He'll be back in all likelihood, as soon as he's figured out how to dodge the most recent facts put to him, and how to twist others, and how to point at new squirrels.
If and when he returns though it would be nice to see Drongo appear too, because Betula posted as support John Church's paper about sea level rise, which Spangles refuses to accept - I'd ike to see those two figure out whether sea level is rising or not...
Bernard, you keep saying "you're welcome", yet you haven't said anything that deserves thanks.
Do you know what caused the Mangrove damage? So far everything you have stated is a prediction, yet you treat is as fact. Should I thank you for your prediction?
If you know something, please send the link to the scientists who don't know....then we can all thank you.
Do you know what caused the Mangrove damage? So far everything you have stated is a prediction, yet you treat is as fact.
No, I have not made "prediction", not have I treated "prediction[s]" as "fact".
Once again you misrepresent me.
What I did was list the facts:
1) Cyclones Lam and Marcia, at a minimum eye-to-mangrove distance of of 350 km and 1,100 km respectively, were too far away (and occurred too far back in time) to exert storm damage on the Limmen Bight and Karumba sites.
2) Cyclones Lam and Marcia, at a minimum eye-to-mangrove distance of of 350 km and 1,100 km respectively, were too far away (and occurred too far back in time) to exert death-inflicting storm surge mortality on the Limmen Bight and Karumba sites.
3) The fact that Limmen Bight and Karumba are distal to the track of the closest cyclone, Lam, whilst closer mangroves were not affected, is inconsistent with Lam causing the damage.
4) The nature of the mangrove damage shown in the photographs is not consistent with storm damage.
5) Mangroves are adapted to deal with water level variation greater than would have occurred as a result of the relatively benign 2015-2016 cyclones season storm surges.
6) These Carpentaria sites are remote and highly unlikely to be affected by pollution sources to the exent that such severe die-off would occur.
7) The nature of the die-off is inconsistent with insect herbivory die-off.
9) The water temperature anomaly in northern Australia has resulted in bleaching of nearly all of the Great Barrier Reef. 93% of reefs are affected, and as much as half of the coral in the northern third of the 2000km reef has been "devastated."
10) The isolation of Limmen Bight and Karumba in corners of the shallow Gulf of Carpentaria furthest away from the open ocean is consistent with a morphology conducive to exacerbating anomalous warming.
11) My original comment about the mangrove die-off was that it was "another sign of the consequences of warming" - I did not say that it was directly the cause of the mangrove die-off. In this I am entirely consistent with the evidence.
12) The sea level rise as indicated by the Karumba tide gauge is ~6 mm/year.
More generally...
13) Even if some plankton taxa are minimally affected, Doblin and Sebille do not say that all plankton will be minimally-affected, and they explicitly say that they do not include other factors in their analysis ("We make no assumptions about
other losses (e.g., grazing) or whether cooling or warming thermal
histories (represented as skewness in Fig. S5) results in better
outcomes with respect to microbial fitness").
14) Ocean warming does not operate in isolation of other impacts arising from human carbon emissions, and ocean acidification and stratification are inextricably linked to the fact of ocean life.
14) Humans are integrally-dependent on marine taxa other than plankton, and most of these taxa will be negatively-affected by warming.
15) In many presentations of these facts, you've ignored, misrepresented and/or otherwise avoided the import of what I'd said.
I could list more, but what's the point...?
However, if you are able to directly refute any of the above facts as I've presented them go for it.
If you know something, please send the link to the scientists who don’t know...
Back at you, Betula. If you know something that the ecologists working on the Carpentaria don't know - the very people who suspect warming is implicated in the mangrove die-off and who are best-placed to know what's going on - please send them your data and analyses. And while you're at it, you should contact the rest of the world's ecologists and explain to them all why global warming is not as serious as all their work leads them to understand.
Or you could just keep spreading logical fallacy on the internet.
By the way, what’s the “good news” about global warming? And what's your best understanding for the percentage of warming that's attributable to humans. I've given you my figure, quite a while back, but you're still soiling your small-clothes and running like a coward from addressing these questions.
The cause of most, even almost all individual occurences of cancer is unknown. Basically the truth is no-one has ever seen a cell literally becoming tumorous while being able to interpret that process as such.
However, the statistical propensity for the occurence of cancers is quite well known. Most (at least 50%) is genetically defined, a large part of the remainder is environmental defined (e.g. benzene, asbestos and other silicates, tobacco smoke).
Battie’s mangrove reasoning would lead directly to her death if she did the same reasoning after receiving a diagnosis about a third of all people will get. The Batty thing seems to be she’d be surprised all the way. Because she cannot fathom a cause – even if it is tobacco, since lung cancer can also occur in individuals who have never been near smoke, she cannot accept the effect and do something about it.
Bernard - “But it reminds me that I was going to ask you about what exactly is the “good news” about global warming and acidification for califying plankton”
And the backtrack...
Bernard - "I’m not saying that you linked to a paper about acidification"
So since my "good news" comment had nothing to do with a paper about acidification, why are you asking me about the "good news" about acidification?
Answer - You're a Putz
Bernard - "No, I have not made “prediction”, not have I treated “prediction[s]” as “fact”.
Bernard - "As far as humans go, 1.5 °C would hurt, but be survivable, 2 °C will probably see a “global society” disintegrate over the following century, and 3 °C will pretty much see the end of an extensive technological Western civilization"
Not only are the increased temperatures predictions, the word "probably" does not describe a fact...
And regarding your links at #96....predictions not fact.
Bernard - "By the way, what’s the “good news” about global warming? And what’s your best understanding for the percentage of warming that’s attributable to humans"
"assertions" and "misrepresentations" eh Bernard?
You're asking me to predict future scenarios based on the prediction of future global average temperature derived from imperfect computer models....built around a percentage of man made warming that you have yet to discuss (question @#45).
And the answer to this will tell us when and how development, social justice, fairness and equality will fix the future predictions. Correct?
Bernard – “But it reminds me that I was going to ask you about what exactly is the “good news” about global warming and acidification for califying plankton”
And the backtrack…
Bernard – “I’m not saying that you linked to a paper about acidification”
Betula, you're the putz. Those two statements of mine are not inconsistnet, and you're attempting to confabulate their intents in order to escape the substantive points. To wit, you think that some plankton taxa having minimal negative response in a limited-parameter model is "good news", in contrast to my pointing out that empirical data indicate that warming and acidification in a real world context indicate that there is much risk from harm.
And yet you refuse to answer the question about what the "good news" really is, and to acknowledge that acidification negates much of the putative "good news" in a limited-parameter model.
Bernard – “No, I have not made “prediction”, not have I treated “prediction[s]” as “fact”.
Bernard – “As far as humans go, 1.5 °C would hurt, but be survivable, 2 °C will probably see a “global society” disintegrate over the following century, and 3 °C will pretty much see the end of an extensive technological Western civilization”
Ah, I see, if you were only referring to my comments about the impact of warming, then I happily admit that yes, I certainly made predictions... However, and as you very well know, I am talking about the cause of the die-off in the mangroves in the Gulf of Carpentaria, as my 16 points in my post at 602 show.
That is the subject under discussion, and those are the substantive issues that you are refusing to acknowledge to the point that you are engaging in a Gish gallop of logical fallacies that would make a lawyer blush. Those are the facts to which I was referring, and those are the points which I understood you to be inferring were "predictions".
If I misunderstood you, fine. But you refuse to engage substantively - or even insubstantively - with the points I make, and if I can't keep up with the latest squirrel at which you're pointing that's not my fault.
Grow up, Betula.
Not only are the increased temperatures predictions, the word “probably” does not describe a fact…
Oden on a stick, Betula, you're stupid. Or mendacious. Or both.
Of course I can't be sure at a fine-grain resolution how complex planetary ecosystems will respond to countless climate-affecting parameters, and how human actions will pan out in the future. There are many variables that will affect how humans and how non-human life can respond to a warming planet. The only objective way to decribe likely outcomes is to use descriptors of likelihood.
There is no intent to present the projections as "fact", but the fact is that the eventual outcome will follow a trajectory resembles the mapping I described. At least, it will if the best scientific understanding is applicable.
But perhaps I have my understanding of ecophysiology wrong. I fervently hope so. I wish that it were so. Perhaps you can help assuage my mind - can you indicate the scientific studies that show that 3 °C, 4 °C, 5 °C - or more - of warming won't seriously affect human society and survival, and won't cause the loss of 30% or more of the planet's biodiversity. Hint, I've referred you to some papers that you'll need to refute in order to achieve this task...
Bernard – “By the way, what’s the “good news” about global warming? And what’s your best understanding for the percentage of warming that’s attributable to humans”
“assertions” and “misrepresentations” eh Bernard?
What's your point Betula? Have you yet explained why the Doblin and Sebille paper is "good news", and have you yet told us what you understand to be the percentage of human contribution to global warming?
If you have, I missed it, and would certainly appreciate a link...
You’re asking me to predict future scenarios based on the prediction of future global average temperature derived from imperfect computer models
Logical fallacy; straw man.
I'm not asking you to "predict future scenarios". I'm simply asking you to tell us what your understanding is of the current human contribution to global warming. Remember, you said that you "d[i]n’t doubt a percent of [warming] is [the result of human emissions]." You "didn't doubt." You had no doubt. So, on what basis don't you doubt? What is your best understanding (a notion that I've repeatedly put to you) of the human contribution to warming?
I'm not asking for high precision, just your best understanding.
It seems that you have no understanding at all, other than a desire that the human contribution to be much less than the science indicates. But prove me wrong - tell us the basis for your best understanding.
And the answer to this will tell us when and how development, social justice, fairness and equality will fix the future predictions. Correct?
For fuck's sake, what a leap of illogical confabulation.
All I want to know is what you understand to be the human contribution to warming. It's important to determine this, because your understanding informs your acceptance of what should be done to mitigate the effects, pursuant to your degree of acceptance of your moral responsibility to do so.
Your waving of "social justice, fairness and equality" as the proximal issue is simple another in a long line of your attempts to avoid acknowledging a simple, hard, scientifically calculable figure.
Bernard – “And storm surges? That happens when an intense low passes over an area, and as I indicated the cyclones of 15-16 were tiddlers”
Cyclone Lam and Cyclone Marcia: Twin severe storms a ‘first’ for Australia:
Yes, they were. But unfortunately for you they occurred in February 2015, which is in the 2014-2015 cyclone season, so you're still having that issue with dates and the large interval of time receding the occurrence of the present mangrove die-back: the die-off occurred in the latter half of the 2015-2016 cyclone season.
Idiot.
“A storm surge has reached all parts of the Gulf of Carpentaria, with some areas recording seas more than one metre above the astronomical highs”
Indeed. And it happened 16 months before the reporting of the present die-off event, and it didn't impact many hundreds of kilometres of mangrove closer to Lam than are Limmens Bight and Karumba, so what's your point? And do you still really want to drag Marcia in as a suspect, when its eye was 1,100 km south of the closest mangrove site, Karumba?
#8 " fine grain resolution "
I think this hints at an unrealistic expectation some have that
science has all the answers and at a high level of detail.
Its certainly seems to be one of the psychological components
in anti science.
This comes across very strongly with those who go
" whaddya mean the planet is warming? Its cooling where
I live " , utterly failing to understand the complexity of climate
and that cooling in some regions may well occur.
Some people demand incredible detail, when a prudent
scientist can only make out a range of possibilities on the
data they have.
Im glad Bernard J used those words cuz it is important.
I can if i may make an analogy.
If a very drunk driver gets behind the
wheel of a motorcar, a science minded
person can damn well accuratly say its
a dangerous thing.
They cant provide detail of a future accident,
they cant say for certain a tree or a lamppost or
god forbid, a pedestrian or other vehicle will be involved.
Cant even say there WILL be an accident. In fact
they could look at statistics and suggest there probably
wont be.
So what does one do? Ignore the idea that impaired
driving is dangerous because future detail cant be determined?
Oh, and theres lots of accidents involving unimpaired drivers?
Stuff that!
Its interesting how governments by and large are
proactive in listening to science around many things
including motorcar saftey.
Some though, notably Australia, dont seem to reguard
climate science with the same attentiveness. Which is
odd, considering the stakes involved.
I dont reckon its unrealistic to
suggest the biosphere is headed for
a car crash of some sort.
Not only is a drunk behind the wheel,
the brakes need pumping to function,
steering is very loose, several wheel nuts
are missing, tyres are bald, its raining hard,
and the road to be travelled is very twisty, bumpy and
has never been driven before by the drunk, whos
got a lead foot.
Faaaaark. I cant believe im a passenger!
Bernard - "Those two statements of mine are not inconsistent"
Sure they are, otherwise you would have included an answer to the question I posed at #5...."So since my “good news” comment had nothing to do with a paper about acidification, why are you asking me about the “good news” about acidification?"
Bernard - "And yet you refuse to answer the question about what the “good news” really is"
Are we still talking about the subject of the paper about plankton, that found plankton can “endure temperature extremes that go beyond what is predicted by models of global warming.”?
Or are we talking about different "good news" that wasn't in the paper?
Bernard - "I am talking about the cause of the die-off in the mangroves in the Gulf of Carpentaria, as my 16 points in my post at 602 show"
Right. You don't know the cause, neither do I, so don't suggest you do. And if you don't know the cause, don't suggest to know the solution. And if I repeat the words of the scientists saying they don't know, don't suggest that I said I do know. And if you don't know, and I don't know, and the scientists don't know, don't suggest that it is a known sign of the unknown future.
Bernard - "I’m not asking you to “predict future scenarios”. I’m simply asking you to tell us what your understanding is of the current human contribution to global warming"
An .8C rise in GAT over the past 136 years. My question to you was...what percent of that is known to be a direct result of man? Some say 75%. How accurate is that? That would make the man made contribution .6C over the past 136 years, or .004C per year. And how accurate are the records going back 136 years?
I don't doubt man can affect the temperature (urban heat example), and I have never suggested the earth hasn't warmed.....what I asked you is (again), on a global scale, what percent of GAT is known to be a direct result of man?
Bernard - "Your waving of “social justice, fairness and equality” as the proximal issue is simple another in a long line of your attempts to avoid acknowledging a simple, hard, scientifically calculable figure"
You left out development. And It's not my waving Bernard, it's the waving of all alarmists as it is part of the solution. Are you not concerned about the solution Bernard?
If you doubt me, just do a search of climate Change, development and social justice....it's part of the solution.
My question to you is, how will the development of the poor nations reduce overall CO2 emissions in the short and long run and by how much and when?
If you can't answer, then you must be a rich denier who hates the poor...
Bernard - "And storm surges? That happens when an intense low passes over an area, and as I indicated the cyclones of 15-16 were tiddlers"
I'm glad that I was able to help you take the above statement back, at least you now acknowledge that the storms weren't "tiddlers" and that there was a storm surge....."Yes, they were" and "Indeed."
Bernard - "And it happened 16 months before the reporting of the present die-off event"
I'm glad that you went from "18" months to "16" months ago....even though the storms were 15 months ago. It shows progress....
Bernard - "and the large interval of time receding the occurrence of the present mangrove die-back"
Sure they are, otherwise you would have included an answer to the question I posed at #5….”So since my “good news” comment had nothing to do with a paper about acidification, why are you asking me about the “good news” about acidification?”
Erm, no.
I've already explained to you why I'm asking you about the "good news" that you perceive in GSW's link. Perhaps you're too intellectually challenged to understand, so I'll explain it again...
Marine species are not threatened by temperature change alone. Ocean acidification, ocean stratification/anoxia (resulting from warming...) and other human pollution of the marine environment are all impacting on the the planet's oceans. In concert. And not all plankton species are organic-walled. And the Doblin and Sebille paper only models warming as a single parameter, as the authors themselves acknowledge in the paper, and it only refers to phenotypes that exhibit plasticity with respect to temperature variation. And it does not include any consideration of the penalties of this phenotype, and it does not include any investigation of how this phenotype interacts with other ecosystem parameters in the longer term of an ecosystem's life.
So, I repeat, why is the content of the Doblin and Sebille paper "good news"?
The fact that you can't and won't address my question is very telling…
Tell us Betula, have you actually read the paper? Is this why you are avoiding any detailed comment about it?
Are we still talking about the subject of the paper about plankton, that found plankton can “endure temperature extremes that go beyond what is predicted by models of global warming.”?
So, what's the "good news"?
You're just not getting the point, are you?
Right. You don’t know the cause, neither do I, so don’t suggest you do.
I didn't say that I knew the cause. I said that it was "another sign of the consequences of warming" [my latter bolding]. This would be taken by most people to indicate that the die-off event arose distally from actual warming, although I can understand how you might not be able to (or want to) parse this sufficiently to get this. I even tried to point out to you that there is likely to be a confluence of separate factors operating.
It's telling though that the ecologists working in the area are concerned that the high sea temperatures may play a part. And Ockham's razor would argue that given the severe damage to the Great Barrier Reef from ocean warming, and the lack of immediately-obvious alternative factors (no, cyclones in the season before last aren't immediate suspects, especially when mangroves closer to them were not so affected), ocean warming needs to be seriously considered as a factor.
And more generally, with continued warming of the planet from continued human emissions of fossil carbon, this type of ecosystem response is exactly what will occur. This is entirely consistent with my original statement, and you have never offered any data or other testable evidence to the contrary.
And if you don’t know the cause, don’t suggest to know the solution. And if I repeat the words of the scientists saying they don’t know, don’t suggest that I said I do know. And if you don’t know, and I don’t know, and the scientists don’t know, don’t suggest that it is a known sign of the unknown future.
More logical fallacy.
Again, for the hard of learning, I didn't attribute the die-off to a direct effect of warming. I said that it was "a sign of the consequences of warming." And it is very much the sort of "sign" that one would expect from warming whether, in the mangroves' case, it resulted from direct heat stress, increase extreme weather frequency, sea level rise, increased insect herbivory (which, I might reiterate, I don't think is the case in this instance) or other climate-related spread of novel factors such as disease.
The fact is Betula that global warming will have consequences for species and ecosystems around the planet. Many of these consequences will look like the phenomenon seen in Carpentaria, and worse. The solution to minimising a severe amount of damage to the planetary ecology, to the only biosphere that we'll ever have, is to stop emitting fossil carbon. I know that, the world's scientists know that, and many rational lay people know that. If you can't understand or accept this, it's your problem, and unfortunately for us, the rest of the world's too...
An .8C rise in GAT over the past 136 years. My question to you was…what percent of that is known to be a direct result of man? Some say 75%. How accurate is that? That would make the man made contribution .6C over the past 136 years, or .004C per year. And how accurate are the records going back 136 years?
"Some say 75%"? Who? And on what basis do you rely on that figure?
As to your poser "[h]ow accurate is that?" the answer is "not very", if one is referring to the best estimate - to which I referred you some time back. Indeed, given that the best understanding as presented in the scientific literature is somewhere in the vicinity of 110%, and almost certainly over 100%, one has to ask you why, in your excursion from the central estimate, you didn't go the other way and settle on a figure of, say 125%, or 135%?
As to your other straw man, "[a]nd how accurate are the records going back 136 years", go learn some statistics and some proxy climatology. Or are you actually that desperate to change the subject yet again?
I don’t doubt man can affect the temperature (urban heat example), and I have never suggested the earth hasn’t warmed…..what I asked you is (again), on a global scale, what percent of GAT is known to be a direct result of man?
"[K]nown", eh? What's with the demand for an impossible standard? Are you wandering down the path of the negative proof fallacy?
And there's the obligatory straw man via your non-doubting of urban heat islands: the real issue is the retention of heat from an increased atmospheric concentration of the 'greenhouse' gas, carbon dioxide.
And, again, I've told you a number of times now that the best estimates of science are over 100%, and around 110% from the forcings listed in figure 10.5 from the AR5 link that I provided. Do you dispute this? If so, why?
You left out development.
I didn't. I quoted you fully. I simply didn't then repeat "development" because the answers to mitigating climate change are not necessarily all ones of development, but they very certainly are ones related to "social justice, fairness and equality."
Way to go with another red herring though.
If you doubt me, just do a search of climate Change, development and social justice….it’s part of the solution.
Again, that red herring. I well understand that technological progress ("development" is a weasel word…) is a part of the solution to climate change, but it's not all of the solution. More importantly, the basis of my pressing of you here is your avoidance of fundamental facts relating to the cause, magnitude, and consequences of warming, and your apparent avoidance of the moral/ethical responsibilities that we all have to admit to and respond to the damage that we are doing to the planet.
Do you have an attention deficit disorder on the more serious end of the scale, or do you have a propensity to hallucinating squirrels at every turn? Or do you just have a fetish for scarecrows?
My question to you is, how will the development of the poor nations reduce overall CO2 emissions in the short and long run and by how much and when?
If you can’t answer, then you must be a rich denier who hates the poor…
Again with the impossible standards. And a straw man. We're focussing on other things here, Betula, including the extent to which humans are responsible for warming the planet, the amount of sea level rise at Karumba, how Cyclones Lam and Marcia managed to affect the mangroves at Limmens Bight and Larumba at significant distances in both space and time, without affecting mangroves more proximal, and why the Doblin and Sebille paper is "good news" for plankton.
Focus, Betula, focus…
Still, I've happy to answer your question. The extent that the whole world assists both First World and Third World countries to transition from fossil carbon to renewables, both in degree and in rate, will determine how much carbon dioxide emissions are reduced. That's the scientific answer. If you want more than that, you're talking policies and results contingent on future decisions and actions, which can only be determined by modelling based on appropriate input of the parameters that would apply to such, or by waiting and seeing what happens in the future…
But as I said that's a political discussion, and it's a diversion, and I'm trying to press you on the scientific points above that I keep on repeating, and from which you continue to duck and weave.
Bernard – “And storm surges? That happens when an intense low passes over an area, and as I indicated the cyclones of 15-16 were tiddlers”
I’m glad that I was able to help you take the above statement back, at least you now acknowledge that the storms weren’t “tiddlers” and that there was a storm surge…..”Yes, they were” and “Indeed.”
For the umpteenth time, Lam and Marcia were in the 2014-2015 season, five (or just over 4 and a half, if one wants to be specific...) months before the 2015-2016 season even started. They did not occur in the season of "tiddlers". And I know how strong Lam and Marcia were - I posted somewhere about it the day that they struck, or the day after - but they occurred in the cyclone season previous to the 2015-2016 season.
Do you understand yet?
I’m glad that you went from “18” months to “16” months ago….even though the storms were 15 months ago.
Really, you're going to go with that Betula? Even though you first raised the time span with your "15-16 months" comment? More fool me for counting in my head by months whilst I typed and not realising that it was only 15.2 months, and not more than 15.5 months, but seriously Betula, are you so bloody desperate for a gotcha that this is what qualifies as a substantive point in your mind?!
Your arguments are piss-weak at very best if this is all that you have.
Bernard – “and the large interval of time receding the occurrence of the present mangrove die-back”
Again – When were the pictures taken?
Bernard - "I’ve already explained to you why I’m asking you about the “good news” that you perceive in GSW’s link"
The "good news" "perceived" in GSW' link, had nothing to do with acidification. You're an idiot.
Bernard - "So, I repeat, why is the content of the Doblin and Sebille paper “good news”?"
And since I have already told you, I will repeat - You're an idiot.
Bernard - "I didn’t say that I knew the cause. I said that it was “another sign of the consequences of warming"
A sign of the future. You don't know the cause of the mangrove damage, but you know whatever it is, is a sign of the future. If it's tides, it's the future. If it's insects, it's the future. If it's a disease, it's the future. If it's a storm, it's the future. Meanwhile, mangroves have been around Australia for 19 million years...What if they recover, is that the future as well?
Me - "My question to you is, how will the development of the poor nations reduce overall CO2 emissions in the short and long run and by how much and when?"
Your very telling non answer - "Focus, Betula, focus"
But then you try - "The extent that the whole world assists both First World and Third World countries to transition from fossil carbon to renewables, both in degree and in rate, will determine how much carbon dioxide emissions are reduced"
So the answer is we don't know. And I'm sure you took into consideration increased construction, use of materials, transportation, manufacturing, shipping, use of the earths resources, consumption etc when you came up with your non answer....correct? And then there is the issue of cost and oversight...more non answers I'm sure.
But the "good news" is, we predict that we can prevent the predicted future scenarios that we see in current events that we don't know the cause of....
Bernard - "Your arguments are piss-weak at very best if this is all that you have"
My "argument" is that you don't know the cause, and the future isn't a fact, and you can't explain if development will increase or decrease CO2 by any given amount over any given time.
And since that is all true, I would say there is no argument.
The “good news” “perceived” in GSW’ link, had nothing to do with acidification
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. You admit that you and GSW were not considering all of the impacts of human carbon emission when spruiking the "good news". We can delve further into that soon.
But first, what exactly is the "good news"? In finally describing the nature of the "good news", if would help if you could tell us which plankton taxa are thusly fortunate, and just how it is that are thusly fortunate.
Bernard – “So, I repeat, why is the content of the Doblin and Sebille paper “good news”?”
And since I have already told you, I will repeat – You’re an idiot.
Oh dear Betula, I seem to have missed the post where you explained why Doblin and Sebille is "good news"! Perhaps you could link to your post where you "already explained" it?
A sign of the future. You don’t know the cause of the mangrove damage, but you know whatever it is, is a sign of the future. If it’s tides, it’s the future. If it’s insects, it’s the future. If it’s a disease, it’s the future. If it’s a storm, it’s the future.
Betula, you obviously have a mental condition where you filter fact to suit your ideology. Let me put it to you in a way that you might be able to understand.
If "it's" sea level rise resulting from global warming, then "it's" the consequence of the human contribution to global warming.
If "it's" increased ecological disruption resulting from global warming, leading to atypical predation/herbivory/disease, then "it's" the consequence of the human contribution to global warming.
If "it's" freshwater flooding, or storm surging, or direct storm damage occurring at a frequency or intensity resulting* from global warming, then "it's" the consequence of the human contribution to global warming.
If "it's" the heat stress arising from anomalously warm water resulting from global warming, then "it's" the consequence of the human contribution to global warming.
If "it's" any other impact resulting from global warming, then "it's" the consequence of the human contribution to global warming.
