JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Weekend Unthreaded

Cumulonimbus over Queensland | Photo by Geoff Derrick | Click to enlarge

Magnificent.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (30 votes cast)
Weekend Unthreaded, 9.3 out of 10 based on 30 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/koex7na

231 comments to Weekend Unthreaded

  • #
    Neville

    A new study has found that glacier retreat has decelerated after 1950. Exactly the opposite to so called CAGW.
    Just backs up all the recent studies that also show a deceleration in SLR. When will the extremists stop lying and throw in the towel?

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/new-paper-finds-worldwide-glacier.html

    164

    • #
      Olaf Koenders

      Never, apparently. Even in the face of finding ancient tree stumps and manmade tools under retreating glaciers – the few that are retreating – shows the sheer depth and scale of evidence that the CAGWists first ignore, then if that gains traction, claim it was “debunked” somewhere on their pet propaganda site SKS.

      Their lies only get bigger and more ridiculous, eventually going full circle until they chew off their nose to spite their face.

      There’s an ad running rampant on Oz TV again at the moment. The presenter says that “..it’s far better for the caaahhbn to be locked away in wood than out there in our atmosphere..”.

      I’d like to ask the fool how he expects the next tree to grow at all without his precious “caaahhbn” in the atmosphere to begin with – let alone all the other plants that feed him and his family. Doesn’t he realise there’s a reason farmers pump CO2 into greenhouses? Hmm.. Scratch that. He doesn’t.

      283

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        Olaf,
        There are some beaut modern commercials.
        The Eco friendly funeral. (Not disclosed if you are buried like carbon capture & storage, or burned to give CO2.)
        Sea salmon the Safcol way. “Many marine animals are in danger of being wiped out because of the destructive fishing methods of many major tuna brands. But all SAFCOL’s tuna is caught responsibly. Voted product of the year 2013!” (Does not disclose if the brutal killing a fish for eating is an environmentally friendly act, merely infers that it is non-destructive???).
        The oldie – seaweed extracts for an environment friendly tonic for the garden. Still waiting for scientific proof after a NZ Court Case years ago that classes such extracts as without effect.
        A recent one promoting wood for building, stating that the wood ties up harmful CO2 for a hundred years. Omits to note that eventually it will most likely rot and give off the usual CO2 if it passes the 100 years, which is a meaningless, misleading time.
        The one that makes me cry, a TV cartoon series for children where one character teaches another “Our electricity comes from giant windmills.” How young is too young for propaganda?

        193

        • #
          Bones

          the brutal killing a fish for eating is an environmentally friendly act, merely infers that it is non-destructive???).

          Geoff,I think I would like to know if the fish considers being killed as non-destructive,I suspect their view may be just a tad different.One commercial I always remember,from the 70′s,a man shoveling snow off his front step in Sydney Ad was for AGL and the voice over was”Is the pattern of the worlds weather changing”but that was before the ipcc decided we would get warmer instead.

          60

        • #

          You’re never too young for use by the propaganda brigade.

          91

        • #

          One could ask the child if he understood that means his electricity comes from the weather.

          40

        • #
          Robert JM

          It is clear that current fishing practices are unsustainable. The idea of pole and line fishing for tuna is that there is no bycatch, and that the fish have the option of getting away. I also like the Idea that it’s man vs beast as the human is responsible for lifting the fish into the boat. Seems kind of sporting to me.
          As for seaweed extract it clearly won’t work unless their is a nutrient deficiency of some sort in the soil. For sandy soil and pots it is probably beneficial, for clay and high quality loams it probably is not.

          21

      • #
        Manfred

        One of the potentially less desirable consequences of elevated atmospheric CO2 levels appears to be a reduction in the protein yield of crops, for example:

        Nitrate assimilation is inhibited by elevated CO2 in field-grown wheat
        Bloom AJ et al. (2014) Nature Climate Change.
        doi:10.1038/nclimate2183
        Partial abstract:
        Total protein and nitrogen concentrations in plants generally decline under elevated CO2 atmospheres. Explanations for this decline include that plants under elevated CO2 grow larger, diluting the protein within their tissues; that carbohydrates accumulate within leaves, downregulating the amount of the most prevalent protein Rubisco; that carbon enrichment of the rhizosphere leads to progressively greater limitations of the nitrogen available to plants; and that elevated CO2 directly inhibits plant nitrogen metabolism, especially the assimilation of nitrate into proteins in leaves of C3 plants.

        The overall reduction of protein appears to be of the order of 3 – 5%. I am unsure whether this is significant either statistically or clinically, and I am puzzled about the empahsis of protein content in a cereal crop that is used chiefly as a source of carbohydrate. As the crop size increases, so does the carbohydrate content.

        Does this has the funding flavour of climate spin meister science do you think?

        52

        • #

          Does it just mean less mould due to healthier plants?

          30

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Manfred:
          I don’t know and I am not going to waste $199 to read the whole thing, but one thing is obvious…give up eating the leaves of the wheat plant and eat the grain.

          Hmmm. I think most people worked that out thousands of years ago, so research grants suppress mental development?

          61

        • #
          the Griss

          I saw another study like that a few years ago.. turned out that had forgotten to give the plants more nitrogen in the soil to account for the extra growth due to CO2.

          50

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          Having grown up on a grain farm in what was once called the “breadbasket of the world” I have to call BS. First off, ALL wheat is “field grown”.
          Secondly, “CW1hard” (shorthand for Canadian Western grade #1 Hard) wheat has always had more protein than winter wheat or wheat grown in warmer climes. I doubt that there was ever a big difference in CO2 on the Great Plains as compared to the rest of the planet.

          50

        • #
          Robert JM

          If the change in protein concentration is less than the growth in yield the net protein produced per hectare actually increases.
          Talk about looking for thunderstorms in a teacup!

          30

      • #
        Manfred

        Manufacturing and controlling the spiel for two long, the falsification of the CAGW hypothesis was locked and loaded from the beginning. Now the anthropogenic climate Golem haunts the banalities of axiomatic, naturally variable climate change.

        A state of fear apparently lends meaning to the lives of many.

        10

    • #
      Olaf Koenders

      Oops.. Forgot. About catastrophic sea level rise the CAGWists love to lie about:

      http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/screenhunter_499-may-24-04-44.jpg

      82

    • #

      Neville,
      I have Googled at length in an effort to quantify sea level effects. I hope someone can guide me to some reliable source.
      I guesstimate that silt from rivers increases the level by 1 mm per 40 years (+/- 200%) and the increase is 1 mm per 30 years (+/- 1,000%) from coastal erosion. I have used siltation density of 1.4 t/cu m for the back of envelope calculations.
      I have not a clue as to what glacial and ice sheet melting effects are (if any), nor the effect of seismic activity.
      Is there any genuine evidence at all to suggest levels have moved significantly in the past few centuries?

      63

      • #
        Bones

        Trm,for the facts on sea level rise see russell crowe’s new movie Noah.Full of up to date info,just like the UN and gangreens,no BS,honest.

        60

      • #
      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Try NoTricksZone for a very interesting article by Ed Caryl on this very subject. April 18 Long term sea rise…

        41

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        This won’t answer all your questions, but you may find it of interest all the same.

        20

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi TRM,

        Variation in sea levels.

        It’s a big thing when you look into it.

        It is a well known geological fact that ocean levels have fallen by about 1.2 metres in the last couple of thousand years and that this shows up as well articulated rock shelves in some places around Australia’s coast.

        You were asking about the last few centuries: if anything, it hasn’t been much and certainly not a recovery of the previous 1.2 m drop.

        It is also accepted that over the last 8,000 or so years sea levels have dropped overall by at least 6 metres in total but that this has occurred in a series of diminishing pulses ending with the last of 1.2 m mentioned above.

        These variations, while significant to Earth’s occupants in that period, are inconsequential when compared with the big rise of 125 metres after the last ice age ended 20,000 years back.

        It is likely that the fluctuations of the last 8,000 years have just been the settling adjustment after the great ice melt which ended the 80,000 year old freeze.

        KK

        10

      • #
        the Griss

        And of course we have absolutely no way of knowing how much of any sea level change is due to movement of the ocean floor (70% of the Earth’s surface.

        Recently there have been strings of islands discovered that weren’t there until recently, and we know that a lot of the 30% of the surface that is above water moves up and down all the time.

        There is absolutely NO WAY the tiny rate of sea level rise can be slated home to “climate change” that isn’t really happening anyway.

        20

  • #

    I have noticed some surprising things about possible relationships between global temperature rise and CO2 rise over the last ~1,100 years. .. However, it is easy to believe these possible relationships have been noticed before, and for some reason have been ruled out as not being related.

    The gap between a change of temperature and a change in CO2 levels is said to be about an average of 800 years. … About 800 years ago the Earth was in the last stages of the Medieval Warm Period (about AD 950 to 1250) — as shown in this graph :- http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0133edf988be970b-pi

    There appears to be a correlation between the increasing temperatures in about AD 950, and the increasing CO2 levels that started about the year 1750. .. (950 plus 800 years).
    If there is any truth in this correlation, CO2 levels should begin to *decrease in the next decades – until about the year 2050. .. (1250 plus 800 years).

    This all seems to be too neat and tidy! .. I wonder where I went wrong.

    46

    • #

      Where can we place a bet on this? Seems odds on!

      31

    • #
      the Griss

      “CO2 levels should begin to *decrease in the next decades – until about the year 2050″

      With the coming hopefully only slightly cooler period,

      following on from the current slightly warmer than the LIA period…….

      ….. that is not unlikely.

      32

    • #
      Robert JM

      It makes a lot more sense than the human exponential increase in CO2 production causing a linear increase in atmospheric CO2. :)
      It can be explained by the 800 year thermohaline circulation. The temp of water that sunk into the deep ocean 800 years ago affects the temp of upwelling water now. This leeds to less absorption of CO2 as per henrys law and may even be responsible for the 1000 years climate cycle seen in the ice cores.
      I also theorise the THC acceleration is the driver of ice ages as the ice age only started when the THC formed after isthmus of panama formed blocking the zonal currents and creating a meridional flow. (This allows greater heat transport to the poles while increasing cloud cover due to more mixing of air masses.)
      The orbital wobbles are just triggers since they were not sufficient by themselves to cause glaciation prior to 2.5 million years ago.
      The THC also has an obvious positive feedback driver, It is driven largely by a density current generated by brine expelled by freezing sea ice. With the triangular shape of the north atlantic, increased cooling leads to increased area of sea ice freezing, and positive feedback in the current.

      This of course leave one last question, why does deglaciation occur?
      I have a theory for this as well, Dust inclusion melting events that result in ice albedo reversal causing THC disruption due to fresh water dilution of THC.
      During peak glaciation, the extremely dry atmosphere causes dust to accumulate in the ice, when an orbital trigger produces a warming event the surface melt would expose more dust and reduce albedo of the ice causing more melt. Looking at the ice cores all deglaciations have only occurred after the dust accumulation phase.

      The other benefit of this theory is that it obeys existing physical principle such as le chateliers principle and gibbs free energy dynamics.
      Energy is still minimised in the system, the positive feedbacks come at the expense of another energy source, so the total energy in the system is still minimised.
      CAGW violates this with water vapour positive feedback which makes climate science mutually exclusive with physics and chemistry!

      10

  • #
    Truthseeker

    The picture on the top of page debunks the “greenhouse” effect. How can a sun too cold to apparently melt ice (by GHE math) cause the effect shown in that photo?

    66

    • #

      I left a spanner out in the sun and burnt my hand so it must come from spanners.

      70

    • #
      the Griss

      Gee TS, that bought out the red thumbs… well done :-)

      43

    • #
      the Griss

      In fact, only above a solar azimuth of 75° is the solar energy less than 1/4 of direct solar energy.

      All that energy within that 75° solar azimuth reaches Earth and is spread, stored and used as the Earth rotates.

      The trenberthian non-rotating flat-earthers need to get out of their caves and feel the sunshine.

      20

    • #
      Robert JM

      The greenhouse effect does clearly exist.
      The problem is the climate scientist haven’t figured out that there are no giant sheets of glass in the sky! :)

      20

  • #
    Jaymez

    Perhaps Dr Fiona Stanley should read the data provided by atmospheric and rocket scientist Dr Roy Spencer who ‘proves’ the link between aliens and ‘global warming’ – at least far more convincingly than any data presented by the UN IPCC linking warming to CO2.

    The correlation between UFO reports and ocean temperature is over 0.95, clearly better than the correlation between that boring old carbon dioxide and ocean warming: See graph linked here:

    But correlation isn’t necessarily causation. We need some sort of hypothesized mechanism for how — and maybe why — aliens cause global warming.

    My hypothesis is that the extraterrestrials’ spaceships have some sort of powerful heat generators which are dumping energy into the ocean. Maybe an antigravity-based thermogenic flux capacitor technology (that’s just a guess…I’m only a rocket scientist, not a nuclear physicist or movie star).

    But why? Why are the aliens trying to warm our oceans?

    Do they come from a warm waterworld? Do they want to colonize our ocean after it is sufficiently heated up? Or are we just the proverbial frogs in a pot of water on the stove?

    Clearly, aliens like warmer weather, because there is a strong annual cycle in UFO reports, with the peak number of visitations in July, which is when global average temperatures also peak: See graph here. Clearly there is a strong correlation between rising average global temperatures and UFO sightings, (visitations)!

    This is also consistent with the fact that aliens are known to not have any fur, let alone any clothes, probably because their home planets are so warm: See pictures here.

    Clearly the Government needs to be pouring money into alien detection and defence, not CO2 emission reductions. In fact, we need to increase industrialisation if we are going to defend the world from increasing alien invasion! There needs to be a global alien defence taxation fund. /sarc

    Happy Easter Everyone!

    123

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Clouds, boy, nothing else in the world looks like that.
    I love the sight of negative climate feedback in the morning.

    102

  • #
    ROM

    Just to help kick things off I thought that for a change I might comment on the difference in cultures that exists in the various climate blogs I have posted on over the last few years.
    I came out of quite a few years posting on the Weather Zone climate and Weather forum which did not allow much time to post on other forums and blogs so it took a while for me to get the hang of the culture and operating techniques of the denizens of other blogs when I started to take an interest in them.

    It is actually quite interesting to sit back and watch how the denizens of a blog behave towards one another and towards newcomers as well as the reaction of the regular denizens of a blog to an opposing or alternative viewpoint and it’s promoter/s.
    In short, a blog’s internal culture.

    Blogs of course are different to Forums.

    Forums can be set up to allow commenters to post across a whole range of subjects clustered around the main target subject of the Forum whether it be some aspect of politics or science as in the global warming meme or solar or astronomy and almost every other subject that one can think of will no doubt have a forum somewhere on the internet that is catering to the debaters and arguers interested in that subject.

    I found the forum or two that I posted on was a pretty interesting experience as it let one wander around within a general subject and permitted all sorts of variations on the theme in a host of threads without being constrained by the headline post and the single directional threading of the usual blogsphere.

    Forums are quite successful where interest is high and there is a good bulk of lurkers and commenters to draw from. A forum’s success has a lot to do with the ego’s of the commenters who being the highly opinionated individuals they usually are, are prepared to stick their necks out and express themselves particularly if they know they have a fair sized audience of lurkers peering at their latest mental gymanastics around their usually strong opinions.

    Forums need some strong unbiased moderation to keep check on the posters as things can soon get out of hand and rapidly destroy a forum unless this moderation is kept firm, very fair and unbiased and flexible in the way it treats commenters.

    BUT a Forum which has no central in control individual such as blogs have in setting the subject and agenda, becomes just dead meat when there is very low traffic and little public and commenter interest and so it generally slowly dies.

    Blogs are different in that there is nearly always one strong minded, opinionated, at least in climate blogs, central figure who owns and runs the blog and who sets both the overall tone and culture of the blog and the subject matter and the direction and manner in which the subject matter will be handled on the blog by the posters and commenters.
    Moderation is at the disposal of the blog owner and how it is applied is at the mercy and disposal of the blog owner and can make or break a blog faster than just about anything else.

    From my perspective, running a blog let alone a major well patronised blog with both a large pool of contributing denizens and a large lurker population plus amongst the denizens are a goodly proportion of academically well endowed denizens plus keeping the strife creating elements in line without cutting off debate and contributions must be a damn hard task to have set oneself. And to continue to run such a blog successfully over a period of years makes me both shudder and hold in very deep respect those few talented individuals who have managed this very difficult feat.

    [ Incidentally Judith Curry a relative new comer to the blog scene but a very successful one, has a section where her Denizens can write up their own bio's if they wish. And some of those denizens are to say the least, very highly credentialed ]

    So just too create a bit of thinking and no doubt some strong opinions being expressed, my thoughts on a few of the main skeptic blogs

    WUWT, the big Gorilla and most successful of the climate blogs and it appears to be remaining as such.
    WUWT is a climate skeptic news source and relies on a regular flow of climate related news items along with commentary on those news items.
    And a very firm but subtle check is kept on those who might like to get onto their favorite hobby horse and start slashing furiously at anybody they don’t agree with.
    I will admit that with WUWT, the JoNova blog has spoilt me particularly after coming from the WZ forum scene as well as I now find the WUWT linear type commentary rather cold and clinical with point commentary only and without the ability to get into any sort of discussion or debate or point adding or disagreement except half way further down the page where by then it has lost it’s focus and impact amongst all the other comments between the original post and the reply post.

    As with all climate blogs where there are strong opinions and set in concrete opinions there is a great deal of me-too-ism on WUWT, a trait shared at times by a whole bunch of JoNova’s denizens as well.

    Judith Curry’s Climate Etc is a very interesting blog with some darn good subject matter usually of a more technical or science political or just science based academic politics matter and is peopled by a whole bunch of very smart, quick lipped, very opinionated, elbow using [ verbally, although physical violence is occasionally suggested, ] very highly credentialled, skilled in the academic put down, bunch of denizens.

    Not a good bunch to try and take on and a blog that is very daunting proposition to try and start making commentary on particularly as some of the bloggers know one another and it shows and they can draw on a very wide range of knowledge in science generally and within a whole range of science disciplines let alone the science affecting the climate and the science based disagreements over that aspect of climate compared to your average blogger from the street or farmlands who only has a lower level of education and no academic experience and no research experience in any science subject let alone in climate related research to draw on.

    Like all blogs, once you are in with a few posts and get a couple of ticks of approval the heat lets up and you seem to be accepted and either ignored when they think you are out of the tree or you get some commendations which helps one’s confidence no end.

    Always a good point to remember by the denizens of any blog is a few kind words for a newbie does wonders to their fragile confidence when they very tentatively first step into making a blog commentary.

