Official Climate Objective to Make Normal Appear Abnormal Continues Through Anthropomorphism

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

I gained a dramatic insight into the practice and dangers of anthropomorphism when I was asked to give a talk prior to a presentation by Jane Goodall, of chimpanzee research fame. I realized why I was invited after I spoke about the importance of trees in the urban environment using Winnipeg, the location of the event, as an example. My role was to extend the event to cover the failure to meet even the minimum expectations of the audience, but there were more severe problems. Ms. Goodall was an unmitigated disaster blatantly using the event to get money to the point where any goodwill was effectively erased. Everybody understood her campaign needs money; it is just the way it was done.

It began as people entered the theatre and were bombarded with the pure commercialism of T-shirt sales and other cheap trinkets. Goodall’s opening comments exacerbated the situation. She said she would give a 20-minute presentation followed by a 30-minute video shown on PBS the week before, so most in attendance saw it, and finish with a brief 10-minute question period. My 45-minute presentation stretched the entire show to one hour and 45 minutes.

I was amazed by the hostility of the audience to Ms. Goodall. One of the first questions from a young woman was a good example. She said, considering Goodall’s claim that we had much to learn from the chimpanzees, would she care to comment on the reports of cannibalism exhibited by a female chimpanzee who taught her daughter how to kill and eat other baby chimpanzees. Ms. Goodall said these were behavioral aberrations caused by the damage humans had inflicted on the chimpanzees. She offered no evidence to support the claim. She was then asked why, considering her policy of not interfering, she assisted the male leader of one troop. He was left to die after a few dominant males bit of his testicles in a leadership battle. She nursed him back to health by treating him surgically and with anti-biotics. He was then returned to the troop. Her answer was like the one about cannibalism. This time, however, a follow-up question asked, apparently with foreknowledge, what happened to him? Ms. Goodall acknowledged that he was killed by a gang of chimpanzees that included several females.

All this has anthropomorphic overtones that we see in the global warming claims: something was wrong therefore humans are to blame. There was no awareness that the judgment was colored, first by the fact that it was behavior she did not want to by her belief that chimpanzees and humans are almost identical, except that they still live with nature, while humans have taken the wrong evolutionary path. It was expressed in this quote from a US National Park Service wildlife biologist,

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn’t true. Somewhere along the line – at about a billion years ago – we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.

The Goodall event gave me the opportunity to use what I consider my best introductory line ever; “I never dreamed I would be a warmup act for chimpanzees, but here I am.”

The practice of anthropomorphism appears early in weather and climate, but these were usually done to help people visualize the events rather than to exploit fears, create misconceptions or mislead through anthropomorphism. For example, much of the terminology associated with weather forecasts were developed by Norwegian meteorologist Vilhelm Bjerknes. Pilots involved in the First World War wanted understandable weather forecasts, so Bjerknes invoked familiar terms of battle such as advancing and retreating Fronts and Outbreaks of cold air and over running warm air.

The situation began to change when they started naming hurricanes intermittently from around A.D. 1900. Apparently, it was done to reduce confusion when two or more hurricanes were threatening a region. We are told that,

“Human names are easier to remember than numbers or meteorological jargon.”

What nonsense, greater clarity is achieved by simply numbering each storm with a prefix of A (Atlantic) and P (Pacific.) It would also provide a count of events so people would know if the numbers were increasing as alarmists currently claim, but that wasn’t the concern then.

The article containing that quote identifies the women who fought to get hurricanes alternately given female names. When you look at the list of names planned by NOAA for the next few years, it is not difficult to see political correctness advocates demanding cross-cultural names.

This madness continued and took a clear anthropomorphic objective by deciding to start naming Mid-Latitude Cyclones, just like they do for hurricanes. It was nothing but a publicity stunt to create the idea that these storms were somehow increasing in power to link them with the catastrophic impacts of hurricanes. They are not the same thing at all, from the formation mechanisms to the overall structure and the latitudes at which they occur.

A Hurricane in the Atlantic Ocean or a Typhoon in the Pacific Ocean form close to the Equator but not within 8° of latitude because there is insufficient Coriolis effect to trigger the spinning motion symptomatic of the entire system. I will just consider the Atlantic Hurricane here. They begin as a trough of low pressure known as an Easterly Wave extending away from the Equator near the coast of Africa. This is a line of large thunderstorms moving from east to west in the zone of the Tropical Easterlies. If the Wave develops away from the Equator as it moves west, it experiences the influence of the Coriolis Effect. This causes the Easterly Wave to form into a circle of thunderstorms around a high-pressure center, the traditional ‘eye’ of tropical storms and hurricanes. When wind speeds are above 119 kph (74 mph) a tropical storm becomes a Category 1 hurricane. The hurricane structure continues to be a circle of massive cumulonimbus clouds around a high-pressure center.

Mid-Latitude Cyclones are created along Fronts in the middle latitudes. There are a few triggers that cause a wave to form in the frontal boundary between warm and cold air. Theoretically, they go through a process that begins with frontogenesis, seen at A in Figure 1. The system can begin and go through the complete cycle, or it can dissipate at any point. The system is at maximum wind speeds and lowest pressure between C. and D. At this stage, it can often cover a much larger area than even the largest hurricane.

It all became confused recently when they named a system hurricane Ophelia. Read this entry for Wikipedia to understand the confusion based on the classical descriptions above. (I use Wikipedia [footnotes removed] because it does as much as any source to promote the confusion.)

On 6 October, the United States’ National Hurricane Center (NHC) began monitoring the tail end of a decaying cold front for possible subtropical or tropical cyclogenesis. On the same day, a circulation developed on the periphery of this front. Soon afterwards, a non-tropical low developed within the circulation, and drifted to the southwest before becoming nearly stationary. The system began to acquire subtropical characteristics on the next day, and the chances of development were raised to a high percentage of cyclogenesis. After a brief loss of organization and diminished convection, due to moderate wind shear, the system continued to steadily organize, and developed a well-defined circulation center early on 9 October, as deep convection began to persist near the center. By 09:00 UTC that day, the convection had persisted long enough for the system to be classified as a tropical depression about 875 mi (1,410 km) west-southwest of the Azores, and the storm was identified as Tropical Depression Seventeen. A curved banding feature wrapped around the center as the satellite presentation improved, leading to the upgrade to Tropical Storm Ophelia six hours later.

Which was it? A tropical storm or a Mid-Latitude Cyclone?

clip_image002

Figure 1

The answer is it was a Mid-Latitude Cyclone that climate hysteria and anthropomorphism turned into a hurricane to amplify fears of bizarre and increasingly severe weather due to global warming.

A similar confusion was created by the media in October 1954. A storm hit Toronto, Canada that was reported as hurricane Hazel. Just look at the track supposedly taken by Hazel (Figure 2).

clip_image004

Figure 2.

In fact, what happened was traces of Hazel combined with and were reinforced by a Mid-Latitude Cyclone tracking from the west.

All this confusion allows the anthropomorphism of naming storm systems to amplify and distort natural weather systems to occur. It happens partly because climatology has such a limited understanding of atmospheric mechanisms as I detailed here. Weather systems are inanimate objects and naming them blurs the lines between the objectivity science demands and the exploitation of emotionalism by environmentalists.

Sorry, Ms. Goodall, the chimpanzees have nothing to teach us. Although, maybe, we can add the CO2 they produce to the false anthropogenic global warming claims.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
256 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
November 13, 2017 4:39 pm

Pity to read that about Jane Goodall. I saw one of her lectures in 1978, and she was rather good then.

Auto
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 14, 2017 3:44 pm

Likewise.
However, about the eleventh paragraph: –
“The hurricane structure continues to be a circle of massive cumulonimbus clouds around a high-pressure center.”
Methinks a hurricane [typhoon] is centred around a low pressure centre.

Mods – please review and – if necessary – correct.
Thanks – Auto

John Nethery
November 13, 2017 4:43 pm

I was amused and dismayed simultaneously by the quote from the US National Park Service biologist claiming the human evolutionary path went wrong ” about a billion years ago”. Really? Was that meant to be a joke? From a biologist?

jack
Reply to  John Nethery
November 13, 2017 5:09 pm

Biologists are phony scientists who are afraid of mathematics particularly calculus.

Reply to  jack
November 13, 2017 5:34 pm

A dumber comment on WUWT there has never been. Congrats Jack.

michael hart
Reply to  jack
November 13, 2017 5:49 pm

Yes, when I was in high school, Biology was certainly the choice of many who were forced to choose at least one of Physics, Chemistry or Biology. It was known to be the ‘soft option’ which lacked rigour.
But a lot of current environmentalists don’t even make the biology grade. Touchy-feely anthropomorphism has certainly run ramapant in education in my lifetime. I worry that it is going to take as long to eradicate as it has been allowed to propagate. Two generations at least. It’s depressing.

Gabro
Reply to  jack
November 13, 2017 5:50 pm

Apparently you are unaware that the vital branch of mathematics known as statistics was invented by biologists.

Gabro
Reply to  jack
November 13, 2017 5:52 pm

michael hart November 13, 2017 at 5:49 pm

When I was in high school, you studied biology as a sophomore, chemistry as a junior and physics as a senior.

To graduate with a bachelor’s degree in biology, you usually have to take not only calculus, but chemistry and physics as well.

Gunga Din
Reply to  jack
November 13, 2017 7:24 pm

jack November 13, 2017 at 5:09 pm
Biologists are phony scientists who are afraid of mathematics particularly calculus.

So….let’s say you need some kind of life saving surgery or even just an accurate diagnosis.
Which doctor would you choose?
The one who aced biology but flunked calculus or the one who aced calculus but flunked biology?

BCBill
Reply to  jack
November 13, 2017 7:50 pm

When I was in highschool I didn’t take biology because of the same thinking as Jack exhibits. I love physics and calculus and rather late in my academic career, also came to love biology. The chemistry and physics of biology are wonderfully complex and when you throw in evolution/ natural selection biology becomes the most interesting field of study, way more challenging than fantasizing, for example, about string theory. There are a fair number of biologists who are deductively challenged, but that has changed a lot in the last two decades.

Gabro
Reply to  jack
November 13, 2017 7:56 pm

Gunga Din November 13, 2017 at 7:24 pm

Well asked.

Diagnosis is as much an art as a science, and knowing a lot is important. Ultimately, math can be derived from first principles. But medicine requires knowledge of anatomy, biochemistry, physiology and other disciplines which can only be acquired by study of reality, not derived in the abstract.

Not that math isn’t important in biology and medicine. It very much is.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  jack
November 13, 2017 8:15 pm

Joel, that would be a hard thing. There have been some pretty dumb things written here over the years. This one is just arrogant pandering, probably with a bit of trolling.

Gabro
Reply to  jack
November 13, 2017 8:23 pm

Ben,

Joel is right that the comment ranks high on the All Time Stupid Comment List.

Just as the needs of physics led to calculus, the needs of biology led to statistics.

Physics is no more nor less mathematical than biology.

Reply to  jack
November 13, 2017 8:29 pm

BoH,
Jack just ignorantly broad brushed an entire branch of science with an ignorant statement.

If he had said social sciences or political science, I would have agreed. Those are not sciences. Their studies are rarely, if ever, reproducible. Real experimental sciences produce re-producible results that other labs and other scientists can repeat for confirmation. (which is why climate modeling fails as science, as no climate model results is uniquely reproducible by another team). Biology and biochemistry is like physics, based on reproducible results.

Many of the best biologists and biochemists have started as physicists (James Watson, Dyson). They switched not because they could not do the calculus, but because they found more interesting, stimulating questions right around them in the form of life, rather than some esoteric galaxy of supernovae m/billions of light years away.