Why? Because the best estimate of the human contribution to the contemporary global warming is greater than one hundred percent - as you well know but won't acknowledge.
Meanwhile, mangroves have been around Australia for 19 million years
Straw man. The fact of the duration of existence of mangroves in the past does not mean that they will not be impacted by human-caused global warming now and in the future.
What if they recover, is that the future as well?
If and when species and ecosystems "recover" that will be the result of a combination of eventual biological and geochemical sequestration working in concert with evolution. The problem is that many species and ecosystems won't recover. If we screw up the climate sufficiently humans might not "recover" either.
That is the future.
But then you try – “The extent that the whole world assists both First World and Third World countries to transition from fossil carbon to renewables, both in degree and in rate, will determine how much carbon dioxide emissions are reduced”
So the answer is we don’t know.
What a fatuous non sequitur.
Tell me Betula, do you know what decisions humans will take in the future, and how the planet will respond to the cumulative interactions of all of those decisions?
Do you?
Of course not, and I'm not saying that I do.
But I am saying that we can project with reliability what will happen under particular scenarios, and that these scenarios should guide us in the decisions that we eventually (with a distressing emphasis of the "eventually"...) make.
And I’m sure you took into consideration increased construction, use of materials, transportation, manufacturing, shipping, use of the earths resources, consumption etc when you came up with your non answer….correct?
Betula, I didn't say that I "knew" the cause. I did say that the Carpentaria phenomenon is a sign of the consequences of warming, and that is entirely consistent with a parsimonious consideration of the available evidence.
...the future isn’t a fact...
Again with the non sequiturs...
...you can’t explain if development will increase or decrease CO2 by any given amount over any given time.
What the fuck? What on earth does that non sequitur have to do with the issues on this thread?
Have you been forgetting to take your Ritalin?
And since that is all true, I would say there is no argument.
Of course you would. You don't argue from a position of logic, empiricism, or fact.
And finally, when were the pictures taken again?
As you're too incompetent, lazy, and/or gutless to ask Norm Duke yourself, I've asked him for you. I'll let you know what he says.
[* The patterns of the damage in the Lemmins Bight/Karumba mangroves are such that these factors are unlikely to be involved, for reasons that I've laid out multiple times previously.]
Hang on to your hat Betula. Norm replied an hour after I emailed him, and you're not going to like his answer. I'll summarise his detailed reply when I have some time later this evening.
Why wouldn't I like an answer? You do presume someone has a favorable/unfavorable position on subject because they ask questions? Questions you apparently aren't capable of thinking about on your own?
What kind of thinking is that?
If you get an answer, I'll be expecting a thank you in response.
But of course to the Betu-fools of the world none of this matters after al we cannot predict exactly when the Arctic will be totally clear of ice in summer. After all a 15Km meteorite may impact and cause all projections to be void, 'Just Like That', as a well know comedian once used to say.
Bernard - "You admit that you and GSW were not considering all of the impacts of human carbon emission when spruiking the “good news".
I admit I was responding to the good news that was reported in the paper, and I wasn't responding to news that wasn't discussed in the paper. I know this is hard for you....
I notice you responded to a lot of "ifs" with a lot of "ifs" at #25 Bernard, so maybe you can respond to this...
"If" development on a global scale takes place, will this result in the addition or reduction of CO2 in the short and long run, and by how much over what period of time?
Bernard - "The problem is that many species and ecosystems won’t recover"......"That is the future"
Again, a prediction, not a fact.
Bernard - "these scenarios should guide us in the decisions that we eventually (with a distressing emphasis of the “eventually”…) make"
Like the decisions regarding development of the undeveloped nations? Because "if" you can't explain "if" development will increase or decrease CO2 by any given amount over any given time, how do you know you aren't adding to the potential problem? Or don't you care?
"What on earth does that non sequitur have to do with the issues on this thread?"
If questions regarding the predicted solutions to the prediction problems aren't an issue for you....then nothing.
But according to Deltoid logic, wouldn't that make you a greedy person who hates the poor?
Theres quite a meme getting put about
by deniers that restraints on co2 production
will massivly inhibit growth in countries with
endemic poverty.( this idea is subtly transformed
to mean people in poverty will be condemed to stay
that way, in other words, oppressed).
My query on this is,
Theres been well over 100 years of electrical generating
and transmission technology available unfettered by
co2 restraints . ( and practically, unfettered now ).
So im not really seeing a correllation between a possible
suppression of co2 use and increasing poverty.
If theres still very impovrished countries ( and there is )
other factors are at play.
Its a wierd strawman thingie put up by idjits.
Its quite morally shitty in light of what
the poorest countries are gunna go through
with global warming.
Attempts by deniers to portray themselves
as friends of poor are both hollow and repugnant.
And the sun will come up tomorrow is a prediction.
What does it "not being a fact" have to do with it, though? Likewise with your post? What does it being a prediction and not a fact have to do with anything???
Wow - "And the sun will come up tomorrow is a prediction”
And the sun has come up everyday since the beginning of the earth. So you’re letting on that the predicted future catastrophic-only scenarios have been happening everyday since the beginning of earth?
Betula, don't start on the "hate the poor" route. One of my brothers-in-law is from exactly such a background (and his country of origin is threatened with sea level rise to boot...). I think that I have some genuine understanding of what it's like to be poor in the Third World.
And what Li D said.
You do presume someone has a favorable/unfavorable position on subject because they ask questions?
No, I don't presume. You do it all by yourself: it's your ongoing denial of the professional science of climate change that establishes your "unfavourable position."
Questions you apparently aren’t capable of thinking about on your own?
Eh?! What didn't I think about on my own? Anyone reading this thread would likely come to the exact opposite conclusion: that you can't think beyond your ideology and consider the weifght of empirical fact. I didn't see you apply any parsimonious consideration to what might have contributed to the die-off, and what couldn't have.
Heck, even after several admonitions to the contrary, you still kept saying that Cylcones Lam and Marcia occured in the 2015-2016 season: that's the level of your approach to the matter.
What kind of thinking is that?
Illogical thinking Betula, but then, we know that's all that you're capable of.
I admit I was responding to the good news that was reported in the paper,
Which is? And for which plankton species? And in what real world context?
After all, these are just some of the contexts that one needs to consider if one is going to rejoice about "good news".
What was the "good news" to which you were responding?
and I wasn’t responding to news that wasn’t discussed in the paper. I know this is hard for you….
No, of course you weren't. Because you were cherry-picking and ignoring the actual, real-world complications that render moot the "good news" of the Doblin and Sebille paper. But acidification aside for the moment (and stratification/anoxia...), what was the "good news" in the paper?
By the way, you didn't respond to my question about whether or not you've read it. I'm keen to explore with you some of the comments within it, so I do hope that you have a copy in front of you.
After all, you wouldn't be so vociferously promoting its "good news" if you hadn't actually read it, would you?
Bernard – “The problem is that many species and ecosystems won’t recover”……”That is the future”
Again, a prediction, not a fact.
Erm, no, in this case it's a scientific projection - in fact, innumerable projections - of what will happen if humans continue to do to the planet what they've been doing for the last few centuries. It's the result of many tens of thousands of scientists doing many, many millions of hours of research.
But you seem blithely confident that there's nothing about which to be concerned if humans warm the planet by 2 °C, 3 °C, 4 °C, or more. I've asked you before, and I'll ask you again - on what basis do you refuse to accept the scientific indications of significant harms to the biosphere that will result from human-caused global warming? What's your data, what's your evidence?
What on earth does that non sequitur have to do with the issues on this thread?”
If questions regarding the predicted solutions to the prediction problems aren’t an issue for you….then nothing.
Again with the non sequitur; several of them, in one sentence, in fact.
My conversation here is about the science, and what it tells us are the consequences of our actions. The "solution" is to stop emissing fossil carbon: how that's done is social policy, politics. This is beyond the scope of my considerations on this thread. All I am saying is that if humanity argues that "it's too expensive" to mitigate, or "the poor browns", or whatever other excuse that ideologues and vested interests trumpet, then the expense will simply be shifted from the cost of mitigating (which is in fact a potential large net benefit) to the cost of dealing with the consequences of warming, with a whole lot of interest thrown in...
Now, to summarise Norm Duke.
The die-back depicted in the photos occurred this summer, not last summer.
It is not related to storms (remember all the reasons that I detailed over the last few days to explain this?).
Nor is it tidal waves, or major oil spills. No previously-understood identifiable factor has been reported.
There is an apparent link with temperature – which has surprised ecologists working on the issue because this would be unprecedented. But as Norm observed, it is just what might be expected as global temperatures start to exceed the previously known limits.
There are no comparable incidents anywhere else in the world.
Locals too are convinced of the link to warming. (And remember, these are farmers, fishers, and the like, and very conservative in their approach to such matters... My observation by the way, not Norm's.) These locals additionally report that fish catches are deteriorating, that agricultural lands are becoming untenable for live stock, and that there are more fierce fires. They are seeing the climate change, and they are seeing it affect their environment.
There are correlations of the dying-off with both hot conditions and the annual dry season (and no, before you try it on, these sorts of die off do not occur regularly or even infrequently with dry seasons). So it seems that the recent terrestrial expression of warming may play at least some part in the phenomenon, along with the anomalous ocean warmth - it just gets more and more interesting, doesn't it...?
Norm reiterated that mangroves are an ecotonal community located in a dynamic zone, exposed to a range of changing physical parameters, and when the fundamental conditions change it is reflected in the response of the consitutent species. Basically, mangroves are sensitive indicators of stress.
These mangroves are dying of stress, Betula, and the current best understanding is that it's temperature related.
And yes, Betula, “urgent funding is needed". Despite your derision regarding this statement, arising no doubt from your fear that all your tax dollars are being robbed by those conniving, conspiring, fraudulent scientists, the phenomenon unfolding in the Gulf of Carpentaria is a serious issue and needs to be adequately understood, if we are to get the best picture possible in order to determine just how close to the mark are all of those scientific predictions about what lies in the planet's future, and of the effectiveness or otherwise of our current (lack of) response...
And Betula, given that you were too scared to ask Norm Duke yourself... you're welcome. Yet again.
Then you assume. You said "and you’re not going to like his answer". That's an assumtion based on nothing more than a question about when a picture was taken.
Bernard - "Eh?! What didn’t I think about on my own?"
You didn't think about when the picture was taken.
Are you ok? I'm getting a little worried...
Bernard - "you still kept saying that Cylcones Lam and Marcia occured in the 2015-2016 season"
Nope. Never said that. Said they happened a little over a year ago...3 months over a year.. And then you went on about 18 months or something, which of course wasn't true.
Bernard - "But you seem blithely confident that there’s nothing about which to be concerned if humans warm the planet by 2 °C, 3 °C, 4 °C"
Nope. Wrong again. I asked how development of the undeveloped nations is predicted to fix the predictions.
Wow, this is where you come in ranting about hating the poor, greed, wealth etc...
Bernard - "The “solution” is to stop emissing fossil carbon: how that’s done is social policy, politics. This is beyond the scope of my considerations on this thread"
If you won't consider it, that must mean you do hate the poor....and you are greedy.
See that one Wow?
Thanks Deltoid!.
Regarding the summary of your Norm Duke response. In short....he doesn't know.
Now, let me ask you. Since Karumba seems to have higher sea level rise than all the rest of Australia, isn't this a regional/local thing? Why is it localized to the Karumba area? Air pressure? Terrain?
And if Karumba is a special case, why do you relate the sea level rise at Karumba to all of the globe?
And if Karumba is a special case with sea level rise, why couldn't it be a special case with storm surge?
I'm sorry to ask questions that are beyond your thinking, but obviously it's because I hate the poor.
Bernard - "These mangroves are dying of stress"
And yet Norm Duke hints they may recover when he states...."because if the trees do not grow back" and "If we do not see recovery"
And then there is this statement by Norm...."There are some species that recover and there are others that don't easily from physical damage."
Which species are we dealing with here?
Is this another question that you couldn't think of Bernard, or are questions taboo when your mind is made up?
#39 'And if Karumba is a special case, why do you relate the sea level rise at Karumba to all of the globe?' - checked it, found Battie a liar again.
As to the mangroves.
The cause of most, even almost all individual occurences of cancer is unknown. Basically the truth is no-one has ever seen a cell literally becoming tumorous while being able to interpret that process as such.
However, the statistical propensity for the occurence of cancers is quite well known. Most (at least 50%) is genetically defined, a large part of the remainder is environmental defined (e.g. benzene, asbestos and other silicates, tobacco smoke).
Battie’s mangrove reasoning would lead directly to her death if she did the same reasoning after receiving a diagnosis about a third of all people will get. The Batty thing seems to be she’d be surprised all the way. Because she cannot fathom a cause – even if it is tobacco, since lung cancer can also occur in individuals who have never been near smoke, she cannot accept the effect and do something about it.
Ah, Betula, you've been back with more of your trademark fallacious argument. Quelle surprise.
I'm currently in a rush of actually important tasks, so you'll have to simmer in your ongoing ignorance for a while but just to note, I've had another interesting conversation with Norm that I'll summarise in the next day or so, when I have anough idle moments to warrant wasting a few on a denialist drone such as yourself.
Until then, you might consider re-reading some of my questions and asking yourself if you can answer them with a much better reliance on fact than you have to date.
Poor Kampen, If someone states the mangrove dieback is a "sign of the consequences of warming", are they "relating" the dieback to a sign of local warming or global warming?
You choose.....and then tell me more about how cancer killed the mangroves.
On a completely related topic to #51, this.
---
During a huge battle over soccer, unwinnable because mummy was one of the opponents, I realized that a fatwa re the paramount importance of this game is mandatory. Soccer is good.
Or: why I like watching soccer and have for 35 years to date (same mummy had me stay up late for the World Cup Final Argentina - Naranjas in 1978 which started this wise behaviour).
All reasons can be summed up as follows: soccer is a collection of models for a variety of processes ranging from socio- and biopsychological to system dynamical. To wit:
'Soccer is War' ('Voetbal is Oorlog'), Rinus Michels. Michels, alias 'The General', coached the Dutch eleven to European championship in 1988.
In this quote I read 'Soccer is a model for war - like most games are'.
Though Wittgenstein made it clear that an encompassing definition of what a game is cannot be formulated, there is generality in most games at least in sofar they pit two or more people into a contest. Of these, some games are about building something by competing or corroborating persons or teams. But most games are war - modelled, of course.
Such games start out with a conflict of interests which is to be resolved by force and/or cunning, involving strategies and tactics, aiming at the demise - modelled, of course - of one or some of the players or teams and the victory of another.
General principles of battle strategy and tactics apply to games as well, and, or so: vice versa.
In chess this is easy to see, as it is based on antique Chinese conceptuology of warfare and this still shows in the game. There are, e.g., cavalry and cavalry tactics; there are artillery and artillery tactics and certain constellations of rooks or queen & bishop are actually known as 'batteries'; there is cannon fodder i.e. infantry to be used for massive charges, pinpoint operations, structured defense and even the petty individual's rare ascent to heroism, queen or kingdom.
It is also easy to see how fundamental principles of battle work out in chess, e.g. Concentration Principles like 'Pack most power onto the enemy's weakest spot' and 'Beware of dividing your force over multiple targets or aims', or the fact that artillery alone cannot win battles let alone wars.
Analogue of latter in soccer - it does not matter how often a team kicks the ball in front of the opponent's goal: if there are no 'ground troops' in front of the goal there can be no score let alone win. The reader is left to the easy exercise of finding analogues to the Concentration Principles.
One more principle of war and games should be noted and is not hard to remember from reality: all battles lost by superior forces are lost from underestimation of the opponent.
War is more, much more than battle alone. War is a universe unto itself. There are combattants (players, usually but not always young men) and a majority of non-combattants (e.g. public, all genders and ages). There are ideologies and nations, flags, standards and colours, an often virulent notion of 'ingroup' and 'outgroup'. War is often hugely about material interests like money because these are power bearers, such that the world of war economics is vastly larger and far more complicated than any battle on a field (including Tannenberg, August 1914). There are corruption and 'match-fixing' like in any actual war and any conceivable party (i.e. any party with cash abound) can be involved in any war or soccer match in any weird way.
Looking at soccer in this broadside view, we find it to be a workable model of a world society divided into nations and/or tribes, some of whom are combattants, or donators to battle costs, or 'public' e.g. electorate or those who watch proceedings on television.
The strength of the soccer model for the phenomena of battle, war and groups, societies or nations in interaction is abundantly demonstrated by the fascination of so many ardent lovers ánd haters of the game as if it actually were war. And war is the most fascinating phenomenon for any being that arose from a self-replicating molecule and perhaps even all things actively and passivly claiming existence. Because "War is the father of all and king of all, who manifested some as gods and some as men, who made some slaves and some freemen" (Heracleitòs). Or because the universe has the built-in rule dictating that no two different things may occupy the same space at the same time (direct result from the Law of Identity: A = A for any subset A of the universe).
Apart from this, a game of soccer exhibits all kinds of individual behaviour as dictated by some group characteristic and hence can serve as a sociopsychological model for phenomena like 'team spirit' and 'flow', or propensity to lose the match after one too many failed tries on goal notwithstanding the nominal strengths of the team or even the quality of their play during the match.
A game of soccer may also be viewed as a physics/mathemathic object called 'chaotic dynamic system' in the heighdays of nonlinearity, fractals and Benoit Mandelbrot. This interpretation may lead to investigations into the usefulness of statistical methods for complex (information or particle) systems. There is big trouble with this idea, as exemplified by the work of Nassim Nicolas Taleb (e.g. 'The Black Swan'). Nevertheless it is not proven that the field (I mean, statistics vs. non-linearity, not the green) should be trashed in the bin containing flogiston theories or perpetuüm mobiles.
I finalize my fatwa on soccer, Soccer is Good, by reminding you gladly of Zlatan Ibramovic and the way he has scored himself into the rows heroes, and secondly the following marketing principle:
"If you play for ball possession, you'll never need to defend, because there is only one ball."
(Johan Cruijff, stating the Law of Identity once more).
I meant #58, but #57 works too.
When people like Kampen (who would like to see Cairns wiped off the map) ramble on about mangrove's dying from soccer players and cancer, you know it's way past over...
"The Watts-rabble can’t get their stories straight:"
Actually, they have NEVER diverted the story they hold. The thing the sane people don't realise is that ALL THEY SEE is the "It's not AGW" story. NOTHING other than that is even visible to them. Like the colour blind. Or the mentally unstable.
As far as they can tell, they've kept the story straight. Even if "WHY" is never consistently claimed, the "it's not AGW" is aways kept in their "Why it's not AGW" "story".
Just returned from skiing across Vatnajokull glacier over 8 days in Iceland. I spoke with several experts in the field of glaciology and one of the world's leading explorers and they all told me the same thing - that AGW is decimating glaciers world wide. Iceland's glaciers are ablating and retreating at a terrifying rate - up to 500 meters retreat evident on two of them. One other one will disappear within the next decade. Symptoms of GW are everywhere.
I then read our ritual moron writing this piffle: "My answer is that the scientists say they don’t have the answer".
Wrong on all counts. Scientists almost unanimously agree that humans are driving changes in climate with potentially severe consequences. I am one of them. Betula isn't. He prunes trees fro a living. There is a light year's difference in our knowledge base and whose company we keep.
Its over for him. By now I thought the idiot would have faded away from here, what with the ritual humiliation he is being administered. But no, he persists.
The Subject - The article posted by Bernard @62 page 5
The Scientists I Quoted From The Article -
“It’s not clear why the mangroves have died”
“The cause is not conclusively known”
“Not knowing the cause is going to really hamper my capacity to be sure of what’s – how to answer that question”
“But we just need to know what’s going on”
Me - “My answer is that the scientists say they don’t have the answer”.
Hardley - "Wrong on all counts"
AGAIN....The subject - The Article posted by Bernard @ 62
#66, aha. The mangroves again. So, the cause of most, even almost all individual occurences of cancer is unknown. Basically the truth is no-one has ever seen a cell literally becoming tumorous while being able to interpret that process as such.
However, the statistical propensity for the occurence of cancers is quite well known. Most (at least 50%) is genetically defined, a large part of the remainder is environmental defined (e.g. benzene, asbestos and other silicates, tobacco smoke).
Battie’s mangrove reasoning would lead directly to her death if she did the same reasoning after receiving a diagnosis about a third of all people will get. The Batty thing seems to be she’d be surprised all the way. Because she cannot fathom a cause – even if it is tobacco, since lung cancer can also occur in individuals who have never been near smoke, she cannot accept the effect and do something about it.
It was later revealed that not only did he think it was cold, he thought it may have lung cancer...
As a result of his actions, the Bison was sent to Cairns.
Nobody really bothers to read any-more what a crap artist like Betula writes for it is all piffle.
However he should take notice of you findings in Iceland and consider one massive consequence. Trouble with the Betuula's of the world is that they cannot see the dots let alone join them so impoverished is their world view.
Now think what Iceland is largely composed of. The 210 eruption of Eyjafjallajökull will be small beer.
Now I don't really give a $h!t if Betu-barking comes back with some wiseacre comment I'll ignore it, like all his other recent comments of which I only know of their presence by scanning down the comments thread and skipping his drivel.
Betula is best 'talked at' rather than 'with' from now on, he is a loser.
Lionel - "However he should take notice of you findings in Iceland and consider one massive consequence"
Hardley's findings? Did he find anything he couldn't have found by staying home and using his computer? The answer is no. Yet, he had to burn more than his fair share of CO2 and put us all in further future jeopardy just for a joy ride...
By the way Hardley, have you ever looked at the history of Iceland and it's glaciers and volcanos over the past million years? How about the past 2500 years?
And I noticed there is still no mention of how social justice is going to keep Icelands climate from ever changing again....as it has always done.
Oh, and Lionel, you never did thank me for identifying the Garden Spiders you couldn't identify yourself...
@83 - It seems you believe India represents the entire globe.....you probably also believe India hasn't experienced heat close to this in the past (Rajasthan, at 50.6 degrees Celsius (123.1 Fahrenheit) in 1956)......you have to believe you helped cause the problem......I know you believe you can fix the problem..... and obviously you believe people that ask questions about what you believe are the minority.
It seems like you are in a great position to do something about it.
You should feel good....
#84, no Battie, India hasn't experienced four days of fifty+ in any record.
But you must be gloating over the frenzied mass grave digging there (for there are likely about a quarter million dead from this recent heat wave there).
' seems you believe India represents the entire globe' - says Battie who believes the entire globe is represented by a certain Colorado weather station.
If Battie knew anything at all she'd have pointed to Israel, January last year, or region Hong Kong, this year, or of course the record cold area year wide that indeed exists somewhere on the planet but Batty wouldn't have a clue.
"Rajasthan's new record of 51 degrees beats out the city's previous top temperature by just 0.4 degrees, but still falls a good few points shy of the hottest temperature ever recorded, 56.7 degrees, in Death Valley USA, 1913"
I wasn't alive in 1913, but to appease the patients at the Deltoid Asylum, I accept full responsibility...
The fact is that warm-weather records and events are far exceeding cold weather records and events by a ratio of more than 5 to 1. It warming for sure, at reates far, far exceeding natural forcings. There are proxies everywhere to prove it.
But Wow, rrK, Lionel etc: why are you wasting your time with a tree-pruning buffoon who thinks that snakes are vermin and that the US has a sustainable economy? Science has moved on a long way. Its accepted that AGW is very real by the scientific community and that is poses a major threat to future generations. Evidence is everywhere and as one scientist in Iceland said when I was there, AGW deniers are now lumped together with flat-Earthers. The dinosaurs are mostly made up of corporations who see any efforts to deal with AGW as a threat to the way that they do business and conspiracy-nutters like Battie who see the UN behnind every corner. And of course many clots out there who are afraid of government and see the whole thing as a scam but whose understanding of basic science, like Battie's is piss poor.
As the evidence continues to annihilate them, they cling ever more to vacuous blogs like WUWT and CD which continue to churn out the usual crapola. Its interesting watching these idiots flailing away in the quicksand, essentially pleading with their mindless readers to believe them. Now that the hiatus has been firmly put to bed, they are becoming more and more desperate.
Jeff. I am not talking to Batty, with the exception of pointing out that he was wrong about my ignoring his 'spider' thing, I now talk at Batty and if he chooses to blather in return then I'll leave him to it and ignore the blather.
Ignorance aside (he has failed to grasp the significance of wet bulb temperature), Batty is clearly not an honest commentator.
Battie is using the old anti-environmental canard, whereby one who argues that humans are negatively affecting the environment in some way or other should live in a cave. Its totally discredited by now, and there's ample evidence that we could become sustainable without a major change to our standards of living if we pursue more equitable policies and invest in environmentally friendly technologies, something the coal and oil industries vehemently oppose because it threatens their short-term profits.
As for Battie 'maintaing the health of plant material', that's a hoot. Its another stupid argument suggesting that humans are an integral part of ensuring the health of natural ecosystems. Seems like they did very well before we came along and decimated them, and yet he seems to suggest that we need to manage them to optimize their productivity.
Pure drivel. But what else would one expect from a know-nothing like him?
That Batty can so flippantly ignore this and denigrate those who point out these dire aspects of a warming world, aspects which James Hansen warned about, informs anyone about Batty's sociopathic tendencies.
I don't know if Batty has tried to work under such conditions, I have when carrying out heavy aircraft repairs (F4 Phantom) in a hangar at sea in the tropics with temperatures floating between 128°F to 129°F.
That humidity was high was obvious from the sweat building up on my naked chest (working underneath hot chips of metal from drilling the HTS mandrels of the Jo-Bolts sent whisps of vapour up with a sizzling sound accompanied by a smell of burning hair — I had to specially shape small drill bit cutting edges to chip as we had no diamond tipped drill bit available.
When atop the stabilator drilling out Jo-Bolts on the upper surface this sweat was running down the anhedral stabilator and forming a large pool on the steel deck. After a few hours (due to inadequate drill bits) of this the two of us thus engaged were physically drained and still the pool of sweat on the deck did not evaporate.
I have plenty of empathy for those who have to do manual work under such conditions, a living hell.
Hardley - "As for Battie ‘maintaing the health of plant material’, that’s a hoot. Its another stupid argument suggesting that humans are an integral part of ensuring the health of natural ecosystems"
So we humans can't have an affect on "plant material" Hardley?
