Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
1 in 3 species is helped by climate change
23 views
Skip to first unread message
1/3 of land cooling
May 26, 2012, 7:26:56 PM5/26/12
to
A global-warming winner: Once-rare butterfly thrives
Biologists: 1 in 3 species is helped by climate change
by Seth Borenstein - May. 25, 2012 09:31 PM
Associated Press
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/05/25/20120525global-warming-winner-once-rare-butterfly-thrives.html
----------------------------------
WASHINGTON - Global warming is rescuing the once-rare brown Argus butterfly, scientists say.
Man-made climate change is threatening the existence of many species, such as the giant polar bear. But in the case of the small British butterfly, it took a species in trouble and made it thrive.
It's all about food. Over about 25 years, the butterfly went from being in trouble to pushing north in Britain where it found a veritable banquet.
Now, the butterfly lives in twice as large an area as it once did and is not nearly threatened, according to a study in today's issue of the journal Science.
Decades ago, the brown Argus "was sort of a special butterfly that you would have to go to a special place to see, and now, it's a butterfly you can see in regular farmland or all over the place," said study co-author Richard Fox, an ecologist at Butterfly Conservation, a science and advocacy group in Britain.
Global warming's helping the brown Argus is unusual compared with other species, and that's why scientists are studying it more, said study co-author Jane Hill, a professor of ecology at the University of York.
Biologists expect climate change to create winners and losers in species. Stanford University biologist Terry Root, who was not part of this study, estimated that for every winner like the brown Argus, there are three loser species, like the cuckoo bird in Europe. Hill agreed that it is probably a 3-1 ratio of climate change losers to winners.
As the world warms, the key interactions between species break down because predator and prey may not change habitats at the same time, meaning some species will move north to cooler climates and won't find enough to eat, Root said.
"There are just so many species that are going to go extinct," Root said.
What makes the brown Argus different is that it found something new to eat, something even better than its old food, the less common rockrose plant, Hill said. The new food is a geranium, and it is more widespread.
"It's almost like the whole of the buffet is now open to it," Hill said.
Biologists: 1 in 3 species is helped by climate change
by Seth Borenstein - May. 25, 2012 09:31 PM
Associated Press
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/05/25/20120525global-warming-winner-once-rare-butterfly-thrives.html
----------------------------------
WASHINGTON - Global warming is rescuing the once-rare brown Argus butterfly, scientists say.
Man-made climate change is threatening the existence of many species, such as the giant polar bear. But in the case of the small British butterfly, it took a species in trouble and made it thrive.
It's all about food. Over about 25 years, the butterfly went from being in trouble to pushing north in Britain where it found a veritable banquet.
Now, the butterfly lives in twice as large an area as it once did and is not nearly threatened, according to a study in today's issue of the journal Science.
Decades ago, the brown Argus "was sort of a special butterfly that you would have to go to a special place to see, and now, it's a butterfly you can see in regular farmland or all over the place," said study co-author Richard Fox, an ecologist at Butterfly Conservation, a science and advocacy group in Britain.
Global warming's helping the brown Argus is unusual compared with other species, and that's why scientists are studying it more, said study co-author Jane Hill, a professor of ecology at the University of York.
Biologists expect climate change to create winners and losers in species. Stanford University biologist Terry Root, who was not part of this study, estimated that for every winner like the brown Argus, there are three loser species, like the cuckoo bird in Europe. Hill agreed that it is probably a 3-1 ratio of climate change losers to winners.
As the world warms, the key interactions between species break down because predator and prey may not change habitats at the same time, meaning some species will move north to cooler climates and won't find enough to eat, Root said.
"There are just so many species that are going to go extinct," Root said.
What makes the brown Argus different is that it found something new to eat, something even better than its old food, the less common rockrose plant, Hill said. The new food is a geranium, and it is more widespread.
"It's almost like the whole of the buffet is now open to it," Hill said.
kym horsell
May 26, 2012, 8:32:38 PM5/26/12
to
On Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:26:56 AM UTC+10, 1/3 of land cooling wrote:
> A global-warming winner: Once-rare butterfly thrives
...
> A global-warming winner: Once-rare butterfly thrives
Does GW have any bad effects, or is the magic all good?
--
At its lowest point, along the waterfront, Toronto is 76.5 meters
above sea level. At its highest point, it's 209 metres above sea level.
-- http://www.toronto.ca/toronto_facts/geography.htm
1/3 of land cooling
May 26, 2012, 8:52:21 PM5/26/12
to
That is what skeptics have been saying right from the start.
Alarmists, however, think that ONLY bad things can happen from AGW.
That is why they are called Alarmists.
