An extremely abusive Warmist

An Andrew Lane (aslane1@asu.edu), who claims a Master of Sustainable Solutions from  Arizona State University, put up an abusive comment on Marc Morano's site.  Morano and various other skeptics thought the writer was so abusive that they wondered if it might not be a put-up job designed to get an unwise reaction from us.

So Tony Heller replied to the guy and a long correspondence resulted. Tony offered to debate anyone from the ASU on global warming and the historical climate statistics. Tony is an extremely knowledgeable climate historian.

Lane was not able to nominate anyone for such a debate but continued to spout the vilest abuse at Tony.  Tony of course repeatedly replied with the greatest moderation. A sample of the abuse:

You Ass Wipes are so determined to be Regressive Retards and Scientifically Illiterate. I have BCCed the entire ASU School of Sustainability here to see if anyone wants to set up such a debate with Clowns like you both. Your blatant ignorant statements like the most ice on Earth was at the highest CO2 content and the least amount of ice was at the lowest amount of CO2 proves quite well that you are so stupid...trying again and again your best to keep folks stuck on stupid. Dazed and confused. 

You both are so fixated on such clear Bull Shit I’m not sure there is much point in debating you. All one has to do to see how much BS you all are Pedaling is watch the film “Merchants of Doubt”. That is Marc Morono in person. No If, Ands, or Buts about it. That’s all you guys are. Liars and Deniers. Willing to pedal bull shit for money I suppose!

There is some hope that you Ass Hats will wake up and smell the Pollution, but I doubt it. Some Klansman wake up and mend twisted thinking, but you all may be past help with your enormous ignorance!  Your little Moronic Comrade is so funny claiming that I am the one being dupped by “Merchants of Doubt”! Just watching the Trailer where your Stupid Sap Sister Steve Milloy says, "Dioxins, Pesticides, Chemicals in General, there is no evidence that these are harming us"! Grab up Stevie and Morono and you all go huff on some Dioxins and see how you feel. Maybe you can ingest some Gamma Ray Uranium too to top it off.

Note that Lane is only semi-literate.  He writes "pedal" when he means "peddle". Yet both are common words.

Anyway, Tony eventually wrote to the Geology Dept. at ASU and got this reply from Whitney Love of the MSUS program:

Andrew does not represent the rest of us at the School of Sustainability. Please accept this as an apology, on SOS's and Andrew's behalf

So it seems that there really is a little fountain of hate called Andrew Lane.  His frantic abuse does sound like a work of desperation.  If I may put my psychologist's hat on, I suspect that it really is himself that he is trying to convince -- JR.

UPDATE:  I entered into a subsequent correspondence with Mr Lane and pointed out that CO2 molecules don't have little timers or other control mechanisms in them so that as soon as they get into the atmosphere CO2 molecules do immediately whatever it is that they do. 

But there have been long periods where CO2 levels have risen without any corresponding rise in global temperatures -- e.g. 1945 to 1975 and the first 14 years of C21.  So, clearly, CO2 levels do NOT influence temperature.

He saw the point of that but had no answer to it.  He still decided however that he was going to stick with the "consensus" -- thus showing that his views were not scientific ones

Judge Bends to Environmental Groups, Suspends First Grizzly Hunts in Decades

A federal judge delayed grizzly bear hunts scheduled to begin Saturday in Idaho and Wyoming as the court considers a lawsuit by environmentalists to stop the hunts altogether.

U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen ordered the hunts postponed for at least two weeks while the court weighs whether grizzly bears were inappropriately removed from the endangered species list.

A coalition of environmental groups and Native American tribes brought the lawsuit that prompted the court order, NBC News reported.

“We’re thrilled,” Alliance for the Wild Rockies Executive Director Mike Garrity told NBC. “Now the judge has time to rule without grizzly bears being killed starting Saturday morning.”

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delisted the bears in June 2017, ending 42 years of federal protection for the species.

The grizzly population around Yellowstone National Park has grown from 136 bears in 1975 to roughly 700 in 2017.

The states introduced the hunting seasons as part of a grizzly management plan to keep the species from overpopulating and expanding into neighborhoods and communities where people live.

The grizzlies have also expanded onto ranches and farms, killing livestock and threatening the livelihood of rural agriculturists.

Mary Thoman gave up her family’s historic sheep ranching land after losses from bears made the ranch too costly to maintain, according to the Mountain States Legal Foundation, which has joined the case on behalf of Thoman in support of the grizzly hunting season.

The hunts would be the first held in the lower 48 U.S. states since one in Montana in 1991.

“They’re just looking at it from the bears’ perspective,” Wyoming hunter Todd Hoese told NBC. “The way that nature works is a balance and we don’t have that balance. … There are too many bears now.”