    Climate Etc is a threaded blog where the comments are linked linearly adjacent to the original post of a commenter and those following comments can get a long way down the page in arguing and commenting before you get to the next original post from a commenter.
    And Judith has no post numbering system such as Jo has although I suggested that she consider this when she asked for opinions on improving her blog.
    She commented that she would take a look at Jo’s post numbering system but no changes seem to have been made..

    So at least unlike WUWT, the debate around a comment from a poster can be followed almost ad infinitum along with the usual insults that flow like water and seem to run off the duck’s back just as quick.

    I only have the time to comment on three blogs, two of them only on occasions so that leaves JoNova’s blog which I have settled down at quite comfortably.
    The structure of the blog allows a good to-ing and fro-ing around any post .
    The denizens are pretty quick on the draw and pretty quick with the quip along with the funny angles, all of which makes for a far more relaxing and interesting blog . 

    Now what started this overlong post was some changes, for the better, in Jo’s blog which I think have occurred over the last year or so but I would like other’s opinions on this as I might be imagining things.

    No credit is claimed in any way but since i moved here a good deal less than a year or so ago now, the level of commentary seems to have had a very notable uptick in quality with a lot more posting of a more technical and explanatory nature appearing on a whole range of subjects. 
    But never at a level of academic speak that anybody interested in a subject would not understand.

    There are less me-to-isms episodes which I find very off -putting [ thats just me ! ] or at least found in past years when I lurked on Jo’s blog.
    There is more depth to the discussion and debate.

    Jo’s subject matter ranges quite widely and some I can take and are very interested in and some I just leave which is probably the same for every regular contributor here.
    The moderation does not appear to be heavy and has the feeling of being fairly relaxed but I suspect that the moderation is like the duck on water syndrome, calm and unruffled on the surface and paddling like hell underneath.
    And that is all hard grinding, nose to the grind stone type activity for the blog owner and moderators.

    The warmists still get a rough ride unless they actually contribute information with data and sources to back their claims,
    Backing up of claims and verifiable, validated data sources for their claims that the ones who come on Jo’s blog seem to be totally bereft of judging by the poor quality of their contributions in a blog where you have to be able to back your claims with a reliable source [ definitely not YouTube as the prime source ] if you want respect particularly if you are from an opposing camp to the cultural direction of this blog.

    But the one real item I have missed on each and every blog since my Weather Zone days and I have tried to it here but the system didn’t seem to like it, is the inability to post pics and graphs and illustrate items that can and do a great deal of explaining through the pictorial process instead of just having to rely on one’s word smithing to get a point or message across.
    That to me is one of the biggest drawbacks and faults of all the blogs I have looked at, the failure and inability to be able to illustrate one’s posts so as to help enlighten your audience on some aspect of the subject under discussion.

    So Yep! I’m comfortable here and will hang around a bit longer if allowed and continue to take up good disc space and lots of bytes with overlong posts like this one.

    Cheers

    155

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      ROM,
      Interesting comments. It might be a boring world if blogs all matched each other in style. I care little about the style other than to say vive la difference.
      The learning is in the threads written by the blog owners and in some of the posts that follow. It is a natural tendency to be guided gently to those that make most sense and in some respects align with ones ways of thinking.
      However, it is also valuable to visit blogs that are said to be at opposite ends of the debate to see how others think. I’ve picked up an occasional new angle from some blogs that are reviled by some here. Feelings, though, should be left aside in the quest for learning. Data trumps.

      91

    • #
      Mark D.

      ROM, thank you for this interesting treatise. Like you, I don’t have time to blog everywhere and have found Jo’s blog to have a good “feel”. A good mix of personalities that provide for interesting and humorous banter while exchanging knowledge or expressing opinion. For me the value is also recognizing how similar our world-views can be even across borders and time zones.

      Joanne also tackles the political connections and I’ve been surprised at how the Left Right polarity is similar globally. I believe that politics is far more likely to cause negative impact to humans globally than AGW ever will. I’ve observed that scientists as a rule make very poor politicians. Politicians as a rule make very poor scientists. I like to think that we bloggers help to bridge that dichotomy, help to pass information across the osmotic barrier between.

      Thanks too for your posts, I’m happy that you have the time to type here. There are a great number of regular posters that I should thank more often. People that I’ve had disagreements with but still respect. People I should thank for putting up with my occasional intemperate typing (and the moderators for the same).

      52

    • #

      ROM, thanks. Regarding images, I added the image button, and I’ve seen it work, but alas, most of the time I think you’d need to ask the mods who can (if they are not too busy) edit and reinstate the image code.

      On the numbering, it helps, though I think since I increased the nesting size we get some duplicates. So it’s not perfect. What I would like is a button which would sort the comments list via date or via popularity. The nesting system is good, but it’s a drawback that people can’t tell which comment was the most recent and sometimes it would be good to sort comments by their popularity.

      Thanks to the dedicated mods for maintaining the culture of the comments.

      WANTED: we are always in need of some more rational critics (who are fans of the man-made global warming theory). If you know any, tell them to come over.

      122

      • #
        janama

        Just a warning regards image files – I run a forum where images are an integral part and as a consequence the data costs are way beyond yours despite a much smaller traffic. Every time a page loads with images it’s included in data costs.

        10

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        WANTED: we are always in need of some more rational critics (who are fans of the man-made global warming theory). If you know any, tell them to come over.

        Glutton for punishment, eh, Jo? ;-)

        31

        • #

          Relax there are none Roy.

          61

          • #
            el gordo

            It would be fair to say that warmists (the rank and file) have swallowed the mantra and will not be showing up. Smaller blogs, left wing chat rooms, are more fun in that its possible to have a heated debate.

            I hang out at The Daily Trash, a leftoid political blog, where my efforts to explain the science has fallen on deaf ears. In frustration the editor has created a special thread called CO2 and You, to isolate me and not contaminate the rest of the blog with my heretical views.

            For the most part I just talk to myself, knowing that in the fullness of time I will be vindicated.

            20

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Relax there are none Roy.

            True statement. But it would be fun to see Jo, not to mention some of the rest of Jo’s contributors deal with them. We might actually have some debate on the substance of climate change — or lack thereof.

            In any case, I was pulling Jo’s leg a bit as you no doubt know.

            Happy Easter, even to the one who had no sense of humor.

            10

      • #
        R. Gates

        In want of a few punching bags or actual intellectual discourse with a “warmist”?. I’ve tried commenting here several times but unfortunately the ad homs start almost immediately toward me and it quickly loses it’s appeal. Though Jo may genuinely want a balanced blog, that takes careful nurturing of the kind that Judith Curry seems to have mastered and a zero tolerance for as homs.

        13

        • #
          Peter Hume

          I’m in want of actual intellectual discourse with a warmist and I undertake to make no ad homs.

          Will you concede that it is non sequitur to argue from alleged anthropogenic global warming that therefore
          a) its detrimental on balance, and
          b) policy action is justified?

          30

          • #
            R. Gates

            Of course anthropogenic “global warming”** is alleged. As a true and honest skeptic, I take it as a matter of course that everything that one might believe to be true is only provisionally so, until better data either continues to confirm that belief or causes one to abandon or modify it. Regarding “policy action”, this is neither an area of interest of mine, nor an area of strong expertise. I care about the science first, and policy is way down on the list of things that interest me. One general thing about policy, sometimes less is more, and it is better to take it slow and get it right, rather than have to create even more policy later to correct the unintended consequences.

            **”global warming” is a very poor term in general for the range of effects likely caused by the continued build-up of anthropogenic GH gases. The more broad effect is one of the alteration of the energy balance in the climate system, of which “global warming”, which is most commonly measured as sensible heat the troposphere around 2m off the ground is only a small fraction or part of the way that energy is manifested. Worse yet, the troposphere has exceptionally low energy retention and low thermal inertia in general, so as as proxy for anthropogenic climate change, it a very very poor one.

            03

            • #
              the Griss

              “the troposphere has exceptionally low energy retention ”

              Yes, because it delivers it all out to space balanced purely by the atmospheric gravity field.

              This will happen irregardless of any changes in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

              The energy balance IS NOT altered.

              21

              • #
                R. Gates

                Energy in the troposphere takes many forms, of which sensible heat is only one and possibly not the largest. Additionally, outer space is only one place that tropospheric energy will transfer to.

                02

              • #

                R Gates
                “who are fans of the man-made global warming theory” As distinct from some other theory.
                Your above comments do not appear to be from a fan of that pure unmodified theory.
                “Of course anthropogenic “global warming”** is alleged.”
                That allegation was made. Yes the whole world noticed. Sort of hard to back away from now.
                You no doubt have heard the claim that was also made “The science is settled”.
                You appear to dissagree with that also when you say “As a true and honest skeptic, I take it as a matter of course that everything that one might believe to be true is only provisionally so, until better data either continues to confirm that belief or causes one to abandon or modify it.”
                “**”global warming” is a very poor term in general for the range of effects likely caused by the continued build-up of anthropogenic GH gases.”
                I suggest “possibly beneficial” as a better term.
                “the troposphere has exceptionally low energy retention and low thermal inertia in general, so as as proxy for anthropogenic climate change, it a very very poor one.”
                So it should never have been used that way to prove warming in the first place. Right?

                30

            • #
              the Griss

              “so as as proxy for anthropogenic climate change, it a very very poor one”

              Yes, yes.. but don’t worry, KT has already told us where he hid all the heat. ! :-)

              00

            • #
              the Griss

              confirm that belief or causes one to abandon or modify it”

              cool.. should have happened several years ago.

              Please let us know when they change it to something else, like maybe “climate change”…. because the warming part isn’t working out to well for them. :-)

              31

            • #
              Winston

              I think RG, that the anger you pick up on might subside against warmists such as yourself if you/they were less deceptive, avoided using semantic word games, stopped shifting the goal posts constantly, and stopped advocating political/economic responses outside their expertise with no thought to consequences on the most marginal in both western societies and especially in the developing world.

              One general thing about policy, sometimes less is more, and it is better to take it slow and get it right, rather than have to create even more policy later to correct the unintended consequences.

              And yet in complete contradiction of what you have just said, right from the word go alarmists like Al Gore proselytised and advocated a climate emergency, the need for haste, imminent tipping points, the need for urgent and immediate “action” (nebulous and unquantified of course), advised investment in intermittent “renewable” sources of power generation (wind and solar) that are neither truly renewable, effective, efficient or even remotely fit for purpose, serving instead only to increase the price burden on consumers (especially the poor), increase staple food prices, and most egregiously increase exponentially the profit margin of multinational “eco-friendly” (scoff!) corporations like GE and Seimens (and BP and Shell and any of the other myriad of carpet bagger polluters that people such as yourself have advocated for).

              I would think this sort of advocacy based on such a contentious hypothesis would necessarily require a higher burden of proof that such consequences were real rather than imagined, and that advocates would be more measured in their alarmism, more attentive to observations as opposed to fixated on virtual representations of computer simulations, and treat what limited data we have in terms of our global climate record as sacrosanct, unaltered or unfettered by dubious adjustments and alterations that actually render such data useless.

              So in essence, R.Gates, it is up to you alarmists to prove that you are not just blowing smoke out your collective arses, and that you have a legitimate scientific argument backed up by totally transparent, independently audited evidence which has more than the mere semblance of correlation to recommend it. But of course, that is not possible now is it, since even that tenuous correlation no longer exists.

              51

            • #
              Peter Hume

              Notice how you
              a) didn’t answer either of my questions?
              b) talked down to me with “of course” there is anthropogenic global warming, whereas it is not in issue that that is what the warmists allege and I never said it is;
              c) conceded the general issue, since if there are no consequences as a matter of policy, the entire debate on AGW can be dismissed as of no consequence to policy. Right?

              You start out by decrying ad homs, yet when we get a response like that which evades all the issues, if we take as a given that you an intelligent person educated in science, how else can we construe your response except as evasiveness or disingenuousness?

              Let’s start again: *given that you are alleging anthropogenic global warming* (of course), do you concede that it is non sequitur to argue that therefore
              a) such global warming is detrimental on balance
              b) policy action is justified?

              20

              • #
                R. Gates

                Peter Hume,

                I do think it is more likely than not that human activity is adding to the net climate energy balance of the planet, and some of this energy (though only a minor part) is reflected in tropospheric warming, commonly called “global warming”, but to the points about whether it follows as to whether this “warming” is detrimental or not, that is too broad a statement and requires refinement to be useful. Detrimental to whom over what timeframe? It well could be detrimental, especially as the accumulation of GH gases continues. Given that there certainly exists more than small possibility that this rapid of a forcing on the climate could be detrimental to humans over medium and longer term time frames, the most prudent course of action from a policy standpoint might be to continue to study the potential effects very closely .

                00

              • #
                Peter Hume

                R. Gates

                So the alleged anthropogenic global warming may be detrimental? But it may not?

                And policy action may be justified? But it may not?

                That’s not actually joining issue is it, which requires you to affirm, not merely to note what is in issue? Anyone can say there might be an issue. The question is whether there is.

                The warmist claim is not merely that there might be a problem, and that policy action might be justified. They’re positively arguing that policy action is justified, on the ground that the warming is or will be detrimental, otherwise their whole argument wouldn’t make sense, would it? If it’s not detrimental, then why take any action to prevent it? Obviously they’re saying it’s detrimental!

                Whereas you, correct me if I’m wrong, agree that the skeptics are right in saying that the claims of the warmists are not justified (“too broad … to be useful”). The warmists have not made out their claims, and the skeptics correctly recognise that the warmists’ claims are not justified. That’s what you’re saying … isn’t it?

                20

              • #
                the Griss

                1. There is NO rapid forcing of or by CO2 on the climate.. That is a myth, as is obvious from there being no warming this century, and even the small amount of warming that did occur at the end of last century having no steeper trend than previous warming periods when CO2 concentrations were only just above plant subsistence level.

                2. CO2 is almost wholly BENEFICIAL to life on Earth, certainly at any atmospheric concentration that will ever be reached even with the tiny relative amount that man is releasing from its sequestered burial.

                3. All that buried coal is CO2 that used to be in the atmosphere, when the Earth was abundant and really flourishing. It BELONGS in the atmosphere.

                The moronic demonization of one of the major building block of LIFE ON EARTH, really has to STOP !!!!!

                40

              • #

                R. Gates may not be as eager to “discuss” climate change as he says. His comments on other blogs don’t necessarily back up his statement of wanting actual dialogue.

                00

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              R. Gates,

              Good! Let’s have some debate. As a starting point, I’m 75 years old and climate around where I’ve spent nearly all my life is insignificantly different today from what it was when I was a child. In other words, no change that any human can detect. Only the weather varies from year to year. I keep seeing statements about temperature rising, about sea level rising, about terrible weather events, yet I don’t see any of those things. Even the U.S. National Weather Service (a part of NOAA) is adamant that current storms are no worse and no more frequent than in the past. And the worst of it all is that these things are predicted to be well under way by now, yet they aren’t even detectable. So can you explain to me why, in spite of the predictions to the contrary, the world is not significantly different today than it was 75 years ago? Even the current colder than usual weather trend hasn’t been going on long enough to interpret it as significant. And if it is significant the Earth is getting colder as CO2 continues to increase, not warmer.

              The first thing You could show me would be some empirical evidence that CO2 in the atmosphere actually can cause any of the things it’s being blamed for. That would be a good starting place for debate.

              And yes, I agree that from the little ice age to about 1998 or 2001, depending on whose numbers you choose, there was a small warming of the Earth. But I claim this was not only natural in origin but has happened more than once over Earth’s history. So let’s concentrate on the real debate here, the claims that we’re talking about, whether you like the term global warming or not, deal with the late 20th and the 21st centuries, not to times hundreds of years ago.

              So let’s have at it in the spirit of honest debate.

              00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                But no R. Gates to be seen in response to an open invitation to debate. :-(

                What does this mean? Perhaps that he only wants to debate the theoretical stuff like model predictions and not what is clearly the real truth, that the prophesy of disaster is not coming true? I don’t know. But I have my opinion. I suspect everyone else also has an opinion.

                I’ll leave it at that.

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                PS:

                This always happens when I ask someone for the details of where these prophesies of disaster are actually to be seen.

                00

  • #
    tom0mason

    Song for the IPCC, as they don’t understand either -

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCnf46boC3I

    40

  • #

    So then, how cool is this, eh? (umm, that’s me being sarcastic)

    Larissa Waters was a lawyer in a former life.

    She is now a Senator for the State of Queensland, representing The Greens Party. Her responsibilities (the Portfolios she covers) are Environment, Biodiversity and Natural Heritage; Population; Great Barrier Reef and Coral Sea; Cape York; World Heritage; Tourism; Mining.

    You got that. Makes Russ Hinze look like a community organiser.

    She was first elected in 2010.

    She has just had her office in trendy Given Terrace in the suburb of Paddington fitted out, as befitting her new job as a Federal Senator.

    That office fitout has cost the taxpayer, and wait for this ….. $414,000.

    Most people have mortgages for houses costing that much.

    This is for the fitout of an office.

    A Greens Senator.

    Great when it’s other people’s money isn’t it.

    Greens. You know, grassroots people.

    Tony.

    Source (scroll down and see how politicians make umm, creative use of your money)

    152

    • #

      Imagine what the cost would have been if she had not been so frugal?????
      However, after many decades of listening and arguing, I am staggered at the proportion of our population that honestly believes that there is such a thing as “government money” without realising that it is from the pockets of ALL taxpayers (a dying breed).

      92

      • #
        Peter Hume

        LOL yeah, imagine what the cost would have been if she wasn’t conserving earth’s precious resources.

        20

    • #
      Manfred

      To paraphrase a well known saying:
      ‘It’s great when you’re spending someone elses money’.
      Doubtless her time will come in the brutal sunshine of public scrutiny and electoral accountability.

      41

    • #
      Raven

      That office fitout has cost the taxpayer, and wait for this ….. $414,000.

      According to my calculator, that’s 13,800 bottles of Penfolds Grange Hermitage !

      50

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Tony:

      I liked that bit about “includes a rooftop patio with timber outdoor furniture and artificial turf”.

      Doesn’t indicate a heavy work load does it? And not much belief in ‘saving tropical forests’ or ‘use natural products’

      Perhaps she has a picture on her office wall of several pigs at the trough?

      30

    • #
      Andrew

      Yes, but you’re missing the important point. Didn’t Abbott666 once spend $1,000 on airfares to Port Macq, have 2 days of community meetings but in between (at 5am on Sunday) do a triathlon on his own time before the Sunday meetings??

      23

      • #
        AndyG55

        That flight cost is not unusual.

        I once had to fly from Newcastle to Canberra for a meeting, and the only flight was over $900 return !

        Good thing the company paid for it ! :-)

        40

        • #
          AndyG55

          6:00am …And it was one of those narrow uncomfortable prop driven things as well.

