January 2014 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Bernard J.
    January 11, 2014

    We have a live one gentlemen.

    Watching The Deniers is hosting an extinction denier:

    http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/11/16/open-thread-november/#comment-57158

  2. #2 BBD
    January 11, 2014

    Ah, extinction denial. Wonderful. One wonders what planet these folks are living on…

  3. #3 chek
    January 11, 2014

    One wonders what planet these folks are living on

    Having spent the day reading the Grauniad’s environment blogs – Dana N’s here and here – (the latter featuring some input from our friend Brangelina, proving the only thing he’s learnt in his monthe away is how to be even more know-nothing specious than the version we experienced) one hopes the Kock Bros will be magnanimous enough to open homes for the terminally bewildered and shit-fer-brains “independentally minded” … er…”thinkers” their activities have created in furtherance of heir interests, across the globe.

    Although realistically, I think Charlie’n’Dave will be thinking the dumbfiux can go … look after themselves..

  4. #4 BBD
    January 12, 2014

    Chek

    Yup.

    Some mood music.

  5. #5 Betula
    January 12, 2014

    Extinction denial – Not believing Deltoid is a dying blog.

  6. #6 chek
    January 12, 2014

    Extinction denial – Not believing Bettys are a dying phenomenon..

    Fixed that for ya Betty.

  7. #7 Betula
    January 12, 2014
  8. #8 BBD
    January 12, 2014

    Listen to the music, Betty. It was as much for you as Chek.

  9. #9 BBD
    January 12, 2014

    Fuck me, Betty, we agree on something. Thanks for the link.

  10. #10 BBD
    January 12, 2014

    Never heard a steel stringer channel Van Halen before.

    ;-)

  11. #11 Betula
    January 12, 2014

    An agreement has been made. You’re welcome.

  12. #12 BBD
    January 12, 2014

    Are you a guitarist, Betty?

  13. #13 Betula
    January 12, 2014

    I do play, but not much. My son is the guitar player in the family. You?

  14. #14 BBD
    January 12, 2014

    Yes, for fun. I wouldn’t misrepresent myself as a musician, but I can fool the non-guitarists in the room.

  15. #15 Jeff Harvey
    January 12, 2014

    I prefer metal shred guitar myself – Nuno Betterncourt, Joe Stump, Corbin King, and thrash guitarists like Kerry King, the late great Jeff Hanneman, Alex Skolnick, Rick ‘Scythe’ Sprague, Nige Rockett, Phil Demmel and the Meshuggah guys. I own 6 guitars, my favorites being my two Deans (Michael Amott and Dave Mustaine models) and Jackson (Phil Demmel model). I play 1-2 hours a day, and have down tuned my Jackson to B to produce the heaviest riffs.

    Glad we’ve all found a shared passion!

  16. #16 Lionel A
    Southern England
    January 12, 2014

    In my younger days I was in to The Shadows and others of the era, then I moved onto Classical and some Romantic.

    Nowadays I am more into Baroque (also the classical guitar – John Williams), Lute (Nigel North who was himself inspired by the Shadows), Mandolin and Theorbo, with the addition of Violin (and in tromba marina), Viola da Gamba, Viola d’amore, harpsichord.

    Vivaldi – Fabio Biondi & Europa Gallante tops with English Concert Orchestra lead by Trevore Pinnock or Andrew Manze and with Rachel Podger, or Manze with The Academy of Ancient Music.

    Telemann – Elizabeth Wallfisch & L’Orfeo Barockorchestra
    or Reinhard Goebel & Musica Antiqua Köln

    Locatelli- Elizabeth Wallfisch & The Raglan Baroque Players

    Albinoni

    Marcello

    I could link to some charming pieces if interest.

    I would take up the Lute myself but gouty fingers may be a problem, a good Lute is also v.expensive (as are the period Violins etc., played by the top musicians such as those mentioned above) and being short of puff from heart attacks my alternative the flute or recorder, once played, are now tough.

  17. #17 BBD
    January 12, 2014

    I remember you saying you were a shreddie merchant, Jeff, but I had no idea you had a Dean thing going! I have a couple of Ibanez (plur??) for general use, and just for laffs, one of these for the mad stuff.

    ;-)

  18. #18 Betula
    January 12, 2014

    I thought it interesting that chek linked to something by David Byrne, as my step son plays in a talking heads tribute band,,,.”Start Making Sense”.
    http://startmakingsenseband.com/
    and two of the original Talking Head members live in town here…Tina Weymouth and Chris Frantz.

    A few years back, Tina pulled my then 11 year old son up on stage and gave him some Maracas to play during a set of “Psycho Killer”….at 10 PM on a school night.

    Yes, we are good parents…

  19. #19 BBD
    January 12, 2014

    That was me, dear heart, not Chek. And while I hesitate to be pedantic, it’s Eno and Byrne, not the TH.

  20. #20 BBD
    January 12, 2014

    Amazing how music seems to usher in peace & harmony though, ain’t it?

    ;-)

  21. #21 Betula
    January 12, 2014

    And while I hesitate to be pedantic, it’s Eno and Byrne.

    Barney, you’re back already? And it was so peaceful and quiet in here…

    What time is it?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_dtqKyo9k4

  22. #22 Betula
    January 12, 2014

    “it’s Eno and Byrne, not the TH”.

    That could be why I wrote this…

    “linked to something by David Byrne”

    and not this…

    “linked to something by the Talking heads”

  23. #23 BBD
    January 12, 2014

    Okay, okay – I think it was because you were talking about your lad’s TH tribute band – it’s not worth arguing about ;-)

    Good anecdotes, btw.

  24. #24 Lionel A
    January 12, 2014

    chek

    Your mention of Brangelina and the Koch-heads in the same post (#1 above) made me think of this (more music people) message to Brad:

    Chas & Dave – Aint No Pleasing You.