Galaxies billions of light years away are exotic, but biological life all around us here on this magnificent blue ball is far more complex than any fusion explosion.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  jack
November 13, 2017 8:33 pm

joelobryan November 13, 2017 at 5:34 pm,
A dumber comment on WUWT there has never been.

You must be new around here.

Reply to  jack
November 13, 2017 9:58 pm

Jack, you are wrong.

Back in high school, I took biology and advanced biology. I also took chemistry and advanced chemistry. I would have taken advanced physics if the school offered it; I had to settle for regular physics and calculus.

But, back then, science and math courses were taught by professionals who knew their subject cold, left or retired from the commercial world and settled in as teachers.
Easy teachers? Perhaps, if you actually learn the topics they taught. Those teachers were a lot more rational about reality and coped with surprises, curve balls, problems or disruptions.

Nowadays, teachers are professional teachers. They rarely know the subject, never worked professionally within the subject and they are unable to deal with surprises of any kind.

Biology is one of the entryways for medical doctors; and is used as a washout subject to discourage wannabe doctors that lack ability to study living and dead organisms. Organisms that are far more complex and fragile than computers.

Early in life I learned that study periods are a kind of enforced idleness.

Consider that an idle mind is the devils playground.
Lord knows, there was a host of people who dreaded when my mind was idle.

So, I managed to get most study periods replaced by a real subject. It also helps that I loved biology, physics, chemistry, calculus, algebra, etc. I hated English, or I should state it as English teachers hated me. Geography was OK, History was terrific if taught by a real expert, dead boring when taught by pretenders.

In college, my psych teacher wrote on my final report that I should not continue in psychology.
One day, I had him jumping up and down while ranting in class. He was freaking out over the dolphin research papers I brought to class for discussion.

That teacher firmly believed that only humans could actually think; all other animal life acted solely by instinct.
He didn’t like the animal memory researches I also brought to class another day.

It quickly became clear that psychology grades were completely dependent upon the teacher’s subjective opinions, not books, research or reality.
I managed to pass the course by parroting the teacher’s quotes from my notes; otherwise he would have failed me, happily.

Now psychology is a “soft” science.

Reply to  jack
November 13, 2017 11:22 pm

gabro – we studied bio
as freshman, chemistry as
sophomores, physics as
juniors and AP chem as
seniors.

Leo Smith
Reply to  jack
November 13, 2017 11:29 pm

So….let’s say you need some kind of life saving surgery or even just an accurate diagnosis.
Which doctor would you choose?

The one with the steadiest hand.

jgmccabe
Reply to  jack
November 14, 2017 12:07 am

“Gunga Din November 13, 2017 at 7:24 pm
jack November 13, 2017 at 5:09 pm
Biologists are phony scientists who are afraid of mathematics particularly calculus.

So….let’s say you need some kind of life saving surgery or even just an accurate diagnosis.
Which doctor would you choose?
The one who aced biology but flunked calculus or the one who aced calculus but flunked biology?”

In the UK (at least) the standard entry requirements for degree courses are AAA (in A-levels) including Chemistry and one other science. You don’t need biology A level to become a doctor, but Chemistry is essential.

M Seward
Reply to  jack
November 14, 2017 12:10 am

It would seem they are afraid of even counting or adding up. Couldn’t get into accounting I suppose. This would certainly explain the phantasmagorical utterances of Tim Flannery down here in Oz. He started off with degree in English I gather then switched to biology then climate alarmism. A well trodden sort of track it seems.

Reply to  jack
November 14, 2017 12:32 am

i want a doctor who is
smart enough to know
both biology _and_
calculus. that’s hardly
too much to ask.

AndyG55
Reply to  jack
November 14, 2017 12:48 am

You certainly
need a doctor.
psycho-
therapist

Sparky
Reply to  jack
November 14, 2017 1:07 am

Biologists invented statistics ????. Didn’t know that Laplace and Bayes were biologists.

Reply to  jack
November 14, 2017 3:08 am

Bill Hamilton and Ernst Mayr were phonies eh? Maybe chill a bit and read about the neo-Darwinian synthesis.

DrTorch
Reply to  jack
November 14, 2017 5:51 am

Pretty close. I’m sure a few don’t mind calculus, but the vast majority certainly pursue phony science.

Reply to  jack
November 14, 2017 9:14 am

No it is Geology that is the red-headed stepchild of science. (/sarc)

At least until Climatology took the crown. (/notsarc)

Marty
Reply to  jack
November 14, 2017 11:00 am

Just curious. Have you ever had a course on genetics. That was one of my hardest courses in college, much harder than physics or organic chemistry.

Gabro
Reply to  jack
November 14, 2017 11:43 am

Sparky November 14, 2017 at 1:07 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biostatistics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics#History_of_statistical_science

The modern field of statistics emerged in the late 19th and early 20th century in three stages.[35] The first wave, at the turn of the century, was led by the work of Francis Galton and Karl Pearson, who transformed statistics into a rigorous mathematical discipline used for analysis, not just in science, but in industry and politics as well. Galton’s contributions included introducing the concepts of standard deviation, correlation, regression analysis and the application of these methods to the study of the variety of human characteristics – height, weight, eyelash length among others.[36] Pearson developed the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, defined as a product-moment,[37] the method of moments for the fitting of distributions to samples and the Pearson distribution, among many other things.[38] Galton and Pearson founded Biometrika as the first journal of mathematical statistics and biostatistics (then called biometry), and the latter founded the world’s first university statistics department at University College London.[39]
Ronald Fisher coined the term null hypothesis during the Lady tasting tea experiment, which “is never proved or established, but is possibly disproved, in the course of experimentation”.[40][41]
The second wave of the 1910s and 20s was initiated by William Gosset, and reached its culmination in the insights of Ronald Fisher, who wrote the textbooks that were to define the academic discipline in universities around the world. Fisher’s most important publications were his 1918 seminal paper The Correlation between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance, which was the first to use the statistical term, variance, his classic 1925 work Statistical Methods for Research Workers and his 1935 The Design of Experiments,[42][43][44][45] where he developed rigorous design of experiments models. He originated the concepts of sufficiency, ancillary statistics, Fisher’s linear discriminator and Fisher information.[46] In his 1930 book The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection he applied statistics to various biological concepts such as Fisher’s principle[47]). Nevertheless, A. W. F. Edwards has remarked that it is “probably the most celebrated argument in evolutionary biology”.[47] (about the sex ratio), the Fisherian runaway,[48][49][50][51][52][53] a concept in sexual selection about a positive feedback runaway affect found in evolution.
The final wave, which mainly saw the refinement and expansion of earlier developments, emerged from the collaborative work between Egon Pearson and Jerzy Neyman in the 1930s. They introduced the concepts of “Type II” error, power of a test and confidence intervals. Jerzy Neyman in 1934 showed that stratified random sampling was in general a better method of estimation than purposive (quota) sampling.[54]

Gabro
Reply to  jack
November 14, 2017 11:44 am

PS: In case you didn’t know, Galton was Darwin’s cousin.

JohnKnight
Reply to  jack
November 14, 2017 2:59 pm

“Biologists are phony scientists who are afraid of mathematics particularly calculus.”

Hey kids, here’s an idea; Qualifiers

*Many biologists are phony scientists who are afraid of mathematics particularly calculus*

Better yet;

*I’m convinced that many biologists are phony scientists who are afraid of mathematics particularly calculus*

See how that makes the speaker seem more . . rational?

And here’s another idea; Consistency

“Jack just ignorantly broad brushed an entire branch of science with an ignorant statement.

If he had said social sciences or political science, I would have agreed.”

See how the speaker does the very thing he criticizes another for doing? Watch how this can at least be made less glaring, so to speak, with qualifiers;

*Jack just ignorantly broad brushed an entire branch of science with an ignorant statement.

If he had said social sciences or political science, I would have agreed in general.

See how that leaves open the possibility that each and every member of the designated groups is not a fake scientist? (while leaving open the possibility that they all are, mind you, without the appearance of blatant hypocrisy ; )

It seems to me that many people, including many who comment here, think that speaking in flat statements of fact, inclines other people to see them as an authority . . but I suspect the exact opposite is true, more often. I know it stimulates doubt/suspicion is my mind, when someone speaks as though it never occurred to them that they are not omniscient . .

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  jack
November 14, 2017 7:45 pm

“The one with the steadiest hand.”

So he/she/it can remove the wrong part, but very well.

Gabro
Reply to  jack
November 14, 2017 7:49 pm

crackers345 November 13, 2017 at 11:22 pm

Your parents should ask for their tax dollars back, if you went to a public school, since your science teachers clearly failed miserably.

All my classes were AP, which saved me a lot of money by going through Stanford in three years instead of four.

Gabro
Reply to  jack
November 14, 2017 8:39 pm

JohnKnight November 14, 2017 at 2:59 pm

Hilariously hypocritical comment coming from a scientific illiterate who insanely imagines that evolution has no more support than creationism, so neither should be taught in public schools.

You always make me laugh out loud.

Richard G
Reply to  jack
November 14, 2017 9:28 pm

In High School I received my biology lessons in the back seat of a 55′ Chevy.

Gabro
Reply to  jack
November 14, 2017 9:30 pm

Richard,

However awkward and uncomfortable those lessons may have been, I imagine that they stuck with you.

Let’s hear it for public education!

Sheri
Reply to  John Nethery
November 13, 2017 5:20 pm

How do evolutionary paths go wrong? I thought natural selection was, well, natural and all outcomes from it were natural.

Gabro
Reply to  Sheri
November 13, 2017 6:06 pm

They can’t go wrong. Whatever evolution produces is natural. It has no goal or end. Even its increasing complexity will reverse as Earth becomes more hostile toward life.

If the human lineage went wrong a billion years ago, then that means that practically the whole Animal Kingdom went wrong, starting with sponges. If there even were multicellular, motile, heterotrophic eukaryotes a billion years ago, they were at best at the proto-sponge stage of development, ancestral to essentially all animals alive today. There might have been multicellular proto-metazoans as long ago as 1.2 billion years, but biochemical markers and the oldest fossils are all younger than a billion years.

Reply to  Sheri
November 13, 2017 7:08 pm

It was simply an Algorism. Like when Algore claimed the Earth’s core was millions of degrees hot.

It’s Leftists who like to preach science, but have only a college survey course or two under their belt. Like the Bill Nye the Science Guy, he isn’t even qualified to teach High School-level science curricula.

A person can get a BA degree in ecology today from a major university and call themselves a biologist but have actually few if any science classes in their required curriculum. Such is the sad state of today’s universities.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Sheri
November 13, 2017 7:12 pm
Gabro
Reply to  Sheri
November 13, 2017 7:38 pm

Gunga,

Except that those sponges wouldn’t be better if required to grow and reproduce in the open ocean or even a freshwater habitat.

Better for humans doesn’t better for sponges.

Surprisingly, or maybe not, some important basic work on sponge physiology and ecology wasn’t done until very recently. The traditional view had been that animals, ie multicellular, motile (for at least part of their lives), heterotrophic eukaryotes arose in response to higher oxygen concentrations in seawater. Then some young biologists actually measured the O2 requirements of sponges and found them shockingly low. Moreover, thanks to symbiotic relationships with cyanobacteria, it was found that many sponge species are actually net producers of free oxygen.

Thus, they could have evolved long before O2 rose to levels previously thought necessary for metazoa. Hence, other, more complex and obscure causes for the evolution of metazoa must be sought.

