We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Updated at 3pm
AN OFFICIAL IN Dublin City Council has responded to accusations that the city remains a “dirty old town” by emphasising the responsibility of the city’s residents to keep it clean.
In a letter published in today’s Irish Times, executive manager Declan Wallace said the council workers are deploying “enormous resources” to tackle problems like graffiti and dumping.
“To suggest as you did that Dublin City Council is complacent fails to recognise the scale of the challenge”, he said, responding to an editorial in the same paper earlier this month.
This criticised a report by the council that claimed that there wasn’t a litter problem in the north inner city, and called for European standards of daily footpath cleaning and graffiti removal from all buildings.
“In cities such as Barcelona or Paris, to name but two, such measures to protect the public realm would be regarded as normal, and they must also become the norm in Dublin,” it read.
Wallace argues that the the council works to keep the capital’s streets clean “seven days a week, 365 days a year”, with crews working from the early hours of the morning until 10pm, and overnight when needed.
“We do wash streets and remove graffiti,” he said.
However, he has called for Dubliners themselves to make sure the city is kept clean:
All Dubliners must take responsibility and play their part in keeping our great city clean.
A report earlier this year by Irish Business Against Litter found that Dublin’s north inner city is a lot cleaner than it was earlier this year, and is no longer a litter black spot.
However, it is still the second most littered area in the state, according to the latest litter league tables.
Dublin city was named as the third most littered area, cited as being “moderately littered”.
In a recent Seanad speech, Senator David Norris said the city’s north Georgian core is facing a substantial litter problem – “There is no enforcement whatsoever” – but went on to say one of the few redeeming features of O’Connell Street is the work of the council’s street cleaners.
I pay tribute to one section of the local authority, namely the cleaning section. The cleaning of O’Connell Street is quite extraordinary because we are a genuinely filthy nation. We are a filthy race of people but O’Connell Street is kept really clean and wholesome all the time.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Did I miss something? Is climate change being caused by a lack of taxes? So why will the solution be more taxes? How much TAX has Ireland sent to the Antarctic to help stop this?
i cannot see why people are so obsessed with Carbon Tax on this blog. It accounts for but a very tiny fraction of your fuel and other bills and generated in a way that does not destroy jobs.
If we are serious about ditching fossil fuels and climate change, it needs to increase steadily by about 4-5% per year
Taxes are never popular. But some taxes are less bad than others. People should be arguing for other taxes to be abolished/reduced and to keep this one
Oh! Didn’t you know that? Shame on you! Just pay Al Gore and Eamonn Ryan your carbon tax penance allowance – and all will be well.
it is but one lever, but an important policy tool nonetheless
One-off, you say that carbon taxes are a tiny fraction but then you propose that they should increase every year?! So they will be a big percentage of a persons income at some point!
no,
the whole purpose of Carbon Tax is to reduce carbon use and incentivise non-carbon alternatives
Carbon Tax is a Pigovian tax. Its a progressive form of taxation.
If i was to raise the tax on 100 euro a plastic bag, it would not matter to me – as I do not use plastic bags.
Carbon Tax should move from 25 euro per tonne to something like 250-300 euro a tonne by 2050
economists David Kreutzer and Nicolas Loris found that a tax starting at $25-per-ton of CO2 emitted and increasing by 5% per year would cut a family of four’s income by $1,400 annually, raise their utility bills by $500 a year, and increase gasoline fill-ups by up to 50 cents per gallon. That’s $2,000 a year chopped from their budget for food, vacations, home and car payments and repairs, college and retirement savings, dental and medical care, and overall quality of life. This is a crazy tax as Humans are putting out less than 4% of total natural emissions of CO2.
Luckily in the real world the carbon credit scheme is collapsing as the price per tonne has plummeted from around $30 5 years ago to 30c now. In all its aspects the AGW fraud is unravelling as people can see what has been done.
It is the most progressive of taxes in a world of finite fossil fuels, man made climate change and massive inequality.
Even economist Richard Tol, who is no fan of the IPCC, agrees that an escalation in Carbon Tax is the way forward
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165188913000092
Carbon credits a separate issue
It would be great to see all the deniers live to see it happen
With all the oil under the ice you’d wonder why it’s melting all of a sudden after thousands of years ..
In the last year the journal has published 34 articles on climate change. On none of these occasions have they published an article outlining the argument that humans have little
or no effect on the climate.