  25. #25 BBD
    January 12, 2014

    And a stunned silence follows the outbreak of peace at Deltoid.

  26. #26 Andrew Strang
    January 12, 2014

    Ah, music and peace – inner feeling triumphs thinking!

  27. #27 BBD
    January 12, 2014

    Congreve, prophetically I suspect, differs:

    Musick has Charms to sooth a savage Breast,
    To soften Rocks, or bend a knotted Oak.
    I’ve read, that things inanimate have mov’d,
    And, as with living Souls, have been inform’d,
    By Magick Numbers and persuasive Sound.
    What then am I? Am I more senseless grown
    Than Trees, or Flint? O force of constant Woe!
    ‘Tis not in Harmony to calm my Griefs.

    [The Mourning Bride; Act 1, scene 1]

    It’s ironic that the first line is invariably quoted as an affirmation that music will fix it.

  28. #28 BBD
    January 12, 2014

    But hey, time for more mood music. This time the floor goes to Little Roy. Never heard of him? Now’s your chance.

  29. #29 Betula
    January 12, 2014

    I have a feeling this interlude will be brief, so I may as well throw in some Gary Clark Jr. while I can. Besides, the title is fitting…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_ZeDn-hHGE

  30. #30 BBD
    January 13, 2014

    You score again, Betty. Fine choice. Great throaty solo GCJr pulls out in the middle. Chapeau.

  31. #31 Jeff Harvey
    January 13, 2014

    Call it my deep, dark inner self, but this track from Usurper’s “Twilight Dominion” is where `i come from… and its the kind of riff I play every day on one of my three beauties… Extremely brutal but 100% metal….

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uvhSrwlZ_E

  32. #32 bill
    January 13, 2014
  33. #33 Lionel A
    January 13, 2014

    Maybe it is the hours of being sat in a Phantom cockpit test running the two chunks of heavy metal behind me that has inclined me away from this music that I once appreciated, along with the Stones ‘Paint it Black’ etc., towards the Baroque.

    Here is a fine uplifting example, and don’t we need this, from one composer I missed of the list above, Torelli:

    Giuseppe Torelli Concerti Grossi from Op 8, I Musici.

    I have a nine year old grandson learning the clarinet, doing well too.

  34. #34 Lionel A
    January 13, 2014

    Bill, #30

    Quite musical for a beginning on an old cupboard drawer. ;-)

    What is that percussion instrument being played?

    Now that with a theorbo, chalumeau (pl. chalumeaux), tromba marina would make an interesting combination.

    Back to Earth:

    Cameron dangles a tax revenue bribe in front of British local authorities

    David Rose of ‘The Fail’ cuts another notch on his ‘enemy of the people’ staff, H/T Sou.

  35. #35 Lionel A
    January 13, 2014

    Seeing some of the comments at that BBC frack tax story (#32) I am staggered by the ignorance and logic fail of some comments such as this one:

    664.
    Ramalamadingdong
    Comment number 664 is an Editors’ Pick
    3 Hours ago

    I have dozens of wind turbines in my area and open cast coal mining. I don’t recall many environmentalists from the chattering classes or Green Party coming out to support the local objectors in this area. I’d rather have fracking than either of these unsightly (inefficient in the case of wind turbines) and dirty operations!

    So, fracking isn’t dirty! Sheeeesh!

    And it us an Editor’s pick at that, maybe Ramalamadingdong is the Editor. How does that work for you and your conspiracy theory David Rose?

  36. #36 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    January 13, 2014

    The notion of man-made global warming is for children and loonies – and some crooks!

    Sorry, sorry, but honestly all this “peace ‘n’ love, man” stuff was making me feel ill. Simply too, too gooey! Can we go back to the normal thumb-in the-eye-and-knee-in-the-groin mode, I’m too old for change.

  37. #37 Wow
    January 13, 2014

    Yes, dai, the notion that it’s a crock is a notion for children and loonies and PLENTY of crooks.

  38. #38 Lionel A
    January 13, 2014

    I’m too old for change.

    And don’t we know it!

    Down side is Duffer, change is going to come to you even if you have managed to escape what has been thrown at us of late? Sure to be more, and you will be forced to change whether you like it or not.

  39. #39 BBD
    January 13, 2014

    Dear David

    Delighted that the recent outbreak of peace & harmony was not at all to your liking!

    ;-)

  40. #40 chek
    January 13, 2014

    The notion of man-made global warming is for children and loonies – and some crooks!

    You forgot to mention AGW is accepted every National Academy of Science in the world.

    Actually, I’m seeing this Duffellatio a lot lately.
    Your Global Collective of Denial has scored zero points against the science case for AGW, so you and your ilk are retreating into an even more childish level of fantasy that you’ve somehow succeeded. This mainly works for the barking mad, which is a constituency well represented in denierland, although the bewildered find it a comfort too.

  41. #41 chek
    January 13, 2014

    – and some crooks!

    Further, Dufferissimus, I’m tired of this casual shit from you birdbrains and your birdbrain in particular. Put up or shut up.
    Which crooks and what criminality?
    I strongly suspect it’s just another cosy myth you cultivate in comfort blanket land.

  42. #42 bill
    January 13, 2014

    Lionel #32.

    Bill Bruford is playing an African Slit Drum. Tony Levin is playing a Chapman Stick. God knows exactly what Fripp and Belew are doing…

    Not feeling the love, Duffer? I’d suggest you just ‘let it all hang out, man’, but that conjures a mental image that simply cannot be endured.

  43. #44 Bernard J.
    January 14, 2014

    Sorry, but this video is unavailable from your location.

    But hey, at least you have kangaroos and boomarangs.