Reply to  Sheri
November 13, 2017 11:23 pm

gabro – there was no “human lineage”
a billion years ago.
jeez.

menicholas
Reply to  Sheri
November 14, 2017 2:24 am

Oldest fossils are all younger than 1 billion years?
Perhaps you meant for multicellular life, Gabro because surely you know that there are fossils far older than that. The oldest are only a few hundred million years younger than the earth itself.
I have a whole list of corrections, head scratchers, and eye rollers jarring my tired brain already, and I only have read the article and the comments above this one.
Too many to mention them all.
Surely anyone who studies hurricanes knows or ought to know that not all hurricanes originate from easterly waves, right? In fact, I think it may be a minority that do. Just about all of the early and late season names storms form from old cold fronts, although for sure the strongest tend to be the Cape Verde season storms.
And what is this about tropical cyclones having a high in the center of a ring of thunderstorms?
Yes, in a well formed mature hurricane, there is an eye, and the air in the eye is descending. And there is high pressure aloft, above the storm, which provides the outflow that ventilates the storm.
But the pressure in the center of the eye is low, not high. In fact, the eye is defined as the place where the pressure at the surface is lowest.
So there is that.
That national park service biologist is either as dumb as a bag full of hammers or misspoke, although even if she meant to say 1 million years, rather than a billion, she is way off.
Who knows what specific event or ability this person thinks marked the first step off the path for us, not much point in going down that road.
The first anatomically modern humans appeared less than 200,000 years ago, although the first use of fire by hominids was over 1 million years ago.
Personally, without knowing when the first liberal began to spread his or her infection, I would not even try to answer this question myself.
Well, I am too tired to mention even as many as I had on mind, so the last thing I will say is, I am sure that the term “anthropomorphic” is misused here, and in fact seems to be used in place of a more proper term for several different things.

schitzree
Reply to  Sheri
November 14, 2017 8:06 am

You’re all missing the brilliant truth of this quote. Man kind did go off the right evolutionary path a Billion years ago… along with all other animals.

We should never have turned to eating other living things. Even herbivores kill and consume living, feeling, lifeforms. Better to produce your own food through photosynthesis.

And being motive? Horrible! Crushing others underneath you, invading the space already inhabited by living things.

Clearly all this was a colossal mistake. Mother Gaia wants all life to be perfect plants.

Don’t just hug the trees, BECOME the trees!
Join today with the Organization for the Extermination of all Animals (formerly Greenpeace)

^¿^

Gabro
Reply to  Sheri
November 14, 2017 11:45 am

crackers345 November 13, 2017 at 11:23 pm

Of course there was a human lineage a billion years ago. The ancestors of all animals is on the human lineage.

Sheesh!

Gabro
Reply to  Sheri
November 14, 2017 11:55 am

Menicholas,

Yes, I meant multicellular fossils.

While stromatolties (mounds of cyanobacteria) count as fossils, they are of colonies, not multicellular individuals.

The putative late Hadean to early Archean Canadian fossils reported earlier this year, alleged to be just a few to several hundred million years younger than earth, ie variously estimated at 3.77 to 4.22 billion years old, haven’t been generally accepted yet.

Gabro
Reply to  Sheri
November 14, 2017 12:00 pm

schitzree November 14, 2017 at 8:06 am

Our kin the fungi might have beaten us to the wrong path of heterotrophy. And before either of us multicellular opisthokont eukaryotes, there were heterotrophic microbes.

Not saying that all us heterotrophs aren’t somehow wrong, but just saying, we weren’t the first to go down that path.

Gabro
Reply to  Sheri
November 14, 2017 8:18 pm

Crackers,

Please note that humans are chordates. Thus our lineage stretches back through bilaterally symmetrical ancestors, to radially symmetrical to asymmetrical, ie sponges, to their unicellular ancestors, ie choanoflagellates, which are colonial microbes resembling sperm and the closest single celled relatives of animals.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.OK6gx-uvcmZUs2P52rea7gEsDX&pid=15.1

Gabro
Reply to  Sheri
November 14, 2017 8:22 pm

Will try again. Hope this one works. Note that radial symmetry reevolved in the bilaterian line, to give us the wonderful starfish:

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/animalkingdomcomparativeanatomy-110815154117-phpapp01/95/animal-kingdom-comparative-anatomy-39-728.jpg?cb=1313423895

Reply to  Sheri
November 15, 2017 3:39 pm

Gabro commented – “Of course there was a human lineage a billion years ago. The ancestors of all animals is on the human lineage.”

sorry, a billion years ago humans
were a gleam in no one’s
eye.

a “lineage” only exists in retrospect.

Gabro
Reply to  Sheri
November 16, 2017 10:26 am

crackers345 November 15, 2017 at 3:39 pm

Every organism living today has a lineage going back not only a billion years, but four billion, or close to it.

The human lineage goes back to the origin of animals, with protosponges over 600 million years ago. Before that, our lineage goes back to unicellular choanoflagellates, which are colonial, practically identical to the feeding cells of sponges and resemble sperm. They are so genetically close to animals that they even carry the sequence for collagen. Before that, our lineage goes back to heterotrophic eukaryotes ancestral to both fungi and animals, earlier than 1.5 billion years ago.

It’s unclear when the first eukaryotes arose, but sometime after 3.0 Ga.

Latitude
Reply to  John Nethery
November 13, 2017 5:35 pm

Because evolution, for a lot of people, has become a religion….
They don’t realize evolution can just just as wrong as it’s right…it’s just a chance.
Biology evolved on the surface of this planet as carbon life forms….when CO2 levels were much higher.
They multiplied and used up the carbon faster than it can be replaced….carbon became limiting.
..and that’s where we are right now.

A religious person could even say that God put humans on the face of this planet to restore CO2 levels….so life as we know it didn’t cease to exist…. 😉

Funny that they use carbon (sic) capture to remove CO2 from industries….truck it across the country…and then sell it to greenhouses so they can increase the CO2 levels in their greenhouses…and release it back into the atmosphere…

WTF
Reply to  Latitude
November 13, 2017 6:38 pm

Latitude
Leaving religion aside because it has no place here, have you run your musings past any scientists ?, they could explain to you the theory of evolution.

Reply to  Latitude
November 13, 2017 11:34 pm

Latitude commented – “They don’t realize evolution can just just as wrong as it’s right…it’s just a chance”

what do you mean by “wrong?”

if evolution goes “wrong,” aren’t those lines eliminated
by natural selection?

Reply to  Latitude
November 13, 2017 11:35 pm

Latitude commented – “A religious person could even say that God put humans on the face of this planet to restore CO2 levels….so life as we know it didn’t cease to exist…. ;)”

just when do you
think life was at threat
of existence due to a lack
of CO2???

ps – you’re ignoring the growing
role of solar irradiance over 100s
of millions of years.

Latitude
Reply to  Latitude
November 14, 2017 2:52 pm

“what do you mean by “wrong?”

if evolution goes “wrong,” aren’t those lines eliminated
by natural selection?”

I think you just answered your own question……what ever it was had to evolve first to be eliminated later

Latitude
Reply to  Latitude
November 14, 2017 2:53 pm

WFT…no need…evolution throws crap out there….sometimes it’s a good guess and sometimes it’s not

irritable Bill
Reply to  John Nethery
November 13, 2017 5:36 pm

To John, this way they can claim humans were responsible for the mass extinction of dinosaurs etc. ha ha. After all its no more ridiculous than their current claims….and they are preaching to the re-educated. Children or childish drones who are conditioned to believe anything, or face the dreaded prospect ….of not fitting in !!!!!!
“They” don’t like dwelling on the past however, it reveals CO2PPM levels above 8,000PPM 600,000,000 years ago and a geologic average of about 2500PPM gradually declining to 300PPM at the little ice age and back up to 400PPM since…and they cannot answer the question, that if we are at 400PPM, a record equaling low CO2PPM in all of Earths geologic history…then how the fuck do they expect a run away global warming holocaust if we didn’t have that at vastly higher concentrations?
Sorry to bang on about this point but it is absolutely unanswerable and no-one is talking about it. I have made laminated graphs and keep them in my car, so when I get a believer, I show him my graph and ask him this question. I don’t get an answer of any weight. Usually they resort to the old…”If 97% blah blah blah, then I flip my chart over and it has the answers to all those lies as well ha ha. It make them think though, face contorted in concentration and smoke pouring out of their ears in with the effort. I recommend it, there are plenty of good maps on google and laminating is cheap. I bought a cheap Aldi laminator just for this purpose. And …plenty of usable science on this excellent blog answering the AGW lies. Keep up the fight guys…the majority of people don’t really believe it enough to pay higher power prices and that’s what they will get. Then there will be a political reckoning…and then one for scientific grants I imagine.

WTF
Reply to  irritable Bill
November 13, 2017 10:36 pm

Bill
Have tried showing your laminations to real scientists rather than random people, they’re the ones you need to convince. Or better still , write a proper article and submit it to some decent journal for review/publication. That’s what scientists have to do all the time.

menicholas
Reply to  irritable Bill
November 14, 2017 2:38 am

That is funny, WTF.
I might even say WTF in response to your comment.
For one thing, the so called climate scientists who are pushing the CAGW SPOC are beyond hope of being reasoned with, as even a warmista surely knows.
Your suggestion about submitting a skeptical paper for peer review is not even laughable, but the smug suggestion to do so is contemptible.
Sounds like the idea of taking one’s arguments straight to the people is rather worrisome to you.
As well it should be.

WTF
Reply to  irritable Bill
November 14, 2017 4:02 pm

younicholas,
So you have opted out of the scientific method and prefer an alternative science approach in the denier sphere, good luck. “Taking one’s arguments straight to the people ” does worries me. Its the same fallacious appeal to non experts that other fringe dwellers use when their ‘evidence’ falls flat in the real world.
You are not Galileo, you need to come into the light and play with the big boys.

Randy Bork
Reply to  John Nethery
November 13, 2017 6:12 pm
Reply to  Randy Bork
November 13, 2017 11:19 pm

what’s happened to the
ozone hole, &
why?

menicholas
Reply to  Randy Bork
November 14, 2017 2:40 am

Crackerhead,
Do your own homework, troll.
And when are you going to learn how to write a proper post?

Richard M
Reply to  Randy Bork
November 14, 2017 7:20 am

Crackers, there has been no change in the ozone hole. It still appears every year in SH winter and disappears in the summer. There’s been no statistical change since the Montreal protocol was signed.

Reply to  Randy Bork
November 15, 2017 3:47 pm

Richard M commented – “Crackers, there has been no change in the ozone hole.”

That’s incorrect. See

https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/statistics/annual_data.html

Paul r
Reply to  John Nethery
November 13, 2017 6:17 pm

That’s why they name hurricanes/cyclones after women. They come in minutes and when they leave they take the house and kids with them. 😊

Sara
Reply to  Paul r
November 13, 2017 6:44 pm

Yes, I see they have my name on that list for 2018. They have no idea what a bitch I can be. Perhaps I should ask NOAA to take my name off their list and find another “S” name instead.

Reply to  Paul r
November 13, 2017 8:37 pm

Fleetwood Mac had something to say about you.

Said Sara, you’re the poet in my heart
Never change, never stop
But now it’s gone
It doesn’t matter what for
But when you build your house
Then call me home.

Reply to  Paul r
November 13, 2017 11:18 pm

plenty of male names on the hurricane
name lists:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutnames.shtml

Sara Hall
Reply to  Paul r
November 14, 2017 12:57 am

+1

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Paul r
November 14, 2017 9:19 am

Here’s a reason to smile, Sara.

