March 2017 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Stu 2
    April 12, 2017
  2. #2 Craig Thomas
    April 13, 2017

    On April 12, 2017, Stu 2 tol’d us:

    “There is a basic scientific understanding of a thing called the water cycle or, if you like, the hydrological cycle.
    It’s actually not particularly difficult to understand even if you’re a ‘3rd rate political scientist’.”

    We don’t know what that scientific understanding is so we don’t know how difficult Tol may have found it, unless Tol provides references to the relevant authorities on the subject matter instead of Tol trying to hold himself out as being such an authority, which he isn’t.

    A few things we do know are:
    Tol isn’t even an expert in the field in which he is actually qualified – and his field is a non-scientific one.
    Tol has a history of emitting misleading “research”:
    http://retractionwatch.com/2015/07/22/second-correction-for-controversial-paper-on-economic-gains-of-climate-change/
    – essentially, he somehow accidentally reversed the signs of a bunch of numbers which was an amazingly co-incidental mistake to make since it resulted in numbers that supported his thesis whereas if he had by chance not made any mistake he would have learned that his thesis was wrong.
    Regardless of how you want to characterise these curious mistakes, Tol is clearly not a reliable source even when it comes to the subject in which he *does* have a minor qualification – economics. The sensible analyst would instead turn to qualified sources who also have a history of producing meaningful and accurate research.

  3. #3 Craig Thomas
    April 13, 2017

    On April 12, 2017, Stu 2 advised,

    “https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle
    One simple explanation.”

    Ok, so when it comes to these sources of fresh water, does a warming world increase the resource:
    – snowmelt – snow coverage is reduced
    – run off – length of drainage systems is shortened
    – infiltration – higher sea level means more infiltration of saltwater
    – subsurface flow – higher sea level reduces the extent of the lower elevations where this might happen
    – deposition – glaciers are vastly reduced worldwide, which reduces their potential for long term generation of seasonal runoff
    – percolation – reduced volume due to increased salt water infiltration.

    Who knows whether Tol is right or wrong? If he’s right, it would only be co-incidental.
    But judging by his past history of emitting nonsense opinions, the smart money would be on his being utterly wrong.

  4. #4 Stu 2
    April 13, 2017

    Craig.
    Richard Tol is far from the only lead author at the IPCC who has made a mistake.
    Actually lots of academics in lots of different fields have made mistakes.
    The peer reviewed literature is riddled with them.
    Economics included.
    What’s missing is the ability for so many to recognise what does and doesn’t stand the test of time.

  5. #5 Bernard J.
    April 14, 2017

    The peer reviewed literature is riddled with them.

    The climate science-denying pro-fossil fuel lobby is riddled with more errors. In fact most of their assertions are errors, or outright lies. It would be easier to list the things about which they are correct:

    1) Climate has changed in the past.
    2) See (1).

  6. #6 Bernard J.
    April 14, 2017

    Jeff from the previous page – I thought that reference would be of interest. Good to know that your students will make use of it.

  7. #7 Jeff Harvey
    April 14, 2017

    Good points Bernard. Sure, there are many errors in the peer-reviewed literature, but AGW deniers don’t even do much science; their modus operandi is to sit by on the sidelines sniping away at the climate science they don’t like (and they are very selective, as a manuscript I am preparing shows). Creationists do the same thing; they don’t search for empirical evidence to support their position (because there isn’t any), but they try and poke enough holes in evolutionary theory in the hope that this will eventually bring said theory down.

    AGW deniers don’t do science because the science isn’t on their side and they know it. Their strategy is to shed enough doubt on AGW theory and to use this to dilute public opinion so that nothing is done. They know that the possible consequences of doing nothing are severe down the road, but they don’t worry about that; like all hedonists they only think about today. Deniers see outright lying, the twisting of facts, and other tactics as perfectly legitimate.

  8. #8 Bernard J.
    April 14, 2017

    Stu 2, a little challenge for you.

    List the errors in the profession body of science on human-caused climate change. Alongside, list the peer-reviewed and supported facts from the climate science-denying camp, that refute the mainstream climate science.

  9. #9 Lionel A
    April 14, 2017

    Bernard J #8

    Don’t hold your breath. more slime expected from the one who slides around arguments like a hagfish.

    Some species of hagfish are threatened with extinction which may be a harbinger of trouble ahead for all species as ecosystems are disrupted by many aspects of human activity.

  10. #10 Stu 2
    April 14, 2017

    Bernard J.
    Mistakes are mistakes.
    It doesn’t matter who makes them.
    Both you and Jeff are now trying to argue that one side is the ‘least worse’ in your opinions.
    You are claiming that there is something like science sporting teams and the one you support is called AGW science’ and there’s another one called ‘denier science’ and another one is ‘lukewarmer science’ and so on.
    Instead, it would be far more productive if academics, no matter which team they support, had the humility to recognise what does and doesn’t stand the test of time.

  11. #11 Lionel A
    April 14, 2017

    Both you and Jeff are now trying to argue that one side is the ‘least worse’ in your opinions.

    No Stupoid you silly blighter, once again you mischaracterise the nature of the arguments. You are presenting a logical fallacy – false equivalence.

    Some climate scientists may have made trivial errors as in the much played out hockey stick handle tweak by McIntyre which didn’t amount to a hill of beans.

    Now the likes of Tol on the other hand, playing a Lomborg type game gets most things wrong. Furthermore Tol had a very minor part in the last IPCC report, one only has to study the references in that document to make that clear.

    No stop wriggling and using that slimy style of argument it makes you look bad.

  12. #12 Lionel A
    April 14, 2017

    …it would be far more productive if academics, no matter which team they support, had the humility to recognise what does and doesn’t stand the test of time.

    Shame that you are clearly not equipped to know what will stand the test of time.

  13. #13 Stu 2
    April 15, 2017

    Lionel.
    Which part of I’m spectacularly uninterested in engaging in personal insults and/or assigning ‘teams’ or ‘ sides’ are you not understanding?
    Bernard J and Jeff Harvey do appear to have argued @# 5, #7 & #8 that there is a ‘least worse’, or if you like, one ‘side’ does it more.
    They’re also arguing that ‘teams’ like ‘AGW deniers’ and ‘pro fossil fuel lobby’ are preventing anything being done.
    I disagree.
    Plenty has been done and is being done on the ground.
    There has also been trillions of taxpayer dollars invested and massive departments and entities created around environmental science, environmental policy and renewable energy.
    There have been successes in land & water management and in reducing pollution.
    Those successes are standing the test of time.
    Scientists and academics and bureaucrats & etc who are part of successful work don’t waste their time pointing fingers and assigning teams and playing politics.
    Riding around on high horses, waving big sticks and continuously sprouting alarmism and negativity and trying to assign everyone to teams based on some notion of black hat /white hat is not standing the test of time and human history is full of examples of that.

  14. #14 Lionel A
    April 15, 2017

    Which part of I’m spectacularly uninterested in…assigning ‘teams’ or ‘ sides’ are you not understanding?

    Well what was the ‘Both you and Jeff…’ about then.