    So I UTSE + “daily show War on Carbon” and found it elsewhere, and I LOLed! He certainly cuts the legs from a few of the denier memes.

    If only he’d mentioned the slowing jet stream I’d have awarded 12 out of 10.

  44. #45 Bernard J.
    January 14, 2014

    The thing that I didn’t appreciate was the apparent sheer number of Dunningly-Krugered armchair experts on US television who blithely contradict professional experts, and who do so without the slightest hint that they realise that they’re transitting from deep within Consequens Falsum territory.

    It seems that one of the most important consequences of the First Ammendment is the right to the freedom to be a complete idiot and to take whole planetary biospheres down in the process.

  45. #46 Bernard J.
    January 14, 2014

    …transmitting…

    There’s no transitting about it – those people are permanent residents.

  46. #47 Jeff Harvey
    January 14, 2014

    Stu, that Jon Stewart clip is priceless. Jessica Williams summed it up beautifully.

  47. #48 Sou
    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/
    January 14, 2014

    Thanks for the Daily Show tip, the chuckle did me a world of good.

  48. #49 BBD
    January 14, 2014

    @ bill

    All Fripp is doing is noodling around with (I think a Roland G-303 guitar-synth) in E minor. Easier than it sounds. I’d almost forgotten about the Chapman stick though. Wasn’t there a variant with magnetic tape instead of strings – pressure-sensitive? I *think* Levin played this on Elephant Talk, but it was a very long time ago…

  49. #50 BBD
    January 14, 2014

    @ Jeff Harvey

    Flippin’ heck. Makes you long for the gentle and comforting harmonies of Bonn Scott-era AC/DC.

  50. #51 Betula
    January 14, 2014

    “blithely contradict professional experts”

    Being a climate change comedian expert, I don’t think Stewart realizes that “real” climate experts quite often do a good job of contradicting themselves…most likely because they don’t have definitive conclusions, just predictions…. most of which downplay the lack of data, uncertainties and gaps in knowledge.

    For example, can any one point out the contradictions in this AMAP Document? Does anyone see how misleading it is?

    http://www.amap.no/documents/doc/AMAP-Arctic-Ocean-Acidification-Assessment-Summary-for-Policy-makers/808

    If it is intentionally misleading, and I believe it is, what purpose does it serve?

    Extra points if anyone can tie this report with the push to achieving the Millennium Development goals…

  51. #52 Betula
    January 14, 2014
  52. #53 BBD
    January 14, 2014

    The problem with ocean acidification is that it is a consequence of very basic chemistry and therefore simply must happen as the atmospheric fraction of CO2 rises.

    Since every single marine biologist questioned on the subject says that the very rapid *rate* of increase will be the key problem for marine ecosystems, it’s difficult to see why anyone (especially a layman) would disagree that this is going to be an extremely serious problem by mid-to-late century unless there is a pretty drastic reduction in the rate of increase in the fraction of atmospheric CO2.

  53. #54 BBD
    January 14, 2014

    I’ve just skimmed through the AMAP SPM again, and I’m confused by your assertion that it is “contradictory and misleading” and “intentionally misleading”. Can you be specific?

  54. #55 Lionel A
    January 14, 2014

    Another sign of heat energy build up:

    Retreat of Pine Island Glacier controlled by marine ice-sheet instability.

    Will the Duffer Club consider how much heat it takes to melt a mass of ice compared to raising the same mass through one degree Celsius?

    Also consider what type of water is produced by this melt and the effect on freezing point.

  55. #56 BBD
    January 14, 2014

    Readers here will know that I have been trying to point this out for some time. Ice sheet dynamics have a life of their own and once an unstable marine ice sheet like the WAIS – of which PIG is but one outflow glacier – starts to go, it cannot be stopped.

  56. #57 Lionel A
    January 14, 2014

    …gaps in knowledge.

    God of the gaps is it Betula, you know how that works out don’t you.

    How is that report on acidification misleading. Come on back up your assertions with cogent argument for a change rather than simply trashing something out of hand.

    Some instruction for you:

    Ocean Acidification NOAA Ocean Education (NODE) Project – pdf, good for some suggested sources for more.

    Woods Hole FAQs about Ocean Acidification

    Rob Dunbar: The threat of ocean acidification and other factors.

    Over harvesting of the seas is another big deal. We are close to having few viable fisheries remaining. I have a suggested reading list on this one alone.

  57. #58 Betula
    January 14, 2014

    BBD..

    My opinion.

    1. To start, the report, in BOLD letters, asks this question:

    “Why are higher carbon dioxide levels over the world’s oceans a global problem?”

    And then, in an attempt to answer this, it states…

    “The extent and consequences of ocean acidification effects are largely unknown.”

    2. The report continues, again in BOLD letters:

    “The assessment report presents current scientific knowledge on the changing state of ocean acidification in the Arctic and how these changes are affecting the Arctic marine environment.”

    and then states:

    “Regional differences are not yet well understood, nor are the biological and ecological consequences.These topics are currently the focus of numerous laboratory, field, and computer-simulation studies.
    Investigations into the economic, cultural, and societal implications of ocean acidification are only just beginning”

    and…

    “Arctic-specific studies related to ocean acidification and its effects on organisms and ecosystems are
    urgently needed”

    and…

    “The field of ocean acidification research is new and rapidly evolving.”

    3. Again, in BOLD:

    Arctic marine waters are experiencing widespread and rapid ocean acidification”

    but it continues with this statement…

    “at several Arctic Ocean locations”

    ….and….

    “more slowly in deep waters”

    …..and…..

    “The result is a complex, unevenly distributed, ever changing
    mosaic of Arctic acidification states”

    4. Again in Bold, it states:

    “Arctic marine ecosystems are highly likely to undergo significant change due to ocean acidification”

    but follows with this…

    “Too few data are presently available to assess the precise nature and extent of Arctic ecosystem vulnerability, as most biological studies have been undertaken in other ocean regions. Arctic specific long-term studies are urgently needed.”