Please explain.
Hardley - "Seems like they did very well before we came along and decimated them, and yet he seems to suggest that we need to manage them to optimize their productivity"
Since you seem to know without asking, why don't you tell me what "plant Material" I'm talking about, and under what situations/conditions they require maintenance.
Hardley, did you calculate the CO2 you emitted as a result of your trip?
Still waiting.
And waiting for an explanation about what was accomplished vs staying home...
A trick to including a degree sign to temperature symbols is to use a text editor and use Alt 0176 between the quantity and symbol and then copy and paste into a post. Attempts at entering a degree symbol directly into a post with Alt 0176 causes a reversion to Home Page in Firefox.
Battie, I've deconstructed your 'cave' argument and that is the end of it. You are a simpleton. Your understanding of environmental science - for lack of a better word - stinks. You lean towards the political right and seem to like to give those destroying our planet for profit a free pass.
The effects of AGW on natural and managed ecosystems is now well beyond doubt. The effects on glaciers across the planet are indeed terrifying given the time scales involved. This year will inevitably see by far the lowest Arctic ice extent in recorded history. The death spiral continues at an amazing pace. And the literature is full of studies reporting harmful effects of AGW on species interactions, communites, food webs and ecosystems.
Against this knowledge we have intellectual lightweights with no pedigree arguing that 'more evidence is needed' and/or that 'nothing needs to be done'. They throw these stupid arguments like Battie has done at me ad libitum.
Note also how Battie consistently begs Tim to shut this blog down, yet he dominates it with his piffle. Seems like there are 10 Battie posts for every 2 or 3 by others. This is a sure sign of his desperation.
Hardley - "Seems like there are 10 Battie posts for every 2 or 3 by others"
I thought you thought you were smart?
If there is one visitor were visiting 3-4 residents in an asylum, it would stand to reason that the visitor would have 3-4 times more interaction than each individual resident.
Of course, a resident in the asylum wouldn't see it that way.... after all, he is a resident in an asylum.
I see that Batty does not understand how 'uncertainty' works.
Here is the complete para':
Despite the uncertainty in future climate-change impacts, it is often assumed that humans would be able to adapt to any possible warming. Here we argue that heat stress imposes a robust upper limit to such adaptation. Peak heat stress, quantified by the wetbulb temperature TW, is surprisingly similar across diverse climates today. TW never exceeds 31 °C. Any exceedence of 35 °C for extended periods should induce hyperthermia in humans and other mammals, as dissipation of metabolic heat becomes impossible. While this never happens now, it would begin to occur with global-mean warming of about 7 °C, calling the habitability of some regions into question. With 11–12 °C warming, such regions would spread to encompass the majority of the human population as currently distributed. Eventual warmings of 12 °C are possible from fossil fuel burning. One implication is that recent estimates of the costs of unmitigated climate change are too low unless the range of possible warming can somehow be narrowed. Heat stress also may help explain trends in the mammalian fossil record.
What a total dishonest tosser Batty is! He is also is confused by numbers. What a prune!
Battie is using the old anti-environmental canard, whereby one who argues that humans are negatively affecting the environment in some way or other should live in a cave.
And if you DID live in a cave, you're obviously not right in the head, so you can be "safely" ignored as being unstable or radical.
Just as with adjustments. If they don't do it, then the IPCC is ignoring the UHI effect, if they do, then they're fiddling thefigures. Or with Garbage In/Garbage Out: if they don't include every single dataset out there, no matter the quality, then they're fudging the figures, but if they DO include the figures they have, it's claimed the result is garbage.
It's all a really tiresome post-hoc "rationalisation" to ensure they're right, you're wrong, no matter what.
Indeed, the complaints they have against "SJWs" are founded mostly on the tactics they use which are 100% identical. They just don't like them being used to promote things they don't like or agree with.
'But Wow, rrK, Lionel etc: why are you wasting your time '
Fun. Which is never a waste of time.
Also, and this is relevant, to earn the right to kick back into the floods those who cry 'we didn't know', 'they didn't warn us' et c.
Kampen - "Also, and this is relevant, to earn the right to kick back into the floods those who cry ‘we didn’t know’, ‘they didn’t warn us’ etc"
I can see it now...
Kampen will say he did all he could do to try and stop the catastrophes by posting on the Deltoid blog, writing computer code and wishing Cairns would be wiped off the map...
And Hardley will say he did all he could to stop the certain doom by posting on the Deltoid blog, hiking in Algonquin and skiing in Iceland...
If it wasn't for that Betula person, the world would have turned out fair, and poor countries would have had the right to emit as much CO2 as Betula did while he was planting trees and shrubs...
Why should I calculate my C02 footprint Battie? What's the point? The point is that you are trying to argue that those who say that AGW is very real and a threat to humanity - which indeed it is - must be holier than thou and revert to the lifestyles of our Cro-Magnon ancestors, otherwise they should be ignored.
This is your modus operandi. Its straight out of the anti-environmental handbook, which I know very well, having researched it for the past 20 years. At the same time, the elites with massive C02 footprints - much larger than mine, as it turns out - are fine in Battie's book because they don't give a damn about AGW and believe that being filthy rich, consuming vast quantities of natural capital, and driving inequality are just fine.
There are multiple reasons why my ecological footprint is actually small in comparison with many others in the developed world. I'd speculate that indeed its smaller than Battie's. But again, he doesn't care. If some mega-corporation destroys vast numbers of ecosystems, that's OK as long as they claim that those ecosystems aren't important. If an environmental protestor says something bad about said corporation and their activities, be sure that Battie well be on hand to grill him/her about their ecological footprint.
Battie is actually one of the foot soldiers of the ignoranti. One of the idiots easily manipulated with lies by those with power and privilege to go forth and spew his brand of denial. Science is not on his side, but that does not matter. He doesn't care about science. Let's see him go into a scientific venue with his vacuity and take on the scientists doing the ground work. But he's instead an anonymous schmuck on a blog. Like many others who write into WUWT, CA, CD, Bishop's Hill etc.
Hardley - "At the same time, the elites with massive C02 footprints – much larger than mine, as it turns out – are fine in Battie’s book"
So here is a good example of a thought based on nothing but a delusion formed by the biases that control your every thought, You have nothing to back this up, yet you believe it to be true, in fact, you probably believe you can back it up....only you won't, because you can't.
Imagining you kicking yourself back into your imagination is priceless. I could never think of something like that on my own, it's just pure comedy gold....I can't thank you enough.
To lighten the mood against the background white noise that is Betula beautiful Mozart wonderfully performed the young prominent cellist is a delight too, clearly enjoying herself at times and in deep reflection at others.
The above Mozart performance is of Mozart Piano Cencerto No. 27 in B-flat major, K. 595 (his last) and two movements of Sonata for four hands in D Major K381 with the third movement Allegro molto, followed by the second movement Andante.
Battie's up to his old trick of bating and switching. I still would like to know what my carbon footprint has to do with anything here. Its actually quite small, and certainly smaller than his. Indeed, the average American has an ecological footprint about twice the size of the average Dutch person. There are a myriad of reasons for that I will not go into here, but one is based on efficiency.
The other point I wish to reiterate is that Battie consistently gives those destroying our planet for profit a free pass. The simple reason is that they deny, deny, deny, and thus have the right in Battie's view, apparently, to do what they like. I am sure that CEOs of oil and coal corporations are generally very wealthy people who own luxury mansions, a fleet of vehicles, and travel by plane all the time, but they are OK because they downplay the effects of AGW. But anyone who claims that AGW is a serious problem is expected to live like our ancestors did 40,000 years ago in caves or in simply constructed huts.
This is Battie's argument, veiled in the usual bull**** rhetoric.
Is it any wonder why he alone thinks he is witty? Pretty well everyone else here thinks he's a deluded idiot. And you know what? They are correct.
Hardley - "But anyone who claims that AGW is a serious problem is expected to live like our ancestors did 40,000 years ago in caves or in simply constructed huts.This is Battie’s argument"
Odd, I thought I asked you about the carbon footprint of your trip? I don't recall your delusions...
What is happening in your head?
Hardley - "The other point I wish to reiterate is that Battie consistently gives those destroying our planet for profit a free pass"
You haven't even made your first point yet...when and where is the example of your second point?
If it's "consistent", then one example should be easy.
Lionel, I have to admit, I am a little disappointed in your musical selection. Here is something a little more appropriate for the Deltoid Asylum....(Tim, take note)
Champions League final tomorrow: hala Madrid y nada mas!
Simeone, entrenador del Atlético de Madrid, ofreció en Milán la conferencia de prensa previa a la gran final de la Champions.
Supersticioso: “Subestiman nuestro trabajo pensando de esa manera. Miramos adelante y el que piensa de esa manera es subestimar el trabajo que hacemos”.
Sensaciones sobre el partido: “En el arranque un partido muy tenso, equilibrado, la presencia de Casemiro le da una virtud para poder agruparse mejor y siempre mantener su fortaleza ofensiva. En el inicio del juego es posible que el Madrid proponga más juego y me imagino un partido así”.
¿Qué le hizo creer en la Champions? “Empezar a entrenar con la misma pasión, competencia e intensidad que lo ha hecho este grupo desde el primer día desde Lisboa”.
¿Qué fue lo más difícil? “El club, los jugadores y la base que nos viene acompañando se logra reinventar continuamente. Diez futbolistas distintos a aquellos que estaban en aquella final. Es lo más valioso de ese club. Se trabaja en consecuencia de seguir mejorando. El que insiste las situaciones aparecen”.
Final: “Jugar una final es algo fantástico, ganarla es supremo. Todo lo que sea llegar a una final te presenta una situación para convivir. Lo mejor que ha tenido este grupo es insistir, prepararse, levantarse, reinventarse, no cambiar la identidad, el compromiso. Cuando repites y eres insistente, se puede”.
Cómo ve el partido: “Con once en su área. Me hace gracia lo que se dice. No vamos a cambiar mucho. El Madrid jugará con un equipo parecido al de hace cuatro años. Nosotros hemos variado más, pero la estructura es distinta. La presencia de Casemiro le hace más peligroso a la contra. Así lo hizo ante el City en la ida y en la vuelta. Y el Madrid con espacios es muy peligroso”.
Grande de Europa: “La continuidad en los éxitos te posiciona en uno de los lugares privilegiados. Hay pocos equipos mejores: Barcelona, Bayern, Real Madrid. Hay estabilidad, equilibrio, equipo de trabajo. Hay que cuidar nuestro puesto de privilegio y la única manera de hacerlo es ganando”.
Presión: “Me encanta tener 113 años de historia a la espalda”.
Las eliminatorias: “Nos costó en Barcelona y Múnich, pero tuvimos inteligencia en los partidos de casa”.
Diego Costa: “Nos felicitó tras lo del Bayern y lo del Barça. Habrá chicos con nuestra camiseta ante el televisor”.
Trabajo de Zidane en tan poco tiempo: “Trabajo importantísimo. Casemiro le ha cambiado la cara al equipo. Es un entrenador importante”.
Muchos hinchas atléticos en Brasil: “El fútbol es maravilloso, más allá de los estilos y las rivalidades. La pasión te acerca”.
Sufrió con PSV y Leverkusen y no con los mejores: “Cada equipo tiene su propio estilo y sus jugadores se sienten más a gusto con el balón y sin el balón”.
Antifútbol y falta de respeto: “Yo respeto a grandísimos jugadores como Ronaldo. Las opiniones son respetables. En fútbol, como en política o religión, todos pueden opinar”.
Again Birch bark, what exactly is the point of knowing what my carbon footprint is? A: There isn't one. Its just you pontificating in the usual ways that you do. Let's heave yours. I'll bet you live in a big house, own a big car and have kids. In those ways alone your carbon and ecological footprints well exceed mine. And again, when was the last time you write to some multi-millionaire corporate CEO asking them for their carbon footprint? A: Never. That's because they don't give a rat's ass about AGW. Like you.
And you, of all people, call Deltoid an 'asylum'. You who writes in here ten times more than anyone else.
You really are a clown. What's worse is you think that you're clever and witty. You're not. Its all in your own mind.
Hardley - "I’ll bet you live in a big house, own a big car and have kids"
Wrong as always - 4 cylinder 2006 Toyota Tacoma, 1500 square feet and 1 son. I'm practical and keep things simple.
Now, what do you think the Carbon footprint is of your Iceland, Algonquin and Colorado trips are? If it doesn't matter, why not share? And if you don't care, why not?
And I'm still waiting for you to prove your points as I stated in #24. Or do you just ignore the fact that you have been called out and hope I go away?
Remember, you are a scientist,...you would think you could back up your statements...correct?
Or do you just let your feelings (based on your ideological biases) decide what you believe to be true?
Battiie's query reminds me of an argument Steve Martin made to John Candy in the comedy movie, Planes, Trains and Automobiles. "If you are going to say something, have a point".
What's the point of Battie repeatedly asking me what my carbon footprint was when I crossed Algonquin Park and Vatnajokull glacier? What will he do with the information? File it away under 'conspiracy theories'? Or what? What is the frigging point?
Norwegian Bjorgvin Ouseland is perhaps the leading explorer alive, and has done some amazing crossings of Antarctica, hauled a sled to the North Pole and continues to inspire. Right now he's with a French colleague crossing the world's 20 largest glaciers to draw attention to the disastrous effects of climate change on them. Expect Battie to write to Ouseland demanding to know his carbon footprint - and then to do nothing with the data. Because there's no point, except for Battie to imply that those arguing that humans are dangerously driving climate warming should have non-existent carbon footprints and thus be living in caves. And once again, what is the benchmark for Battie to juxtapose my/Ouseland's carbon footprint with? It's not like he is conducting some sort of comparative study, because he isn't up to it. He couldn't write a scientific paper if one were handed to him, so again, what's the frigging point?
A: There isn't one. He just thinks he is being clever. And he surely won't ask executives of banks and corporations what their carbon footprints are, because many or most of them don't care about AGW. So they are given a free pass.
As for my own carbon footprint, I have no kids and live in a tiny, row house in Ede in the Netherlands. I own one car - a Peugeot 206 - and three bikes.
Listen Battie, go away, lick your wounds, and keep your comments to blogs like WUWT etc. You claim Deltoid is an asylum, when the comments from people on WUWY beggar belief. I've never read such insane comments in my life as I do from posters over there. You belong with them.
Exactly. What is the point of skiing on a glacier in Iceland?
I think it's nice that you bring up other people when avoiding a question about you....but since they aren't conversing on this blog, it is you I asked.
I know you enjoy telling us about your trips, I am just curious how you get there.....did you walk to Iceland? Algonguin? Colorado?
Did you take some evil corporations plane to these spots?
What if we all flew all over the world so we could write about how bad it is to fly all over the world?
You have admitted that individual carbon footprints don't matter....that is your opinion, I just wanted to here you say it.
I see that Betula has come back with yet another fatuous remark. He is in the same class as Rusell Cook and Tom Bates who drop by at Climate-Denial-Crock-of-the-Week from time to time.
I guess that the achievements and contributions of e.g. Lonnie Thompson would be negated because Lonnie could not have walked to the places he studied. The fact that if he had walked the time taken would have seen a considerable uptake of provisions just to keep alive is by-the-by.
Seriously, Betula, you are in need of medical attention. If my expeditions to Iceland and Algonquin Park are, in your opinion, 'worthless', then you really are even more deluded than I thought. I essentially cornered you with my last comment. Now you are left with nothing more than to argue that, because I traveled on a private airline, then my criticisms of our corporate culture are unfounded.
Once again, you really are a wingnut. If you think you've somehow 'made a point', then its clear you need medical attention.
So what did you solve by skiing on a glacier in Iceland? What warranted the need to emit so much CO2.... personal satisfaction?
It's almost as if you are a greedy American wannabe...
Battie, you utter hypocrite, when are you going to start badgering the filthy rich about the ecological impacts of their lifestyles? I travel because I like to see this amazing planet of ours, even if your views are restricted to the pruning of trees. My carbon footprint is negligible if one considers my lifestyle in general. While I was on the glacier, apart from breathing, I wasn't emitting 'so much C02'.
You are bereft of arguments and this is your last refuge. Again, you expect those arguing that AGW poses a major threat to be holier than the Pope and to live in caves - like I said earlier.
I expect you and the idiots you hang out with to downplay it like you do everything else associated with AGW. If you have something useful to say, then say it. Other than that please just go away. You are becoming an incessant bore.
'My carbon footprint is negligible if one considers my lifestyle in general.' - not exactly, Jeff, but inside of a western country decidedly yes, true.
I think my footprint is half that of the average Dutchman but this means it would cap that of 90% of the rest of the world for virtually inescapable reasons (thanks to Battie, by the way).
Hardley - "Battie, you utter hypocrite, when are you going to start badgering the filthy rich"
Compared to most people in the world, you are filthy rich.
And since you believe the CO2 you emit on your many travels doesn't matter, then you are a hypocrite for believing they matter for other rich people when they travel...
Hardley - "you expect those arguing that AGW poses a major threat to be holier than the Pope and to live in caves"
I have never mentioned the word "holy" or the word "cave"...these are words that only exist in your head that you throw back at me as a defense mechanism because it's the only way you can respond.
You hate the rich and blame them for a future you envision, yet compared to the world you are rich and like to act rich for your own selfish reasons....contributing to a catastrophic future that you imagine is caused by everyone's actions but your own. You attempt to justify your actions while believing there is no justification for theirs.
You see, you are an actual proven hypocrite and I am your imaginary hypocrite. To you, I am the problem only because I call you out.
It's time to take a good look at yourself Hardley. You have contributed nothing to help your cause, because your cause is something you hide behind, hoping people don't see you for who you really are....a useless, angry, jealous hypocrite who uses his imagination to counter his reality, because it's tough to go through life being stuck with you, yet you have no choice.
Hardley - "even if your views are restricted to the pruning of trees"
So flying in planes is less damaging than caring for trees? This is your message?
You see what I mean?
I have to admit Hardely, as a professor, you have taught me a lot...about you.
Hardley @14 - "Why should I calculate my C02 footprint Battie? What’s the point?"
Hardley @35 - "What’s the point of Battie repeatedly asking me what my carbon footprint was when I crossed Algonquin Park and Vatnajokull glacier?"...“What is the frigging point?”
If there is no point, then it doesn't matter....so tell me Kampen, where is the lie? Or doesn't it matter?
"We are moving away from this idea of global warming and more toward the idea of regional patterns of warming, which are strongly shaped by ocean currents."
THIS IS SHOCKING!
With all the "the debate is settled" talk, designed to end any debate, scientists are still discovering new information to debate about... http://tinyurl.com/jhw9ptw
#45 you are of an age that you should have been able to learn to read but are beyond helping when you passed it.
Or perhaps you are merely suffering from some ego inflation. Apparently you find it hard to believe that Harvey does not care to discuss his carbon footprint with you. At least, I imagine that (snare included).
The fact, imagined or not of course, that he does not care to discuss his carbon footprint with you does not imply that it does not matter to him let alone that it wouldn't matter at all.
Something else - I think anyone could estimate the footprint of that Iceland expedition him- or herself. Kay, not Battie, but soit - she'd never even think of checking what exactly the plane's fuel was. It may have been derived from fossil, but of course in Europe flying is increasingly done on biofuels.
#44
'What percent of “exacerbated” is a direct result of man?'
You have been answered repeatedly.
100%, and if we reckon with the fact that climate would have slowly cooled were fossil fuels left to be, it is between 110 and 120%.
'Question – So is the coral dead or is it weakened?'
What would you do? Would you die first, then 'weaken'?
Maybe you should get on your tricycle and see for yourselves.
Kampen, - "What would you do? Would you die first, then ‘weaken’?"
It depends on the headline. If the headline said I was dead, but the article read I was weakened, and might die, then according to the headline I would be dead first...
Problem is, just by the sheer volume of your nauseous posts, you are the patient Battie. You and your 'snakes are vermin' type of knowledge wouldn't understand science if it hit you in the face.
Then there is the rant from our right wing idiot. He's clearly off of his rocker - tries to find any way of suggesting that the mass bleaching of Australia's corals are NOT due to AGW. Follows that up with a spiel about me hating the rich, then claiming that I am 'jealous', 'useless' 'angry' etc.
Hilarious. And pointless. Its the rant by someone who, in fact, displays all of those characteristics and more. Who I am jealous of is a mystery. Him? God forbid? And is it my fault that I earn a decent living as a scientist? I am not rich by any means - anybody working in my field is not highly paid as a government employee, certainly compared with those in the private sector. Battie worships the bankers, corporate CEOs etc, more likely because he is jealous of them. And his lifestyle is far more exorbitant than mine - I don't have any kids and live in a house way, way smaller than his. And my cave analogy fits perfectly - Battie expects anyone who argues that humans are negatively affecting the biosphere via overconsumption and its attendant environmental destruction to live in a metaphorical cave. He's long since run out of arguments to downplay AGW, because we know he thinks its some vast conspiracy set up under the auspices of the United Nations to steal wealth away from the United States and other wealthy nations that consume some 80% of global capital. This belief alone proves that he is mentally unstable.
And lastly, he thinks he is qualified enough to comment on my abilities as a scientist. If he agreed that AGW was a serious threat, as the vast majority of scientists do, then he'd be complimentary. But since he is a Tea Party wannabe who loathes the scientific community and has a pile of conspiracy theories in his addled brain, he hates those scientists - including me - who counter his nonsense. I am sure he reads climate denial blogs and supports the sea of idiots who write in there with comments that are so stupid as to beggar belief. Sou at Hot Whopper puts many of those from WUWT on her blog, and they are both hilarious and scary at the same time. Battie would fit in well with them.
I've already deconstructed some of Battie's more hilarious musings - such as his definition of vermin and his examples suggesting that the health of North American ecosystems is good - amongst others. Essentially, Battie is an intelligent enough guy who is vastly ignorant at the same time. He's selective as to what he reads and clearly is far to the right politically. Its a shame that there are a lot of Battie's out there.
These esteemed explorers and scientists also travel by plane and live in relative comfort. That does not make them pariahs or hypocrites. They are unsung heroes. In every sense of the word.
Betula is singling me out because I had the temerity to expose him for his profound ignorance about the effects of climate change on natural and managed ecosystems. The scientific evidence flies in the face of his vacuous arguments, and he is left with nothing but to try and smear me. Its Mann's Serengeti strategy aimed to give the impression that I am one lone scientist, an outlier, whose arguments are at odds with most of my peers. Of course they aren't; indeed, its the views of Betula and the army of ignoranti that lay well outside the scientific mainstream. But what you are seeing is that scientists who venture outside the labs to challenge right wing anti-environmental orthodoxy are attacked with vigor. Look at Paul Ehrlich; Michael Mann; James Hansen; and others. They have received more mainstream attention and as a result have been consistently demonized by the poliitcal right. I was relentlessly smeared after I, Stuart Pimm and several other scientists (e.g. Steve Schneider, Tom Lovejoy) countered the nonsense spewed by Bjorn Lomborg in his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist. So Betula's rants against me, like those other anti-environmental attacks before them, are nothing new to me. The same terms are used by all of them: I am jealous, angry, bitter, deluded, crazy, useless, et al. ad nauseum.
I view these as compliments from someone with as distorted a world view as Betula. Seriously. If people like him were to agree with me, then I would know that I was doing something seriously wrong. So thanks Betula for what are, in essence, compliments from you. It means I am on the right track.
Hardley - "suggesting that the mass bleaching of Australia’s corals are NOT due to AGW"
Nope. All in your imagination, controlled by your ideological bias. I just asked some questions. Is that your answer?
Hardley - "Battie worships the bankers, corporate CEOs etc"
Nope. Never said that. All in your imagination, controlled by your ideological bias.
Hardley - "And my cave analogy fits perfectly"
Your analogy. All in your imagination, controlled by your ideological bias.
Hardley - "I don’t have any kids and live in a house way, way smaller than his"
What is your frigging point? You want me to live in a cave?
This is fun.
Hardley - "the United States and other wealthy nations that consume some 80% of global capital"
Selfishly flying to destinations so they can ski on glaciers and hike in Algonquin etc...
Hardley - "But since he is a Tea Party wannabe"
All in your imagination, controlled by your ideological bias.
Hardley - "he hates those scientists – including me – who counter his nonsense"
You have yet to counter anything, since you haven't answered any questions.... and everything else you say is apparently all in your imagination, controlled by your ideological bias...since you can't give any examples.
Hardley - "I am sure he reads climate denial blogs"
Nope. All in your imagination, controlled by your ideological bias...since you can't give any examples.
Hardley - "I’ve already deconstructed some of Battie’s more hilarious musings – such as his definition of vermin"
Wrong again. I was using "snakes" to make fun of you. You're just too stupid to get it.
Hardley - "He’s selective as to what he reads and clearly is far to the right politically"
All in your imagination, controlled by your ideological bias...since you can't give any examples.
I wonder, have you ever started a research paper without knowing how you are going to steer to the conclusion you want....based on your imagination, controlled by your ideological bias?
If hiking across a glacier is the easiest way to detect change in this day and age....and it makes you a hero....then certainly Hardley is a hero for skiing on one.
Fuck the CO2 I emitted to get there....I'm a hero.
"You have yet to counter anything, since you haven’t answered any questions…. and everything else you say is apparently all in your imagination, controlled by your ideological bias…since you can’t give any examples"
I've given plenty of examples, Betula. Your once trumped C02 fertiization effect, supporting GSWs argument re: Polar Bears, snakes as 'vermin', and your pathetically poor examples of the health of North American ecosystems. Each one of your examples was summarily dismissed.
Moreover, if everything we claim about you is 'mere projection', and based on 'ideaological bias', why are you even here? Just to argue because you like it? Makes me think you must be a pretty wretched person to know personally; the kind who says 'A' when somebody else says 'B' and vice-versa. Argue for arguments sake. The only alternative version is that you truly believe the shit that you write.
