More thread.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
By popular request. Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
By popular request. Comments from El Gordo and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by El Gordo and responses to comments by El Gordo should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
This thread is for people who wish to engage Ray in discussion.
Ray, please do not post comments to any other thread.
Everyone else, please do not respond to Ray in any other thread.
By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
No StuPid, all those confirm is that the insistence on middle ground battles for the moderate right wing don't work any more.
But you're too dumb to recognise that.
FFS, look at the duck's promises: half of them were practically communist. Telling private industry what they're ***allowed*** to do is NOT right wing.
"Wow – “Should be easy to show, then”
Yes."
But it seems impossible for you to actually manage that simple task.
Is the easy stuff too hard for you, batshit betty?
Hardley - "There’s Betula again, making things up. I never said a person with a PhD should be revered"
There’s Hardely again, making things up. I never said you said it, I said you believe it....which you do.
Hardley - "The fact that Betula thinks he knows more about climate science than 95% of the climate science community"
There goes Hardley again, making things up. I never said I know more than 95%, that's what you believe I said.
If any of this is confusing to you, just remember, you have a PhD...
Hardley's last comment - "stuck in menial jobs and aren’t actually themselves Professors in universities"
Wow - You can start there and work back....
Glad I could help...
You're welcome.
No, if it requires that much work, then it's not easy, is it, batshit betty.
And I've already done it and there is nothing you claim in Jeff's posts. So you are lying again.
I HAVE NOT FOUND WHAT YOU CLAIM TO EXIST.
Ergo, you're lying.
"I never said you said it, I said you believe it….which you do."
And you don't believe it at all, but know you're full of bullshit.
Even if true, the mainstream media and elements of the blogosphere ensure that people do not think rationally for themselves and fact check that which is thrown at them. Why else do you think the likes of The Daily Mail let David Rose have the space obfuscate and confuse.
If you don't believe this then follow the relevant recent threads here including, but not exclusively A Sordid Tale of Climate Denial
It is the denial of the facts that allows politicians to delay taking action to better protect the Earth's inhabitants by inhibiting the worst effects of climate change due to global warming.
Your crass assertions that it is the scientists at fault is so way off the truth they are morally bankrupt. It was not the scientists that politicised this as a long list of well written books demonstrates. Maybe you could name some of these, but I doubt it.
Note that the likes of Betula are not only to lazy to follow links and read what is revealed but cannot be bothered to use simple formatting commands to demonstrate who wrote what.
Wow - "if it requires that much work, then it’s not easy, is it"
For you? No.
Wow - "And you don’t believe it at all"
That PhD’s are to be revered? No.
Keep wandering Wow...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utlm8gBU-H4
But you claimed it WAS easy.
If you're now saying it isn't easy, even if it's only for me, your claim is a lie.
And you therefore are lying again that this statement from Jeff ever existed.
Odd how you claim you have no time to waste with me in supplying proof of your claim, but you have so very much time to waste with me not supplying proof of your claim.
It's because your claims are a load of bollocks.
We know it, you know it.
"There goes Hardley again, making things up. I never said I know more than 95%"
He never said you said it, only that you think it.
Lionel - "Your crass assertions that it is the scientists at fault"
At fault for what?
Wow - "If you’re now saying it isn’t easy"
For you, yes. Nothing is easy for you...
Wow - "He never said you said it, only that you think it"
Where?
At fault for making you so butturt that you're flailing, betty batshit.
And still you have managed to prove you're a lying sack of crap. Nothing is easy for you. That's why you do that with so many multitudinous posts: nothing. Indeed it is only nothing you CAN do, since your claim is nonsense.
"Wow – “He never said you said it, only that you think it”
Where?"
Surely you're not going to claim that you are demanding me to do what you insist is hard for me to do but easy for you to do, are you batshit betty?
If going through the posts to find out where is so EASY for you, you should be doing it, right? After all, you HAVE done it for your claim, right? So just go back and see that I'm right.
Easy for you, right?
Wow - "Odd how you claim you have no time to waste with me in supplying proof of your claim, but you have so very much time to waste with me not supplying proof of your claim"
If you want me to waste my time explaining why you are a waste of time, you just saved me the time by doing it for me...
Wow - "Surely you’re not going to claim that you are demanding me to do what you insist is hard for me to do but easy for you to do, are you"
Yes, you have to learn sometime.
"If you want me to waste my time"
You're already wasting it.
Your claim is bullshit. It's nothing is easy to make up, and your claims have nothing to them. Supporting nothing with evidence, now THAT is something you find impossible.
Hence you don't.
"Yes, you have to learn sometime."
But you know that's a load of bollocks.
Lionel @#7
I think you're confused.
I work with scientists and have a great deal of respect for the work they do out here helping all of us achieve sensible TBL outcomes in land and water management.
If you look at your comment @#54 on the previous page you actually included scientists in your typical blame game commentary.
Betula sure is a weird guy. Inhaled too much sawdust I think. He now admits - more or less - that he knows virtually nothing about climate or environmental science and that he defers to the wisdom of the experts. Phew! He finally admits that the scientists are correct.
Well, no, he doesn't say this. This is where he shows his true deluded colors. He denies that he has ever said that he knows more than 95% of the climate science community. So therefore they MUST know more then him. But wait! Its gets better. So they know more about climate science than him, but he disagrees with them that GW is anthropogenic OR that it is a problem.
So let's see where we are here. Betula admits that trained climate scientists know much, much more than he does about their field of research. OK. But he disagrees with them, with NASA, with the NOAA, the AAAS, and National Academies that AGW is a serious problem that needs urgent action.
What? Betula admits that that climate science community are the real experts, and that he is a wannabe, yet he disagrees with these experts as to what we should do about AGW.
Make any sense? Of course not. By disagreeing with the experts as to solutions, he is effectively saying that he does so on the basis of science, of which he admits he knows nothing. Then why does he disagree with 95% of the climate science community then?
BECAUSER THE SOLUTIIONS DO NOT CONFORM WITH HIS FAR RIGHT LIBERTARIAN POLITICAL BELIEFS. Why doesn't this idiot just come out and say that he doesn't give a shit about the science or the damage AGW will do to the natural and material economies if it means that government - which he hates - will impose regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions? Because this is what Betula is really arguing about. He tries to twist and dodge the questions of empirical evidence and scientific opinion to camouflage his right wing political views. Eventually, as I have done here, he is floored by a right hook because even he can't dodge the truth forever
Jeff!
Settle petal.
Neither FAR RIGHT LIBERTARIAN BELIEFS or any other BELIEFS - including YOURS! - are helping those large ungulates, the ice, the birds or anything else.
They seriously don't care.
Meanwhile, there's a remarkable amount of highly qualified people actually kicking goals and actually making a difference where it really matters.
But Lionel and WoW and you seem to argue that's just a waste of time?
" He denies that he has ever said that he knows more than 95% of the climate science community."
Of course. Denial is a negative process. Nihilistic thinking. They have no positive attitude, only a refusal to accept what they do not like.
So they deny 95% of the experts, repeat what 1% of the experts say, and deny any belief in either of those two groups, and deny that there's any error in their actions.
"Neither FAR RIGHT LIBERTARIAN BELIEFS or any other BELIEFS – including YOURS!"
IOW, reality is just a belief, according to StuPid here. And anyone who believes that reality exists is just as deluded as someone insisting they are Napoleon and that there are aliens living in their sock drawer.
Because in equivocation, the goal is to stop anything happening that StuPid doesn't want to go ahead, so faking up false equivalence and crying about it is what must be done to that obstructive end.
" Stu 2
December 21, 2016
Lionel @#7
I think you’re confused.
I work with scientists"
No, you clean their toilets.
Hardley - "He denies that he has ever said that he knows more than 95% of the climate science community"
Correct.
What I did "post" is the Doran paper that shows 76 scientists represent the 97%.
Apparently, this is something you don't know, or perhaps it's too painful for you to admit, so you need to mask your pain with imagination...
Why else would you deny the paper?.
Wow - "They have no positive attitude"
Are we talking about the predicted future catastrophic-only climate scenarios again?
Wow - So they deny 95% of the experts, repeat what 1% of the experts say
When did you start believing Hardley and Elberling are the 1%? This is a shocking revelation...
Hardley - "BECAUSER THE SOLUTIIONS DO NOT CONFORM "
Are you saying 95% (what happened to 97%?) of scientists agree that it is warming, or agree with the solutions or agree with the future consequences?
Please be your usual self and tell me how great you are without answering the question...
Thanks.
"What I did “post” is the Doran paper that shows 76 scientists represent the 97%."
So 97+/-11%.
But replication with other samples shows it's more like 99%. . Meanwhile, YOUR assertions are backed by 1%. Out of a sample of 78, 1.
Apparently, this is something you don’t know. Or maybe its painful for you to admit so you need to mask your pain with imagination.
Why else would you ignore every other paper, and only extend your calculations to a simple count, never any actual calcuation?
"Are we talking about the predicted future catastrophic-only climate scenarios again?"
Who knows? You're running all sides of the conversation in your own head, batshit betty.
"When did you start believing Hardley and Elberling are the 1%? "
Never.
"Are you saying 95% (what happened to 97%?) "
They're still there. You can go read the paper.
What happened to the 1%?
See my #7, which came before this simplistic comment of yours, for a clue about that. Besides that statement of mine was aimed and 2Stupid and his citing an OPINION piece by Mundine, one who clearly does not understand what has really been going on which explained in this piece :
How you can turn a lie into a truth (according to the sinister Brexit playbook).
That after pushing this distortion of how the arguments have unfolded:
Climate and ecological sciences are not any 'side of politics'. The issues have been politicised by those who see the scientific conclusions being a threat to their continued fiscal profiteering, thus elements of the media have dripped poison into the ears of the gullible for decades on a host of topics as it demonstrated by your line of argument. Couldn't describe your stance, or that of Stu-Kim reasoned because there is none, reason, in it.
Wow - "Meanwhile, YOUR assertions are backed by 1%"
What assertions?
Me - "When did you start believing Hardley and Elberling are the 1%? ”
Wow - "Never"
But you said - "they deny 95% of the experts, repeat what 1% of the experts say"....yet, I've been repeating what Hardley and Elberling say.
So I ask again - When did you start believing Hardley and Elberling are the 1%?
"What assertions? "
The climate scientists are wrong.
"Wow – “Never”
But you said"
I said never to your assertion that I believe Elberling and Jeff are the 1%.
"When did you start believing Hardley and Elberling are the 1%?"
Never.
You said I repeat what 1% of the experts say.....yet the only scientists I have quoted are Elberling and Hardley.
So why do you believe Elberling and Hardley are the 1%?
The continuing saga of Wow....the wandering waste of time.
"You said I repeat what 1% of the experts say"
No I didn't.
"So why do you believe Elberling and Hardley are the 1%?"
I don't.
Wow - " the climate scientists are wrong"
So when I link Elberling stating don't read too much into what Hardley suggests we read re-read and re-re read.....who am I saying is wrong? Elberling or Hardley?
Please explain in your usual way i.e., not explaining.
"So when I link Elberling ..."
You haven't read it. You have claimed no position on it (that would be on page 2), ergo this has nothing to do with " the climate scientists are wrong" since that is a position on it.
"who am I saying is wrong?"
The climate scientists.
"Elberling or Hardley?"
You tell us. It's your claim.
"You have claimed no position on it"
Other than to not read too much into it....which is taking the advice of the co-author who wrote it.
Why do you believe he is wrong? You should write him and tell him...
“who am I saying is wrong?”
Wow - "The climate scientists"
Got it. So you believe I SAID they are wrong when ONE SAYS don't read too much into it, and the OTHER SAYS to read, re-read and re-re read it.... or are they both right about the other being wrong?
Just another day in the world of Wow..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utlm8gBU-H4
Hardley, your rant was not successful. You still should answer the question why you got your BSc so late at age 34. Everybody of us was at least 10 years quicker than you to get such a simple certificate, and also from better universities than your 3rd class Liverpool school, where the disabled and poor live. You have absolutely nothing to be proud of, your behaviour is absolutely childish and mean and your only method of reasoing is appeal to authority, which is a green-eco-socialist political pressure group to damage the societies you hate so much, you sack of lying crap. You know absolutey nothing about climate (as do only copy paste of what fits to your deranged view of the world). Look at the photo with your guitar, long hair and sun glasses: only a silly clown looks like that. You make us laugh as your blather is so easy to demolish. Piss off, idiot and clean toilets.
"“You have claimed no position on it”
Other than to not read too much into it"
No, you claimed SPECIFICALLY that you had NO POSITION on it. You even disclaimed reading anything into it.
"Why do you believe he is wrong?"
I don't.
"You should write him and tell him…"
Why should I write and tell him I don't believe him to be wrong?
"“who am I saying is wrong?”
Wow – “The climate scientists”
Got it. So you believe I SAID they are wrong"
No, the facts indicate that you have said they are wrong.
"You still should answer the question why you got your BSc so late at age 34."
Why?
kuim: "your behaviour is absolutely childish and mean "
kuim: "Look at the photo with your guitar, long hair and sun glasses: only a silly clown looks like that"
Not much for joined up thinking, these deniers, are they.
Wow - "the facts indicate that you have said they are wrong"
Who?
And we come full circle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utlm8gBU-H4
"Wow – “the facts indicate that you have said they are wrong”
Who?"
who
huː,hʊ/
pronoun
pronoun: who
1.
what or which person or people.
"who is that woman?"
2.
used to introduce a clause giving further information about a person or people previously mentioned.
"Joan Fontaine plays the mouse who married the playboy"
"And we come full circle:"
Go back to #40 then. Re read it and re read it yet again. And try reading it this time.
Wow – “the facts indicate that you have said they are wrong”
Me - "Who?”
Wow - "Joan Fontaine plays the mouse who married the playboy"
It must be so lonely there....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utlm8gBU-H4
Lionel @#32.
The media predicted the opposite results.
Their 'truth' was that the UK would vote to stay and that Trump would not win.
I think you're either confused or you're suffering from 'revisionism'.
You have already linked that article.
It was yet another example of exactly what Mundine was writing about.
Meanwhile, the melting ice, the large ungulates, the birds & etc are still not benefiting from all this behaviour.
And Lionel.
At no point have I claimed that a brand of 'scientists' take 'sides'.
You actually did that @#54 on the previous page.
Batshit Betty says - “Joan Fontaine plays the mouse who married the playboy”
Because being on topic or even sane isn't a winning strategy for batshit betty.
"The media predicted the opposite results."
But Trump wining was a 33% chance. Not the leader, but not impossible. Moreover, this is a non sequitur.
"Their ‘truth’ was ..."
No, that was their prediction. Not their "truth", whatever THAT means to you, StuPid. And this is yet another non sequitur.
"It was yet another example of exactly what Mundine was writing about."
What was? Your non sequiturs? But I guess this is yet another example of the idiocy of your "argument" and "evidence".
"At no point have I claimed that a brand of ‘scientists’ take ‘sides’."
Yes you have. And sides you assigned them.
"At no point have I claimed that a brand of ‘scientists’ take ‘sides’.
You actually did that @#54 on the previous page"
No he didn't:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2016/12/02/december-2016-open-thread/co…
Indeed the only poster who even used the word "sides" on page 5 was Stupid, who without knowing the irony claimed:
"All sides of politics including ‘environmentalism’ have reduced themselves to ‘gutter politics’ and based their campaigns like the whole thing is a team sporting event and overstating all the negative aspects of ‘the other’ teams."
While overstating the negative aspects of the team basing their opinions on the factual evidence, such as Jeff. And unspecified "others" he claims to have "worked with" (patently this was clearing up their waste paper baskets)
Wow - Batshit Betty says – “Joan Fontaine plays the mouse who married the playboy”
Retarded Wow doesn't realize he's the one who posted it @49.
Classic Retard.
WoW.
Thanks again for your demonstration.
Any time you need a demonstration of how you are lying, StuPid.
Batshit Betty doesn’t realize he’s the one who posted it @51.
And WoW.
I was writing about 'the politics' not 'the science' or a particular brand of 'scientist'
Methinks, along with Lionel, you are either confused or perhaps suffering from revisionism.
I have not questioned Jeff's scientific quals.
I do however question his political stance that has him claiming there's 'only one way', and inappropriately using his 'quals' to claim so.
His answers exhibit the exact attitude that has apparently influenced political results in places like the UK, US & AUS in 2016.
According to Jeff he is a highly qualified PhD scientist who works in academia.
Good for him.
But academic scientists don't possess special political crystal balls that give them special superior psychic ability in human political behaviour nor do they possess a special superior right to use their quals to intimidate and sneer at others via labeling and assignation.
People in general respect and admire science's service to humanity.
Just because they question Jeff's political stance does not mean they're denying 'the science' or that they're 'anti environment' or that they're poorly educated or that they can't think for themselves & etc etc
"i was writing about ‘the politics"
You were indeed, never said otherwise. But that was the ONLY place where "sides" was. Which proves your claim that lionel said anything about it in post 54 was a lie.
That was as an additional ironic twist to the posting of Lionel's post you were referring to which didn't claim anything like what you asserted.
The nearest one to what you claimed to be bad and wrong for making sides out was YOU, StuPid.
"Methinks, along with Lionel, you are either confused or perhaps suffering from revisionism."
Ah, the sort of thing that forgets saying
“At no point have I claimed that a brand of ‘scientists’ take ‘sides’.
You actually did that @#54 on the previous page”
When what that "You" you accused ACTUALLY said was:
And then pretends that it was never said?
THAT sort of revisionism?
No, not us, StuPid, that was YOU.
That's right WoW.
That's the comment of Lionel's I was referring to.
See the 'brand' of scientists in that comment?
They're branded as 'bought' scientists.
So just because someone is a 'scientist' is a tad irrelevant is it not?
Ah, but is this 'brand' as in he used the word 'brand', or is it 'brand' as in the way you claimed he used 'sides'? As in "he never used it at all"?
It appears that even when the post is right in front of you, you;re STILL using the meaning of 'brand' as in "He never used it at all".
Well done for demonstrating how hapless a liar deniers like you are, StuPid.
WoW.
Once again.
Fantastic work.
You really are doing a great job demonstrating the attitude and the problem.
If nothing else you're becoming entirely predictable.
But to help you WoW
I used the word 'brand' to summarize Lionel's accusation @#31.
The 'sides' was argued vehemently by Jeff a while back.
Ah, faking it again, StuPid.
Sad.
"I used the word ‘brand’ to summarize Lionel’s accusation @#31."
So you admit to being part of this problem you keep going back to when you are caught in a situation you can't get out of.
My comments at P5#64 and this page #7 lay out very clearly the nature of the problem. That you should read into it something else is your problem, a problem of selective comprehension. It is you who is confused, or pretending to be but I don't think you are bright enough for such deception.
Why that latter, because the scientists I was referring to are those who have tossed their honour and creditability in the bin and allied themselves with those who wish to delay action on GHG emissions for as long as possible. You will find them listed here and here.
As for your claim, 'I work with scientists...' in the absence of evidence I do not believe you. Oh come, why are you so coy about these 'scientists' if you are so proud to be associated with them?
Seriously, if you don't like others describing you as they see you from your behaviour then change your attitude.
Once again Brexit propaganda was from certain sectors of the media distorting things to instil complacency particularly in younger voters whilst at the same time pushing the buttons of those who felt aggrieved at a perceived loss of sovereignty — mostly older voters. There was no effing 'truth' as you make out.
One line from the self centred media outlets such as Mail, Telegraph, Express was to trumpet that Remainers were promoting scare stories. In the months since many of those have played out and others will continue to do so into the future. A few have gained, but the majority have lost and will continue to do so, things aren't working out too well are they. For some it is a self inflicted injury, the older generation will feel the deadly pinch of NHS paroxysms of re-organisation and cuts. Note how Gov UK has been throwing money at it once more of it had been privatised by stealth. Watch for a further lurch to that end as Trump hammers health care in the US and big business tries to make the case for further privatisation, maybe complete repeal of the NHS Acts.
And wasn't it supposed to be #54, not #31, StuPid?
Likely that Russian agents cyber-messed with the electoral process in the US bringing the prospect of Trump as POTUS and, shakes head in disbelief, Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State. Watch this video and appreciate who are the black hearts engaged in producing a black product. In a just and truly democratic world Tillerson would be an inmate of Guantanemo Bay and not about to become a part of the government which oversees it.
So, where is democracy working?
Hang on, if Russia made (R) win in the USA, and Russia is communist, isn't it therefore the case that the result of the USA's election was decided by the left, not the right as StuPid insists?
And here comes Lionel clinging to a conspiracy theory with Wow close behind...