    As for personal insult, describing your behaviour in the way I have cannot be construed as an personal insult except by one whose logic gates are screwed. That isn’t an insult either, simply based upon evidence in your increasingly unhinged posts.

  15. #15 Stu 2
    April 15, 2017

    Lionel.
    Instead of proving what I said @#13 about personal comments, how about we try discussing genuine solutions to identified & specific issues that in many cases you have raised?
    How about recognising that the constant bleating that nothing is being done is neither true or helpful?

  16. #16 Stu 2
    April 16, 2017

    & Lionel.
    I commented on the content of Bernard J & Jeff’s comments upthread.
    I’m sure they’re nice, well educated people who care about the environment.

  17. #17 Jeff Harvey
    April 16, 2017

    “I’m sure they’re nice, well educated people who care about the environment”

    For once a correct observation from our closet contrarian. Turns out we are light years ahead of you on both counts, Stu2. That is why we ritually deconstruct your arguments.

  18. #18 Jeff Harvey
    April 16, 2017

    The main point is that deniers are ritual liars, who distort science continually to promote a pre-determined worldview and a political agenda, whereas others with a science-based perspective are basing their conclusions on the empirical data.

    Stu2 doesn’t seem to grasp this basic fact. He seems to think that both sides have arguments worthy of merit and that both sides are also manipulating the facts. If you want an accurate assessment of this, the ratio between the two sides is about 99.5:0.5. In other words, as I said, deniers for the most part are a lying bunch of dishonest brokers. There’s plenty of evidence to back this up, but Stu2 prefers to ignore it. Hence why he frequently puts links up here of deniers espousing their bullshit. Bernard can see through it, Lionel can and I can.

  19. #19 Li D
    April 16, 2017

    #18 “The main point is that deniers are ritual liars,.. ”
    Yep. Lie to themselves and everyone else to an
    extent that needs professional care.

  20. #20 Li D
    April 16, 2017

    Theres really no debate or 2 sides. Theres no
    balance. Im pretty sick of the false equivalence
    given to deniers by alot of media. Its piss poor journalism.
    Maybe one in 1000 articles could be given to a denier pov
    just for laughs.

  21. #21 Betula
    April 16, 2017

    Hardley – “The main point is that deniers are ritual liars, who distort science continually to promote a pre-determined worldview and a political agenda”

    You mean like spotting a spider and claiming you witnessed climate change first hand? Is that what you are talking about?

    Yes, you exposed your stupidity long ago…

  22. #22 Bernard J.
    April 16, 2017

    Both you and Jeff are now trying to argue that one side is the ‘least worse’ in your opinions.

    No, I’m not arguing that. You’re just asserting such.

    Science is both quantitatively and qualitatively different from the non-science, science-denying industry. Science makes mistakes – no one is trying to ignore or deny that – but it’s not only that the non-science industry propagandists are orders of magnitude more mistake-prone, but that science has self-correcting mechansisms for mistakes when they occur, where non-science industry shilling not only does not correct its mistakes, but that it actively and deliberately propagates as many of them as it possibly can in order to push its agendas.

    I repeat. List the errors of professional climatology. List the currently-defensible counters of the climatology-denying industry. After all, you’re making assertions – so back the bloody things up.

    Let’s see who gets what right, and who gets it wrong.

  23. #23 Lionel A
    April 16, 2017

    Re #21

    Did somebody just pass wind?

  24. #24 Stu 2
    April 16, 2017

    All I can say at this point is:
    “I rest my case”.
    Excellent display of exactly what I was trying to explain.
    Well done.
    Meanwhile, out here in the real world, real people are kicking real environmental goals.
    Despite your bleating otherwise, that does include highly qualified scientists who don’t see themselves as a member of any particular ‘team’ or ‘side’.
    Your black hat/ white hat melodramatic view of the world is highly amusing to read, but it’s unproductive, negative and circular thinking.
    There’s seriously no point in trying to argue about who is the ‘least wrong’ or ‘least worse’ & etc.

  25. #25 Stu 2
    April 16, 2017

    And Bernard J?
    Perhaps you could re-read your comment @# 5?
    What does something being riddled with more errors mean?
    &@#8, what would listing errors along side each other prove?
    &@# 22, practically your whole comment is about who is most right or least worse straight after you claim that you’re not arguing that.
    I’m interested in what actually works, I completely don’t care where those successful programs come from.
    Apparently you’re more interested in barracking for your team????
    Out here in the real rough and tumble world, we judge by measureable results.

  26. #27 Stu 2
    April 17, 2017

    The link will work for you if you Google the title : Activists are the new face of colonial oppression. Warren Mundine.

  27. #28 Bernard J.
    April 17, 2017

    Out here in the real rough and tumble world, we judge by measureable results.

    Indeed. And in the real world this is what’s happening…

    From the latest State of the Environment report

    Biodiversity:

    Evidence for the effectiveness of recovery planning for threatened species is variable. Little evidence exists to suggest improvement in the state or trend of most threatened species.

    and

    It is not possible to assess the overall long-term effectiveness of management actions taken to limit the impact of invasive species.

    Atmosphere:

    Australia has a long-term trend of declining rainfall.

    and

    Australia is warming.

    and

    Emissions continue to contribute to climate change.

    and

    Population and climate change are the biggest pressures on air quality.

    and

    The world is warming.

    and

    Adverse human health impacts appear to occur at lower concentrations of air pollution than previously thought.

    and

    Australian average temperatures have increased by 1 °C since 1910.

    and

    ‘Human influence on the climate system is clear’ .

    On land issues:

    Climate change is the most serious threat to land management.

    and

    Invasive species pose a major risk to the environment, industry and health.

    and

    Ongoing clearing of native vegetation threatens a range of sectors .

    and

    There is intense and growing competition for land resources.

    and

    Although mining developments have slowed in recent years, the ongoing environmental impact of former mining sites and the expansion of unconventional gas extraction are emerging concerns, particularly because of concerns for safety and competition with other land uses.

    and

    In the past 5 years, land-clearing rates have stabilised* in all states and territories, except Queensland, where clearing has increased.

    and

    We continue to lose agricultural land through urban encroachment.

    In the marine environment:

    Activities to manage and mitigate threats identified in species recovery plans and threat abatement plans have been limited.

    and

    Anthropogenic ocean warming and ocean acidification, superimposed on natural climate variations, pose risks to Australia’s marine ecosystems and their habitats, communities and species groups.

    and

    Application of formal ecological risk assessment frameworks within the Australian marine environment has been limited.

    and

    Climate extremes have resulted in widespread coral bleaching, habitat destruction and species mortalities in the past 5 years.

    and

    Generally, habitats, communities and species groups in the Temperate East and South-east marine regions have been affected by historical pressures to a greater degree than those in other regions.

    and

    Management frameworks continue to be poorly coordinated across sectors and jurisdictions, despite high spatial overlap. In association with this, understanding and management of cumulative impacts of all pressures are lacking.

    and

    No marine species have been removed from the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) threatened species list since 2011; 8 species and 1 ecological community have been added.

