using this email address will be more timely from now on? Do you by any chance possess a telephone number?
Moving on to the article in question, I will prepare a more substantive reply as soon as I have finished addressing similar issues with the Sunday Telegraph and the BBC. In brief the paper by Monckton, Soon, Legates & Briggs described in the article in question is scientific nonsense. As a famous scientist called Albert Einstein allegedly once put it:
“Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler”
As such the article is scientifically inaccurate and/or misleading, and as I am sure you must be aware allegations have recently been made elsewhere about possible reasons for that. I have been denied any discussion about a reply or “correction” to the article for 5 weeks thus far, and counting. Did you hear back from the IPCC by the way? If so, what did they say and where did you “print” it?
Two days later a UK broadsheet did indeed publish an article I feel sure Rep. Rohrabacher would approve of. Later the same morning BBC Radio 4 News reported on that article with apparent approval. For the backstory on all this please follow the first link below. Please read on for the text of my maximum 1500 character written complaint to the Beeb!
Us:
I have already spoken to Rachel about this via telephone, but she couldn’t give me a reference number or include a URL along with my complaint, so for completeness:
BBC Radio 4 News at 7 AM on Sunday February 22nd 2015 discussed the morning newspapers. The Observer’s story about Ed Miliband’s appointment of John Prescott as his “climate change advisor” was mentioned. This was followed by a reference to Christopher Booker’s article in The Telegraph. For chapter & verse please see my article at:
and then follow all the links. In brief, as assorted readers over there put it:
“Why do people like Christopher Booker keep getting away with this kind of bullshit? There must be some kind of fine for lying and misleading so blatantly.”
“Hard to believe the BBC can give any credence to such nonsense. I was really shocked and phoned BBC to complain”
or as I summarised my conversation with Rachel:
“The BBC’s apparent belief that Mr. Booker’s article provides some sort of “scientific balance” to Ed Miliband’s remarks about the need for UK plc to up its “climate change” game is so utterly ludicrous that words totally fail me.”
By way of explanation for my disbelief, please see this elementary explanation of the underlying science that I sent to Mr. Booker and his editors 2 weeks previously:
Thanks for contacting the BBC. This is an automated email acknowledging that we’ve received the attached complaint sent in this name. We’ve attached the case reference and text of the complaint for your records (see below).
We’ll normally include the full text of your complaint to BBC staff in the overnight reports we compile for them about the complaints and other reaction we’ve received today (with all your personal details removed). This ensures it will reach the right people quickly tomorrow morning. We’ll then aim to reply to you within 10 working days, or around 2 weeks, but it also depends on the nature of your complaint and whether the relevant people can respond to us in time.
We aim to use your licence fee as efficiently as we can, so if you complained about the same issues as others we will send our response to you and everyone. For the same reason we may not investigate or reply in great detail if a complaint doesn’t suggest a potential breach of BBC standards, or a significant issue of general importance. You can read about our full complaints procedures and how we consider issues which people raise with us at www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/.
This acknowledgment is automatically generated from an unmonitored address so please don’t reply. If you think you’ve received this in error please contact us using our webform at www.bbc.co.uk/complaints, quoting your case reference number.
followed on February 26th by:
Dear Mr Hunt
Thank you for contacting us regarding Radio 4’s “News and Papers” as broadcast on 22 February.
We understand you feel that the article by Christopher Booker in the Sunday Telegraph that was referred to is not a counter balance to Ed Miliband’s views on climate change as you believe it to be scientific nonsense.
We aim to provide the information which will enable listeners to make up their own minds; to show the political and scientific reality and provide the forum for debate. There is broad scientific agreement on the issue of climate change and we reflect this accordingly; however, we do aim to ensure that we also offer time to the dissenting voices.
We value your feedback about this issue. All complaints are sent to senior management and programme makers every morning and we included your points in this overnight report. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and ensure your complaint is seen by the right people quickly. This helps inform their decisions about current and future reporting.
Christopher Booker has raised the stakes in the “ClimateGate 2.0” edition of ClimateBall™ in his article in this morning’s edition of the Sunday Telegraph:
It was only the adjusted surface records which showed 2014 to have been “the hottest year on record”. The other two official records, based on satellite measurements, which only go back to 1979, show nothing of the kind.