Randy Bork
Reply to  John Nethery
November 13, 2017 7:31 pm

“Somewhere along the line–at about a billion years ago, maybe half that–we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth.” – David M. Graber Oct 22, 1989, LA Times. So this ‘biologist’ thinks the human evolution lineage went off the track between 500 and 1,000 million years ago. Pre-human primates go back maybe 7 million years ago. Dinosaurs were still wandering the landscape 65 million years ago, and I don’t think there was much of a human presence at that time. Where did this guy get his credentials?

WTF
Reply to  Randy Bork
November 13, 2017 8:19 pm

He’s referring to our mammalian ancestors

Gabro
Reply to  Randy Bork
November 13, 2017 8:26 pm

Primates go back at least 60 million years. Upright walking apes, ie hominins or hominids, you’re right, maybe around seven million years.

Mammals date either from the Triassic, ie about the same as the dinosaurs, or Jurassic, depending upon your definition of “mammal”. I go by the mammalian jaw joint, which means Triassic. Others consider those, like Morganucodon, “proto-mammals”.

Randy Bork
Reply to  Randy Bork
November 13, 2017 8:31 pm

In my book, 65 is quite a bit less than 500 or 1,000!

Gabro
Reply to  Randy Bork
November 13, 2017 8:38 pm

Randy,

Couldn’t agree more! How could I?

The point is that the statement was idiotic not just upon scientific grounds, but philosophical and moral.

When did humans quit being part of nature? Not a billion years ago or seven million or fifty. We and our ancestors were then and still are now.

Earth should thank us for helping to preserve the complexity of nature by enriching the planet with life-giving CO2.

Gabro
Reply to  Randy Bork
November 13, 2017 8:38 pm

How could I not, obviously.

Reply to  Randy Bork
November 13, 2017 8:43 pm

The first examples of chordates, or vertebrates, came about in the Cambrian Explosion about 541 million years ago. 500 million years ago, the only vertebrates were fish. The first amphibians came about no more than 420 million years ago, and the first reptiles came about around 320 million years ago. The ancestors of mammals differentiated from other reptiles shortly afterwards, between 315 and 300 million years ago. The first mammals came about in the early Triassic age, no more than 250 million years ago. The first examples of the primate order came about as long ago as about 79.6 million years ago, although a lot of mammal evolution took place shortly after the Cretaceous age ended 65-66 million years ago, and primates became a more distinct order of mammals then. The first great apes were even more recent than that.

Gabro
Reply to  Randy Bork
November 13, 2017 8:47 pm

Donald,

Questionable on the dating of amphibians and primates, but otherwise well within reasonable limits.

peterg
Reply to  Randy Bork
November 14, 2017 12:28 am

I think he probably meant a million, makes more sense. I don’t think multi-cellular life had even evolved a billion years ago.

Reply to  Randy Bork
November 14, 2017 1:09 am

“In my book, 65 is quite a bit less than 500 or 1,000!”

Not in climate seance…. it’s what you want it to be.
Ask Griff or crackhead345.

Gabro
Reply to  Randy Bork
November 21, 2017 5:47 pm

peterg November 14, 2017 at 12:28 am

Multicellular life, as in plants, animals and fungi, might not have evolved yet a billion years ago. However, there were already eukaryotic unicells which formed colonies. The original eukaryotes were heterotrophs, like animals and fungi. The ancestors of plants were heterotrophic eukaryotes which engulfed cyanobacteria, and instead of consuming them, formed an endosymbiotic relationship with them, giving rise to chloroplasts.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Nethery
November 13, 2017 9:17 pm

The claim that humans are not a part of Nature speaks volumes about the thinking of progressives. On the one hand they elevate humans to be separate from Nature, and at the same time, condemn humans for everything that they consider to be wrong in the world. I think it is very wrong-headed ‘thinking.’ It also provides insight on why progressives of the environmental bent make the claims that they do and act in ways that are harmful to themselves.

Gabro
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 13, 2017 9:24 pm

In terms of death and destruction wreaked on the biosphere, humans aren’t a pimple on the posterior of cyanobacteria, which almost wiped out life on earth over two billion years ago.

OTOH, we’re on track to save the planet from CO2 starvation, staving off the demise of surface life on earth by billions of years.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 13, 2017 11:16 pm

when was the planet in
threat of co2 starvation?
all the glacial periods of the
Pliocene that plants
survived heartily?

OweninGA
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 14, 2017 6:12 am

Cracker,

You keep asking the same question.”I do not think it means what you think it means!” C3 plant death is at about 180ppm CO2. We were very close to that in the little ice age. There are other photosynthesis pathways, but there are an awful lot of useful plants of the C3 variety. CO2 has historically been much higher than today and the explosion of life has typically been when CO2 is higher.

But then again you are just here to troll, so facts don’t really mean anything.

Gabro
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 14, 2017 12:11 pm

crackers345 November 13, 2017 at 11:16 pm

You keep asking the same question and keep being told the answer.

You mean Pleistocene, not Pliocene.

During glaciations, not all C3 plants survive. I guess you’ve never heard of the Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse, during the previous Ice House of the Phanerozoic.

As you’ve been told over and over again, during the Pleistocene glaciations, many plants have come close to starvation. They have to retreat to wetter, warmer areas to survive. Not all plants starve to death, but they starve, quit reproducing or shift locale in order to survive.

Long before the Pleistocene, plants evolved C4 and CAM pathways to deal with crashing CO2 levels during the Oligocene, Miocene and Pliocene Epochs. Then it got worse during the Pleistocene.

Reply to  John Nethery
November 13, 2017 10:02 pm

A Bigot? Anthropomorphism Is actually a ideological created word to attack the Western World and promote a radical change of society.

Reply to  John Nethery
November 14, 2017 2:05 pm

The problem with biologist these days is the tendency to project from animal studies onto human populations, hence biologists often tend toward Malthusian thinking in regard to humanity,
Notable biologist: Paul Ehrlich, predictor of doom due to mass starvation for humanity in the 1980s

Gabro
Reply to  Sam Grove
November 14, 2017 2:09 pm

Ehrlich was a prof of mine. His students made fun of his doomsaying.

Not all biologists are Malthusian alarmists.

Matt
November 13, 2017 4:45 pm

“This causes the Easterly Wave to form into a circle of thunderstorms around a high-pressure center, the traditional ‘eye’ of tropical storms and hurricanes. When wind speeds are above 119 kph (74 mph) a tropical storm becomes a Category 1 hurricane. The hurricane structure continues to be a circle of massive cumulonimbus clouds around a high-pressure center.” – Ummmmm… “HIGH” pressure?????

Reply to  Matt
November 13, 2017 5:06 pm

Saw that too. He did it twice. Blows his meteorological cred right clean out of the water.
Note to Tim: Low Pressures turn CCW in the NH. High pressures are CW.

Earthling2
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 13, 2017 6:01 pm

I saw that too, and just thought it must be an honest typo…he must have made a very honest mistake. We all do it. I just made a similar mistake the other day writing up a comment why I would never buy a pure EV car, and when I read it back the next day, I actually said I would never buy an ICE car again. Geez, good thing nobody reads my comments.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 13, 2017 9:00 pm

Meteorological credibility was blown further with his explanations of Ophelia and Hazel. It is common for a storm to change from one kind to another when it moves from conditions favoring one kind of storm to conditions favoring another kind. Extratropical transition is a long-known common endgame for tropical cyclones. Less common but still not rare is a weak extratropical cyclone forming where conditions also favor a tropical cyclone, and then the weak extratropical cyclone changes into a tropical one. Then there is the subtropical cyclone, which became recognized in the 1970s, which is an in-between kind of storm, powered in part by horizontal temperature gradient like extratropical cyclones and in part by the warm-core convection and evaporation of warm ocean water into air that got cooled by entering a pressure drop and gets rewarmed somewhat by the ocean like what happens in tropical cyclones. But if a cyclone develops noticeable fronts, it gets classified as extratropical rather than subtropical. A tropical cyclone can approach an existing front, and then get reclassified as extratropical once its core is more on the front than on the warm side of the front and/or the its core shows characteristics of being powered more by horizontal temperature gradient than by warm ocean water heating (air cooled by entering a lower pressure area and expanding) and evaporating into a convective low pressure area.

Richard Chenoweth
Reply to  Matt
November 13, 2017 5:09 pm

exactly??

cjames
Reply to  Matt
November 13, 2017 5:43 pm

Good comment Matt. Talk about sowing confusion.

Matt
Reply to  Stewart Pid
November 13, 2017 7:45 pm

Stewart, the center is low pressure, which is what those images show. The lower the pressure, the stronger the hurricane. #nativefloridian

Latitude
November 13, 2017 4:47 pm

the chimpanzees have nothing to teach us…..I just learned to not turn my back on dominate males.. 🙂

…spot on….excellent article

commieBob
Reply to  Latitude
November 13, 2017 7:42 pm

Humans are really special. We can learn valuable lessons from fictional anthropomorphised animals in Aesop’s Fables. We can learn from Winnie the Pooh.

There’s not much that actual wild chimps can teach most of us. That’s just a romantic notion. It’s something like the noble savage.

We can learn a whole lot more from the Greek Myths.

Gabro
Reply to  commieBob
November 13, 2017 7:44 pm

Chimps can’t teach us much that we haven’t already learned from studying ourselves.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  commieBob
November 13, 2017 8:18 pm

We can learn that we aren’t special. That there’s very little that separates us from any other animal. That’s a pretty valuable lesson that so many people seem to miss.

Gabro
Reply to  commieBob
November 13, 2017 8:20 pm

Ben,

True, but all animals teach us that. Chimps maybe more so because they are so similar to us.

Reply to  commieBob
November 13, 2017 11:14 pm

sorry, but we are
quite different from chimps.
that is obvious.

Reply to  commieBob
November 14, 2017 9:34 am

crackers345 on November 13, 2017 at 11:14 pm
sorry, but we are
quite different from chimps.
that is obvious

Well cut my arms off and call me clothespin. Until now I thought you were an infinite number of chimps. Boy was I wrong.

Gabro
Reply to  commieBob
November 14, 2017 11:48 am

crackers345 November 13, 2017 at 11:14 pm

Yes, humans are different from chimps, but more different yet from gorillas and orangutans. However, all the great apes are very similar. Genetically, we’re practically identical. Small genetic differences however can generate larger behavioral differences.

menicholas
Reply to  commieBob
November 14, 2017 11:58 am

Have a banana crackerhead.

AndyG55
Reply to  commieBob
November 14, 2017 12:54 pm

“but we are
quite different from chimps.
that is obvious.”

You show very little obvious difference from a chimp.

Seems you are the exception.

Gabro
Reply to  commieBob
November 14, 2017 1:11 pm

AndyG55 November 14, 2017 at 12:54 pm

You insult the species, sir!

Hugs
Reply to  Latitude
November 13, 2017 11:22 pm

Absolutely the chimpanzees do have something to teach us, and it is not to be chimpanzees.

John M. Ware
Reply to  Latitude
November 14, 2017 3:47 am

“Dominant” not “dominate.” Dominant is an adjective meaning overpowering or the like; dominate is a verb meaning to lord it over someone or something. You are right, though: Never turn your back on any primate; even turning your back on certain human beings can be risky.

November 13, 2017 5:06 pm

“It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”

Got news for you mate. Humans survive on the brink of disaster, that’s where we operate best because we constantly push the boundaries, and we always deal with things ‘too late’.

Humanity will wait until coal, gas and oil have run out, before we invent something incredible, like fusion power, to replace it. We constantly ignore the warning signs because most of us are complacent, and some optimistic.

