4 ms·
>The general trend that goes upward in your graph isn't the number of butterflies, but the number of 'sites monitored', i.e., places where they searched for but
by lurquer 8y ago
>The general trend that goes upward in your graph isn't the number of butterflies, but the number of 'sites monitored', i.e., places where they searched for butterflies.
With all due respect, I can read a graph. I was referring to the total amount of butterflies. There is no data on the site to permit one to draw any correlation between the number of monitoring sites and the number of butterflies. We could add 10,000 additional monitoring sites in Antarctica and it would tell us nothing. There is no data to give any indication that ANYONE even was reporting at any particular site or how many were reporting.
In short, the organization's data is useless... at least the data easily available on their site. And, it's certainly insufficient to justify the handwringing in some of the comments.
- akvadrako 8y agoThe data doesn't matter — people are just looking for an excuse to say "chemicals are bad" or "I'm against global warming".
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- lurquer 8y agoIt's not "global warming" any more. It's "climate change." I hope I live long enough -- and I suspect I will -- to see the 'issue' become the damaging effects of 'climate stagnation'. I bet within a few decades you'll read things like this: "The insects on this planet require a changing climate! The average temperatures haven't moved for decades! We're in a deadly stagnant cycle caused by [insert nuclear, fossil fuels, positronic brain emissions, or whatever is 'taboo' 50 years hence]. We're all going to die!"
- mempko 8y ago> In short, the organization's data is useless No, you think the data you used in your comment is useless. Doesn't mean the data the organization has and their conclusions is useless. Also, kind of funny you linked data you think is useless, but then drawn a conclusion from that data. Given the graph, the uncertainty is high. They added sites but the numbers stayed the same. What's more likely, the sites added were in antartica? or were in places that are expected to have butterlies? In other words, it could be worse than what the graph shows.