    In the Antarctic environment:

    Antarctic terrestrial ecosystems are changing, especially where snowfall is replaced by rain.

    and

    Antarctica is warming, although changes in atmospheric circulation brought about by the Antarctic ozone hole have been a temporary mitigating factor that has reduced the overall amount of warming, primarily in summer .

    and

    Global sea levels continue to rise, although patterns of sea level change across the Southern Ocean are variable because of regional differences in heat uptake and transport. The Southern Ocean continues to become warmer.

    and

    Several factors, such as ocean acidification, increasing wind strength and changes in ocean circulation in the Southern Ocean, may affect the base of Antarctic food webs.

    and

    The environment of subantarctic islands is also changing. Most noticeable is the retreat of the glaciers at Heard Island.

    and

    The pressure of human activities on Antarctica and the Southern Ocean is increasing.

    and

    Major regional changes are occurring in Antarctic sea ice coverage.

    and

    The Antarctic environment is showing clear signs of impact from climate change.

    and

    There is increasing evidence that the ozone layer is starting to recover as a direct consequence of international controls on the use of human-made ozone depleting substances.

    [*NB: “stabilised” rates are unsustainable. The only land clearing rate that is sustainable is zero net loss of functioning ecosystems.]

  28. #29 Lionel A
    April 17, 2017

    [*NB: “stabilised” rates are unsustainable. The only land clearing rate that is sustainable is zero net loss of functioning ecosystems.]

    Absolutely, Stu2poid take note.

    A recent documentary series with biologist Liz Bonnin included in a scientific expedition to the Galapagos islands focuses that point.

    Seeing Galapagos giant tortoise brought up against barbed wire, which appalled me, at the fringes of a spreading encroachment makes it clear that humans are the most destructive invasive species of all. But climate change is having a marked effect on the ecosystems of this archipelago too.

    Such research as conducted on that expedition is just one example of the all too few such studies being carried out on a global basis.

    The point of many of my posts, by including links such as to this blog are to raise awareness of the many bad effects from our polluting ways. These ways can only be effectively tackled if the global population is aware of the scope and magnitude of the problems such that they demand action from their governments.

    One country attempting to behave responsibly towards the environment will find itself economically disadvantaged in the global market place which is geared to overconsumption (consumerism) and growth. Such a country may also find itself in a position where its government is undermined, or even invaded (a common theme in the US backyard and also that of Australia with East Timor) by agents of another bent on maintaining the status quo.

    It is this level of push back against the forces of evil fossil fuel interests that I have been engaging in.

    I, by belonging to wildlife trusts also take in interest in more local efforts to conserve our natural habitats, habitats increasingly threatened by those who call themselves conservative — the irony.

    Opinion pieces in conservative owned media are rarely worth the time reading, other than to judge how dishonest and dishonourable their words and actions are. The Australian is an example of such untrustworthy media, similarly with the various forms of The Mail.

    Breitbart is another classic example, now the stomping ground of James ‘Interpreter of Interpretations’ Delingpole.

    Delingpole recently viciously lied about the prospects of the Great Barrier Reef.

    Without global engagement to ensure that all communities are on a level playing field then the human impact on global temperatures, and hence the long term improvement in the prospects for such as the Galapagos ecosystems, will not be addressed. This of course is the aim of the fossil fuel funded likes of Congresscritter Lamar Smith and the equally fossil fuel embarrassed would be scientists that aid and abet him and others like him.

    Meanwhile peoples attention is diverted by crazy political antics such as Brexit and celebrity news as entertainment and awful ‘look at me’ type reality TV scheduling, ‘I’m a celebrity get me out of here’ being a classic example.

    I am also appalled at the growing number of cooking programmes where exotic dishes are exotically presented and judged. This when what is really required is public education about food hygiene, cooking basic dishes avoiding the endless run of health threatening ready meals and highlighting the problems of modern food production and distribution. The effects of overuse of antibiotics, for the wrong purposes, being just one big issue that is going to haunt us in the future. Indeed there are signs this is in train.

  29. #30 Lionel A
    April 17, 2017

    Aargh!

    [*NB: “stabilised” rates are unsustainable. The only land clearing rate that is sustainable is zero net loss of functioning ecosystems.]

    Absolutely, Stu2poid take note.

    A recent documentary series with biologist Liz Bonnin included in a scientific expedition to the Galapagos islands focuses that point.

    Seeing Galapagos giant tortoise brought up against barbed wire, which appalled me, at the fringes of a spreading encroachment makes it clear that humans are the most destructive invasive species of all. But climate change is having a marked effect on the ecosystems of this archipelago too.

    Such research as conducted on that expedition is just one example of the all too few such studies being carried out on a global basis.

    The point of many of my posts, by including links such as to this blog are to raise awareness of the many bad effects from our polluting ways.

  30. #31 Jeff Harvey
    April 17, 2017

    “You mean like spotting a spider and claiming you witnessed climate change first hand? Is that what you are talking about?

    Yes, exactly like that, because I was witnessing climate change first hand. Just like I am when I see species occurring in the Netherlands now that have expanded their ranges from the south in recent years (e.g. Oak Processionary Caterpillars, Argiope spiders, many more). That’s first hand evidence of climate change. Just like when I saw tens of thousands of invertebrates active in Algonquin Park along a linear transect (meaning that tens of millions were active in the Park itself) two months ahead of when they would normally be active. That’s climate change first hand. Just like when I see rapid phenological shifts in species seasonal growth or activity patterns. or changes in voltinism. That’s seeing climate change first hand.

    So yes, you useless pile of excrement, all of these are examples of seeing climate change first hand. Biologists across the planet are seeing first hand effects of climate change all the time. As someone with more qualifications in their little pinky than you have in your bloated biomass, its not a hard call to make.

    Betula demolished again. My word its so easy. But why is it that morons like Betula are stuck on blogs? Why don’t they come up from under the slimy rocks they inhabit and try and debate us face to face? Well that’s easy to explain. Because their rank ignorance would be exposed. I would annihilate Betula and he fucking well knows it.

  31. #32 Jeff Harvey
    April 17, 2017

    Of course there aren’t two sides. You have scientists basing their arguments on the empirical evidence and you have non-scientists for the most part basing their arguments on their own pre-determined political views. The ratio of qualified scientists arguing that climate change is very real, down primarily to human forcing, and represents a potential threat if not mitigated is about 99:1. Only in the dreamlike state of Stu’s world does this constitute a two-sided debate. Sure a few shills like Willie Soon have sold their souls to Exxon-Mobil and the like, but the vast majority of qualified scientists don’t do that.

    So where in reality are there 2 sides? There aren’t. Theres scientific evidence or there is political bias. I take the former.

  32. #33 Jeff Harvey
    April 17, 2017

    A good analogy for Stu2 is flat earth or creation theory. Climate change deniers are flat earthers/creationists. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they stick with their outdated memes. So are there two sides in debating the shape of the planet or its biological history? To flat earthers and creationists there is. To the rest of us there clearly isn’t.

