They have just said they are insane, and therefore there's nothing that this person can do other than interfere with themselves in public and kill people without conscience.
Jeff, anyone, can you get in touch with Tim and let him know to kill the access of the insane betty.
Or at the very least let him know that betty is insane and has admitted so on this blog, and inform us of it, so we will know that he's not unaware of what's going on.
Ta.
Lurkers, sorry, you'll have to put up with batshit here, as you see I REALLY *REALLY* tried, but batty is just not sane. If Tim doesn't scrap betty from the blog, it's because he doesn't care what insanity is going on here, and you can make an informed choice of what you will do here.
I hope that this situation has been instructive for you in why it doesn't help to do as StuPid insists you have to do and pander to the deniers and pretend that they're nice or even rational. They still won't be anything more than a denier and will only talk whatever bullshit fits the moment.
Yes, Batshit Betty, I called you a denier because you are one.
STuPid, if you ever dare to post that I didn't try or that I should have kept trying, you can look at how long I tried, how hard I trie and how little it helped.
If you still want to claim it's my fault, or anyone's fault other than deniers like better that we're still here arguing you can fuck right off up your own shitfilled arse canal and die choking on the excrement you deserve.
If you are in ANY WAY honest and genuine, you will admit that there is no way to get deniers like batshit betty here on side and no error is made by ANYONE who decides to deal with them in whatever way they feel like.
But if yuo EVER try to berate someone for not doing like you do, these past 2-300 posts and your own cowardly refusal to try EVEN ONCE to do as you demand others, such as Jeff, do, then you deserve the desecrated death I abjured you to suffer under as specified above. I have NO sympathy or consideration for you in this case.
Wow - "you can fuck right off up your own shitfilled arse canal and die choking on the excrement you deserve."........"you deserve the desecrated death I abjured you to suffer under as specified above"
I think I just witnessed climate change first hand.
Wow's insanity in mirror form. These are his actual words, though the names were changed as though Wow was talking to Jeff and Lionel....mainly to protect the innocent:
Oh. and I'll bring BBD back to make a guest appearance..
Now, Jeff, Lionel is going to try to talk to you
Since Lionel is in Australia, as far as we know, he may not be able to get in touch with you immediately
So go ahead and ask Lionel what he wants to talk to you about
Jeff, you can start contact with Lionel any time
Jeff, talk to Lionel, ask them what they want to talk to you about
Feel free to ask Lionel any time
"Hey, Jeff, BBD's here! Ask BBD! Ask BBD!
Lionel, talk to Jeff
Jeff, talk to Lionel
So what happened to your comment to Jeff?
Well, still waiting for either of these two boys to start talking
So what happened to your comment to Jeff? (not a repeat)
“Did I miss it?”
“Or did you forget to post it?”
"So you don’t know if you posted it?"
Oh, there' more I missed, but the insanity is obvious.
He was actually accusing me of forgetting to post a comment in a scenario that took place only in his imagination, which he put on paper for all to see!
It would be the equivalent of having a dream, and in the dream someone forgets something. When you wake up, you see that person and confront them about what they forgot...
The person has no idea what you are talking about, so you call that person insane and a denier...
I would love to incorporate a character like Wow into a sitcom or movie...
Wow Jan 10, #75 –
“The only ones calling for death of their opponents are the deniers.
Wow Jan 13, #26 re Stu -
“you can fuck right off up your own shitfilled arse canal and die choking on the excrement you deserve.”……..”you deserve the desecrated death I abjured you to suffer under as specified above”
Good morning from Australia.
Looks like you blokes have been having fun?
It's a beautiful Summer's morning here, the birds are chirping, the frogs are croaking, the ungulates and marsupials are grazing & etc.
My wife and I are off to a familty barbie today.
No offense, but I don't think I'll be discussing what's been written overnight on this blog.
Even though it's enormously amusing to read, our family and friends usually have more adult style conversations.
Some of the kids are prone to get into those he said she did I want I didn't they won't mine's better and etc conversations at times.
:-)
Wow - "And Jeff DID see climate change first hand"
About this:
Hardley - “As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand.”
2. Or is Hardley lying about Hardley?
Hardley - "On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand”
Hardley - "“In my work as an ecologist I work on shifting zones, and here I could see it in real.”
Regarding this:
Hardley - “As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand.”
WoW.
If one of our kids spoke to anyone like that, we would definitely have to point out that it's poor behaviour.
What is it particularly that's causing you to write such comments?
Stu - "those he said she did I want I didn't they won't mine's better and etc. conversations"
Stu, you know Wow well, and as hard as you try, you know you can never have a normal conversation with him. I refer to it as "Wow Purgatory"....it just wonders in circles and you can't get out. It's where he lives.
If you wrote a 500 word response to him, he would pick out the word "the" and tell you that it means "a" and then tell you :"a" doesn't mean what you meant it to mean....then call you a denier and swear and threaten to kill while claiming deniers are insane...
I don't mind engaging, because in the end, I always prove him wrong....and that drives him crazy. Knowing he couldn't accept "yes" as an answer and would end up going back to screaming "denier" was the last example.....he couldn't hold it in....the dam had to break at some point.
You're smart for not falling for his tactics, (which he hates when turned on him) ...but don't expect him to ever change.
Betula,
WoW has told me in, CAPITALS, many times that WE (but perhaps he means HE?) won't change .
I find that extraordinary as his ubiquitous WE is/are apparently expecting everyone else and everything else to change GLOBALLY and IMMEDIATELY and, FURTHER, they're some type of expletive LIAR if they ask questions about implentation of these IMMEDIATE GLOBAL changes of that ubiquitous WE.
And you're right, I'm not interested in playing semantics with WoW or anyone else for that matter except on the rare occasion when it's just too tempting.
Like just now.
:-)
And WoW.
Before you lose it, that 'anyone else' includes Betula and Kim who you keep asking me to play semantics with too.
I don't know how often I need repeat this.
I'm not interested thanks all the same.
It's pointless as the last couple of pages clearly shows.
I'm interested in what can be done to improve how humanity interacts with the environment.
Playing semantics and playing political rhetoric at whatever level of education and experience is not proving to achieve anything at all.
It also doesn't assist science or the environment.
Betula is continuing to outdo himself on hypocrisy. He tells Stu that it's impossible to have a 'normal' conversation with Wow, when he himself is singularly incapable of a 'normal' conversation himself. He can't engage in a discussion on science because he is scientifically illiterate. He sides with shills and people on the academic fringe who downplay the seriousness of AGW. If, as I have done, I link to major studies in prominent journals revealing the effects of AGW on species, communities or ecosystems, including potential threats, he desperately searches through the internet via Google to find anything he can to cast doubt on the veracity of the study or on AGW. He scraped the bottom of the barrel when he found the Bo Eberling interview in a Danish paper. Given the press coverage allocated to the Crowther et al. study, and the implications that emerge from it, if Eberling was truly saying that there was nothing to worry about and that carbon stored in the soil will stay there regardless of how fast it warms in the Arctic, then why would Nature publish it and why would the lead author argue that it us a ticking time bomb? The empirical literature is full of studies not only showing potential effects of warming but effects that are already underway which are harming natural systems and reducing their resilience and resistance. All the Crowther study does is reinforce what we already know. And yet Betula quotes Eberling as if his caution is the end of the story. Cautious interpretation is translated by Betula into "there is nothing to worry about". And the fact that Eberling and almost certainly every other author of the paper believe that AGW is a serious problem is ignored and dismissed by the tree pruner. This is his 'discussion' style. And then he accused Wow of being unable to engage in a normal conversation.
Priceless. Sadly, the internet is full of people like Betula who think they are the ones having 'normal' discussions. Betula isn't capable of a 'normal' discussion. He has a pre-determined set of beliefs that revolve around conspiracies involving governments and the UN that have nothing to do with the scientific evidence for AGW. It's just that he sees measures to deal with AGW as some sort of left wing agenda to steal funds from rich countries to create a more egalitarian world and he hates that. But he camouflages his political beliefs bty attempting - and miserably failing - to ridicule climate science and scientists.
Jeff, Iit's not just that Betty has now proven that not even reality is accepted by the batshit crazy one, but that StuPid, not merely being a concern troll trying to shut up realists and leave the floor to his fellow deniers, but that he ACTIVELY AVOIDS even appearing to want to do as he asks.
Batshit, for example,goes "I say this:[quote someone else]" then when told, no he didn't say it, argues he totally did. Then when showed he didn't, he says, yes, I said that you said it. Batshit Betty DENIES REALITY. Something fairly obvious.
But StuPid who claimed all sorts of shit about how we need to do something about AGW has shown that "We" only are the realists who need to stop telling everyone AGW is real, need to stop trying to get us decarbonised, and must do something small and ourselves,so that deniers can continue to do what the hell they want.
Something that was fairly obvious.
But StuPid has outed how close he is to deniers.
When given time, ample time, to talk to Batshit Betty, he never does. For several days, only demanding things or talking to me or rhetorically to you,because he wanted to berate someone and I wasn't a target he could attack.
He misses people to complain at.
But not just that, StuPid NEVER talked to Betty.But as soon as I said "ENOUGH!", and the pressure to actually try what he says we should all do with deniers is off,he's suddenly talking to Batshit.
With a "Hi, morning from Australia" well into the Aussie day and a "I'm not going to read what's alrady been said!" so that he can "pretend" that he's not been told to talk to Betty like he says we all should.
Then continues with chatting with bettty and not trying to get that lunatic to do something constructive.
So given ample chance,StuPid has PROVEN that he's one of the deniers and that alll and every single one of his complaints are because he wants to complain to realists for daring to speak to the public.
So there is no complaint either of these two shitheads can make about any accusation ANYONE wants to make against them that they can rebut to anyone who is even vaguely interested in looking. BOTH have proven that they will not say the truth, will deny reality and all logic, and that we are going to have to infer what they mean because neither will say the truth at any point in time.
They are deniers not because they've said they deny, but because they don't say.
And their actions and words do not support what they specifically state, so their claims of "Where did I say that?" Or "I've never said" are empty. They don't support what they DO say with their actions. And any suspicion is justified.
Have you contacted Tim, Jeff? If Tim knows what's going on, then everyone here, including the deniers and the lurkers, will know that what continues is acceptable to Tim, and we can make our judgement calls based on knowledge rather than supposition.
Jeff, you merely had to state that Batshit is incapable of having a normal conversation, with themselves or anyone.
The rest of it is just an assertion that is reasonable, but we have already ascertained that Betty is not reasonable. So we don't have to know, or care, what may underlie their insanity.
Betty is unable to have a normal conversation with ANYONE.
That's 100% of what is needed to know and is 100% supported by evidence plainly here for all to see. Only those supporting the denialists world"view" would see it any differently and can safely be assumed to be fellow deniers.
Yes I am aware that this news broke many months ago and has been mentioned by many media outlets but generally low key.
Aside: will that link work? There appears to be something about many blogs just this week which mungs links to uselessness. Bernard J at Eli's asks, 'Has the Great Censorship begun?'
To deniers, nothing can be caused by climate change.
Migration patterns are, to them, caused by the animals and plants deciding to move. Not by changing climate. Storms and hurricanes, droughts and flooding are caused by weather, not climate. Disease is caused by demons, not a change in the climate.
Nothing, to deniers, can be blamed on climate. At most they will let it be blamed on bad weather, but there's nothing we can do about the weather, so that's safe.
Quite what they think the difference in weather in Canada and Florida means is anyone's guess. Maybe the warmer climate in Florida is not changeable, 'cos God designed it that way.
No matter what changes, to deniers, that can;t be due to a change in climate. Everything happens for mystical reasons, unknown to man. Though they know it's not us. Because.
Hardley - "He sides with shills and people on the academic fringe who downplay the seriousness of AGW"
Why do you think Elberling is a shill and on the academic fringe? Have you told him this?
Hardley - "And yet Betula quotes Eberling as if his caution is the end of the story.
You use the phrase "as if", as if I said caution is the end of the story. Did I say caution is the end of the story or is that your personal interpretation?
Hardley - Cautious interpretation is translated by Betula into “there is nothing to worry about”.
Since I never said "there is nothing to worry about", wouldn't that be your interpretation / translation of what I said?
Hardley - "This is his ‘discussion’ style. And then he accused Wow of being unable to engage in a normal conversation"
So my discussion style is showing how you misinterpret and translate words I didn't say to meet your own ideas of what you think was meant?
Right now I'm showing how you can't have a normal conversation...
A normal conversation would be for you to take the words of Elberling and tell me what he meant by them rather than to attack what you think I meant by posting what he said....
Remember, you're the scientist and I have to teach you these things...
Wow - "Batshit, for example,goes “I say this:[quote someone else]” then when told, no he didn’t say it, argues he totally did. Then when showed he didn’t, he says, yes, I said that you said it"
If you are too stupid to realize that the "someone else" I quoted (you know, quotation marks") was you, and that I used your own words (that I repeated, thus I said them) to prove just how stupid you are.....then you are too stupid to have a normal conversation.
Of course you did know this, but you don't like it because you have to deal with what you constantly deal out....gee, now what could I be talking about?....
Hey Wow, did I forget to post the imaginary post that you believe I posted? Did I post it yet? I must have forget that I posted what was posted in your head! How can I have a normal conversation if I can't even remember what I posted in your imagination? What should I do?
Purgatory Wow....you're shot.
Wow - "BOTH have proven that they will not say the truth, will deny reality"
Really? Did you just see the reality of your imagination that I posted above? Are you whining that I deny what you imagine?
Wow - "Have you contacted Tim, Jeff? If Tim knows what’s going on, then everyone here, including the deniers and the lurkers, will know that what continues is acceptable to Tim"
Wow, quick question, do you think the following would be acceptable to Tim?...
Wow – “you can fuck right off up your own shitfilled arse canal and die choking on the excrement you deserve.”……..”you deserve the desecrated death I abjured you to suffer under as specified above”
Wow - "Everything happens for mystical reasons, unknown to man"
Are you saying this is what someone thinks, or are you saying this is what you think they think, based on some conversation that led you to believe that.
Was this a recent conversation? Can you quote some of it?
In the 1944 film The Gas Light, a husband deliberately manipulates his wife into believing that she is losing her sanity in order to gain control over her. Unfortunately, this is not just a fictional scenario.
Though it has only recently come to clinical attention, the tactic known as gaslighting is a common pattern of many abusive relationships, where one partner consistently undermines the other’s sense of reality and ability to trust their own judgments.
Victims may be made to feel that they are being too demanding, too overly sensitive, too critical - that they have no right to expect certain standards of behavior or attitude from their partners. That they are the ones at fault, for continually misinterpreting or willfully ignoring their partner's intentions. That, ultimately, the problems in the relationship are created by - and lie entirely with - themselves.
Much like a virus attacking the immune system, gaslighting is a continual, stage-by-stage process that undermines one’s ability to recognize and resist psychological abuse.
...
So, what can you do about it?
To resist gaslighting effectively, you must realize that the argument literally cannot be won, because the gaslighter is not committed to a consistent frame of reference, or anything besides proving you wrong at all costs.
Instead, let go of the need to prove yourself right to this particular person and understand that your self-image does not have to rely on their perception of you alone. Often, this involves firmly establishing and maintaining what researcher Hilde Lindemann calls a "counter-story".
Remember that you did not mistrust your memory or judgment before the arguments started, and you shouldn't start doubting yourself now.
Toxic people such as malignant narcissists, psychopaths and those with antisocial traits engage in maladaptive behaviors in relationships that ultimately exploit, demean and hurt their intimate partners, family members and friends. They use a plethora of diversionary tactics that distort the reality of their victims and deflect responsibility. Although those who are not narcissistic can employ these tactics as well, abusive narcissists use these to an excessive extent in an effort to escape accountability for their actions.
...
1. Gaslighting.
Gaslighting is a manipulative tactic that can be described in different variations of three words: “That didn’t happen,” “You imagined it,” and “Are you crazy?” Gaslighting is perhaps one of the most insidious manipulative tactics out there because it works to distort and erode your sense of reality; it eats away at your ability to trust yourself and inevitably disables you from feeling justified in calling out abuse and mistreatment.
When a narcissist, sociopath or psychopath gaslights you, you may be prone to gaslighting yourself as a way to reconcile the cognitive dissonance that might arise. Two conflicting beliefs battle it out: is this person right or can I trust what I experienced? A manipulative person will convince you that the former is an inevitable truth while the latter is a sign of dysfunction on your end.
In order to resist gaslighting, it’s important to ground yourself in your own reality – sometimes writing things down as they happened, telling a friend or reiterating your experience to a support network can help to counteract the gaslighting effect. The power of having a validating community is that it can redirect you from the distorted reality of a malignant person and back to your own inner guidance.
*Essentially, that gaslighter has a driving need to be right, and the person who stays with them has a driving need to be accepted by the gaslighter.*
As it is highly unlikely that the manipulative party will magically give up their obsession and need to be right, it falls to the manipulated to disengage from their desire to gain acceptance. That is more easily said than done, and I continue to recommend Harriet Braiker's book, Who's Pulling Your Strings, as an excellent source and one of the best teachers to help those with these types of struggles.
...
Ultimately, so long as a person needs the approval and acceptance or the benefits of the relationship with the person who uses gaslighting against them, and if they are unwilling to relinquish what they derive from the relationship, the dynamics will persist. By developing an internal locus of control, one can get free of the need for the approval of manipulators and their tactics.
StuPid's ONLY goal here is to be the walls forcing you into Batshit Betty's trap.
Their ENTIRE REASON for their absolutely fake concern over how toxic things are are to ensure that the gaslighters like Lappers and Batshit get to retain control of the situation and get to repeat the imprint of insanity on the entire community they are infesting.
And the entire reason for infecting their insanity is to ensure that they get plausible deniability that there is even anything worth doing about AGW.
Care to see where this applies to dealing with Batshit Betty?
Two conflicting beliefs battle it out: is this person right or can I trust what I experienced? A manipulative person will convince you that the former is an inevitable truth while the latter is a sign of dysfunction on your end.
StuPid is there to insist that you engage in this battle.
Is this not 100% of Batshit Betty's posts?
Gaslighting is a manipulative tactic that can be described in different variations of three words: “That didn’t happen,” “You imagined it,” and “Are you crazy?”
And if any still remember Brad Keyes, this should be recognizable:
3. Nonsensical conversations from hell.
If you think you’re going to have a thoughtful discussion with someone who is toxic, be prepared for epic mindfuckery rather than conversational mindfulness.
Malignant narcissists and sociopaths use word salad, circular conversations, ad hominem arguments, projection and gaslighting to disorient you and get you off track should you ever disagree with them or challenge them in any way. They do this in order to discredit, confuse and frustrate you, distract you from the main problem and make you feel guilty for being a human being with actual thoughts and feelings that might differ from their own. In their eyes, you are the problem if you happen to exist.
Spend even ten minutes arguing with a toxic narcissist and you’ll find yourself wondering how the argument even began at all. You simply disagreed with them about their absurd claim that the sky is red and now your entire childhood, family, friends, career and lifestyle choices have come under attack. That is because your disagreement picked at their false belief that they are omnipotent and omniscient, resulting in a narcissistic injury.
Remember: toxic people don’t argue with you, they essentially argue with themselves and you become privy to their long, draining monologues. They thrive off the drama and they live for it. Each and every time you attempt to provide a point that counters their ridiculous assertions, you feed them supply. Don’t feed the narcissists supply – rather, supply yourself with the confirmation that their abusive behavior is the problem, not you. Cut the interaction short as soon as you anticipate it escalating and use your energy on some decadent self-care instead.
His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.[7]
What makes it hard with gaslighters in climate discussions is that we have no choice but to get acceptance from the gaslighter, since our entire civilisation is held to hostage by the intransigence of the gaslighter.
If our politicians were not so wedded to reaganomics that even the left, to have any chance of being accepted by the media, have to follow as gospel truth, the gaslighter would not have any traction to keep the attention on them. Their refusal to accept reality would be of no consequece, the same as the flat earthers and, outside of bible belt USA, the young earth creationists. Those two idiot groups have no traction, and we don't have to actually engage with them and get them to accept reality (in this case, because the only arguments are personality ones, we have to argue that they accept US).
But politiicans will drag their feet because money is important to them, and as long as they can point to noisy retards screaming that WE DON'T KNOW and IT'S ALL A LIE are used as cover to make themselves immune to criticism of corrupted politicking.
So we have an existential requirement to get the deniers to either look at reality and acknowledge it, which will inevitably make them agree it's real, see R Muller for an example, or shut the fuck up. At that point, there may be a lot of people not caring, but no voices to give the politicians cover to delay what is necessary and reap the monetary rewards of delay.
In short, if our politicians were not so venal or brainwashed, the deniers like batshit here would be as irrelevant as the flat earthers, and the narcissist who joins for the attention (see Curry and Monckton for examples, but batshit for a more local example of the type) would be able to garner none.
For I genuinely believe that batshit betty is only a denier because they get to affirm their personal validation in this rhetoric by wilfully ignoring reality.
Not that Batty Betty would accept reality if the gaslighting failed. But that Batshit here BECAME a denier BECAUSE it gave this avenue for manipulation and exploitation for their personal gratification. The narcissist won't change their mind once made, but they make their mind up based on what gives them the most attention.
@51 - "In order to resist gaslighting, it’s important to ground yourself in your own reality – sometimes writing things down as they happened, telling a friend or reiterating your experience to a support network can help to counteract the gaslighting effect"
Exactly. Which is why I copy and paste what was actually said for all to see. It's the only way to counter the gaslighting effect.
For example.
Did I actually forget I posted something to Stu, or was I being accused by Wow of forgetting to post something to Stu?
Well, it's a good thing it was written by Wow as it happened...
"So what happened to your comment to Stupid?"
“Did I miss it?”
“Or did you forget to post it?”
“So you don’t know if you posted it?”
Gaslighting at it's best.
And it's a good thing the following words were written down, or I also would have been led to believe it was my imagination:
Wow Jan 10, #75 –
“The only ones calling for death of their opponents are the deniers.
Wow Jan 13, #26 re Stu –
“you can fuck right off up your own shitfilled arse canal and die choking on the excrement you deserve.”……..”you deserve the desecrated death I abjured you to suffer under as specified above”
Wow - "If Tim continues to supply the platform for the Big Lie, that is his choice. And his crime"
Agreed.
He should question supplying the platform for things like this...
"you can fuck right off up your own shitfilled arse canal and die choking on the excrement you deserve.”……..”you deserve the desecrated death I abjured you to suffer under as specified above”
Wow - "Not that Batty Betty would accept reality if the gaslighting failed. But that Batshit here BECAME a denier BECAUSE it gave this avenue for manipulation and exploitation"
Only I'm not a denier, and have already told you that. By referring to me as a denier, you are continuing your gaslighting...
@51 - "Toxic people such as malignant narcissists"
nar·cis·sism
(när′sĭ-sĭz′əm)
n.
1. Excessive preoccupation with or admiration of oneself. See Synonyms at conceit.
2. A personality disorder characterized by an exaggerated sense of self-importance, need for admiration
Now who on this blog fits that description? Who talks about himself, his qualifications and his accomplishments constantly...while belittling others because they aren't on his level...in fact, in almost every comment he posts.
Lionel posted an actual bona fide developing issue @# 42 yet over 20 comments later you're still just arguing semantics.
The Zika outbreak is indeed a concern that needs attention.
The study that Lionel has linked to outlines where and how the outbreak is spreading.
It points out that, among other things, an el Nino event on top of climate change would have assisted the spread of the outbreak.
The threat has somewhat abated according to WHO but it still needs urgent attention.
Unfortunately Lionel advertises it as the destruction of the herd
from inability to create functioning entities.
There's no mention of anything like that in the paper.
What needs to happen next?
Humanity has dealt with mosquito born viruses before this particular Zika outbreak.
Perhaps some of the successful methods should be used again?
There’s no mention of anything like that in the paper.
Oh ye of little cognition, have you really no idea as to what could pan out here - accelerated decline of a species, namely homo sapiens not so sapient.
Stu,
I had read the article Lionel linked and had many questions about what the article said and what was left out.
I was thinking about asking those questions, but then I knew if I did, the Deltoidians would try to convince me the gaslight is not flickering....and I still wouldn't have the answers.
Lionel.
Of course a mosquito born virus left unchecked and unmanaged could pan out into a disaster.
No one has claimed otherwise.
And I can't see where I claimed 'fully and without consequence'.
I said that humans have dealt with mosquito born viruses before this particular one and suggested that perhaps some of the successful methods should be used again?
Perhaps you don't agree?
I also acknowledged that the paper points out that an el Nino event on top of climate change is a likely contributor to the spread of this outbreak.
It most definitely didn't claim that this outbreak is the destruction of the herd from inability to create functioning entities.
So Lionel,
you linked something that's indeed concerning.
What do you think needs to happen next in order to manage this very real threat?
I don't think its a good idea to let it 'pan out into an accelerated decline of a species'...do you?
Which is why a short rebuttal is the best reply to the likes of batshit and StuPid here. Just point out their argument's gaping holes and let anyone else decide if the flapping chickens have managed to indicate their lack of knowledge well enough to be painfully obvious.
And in response to Lionel's evidence of disease vectors spreading due to climate change, deflection is the name of the game for the deniers: "Who said anything different?".
Never a less useless whinge has ever been done when deniers use that one.
It neither says anything substantive nor does it make any sense in a reply to the evidence provided. Its merely the foot-in-the-door to smugglers-turn the conversation AWAY from the problem and off into the sidetracks of ignoring the problem.
And the only winning move is not to answer that whine. The evidence of diseases being spread because of climate change is still there. The problems of more and new diseases is still there. Pretending you're being persecuted with assertions nobody made changes none of that, but is merely a cry for sympathy that is never deserved.
Deal with the evidence and either accept it or deny it.
https://areomagazine.com/2016/12/29/why-i-no-longer-identify-as-a-femin…
Fellas.
Yes, climate change is acknowledged as one likely contributor to this outbreak.
Are you claiming that if we just focus on stopping climate change that is all that needs to happen in order to 'do something' about this Zika virus outbreak?
Surely not?
Wouldn't there be a bit of a problem with time scales?
The specific threat that has been identified needing urgent action is the virus outbreak.
If we're only going to focus on mitigating the AGW % of climate change, then Lionel is perhaps right and this outbreak will be able to pan out into a horrible disaster.
I was sent the above link this morning.
I think it's a good example of 'same book different page'.
The 'environmental movement' has similarly and very unfortunately lost its way IMHO.
Stu - "No one has claimed otherwise."...."And I can’t see where I claimed ‘fully and without consequence"
You see Stu...you are being gaslighted.... this is why, as reasonable as you are, you'll never be able to have a normal conversation with them.
Next, they will be asking you why you are denying what they claim you claimed, which is one way they helped drive Deltoid into the ground.....what do you think, 5-10 follows worldwide?
Can you picture when the 3 stooges are the only ones left.... the 3 of them, flickering the gaslight in an empty room.
Betula,
Rather than you baiting them, let's try this.
Lionel's link is about the spread of the mosquito borne Zika Virus.
WHO says that it still needs urgent attention.
I agree.
Do you?
What do you think should be done to supply that urgent attention to the communities at risk?
If you can possibly resist the temptation, I would prefer an answer that makes no mention of your predictions of WoW's or Lionel's likely response to this particular comment.
My answer was that humans have dealt with mosquito borne viruses before this particular one and that one thing we could do is look at employing some of the successful measures from those previous experiences.
What are your thoughts on that?
I think it's good that the extent of this virus outbreak has been identified and clearly mapped out.
Now it has been, what should happen next?
Re P1 #43 query.
Ive figured it out now.
Each line is a rolling average of
all the months in that year. So January
is just January. But Febuary is the average
of Jan and Feb. And so on through to December,
which is an average of the 12 months.
The averaging process then stops, but begins
anew in Jan.
Thats why things dont seem to line up.
Its actually a damn good way to see if trends are developing
over several years.
Confused the crap outa me at first.
Stu,
Keep in mind that any answer I give is subject to gaslighting, and that at this moment, at least one of the 3 stooges is "most likely" hovering over his keyboard ready to flicker the light. With that said, just remember, the flickering you see on a daily basis is a real.
Here goes...
The obvious answer is to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where we no longer have any Mosquito borne diseases, Tick borne diseases, plant diseases, floods, droughts, rising tides, hurricanes, tornadoes, greed, poverty, shifting zones, deniers, starving polar bears, capitalism, polar vortex, corporations, social injustice, inequality, death threats and a whole host of other bad things on a global scale.
I hope this helps. It's the best answer I can give under the circumstance....I'm sure you understand.
What do you think needs to happen next in order to manage this very real threat?
I don’t think its a good idea to let it ‘pan out into an accelerated decline of a species’…do you?
Last point first. Of course I don't think that, and you wonder why you are thought of as stupid, I wasn't implying that. You are reading things into others words — again.
Dealing with this virus is going to involve using some very different measures to those used against other mosquito borne pathogens.
Firstly we need to understand why this virus has established itself and spread, here is a brief rundown of some of the aspects, I emphasis some of:
A hole through the layers
The first layer is a fertile environment for mosquitoes. That’s something my colleagues and I have studied in the Amazon rain forest. We found that deforestation followed by agriculture and regrowth of low-lying vegetation provided a much more suitable environment for the malaria mosquito carrier than pristine forest.
Increasing urbanization and poverty create a fertile environment for the mosquitoes that spread dengue by creating ample breeding sites. In addition, climate change may raise the temperature and/or humidity in areas that previously have been below the threshold required for the mosquitoes to thrive.
The second layer is the introduction of the mosquito vector. Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus have expanded their geographic range in the past few decades. Urbanization, changing climate, air travel and transportation, and waxing and waning control efforts that are at the mercy of economic and political factors have led to these mosquitoes spreading to new areas and coming back in areas where they had previously been eradicated.
Now if you have followed through that link then you will understand one basic requirement for control which is unlikely to be helped by the election of Trump if he backs the irrational tenets of the US bible belt ans its tentacles throughout. This is the topic which the articles "Amid Zika Crisis, House GOP Proposes Eliminating Birth Control Program" and "The Importance of Contraception to the Zika Fight" are about. It also provides understanding of Why Brazil?
It may come as a surprise to you that there has been growing understanding of the role of viruses including bacteriophages, having an impact on evolution all along, including of humans and will continue to do so. This has been touched on by Richard Dawkins in his numerous excellent and time worthy books, if you haven't you should try some.
The first link in #77 is to The Conversation and not the Dawkins' site but the articles cited in the following texts are and can be found via the link in #78 being a useful hook to this all inclusive page.
"Firstly we need to understand why this virus has established itself and spread, here is a brief rundown of some of the aspects"
And that as climate changes, where diseases can spread also changes with the movement of the optimum climate zones.
So one good reason to avoid AGW.
Which requires reducing emissions of CO2 80% by 2050.
Of which deniers have done their best to see less than 10% happen, and wiggle with glee at the idea that just to spite others, they will buy SUVs and drive around just to offset those small changes.
Then complain that people don't like them and assume the worst of motives behind their rhetoric.
Wow - "Then complain that people don’t like them and assume the worst of motives behind their rhetoric"
Definition of rhetoric
1
: the art of speaking or writing effectively: such as
a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times
b : the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion
2
a : skill in the effective use of speech
b : a type or mode of language or speech; also : insincere or grandiloquent language
Example -
Wow – “you can fuck right off up your own shitfilled arse canal and die choking on the excrement you deserve.”……..”you deserve the desecrated death I abjured you to suffer under as specified above”
I don't know, maybe Wow is flickering the gaslight for himself and wondering if it's really happening...
Betula @#72.
Yes I do understand what you've done and it did sort of work.
Lionel,
Thank you for those references.
I understand that dealing with this virus won't be exactly the same as dealing with other mosquito born diseases and viruses.
But nonetheless, as some of those articles explain, we learn by experience and get better at managing risks.
The specific article @#78 that you linked is particularly good on looking at managing risks and deciding whether the risks are acceptable vs doing nothing at all.
Developing a vaccine is indeed one way to help those communities at risk from the Zika virus.
WoW @#80
I agree. It's one.
Long term we should indeed be working towards reducing emmissions.
I'm not sure what purpose you were serving by your last 2 paragraphs or why you think that would provide 'urgent attention' to the outbreak of the Zika virus?
I’m not sure what purpose you were serving by your last 2 paragraphs or why you think that would provide ‘urgent attention’ to the outbreak of the Zika virus?
Because, Mister Slow, global warming is a threat multiplier across ecosystems and economies, with disease being in that mix.
Remember, if it can't be "solved" with "I planted trees", it can't be a solution, Lionel. Deniers don't want reductions in CO2 emissions, since that is a global change, not a distracting personal action.
No Lionel @# 84 I didn't miss that bit,
But perhaps you may have missed the bit that said that not having a vaccine outweighs the risk of GBS?
And WoW's last 2 paragraphs @# 80 has little to do with the rest of his comment.
Isn't it amazing how Stu and Betula, both lacking any relevant knowledge or expertise in anything they write here, are trying to position themselves as the 'voices of reason'?
I have to admit that Dunning and Kruger would be in hysterics. Their model perfectly applies to these two idiots.
How much expertise do they need to operate a bog brush? The use of it is pretty much in the name.
I don't think it's D-K, though. They KNOW they're talking bollocks, and without any capacity. Look at how Batshit claimed without a single hesitation that they said something, then never said they said that then said that they said they said that. Look at how StuPid, given a perfect chance to show of their "technique" refused to do so, because they didn't actually want to do it. They only wanted to drive others in the direction StuPid wanted.
Both know they're talking bullshit. There's no belief in their expertise going on here, no self deception. Only deception of others who aren't psychopaths.
And WoW’s last 2 paragraphs @# 80 has little to do with the rest of his comment.
They didn't have to for they were within the context of the discussion pointing at the success of the liars and rogues who have delayed effective adequate controls aimed at ameliorating the dire situation we will find ourselves in, or my children and grandchildren will.
This is why delta-india-papa-sierra-hotel-india-tango wibblers make we so foxtrot-uniform-charlie-kilo-india-november-golf angry. And yet those like Betula feed off them and try to emulate them but he-she doesn't realise that they are being clever whereas he is just plain dumb.
What that snide comment made was for was to pretend that no "reasonable" person would know what was going on, therefore my comments are suspect, so disbelieve what I say.
It was not legitimate, since they knew what it meant and why it was there. They just wanted "plausible" doubt and to hook me back in so they can gaslight some more.
Wow - "It was not legitimate, since they knew what it meant and why it was there. They just wanted “plausible” doubt and to hook me back in so they can gaslight some more"
Note how Wow uses the word "they" when referring to a comment by one person. Why would he do this?
We'll let Wow explain this to himself:
Wow - "It’s a simple way to pretend that they’re not alone, and that you have to argue against “others” who aren’t there, so if you prove THEM wrong, that’s merely because “they” aren’t here."
"It also pretends that there’s some sort of consensus for their idea."
So Wow admits to himself that he is gaslighting....using the word "they", which is not legitimate, but gives the reader the idea that more than one person is involved in his gaslighting fantasy...
Lionel.
Did you perhaps miss the bit that said that not having a vaccine outweighs the risk of GBS in the Dawkins article?
Do you think that deveoping a vaccine for the Zika virus is one way to to help the communities at risk?
What else could be done to start paying urgent attention to this outbreak?
WHO says the threat has abated a bit, but it still needs urgent attention.
& Jeff @# 89?
Wouldn't mosquitoes be part of your relevant knowledge and expertise?
Considering that's how this particular virus gets spread, what do you think could be done about those mosquitoes?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Francis
And Lionel?
How would Jennifer Francis assist to provide urgent attention for the Zika virus outbreak when her relevant knowledge and expertise is not in that area?
And Lionel?
How would Jennifer Francis assist to provide urgent attention for the Zika virus outbreak when her relevant knowledge and expertise is not in that area?
There we have it, and you don't like being called simple, devious or whatever when you come back with a simplistic question like that.
Firstly the Francis link was not directly about Zika virus. However the climate conditions clearly disrupted will have a bearing on how the spread of all pathogens develops.
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeesh! Insular thinking from you again!
From these two retards' actions, you have no need to defend yourself from accusation or even bother convincing them they are wrong, since they have shown complete disregard for truth or reality when it comes to protecting what they've already decided is right.
Sorry Lionel.
I thought you were answering my questions due to the fact that your comment with that JF link was directed at me.
I was definitely asking you about the Zika virus outbreak.
In particular what needs to be done to give the outbreak 'urgent attention' as per what WHO says is needed.
But thanks for explaining that the JF post was not about supplying urgent attention to the Zika virus.
It won'tchange the science, therefore it won't change the conclusions.
And it won't change denier claims that scientists are doing it because the politiicans make them or bribe them. And it also won't make them say that Trump wants a NWO and is in on the "scam" too.
And, despite all his access to the machinations of this AGW "scam", his not finding any evidence of it won't change anything either.
I think with Wow's propensity to downplay the role of planting trees, he may find this interesting for several reasons:
"In summary, our analyses highlight that agroforestry, and tree cover on agricultural land in general, has clear potential to contribute to climate change mitigation while providing an array of adaptation benefits."
"Following the success of its collection of spoof kids books for adults, including ‘The Mid-Life Crisis’ and ‘The Hipster’, Penguin’s revamped Ladybird range has commissioned its funniest title yet, ‘Climate Change’, which is set to be co-authored by Prince Charles.!"
"Given Charles’ previous claim that the current war in Syria was caused by climate change, this new book promises to be a gripping read."
Hmmmm?
I wonder if this book will mention anything that is being done?
Maybe like WoW's 30 acres of solar panels or the IPCC's recommendations about agriforestry as per Betula's link @#10?
Or a myriad of other land and water management projects all over the globe including CZM projects????
Betula and GSW, nothing wrong with Lady Gaga's or Prince Charles' stories, but I'm waiting on our own royalty, the emperor penguine Hardley's opinion piece in NT.
I wonder how many strawmen and conspiracies little Napoleon can squeeze into one little article? ???
I think its honestly time for Tim (Lambert) to step in here; this site has been overrun with brainless, Dunning-Kruger afflicted, anti-scientific vermin. I'll write to him. It's banning time.
We have a third rate blogger with a basic degree in chemistry (GSW); a tree pruner who is unemployed in winter and sits around writing piffle on blogs (Betula), and a Swedish meatball who won't say what he does for a living because its too embarrassing to admit (Olaus).
What a fucking tag team of stupidity. And as their 'manager' there is Stu2, who sits by the sidelines claiming to be above the fray, but who deep down in his heart sympathizes with these morons.
No wonder our species is in such trouble if these clowns represent the average 'Joe Public'.
They don't represent them, which is why they have to stay to the echo chamber. But their excessive volume and vitriol does give politicians enough wiggle room to do as their backers want rather than what their voters want.
Go see the link I gave back on page 1 or 2.
But they ARE just plain toxic and any use gained by showing how dumb their rhetoric is is vastly outweighed by the noise they generate. And that they make it look like so many people are still just that batshit crazy themselves.
There are approximately 6-10 people left in the world that visit this blog. I was wondering if you could get rid of 3 of them so the rest of us can sit around staring at each other without anyone to point out our hypocrisies, twisting of words, death threats and occasional outright lies. Please ban any free speech that would expose our anti-capitalist ideology, it's very annoying...
1. Time scales matter unless you witness climate change first hand over the course of a week or two...and if you don't understand that, you don't understand time scales.
2. If you witness climate change first hand, it's not weather...
3. Witnessing weather and calling it climate change is unacceptable, unless you are using the weather to verify it's climate change...
4. Trees don't help mitigate climate change, unless scientists point out they do, in which case, they still don't...
5. Always read into something that the co-author asks us not to read too much into...and if you post that the co-author asks us not too read too much into it, we will read too much into what you posted.