The delusional leading the delusional.
Lionel - "In a just and truly democratic world Tillerson would be an inmate of Guantanemo Bay"
No he wouldn't, because Guantanamo wouldn't exist ...correct?
Ah, ol 75 there, accusing others of what batshit betty is doing.
Classic moron.
WoW and Lionel.
You are seriously tying yourselves up in knots and you've lost the plot.
The climate, the large ungulates, the melting ice, the birds & etc don't care about human politics.
I actually agree that election campaigns are becoming nastier.
I don't agree that the nasty is only coming from one quarter and they're getting away with it because the general population in countries like the UK, US & AUS are lacking in education or unable to think for themselves or that they don't care about NRM or science & etc etc.
All sides of politics is trading in nasty.
But anyway fellas.
Enjoy Christmas with your families and friends.
Oh, look Stupid is doing in 78 what batshit betty tried in 75.
LOL.
Hey look, Wow is attempting avoid 75 by hiding behind 77 and then jumping behind 79!
We can still see you Wow...you can open your eyes now.
But what the simpleton thinkers (they probably don't really think much at all) will never grasp is that money-power and big business pull the strings and that therefore calling Russia communist is as lame as calling the USA democratic. Vlad is playing his Trump cards.
Clearly Bircher never bothered to watch that Chad-Exxon-Tillerson segment, it isn't conspiracy theory but fact. And a sequence of propitious (for some) computer hacks is not theory either. But then Bircher has his head planted well up his &r$£ being totally non compos mentis when it comes to even recent history. Think Ukraine and targeted artillery sites. Russia has a recent record of attempted incursion into UK airspace and waters. This isn't just sabre rattling, they are sharpening the blades and hollowing out the opposition from inside.
Actually, he was avoiding 78, but jumping around so fast it was hard to see where he was...80 then 82....look, he's still jumping!
#78 nice try at making us look as if we have lost the plot, you fail. You never will of course, lose the plot, because you didn't have it in the first place.
He's jumping and hiding so much, at 82 he thought he was hiding behind himself at 75...
Go wow go!!
Of course, batshit is doing again what they tried in 75.
No thought of their own, only those implanted in them.
Sad.
"Clearly Bircher never bothered to watch that Chad-Exxon-Tillerson segment, it isn’t conspiracy theory but fact."
Remember, to deniers, if there IS a conspiracy that they don't want to admit, they just call it a "theory". After all, they're so accepting that their conspiracy theories are just conspiracy theories, and not at all real.
Oh, hang on, no they're not, they get really pissed off.
But hey, when you have proof of a conspiracy, they accept its not merely a theory.
Oh, hang on, no they don't.
But at least when there's no proof of one, they accept that it;s just a theory....
Damn, still no.
Ah, I have it. When it's THEIR Conspiracy Theory, it's a REAL CONSPIRACY, *ESPECIALLY* when there's no evidence for it (but doubly so if they think they have evidence for it), bit when it's someone else's conspiracy theory, even when it's proven corret, it's just a theory, and loons do it.
Just don't accuse them of conspiracy ideation, they get REALLY pissed off at that. Probably because it's true. But they insist that this is merely proof there is a conspiracy.
But don't YOU use their ridicule of the conspiracy of big oil et al as proof, that's not allowed!
"On September 5, 2008, Chad fully prepaid both the IBRD and IDA components of the World Bank loan totaling $65.7 million from its "national coffers swollen by more than $1 billion a year in oil revenues".[9] This ended its involvement in the project. The World Bank noted that, , including devoting a substantial portion of the oil "over the years, Chad failed to comply with key requirements of this agreement"revenues to poverty reduction programs, and thus it "concluded that it could not continue to support this project under these circumstances"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad%E2%80%93Cameroon_Petroleum_Developme…
So the World Bank, part of The United Nations, decided they didn't want to support this project after they were paid back and there was nothing in it for them anymore...
What were they doing ...."over the years that Chad failed to comply with key requirements of this agreement"
Collecting there money.
So don't be upset with the dictators or the World Bank....it's Rex Tillerson's fault that this was going on for years before he was the CEO...blame corporations for not dictating what governments can and cannot do with their money...
Ah, the joys of working with innocent dictators...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-06/exxon-mobil-disagree…
Look at Wow at 89 ....now he has a conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories!!
Impressive.
Ah,yes, the well known AGW-causing-oil-pipelines phenomena, batshit.
PROOF that AGW is wrong, and everyone knows it!
Or not. That post could have been a lot of bollocks with nothing to do with AGW, but who can tell when batshit betty is typing away.
Ah, excellent, batshit betty demonstrates precisely what I was talking about. Even when conspiracy ideation is shown to exist, the mentioning of it is automatically a conspiracy theory, because batshit betty doesn't want it to be true.
Look at Wow at 90...attempting to turn his conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories into a conspiracy theory about non existing conspiracy theories...
Here, if you are confused, just watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utlm8gBU-H4
And Lionel getting his "information" from Rachel Maddow explains a lot....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBQdhR--cmY
But Lionel @# 70?
Are you claiming that it's 'dishonourable' for scientists to be employed?
Or maybe you're claiming that 'scientific honour' is attached somehow to the scientist's employer?
Either way or whatever other line you are trying to argue about 'honour' is more of the same and a further demonstration of why this type of behaviour is not benefiting those large ungulates & etc.
The people I sometimes work with (who apparently don't exist in your belief system) actually focus on achieving specific, measurable TBL outcomes in NRM.
There's nothing wrong with their scientific quals, but they're not interested in big noting themselves, they're genuinely interested in actually achieving results.
Those results are not reliant on what you believe or don't believe.
Neither are they reliant on which 'team' these people barrack for.
The 'environments' that they work in don't care about which team they barrack for either.
Apparently Jeff thinks this type of work is a waste of time and apparently you don't believe it even exists or maybe if these scientists are employed, they're somehow dishonest or dishonourable to 'Science'??????
But meanwhile, they're kicking goals and helping to implement improvements in land and water management.
Their biggest obstacles usually emanate from interfering bureaucrats and 'Ivory tower' residents who are always ALWAYS trying to huff and puff and enforce 'one size fits all' rules via averages and huge data sets that have almost nothing to do with the highly complex and variable systems out in the real environment.
Watch what, batshit? Your compulsive idiocy?
Nah, no need, seen one stupid moron, seen 'em all.
Amusing to see you try to work out what you're saying, though.
And odd how you whine about being told off for the blogrolls you get your "information" from, but from an actual journalist? Totally not allowed, for reasons that only require you to be nuts to understand.
"Are you claiming that it’s ‘dishonourable’ for scientists to be employed?"
Ah, so you're saying it's fine to employ pre-teen boys as sex slaves?
Or is it only you allowed to make shit up like that? It's the latter, isn't it. But you just can't see the problem here, can you, StuPid.
"The people I sometimes work with"
(emptying the waste paper bins and scrubbing the toilets)
"who apparently don’t exist in your belief system"
Reality isn't a belief system. But apart from that, dead right, even to the "apparently", because they appear not to exist in reality, only in your posts.
But Stu, you don't understand, Hardley's lectures are doing as much to change the predicted future climate as his guitar playing is...
Live from Deltoid, It's..."Hardley and the Hyperparasitoids"
Aaaaw, look batshit has taken a comment from freddiekimkuimkaiboris that was ironically a whinge about personal attacks being proof of a lack of valid argument AND a personal attack, due to a lack of argument. And batshit, lacking any argument, goes the same way.
hey, batshit, you better not go labeling like that, 'cos StuPid is really against that sort of thing.
When anyone else does it.
So fellas.
If you want to help large ungulates, the best idea is to employ people with expertise in animal husbandry preferably with regional specific knowledge.
The IPCC or academia taking up papers and publishing papers based on AGW is not the best answer for large ungulates in specific regions.
Punishing big corps via political movements and global economics is not the best answer for them either.
If the suspension bridge is broken the best thing to do to fix it is employ people with expertise in building suspension bridges and even better if they have regional knowledge and understand how the bridge needs to be used.
The IPCC and academics may or may not have good data sets and good ideas about suspension bridges but they are not the best people to implement practical improvements or to fix the broken ones.
Punishing big corps via political movements and global economics won't fix the bridges either.
All of you trying to focus on scoring personal points off each other based on 'team politics' is in no way a part of any solution, it's actually, IMHO, and in my experience a huge part of the problem and why those large ungulates & etc aren't receiving practical and specific assistance.
"If you want to help large ungulates, the best idea is to employ people with expertise in animal husbandry preferably with regional specific knowledge."
Or not fuck with the climate they have adapted to. But I not a complete lack of "stop making out sides!!!!" in that. Are you feeling alright?
"The IPCC or academia taking up papers and publishing papers based on AGW is not the best answer for large ungulates in specific regions."
No, it's an excellent answer to that. AND all the other problems caused by AGW changing the climate. Tell us, knobhead, how does helping large ungulates cut back on the melting of continental ice sheets? How does it help us wean ourselves off carbon heavy industry?
"won’t fix the bridges either."
How will this nebulous help of ungulates build them? Use them as slave labour?
Your entire post there was content free. I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.
"trying to focus on scoring personal points off each other based on ‘team politics’ is in no way a part of any solution"
We should do like you: focus on scoring personal points off everyone who doesn't agree with ourselves, based on ignorance.
Care to explain how that helps anything other than our self-image?
And well done WoW.
You got it.
Labels from whatever side or team perspective are irrelevant and not delivering benefits to large ungulates, melting ice, broken bridges & etc etc.
The question posted earlier is relevant.
Who or what are benefiting from this behaviour?
It's definitely NOT the large ungulates & etc.
So even though you don't score me any points, you got one from me:-)
You spotted that labelling is a common feature of all sides.
Well done.
"And well done WoW.
You got it."
So, care to make a VALID Case for your view, StuPid? Now you admit that I got you on that vacuous screed? Or are you tapped out?
"Who or what are benefiting from this behaviour?"
You and the fossil fuel industry, for as long as you can muddy the waters and keep anything substantive being done about AGW. Like, for example, insisting that we must be helping large unguates, and we're not. Quite how remains unexplained, but we're used to less-than-half-assed.
WTF @5?
Go and sit down and calm yourself, you're getting overexcited and incoherent.
& to avoid confusion I'm referring to part of your comment @# 100 previous page.
Minus the personal stuff of course :-)
I'm very calm and relaxed.
It's a beautiful balmy summer's morning out in my part of the world.
The birds are chirping, the bees are buzzing, the frogs are croaking, the trees are rustling , the crops are growing, the sheep are grazing & etc.
It's a great day to be alive.
"You spotted that labelling is a common feature of all sides."
Like you. As is labelling "sides". And doing nothing. Hang on, we've only got you here doing that.
But never accusing yourself of doing it.
Or batshit. Or kim. Or Lappers. Or, indeed, any denier. It's almost like you're biased in what you see and will refuse to acknowledge that they are doing anything.
It's almost like you're faking "we all do it" so as to get a false agreement to start the ball rolling, in a foot-in-the-door trick of manipulative sociopaths.
Ah, of course, the old "there's stuff there, but you go look for it, because I won't make concrete claims".
"Minus the personal stuff of course"
Well, try something actually defined, and then I wouldn't be left with only
http://izquotes.com/quote/240532
Without something intelligible, ridicule is not only the only response you'll get, IT WILL BE ALL YOU DESERVE.
"I’m very calm and relaxed."
Oh, I have bad news for you then, stupid.
You're incoherent for no good reason.
Some reasonable pointers to WTF is going on, and where it can lead:
And of course our numpties totally miss my reference to history (parallels have been pointed out here before but they flew over heads like black swans), and Stu2 has a brain dump because he is incensed that I may not believe he works with scientists, scientists he refuses to name. Note, he indicates that they don't want to blow their own whistles that does not mean they cannot be named (remember extraordinary claims require....), well there's lucky we will never know the truth of Stu statements so we must accept what he says at face value or send him into paroxysms of rage because we dare to question his honesty.
Boot — foot.
And WoW,
to help you out a little more.
I'm not interested in the irrelevant personal comments.
It doesn't matter who's doing it, I'm not interested thanks all the same.
I hope that's coherent enough?
Also, we don't work primarily in offices or buildings and therefore there's no toilets to clean, no janitors' job and no waste paper baskets.
I have mentioned several times that we're working OUT in the real environment- as in,- you know - outside not inside?
Hope that helps?
"It doesn’t matter who’s doing it, I’m not interested thanks all the same."
Well, we all KNOW that's a lie. You won't stop whinging about it happening. If it's me, Lionel, Jeff or similar doing it.
"Also, we don’t work primarily in offices or buildings and therefore there’s no toilets to clean"
You haven't been in an office building, have you, StuPid. Pooping and peeing are done by humans in office buildings. So we really have to discount the "we" claim there. Apparently you don't even work with people in offices. Which includes most scientists.
I take it you therefore work as a farmhand where some scientists once set up a camp.
Or at least you visited a field where that happened. Maybe not at the same time, but the same physical location.
"I have mentioned several times that we’re working OUT in the real environment-"
Yes, you have.
But you're lying.
Lionel.
I have already said I basically agree that politics are trading in nasty.
I don't agree that it's only coming from one quarter.
IMHO that's an overly simplistic, unrealistic and melodramatic interpretation.
You may as well just stick to barracking for a football team.
Practicing revisionism is not learning from human history Lionel.
Your belief or otherwise about the existence of science and scientists in my life has nothing whatsoever ever to do with benefiting large ungulates or melting ice or literal/figurative black swans or broken suspension bridges & etc.
What you lot think I think about what other commenters say here when I have not commented on their specific comments is also totally irrelevant, rather incongruous and is also not benefiting the large ungulates & etc.
Seriously, the melting ice, the anagalous black swans, the large ungulates , the broken bridges & even the democrats and republicans don't care at all about what you think I think about what someone else said or if someone made a silly typo error or auto correct got them or if they referred to the wrong comment number or whatever ad nauseam.
None of that benefits the creatures and critters or the soil or the water or the ice or the weather.
Who or what are benefiting from trading in nasty Lionel?
WoW.
There are plenty of highly qualified scientists who work in the real world helping and leading real people to develop practical sustainable land and water management plans that achieve TBL outcomes.
Didn't you know that?
"I don’t agree that it’s only coming from one quarter."
But only ever notice it when it comes from ours.
Riiiight.
"Your belief or otherwise about the existence of science and scientists in my life has nothing whatsoever ever to do with benefiting large ungulate..."
But since it's been the cornerstone of your claims of veracity and standing, you do need to make it more than your mere say-so, especially since you appear to have absolutely no domain knowledge WHATSOEVER and are moreover suspiciously evasive on the subject.
And we're not expecting you to be saving large ungulates.
We're trying to help EVERYTHING.
Instead of berating people for doing things you don't want done in ways you don't like, and doing them before you've had a chance to profit from the business as usual system.
"Who or what are benefiting from trading in nasty Lionel?"
Profit from the fossil fuel industry, StuPid.
"nasty Lionel?"
Tell us, how does that help large ungulates?
"I have already said I basically agree that politics are trading in nasty."
"nasty Lionel"
compare and contrast.
"I don’t agree that it’s only coming from one quarter."
"nasty Lionel"
But never noticing you doing it. Apparently you don't exist.
"There are plenty of highly qualified scientists who work in the real world helping and leading real people to develop practical sustainable land and water management plans that achieve TBL outcomes.
Didn’t you know that?"
Yes.
And we know you're not one of them and haven't worked with any of them either.
Wow - "But only ever notice it when it comes from ours"
Not true retard.
You see, I noticed what I just said.
WoW @#16.
Even if you were right in trying to guess my occupation (and you're not), is there something wrong with farm hands?
Also, would there be something wrong with farm hands setting up camp with scientists?
I'm trying to figure out what your point was?
Maybe an experienced farm hand could teach scientists something about regional ecological issues as well as the obvious vice versa?
I know some farm hands who are amazing, practical problem solvers and indispensable assets to their employers.
I also know some who aren't.
But that actually applies to every profession and occupation that I know, including scientists.
WoW @#21.
Thanks for the demo again.
But I do have a question.
What do you mean when you write 'We're trying to help EVERYTHING'?
How are you doing that?
What have your ubiquitous 'we' actually done to help EVERYTHING?
What have you done?
And WoW @# 22.
I guess if you want to draw a long bow, you could argue that my sentence was a trifle ambiguous.
So Lionel.
My apologies that WoW thinks I claimed you were nasty.
I was referring to the politics trading in nasty.
"Not true retard."
LOL, batshit betty saying they know what they said as a "rebuttal" to a claim that STUPID never notices when batshit does it, calling ME a "retard"!
"Thanks for the demo again."
Ah, still trying that shit, moron?
Nobody believes you.
"My apologies that WoW thinks I claimed you were nasty."
Why are you apologising for what I "think", numbnuts?
I suppose the fact that I answered the question means you had to focus on that BUT NOT that I was doing what you were: quoting another to make pretend that someone was making "sides" and "lablelling"
Because you can't accept that the vicious morons spouting denialist bollocks are profiting from their fraud, so won't accept any answer on it, and you can't accept that you are fine and dandy misquoting people for your own rhetorical ends, but really don't want to accept that this is as wrong when you do it as when anyone else does it.
I quoted you, moron. "nastly Lionel".
Suck it up, retard.
@28...Yup, you're retarded.
And again, I noticed that I said it....because you are.
Wow - "Why are you apologising for what I “think”, numbnuts?"
Good point Wow....you should be apologizing for what you think.
Ah, bless. Unable to find reason, betty tries repetition.
You mean you really do not know after all this time with many explaining things to you? Are you retarded or something?
Here are more pointers.
Wow - "Unable to find reason, betty tries repetition"
Exactly. Is it working?
@37 - Poor "Deplorable" and "Irredeemable" Lionel...
Lionel's link headline - "Is Donald Trump a Threat to Democracy?"
In the article - "American democracy is not in imminent danger of collapse"
Last sentence in article - "The warning signs are real."
Did an ideologically driven climate scientist write this article?
"Exactly. Is it working?"
No, everyone still sees you are pathetic.
Try a different tactic.
"Did an ideologically driven climate scientist write this article?"
Aaand here, StuPid, is why there are "sides". One side cannot see anything against the right as being done by anyone other than a climate scientist.
Funny how you never saw it, though, what with all your "investigation" into recent political discourse...
But here we see the truth about the huge denier lie that AGW is only being pushed because the politicians want the power the "NWO" they insist alarmingly will result.
It appears that lots of powerful politicians and lots of campaign contributions don't want AGW to be real.
PS, batshit, you could have read who the author was.
Just sayin'
Wow - "One side cannot see anything against the right as being done by anyone other than a climate scientist"
So now the retard believes he's a climate scientist...
Wow - "here we see the truth about the huge denier lie that AGW is only being pushed because the politicians want the power "
Where?
Now the retard will post the definition of "where"...
And so it continues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utlm8gBU-H4
"So now the retard believes he’s a climate scientist…"
Do you?
"Wow – “here we see the truth about the huge denier lie that AGW is only being pushed because the politicians want the power ”
Where?"
here:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2016/12/02/december-2016-open-thread/co…
"Now the retard will post the definition of “where”…"
Will you? When?
"And so it continues:"
What?
"What?"
You:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utlm8gBU-H4
"“What?”
You:"
What?
Would it be better if I said you:
"Would it be better if I said you"
What?
Exactly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utlm8gBU-H4
Or is missing off the colon indicating you don't know what it is you don't know what?
#46
?
"?"
Exactly.
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2016/12/MannLawsuitAppealDecisi…
I guess Steyn, Simberg, CEI and NRI have to hope for a corrupt jury, then.
Bl**** H*** I very nearly added we are about due for another repeat of Betula's crass Wow purgatory video. So many repeats of stupid, that alone should be enough to send the cretin into the sin bin.
Oh THAT'S What. Couldn't get anything from batshit.
Of course, the question becomes what the hell does batshit mean by it. But, as a denier, betty doesn't mean anything, just babbling its whim because there's fuck all else for deniers to do now that AGW denial is on a huge death spiral.
And, yes, StuPid, that includes all this BS about how three countries voted in the "right wing". Only Trump campaigned on AGW denial, and he's a fucking loon who'll say anything to get his way.
Still, I guess that most deniers are currently waiting to be told how to handle the court's decision wrt Steyn et al libeling Mann.
I suspect it's to secretly hope for a corrupt jury.
Lionel - "I very nearly added we are about due for another repeat of Betula’s crass Wow purgatory video..."
The video best depicts you, Wow and Hardley. stuck here at Deltoid, walking and talking in circles until death do you part...