  33. #34 Lionel A
    April 17, 2017

    Argiope spiders

    Like these examples of Argiope bruenichii which I photographed (using a film SLR) back in 2002 in Southern England:

    ventral

    dorsal

  34. #35 Betula
    April 17, 2017

    Hardley @ – “Yes, exactly like that, because I was witnessing climate change first hand”

    Yet,when I called you out on this, you said you didn’t?

    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”

    Jeez Hardley, with all your dodging and dancing, you still managed to shoot yourself in the foot!

    Remember…you’re the scientist.

  35. #36 Betula
    April 17, 2017

    Wow Lionel, with your love of travel and your love affair with planes, I wonder how many of those spiders you have killed?

    Very irresponsible on your part.

  36. #37 Betula
    April 17, 2017

    Hey look, one of Hardley’s friends making about as much sense as Hardley….all in the name of ideology.

  37. #38 Lionel A
    April 17, 2017

    Very irresponsible on your part.

    My love of travel. How would you know about that?

    As it happens most of my travel was during my service. As for air travel, sure I had a few flights back then in military stuff, heavy metal such as Sea Venom, Sea Vixen, Hunter T8, Meteor T7 also Sea King, Sea Devon and Sea Heron but few and far between over two decades or so and all work related.

    I have never taken a commercial airline flight, my last flight was about 1/2 hour in a Tiger Moth – a Boeing whatever would use more fuel than that just starting up.

    So you are pissing up the wrong tree, and into wind, here bud.

  38. #39 Lionel A
    April 17, 2017

    Bircher,

    Something for you to think about but maybe your simplistic way of looking at things may not be good enough for you to grasp the true meaning of that.

  39. #40 Betula
    April 17, 2017

    Lionel – “all work related”

    How do spiders differentiate between “work related” emitted CO2 and leisure emitted CO2?

    Hardley is the scientist, I’m sure he can answer this one…

  40. #41 Lionel A
    April 17, 2017

    Bircher, your hagfish like discussion tactics are noted and notable and reprehensible.

  41. #42 Lionel A
    April 17, 2017

    Stupoid,

    Your simplistic understanding of the hydrological cycle dynamics and the results of ice melt leading to improved water supply have just taken a hit.

    This is but one result those of us who think about the bigger picture anticipated. You not so much.

  42. #43 Stu 2
    April 17, 2017

    http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-07/abares-wrap-2017/8328922?pfmredir=sm
    And yet, even though it’s not perfect, out in the real world this is ALSO what is happening.

  43. #44 Betula
    April 17, 2017

    Lionel – “your hagfish like discussion tactics are noted and notable and reprehensible”

    Hagfish have discussion tactics? Please explain…

    In the meantime…

    http://www.livescience.com/57705-us-navy-synthetic-hagfish-slime.html

  44. #45 Stu 2
    April 17, 2017

    Lionel.
    Your comments atm are just flat out misanthropic.
    Jeff.
    I note you’re still applying labels and assigning teams?
    Now it’s ‘flat earthers’ and ‘creationists’?
    It doesn’t really get more ‘political’ than that.
    Meanwhile, despite your ‘about 99:1’ unscientific guess based on your own opinion, there are plenty of highly qualified scientists who are actually working in the real environment and kicking real environmental goals.
    I’m starting to feel a bit sorry for you blokes.
    If all you can do is just focus on the dark side of human nature, and man’s inhumanity to man & etc it must be hard to wake up each morning?

  45. #46 Stu 2
    April 17, 2017

    To be clear.
    Instead of forever bleating that we’re ‘all going to hell in a handbasket’ and complaining that nothing is being done, there are actually lots and lots of people from all walks of life who are ‘doing something about it’.

  46. #47 Craig Thomas
    April 18, 2017

    On April 13, 2017, Stu 2 emitted:

    “Richard Tol is far from the only lead author at the IPCC who has made a mistake.
    Actually lots of academics in lots of different fields have made mistakes.
    The peer reviewed literature is riddled with them.”

    The scale of Tol’s “error” – reversing the sign on various key figures, “accidentally” producing a result to match Tol’s thesis was monumental.
    If any genuine scientist made a “mistake” on this level, it is likely they would retire from the field or become evermore ignored by their peers.

    The only similarly horrendous wrongness I can think of would be when Richard Lindzen was also caught out with mistakes that a high schooler would have been embarrassed to have been caught making. Indeed, Lindzen explicity admitted, “It was just embarrassing”, and added that “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.”.

    There is a pattern in this kind of mistake-making on the part of those people who seek to downplay the reality of CO2 emissions, climate sensitivity, and the economic consequences thereof.
    And the reason for that pattern is pretty obvious: it takes a lot of effort and selective blindness to maintain their position in the face of the mountains of data and evidence which proves them wrong.

  47. #48 Jeff Harvey
    April 18, 2017

    Well, at least since I got Kim booted out of here trolling is down.

    Betula seems to revel in being one. He doesn’t seem to think that its possible for anyone to see climate change first hand. But given his limited grasp of science, that’s not really surprising. He gets repeatedly whupped here and yet he thinks he holds the intellectual edge. That is trolling folks. Big time.

    Here is a sample of links to discussions of the firsthand effects of warming on nature and biodiversity. I explained some yesterday – its easy to see it if one looks beyond the end of their nose. Betula is a right wing idiot. We all know that. He probably revels in the new kleptocracy emerging there, and loves the fact that his narcissistic President seems intent on bombing more countries that Obama did. But I digress. If I major storm ripped through his neck of the woods he’s so thick that he’d deny he saw first hand effects of the storm afterwards while being surrounded by fallen trees and debris.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5494142/

    https://www.monash.edu/environmental-sustainability/news-and-events/latest-news/climate-change-a-first-hand-experience

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/328835-climate-change-is-not-a-hoax-it-is-deadly-serious-say

    https://www.seeker.com/first-hand-experience-makes-people-care-more-about-warming-1765194753.html

    http://fm.kuac.org/post/natives-firsthand-knowledge-informs-study-climate-change-impact-subsistence-hunting

  48. #49 Jeff Harvey
    April 18, 2017

    Stu, you are almost – not quite, but almost – as thick as Betula.

    If you could get this through your rather thick noggin, I did not say that there were two sides to the climate change debate, unless you agree that creationism represents another side to the issue of our origins or flat earthers have credibility in their views. THERE IS NO DEBATE. ITS OVER. THE CLIMATE IS WARMING RAPIDLY, WELL OUTSIDE OF NORMAL RANGES, AND HUMANS ARE OVERWHELMINGLY THE PRIMARY CULPRIT.

    Does that finally register? And my ratio of 99:1 is very accurate, based on the view of rank-and-file earth and environmental scientists on AGW. The fact that the denial industry relies on the same tiny number of shills to spread their gospel of doubt shows how think in numbers they are. Besides, I am a scientist Stu, and you most certainly aren’t. I attend plenty of major conferences in which climate change is a central theme and over many years I have met maybe three of four scientists who downplay AGW against thousands who don’t.

    Now please stop making yourself look silly by trying to drag this discussion into your limited area of expertise.