          Oddly, nearly every squashed in passenger was in a business suit. The red-eye special?

          40

      • #
        the Griss

        And just how is that important ?

        Are you pointing out that our PM is fit enough to do triathlons even with a gruelling schedule of meetings ?

        30

        • #
          Andrew

          How is it important??? It dominated political narrative for 6 weeks. Updates 3x a day on the corrupt rortocracy of the Abbott666 Regime. The ABC suspended normal coverage of our impending Konfrontasi to run it non stop, interrupted only by how a modest bushfire in October 2013 was caused by his 2014 tax policy.

          00

          • #
            the Griss

            So not important at all, then …… just political news fodder for the ABC.

            ie….. childish and irrelevant !

            00

      • #

        Have a look at Brisbane to Emerald or Adelaide to Roxby Downs.

        00

    • #
      the Griss

      And poor little Mattb once said he doesn’t even get a desk !!

      That’s how far down the green hierarchy he is.

      50

  • #
    Reinder van Til

    For about 35 years now I am an ammateur meteorologist and amateur astronomer. Regarding the picture. That is my absolute favourite weather: Thunderstorms. The heavier the better.

    91

    • #
      Eddie

      Thought you meant about your picture Reinder. It looks like a sort of a day that could become thundery. You cant beat a good thunderstorm. All the pent up energy released , to clear the air. Where is that lake btw ? I may be way off but I’d guess Corsica or perhaps Scotland, just to show how way off one can be.

      40

      • #
        Reinder van Til

        Hello, no my avatar was taken by my female partner on the Island of Crete in Greece. That “lake” is actually the wonderful Mediterranean Sea. I was between the towns Agios Nikolaos and Sitia. That small island is called Psira. I am a hellenophile. I go to Greece often. The weather is lovely there. Beautiful country, hundreds of islands. Great people, great food and culture too. And there are thunderstorms too:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P29K9L5fLNo

        20

    • #
      Eliza Doodle

      Have you ever slept through a thunderstorm, outside, all night, in a tent, with just a potato skewered to the main pole to protect you, from being frazzled by the lightning ?

      We once tried wine corks, in the French Pyrenees, being all there was to hand.

      The Pyrenees produce some grand storms later in the day around July and August particularly.

      Popular for cycling too.
      This one from near the Tourmalet

      41

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Thunder storms can be quite spectacular. They are also very dangerous if you fly — even to the biggest most advanced airliners. They have crashed more than one flight with nothing the pilots could do about it, including Air France 447, though the investigation stops short of a definitive statement. But all the evidence is there.

        I like them from a distance.

        The Grand Canyon is another place that serves up spectacular thunder storms. Example 1 Example 2

        The second example is a larger version of one of the pictures in the first one. Beautiful… …from a distance.

        30

        • #
          ROM

          When you amble in, in considerable anticipation of finding some 1000 feet a minute or more thermal lift under a budding Cu Nim in a glider and a good sized bolt of lightning lets go a couple of hundred metres in front of you then there can be a considerable likelihood of some staining of the seat .
          Been there and done that on more than a few occassions.

          My most interesting experience with thunder storms was in a two seat glider when we were actually in circuit at about 800 feet for the landing approach.
          The sky was clear of clouds.
          We have what is called Variometers in gliders which are sensitive rates of climb indicators.

          I glanced at the variometer in front of me on the panel and it was, to my total astonishment, showing 1600 fpm up, a rate of climb which I hadn’t seen before in my gliding although I have experienced a few times since..

          So my glider pilot friend in the back seat who was flying at the time very promptly cranked the glider into the turn to stay in the lift area.
          This was all in clear air with no clouds around anywhere close.

          We shot through 6000 feet altitude after two or three turns and then, within seconds little puffs of cloud, each roughly the size of a house started to form around us leaving gaps of a hundred metres or so between cloud puffs.
          My so called mate in the back seat chickened and very hurriedly said “it’s all yours” leaving me to sort it all out.

          Well the big ask now was to get to hell out of there and real fast as those gaps between those puffs of cloud were filling fast as in a few tens of seconds. Getting caught in the middle of something that was growing and developing like this cloud mass was, was not going to be conducive to the prospects of a long and pleasant future stretching out in front of either of us.
          We made it out of that cloud at high speed between those closing gaps and headed for the ground with the dive brakes right out and with no finesses in the circuit or landing.
          The guys on the ground grabbed everything as we rolled to a halt and ran that glider into the hangar just as the “donna and a blitzen” fired up and the first drops of rain pelted down.
          The whole episode probably lasted all of a maximum of ten minutes
          Within half an hour that thunderstorm had dropped an inch of rain across the A/D.

          There is always give and take with thunderstorms in the way the air masses move.

          Another glider only two kilometres from the A/D runway and about 3 kilometres from the storm’s formation, was soaring at some 2000 feet altitude when they watched that storm begin with us in the middle of it.
          Now from 2000 feet altitude that glider should have been able to glide a maximum distance of some 10 kilometres or more.
          They never made it to the runway from 2000 feet , a distance of less than two kilometres. They got caught on the other side of a visible shear line between the rising and sinking air masses of the thiunderstorms formation, a sharply delineated shear line marked by a line of small but intense willy willies running between themselves and the developing storm cell that we were caught up in.

          They had something like over 2000 fpm rate of sink in the sinking air mass on the other side of that shear line and finished up in the paddock right at the beginning of the main runway never having made it to that runway from 2000 feet and only two kilometres away.

          Interesting things those Cu Nims and thunderstorms!

          An Argentinian airline and glider pilot back in the early 1970′s with no oxygen on board took off in a metal glider beneath a King thunderstorm estimated by airline pilots flying in the region as topping some 70,000 feet which those King thunderstorms do in the tropics.

          He was trying to get a gain of height of 5000 metres [ 16,000 feet ] to achieve a diamond badge gliding award.
          He was seen to enter the base of the thunderstorm in very strong lift at about 3000 feet above the ground and was seen to eventually emerge from the cloud after half and hour at around 20,000 feet or more.
          He lived although was badly injured when the glider crashed.
          An it crashed because both wings had been broken off just inboard of the ailerons, the metal fuselage had ben twisted through 45 degrees and half the rear elevator section had been broken off.
          The pilot remembered going through about 6 turns inside of the storms lift column as he reached 25,000 feet before blacking out from the lack of oxygen.
          The height recording instrument he carried, the “barograph”, indicated he had reached some 47,000 feet inside of that storm, a world record height but the turbulence inside of that storm was so severe that the barograph trace could not be accurately calibrated above about 40,000 feet so the FAI in Paris gave him 40,000 feet gain of height.

          And the maximum rate of climb inside of that King thunderstorm as measured by the recording barograph trace from the glider exceeded 8000 Feet Per Minute or about 150 kilometres per hour straight up.

          Yep! Interesting things those thunderstorms particularly from very close up.

          60

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Your story is a vivid example of how powerful a thunderstorm really is — and a reminder that we aren’t really in such good command of the sky as we think we are with our sophisticated metal birds. But flying sure is fun!

            My only sailplane experience was on a nice clear day with no weather problems except a lot of turbulence near the ground on final. The Instructor let me have it from the time we cut loose from the tow plane (8,000 feet) until about 30 feet above the runway on final. I hadn’t been able to fly for some time and it wasn’t second nature anymore so I was sweating every last inch of that final approach until I heard, “I’ve got it,” from the seat behind me.

            I glanced at the variometer in front of me on the panel and it was, to my total astonishment, showing 1600 fpm up, a rate of climb which I hadn’t seen before in my gliding although I have experienced a few times since.

            Something like this happened to me one day while I was doing touch-and-go. I was on a close in base leg to make a fairly steep approach and about to turn final when suddenly the airplane was floating like a kite. I couldn’t make it sink for love nor money. After a few seconds of that I put the power to it and did a go-around, something sailplanes can’t do, having no engine. After I was dafely established in a climb back to pattern altitude I told the tower what had happened. After going around the traffic pattern again the wind shear was gone and I made several more completely normal landings without incident. There was no visible weather problem that day and the wind was the usual 6 – 10 knots you get during the day at an airport about a mile from the coastline.

            So what caused that lift I couldn’t compensate for? No way to know. The lesson, however, is quite clear. If you have power to stay in the air, do it. Don’t play with something if it’s not perfect for a landing. The go-around is a time honored means of turning a bad situation into a good one.

            When I was first interested in flying I looked at hang gliding which was just getting popular at that time (1975). After watching several near disasters I gave up on that idea because I figured (correctly at that time) I had no way to know if I was getting good instruction or not so good.

            10

        • #
          Reinder van Til

          For an amateur meteorologist like me Florida would be the place to live. Severe thunderstorms, tornadoes and hurricanes

          00

          • #

            The Kimberleys in Australia are great for thunderstorms too, one supercell in Broome on January 28th in 1997 hovered over the town for 5 hours, with lightning smashing around the town the whole time, and dropping almost 20 inches of rain, locally recalled forever as “The Deluge”. Spectacular!

            10

        • #
          Manfred

          Thanks for the pix of the Cb’s Roy. Amazing. I’ve dodged a few in light aricraft as a pilot, though nothing on this scale depicted by the photos you provided. I used to soar, and always wondered what it would be like to pop out the top of one, having read the account of one or two intrepid glider pilots who came close to perishing from hypoxia and cold, in an effort to achieve record height gains.

          00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            I was wondering about those altitudes. Up there you don’t stay conscious very long. And then it’s almost always all over but the crying by family and friends.

            00

      • #

        I went hiking with a couple of guys and a married couple in the Royal National Park south of Sydney about 20 years ago. I lent my tent to the couple and brought just a fly for us men.

        We camped overnight in a clearing next to a sole palm tree to use as a tent pole, and hung up the other end to the tent. A thunderstorm came in that night, wetting the ground thoroughly at our feet and our heads. Then we saw the lightning strike the ground in the distance.

        We started making jokes like “does anyone know CPR?” and “Was it three seconds between the flash and the thunder for every kilometre?” Then the fly lit up and there was an almighty crack that rammed home the reality: we were in for an uncomfortable night.

        We survived and the next morning I went to a grove of palm tress about 50m away for a number one. In the middle was a smouldering palm tree.

        20

        • #
          Reinder van Til

          How I wish to have been there

          00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Vic,

          I have no trouble believing the smoldering tree. I’ve lost track of it now but one day maybe 10 years ago I discovered a site put up by a guy who made himself quite a name by getting photographs of lightening strikes in progress. One picture he had posted showed lightening actually in the process of splitting a large tree at the point where it branched into two major parts. The next picture of course, was the tree with half of it laying on the ground.

          But the most surprising thing he was able to catch is a lightening bolt in progress; a succession of photos showing that the thing progressed in stages from the ground up, first to one point in mid air, then after a very short time from there to another higher point in mid air and so on until it reached the cloud above in a series of at least 4 jumps. I don’t know how he managed to catch all that and he didn’t elaborate on his methodology. But the pictures were convincing proof of what was happening.

          Maybe most surprising of all is that he could anticipate a lightening strike far enough in advance to get picture after picture of them as they happened.

          Nature, when looked at the right way, is full of surprises. I’m pretty well familiar with electrical equipment, including some that can throw an arc probably 2 inches. But I would never have guessed that lightening behaved that way.

          10

    • #
      Bruce Cunningham

      Thunderstorms can be quite spectacular, especially when they are producing light shows in the nigh time! In the part of the world where I live (SE USA), we have many and they can be real Bears. Many times (especially this time of year) they produce some nasty offspring like the one shown in the linked video below. So far this year, those offspring have been almost non-existent (knocking on wood right now).

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLDR-mfO5Ms

      30

    • #
      Jon

      When I was like 2-3 years old I experienced a lightning strike very close in a telephone pole while my father was putting up a tent to give some cover for the rain. The strike happend at the same time my father hammered down a tent “nail”. He immediately stopped and looked at me. I had the biggest smile I could have and said “can you hit the nail once more?”
      The hammer had a label with lightninga on it and the name Thor’s hammer. It took me many years to realize that hammers did not cause lightninga. :-)

      30

  • #
    Sceptical Sam

    Olaf Koenders talks about “caaahhbn” at 1.1.

    They really have a lot of homework to do.

    We read in Chapter 7 on page 7 (1st para) of AR5 WGII that:

    “A sizable fraction of crop modelling studies were concerned with production for individual sites or provinces, spatial scales below which the changes in climate conditions are attributable to anthropogenic activity (AR5 WG1 Chapter 10). Similarly, most crop studies have focused on the past few decades, a time scale shorter than most attribution studies for climate. However, some focused on continental or global scales (Lobell and Field, 2007; You et al., 2009; Lobell et al., 2011), at which trends in several climatic variables, including average summer temperatures, have been attributed to anthropogenic activity. In particular, global temperature trends over the past few decades are
    attributable to human activity (AR5 WG1 Chapter 10), and the studies discussed above indicate that this warming has had significant impacts on global yield trends of some crops.

    http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap7_FGDall.pdf

    Has it? How significant?

    Take their first reference: Lobell, D. B.and C. B. Field, 2007: Global scale climate-crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming. Environmental Research Letters, 2.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/1/014002

    “For wheat, maize and barley, there is a clearly negative response of global yields to increased temperatures. Based on these sensitivities and observed climate trends, we estimate that warming since 1981 has resulted in annual combined losses of these three crops representing roughly 40 Mt or $5 billion per year, as of 2002. While these impacts are small relative to the technological yield gains over the same period, the results demonstrate already occurring negative impacts of climate trends on crop yields at the global scale.”

    FAOSTATS at GeoHive gives the total production of these three crops in 2000 as 1,311.3 Million tonnes (Mt). So, in 2000 the 40 Mt loss “estimated” by Lobell and Field represents just 3% of total yield.

    http://www.geohive.com/charts/ag_crops.aspx

    Taking the second reference (You, L., M. Rosegrant, S. Wood, and D. Sun, 2009: Impact of growing season temperature on wheat productivity in China. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 149, 1009-1014) we read “Rising temperature over the past two decades accounts for a 4.5% decline in wheat yields in China while the majority of the wheat yield growth, 64%, comes from increased use of physical inputs”

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168192308003535

    Given the fact that there’s been no net global temperature rise for more than half of this period one can only wonder at how good the rest of their analysis is.

    Nevertheless, two years later, we see Lobell et al ( Lobell, D.B., Schlenker, W. and Costa-Roberts, J., 2011. Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980. Science, 333(6042): 616-620) sneaking their “modelled” result up to somewhere between 3.8 and 5.5%.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21551030

    So that’s all nice and neat. Who could argue with such a consensus?

    Well, over the period 1980 – 2000 the wheat yield in China increased 80%, while globally the combined wheat, maize and barley yields increased 32%.

    So, is a “modelled” 3 – 5% reduction in yield due to temperature increases significant in the overall context of the significant global increases in yields?

    Maybe it would be if gross yields were going backwards; but they’re not. It certainly would be if gross yields were growing more slowly than the growth in the world’s population; but they’re not. It might be if there wasn’t a fundamental flaw in the WGII’s argument; but there is.

    Don’t they know that, according to the IPCC, temperature increases are predominately a result of increased atmospheric man-made CO2e. Don’t they know that’s the official IPCC ideology? So why look at temperature in the absence of CO2 increases? You know, “Caaahhbn” Dioxide.

    And what happens to cropping yields when “Caaahhbn” Dioxide is considered in conjunction with the temperature increases?

    Ludwig F, Asseng S (2006) Climate change impacts on wheat production in a Mediterranean environment in Western Australia. Agricultural Systems 90, 159–179.

    “Higher [CO2] increased yield especially at drier sites while higher temperatures had a positive effect in the cooler and wetter southern part of the region.”

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X05002659

    Luo Q, Williams MAJ, Bellotti W, Bryan B (2003) Quantitative and visual assessments of climate change impacts on South Australian wheat production. Agricultural Systems 77, 173–186.

    “Simulated results show that (1) Wheat yields increase under all CO2 levels. Yields increase under different climate change scenarios in most cases.”

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X02001099

    It’s enough to kill brown dog.

    21

  • #
    Sceptical Sam

    Caaahhbn” Dioxide Continued….

    Kimball BA, Pinter PJ, Garcia RL, LaMorte RL, Wall GW, Hunsaker DJ, Wechsung G, Wechsung F, Kartschall T (1995) Productivity and water use of wheat under free-air CO2 enrichment. Global Change Biology 1, 429–442.

    “….as temperatures warmed into spring, the FACE plants grew about 20% more than the Control plants at ambient [CO2], as shown by above-ground biomass accumulation. Root biomass accumulation was also stimulated about 20%”…… “The 20% mid-season growth advantage of FACE shrunk to about an 8% yield advantage in the Wet plots, while the yield differences between FACE and Control remained at about 20% in the Dry plots.”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.1995.tb00041.x/abstract;jsessionid=4CEBFC2B1B1E137F8431A46832903122.f02t03

    Davide Cammarano, José Payero, Bruno Basso, Lydia Stefanova and Peter Grace, (2012) Adapting wheat sowing dates to projected climate change in the Australian subtropics: analysis of crop water use and yield. Crop and Pasture Science 63(10) 974-986.

    “We found that: (1) grain yield and water-use efficiency (yield/evapotranspiration) increased linearly with [CO2]; (2) increases in [CO2] had minimal impact on evapotranspiration; (3) yield increased with increasing temperature for the irrigated scenarios….”

    http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=CP11324

    Li, A.-G., Hou, Y.-S., Wall, G.W., Trent, A., Kimball, B.A. and Pinter Jr., P.J. 2000. Free-air CO2 enrichment and drought stress effects on grain filling rate and duration in spring wheat. Crop Science 40: 1263-1270.

    “Both elevated CO2 and water treatments significantly influenced the grain-filling processes. Under drought stress conditions, elevated CO2 increased grain weight in the upper and lower sections of the main stem spike by 10 and 24%, respectively. In well-watered plants, final grain weight in the midsection of the main stem spike was 8% higher than that measured under drought stress conditions. Grain weight increase under elevated CO2 was due to a faster rate of grain filling.”

    http://serials.unibo.it/cgi-ser/start/it/spogli/df-s.tcl?prog_art=7590837&language=ITALIANO&view=articoli

    They’re so biased my mates at the bowling club want to use them for bowls.

    20

  • #
    Harry Passfield (AKA Snotrocket)

    I’ve been reading Willis’s wonderful post – ‘To Billy’ – over at WUWT. So I came here to mooch around and collect my thoughts. As the blog page unfurled on my browser I was struck by the message in the right-hand boxes that said: “1,084 People like JoNova”: That just has to be a restriction in your web design. Surely, you are missing a whole load of trailing zeroes!!! :-)

    31

    • #
      Fran

      That only goes for the Facebook channel, which isn’t terribly popular here.
      It pales in significance to the Bloggies Awards above it.
      The true esteem in which Jo’s inestimable work is held cannot be adequately portrayed in numbers though.

