Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html en-gb 30 Sun 19 Apr 2015 02:00:26 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html Victor http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=99#comment192 This post has been Removed Thu 19 May 2011 18:03:55 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=98#comment191 CanadianRockies at #189I agree - "... this only emphasizes the need for looking at the specifics and details of a watershed versus making broad generalizations."However while by definition "OVERgeneralisations" are misleading as you say, I still think there is a role for studies that try assess the big picture without getting bogged down by all the nitty-gritty detail. Taking a step back and looking at something in a larger context can be very useful to gettig thinking going in new directions. Of course, the devil is in the detail, and the details need to be worked through eventually if one wants to make a shift towards specific actions. Moreover, I must confess that I find it enjoyable to get into detail now and again, rather than rehash some abstract notions that sometimes have no grounding in reality.What Richard mostly does well in my opinion is present a basic description and some highlights and also provides the links to let people determine the merits or otherwise of the studies he describes, if they are so interested (in other words, letting those studies speak for themselves). Wish others did the same... Wed 09 Jun 2010 04:32:21 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=98#comment190 Bowman at #187Nope. Guess again. Tue 08 Jun 2010 18:53:28 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=97#comment189 185. Robert Lucien wrote:"My point is that everyone who's so certain about the world is wrong wrong wrong... "Couldn't agree more. Tue 08 Jun 2010 18:21:18 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=97#comment188 #176. simon-swede - I'm baffled by that research. So I'm thinking out loud here... How do the coho get upstream of beaver dams to spawn, thereby allowing the smolts to be in beaver ponds later? And how do the smolts get downstream from the beaver dams to return downstream to the ocean?I'm not familiar with that particular watershed. But since it consistently says "beaver ponds and sloughs," that suggests that the area studied is some large flat area... and this would suggest that it may be impacted by the seasonal flooding of large areas... in which case these beaver ponds would not be created by high dams blocking running water. I just found this watershed on a map. I guessed right. The lower part is in the flat Puget Sound lowlands where that would have made some sense, historically. So in an area like this, beaver ponds would predictably be on the small tributaries, or on areas where there seasonal floodwaters were retained, and the smolts could reach them and leave them during spring flooding and high water...Since coho have various seasonal runs... and I have no idea when the run or runs on this particular river occur or did occur, that would also be a factor. In any case, this only emphasizes the need for looking at the specifics and details of a watershed versus making broad generalizations. Are there areas like this is Scotland, or do the salmon there spawn in watersheds where beavers would be more of a problem... if not a disaster for them?And this study is a good example of overgeneralization when it seeks to "explore the population-level effects on coho salmon resulting from the widespread removal of millions of beaver and their dams from Pacific Coast watersheds."If you look at a map you will see that north of the Fraser delta there are very few similar watersheds with large flat areas along the coast like this one... so a study of this one cannot be extrapolated as implied. And this looks specifically at coho salmon.Finally, these "historic" smolt production estimates must be based on models and extrapolation since the beaver population was effectively reduced to semi-extirpation by the 1850s, and nobody was counting salmon back then. So what these statistics are actually worth is another question. Anyhow, my very first comment on this blog a few months back was a complaint about overgeneralizations, which are almost always false or misleading when it comes to ecology and species - as Richard's topics consistently do because he routinely starts with big UN statements. So this discussion just fits that.And as I noted in my first comment on this beaver reintroduction, this topic alone could be the subject of a blog with comments galore to emphasize how complex things can be.So, thanks for getting into the details. Unfortunately, most people don't do that. Tue 08 Jun 2010 18:17:28 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=96#comment187 #187 simon-swede wrote:"in expressing your opinion on biodiversity matters I think you have that perspective"But why? -- Because I don't appeal to a spooky Higher Power? Tue 08 Jun 2010 17:43:33 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=96#comment186 Bowman at #186I know what anthropocentric means, and yes in expressing your opinion on biodiversity matters I think you have that perspective. Tue 08 Jun 2010 16:34:54 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=95#comment185 #184 simon-swede wrote:Let's see, you also wrote: "The words 'good' and 'bad' express values. They would normally be values of the person writing..."Indeed. I wonder where I got that impression then?You need to look up the word 'anthropocentric'! It has to do with a specifically human-centered perspective.Perhaps you're suggesting that any time any person expresses a value, he adopts an anthropocentric perspective because he is a human. In that case, you have to explain why you think it applies to me more than other humans! Tue 08 Jun 2010 13:29:42 GMT+1 Robert Lucien http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=95#comment184 Many summits When one talks about things like science and religion one must remember Arthur C Clark's great maxim "Any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic". On the subject of spirituality one must remember that just because someone does not believe in the big god doesn't mean one cannot believe in the little ones. (After all science provides pretty absolute proof of the non-existence of the big one in the form of the size of the universe.)In Victorian times rationality ('common sense') and physics coexisted happily but relativity and quantum mechanics changed all that. In physics there is one part of the map labeled "here be dragons" - the FTL part of the light cone, but unfortunately for rationalists the whole universe is in the FTL part of the light cone. Depending on the size of point time even the other people reading this blog are in the FTL part of my light cone and I'm in the FTL part of their light cones. I could explain what all that means but in short point time is probably a simultaneous variable - what that shows is that at a fundamental level we still don't have a complete map of ultimate reality. My point is that everyone who's so certain about the world is wrong wrong wrong... ===================================================== Tue 08 Jun 2010 11:56:41 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=94#comment183 Bowman at #183You wrote: Where on Earth do you get the idea that when I use the words 'good' or 'bad' I am thereby expressing an "anthropocentric" perspective?Let's see, you also wrote: "The words 'good' and 'bad' express values. They would normally be values of the person writing..."Indeed. I wonder where I got that impression then? Tue 08 Jun 2010 11:54:02 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=94#comment182 The words 'good' and 'bad' express values. They would normally be values of the person writing, or, if spoken in oratio obliqua, the values of some other sentient creature. One might "vicariously" adopt the values of another sentient creature as one's own values -- morality would seem to require it. I certainly intend to express the values of other sentient creatures when I say that every act has good and bad consequences. Killing beavers, for example, is a bad consequence for beavers, even if it yields furs (or whatever) that some humans regard as valuable.Where on Earth do you get the idea that when I use the words 'good' or 'bad' I am thereby expressing an "anthropocentric" perspective? Beyond the fact that I happen to be human, I mean?By all means disagree for the sake of disagreement -- that is a good habit. But please give it a moment's reflection while you're at it -- otherwise it's a waste of time. Tue 08 Jun 2010 11:09:04 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=93#comment181 bowmanthebard #179: "Note the word 'good' in what I explicitly said".#181 simon-swede #181: "I did. And also that it indicates a very anthropocentric perspective. Unsuprising really."What on Earth are you talking about now? Explain. Tue 08 Jun 2010 10:50:41 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=93#comment180 Bowman at #179.You wrote: "Note the word 'good' in what I explicitly said". I did. And also that it indicates a very anthropocentric perspective. Unsuprising really. Tue 08 Jun 2010 10:20:53 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=92#comment179 Bowman at #179You wrote: "But on the whole it is probably worse for trees and living things that depend on trees."Not necessarily. It is not that linear! At best you could say that it is bad for those particular trees that the beavers eat. Tue 08 Jun 2010 10:18:42 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=92#comment178 #177 simon-swede wrote:But you are assuming it is a simple beavers "+", then it is necessarily others "-"Not at all. Obviously, other animals live inside the beavers' pools and lodges, so it is probably good for many aquatic species. But on the whole it is probably worse for trees and living things that depend on trees.Note the word 'good' in what I explicitly said: "Every human act has bad, good and unforeseen consequences, which means that judging any act is always a matter of balancing things up as best we can with less than complete information." Tue 08 Jun 2010 09:34:08 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=91#comment177 CanadaianRockies at #172 againI guess I find your description as problematic as the "pro-reintroduction" web-site, in that it is too emphatic. For example, in contrast with what you describe as an inevitable consequence of beaver dams, another review states: "in SOME cases dams are obstructions to upstream migration, and sediment may be deposited in former spawning areas." (empahsis added) However I would wholeheartedly agree with you that the practicality and benefits of introducing or restoring beaver populations will vary according to location, and should be considered