And why hasn't your holier than thou wrath not been aimed at other scientists and scholars - indeed the vast majority of the scientific community - who live like I do, travel by transport that uses fossil fuels and yet whose views concur with mine? You try and make it look like my views are outside the mainstream. They're not. And to suggest I am a big C02 user because I travelled to Iceland is absurd. Also to say that I hate the rich is comedy gold. Who are the 'rich' in your jaded lexicon? I'd assume they are the ones who live in gated communities like Versailles and who don't interact with the rest of us mortals, the ones accumulating vast stocks of wealth on the backs of the poor and who command power along with their wealth. The same ones who influence government policy with respect to regulations by paying for democracy through huge amounts of lobbying and the funding of political parties aimed to see that their interests are prioritized. The same ones who are destroying the planet for short-term gains. Those are the rich for the most part. I don't even come close, and I certainly don't mix with them.
Betula, the rest of your post above is pure and utter bilge. You invoke snakes as vermin to make fun of me? Just as you did with coyotes, wild turkeys and white tailed deer I assume? What a load of old piffle.
You aren't remotely clever and you aren't remotely funny... well except in your own mind. And once again, if everything we say about you is 'mere projection', then this suggests that you don't have any views at all. You are a chimera and just argue for the sake of it. The fact that you defended the vacuous arguments by GSW, however, suggests exactly what your views are. You've thrown enough examples in here to reveal where you are coming from.
But keep dishing out the shit. Once again, I take your insults as compliments. I really do. When they come from someone as low down the intellectual pecking order as you, I see that as a positive sign.
'You aren’t remotely clever...' - indeed, Jeff. A bit thick and just too ordinary this troll. If anything shines through the bilge at all it is, more so recently, hints of desperation. Battie won't be around as long as she's been.
1. Hardley - "Your once trumped C02 fertiization effect"
Nope. Your imagination.
I asked what weight does it carry in the predicted future catastrophic-only climate scenarios. Now it is up to you to explain how asking a question is considered "trumpeting".
GSW posted a link about current Polar Bear populations. You can't argue with that....so you argue about future Polar Bear populations, which are a prediction, not a fact.
I never argued about future polar bear populations...because they are predictions..
3. Hardley - "snakes as ‘vermin"
Nope. Totally out of context as usual, because you had no other response to my point.
4. Hardley - "pathetically poor examples of the health of North American ecosystems"
Nope. Again your imagination taking things out of context.
I wasn't referring to the health of North American Ecosystems, in fact I was explaining how global warming is now to blame for every thing that changes....even if it's a natural change.
Here are my words from 12/09:
"The point to all this is that in the past,these things happened for a variety of reasons, many of them natural, others due to perhaps a not so clean Long Island Sound, perhaps insects coming in on pallets or plant material.....a variety of reasons...but never with the AGW label."
"Now.....it's all due to AGW and climate change....as though the climate has always been consistent and other factors don't matter....it's almost as if we look to AGW as the reason, so we find ways to make it fit."
5. "Each one of your examples was summarily dismissed"
'Here are my words from 12/09:' - yes, we know you believe in magic and other causeless events.
We know you believe forest fires can never be caused by humans, because there were forest fires before there were humans.
And we know you cannot even parse what I am telling you right now.
To all, let's ditch 'climate change' and introduce: climate detonation. Because that is what we are in now. Apart from comet strikes no precedents are even known. None. Except for some short-lived cooling events following caldera collapses.
Hardley - "And why hasn’t your holier than thou wrath not been aimed at other scientists and scholars"
1. You are on this blog, they aren't
2. What do they have to do with your biases?
3. How do you know I haven't conversed with others elsewhere?
4. Why does it upset you?
5. A "scholar" never would ask such a question.
Hardley - "You try and make it look like my views are outside the mainstream"
Never tied any such thing. Prove it. Just the opposite....it appears your views are based on mainstream views.
If everyone fly's to Iceland, Algonquin and Colorado, than damn it, so should I! If other scientist do it for work, then I can do it for pleasure!
And then I can tell everyone how my exploits are contributing to the catastrophic - only future that I can see...
Hardley - "You invoke snakes as vermin to make fun of me?"
Yes and No.
Yes to make fun of you, and no I never invoked them as vermin...that is your imagination going at it again.
And since you can't post an example, I do know it was your imagination at work...
Now, now Betula, don't let your self-cricticisms get too harsh. I'd just say that you are a moronic troll who doesn't have much of a life. Some of your posts here have to be read to be believed. You clearly don't have a clue what you actually think or believe.
And finally there's a difference between hating the rich and hating what they do. By default you appear to worship them. Oh no, I'll be accused of projection bias again.
What is becoming clear is that, as rr says, you are either a troll or you are plain nuts. And btw, you did refer to snakes as vermin. You can't even remember what you wrote.
Here's a challenge for you: try and take me on in some area of environmental science/ecology. You've tried a couple of times before with woeful results. Your arguments, if one can call them that, were straight out of the sandbox. You seem to think that running a tree pruning company has given you some kind of specials wisdom about the environment.
Sorry to rain on your parade but it hasn't. Not even close.
#69, I believe you never checked a source. In fact, I know you didn't.
Don't bother.
The only reason for #69 is to evade the point that is made by that metaphor. Although I, too, am inclined to believe you really are a bit thickish.
At the end of #67 is that little whiff of desperation again. It is mostly the ordinary projection (characteristic of those who cannot think themselves, check it on any right wing utterance), but there is also this little bit of emotion to be observed. Desperately calling names.
The post itself confesses obsession. I don't think Battie knows about the 'Serengeti Strategy'* let alone is able to execute anything like it.
If everyone fly’s to Iceland, Algonquin and Colorado, than damn it, so should I! If other scientist do it for work, then I can do it for pleasure!
Logic fail from false equivalence. Furthermore Betula reveals reveals, again, the absolute poverty of any of his arguments and how far away he is from being able to offer honest opinion.
He is vying for stupidity with Trump and there being no drought in California and the Chinese invented global warming as a plot to destabilise the USA. It is the numpties rooting for Trump that are his true equals, those that are behaving as if they have had a media (e.g. FOX and Limbaugh) induced collective lobotomy. If Trump becomes POTUS I vote that one of his first duties would be to retrieve that US flag from the moon and transfer it to Mars (so that it can be deep fried).
Regarding my response to Hardley, who continues to equate his travels to those of other scientists, Lionel states - "Logic fail from false equivalence"
And then follows with this - "He is vying for stupidity with Trump and there being no drought in California"
You can't make it up.
Thank you Deltoid, for the countless hours of entertainment...
Hardley - "And btw, you did refer to snakes as vermin. You can’t even remember what you wrote"
Here it is:
"Of course, we must imagine that the only species that will thrive in such predicted catastrophic-only scenarios are those that are detrimental or useless to us humans… mosquitoes, tropical diseases, weeds, algal blooms, snakes, and rodents. How fitting…."
1. I never used the word vermin
2. I was mocking you and the like, thus the phrase "how fitting"
3. You actually believe it
"destrimental or useless to us humans" followed by "snakes and rodents".
From the dictionary: "Vermin is a catch-all term that can be used for any small animals or insects that we think of as pests"
I rest my case. Besides, snakes are far from being 'useless to we humans'' except in the minds of uneducated simpletons like Betula, who wouldn't understand an ecosystem service if it hit him in the face. He is forced to quote some crappy article in the corporate media to promote his argument. You won't find scientists arguing that snakes are 'useless' or 'detrimental'. Just right wing tree pruners and their ilk.
Finally, I am sick of Betula and his fall back argument of 'projection bias'. Seems like he doesn't spend much time on blogs attacking those spewing out vitriol about why we shouldn't do anything about GW. On Deltoid, his sole purpose has been to attack those arguing that GW is very real, is down to humans, and poses a serious threat to our future if left unchecked, all positions agreed to by every major scientific organization on Earth; its essentially the consensus opinion amongst scientists, with a very small number of outliers.
When challenged about his political beliefs, which he wears on his sleeves, he claims we don't know. When challenged about the deleterious effects of AGW, he claims he doesn't necessaril;y disagree. So where are his posts attacking the morons who populate the pages of other climate change denial blogs? Why isn't he ranting on over on there about the idiots positing their 5 cents worth in fields well beyond their competence? Why is he apparently restricted to Deltoid?
Of course he isn't. If he somehow magically appeared here, he clearly reads a lot of other blogs. He can claim that we don't know all he likes, but its patently obvious. And his views about the UN and paying to eradicate poverty come straight out of a Tea Party gig.
I am sick of him and his bullshit. He's a brazen idiot.
Indeed, he is clearly one of "...those that are behaving as if they have had a media (e.g. FOX and Limbaugh) induced collective lobotomy" that I wrote about in #73.
"The conquest of the earth, which means the taking away from those who have a different complexion and slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look at it too much."
Here are some really intellectual comments from the geniuses at WUWT. Sou at Hot Whopper says some of them stagger the imagination in their simplicity:
Problem is, Betula probably agrees with most of them. Or will he sign up there, accuse the scribes of being 'pricks', 'useless' etc. simply on the basis of facts?
Don't bet on it. As I said, he probably agrees with most of them.
Yes, Bye Battie. Now you can head over to WUWT and see what a desperate, dying blog is all about. As the empirical evidence for AGW grows and grows, you can enjoy watching them switch ever more to conspiracy mode in their intellectual bunker. Since you appear to be one of them, you can rant n also about the mythical global conspiracy aimed to impoverish the US to deal with GW by helping poor nations.
Moreover, whether Deltoid is dead, dying or alive and well is of little meaning given its only a blog. You appear to think you are making some grandiose statement about its situation. Who cares? You apparently do, hence why you've dominated the blog the past couple of months. But one thing is for certain - the evidence for AGW isn't going away. Its only growing and accumulating. Leaving nitwits like you to vent your frustration out on blogs.
What's your point, Battie? OK, Deltoid dies. So what? Tim Lambert stopped contributing to it several years ago. It seems like you seem to somehow strangely correlate the existence of one, small blog (Deltoid) with the evidence for AGW and the serious repercussions of it on nature and humanity. If Deltoid were to disappear today, then that doesn't vindicate you or your views one iota. Those views are confirmed by every major academic organization and the views of every nation on Earth. It makes me think you don't get out enough. Your world is indeed very small.
"What’s your point, Battie? OK, Deltoid dies. So what?"
Well, since denier screed insists that NOTHING can be caused by AGW and ti insist so is to lie that AGW causes EVERYTHING, it cant be because of AGW, can it?
What can't be causing it is betty blithering on here a thousand times.
What I always do - work as a scientist. Unlike you, who is stuck in no-no land. Seems like you hang out a lot more here than I do. I've got 15 peer-reviewed papers this year, with another 4 in the immediate pipeline. I have a course to organize in Amsterdam. I have a sabbatical tom plan for next year in Colorado. And I have another expedition in the early planning stages. So no flatlining with me.
I also read other blogs like Stoat, Rabett Run and Hot Whopper. You know - where people make sense. Not in the denial-os-phere where you probably hang out. I see that even Judith Curry has been reduced to posting up bilge from nobodies like Jim Steele, whose latest comedy piece is to try and put a good face on the disastrous coral bleaching in the GBR. Deniers will do anything except face the truth.
Actually, Battie's video links are appropriate in more ways than he thinks. Its just been stated that the North Pole may be ice free this summer for the first time in more than 100,000 years at least. Its bloody terrifying news, but won't be to the armchair denial brigade who will try and put some positive spin on what, is in effect, a disaster. And its further proof, if any were needed at this point, of AGW. That deniers still exist is indeed one of the great mysteries of our time.
So the funeral dirge is appropriate for the Arctic ecosystem, and will certainly apply to Homo sapiens if we stay on the current trajectory.
Thanks Battie for inadvertently showing that aren't really n anti-AGW right wing loon at all. Deep down you know we're right. The last two video links you have posted here prove it. You know we're screwed as a species.
What is it with Batties fixation on funerals? Battie certainly appears to be suffering from some neurosis, maybe those Dendroctonus ponderosae or Dendroctonus frontalis have bored through the cranium and are now attacking the brain cell within.
Whatever, as he continues with his head banging distractions the Arctic Sea Ice has fallen to its lowest extent (note which does not necessarily correlate with volume which would be a better metric for evaluating the true state of the ice but is more difficult to assess) since records have been kept. On June 2 this year it was over one million square kilometres less than on June 2 2012 which was its previous record low at that time of year.
1981-210 Average 12.540 m km2
June 2 2012 12.265 m km2
June 2 2016 11.089 m km2
That is a 9.6% deficit on its previous lowest value.
Furthermore the extent is outside the lower two sigma threshold. Indeed, except for a brief excursion in early February 2016 the extent has been below that threshold since the beginning of the year.
I'm really very interested in Jeff Harvey's definition of a dying blog considering he's claimed that WUWT is dying? https://wattsupwiththat.com/
I looked up the blog and notice that it looks very, very alive compared to this one?
The last four were only posted 2 days ago and have hundreds of comments.
WUWT isn't dying Stu2. It's dead. I mean intellectually. What I see on there are comments by gumbified idiots trying vainly to either explain off AGW as some anomaly or else to go on and on about scientific and government conspiracies. It only shows that there are hundreds of idiots who think these things. That does not prove its healthy; it just proves that many minds are diseased.
Trust you to try and claim that brainless groupthink proves a blog is healthy. These are desperate times for AGW deniers. WUWT is proof positive of that. Witness the recent posts of Jim Steele, a clot if ever there was one. He's now been put up on Curry's equally nauseating blog, with respect to trying to turn the mass bleaching of the GBR corals into a non-event. The guy has no relevant expertise, but that doesn't stop him. I can't wait for them to try and put a good spin on the catastrophe unfolding in the Arctic this year.
For deniers, its over. The science is in. But again, that won't stop them trying to see that humanity goes the way of the dodo.
I hate to disappoint you Jeff Harvey, but I'm not a follower of WUWT.
Only looked it up because you claimed it was dying.
That's clearly not the case.
This blog however is most definitely in trouble.
The sight of those 'mansions' packed in like containers at a cargo dock makes me wonder what's the point of such extravagance. Insurance payments on condition of building a new property of more sensible size well away from future SLR.
I hate to disappoint you, Stu2, but I am not a follower of WUWT either.
And its dead. Not dying, but dead. Intellectually stiff. Ceased to be. It has met its maker. Its a dead blog. Given the growing evidence for AGW, WUWT has become a parody of itself. Some of the comments on there are so utterly stupid as to defy belief. That you think its healthy says more about you than anything else. You may not read it but you belong there.
#10, re the zombies, Wow, of course you mean Battie and Stupie starving and trying to come feed of ours? Apparently, ours are to hard for those suckers. Lil itches.
As to Deltoid, perhaps its demise is a structure more than a process. Haven't seen it particularly evolve or dissipate in any way for over years now. Same zombies come for same brains basically. Same pronunciations re the blog's death uttered weekly or daily. Same hiatus on the empirical knowledge - growth (we now know that we're fucked for another hundred reasons yearly).
#9, Harvey, sir, did you say: This blog has met its maker?
"Given the growing evidence for AGW, WUWT has become a parody of itself. Some of the comments on there are so utterly stupid as to defy belief."
It's not nearly as funny as Jo Nova's blog, though.
I hardly ever go there any more, maybe I should.
RR, yes, I quoted Month Python from the dead parrot sketch...
As for evaluating the 'health' of a blog, in Stu2's lexicon its based on the number of visitors or hits. Thus, blogs supporting unlimited gun use, fascist beliefs, flat Earth theories, and blatant racism would be apparently ' healthy' to him if they attract a lot of visitors and are loaded with comments.
WUWT certainly gets a lot of visitors, many (most?) of whom are IMO intellectually brain dead. Sou at Hot Whopper posts up some of the funnier ones, but she has a lot to choose from. Blogs like WUWT are hanging onto the precipice, as all of their dominant memes (the urban heat island myth, the hiatus that wasn't, etc. etc. etc.) are rapidly being vanquished by the empirical data. So the've switched over to conspiracy modes at an ever increasing rate.
Cue some vacuous comments to follow from the diuretic duo maybe along the lines about we hypocrites who use computers and yet 'preach' about AGW and other bad things humans are doing to the planet.
A dystopian future is already the present for millions and it is a desire to help prevent the enlargement of such that is behind our engaging with such unattractive personalities as this pair of fuckwits, the others that will doubtless be along shortly.
#15, WUWT is decomposing and emitting ugly smells. Fact.
However, the mess could still contaminate the place with cholera or Trump, and might.
The same stuff that WUWT is made of actually rules a number of countries e.g. Australia (though AUS might flip to sense again in July's elections). It holds majorities in both US chambers.
The Empire of Chaos has adopted nutty conspiracy theories time and again and has often acted pretty deadly on them. McCarthy, 'War on Drugs', believing that a tiny east Asian country would convince the entire world foremost the USA to adopt communism, ..
To be sure, the blogosphere is changing for the better, so the MSM should start to follow.
But over last year a number of droughts were associated with El Niño only; 'climate change' or 'global warming' would never be mentioned, thus having us all forget that those droughts all started before this El Niño even existed, some of them already for years. With Niño gone I wonder what the MSM will do now to explain e.g. the huge IDZ's of the US southwest, Africa, Levant, northwest India, parts of Brazil, south and east Australia.
I even find it hard to read Sou. The ugly smells seem to permeate.
Don't diss the marines, please, they have a long history of not being able to use their brains and taking excessive casualties as a result. Not to mention their other activities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Okinawa_rape_incident
Part of the problem, and the basis of the entire thing, is that the training for a standing army is to make the soldiers consider everyone else not entirely human and "not like us", then proffer violence as the moral choice.
When combined with their recruitment of the poor, therefore desperate, for the rank and file, and the lack of education on *how to think* in the schools of the poor residential areas in the USA, this leads to people who are easily brainwashed into violence ***whilst still being absolutely nice and decent people***. Just that they are only such if they see you as "like us".
" poor " " USA "
Nah, dont reckon.
They rich as.
Annual starvation death rate is?
Bet ya at least half of em have
a house designed especially for
their motorcar. The house designed
specially for their motorcar very likely
has mains electricity and potable water
supplied to it.
Aint no poor marines. Or very very few
anyhow.
Not making a deal out of it. Just stating
the bleeding obvious about how rich yanks are.
One of the things thats made em so rich is trashing
the environment. Just like Australia.
The families they came from are overwhelmingly from low economic backgrounds and from depressed areas. If for no other reason than they have little choice BUY army life or the dole.
And paying "well" ensures loyalty to the employer, even if corrupt, and the employed will even try to see excuses or evidence that supports a benign interpretation of actions of their employment. But it doesn't make the upbringing before they were employed better paid. No retroactive payments.
With respect wow, i reckon we have
widely differing views on what constitutes
a low economic background or a
depressed area.
Im ok with that. People have all kinds
of views.
With respect, I don't know how you can figure that out, given nothing was even vaguely delineated on economic background on either side.
The war machine pays well, but it wants compliant applicants without better choices so that their reprogramming works better.
The officer corps requirements is rather different, so maybe you're concentrating on a different area.
And higher income families have both better choices AND better education systems to prey off.
Low intelligence and low pay aren't strictly concordant, but it's harder work for a poor person to remain uneducated and therefore pliant despite inherent (untrained) intelligence, and just because you have a high class school to go to doesn't make it a cinch to be smart (See Trump).
And, again, this may be what you're thinking toward without being explicit about it.
I'm not saying poor people are dumb, but that poor dumb people are easier to manipulate, and making soldiers out of people requires manipulating people to act as something other than human and refuse to empathise with defined "others", so the system will want to select them.
Not to mention that the wealthy are seen in a religiously capitalist system as inherently more "worthy" than the poor, because otherwise god wouldn't have let them have money, right? So risking the lives of wealthy kids is a "waste" more than those whose economic background is seen as worthless.
" Trump "
No argument there.
The bloke is a moron, despite his no
doubt flash schooling.
It would actually make a good study for
someone to understand how the educational system
failed Trump.
A sort of audit to improve the system.
#84, so: good riddance.
And don't come bawling.
cRR:
He'll be back in all likelihood, as soon as he's figured out how to dodge the most recent facts put to him, and how to twist others, and how to point at new squirrels.
If and when he returns though it would be nice to see Drongo appear too, because Betula posted as support John Church's paper about sea level rise, which Spangles refuses to accept - I'd ike to see those two figure out whether sea level is rising or not...
Bernard, you keep saying "you're welcome", yet you haven't said anything that deserves thanks.
Do you know what caused the Mangrove damage? So far everything you have stated is a prediction, yet you treat is as fact. Should I thank you for your prediction?
If you know something, please send the link to the scientists who don't know....then we can all thank you.
You're welcome.
No, I have not made "prediction", not have I treated "prediction[s]" as "fact".
Once again you misrepresent me.
What I did was list the facts:
1) Cyclones Lam and Marcia, at a minimum eye-to-mangrove distance of of 350 km and 1,100 km respectively, were too far away (and occurred too far back in time) to exert storm damage on the Limmen Bight and Karumba sites.
2) Cyclones Lam and Marcia, at a minimum eye-to-mangrove distance of of 350 km and 1,100 km respectively, were too far away (and occurred too far back in time) to exert death-inflicting storm surge mortality on the Limmen Bight and Karumba sites.
3) The fact that Limmen Bight and Karumba are distal to the track of the closest cyclone, Lam, whilst closer mangroves were not affected, is inconsistent with Lam causing the damage.
4) The nature of the mangrove damage shown in the photographs is not consistent with storm damage.
5) Mangroves are adapted to deal with water level variation greater than would have occurred as a result of the relatively benign 2015-2016 cyclones season storm surges.
6) These Carpentaria sites are remote and highly unlikely to be affected by pollution sources to the exent that such severe die-off would occur.
7) The nature of the die-off is inconsistent with insect herbivory die-off.
9) The water temperature anomaly in northern Australia has resulted in bleaching of nearly all of the Great Barrier Reef. 93% of reefs are affected, and as much as half of the coral in the northern third of the 2000km reef has been "devastated."
10) The isolation of Limmen Bight and Karumba in corners of the shallow Gulf of Carpentaria furthest away from the open ocean is consistent with a morphology conducive to exacerbating anomalous warming.
11) My original comment about the mangrove die-off was that it was "another sign of the consequences of warming" - I did not say that it was directly the cause of the mangrove die-off. In this I am entirely consistent with the evidence.
12) The sea level rise as indicated by the Karumba tide gauge is ~6 mm/year.
More generally...
13) Even if some plankton taxa are minimally affected, Doblin and Sebille do not say that all plankton will be minimally-affected, and they explicitly say that they do not include other factors in their analysis ("We make no assumptions about
other losses (e.g., grazing) or whether cooling or warming thermal
histories (represented as skewness in Fig. S5) results in better
outcomes with respect to microbial fitness").
14) Ocean warming does not operate in isolation of other impacts arising from human carbon emissions, and ocean acidification and stratification are inextricably linked to the fact of ocean life.
14) Humans are integrally-dependent on marine taxa other than plankton, and most of these taxa will be negatively-affected by warming.
15) In many presentations of these facts, you've ignored, misrepresented and/or otherwise avoided the import of what I'd said.
I could list more, but what's the point...?
However, if you are able to directly refute any of the above facts as I've presented them go for it.
Back at you, Betula. If you know something that the ecologists working on the Carpentaria don't know - the very people who suspect warming is implicated in the mangrove die-off and who are best-placed to know what's going on - please send them your data and analyses. And while you're at it, you should contact the rest of the world's ecologists and explain to them all why global warming is not as serious as all their work leads them to understand.
Or you could just keep spreading logical fallacy on the internet.
By the way, what’s the “good news” about global warming? And what's your best understanding for the percentage of warming that's attributable to humans. I've given you my figure, quite a while back, but you're still soiling your small-clothes and running like a coward from addressing these questions.
Yes, that should be 16... I kept thinking of more, and I could have continued...
But answer the questions Betula.
#501-
The cause of most, even almost all individual occurences of cancer is unknown. Basically the truth is no-one has ever seen a cell literally becoming tumorous while being able to interpret that process as such.
However, the statistical propensity for the occurence of cancers is quite well known. Most (at least 50%) is genetically defined, a large part of the remainder is environmental defined (e.g. benzene, asbestos and other silicates, tobacco smoke).
Battie’s mangrove reasoning would lead directly to her death if she did the same reasoning after receiving a diagnosis about a third of all people will get. The Batty thing seems to be she’d be surprised all the way. Because she cannot fathom a cause – even if it is tobacco, since lung cancer can also occur in individuals who have never been near smoke, she cannot accept the effect and do something about it.
Bernard - “But it reminds me that I was going to ask you about what exactly is the “good news” about global warming and acidification for califying plankton”
And the backtrack...
Bernard - "I’m not saying that you linked to a paper about acidification"
So since my "good news" comment had nothing to do with a paper about acidification, why are you asking me about the "good news" about acidification?
Answer - You're a Putz
Bernard - "No, I have not made “prediction”, not have I treated “prediction[s]” as “fact”.
Bernard - "As far as humans go, 1.5 °C would hurt, but be survivable, 2 °C will probably see a “global society” disintegrate over the following century, and 3 °C will pretty much see the end of an extensive technological Western civilization"
Not only are the increased temperatures predictions, the word "probably" does not describe a fact...
And regarding your links at #96....predictions not fact.
Bernard - "By the way, what’s the “good news” about global warming? And what’s your best understanding for the percentage of warming that’s attributable to humans"
"assertions" and "misrepresentations" eh Bernard?
You're asking me to predict future scenarios based on the prediction of future global average temperature derived from imperfect computer models....built around a percentage of man made warming that you have yet to discuss (question @#45).
And the answer to this will tell us when and how development, social justice, fairness and equality will fix the future predictions. Correct?
#4 - I get it, cancer killed the mangroves.
And just for the record...
Bernard - "And storm surges? That happens when an intense low passes over an area, and as I indicated the cyclones of 15-16 were tiddlers"
Cyclone Lam and Cyclone Marcia: Twin severe storms a 'first' for Australia:
"A storm surge has reached all parts of the Gulf of Carpentaria, with some areas recording seas more than one metre above the astronomical highs"
You're Welcome
Betula, you're the putz. Those two statements of mine are not inconsistnet, and you're attempting to confabulate their intents in order to escape the substantive points. To wit, you think that some plankton taxa having minimal negative response in a limited-parameter model is "good news", in contrast to my pointing out that empirical data indicate that warming and acidification in a real world context indicate that there is much risk from harm.