      41

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I think it is really sad, that people assess their own personal worth by the number of friends they have on Facebook.

      They have friends all over the world.

      None in their immediate neighborhood, but all over the world.

      30

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    This being an open forum for the weekend, I want to know if anyone is as alarmed at the push to register Jews in parts of Ukraine as I am.

    Or is the world, as I suspect, going to give it a little lip service and then get on with business as usual; or even simply ignore it?

    It’s not clear who is behind this but it cannot possibly lead to anything good. This is the most insufferable act since WWII.

    21

    • #
    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      Sounds like disinformation to me, Roy. The ideologues have given up focusing on Jews and now want to put us all in their green concentration camp, starting with “the 1%.” The othering has already begun.

      20

    • #
      Simon(:-J

      The Obarmy administration jumping on every excuse for namecalling at the Russians ?
      Don’t believe everything you read on the meedja.
      Ukraine is unstable right now and all sorts of ‘elements’ will emerge and be alleged to have emerged, from the woodwork until order is restored. They’ve probably never enjoyed so much attention.
      http://time.com/67272/ukraine-jew-register-donetsk/

      22

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I know nothing of the New York Post (the new kid on the block) and I have considerable trust in Fox News that they actually look into things before reporting on them.

      I will be very happy if indeed this is a hoax. No one will be happier about that than I will.

      And aside from this issue I wonder why anyone thinks the U.S. has any worthwhile national interest in Ukraine that prompts anyone to call for any kind of action, least of all President Obama who has no interest at all in policing the world. His meddling in it is plain old hypocrisy — and blustering for political distraction from his real problems. The sole vested interest there is Europe’s and they’re hiding under their beds for fear their gas supply will be shut off. Such is the world we live in. Putin has won!

      11

      • #

        My Neighbour the Cossack (Not Russian) explains it like this.
        “Damm those etnic Russians for wanting something to do with the nation Keiv was once the capital of and how dare they expect the democratic world to allow them to vote on their own future instead of being told who will lead them.”
        http://www.justgorussia.co.uk/en/school_tour_three_capitals_kiev_moscow_st_petersburg.html
        Perhaps Americans should lead by example and go without the next vote letting the UN decide their future. Whada ya think Roy?

        10

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Siliggy,

          I expect you know what I think of the UN from the many things I’ve said over the course of about 6 years now. But whether you remember or not, I would not want the UN deciding anything inside the United States. And I don’t see why we need to lead on the matter one way or another. We have no interest there except the very much emotion driven desire to stop the takeover of one nation by another. And we’ve been there before and couldn’t muster up the courage to actually win except in Korea. And gutless Obama wouldn’t do anything even if he could.

          More recent history than described in your travel to Russia link has Ukraine an independent state. Obviously there are those who don’t like that. It’s very much like the partition of Vietnam and Korea or the creation of Israel. But the problem needs to be solved by those who have some real interest in Ukraine or whatever threat they see if Russia takes over, not by the U.S. or the UN — especially not the UN. Unfortunately the whole thing will be solved by application of force by Vladimir Putin.

          The worst of this is that we have pissed away both our ability to use sanctions of any kind and to use force. So why is Obama blustering about it?

          I could go on about NATO having some responsibility to lead but as I said, Europe is under the bed hiding in fear of their gas supply being shut off. And many in the states are tired of hauling the load of NATO for Europe while they go farther and farther down the road to oblivion. Enough about NATO.

          The only thing about the Ukraine takeover that excites me enough to talk about has been shown to be a hoax. And I hope it stays that way.

          00

          • #

            Roy Oh yes did understand that and have a habbit of stiring both friend and foe. That is why I gave it as an example of not letting the Ukranian Russians decide their own future. I do admire your watching out for antisemitism. Thankyou for your Astarte/Ishtar wishes but instead and for reason of choice not birth I have enjoyed a celebration of unleavened bread. So far as I know am as Australian as you can be without being black (very early settlers). Beyond that Celtic with perhaps a dash of Bogomil.
            “So why is Obama blustering about it?” My gut feeling is that he wishes to distract attention from things closer to home like the people who gathered around the Bundy Ranch who may want “an independant state” in Nevada (or at least the ability to put cattle manure where the buffalo used to put it for the tortoise feed to grow in).
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LKRUrJs-fs
            “Unfortunately the whole thing will be solved by application of force by Vladimir Putin.”
            How would we know if that is true?
            http://rt.com/news/us-responsibility-kiev-lavrov-788/
            “Meanwhile, he also criticized the attitude of Kiev to foreign journalists in Ukraine as journalists in the country are being arrested and the authorities won’t let them into the regions for them to observe what is happening.”

            00

            • #

              Thanks, Siliggy, for furthering my belief that all Americans are fans of lawbreakers, just depends on whose side they are on. I never thought I’d see the day when rational, or at least surfacely rational, people would cheer a common thief as an American hero. I do now suggest that Democrats illustrat this behaviour by refusing to pay their rent to 1%ers in the Republican party and further illustrate the hypocrisy of the party. After, the Republican will only use that money to get richer and that’s unfair. Have them invite over the news media and a 100 friends and refuse to vacate the property. I seriously doubt there would be cheering for said “heroes” who don’t pay rent and won’t be evicted. Oh, the sheer and utter hypocrisy of the party. Actually, if Obama had any sense, he’d been singing this far and wide. I suppose it’s evidence that he lacks sense, along with 99% of the country, it seems.

              00

              • #

                Sheri dont thank me for assisting you to convict someone without a fair trial you joined that torch and pitchfork brigade all on your own.
                He may have both prescriptive rights and have tried to pay! The prescriptive rights may predate the five years by another 95.
                http://benswann.com/exclusive-does-cliven-bundy-have-something-called-prescriptive-rights-why-the-blm-may-be-afraid-of-going-to-court
                Can you explain why his claimed alternate payment attempt could be justifiably refused?
                Whats more this already approved solar development may affect his land and or harm the all important tortoise.
                http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/blm_programs/energy/Silver_State_Solar_South.html
                I say it should go to court and not street battle. He is a protestor but perhaps not a criminal. How would you like a parking fine you forgot to pay to be dealt with? Guns, tazers and dead animals etc? I nearly got locked up because a no ‘L” plate fine went to an old address the the summons went to the new address after i left there also. Fortunately for me I had pulled my bike up in the parking lot at a pub where the Rebels motorcycle club were having a party. Unrequested by me the Rebels had a quiet word with the police who decided it could wait until monday. It was paid and fast!

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Siliggy,

                Gee whiz! Could the solar installation be what’s foremost in Harry Reid’s mind? Could it add incentive to the BLM’s overreach? And what about it’s impact on the Desert Tortoise?

                You’re an astute guy to say the least. :-)

                10

              • #

                Prescriptive rights, assuming they ever even exist, are rarely upheld in court–it seems likely Bundy is more worried. Plus, he paid grazing fees, which indicates he knew it was not his land. Suddenly, he remembers he owns it?????

                The alternative payment attempt was Bundy’s smoke and mirrors game to try and detract from the fact he’s deadbeat. No one has to accept an alternative payment.

                Its NOT his land. He does NOT own it. He proved that when paid grazing fees and had grazing permits for the area. Only a complete idiot pays rent to the government when he owns the land.

                It’s BLM land and they decide what goes on on the land. The government OWNS the land, plain and simple.

                Bundy is the reason they brought tasters and snipters–he has made it clear that he is not going to have his ILLEGAL cattle removed and he will graze for free no matter what. He will STEAL the use of the land. So he’s a thief. They have been in court for 20 years–sometime you have to actually act. NOW he can be arrested because he interferred with a lawful order to remove the cattle. Sadly, stealing the use of land or a house you don’t pay rent for is not a criminal offense. Resisting the eviction is. Your theory seems to be that if lawbreakers raise a stink, we should just let them break the law. If someone rents a house and raises a stink about being evicted, we just leave ‘em there. Free rent for those who resist being evicted. Yeah, fine, then no one needs to pay rent. Just resist and the conservatives will run in and defend your right to use someone else’s property for free. Again, I see no difference in this versus the morality of Obama, who just ignores laws he does not like.

                http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/15/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-long-fight-between-cliven-bundy-and-the-federal-government/

                00

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              “So why is Obama blustering about it?” My gut feeling is that he wishes to distract attention from things closer to home like the people who gathered around the Bundy Ranch who may want “an independant state” in Nevada (or at least the ability to put cattle manure where the buffalo used to put it for the tortoise feed to grow in).

              I either have to write a book or stay silent. I’ll try for a compromise.

              I’m quite sure no one in Nevada wants an independent state. To the ranchers the issue is the demand to pay the federal government for grazing rights when there is no good reason for the federal government to even own so much of Nevada. But the real issue for the BLM being there in force is driven by Senator Harry Reid and has nothing to do with the Desert Tortoise. Grazing on that land has gone on for a long time and the tortoise has done just fine. The “good” senator wants to preseerve his political clout in Nevada. The BLM (and I know I can’t provide proof of this) is easily driven by the wishes of powerful elected officials just like the IRS and moved against Bundy because of Reid. Whether it was directly ordered or suggested indirectly really doesn’t matter.

              I happen to agree with the ranchers that the U.S. should not own nearly all of Nevada and really should sell that land off to those who have been making productive use of it. But no one will be paying attention to me.

              “Unfortunately the whole thing will be solved by application of force by Vladimir Putin.”
              How would we know if that is true?

              How will we know if that is true? Just wait and see what happens. It seems to be playing out in real time as we debate the matter. And if in the end I’m wrong, we’ll all know it.

              The secrecy they obviously want by preventing journalists from going certain places to report what’s happening also speaks volumes about probably all sides in this dispute. Neither the U.S. nor the UN can solve this except by force. The ball is in Europe’s court.

              —————————–

              I’ll answer one other question, one you didn’t ask. Yes, I know that Bundy is in violation of the law for not paying the grazing fees. But the government is squeezing Bundy for political purposes. This is a blatant attempt to distract from Obama’s (and Democrat’s in general) scandals and bolster Harry Reid’s clout in Nevada. The fees have driven other ranchers out of business. When the law is unfair — and I maintain that this situation is manifestly unfair — then maybe it’s time to fight.

              Think about this. If Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King and so many others had not been brazen enough to violate segregation laws in the south, what would be going on there today? I expect it would be segregation unless someone else stood up and fought. Evil and unfairness enshrined in law only changes when challenged.

              20

              • #

                Twenty years of court cases are meaningless, just Harry Reid? No buying it.

                If the government owns too much land, the solution is just to steal back? That worked really well in the 1800′s –lots of range wars. Also, we took the land from the Native Americans. Why don’t we have to give it back? We pretty much stole it from them, lying on treaties, breaking treaties, etc. So we care about the Feds and Clive but we’re okay with shafting the Native Americans? They have reservations–don’t see any of those in Nevada.

                So you are comparing federal land ownership to racism and segregation???? Really, could you demean people any more???? What about the Native Americans and their reservations??????

                As I have stated elsewhere, it’s fine if Clive wants to stand up, but standing up means going to jail for what you believe, not continuing to steal the use of land you do not own. The government has owned this land for a very long time, and to use your argument, why should we draw the line in the sand now? Why not when all of this started? Same thing you argue about Clive.

                00

              • #

                Sheri you have a few very good points and I do not understand all that is going on there at all. If he can be charged with a crime I think he should be given a chance to surrender himself after he is charged but before he is arrested. Do you?
                “Also, we took the land from the Native Americans. Why don’t we have to give it back?”
                From your link.
                “Do you want to see my weapons?” asks Norm Tom, a Paiute Indian”
                Oh and to complicate that matter beyond normal limits.
                http://www.asiaticfathers.com/

                00

              • #

                I suppose they could give him an option to surrender himself, though I’d bet a large chunk of cash he would not avail himself of the opportunity. He failed to avail himself of many opportunities over the years. In the case of eviction from homes, they just arrest the person on the spot. I suppose if the tenant had his whole family there and armed, they’d back off but the arrest would still happen later on, as it more than likely will with Clive. What Clive is doing is exactly like not paying your rent and then screaming and howling when you get evicted. It’s that simple. He has no right to the land whatsoever.

                I see that Mr. Tom was backing Bundy. Maybe hoping later on to get back his tribal land? Who knows. Maybe just hates the government. That was in 1995. Yes, the Asiatic Fathers complicates things–that is kind of my point. Going back over 100 years and trying to claim your ancestors owned the land can open a plethora of lawsuits and stand offs. The government owns the land–not the people. It’s been that way for many years. The land is used as directed by the BLM. It can be for grazing, oil and gas, wind turbines, hiking, hunting (there is a lot of BLM land in Wyoming where people can hunt), etc. We can argue over what the land should be used for and elect officials that agree with what we want–however, someone is always going to be unhappy with the choices. That’s just the way it is. Obama shut down a lot of drilling on BLM land, which is why Texas and North Dakota are booming.

                Ranchers had a sweet deal with BLM land–very cheap grazing fees. Some tried to charge trespass fees to people who wanted to hunt on the BLM land. So it’s not surprising there’s tension. However, if you live in an apartment and the rent goes up, or the landlord sells the building, you pay the increase or leave, or leave in the latter case. This is anger over losing cheap grazing land which all ranchers know they can lose.

                00

              • #
                Mark D.

                Sheri, do you have more than the blog information about Bundy? This story has galvanized the two sides and I’d like more detailed information with time lines and process. I don’t believe it is as simple as you make it out to be.

                00

              • #

                Mark D: Here are a couple of links to information on the BLM. There was also the link I put in Siliggy’s.

                http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/PVCC/mbase/docs/sagebrush.html
                http://www.ti.org/blmintro.html

                There are always disputes in land ownership, whether the government is involved or not. People find our they don’t own the house they thought they did due to something missed in the title search. Land and homes are sold by people who don’t actually own them. Same thing happens with the government. It can be very complex.

                I will see what else I can find, but there’s one question in all of this that makes it very simple: Why would a man who believes he owns land pay grazing fees?
                (He claims he does not recognize the government’s ownership of the land. So if I don’t recognize the government’s right to tax me, can I stop paying taxes? What is being advocated here is violent refusal to obey the laws–don’t like a law, grab a bunch of guns and dare the government to try and take you. Yes, Mark, it really is that simple–he can’t make a living off the land he owns, he doesn’t want to pay the fees and so he invokes the right to ignore a sovereign government.)

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                The government has owned this land for a very long time, and to use your argument, why should we draw the line in the sand now? Why not when all of this started?

                Sheri,

                The answer to this question is the same as the answer to, “Why did we not stand up and object to segregation the minute it happened?” or, “Why wasn’t the civil war fought the minute the first slave was imported to North America?”

                Cliven Bundy and maybe some of his supporters could easily end up in jail. The problem here is that the law is not always just. You’ve given examples just above this comment. Now, what do we do when the law is manifestly unjust or unfair? Bundy chooses to fight and he fights by the best means available to him. He keeps on grazing his cattle on federal land and he makes use of his supporters.

                I’ve let some of the things you said go on by without comment. We disagree. Peace. We don’t need to fight about this.

                00

              • #
                Mark D.

                Thank you Sheri, for more detail.

                I find it hard to believe that the person could be as lawless as you portray and yet muster such support as he has. That would require a conspiracy.

                I sincerely don’t know nor do I have an opinion yet about the story but I am not exactly comfortable with your accusations unless they are well supported. I will look at these additional links.

                00

              • #

                Mark D: Not a conspiracy–con artist. How did Al Gore, Michael Mann, etc get to where they are? Lies, faked data, and yet for years they have gotten away with it……

                00

              • #
                Mark D.

                ……..con artist. How did Al Gore, Michael Mann, etc get to where they are? Lies, faked data, and yet for years they have gotten away with it……

                The last I checked these, you have mentioned, represented the official government position.

                You by now see my point?

                00

              • #

                Only if they represented the official government position at the time they started the movement. NO, I do not see your point. You are backing a guy who does not recognize the authority of the US government and is willing to start a war to stop the government. If that’s your position, and to be honest, I now am beginning to think conservatives really do want violent confrontations (why else are they cheering them?), then please do not complain if things go sideways. And YES, this person has all the characteristics of somone who would be happy to start a war against “tyranny”.

                In the past, people who lived out in the middle of nowhere, armed themselves to the teeth and refused to recognize the government were considered cults and crazy people. People who planted pipe bombs in buildings to get even with the government were considered at least very bad people and at worst, domestic terrorists. Now they are heroes. When Earth First! does this, there is wailing and accusations and so forth by conservatives who call Earth First! domestic terrorists. People chaining themselves to bulldozers are maligned and make fun off and called all sorts of names. Yet, you are backing the anti-government version of Earth First!, willing to destroy and do whatever it takes to get thier way. But I doubt you are cheering Earth First for standing up for their beliefs. Hypocritical. See my point?

                00

              • #
                Mark D.

                Sheri, I’m not yet “backing” anyone. You don’t seem to mind allowing unlimited federal resources to abuse people. If the County Commissioner supports Bundy and says this:

                “The U.S. government has perpetrated a bigger fraud on people over those tortoises than Al Capone did selling swampland in Miami.”

                There is a problem, a complex problem. It revolves around government takings.

                You are backing a guy who does not recognize the authority of the US government……

                Really? The debate seem to be about questioning whether the federal government HAS the authority.

                On the other hand, you can go ahead and support potential federal abuse of states rights. I suggest you need to read the Constitution and speak with a little less hand waiving.

                00

              • #

                Okay, strawman extraordinaire. I am not suppoting the potential abuse by the government. I did not say that anywhere. You said that. I said that refusing to pay what you owe the government and having an armed standoff supported by conservatives who decry Obama’s lawlessness was hypocritical. I said the guy is a con artist using this as a tactic to garner support for not paying his grazing fees. No where did I say what the government is doing is right–I said it was the law. When Obama cuts out something he doesn’t like in the law, there’s a fit. But let it be someone breaking the law and crying the government is too big, and people run right in to back them. Honestly, I think Clive should be given the “Con artist of the year award”. How simple it is to get backing by saying you hate the government.

                I have read the constitution. Again, you are using this as a strawman. My objection is the hypocrisy–it’s okay to break the law if you’re a conservative and you hate big government but wrong if you’re on the other side. Yet, no one seems to care in the least about this–it’s just jump on the bandwagon. I swear, if I ever get into trouble, I will find a way to turn it into persectuion by the government and every conservative out there will run in and back me irregardless of what I’ve done. They won’t even blink. It’s actually quite depressing. This blog calls out the hypocrisy of global warming, yet many are just fine with the hypocrisy of backing a lawbreaker because he’s on the side you want. So much for credibility and science and logic–guy hates the government, we love him. Okay, but every time the word hypocrisy comes up in connection with global warming, I will be back to mention Clive.

