March 2017 Open Thread

More thread.

More like this

Stalin had Trofim Lysenko. Trump has a whole stable of wrong-way scientists to chose from. Lindzen? Judith Curry? Roy Spencer? John Cristy? Fred Singer? Decisions, decisions. Not and easy "D". But it is easy to make choices based on how much the outcome of that choice will cause pain to a political opponent, a concerned segment of the populace, or an opposing party. Trump seems to have predicated his predatory philosophy on going for soft underbellies. He seems to enjoy inflicting pain. And he has professed admiration for Vlad Putin. Interesting....

And with that at #1 you have just proven that you suffer from 'confirmation bias'.

Message for 2Stu.

Why are you asking such supremely stupid, unproductive, questions?

Why are you avoiding what is becoming more and more obvious, ghg emission linked catastrophes are mounting ? Simply scroll through to grab the headings for it is clear that any finer reading understanding is beyond you.

Keep those planes flying Lionel...

Lionel.
Why are you ignoring what is becoming more and more obvious that your favoured political and socio-economic solutions is not working?
Bernard J's vitriol, Jeff Harvey's hubris & your attempts at elitism are all classic examples of this failing meme.
Despite your assertions otherwise, people do care about the planet.
They just don't care for your attitude.
I think writing sneering comments about your summation of other people's intelligence or lack thereof is actually not intelligent.

And Lionel,
The chief cause of famine in places like Africa and Somalia is poor governance.
Trying to change the global weather and/or climate via global GHG reductions will not help those people.
They are only interested in trying to survive.
They have no time to care about the GBR.

Shorter Hardley, in order to show how weak your fanatic stance on the extremely doubtful truth about abnormal global warming due to human activities really is, I give you a very simple question and your honest answer to it will show what I want do demonstrate:

Question to Shorter Hardley: In case I pay you confidentially one million US $ on the condition that you consent to give up your fanatic acceptance of the AGW speculation and demonstrate your changed attitude by signing the Lindzen letter to the new US President that AGW is a fake ?

Hardley, try an honest answer and also try to abstain for once from your usual sensefree blather without any relevance to anything except for your isatiable craving for personal recognition.

Hardley, one other thing which has to be corrected and which emerges from your insane tendencies of craving for undeserved recognition: your comparison of scientific reputation of Dr. Judith Curry and your's ("... bla bla ... my impact factor... bla bla ... my number of pubs .. bla bla ...") is utter bullshit, as Dr. Curry works and has worked in the field of atmospheric sciences, whereas you waste your spoiled lifetime and undeserved taxpayers money with totally irrelevant studies on wasps, fles and other boring and primitive subjects.

Shorter Hardley: TAKE NOTE TO THE FOLLOWING FACTS:

1) In atmospheric sciences you are a TOTAL ZERO, completely irrelevant and unknown.

2) From 1) follows that your, Hardley, assertions that AGW is something real is totally unfounded on own judgement arising from own knowledge and experience in the field of atmospheric sciences, but is therefore only and just a layman's belief, Hardley's belief, of what others have told him, Hardley, and what he, Hardley, emotionally likes.

3) From 1) and 2) follows that any expressions of Hardley an AGW are completely irrelevant regarding the validity of the assertion that dangerous human-induced global warming is true or not.

Therefore Hardley is an irrelevant moron regarding AGW: QED

But Curry has been proven wrong. She's even retiring out of embarrassment.
So clearly, regardless of whether he has relevant expertise, Harvey is a more reliable analyst of climate-related expert opinion.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 05 Mar 2017 #permalink

Craig, what an incredible relevation from you on behalf of your religious climate group:

"regardless of whether he has relevant expertise, Harvey is a more reliable analyst of climate-related expert opinion"

regardless of Hardley's expertise he is an expert without expertise: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you fool.

Do dissect fully you incredibly silly idiocies: You allude in your "argument" to some "expert opinion" which stands above all in your view - this is the official green-soci IPCC Al Gore et al. "expert opinion". When an "REAL" expert in the feld of atmospheric sciences like Dr. Curry does not agree the YOU paganly-adored "EXPERT HAHAHAH OPINION" than it cannot be, by your insane definition, any longer an "expert opinion": YOU CANNOT GRASP HOW BIG AN IDIOT YOU REALLY ARE - nearly just as big an idiot as Hardley, LINNEL, Berntrar, INAMO or other Doltoid arselicks

Yep, clear, in analogy: because Hardley believes the right thing, according to you and your climate religion he plays also better the piano as as worldwird acclaimed concert pianist who denies climate change.

How deep of asshole idiots are you climate hysterics finally: just incredibe how dumb and silly you climate morons really are

So the total global sea ice extent is currently the lowest that it has ever been during the period of the satellite record, for this day of the year. Sea ice data would be hard to fake. It is there for all the technologically oriented people of the world to see, literally. I suppose that the climate change denialists will say that this data has been faked, but frankly, wouldn't that be akin to suggesting that the Earth is flat, that there are no satellites, and that the moon landing was faked? As a technologically oriented person, I see this data and want to know why this is happening, why there is this steady decline in polar sea ice. It is interesting. I am curious. According to the scientists who study changes in solar energy output, it is not related to that. According to scientists who study ice ages and their correlation with Milankovitch cycles in the Earth's orbit, it is not related to that. According to a long unbroken line reasoning by great physicists and chemists going back to Joseph Fourier, it definitely appears to be related to the heat retaining characteristics of our atmosphere. And we of the species homo sapiens have been adding the heat retaining gas carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at a rate of around 38.2 billion tons per year last year, without doing anything to see that a corresponding amount of this gas is extracted from the atmosphere. That is essentially like adding 2.4 million pounds of waste to the atmosphere every second of the day with no attempt to clean up that waste. As a result, this gas is building up in the atmosphere. And the atmosphere closest to the surface of the Earth, where we live, is getting warmer. People of the certain political persuasions seem to want others to ignore these scientific observations, for reasons about which I can only speculate. That in itself is a curious scientific phenomenon. But human behavior and motivation is a complicated subject, far more complicated in many ways than the simple observation that carbon dioxide prevents heat from escaping to space as infrared photons and results in warming at the planet's surface.

So how will this all play out? I don't know. The sea level will undoubtedly continue to rise, the climate will undoubtedly continue to change, and humans will, hopefully, be able to adapt. If they can't, they will die out. One thing we need to do is see past the propagandists and their allies, keep our rationality about science, and continue to show compassion for our fellow humans. If we don't, then we will be devolving into reptilian behavior patterns, and the results, I suspect, will not be fortunate. Peace.

Craig, don't engage with these idiots. The Arctic and Antarctic death spirals continue, and yet you are trying to discuss science with a psychotic (Kim) who thinks that one scientist (Judith Curry) has more knowledge about climate change than tens of thopusands of scientists who disagree with her,,,, I hate to hear his smears of Hansen, Trenberth, Schmidt, Ramsdorf, Mann, Santer, Mahalmann et al. whose combined publication records in climate science put Curry's to shame.

Furthermore, it appears that Curry has trouble telling a mole cricket from a giraffe, which isn't hard given that she has no formal background in zoology or ecology. I do, and along with many hundreds of other scientists we are seeing all kinds of biological effects of warming... across multiple ecosystems.

As for Stu2 accusing his critics of vitriol, elitism and hubris, well that just about takes the cake. Come on Stu, look who is on 'your team''... a washed up tree pruner with no skills in anything and a psychotic God-knows what. I don't see you calling them out, so it clearly shows that scum that you line up behind.

But its time I write to Tim - he is a friend on Fb - and I suggest that he formally boots at least Kim our of here. He's gone well over the line and its time he was tossed out for good. Betula is good for comic relief, given he has about as much scientific acumen as a piece of dried bark. But Kim is just a vile piece of shit. And I will get him/her/it out of here.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 06 Mar 2017 #permalink

Team????
That's one of my major criticisms of current politics Jeff.
We're all being exposed to the ridiculous idea that we're a bunch of sporting fans barracking for a sporting team and we can only be either for it or against it.
It's unproductive tosh!!!!
Thanks for pointing that out Jeff.
However.
I'm definitely not a fan (or member) of this team:
"Misanthropy
If you are a somewhat intelligent and rational person, you will eventually come to the realization that humanity is fucked up and they all deserve to be wiped from the face of the Earth for their stupidity.
This is called Misanthropy. I will be waiting for you when you join.
:-)

Hardley, your reading comprehension is ZERO. You are unable to match even one criticism of your weak stance: how can you study warming when temperature on the average goes up within the error of noise and a temperature measuring method with permanently changing target (I know that you know zero about this, Craig also, that's the reason why you flatter Craig). Your Dunning Kruger attitude in climatology is based on profound lack of knowledge and understanding on the processes in the atmosphere. Why do you have such enormous problems to admit that you are just a layman in climatology. It is your duty to behave honestly and you are given a salary for being honest.

Come on Stu, admit it... you say nothing about the frankly insane rants of Kim, who is clearly on unattended leave from a mental facility, yet you continually vent your vacuous rants at me, Lionel, Bernard and others. You have emerged from the 'luke warmer' camp, those who somehow think that we can 'adaptively manage' a process that is a full frontal assault on ecosystems across the biosphere. Adaptive management requires technology to replicate conditions lost by the combined human assault, technology that we just do nit possess and probably never will. Humans have known about the collision course we are on with natural systems for well over 30 years and since then we have done bugger all to deal with it; indeed, judging by the rampant neoliberal order running amok across the globe and the embracing of right wing populists as a backlash against the liberal elites (who have pushed this rancid political system) one might even say that we are going in reverse. In the post below one needs only to look at the state of the Arctic/Antarctic ice extent (the cryosphere) to realize that the situation is veering into critical territory.

Now to our new psychotic, Kim, who for some reason thinks that the lonely figure of Judith Curry has reinvented the field of climate science. Note that he/she/it did not answer my point as to why 97% of the climate science commubnity agree that humans are the main driver behind climate change, including a number of climate scientists whose publication records put Curry's into the shade. Instead, Kim comes back with a complete comprehension fail with respect to the term ' Dunning-Kruger', revealing how utterly stupid (as well as deranged) he/she/it is.

Kim habitually ridicules the concept of ecosystem services – by now a core subject in economic and ecological courses in universities around the world. So what expertise does he/she/it possess in the field? Well, you guessed it – NONE! So that places he/she/it at the base of the x axes (near the junction of the x and y axes on the D-K graph, in the know-nothing area) whereas on the y-axis he would be placed very high, reflecting high confidence. Pure D-K effect; a textbook example. And in keeping with that, he/she/it is so utterly stupid that he/she/it doesn’t know that he/she/it is stupid, also explained in D-K presentations. Once again, a textbook case of the D-K effect. Also, I would like to see proof of Kim's ‘infinitely superior intelligence’ in the form of bonafide qualifications e.g. a PhD degree, or some other example of his relevant education. Kim has none, so he/she/it is left to tell the world how utterly brilliant he/she/it is without the letters after his/her/its name to prove it.

So Kim, put up or shut up. What is it that you do professionally sweetheart? Afraid to let the cat out of the bag? Of course you are, because for all we know you sit in your padded cell spewing out this nonsense.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 07 Mar 2017 #permalink

Stu, I won't even bother to read your link from a denier blog. Its not an interesting perspective, its total bullshit. Trust you to be getting your world views from blogs that are not science-based. When are you going to start pasting links up here revealing the death threats levied against scientists raising the alarm? Let's start here:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/22/climate-change-scie…

Then lets go to the cryosphere:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Class dismissed.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 07 Mar 2017 #permalink

From last page Jan thread.
Kim opines...
"People like Betula or Stu 2, of course Olaus, not to speak of myself, are infnitely superior in any significant and important aspect of modern life, because we represent the strong future-oriented direction of mankind ... "
Hahahahahahahahahaha
You can shove your superiorness up your arse you muppet.
Honestly, where i live, only complete cockheads talk like that.

Global sea ice extent is the lowest ever recorded for this day of the year. Interesting. I'm sure it's just a natural variation. Meanwhile, the supreme meany is getting his information for guiding the country from Breitbart and Alex Jones.Isn't it great that he is in synch with the greatest conservative thinkers of our era? Well, I have to go make a sacrifice to the fire God, Fafofu. Bye!

You are, of course, right Li. Kim is beyond an idiot. He's a raving lunatic. He doesn't udnerstand that the Dunning-Kruger effect is actually written to describe uneducated minions like himself - he's effectively too stupid to know he's too stupid. He berates the term 'ecosystem services' while it's clear he's never studied them. He defends Judith Curry as if she is the only climate scientist on Earth - strange considering >95% of climate scientists don't agree with her at all. And then he tries to play the qualifications gambit, against me of all people, with 182 papers, ~5300 citations with an h-factor of 41. Kim's tallies are 0, 0 and 0.

But let's compare the CVs of Curry and several other leading climate scientists who are not AGW deniers:

Judith Curry, 210 papers, h-factor 42;
Kevin Trenberth, 240 papers, h-factor 78;
Michael Mann 180 papers, h-factor 51;
Ben Santer, 147 papers, h-factor 51;
Gavin Schmidt, 107 papers h-factor 48;

Recall that Curry published her first paper in 1980, and that Mann, Schmidt and others not until the 1990s... I published my first paper in 1993, and already i have an h-factor of 41 for my work. On a per capita basis we are miles ahead of her.

The thrust of Dunning-Kruger is that those who are trained in certain fields know what their intellectual and cognitive limitations are in those fields. I have never said that I know more about climate science than Judith Curry, BUT and its a big BUT, I defer to the opinions of the vast majority of climate scientists whose views on climate change are very different from hers. Indeed, she is an outlier, a lonely denier whose views lie well outside the mainstream view. So how is Kim, with his ZERO qualifications in anything related to science, able to say that Curry's views on climate change are correct and the >95% of climate scientists who disagree with her are wrong? Where did he miraculously obtain this wisdom? The same is true when he ritually belittles the field of ecolgical services. Kim has ZERO qualifications in that field, either, but that doesn't stop him writing as if he is an expert.

Once again, Kim is so utterly stupid that he doesn't know it.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 07 Mar 2017 #permalink

One last demolition of Stu2 and I am off:

He cites an appalling, childish article on a climate change denial blog. Here is the stated aim of CCD:

"Climate Change Dispatch (CCD) is a science and environmental news site showing its visitors the facts behind the theory of global warming, which are not being told by the mainstream media and the global-warming zealots".

Facts? Whose facts? And global warming zealots? And Stus2 expects me to take this seriously?

Good grief, Stu2, you are even more stupid than I thought. You try and debate citing infantile climate change denial blogs. Wow's nickname for you fits.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 07 Mar 2017 #permalink

Sorry, I just read this howler from Stu2... I thought he couldn't get any worse but then he does:

"The chief cause of famine in places like Africa and Somalia is poor governance"

Yes, for sure. And who supports these vile regimes? Who often helped them into power and maintains them? Come on Stu2, I am all eyes and ears.

Perhaps you ened a primer:

https://www.amazon.com/Looting-Africa-Exploitation-Patrick-Bond/dp/1842…

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/02/looting-machine-warlords-…

http://fahamubooks.org/book/?GCOI=90638100628980

I can't wait for Stu's insidious denial gear to kick in here...

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 07 Mar 2017 #permalink

Jeff.
Trying to change the global climate/weather via GHG reductions will do nothing to address the issues you raise @#20.
Which was my point @#5
The piece I linked was not written by climate dispatch.
It was written by Dr Danusha V Goska and it was her perspective.
From my perspective neither you or Kim appear interested in discussing a sensible way forward.
Which part of my comment about 'team sports' are you failing to understand?
I guess perhaps none of it as you are continuing to accuse me of barracking for a 'team'.
I'm not even slightly interested in doing that.
I'm interested in discussing the actual solutions.
You have therefore just wasted your time and energy.

kim, on March 6, 2017

Quotes Craig:

"“regardless of whether he has relevant expertise, Harvey is a more reliable analyst of climate-related expert opinion”"

And paraphrases this as:

"regardless of Hardley’s expertise he is an expert without expertise: "

This reveals the basic problem shared by many deniers - they are irrational, lack the ability to parse sentences accurately, and constantly demonstrate that they fail to understand what they read.

I didn't say Harvey was an "expert", I said he was a reliable analyst of expert opinions.

An unreliable analyst would be, for example, somebody who,
- places undue weight on the opinions of non-experts, eg, Watts, Tol, Lomborg, McIntyre, McKitrick
- places undue weight on what they read on crank blogs
- places insufficient weight on primary sources, for example, published research
- places undue weight on media articles written by the likes of David Rose or the laughable James Delingpole
- awards undue credibility to unqualified individuals with a history of CV padding, eg Monckton.
- awards undue credibility to researchers with a history of publishing poor quality work, eg Lindzen

By conducting a proper analysis that places the correct weight on expert and inexpert opinion, somebody like Harvey can form their own opinion in a competent way.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 07 Mar 2017 #permalink

"Jeff & Kim’s references to Dunning Kruger are both exhibiting classic symptoms of the Dunning Kruger effect."

Bullshit. And you know it, Stu2. You are a vacuous moron who never hesitates to comment in fields well outside of your expertise. I am a qualified scientist and population ecologist; you are not. You are a wannabe. You don't remotely understand what the Dunning-Kruger effect is, but you are a luke warmist/denier who wants to impose your own layman's wisdom in discussions on here. Kim is an uneducated fool.

D-K are actually planning to write a paper in which they use their model to explain climate change denial. I am NOT a denier. I am a scientist who, among other things, studies the ecological effects of warming. My views on climate change reflect the views of >95% of the climatew science community. I defer to their opinions, which are categorically clear: humans are the primary driver behind the recent current warming. End of story. The science, at least when it comes to causation, is in. The debate is now to postulate what effects there will be in the future. I am trained well enough as a professional scientist to know that I rely on scientists like Mann, Hansen. Trenberth, Santer and the majority of others.

For your part, clowns like you and Kim write as if you possess some inherent wisdom that has escaped the trained specialists. You are driven by your own narrow, ideological beliefs, and seek confirmation for these. Craig has explained why I am more than competent enough, as a scientist, to evaluate credible science from garbage. You clearly can't, and your inability to grasp what Dunning and Kruger showed is clear evidence of this.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Mar 2017 #permalink

Furthermore, Stu, the article may not have been written by Climate Change Dispatch but they sure liked to spread the word. Danusha Goska is entitled to her right wing views. Claiming that its only those on the left who are 'intolerant' is actually quite hilarious, and if one looks further into her views one sees that there is a lot more to her 'miraculous conversion' than simple behavior. She is a fundamentalist Christian who tends to support a lot of policies that emerge from groups like the Tea Party in the U.S. Indeed, as an example fo someone changing ship, so to speak, she is quite utterly pathetic.

And please don't also try and tell me that people on the political right are tolerant. Fox News? Alex Jones? Rush Limbaugh? James Delingpole? Marc Morano? Tolerant? The political right is full of hatred and vitriol. Given that liberal though is actually quite dead in America, one wonders what left thinking people Goska was referring to. Under the Clinton and Obama the Democratic Party swung far to the right. They bailed out the banks on public money, waged wars on behlaf of the military industrial complex, created a prison-industrial complex to go along with the military industrial complex, supported 'free trade' agreements like NAFTA and TPP that were actually investor's rights agreements and were happy to see the US futher entrench itself as a fully fledged corporate state. So if Goska is referring to these 'liberals' then she is dumber than I thought.

I have been going through climate change blogs - indeed, almost a hundred of them - to examine their perspectives on the science. What I found is that the two 'sides' presentt their arguments in a very different way. One side - those defending science and supporting the broad consensus - actually focus on the empircal studies and most pay lip service to deniers. The deniers, on the other hand, come across as a spoiled bunch of childish bullies, much like playground thugs who are not getting their way. The difference is actually quite striking. They rotuinely deride and smear climate scientists with who they disagree.

So you can take your kindergarten-level views elsewhere. You are ritually humilated on here and just don't like it.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Mar 2017 #permalink

Jeff, my friend, you read Goska wrong, of course. Surprise! She talks about you and your embedded likes. She has no trouble recognizing that conservatives also can be intolerant.

She understood though, that the "liberal" black-and white views were destructive, cultivating intolerans and a dislike for others.

Like I convincingly told you before Jeffie friend, it is no wonder that fascism and communism share so many common ideological features: anti-capitalism, anti-liberalism, anti-parlamentarism and a whorship of strong leaders and direct action = Mussolini kept his old commie-views when he developed fascism.

Hate on, my friend.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 08 Mar 2017 #permalink

Jeff @#25.
That's a classic display of the DK syndrome.
I note that you're still also assigning people to 'teams' .

Olaus.... please do me a favor and take a flying leap... your latest musings are the usual bullshit I expect from you. You conflate regulations limiting the highly destructive effects of capitalism with being 'anti-capitalist'. You are the kind of idiot who would accuse me of being against some corporation that was proven to be dumping loads of toxic waste into a river, contaminating the water supply and destroying the biodiversity found in the river. Its a reflexive argument of those trying to camouflage the harmful things that they are doing. Your argument is typical jargon used by those hiding nefarious activities who smear your opponents with the 'anti' label. Its a tried a trusted means of greenwashing and anti-environmental PR and I have demolished it many times before, so no need to do it again here. You are a creep. No more needs to be said.

Stu2, my take on that Climet Change Dispathc has nothing whatsoever to do with the D-K effect so fucking well stop it... She is entitled to her own opinions. The political right is hardly tolerant; look at the levels of abuse and death threats heaped upn Mann and other climate scientists by those on the political right. If anything, the right is far less tolerant of dissenting views than are those on the progressive left. Read Breitbart News and that becomes patently obvious.

As for the article that you linked to, I read it. What has this got to do with debates about science? In most cases one side is right and another is wrong. Nowhere is that more true than in the climate change 'debate'. One side bases their arguments on the prevailing empirical and theoretical science and the other doesn't. One side has almost unanimous support amongst the experts in the field and the other doesn't. One side is politically and ideologically driven and one side isn't.

I aside with those promulgating the truth, as elusive as that is, and not the aother side made up primarily of right wing shills and corporate lobbyists.

And finally, Dr. Longstaff does NOT have the qualifications to comment on issues related to science. By the way, when are you going to start referring to me as Professor? We had Dr. Goska and now Dr. Longstaff, so there you go: assigning titles to people whose views you respect and avoiding to apply them to people with whom you disagree. I hate formality, but its interesting how deniers always do this with people they support. Kim, GSW et al. routinely inflate the quaifications of people they like, and always refer to them by thgeir professional titles, but I am simply Harvey or Hardley or worse, despite the fact that I am every bit as qualified or even more so than the 'luminaries' they ritually wheel out.

You are the same. I've seen you respectfully put up people here with their title (Dr.) when they are downplaying the effects of warming on coral reefs, terrestrial ecosystems etc. In many cases these 'experts' you have rolled out have about 3 papers in their careers. I have 182. No comparison.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Mar 2017 #permalink

Professor Jeff.
Longstaff was not commenting on science.
He was commenting on Philosophy and Ethics.
Re-read your comment @#25.
It had nothing to do with 'science'.
Classic demo of DK.

You are, of course, right Li. Kim is beyond an idiot. He’s a raving lunatic.