The international fallout from my two articles has been huge. The second, headed “The fiddling of temperature data has been the biggest science scandal ever”, scored a record 30,000 comments on The Telegraph website. But what is particularly telling has been the silence of GHCN and the compilers of the other surface records in response to requests from Homewood and others for a proper explanation of how and why they had needed to make so many adjustments to the original data.
What is now needed is a meticulous analysis of all the data, to establish just how far these adjustments have distorted the picture the world has been given. Although I cannot yet reveal any details, I gather that a responsible foundation is gathering an expert team to do just that. If the results confirm what has already been unearthed by Homewood and other analysts, from the US to New Zealand, this may indeed turn out to have been the greatest scandal in the history of science.
He is apparently being aided and abetted in his latest outlandish bid by BBC Radio 4 News, who reported on his article as follows in their 07:07:25 review of the Sunday newspapers this morning:
Christopher Booker in the Sunday Telegraph demands a meticulous analysis of the data used to justify the claim that last year was the warmest on record, something he suggests could turn out to be one of the greatest scandals in science. He says a growing number of experts around the world have found that the raw data originally gathered by weather stations was comprehensively adjusted to justify the claim.
This is of course all spectacularly shoddy science (SSS for short) by Homewood, Booker et. al. , as we informed Ian Marsden at the Telegraph Group after Booker’s previous climate bluff was trumped by a long list of climate scientists, who have in fact been anything but “particularly silent” this time around. By way of example, since Ian Marsden evidently hasn’t watched this video yet, here once again is a video by a scientist who has studied such matters, which explains the truth:
Next I called the Beeb’s complaints number (03700 100 222 – 24 hours, charged as 01/02 geographic numbers) and told Rachel that I wished to register a complaint. I manfully resisted the temptation to emit any expletives, and informed her that the BBC’s apparent belief that Mr. Booker’s article provides some sort of “scientific balance” to Ed Milibands remarks about the need for UK plc to up its “climate change” game is so utterly ludicrous that words had totally failed me.
Rachel wondered if I was talking about this morning’s edition of “Broadcasting House“. I assured her I was not, but it sounds as though I now ought to go away and listen to that from cover to cover!
It’s now the morning of Monday February 23rd 2013. I haven’t received the email confirmation from the BBC that Rachel promised me yet, so…..
I’ve also just spoken to Ian Marsden of the Telegraph Group once again. He assures me that my complaint about a previous article by Christopher Booker is being dealt with, and suggests that I file another one to ensure that I have “a proper audit trail” in this instance as well.
An IPSO complaints officer suggests following up our previous complaint via said complaints form, so….
As part of the build up to the 2015 Great White Con Arctic Basin Big Wave (Fantasy?) Surfing Contest (GWCABBWFSC for short) we’ve been researching previous Arctic Basin water sports events. You can only imagine our shock and delight when we discovered deep in the depths of the NSIDC’s “Top Secret” archives some never before seen video footage of the USS Skate surfacing “near the North Pole” in the summer of 1958. Even more astonishing than that was the moving pictures of Norbert Untersteiner being towed at high speed behind a powered water craft in the very same lead that SSN-578 had used to reach fresh air and sunshine. Firstly feast your eyes on this:
Now take a look at how 21st century big wave surfers tow into the waves created by calving glaciers:
Jakobshavn Isbræ is a glacier in Western Greenland made (more?) famous by James Balog in his “Chasing Ice” movie. Here’s the “official video”:
which claims that it:
Captures [the] largest glacier calving ever filmed. On May 28, 2008, Adam LeWinter and Director Jeff Orlowski filmed a historic breakup at the Ilulissat Glacier in Western Greenland.