6. Discussing the personal changes you have seen over the last 40-45 years is a sign of ignorance.
7. If you say you don't deny climate change. it's a sure sign you do.
8. If you never say you deny climate change, it's a sure sign you do.
9. "deniers" are the majority and control the world's actions, thus anyone labeled a denier is the problem.
10. If someone wants you to post something you haven't posted, it means you forgot to post it.
11. If you are being gaslighted, that means you are gaslighting....
Jeff,
Once again I could be flattered that you now think I'm managing from the sidelines.
Of course that whole concept is rubbish.
So is your idea about 'Joe Public.'
Apart from anything else, It's definitely not an attitude that one would define as 'democratic'.
When you write to Tim, perhaps you could also point out that that it's 2017 not 2107?
Wow - “you can fuck right off up your own shitfilled arse canal and die choking on the excrement you deserve.”……..”you deserve the desecrated death I abjured you to suffer under as specified above”
Glad I could be of assistance, that's what i'm here for...
And according to the below paper published in 2013...."Even if carbon dioxide emissions came to a sudden halt, the carbon dioxide already in Earth's atmosphere could continue to warm our planet for hundreds of years"
Dear Wow, the Earth does give a shit about politics. It is severly harmed by it. The unscientific scaremongering modus Al Gore advocated (initially) for palm oil as the 'da shit' that would save us from our fossil fuel dependency. And the same scaremongers paved the way fro ethanol, with the same negative side effects.
I note (H/T Ian Forrester at DesmogBlog) that Pat Michaels is still up to his brand of misdirection and obfuscation., as contemptible as the evil Ebel and the other swamp creatures Trump is putting in positions for which they have no knowledge or experience only a desire to let fossil fuel interests rule the globe.
Listen up any true patriotic Americans - Trump — Tillerson — is good for the USA, I doubt Admiral David Titley sees things that way.
Maybe insted of cherry picking his science, he could do with looking for all the science, instead of ones his mates have fostered. For example, some of the information here
Funny thing about Wow's link @30....I don't see any mention of El Nino. It's almost as if it was forgotten, or didn't plat any roll, or was insignificant, or didn't exist...
Wow, the reality is, now that I know who you are , it will be very difficult for you to hide from a lie (like I pointed out @86, pg6) or from being a hypocrite (like I pointed out @31).
It was easy for me before, it will be much easier for me now...
You are privileged to be able to be in the position you are..
You have been handed something few others have, and you have a true passion for what you doing....try to appreciate it without judging others who don't have the same means or circumstances.
In other words, stop being a dick....if possible.
WoW,
By their nature all models such as these all cherry pick.
Just for a start they rely on start/stop dates.
The inputs need to be constantly updated as new 'real time' information becomes available
They're very very useful tools but they're not crystal balls & they're not supposed to be.
Anyone who runs their own businesses knows this.
They also know that if an input is changed, for whatever reason, it changes the output of the model.
They also know that it's possible to tweak bits and pieces depending on who or what the model is being presented and the actual reason for the presentation.
A simple example is how a business presents differently to a bank than it does to a tax dept.
Both use the same information but the focus and weighting is different.
Well to some extent yes. But some start dates are way back in geological time.
So have people been running businesses for that long? I ask this because of this from you:
The inputs need to be constantly updated as new ‘real time’ information becomes available
Anyone who runs their own businesses knows this.
Not all climate models are reliant upon start dates in that sense. That you should compare like that demonstrates you still don't have a clue about the many forms of climate models run by many disparate organisation that are constructed and fed with boundary conditions in order to explore different issues to do with climate and change.
There are no such things as crystal balls, even if there were your comparison is a logic fail.
I have put in front of you information and links previously over the years on Palaeoclimatology from Cronin and also Bradley. I have also linked to Met' Office papers which include discussion of climate models.
Funny thing about Wow’s link @30….I don’t see any mention of El Nino.
There didn't need to be for 2016 was locked in to being the hottest and El Niño just edged temperatures up further.
The El Niño weather phenomenon helped push temperatures even higher in early 2016 but the global warming caused by the greenhouse gas emissions from human activities remains the strongest factor.
"Well to some extent yes. But some start dates are way back in geological time."
And that doesn't make it a cherry pick, either. To do so is to abuse the definition to uselessness, thereby being its own refutation as an argument.
"There didn’t need to be for 2016 was locked in to being the hottest and El Niño just edged temperatures up further."
Also there was no assertion that there was any need for mention of it, but this was merely yet another weasel trick by deniers to derail and INSINUATE without SAYING what they want people to think.
You know, pure manipulative shystering.
Making others do the work of making the claim, refuting that, only to be whined that no such thing was meant. IOW a deliberate attempt to waste your time.
"I have put in front of you information and links previously over the years on Palaeoclimatology from Cronin and also Bradley."
However, StuPid is in denial of all that information since it doesn't comport with what this denier wants to be true, or doesn't help them lie to others on the subject or punish them for not obeying their exhortations.
IOW, unless it can be insinuated or abused to make you dance to their tune, they will ignore everything said or given to them.
Lionel @#38
No people weren't running businesses way back in geological times.
Neither were they using climate models way back in geological times.
Neither did they have satellites and thermometers and computers and Universities and etc etc etc.
None of that is relevant to the simple fact that all modeling is subject to cherry picking by their very nature.
It also doesn't change the fact that they're extremely useful tools.
None of that is relevant to the simple fact that all modeling is subject to cherry picking by their very nature.
That is bollocks, there is a great difference between choosing a period of time based upon the available data and cherry picking end and start dates. If you had bothered to study the sources cited over the years instead of thinking you know about this stuff then you would not be making these silly assertions. Unless of course you do have some understanding and are being dishonest.
And you moan about having labels attached to you. Old saying, if the cap fits wear it.
And the moaning is just to make others feel either shame or pity. It's just a method to manipulate you. It also can be used to make them feel like they MUST be right (persecution complex), but since deniers are impervious to anything that doesn't agree with them, there's absolutely no way to stop that happening, no matter how hard you try.
Note how Betula invokes the El Nino as a get out clause to explain what was by far the warmest year in recorded history (2016). Funny thing is that deniers like the old tree pruner never mention it when using 1998 as the starting year for their 'hiatus'. Therefore, when we were being told - incorrectly as it turns out - in 2013 that there was a 'hiatus' in the global temperature rise, the deniers were always using 1998 as their starting year. Not 1997 or 1999, when the result would have been clear cut; no, it was 1998, when there was perhaps the most powerful El Nino on record that amplified temperatures to almost 0.20 C above any previous year in the records. Now they are using the latest El Nino to try - and fail - to dismiss the significance of 2016. Note how last year was also much warmer than 1998, despite the fact that the El Nino event was not as potent.
Why was that? Because it was amplified by anthropogenic global warming.
End of story. The scientific community acknowledges it, even if tree pruners with a warped sense of reality don't.
Meanwhile, back to reality: the cryosphere is in freefall, and Arctic ice extent is also at by far its lowest level in recorded history at this time, and what is shocking is that Arctic ice cover has actually flatlined for about 2 weeks at a row at a time when it should be increasingly linearly in mid-winter:
And from NASA, simply confirming what we have known since 1988: the Earth's surface continues to warm rapidly. The time lapse video drives that message home.
While scientists around the world are engaged in finding solutions to ACC (IPCC Working Group 4), the army of Dunning-Kruger afflicted know-nothings like Betula are stuck in IPCC Working Groups 1 and 2 (is it warming and are humans primarily responsible).
Its too bad their cognitive limitations prevent them from realizing how utterly stupid they are.
Again, for the deniers its over, at least empirically. They have lost the scientific debate (they never could have won it). All they have left is to ensure that humanity goes down the drain anyway by doing nothing. On that score they are doing well.
"Funny thing is that deniers like the old tree pruner never mention it when using 1998 as the starting year for their ‘hiatus’."
They're also using the date and this year to "prove" that there's "no [significant] warming" in all that time.
Odd thing is, with only two points, the standard deviation from the RMS best fit line is infinite, therefore no trend would be "statistically significant", unless it was infinite, and then only possibly.
Hell, back in 98-99, the deniers were insisting that the record warming wasn't proven since it was an El Nino year. Then by 2005, it was their starting point for their "hiatus" that never existed. Even using the fact that people had to call it hiatus to say it didn't exist, it was just because of a cherry picked first year as "proof" there WAS a hiatus, otherwise why would we be using the WORD "hiatus", eh? CHECKMATE!
That, however, is just normal denier idiocy, where they just don't look into it.
What we have demonstrated here in January is that two deniers specifically have absolutely no care as to what they have said in reality, easily available to others on even cursory inspection, and that makes it a completely different kettle of fish. There's nothing to argue with someone who doesn't care that they're saying in two consecutive posts claims that refute the earlier one specifically and directly.
And we have that nobody else, even lurkers, think that any of this bullshit is believable, so it's not even necessary to keep others informed of what the error in the claim is. NOBODY, not even the one making the claim, thinks it holds water.
All they can do is add noise and fury, signifying their insanity.
@39, If you know what it is, why are you asking me?
Yes, we have them here on the east coast, we’ve had them for many years…mainly on white pines.
I was looking for a confirmatory ID, which in your haste to be rude about it you failed to provide, so what do you know it as?
I was also wondering if you had come across them during your tree swinging days.
As for how one ended up clinging to a curtain indoors here in the UK I had considered what you offered but wondered if you knew of any other.
I can think of one other which is linked to climate change.
As for the creature, or its egg or larval stages, coming in on imported timber one mechanism there could be the import of timber for burning in power generation — which is one of the least carbon efficient means of generating power.
How have the climate models been doing? Very well which is totally at odds with Pat Michaels' latest schtick on a Cato page demonstrating this is a sequence of videos here:
I saw this little gem today.
" I hope Donald Trump is a good president.
Wanting him to fail is like wanting the pilot to crash the plane that we're all on."
Lionel @#45.
My comment in no way was negative about climate models or any other form of modeling.
I clearly stated they are extremely useful tools.
I was merely pointing out that the accusations about 'cherry picking' is not recognising that by their nature, that's what they do because they have start/stop dates.
The length of time they may or may not cover is irrelevant.
If they use a longer timeframe they can of course be even a more useful tool.
I was merely pointing out that the accusations about ‘cherry picking’ is not recognising that by their nature, that’s what they do because they have start/stop dates.
You still don't get it do you, climate models do not cherry pick. Go study sources cited and discover why you are wrong, wrong again and again and again!
no stu, it is not cherry picking. One of the steps in designing a model is to decide an appropriate "space" to which that model will apply. Designing the model to fit that space isn't cherry picking (picking certain aspects from that finished model in a strategic way to get a result that confirms your view and then declaring that the model is invalid IS cherry picking: look at any denialist article for a multiple demonstrations).
Deciding an appropriate space?
Seriously?
But I agree that one definition of 'cherry picking' is like picking out the best cherries according to your taste taste in cherries.
Some like the really ripe ones, some like the tart ones & etc.
But so is 'deciding an appropriate space'.
Picking start and end dates is not cherry picking. Picking start and end dates for the effect they produce on your results is cherry picking.
Dean #73 talked about 'appropriate space' for a particular model. He clearly set out that the space wasn't to be chosen with a view to effect, and certainly not changed with a view to effect.
Setting an 'appropriate space' for a model is about many things: but never about getting a pre-set outcome.
Complaining about the singular use of 'they' and 'their' - good enough English for Jane Austen, among others - is about a pre-set outcome: distraction from climate change and global warming and insulting someone else as a substitute for discussion.
I've not visited Deltoid for quite a few months, and it's interesting to return and scan the last two threads. As always the cadre of science deniers here are still using logical fallacy, lies, and ignorance as their tools in trade, and are completely oblivious and/or impervious to the work of actual scientists.
I note that Jeff suggested banning some of the recalcitrant trolls, but I think that Deltoid has become a remarkable demonstration of the behaviour of science deniers faced with challenges to their sacred cows. For month after month, despite repeatedly being asked to support their counter-science with actual data, they vacillate and prevaricate, cloaked in the intellectual depauperacy of the stereotypical Dunning-Kruger afflictee. Still, the undecided lurker with half an ounce of discernment would be able to see that, like the Wizard of Oz, the denialists have nothing but smoke and mirrors behind their curtains. In that Deltoid performs a public service.
Jeff, I was interested to read of your recent work. I'll definitely follow up on that. Don't be discouraged by the swine here - your wisdom is appreciated elsewhere. I was also interested to see that some of the porkers here are apparently still clutching their imaginary 'pause' to their chests: one would have thought that they'd leave that false meme along like the rotting pile of fish heads that it is.
One (two part) question to the Denialati here:
what would it take for you to accept that humans are causing the currently observed record warming, and what would it take for you to accept that continuation of this warming is bad for humans and the planet?
Hi Bernard, good to see you back here. I appreciate your support. As you have said, the usual suspects on here never provide a scintilla of empirical evidence to support their attempts to downplay AGW. The Dunning-Kruger afflicted minions on here are simply playing the luke-warming card, while failing ever to provide studies that support their views or (God forbid) ever attempting to actually discuss science. As I said several weeks ago, in his 6 or so years of contaminating this site, Betula's sole scientific contributions have been to use greenhouses with high ambient C02 concentrations as proxies for complex adaptive systems and to use wild turkeys, white-tailed deer and coyotes to suggest that forest ecosystems in eastern North America are in good health. Olaus hasn't even managed to get that far.
This is the deep level of intellectuality I have had to deal with. Aside from that, essentially all they have offered up here are vacuous smears and attempts at grade school psychology, with Olaus simply copying Betula (as he did Jonas, who has thankfully disappeared into the ether). As for Stu2, he smothers his exceedingly unscientific and simplistic views in a sort of pseudo-intellectual covering. How does one accurately respond to wafer-thin arguments suggesting that the deleterious effects of AGW on food webs and trophic interactions is best dealt by, as Stu2 put it, 'local managers'. This comment is so utterly devoid of acumen that I really did not know how deep into the benthos I would need to go to counter it. Stu2 was discussing a recent study showing reduced natality and fitness in reindeer, and his musings revealed how utterly ignorant he is with respect to cause and effect relationships in ecological communities. It would be easy to explain this to other scientists, but to a Dunning-Kruger acolyte, its virtually impossible. Of course, as Eric post and many others have shown, to understand the harmful effects of warming at the species level one needs to more deeply examine resource-consumer relationships and to then scale this up to entire communities and food webs. Stu2 doesn't think this way, because he lacks even the basic training to understand population and community ecology, so he writes about reindeer as if we are dealing with a local pathogen that is harming cattle. Essentially he needs to attend an intensive course in ecology, something he would deny but which to me, a trained ecologist, is clear. Dealing with widespread effects of climate warming on biodiversity requires an understanding of more complex processes incorporating scales and multiple interactions. Stu2, like many others who comments in these areas, lacks the requisite training. We cannot expect to deal with the implications of warming on biodiversity through local management, given the array on non-linear processes and complex array of interactions that are involved. Instead of dealing with the symptoms, its imperative to address the disease, which is the warming itself. I have made this ;point clear here, and its clearly been well above the head of Stu, Betula, and Olaus, who are intent on keeping the discussion mired at the lowest common denominator. They do that because any attempt to delve more deeply into the real science would leave them intellectually stranded, so the debate is forced to remain at the most sophomoric level.
Chris H, you are nominally correct, although starting and ending dates in regression analyses are not usually pre-determined by choice but arbitrarily. In the case of climate and temperature readings, dares are chosen based on a variety of parameters, whereas deniers are masters at cherry picking dates that are aimed to show the least significant effects. Hence when 1998 turned out to be the warmest year on record up to that time, AGW deniers pulled out the El Nino canard to downplay it, correctly as it turns out claiming that global temperatures were boosted by its magnitude. However, when it turned out that post 2000-temperatures were close or even higher than 1998 in non El Nino years, the deniers cleverly began using 1998 as their starting year, simply to suggest that there was a hiatus and that warming had actually stopped, which of course it never did. Now they are back to their original strategy of downplaying 2016's record warmth on the latest El Nino event, even though, as I said yesterday, it was significantly warmer than in 1998 (the last El Nino which was indeed stronger). As 2017 and perhaps 2-18 will be slightly cooler than 2016, watch the deniers now begin to use 2016 as their starting point for the next hiatus.
This is their modus operandi and it categorically proves that they are a vile bunch of dishonest liars. They are and never were interested in science; they simply mangle and distort the science to promote a pre-dertermined worldview and political agendas. That agenda is simple: don't do anything about AGW.
Bernard: good question. Don't expect them to even try and answer it, because it will mean that they are forced to discuss Earth and environmental science, something by now we all know that they are very poor at doing.
As an aside, I have completed the Arctic ice/Polar bear manuscript and my co-authors and going though it. Watch this space. I hope to submit ti in the coming weeks.
"but I think that Deltoid has become a remarkable demonstration of the behaviour of science deniers faced with challenges to their sacred cow"
It will be that merely because you can click on the last few threads and see it.
But Batshit Betty and StuPid are both entirely toxic entities whose existence make posting a waste of time and promotes their batshit crazy as being somehow legitimate.
Part of the problem of retards like Batshit is that people don't bother to come here for monts or years because they've been so toxic to anything worth listening to going on here.
And people who don't bother coming here really can't go and opine that the denier idiots who have clearly shown that theirs is not honest refusal but deliberate derailment of conversation must be left to promote their crap.
It's easy to say dogshit isn't a problem when someone else has to clean it up every day.
From those who have to clean up that dogshit day in, day out,every fucking day, the dogshit IS a problem. You think it fine? Turn the fuck up and help clean up.
And, no, saying "Thanks Jeff" does not cut it, because he's got better things to do than be trapped typing out a page of cogent argument just to have batshit cry that they've never SAID they denied AGW, they just deny it without saying.
No, you want to thank Jeff? Come and do clean-up and let him get on with some fucking WORK.
When StuPid tries to make them out to be to blame for deniers, COME DEFEND THEM.
If you can't be arsed to do the effort, save THEM the effort and stop demanding that the shitbags be left to poison everything while you go somewhere else and enjoy your day while they go and wade through the mouldering pigshit of batshit and StuPid.
Wow, you know that I'm visible elsewhere doing that very thing. The Deltoid archives will show that I have spent thousands of hours here in the past rebutting this particular crowd, but there are only so many hours in the day...
Sometimes one simply has to pick one's fights, and in my choices sometimes Deltoid is down the list. I wish that it were otherwise, but I have many real world responsibilities as well and I can't be everywhere at once. Which is why I feel it worth acknowledging the efforts of those who are currently holding the fort at Deltoid.
OK, so let Batshit betty, StuPid and so on appear there.
Don't say "Let them stay here, they're useful over here". You're like someone pro-nuke going "But not over here. It's not safe, put it over there where I'm not". If everyone says that, then it means "Nowhere".
But you wanted to pick one for others: to make the fight appear here, where you aren't and haven't been for ages. Pick for yourself, choose you, your'e the only one you can choose for.
Picking not to let batshit betty and stupid turn this blog into toxic sludge is picking the fight be avoided.
If you're not going to be here but still pat Jeff on the back for doing what you're too busy "elsewhere" to do here, don't go making work for him. You're choosing him to fight that battle you've chosen not to.
Christpgher - Complaining about the singular use of ‘they’ and ‘their’ "........."insulting someone else as a substitute for discussion."
Meanwhile, Chris has some catching up to do...
Here is Wow's response to Hardley in a discussion on why they believe "deniers" use "we" or "they"...
Wow Jan pg1 - "It’s a simple way to pretend that they’re not alone, and that you have to argue against “others” who aren’t there, so if you prove THEM wrong, that’s merely because “they” aren’t here.
It also pretends that there’s some sort of consensus for their idea."
So we agree Chris, Wow and Hardley are insulting as a substitute for discussion.
Jeff @# 79.
You have seized on one comment about a different topic entirely and then conflated it with another vaguely similar comment and then used that to advance an argument based on some type of amateur psychological analysis.
All of it still based on one comment.
I think the favoured terminology here for that behaviour is 'false equivalence' and 'straw man'.
But it could also be defined as 'cherry picking' amongst other things.
In context, I stand by the original comment that was related to managing bushfire risk.
I also stand by my comment that was related to specifically managing any perceived specific health issues for the specific reindeer.
Hardley - "As I said several weeks ago, in his 6 or so years of contaminating this site, Betula’s sole scientific contributions have been to use greenhouses with high ambient C02 concentrations as proxies for complex adaptive systems and to use wild turkeys, white-tailed deer and coyotes to suggest that forest ecosystems in eastern North America are in good health."
Because you said it, it doesn't mean that's what I said. So when you twist the meaning of words to compensate for your blinding ideology, just remember.....you're the scientist.
Wow - "Part of the problem of retards like Batshit is that people don’t bother to come here for monts or years because they’ve been so toxic to anything worth listening to going on here"
Only I will go for months without being here, and when I do, what do I find? Wow lying and being a hypocrite.
This is good -
Wow says - "“Part of the problem of retards like Batshit is that people don’t bother to come here for monts or years because they’ve been so toxic to anything worth listening to going on here”
And then when Bernard comments for the first time in months,
here's what Wow has to say...
"OK, so let Batshit betty, StuPid and so on appear there"
"Don’t say “Let them stay here, they’re useful over here”. You’re like someone pro-nuke going “But not over here. It’s not safe, put it over there where I’m not”. If everyone says that, then it means “Nowhere"
Wow is giving a little lecture to Bernard about where to allow (let) free speech. Here on Deltoid, free speech is not safe, because it has a tendency to expose his hypocrisy and lying....and he can't have that.
Did it ever occur to Wow to go somewhere else, where they don't know who he is, so he can be safe and start lying all over again?
Wow - "From those who have to clean up that dogshit day in, day out,every fucking day, the dogshit IS a problem. You think it fine? Turn the fuck up and help clean up"
This from the radical, lying hypocrite who wonders why a normal conversation can't be had on this site...
Wow - "If you’re not going to be here but still pat Jeff on the back for doing what you’re too busy “elsewhere” to do here, don’t go making work for him"
So this is like a job for them and Bernard isn't showing up for work. Wow is very angry and wants to dock his vacation time or have him fired all together.... the company is falling apart and they need more responsible employess.
Suggestion to Wow - Advertise....
Wanted: Someone who can defend hypocrisy, twist words and tell a lie to join a handful of anti-capitalist activists on an obscure blog.
Must be an extreme ideologue without basic reading comprehension who has the time and energy to avoid logic and common sense at all costs. Narcissism is a plus.
What do you think Wow, should I include the contact information or leave it blank for now?
Last year, Deltoid was, according to the seasonally unemployed tree pruner, a 'dead blog'.
Now he's trying to take the damned thing over. Out of the last 95 posts, 34 are Betula's. This all began when his company shut down for the winter and he appears to sit around on his ass with nothing to do. So we are 'graced' with his grade-school level scientific wisdom here. Given this, I wonder why he doesn't try and take over other blogs, especially those espousing denier bullshit where he will be feted and revered for his stupidity. Here, his fanbase is confined to a Swede (Olaus) who is too embarrassed to tell us his day job (if any), a Trump supporting sociopath (Kim) and a guy with a basic degree in chemistry (GSW), with quiet support added by an Aussie (Stu2) who thinks that the immense damage being inflicted by climate change on natural ecosystems can be deal with by local managers.
"Now he’s trying to take the damned thing over. Out of the last 95 posts, 34 are Betula’s."
Not that that means anything, but it IS a common trope for deniers to try and make something of it without saying what, to get others to shut up when they're being inconvenient.
"This all began when his company shut down for the winter "
By which you mean the company he works for. Probably a part time worker for the local council.
What batshit is trying to do here, with what seems like Tim's blessing, is either get people hooked back in to arguing with them or to ensure that denier talking points are the only talking points available.
Oh, don't worry, Betula, I don't need reminding. Your brazen ignorance and inability to discuss even elementary fields proves categorically that I am light years ahead of you in science. But that was obvious 5 years ago. Every post you make simply reinforces it.
I never said that you claimed your company shuts down for the winter. But the fact that you sit around on your butt and write messages ad nauseum in here suggests that you have too much time on your hands.
Hardley stated "... bla bla ... Your [Betula's, -kim] brazen ignorance and inability to discuss even elementary fields proves categorically that I am light years ahead of you in science. .. bla bla bla..."
Do you also feel yourself light years ahead of Wow in science?
It was primarily about the cycle of old ice and new ice wasn’t it?
DK kicks in again. No Stupid it wasn't, the main message was the year by year reduction of multiyear sea ice which points to an ice free Arctic summer before too long and what can result.
Now for that what can result part, here are some clues:
For what is going on now and the ramifications, in particular pick up on Jennifer Francis again, see here (always worth a look is this blog): A new Arctic feedback (?)
Now I have seen some phrases that you will likely pick out to spin the story and also some ideas there that you could also use by selective quoting — so don't even think of going there.
Bets, by posting that video link you demonstrate again how broken your moral compass is. Calling a woman expressing an opinion 'a wretched liberal hag' is distasteful and just a hint of the vile attitude promoted by and adopted by Trump. It is inflammatory and a disgrace. But note that what the Trump supporter said or did to promote her response is not included in that story. The flight crew should have allowed a seat change, but I guess they were biased too.
After a review of a few of Wow's previous comments i.e.,
Wow - "Shall we forget the “plant trees” idea as your solution?"
Wow - "so your “planting trees” doesn’t actually do anything about CO2, even sequestering, and abandons even the pretense of stopping AGW."
Wow - "What I DO know is that your definition of “planting trees” has no effect on AGW, nor even on CO2 levels"
I would like to ask him to explain what is wrong with the following statements:
1. "Farming and forestry are almost unique industries in being able to sequester (absorb) carbon on very significant scales. When CO2 is absorbed by trees (and other perennials), the carbon is locked up in woody material"
4 "Trees have so many benefits on farms, from wildlife habitat to source of timber, aesthetic value and carbon absorbers. It is this latter point that is of greatest interest to Farm Carbon Cutting Toolkit, for a hectare of broadleaf woodland can sequester anywhere between 1 and 35 tonnes of CO2 per hectare, depending on age and species
What words don't factor into Betula's vocabulary? Non-linear. Asymptote. Stoichiometry. C-3, C-4, ethylene pathways. Allelochemistry. Asymmetric competition.
Simply put, plant and population ecologists know that the majority of extant plants living today evolved under relatively low and constant atmospheric concentrations of C02. Its also been shown that the planet attained perhaps the highest levels of species and genetic richness in recent evolutionary and geological history, proving that high atmospheric concentrations of C02 are not correlated with biodiversity. Plants do have to capacity to absorb increasing levels of C02 - to a point. But it is vitally important to recognize that changes in temperature, precipitation, and the availability of other vital nutrients will limit this capacity along with the evolutionary history of the taxa in question. Moreover, quanity does not necessarily equate with quality. The loss of N or P from plant tissues will have consequences both in terms of plant fitness and interactions with mutualists and antagonists such as pathogens, pollinators and herbivores.
Scientists realize all of this even if simpletons like Betula think that cause-and-effect relationships are linear. Go to any university or conference where these issues are discussed and you'll find very few qualified scientists arguing like the loonies who set up the Oregon Petition that ''putting more C02 into the atmophere is a wonderful thing and mankind's gift to nature". This argument is so utterly puerile yet the Betula's and Kim's of this world seem to lap it up.
Once again, the idea that trees will forever soak up C02 that humans increasingly put into the atmosphere is pure and utter bunk. And, as scientists know, there are all kinds of other unintended and often harmful effects.
Hardley - "This all began when his company shut down for the winter"
Hardley - "I never said that you claimed your company shuts down for the winter"
Looks like a trend for you.... forming definitive conclusions with little to go on other than your imagination.....sort of like witnessing climate change first hand because you saw a spider.
Hardley, I noticed you didn’t address the specific statements I posted at #17
There we have the simple denier trick at #17 of a Gish Gallop and expecting a response as Jeff looks in to answer simplistic posted in an earlier post.
Poor situational awareness and grasp of response times to add to other displays of simplistic ignorance.
The idea that planting trees where older growth has been removed as solution for increasing atmospheric GHGs often overlooks the realities.
When a forest has been ravaged by logging the underlying soil structure and organisms that make up the ecological community which supported and worked with that old growth is, most, often degraded or destroyed. A forest is a living organism where each part is communicating with the rest, including the fungi in the soil. A myriad of small creatures co-exist and interact in beneficial ways within that context. Planting trees and stripping out when grown to replant more to support those carted away and used as fuel, in a smoke and mirrors attempt to kid the population of the world that such biomass burning is good for combating AGW, is hiding the reality of environmental degradation.
Derrick Jensen describes the relationship between trees and soil organisms in simple terms in his book 'The Myth of Human Supremacy', you really need to read this.
Of all three types of forests, boreal forests are expected to experience the largest rise in temperature over the 21st century, the researchers say. If the world warms by 4C above pre-industrial levels, for example, which is what we can reasonably expect if emissions stay very high, boreal forests could see temperatures rise by as much as 11C.
Warmer conditions could see increases in droughts and forest fires, and also in the geographical range of pests and diseases, the researchers say. These changes may offset any benefits from longer growing season or from higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, they add.
... trees can also have a warming effect because they are dark and absorb a lot of sunlight, holding heat near ground level
"Our study shows that tropical forests are very beneficial to the climate because they take up carbon and increase cloudiness, which in turn helps cool the planet," explained Dr Bala.
The further you move from the equator, though, these gains are eroded; and the team's modelling predicts that planting more trees in mid- and high-latitude locations could lead to a net warming of a few degrees by the year 2100.
"What words don’t factor into Betula’s vocabulary?"
Carbon. Global. The. A.
Take your pick, really, batshit betty is completely devoid of scruples, as is StuPid, they will lie and piss about and Tim has still done fuck all to stop the parade of idiot.
Sorry, Jeff, you're going to have to do this without me, I'm outta here.
Remember, these clowns aren't serious and we have from the complete lack of noise from ANYONE lurking here, that their bollocks isn't convincing anyone here that they might have a point.
So do as much debunking of their bullshit as you feel like, for as long as you care to, but remember that there's fuck all those morons can say that will be considered rational and valid.
Your actual job, unlike theirs, is worth much more than posting on this blog, so don't skimp what's important for what is by everyone's agreement, trivial bullshit.
Enjoy the small victories when they're all you can get, and enjoy the large victories when they come.
For those slow on the uptake Bets @#25 . We should not expect to be hanging around in your effluent when other, related matters, are worth airing, even those directly related to why growing trees is not a panacea.
"The pressure for bias is easy to understand. Most climate studies and models are funded by governments. Governments throw money at what are perceived to be major problems. If researchers come back and say there is no big crisis — then the money faucet gets turned off."
"Costly regulations and mandates to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions that will have little or no global effect on temperatures over the next century make no sense. There has been no agreement on what the optimal level of carbon dioxide is, or what the optimal Earth temperature should be. We do know that plants grow faster with more carbon dioxide and thus food becomes cheaper, and that most people (including the Hollywood climate activist crowd) prefer warmer places over colder ones."
;)
...We do know that plants grow faster with more carbon dioxide and thus food becomes cheaper, and that most people (including the Hollywood climate activist crowd) prefer warmer places over colder ones.”
IOW BAU
That is quite enough to demonstrate that your source is writing tosh. We have been through the reasons why so many times now.
Lionel,
The statements I linked at #17 had nothing to do with CO2 fertilization, but carbon sequestration...
Why would a carbon cutting website post that planting trees is a "fast and easy route to increasing carbon sequestration"?
Are you saying this isn't true?
Why would they lie?....aren't they trying to help farmers reduce CO2?
Is it a lie to say trees do sequester CO2, or a lie to say they don't sequester CO2?
I frankly admit, that the enforced departure of wow from this block will substantially elevate the intellectual level, which remains still spoiled by the many egocentric effusions of shorter Hardley, who cannot even answer simple questions e.g. why the solar irradiation is not constantly constant. In addition he lobbies for the utterly disgusting junk of ecosystem services crap about serious scientists can only laugh about such primitive eco-communistic propaganda. He should better work as toilet cleaner in order to carry out a more decent life instead to waste honest taxpayers' money with his leftist idiocies from rotten ideologies.
#32
What a pile of bullplop.
I like the weasly set up.
" The pressure bias is easy to understand "
Gets the reader all nice and tin foil hatted if
they are that way inclined, and they probably are
if they are reading that shit to start with.
GSW, go and look at the video i put up about
very fast decline in old sea ice and you tell me
where the bias is?
I gotta stroooong feeling that deniers, cuz they
are always on about money, actually project their
love of money onto decent ethical scientists and
assume they are willing to have the same love
of money, over ethical professionalism.
Massivly pathetic.
Here we go again. Kim, one of the more infantile members of the tribe, belittling an area that is a major focus of research among both ecologists and economists at universities around the world. Kimmy, little child, calling something 'crap' because your feeble little mind does not like it does not make it so. If you wish to attempt to explain why it is 'crap', then please explain. But of course I will fucking annihilate you.
Betula, trees and the soil can absorb increased atmospheric carbon - to a point as I said. But as I also stressed, plant and population ecologists know, as the article in New Scientist stressed, that systems don't function in simple linear ways like you would like them to. The site you linked to clearly sees climate change as a serious threat and that planting more trees and enhancing the soils ability to uptake increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon are only a temporary solution. But why aren't you focusing your attention on the primary empirical literature? OK, OK, I know that most of it is way over your head, but I am sure that even you can understand the gist of terms like saturation points and concentration/absorption asymptotes. It is also obvious that you dismiss other more complex but equally important areas that you don't understand, like altered stoichiometry, C3/C4/Ethylene pathways, competitive asymmetries and other highly relevant areas. The bottom lie is that THERE ARE LIMITS IN THE ABILITY OF TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC VEGETATION TO SOAK UP C02. Get that? I emphasized it for you. Therefore planting more trees is a short term solution. The longer term solution, of course as the scientific community (including the people who write the site you linked) is to mitigate C02 emissions as soon as possible and work towards pursuing renewable energy sources.
And, as I said, even if terrestrial vegetation can dampen the effects of increased atmospheric C02 in the short term, there are all kinds of non-linear effects based on those complicated little words and terms that you don't understand. What you and other deniers do is dismiss areas that are over your heads. I see it all the time. Don't understand stoichiometry? Ignore or dismiss it. Don't understand differing effects on plants in communities that generate competitive asymmetries and alter community structure and function? Ignore or dismiss it. Don't understand effects of increased foliar carbon on trophic interactions? Ignore or dismiss it.
You can get away with ignoring or dismissing these things on blogs because there is no recourse. In a public debate, however, such as at a scientific conference, you'd be skewered.
Is planting trees good?
Sure. Particularly with thought put
into species selection, density, and
a host of other perameters.
But by god, its no substute for not chaining
the bush in the first place.
As an addendum, Betula thinks Wow finally having enough of his tree pruning-level of intellectual discourse bullshit is some kind of victory. This is just more proof of how utterly stupid he is. ~There is an alternative explanation. Its called exasperation. Above I explain why Betula is being disingenuous. Its clear. He just doesn't want to see it. He wants to keep debates stuck at the lowest common denominator and to avoid areas in which he knows absolutely nothing. As is clear, there are lots of those areas.
Ask youself this denierscum.
If a hypothecal biosphere, somewhat like earths,
was warming, what
would you expect to see as indications
of that warming?
What wouldnt you expect to see?
Hardley - "As an addendum, Betula thinks Wow finally having enough of his tree pruning-level of intellectual discourse bullshit is some kind of victory. This is just more proof of how utterly stupid he is. ~There is an alternative explanation. Its called exasperation"
No Hardley.... Adam, after consistently telling me how insignificant the planting of trees is, even when it comes to sequestering CO2, was asks to explain statements on his own web page that discuss the benefits of trees, including the sequestering of CO2. (see #17)
Not only did he see that I know who he is, he also saw I was pointing out what a hypocrite he really is.
You see Hardley, once I figured out who he is (something the "scientist" could never do), there was no more hiding behind the hypocrisy and lies he spews on this site.....he was toast and he knew it....sort of like you.
Thus the reason for my comment at #28 - "Wow saw it coming and chose to run"
You're just too stupid to pick up on what's going on around you....and now you know it.
Why would a carbon cutting website post that planting trees is a “fast and easy route to increasing carbon sequestration”?
Are you saying this isn’t true?
Of course not. That was not the point I was making, you did read the words 'not a panacea' did you not. Maybe you don't know what panacea means. You can only argue this by ignoring the context of my posts which was to indicate limits to a strategy of tree growing in order to draw down CO2.
Also look out his So Shall We Reap: What's Gone Wrong with the World's Food - and How to Fix it for a broader context. In this book Tudge also lays bare the poverty of the arguments used by proponents of GMO crops, for a start it isn't anything like an extension of the selective breeding used since humans became agrarian.
Hardley, who cannot even answer simple questions e.g. why the solar irradiation is not constantly constant.
Kimbot aka, I suspect - given this is one of this identitie's favourite memes, Sunspot, why should he answer simplistically phrased questions, after all you could go read a book or look it up yourself on the intertubes. But that would be using your time instead of wasting that of others and that is not in the rules of the sick game you are playing.
Lionel - "you did read the words ‘not a panacea’ did you not."
Yes, and since I never claimed it was a panacea, it had nothing to do with my questions.
And you might want to read #44, which explains the reason I posted the statements from the website to begin with....to point out Adam's hypocrisy....to Adam.
Trust me Lionel, you're not going to teach me about trees, but keep flinging away...
Good points @ #36 & #41 and pertinent questions at #43 which are as the stake through the rotten vampire heart, they dare not try answering because they have not the basic knowledge and would soon fall off their tightrope.
Neither do they have a cogent answer to the decline of multiyear Arctic sea ice. Stu2 tried by avoiding the main point.
Denier-delayers also like to mislead on the topic of ice at the other end of the Earth — the Antarctic. Some examples of that were revealed at Carbon Brief late last year (my emphasis):
Despite significant increases in global average temperature, sea ice in the Antarctic has been slightly increasing in extent over recent decades (1979 – present).
Although much of the coverage was very well reported, there were other examples of the results being wrongfully interpreted, perhaps wilfully so. Some of the errors led to confusion, such as conflating sea ice with land ice. Others attempted to cast doubt on the link between greenhouse gases and global mean temperature, which was inappropriate and misleading.
Yes, and since I never claimed it was a panacea, it had nothing to do with my questions.
When will you grasp the simple fact that my post was not aimed directly at the topic of your post other than to provide cautionary words on larger scale tree planting - as a purveyor of toilet tissue uses for advertising purposes. Maybe you are signed up by them to fling your peculiar brand of crap about so that you can be seen using their product. After all if its good enough for hippos then its good enough for humans. Hippo purgatory continues for you Bets.
Lionel - "When will you grasp the simple fact that my post was not aimed directly at the topic of your post"
I did grasp it was not aimed directly at my post, that's why I called you out on it.
Now, since you finally concede that trees do sequester CO2, I'm sure you will also concede that Adam was being a hypocrite for the sake of not wanting to concede a point.
What we need to do is label them deniers, and then argue with each and every one of them about how ignorant they are when it comes to stoichiometry and C-4 and C-3 plants and so forth.....for crying out loud, they don't even realize that maybe, might, could, may, long run, depending, however and possibly...
The fact that they would publish such a paper proves they are simpletons working on a kindergarten level with dunning-kruger written all over it...
We need to tell them that they couldn't hold a candle to us and teach them what superior intellect really looks like...
Hardley you go first.... remember, you're the scientist.
#48 um, thankyou very much for the kind words.
I dont come here very much, but when i do i seem
to get shitty very quickly!
#51 my god, thats some sad arse response.
Betula, cut the bullshit; I am sick of it. There's no alterior motive. I never denied that plants are absorbing C. I said that scientists know that there are limits to the capacity of plants to absorb it. You write as if plants have an unlimited capacity to do so. What I, and the vast majority of other ecologists will tell you is that they don't. At some point they will asymptote, either due to limitations imposed by their physiology (C3, C4, ethylene), due to negative effects of N and P loss, or else due to changes in other abiotic factors that set limits. And any plant scientist will tell you that quantity and quality of plant tissues are not necessarily correlated. This is grade-school level stuff. My God you are dumb.
