Re: Bye bye butterflies

From	amacmil304@aol.com
Newsgroups	uk.environment.conservation
Subject	Re: Bye bye butterflies
Date	2016-11-14 17:51 +0000
Message-ID	<uptj2cpk41jln1a67gcvgscvb58cgqpgel@4ax.com> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <a9ke0cta5spukpbuh7kd68l4o2a7nhida6@4ax.com> <i2q92cpaqpgt7rbcl50fojnk9umerb9qgm@4ax.com> <pshb2cdbrkhu5fj68hu4vc7rfr8qvoioht@4ax.com> <arui2cp5u737vujmti7ooc6488q30jei0r@4ax.com> <hanj2ctunoii7euo5a682mdhv66f6fi3ih@4ax.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 16:14:09 +0000, Malcolm Ogilvie
<MAOgilvie@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 09:05:30 +0000, amacmil304@aol.com wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 13:50:24 +0000, Malcolm Ogilvie
>><MAOgilvie@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Yes, well,  Trump is guilty of lying, bigotry, misogynism, racism, physically and verbally
>>>assaulting women, insuliting the parents of war veterans, failing to produce his tax
>>>returns, bullying, and scientific illiteracy, and Angus is an admirer of him.  
>>
>>Which qualifies him to be a politician.
>>
>So you are admitting that you admire politicians who are guilty of  lying, bigotry,
>misogynism, racism, physically and verbally assaulting women, insuliting the parents of
>war veterans, failing to produce his tax returns, bullying, and scientific illiteracy.
>

Much the same with most politicians.  Too many luvvie types and too
many people willing to take offence.  

>How revealing.
>
>>>Oh yes, and
>>>Trump currently has 75 pending legal cases against him. 
>>>
>>
>>Most are garbage.
>>
>Angus further reveals that he is an expert on American law. Can I suggest you look up the
>cases against him relating to the "Trump University".

Read the cases.

>
>>>Among a number of Trump's ignorant statements regarding science are:
>>>
>>>"Global warming is an expensive hoax". 
>>>
>>
>>Of course it is a hoax. With a railway engineer at the helm:-)
>>
>Your continued ignorance is noted without surprise.

Get rid of the grant sucking scientists.

>
>>>If only it were, but it isn't and, contrary to Angus's wishful thinking, it is backed up
>>>by a mass of hard scientific evidence which it is obvious Angus doesn't want to understand
>>>and so doesn't even try.
>>
>>Show me one report withour slippery qualifiers.
>>
>And, yet again, Angus reveals his total lack of scientific understanding. 

So you can't; didn't think so.


>You don't even
>understand the concept of significance because when a point was put to you that was
>significant at the level of 95%, you thought this meant that the other 5% contradicted it,
>whereas it actually means that there is a only a 5% chance of the result being due to
>chance, in that particular case that man was not responsible for global warming.

GIGO is what it was.

>
>It's amazing that a man of your age remains so ignorant.

Ageism?

>
>>>
>>>There's one Trump statement we can all agree with, though:
>>>
>>>"The global warming we should be worried about is the global warming caused by nuclear
>>>weapons in the hands of crazy or incompetent leaders."
>>
>>Glad you agree.  
>>
>>>
>>>As for the EU, your prediction of its collapse has yet to occur. So when do you think it
>>>is going to happen?
>>
>>Within the next five years. There's an unstoppable right wing storm
>>about to take place in mainland Europe.  If you don't see it coming
>>you're as blind as you have been in past years.
>>
>Thank you for your prediction. What statistical significance are you putting on it!

The rise of RW parties.

>
>>BTW.  I understand somewhere around Perth they're stopping persecuting
>>grey squirrels because it's not economically viable.  I predicted that
>>years ago.  Greys are here to stay.
>>
>And I believe that, as usual, you are wrong, both about the stopping of culling around
>Perth and your predictions. You will, of course, produce the evidence for your claims,
>won't you? But knowing you, you won't.> 

So you don't know about it :-)

>>
>>
>>
>>And now the reds are laible to give people leprocy.
>>
>Angus lies, deliberately, of course. Please produce your evidence that reds are "liable to
>give people leprosy".  

People have been advised to stay away from them.  It's in today's
papers.

>And I don't want quotes from the gutter press which you are prone
>to read but from a serious medical or scientific journal. And bear in mind that the last
>case of leprosy in Britain was over 300 years ago but the reds have apparently been
>carriers for decades and possibly hundreds of years.
>

Slippery qualifier alert:  "apparently" and "possibly".  Which meand
you don't know.  Ignorance reigns :-)

Back in a few days if I get the time.