in conjunction with a management plan to control their densities. Large-scale reintroduction of any species will have an impact on the existing ecosystem, and so one is really talking about seeking a managed change rather than a reinstatement of the status quo ante. By the way, that review mentioned was co-written by researchers from Canada (Gibson, from Newfoundland) and Scotland (Collen)...! ("The general ecology of beavers (Castor spp.), as related to their influence on stream ecosystems and riparian habitats, and the subsequent effects on fish – a review", IN: Review of Fish Biology and Fisheries, Volume 10, Number 4 / December, 2000). Tue 08 Jun 2010 09:04:40 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=91#comment176 Bowman at #173But you are assuming it is a simple beavers "+", then it is necessarily others "-" relationship. Ecology is not that simple, and you need to take into account the inter-dependancies in a more realistic (not abstract) manner. Tue 08 Jun 2010 08:52:45 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=90#comment175 CanadianRockies at #172I don't claim to be an expert on beaver/salmon interaction, but some of what I have read is at variance with what you say about the impact of beaver on spawing grounds. You may want to consider the following...In seeking to explore the population-level effects on coho salmon resulting from the widespread removal of millions of beaver and their dams from Pacific Coast watersheds, a team of researchers looked ta the current and historic distributions of beaver ponds and other coho salmon rearing habitat in the Stillaguamish River, a 1,771 km2 drainage basin in Washington. They found that the greatest reduction in coho salmon smolt production capacity originated from the extensive loss of beaver ponds. They estimated the current summer smolt production potential (SPP) to be 965,000 smolts, compared with a historic summer SPP of 2.5 million smolts. Overall, current summer habitat capacity was reduced by 61% compared with historic levels, most of the reduction resulting from the loss of beaver ponds. Current summer SPP from beaver ponds and sloughs was reduced by 89% and 68%, respectively, compared with historic SPP. A more dramatic reduction in winter habitat capacity was found; the current winter SPP was estimated at 971,000 smolts, compared with a historic winter SPP of 7.1 million smolts. In terms of winter habitat capacity, they estimated a 94% reduction in beaver pond SPP, a 68% loss in SPP of sloughs, a 9% loss in SPP of tributary habitat, and an overall SPP reduction of 86%. They found that most of the overall reduction resulted from the loss of beaver ponds. The analysis suggests that summer habitat historically limited smolt production capacity, whereas both summer and winter habitats currently exert equal limits on production. They concluded that watershed-scale restoration activities designed to increase coho salmon production should emphasize the creation of ponds and other slow-water environments; increasing beaver populations may be a simple and effective means of creating slow-water habitat.Source: The Importance of Beaver Ponds to Coho Salmon Production in the Stillaguamish River Basin, Washington, USA (Michael M. Pollock et al., IN: North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2004; 24: 749-760). Tue 08 Jun 2010 08:48:00 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=90#comment174 CanadianRockies at #172Points taken! I did point out that the site was pro-reintroduction...One of the things you note is the potential value over an entire watershed. I think that flags a very valuable point - it is important to consider impacts at the ecosystem level. Tue 08 Jun 2010 08:37:33 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=89#comment173 Presumably, when beavers were resident in Scotland in earlier times something preyed on beavers. Perhaps it was just humans. But presumably something will have to prey on beavers again. Did humans re-introduce beavers so that humans could kill them? Tue 08 Jun 2010 08:26:22 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=89#comment172 bowmanthebard #169: "And beavers have to eat stuff..."simon-swede #171: "True. But once again you are ignoring inter-dependancies that actually exist in the real world. In ecology, it's not necessarily a zero-sum game.""Once again"?! -- I'm not even doing it this time! -- I'm taking into account the fact that what beavers eat would probably be eaten by something else, which is an example of inter-dependency! Tue 08 Jun 2010 08:23:40 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=88#comment171 168. simon-swede - We had a beaver colony on part of our land until it ate itself out of food - and in the process dramatically changed the surrounding forest structure and composition. I like them. Fun to watch, and quick learners. And I am very familiar with them and their impacts from many, many other areas.I don't think anything that you posted is contrary to what I stated. Indeed, some of it is nonsensical if not explained, and some of it looks like stretched facts designed to sell beaver reintroduction.If you read that blurb you posted you will notice two key points. They deliberately switch from "non-salmonid species" and "resident" fish to salmon, with no consideration for the migration needs of the salmon. That is either stupidity or dishonest sales tactics.This suggests the latter: "The state of Oregon is devising new ways to encourage beaver dam building activity precisely because of the positive effects beaver ponds have for migratory fish."The value of beaver ponds in a WHOLE watershed - stabilizing streamflows and clarifying water by settling out silt in spring runoffs - is what can benefit salmon. But nobody wants beaver dams on actual spawning streams. How will impassable beaver DAMS help migrating salmon. They cannot. And you can't make fish-ladders over beaver dams because the beavers respond to the sound of running water by damming the 'leak.'Similarly, this is utterly absurd: "However, the deeper water of beaver ponds can provide important habitat for salmonids during the winter and in times of drought."How does the salmon get there? A beaver dam blocks the passage of salmon. You don't find salmon in beaver ponds.Moreover, if they build a dam below a spawning bed, the spawning gravel becomes silted and the reduction of water flow reduces the flow of oxygen (potentially to the eggs) and no spawning is possible.Beaver cut down most large deciduous trees along stream banks. (And when desperate beaver even cut down conifers to keep their teeth sharp). That can eliminate shade and heat up the water, more bad news for fish like salmon, including the young fry and smelts, which need cool water. That is one big reason why logging along salmon streams is not permitted. And its not good for most trout species either.Similarly: "This is born out by the Russian example where salmon thrive in great numbers in a landscape that contains thousands of beavers."See my fourth paragraph (above). These beavers are not building dams on the rivers where the salmon spawn. Any beavers on these spawning rivers are 'bank beavers' which do not build dams because they do not need to. There is already enough water in the river... e.g. the rivers are large and deep enough already (and they build their lodges on the bank or just dig burrows into them). Thus they bring none of the stated beneficial effects, while 'logging' the streamside forests. So, this thing you posted is rather misleading. Nonetheless, and as I first stated, if the population and distribution of a reintroduced beaver population is strictly controlled there can be the other benefits from their impacts on the whole watershed. But there will also be lots of big trees chopped down, plus lots of shrubs, plus flooded stream valleys and farmlands, plus flooded roads when they dam culverts (which they do all the time).So in a place as populated as Scotland it is essential to be prepared to control their populations and pay plenty of compensation to landowners.And good luck with that, given how 'cute' beavers are, and how fanatical some UK animal lovers are!P.S. I have relatives in Switzerland, very serious conservationists, who wish there were no beavers there. After decades of working to save, restore, and replant nice riparian areas with large trees and nice thickets - great habitat for some rare birds and other species - beavers moved in 'logged' them. Only takes a beaver one night to chop down a tree that may have taken 50+ years to grow. And after the big trees are used up they move onto the smaller ones, then the thickets. And they go a long way from the water. They don't eat all deciduous tree and shrub species but...Beavers are rodents. Be prepared for that. Tue 08 Jun 2010 07:49:03 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=88#comment170 Bowman at #169"And beavers have to eat stuff..."True. But once again you are ignoring inter-dependancies that actually exist in the real world. In ecology, it's not necessarily a zero-sum game.Look again at the excerpt from post #168, on the impact of beavers on other species..."The increase in aquatic and semi-aquatic invertebrates results in greater feeding opportunities for fish, particularly non-salmonid species that feed on bottom dwelling invertebrates which prefer slower moving sections of a stream. However, the deeper water of beaver ponds can provide important habitat for salmonids during the winter and in times of drought. In addition, the ponds offer good holding areas in streams lacking similar features for migrating adult salmonids and large resident trout. Far more large trout in Russia are found in watercourses inhabited by beavers." Tue 08 Jun 2010 07:42:52 GMT+1 logo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=87#comment169 Its amazing that every one wants to be curiosity to know the updated information . I am waiting for updated information , up to now i really happy thank you very much. Tue 08 Jun 2010 07:31:28 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=87#comment168 I don't have strong feelings or opinions on the Scottish beaver issue per se. I like beavers, but re-introducing them will surely changes the ecology of the region, possibly quite a dramatic one as beavers are known as architects. And beavers have to eat stuff -- stuff that would have remained uneaten or would have been eaten by other animals.I suspect that most of those who were in favor of re-introducing beavers were guided by the vague idea that beavers are "natural" for Scotland in the same way as red squirrels are "natural" for the UK and grey squirrels are "unnatural".Every human act has bad, good and unforeseen consequences, which means that judging any act is always a matter of balancing things up as best we can with less than complete information.When