You can't debate your way out of a wet paper bag. For some inane reason you keep trying, in the face of ritual humiliation. Yes, for sure I am the scientist. Your vapid ignorance makes that quite patently obvious.
Hey, Hardley is the scientist, and he claimed to witness climate change first hand when he saw a spider in Algonquin on a winter trip where his partner got frostbite....so why would a hypothetical be any different than real life?
And why is it a "sad arse" response? Are you suggesting I shouldn't listen to a scientist?
Let's have a conversation about this...please explain.
"The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. "Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time."
There you go. Our Dunning-Kruger acolyte demolished again. Remember Betula, I am the scientist.
Its fun watching Betula getting ritually hammered here to such an extent that he is back to old memes. He is trying to keep the science here at the lowest common denominator. Any attempt o make it a bit more complex and his ignorance is brazenly exposed.
Hardley - "The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais"
"may also be limited".....which is what I've been saying all along....you don't know how what weight the process carries when predicting future climate scenarios.
If I've said anything otherwise, show me....just remember, it's hard to copy and paste your imagination....and you're the scientist.
More demolition of Betula's linear meme. None of this is controversial. The vast majority of scientists would argue that there are limits to the terrestrial fertilization effect, and they would certainly argue that it is not a good thing... its down to right wing simpletons like Mr. Tree Pruner to distort the science for his own ends.
There are many more studies which show that quantity and quality of plant tissues are not correlated. And virtually none of the scientists writing these articles or doing the research would claim that the so-called 'greening' effect caused by enhanced atmospheric concentrations of C02 justifies the continued burning of fossil fuels. This is once again Betula trying to drag the debate to the sandbox. The worst thing is that he actually thinks he is doing well.
Betula, get lost, you asshole. You're as thick as a plank, but don't know it,. Pure Dunning-Kruger. I took a page out of your book with Bo Eberling and quoted one of the authors of the NASA study who said exactly what I did: that there are limits in the ability of vegetation to absorb increased atmospheric C02.
As I said, you are miles out of your depth. You can't debate worth shit.
Note how Betula has kept the discussion away from stoichiometry, non-linear effects, N and P as limiting nutrients, asymptotes and saturation effects and C3/C4/Ethylene pathways related to increased atmospheric C02. I know exactly what this twit is doing: trying to play the uncertainty card as if this justifies a business-as-usual policy. None of the scientists involved in this research would agree with that. Not a single one. They'd all say what I say: that increased atmospheric Co2 concentrations are driving climate change, and that we are just lucky that terrestrial vegetation is able to absorb some of it (but clearly not enough to counter warming). If this clown went to a scientific conference and tried to distort these studies to support his own political agenda, he's be laughed out of the venue. There's a vast difference in Betula's sandbox level approach and that of the vast majority of the scientific community. Betula has never been near a university lecture theater or a conference where these issues are discussed in his life. I have. Very many times. And I personally know many plant ecologists and a number of climate scientists. They would all cringe at his nonsense.
As for ego's, Betula, yours is so big you can't get your head through the door. I have more qualifications in the fingernail of my little finger than you have in your sad example of a body and yet you continue to write utter piffle up here whilst desperately trying to avoid discussing a range of important areas I have raised time and time and time again. When you publish a paper in the field of plant ecology come back here and defend it. Until then, stop selectively interpreting the results of studies that you don't understand. There's nothing worse than an uneducated layman with a profound political bias who deliberately distorts the results of others research.
Hardley - "Note how Betula has kept the discussion away from stoichiometry, non-linear effects, N and P as limiting nutrients, asymptotes and saturation effects and C3/C4/Ethylene pathways"
Note how Hardley has kept the discussion away from answering my question and steered it towards "stoichiometry, non-linear effects, N and P as limiting nutrients, asymptotes and saturation effects and C3/C4/Ethylene pathways"
http://www.chem4kids.com/files/react_stoichio.html
Jeff,
The discussion was not specifically about stiochiometry.
Neither was it implied that planting trees was a panacea.
I'm fascinated to understand what you mean by 'an uneducated lay man with a profound political bias' and why in your opinion 'there's nothing worse'.
That comment appears to be loaded with hubris.
I think that attitude is right up there with 'worse'.
Of course there are limits.
Even whoever these 'uneducated lay men' are would know that.
A key global environmental issue is that in many places around the world there has been overclearing.
Revegetating is clearly not a bad idea.
Whether it's linear non linear sideways or upside down plants absorb CO2 and release O2.
Just because there are complications in accurately measuring the benefits of that simple fact doesn't mean anything other than it's difficult to accurately measure.
It stiil provides benefits and it's still a good thing that the planet is 'greener'.
So Jeff.
Here is a simple question to you.
It requires a simple yes or no answer.
In the big global environmental picture is deliberately revegetating areas that have been overcleared good policy?
If your answer is no, then please answer this question.
What is good policy to help undo the damage created by historical overclearing including increasing atmospheric CO2 levels (however complicated it is to actually measure or quantify that non linear number via stiochiometry)??
Or if you don't like closed questions.
Why does environment science recommend revegetation of overcleared landscapes as valid policy for the global environment?
In your answer, you may also include stiochiometric equations that demonstrate other benefits that could accrue to the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Stu, I will answer your question below. But here is the crux of Betula's approach. He wants to keep the 'debate', if one can call it that, stuck at the lowest common denominator. He clearly has a very small comfort zone when it comes to scientific enquiry, for the simple reason that he knows full well that he is truly out of his depth when it comes to linking processes and mechanisms. So he sticks to descriptive results for the most part, doing everything he can to keep the discussion stuck there.
In the Earth and environmental sciences there are experts in elucidating processes and experts in elucidating mechanisms, The NASA studcy is excellent in addressing the former but clearly weak in exploring questions related to the latter. My research is mechanism driven, and much of it is with plants, where my work involves understanding the effects of primary and secondary metabolites on multitrophic interactions. What I know is that changes in nutrient availability in the soil, abiotic factors such as temperature and moisture, as well as genetic variation in response to a suite of selection pressures play major roles in determining chemical and morphological trait expression in plants. Altering the atmospheric cocentrations of C02 generate differing plant responses, depending on phylogeny and metabolic pathways for taking up C. Given that most plants have evolved in low C environments, its far too simple to argue that increased biomass as a result of uptaking more atmospheric C will be of net benefit for communities and ecosystems. For sure many plants will grow larger, at least until some other metabolic or environmental factor causes this to asymptote. And given that increased atmospheric C02 concentrations are driving climate warming, its a good thing to have as much of the planet vegetated to at least diffuse the rate at which the warming is occurring. So on that score I concur with those like the NASA team who would argue that plants may be our saving grace in the short to medium term. But as I said, quantity does not always correrlate with quality.
As plants take up more C they shunt out N, P and other vital nutrients important in plant metabolism. From my research I certainly know that C is not a limiting nutrient for organisms up the food chain that depend on plant tissues for food. N is far more vital. Thanks to the work of many researchers, the effects of increased C on the performance and behavior of consumers up the food chain is evident. Here are a few:
This is the tip of a metaphorical iceberg. And on top of that there are changes in C:N:P ratios that affect plant secondary metabolites. Plants with N based defenses become less well defended and vice versa for plants with C based defenses. Then we can look at competitive asymmetries caused by species-specific plant responses to increased atmospheric C02. The list of questions goes on and on. Process driven researchers pay scant attention to these questions but researchers focusing on mechanisms do, and we know that they are important in influencing community structure and function as well as assembly rules and resistance/resilience.
I am not saying that the story is all bad. What I am saying is that humans are conducting a non-replicatable atmospheric experiment on species, populations, communities and ecosystems, and that the consequences will be non-linear and unpredictable. There will be winners and there will be losers. How this will play out is hard to know, but there will be nasty surprises as there always are in blind experiments on complex adaptive systems.
Importantly, the authors of the NASA study were not championing the fact that plants are taking up more carbon as atmsopheric C02 concentrations are put into the atmosphere, resulting in the 'greeing' that they allude to. They are actually breathing a collective sigh of relief that plants are buying us a bit of time to begin mitigating emissions that are driving climate change. If forests continue to be felled, then the rate of warming will increase. Its AGW deniers who are distorting the science to suggest that the burning of fossil fuels is mankind's 'gift to nature'. It is complete rubbish, given the uncertaities, but these people will stop at nothing to bolster their political agendas.
Steve Martin makes a remark to John Candy in 'Planes, trains and Automobiles' that is very relevant to Betula's limited intellectual grasp of science (especially mechanisms, of which he clearly knows nothing):
"If you are going to say something over and over, at least have a point".
Hardley - "I am not saying that the story is all bad. What I am saying is that humans are conducting a non-replicatable atmospheric experiment on species, populations, communities and ecosystems, and that the consequences will be non-linear and unpredictable. There will be winners and there will be losers. How this will play out is hard to know"
That's' what I've been saying here for 8 years you piece of shit. Where have I said anything different?
For years I've been asking why scenarios are all bad and you say I'm downplaying the scenarios, and here you are stating...."I am not saying that the story is all bad"
For years I've asked what weight CO2 fertilization plays in predicted future climate scenarios and had to keep informing you that you don't know. You took this to mean I've said it is a cure all. Now, after years of pretending that's not what I've been saying.....you are saying......"consequences are unpredictable'...and..."How this will play out is hard to know"
WHICH MEANS YOU DON"T KNOW.
So for all you vast superior knowledge, you don't know. Genius.
“If you are going to say something over and over, at least have a point"
You just proved what I've been saying over and over IS THE POINT.
Jeff.
You have not actually answered my question and instead focused on the mechanics of plant growth.
The actual question was simple but I can add a little bit to it to help you focus on the question.
Try this:
Whether it's process or mechanism orientated, why does environmental science recommend revegetation of overcleared landscapes as valid policy for the global environment?
I am not interested in you wandering into comments about other people based on other fields of expertise such as psychology.
And because you've extensively dealt with the uncertainties of the stiochiometry it's not necessary to repeat that.
"That’s’ what I’ve been saying here for 8 years you piece of shit. Where have I said anything different?"
The piece of turd is you, you lying sack of excrement. The experiment humans are conducting is already seriously harming biodiversity at various levels of organization. In that case, given that these systems permit humans to exist and persist, its exceedly important, as well as wise, to stop the fucking experiment. What I have said before and I will repeat it is that dolts like you, who understand jack shit about what you are talking about, appear to be demanding 100% unequivocal proof that the current experiment will have catastrophic consequences if is not terminated. What the bulk of the scientific community is saying is that we think that the chances are very high that the experiment will end in disaster, but we cannot provide that 100% proof, and probably never will until its too late.
Once again, idiots like you test my patience ot the limit. I know bloody well what your tactics are, as they are completely transparent. Moreover, every one of you vile morons acts the same way. Your clarion cry is 'burn, burn, burn until the data are ALL in and then keep burning until we known even more'.
Its OK Stu, I just will not waste any more time on fucking isiots like Betula who are dishonest, uneducated, moronic simpletons driven by obscene right wing political ideologies. I can deal with willful ignorance - to a point. But he should get out of his treehouse and get his ass to a conference where his brand of ignorance will be dealt with harshly.I am sick of it.
As to your question - my research is mechanism driven. The real challenge in environmental science and ecology os to examine realistic mechanisms that can help explain processes. With regards to revegetating cleared landscapes, that's not my call. I would assume that each case should be examined on its own merits. If cleared lands arfe abandoned, and once were forested, then replanting seems like a good option, particularly if increasing global forest cover buys us a little more time to deal with climate change and can at least partially dampen the global and regional rises in temperature. One of the problems with replanting is that it requires both a good working knowledge of the system in an historical context - something that we are often lacking, as well as a solid understanding of the soil community that is necessary for forest regeneration. Baskin (2000) showed that areas that were clear cut in the western US were difficult to reforest because machinery had so compacted the soil that communties of important mutualists - such as nitrogen fixing bacteria and mycorrhizal fungae - were destroyed. Lacking this fundamental knowledge often makes ecological restoation schemes difficult to implement. A number of workers have been trying to re-establish tallgrass prairies in the western US for decades without success. Look at many phtographs from the late 18th century and states like Nevada and New Mexico were cloaked in a variet of grasses, but the introduction of cattle les to serious soil trampling and overgrazing that allowed interstitial plants to take over. Getting the system back to its original state may be virtually impossible. Wetland restoration has been palgued with similar problems.
As far back as the 1980s, ecologists like John Terborgh were observing freefalls in the populations of many North American passerines, again a likely lag result of land use changes occurring many decades earlier. Our knowledge of ecosystems prior to this century is rudimentary at best, yet it is this knowledge that is vital if we are to arrest these widespread declines.
To come back to your question, I would defer to the systems ecologists who are working in the area of restoration. Certainly many cleared areas are vital for agricultural production, so restoration is impossible. However, where it is possible it is a good strategy of dealing with multiple environmental threats.
Me - “That’s’ what I’ve been saying here for 8 years you piece of shit. Where have I said anything different?”
The piece of shit, doesn't answer the question, but instead states what it "appears" I say....."appear to be demanding 100% unequivocal proof that the current experiment will have catastrophic consequences if is not terminated."...
This is why you "appear" to be a piece of shit Hardley, hiding behind a PhD...
And using the piece of shit's own logic, if it "appears" that way, it has to be true.
Congratulations it "appears" you have proven you are a piece of shit.
@81 - It took Hardley some 400 words to say there are many factors involved, so he doesn't really know, but where possible, it is a good strategy.
Well, no shit.....you piece of shit. Thanks for the insight.
Meanwhile, his cohort Adam argued with Stu and myself for close to 100 comments about how "planting trees' really does nothing for AGW, not even it terms of sequestering CO2, while recommending the planting of trees on his own web page.
Bets, you are way off beam. Jeff has provide a rounded explanation of the state of ecosystems and how we are damaging them at our peril.
FFS go pick up some books on the topics and get a clue, it isn't as if enough of these have not been cited.
You are insulting Jeff but also yourself because with each response you make in that oh so common 'idiot pretending to be knowledgeable' way of your you are showing the world why the label Dunning-Kruger fits you like a glove.
I don't have a PhD in anything but I do have qualifications in a number of disparate areas involving mathematics and the sciences (many of them) because I always like to discover what makes things work the way they do a keen interest since knee high to an orthoptera. I continue, as a septuagenarian, to read and study widely.
I suggest that instead of pushing your vitriol and naked aggressive ignorance about how ecosystems once damaged can be irreparable, even in the long term. Essential inter-species links once broken cannot be replaced. Sure some species may be imported to provide some appearance of normal but the underlying functionality, and its associated benefit, to the whole community (of undefined geographical extent) , including such as us who rely upon any services provided, may never be regained.
This is happening with tropical rainforests, across the agrarian lands of higher latitudes by the overarching burgeoning of mono-culture industrial agriculture (worst of all GMO the proponents of which don't want you to know where this will lead) and in the oceans.
Over the months and tears of your blustering blather here you have been provided with sources to inform you of reality. That you would eschew all these and continue in your epistemic bubble is a crime against humanity and yourself in the end.
Sort yourself out.
All rabid hypocrites.
Wrote he looking in the mirror whilst splattering the wall opposite with hippo dung.
Meanwhile, his cohort Adam argued with Stu and myself for close to 100 comments about how “planting trees’ really does nothing for AGW, not even it terms of sequestering CO2,
In the real world pointing up caveats about tree planting is not saying the planting trees does nothing for atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Consider the energy expended in planting those trees and how long they will be left to grow before being harvested - where more energy expenditure is required. That law of diminishing returns is often ignored as it is with fracking for gas and producing oil from tar sands.
Jeff,
Thank you for your answer; sans your inability to stay away from political ideologies and throwing insults based on fields that you don’t have expertise in (politics and human psychology)
Betula has just as much right as you and Lionel do to comment on this blog.
If he didn't as WoW alluded to earlier, the moderator here would have done something about it.
You have once again adroitly or perhaps naively confused the point of the question which clearly developed from arguments that you have engaged in about ‘doing something about it’.
As I’ve commented before many times there is a difference between outlining an issue and implementing strategies designed to manage that issue. Some of the most recent were to do with managing bush fire risk, a perceived health issue in reindeer, the Zika Virus outbreak and a pest species in Bulgarian crops.
There is a principle called ‘adaptive management’ that is actually enshrined in NRM policy and supported by ecologists who are working in the 'real world' but, unfortunately, is rarely acknowledged by policy makers or academics.
There is an abundance of academic literature on this topic but to keep it simple here are some basic points by 'experts' about what adaptive management is and isn’t.
Let’s go for the “IS” first.
Adaptive management is a systematic approach for improving resource management by learning from management outcomes.
Adaptive management requires stated management objectives to guide decisions about what actions to take, and explicit assumptions about expected outcomes to compare against actual outcomes.
There are many definitions in the literature on adaptive management, but a common theme shared by them all is that adaptive management is a learning-based process.
Adaptive management focuses on learning and adapting, through partnerships of managers, scientists, and other stakeholders who learn together how to create and maintain sustainable resource systems.
Adaptive management requires stated management objectives to guide decisions about what to try, and explicit assumptions about expected outcomes to compare against actual outcomes. It is important to know what the available management options and alternative assumptions are, in case the action that is tried does not work as expected.
And here are some “ISN’Ts”
Adaptive management is often confused with conflict resolution, which focuses on negotiating tradeoffs among competing interests.
Management approaches that primarily depend on expert opinion and advice for decision making are not by themselves adaptive.
It is thought by many that merely by monitoring activities and occasionally changing them, one is doing adaptive management. Contrary to this commonly held belief, adaptive management is much more than simply tracking and changing management direction in the face of failed policies, and, in fact, such a tactic could actually be maladaptive.
In the absence of additional structure in a decision making process, monitoring a managed resource system does not itself make an application adaptive. A great many resource systems are monitored in some manner, but in most cases the resulting data are not used systematically for learning and improvement in a context of objective-driven management.
And this little gem from you is an ISN’T:
“Getting the system back to its original state……”
It’s an “ISN’T” because it does indeed assume the impossible and it also assumes that there is a static or utopian original state in ecosystems which would actually make the rest of your lengthy answer either redundant or contradictory.
I’m finding it interesting that you have now concluded this in terms of my question:
“To come back to your question, I would defer to the systems ecologists who are working in the area of restoration. Certainly many cleared areas are vital for agricultural production, so restoration is impossible. However, where it is possible it is a good strategy of dealing with multiple environmental threats.”
Yet there are 1000’s upon 1000’s of words from you to me over a long period of time when I have referred to experts in system ecology who are working in the area of restoration in my part of the world which include agricultural areas, that you have outright lambasted.
Perhaps we all are learning to be adaptive after all?
Great post Stu, one of the better i've seen on Deltoid in a long time, and unlike Hardley, you didn't make it about you....
But this is Deltoid, so pepare to watch all common sense and logic thrown at out the window when the Deltoidians respond....
Another definition of 'adaptive management' IMHO is to use common sense and logic.
What we see far, far too often is the 'management' managing the system for the benefit of the management.
So, what we see most often are the 2 first ISN'Ts in my post above.
The result, very unfortunately, is that the demographic that should and could be working with the 'management' in NRM are instead alienated and demonized by 'the management'.
IMHO and according to ecologists who work in the real world, with real people who have training and generational knowledge of land and water management, that's 'maladaptive'.
Also, as I commented earlier, modeling is an extremely useful tool in this space especially if it's used to monitor expected outcomes compared to actual outcomes.
shorter Hardley again in his sack of crap: "... bla bla bla ....appear to be demanding 100% unequivocal proof that the current experiment will have catastrophic consequences if is not terminated ..."
Listen you green-romantic idiot: I give a piece of shit to the opinion of 59%, 109%, 513% or whatever % of green-communists whatever these gangsters say. Whatever these morons say, it's irrelevant and will never by accepted by decent taxpayers. President Trump will wipe out your shit from your stinking assholes.
Yet, Lionel consistently goes out of his way to defend Adam, without ever saying a peep about this gem:
Adam to Stu - “you can fuck right off up your own shitfilled arse canal and die choking on the excrement you deserve.”……..”you deserve the desecrated death I abjured you to suffer under as specified above”
Lionel.
I posted this earlier but here it is again.
It was sent to me so it's not my words but I do agree with the basic sentiment.
" I hope Donald Trump is a good president.
Wanting him to fail is like wanting the pilot to crash the plane we're all flying in."
Lionel is correct. Kim is a sociopathic wingnut. I knew that some time ago. His latest mini-rant would be comical if it wasn't so utterly pathetic. He - or she, but I suspect the former - is clearly unhinged.
Stu2: sure, Betula has as much right to comment on this blog. So does Kim, for that matter. The problem for me is that both of them are profoundly stupid, scientifically illiterate, and yet, in true Dunning-Kruger fashion, believe that they are intelligent and informed. I have exposed the strategy people like them use over and over and over and that's enough. They try to manipulate scientific uncertainty to justify doing nothing about AGW (in Kimmie's case from a padded cell). The vast majority of the scientific community have very differing views, as evidenced by the joint statements of every National Academy and major relevant scientific organization on Earth. These two simpletons write as if I am an outlier, given that I am the only qualified scientist naive enough to be writing into this blog. They steer constantly away from the consensus by intimating that there isn't one. Frankly, I don't know of any qualified scientists who would actually respond to the puerile bile they spew out, so in that regard I probably need medical attention too.
Stu2, I am afraid I will be harsh again. I find it illustrative that Betula praises you for your 'great post' when i am afraid that what you write actually reflects a profound inability to understand complex adaptive systems. Indeed, i am sure that you've never read any of the literature by the likes of Naeem, Tilman, Grime, Loreau, Levin, Pacala, Berendse, Wardle or colleagues at my institute like van der Putten and many others who are working to understand the link between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. A working knowledge of this literature and of its implications for managing natural and managed ecosystems is crucial if we are to invoke the use of your term 'adaptive management'.
As to your use of the term 'adaptive management'. I find your use of the word 'adaptive' to be interesting on the context of what you interpret 'adaptive' to represent; is this based on anthropogenic processes or functional processes, which are often mutually exclusive? You also write as if our understanding of processes enveloping a wide array of scales is better than it is. You are suggesting that we can adaptively manage complex adaptive systems in ways that optimize their ability to serve both human needs and for nature conservation. I am saying that we cannot adaptively manage lands until we know a lot more about how they evolve, assemble and function. Your comments about pest control in Bulgaria miss the point: your adaptive management comment implies that we seek solutions after the fact; instead of mitigating those anthropogenic assaults that are altering, and in general simplifying systems across the biosphere, with often nasty results, your argument suggests that we deal with the changes once they have occurred. In many cases there is no alternative. But we know that if the climate continues to warm along the current trajectory, in combination with other human assaults across the biosphere, no amount of your adaptive management schemes will be enough to counter the deleterious effects.
Scientists know that complex adaptive systems function in ways that permit humans to exist and to persist. Given their decidedly non-linear dynamics, we know also that there are huge gaps in our understanding of cause-and-effect relationships. Levin (1999) in his excellent book, 'Fragile Dominion: Complexity and the Commons', which I reviewed for Nature, invoked the parable of the wise watchmaker to argue that humans should not be tinkering with complex systems that work in sustaining life in a manner that we know. The system works, it provides the essential foundation for life to flourish, and yet humans are tinkering on a massive scale, with climate change being one of the major examples. Its very difficult to manage systems that you barely understand but which you know are vital in your own survival.
I have criticized you in the past for the fact that you clearly lack the training in relevant fields to understand limits to human technology as this impedes out ability to deal with the burgeoning crisis. That criticism stands. Unless you are able to engage in a discussion about biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, and global change, then I may as well be speaking to a wall. I am trained in fields that you are not, and I fully realize the scale of the current environmental predicament whereas you do not. Using terms like 'adaptive management' without being able to see limitations imposed by the complexity of natural systems in being able to effectively manage systems makes it very difficult for me to exchange thoughts with you.
Let me put it another way. You write as if solutions are generally 'after the fact'. In other words, that we should try to get the horse back once it has bolted from the barn. I am saying, with plenty of evidence that this is often impossible, and that we should do everything we can to keep the horse in the barn in the first place. Humans are conducting and massive, non-repeatqable global experiment on systems that sustain us in a myriad of ways and what people like Betula, wallowing in their cesspits of ignorance, demand, is that we don't change anything at all - we keep fiddling while Rome burns effectively - until we know much more and can categorically prove that we are going off the rails. You in turn are implying that we possess the tools to deal with or manage problems arising from climate change and other anthropogenic changes. I am saying that in many cases we do not. The Bulgarian example is a case in point. Its not just a matter of injurious pests expanding their ranges northwards as a result of climate warming, so we deal with them in situ in Bulgaria as you imply. Its a problem that communities and ecosystems across the biosphere that are being challenged to respond to changes occurring over decades that would normally take many thousands of years to unravel. We are expecting these systems to continue functioning in ways that enable them to remain resilient and resistant and to keep delivering conditions that underpin our material economies.No amount of management is possible if we don't know what the hell we are doing or understand the implications of this global experiment. It's not simply a matter of management but of drawing back, realizing that we are pushing systems towards a threshold beyond which they will be unable to function effectively.
I will be honest and say that my BSc and MSc students actually 'get it' whereas laymen like Betula, don't. They abuse complexity and the fact that we have a long way to go to unravel ecological complexity to argue for stasis. They are happy to see that mankind continues tinkering until we can provide categorical proof that this tinkering will have catastrophic results. A useful analogy I often invoke in lectures is that we are connected to a life support machine in a hospital. We know that the machine is immensely complicated, but that we depend on it for our survival. A doctor comes into the room and says he needs a small component of it for his own practice. You say, its ok to take this small component, as the machine is so complicated that it will still work. Another doctor comes in and says the same thing... and so on and so forth. At what point will the machine suddenly exceed a critical threshold and shut down? This is the dilemma the scientific community is facing. Climate change is most certainly simplifying natural systems. No ands, ifs or buts. We can invoke your 'adaptive management' approach in the short term, as we have no alternative. But it won't work if we keep along the same trajectory. Mitigation is imperative if we are to stand a chance of avoiding serious consequences.
Read up on the rivet popper versus the redundancy hypotheses in the biodiversity/ecosystem functioning debate and you will know more.
Hardley - "people like Betula, wallowing in their cesspits of ignorance, demand, is that we don’t change anything at all"
And herein lies Hardley's psychosis ...no such thing was ever demanded, implied or suggested. yet Hardley believes it was.....out of thin air.
If Hardley can be so adamant in believing something exists or existed, that doesn't or never did, based on nothing but blind ideology......think about what quality of scientist he really must be.
Interesting analogy, but once popped the rivets will be functionally useless thus valueless, except as scrap and one would need thousands of rivets popped to make that worthwhile but the cost of paying somebody to do that hits the law of diminishing returns with a vengeance.
Now if instead of rivets we consider removing bolts the case is changed. From my own personal experience I was familiar with the practice of removing a certain number of close tolerance bolts (Hi-Torque) from panels of selected F4 Phantom II (the Fleet Air Arm F4K aka FG1 model) aircraft so as to be able to secure the panels on an aircraft that could otherwise not fly for missing panels (this once clearance from higher authority was obtained). These aircraft were stressed skin, semi-monocoque construction (thus more like modern cars where the bodywork is the strength beam rather than the older type of chassis mounted body vehicles).
This became necessary because with the aim of saving money the Ark Royal when first became operational with those aircraft was woefully under-provisioned with spare bolts. The bolts came in variety of sizes with different overall lengths because of a different plain shank requirement for internal structural reasons. In practice, the stresses of flight would tend to make these Hi-torque HTS close tolerance fasteners (countersunk heads) bind in the holes making removal for servicing difficult resulting in many head slots being burred out making drilling out and use of an Easy-out required. Ten percent on any one panel could often be damaged thus. One panel, on the upper surface of the outer wing had no fewer than 948 fasteners (a number seared into my brain) which had to be removed every 21 days for greasing a leading edge flap link. There was of course that panel's twin on the other side of the aircraft. Multiply that by the number of aircraft on the squadron (12 - 14) and one gets an idea of the scale of the problem and there were quite a number of other panels requiring regular removal.
The strategy of removing bolts to fit to another aircraft quickly hits that law of diminishing returns. Plus it takes manpower away from all the other servicing tasks require especially a large number of special events because of the newness of the aircraft (the Spey engined UK model was quite a different beast to those the Americans were operating) and the hostile environment at sea.
Some panels along the side of the fuselage if removed required a jack under the nose and another with a special trestle fitting under the keel to prevent the aircraft distorting. I once took over (working watches) on a Phantom which had these panels removed and the supports had not been put in place. I had considerable trouble using jacks and trestles to get it back into shape so as to refit those panels. An annotation was made in the aircraft's documentation to ensure that the flight servicing crews could keep an eye out for subsequent problems developing.
There was one panel on the top of the fuselage behind the rear canopy, secured by Millson fasteners, which was required to be secured before the aircraft could be moved on the ground. Early years at sea operating these Phantoms was tense for those involved.
All this on a system designed by man, unlike natural systems which humans are scrambling to understand, and these aircraft, as all types do, did have a tendency to crash. Aircraft design and construction is a compromise between enough material with inbuilt system redundancy and the need to make it capable of leaving the ground and doing something useful.
The rivet popping is interesting if one has researched the latest scientifically backed thinking about why the Titanic sank. Yes it hit an ice berg but was it the brittle steel plates which cracked or riveted seems which 'unzipped', it turns out to be most likely that latter.
One it comes to the damage caused by commercially driven tree felling (for product or clearance to grow something else typically soy or oil palm) the destruction caused is mostly unnoticed by the consumer, ignorant of the interactive processes and diversity of species which are a part of that.
Jeff.
Solutions to actual identified isuues are usually 'after the fact'.
If the 'horse has bolted' already then it's not possible to keep the horse in the barn.
Your comment @#98 completely ignores what the discussion was about.
Even your analogy is missing the point.
Those metaphorical doctors are in many cases returning those small components.
No one, including Betula, has claimed that we don't change anything at all.
Humans are not conducting a non repeatable experiment.
Humans are just being humans along with all their imperfections.
Mitigation is actually a feature of the principle of 'adaptive management'.
Nowhere in human history has your pet theory of overthrowing entire systems ever resulted in good outcomes for 'the environment'.
That's proven to be 'maladaptive'.
A single 'panacea' couldn't possibly work in such a complex system.
There is no such thing as a 'silver bullet' that will solve all the ills in the world.
Riding around on your self appointed 'high horse' waving a 'big stick' is not delivering anything worthwhile.
While your 'scientific community' is trying that, there are actually other communities of people, including highly qualified scientists who are working in the real world with real people actually 'doing something about it'.
One of those myriad of 'somethings' is tackling the identified issue of overcleared landscapes.
But that's only one.
Well, Andy chased Bernard away, then Andy had to leave after being exposed, now it looks like Lionel Smith is gone....that leaves Hardley, who has proven to be no more than a liar, hypocrite, exaggerator and narcissist.
With that said, I think we can we finally put this site to rest.
"...that leaves Hardley, who has proven to be no more than a liar, hypocrite, exaggerator and narcissist."
Coming from a piece of worthless shit like you Betula, that's a compliment. You combine profound ignorance and arrogance. You have essentially zero knowledge of science, yet you truly believe that you are enlightened. If the average denier is as vacuous as you are, then no wonder humanity is seriously fucked.
Lionel, Bernard, Wow and others are sick to death of your asinine stupidity, that's why they no longer respond to you. You live in your own echo chamber. Fuck off and go away.
Read my advice for Betula and take it to heart. You're almost as ignorant as he is. When you write, "Humans are not conducting a non repeatable experiment" you are speaking out of your butt. Humans are experimenting alright, but the global experiment has no controls and most people are unaware of it. The combined human assault that is reducing biodiversity at a staggering rate and altering the functioning of complex systems is very clearly an experiment that is likely to have profoundly serious outcomes. The scientific community warned of the perils of simplifying nature as far back as the 1980s, and the warning has largely been ignored. In 1992 70% of the Living Nobel Laureates signed a document arguing that humans and the natural world are on a collision course. By now it can be argued that humans are essentially at war with natural systems. Its a war we cannot win because we do not have the technology to replicate a range of vital conditions emerging from natural systems that sustain us. Your 'adaptive management' post was utter bullshit. We cannot adaptively manage systems whose functioning we barely understand. You seem to be suggesting that we stay the course, don't make significant changes in ongoing policies and deal with the symptoms once they become apparent. How uttely stupid. No wonder Wow referred to you under that monicker. I am saying that its vital that we deal with the disease, which is the very scale of the human enterprise and revert to renerwables as soon as possible. We are nowhere close to being sustainable, and yet through some hubris think that we can fix any of the assaults we are inflicting across the biopshere with technology and your patently absurd 'adaptive management' approach. What a load of garbage. I am sick of your willful ignorance as much as I am sick of Betula's vacuous musings. You both belong together. I have science to do, ppaers to write, lectures to give and students to supervise. I am not going to waste any more of my valuable time on your two losers. Get lost.
Ah! Yes. Russell, Delingpole and the Myron Feldw-ebell who is trying to USHER in a new dark age of alt-science, with the assistance of Betsy DeVos we hope not..
http://www.interestingshit.com/nature/good-news-stories/
Jeff
You are continuing to miss the point and clinging to a failing meme.
To argue that I'm suggesting 'we stay the course' is ridiculous.
It's also ridiculous to argue that humans are essentially at war with natural systems.
Homo-sapiens are part of the global environment and along with every other successful species they influence the immediate environment.
The 'hubris' is emanating from you loud & clear.
Ironically it's you that advances an argument that is roadblocking any genuine, practical work that is being done.
This link is showing a very small sample.
All of it is because of successful 'adaptive management' according to the definition from academic literature.
It's far from rubbish.
It's actually people learning together how to repair past mistakes.
That 'high horse' you're riding around on has been flogged to death.
It's not working.
In fact, whole nations, via the ballot box, are no longer interested because it's clearly not working.
It's the height of stupidity and insanity to continue to do the same thing over and over and over again and expect a different result.
And before you compose yet another hubris laden lecture to me on topics that you ironically don't possess qualifications please remember that I have said I'm not interested.
I'm not interested because out in the real world amongst real people it's clear that the whole idea that the world can only be saved by some type of benevolent global dictatorship that administers the great global experiment via 'environmental economics' is proving to be 'maladaptive' ie a failed human experiment.
It's not working.
It's time to focus on what does work and build on those strategies.
I simply don't care whether successful management strategies come from the right, left, sideways, upside down or inside out.
I don't belong to a political football team.
Stu to Hardley - "To argue that I'm suggesting "we stay the course" is ridiculous"
Of course it is, because you never said it... but that doesn't make any difference to the genious professor, because it's what he believes he hears.... after all, he's a scientist.
You should know by now that Hardley hears and sees a lot of things that aren't there, and then he talks about his qualifications to convince himself that they are...
Stu, get lost with your childish axioms like 'adaptive management'. What a load of cock and bull. You seem to think that humans can patch up the biosphere as we are taking it apart at the seams. Your band-aid approach won't be worth a damn in the face of collapsing ecosystems, fraying food webs and obliterated ecological services. That you cannot understand the notion of humans conducting an unwitting experiment on nature reflects your isidious stupidity.
I'd love a list of the scientists you claim are luminaries who see the world through the same myopic filter as you. I have yet to meet any of them and I go to many conferences where colleagues are well aware of the scale of the predicament. They'd not know whether to laugh or cry at someone who claims that its OK to stay the course because we can 'adaptively manage' the vast assaults our species is inflicting across the biosphere. Again, utter drivel.
You talk about benevolent global dictatorships at a time when the planet is in the grip of a neoliberal, corporate dictatorship. Read what climate scientist David Cromwell at Medialens says about the predicament. Its dire:
Indian write Amitov Ghosh rightfully calls the current situation in a corporate-climate changing world as ''The Great Derangement". By derganged he means that humanity must be out of its collective mind to be intent on heading down a path of climate chaos and environmental destruction in full knowledge of the ramifications. Clearly Ghosh, like many of my scientific colleagues, is unaware of your 'adaptive management' approach to this madness.
I have better things to do than to continue engaging in discourse morons on issues beyond their competence. Good luck with your efforts to 'manage' complex adaptive systems in the face of a massive human assault.
Hardley - "someone who claims that its OK to stay the course"
There it is..."stay the course"....Stu never said any such thing, but there it is!
Well done Hardley, seeing things that don't exist.... that scientific mind of yours is shining brightly.
Just think, if Hardely consistently believes he saw something in writing that was never written, and draws a conclusion from it (because he wants it to be true)....imagine what he believes he is seeing in his research (and drawing conclusions on) because he wants it to be true...
Looks like Hardley is having a hard time controlling himself.....next thing you know, he will believe he said something he didn't say and start calling himself a moron..
Hardley - "I have better things to do than to continue engaging in discourse"
Hardley - " I am not going to waste any more of my valuable time."
Hardley - "Why I bother with his sandbox level discourse with you idiots is a mystery."
Hardley - "why I waste my time on ignorant people"
Hardley - "The reason I don’t really want to engage much with you is because"
Hardley - "wonder why I degrade myself and waste my time responding"
Jeff.
Just Google 'adaptive management'.
How interesting that you're now pretending that environmental science has nothing at all to with the concept.
Perhaps you don't meet any of them at conferences because they're actually out in the real world, working with real people and actually 'doing something about it'.
Or maybe they go to different conferences?
Who knows why you are now trying to argue that these highly qualified people don't exist?
Revegetating landscapes that have been overcleared is just one example of what they do.
And I pointed out that your 'pet theory' of some type of benevolent global dictatorship based on a great global experiment using 'environmental economics' is NOT WORKING.
So your comment regarding that is strange to say the very least.
Whole nations, via the ballot box, are opting out.
It's got nothing to do with 'neo liberalism' or 'a great derangement'.
Neither has it got anything to do with people's ability to care about matters environmental.
It's 'maladaptive' for humanity and the environment.
It's NOT WORKING.
It's way past time to stop flogging that dead high horse that you're riding on with your big stick.
You're also metaphorically flogging people, some of them highly qualified scientists, who care deeply about 'the environment'.
It's time to focus on what does work and build on those management strategies always keeping in mind that systems are indeed 'adaptive' including human systems.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axiom
BTW.
Speaking of 'childish axioms'.
I would suggest that terms such as 'great derangement', 'conducting a non repeatable experiment' comparisons with life support machines, ' in the grip of neoliberal corporate dictatorship' & etc are about as childishly axiomatic as it gets.
'Adaptive management' however is an academic term used by environmental scientists to explain the concept of humans learning together as they work together in the environment.
It's the sort axiom that adults use.
Hardley, this from your link @16 - "we are now faced with severe, human-induced climate instability and catastrophic loss of species"
Did he say "catastophic" Hardley? Strange, because we all know that "invoking the term ‘catastrophe’ is a feeble attempt to push the debate to extremes." Your words Hardley, not mine....
Now, go ahead and argue with yourself over what you said...
Just to alert you, folks. Paul Offit of all people has written an anti-Rachel Carson editorial on the Daily Beast. Apparently, it is part a promotion of an upcoming book he is releasing in April.
I'm not convinced yet, but given the poor method used in Karl's paper in the combination with the first hand witness from Dr. Bates, it seems more meaty than Jeff's "first hand spider".
As well as seeing and arguing with what isn't there Jeff doesn't see what is there.
I'm still stunned by his post @#16 where he's attempting to argue that 'adaptive management' isn't recognised by 'science'.
Whats that word in the title here Betula?
Starts with an S.
And it dont stand for shithead.
Which means shitheadedness is off topic.
All i see is one big long bit of trolling from
you.
This is the anonomous internet.
You can choose to be anything you want.
Any character. Any personality.
And you choose to be shithead.