    5. In BOLD:

    “Ocean acidification impacts must be assessed in the context of other changes happening in Arctic waters”

    And follows with…

    “Understanding the complex, often unpredictable effects of combined environmental changes on Arctic organisms and ecosystems remains a key knowledge gap.”

    6. Again in BOLD letters:

    “What can the Arctic Council States and members do to address this serious issue for our future?”

    Their answer:

    “There remain large gaps in knowledge that currently prevent reliable projections of these impacts.”

    My point is, the scientists really haven’t concluded anything, yet the way the SPM words and highlights the headings, you would think we had to take urgent action to prevent a catastrophe. In fact, the reports number one recommendation is this…..

    “Urge its Member States, Observer countries, and the global society to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide as a matter of urgency”

    My take on this is that it’s a deliberate misrepresentation to influence the guidance of policy…

  58. #59 Lionel A
    January 14, 2014

    “Urge its Member States, Observer countries, and the global society to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide as a matter of urgency”

    My take on this is that it’s a deliberate misrepresentation to influence the guidance of policy…

    This is a perverse conclusion given that it is acknowledged that CO2 increase is causing a change in pH which is know to be detrimental to thousands of organisms lower in the trophic web and can also interfere with the physiology of larger organisms.

    Are you familiar with the chemical processes that allow your own body to function and how a change in environmental pH can impact this?

    Note these words from the report:

    Ocean acidification is occurring at a rapid and accelerating
    pace, and the Arctic Ocean3 is on the frontline of this global
    change. AMAP’s 2013 assessment of Arctic Ocean acidification
    provides the first Arctic-wide perspective on today’s progressively
    increasing seawater acidity. The assessment report presents
    current scientific knowledge on the changing state of ocean
    acidification in the Arctic and how these changes are affecting
    the Arctic marine environment. In addition to reporting on what
    is happening now, the assessment considers how these changes
    could continue to develop in the future and what this could mean
    for Arctic marine plants and animals and Arctic peoples.

    and

    Measurements around the globe, in the Arctic Ocean and elsewhere, show that ocean acidity is increasing. These findings are consistent with observed increases of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and uptake of some of this gas by the oceans. The resulting chemical reactions are well
    characterized: adding carbon dioxide to seawater increases its acidity.

    and

    Human activities, in particular the burning of fossil fuels, are the primary cause of the ongoing increase of carbon dioxide in the air and oceans. Natural processes in the ocean counter this
    increase by eventually burying some of the ‘extra’ carbon in deep sea sediments, but these processes act very slowly. The legacy of the human activities is therefore long-lived. Scientists project that even after anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions cease, the acidification fingerprint of human activities will remain in the upper ocean for many tens of thousands of years.

    And this is to ignore the other sources I pointed you to.

    Your in a car accelerating because the throttle is jammed open and approaching a bend. Do you carry on and hope for the best or doing something proactive about it?

    As it happens this is not a hypothetical question, I have had it happen but in my case I was negotiating a cross-roads junction when it happened.

  59. #60 Stu
    January 14, 2014

    Similarly, Betula was last seen outside his burning house arguing with the fire brigade. In his expert opinion, unless the fire chief can predict exactly how fast, in what order and where the fire will spread, calling it a catastrophe is intentionally misleading and nothing should be done. It’s probably just all a UN plot to raise his taxes anyway.

  60. #61 BBD
    January 14, 2014

    Betula

    Sorry, but I think using boldface type for key finding headings is standard typographical practice and I am astonished at your interpretation.

    Furthermore, you are completely ignoring the facts about the inevitability of basic chemistry which I set out at #53.

    For your conspiracy theory to have merit, the basic chemistry in question would have to be wrong, and this is simply not possible.

    My take on this is that it’s a deliberate misrepresentation to influence the guidance of policy…

    My take on your take is that it evidences a paranoid mindset and the stubborn denial of basic, fully-understood chemistry which will inevitably result in a rapid increase in the rate of ocean acidification if the atmospheric fraction of CO2 is allowed to continue to rise at the present rate.

    I don’t think you grasp that you cannot deny chemistry.

  61. #62 BBD
    January 14, 2014

    I also very much dislike the way you have quote-mined the SPM to create a misleading impression of what it says. Here I provide restored context for some of the phrases (boldface) that you have carefully cut out of their proper setting in your point (3):

    Scientists have measured significant rates of acidification at several Arctic Ocean locations. In the Nordic Seas, for example, acidification is taking place over a wide range of depths—most rapidly in surface waters and more slowly in deep waters. Decreases in seawater pH of about 0.02 per decade have been observed since the late 1960s in the Iceland and Barents Seas. Notable chemical effects related to acidification have also been encountered in surface waters of the Bering Strait and the Canada Basin of the central Arctic Ocean.

    In addition to seawater uptake of carbon dioxide, other processes can be important in determining the pace and extent of ocean acidification. For example, rivers, sea-bottom sediments, and coastal erosion all supply organic material that bacteria can convert to carbon dioxide, thus exacerbating ocean acidification, especially on the shallow continental shelves. Sea-ice cover, freshwater inputs, and plant growth and decay can also influence local ocean acidification. The contributions of these processes
    vary not only from place to place, but also season to season, and year to year. The result is a complex, unevenly distributed, everchanging mosaic of Arctic acidification states.

  62. #63 BBD
    January 14, 2014

    I should have indicated that the first paragraph quoted above is from Key Finding 1 and the second is from Key Finding 3. Your juxtaposition of the three quotes is calculated to misrepresent. It is quote-mining.

