rjb
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by rjb on Jul 28, 2011 13:59:14 GMT -8
I kind of liked Miller and Wheeler Col Bull 58(4), 2004,466-487. They named a new genus of Leiodid "Gelae" pronounced "Jelly". New Species: Gelae fish, Gelae belae, Gelae baen, Gelae donut, Gelae rol, and others. Nothing silly about that! Later in another publication, they named some new slime-mold beetles after George Bush and Dick Cheney. Honor or insult? I think a great honor. Rick
|
|
|
rjb
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by rjb on Jul 27, 2011 16:37:21 GMT -8
WW: It is an overgeneralization to say that most people cling to their beliefs. Many people change beliefs during their life.
A minor belief like whether scientists are right about global warming is relatively easy. Science has a very long history of successes. If you choose to believe that the science is wrong, you are setting yourself up to be wrong, just like the Catholic Church did on the geo-centric universe and evolution.
I assumed the global warming issue was wrong when it first hit the press. Scientists very often get it wrong when they publish anything novel. 1) if they can't get it into the peer reviewed literature, it is surely wrong. 2) if they get it published in peer-review, it is still quite likely to be wrong. Then all their scientific peers will jump in and publish exposes on what they did wrong. 3) When 90%+ of the scientists in your field agree, then it is almost surely correct.
I had to change over my initial belief when decades went by with essentially "no one" (None of the hundred scientists who are competing for attention and funding in the field of climate science that is) saying the global warming results were wrong.
You can dismiss peer-review as flawed and of course it is (I had to publish about 40 peer-reviewed papers during my career and had to be the reviewer on countless papers by others, so I know the flaws). You can distrust any scientist for exaggerating the significance of his/her work to try for more funding, it happens all the time. But when you dismiss the whole area of climate science by assuming that all hundred scientists active in the area are liars and frauds, then you do not understand how science works. You are anti-science and I am pro-science, so we will never be likely to agree. But we both still like insects a lot! Rick
|
|
rjb
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by rjb on Jul 26, 2011 16:37:58 GMT -8
Here are several more photos from Kaeng Krachan. Rick Attachments:
|
|
rjb
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by rjb on Jul 26, 2011 16:33:12 GMT -8
I saw thousands of butterflies on the road. However, while eating lunch up at the top, I met a lady who has lived in the area for 30 years. She was complaining at how few butterflies she had seen on the same drive we had just done! She said this was nothing like she usually sees in Kaeng Krachan. Really made me wonder! Rick
|
|
rjb
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by rjb on Jul 25, 2011 19:05:00 GMT -8
Here is a conglomerate of 4 photos from Kaeng Krachan park. A few nice insects I saw. Rick Attachments:
|
|
rjb
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by rjb on Jul 25, 2011 18:30:09 GMT -8
I visited Thailand a couple times this year, tagging along while my wife had business in Bangkok. In February I took off for a week in Khao Yai National Park. Stayed in one of the park Bungalows and spent each day hiking the trails. Also used a flashlight for night walks. This was the dry season, and I saw lots of insects with almost no mosquitoes or other pests, only a few ticks. Had a great time. Once on a night walk I walked over a bunch of termites. They amazed me by going into a collective rattling mode where they all jiggled at once making a loud rattle then all stopped. This continue to pulse for a long while. Last month I returned for three weeks. First I spent another week in Khao Yai. Then I spent a week camping in Kaeng Krachan (which has tigers and leopards as part of the fauna). Then my wife and I flew to Chiang Mai and spent a week in Doi Inthenon staying in a bungalow in a Karen village, we also went to the beautiful Op Luong Gorge. Even though this was now rainy season, the mosquitoes were not bad. I hardly used any DEET. The leeches were very aggressive and I lost a lot of blood. This was the worst leech experience though I've seen them in Malaysia and Indonesia. The insects were not all that much more numerous than in February. In Kaeng Krachan the butterflies were abundant. I don't know butterflies, only beetles so I only photographed a few on the road. I experienced rain in all parks, but it was only occasional and most days were quite pleasant though hot and humid. Overall these are very nice parks to visit. Unfortunately Thailand doesn't allow collecting in any of these parks, as if it could somehow harm something! This seems to be the unfortunate trend these days. The parks allow villagers to destroy the habitat but won't let collectors take insects. I'll try to insert a few photos, but my photography skill is very low. Rick Oh well, I could not figure out how to insert more than one picture. Attachments:
|
|
|
rjb
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by rjb on Jul 25, 2011 14:39:47 GMT -8
Yep, I think all of your statements are correct. And yet ... the highly knowledgeable climate scientists who know all of that are scared that we are in deep trouble. They think that burning all these fossil fuels has already gotten us in serious trouble and it is going to get really bad. For peace-of-mind, it is best to assume that all the climate scientists are wrong and that Wingedwishes is correct. Then there is nothing to worry about. Let us all feel happy and peaceful.
Rick
|
|
rjb
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by rjb on Jul 24, 2011 18:45:40 GMT -8
I haven't seen a warming trend at my home. I've recorded daily highs and lows in Albuquerque for about 27 years and no matter how I look at the data, I don't detect a warming trend. But that is pretty much irrelevent. The science is in and it shows that GLOBALLY there is a degree or so temperature increase on average. It takes a lot of data to show that.
