Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- stewartpid on “falsely labeling”
- dm on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- dm on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- D. Boss on IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Robertvd on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- arn on “falsely labeling”
- arn on “falsely labeling”
This is from that same article:
“A recent World Wildlife Fund report found that all animals in the tropics have declined by 60 percent since 1970, with everything from gorillas to fish thinning out.”
I’ve lived in the tropics for 60 years, I would think I would have noticed 1/2 the animals missing……………..
That is one of the funnier comments have read on this blog.
“I’ve lived in the tropics for 60 years, I would think I would have noticed 1/2 the animals missing……………..”.
Why have science at all, when we can just have people like Latitude to tell us we need to know
By the same token,
Why have science at all, when we can just have people like the World Wildlife Fund to tell us we need to know?
when the WWF comes out with a press release saying.
“We thought there were supposed to be millions of creatures in the forest, but when we went in there we didn’t hardly see none”
I will agree with you
Tony Duncan says:
January 4, 2011 at 3:37 am
Why have science at all, when we can just have people like Latitude to tell us we need to know
You mean why think when a scientist can do it for you. Maybe you want to be weak Tony Duncan but some people don’t want to be. Some people want to think for themselves.
Tony Duncan says:
January 4, 2011 at 4:30 am
the WWF
One can never question the intentions of the WWF, can one, Tony? At least not you.
Tony Duncan says:
January 4, 2011 at 3:37 am
Why have science at all, when we can just have people like Latitude to tell us we need to know
Actually his BS detector was in operation. You have one of those Tony Duncan?
Tony Duncan says:
January 4, 2011 at 3:37 am
That is one of the funnier comments have read on this blog.
What we find funny says something about us, doesn’t it?
Amino,
I love it when you enter the fray. One of these days you will shock me and actually respond to something I actually write.
Let’s try this again. Show me ANYWHERE that i have said anyone should take what WWF writes without checking it with REAL science.
What I was saying was more on the lines of why listen to anyone, when someone like latitude can tell you, at not cost, that everything is just fine because he lives in tropics and would notice. That is the height of the scientific approach.
Yes Amino,
and I find you very funny
You still have trouble with comprehension.
Tony Duncan says:
January 4, 2011 at 5:17 am
What I was saying was more on the lines of why listen to anyone, when someone like latitude can tell you, at not cost, that everything is just fine because he lives in tropics and would notice
I’m sure.
Making sense isn’t a priority to you, is it.
Tony Duncan,
If you really are being misunderstood maybe it is because you have very, very poor communication skills.
Amino,
you must be right. I actually explain what I mean in detail, when someone misunderstands what would be obvious to a normal person.
I should really learn your stellar approach and launch into a bizarre totally unsupported statement.
Tony Duncan says:
January 4, 2011 at 5:30 am
what would be obvious to a normal person
Normal is a relative term. Normal in your paradigm may not be normal in other people’s. Is that possible?
I some parts of the world Bumblee bees are an unwanted import (particularly Tasmania Australia) which the loads would love to see disappear. The same goes for Cane Toads in northern Australia.
They were probably chewing a Peyote Button while doing that research! Exaggeration has been going on for so long that what you think you see is not what the models say is there.
There is a story going around about a survey of toads in Nevada. The researchers went to the region to do a count of toads by counting the noise they make. A few years later they went back to repeat the observation but heard nothing so reported a extinction of that species. A local happened to question the results and the method was studied. it seems the second group was attempting to hear toads during the day when they only make noise at night during mating season! The final results of the resurvey was an increase of toads!
Mike
Wait that would be science. I find it hard to believe that scientists who are experts in studying a species would not know when they were active. I doubt the people doing the research were trained scientists. Often they are amateur volunteers.
and this kind of story while sometimes accurate are often just myths or exaggerations embellished or distorted for ideological purposes.
It must be right. It is the lead story in the Puffington Host.
TonyD:
It was the Biology class from the University that was doing the survey and the traveled from Reno to Beatty about 300 miles south to do the study!
My sister and her husband do wild life counts for the department of wildlife in Nevada and he has been doing it going on 40 years. He started with his father as they are avid hunters. They were part of the team that did the recount!
mike,
that makes perfect sense, and pretty much what I wrote above.
stevengoddard says:
January 4, 2011 at 4:36 am
It must be right. It is the lead story in the Puffington Host.
Right! Must be.
Because there is no smell of left wing politics any around Arianna Huffington.
sarc off
Tony:
The Biology Professor was the lead for the second study! I guess that makes the professor not an expert on anything!
It was the third study that did the last count and found an increase in population from the same groups study years before. It was those studying to be professional Biologists and their professor that got it wrong!
Is that clear enough!
and that professor was an expert in these toads?