people such as rossglory (#161) claim that their own proposed changes (such as making more windfarms) might not cause any 'damage' [sic -- note inverted commas] at all, they're trying to alter the meaning of the word 'damage' so that they are incapable of causing it. I suspect something similar is going on with the beaver. Since the beaver is "natural" for Scotland, this thinking goes, any damage it causes can be safely disregarded as not really 'damage' at all. Tue 08 Jun 2010 07:01:25 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=86#comment167 Re my #167My bad! Indeed there was a beaver reintroduction into Switzerland between 1956 and 1977. The present population is estimated at 350+ individuals.The following site has a table showing when various reintroduction programmes were undertaken and teh current population estimates. http://www.scotsbeavers.org/Duncan%20Halley%20Report.htmlElsewhere on the site, there are observations on the impact of beaver reintroductions on other wildlife which are rather contrary to that implied by CanadianRockies. For example, on fish, it is noted: "The increase in aquatic and semi-aquatic invertebrates results in greater feeding opportunities for fish, particularly non-salmonid species that feed on bottom dwelling invertebrates which prefer slower moving sections of a stream. However, the deeper water of beaver ponds can provide important habitat for salmonids during the winter and in times of drought. In addition, the ponds offer good holding areas in streams lacking similar features for migrating adult salmonids and large resident trout. Far more large trout in Russia are found in watercourses inhabited by beavers. Studies from the US with North American beavers show that warm water fish such as minnows increase in beaver ponds while pike numbers rose in larger ponds with shallow grassy areas. The state of Oregon is devising new ways to encourage beaver dam building activity precisely because of the positive effects beaver ponds have for migratory fish. Coho salmon, which for all practical purposes are very similar to our Atlantic salmon, will be one of the main beneficiaries and this leads us to believe that salmon in Scotland will benefit from the presence of beavers. This is born out by the Russian example where salmon thrive in great numbers in a landscape that contains thousands of beavers."Clearly this site is "pro" beaver-reintroduction, but nevertheless perhaps CR has a rather too jaundiced view? Tue 08 Jun 2010 05:58:48 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=86#comment166 CanadianRockies at #166Beavers reintroduced to Switzerland. Ummm, really? Tue 08 Jun 2010 05:48:38 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=85#comment165 #152. bowmanthebard wrote:"Out of interest, what's your opinion on the re-introduction of the beaver into Scotland?"This topic could be the topic of a whole blog discussion. The simple answer is: it depends. Depends on precisely where they do this, and how far they will let the populations increase. They certainly change local habitats so some species will benefit while others lose out. My guess, given how things are in the UK, is that once these rodents are established, and people see how 'cute' and intelligent they are - they are remarkably intelligent for rodents - there will be some kind irrational Beaver Protection Society formed and things will get out of hand. Expect riversides stripped of most large deciduous trees, and flooded roads and farm fields... though I can't imagine anyone would let them onto salmon streams, would they?These kind of problems are entirely predictable. Happens all over the place in Canada, and its happening in Switzerland where they reintroduced them. Mon 07 Jun 2010 18:41:19 GMT+1 rossglory http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=84#comment164 #162 bowmanthebard"rossglory 151: "i wish i had the confidence that some posters appear to have in our ability to manipulate the biosphere.....without destroying it"rossglory 161: "technically windfarms (and other structures) may alter local habitats but not necessarily 'damage' them.""strewth, a new bowman game....repost other's post in an attempt at....well i'm not sure.let me point out a word you 'MAY' have missed.....have you spotted it yet.....MAYbe i should give you a little longer....oh never mind. Mon 07 Jun 2010 18:29:10 GMT+1 manysummits http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=84#comment163 Here is what I am trying to say, as we 'brunch' on our sunny balcony, Underacanoe, Cloudrunner and I:If America defaults, China suffers.If China does not lend us money - we suffer.Etc... everywhere.Suppose we helped each other out, not according to the devious workings of the business model, but because we all needed each others help.We should help Africa - because if we don't they will suffer.Etc...- Manysummits - Mon 07 Jun 2010 17:34:06 GMT+1 manysummits http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=83#comment162 Ghost #158:"Religion has been diminished to a occasional attendance and not some guide to live by or treat others by. Society bascially has become the business model. It is when societies begin to die." (Ghost)=============Yes, we all need something to believe in.Robert Lucien characterizes himself a 'technocrat,' - a religion as it were. (Belief in science)I am sometimes close to that view myself, but intuition is as powerful, and infinitely more generally accessible.I suppose that would make me a dual personality?I am increasingly seeing civilization as a cultural adaptation to the life of farm and city, with complex hierarchy a necessary result.But in mind, body and heart we are all still what we are - hunters (and gatherers). The hunting part is key, however. It enables dominion.Institutional democracy is a further expansion in complexity then - and prone to the inevitable Achilles Heel of very complex systems, which we are manifestly currently experiencing.I think the financial world will soon implode - again - We are in need of some very very good ideas.- Manysummits - Mon 07 Jun 2010 17:23:53 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=83#comment161 rossglory 151: "i wish i had the confidence that some posters appear to have in our ability to manipulate the biosphere.....without destroying it"rossglory 161: "technically windfarms (and other structures) may alter local habitats but not necessarily 'damage' them." Mon 07 Jun 2010 17:16:42 GMT+1 rossglory http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=82#comment160 #156 bowmanthebardof course it depends how you define 'biosphere', 'damage', 'needs', ....... technically windfarms (and other structures) may alter local habitats but not necessarily 'damage' them. for example offshore windfarms can create artificial reefs and create no-take zones for fishers.imho, priority no 1 is (as has been debated before) to reduce our food, water and energy needs significantly. Mon 07 Jun 2010 16:20:42 GMT+1 peakbear http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=82#comment159 @SR #127"Do you advocate 1) Not bothering to use it all 2) Use just the raw data 3) Use the adjusted raw data (as statistics tells us we should filter out the 'noise')."2) - There isn't any noise in the data it's someone reading a thermometer every day. You can only extrapolate from the data you have collected. Can you not understand how wrong it is to derive a value (North Pole temperature for example) and use that derived value in your final answer (Global temperature for example).That is totally circular reasoning. You need to understand how data analysis and statistics are used better as statistics don't tell you to do anything. Once you have a clear set of raw values it is thenpossible to extrapolate some conclusions for certain scenarios but the calculation 'must' be derived from the base (raw) data otherwise it isn't science. Mon 07 Jun 2010 15:46:16 GMT+1 manysummits http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=81#comment158 To Robert Lucien, re #136:"-Many summits from my studying I know how to spot the patterns of mental illness in many peoples words and writing and have to say that some here are definitely well over that edge. Worse many although they call themselves 'skeptics' they are in fact 'true believers', totally convinced of their own ideas - even seeing climate change happen wont convince them. I'm sure they will now say the same about me - I suppose I am. :) Like it says on the gates of Hell 'Hypocrisy is the mirror at the surface of the pool of truth.' " (Robert Lucien)=============When I engage with the lobby, as I term them, and do so intensely, as I just did, it feels like a losing battle at times.I know the power of ideology and religious fervor, having experienced it closely with friends and acquaintances from my past and present who have been gripped by this need to make sense of a seemingly uncaring and at times terrifying world. For some I expect it is a nightmare which has only brief respites.I read Karen Armstrong. She is my portal into the world of comparitive theology and its interface with secular life - she having experienced both. (once a Catholic Nun)Karen advise compassion - an attempt to understand the other point of view - as Kennedy once said:"We are all mortal."But the lobby, who may consist primarily of true believers, as you put it, are also aided and abetted, knowingly or unknowingly, by the Fossil Fuel Industry and Big Business.Noam Chomsky ("Hegemony or Survival") would possibly lump them together.All have a vested interest in keeping the consumer consuming.All would rather we not think deeply - and they own most of the media.Sometimes I wonder if blogs like this are not merely tolerated - a relief valve - while 'business as usual' continues to destroy our world.Regards,Manysummits Mon 07 Jun 2010 15:26:18 GMT+1 ghostofsichuan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=81#comment157 Economic value, by that is meant profit to be made.Nations were once a sense of culture and a particular political institution and even a majority religion. All these worked, for good or bad, to balance the national interest.Today, there is only economic interest and everything is placed with a costs and/or benefit. Nothing has any other value. It is a sad state of affairs but it is what happens when there is no other purpose than to make money. Politicans are bought, and everyone accepts that, there is no outraged when an elected person misuses the position, profits from the position or lobbys for their campaign doners. Culture has been defined by products, fashion and personal technologies. Natural processes and habitats are discussed as comerical investments and even the air is sold or taxed by governments. Industries spoil entire environments and walk away with no responsbilities and often complaining that attempts to preserve an animal or plant has caused their decline. Religion has been diminished to a occasional attendance and not some guide to live by or treat others by. Society bascially has become the business model. It is when societies begin to die. Mon 07 Jun 2010 15:18:02 GMT+1 manysummits http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=80#comment156 119. At 12:25pm on 06 Jun 2010, simon-swede wrote:Also in this week's edition of Nature, an Editorial under the headline "Wanted: an IPCC for biodiversity". The focus is the suggestion that there is a need for an independent, international science panel that would coordinate and highlight research on biodiversity.Nature, vol 465, Page: 525, published online: 02 June 2010.Hopefully the links is: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7298/full/465525a.htmlNature also invites comments from readers...