And humanity would not have come this far were it not for a handful of courageous, optimistic pioneers who wanted to peer over the edge of the planet whilst the majority, the pessimists stayed at home, to scared to ask a question.

We climate sceptics are the optimists. We see a bright future, we’ll ask the questions, we’ll find the solutions, and we are the minority who’ll get the job done when the pessimistic alarmists are cowering in their homes.

Reply to  HotScot
November 13, 2017 6:08 pm

The Left are the Malthusians. They are the hopers for anemminent pandemic virus, a Zombie Apocalypse, anything to lay a scythe to the human population. In turmoil and despair, they find followers. They ply scare stories, States of Fear, in hopes of controlling the sheep. The Left wants people to think Germany 1930 was the Right. History shows they are wrong. Germany 1930’s was National Socialism. They in another form. Totalitarian.

Societal resilience is the ability to absorb natural shocks through the family unit. In the faith of a God and family first. That is the true Right. It is why the Left continually puts the Left under assault. Plying false narratives like “The Village” to replace the family. Place your trust in a village, where others without your interests make your decisions and enforce them upon you and your family.
Look at almost every disaster movie made. It is the family unit or a member of the family the hero or heroine is driven to save. Even corrupt Hollywood understands the power of the family. It is why the Left hates the family.

Reply to  joelobryan
November 13, 2017 6:10 pm

correction: It is why the Left continually puts the Left Right under assault.

DonM
Reply to  joelobryan
November 13, 2017 6:53 pm

Saw that too.

Thought maybe second thoughts kicked in and you were just probably, hopefully, maybe, doing it on purpose to show that it can happen to anyone, and the credibility of the author could remain…

the correction killed my hope

Reply to  joelobryan
November 14, 2017 12:53 am

joelobryan

Not just 1930’s Germany. The whole of the 20th Century was an example of leftist failure and extreme brutality, Mussolini was from the left, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim, Mugabi, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot; ideologists with the common theme of political elitism, obscene wealth and privilege, at the expense of the population.

It astonishes me that 30’s Germany can somehow be distorted into a problem of the right. Capitalism has brought the world everything positive, the opportunity for anyone to be wealthy and the right to spend that wealth as one pleases, technological advancement, medicine, stable economies, poverty reduction, education, the rule of law, women’s rights, the end of discrimination, democratically elected parliaments, and free speech.

These are spun as left wing initiatives as well as condemning the right for everything evil by unsuppressed left wing propaganda, only possible with the right to freedom of speech, fought for by the right. The left would not be allowed to exist under any other political system other than its own. But it does exist, thanks to Capitalism and its policies of freedom of speech and the rule of law.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

Griff
Reply to  HotScot
November 14, 2017 2:04 am

Large areas of the developed world ARE ending fossil fuel consumption…

The UK has drastically reduced coal consumption and will end its use in power plants in 2025.

Matt Bergin
Reply to  Griff
November 14, 2017 5:20 am

No they won’t.

Reply to  Griff
November 14, 2017 5:34 am

Griff

“Large areas of the developed world ARE ending fossil fuel consumption…”

Germany building new coal fired power stations to replace it’s nuclear fleet?

Meanwhile, back in good old Blighty, Drax, notoriously converted to wood pellets is now emitting more CO2 than it did with coal. Not that CO2 is a problem. And whilst we wealthy western countries can afford to heavily subsidise renewables (so far) developing countries can’t build cheap, efficient fossil fuel powered stations, and can’t afford to subsidise renewables. So the eradication of fossil fuels is good for the west, but no good for anywhere else.

And then between India and China, there are well in excess of 1,000 coal fired plants being built or planned. So as energy prices increase in the west, manufacturing flees overseas, and the west is impoverished.

And whilst I’m aware you are all for nuclear, the causes you identify with routinely condemn them as well, in favour of centuries old wind technology that was replaced because of its inefficiency and impracticality.

It’s not this site you should be frequenting Griff, it’s all your green mates you should be persuading that nuclear is good.

Reply to  Griff
November 14, 2017 5:36 am

The UK is run by and is in the vice-like grip of barking insane elitist career politicians and has been for a long time. The UK will be Muslim majority and most likely under Sharia law within a decade or so. The windmills will stand as corroding, leering sentinels over a new dark age from which there may be no Renaissance until they fall like so many mechanical Ozymandias statues.

Old44
Reply to  Griff
November 14, 2017 8:44 am

The Pom’s reduced coal consumption when Drax started burning American wood instead of coal.

kyle_fouro
Reply to  Griff
November 14, 2017 10:32 pm

It’s more accurate to say that they intend on ending consumption.

Michael 2
Reply to  HotScot
November 14, 2017 1:21 pm

A bit of anthropic principle in your reply, I think. We are the survivors of past generations that made choices that turned out to be “fit”. Many cultures did not survive their own choices as revealed by their ruins in Arizona and elsewhere.

Mike Maguire
November 13, 2017 5:13 pm

1954 was a very unusual hurricane season. Hurricane Hazel was the last(and worst) of the major, cat. 3 or higher hurricanes to hit the East/Northeast US area…….in just 3 months……and during global cooling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Atlantic_hurricane_season

Carol-August
Edna-September(actually was a strong cat. 2 at landfall)
Hazel-October

Hazel had some similarities with Super Storm Sandy after it made landfall and merged with a mid latitude upper level trough(-NAO/cold weather upper level trough) in Southeast Canada/New England.

I find it interesting that in 2012, this feature that caused the hybrid Super Storm Sandy was blamed on global warming from humans but its actually a cold weather pattern and when it happened in 1954, we had global cooling taking place. In both cases……….and probably numerous other times in the past, it was just part of the extreme weather that has always been an expected part of our climate.

Decreasing the meridional temperature gradient by warming the highest latitudes the most has actually decreased some measures of extreme weather…..as one would expect using basic physics from meteorology 101.

November 13, 2017 5:38 pm

I’ve never been to Winnipeg. Why would people there pay to attend a Jane Goodall event only to be hostile to her? Their questions don’t indicate hostility to me; rather that they wanted to know facts, not just politically corrected reports – when that’s all you can get in a bookstore.

BCBill
Reply to  Curious George
November 13, 2017 8:59 pm

If Jane Goodall was showing the good citizens of Winterpeg pictures of tropical places after the early cold weather this fall on the Canadian prairies, well no wonder they were crabby.

November 13, 2017 5:51 pm

As far as Goodall begging for money goes: She was living for long periods of time in Africa in the jungle. That’s especially far away from any established modern civilization. Only nearby were the poorest of poor villages in terms of western goods or the ability to have hard currency to buy any.

So no doubt, her returns to the West brought home to her in painful ways how rich we are in the US and Canada. Basically 1 dollar/day would be a rich salary there today, and much more acutely so in 60’s and 70’s.
She couldn’t have been making much money to support herself and her research to any Western-standards without lots of donations.

Which to me is the cruelest of all cruelties why the Greens insist Africa remain energy poor. Being fossil fuel energy poor means they will continue to cut the forests for burning to charcoal fuel. It means they will continue to harvest “bush meat” as buying expensive beef or lamb or goat in a city needs refrigeration and money they don’t have. The Greens are the cruelest people on this planet today.

Gerald Landry
Reply to  joelobryan
November 13, 2017 6:11 pm

Joelobryan, good point bringing up those living a Subsistence lifestyle without refrigeration. There maybe 2 Billion people without that convenience. Natural gas for cooking would be a priority to reduce respiratory impacts of open fires. If Africa quit Venting and using -60% inefficient Flare Stacks they say they could electrify half the Continent.

Reply to  Gerald Landry
November 13, 2017 6:42 pm

Refrigeration is probably the most important invention of the 20th century in terms of diminished poverty and allowing great increases in wealth accumulation. Refrigeration is made possible because of widespread electrification. (the light bulb was 19th century).

It allows homes to be sealed from the heat and flying insects. Flying Insects which cause much disease and misery and loss of wealth. It allows people to work effectively and efficiently in factories and offices year around. It allows the individual to store already cooked foods and drinks (milk) without spoiling to eat for your children’s nutrition. And even in cool climates like Canada, I think most Candians would agree their refrigerators are important to them. (beer ehhh?)

And refrigeration, both for home A/C and for food, requires electricity that no minor solar panel installation can provide, and even if it could, it wouldn’t at night or cloudy days.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Gerald Landry
November 13, 2017 8:27 pm

Gerald

This stat is old, but Africa is said to flare twelve times the gas energy they now use to run the entire continent. It is phenomenal how much waste that is.

Reply to  Gerald Landry
November 13, 2017 8:47 pm

Nigerian oil fields flare huge amounts of sour gas, and that that isn’t would have to be treated with an odorant like Mercapten. All Western natural gas in commercial use is traced with Mercapten to give it a smell for safety.

Oil is energy dense and can be easily stored in tanks and maritime tankers. Small volume.
Gas Storage, large volume per energy unit, in the US is done in massive subterranean salt-dome geologic formations. Not sure if those are abundant in Africa.

I Came I Saw I Left
November 13, 2017 5:56 pm

So it’s a self-hating, self-destructive nihilism at the heart of this. I saw some of that today when I happened upon a woman’s tweet that was a comment on Gov. Jerry Brown’s response to a reporter about how he was enjoying his trip (Climate summit). He said he hated everything. He was obviously being sarcastic, but this stupid woman took him seriously and said – well I’ll let you listen in

https://twitter.com/emorwee/status/930138805318844421

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
November 13, 2017 5:59 pm

That didn’t show up exactly as I intended. There was a follow-up comment equally as disturbing

https://twitter.com/fantabulizer/status/930150307715149824

Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
November 13, 2017 6:21 pm

TDS is warping the Left’s brain. It is erosion on their sanity. Moonbeam’s followers no longer know even how to understand simple sarcasm.

And it is just 1 year in for at least 3 more for them. Their levels of insanity will rapidly increase as more Trump cabinet officials and judges are appointed. As more Trump policies are put in place. As more of Obama’s executive fiats are swept aside.

Yeah Trump!! I like him if for no other reason than the insanity he is exposing and amplifying on the Progressives who hate America and the US Constitution. The NFL is imploding on the Leftist ideology of the new generation of players. The main stream media is imploding on their own bias, a bias that has always been there but no exposed. Hollywood is finally eating its own pedophiles and perverts on its PC pogrom.

Next up? They comes for the Leftist professors infesting universities across this land.

Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
November 13, 2017 11:09 pm

Brown was obviously being
sarcastic.

TA
Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
November 14, 2017 7:28 am

“TDS is warping the Left’s brain.”

That is true. And the Left is going to really go crazy when Trump’s Attorney General appoints a Special Counsel to investigate Hillary and the Obama administration for selling 20 percent of U.S. uranium to Russia in exchange for huge amounts of money (in Hillary Clinton’s case).

I think public Congressional hearings on this subject should also take place to let the American people see just how corrupt and anti-democratic, the Obama administration really was. A Special Counsel investigation takes place mostly out of public view.

wildeco2014
November 13, 2017 6:12 pm

A hurricane eye is comprised of relatively low pressure at the base but relatively high pressure at the top.
The low pressure at the base draws air inwards whilst the high pressure aloft forces it outward to create a sort of heat engine with an ‘exhaust pipe’ at the top.
The combination provides the power to drive the system and maintain the structure.
It is quite different to mid latitude storms as Tim says.

Reply to  wildeco2014
November 13, 2017 6:30 pm

Wild,
see his figure 1.
He clearly implies the core is a high pressure in the text, while the figure shows CCW central air movement organizing the storm at the core. CCW is Low Pressure in the NH.