I find that hard to believe.
and that professor was an expert
Richard Lindzen is an expert in climate. So you must trust him quite a bit when you hear him talk, correct?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CurIOfnegYg
Yet you defend other obvious non experts related to climate science! Life styles of toads is a simple issue compared to climate science!
Amino,
you are really taking it to the limit again. Show me ANYTIME I have ever dismissed what Lindzen says.
And Mike, show me one non expert I have ever defended solely on their views about climate change.
Funny how often I get accused of ridiculous things, and then I ask for someone to back it up and then Steve comes in with one of his killer responses, like zzzzzz, or Manhattan underwater, or appeal to authority
Tony Duncan
Here’s some more Richard Lindzen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1CR0v7dwXU
Tony Duncan says:
January 4, 2011 at 5:27 am
Funny how often I get accused of ridiculous things
No, it’s not hard to believe.
Tony Duncan says:
January 4, 2011 at 5:27 am
Manhattan underwater
You still believe Hansen didn’t say it.
amino,
so tell, me since you are so proficient at knowing my beliefs through ESP.
Where exactly do I disagree with Lindzen?
I know it is fruitless exercise, but could you show anywhere in the dozens of times I have discussed this quote where I deny Hansen said what Steve is so obsessed about.
So you agree with Richard Lindzen, and you agree Hansen said it. Things have taken a turn for the surreal. Or is part of you comedy act?
Amino,
talk about comprehension skills.
I asked you to tell ME where I DISAGREED with Lindzen.
I am waiting.
I also asked you to tell me when I ever said Hansen didn’t say it.
I am waiting.
AAM:
It is all part of Tony’s disruption game!
There is no game. I had already gone to bed so I did not reply more.
So James Hansen did say it? If he did say it he meant it. If he didn’t mean it why did he say it?
Tony Duncan says:
January 4, 2011 at 5:51 am
I asked you to tell ME where I DISAGREED with Lindzen.
This is a straw man.
Right Mike,
My disruptive practice of asking people to back up their baseless assertions
about me and then never getting any relevant answer.
How does one answer Irrelevance?
Then why waste your time making pointless assertions that you know you can’t back up?
You accuse me of something. I ask you to find ONE instance to support it. You don’t.
That makes me think that the assertion is baseless.
You are right sounds pretty irrelevant
Amphibians have been around since the time of dinasours. I doubt that an extra 0.7DegC would wipe out whole species.
Two of the most important factors are habitat destruction and increases in ultraviolet rays from the sun.
The rays destroy some of the DNA in larvae of amphibians as well as the larvae of insects that amphibians feed on.
Those that live in higher altitudes and lay eggs in shallow water are affected the most.
Death of the Bees: GMO Crops and the Decline of Bee Colonies in North America (March 2008)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8436
” As seen above, it is certain that the digestive shutdown is due to hard material in the digestive tract that compromises the immune system. Circulatory problems would without doubt. Could it be that humans are going through the same process with the rise of Colon Cancer? As seen below in the comparison of the healthy Bee and the unhealthy bee, it is obvious that the bees that are ingesting GMO pollen are having severe digestive problems, so severe that the disease is terminal.”
Genetically Modified Crops and the Contamination of America’s Food Chain (June 2010)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19860
“GMOs are created to tolerate or produce pesticide. North America is losing its natural pollinators, specifically bees, butterflies and bats, because of the enormous tonnage of chemicals sprayed in this nation. If we lose our bees, said Einstein, humans will last about six years. We need our pollinators. The entire web of life depends on them.”
Proof Bees Dying From GM Crops?
http://gmo.worldwidewarning.net/www/archives/57
“LONDON (AFP) – Research by a leading German zoologist has shown that genes used to genetically modify crops can jump the species barrier, newspapers reported here on Sunday. A three-year study by Professor Hans-Heinrich Kaatz at the University of Jena found that the gene used to modify oil-seed rape had transferred to bacteria living inside honey bees. The findings will undermine claims by the biotech industry and supporters of GM foods that genes cannot spread.”
ROFL – I will be damned if I can understand how one gets from decline of 4 of 50 North American bumble bee species possibly from introduced non-native pathogens/parasites and loss of genetic diversity all the way to climate change.
You might as well skip right to saying the loss in bee abundance is the result of cell phone radiation and alien abductions.
Forget about the fact that other bumblebee species are not affected or that humans have massively altered the landscape, introduced new bee species, diseases, parasites, broadcast megatons of poisons to control insects, fungi, bacteria, etc.
Nah, all that is not important, is it.
Biobob:
The only thing important is to get an official name to quote so you can advance your agenda. Who cares as long as one can claim the Sky Is Falling!
Tony Duncan says:
January 4, 2011 at 5:17 am
Amino,
I love it when you enter the fray. One of these days you will shock me and actually respond to something I actually write.