============================================I read this link with great interest - and misgivings!Yes, it is a good idea at first blush.Upon consideration - here is an idea:\\\ Inter-governmental Panel on the Environment (IPE) ///This umbrella organization might be headed up by the United Nations, and funded by a world carbon tax.It would be a government umbrella, answerable to the United Nations General Assembly. Thus its statements would necessarily be political, and action oriented - i.e. knowing realistically what can and cannot be done, and as the United Nations is our only truly global organization, and is already doing much (UNICEF, WHO, etc...), it would be in the proper position to co-ordinate activities and try and reduce duplication of effort and wasting of manpower and money.The sub-committees would be the IPCC, one on biodiversity, one on eutrophication of our waterways, etc..., in short, the idea and promise of the "Planetary Boundaries" paper of Joham Rostrum at the Stockholm Resilience Center would be incorporated into this new UN Body.======================Bolivia's World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth is still in business - I receive reports almost daily from them.A new "Declaration of Human Rights and the Rights of Mother Earth" might eventually emerge from this initiative.And another Bolivian initiative, an "International Court for the Environment," might at long last fulfill the expectations of Christopher Stone's groundbreaking 1972 classic:"Should Trees Have Standing?"========================Inter-governmental Panel on the Environment;Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Rights of Mother Earth;International Court for the Environment (headquartered in Bolivia?)What do you think?- Manysummits, Calgary, Alberta, Canada - Mon 07 Jun 2010 15:06:29 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=80#comment155 #154 rossglory wrote:"satisfying our food, water and energy needs without further biosphere damage"Unfortunately that's just impossible. To illustrate, suppose wind farms do everything they're supposed to do. There's still quite a bit of damage involved to local flora and fauna. Mon 07 Jun 2010 14:17:11 GMT+1 rossglory http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=79#comment154 #153 blunderbunnyglad we can agree on something :o)warmist regards Mon 07 Jun 2010 13:11:01 GMT+1 rossglory http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=79#comment153 #152 bowmanthebard"Out of interest, what's your opinion on the re-introduction of the beaver into Scotland?"afraid i'm agnostic. once we've slowed the destruction of biodiversity hotspots around the world and are satisfying our food, water and energy needs without further biosphere damage i could turn my attention to it....perhaps i could let you know then. Mon 07 Jun 2010 13:09:28 GMT+1 blunderbunny http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=78#comment152 @rossgloryNot that often that I agree with you, but in this particular case I am in wholehearted agreement. Protect as much of the remaining habitats as possible and leave nature and biodiversity to it's own devices. Choosing good and bad, is almost impossible - One species loss, is another’s gain. There are a few notable highly pathogenic exceptions to all of this, but even eradicating these may have other unintended consequences. Recent work has suggested that the eradication of smallpox, may have led to the rapid rise in HIV infections that we've seen over the last few decades.I guess, with particular regard to these sorts of pathogens, we just have to do the best that we can at the time. Sadly, given the complexity of these potential interactions there can be no absolutes, so we just have to accept that we might later have to live with the occasional painful unintended consequence.Regards,One of the Lobby Mon 07 Jun 2010 12:22:18 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=78#comment151 #151 rossglory wrote:"i wish i had the confidence that some posters appear to have in our ability to manipulate the biosphere.....without destroying it that is."Out of interest, what's your opinion on the re-introduction of the beaver into Scotland? Mon 07 Jun 2010 12:01:31 GMT+1 rossglory http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=77#comment150 #142 Titusi wish i had the confidence that some posters appear to have in our ability to manipulate the biosphere.....without destroying it that is. trying to decide what is 'good' and 'bad' in nature apart from a few obvious candidates like typhus is not possible (and i think it's ironic that some diseases were 'locked up' inside large areas of untouched wilderness and only became human diseases when we decided to exploit them). fortunately i don't think we need to think about those sorts decisions at the moment (if at all), we just need to stop destroying biodiversity at the current rate and quite often for no real material gain to anyone. protection is the key, and not just protecting good/nice/pretty bits and destroying bad bits. those types of decisions are impossible. a simple example from my perspective might be a woods/grass dilemma. woods could harbour bad foxes that attack children, but i'm allergic to grass pollen which gives me asthma. so i say conserve as much of each as if possible and del with the consequences.wrt beavers, i would say if the ecosystem was large enough there would be an eventual balance and although dams may destroy terrestrial habitats they create aquatic ones. Mon 07 Jun 2010 11:48:53 GMT+1 blunderbunny http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=77#comment149 @JunkkMale #148@manysummits@simon-swedeRe: "You are all officially added to my growing list of 'denialists.'""Don't tell him your name......'Pike'" ;-)Excellent Clip....... Thanks for that It's nice to be on someone's list - Maybe there'll be a card or something at Christmas?Regards to All,One of the Lobby Mon 07 Jun 2010 11:32:09 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=76#comment148 JunkkMale at #148Not sure if that one counts for the purposes of Godwin's Law... anyway, I love the clip! Mon 07 Jun 2010 09:11:53 GMT+1 JunkkMale http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=76#comment147 109. At 03:21am on 06 Jun 2010, manysummits wrote:You are all officially added to my growing list of 'denialists.' At risk of invoking Godwin's Law...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V3SqxUomwk Mon 07 Jun 2010 08:43:47 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=75#comment146 #144 Dros wrote:I find it quite disturbing that people feel the need to find economic justification to encourage the continued existence of the greatest gift humanity has been given.I admire your honesty for putting it in explicitly religious terms. But as Titus and others have noted, diversity isn't an unambiguously positive thing. Some of it's good, but some of it's bad (such as polio and smallpox, wolves or even foxes that attack sleeping children, etc.).Forget economic justification for a moment -- we have to weigh the good against the bad. We have to consider the good of insect life against the bad of malaria, and so on. Mon 07 Jun 2010 08:17:26 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=75#comment145 #132 Titus wrote:gravity does not work with our current observations and current needs for calculating how objects move.Newton's laws work extremely well for almost all of our current needs -- from balls rolling down inclined slopes to the trajectories of projectiles, even for getting to the Moon and back. Einstein's theory of gravity works even better for the very large scale. As far as I know, postulating "dark matter" doesn't contradict Einstein's theory, but instead changes the "initial conditions" so as to make it more consistent with the apparent expansion of the universe.Einstein himself unwittingly posited dark matter, in effect, by introducing his "fudge factor" in general relativity. This was once considered his "greatest mistake", but is now considered yet another of his "deep insights" -- a typical re-assessment as science progresses. Mon 07 Jun 2010 08:11:54 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=74#comment144 #136 Robert Lucien wrote:"The most important thing is that science throws away things if they are proved wrong and tries to work from a basis of proof not belief."Science neither proves nor disproves anything conclusively. I think that idea deserves to be called "cod Popper". The idea that science works "from a basis of proof not belief" is completely wrong. Mon 07 Jun 2010 07:55:22 GMT+1 Dros http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=74#comment143 There are people who do genuinely ask what the point of conservation is, and yet those same people often enjoy walks in the countryside and wildlife documentaries. I find it quite disturbing that people feel the need to find economic justification to encourage the continued existence of the greatest gift humanity has been given. I ask myself, 'Where is the soul of these people and, assuming they have one, why do they think it isn't important?' This obsession with economics is what has ruined humanity and the World. If the case must be put forward, then there are very good economic incentives for conservation, such as tourism and antibiotic research (heck, we are running out of useful antibiotics as fast as we are destroying their natural sources!). As for the critics of anthropogenic global warming, although the consequences of this warming and its extent remain unclear, there is no doubt that we are changing the Earth's atmosphere - do people really want to let this global 'experiment' run its course? Common sense dictates that we err on the side of caution. People also criticise the computer models that scientists use, but let us not forget that models predicted the damaging effects of CFCs on ozone long before the ozone hole became a reality. Now, should we have dismissed this and said, 'Prove to us that the ozone hole will get bigger and that it matters to us?' The proof may well have been your deaths. Let us not be complacent and overly-cynical when we have only one planet to fool around with! The economic really is a lower priority!!! Mon 07 Jun 2010 05:36:38 GMT+1 TJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=73#comment142 Robert Lucien @136 you say:"Like a bunch of five year olds fighting in the playground."Out of the mouths of babies and suckling’s..... Long may that eternal gathering be supported and not directed by those "that know better". Mon 07 Jun 2010 02:54:50 GMT+1 TJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=73#comment141 rossglory @ 135.We appear to have a similar conundrum. How did your studies lead you to rationalize/deal with it?This afternoon I thought about the beaver that can build a dam and totally alter the course of mighty rivers and deltas and destroy the eco system which can never be recreated.Of course a new eco system will be created. However, the question is: are beavers to be culled or encouraged? Mon 07 Jun 2010 02:49:20 GMT+1 TJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=72#comment140 Robert Lucien @136 you say:"I am a technocrat which means I believe in science as a philosophy even as a religion."And there IMO is the root of it all.Science - a method or process. Started in Genesis 1 when Adam gave a name to everything.