And with each of Wow's comments, the video becomes more relevant...
Enjoy
Gosh. So totally unlike what batshit betty is doing. Which is posting the same link time and time and time again. Which is TOTALLY not going in circles, because going in a circle means you are moving.
But, hey, what does THAT mean? Even if it were true, Batshit, what does that mean? It must mean something REALLY important, because you keep banging on about it time and time and time again. And you've insisted your time is worth more than wasting it here, so it must be REALLY *REALLY* important.
"And with each of [Betty]’s comments, the video becomes more relevant…"
FTFY.
We know you don't do self awareness.
It's weird, isn't it, how deniers will quote something then address the entire comment they make to something completely different.
It's like they don't know what they're doing.
Wow - "I suspect it’s to secretly hope for a corrupt jury"
When Wow suspects secrets, people listen...
Lionel @ # 34.
Yes I do know.
It's clearly not the environment even though one team say that's what they're benefiting.
They're not.
Because all of them are busy trying to prove the 'other sides' are bigger mongrels than they are, that's all we ever hear about.
Whichever 'sides' lose they then go into whinge mode and excusitis and continue trying to prove that the others are bigger mongrels. And even the winning side continues to lay blame on the 'other sides'
The media love it.
Meanwhile, nothing that most people would call sensible or practical is happening.
There's lots of noise, lots of posturing and insane amounts of money being spent, but no sensible outcomes.
As Mundine wrote, they've all lost touch.
WoW @# 37.
Yes that's the point.
People have chosen sides and then advance one sided arguments.
How's that going for all of you?
You all seem to be enjoying yourselves?
IMHO you may as well just pick a football team each and barrack for that.
It will be just as effective.
BTW?
Can you answer the question @# 26?
"It’s clearly not the environment even though one team say that’s what they’re benefiting"
There's that "sides" thing again. I guess that's why you;re not helping large ungulates at all.
.
"They’re not."
They are.
"Because all of them are busy trying to prove the ‘other sides’ are bigger mongrels than they are, that’s all we ever hear about."
From you, yes. You, however, appear to be a side of one. And the only "other side" you notice are appraised of the problems of AGW. Denial of the problem isn't a side you deign to see.
"Whichever ‘sides’ lose they then go into whinge mode and excusitis and continue trying to prove that the others are bigger mongrels."
Still you. See StuPid whinge! Whinge, StuPid, whinge!
"There’s lots of noise, lots of posturing and insane amounts of money being spent, but no sensible outcomes."
You've already been shown wrong there. Odd, you seem to have forgotten it. Hint, me, on the previous page.
"As Mundine wrote, they’ve all lost touch."
And Mundine is an arrogant arsehole who is entirely wrong in his claims.
"WoW @# 37.
Yes that’s the point.
People have chosen sides and then advance one sided arguments."
Such as "You're all just doing nothing to help large unguents, as proven by me saying there's nothing much done!"
Yeah, you're still using you, but insisting it's everyone else.
"How’s that going for all of you?"
Tiresome. You keep bleating about how there's lots of "sides" being manufactured, while insisting that that side doing so is doing nothing and it's all their fault. So, it's going "Tiresome".
Tired of your whinging yet? I suspect not. You love the "Only Sane Man In The Room" martyrdom complex too much to give it up.
"IMHO you may as well just pick a football team each and barrack for that."
Yeah, your opinions aren't humble. You're the Only Sane Man. And, no we won't. No thanks for the advice. I prefer to berate and barrack the morons who deny the problem or delay doing anything about it, or waste the time of people actually trying.
"It will be just as effective."
Is this still a humble opinion? If so, it's wrong.
Answer to #26? They're just rhetorical questions, a gish gallop of irrelevancies. It's not like you've answered queries to you, or cleared up what you are doing. So you can hardly complain when I don't bother. Some of them have been answered, but you never acknowledge it, so it really is pointless trying again.
Wow - "But, hey, what does THAT mean?"
that
[th at; unstressed th uh t]
pronoun, plural those.
1. (used to indicate a person, thing, idea, state, event, time, remark, etc., as pointed out or present, mentioned before, supposed to be understood, or by way of emphasis)
Learned "that" one from the Wowtard himself...
WoW @ # 60.
'You, however, appear to be on the side of one'
Which 'one' is that WoW ?????
And Mundine is an arrogant arsehole???
Perhaps you're referring to a different Mundine and not the info linked upthread????
Perhaps you're confusing him with the commentariat and the media who he points out have lost touch through their arrogance.
Or perhaps you're just still spoiling for a fight even though I'm not interested thanks all the same.
And my question was genuine.
You said that ' we are trying to help EVERYTHING!'
How is this ubiquitous 'we' doing that WoW?
Because all I'm seeing is you berating people you say are morons or deniers etc and therefore contributing to the game and exacerbating delays even further.
In 2016, it appears that your team has lost several of those games.
Instead of accepting that, they're busy coming up with excuses.
Meanwhile, the world turns and there are plenty of people from all walks of life (including farm hands and scientists and whatever else) who are interested in achieving sensible TBL outcomes in NRM by working on improving what we've got. They work with real people out in the real world kicking real goals but they don't necessarily all barrack for the same team.
Your comments are an excellent demonstration of exactly what I was explaining which is why I keep thanking you.
"Which ‘one’ is that WoW ?????"
The numerical value one, retard.
"And Mundine is an arrogant arsehole???"
Yes? What the hell was the point of asking me that? Did you figure it was a typo or something? Am I going to have to post everything twice because you can't read?
"Perhaps you’re confusing him with the commentariat and the media who he points out have lost touch through their arrogance."
No. I would have used other words if I hadn't meant Mundie. By the way, nice labelling there. That's CERTAIN to help those poor ungulates.
"And my question was genuine."
Then the ones already answered is all you're getting, genuinely.
"Because all I’m seeing is you berating people you say are morons or deniers etc"
Yup, totally blind, aren't you, Stupid. Even in your own post, you can't see your words.
"Meanwhile, the world turns and there are plenty of people from all walks of life ... [cue pastoral music]"
None of whom, you work with or give a shit about your whining.
Keep up this drivel, I'm sure you believe it's really helping those ungulates.
"Your comments are an excellent demonstration of exactly what I was explaining "
Strange. You never seem to understand what's in them, so this claim is patently false.
But keep it going, I'm sure you have a plan whereby your petty whinging helps the unfortunate ungulates.
sigh :-(
WoW.
Good try to reframe the discussion about the ungulates.
But it doesn't change what was pointed out.
The ungulates will be helped by people who are experienced in animal husbandry.
The broken suspension bridges will need to be repaired by people who are experienced in building and repairing suspension bridges.
I don't think the IPCC taking up papers does much for regional ungulate issues- Do you?
"Good try to reframe the discussion about the ungulates."
Oh, right, so NOW you don't want to help the large ungulates. Why? Did they poop on your lawn? Or is it that everyone else needs to stop dealing with AGW and the deniers delaying however they can and help the ungulates, but not you?
I'm just spitballing here.
"The ungulates will be helped by people who are experienced in animal husbandry."
Meaningless. The validity or not of this rather tautological assertion really doesn't address what you keep thanking me for demonstrating.
Unless I'm demonstrating the help large ungulates need?
I'm still spitballing here.
"I don’t think the IPCC taking up papers does much for regional ungulate issues- Do you?"
No, and that's not what the IPCC papers are for.
You don't think that the IPCC should drop tools and help a cow, do you?
WoW.
Once again good try on the reframe.
If nothing else you're entirely predictable.
:-)
So you;re not answering my genuine questions now?
How do you think you're helping the large ungulates with this abhorrent behaviour?
December 24, 2016
WoW.
Once again good try on the reframe.
------------------
December 22, 2016
So fellas.
If you want to help large ungulates, the best idea is to employ people with expertise in animal husbandry preferably with regional specific knowledge.
------------
????
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/animal+husbandry
Don't you know what animal husbandry is WoW?
Maybe the above definition will assist?
It employs science BTW, including veterinary science.
The ones who also understand the regional ecology would undoubtedly be the best ones.
I don't think your idea about the IPCC taking up papers, or your analogy about the suspension bridge can do much - do you?
Don't you know what ungulants are, StuPid? Makes just as much sense as your opener.
"I don’t think your idea about the IPCC taking up papers!
#65 "I don’t think the IPCC taking up papers does much for regional ungulate issues- Do you?"
Yeah, I don't think that idea is doing much either. That person was a moron.
WoW.
Jeff chose to call the caribou/reindeer large ungulates @# 24 page 4 and you talked about the IPCC taking up papers @#40 same page.
So you may or may not want to rethink the moron comment @#71 above?
Sorry...Auto correct...it's ungulant.
No...it's ungulate.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/eutheria/ungulate.html
Here you go WoW.
This may help?
"Jeff chose to call the caribou/reindeer large ungulates"
You brouyght up that large ungulate help was required for anything to be worthwhile in#1, Stupid. You don't get to complain that I brought it up as a new tangent when you did, and you don't then get to complain that Jeff brought it up, because that's just saying that you lied again.
You see, this moronic complaining you're doing is why there's still so much active and recalcitrant denial. As long as they can point to you making shit up about how bad we are, the deniers can retain the belief that they're not bad, they're just no better than us.
"This may help?"
You're the only one having problems with ungulate.
#66: You don’t think that the IPCC should drop tools and help a cow, do you?
This continual blaming of others for what you yourself brought up is why your concern trolling isn't working, and is only going to be able to entrench people in "sides" (because they're sure as shit not going to agree with you, hence you will continue to ascribe them to "sides"), maybe you should stop putting what you say on other people's actions and go help those large ungulates that you think are so damn important that if they're not being actively helped, that the activity should be avoided.
StuPid: "Jeff chose to call the caribou/reindeer large ungulates @# 24 page 4 "
Ah, so Jeff brought it up?
Page 4, #22: GSW
December 12, 2016
It’s worse than we thought; Reindeer are shrinking due to Climate Change.
D'oh! Lying again, Stupid. This REALLY isn't helping anything. You're deliberately making it worse!
StuPid: "and you talked about the IPCC taking up papers @#40 same page."
Really?
Page 4, #40: December 13, 2016
“It’s because the IPCC likely has little clue about animal husbandry” [note: a quote of you, Stupid]
Strange.They take information and papers from all and any scientist that does.Your problem is that you don’t like them, not that they don’t know the science.
” in this case the reindeer.” [you again, this time referring to science papers]
DERP! You were against them loooooong before that report. And you’re not saying anything other than there’s something about reindeer.
Go on, be specific. It’ll make a hilarious change.
You see, StuPid, every time you lie, you ensure that your aims are set back, continuing to lie proves you don't WANT your stated aims to come about, and that which you are lying about is what you REALLY want to promote.
Just posting to wish all a
harmonious and joyful christmas/new years
period.
Heres some real simple shit for the
denierscum to ponder.
Its quite reminiscent of some great tamino stuff
from a couple months ago.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
See you in the new year!
And don't listrn to StuPid, he hasn't got a frigging clue. IF it were right, why do near 70% accept the changes proposed to undo AGW's changes, and more than half of republicans?
http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/politics-global-warmi…
Don't let fuckwits like StuPid make you believe that nothing is happening and it's all your fault. 'cos that's just their lunacy looking for confirmation.
Sigh :-(
WoW.
Jeff chose to call them large ungulates.
He didn't introduce the topic.
You're correct that GSW posted the link about reindeer.
Hope that helps?
Have a nice Christmas.
<b<I don't CARE what Jeff called them, YOU LIED in your comment on them being mentioned. You're just a shameless little prick lying on the internet,and trying to pretend you're the Only Sane Man. You're not. You're just an over-opininonated prick who denies AGW but goes sideways to delay and scotch the efforts of others as a "safer" option.
YOU LIED, you frigging asshole. And going "Jeff called reineed ungulates" DOES NOT CHANGE THAT YOU RETARD.
And "Oh, he called them ungulates" is NOTHING TO CRITICISE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE.
Look it up in your own frigging link you tiresome twat.
WoW.
That's an interesting perspective.
I'm not sure why you keep tying yourself up in knots by seizing on peripheral or inconsequential details and then using those to claim absolutes about people and/or topics.
More of the same I guess?
You have provided some classic examples over time.
The funniest for me was your personal attack re winter in Australia.
Have a nice Christmas.
Try not to worry yourself too much.
Two matches for "ungulates" on page 4:
StuPid @36: Issues such as the ones highlighted about reindeer and caribou (or if you like, specific species of large ungulates)
StuPid @82: And waiting around for the formation of global action on the global climate will not help those particular large ungulates.
Lying little cuckhead.
"That’s an interesting perspective."
Why?
I’m not sure why you keep tying yourself up in knots by seizing on peripheral or inconsequential details, such as whether large ungulates would be helped by namecalling or the IPCC.
Then complaining that other people were saying they were ungulates when you were the one doing it.
Then complaining that this is all just inconsequential, when you were the fuckwit bringing it up in the first place.
But I;m SURE this is helping do whatever it is you're trying to do.
CARE TO TELL ANYONE WHAT IT IS????
Hey, StuPid, care to explain why you think nothing is being done in the face of THIS:
Seven in ten registered voters (69%) say the U.S. should participate in the international agreement to limit climate change (the Paris COP21 agreement), compared with only 13% who say the U.S. should not.
Two-thirds of registered voters (66%) say the U.S. should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of what other countries do.
A majority of registered voters want President-elect Trump (62%) and Congress (63%) to do more to address global warming.
A majority of registered voters say corporations and industry should do more to address global warming (72% of all registered voters; 87% of Democrats, 66% of Independents, and 53% of Republicans).
Nearly eight out of ten registered voters (78%) support taxing global warming pollution, regulating it, or using both approaches, while only one in ten opposes these approaches.
If Congress passes a fossil fuel tax, the most popular uses of the revenue are developing clean energy (solar, wind), improving America’s infrastructure, assisting workers in the coal industry who may lose their jobs as a result of the tax, and paying down the national debt.
Seven in ten registered voters (70%) support setting strict carbon dioxide emission limits on existing coal-fired power plants to reduce global warming and improve public health, even if the cost of electricity to consumers and companies would likely increase – a core component of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. Democrats (85%), Independents (62%) and Republicans (52%) all support setting strict limits on these emissions.
Two in three registered voters (66%) support requiring fossil fuel companies to pay a carbon tax and using the money to reduce other taxes (such as income tax) by an equal amount – a plan often referred to as a “revenue neutral carbon tax.” 81% of Democrats, 60% of Independents, and 49% of Republicans support this policy.
A large majority of registered voters say the Federal government should prepare for the impacts of global warming, prioritizing impacts on public water supplies (76%), agriculture (75%), people’s health (74%), and the electricity system (71%).
And if you're too clueless about why, tell us what the FUCK do you think you're trying to do here?
Hell, maybe you're just trying to bury this bad news for your side:
Dr. Mann has supplied sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that statements in the articles written by Mr. Simberg and Mr. Steyn were false, defamatory, and published by appellants to third parties, and, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellants did so with actual malice.
Oh no, Stu said "large ungulates" first....Wow's Christmas is ruined for sure...the horror!
Wow @87 - "Why?"
why
(wī, hwī)
adv.
For what purpose, reason, or cause; with what intention, justification, or motive
Look at Wow grasping for a U.S. poll at 89...
Gotta love those good ol' reliable polls Wow...
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trum…
And no source at 89 Wow? You should go on for hours telling yourself what a moron you are, and then lose sleep over yourself...
97 and 98 refer to Wow's special poll at 92....not 89
Don't like being in the minority, eh, batshit?
Don't like having to accept that the truth IS rather important?
Wow - "Hell, maybe you’re just trying to bury this bad news for your side"
Now Wow believes Stu is being sued. Try reading what you post retard....
Note - I learned this tactic in Wow101..."How to copy the tactics of a retard when dealing with a retard to help them see how retarded they are"
Hope this helps you Wow.
"Wow – “Hell, maybe you’re just trying to bury this bad news for your side”"
So that'll be yes, then you miserable dribble of piss.
READ IT AND WEEP:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2016/12/MannLawsuitAppealDecisi…
Dr. Mann has supplied sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that statements in the articles written by Mr. Simberg and Mr. Steyn were false, defamatory, and published by appellants to third parties, and, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellants did so with actual malice.
”How to copy the tactics of a retard when dealing with a retard to help them see how retarded they are”
So you admit you're a retard.
Not like it'll reduce your standing in the denier community, dipshit.
No all.
It really doesn't mean anything and I don't know why WoW thinks whole global issues are hinging on it, but Jeff used the term 'large ungulates' but he didn't link the article about reindeer.
But it doesn't matter.
It doesn't mean anything amazingly good or bad or left or right or upside down or back to front about Jeff or anyone else.
I hope you all have a nice Christmas.
Wow - "Don’t like having to accept that the truth IS rather important?"
Since you use polls for your truth, yes, I believe it is important that you accept them..
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/11/12/gallup-84-percent-of-…
you
(yo͞o)
pron.
1. Used to refer to the one or ones being addressed
"It really doesn’t mean anything"
Then why are you blabbing on about it so much?
WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
"It doesn’t mean anything amazingly good or bad or left or right or upside down or back to front about Jeff or anyone else."
OK, next time you make a claim, we will all let you know that it doesn't mean anything amazingly good or bad or left or right or upside down or back to front about anyone or anything.
Is your point of posting to make nothing happen? Because that's what you've just affirmed as the point of your waffling.
"Since you use polls for your truth"
Uh, the poll IS the truth.
Read the results again, a truth you loathe and wish were not the case. Sidelining your idiotic faith in denial really grabs your gears, don't it?
Seven in ten registered voters (69%) say the U.S. should participate in the international agreement to limit climate change (the Paris COP21 agreement), compared with only 13% who say the U.S. should not.
Two-thirds of registered voters (66%) say the U.S. should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of what other countries do.
A majority of registered voters want President-elect Trump (62%) and Congress (63%) to do more to address global warming.
A majority of registered voters say corporations and industry should do more to address global warming (72% of all registered voters; 87% of Democrats, 66% of Independents, and 53% of Republicans).
Nearly eight out of ten registered voters (78%) support taxing global warming pollution, regulating it, or using both approaches, while only one in ten opposes these approaches.
If Congress passes a fossil fuel tax, the most popular uses of the revenue are developing clean energy (solar, wind), improving America’s infrastructure, assisting workers in the coal industry who may lose their jobs as a result of the tax, and paying down the national debt.
Seven in ten registered voters (70%) support setting strict carbon dioxide emission limits on existing coal-fired power plants to reduce global warming and improve public health, even if the cost of electricity to consumers and companies would likely increase – a core component of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. Democrats (85%), Independents (62%) and Republicans (52%) all support setting strict limits on these emissions.
Two in three registered voters (66%) support requiring fossil fuel companies to pay a carbon tax and using the money to reduce other taxes (such as income tax) by an equal amount – a plan often referred to as a “revenue neutral carbon tax.” 81% of Democrats, 60% of Independents, and 49% of Republicans support this policy.
A large majority of registered voters say the Federal government should prepare for the impacts of global warming, prioritizing impacts on public water supplies (76%), agriculture (75%), people’s health (74%), and the electricity system (71%).
How's it feel to have reality shoved in your face?
HAHAHA!
Wow - "Uh, the poll IS the truth"
No Wow, it's the truth that it's a poll.
We aren't all stuck in Wow purgatory like you, but I can understand why you wouldn't know that....because you are stuck in Wow purgatory.
"No Wow, it’s the truth that it’s a poll. "
EXACTLY. Where did I call it anything else? It's a poll that shows you're in the minority.
Which REALLY burns, doesn't it. Hence the dumbass posting you've been trying.
"How’s it feel to have reality shoved in your face?"
Wow Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest
Watev's
Enjoy being a minority! You'll have to shout at yourself on a bus about getting back to where you belong.
LOL!
Wow - "It’s a poll that shows you’re in the minority......Which REALLY burns, doesn’t it"
Case in point.... Hillary won the popular vote and I feel burned.
How's it feel to be stuck in Wow Purgatory?
"HAHAHA!"
Batshit, she won the vote but lost the election (and you're going to have to live with that infantile retard, LOL!).
DO get it right.
BTW, totally going to wonder if StuPid will complain to you “Good try to reframe the discussion"
'course he won't, he's a denier and on the same side as you! Which is also why you leap, leap I say, to his defence.
LOL!
Wow - "she won the vote but lost the election (and you’re going to have to live with that"
I promise i'll try.
Merry Christmas!
DIAF, batshit betty!
WoW @#3
Because the point of the comments were about the best ways to manage any perceived issues
They were not about who said what first.