>>
>>
>>>
>>>Malcolm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 21:41:49 +0000, amacmil304@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>Total inability of science to produce the slightest evidence for its
>>>>claims.  Everything they do and say is tempered by slippery
>>>>qualifiers.
>>>>
>>>>Good for Donald Trump!  He's going to scrap climate change agreements.
>>>>And how long now till the EU inplodes?  Malcolm used to say the EU was
>>>>here fro good.  At least we're going out.  You never saw that coming a
>>>>few years ago despite me telling you it would collapse.  
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:57:10 +0100, Malcolm Ogilvie
>>>><MAOgilvie@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Total inability of Angus to produce the slightest evidence for his claims.
>>>>>
>>>>>When was the last time you did that, Angus, if ever?
>>>>>
>>>>>Malcolm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:45:20 +0100, amacmil304@aol.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Four slippery scientific qualifiers noted :-) 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 07:35:00 +0100, Malcolm Ogilvie
>>>>>><MAOgilvie@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A recent prediction suggests that the rise in CO2 levels experienced in the last 30 years
>>>>>>>might have led to between 5 and 10% extra growth, which I doubt you would be able to
>>>>>>>notice! A mild winter and fine spring with enough summer rain are the more likely reasons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And in any case, this is not "compensation" and nor is it "nature's" problem, it is
>>>>>>>mankind's.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Malcolm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:34:55 +0100, amacmil304@aol.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hardly seen a butterfly all summer this year, but massive increase in
>>>>>>>>plant growth possibly compensating for increased CO2.  Nature sorting
>>>>>>>>it's own problem?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:37:50 +0100, Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"If you think you saw fewer butterflies than ever this British summer, 
>>>>>>>>>you are probably correct: the Big Butterfly Count has recorded its 
>>>>>>>>>lowest number of common species since records began.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Normally ubiquitous butterflies such as the gatekeeper, comma and small 
>>>>>>>>>copper experienced their worst summers in the history of the count, 
>>>>>>>>>which is run by Butterfly Conservation and began in 2010.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Scientists said the low number of butterflies is “a shock and a mystery” 
>>>>>>>>>because this summer was warmer than average and much drier in England 
>>>>>>>>>than the previous worst year for butterflies, 2012, which was unusually 
>>>>>>>>>cold and wet."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/10/record-low-number-of-uk-butterflies-a-shock-and-a-mystery
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I don't recall a year so bereft of butterflies: the only time I have 
>>>>>>>>>seen more than two at a time this year was a couple of weeks ago, when I 
>>>>>>>>>saw four large whites on the still-lush growth by one of the local rhynes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>How was it for other observers?

Back to uk.environment.conservation | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Bye bye butterflies Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2016-10-10 09:37 +0100
  Re: Bye bye butterflies amacmil304@aol.com - 2016-10-16 18:34 +0100
    Re: Bye bye butterflies Malcolm Ogilvie <MAOgilvie@indaal.demon.co.uk> - 2016-10-17 07:35 +0100
      Re: Bye bye butterflies amacmil304@aol.com - 2016-10-19 11:45 +0100
        Re: Bye bye butterflies Malcolm Ogilvie <MAOgilvie@indaal.demon.co.uk> - 2016-10-19 11:57 +0100
          Re: Bye bye butterflies amacmil304@aol.com - 2016-10-28 20:45 +0100
            Re: Bye bye butterflies Malcolm Ogilvie <MAOgilvie@indaal.demon.co.uk> - 2016-10-29 08:05 +0100
          Re: Bye bye butterflies amacmil304@aol.com - 2016-11-10 21:41 +0000
            Re: Bye bye butterflies Malcolm Ogilvie <MAOgilvie@indaal.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 13:50 +0000
              Re: Bye bye butterflies amacmil304@aol.com - 2016-11-14 09:05 +0000
                Re: Bye bye butterflies Malcolm Ogilvie <MAOgilvie@indaal.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 16:14 +0000
                Re: Bye bye butterflies amacmil304@aol.com - 2016-11-14 17:51 +0000
                Re: Bye bye butterflies Malcolm Ogilvie <MAOgilvie@indaal.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-15 07:16 +0000
                Re: Bye bye butterflies amacmil304@aol.com - 2016-11-19 18:29 +0000
                Re: Bye bye butterflies Malcolm Ogilvie <MAOgilvie@indaal.demon.co.uk> - 2016-11-20 11:54 +0000

csiph-web