-------------------------------
Could Alarmists please make it clear, whether thay are talking about GW, or AGW.
AGW is a form of GW, but there are many other types of GW.
Whey you say GW, but mean AGW, you are displaying you stupidity. And I wouldn't want people to think that you were stupid.
kym horsell
May 26, 2012, 8:59:42 PM5/26/12
to
helped if a certain other species was wiped off the map.
Hey. The mail list says 2 named storms before the season opens.
<http://www.examiner.com/article/tropical-storm-beryl-forms-of-sc-coast-with-45-mph-winds?goback=.gde_3359378_member_118705501>
--
[On statistical significance:]
If 60% of the oceans have no significant trend for surface temps, and
15% show a cooling trend, doesn't that mean that 75% of the oceans
show either no significant warming or cooling?
-- 1/3 of land cooling@auckland, 16 May 2012 02:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
gordo
May 26, 2012, 11:49:32 PM5/26/12
to
on land and in the sea. 1 in 3 species is wildly speculative and no
cite provided. Good post though.
gordo
May 26, 2012, 11:54:53 PM5/26/12
to
Alarmist is another one of those code words used by deniers. It
signals that whatever is being said the person is wrong because he is
an alarmist even though the person may be talking about the lack of
sunspot activity or the price of rice in China.
1/3 of land cooling
May 27, 2012, 12:14:03 AM5/27/12
to
if "alarmist" is another one of those code words,
is "denier" another one of those code words too?
What does using the code word "denier" say about the person using it.
I know what it means. Do you?
1/3 of land cooling
May 27, 2012, 12:59:25 AM5/27/12
to
Here is some more detail about the study, and the people that YOU say are making wildly speculative statements. They are no different from the scientists who make statements about AGW/global warming, except that this time you don't like what they say (does that make YOU a denier?).
----------------------------------------
A new study led by scientists in the Department of Biology at the University of York has shown how a butterfly has changed its diet, and consequently has sped northwards in response to climate change.
Their study is published in the latest issue of Science.
(Oh dear, they have published in a PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL. And Gordo still doesn't believe them)
Lead author PhD student Rachel Pateman, of the University of York’s Department of Biology and the NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology.
Co-author Chris Thomas, Professor of Conservation Biology at York.
Co-author David Roy, from the NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology.
Co-author Richard Fox, an ecologist at Butterfly Conservation, a science and advocacy group in Britain.
Co-author Professor Jane Hill, of the Department of Biology at the University of York.
-----------------------------------------------
Gordo says "1 in 3 species is wildly speculative and no cite provided".
The statement that "for every winner like the brown Argus, there are three loser species, like the cuckoo bird in Europe", came from Stanford University biologist Terry Root, who was not part of this study.
Co-author Professor Jane Hill, of the Department of Biology at the University of York, agreed that it is probably a 3-1 ratio of climate change losers to winners.
Why do you think that these scientists are being WILDLY SPECULATIVE, Gordo?
-----------------------------------------------
Does Gordo demand a higher standard of proof from real science, than he does from climate science? He seems to accept any old crap from climate science.
kym horsell
May 27, 2012, 1:23:53 AM5/27/12
to
Ahhh. So your 1 in 3 should be 1 in 4, then.
You almost got 90 in English.
How about arithmetic?
--
Accentuating the positive:
The Great Plague of London (1664-1666) was an outbreak of bubonic
plague that struck London and was particularly virulent during the hot
months of August and September of 1665. In one week, 7,165 people died
of the plague. The total number of deaths was about 70,000. The
disease was carried by fleas that lived on black rats. It was
generally incurable, and its effects were terrible -- fever and chills,
swelling of the lymph glands, eventual madness and death.
People had no idea what caused the disease or how to control its rapid course.
Victims were buried in large pits. Many people left London.
Among those fleeing was a young Isaac Newton.
The plague and subsequent Great Fire gave him the break he needed to
do some much-needed analysis of the Bible at his country estate. He
also invented calculus and looked at some pretty colored lights.
1/3 of land cooling
May 27, 2012, 2:03:54 AM5/27/12
to
Alarmists may have no qualms about altering other peoples text, but genuine skeptics do.
Since you asked about my arithmetic results, I will quickly describe my mathematics history.
At the end of high school, I got a "Junior Scholarship" in Mathematics, Chemistry, and Physics.
The first course that I did at University was very specialised, and didn't allow me to do any mathematics (but I did Physics, Biology, and "Chemistry Honours").