In some ways Kim reminds me of Squealer from Orwell's Animal Farm.

Why are you ignoring what is becoming more and more obvious that your favoured political and socio-economic solutions is not working?

You are assuming allot there StuPID!

What are my, favoured political and socio-economic solutions?

I don't think you understand my motives at all.

Bernard J’s vitriol, Jeff Harvey’s hubris & your attempts at elitism are all classic examples of this failing meme.

Ah! Yes! The put down of those who have troubled to learn what is really going on and where the problems lie now, and where they are likely to go in the future. In other words those who have studied the issues of climate and change, social history and much more. That is not elitism but an honest journey along the data - information - knowledge - understanding - wisdom continuum with sources cited along the way.

That you chose to ignore those sources and continue with selective storyism, which is self-contradictory over time, is to behave like Napoleon in Orwell's well known book.

Now for this simplistic stupid:

The chief cause of famine in places like Africa and Somalia is poor governance.

Absolute tripe, except for the fact the the influence of the World Bank, IMF and Vulture Capitalism (check that one out) have replaced the rape of Africa (see 'Scramble for Africa') by the imperial powers.

However, and in a trend continuing since the days of the first city states in e.g. Mesopotamia and Egypt climate change induced drought has a large influence in promoting famine. That is a most informative blog BTW, click on the title for the main page then scroll down through many of the topics to take in the breadth of information. Breadth of knowledge promotes understanding something which you need to work towards. [1]

Research the histories of ancient civilisations in that region if you doubt the validity of that.

Now I distinctly remember putting this information in front of you on numerous previous occasions, that you should continue to engage in such vacuity shows that any elitism on our part is a figment of your imagination being more a product of your existing in (as Bernard J would write) an epistemic bubble.

Eventually, we shall see, unless there is a turn around in agricultural policies, similar trends across Amazonia and across Indonesia–Papua New Guinea and more widely Oceana in general.

[1] This is where such as Lindzen and Curry come a cropper as they have only narrowly studied certain aspects of science and lack the breadth of vision to do anything other than make nuances of themselves having long abandoned true scientific enquiry for advocacy.

Hum, Freudian slip:

[1] This is where such as Lindzen and Curry come a cropper as they have only narrowly studied certain aspects of science and lack the breadth of vision to do anything other than make nuances nuisances of themselves having long abandoned true scientific enquiry for advocacy.

Go ahead Stu and tell me where I was exhibiting the D-K effect in post 25. By the way, you do it all the time for the record; as when you comment on anything related to the environmental effects of climate change; you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. And your views on governance in Africa made me cringe. Kindergarten level stuff. But I digress.

Back to post 25. I looked up the sad woman who 'saw the light and is no longer a leftist'. Indeed, she provided no proof that she actually ever was a 'leftist'; we have to go on her word. I read some of her assertions. Her views are those of a right wing Republican. That she ends up as a poster child for an anti-environmental/climate change denying blog is informative.

But, like Kim, who is as daft as a brush, you are twisting and distorting Dunning and Kruger's model to suit your own ends. These scholars would laugh at you, and for those like Kim who cannot see the wood from the trees.

One thing though: I love shitting all over a moron like you on Deltoid. Its fun. For me, hammering you is like picking cherries. You tried to camouflage your ideological bias but it bleeds through in everything that you write. You are an idiot, yet you don't know it. There you go. D-K personified. Now go back to your desk, hole, or wherever it is that you live and lick your wounds.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Mar 2017 #permalink

Lionel, these idiots are so stupid that they don't know it. Thanks for your excellent posts. Its a shame that Bernard was only passing through. Love your demolition of Stu's kindergarten level musings above about 'poor governance in Africa'. It's a bit like saying that 'Iraq is a bit of a failed state these days' without applying the proper attribution.

I really didn't know people could be so willfully ignorant until Stu showed up. He tries so hard, oh yes, to show that he is 'informed', but he is so utterly vacuous. Linking to anti-environmental blogs when making points about how bad and intolerant we leftists are, and to Sky News when suggesting that some 'jihadists' are seeing the light and mending their ways. Nothing about the far greater intolerance of the politicial right, or why there are jihadists in the first place. Its like they emerged from the ether to attack our wonderful civilizations. Seems like the fact that our governments have dropped industrial numbers of bombs on countries in the Middle East, killing hundreds of thousands of men, women and children does not exist in Stu's lexicon. That we create hatred and nurture it. Instead, these jihadists are just all bad people who are inherently evil because they hate our wonderful bastions of civilization. Even Trump doesn't believe that. Its pure Blair and Bush.

Kindergarten level stuff, really. But Stu's been spewing this crap for several eyars on here. He shows no signs of stopping.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Mar 2017 #permalink

Hardley, are you aware of the fact that there are no thermometer readings of air temperatures 2m above the ground from the continent Antarctica in the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) database of NOAA before the year 1950???

Answer requested!!

Kim, could you please send me your list of peer-reviewed publications in any fields... given your expertise in, well everything, I assume that you must be a tenured professor with hundreds of papers. I am sure that you are continually invited to universities around the world to impart your incredible wisdom, and I am sure that you also have publsihed sveral books. So please, may I, a humble professor who swoons at your wisdom, please have a list of your paers, boosk etc? If its not too hard...

On a serious note, it will take Kima about three seconds because he has no papers, no books, has no relevant degrees in anything, and indeed, he's an uneducated idiot.

Meanwhile:

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/02/warming-signs-is-climate…

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Ultimately, Stu is just a simpleton whereas Kim is a raving lunatic...

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Mar 2017 #permalink

Jeff Harvey @#34.
To answer your question.
Your entire comment @#25 was based on fields like philosophy, politics, ethics and psychology.
It's judging and commenting by:
'illusory superiority', mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is"
Classic DK effect.
There is also a good dose of 'cognitive bias' in your comment @#25.
Classic DK effect.
I note that you're also still assigning people to teams?
Lionel.
Trying to change the global climate/weather via reducing global GHG emissions is not going to help those people, nor is it going to stop the 'rape of Africa'.

However, to be fair to Lionel,
Sensible agricultural policy as per his second last paragraph @#32 is something that needs attention.
Poor policy is due to poor governance not to the weather/climate.

Good agricultural policy occurs when govts and depts and academics work with the people who farm and are directly involved in land and water management rather than the current mindset that sees them alienated and demonised by 'environmental politics'.

Where is post 25 do I say anything about illusory superiority? And what the hell has that got to do with D-K? If we are talking about right wing pundits, then this has nothing to do with D-K; its evident from their double speak.

Again, explain exactly what you mean by cognitive bias? The fact that people on the right are less tolerant than people on the left? That they are often much more violent and resort to smears? Nothing biased about that. Its true.

Some advice Stu: you are a pseudo-intellect. You have essentially childish views of the ways in which the world works that are actually hilarious, and so, so easy to demolish. You have absolutely no expertise in any areas related to environmental science or ecology, yet you freely spew out bullshit on here over and over. I an one-on-one debate with someone with the requisite qualifications, you'd be humiliated. I would have no trouble getting an audience to laugh and snicker at you as I did with Lomborg (much to his distress). Your comments re: poor governance is your latest howler. Note how I present evidence (and I can present a lot more) on how corrupt regimes in Africa are more often than not installed and supported by western governments and our corporate sector. How the aim is and has always been to loot the continents vast stores of wealth primarily for the benefits of western investors. Read the words of influential planners and politicians like Kennan and Kissinger, or read any number of declassified state planning files of the US and UK governments and the aims become manifestly clear: suppression of democracy and indigenous nationalism and to 'interfere with decision making processes' in countries with vast stores of mineral wealth. I've read many of them. Stu hasn't. He's as thick as a sack of potatoes, so he resorts to a last desperate measure: bait and switch. The only strategy when your ignorance is ritually exposed.

Stu, you are an intellectual lightweight. Its clear that you have never read the D-K paper either. Instead, you surf the internet, glean a bit here from Wikipedia or a bit there from a blog - usually some puerile climate change denying blog referring to the vast majority of scientists as ' zealots' - or a corporate news outlet like Sky - and then promulgate your views. Over the years I have read your garbage on here, I have continually cringed. You never surprise me with your pathetic attempts to suggest that the current predicament faced by humanity is not very serious and can successfully be dealt with by technology and various management practices. You interact with a few scientists and get the idea that you are some knowledgeable hot shot.

You're not. You're an ignoramus.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Mar 2017 #permalink

Hardley, I have asked you a simple question:

Hardley, are you aware of the fact that there are no thermometer readings of air temperatures 2m above the ground from the continent Antarctica in the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) database of NOAA before the year 1950???

The answer could be either "yes" or "no", but you ranted some blather, as always when your climatological incompetence is exposed.

In order to elevate a little bit your missing knowledge in climatology I will give a series of lessons.

Lesson 1: What is the GHCN database of NOAA

The GHCN database of NOAA contains all thermometer readings from over 7000 thermometer sites around the world of air temperatures close to the ground (ideally in 2m above the ground, but not everywhere). These thermometer reading values were are used by three institutes to calulate a so-called global temperature: 1) NOAA itself, 2) GISS, an institue within NASA, 3) CRU (Climate Research Unit, East Anglia University, UK). These three institutes compile a global temperature independently from each other, but all using the thermometer reading values from the GHCN database of NOAA.

I would welcome that you abstain in the future from your Dunning-Kruger habits of willful ignorance in scientific fields where you completely lack any knowledge, but blather evily around with your green-soci vile based on ideological prejudices which misguide your deranged views of our world.

Kim and I asked you a simple question: what is your educational background? How many peer-reviewed papers do you have in the empirical literature? You won't answer of course because the answers are nil and nil. For all I know you clean public lavatories for a living. And stop distorting the meaning of the Dunning-Kruger study. I have read the paper; you haven't. It argues that people like you, who have no relevent education in specific fields, vastly overestimate what you think you know about them. Given that you clean toliets for a living, as is clear from the resounding silence I get every time that I ask what your qualifications are, you are a model D-K subject.

The scientific organizations that you list above verify the effects of warming in botgh the Arctic and Antarctic.

Start here:

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~david/ding_etal_2011.pdf
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n2/abs/ngeo1671.html
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1026021217991

https://www.bas.ac.uk/science/our-research/topics/climate-climate-chang…

I tend to go along with the peer-reviewed literature over a toliet cleaner. So don't bloody well waste my time with your histrionics. If you are the genius that you profess yourself to be, then let's see you publish your Earth-shattering views in scientific journals. Otherwise, STFU.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Mar 2017 #permalink

One last question for the toliet cleaner (Kim) who thinks that he knows more than climate scientists working in Antarctic and the British Antarctic Survey. When you have written and published your Earth-shattering rebuttals of the papers I linked to above, please send me the PDFs. You see, unlike you, I defer to the expertise of the climate scientists studying climate change and its effects on the polar regions (Antarctic and the Arctic) and who pretty well unanimously agree that there are all kinds of signs of AGW on both regions. The lastest cryopshere data back that up. Whatever means one uses of measuring temperatures, one thing is for certain: ice extent at both regions is at record low levels for this time of the year. And just about every climate scientist who studiees these regions attributes this record low ice cover to AGW.

So who do I believe: them.... or you?!?!?!?!?!?! Gee, that's a toughie. Statured experts with hundreds of peer-reviewed publications or a guy who appears to clean public lavatories?
Kim you are such a dork. Yet, in true D-K fashion, you are simply too stupid to realize it.

Here you go Kim: the D-K effect which describes climate change deniers to a tee: https://climatecrocks.com/2012/05/19/the-weekend-wonk-dunning-kruger-ef…

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Mar 2017 #permalink

Look at Hardley's comments over the years....he is more than obsessed with Dunning Kruger, in fact, he can't answer a simple question without hiding behind it.

You can't hide behind yourself Hardley, we can see you.

Poor policy is due to poor governance not to the weather/climate.

And just what do you think causes 'poor policy'? WRT the Amazon, is it the fault of the indigenous peoples of the area?

No it is not.

Irresponsible land use such as that carried out by global agribusiness with the backing of banks and other capitalists will precipitate climate change across tropical regions for such rainforests have a very short hydrological cycle. As swathes of forest are cut down for growing cash crops (so as to pay the horrendous interest on loans) such as soy then ability of the forest to continue generating its own, damp, climate will attenuate.

This has potential global impact. Taking action to mitigate such issues is not a locally achievable task, it is global.

Substantial losses of Amazonian forests and the species diversity they house would impact climate at regional and intercontinental scales through changes in land–atmosphere energy exchange and precipitation (Werth & Avissar, 2002; Marengo, 2006), and globally through increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations and changes to the global balance of other key greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide and methane.

Source

Time and again we can see that greedy capitalists fail to understand the fable of the 'Goose that laid the golden eggs' probably from their being products of narrow, e.g. home, schooling. Epistemic bubbles from birth.

Betula, what's the point? You seem to love our Kim. Figures. He's a lunatic and you get all lovey-dovey. Idiot.

The question is meaningless because the Antarctic is warming. Every major scientific organization acknolwedges it. Look at the current state of coastal ice extent there. The problem with you and your lover is that both of you singularly fail to have a point in any of your posts. Kim makes some bullshit up about thermometers and temperature readings as if this has all bypassed the scientific community. I realize that the both of you are complete morons, but anybody with half a brain should be able to see that NASA, NOAA, the British Antarctic Survey, and American Geophysicits Union, the American Meterorological Society, and every National Academy on Earth affirms both AGW and its effects across the biosphere INCLUDING in the Antarctic. Then there are you, Kim, a few shills and other idiots who continually whimper, 'We disagree. It's natural'. The scientific community by-and-large either laughs at you or ignores you.

But again, what the hell is your point? What was your point when you wrote to Elberling? Do you ever have a point on here with respect to climate except to smear me and intimate that my views on AGW are somehow different from most of the climate science community? The fact is that if you and me stood in a gigantic room with all of the world's climate scientists and they were asked to take sides in this 'debate', virtually all of them would come over to me. You'd be left almost alone, sucking your tumb or whatever it is that you do.

Moreover, if you and Kim are such intellectual luminaries, write a fucking paper and send it to a journal. See what they do with it (I can tell you right now). If not, as I said to Kim, STFU.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Mar 2017 #permalink

It's really funny with these climate religion morons in the rear rows in the audience like the Hardleys, Linnels, Craigs, you name them: it just suffices to say something like "I am going to look at the methodology how the global temperature is calculated by the climate alarmists who believe in AGW" to elicit immediate utter vile and incivil rants with unimaginable offending calling of names towards they have never met and about which they know truly nothing but call them asshole, piece of shit, toilet cleaner etc etc etc and at the same time appeal to very questionable authority of post-modern pseudoscience entirely based on primitive computer games constantly failing to project the future weather, in order to accept their scientifically unproven assertions against the person who is interested in the very basics of the climate religion's weak scientific methodology, i.e. primarily of how these lunatic dreamers and wannabe new communist world dictators want to overthrow our well established demicratic systems as well as capitalism with their evil desire to destroy our world of culture, science, technology, achievements to all of which these anticapitalist assholes have effected zero contribution, but are only nasty parasites.

Hardley the next lesson in climatology I will give you deals with clarifications of your completely wrong picture from Antarctica.

kim, your buzz phrase generator is rambling.

LinnelU, your latest high-intellect "contribution" will elicit enthousiastic acclaim from shorter Hardley: what intelligent companionship you represent: chapeau, my full respect to your lingual creativity "buzz generator": we climate deniers can never ever so inventive as you acolytes of the true verity

Sigh :-(
Jeff.
Out here in the real world, real people are kicking real environmental goals.
They're making a difference.
It's got nothing to do with your ability or lack thereof to debate or what 'team' you think I do or don't barrack for or whether you think you do or don't have amazing academic qualifications or how many papers you have published or how many conferences you have been to or even Dunning Kruger.
In fact, quite clearly, any good work that is being done must have nothing at all to do with you as you spend all your time here dismissing any possibility of a civil discussion about actual solutions to specific environmental issues.
Amusingly you base your arguments and accusations on a simplistic 'black hat/white hat' perspective and on fields that you have neither experience or qualifications while at the same time accusing everyone else who questions you of the same thing.
Your comments @#25 was largely based on amateur psycho analyisis of people who you have assigned sides.
That's a classic demo of 'illusory superiority' and arguing with a 'cognitive bias'.
Contrary to your assertions otherwise, ' the bulk of the scientific community' are not demonstrably supportive of your personal 'black hat/white hat' socio-economic and political opinions.

http://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/amazon_conservation.html#rehab
Lionel.
I agreed that land use practices are an issue.
My point however was focusing on trying to change the global weather/climate by reducing global GHG emissions will not help those people in Africa.
As far as the Amazon is concerned here us ONE(!!!) example of how to work on implementing sensible land and water management policies based on practical, workable solution based on principles such as 'adaptive management' and 'citizen science' & etc.
The idea that some type of benevolent global bureaucratic dictatorship that simply trades in 'alarmism' and thinly disguised misanthropy is NOT WORKING!
We all know that humans are not perfect and that en masse and via our 'darker side' we have made mistakes.
It's POOR POLICY to keep trading on the emotional and ideological and is actually assisting the type of POOR GOVERNANCE that stops any sensible 'doing something about it'

And Lionel,
How on earth did you possibly come to the conclusion that I'm 'blaming' the 'indigenous people of the area' ?
My comment @#43 said pretty much the opposite.

Stu, let's start our dialogue again. I thought about this last night and I am tired of arguing. I apologize for my insults at you. Look me up at my work page and write me an email if you like and we can engage in a meaningful conversation. Otherwise, we can discuss these issues on here. I am defensive because people like Kim calls me and those concerned about climate change on Deltoid like Lionel as 'climate morons' as if we are the only people on Earth who believe in AGW. I have repeatedly and categorically stated that AGW is the consensus position of every major scientific organisation on Earth as well as among the vast majority of Scientists. But on Deltoid this argument is ritually ignored by Kim, Betula and their kind as if somehow it's all fictional.

I am simply deferring to the wisdom and expertise of my peers in the relevant fields who are part of the consensus. I am certainly qualified to discuss the effects of AGW on communities and ecosystems, where there is certainly abundant evidence that it warming. Right now it's a slam dunk. The causes for the warming are clear, as proven empirically. Again, I personally know many climate scientists and they all leave me with no doubts.

I agree with you that we need to be exploring ways to deal with AGW. I have been baited so many times over the years on Deltoid by deniers that I have lost focus on here. I know that your heart is in the right place. What we need to be doing now is discussing ways and means to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and, as you write, devise management plans to deal with AGW. There is little doubt that both approaches are vital.

What I do not intend to do on here any more is to engage in ridiculous toing and froing with uneducated laymen like Kim, Betula and Olaus who are trying to drag the debate to the lowest common denominator of causation. We are past the IPCC Working Groups 1 and 2; the scientific community is focusing on what we should do about the problem. This is where our discussion can be focused. The others: Is it warming? Are humans the primary culprit? Are there potentially serious consequences if we do nothing? have been addressed by the IPCC and are confirmed by the positions of every major scientific organisation on Earth, as I said above. And to reiterate, the empirical literature is full of studies reporting effects on ecosystems across the biosphere

So once again, I apologize for my language and behaviour. But with respect to the deniers on here I will adopt the Dr. Dade approach. Don't respond, don't answer, don't engage.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 11 Mar 2017 #permalink

My final riposte to Kim, who I believe is now on moderation, is that I don't care what means scientists used to measure temperature in the Antarctic. What is beyond doubt is that the ice extent in coastal waters is by far the lowest in recorded history, declining at an incredibly alarming rate, and 4 standard deviations below the 1981-2010 mean. Ditto for the Arctic. This categorically proves that the oceans are warming. And every major organisation which studies polar climate agrees that the primary cause is AGW. If people want to challenge that position then go ahead, but sniping away on blogs won't suffice. Only by submitting a.major study to a peer reviewed journal will the deniers be heard. This is where the science is advanced, and not through the anonymous musings of laymen on blogs.

Betula asked me why I did not answer Kim's question. Because it is irrelevant, as the current state of the cryosphere proves. I wonder why he never challenged Kim to answer my simple questions: do you have a PhD or any degrees in any field of Science? Yes or no. Have you published any scientific papers in any peer reviewed journals? Yes or no. Does every major scientific organisation on Earth concur as to AGW and the potential threats it posed to humanity? Yes or no.

I wrote a paper with Stuart Pimm 15 years ago in which we evaluated the credibility of scientific arguments.
1. Follow the data. We find that the data trails of AGW deniers and anti environmentalists usually goes cold very quickly.
2. Follow the credentials. Few statutes Scientists are AGW deniers; most are retired and we're experts in unrelated fields. And the ratio of statutes Scientists supporting or refuting AGW theory is about 30:1.
3. Follow the money. Many of the most prominent AGW deniers have had to admit that they are or have been on the corporate payroll. Specifically, funded by the oil and/or coal lobby or by think tanks supported by these

Certainly number 1 us by far the most important of the three we raised. And as I said, evidence in support of AGW is immense and growing.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 11 Mar 2017 #permalink

#58 "And as I said, evidence in support of AGW is immense and growing."
And notably, VERY BLOODY NOTABLY,
no remotly credible alternative mechanism has
been advanced to explain the observations.
Conspiracy dosnt cut it as a mechanism.
Natural cycles dosnt cut it as a mechanism if
they cant be comprehensivly explained and detailed.
You deniers have got NOTHING.
Its a movement of almost sublime futility.
A very special type of sickness actually. Quite obscene.

Jeff.
AGW is not the key issue.
Trying to change the global weather/climate via ONLY focusing on reducing global human GHG emissions and linking that to genuine local environmental degradation is NOT WORKING!
All it is doing is alienating the demographic groups that are the best equipped to actually improve land and water management practices.
Despite your assertions otherwise, that includes highly qualified and highly experienced scientists.
The bulk of the scientific community agrees that human activity impacts 'the environment' and that we need to work towards building on what works and repairing or rehabilitating what doesn't.
The bulk of the scientific community DOES NOT(!!!) agree that there is 'only one way' to achieve that.
That means that the bulk of the scientific community DOES NOT(!!!!) agree with your personal socio-economic, political, amateur psychology, revisionist & etc opinions.
There is NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE or any other evidence that some type of benevolent global bureaucratic dictatorship will save the global climate or the environment.
The damage and mistakes happened one at a time as did the successes.
There is no evidence that a magic silver bullet can suddenly make it all better.
And at no time did I feel personally insulted even though I recognize that was what you were trying to engage me in.
I'm not interested in that sort of crap.
Perhaps you have finally got that?
I'm interested in discussing genuine specific solutions to genuine specific issues.

Stu2,

I nevr said that the bulk of the scientific community believes that mitigation of C02 emissions is the ONLY solution... but it is a vital step. If the global temperatures are allowed to pass 2 C in the coming few decades then we are entering into unchartered territory... and if we go beyond 3-5=4 C then our species is in deep, deep trouble... the effects on complex adaptive systems that permit our existence will be so utterly devastating that they will generate widespread systemic collapse which we simply do not have the technology (and never will) to deal with. I wholeheartedly agree that there are a suite of environmental stresses that humans are inflicting across the biosphere and we need to address all of them. But climate change represents the final nail in the coffin. If we do not find some way to keep temperatures form rising above 2 C and beyond then the rest won't matter. Period.