And yet you refuse to answer the question about what the "good news" really is, and to acknowledge that acidification negates much of the putative "good news" in a limited-parameter model.
Ah, I see, if you were only referring to my comments about the impact of warming, then I happily admit that yes, I certainly made predictions... However, and as you very well know, I am talking about the cause of the die-off in the mangroves in the Gulf of Carpentaria, as my 16 points in my post at 602 show.
That is the subject under discussion, and those are the substantive issues that you are refusing to acknowledge to the point that you are engaging in a Gish gallop of logical fallacies that would make a lawyer blush. Those are the facts to which I was referring, and those are the points which I understood you to be inferring were "predictions".
If I misunderstood you, fine. But you refuse to engage substantively - or even insubstantively - with the points I make, and if I can't keep up with the latest squirrel at which you're pointing that's not my fault.
Grow up, Betula.
Oden on a stick, Betula, you're stupid. Or mendacious. Or both.
Of course I can't be sure at a fine-grain resolution how complex planetary ecosystems will respond to countless climate-affecting parameters, and how human actions will pan out in the future. There are many variables that will affect how humans and how non-human life can respond to a warming planet. The only objective way to decribe likely outcomes is to use descriptors of likelihood.
There is no intent to present the projections as "fact", but the fact is that the eventual outcome will follow a trajectory resembles the mapping I described. At least, it will if the best scientific understanding is applicable.
But perhaps I have my understanding of ecophysiology wrong. I fervently hope so. I wish that it were so. Perhaps you can help assuage my mind - can you indicate the scientific studies that show that 3 °C, 4 °C, 5 °C - or more - of warming won't seriously affect human society and survival, and won't cause the loss of 30% or more of the planet's biodiversity. Hint, I've referred you to some papers that you'll need to refute in order to achieve this task...
What's your point Betula? Have you yet explained why the Doblin and Sebille paper is "good news", and have you yet told us what you understand to be the percentage of human contribution to global warming?
If you have, I missed it, and would certainly appreciate a link...
Logical fallacy; straw man.
I'm not asking you to "predict future scenarios". I'm simply asking you to tell us what your understanding is of the current human contribution to global warming. Remember, you said that you "d[i]n’t doubt a percent of [warming] is [the result of human emissions]." You "didn't doubt." You had no doubt. So, on what basis don't you doubt? What is your best understanding (a notion that I've repeatedly put to you) of the human contribution to warming?
I'm not asking for high precision, just your best understanding.
It seems that you have no understanding at all, other than a desire that the human contribution to be much less than the science indicates. But prove me wrong - tell us the basis for your best understanding.
For fuck's sake, what a leap of illogical confabulation.
All I want to know is what you understand to be the human contribution to warming. It's important to determine this, because your understanding informs your acceptance of what should be done to mitigate the effects, pursuant to your degree of acceptance of your moral responsibility to do so.
Your waving of "social justice, fairness and equality" as the proximal issue is simple another in a long line of your attempts to avoid acknowledging a simple, hard, scientifically calculable figure.
Yes, they were. But unfortunately for you they occurred in February 2015, which is in the 2014-2015 cyclone season, so you're still having that issue with dates and the large interval of time receding the occurrence of the present mangrove die-back: the die-off occurred in the latter half of the 2015-2016 cyclone season.
Idiot.
Indeed. And it happened 16 months before the reporting of the present die-off event, and it didn't impact many hundreds of kilometres of mangrove closer to Lam than are Limmens Bight and Karumba, so what's your point? And do you still really want to drag Marcia in as a suspect, when its eye was 1,100 km south of the closest mangrove site, Karumba?
You're welcome, Betula. Again.
Hahahahaha #6
Obviously not getting it.
#8 " fine grain resolution "
I think this hints at an unrealistic expectation some have that
science has all the answers and at a high level of detail.
Its certainly seems to be one of the psychological components
in anti science.
This comes across very strongly with those who go
" whaddya mean the planet is warming? Its cooling where
I live " , utterly failing to understand the complexity of climate
and that cooling in some regions may well occur.
Some people demand incredible detail, when a prudent
scientist can only make out a range of possibilities on the
data they have.
Im glad Bernard J used those words cuz it is important.
I can if i may make an analogy.
If a very drunk driver gets behind the
wheel of a motorcar, a science minded
person can damn well accuratly say its
a dangerous thing.
They cant provide detail of a future accident,
they cant say for certain a tree or a lamppost or
god forbid, a pedestrian or other vehicle will be involved.
Cant even say there WILL be an accident. In fact
they could look at statistics and suggest there probably
wont be.
So what does one do? Ignore the idea that impaired
driving is dangerous because future detail cant be determined?
Oh, and theres lots of accidents involving unimpaired drivers?
Stuff that!
Its interesting how governments by and large are
proactive in listening to science around many things
including motorcar saftey.
Some though, notably Australia, dont seem to reguard
climate science with the same attentiveness. Which is
odd, considering the stakes involved.
I dont reckon its unrealistic to
suggest the biosphere is headed for
a car crash of some sort.
Not only is a drunk behind the wheel,
the brakes need pumping to function,
steering is very loose, several wheel nuts
are missing, tyres are bald, its raining hard,
and the road to be travelled is very twisty, bumpy and
has never been driven before by the drunk, whos
got a lead foot.
Faaaaark. I cant believe im a passenger!
Bernard - "Those two statements of mine are not inconsistent"
Sure they are, otherwise you would have included an answer to the question I posed at #5...."So since my “good news” comment had nothing to do with a paper about acidification, why are you asking me about the “good news” about acidification?"
Bernard - "And yet you refuse to answer the question about what the “good news” really is"
Are we still talking about the subject of the paper about plankton, that found plankton can “endure temperature extremes that go beyond what is predicted by models of global warming.”?
Or are we talking about different "good news" that wasn't in the paper?
Bernard - "I am talking about the cause of the die-off in the mangroves in the Gulf of Carpentaria, as my 16 points in my post at 602 show"
Right. You don't know the cause, neither do I, so don't suggest you do. And if you don't know the cause, don't suggest to know the solution. And if I repeat the words of the scientists saying they don't know, don't suggest that I said I do know. And if you don't know, and I don't know, and the scientists don't know, don't suggest that it is a known sign of the unknown future.
Bernard - "I’m not asking you to “predict future scenarios”. I’m simply asking you to tell us what your understanding is of the current human contribution to global warming"
An .8C rise in GAT over the past 136 years. My question to you was...what percent of that is known to be a direct result of man? Some say 75%. How accurate is that? That would make the man made contribution .6C over the past 136 years, or .004C per year. And how accurate are the records going back 136 years?
I don't doubt man can affect the temperature (urban heat example), and I have never suggested the earth hasn't warmed.....what I asked you is (again), on a global scale, what percent of GAT is known to be a direct result of man?
Bernard - "Your waving of “social justice, fairness and equality” as the proximal issue is simple another in a long line of your attempts to avoid acknowledging a simple, hard, scientifically calculable figure"
You left out development. And It's not my waving Bernard, it's the waving of all alarmists as it is part of the solution. Are you not concerned about the solution Bernard?
If you doubt me, just do a search of climate Change, development and social justice....it's part of the solution.
My question to you is, how will the development of the poor nations reduce overall CO2 emissions in the short and long run and by how much and when?
If you can't answer, then you must be a rich denier who hates the poor...
Bernard - "And storm surges? That happens when an intense low passes over an area, and as I indicated the cyclones of 15-16 were tiddlers"
I'm glad that I was able to help you take the above statement back, at least you now acknowledge that the storms weren't "tiddlers" and that there was a storm surge....."Yes, they were" and "Indeed."
Bernard - "And it happened 16 months before the reporting of the present die-off event"
I'm glad that you went from "18" months to "16" months ago....even though the storms were 15 months ago. It shows progress....
Bernard - "and the large interval of time receding the occurrence of the present mangrove die-back"
Again - When were the pictures taken?
Li D - "Faaaaark. I cant believe im a passenger!"
You're using a computer, which makes you the drunk driver in denial.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/05/14/india-court-says-former-un-clim…
So your point at #15 is what exactly Betu-thingy?
Just bringing some news from the outside world during visiting hours to share with the Deltoid patients...
#11 - "If a very drunk driver gets behind the
wheel of a motorcar, a science minded
person can damn well accuratly say its
a dangerous thing."
It depends on whether the car is gas or electric.
Erm, no.
I've already explained to you why I'm asking you about the "good news" that you perceive in GSW's link. Perhaps you're too intellectually challenged to understand, so I'll explain it again...
Marine species are not threatened by temperature change alone. Ocean acidification, ocean stratification/anoxia (resulting from warming...) and other human pollution of the marine environment are all impacting on the the planet's oceans. In concert. And not all plankton species are organic-walled. And the Doblin and Sebille paper only models warming as a single parameter, as the authors themselves acknowledge in the paper, and it only refers to phenotypes that exhibit plasticity with respect to temperature variation. And it does not include any consideration of the penalties of this phenotype, and it does not include any investigation of how this phenotype interacts with other ecosystem parameters in the longer term of an ecosystem's life.
So, I repeat, why is the content of the Doblin and Sebille paper "good news"?
The fact that you can't and won't address my question is very telling…
Tell us Betula, have you actually read the paper? Is this why you are avoiding any detailed comment about it?
So, what's the "good news"?
You're just not getting the point, are you?
I didn't say that I knew the cause. I said that it was "another sign of the consequences of warming" [my latter bolding]. This would be taken by most people to indicate that the die-off event arose distally from actual warming, although I can understand how you might not be able to (or want to) parse this sufficiently to get this. I even tried to point out to you that there is likely to be a confluence of separate factors operating.
It's telling though that the ecologists working in the area are concerned that the high sea temperatures may play a part. And Ockham's razor would argue that given the severe damage to the Great Barrier Reef from ocean warming, and the lack of immediately-obvious alternative factors (no, cyclones in the season before last aren't immediate suspects, especially when mangroves closer to them were not so affected), ocean warming needs to be seriously considered as a factor.
And more generally, with continued warming of the planet from continued human emissions of fossil carbon, this type of ecosystem response is exactly what will occur. This is entirely consistent with my original statement, and you have never offered any data or other testable evidence to the contrary.
More logical fallacy.
Again, for the hard of learning, I didn't attribute the die-off to a direct effect of warming. I said that it was "a sign of the consequences of warming." And it is very much the sort of "sign" that one would expect from warming whether, in the mangroves' case, it resulted from direct heat stress, increase extreme weather frequency, sea level rise, increased insect herbivory (which, I might reiterate, I don't think is the case in this instance) or other climate-related spread of novel factors such as disease.
The fact is Betula that global warming will have consequences for species and ecosystems around the planet. Many of these consequences will look like the phenomenon seen in Carpentaria, and worse. The solution to minimising a severe amount of damage to the planetary ecology, to the only biosphere that we'll ever have, is to stop emitting fossil carbon. I know that, the world's scientists know that, and many rational lay people know that. If you can't understand or accept this, it's your problem, and unfortunately for us, the rest of the world's too...
"Some say 75%"? Who? And on what basis do you rely on that figure?
As to your poser "[h]ow accurate is that?" the answer is "not very", if one is referring to the best estimate - to which I referred you some time back. Indeed, given that the best understanding as presented in the scientific literature is somewhere in the vicinity of 110%, and almost certainly over 100%, one has to ask you why, in your excursion from the central estimate, you didn't go the other way and settle on a figure of, say 125%, or 135%?
As to your other straw man, "[a]nd how accurate are the records going back 136 years", go learn some statistics and some proxy climatology. Or are you actually that desperate to change the subject yet again?
"[K]nown", eh? What's with the demand for an impossible standard? Are you wandering down the path of the negative proof fallacy?
And there's the obligatory straw man via your non-doubting of urban heat islands: the real issue is the retention of heat from an increased atmospheric concentration of the 'greenhouse' gas, carbon dioxide.
And, again, I've told you a number of times now that the best estimates of science are over 100%, and around 110% from the forcings listed in figure 10.5 from the AR5 link that I provided. Do you dispute this? If so, why?
I didn't. I quoted you fully. I simply didn't then repeat "development" because the answers to mitigating climate change are not necessarily all ones of development, but they very certainly are ones related to "social justice, fairness and equality."
Way to go with another red herring though.
Again, that red herring. I well understand that technological progress ("development" is a weasel word…) is a part of the solution to climate change, but it's not all of the solution. More importantly, the basis of my pressing of you here is your avoidance of fundamental facts relating to the cause, magnitude, and consequences of warming, and your apparent avoidance of the moral/ethical responsibilities that we all have to admit to and respond to the damage that we are doing to the planet.
Do you have an attention deficit disorder on the more serious end of the scale, or do you have a propensity to hallucinating squirrels at every turn? Or do you just have a fetish for scarecrows?
Again with the impossible standards. And a straw man. We're focussing on other things here, Betula, including the extent to which humans are responsible for warming the planet, the amount of sea level rise at Karumba, how Cyclones Lam and Marcia managed to affect the mangroves at Limmens Bight and Larumba at significant distances in both space and time, without affecting mangroves more proximal, and why the Doblin and Sebille paper is "good news" for plankton.
Focus, Betula, focus…
Still, I've happy to answer your question. The extent that the whole world assists both First World and Third World countries to transition from fossil carbon to renewables, both in degree and in rate, will determine how much carbon dioxide emissions are reduced. That's the scientific answer. If you want more than that, you're talking policies and results contingent on future decisions and actions, which can only be determined by modelling based on appropriate input of the parameters that would apply to such, or by waiting and seeing what happens in the future…
But as I said that's a political discussion, and it's a diversion, and I'm trying to press you on the scientific points above that I keep on repeating, and from which you continue to duck and weave.
Shit a brick, you're stupid.
I said that the cyclones of the 2015-2016 season were "tiddlers". And that is true. I even linked to a graphic demonstrating this.
For the umpteenth time, Lam and Marcia were in the 2014-2015 season, five (or just over 4 and a half, if one wants to be specific...) months before the 2015-2016 season even started. They did not occur in the season of "tiddlers". And I know how strong Lam and Marcia were - I posted somewhere about it the day that they struck, or the day after - but they occurred in the cyclone season previous to the 2015-2016 season.
Do you understand yet?
Really, you're going to go with that Betula? Even though you first raised the time span with your "15-16 months" comment? More fool me for counting in my head by months whilst I typed and not realising that it was only 15.2 months, and not more than 15.5 months, but seriously Betula, are you so bloody desperate for a gotcha that this is what qualifies as a substantive point in your mind?!
Your arguments are piss-weak at very best if this is all that you have.
I say again, ask Norm Duke.
Bernard - "I’ve already explained to you why I’m asking you about the “good news” that you perceive in GSW’s link"
The "good news" "perceived" in GSW' link, had nothing to do with acidification. You're an idiot.
Bernard - "So, I repeat, why is the content of the Doblin and Sebille paper “good news”?"
And since I have already told you, I will repeat - You're an idiot.
Bernard - "I didn’t say that I knew the cause. I said that it was “another sign of the consequences of warming"
A sign of the future. You don't know the cause of the mangrove damage, but you know whatever it is, is a sign of the future. If it's tides, it's the future. If it's insects, it's the future. If it's a disease, it's the future. If it's a storm, it's the future. Meanwhile, mangroves have been around Australia for 19 million years...What if they recover, is that the future as well?
Bernard - “Some say 75%”? Who? And on what basis do you rely on that figure?"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/three-quarters-of-climate/
Me - "My question to you is, how will the development of the poor nations reduce overall CO2 emissions in the short and long run and by how much and when?"
Your very telling non answer - "Focus, Betula, focus"
But then you try - "The extent that the whole world assists both First World and Third World countries to transition from fossil carbon to renewables, both in degree and in rate, will determine how much carbon dioxide emissions are reduced"
So the answer is we don't know. And I'm sure you took into consideration increased construction, use of materials, transportation, manufacturing, shipping, use of the earths resources, consumption etc when you came up with your non answer....correct? And then there is the issue of cost and oversight...more non answers I'm sure.
But the "good news" is, we predict that we can prevent the predicted future scenarios that we see in current events that we don't know the cause of....
Bernard - "Your arguments are piss-weak at very best if this is all that you have"
My "argument" is that you don't know the cause, and the future isn't a fact, and you can't explain if development will increase or decrease CO2 by any given amount over any given time.
And since that is all true, I would say there is no argument.
And finally, when were the pictures taken again?
Betula seems interested that George Bush's appointee to the IPCC, oil-man Rajendra Pachauri, is having legal troubles.
Why is it interesting?
Wow,
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
This level of melt in the Arctic is unprecedented in the scientific era.
Only 2006 and 2015 had anything like a similar amount of melt early on in the year.
Craig - "Why is it interesting?"
Interesting is your word.
Why is it news?
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. You admit that you and GSW were not considering all of the impacts of human carbon emission when spruiking the "good news". We can delve further into that soon.
But first, what exactly is the "good news"? In finally describing the nature of the "good news", if would help if you could tell us which plankton taxa are thusly fortunate, and just how it is that are thusly fortunate.
Oh dear Betula, I seem to have missed the post where you explained why Doblin and Sebille is "good news"! Perhaps you could link to your post where you "already explained" it?
Betula, you obviously have a mental condition where you filter fact to suit your ideology. Let me put it to you in a way that you might be able to understand.
If "it's" sea level rise resulting from global warming, then "it's" the consequence of the human contribution to global warming.
If "it's" increased ecological disruption resulting from global warming, leading to atypical predation/herbivory/disease, then "it's" the consequence of the human contribution to global warming.
If "it's" freshwater flooding, or storm surging, or direct storm damage occurring at a frequency or intensity resulting* from global warming, then "it's" the consequence of the human contribution to global warming.
If "it's" the heat stress arising from anomalously warm water resulting from global warming, then "it's" the consequence of the human contribution to global warming.
If "it's" any other impact resulting from global warming, then "it's" the consequence of the human contribution to global warming.
Why? Because the best estimate of the human contribution to the contemporary global warming is greater than one hundred percent - as you well know but won't acknowledge.
Straw man. The fact of the duration of existence of mangroves in the past does not mean that they will not be impacted by human-caused global warming now and in the future.
If and when species and ecosystems "recover" that will be the result of a combination of eventual biological and geochemical sequestration working in concert with evolution. The problem is that many species and ecosystems won't recover. If we screw up the climate sufficiently humans might not "recover" either.
That is the future.
What a fatuous non sequitur.
Tell me Betula, do you know what decisions humans will take in the future, and how the planet will respond to the cumulative interactions of all of those decisions?
Do you?
Of course not, and I'm not saying that I do.
But I am saying that we can project with reliability what will happen under particular scenarios, and that these scenarios should guide us in the decisions that we eventually (with a distressing emphasis of the "eventually"...) make.
Already done.
Betula, I didn't say that I "knew" the cause. I did say that the Carpentaria phenomenon is a sign of the consequences of warming, and that is entirely consistent with a parsimonious consideration of the available evidence.
Again with the non sequiturs...
What the fuck? What on earth does that non sequitur have to do with the issues on this thread?
Have you been forgetting to take your Ritalin?
Of course you would. You don't argue from a position of logic, empiricism, or fact.
As you're too incompetent, lazy, and/or gutless to ask Norm Duke yourself, I've asked him for you. I'll let you know what he says.
[* The patterns of the damage in the Lemmins Bight/Karumba mangroves are such that these factors are unlikely to be involved, for reasons that I've laid out multiple times previously.]
Hang on to your hat Betula. Norm replied an hour after I emailed him, and you're not going to like his answer. I'll summarise his detailed reply when I have some time later this evening.
Why wouldn't I like an answer? You do presume someone has a favorable/unfavorable position on subject because they ask questions? Questions you apparently aren't capable of thinking about on your own?
What kind of thinking is that?
If you get an answer, I'll be expecting a thank you in response.
You're welcome.
Some more "news" for Craig....
http://mashable.com/2016/05/16/john-church-csiro-cuts/#v0_NatgHlSq6
Craig on Arctic sea ice, I was looking at this yesterday and found that there is another anomalous feature in the Beaufort Sea right now
Taking your link to NSIDC and adding in a few years of interest we see things in context of other 'interesting' years.
But of course to the Betu-fools of the world none of this matters after al we cannot predict exactly when the Arctic will be totally clear of ice in summer. After all a 15Km meteorite may impact and cause all projections to be void, 'Just Like That', as a well know comedian once used to say.
Bernard - "You admit that you and GSW were not considering all of the impacts of human carbon emission when spruiking the “good news".
I admit I was responding to the good news that was reported in the paper, and I wasn't responding to news that wasn't discussed in the paper. I know this is hard for you....
I notice you responded to a lot of "ifs" with a lot of "ifs" at #25 Bernard, so maybe you can respond to this...
"If" development on a global scale takes place, will this result in the addition or reduction of CO2 in the short and long run, and by how much over what period of time?
Bernard - "The problem is that many species and ecosystems won’t recover"......"That is the future"
Again, a prediction, not a fact.
Bernard - "these scenarios should guide us in the decisions that we eventually (with a distressing emphasis of the “eventually”…) make"
Like the decisions regarding development of the undeveloped nations? Because "if" you can't explain "if" development will increase or decrease CO2 by any given amount over any given time, how do you know you aren't adding to the potential problem? Or don't you care?
"What on earth does that non sequitur have to do with the issues on this thread?"
If questions regarding the predicted solutions to the prediction problems aren't an issue for you....then nothing.
But according to Deltoid logic, wouldn't that make you a greedy person who hates the poor?
Theres quite a meme getting put about
by deniers that restraints on co2 production
will massivly inhibit growth in countries with
endemic poverty.( this idea is subtly transformed
to mean people in poverty will be condemed to stay
that way, in other words, oppressed).
My query on this is,
Theres been well over 100 years of electrical generating
and transmission technology available unfettered by
co2 restraints . ( and practically, unfettered now ).
So im not really seeing a correllation between a possible
suppression of co2 use and increasing poverty.
If theres still very impovrished countries ( and there is )
other factors are at play.
Its a wierd strawman thingie put up by idjits.
Its quite morally shitty in light of what
the poorest countries are gunna go through
with global warming.
Attempts by deniers to portray themselves
as friends of poor are both hollow and repugnant.
"Theres quite a meme getting put about by deniers that restraints on co2 production will massivly inhibit growth in countries with endemic poverty"
It's just one of the many chicken little alarmist stories deniers pratt about with when logic isn't going to win them any points.
"Again, a prediction, not a fact."
And the sun will come up tomorrow is a prediction.
What does it "not being a fact" have to do with it, though? Likewise with your post? What does it being a prediction and not a fact have to do with anything???
Wow - "And the sun will come up tomorrow is a prediction”
And the sun has come up everyday since the beginning of the earth. So you’re letting on that the predicted future catastrophic-only scenarios have been happening everyday since the beginning of earth?
Strange comparison....expected from you though.
Well done.
Betula, don't start on the "hate the poor" route. One of my brothers-in-law is from exactly such a background (and his country of origin is threatened with sea level rise to boot...). I think that I have some genuine understanding of what it's like to be poor in the Third World.
And what Li D said.
No, I don't presume. You do it all by yourself: it's your ongoing denial of the professional science of climate change that establishes your "unfavourable position."
Eh?! What didn't I think about on my own? Anyone reading this thread would likely come to the exact opposite conclusion: that you can't think beyond your ideology and consider the weifght of empirical fact. I didn't see you apply any parsimonious consideration to what might have contributed to the die-off, and what couldn't have.
Heck, even after several admonitions to the contrary, you still kept saying that Cylcones Lam and Marcia occured in the 2015-2016 season: that's the level of your approach to the matter.
Illogical thinking Betula, but then, we know that's all that you're capable of.
Which is? And for which plankton species? And in what real world context?
After all, these are just some of the contexts that one needs to consider if one is going to rejoice about "good news".
What was the "good news" to which you were responding?
No, of course you weren't. Because you were cherry-picking and ignoring the actual, real-world complications that render moot the "good news" of the Doblin and Sebille paper. But acidification aside for the moment (and stratification/anoxia...), what was the "good news" in the paper?
By the way, you didn't respond to my question about whether or not you've read it. I'm keen to explore with you some of the comments within it, so I do hope that you have a copy in front of you.
After all, you wouldn't be so vociferously promoting its "good news" if you hadn't actually read it, would you?
Erm, no, in this case it's a scientific projection - in fact, innumerable projections - of what will happen if humans continue to do to the planet what they've been doing for the last few centuries. It's the result of many tens of thousands of scientists doing many, many millions of hours of research.
But you seem blithely confident that there's nothing about which to be concerned if humans warm the planet by 2 °C, 3 °C, 4 °C, or more. I've asked you before, and I'll ask you again - on what basis do you refuse to accept the scientific indications of significant harms to the biosphere that will result from human-caused global warming? What's your data, what's your evidence?
Again with the non sequitur; several of them, in one sentence, in fact.
My conversation here is about the science, and what it tells us are the consequences of our actions. The "solution" is to stop emissing fossil carbon: how that's done is social policy, politics. This is beyond the scope of my considerations on this thread. All I am saying is that if humanity argues that "it's too expensive" to mitigate, or "the poor browns", or whatever other excuse that ideologues and vested interests trumpet, then the expense will simply be shifted from the cost of mitigating (which is in fact a potential large net benefit) to the cost of dealing with the consequences of warming, with a whole lot of interest thrown in...
Now, to summarise Norm Duke.
The die-back depicted in the photos occurred this summer, not last summer.
It is not related to storms (remember all the reasons that I detailed over the last few days to explain this?).
Nor is it tidal waves, or major oil spills. No previously-understood identifiable factor has been reported.
There is an apparent link with temperature – which has surprised ecologists working on the issue because this would be unprecedented. But as Norm observed, it is just what might be expected as global temperatures start to exceed the previously known limits.
There are no comparable incidents anywhere else in the world.
Locals too are convinced of the link to warming. (And remember, these are farmers, fishers, and the like, and very conservative in their approach to such matters... My observation by the way, not Norm's.) These locals additionally report that fish catches are deteriorating, that agricultural lands are becoming untenable for live stock, and that there are more fierce fires. They are seeing the climate change, and they are seeing it affect their environment.