Depending on which languages you prefer to mix and match “Ilulissat Glacier” is another name for the self same glacier. So is “Sermeq Kujalleq”. Now comes news that something similar has just happened, albeit captured only by satellites in the twilight of the Arctic “spring”. Over on the Arctic Sea Ice Forum Espen Olsen posted late last night (UTC):
Believe it or not! Massive calving seen at the southern branch of Jakobshavn Isbræ
together with this animation created using images from the Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager:
We’ve just grabbed this Sentinel-1A synthetic aperture radar image from February 15th 2015 via Polarview, which appears to suggest that the calving took place before 20:38 UTC on that date:
Here’s a Sentinel-1A image via “nukefix” at the Arctic Sea Ice Forum, which confirms that the calving took place on or before February 16th:
This is a before/after animation from “A-Team” on the Arctic Sea Ice Forum, using 15m resolution Landsat images:
Finally, for the moment at least, Espen Olsen provides an illustration of the retreat of the calving face of Jakobshavn Isbræ since 1851:
This most recent event does not bring the calving face further east than the position in summer 2014. However the sun’s rays are only just returning to that part of the planet, and the next one may well do so.
[Edit – 24/02/2015]
We’ve phoned DMI and NSIDC as well, but Jason Box who is a Professor at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland has been the first to respond with an opinion about how unusual this event is:
It’s an interesting finding. In the attached prepared by Karina Hansen you will see a light yellow polygon illustrating the end of melt season 2014 ice. Jakobshavn front position retreated from the Feb 2014 (pink line) and Feb 2015 (green line) positions. The Feb 2014 and Feb 2015 positions are roughly the same with 2014 Feb being further retreated than Feb 2015:
A cautious response: even if this calving were abnormal, we will likely see an advance in the next weeks that will fill the void. Why?
A) This glacier flows fast, and
B) Now with less flow resistance there will likely be an acceleration making the void filling happen even faster.
Here are annual end of melt season area changes measured by PROMICE.org. These are being updated. I will ask Karina Hansen today to update for 2014 and 2015. We could have that result in a few hours.
1999/00
-2.750
2000/01
-2.473
2001/02
-16.357
2002/03
-45.617
2003/04
-21.235
2004/05
-10.015
2005/06
-4.151
2006/07
-3.830
2007/08
-3.202
2008/09
-2.174
2009/10
-8.725
2010/11
-6.693
2011/12
-13.743
2012/13
-2.826
In context of the ongoing retreat, I would speculate that this retreat could make further retreat more likely because the acceleration from B) would cause ‘dynamic thinning’ that through a positive feedback would reduce glacier bed friction facilitating further thinning and acceleration. This feedback is an amplifier and not runaway but being activated would precondition Jakobshavn glacier for further retreat.
You can of course argue that this is mere cherry picking on our part, not to mention the slight economy with the truth in our necessarily punchy headline today. Nonetheless it is an actual fact that the IARC-JAXA Information System AMSR2 Arctic sea ice extent metric for February 17th 2015 reads 13,770,330 km² which is the lowest ever for the day of the year in a record going back to 2003. This follows a remarkably large fall (for the time of year) of 113,505 km² from yesterday’s reading of 13,883,835 km². Here’s our evidence:
If you prefer to look at numbers instead of pictures then by all means try here instead for proof of the latest shock news from the Arctic.
If instead you prefer moving pictures, here’s an animation based on high resolution AMSR2 data from the University of Hamburg that may provide a few clues about how all this came about:
Can you see how the recent storms in the North Atlantic have “pulled” and then “pushed” the sea ice to thisese new record lows?
Please also note this warning message on the IJIS “Arctic Sea Ice Monitor” web page:
Thank you for visiting our website.
This site will be closed on February 22, and might be unstable from February 15, 2015.
New sea ice monitor website will be coming soon. Stay tuned.
Meanwhile, almost equivalent information can be available at:
As regular readers will have realised by now, we are subject to a continuing barrage of verbal abuse as we fearlessly pursue our goal of telling the truth about the Arctic whatever the obstacles. Following the latest such episode we have consulted our learned counsel and decided to publish the spiciest episodes here. By the time August 2015 draws to a close a poll of our loyal reader(s) will determine which of our utterers of undeleted expletives will be awarded a wild card entry into the 2015 Great White Con Arctic Basin Big Wave Surfing Contest.