My suggestion to you is, start talking science
or fuck off. Pronto.
I fucking hate trolling bastards who get their
jollies from interupting and manipulating dialog.
I dont read Deltoid on Scienceblogs for your
shit. Savvy?
Olas Putrid @ #24links to the madness that is queen Curry not knowing that Bates has form or that his arguments are fatuous.
One could linbk to a number of debunkings but this is good one as within is not only the truth about (dear) John Bates but also valuable links to '...and then There's Physics' and 'The Great White Con' of Jim Hunt.
Follow links at that latter to become aware of the official complaints levelled at such as the Mail (Daily, On Sunday or On Line) and Telegraph to appreciate what a lying, devious bunch they are.
We keep thinking that J Curry has hit bottom but she keeps proving such assumptions wrong and that is all she is able to prove.
wherein one Bart_R answers the stupid “Earth is doing what it as always done change.” I had presented to me earlier today.
"Your honor, people have always died. Therefore you cannot find my client guilty of murder, despite tens of thousands of witnesses and articles of physical evidence direct and circumstantial, including the smoking gun.
Over long enough timescales, the Faint Young Sun Paradox skews temperatures. Removing the very small (but over a huge time period) influence of the change in overall solar output still leaves some significant differences in global temperature correlated to CO2 level, but explains most of the delta.
Continents drift over very long time periods. Removing that influence still leaves a few significant differences in the global-temperature-CO2 correlation, over very long time periods, but not very much.
Episodes of intense volcanism, giant meteor strikes, and the like when removed from the record leave a clearer picture of correlation of CO2 and global temperature.
Milankovitch Cycles due orbital changes pretty much explain the bulk of the remaining differences seen in ice cores.
It's CO2 that most exactly fits all observations given least assumptions, exceptions or omissions.
As for the proof? Google Scholar shows tens of thousands of hits on search terms like "CO2 Climate" every year more and more. There's a mountain of proof far in excess of the evidence for gravity waves, the Higgs Boson, extrasolar planets, and black holes combined. Argumentum ad Ignoratio does not cut it.
Nor can we call any outcome an 'advantage' when it is inflicted against the will of the recipients, any more than can you 'advantage' a stranger from behind against their will. That's just assault.
Minimizing the cost of losing whole cities to make excuses for needless fossil waste dumping?
That's a demented level of indifference amounting to criminal negligence.”
There are many other telling comments about the state of the planet and the science that informs on why it is happening. Well worth scanning through. Most of the 'moles' raised by our resident trolls here are soundly whacked again.
But this one I picked out as having special significance on the co-ordinated campaign from both sides of the pond to roll back any environmental legislation that may hamper the profit gathering of the fossil fool industry.
Ceist Celt Bart_R • a day ago
Is it a coincidence that Judith Curry appears to be the only 'scientist' that the House Committee on Science and Lamar Smith follow on the @HouseScience Twitter account?
I stay away from the denying trolls on here for a few days and what do I see when I get back? Swedish meatless ball linking to the blog of a washed up has-been (Judith Curry). Her research dried up several years ago, so in a desperate attempt to stay in the limelight she cozies up to a vile pile of liars.
Ha!
I'm surprised Jeff hasn't returned with a dissertation that argues, with nothing other than conjecture and personal opinion, that John Cleese would've changed his mind.
:-)
Against your over self-complacent ego-selfish misrepresentation of an ill-mannered wannabe pseudoscentist without basic education in meteorology and atmospheric physics stands as a landmark Prof. Judith Curry, who is famous, well known for her exuberant expertise in atmospheric science and totally respected and heard by American Congress. And YOU, Hardley? Who are YOU, Hardley?? YOU are a completely unknown, totally irrelevant village idiot who spies his toxic vile in endles fits of partizan green-soci fundamentalim onto decent scientists.
You Hardley as well as clown Lionel F, who is a poor airplane wing service screw driver, but mischieves himself as an incompetent naked climate layman, are both troubled brats from spoiled families. Listen you two idiots: your personal contribution to progress, growth, wisdom of modern society is ridiculously negative and self-damaging: you are a decadent shame for mankind.
Funny how Kim claims I am unknown when my scientific papers have outcited Curry's in recent years... my h factor (41) is only one behind Curry's despite the fact that she had a 12 year head start on my career... and so on and so forth. And as a former Associate Editor at Nature, I am far from unknown. So you asinine morons can keep throwing insults in your desperate efforts to dismiss me. Curry is your pin up girl because she's thrown in her lot with liars and shills as her career fades, in a last ditch effort to retain relevance. As for testifying before Congress, so have Monckton and Steyn, two of the biggest buffoons out there, so this is hardly a ringing endoresement.
The scientific debate is over. I am not the outiier anyway. Curry is. That's why you idiots defend her.
Lionel F, who is a poor airplane wing service screw driver,...
WhoTF is Lionel F?
Whatever, kim demonstrates that he is as ignorant of matters aviation (with as silly a thought as Birchers spider - that is another sad git) as he is of everything else. Probably failed grade school, no more like a kindergarten fail.
Message for kim, just when we all thought Curry couldn't debase herself further she joins up with a Bates to feed the ego of David Rose. How kim missed all this is amazing given the exposure here and at many other places.
Look at it this way Betula - I am a million times more relevant than you and Kim, which I know isn't that hard. You two idiots are completely anonymous nobodies. And after co-reviewing Lomborg's book for Nature I became well known in many circles, which is a helluva lot more than can be said for you, a tree pruner. Kim won'teven tell us what he does for a living, which is illuminating.
Lionel shows how relevant Curry is, as she continues her journey to oblivion. The fact that the dwindling population of deniers relies on her and a few other aging washed up scientists is further proof of their desperation. Indeed, were I to meet Curry I would ask her if she is proud to be supported by an army of idiotic fools like Kim, Betula and Olaus. I would tell her that her fanclub essentially consists of right wing illiterates. But I am sure that she knows this but feels that any adoration is better than none. How pathetic.
I am at a scientific conference right now, so I don't intend to waste much more energy on the illiterati here. But just for the record: last week Greenland broke its al time February temperature record by 4 C. New York City and Washington
DC broke temperature records in February. Much of the Arctic experienced its third winter 'heat wave' this season, with temperatures as much as 30 C above normal. Ice extent at both poles is at record lows with the Arctic situation an evolving disaster. Australia experienced an unprecedented heat wave with temperatures exceeding 40 C over much of the country and Sydney recording its warmest ever day.
Against the empirical evidence the deniers persist. The scientific community by and large is on one side and the illiterati is on the other. The few morons who write in here desperately try - and of course fail - to give the impression that my views are extreme and outside of the consensus. But of course my views are a part of the consensus. My big mistake is in giving attention to the Kim's and Betula's et al. who are desperate for it. Its a fair point.
Well, since Hardley insists on bringing up the weather, it can't hurt to tell you the skiing here on the east coast has been outstanding, though I did find a spider in my house......killed it.
Look at this idiot "Harvey": But just for the record: last week Greenland broke its al time February temperature record by 4 C. New York City and Washington
DC broke temperature records in February. Much of the Arctic experienced its third winter ‘heat wave’ this season, with temperatures as much as 30 C above normal. Ice extent at both poles is at record lows with the Arctic situation an evolving disaster. Australia experienced an unprecedented heat wave with temperatures exceeding 40 C over much of the country and Sydney recording its warmest ever day.
Against the empirical evidence the deniers persist.
HE IS 100% illiterate even in postmodern pseudo-"climatology" . If Hardley knew anything he would know that he hallucinates about weather, but as he is a total fool, full of green-ecosoci vile he cannot better.
Listen Hardley, as you only dispose of utter pimitive copy "knowledge" of your ideology-driven eco fundamentlists in politicized pseudo-science (the guys don't even know how to setup a decent experimental design in order to study something primitive as temperatures): the whole level of these crap "scientists" is such abimonably catastrophic hilarious that more intelligentic people get only constant nausea.
Your insect conference has a scientific value and relevance to the AGW speculation of exactly ZERO, but you will not understand because your insane mental state does not allow this, idiot
kim has to be a Poe unless there are people stupid enough to evacuate #45 with self belief in which case trees and fungi are massively more intelligent.
The weather/ climate is not an althetic or swimming event at the Olympic Games and it shouldn't be reported that way. It's unrealistic.
At the same time as we were experiencing a summer heat wave of plus 40 temps in parts of Australia, there were other places on the globe experiencing minus 40 temps.
Neither are 'unprecedented'.
I was away at a 'conference' too. Where I live it was 47 one day, where I was (still in AUS) it was a pleasant 31.
The birds and the trees and the insects and the fungi were all fine with it in both places.
They don't read the weather reports.
They aren't even slightly interested in conforming to 'averages' or 'breaking records' or following 'trends'.
In some ways Lionel, they are smarter than us.
They don't lose their cool in the heat.
They're not trying to 'tease out' a trend in the weather records.
They couldn't give two hoots about 'computer modeling' or human politics or economics.
They don't have mortgages.
In other words.
The 'unprecedented' obsession with the weather is not 'doing something about' or benefiting 'the environment'.
Who or what ends up being the beneficiaries of this 'unprecedented' obsession?????
What are they genuinely 'doing something about it'????
So Stu, playing the plonker again. Weather events are way past requiring trends to be teased out.
How nice for you that weather is as it should be for you. Take a trip to Spain or other places in Europe, just by way of example, and ask around there. Warning you may have to dodge the punches and brickbats from farmers pushed to the limit. You tosser!
I have been there & I have talked to the farmers Lionel.
They're being pushed to the limit by endless bureaucratic and political red tape/green tape/flouro tape.
They're good honest people who have had a gutful of the 'unprecedented obsession' with the weather/climate.
I actually think you may benefit from getting out and about some more Lionel.
Go talk to some real farmers and real regional/rural communities right across the globe.
....and instead of referring to imaginary farmers, Stu2, why not consider the fact that nobody is more aware of the reality of climate change than farmers are.
Craig.
I am not saying that there are no changes or anything else along those lines.
The point of contention is that 'doing something about it'.
I'm very sorry to see that this site has lost the plot in this regard.
Unfortunately for most who do live and work outside of the urban areas, and that definitely includes farmers and their support communities, it's quite clear that 'environmentalism' and the Greens have been hijacked by politics and no longer focus on the 'real environment'.
And 'imaginary farmers'?
Really? http://www.farmonline.com.au/story/4325760/nff-modernises-climate-chang…
This is the part that is played by the group you have linked to:
"The policy shift also coincided with Farmers for Climate Action joining the NFF as an associate member where they are not permitted to vote at meetings but can sit at the table and be part of committees."
Take note that they are an associate member only and can't vote.
Take note of these comments as well:
"“Everybody else seems very eager to say, ‘we’ve got a problem with climate change and the way that we’ll deal with it is to put a caveat on people in the country’,” he said.
“But you can’t say that you’re going to fix the problem that you’re ventilating, with my private asset.
“That is, you don’t fix climate change by taking away my vegetation rights because that means that you don’t want to do it with your money, you just want to do it with mine.
“If you truly accept responsibility you need to show your acceptance by paying for it out of your own wallet, not somebody else’s.”
&
" The NFF recognises that climate change poses a significant challenge for Australian farmers.
As a nation, we must act to ensure that our economy is well placed to cost efficiently reduce our national greenhouse gas emissions profile.
Australian agriculture has always operated in a varied and challenging climate.
The continued success of the Australian agriculture sector will depend on our ability to build on this foundation, and continue to innovate and adapt to best manage future climatic risks and to reduce the emissions intensity of our production systems.
There is great opportunity for Australian agriculture to contribute to our national emissions reduction goals.
This opportunity requires innovation to reduce the emissions intensity and to enable farmers to efficiently participate in carbon markets.
It is critical that the suite of government policies that seek to address the challenge of climate change are fully examined, to ensure that the policy levers of government work cohesively to achieve our national objectives, while minimising the risk of unintended or perverse outcomes."
As I said upthread, farmers worldwide have been pushed to the limit by endless political and bureaucratic red/green/flouro tape.
They've always been used to working with the seasons/weather/climate/environment/markets and etc & dealing with the associated risks.
Instead of working with these people, "Environmentalist' Politics and the Greens have successfully alienated them!
No good IMHO.
I have been there & I have talked to the farmers Lionel.
Been where? Why do I ask, because there is a disconnect between this:
They’re being pushed to the limit by endless bureaucratic and political red tape/green tape/flouro tape.
and the realities that have hit home in the recent past which has the same underlying causes as the danger to that Oroville Dam in Northern California.
And I think you will benefit by studying more on what is happening around the globe and why. I don't need to get out and about, even if I could, to see the big picture because I have taken the trouble to study the many faceted small pieces that make that picture up. So don't you lecture me dumbass - the seasons ain't what they used to be (fact) and nature is having trouble keeping up with the discontinuities that phenological disruptions cause where different but co-reliant species, geographically or otherwise separated, respond to very different environmental triggers for mutually important developmental events.
That has little to do with red tape. Besides, like fishermen who complain about fish quotas, many do not understand that the limits placed on production by changing climates, and/or over-harvesting (monoculture and associated not in the long term best interest practices) are what they are coming up against and where some 'red-tape' is necessary to prevent the worst excesses of a culture where short term profit is king, where the message in the fable 'The Goose that Laid the Golden Eggs' has long been forgotten.
Sigh :-(
Lionel.
I have been 'to Spain and other places around Europe' and I have talked to Farmers.
Contrary to your assertions they are fully aware of the 'goose'.
Of course some 'red tape' is necessary.
What you apparently don't understand is that the 'red tape brigade' see agriculture as their 'goose'.
People in rural and regional areas are getting sick of it and not appreciating the increasing risks it imposes on them.
When you figured out the connection of those to what I am on about and climate change then get back - 'till then you have much research to conduct. You are missing the points.
No Lionel.
I have not missed the point.
I have spoken to Farmers in Spain and other places in Europe.
There were no instances where I had to dodge punches or brickbats.
Nothing has changed here. Think of all you could have gotten done over the last year if you had stopped arguing with the trolls in this distant corner of the web where few go.
Ianam has a very good point. I just returned from a Gordon Conference on Plant-Insect Interactions and climate change was a major theme. Strangely enough, in speaking with many of the 200 plus scientists in attendance, I could not find a single one who claimed that AGW was either overblown or not happening. Given the brainless morons who write in here (Betulq, Kim, Stu), one would think that my views were well outside the scientific mainstream and that contrarians were in the majority. Betula and Kim are written off, complete blowhard know nothings embedded in Dunning-Kruger infested ignorance, but Stu is even worse, because he tries to package his bullshit with an academic veneer.
He writes, "At the same time as we were experiencing a summer heat wave of plus 40 temps in parts of Australia, there were other places on the globe experiencing minus 40 temps".
So what? The surface temperature over the planet as a whole is well above the historical average, with warm temperature records being broken at a much higher rate than cold temperature records. The cryosphere looks terrifying, with Arctic ice extent some 2 standard deviations below average for this time of the year; Canada recorded its warmest ever January and globally is was the 3rd warmest. February looks set to be even warmer still, with warm weather records tumbling across much of the northern hemisphere as well as across much of Australia rewcently. All Stu can wheedle out are arguments downplaying what is turning into a calamity by suggesting that our species can 'adaptively manage' fraying food webs, collapsing ecosystems and the current mass extinction event in ways that somehow protect our civilization from the loss of conditions that permit us to exist and to persist.
Of course I know about thew term 'adaptive management' but most systems and population ecologists realize that humanity cannot adaptively manage complex systems that we barely understand as they unravel around us.
Stu is as utterly stupid as his nickname suggests. he does not read any of the empirical literature and somehow tries to thrust the flaws of a rapaciously out of control capitalist system onto 'greens' who have absolutely no political power.
I told colleagues at the conference about some of the views espoused by the trolls on here and their mouths were agape, aside from the laughter. The most funny thing that Betula, Kim, and Olaus try is to suggest that, because I am the only scientist who writes in here, that somehow my views on climate change are somehow 'extreme' and lie well outside of the scientific mainstream (whereas the opposite, of course, is true). Heck, Betula appears to think that the scientific support for AGW lies exclusively on this blog; if the blog shuts down, then that shows that AGW is false and that the deniers win.
As I have said before, every reputable scientific conference in which AGW is discussed is attended by scientists who largely agree on the causes of GW and of the importance to mitigate GHC. I say 'reputable' because shindigs organized by the GWP{F and Heartland Foundation don't count: those vile gatherings have pre-determined views and will never, ever, acknowledge the scientific truth. Moreover, as I have have said until I am tired of saying it, every National Academy in every nation on Earth, representing tens of thousands of scientists, acknowledges both the reality of AGW and the need to urgently address it. On top of that are the views of every major scientific organiztion e.g. the American Geophysicists union, The American Meteorological Society, NASA, NOAA, AAAS, etc, all of which share the views of the National Academies. And note how the trolls on here continually ignore these facts. Well, except Kim, who is so desperate to ignore the truth that he thinks it goes away by putting a solid line through it. He's beyond pathetic.
But ianam is correct. Hence why I will spend more time on other blogs like Hot Whopper, Stoat, Rabett Run, And then There's Physics, etc., where Kim and Betula will be tarred, feathered and sent packing. I am sure that Tim (Lambert) must cringe when he sees that intellectual level of the morons who have taken over his blog.
Jeff.
You're very busy worrying about and writing long comments about what you think other people think.
It's amusing to read.
Just because you're a 'scientist' who goes to 'conferences,' doesn't mean anything other than you''re a scientist who goes to scientific conferences.
As you say. 'So what'?
Your 'views' re global socio-economic politics are not 'scientific'.
Jeff, I wouldn't be too concerned about what Tim thinks about Deltoid. I suspect that he uses it as both an archive and a fly trap for the Denialati.
I also suspect that Tim has a far greater (positive) influence in other areas of the global climate change response than most appreciate, but that's just my own surmising from snippets of evidence...
Hardley, listen, you are constantly trapped by wrong feelings, wrong decisions, wrong beliefs, wrong information you believe in etc. and way too unintelligent to understand that you are trapped and why you are trapped in self-deception. One of your most erroneous self-perceptions is that you think you are a scientist, because you are NO scientist (it does not matter that you look at insects and plants, a lot of housewives also do) as you are totally unable, as driven by destructive green-socialo political activism, to know what science really is: ANYBODY OF THE IDIOTS INTENTIONALLY BY OBSCURE MOTIVATIONS OR NAIVELY BELIEVING IN ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING IS BY DEFINITION AN ANTI-SCIENTIST, BUT POLITICAL ACTIVIST with strong narcistic motivation of not-deserved public attention. As the small unimportant mentally limited being just keep silent with your central ridiculous belief: ut is getting warmer.
Hardley firmly believes that it is getting warmer, because of more CO2 from human civilization and he believes that a lot of people and insects are threatened to find death in a few hundred years, and he therefore blathers about his corrupt ecosystem services crap. Stop this, Hardley, as it putrifies your miserably misguided life. Hardley believes in AGW although he never has never done temperature readings. HARDLEY, YOU HAVE NEVER LOOKED AT ONE SINGLE THERMOMETER THAT WAS USED BY THE GREEN FUNDAMENTALISTS IN CRU, NOAA AND GISS TO FAKE A SO CALLED GLOBAL TEMPERATURE.
HARDLEY, why do you believe in something that you have not studied?
Fact 1: Hardley had absolutely no clue, what temperature really is, but he does not like warmer temperatures (my advice: go to live in Greenland, it's very cold there, believe me, you idiot)
Fact 2: Hardley has absolutely no clue why and how we humans perceive warmth, how are body functions to deal with warmth: Hardley is totally illiterate how the human brain and the whole body's physiolgy works: this moron talks about things without even a minimum of education, like the other full-trolled idiot here "LIONELL F", who looks at different bolts on airplane wings, but mis-perceives himself as somebody with knowledge were he has ZERO but only strong ideological beliefs about matters where he wants political change to the evil and destruction. Lionel should stop trolling here and wasting his miserable lifetime in permanent idiotic behavior.
Hardley, Linel listen and take note: The influence of increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere on air temperatures in 2m above the ground or above the ocean surface cannot be measured. Simpletons like you are way too silly to understand this. Not a single NATIONAL SCIENTIFIC ACADEMY could measure the impact of rising human CO2 on air temperatures in 2m above the ground or the water: THEREFORE ALL THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ON AGW IS PURE SHIT.
Hardley, why do you constantly eclipse your personal hiatus in your life why you hide your activities between age 18 and 34 in your CV? Did you carry a undecent life in jail, as a junky, or only as a toilet cleaner or taxi driver, or like Linnelo you have looked at metal surfaces and studied different bolts????
Hardley start to try to show a minumum of honesty and stop the lies about your life.
kim needs a new buzz phrase generator, the one he is using ATM is demonstrating chaotic behaviour.
And yes, metallurgy is one area that intersected with my career in aviation, but then that was just part two of a full life which continued to involve study in fresh fields.
I wonder what the sum total of your achievements are, hindered as you are with the use, or more correctly, misuse of language let alone incoherence of thought.
You need to be re-injected into the start of the learning process and learn to learn. Shame that time machines are impossible so even that is not open to you.
Your #68 is from classic knowledge envy. You have not progressed far along the 'data — information — knowledge — understanding — wisdom continuum' being stuck somewhere between the first two stages.
It recalls some of the vituperation from Deltoid's Swedish Collective, bravely supported by the scientific ignorance of the the other climate change deniers here. The thing is, a lot of it is straight from the Bumper Bannon Book for Breaking the Planet.
Why do you and the rest of the anti-science knucukle-draggers here hate the planet and its ecosystems so much that you're happy to consign so much of our biodiversity to imminent extinction purely to hold on a few years longer to your conservative fairytale of libertarian infallibility?
Why does actual learning not stick to the teflon of the ganglion hibernating inside your skull, and that serves as an imitation of a brain?
Your question @#74 is complete tosh.
Trillions are being spent world wide on monitoring and managing places like the GBR.
People do not hate the planet and its ecosystems.
Why are you asking such supremely stupid, unproductive, questions?
Berntard and Linol are the typical naked laymen in atmospheric sciences (no education at all) with cherrypicking Dunning-Kruger habits to pick up from google what pleases their predefined political ideology. Both are typical red herrings and logical fallacies as shorter Hardley with his crapped adoration of illusioned ecosystem seargents.
We're not "managing" the GBR - in case you haven't noticed, it's rapidly degrading.
"Trillions"? Care to itemise that claim?
It's a real question. It's not only the GBR that is degrading, but just about every other ecosystem on the planet. This cannot go on indefinitely, and it cannot even go on for many more decades before the elastic resilience of these ecosystems fails. And yet humanity continues on its path of destruction.
So why do humans seem to be so hell-bent on shitting their only nest in the universe?
Kim (love your name play by the way - so clever; you must be proud), I have more degrees and (tertiary) diplomas than a hobbit has meals in a day. I note too that you are using many observations that I have for years applied to you and your ilk. It seems to be a trend lately - imintation apparently is the sincerest form of flattery.
Anyway, here's the thing: you can bluster and deny science all you like, but the laws of physics will win in the end, no matter how much you attempt to sweep the evidence under the carpet. I hope that you're not one of the angry retired old men crowd, because if you see a few more decades before you turn back to dust you'll get to see the growing incontrovertibility of climate change and the huge damage that warming is causing, and will continue to cause. I really hope that you get to see that.
And I hope that one day in the distant future, when you feel your heart start to falter and the painfulness of your last breath squeezes your chest in the vice grip of impending death, that you remember your support for not doing our best to save the Holocene climate and ecology of the planet. I hope that the profound awfulness of this realisation scours your soul until it sputters and extinguishes for all time: that your final moments are ones of abject anguish and terrible understanding of your failure as a decent human being.
Because that would be justice. It won't help the planet, unfortunately, but it would be justice.
Hi Bernard, As you know, I have more scientific qualifications in my little pinky on my left hand than Kim and Betula have in their wildest dreams, let alone in their physical seleves...
Betula is more a right wing loon that leads him to display bouts of confirmation bias... Stu thinks that a tweak here and a tweak there will readily repair fraying food webs and collapsing ecosystems, and KIm is literally insane, putting it mildly. He is too deluded to truly be considered a sociopath, but veers off into psychotic territory... the only reason I engage with him/her/it is to elucidate some form of perverse comic relief....
And as the planet slides inexorably towards hell, watch these vile examples of humanity scream the loudest when the shit well and truly hits the fan.
Just read Kim's rants above and the English grammar is so utterly appalling that it begs the question: from where is he writing this drivel? Certainly a padded cell somewhere, but that's as far as i can go...
And there is Betula again intimating that the death of Deltoid somehow is evidence that discussions on AGW and global change are over.... sheesh, what an idiot.
After shorter Hardley no also tiny Berntard starts praising non-existing ecoshit servlings: can you morons stop this utter crap. You will never understand that bacteria grow in any circumstances be it hot or cold requiring only water. Water is on this planet before assholes like you over-complacent with your minority complexes of born loosers how have exactly zero impact on anything you intend to spoil and vile with your insane psychotic crap of illusioned morality which is not but decadent behavior of mentally incapable and hopelessly retarded non-significants. People like Betula or Stu 2, of course Olaus, not to speak of myself, are infnitely superior in any significant and important aspect of modern life, because we represent the strong future-oriented direction of mankind whereas you whiners and cowards go to bed, get constantly ill about things you cannot cope with and dive into your personal nirwana of no-future for yourself but not mankind without assholes like you. You better throw your stinking Dunning Kruger vile on yourself and hang yourself on the next tree. Nobody will miss angry idiots like you. Get out here, you insane trolls or I will call Tim to throw you out now.
What makes Kim so hilarious to read is not only his pathological, vile ignorance, but the fact that he/she/it does not understand the concept behind the Dunning-Kruger effect. Betula doesn't either. The authors set out to show that the less a person knows about a specific field of endeavour, the more they think that they know. Kim and Betula are textbook examples. Neither has any pedigree or expertise in any relevant fields, yet they write as if they are statured experts.
Take Kim's whimsically vacuous comments about ecosystem services. This is an area I do research, because it is related to my academic training in population and evolutionary ecology. Kim won't tell us what he does except to say, in appalling English, that he and a few other untrained outliers here are 'infinitely superior' (in his words) to me, Bernard, and thousands of other scholars who have been to university and research the relevant fields for a living. One of the important tenets of science when evaluating the credibility of an argument is to 'follow the credentials' (Pimm and Harvey, 2001). The vast majority of climate change deniers on blogs and online - people like Kim - have no relevant education. If they did, oh yes, we'd know ALL about it. Deniers plaster the credentials of the odd scientist whose arguments they like over the entire blogosphere - look at Judith Curry. Her publication record is strong but not exceptional, and certainly not as strong as mine, but in the eyes of the deniers she is a bonafide legend, simply because she is one of very few statured scientists who denies or at least downplays AGW.
And what about the vast majority of scientists - certainly well over 90% - who believe that AGW IS real and is a real threat? They get the Kim/Betula et al treatment. This means that attempts are made to 'isolate them from the herd'; on Deltoid, Betula and Kim are masters of trying to give the impression that the scientific debate lies between them, Olaus, me, Lionel and Bernard. Forget the fact that every major scientific organization and National Academy on Earth affirms the reality of AGW, this is ritually ignored and the debate comes back to the confines of Deltoid. The second ploy is to relentlessly smear, ridicule and berate your opponents. Bernard and I have more qualifications in our little fingers than Kim, Betula and Olaus do in your combined body masses; indeed, these three deniers HAVE NO RELEVANT QUALIFICATIONS. I will gladly tell Kim why I studied at a later age if he will first tell me what he does for a living (without lying, of course, which is a ritualistic behaviour among deniers).
Now back to Dunning-Kruger. Kim habitually ridicules the concept of ecosystem services - by now a core subject in economic and ecological courses in universities around the world. So what expertise does he possess in the field? Well, you guessed it - NONE! So that places him at the base of the x axes (near the junction of the x and y axes on the D-K graph, in the know-nothing area) whereas on the y-axis he would be placed very high, reflecting high confidence. Pure D-K effect; a textbook example. And in keeping with that, he is so utterly stupid that he doesn't know that he is stupid, also explained in D-K presentations. Once again, a textbook case of the D-K effect. Also, I would like to see proof of his 'infinitely superior intelligence' in the form of bonafide qualifications e.g. a PhD degree, or some other example of his relevant education. He has none, so he is left to tell the world how utterly brilliant he is without the letters after his name to prove it.
With respect to Tm, he is a friend on Facebook and we have exchanged posts. So Kim, if anyone is going to be banned, its you. If I write to Tim and tell him to ban you, he WILL do it. The only reason I have not done so thus far is because your posts are so utterly hilarious and vacuously ignorant that I copy-paste some of them and show them to my students and colleagues to prove that there are deranged people in the world. And your posts provide me with comic relief.
Bernard's vision of the future is his absolution.... and If you question the vision, you have thus created the vision, so he hopes you live to see the vision...and then die a painful death.
Hardley - "And there is Betula again intimating that the death of Deltoid somehow is evidence that discussions on AGW and global change are over…. sheesh, what an idiot"
First of all, this is a "science" blog, not an AGW blog...
Second, only a true idiot could imagine that Deltoid and it's 4 to 5 followers actually carries any weight when it comes to discussions about science.
Yes Hardley, you are that one true idiot... and remember, you're the scientist.
Bernard J @#78.
You got something right.
Your poor attitude and vitriol will do absolutely nothing to help the planet.
I would suggest that attitude is greatly assisting poor behaviour.
The GBR and Ove's studies have been receiving significant funding for at least 2 decades.
Worldwide, funding for WH listed sites like the GBR , over the last 3 decades has reached the trillions.
"Wow – “And you said you DID believe in AGW.”
Nope, I agreed “there IS AGW?”"
And that is you lying.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2017/01/01/january-2107-open-thread/com…
Glad to help a fellow AGW believer.
"Sure I was saying them…"
No you weren't.
You were saying I said them.
So what happened to your comment to StuPid?
Did I miss it?
Or did you forget to post it?
"A continuation of the monologue of insanity:"
Betty doesn't know what decologue is.
"“So what happened to your comment to StuPid?”
“Did I miss it?”
“Or did you forget to post it?”
Good stuff….only on Deltoid."
So you don't know if you posted it?
Are your posts ghostwritten, or is this back to your earlier 15 second memory problems again?
Or are you saying you if you were to post it, it would only be on Deltoid?
Wow - Why do you say that?
I asked it...because you said this:
Wow - "therefore there will no longer be BS about CO2 fertilisation and wild turkey tangents"
Why do you think CO2 fertilization and animals (such as wild turkeys) are BS and will no longer be part of AGW conversations?
How about polar bears and caribou, are they BS will they no longer be discussed?
Is there a book I can get regarding the AGW selective discussion process?
"So you don’t know if you posted it?"
Only your imagination knows Wow. Let me know what it's telling you...
"Wow – Why do you say that?
I asked it…because you said this:"
Yes, that is indeed the source of my confusion, since there is no logical link or conclusion that can be made.
Repeating it doesn't make it any less nuts.
"“So you don’t know if you posted it?”
Only your imagination knows Wow."
Earlier you were insistent that you could tell me what I believed.
Now you're saying that reality is under my control.
Or you're insane at both times.
Unless a sane answer comes back, you are saying that it you are sane.
Any answer that is not sane and logical and reasoned is you saying that you are insane.
Fair warning.
Actually, worse than that.
You're saying that what you know is whatever I imagine you know.
Explain.
"You were saying I said them"
You did say them, that's what I was saying, so I said it, and then put it on paper, so people could see what I was saying you said.
Only on Deltoid. Posted that is.
Thanks Wow.
"Hardley – “Betula has been going down the “I don’t believe you” route since he came on here”
I never said I didn’t believe you Hardley"
But he does.
Battty, you are pissed off that Jeff was smarter than you and spotted it, aren't you?
""You were saying I said them”
You did say them, that’s what I was saying, so I said it"
Then you agree I was right in my response you're arguing over.
Why then are you arguing?
Wow - "that is indeed the source of my confusion, since there is no logical link or conclusion that can be made"
I agree, so why did you say it?
"Then you agree I was right in my response you’re arguing over"
I agree that the words I said you said are a fitting response to what you were saying...
"I agree, so why did you say it?"
Ah, so you are saying you are insane.
Wow - "You’re saying that what you know is whatever I imagine you know"
Just remember, those are your words formed by your imagination. Unless you think I'm using your name.
Do you?
"formed by your imagination"
No. They are formed from the words you typed. they literally say that what you know is whatever I imagine.
Wow - “I agree, so why did you say it?”
So now you're turning into Norman Bates...
"So now you’re turning into Norman Bates…"
Did Norman Bates also have problems getting you to say anything sane?
Explains a lot.
Poor Norman.
Wow - "No. They are formed from the words you typed"
So now you think I'm you at #11. How about #19, am I you there too?
Let me know, I may have things to do..
Wow - "Poor Norman"
Holy shit, he is Norman!
OK, StuPid, I'm afraid we've lost Batshit Betty.
They have just said they are insane, and therefore there's nothing that this person can do other than interfere with themselves in public and kill people without conscience.
Jeff, anyone, can you get in touch with Tim and let him know to kill the access of the insane betty.
Or at the very least let him know that betty is insane and has admitted so on this blog, and inform us of it, so we will know that he's not unaware of what's going on.
Ta.
Lurkers, sorry, you'll have to put up with batshit here, as you see I REALLY *REALLY* tried, but batty is just not sane. If Tim doesn't scrap betty from the blog, it's because he doesn't care what insanity is going on here, and you can make an informed choice of what you will do here.
I hope that this situation has been instructive for you in why it doesn't help to do as StuPid insists you have to do and pander to the deniers and pretend that they're nice or even rational. They still won't be anything more than a denier and will only talk whatever bullshit fits the moment.
Yes, Batshit Betty, I called you a denier because you are one.
Test.
Who wrote the following sentence:
“therefore there will no longer be BS about CO2 fertilisation and wild turkey tangents"
1. Wow
2. Norman Bates
3. All of the above
STuPid, if you ever dare to post that I didn't try or that I should have kept trying, you can look at how long I tried, how hard I trie and how little it helped.
If you still want to claim it's my fault, or anyone's fault other than deniers like better that we're still here arguing you can fuck right off up your own shitfilled arse canal and die choking on the excrement you deserve.
If you are in ANY WAY honest and genuine, you will admit that there is no way to get deniers like batshit betty here on side and no error is made by ANYONE who decides to deal with them in whatever way they feel like.
But if yuo EVER try to berate someone for not doing like you do, these past 2-300 posts and your own cowardly refusal to try EVEN ONCE to do as you demand others, such as Jeff, do, then you deserve the desecrated death I abjured you to suffer under as specified above. I have NO sympathy or consideration for you in this case.
"Yes, Batshit Betty, I called you a denier because you are one"
Wow is back!! I knew you couldn't accept yes for an answer.
Welcome home Wow:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utlm8gBU-H4
Wow - "you can fuck right off up your own shitfilled arse canal and die choking on the excrement you deserve."........"you deserve the desecrated death I abjured you to suffer under as specified above"
I think I just witnessed climate change first hand.
Wow's insanity in mirror form. These are his actual words, though the names were changed as though Wow was talking to Jeff and Lionel....mainly to protect the innocent:
Oh. and I'll bring BBD back to make a guest appearance..
Now, Jeff, Lionel is going to try to talk to you
Since Lionel is in Australia, as far as we know, he may not be able to get in touch with you immediately
So go ahead and ask Lionel what he wants to talk to you about
Jeff, you can start contact with Lionel any time
Jeff, talk to Lionel, ask them what they want to talk to you about
Feel free to ask Lionel any time
"Hey, Jeff, BBD's here! Ask BBD! Ask BBD!
Lionel, talk to Jeff
Jeff, talk to Lionel
So what happened to your comment to Jeff?
Well, still waiting for either of these two boys to start talking
So what happened to your comment to Jeff? (not a repeat)
“Did I miss it?”
“Or did you forget to post it?”
"So you don’t know if you posted it?"
Oh, there' more I missed, but the insanity is obvious.
Mroe to add at @29 -
He was actually accusing me of forgetting to post a comment in a scenario that took place only in his imagination, which he put on paper for all to see!
It would be the equivalent of having a dream, and in the dream someone forgets something. When you wake up, you see that person and confront them about what they forgot...
The person has no idea what you are talking about, so you call that person insane and a denier...
I would love to incorporate a character like Wow into a sitcom or movie...
DIARY OF A LUNATIC
Dear diary,
Wow Jan 10, #75 –
“The only ones calling for death of their opponents are the deniers.
Wow Jan 13, #26 re Stu -
“you can fuck right off up your own shitfilled arse canal and die choking on the excrement you deserve.”……..”you deserve the desecrated death I abjured you to suffer under as specified above”
Good morning from Australia.
Looks like you blokes have been having fun?
It's a beautiful Summer's morning here, the birds are chirping, the frogs are croaking, the ungulates and marsupials are grazing & etc.
My wife and I are off to a familty barbie today.
No offense, but I don't think I'll be discussing what's been written overnight on this blog.
Even though it's enormously amusing to read, our family and friends usually have more adult style conversations.
Some of the kids are prone to get into those he said she did I want I didn't they won't mine's better and etc conversations at times.
:-)
OK, you're toast you lying little cunthair. Don't try to make pretend you were ever honest.
It's over.
Still some pending questions -
1. Is Wow lying for Hardley?
Wow - "And Jeff DID see climate change first hand"
About this:
Hardley - “As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand.”
2. Or is Hardley lying about Hardley?
Hardley - "On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand”
Hardley - "“In my work as an ecologist I work on shifting zones, and here I could see it in real.”
Regarding this:
Hardley - “As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand.”
We'll never know.
WoW.
If one of our kids spoke to anyone like that, we would definitely have to point out that it's poor behaviour.
What is it particularly that's causing you to write such comments?
Stu - "those he said she did I want I didn't they won't mine's better and etc. conversations"
Stu, you know Wow well, and as hard as you try, you know you can never have a normal conversation with him. I refer to it as "Wow Purgatory"....it just wonders in circles and you can't get out. It's where he lives.
If you wrote a 500 word response to him, he would pick out the word "the" and tell you that it means "a" and then tell you :"a" doesn't mean what you meant it to mean....then call you a denier and swear and threaten to kill while claiming deniers are insane...
I don't mind engaging, because in the end, I always prove him wrong....and that drives him crazy. Knowing he couldn't accept "yes" as an answer and would end up going back to screaming "denier" was the last example.....he couldn't hold it in....the dam had to break at some point.
You're smart for not falling for his tactics, (which he hates when turned on him) ...but don't expect him to ever change.
Betula,
WoW has told me in, CAPITALS, many times that WE (but perhaps he means HE?) won't change .
I find that extraordinary as his ubiquitous WE is/are apparently expecting everyone else and everything else to change GLOBALLY and IMMEDIATELY and, FURTHER, they're some type of expletive LIAR if they ask questions about implentation of these IMMEDIATE GLOBAL changes of that ubiquitous WE.
And you're right, I'm not interested in playing semantics with WoW or anyone else for that matter except on the rare occasion when it's just too tempting.
Like just now.
:-)
And WoW.
Before you lose it, that 'anyone else' includes Betula and Kim who you keep asking me to play semantics with too.
I don't know how often I need repeat this.
I'm not interested thanks all the same.
It's pointless as the last couple of pages clearly shows.
I'm interested in what can be done to improve how humanity interacts with the environment.
Playing semantics and playing political rhetoric at whatever level of education and experience is not proving to achieve anything at all.
It also doesn't assist science or the environment.