As for saying the ' bulk of the scientific community', what do you think I am? I am a leading scientist who studies two areas related to global change: invasive species and climate change, on species interactions and communities. My publication record puts me among the top 5% in the world. I am not some country hick who speaks off the cuff and sees these issues flippantly. I am every bit as qualified as any of the scientists whom you say are the ' bulk' so why on Earth you would preach that to me, of all people, is somewhat bizarre. I can tell you that if I announce to universities in Australia that I will visit many will very rapidly invite me to lecture. This has nothing to do with ego but with stature. I am actually very well known among my peers. Moreover, at every major conference and workshop I attend climate change and its effects represents a major topic. None of them downplay it or say that we should not be dealing with it. NONE. They all agree that its a very serious threat to the environment. I was recently at a Gordon Conference in California and many of the scientists there discussed this with me. None of us would again say that it is the only threat but they would say that it is a key issue.

With respect to amateur psychology, I warn you that I was attempting to be polite yesterday. I offer you an olive branch and you throw it back in my face as if you are some famous statured expert and I am some lower minion. Let me put it this way: on the international arena, you are a total and utter unknown. I am not. I was a Nature editor and now as I said I am one of the leaders in my field and I am very well known around the world. I seriously believe that significant political changes are necessary to deal with the growing threats that humanity poses to the environment. My views are shared by many leading ecological economists and scientists, so its not remotely amateur. I am willing to discuss these issues with you in a civil manner, BUT, and its a big BUT my views are not amateur, simply because you say they are so.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Mar 2017 #permalink

Jeff.
In answer to your question.
I don't have an opinion on what you are.
Apparently, you haven't figured that out after all?

Stu, I expected a civil response from you, not one accusing me of making 'amateur' comments. That is your opinion which does not make it a fact. There are a large number of scholars in economics and science who very strongly believe, like me, that the current form of capitalism under the guise of neoliberalism is not only unsustainable in the mid to longer term but that it is incompatible with life. I am not espousing amateurish views here but views that have considerable empirical support. Economist Tom Athanasiou in his book 'Divided Planet: The Ecology of Rich and Poor' concluded with the words that only social justice and equity will save the living world from destruction. He makes compelling arguments to show this. Just because you appear to believe that the current system can be reconciled with sustainable development does not mean that I and many experts in various fields necessarily think that you are right. I am as qualified if not more so than the vast majority of people who you work with to comment on topics related to development as it impacts natural ecosystems. So my advice to you is to cease with the snide remarks and tell me how you think a system where 15% of the world's population controls 80% of the world's wealth can be temporally sustained.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Mar 2017 #permalink

I am so glad that the Chapel of Global Warming is still in existence here, albeit with a much reduced congregation, and even if you are still singing the same old hymns.

Anyway, I just wanted to commiserate with you all over the early demise of the Australian Climate Institute due to a lack of financial support. How could the Australian public be so hard-hearted?

By David Duff (not verified) on 12 Mar 2017 #permalink

Oh God, I thought that Duff would have taken his brainless denial after the three warmest years on record and a terrifying cryosphere and hidden under a rock.

No such luck.

His brainless stupidity is clearly incurable in spite of the overwhelming empirical evidence. He clearly has cognitive issues.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Mar 2017 #permalink

Jeff.
I merely answered your direct question.
You may or may not be more qualified than the people I work with.
So what?
Out here in the real world, real people are kicking real environmental goals.
They're making a difference.
That includes highly qualified and highly experienced scientists.
So apparently your assertion that there is only one way to save the world and that everyone agrees with you is perhaps not correct?
The actual environment actually doesn't care about the distribution of wealth Jeff.
Redistribution of wealth is not an environmental, ecological, climate & etc goal.
Quite some time back, I asked you to define one particular issue whether it be socio-economic or environmental and what specific plan you would put in place to successfully manage or improve outcomes.
We have just had international womens day.
Accross the globe, gender inequality is still a huge problem.
What has worked to improve that in not enough countries?
What works and what doesn't?
But that's just one example of course.

Stu, I never said that there is one way to 'save' the world. Moreover, essentially we are talking about saving the human species; the world will continue long after we are gone.

With regards to issues, there are many. The loss of wetlands is pandemic, and the effects of this on biodiversity across a range of scales is of great concern. How do we stop this destruction? For one thing we need to acknowledge that environmental destruction has enormous economic costs. I advocate full cost pricing to internalise the value of supporting and regulating ecosystem services. One of the major impediments to this has been the fact that governments in the developed world have been increasingly deregulating their economies in order to stimulate investment. This has effectively allowed the corporate sector to increase the amount of damage they do and to hold governments to random. Trump is caving in by dismantling the FDA and EPA, sure signs that corporations run the show. It's imperative that we recapture democracy from the bottom up, or else we are witnessing the ravaging effects of a runaway train.

I agree with Athanasiou that the solutions to environmental problems are locked up in politics and economics. And I won't shy away from saying that the current system is unsustainable. Small programme and policies built within this system will only delay the inevitable. If we don't rein it in - and given the swing towards right wing populist movements across much of the world it appears that we are instead going in the opposite direction - then I am very pessimistic.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Mar 2017 #permalink

Pessimism and negativity is not the answer, it never was, it isn't now and it's highly unlikely that it ever will be.
I agree that politics and economics are part of the answer.
Unfortunately the introduction of 'enviromentalism' that trades in alarmism and emotions is proving to be more of the same & obstructing positive action.
Taxing is about money and internal revenue and there is no evidence that it delivers anything truly worthwhile for the natural environment.
One of the programs I'm directly involved in is about the rehabilitation of wetlands.
Not unlike the link I posted above re the Amazon it involves a suite of practical, sensible, measureable management and monitoring techniques that also encourages people to work together on shared TBL goals.
People's political 'teams' or 'taxes' play no part in it.
In my experience as soon as politics and bureaucratic entities get involved, that's the beginning of the end of sensible NRM.

And Jeff.
You have oft claimed to me that there's only one way & you have done so again @#63 quoting Athanasiou that ONLY social justice and equality will save the world.
The real environment does not hold an opinion about the redistribution of wealth.
It doesn't care.

But please do outline how 'full cost pricing to internalize the value of supporting ecosystem services' is actually achieving worthwhile, measurable goals in relation to wetlands.
Which specific wetlands are benefiting from this tax and how are they benefiting?
Who is paying for these 'ecosystem services' and who are they paying?
What are the people who are being paid actually doing for the wetlands and surrounding natural and human environments?

Stu2, it is entirely rational and reasonable to conclude from the the overwhelming climate forcing that is constituted by human emissions of CO2 that humans should devise ways to cease those emissions.
We can put people on the moon, we can view parts of our universe dating back to very close to the moment of the big bang. Generating power without emitting CO2 *really* shouldn't be something that goes in the too hard basket - an opinion pretty much confirmed by the fact that the "too hard" argument is only coming from lobbyists whose interests conflict with those of disruptive technologies.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 13 Mar 2017 #permalink

...and Stu2, Longstaff says - among other things, that,
"...I have learned one of the least productive things one can do is seek to prove to another person they are wrong...
...Far better it is to make the attempt (and it must be a sincere attempt) to take the person and their views entirely seriously. ..."

This is the problem with people who approach philosophy (sociology is even worse, it is pretty much 99% pseudo-science) pseudo-scientifically.

If something is wrong, the *most* productive thing you can do is prove it and move on.

Shopuld you listen to some idiot's opinions about chemtrails and "take them seriously"?
Answer: yes - then investigate, prove them wrong, at which point they should admit their mistake and accept the truth.

Anybody who repeatedly peddles opinions that have been demonstrated to be false should *not* be taken seriously. They are clearly idiots.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 13 Mar 2017 #permalink

Full cost pricing will take into account the fact that wetlands provide a critically important range of ecosysteem services including provisioning of fresh water, detoxification of wastes/water purification, habitat for fish, amenity valse etc. No need to say any more about this. These values are externalized in economic scenarios and thus these values are only factored in when wetlands are lost. This is elementary ecological economics and its not my job here to educate you in this field. Look it up. Its easy to find a huge amount of literature in the field as well as economists and ecologists advocating full cost pricing. The only ecologists who oppose it are those who fear commodifying nature, but by now most of u's realize that it may be the only way to prevent a continuation of the rampant destruction of the environment. For their part, developers and corporations mostly oppose full cost pricing because they are able to pass these costs off onto the public who have little choice but to accept them. The value of services must be captured in what we pay for goods. But again, its not my job on a blog to start an elementary discussion over the supporting and regulating value of ecosystem services. Stu is eminently capable of doing that for himself. I have no need either to defend my arguments as that has already been done by many others in the literature.

As for the redistribution of wealth, read the book before you attempt to critique it. The same goes for several texts detailing the western/corporate plunder of wealth from Africa. Athanasiou's point is that poverty and inequality drive environmental destruction in the developing world. The environment may not have an opinion about the redistribution of wealth but then again that is a ridiculous assertion because it has not got an opinion on anything else. The point is that if our species cannot embrace more egalitarian policies that promote social justice across the biosphere, then the future is very bleak. It is simply not possible to promote an environmentally sustainable future when 15% of the world's population controls more than 80% of the world's wealth - and, even more obscenely, that a tiny fraction of the population within the 15% controls the power and the vast majority of the wealth.

Of course Athanasiou is correct. It is a no brainer.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Mar 2017 #permalink

Craig @# 71 & 72.
I agree that anything is possible with a mindset that that is rational and based on building on successes.
Unfortunately in 'environmental politics' & 'environmental ecinomics ( as opposed to the actual environment') the miindset is not rational and is based on alarmism, negativity and very unfortunately, thinly veiled misanthropy.
While we should of course work towards reducing harmful emissions, the pretense that it's the only key issue and must be solved by taxing is not helping to solve genuine environmental issues.
I note that @#73, Jeff is unable to answer specific practical questions but instead defaults to sweeping theoretical statements.
He once again ignores that real people (including highly qualified and highly experienced scientists) are out here in the real world kicking real envirinmental goals such as rehabilitating wetlands.
The actual environment doesn't care about human politics, economics and the redistribution of wealth.
The natural environment doesn't care for or practice the human concept of 'egalitarianism'.
As evidenced by such things as the bushfires in Vic in recent times, the whole concept of 'lock up and leave' is not conducive to good management for either the human or the natural environment.

Jeff.
Your theory has been tried before at local and national scales.
It does not deliver worthwhile environmental outcomes.
Rather, it delivers the opposite.
It's a nice theory, it just doesn't work.
IMHO there's no point in trying to prove that even though something is not right it's 'not wrong'.
We all know that human greed is a problem when it gets taken to extremes.
But that is also applicable to almost every human emotion, including the good ones.

Personally, I don't care if they concrete over all the wetlands instead of "rehabilitating" them (whatever that means). This has no effect on me.
The thing that *does* have an effect on me is the obvious threat to my economic and physical wellbeing posed by the fossil fuel industry causing rapid climate change and rising sea levels.
The thing that *does* affect me is when MY TAXES are being spent on subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, which in turn is being allowed to 100% externalise the cost of its CO2 pollution. MY TAXES will then be spent on addressing the effects of those externalised costs, namely:
- protecting or relocating coastal communities due to sea level rise
- relocating, abandoning, or developing new agricutures in response to climate shifts
- funding the government spending needed to keep our economy running after the inevitable climate-related global economic slump occurs. (As Wayne Swan did very successfully in response to the GFC).
- border security to keep out hundreds of millions of desperate and lawless climate refugees
AND/OR
- massive expense associated with providing welfare and policing of climate refugees we've been unable to keep out

See Nordhaus if you are in any doubt as to whether these costs are anything but a looming disaster.
Or the CIA:
https://climateandsecurity.org/2017/01/12/chronology-of-the-u-s-militar…

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 14 Mar 2017 #permalink

Craig?
Which subsidies to which fossil fuel industry/s are your taxes being spent on?
Subsidies are being granted to renewable energy are they not?
Rehabilitation of wetlands is not a difficult concept to understand.
It's restoring them to health.
All practical land & water management principles are quite simple to understand and implement.
They too play a major role in the behaviour of local climate/weather patterns.
I think just calling refugees 'climate refugees' is just a tad unrealistic.
They're not fleeing their countries in droves primarily because of the climate.
Why on earth would they choose to come to Australia based on climate?
Ours is supposedly the driest continent on earth and is indeed the 'land of drought and flooding rains'

We are here deep in the 21st Century already and yet Stu2 is apparently unable to access the information required to post informed comment.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-compani…

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059.1

When you say, "restoring (wetlands) to health" do you mean people are actually creating new malaria reservoirs? Doesn't sound very sensible to me.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 15 Mar 2017 #permalink

Craig.
The questions was about your specific taxes and which specific fossil fuel industry/s are your taxes subsidising?
I'm no fan of entities like the IMF. Are you objecting to what they're doing? How are your taxes subsidising them?
And yes, people who don't know what they're doing would certainly be facilitating mosquito breeding grounds just like they're facilitating bushfire hazards and feral pests and weedsin national parks.
That's not what I was referring to.
Jeff is correct that wetlands and water management principles play a major role in water quality but his idea that completely alienates the demographic that is best placed to implement, manage and monitor the adaptive management of natural resources has proven to be a massively expensive policy error and a facilitator of perverse outcomes, such as your example of mosquito breeding grounds.

I'm also wondering about your use of the term 'climate refugees'?
I don't believe that 'climate' per se is the major cause of people trying to flee their countries and illegally enter countries like Australia & England & US & other western style democracies .. do you???

& yes, Syria is most definitely affected by a highly variable climate
Poor governance & ongoing political conflict based on human priorities is however the major overwhelming cause of widespread famine & refugee numbers.
Syria, like Australia does not have a stable or reliable climate.
It's climate, also like Australia's, is not reliably predictable , especially in the highly important area of seasonal precipitation forecasting.

Syria has emitted something like 8 million refugees as a direct result of climate change.
Yemen has a similar situation, although fewer refugees so far..
When it hits Bangladesh, those numbers are going look like a mere drop in the ocean.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 21 Mar 2017 #permalink

Trying to change the global weather/climate via ONLY focusing on reducing global human GHG emissions and linking that to genuine local environmental degradation is NOT WORKING!

First, we are not trying to change the climate, that is a totally inadequate way of looking at this. What needs to be done is a reduction of GHG emissions to less than zero. IOW we need to roll back to pre-industrial levels.

Why?

Because the physics of atmospheric science is clear Study: humans have caused all the global warming since 1950

Now, multiple studies of local environmental conditions is what informs those conclusions. To attempt to blame the information gathering for the lack of progress, or slower than optimal progress, on mitigating climate change is beyond crass.

How the hell can we take you as an informed and reasonable commentator on this when you come out with such malformed statements. Statements indicative of confused thinking.

Poor governance & ongoing political conflict based on human priorities is however the major overwhelming cause of widespread famine & refugee numbers.

No, No and thrice No!

Here you are again repeating another ill formed appraisal after it has been repeatedly debunked, with examples.

Imperialist legacy as well as ongoing interference from other states such as Russia, the US and EU members including the UK. Sykes-Picot? What do you think Lawrence of Arabia was doing? I'll give you a clue, the bidding of, amongst others Churchill. What is this about? Read the history that has been suggested to you.

Which subsidies to which fossil fuel industry/s are your taxes being spent on?

Subsidies are being granted to renewable energy are they not?

Lordy, lordy oh lordy what is up with you?

In the UK it is very clear, the disparity between fossil fuel subsidy and that for renewable energy:

North Sea Oil Industry Asked the Government for More Help to Drill and Decommission — Got Both

Climate change subsidy slashed by Government days after Brexit vote

and they are but one example each for the two environmentally disparate energy sources.

I just knew you couldn't keep up any pretence of balanced debate.

To underline the points further.

There is one excellent blog which carries articles, recent at that, that covers each one of your sorry miss-characterisations in some detail, especially if you bother to follow external links.

Look for these articles:

Let’s be Very Clear — 100 Percent (or More) of Recent Warming was Caused By Humans

An Agenda Harmful to the American People

and those further afield I would add.

Now to that thorny question of why we must achieve negative emissions increases, IOW start drawing down what is already up there.

“Climate Change in Your Face” — Great Barrier Reef Suffers Second Consecutive Mass Bleaching as Potential for Record Warm 2017 Looms

The Oceans are Warming Faster than Previously Thought; Rate of Heat Build-up Accelerating

and in the following is the message that we may soon be triggering, indeed there are signs that we already have, disassociation of methane from permafrost and clathrates (methane hydrates), as well as other salient points:

Friday, March 3, 2017 Climate Change Open Discussion: Permafrost Decay, Ocean Acidification, Renewable Energy Advances, Trump Turning EPA into Fossil Fuel Vending Machine

But do look up other articles there and learn, before replying.

& Lionel.
I note the overuse of variations of the word 'catastrophe' at that blog plus other negative, emotional language.
No workable solutions. Just more of the same.

I note the overuse of variations of the word ‘catastrophe’ at that blog plus other negative, emotional language.

Clearly the implications of the scale of problems unfolding are beyond your capability to grasp. As is you clear inability to understand that before one can find solutions the nature and scope of the problems have first to be understood.

One of the aims of blogs such as that is to put information starkly in front of the wider population to create a shift in the Overton Window.

Now you can believe what you like, such as

'that ‘climate’ per se is the major cause of people trying to flee their countries

but I have shown why that is not true. You seem to believe 'many a strange thing before breakfast'.

It matters not who your statements are aimed at, AFAIK on this blog we are free to critique any erroneous statements we consider as such. Especially as you persist in throwing lots of straw into the wind and should expect to get it back.

Jeff has provide numerous content filled posts with carefully worked arguments based upon knowledge and experience (I can say this because I read enough around numerous aspects to appreciate their validity) that counter your simplistic views.

It seems that you are incapable of a mode of learning and thought that is echoed by a good computer operating system, such as UNIX or Linux (and other I could name) which are modular in design. There is generally a core with connected modules which add other functions to carry out particular useful extraneous tasks. These modules communicate with the core and via that core with other modules. A requirement to alter one module does not mean that one has to mess with any of the others or the core. Sometimes the core may have special 'handling facilities' for specific modules which may be modified without affecting the function of the remainder of the core or the other modules.

What this means is that modules to fix problems can be created to solve particular problems without a need to re jig the whole with these latter modules being informed by output from the existing modules which must come first.

If I had time to waste I could refine that analogy but I expect it to serve for now.

Oh, and BTW your link at #82 goes off into the weeds. But then you are still huffing and puffing.

The link works for me Lionel.
Maybe one of your modules need adjusting?
Amongst other things it outlines the reasons why people are fleeing Syria.
Attempting to shift the Overton window by overstating the case is just an academic way of saying that the writer is using negativity and emotion instead of just stating the facts.
It's a political theory not a practical one.
It is quite clearly failing as indicated by such phenomena as Brexit and Trump etc.
I would suggest, with respect, you might need to widen your reading habits Lionel.
Your accusations about 'simplistic' are actually funny.
Flogging a dead horse is about as unproductive and childish as it gets.

So just in case that link is faulty for Craig too.
There's no mention of Climate change as a contributing factor of the massive refugee crisis emanating from Syria.
I agree that Syria's climate/weather doesn't help matters.
However, the contention that the refugee crisis is a direct result of that is not a realistic assumption.
Focusing on global climate is not going to help the Syrian refugees or change the fact that Syrian weather/climate is highly variable.

Climate change is also a “threat multiplier” in many of today’s conflicts, from Darfur to Somalia to Iraq and Syria. The Arab Spring is commonly seen as leading to Syria’s conflict, but people tend to forget the five-year drought in Syria’s northeast that preceded the war and the displacement of some 1.5 million people. Climate change sows seeds for conflict, but it also makes displacement much worse when it happens. http://www.unhcr.org/news/latest/2016/11/581f52dc4/frequently-asked-que…

By Turboblocke (not verified) on 23 Mar 2017 #permalink

Turboblocke.
However, the solution to those conflicts is not going to be found by only focusing on Global weather/climate.
Droughts are a feature of weather patterns in places like Syria.
Drought & floods and other extreme weather events are of course a huge problem. No one anywhere has ever said otherwise.
But the weather/climate is not the main reason for Syrians fleeing Syria nor the main reason for the ongoing conflict.
There would be a refugee crisis emanating from Australia if that was the case!!!

On March 23, 2017, Stu 2 burbled:

"So just in case that link is faulty for Craig too.
There’s no mention of Climate change as a contributing factor of the massive refugee crisis emanating from Syria."

Well, thank you for illustrating the dangers of considering yourself informed on the basis of having read a single media article.
The article is wrong.

If you feel the urge to read more widely in order to address the deficiencies of your chosen single source:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059.1

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 23 Mar 2017 #permalink

Australians fleeing weather/climate they don't like do not need to leave the country due to this country's economy being buoyant enough to absorb movements of this nature.

Bangladesh does not have the resources to deal with mass population movements anymore than Syria did.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 23 Mar 2017 #permalink

Craig.
I agree with both of your comments & posts @# 93 & 94.
I disagree with your blanket comment @#83.
The link @#93 does not say that 8 million refugees from Syria are a direct result of Climate change.
It names 6 causes ahead of CD.

Sorry. CC

Maybe one of your modules need adjusting?

Tried it twice just now and all I see is a window filled with black.

A third try put me to The Australian with invitations to pay to view. Sorry but that is still in the weeds AFAIAC.

The remainder of your #89 demonstrates that your thinking is remains off in the weeds. You are not grasping the points we are making. Well your responses indicate that.

The many strands of scientific research and investigation which leads to the knowledge that a big bad train is coming is not political theory, it is a huge body of facts.

That body of facts represents inconvenient truths for some so the use the worst elements of the media to aid and abet the installation of policy makers who can continue delaying mitigation actions. That is what produced Trump and Brexit..

There is another side to the elevation of Trump, who is an empty vessel which those with vested interests prime and then let go like a clockwork mouse making silly waggling of whiskers (hands) and nonsensical squeaking noises., whilst they get on with the business of dismantling anything that may get in the way of their progress towards accruing more wealth and power at the expense of the poor ignorati duped into voting for him.

But there are signs that the Overton window is shifting with some advertising the fact they made a huge mistake (in voting for Trump).

The aim on both sides of the Atlantic is to widen the poverty gap with the endgame (read Jensen - no really read and study him — not the selective reading you engage in) of making nations a population of serfs ruled over by oligarchs and megalomaniacs — collectively socio-paths. Dennis Thatcher has been quoted as wishing that, one reason for the push to increase home ownership by the occupants. What happened of course was that it was the banks etc that really owned the houses and the occupants had to be good little people and play the monopoly game where defaulting on repayments meant financial penalties and possible homelessness.

Homelessness is now becoming more common as the job market changes. Where once upon a time one breadwinner could support their family whilst the other kept home base working now families need to have both parents working to keep heads above fiscal waters. This can leave children without the essential help and guidance required for producing a balanced individual as they progress through puberty.