(Natural) Philosophy - the interpretation of the ‘science’. Started when the first bit of science became available (Genesis 2 onwards)Religion - the belief, or 'truth' is the word you use. Started when folks wanted some certainty with which to control and feel comfort. This is now all encompassed in what we now call "Science". And we wonder why we have a problem.CanadianRockies @138 directs use to “Post Normal Science”. Check it out. Mon 07 Jun 2010 02:38:23 GMT+1 LarryKealey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=72#comment139 @RichardI just caught your posts in response to me - thank you.Also, many thanks for your congradulations. We are very excited - the big day is July 3rd, if you should find yourself in the area (perhaps covering the leak...) you would be very welcome at the wedding.I am a bit too disappointed with the disaster in the Gulf today to write about it - more tomorrow.Kindest.Kealey Mon 07 Jun 2010 01:39:43 GMT+1 oldterry2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=71#comment138 in 109. manysummits wrote:"Oldterry2, CanadianRockies; Blunderbunny; ......You are all officially added to my growing list of 'denialists.' "How splendid - to be classed as a denialist for saying that CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas. That must mean that manysummits would also think the same of the authors of the IPPC report - I quote: "Water vapour is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere." IPCC report Chapter 2 pg 135. Sun 06 Jun 2010 23:13:03 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=70#comment137 136. Robert Lucien - You might want to note the profound difference between real science and the new “Post-Normal Science” which is discussed here:http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/climate-change-and-the-death-of-science/ Sun 06 Jun 2010 23:10:02 GMT+1 LarryKealey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=70#comment136 71. At 08:38am on 05 Jun 2010, sensibleoldgrannie wrote:It was so nice to have a holiday away from TV and tedium. The sun shone, and a wide variety of birds twittered, and the only sounds were from the wind blowing through the wild grasses. I could hear a cock pheasant calling through the dense undergrowth, and all was well. Mind you, this is a place where conservation is highly prized. Not saying where I went as it would be good for the place to remain relatively undisturbed. Back to reality today. Ugg!I believe that making a profit to maintain nature's diversity, would at least keep some diversity. Horrible though it may sound, 'nature' industry might be the only way to maintain 'natural' ecosystems. Fight fire with fire.-------------------------------------------------------------------Grannie,It does not sound horrible to me - oceans full of fish at population levels of several hundred years ago are much more valuable than oceans with totally collapsed fisheries.The same can be said of the rain forests, the forests, the wetlands, any environment you care to name is worth more if managed properly and sustained - rather than raped and destroyed.It is making those who own and control these resources understand this simple fact that becomes difficult - but compound interest adds up fast - a standing forest produces economic benefit forever - a razed one is worthless...Cheers.Kealey Sun 06 Jun 2010 22:52:23 GMT+1 Robert Lucien http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=69#comment135 Newtons theory of gravity might not be a total explanation but it was the first time we ever had a real explanation at all. Without science the best you have is mystisicm. Science has one ultimate rule that reality must be its ultimate measure, from that extends the scientific method which distinguishes between objective and subjective observation and experience and so on. The most important thing is that science throws away things if they are proved wrong and tries to work from a basis of proof not belief. (I am a technocrat which means I believe in science as a philosophy even as a religion.) Science really does explain the world, it can even explain the most difficult things like feelings and emotions and logic. Scientific philosophy can also be used to roughly define the world in terms of levels of truth. The strongest level is direct existence, the next is through repeatable verifiable experiment and prediction, the next by untestable cumulative extrapolations, then by non-cumulative extrapolations, then by arbitrary extrapolations. Anything that involves uncertain extrapolations generated by cumulative theory is untestable and has the status of a guess, though of course some are far stronger than others. - Such predictions / extrapolations include climate change prediction theory, but also evolution of life, existence of black holes, the big bang theory, and tectonic plate theory and so on.The reason we should trust the scientific communities extrapolation of climate and global warming is that science is based on truth, on finding truth and on following truth. If they find they are wrong they change the answer that is the way with science, and it has to be the way with science - any other guarantees failure sooner or later. Science isn't perfect but it really is the best we have. The problem with the deniers (generalization here) is that when they try to talk about science they stand out like a man in a fluorescent top on a battlefield. On forums like this they often drown out any competing voices in a hail of criticism and attack that stops any reasoned argument. This certainly isn't all deniers but it is most, mud slinging and name calling and belittlement. -Many summits from my studying I know how to spot the patterns of mental illness in many peoples words and writing and have to say that some here are definitely well over that edge. Worse many although they call themselves 'skeptics' they are in fact 'true believers', totally convinced of their own ideas - even seeing climate change happen wont convince them. I'm sure they will now say the same about me - I suppose I am. :) Like it says on the gates of Hell 'Hypocrisy is the mirror at the surface of the pool of truth.' Like a bunch of five year olds fighting in the playground. Sun 06 Jun 2010 21:30:58 GMT+1 rossglory http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=69#comment134 i find it very hard to rationalise my response to biodiversity loss. i've always enjoyed nature but it was only when i studied ecology that the gestalt element really struck me, the system is much, much more than its individual parts. imho virtually all parts of the system have to be protected in some way (with maybe a few exceptions like typhoid etc).discussing which bits are worth protecting, to me, sounds a bit like arguing over which notes from beethoven's 5th are worth keeping...lose any and you've lost something of the whole, lose enough and the whole thing is worthless. Sun 06 Jun 2010 21:08:27 GMT+1 Brunnen_G http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=68#comment133 " There is a lot of religion being bandied about on this blog."You have manysummits to thank for that. Everyone else was happily discussing science, he had to go play the Jebus card. "Isn't an atom just a number or an equation?"No. It isn't. It REALLY isn't."How about suspension of disbelief."How about no?"None of us have the right to say that our observation is better than the next person's observation..."Yes we do. If the better observation is supported by fact rather than speculation, of course we do. Sun 06 Jun 2010 20:55:59 GMT+1 sensiblegrannie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=68#comment132 There is a lot of religion being bandied about on this blog. We all have our beliefs and denials. How about suspension of disbelief. Every time we discuss observations of graphs; objects; critters etc, we are discussing things that relate more to numbers. Isn't an atom just a number or an equation? All of our descriptions are only a human approximation of the reality of our being. None of us have the right to say that our observation is better than the next person's observation because we are all being subjective but using different language to describe. Probably turn out that we are mere parts of some super computer, way beyond our comprehension. Sun 06 Jun 2010 19:25:04 GMT+1 TJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=67#comment131 bowmanthebard:In thinking about our discussion on 'desribe' and 'explain' IMO this is an important distinction. For example: gravity does not work with our current observations and current needs for calculating how objects move. To address this we have come up with the additional concept (description) of something we call Dark Matter.http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dark-matter-modified-gravityThis is the sort of thing I'm driving at. I suppose it depends on our definition of 'explains' and 'describes'. Sun 06 Jun 2010 19:23:18 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=67#comment130 #127 SR wrote:"Please confirm your position because it's very confusing."Your confusion is simply the result of your not seeing beyond inductivism -- in other words, you have yet to see science as something other than extrapolation from prior "data". Once you get beyond that, the scales will fall from your eyes."Do you advocate 1) Not bothering to use it all"What you call "data" should indeed be used -- to suggest hypotheses about how the climate changes. So