  49. #50 Jeff Harvey
    April 18, 2017

    how thin… given that deniers don’t think…

  50. #51 Jeff Harvey
    April 18, 2017

    Only Betula could try and make fun of the environmental impact of Trump’s racist wall (that schmucks like Betula are going to pay for anyway) which will act as a major barrier to the dispersal of a range of vertebrate and invertebrate fauna. Certainly many quadrupeds will be seriously harmed, as well as reptiles and amphibians. Dispersing across landscapes is a major adaptive response to species to changing local and larger scale abiotic conditions. That Betula thinks that its hilarious means he must be splitting his side when he sees chainsaws hacking down vast tracks of rainforests around the world, or the poaching of rhinos and other decimated mammals in Africa.

    Betual is a pretty despicable individual, who is so utterly stupid that he doesn’t even realize it. We all know what that shows folks. Dunning-Kruger personified. He is the kind of idiot who laughs at his own jokes. This latest one isn’t funny at all, any more than seeing an elephant get shot or a gray wolf caught in a leg trap.

    Well done Betula. You really like throwing shit in your own face, don’t you?

  51. #52 Lionel A
    April 18, 2017

    Bircher,

    Hagfish have discussion tactics? Please explain…

    If you bothered to engage fully in a blog discussion, specifically my replies to Stu2, you would have picked up on the context of that by now, but of course that would involve effort on your part something you clearly lack when it comes to reading and comprehension.

  52. #53 Betula
    April 18, 2017

    Hardley – “He doesn’t seem to think that its possible for anyone to see climate change first hand”

    Nice try Hardley – We are talking about Algonquin, where you said you witnessed climate change first hand, then you said “of course” you didn’t witnessed climate change first hand, then you went back to saying you did witness climate change first hand…

    When cornered, you end up arguing with yourself until you come to the realization that you’re a dribbling moron…at which point you attempt to change the subject.

    Congratulations, you’ve exposed yourself as a “scientist” who will say and conclude anything as long as it fits your predetermined view of what is, should be, and what you think will be…

  53. #54 Betula
    April 18, 2017

    Meanwhile, Hardley is busy at home building a stone wall around his property to keep the birds and spiders out…

    Deltoid at it’s best.

  54. #55 Betula
    April 18, 2017

    Shorter Lionel – “Correct, Hagfish don’t have discussion tactics…I’m an idiot”

  55. #56 Lionel A
    April 18, 2017

    Stupoid

    Your comments atm are just flat out misanthropic.

    Calling somebody out for repeatedly picking the wrong argument and/or mischaracterizing the lines of argument of others is not misanthropic.

    And yet you continue doing that as seen here:

    Instead of forever bleating that we’re ‘all going to hell in a handbasket’ and complaining that nothing is being done, there are actually lots and lots of people from all walks of life who are ‘doing something about it’.

    Pointing out the increasing evidence that climate change is already wreaking havoc to infrastructure and ecosystems whilst governments, on a global scale, in general fail to adopt consistent policies for reducing GHG emissions, and many other polluting aspects of (so called) civilization and using the arguments of a troop of deniel-delayer one time scientists clowns to provide the arguments for inaction is not bleating.

    In former times such persistent effrontery would have produced an invitation to ‘grass before breakfast’.

    But there is worse from you:

    If all you can do is just focus on the dark side of human nature, and man’s inhumanity to man & etc it must be hard to wake up each morning?

    It happens to be the dark side of human nature, combinations of hubris, greed and megalomania that allows the denial bandwaggon to roll on.

    To ignore that, as you try to do, makes one complicit. You have revealed an awful (an apt expression) side of your nature there. If I were you I would stop and think carefully about this whole business, straighten out your cognitive framework and learn to think more rationally and with sensitivity to the plight of others. Only a global sea change of attitudes and policy can truly provide long term solutions no matter what local efforts are being made, such local efforts can only make sense when the global realities are acknowledged and addressed.

  56. #57 Jeff Harvey
    April 18, 2017

    Sorry Betula, by putting up that CNBC piece about the ecological effects of Trump’s stupid, idiotic wall in an attempt at humor you scored perhaps your biggest own goal in a long series of them. You are such a fucking moron that you probably think that the poaching of elephants is hilarious, that species extinctions are side-splitting and that polar bears are expendable.

    Get lost your idiotic, anonymous twerp.

  57. #58 Jeff Harvey
    April 18, 2017

    And as an addendum, Betula, you still haven’t made a single scientific argument on this blog in 7 years. You think that misquoting scientists like you did with the 17th author on Crowther et als. paper in Nature dimisses their implications. This is the ‘depth’ of your knowledge. Your knowledge of the field barely rises above a kindergarten student, and you’ll search under every rock to find something – anything – to give the impression that you are some kind of an expert.

    You have a rather sick obsession with my Algonquin trip of 2012, for the sole reason that you can’t find anything remotely scientific to dismiss what the scientific community already knows – climate change is happening, its almost exclusively down to us, and urgent measures are needed to deal with it. Moreover, as any scientist will tell you, first hand observations of climate change are everywhere, INCLUDING my observations and those of a colleague in Algonquin Park. Stick that knowledge up your ignorant butt.

  58. #59 Lionel A
    April 18, 2017

    Stu2:

    As an indicator of how badly things are going for those unfortunate enough not to be amongst the wealthy of the world here is a message that the situation is getting worse. Not a surprise, should not be for you either if you had taken up my advice to read ‘The Little Earth Book’ which puts allot of things in simple terms.

    As for your dropping in of Tol and the hydrological cycle, once again we see signs of the global potable water situation getting worse.

    This is why we round on you and describe your machinations using derogatory terms – for that is all they deserve. Nothing to do with bleating.

  59. #60 Betula
    April 18, 2017

    Hardley – “You are such a fucking moron that you probably think that the poaching of elephants is hilarious”

    No, but unlike you, I do think birds can fly…

  60. #61 Betula
    April 18, 2017

    Hardley – “You think that misquoting scientists like you did with the 17th author on Crowther et als. paper in Nature dimisses their implications”

    No misquote, it was an exact quote….and it made you look like the jackass that you are, so I can understand your attempted defense mechanism.

  61. #62 Betula
    April 18, 2017

    Hardley – “Moreover, as any scientist will tell you, first hand observations of climate change are everywhere, INCLUDING my observations and those of a colleague in Algonquin Park. Stick that knowledge up your ignorant butt”

    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”

    Poor Hardley. losing the argument with himself….how embarrassing.

  62. #63 Betula
    April 18, 2017

    @59 – a piss poor biased article Lionel, but at least you admit that the redistribution of wealth is what this is really all about…

    You’re finally coming around.

  63. #64 Lionel A
    April 18, 2017

    @59 – a piss poor biased article Lionel

    You do not indicate which of the two was PP. No matter my guess is the first and what would a Nobel laureate know compared to you.

    Sure it requires a change in the distribution of wealth but not a redistribution – subtle difference but then nuance is not your forte is it.

  64. #65 Lionel A
    April 18, 2017

    More on that glacial retreat.