I have a daughter, a chemistry graduate with a husband a chemistry PhD they still need the support of my wife and I at awkward times of the day. Through knowing the interaction of their boys (one in each stage of education; primary, secondary, tertiary and university) with their peers the problems some of them have through less supportive home backgrounds is clear. My own experience as a graduate teacher (necessarily read widely to gain that qualification BTW with a core of maths & Science) made me aware of these potential problems as did the experiences of our other three children back a few decades.

Me widen my reading habits, you have no idea, clearly when you bother not to follow links in RobertScribbler's articles, you responded too quickly to allow such a process.

I await more bubkes from you with interest.

The link @#93 does not say that 8 million refugees from Syria are a direct result of Climate change.

Oh the slipperiness of the careful word chooser, it did contain this:

As described here, water and climatic conditions have played a direct role in the deterioration of Syria’s economic conditions.

and that economic deterioration created what?

Your special pleading doesn't work here!

Turboblocke @#91 laid it out straight and then you Stu slalomed around that with your intellectually impoverished ideas of the nature of population displacements and boundaries. Your responses are almost malicious.

Meanwhile things can only get worse.

Lionel.
I have no idea why that link # @82 is not working for you.
It's an article by Warren Mundine.
I will try & post it from his blog page.
The one @# 86 is actually the more relevant one.
Most of your commentary @# 93 is about human politics & not about CC.
No one said that climate has no influence, so I'm not sure who you are arguing with as it's not relevant to my comments, rather it backs up what I said.
Let me try and find that article for you.

And I meant to type 97 not 93.

Most of your commentary @# 93 is about human politics & not about CC.

Doh! Do you think I don't know that! But the relevance is joining the dots on why politicians continues to avoid substantive solutions for mitigating climate change - they are influenced, if not actually in the pockets of the polluters.

Once again you wibble away from the points being made especially about climate change being the main factor in sparking recent events in the ME, you by trying to avoid that are wasting my time. You are a lost cause WRT understanding the bigger picture.

Just to underline the fact that your comprehension is poor go read my #97 again as it explains what happened when I followed your link at #82. No great loss it being The Australian which I hold in as high regard as the various forms of The Mail over here which I refuse free copies of when newsagents are encouraged to push it.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/solution
Lionel.
Substantive solutions for mitigating Climate Change?
What are these substantive solution/s for mitigating Climate Change?
Which specific problem/s are these substantive solutions going to solve?
Which particular 'bigger picture' are you referring to?
Reverting to sweeping generalisation and accusation has precious little to do with genuine problem solving.
That's got more to do with 'buck passing' and waving around a big stick to metaphorically beat up 'the other team'.
IMHO, that's a sure fired recipe to make sure nothing improves or gets solved.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/04/wha…
As opposed to the political thriller written by Beck, here is the basic theory.
In practice however, it involves using exaggeration, negativity, revisionism, overtly emotional terminology, sweeping unsubstantiated generalisations & etc.
IOW it assumes that most ordinary people are easily intimidated and not very intelligent and therefore the media and academics and politicians can organize to have the actual basic facts disregarded or reorganized in favour of telling an exciting/scary/ amazing/ thrilling story.

Someone who used to comment here (moniker something drongo???) used the terms 'arm waving' & 'bed wetting' to describe a common mindset here.
That's not really conducive to facilitating a civil discussion but it does amusingly outline the behaviour.
Instead of answering or focusing on genuine solutions to specific issues whether they be socio-economic or environmental the MO is to make sweeping unsubstantiated global statements & then link them to specific issues.
When questioned about mitigating identified specific issues ( such as the Syrian refugees crisis or caribou or whatever) the MO is to go straight back to that fuzzily defined 'bigger picture' and claim some type of intellectual, personal, (sometimes very personal) moral high ground .
So ' hand waving' or 'bed wetting' is an amusing description of the behaviour.
Even Craig, who does offer some common sense more often than not, sometimes defaults to those sweeping unsubstantiated generalisations such as the comment @#83.
Syria is indeed in the throes of devastating human conflict but its highly variable, unpredictable climate/weather and whether it is likely being exacerbated by AGW and/ or CC is not where any 'substantive solutions' reside.
Syria is far from the only nation that experiences variable and unpredictable weather/climate.
My own country (Australia) is known as the 'land of drought and flooding rains'.
As Craig mentioned after his blanket comment, we don't have a refugee crisis and desperate human conflict even though our weather/ climate is often extreme.
So even though it's a problem and most definitely causes hardship, it's not THE problem that MUST be focused on.
It's not the human/moral solution for Syria.
It's not currently possible to improve either the nature or the predictability of Syrian climate/weather.
It is however humanly possible to improve access to potable freshwater, governance, HR, education, health & etc.

Drongo was the guy who didn't believe in sea level rise because he vaguely remembered where one king tide reached in 1947, 3km inland from the sea up some estuary which has been extensively remodelled and developed, including the point he says he remembers the King Tide from.
Classic closed-mind denier.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 26 Mar 2017 #permalink

"It is however humanly possible to improve access to ... governance..."

No it isn't.
Some cultures have amply demonstrated they are not compatible with sane governance, and our culture has demonstrated it is far too weak to even mention it, let alone do something about it.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 26 Mar 2017 #permalink

http://libertyworks.org.au/18c-not-protecting-anybody/
Sadly I somewhatagree with your comment @#8 Craig.
This is an interesting perspective about some of that weakness in our current culture.
However, there is also progression towards sane governance in countries with a similar religious/cultural heritage to Syria.

I don't agree that it's

Sorry, finger fumble on the phone keys......that it's not possible.

& Craig.
No offense, but your comment @#83 was closed minded.
CC is not the primary driver of the Syrian refugee crisis.

Climate change most certainly is. A series of extended droughts tanked the economy, the government no longer had the resources it needed to keep things organised, and civil war broke out, resulting in yet another invasion of Europe from the East, as has happened numerous times throughout history.

We here in Australia face a similar (but far worse) future when Bangladesh goes tits up.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 27 Mar 2017 #permalink

I have been away and its the same old story. Stu2 allegedly wants to engage in civil discussion (fair enough) but usually ends up citing links from far right media sources, anti-environmental think tanks and blogs etc. to make his case. The Australian is beneath contempt. Sky News is a joke. Etc. etc. etc.

And then he quotes a noted anti-environmental/climate change denying moron (spangled drongo) to make his point.

Craig's argument re: Syria is 100% correct. There was discontent brewing but it was pushed well over the top by a massive drought almost certainly linked with AGW.

With respect to climate change, we had better find a solution and fast because if we don't we are committed to our own extinction. No ands, ifs or buts. If the planet warms over 3-4 C in the coming several decades no amount of faith, hope, or reliance on technology will be worth a damn. The damage to our ecological life suppoirt systerms will be so enormous that it will take us over the brink and into the abyss.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 28 Mar 2017 #permalink

I don't agree with some statements in 14:

1) Every biologist knows that CO2 is good for plants. The more CO2 in the air the greener the planet: positive

2) Warmer temperatures in the future are basically beneficial to living organisms which will not run the danger to die of cold

3) Melting ice provides more freshwater for living organisms, therefore is beneficial to life. Life will flourish much more when it is hopefully getting warmer.

By John Bailey (not verified) on 28 Mar 2017 #permalink

Someone who used to comment here (moniker something drongo???) used the terms ‘arm waving’ & ‘bed wetting’ to describe a common mindset here.
That’s not really conducive to facilitating a civil discussion but it does amusingly outline the behaviour.

Groan. That would be Spangled Drongo oh you of poor memory.

Your wibbling posts are the best examples here of that which you accuse others of. How many times do you have to be told that before sensible policies can be implemented then many problems require detailed study and characterisation else one can easily make matters worse?

You repeatedly mischaracterise the nature of the points we make.

Why on earth you would think that linking to an article about the 'Overton Window' would be useful when those of us who understand that it is public policy issues that have to be tuned to the import and nature of the information that natural systems are drawing our attention to?

What is clear is that the polluters have ramped up their disinformation campaigns in order to splinter popular opinion to ensure that the Overton Window does not move in a direction which would hit their revenue streams. They have done this because there was growing awareness, from the increasing incidence and violence of natural disasters and the political landscape had to be changed to prevent the new knowledge causing coalescing of opinion and popular kick-backs against the fossil fools. This was the true nature of the advent of Trumpistan (with 'roaches such as Lamar Smith chewing away at the messengers who provide inconvenient truths) and Brexit.

Only three days ago it was reported that the evil Gove had indicated his contempt for environmentally friendly regulations.

Those two politicians, one US and the other UK are symbols of the true evil that rides out into the scientific-political interface.

You entreat me to read more widely, which given your penchant for citing right wing organs of dubious ownership is rich considering the lengths some of us, especially Jeff, have gone to in providing copious links and other references to material which is not only in the scientific research domain but also touches on policy issues. You have a short memory if you think otherwise.

As it happens I have recently been reading up on bumblebees, the stories of inappropriate introduction to lands far from their native patch are many. The stories of similar with other species of animal and plant life are legion. What is sadly beyond dispute is that many bumblebee species in just the UK are clinging on in probably small populations separated by tracts of ocean and other barriers. Such fragmented populations lead to inbreeding and reduced genetic variability and hence resistance to diseases, parasites and other environmental factors. It is only over late decades that data on this aspect has started to become anywhere near enough to be useful to attempts to bring back umpteen species from extinction, but the data is still as patchy as the populations on which it is based.

Of course it isn't only bumblebees which are threatened by such population fragmentation and inbreeding.

On bumblebees, as a starter I could recommend this: A Sting in the Tale.

Sorry, but your attempt at taking the moral high-ground here fails abysmally, why? Well for starters this little book next cited isfull of apposite topics pithily covered, open your eyes (although I fear they will stay wide shut), The Little Earth Book. You have already been made aware of this little book of wisdom but probably skipped any link provided let alone bothered to look it out.

You charge that I should read more widely, that from one who repeatedly links to opinion pieces in ideologically driven organs.

John Bailey @ #15 writes:

I don’t agree with some statements in 14:

and makes three unrelated points straight from a denial Gish Gallop playbook of zombie memes.

Go visit Skeptical Science John, where all is revealed.

Hardley writes - "With respect to climate change, we had better find a solution and fast because if we don’t we are committed to our own extinction"

"But" we already have a solution - the development of the undeveloped countries paid for by the developed countries. This will teach the temperature not to mess with us...and we will all live in a progressive utopian world!

Did I mention Lamar Smith earlier.

To be very clear, Lamar Smith has a B.A. and a J.D. So he’s got no scientific credentials whatsoever, he’s a lawyer. But unlike many with B.A.s who can read and understand the science, Smith appears to be sadly lacking in any capacity or willingness to do so. He is, however, quite receptive to misinformation coming from the fossil fuel industry — especially when it’s attached to contributions to his political campaigns for re-election.

Profiting from Wrongful Deception: Lamar Smith’s Attacks on Climate Science are Paid for by the Fossil Fuel Industry.

One of the reasons behind Trumpistan.

http://euanmearns.com/drought-climate-war-terrorism-and-syria/
Syria doesn't have perfect weather & it never has.
The contention that drought in Syria is caused by AGW and therefore is the major driver of the conflict and the refugee crisis is highly simplistic and unrealistic.
Focusing on mitigating global CC is not going to assist Syria.
If countries are going 'tits up' the primary drivers are human causes related to political, cultural & socio-economic issues.
No one has claimed that extreme weather events don't cause extra hardships.
Of course they do.
Finding a solution to AGW is not going to stop droughts & floods & other extreme weather events from occurring in places like Syria.
Neither is it going to help alleviate the dreadful human crisis there.

Lionel @# 19.
James Bruges is an architect.
He also has no scientific qualifications.

Jeff.
Instead of assigning your idea of teams and wings and etc, how about engaging on the actual content of all pieces wherever they come from?
I search via topics not particular blogs.
Often, the links I post have either been sent to me or I saw them on my news feed or I have been actively researching a particular topic for my work.
The Australian article I linked was written by Warren Mundine. He could hardly be described as 'far right wing' neither can the other authors of the other articles I have linked.
Which part of I'm spectacularly uninterested in that dismissive labelling craps are you not understanding?
I note once again that you have only offered sweeping and unfounded, generalised and globalised opinions rather than discussing the specific solutions to a specifically identified issue. In this case it's the Syrian crisis.
Mitigating AGW is not going to offer anything worthwhile for the urgent humanitarian crisis in Syria.
While the recent drought has undoubtedly exacerbated the problem, human conflict is the major cause of the refugee crisis emanating from Syria.
Stopping AGW is not going to do anything for the Syrians or Syria.
Syria is prone to extremes of weather with or without the influence of AGW .
A fair whack of Syria is dessert just for a start.
They need help via socio-economic assistance, not AGW mitigation.
Those people have no time to care about the environment or the global climate.
They're understandably concerned about keeping themselves and their families safe.

Yes Stu 2 is stupid having once again demonstrated that by pointing fingers at James Bruges who had nothing to do with the content of my #19 post.

Whatever, the book compiled by James Bruges has content drawn from sources who do who expertise in the many disparate fields of socio-politics and economics. Stupid airily dismisses this, now what was that about arm waving and bed wetting?

But then Stupid engages in more such with:

Syria doesn’t have perfect weather & it never has.

So tell us please Stupid, how did a flourishing civilization get going in that area.

My wider reading encompasses ancient civilizations and also the revealing work that William F Ruddiman has carried out on the CO2 and CH4 trends throughout this period and up to the present. Have you studied these areas?

http://www.ancient.eu/timeline/syria/
Lionel.
Here is one timeline.
I have nothing against James Bruges or Lamar Smith.
They both have a right to their opinions as do you.
I was pointing out that your argument re academic qualifications was a tad inconsistent.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Syria
And this one outlines the geography and high variability of the climate/weather.
So Lionel.
According to the basic history, geography & weather facts there is no evidence that some type of perfect Syrian weather ever existed or had anything much to do with the rises and falls of the flourishing ancient civilization there.
Quite clearly the causes of those rises and falls were about human conflict and progress etc.
But to be clear, at no point has anyone argued that extreme seasonal droughts or flooding etc don't exacerbate human challenges and governance issues.
Of course they do, all over the world.

Ignoring Betula for awhile because (1) he's an uneducated jackass, and (2) I loathe uneducated jackasses.

Below is a great interview in the Independent with my friend and fellow colleague at the Netherlands Institute of Ecology, Dr. Tom Crowther. This is a MUST read. It lays out how Trump's policy to deregulate the US economy, ignore (and even exacerbate) climate change and to engage on a full frontal assault on nature is not only going to gravely cost the planet, its going to cost jobs as well. Tom and I talk very often and he is co-authoring two papers with me at the moment. Tom's abilities and enthusiasm are profoundly inspiring for me late in my career. Tom and young scientists like him ARE the future in ecology and conservation.

As an aside, Tom was the lead author on the recent Nature paper that Betual tried - and spectacularly failed - to dimiss. Like all uneducated deniers, Betula has his head firmly planted up his backside.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/donald-trump-tom-crowther-clim…

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 30 Mar 2017 #permalink

Stu,

Stopping AGW may very well be the only thing that ensures our longer term survival as a species. So what is your point?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 30 Mar 2017 #permalink

I have nothing against ... Lamar Smith.

Well there we have it, you may as well have 'delaying denier' stamped on your forehead. Lamar Smith is engaging in a climate denial ideological 'witch' hunt against climate scientists, the programmes which inform them and the organisations and individuals who support them. Lamar Smith is a grubby little lawyer oik purchased, at a bargain price, by fossil fuel interests.

As for Bruges, you certainly didn't behave like you had nothing against him, your own words betray you here too.

Now WRT Syria, what I am prompting you to look at is not weather but climate and the shift in that latter - IOW the trend.

Study the nature and extent of empires of such as the Hitites and Egypt, Nubia too. It is clear that in the centuries BCE the climate was much more benign than now, but yes with patches of crop failure due to drought, droughts shorter lived than now. Then put that against the findings of William Ruddiman.

You continue to ignore narrative that is inconvenient to your arguments.

BTW You may wish to check out the progress of civilisations further east too, such as in areas bordering Turkmenistan and Afghanistan where Alexander the Great had campaigned and the thriving complex of Ai Khanum 'Lady Moon', Also check out the Indus Valley civilisations and what happened to them.

Jeff @#28

Good one (#27 link useful too). Stu2pid is flying blind and trying to ignore history. He apparently still cannot grasp the relationship between weather and climate.

Once again Stupid, 'Climate trains the boxer, weather throws the punches'. Do you get it now 2Stupid?

Strewth but this one is irritating!

Lionel.
To continue your metaphorical comments.
You appear to be boxing shadows.
Jeff.
My point has been that global action on global climate is not going to mitigate the Syrian refugee crisis as AGW is NOT! the major cause of that crisis.
Further, your favoured 'doing something about it' is not working.
One definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result.
I also can't see the point of continuing to argue that even though something wasn't right it was still not wrong.
I also note your mate has used a classic 'cherry pick' re jobs in that article.
Just because 'the other side' does that - doesn't mean it's OK for what you claim 'your team' to do so.
It's questionable behaviour whomsoever chooses to do that and despite your incorrect claim that 'the average Joe' is not smart and doesn't care they actually can see through that.
As per the Mundine article I posted a while back, that you sort of agreed with, voters are over being sneered at, told what to think, intimidated and bullied by the 'intelligentsia' career politicians, self important bureaucrats & etc...no matter which wing they're flying with.
They're also over being expected to pay for non-performance.

Well that @#32 was a brain dump mostly indistinguishable from spaghetti bolognese, 'metaphorical comments' and 'boxing shadows' indeed!

If you weren't a jelly you would be now pinned to the wall having demonstrably being seen as engaging in uttering nonsense.

Efforts at mitigating climate change now may help in preventing future 'Syrias', and worse. How can you not grasp this? It takes a certain type of dogged DKism to argue the way you do.

If the delayers and deniers had not put sand under the wheels of efforts a couple of decades or more ago then the Syrian crisis, and all the others across the ME, Africa, South America and Asia may not have unfolded as they have. Hence the actions of fossil fuel backed entities already have blood on their hands.

Hardley - "As an aside, Tom was the lead author on the recent Nature paper that Betual tried – and spectacularly failed – to dimiss"

Is this how you are "Ignoring Betula for awhile"?

Apparently I tried to dismiss an article by quoting the co-author of the article, who, according to your logic, must have been trying to dismiss his own article.

Remember, you're the "scientist"....

@27 - "Professor" Hardley. this is the part where you list Crowther's expertise as an economist...

Thanks.

#13, Craig, true story. Though one more factor should be calculated in, it is the Assad regime's climate revisionist reply to the changes. He had other ways to deal with the crisis but chose to neglect it all then shoot at the first demostrations of impoverished farmers who had fled to Daraa.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 31 Mar 2017 #permalink

"Al Gore links the Syrian drought to a refugee influx into the UK and the recent Brexit vote. Would this drought not affect neighboring countries such as Israel, Jordan, and Turkey? Why aren’t those countries sending refugees to Europe? Could ISIS or Syrian dictator Assad have anything to do with Syrian political instability? Does a Syrian drought cause refugees in Europe to rape or commit acts of terrorism? Mr. Gore’s narrative has a few large holes, but when it comes to climate change, why bother with “inconvenient truths”?"

"What about diabetes? How has that been linked to climate change? A recent CNN headline screams, “Is there a link between climate change and diabetes?”

“Between 1996 and 2009, as outdoor temperatures rose across the United States, so did the prevalence of diabetes, according to a study published in the journal BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care on Monday.” That’s it. Settled science. Or is it?"

"Does an association mean causation? Bingo halls may have more ladies with blue hair and dentures compared to a downtown city dance club, but that doesn’t mean playing bingo leads to a change in hair color or tooth loss"

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/03/is_there_anything_clima…

The above article reminds me of when Hardley saw a spider and claimed he witnessed climate change first hand...

Just remember....he's a "scientist"

cRR Kampen @#36.
Poor governance is therefore the real issue is it not?
Whether or not the Assad regime is 'climate revisionist' and does or does not believe in AGW has little to do with it.
Lionel.
Syria definitely needs help but efforts to mitigate climate change is not going to change the fact that countries like Syria are prone to drought and the flow on hardships that occur from that.
As Betula points out, correlation is not causation.
That sort of behaviour could be defined as classic cherry picking and/or DKism.
However, without using academic labels, it's just simply plain old unrealistic & impractical.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/syria/population
Perhaps info like this would be far more likely to help inform ways to start dealing with the Syrian crisis?
Other realistic information such as some of the other links I've posted would also help to inform a realistic and civil discussion about the human crisis in Syria.

https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/syria/overview
and I could easily continue with this on other topics like health etc.
The bottom line is that while the recent drought did not help, it was NOT! the primary cause of the developing human disaster in Syria.
Syria, along with other countries around the globe (including mine) is prone to drought sequences.

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
From Betula's post @#37
Spurious correlations.
Yep.
It's of course an interesting and fascinating exercise and anyone with any skills in statistics and using computer programs can do this.
But the bottom line is that correlation is not necessarily causation.

Well, after reviewing the link @ 43, I thinks it's safe to say that Hardley eats a lot of mozzarella cheese...it's really the best explanation to date.

Lionel.
No offense, but your contention that all the world's problems are because of 'fossil fuel backed entities' causing AGW all by their little old selves is actually an excellent example of 'utter nonsense'.

@ 47 - I love how Recher consistently cites himself to give his opinion credibility......what a putz!
Sounds like someone Hardley would get along with...

Food price index hit a peak in Syria in 2011, sparking the civil war.
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/riots.png

Food production was in a slump since 2006:
http://s12.postimg.org/6bx7mw47x/temp.png

And the 2007 drought resulted in Syria requiring massive food imports in 2008 & 2009:
https://www.pecad.fas.usda.gov/highlights/2012/06/Syria/images/Syria_wh…

Which put a massive dent in the Syrian governmernt's foreign reserves:
https://www.ceicdata.com/datapage/charts/foreign-exchange-reserves-mont…

And sent their deficit spending out of control:
http://crudeoilpeak.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Syria_government_re…

Of course, a key factor in all of this is that the West has been providing these no-hoper countries with bucketloads of technology to reduce the mortality rate without thinking ahead about the consequences, namely that their population growth far outstrips their ability to manage crises:
http://www.bitsofscience.org/wordpress-3.0.1/wordpress/images/2015/09/p…

Yemen is an absolute disaster - currently unfolding:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ym.htm…
40% of its population is under 15 years of age - its *median* age is just 19.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 03 Apr 2017 #permalink

Now I have vanquished Kim, the next brainless simpleton to expunge from here is Betula. Or should be. But as we have comprehensively annihilated him the science of AGW on multiple occasions, the unemployable dork isn't worth the effort. I find amoebas more challenging debaters. These days he doesn't even try misqouting scientists anymore. He just does what most uneducated deniers do - when faced with science, he resorts to vacuous, witless remarks. Because as we all know its beyond his pay cheque.