Betula is continuing to outdo himself on hypocrisy. He tells Stu that it's impossible to have a 'normal' conversation with Wow, when he himself is singularly incapable of a 'normal' conversation himself. He can't engage in a discussion on science because he is scientifically illiterate. He sides with shills and people on the academic fringe who downplay the seriousness of AGW. If, as I have done, I link to major studies in prominent journals revealing the effects of AGW on species, communities or ecosystems, including potential threats, he desperately searches through the internet via Google to find anything he can to cast doubt on the veracity of the study or on AGW. He scraped the bottom of the barrel when he found the Bo Eberling interview in a Danish paper. Given the press coverage allocated to the Crowther et al. study, and the implications that emerge from it, if Eberling was truly saying that there was nothing to worry about and that carbon stored in the soil will stay there regardless of how fast it warms in the Arctic, then why would Nature publish it and why would the lead author argue that it us a ticking time bomb? The empirical literature is full of studies not only showing potential effects of warming but effects that are already underway which are harming natural systems and reducing their resilience and resistance. All the Crowther study does is reinforce what we already know. And yet Betula quotes Eberling as if his caution is the end of the story. Cautious interpretation is translated by Betula into "there is nothing to worry about". And the fact that Eberling and almost certainly every other author of the paper believe that AGW is a serious problem is ignored and dismissed by the tree pruner. This is his 'discussion' style. And then he accused Wow of being unable to engage in a normal conversation.
Priceless. Sadly, the internet is full of people like Betula who think they are the ones having 'normal' discussions. Betula isn't capable of a 'normal' discussion. He has a pre-determined set of beliefs that revolve around conspiracies involving governments and the UN that have nothing to do with the scientific evidence for AGW. It's just that he sees measures to deal with AGW as some sort of left wing agenda to steal funds from rich countries to create a more egalitarian world and he hates that. But he camouflages his political beliefs bty attempting - and miserably failing - to ridicule climate science and scientists.
Jeff, Iit's not just that Betty has now proven that not even reality is accepted by the batshit crazy one, but that StuPid, not merely being a concern troll trying to shut up realists and leave the floor to his fellow deniers, but that he ACTIVELY AVOIDS even appearing to want to do as he asks.
Batshit, for example,goes "I say this:[quote someone else]" then when told, no he didn't say it, argues he totally did. Then when showed he didn't, he says, yes, I said that you said it. Batshit Betty DENIES REALITY. Something fairly obvious.
But StuPid who claimed all sorts of shit about how we need to do something about AGW has shown that "We" only are the realists who need to stop telling everyone AGW is real, need to stop trying to get us decarbonised, and must do something small and ourselves,so that deniers can continue to do what the hell they want.
Something that was fairly obvious.
But StuPid has outed how close he is to deniers.
When given time, ample time, to talk to Batshit Betty, he never does. For several days, only demanding things or talking to me or rhetorically to you,because he wanted to berate someone and I wasn't a target he could attack.
He misses people to complain at.
But not just that, StuPid NEVER talked to Betty.But as soon as I said "ENOUGH!", and the pressure to actually try what he says we should all do with deniers is off,he's suddenly talking to Batshit.
With a "Hi, morning from Australia" well into the Aussie day and a "I'm not going to read what's alrady been said!" so that he can "pretend" that he's not been told to talk to Betty like he says we all should.
Then continues with chatting with bettty and not trying to get that lunatic to do something constructive.
So given ample chance,StuPid has PROVEN that he's one of the deniers and that alll and every single one of his complaints are because he wants to complain to realists for daring to speak to the public.
So there is no complaint either of these two shitheads can make about any accusation ANYONE wants to make against them that they can rebut to anyone who is even vaguely interested in looking. BOTH have proven that they will not say the truth, will deny reality and all logic, and that we are going to have to infer what they mean because neither will say the truth at any point in time.
They are deniers not because they've said they deny, but because they don't say.
And their actions and words do not support what they specifically state, so their claims of "Where did I say that?" Or "I've never said" are empty. They don't support what they DO say with their actions. And any suspicion is justified.
Have you contacted Tim, Jeff? If Tim knows what's going on, then everyone here, including the deniers and the lurkers, will know that what continues is acceptable to Tim, and we can make our judgement calls based on knowledge rather than supposition.
Jeff, you merely had to state that Batshit is incapable of having a normal conversation, with themselves or anyone.
The rest of it is just an assertion that is reasonable, but we have already ascertained that Betty is not reasonable. So we don't have to know, or care, what may underlie their insanity.
Betty is unable to have a normal conversation with ANYONE.
That's 100% of what is needed to know and is 100% supported by evidence plainly here for all to see. Only those supporting the denialists world"view" would see it any differently and can safely be assumed to be fellow deniers.
So it has begun, the destruction of the herd from inability to breed capable functioning entities.
Yes I am aware that this news broke many months ago and has been mentioned by many media outlets but generally low key.
Aside: will that link work? There appears to be something about many blogs just this week which mungs links to uselessness. Bernard J at Eli's asks, 'Has the Great Censorship begun?'
Probably a Wordpress thing.
To deniers, nothing can be caused by climate change.
Migration patterns are, to them, caused by the animals and plants deciding to move. Not by changing climate. Storms and hurricanes, droughts and flooding are caused by weather, not climate. Disease is caused by demons, not a change in the climate.
Nothing, to deniers, can be blamed on climate. At most they will let it be blamed on bad weather, but there's nothing we can do about the weather, so that's safe.
Quite what they think the difference in weather in Canada and Florida means is anyone's guess. Maybe the warmer climate in Florida is not changeable, 'cos God designed it that way.
No matter what changes, to deniers, that can;t be due to a change in climate. Everything happens for mystical reasons, unknown to man. Though they know it's not us. Because.
Hardley - "He sides with shills and people on the academic fringe who downplay the seriousness of AGW"
Why do you think Elberling is a shill and on the academic fringe? Have you told him this?
Hardley - "And yet Betula quotes Eberling as if his caution is the end of the story.
You use the phrase "as if", as if I said caution is the end of the story. Did I say caution is the end of the story or is that your personal interpretation?
Hardley - Cautious interpretation is translated by Betula into “there is nothing to worry about”.
Since I never said "there is nothing to worry about", wouldn't that be your interpretation / translation of what I said?
Hardley - "This is his ‘discussion’ style. And then he accused Wow of being unable to engage in a normal conversation"
So my discussion style is showing how you misinterpret and translate words I didn't say to meet your own ideas of what you think was meant?
Right now I'm showing how you can't have a normal conversation...
A normal conversation would be for you to take the words of Elberling and tell me what he meant by them rather than to attack what you think I meant by posting what he said....
Remember, you're the scientist and I have to teach you these things...
Wow - "Batshit, for example,goes “I say this:[quote someone else]” then when told, no he didn’t say it, argues he totally did. Then when showed he didn’t, he says, yes, I said that you said it"
If you are too stupid to realize that the "someone else" I quoted (you know, quotation marks") was you, and that I used your own words (that I repeated, thus I said them) to prove just how stupid you are.....then you are too stupid to have a normal conversation.
Of course you did know this, but you don't like it because you have to deal with what you constantly deal out....gee, now what could I be talking about?....
Hey Wow, did I forget to post the imaginary post that you believe I posted? Did I post it yet? I must have forget that I posted what was posted in your head! How can I have a normal conversation if I can't even remember what I posted in your imagination? What should I do?
Purgatory Wow....you're shot.
Wow - "BOTH have proven that they will not say the truth, will deny reality"
Really? Did you just see the reality of your imagination that I posted above? Are you whining that I deny what you imagine?
Wow - "Then continues with chatting with bettty and not trying to get that lunatic to do something constructive"
Did you happen to read "DIARY OF A LUNATIC" @31?
Do you think that is reality?
Do you think the reality @31 is constructive?
If not, please explain why...
You see, this is a normal conversation.
Wow - "Have you contacted Tim, Jeff? If Tim knows what’s going on, then everyone here, including the deniers and the lurkers, will know that what continues is acceptable to Tim"
Wow, quick question, do you think the following would be acceptable to Tim?...
Wow – “you can fuck right off up your own shitfilled arse canal and die choking on the excrement you deserve.”……..”you deserve the desecrated death I abjured you to suffer under as specified above”
If yes, please explain why...
You see, this is a normal conversation.
Wow - "To deniers, nothing can be caused by climate change"
Who are the deniers that you had this conversation with, and why did they say that? Was this recent? Can you quote them?
You see, this is a normal conversation.
Wow - "Everything happens for mystical reasons, unknown to man"
Are you saying this is what someone thinks, or are you saying this is what you think they think, based on some conversation that led you to believe that.
Was this a recent conversation? Can you quote some of it?
You see, this is a normal conversation.
http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/gaslighting-5-things-you-need-to-know
In the 1944 film The Gas Light, a husband deliberately manipulates his wife into believing that she is losing her sanity in order to gain control over her. Unfortunately, this is not just a fictional scenario.
Though it has only recently come to clinical attention, the tactic known as gaslighting is a common pattern of many abusive relationships, where one partner consistently undermines the other’s sense of reality and ability to trust their own judgments.
Victims may be made to feel that they are being too demanding, too overly sensitive, too critical - that they have no right to expect certain standards of behavior or attitude from their partners. That they are the ones at fault, for continually misinterpreting or willfully ignoring their partner's intentions. That, ultimately, the problems in the relationship are created by - and lie entirely with - themselves.
Much like a virus attacking the immune system, gaslighting is a continual, stage-by-stage process that undermines one’s ability to recognize and resist psychological abuse.
...
So, what can you do about it?
To resist gaslighting effectively, you must realize that the argument literally cannot be won, because the gaslighter is not committed to a consistent frame of reference, or anything besides proving you wrong at all costs.
Instead, let go of the need to prove yourself right to this particular person and understand that your self-image does not have to rely on their perception of you alone. Often, this involves firmly establishing and maintaining what researcher Hilde Lindemann calls a "counter-story".
Remember that you did not mistrust your memory or judgment before the arguments started, and you shouldn't start doubting yourself now.
http://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2016/06/20-diversion-tactics-hi…
Toxic people such as malignant narcissists, psychopaths and those with antisocial traits engage in maladaptive behaviors in relationships that ultimately exploit, demean and hurt their intimate partners, family members and friends. They use a plethora of diversionary tactics that distort the reality of their victims and deflect responsibility. Although those who are not narcissistic can employ these tactics as well, abusive narcissists use these to an excessive extent in an effort to escape accountability for their actions.
...
1. Gaslighting.
Gaslighting is a manipulative tactic that can be described in different variations of three words: “That didn’t happen,” “You imagined it,” and “Are you crazy?” Gaslighting is perhaps one of the most insidious manipulative tactics out there because it works to distort and erode your sense of reality; it eats away at your ability to trust yourself and inevitably disables you from feeling justified in calling out abuse and mistreatment.
When a narcissist, sociopath or psychopath gaslights you, you may be prone to gaslighting yourself as a way to reconcile the cognitive dissonance that might arise. Two conflicting beliefs battle it out: is this person right or can I trust what I experienced? A manipulative person will convince you that the former is an inevitable truth while the latter is a sign of dysfunction on your end.
In order to resist gaslighting, it’s important to ground yourself in your own reality – sometimes writing things down as they happened, telling a friend or reiterating your experience to a support network can help to counteract the gaslighting effect. The power of having a validating community is that it can redirect you from the distorted reality of a malignant person and back to your own inner guidance.
http://botkinsyndrome.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/why-people-tolerate-gaslig…
Before a person can disarm a gaslighter and resist the repetitive cycle, they must prepare for the challenge by examining the dynamics that hold them in the relationship.
*Essentially, that gaslighter has a driving need to be right, and the person who stays with them has a driving need to be accepted by the gaslighter.*
As it is highly unlikely that the manipulative party will magically give up their obsession and need to be right, it falls to the manipulated to disengage from their desire to gain acceptance. That is more easily said than done, and I continue to recommend Harriet Braiker's book, Who's Pulling Your Strings, as an excellent source and one of the best teachers to help those with these types of struggles.
...
Ultimately, so long as a person needs the approval and acceptance or the benefits of the relationship with the person who uses gaslighting against them, and if they are unwilling to relinquish what they derive from the relationship, the dynamics will persist. By developing an internal locus of control, one can get free of the need for the approval of manipulators and their tactics.
StuPid's ONLY goal here is to be the walls forcing you into Batshit Betty's trap.
Their ENTIRE REASON for their absolutely fake concern over how toxic things are are to ensure that the gaslighters like Lappers and Batshit get to retain control of the situation and get to repeat the imprint of insanity on the entire community they are infesting.
And the entire reason for infecting their insanity is to ensure that they get plausible deniability that there is even anything worth doing about AGW.
Care to see where this applies to dealing with Batshit Betty?
StuPid is there to insist that you engage in this battle.
Is this not 100% of Batshit Betty's posts?
And if any still remember Brad Keyes, this should be recognizable:
Our only problem is that not engaging with them at all, or letting them hold the stage without contest is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
If Tim continues to supply the platform for the Big Lie, that is his choice. And his crime.
What makes it hard with gaslighters in climate discussions is that we have no choice but to get acceptance from the gaslighter, since our entire civilisation is held to hostage by the intransigence of the gaslighter.
If our politicians were not so wedded to reaganomics that even the left, to have any chance of being accepted by the media, have to follow as gospel truth, the gaslighter would not have any traction to keep the attention on them. Their refusal to accept reality would be of no consequece, the same as the flat earthers and, outside of bible belt USA, the young earth creationists. Those two idiot groups have no traction, and we don't have to actually engage with them and get them to accept reality (in this case, because the only arguments are personality ones, we have to argue that they accept US).
But politiicans will drag their feet because money is important to them, and as long as they can point to noisy retards screaming that WE DON'T KNOW and IT'S ALL A LIE are used as cover to make themselves immune to criticism of corrupted politicking.
So we have an existential requirement to get the deniers to either look at reality and acknowledge it, which will inevitably make them agree it's real, see R Muller for an example, or shut the fuck up. At that point, there may be a lot of people not caring, but no voices to give the politicians cover to delay what is necessary and reap the monetary rewards of delay.
In short, if our politicians were not so venal or brainwashed, the deniers like batshit here would be as irrelevant as the flat earthers, and the narcissist who joins for the attention (see Curry and Monckton for examples, but batshit for a more local example of the type) would be able to garner none.
For I genuinely believe that batshit betty is only a denier because they get to affirm their personal validation in this rhetoric by wilfully ignoring reality.
Not that Batty Betty would accept reality if the gaslighting failed. But that Batshit here BECAME a denier BECAUSE it gave this avenue for manipulation and exploitation for their personal gratification. The narcissist won't change their mind once made, but they make their mind up based on what gives them the most attention.
@51 - "In order to resist gaslighting, it’s important to ground yourself in your own reality – sometimes writing things down as they happened, telling a friend or reiterating your experience to a support network can help to counteract the gaslighting effect"
Exactly. Which is why I copy and paste what was actually said for all to see. It's the only way to counter the gaslighting effect.
For example.
Did I actually forget I posted something to Stu, or was I being accused by Wow of forgetting to post something to Stu?
Well, it's a good thing it was written by Wow as it happened...
"So what happened to your comment to Stupid?"
“Did I miss it?”
“Or did you forget to post it?”
“So you don’t know if you posted it?”
Gaslighting at it's best.
And it's a good thing the following words were written down, or I also would have been led to believe it was my imagination:
Wow Jan 10, #75 –
“The only ones calling for death of their opponents are the deniers.
Wow Jan 13, #26 re Stu –
“you can fuck right off up your own shitfilled arse canal and die choking on the excrement you deserve.”……..”you deserve the desecrated death I abjured you to suffer under as specified above”
You see, this is a normal conversation.
Wow - "If Tim continues to supply the platform for the Big Lie, that is his choice. And his crime"
Agreed.
He should question supplying the platform for things like this...
"you can fuck right off up your own shitfilled arse canal and die choking on the excrement you deserve.”……..”you deserve the desecrated death I abjured you to suffer under as specified above”
I'm assuming it wasn't imagined of course.
Wow - "Not that Batty Betty would accept reality if the gaslighting failed. But that Batshit here BECAME a denier BECAUSE it gave this avenue for manipulation and exploitation"
Only I'm not a denier, and have already told you that. By referring to me as a denier, you are continuing your gaslighting...
Tim, we need you to be Joseph Cotton here...
Wow - "I genuinely believe that batshit betty is only a denier because..."
Wow - "Belief is irrational. Knowledge is rational"
It's a good thing these things are in writing, this way we know we aren't imagining what was said...and we can keep our sanity.
@60, should have read - He should also question supplying the platform for things like this.
@51 - "Toxic people such as malignant narcissists"
nar·cis·sism
(när′sĭ-sĭz′əm)
n.
1. Excessive preoccupation with or admiration of oneself. See Synonyms at conceit.
2. A personality disorder characterized by an exaggerated sense of self-importance, need for admiration
Now who on this blog fits that description? Who talks about himself, his qualifications and his accomplishments constantly...while belittling others because they aren't on his level...in fact, in almost every comment he posts.
Any guesses?
Lionel posted an actual bona fide developing issue @# 42 yet over 20 comments later you're still just arguing semantics.
The Zika outbreak is indeed a concern that needs attention.
The study that Lionel has linked to outlines where and how the outbreak is spreading.
It points out that, among other things, an el Nino event on top of climate change would have assisted the spread of the outbreak.
The threat has somewhat abated according to WHO but it still needs urgent attention.
Unfortunately Lionel advertises it as the destruction of the herd
from inability to create functioning entities.
There's no mention of anything like that in the paper.
What needs to happen next?
Humanity has dealt with mosquito born viruses before this particular Zika outbreak.
Perhaps some of the successful methods should be used again?
Oh ye of little cognition, have you really no idea as to what could pan out here - accelerated decline of a species, namely homo sapiens not so sapient.
Stu,
I had read the article Lionel linked and had many questions about what the article said and what was left out.
I was thinking about asking those questions, but then I knew if I did, the Deltoidians would try to convince me the gaslight is not flickering....and I still wouldn't have the answers.
Good luck.
PS and we dealt with other mosquito borne diseases fully and without consequence did we? What an simplistic idea.
Here is one thing, such diseases are now spreading into areas where previously rare or unknown because of climate shifts, brining new challenges.
Lionel.
Of course a mosquito born virus left unchecked and unmanaged could pan out into a disaster.
No one has claimed otherwise.
And I can't see where I claimed 'fully and without consequence'.
I said that humans have dealt with mosquito born viruses before this particular one and suggested that perhaps some of the successful methods should be used again?
Perhaps you don't agree?
I also acknowledged that the paper points out that an el Nino event on top of climate change is a likely contributor to the spread of this outbreak.
It most definitely didn't claim that this outbreak is the destruction of the herd from inability to create functioning entities.
So Lionel,
you linked something that's indeed concerning.
What do you think needs to happen next in order to manage this very real threat?
I don't think its a good idea to let it 'pan out into an accelerated decline of a species'...do you?
"Oh ye of little cognition,"
And little desire for cognition.
Which is why a short rebuttal is the best reply to the likes of batshit and StuPid here. Just point out their argument's gaping holes and let anyone else decide if the flapping chickens have managed to indicate their lack of knowledge well enough to be painfully obvious.
And in response to Lionel's evidence of disease vectors spreading due to climate change, deflection is the name of the game for the deniers: "Who said anything different?".
Never a less useless whinge has ever been done when deniers use that one.
It neither says anything substantive nor does it make any sense in a reply to the evidence provided. Its merely the foot-in-the-door to smugglers-turn the conversation AWAY from the problem and off into the sidetracks of ignoring the problem.
And the only winning move is not to answer that whine. The evidence of diseases being spread because of climate change is still there. The problems of more and new diseases is still there. Pretending you're being persecuted with assertions nobody made changes none of that, but is merely a cry for sympathy that is never deserved.
Deal with the evidence and either accept it or deny it.
https://areomagazine.com/2016/12/29/why-i-no-longer-identify-as-a-femin…
Fellas.
Yes, climate change is acknowledged as one likely contributor to this outbreak.
Are you claiming that if we just focus on stopping climate change that is all that needs to happen in order to 'do something' about this Zika virus outbreak?
Surely not?
Wouldn't there be a bit of a problem with time scales?
The specific threat that has been identified needing urgent action is the virus outbreak.
If we're only going to focus on mitigating the AGW % of climate change, then Lionel is perhaps right and this outbreak will be able to pan out into a horrible disaster.
I was sent the above link this morning.
I think it's a good example of 'same book different page'.
The 'environmental movement' has similarly and very unfortunately lost its way IMHO.
Stu - "No one has claimed otherwise."...."And I can’t see where I claimed ‘fully and without consequence"
You see Stu...you are being gaslighted.... this is why, as reasonable as you are, you'll never be able to have a normal conversation with them.
Next, they will be asking you why you are denying what they claim you claimed, which is one way they helped drive Deltoid into the ground.....what do you think, 5-10 follows worldwide?
Can you picture when the 3 stooges are the only ones left.... the 3 of them, flickering the gaslight in an empty room.
Betula,
Rather than you baiting them, let's try this.
Lionel's link is about the spread of the mosquito borne Zika Virus.
WHO says that it still needs urgent attention.
I agree.
Do you?
What do you think should be done to supply that urgent attention to the communities at risk?
If you can possibly resist the temptation, I would prefer an answer that makes no mention of your predictions of WoW's or Lionel's likely response to this particular comment.
My answer was that humans have dealt with mosquito borne viruses before this particular one and that one thing we could do is look at employing some of the successful measures from those previous experiences.
What are your thoughts on that?
I think it's good that the extent of this virus outbreak has been identified and clearly mapped out.
Now it has been, what should happen next?
Re P1 #43 query.
Ive figured it out now.
Each line is a rolling average of
all the months in that year. So January
is just January. But Febuary is the average
of Jan and Feb. And so on through to December,
which is an average of the 12 months.
The averaging process then stops, but begins
anew in Jan.
Thats why things dont seem to line up.
Its actually a damn good way to see if trends are developing
over several years.
Confused the crap outa me at first.
Stu,
Keep in mind that any answer I give is subject to gaslighting, and that at this moment, at least one of the 3 stooges is "most likely" hovering over his keyboard ready to flicker the light. With that said, just remember, the flickering you see on a daily basis is a real.
Here goes...
The obvious answer is to reduce CO2 emissions to the point where we no longer have any Mosquito borne diseases, Tick borne diseases, plant diseases, floods, droughts, rising tides, hurricanes, tornadoes, greed, poverty, shifting zones, deniers, starving polar bears, capitalism, polar vortex, corporations, social injustice, inequality, death threats and a whole host of other bad things on a global scale.
I hope this helps. It's the best answer I can give under the circumstance....I'm sure you understand.
Last point first. Of course I don't think that, and you wonder why you are thought of as stupid, I wasn't implying that. You are reading things into others words — again.
Dealing with this virus is going to involve using some very different measures to those used against other mosquito borne pathogens.
Firstly we need to understand why this virus has established itself and spread, here is a brief rundown of some of the aspects, I emphasis some of:
More at: Explainer: where did Zika virus come from and why is it a problem in Brazil?, slight variation in regions affected. The final paragraphs there contain some ominous warnings.
Now if you have followed through that link then you will understand one basic requirement for control which is unlikely to be helped by the election of Trump if he backs the irrational tenets of the US bible belt ans its tentacles throughout. This is the topic which the articles "Amid Zika Crisis, House GOP Proposes Eliminating Birth Control Program" and "The Importance of Contraception to the Zika Fight" are about. It also provides understanding of Why Brazil?
It may come as a surprise to you that there has been growing understanding of the role of viruses including bacteriophages, having an impact on evolution all along, including of humans and will continue to do so. This has been touched on by Richard Dawkins in his numerous excellent and time worthy books, if you haven't you should try some.
For a starter I offer this: Viruses revealed to be a major driver of human evolution
Ignore Betty, all we get from him is noise.
That Dawkins' site has many articles of interest and importance on Zika including the message that:
Zika Vaccine Could Solve One Problem While Stoking Another
Oops!
The first link in #77 is to The Conversation and not the Dawkins' site but the articles cited in the following texts are and can be found via the link in #78 being a useful hook to this all inclusive page.
"Firstly we need to understand why this virus has established itself and spread, here is a brief rundown of some of the aspects"
And that as climate changes, where diseases can spread also changes with the movement of the optimum climate zones.
So one good reason to avoid AGW.
Which requires reducing emissions of CO2 80% by 2050.
Of which deniers have done their best to see less than 10% happen, and wiggle with glee at the idea that just to spite others, they will buy SUVs and drive around just to offset those small changes.
Then complain that people don't like them and assume the worst of motives behind their rhetoric.
Wow - "Then complain that people don’t like them and assume the worst of motives behind their rhetoric"
Definition of rhetoric
1
: the art of speaking or writing effectively: such as
a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times
b : the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion
2
a : skill in the effective use of speech
b : a type or mode of language or speech; also : insincere or grandiloquent language
Example -
Wow – “you can fuck right off up your own shitfilled arse canal and die choking on the excrement you deserve.”……..”you deserve the desecrated death I abjured you to suffer under as specified above”
I don't know, maybe Wow is flickering the gaslight for himself and wondering if it's really happening...
Betula @#72.
Yes I do understand what you've done and it did sort of work.
Lionel,
Thank you for those references.
I understand that dealing with this virus won't be exactly the same as dealing with other mosquito born diseases and viruses.
But nonetheless, as some of those articles explain, we learn by experience and get better at managing risks.
The specific article @#78 that you linked is particularly good on looking at managing risks and deciding whether the risks are acceptable vs doing nothing at all.
Developing a vaccine is indeed one way to help those communities at risk from the Zika virus.
WoW @#80
I agree. It's one.
Long term we should indeed be working towards reducing emmissions.
I'm not sure what purpose you were serving by your last 2 paragraphs or why you think that would provide 'urgent attention' to the outbreak of the Zika virus?
Because, Mister Slow, global warming is a threat multiplier across ecosystems and economies, with disease being in that mix.
Here is a good run down.
Did you miss the bit about the problems using a vaccine for Zika?
Remember, if it can't be "solved" with "I planted trees", it can't be a solution, Lionel. Deniers don't want reductions in CO2 emissions, since that is a global change, not a distracting personal action.
Wow - Remember, if it can’t be “solved” with “I planted trees”, it can’t be a solution.
That's like saying :
"if it can't be solved by "30 acres of solar panels", it can't be a solution.
Dumb statement.
Besides, you don't own the solar panels...
Meant to say "with" 30 acres of solar panels...
No Lionel @# 84 I didn't miss that bit,
But perhaps you may have missed the bit that said that not having a vaccine outweighs the risk of GBS?
And WoW's last 2 paragraphs @# 80 has little to do with the rest of his comment.
Isn't it amazing how Stu and Betula, both lacking any relevant knowledge or expertise in anything they write here, are trying to position themselves as the 'voices of reason'?
I have to admit that Dunning and Kruger would be in hysterics. Their model perfectly applies to these two idiots.
How much expertise do they need to operate a bog brush? The use of it is pretty much in the name.
I don't think it's D-K, though. They KNOW they're talking bollocks, and without any capacity. Look at how Batshit claimed without a single hesitation that they said something, then never said they said that then said that they said they said that. Look at how StuPid, given a perfect chance to show of their "technique" refused to do so, because they didn't actually want to do it. They only wanted to drive others in the direction StuPid wanted.
Both know they're talking bullshit. There's no belief in their expertise going on here, no self deception. Only deception of others who aren't psychopaths.
They didn't have to for they were within the context of the discussion pointing at the success of the liars and rogues who have delayed effective adequate controls aimed at ameliorating the dire situation we will find ourselves in, or my children and grandchildren will.
This is why delta-india-papa-sierra-hotel-india-tango wibblers make we so foxtrot-uniform-charlie-kilo-india-november-golf angry. And yet those like Betula feed off them and try to emulate them but he-she doesn't realise that they are being clever whereas he is just plain dumb.
Try not to be like him-her and them.
What that snide comment made was for was to pretend that no "reasonable" person would know what was going on, therefore my comments are suspect, so disbelieve what I say.
It was not legitimate, since they knew what it meant and why it was there. They just wanted "plausible" doubt and to hook me back in so they can gaslight some more.
Wow - "It was not legitimate, since they knew what it meant and why it was there. They just wanted “plausible” doubt and to hook me back in so they can gaslight some more"
Note how Wow uses the word "they" when referring to a comment by one person. Why would he do this?
We'll let Wow explain this to himself:
Wow - "It’s a simple way to pretend that they’re not alone, and that you have to argue against “others” who aren’t there, so if you prove THEM wrong, that’s merely because “they” aren’t here."
"It also pretends that there’s some sort of consensus for their idea."
So Wow admits to himself that he is gaslighting....using the word "they", which is not legitimate, but gives the reader the idea that more than one person is involved in his gaslighting fantasy...
Wow - " I don't think it's D-K, though."
You see Hardely, the flickering of that dim light in your head is real, even Wow disagrees with you.
Enough of your moronic wibbling Betula, yes you at the back of the class there muttering into your beard, be quiet and listen up:
Oh! Boy! Are we in the sierra-hotel-india-tango.
And you know that because...?
I won't write the usual because that would be to insult sacks of hammers.
Lionel - "And you know that because…?"
Because I know. And the fact that Wow won't dispute it is proof enough...
Lionel.
Did you perhaps miss the bit that said that not having a vaccine outweighs the risk of GBS in the Dawkins article?
Do you think that deveoping a vaccine for the Zika virus is one way to to help the communities at risk?
What else could be done to start paying urgent attention to this outbreak?
WHO says the threat has abated a bit, but it still needs urgent attention.
& Jeff @# 89?
Wouldn't mosquitoes be part of your relevant knowledge and expertise?
Considering that's how this particular virus gets spread, what do you think could be done about those mosquitoes?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Francis
And Lionel?
How would Jennifer Francis assist to provide urgent attention for the Zika virus outbreak when her relevant knowledge and expertise is not in that area?
There we have it, and you don't like being called simple, devious or whatever when you come back with a simplistic question like that.
Firstly the Francis link was not directly about Zika virus. However the climate conditions clearly disrupted will have a bearing on how the spread of all pathogens develops.
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeesh! Insular thinking from you again!
And an attempt to derail and put you defensive.
From these two retards' actions, you have no need to defend yourself from accusation or even bother convincing them they are wrong, since they have shown complete disregard for truth or reality when it comes to protecting what they've already decided is right.
Wow - "have shown complete disregard for truth or reality when it comes to protecting what they’ve already decided is right."
And you have shown complete disregard for backing up what you say....see above.
Sorry Lionel.
I thought you were answering my questions due to the fact that your comment with that JF link was directed at me.
I was definitely asking you about the Zika virus outbreak.
In particular what needs to be done to give the outbreak 'urgent attention' as per what WHO says is needed.
But thanks for explaining that the JF post was not about supplying urgent attention to the Zika virus.
WoW @#2??????
Derail????
From what ?????
What does Lionel need to be on the defensive about????
Trump reportedly planning unprecedented science policy shakeup:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/01/transition-team-unveils-t…
It won'tchange the science, therefore it won't change the conclusions.
And it won't change denier claims that scientists are doing it because the politiicans make them or bribe them. And it also won't make them say that Trump wants a NWO and is in on the "scam" too.
And, despite all his access to the machinations of this AGW "scam", his not finding any evidence of it won't change anything either.
WoW?
Why are you oft complaining that nothing will change, including your ubiquitous 'we'?
I don't think Wow actually looked at link @6 before commenting...it was a funny.
In fact, looking back, I don't think Wow has ever looked at a link before commenting.
Explains a lot.
I think with Wow's propensity to downplay the role of planting trees, he may find this interesting for several reasons:
"In summary, our analyses highlight that agroforestry, and tree cover on agricultural land in general, has clear potential to contribute to climate change mitigation while providing an array of adaptation benefits."
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep29987
Even Hardley may enjoy it...
Prince Charles’ ‘Climate Change for Dummies’
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/prince-charles-climate-cha…
"Following the success of its collection of spoof kids books for adults, including ‘The Mid-Life Crisis’ and ‘The Hipster’, Penguin’s revamped Ladybird range has commissioned its funniest title yet, ‘Climate Change’, which is set to be co-authored by Prince Charles.!"
"Given Charles’ previous claim that the current war in Syria was caused by climate change, this new book promises to be a gripping read."
Wait 'till they get the pop-up book of climate change, then. You don't have to go above your reading level if you're uncomfortable.
Ah Prince Charles, one of my favorite climate scientists...
Any idea when Lady Gaga is coming out with one?
Hmmmm?
I wonder if this book will mention anything that is being done?
Maybe like WoW's 30 acres of solar panels or the IPCC's recommendations about agriforestry as per Betula's link @#10?
Or a myriad of other land and water management projects all over the globe including CZM projects????
Betula and GSW, nothing wrong with Lady Gaga's or Prince Charles' stories, but I'm waiting on our own royalty, the emperor penguine Hardley's opinion piece in NT.
I wonder how many strawmen and conspiracies little Napoleon can squeeze into one little article? ???
Hardley will write a book - "I Saw A Spider"
Wow will write a book - "Trees - Cut It Out!"
Lionel will write a book.- "The Future Was Most Likely Now"
Isn't Hardley's epos – "I Saw A Spider, and it's your fault you evil right wing illuminati"?
I think its honestly time for Tim (Lambert) to step in here; this site has been overrun with brainless, Dunning-Kruger afflicted, anti-scientific vermin. I'll write to him. It's banning time.
We have a third rate blogger with a basic degree in chemistry (GSW); a tree pruner who is unemployed in winter and sits around writing piffle on blogs (Betula), and a Swedish meatball who won't say what he does for a living because its too embarrassing to admit (Olaus).
What a fucking tag team of stupidity. And as their 'manager' there is Stu2, who sits by the sidelines claiming to be above the fray, but who deep down in his heart sympathizes with these morons.
No wonder our species is in such trouble if these clowns represent the average 'Joe Public'.
They don't represent them, which is why they have to stay to the echo chamber. But their excessive volume and vitriol does give politicians enough wiggle room to do as their backers want rather than what their voters want.
Go see the link I gave back on page 1 or 2.
But they ARE just plain toxic and any use gained by showing how dumb their rhetoric is is vastly outweighed by the noise they generate. And that they make it look like so many people are still just that batshit crazy themselves.
Hardley to Tim:
Dear Tim,
There are approximately 6-10 people left in the world that visit this blog. I was wondering if you could get rid of 3 of them so the rest of us can sit around staring at each other without anyone to point out our hypocrisies, twisting of words, death threats and occasional outright lies. Please ban any free speech that would expose our anti-capitalist ideology, it's very annoying...
Oh, and I'm more qualified than you.
Thanks,
Hardley.
Just some of the things I've learned on Deltoid:
1. Time scales matter unless you witness climate change first hand over the course of a week or two...and if you don't understand that, you don't understand time scales.
2. If you witness climate change first hand, it's not weather...
3. Witnessing weather and calling it climate change is unacceptable, unless you are using the weather to verify it's climate change...
4. Trees don't help mitigate climate change, unless scientists point out they do, in which case, they still don't...
5. Always read into something that the co-author asks us not to read too much into...and if you post that the co-author asks us not too read too much into it, we will read too much into what you posted.
6. Discussing the personal changes you have seen over the last 40-45 years is a sign of ignorance.
7. If you say you don't deny climate change. it's a sure sign you do.
8. If you never say you deny climate change, it's a sure sign you do.
9. "deniers" are the majority and control the world's actions, thus anyone labeled a denier is the problem.
10. If someone wants you to post something you haven't posted, it means you forgot to post it.
11. If you are being gaslighted, that means you are gaslighting....
And yes Wow, I know you were wondering, I do know who you are....but I respect your right to remain anonymous.
Jeff,
Once again I could be flattered that you now think I'm managing from the sidelines.
Of course that whole concept is rubbish.
So is your idea about 'Joe Public.'
Apart from anything else, It's definitely not an attitude that one would define as 'democratic'.
When you write to Tim, perhaps you could also point out that that it's 2017 not 2107?
Wow - "their excessive volume and vitriol"
Someone needs a reminder:
Wow - “you can fuck right off up your own shitfilled arse canal and die choking on the excrement you deserve.”……..”you deserve the desecrated death I abjured you to suffer under as specified above”
Glad I could be of assistance, that's what i'm here for...
The deniers may have "their man" (such as it is) in power, but the earth really doesn't give a shit about politics:
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/earth-hit-…
Which may be why deniers, rather than basking in their "win" are getting yet more desperate and shrill.
https://www.iceagenow.info/underwater-volcanoes-melting-arctic-ice-says…
But what about this?
Is this not perhaps a contributor to the Arctic conundrum?
And WoW,
I agree totally that the earth doesn't care about politics.
It never has and never will.
Well, according to the IEA, being it's already 2017.... it's too late.
http://www.care2.com/causes/climate-change-irreversible-by-2017-warns-i…
And according to the below paper published in 2013...."Even if carbon dioxide emissions came to a sudden halt, the carbon dioxide already in Earth's atmosphere could continue to warm our planet for hundreds of years"
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S38/51/51I69/index.xml?secti…
So I guess it's over.... nothing left to say.
What do you want to talk about next?
Dear Wow, the Earth does give a shit about politics. It is severly harmed by it. The unscientific scaremongering modus Al Gore advocated (initially) for palm oil as the 'da shit' that would save us from our fossil fuel dependency. And the same scaremongers paved the way fro ethanol, with the same negative side effects.
I don't mind politics per se, but when it is governed by unscientific prophets of doom and gloom.
Pretty graphs for deniers to ignore, deflect or JAQ off to:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2017/01/2016-is-hottest-year-on-record-three…
interesting comment about mad monckfish being the best dissuader of self-styled "skeptics" of the correctness of denier tropes.
Wow - "Pretty graphs for deniers to ignore"
I'm getting the impression that Wow thinks someone here has denied the earth has warmed....call it a gut feeling.
I'm sure he would tell us who, and give us an example, if that were the case...if not, then I apologize to Wow for my assumption.
Meanwhile, I notice Wow has "ignored" my Agroforestry post @10...
Being the HYPOCRITE that he is, here's one I think he will REALLY find interesting for several reasons...
http://www.farmcarbontoolkit.org.uk/component/content/article/3-news/56…
My favorite part:
"It is recognised as a greenhouse gas mitigation strategy and has great potential as a strategy for biological carbon sequestration".
At this point, "ignoring" it is probably your best option.
I note (H/T Ian Forrester at DesmogBlog) that Pat Michaels is still up to his brand of misdirection and obfuscation., as contemptible as the evil Ebel and the other swamp creatures Trump is putting in positions for which they have no knowledge or experience only a desire to let fossil fuel interests rule the globe.
Listen up any true patriotic Americans - Trump — Tillerson — is good for the USA, I doubt Admiral David Titley sees things that way.
Maybe insted of cherry picking his science, he could do with looking for all the science, instead of ones his mates have fostered. For example, some of the information here
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
Maybe while he's at it, he can look at how denier "models" have done...
Talk about garbage in, garbage out.
Funny thing about Wow's link @30....I don't see any mention of El Nino. It's almost as if it was forgotten, or didn't plat any roll, or was insignificant, or didn't exist...
No problem, i'm sure it wasn't intentional...
Anyone buying this transparent bullshit from betty the denier?
Anyone?
Known idiots need not apply.
Please, even lurkers, let batshit here know whether they're doing anything for their holy crusade against reality.
Wow, the reality is, now that I know who you are , it will be very difficult for you to hide from a lie (like I pointed out @86, pg6) or from being a hypocrite (like I pointed out @31).
It was easy for me before, it will be much easier for me now...
You are privileged to be able to be in the position you are..
You have been handed something few others have, and you have a true passion for what you doing....try to appreciate it without judging others who don't have the same means or circumstances.
In other words, stop being a dick....if possible.
Good luck.
WoW,
By their nature all models such as these all cherry pick.
Just for a start they rely on start/stop dates.
The inputs need to be constantly updated as new 'real time' information becomes available
They're very very useful tools but they're not crystal balls & they're not supposed to be.
Anyone who runs their own businesses knows this.