The second course that I did at University, I did 2 mathematics papers, one at stage 1 and 1 at stage 2. In the Stage 1 maths paper I was the only person to score 100% in the end of year exam. I got A+'s for both of the maths papers. I don't know if you would classify it as maths, but I also did several Econometics papers at Stage 2 and 3, which I got A+'s for.
kym horsell
May 27, 2012, 2:48:52 AM5/27/12
to
On Sunday, May 27, 2012 4:03:54 PM UTC+10, 1/3 of land cooling wrote:
...
For someone that spouted forth a thread based on "1/3 is not 30% it is 33%"
you sure are slack with the numbers when it comes to something
you are in favor of.
Lord Double Standard?
--
You have repeatedly complained about my nickname, and called it
stupid. If you think that a scientific fact is stupid, I suggest that
you find some proof that it is not true.
-- 2/3 of land not coo...@118.92.227.198, 23 May 2012 00:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
...
> > >
> > > Gordo says "1 in 3 species is wildly speculative and no cite provided".
> > >
> > > The statement that "for every winner like the brown Argus, there are three loser species, like the cuckoo bird in Europe", came from Stanford University biologist Terry Root, who was not part of this study.
> > ...
> <
> < Ahhh. So your 1 in 3 should be 1 in 4, then.
> <
> < You almost got 90 in English.
> <
> < How about arithmetic?
>
> It is normal practice for skeptics to NOT change somebody's text, when we quote them. Follow the link, which I provided so that you could check up on what I posted, and you will see that I have quoted them faithfully.
>
> Alarmists may have no qualms about altering other peoples text, but genuine skeptics do.
...
> > > Gordo says "1 in 3 species is wildly speculative and no cite provided".
> > >
> > > The statement that "for every winner like the brown Argus, there are three loser species, like the cuckoo bird in Europe", came from Stanford University biologist Terry Root, who was not part of this study.
> > ...
> <
> < Ahhh. So your 1 in 3 should be 1 in 4, then.
> <
> < You almost got 90 in English.
> <
> < How about arithmetic?
>
> It is normal practice for skeptics to NOT change somebody's text, when we quote them. Follow the link, which I provided so that you could check up on what I posted, and you will see that I have quoted them faithfully.
>
> Alarmists may have no qualms about altering other peoples text, but genuine skeptics do.
For someone that spouted forth a thread based on "1/3 is not 30% it is 33%"
you sure are slack with the numbers when it comes to something
you are in favor of.
Lord Double Standard?
--
You have repeatedly complained about my nickname, and called it
stupid. If you think that a scientific fact is stupid, I suggest that
you find some proof that it is not true.
-- 2/3 of land not coo...@118.92.227.198, 23 May 2012 00:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
1/3 of land cooling
May 27, 2012, 3:24:14 AM5/27/12
to
On Sunday, May 27, 2012 6:48:52 PM UTC+12, kym horsell wrote:
> On Sunday, May 27, 2012 4:03:54 PM UTC+10, 1/3 of land cooling wrote:
> ...
> > > >
> > > > Gordo says "1 in 3 species is wildly speculative and no cite provided".
> > > >
> > > > The statement that "for every winner like the brown Argus, there are three loser species, like the cuckoo bird in Europe", came from Stanford University biologist Terry Root, who was not part of this study.
> > > ...
> > <
> > < Ahhh. So your 1 in 3 should be 1 in 4, then.
> > <
> > < You almost got 90 in English.
> > <
> > < How about arithmetic?
> >
> > It is normal practice for skeptics to NOT change somebody's text, when we quote them. Follow the link, which I provided so that you could check up on what I posted, and you will see that I have quoted them faithfully.
> >
> > Alarmists may have no qualms about altering other peoples text, but genuine skeptics do.
> ...
<
< For someone that spouted forth a thread based on "1/3 is not 30% it is 33%"
< you sure are slack with the numbers when it comes to something
< you are in favor of.
<
< Lord Double Standard?
I never "spouted forth" a thread based on "1/3 is not 30% it is 33%".
> On Sunday, May 27, 2012 4:03:54 PM UTC+10, 1/3 of land cooling wrote:
> ...
> > > >
> > > > Gordo says "1 in 3 species is wildly speculative and no cite provided".
> > > >
> > > > The statement that "for every winner like the brown Argus, there are three loser species, like the cuckoo bird in Europe", came from Stanford University biologist Terry Root, who was not part of this study.
> > > ...
> > <
> > < Ahhh. So your 1 in 3 should be 1 in 4, then.
> > <
> > < You almost got 90 in English.
> > <
> > < How about arithmetic?
> >
> > It is normal practice for skeptics to NOT change somebody's text, when we quote them. Follow the link, which I provided so that you could check up on what I posted, and you will see that I have quoted them faithfully.
> >
> > Alarmists may have no qualms about altering other peoples text, but genuine skeptics do.
