Six weeks ago licences were awarded culling Badgers 'over a period of not more than six consecutive weeks' due to evidence that badgers fleeing culls spread Tuberculosis so lets see how the great Badger killing session went.
Last year the Government cancelled the cull at the last minute because they suddenly realised that there were almost twice as many badgers than they had previously thought.
This year, after failing dismally to kill the number they sought to destroy, at the end of the cull they suddenly announce that there were actually far fewer badgers than they had thought, and therefore the number they needed to kill was actually 2000 less.
This means that they have now decided that this means the cull was actually a roaring success since they have apparently killed the 60% they needed to kill if they use the new 'revised' lower figure.
In spite of this, they still want to extend the killing for another 2-3 weeks.
Methinks someone is lying.
7 comments:
So you doubt the ability to measure and model badger population (with what seems to be good cause) but believe the much more complex climate can be modeled. Makes me say hmmmmmmmmm
Q
"So you doubt the ability to measure and model badger population"
Maybe my reading comprehension skills need improving, because nowhere do I see Lucy doubting the ability of humankind to measure the badger population - she's saying they got it wrong in this case.
As for comparing it to models of climate change, you're drawing an extremely long bow here. Somehow I think the resources that have gone into that field of endeavour might be slightly greater than those that have been devoted to counting how many badgers there are in Somerset!
Cheezy,
you wrote it. i agree. you might need to work on your comprehension skills.
i might need to work on mine as well since after re-reading her comment i noticed she said they were lying (last sentence). With your comprehension skills, you obviously know that it is implied she trusts the prediction method used (plausibly a model based on animal density assumptions combined with data gathered from selected observation points like trails, food sources, and/or water sources).
In re to your statement about models and resources: Simple models require less research, data gathering, and testing than complex models. Thus, the amount of resources used is not very germane. More important is the amount of resource used as a percentage of the amount of resource required for usable accuracy. So, one would not consume the same amount of resource on every model since that would mean a lot of waste***.
Q
*** government sponsored models might all consume the same amount of resources regardless of complexity since the Left is obsessed with making everything equal
q - I don't know if you are on a crusade to turn ever post into a climate change bunfight regardless of topic but what i meant was that the Government massaged the figures, or just plain lied, so it can be deemed a 'success' and they can now go full-scale and shoot badgers all over the country.
You not a fan of making things equal? Surely you would like to see all your fellow Americans equal, wouldn't you?
"i might need to work on mine as well"
There's definitely room for improvement all round.
Lucy I was hoping you would not notice...
what I meant was some models work, some don't, some are complex, some are simple. it is possible their model is broken. untruth is not equal to lie.
no lucy, I do not want all americans to be equal the way you and the left mean it.
q
"what I meant was some models work, some don't"
That’s very true.
Warming of the surface of the ocean - it was modelled first, then observed.
Surface warming being accompanied by a cooling of the stratosphere - it was modelled first, then observed.
Short lived cooling events, such as volcanoes - it was modelled first, then observed.
Warming of the troposphere - it was modelled first, then observed.
An acceleration of warming in the Arctic - it was modelled first, then observed.
Whereas certain other climate models have been shown to be way off beam. Funnily enough, they’re the ones you see being discussed on certain news channels and the blogs of laymen.
Post a Comment