  63. #64 chek
    January 14, 2014

    So Betty, your technique is to further summarize the summary (as guided by your total lack of expertise and understanding of the report’s subject – by leaving out the inconvenient bits, thus justifying … whatever it is you’re engaged in.. For your next trick, why not try rendering it down to single sentence and save print costs.

    1. To start, the report, in BOLD letters, asks this question: “Why are higher carbon dioxide levels over the world’s oceans a global problem?” And then, in an attempt to answer this, it states… “The extent and consequences of ocean acidification effects are largely unknown.”

    No, it doesn’t state only that. It precedes your isolated sentence with this: “The result ocean acidification—will affect marine ecosystems and organisms, from plankton to fish.” No if, buts or maybes.

    Likewise with your second point, your cherry-picked bit is preceded by: “Measurements around the globe, in the Arctic Ocean and elsewhere, show that ocean acidity is increasing. These findings are consistent with observed increases of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and uptake of some of this gas by the oceans. The resulting chemical reactions are well characterized: adding carbon dioxide to seawater increases its acidity. Like salinity, acidity is a fundamental chemical property of seawater. Ocean
    acidification is of concern because it has the potential to exert far reaching effects on marine plants and animals and therefore human societies.

    And so on the whole way through. No surprise there.

  64. #65 chek
    January 14, 2014

    Your juxtaposition of the three quotes is calculated to misrepresent. It is quote-mining.

    That’s dishonest, isn’t it? So when Betty says at #51:

    If it is intentionally misleading, and I believe it is, what purpose does it serve?

    that’ll be projection, I expect.

  65. #66 BBD
    January 14, 2014

    Yes, almost certainly.

  66. #67 chek
    January 14, 2014

    As SPM’s are now demonstrated to lie outside of Betty’s cognitive limitations, I’d suggest he searches for Summaries for Binary-thinking Double-digit IQ Morons or WilliWattsians next time.

  67. #68 Lotharsson
    January 15, 2014

    Similarly, Betula was last seen outside his burning house arguing with the fire brigade. In his expert opinion, unless the fire chief can predict exactly how fast, in what order and where the fire will spread, calling it a catastrophe is intentionally misleading and nothing should be done. It’s probably just all a UN plot to raise his taxes anyway.

    Stu wins one shiny set of Intertoobz.

  68. #69 cRR Kampen
    January 15, 2014

    #58 for your happy false sense of security please return to the bible. Apparently the scientists’ way is too unsettling for you.

  69. #70 Betula
    January 15, 2014

    “Your in a car accelerating because the throttle is jammed open and approaching a bend. Do you carry on and hope for the best or doing something proactive about it?”

    I would immediately call my congressman and ask that he propose a Throttle Tax. All luxury model cars would be taxed and the proceeds would go towards developing better throttles on the lower end models.

  70. #71 Betula
    January 15, 2014

    BBD…”The problem with ocean acidification is that it is a consequence of very basic chemistry and therefore simply must happen as the atmospheric fraction of CO2 rises”

    You’re applying a basic concept to a complex situation. As stated in the paper…

    Understanding the complex, often unpredictable effects of combined environmental changes on Arctic organisms and ecosystems remains a key knowledge gap.”

  71. #72 Betula
    January 15, 2014

    “I also very much dislike the way you have quote-mined the SPM to create a misleading impression of what it says”

    I disagree. The quotes I used show the contradictions throughout the paper..

    This statement:

    “Arctic marine waters are experiencing widespread and rapid ocean acidification”

    Is contradicted by this statement:

    “Scientists have measured significant rates of acidification at several Arctic Ocean locations”

    How do they know it’s widespread if they haven’t scratched the surface in terms of measurements?

    “Your juxtaposition of the three quotes is calculated to misrepresent.”

    Misrepresent what? They all relate to the same issue in the same summary?

  72. #73 Betula
    January 15, 2014

    “Similarly, Betula was last seen outside his burning house arguing with the fire brigade”…… he wanted to know why the fire department was insisting on smashing out the windows and poking holes in the roof, simply because he had a fire burning in the fireplace.

  73. #74 Betula
    January 15, 2014

    chek @64…

    “The result ocean acidification—will affect marine ecosystems and organisms, from plankton to fish.” No if, buts or maybes….

    and the very next line is an If, But, and Maybe:

    blockquote>“The extent and consequences of ocean acidification effects are largely unknown.”

    Thanks chek, for proving my point about the contradictions and misrepresentations. The question is, why would they deliberately do this?

  74. #75 Jeff Harvey
    January 15, 2014

    Betty, Your argument is to suggest that we must wait for all the data are in until we do something. This has long been a denier mantra: delay, delay, delay, and delay again until we have 100% certainty. Its certainly one of the bulwarks of corporate strategies – even though data may suggest or strongly infer a correlation, this isn’t enough – we have to have completer confidence of a process.

    Of course rarely is absolute evidence of a causal link ever provided, especially where complex adaptive systems are involved. Heck, there are still those who deny the link between the use of CFCs and ozone damage, or between S02 and acid rain. Some of these same people are active AGW deniers. Thankfully, common sense prevailed before it was too late on both of these profoundly serious environmental threats and actions were taken to limit further damage. We still don’t fully understand the causes and consequences of acid rain, but that does not mean that we should have waited until every last data point was in. That would require a multi-billion dollar series of experiments to be funded – never to be done.

    For the most part, your demands for absolute certainty are thankfully not taken seriously be practicing scientists. On the other hand, those lacking a basic understanding of the science of critical thresholds – meaning those with power and who lack the proper scruples – are quite content to wait until its too late. That’s the way our bankrupt socio-political economic system works folks. Its why I also think we are destined to go into the abyss as a species.