    Come on stop being simpletons even the Himalayas are seeing rapid change, bad news for those relying on the waters of the Indus, Brahmaputra and Ganges.

  65. #66 Stu 2
    April 18, 2017

    Lionel @#56?
    Has it possibly occured to you that if someone mentions the dark side of human nature then they’re probably not trying to ignore it????
    Along with Jeff, you’re appearing to argue with one of those straw man thingies.
    Despite your assertions otherwise, people do care about the environment and people do respect science.
    Your insistence on only focusing on negative and then trying to claim some sort of intellectual consensus about that is not conducive to solving anything.

  66. #67 Craig Thomas
    April 19, 2017

    Here are some interviews with some people who have “witnessed climate change first hand”
    http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/farmers-want-action-on-climate-change-new-survey-shows/news-story/b4f1bc575617805fd53ead66b21e6347

    And yesterday some guys were in the news after discovering that they had witnessed some climate change first hand:
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/17/receding-glacier-causes-immense-canadian-river-to-vanish-in-four-days-climate-change

    We could provide you with a very long list, Betula, of people who have seen some tangible effects of climate change.
    Or you could look it up all by yourself…?

  67. #68 Betula
    April 19, 2017

    @67 – What does any of that have to do with Hardley seeing a spider while his friend was getting frostbite, then claiming the spider was evidence of climate change, then claiming he couldn’t have witnessed climate change first hand because it was winter, then continue to claim he witnessed climate change first hand?

    Oh wait, we have had more rain than usual this spring here in the Northeast, therefore, Hardley must be correct when he claims he witnessed climate change first hand in Algonquin when he saw a spider with frostbite….and he must have been correct when he back tracked and said he couldn’t have witnessed climate change first hand because it was winter, and he must have been correct when he then switched back to claiming he did witness climate change first hand…

    Good thing we have had a lot of rain in the Northeast or I never would have believed he did, didn’t, did…

    Bottom line: You’re both retarded.

  68. #69 Lionel A
    April 19, 2017

    Along with Jeff, you’re appearing to argue with one of those straw man thingies.

    That is because yo keep raising them, and you have raised another one:

    Your insistence on only focusing on negative…

    Maybe you are unclear as to the classification of ‘strawman’ in the list of logical fallacies.

    Your comprehension failure has now reached new levels.

    Now when it comes to action delaying denial tactics some are in a class of their own. An apposite post answering one of these ‘useful fools’ (as the rogue scientists have been described recently) has just appeared here:

    <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=20372"Judy Curry’s attribution non-argument

    It is clear that Curry is no longer engaged in science, this has been evident for some time now as she digs her hole deeper and deeper.

    Despite your assertions otherwise, people do care about the environment and people do respect science.

    That kicks off with a lie. As for the latter part of that inaccurate characterization (you do this every time) of my ‘assertions’ I am targeting those who do not respect science and this clearly applies to Curry and the one to whom she was being sycophantic recently – Lamar Smith.

  69. #70 Lionel A
    April 19, 2017

    Drat.

    An apposite post answering one of these ‘useful fools’ (as the rogue scientists have been described recently) has just appeared here:

    Judy Curry’s attribution non-argument

  70. #71 Stu 2
    April 19, 2017

    Now we have another ‘team’ called ‘rogue scientists’?
    Lionel’s latest link is still all about arguing about who is ‘not right’ or at the least ‘not wrong’ and pointing fingers at other ‘teams’.
    It takes up lots of space and time but it’s circular and hence totally unproductive.
    @#49 Jeff has even capitalised that there is no debate, yet still wants to debate.
    It’s amusing to read but that’s about it.
    Meanwhile, as those scientists at all those conferences Jeff attends are discussing academic nuances, there are actually people, including scientists, that are getting their hands dirty actually working in the real environment and making a real difference.
    You blokes can argue forever about whether it’s enough. But it’s certainly better than just arguing and preaching doom and gloom.

  71. #72 Craig Thomas
    April 19, 2017

    On April 19, 2017, Betula gabbled:

    ” What does any of that have to do with Hardley seeing a spider while his friend was getting frostbite, then claiming the spider was evidence of climate change, then claiming he couldn’t have witnessed climate change first hand because it was winter, then continue to claim he witnessed climate change first hand?”

    I’ll address 2 things there:
    1. I have little recollection of the post from Dr. Harvey to which you refer, but I am 97% confident that your paraphrase/characterisation of it is wildly inaccurate.

    2. I have no idea how the two examples might be relevant – I would defer to the properly qualified ecologists on that matter, however in a broad sense it has been established that individual observations can be regarded as “first hand evidence of climate change”.

    Here’s another, involving animals this time. Apparently people who get out in the world get to see the effects of climate change. Who’d have thought, eh, Betula? Maybe you could get out of your mother’s basement and see the world, just like the farmers, glaciologists, zoologists and ecologists do?

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150413-utah-bears-hibernation-warm-winter-climate-science/

  72. #73 Betula
    April 20, 2017

    Craig, since you say you are 97% confident about something you admit you know nothing about, I’ll just let your comment stand on it’s own. It’s classic Deltoid…no response is needed.

  73. #74 Stu 2
    April 20, 2017

    Craig?
    Did you actually read your link re the bears in Utah?
    Perhaps you missed the paragraph that begins:
    “It’s unclear…….”?
    But I totally agree that there are plenty of scientists & experts & farmers & etc that are actually working outside, including outside computers and outside the hallowed halls of academia.
    Those are the ones who are usually ‘doing something about it’.

  74. #75 Stu 2
    April 20, 2017

    Note also in that article that they’re happy with the ‘steady recovery’ of black bears since the low point of the 60s.

  75. #76 Lionel A
    April 20, 2017

    Now we have another ‘team’ called ‘rogue scientists’?

    What do you mean another team? This is simply a different label for the same set, a subset of climate change denial and/or policy delay activity, see at bottom of post.

    Lionel’s latest link is still all about arguing about who is ‘not right’ or at the least ‘not wrong’ and pointing fingers at other ‘teams’.

    It most certainly is not. Judith Curry repeatedly uses misleading and inaccurate statements when addressing laymen, most importantly members of the US legislature, to muddy the waters of climate change understanding so that concerted action to ameliorate the increasingly evident effects of global warming and climate change are further delayed. Sort of like Willie Soon’s deliverables which aid and abet the dastardly policies of the fossil fuel and allied industries.

    Curry did this in front of Lamar Smith as she did in front of Ted Cruz’s farago at the back end of 2015, where John Christy also used one of his shonky graphs.

    Do you know nothing of all this, or are you trying to ‘airbrush’ it away.

    It takes up lots of space and time but it’s circular and hence totally unproductive.

    This is why Curry and Christy, as well as Soon, Michaels and Lindzen, engage in the kind of distraction and obfuscation that they do in the hope that climate action will be further delayed. You by arguing as you do are aiding and abetting them.

    Your repeated distortion of the nature of the discussion here is despicable and has been for a long, long time. Hence you deserved the ‘brickbats’ hurled your way.