This is despite a poll conducted by themselves with almost 7000 participants showed that opinion was evenly split on the issue.
Have they no shame?
Science isn’t determined by democratic process. You can vote against climate change, but it pays no heed to the ballot box.
I agree totally Graham, but it does demonstrate that there is far from a consensus on the issue, either with the public or with scientists. This is despite the worlds media saturating us with global warming propaganda for many years now. The believers are melting away despite the best efforts of a clearly bias media. I think people just want the facts & not the widely exaggerated predictions based on failed computer models
Well, maybe they should split the articles in the same percentage that scientists are ” split” – ie 97% of of scientific papers taking a position on climate change “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
That seems like a pretty widespread consensus to me.
Of course, those without any scientific knowledge, or study of the issue tend to shout loudly, so people might think that there is some sort of scientific divide. There isn’t.
“I agree totally Graham, but it does demonstrate that there is far from a consensus on the issue, either with the public or with scientists.”
No it doesn’t, because public opinion is irrelevant. Those in the field who actually study climatology, in overwhelming numbers accept and support that humans are contributing to climate change. 97% here according to NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
If that’s not a consensus, I don’t know what is.
Jim, even the most enthusiastic of Informed believers know the 97% figure is IPCC propaganda.
And FYI I’ve an honors degree in science, even though that proves nothing.
Graham Kavanagh that’s the best one liner on climate change denial I’ve ever heard.
Ah James, come on now. It’s a peer reviewed paper published in a reputable journal
http://www.iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
Why don’t you do a search yourself and see what sort of (reputable) data is out there?
Or else just listen to the real experts, the self proclaimed pundits on Fox news, and people paid by large industry with a vested interest.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/05/krauthammer-george-will-attack-climate-science.html
Climate science is corrupt,read the CG2 emails. Given the corruption and gate-keeping we have seen in climate science over the past 2 decades, We can be glad that we have real data and observations. But even some of those are being massively tampered with.
There should be 97 articles with the scientific view for every article by flat earth society people. It is time to NOT debate but work out action plans. To bandy words with the people who believe that a huge majority of scientists are working together to get grants to study something they know is not there is delusory. Most scientists are straining at the leash to discover something new or overturn current wisdom; dynamic, driven people who are not interested in wasting their time or talents.
Most scientists are not involved in the climate scam.
Because all those scientists are getting rich on the back of climate change. Sure you can’t walk past a university without being knocked over by a Lamborghini driven by one of the boffins.
Conspiracypsychology.com has articles exploring the phenomena of denialism in the context of connected disordered thinking such as reptilian conspiracies, pro-kid killing disease people (anti-vaxxers) 9/11 nuts of all persuasions, and of course, the Jews and masons….it is as important to understand these people as it is to avoid engaging them above their capacity to reason. There are important issues which must be dealt with and people like bill nye the science guy should be instructing kids in science and not playing the shrink.
Did u count…
Very sad.
“Unstoppable”???
Ok Government, I want my carbon taxes back !
Does this mean the faster the ice melts, then more water becomes available?? then we can supply water to Africa and eradicate famine, do away with the Water Charges due to plentiful supplies… In fact lets send a load of lads up to the Antarctica now with blowtorches and ladders too speed up the melting process, put them on a Jobbridge scheme and bring down the unemployment figures too and sure we’ll be killing shite load of birds with one stone…..?
I’d say they’re having a fire sale on $10million homes in Stinson Beach, California about now.
http://www.zillow.com/stinson-beach-ca/
Soooo, no links to these ‘published’ studies then???
It is widely know but not reported in the mainstream media that the ice in the Antartic has increased, not decreased. The reason we arent seeing the sea levels rise is because whatever melts at the north pole, deposits and freezes at the south pole.
Funny how this ‘report’ gives a decade where we today will be long dead by the time it comes around.
So a bullsh!t story with no links to the data and an outcome based in a time in which we wont be there to witness.
Climate change is real. Its as real 4billion years ago as it is today. It was real a hundred years ago when you could actually sail by the north pole area because of the absence of ice.
The danger about the internet is that a faceless, anonymous poster can continue to post complete and utter nonsense until it sticks.
To avoid countering the same old arguments – Skeptical science has written up the issue surrounding what ice is increasing and what ice is being lost, and why it’s significant to differentiate between the two: http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
The not so dangerous, is the ignorant who thinks a poster can be faceless or otherwise on the internet.