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Sheri,

                A lot gets said between my opportunities to comment and I can’t add much more because it looks like you’re running on emotion here instead of your so obviously very good intellct and analytical capability.

                I know you can read “between the lines” of current events quite accurately so why do you not understand the basis of the complaint by Bundy and his supporters? Sure they’re breaking the law and were probably willing to fight too. And when a raw deal for some class of people is enshrined in law and they have no other voice, yes, they turn to disobedience. That looks like the situation in Nevada right now to me.

                And we have that willingness to disobey and fight to thank for even having a United States of America. We have it to thank for the end of segregation.

                I don’t say this lightly but I might do as Bundy is doing were I in his place. I don’t know. But at least I’m looking at the situation, trying to understand it and not simply crying, “Lawbreaker!

                I have no idea how this will end but probably badly for Bundy. We’ve been inattentive to what our government is doing for far too long. But maybe the next time… The IRS, the DOJ and a whole lot of the U.S. Government needs cleaning up, not just the BLM.

                00

              • #

                Roy–It’s not me that’s running on emotion. I am pointing out that what the right criticizes with the left is exactly what they are now doing. I do understand Bundy–probably more so than those who don’t live out West and who are not familiar with con artists. I cannot see the “basis of the complaint” because that’s not what the basis is–he’s con artist using people’s emotional dislike of the government. I am appalled that all a lawbreaker has to do is cry “The government is out to get me” and the conservatives jump right in. In fact, this entire incident is the conservatives emotionally responding to a lawbreaker that defies the government. It’s the “Old West” mentality returning–take out the people who stand in your way. I assure you that people on the Democrat sides are doing exactly what Bundy is when they remove laws they don’t like or ignore them. As I said, I have begun to believe that what was claimed all along is true–conservatives are wanting an armed confrontationt to “take out” the evil progressives that they allowed to reach this level. If armed conflict is the answer to the BLM, then where does it end? In a war–again, that seems to be the goal here. (And this is in NO way like segregation–though I note that this comes up as justification for Clive but use race as a justification for not discriminating against gay marriage and fit occurs.)

                Mark D. asked how Clive had all this support–Bernie Madoff had plenty of support till his lawbreaking was spotlighted.

                Whether anyone believes it or not, this is about a guy who doesn’t want to pay for using government land and broke the law. It is just that simple and eventually I think that will become apparent, just as it did with Madoff. Or Clive will get free rent and live off public land just like those evil subsidy people conservatives don’t like–unless they are conservatives getting subsidies.

                It’s all about hypocrisy. I don’t know how to explain it any better than that. You don’t have to agree. You more than likely won’t. I’m out of ways to explain why this is so foolish and hypocritical. Just understand that every time the word “hypocrite” is used to describe warmists, I will be posting the words “Clive Bundy” (until such time a moderator says no, then I will wail and moan about how unfair that is–NOT. I understand who owns the blog and respect that. Something that seems to be lost on many people.)

                00

              • #
                Mark D.

                Sheri, WTF? all I’ve been saying is that this “lawless” behavior may not be lawless at all. Did it occur to you that Bundy might have a legal standing? Sure he’s not prevailed to this date but your talking about his livelihood, his source of income, our source of food. It isn’t just him being a criminal he’s been MADE into a criminal by Congress and new “environmental” laws. If you don’t find that slightly disturbing then you ARE defacto in support of abuse at the hand of government. It isn’t any different than the effects of Agenda 21 on local property rights either. These aren’t “strawman” arguments they are based upon your own words. If you are too clueless to see that, what can I say. I’m not in suport of lawlessness, what I’m in support of is a Federal Government that minds it’s business and leaves to the States what SHOULD BE A STATE ISSUE.

                Whether anyone believes it or not, this is about a guy who doesn’t want to pay for using government land and broke the law. It is just that simple and eventually I think that will become apparent

                I disagree. It appears to me based on the timeline that he was not able to get permits. That isn’t the same as “not wanting to pay for using government land”. That he defied the Government is often the only way to get something to a court hearing. These by the way are not felony crimes so your comparison to Madoff or the allegations against Obam a are absolutely out there crazy.

                All the rest of your typing is useless, off target ranting and I’m done with the matter.

                00

              • #

                Thank you for your rants and inability to understand a simple lawless act.

                00

              • #

                I wonder how Bundy would be viewed if his attempt to pay the Nevada government instead of the BLM had been accepted and he had a receipt to wave.

                00

              • #
                Mark D.

                I wonder how Bundy would be viewed if his attempt to pay the Nevada government instead of the BLM had been accepted and he had a receipt to wave.

                It is an interesting thought. Given that his family was ranching and using what would have been “territory lands” before there was a State of Nevada, he has at least an interesting argument. He might also be able to escrow the permit fees in the trust account of a bank or his attorney.

                The whole thing stinks a bit like the AU case of the Thompsons and also Peter Spencers fight.

                The situation is bigger than it appears. Land has quietly slipped from private ownership to either County, State or Federal lands via the Nature Conservancy and like groups. Slowly we are being forced off of our owned lands or excluded from public lands by acts of congress usually with the excuse of concern for the environment. In this case Bundy would have likely never crossed the law if it weren’t for the trumped up “endangered” tortoise that somehow can’t live together with cattle even though they have done so for 130 or more years.

                00

              • #

                I suppose all of this would be relavent if not for the family reportedly purchasing the ranch in 1948 after moving from Arizona to Nevada and not starting to ranch cattle until the 1950′s. Of course, Clive never actually said his family was ranching it–he said his Mormon ancestors. Little Obamaspeak there for you.

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Mark,

                The land has belongs to the U. S. Government since the end of the Mexican American war. That fact is even enshrined in the Nevada Constitution according to someone whose legal expertise in the matter I think is trustworthy. The whole issue is this — what Earthly use has the federal government got for nearly all the land in Nevada. Would you, Mark or Sheri, like it if the federal government owned nearly all of your respective states and whimsically kept it from productive use by charging for the right to use it? I don’t think so.

                I would be quite angry if the U.S. owned nearly all of California. I’d be furious. They treat that land as a cash cow to milk for money. But it’s worse. The desert in Nevada is ripe for solar energy plants and as sure as the sun comes up every morning, Harry Reid is in the thick of this, trying to get the ranchers out of the way to further the “green” agenda and line his pockets in the process.

                Why can’t people read the message that’s written so clearly between the lines of current events? Reid has given himself away with his public accusations against the protesters that they are domestic terrorists.

                I wash my hands of the matter at this point. Either I’m an aging hound dog barking at the moon instead of the tree with the raccoon in it or I’m right. And time may or may not show us which.

                I do not mind being disagreed with. But I’m dismayed by this particular disagreement. The issue isn’t what the law says.

                00

              • #
                Mark D.

                Roy, I didn’t realize I was disagreeing with you. Reid could very well be involved if he’s very patient since Bundy has been disputing the mater over 20 years (and I suspect it goes back to the Carter years).

                I wont argue with the jurisdiction either, I don’t live there and I don’t claim to know their laws. State constitutions vary but I should not imagine that the US Constitution isn’t valid for Nevada and the powers vested in the states are given there. Regardless, Bundy has been able to keep the Fed at bay for quite a while. He must have something that challenges the legal beagles otherwise they’d have rolled over him a long time ago.

                00

              • #

                Everyone here sees only the negative side of BLM land–that ranchers can’t graze on it. However, removing BLM land shuts down hunting, hiking, camping, education, etc. Wyoming has phenomenal hunting in part because half the state is BLM or state land. This is ONE use amoung many. So we sell land back to the ranchers, they shut down hunting or charge huge trespass fees, millions of acres of hiking and camping areas are instantly gone, etc. The land is not idle, not at all. I do not want the BLM to sell off the land–that means more development, subdivisions, loss of recreational areas, etc. Your assumption is cattle ranchers could buy the land and use it. Maybe. Maybe they buy it, cut it into subdivisions and sell the land over the internet. Maybe they put in wind plants. Maybe solar plants. Maybe the enviros buy the land and make it a shrine. They have lots of money. They might do that.

                Roy–I didn’t like it that the rancher to the south and the one to the west cutting up their ranches into subdivisions. Would it have mattered if it were the government or private–no, I didn’t want neighbors. We don’t always get what we want. This happening all over the state was the impetus for my website on conservation. However, I didn’t stake out the ranch and demand it go back to being a ranch because I didn’t like what the lawful owner did. People gambled on the west and public land–at one time, no wanted BLM land. We used to drive around and identify BLM land by the fact it was the most desolate, useless land. Who knew that land would one day be fought over?

                00

              • #

                What we would have if we sold off the BLM land is what Europe has–private ownership of wildlife, only the rich can hunt and recreate. No open spaces. That’s what you want?

                00

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                Roy
                I have been in interested observer of this exchange, and prefer to stay out of something in a different land of which I know little.
                However, it seems to me that Sheri’s argument is fundamentally one of ‘lawlessness’.
                Jesus, Joseph and Mary, I thought you folks lived in the USA!
                Didn’t they break the law at the Boston Tea Party?
                Didn’t they break the law in the revolutionary war?
                For that matter, didn’t the Israelites break the law of the Pharoahs during the Exodus?
                When were people ever freed from slavery WITHOUT breaking the ‘law’?

                00

              • #

                Okay, let me try again in caps and see if that helps: This is about HYPOCRISY, not lawlessness. Got it–HYPOCRISY. It’s about the fact that the conservatives denounce Obama ignoring the law and cheer Bundy. This is NOT slavery–and comparing it to that is not helping. It’s a strawman. Obama is breaking the law for EXACTLY the same reason–because those petty Republicans won’t listen to what the people of the US who elected want. He was elected to give out freebies and they are standing in the way of his achieving this. He is saving America and standing up for what is right. It’s the SAME argument. EXACTLY. Except it’s not the one YOU want, which makes it wrong–wait that was my point. Americans are hypocrites when it comes to this. Conservatives supposedly hate subsidies and handouts but are all for a guy NOT paying them if they can exploit it–HYPOCRISY.

                What I see here is the desire to deprive MILLIONS of Americans of recreational opportunities, shut down the city of Quartzite, Az because campers can’t stay on the BLM land all winter as they currently do, shut down hunting, fishing etc to prove the government owns too much land. Really, this is completely illogical. Deprive millions of public land because one guy didn’t get his way with a cattle lease.

                I really don’t understand this cr*p about slavery and so forth. One state has dissatisfied ranchers and suddenly they are slaves. Very melodramatic and very, very damaging. No one forced Clive’s parents to move to Nevada IN 1948, buy a ranch and lease federal grazing land.

                What I hear in this dialogue is people actively advocating violent opposition to the US government. You want a war because one guy didn’t get his way and you want to deprive everyone else of the use of public land that has been public for decades. Who’s trying to enslave who in this matter? Hint: It’s not the government.

                00

              • #
                Mark D.

                What we would have if we sold off the BLM land is what Europe has–private ownership of wildlife, only the rich can hunt and recreate. No open spaces. That’s what you want?

                With that line of thinking I suggest you should push further. Why have any private land? Confiscating private lands is what communist Russia did.

                Ahh that’s what YOU want.

                00

              • #
                Mark D.

                It’s about the fact that the conservatives denounce Obama ignoring the law and cheer Bundy.

                Strawman, wrong, and really starting to be comical. Keep it up so that we can know more of the real “Sheri”…….

                00

              • #

                Sheri I think your private ownership fears are worth watching out for. I dread the idea of being fenced out of crown land etc here.
                “This is NOT slavery–and comparing it to that is not helping.”
                This could if it goes more wrong get awful close to slavery.
                If Bundy does not have a legitimate claim, what about these guys?
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQJcQfrkcls
                Rod and Roy
                “For that matter, didn’t the Israelites break the law of the Pharoahs during the Exodus?
                When were people ever freed from slavery WITHOUT breaking the ‘law’?”
                Exodus 12:31 and there abouts.
                To the contrary accoring to the book it became law that they should leave and the Egyptians paid them to go. Pharoah rose in the night and after being informed of the situation in Egypt, travelled to Goshen where Moses was. He got there while it was still night but close to early morning. He called out to Moses who was obviously still in bed to “rise up” but Moses did not respond in any way other than to obey the command to quicky organise the departure. This non response would have been because Moses had earlier passed on a law that no one should exit their home until morning and had also predicted that next time Pharoah saw his face he would die. It reads to me like they carefully obeyed both sets of laws and somehow managed to assemble in a different part of the country in time to begin leaving just before the following evening with a huge plunder having been collected in the meantime. Pharoah saw Moses later after overtaking him enroute as Moses marched headlong into him Exodus 14:9. This was the beginning of the day (sunset) by that Morning Pharoah drowned.
                However it could be argued that prior to all that Moses had commited murder. Exodus 2:12

                01

              • #

                Mark D. Please explain IN DETAIL how loving Bundy’s lawlessness and damning Obama’s is a strawman. Saying only you can break the law seems pretty stupid to me. Obama is doing exactly what Bundy is–show me where it’s any different other than you like Bundy’s lawlessness and hate Obamas. Otherwise, I will believe you, as many warmists, have no real argument and are just blustering. Explain the difference. And explain why Bundy does not have to recognize the US government’s ownership when he has NO deed to the land and the only records show the government owns the land.

                Siliggy: I don’t know about the Texas deal. First, it’s a rumor at the momenet and considering how much attention Bundy has garnered, one supposes this would be the time to throw out all such possibilities and hope to whip everyone into a anti-government tirade. Perhaps it will never happen. I’ll wait and see what develops before I make any statements. My guess, and it is just that, is the Texas deal will quietly vanish for now. (And, yes, it could be close to slavery, it could lead to a lot of bad things–I don’t see any outcome helping conservatives at all.)

                00

              • #

                Clarification to Mark D: It should read “you hate Obama” and I am not saying you are a warmest, only that this whole discussion runs along the lines of “this is our theory and we could care less about evidence”. Which seems to be what people complain most about in the warmists.

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                OK Sheri, I’ll answer your objection to private land.

                First, I have no desire to see all land in private hands. Far from it. Have you ever seen Yosemite? Once you have even driven through upper Yosemite and Tioga Pass you never forget it. If ever God blessed any spot on earth Yosemite is the place. It would be tragic to have it in private hands. And there are many other such places.

                But when the government owns such a huge part of a state it’s just plain wrong. I moved to the area where I am now in 1969. It was a 42 mile drive each way from my job instead of the 15 miles from my apartment. But it was also a place where I could actually afford to buy a house using my GI Bill privilege to get a government backed loan. I’m thankful to this day that the land could be bought by a developer and houses could be built on it.

                There was very little here at that time. You say you don’t want neighbors and I understand that because I really didn’t want to see everything around me built up the way it’s been developed either. But I also know that if I owned any of the land around me I would want the right to do pretty much as I pleased with it. I think you want the same right to do with your land whatever pleases you. And if so, then you’ve got to recognize that others eye the land around you and want a piece of it for the same reason.

                The development here was plain old population pressure from the Los Angeles area. And that population pressure is what would drive development around you eventually unless it’s prevented by force of law. I think it should not be prevented. It was managed well here and this is still a desirable place to live in spite of some mistakes and some real Jerks on city councils and the county board of supervisors. Manage it there and do the same good job. It works in spite of problems.

                The days when cattle barons ruled with an iron fist over their grazing land are over Sheri. It doesn’t have to be that way. It can’t be that way in fact. I know a Boy Scout Camp, Camp Whitsett, in the Sierra Nevada that is on grazing land. The two do mix. I’ve been there and seen both the evidence of grazing (I stepped in it) and the cattle.

                Life is not full of absolutes. It’s full of compromises between what you want and what others want. I know I can’t get along without the people around me and you can’t either.

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Sheri,

                It finally sunk in that you’re more worried about what the left will think about conservatives than about any other aspect of the Nevada fracas. I’ve been talking about not being able to read between the lines when I can’t even read the lines themselves. Now that I see my misunderstanding or I hope I do, I have to say so what?

                That’s not to simply dismiss your concern but because I think the left will twist anything conservatives do to their benefit no matter what it is. Witness Harry Reid with his domestic terrorist charges. So given that situation, I’m pretty much on the side of not caring what the left can say or even do over the Bundy failure to pay the BLM for use of the land or any other matter. They’ll be dishonest anyway.

                Obama is desperate to distract attention from his scandals and he creates news that the public will tune in to hear and there goes what the public should be hearing instead. And with a complicit MSM it’s even worse. I can’t see worrying about what they say or do. We need to be on top of doing something about it. And getting it straight for the public that the BLM ignored Bundy’s trespassing for years until his and other’s cattle began to look like a problem for developing solar farms is the thing we need to be doing. And so far no one even recognizes the connection, much less looks int it.

                If I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t then guess what? I’m going to do, not don’t.

                00

              • #

                Roy: If you sell the land back to the people, the cattle barons will be back. Who do you think will buy the land? It won’t be the poor little cattle guy who can’t afford the $1.00 plus per AUM for grazing. It will be the rich democrats like Harry Reid who buys the land and Warren Buffet and Anschuetz for more wind farms. The land would be sold at market price, which is over $1000 and acre. The land has to be sold at market price. You mention the scout camp and that was my point–the land is used for multiple purposes. You sell it to the public, it can be shut down and no more scout camp. I noted that I did not like the people moving in but that I understood that this was private land and they had that right. I don’t have to like something to know it’s the way it is and I have to deal with it.

                Roy-yes, you are starting to understand. Conservatives are supposed to be the ones that are not hypocritical, that are more fair and more rational and actually have morals. I know the left will say what they want. I am more concerned that people who claim to be fair are applying the same rules to law as those they criticize. In 2012, it was believed that the conservatives who were not happy with the party stayed home and did not vote, so we got Obama again. I fear this is an indication that conservatives are becoming just as hypocritical as the left and it’s all about winning at any cost. I don’t want to become those I disapprove of, even to “win” because that’s not winning. I don’t want to become “them”.

                00

              • #
                Mark D.

                Sheri, I’ll reduce these things to specific points.

                1. You have declared Bundy to be a criminal. What “Crime” has Bundy been charged with and found guilty by a court? If he was found guilty by a court, what was the level of offense (civil offense, petty misdemeanor, misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, felony or other)?

                2. Do you recognize the various levels of crime or are they all the same. i.e my speeding ticket of less than 10 MPH over posted speed is equal/not equal to a felony?

                3. Why have you mentioned support of Bundy to be a “conservative” phenomenon? Do laws affect the Left different than the Right? Would government overreach affect the Right more than the Left?