They also know that if an input is changed, for whatever reason, it changes the output of the model.
They also know that it's possible to tweak bits and pieces depending on who or what the model is being presented and the actual reason for the presentation.
A simple example is how a business presents differently to a bank than it does to a tax dept.
Both use the same information but the focus and weighting is different.
Well to some extent yes. But some start dates are way back in geological time.
So have people been running businesses for that long? I ask this because of this from you:
Not all climate models are reliant upon start dates in that sense. That you should compare like that demonstrates you still don't have a clue about the many forms of climate models run by many disparate organisation that are constructed and fed with boundary conditions in order to explore different issues to do with climate and change.
There are no such things as crystal balls, even if there were your comparison is a logic fail.
Climate models
I have put in front of you information and links previously over the years on Palaeoclimatology from Cronin and also Bradley. I have also linked to Met' Office papers which include discussion of climate models.
There didn't need to be for 2016 was locked in to being the hottest and El Niño just edged temperatures up further.
2016 will be the hottest year on record, UN says
And NASA confirm that.
Do try to keep up at the back there.
Here what is this creature found indoors yesterday.
I know what is but why is it in the UK is a question for you.
"Well to some extent yes. But some start dates are way back in geological time."
And that doesn't make it a cherry pick, either. To do so is to abuse the definition to uselessness, thereby being its own refutation as an argument.
"There didn’t need to be for 2016 was locked in to being the hottest and El Niño just edged temperatures up further."
Also there was no assertion that there was any need for mention of it, but this was merely yet another weasel trick by deniers to derail and INSINUATE without SAYING what they want people to think.
You know, pure manipulative shystering.
Making others do the work of making the claim, refuting that, only to be whined that no such thing was meant. IOW a deliberate attempt to waste your time.
"I have put in front of you information and links previously over the years on Palaeoclimatology from Cronin and also Bradley."
However, StuPid is in denial of all that information since it doesn't comport with what this denier wants to be true, or doesn't help them lie to others on the subject or punish them for not obeying their exhortations.
IOW, unless it can be insinuated or abused to make you dance to their tune, they will ignore everything said or given to them.
@39, If you know what it is, why are you asking me?
Yes, we have them here on the east coast, we've had them for many years...mainly on white pines.
Could be a hundred reasons why they are in UK...shipping material most likely.
I've already proven you are a liar and a hypocrite Wow, among other things...
Now i'm starting to believe you are delusional.
Lionel @#38
No people weren't running businesses way back in geological times.
Neither were they using climate models way back in geological times.
Neither did they have satellites and thermometers and computers and Universities and etc etc etc.
None of that is relevant to the simple fact that all modeling is subject to cherry picking by their very nature.
It also doesn't change the fact that they're extremely useful tools.
They are useful for monitoring and evaluation in particular but also to track real time data against projections and perceived trends.
That is bollocks, there is a great difference between choosing a period of time based upon the available data and cherry picking end and start dates. If you had bothered to study the sources cited over the years instead of thinking you know about this stuff then you would not be making these silly assertions. Unless of course you do have some understanding and are being dishonest.
And you moan about having labels attached to you. Old saying, if the cap fits wear it.
StuPid knows he's clueless, doesn't care.
And the moaning is just to make others feel either shame or pity. It's just a method to manipulate you. It also can be used to make them feel like they MUST be right (persecution complex), but since deniers are impervious to anything that doesn't agree with them, there's absolutely no way to stop that happening, no matter how hard you try.
And I've tried.
The debt increase of 9,335,000,000,000 over Obama's tenure, its equal to $75, 000 for every person with a full time job in the U.S.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/
Good riddance.
Note how Betula invokes the El Nino as a get out clause to explain what was by far the warmest year in recorded history (2016). Funny thing is that deniers like the old tree pruner never mention it when using 1998 as the starting year for their 'hiatus'. Therefore, when we were being told - incorrectly as it turns out - in 2013 that there was a 'hiatus' in the global temperature rise, the deniers were always using 1998 as their starting year. Not 1997 or 1999, when the result would have been clear cut; no, it was 1998, when there was perhaps the most powerful El Nino on record that amplified temperatures to almost 0.20 C above any previous year in the records. Now they are using the latest El Nino to try - and fail - to dismiss the significance of 2016. Note how last year was also much warmer than 1998, despite the fact that the El Nino event was not as potent.
Why was that? Because it was amplified by anthropogenic global warming.
End of story. The scientific community acknowledges it, even if tree pruners with a warped sense of reality don't.
I love this one from the unemployed tree pruner; "I’ve already proven you are a liar and a hypocrite Wow".
Accoring to who? Betula himself. He makes a statement, then implies it must be correct because he wrote it.
Priceless.
Meanwhile, back to reality: the cryosphere is in freefall, and Arctic ice extent is also at by far its lowest level in recorded history at this time, and what is shocking is that Arctic ice cover has actually flatlined for about 2 weeks at a row at a time when it should be increasingly linearly in mid-winter:
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
And from NASA, simply confirming what we have known since 1988: the Earth's surface continues to warm rapidly. The time lapse video drives that message home.
http://www.space.com/35363-2016-warmest-year-ever-how-nasa-knows-video…
While scientists around the world are engaged in finding solutions to ACC (IPCC Working Group 4), the army of Dunning-Kruger afflicted know-nothings like Betula are stuck in IPCC Working Groups 1 and 2 (is it warming and are humans primarily responsible).
Its too bad their cognitive limitations prevent them from realizing how utterly stupid they are.
http://wgntv.com/2017/01/18/2016-the-warmest-year-ever/
Again, for the deniers its over, at least empirically. They have lost the scientific debate (they never could have won it). All they have left is to ensure that humanity goes down the drain anyway by doing nothing. On that score they are doing well.
Wow - "And I’ve tried"
Try something other than twisting of word's, lies, hypocrisy, projection and ideologically driven pre determined conclusions....see if that works.
"Funny thing is that deniers like the old tree pruner never mention it when using 1998 as the starting year for their ‘hiatus’."
They're also using the date and this year to "prove" that there's "no [significant] warming" in all that time.
Odd thing is, with only two points, the standard deviation from the RMS best fit line is infinite, therefore no trend would be "statistically significant", unless it was infinite, and then only possibly.
Hell, back in 98-99, the deniers were insisting that the record warming wasn't proven since it was an El Nino year. Then by 2005, it was their starting point for their "hiatus" that never existed. Even using the fact that people had to call it hiatus to say it didn't exist, it was just because of a cherry picked first year as "proof" there WAS a hiatus, otherwise why would we be using the WORD "hiatus", eh? CHECKMATE!
That, however, is just normal denier idiocy, where they just don't look into it.
What we have demonstrated here in January is that two deniers specifically have absolutely no care as to what they have said in reality, easily available to others on even cursory inspection, and that makes it a completely different kettle of fish. There's nothing to argue with someone who doesn't care that they're saying in two consecutive posts claims that refute the earlier one specifically and directly.
And we have that nobody else, even lurkers, think that any of this bullshit is believable, so it's not even necessary to keep others informed of what the error in the claim is. NOBODY, not even the one making the claim, thinks it holds water.
All they can do is add noise and fury, signifying their insanity.
"Priceless."
And worthless at the same time.
I was looking for a confirmatory ID, which in your haste to be rude about it you failed to provide, so what do you know it as?
I was also wondering if you had come across them during your tree swinging days.
As for how one ended up clinging to a curtain indoors here in the UK I had considered what you offered but wondered if you knew of any other.
I can think of one other which is linked to climate change.
As for the creature, or its egg or larval stages, coming in on imported timber one mechanism there could be the import of timber for burning in power generation — which is one of the least carbon efficient means of generating power.
How have the climate models been doing? Very well which is totally at odds with Pat Michaels' latest schtick on a Cato page demonstrating this is a sequence of videos here:
As Globe Runs Fever, Did Scientists Get it Right?
Michaels is a disgrace to humanity let alone science, but then he is paid to be so.
TWIMC another duff link at #47.
Lionel. as hard as it is too believe, not everything to witness during the course of a day is climate change...
https://www.whatsthatbug.com/2009/01/19/western-conifer-seed-bug-seeks-…
As for the other comment's, haven't read them ....watching the Trump inauguration.
There is something more interesting you could watch....
...paint drying.
Orange paint.
'course to honour Drumpf, he could just go and take a piss.
#GoldenGate #TakingThePiss
Quick Quiz -
Which one sounds like Hardley?
A. http://www.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/terence-p-jeffrey/
B. http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/20/trump-inaugural-address-focuses-on-we…
Didn't link? Try this..
A. https://www.iheart.com/news/obama-refers-to-himself-75-times-15459322/
B. http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/20/trump-inaugural-address-focuses-on-we…
Hardley - I love this one from the unemployed tree pruner; “I’ve already proven you are a liar and a hypocrite Wow”. Accoring to who? "
According to Wow himself. He knows what I'm talking about.
If he disputes it, I'll show the evidence, but it would expose who he is.
It won't bother me, but it's up to Wow...
Hardley - "Funny thing is that deniers like the old tree pruner never mention it when using 1998 as the starting year for their ‘hiatus’"
By "their", you mean the IPCC, correct?
Hardley - "Again, for the deniers its over"
Who are you talking about?
Hardley - "All they have left is to ensure that humanity goes down the drain anyway by doing nothing"
Who are you talking about?
Wow - "Then by 2005, it was their starting point for their “hiatus"
By "their", you are referring to the IPCC, correct?
I saw this little gem today.
" I hope Donald Trump is a good president.
Wanting him to fail is like wanting the pilot to crash the plane that we're all on."
Lionel @#45.
My comment in no way was negative about climate models or any other form of modeling.
I clearly stated they are extremely useful tools.
I was merely pointing out that the accusations about 'cherry picking' is not recognising that by their nature, that's what they do because they have start/stop dates.
The length of time they may or may not cover is irrelevant.
If they use a longer timeframe they can of course be even a more useful tool.
You still don't get it do you, climate models do not cherry pick. Go study sources cited and discover why you are wrong, wrong again and again and again!
StuPid doesn't care if they're wrong, they only care that they get to say you're wrong.
Try getting StuPid to show he's read any of the information you've pointed him to.
He won't, but at least you won't have to keep telling him he's wrong and why, you'll be able to badger him for not reading. A change of pace.
Lionel,
like all models, climate models pick start/stop dates.
That is, by definition, a form of cherry picking.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/
for example go and pick start/stop dates with these ones.
no stu, it is not cherry picking. One of the steps in designing a model is to decide an appropriate "space" to which that model will apply. Designing the model to fit that space isn't cherry picking (picking certain aspects from that finished model in a strategic way to get a result that confirms your view and then declaring that the model is invalid IS cherry picking: look at any denialist article for a multiple demonstrations).
I'm going to start thinking of Wow as "they"...
Example:
Wow doesn't know how retarded they sound when they use the word "they" to describe what they believe to be the thoughts of one person...
Wow - "Orange paint"
C'mon Wow, Orange Lives Matter!
Deciding an appropriate space?
Seriously?
But I agree that one definition of 'cherry picking' is like picking out the best cherries according to your taste taste in cherries.
Some like the really ripe ones, some like the tart ones & etc.
But so is 'deciding an appropriate space'.
Picking start and end dates is not cherry picking. Picking start and end dates for the effect they produce on your results is cherry picking.
Dean #73 talked about 'appropriate space' for a particular model. He clearly set out that the space wasn't to be chosen with a view to effect, and certainly not changed with a view to effect.
Setting an 'appropriate space' for a model is about many things: but never about getting a pre-set outcome.
Complaining about the singular use of 'they' and 'their' - good enough English for Jane Austen, among others - is about a pre-set outcome: distraction from climate change and global warming and insulting someone else as a substitute for discussion.
I've not visited Deltoid for quite a few months, and it's interesting to return and scan the last two threads. As always the cadre of science deniers here are still using logical fallacy, lies, and ignorance as their tools in trade, and are completely oblivious and/or impervious to the work of actual scientists.
I note that Jeff suggested banning some of the recalcitrant trolls, but I think that Deltoid has become a remarkable demonstration of the behaviour of science deniers faced with challenges to their sacred cows. For month after month, despite repeatedly being asked to support their counter-science with actual data, they vacillate and prevaricate, cloaked in the intellectual depauperacy of the stereotypical Dunning-Kruger afflictee. Still, the undecided lurker with half an ounce of discernment would be able to see that, like the Wizard of Oz, the denialists have nothing but smoke and mirrors behind their curtains. In that Deltoid performs a public service.
Jeff, I was interested to read of your recent work. I'll definitely follow up on that. Don't be discouraged by the swine here - your wisdom is appreciated elsewhere. I was also interested to see that some of the porkers here are apparently still clutching their imaginary 'pause' to their chests: one would have thought that they'd leave that false meme along like the rotting pile of fish heads that it is.
One (two part) question to the Denialati here:
what would it take for you to accept that humans are causing the currently observed record warming, and what would it take for you to accept that continuation of this warming is bad for humans and the planet?
Hi Bernard, good to see you back here. I appreciate your support. As you have said, the usual suspects on here never provide a scintilla of empirical evidence to support their attempts to downplay AGW. The Dunning-Kruger afflicted minions on here are simply playing the luke-warming card, while failing ever to provide studies that support their views or (God forbid) ever attempting to actually discuss science. As I said several weeks ago, in his 6 or so years of contaminating this site, Betula's sole scientific contributions have been to use greenhouses with high ambient C02 concentrations as proxies for complex adaptive systems and to use wild turkeys, white-tailed deer and coyotes to suggest that forest ecosystems in eastern North America are in good health. Olaus hasn't even managed to get that far.
This is the deep level of intellectuality I have had to deal with. Aside from that, essentially all they have offered up here are vacuous smears and attempts at grade school psychology, with Olaus simply copying Betula (as he did Jonas, who has thankfully disappeared into the ether). As for Stu2, he smothers his exceedingly unscientific and simplistic views in a sort of pseudo-intellectual covering. How does one accurately respond to wafer-thin arguments suggesting that the deleterious effects of AGW on food webs and trophic interactions is best dealt by, as Stu2 put it, 'local managers'. This comment is so utterly devoid of acumen that I really did not know how deep into the benthos I would need to go to counter it. Stu2 was discussing a recent study showing reduced natality and fitness in reindeer, and his musings revealed how utterly ignorant he is with respect to cause and effect relationships in ecological communities. It would be easy to explain this to other scientists, but to a Dunning-Kruger acolyte, its virtually impossible. Of course, as Eric post and many others have shown, to understand the harmful effects of warming at the species level one needs to more deeply examine resource-consumer relationships and to then scale this up to entire communities and food webs. Stu2 doesn't think this way, because he lacks even the basic training to understand population and community ecology, so he writes about reindeer as if we are dealing with a local pathogen that is harming cattle. Essentially he needs to attend an intensive course in ecology, something he would deny but which to me, a trained ecologist, is clear. Dealing with widespread effects of climate warming on biodiversity requires an understanding of more complex processes incorporating scales and multiple interactions. Stu2, like many others who comments in these areas, lacks the requisite training. We cannot expect to deal with the implications of warming on biodiversity through local management, given the array on non-linear processes and complex array of interactions that are involved. Instead of dealing with the symptoms, its imperative to address the disease, which is the warming itself. I have made this ;point clear here, and its clearly been well above the head of Stu, Betula, and Olaus, who are intent on keeping the discussion mired at the lowest common denominator. They do that because any attempt to delve more deeply into the real science would leave them intellectually stranded, so the debate is forced to remain at the most sophomoric level.
Chris H, you are nominally correct, although starting and ending dates in regression analyses are not usually pre-determined by choice but arbitrarily. In the case of climate and temperature readings, dares are chosen based on a variety of parameters, whereas deniers are masters at cherry picking dates that are aimed to show the least significant effects. Hence when 1998 turned out to be the warmest year on record up to that time, AGW deniers pulled out the El Nino canard to downplay it, correctly as it turns out claiming that global temperatures were boosted by its magnitude. However, when it turned out that post 2000-temperatures were close or even higher than 1998 in non El Nino years, the deniers cleverly began using 1998 as their starting year, simply to suggest that there was a hiatus and that warming had actually stopped, which of course it never did. Now they are back to their original strategy of downplaying 2016's record warmth on the latest El Nino event, even though, as I said yesterday, it was significantly warmer than in 1998 (the last El Nino which was indeed stronger). As 2017 and perhaps 2-18 will be slightly cooler than 2016, watch the deniers now begin to use 2016 as their starting point for the next hiatus.
This is their modus operandi and it categorically proves that they are a vile bunch of dishonest liars. They are and never were interested in science; they simply mangle and distort the science to promote a pre-dertermined worldview and political agendas. That agenda is simple: don't do anything about AGW.
Bernard: good question. Don't expect them to even try and answer it, because it will mean that they are forced to discuss Earth and environmental science, something by now we all know that they are very poor at doing.
As an aside, I have completed the Arctic ice/Polar bear manuscript and my co-authors and going though it. Watch this space. I hope to submit ti in the coming weeks.
"but I think that Deltoid has become a remarkable demonstration of the behaviour of science deniers faced with challenges to their sacred cow"
It will be that merely because you can click on the last few threads and see it.
But Batshit Betty and StuPid are both entirely toxic entities whose existence make posting a waste of time and promotes their batshit crazy as being somehow legitimate.
"Hi Bernard, good to see you back here."
Part of the problem of retards like Batshit is that people don't bother to come here for monts or years because they've been so toxic to anything worth listening to going on here.
And people who don't bother coming here really can't go and opine that the denier idiots who have clearly shown that theirs is not honest refusal but deliberate derailment of conversation must be left to promote their crap.
It's easy to say dogshit isn't a problem when someone else has to clean it up every day.
From those who have to clean up that dogshit day in, day out,every fucking day, the dogshit IS a problem. You think it fine? Turn the fuck up and help clean up.
And, no, saying "Thanks Jeff" does not cut it, because he's got better things to do than be trapped typing out a page of cogent argument just to have batshit cry that they've never SAID they denied AGW, they just deny it without saying.
No, you want to thank Jeff? Come and do clean-up and let him get on with some fucking WORK.
When StuPid tries to make them out to be to blame for deniers, COME DEFEND THEM.
If you can't be arsed to do the effort, save THEM the effort and stop demanding that the shitbags be left to poison everything while you go somewhere else and enjoy your day while they go and wade through the mouldering pigshit of batshit and StuPid.
Wow, you know that I'm visible elsewhere doing that very thing. The Deltoid archives will show that I have spent thousands of hours here in the past rebutting this particular crowd, but there are only so many hours in the day...
Sometimes one simply has to pick one's fights, and in my choices sometimes Deltoid is down the list. I wish that it were otherwise, but I have many real world responsibilities as well and I can't be everywhere at once. Which is why I feel it worth acknowledging the efforts of those who are currently holding the fort at Deltoid.
OK, so let Batshit betty, StuPid and so on appear there.
Don't say "Let them stay here, they're useful over here". You're like someone pro-nuke going "But not over here. It's not safe, put it over there where I'm not". If everyone says that, then it means "Nowhere".
"Sometimes one simply has to pick one’s fights"
But you wanted to pick one for others: to make the fight appear here, where you aren't and haven't been for ages. Pick for yourself, choose you, your'e the only one you can choose for.
Picking not to let batshit betty and stupid turn this blog into toxic sludge is picking the fight be avoided.
If you're not going to be here but still pat Jeff on the back for doing what you're too busy "elsewhere" to do here, don't go making work for him. You're choosing him to fight that battle you've chosen not to.
Christpgher - Complaining about the singular use of ‘they’ and ‘their’ "........."insulting someone else as a substitute for discussion."
Meanwhile, Chris has some catching up to do...
Here is Wow's response to Hardley in a discussion on why they believe "deniers" use "we" or "they"...
Wow Jan pg1 - "It’s a simple way to pretend that they’re not alone, and that you have to argue against “others” who aren’t there, so if you prove THEM wrong, that’s merely because “they” aren’t here.
It also pretends that there’s some sort of consensus for their idea."
So we agree Chris, Wow and Hardley are insulting as a substitute for discussion.
Welcome to Deltoid my friend.
Jeff @# 79.
You have seized on one comment about a different topic entirely and then conflated it with another vaguely similar comment and then used that to advance an argument based on some type of amateur psychological analysis.
All of it still based on one comment.
I think the favoured terminology here for that behaviour is 'false equivalence' and 'straw man'.
But it could also be defined as 'cherry picking' amongst other things.
In context, I stand by the original comment that was related to managing bushfire risk.
I also stand by my comment that was related to specifically managing any perceived specific health issues for the specific reindeer.
Bernard - "For month after month, despite repeatedly being asked to support their counter-science with actual data"
What are you talking about? Counter science to what? How about an example of what you are referring to...
Hardley - "Hi Bernard, good to see you back here. I appreciate your support."
Isn't this where Wow chimes in with his usual....."Bark for us, lappers! Good boy, lappers!"
Hardley - "As I said several weeks ago, in his 6 or so years of contaminating this site, Betula’s sole scientific contributions have been to use greenhouses with high ambient C02 concentrations as proxies for complex adaptive systems and to use wild turkeys, white-tailed deer and coyotes to suggest that forest ecosystems in eastern North America are in good health."
Because you said it, it doesn't mean that's what I said. So when you twist the meaning of words to compensate for your blinding ideology, just remember.....you're the scientist.
Wow - "Part of the problem of retards like Batshit is that people don’t bother to come here for monts or years because they’ve been so toxic to anything worth listening to going on here"
Only I will go for months without being here, and when I do, what do I find? Wow lying and being a hypocrite.
Some things never change.
This is good -
Wow says - "“Part of the problem of retards like Batshit is that people don’t bother to come here for monts or years because they’ve been so toxic to anything worth listening to going on here”
And then when Bernard comments for the first time in months,
here's what Wow has to say...
"OK, so let Batshit betty, StuPid and so on appear there"
"Don’t say “Let them stay here, they’re useful over here”. You’re like someone pro-nuke going “But not over here. It’s not safe, put it over there where I’m not”. If everyone says that, then it means “Nowhere"
Wow is giving a little lecture to Bernard about where to allow (let) free speech. Here on Deltoid, free speech is not safe, because it has a tendency to expose his hypocrisy and lying....and he can't have that.
Did it ever occur to Wow to go somewhere else, where they don't know who he is, so he can be safe and start lying all over again?
Wow - "From those who have to clean up that dogshit day in, day out,every fucking day, the dogshit IS a problem. You think it fine? Turn the fuck up and help clean up"
This from the radical, lying hypocrite who wonders why a normal conversation can't be had on this site...
Welcome back Bernard, and goodbye again!
Wow - "If you’re not going to be here but still pat Jeff on the back for doing what you’re too busy “elsewhere” to do here, don’t go making work for him"
So this is like a job for them and Bernard isn't showing up for work. Wow is very angry and wants to dock his vacation time or have him fired all together.... the company is falling apart and they need more responsible employess.
Suggestion to Wow - Advertise....
Wanted: Someone who can defend hypocrisy, twist words and tell a lie to join a handful of anti-capitalist activists on an obscure blog.
Must be an extreme ideologue without basic reading comprehension who has the time and energy to avoid logic and common sense at all costs. Narcissism is a plus.
What do you think Wow, should I include the contact information or leave it blank for now?
Last year, Deltoid was, according to the seasonally unemployed tree pruner, a 'dead blog'.
Now he's trying to take the damned thing over. Out of the last 95 posts, 34 are Betula's. This all began when his company shut down for the winter and he appears to sit around on his ass with nothing to do. So we are 'graced' with his grade-school level scientific wisdom here. Given this, I wonder why he doesn't try and take over other blogs, especially those espousing denier bullshit where he will be feted and revered for his stupidity. Here, his fanbase is confined to a Swede (Olaus) who is too embarrassed to tell us his day job (if any), a Trump supporting sociopath (Kim) and a guy with a basic degree in chemistry (GSW), with quiet support added by an Aussie (Stu2) who thinks that the immense damage being inflicted by climate change on natural ecosystems can be deal with by local managers.
Sheesh.
" local managers "
Not gunna happen at the north pole.
I find the following 11/2 minute film very
enlightening and very fucking scary.
https://youtu.be/c6jX9URzZWg
"Now he’s trying to take the damned thing over. Out of the last 95 posts, 34 are Betula’s."
Not that that means anything, but it IS a common trope for deniers to try and make something of it without saying what, to get others to shut up when they're being inconvenient.
"This all began when his company shut down for the winter "
By which you mean the company he works for. Probably a part time worker for the local council.
What batshit is trying to do here, with what seems like Tim's blessing, is either get people hooked back in to arguing with them or to ensure that denier talking points are the only talking points available.
See the quote on the big lie on the last page.
Hardley - "This all began when his company shut down for the winter"
Nope, never said that. Wrong again...
Remember, you're the scientist.
Wow - Should I give the contact information for that ad you want to run? I haven't heard from you...
Wow - "to ensure that denier talking points are the only talking points available.
Some examples would be nice. if your imagination could copy and paste...
"Remember, you’re the scientist"
Oh, don't worry, Betula, I don't need reminding. Your brazen ignorance and inability to discuss even elementary fields proves categorically that I am light years ahead of you in science. But that was obvious 5 years ago. Every post you make simply reinforces it.
I never said that you claimed your company shuts down for the winter. But the fact that you sit around on your butt and write messages ad nauseum in here suggests that you have too much time on your hands.
Ah! Yes folks. here is Betula contributing to Deltoid.
And of course Betula does like to repeat.
Li D @#97 previous page.
It was an interesting piece.
But was was so very scary about it?
"I never said that you claimed your company shuts down for the winter. "
And I never saw you say it either. Batty is cracking up. Seeing things not there!
Lionel never said why it was scary. Read it yourself and find out what's scary about it.
Short clip from the new movie...."Lionel's On A Plane!"
In this scene, a fellow Deltoidian is kicked off the plane as passengers cheer...
http://710wor.iheart.com/onair/mark-simone-52176/watch-a-miserable-angr…
"Li D @#97 previous page.
It was an interesting piece.
But was was so very scary about it?"
The pace. Couple of decades and all the old
ice was pretty much gone. And it really dosnt
look like coming back soon.
Hardley stated "... bla bla ... Your [Betula's, -kim] brazen ignorance and inability to discuss even elementary fields proves categorically that I am light years ahead of you in science. .. bla bla bla..."
Do you also feel yourself light years ahead of Wow in science?
Stu
The loss of Arctic sea ice is very scary. Do you not grasp the ramifications of this unfolding danger?
No, didn't think so.
And did I hit a nerve there Bets?
Now who is in purgatory?
Happy defecating.
It was primarily about the cycle of old ice and new ice wasn't it?
DK kicks in again. No Stupid it wasn't, the main message was the year by year reduction of multiyear sea ice which points to an ice free Arctic summer before too long and what can result.
As far back as 2007 this was realised: Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast
Now for that what can result part, here are some clues:
For what is going on now and the ramifications, in particular pick up on Jennifer Francis again, see here (always worth a look is this blog): A new Arctic feedback (?)
Now I have seen some phrases that you will likely pick out to spin the story and also some ideas there that you could also use by selective quoting — so don't even think of going there.
Bets, by posting that video link you demonstrate again how broken your moral compass is. Calling a woman expressing an opinion 'a wretched liberal hag' is distasteful and just a hint of the vile attitude promoted by and adopted by Trump. It is inflammatory and a disgrace. But note that what the Trump supporter said or did to promote her response is not included in that story. The flight crew should have allowed a seat change, but I guess they were biased too.
You have dropped yet another example of your (b)anal thought processes.
After a review of a few of Wow's previous comments i.e.,
Wow - "Shall we forget the “plant trees” idea as your solution?"
Wow - "so your “planting trees” doesn’t actually do anything about CO2, even sequestering, and abandons even the pretense of stopping AGW."
Wow - "What I DO know is that your definition of “planting trees” has no effect on AGW, nor even on CO2 levels"
I would like to ask him to explain what is wrong with the following statements:
1. "Farming and forestry are almost unique industries in being able to sequester (absorb) carbon on very significant scales. When CO2 is absorbed by trees (and other perennials), the carbon is locked up in woody material"
http://www.farmcarbontoolkit.org/component/content/article/3-news/319-0…
2. "more trees on farm land could be a fast and easy route to increasing carbon sequestration, above and below ground"
http://www.farmcarbontoolkit.org/component/content/article/3-news/610-2…
3. "planting trees is a good way to utilize carbon from the air, and offers many beneficial effects to the crops"
"http://www.farmcarbontoolkit.org/component/content/article/3-news/463-3…"
4 "Trees have so many benefits on farms, from wildlife habitat to source of timber, aesthetic value and carbon absorbers. It is this latter point that is of greatest interest to Farm Carbon Cutting Toolkit, for a hectare of broadleaf woodland can sequester anywhere between 1 and 35 tonnes of CO2 per hectare, depending on age and species
http://www.farmcarbontoolkit.org/component/content/article/3-news/200-t…
Let's see if you can have a normal conversation regarding some of your previous statements...
Hardley, feel free to join in with your in-depth words of wisdom. Oh, and be sure to make it all about you...
Lionel - "The flight crew should have allowed a seat change, but I guess they were biased too"
Yes Lionel, the entire flight crew and all the passengers cheering on the plane were biased.....keep eating and flinging...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr8JE_kmhR4
Wow, I still haven't heard from you, should I give the contact information for that ad you want to run? There is a deadline to meet...
I am forced to lower myself again into the bethos to respond to the high-school level musings of the verbose tree pruner.
Let's start here: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-l…
What words don't factor into Betula's vocabulary? Non-linear. Asymptote. Stoichiometry. C-3, C-4, ethylene pathways. Allelochemistry. Asymmetric competition.
Simply put, plant and population ecologists know that the majority of extant plants living today evolved under relatively low and constant atmospheric concentrations of C02. Its also been shown that the planet attained perhaps the highest levels of species and genetic richness in recent evolutionary and geological history, proving that high atmospheric concentrations of C02 are not correlated with biodiversity. Plants do have to capacity to absorb increasing levels of C02 - to a point. But it is vitally important to recognize that changes in temperature, precipitation, and the availability of other vital nutrients will limit this capacity along with the evolutionary history of the taxa in question. Moreover, quanity does not necessarily equate with quality. The loss of N or P from plant tissues will have consequences both in terms of plant fitness and interactions with mutualists and antagonists such as pathogens, pollinators and herbivores.
Scientists realize all of this even if simpletons like Betula think that cause-and-effect relationships are linear. Go to any university or conference where these issues are discussed and you'll find very few qualified scientists arguing like the loonies who set up the Oregon Petition that ''putting more C02 into the atmophere is a wonderful thing and mankind's gift to nature". This argument is so utterly puerile yet the Betula's and Kim's of this world seem to lap it up.
Once again, the idea that trees will forever soak up C02 that humans increasingly put into the atmosphere is pure and utter bunk. And, as scientists know, there are all kinds of other unintended and often harmful effects.
Hardley - "This all began when his company shut down for the winter"
Hardley - "I never said that you claimed your company shuts down for the winter"
Looks like a trend for you.... forming definitive conclusions with little to go on other than your imagination.....sort of like witnessing climate change first hand because you saw a spider.
Remember, you're the scientist.
Hardley, I noticed you didn't address the specific statements I posted at #17
Was this intentional?
There we have the simple denier trick at #17 of a Gish Gallop and expecting a response as Jeff looks in to answer simplistic posted in an earlier post.
Poor situational awareness and grasp of response times to add to other displays of simplistic ignorance.
The idea that planting trees where older growth has been removed as solution for increasing atmospheric GHGs often overlooks the realities.
When a forest has been ravaged by logging the underlying soil structure and organisms that make up the ecological community which supported and worked with that old growth is, most, often degraded or destroyed. A forest is a living organism where each part is communicating with the rest, including the fungi in the soil. A myriad of small creatures co-exist and interact in beneficial ways within that context. Planting trees and stripping out when grown to replant more to support those carted away and used as fuel, in a smoke and mirrors attempt to kid the population of the world that such biomass burning is good for combating AGW, is hiding the reality of environmental degradation.
Derrick Jensen describes the relationship between trees and soil organisms in simple terms in his book 'The Myth of Human Supremacy', you really need to read this.
Something you also need to watch: The Stefano Mancuso TED Talk in this article.
Scientists warn of unprecedented damage to forests across the world
Also latitude of growth matters:
Planting Trees Helps Fight Global Warming, but Only in the Tropics
Oh and BTW your #18 kindergarten level response (bah back at you) shows the usual level of your indigenous, original, thought — precious little.
So the consensus here seems to be that the statements posted at #17 are "high school level" and "simplistic"...
If this is this case, then why would a carbon cutting website post them?
And you will note the statements have nothing to do with CO2 fertilization, as Hardley is suggesting, but then again, he's the scientist...
LIonel, the statements from the website I Iinked have nothing to do with logging and/or old growth forests...
Less flinging, more focusing....
#24 Clear you eyes of poop and catch up with where the topics have gone.
"What words don’t factor into Betula’s vocabulary?"
Carbon. Global. The. A.
Take your pick, really, batshit betty is completely devoid of scruples, as is StuPid, they will lie and piss about and Tim has still done fuck all to stop the parade of idiot.
Sorry, Jeff, you're going to have to do this without me, I'm outta here.
Remember, these clowns aren't serious and we have from the complete lack of noise from ANYONE lurking here, that their bollocks isn't convincing anyone here that they might have a point.
So do as much debunking of their bullshit as you feel like, for as long as you care to, but remember that there's fuck all those morons can say that will be considered rational and valid.
Your actual job, unlike theirs, is worth much more than posting on this blog, so don't skimp what's important for what is by everyone's agreement, trivial bullshit.
Enjoy the small victories when they're all you can get, and enjoy the large victories when they come.
Wow saw it coming and chose to run...
Man down.
With Adam gone, that leaves Lionel and Hardley....
Still don't believe this is a dead blog Hardley?
For those slow on the uptake Bets @#25 . We should not expect to be hanging around in your effluent when other, related matters, are worth airing, even those directly related to why growing trees is not a panacea.
Lionel - "even those directly related to why growing trees is not a panacea"
Your words, not mine.
My words were in the form of questions...
1. To Adam - "what is wrong with the following statements"
2. If they are wrong, "then why would a carbon cutting website post them?"
Again Lionel.... less flinging, more focusing.
For those that missed it; a thoughtful piece from The Washington Times last week,
Bias, ignorance and reality in climate science
-Refusal to own up to the distortions of climate science is a costly mistake
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/16/bias-ignorance-and-real…
"The pressure for bias is easy to understand. Most climate studies and models are funded by governments. Governments throw money at what are perceived to be major problems. If researchers come back and say there is no big crisis — then the money faucet gets turned off."
"Costly regulations and mandates to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions that will have little or no global effect on temperatures over the next century make no sense. There has been no agreement on what the optimal level of carbon dioxide is, or what the optimal Earth temperature should be. We do know that plants grow faster with more carbon dioxide and thus food becomes cheaper, and that most people (including the Hollywood climate activist crowd) prefer warmer places over colder ones."
;)
IOW BAU
That is quite enough to demonstrate that your source is writing tosh. We have been through the reasons why so many times now.
Lionel,
The statements I linked at #17 had nothing to do with CO2 fertilization, but carbon sequestration...
Why would a carbon cutting website post that planting trees is a "fast and easy route to increasing carbon sequestration"?
Are you saying this isn't true?
Why would they lie?....aren't they trying to help farmers reduce CO2?
Is it a lie to say trees do sequester CO2, or a lie to say they don't sequester CO2?
I frankly admit, that the enforced departure of wow from this block will substantially elevate the intellectual level, which remains still spoiled by the many egocentric effusions of shorter Hardley, who cannot even answer simple questions e.g. why the solar irradiation is not constantly constant. In addition he lobbies for the utterly disgusting junk of ecosystem services crap about serious scientists can only laugh about such primitive eco-communistic propaganda. He should better work as toilet cleaner in order to carry out a more decent life instead to waste honest taxpayers' money with his leftist idiocies from rotten ideologies.
#32
What a pile of bullplop.
I like the weasly set up.
" The pressure bias is easy to understand "
Gets the reader all nice and tin foil hatted if
they are that way inclined, and they probably are
if they are reading that shit to start with.
GSW, go and look at the video i put up about
very fast decline in old sea ice and you tell me
where the bias is?
I gotta stroooong feeling that deniers, cuz they
are always on about money, actually project their
love of money onto decent ethical scientists and
assume they are willing to have the same love
of money, over ethical professionalism.
Massivly pathetic.
Here we go again. Kim, one of the more infantile members of the tribe, belittling an area that is a major focus of research among both ecologists and economists at universities around the world. Kimmy, little child, calling something 'crap' because your feeble little mind does not like it does not make it so. If you wish to attempt to explain why it is 'crap', then please explain. But of course I will fucking annihilate you.
Then we have gormless linking to an article in the Moonie Washington Times, a right wing rag if ever there was one. Pure and unadulterated garbage.
Two down, one to go...
Betula, trees and the soil can absorb increased atmospheric carbon - to a point as I said. But as I also stressed, plant and population ecologists know, as the article in New Scientist stressed, that systems don't function in simple linear ways like you would like them to. The site you linked to clearly sees climate change as a serious threat and that planting more trees and enhancing the soils ability to uptake increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon are only a temporary solution. But why aren't you focusing your attention on the primary empirical literature? OK, OK, I know that most of it is way over your head, but I am sure that even you can understand the gist of terms like saturation points and concentration/absorption asymptotes. It is also obvious that you dismiss other more complex but equally important areas that you don't understand, like altered stoichiometry, C3/C4/Ethylene pathways, competitive asymmetries and other highly relevant areas. The bottom lie is that THERE ARE LIMITS IN THE ABILITY OF TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC VEGETATION TO SOAK UP C02. Get that? I emphasized it for you. Therefore planting more trees is a short term solution. The longer term solution, of course as the scientific community (including the people who write the site you linked) is to mitigate C02 emissions as soon as possible and work towards pursuing renewable energy sources.
And, as I said, even if terrestrial vegetation can dampen the effects of increased atmospheric C02 in the short term, there are all kinds of non-linear effects based on those complicated little words and terms that you don't understand. What you and other deniers do is dismiss areas that are over your heads. I see it all the time. Don't understand stoichiometry? Ignore or dismiss it. Don't understand differing effects on plants in communities that generate competitive asymmetries and alter community structure and function? Ignore or dismiss it. Don't understand effects of increased foliar carbon on trophic interactions? Ignore or dismiss it.
You can get away with ignoring or dismissing these things on blogs because there is no recourse. In a public debate, however, such as at a scientific conference, you'd be skewered.
Oops, now there is a Freudian slip! Bottom line...
Is planting trees good?
Sure. Particularly with thought put
into species selection, density, and
a host of other perameters.
But by god, its no substute for not chaining
the bush in the first place.
As an addendum, Betula thinks Wow finally having enough of his tree pruning-level of intellectual discourse bullshit is some kind of victory. This is just more proof of how utterly stupid he is. ~There is an alternative explanation. Its called exasperation. Above I explain why Betula is being disingenuous. Its clear. He just doesn't want to see it. He wants to keep debates stuck at the lowest common denominator and to avoid areas in which he knows absolutely nothing. As is clear, there are lots of those areas.
Ask youself this denierscum.
If a hypothecal biosphere, somewhat like earths,
was warming, what
would you expect to see as indications
of that warming?
What wouldnt you expect to see?
Hardley - "As an addendum, Betula thinks Wow finally having enough of his tree pruning-level of intellectual discourse bullshit is some kind of victory. This is just more proof of how utterly stupid he is. ~There is an alternative explanation. Its called exasperation"
No Hardley.... Adam, after consistently telling me how insignificant the planting of trees is, even when it comes to sequestering CO2, was asks to explain statements on his own web page that discuss the benefits of trees, including the sequestering of CO2. (see #17)
Not only did he see that I know who he is, he also saw I was pointing out what a hypocrite he really is.