Anymore links or just that? You know, while you’re making a fool of yourself with that first paragragh. Nice intro though, to set the tone.
Skeptical Science? FFS
“Anymore links or just that?”
How about you address the points cited in the article?
“Skeptical Science? FFS”
It’s not science by skeptics, it’s scientific articles refuting claims made by skeptics.
And the climate deniers go silent in the face of peer reviewed evidence…funny that!
Jason perhaps you can publish links to peer reviewed studies that show that antarctic ice is increasing.
Shouldn’t be too difficult as its ‘widely known’. Take your time now….
Jason, the Arctic ice almost vanished in 1817 as recorded by an Admiralty report to the House of Lords. It almost vanished in the 1920′s too. Warmists believe that the Arctic was to have vanished by last year but as always they were wrong. Computer models have failed.
good find!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/
“It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated….
….. this affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.” A request was made for the Royal Society to assemble an expedition to go and investigate.
nothing found on that website could be described as a ‘good find’
That good find is a letter to the House of Lords
“President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817, Minutes of Council, Volume 8. pp.149-153, Royal Society, London. 20th November, 1817.”
@ dee4, did you find there the report from the Wahinton Times showing a similar shortage of Arctic Ice in 1922 ? “Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.” Of course the glaciers came back as did those on the Spanish/French border and others during the LIA.
As for http://wattsupwiththat.com/ “The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change” no wonder the ecoloons fear it so much.
eh, old newspaper articles!
@dee, after reading your quote a few times, all I see is that the arctic sea ice went from an ‘impenetrable barrier’ to ‘greatly abated’. How this can compare to ‘almost vanished’ is beyond me. I think I’d rather trust present day scientific data rather than vague interpretations of a speech from over 100 years ago.
when the Germans were losing the war their newsreels would zoom in on one tiny area where they might be winning to fool the people back home, seems to be similar strategy here.
Well I’m off to get a vodka with ice to test this experiment and sure I suppose I should have two or three for control purposes. I will report back with my findings later…..
You’re not comparing like with like. Antarctica is a continent, not an iceberg.
Read the timescales. 200-500 years. Its pure guess work.
Aidan you can’t be proved wrong if your not alive when your report proves to be complete nonsense but Governments will increase taxes on it now all the same.
Will this BS ever stop.
It will Gerard once we are all forced to live in tiny micro appartments, cycle bikes for transport, eat only vegetables and noodles daily and have no kids just like Oneoffireland does.
@ Hulk, it’s happening now in the USA as they build 9 story blocks with no lifts and a shared kitchen. Just like the Dublin tenements of my childhood.
Instead of talking about it and moaning about carbon taxes do something about it and save money!!!
Check out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKystuzj0kM
to see how much energy can be saved using smart technologies.
If everyone installed LED lighting we wouldn’t need to be having these discussions as they save energy, money, waste and time!!!
FYI – http://www.ikea.com/ie/en/catalog/categories/departments/living_room/20514/
@ Jason, there’s that link to a scientific paper you were asking for,IKEA !
I have zero technical knowledge about global warming etc. so I accept that the reports of Antartica ice melting and resulting sea level rising are true.
I do however, have a question and it is this: prior to the 20/21st centuries fossil fuel was the only source of heating, cooking , light, washing for all of humankind, so why has global warming only now become a problem ?
John, since the Industrial Revolution the use of fossil fuels, and the release of greenhouse gases, had increased rapidly. The world’s population has also grown vastly.
Therefore until relatively recently the effect humans had on climate was negligible.
The observed ice extent at the Antarctic shows that this latest computer model is as useless as all the others have been plus the Arctic is heading for a greater extent than in recent years. Warming stopped 18 years ago yet the bedwetters continue to panic.
This is a good paper.
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/examining-the-pause.pdf
Never figure out the logic in this . Ice takes up greater volume then water . If ice melts the level of water drops not increases .
Ice floats on water. If it melts the water rises
The majority of Ice is actually above the water, as it floats.
Also, much of the ice in the Antarctic is on land….
regardless, your lack of understanding should be filled by the work that the qualified, intelligent and peer-reviewed scientists carry out. It’s this concept of the layman questioning the experts due to their own ignorance that has the deniers actually listened to and not marked as loons.