That's why my response to his innane stupidity will be Dr. Dade from now on.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Apr 2017 #permalink

Craig @# 49.
Your outline now appears to be that Syria has been unable to cope with or even feed it's increasing population.
Undoubtedly that issue was exacerbated by the drought as it is in any country, including ours.
Australia's revenue , GDP & deficit spending is also negativity impacted by being prone to drought sequences.
You used the phrase 'no-hoper countries' to describe places like Syria.
What is the reason for that?
What needs to happen for these nations to have some hope?
Clearly, in your opinion, providing them with bucketloads of assistance to reduce the mortality rate is not helping.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/australia-is-not-an-islamic…
Craig.
Is this the type of 'western' attitude that you're highlighting?
Please note that I'm fully aware this is an OP which means it's someone else's opinion.
Some of it I agree with but not necessarily all of it.
What it does do however is recognise that there is a socio-economic/ cultural issue that is not improving despite the money & public attention it's receiving.
I also agree that arguing that any religion (not just Islam) is 'feminist' is utter tosh.
One correlation that has stood the test of time is that societies who have 'emancipated' women and given them equal access to education have very different population growth data.
That has zip to do with climate/weather mitigation.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Stockholm-syndrome
And is it at all possible that this psychological phenomenon has some sort of twisted relevance?
Or perhaps Maslows' hierarchy of needs partly explains the total disconnect with differing cultures and socio-economic systems?
A more so called 'advanced' socio-economic system that supposedly focused on 'high level' discussion and management often seem incapable of understanding why that's possible and end up 'biting the hand that feeds them'.
They waste time and money on solving the wrong problem.
If people's basic needs are not being met, they have no time or patience for 'high level' or 'higher order' thinking.
They understandably want to keep their families alive and will flock to whomesoever will promise to do that.

Stupid

Your #45 is over-reach and not at all my argument so that is offensive because it is a lie.

You are a joke.

Stupid,

I hope by now you have picked up on the links in Bernard J's two recent posts, do take the time to discover the reasons for humanities failure to conserve.

To claim that I think all the world's problems are because of fossil fuel fools is a bad joke considering the lengths I have gone to on other issues over the years, so yes you are insulting. But of course unless the post is directly aimed at you you ignore it and even otherwise you display an astonishing short term memory issue.

Lionel.
Read your comment @#33.
Especially your last sentence.
That was the reason for my comment @#45.
I actually also said 'no offense', so if you've taken personal offense, that's entirely your decision.
And yes I read Bernard J's links.
No attempt to outline specific solutions to genuine specific issues.
We all know there are problems and issues.
The bottom line in this particular discussion was disagreement about the contention that Syria could be saved by mitigating AGW and/or that AGW was the primary cause of the Syrian refugee crisis.

Stupid,

Read your comment @#33.
Especially your last sentence.

This one:

Hence the actions of fossil fuel backed entities already have blood on their hands.

Which is absolutely true. However my stating that should not be taken to imply that I have ignored all other problems and that you should do so is both dishonest and insulting.

This is an example of why it is so unsatisfactory trying to engage with you, you can only handle one bone at a time. As I wrote in my last an awareness of the content of my past posts would have appraised any reasonable person that I only consider climate change to be one problem. Consumerism and the associated oxymoron that is 'sustainable development' being another.

Heck, I even pointed to discussions of wider concepts in 'The Little Earth' book which you flippantly dismissed by denigrating the compiler of that excellent inexpensive publication.

Now you wonder why some of us take against you, you are your own enemy here.

Whatever, climate change, with GHG emissions exacerbated by the problematic socio-economic structure underpinning the issues mentioned above, is going to be at the root of unfolding humanitarian disasters as we move forward. This is the elephant in the room that should be mentioned at every turn for there is no carpet large enough to hide it under, as much as you may try.

As I wrote above, engaging with you is unsatisfactory, like wrestling a hagfish, being left with nothing but slime in ones grasp.

I will leave you with a source to consult, try some of these:

Human Development Reports 1990-2015, the 2016 report is there also.

Lionel?
Is being an architect denigrating?????

Bircher #48

I love how Recher consistently cites himself to give his opinion credibility...

Your opinion is from not understanding the methodology of scientific communication. What do you expect Richer to do, include the whole of his reports as appendices at the end of the one cited? That would be stupid, but then that is how you think. You are the putz!

Is being an architect denigrating?????

That is a malformed question to which there can be no answer. You prove my point that engaging with you is akin to wrestling a hagfish.

Recher is a putz (Betula 2017)

I just cited myself to back up my comment that Recher is a putz, therefore, it must be true..

I never knew it could be so easy....thanks Lionel!

Lionel.
You claimed I denigrated the compiler of The Little Earth Book.
Considering my only comment about James Bruges was that he's an architect what other conclusion would I come to?????
I'm actually not interested in wrestling with you Lionel.
I'm interested in discussing genuine solutions to identified specific issues.
Syria is in all sorts of trouble.
The drought did not help.
But the solution to the crisis there is NOT! global mitigation of AGW.
Even if global mitigation of AGW did reduce global average temperature it will not stop the drought prone Syria from having drought sequences any more than it would stop my country from experiencing droughts.
It's not rocket science.

Once again, notice how our intellectually challenged denier on here says nothing to counter the empirical evidence that supports what Recher says - instead its just another vacuous ad hom. Essentially explains why its so easy demolishing people like Betula, as Bernard, me, Lionel and others do with ease. I had some of my students look at Betula's comments on Deltoid, and when they weren't laughing at him they were expressing shock that such an organism actually exists. I had to break the news to them that yes, there are plenty of idiots like Betula who exhibit delusions of grandeur on the basis of complete and utter ignorance of science. I gave a seminar at my Amsterdam University last Monday on a paper I have recently submitted on climate change and biodiversity and the Dunning-Kruger effect was discussed. As good is Stephen Hawking's quote: "The real threat to understanding [a process] is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Deniers exemplify this, as shown by the few that contaminate this blog.

The article on neoliberalism is excellent. Thanks Bernard for alerting me to it. I have several students working on similar themes for their literature theses and this will be very useful to them.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 07 Apr 2017 #permalink

Meanwhile Stupoid (typo but I like it so it stays) continues with his ranting on a different argument to the one raised by myself, Jeff and Bernard J.

Jeff @#29

Stopping AGW may very well be the only thing that ensures our longer term survival as a species. So what is your point?

Longer term survival, the long term climatic effects on populations is embedded in the regions history going back millennia.

Now my point is very like Jeff's in his #61 previous page:

I nevr said that the bulk of the scientific community believes that mitigation of C02 emissions is the ONLY solution… but it is a vital step.

That you continue to not acknowledge this is why I equate engaging with you to wrestling a hagfish.

Now Stupoid @#22, trying to shake off the accusation of being denigrating, wrote this:

James Bruges is an architect.
He also has no scientific qualifications.

Which is a denigration of Bruges by trying to make him look unqualified to write about the multifarious problems of human affairs when in fact Bruges simply put together a collection of writings by those who were qualified.

I would hazard that James Bruges is eminently better qualified (hint architects need some qualifications if only in materials science) and experienced in the required topic areas than Stupoid.

More slime expected.

Hardley, way back at #27...."Ignoring Betula for awhile"

Only you haven't and you can't, because it bothers you that I keep pointing out how inept you are...you can't let it go.

Just remember, you're the "scientist".

Stu - Don't forget what helped to cause this horror....Lionel's love of CO2 emitting planes and the corporations that manufacture them.

There's no denying it on Deltoid...

Lionel.
I have nothing against Bruges or his book.
Neither have I 'denied' that climate/weather influences human activity.
I have no idea who you're arguing with, but it's not me.
Mitigating AGW globally by trying to stop the "A" influence on "GW" is not a 'vital step' in helping to solve the crisis in Syria.
That's tosh. Those refugees and people like the ones in my links @#68 aren't going to be helped by global mitigation of the human influence on the global average temperatures.
There's no 'long term survival' for Syria unless the real causes and the immediate crisis is acknowledged.
Syria is a country that is prone to drought sequences.
Mitigating AGW globally, even if it may stop Syrian droughts from being worse, is not going to have a material effect on Syrian weather/climate that would then help the human crisis there.
It's not rocket science.
As Craig's more recent comments point out, Syrian governance has not been able to cope with or even feed its growing population.
People publishing ever more papers on Climate Change & DK & neoliberalism & etc is of course not a bad thing, but it's not offering solutions to genuine specific identified issues.

Tony Abbott was interviewed on 2GB yesterday. These were his words:

"When it comes to circumstances like this, if you wait for all the evidence, if you wait for perfect knowledge, you'll wait forever."

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 07 Apr 2017 #permalink

Was that in reference to Syria Craig??

#15

Ive read my share of absolute denier crap
but the freshwater point now ranks near the top.

I should add the other 2 points are passe bullshit.
I do await more novelty like the freshwater idea.
Cmon denierscum. Less boring rehash which makes
ya look pathetic. More novel imaginative ideas please.

Li D.
It's not rocket science.
A warmer wetter world would have advantages, including access to more freshwater that is currently locked up in ice.
Of course it would also create some disadvantages.
Richard Toll, once on the IPCC, did some quite extensive research on some of this.

Doh! Here you go again Stupoid:

Mitigating AGW globally by trying to stop the “A” influence on “GW” is not a ‘vital step’ in helping to solve the crisis in Syria.

That is not what is being claimed. Which are you idiot or obfuscater?

Your #76 is stuffed full of half truths for the disadvantages would be rather more than some. I cannot believe a well informed intelligent person would believe that which is written there.

As for whom Tolls the bell, nuff said.

You are certainly earning your hagfish comparison.

Lionel.
I'm spectacularly uninterested in engaging in personal insults.
Perhaps you need to re-read the comments?
What are you claiming needs to happen to assist Syria?
Also, what are the half truths?
Richard Toll, when he was working at the IPCC, did do some quite extensive research on the projected advantages vs disadvantages.

Lionel.
Re-read on previous page comments 61, 83, 91, 98, 99.
On this page
3, 13, 14, 24, 29 & 58.

So the area conquered by imperial forces in 1879 isn't suffering because of drought, the dust is just there for Stupoid to stick his head in.

You can list all the comments you like but that does not change the fact that you are on the wrong argument.

You cannot even understand the difference between personal insults and behaviour comparisons. Comprehension failure all the way down, like the 'Turtles'.

Sigh :-(
Lionel.
No one said at anytime that the drought had nothing to do with it.
Who are you arguing with?????
My point remains that mitigating global AGW is not going to assist the human disaster unfolding in Syria nor is it going to change the fact that Syria is prone to drought sequences.
The help that Syria needs has got nothing to do with trying to stop the climate from changing.
Perhaps you're the one who is not comprehending?

Stu once again reveals his basal understanding with this vacuous quip:

"It’s not rocket science. A warmer wetter world would have advantages, including access to more freshwater that is currently locked up in ice.
Of course it would also create some disadvantages.
Richard Toll, once on the IPCC, did some quite extensive research on some of this"

What a load of cock and bull. I won't spend my time on Tol who has prostituted hiumself out to just about every right wing climate chahge denying think tank or astroturf group out there. He has no relevant expertise whatsoever in understanding the ecological and environmental effedcts of AGW and can't tell a dung beetle from a rhinocerous.

The benefits of a warmer word, at the rates at which it is warming, are overwhelmingly vanquished by the costs. For God's sake man, stop parroting denier memes! Its not temperature buit how long it takes to get there. People with my expertise understand this but cement-headed economists don't. And we are not talking about changes that we can control; instead, tampering with the planet's thermostat as we are will have disastrous consequences for natural systems that will - indeed already are - rebound on us. Tol may think that fraying food webs and collapsing ecosystems are nothing to worry about but the vast majority of my peers do.

So please stop citing morons.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Apr 2017 #permalink

Excuse typos but Stu2 really spews out drivel on many occasions. Dredging up Tol is beyond the pale, and to try and vindicate him with the 'IPCC reference'' is frankly ludicrous. He's on the fringe.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Apr 2017 #permalink

The help that Syria needs has got nothing to do with trying to stop the climate from changing.

What we are trying to get through to you is that without reducing the human induced forcing agents of climate change it matters little what palliative measures are taken over Syria in the short term (I/we are not claiming that these needs should be ignored), and other similarly stricken regions, for the future will be worse, much worse. That is my argument.

As far as socio-political issues I have recognised those and written about them. That you have too short a memory to recall all those posts is not my problem, it is yours.

Here are signs of water locked up in ice soon to melt into the Atlantic..

NB:

Or worse — that the present rate of warming at 30 times faster than at the end of the last ice age is rapidly putting us in peril.

This isn't alarmism, these are real events and trends.

How will Californians survive when the snowpack, the melt of which they rely upon for their irrigation and other water needs?

Stupoid you are such a clot.

Hum, lost a bit.

How will Californians survive when the snowpack, the melt of which they rely upon for their irrigation and other water needs is all gone?

So please stop citing morons.

As you are no doubt aware Jeff I called Stupoid on that stupid that ended with a plea to Toll.

Note that whilst wibbling like a hagfish Stupoid tries to claim the moral high ground as if we are not aware of or could not care less about the fate of the Syrian population when we have given every indication to the contrary.

Then he 'sighs' (that moral high ground again) as if I am not grasping what he is on about. Nothing could be further from the truth. Can not the basest intelligence grasp that without rigorous efforts to combat climate change (and a multitude of other ills as expounded upon in Bruges' little inexpensive book - find a copy Stup' and read it) palliatives to ameliorate the situation such as the ME populations find themselves in are all 'stuff'?

Lionel, I have moved over to Greg Laden's blog where there is less willful ignorance and deniers are greatly outnumbered. Whe Stu2 dredges up a clot like Richard Tol to make a point, then I know he's completely lost the plot. Tol made a big fuss about the 97% consensus paper by Cook et al. (2013) a few years ago, then admitted that the consensus is over 90% - it seems like he argues for the hell of it. He also is linked with a wide range of despicable denier organizations like the GWPF, appeared on Morano's quite embarrassing 'Climate Hustle' and, like many of these denier blogs and think tanks is desperate for anyone having any qualifications to jump on board the denial bandwagon....

Tol also pops up everywhere. I am sick of the guy.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Apr 2017 #permalink

#51 "Undoubtedly that issue was exacerbated by the drought as it is in any country, including ours." - you may fuck off now.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 10 Apr 2017 #permalink

"... including access to more freshwater that is currently locked up in ice." said that thing whose nick I care not to remember - and after melting miraculously floats directly into clouds, never touching the salt of the seas. You may fuck off now.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 10 Apr 2017 #permalink

#74, it's lobby work and it is actually quite sophisticated (in fact, all the thugs have to do here is not mention raw precipitation numbers). Thusly Stu2 supports the killing in Syria and a lot more of killing (Stu2 is an accomplice) and the thugs are presently taking over govt after govt.

"How will Californians survive when the snowpack, the melt of which they rely upon for their irrigation and other water needs is all gone?" - idc.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 10 Apr 2017 #permalink

Stupoid, not just in Syria, note key words:

Here in north-central Kansas, America’s breadbasket and conservative heartland, the economic realities of agriculture make climate change a critical business issue. At the same time, politics and social pressure make frank discussion complicated.

Such a shame you need potty training and don't forget to wipe that slime off your backside.

Jeff, yes I have noted your contributions at Greg Laden's, I have made the odd contribution been following there for awhile, at ATTP too and other places, but not only blogs. This is the wider reading Stupoid avoids, all he has to do is note links in side panels at such blogs.

It isn't as if we are outnumbered here, it is just the dwindling remnants of the denial-delayer brigade are so poor at comprehension and grasping the gist of an argument. Well maybe the just pretend to be thick just to be irritating. Whatever all they manage is to look extreamly foolish.

#76.
There is town in Senegal by the name of Richard Toll.
Of course you mean Tol.
Im not sure if there is a strictly constant freshwater( gas/liquid and ice )/saline ratio
in the biosphere. I cant imagine the mechanism.
Anyhow this is an interesting read on salinity, particularly
in relation to CO2. I looked it up trying to get a bead on this
more fresh water available thingie.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleosalinity

The idea from deniers im guessing is that every cubic km of
ice that melts translates into the same amount of extra rain.
Some of which is on land.

#91
Agreed. Deniers never ever give the
full data picture.
Is it the contention of deniers that reduced annual snowpack
melt from say, the Himilayas, will be made up for by increased
rainfall feeding the same waterways? Total average flow unchanged or even increased???

Quite funny these deniers who talk about so called
benifits to warming, when the whole fucking idea is its not
warming at all and its some UN conspiracy involving
NASA and communists to take over the world or some
rubbish.
Deniers seem terminally conflicted by all the cross purpose
shit they spout.

Greg Laden nails these wibblers with the following, I have paraphrased the introductory line to fit in with the denial-delayer methodology used here:

Citing the whatever item about a climate change relate issues tells me two things:

1) You don’t read the literature or talk to climate scientists; and

2) You are not especially interested in an honest conversation about this important scientific and policy issue.

Source

So Lionel & Jeff???
I think we now sort of agree that AGW and/or CC is not the major driver of the crisis in Syria??
So what efforts need to be made to address that crisis???

On April 8, 2017, Stu 2 baffled us with:

"A warmer wetter world would have advantages, including access to more freshwater that is currently locked up in ice."

"Richard Toll, once on the IPCC, did some quite extensive research on some of this."

Your first point isn't even intuitively true. Rising sea will eliminate fresh groundwater (already happening) as well as eliminating bodies of fresh surface water.

If you got this nugget of from Richard Tol, maybe you need to revisit your credulity of the nonsense from a 3rd rate political scientist instead of some actual science

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 11 Apr 2017 #permalink

Stupoid's sanity must now be questioned for he writes:

I think we now sort of agree that AGW and/or CC is not the major driver of the crisis in Syria??

Oh no! No we damned well do not Stupoid! That is a dishonest mischaracterisation of the in toto arguments we (Jeff, Bernard J, myself and others) have been putting forward. To make this crystal clear I'll quote from my #66 above:

Jeff @#29

Stopping AGW may very well be the only thing that ensures our longer term survival as a species. So what is your point?

Longer term survival, the long term climatic effects on populations is embedded in the regions history going back millennia.

Now my point is very like Jeff’s in his #61 previous page:

I nevr said that the bulk of the scientific community believes that mitigation of C02 emissions is the ONLY solution… but it is a vital step.

That you continue to not acknowledge this is why I equate engaging with you to wrestling a hagfish.

as for Richard Toll I'll restore the original text found at the bottom of Greg Laden's article linked at #96

Citing the most recent IPCC report about a climate change relate issues tells me two things:

1) You don’t read the literature or talk to climate scientists; and

2) You are not especially interested in an honest conversation about this important scientific and policy issue.

So other than obsessively focusing on humans and CC & all the negatives associated with that obsession, you blokes have got nothing?
Syria & the dreadful human crisis unfolding there is only relevant if you can link it somehow to your obsession????
Craig.
There is a basic scientific understanding of a thing called the water cycle or, if you like, the hydrological cycle.
It's actually not particularly difficult to understand even if you're a '3rd rate political scientist'.

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

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

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

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

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 12 Apr 2017 #permalink

On April 12, 2017, Stu 2 advised,

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

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

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

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 12 Apr 2017 #permalink

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

The peer reviewed literature is riddled with them.

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

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

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Apr 2017 #permalink

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

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Apr 2017 #permalink

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

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Apr 2017 #permalink

Stu 2, a little challenge for you.

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

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Apr 2017 #permalink

Bernard J #8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well what was the 'Both you and Jeff...' about then.

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

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

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

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

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 16 Apr 2017 #permalink

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

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 16 Apr 2017 #permalink

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

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

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

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

Yes, you exposed your stupidity long ago...

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

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

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

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

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

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Apr 2017 #permalink

Re #21

Did somebody just pass wind?

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

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

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

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

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

From the latest State of the Environment report...

Biodiversity:

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

and

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

Atmosphere:

Australia has a long-term trend of declining rainfall.

and

Australia is warming.

and

Emissions continue to contribute to climate change.

and

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

and

The world is warming.

and

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

and

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

and

‘Human influence on the climate system is clear’ .

On land issues:

Climate change is the most serious threat to land management.

and

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

and

Ongoing clearing of native vegetation threatens a range of sectors .

and

There is intense and growing competition for land resources.

and

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

and

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

and

We continue to lose agricultural land through urban encroachment.

In the marine environment:

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

and

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

and

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

and

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

and

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

and

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

and

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

In the Antarctic environment:

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

and

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

and

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

and

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

and

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

and

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

and

Major regional changes are occurring in Antarctic sea ice coverage.

and

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

and

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

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

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 17 Apr 2017 #permalink

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

Absolutely, Stu2poid take note.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aargh!

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

Absolutely, Stu2poid take note.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 Apr 2017 #permalink

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

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 Apr 2017 #permalink

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 Apr 2017 #permalink

Argiope spiders

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

ventral

dorsal

Hardley @ - "Yes, exactly like that, because I was witnessing climate change first hand"

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

Hardley - “As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand”

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

Remember...you're the scientist.

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

Very irresponsible on your part.

Very irresponsible on your part.

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

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

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

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

Lionel - "all work related"

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

Hardley is the scientist, I'm sure he can answer this one...

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

Stupoid,

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

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

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

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

On April 13, 2017, Stu 2 emitted:

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

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

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

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

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 17 Apr 2017 #permalink

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

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

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

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

https://www.monash.edu/environmental-sustainability/news-and-events/lat…

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/328835-climate…

https://www.seeker.com/first-hand-experience-makes-people-care-more-abo…

http://fm.kuac.org/post/natives-firsthand-knowledge-informs-study-clima…

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Apr 2017 #permalink

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

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

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

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Apr 2017 #permalink

how thin... given that deniers don't think...

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Apr 2017 #permalink

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

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

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Apr 2017 #permalink

Bircher,

Hagfish have discussion tactics? Please explain…

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

Hardley - "He doesn’t seem to think that its possible for anyone to see climate change first hand"

Nice try Hardley - We are talking about Algonquin, where you said you witnessed climate change first hand, then you said "of course" you didn't witnessed climate change first hand, then you went back to saying you did witness climate change first hand...

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

Congratulations, you've exposed yourself as a "scientist" who will say and conclude anything as long as it fits your predetermined view of what is, should be, and what you think will be...

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

Deltoid at it's best.

Shorter Lionel - "Correct, Hagfish don't have discussion tactics...I'm an idiot"

Stupoid

Your comments atm are just flat out misanthropic.

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

And yet you continue doing that as seen here:

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

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

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

But there is worse from you:

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

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

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

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

Get lost your idiotic, anonymous twerp.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Apr 2017 #permalink

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

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Apr 2017 #permalink

Stu2:

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

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

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

Hardley - "You are such a fucking moron that you probably think that the poaching of elephants is hilarious"

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

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

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

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

Hardley - “As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand”

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

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

You're finally coming around.

@59 – a piss poor biased article Lionel

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

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

More on that glacial retreat.

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

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

Here are some interviews with some people who have "witnessed climate change first hand"
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/farmers-wa…

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

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

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 18 Apr 2017 #permalink

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

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

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

Bottom line: You're both retarded.

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

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

Your insistence on only focusing on negative...

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

Your comprehension failure has now reached new levels.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On April 19, 2017, Betula gabbled:

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

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

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

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

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150413-utah-bears-hibernatio…

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 19 Apr 2017 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One

Two

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 20 Apr 2017 #permalink

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 20 Apr 2017 #permalink

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

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 20 Apr 2017 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 21 Apr 2017 #permalink

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 21 Apr 2017 #permalink

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 21 Apr 2017 #permalink

closed... Gee, never got to finish.