SOURCE

UPDATE:  I entered into a subsequent correspondence with Mr Lane and pointed out that CO2 molecules don't have little timers or other control mechanisms in them so that as soon as they get into the atmosphere CO2 molecules do inmmediately whatever it is that they do.

But there have been long periods where CO2 levels have risen without any corresponding rise in global temperatures -- e.g. 1945 to 1975 and the first 14 years of C21.  So, clearly, CO2 levels do NOT influence temperature.

He saw the point of that but had no answer to it.  He still decided however that he was going to stick with the "consensus" -- thus showing that his views were not scientific ones

Droughts in Europe are nothing new

Old stones bearing ominous messages have resurfaced in a river in Central Europe, according to news reports.

Over the course of centuries, Europeans marked low water levels during droughts by carving lines and dates into boulders along the Elbe River, which runs from the Czech Republic into Germany. The idea was that if water levels dipped low enough to reveal an old carving, it would signal to locals that dry, hungry times — similar to those experienced in the marked year — were coming. Over a dozen of these "hunger stones" have reappeared in the Elbe this year, amid a record-setting European drought, the Associated Press reported Aug. 23.

And the stones' warnings aren't wrong. Agence France-Presse reported that northern Europe's current drought has not only brought with it record-setting temperatures and wildfires but also significant threats to local food production. In Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands, AFP reported, the grain harvest is expected to be down between 30 and 60 percent, depending on the region. England and France may also be significantly impacted. Farmers in northern Europe might have to "send much of their herds to slaughter due to a lack of feed," according to AFP.

While research indicates that climate change will exacerbate droughts in Europe — and make them more frequent around the world — these stones reveal how dangerous these sorts of events were when they occurred in previous centuries.

The oldest stone carving to emerge was carved in 1616 and is considered the oldest hydrologic landmark in Central Europe, according to the AP.

It "bears a chiseled inscription in German," the AP reported, "that says, 'when you see me, cry.'"

SOURCE





How Scientific Groupthink Has Slogged The Climate ‘Debate’

Comment from Australia

Groupthink among climate scientists — ‘the science is settled’ brigade — has constrained public debate, which was to be expected. You see, believers are predominantly devoted to promoting ‘solutions’ and that, rather than open-minded inquiry, which is the warmists’ objective.

Someone among my group of “climate change is real” mates sent me and others a series of those heat-stripe charts from dark blue (cold) to dark red (hot) for various places and showing that it had grown hotter over the past 100 to 200 years or so.

The earliest was from central England and dated from 1772. Climate Lab Book is the source for these charts if you want to look them up.

One wag responded that these charts made it easier for people who couldn’t read graphs. Uneducated Deplorables presumably.

I can read graphs despite my membership of the Deplorables. As can most, if not all, of those skeptical of the alarmist hypothesis.

I responded in a reasoned and diplomatic way that those who thought the charts showed anything of interest or significance were halfwits.

Or, I may have said that they had only half a brain. I’d had a glass or two of wine at the time. But leaving this particular way of expressing myself aside, what is my point?

My point is that we are in an interglacial period (thankfully) and, to boot, we are coming off a Maunder Minimum (low-sunspot activity) dated around 1645 to 1715.

This is otherwise referred to as the Little Ice Age. Thus, there is no dispute that the Earth has gradually — though not evenly — warmed since then. To point this out as though it were profound is profoundly irritating to those with a full quota of wits.

I thought it might be instructive to employ what in the business world is called facilitation.

You break an issue down; and then, by approaching it from the least- to the most-contentious parts, you try to forge a consensus among people in a room.

A consensus is infeasible when comes to climate. But a process of breaking down the climate change hypothesis into parts might put the debate on a more intelligent footing and, perhaps, deter people from broadcasting banal heat charts.

It’s a simplified breakdown. I want a degree of license on that matter. Only the first three of the six parts listed below would find unanimity among true believers and skeptics.

The Earth has warmed since the industrial revolution.

The warming since circa 1975 (based on land, sea and, since 1979, on satellites) has been at a considerably faster pace on average than in the period from 1850 to 1975. (Only since 1850 has there been a land and sea global temperature series (HADCRUT) based on thermometer readings.)

CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from around 280ppm pre-industrialization to around 400ppm now.

The increase in CO2 is mainly due to industrial emissions
The more rapid increase in temperature since 1975 is predominantly due to increased CO2 emissions.

Further increases in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 risks runaway warming accompanied by more violent and frequent adverse weather events and by flooding sea-level rise.

You might ask why this breakdown is useful. Only in making the debate more intelligible is my claim. Let the debate begin at number four above. Put the first three away into the consensus bank.

When it comes number four, some scientists among skeptics would agree. Others might differ. One skeptic colorfully described mankind’s emissions as a “fart in the wind.”