Your interpretation of what does and doesn't matter and what you think I think or whatever or whoever reminds me of this.
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/humor4.shtml
"The point of the comments were about the best ways to manage any perceived issues"
You've discussed them.
END OF MISSION.
Job done.
Go home.
Did you have a nice Christmas Day WoW.?
We did.
Great day with family & friends:-)
Still drinking and eating with them.
But this isn't the point.
Who's What's & etc the point or on which base now WoW?
Isn't family & friends the point on Christmas day???
Certainly is at my place :-)
We had 4 generations together here.
Nice weather/climate/ environment too.
Hope you enjoyed yours on the other side of the world?
You've already said (and accomplished) what you considered your goal.Stupid.
Nobody cares what you want to boast about, everyone else can give a similar story here, but I'm showing my mates the moronic complaints on climate science for a laugh (and occasionally a disgusted rant at their inhumanity).
The consensus here is you're pathetic, even kim does better, since they're not even pretending sanity, but you're just tiresome in your arrogance.
Wow - "I’m showing my mates the moronic complaints on climate science for a laugh"
I can see it now...
Wow -"Thanks for coming over guys, I've been anxious to show you some comments on an obscure dead blog where I try to call people out on whether or not they said something first!. It's my way of helping large ungulates!"
Ah, good old holiday memories...
WoW.
Boasting???
Pretending Sanity???
Consensus about pathetic???
That's an interesting interpretation.
What does that have to do with
a) Christmas cheer
b) Climate Science
???????
A must read this year was, and is if you have not, The Myth of Human Supremacy.
@22 - I see Darrick Jensen is a capitalist.... selling books, CD's, traveling the country giving talks, radio program, subscriptions etc...
Good for him.
And I wonder what his books are made of?
Which one of the commenters being read out here sounds like StuPid, kim, Lappers and Batshit?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7x-Bia4dMU
Wow - "Which one of the commenters being read out here sounds like StuPid, kim, Lappers and Batshit?"
Answer - see #24
Probably from a similar source as your brains, and recycled too given your recycling of pointless videos.
At what point is something that has been recycled no longer recyclable? Surely at some point it becomes unhealthy to swallow wholesale the same garbage that someone else just regurgitated in front of you.
Stephan Molyneux is a prominent Youtube skeptic. But, much like "Atheism+" skeptics, his skepticism has some several holes in them when it crosses his political holdouts. See Potholer54 wondering when Stef is going to ask skeptical questions of the output of models and predictions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiZlBspV2-M
http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2014/09/08/decisive-ecological-warfare/
Lionel.
Are you aware of DGR and their strategies?
Sorry, stupid, is that anything new to what you've already stated wrt your "conversaion" on "the best ways to manage any perceived issues”?
If they're not doing what you've already said they have to do, then nothing needs to be looked at: we've already had that conversation, and they're not here. Go there and tell them what you want them to do.
Have the conversation with them, not Lionel.
Or go tell DGR that you want to find “the best ways to manage any perceived issues".
But if you're going on to tell them what they want to do, remember: that's beyond what your trolling here was about.
I've got it, now, StuPid is the Steve Shives of deltoid, and he wants climate scientists to become "Climate Scientists +", because we have a social obligation to agree with his method of what's acceptable or not.
Sigh :-(
WoW
Derrek Jensen is a founding member of DGR & an architect of the DEW
So what? You have completed your goal. If you want to tell them that they're wrong or right, go tell them. Or not. But telling us what you think or asking Lionel what he thinks isn't what you claim to be here for.
You've done your bit. We listened, we TRIED to get you to accept a different way of thinking, but refused, and it's over: you did your bit, and that's all you did.
Wow - "We listened"
Who are the "We" you are referring to?
we
(wē)
pron.
1. Used by the speaker or writer to indicate the speaker or writer along with another or others as the subject
Would they be your dufus friends that come over on the holidays to gather around the eggnog and listen to you share blog comments?
WoW.
I'm oft berated by you & Jeff & Lionel for posting links from people who aren't qualified and/or you claim have questionable motives.
You claimed twice upthread that Mundine was an arrogant a/hole even though his info was linked & you didn't explain why you thought so.
I'm no fan of DGR or their DEW strategies.
They philosophically condone violence.
I was wondering if Lionel was aware of them since he linked Jensen's book.
http://www.theland.com.au/story/4373809/where-to-next-on-the-democracy-…
More commentary on 2016.
What was the point of #36? You've got what you were here for. You didn't claim you wanted to whinge and came here to complain at everyone else. Is the "better way" you want to discuss merely "Always be nice and agree with me"? 'cos that dog ain't gonna hunt, son.
Not to mention you should have said your point here was to make everyone agree with you or not complain about you if that was the case.
Wow - "What was the point of #36?"
Stu #36 - "They philosophically condone violence. I was wondering if Lionel was aware of them since he linked Jensen’s book"
He's wondering if Lionel knows they condone violence you retard.
Wow - "Not to mention you should have said"
No retard, he shouldn't say what you think he should say, he should say what he thinks he should say....to a retard.
Which he did.
Only by mischaracterisation or taking out of context which you have repeatedly done.
As does Mundine.
You also have a short memory for we have been here before on Jensen and DGR/DEW both of which you mischaracterise and repeatedly.
You never bother to read in further than the slanted view suggested by others, I don't think for one minute that you have ever read any of Jansen's books completely. As I indicated you regurgitate the regurgitations of others.
More here.
You are one totally dishonest commentator on any topic broached in this blog. You mischaracterise the article or papers linked to by us, by yourself and by 'interpreters of interpretations'.
Given what's at stake and the horrors unfolding around the world your actions in words are tantamount to crimes against humanity. It takes a severe type of perversion to misrepresent the way that you do repeatedly.
The DGR blog is littered with allusions to 'non violent protest' and other forms of pacific protest to push back against the forces of evil, which you have willingly joined judging by your reprehensible utterings here. Utterings which demonstrate that you are not amongst the highest forms of evolution which requires different modes of behaviour across the board in order to salvage some form of habitable planet from the wreckage we increasingly see around us.
Futhermore, with the most extreme form of Decisive Ecological Warfare there is a declared hope within the movement that violence would not be necessary. e.g.
More here.
Once again DGR and DEW is being translated by you through the ideological filters of those keen on protecting the status quo.
Ah, but you have to remember, StuPid doesn't WANT a discussion about a better way to present the issues. Even though that's what it said earlier. It wants to PROCLAIM the way everyone else does them is wrong, so that nobody will do anything for "fear" that StuPid will tell them it's all their fault.
No you are the retard, a retard who has forgotten that I have already discussed this and dismissed what is classed as violence. Once again, you and Stupid are working from a gross distortion of the intentions of Jensen and others.
What you also fail to grasp , retard again because it has been explained many man times, is the we have here a very asymmetric struggle of the little people against giant corporations and their many depth of lawyer backed agents.
Consider the classification of violence against the person. If somebody were to inject you with some of the toxins that are gathered from the fracking process you would consider that as violence. That is a narrow definition for the application of those same toxins to people through their drinking water is also an act of violence, and fracking is by no means an isolated example of industrial processes damaging others. Consider Bhopal, Exxon Valdez etc., etc., where the sufferers were never fully compensated.
It is you who is the retard, only able to hold one thought at a time in your logic free mind.
" He’s wondering if Lionel knows they condone violence you retard."
No, he wants to complain about some left-ish group that is trying to do something to get things going. Which is not what StuPid wants to happen at all.
If that means making shit up, then he's all square with that.
WoW & Lionel.
I linked that info straight from the DGR site.
It's not hard to find.
It's front & centre.
How is that making s++t up or mischaracterising?
It doesn't matter which 'side' condones violence.
I'm no fan of either.
it's actually becoming funny that you keep telling me what you think I think I meant and then claiming outrageous stuff like Lionel's comment @#41 that 'my actions' are tantamount to crimes against humanity.
I could almost be flattered that you claim I'm so powerful.
It's total rubbish.
You both realise, I hope, that on a global scale, the bulk of humanity would immediately swap places with you?
They see you as 'the privileged'.
Trying to claim that one cause is 'more noble' doesn't change the fact that resorting to violence and inciting violence is OK.
It's not.
I don't see that post beginning with anything about the best way to promote issues, so I conclude it is pointless.
Skipping.
I know blockhead I read it and it is not implying what you read it to be.
As I said, you are defining violence in an inappropriate way. But then that is the way you operate, either dishonest or damned stupid. That does not rule out you being both. Read more of Jensen Dummy. Visit the DGR pages and learn what it is about, not what you imagine it to be.
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!
What's the point, anyway, Lionel. What they do doesn't isn't "about the best ways to manage any perceived issues”, unless StuPid wants to claim that what they're doing IS one of the best ways to manage any percieved issues. But despite not having said one way or the other (you know what deniers, especially StuPid here, are like about making any sort of claim), I get the feeling he's not saying THAT.
So, even if they WERE calling for the execution of the 30% highest emitters of the world and the enslavement of the next 50% to work treadmills to power homes, along with gulags for anyone who doesn't like this idea, it is meaningless to why StuPid is posting here.
StuPid has already *said* what they insist is the best way to manage any percieved issues, so they really don't have anything to add. They've said their bit, and it remains said no matter what.
Lionel.
paragraphs 2 and 3 from DEW
"...the DEW strategy is derived from military strategy and tactics manuals, analysis of historic resistance, insurgencies ....."
The strategies and tactics explained in DEW are taught to military officers like the Military Academy at West Point....."
Which part of employing military strategy and tactics is not implying violence?
Also, 'assymetric warfare', as pretty and academic as it may sound, also implies violence, does it not?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/asymmetric%20warfare
And WoW.
Well done yet again.
IMHO, violence and warfare, especially those based on 'noble causes' is definitely not the best way to manage any perceived environmental issues.
Those ungulates certainly won't benefit from it.
There is no evidence anywhere that human warfare creates good outcomes for the environment.
Who cares?
Unlike you apparently WoW, I do care about achieving practical, measurable TBL outcomes.
Those ungulates that you got yourself tied up in knots about won't benefit from DGR's DEW.
People who are experienced in animal husbandry and/or veterinary science and who understand the regional environment are the best people to manage any perceived issues for those ungulates.
Jensen is a founding member of DGR and one of the architects of DEW.
Military tactics are usually all about winning a war.
Wars don't help environments.
It's not rocket science or brain surgery.
Gosh, Stu is like a broken record. He goes on and on and on and on...
I am away for Christmas break and he is still waffling on about Derrick Jensen and DGR.
Stu doesn't seem to mind the perpetual violence inflicted upon nature and the poor by the rich developed lands under the guise of 'civilization'. Lands being plundered, ecosystems torn apart, and the poor killed in industrial numbers to ensure that capital flows remain uni-directional. He seems to think that its just fine for a powerful multinational elite to ruthlessly exploit the helpless, but heaven help anyone here like Jensen who recognizes it and says that the system needs to be replaced.
Stu is one of those numbkins who thinks that the developed world follows the rule of intenrational law and that we are 'civilized'. He's as thick as a sack of potatoes and a complete hypocrite.
Yeah, even after his point here has been accomplished, he insists on continuing posting stuff irrelevant and unwarranted to that purpose.
All he said hewanted to do was to have a conversation about the best ways to manage percieved issues. And,even though this was a dumb idea, because once you've had that conversation, that's the end of it, and that end has no measure of effectiveness (I thought everyone knew about S.M.A.R.T objectives), I accepted StuPid at his word.
But with his continued ranting here about what he thinks are percieved issues, he doesn't seem to get that this is pointless. All he's doing is pissing people off, and making them ignore him, removing the percieved issue of this shithead complaining all the time.
Of course '2Stupid 4 his shirt' fails to realise that not all military tactics involve lethal force. Sabotage can be used very selectively to achieve goals without the loss of life or injury.
'2Stupid 4 his shirt' never bothers to explore sources to any depth, he is far too intent on making a rapid reply to have formed a cogent argument for that reply.
How many times do I have to inform that I have read the source cited by '2Stupid 4 his shirt' and point out his shallow understanding of the modus operandi of those he is trying to slime by mischaracterization?
Why does '2Stupid 4 his shirt' repeatedly fail to study sources that I and others present? Why is '2Stupid 4 his shirt' so reluctant to follow our citations? Perhaps '2Stupid 4 his shirt' does follow citations but fails to comprehend the full message because he is '2Stupid 4 his shirt'.
It would seem that '2Stupid 4 his shirt' will never appreciate the true nature f the asymmetric conflict which we are all in, and here is the irony for '2Stupid 4 his shirt' is, or will be, adversely affected by the insidious invidious processes pursued by global conglomerates.
Even if '2Stupid 4 his shirt' thinks he is immune from overt adverse treatment from those forces of pollution and resource extraction because he sides with their ideology then '2Stupid 4 his shirt' has little grasp of the history of human behaviour.
'2Stupid 4 his shirt' should take note of what I have written previously and which Jeff has bolstered again on the topic of industrial violence against those populations unfortunate to find themselves living on lands where any 'essential' mineral wealth has been discovered or some 'essential' biological resource.
'2Stupid 4 his shirt' would do well to absorb the lessons from The Resource Curse and juxtapose this with the currently unfolding humanitarian disaster in Nigeria:
More Here.
I fully expect '2Stupid 4 his shirt' to come back with some asinine, narrow and shallow riposte.
What even is his point in complaining about it?
Irrespective of his lies or his quotes indicating where he thinks he's proven right, what is the point.
It's as relevant as pointing out that he's being divisive and barracking with locker-room partisanship is to him.
More of Resource Curse in action.
These are the things we should be discussing, not the made up out of nothing, inflated puffery from the buffoons of blogs such as ‘2Stupid 4 his shirt’. Try defending that industry now ‘2Stupid 4 his shirt’.
But that's not what deniers want to get discussed. IF they can't get AGW abandoned, they'll hook for navel gazing and finger pointing (and, ironically, finger pointing fingerpointing).
Link @57
Where did "Southwings" find solar powered planes? Why isn't this being reported?
Oh Barker
as Wow forecast - finger pointing fingerpointing.
you argue from a morally and intellectually bankrupt twisted perspective being the entity in the short cut, close fitting garment of the derived name.
Jeff @ # 53.
I quite clearly stated @ # 46 that it doesn't matter which side condones violence I'm no fan of either.
It's highly ironic that you could then interpret that as:
'Stu 2 doesn't seem to mind perpetual violence....'
Along with WoW you are doing an excellent job of demonstrating how reducing everything to 'sides' or 'teams' is not facilitating good outcomes.
Lionel @55 has also demonstrated why human conflicts over ideology no matter 'the cause' do not reap good environmental outcomes.
Your black hat/ white hat, good vs evil. melodramatic view of the world looks like it belongs in a movie script.
IMHO I think you might benefit from going out more often and actually engaging with real people and real environments.
Despite your assertions otherwise, people do care about their environments. The human species is not an invading alien to the global environment, it's part of the environment.
Your argument that there is 'only one way' and you're either for it or against it in a good vs evil scenario is just playing the same game as those you claim to despise.
Lionel - @ 58 you said "get discussed"
What is there to discuss about the article you linked? It lacks data and solutions to predictions...
What percent (if any) of the coastline erosion is caused by "climate change?" What percent is caused by levees? What percent is caused by making access for oil exploration? What percent is from hurricanes or lack of? What percent is natural? What solutions are going to fix which percent"
Is the solution to fly planes and take pictures and compare them to nothing?
Hey look, here's a picture of some oil exploration while I'm flying in a plane! I'm witnessing climate change first hand!
Why don't we take this headline:
"Louisiana’s Oil and Gas Industry Continues Growing Along the Coast It’s Helping Shrink"
And make it this headline:
"Southwing Continues Flying Along the Louisiana Coast It’s Helping Shrink"
Ah, good old StuPid. Fingery pointing. And projection. Only read the last sentence, but it really tells me enough to consider it a waste of time to read it all. It's purely "DO WHAT I DEMAND!"BS.
"Your argument that there is ‘only one way’ and you’re either for it or against it in a good vs evil scenario is just playing the same game as those you claim to despise."
The irony of DEMANDING that Lionel berate a site and the owners because of what THEY percieve as endorsement of violence *DESPITE* the rebuttal that this is misread, misreported and unreal, is really just StuPid demanding that Lionel bow to the ONLY ONE WAY that StuPid is trying to peddle.
100% NOT having a conversation, 100% enforced (by tiresome whining by a windbag wearing you down) obedience to what StuPid "thinks" you must do.
"Along with WoW you are doing an excellent job of demonstrating how reducing everything to ‘sides’ or ‘teams’ is not facilitating good outcomes."
StuPid (the previous was Batshit: indication that everything the two say are because they are on the same side) here demonstrating that StuPid is defining everything by "sides" or "teams".
And nothing about what the fucking idiot thinks his incessant and bloviating whinges are doing for "persuading" people what to do.
Which is entrench into the already-extant positions, because this turdmunching twatfest JUST WILL NOT LISTEN. And won't shut the fuck up, either.
Wow @54 regarding Stu - "All he’s doing is pissing people off, and making them ignore him"
Yes, your obsession with commenting about him most definitely proves that to be true...
Retard.
Very good WoW.
Thanks.
BTW?
Which side are you claiming I'm on???
Friends, the right wing illuminati has apatently forced Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources to change:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/28/dnr-purges-clima…
I guess that the settled science claiming that Lake Superior was warming faster than any lake on the planet had to be silenced! ?
Birch Brain, you stupid, stupid person, or dishonest pervert. Totally distorting the message which followed in the wake of my exposure of the curse of resource extraction. You brain fart totally perverted that message and made it about something else. The whole point of the exercise is to show the results of resource extraction on the people impacted. You also appear to have forgotten Deep Water Horizon and the many crimes perpetrated before and after that blow out happened. Crimes against the environment including all the creatures that lived in and around the Gulf Coast.
Seriously you have one hell of a faulty moral compass to even attempt that brain fart. You are a disgrace.
Lionel - "Birch Brain, you stupid, stupid person, or dishonest pervert"
So much for the discussion...
Lionel - "You also appear to have forgotten Deep Water Horizon"
I see, because you failed to mention it, that means I forgot it.
Retard.
Thanks Lionel, I was afraid there for a moment. Good that you keep track on the right wing illuminati. Never let them silence that Lake Superior is the fastest warming lake on the planet.
By the way, how very fast did it heat the last four-five years? ??
"Birch Brain, you stupid, stupid person, or dishonest pervert. "
Oh, it's the pervert one.
Poor lonely Wow...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utlm8gBU-H4
http://ocean.si.edu/gulf-oil-spill
Lionel.
No one has forgotten deep water horizon and neither should they.
It was a disaster and created horrid damage including the loss of 11 lives.
But let's compare that to your post @#55 re Nigeria.
One has been cleaned up as best as possible and quite extensive investigation has occurred including new rules and regs to hopefully prevent a recurrence of that magnitude again.
Whether that's good enough or not - who really knows?
The other is far more disastrous for both the environment and the people and there is still no sensible way forward.
There's nothing good enough happening there.
This is where Wow chimes in to tell Stu how he is ignoring him by holding holiday comment viewing parties with his "friends"...
I wish I could make it up, but Wow's reality is stranger than fiction...
One has been cleaned up as best as possible and quite extensive investigation has occurred including new rules and regs to hopefully prevent a recurrence of that magnitude again.
...Nigeria?
Never mind Trump'll undo that
Trump?
What do you think Trump can do?
As I've often commented, I think it's folly to believe in some type of benevolent global dictatorship.
Nobody does, stupid. So stop with the denier alarmism
O, hi, Quagmire
Good old Olaus, praising the far right anti-envirionmental regime in Wisconin. Seems to be ignoring this as well:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/2016-to-be-hottest-year-yet-as…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/12/20/…
It's amazing that after the warmest year by far on record there are still idiots out there who think that everything is going just fine. The three assholes on Deltoid - B, O, and K, are proof positive of that.
In that brain fart at #62 Birchbrain included the above. No stupid the context was the degradation of environments from resource extraction to which the Deepwater Horizon blow out and plume added hugely. Climate change is another by product of that particular resource extraction and outside the context of that specific reference.
Bur then, like the other muppets here, you don't do context, comprehension or clarity of thought.
Let us make that more representative of the truth (if you are responding to DWH which you don't make clear):
'One has been cleaned up as cheaply as possible...'
But that is a long long way from being restored to how it was - which is impossible in human time scales if at all.
So, why is nobody in jail for breaking existing regulations and causing extreme violence against ecosystems and people?
Now if you had read Jensen, really read Jensen, then you would understand why that word 'hopefully' should not have been used.
Sorry, but the naivety you display here is farcical.