A politician like Al Gore might be the slimiest slug on earth with selfish motives and no morals (not saying that he is!), but he could still be right. In fact he was wrong on a few points, like the details on hurricanes. He was trying to scare people because that is what lots of politicians do. Scare tactics often yield results. However, many very knowledgeable climate-scientists are quite scared. They think this warming is going to be a very bad thing for humans and lots of creatures on earth. They are probably correct but it is irrelevent. It is difficult to get humans to do anything that looks like selflessness. If humans have to stop burning coal and oil, they will resist. They will lie to themselves saying it isn't necessary. Rick
|
|
rjb
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by rjb on Jul 12, 2011 18:34:51 GMT -8
Well I suppose mosquitoes and ticks and lice aren't exactly aggressive, but they like to feed on people for survival. Oh and a bedbug is friendly, it wants to sleep with you! Rick
|
|
rjb
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by rjb on Jun 7, 2011 16:13:23 GMT -8
Wingedwishes, Sorry, Fred Seitz is the physicist on your list of >9000 qualified Ph.Ds petition (his name was already brought up in this discussion). He and his cronies tend to start lists like that and write lots of articles to promote the industry paying him, Tobacco, Chemical, oil, whatever.
But this forum should not be for mindless arguing and you are right, it is not worth causing any unhappiness. Of course I would consider you a friend. I never want anyone to agree with my peculiar perspective. We can disagree about our attitude toward science and religion, but we surely agree on the important thing in life: Insects are beautiful, awesome critters and we love them. Rick
|
|
rjb
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by rjb on Jun 6, 2011 6:05:04 GMT -8
Well, I think the discussion is all a lot of fun, and it doesn't matter how much we discuss global warming, it is happening.
It is a choice whether to listen to the science, or to whoever is able to present the most convincing argument, regardless of their knowledge or honesty. There are many people who are smarter than the scientists doing the research, but a good brain is not enough. Wingedwishes, you do not seem to like big industry a lot, but you like their arguments a whole lot. The "Seitz team" of scientists and friends discovered back in the seventies that they could have a very large anti-science effect if they confused the public. It started with tobacco. Seitz et al have taken the point of view that whenever science says anything that will hurt big industry, then the science must be wrong. First it was tobacco, then second-hand smoke, then acid-rain, then the ozone-hole and then global warming. If science says tobacco is harmful-then science is wrong. If you begin confusing the public with pseudo-scientific arguments, you can delay the harm to industry for maybe decades. Seitz and team have entered every one of these topics and they write great stuff and the public cannot distinguish the science from the smokescreen.
Wingedwishes, you mention the solar cycle. Of course the scientists publishing their findings about CO2 addressed the solar cycle from the very beginning. The solar cycle cannot account for the data. This was published and decades have gone by with nobody publishing a convincing paper that says solar cycle can come close to explaining the observation. If you or anyone had any quantitative study that showed anthropogenic CO2 was not the answer but it is the solar cycle, it would have been published to much acclaim.
Many scientists are rather poor at presenting their ideas to the public, but they are often very careful in what they publish in peer review. The competition for funding is intense, so scientists are always trying to exaggerate the importance of their work to get more money. BUT- they almost never screw around with the peer-reviewed publications because in science if you are caught lying, you are dead as a scientist. Seitz can lie to his heart's content in the media, but if he still publishes any physics, I would trust him to try hard to get that right.
Wingedwishes, why you favor the writings of these big-industry-shills is the big mystery to me.
Rick
|
|
rjb
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by rjb on May 26, 2011 8:06:43 GMT -8
One comment on the weather patterns this past year is that most were associated with the global weather phenomenon of La Nina. The consequences are actually predictable enough that we put off a trip to Costa Rica because it would be too rainy. We knew there would be no morels this spring here in New Mexico because we would have a drought. We expected things to get so dry that the forest would be closed to hiking. The fires are an annual occurrence but worse during La Nina years.
The connection with "global climate change", is that the frequency of El Nino and La Nina weather patterns seems to be increasing, causing lots of local weather anomalies. There probably is a connection and these weather types will become the norm in the future. Since people seem to favor denial over any personal sacrifice to fix the problem, I guess we will leave the cost to our children. They can look back and curse their denialist parents. Rick
|
|
rjb
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by rjb on May 12, 2011 14:00:51 GMT -8
But Wingedwishes, I'm an American scientist with a PhD and I'm not qualified. I've never published anything on global climate. You need a detailed publication list to evaluate if anyone is qualified. Otherwise it is just dumb opinion.
I was just remembering, isn't this one of those topics that causes Clark a lot of unhappiness. It seems we can't talk about it without starting a big fight. Religion and politics get dragged in and we're back to insults. I'll try to stay out- anyway I have to go to LA and may as well visit the Bug Fair while I'm there!
Rick
|
|
rjb
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by rjb on May 11, 2011 15:30:50 GMT -8
wingedwishes: I couldn't find any! Give me a hint. Extremely qualified means they are actively researching and publishing a few papers in peer-reviewed literature every year on the subject of global climate. Maybe 10 or more important papers in the last 5 years. Give us a couple of names please. Thanks, Rick
|
|
rjb
Full Member
Posts: 187
|
Post by rjb on May 9, 2011 17:12:50 GMT -8
|
|