> ...
<
< For someone that spouted forth a thread based on "1/3 is not 30% it is 33%"
< you sure are slack with the numbers when it comes to something
< you are in favor of.
<
< Lord Double Standard?
I started a thread based on "1/3 is not 30%.
I NEVER MENTIONED 33%.
That is YOUR invention.
If I had written 1/3 as a percentage, I would have taken the accuracy to at least one decimal place (33.3%), possibly more.
You are almost as sloppy as Dawlish, if you think that 1/3 = 33% (this is a 1% error)
------------------------------------
The error in the article appears to be from Seth Borenstein.
I have read articles from Seth Borenstein before, and he is normally an Alarmist mouthpiece.
I expected that, if he made an error, it would be in favour of the Alarmists.
I guess that I should have followed my instinct, which is NEVER to trust an Alarmist.
I will not take responsibility for an Alarmist error.
kym horsell
May 27, 2012, 3:56:11 AM5/27/12
to
On Sunday, May 27, 2012 5:24:14 PM UTC+10, 1/3 of land cooling wrote:
...
...
> < For someone that spouted forth a thread based on "1/3 is not 30% it is 33%"
> < you sure are slack with the numbers when it comes to something
> < you are in favor of.
> <
> < Lord Double Standard?
>
> I never "spouted forth" a thread based on "1/3 is not 30% it is 33%".
>
> I started a thread based on "1/3 is not 30%.
>
> I NEVER MENTIONED 33%.
...
> < you sure are slack with the numbers when it comes to something
> < you are in favor of.
> <
> < Lord Double Standard?
>
> I never "spouted forth" a thread based on "1/3 is not 30% it is 33%".
>
> I started a thread based on "1/3 is not 30%.
>
> I NEVER MENTIONED 33%.
Evasion noted. Execution proceeds.
Sheep out.
--
Is Hobart harbour still significantly higher than sea level, or
have massive sea level rises elsewhere reduced the difference?
-- 2/3 of land not cooling@Auckland, 7 May 2012 13:14:34 -0700 (PDT)
RedAcer
May 27, 2012, 4:00:38 AM5/27/12
to
On 27/05/12 00:26, 1/3 of land cooling wrote:
> A global-warming winner: Once-rare butterfly thrives
>
> Biologists: 1 in 3 species is helped by climate change
What's this obsession with 1/3 there are lots of other fractions you
> A global-warming winner: Once-rare butterfly thrives
>
> Biologists: 1 in 3 species is helped by climate change
know. How about 279/957297 that's a good one.
Message has been deleted
1/3 of land cooling
May 27, 2012, 4:41:49 AM5/27/12
to
.<
.< What's this obsession with 1/3 there are lots of other fractions you
.< know. How about 279/957297 that's a good one.
Alarmists have trouble with numbers greater than 3.
R Kym Horsell
May 27, 2012, 4:49:22 AM5/27/12
to
1/3 of land cooling <skept...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 27, 2012 8:00:38 PM UTC+12, RedAcer wrote:
> Alarmists have trouble with numbers greater than 3.
So since 4 is bigger than 3... ? (Use the deduction Luke!)
--
If 60% of the oceans have no significant trend for surface temps, and
15% show a cooling trend, doesn't that mean that 75% of the oceans
show either no significant warming or cooling?
-- 2/3 of land not cooling@auckland, 16 May 2012 02:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
15% show a cooling trend, doesn't that mean that 75% of the oceans
show either no significant warming or cooling?
Tom P
May 27, 2012, 5:33:09 AM5/27/12
to
On 05/27/2012 01:26 AM, 1/3 of land cooling wrote:
> Stanford University biologist Terry Root, who was not part of this study, estimated that for every winner like the brown Argus, there are three loser species, like the cuckoo bird in Europe.
He says that out of any four species, one wins out, the other three lose
> Stanford University biologist Terry Root, who was not part of this study, estimated that for every winner like the brown Argus, there are three loser species, like the cuckoo bird in Europe.
out. That means that 3 out of 4 lose out as a result of climate change.
Check your arithmetic.
Catoni
May 27, 2012, 6:18:44 AM5/27/12
to
the same... or do well too....... They don't know yet.
But we do know that over the years... life has managed to stay on
this world, even through much much worse than anything we could ever
manage to do to it.
Life adapts... evolves..... changes.... like some populations of
brown bears became polar bears to adapt to cooler conditions.
Like coral and bivalves and fish adapted to cooler and warmer
waters. Glacial periods and warm periods...
Changes sometimes fast... sometimes slow... sometimes a lot of
change.. sometimes a little change...