You see Hardley, once I figured out who he is (something the "scientist" could never do), there was no more hiding behind the hypocrisy and lies he spews on this site.....he was toast and he knew it....sort of like you.
Thus the reason for my comment at #28 - "Wow saw it coming and chose to run"
You're just too stupid to pick up on what's going on around you....and now you know it.
Of course not. That was not the point I was making, you did read the words 'not a panacea' did you not. Maybe you don't know what panacea means. You can only argue this by ignoring the context of my posts which was to indicate limits to a strategy of tree growing in order to draw down CO2.
You would do well to read a copy of The Secret Life of Trees: How They Live and Why They Matter by Colin Tudge
Also look out his So Shall We Reap: What's Gone Wrong with the World's Food - and How to Fix it for a broader context. In this book Tudge also lays bare the poverty of the arguments used by proponents of GMO crops, for a start it isn't anything like an extension of the selective breeding used since humans became agrarian.
More here.
Kimbot aka, I suspect - given this is one of this identitie's favourite memes, Sunspot, why should he answer simplistically phrased questions, after all you could go read a book or look it up yourself on the intertubes. But that would be using your time instead of wasting that of others and that is not in the rules of the sick game you are playing.
Lionel - "you did read the words ‘not a panacea’ did you not."
Yes, and since I never claimed it was a panacea, it had nothing to do with my questions.
And you might want to read #44, which explains the reason I posted the statements from the website to begin with....to point out Adam's hypocrisy....to Adam.
Trust me Lionel, you're not going to teach me about trees, but keep flinging away...
Li D
Good points @ #36 & #41 and pertinent questions at #43 which are as the stake through the rotten vampire heart, they dare not try answering because they have not the basic knowledge and would soon fall off their tightrope.
Neither do they have a cogent answer to the decline of multiyear Arctic sea ice. Stu2 tried by avoiding the main point.
Denier-delayers also like to mislead on the topic of ice at the other end of the Earth — the Antarctic. Some examples of that were revealed at Carbon Brief late last year (my emphasis):
Guest post: Misleading media coverage of Antarctic sea ice paper.
When will you grasp the simple fact that my post was not aimed directly at the topic of your post other than to provide cautionary words on larger scale tree planting - as a purveyor of toilet tissue uses for advertising purposes. Maybe you are signed up by them to fling your peculiar brand of crap about so that you can be seen using their product. After all if its good enough for hippos then its good enough for humans. Hippo purgatory continues for you Bets.
Lionel - "When will you grasp the simple fact that my post was not aimed directly at the topic of your post"
I did grasp it was not aimed directly at my post, that's why I called you out on it.
Now, since you finally concede that trees do sequester CO2, I'm sure you will also concede that Adam was being a hypocrite for the sake of not wanting to concede a point.
Welcome to Deltoid
Li D - "a hypothecal biosphere, somewhat like earths,
was warming, what would you expect to see as indications
of that warming?"
Everything is hypothetical with you people, but since you asked.....a spider.
If you have a problem with that answer to your hypothetical, discuss it with Hardley....
Lionel, your link at #48 says and concludes absolutely nothing, you do realize that, don't you?
Read the article, not the headline....
No doubt the scientists who published the paper below must have an ulterior motive.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160426162610.htm
What we need to do is label them deniers, and then argue with each and every one of them about how ignorant they are when it comes to stoichiometry and C-4 and C-3 plants and so forth.....for crying out loud, they don't even realize that maybe, might, could, may, long run, depending, however and possibly...
The fact that they would publish such a paper proves they are simpletons working on a kindergarten level with dunning-kruger written all over it...
We need to tell them that they couldn't hold a candle to us and teach them what superior intellect really looks like...
Hardley you go first.... remember, you're the scientist.
#48 um, thankyou very much for the kind words.
I dont come here very much, but when i do i seem
to get shitty very quickly!
#51 my god, thats some sad arse response.
Betula, cut the bullshit; I am sick of it. There's no alterior motive. I never denied that plants are absorbing C. I said that scientists know that there are limits to the capacity of plants to absorb it. You write as if plants have an unlimited capacity to do so. What I, and the vast majority of other ecologists will tell you is that they don't. At some point they will asymptote, either due to limitations imposed by their physiology (C3, C4, ethylene), due to negative effects of N and P loss, or else due to changes in other abiotic factors that set limits. And any plant scientist will tell you that quantity and quality of plant tissues are not necessarily correlated. This is grade-school level stuff. My God you are dumb.
You can't debate your way out of a wet paper bag. For some inane reason you keep trying, in the face of ritual humiliation. Yes, for sure I am the scientist. Your vapid ignorance makes that quite patently obvious.
Li D - "#51 my god, thats some sad arse response"
Hey, Hardley is the scientist, and he claimed to witness climate change first hand when he saw a spider in Algonquin on a winter trip where his partner got frostbite....so why would a hypothetical be any different than real life?
And why is it a "sad arse" response? Are you suggesting I shouldn't listen to a scientist?
Let's have a conversation about this...please explain.
"The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. "Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time."
There you go. Our Dunning-Kruger acolyte demolished again. Remember Betula, I am the scientist.
Its fun watching Betula getting ritually hammered here to such an extent that he is back to old memes. He is trying to keep the science here at the lowest common denominator. Any attempt o make it a bit more complex and his ignorance is brazenly exposed.
Hardley - "You write as if plants have an unlimited capacity to do so"
Nope. Never wrote any such thing....again, your interpretation as the scientist.
What I asked, many years ago, is what weight it carries when it comes to determining future climate scenarios...
(Try looking at Comment #20, pg 10, June 2013 for proof)
But since you don't know the answer, you twist the meaning of the question to fit your narrative, for example, you say..."You write as if"
Remember, you're the scientist.
Hardley - "The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais"
"may also be limited".....which is what I've been saying all along....you don't know how what weight the process carries when predicting future climate scenarios.
If I've said anything otherwise, show me....just remember, it's hard to copy and paste your imagination....and you're the scientist.
Hardley - Its fun watching Betula getting ritually hammered here to such an extent that he is back to old memes.
So it's fun watching your imagination while regretting the past? Very odd...
More demolition of Betula's linear meme. None of this is controversial. The vast majority of scientists would argue that there are limits to the terrestrial fertilization effect, and they would certainly argue that it is not a good thing... its down to right wing simpletons like Mr. Tree Pruner to distort the science for his own ends.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/08/global-greening-has…
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1871
https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=Tyrc32Pk5MkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA85&…
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v510/n7503/full/nature13179.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7086/full/nature04486.html
There are many more studies which show that quantity and quality of plant tissues are not correlated. And virtually none of the scientists writing these articles or doing the research would claim that the so-called 'greening' effect caused by enhanced atmospheric concentrations of C02 justifies the continued burning of fossil fuels. This is once again Betula trying to drag the debate to the sandbox. The worst thing is that he actually thinks he is doing well.
Betula, get lost, you asshole. You're as thick as a plank, but don't know it,. Pure Dunning-Kruger. I took a page out of your book with Bo Eberling and quoted one of the authors of the NASA study who said exactly what I did: that there are limits in the ability of vegetation to absorb increased atmospheric C02.
As I said, you are miles out of your depth. You can't debate worth shit.
Hardley - "I never denied that plants are absorbing C"
But your buddy Adam did....“so your “planting trees” doesn’t actually do anything about CO2, even sequestering"
I bet you wish the dunning-kruger simpleton were here so you could demolish his hypocrisy with your superior ego....correct?
Hardley - "More demolition of Betula’s linear meme"
All I did was link a scientific paper, everything else is a demolition of a conversation with yourself...
Hardley - "I took a page out of your book with Bo Eberling"
Was that the page where I quoted Elberling's own words?
By the way Hardley, you constantly refer to him as Eberling....his name is Elberling.
But you're the scientist.
Note how Betula has kept the discussion away from stoichiometry, non-linear effects, N and P as limiting nutrients, asymptotes and saturation effects and C3/C4/Ethylene pathways related to increased atmospheric C02. I know exactly what this twit is doing: trying to play the uncertainty card as if this justifies a business-as-usual policy. None of the scientists involved in this research would agree with that. Not a single one. They'd all say what I say: that increased atmospheric Co2 concentrations are driving climate change, and that we are just lucky that terrestrial vegetation is able to absorb some of it (but clearly not enough to counter warming). If this clown went to a scientific conference and tried to distort these studies to support his own political agenda, he's be laughed out of the venue. There's a vast difference in Betula's sandbox level approach and that of the vast majority of the scientific community. Betula has never been near a university lecture theater or a conference where these issues are discussed in his life. I have. Very many times. And I personally know many plant ecologists and a number of climate scientists. They would all cringe at his nonsense.
So remember Betula: you're the idiot.
My last post is the final demolition. Now, as I said you complete idiot, bugger off. Your posts are so shallow that the puddle is dry.
And you're the idiot.
As for ego's, Betula, yours is so big you can't get your head through the door. I have more qualifications in the fingernail of my little finger than you have in your sad example of a body and yet you continue to write utter piffle up here whilst desperately trying to avoid discussing a range of important areas I have raised time and time and time again. When you publish a paper in the field of plant ecology come back here and defend it. Until then, stop selectively interpreting the results of studies that you don't understand. There's nothing worse than an uneducated layman with a profound political bias who deliberately distorts the results of others research.
Remember Betula: You're the idiot.
Hardley - " Until then, stop selectively interpreting the results of studies that you don’t understand"
A statement you can't back up....no examples of any kind.
Is that normal among scientists, or just you?
Hardley - "There’s nothing worse than an uneducated layman with a profound political bias who deliberately distorts the results of others research"
Give us an example of one and back it up to show us their distortion, please share, we want to see how bad these people are...
Thanks.
Hardley - "Note how Betula has kept the discussion away from stoichiometry, non-linear effects, N and P as limiting nutrients, asymptotes and saturation effects and C3/C4/Ethylene pathways"
Note how Hardley has kept the discussion away from answering my question and steered it towards "stoichiometry, non-linear effects, N and P as limiting nutrients, asymptotes and saturation effects and C3/C4/Ethylene pathways"
None of which answer the question.
It's Hardley's personal scientific method....
So do demonstrate what he actually wrote, the exact words without selective quoting.
Besides that post has such mangled quoting I don't think you know who wrote what where and when. You are off with the fairies now.
http://www.chem4kids.com/files/react_stoichio.html
Jeff,
The discussion was not specifically about stiochiometry.
Neither was it implied that planting trees was a panacea.
I'm fascinated to understand what you mean by 'an uneducated lay man with a profound political bias' and why in your opinion 'there's nothing worse'.
That comment appears to be loaded with hubris.
I think that attitude is right up there with 'worse'.
Of course there are limits.
Even whoever these 'uneducated lay men' are would know that.
A key global environmental issue is that in many places around the world there has been overclearing.
Revegetating is clearly not a bad idea.
Whether it's linear non linear sideways or upside down plants absorb CO2 and release O2.
Just because there are complications in accurately measuring the benefits of that simple fact doesn't mean anything other than it's difficult to accurately measure.
It stiil provides benefits and it's still a good thing that the planet is 'greener'.
So Jeff.
Here is a simple question to you.
It requires a simple yes or no answer.
In the big global environmental picture is deliberately revegetating areas that have been overcleared good policy?
If your answer is no, then please answer this question.
What is good policy to help undo the damage created by historical overclearing including increasing atmospheric CO2 levels (however complicated it is to actually measure or quantify that non linear number via stiochiometry)??
Or if you don't like closed questions.
Why does environment science recommend revegetation of overcleared landscapes as valid policy for the global environment?
In your answer, you may also include stiochiometric equations that demonstrate other benefits that could accrue to the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Stu, I will answer your question below. But here is the crux of Betula's approach. He wants to keep the 'debate', if one can call it that, stuck at the lowest common denominator. He clearly has a very small comfort zone when it comes to scientific enquiry, for the simple reason that he knows full well that he is truly out of his depth when it comes to linking processes and mechanisms. So he sticks to descriptive results for the most part, doing everything he can to keep the discussion stuck there.
In the Earth and environmental sciences there are experts in elucidating processes and experts in elucidating mechanisms, The NASA studcy is excellent in addressing the former but clearly weak in exploring questions related to the latter. My research is mechanism driven, and much of it is with plants, where my work involves understanding the effects of primary and secondary metabolites on multitrophic interactions. What I know is that changes in nutrient availability in the soil, abiotic factors such as temperature and moisture, as well as genetic variation in response to a suite of selection pressures play major roles in determining chemical and morphological trait expression in plants. Altering the atmospheric cocentrations of C02 generate differing plant responses, depending on phylogeny and metabolic pathways for taking up C. Given that most plants have evolved in low C environments, its far too simple to argue that increased biomass as a result of uptaking more atmospheric C will be of net benefit for communities and ecosystems. For sure many plants will grow larger, at least until some other metabolic or environmental factor causes this to asymptote. And given that increased atmospheric C02 concentrations are driving climate warming, its a good thing to have as much of the planet vegetated to at least diffuse the rate at which the warming is occurring. So on that score I concur with those like the NASA team who would argue that plants may be our saving grace in the short to medium term. But as I said, quantity does not always correrlate with quality.
As plants take up more C they shunt out N, P and other vital nutrients important in plant metabolism. From my research I certainly know that C is not a limiting nutrient for organisms up the food chain that depend on plant tissues for food. N is far more vital. Thanks to the work of many researchers, the effects of increased C on the performance and behavior of consumers up the food chain is evident. Here are a few:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2006.0030-1299.14951.x/full
http://www.eje.cz/pdfs/eje/1999/02/08.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.1996.tb00085.x/f…
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00442-002-1075-5
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00410362
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10886-009-9731-4
This is the tip of a metaphorical iceberg. And on top of that there are changes in C:N:P ratios that affect plant secondary metabolites. Plants with N based defenses become less well defended and vice versa for plants with C based defenses. Then we can look at competitive asymmetries caused by species-specific plant responses to increased atmospheric C02. The list of questions goes on and on. Process driven researchers pay scant attention to these questions but researchers focusing on mechanisms do, and we know that they are important in influencing community structure and function as well as assembly rules and resistance/resilience.
I am not saying that the story is all bad. What I am saying is that humans are conducting a non-replicatable atmospheric experiment on species, populations, communities and ecosystems, and that the consequences will be non-linear and unpredictable. There will be winners and there will be losers. How this will play out is hard to know, but there will be nasty surprises as there always are in blind experiments on complex adaptive systems.
Importantly, the authors of the NASA study were not championing the fact that plants are taking up more carbon as atmsopheric C02 concentrations are put into the atmosphere, resulting in the 'greeing' that they allude to. They are actually breathing a collective sigh of relief that plants are buying us a bit of time to begin mitigating emissions that are driving climate change. If forests continue to be felled, then the rate of warming will increase. Its AGW deniers who are distorting the science to suggest that the burning of fossil fuels is mankind's 'gift to nature'. It is complete rubbish, given the uncertaities, but these people will stop at nothing to bolster their political agendas.
Steve Martin makes a remark to John Candy in 'Planes, trains and Automobiles' that is very relevant to Betula's limited intellectual grasp of science (especially mechanisms, of which he clearly knows nothing):
"If you are going to say something over and over, at least have a point".
Hardley - "I am not saying that the story is all bad. What I am saying is that humans are conducting a non-replicatable atmospheric experiment on species, populations, communities and ecosystems, and that the consequences will be non-linear and unpredictable. There will be winners and there will be losers. How this will play out is hard to know"
That's' what I've been saying here for 8 years you piece of shit. Where have I said anything different?
For years I've been asking why scenarios are all bad and you say I'm downplaying the scenarios, and here you are stating...."I am not saying that the story is all bad"
For years I've asked what weight CO2 fertilization plays in predicted future climate scenarios and had to keep informing you that you don't know. You took this to mean I've said it is a cure all. Now, after years of pretending that's not what I've been saying.....you are saying......"consequences are unpredictable'...and..."How this will play out is hard to know"
WHICH MEANS YOU DON"T KNOW.
So for all you vast superior knowledge, you don't know. Genius.
“If you are going to say something over and over, at least have a point"
You just proved what I've been saying over and over IS THE POINT.
Now, how about you go fuck yourself.
Thank You.
Jeff.
You have not actually answered my question and instead focused on the mechanics of plant growth.
The actual question was simple but I can add a little bit to it to help you focus on the question.
Try this:
Whether it's process or mechanism orientated, why does environmental science recommend revegetation of overcleared landscapes as valid policy for the global environment?
I am not interested in you wandering into comments about other people based on other fields of expertise such as psychology.
And because you've extensively dealt with the uncertainties of the stiochiometry it's not necessary to repeat that.
"That’s’ what I’ve been saying here for 8 years you piece of shit. Where have I said anything different?"
The piece of turd is you, you lying sack of excrement. The experiment humans are conducting is already seriously harming biodiversity at various levels of organization. In that case, given that these systems permit humans to exist and persist, its exceedly important, as well as wise, to stop the fucking experiment. What I have said before and I will repeat it is that dolts like you, who understand jack shit about what you are talking about, appear to be demanding 100% unequivocal proof that the current experiment will have catastrophic consequences if is not terminated. What the bulk of the scientific community is saying is that we think that the chances are very high that the experiment will end in disaster, but we cannot provide that 100% proof, and probably never will until its too late.
Once again, idiots like you test my patience ot the limit. I know bloody well what your tactics are, as they are completely transparent. Moreover, every one of you vile morons acts the same way. Your clarion cry is 'burn, burn, burn until the data are ALL in and then keep burning until we known even more'.
Get lost you tree pruning twerp.
Its OK Stu, I just will not waste any more time on fucking isiots like Betula who are dishonest, uneducated, moronic simpletons driven by obscene right wing political ideologies. I can deal with willful ignorance - to a point. But he should get out of his treehouse and get his ass to a conference where his brand of ignorance will be dealt with harshly.I am sick of it.
As to your question - my research is mechanism driven. The real challenge in environmental science and ecology os to examine realistic mechanisms that can help explain processes. With regards to revegetating cleared landscapes, that's not my call. I would assume that each case should be examined on its own merits. If cleared lands arfe abandoned, and once were forested, then replanting seems like a good option, particularly if increasing global forest cover buys us a little more time to deal with climate change and can at least partially dampen the global and regional rises in temperature. One of the problems with replanting is that it requires both a good working knowledge of the system in an historical context - something that we are often lacking, as well as a solid understanding of the soil community that is necessary for forest regeneration. Baskin (2000) showed that areas that were clear cut in the western US were difficult to reforest because machinery had so compacted the soil that communties of important mutualists - such as nitrogen fixing bacteria and mycorrhizal fungae - were destroyed. Lacking this fundamental knowledge often makes ecological restoation schemes difficult to implement. A number of workers have been trying to re-establish tallgrass prairies in the western US for decades without success. Look at many phtographs from the late 18th century and states like Nevada and New Mexico were cloaked in a variet of grasses, but the introduction of cattle les to serious soil trampling and overgrazing that allowed interstitial plants to take over. Getting the system back to its original state may be virtually impossible. Wetland restoration has been palgued with similar problems.
As far back as the 1980s, ecologists like John Terborgh were observing freefalls in the populations of many North American passerines, again a likely lag result of land use changes occurring many decades earlier. Our knowledge of ecosystems prior to this century is rudimentary at best, yet it is this knowledge that is vital if we are to arrest these widespread declines.
To come back to your question, I would defer to the systems ecologists who are working in the area of restoration. Certainly many cleared areas are vital for agricultural production, so restoration is impossible. However, where it is possible it is a good strategy of dealing with multiple environmental threats.
Sorry for the typos Stu but I am really in a rush.
Me - “That’s’ what I’ve been saying here for 8 years you piece of shit. Where have I said anything different?”
The piece of shit, doesn't answer the question, but instead states what it "appears" I say....."appear to be demanding 100% unequivocal proof that the current experiment will have catastrophic consequences if is not terminated."...
This is why you "appear" to be a piece of shit Hardley, hiding behind a PhD...
And using the piece of shit's own logic, if it "appears" that way, it has to be true.
Congratulations it "appears" you have proven you are a piece of shit.
@81 - It took Hardley some 400 words to say there are many factors involved, so he doesn't really know, but where possible, it is a good strategy.
Well, no shit.....you piece of shit. Thanks for the insight.
Meanwhile, his cohort Adam argued with Stu and myself for close to 100 comments about how "planting trees' really does nothing for AGW, not even it terms of sequestering CO2, while recommending the planting of trees on his own web page.
All rabid hypocrites.
Bets, you are way off beam. Jeff has provide a rounded explanation of the state of ecosystems and how we are damaging them at our peril.
FFS go pick up some books on the topics and get a clue, it isn't as if enough of these have not been cited.
You are insulting Jeff but also yourself because with each response you make in that oh so common 'idiot pretending to be knowledgeable' way of your you are showing the world why the label Dunning-Kruger fits you like a glove.
I don't have a PhD in anything but I do have qualifications in a number of disparate areas involving mathematics and the sciences (many of them) because I always like to discover what makes things work the way they do a keen interest since knee high to an orthoptera. I continue, as a septuagenarian, to read and study widely.
I suggest that instead of pushing your vitriol and naked aggressive ignorance about how ecosystems once damaged can be irreparable, even in the long term. Essential inter-species links once broken cannot be replaced. Sure some species may be imported to provide some appearance of normal but the underlying functionality, and its associated benefit, to the whole community (of undefined geographical extent) , including such as us who rely upon any services provided, may never be regained.
This is happening with tropical rainforests, across the agrarian lands of higher latitudes by the overarching burgeoning of mono-culture industrial agriculture (worst of all GMO the proponents of which don't want you to know where this will lead) and in the oceans.
Over the months and tears of your blustering blather here you have been provided with sources to inform you of reality. That you would eschew all these and continue in your epistemic bubble is a crime against humanity and yourself in the end.
Sort yourself out.
Wrote he looking in the mirror whilst splattering the wall opposite with hippo dung.
In the real world pointing up caveats about tree planting is not saying the planting trees does nothing for atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Consider the energy expended in planting those trees and how long they will be left to grow before being harvested - where more energy expenditure is required. That law of diminishing returns is often ignored as it is with fracking for gas and producing oil from tar sands.
Here you are Bets, some suggestions
Lionel - "In the real world pointing up caveats about tree planting is not saying the planting trees does nothing for atmospheric CO2 concentrations."
Agreed.... but do you know what IS saying planting does nothing for CO2 concentrations? Saying planting does nothing for CO2 concentrations...
Adam – “Shall we forget the “plant trees” idea as your solution?”
Adam – “so your “planting trees” doesn’t actually do anything about CO2, even sequestering, and abandons even the pretense of stopping AGW.”
Adam – “What I DO know is that your definition of “planting trees” has no effect on AGW, nor even on CO2 levels”
Look at that, Adam is no longer here and Lionel is arguing with him...
Here's a start for you Lionel:
http://plantkingdomcommunications.com/blog/portfolio/messages-from-tree…
Jeff,
Thank you for your answer; sans your inability to stay away from political ideologies and throwing insults based on fields that you don’t have expertise in (politics and human psychology)
Betula has just as much right as you and Lionel do to comment on this blog.
If he didn't as WoW alluded to earlier, the moderator here would have done something about it.
You have once again adroitly or perhaps naively confused the point of the question which clearly developed from arguments that you have engaged in about ‘doing something about it’.
As I’ve commented before many times there is a difference between outlining an issue and implementing strategies designed to manage that issue. Some of the most recent were to do with managing bush fire risk, a perceived health issue in reindeer, the Zika Virus outbreak and a pest species in Bulgarian crops.
There is a principle called ‘adaptive management’ that is actually enshrined in NRM policy and supported by ecologists who are working in the 'real world' but, unfortunately, is rarely acknowledged by policy makers or academics.
There is an abundance of academic literature on this topic but to keep it simple here are some basic points by 'experts' about what adaptive management is and isn’t.
Let’s go for the “IS” first.
Adaptive management is a systematic approach for improving resource management by learning from management outcomes.
Adaptive management requires stated management objectives to guide decisions about what actions to take, and explicit assumptions about expected outcomes to compare against actual outcomes.
There are many definitions in the literature on adaptive management, but a common theme shared by them all is that adaptive management is a learning-based process.
Adaptive management focuses on learning and adapting, through partnerships of managers, scientists, and other stakeholders who learn together how to create and maintain sustainable resource systems.
Adaptive management requires stated management objectives to guide decisions about what to try, and explicit assumptions about expected outcomes to compare against actual outcomes. It is important to know what the available management options and alternative assumptions are, in case the action that is tried does not work as expected.
And here are some “ISN’Ts”
Adaptive management is often confused with conflict resolution, which focuses on negotiating tradeoffs among competing interests.
Management approaches that primarily depend on expert opinion and advice for decision making are not by themselves adaptive.
It is thought by many that merely by monitoring activities and occasionally changing them, one is doing adaptive management. Contrary to this commonly held belief, adaptive management is much more than simply tracking and changing management direction in the face of failed policies, and, in fact, such a tactic could actually be maladaptive.
In the absence of additional structure in a decision making process, monitoring a managed resource system does not itself make an application adaptive. A great many resource systems are monitored in some manner, but in most cases the resulting data are not used systematically for learning and improvement in a context of objective-driven management.
And this little gem from you is an ISN’T:
“Getting the system back to its original state……”
It’s an “ISN’T” because it does indeed assume the impossible and it also assumes that there is a static or utopian original state in ecosystems which would actually make the rest of your lengthy answer either redundant or contradictory.
I’m finding it interesting that you have now concluded this in terms of my question:
“To come back to your question, I would defer to the systems ecologists who are working in the area of restoration. Certainly many cleared areas are vital for agricultural production, so restoration is impossible. However, where it is possible it is a good strategy of dealing with multiple environmental threats.”
Yet there are 1000’s upon 1000’s of words from you to me over a long period of time when I have referred to experts in system ecology who are working in the area of restoration in my part of the world which include agricultural areas, that you have outright lambasted.
Perhaps we all are learning to be adaptive after all?
Great post Stu, one of the better i've seen on Deltoid in a long time, and unlike Hardley, you didn't make it about you....
But this is Deltoid, so pepare to watch all common sense and logic thrown at out the window when the Deltoidians respond....
Another definition of 'adaptive management' IMHO is to use common sense and logic.
What we see far, far too often is the 'management' managing the system for the benefit of the management.
So, what we see most often are the 2 first ISN'Ts in my post above.
The result, very unfortunately, is that the demographic that should and could be working with the 'management' in NRM are instead alienated and demonized by 'the management'.
IMHO and according to ecologists who work in the real world, with real people who have training and generational knowledge of land and water management, that's 'maladaptive'.
Also, as I commented earlier, modeling is an extremely useful tool in this space especially if it's used to monitor expected outcomes compared to actual outcomes.
shorter Hardley again in his sack of crap: "... bla bla bla ....appear to be demanding 100% unequivocal proof that the current experiment will have catastrophic consequences if is not terminated ..."
Listen you green-romantic idiot: I give a piece of shit to the opinion of 59%, 109%, 513% or whatever % of green-communists whatever these gangsters say. Whatever these morons say, it's irrelevant and will never by accepted by decent taxpayers. President Trump will wipe out your shit from your stinking assholes.
kim, you are deranged, as deranged as the Donald. Something has really damaged your personality and his. You both need therapy.
Lionel - "kim, you are deranged"
Yet, Lionel consistently goes out of his way to defend Adam, without ever saying a peep about this gem:
Adam to Stu - “you can fuck right off up your own shitfilled arse canal and die choking on the excrement you deserve.”……..”you deserve the desecrated death I abjured you to suffer under as specified above”
Hmm....I wonder why?
Lionel.
I posted this earlier but here it is again.
It was sent to me so it's not my words but I do agree with the basic sentiment.
" I hope Donald Trump is a good president.
Wanting him to fail is like wanting the pilot to crash the plane we're all flying in."
Lionel is correct. Kim is a sociopathic wingnut. I knew that some time ago. His latest mini-rant would be comical if it wasn't so utterly pathetic. He - or she, but I suspect the former - is clearly unhinged.
Stu2: sure, Betula has as much right to comment on this blog. So does Kim, for that matter. The problem for me is that both of them are profoundly stupid, scientifically illiterate, and yet, in true Dunning-Kruger fashion, believe that they are intelligent and informed. I have exposed the strategy people like them use over and over and over and that's enough. They try to manipulate scientific uncertainty to justify doing nothing about AGW (in Kimmie's case from a padded cell). The vast majority of the scientific community have very differing views, as evidenced by the joint statements of every National Academy and major relevant scientific organization on Earth. These two simpletons write as if I am an outlier, given that I am the only qualified scientist naive enough to be writing into this blog. They steer constantly away from the consensus by intimating that there isn't one. Frankly, I don't know of any qualified scientists who would actually respond to the puerile bile they spew out, so in that regard I probably need medical attention too.
Stu2, I am afraid I will be harsh again. I find it illustrative that Betula praises you for your 'great post' when i am afraid that what you write actually reflects a profound inability to understand complex adaptive systems. Indeed, i am sure that you've never read any of the literature by the likes of Naeem, Tilman, Grime, Loreau, Levin, Pacala, Berendse, Wardle or colleagues at my institute like van der Putten and many others who are working to understand the link between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. A working knowledge of this literature and of its implications for managing natural and managed ecosystems is crucial if we are to invoke the use of your term 'adaptive management'.
As to your use of the term 'adaptive management'. I find your use of the word 'adaptive' to be interesting on the context of what you interpret 'adaptive' to represent; is this based on anthropogenic processes or functional processes, which are often mutually exclusive? You also write as if our understanding of processes enveloping a wide array of scales is better than it is. You are suggesting that we can adaptively manage complex adaptive systems in ways that optimize their ability to serve both human needs and for nature conservation. I am saying that we cannot adaptively manage lands until we know a lot more about how they evolve, assemble and function. Your comments about pest control in Bulgaria miss the point: your adaptive management comment implies that we seek solutions after the fact; instead of mitigating those anthropogenic assaults that are altering, and in general simplifying systems across the biosphere, with often nasty results, your argument suggests that we deal with the changes once they have occurred. In many cases there is no alternative. But we know that if the climate continues to warm along the current trajectory, in combination with other human assaults across the biosphere, no amount of your adaptive management schemes will be enough to counter the deleterious effects.
Scientists know that complex adaptive systems function in ways that permit humans to exist and to persist. Given their decidedly non-linear dynamics, we know also that there are huge gaps in our understanding of cause-and-effect relationships. Levin (1999) in his excellent book, 'Fragile Dominion: Complexity and the Commons', which I reviewed for Nature, invoked the parable of the wise watchmaker to argue that humans should not be tinkering with complex systems that work in sustaining life in a manner that we know. The system works, it provides the essential foundation for life to flourish, and yet humans are tinkering on a massive scale, with climate change being one of the major examples. Its very difficult to manage systems that you barely understand but which you know are vital in your own survival.
I have criticized you in the past for the fact that you clearly lack the training in relevant fields to understand limits to human technology as this impedes out ability to deal with the burgeoning crisis. That criticism stands. Unless you are able to engage in a discussion about biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, and global change, then I may as well be speaking to a wall. I am trained in fields that you are not, and I fully realize the scale of the current environmental predicament whereas you do not. Using terms like 'adaptive management' without being able to see limitations imposed by the complexity of natural systems in being able to effectively manage systems makes it very difficult for me to exchange thoughts with you.
Let me put it another way. You write as if solutions are generally 'after the fact'. In other words, that we should try to get the horse back once it has bolted from the barn. I am saying, with plenty of evidence that this is often impossible, and that we should do everything we can to keep the horse in the barn in the first place. Humans are conducting and massive, non-repeatqable global experiment on systems that sustain us in a myriad of ways and what people like Betula, wallowing in their cesspits of ignorance, demand, is that we don't change anything at all - we keep fiddling while Rome burns effectively - until we know much more and can categorically prove that we are going off the rails. You in turn are implying that we possess the tools to deal with or manage problems arising from climate change and other anthropogenic changes. I am saying that in many cases we do not. The Bulgarian example is a case in point. Its not just a matter of injurious pests expanding their ranges northwards as a result of climate warming, so we deal with them in situ in Bulgaria as you imply. Its a problem that communities and ecosystems across the biosphere that are being challenged to respond to changes occurring over decades that would normally take many thousands of years to unravel. We are expecting these systems to continue functioning in ways that enable them to remain resilient and resistant and to keep delivering conditions that underpin our material economies.No amount of management is possible if we don't know what the hell we are doing or understand the implications of this global experiment. It's not simply a matter of management but of drawing back, realizing that we are pushing systems towards a threshold beyond which they will be unable to function effectively.
I will be honest and say that my BSc and MSc students actually 'get it' whereas laymen like Betula, don't. They abuse complexity and the fact that we have a long way to go to unravel ecological complexity to argue for stasis. They are happy to see that mankind continues tinkering until we can provide categorical proof that this tinkering will have catastrophic results. A useful analogy I often invoke in lectures is that we are connected to a life support machine in a hospital. We know that the machine is immensely complicated, but that we depend on it for our survival. A doctor comes into the room and says he needs a small component of it for his own practice. You say, its ok to take this small component, as the machine is so complicated that it will still work. Another doctor comes in and says the same thing... and so on and so forth. At what point will the machine suddenly exceed a critical threshold and shut down? This is the dilemma the scientific community is facing. Climate change is most certainly simplifying natural systems. No ands, ifs or buts. We can invoke your 'adaptive management' approach in the short term, as we have no alternative. But it won't work if we keep along the same trajectory. Mitigation is imperative if we are to stand a chance of avoiding serious consequences.
Read up on the rivet popper versus the redundancy hypotheses in the biodiversity/ecosystem functioning debate and you will know more.
Lionel - "Wanting him to fail is like wanting the pilot to crash the plane we’re all flying in.”
Unless the pilot is trying to crash the plane (like Obama was), then you might want him to fail...
Perspective.
Hardley - "people like Betula, wallowing in their cesspits of ignorance, demand, is that we don’t change anything at all"
And herein lies Hardley's psychosis ...no such thing was ever demanded, implied or suggested. yet Hardley believes it was.....out of thin air.
If Hardley can be so adamant in believing something exists or existed, that doesn't or never did, based on nothing but blind ideology......think about what quality of scientist he really must be.
Interesting analogy, but once popped the rivets will be functionally useless thus valueless, except as scrap and one would need thousands of rivets popped to make that worthwhile but the cost of paying somebody to do that hits the law of diminishing returns with a vengeance.
Now if instead of rivets we consider removing bolts the case is changed. From my own personal experience I was familiar with the practice of removing a certain number of close tolerance bolts (Hi-Torque) from panels of selected F4 Phantom II (the Fleet Air Arm F4K aka FG1 model) aircraft so as to be able to secure the panels on an aircraft that could otherwise not fly for missing panels (this once clearance from higher authority was obtained). These aircraft were stressed skin, semi-monocoque construction (thus more like modern cars where the bodywork is the strength beam rather than the older type of chassis mounted body vehicles).
This became necessary because with the aim of saving money the Ark Royal when first became operational with those aircraft was woefully under-provisioned with spare bolts. The bolts came in variety of sizes with different overall lengths because of a different plain shank requirement for internal structural reasons. In practice, the stresses of flight would tend to make these Hi-torque HTS close tolerance fasteners (countersunk heads) bind in the holes making removal for servicing difficult resulting in many head slots being burred out making drilling out and use of an Easy-out required. Ten percent on any one panel could often be damaged thus. One panel, on the upper surface of the outer wing had no fewer than 948 fasteners (a number seared into my brain) which had to be removed every 21 days for greasing a leading edge flap link. There was of course that panel's twin on the other side of the aircraft. Multiply that by the number of aircraft on the squadron (12 - 14) and one gets an idea of the scale of the problem and there were quite a number of other panels requiring regular removal.
The strategy of removing bolts to fit to another aircraft quickly hits that law of diminishing returns. Plus it takes manpower away from all the other servicing tasks require especially a large number of special events because of the newness of the aircraft (the Spey engined UK model was quite a different beast to those the Americans were operating) and the hostile environment at sea.
Some panels along the side of the fuselage if removed required a jack under the nose and another with a special trestle fitting under the keel to prevent the aircraft distorting. I once took over (working watches) on a Phantom which had these panels removed and the supports had not been put in place. I had considerable trouble using jacks and trestles to get it back into shape so as to refit those panels. An annotation was made in the aircraft's documentation to ensure that the flight servicing crews could keep an eye out for subsequent problems developing.
There was one panel on the top of the fuselage behind the rear canopy, secured by Millson fasteners, which was required to be secured before the aircraft could be moved on the ground. Early years at sea operating these Phantoms was tense for those involved.
All this on a system designed by man, unlike natural systems which humans are scrambling to understand, and these aircraft, as all types do, did have a tendency to crash. Aircraft design and construction is a compromise between enough material with inbuilt system redundancy and the need to make it capable of leaving the ground and doing something useful.
The rivet popping is interesting if one has researched the latest scientifically backed thinking about why the Titanic sank. Yes it hit an ice berg but was it the brittle steel plates which cracked or riveted seems which 'unzipped', it turns out to be most likely that latter.
One it comes to the damage caused by commercially driven tree felling (for product or clearance to grow something else typically soy or oil palm) the destruction caused is mostly unnoticed by the consumer, ignorant of the interactive processes and diversity of species which are a part of that.
It would do our trolls good to actually try to learn more instead of coming back spitting blood without allowing time to investigate sources cited. I note my suggestion of reading 'The Secret Life of Trees: How They Live and Why They Matter' by Colin Tudge (published in the US as 'The Tree ....') was ignored.
The etymology of ignored and ignorant being linked - of course.
That's a lot of rambling Lionel...
Anyway, I found a picture of an interesting insect, I know what it is, but can you tell me what it is?
https://www.facebook.com/lionel.smith.7737
Jeff.
Solutions to actual identified isuues are usually 'after the fact'.
If the 'horse has bolted' already then it's not possible to keep the horse in the barn.
Your comment @#98 completely ignores what the discussion was about.
Even your analogy is missing the point.
Those metaphorical doctors are in many cases returning those small components.
No one, including Betula, has claimed that we don't change anything at all.
Humans are not conducting a non repeatable experiment.
Humans are just being humans along with all their imperfections.
Mitigation is actually a feature of the principle of 'adaptive management'.
Nowhere in human history has your pet theory of overthrowing entire systems ever resulted in good outcomes for 'the environment'.
That's proven to be 'maladaptive'.
A single 'panacea' couldn't possibly work in such a complex system.
There is no such thing as a 'silver bullet' that will solve all the ills in the world.
Riding around on your self appointed 'high horse' waving a 'big stick' is not delivering anything worthwhile.
While your 'scientific community' is trying that, there are actually other communities of people, including highly qualified scientists who are working in the real world with real people actually 'doing something about it'.
One of those myriad of 'somethings' is tackling the identified issue of overcleared landscapes.
But that's only one.
James Delingpole is running for Presidential AntiScience Advisor on the Breitbart ticket.
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/01/havent-we-heard-that-some…
Well, Andy chased Bernard away, then Andy had to leave after being exposed, now it looks like Lionel Smith is gone....that leaves Hardley, who has proven to be no more than a liar, hypocrite, exaggerator and narcissist.
With that said, I think we can we finally put this site to rest.
R.I.P Deltoid, it was fun laughing at you.
"...that leaves Hardley, who has proven to be no more than a liar, hypocrite, exaggerator and narcissist."
Coming from a piece of worthless shit like you Betula, that's a compliment. You combine profound ignorance and arrogance. You have essentially zero knowledge of science, yet you truly believe that you are enlightened. If the average denier is as vacuous as you are, then no wonder humanity is seriously fucked.
Lionel, Bernard, Wow and others are sick to death of your asinine stupidity, that's why they no longer respond to you. You live in your own echo chamber. Fuck off and go away.