should the use of LSD, excessive alcohol, and ouija boards. These are all legitimate ways of coming up with new hypotheses. However, none of them provides a reliable reason for believing a new hypothesis. We get that when the new hypothesis is tested -- by which I mean genuinely tested, by getting it to yield an observational prediction and then checking whether the prediction is true.I am assuming a well-known distinction here between the "context of discovery" and the "context of justification". What you call "data" is useful in the context of discovery -- just as Kekule's dream of snakes biting their own tails was useful for suggesting the shape of the benzene molecule. But it is no use in the context of justification, which is what we should be moving on to.You want to treat mere "suggestions" for future hypotheses as the evidential support for the same hypotheses. That just won't do. We should limit the word 'data' to test results, i.e. numbers etc. that genuinely count for or against the hypothesis in question.By "adjusting" what you call "data", you do nothing but re-write history. That's not science, that's (bad) history. Sun 06 Jun 2010 17:37:34 GMT+1 TJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=66#comment129 bowmanthebard @126Thank you for that incitful post. Got me thinking on this beautiful lazy Sunday.I still go more with the "describe" rather than "expalin". We describe gravity and put a load of numbers and definitions around it. We can then take these numbers and definitions and use them to describe something else which is associated with it. This is a powerful method of developing the natural usefullness of the universe around us for our own ends of enjoyment/survial etc.We have built some basic concepts about evolution that we use in similar ways. We use it because it currently works for our purposes. It does not come close IMO to any explanations.My lazy day just got busier!! Thanks..... Sun 06 Jun 2010 17:30:09 GMT+1 TJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=66#comment128 Getting back to the subject does anybody have a definition of a good or bad eco system to work from. What do we need more or less of. Can we define that? Nature seems a continuous cycle of destruction and renewal. Is there a definition of a best practice in diversity? When oil is leaked naturally or accidentally old environments are destroyed. Armies of microbes are unleashed and new environments are created and bloom. Should we keep leaking oil to maintain diversity?Plants grow and locusts, fire and floods demolish. New environments are created from the destruction and bloom again. Should we breed locust, build dams and burn to maintain diversity?Personally I love diversity but I do struggle with these questions. Sun 06 Jun 2010 16:44:35 GMT+1 Brunnen_G http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=65#comment127 #78 manysummits wrote: "To Brunnen_G: cultural mannersAgreed, but this forum is world wide by definition, and so the rules must be relaxed."That's just not good enough. In a world wide forum one should take more care not to cause offence. Not simply hope that your crass American lack of manners will be overlooked because you can't be bothered to understand that your boorish behaviour causes to those of us not raised under the stars and stripes. You'll notice I don't ask you what religion you are. Mainly it's because I couldn't care less if you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim or have given your soul to the Thundercats. Your lack of understanding of climate and gullibility regarding Al Gore and his ilk speak for themselves. Sun 06 Jun 2010 16:18:39 GMT+1 SR http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=65#comment126 To bowmanthebardLet us examine the transcript:SR:"Do you accept that large statistical datasets REQUIRE adjustment?"#81 bowmanthebard: Please Sir, I don't!#81 bowmanthebard: But to "adjust" data -- sorry, that sounds completely wonky to me!SR: Ok then, if you did not previously know that large datasets like the instrumental record required adjustment, you really need to look into it a bit more.#93 bowmanthebard: If I did not previously know? -- Where do you get this from?#93 bowmanthebard: I did previously know that, but you need to re-read what I wrote. Please do me the courtesy of seeing what it is I reject. I reject all forms of inductivism.---------------------------------------------------------------Please confirm your position because it's very confusing. You have a large dataset like the historic instrumental record and we want to use it to see how mean global temperature has changed. Do you advocate 1) Not bothering to use it all 2) Use just the raw data 3) Use the adjusted raw data (as statistics tells us we should filter out the 'noise').The bottom line of your way of thinking is the concept that nothing can be known with absolute certainty. I agree with this, but don't think it should stop us using the scientific method: the theories that result are capable of being useful to explain phenomena and solve problems. So, I think you'll find that most reasonable people share your belief that inductivism is faulty logic, but where you and most of the rest of the world differ is whether we can develop useful theories from observations. i.e, you choose to reject a theory because it has no hope of being definitely correct, whereas science accepts this limitation but still develops theories because they can be excellent at explaining phenomena. Do you think theories can be useful? Sun 06 Jun 2010 16:01:54 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=64#comment125 #124 Titus wrote:I would say science 'describes' rather than explains. It describes a body falling to earth as gravity, it does not explain.All scientific theories have to take some things as given. For example, Newton's law of gravity described rather than explained the force between two objects. However, although that force was an unexplained "given", Newton's theory did explain a very great deal of other stuff -- such as why planets travel in ellipses, why they sweep our equal areas in equal times, and so on -- stuff that Kepler had had to take as an unexplained "given" in his earlier theory.Darwin had to accept the emergence of life on Earth and the mechanisms of inheritance as unexplained "givens" too, but used them to genuinely explain other stuff -- how life diversifies and new species emerge.There is no escaping the fact that all theories have to take some things as "given"; but given those things, they usually go on to explain a great deal of other stuff.It describes light as a wave, particle etc., it does not explain it.Eventually, new developments in physics may explain wave-particle duality clearly. For now, quantum theory explains some things, and it has great predictive power, so it has been tested innumerable times (in fact practically every time an electronic device is switched on).Prediction and explanation are the two great abilities of science, I would still say, even though some theories run a bit short on one or the other. Evolution doesn't have much predictive power, but it has great explanatory power; with quantum theory it's the other way around. Personally, I put the emphasis on explanation rather than prediction, because that's where it works its real magic. Sun 06 Jun 2010 15:47:46 GMT+1 manysummits http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=64#comment124 To 'Badger' #120:"That high levels of biodiversity is valuable can surely be taken as a given." (Badger)================Nice post!I take it you are not a 'denialist!!Just kidding. Kealey and Mango are right - I've been spending too much time as a climate crusader.That's an interesting stance, that high levels of biodiversity are valuable, and that this can be taken "as a given."Of course that is very unscientific, n'est pas?It is also true, and all thinking sentient beings can intuit this.I agree that science is an extremely powerful method of knowing, but I wonder if your very unscientific assertion on biodiversity is not equally as powerful?I will leave the blog to others for a bit on this note from "Moby Dick," by Herman Melville, a 'Dark Mountain Project' writer long before the concept:From Chapter 57:"Long exile from Christendom and civilization inevitably restores a man to that condition in which God placed him, i.e. what is called savagery. Your true whale-hunter is as much a savage as an Iroquois. I myself am a savage, owing no allegiance but to the King of the Cannibals; and ready at any moment to rebel against him."- Manysummits - Sun 06 Jun 2010 15:12:17 GMT+1 TJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=63#comment123 bowmanthebard @115 says:"I would say instead that religion has just adopted another guise -- that of science."Much better said. Totally agree."Science explains things; religion expects people to accepts what authorities say without explanation."I would say science 'describes' rather than explains. It describes a body falling to earth as gravity, it does not explain. It describes light as a wave, particle etc., it does not explain it.Thanks for input. Sun 06 Jun 2010 15:10:41 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=63#comment122 I wonder what the bbc environment team think of the 'qulaity' of the debate..And whether the 'side' they are perceived to be on by many, is really that credible anymore. Sun 06 Jun 2010 14:14:10 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=62#comment121 #120 Badger wrote:"rooted and founded in observations"..."upon which it stands"Observation is absolutely crucial to science, but the idea that scientific theories "rest" on observations like a building stands on its foundations is mistaken. So compelling is the imagery of "foundations" that I'm inclined to call it an intellectual "poison".Mathematical theorems rest on axioms in the sense that the theorems can be derived from the axioms using rules of inference -- that's fine, but mathematics isn't really a science. Scientific theories cannot be derived from observations in any similar way. The supposition that they can be so derived is the gross error of climate science, psychology, and much medicine (i.e. the stuff of statistical "studies"). Sun 06 Jun 2010 12:23:24 GMT+1 Borisnorris http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=62#comment120 The complexity of ecosystems means we really don't know too much about the inter-relatedness of species, so we cannot safely predicts what species it would be 'safe' to lose.In my view the only species it might be safe to lose is Homo sapiens; seemingly the only species that only takes from the ecosystem and puts nothing back! Sun 06 Jun 2010 12:10:06 GMT+1 Badger http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=61#comment119 Let's try to remember that science is defined as the systematic study of nature, and