  75. #76 Jeff Harvey
    January 15, 2014

    This just out in Ecology Letters:

    http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6677/20140115/algae-pacific-losing-skeletons-ocean-acidification-climate-change.htm

    But heck, let’s keep our non-repeatable experiment going. Until we are 100% sure that the effects will be devastating for systems that we depend on. Until then, burn baby, burn.

  76. #77 Betula
    January 15, 2014

    “#58 for your happy false sense of security please return to the bible”

    I’m an atheist, but don’t let that change your thought process. Keep up the good work.

  77. #78 BBD
    January 15, 2014

    Betula

    <blockquote.You’re applying a basic concept to a complex situation.

    No, I’m stating a fact and now you force me to state it again: the rate of ocean acidification is determined by the rate of increase in the atmospheric fraction of CO2. Following from this, all marine biologists agree that a rapid rate of change in ocean pH will have considerable but as yet poorly understood in detail impacts on marine ecosystems. Stop obfuscating.

    Next, your claim that the following statements are contradictory is false:

    Arctic marine waters are experiencing widespread and rapid ocean acidification

    Does not contradict:

    Scientists have measured significant rates of acidification at several Arctic Ocean locations

    Since the atmosphere is global, ocean acidification is global. Its effects will be more pronounced in polar waters for the reasons described in the SPM. So your question is either more basic chemistry denial or obfuscation:

    How do they know it’s widespread if they haven’t scratched the surface in terms of measurements?

    I have to say I find basic chemistry denial even more tedious than physics denial.

    Your juxtaposition of widely-spaced quotes is calculated to misrepresent. Everything you have said about this SMP is calculated to misrepresent. Still, let’s keep to the essence of this.

    Are you claiming that the following statement of fact is false?

    The rate of ocean acidification is determined by the rate of increase in the atmospheric fraction of CO2. Yes or no.

    Are you claiming that rapid and significant reduction in ocean pH is not going to cause severe disruption to marine ecosystems? Yes or no.

    Before considering the second question, I recommend reading Hönisch et al. (2012) The geological record of ocean acidification to get a perspective on past OA events and their impacts.

  78. #79 cRR Kampen
    January 15, 2014

    Many an ‘atheist’ is of the believer pursuasion too (no, not me).
    Like many believers you could not get my point. Which was you want scientists to exhibit the unassailably dead certainty of priests. You are able to absorb the bible but unable to understand scientific utterings. Please go back to the bible. There are stories of floods in that book, I mean, there always* were floods, no?

    (* presumbably soms 6500 years minus one).

  79. #80 BBD
    January 15, 2014

    Oh, and pay attention to Jeff Harvey, who is not a layman.

    Why do you, Betula, and so many others, argue that the experts are wrong when you have no expertise yourself?

  80. #81 cRR Kampen
    January 15, 2014

    Harvey #75 and who ever saw a lung cell turn into cancer from smoking a Camel?

  81. #82 Lionel A
    January 15, 2014

    …presumbably soms 6500 years minus one…

    How can that be when the creation was the nightfall preceding 23 October 4004 BC?
    ;-)

  82. #83 Stu
    January 15, 2014

    Hmm. Question: does Betty genuinely not know what quotemining is, or is he just pretending to be this stupid?

  83. #84 BBD
    January 15, 2014

    Stu

    This has become something of a central issue for me here. I find it very difficult to say in general whether Betula is being sincerely obtuse or disingenuous, and it matters, at least to me, since there is less absolute bad faith involved in the former.

    Morton’s Demon may be a very big part of the problem either way, but how big?

  84. #85 chek
    January 16, 2014

    Question: does Betty genuinely not know what quotemining is, or is he just pretending to be this stupid?

    Given the resources annually expended, ole’ Bishop Occam suggests the latter. Directly or indirectly is the only relevant question, to which the answer is … does it matter? Actions (including posting on blogs) are what counts.

  85. #86 Lotharsson
    January 16, 2014

    Betula is playing the classic one-eyed denialist games of “misplaced onus of proof”, “unreasonably high proof” and “uncertainty only goes the way I say it does”. My bingo card is half full all ready.

    If he were two-eyed about it he’d be knocking down the doors of politicians and business leaders demanding that they help stop the unproven experiment of driving the atmosphere, ocean and climate well outside of their respective envelopes under which modern agriculture developed – until and unless he was satisfied that scientists had reached near certainty that doing so is safe.

    Same old same old…

  86. #87 Wow
    January 16, 2014

    “Many an ‘atheist’ is of the believer pursuasion too (no, not me).”

    Unless you mean ‘atheist’ (and the scare quotes there are an integral part of the word) rather than atheist (i.e. an atheist, plain and simple), then you’re wrong.

  87. #88 Wow
    January 16, 2014

    This has long been a denier mantra: delay, delay, delay, and delay again until we have 100% certainty. Its certainly one of the bulwarks of corporate strategies

    Of course, if the action could HARM corporate or personal interests, then the remote possibility is enough to stymie any change.

    See: Healthcare. “Oh no! It could cause health costs to rise!”
    Tax rises “Oh no! It could cause the ‘job creators’ to leave!”
    Regulation of internet: “Oh no! It could allow government to control the internet!”
    Wind turbines: “Oh no! It could cause birth defects from infrasound!”
    Refusing HS2: “Oh no! It could discourage businesses from being here!”
    Refusing Heathrow runway: “Oh no! It could mean people will choose another country to fly from!”

    and so on…

  88. #89 Wow
    January 16, 2014

    This statement:

    “Arctic marine waters are experiencing widespread and rapid ocean acidification”

    Is contradicted by this statement:

    “Scientists have measured significant rates of acidification at several Arctic Ocean locations”

    No it doesn’t.

    Statement 1: acidification is detected.
    Statement 2: acidification is detected.