There are correlations of the dying-off with both hot conditions and the annual dry season (and no, before you try it on, these sorts of die off do not occur regularly or even infrequently with dry seasons). So it seems that the recent terrestrial expression of warming may play at least some part in the phenomenon, along with the anomalous ocean warmth - it just gets more and more interesting, doesn't it...?
Norm reiterated that mangroves are an ecotonal community located in a dynamic zone, exposed to a range of changing physical parameters, and when the fundamental conditions change it is reflected in the response of the consitutent species. Basically, mangroves are sensitive indicators of stress.
These mangroves are dying of stress, Betula, and the current best understanding is that it's temperature related.
And yes, Betula, “urgent funding is needed". Despite your derision regarding this statement, arising no doubt from your fear that all your tax dollars are being robbed by those conniving, conspiring, fraudulent scientists, the phenomenon unfolding in the Gulf of Carpentaria is a serious issue and needs to be adequately understood, if we are to get the best picture possible in order to determine just how close to the mark are all of those scientific predictions about what lies in the planet's future, and of the effectiveness or otherwise of our current (lack of) response...
And Betula, given that you were too scared to ask Norm Duke yourself... you're welcome. Yet again.
"Betula, don’t start on the “hate the poor” route."
Betty and its ilk hate the poor so much they'll happily exploit their existence for their financial or egotistical gain.
But does that make t"The sun will come up tomorrow" no longer a prediction?
"Strange comparison"
Yes, why did you make the comparison. That was YOUR assertion, betty, not one from any reality inhabited by the sane of planet earth.
Me - "But according to Deltoid logic, wouldn’t that make you a greedy person who hates the poor?"
Wow - "Betty and its ilk hate the poor so much they’ll happily exploit their existence for their financial or egotistical gain"
And there you have it. Thank you Deltoid, you never let me down....
Bernard - "Betula, don’t start on the “hate the poor” route"
Why not? It's a classic Deltoid routine..... ask Wow, he'll tell you.
Bernard - "No, I don’t presume"
Then you assume. You said "and you’re not going to like his answer". That's an assumtion based on nothing more than a question about when a picture was taken.
Bernard - "Eh?! What didn’t I think about on my own?"
You didn't think about when the picture was taken.
Are you ok? I'm getting a little worried...
Bernard - "you still kept saying that Cylcones Lam and Marcia occured in the 2015-2016 season"
Nope. Never said that. Said they happened a little over a year ago...3 months over a year.. And then you went on about 18 months or something, which of course wasn't true.
Bernard - "But you seem blithely confident that there’s nothing about which to be concerned if humans warm the planet by 2 °C, 3 °C, 4 °C"
Nope. Wrong again. I asked how development of the undeveloped nations is predicted to fix the predictions.
Wow, this is where you come in ranting about hating the poor, greed, wealth etc...
Bernard - "The “solution” is to stop emissing fossil carbon: how that’s done is social policy, politics. This is beyond the scope of my considerations on this thread"
If you won't consider it, that must mean you do hate the poor....and you are greedy.
See that one Wow?
Thanks Deltoid!.
Regarding the summary of your Norm Duke response. In short....he doesn't know.
Now, let me ask you. Since Karumba seems to have higher sea level rise than all the rest of Australia, isn't this a regional/local thing? Why is it localized to the Karumba area? Air pressure? Terrain?
And if Karumba is a special case, why do you relate the sea level rise at Karumba to all of the globe?
And if Karumba is a special case with sea level rise, why couldn't it be a special case with storm surge?
I'm sorry to ask questions that are beyond your thinking, but obviously it's because I hate the poor.
Bernard - "These mangroves are dying of stress"
And yet Norm Duke hints they may recover when he states...."because if the trees do not grow back" and "If we do not see recovery"
And then there is this statement by Norm...."There are some species that recover and there are others that don't easily from physical damage."
Which species are we dealing with here?
Is this another question that you couldn't think of Bernard, or are questions taboo when your mind is made up?
You're welcome.
#39 'And if Karumba is a special case, why do you relate the sea level rise at Karumba to all of the globe?' - checked it, found Battie a liar again.
As to the mangroves.
The cause of most, even almost all individual occurences of cancer is unknown. Basically the truth is no-one has ever seen a cell literally becoming tumorous while being able to interpret that process as such.
However, the statistical propensity for the occurence of cancers is quite well known. Most (at least 50%) is genetically defined, a large part of the remainder is environmental defined (e.g. benzene, asbestos and other silicates, tobacco smoke).
Battie’s mangrove reasoning would lead directly to her death if she did the same reasoning after receiving a diagnosis about a third of all people will get. The Batty thing seems to be she’d be surprised all the way. Because she cannot fathom a cause – even if it is tobacco, since lung cancer can also occur in individuals who have never been near smoke, she cannot accept the effect and do something about it.
Ah, Betula, you've been back with more of your trademark fallacious argument. Quelle surprise.
I'm currently in a rush of actually important tasks, so you'll have to simmer in your ongoing ignorance for a while but just to note, I've had another interesting conversation with Norm that I'll summarise in the next day or so, when I have anough idle moments to warrant wasting a few on a denialist drone such as yourself.
Until then, you might consider re-reading some of my questions and asking yourself if you can answer them with a much better reliance on fact than you have to date.
Good luck with that.
Kampen is recommending radiation followed by hormone therapy for the mangrove.
Classic.
Kampen - "checked it, found Battie a liar again"
Don't know what you checked, but it would help if you followed the topic of conversation. Just saying...
#43, course ur clueless.
Just STFU...
Just what I thought, you can't explain your comment.
Well done.
#45, course ur clueless.
Just STFU…
Impressive.
Keep scrambling those symbols...
‘And if Karumba is a special case, why do you relate the sea level rise at Karumba to all of the globe?’
A lie.
Battie knows it but still demands clarification :D :D
Kampen, if you were following the conversation, what do you think I was referring to when I said "if Karumba is a special case"?
Now watch Kampen attempt to untangle his scrambled symbols......
Battie.
Nowhere has Bernard 'related the slr at Karumba to all of the globe.'
You liar.
Poor Kampen, If someone states the mangrove dieback is a "sign of the consequences of warming", are they "relating" the dieback to a sign of local warming or global warming?
You choose.....and then tell me more about how cancer killed the mangroves.
On a completely related topic to #51, this.
---
During a huge battle over soccer, unwinnable because mummy was one of the opponents, I realized that a fatwa re the paramount importance of this game is mandatory. Soccer is good.
Or: why I like watching soccer and have for 35 years to date (same mummy had me stay up late for the World Cup Final Argentina - Naranjas in 1978 which started this wise behaviour).
All reasons can be summed up as follows: soccer is a collection of models for a variety of processes ranging from socio- and biopsychological to system dynamical. To wit:
'Soccer is War' ('Voetbal is Oorlog'), Rinus Michels. Michels, alias 'The General', coached the Dutch eleven to European championship in 1988.
In this quote I read 'Soccer is a model for war - like most games are'.
Though Wittgenstein made it clear that an encompassing definition of what a game is cannot be formulated, there is generality in most games at least in sofar they pit two or more people into a contest. Of these, some games are about building something by competing or corroborating persons or teams. But most games are war - modelled, of course.
Such games start out with a conflict of interests which is to be resolved by force and/or cunning, involving strategies and tactics, aiming at the demise - modelled, of course - of one or some of the players or teams and the victory of another.
General principles of battle strategy and tactics apply to games as well, and, or so: vice versa.
In chess this is easy to see, as it is based on antique Chinese conceptuology of warfare and this still shows in the game. There are, e.g., cavalry and cavalry tactics; there are artillery and artillery tactics and certain constellations of rooks or queen & bishop are actually known as 'batteries'; there is cannon fodder i.e. infantry to be used for massive charges, pinpoint operations, structured defense and even the petty individual's rare ascent to heroism, queen or kingdom.
It is also easy to see how fundamental principles of battle work out in chess, e.g. Concentration Principles like 'Pack most power onto the enemy's weakest spot' and 'Beware of dividing your force over multiple targets or aims', or the fact that artillery alone cannot win battles let alone wars.
Analogue of latter in soccer - it does not matter how often a team kicks the ball in front of the opponent's goal: if there are no 'ground troops' in front of the goal there can be no score let alone win. The reader is left to the easy exercise of finding analogues to the Concentration Principles.
One more principle of war and games should be noted and is not hard to remember from reality: all battles lost by superior forces are lost from underestimation of the opponent.
War is more, much more than battle alone. War is a universe unto itself. There are combattants (players, usually but not always young men) and a majority of non-combattants (e.g. public, all genders and ages). There are ideologies and nations, flags, standards and colours, an often virulent notion of 'ingroup' and 'outgroup'. War is often hugely about material interests like money because these are power bearers, such that the world of war economics is vastly larger and far more complicated than any battle on a field (including Tannenberg, August 1914). There are corruption and 'match-fixing' like in any actual war and any conceivable party (i.e. any party with cash abound) can be involved in any war or soccer match in any weird way.
Looking at soccer in this broadside view, we find it to be a workable model of a world society divided into nations and/or tribes, some of whom are combattants, or donators to battle costs, or 'public' e.g. electorate or those who watch proceedings on television.
The strength of the soccer model for the phenomena of battle, war and groups, societies or nations in interaction is abundantly demonstrated by the fascination of so many ardent lovers ánd haters of the game as if it actually were war. And war is the most fascinating phenomenon for any being that arose from a self-replicating molecule and perhaps even all things actively and passivly claiming existence. Because "War is the father of all and king of all, who manifested some as gods and some as men, who made some slaves and some freemen" (Heracleitòs). Or because the universe has the built-in rule dictating that no two different things may occupy the same space at the same time (direct result from the Law of Identity: A = A for any subset A of the universe).
Apart from this, a game of soccer exhibits all kinds of individual behaviour as dictated by some group characteristic and hence can serve as a sociopsychological model for phenomena like 'team spirit' and 'flow', or propensity to lose the match after one too many failed tries on goal notwithstanding the nominal strengths of the team or even the quality of their play during the match.
A game of soccer may also be viewed as a physics/mathemathic object called 'chaotic dynamic system' in the heighdays of nonlinearity, fractals and Benoit Mandelbrot. This interpretation may lead to investigations into the usefulness of statistical methods for complex (information or particle) systems. There is big trouble with this idea, as exemplified by the work of Nassim Nicolas Taleb (e.g. 'The Black Swan'). Nevertheless it is not proven that the field (I mean, statistics vs. non-linearity, not the green) should be trashed in the bin containing flogiston theories or perpetuüm mobiles.
I finalize my fatwa on soccer, Soccer is Good, by reminding you gladly of Zlatan Ibramovic and the way he has scored himself into the rows heroes, and secondly the following marketing principle:
"If you play for ball possession, you'll never need to defend, because there is only one ball."
(Johan Cruijff, stating the Law of Identity once more).
/cRR
So rather than answer the question, you can always rely on the flop. A cheap attempt at leveling the playing field...
It doesn't matter. you were offside anyway...
The Watts-rabble can't get their stories straight:
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/spectator-new-www/i_was_tossed_out_o…
Battie keeps having no answers to anything.
Ka,pem - "Battie keeps having no answers to anything."
My answer is that the scientists say they don't have the answer.
Meanwhile, in Kampen's Deltoid land, a soccer player with cancer killed the mangroves...
'My answer is that the scientists say they don’t have the answer. '
Oho, so you DO have the answers. More lies, eh, Battie? Pretending you don't have answers, while you actually do.
Regarding #57 - I think we can officially declare this blog dead. Put a fork in it Tim, wherever you are...
I meant #58, but #57 works too.
When people like Kampen (who would like to see Cairns wiped off the map) ramble on about mangrove's dying from soccer players and cancer, you know it's way past over...
"The Watts-rabble can’t get their stories straight:"
Actually, they have NEVER diverted the story they hold. The thing the sane people don't realise is that ALL THEY SEE is the "It's not AGW" story. NOTHING other than that is even visible to them. Like the colour blind. Or the mentally unstable.
As far as they can tell, they've kept the story straight. Even if "WHY" is never consistently claimed, the "it's not AGW" is aways kept in their "Why it's not AGW" "story".
"Battie keeps having no answers to anything."
Betty keeps trying not to say anything. However, every now and then they slip up and then betty has to pretend it was someone else said it.
Rather like a two-year-old who "reasons" that if they can't see you, you can't see them, betty can't see why it won't work on you.
#61 ha, well, I wish it were fun - I'll take the two-year-old any time. Has much less of a H2S bootprint, too.
Wow - "every now and then they slip up and then betty has to pretend it was someone else said it"
Now all you have to do is provide an example.
Funny how examples are always missing when you pretend to make a point....
Just returned from skiing across Vatnajokull glacier over 8 days in Iceland. I spoke with several experts in the field of glaciology and one of the world's leading explorers and they all told me the same thing - that AGW is decimating glaciers world wide. Iceland's glaciers are ablating and retreating at a terrifying rate - up to 500 meters retreat evident on two of them. One other one will disappear within the next decade. Symptoms of GW are everywhere.
I then read our ritual moron writing this piffle: "My answer is that the scientists say they don’t have the answer".
Wrong on all counts. Scientists almost unanimously agree that humans are driving changes in climate with potentially severe consequences. I am one of them. Betula isn't. He prunes trees fro a living. There is a light year's difference in our knowledge base and whose company we keep.
Its over for him. By now I thought the idiot would have faded away from here, what with the ritual humiliation he is being administered. But no, he persists.
I should have said 500 meters per year. Yes, PER YEAR.
The Subject - The article posted by Bernard @62 page 5
The Scientists I Quoted From The Article -
“It’s not clear why the mangroves have died”
“The cause is not conclusively known”
“Not knowing the cause is going to really hamper my capacity to be sure of what’s – how to answer that question”
“But we just need to know what’s going on”
Me - “My answer is that the scientists say they don’t have the answer”.
Hardley - "Wrong on all counts"
AGAIN....The subject - The Article posted by Bernard @ 62
Making Hardley - "Wrong on all counts"
Deltoid Retards.
#66, aha. The mangroves again. So, the cause of most, even almost all individual occurences of cancer is unknown. Basically the truth is no-one has ever seen a cell literally becoming tumorous while being able to interpret that process as such.
However, the statistical propensity for the occurence of cancers is quite well known. Most (at least 50%) is genetically defined, a large part of the remainder is environmental defined (e.g. benzene, asbestos and other silicates, tobacco smoke).
Battie’s mangrove reasoning would lead directly to her death if she did the same reasoning after receiving a diagnosis about a third of all people will get. The Batty thing seems to be she’d be surprised all the way. Because she cannot fathom a cause – even if it is tobacco, since lung cancer can also occur in individuals who have never been near smoke, she cannot accept the effect and do something about it.
#63, you think its 'funny' when you're asked something but answers are always missing? Good on ya. We're just bored.
Kampen - "Battie’s mangrove reasoning"
Not sure what you think my reasoning is, other than I stated the words of the scientists who said they don't know the cause..
Kampen - "Because she cannot fathom a cause"
Actually, I discussed a potential contributing cause at length, so now you are just lying.... again.
Kampen - "even if it is tobacco, since lung cancer can also occur in individuals who have never been near smoke"
You are correct, I didn't think about the possibility of non smoking mangroves dying from lung cancer....you got me on that one.
I'll say this - for a dead blog, there is still a lot of comedy material to be gathered from the few remaining patients.
Thanks Deltoid.
Kampen @ 69 - "you think its ‘funny’ when you’re asked something but answers are always missing?"
If you read what I wrote, you would know that I said it's "Funny how examples are always missing when you pretend to make a point"
Example - You @ 69.
Now that's funny.
Kampen visits Yellowstone -
http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/05/yellowstone-tourists-worried-bison…
It was later revealed that not only did he think it was cold, he thought it may have lung cancer...
As a result of his actions, the Bison was sent to Cairns.
Nobody really bothers to read any-more what a crap artist like Betula writes for it is all piffle.
However he should take notice of you findings in Iceland and consider one massive consequence. Trouble with the Betuula's of the world is that they cannot see the dots let alone join them so impoverished is their world view.
I have mentioned, long ago, the writings of Bill McGuire but here is a reminder for those of short attention span like Betula Global warming won’t just change the weather—it could trigger massive earthquakes and volcanoes.
Now think what Iceland is largely composed of. The 210 eruption of Eyjafjallajökull will be small beer.
Now I don't really give a $h!t if Betu-barking comes back with some wiseacre comment I'll ignore it, like all his other recent comments of which I only know of their presence by scanning down the comments thread and skipping his drivel.
Betula is best 'talked at' rather than 'with' from now on, he is a loser.
Oops should have been 2010
Lionel - "However he should take notice of you findings in Iceland and consider one massive consequence"
Hardley's findings? Did he find anything he couldn't have found by staying home and using his computer? The answer is no. Yet, he had to burn more than his fair share of CO2 and put us all in further future jeopardy just for a joy ride...
By the way Hardley, have you ever looked at the history of Iceland and it's glaciers and volcanos over the past million years? How about the past 2500 years?
And I noticed there is still no mention of how social justice is going to keep Icelands climate from ever changing again....as it has always done.
Oh, and Lionel, you never did thank me for identifying the Garden Spiders you couldn't identify yourself...
You're welcome.
Well #71 actually broke my lips, but forget it. That incident is one from which Battie could learn something.
Actually I did, but even then you misrepresent me if you think I had no clue as to identity.
Now that is it, I'll now in future mention you only in passing.
From now on I will only mention Lionel, the clueless Putz, when he proves himself to be a clueless (and in this case ungrateful) Putz.
Example:
Lionel - "you misrepresent me if you think I had no clue as to identity"
Apparently, this is what I misrepresented:
Lionel - "Can anybody tell me what species of, I think, spider mite these are?"
I have no doubt I'll be mentioning you a lot in the future...
"Nobody really bothers to read any-more what a crap artist like Betula writes for it is all piffle."
Although what someone else picks out from betty's ravings is enough of a clue as to what rabbit hole betty wants everyone to rush down is currently.
And being a quote, it's usually a hell of a lot less piffle to wade through whilst actually getting to whatever passes for a point in denierland.
"I then read our ritual moron writing this piffle: “My answer is that the scientists say they don’t have the answer”."
But Betty still can't say what the hell it's supposed to be the answer TO.
It's definitely not the answer to the question posed to it.
Wow - "But Betty still can’t say what the hell it’s supposed to be the answer TO."
Sure I can and did. It's my answer in response to Kampen's comment @55..."Battie keeps having no answers to anything"
Why Wow, do you have a question?
Didn't think so.
Betty, last time, so read P5#67 - carefully.
Lionel, 2nd time, read #70 pg5 - slowly.
With all the wet comments that come from Betula & co. it is worth pointing out how humans are now enduring wet bulb temps of 35°C, or not from expiring, "...a level of latent heat never endured by humans before fossil fuel burning forced global temperatures to rapidly warm."
Now if B&Co. had to endure such I figure they would find that catastrophic.
@83 - It seems you believe India represents the entire globe.....you probably also believe India hasn't experienced heat close to this in the past (Rajasthan, at 50.6 degrees Celsius (123.1 Fahrenheit) in 1956)......you have to believe you helped cause the problem......I know you believe you can fix the problem..... and obviously you believe people that ask questions about what you believe are the minority.
It seems like you are in a great position to do something about it.
You should feel good....
Meanwhile (following your logic), if you had to endure Antero Reservoir in Colorado during December 2015, I have no doubt you would find it catastrophic...
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/12/21/colorado-weather-station-hits-51f…
#84, no Battie, India hasn't experienced four days of fifty+ in any record.
But you must be gloating over the frenzied mass grave digging there (for there are likely about a quarter million dead from this recent heat wave there).
Mass graves. Wouldn't you like to help digging, Battie? http://www.9news.com.au/world/2016/05/22/12/23/indian-roads-become-molt…
' seems you believe India represents the entire globe' - says Battie who believes the entire globe is represented by a certain Colorado weather station.
If Battie knew anything at all she'd have pointed to Israel, January last year, or region Hong Kong, this year, or of course the record cold area year wide that indeed exists somewhere on the planet but Batty wouldn't have a clue.
Kampen - "But you must be gloating over the frenzied mass grave digging there"
It's not exactly what you wished for at Cairns Kampen, but no doubt you are happy just the same.
Kampen - "Battie who believes the entire globe is represented by a certain Colorado weather station"
Selective reading on your part. Seems you didn't read the beginning of my comment...."Meanwhile (following your logic)"
Glad I could correct that for you.
From Kampens link -
"Rajasthan's new record of 51 degrees beats out the city's previous top temperature by just 0.4 degrees, but still falls a good few points shy of the hottest temperature ever recorded, 56.7 degrees, in Death Valley USA, 1913"
I wasn't alive in 1913, but to appease the patients at the Deltoid Asylum, I accept full responsibility...
The fact is that warm-weather records and events are far exceeding cold weather records and events by a ratio of more than 5 to 1. It warming for sure, at reates far, far exceeding natural forcings. There are proxies everywhere to prove it.
But Wow, rrK, Lionel etc: why are you wasting your time with a tree-pruning buffoon who thinks that snakes are vermin and that the US has a sustainable economy? Science has moved on a long way. Its accepted that AGW is very real by the scientific community and that is poses a major threat to future generations. Evidence is everywhere and as one scientist in Iceland said when I was there, AGW deniers are now lumped together with flat-Earthers. The dinosaurs are mostly made up of corporations who see any efforts to deal with AGW as a threat to the way that they do business and conspiracy-nutters like Battie who see the UN behnind every corner. And of course many clots out there who are afraid of government and see the whole thing as a scam but whose understanding of basic science, like Battie's is piss poor.
As the evidence continues to annihilate them, they cling ever more to vacuous blogs like WUWT and CD which continue to churn out the usual crapola. Its interesting watching these idiots flailing away in the quicksand, essentially pleading with their mindless readers to believe them. Now that the hiatus has been firmly put to bed, they are becoming more and more desperate.
Hey Jeff, good to have you back...
Did you calculate how much CO2 you used on your trip, while I was busy monitoring and maintaining the health of plant material?
Be sure to get back to me on that number, I'm curious.
Thanks.
Jeff. I am not talking to Batty, with the exception of pointing out that he was wrong about my ignoring his 'spider' thing, I now talk at Batty and if he chooses to blather in return then I'll leave him to it and ignore the blather.
Ignorance aside (he has failed to grasp the significance of wet bulb temperature), Batty is clearly not an honest commentator.
Shorter Lionel - "I'm no longer talking to Betula, though I can't stop talking about him"
Someone has issues.
Battie is using the old anti-environmental canard, whereby one who argues that humans are negatively affecting the environment in some way or other should live in a cave. Its totally discredited by now, and there's ample evidence that we could become sustainable without a major change to our standards of living if we pursue more equitable policies and invest in environmentally friendly technologies, something the coal and oil industries vehemently oppose because it threatens their short-term profits.
As for Battie 'maintaing the health of plant material', that's a hoot. Its another stupid argument suggesting that humans are an integral part of ensuring the health of natural ecosystems. Seems like they did very well before we came along and decimated them, and yet he seems to suggest that we need to manage them to optimize their productivity.
Pure drivel. But what else would one expect from a know-nothing like him?
On heat stress under conditions of high humidity, which latter Betty failed to note, there was another article at Robert Scribbler last year WRT Pakistan.
One commenter posted a useful link to An adaptability limit to climate change
due to heat stress.
That Batty can so flippantly ignore this and denigrate those who point out these dire aspects of a warming world, aspects which James Hansen warned about, informs anyone about Batty's sociopathic tendencies.
I don't know if Batty has tried to work under such conditions, I have when carrying out heavy aircraft repairs (F4 Phantom) in a hangar at sea in the tropics with temperatures floating between 128°F to 129°F.
That humidity was high was obvious from the sweat building up on my naked chest (working underneath hot chips of metal from drilling the HTS mandrels of the Jo-Bolts sent whisps of vapour up with a sizzling sound accompanied by a smell of burning hair — I had to specially shape small drill bit cutting edges to chip as we had no diamond tipped drill bit available.
When atop the stabilator drilling out Jo-Bolts on the upper surface this sweat was running down the anhedral stabilator and forming a large pool on the steel deck. After a few hours (due to inadequate drill bits) of this the two of us thus engaged were physically drained and still the pool of sweat on the deck did not evaporate.
I have plenty of empathy for those who have to do manual work under such conditions, a living hell.
Hardley - "As for Battie ‘maintaing the health of plant material’, that’s a hoot. Its another stupid argument suggesting that humans are an integral part of ensuring the health of natural ecosystems"
So we humans can't have an affect on "plant material" Hardley?
Please explain.
Hardley - "Seems like they did very well before we came along and decimated them, and yet he seems to suggest that we need to manage them to optimize their productivity"
Since you seem to know without asking, why don't you tell me what "plant Material" I'm talking about, and under what situations/conditions they require maintenance.
Thanks
Hardley, did you calculate the CO2 you emitted as a result of your trip?
Still waiting.
And waiting for an explanation about what was accomplished vs staying home...
Thanks.
Lionel - "I don’t know if Batty has tried to work under such conditions"
That's right you don't, yet you act like you do.
And you still can't stop talking about me...seems I struck a nerve.
As Bernard would say - “another sign of the consequences of warming"
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/season-approa…
A trick to including a degree sign to temperature symbols is to use a text editor and use Alt 0176 between the quantity and symbol and then copy and paste into a post. Attempts at entering a degree symbol directly into a post with Alt 0176 causes a reversion to Home Page in Firefox.
The first line of Lionel's second link @94 -
"Despite the uncertainty in future climate-change impacts"
Obviously written by someone with denier tendencies...
Battie, I've deconstructed your 'cave' argument and that is the end of it. You are a simpleton. Your understanding of environmental science - for lack of a better word - stinks. You lean towards the political right and seem to like to give those destroying our planet for profit a free pass.
The effects of AGW on natural and managed ecosystems is now well beyond doubt. The effects on glaciers across the planet are indeed terrifying given the time scales involved. This year will inevitably see by far the lowest Arctic ice extent in recorded history. The death spiral continues at an amazing pace. And the literature is full of studies reporting harmful effects of AGW on species interactions, communites, food webs and ecosystems.