This Antarctic ice melt is glaciers on land. Nothing to do with ice floating on water
I thought it was only 9% above the surface.
The majority of ice is below the water . Ice doesn’t float on top of water .
Look at the picture above, the majority of the ice is over land which melts and flows into the sea.
Floating ice still displaces water. If you had a glass of water with an ice cube in it and the water melted the level of water in the glass wouldn’t change. In the case of Antarctica, the ice is supported by the land and it doesn’t alter sea levels. However, if the ice was to breakaway from the land this would displace the water causing sea levels to rise. That’s my understanding anyway, I could be wrong.
The floating ice won’t add to the volume, but the grounded ice will.
@ Fozz,
Obviously a scientist yourself with vast experience of ‘Global Warming’ and extensive research into this modern scientific development or maybe you just ‘ Google’ and discard the pieces that don’t conform to your populist view.
I’m not taking a populist view…I am taking what I have read and adding to a respect for the scientific community as a whole to enlighten us and making a decision.
But maybe I’d be more hip if I just looked at what the established (and reinforced by experiments and much study) view was and decided on the opposite…for no good reason that to be different…
There’s less ice there now than before. It’s melting and flowing to the sea. It’s a populist view because it is a fact.
Or Maybe Fozz you should just open your mind. take a look at the article on Nuclear Power in the Irish Times this morning. One of the interesting things about it is an analysis of the IPCC report. The IPCC scientists have by and large given a balanced scientific analysis which states that their are un-explainable
Differences between the ‘ Modeled’ predictions and the actual outcomes. Credibility also comes under scrutiny when the IPCC researchers then put their own spin on the findings. Scientists don’t normally start off with the answer and then produce the justifications . But for a Googler like yourself the internet knows no boundaries
Melting sea ice is besides the point, it’s effect is small, most of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is >3000 feet above sea level, and it is now flowing into the sea faster than ever, where it will melt and cause several metres of sea level rise.
Jenkins, A. & Holland, D. 2007. Melting of floating ice and sea level rise. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L16609, doi: 10.1029/2007GL030784.
Read about water displacement.
When the ice melts in your vodka and red bull does it overflow the glass. NO.
More BS scare tactics.
More alarmist propaganda from the IPCC and their tax payers funding dependent government hacks.
Scaremongering bullshit from pseudo-scientists as usual. Just securing this year’s huge grants. Money would be better spent if the gave grants to astrologists and mediums.
Ear we go…how long before tin foil hat type mentions Agenda 21?
You just did
Apart from me :-) …and my hat, wool
Had to look that up; the Direct Democracy Ireland website has a piece on it – so much tin foil it looks like my packed lunch
http://directdemocracyireland.ie/agenda-21/
Just a few short months ago we had the ‘ ship of fools’ episode where one of these ‘ climate scientists’ got stuck in the Antarctic ice that they said have vanished thus risking lives and ships and the idiot even brought his own family along. Ecoloons.
i think you are mixing glaciers up with sea ice maestro
It in the deniers handbook: only use arguments that have freed themselves from the shackles of consistency and evidence
Just a few short months ago we had the â ship of foolsâ episode where one of these â climate scientistsâ got stuck in the Antarctic ice that they said have vanished thus risking lives and ships and the idiot even brought his own family along. Ecoloons.
Cool story bro
Needs more dragons.
The North Pole is one big ice cube . A piece of ice floating in the sea is 70 percent under water and 30 percent above water .All the weight pushes sea levels up , when they melt they drop .
this article is on the South pole and your comment is ridiculous anyway :)
Archimedes had nothing on you
My house is 98 m above sea level so bring it on !
Water expands as it freezes, most of an iceberg’s volume is below the water level, this is junk science, as ice melts, it has zero effect on the water level
Dan, the ice at the south poll is on land!
They’ll say anything to have their grants awarded … meanwhile heavy snow has returned to Colorado in the middle of May !
Al, I saw snow in Dublin in May when I was a kid, it was gone by lunchtime. Last night parts of Ireland had a low of 3c and my poly tunnel only reached 22 yesterday and that with it all sealed up :-)
Looks like its time to light up the stoves for the chilly evening ahead, thank the Lord for plastic bottles.