    Two sources for information on the denial tag team, not all are scientists – obviously:

    One

    Two

  76. #77 Li D
    Australia
    April 20, 2017

    #28. Sobering list.
    One of the reasons the superfast climate change is really bad
    is the environment is massivly damaged and out of kilter to
    start with. I think most people understand this to an extent.

    #76 “This is why Curry and Christy, as well as Soon, Michaels and Lindzen, engage in the kind of distraction and obfuscation that they do in the hope that climate action will be further delayed. ”
    Certainly has that appearance.

    I been looking at that bucket of shit site called CFACT.
    Such blatent conspiracy propaganda rubbish.
    Its very nearly a parody. Except its writers genuinly
    mean what they say.

    Betula, you are not even good for comedy. Just annoying.
    Like a three year old begging mum for attention.A three year old
    has some fair justification for such behavior. You dont.
    Grow the fuck up or piss off.

  77. #78 Li D
    Australia
    April 20, 2017

    I was thinking about pollution of all sorts.
    Pissing in the pool.

  78. #79 Jeff Harvey
    April 20, 2017

    Craig, ignore Betula. He’s a third rate tree pruner with a massive inferiority complex who masks it by being a right wing troll. I never said I saw a spider – I said I saw many thousands of invertebrates including wolf spiders. If we count the collemboles this number would increase to many millions of invertebrates. I saw them along a limited linear transect, meaning that across a stupendously larger spatial scale that invertebrate activity during mid-winter in a habitat that should have been in deep freeze was remarkable.

    Like all anti environmeantal liars, Betula twists my words to suit his own agenda. Look at how Bjorn Lomborg excels in partially quoting scientists like Paul Colinvaux to distort the meaning of his words. I see twits like Betula do this all the time. He won’t let go of his spider fantasy like a rabid dog with a bone because he thinks he has me cornered on it. Seriously. Its actually funny. He has no scientific arguments whatsoever, so fantasizing about my Algonquin trek is all he has. Recall that this is the same idiot who once remarked that exploding white tailed deer populations, range expansion of the coyote and re stocking of wild turkey populations were evidence that eastern North American biomes were in good shape. When I told several colleagues this howler they quite literally were on the floor. I have been well aware of Betula’s intellectual limitations for a considerable time. He also once tried to defend the ‘CO2 is plant food’ meme – thoroughly discredited repeatedly but one of the foundations of the kindergarten-level thinking denial brigade. In a nutshell Betula is just a simpleton who hates climate change discussions on account of his Tea Party diectional political leanings.

  79. #80 Jeff Harvey
    April 20, 2017

    Stu, I am not debating you, I am annihilating you. There is a big difference.

  80. #81 Jeff Harvey
    April 20, 2017

    While I am at it Stu, I once tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. You are profoudly ignorant, that is patently clear. But did you ever bother to think about what you write? For instance, that me and my colleagues don’t only attend conferences, but that we actually go out into the field ‘getting our hands dirty’?

    You are such a thick pumpkin that you don’t even bother to think about this possibility. Wakey wakey Stu. As it turns out we do. So do us all a favour here and STFU.

  81. #82 Stu 2
    April 20, 2017

    So what positive outcomes are you and your colleagues achieving when you go out and get your hands dirty?
    What programs have you implemented?
    Which environments have you assisted?
    Have you helped to improve land and water management?
    In short, what are you actually ‘doing about it’?

  82. #83 Stu 2
    April 20, 2017

    Li D @# 77.
    Yes indeed. Writers would usually genuinely mean what they say.
    Just because others don’t agree doesn’t mean anything other than people don’t agree.
    Just because people sometimes make mistakes doesn’t mean anything other than people sometimes make mistakes.

  83. #84 Jeff Harvey
    April 21, 2017

    These excellent and frankly chilling papers by Justin Farrell – in two of the most prestigious journals no less – explain why so many Americans in particular have been ‘dumbed down’ by the media coverage on the causes and consequences of climate change. No doubt Betula will not understand a word of them but he will nevertheless desperately search for rejoinders on the internet. He won’t find any. But it will keep him busy for a little while.

    https://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n4/full/nclimate2875.html

    http://www.pnas.org/content/113/1/92.abstract

  84. #85 Jeff Harvey
    April 21, 2017

    Stu, I work in a fundamental research institute. Nevertheless much of the research done in our group focuses on ecological restoration using knowledge of soil systems as a proxy. This involves considerable field work in the Netherlands and abroad, and some of my colleagues are even now studying the effects of grazing and climate change on the carbon cycle in the world’s grasslands. We are also using our knowledge of restoration to create more species rich systems that are buffered in their functioning against a range of anthropogenic stresses, based on the knowledge that more species rich systems are generally more resistant, resilient and thus more stable. Moreover, much of our research is mechanism driven, as a better understanding of community level interactions under different abiotic and biotic stressors is important knowledge in understanding the responses of these interactions when scaled up to the level of communities and ecosystems. Our institute is rated very highly across the world by our peers in both fundamental and applied research so there is no need for me to have to justify what we do to you.

  85. #86 Jeff Harvey
    April 21, 2017

    One last Betula putdown (very easy, as he seems to relish in ritual self-humiliation), but this clot thinks that his view on my qualifications as a scientists represents ‘the bottom line’. In the past we had other similarly idiotic trolls (Jonas N comes to mind but there were others, for example Sunspot and until I got him banned, Kim) who seemed to think that they were armchair psychologists who could cross examine me in order to ‘prove’ that I am not a qualified scientist. Sigh. It all gets so tedious, but this little army of nitwits think that they make a bold remark on Deltoid and then its case clsed.

  86. #87 Jeff Harvey
    April 21, 2017

    closed… Gee, never got to finish.

    Yesterday I was interviewed by a writer at the American Geophysical Union on what I feel about the influence of blogs in the climate change debate. I mentioned that there are trolls like Betula et al. (Stu is borderline) who write into pro-science blogs like Deltoid, Stoat, Rabett Run, Greg Laden’s blog, Hotwhopper, Realclimate and others who it seems are there just to stir things up; they rarely if ever discuss science because its generally way over their heads (as Betula, Kim, Olaus etc. continually demonstrate). Instead, they simply are present to insult and denigrate the rest of us. Many of these trolls are regulars at denier blogs like WUWT, Climate Depot, Joanne Nova that are refuges for confirmation bias.

    It was an interesting interview and lasted an hour.

  87. #88 Lionel A
    April 21, 2017

    Jeff,

    I figure Stu2 would do well to study that Justin Farrell “Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change” PNAS article and also this review of same by Alex Co

    Then there is Justin Farrell’s earlier article in Nature Network structure and influence of the climate change counter-movement.

    Snag is, he fires back from his high horse (that false moral high ground about doing things locally) so rapidly that he cannot possibly have had time to actually take in and understand the material too which you link.

    With his glib dismissal of ‘The Little Earth Book’ he has no claim to that moral high ground for his vision is myopic.

    One source he may be able to understand is Tony Juniper’s ‘What Has Nature Ever Done For Us?: How Money Really Does Grow On Trees’, the chapter heading provide good clues on where the material leads, but of course there is more, much more.