I guess you are in shock. While you may not like HOW he responded to what you wrote, he responded several times to WHAT you wrote. Unless you are psychotic? Then we have to ask – WHICH Tony wrote it.
Phil,
I clearly like how Amino responds to me. It is just that he responds to things that he imagines I am saying rather than what I actually say.
Someone should explain to him what a straw man is. If he wants to discuss content I am happy to.
How often do I have to explain about Hansen’s quote before anyone actually understands it? Hansen said something to someone in a private conversation that he has never ever repeated, has never ever written (at least no one here has posted any other instance). It was unscientific and not conceivably correct. It was stupid of him to say it. His quote has nothing to do with anything he or any climate scientist contends will actually happen. NONE of his papers, nor his testimony to congress or any subsequent interviews contended ANYTHING close to what that quote says.
Tony Duncan says:
January 4, 2011 at 11:31 pm
How often do I have to explain about Hansen’s quote before anyone actually understands it?
It’s not a matter of understanding you. It’s that why should we believe you?
Hansen said something to someone in a private conversation
And you know that because?
T0ny:
Hansen said something to someone in a private conversation that he has never ever repeated
Why are the Wikileaks so embarrassing (not really damaging)? Because they are the true things people (diplomats) thought when they thought no one would hear them. Just like Hansen. What he says is public is usually coached and couched. Whereas his private statement is closer to his truth than any public statement.
You may not like it, but once it is released into the wild, no amount of damage control will remove that simple truth.
So again, you may not like HOW Amino responds, but he has done a good job of doing just that.
Phil,
WHY do you keep saying I don’t like how Amino responds, RIGHT after I say I DO like it?
But I don’t make my decisions about what to believe on anything except real science. Hansen and Lindzen can say whatever they want in private, but what counts is actual peer reviewed research. Harping on 20 year old quotes from private conversations has nothing to do with what is going on with the actual science determining ACC. It is just propaganda.
If you ever see me using a 20 year old quote from a private conversation as evidence about anything scientific, PLEASE paste this comment, so I can see what I hypocrite I have become.
Phil
It looks like what he does is bait and switch. Maybe it’s part of his comedy act.
No, I see his modus operandi now. He nibbles at the corners hoping to trip up people by getting them to defend the indefensible. He wants you to make a statement that he can then trap you with and thus – by extension – destroy your entire position (not just the misstatement or minor point).
Phil,
you are close, but , again since you have no clue about what I actually think, you distort it to fit your ideology.
What I do is engage people in (choke) dialogue, and if they say something indefensible, I challenge them on it. If they continue to defend it, I keep nibbling, because I think it is funny that people are so scared of being wrong that they can’t admit even the most pointless mistake.
that is MUCH more revealing than Hansen’s inner thoughts in 1988.
it isn’t that I WANT someone to make the indefensible statement, it is just that it happens on this site a lot.
If you actually read my comments, there are plenty in which I acknowledge valid points people make. Much of what is written here is defensible.
BTW Tony Duncan, I see you didn’t respond to me.
Having fun?
Amino,
what is it that you want me to respond to?
Amino,
As far as I can tell the one or two things that seem like they could have a response I have answered.
it is funny how often I get accused of things without being even told what it is!
The only thing I see here, is
How I know Hansen was talking to someone in a private conversation. I was just taking Steve word for it, and then I read a link to an article in Salon by someone who related the story that Steve has repeated ad infinitum. I have never questioned the quote. As I have repeatedly requested, please show me anywhere that I have.
What is there not to believe about what I said?
Last night you said you were waiting for a response. Suddenly you don’t remember.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/puffington-host-incestuous-bees-to-starve-us-all/#comment-28140
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/puffington-host-incestuous-bees-to-starve-us-all/#comment-28143
Tony Duncan says:
January 5, 2011 at 2:46 am
it is funny how often I get accused of things without being even told what it is!
Get over your persecution complex.
AAM:
It is not Paranoia, If every one “IS” out to get you!
Sorry guys,
I just keep forgetting all those comments where you didn’t attack whatever I wrote.
of course you could just stop accusing me of imaginary things.
Amino,
I’m truly sorry. I meant I wanted a response from you that related to what I was saying. Which in this case was presenting evidence of something that doesn’t exist (my denial Hansen ever said the quote)
and your psychic expertise at my thoughts on Lindzen’s video.
So you think the Salon reporter is a liar.
Steve,
After I stopped laughing I read that it was YOU and not Amino that wrote that. It would have been funnier if he did.
Seriously it is a little scary that you wrote that.
Which of the 4 (or is it 7 by now) full length explanations did you manage not to read.
But all you have to do is read the post above what you just wrote.
If that is too hard. I will copy it here.