There’s a whole industry built around global warming existing . It’s worth billions . David Bellamy argue the point constantly . Bellamy’s later statements on global warming indicate that he subsequently changed his views completely. In 2004, he wrote an article in the Daily Mail in which he described the theory of man-made global warming as “poppycock”.[9] A letter he published on 16 April 2005 in New Scientist asserted that a large percentage (555 of 625) of the glaciers being observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service were advancing, not retreating. You don’t see Bellamy on TV anymore I wonder why .
Oh the lies. It’s sickening. The presstitutes keep releasing press release as their own work and people just belive what they are told unquestioningly.
There is so much wrong with the above article and the utter lies it puts forward I don’t know where to start.
Here is a good place :
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/study-west-antarctic-melt-a-slow-affair/
The IPCC models are continually wrong and are so basic and simplistic they should he discarded never mind the fact no one can ever repeat their conclusions in other computer models.
The ice in Antarctica is at record levels, so while ice might melt in the northern hemisphere it is increasing at Antarctica with the result being ice levels are the same as they were in 1972 despite all the doom and gloom.
Can people just start thinking and reflecting. A good book I read lately was “The Deliberate Corruption of climate science” by Tim Ball. I’d recommend for anybody who likes to have informed opinions on topics.
Remembering of course that the IPCC is a political and not a scientific body. This is the 100th comment on this item and by an amazing coincidence I just did the 100th post on my blog :-) I love the smell of burning ecofascists in the morning …
If it wasn’t happening, what would the scientists do for a living?
It’s not real scientists that flute about with climate scares Shane, just those that couldn’t make the grade for the difficult stuff.
Ah yes, more dire news from the harbingers of horsesh-, sorry, doom.
First it was Warble Gloaming, until that theory was disproved by non affiliated scientists. Now it’s been repackaged as “climate change”. Strange how the Greenies (AKA the cycling Taliban) did that, isn’t it?
Since the earth existed, it’s gone through periods of warming and cooling. This is what’s happening at the moment, and there’s nothing that you, I, or anybody else on the planet can do about it. Get over it.
“AKA the cycling Taliban” good one :-) but i thought that Gerbil Worming came before Warble Gloaming?
I’m sure I’ll get plenty of red thumbs for this , but the whole ‘man made global warming’ theory is utter nonsense ! Average global temperatures are dropping and have been doing so for quite a while now and while parts of the Antarctic ice sheet is falling off into the sea , the reason is not a great thaw .. The ice cap is thickening at its centre ! Man made global warming = man made lie !!
“while parts of the Antarctic ice sheet is falling off into the sea , the reason is not a great thaw .. The ice cap is thickening at its centre ”
Why did you have to go and tell those ecoloons how the ice behaves? :-)
Jonathan did you just make that fact up ?
No I didn’t . Scientists who spend their working lives measuring such things figured that out . NASA’s satellites were a great help to them ! Go look it up … though I warn you , you might not like what you find !
Glad to see that many people are questioning the whole ‘man made global warming’ theory , which is now known as climate change : the reason being a lack of evidence to support the ‘man made’ part ! The word ‘climate’ comes from ancient Greek .. it’s original meaning is cyclical or in cycles . The planets weather systems are in a constant state of flux (as is everything) , so when the climate changes a bit from time to time , it’s a perfectly natural phenomenon ! Unfortunately , due to human nature and the way the modern world operates , many have seen the climate as a way to create a sense of foreboding and fear amongst the world’s people ! The reason ? Control and financial gain ! Our climate will do what it always does : change and change and change …. ! We don’t enter the equation !
It’s the same old noisy minority every time, so keep your head buried in the ground and when it’s not make sure your tin foil hat is on tight. Meantime think about what you’ll say to your grandchildren when they ask why you where once a flat-earther in the face of all the science.
I think you will find that the loud minority are the scientists who put forth their theories of climate change caused by human activity ! Scientists (and everyone else) who happen to question the ‘accepted’ model(s) I.e that greenhouse gases produced by man are causing global temperatures to rise , are dismissed as madmen who don’t give a damn about the environment , and are rarely , if ever , given a platform to air their views ! That’s why you never hear what they have to say on tv or radio . You have to search them out in bookstores or online ! Science is all about asking a question and then searching out the answer ! ‘Climatologists’ already have their answer ( man is causing global warming) and now they are trying to fit their models to that answer ! This is why their models change continuously . This is not science !
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
have your say