                4. Do you recognize the concept of “grandfathering” i.e. allowing a person to continue to do something because they have been permitted to do so in the past, even when a new applicant would be denied the same permit?

                5. Do you believe that when government takes something of value away from a person via a new or changed law that they must compensate the person for the loss?

                6. With regard to Civil offenses what is the manner of due process when the offender is wrongly charged?

                7. pertaining to #6, if the offense was driving the wrong way on a one way street but through a court trial the charge was dropped, was the offender a criminal before trial? is the person a criminal after trial?

                8. Where have I suggested that BLM land should all be made private?

                9. Has Bundy blocked public access to BLM land where the public wished to recreate?

                10. specifically what crimes did I say Obama alleged to have committed?

                11. What crimes do others allege Obama has committed?

                12. If Obama were guilty of these alleged crimes what level of crime did he commit?

                00

              • #

                “Roy: If you sell the land back to the people, the cattle barons will be back.”
                So sell it to the now unwilling Chinese to build not just a solar farm but factory also (possibly 20 miles away from the owned and unowned mix of land Bundy uses). will you enjoy hunting inside a tortise plagued factory?
                “I don’t know about the Texas deal. First, it’s a rumor at the momenet”
                So the attorney general of Texas instead of checking facts has based his threatening “Come and Take It.” statement on rumour.

                00

              • #

                Siliggy: I can find nowhere that states the Texas deal is actually proposed. In all of the reports, it says they are considering. And yes, in light of the Bundy incident, I can see the Attorney General of Texas huffing and puffing and daring the federal wolf to blow his house down. If you can find report where it actually states this IS being done, I’ll be happy to check it out.

                00

              • #

                Mark:
                1. He was found guilty of grazing on public land without a permit. He defied the judges order to not interfere with the removal of his cattle. He ignored several court decisions and basically used land for 20 without paying rent.

                2. No, all crimes are not equal.

                3. Yes and no. Laws are supposed to affect all equally. Conservatives supposedly believe this. The Left is into situational ethics and situational laws. I call it a conservative phenomena because most of the persons supporting Bundy seem to be conservatives. The left seems mostly to call him a terrorist. The Left would not call anything “government overreach”, so yes, the actions of the government affect the Left and the Right differently.

                4. Yes, I understand the concept of “grandfathering”. It is not mandatory, but is sometimes offered.

                5. No, I don’t believe that when a government changes a law, they must compensate people for loss. We would do nothing but sue each other if that’s the case. It would create chaos–what is “loss”, how much is “loss” worth, etc. The government changes tax rules and penalizes high earners now, but not in the Reagan years. That change could be interpreted as harming those who benefit from high taxes. Endless litigation.

                6. Civil offenses go to court.

                7. If the charge was dropped, the person is not a criminal in any case.

                8. The reason I say all BLM land would be made public is because if we open up BLM land for public sale based on the Bundy case, there appears to be no way to justify not selling all of it. All public land can most likely be traced back to some “ancestral use” claim. If we don’t do all, what parts do we do? (The BLM does occasionally sell land and trade public land through a long process of public approval.)

                9. No.

                10. You did not say Obama committed any crimes. My reference was to the loud conservatives such as Hannity. If you don’t feel Obama broke any laws, then you are not behaving in a hypocritical manner and my objection is not relevant to you.

                11. Others object to the delays of the Obamacare “Law of the Land”, IRS harassment alleged by the Tea Party and other such groups, unilateral revision of immigration laws, “fast and furious”. I don’t know if Benghazi is lawless or not, not do I know if it’s illegal for the president to openly lie about legislation that he’s trying to pass, so you may not want to count those.

                12. I’m not sure how to answer this one. Misuse of federal agencies, unilaterally changing the laws–considering that in the past people went to jail for lying to Congress (under oath). Fast and furious resulted in the death of a border patrol agent. Did you want me to compare Obama’s alleged crimes to Bundy or what?

                00

              • #
                Mark D.

                By the numbers (old business):

                1. (and 2.) These are Civil laws not criminal. Bundy is not a “criminal” that would require a higher crime. Proof of this is that he isn’t subject to arrest unless perhaps he really ticks off the judge and is charged with contempt of court and found guilty (this would be a higher crime). Based on this I do not agree with you calling him a criminal. (your calling him a con man will addressed below.)

                3. I agree principally with your answers and added thoughts and you’ve said some of it better than I would.

                4. Response noted and frankly I’m not aware that Bundy was offered grandfather status for any of the years he allowed his cattle on BLM lands. It appears to me that the Desert Tortoise became the legal leaver in the hands of the Feds. I do not know what scientific evidence, if any, was brought to bear demonstrating that the presence of cattle further endangered the
                Tortoise.

                5. I don’t agree with your position here. Governments can take land away through Imminent Domain but are required to pay at least market rate for the property. Courts may be required but it is standard practice for values to be assigned when a party is harmed in private cases, I see no reason why government should get off the hook when they harm a person economically. It is already too easy for government to overwhelm the finances of a private party by bringing cases like these to courts.

                6. & 7. OK but I believe it is incorrect to call a civil case a crime and therefore a party party found guilty in a civil matter is not a “criminal”. This should be obvious to you otherwise it would be common practice to call drivers guilty of speeding, traffic violations and parking tickets criminals. Therefore you should not refer to Bundy as a criminal (at least for these matters).

                8. This is really outside of the subject since I don’t know if Bundy actually tried to buy the land he has been grazing cattle on. I do however have an opinion: I suggest that the vast BLM holdings were and still are of limited value (that being the reason they never were developed). As such those aren’t contenders for privatizing. Grazing lands probably fall into this category too since they are not particularly fertile or productive. The low cost of grazing permits made them cost effective and represent the “highest and best use”. I think that measure can be extended to some BLM holdings and indeed there are places that should be sold off to private ownership. This by auction with perhaps a preference to adjacent land owners and people that have previously used them for agriculture or grazing. All on a case by case basis. I am not in favor of a wholesale sell off but I’m also keenly aware that other groups and agencies are expanding the amount of land held by governments and thereby removing them from tax rolls. This in turn shifts the tax burden onto the remaining constituents in the jurisdiction. Arguably, people have been forced off of land because they could not comply with new restricted building codes or “environmental” restrictions. In my opinion, these cases should qualify for compensation from the government for the lost value and/or a simple process to excuse them from compliance. In every case, weight should be given to the effect of lost property taxes.

                9. Then why the comments about BLM selling land and people being deprived of recreational use?

                10.Then you know why Obama is a strawman. I never said the things you accused me of supporting.

                11. All good observations, why has no one brought the law to bear on him and his comrades? If he is guilty of the worst offenses, he would be a felon, appropriately called a criminal and therefore in a different than Bundy. This was my point for why you should not claim that conservative supporters of Bundy are hypocrites. Or that what I’ve been saying is hypocrisy. (This being more true since I made no claim about Obama as per #10).

                12. Only to the extent that you appreciate the difference between violations of civil ordinances and felonies. Bundy is not a criminal, and Obama would be IF he’s guilty of some of the things OTHERS have claimed. I don’t think Bundy is a con man either. I believe he has supporters precisely because they see the overreach of government, they are excercising their rights to force the government to stand down and it appears they we’re successful. No one was hurt, (maybe the police dog that was kicked was hurt) The only harm that has come from the Bundy matter is harm to the reputation of the government agencies involved (a good thing) and perhaps unproven harm to some tortoises. I’ll wait to hear.

                00

              • #

                Sheri
                “If you can find report where it actually states this IS being done, I’ll be happy to check it out.”
                BLM Field Manager Stephen Tryon, in a March 17 letter.
                http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/22/republicans-warn-blm-eyeing-land-grab-along-texas-oklahoma-border/
                The BLM categorical statement would read to a realestate agent like they intend to sell it off faster than they aquire it unlike a statement that clearly says otherwise.

                00

              • #
                Mark D.

                Siliggy, related to that link, I’ve seen Federal interest in waterways, especially those that delineate the borders of states. The Federal Government has authority over “interstate commerce” including commerce (read shipping) on these waterways. I believe the Fed wants all the control they can pull away from the States. I see these meandering waterways as a weakness to be exploited thereby creating a non-state space between the states to be controlled by the Feds. Look for that as time goes on.

                I am marveling that someone from another country (you) pays more attention to these things than the general population here. Good for you.

                00

              • #

                As for Bundy being charged with preventing the removal of the cattle in contradiction to a court order, it seems PETA are pointing out that at least some of the cattle were not being removed just buried. There are photos of live transport type trailers. So the slaughter may have been accidental or a reaction. The machinery to bury them must have come from someplace. Was it pre-planned? Is this type of slaughtering legal there?

                00

              • #

                Mark D
                You seem to take an interest in Australian affairs. Good for you!
                Our rivers are all goverment owned to the best of my knowledge. I may need to phone a friend for the fine detail. I think it is crown land not state land but could be way out.

                00

              • #
                Mark D.

                Siliggy, I take an interest just as an observer of what seems to be happening all over the world.

                To clarify what I said above about waterways, almost all lakes and rivers are public but are under control of each State. Border waters are special in that the Fed can and does insert itself. This long standing State rights arrangement was nearly upset by a bill carried forward by a congressman from Minnesota (James Oberstar). The bill did not became law but would have changed the meaning of interstate commerce to include ANY waters within the borders of any State. The Federal Government would have been able to insert itself into any water or wetland issue anywhere. Literally, a puddle after a rain (and the low spot that it formed in) would be under control of the Federal government.

                Oberststar was defeated from his seat that he held for 36 years. Many people including local Tea Party members worked tirelessly to see that he was defeated principally over this water control bill. He became so radical that he also supported GPS tracking in all personal vehicles ostensibly to collect the “appropriate” highway taxes. He is connected to the Aspen Institute and is as well connected to Fabian influence as anyone I know of.

                I’m very glad he’s out of office and his defeat is testimony to grass roots political change for the better.

                00

              • #

                Siliggy: Yes, everything the BLM did was legal. They impound cattle every year from deadbeats who don’t pay their grazing fees. It is Bundy who did not give a cr*p about his cattle or he would have removed them from the land. So blame the guy who refused to follow the court order.
                The article you referred me too says this in NOT in the works, but is only being looked at. So unless you want to argue that any item brought up as a possibility is a definitely going to happen. If the titles to the lands being considered valid or the state line that was marked with wooden posts in a river bed turns out to not be where it was assumed to be, then the titles are not valid. If the border is marked incorrectly and Texas did not own the land, they had no right to sell it. This is true for EVERY real estate transaction and occurs on a fairly regular basis. It’s why there’s title insurance and so forth. Nothing new. Nothing out of the ordinary whatsoever.

                Yes, Mark it is very depressing that people in this country have so little knowledge of real estate laws, federal land regulations, legal reasons for confiscating property illegally on land you have no right to and did not pay for, etc.

                1. When you refuse to abide by a lawful order to remove your property from land you do not own and did not pay rent on, that is criminal. Bundy has used land that he neither paid grazing fees on nor owned. He refuse to vacate. You can be jailed for refusing an eviction notice. You can be jailed for refusing to follow a judge’s order. That’s called criminal behaviour.

                4. A 1000 lb cow stepping on a tortoise yields dead tortoise. Cattle do not watch where they step. The tortoises eat some of the same food tortoises do and again, the 1000lb cow wins in the food department also. Tortoises can fall into the cattle guards and die. Cattle water stations may attract ravens and other predators that normally would not normally be present. As more and more cattle are added, less and less exists for the tortoises.

                5. You are correct on the eminent domain. This is not loss of land, however. There is no deed held by Bundy to this land–it is not his. Bundy stopped paying for the use of the land by his own choice. His attitude was “If I can’t have it all, I’ll just steal the use of it”. He lost some cattle grazing, but deliberately kept using the land when he had not right. He did not own the land and all grazing rights are provisional and can be revoked or truncated any time. In a prolonged drought, the BLM can limit grazing. It’s a managed system, not just throwing a bunch of cows out on the land and letting them graze it to the ground and then move on. People lose grazing permits all the time. This is not new.

                6 and 7. Again, failure to leave when an eviction notice is issued is a criminal offense. This is a criminal matter. If a private rancher that Clive rented from stopped renting him the land, can Clive just leave his cattle there anyway? Can Clive sue the rancher for not renting to him any more? In your view, the answer should be yes. Clive is being harmed by the private rancher. Unless you are holding the government to a different standard. Actually, if this were private land, Clive would be out of luck. Lucky for Clive, he can complain and moan about the government.

                8. It is unlikely that Bundy would be able to buy the land and there is little evidence he wanted to. He appears to have just wanted free grazing. BLM land does yield tax revenue when drilling and mining are allowed. Your argument may be somewhat valid. However, the property tax from raw land is very low–my land of 140 acres is less than $350 a year. If it were developed, it might yield income. Realize though, that developing of lands often comes with deals with the states to not charge property tax for a certain number of years–wind industry gets deals like this all the time. Plus, public lands benefit many, many people. When the Sagebrush Rebellion was happening, people actively supported the retention of these lands for recreational use.

                9. The answer was to the question “Has Bundy blocked access?” If Bundy blocked access, he would lose his grazing rights. This has nothing to do with what happens if the BLM sells the land and then people cannot get in. If the BLM sells the land, the new owner, who has a deed to the land is not just renting it, can block anyone out they choose. It’s then private land.

                10. “I said that refusing to pay what you owe the government and having an armed standoff supported by conservatives who decry Obama’s lawlessness was hypocritical.” If you are a conservative that decries Obama’s lawlessness, then this meant you. Otherwise, it did not.

                11. I have made it very clear that I am only referring to those who complain Obama is lawless and then support Bundy. The comments applies only to those who actually do both. I don’t know how to be any more clear. (My example was Shawn Hannity.)

                12. Bundy is a criminal because he violated a lawful order. More than one over the 20 years. You may believe whatever you like about Bundy. As for the tortoises, you just indicated you could not care less about my response and the science behind it with “unproven harm”. I would note that if having supporters and getting law enforcement or the government to back down, it would be wise for environmentalists to go back to chaining themselves to trees and camping out illegally in forests to prove they can win and be right. It’s not really a victory when one proves he/she can break the law with impunity. It just proves they’re a criminal.

                00

              • #

                “Siliggy: Yes, everything the BLM did was legal.”
                Those cattle in the photo are clearly dead. They are not impounded they are dead.
                The original video i linked to that started all of this shows the protesters having concern that the animals were being overdriven in the heat.
                “574.100. Overdriving, torturing, injuring or abandoning animals; failure to provide proper sustenance; penalties; exceptions
                1. A person shall not:
                (a) Overdrive, overload, torture, cruelly beat or unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate or kill an animal, whether belonging to himself or to another; (b) Deprive an animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink, or neglect or refuse to furnish it such sustenance or drink; (c) Cause, procure or allow an animal to be overdriven, overloaded, tortured, cruelly beaten, or unjustifiably injured, maimed, mutilated or killed, or to be deprived of necessary food or drink; (d) Instigate, engage in, or in any way further an act of cruelty to any animal, or any act tending to produce such cruelty; or (e) Abandon an animal in circumstances other than those prohibited in
                NRS 574.110.
                2. A person who violates subsection 1:
                (a) For the first offense within the immediately preceding 7 years, is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be sentenced to:
                (1) Imprisonment in the city or county jail or detention facility for not less than 2 days, but not more than 6 months; and
                (2) Perform not less than 48 hours, but not more than 120 hours, of community service.
                http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/animalcruelty/nevada.pdf

                00

              • #

                Okay, I give up. If you know nothing about cattle drives (say for example, cattle routinely die when moved) and you love reading laws looking for something that may or may not apply, I cannot help. Is every person who drives cattle and one or two die prosecuted? In your world, yes. With no evidence that the drive killed the cattle (there were no health examinations made so for all we know, these cattle were sick–whcih is why the BLM watnted to quarantine), you are ready to claim the BLM was at fault. No evidence, no science. Yet many members of this blog are angry when warmists do just that–make pronouncement based on news articles and models. It seems evidence is only needed if it will harm those you disagree with. Why do “skeptics” attack and deride warmists for this stuff and then do the same thing?

                I have no more time for this. You WANT this to be true and evidence is completely irrelevent and I don’t have time to right a book on this. I think my time is better spent arguing with warmists and hoping they don’t notice that some skeptics only want evidence from them and don’t care about evidence if it damages their case. Sadly, the warmists may be more right than not that evidence is irrelevant.

                Enjoy your fanatasy world where cattle don’t die on cattle drives–I’m sure the models back you up.

                00

              • #
                Mark D.

                I don’t have time for this either. I’ll make one last comment about language.

                The dictionary definition of the word “crime” is broad enough to include any offense. As a matter of practice (at least where I come from) the word is not applied to low administrative offenses like parking tickets speeding tickets failure to pay taxes on time etc. If it were, we’d nearly all be criminals and the value of the word is lost. You could just substitute “humans”. (An interesting essay could be developed on just how many laws we live oppressed by perhaps).

                Bundy did not “trespass” on these lands they’re already open to public use. A better analogy would be a person that lets his dog(s) run free where there is a leash law. Therefore your story about the homeless man trespassing is not analogous. Another strawman.

                Choose to call Bundy a criminal. You have a right to say what you want even if it connotes an incorrect biased meaning.

                Incorrect biased meanings are what this blog is all about.

                00

              • #

                Well being an Australian “Thank God, gentlemen, the verdict is yours, not mine,”
                This quote comes from the Judge in the true story of the Cattle thief who around the year 1870 stole 1000 cattle and drove them a distance of about 800-1000 miles across the worst country Austalia has to offer with out loosing one (He sold the same number he stole)! Only to be tracked down over the same route more than a month later. He drove the cattle through the desolate places that took the famous explorers Bourke and Wills and the place that trapped Charles Sturt. Most of his route was unmapped and unpopulated except for sometimes hostile tribal people as this was only a short time after the explorers had been there. Even though he really did do it, the court found him not guilty, the prosecution witness to be insane and the court itself was sentenced to two years.
                Short version of the story.
                http://www.abc.net.au/queensland/heritage/stories/s680613.htm
                Longer and more detailed accounts.
                http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/122318081?zoomLevel=4
                and
                http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/98080934?zoomLevel=4

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Sheri,

                What do you think will happen if the BLM continues to make it untenable to run cattle on that land? The Harry Reid’s will put in their solar farms, that’s what.

                And I’m back to my argument that the U.S. should never have had control of all that land in the first place. Since the Spanish American War gave DC that property a lot has changed and it’s now much harder to undo the original failure of foresight that brought us to this miserable situation.

                Now, what will provide justice for Bundy, who has been running cattle on that land for a long time, even if, as you say, he didn’t start until 1948?

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                I will stay out of the rest of this.