Good old Jeffie never fails. Of course it is the illuminati that has been at it! :-)
How fast has the Lake warmed that warms faster than any other lake on the planet? Perhaps your spider knows?
Happy New Less Scare Mongering Year fellas!
Good old Olaus never fails. What has Lake Superior got to do with the record low ice being recorded across the entire cryosphere right now? I might as well ask why in your esteemed opinion Hudson Bay froze over at the latest recorded date this year? Lake Superior froze earlier during one year - 2013 - which was unusually cold in the northern US because of a dsiplaced polar vortex. At the same time, the Arctic was unusually warm, and twice since October ice extent has actually temporarily declined - something unprecedented - because of'record high temperatures being recorded there. Antarctic glaciers are ablating by up to 7 meters a year. The situation is a calamity.
Lake Superior is a relatiovely small body of fresh water on a global scale, and hence conditions would be expected to be more stochastic there. We do not expect the same across the cryopshere, and yet that is where we are right now.
One needs to ask the same question over and over again: how is it that a bunch of loonies with no formal education in anything remotely scientific can express such strong views about climate that are at odds with 95% of the scientific community? The amswer probably lies sopmewhere in the fact that they are right wingnuts and they see any efforts to regulate the use of fossil fules as some lefty wing conspiracy.
As for Olaus's illuminati, I don't consider right wing blowhard governors on the corporate payroll as being anything remotely luminous. Stephen Harper, Canada's (thankfully) former prime minister was also a right wing idiot who did much the same as Wisconsin's governor to water down any mention that GW is linked to human actions.
Also note how the Swedish meatless ball continaully swithces the goalposts: he banged on about a hiatus (now that's a thing of the past), and now its Lake Superior. What next for a guy who probably pumps gas for a living?
Bait and switch. Bait and switch. That's all Olaus, Betula and co. can do. Demolished by the science, they cling to their neoliberal ideologies to justify their opinions.
Lionel, I can assure you that these clots don't want to debate, because they have no scientific foundation on which to do it. Olaus and his obsession with Lake Superior is a case in point; its actually embarrassing having to explain why this example is patently absurd. But he truly believes one cold winter in the US midwest is evidence disproving AGW as a serious threat. My jaw literally drops when I read some of their comments. And yes, there are first hand examples of climate change occurring everywhere. I explained some a few weeks ago. Betula, forced to lick his wounds, just comes back with it again as if these examples and many others don't exist. When I see huge outbreaks of processionary caterpillars across the Netherlands next summer, due entirely to climate change-mediated range expansion from the south, I make no bones about it. Its climate change first hand. When species from southern Europe shift their ranges dramatically over a decade or less, amny being observed for the first time, I make no bones about it. Its climate change being observed first hand. I was in Bulgaria at Plovdiv University in June, 2015, and my host showed me several huge pests of crops that he said wewre native to the Mediterranean but which had spread north into Bulgaria since the 1990s. I asked him why and he said it was entirely due to warmer winters and springs. In other words, pest outbreaks mediated by climate change seen first hand.
The idiots on Deltoid are here to throw mud. Lots of it. They could not debate science if you laid it out in front of them.
Sounds like you do a lot of traveling Hardley....
Have you ever calculated your carbon footprint?
Hardley Link @ 79
Headline - "2016 to be hottest year yet"
First line of article - "2016 is likely to be the warmest year"
Not worth reading any further after that...
Hardley link @79...
Headline - "Pre-Christmas melt? North Pole forecast to warm 50 degrees above normal Thursday"
Article - "40-50 degrees warmer-than-normal and approaching 32 degrees, the melting point."
So IF it were 50 degrees above normal on one day (apparently one day is no longer weather, but climate)....than it MAY reach the melting point...and it doesn't say for how long (1/2 hour, 1 hour??)
So the question is, where is the follow up.....did the North Pole melt?
Aye. The latest (weather - climate jibe) from Betula the class clown has as much veracity as Trumps hair piece.
Lionel @ # 81.
Isn't it more important to clean up and to learn from mistakes and accidents than to put people in jail?
What about all the extreme violence against ecosystems and people in Nigeria?
Jeff.
Thanks heaps for demonstrating, yet again, how everything keeps getting framed around sides and attaching political labels.
Jeff.
You seem to be far more interested in identifying issues and lecturing or perhaps debating the extent of their severity than actually wanting to be part of any sensible solutions.
Your pest outbreak in Bulgaria is a classic example.
Those crops and those people will be long gone before your 'only one way' ever sees the light of day.
& Lionel?
I'm not sure what your point was about as cheaply as possible?
Would you feel better if it was done as expensively as possible?
Stu's #89 and #91 reveals deep ignorance about the methods used to 'clean up' (hah) after the DWH blow out and the nature of the operation before and after. Those responses are laughable at so many levels.
A trail of remedial education could start here.
Stu2 goes out of his way to not understand the points I make.
More on the deleterious effect of pollution from an out of proper control industry (and please don't even attempt to infer otherwise Stupid and Birchbrain) below extracts from two comments beneath an article well worth reviewing:
and
More here.
Money cannot fix everything, prevention is better than cure and until captains of industry can be delt out meaningful fines and prison sentences then little will change, those penalties being extended to those in legislatures, think tanks and the media who aid and abet.
@92 - Lionel wants to educate us about clean up methods (that lasted over 4 years) by posting an article written 1 month after the spill...
Retard.
Read the words Birchbrain, slowly and understand the context and what is implied. Are you really this thick?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-16/the-bp-oil-spill-cle…
This one is more recent.
It even has the amount of money already spent.
But I'm still asking what about Nigeria?
Lionel linked it @# 55 as part of the discussion and as his proof that somehow it therefore makes it OK for DGR to use their DEW strategies??????
What's happening in Nigeria is not OK.
& what about the pests in the crops in Bulgaria?
http://documentslide.com/documents/some-new-pests-of-glasshouse-crops-i…
This type of research & work has a much much better chance of protecting those Bulgarian crops than global action on global climate.
:-)
https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/pests-weeds-diseases/control-methods
And of course it is not just Bulgaria that benefits from targeted research for specific problems.
No offence Jeff, but even though climate change has a bit to do with it, there are a myriad of factors that influence pest migration, many of them are indeed caused by human activity, especially via public infrastructure.
Trying to change the average climate via a global govt climate action scenario is not the best solution either globally or regionally for pest control and/or monitoring pest migration.
Lionel A: Money cannot fix everything, prevention is better than cure and until captains of industry can be delt out meaningful fines and prison sentences then little will change, those penalties being extended to those in legislatures, think tanks and the media who aid and abet.
Can you silly hater of "captains of industry" give your personal estimate of how big an asshole you consider yourself?
Remember, moron, communists always get lost in leper island of idiocy. Jeffie has already passed away there and his crap ecosystem services were buried also.
Total inversion of the issue which is to prevent climates moving out of their former geographical or altitudinal bands (key word — zonational). This without getting into that mire you create with 'a global govt climate action scenario'. Huh! What are you on? Go easy on it.
Little wonder why GHG reductions (cumulative as well as emissions per year) are so important in maintaining a liveable climate for earth's residents as they have evolved to this point in time, although with some slow reproducers as they had evolved to about two centuries ago, they need to play catch up which most will fail.
We are aware of many other vectors for pest and disease transmit ion, after all we have studied texts on this aspect, I have a number on my shelves, and methodologies to help control. However an ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure. Your statement is naive in the extreme.
One should start by asking what is a pest, it is much the same conversation as one would have when asked what is a weed.
Many diseases only become epidemic when certain conditions are met, a rise in temperature, which could be coupled with alterations in precipitation patterns both geographical and temporal. and also a weakening of a victim's immune system from other factors one of which could be temperature another nutritional limitations.
Whichever way you slice and dice it global average temperature increases, with some regions such high latitude, warming much more and more quickly than others which results in climate change play a huge part in the exacerbating the problems you mention.
Oh and BTW, in passing I intend no further comment on DGR and DEW until such times as you actually study the meat of their strategy (the military don't only use overt violence as a strategy you know) and stop misrepresenting their modus operandi.
What's your point, StuPid?
There are 7 billion people. We CAN multitask. And unlike you, most of us know that there can be multiple causes in any given action.
It's a denier default problem (and probably why they are the more fundamentalist religious: monotheists think strait causes) that there can only be one cause, so if it wasn't AGW before when the climate changed, it can't be AGW now.
And, because of that blind bigotry, the reality of "There can be more than one cause" can never settle in: that space is already full of religious crap.
Kim @#1 Go get an education.
I've never heard StuPid complain about the use of force in the Middle East.
Newsflash for Stu2.
@2 Wrong answer!! Try again to reply in a qualified manner to the question you were given.
No, reality isn't the answer you want, kuim. This makes it the "wrong" answer for your purposes, but not the wrong answer.
WoW @#3
Thanks again. You're really on a roll.
Awesome labelling.
@#5
What's your point?
Lionel @#2&@#6.
Pest outbreaks may indeed be fuelled by el Nino, climate change and weather patterns.
No one has said otherwise.
However, global action on global climate is not the best way to manage or even prevent such incidents.
The Zika outbreak needs targeted, specific action.
Waiting for the global climate to be fixed will not help those people suffering from the Zika outbreak.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/military+strategy
& Lionel.
I have read Jensen and the DGR page.
While I understand they care about the environment, I disagree with their underlying principles and their misanthropic tendencies.
Military strategy is military strategy.
It's about winning battles and even though not all military strategy is about using overt violence, It is based on violence and condones violence towards other people and other people's property and other people's environments.
Wars & inciting violence, however noble the cause may be, do not help the environment either globally or regionally.
WoW's middle east reference and your Nigerian reference are two excellent examples are they not?
Indeed, fossil fuel and other extraction industries modus operandi is just that.
Lionel.
sigh :-(
Which part of: it doesn't matter which 'side' or how noble the cause are you not understanding?
Employing the same tactics as 'the other side' is still playing the same game.
There is no evidence anywhere that Wars and inciting violence in the name of any causes, no matter how noble, is beneficial to the environment.
Lionel.
For example:
Jensen, DGR and DEW strategies will unlikely assist in the Zika outbreak, cleaning up accidents or the ongoing conflict in Nigeria, all linked by you in this thread.
All of those need targeted, specific, regional action...not DEW.
Nigeria is actually a good example of what's wrong with DEW IMHO.
Our resident toilet cleaner opines, "Jeffie has already passed away there and his crap ecosystem services were buried also"
Buried by who?! YOU?!?!? Just because some anonymous schmuck who cleans toilets for a living CLAIMS that ecosystem services don't matter doesn't remotely mean a fucking thing.
This is the way idiotic anti-environmental Dunning-Kruger infused idiots like Kim 'debate':
1. A profoundly important term is invoked in a discussion and defined with supporting references. In this case ecosystem services are intensively studied and recognized by major scientific and governmental organizations across the world.
2. The 'opponent' then shouts, "Ecosystem services re a load of crap!".
End of debate. Opponent smirks and continues to snipe away at the scientific and economic basis of ecosystem services without offering a shred of empirical evidence to support what they say. This is the modus operandi of Kim on here; he/she/it has never once brought up an empirical argument. Instead, he/she/it just calls something 'crap' and thinks he/she/it wins the argument.
Some simple rejoinders:
http://biodiversity.europa.eu/topics/ecosystem-services
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.300.aspx.pdf
https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services/
The above re just three of tens of thousands of examples where ecosystem services are discussed, and include government bodies, a major international meeting to assess their condition, and a major scientific journal. Pretty well every major university examines the ecological and/or economic value of there services. Dozens of books have been written about them by leading scholars.
Pit this against a complete simpleton (Kim) whose sole argument against this mass of literature is that ecosystem services are a load of crap.
My colleagues think I am crazy for coming into this blog to 'debate' complete and utter clowns like Kim. They are right, of course. I suppose that I am a sucker for punishment - the punishment being that its impossible to debate childish morons whose sole arguments are to avoid anything remotely empirical and to simply deride their opponents with non arguments. Kim amy be the biggest idiot In have yet encountered on blogs - and that's saying a lot, given the paucity of intelligence exhibited by most AGW deniers and anti-environmentlists.
Stu2: "It is based on violence and condones violence towards other people and other people’s property and other people’s environments.
Lionel: "Indeed, fossil fuel and other extraction industries modus operandi is just that".
Lionel, exactly! This is just what Stu2 does not understand. He seems to think that the developed nations are seriously interested in creating a socially just, sustainable world when huge volumes of evidence suggest virtually the opposite: that we loot resources from the underdeveloped south and do so in ways that perpetuate extreme violence against both the environments of these countries and the people who live there.
Most developed nations foster large and growing ecological resource deficits that require them to reach beyond their own borders into less developed nations to effectively plunder their capital. The global neoliberal capitalist system provides and excellent vehicle for this. Western planners pay lip service to democracy promotion, human rights and freedom in their quest to ensure that capital flows remain largely unidirectional. Read the words of influential US planners anmd politicians like Kissinger, Wolfowitz, Kennan, Nitze, Meachling, Dulles and others over the agendas become patently clear. Our supine corporate media ignores all of this, of course, in promulgating the myth of out 'basic benevolence'.
This is what Jensen and DGR recognize. Their are well aware of the real agendas at play, and not the fairy tales spun by simpletons like Lomborg and his ilk.
"Our resident toilet cleaner opines, “Jeffie has already passed away there and his crap ecosystem services were buried also”"
Strange how StuPid isn't trying to get that moron to change, hmm. Well, I guess cats don't shit in their owners' gardens holds true with other kinds of shit, eh?
'course StuPid claims not to care about them, yet he's always the one claiming that partisanship kills the debate and that we're doing it, but they are doing it and that's not worth considering. So I guess StuPid doesn't care that they aren't open to discussion, either, yet still wants us to compromise.
We saw how well pre-emptive compromised worked against the ideologically blind with Obama and the Republicans.
"No offence Jeff, but even though climate change has a bit to do with it, there are a myriad of factors that influence pest migration, many of them are indeed caused by human activity, especially via public infrastructure".
Stu, get this through your pin-sized head: the major insect pests that have arrived into Bulgaria from the Mediterranean in the past decade have done so almost entirely on the basis of warmer winters, allowing them to survive during diapause. Climate does not have just 'a bit' to do with it. It has a great deal to do with it. I spoke with a number of enomologists there and they concurred. You've probably never been anywhere close to Bulgaria in your life so do me a favor and shut up.
And let me deconstruct the rest of your argument. How are local managers, as you colloquially refer to them, going to repair fraying and unravelling food webs in the face of changes that are occurring at least 10 time faster than at any other period in the past 65 million years?
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate-change-speed-080113.h…
How can these managers ensure the healthy functioning of ecosystems whose functiioning they don't understand even remotely? How can they reconcile changes in species phenology, timing, indirect interactions, and other complex biotic and abiotic phenomena to ensure that these communities and ecosystems remain relatively intact and resilient to further change.
You seem to argue incessantly that we can't change climate now so all we can do is adapt to it. So much for mitigation in your view. I am saying, with plenty of evidence, that if we don't aim at keeping temperatures below 2-3 C globally, then NO AMOUNT of technology is going to be able to save us. We cannot replace natural systems with tecnho-fixes under such intense stresses that are being imposed in the blink of an evolutionary eye.
Wow, note how Stu never reponds to the puerile musings of Betula and Kim. Know why? Because he agrees with them. He's one of them. He just packages his crap a bit better than they do.
Oh, I know, Jeff. I've called him out on being on their side, being a denier. The moronic dumbass even asked me "What side am I on?", as if he were clueless about what I said, to pretend that the attribution of affiliation had never been made.
Stu and #13
You continue to confuse palliative care with prevention, even after my explicit mention on the previous page.
Until the robber extraction industry moguls are penalised for their cavalier attitude to ecosystem preservation and prevention and are made fully responsible for the costs of externalities (although no amount of money can bring back swathes of dead animals and humans and the loss of once thriving life support system habitat that invisibly, to most, serviced many low environmental level functions) then those engaged in palliative care will always be playing catch up, becoming overwhelmed by the shear scale of the multidimensional self reinforcing problems. Rather like a domino effect. I had seen better examples a few years ago but can not found them ATM.
Yes I know this seems like a waste of time arguing against these simplistic-thinkers but it is more for the lurkers.
The stage of 'the game' that has been playing out where greed for capital and power has been slowly gaining the high ground is reaching its apotheosis and shmucks like Stu, Bets, Kim et. al. will be swallowed just the same as most everybody else.
More here.
It is this that Jensen and co, and we, are pushing against.
Here is the type of moron that Trump is filling his swamp with. Note the cold stare, reptilian almost certainly sociopathic, of 'Scaramucho' as he delivers his own version of ignorant stupid. The education system in the US clearly fails.
And here are the hints at the vandalism that is about to be perpetrated..
Feynman would be spinning.
Shoot! Keyboard issue.
The stage of 'the game' that has been playing out where greed for capital and power has been slowly gaining the high ground is reaching its apotheosis and shmucks like Stu, Bets, Kim et. al. will be swallowed just the same as most everybody else.
More here.
It is this that Jensen and co, and we, are pushing against.
Here is the type of moron that Trump is filling his swamp with. Note the cold stare, reptilian almost certainly sociopathic, of 'Scaramucho' as he delivers his own version of ignorant stupid. The education system in the US clearly fails.
And here are the hints at the vandalism that is about to be perpetrated..
Feynman would be spinning.
Shorter Lionel - "Maybe", "might", "could", "possibly" which translates to "is" and "will".....because I read it on an obscure communist soothsaying blog.....so there!
Shorter Betula: [].
From the Hedges article:
Indeed, have these false flag attacks already begun?
Then there is Betsy DeVos:
It would seem ol' 'Scaremucho' has been thus mis-educated.
Betula's fixation on 'communists' is telling. Anybody who disagrees with him is a libtard communist. Enlightenment is not for the likes of Betula.
My favorite part of the anti-capitalist truthdig blog is the selling of merchandise for profit:
http://www.cafepress.com/truthdig
Of course, the capitalist Chris Hedges is also selling Books and DVD's on Truthdig. For those interested in helping him become rich....I say buy them by the boat load!
http://freshstore.truthdig.com/
Jeff @#18
Migration of pests in crops, including in Bulgaria, are not going to be controlled by keeping the global temperatures below 2-3 C globally.
That's unmitigated nonsense and demonstrating massive ignorance about cropping and agriculture.
The colloquial local managers (as you call them) are having far more success at saving crops and controlling pest invasion than your 'only one way'.
Specific issues need specific action.
Those crops would be long gone if those farmers in Bulgaria had to wait for you to solve the issue via global climate.
Note the resort to shooting the messenger, Betula the petulant.
.
But batshit betty only fires blanks.
Lionel.
Isn't it lucky that Hedges, Jensen et al live in a democratic nation?(however imperfect)
They would have no hope of publishing and demonstrating like that in countries like China etc.
Climate scientists manage to make the same thing happen in China, StuPid.
Why do you split into tribes needlessly?
Lionel @#21?
So even though no amount of money or penalty can solve the issue/ problem you still think that's what should happen anyway????
So what issue/problem will that mitigate????
Your palliative care vs prevention is an interesting perspective.
Wouldn't it be far smarter to work on both?
At no point have I argued for one over the other.
That would be an insanely stupid concept, even in the health care industry.
WoW.
As usual.
Great work.
Thanks again.
Am I indicating otherwise? No I am not. Once again you try to twist others words in order for you to try and score some kinda points, that is utterly dishonest of you. The asymmetry of a situation once again escapes you.
As for democratic nations, you wouldn't know one if it bit you in the @r$e.
Sorry, but dishonesty like that earns only disrespect.
And your:
as well as other of your responses here does indeed indicate that you don't recognise the value of prevention, especially with your repeated flawed and dishonest take on the motives and methodologies of e.g. Jensen who are not trying to start wars.
Hey Lionel, have you purchased an anti capitalist Truthdig license plate frame for your gas guzzler?
http://www.cafepress.com/truthdig.76034839
I'm sure Chris Hedges has one, so people can check it out as he stops at the gas station on his way to the airport, off to some far away destination to promote one his books or DVD's...
Hey, you can even buy a KitchenAid artisan mixer at Truthdig!
http://freshstore.truthdig.com/kitchenaid-artisan-series-mixer/
All in Association with socialist
Jeff & WoW.
Like you, Betula and Kim are spoiling for a fight.
You're all obviously enjoying it.
I'm not interested thanks all the same.
I'm interested in discussing real solutions to the specific issues that affect the globe.
You're always interested in posting specific alarming issues but you're apparently only interested in using those to prove that we have to crash whole human political systems via some type of fantastical good vs evil melodrama based on addressing man's inhumanity to man?