It's really very interesting... :)
Dawlish
May 27, 2012, 11:50:36 AM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 11:18 am, Catoni <caton...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On May 27, 5:33 am, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>
> > On 05/27/2012 01:26 AM, 1/3 of land cooling wrote:
>
> > > Stanford University biologist Terry Root, who was not part of this study, estimated that for every winner like the brown Argus, there are three loser species, like the cuckoo bird in Europe.
>
> > He says that out of any four species, one wins out, the other three lose
> > out. That means that 3 out of 4 lose out as a result of climate change.
> > Check your arithmetic.
>
> Where did he say 3 out of four lose out ? ?
Here; read the actual article:
> On May 27, 5:33 am, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>
> > On 05/27/2012 01:26 AM, 1/3 of land cooling wrote:
>
> > > Stanford University biologist Terry Root, who was not part of this study, estimated that for every winner like the brown Argus, there are three loser species, like the cuckoo bird in Europe.
>
> > He says that out of any four species, one wins out, the other three lose
> > out. That means that 3 out of 4 lose out as a result of climate change.
> > Check your arithmetic.
>
> Where did he say 3 out of four lose out ? ?
"Biologists expect climate change to create winners and losers in
this study, estimated that for every winner like the brown Argus,
there are three loser species, like the cuckoo bird in Europe. Hill
agreed that it is probably a 3-1 ratio of climate change losers to
winners."
Both you and pony failed maths in school, didn't you? Pony read 3-1 as
agreed that it is probably a 3-1 ratio of climate change losers to
winners."
a 1-in-3 chance, without understanding the full meaning and you
followed him. Never a good idea. This kind of crap lebels you people
as stupid and sits you firmly in the stupid seats.
gordo
May 27, 2012, 1:25:08 PM5/27/12
to
biologist who made the statement was not part of the study ,did you
even read the article. No cite and not part of the study yet it was
posted in the subject of this thread.
>-----------------------------------------------
>
>Does Gordo demand a higher standard of proof from real science, than he does from climate science? He seems to accept any old crap from climate science.
A skeptic says wait why is that 1 out of 3 as part of the subject of
>
>Does Gordo demand a higher standard of proof from real science, than he does from climate science? He seems to accept any old crap from climate science.
this thread. No cite and not part of the study.
gordo
May 27, 2012, 1:35:20 PM5/27/12
to
observed facts and the work of the worlds leading scientists such as
those presented in the IPCC reports. A skeptic calls attention to a
thread where the title says 1 in 3 species helped in climate change
when there is no study to support it or even any reason to believe
such a statement. A denier defends the statement with no facts to back
it up. See the difference?
1/3 of land cooling
May 27, 2012, 4:53:09 PM5/27/12
to
Dawlish, my maths qualifications are far higher than yours.
If you ever learn how to check a reference, then follow the link that I provided to the original article. You will then have to admit that one of the following is true.
Either:
- I am so brillant, that I managed to get the subtitle "Biologists: 1 in 3 species is helped by climate change" put on an article about this genuine scientific report. I am flattered that you consider me so clever and intelligent.
or:
- I trusted an Alarmist journalist to get his facts straight. I am prepared to admit to this error of judgement. I should never have trusted any Alarmist to get anything correct. I apologise, and won't let it happen again.
Dawlish
May 27, 2012, 4:59:50 PM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 9:53 pm, "1/3 of land cooling" <skeptic....@gmail.com>
wrote:
> - I trusted an Alarmist journalist to get his facts straight. I am prepared to admit to this error of judgement. I should never have trusted any Alarmist to get anything correct. I apologise, and won't let it happen again.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
They make a cock-up and can't stand it. Attacking the person who
exposed the cock-up instead.
Tosser.
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
They make a cock-up and can't stand it. Attacking the person who
exposed the cock-up instead.
Tosser.
1/3 of land cooling
May 27, 2012, 5:17:20 PM5/27/12
to
On Monday, May 28, 2012 5:35:20 AM UTC+12, gordo wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 21:14:03 -0700 (PDT), "1/3 of land cooling"
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 21:14:03 -0700 (PDT), "1/3 of land cooling"
In whose opinion are these the "worlds leading scientists"?
Are the worlds leading scientists infallible (like God and the Pope)?
You slander me for doubting the work of scientists, and then turn around and cast aspersions on the scientists who made comments about this study.
See the difference?