  89. #90 Wow
    January 16, 2014

    “I would immediately call my congressman and ask that he propose a Throttle Tax.”

    That’s because you’re a fucking loon, batty.

    But you see, SANE people would “Let up on the throttle” and even “apply the brakes” before getting on the phone to their congressman and asking that they get signs put up to warn people of the risk of the cliff and to make dangerous driving an offense, so that you don’t have to wait until people die before they get their just deserts, you can save their lives and still give them the deterrent they apparently need to not be a douche, just not a terminal deterrent as Darwin’s law would have it.

  90. #91 Lotharsson
    January 16, 2014

    Of course, if the action could HARM corporate or personal interests, then the remote possibility is enough to stymie any change.

    EXCELLENT point. It’s yet another one-eyed game.

  91. #92 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    #20, amazing. Betty comes up with starting some sense and Eno. Why, we could almost be friends :)

  92. #93 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    #87, I was trivially right, took care of that by using quotes.
    Did you realize I was actually thinking of Richard Dawkins, who goes around like kind of a fundireli? I’ve explained that zeal from his remark that on a scale 1..10 from religious to atheist he’d put himself ‘almost at ten’.
    I value his work greatly but this cannot be.

    I’m more like a mathematician. I know that Pi is a transcendent number, _therefore_ I don’t have to run around the streets to convince people. They can come ask me.
    I know there is no God and no gods, et c.

  93. #94 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    #87, I was trivially right, took care of that by using quotes.

    And since I conceded that point in #87, then your assertion makes no indication of error on my part.

    Did you realize I was actually thinking of Richard Dawkins, who goes around like kind of a fundireli?.

    Nope. Know why? You haven’t a flaming clue about Dawkins, only the Daily Mail caricature of him.

    I mean, how DARE someone hold an opinion about religion that makes it out to be bad, AND TELLS PEOPLE ABOUT IT!!!!

    Obviously, must be bad. Probably a fundamentalist. Because that means “bad”, right?

    I’ve explained that zeal from his remark that on a scale 1..10 from religious to atheist he’d put himself ‘almost at ten’.

    Well that remark on a scale from 1..10 from inaccurate to accurate, you score 0. He’s placed himself at a 9, where the scale goes from “God Exists, and no proof is enough to change my mind” to “God Doesn’t Exist, and no proof is enough to change my mind”.

    However, like I said before, you have zero clue what you’re on about, just an overwhelming anger that Dawkins isn’t nice about religion and approaches it in a manner that offends some xtian friends of yours.

    I’m more like a mathematician. I know that Pi is a transcendent number, _therefore_ I don’t have to run around the streets to convince people.

    Yet you HAVE to run around the streets claiming Dawkins is a religious fundamental atheist…

    PS neither myself nor Dawkins do that, but when the Alabama (was it?) state education board wanted to DEFINE for schools pi as being 3, as per the bible, would you have

    a) complained to the school board if your schools had been affected
    b) not complained, everyone knows it’s not 3, so why bother dissing the board of education

    ?

  94. #95 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    Wow #94, do I feel collateral :)
    I should like to amuse you with my answer to the question of whether ‘God’ could be a subject of science. Please enjoy the answer and its consequence.

    Method suggestion 1:
    God is either part of reality, or God is reality, or God is outside the realm of reality.
    In the first case, God can be a subject of science, in the second case God is the subject of science and in the last case God does not exist by definition.
    If God is part of reality, there is a problem with his supposed omnipotence. If He is reality, there is no reason to split reality into reality and reality.

    2:
    Then, I hold there are two truths about reality. Let A be any subset from reality. First: A = A for all A, identity; second, A := ~A for all A, decay or ‘Buddha’s law’.
    An argument by Vasubandhu shows that decay is both causeless and instantaneous.
    I use this to ‘prove’ that one cannot substitute ‘God’ for A. For He does not decay (according to normal definitions of ‘God’) and His identity is rather indeterminable.

    3:
    Another analysis would concentrate on intensionality. It could take an argument like Dennett’s for consciousness to show how intention may derive from non-intensional bases.

    Intermezzo:
    Now what Dawkins is doing would be like a mathematician imposing the fact that Pi is a transcendent number on society using brutal authoritarian means (okay, verbally of course). But this is what religious fanatics do. Imo such fanatics impose their memes with violence because they know deep down that they are fundamentally untrue. Anyone who happens not to believe in them and lives to be happy is therefore a clear and present danger to the fanatic. Happy Christians exist and they are bad for Dawkins: he denies them! On the other hand, not believing that Pi is a transcendent number is a rather superficial stance, for it is not possible to live this belief (all body chemisty would halt, gravitation would act strangely!). A mathematician does not care too much about people who still attempt the quadrature of the circle, while he himself remains entirely safe in his knowledge.

    But enjoy: http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/crd/localgov/second%20level%20pages/indiana_pi_bill.htm .

    Interestingly, in his book ‘The God Delusion’ Dawkins puts himself at 9+ on a scale of 1 to 10 ranging from pure religious belief to pure atheism. He confesses he is not entirely sure (you will have guessed I put myself at mathematically full 10). Might this be a root cause of his agressive manner?

    While I don’t see how believing Pi is a rational number achieves a viable survival strategy, I can perceive how a religious belief could.

    About seven years ago, I lost the love of my life and my fiancee to leukemia. At some point in her last days I stood at her bed, all hope for survival gone – and prayed. The answer from cold dark wonderful space was immediate. It sounded like ‘this is ìt – this neutral, careless universum – I am part of it and I am like it, I am same’, end of message. Nothing to go on, no-one and nothing to tell me what to do, not the faintest hint of how I will survive this loss, how I will ever find happiness again. Of course, in the same flash I found my earth here!