Against this knowledge we have intellectual lightweights with no pedigree arguing that 'more evidence is needed' and/or that 'nothing needs to be done'. They throw these stupid arguments like Battie has done at me ad libitum.
Note also how Battie consistently begs Tim to shut this blog down, yet he dominates it with his piffle. Seems like there are 10 Battie posts for every 2 or 3 by others. This is a sure sign of his desperation.
Hardley - "I’ve deconstructed your ‘cave’ argument and that is the end of it"
By "deconstructed" you mean "not answered"...correct?
Let's try again:
Can you calculate the CO2 fingerprint of your trip and explain why it was necessary?
Think of it as an explanation for future generations....
Oh, and please explain how man can't have an effect on plant material.
Thanks.
Hardley - "Seems like there are 10 Battie posts for every 2 or 3 by others"
I thought you thought you were smart?
If there is one visitor were visiting 3-4 residents in an asylum, it would stand to reason that the visitor would have 3-4 times more interaction than each individual resident.
Of course, a resident in the asylum wouldn't see it that way.... after all, he is a resident in an asylum.
I see that Batty does not understand how 'uncertainty' works.
Here is the complete para':
What a total dishonest tosser Batty is! He is also is confused by numbers. What a prune!
"I see that Batty does not understand how ‘uncertainty’ works. "
Like all deniers, "uncertainty" means that unless you're CERTAIN that they're wrong, you can't say they aren't right.
They're certain that the reverse isn't in any way true, however.
And if you DID live in a cave, you're obviously not right in the head, so you can be "safely" ignored as being unstable or radical.
Just as with adjustments. If they don't do it, then the IPCC is ignoring the UHI effect, if they do, then they're fiddling thefigures. Or with Garbage In/Garbage Out: if they don't include every single dataset out there, no matter the quality, then they're fudging the figures, but if they DO include the figures they have, it's claimed the result is garbage.
It's all a really tiresome post-hoc "rationalisation" to ensure they're right, you're wrong, no matter what.
Indeed, the complaints they have against "SJWs" are founded mostly on the tactics they use which are 100% identical. They just don't like them being used to promote things they don't like or agree with.
It can all be summed up in one word: Hypocrisy.
'But Wow, rrK, Lionel etc: why are you wasting your time '
Fun. Which is never a waste of time.
Also, and this is relevant, to earn the right to kick back into the floods those who cry 'we didn't know', 'they didn't warn us' et c.
Lionel - "What a total dishonest tosser Batty is!"
You copied the complete paragraph and yet forgot to address what I was dishonest about...
Wow - "whereby one who argues that humans are negatively affecting the environment in some way or other should live in a cave"
I never mentioned a "cave"....that would be Hardley. I just asked a simple question.
If I am to blame for the predicted future catastrophic-only scenarios by asking questions, perhaps Hardley is more to blame by not answering them...
Kampen - "Also, and this is relevant, to earn the right to kick back into the floods those who cry ‘we didn’t know’, ‘they didn’t warn us’ etc"
I can see it now...
Kampen will say he did all he could do to try and stop the catastrophes by posting on the Deltoid blog, writing computer code and wishing Cairns would be wiped off the map...
And Hardley will say he did all he could to stop the certain doom by posting on the Deltoid blog, hiking in Algonquin and skiing in Iceland...
If it wasn't for that Betula person, the world would have turned out fair, and poor countries would have had the right to emit as much CO2 as Betula did while he was planting trees and shrubs...
That bastard!
Yes, you make this "fun" Kampen.....thank you.
"Also, and this is relevant, to earn the right to kick back into the floods those who cry ‘we didn’t know’, ‘they didn’t warn us’ et c."
And, of course, because it's our time.
Wow - "And, of course, because it’s our time"
I have to start calling you guys "The Goonies"...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRNJluKik2s
Fun times.
Wow - "It’s all a really tiresome post-hoc “rationalisation” to ensure they’re right, you’re wrong, no matter what"
Only I have never said anyone is right or wrong....that's all in your head.
The question is, how did it get there?
Why should I calculate my C02 footprint Battie? What's the point? The point is that you are trying to argue that those who say that AGW is very real and a threat to humanity - which indeed it is - must be holier than thou and revert to the lifestyles of our Cro-Magnon ancestors, otherwise they should be ignored.
This is your modus operandi. Its straight out of the anti-environmental handbook, which I know very well, having researched it for the past 20 years. At the same time, the elites with massive C02 footprints - much larger than mine, as it turns out - are fine in Battie's book because they don't give a damn about AGW and believe that being filthy rich, consuming vast quantities of natural capital, and driving inequality are just fine.
There are multiple reasons why my ecological footprint is actually small in comparison with many others in the developed world. I'd speculate that indeed its smaller than Battie's. But again, he doesn't care. If some mega-corporation destroys vast numbers of ecosystems, that's OK as long as they claim that those ecosystems aren't important. If an environmental protestor says something bad about said corporation and their activities, be sure that Battie well be on hand to grill him/her about their ecological footprint.
Battie is actually one of the foot soldiers of the ignoranti. One of the idiots easily manipulated with lies by those with power and privilege to go forth and spew his brand of denial. Science is not on his side, but that does not matter. He doesn't care about science. Let's see him go into a scientific venue with his vacuity and take on the scientists doing the ground work. But he's instead an anonymous schmuck on a blog. Like many others who write into WUWT, CA, CD, Bishop's Hill etc.
#10, by annexation.
'Kampen will say he did all he could do to try and stop the catastrophes...' - of course not, contrary so.
The right I spoke of that I earned, I really look forward to exercising it!
Hardley - "Why should I calculate my C02 footprint Battie? What’s the point?"
So now you are admitting you don't care about your footprint, which leads to the question.....what is this really all about for you?
No need to answer.
Hardley - "At the same time, the elites with massive C02 footprints – much larger than mine, as it turns out – are fine in Battie’s book"
So here is a good example of a thought based on nothing but a delusion formed by the biases that control your every thought, You have nothing to back this up, yet you believe it to be true, in fact, you probably believe you can back it up....only you won't, because you can't.
And you're a scientist?
Think about that.
Kampen - "of course not, contrary so"
Exactly.
Imagining you kicking yourself back into your imagination is priceless. I could never think of something like that on my own, it's just pure comedy gold....I can't thank you enough.
#17, that's a bit cryptic for a confession, don't you think so?
#18, yes, I have guarantueed myself the Last Laugh. Thank you for celebrating with me.
Shorter Kampen - "I'm moving to Cairns to teach myself a lesson"
Classic.
To lighten the mood against the background white noise that is Betula beautiful Mozart wonderfully performed the young prominent cellist is a delight too, clearly enjoying herself at times and in deep reflection at others.
The above Mozart performance is of Mozart Piano Cencerto No. 27 in B-flat major, K. 595 (his last) and two movements of Sonata for four hands in D Major K381 with the third movement Allegro molto, followed by the second movement Andante.
Battie's up to his old trick of bating and switching. I still would like to know what my carbon footprint has to do with anything here. Its actually quite small, and certainly smaller than his. Indeed, the average American has an ecological footprint about twice the size of the average Dutch person. There are a myriad of reasons for that I will not go into here, but one is based on efficiency.
The other point I wish to reiterate is that Battie consistently gives those destroying our planet for profit a free pass. The simple reason is that they deny, deny, deny, and thus have the right in Battie's view, apparently, to do what they like. I am sure that CEOs of oil and coal corporations are generally very wealthy people who own luxury mansions, a fleet of vehicles, and travel by plane all the time, but they are OK because they downplay the effects of AGW. But anyone who claims that AGW is a serious problem is expected to live like our ancestors did 40,000 years ago in caves or in simply constructed huts.
This is Battie's argument, veiled in the usual bull**** rhetoric.
Is it any wonder why he alone thinks he is witty? Pretty well everyone else here thinks he's a deluded idiot. And you know what? They are correct.
Hardley - "But anyone who claims that AGW is a serious problem is expected to live like our ancestors did 40,000 years ago in caves or in simply constructed huts.This is Battie’s argument"
Odd, I thought I asked you about the carbon footprint of your trip? I don't recall your delusions...
What is happening in your head?
Hardley - "The other point I wish to reiterate is that Battie consistently gives those destroying our planet for profit a free pass"
You haven't even made your first point yet...when and where is the example of your second point?
If it's "consistent", then one example should be easy.
Do you see your problem yet? It's you...
#24, projection - the behaviour of those who cannot think.
Lionel, I have to admit, I am a little disappointed in your musical selection. Here is something a little more appropriate for the Deltoid Asylum....(Tim, take note)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fblAbPWfNew
Champions League final tomorrow: hala Madrid y nada mas!
Simeone, entrenador del Atlético de Madrid, ofreció en Milán la conferencia de prensa previa a la gran final de la Champions.
Supersticioso: “Subestiman nuestro trabajo pensando de esa manera. Miramos adelante y el que piensa de esa manera es subestimar el trabajo que hacemos”.
Sensaciones sobre el partido: “En el arranque un partido muy tenso, equilibrado, la presencia de Casemiro le da una virtud para poder agruparse mejor y siempre mantener su fortaleza ofensiva. En el inicio del juego es posible que el Madrid proponga más juego y me imagino un partido así”.
¿Qué le hizo creer en la Champions? “Empezar a entrenar con la misma pasión, competencia e intensidad que lo ha hecho este grupo desde el primer día desde Lisboa”.
¿Qué fue lo más difícil? “El club, los jugadores y la base que nos viene acompañando se logra reinventar continuamente. Diez futbolistas distintos a aquellos que estaban en aquella final. Es lo más valioso de ese club. Se trabaja en consecuencia de seguir mejorando. El que insiste las situaciones aparecen”.
Final: “Jugar una final es algo fantástico, ganarla es supremo. Todo lo que sea llegar a una final te presenta una situación para convivir. Lo mejor que ha tenido este grupo es insistir, prepararse, levantarse, reinventarse, no cambiar la identidad, el compromiso. Cuando repites y eres insistente, se puede”.
Cómo ve el partido: “Con once en su área. Me hace gracia lo que se dice. No vamos a cambiar mucho. El Madrid jugará con un equipo parecido al de hace cuatro años. Nosotros hemos variado más, pero la estructura es distinta. La presencia de Casemiro le hace más peligroso a la contra. Así lo hizo ante el City en la ida y en la vuelta. Y el Madrid con espacios es muy peligroso”.
Grande de Europa: “La continuidad en los éxitos te posiciona en uno de los lugares privilegiados. Hay pocos equipos mejores: Barcelona, Bayern, Real Madrid. Hay estabilidad, equilibrio, equipo de trabajo. Hay que cuidar nuestro puesto de privilegio y la única manera de hacerlo es ganando”.
Presión: “Me encanta tener 113 años de historia a la espalda”.
Las eliminatorias: “Nos costó en Barcelona y Múnich, pero tuvimos inteligencia en los partidos de casa”.
Diego Costa: “Nos felicitó tras lo del Bayern y lo del Barça. Habrá chicos con nuestra camiseta ante el televisor”.
Trabajo de Zidane en tan poco tiempo: “Trabajo importantísimo. Casemiro le ha cambiado la cara al equipo. Es un entrenador importante”.
Muchos hinchas atléticos en Brasil: “El fútbol es maravilloso, más allá de los estilos y las rivalidades. La pasión te acerca”.
Sufrió con PSV y Leverkusen y no con los mejores: “Cada equipo tiene su propio estilo y sus jugadores se sienten más a gusto con el balón y sin el balón”.
Antifútbol y falta de respeto: “Yo respeto a grandísimos jugadores como Ronaldo. Las opiniones son respetables. En fútbol, como en política o religión, todos pueden opinar”.
KIm - Dado que se trata de un clima blog, usted debe estar hablando de El Nino (Fernando Torres)
Again Birch bark, what exactly is the point of knowing what my carbon footprint is? A: There isn't one. Its just you pontificating in the usual ways that you do. Let's heave yours. I'll bet you live in a big house, own a big car and have kids. In those ways alone your carbon and ecological footprints well exceed mine. And again, when was the last time you write to some multi-millionaire corporate CEO asking them for their carbon footprint? A: Never. That's because they don't give a rat's ass about AGW. Like you.
And you, of all people, call Deltoid an 'asylum'. You who writes in here ten times more than anyone else.
You really are a clown. What's worse is you think that you're clever and witty. You're not. Its all in your own mind.
heave... have.... either way, Battie.
Hardley - "I’ll bet you live in a big house, own a big car and have kids"
Wrong as always - 4 cylinder 2006 Toyota Tacoma, 1500 square feet and 1 son. I'm practical and keep things simple.
Now, what do you think the Carbon footprint is of your Iceland, Algonquin and Colorado trips are? If it doesn't matter, why not share? And if you don't care, why not?
And I'm still waiting for you to prove your points as I stated in #24. Or do you just ignore the fact that you have been called out and hope I go away?
Remember, you are a scientist,...you would think you could back up your statements...correct?
Or do you just let your feelings (based on your ideological biases) decide what you believe to be true?
Hardley the scientist.....it fits.
is....are....either way, Hardley.
How the Kochs advance their agendas by creating brainwashed drones of economists and other business specialists (lawyers will be in this mix too I'll warrant) has been further revealed in an article just up Koch Controversy at George Mason University: Student Abandons Economics Major.
The Kochs are an example of the personification of evil.
Battiie's query reminds me of an argument Steve Martin made to John Candy in the comedy movie, Planes, Trains and Automobiles. "If you are going to say something, have a point".
What's the point of Battie repeatedly asking me what my carbon footprint was when I crossed Algonquin Park and Vatnajokull glacier? What will he do with the information? File it away under 'conspiracy theories'? Or what? What is the frigging point?
Norwegian Bjorgvin Ouseland is perhaps the leading explorer alive, and has done some amazing crossings of Antarctica, hauled a sled to the North Pole and continues to inspire. Right now he's with a French colleague crossing the world's 20 largest glaciers to draw attention to the disastrous effects of climate change on them. Expect Battie to write to Ouseland demanding to know his carbon footprint - and then to do nothing with the data. Because there's no point, except for Battie to imply that those arguing that humans are dangerously driving climate warming should have non-existent carbon footprints and thus be living in caves. And once again, what is the benchmark for Battie to juxtapose my/Ouseland's carbon footprint with? It's not like he is conducting some sort of comparative study, because he isn't up to it. He couldn't write a scientific paper if one were handed to him, so again, what's the frigging point?
A: There isn't one. He just thinks he is being clever. And he surely won't ask executives of banks and corporations what their carbon footprints are, because many or most of them don't care about AGW. So they are given a free pass.
As for my own carbon footprint, I have no kids and live in a tiny, row house in Ede in the Netherlands. I own one car - a Peugeot 206 - and three bikes.
Listen Battie, go away, lick your wounds, and keep your comments to blogs like WUWT etc. You claim Deltoid is an asylum, when the comments from people on WUWY beggar belief. I've never read such insane comments in my life as I do from posters over there. You belong with them.
Hardley - "What is the frigging point?"
Exactly. What is the point of skiing on a glacier in Iceland?
I think it's nice that you bring up other people when avoiding a question about you....but since they aren't conversing on this blog, it is you I asked.
I know you enjoy telling us about your trips, I am just curious how you get there.....did you walk to Iceland? Algonguin? Colorado?
Did you take some evil corporations plane to these spots?
What if we all flew all over the world so we could write about how bad it is to fly all over the world?
You have admitted that individual carbon footprints don't matter....that is your opinion, I just wanted to here you say it.
I got what I wanted.
Thanks.
I see that Betula has come back with yet another fatuous remark. He is in the same class as Rusell Cook and Tom Bates who drop by at Climate-Denial-Crock-of-the-Week from time to time.
I guess that the achievements and contributions of e.g. Lonnie Thompson would be negated because Lonnie could not have walked to the places he studied. The fact that if he had walked the time taken would have seen a considerable uptake of provisions just to keep alive is by-the-by.
Betula is one circle-jerk.
Seriously, Betula, you are in need of medical attention. If my expeditions to Iceland and Algonquin Park are, in your opinion, 'worthless', then you really are even more deluded than I thought. I essentially cornered you with my last comment. Now you are left with nothing more than to argue that, because I traveled on a private airline, then my criticisms of our corporate culture are unfounded.
Once again, you really are a wingnut. If you think you've somehow 'made a point', then its clear you need medical attention.
So what did you solve by skiing on a glacier in Iceland? What warranted the need to emit so much CO2.... personal satisfaction?
It's almost as if you are a greedy American wannabe...
Battie, you utter hypocrite, when are you going to start badgering the filthy rich about the ecological impacts of their lifestyles? I travel because I like to see this amazing planet of ours, even if your views are restricted to the pruning of trees. My carbon footprint is negligible if one considers my lifestyle in general. While I was on the glacier, apart from breathing, I wasn't emitting 'so much C02'.
You are bereft of arguments and this is your last refuge. Again, you expect those arguing that AGW poses a major threat to be holier than the Pope and to live in caves - like I said earlier.
And what about this?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-36410767
I expect you and the idiots you hang out with to downplay it like you do everything else associated with AGW. If you have something useful to say, then say it. Other than that please just go away. You are becoming an incessant bore.
'My carbon footprint is negligible if one considers my lifestyle in general.' - not exactly, Jeff, but inside of a western country decidedly yes, true.
I think my footprint is half that of the average Dutchman but this means it would cap that of 90% of the rest of the world for virtually inescapable reasons (thanks to Battie, by the way).
Hardley - "While I was on the glacier, apart from breathing, I wasn’t emitting ‘so much C02’"
Were you holding your breath while you were on the evil CO2 emitting plane that took you there so you could selfishly see things?
Hardley - "Battie, you utter hypocrite, when are you going to start badgering the filthy rich"
Compared to most people in the world, you are filthy rich.
And since you believe the CO2 you emit on your many travels doesn't matter, then you are a hypocrite for believing they matter for other rich people when they travel...
Hardley - "you expect those arguing that AGW poses a major threat to be holier than the Pope and to live in caves"
I have never mentioned the word "holy" or the word "cave"...these are words that only exist in your head that you throw back at me as a defense mechanism because it's the only way you can respond.
You hate the rich and blame them for a future you envision, yet compared to the world you are rich and like to act rich for your own selfish reasons....contributing to a catastrophic future that you imagine is caused by everyone's actions but your own. You attempt to justify your actions while believing there is no justification for theirs.
You see, you are an actual proven hypocrite and I am your imaginary hypocrite. To you, I am the problem only because I call you out.
It's time to take a good look at yourself Hardley. You have contributed nothing to help your cause, because your cause is something you hide behind, hoping people don't see you for who you really are....a useless, angry, jealous hypocrite who uses his imagination to counter his reality, because it's tough to go through life being stuck with you, yet you have no choice.
Hardley - "even if your views are restricted to the pruning of trees"
So flying in planes is less damaging than caring for trees? This is your message?
You see what I mean?
I have to admit Hardely, as a professor, you have taught me a lot...about you.
'And since you believe the CO2 you emit on your many travels doesn’t matter,'
More lies.
Just quit reading.
Hardley, regarding your link @40...
It states -
"Coral bleaching is caused by rising water temperatures resulting from two natural warm currents"....."It is exacerbated by man-made climate change"
Question - What percent of "exacerbated" is a direct result of man? I don't see that number in the article...
Also from the link -
This - "Great Barrier Reef: Bleaching 'kills 35% of area's coral"
And then this - "Bleaching occurs when warmer water causes coral to weaken"
Question - So is the coral dead or is it weakened?
And then this - "If normal conditions return, the corals can recover, but it can take decades, and if the stress continues the corals can die"
Question - So are the coral "dead" or is it that they "can die"?
And this - "We found on average, that 35% of the corals are now dead or dying on 84 reefs"
Questions - So what percent are dead, what percent are dying, what percent are weakened and what percent is exacerbated by mans' actions"?
Finally Hardley, maybe you should get on a plane and go see the coral reefs for yourself....you can always blame me for your actions.
Kampen @44 - "More lies"
Hardley @14 - "Why should I calculate my C02 footprint Battie? What’s the point?"
Hardley @35 - "What’s the point of Battie repeatedly asking me what my carbon footprint was when I crossed Algonquin Park and Vatnajokull glacier?"...“What is the frigging point?”
If there is no point, then it doesn't matter....so tell me Kampen, where is the lie? Or doesn't it matter?
I love visiting the patients at the Asylum.
"We are moving away from this idea of global warming and more toward the idea of regional patterns of warming, which are strongly shaped by ocean currents."
THIS IS SHOCKING!
With all the "the debate is settled" talk, designed to end any debate, scientists are still discovering new information to debate about...
http://tinyurl.com/jhw9ptw
#45 you are of an age that you should have been able to learn to read but are beyond helping when you passed it.
Or perhaps you are merely suffering from some ego inflation. Apparently you find it hard to believe that Harvey does not care to discuss his carbon footprint with you. At least, I imagine that (snare included).
The fact, imagined or not of course, that he does not care to discuss his carbon footprint with you does not imply that it does not matter to him let alone that it wouldn't matter at all.
Something else - I think anyone could estimate the footprint of that Iceland expedition him- or herself. Kay, not Battie, but soit - she'd never even think of checking what exactly the plane's fuel was. It may have been derived from fossil, but of course in Europe flying is increasingly done on biofuels.
#44
'What percent of “exacerbated” is a direct result of man?'
You have been answered repeatedly.
100%, and if we reckon with the fact that climate would have slowly cooled were fossil fuels left to be, it is between 110 and 120%.
'Question – So is the coral dead or is it weakened?'
What would you do? Would you die first, then 'weaken'?
Maybe you should get on your tricycle and see for yourselves.
Kampen - "You have been answered repeatedly"...."100%"
Unfortunately for you, you have nothing to back that up....as usual.
"http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/three-quarters-of-climate/"
No need to apologize...you would still be an idiot.
Kampen, - "What would you do? Would you die first, then ‘weaken’?"
It depends on the headline. If the headline said I was dead, but the article read I was weakened, and might die, then according to the headline I would be dead first...
And you, being brain dead, would believe it....
"I love visiting the patients at the Asylum"
Problem is, just by the sheer volume of your nauseous posts, you are the patient Battie. You and your 'snakes are vermin' type of knowledge wouldn't understand science if it hit you in the face.
Then there is the rant from our right wing idiot. He's clearly off of his rocker - tries to find any way of suggesting that the mass bleaching of Australia's corals are NOT due to AGW. Follows that up with a spiel about me hating the rich, then claiming that I am 'jealous', 'useless' 'angry' etc.
Hilarious. And pointless. Its the rant by someone who, in fact, displays all of those characteristics and more. Who I am jealous of is a mystery. Him? God forbid? And is it my fault that I earn a decent living as a scientist? I am not rich by any means - anybody working in my field is not highly paid as a government employee, certainly compared with those in the private sector. Battie worships the bankers, corporate CEOs etc, more likely because he is jealous of them. And his lifestyle is far more exorbitant than mine - I don't have any kids and live in a house way, way smaller than his. And my cave analogy fits perfectly - Battie expects anyone who argues that humans are negatively affecting the biosphere via overconsumption and its attendant environmental destruction to live in a metaphorical cave. He's long since run out of arguments to downplay AGW, because we know he thinks its some vast conspiracy set up under the auspices of the United Nations to steal wealth away from the United States and other wealthy nations that consume some 80% of global capital. This belief alone proves that he is mentally unstable.
And lastly, he thinks he is qualified enough to comment on my abilities as a scientist. If he agreed that AGW was a serious threat, as the vast majority of scientists do, then he'd be complimentary. But since he is a Tea Party wannabe who loathes the scientific community and has a pile of conspiracy theories in his addled brain, he hates those scientists - including me - who counter his nonsense. I am sure he reads climate denial blogs and supports the sea of idiots who write in there with comments that are so stupid as to beggar belief. Sou at Hot Whopper puts many of those from WUWT on her blog, and they are both hilarious and scary at the same time. Battie would fit in well with them.
I've already deconstructed some of Battie's more hilarious musings - such as his definition of vermin and his examples suggesting that the health of North American ecosystems is good - amongst others. Essentially, Battie is an intelligent enough guy who is vastly ignorant at the same time. He's selective as to what he reads and clearly is far to the right politically. Its a shame that there are a lot of Battie's out there.
I am sure Betula will bash Ouseland and Colliard:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwValukfKe4
who are documenting climate change while crossing the 20 largest glaciers on the planet.
He'll also bash Edward O. Wilson, for drawing attention to the current mass extinction caused by humanity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XahkXI2CJY
These esteemed explorers and scientists also travel by plane and live in relative comfort. That does not make them pariahs or hypocrites. They are unsung heroes. In every sense of the word.
Betula is singling me out because I had the temerity to expose him for his profound ignorance about the effects of climate change on natural and managed ecosystems. The scientific evidence flies in the face of his vacuous arguments, and he is left with nothing but to try and smear me. Its Mann's Serengeti strategy aimed to give the impression that I am one lone scientist, an outlier, whose arguments are at odds with most of my peers. Of course they aren't; indeed, its the views of Betula and the army of ignoranti that lay well outside the scientific mainstream. But what you are seeing is that scientists who venture outside the labs to challenge right wing anti-environmental orthodoxy are attacked with vigor. Look at Paul Ehrlich; Michael Mann; James Hansen; and others. They have received more mainstream attention and as a result have been consistently demonized by the poliitcal right. I was relentlessly smeared after I, Stuart Pimm and several other scientists (e.g. Steve Schneider, Tom Lovejoy) countered the nonsense spewed by Bjorn Lomborg in his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist. So Betula's rants against me, like those other anti-environmental attacks before them, are nothing new to me. The same terms are used by all of them: I am jealous, angry, bitter, deluded, crazy, useless, et al. ad nauseum.
I view these as compliments from someone with as distorted a world view as Betula. Seriously. If people like him were to agree with me, then I would know that I was doing something seriously wrong. So thanks Betula for what are, in essence, compliments from you. It means I am on the right track.
#49 is word salad. I sense some decline there.
Hardley - "suggesting that the mass bleaching of Australia’s corals are NOT due to AGW"
Nope. All in your imagination, controlled by your ideological bias. I just asked some questions. Is that your answer?
Hardley - "Battie worships the bankers, corporate CEOs etc"
Nope. Never said that. All in your imagination, controlled by your ideological bias.