I agree that tropical cyclones exist in the larger context of a stable high pressure air mass. Basic meteorology. Such as the steering, stable CW Bermuda High Pressure under which Atlantic basin tropical storms form and move (generally) westward and then northward along the periphery. The same thing happens for the strongest Nor’easters along the New England coast. The Nor’easter core is CCW (a deep low), but to it’s right (east) a larger, dominant High Pressure that is steering it and the Jet Stream in a classic loop up the coast. But the core is Low Pressure. Just as his figure 1 shows.

wildeco2014
Reply to  joelobryan
November 13, 2017 11:02 pm

Fig 1 is a mid latitude depression, not a hurricane.
A hurricane eye has low pressure at the surface but high pressure at the top.
Someone above refers to a variety of hurricane graphics. Note the one with H at the top of the eye and L at the base.

wildeco2014
Reply to  joelobryan
November 14, 2017 12:11 am

A Fig 1 depression forms from irregularities along the boundary between different air masses when one undercuts the other due to density differentials.
A hurricane forms in a single air mass from convection caused by local or regional surface heating and is then made to rotate by centrifugal forces.
Completely separate phenomena with different structures.

R. Shearer
November 13, 2017 6:38 pm

Of all the animals, only mankind, not for example whales with their larger brains, has the capability to prevent an extinction event, such as by deflecting a killer asteroid (or at least I hope so). I don’t think all Goodall’s chimpanzees could do it. A cancer couldn’t do it either.

Despite our flaws, and the abundance of idiots in our ranks like that NPS biologist, we should be proud of our species and realize that we are the best hope for preserving life on earth, especially our own, and for expanding it beyond our planet.

Gabro
Reply to  R. Shearer
November 13, 2017 7:43 pm

Disillusioned Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore argues that, since with each succeeding glaciation, Earth gets progressively more starved of CO2, humanity will be the planet’s savior, by releasing sequestered stores of the essential trace gas in order to green the world.

Reply to  Gabro
November 13, 2017 11:08 pm

were plants
starving before 1750?

Griff
Reply to  Gabro
November 14, 2017 2:07 am

not a Greenpeace ‘co-founder’

Moore started a nuclear test protest group which was one of many groups merging to create Greenpeace… he left soon after.

He never espoused any green issue except banning nuclear tests and had no involvement in or knowledge of or sympathy for any other green issue or viewpoint.

Matt Bergin
Reply to  Gabro
November 14, 2017 5:27 am

Griff it seems pretty obvious really. He was a member when they formed Greenpeace so therefore He was one of the founding members. Logic is not one of your strong points is it?

Reply to  Gabro
November 14, 2017 5:56 am

Griff he espoused saving the whales and the seal pups and all of the stuff which was then current. Nothing wrong with that. He drew the line when he realised the movement had been hijacked by insane Marxists who started wanting to ban periodic table elements.

OweninGA
Reply to  Gabro
November 14, 2017 6:32 am

Cracker,

Looking at production per acre numbers, the answer would be yes. Remember plant growth is limited by the most restricted resource of water, nitrogen, trace minerals, and CO2. We have done wonders in irrigation and fertilizers, but that doesn’t explain the greening of the Sahel and other desert regions without much irrigation and fertilizing going on. CO2 increases yields by not being the limiting factor to plant growth.

But then again you are trolling and don’t care about facts.

Reply to  Gabro
November 14, 2017 6:56 am

Ah, adjustments of history, Greenpeace style. Patrick Moore used to be listed as a co-founder, but they erased him when he turned out to have brains.

Reply to  Gabro
November 14, 2017 10:01 am

November 13, 2017 at 11:08 pm
were plants
starving before 1750?

You really need more chimps typing away for you.

AndyG55
Reply to  Gabro
November 14, 2017 12:51 pm

And yes, stomata evidence says that they were….

But we cannot go on forgiving your blatant IGNORANCE forever.

AndyG55
Reply to  Gabro
November 14, 2017 12:52 pm

You are LYING again, griff.

ALWAYS .

Reply to  Gabro
November 15, 2017 3:49 pm

C George: “According to a statement by Greenpeace, “Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace.” [4]”

https://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-moore

Reply to  Gabro
November 15, 2017 3:50 pm

OwenGA: show your data.

Reply to  Gabro
November 15, 2017 3:51 pm

OweninGA commented – “Looking at production per acre numbers, the answer would be yes.”

you have production data
from the last glacial
maximum?

i asked if plants were in
threat of going
extinct. you answered
a different question, not the
one i asked.

Reply to  Gabro
November 15, 2017 3:53 pm

P Moore, 2006: “….nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet
from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
November 15, 2017 4:15 pm

crackers345 November 13, 2017 at 11:08 pm

Plants were starving during the lase glacial maximum and were malnourished during the Little Ice Age. This should be obvious to you, since C3 plants grow so much better under 600, 800 and 1200 ppm than they do at 400 or 300 ppm.

C4 and CAM plants would not have evolved had CO2 remained as high as it was during the Eocene. Their photosynthesis pathways would have conferred no selective advantage under optimal CO2 conditions, which is above 1200 ppm.

I’ve already pointed out to you that the previous glacial epochs during the Carboniferous and Permian Periods caused massive plant extinctions.

Editor
Reply to  Gabro
November 15, 2017 4:20 pm

Crackers goes to Desmoblog for their lies about Patrick Moore. Here is undeniable proof that Dr. Moore was a founder as the Greenpeace website LISTED him as one not long ago:

Greenpeace disappears a founder, much like ‘The Commissar Vanishes’ in Soviet Russia

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/25/greenpeace-disappears-a-founder-much-like-the-commissar-vanishes-in-soviet-russia/

Editor
Reply to  Gabro
November 15, 2017 4:22 pm

From 2002,
comment image?w=720

Why does Greenpeace lie about it,Crackers?

November 13, 2017 6:53 pm

What was the name of the biologist?

Tom_in_TX
November 13, 2017 7:20 pm

Once saw a comment that the dinosaurs wouldn’t be extinct if they had had a space program.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Tom_in_TX
November 13, 2017 10:20 pm

I heard if they had an asteroid tax they would have save themselves from oblivion.

Reply to  Tom_in_TX
November 13, 2017 10:56 pm

no one stops
a 12-km asteroid.
not them, not us.

Andrew Cooke
Reply to  crackers345
November 14, 2017 9:31 am

Oh, barf Cracker. Given enough lead time and sufficient resources we most assuredly could deflect a 12 km asteroid. It is a basic engineering problem that is only limited by its constraints, i.e. how much time and how much money. Give me a couple orbits lead time and a large enough Ion engine along with the political capital necessary to spend the money needed to design, boost, and assemble in orbit said engine and delivery vehicle.

I suppose a 12 km asteroid could get itself in an orbit to hit us without us seeing it and then be seen at the very last minute where the constraint of time is so small that we couldn’t stop it but again even that constraint could be defeated if we had assets already in orbit and we had unlimited funds to preposition sufficient resources.

Try not to make concrete statements. Nothing that is not against the laws of physics is impossible given enough time and resources.

Reply to  crackers345
November 14, 2017 10:09 am

But we can destroy an 8000 mile planet?

Andrew Cooke
Reply to  crackers345
November 14, 2017 12:03 pm

Squiggy, given enough time and resources I am sure we could. Or at least make it inhabitable. For the record, a trace gas won’t do it, especially in the parts per million.

Michael 2
Reply to  crackers345
November 14, 2017 1:31 pm

crackers345 “no one stops a 12-km asteroid. not them, not us.”

Maybe, but that hasn’t been proposed. What is proposed is deflecting its path. Alternatively, an “ark” or space station to re-seed the planet once it can support life again. It seems to me that nuclear submarines won’t be much affected provided they aren’t in the impact zone or the antipode. The global problem with asteroids is the severe and abrupt climate change that persists for a few years.

Gabro
November 13, 2017 7:27 pm

I knew and admired her when she was at Stanford, but Dr. Goodall is mistaken about chimp cannibalism. Bands of chimps have been observed waging war against other bands, so why not eat your dead enemies, once you’ve already killed them? That’s what people used to do and probably still do.

They hunt, kill and eat monkeys and bushbabies, so why not other apes, to include chimps?

She’s also wrong about violence between males fighting for dominance, and must know she’s wrong. Common chimps are vicious, like people. Bonobos, less so.

Reply to  Gabro
November 13, 2017 9:21 pm

Bonobos are also known for having lots of ordinary interactions having some sexual nature, such as in some level of flirting, and with touches where those getting touched feel a sexual aspect. What I wonder at this point is if female bonobos get to do this as well as male ones.

Something else notable in the animal kingdom – males are not bigger in size throughout it. Males are more likely to be bigger among mammals and birds, while females are more likely to be bigger among insects and arachnids. And there are more species of insects than there are of mammals and birds combined, at times I have seen pie charts showing a majority of all known extant animal species being insects.

Gabro
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
November 13, 2017 9:28 pm

Actually lesbianism is much more common among bonobos than male homosexual interaction. Female homosexual contact is very prevalent among bonobos. However I’m not sure that male homosexuality has even ever been observed. No homosexuality of any kind, to my knowledge, which might be outdated, has ever been seen among common chimps.

Even among reptiles, to include birds, females are sometimes larger than males. They have to harbor eggs, after all. Among arthropods, the female size difference can be downright scary.

Hans-Georg
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
November 14, 2017 12:35 am

Is there a “me too” among bonobos? It seems to me that mankind are a bit different from their ancestors.

Reply to  Gabro
November 13, 2017 10:55 pm

gabro: so you wanted to eat Saddam Hussein?
Cornwallis? Robert E Lee?

amazing

Andrew Cooke
Reply to  crackers345
November 14, 2017 9:33 am

Troll

Michael 2
Reply to  crackers345
November 14, 2017 1:35 pm

crackers345 writes “so you wanted to eat Saddam Hussein? Cornwallis? Robert E Lee?”

You can find Corn Flakes and Sara Lee at the grocery store.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
November 14, 2017 12:16 pm

crackers345 November 13, 2017 at 10:55 pm

Do you enjoy making a fool of yourself?

Throughout human history, humans have killed an eaten their enemies. I never have. Had the elder Bush been captured by the Japanese on Chichi Jima, he would have been eaten, though lacking much meat on his then bones.

Neither Cornwallis nor Lee was killed, so obviously couldn’t have been easily eaten, had US soldiers wanted to do so.

Reply to  Gabro
November 15, 2017 3:37 pm

Did you
advocate eating Saddam Hussein when he was killed?
If not, why not?

Tom in Florida
November 13, 2017 7:32 pm

“Somewhere along the line – at about a billion years ago – we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. ”

Perhaps someone has watched the Matrix too many times’

NorwegianSceptic
Reply to  Tom in Florida
November 14, 2017 6:23 am

And according to the Movie, humans are renewable energy! 🙂

Andrew Cooke
Reply to  Tom in Florida
November 14, 2017 9:36 am

That guy took a green colored pill and became a sociopath. That’s the problem with the green pill.

November 13, 2017 7:39 pm

Ophelia did become a hurricane. It got all the thermal and structural characteristics of a hurricane. Then it became an extratropical cyclone when it moved from an area supportive of a hurricane to one that is hostile to a hurricane and supportive of an extratropical cyclone. This is common, and it happened with Sandy.