that it is absoluetly rooted and founded in observations. There has never been a more powerful way of knowing and understanding the world than through proper scientific examination. And yet science in any particular sphere is only as good as the evidence upon which it stands. No scientific 'fact' can be proven; but any scientific belief can be disproved by a single counterexample. That it has not so far been so disproved is the live demonstration of its strength.This is all a million miles from what is normally understood by the term 'religion'. Religions are defined as faith-based, not evidence based. They are fundamentally inflexible when it comes to core beliefs, regardless of the (lack of) evidence for those beliefs.Anyone claiming science is the 'new religion' simply doesn't comprehend what is different about science.That high levels of biodiversity is valuable can surely be taken as a given. The case that heads this thread is a very good example of, and explanation for, the reasons for that standpoint. And we don't need scientific studies to tell us this - common sense is perfectly sufficient - although the understanding of the mechanisms by which greater biodiversity supplies a better likelihood of future ecological vitality only adds to that. As to global warming; lets stick to the topic. Sun 06 Jun 2010 12:01:11 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=61#comment118 Also in this week's edition of Nature, an Editorial under the headline "Wanted: an IPCC for biodiversity". The focus is the suggestion that there is a need for an independent, international science panel that would coordinate and highlight research on biodiversity.Nature, vol 465, Page: 525, published online: 02 June 2010.Hopefully the links is: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7298/full/465525a.htmlNature also invites comments from readers... Sun 06 Jun 2010 11:25:04 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=60#comment117 #108 blunderbunny wrote:I don’t even care what that truth is, only that it is true for a given value of true, at the point in time during which it is being considered (not much to ask really).Liar, liar, pants on fire! Sun 06 Jun 2010 08:49:56 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=60#comment116 #109 manysummits wrote:"You are all officially added to my growing list of 'denialists.'"Do you not realize how terrible this sounds? -- It sounds like the secret police "enforcer" of some violent dictatorship that does not tolerate dissenting voices. Sun 06 Jun 2010 08:47:58 GMT+1 simon-swede http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=59#comment115 Err, biodiversity anyone? Sun 06 Jun 2010 08:37:53 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=59#comment114 #113 Titus wrote:"Science has just turned into another religion."I would say instead that religion has just adopted another guise -- that of science."It's also opened up our absolute dearth in understanding of what this universe is all about."Science explains things; religion expects people to accepts what authorities say without explanation. Sun 06 Jun 2010 08:03:21 GMT+1 bowmanthebard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=58#comment113 #112 CanadianRockies wrote:As a mountaineer, stockbroker, businessman, "trained geologist," expert on the writings of Gore and Ehrlich, accomplished googler, and now probably a self-described a "BBC correspondent,"Don't forget "ace logic student":manysummits #54: "I got 100% in Logic Bowman - one hundred percent." Sun 06 Jun 2010 07:57:55 GMT+1 TJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=58#comment112 Reading over the recent posts I muse that I have just taken a walk through of what it must have been like under the past few centuries of biblical religious fervor. Science is now finally established as the new religion.We have the institutional bodies of The Royal Society and IPCC. AKA the Vatican and C of E who funnel and use the fervor to the favor of the political and powerful elites ends.We have the blogs of BBC, WUWT, RC and all. AKA the Methodists, Baptist, Pentecostal and every and which ever denomination rallying the masses and proffering their wares to their particular cult of truth and route to salvation.We have the blog posters. AKA the zealots and evangelists supporting and attending to regular worship.We have the treatment of deniers. AKA the Inquisition and Eco police.We have the Tele Evangelists and Snake Oil Salesmen. AKA the Al Gore’s and Panache’s.Hey folks. Science has just turned into another religion. It's done us all very well to help us progress in the use of technology. It's also opened up our absolute dearth in understanding of what this universe is all about. But hey, politics and power go forward as ever. Some things never change!!Night, night. Sun 06 Jun 2010 06:28:44 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=57#comment111 I have been evaluated by manysummits and found to be a "denier." I finally made the list!This is a serious. As a mountaineer, stockbroker, businessman, "trained geologist," expert on the writings of Gore and Ehrlich, accomplished googler, and now probably a self-described a "BBC correspondent," manysummits has a resume longer than Pinnochio's nose. If he says it is so, it must be so.If only I had gone to the Marxist Mother Earth Summit in Bolivia, perhaps I could have been saved. Oh well. Too late.P.S. I almost forgot. An expert on Peter Fidler too. Toooo funny. Sun 06 Jun 2010 03:58:24 GMT+1 LarryKealey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=56#comment110 @manysummitsWhat happened to some family time? I'm headed down to snuggle up with my lady, we just had dinner and star trek and planted some vines we cut into pots... - nice evening...You are spending too much time on here posting.Kindest.Kealey Sun 06 Jun 2010 03:56:08 GMT+1 blunderbunny http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=56#comment109 @manysummitsThat's fine mate, you're on my list too ;-)Proud Regards,One of the (How much can we annoy you) Lobby Sun 06 Jun 2010 02:57:34 GMT+1 manysummits http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=55#comment108 Oldterry2, CanadianRockies; Blunderbunny;I have evaluated your answers - thank you.No discussion of my posts on Ian Plimer, Roy Spencer, or the ENSO forecast, save a slur!You are all officially added to my growing list of 'denialists.'- Manysummits - Sun 06 Jun 2010 02:21:38 GMT+1 blunderbunny http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=55#comment107 @ManysummitsFirst:“1) Atheist: OK - you are not beholden to religious doctrine, but admit to its wisdom in certain areas, shall we say?”Nope, that’s not my definition of atheism. There is no wisdom in god or in any definition of a God - quite the opposite in fact. Some people choose to believe in one and they find comfort in that, whilst I think that this is quite unnecessary, I would not deprive them of this or the comfort that it brings them.If they feel the world is that scary that it requires there to be a god, then they feel that the world is that scary - it’s a purely a subjective valuation and a personal choice. Then we’ve got: “I think the position of atheist as untenable as devout conventional religious belief. The truth as I see it is that no one knows, perhaps even 'can know,' why we are here or to what purpose. Some things seem logical - for example - it's an awfully big Universe to have 'no meaning.'”I would normally describe myself using the oxymoronic phrase of a “Devout Atheist”.Those that seek meaning need, in my humble opinion, look no further than life itself. i.e. The meaning to life is inherent.The simple fact that a bunch of chemicals, sub atomic particles, ripples in probability, mathematical equations can sit and converse with another set of those things, contemplating their own existences, is wonder enough for any that choose to look for it.Religion in all of it’s forms and guises is an anathema to properly understanding universe, it provides a host of non-answers to often meaningless questions, it fills in all those annoying blanks and niggles that would otherwise pique your curiosity, “the opiate of the masses”, perhaps? And again, whilst I might pour scorn on it, I would not seek to deprive people of the comfort that this brings them. It’s a choice and People make trillions of choices everyday. I’m sure that on average I would not agree with trillions of those choices, but that’s just one of the things that makes life interesting.And, just because someone chooses to believe in something, which I deem unnecessary, doesn’t mean that they can never again have a good or a valid idea. Some people like Marmite for instance, does that mean that those that don’t can never listen to their (the Marmite lovers) opinions on anything else?The problem that I have with this sort of thing, religion that is, is when they try to impose these views and choices on others. You can, in my opinion, see similarities between religious pogroms of the past and the cult of the AGW theory.The irony of all of this is that you lot try and call us the deniers! I seek simple truth (and possibly marmite), nothing more. I don’t even care what that truth is, only that it is true for a given value of true, at the point in time during which it is being considered (not much to ask really). Science and its practice is a simple journey of discovery, one can hardly complain about where it takes you. You can choose to embark on a particular journey, you can choose not to or you can choose to stop. What’s important about that journey, apart from its eventual end point, is how you travel (ethics and the scientific method)!!!Unfortunately, many of your lot don’t seem to practice “science” like the rest of us. Instead, you would seem to be embarked on more of a political/spiritual journey.Regards,One of the (Everyone needs one) LobbyNow, where did I put that toast…… all of this talk of Marmite is making me hungry!!! Sun 06 Jun 2010 01:23:49 GMT+1 manysummits http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=54#comment106 Professor of Geology Ian Plimer, University of Adelaide, Australiawhom Barry Woods seems to think a lot of, especially his tremendously popular book, "Heaven and Earth: Global Warming — The Missing Science."Unlike Dr. Roy Spencer, Ian Plimer is not apparently a Creationist:Background: (I don't see any articles on climatology in his list of publications)http://www.ecms.adelaide.edu.au/civeng/staff/iplimer01.htmlMore background: (Wikipedia)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_plimer==================="Heaven and Earth..." (reaction from scientists - Wikipedia)"Canadian broadcaster John Moore said it was "widely criticised by fellow scientists as just another collection of denier hits."[26] The Adelaide Advertiser stated that among other scientists, "Plimer is all but out in the cold"."