3) Roger (“TallBloke”) Tattersall, UKIP’s Yorks and North Lincs Energy and Climate Change spokesman and prospective parliamentary candidate for Pudsey, with:
I called Ian Marsden, managing editor at the Telegraph Media Group, earlier this week and informed him that I wished to register a complaint about some of their content. Ian told me that in the shiny new world of the Independent Press Standards Organisation the first thing I would need to do is fill in a form. That is what I have just done:
As I mentioned in my telephone conversation with Ian Marsden, this article is so full of scientific inaccuracies that it’s hard to know where to begin, and what actions The Telegraph could take that would be sufficient to correct the incredibly misleading portrayal of the underlying science.
As Ian is well aware, my particular specialisation is the Arctic, so let’s start there. Booker starts off:
“New data shows that the ‘vanishing’ of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming”
What “new data”? There is none!
He goes on to say “Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded.”
That’s “old data” and the statement is inaccurate. Have you heard of Steven Mosher? The author of “Climategate – The Crutape Letters”? He tells me:
“Looking at some maps I have of the Arctic It looks to me like we “cool” the Arctic. That is but for our adjustments the raw data would show a warmer arctic. I’ll try to check that in detail.
The Homewood approach (and by extension Delingpole and Booker) is pretty simple. Look for stations that are warmed and complain. Of course, he fails to look at the entire picture, fails to look at the large parts of Africa (20% of the globe) that our algorithm “cools”.
By looking at the whole we know that the scientifically interesting result (the world is getting warmer) STANDS. it stands with adjustments. It stands with no adjustments. Any local detail that may be wrong or questionable is not material to this conclusion.”
Here’s a video by a scientist who has studied such matters, which explains the truth:
Watch it, check the inaccuracy of Booker’s statements for yourself if you so desire, then get back to me. I’ll be more than happy to go through all the other inaccurate and misleading statements in the article once you have attempted to justify this one.
As you are aware, climate change is a complex and controversial topic. A newspaper is not a scientific journal, and is not required to represent all the possible shades of evidence and interpretation that might have a bearing upon any given topic.
This is clearly an opinion article and identifiable as such. Against the background described above, readers can be expected to understand that any evidence offered is almost certainly contestable. It follows that in an opinion article of this nature only the most egregious inaccuracy could be significantly misleading. None of the points you raise qualify as such.
The phrase ‘new data’ is readily understandable, in context, as meaning the new study into existing Arctic weather station data undertaken by Paul Homewood, which is the focus of the article.
You say that Homewood’s analysis is ‘inaccurate’, and seek to prove this by reference to the work of others. The existence of contrary views and interpretations does not negate Christopher Booker’s right to describe Homewood’s findings and comment upon them. There is nothing in the points you raise that would engage the terms of the Editor’s Code of Conduct.
I trust this is of some assistance.
Yours sincerely
Jess McAree | Head of Editorial Compliance
Us:
Jess McAree’s email didn’t include a telephone number, so I called The Telegraph’s switchboard (on the morning of February 24th). They told me “He doesn’t take calls”. I persisted and they put me through to Andy, who assured me that whilst Mr. McAree was currently in a meeting he would tell him that I had called as soon as he emerged. Whilst waiting for a call back I registered another complaint via The Telegraph’s online form, this time checking the “Opportunity to reply” box:
This is a supplementary note to my original complaint of February 13th 2015, a copy of which is available online here:
It is now 11:30 on February 24th 2015. I spoke at length to Ian Marsden yesterday, and for some strange reason he didn’t mention Jess McAree’s email of the 20th inst. to me. Does the left hand at The Telegraph not know what the right hand is doing? I pointed out to Ian that your complaints policy states:
“We aim to acknowledge your complaint within 5 working days of receipt”
Ian reminded me about the “We aim” bit, and assured me that my complaint was being dealt with. Following the recommendation of an IPSO complaints officer I am registering this further complaint about the lack of a timely “right to reply” on what Ian referred to yesterday as The Telegraph’s “audit trail”. I shall also send a more detailed response to his email to Mr. McAree’s personal email address.
Them:
Us:
We’ll keep you posted!
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