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

It was an interesting interview and lasted an hour.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 21 Apr 2017 #permalink

Jeff,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand.”

Just as I suspected.

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

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

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

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

Remember, you're the "scientist".

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

My bet is you won't post it.

Thanks.

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

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

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

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 21 Apr 2017 #permalink

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

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

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

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

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 21 Apr 2017 #permalink

Craig - "My 97% was confident"

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

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

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

Makes sense to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 22 Apr 2017 #permalink

Betula accuses me if lying. Now there's a joke. He denies claiming that he once used wild turkeys, white tailed deer and coyotes as proxies for the health of eastern North American ecosytems, There's a lie right there.

More importantly, nobody is listening to Betula. His fan club is himself. That must really gall you, eh barkie?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 22 Apr 2017 #permalink

Lionel.
There is no 'anti science war'.
You're confusing science with politics.
Local efforts, including the ones that Jeff mentions @#85 and Craig links @# 74 are far from negligible.
They're actually measurable.
I disagree with your contention that nothing is worthwhile unless we all focus on your 'the bigger picture'.
There is no evidence that dismantling whole socio-economic systems achieves good environmental outcomes.
There is plenty of evidence that the reverse is more likely.

Notice how Betula is ranting on about me again and nobody is listening? He would be great in a padded cell where he could hear his own echo. What dishonest liars like Betula do is spend hours pouring over the internet in a desperate attempt to find material that they can use to smear someone whose views they don't like or information they think will dismiss their argument. I am sure that he has googled my name multiple times in order to find anything that he can use and then he goes with that forever. He did the same thing with the seminal Crowther et al. paper in Nature, when I discussed the implications of arctic soil carbon being released into the atmosphere. He googled the paper, looked for any rejoinders, then stumbled upon the interview with Bo Elberling who simply did what most scientists do: said that the results must be interpreted with caution.

Betula grabs this snippet in an attempt - which of course failed miserably - to dismiss the study because the 17th author out of 49 said that there are uncertainties. Deniers do this all the time - unable to engage in the science, they find any handles they can grasp and they then cling to them like a dog does to a bone. Betula actually, seriously thinks that by quoting Elberling, he wins the debate and then we move on. Thankfully Betula is a completely anonymous nobody whose comments are serially dismissed here and only here. nd the bottom line is that when I wrote to Elberling saying that a right wing anti-environmental tree pruner had dismissed the implications of the study because of his comments, he was literally flabbergasted. I told him that he should be careful as there are plenty of dishonest lying right wing zealots like Betula out there who do this sort of thing.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 23 Apr 2017 #permalink

Stu2, read the Farrell papers before making a bigger monkey out of yourself. Of course there is a huge anti-scientific war being waged. Farrell went through 20 years and tens of thousands of pages of documents showing a very well funded and organized veritable labyrinthine network of denial involving corporations, think tanks, astroturf groups, the media and politicians in the United States. His papers are truly alarming, or they would be if it wasn't so patently obvious that powerful vested interests focusing on short-term profit are doing everything in their power to influence public opinion. You make off-the-cuff remarks without even reading what Farrell and others have to say.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 23 Apr 2017 #permalink

Jeff.
It's politics.

Stu2, your #99 kicks off with a display of ignorance and continues with arguments against thing I have not written or have not called into question. You have been insinuating words and ideas that are not mine – that is dishonest, to say the least.

There is no ‘anti science war’.

You are displaying a high degree of insouciance. For that has been well documented e.g. in:

The War on Science: Who's Waging It, Why It Matters, What We Can Do about It
by Shawn Lawrence Otto

Global Warming and Political Intimidation: How Politicians Cracked Down on Scientists as the Earth Heated Up
by Raymond S. Bradley

The Inquisition of Climate Science18 Jan 2013
by James Lawrence Powell

Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming
by Mark Bowen

Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth's Climate
by Stephen H. Schneider

The Climate War: True Believers, Power Brokers, and the Fight to Save the Earth
by Eric Pooley

Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity
by James Hansen

Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming
by Erik M. Conway and Naomi Oreskes

Climatology Versus Pseudoscience: Exposing the Failed Predictions of Global Warming Skeptics28 Feb 2015
by Dana Nuccitelli

Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming
by James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore

Straight Up: America's Fiercest Climate Blogger Takes on Status Quo Media, Politicians, and Clean Energy Solutions
by Joseph J. Romm

Now you Stu2 flippantly suggested that I read more widely, it happens that I have – you not so much clearly otherwise you would have been aware of and studied the above sources.

But there is more:

Robert Brulle has done much to expose the donor links to the anti science propaganda effort, follow the ‘The full paper is available here
‘ link at the foot of that article. See also http://drexel.edu/now/experts/Overview/brulle-robert/ for more.

John Mashey is another who has done stirling work in uncovering the money trails as well as assisting, along with DeepClimate, with the demolition of The Wegman Report also shedding additional unfavourable light on the activities of a Steve McIntyre (search around here at Deltoid to discover more about the unsavoury behaviour of that trouble maker).

You’re confusing science with politics.

Oh no! Not at all! It is you who cannot appreciate that scientific studies has coalesced around lines of reasoning vis a vis climate change and the environment, reasoning which should inform political actions in order to ameliorate the situation we are heading into. Unfortunately there are those who see only a hit on their revenue stream, which is clearly the case with some fossil fuel interests with Matt Ridley being just one such. These compromised individuals are well represented in the sources cited above.

Local efforts, including the ones that Jeff mentions @#85 and Craig links @# 74 are far from negligible.
They’re actually measurable.

Where have I indicated otherwise. I have not been suggesting they are negligible. Indeed I have not been discussing those other than to point out without a concerted effort across the globe to recognise that we are asset stripping the planet, living high on the capital of natural resources, clearly a situation that cannot continue. We outstrip sustainable resources and have been doing so since around 1975.

I disagree with your contention that nothing is worthwhile unless we all focus on your ‘the bigger picture’.

Wordtwister. That is not what I was saying, go back and read it again. OK here it is:

Efforts which are of negligible value unless this bigger picture painted by short-termism in corporate and governmental strategies where the likes of Tol and Lomborg so like to muddy the waters [is tackled too].

Which I admit was not correctly finished, I was interrupted, now I have inserted some context in parenthesis.

There is no evidence that dismantling whole socio-economic systems achieves good environmental outcomes.

That is a logic fail. Evidence can not be obtained before the fact.

I repeat, we are asset stripping the planet, living high on the capital of natural resources, clearly a situation that cannot continue. We outstrip sustainable resources and have been doing so since around 1975.

The most fundamental change we have to make is to the short-termism endemic in business and governance. Continuing the ‘current socio-economic systems’ (as you put it) is a route to disaster. This is why I think you should pay attention to books such as that written by Tony Juniper. Have you done so yet? If not don’t respond on this point until you have.

Hardley - "Notice how Betula is ranting on about me again and nobody is listening?"

Who are you taking to, the half dozen people that follow this nothing blog?
The fact is Hardley, you're listening and it bothers the hell out of you that I have exposed your many lies and exaggerations...
Meanwhile, it is obvious that you have yet to prove where I have distorted, lied, or misled. Just because you say it, it doesn't make it so...prove it.
Here's an idea....use your computer to take any words I have posted that belong to you or Elberling, and then try to explain how they are not your exact words or Elberling's exact words...

A few examples:

1. An Algonquin Comedy -

Hardley -: “On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand”

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

And when confronted about these statements:

Hardley - "As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand.”

2. Comedy Gold Regarding a paper you posted:

Hardley – “Read it and then re-read it and re-re-re read it”

So I read it, including what the co-author said about it...and found this:

Elberling - “urges caution before reading too much into the new data.”

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 in the Arctic which represents a knowledge gap when speaking about Arctic greening,” he says.

Perhaps you should consider doing "scientific" stand up. I'm sure it would be much more lucrative than hanging out with spiders while getting frostbite...

Did somebody pass wind again @#4?

Stu2

I forgot one title in the above:

Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America
by Shawn Lawrence Otto

Informed people get it, clearly you do not.

From elsewhere:

“Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today,” Mattis [Secretary of Defense James Mattis] said in written answers to questions posed after the public hearing by Democratic members of the committee. “It is appropriate for the Combatant Commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning.”

Now can you grasp the FACTS of the matter?

Lionel & Jeff.
Humans & human politics create & engage in wars. Not science.
So even if human scientists are engaging in a war, it's still human politics, not science.
Have you ever heard of the concept 'noble cause corruption'?

Humans & human politics create & engage in wars. Not science.

Stating the obvious now aren't we.

So even if human scientists are engaging in a war, it’s still human politics, not science.

By which time they are no longer scientists but advocates - cut price advocates at that, paid by the fossil fuel lobby and friends. Judas money.

As for 'war on science' have you ever heard of the concept of a metaphorical allusion.

Maybe you are one of those unfortunates who always take things literally - there is a name for that condition, one which escapes me right now. Could explain allot about your wibbling in exchanges.

Yes Lionel.
It's obvious that you're arguing politics and not Science.
If scientists are being 'advocates', they're being political not scientific.
It is not only happening via 'the fossil fuel lobby & friends'.
Once again, you're assigning teams and labels and attemting to claim some type of noble 'high ground' and manufacturing a melodramatic white hat/black hat political opinion.
It's entirely unproductive, negative and circular.
The real environment doesn't care about human politics.
But plenty of humans, from all walks of life do care about the environment.

It's nice to see that Lionel is on board with Trump regarding his selection for Secretary of Defense...Here's another quote from James Mattis that Lionel will enjoy-

"Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they’re so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact."

Oh, and Lionel....if you continue to smell something while you are alone at your computer, well, maybe it would be wise to get a check up. You're getting up there in years....just sayin.

So Stu 2 says there is no war on science: because any such war is by, and on, people.
Funny, that. If someone dedicates themselves to attacking the methods, practitioners, and results of science, because they are the methods, practitioners and results of science, I'd call that making a war on science.
And if someone defends the methods, practitioners, and results of science I't call that defending against a war on science.
Maybe politics explain the reason for the war. Maybe there are political reasons to defend against the war. But the war isn't somehow separate from science. And for scientists to defend their methods and results is obviously part of science.
Try for a rational position, Stu 2.

By Christopher H (not verified) on 24 Apr 2017 #permalink

" this experiment (in American democracy)"

Since the US is a plutocracy, ot worse still, a kleptocracy, its just another example of a retarded moron wearing a military uniform spouting absolute garbage. And the US won't wage any wars it doesn't think it can win. After humiliating defeat in Viet Nam the doctrine has been to beat up countries that are defenseless but worth the trouble. Iraq is a classic example. And yet they botched even that cake-walk up, too, and it was illegal anyway. The 'vaunted' US military is, in fact, something of a laughingstock in much of the world.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 24 Apr 2017 #permalink

Betula thinks he is bothering me? In your dreams thrid rate tree pruner. Its actually the other way around you twerp, or else you wouldn't see the need to write in here trying - and failing - to counter everything I say. And you are the clot who once made a big deal out of the illusory fertilization effect as a benefit of increasing atmospheric C02 concentrations (utterly hilarious) and the wild turkey/white-tailed deer/coyote remark. Comedy gold as you would call it.

Again, who is reading your shit? You? Seems like the rest of us aren't. Lionel sums it up. You are passing wind. You seem good at it. If you want to rey debating science go right ahead. You rarely do, and its clear why. You realize that your arguments will be destroyed. So insterad you rather obsessively search high and low for everything I have ever written or said on the internet and stick with that. I think you need a shrink, seriously. I feel uncomfortable with your stalking. I hope that your family is aware of your obsession. They might call the doctor on your behalf.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 24 Apr 2017 #permalink

As for Elberling, he never said that the risk of stored carbon in the arctic being released into the atmosphere was a trivial concern. That's your reading, idiot. Thankfully you are an island. The rest of us know exactly what kind of threat it represents. You appear to think that your views are legion, hugely important. My gosh you have a monstrous ego. Based on what? Shearing tree branches?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 24 Apr 2017 #permalink

Hardley - "you wouldn’t see the need to write in here trying – and failing – to counter everything I say"

You do a pretty good job of countering yourself - It's very entertaining:

Hardley -: “On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand”

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

Hardley – “As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand.”

Hardley - "As for Elberling, he never said that the risk of stored carbon in the arctic being released into the atmosphere was a trivial concern. That’s your reading, idiot"

Actually, it's your reading. All I did was post was you said and then post what he said....the rest is comedy gold:

Hardley – “Read it and then re-read it and re-re-re read it”

Elberling – “urges caution before reading too much into the new data.”

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 in the Arctic which represents a knowledge gap when speaking about Arctic greening,” he says.

If the above comments bother you, perhaps you should interpret yourself differently...

Lionel @6 posts -
"Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today,” Mattis [Secretary of Defense James Mattis] said in written answers to questions posed after the public hearing by Democratic members of the committee".

Hardley @12 gives us his opinion of Mattis - "its just another example of a retarded moron wearing a military uniform spouting absolute garbage"

The Deltoid forces working against each other...just too easy.

Stu 2 your #9 on this page is another hagfish type response. That, BTW is a comparative description and not a personal insult – another concept of which you have a rather loose understanding — which also is a statement of fact, if you take it as an insult and don’t like it you know what to do.

It’s obvious that you’re arguing politics and not Science.

In one respect yes, so your point here is….?

It is abundantly clear that political influences have attempted to distort or neuter the messages that have come out of the sciences involved in climate and ecological issues.

If scientists are being ‘advocates’, they’re being political not scientific.

Well yes. But the difference is between the lackeys (Curry, Soon, Michaels, Lindzen etc) of the fossil fuel and related industries (I was using those by way of example not wishing to turn one post into a thesis) and those uncompromised scientists who are countering the miserable efforts of the aforementioned by presenting information from their still active research.

If a political and fossil fuel beholden ideologue such as Lamar Smith (a lawyer) turns a supposedly House Committee on Science, Space & Technology hearing into a denial circus then of course any response from a climate scientist witness such as Michael Mann is going to be political. How could Mann avoid that.

The difference between Mann and the likes of Curry and Christy is that Mann is still carrying out scientific studies and publishing in journals. If Curry and Christy have fallen out of that loop it is because of their continuing use of devious language and illustrations (e.g. charts) at successive hearings of the type Lamar Smith called, as did Ted Cruz at the back end of 2015.

When it comes to labels, these are useful for categorizing the mode of behaviour of idividuals engaged in the controversy, this has nothing to do with claiming any ‘noble high ground’ but if you think that I can see why it should irk you because Mann & co. can easily claim any such whereas Curry & co. clearly can not.

The real environment doesn’t care about human politics.

But the real environment is going to be affected by the resultant politically directed actions for good or bad. If Lamar Smith and similar get their way it can only be bad and he is of the ilk that is creating unproductive, negative and circular arguments and policies.

Just a couple of examples marking Lamar Smith’s trail of destruction:

The House science committee hates science and should be disbanded

The House Science Committee’s Anti-Science Rampage. You may not know who Lawrence M Krauss is – look him up, I have some of his books and other writings here – a part of that wider reading of mine about which you showed ignorance.

But plenty of humans, from all walks of life do care about the environment.

Have I ever made out to the contrary? No, quite the reverse. Besides, there are many more, in supposedly educated civilised societies who do not. You may like to find out how the US population stands on ability in science and mathematics compare with other nations – the low standing is shocking and Lamar Smith is but one example.

The Deltoid forces working against each other…just too easy.

My quote re Mattis was to enlighten Stu2 about the fact that others recognise the role of climate change in destabilising a region of interest to US foreign policy.

The fact that Mattis has a rather nasty anti-humanitarian streak is another matter and is not contradicting the point of my message, or any of Jeff's. Of course we have to make allowances for your lack of ability in separating concepts within a larger sphere of geo-politics.

More wind at #15 and #16 I see.

Lionel - "My quote re Mattis was to enlighten Stu2 about the fact that others recognise the role of climate change"

Yes, other "retarded morons".....well done!

"Its so easy' ridiculing us according to Betula in his own N = 1 cheering session. The idiot thinks others are listening to him. They think that people care why I went to Algonquin Park, or what our PR person wrote about after I cam back. Yes, my friend and colleague went there first and foremost to become the first people to cross the park in winter. We achieved it. A smaller reason was to see if there is any evidence of climate change in a central part of the norther mixed forests. I only commented that I saw huge numbers of inverts along a linear transect when normal temperatures are 21 F in the day and 0 F at night. Was it a first hand example of climate change? Most probably yes. Sure.

End of story.

Not for the wood chipper. No, be is a right wing asshole who believes in UN-orchestrated conspiracies and who denies the reality of AGW and its potentially serious consequences. So this uneducated jackass has been banging away about Algonquin Park for the past 5 years. Did I see AGW first hand? Or Not? Does my entire credibility as a scientist hinge on this? In birch bark's view it does. So he relentlessly pounds away at it, when nobody else on this frigging planet does. Lionel and I put up piles of scientific links - virtually all ignored by our Tea Party worshipping geek. He's a wimp, we all know that, as he hides behind an anonymous handle. Coward.

And when this wimpy geek does reply to a paper, its to try and dismiss its significance not with any scientific rejoinders but by partially quoting the 17th author who didn't write it. As if that is the end of the story. Of course it isn't, but to the wimpy anonymous tree pruner it is.

Methinks its time to get Betula banned from here. And I can do it. I got Kim's ass booted out of here and Betula hasn't once in 6 years contributed something scientific here so what stunning contribution can he make? Zilch.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 24 Apr 2017 #permalink

Yes Lionel, Betula thinks that if Mattis accepts the serious nature of AGW then that excludes anyone from criticizing the fact that he is an imperialist jerk.

Does Betula even work? It seems like he sits around on his computer all day obsessing over me (how sick) or else searching via Google for anything he can find to dismiss Nature papers. The guy's a loon - one of the worst I have ever encountered on a blog. He makes Jonas look good.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 24 Apr 2017 #permalink

...The guy’s a loon...

Except that is an insult to loons

Similarly I could describe him as a blue footed booby matching the colour with the shade of his politics but that would be an insult to boobies.

Now I wonder if........? I would bet he does.

And before Stu2 comes back with more vacuous attempts at avoiding the truth about a war on science I offer clear evidence of fossil fuel involvement in the campaign of denial and obfuscation often involving 'deliverables' (Willie Soon). I feel compelled to include these links because Stu2 never shows evidence of following links in articles. It is as if it doesn't exists if he hasn't seen it.

The Climate Deception Dossiers

What Exxon Knew About Climate Change

and following a link in the above takes us here:

Exxon: THE ROAD NOT TAKEN

Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago

Top executives were warned of possible catastrophe from greenhouse effect, then led efforts to block solutions.

Hardley - "The idiot thinks others are listening to him."

What 'others"....Lionel?
How many people do you think read this nothing blog?

Hardley - "They think that people care why I went to Algonquin Park"

Who are "they"? And whoever "they" are, I'm positive "they" don't care about your Algonguin vacation...It's your outright lies to boost your ideological belief that is the issue...and remember, you are supposed to be a "scientist"

Believe me. I don't care who knows. as long as you know I know...

By the way, I notice you had the English version of the article removed. You wouldn't have done this if it weren't a lie...

Hardley - "or what our PR person wrote about after I cam back."

Your "PR" person just wrote the lies you told him/her....without questioning the absurdity of it. Not the PR person's fault.

Hardley - "Was it a first hand example of climate change? Most probably yes. Sure."

So now it's a "probably yes" and a "sure". You split your previous conflicting answers right down the middle in an effort to wash away was has already been exposed...

Good stuff Hardley....you really are a comedian

I'm still laughing at the fact that Lionel used a quote from a "retarded moron" to make his point...

All of you are still far more interested in arguing about wars and politics and barracking for teams and etc .
Contrary to your assertions otherwise, people are not denying that this is happening, they're just realising that the behaviour is unproductive.
The only result is just more and more people clamouring for attention and funding.
There's no shortage of information about man's inhumanity to man or that human activity impacts the environment.
Academic and/or bureaucratic not picking or finger pointing or duck shoving or buck passing that is only focusing on who or what is the 'least worst' or 'the least not wrong' or ' not specifically accountable via their job description or terms of reference' & etc etc ad nauseum.
Nothing gets done when that's what everyone wants to focus on.
What are people actually doing to actually achieve positive TBL outcomes?
What programs and initiatives actually work to improve socio-economic and environmental outcomes?

Betula is living in his fantasy world again whereby its just me and him sparring away on an innocuous blog. Well, for him it is. This blog is his only little corner of the universe in which to vent his right wing angst. Me? Sorry Mr. third rate tree pruner, I have bigger fish to fry.

I am a Professor at a University in Holland where I teach a Master's course in science and advocacy. Right now I have over 10 students undertaking major theses with me. I am senior editor on a strong journal and a former editor at Nature. I have published over 180 papers. Last week I was interviewed by the American Geophysical Union on how I perceive the influence of blogs to be in terms of disseminating disinformation on climate change. And I have recently been the lead author on a paper that, when published, you will definitely know all about and it will further enrage your puerile mind..

And you? Just a sad, frustrated tree pruning nobody pining away here.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 25 Apr 2017 #permalink

Stu2

All of you are still far more interested in arguing about wars and politics and barracking for teams and etc .

So, you have failed to study sources cited and continue to harbour misapprehensions on the slant of our arguments. You are displaying wilful ignorance - the worst kind.

Contrary to your assertions otherwise, people are not denying that this is happening,

Typically vacuous unspecific statement by not delineating what 'this' is. There are other similarly unqualified in your post which makes most of it debatable indications of a hagfish type response.

Whatever, I have provided you with numerous sources to establish what 'this' could be. 'This' is not a single entity as you imply but rather views along a continuum from denial that climate change is happening and at a faster rate than for millennia too eschewing humanity's role in that rapid climate change. Humanity's now established role is the reason why the rate of change continues to accelerate.

The remainder of your post is similar to Betula's, akin to passing wind for you are not engaging honestly with our arguments. Why, because you could not possibly have followed my advice at the foot of #3 the one containing a list of sources you really need to study before replying further.

That you refuse to do so does indeed demonstrate that you are repeatedly looping the loop which if not interrupted ends in a crash and burn — you are close to that point.

Hardley - “The idiot thinks others are listening to him.”

Hardley - "Betula is living in his fantasy world again whereby its just me and him sparring away"

Which is it Hardley. make up your mind...

Again...too easy.

Hardley @14 - "My gosh you have a monstrous ego"

Hardley @30 - "I am a Professor at a University in Holland where I teach a Master’s course in science and advocacy. Right now I have over 10 students undertaking major theses with me. I am senior editor on a strong journal and a former editor at Nature. I have published over 180 papers. Last week I was interviewed by the American Geophysical Union on how I perceive the influence of blogs to be in terms of disseminating disinformation on climate change. And I have recently been the lead author on a paper that, when published, you will definitely know all about and it will further enrage your puerile mind"

Again, Hardley @14 - "My gosh you have a monstrous ego"

Yes, when someone's life revolves around hyperparasitoids, they have to imagine they are more important than they really are....and others that have (and create) real meaningful jobs are less important.
How else could they make it through the day?