As for Hazel, it maintained a continuous path of hurricane force winds while transitioning into an extratropical cyclone, as it had gone over land and approached a cold front in an area where it is common for “secondary” low pressure areas of extratropical cyclone type to form on cold fronts, south of a primary extratropical cyclone.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
November 13, 2017 8:51 pm

Completely agree about how cyclones can gain and lose tropical warm cores.
Tim Ball is simply out to lunch on this post. Blows his cred. Utterly.

wildeco2014
Reply to  joelobryan
November 13, 2017 11:08 pm

See above.
A hurricane eye has low pressure at the surface but high pressure at the top.

November 13, 2017 7:41 pm

I just have a sudden desire to bite off the testicles of my enemies…

Gabro
Reply to  Bartleby
November 13, 2017 7:47 pm

I can take or leave their testicles, but the lamentations of their women, now that’s the ticket!

Plus their livestock and any precious metals they might have stashed away, of course.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
November 13, 2017 7:50 pm

That might only apply to humans, however. Female chimps might be glad to get rid of their accustomed silver backs and the younger males fighting for control of them.

Reply to  Gabro
November 13, 2017 8:55 pm

Eternal questions!!

What is Best in Life?
https://youtu.be/Oo9buo9Mtos

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
November 13, 2017 9:03 pm

That is good!

The gospel according to John Milius. Who, after Dirty Harry, should know.

donald penman
November 13, 2017 9:52 pm

Dr Tim Ball makes a good point about the naming of hurricanes and storms rather than giving them a number. We are given a set of things that we must be objective about and those we must subjective about, meteorology is a mix of subjective and objective and climate science builds on this framework to threaten us with disaster. What value does “most important” have in objective science but many claim that the oceans are “most important” on the Earth it brings up images of chimpanzees fighting for social status and some seem to think that the weather in the USA is the most important in the world, the alpha male of world weather. I think we have better communication of extreme weather events today and this has been more important than our ability to predict extreme weather events in advance in saving lives from these events. This also goes for the value of prediction in science I do not think that the goal of science is to be able to predict the future but to understand the world that we live.

Reply to  donald penman
November 13, 2017 10:51 pm

oh please. names are more
memorable than numbers.
it’s that simple.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  crackers345
November 14, 2017 5:41 am

I agree. We have a special place in our brains for recognizing human faces. I think we also mentally specialize in human names rather than alphanumeric chains. Our memories are tripped by hearing “Hurricane Hazel” rather than AL15_1954.
Since Clement Wragge decided to use human names for cyclones (both types) back in the late 19th Century, I doubt you can paint that as some sort of alarmist trick to anthropomorphize hurricanes. The current practice was begun in 1944, again before CAGW was in fashion.
I think Dr. Ball is just way off the mark on this article. Chimps aren’t hurricanes.

Michael 2
Reply to  crackers345
November 14, 2017 1:38 pm

crackers345 writes “names are more memorable than numbers.”

Says you. I have a nearly perfect memory for the number “1” that exceeds my memory of human names. In fact, I can recite Pi to about 13 places. It wasn’t all that useful since my slide rule was good to only about 3 places but back then I had Pi memorized to 18 places. It’s sort of my old age memory test; when i cannot remember Pi then it’s time to move on.

jorgekafkazar
November 13, 2017 10:04 pm

It seems to me, after reading the post, that the problem is not so much anthropomorphism as Deep Jargon.

steve mcdonald
November 13, 2017 10:22 pm

There are certain people who deal with their fear of mortality by wishing death or a miserable existance for those who outlive them.
They see themselves as being so special and superior that the thought of morons remaining on the planet when they have ceased to exist is repugnant.

Gamecock
Reply to  steve mcdonald
November 14, 2017 5:53 pm

‘And a thousand thousand slimy things
Lived on’ and so did I.’ – Samuel Taylor Coleridge

November 13, 2017 10:28 pm

Chimpanzees are distressingly like humans but seem to be even more brutal and savage. Much of Nature seems to be gratifyingly beyond our control, absolving us for the current blame given to Man for being the chief cause of every ill in the World.

Reply to  ntesdorf
November 13, 2017 10:43 pm

After all, who’s ever heard of a tropical depression, or even a hurricane, resort to testical biting? No one.

The case against anthropomorphisiing hurricanes rests.

Reply to  ntesdorf
November 15, 2017 3:42 pm

“more brutal and savage?”

huh? what chimpanzees ever organized
concentration camps? ever undertook
ethnic cleansing? ever dropped an
atomic bomb, or offered smallpox-
exposed blankets to the natives?

November 13, 2017 10:50 pm

money pays for research, tim.
who pays for yours?

Brett Keane
Reply to  crackers345
November 14, 2017 12:13 am

Your opinion is not, 345, worth a stray thought of Tim’s. You get creepier with time.

Andrew Cooke
Reply to  crackers345
November 14, 2017 9:39 am

Crackers, who pays for your internet connection?

Reply to  Andrew Cooke
November 14, 2017 10:22 am

His handler. Aka: mom.

Reply to  Andrew Cooke
November 15, 2017 3:41 pm

andrew, who pays
for yours?

The Reverend Badger
November 13, 2017 11:25 pm

On Anthropomorphism and Biology.

I have railed against anthropomorphism in adult discussions for at least the last 40 years. I was always taught it was a thing related to childrens’ stories (Rupert the bear and such). And I remember being specially taught that there is only ONE mammal that has “babies”. Pigs have piglets, NOT “baby” pigs. If we got that wrong in our biology exams in the 1970’s we would be sailing close to an “F” for fail.

Calling the offspring of virtually anything a “baby” has pervaded every level of society now, even MSM news with the BBC being particularly annoying in this respect. I expect it will only be a matter of weeks before some idiot weather presenter says “Baby hurricane forming here…”.

Even high level professors seem to not be immune from the anthropomorphism virus.I remember a dinner party conversation with a retired professor of sociology and he was going on about how apes were “so like humans” and shared 95%+ DNA. It was his “proof” apes and humans are very very similar. I pointed out that a cabbage has 50% human DNA which rather changed his ideas.

After hearing all the comments over many decades about how numerous creatures on this planet are “just like humans” with certain aspects of their appearance/behaviour I look forward to hearing the reaction to the first visitors from another planet.

Cute and Human like?
http://www.lifewithcats.tv/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/akkwrk.jpg

VERY Human like?
http://static.fogs.com/static/uploads/images/605_undefined/50850b1d-278f44602293.jpg

Flynn
November 13, 2017 11:54 pm

I think Dr Ball was upsetted by this testicle story 🙂

November 13, 2017 11:57 pm

did you notice that T Ball didn’t
say _where_ this talk took place,
or _who_ asked him, or if he
was part of the official program
that had Goodall speaking.

i rather doubt that any place asking
J Goodall to speak would also ask
T Ball on an equal footing, given
his (lack) of science.

so I’m wondering why he hid all
these details.

Brett Keane
Reply to  crackers345
November 14, 2017 12:15 am

Crackers, well-named at least.

Reply to  Brett Keane
November 14, 2017 12:33 am

you avoided all the questions. telling.

AndyG55
Reply to  Brett Keane
November 14, 2017 12:49 am

crackers.
no cheese.
EMPTY

Peta of Newark
Reply to  crackers345
November 14, 2017 1:08 am

cracker, which page, website or planet are you reading from?

From the very top of this piece:

I was asked to give a talk prior to a presentation by Jane Goodall, of chimpanzee research fame. I realized why I was invited after I spoke about the importance of trees in the urban environment using Winnipeg, the location of the event

She said she would give a 20-minute presentation.. blah blah….with a brief 10-minute question period. My 45-minute presentation… blah blah

Tim Ball was asked to, effectively be, the Main Event – since when is the ‘warm-up act’ twice the duration of the ‘headliner’?

Reply to  Peta of Newark
November 15, 2017 4:08 pm

Winnipeg where?
When?

Was TBall part of the JGoodall
program? If so, where and when?

leaving these details out makes
me very suspicious, that TBall
is trying to claim an equivalence
to JGoodall’s scientific reputation
without earning it.

Gabro
Reply to  Peta of Newark
November 15, 2017 4:18 pm
Michael 2
Reply to  crackers345
November 14, 2017 1:41 pm

crackers345 wrote “did you notice that T Ball didn’t say _where_ this talk took place”

No, I did not notice. In fact, the number of things I am not noticing this very moment (or the next) is probably infinite.

“so I’m wondering why he hid all these details.”

If you figure it out, please return and report your findings.

ralfellis
November 14, 2017 12:36 am

Just the highten the alarmism of weather, in the UK we now have ‘weather bombs’. Or an active thunderstorm, to you and me. This is designed to heighten the perception of increasing severe weather events, and is pure warmist-alarmist propaganda.

R

Reply to  ralfellis
November 14, 2017 1:35 am

When I was a lad (seems like 100s of yrs ago) we had ‘heavy rain’, that changed to ‘bad weather’, now have ‘weather bombs’.

It’s all our fault that it’s worse than we thought,… we let spin doctors lose with our language.

Ej
Reply to  1saveenergy
November 14, 2017 5:25 am

3 or 4 days ago, The national weather on MSM was making a HUGE deal about snow in Michigans mid-section. Which locals have called ‘the snow belt’ for decades. It was laughable to anyone with any sense that we actually get snow in November! Amazing I tell ya, Amazing!

Griff
Reply to  ralfellis
November 14, 2017 2:10 am

We now have more of that intense weather activity… it isn’t a rename or a rewrite

hunter
Reply to  Griff
November 14, 2017 5:18 am

No, we do dont have a trend of more intense storms.
Stop lying.

Ej
Reply to  Griff
November 14, 2017 5:27 am

We do not……. Griff…… you’re intently wrong.

Andrew Cooke
Reply to  Griff
November 14, 2017 9:43 am

Griff, stop the sophistry. The fact that you actually have posted that statement tells me that you are disconnected from reality.

AndyG55
Reply to  Griff
November 14, 2017 12:47 pm

What medication are you on that makes basically EVERYTHING you type…

diametrically opposed to truth and reality?

Or is it just an inbuilt mental disability state, just who you are.

Editor
Reply to  Griff
November 15, 2017 5:20 pm

Where is the evidence, Griff?

pete
November 14, 2017 1:14 am

The mainstream media has been presenting for many decades catastrophic climate memes and innuendos without including any real scientific back up in their reports. AP, Reuters and many other news agencies publish ‘reports’ quoting ‘scientists’ but these rarely name who these ‘scientists’ are, and furthermore these news reports about catastrophic climate change predictions are always devoid of scientific data to support their claims, but instead are based on hype and exaggerations.

Dr. Tim Ball, and many other realist scientists,on the other hand, back up their scientific claims with real observations and solid science which at times is of too high a level for many to understand. People who lack basic scientific knowledge in fact form a large swath of those who believe in catastrophic climate predictions.

Mass ignorance is a prerequisite for Ponzi schemes to work.

StephenP
November 14, 2017 2:11 am

Was the Great Storm of 1700 a hurricane or just a strong wind?
And what caused it?

November 14, 2017 2:13 am

Thank-you Dr. Tim Ball, a very good article.

Anthropomorphism so often is a shield behind which the emotional manipulators hide behind. Anthropomorphism and the excessive and unrelenting media pressure that we should FEEL empathy for this or that. It is both illogical and highly emotionally manipulative.

The media so often plead for empathy when it is the wrong thing to feel. Sympathy for a situation maybe, understanding maybe, if the situation is understandable and you have the time and interest to research it. But feeling empathy are so often misplaced, as other people have a different life experiences, values and social normals — without understanding them you can not truly feel real empathy — you are however leaving yourself open to emotional manipulation.
Feeling sympathy for those suffering hardship is usually a good emotion, thus give charitably if it will do good but do not mistake feeling of sadness for their situation as feeling of empathy.