1/3 of land cooling
May 27, 2012, 5:07:26 PM5/27/12
to
On Monday, May 28, 2012 5:25:08 AM UTC+12, gordo wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 21:59:25 -0700 (PDT), "1/3 of land cooling"
> <skeptic....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, May 27, 2012 3:49:32 PM UTC+12, gordo wrote:
> >> On Sat, 26 May 2012 16:26:56 -0700 (PDT), "1/3 of land cooling"
> >> <skeptic....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >A global-warming winner: Once-rare butterfly thrives
> >> >
> >> >Biologists: 1 in 3 species is helped by climate change
> >> >
> >> >by Seth Borenstein - May. 25, 2012 09:31 PM
> >> >Associated Press
> >> >
> >> >http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/05/25/20120525global-warming-winner-once-rare-butterfly-thrives.html
> >> >
> >>
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 21:59:25 -0700 (PDT), "1/3 of land cooling"
> <skeptic....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, May 27, 2012 3:49:32 PM UTC+12, gordo wrote:
> >> On Sat, 26 May 2012 16:26:56 -0700 (PDT), "1/3 of land cooling"
> >> <skeptic....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >A global-warming winner: Once-rare butterfly thrives
> >> >
> >> >Biologists: 1 in 3 species is helped by climate change
> >> >
> >> >by Seth Borenstein - May. 25, 2012 09:31 PM
> >> >Associated Press
> >> >
> >> >http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/05/25/20120525global-warming-winner-once-rare-butterfly-thrives.html
> >> >
> >>
> >> There are many things happening rapidly in the plant and animal world
> >> on land and in the sea. 1 in 3 species is wildly speculative and no
> >> cite provided. Good post though.
> >
> >Is Gordo slandering professional scientists, because they say something that Gordo doesn't want to hear?
> >
> >Here is some more detail about the study, and the people that YOU say are making wildly speculative statements. They are no different from the scientists who make statements about AGW/global warming, except that this time you don't like what they say (does that make YOU a denier?).
> >
> >----------------------------------------
> >
> >A new study led by scientists in the Department of Biology at the University of York has shown how a butterfly has changed its diet, and consequently has sped northwards in response to climate change.
> >
> >Their study is published in the latest issue of Science.
> >
> >(Oh dear, they have published in a PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL. And Gordo still doesn't believe them)
> >
> >Lead author PhD student Rachel Pateman, of the University of York’s Department of Biology and the NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology.
> >
> >Co-author Chris Thomas, Professor of Conservation Biology at York.
> >
> >Co-author David Roy, from the NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology.
> >
> >Co-author Richard Fox, an ecologist at Butterfly Conservation, a science and advocacy group in Britain.
> >
> >Co-author Professor Jane Hill, of the Department of Biology at the University of York.
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------
> >
> >Gordo says "1 in 3 species is wildly speculative and no cite provided".
> >
> >The statement that "for every winner like the brown Argus, there are three loser species, like the cuckoo bird in Europe", came from Stanford University biologist Terry Root, who was not part of this study.
> >
> >Co-author Professor Jane Hill, of the Department of Biology at the University of York, agreed that it is probably a 3-1 ratio of climate change losers to winners.
> >
> >Why do you think that these scientists are being WILDLY SPECULATIVE, Gordo?
<
< I questioned the number of 1 out of 3. This is being a skeptic. The
< biologist who made the statement was not part of the study ,did you
< even read the article. No cite and not part of the study yet it was
< posted in the subject of this thread.
So, when YOU question something, you claim that you are being a skeptic.
> >> on land and in the sea. 1 in 3 species is wildly speculative and no
> >> cite provided. Good post though.
> >
> >Is Gordo slandering professional scientists, because they say something that Gordo doesn't want to hear?
> >
> >Here is some more detail about the study, and the people that YOU say are making wildly speculative statements. They are no different from the scientists who make statements about AGW/global warming, except that this time you don't like what they say (does that make YOU a denier?).
> >
> >----------------------------------------
> >
> >A new study led by scientists in the Department of Biology at the University of York has shown how a butterfly has changed its diet, and consequently has sped northwards in response to climate change.
> >
> >Their study is published in the latest issue of Science.
> >
> >(Oh dear, they have published in a PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL. And Gordo still doesn't believe them)
> >
> >Lead author PhD student Rachel Pateman, of the University of York’s Department of Biology and the NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology.
> >
> >Co-author Chris Thomas, Professor of Conservation Biology at York.
> >
> >Co-author David Roy, from the NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology.
> >
> >Co-author Richard Fox, an ecologist at Butterfly Conservation, a science and advocacy group in Britain.
> >
> >Co-author Professor Jane Hill, of the Department of Biology at the University of York.
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------
> >
> >Gordo says "1 in 3 species is wildly speculative and no cite provided".
> >
> >The statement that "for every winner like the brown Argus, there are three loser species, like the cuckoo bird in Europe", came from Stanford University biologist Terry Root, who was not part of this study.