Lionel
sigh :-(
Yes we know.
Humanity impacts the environment.
But what are people actually doing to actually achieve positive TBL outcomes?
What programs and initiatives actually work to improve socio-economic and environmental outcomes?

Stu - "What programs and initiatives actually work to improve socio-economic and environmental outcomes?"

You know the answer Stu .... the development of the undeveloped nations paid for by the developed nations, creating more CO2 emissions in the process.....unless of course, someone can explain how massive development on a global scale would reduce CO2 emissions in the short and long run, particularly since there would be more consumption, manufacturing, construction, shipping, transportation, use of the earths resources etc...

I wonder if any of the big evil corporations would be involved in the development? Probably not, I'm sure it would be just the small mom and pop shops...

Anyway, Hardley studies hyperparasitoids and sees global climate change in every spider....so I'm sure he has the answer.

@33 - At what point will Lionel realize that he is sitting in his own stink?

I see amidst the gale of wind evident in #36 B-bopper mentions one of the very sectors which require realigning of their business model. BAU can only lead us into more trouble and it is not the fault of the populace of developing countries who have been pillaged and enslaved to the rampant beast of economics based upon so called 'free markets' and endless growth, which latter is based upon damaging metrics for a finite planet and which the likes of which Colin Tudge addresses in his books - the ones that Stu2 refuses to study for if he had he would not be repeating his inane simplistic questions and expecting to be fed information on a plate.

It is this picture that Stu2 is trying so hard to not see.

Lionel - "BAU can only lead us into more trouble and it is not the fault of the populace of developing countries who have been pillaged and enslaved to the rampant beast of economics based upon so called ‘free markets’ and endless growth"

Well there it is, what this is really all about... and yes, I did notice how my question was side stepped.

The rich nations are to blame for the poisonous CO2 that may potentially cause the future catastrophic scenarios that will obviously affect the poor nations the hardest.
The solution is to have the rich nations pay to develop the poor nations, thus creating a net of more CO2 emissions...
This way, the poor nations are compensated for the pillaging, plundering, and raping of their resources, the world gets to share in the emitting of CO2, and we all become equally evil and destructive.....social justice at it's best.

Except for Lionel and Hardley of course, who like Gandhi, will reduced themselves to zero in order to save the world...

Stu2.

How is that hydrological cycle going to work out as the mid to high latitudes shift modes from occasional polar vortex meandering to frequent wild breakdown?

From you @ P2#100

It’s actually not particularly difficult to understand even if you’re a ‘3rd rate political scientist’.

But you may need some further explanation:

5 Year Study: What Happens in the Arctic Does not Stay in the Arctic

But then I had learned about such things way back in the 1980s including from my 4th edition copy of Atmosphere, Weather, and Climate

all a part of that wider reading you shouted about.

Lionel.
But what are people actually doing to actually achieve positive TBL outcomes other than continually arguing about who is least worse?
Which socio-economic systems and political systems have proven to actually deliver results?

& yes I know....it's not perfect.

Ive just read for the first time, The diversity of life by Wilson.
Faaaaaark!!!!!

#42
You are a fuckwit of rare quality.

Betula gets funnier as he wallows in his ignorance. He writes this little gem, "the development of the undeveloped nations paid for by the developed nations"while completely ignoring centuries of the pluder of countries in the south from the rich north, that is still ongoing. How utterly blind can one be. Li D is right when he says that Betula is a fuckwit of rare quality. Of course he will deny all of the evidence categorically showing how the United States and its proxies in Europe and the developed world steal resources from the south. I have read a dozen books on it from economists like Patrick Bond and Tom Athanasiou and historians like Greg Grandin. Its hardly controversial - except of course for right wing fuckwits who somehow think that the U.S. became wealthy and powerful on everything contained within its own borders. Given that Betula has clearly not read anything other than his Washington Times in his life, and that his world views appears to come from Sean Hannity and Fox News, its hardly surprising that he is so pig ignorant.

And evidence for this is everywhere: this is just a tiny fraction of it. Anyone with half a brain would know waht is going on, but Betula doesn't even have that.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/jul/15/aid-africa-w…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8S1AJY2AlQ

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/elites-loot-africa-while-foreign-deb…

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 26 Apr 2017 #permalink

I don't deny that I am guilty of responding to his constant baiting and switching. Debating an idiot on a blog is so difficult because your oppnent can set their own goalposts and keep moving them around. Or they can stick to a tired, ridiculous meme and go with only that. In a way, Betula does both. He will ignore a mountain of evidence showing how western corporations plunder the resources of poor countries through capital flight and repatriation. I know a milion times more than he does on this, because he obviously doesn't read anything that falls outside of his clear right wing bias. And then of course it will come back to spiders and Algonquin Park. That is his only refuge. He searched high and low for dirt on me across the internet like some obsessed maniac and stumbled on that and it's been his 'thing' ever since. I didn't even read the fucking piece before our temporary PR person put it on our NIOO website. Betula grasps at whatever thin, flimsy straws he can find - as he did with poor Bo Elberling when he deliberately distorted Elberling's words to downplay the significance of the Nature study. What's even funnier is that Betula then pounds his chest like an alpha male gorilla as if he has made a comprehensive rebuttal. No more discussion needed of the Crowther et al. paper, one of the authors expressed some caution over the interpretation of the results and in Betula's twisted view he wins the argument.

How utterly sad and pathetic. Fuckwit he is.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 26 Apr 2017 #permalink

Hardley - "He writes this little gem, “the development of the undeveloped nations paid for by the developed nations”while completely ignoring centuries of the pluder of countries in the south from the rich north, that is still ongoing"

I think you meant "plunder".

Either way, apparently you didn't read what I wrote. or you would have seen this:

"This way, the poor nations are compensated for the pillaging, plundering, and raping of their resources, the world gets to share in the emitting of CO2, and we all become equally evil and destructive…..social justice at it’s best."

You would think that a "scientist" would read something before commenting, unless of course, they just see what they want to see, regardless of what is in front of them.

Remember, you're the "scientist"....

Anyway. you have again confirmed that social justice is really what this is all about, CO2 is just the main tool used to get there.

Hardley - Debating an idiot on a blog is so difficult because your oppnent can set their own goalposts and keep moving them around.

The "goalposts" are your own words. You are playing against yourself and losing....

And you're the "scientist".

Hardley - "I didn’t even read the fucking piece before our temporary PR person put it on our NIOO website."

So you didn't read what you said before it was posted....so what, does that mean you didn't say it?

Looking good Hardley....keep digging.

"Anyway. you have again confirmed that social justice is really what this is all about, CO2 is just the main tool used to get there."
Hahahahahaha.
Conspiracy nutter.

Sweden, it is not that it is not perfect it is more the fact that this is an isolated example and on a few selected metrics Sweden still has problems but overall has set an example which should be followed especially in the English speaking world, the USA, UK, Canada and Australia where democracies have been captured by big business, big business which has a huge global impact.

One thing Sweden appears to get right is recycling and waste disposal. I deplore in the UK's is a lack of a coherent recycling programme but we must recognise that it is largely the accepted business and economic models that are hampering even this, from the shear diversity of throw away products and the concomitant wasteful multi material packaging, often multi-layer. It is 'a life style problem' rather than a population total and distribution issue as ideologues attempt to frame it.

What we are trying to point out is despite all the good intentions of small enterprises across the globe unless there is a fundamental shift in our way of organising society we are doomed to fail.

For example, imagine the effect of wildly oscillating climatic patterns on migration routes and the effect this will in turn have on the mortality of species affected. As it happens we don't have to imagine all of this for effects are already becoming clear:

Ecological responses to recent climate change

A regime shift in the North Sea circa 1988 linked to changes in the North Sea horse mackerel fishery

This study is possibly a unique demonstration of a correlation between three different trophic levels of a marine ecosystem and hydrographic and atmospheric events at decadal and regional scales. The results emphasise the importance of maintaining into the future long term programmes such as the CPR.

But more generally Under climate shift marine species face similar migratory distances as land species – and not always a refuge

Whatever, what has Translation Lookaside Buffer to do with this discussion?

Li D - "Conspiracy nutter"

Tell it to the U.N.

Anyway. you have again confirmed that social justice is really what this is all about, CO2 is just the main tool used to get there.

That is a distortion, however '7 percent of the world's population is responsible for 50 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions'

From Why We Can't Afford the Rich By Andrew Sayer

You are out of line windbag.

also WRT #58.

Read this page.

If you don't get it now you likely never will being ideologically blinded, ol' Windbag.

Lionel - "If you don’t get it now you likely never will"

But I do get it. Like I said....social justice is really what this is all about, CO2 is just the main tool used to get there.

If this were not the case, you would be concerned about the potential, possible, most likely increase in emitted CO2 as a result of global development...

Since you don't seem concerned, you obviously hate Horse Mackerel....

Lionel @ # 56.
There in a nutshell is the point of disagreement.
There is no evidence that a fundamental shift in our way of organising society or some type of global revolution will achieve worthwhile environmental outcomes.
There is plenty of evidence that the reverse is far more likely.
Doomsday prophecy is nothing new.
Somehow or other, especially in countries based on democratic principles, us inherintly imperfect humans manage to muddle through.
Apparently, according to the latest data, the US & China (the 2 largest emitters) have reduced their CO2 emissions while at the same time experienced economic growth & the total global emissions have flatlined.
That's a move in the right direction wouldn't you say?

@62 - That's bad news for the Hardley's of the world...it goes against everything they stand for.

There is no evidence that a fundamental shift in our way of organising society or some type of global revolution will achieve worthwhile environmental outcomes.

That is because the required fundamental shifts have yet to happen fool.

Here read this, introduce at #58 and get a copy of the book to read through.

Also look out for 'The Spirit Level' and 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century' by Thomas Pickety - this latter was introduced by Bernard J way back on Deltoid and at a time you were active here so do not plead ignorance.

The levelling off of any CO2 emissions from the US is because of a number of factors some of which may be undermined by the actions of the Trump administration.

Whatever:

But as long as we’re emitting CO2, it continues to build up in the atmosphere – and it is doing so at record levels. As Prof Richard Betts explained in his guest post for Carbon Brief last week, 2016 will be the first full year in which atmospheric CO2 concentration stays above the 400 ppm milestone.

But overall this is nothing to shout about, as made clear in the above cited article. Why is this?

Here is why.

Once again we see from you simplistic statements taken out of the context of the bigger picture. You are a tool.

That’s a move in the right direction wouldn’t you say?

No, not at all already explained above but here is another explanation.

You really do not grasp the issues, do you!

"Seems that the evil US of A and it’s oft proclaimed nemesis China, the 2 biggest economies in the world are both reducing CO2 emissions while still experiencing economic growth?"

Too little, too late. As James Hanson said C02 concentrations must not rise above 450 ppm or we are in deep, deep trouble. Instead, they have beein increasing faster annually since 2000 than they did between 1990 and 2000. Because of temporal lags they will keep rising well until late in this century. And with a retarded kleptomaniac in power in the US aiming to do everything he can to eviscerate public constraints that limit the maximization of private profit, this news is hardly one to be celebrating. And this obsession with 'economic growth' makes your assertion even more farcical. What does 'economic growth' exactly mean? It means increasing consumption and attenant waste production, unless economic efficiency per unit of consumption increases in concert, which it is not doing. We live on a finite planet, a closed system, yet capitalism recognizes no limits to growth. That's why its both an ecocidal and ultimately genocidal system and urgently must be replaced if humanity is to persist through into the next century. And if you literlaly mean 'evil' with respect to the US of A, then politically and militarily in terms of foreign policy, although you were making a sarcastic remark, you are inadvertently correct. Conservative estimates of the direct (military) and indirect (economic policies and through the actions of proxies) death toll of US foreign policies around the world since the end of WWII would be in the range of tens of millions. Most of this carnage was the result of outright expansionism, subjugation of other countries assets and nullification of alternative, more humane political systems that were often crushed by the Pentagon. Again, lots of supporting evidence, but if you have been home-schooled in American exceptionalism, as idiots like Betula have since they were in diapers, then denial is the only option.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 27 Apr 2017 #permalink

"You are playing against yourself and losing"

In your dreams. You can't debate yourself out of a paper bag.

"Remember, you’re the “scientist”…."

Absolutely, as my stature in the field and amongst peers is well known and highly respected. You on the other hand, clearly decided science wasn't your thing in Grade 1 and left it there. As I said, in 6 years or so on here on the two or three occasions that you have dared venture into science - e.g. misinterpreting the C02 fertilization effect on complex adaptive systems, the frankly hilarious assertion that North American ecosystems are doing well with appalling examples to support your case, your ass has been whupped. Since then you have merely repeated yourself ad nauseum with only yourself as a fan club. My reputation in science is fine. And its light years ahead of yours.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 27 Apr 2017 #permalink

Ticking time bomb of disease in Florida and we haven't seen anything yet.

As retired Admiral David Titley remarked, "...what really concerns me on this is that the ice did not get the memo to stop melting in 2100..."

Disease - one of the four horsemen.
Crop failures from whipsawing weather conditions, extremes at that, will saddle up others.

The movements in ice and water will set off others connected with tectonic activity as it has done throughout history, Waking the Giant: How a changing climate triggers earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes.

Adapt to that when it happens, would not mitigation be far better? Prevention would have been better, but we should have been engaged fully in that from over two decades ago. This is what that war on science has cost humanity, and humanity's unfortunate fellow Earth travellers.

Re: Hardley @67...

It's like I said @63...."That’s bad news for the Hardley’s of the world…it goes against everything they stand for."

Reducing CO2 doesn't matter anymore because it's "Too little, too late"....and any "economic growth" for the U.S. is bad because it creates more consumption....however, apparently massive development on a global scale (paid for by the rich nations) doesn't...

Hardley is the selective "scientist"....if it fit's his ideology, it has to be fact. Science out the window....

What we really need is a destruction of capitalism and the take down of the U.S.....CO2 is the tool to get us there.

That my friends, is what climate change is all about, and that is why seeing a spider in Algonquin is the equivalent of witnessing global climate change first hand.

You're a full blown retard Hardley, and I can't help but laugh at you.

The clown that wrote #70 especially para' 2, do us all a favour and read some books and discover why your remarks are so asinine.

#70-clown you are a selective idiot.

Lionel - "The clown that wrote #70 especially para’ 2, do us all a favour and read some books and discover why your remarks are so asinine."

Well, since the words in para'2 are the quoted words of Hardley...taken directly from his comment at #67, I couldn't agree with you more.

Your stupidity is making this way too easy....and fun.

If spotting a spider on a wintery frostbitten hike in Algonquin is representative of witnessing global climate change, then certainly this is representative of global climate change...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/04/27/us-drought-record-low…

Looks like "global" droughts are a thing of the past...

Note - "Professor" Hardley taught me to think this way...thanks Hardley!

Jeff Harvey.
Where were/are these alternative, more humane political systems that have been crushed, subjugated and nullified by the Pentagon?
In what ways are/were they 'more humane' and compared to what other political system/s??????

Where were/are these alternative, more humane political systems that have been crushed, subjugated and nullified by the Pentagon?

Central and South America for starters, oh and a certain military operation on a small Caribbean Island too which was pantomime of a high order.

Well, since the words in para’2 are the quoted words of Hardley…taken directly from his comment at #67, I couldn’t agree with you more.

Not quite all of the words in para' 2. You added some insane inane words of your own which reveal your ill informed paranoia. Now who is the stupid one?

One cure for you information deficit is in that book I cited. Here is a reminder.

Lionel - "Not quite all of the words in para’ 2. You added some insane inane words of your own which reveal your ill informed paranoia"

Nope. His own words around his ideas...you're arguing with Hardley and don't realize it.

Yes, you're an idiot.

Lionel.
The question was for Jeff Harvey.
But since you have chosen to answer it :
Which specific central & south American countries had 'alternative and more humane political systems'?
In what ways were they 'more humane' and compared to what other political systems?
There's no question that the US govt has interfered in that area, I'm questioning the blanket statement about 'alternative and more humane political systems'.

"Yes, you’re an idiot"

Betula looking at himself in the mirror again. Seriously, he seems to think that his vacuous opinions here are not only meritable, that they are factual.

Now that is a clear isgn of idiocy, if not insanity.

By Jef Harvey (not verified) on 28 Apr 2017 #permalink

Stu again profers compelte ignorance over the historcial record. Greg Grandin outlines much of it in ‘Empire’s Workshop’ where he unambiguously shows how Latin America was not only subjugated by the US, but how they have used that continent as their practice ground for global empire outreach. Chile of course is a clear example – after electing Allende in 1970, Nixon ordered Kissinger to ‘;make the Chilean economy scream’ for daring defy the global hegemon. And scram it did when the CIA and COINTELPRO programs were used to undermine any sembalce of success to pave the way for rhe coup that brought in the preferred candidate, Pinochet. The record speaks for itself.

And then there is Nicaragua, run for 47 years by Somoaza and his gang of thugs under full US backing. By 1979, the country was essentially rowned by the riches 1% of the population. When Somosza was overthrown by the Sandanistas in 1980, rhere was hell to pay. The Sandanistas were actually a cadre of trad-unioninsts, Catholif Priests, Marxists and environmentalists and they did such a good job of redirecting the economy towards a civilian base that by 1984 the Inter-American Development Bank – hardly a bastion of left wing extremism – called the Nicaraguian economy a ‘model for all of Latin America.’.

But of course US planners were furious that it was no longer fulfilling its service function, so under the vile and venal Ronald Reagan George Schulz famously said that ‘there is a cancer in central America in Nicaragua under the Sandanistas and we have to cut out the cancer’. And cut it out they did. They waged an illegal terrorist war on the country for years, first arming aiding, training and abetting the Contra rebels who had absolutely no populat support in the country and who committed some of the most heinous crimes, and also illegally blockading the country with warships in a way that resembled a medievel siege. Nicaragua was forced to shift from a civilian economy to a military economy and very quickly all of the gains alluded to by the Inter American Development Bank were destroyed. By 1985 the country was on its knees but what could it do? It turned to the World Court but anticipating this move the United States withdrew from the court just before it rendered a decision on the terrors being waged on tiny Nicaragua by the US. The decision found the US guilty of únlawful aggression’ and the country was ordered to immediately pay 5 billion dollars in damages. The US response was to laugh, ignore the verdict and to increase the terrorsist war, so that by 1990 the Nicaraguan economy was in ruins, making it the second poorest country in the hemipshere.

ts all there in the historical record but our supine media and pundits just prefer to ignore it. Look at the record in Haiti, Brazil and elsewhere around the world and there are many other examples. But when you have been fed dollops of American exceptionalism your entire life as idiots like Betula have, then when the truth is revealed it is denied, ridiculed, ignored.

By Jef Harvey (not verified) on 28 Apr 2017 #permalink

Stu2

Get it into your silly little head that posts by you in answer to Jeff are just as answerable by myself and any other. Unless of course you have invented some unwritten law to decree otherwise.

By the same token it is worth those who make replies here to be aware and have read and understood posts that may be responses to others if germane to the topics under discussion.

To describe as 'blanket' such statements as ‘alternative and more humane political systems’ is to reveal your deep ignorance of geo-politics as well as socio-economics and aspects of climate change.

I hinted at where you may look to learn more, if you wish to however your modus operandi suggests that you won't bother and continue in the bluster based upon avoidance of evidence that may upset your cognitive framework.

Consider Augusto Pinochet

...he [Pinochet] throwing in his lot with a US government that detested the idealistic but ramshackle coalition of six parties headed by Dr Salvador Allende, the country doctor and upstanding freemason who was set on introducing elements of social democracy in a country long organised for the benefit of the landowners, industrialists and money men.

Oh look what we have in that final clause - indications of the very problems that are now plaguing peoples in western countries as the formerly did those in the so called third world.

But there is more:

So confident was Pinochet in his protectors in "the free world" that on 17 September 1976 he ordered the killing of Orlando Letelier, Allende's former defence minister, with a bomb planted in his car in Sheridan Circle in the diplomatic heart of Washington itself. Such an atrocity, had it been committed by any Arab or Iranian, or indeed a Muslim of any persuasion, would have brought down instant punishment, or even war. But Pinochet was in no danger. After all, he had been Nixon's man all along.

You see the US could not stand the thought of not only 'reds under the bed' but reds living next door. Chile being as good as next door for the Monroe Doctrine had indoctrinated US politicians into considering Latin America as the US's back yard.

B-bopper.

...however, apparently massive development on a global scale (paid for by the rich nations) doesn’t…

So those were not your words? I think you will find they are and it was to those I was referring.

But then you are so incompetent at quoting one has decipher a melange of words which you spew across the post.

Dolt.

Betula is such a retarded idiot because he doesn't even understand that rich nations have never paid for global economic growth because their domestic growth has been largely built on the backs of poor nations in the souths whose resources thay have ritually plundered and continue to do so.

What a complete moron. And he's so brazenly ignorant that he thinks that we can reduce atmospheric concentrations of C02 - when they are committed to rise for at least the next 30 years or more because of time lags and atmospheric residence times. In other words, its impossible to bring C02 levels below 400 ppm for many centuries, and every indication is that they will continue to rise, pass the 450 pp, barrier and keep right no going. I might as well try to communicate with a 5 year old, given that Betula's self taught material is worthless bullshit.

And of course science isnt out any windows you brainless clot. It is just that morons like you ignore heaps of science that you don't like. Anyway since whan has a third rate tree pruner been able to adjudicate over what constitutes science? Try never?

I love the fact that you are an anonymous twerp. I'd love you to wander along to a lecture I give at any number of universities so I could humilate you. And I wouldn't be alone. The rest of my scientific audience would join in. They's relish it too - dressing down a self-righteous ignoramus.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 28 Apr 2017 #permalink

Thank you, Jeff, to put the total ignorance of science deniers like Stu2 and Betula into perspective. They just don't deserve the attention they strive for with their uninformed and untenable positions. The current trends of continuing global temperature increase, as unequivocally shown by Gavin and his colleagues at GISS, allow no doubt on the stance of the danger humanity is facing from further unabated burning of fossil fuels.

By Eco Gonzalez (not verified) on 28 Apr 2017 #permalink

Having read the books by Callum Roberts, by Carl Safina and others I paid particular interest to a documentary introduced by David Attenborough Death of the Oceans, sound track slightly speeded up which makes the speech staccato.

Note the worrying increase in noise damaging and stressing species, acidification and much more. Also the question of number baseline shifts over time is brought to the fore.

I'll link to a great resource mentioned in the documentary, the Census of Marine life in the next post as I may have reached my link limit here.

Lionel @82 --
…however, apparently massive development on a global scale (paid for by the rich nations) doesn’t…

"So those were not your words? I think you will find they are and it was to those I was referring"

If those are the word you were referring to as "ill informed", then what you are saying is massive development on a global scale (paid for by the rich nations) WILL increase consumption, therefore, it must be bad.

At least we are getting somewhere now...

So why the push for development if it's bad?

Hardley - "And he’s so brazenly ignorant that he thinks that we can reduce atmospheric concentrations of C02"

Strange, I don't ever remember writing those words. In fact, the exact words I used were paraphrasing you....here they are:

"Reducing CO2 doesn’t matter anymore because it’s “Too little, too late”….and any “economic growth” for the U.S. is bad because it creates more consumption"

You just referred to yourself as "brazenly ignorant".

