The continued use of the word 'deniers' on this list is so childish. I've been reading and learning from the very highly esteemed people in this group (and in other groups) for years. You guys are WAY above resorting to referring to people who question your hypotheses with a term that is repugnant most people on this list. I love reading the various points of view, and I can see persuasive arguments on both sides, but the word denier just ruins any credibility you might have in my mind. All we need is the other side to start referring to their opponents as 'bed wetters' and then we can all pull each others hair at recess. Next thing you know we will have the collectors / watchers nonsense rear it's ugly head again. Rise above it peoples. <div>
<br></div><div>That's my honest opinion from a very VERY amateur entomologist. </div><div><br></div><div>Todd in Manitoba (formerly in Toronto) </div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:12 AM, spruance spruance <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:spruance@beyondbb.com" target="_blank">spruance@beyondbb.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hi all, First some local weather data:<br><br>At lower elevation (4,500') on the east side of the continental divide
in Alamogordo NM, our temps fluctuate daily, as is normal for the
desert, and I see butterflies every day in my butterfly garden. And the
normal "winter"geometrids gather nightly at my porch light in the
crepuscular hours before the temps drop into the 20s. We have snow on
the mountain behind my house, but the snow pack is well below "normal"
(whatever that is now-a-days), and the moisture content of the snow is
very low. The contribution of the snow to Spring run-offs will be
negligable, compared to "normal." The leps survive as they have for
millenia, but the species composition and relative abundance are
undoubtedly changing. We desperately need longitudinal quantitative
data on Lepidoptera (temp & precipitation changes are well
documented with real data for New Mexico) else the climate change
deniers will continue to cherry pick our weakness to support other
scientific data that human caused change is real.<br><br>Out comes the soap-box:<br><br>Sadly
nearly all Lepidopterists, collectors, observers, and photographers,
cherry pick when they are in the field by pursuing the rare species, or
the species needed to fill holes in a collection, or to get the best
photo of the best specimen, or to report species sure to get the
attention of other Lepidopterists. Species lists that appear in these
discussion groups do not report absolute numbers, nor do they document
detailed habitat associations of the reported species.<br><br>I am not
negative about this, I'm encouraged that there are so many interested
people willing to share. I encourage us to do better. I hope someday
our observations will be comparable to the long term data being
collected by the Long-Term Monitoring of Butterflies project of The Ohio
Lepidopterists. <a href="http://www.ohiolepidopterists.org/bflymonitoring/downloads/BMP%20Manual%202008%20-%20large%20pages.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.ohiolepidopterists.org/bflymonitoring/downloads/BMP%20Manual%202008%20-%20large%20pages.pdf</a><br>
<br>Please
keep the observations coming. Please add some scientific quality to
the observations. Please, as I do, take photographs of each observation
site, at different times of the year, over many years. With the
digital age the photos are easy to incorporate into word processing
documents for easy annotation and long term storage.<br><br>The weather
underground site <a href="http://www.wunderground.com/" target="_blank">http://www.wunderground.com/</a> is an excellent place
to obtain actual data for the exact time and place you took the photo
and made the observations.<br><br>Time to put the soapbox away.<br><br>Best wishes to all from sunny, unseasonably warm, and drought-stricken southern New Mexico.<br><br>Eric<br><br>Eric Metzler<br>Alamogordo NM<br><p>
<span><br></span></p></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Stan Gorodenski <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stanlep@commspeed.net" target="_blank">stanlep@commspeed.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Patrick,<br>
Regarding anthropomorphic climate change (ACC) deniers. I had some<br>
personal experience where someone approached me, in email, about a paper<br>
they wanted me to read. It was presented in such a way as to give the<br>
impression that it was just an interesting paper they wanted me to read<br>
and to get my reaction. However, I knew this person was a ACC denier and<br>
his ulterior motive was to give me a paper that to him showed how right<br>
he was and how wrong I was. I read it and discovered some serious flaws<br>
in the analysis and data. I presented this to him - and then heard<br>
nothing more about it. He still is a ACC denier, though. It appears that<br>
when something detracts from the beliefs of some individuals, it is<br>
ignored. If it supports their beliefs, it is remembered. This goes along<br>
with your idea that deniers do not question their own belief system and<br>
what motivates them.<br>
Stan<br>
<br>
On 2/16/2013 9:10 PM, Stan Gorodenski wrote:<br>
><br>
> On 2/16/2013 8:16 PM, Foley, Patrick wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Count me (and the great majority of atmospheric scientists) among the climate change alarmists.<br>
>><br>
>> This is however not my area of expertise. Paul should go argue this out with NOAA scientists. Or any atmospheric scientists.<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve</a><br>
>><br>
>> Skepticism in science is a very useful tool. But one should be skeptical of ones own views also. Nietzsche said once " The courage of one's convictions -- a common error; real courage is questioning one's own convictions." Scientists (including climate change "alarmists") do this all the time. That is the essence of science. As far as I can see, most climate change deniers do not question their own belief systems or what motivates them.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
> Good point. This never occurred to me. I wonder if climate change<br>
> deniers even know themselves what motivates them. I can see all kinds of<br>
> influences, including the political and religious group one belongs to.<br>
> I also wonder if it is the culture of anti-science that is fostering<br>
> this. The deniers are intelligent. Because of the anti-science culture<br>
> they make their own interpretations of data in lieu of those of scientists.<br>
> Stan<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Leps-l mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Leps-l@mailman.yale.edu" target="_blank">Leps-l@mailman.yale.edu</a><br>
> <a href="http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/leps-l" target="_blank">http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/leps-l</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Leps-l mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Leps-l@mailman.yale.edu" target="_blank">Leps-l@mailman.yale.edu</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/leps-l" target="_blank">http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/leps-l</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Leps-l mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Leps-l@mailman.yale.edu">Leps-l@mailman.yale.edu</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/leps-l" target="_blank">http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/leps-l</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>