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_and_Earth_%28book%29#Reactions_from_scientists===================From 'desmogblog':"Listed as an "Allied Expert" as an "Allied Expert" for a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose its funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. An October 16, 2006 CanWest Global news article on who funds the NRSP, it states that "a confidentiality agreement doesn't allow him [Tom Harris] to say whether energy companies are funding his group...DeSmog recently uncovered information that two of the three Directors on the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project are senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto based lobby firm that specializes in “energy, environment and ethics."http://www.desmogblog.com/ian-plimer=======================As it is supposed to be in a true democracy, with its free press, it is the citizen who will decide on the merits or infamy of the two scientists Roy Spencer and Ian Plimer.No doubt this is confusing?- Manysummits - Sat 05 Jun 2010 23:26:42 GMT+1 oldterry2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=54#comment105 in 63. manysummits wrote:" "Oldterry2 #58 & 59 re: CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas." ""Hmm!?I think you had better contact the World Meteorological Organization, the United Nations, and all of the national academies of science. etc"such a waste of sarcasm. One assumes they already know. It is just little old you who has the fixation that CO2 has the majority effect. The majority effect is due to good old water vapour as even the IPCC acknowledge in their reports. Fyi CO2 comes second, but it is a VERY POOR second. Sat 05 Jun 2010 23:24:26 GMT+1 manysummits http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=53#comment104 Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist (satellite measurement specialist), University of Alabama in Huntsville -whom blunderbunny believes more than me.Not that I am offended - I am not. Why should anyone believe an anonymous blogger.To Wit:"Satellite Research RefutedAccording to an August 12, 2005 New York Times article, Spencer, along with another well-known "skeptic," John Christy, admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth's lowest layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was occurring and the troposphere was getting warmer...."http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer============On Roy Spencer's blogsite, it is stated that he has not recieved money from "even Exxon...""Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil."http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/=============="Spencer is listed as an author for the Heartland Institute, a US think tank that has received $561,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998." (desmogblog - see link above)"Spencer is listed as an "Expert" with the George C. Marshall Institute, a US think tank that has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998." (ibid)===============Background - Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29#Views_on_global_warming- Manysummits - Sat 05 Jun 2010 23:08:31 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=53#comment103 #100. Congratulations manysummits - You didn't just ramble on and quote Al Gore or Ehrlich this time. Good googling.But you might want to visit WUWT about this one: James Hansen & GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies, i.e., NASA's Land/Sea Temperature Analysis /w graphs)"The past year, 2009, tied as the second warmest year in the 130 years of global instrumental temperature records. A paper "Global Surface Temperature Change" [available as 'pdf' on link below] has been submitted to Reviews of Geophysics."Yes. It has been submitted... but not peer reviewed or published yet. Hmmm. 'Science' by press release, again. And in the meantime the media pumps it as though it was the real thing... That also applies to your item #3, from the same DRAFT paper.As for your item #1, one doesn't need a model to tell us that La Ninas follow El Ninos... and this is old news in any case... so... What exactly was the 'point' you were allegedly backing up again? Sat 05 Jun 2010 22:49:23 GMT+1 manysummits http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=52#comment102 And now I will return to my family.Hasta Luego,Manysummits Sat 05 Jun 2010 20:42:07 GMT+1 manysummits http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=52#comment101 To Barry #99 re Ian Pilmer''s "Heaven and Earth"You mean this Ian Pilmer?"It is not 'merely' atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics.http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/10/ian-pilmer-climate-change-spectator- Manysummits - Sat 05 Jun 2010 20:39:54 GMT+1 manysummits http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=51#comment100 98. At 9:06pm on 05 Jun 2010, Barry Woods wrote:Manysummits are you being deliberately obtuse===============================================No, not at all.See #100 for my methodology, i.e., citing original sources.- Manysummits - Sat 05 Jun 2010 20:32:55 GMT+1 manysummits http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=51#comment99 97. At 8:48pm on 05 Jun 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:92. manysummits wrote:"Try and tighten up your posts - make a point, back it up"Toooo funny.================================Here, I'll demonstrate:\\\ ENSO (El Nino/La Nina) & Global Land?Sea Temperature (GISS) ///Item One:(from 'The Climate Prediction Center - National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, i.e., NOAA - June 3, 2010)"The majority of models predict ENSO-neutral conditions (between -0.5oC to +0.5oC in the Niño-3.4 region) through early 2011 (Fig. 6). However, over the last several months, a growing number of models, including the NCEP Climate Forecast System (CFS), indicate the onset of La Niña conditions during June-August 2010."http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.htmlItem Two:James Hansen & GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies, i.e., NASA's Land/Sea Temperature Analysis /w graphs)"The past year, 2009, tied as the second warmest year in the 130 years of global instrumental temperature records. A paper "Global Surface Temperature Change" [available as 'pdf' on link below] has been submitted to Reviews of Geophysics."http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/ Item 3:From the "Global Surface Temperature Change" (above), a 37 page 'pdf' currently under review and available as well by the public - just click on it at the link 'above'):"global warming on decadal time scales is continuing without letup...we conclude that there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.20°C/decade that began in the late 1970s."Source: page 30 of the "Global Surface Temperature Change", which is available at:http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/ (click on "Global Surface Temperature Change" - top right of the page)- Manysummits - Sat 05 Jun 2010 20:29:22 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=50#comment98 Ian Plimer has not been banned, he is merely the sunject of extreme amounts of abuse from the advocates of alarmism..look up monbiot (Guardian) articles about him and many other lobby groups. Sat 05 Jun 2010 20:08:52 GMT+1 Barry Woods http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=50#comment97 Manysummits are you being deliberately obtuseReal Climate team: The current permanent contributors to content on this site are:•Gavin Schmidt•Michael Mann•Caspar Ammann•Rasmus Benestad•Ray Bradley•Stefan Rahmstorf•Eric Steig•David Archer•Ray Pierrehumbert•Thibault de Garidelthe guys at RealCLiamte ARE scientists right at the heart of the IPCC, Gavin Shmidt for example workds with James Hansen at Nasa.Michael Mann, - that IPCC graph, (debunjed by steve mcintyre (climate audit) so much that the IPCC no longer use that graph...Al Gore's inconvenient truth had done it's propaganda damagage..That list of scientists are the peer reviewed scientists, at the heart of the controversy..If you know amything about climate science in the last 15 years you would know this, so either you donot (so why profess to) or it is an intent to distract..With resect to the differences between different types of christianity, they both believe in imaginary men in the sky as far as I'm concerned, so small other details about their slight differences in belief, doed not really make me take on board, that one is potentially scientist than the other - IF you use the religious argument.let us attempt to stick to the science.. Sat 05 Jun 2010 20:06:46 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=49#comment96 92. manysummits wrote:"Try and tighten up your posts - make a point, back it up"Toooo funny. Sat 05 Jun 2010 19:48:17 GMT+1 CanadianRockies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=49#comment95 79. SR wrote:"@70 canadianrockie"Now if you accept this first point, you must prove that the datasets were adjusted in a way that emphasised AGW."You must be trying very hard not to look for this. ALL the adjustments uncovered just happen to emphasize The Warming. The most common trick is to push earlier temperatures down and later temperatures up to creat the 'alarming' rise. Another trick is to use a selective time span which always conveniently begins in a cool dip. Madoff material. And then there's Mann's trick of making the MWP disappear... quite the revisionist adjustment.Of course, while the so-called 'scientists' conveniently missed all this some 'paranoid bloggers' didn't. No time to dig a bunch up but here's just ONE example and much more here: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/06/scientists-got-it-wrong Sat 05 Jun 2010 19:41:52 GMT+1 TJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=48#comment94 bowmanthebard @76 wrote:"It is interesting to hear someone say that diversity doesn't matter at all."To be accurate I said that "diversity will take care of itself". We are an intrinsic part of that diversity. I get the feeling from reading many of these posts that we are some how removed or in an elevated position of power that is outside of being part of this intrinsic diversity. Sat 05 Jun 2010 18:56:48 GMT+1 TJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/06/weve_had_a_fair_bit.html?page=48#comment93 sensibleoldgrannie @ #74 wrote:"If you stop rushing around the place, stay completely still and contemplate for a while, the veil becomes quite thin in places."Not for me!! The opposite works. When I rush around and the adrenaline is pumping everything is crystal clear and there is no veil. When I sit and reflect the veil over our existence gets thicker and thicker with every thought I contemplate.Interesting how we can be so different!! Sat 05 Jun 2010 18:39:42 GMT+1