Animals, storms, vehicles, etc., are not humans, you can not assign human feeling to them. Animals are not human so animals should only be treated with respect for what they are, never believe you can feel like them. You can ‘love’ an animal but never believe any animal feels the same back — they live an entirely different life from you. Anthropomorphic imaginings are little more than a childish madness.

AndyG55
November 14, 2017 2:55 am

You want anthropogenic effects.

Imaging how all those Chinese solar panels are going to POLLUTE the world with TOXIC CHEMICALS over then next 10-20 years

https://www.thegwpf.com/ticking-time-bomb-chinas-ageing-solar-panels-causing-big-environmental-problem/

Jim Masterson
November 14, 2017 3:42 am

>>
The article containing that quote identifies the women who fought to get hurricanes alternately given female names.
<<

I think Dr. Ball means “male names.” I remember when hurricanes were always given female names.

Jim

Michael 2
Reply to  Jim Masterson
November 14, 2017 1:44 pm

“I think Dr. Ball means ‘male names.’ I remember when hurricanes were always given female names.”

Then along came alternately female names, implying that between female names were not-female names.

Peter C
November 14, 2017 4:00 am

Anthropomorphism actually seems to be a hard–wired default among humans. Or at least humans of developed world origin. Almost every one I know to have a pet, be it dog, cat, iguana or whatever cannot seem to help anthropomorphising them. Most people have an emotional connection to certain non-living important possessions as well, mainly cars but occasionally even such things as kitchen appliances or hi-fis are referenced as he or more often she rather than it and given human emotional attributes.

TA
Reply to  Peter C
November 14, 2017 7:50 am

Dogs have human emotions so it would be natural to humanize them. Other animals display emotions, too.

Animals may be smarter than you think.

I remember a monkey over in Vietnam. My sargeant had it as a pet, and it stood about three feet tall.

One day the monkey was chained to a tree in front of the sargeant’s hooch, and a South Korean soldier decided he wanted to mess with the monkey. So he walked up to the monkey and started poking at him with the barrel of his M16.

The monkey slowly backed up as the soldier kept harrassing him, and when the monkey got enough slack in that chain, he leaped on the soldier and bit the hell out of him and took that M16 away from him and started hitting him with it. That monkey outsmarted the human!

We laughed ourselves silly.

That South Korean soldier wouldn’t go near that monkey again. And who can blame him. 🙂

Gabro
Reply to  TA
November 14, 2017 12:26 pm

Great story. Some monkeys rival apes in intelligence. Others, not so much.

https://www.fastcompany.com/40492702/heres-the-monkey-themed-vietnam-hotel-where-trump-and-putin-are-hanging-out

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  TA
November 14, 2017 4:58 pm

You do NOT want to mess with any ape. Common chimpanzees, for example, can get to 130 lbs. They are, pound for pound, about 3 times as strong as a man. They can easily tear you apart.

TA
Reply to  TA
November 14, 2017 5:10 pm

The sargeant would take that crazy monkey with him when he went out to inspect our outposts, and the monkey would jump out the window onto the hood of the truck while it was going 50mph!

Luckily, the monkey still had a chain on him while in the truck so he couldn’t go far.

TA
Reply to  TA
November 14, 2017 5:11 pm

“They are, pound for pound, about 3 times as strong as a man. They can easily tear you apart.”

That’s exactly right.

Reply to  TA
November 15, 2017 3:34 pm

TA commented – “Dogs have human emotions”

No, dogs have dog emotions.

If anything, humans have dog
emotions, not the other
way around.

AndyG55
Reply to  TA
November 15, 2017 3:43 pm

Yep, crackpot, I’m sure you
do have dog emotions.
“Which pole will I use?”

That’s about all.

fredar
November 14, 2017 4:39 am

Aren’t concept of “nature” and “natural” human inventions? What defines what is natural and what is not? The government? Some kind of ministry of nature? I can imagine a government bureaucrat going through a list: “This is natural, this is not, this is, this is not…” Do animals care about what is natural and what is not? When they eat or build nests do they think “Ooh, I have to make sure that this is natural, organic, and ethical. Made from sustainable and responsible sources! It’s important to care about precious little planet!” or are they just thinking: “F*** this. I’m doing whatever it is necessary for me and my young to survive.” Isn’t ironically the concept of “natural” and “unnatural” unnatural?

Aren’t the concept of morality, ethics, and rights also human inventions? If morality and ethics are universal truths that predate humans then why isn’t no one complaining that predators like lions and polar bears are basically greedy and selfish jerks who constantly infringe on other species rights. I think I lost my faith in animals after watching few nature documentaries. I mean, sheesh….

Why it seems that it’s fine if nature murders millions of animals in one of its mass extinctions but it’s wrong if humans do it. Despite the fact that nature made humans too? It’s amusing how we humans always seem to care about “biodiversity” but when looking at the history of Earth it seems that nature doesn’t give a s***. “Silly humans and their silly morals. I send asteroids where I want to. Got tired of watching these same goddamn frogs for thousands of years. I want to see something different. Don’t like it? You can always blame yourself. That amuses me too.”

Don’t take me wrong. I like animals. I have two cats but all this is so puzzling. Like when i’m buying cat food and there is small text in the package that says “100% natural” or something, and i’m thinking “I didn’t realise that in nature animals buy their foods from stores.” If you want to be more natural then why not have the cats catch the food themselves. Catching and eating little animals just like in nature. But then someone would complain that it’s not “ethical”.

Jim Masterson
Reply to  fredar
November 14, 2017 4:55 am

I like the current popular use of “organic.” When studying organic chemistry the definition of organic was “compounds of carbon.” So why are some vegetables “organic” and others aren’t? It’s how it’s grown? Yeah, right–pure nonsense.

Jim

fredar
Reply to  Jim Masterson
November 14, 2017 5:35 am

I think deep down many people have this sense of guilt and the need to be more “natural”, which I think is not really justified. The irony is that humans are the only species with morals, ethics, laws, charities and the belief that protecting other species is worthwhile. It’s also kinda of a collectivist thinking, judging people by their species, instead of their character. Sounds awfully similar to racism if you ask me, except it’s fine for the left to say things like that. Doesn’t really make any sense to me.

Reply to  Jim Masterson
November 15, 2017 3:55 pm

fredar – “The irony is that humans are the only species with morals, ethics, laws, charities and the belief that protecting other species is worthwhile.”

what’s the evidence for this claim?

humans kill more of other species
than any other species on the planet.

this suggests your claim is
wrong.

hunter
November 14, 2017 5:15 am

“Climate change ” is man-made…….it is created in the minds of believers.
Excellent essay. Thank you for documenting this so clearly.
I have heard the failure of reason that extreme anthropomorphization represents called “Disneyfication”, pointing out the fictional version of nature that Dusney has exploited so profitably for decades.

fredar
Reply to  hunter
November 14, 2017 6:12 am

I once read a Mickey Mouse story where the plot was basically that the animals of Earth were leaving the planet because of us evil humans. It made no sense whatsoever. I stopped reading it halfway. Even if I was an animal capable of leaving, and there would have been a suitable destination and the trip was safe enough, I would have left long before humans. Not because of humans but because of nature and other animals. If it’s so important to put an enviromentalism message in a comic then atleast make a plot that makes sense.

Toneb
November 14, 2017 7:12 am

Tim Ball says:
“The answer is it was a Mid-Latitude Cyclone that climate hysteria and anthropomorphism turned into a hurricane to amplify fears of bizarre and increasingly severe weather due to global warming.”

Ophelia started as a Hurricane and stayed so until it ran over waters colder than 27C.
It then transitioned into a mid-latitude Low, fueled by baroclinicity (cold air-mass next to warm).
What made it still powerful when it hit SW Ireland was that the contrast between the newly entrained cold air vs the v moist/warm exta-tropical air was very high.

And yes the media hyped it.
That’s what they do with all things.

November 14, 2017 8:27 am

I’ve said 100 trillion times that Humanity took the wrong turn 1 Billion years ago.

Steve Ta
November 14, 2017 9:36 am

To be fair, it’s always possible that it wasn’t David M. Graber that said a billion, but the dumbo journo at the LA Times who typed it up.

Gabro
Reply to  Steve Ta
November 14, 2017 2:12 pm

That’s a charitable interpretation and quite probably correct.

It would make a lot more sense to say that humanity went off the rails a million or half million years ago. A million would be after stone tools but before fire. Half a million would probably be after fire.

General P. Malaise
November 14, 2017 4:48 pm

Goodall’s research probably took the science back decades as we are still finding out a lot of what she said is projection and not science.

Gabro
Reply to  General P. Malaise
November 14, 2017 8:25 pm

She did make some original observations early in her career which had an effect on subsequent studies. But, sadly, at least the latter half of her career has been oriented toward fund raising in service to consensus science. She did at least depart from consensus when young, and set primate research on a new path.

General P. Malaise
Reply to  Gabro
November 14, 2017 8:41 pm

yes she did and history proved some of them incorrect. she was always animals were more noble than humans, except for her. she reminds me of falsey mowat and his bullsh!t about wolves.

example; she knew chimps killed other monkeys and chimps but told the world they were docile vegetarians.

chimps are hardly docile and they do eat meat when they get the chance.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
November 14, 2017 8:46 pm

General,

Much of what you say is correct, but I must beg to differ on her reportage re chimp hunting.

At the very least, she observed chimps fishing for termites. I don’t know who first reported on chimps hunting, killing and eating colobus monkeys and bushbabies, and fighting wars with other chimp bands.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
November 14, 2017 8:48 pm

PS: On another PC point, she was honest is stating that homosexuality had never been observed among common chimps, as opposed to bonobos.

General P. Malaise
Reply to  Gabro
November 14, 2017 8:59 pm

Garbo

I remember reading somewhere or on a nature show decades ago when this was posed to Goodall and she confirmed that she had witnessed hunts but didn’t want to report it. it didn’t fit HER WORLDVIEW.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
November 14, 2017 9:08 pm

General,

That could well be, but at least when I knew her, she seemed a better scientist than that. I’m probably wrong.

My comment on bonobos v. common chimps is still in moderation, perhaps because I mentioned the sexual behavior which dare not say its name.

The chimp-bonobo-human behavioral continuum is interesting. Humans, like chimps, are vicious predators and warlike; bonobos, less so. During the Allied combined bombing offensive against Germany, bonobos in the Berlin zoo died of fright, while chimps, like humans, shined it on.

Yet humans, like bonobos, practice same sex sex. I don’t know to what extent they practice male h0m0sexuality, but lesbianism is normal among bonobos. As Dr. Goodall honestly reported, not king of same sex sex has ever been observed among common chimps.

So we’re sort of in between the behavior of our two nearest kin species. Bonobos of course are genetically closer to common chimps than either Pan species is to us.

General P. Malaise
Reply to  Gabro
November 14, 2017 9:11 pm

Garbo

that is probably the reason the Irish singer called himself Bono. And why the kids from south park call Bono the biggest sh!t in the world.

…and I could be wrong.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
November 14, 2017 9:11 pm

PS: While I’m far from a genus Pan expert, IMO bonobos aren’t pure hippie dippie vegan Make Love Not War peaceniks, but also eat some meat, at least insects.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
November 14, 2017 9:14 pm

General P. Malaise November 14, 2017 at 9:11 pm

On that, you could well be right.

If bonobos were Irish, they’d probably be on the dole, ie U2. While the common chimps would be running all the rackets and fighting over gang turf.

MalH
November 18, 2017 8:07 am

You mean to tell me that Packy and Botasky aren’t real? There is no Apocalypse Meow?..Gutted