The Bulgarian reference is a classic example.
Ideological political 'isms' don't have all the answers and certainly can't successfully deal with specific issues like the invasion of pests in crops in small regions.
However, some generally have a better historical track record than others in allowing human ingenuity to flourish.
None of them are perfect because humans aren't.
The best results are achieved when we have the courage to build on our successes and learn from our failures.
Overthrowing everything based on some type of grand and noble ideology is as old as human history and does not achieve the outcomes you claim they do.
Lionel - You can purchase these items and more from Truthdig thru the anti capitalist corporation Amazon using a payment method from the anti capitalist corporations of Visa or MasterCard...
Happy shopping!!
Hey, I've decided to get an anti capitalist Truthdig bumper sticker for my Toyota pick up truck... .just so people can see how tuned in I am with Truthdig's ideology.....
http://www.cafepress.com/truthdig.53359074
Lionel @#35.
Sigh :-(
I live in a country based on democratic principles.
It's far from perfect but nonetheless it is governed with those underlying principles.
There are examples all around me in friends, acquaintances and family that demonstrate in the big picture we have opportunities derived from those principles, including access to health, education and voting.
In my country, plus so many others based on those principles, people from all walks of life and all sorts of different backgrounds and upbringing and cultures have opportunities to make decent lives for themselves, their families and their environments.
Is it always fair and equal?
Nope!
But for everyday, ordinary people, it's still the best one we have to work with and improve.
Also.
You were the one preaching prevention over palliative and claiming palliative can't deliver were you not?
I asked a question about it being smarter to work on both did I not?
How you decided on the sweeping accusation that I don't recognize the value of prevention is an interesting perspective as well as being absolute rubbish.
Note how Betula, in keeping with the dishonesty exhhibited by the far end of the political right does not attempt to refute a thing that Hedges writes. Instead, he replies with vacuous smears and ridicule. Typical.
What this almost invariably proves is that Hedges is right. But that is hardly controversial. The current form of capitalism is destroying much of the planet's ecological foundation. Again, volumes of evidence prove that. But Betula is just too indoctrinated with his right wing lunacy to acknowledge it. Hedges is also about a million light years ahead of Betula intellectually. I am sure there are many words in the latest essay that are just too complicated for the tree pruner to understand.
Stu2 opines, "I live in a country based on democratic principles". You live in a country goverened by a wealthy ruling elite. Democracy has lomg been co-opted by the wealthy, since they have long loathed any form of government that puts power into the hands of the general population.
With respect to Betula and Kim 'spoiling for a fight', I find that hilarious. Those two idiots are still in their diapers when it comes to relevant knowledge. In any acacedmic venue they'd be seen as laughingstocks. That's why they end up as anonymous schmucks on blogs. Here they can spew out any old bullshit and get away with it. Its nice to know that neither of them has any standing in anything remotely scientific anywhere. They come at me because I do. And that must really stick in their craw.
I wonder how much Betula understands about that class of organism which supports many tree species in preserving the woodland habitat and the exchange of nutrients within it?
I wonder how much Stu2 knows about same? He claims he read Jensen, frankly I see no evidence to support more than peripheral reading and via 'interpreters'. He just does not get it.
He will never understand that as long as his @r$e points downward. This given how many sources of information that demonstrates the contrary he has been shown, not that he bothers to follow such links for he would rather continue in his own epistemic bubble.
Hardley - Here is a great gift idea for your "friends". You can purchase it to help your anti - capitalist friends at Truthdig save the world...
http://freshstore.truthdig.com/oster-electric-wine-bottle-opener-/
Gotta love this...
http://www.truthdig.com/bazaar/wages_of_rebellion
Chris Hedges book sells for $15.99
Not $16....not $15.50....but $15.99
Ah, the marketing ploy of marking something one penny under 16 to make it sound less expensive....creating the illusion of a bargain.
Capitalist mind games.
Thank you Chris Hedges and Truthdig.
"I wonder how much Betula understands"
Nothing. Trust me on that.
What he THINKS he understands? Well, that depends on whether this requires that he be consistent in his understanding. If he has to be consistent, then nearly nothing. Anything But Carbon and AGW is a scam is about all he has.
"Stu2 opines, “I live in a country based on democratic principles”. "
Really? Can't be the USA since it's representative, not democratic. It's also based on slavery.
No that is a gas guzzler. I don't happen to have any form of petrol/diesel powered vehicle. So you can wipe that smug off your face.
"Your palliative care vs prevention is an interesting perspective.
Wouldn’t it be far smarter to work on both?"
If you prevent, then there's nothing to palliate.
Something StuPid would rather avoid, since prevention means the fossil fuel industry is restricted, and StuPid HATES that with a seething miasma of loathing.
"No that is a gas guzzler."
It's also stupid. It's like telling the world that, because of the "anti-smoking" brigade, you're going to smoke 80 a day.
Given Betula's high school dropout level intelligence (why would a guy who runs a tree pruning company support anti-environmental right wing movements is one of life's mysteries), I thought these t-shirts would suit him:
https://www.zazzle.nl/de_aarde_van_de_moeder_t_shirt-235900026637284442
https://www.zazzle.nl/ik_zal_u_mijn_voetafdruk_van_de_koolstof_tonen_t_…
http://www.cafepress.com/mf/8733809/global-warming-warning-ash-grey_tsh…
http://www.cafepress.com/mf/26376481/chainsaw-luv-frntonly_tshirt?produ…
I am sure that even someone as congnitively challenged as Betula can grasp the meaning of them. I am sure he'll proudly wear this to his next Wise Use meeting.
Given Betula’s high school dropout level intelligence (why would a guy who runs a tree pruning company support anti-environmental right wing movements is one of life’s mysteries), I thought these t-shirts would suit him:
https://www.zazzle.nl/de_aarde_van_de_moeder_t_shirt-235900026637284442
https://www.zazzle.nl/ik_zal_u_mijn_voetafdruk_van_de_koolstof_tonen_t_…
http://www.cafepress.com/mf/8733809/global-warming-warning-ash-grey_tsh…
http://www.cafepress.com/mf/26376481/chainsaw-luv-frntonly_tshirt?produ…
I am sure that even someone as congnitively challenged as Betula can grasp the meaning of them. I am sure he’ll proudly wear one of them to his next Wise Use meeting.
Wow - "Really? Can’t be the USA since it’s representative, not democratic"
If you know it's representative, why the need to bring up the popular vote, which is insignificant...
Oh wait, I know the answer....you're a fucking retard.
Lionel - "No that is a gas guzzler"
Actually no - it's a 4 cylinder. I would rather have a 6 cylinder....more power for the hills of New England, but I bought it used, and used Toyota trucks are hard to find around here (very reliable) so I grabbed it while I could.
Very practical...saves me a lot of time and money over the long run.
You should buy one, then you could put a Truthdig bumper sticker on it to show everyone what you are against...
Hardley - "why would a guy who runs a tree pruning company support anti-environmental right wing movements"
Now all you have to do is show me where or what anti - environmental movement I support. Do you think I'm anti-spider?
Try using actual words.
And I prefer to get my t-shirts from the Truthdig on line store...to support their capitalist ways.
Wow - "It’s also stupid. It’s like telling the world that, because of the “anti-smoking” brigade, you’re going to smoke 80 a day"
Yes Wow, it's exactly like that. I can see it now...
Toyota recall - It has been determined that driving a Toyota truck causes cancer.
By the way, I don't remember Hardley giving us his calculated carbon footprint from all his travels...
Hardley?
"you’re a fucking retard"
Betula needs to look in the mirror more often.... anyone outside the monied classes who supports the kinds of plutocratic criminals running the US needs their heads to be examined. I knew he was a 'fucking retard', to coin his own words, early on when he spewed out that bullshit about large whitetailed deer populations being a good indicator of the health of eastern north American ecosystems. Utter nonsense, of course, but what else could one expect from a tree pruner for heaven's sake? From there it was all downhill. His latest desperate canard is to suggest that anyone opposing the currently rapacious and unsustainable form of capitalism is a hypocrite because they drive a car or read a book.
Betula has his head firmly planted in his butt and that's fine with him. He honestly thinks that the US is a true and healthy democracy. Clearly he's been reading Forbes and Breitbart a tad too long.
My carbon footprint is a helluva lot less than yours, brish bark. On all counts.
Betula sure you're an anti-environmentalist. If you can't see see why, then yes, you are even dumber than I thought. And that is saying as lot.
"“you’re a fucking retard”
Betula needs to look in the mirror more often"
This would be cruel and unusual punishment for Batshit, though.
Like stuff that emanates from a swamp, plenty of that from Trump filling that swamp.
For those of amongst us who cannot grasp the enormity of what is afoot unless we put the brakes on conspicuous consumption:
Anthropogenic transformation of the terrestrial biosphere.
and
Harvesting the biosphere: the human impact.
only the tip of the iceberg to add to previous citations of Carl Safina, Callum Roberts, Richard Pearson, Colin Tudge, E. O. Wilson and others.
Still a gas guzzler, although I may call gas petrol or diesel, does it run on air or something?
Silly sod driving it whatever.
Hardley - "bullshit about large whitetailed deer populations being a good indicator of the health of eastern north American ecosystems"
Nope. Your interpretation. Which says a lot about your scientific acumen...
Hardley - He honestly thinks that the US is a true and healthy democracy.
It's a Republic. Ask Wow...
Hardley - "My carbon footprint is a helluva lot less than yours"
If you took one flight this past year, your carbon footprint is more. Fly anywhere lately Hardley?
Hardley - "Betula sure you’re an anti-environmentalist"
Back it up. You probably also believe I hate spiders...
You drive and SUV. I cycle. You live in a huge house, I am sure. I don't. You have at least one child. I don't. I have solar panelling on my roof. My guess is that you don't.
My carbon footprint is miles smaller than yours. As is my ecological footprint. I could fly around the world three times in a year and it would be smaller. I also live in a country with a per capita ecological footprint about half that of that of the average American. Indeed, the US has by far the largest per capita deficit of any nation on Earth. Hence why they have approximately 1,000 military bases in over 140 countries and commands in every continent. Gotta ensure that other countries keep coughing up their resources to keep the deficit intact. Put a bubble around the US that prevents imports of capital from other countries and export of US wastes and the economy would implode in a year.
http://fortune.com/2015/07/14/the-us-now-has-an-ecological-deficit-repo…
Don't expect Battie to believe it though. He is deluded enough to believe that his wonderful capitalist bastion of democracy is sustainable. He does so because he is patently ignorant.
In a pig's eye.
You drive and SUV. I cycle. You live in a huge house, I am sure. I don’t. You have at least one child. I don’t. I have solar panelling on my roof. My guess is that you don’t.
My carbon footprint is miles smaller than yours. As is my ecological footprint. I could fly around the world three times in a year and it would be smaller. I also live in a country with a per capita ecological footprint about half that of that of the average American. Indeed, the US has by far the largest per capita deficit of any nation on Earth. Hence why they have approximately 1,000 military bases in over 140 countries and commands in every continent. Gotta ensure that other countries keep coughing up their resources to keep the deficit intact. Put a bubble around the US that prevents imports of capital from other countries and export of US wastes and the economy would implode in a year.
http://fortune.com/2015/07/14/the-us-now-has-an-ecological-deficit-repo…
Don’t expect Battie to believe it though. He is deluded enough to believe that his wonderful capitalist bastion of democracy is sustainable. He does so because he is patently ignorant.
In a pig’s eye.
You are an anthropogenic climate change denier, Battie. Or at least a luke-warmer, which is even worse. That makes you an anti-environmentalist. Climate change is acknowledged by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community to represent a profound threat to ecosystems and biodiversity across the biosphere. You don't want to do anything about it. So the tag fits. Wear it.
You also once used white tailed deer as an example showing that eastern North American ecosystems are in good shape. Why else mention it? Oh I forgot... because you're ignorant?
As for interpretations, you are one to talk. You are master of the art of misinterpretation. Look at the way you quote mine. Lomborg would be impressed, and he's the king of distorting partial quotes to give the impression that people are saying something else.
More heavy reading for our right wing AGW denier:
http://mff.dsisd.net/biomass/BiomassDocs/Dovetail-EcoFootprints.pdf
Page 7 makes a clear distinction between the ecological footprints of the US and EU: "In view of such rankings, it is interesting that the Ecological Footprint of the U.S. is substantially higher than all 27 countries of the E.U., and than all E.U. countries often listed as offering a higher or comparable quality of life than the U.S."
Case closed.
Jeff @ # 42 and Lionel @ #44
More sweeping, nonsensical generalisations coupled with specific personal comments and specific regional issues?
It is a very interesting exercise watching your antics.
Despite your assertions otherwise, my country's governance systems are indeed based on democratic principles.
It's not theoretically perfect and therefore it is possible to claim it's not a ' true democracy' but it is those principles that have proven to create the better progress and outcomes right across the TBL.
It's those basic governance principles that have allowed you to access your education and that allow you the freedom to openly discuss issues and even become abusive on blog pages like this one.
But do please continue.
It is indeed enlightening.
@#67.
Jeff.
That PDF is not a 'case closed' document.
It's designed for discussion and even points out that the info is limited and subject to reinterpretation.
The conclusions and recommendations are about taxing energy.
@#66
Awesome labelling and tribe/team assignation.
Just awesome!!!
Thanks for that, yet again.
Hardley - "You live in a huge house, I am sure. I don’t. You have at least one child. I don’t. I have solar panelling on my roof. My guess is that you don’t"
That's a lot of guessing. Are you sure you're a scientist?
Again, if you took one flight this year, your carbon footprint is bigger than mine. How many flights Hardley? Did you ride your bike to and from the airport?
Putz.
Hardley - "You are an anthropogenic climate change denier, Battie. Or at least a luke-warmer, which is even worse"
Back up what you say, isn't that what scientists are supposed to do?
Hardley - "You also once used white tailed deer as an example showing that eastern North American ecosystems are in good shape."
Back up what you say....isn't that what scientists are supposed to do?
Hardley - "Page 7 makes a clear distinction between the ecological footprints of the US and EU"
In trying to defend his personal footprint, Hardley compares entire countries...
The mind of a brilliant scientist.....here for all to see.
OK, Betula, I will play your game. You are trying to give the impression that you like to argue for argument's sake. Strange though that your arguments are all one-sided. I don't see you sniping away at others on 'your side' on Deltoid - what few of them there are - who come out with all kinds of ad homs and illogical shit.
You must be a real prick to live with, though. Its my way or the highway Betula.
OK let's play the 'back-upwhat you say' game. You mentioned wild turkeys and white tailed deer once in response to a comment I made about the declining health of the environment in North America. Using your current logic, you just threw in those examples for laughs. Indeed, everything you say on here just be for laughs then. Ha! Ha! Hilarious, You are the life of the party.
You want me to back up what I say about you being an AGW denier or a luke warmer. OK. link to a recent study (amongst many) in Nature which received a lot of attention and which warns of the dire consequences of stored carbon in the soil being released into the atmosphere.
What is your response? Go ahead. You tell me.
Dunno? Well, you then search the internet to find online pieces on the Crowther et al. Nature paper (you apparently did not read the paper because its over your head - understood) and then come back with an interview with the 17th author of the paper in an obscure Danish or Swedish paper (e.g. someone who provided data but but did contribute to the writing of the article) suggesting that, because the results are referring to an indirect and thus only a potential measure of C02 into the atmosphere, the results should be
interpreted with caution. You copy-paste the bits referring to this.
Tell us all here. Why? Why did you not copy-paste the much greater volume of comments written by the lead author arguing that the results are potentially very serious?
Either (1) you are arguing for argument's sake, or (2) you are doing whatever you can to downplay or even dismiss the study. You tell me. Strange that you are doing the same thing that AGW denier blogs are doing. Cherry-picking. In one direction. Or do you not thing that WUWT, CA, Climate depot et al are denier blogs? is that up to me to prove as well?
The reason I don't really want to engage much with you is because (1) you are a complete idiot (on evidence required), and (2) you are a complete nobody. I already pay far too much attention to you and that must really stoke your ego. Truth is, I find is amusing tapping into the mindsets of deniers on blogs. It reaffirms what i already know, that there is an army of Dunning-Kruger infused scientific illiterates out there beating the drum for their right wing political ideologies.
As for the latter point, you've made several references on here to socialist and communist agendas. Look em' up. I have better things to do.
You wqant to work out footprints. Flying contributes about 5% to atmospheric carbon every year. Far more is produced through food consumption and in a large household.
http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/carboncalculator.html
I fly about 25-30 hours a year. But there are only 2 adults and we live in a tiny house. Betula drives a large 4 WD vehicle, I mostly cycle and drive a small car. We have only one car in our household.
Betula is betting on air travel per person leaving a far greater footprint than more people living in a large house driving longer distances. Moreover, he ignores the fact that if I don't fly the plane will fly anyway - whereas driving and other forms of consumption are largely voluntary.
Use thew calculator above and see who has the smaller footprint. The answer will be patently obvious, and it isn't me and my partner.
Note also how Betula not so cleverly avoids discussing ecological deficits maintained by the developed world.
He's can't debate his way out of a soaking wet paper bag, so why start now?
Stu2: Do me a favor and fuck off. You deride fields that you know absolutely nothing about - in this case ecological footprint analyses. Your modus operandi is to deride areas that you do not like by making a few vacuous remarks, as if those will suffice. If you think that the work of Wackernagel and his team is flawed, then get off your lazy ass and write a rebuttal in a leading journal like Ecological Economics. I am sick to death of people like you, veritable armchair nobodies, deriding the work of others with absolutely not a shred of empirical support. You do it all the fucking time.
As for assigning tribes and teams, if by now you don't recognize a pattern in the musings of clowns like Betula and Kim, then you need your head to be examined.
But I digress. You are really a joke. Like Betula, you take your views much too seriously, because its clear that you don't have much in the way of relevant knowledge or expertise. You make flippant remarks about local managers dealing with the effects of climate change on species and communities without a scintilla of actual knowledge of the field of population ecology and conservation biology. You downplay the role of climate change in driving range shifts of plants and insects, including insect pests, while having no formal training in the field. I speak with local entomologists and ecologists in Bulgaria, and i am expected to believe that a layman in Australia knows more than they do. And then you argue that ecological footprint analyses are flawed (which they are, i do admit) but then dismiss their veracity, which is completely incorrect. The analyses by now are refined well enough to be able to elucidate with a fair amount of accuracy countries with surpluses and those which maintain deficits. That the US has a massive ecological deficit is not even remotely controversial. Mathis Wackernagel would eat you alive were you to belittle the efforts of his work.
"Despite your assertions otherwise, my country’s governance systems are indeed based on democratic principles".
Comedy gold. How can one debate with a soil dwelling protist? Not possible. Stu's understanding of realpolitik is in desperate need of a readjustment. I won't start here.
Jeff.
You called it 'case closed' @#67.
Inside the parentheses @# 76 you do admit that's not correct.
I think you're 'uplaying' (along with inappropriate abuse & ranting)
BTW .
I have been to Bulgaria.
And cropping is cropping no matter which country it is.
"OK, Betula, I will play your game. You are trying to give the impression that you like to argue for argument’s sake."
IOW, trolling? Super correct. But Batshit Betty is trying to silence you through exhaustion, as is StuPid.
"I don’t see you sniping away at others on ‘your side’ on Deltoid – what few of them there are – who come out with all kinds of ad homs and illogical shit."
Because the trolling is to silence the science that is inconvenient to Batshit's insane hope to one day have some money and wage slaves working for them. After all, the very USian christian faith of wealth being proof of God's love for them is very VERY strong, and presses all the right buttons of Batshit Betty's very tiny ego
Well, everyone, please note that after a very long "battle" between StuPid and Batshit Betty alone together on this site, StuPid has not attacked or "corrected" Batshit on anything, but has, when Jeff posted anything, insisted on doing so there.
Proving the case that StuPid is partisan and bigoted, therefore their claims of error are the result of that bigotry, and not the cause of their bigotry.
Betula, Stupid! Have you ever ready Betula's posts?!? Betula! BET U LAR!!!
"As for assigning tribes and teams, if by now you don’t recognize a pattern in the musings of clowns like Betula and Kim, then you need your head to be examined. "
Jeff, Stupid has claimed brazenly that they DO NOT CARE about that. They've not said WHY that would be, but bigotry and partisanship is the simplest cause. StuPid wants to control the educated realists, not the moronic batshit crazy deniers.
Because StuPid is a denier.
A list of nick names for the Donald [included], H/T DumbOldGuy (not so dumb) at Climate Denial Crock of the Week.