> >
> >Co-author Professor Jane Hill, of the Department of Biology at the University of York, agreed that it is probably a 3-1 ratio of climate change losers to winners.
> >
> >Why do you think that these scientists are being WILDLY SPECULATIVE, Gordo?
<
< I questioned the number of 1 out of 3. This is being a skeptic. The
< biologist who made the statement was not part of the study ,did you
< even read the article. No cite and not part of the study yet it was
< posted in the subject of this thread.
But when I question something, you claim that I am being a denier.
Very consistent Alarmist logic.
Did you know that biologists who are not part of the study are allowed to have opinions as well. In fact, sometimes journalists go to an independent scientist to check the facts. One of the co-authors of the study agreed with the independant scientist.
Do you understand what a cite is?
I posted a link to the article that I quoted from, so that people could check that I had posted it correctly, without alterations or out of context.
Do you (and other Alarmists) always do this?
1/3 of land cooling
May 27, 2012, 5:39:58 PM5/27/12
to
On Monday, May 28, 2012 5:35:20 AM UTC+12, gordo wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 21:14:03 -0700 (PDT), "1/3 of land cooling"
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 21:14:03 -0700 (PDT), "1/3 of land cooling"
I get the impression from your posts, that you do genuinely believe what you say.
Unlike people like Dawlish, who deliberately lie and abuse people, because they enjoy doing that.
I think that you are being very unfair to skeptics, with your views. There are some skeptics who are not genuine, but there are many who are. The Alarmist side also contains both types.
Please keep an open mind.
gordo
May 27, 2012, 6:35:10 PM5/27/12
to
questioned and most often is in peer reviewed journals.
>Very consistent Alarmist logic.
>
>Did you know that biologists who are not part of the study are allowed to have opinions as well. In fact, sometimes journalists go to an independent scientist to check the facts. One of the co-authors of the study agreed with the independant scientist.
>Do you understand what a cite is?
>
>I posted a link to the article that I quoted from, so that people could check that I had posted it correctly, without alterations or out of context.
>
>Do you (and other Alarmists) always do this?
We link to scientific peer reviewed papers when possible
>
>I posted a link to the article that I quoted from, so that people could check that I had posted it correctly, without alterations or out of context.
>
>Do you (and other Alarmists) always do this?
do you ever do that?
Alarmist.?Another one of those code words used by deniers of science .
This is to indicate that what has been posted has no value because it
might be alarming. I have agreed if that if you used the label warmer
I would accept that but I sure as hell don't speak for anyone else.
gordo
May 27, 2012, 6:42:32 PM5/27/12
to
theological doctrine and who says that there is a god who is
infallible.
>You slander me for doubting the work of scientists, and then turn around and cast aspersions on the scientists who made comments about this study.
>
>See the difference?
species helped by climate change with any scientific reference other
than a biologist has an opinion with no facts? Let it go . I showed
you how to be a skeptic and you accuse me of slandering you. Man you
should thank me for the educational lesson and it cost you nothing.
Tom P
May 27, 2012, 6:53:37 PM5/27/12
to
mathematician, but that doesn't alter the fact that you didn't read the
article properly. But then you didn't read the BEST report properly either.
erschro...@gmail.com
May 28, 2012, 12:16:08 PM5/28/12
to
On May 26, 7:26 pm, "1/3 of land cooling" <skeptic....@gmail.com>
wrote:
grade math you'll cover fractions.
wrote:
> A global-warming winner: Once-rare butterfly thrives
>
>
> Biologists: 1 in 3 species is helped by climate change
>
>
> by Seth Borenstein - May. 25, 2012 09:31 PM
> Associated Press
>
> http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/05/25/20120525global-warm...
> Associated Press
>
>
> ----------------------------------
>
> WASHINGTON - Global warming is rescuing the once-rare brown Argus butterfly, scientists say.
>
> Man-made climate change is threatening the existence of many species, such as the giant polar bear. But in the case of the small British butterfly, it took a species in trouble and made it thrive.
>
> It's all about food. Over about 25 years, the butterfly went from being in trouble to pushing north in Britain where it found a veritable banquet.
>
> Now, the butterfly lives in twice as large an area as it once did and is not nearly threatened, according to a study in today's issue of the journal Science.
>
> Decades ago, the brown Argus "was sort of a special butterfly that you would have to go to a special place to see, and now, it's a butterfly you can see in regular farmland or all over the place," said study co-author Richard Fox, an ecologist at Butterfly Conservation, a science and advocacy group in Britain.
>
> Global warming's helping the brown Argus is unusual compared with other species, and that's why scientists are studying it more, said study co-author Jane Hill, a professor of ecology at the University of York.