    I consider that ‘answer’ as the result of my state of consciousness at that moment, and myself to be the generator of that answer. I was awed and soberd at the same time, which was quite a special experience.
    Now I can imagine people to call this a ‘religious experience’ up to and including the Voice of God, much like some of the first men who talked in sentences might think, hear sentences in their head and ascribe them to the tree nearby, or the earth, or the skies instead of to themselves.
    In both cases, me and ‘delusional’ men, there is consolation and a sort of guidance. But only in the latter case, authoritarianism becomes a possibility. I feel no need to spread the word because I feel like the mathematician who knows there are infinitely many prime numbers; but those ‘delusional’ men might feel the urge to start running around and convert the world.

    Morals then stem from delusional authority.

    According to Nietzsche, morality over history had to be kicked and whipped into men, engraved into children, heathens and other wild tribefractions, whilst all resistors had to be banned or killed: with the utmost violence, and only slowly, over time, did something of a moral society evolve. And I believe this is the true account of the history of human society. It is a history of taming this plastic, all too free mind by the invention of (hitherto) non-existent authorities. The process had huge evolutionary bearing on human evolution, particularly since the conquest of fire and the invention of bow and arrow, when man became man’s greatest selector. ‘Self-made mankind’ would be a bad tautology or maybe a nightmare…


    Method suggestion 4:
    Another way to bring God under scientific investigation (or any investigation) is to define God. A normal definition will be seen to be expressed in terms of effects. If God has a ‘power’, describe the power; it is then open for research like that of gravitation, or, by Dennett’s method of heterophenomology, by studying reports and perhaps behaviour of people as Nietzsche attempted in his Genealogie der Moral or Wille zur Macht. It may be possible to exclude any defined God by emperical invalidation of consequences. Start with categories like ‘omnipotence’ (what does it mean, exactly?). Your suggestion, awareness of a distinction between the object one is aware of and the aware one will help too.

    If it can be shown (read: proven) that God is undefinable in terms of effects, then God effectively does not exist. If, on the other hand, God can be defined as ‘everything’, then He is simply reality and rather a redundant concept. Also, He is then the subject of science, including philosophy.

    Obviously, there are still effects out there that are unknown to us. What effect is causing a recently discovered neutron star to be considerably heavier than hitherto suggested by theory? What effects would the climate of that newly discovered planet situated in another star’s ‘temperate zone’ have on proceedings on its surface? These unknowns are sought for by science and they are not associated with God, except by some quite deluded folks (maybe the ufospotters are right after all, so I basically mean those who try quadratures of circles as they are demonstrably deluded :) ).

    “Dawkins views religions as essentially parasitic memes”.
    I agree fully on the symbiotic idea if memes can be parasitic like genes are. They are. What is more, I am totally infected and so are you :)

  95. #96 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    To answer Wow’s question on the Inquisitional try for Pi = 3 (wasn’t that the Indiana Pi Bill? There are more tries like this) – I would leave that school, possibly the state, possibly the country. For I would have no life. I would go and let the weeds grow, as Lao Tzu is said to have said.

  96. #97 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    Difference between me and Dawkins is that he is actually much nicer to religion than I am. He is so nice that he can actually speak out his opinions on religion, while I have to remain very diplomatic. If you catch my drift.

  97. #98 Lionel A
    January 17, 2014

    Difference between me and Dawkins is that he is actually much nicer to religion than I am.

    Given the opening paragraph of Chapter 2 of ‘The God Delusion’ that is saying something. But, having read Dawkins since the early editions of ‘The Selfish Gene’ I consider that Dawkins nails it fairly. Over the years my copies of ‘The Selfish Gene’ have walked with children borrowing them and then passing on to college and university friends, never to be seen again. This required regular replacement. It was through the additions in succeeding editions where Dawkins details the hostile responses he has received from clergy and members of the flock where they have totally misunderstood or purposely distorted his original message that I appreciate why Dawkins turned to criticizing the religious zealots.

    In other words, the self-righteous brought the Dawkins’ spotlight on themselves. They then proceeded to lambast Dawkins in media opinion columns, I still recall with disbelief the cant rant of Madeleine Bunting in the Guardian No wonder atheists are angry: they seem ready to believe anything where the sub-head is:

    Richard Dawkins’s latest attack on religion is an intellectually lazy polemic not worthy of a great scientist

    And its down hill all the way after that as the vitriol gathers its own momentum.

    Compare that to Dawkins’ gentle treatment of this poor deluded and intellectually challenged Creationist Wendy Wright.

  98. #99 cRR Kampen
    January 17, 2014

    True Lionel A, I forgot for a moment that Dawkins got shot at like Mann and decided to return the lead.

    I’ve only the first edition of ‘The Selfish Gene’, thanks for sharing your experiences with it: I will hold on to it :)

    What I found in ‘The God Delusion’ was not new to me. There are comparable documents e.g. by Sam Harris, and there is Nietzsche’s ‘Der Antichrist’. There is cRR and his mum :)

    Now I lump certain ideologies including fascism/patriottism (same thing), communism and a lot of nationalism into the same casket as the religions. This is why I have to distinguish between ‘atheists’ that are not atheists but believers in some sort of vague fantasy authority.

    I am an atheist but I am not an anti-theist, because I have to. History has learnt over and over again that antitheism leads to brutal theisms – but this is because antitheism is just another kind.

  99. #100 Wow
    January 17, 2014

    Difference between me and Dawkins is that he is actually much nicer to religion than I am.

    Begging the question there: ARE you?

    But apart from that, is being nice to religion a requirement to being an atheist? Is being nice to religion required to NOT be religious? In what shape, way or form WHAT SO EVER does that baseless and in my estimation COMPLETELY WRONG AND SELF-SERVING drivel have to do with your claims about Dawkins???

Current ye@r *