Would be amusing if not based upon the fact that we are entering a new dark age as indicated by the rise in influence of the Lamar Smiths and 'Sacremucho' of the dead eyes, a product of school of economics, law school and a one time hedge fund manager at Goldman Sachs.
News for Betty the populating of the Trump team with such as 'Scaremucho' is not in your best interest either but being as thick as two short planks how would you know.
"Not possible. Stu’s understanding of realpolitik is in desperate need of a readjustment."
I believe that the issue isn't StuPid believes they are in a democracy, but that StuPid has placed their rhetoric in the idea that it's a democracy here and therefore will insist this be so, despite any evidence or argument given otherwise.
Rather like christians calling something "God", when they are merely defining it as "Something you will never disprove, because I will change its meaning to hide in the cracks". Their claims are based on their god existing, but will accept as still that god anything that has to avoid being disproved.
StuPid likewise will not change the definition of democracy to anything other than what remains after all argument of the system they live under.
And not once will it be known WHY it has to be a democracy for their arguments to work.
Hell, china is pretty much a dictatorship, but they're doing far more for prevention of AGW than any democracy, because a dictator can tell deniers to shut the fuck up, and aren't beholden to wealthy corps for re-election funds. 180 degrees opposite to the "democracy" that the USA suffers under.
"Either (1) you are arguing for argument’s sake, or (2) you are doing whatever you can to downplay or even dismiss the study"
Or that Batshit "thought" they had a gotcha moment. Much like the pro-Steyn moronicles that quoted the ruling against Steyn's request for dismissal "taking the most favorable view for the non-moving party" (or very like), which referred to the defendent of the case, not the non-moving party of the motion to dismiss, as if it referred to Mann being taken as widely beneficially as possible, not Steyn's position.
So batshit kept posting it, nobody was biting, and batshit certainly didn't know what was so devastating about it (witness the refusal to explain what batshit meant, to which betty only ever said "I was posting what Jeff pointed to!"), so just kept spamposting it.
Much like the World of Warcraft link (you will note that there were several others who used WoW which is harder to type than Wow, or indeed wow, therefore deliberate, all of whom have tried to berate me into silence before, the reason for which is hinted at their reading batshit betty's posts here on this blog), which batshit betty posted without any explanation of why, what it indicated, and what conclusions should or could be taken from it.
Just spammed to try and tire me out, and pretend cleverness from the moronic crazy denier betula.
Hardley - "OK, Betula, I will play your game"
If you think it's a game. and you want to play, then back up your statement:
"You also once used white tailed deer as an example showing that eastern North American ecosystems are in good shape"
I'll help you. Go to May 2013.
The way you interpret the words that are in front of you is very telling about the way, as a scientist, you must interpret the data in front of you.
You're a one track minded scientist who jumps to conclusions based on rabid ideology....you can't see past what you believe you already know.
Hardely - "you then search the internet to find online pieces on the Crowther et al. Nature paper (you apparently did not read the paper because its over your head – understood)"
Only you didn't link the paper, you linked an article from an advocacy blog "The Independent" titled "Climate change escalating so fast it is 'beyond point of no return'".....that you asked us to read re-read and then re-re read.
I in turn, responded with a comment from the co-author who stated don't read to much into it....You in turn, rather than attack the co-author, come to the conclusion that I'm anti - environment.
Keep in mind, you are a scientist and this is your thought process...
Did you ever consider the fact that you are full blown retarded?
Hardley - "The reason I don’t really want to engage much with you is because"
All you do is engage with me!
Again, given the fact that you would make such a statement, you should ask yourself what is wrong with you.
Hardley - "How can one debate with a soil dwelling protist?"
We have you.
Talking about yourself again, how unusual.
Sorry Betula, you don't debate. You just twist and distort facts and quotes to serve yourself. What little science you have attempted to discuss here has been utter puerile bullshit. You've actually written volumes her over the past few years with little ever in the way of science. But then again, you're profoundly ignorant. That I can excuse.
Besides, I'll bet you don't even know what a protist is anyway.
It gets better.
Betula thinks that the Independent is an 'advocacy blog'.
Actually dumbass its an online newspaper. Not that you'd know the difference. And all they did was honestly report what the LEAD AUTHOR, Thomas Crowther was saying. After all, at least some in the media realize that scientists know more than journalists about their own research.
Instead of going with what the lead author says, you scour the internet to find a source to downplay the importance of the article. Well that's a shock. You, who knows diddly squat about anything remotely related to climate or environmental science doesn't accept the opinions of the lead author. Why would that be? Again, shades of Dunning-Kruger.
And then you want me to prove that you are an AGW denier. Get lost.
Wow - "After all, the very USian christian faith of wealth being proof of God’s love for them is very VERY strong, and presses all the right buttons of Batshit Betty’s very tiny ego"
Only I'm an Atheist.
Does your imagination ever get anything right?
Stu2: "I have been to Bulgaria".
Great. And how many universities did you visit and entomologists did you speak to?
Let me guess. None. And you expect me to take you seriously.
Go away.
Hardley, nice of you to admit you were wrong about posting the paper....thanks for your honesty,
If you believe the co-author is anti environment for his comments, you should tell him. Coming from you, he will understand...
Stu: Let's see your powerful critique of the eco-footprint analyses by Wackernagel and colleagues.
You haven't done any though. That's patently obvious. You just don't like the conclusions they generate because they don't gel with your pre-determined world views, so you casually dismiss them.
You and Betula are two sides of the same outdated old coin. The pre-determined worldview twins. Separated at birth.
Betula, you clot, the co-autor was not dishonest. But he didn't write the paper. He provided data. He was 17th out of 49 authors. You clearly don't know a thing about academic publishing, either. The lead author usually writes most if not all of the paper. He/she may have had discussions with the other authors, or else they provided data, or did some of the analyses, but the lead author usually writes all or most of it. The last author sometimes writes some of it as well. This means Crowther and Bradford. Their views were sought by most media outlets and for good reason. The paper is very important in its implications for climate change.Otherwise it would not have made it into Nature, which rejects 93% of manuscripts. If the study had meant little, then it would have been rejected. It was accepted because of the implications of its results. You don't like them because they argue that AGW is a serious threat. You know nothing about climate, but you have those pesky pre-determined views and believe that AGW is not a serious problem, or worse, that its part of some left wing conspiracy to extract wealth from the rich countires (yes, you are asinine enough to believe this fable). Hence your efforts to search high and low for anything that donwplays the threat.
The only reason the 17th author was interviewed was because the paper was trying to bolster one of its own citizens. But since you know fuck all about science in any format, its obvious why you'd search high and low for anybody to downplay the results. Yup. Those pre-determined political views of yours again.
Hardley - "Betula, you clot, the co-autor was not dishonest"
I never said he was dishonest....I just posted his words, which somehow translates into you believing I'm anti-environment. Do you see your problem?
Again, ask yourself just how retarded you sound, then let me know how you respond...
Hardley - "The paper is very important in its implications for climate change.Otherwise it would not have made it into Nature, which rejects 93% of manuscripts"
So if a manuscript implies a different predicted future climate scenario, is it automatically rejected? Is that why 93% are rejected?
Interesting...
Jeff @ # 93.
The specific issue you raised was pests in crops in Bulgaria.
Management of that issue has nothing to do with how many universities and entomologists you or I may or may not have visited in Bulgaria.
&@#95.
The eco footprint PDF you linked was not a 'case closed' document.
There is no need for me to do a 'powerful critique' to point that out, the authors pointed that out themselves.
Whether you think I think I don't like their conclusions is totally irrelevant.
Well there is the nub of it, you don't think. End of one sided discussion as yours is based upon misrepresentation, putting words in peoples mouth and other tricks of those who argue for the sake of arguing. Enough!
WoW.
I believe that's called projection?
But do please continue helping me out.
You're doing a great job.
I particularly commend your latest link on the Jan 2107 (futurama?) thread.
Stu to Hardley - "Whether you think I think I don’t like their conclusions"
Lionel - "yours is based upon misrepresentation, putting words in peoples mouth"
What Hardley actually said - "You just don’t like the conclusions they generate"
Conclusion - Lionel is a fucking retard, whether you think I think it or not.
Betula.
Jeff & WoW & Lionel keep sooking that I'm not commenting on your comments.
So to help them feel better....
Instead of baiting them, as easy and enjoyable as you're appearing to find it, perhaps you could offer something else?
I don't think they're retards.
I don't think you are either.
But none of you are apparently interested in discussing solutions to all the info you link?
You all appear way more interested in using information to launch personal attacks on each other.
It's extraordinarily enlightening to watch BTW.
It's just a blog page.
So of course you're all perfectly free & entitled to behave in anyway you choose as long as the blog administration has no issue with it.
However it's not helping ungulates, birds, melting ice, Nigeria, The Middle East, ecological footprints, Bulgarian crops, Zika virus outbreaks and so on and etc.
Hope that helps WoW, Jeff & Lionel?
Stu - You've been here long enough to know this blog is essentially dead...and behavior on this blog won't change anything or anyone...
You have also been here long enough to know that no matter how much common sense and logic you throw at Wow, Lionel or Hardley....it will never sink in. Theirs is a mindset blinded by ideology, a mindset that will never allow normal debate or discussion....it's useless.
Think about it, after all this time, no matter how hard you have tried to have a reasonable discussion with any of them, has it ever worked?
I'll stick to treating them like the anti-capitalist retarded ideologues and hypocrites that they are and will always be....they make it too easy.
That's OK Betula.
Like I said above, it's just a blog and unless the admin for this blog has a problem with comments, you're all obviously free to continue.
And no, it has never worked.
But I find it enlightening and useful nonetheless.
:-)
Isn't it wonderful to see our two intellectually challenged deniers giving each other a bro-hug above. Makes one want to cry.
And its even more touching seeing Betula actually suggesting that he is trying to 'throw common sense' at me, Lionel, Wow and others, when he wouldn't know common sense if it hit him in the face. He actually has the audacity to talk about trying to engage in a 'reasonable discussion', when all he has brought in here are smears, ridicule, ad homs and cherry picked examples to top it off.
The trutyh is that Betula has not an ounce of scientific knowledge to bring to the table. He doesn't understand basic environmental science, but has a pre-determined mindset based on his socio-economic and political beliefs. Instead of discussing the threat posed by anthropogenic climate change, of which there is a strong scientific consensus (as proven by the collective statements of every major scientific body on the planet as well as the empirical data), he instead searches for any kinds of information that attempts to downplay the threat. He has actually rarely discussed any real science: the two examples he came up with are the C02 fertilization effect as if that is a great boon to terrestrial ecosystems across the planet (wrong), and the coyote/wild turkey/white tailed deer example in suggesting that eastern north American ecosystems and/or their biota are doing well (wrong again). Aside from those two examples, he's attempted to ridicule arguments that I made about seeing climate change first hand (which I and thousands of other biologists have done and which are described). From there on its been all smear, ridicule, hyperbole and rhetoric.
Stu, for his part, has his heart in the right place, I will give him that; but he attempts to discuss areas outside of his professional competence as if he is making valid points. Like it or not, I am a million times more qualified than him and Betula to explore questions relating to abiotic effects on species,communities and ecosystems. The problem is, they think that they are starting on the same intellectual and professional ground as I am, and whether they like it or not, they are not even close. I spend my days reading lots of empirical literature and I work in an institute where colleagues are working in areas directly related to conservation ecology. I speak with them on many issues, and I teach a course on science and advocacy at the VU University in Amsterdam. I also attend conferences and workshops where these issues are discussed and debated. Stu probably and certainly Betula most certainly do not. For sure Betula's knowledge, if one can call it that, is primarily gleaned from whatever materials he sources from the internet and perhaps some books but most certainly NOT from academics and experts working in the related fields. And he has the gall to talk about 'reasonable discussion'. He's simply not up to it. First he needs to get past his denier mindset.
As for Stu, when he argued that local managers are best equipped to deal with demographic or fitness-related effects of climate warming on reindeer populations (or indeed any species responding deleteriously), he was taking the discussion to the school classroom. Trained ecologists realize that the widespread symptoms of climate change - a broad array of ecophysiological effects across many taxa this far documented - require a lot more than local managers to tackle. Humans are altering the biosphere at rates exceeding many times comparable changes that have occurred in at least 65 million years, at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary. These effects are being manifested across entire food webs, meaning that attempting to remedy problems at the species level are virtually impossible. The real threats posed by climate change, habitat loss, invasive species, overharvesting, and other anthropogenic stresses encompass entire ecological communities and thus numerous resource-consumer interactions. If Stu read any of the papers by scholars like Eric Post he'd readily see that at leas tin the mid tio long term, solutions require global efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. If we don't, and temperatures continue to rise, then the damage inflicted upon ecosystems across the biosphere will be so extensive that there is nothing that humans can do. They will be unable to function effectively and many will collapse or become so depauperate that they will be prone to breaking down, taking with them the ability to sustain human life in a manner that we take for granted.
None iof this is remotely controversial. Go to any major scientific conference and what I am saying here is taken as a given. Humans and the natural world are on a major collision course. Climate change alone threatens to cause immense damage to terrestrial and marine ecosystems across the planet, as it is already doing, and on top of that we have a range of other human assaults that I mentioned above.
Its on blogs, where the general public wade in with their pre-determined views of how things work, that suddenly I am confronted with either outright denial or else people suggesting that issues can be dealt with with simple, local solutions.Look at Kim; kindergarten level discourse with childish attacks on bonafide fields such as the economic valuation of ecosystem services. The study of ES lies at the heart of ecological economics, and is by now a major tenet in most universities. And on a blog I am forced to swallow idiotic comments dismissing them as being 'crap' or whatever. Stu and Betula in their 'rational; discussions don't raise a peep.
If either of you want to take this discussion forward to discuss the reality of anthropogenic threats across the planet, and how these are undermining the functioning of complex adaptive systems, then fine. The only reason that I, someone much more qualified than the both of you put together, writes in here is to counter the nonsense that you both readily spew,. I will leave it up to a lay audience to see who is being 'rational' and 'better informed' but amongst scientists for the most part you two clowns would be tarred, feathered and sent packing.
@98, Betula again shows his lack of uderstanding of how papers are dealt with at a journal like Nature. Why do I bother with these simpletons?
Papers are sent out on the basis of their empirical and statistical support.Nature gets very, very, very few papers downplaying AGW simply because the empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports AGW theory and because there are very, very, very few scientists outside of this consensus. Most of the deniers instead are on blogs, where they can snipe away at the primary literature, but rarely if ever do they produce and submit manuscripts on their own.
Thuis, 93% of manuscripts are rejected because the science is not good enough. I was an editor at Nature 17 years ago and every day the editors would assemble and discuss submitted manuscripts and had to decide which ones were strong enough scientifically merit further peer-review. While i was there not a single manuscript came in (and I oversaw around 130) that downplayed any anthropogenic threat including climate warming. Very few studies are showing it, so why would Nature expect to receive them?
@98, Betula again shows his lack of uderstanding of how papers are dealt with at a journal like Nature. Why do I bother with these simpletons?
Papers are sent out on the basis of their empirical and statistical support.Nature gets very, very, very few papers downplaying AGW simply because the empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports AGW theory and because there are very, very, very few scientists outside of this consensus. Most of the deniers instead are on blogs, where they can snipe away at the primary literature, but rarely if ever do they produce and submit manuscripts on their own.
Thuis, 93% of manuscripts are rejected because the science is not good enough. I was an editor at Nature 17 years ago and every day the editors would assemble and discuss submitted manuscripts and had to decide which ones were strong enough scientifically merit further peer-review. While i was there not a single manuscript came in (and I oversaw around 130) that downplayed any anthropogenic threat including climate warming. Very few studies are showing it, so why would Nature expect to receive them?
Jeff.
I said that people with qualifications in animal husbandry and/or vet science are best equipped to implement management strategies for any perceived issues with the reindeer. If they also have knowledge of the immediate environment that's even better.
The IPCC taking up papers or scientists submitting to journals will not help the reindeer much.
Neither does your posturing about your qualifications and/or experience in NRM.
Your comments about pests in crops in Bulgaria were equally unrealistic.
People with experience in agricultural science are best equipped to manage that specific issue, probably the best ones would be the Bulgarian Ag Scientists.
Those Bulgarian crops would be long gone if the Bulgarians had to wait for 'global efforts to mitigate greenhouse emissions'.
"Isn’t it wonderful to see our two intellectually challenged deniers giving each other a bro-hug above. Makes one want to cry."
Yeah, isn't it nice how someone can be as divisive, unpleasant and engaged in barracking as Batshit Betty here, yet StuPid will forgive all that and not berate you for doing things wrong.
They should get a room.
But we should see why betty here gets such a different treatment from you and lionel.
Should be instructive, no?
"Stu, for his part, has his heart in the right place, I will give him that;"
Jeff,this is the game Stupid is playing. His RHETORIC is in "the right place", but only if it will stop you doing anything about AGW.
Look at how he insists that you stop doing "it". Then he'll insist others stop doing "it", even though you have no control over them, then he'll insist that you publicly berate them for doing "it", and insist until everyone on our side stops doing "it", AGW is our fault and not the deniers.
But only demand such strait purity from us, not from the deniers.
Because this is pure tone trolling and guilt shaming that StuPid is doing.
His heart is NOT in the right place, it's firmly against doing anything about AGW, only the rhetoric isn't flat-out denial, but that is PURELY because without that camoflage, he can't pretend his mock concern.
Stop being fooled, Jeff.
He's as toxic as Batshit Betty.
Wow - "Stop being fooled, Jeff"
Isn’t it wonderful to see an intellectually challenged retard give another tard a bro-slap in the face. Makes one want to laugh...
Hardley - "Why do I bother with these simpletons?"
You don't. Remember?
Hardley - “The reason I don’t really want to engage much with you"
Hardley - "the C02 fertilization effect as if that is a great boon to terrestrial ecosystems across the planet (wrong).
Nope. Your interpretation.
I asked what weight is carries in the catastrophic-only climate scenarios. You don't know. And since you don't know, you intentionally go on the defensive. You can't help it....you're a self loving biased scientist.
Hey, you know who else doesn't know? Bo Elberling:
"We still don’t know how much plants will take up in response, which is particularly important in relation to an increasing root biomass"
Why don't you go after Elberling..... his statement alone fits your definition of a know nothing anti-environment denier. Because you're a hypocrite, a Putz....which is why there can't be a discussion.
Hardley - "and the coyote/wild turkey/white tailed deer example in suggesting that eastern north American ecosystems and/or their biota are doing well (wrong again)"
Nope. Was used as an example, along with a list of other things, discussing of how things are constantly changing....not all bad, not all good. I never stated anything about north American ecosystems and/or their biota doing well......those are your words derived from your own imagination. See May 2013.
Again, one of the many reasons you are incapable of a discussion....besides being a putz and biased, you are an ego driven ideological blind scientist. Blind.
Hardley - "Aside from those two examples, he’s attempted to ridicule arguments that I made about seeing climate change first hand (which I and thousands of other biologists have done and which are described"
Nope. You even admitted to me you didn't see it first hand after you said you did:
May 4th 2012 - "As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand"
So you said you witnessed climate change first hand and then admitted you didn't witness climate change first hand and now say you did witness climate change first hand.
I pegged you for who you are very early on....and realized you can't have a discussion of any kind, so why try.
I'll just continue to call you out on your bullshit....you and the other Deltoid patients make it very easy.
Betula, intent on digging his hole further, writes this piffle:
"I asked what weight is carries in the catastrophic-only climate scenarios"
Like other deniers, Betula sees things only in black and white. Either AGW isn't happening, or its not a problem at all or its a catastrophe.
No wonder scientists like me are usually smart enough to avoid debating these dishonest clowns. AGW is havbing harmful effects for sure - invoking the term 'catastrophe' is a feeble attempt to push the debate to extremes. What Betula and people like him want are not debates, because they know they will lose. They want to push the scenario that if AGW isn't catastrophic, then its not a problem, or else its manageable. Most importantly, if its manageable then don't do much or anyhing about it.
The empirical literature is full of studies showing harmful effects of recent warming on species, communities and ecosystems. If allowed to go over 2-3 C, the situation may well become exceedingly serious. If we don't do antyhing, then yes, this is a likely oputcome.
The Nature paper did not mention catastrophic scenarios. Go and find where it did, asshole. Eberling merely did what many scientists do - he expressed caution. Does that mean that there is no problem? NO. Does that mean he was implying that we should do nothing about it? NO. That's your fucking interpretation. When he replied to me he said that we should be doping everything to reduce carbon emissions, which he said represent a direct threat. But for you that's the wrong answer. You just are seeking confirmation bias. If a scientist expressed any kind of caution over the findings of a study, that;s enough for you to say, "See? No problem".