> ----------------------------------
>
> WASHINGTON - Global warming is rescuing the once-rare brown Argus butterfly, scientists say.
>
> Man-made climate change is threatening the existence of many species, such as the giant polar bear. But in the case of the small British butterfly, it took a species in trouble and made it thrive.
>
> It's all about food. Over about 25 years, the butterfly went from being in trouble to pushing north in Britain where it found a veritable banquet.
>
> Now, the butterfly lives in twice as large an area as it once did and is not nearly threatened, according to a study in today's issue of the journal Science.
>
> Decades ago, the brown Argus "was sort of a special butterfly that you would have to go to a special place to see, and now, it's a butterfly you can see in regular farmland or all over the place," said study co-author Richard Fox, an ecologist at Butterfly Conservation, a science and advocacy group in Britain.
>
>
> Biologists expect climate change to create winners and losers in species. Stanford University biologist Terry Root, who was not part of this study, estimated that for every winner like the brown Argus, there are three loser species, like the cuckoo bird in Europe. Hill agreed that it is probably a 3-1 ratio of climate change losers to winners.
>
> Biologists expect climate change to create winners and losers in species. Stanford University biologist Terry Root, who was not part of this study, estimated that for every winner like the brown Argus, there are three loser species, like the cuckoo bird in Europe. Hill agreed that it is probably a 3-1 ratio of climate change losers to winners.
>
> As the world warms, the key interactions between species break down because predator and prey may not change habitats at the same time, meaning some species will move north to cooler climates and won't find enough to eat, Root said.
>
> "There are just so many species that are going to go extinct," Root said.
>
> What makes the brown Argus different is that it found something new to eat, something even better than its old food, the less common rockrose plant, Hill said. The new food is a geranium, and it is more widespread.
>
> "It's almost like the whole of the buffet is now open to it," Hill said.
Uh, 1 out of 4 is not the same as 1 out of 3. Maybe next year in 5th
>
> "There are just so many species that are going to go extinct," Root said.
>
> What makes the brown Argus different is that it found something new to eat, something even better than its old food, the less common rockrose plant, Hill said. The new food is a geranium, and it is more widespread.
>
> "It's almost like the whole of the buffet is now open to it," Hill said.
grade math you'll cover fractions.
Fredric L. Rice
May 28, 2012, 3:47:19 PM5/28/12
to
"1/3 of land cooling" <skept...@gmail.com> wrote:
>A global-warming winner: Once-rare butterfly thrives
This rightard thinks that mass extinction for most is counteracted
>A global-warming winner: Once-rare butterfly thrives
by proliferation of some.
Typical corporate cock sucking.
---
http://www.skeptictank.org/
Save us, Obe Won Paul! You're our only hope!
Fredric L. Rice
May 28, 2012, 3:48:40 PM5/28/12
to
kym horsell <kymho...@gmail.com> wrote:
that global warming does not happen. Now the rightard is trying to
pretend that benefits accured to a minority of species by a warming
climate is a good thing. :)
Creationist shitbags are all alike.
>On Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:26:56 AM UTC+10, 1/3 of land cooling wrote:
>> A global-warming winner: Once-rare butterfly thrives
>> A global-warming winner: Once-rare butterfly thrives
>Does GW have any bad effects, or is the magic all good?
You may have noticed that the Republidiot has been trying to pretend
that global warming does not happen. Now the rightard is trying to
pretend that benefits accured to a minority of species by a warming
climate is a good thing. :)
Creationist shitbags are all alike.
gordo
May 28, 2012, 10:39:03 PM5/28/12
to
On Mon, 28 May 2012 19:48:40 GMT, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L.
Rice) wrote:
>kym horsell <kymho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:26:56 AM UTC+10, 1/3 of land cooling wrote:
>>> A global-warming winner: Once-rare butterfly thrives
>>Does GW have any bad effects, or is the magic all good?
>
>You may have noticed that the Republidiot has been trying to pretend
>that global warming does not happen. Now the rightard is trying to
>pretend that benefits accured to a minority of species by a warming
>climate is a good thing. :)
They are the proponents of AGW and supporters of AGW and the believers
Rice) wrote:
>kym horsell <kymho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:26:56 AM UTC+10, 1/3 of land cooling wrote:
>>> A global-warming winner: Once-rare butterfly thrives
>>Does GW have any bad effects, or is the magic all good?
>
>You may have noticed that the Republidiot has been trying to pretend
>that global warming does not happen. Now the rightard is trying to
>pretend that benefits accured to a minority of species by a warming
>climate is a good thing. :)
of AGW don't ya know?
0 new messages