    My life is nearly done, I don’t have the health to go on expeditions, sadly, I would dearly love to but only if I could make the expenditure of travel energy worthwhile by with useful contributions to the bodies of knowledge. What I can do is continue to study widely (contrary to the cheap jibe from Stu2 I do read widely which is more than can be said for the insulter who told me to do so — the hubris) and push back against unreason.

  88. #89 Betula
    April 21, 2017

    Another Hardley Lie – “I never said I saw a spider – I said I saw many thousands of invertebrates including wolf spiders. If we count the collemboles this number would increase to many millions of invertebrates. I saw them along a limited linear transect, meaning that across a stupendously larger spatial scale that invertebrate activity during mid-winter in a habitat that should have been in deep freeze was remarkable”

    Hey Besides lying, I noticed you forgot to mention your friend got frostbite on that warm trip of yours…

    Here, let’s take a short frostbitten walk while pulling a sled through snow covered Algonquin Memory Lane:

    Betula
    May 5, 2012
    Anyone see this brief article about Jeff Harvey’s Algonquin trip awhile back?

    http://www.nioo.knaw.nl/en/node/2137

    A few of the lines in this article caught my attention:

    Jeff: âOn our trip we experienced climate change at first hand”

    Jeff: “In my work as an ecologist I work on shifting zones, and here I could see it in real.”

    I was curious. Why didn’t Jeff mention the climate change he saw or experienced first hand? Was he misleading the reader? Was he exaggerating? Can someone actually see climate change first hand and realize it’s climate change and not weather?

    I had to know, so I asked on the April thread and then again here:

    @66…”Jeff, I don’t doubt that plant zones are constantly shifting to some degree, but could you share some, if any, of the ecological consequences you experienced first hand?”

    After some back and forth which included displays of Jeff’s past uncivil behaviour, I finally received a response @78 stating:

    “I haven’t answered your question because I think you may be too stupid to understand it.” Of course, I forgave him for this because, as we all know, he has a superiority complex.

    This was followed by a 370 word rambling @78 that didn’t answer the question. Of course, I forgave him for that because I realize he can’t help himself and he thinks I’m too stupid to realize he didn’t answer the question.

    After his usual rambling, Jeff seemed to have an afterthought and realized he didn’t answer the question…so he answers it @79:

    “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.”

    Just as I suspected.

  89. #90 Lionel A
    April 21, 2017

    The flatulence evident at #88 requires urgent treatment.

  90. #91 Betula
    April 21, 2017

    Hardley – “Like all anti environmeantal liars, Betula twists my words to suit his own agenda. Look at how Bjorn Lomborg excels in partially quoting scientists like Paul Colinvaux to distort the meaning of his words. I see twits like Betula do this all the time”

    So your example of my “twisting” of words is to bring up Bjorn Lomborg?

    If I “twisted” words, all you would have to do is copy and paste what I said, then copy and paste your original words to show what it was I “twisted”.

    Unfortunately for you, you can’t do this because you would just further expose yourself.

    Remember, you’re the “scientist”.

  91. #92 Betula
    April 21, 2017

    @86 – Hardley, please post that interview if you dare……It will be fun to rip apart your lies.

    My bet is you won’t post it.

    Thanks.

  92. #93 Craig Thomas
    April 21, 2017

    On April 20, 2017, Betula treated us to:
    “Craig, since you say you are 97% confident about something you admit you know nothing about, I’ll just let your comment stand on it’s own.”

    On April 20, 2017, Jeff Harvey gave us:
    “I never said I saw a spider – I said I saw many thousands of invertebrates including wolf spiders. …invertebrate activity during mid-winter in a habitat that should have been in deep freeze was remarkable.”

    Yep. My job is analysis. My 97% was confident.
    Reassuringly, yet again, my analysis was spot on.

  93. #94 Craig Thomas
    April 21, 2017

    On April 21, 2017, Betula emitted:
    “I noticed you forgot to mention your friend got frostbite on that warm trip of yours”

    Yep, as usual, a denier demonstrates it is unable to perform logical analysis.

    If the Helium in a MRI scanner warms up to -268 degrees, it evaporates. This causes an explosive disaster. Warmed up Helium could cause serious freeze burns.

    The (presumably extremely strenuous) challenge for Betula is to figure out the logical fallacy it has made in thinking that “warm” is incompatible with “frostbite”.

  94. #95 Lionel A
    April 21, 2017
  95. #96 Betula
    April 21, 2017

    Craig – “My 97% was confident”

    You were only 97% confident Hardley would lie, meanwhile, I was 100% confident he would lie….which he did.

  96. #97 Betula
    April 21, 2017

    Craig – “If the Helium in a MRI scanner warms up to -268 degrees, it evaporates. This causes an explosive disaster. Warmed up Helium could cause serious freeze burns”

    Apparently. the snow in Algonquin was melting so fast from climate change, it blew up and caused frostbite….

    Makes sense to me.

  97. #98 Stu 2
    April 21, 2017

    Lionel.
    Which part of I’m spectacularly uninterested in engaging in personal comments are you not understanding?
    It’s actually becoming funny watching you try to take personal offense at my comments.
    You do realise don’t you that it’s entirely your choice how you respond?
    Jeff.
    Of course you don’t need to justify yourself to me.
    But thanks for sort of answering my question.
    You do realise I hope that there are plenty of other people and programs where good work is being done to restore and create more ‘species rich systems’ ?

  98. #99 Lionel A
    April 22, 2017

    ‘Which part of I’m spectacularly uninterested in engaging in personal comments a sensible discussion about the measure required globally to ensure that humanity has a sustainable future on the planet are you not understanding?

    There corrected that misspeak thus I can answer all of it for your original was a hagfish response.

    In addition to Tony Juniper’s book (Have you read it?) this article touches on the topic but sadly indicates that Juniper’s slightly upbeat message that corporations and economists are getting it was overly optimistic.

    This comment also touches on the topic, a topic which you have attempted to avoid here by concentrating on ‘local efforts’ to improve the environment. Efforts which are of negligible value unless this bigger picture painted by short-termism in corporate and governmental strategies where the likes of Tol and Lomborg so like to muddy the waters.

    That you ‘cheer lead’ for these whilst dismissing the anti-science war pushed along by now well recognised, by those knowledgeable and well read in this area, scientists gone rogue is reason enough to consider you as either suffering from DK syndrome or insincere.

  99. #100 Jeff Harvey
    April 22, 2017

    Again, our resident lying dipstick relies on a piece written about my crossing of Algonquin Park in 2012 to evaluate my credibility as a scientist and more hilsriously arguments relating to the ecological effects of AGW.

    Bark brain, you are becoming boring. Paste the link over the whole fucking internet for all I care. Nobody gives a shit because its trivial. You are so utterly desperate for any straws to clutch onto that you waste your time with a rant that pretty well only you read. You have deliberately twisted my words to suit your own agenda, much as you did with Bo Elberling’s in a feeble and failed attempt to downplay the sgnificance of the Crowther et al. study. You are pathetic. Nobody listens to you except your poor family I expect. Get lost.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.