You will never win arguing against your own words Hardley.....and just remember, you're the "scientist".

Eco - "Thank you, Jeff, to put the total ignorance of science deniers like Stu2 and Betula into perspective"

I notice you didn't give any examples of the "ignorance" you are referring, or what exactly it is that Hardley put into perspective....unless you are talking about his claim that seeing a spider in the winter is witnessing climate change first hand (over a time scale of ZERO) only to recant his statement and tell us of course he couldn't have witnessed it first hand...

How about being specific instead of using blanket statements Eco...hmmm?

You sound like a Hardley patsy....what did he offer you, a peek at his hyperparasitiod collection?

Jeff and Lionel.
What were/are these 'alternative and more humane political systems'?
Compared to what?

If those are the word you were referring to as “ill informed”, then what you are saying is....

...not that which you are implying. Go read this book I keep pointing you at and not just the page presented there, the whole of the book to fill that hole in your mind. In that context your a dissembling ignoramus, with gaseous effluent coming from seventh rock from the sun.

Lionel - "Go read this book I keep pointing you at"

You want me to read a book based on the fact that you refer to Hardley's statements and ideas as "ill informed" and attempt to contribute them to me? This is good stuff.

Maybe Eco Patsy would like to give us his perspective on your idiocy..

I think Lionel and Hardley should go on a Utopian vacation together to Caracas....
Hardley can look for spiders, Lionel can seek out military air power, and they can both wander the streets at night bitching about the evils of the United States...while searching for something to wipe their asses with.

@#84.
Eco.
Where is this 'unabated burning of fossil fuels' occurring?
Upthread I linked some of the latest info that shows human CO2 emissions from the 2 biggest emitters (USA & China) are reducing and flatlining elsewhere.
How can that be described as 'unabated'?????

Stu 2 to Eco Patsy - "How can that be described as ‘unabated’?????"

Easy, because Eco is Hardley's Eco Patsy.

And let's not forget, Hardley is now giving extra credit for those willing to thank him on Deltoid for talking about himself.

Stu2

Upthread I linked some of the latest info that shows human CO2 emissions from the 2 biggest emitters (USA & China) are reducing and flatlining elsewhere.

And I have come back to you on that one my #65 here demonstrating that this is no grounds for satisfaction or complacency, far from it. Your attempts to celebrate that demonstrate clearly how ignorant you remain despite our efforts of enlightenment.

When will you learn to study through the links in pots of others and stop keep coming back with silly questions revealing that you are a hopeless example of wilful ignorance, with your #90 on this page being another prime example.

Why? Because on this very page (also those prior) I have cited sources that will inform you of the fact that there are no perfectly organised societies on economic and individual opportunity basis only some that are closer to the ideal than others. Unfortunately these latter tend to be destabilised by those states which have the greatest inequalities because those who own just about everything including the media control the public narrative so as to preserve their wealth and power.

What is more insidious is that these states, including but not exclusively the US, UK, Australia (it is noted that you imbibe the propaganda from such as The Australian) have societies where the top 1% are pulling away faster widening the gap as time goes by. In each we have seen viscous campaigns by politicians and the media denigrating those on benefits etc as scroungers.

To understand why this is so iniquitous I have suggested that you study the books cited in my #64 here.

As for your #92 consider your source for that rather superficial description of Latin American history. You may like to consider the efforts of US foreign policy in the region the US being one of those states where there is the largest concentration of wealth, mostly unearned, at the top and the concomitant efforts of wealth controlled media to push a narrative which glosses over the differences between types of earnings, investment and wealth.

Now, frankly, I have had about enough of trying to raise the awareness of those reluctant to read more widely. I have a small stack of books, on various topics to read and you are holding me up. Waste your own time not mine. That goes for Betula also.

Where is this ‘unabated burning of fossil fuels’ occurring?

What you need to appreciate is there are two fallacies in your thinking.

One is that a levelling out of emissions in two states does not equate to a lower rate of fossil fuel burning.

The other is the lack of correlation with the rise in atmospheric CO2, which continues unabated, indeed more rapidly.

And CO2 is only one of the GHGs with CH4 and NOx both of which latter are more powerful warming agents than CO2. Surplus NOx comes from overuse of nitrogen based fertilisers in agriculture which lead to soil impoverishment and poisoning of ecosystems into which the leach and are then flushed. Yet another reason why we have to radically alter our ways of living and economic activity. It is a complex issue and you will only begin to get the gist of it if you read the books and sources I cite. Tony Juniper should be on your list as well as Callum Roberts, O E Wilson and those describing the mass extinction event that humans have precipitated see Elizabeth Kolbert, Richard Pearson and others (previously cited over the months and years here.

#98 " O E Wilson "
As mentioned in #48, ive just read Wilson.
Outstanding.
Im very pleased to see Wilson as one of your
recommendations.

Correction, should be E O Wilson in #98 above.

Spencer Wells has written a thought provoking book in Pandora's Seed: Why the Hunter-Gatherer Holds the Key to Our Survival, also published as 'Pandora's Seed: The Unforeseen Cost of Civilization' which tackles a number of humanity's current issues and delves into the origins.

One issue he looks at is obesity, an affliction of the less well off in supposedly civilised societies which has correlations with low education standards and low incomes. That the US southern and mid-west states (Trumpland) show badly in this respect is no surprise.

The map of 'Adult Obesity Rate by State, 2015' at Adult Obesity in the United States is only significantly different in adding Oregon, Maine, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota and North Dakota to those highlighted on the map on page 63 of Well's book. Also Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and West Virginia are assigned a new higher obesity rate category. 'There is something rotten in the heart of the USA', and also similarly in other so called western countries where many have lost the know how to cook for themselves (fractured families, any parents working at more than one non contract low wage job with little time for proper parenting) and rely upon fabricated food full of undesirable additives in excess.

There is a useful appraisal by Jared Diamond ('Guns, Germs and Steel', and 'Collapse') on the rear cover:

'Spencer Wells — explorer, geneticist, geographer and author — takes us on a tour of the last 10,000 years of our history in order to forewarn us of what we shall have to deal with in the next 50 years'

Lionel @ # 97.
Who claimed that there are perfectly organized societies?
Who are you arguing with?
I clearly asked where were/are these alternative and more humane political systems and compared to what?
It was Jeff Harvey who made that statement was it not?
You claimed that these 'more humane' systems were in southern and central America.
Any research of the area and any history does not reveal 'an alternative and more humane political system'.
You have now moved on to some whacky idea that humanity should revert to some form of hunting and gathering and somehow linked that to obesity.
You're also now claiming that modern agriculture is inherently evil.
You do realise don't you that your romantic and revisionist notion of agriculture was far more damaging to the environment?
Slash & burn and hunting & gathering are not sustainable.

Or maybe they would be if we wiped out about 80% of humanity and reverted to tribalism?????
How would you cope as a hunter and gatherer in the UK Lionel?
What would your diet & clothing & shelter consist of?
I'm guessing that much of it wouldn't be naturally found by foraging in the forest???

Here are some questions for you Lionel.
1) What is your clothing made from? Is it produced naturally in the UK? What did the original inhabitants wear? Would you be OK wearing that?
2) What is your house built from and by whom? What did the original hunters & gathereres make their shelter from? At your time of life, would you be able to do that and would that type of shelter be OK for you?
3) How do you cook your food and what makes up your diet compared to the original hunters & gatherers?
4) Are you happy with your BMI? If you are, that's great. If you're not, whose responsibility is it to improve it? It appears from your latest comment that obesity is somehow the responsibility of govt?????
5) Considering that humanity is highly, highly urbanized, how on earth could people who live on small blocks or in flats & apartments possibly survive by growing and cooking all on their own?
6) If academia has to spend so much time on their work to save us all from ourselves, writing papers, writing books, lecturing, peer reviewing, attending forums and conferences, advising on policy & etc, etc etc, where are they going to find the time to be so highly educated and to be naturally self sufficient?
7) I know just as many highly intelligent and highly educated academics who are overweight or obese as I do from every other demographic, don't you?
I'm totally fascinated about who or what must be forced to change and pay for these radical changes you advocate. I suspect that far too many would have to pay with their lives, probably including yourself, in order to achieve this vaguely identified 'greater good' or if you like 'perfect society' or alternative and more humane political system' that you're talking about and/ or defending.

In post #51 page 4 Jeff Harvey wrote this succinct description of what it is to exchange with the multi-dimensionally challenged on this blog, I likened it to exchanging with a hagfish. I have made a small change to fit this particular change more precisely.

Debating an idiot on a blog is so difficult because your opponent can set their own goalposts and keep moving them around. Or they can stick to a tired, ridiculous meme and go with only that. In a way, Betula Stu 2 does both.

The examples I could flush out are numerous and are represented in the slew of posts from Stu 2 following my #1 on this page (5).

in #2 on this page Stu 2 writes:

Who claimed that there are perfectly organized societies?

The answer is of course – nobody, for it is obvious that none existed and we made no such claims.

What is being posited is that developed world societies are very imperfect in socio-economic terms not only because of the great inequality present. This was a feature I was bringing out with the obesity question WRT the USA but also becoming more prevalent in the UK and other European states.

Stu 2 went on:

I clearly asked where were/are these alternative and more humane political systems and compared to what?

This after being straightened out more than once with examples provided although still not perfect examples — for there are none!

Stu2 may do well to look at a title mentioned by Jeff in his page 4 #52 post:

‘Empire's Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism ‘ by Greg Grandin which is on my to read pile.

Another one that could be worth looking at is ‘Bitter Fruit: The Story of the American Coup in Guatemala’ by Stephen Schlesinger — not yet on my to read list but will obtain a copy.

Stu 2 displays his lack of precision yet again by writing:

It was Jeff Harvey who made that statement was it not?

Which is unanswerable from lack of specifics.

Stu2 then moves on to this melange of tortured misunderstanding of my themes (if he bothered to read those books cited through page 4 here then he should not be engaged thus):

You have now moved on to some whacky idea that humanity should revert to some form of hunting and gathering and somehow linked that to obesity.
You’re also now claiming that modern agriculture is inherently evil.

That is a total distortion of my themes. What I am pointing out is that industrial agriculture is unsustainable in the long run. If Stu 2 should bother to read Juniper, Tudge and others he should (not saying ‘he would’ because his brain doesn’t appear to function coherently — probably a buffer overflow issue) understand this.

The next two posts of his are based upon similar fallacious argument, arguments that should be answered if he bothered to read as suggested.

Some more examples of how the private sector enriches themselves at the expense of the general population, including those on below living wages.

When the oil industry pushes for more offshore drilling and at the simultaneously pushes for laws that free companies from the full consequences of an oil spill….

See ’The Price of Inequality’ by Joseph Stiglitz for full context. This is an enlightening book for those who’s education is still in the dark ages, such as Stu 2.

Or in a box-out pages 51-52 in ‘Why We Can't Afford the Rich’ By Andrew Sayer we find:

‘Billionaires Alley’ — or benefits Street for the super-rich

On the Bishops Avenue in London, Britain’s second-richest street, a third of the mansions are standing empty. …..

a box-out pages 51-52 in ‘Why We Can't Afford the Rich’ By Andrew Sayer

That is obscene.

Another example of how the general public are fleeced by privatised utilities is exemplified in the water industry.

The following is drawn from Private Island: Why Britain Now Belongs to Someone Else . I link to a review because it touches on some of the other things discussed above.

The following is from a discussion in that book of the flooding in the UK in July 2007 specifically around the Town of Tewkesbury near Gloucester, the city in which I was born and grew up. I distinctly remember the Junior School trip to Tewkesbury Abbey, well documented in 2007 by being surrounded by a sea of muddy water, of which the spire was being refurbished. Health and Safety these days would preclude children under ten ascending some stages by ladders lashed to beams and platforms for the workers to use. Some of our number refused to go up such, I guess I even then had a distinct lack of self preservation. I learned to know the area well making many a days walk across various section of the Cotswolds and the Forest of Dean.

A prime example of the inability of organisations to do the right thing if it means spending money on preventative measures required for protecting vital supplies from the ravages of the ‘unexpected’ events such as flooding. I place unexpected in inverted comments for a very good reason, as this example will show the company involved Severn Trent Water did not correctly calculate the degree of risk presented by the fact that in 137 years of operation the Mythe pumping station had not been flooded thus the risk of flooding was slight. This complacency arose because the Environment Agencies publicly available flood map showed large parts of Mythe underwater in the event of a 1 in 100 year event. No flooding for 137 years so no flooding tomorrow. Reality is that, ‘Mathematically, over 137 years, the chance of at least one flood on a site likely to flood every hundred years is 75 per cent.’

More at: When the Floods Came

I suggest you read the whole article for full context. Extract:

Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t. Colin Matthews, chief executive of Severn Trent at the time of the floods, left the company soon after this to head another private monopoly, BAA,…

...

Yet, like all England’s private water companies, Severn Trent would have more money to invest in rebuilding and improving the water system if it didn’t pay out such hefty sums in dividends each year to the shareholders who own it. In 2007, the year Severn Trent plc failed its customers catastrophically for the lack of a £25 million pipeline, then declined to compensate them, it handed over the equivalent of £38.65 per customer to its shareholders in dividends. Its biggest shareholder, Barclays Bank, got £5.2 million. That year, Barclays’ profits were £7.08 billion.

More obscenities.

These are just examples, from that wider reading that you are quick to advise others to do but where you appear so reluctant to heed your own advice.

Doh!

More obscenities.

These are just examples, from that wider reading that you are quick to advise others to do but where you appear so reluctant to heed your own advice.

Lionel.
@#67 previous page Jeff Harvey does indeed comment about 'alternative and more humane political systems'.
I merely asked where they were/are and compared to what?
You did offer @#75 that central and south America.
Now you're saying there's none????

Stu 2

Doh!

Put a thinking head on when reading our posts. You are distorting the overall message again. Oh and do try to read more widely, once again with a thinking head on.

"alternative and more humane political systems"

Those were your words Stu2, don't take Jeff and myself out of context or put words in our mouths. It really is like wrestling with a hagfish engaging with you.

#8
As someone with an avid interest in all things
Brexit, I found that private island link interesting
for more background to the Brexit drama.
Thankyou.

Li D

Re 'Private Island: Why Britain Now Belongs to Someone Else' the previous chapter on the machinations of Railtrack are worth studying.

There is very comprehensive book on how British railways have been starved of cash, unfairly treated vis a vis road haulage and other political shenanigans from parties of both stripes but mainly those who colour themselves blue.

There are others by this very knowledgeable ex railwayman, who still volunteers on a preserved line. These are two of the most interesting:

'Railway Blunders'

Not seen in the reviews is comment on the unbelievable farce that was the construction of the Heathrow Tunnel. The chain of contractors and subcontractors under the umbrella of BAA (note where Mathews went in the above description of the Severn Trent Water flooding farrago) is almost as unbelievable as the cavalier manner in which Balfour Beatty went about construction of the tunnel. Wiki has interesting comment on this organisation, much of it less than complimentary, surprisingly The Heathrow Tunnel is not listed there as one of its projects.

Another interesting read is:

'Tracks to Disaster'. The chapter on a signalling farce involving the Severn Tunnel provides food for thought, especially if you have need to travel through it as I did many times in the 1980s.

Lionel @# 12.
@#67 previous page, Jeff said that America nullified 'alternative and more humane political systems.'
When I asked Jeff where they were/are and compared to what, you answered and offered central and south America for a start @#75.
How is that taking you and Jeff out of context and putting words in your mouths?
And Lionel.
At no point have I claimed that anything is perfect.
I agree that there are no perfect societies.
Who are you arguing with?

Lionel has been arguing with Hardley, while Hardley has been arguing with himself...

You can't make it up.

OK clever cloggs find the string 'alternative and more humane political systems' in Jeff's #67 on page 4.

You keep altering the phrases being used and twist ideas around so that we may appear to be arguing things we are not.

Whatever, you keep arguing from a point of ignorance as is being repeatedly demonstrated.

You pick out one statement re central and south America, ignore all the other stuff that you have twisted to try to play the innocent. That slipperiness will not do, being that hagfish syndrome again. You still have not learned how the socio-politics of the world is organised.

& Lionel @#6.
What 'type' of agriculture is OK by you?

Sigh :-(
Lionel.
2nd last sentence @#67 from Jeff Harvey.
Also read your own comment @#75.
There's no question that the US & other nations have interfered, I'm questioning the statement about those 'alternative and more humane political systems'.
Where, why & how were they 'more humane' & compared to what?
Those were indeed Jeff Harvey's words @#67 & why I asked the question.

Stu2, once again, get off your ass and do a little bit of digging. Read Greg Grandin's 'Empire's Workshop' for starters, or virtually anything from Noam Chomsky. But I will give you three examples of many.

Let's start with Chile, 1970. The Chileans had the affront to elect Salavadore Allende, a social democrat who wanted to create a more egalitarian society in his country. Richard Nixon went berserk, and through his confidante Henry Kissinger ordered the US and CIA to punish Chile by 'making the economy scream' (his own words). And they did everything they could to achieve it, fomenting civil unrest, infiltrating trade unions and sabotaging the economy. When even that didn't work, and Allende was re-elected, the hitmen were called in to ensure that the preferred candidate, the thug Augusto Pinochet, was installed in a violent coup on 9-11 1973. What happened thereafter is on record but ignored by western pundits. Chile experimented in absolute free markets and Chicago Boy's style monetarism but by 1982 the economy buckled and Pinochet adopted many of the policies that were originally in the Allende government.

Then we can briefly go to Guatemala, 1953. Again, the people had the affrontery to elect Jacobo Arbenz, a moderate social democrat who had the gall to slap a 1% tax on United Fruit Company who for years had been plundering the country. Once again, the global hegemon was outraged and fomented a violent internal coup initially through a false flag operation and then by arming fascit militias that essentially plunged the country into a civil war and paved the way for mass murderers like Rios Montt to come to power. By the latge 1980s, thanks to policies instigated in Washington, hundreds of thousands of Guatemalans were dead, incuding huge numbers of indigenous people, all because the country dared to levy a miniscule tax on a company that had been robbing the country blind for years.

Then we have Nicaragua. Perhaps the best example. In 1979, after 47 years of torture and mass murder under Somosza, the country overthrew the regime and replaced it with with one consisting loosely of Marxists, trade unionists, environmentalists and religious leaders (the Sandanistas).

The Sandanistas immediately attempted to restructure the economy towards a more egalitarian system and at first it worked. Indeed, by 1984 the Inter American Development Bank, hardly a bastion of left wing extremism, called Nicaragua's economy a 'model for Latin America'. The same year, US Secretary of State under the venal, vile Ronald Reagan, Geroge Schultz, called Nicaragua a 'cancer' that had to be 'cut out'. And cut it out they did. The US waged an illegal terrorist war, employing the Contras, who had absolutely no public support whatsoever among the Nicaraguan people, and forced the country to turn from a civilian economy to a war economy. Within a year the economy began to buckle under a blockade that killed several tens of thousands of people; Nicaragua, weak and utterly defenseless, decided that their only option was to appeal to the World Court. Anticipating this move, the US withdrew from the Court several weeks before it deliberated. The Court found the US guilty of 'unlawful aggression' and ordered it to pay as much as 5 billion dollars worth of damages to the Nicaraguan government. The US laughed at this demand, ignored it completely, and actually increased their terrorist war, so that by 1990 the country was on its knees and by a narrow margin finally elected Washington's chosen candidate.

By 2000 Nicaragua was the second poorest country in the western hemipshere - just behind another US client state Haiti - never to recover. In the wake on 9-11 in the US one paper in the country said that, thanks to the US, Nicaragua has has '9-11's raining down on them in slow motion' for almost 20 years. All of this has been sent down the memory hole among western pundits.

So Stu2, get off of your butt and learn about some history, instead of relying on the Australian or Sky News to tell you what is going on.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 May 2017 #permalink

Jeff, thanks for that. One of my problem atm is finding apposite quotes from the books in my library as it is dismantled at the moment and distributed in small piles all over, some now in piles behind other piles.

However, as we have seen Stu2 will not engage with the material he has been spoon-fed preferring the lazy option of coming back with inane, often malformed questions, frequently based upon a distortion of what we have written.

His is classic wilful ignorance combined with a dose of DK, that latter a term which is perhaps overused but which fits to a 'T' here. He thinks he knows stuff.

Darn it, I have forgotten more (cardiac arrest spurred that on somewhat but I have been claiming back ground since that in 2000 — I was out of it for about two weeks and couldn't believe the result of the US election that year was still in the balance then being stolen by the forces of greed an usury) than he ever knew. Stu2 needs to shut up and put up — i.e. research and study.

I heartily recommend the books on Latin America cited above and also Andrew Sayer on 'Why we can't afford the rich'

Thanks for your input and knowledge too, Lionel. I see you contributing to other blogs and it is appreciated. Sorry for the numerous typos but as I am busy at my day job, writing rebuttals to the likes of Stu2 and Betula waste my valuable time. Betula is just a right wing ignoramus, whose grasp of science and history place him at the back of the class. Stu2 is wilfully ignorant, and expects us to do his homework. The information I provided above is easy to find and hardly controversial, unless you insist on believing fairy tales about the 'basic benevolence' of western-style democracies, and its attendant myth that our governments at the worst only make mistakes, but never commit crimes in full knowledge of their implications. As I said the other day, the death toll from US foreign policy over the past 60 years is conservatively in the tens of millions. The UK record is scarcely better, as Mark Curtis and other historians have shown in their works.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 May 2017 #permalink

The UK record is scarcely better, as Mark Curtis and other historians have shown in their works.

Indeed, one of the authors I could quote, another is John Pilger. Stu2 needs to look him up and by way of example discover Australia's role in the genocide on East Timor. I could go on and on, as could you, but the Stu2s of the world will never admit their own ignorance that really is Dunning-Kruger in action.

Harvey - "as I am busy at my day job, writing rebuttals to the likes of Stu2 and Betula waste my valuable time"

It's our fault that Hardley, the super busy "scientist", forces himself to waste his own "valuable" time responding to his own words...

Again....you can't make it up.

Again….you can’t make it up.

Something you repeatedly do. Talking of 'repeating' you are repeatedly demonstrating flatulent vacuity.

LIonel - "Something you repeatedly do"

Unfortunately for you, you have nothing to back that up.

Speaking of backed up, looks like you are about up to your ears in it..

Betula for once you have a point. It took you 6 years, but you are right, though. You really aren't worth my time. Thanks for the tip.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 May 2017 #permalink

Hardley - "You really aren’t worth my time. Thanks for the tip"

Again. you are responding to you own words, only this time you are thanking me while doing it.

Just remember, you're the "scientist"....

Third rate tree pruner, you don't need to keep reminding me that I am the scientist. My CV and international standing make that abundantly clear. Once again, as I have said countless times, in a face-to-face debate I would skewer you, and you know it. Your simple strategy would be to throw out one ad hom after another.

I notice that you have made no attempy to counter my point about the vile results of US foreign policy. Glad to see that even a blowhard like you knows when to shut his gob sometimes. Still, aside from vacuous nonsense greenhouses and wild turkeys I am waiting after 6 years for a substantial scientific comment from you. It appears it's never going to happen.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 02 May 2017 #permalink