                This is the longest running debate in Joannenova history that I know of in terms of space used up and comments posted. It shows how emotional and gut level such disputes really are.

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                In fact it’s a little microcosm of the mind set that led those colonists to resist and finally rebel against the much mightier King of England — and prevail. By any standard then accepted, the colonists were rebels and criminals. In addition to that they were willing to violate what were the accepted standards of warfare. They attacked from ambush. They aimed first at the officers (one never did that, the officer was somehow sacred). How dare they do this unthinkable thing? Because they wanted to win.

                These tactics so enraged the British that a bounty was placed on the heads, individually of anyone who could be identified as a leader in these practices.

                Shall we deny Bundy the right to fight against the same kind of injustice that drove the colonists to fight?

                I know my answer. You all need to find your answer because it may someday come to blows with those who claim to govern. I hope not. But the weight of authoritarian rule gets heavier by the day.

                00

              • #
                Mark D.

                Great story Siliggy, 1000 head across 1200 miles of bush. Amazing. I wish the third and longest link was in better condition reading that was great fun but hard on the eyes.

                00

              • #

                Mark D
                It is a great read. To be fair on Sheri I doubt that either the original or final counts were exactly accurate. Also think some would have been born on the way and suspect a few lost strays left by explorers and early settlers may have joined the heard. None the less it does show cattle can be cared for better.
                Posting that yarn was irresistible fun while a simple question or two would have made the point.
                “there were no health examinations made”
                Why not?
                why drive cattle of unknown health with calves hard in the heat?

                00

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Siliggy,

              Quite aside from anything else I want to say this.

              Christians, at least those who understand their Christian heritage, consider themselves to be adopted Jews. And I would consider it a great honor to participate in the celebration of unleavened bread. Unfortunately I have never been invited by any of my Jewish friends and acquaintances and consider it a bit over the top to ask. But I thought you’d like to know why the slightest antisemitism bothers me so much.

              Roy

              00

              • #

                Roy I have no involvment with orthodox Jews other than having worked with and for some on occasion. I once had a good friend who was Jewish by birth but Catholic by religion. There are many other groups and types of un affiliated people who do these things as a result of study and a desire not to conform with a wrong way. Some of these people form into small groups that are occasionally very badly governed. It is a terrible thing bad government. Think twice if you do get an invite from some of them. 21 years ago one such group were the branch Davidians. Their badly governed observance of Passover and unleavened bread that year was globally televised as it confronted another form of bad governance.

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Siliggy,

                Thanks for the clarification.

                The Branch Davidians were indeed a cult. Their end, however was the result of both their and the Department of Justice’s taking hard line positions from which neither could back down without losing face. Voila, instant violence that could have been avoided. They were accused of legitimate firearms violations so the FBI had no choice but to go after them. But once their compound in Waco was surrounded the FBI could have just waited for hunger to drive them to surrender or they would have maybe committed suicide or tried it, which wouldn’t be a desirable end by any means but far better than what happened. We owe that debacle and the Elian Gonzalez debacle to Janet Reno, an Attorney General too anxious to please her boss, Bill Clinton and too lacking in good judgment to get the thing right in either case. A fence post would have had better judgment.

                My Jewish friends and acquaintances are all quite solid.

                00

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                Siliggy
                A mere technicality!
                When the Pharoah sent his troops after them what do you suppose was the purpose? Were they intended to convey the message that their flight from Egypt was to be congratulated? Or do you suppose if the waters had not parted the Egyptians would have bid them Bon Voyage?

                00

              • #

                Rod
                Pharoah seems to have lead his troops to their deaths rather than sending them.
                The purpose certainly looks to have been an unfinished attempt to change the law outside of juristiction. That act became irrelevant due to the people trusting a far superior climate and weather prediction service by then. I suspect the other crowd would have died if they divided into rival camps and fought each other. Could the enemies of the U.S. be manipulating to divide and conquer now? “No one wins a war” can be followed by foreign peace keepers after the inevitable result of lawlessness.

                00

            • #
              Rod Stuart

              It seems that the argument put forward by Mark D had the stamp of the Supreme Court on it 20 years ago.

              00

    • #

      Roy, sorry, I can’t find any peer-reviewed, skeptic approved papers with the information. I did find this on the Blaze. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/18/is-the-note-given-to-some-ukrainian-jews-telling-them-to-register-a-fake/ It was reported by NBC yesterday, but again, MSM.

      10

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Sheri,

        Let’s not get ridiculous over this. I’ve been either looking over JoNova or busy with other things all morning. So I could have easily missed something.

        As I said, I’ll be very happy if it’s a hoax. :-)

        10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Roy,

      What we are witnessing is a confusing multilateral battle between various oligarchies in Ukraine, Russia, Crimea, Moldova, and Transnistria. The politics of geography being secondary to the battle for economic control of various key resources.

      Many of the oligarchies have a Jewish heritage, even if they no longer subscribe to the religious practice.

      “The push to register Jews in parts of Ukraine”, may be part of the propaganda fog created by this activity.

      00

  • #
    Al in Cranbrook

    Just came across this, some peer reviewed weekend levity…

    http://fundermental.blogspot.ca/2011/05/peer-review-changing-lightbulb.html?spref=tw

    :-)

    40

  • #
    Raven

    Easter – time for some Easter Science.

    I was out for a drive on the weekend and called in to a small country town. We had a scrumptious lunch in the old pub and later wandered through the town to soak up some local atmosphere.

    As we walked a little further, I noticed a six lane highway going right through the centre of town – and traffic; you wouldn’t believe the traffic. How odd it looked and very out of place in a country town
    I managed to pull aside one of the locals, Jimmy, and quizzed him about what was going on.
    “It’s the Easter egg hunt”, he informed me.

    Apparently, hoards people are tripping off down this highway looking for Easter eggs – hence the need for six lanes. There’s also a smaller road running off this main highway and according to our man, people go looking for easter eggs down there as well.

    Now, Jimmy says that about 97% of egg hunters use the highway and only about 3% use the older narrow road.
    Jimmy tells me that people return from the highway and quite often find some chocolate. The pieces are sort of square and oddly shaped; not really what they’re looking for. The real prize is the mythical large chocolate egg – the finest Swiss chocolate, I’m told, and it’ll be awarded to some lucky punter by the Easter Bunny. How cool is that going to be.

    Similarly, the 3% using the old road also find their share of chocolate but this crowd don’t seem to be looking all that hard. Just between you, me and the gatepost, I think they’re looking for something else.

    Later that afternoon, while sitting in a cafe and enjoying an espresso watching the frantic comings and goings, it occurred to me that it didn’t much matter which road people favoured. Everyone seemed to find a roughly equal amount of chocolate, even though the consensus decidedly favoured the six lane highway as the obvious place to find the Easter Bunny and, of course, that coveted chocolate ellipse.

    Actually, if we think about it, given the six lane highway has been covered so many times and by so many people with no success, if anything, we’d have to think this magnificent, but elusive egg must be somewhere else. But I digress . . .

    Anyway, Jimmy came by later and we invited him to join us for coffee.
    “How’s the Easter egg hunt going?” I asked.

    “It’s actually going very well” Jimmy assured me.
    “In fact, after a couple of minor setbacks, we’re increasingly confident we’ll find this egg. It’s just a matter of narrowing down some of the search parameters”

    I smiled at Jimmy and gazed out the window towards all those egg hunting people.
    What is one supposed to do in these situations.
    I just didn’t have the heart to tell Jimmy the Easter Bunny doesn’t exist.

    71

  • #
    Andrew

    Anybody catch the comments in WUWT where some Guardian journo claimed to “follow the online climate debate closer than most” but had never heard of JoNova OR WUWT?? (And presumably never read smears of both in the warmists blogs either.)

    32

  • #
    scaper...

    It is saddening to hear of the Sherpas being killed by the avalanche in the Khumbu Icefall early in the climbing season.

    I celebrated my twentieth birthday at the base camp and frolicked amongst the icefall. Hearing avalanches was a daily occurrence, some so close the ground under my feet trembled. Saw one come down the other side of the valley I was in when I was up 16,000 feet. Thousands of tonnes of snow and ice rolling down the mountain crashing into the river below.

    If you want to see the view from the top of the world click here.

    30

  • #
  • #
    Mark D.

    It looks like the Screaming Red Thumber has set his mighty tool upon us! Oh smite us not Screaming Red Thumber!

    Ah what am I saying. Stick your red thumb where the sun doesn’t shine Mr. RED Thumber

    21

  • #
    Neville

    New study shows a 31% deceleration of SLR since 2002. Where is that CAGW?

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/new-paper-finds-global-sea-level-rise.html

    10

  • #
    handjive

    He’s Back!

    And he is seeing conspiracies everywhere:

    SATURDAY, APR 19, 2014
    “The reason ‘consensus’ has not appeared to work in society at large to date isn’t because it’s ineffective — it’s because there is a well-funded countermovement out there that takes every opportunity to mislead the public into thinking that there isn’t a consensus,” Lewandowsky told me, in response to this argument.

    10

    • #
      Mark D.

      Poor Lew, he’s going to work himself up to a full blown psychosis if he keeps it up.

      Fortunately, hardly anyone will read the Salon writeup it is long and boring and short on realideations.

      10

    • #
      handjive

      Why has consensus failed?

      Looking for a reason, I thought I would be lazy & ‘oogle’ a pre-compiled list of known “failed consensus” i.e. (sun orbit earth, stomach ulcers, cholesterol statins, flat earth)

      About 22,600,000 results in (0.24 seconds)

      And Lewandowsky thinks the Koch Brothers is not a conspiracy ideation?

      Some one hand him a mirror!

      10

  • #

    No No No!

    Some of you may have heard there’s new educational standards being introduced into American schools. It’s called Common Core.

    I share daily emails with three friends in the U.S. They’ll send me ‘stuff’ and vice versa, more coming from their side than mine, naturally.

    I received this one this morning, one of the occasional links to Alex Jones’ Infowars site.

    Read how Common Core is teaching Maths to children.

    Oh dear!

    What has the World come to?

    You Won’t Believe The Method That Common Core Is Using To Teach Our Kids Subtraction

    Tony.

    40

    • #
      Mark D.

      What has the World come to?

      It is Easter time Tony. Your question has been asked before and covered in a history book called the Bible. Sodom and Gomorrah come to mind and our weaknesses as humans is explored in various parables as told by the One who’s death and resurrection is the event du’jour

      Sorry if I’ve taken this off of your intended topic.

      00

    • #
      Reed Coray

      Hey, I’m with Common Core 100% [or in our way of reasoning, that's 11 - 3 + 32 + 3 - 32 - 4*3 + 100]. In fact, I’m demanding that the first grade curriculum at our local school include Peano’s axioms. Students who cannot master “successors” and “induction” will “go to jail without passing GO” and be prevented from entering the second grade. In the USA, a consequence of this policy will be an almost 100% reduction in the number of grade 2 through 12 teachers. This, however, is a negative because the teacher’s unions will have to cut back their donations to the Democrat party. That’s OK. They’ll figure some other way to fill the liberal coffers. /SARC

      00

    • #
      Reed Coray

      If Common Core’s teaching methodology is applied to teaching a child to walk (i.e., if as part of teaching a child to walk, the child is taught the nature and behavior of muscles and the principles the human neural network uses to control those muscles), the staff of Monty Python’s Ministry Of Silly Walks will have lots of overtime.

      00

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Tony:

      ANSWERS from the Book of Common Core by Lewandowsky

      From where did the hairclip most likely come? It was left as part of the counter movement against Climate Change ( financed by you know the Koch Bros.).

      Why is Ruby so affected by the hairclip? The note written on a strand of hair has disinformation about the Consensus ( planted by you know who )

      How has the hairclip affected Ruby’s relationship? It has caused her to have doubts about climate change and the concensus

      00

  • #
    handjive

    TWO COWS ~{Matthias Varga}

    SOCIALISM
    You have 2 cows.
    You give one to your neighbour

    COMMUNISM
    You have 2 cows.
    The State takes both and gives you some milk

    FASCISM
    You have 2 cows.
    The State takes both and sells you some milk

    NAZISM
    You have 2 cows.
    The State takes both and shoots you

    BUREAUCRATISM
    You have 2 cows.
    The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then
    throws the milk away

    TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
    You have two cows.
    You sell one and buy a bull.
    Your herd multiplies, and the economy
    grows.
    You sell them and retire on the income

    ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND (VENTURE) CAPITALISM
    You have two cows.
    You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by
    your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption
    for five cows.
    The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.
    The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States , leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release.
    The public then buys your bull.

    SURREALISM
    You have two giraffes.
    The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

    AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
    You have two cows.
    You sell one, and force the other to
    produce the milk of four cows.
    Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why
    the cow has dropped dead.

    A GREEK CORPORATION
    You have two cows. You borrow lots of euros to build barns, milking sheds, hay stores, feed sheds,
    dairies, cold stores, abattoir, cheese unit and packing sheds.
    You still only have two cows.

    A FRENCH CORPORATION
    You have two cows.
    You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three
    cows.

    A JAPANESE CORPORATION
    You have two cows.
    You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce
    twenty times the milk.
    You then create a clever cow cartoon image called a Cowkimona and
    market it worldwide.

    AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
    You have two cows,
    but you don’t know where they are.
    You decide to have lunch.

    A SWISS CORPORATION
    You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.
    You charge the owners for storing them.

    A CHINESE CORPORATION
    You have two cows.
    You have 300 people milking them.
    You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.
    You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

    AN INDIAN CORPORATION
    You have two cows.
    You worship them.

    A BRITISH CORPORATION
    You have two cows.
    Both are mad.

    AN IRAQI CORPORATION
    Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
    You tell them that you have none.
    No-one believes you, so they bomb the ** out of you and invade your country.
    You still have no cows, but at least you are now a Democracy.

    AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
    You have two cows.
    Business seems pretty good.
    You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

    A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
    You have two cows.
    The one on the left looks very attractive…

    110

  • #
    pat

    the left/right CAGW “divide” stoked once again by Salon.com. (lengthy, read all if u can stomach it).

    CAGW sceptics as “mimophants” – “it is crucial for the public to understand this” says Lewandowsky:

    19 April: Salon.com: Paul Rosenberg: Why climate deniers are winning: The twisted psychology that overwhelms scientific consensus
    PHOTO CAPTION: Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh
    But the growing sophistication of the scientific community is a cause for continued hope — if they can accelerate their learning curve, and follow the right path. They no longer mistakenly assume that the facts can “speak for themselves,” and they’ve gotten much better at developing ways to communicate lucidly about complex challenges and uncertainty. But the entrenched denialist, do-nothing opposition is still winning when it comes to writing the checks.
    ***If that’s to change, Australian psychologist Stephan Lewandowsky will almost certainty be part of the reason why…
    The impact of worldview can informally be seen in partisan trend polling data on global warming evidence perception from Pew (graph here), as well as snapshot data showing Tea Party Republicans as significant outliers, with views significantly different from other Republicans, whose views are surprisingly close to average…
    Conspiracist Ideation — Better than Science at Playing Its Own Game…
    The second paper touched a real nerve, producing a great deal of conspiracy theorizing about Lewandowsky himself, his co-authors and others. So, naturally, being a good scientist, Lewandowsky decided to study that as well. The result was a third paper, “Recursive Fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation,” which was subsequently retracted by the publisher, following sharp attacks from climate contrarians — even though the publisher found nothing scientifically or ethically wrong with the paper. Britain’s notoriously lax libel law (changed just this year) was supposedly the reason. Following a further retreat by the publisher, three editors with the journal resigned. Nuccitelli provides a good account in his column (as does Lewandowsky himself, here), where he notes that this is just the latest example of a pattern that’s played out before…
    (Lewandowsky) “Deniers will claim in the same breath (or within a few minutes) that (a) temperatures cannot be measured reliably, (b) there is definitely no warming, (c) the warming isn’t caused by humans, and (d) we are doing ourselves a favor by warming the planet. The four propositions are incoherent because they cannot all be simultaneously true — and yet deniers will utter all those in close succession all the time.”…
    When I asked about other aspects of conspiracist ideation, I questioned whether it didn’t reflect a quest for meaning, at the expense of information, along the lines of the mythos/logos distinction drawn by Karen Armstrong in “The Battle For God.” Lewandowsky agreed…
    As a further refinement, I noted that conspiracist ideation thrives on creating specific malicious others as a particuarly powerful form of meaning-making. “Yes, absolutely,” Lewandowsky responded. “There is this tension between ‘victim’ and ‘hero’ within the conspiracist worldview that leads to those contradictory positions. On the one hand (the ‘hero’ frame) it is permissible to accuse scientists of fraud and harass them, but by the same token (‘victim’ frame) scientists must do nothing to cast aspersions on the accusers or to defend themselves. Arthur Koestler has referred to those people as ‘mimophants.’ It is crucial for the public to understand this.”…
    (Paul Rosenberg is a California-based writer/activist, senior editor for Random Lengths News, and a columnist for Al Jazeera English)
    http://www.salon.com/2014/04/19/why_climate_deniers_are_winning_the_twisted_psychology_that_overwhelms_scientific_consensus/

    00

  • #
    pat

    TonyfromOz brings up Common Core Curriculum. related:

    19 April: ABC AM: Greens hit back at Brandis’ comments on climate change
    Acting leader of The Greens, Adam Bandt: I mean, if someone said ‘two plus two equals five’, would you insist on giving them as much airtime in the media as someone who said ‘two plus two equals four’? That’s in effect what the country’s highest law officer is arguing, and it’s very worrying…
    ABC’s Will Ockenden: In your example of ‘two plus two equals five’, isn’t the free speech element an argument here saying ‘yes you’re wrong, but here’s why’, rather than just shouting them down?…
    WILL OCKENDEN: Should people be able to, though, nonetheless be able to say that climate change doesn’t exist?
    ADAM BANDT: Well people are saying that, and they’re saying it at the moment and they’re wrong. The science community is now essentially speaking with one voice.
    To say someone without science training can somehow simply on a free speech basis say that they’re all wrong is a very feudal way of thinking…
    http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2014/s3988495.htm

    2 + 2 = 5 has a history:

    Wikipedia: 2 + 2 = 5
    The phrase “two plus two equals five” (“2 + 2 = 5″) is a slogan used in many different forms of media, but more specifically in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four as an example of an obviously false dogma one may be required to believe, similar to other obviously false slogans by the Party in the novel…
    In Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s Notes from Underground, the protagonist implicitly supports the idea of two times two making five, spending several paragraphs considering the implications of rejecting the statement “two times two makes four.”
    His purpose is not ideological, however. Instead, he proposes that it is the free will to choose or reject the logical as well as the illogical that makes mankind human. He adds: “I admit that twice two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, twice two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing too.”…ETC
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5

    in the US, critics claim the Common Core Curriculum is teaching maths students the Orwellian 2 + 2 = 5. in fairness, a little context & qualification at Glenn Beck’s The Blaze website:

    VIDEO: Aug 2013: The Blaze: Madeleine Morgenstern: 4 x 3 = 11? Did School Official Really Say It Doesn’t Matter if Students Get Simple Math Wrong Under Common Core?
    Several news outlets have seized on remarks made last month by Grayslake, Ill. Community Consolidated School District 46 curriculum coordinator Amanda August in which she said it matters less if students answer 3 x 4 incorrectly as long as they can explain how they arrived at their final answer.
    But the 43-second clip of August’s response being highlighted, in which she explains the “different ways” students will be taught to do problems under Common Core, does not show the first part of her answer in which she said students should “come up with the same answer no matter how they do” the problem.
    The truncated clip features August’s statement: “But even under the new Common Core if even if they said 3 x 4 was 11, if they were able to explain their reasoning and explain how they came up with their answer, really in words and oral explanations and they showed it in a picture but they just got the final number wrong? We’re more focusing on the how and the why.”…
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/19/rumor-check-4-x-3-11-did-school-official-really-say-it-doesnt-matter-if-students-get-simple-math-wrong-under-common-core/

    00

    • #
      Lord Jim

      Adam Bandt: I mean, if someone said ‘two plus two equals five’, would you insist on giving them as much airtime in the media as someone who said ‘two plus two equals four’? That’s in effect what the country’s highest law officer is arguing, and it’s very worrying…

      2+2=4 is an a priori necessary truth. ‘Climate science’ otoh is an a posteriori empirical discipline: what it thinks ‘true’ is, like other sciences, only probable, never necessary and subject to revision in light of better evidence.