In other words, he thought natural processes primarily accounted for the rise in CO2. I have no idea.

When it comes to number five there is a theory. CO2 is a mild greenhouse gas but it encourages other effects. Principally, the creation of water vapor, I understand, which has a multiplying warming effect.

Some scientists among skeptics suggest that negative feedback effects (e.g. cloud cover reflecting back the Sun’s rays) will mitigate warming.

Some suggest that CO2 is a sideshow and that other natural forces are at work. See, for example, Kininmonth in QOL 27 August. I have no idea.

When it comes to number six a combination of statistical models and speculation underscore the predictions. Here I have a tentative view.

Models are very bad at mirroring dynamic complex natural systems. They’re best taken with a grain of salt. But, on the whole, as you can see, I don’t think I am in any position to judge the science.

Ditto for all, all, of us outside of the scientific fraternity. At the same time, all of us are in a position to judge the process. The process has been appalling in my view.

Groupthink among climate scientists (the ‘the science is settled’ brigade) has constrained public debate. The use of the term “denier” says it all.

Carrots in the form of research grants and sticks in the form of shunnings and sackings have silenced academic skeptics.

Corporate carpetbaggers, who know squat about the science, have sleazed into the picture grabbing billions of taxpayer dollars to install costly and intermittent power sources.

Virtue-signaling politicians, equally ignorant, have jumped onto the bandwagon. It is a dream come true for the greens who would like to deindustrialize the planet.

And, to top it off, once you let the UN make the running, despite all evidence to the contrary, the North Pole has no summer ice left, imaginary hockey stick temperature graphs appear, and Pacific islands begin sinking under swelling seas.

Finding the truth now about the science is impossible in our lifetimes. Too much-vested interest in the current paradigm stymies genuine inquiry.

There was a possibility of some sort of forced and awkward consensus being forged on reducing CO2 emissions by using ‘clean’ coal, gas, nuclear and, yes, some solar.

But that opportunity, too, is lost. Among believers, the problem and the means of combatting it have become conflated.

My observation is that believers are predominantly “solutioneers” (Roger James, Return to Reason). The means have become the objective.

Deploying windmills and solar panels is now the principal objective. Reducing CO2 emissions has become of secondary importance. Thus, power has become much costlier and more unreliable.

And emissions? Onwards and upwards. But heck, look at those ugly soaring wind turbines and feel good about yourself.

The only answer left is in partisan politics. We need politicians and governments to arise to crash through the current paradigm. Trump is having a go. Morrison? Don’t hold your breath.

I see, as I write, that new Energy Minister Angus Taylor has forsworn his fidelity to ‘the science’. Mind you, what he says he will do about it gives a glimmer of hope. Fingers crossed.

SOURCE






Australia: Chefs should stick to chefing.  This galoot knows nothing about his subject.  We will NOT run short offood

The world population is NOT growing so he falls at the first hurdle.  The population of the Western world is SHRINKING.  Africa has a lot of babies that it cannot feed so they choose to limit their population by starvation.  But that is their way and has no impact on us.

And our chef knows nothing about agricultural economics.  Most agricultural crops are in GLUT and likly to stay that way. And there is no shortage of land for farming expansion if food does become less available.  See here for instance

And meat in the diet has become steadily more available over the years and that should continue.  A lot of cattle are fed in feedlots already and it would be pretty simple to expand that.  Using surplus crops for feed would enable that

The days of sitting down and tucking in to a giant steak are on the way out, MasterChef judge Matt Preston says.

Mr Preston believes the plates of the future will be mainly plant-based, with small amounts of protein, mostly plankton and insects.

His comments come as a large chunk of Australia is in drought, including all of New South Wales

It has led to a national discussion on what food will be eaten in the future and where it will come from.

Mr Preston shared his thoughts at an Ikea Democratic Design Days Future Food forum in Sydney on Wednesday, where he was part of a panel of speakers.

'Seafood, plants - they're really the future. I think the days of eating a giant steak are on the way out,' he said.

Mr Preston said there was already an international restaurant which had put a plankton risotto dish on the menu and it is 'delicious, absolutely delicious'.

'Plankton, insects, they're the protein source we should be using because they thrive here,' he said.

'We're starting to see a big move towards a plant-based cuisine, that's right around the world.'

He said meat will still feature on household menus, albeit on a small scale.  Instead of eating 500g of meat, people will start to have more smaller, better quality portions, about 100g. 'Eating less meat but better is something we're moving towards,' he said. 

Mr Preston acknowledged it will still be some time before insects become a common meal in Australian homes but it should eventually happen. 

'I think insects provide a solution but we have to accept the solution that they provide, that's probably the way,' he later told Daily Mail Australia.


SOURCE

***************************************

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here

*****************************************