Hardley - "And my cave analogy fits perfectly"
Your analogy. All in your imagination, controlled by your ideological bias.
Hardley - "I don’t have any kids and live in a house way, way smaller than his"
What is your frigging point? You want me to live in a cave?
This is fun.
Hardley - "the United States and other wealthy nations that consume some 80% of global capital"
Selfishly flying to destinations so they can ski on glaciers and hike in Algonquin etc...
Hardley - "But since he is a Tea Party wannabe"
All in your imagination, controlled by your ideological bias.
Hardley - "he hates those scientists – including me – who counter his nonsense"
You have yet to counter anything, since you haven't answered any questions.... and everything else you say is apparently all in your imagination, controlled by your ideological bias...since you can't give any examples.
Hardley - "I am sure he reads climate denial blogs"
Nope. All in your imagination, controlled by your ideological bias...since you can't give any examples.
Hardley - "I’ve already deconstructed some of Battie’s more hilarious musings – such as his definition of vermin"
Wrong again. I was using "snakes" to make fun of you. You're just too stupid to get it.
Hardley - "He’s selective as to what he reads and clearly is far to the right politically"
All in your imagination, controlled by your ideological bias...since you can't give any examples.
I wonder, have you ever started a research paper without knowing how you are going to steer to the conclusion you want....based on your imagination, controlled by your ideological bias?
HArdley @ #54
All deflection.
If hiking across a glacier is the easiest way to detect change in this day and age....and it makes you a hero....then certainly Hardley is a hero for skiing on one.
Fuck the CO2 I emitted to get there....I'm a hero.
KAmpen - #49 is word salad
You forgot the dressing..
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/three-quarters-of-climate/
Battie does leave a lot to our imagination, does she not?
Then, she complains...
#57, an article is more than just a title.
Kampen - "an article is more than just a title"
And a lot more than your nothing...
"You have yet to counter anything, since you haven’t answered any questions…. and everything else you say is apparently all in your imagination, controlled by your ideological bias…since you can’t give any examples"
I've given plenty of examples, Betula. Your once trumped C02 fertiization effect, supporting GSWs argument re: Polar Bears, snakes as 'vermin', and your pathetically poor examples of the health of North American ecosystems. Each one of your examples was summarily dismissed.
Moreover, if everything we claim about you is 'mere projection', and based on 'ideaological bias', why are you even here? Just to argue because you like it? Makes me think you must be a pretty wretched person to know personally; the kind who says 'A' when somebody else says 'B' and vice-versa. Argue for arguments sake. The only alternative version is that you truly believe the shit that you write.
And why hasn't your holier than thou wrath not been aimed at other scientists and scholars - indeed the vast majority of the scientific community - who live like I do, travel by transport that uses fossil fuels and yet whose views concur with mine? You try and make it look like my views are outside the mainstream. They're not. And to suggest I am a big C02 user because I travelled to Iceland is absurd. Also to say that I hate the rich is comedy gold. Who are the 'rich' in your jaded lexicon? I'd assume they are the ones who live in gated communities like Versailles and who don't interact with the rest of us mortals, the ones accumulating vast stocks of wealth on the backs of the poor and who command power along with their wealth. The same ones who influence government policy with respect to regulations by paying for democracy through huge amounts of lobbying and the funding of political parties aimed to see that their interests are prioritized. The same ones who are destroying the planet for short-term gains. Those are the rich for the most part. I don't even come close, and I certainly don't mix with them.
Betula, the rest of your post above is pure and utter bilge. You invoke snakes as vermin to make fun of me? Just as you did with coyotes, wild turkeys and white tailed deer I assume? What a load of old piffle.
You aren't remotely clever and you aren't remotely funny... well except in your own mind. And once again, if everything we say about you is 'mere projection', then this suggests that you don't have any views at all. You are a chimera and just argue for the sake of it. The fact that you defended the vacuous arguments by GSW, however, suggests exactly what your views are. You've thrown enough examples in here to reveal where you are coming from.
But keep dishing out the shit. Once again, I take your insults as compliments. I really do. When they come from someone as low down the intellectual pecking order as you, I see that as a positive sign.
#60, you can't tell.
'You aren’t remotely clever...' - indeed, Jeff. A bit thick and just too ordinary this troll. If anything shines through the bilge at all it is, more so recently, hints of desperation. Battie won't be around as long as she's been.
1. Hardley - "Your once trumped C02 fertiization effect"
Nope. Your imagination.
I asked what weight does it carry in the predicted future catastrophic-only climate scenarios. Now it is up to you to explain how asking a question is considered "trumpeting".
2. Hardley - "supporting GSWs argument re: Polar Bears"
Again, your imagination.
GSW posted a link about current Polar Bear populations. You can't argue with that....so you argue about future Polar Bear populations, which are a prediction, not a fact.
I never argued about future polar bear populations...because they are predictions..
3. Hardley - "snakes as ‘vermin"
Nope. Totally out of context as usual, because you had no other response to my point.
4. Hardley - "pathetically poor examples of the health of North American ecosystems"
Nope. Again your imagination taking things out of context.
I wasn't referring to the health of North American Ecosystems, in fact I was explaining how global warming is now to blame for every thing that changes....even if it's a natural change.
Here are my words from 12/09:
"The point to all this is that in the past,these things happened for a variety of reasons, many of them natural, others due to perhaps a not so clean Long Island Sound, perhaps insects coming in on pallets or plant material.....a variety of reasons...but never with the AGW label."
"Now.....it's all due to AGW and climate change....as though the climate has always been consistent and other factors don't matter....it's almost as if we look to AGW as the reason, so we find ways to make it fit."
5. "Each one of your examples was summarily dismissed"
In your imagination only.
'Here are my words from 12/09:' - yes, we know you believe in magic and other causeless events.
We know you believe forest fires can never be caused by humans, because there were forest fires before there were humans.
And we know you cannot even parse what I am telling you right now.
To all, let's ditch 'climate change' and introduce: climate detonation. Because that is what we are in now. Apart from comet strikes no precedents are even known. None. Except for some short-lived cooling events following caldera collapses.
Hardley - "And why hasn’t your holier than thou wrath not been aimed at other scientists and scholars"
1. You are on this blog, they aren't
2. What do they have to do with your biases?
3. How do you know I haven't conversed with others elsewhere?
4. Why does it upset you?
5. A "scholar" never would ask such a question.
Hardley - "You try and make it look like my views are outside the mainstream"
Never tied any such thing. Prove it. Just the opposite....it appears your views are based on mainstream views.
If everyone fly's to Iceland, Algonquin and Colorado, than damn it, so should I! If other scientist do it for work, then I can do it for pleasure!
And then I can tell everyone how my exploits are contributing to the catastrophic - only future that I can see...
Selfish prick.
Hardley - "Also to say that I hate the rich is comedy gold"
Hardley - "The same ones who are destroying the planet for short-term gains"
And short term pleasure, correct?
Comedy gold is right.
Kampen - "We know you believe forest fires can never be caused by humans, because there were forest fires before there were humans"
I believe you believe you read that somewhere. That is why this site is so hysterical....
Can't make it up.
Hardley - "You invoke snakes as vermin to make fun of me?"
Yes and No.
Yes to make fun of you, and no I never invoked them as vermin...that is your imagination going at it again.
And since you can't post an example, I do know it was your imagination at work...
"Selfish prick".
Now, now Betula, don't let your self-cricticisms get too harsh. I'd just say that you are a moronic troll who doesn't have much of a life. Some of your posts here have to be read to be believed. You clearly don't have a clue what you actually think or believe.
And finally there's a difference between hating the rich and hating what they do. By default you appear to worship them. Oh no, I'll be accused of projection bias again.
What is becoming clear is that, as rr says, you are either a troll or you are plain nuts. And btw, you did refer to snakes as vermin. You can't even remember what you wrote.
Here's a challenge for you: try and take me on in some area of environmental science/ecology. You've tried a couple of times before with woeful results. Your arguments, if one can call them that, were straight out of the sandbox. You seem to think that running a tree pruning company has given you some kind of specials wisdom about the environment.
Sorry to rain on your parade but it hasn't. Not even close.
Now go away. You bore me.
#69, I believe you never checked a source. In fact, I know you didn't.
Don't bother.
The only reason for #69 is to evade the point that is made by that metaphor. Although I, too, am inclined to believe you really are a bit thickish.
At the end of #67 is that little whiff of desperation again. It is mostly the ordinary projection (characteristic of those who cannot think themselves, check it on any right wing utterance), but there is also this little bit of emotion to be observed. Desperately calling names.
The post itself confesses obsession. I don't think Battie knows about the 'Serengeti Strategy'* let alone is able to execute anything like it.
*) - I read that somewhere
Logic fail from false equivalence. Furthermore Betula reveals reveals, again, the absolute poverty of any of his arguments and how far away he is from being able to offer honest opinion.
He is vying for stupidity with Trump and there being no drought in California and the Chinese invented global warming as a plot to destabilise the USA. It is the numpties rooting for Trump that are his true equals, those that are behaving as if they have had a media (e.g. FOX and Limbaugh) induced collective lobotomy. If Trump becomes POTUS I vote that one of his first duties would be to retrieve that US flag from the moon and transfer it to Mars (so that it can be deep fried).
Regarding my response to Hardley, who continues to equate his travels to those of other scientists, Lionel states - "Logic fail from false equivalence"
And then follows with this - "He is vying for stupidity with Trump and there being no drought in California"
You can't make it up.
Thank you Deltoid, for the countless hours of entertainment...
Hardley - "And btw, you did refer to snakes as vermin. You can’t even remember what you wrote"
Here it is:
"Of course, we must imagine that the only species that will thrive in such predicted catastrophic-only scenarios are those that are detrimental or useless to us humans… mosquitoes, tropical diseases, weeds, algal blooms, snakes, and rodents. How fitting…."
1. I never used the word vermin
2. I was mocking you and the like, thus the phrase "how fitting"
3. You actually believe it
http://globalnews.ca/news/2565201/climate-change-could-bring-poisonous-…
"destrimental or useless to us humans" followed by "snakes and rodents".
From the dictionary: "Vermin is a catch-all term that can be used for any small animals or insects that we think of as pests"
I rest my case. Besides, snakes are far from being 'useless to we humans'' except in the minds of uneducated simpletons like Betula, who wouldn't understand an ecosystem service if it hit him in the face. He is forced to quote some crappy article in the corporate media to promote his argument. You won't find scientists arguing that snakes are 'useless' or 'detrimental'. Just right wing tree pruners and their ilk.
Finally, I am sick of Betula and his fall back argument of 'projection bias'. Seems like he doesn't spend much time on blogs attacking those spewing out vitriol about why we shouldn't do anything about GW. On Deltoid, his sole purpose has been to attack those arguing that GW is very real, is down to humans, and poses a serious threat to our future if left unchecked, all positions agreed to by every major scientific organization on Earth; its essentially the consensus opinion amongst scientists, with a very small number of outliers.
When challenged about his political beliefs, which he wears on his sleeves, he claims we don't know. When challenged about the deleterious effects of AGW, he claims he doesn't necessaril;y disagree. So where are his posts attacking the morons who populate the pages of other climate change denial blogs? Why isn't he ranting on over on there about the idiots positing their 5 cents worth in fields well beyond their competence? Why is he apparently restricted to Deltoid?
Of course he isn't. If he somehow magically appeared here, he clearly reads a lot of other blogs. He can claim that we don't know all he likes, but its patently obvious. And his views about the UN and paying to eradicate poverty come straight out of a Tea Party gig.
I am sick of him and his bullshit. He's a brazen idiot.
We could rename 'Battie' into 'Bjørn Lomborg' ;)
Indeed, he is clearly one of "...those that are behaving as if they have had a media (e.g. FOX and Limbaugh) induced collective lobotomy" that I wrote about in #73.
On the dreadful effects of global so called free market capitalism and the commoditization of food stocks (think Cargill) when combined with ENSO events then the book reviewed here should be more widely read: Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nino Famines and the Making of the Third World.
Betula should read it that is for sure.
"The conquest of the earth, which means the taking away from those who have a different complexion and slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look at it too much."
Dying Blog...
Here are some really intellectual comments from the geniuses at WUWT. Sou at Hot Whopper says some of them stagger the imagination in their simplicity:
https://archive.is/0uGiw#selection-955.1-959.1
Problem is, Betula probably agrees with most of them. Or will he sign up there, accuse the scribes of being 'pricks', 'useless' etc. simply on the basis of facts?
Don't bet on it. As I said, he probably agrees with most of them.
Dying...
Bye, Battie.
By Kampen.
Don't worry, I'll give you and the other remaining patients a good send off when you are transferred to the next asylum...in Cairns.
That's "Bye" Bye...
Yes, Bye Battie. Now you can head over to WUWT and see what a desperate, dying blog is all about. As the empirical evidence for AGW grows and grows, you can enjoy watching them switch ever more to conspiracy mode in their intellectual bunker. Since you appear to be one of them, you can rant n also about the mythical global conspiracy aimed to impoverish the US to deal with GW by helping poor nations.
Moreover, whether Deltoid is dead, dying or alive and well is of little meaning given its only a blog. You appear to think you are making some grandiose statement about its situation. Who cares? You apparently do, hence why you've dominated the blog the past couple of months. But one thing is for certain - the evidence for AGW isn't going away. Its only growing and accumulating. Leaving nitwits like you to vent your frustration out on blogs.
Again, adios. And stay away.
What will Jeff's imagination respond to?
Dying...
I am awaiting Betula's inevitable appearance on WUWT to attack the idiots on there with their conspiracy theories and other assorted nonsense.
I fully expect him to say its a dying blog. Actually, given old Anthony's desperation these days, its actually dead...
But Betula won't of course go there and criticize Watt's and his motley crew of admirers, because he's one of 'em.
#88 - bye, Battie.
Not much longer...
"Not much longer…"
That can be taken two ways. Hopefully its the latter: by Battie.
One wonders...will the death certificate read April or June?
What's your point, Battie? OK, Deltoid dies. So what? Tim Lambert stopped contributing to it several years ago. It seems like you seem to somehow strangely correlate the existence of one, small blog (Deltoid) with the evidence for AGW and the serious repercussions of it on nature and humanity. If Deltoid were to disappear today, then that doesn't vindicate you or your views one iota. Those views are confirmed by every major academic organization and the views of every nation on Earth. It makes me think you don't get out enough. Your world is indeed very small.
"What’s your point, Battie? OK, Deltoid dies. So what?"
Well, since denier screed insists that NOTHING can be caused by AGW and ti insist so is to lie that AGW causes EVERYTHING, it cant be because of AGW, can it?
What can't be causing it is betty blithering on here a thousand times.
Poor Jeff. What will he do?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8-sdFKjovQ
"Poor Jeff. What will he do?"
What I always do - work as a scientist. Unlike you, who is stuck in no-no land. Seems like you hang out a lot more here than I do. I've got 15 peer-reviewed papers this year, with another 4 in the immediate pipeline. I have a course to organize in Amsterdam. I have a sabbatical tom plan for next year in Colorado. And I have another expedition in the early planning stages. So no flatlining with me.
I also read other blogs like Stoat, Rabett Run and Hot Whopper. You know - where people make sense. Not in the denial-os-phere where you probably hang out. I see that even Judith Curry has been reduced to posting up bilge from nobodies like Jim Steele, whose latest comedy piece is to try and put a good face on the disastrous coral bleaching in the GBR. Deniers will do anything except face the truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOAq1A4Uc1A
The only one laughing at Betula's humor is himself... a sure sign he's nuts..
Actually, Battie's video links are appropriate in more ways than he thinks. Its just been stated that the North Pole may be ice free this summer for the first time in more than 100,000 years at least. Its bloody terrifying news, but won't be to the armchair denial brigade who will try and put some positive spin on what, is in effect, a disaster. And its further proof, if any were needed at this point, of AGW. That deniers still exist is indeed one of the great mysteries of our time.
So the funeral dirge is appropriate for the Arctic ecosystem, and will certainly apply to Homo sapiens if we stay on the current trajectory.
Thanks Battie for inadvertently showing that aren't really n anti-AGW right wing loon at all. Deep down you know we're right. The last two video links you have posted here prove it. You know we're screwed as a species.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Flu3MRl72yg
What is it with Batties fixation on funerals? Battie certainly appears to be suffering from some neurosis, maybe those Dendroctonus ponderosae or Dendroctonus frontalis have bored through the cranium and are now attacking the brain cell within.
Whatever, as he continues with his head banging distractions the Arctic Sea Ice has fallen to its lowest extent (note which does not necessarily correlate with volume which would be a better metric for evaluating the true state of the ice but is more difficult to assess) since records have been kept. On June 2 this year it was over one million square kilometres less than on June 2 2012 which was its previous record low at that time of year.
1981-210 Average 12.540 m km2
June 2 2012 12.265 m km2
June 2 2016 11.089 m km2
That is a 9.6% deficit on its previous lowest value.
Furthermore the extent is outside the lower two sigma threshold. Indeed, except for a brief excursion in early February 2016 the extent has been below that threshold since the beginning of the year.
I'm really very interested in Jeff Harvey's definition of a dying blog considering he's claimed that WUWT is dying?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/
I looked up the blog and notice that it looks very, very alive compared to this one?
The last four were only posted 2 days ago and have hundreds of comments.
WUWT isn't dying Stu2. It's dead. I mean intellectually. What I see on there are comments by gumbified idiots trying vainly to either explain off AGW as some anomaly or else to go on and on about scientific and government conspiracies. It only shows that there are hundreds of idiots who think these things. That does not prove its healthy; it just proves that many minds are diseased.
Trust you to try and claim that brainless groupthink proves a blog is healthy. These are desperate times for AGW deniers. WUWT is proof positive of that. Witness the recent posts of Jim Steele, a clot if ever there was one. He's now been put up on Curry's equally nauseating blog, with respect to trying to turn the mass bleaching of the GBR corals into a non-event. The guy has no relevant expertise, but that doesn't stop him. I can't wait for them to try and put a good spin on the catastrophe unfolding in the Arctic this year.
For deniers, its over. The science is in. But again, that won't stop them trying to see that humanity goes the way of the dodo.
WUWT is the asylum Battie projects about.
WTFUWT? Hahahahaha
Pack of loons in a circle jerk.
Been reading this ....
https://robertscribbler.com/2016/06/06/extent-of-ocean-surface-above-86…
I hate to disappoint you Jeff Harvey, but I'm not a follower of WUWT.
Only looked it up because you claimed it was dying.
That's clearly not the case.
This blog however is most definitely in trouble.
Oh dear, Spangled !
The sight of those 'mansions' packed in like containers at a cargo dock makes me wonder what's the point of such extravagance. Insurance payments on condition of building a new property of more sensible size well away from future SLR.
Why should others subsidise such stupid excess?
I hate to disappoint you, Stu2, but I am not a follower of WUWT either.
And its dead. Not dying, but dead. Intellectually stiff. Ceased to be. It has met its maker. Its a dead blog. Given the growing evidence for AGW, WUWT has become a parody of itself. Some of the comments on there are so utterly stupid as to defy belief. That you think its healthy says more about you than anything else. You may not read it but you belong there.
"WUWT isn’t dying Stu2. It’s dead. I mean intellectually."
The zombies couldn't find any brains.
If only they'd been Vampires (or unicorns...).
#10, re the zombies, Wow, of course you mean Battie and Stupie starving and trying to come feed of ours? Apparently, ours are to hard for those suckers. Lil itches.
As to Deltoid, perhaps its demise is a structure more than a process. Haven't seen it particularly evolve or dissipate in any way for over years now. Same zombies come for same brains basically. Same pronunciations re the blog's death uttered weekly or daily. Same hiatus on the empirical knowledge - growth (we now know that we're fucked for another hundred reasons yearly).
#9, Harvey, sir, did you say: This blog has met its maker?
+f and add another pair of those anywhere.
4-5 remaining souls....stuck in Deltoid Purgatory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utlm8gBU-H4
"Given the growing evidence for AGW, WUWT has become a parody of itself. Some of the comments on there are so utterly stupid as to defy belief."
It's not nearly as funny as Jo Nova's blog, though.
I hardly ever go there any more, maybe I should.
RR, yes, I quoted Month Python from the dead parrot sketch...
As for evaluating the 'health' of a blog, in Stu2's lexicon its based on the number of visitors or hits. Thus, blogs supporting unlimited gun use, fascist beliefs, flat Earth theories, and blatant racism would be apparently ' healthy' to him if they attract a lot of visitors and are loaded with comments.
WUWT certainly gets a lot of visitors, many (most?) of whom are IMO intellectually brain dead. Sou at Hot Whopper posts up some of the funnier ones, but she has a lot to choose from. Blogs like WUWT are hanging onto the precipice, as all of their dominant memes (the urban heat island myth, the hiatus that wasn't, etc. etc. etc.) are rapidly being vanquished by the empirical data. So the've switched over to conspiracy modes at an ever increasing rate.
On dying, why Betula and Stu2 inhabit an intellectual vacuum.
Cue some vacuous comments to follow from the diuretic duo maybe along the lines about we hypocrites who use computers and yet 'preach' about AGW and other bad things humans are doing to the planet.
A dystopian future is already the present for millions and it is a desire to help prevent the enlargement of such that is behind our engaging with such unattractive personalities as this pair of fuckwits, the others that will doubtless be along shortly.
#15, WUWT is decomposing and emitting ugly smells. Fact.
However, the mess could still contaminate the place with cholera or Trump, and might.
The same stuff that WUWT is made of actually rules a number of countries e.g. Australia (though AUS might flip to sense again in July's elections). It holds majorities in both US chambers.
The Empire of Chaos has adopted nutty conspiracy theories time and again and has often acted pretty deadly on them. McCarthy, 'War on Drugs', believing that a tiny east Asian country would convince the entire world foremost the USA to adopt communism, ..
To be sure, the blogosphere is changing for the better, so the MSM should start to follow.
But over last year a number of droughts were associated with El Niño only; 'climate change' or 'global warming' would never be mentioned, thus having us all forget that those droughts all started before this El Niño even existed, some of them already for years. With Niño gone I wonder what the MSM will do now to explain e.g. the huge IDZ's of the US southwest, Africa, Levant, northwest India, parts of Brazil, south and east Australia.
I even find it hard to read Sou. The ugly smells seem to permeate.
#13 projection, always projection
Can you hear it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McCDWYgVyps
#18
By god thats in bad taste you
trolling wanker.
Indeed Li D but what else to expect from such a gauche know-little disrespectful ex-marine (if that can be believed).
Don't diss the marines, please, they have a long history of not being able to use their brains and taking excessive casualties as a result. Not to mention their other activities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Okinawa_rape_incident
https://www.rt.com/news/344560-marine-rape-okinawa-confession/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-us-marine-kenneth-shinzato-prime-suspect…
(Those 3 are all seperate events).
Oh, but there's so much more...
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/12/14/national/u-s-marine-gets-fo…
Cpl Iain Tarver raped a woman in an alley at 4:30am.
http://www.japanupdate.com/2012/12/u-s-marine-arrested-for-home-intrusi…
Cpl Anibal Barraza Ortiz tries to break into a young woman's apartment at 4:25am.
http://www.stripes.com/news/6-marines-on-okinawa-arrested-for-drinking-…
What a bunch of low-class morons.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/25/usa.japan
Staff Sergeant Tyrone Hadnott rapes a 14-year-old in 2008..
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/05/09/japan.usmarine/
Lance Cpl. Larry A. Dean, Sgt. Lanaeus J. Braswell, Gunnery Sgt. Carl M. Anderson & Gunnery Sgt. Jarvis D. Raynor gang-rape a 19-year-old.
Heh. I wonder if Betula recognises any of those names...?
Part of the problem, and the basis of the entire thing, is that the training for a standing army is to make the soldiers consider everyone else not entirely human and "not like us", then proffer violence as the moral choice.
When combined with their recruitment of the poor, therefore desperate, for the rank and file, and the lack of education on *how to think* in the schools of the poor residential areas in the USA, this leads to people who are easily brainwashed into violence ***whilst still being absolutely nice and decent people***. Just that they are only such if they see you as "like us".
" poor " " USA "
Nah, dont reckon.
They rich as.
Annual starvation death rate is?
Bet ya at least half of em have
a house designed especially for
their motorcar. The house designed
specially for their motorcar very likely
has mains electricity and potable water
supplied to it.
Aint no poor marines. Or very very few
anyhow.
Not making a deal out of it. Just stating
the bleeding obvious about how rich yanks are.
One of the things thats made em so rich is trashing
the environment. Just like Australia.
The families they came from are overwhelmingly from low economic backgrounds and from depressed areas. If for no other reason than they have little choice BUY army life or the dole.
And paying "well" ensures loyalty to the employer, even if corrupt, and the employed will even try to see excuses or evidence that supports a benign interpretation of actions of their employment. But it doesn't make the upbringing before they were employed better paid. No retroactive payments.
With respect wow, i reckon we have
widely differing views on what constitutes
a low economic background or a
depressed area.
Im ok with that. People have all kinds
of views.
With respect, I don't know how you can figure that out, given nothing was even vaguely delineated on economic background on either side.
The war machine pays well, but it wants compliant applicants without better choices so that their reprogramming works better.
The officer corps requirements is rather different, so maybe you're concentrating on a different area.
And higher income families have both better choices AND better education systems to prey off.
Low intelligence and low pay aren't strictly concordant, but it's harder work for a poor person to remain uneducated and therefore pliant despite inherent (untrained) intelligence, and just because you have a high class school to go to doesn't make it a cinch to be smart (See Trump).
And, again, this may be what you're thinking toward without being explicit about it.
I'm not saying poor people are dumb, but that poor dumb people are easier to manipulate, and making soldiers out of people requires manipulating people to act as something other than human and refuse to empathise with defined "others", so the system will want to select them.
Not to mention that the wealthy are seen in a religiously capitalist system as inherently more "worthy" than the poor, because otherwise god wouldn't have let them have money, right? So risking the lives of wealthy kids is a "waste" more than those whose economic background is seen as worthless.
" Trump "
No argument there.
The bloke is a moron, despite his no
doubt flash schooling.
It would actually make a good study for
someone to understand how the educational system
failed Trump.
A sort of audit to improve the system.