More proof that you are an asshole.
"Like other deniers, Betula sees things only in black and white. Either AGW isn’t happening, or its not a problem at all or its a catastrophe. "
And mostly because anything bad turning up can be denied as being from "CAGW". If only by redefining what the C has to be.
And it's the most clear way to prove to the undecided that the deniers are full of shit *and know it*, since if they had GOOD arguments, they wouldn't have to make claims up, and use weasel wording (and, hypocritally, whine about how "global warming can mean anything to you 'alarmists'), since there would be a genuine point to make without such avoidance tricks to deceive.
"Eberling merely did what many scientists do – he expressed caution."
Yeah, to batshit, that means Eberling was dismissing AGW as not happening yet.
Because batshit is, oddly enough, batshit crazy.
I was referring to first hand scenarios in Algonquin Park. I am sure that if I or anyone went over the whole region and monitored thew winter activity of arthropods that are usually deep in diapause, they would claim to have seen climate change first hand. Alternatively, I don't mind stationg that it may be due to a warm winter and not AGW at all. That said, trends do reveal first hand observations of AGW. Range shifts, seasonal and phenological shifts in the activity patterns of plants and animals are indeed FIRST HAND EXAMPLES OF CLIMATE WARMING. I don't deny that a one-off obervation of a phenomena is taking a stochastic process and allocating attribution that may be incorrect. However, longer term phenomena are much more easily attributed to changes in biotic or abiotic properties. When I see outbreaks of oak processionary caterpillars in Holland (where this speices has expanded its range from the south since the early 1990s) or large numbers of overwintering diamondback moths emerging in early spring or pronounced seasonal shifts in the growth of annual forbs then I can categorically state that I am seeing climate change first hand.
Your problem Betula is that you just have no basic understanding of scale. You can't separate a deterministic event from a stochastic one. Your simple wood chipped brain is programmed to think that 50 years is a heck of a long time.
And you honestly think that its so easy to call me out. You couldn't call me out when I was in grade school, and certainly not now.
"Jeff.
I said that people with qualifications in animal husbandry and/or vet science are best equipped to implement management strategies for any perceived issues with the reindeer"
Incorrect. Wrong. the people best equipped to deal with declining populations and/or fitness or reindeer populations are ecologists who understand that the declines are due to aynchronous effects of AGW on optimal food availability and how this affects reproduction. Your method is akin to putting a band aid on a 20 inch gash.
Its time you clowns actually read some of the relevant literature instead of pulling arguments out of your hats.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2606787/
Hardley - "AGW is havbing harmful effects for sure – invoking the term ‘catastrophe’ is a feeble attempt to push the debate to extremes."
James Hansen - https://www.amazon.com/Storms-My-Grandchildren-Catastrophe-Humanity/dp/…
Next, Hardley will be telling us James Hansen is anti-environment.
I love this site, like I said...it's so easy.
Wow - "Yeah, to batshit, that means Eberling was dismissing AGW as not happening yet"
And how does Wow come up with this conclusion? His imagination is all he has....poor Wow:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utlm8gBU-H4
No Wow, what Betula is doing is trying to argue - unconvincingly of course - that because there are uncertainties in our understanding of the wide array of processes that influence climate that we therefore cannot accurately predict the future and if we can't accuratley predict the future then we shouldn't do anything.
Deniers do this all the time. As I said before, Betula's strategy is to argue that without absolute or at least overwhelming proof then there is no problem. Therefore don't do anything. His Achilles heel, like other deniers, is to explain why every National Academy on Earth and every major scientific organization verifies the reality of AGW and more importantly the need to do something about it. The way Betula argues, one would think that these organizations didn't exist or else that they had not expressed agreement over the reality of AGW and the need to address it. He tries to make me look like an outsider in the debate when my views simply reflect >95% of the scientific community. He shoudl explain - but he never does - why he and other non-entities with no relevant scientific expertise think that the National Academies and major scientific bodies are wrong and a few outliers are correct.
As for Eberling, Wow, you did nail it there. By expressing caution, Betula is trying to suggest that Eberling does not think that AGW is a serious threat. That's a lie, of course, hence why he didn't dare write to him for clarification. He has his quote, and he uses it to downplay the threat posed by AGW.
Remember, of course, that Betula doesn't do the primary literature. Check his posting history on Deltoid and links to sources like Forbes come up. That says it all.
Hardley - "And you honestly think that its so easy to call me out. You couldn’t call me out when I was in grade school, and certainly not now"
And yet, because I called him out, he is forced to admit (the best way he can) that he was wrong....
Hardley - "I don’t deny that a one-off obervation of a phenomena is taking a stochastic process and allocating attribution that may be incorrect"
Betula, James Hansen is one albeit prominent, climate scientist, and this was a book with his views in it. It wasn't a peer-reviewed scientific article.
Please go through the empirical literature and copy-paste all of the examples of the word 'catastrophe' or 'catastrophic'that you can find. Better still, go through the pronouncements of the Nationala Academies and major scientific organizations and see where they use the word. You can also try the IPCC reports.
Good luck. You won't find anything. Instead, you rely on books with opinions in them. That's how desperate you are. The empirical literature is full, as I said, of studies showing harmful or negative effects on species, species interactions, communities and ecosystems. This is where the debate is going on. Not though books.
Good grief you are easy to humiliate. Is this the best that you can do, moron?
"Your problem Betula is that you just have no basic understanding of scale"
Yet a few days in Algonquin is witnessing climate. Got it.
Remember, you're the scientist.
Betula has been called out so many times that I have lost count. Yet this deluded dude thinks he's on top here. What a hoot.
Shorter Hardley - "James Hansen’s book is a feeble attempt to push the debate to extremes"
Shame on you!
Betula clings to the Algonquin Park trek I amde in 2012. I am still waiting for him to discuss a single example of the primary literaure, and to call out the bad science in it.
Its going to be a long, long wait. Betula doesn't do the primary literature. He only does blogs, a few books and sources like Forbes.
Hilarious.
Come on Battie. Go to the primary literature like a good boy. Go for it Mr. Expert. I challenge you.
Hardley - "By expressing caution, Betula is trying to suggest that Eberling does not think that AGW is a serious threat. That’s a lie, of course"
Since that is your interpretation, you are lying to yourself.
Remember - you're the scientist.
Until Battie can cite some of the primary literaure and actually discuss it, he's a waste of space. I am waiting for a Forbes or Breitbart link next. That's the kind of shit Betula soaks up. He's scarcely ever once discussed the scientific content of a study. Given he goes back on here about 6 years, with hundreds of posts in the interim, that's quite an achievement. I think even the Swedish meatball has done better. No, Betula does not do science. I've linked to dozens of studies. All ignored.
Hardley - "Come on Battie. Go to the primary literature like a good boy. Go for it Mr. Expert. I challenge you"
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/270/1527/1887.short
Yup, you're retarded.
"Remember – you’re the scientist".
Yes, that is for sure. Where are the primary scientific studies downplaying climate change Betula? Come on, let''s see em. After all, this is what the debate is really alla bout. Is AGW a serious threat to ecosystems across the biosphere and by association to mankind?
So go to the primary literature then. Let's see you discuss actual science. After all, you're the self professed brainiac and we are all so easy to dismiss here.
OK, so now discuss why the paper is crap then. It's no use linking papers if you don't understand them. Maybe the authors have a valid point. Prove why they are wrong.
Betula searches high and low and finds a single paper with the word catastrophe. Go to the Web of Science search engine and enter the words climate change and catastrophe. The download the papers and say exactly why the author's use of the word is incorrect. I would never use it, but then again it is up to them.
You think by showing a few studies using the word catastrophe that you prove a point. You don't prove anything unless you can show why the authors use of the word is incorrect. If AGW leads to the widespread collapse of ecosystems as some predict, then the use of the word is justified. But most authors don't use the word. Why don't you also critique their work? You are again a self-educated genius of the highest order. You claim that I have a big ego when yours in the size of an overgrown Blue Whale.
Hardley - "Please go through the empirical literature and copy-paste all of the examples of the word ‘catastrophe’ or ‘catastrophic’that you can find"......"You can also try the IPCC reports."......."Good luck. You won’t find anything"
After I post one, he then changes his tune and states this...
"OK, so now discuss why the paper is crap then..... Prove why they are wrong"
So I wasn't supposed to find anything, and now that I did, I'm supposed to prove they are wrong. Yet, how am I suppose to prove something wrong if it doesn't exist?
Oh wait, sorry Hardley, I wasn't finished yet:
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch2s2-2-4.html
As a retard at #24 once said..."Good grief you are easy to humiliate"
Hardley - "You think by showing a few studies using the word catastrophe that you prove a point"
Yes. The point is, you "challenged" me, and I proved you wrong.
Remember, you're the scientist.
Hardley - "You claim that I have a big ego when yours in the size of an overgrown Blue Whale"
Nope. Nobody talks about you more than you do...
Ah,great, batshit betty "thinks" that the paper talks about CAGW.
"an impending environmental catastrophe"
Sorry, dear, that's CEC. Not CAGW.
Yup, you are definitely NOT the scientist. You don't even have reading skills.
Hardley - "Please go through the empirical literature and copy-paste all of the examples of the word ‘catastrophe’ or ‘catastrophic’that you can find"...."Good luck. You won’t find anything"
Wow - "an impending environmental catastrophe”...."Sorry, dear, that’s CEC. Not CAGW"
Poor Wow, not only does he lack reading skills, but he doesn't realize the word catastrophe is the word catastrophe...
Poor Wow, doesn't have reading skills
Batshit, you were talking about CAGW, not CEC, and you found a paper on CEC, not CAGW.
Try again, moron, don't just do a wordsearch on google scholar. Otherwise you'll find plenty of catastrophism in engineering.
What we have learned so far from the deltoid patients -
!. James Hansen uses the word "catastrophe" as "a feeble attempt to push the debate to extremes"
2. James Hansen's use of the word "catastrophe" is just his opinion as a scientist.
3. The word "catastrophe" doesn't mean the word "catastrophe"
4. The fact that the IPCC uses the word "catastrophe" is insignificant because apparently they don't use the word "catastrophe"
5. "an impending environmental catastrophe"...due to climate change, has nothing to do with AGW.
6. Wow is a full blown retard.
Well. there you go...
What we have seen is that youre a crazy loon,betty.
YOU made the claim of CAGW.
You only found C in a different arena.
You concentrated on "I found a C!".
You are now buttfucked and hurting.
LOL.
Jeff @#19.
Wrong. Incorrect.
All that paper has done is identify an issue with self admitted limited data.
The conclusion is it might need urgent attention.
There are NO(!) conclusions about how to implement management strategies to help those reindeer.
They want to do further studies.
I don't have a problem with that BTW, but it won't provide urgent attention for those reindeer.
The best people to implement urgent attention for the reindeer are not some ecologists who want to do further studies focused ONLY on Climate Change and 'teasing out' the extent of it's impact as opposed to other local and seasonal impacts.
The best people to implement urgent attention specifically for the reindeer are those with qualifications in animal husbandry and/or vetinary science. If they're local and understand the regional environment, that's even better.
What you seem to be claiming here as an analogy would be like believing an ecologist who does studies on the impact of climate change on birth rates of women and have identified a decline are the better qualified to implement management strategies than people qualified in midwifery and gynecology.
You are seemingly conflating the ability to identify concerns with the ability to implement urgent strategies to manage them.
The same basuc principle applies to those crops in Bulgaria.
BASIC!!!
sorry :-(
"All that paper has done is identify an issue with self admitted limited data."
Incorrect. That's PART of it, but not ALL of it.
Lying by omission is your favourite tactic, when you can't get away with saying nothing at all.
"There are NO(!) conclusions about how to implement management strategies to help those reindeer."
There are no conclusions from your preferred source for their aid. Indeed nothing at all.
"Jeff & WoW & Lionel keep sooking that I’m not commenting on your comments."
No,we keep pointing out that you berate everyone here called Wow, Jeff or Lionel, and anyone else who won't agree with you, but you wont berate yourself, batshit, lappers, kuim or the other denier trolls infesting.
And your post there was more non-berating for your fellow denier troll.
Since you seem seriously upset, this clarification should make you feel happy and let you understand what it is you're doing that proves your lack of honesty.
http://asts.net.au/
WoW @#47.
Of course there are.
Here is one of the many places all around the world where you will find the people with the expertise to implement the best strategies.
Some ecologists who want to conduct further studies about the extent that climate change is a factor are not the right people to implement their conclusion that this might need urgent attention.
As I commented above, that's akin to saying ecologists submitting papers on Climate Change impacts are better qualified to treat issues with human birth rates than people with experience in midwifery or gynecology or nutrition and etc.
The same principle applies to those crops in Bulgaria and the Zika virus outbreak and the numerous other issues that are linked here.
“Of course there are.”
No there aren’t. All that is there is “Take this training!”. And, unless you’ve noticed, reindeer aren’t in trouble because they can’t get jobs and the social security net is insufficient.
WoW.
Here's an idea for you.
The next time one of your family or one of your pets or one of your plants are experiencing health and/or nutrition issues, take them to those ecologists who are doing research on Climate change and discuss with them how you can help your family/pet/plant's specific issues by global action on global climate via conducting more studies on the extent of the impact.
"Here’s an idea for you."
No, I'd prefer to have an idea from someone who isn't a moron. And one that was actually relevant rather than some tangent off in la-la land where you obviously reside.
Thanks for the offer, though.
No?
Not the ecologists who have done the studies?
Who or what would you take your family/pets/plants to WoW?
I would take mine to a doctor/ nutritionist/ vet/ ag scientist/ horticulturalist and etc.
Wouldn't you?
Just like I'd take a car or a truck or a tractor to a mechanic qualified to work on it or a qualified builder to repair or renovate a building or a civil engineer for town planning issues and etc.
That's actually common sense WoW.
"No?"
No,
"Not the ecologists who have done the studies?"
Those, yes.
"That’s actually common sense WoW."
What? Describing Mundie as an arrogant asshole? Sure is.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Mundine
WoW.
His name is Mundine.
Here is some information about him.
And good luck taking your family/pets/plants to those ecologists.
:-)
As we have learned from Wow, the word "catastrophe is not the word catastrophe, but does this also mean the word "catastrophic" is not the word "catastrophic"?
My IPCC link at #36 (and again below) mentions 'catastrophic".... but since Hardley says this doesn't exist and Wow leads us to believe that the word catastrophic is not the word catastrophic, I'm left to just thank the patients at Deltoid for setting the record straight....the consequences of AGW will not be catastrophic, unless it's the opinion of James Hansen, in which case it still won't be catastrophic....because it's his opinion.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch2s2-2-4.html
Again....thank you.
Good luck getting the reindeer to apply for jobs on that website.
No matter WHERE pets are taken, it STILL doesn't make the website you posted a place where you can find out how to better help the reindeer, your claim about that site.
Are you completely incapable of admitting you lied?
As we have learned from batshit, they're completely crazy.
But also that if they find the word catastrophe, they can claim it as being CAGW, even when it's not.
I guess this proves that Fox is lying, and alarmist, right?
But not catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, or any tenable equivalent.
What Jeff said wasn't that catastrophe didn't exist as a word in the IPCC reports, but your claims of CAGW doesn't.
And it doesn't.
Nope, again, batshit betty.
Batshit, you were talking about CAGW, not CEC, and you found a paper on CEC, not CAGW.
But I guess that insanity is the only place where you win, isn't it, batshit betty?
WoW @#59.
The website I linked was simply to point out that there are people who are qualified in this field.
It was just one of many all around the world.
The reindeer need urgent attention according to those ecologists, not jobs.
The ecologists have identified an issue.
Good for them.
They're not the best people to implement management strategies, especially if it's urgent.
Same principle applies for those crops in Bulgaria.
Wow - "What Jeff said wasn’t that catastrophe didn’t exist as a word in the IPCC reports, but your claims of CAGW doesn’t"
What Hardley said - "Please go through the empirical literature and copy-paste all of the examples of the word ‘catastrophe’ or ‘catastrophic’ that you can find"....."You can also try the IPCC reports"...."Good luck. You won’t find anything"
Poor. confused, lack of reading skills retarded Wow....
And while you are being confused, why don't you link my comment to Hardley where I used CAGW in a sentence, you know, to add to your confusion...
Thanks retard.
"The website I linked was simply to point out that there are people who are qualified in this field."
But you're the only one claiming that the field in question is pet care.
And you claimed thtat the link was, and I quote:
Either that source was supposed to provide conclusions about how to implement management strategies to help those reindeer, or you are also guilty of what you prolcaimed Jeff wrong on AND lied about being in possession of a source of conclusions about how to implement management strategies to help those reindeer,
Oh, and thanks Wow, for teaching us that the consequences of global warming won't be catastrophic....I was beginning to worry.
In response to your asinine claim:
I asked what weight is carries in the catastrophic-only climate scenarios.
So go on, show us where there's that catastrophic in the IPCC reports.
OR admit you lied and made that shit up.
Jeff @15: The Nature paper did not mention catastrophic scenarios. Go and find where it did, asshole.
Batshit earlier:
Everyone else:
So what?
"for teaching us that the consequences of global warming won’t be catastrophic"
Only you are teaching yourself that, because you don;t live in reality.
Poor. confused, lack of reading skills retarded betula….
Meanwhile, the reindeer are out grazing and thanking their lucky stars....they know they have a bright future due to Wow's productive comments...and blogs like Deltoid.
Yup, more retard from the retard.
Nobody goes retard like betula goes retard.
Wow - "Only you are teaching yourself that, because you don;t live in reality"
So they will be catastrophic? Where did you hear that?
Meanwhile, batshit betty proves Jeff's assessment right:
More reading failure from the full retard's full retard, batshit betty betula!
"invoking the term ‘catastrophe’ is a feeble attempt to push the debate to extremes"
So why do you think James Hansen's attempt is feeble and pushing the debate to the extreme?
Is this a turning point for you Wow?
Wow, when Hardley said this - "Please go through the empirical literature and copy-paste all of the examples of the word ‘catastrophe’ or ‘catastrophic’ that you can find”…..”You can also try the IPCC reports”….”Good luck. You won’t find anything”.........what part of the word "word" did you not understand?
And still waiting for you to show where I used CAGW....
So why do you insist it must either be catastrophic or the reindeer must be thanking their lucky stars, you shit-gargling imbecile?
And you accept Hansen's predictions of 3.2C per doubling of CO2 as ECS. This IS news! Well done for seeing a tiny sliver of reality!
"what part of the word “word” did you not understand?"
None of it.
What part of AGW do you not understand?
"And still waiting for you to show where I used CAGW…."
Really? Do you have to ask your nurse to wipe your bottom and the drooling gruel from your mouth too?
@13: I asked what weight is carries in the catastrophic-only climate scenarios.
WoW.
Betula is more than happy to take the bait and play semantics with you and then bait you back.
I'm not interested thanks all the same.
You have fun taking your family/pets/plants along to those ecologists.
For your family/pets/plant's sake, I hope the ecologists have enough sense to refer you to the local people who are qualified to help.
Still waiting for you to show where I said CAGW....
"Still waiting for you to show where I said CAGW…."
What part of @13 did you not understand?
"Betula is more than happy to take the bait and play semantics with you and then bait you back."
Tell batshit betty I can play it better than that ignorant weasel since I have greater intelligence to play it with.
Oh, I forgot, you only want to control realists, not your fellow deniers.
" I asked what weight is carries in the catastrophic-only climate scenarios"
Is there something in that sentence about anthropogenic global warming? Oh, and Is there an answer to the question?
"You have fun taking your family/pets/plants along to those ecologists."
You have fun taking them to ecologists. I take mine to the vets.
I don't expect the course they went on to provide conclusions about how to implement management strategies to help those reindeer.
Neither do the vets.
Or the ecologists.
Only you do, StuPid. Because when it comes to full retard, you really WANT to out-dumb betty.
"Tell batshit betty I can play it better than that ignorant weasel since I have greater intelligence to play it with"
Yes, your lack of comprehension and desperation are working wonders for you...
Yes:
"Yes, your lack of comprehension and desperation are working wonders for you…"
Ah, batshit betty trying so hard.
Failing.
Wow takes his family to the vet.....this is all starting to make sense.
So, getting the last word in means so much to you, eh?
Wow - "catastrophic-only climate scenarios"
Oh, I see it now...a in catastrophic, n In scenario, t, h and r in catastrophic, o in only.....wait, there's no p. Sorry, don't see it.
And yet more idiot from batshit. Try reading more than one word at a time, betty.