      Needless to say, in drawing the analogy between climate science and 2+2=4 Bandt appears to be saying that he thinks climate science is a kind of undeniable necessary truth. Not really surprising, I suppose.

      00

    • #
      Angry

      Something to be said for Home Schooling……….

      00

  • #
    pat

    last month Indiana became the first State to opt out of Common Core; at least 15 other States are considering opting out, & no doubt more will follow, despite presidential hopefuls, Hillary Clinton & Jeb Bush, jointly praising Common Core when they appeared together recently at a Higher Education Conference in Texas:

    24 March: CBS: AP: Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton Continue To Cross Paths Amid 2016 Speculation
    http://houston.cbslocal.com/2014/03/24/jeb-bush-hillary-clinton-continue-to-cross-paths-amid-2016-speculation/

    Feb 2013: WaPo: Valerie Strauss: Why I oppose Common Core standards: Ravitch
    Education historian Diane Ravitch, the leading voice in the movement opposing corporate-based school reform, has for several years said she has no definitive opinion on the Common Core State Standards. Now she has come out against them, in this post, which appeared today on her blog…
    Diane Ravitch: …I have come to the conclusion that the Common Core standards effort is fundamentally flawed by the process with which they have been foisted upon the nation.
    The Common Core standards have been adopted in 46 states and the District of Columbia without any field test…
    President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan often say that the Common Core standards were developed by the states and voluntarily adopted by them. This is not true. They were developed by an organization called Achieve and the National Governors Association, both of which were generously funded by the Gates Foundation. There was minimal public engagement in the development of the Common Core…
    ​In fact, it was well understood by states that they would not be eligible for Race to the Top funding ($4.35 billion) unless they adopted the Common Core standards. Federal law prohibits the U.S. Department of Education from prescribing any curriculum, but in this case the Department figured out a clever way to evade the letter of the law. Forty-six states and the District of Columbia signed on, not because the Common Core standards were better than their own, but because they wanted a share of the federal cash…
    The former Texas state commissioner of education, Robert Scott, has stated for the record that he was urged to adopt the Common Core standards before they were written…
    I must say too that it was offensive when Joel Klein and Condoleeza Rice issued a report declaring that our nation’s public schools were so terrible that they were a “very grave threat to our national security.” Their antidote to this allegedly desperate situation: the untried Common Core standards plus charters and vouchers…
    Now that David Coleman, the co-lead author of the Common Core standards, has become president of the College Board, we can expect that the SAT will be aligned to the standards. No one will escape their reach, whether they attend public or private school.
    Is there not something unseemly about placing the fate and the future of American education in the hands of one man?
    I hope for the sake of the nation that the Common Core standards are great and wonderful. I wish they were voluntary, not mandatory…
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/02/26/why-i-oppose-common-core-standards-ravitch/

    24 March 2014: WaPo: Valerie Strauss: Ravitch: The best reason to oppose the Common Core Standards
    ***The growing opposition to the Common Core State Standards does not all stem from the same criticisms or even from the same political wing. Included in the anti-Core camp are conservatives, moderates and liberals who don’t offer identical critiques of the initiative. Some don’t like it academically; some don’t like it politically. In this post, education historian and activist Diane Ravitch, the leader of the national movement that opposes corporate-influenced school reform, offers what she says is the most compelling reason to oppose the Common Core standards…
    Diane Ravitch: Across the nation, parents and educators are raising objections to the Common Core standards, and many states are reconsidering whether to abandon them as well as the federally funded tests that accompany them. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Roundtable vocally support them, yet the unease continues and pushback remains intense…
    The process by which they were created was so fundamentally flawed that these “standards” should have no legitimacy.
    Setting national academic standards is not something done in stealth by a small group of people, funded by one source, and imposed by the lure of a federal grant in a time of austerity…
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/03/24/ravitch-the-best-reason-to-oppose-the-common-core-standards/

    00

  • #
    pat

    despite many from across the political spectrum being outraged by various aspects of the Common Core Curriculum, you can depend on members of the MSM to frame the opposition as anti-Obama, & continue to push it as a “wedge issue” (sound familiar to CAGW sceptics?):

    19 April: NYT: Jonathan Martin: Republicans See Political Wedge in Common Core
    A once little-known set of national educational standards introduced in 44 states and the District of Columbia with the overwhelming support of Republican governors, the Common Core has incited intense resistance on the right and prompted some in the party to reverse field and join colleagues who believe it will lead to a federal takeover of schools…
    Unlike the health care law, the Common Core retains bipartisan support and has the backing of powerful elements of the business community…
    Its most outspoken Republican defender, former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, is also the most talked-about potential presidential candidate among mainstream party leaders and donors…
    Chris Christie of New Jersey, but theirs is becoming a small club…
    Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana signed legislation last month that made his state the first to opt out of the Common Core after having adopted it. Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin said he wanted his state to establish its own educational goals. And Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana suggested that he might use executive authority to go around the State Legislature if lawmakers did not withdraw from the group of states developing the standardized test associated with the Common Core…
    ***The Republican revolt against the Common Core can be traced to President Obama’s embrace of it, particularly his linking the adoption of similar standards to states’ eligibility for federal education grants and to waivers from No Child Left Behind, the national education law enacted by President George W. Bush.
    It underlines the ascendance of a brand of conservatism notably different from that of the most recent President Bush. Less than 15 years after No Child Left Behind passed with just 34 House Republicans opposed to it, the conservative center of gravity is shifting toward a state-centric approach to education…
    Some other former Republican governors who pushed the adoption of the Common Core agree with Mr. Bush. “There is a great deal of paranoia in the country today,” said Sonny Perdue, a former governor of Georgia, who was also instrumental in creating the program. “It’s the two P’s, polarization and paranoia.”…
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/us/politics/republicans-see-political-wedge-in-common-core.html?_r=0

    00

  • #

    Thanks to a daring act of bravery by a nuclear geochemist, Dr. KAZUO KURODA, sixty-nine years ago in the closing days of WWII:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2170881.stm

    I believe the Puppetmaster of Climategate was correctly identified today on Steven Goddard’s discussion of Climategate and “What should we be striving for now?”

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/04/19/a-different-view-of-extreme-weather-from-1975/

    Fifteen years after WWII ended, Dr. Paul Kazuo Kuroda became my research advisor and assigned me the task of figuring out “The origin of the solar system and its elements.”

    Today I am convinced Kuroda already knew the answer when he assigned my research topic:

    The core of the Sun made our chemical elements and birthed the solar system in an explosion powered by the same nuclear force in the cores of Uranium atoms that destroyed Hiroshima !

    01

  • #
    PeterK

    I was surfin the net and looked in on some of the progressive blogs to get a laugh and came upon this at ‘desmogblog’

    http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/04/14/tax-breaks-australia-fund-climate-misinformation-book

    It appears that there is no shortage of verbiage to denigrate and name call numerous people.

    10

    • #
      Simon(:-J

      Did you get the Pop-Up, chasing you around the screen trying to interest you in Torcello’s fan mail ? Horrific.

      10

    • #
      CJ

      When you close the Pop-Up it’s back in just a couple minutes.
      Not unlike that grub Readfern. Why did you have to bring him up ? and at Easter too ?

      10

  • #
    Carbon500

    Happy Easter fellow deniers and threats to the planet!
    For entertainment, here are some observations.
    According to the NOAA record via Dr.Pieter Tans I have before me, the first CO2 level to come out of Mauna Loa in 1959 was 313.26ppm.
    In 2012 it was 391.01.
    That’s an increase of 24.8%. Let’s call it 25%.
    According to the UK’s Central England Temperature record (CET) the average temperature for 1959 was 10.48 degrees Centigrade.
    In 2012 the average temperature was 9.70.
    So – a 25% CO2 increase since 1959, but the temperature’s much the same as it has been over many years, hovering around 10 degrees.
    ‘Nuff said – come to the UK to avoid the climate disaster which is happening. Honestly,yes, really. It’s happening. Well, alright, maybe not right now, but in the future. Sometime……we need to study this…..more money please…..

    00

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      The poet Heine said in Victorian times that “when Armageddon came he wanted to be in England, because everything seems to get delayed there for a 100 years”.

      Perhaps your grant application should be Timing of Global Warming and the Heine effect?

      10

  • #
    ROM

    The JoNova caravan has moved on so not many will read this item but it could have some very impressive outcomes in the longer term.

    The Japanese have developed a really nice twist to the gas that makes that sweet bubbly stuff we enjoy drinking.
    It’s called CO2 and I wonder how many alarmists enjoy their soft drinks or even champagne or what ever the French allow everybody else to call it today with all that Earth destroying, ever so dangerous, essential to life gas permeating right through all those sweet soft drinks and that bubbly alcohol which even the greens use to celebrate their little victories.

    But the Japanese have gone quite a bit further than CO2 laden soft drinks.

    They are now experimenting with using Super Critical CO2 for fracking for oil and gas.

    CO2 is a gas at room temperatures and pressures and goes straight to a solid ie; deposition at one atmosphere pressure and -78.5 C

    If you crank up the pressure to 73 atmospheres or a bit over 1000 PSI and a temperature of surprisingly, about 304.25 Kelvin or just under 30C then CO2 goes into what is called a super critical fluid / gas state .

    Super critical CO2 is being experimented with as a working fluid in some of the big gas fueled turbine power generators and can be used in all sorts of applications as a 1000 psi is not a particularly high pressure in heavy engineering systems.

    Now the Japanese have thrown in a real curve ball which will have the alarmists and greens and assorted leftist anti development, back to the caves, intelligentsia in quite a tizz.
    They are experimenting with using super critical CO2 as fracking liquid instead of water to frack the shale rock to extract the gas and oil through the fracking process. As this fracking process uses up to 9000 psi to crack open / fracture the shale rock, it should be no real problem to use super critical CO2 as the fracking liquid instead of water.

    So ;
    1 / CO2 is sequestered underground in the shale rock seams through the fracking process never to be seen again.
    As the alarmists greens leftist intelligentsia all demand that sequestering of CO2 be implemented immediately here we have a nice little bit of brand new technology to do just that as well as extracting oil and gas to keep the economy running.
    And do it all making very good use of the CO2 and in doing so, do it at a profit without costing a third of the power generating costs to sequester a few tonnes of CO2 as has been the economics of all the other now immensely costly, grossly inefficient and now mostly abandoned attempts at sequestering CO2

    2 / As the alarmists all raise extreme alarmism through their claims that the fracking process requires immense amounts of water which when returned to the surface has to be expensively cleaned of a number of not particularly potent chemicals before it can be returned to natural sources, CO2 will replace the water usage in fracking or a large percentage of it.

    3 / If CO2 ever did show up in well water it would be some what like using a soft drink or as the americans would say, having soda water on tap all the time . And further the CO2 would just boil off the water a la flat soft drinks.
    I wonder what bubbly fresh milk straight from the cow tastes like?

    So is there anything not to like.
    Well not really!
    We get rid of vast amounts of CO2 .
    It doesn’t affect anything as it is a totally natural atmospheric gas.
    It would not affect or contaminate water supplies and we still get our oil and gas to keep everybody including the hypocritical green cult in the power hungry life style they expect and demand as their right.
    Its cheap and readily available and there’s a surplus of it if you believe the alarmists.

    [ Actually plant life thinks there is a somewhat significant shortage of CO2 and plant life has demonstrated it could use a lot more CO2 if it was available ]

    Its going to be interesting to see how the alarmists react to this one but my bet would be that as completely usual, total knuckle dragging, slacked jaw negativity in every possible way as usual will be the alarmists / green reaction.
    With the depressed, fear created psychology that pervades the whole of the alarmist green cult today, they have constantly demonstrated and shown that they are now psychologically incapable of any other reaction

    _______________________________
    From the Yomiuri Shimbun

    Kyoto Univ. develops new shale gas method

    A Kyoto University research team developed a new basic technology to extract shale gas trapped deep underground by injecting carbon dioxide into shale bedrock instead of water, The Yomiuri Shimbun has learned.

    The research team said it plans to start a large-scale substantiative experiment to verify the technology in autumn, aiming for practical use of the technology within several years.

    In addition to securing shale gas, a new energy resource, the newly developed technology is also expected to help combat global warming as it will confine CO2 underground.

    A common method to extract shale gas is to frack hard shale bedrock by injecting pressurized water into shale formations. The more finely cracked the bedrock is, the more shale gas can be obtained. However, making ideal cracks in shale formations by injecting water is difficult because the liquid has a high viscosity.

    According to the research team led by Kyoto University Prof. Tsuyoshi Ishida and Assistant Prof. Chen Youqing, CO2 becomes a “supercritical” fluid if it is heated to 31.1 C or more and subjected to pressure of at least 73 atmospheres. A supercritical fluid is very smooth and has properties midway between a liquid and gas.

    The research team confirmed that supercritical CO2 injected into shale bedrock fractured the bedrock and created finer cracks more widely in comparison to the use of pressurized water.

    Last autumn, Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation, an auxiliary organization of the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry, designated the development of this technology as a research project.

    In October, the university research team will start conducting a substantiative experiment to fracture granite, the hardness of which is similar to that of shale, in a hot spring area in Toyama Prefecture.

    20

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      ROM:

      A very interesting post. I expect the alarmists to behave exactly as you predict, probably demanding that no CO2 come back up from underground.

      O/T but supercritical CO2 has uses in Industry as a solvent e.g. de-caffeinating coffee. The extracting “solution” is then allowed to evaporate leaving dry caffeine.

      00

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    A bit of a shock. Serious recanting from 2 dyed-in-the-wool ecoloons, and on BBC Radio 4, the UK warmist’s listening of choice. All posted on bishop Hill. “Alex Cull’ is a regular there.

    Alex Cull’ posted Unthreaded:

    Here’s the bit in “Start the Week” on BBC Radio 4, that jamesp was referring to, earlier.

    James Lovelock : Can I ask you a question? Don’t you think we all got badly misled, about seven or eight years ago, by looking at the ice-core data that had come back from the Russian and French scientists? That showed wonderfully just what the climate was, and what the atmosphere was, back through nearly the last million years.

    Joanna Haigh : Yes.

    James Lovelock : Certainly the last half million years. And an awful lot of scientists and people like me were, I can remember, getting together and said “Ah, there’s going to be a complete simple linear relationship between CO2 and temperature, over half a million years. That’s good enough for us! If we can predict with considerable accuracy what the CO2 is going to be in 2050, for example, knowing the industrial outputs all round the world, we won’t be far wrong. Therefore we can say what the temperature’s going to be.” And I think an awful lot of us got led up the creek, that way. Maybe you didn’t.

    Joanna Haigh : There was some misunderstanding of that record, certainly. And there is a very close correlation, on hundreds of thousands of year timescales, between carbon dioxide and surface temperature. But these changes are actually coming about because of changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, so it’s the amount of radiation and heating coming from the sun that’s causing those changes. And the carbon dioxide is happening as a response.

    Real science making inroads into Climastrology. whatever next?

    30

  • #

    I have no more time for arguing over the lack of need for evidence in politics (interesting since skeptics call global warming politics), the lack of need for abiding by the law, definations therof, etc. Apologies to Mark D if he had further comments as I am simply out of time.

    I leave this thought to those who support Bundy:

    A person leaves on a month long cruise and fails to lock the back door. A homeless man moves in because no one is using the house. Upon the return of the homeowner, the correct thing to do is:
    1. Leave the man alone–he’s not hurting anyone and the house has enough room for all the family and the no-longer-homeless guy
    2. Take the man to a homeless shelter
    2a. If he refuses to go, the owner should not call the police because this is a civil matter. Keep negotiating ways to try and get the homeless man to leave.
    2b. The owner should call the police because the man is trespassing and using property he does not own.

    Adieu.

    00

    • #
      Mark F

      Um, squatters’ rights?

      00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      The homeowner should immediately call the police and have the homeless trespasser arrested. On the other hand, if the homeowner lets the man live there for 10, 15, 20 years, he has no case, even if he’s told the man to leave 100, or even 1,000 times without result.

      00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        So let’s replay Bundy. After losing the first court case the BLM should have taken immediate action to eject Bundy and his property (the cattle) from federal land and made it stick.

        Their delay has cost them all their credibility and brings the stinking smell of politics into the matter.

        Why is this so hard to understand?

        00

  • #
    Mark D.

    I’m double posting this so it follows properly

    I don’t have time for this either. I’ll make one last comment about language.

    The dictionary definition of the word “crime” is broad enough to include any offense. As a matter of practice (at least where I come from) the word is not applied to low administrative offenses like parking tickets speeding tickets failure to pay taxes on time etc. If it were, we’d nearly all be criminals and the value of the word is lost. You could just substitute “humans”. (An interesting essay could be developed on just how many laws we live oppressed by perhaps).

    Bundy did not “trespass” on these lands they’re already open to public use. A better analogy would be a person that lets his dog(s) run free where there is a leash law. Therefore your story about the homeless man trespassing is not analogous. Another strawman.

    Choose to call Bundy a criminal. You have a right to say what you want even if it connotes an incorrect biased meaning.

    Incorrect biased meanings are what this blog is all about.

    00