“evidence of something that doesn’t exist (my denial Hansen ever said the quote)”.
As I recall no one here ever took my bot test.
Tony Duncan says:
January 5, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Phil,
WHY do you keep saying I don’t like how Amino responds, RIGHT after I say I DO like it?
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. You asked him why he would not respond to you, yet all can see he has – and I do not take you for a fool to think that you cannot see at least that he IS responding to you.
Given that you have seen he IS responding to you, then the source of your question:
One of these days you will shock me and actually respond to something I actually write.
Can only be that you do not like HOW he is responding to you or WHAT he is responding to or with. You may clarify your original statement that caused this thread, but for now, since none of us are telepaths, we can only guess WHY you want to ignore the fact he IS responding to you.
Phil,
as I made clear to Amino,
What i was looking for was a response to what i actually wrote.
And I thought you WERE telepaths, since you apparently know what I think, and even correct me when I write something that does not fit with what you think I think.
I am still waiting for a relevant response from Amino regarding my ever denying Hansen said that quote, and his psychic explanation of my disagreements with Lindzen.
There have been numerous times I have been accused of saying something or believing something and I have repeatedly asked for the person to supply the evidence for that. As of yet no one has ever supplied such.
THAT is the response I am looking for.
Again, he responded to what you wrote – you just did not LIKE it – why is for you to decide. However while you can control what YOU write, you cannot control HOW others respond. So perhaps you would like to rephrase the original contention?
Phil,
How often do I have to say I LIKE what Amino writes, as I like what you write.
But you are right., I cannot control how others respond,
and if they are unwilling to actually support their contentions or respond in any relevant way, there is nothing I can do about it.
it is still fun however.
Tony Duncan says:
January 5, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Phil,
you are close, but , again since you have no clue about what I actually think, you distort it to fit your ideology.
You tar yourself with the brush you attempt to paint me with. Our clues are your writing, so stating “no clue” is clearly wrong. Now you may be lying through your teeth in writing what you do, and then we would have “no clue” about the real you. However, you have “no clue” on my ideology (for the same reason that we have “no clue” on whether you are writing anything you believe in), so your attempt to pigeon hole my “ideology” falls flat given your denial of what you are in relation to what you have written.
Phil,
I was making a guess. So please tell me what your ideology is that I can compare it to my assumption.
What makes you believe I am lying through my teeth? There must be some justification for your considering that possibility. Have I written things that contradict each other, and therefore “blown my cover”, or is there some other system of analysis you have used that I was not smart enough to keep my deceit from being exposed?
My assertion that you have no ‘Clue” about my beliefs is that I write things, and then people assume it means something that is not indicated in the words I used and has no relation to what I actually believe.
What is it about my writing that gives you the idea that “what I am is not indicated in what I write?
Here is your chance to out me and force a humiliating admission
So please tell me what your ideology is that I can compare it to my assumption.
Should the need or opportunity arise, I will be happy to. However, this is not my blog and I will not divert it at your request. Should I have a chance to guest host a blog for Steve Goddard, I will be more than happy to.
What makes you believe I am lying through my teeth?
Who said I did? Perhaps if I restate what I wrote, you can read it again and perhaps rethink your question?
Now you may be lying through your teeth in writing what you do
Here is your chance to out me and force a humiliating admission
Out you for what? Is there a reason that you have become so defensive in your writing when no accusations have been made?
If you are afraid of being outed, perhaps you should do it before someone tries to gain a handle on you by threatening to out you.
Phil,
you are starting to rival Amino in the fun department.
You said I might be lying through my teeth, I asked you why you believed that. To give some empirical indication that would indicate lying. Whether you believe it or not, I was asking for any indication of lying. What was the purpose of the statement unless it is something you consider to be a possibility?
And it would be for outing me about lying about what I really believe I suppose. I am not sure. Amino and others are the ones that keep attributing beliefs to me.
What is it that makes you think I am defensive? I find this quite amusing. In this cause there was no modifier, you specifically state that I am being defensive? Is that the only possible interpretation of my words? Of course I have no history of sarcasm or levity on these blogs, so I can see how that would be the reasonable assumption to make.
I am waiting for someone to gain a handle on me. that would be even more fun
Tony Duncan says:
January 5, 2011 at 3:59 pm
You said I might be lying through my teeth,
No, I said may be. That does not connote a belief or a statement of fact, just a possibility.
What was the purpose of the statement unless it is something you consider to be a possibility?
You seem to have a disconnection between threads. This one (further up) was spun off by your insistence that “you have no clue about what I actually think” which is true. However, as I clearly stated, we know what you write. So if what you write is not what you think, then one of the possibilities (besides mental illness) is that you are lying.
Since we do not know what you think, then we cannot unequivocally state whether you are being truthful or not. However, possibility does not denote probability.