Stu,
Read my advice for Betula and take it to heart. You're almost as ignorant as he is. When you write, "Humans are not conducting a non repeatable experiment" you are speaking out of your butt. Humans are experimenting alright, but the global experiment has no controls and most people are unaware of it. The combined human assault that is reducing biodiversity at a staggering rate and altering the functioning of complex systems is very clearly an experiment that is likely to have profoundly serious outcomes. The scientific community warned of the perils of simplifying nature as far back as the 1980s, and the warning has largely been ignored. In 1992 70% of the Living Nobel Laureates signed a document arguing that humans and the natural world are on a collision course. By now it can be argued that humans are essentially at war with natural systems. Its a war we cannot win because we do not have the technology to replicate a range of vital conditions emerging from natural systems that sustain us. Your 'adaptive management' post was utter bullshit. We cannot adaptively manage systems whose functioning we barely understand. You seem to be suggesting that we stay the course, don't make significant changes in ongoing policies and deal with the symptoms once they become apparent. How uttely stupid. No wonder Wow referred to you under that monicker. I am saying that its vital that we deal with the disease, which is the very scale of the human enterprise and revert to renerwables as soon as possible. We are nowhere close to being sustainable, and yet through some hubris think that we can fix any of the assaults we are inflicting across the biopshere with technology and your patently absurd 'adaptive management' approach. What a load of garbage. I am sick of your willful ignorance as much as I am sick of Betula's vacuous musings. You both belong together. I have science to do, ppaers to write, lectures to give and students to supervise. I am not going to waste any more of my valuable time on your two losers. Get lost.
http://www.ucsusa.org/about/1992-world-scientists.html#.WJNCRE0iyzk
http://search.proquest.com/openview/86060cc89648e19b217a4d63778e2b73/1?…
https://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/unit/pdfs/unit13.pdf
http://blogg.slu.se/franziska-environmental-economics/2016/10/20/the-gr…
You wish Birch sap.
BTW 'sap' has a special apposite meaning in our idiom.
Ah! Yes. Russell, Delingpole and the Myron Feldw-ebell who is trying to USHER in a new dark age of alt-science, with the assistance of Betsy DeVos we hope not..
Actually Lionel, I'm glad you're not gone.
You're one of the few who, so far, haven't proven to be a hypocrite or a liar. And I respect your service to your country...
"sap" could also serve as a "sapper"...which I was.
http://www.interestingshit.com/nature/good-news-stories/
Jeff
You are continuing to miss the point and clinging to a failing meme.
To argue that I'm suggesting 'we stay the course' is ridiculous.
It's also ridiculous to argue that humans are essentially at war with natural systems.
Homo-sapiens are part of the global environment and along with every other successful species they influence the immediate environment.
The 'hubris' is emanating from you loud & clear.
Ironically it's you that advances an argument that is roadblocking any genuine, practical work that is being done.
This link is showing a very small sample.
All of it is because of successful 'adaptive management' according to the definition from academic literature.
It's far from rubbish.
It's actually people learning together how to repair past mistakes.
That 'high horse' you're riding around on has been flogged to death.
It's not working.
In fact, whole nations, via the ballot box, are no longer interested because it's clearly not working.
It's the height of stupidity and insanity to continue to do the same thing over and over and over again and expect a different result.
https://aussiemadness.com/2017/01/29/media-bubble-creates-the-dangerous…
This is the type of argument that you're interested in having Jeff.
I'm not.
'Natural Systems' also aren't interested in irrational, emotional, media driven, socio-economic politics.
And before you compose yet another hubris laden lecture to me on topics that you ironically don't possess qualifications please remember that I have said I'm not interested.
I'm not interested because out in the real world amongst real people it's clear that the whole idea that the world can only be saved by some type of benevolent global dictatorship that administers the great global experiment via 'environmental economics' is proving to be 'maladaptive' ie a failed human experiment.
It's not working.
It's time to focus on what does work and build on those strategies.
I simply don't care whether successful management strategies come from the right, left, sideways, upside down or inside out.
I don't belong to a political football team.
Stu to Hardley - "To argue that I'm suggesting "we stay the course" is ridiculous"
Of course it is, because you never said it... but that doesn't make any difference to the genious professor, because it's what he believes he hears.... after all, he's a scientist.
You should know by now that Hardley hears and sees a lot of things that aren't there, and then he talks about his qualifications to convince himself that they are...
And yes, I know it's "genius", genius...
Stu, get lost with your childish axioms like 'adaptive management'. What a load of cock and bull. You seem to think that humans can patch up the biosphere as we are taking it apart at the seams. Your band-aid approach won't be worth a damn in the face of collapsing ecosystems, fraying food webs and obliterated ecological services. That you cannot understand the notion of humans conducting an unwitting experiment on nature reflects your isidious stupidity.
I'd love a list of the scientists you claim are luminaries who see the world through the same myopic filter as you. I have yet to meet any of them and I go to many conferences where colleagues are well aware of the scale of the predicament. They'd not know whether to laugh or cry at someone who claims that its OK to stay the course because we can 'adaptively manage' the vast assaults our species is inflicting across the biosphere. Again, utter drivel.
You talk about benevolent global dictatorships at a time when the planet is in the grip of a neoliberal, corporate dictatorship. Read what climate scientist David Cromwell at Medialens says about the predicament. Its dire:
http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2017/836-derang…
Indian write Amitov Ghosh rightfully calls the current situation in a corporate-climate changing world as ''The Great Derangement". By derganged he means that humanity must be out of its collective mind to be intent on heading down a path of climate chaos and environmental destruction in full knowledge of the ramifications. Clearly Ghosh, like many of my scientific colleagues, is unaware of your 'adaptive management' approach to this madness.
I have better things to do than to continue engaging in discourse morons on issues beyond their competence. Good luck with your efforts to 'manage' complex adaptive systems in the face of a massive human assault.
Hardley - "someone who claims that its OK to stay the course"
There it is..."stay the course"....Stu never said any such thing, but there it is!
Well done Hardley, seeing things that don't exist.... that scientific mind of yours is shining brightly.
Just think, if Hardely consistently believes he saw something in writing that was never written, and draws a conclusion from it (because he wants it to be true)....imagine what he believes he is seeing in his research (and drawing conclusions on) because he wants it to be true...
Just remember...he's a scientist.
Does anyone see a pattern here?
Looks like Hardley is having a hard time controlling himself.....next thing you know, he will believe he said something he didn't say and start calling himself a moron..
Hardley - "I have better things to do than to continue engaging in discourse"
Hardley - " I am not going to waste any more of my valuable time."
Hardley - "Why I bother with his sandbox level discourse with you idiots is a mystery."
Hardley - "why I waste my time on ignorant people"
Hardley - "The reason I don’t really want to engage much with you is because"
Hardley - "wonder why I degrade myself and waste my time responding"
Jeff.
Just Google 'adaptive management'.
How interesting that you're now pretending that environmental science has nothing at all to with the concept.
Perhaps you don't meet any of them at conferences because they're actually out in the real world, working with real people and actually 'doing something about it'.
Or maybe they go to different conferences?
Who knows why you are now trying to argue that these highly qualified people don't exist?
Revegetating landscapes that have been overcleared is just one example of what they do.
And I pointed out that your 'pet theory' of some type of benevolent global dictatorship based on a great global experiment using 'environmental economics' is NOT WORKING.
So your comment regarding that is strange to say the very least.
Whole nations, via the ballot box, are opting out.
It's got nothing to do with 'neo liberalism' or 'a great derangement'.
Neither has it got anything to do with people's ability to care about matters environmental.
It's 'maladaptive' for humanity and the environment.
It's NOT WORKING.
It's way past time to stop flogging that dead high horse that you're riding on with your big stick.
You're also metaphorically flogging people, some of them highly qualified scientists, who care deeply about 'the environment'.
It's time to focus on what does work and build on those management strategies always keeping in mind that systems are indeed 'adaptive' including human systems.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axiom
BTW.
Speaking of 'childish axioms'.
I would suggest that terms such as 'great derangement', 'conducting a non repeatable experiment' comparisons with life support machines, ' in the grip of neoliberal corporate dictatorship' & etc are about as childishly axiomatic as it gets.
'Adaptive management' however is an academic term used by environmental scientists to explain the concept of humans learning together as they work together in the environment.
It's the sort axiom that adults use.
Hardley, this from your link @16 - "we are now faced with severe, human-induced climate instability and catastrophic loss of species"
Did he say "catastophic" Hardley? Strange, because we all know that "invoking the term ‘catastrophe’ is a feeble attempt to push the debate to extremes." Your words Hardley, not mine....
Now, go ahead and argue with yourself over what you said...
Just to alert you, folks. Paul Offit of all people has written an anti-Rachel Carson editorial on the Daily Beast. Apparently, it is part a promotion of an upcoming book he is releasing in April.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/04/how-rachel-carson-cost…
This one?
The headline certainly sounds 'anti -Rachel Carson' but the content is not.
I'm not convinced yet, but given the poor method used in Karl's paper in the combination with the first hand witness from Dr. Bates, it seems more meaty than Jeff's "first hand spider".
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-da…
Yes Olaus, Hardley had his thumb on the spider and Karl had his "thumb on the scale"...
Remember, they are the scientists, so we aren't capable of noticing or commenting on such complicated scientific techniques...
As well as seeing and arguing with what isn't there Jeff doesn't see what is there.
I'm still stunned by his post @#16 where he's attempting to argue that 'adaptive management' isn't recognised by 'science'.
Whats that word in the title here Betula?
Starts with an S.
And it dont stand for shithead.
Which means shitheadedness is off topic.
All i see is one big long bit of trolling from
you.
This is the anonomous internet.
You can choose to be anything you want.
Any character. Any personality.
And you choose to be shithead.
My suggestion to you is, start talking science
or fuck off. Pronto.
I fucking hate trolling bastards who get their
jollies from interupting and manipulating dialog.
I dont read Deltoid on Scienceblogs for your
shit. Savvy?
#21
Catastrophic is absolutly the applicable term.
Anyone who disagrees is unfamiliar with
the process in play.
Li D - "Catastrophic is absolutly the applicable term"
Strange Li D, when I used the word "catastrophic", and here was Hardley's reply...
Hardley the scientist - “invoking the term ‘catastrophe’ is a feeble attempt to push the debate to extremes.”
So this is where you tell Hardley, he " Is unfamiliar with
the process in play".,,,correct?
Tell you what. When the Deltoidians stop being liars and hypocrites, I'll stop pointing it out....
Let's see if you can handle it.
Olas Putrid @ #24links to the madness that is queen Curry not knowing that Bates has form or that his arguments are fatuous.
One could linbk to a number of debunkings but this is good one as within is not only the truth about (dear) John Bates but also valuable links to '...and then There's Physics' and 'The Great White Con' of Jim Hunt.
Follow links at that latter to become aware of the official complaints levelled at such as the Mail (Daily, On Sunday or On Line) and Telegraph to appreciate what a lying, devious bunch they are.
We keep thinking that J Curry has hit bottom but she keeps proving such assumptions wrong and that is all she is able to prove.
Interesting comments thread beneath this excellent Carbon Brief article: Factcheck: Mail on Sunday’s ‘astonishing evidence’ about global temperature rise
wherein one Bart_R answers the stupid “Earth is doing what it as always done change.” I had presented to me earlier today.
Question.
In a microwave oven, do water
molecules re emit the microwaves?
I stay away from the denying trolls on here for a few days and what do I see when I get back? Swedish meatless ball linking to the blog of a washed up has-been (Judith Curry). Her research dried up several years ago, so in a desperate attempt to stay in the limelight she cozies up to a vile pile of liars.
She is dismissed. Irrelevant. Obsolete.
Hardley - "She is dismissed. Irrelevant. Obsolete"
When Hardley can't counter, he slips into the Monty Python Parrot skit....
A true sign of a brilliant scientist.
What Old-Putrid missed:
Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source
Now for Putrid's edification:
#climate100.
Ha!
I'm surprised Jeff hasn't returned with a dissertation that argues, with nothing other than conjecture and personal opinion, that John Cleese would've changed his mind.
:-)
Default, shorter Hardley!!
Against your over self-complacent ego-selfish misrepresentation of an ill-mannered wannabe pseudoscentist without basic education in meteorology and atmospheric physics stands as a landmark Prof. Judith Curry, who is famous, well known for her exuberant expertise in atmospheric science and totally respected and heard by American Congress. And YOU, Hardley? Who are YOU, Hardley?? YOU are a completely unknown, totally irrelevant village idiot who spies his toxic vile in endles fits of partizan green-soci fundamentalim onto decent scientists.
You Hardley as well as clown Lionel F, who is a poor airplane wing service screw driver, but mischieves himself as an incompetent naked climate layman, are both troubled brats from spoiled families. Listen you two idiots: your personal contribution to progress, growth, wisdom of modern society is ridiculously negative and self-damaging: you are a decadent shame for mankind.
Funny how Kim claims I am unknown when my scientific papers have outcited Curry's in recent years... my h factor (41) is only one behind Curry's despite the fact that she had a 12 year head start on my career... and so on and so forth. And as a former Associate Editor at Nature, I am far from unknown. So you asinine morons can keep throwing insults in your desperate efforts to dismiss me. Curry is your pin up girl because she's thrown in her lot with liars and shills as her career fades, in a last ditch effort to retain relevance. As for testifying before Congress, so have Monckton and Steyn, two of the biggest buffoons out there, so this is hardly a ringing endoresement.
The scientific debate is over. I am not the outiier anyway. Curry is. That's why you idiots defend her.
Poor Hardley, wanting so much to believe he's relevant and nobody seems to care...
Look at the bright side Hardley, you will always have your hyperparasitoid minions to cheer you on...
WhoTF is Lionel F?
Whatever, kim demonstrates that he is as ignorant of matters aviation (with as silly a thought as Birchers spider - that is another sad git) as he is of everything else. Probably failed grade school, no more like a kindergarten fail.
Message for kim, just when we all thought Curry couldn't debase herself further she joins up with a Bates to feed the ego of David Rose. How kim missed all this is amazing given the exposure here and at many other places.
Look at it this way Betula - I am a million times more relevant than you and Kim, which I know isn't that hard. You two idiots are completely anonymous nobodies. And after co-reviewing Lomborg's book for Nature I became well known in many circles, which is a helluva lot more than can be said for you, a tree pruner. Kim won'teven tell us what he does for a living, which is illuminating.
Lionel shows how relevant Curry is, as she continues her journey to oblivion. The fact that the dwindling population of deniers relies on her and a few other aging washed up scientists is further proof of their desperation. Indeed, were I to meet Curry I would ask her if she is proud to be supported by an army of idiotic fools like Kim, Betula and Olaus. I would tell her that her fanclub essentially consists of right wing illiterates. But I am sure that she knows this but feels that any adoration is better than none. How pathetic.
I am at a scientific conference right now, so I don't intend to waste much more energy on the illiterati here. But just for the record: last week Greenland broke its al time February temperature record by 4 C. New York City and Washington
DC broke temperature records in February. Much of the Arctic experienced its third winter 'heat wave' this season, with temperatures as much as 30 C above normal. Ice extent at both poles is at record lows with the Arctic situation an evolving disaster. Australia experienced an unprecedented heat wave with temperatures exceeding 40 C over much of the country and Sydney recording its warmest ever day.
Against the empirical evidence the deniers persist. The scientific community by and large is on one side and the illiterati is on the other. The few morons who write in here desperately try - and of course fail - to give the impression that my views are extreme and outside of the consensus. But of course my views are a part of the consensus. My big mistake is in giving attention to the Kim's and Betula's et al. who are desperate for it. Its a fair point.
Well, since Hardley insists on bringing up the weather, it can't hurt to tell you the skiing here on the east coast has been outstanding, though I did find a spider in my house......killed it.
Look at this idiot "Harvey": But just for the record: last week Greenland broke its al time February temperature record by 4 C. New York City and Washington
DC broke temperature records in February. Much of the Arctic experienced its third winter ‘heat wave’ this season, with temperatures as much as 30 C above normal. Ice extent at both poles is at record lows with the Arctic situation an evolving disaster. Australia experienced an unprecedented heat wave with temperatures exceeding 40 C over much of the country and Sydney recording its warmest ever day.
Against the empirical evidence the deniers persist.
HE IS 100% illiterate even in postmodern pseudo-"climatology" . If Hardley knew anything he would know that he hallucinates about weather, but as he is a total fool, full of green-ecosoci vile he cannot better.
Listen Hardley, as you only dispose of utter pimitive copy "knowledge" of your ideology-driven eco fundamentlists in politicized pseudo-science (the guys don't even know how to setup a decent experimental design in order to study something primitive as temperatures): the whole level of these crap "scientists" is such abimonably catastrophic hilarious that more intelligentic people get only constant nausea.
Your insect conference has a scientific value and relevance to the AGW speculation of exactly ZERO, but you will not understand because your insane mental state does not allow this, idiot
kim has to be a Poe unless there are people stupid enough to evacuate #45 with self belief in which case trees and fungi are massively more intelligent.
The weather/ climate is not an althetic or swimming event at the Olympic Games and it shouldn't be reported that way. It's unrealistic.
At the same time as we were experiencing a summer heat wave of plus 40 temps in parts of Australia, there were other places on the globe experiencing minus 40 temps.
Neither are 'unprecedented'.
I was away at a 'conference' too. Where I live it was 47 one day, where I was (still in AUS) it was a pleasant 31.
The birds and the trees and the insects and the fungi were all fine with it in both places.
They don't read the weather reports.
They aren't even slightly interested in conforming to 'averages' or 'breaking records' or following 'trends'.
In some ways Lionel, they are smarter than us.
They don't lose their cool in the heat.
They're not trying to 'tease out' a trend in the weather records.
They couldn't give two hoots about 'computer modeling' or human politics or economics.
They don't have mortgages.
In other words.
The 'unprecedented' obsession with the weather is not 'doing something about' or benefiting 'the environment'.
Who or what ends up being the beneficiaries of this 'unprecedented' obsession?????
What are they genuinely 'doing something about it'????
So Stu, playing the plonker again. Weather events are way past requiring trends to be teased out.
How nice for you that weather is as it should be for you. Take a trip to Spain or other places in Europe, just by way of example, and ask around there. Warning you may have to dodge the punches and brickbats from farmers pushed to the limit. You tosser!
I have been there & I have talked to the farmers Lionel.
They're being pushed to the limit by endless bureaucratic and political red tape/green tape/flouro tape.
They're good honest people who have had a gutful of the 'unprecedented obsession' with the weather/climate.
I actually think you may benefit from getting out and about some more Lionel.
Go talk to some real farmers and real regional/rural communities right across the globe.
Instead of asking stupid questions, Stu2, why not have a look at the time series that are presented here:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=t…
Take especial note of "warm nights" and "cool nights".
You could also have a look here, scroll to the bottom of the page:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records
Over the last year, 170 new "hot" records have been set.
Over the same period, 12 new "cold" records have been set.
When 14 new hot records are being set for every new cold record, you should be able to figure out that something is up....
....and instead of referring to imaginary farmers, Stu2, why not consider the fact that nobody is more aware of the reality of climate change than farmers are.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/farmers-wa…
Craig.
I am not saying that there are no changes or anything else along those lines.
The point of contention is that 'doing something about it'.
I'm very sorry to see that this site has lost the plot in this regard.
Unfortunately for most who do live and work outside of the urban areas, and that definitely includes farmers and their support communities, it's quite clear that 'environmentalism' and the Greens have been hijacked by politics and no longer focus on the 'real environment'.
And 'imaginary farmers'?
Really?
http://www.farmonline.com.au/story/4325760/nff-modernises-climate-chang…
This is the part that is played by the group you have linked to:
"The policy shift also coincided with Farmers for Climate Action joining the NFF as an associate member where they are not permitted to vote at meetings but can sit at the table and be part of committees."
Take note that they are an associate member only and can't vote.
Take note of these comments as well:
"“Everybody else seems very eager to say, ‘we’ve got a problem with climate change and the way that we’ll deal with it is to put a caveat on people in the country’,” he said.
“But you can’t say that you’re going to fix the problem that you’re ventilating, with my private asset.
“That is, you don’t fix climate change by taking away my vegetation rights because that means that you don’t want to do it with your money, you just want to do it with mine.
“If you truly accept responsibility you need to show your acceptance by paying for it out of your own wallet, not somebody else’s.”
&
" The NFF recognises that climate change poses a significant challenge for Australian farmers.
As a nation, we must act to ensure that our economy is well placed to cost efficiently reduce our national greenhouse gas emissions profile.
Australian agriculture has always operated in a varied and challenging climate.
The continued success of the Australian agriculture sector will depend on our ability to build on this foundation, and continue to innovate and adapt to best manage future climatic risks and to reduce the emissions intensity of our production systems.
There is great opportunity for Australian agriculture to contribute to our national emissions reduction goals.
This opportunity requires innovation to reduce the emissions intensity and to enable farmers to efficiently participate in carbon markets.
It is critical that the suite of government policies that seek to address the challenge of climate change are fully examined, to ensure that the policy levers of government work cohesively to achieve our national objectives, while minimising the risk of unintended or perverse outcomes."
As I said upthread, farmers worldwide have been pushed to the limit by endless political and bureaucratic red/green/flouro tape.
They've always been used to working with the seasons/weather/climate/environment/markets and etc & dealing with the associated risks.
Instead of working with these people, "Environmentalist' Politics and the Greens have successfully alienated them!
No good IMHO.
Been where? Why do I ask, because there is a disconnect between this:
and the realities that have hit home in the recent past which has the same underlying causes as the danger to that Oroville Dam in Northern California.
And I think you will benefit by studying more on what is happening around the globe and why. I don't need to get out and about, even if I could, to see the big picture because I have taken the trouble to study the many faceted small pieces that make that picture up. So don't you lecture me dumbass - the seasons ain't what they used to be (fact) and nature is having trouble keeping up with the discontinuities that phenological disruptions cause where different but co-reliant species, geographically or otherwise separated, respond to very different environmental triggers for mutually important developmental events.
That has little to do with red tape. Besides, like fishermen who complain about fish quotas, many do not understand that the limits placed on production by changing climates, and/or over-harvesting (monoculture and associated not in the long term best interest practices) are what they are coming up against and where some 'red-tape' is necessary to prevent the worst excesses of a culture where short term profit is king, where the message in the fable 'The Goose that Laid the Golden Eggs' has long been forgotten.
Sigh :-(
Lionel.
I have been 'to Spain and other places around Europe' and I have talked to Farmers.
Contrary to your assertions they are fully aware of the 'goose'.
Of course some 'red tape' is necessary.
What you apparently don't understand is that the 'red tape brigade' see agriculture as their 'goose'.
People in rural and regional areas are getting sick of it and not appreciating the increasing risks it imposes on them.
Stupid,
Besides geese, you are missing the 'black swans'.
When you figured out the connection of those to what I am on about and climate change then get back - 'till then you have much research to conduct. You are missing the points.
No Lionel.
I have not missed the point.
I have spoken to Farmers in Spain and other places in Europe.
There were no instances where I had to dodge punches or brickbats.
Nothing has changed here. Think of all you could have gotten done over the last year if you had stopped arguing with the trolls in this distant corner of the web where few go.
I'll check in against next year. Ta ta.
Ianam has a very good point. I just returned from a Gordon Conference on Plant-Insect Interactions and climate change was a major theme. Strangely enough, in speaking with many of the 200 plus scientists in attendance, I could not find a single one who claimed that AGW was either overblown or not happening. Given the brainless morons who write in here (Betulq, Kim, Stu), one would think that my views were well outside the scientific mainstream and that contrarians were in the majority. Betula and Kim are written off, complete blowhard know nothings embedded in Dunning-Kruger infested ignorance, but Stu is even worse, because he tries to package his bullshit with an academic veneer.
He writes, "At the same time as we were experiencing a summer heat wave of plus 40 temps in parts of Australia, there were other places on the globe experiencing minus 40 temps".
So what? The surface temperature over the planet as a whole is well above the historical average, with warm temperature records being broken at a much higher rate than cold temperature records. The cryosphere looks terrifying, with Arctic ice extent some 2 standard deviations below average for this time of the year; Canada recorded its warmest ever January and globally is was the 3rd warmest. February looks set to be even warmer still, with warm weather records tumbling across much of the northern hemisphere as well as across much of Australia rewcently. All Stu can wheedle out are arguments downplaying what is turning into a calamity by suggesting that our species can 'adaptively manage' fraying food webs, collapsing ecosystems and the current mass extinction event in ways that somehow protect our civilization from the loss of conditions that permit us to exist and to persist.
Of course I know about thew term 'adaptive management' but most systems and population ecologists realize that humanity cannot adaptively manage complex systems that we barely understand as they unravel around us.
Stu is as utterly stupid as his nickname suggests. he does not read any of the empirical literature and somehow tries to thrust the flaws of a rapaciously out of control capitalist system onto 'greens' who have absolutely no political power.
I told colleagues at the conference about some of the views espoused by the trolls on here and their mouths were agape, aside from the laughter. The most funny thing that Betula, Kim, and Olaus try is to suggest that, because I am the only scientist who writes in here, that somehow my views on climate change are somehow 'extreme' and lie well outside of the scientific mainstream (whereas the opposite, of course, is true). Heck, Betula appears to think that the scientific support for AGW lies exclusively on this blog; if the blog shuts down, then that shows that AGW is false and that the deniers win.
As I have said before, every reputable scientific conference in which AGW is discussed is attended by scientists who largely agree on the causes of GW and of the importance to mitigate GHC. I say 'reputable' because shindigs organized by the GWP{F and Heartland Foundation don't count: those vile gatherings have pre-determined views and will never, ever, acknowledge the scientific truth. Moreover, as I have have said until I am tired of saying it, every National Academy in every nation on Earth, representing tens of thousands of scientists, acknowledges both the reality of AGW and the need to urgently address it. On top of that are the views of every major scientific organiztion e.g. the American Geophysicists union, The American Meteorological Society, NASA, NOAA, AAAS, etc, all of which share the views of the National Academies. And note how the trolls on here continually ignore these facts. Well, except Kim, who is so desperate to ignore the truth that he thinks it goes away by putting a solid line through it. He's beyond pathetic.
But ianam is correct. Hence why I will spend more time on other blogs like Hot Whopper, Stoat, Rabett Run, And then There's Physics, etc., where Kim and Betula will be tarred, feathered and sent packing. I am sure that Tim (Lambert) must cringe when he sees that intellectual level of the morons who have taken over his blog.
Jeff.
You're very busy worrying about and writing long comments about what you think other people think.
It's amusing to read.
Just because you're a 'scientist' who goes to 'conferences,' doesn't mean anything other than you''re a scientist who goes to scientific conferences.
As you say. 'So what'?
Your 'views' re global socio-economic politics are not 'scientific'.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2017/02/anthony-watts-publishes-another.html…
Jeff, I wouldn't be too concerned about what Tim thinks about Deltoid. I suspect that he uses it as both an archive and a fly trap for the Denialati.
I also suspect that Tim has a far greater (positive) influence in other areas of the global climate change response than most appreciate, but that's just my own surmising from snippets of evidence...
There goes Bernard....suspecting and surmising but never really knowing.
Deltoid at it's best.
Can anyone here imagine Hardley walking around a conference sharing his Deltoid ramblings with "fellow" scientists.
They must see him coming a mile away and run in the other direction...
Hardley, listen, you are constantly trapped by wrong feelings, wrong decisions, wrong beliefs, wrong information you believe in etc. and way too unintelligent to understand that you are trapped and why you are trapped in self-deception. One of your most erroneous self-perceptions is that you think you are a scientist, because you are NO scientist (it does not matter that you look at insects and plants, a lot of housewives also do) as you are totally unable, as driven by destructive green-socialo political activism, to know what science really is: ANYBODY OF THE IDIOTS INTENTIONALLY BY OBSCURE MOTIVATIONS OR NAIVELY BELIEVING IN ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING IS BY DEFINITION AN ANTI-SCIENTIST, BUT POLITICAL ACTIVIST with strong narcistic motivation of not-deserved public attention. As the small unimportant mentally limited being just keep silent with your central ridiculous belief: ut is getting warmer.
Hardley firmly believes that it is getting warmer, because of more CO2 from human civilization and he believes that a lot of people and insects are threatened to find death in a few hundred years, and he therefore blathers about his corrupt ecosystem services crap. Stop this, Hardley, as it putrifies your miserably misguided life. Hardley believes in AGW although he never has never done temperature readings. HARDLEY, YOU HAVE NEVER LOOKED AT ONE SINGLE THERMOMETER THAT WAS USED BY THE GREEN FUNDAMENTALISTS IN CRU, NOAA AND GISS TO FAKE A SO CALLED GLOBAL TEMPERATURE.
HARDLEY, why do you believe in something that you have not studied?
Fact 1: Hardley had absolutely no clue, what temperature really is, but he does not like warmer temperatures (my advice: go to live in Greenland, it's very cold there, believe me, you idiot)
Fact 2: Hardley has absolutely no clue why and how we humans perceive warmth, how are body functions to deal with warmth: Hardley is totally illiterate how the human brain and the whole body's physiolgy works: this moron talks about things without even a minimum of education, like the other full-trolled idiot here "LIONELL F", who looks at different bolts on airplane wings, but mis-perceives himself as somebody with knowledge were he has ZERO but only strong ideological beliefs about matters where he wants political change to the evil and destruction. Lionel should stop trolling here and wasting his miserable lifetime in permanent idiotic behavior.
Hardley, Linel listen and take note: The influence of increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere on air temperatures in 2m above the ground or above the ocean surface cannot be measured. Simpletons like you are way too silly to understand this. Not a single NATIONAL SCIENTIFIC ACADEMY could measure the impact of rising human CO2 on air temperatures in 2m above the ground or the water: THEREFORE ALL THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ON AGW IS PURE SHIT.
Hardley, why do you constantly eclipse your personal hiatus in your life why you hide your activities between age 18 and 34 in your CV? Did you carry a undecent life in jail, as a junky, or only as a toilet cleaner or taxi driver, or like Linnelo you have looked at metal surfaces and studied different bolts????
Hardley start to try to show a minumum of honesty and stop the lies about your life.
Ah, the irony.
The only "irony" is in your imagination Bernard, which is why you can't point to an actual example....just more surmising on your part.
Ah, Deltoid,
kim needs a new buzz phrase generator, the one he is using ATM is demonstrating chaotic behaviour.
And yes, metallurgy is one area that intersected with my career in aviation, but then that was just part two of a full life which continued to involve study in fresh fields.
I wonder what the sum total of your achievements are, hindered as you are with the use, or more correctly, misuse of language let alone incoherence of thought.
You need to be re-injected into the start of the learning process and learn to learn. Shame that time machines are impossible so even that is not open to you.
Your #68 is from classic knowledge envy. You have not progressed far along the 'data — information — knowledge — understanding — wisdom continuum' being stuck somewhere between the first two stages.
It's the year 2107, it's still January, and there's been 1 comment going on 4 days.....If this isn't a dead blog, then what is?
Poor Hardley, his baby is gone...
What will he have to talk about at conferences?
One of my Tweeps dropped this on my timeline today:
http://www.ekuriren.se/sormland/the-secret-swedish-troll-factory/
It recalls some of the vituperation from Deltoid's Swedish Collective, bravely supported by the scientific ignorance of the the other climate change deniers here. The thing is, a lot of it is straight from the Bumper Bannon Book for Breaking the Planet.
Betula, you're posting here. It isn't dead.
By the way, how's the Arctic sea ice? Or, closer to the neighbourhood of Deltoid, the Great Barrier Reef? What about the effectively extinct Tasmania kelp forests? Or the reeling Carpentaria mangrovesOr the Carpentaria mangroves?
Why do you and the rest of the anti-science knucukle-draggers here hate the planet and its ecosystems so much that you're happy to consign so much of our biodiversity to imminent extinction purely to hold on a few years longer to your conservative fairytale of libertarian infallibility?
Why does actual learning not stick to the teflon of the ganglion hibernating inside your skull, and that serves as an imitation of a brain?
Oh for the good old days when SB had a preview.
Your question @#74 is complete tosh.
Trillions are being spent world wide on monitoring and managing places like the GBR.
People do not hate the planet and its ecosystems.
Why are you asking such supremely stupid, unproductive, questions?
Berntard and Linol are the typical naked laymen in atmospheric sciences (no education at all) with cherrypicking Dunning-Kruger habits to pick up from google what pleases their predefined political ideology. Both are typical red herrings and logical fallacies as shorter Hardley with his crapped adoration of illusioned ecosystem seargents.
Stu 2.
We're not "managing" the GBR - in case you haven't noticed, it's rapidly degrading.
"Trillions"? Care to itemise that claim?
It's a real question. It's not only the GBR that is degrading, but just about every other ecosystem on the planet. This cannot go on indefinitely, and it cannot even go on for many more decades before the elastic resilience of these ecosystems fails. And yet humanity continues on its path of destruction.
So why do humans seem to be so hell-bent on shitting their only nest in the universe?
Kim (love your name play by the way - so clever; you must be proud), I have more degrees and (tertiary) diplomas than a hobbit has meals in a day. I note too that you are using many observations that I have for years applied to you and your ilk. It seems to be a trend lately - imintation apparently is the sincerest form of flattery.
Anyway, here's the thing: you can bluster and deny science all you like, but the laws of physics will win in the end, no matter how much you attempt to sweep the evidence under the carpet. I hope that you're not one of the angry retired old men crowd, because if you see a few more decades before you turn back to dust you'll get to see the growing incontrovertibility of climate change and the huge damage that warming is causing, and will continue to cause. I really hope that you get to see that.
And I hope that one day in the distant future, when you feel your heart start to falter and the painfulness of your last breath squeezes your chest in the vice grip of impending death, that you remember your support for not doing our best to save the Holocene climate and ecology of the planet. I hope that the profound awfulness of this realisation scours your soul until it sputters and extinguishes for all time: that your final moments are ones of abject anguish and terrible understanding of your failure as a decent human being.
Because that would be justice. It won't help the planet, unfortunately, but it would be justice.
Hi Bernard, As you know, I have more scientific qualifications in my little pinky on my left hand than Kim and Betula have in their wildest dreams, let alone in their physical seleves...
Betula is more a right wing loon that leads him to display bouts of confirmation bias... Stu thinks that a tweak here and a tweak there will readily repair fraying food webs and collapsing ecosystems, and KIm is literally insane, putting it mildly. He is too deluded to truly be considered a sociopath, but veers off into psychotic territory... the only reason I engage with him/her/it is to elucidate some form of perverse comic relief....
And as the planet slides inexorably towards hell, watch these vile examples of humanity scream the loudest when the shit well and truly hits the fan.
Just read Kim's rants above and the English grammar is so utterly appalling that it begs the question: from where is he writing this drivel? Certainly a padded cell somewhere, but that's as far as i can go...
And there is Betula again intimating that the death of Deltoid somehow is evidence that discussions on AGW and global change are over.... sheesh, what an idiot.
After shorter Hardley no also tiny Berntard starts praising non-existing ecoshit servlings: can you morons stop this utter crap. You will never understand that bacteria grow in any circumstances be it hot or cold requiring only water. Water is on this planet before assholes like you over-complacent with your minority complexes of born loosers how have exactly zero impact on anything you intend to spoil and vile with your insane psychotic crap of illusioned morality which is not but decadent behavior of mentally incapable and hopelessly retarded non-significants. People like Betula or Stu 2, of course Olaus, not to speak of myself, are infnitely superior in any significant and important aspect of modern life, because we represent the strong future-oriented direction of mankind whereas you whiners and cowards go to bed, get constantly ill about things you cannot cope with and dive into your personal nirwana of no-future for yourself but not mankind without assholes like you. You better throw your stinking Dunning Kruger vile on yourself and hang yourself on the next tree. Nobody will miss angry idiots like you. Get out here, you insane trolls or I will call Tim to throw you out now.
What makes Kim so hilarious to read is not only his pathological, vile ignorance, but the fact that he/she/it does not understand the concept behind the Dunning-Kruger effect. Betula doesn't either. The authors set out to show that the less a person knows about a specific field of endeavour, the more they think that they know. Kim and Betula are textbook examples. Neither has any pedigree or expertise in any relevant fields, yet they write as if they are statured experts.
Take Kim's whimsically vacuous comments about ecosystem services. This is an area I do research, because it is related to my academic training in population and evolutionary ecology. Kim won't tell us what he does except to say, in appalling English, that he and a few other untrained outliers here are 'infinitely superior' (in his words) to me, Bernard, and thousands of other scholars who have been to university and research the relevant fields for a living. One of the important tenets of science when evaluating the credibility of an argument is to 'follow the credentials' (Pimm and Harvey, 2001). The vast majority of climate change deniers on blogs and online - people like Kim - have no relevant education. If they did, oh yes, we'd know ALL about it. Deniers plaster the credentials of the odd scientist whose arguments they like over the entire blogosphere - look at Judith Curry. Her publication record is strong but not exceptional, and certainly not as strong as mine, but in the eyes of the deniers she is a bonafide legend, simply because she is one of very few statured scientists who denies or at least downplays AGW.
And what about the vast majority of scientists - certainly well over 90% - who believe that AGW IS real and is a real threat? They get the Kim/Betula et al treatment. This means that attempts are made to 'isolate them from the herd'; on Deltoid, Betula and Kim are masters of trying to give the impression that the scientific debate lies between them, Olaus, me, Lionel and Bernard. Forget the fact that every major scientific organization and National Academy on Earth affirms the reality of AGW, this is ritually ignored and the debate comes back to the confines of Deltoid. The second ploy is to relentlessly smear, ridicule and berate your opponents. Bernard and I have more qualifications in our little fingers than Kim, Betula and Olaus do in your combined body masses; indeed, these three deniers HAVE NO RELEVANT QUALIFICATIONS. I will gladly tell Kim why I studied at a later age if he will first tell me what he does for a living (without lying, of course, which is a ritualistic behaviour among deniers).
Now back to Dunning-Kruger. Kim habitually ridicules the concept of ecosystem services - by now a core subject in economic and ecological courses in universities around the world. So what expertise does he possess in the field? Well, you guessed it - NONE! So that places him at the base of the x axes (near the junction of the x and y axes on the D-K graph, in the know-nothing area) whereas on the y-axis he would be placed very high, reflecting high confidence. Pure D-K effect; a textbook example. And in keeping with that, he is so utterly stupid that he doesn't know that he is stupid, also explained in D-K presentations. Once again, a textbook case of the D-K effect. Also, I would like to see proof of his 'infinitely superior intelligence' in the form of bonafide qualifications e.g. a PhD degree, or some other example of his relevant education. He has none, so he is left to tell the world how utterly brilliant he is without the letters after his name to prove it.
With respect to Tm, he is a friend on Facebook and we have exchanged posts. So Kim, if anyone is going to be banned, its you. If I write to Tim and tell him to ban you, he WILL do it. The only reason I have not done so thus far is because your posts are so utterly hilarious and vacuously ignorant that I copy-paste some of them and show them to my students and colleagues to prove that there are deranged people in the world. And your posts provide me with comic relief.
Bernard's vision of the future is his absolution.... and If you question the vision, you have thus created the vision, so he hopes you live to see the vision...and then die a painful death.
A true visionary.
Hardley - "And there is Betula again intimating that the death of Deltoid somehow is evidence that discussions on AGW and global change are over…. sheesh, what an idiot"
First of all, this is a "science" blog, not an AGW blog...
Second, only a true idiot could imagine that Deltoid and it's 4 to 5 followers actually carries any weight when it comes to discussions about science.
Yes Hardley, you are that one true idiot... and remember, you're the scientist.
Bernard J @#78.
You got something right.
Your poor attitude and vitriol will do absolutely nothing to help the planet.
I would suggest that attitude is greatly assisting poor behaviour.
The GBR and Ove's studies have been receiving significant funding for at least 2 decades.
Worldwide, funding for WH listed sites like the GBR , over the last 3 decades has reached the trillions.