I thought to myself, "you have to get the statistics in one place."
So, I went back to the beginning of my e-mail collection of Positive Changes posts and articles, and began integrating them. After I finish integrating them, I'll go back and do all the EW posts.
The new format that's evolving is the presentation of statistics in as dry and consistent a manner as possible. Using "increased by X%" or "decreased by Y%" wherever possible.
The preponderance of the physical evidence, the data, paints the accurate picture.
Wherever general terms have been used, I've bolded and italicized them. If the source was present in my original account, I've provided it. The next editing cut will be each and every general assertion being called out, and that author identified.
What it does is create a clear picture of what's going on, and just as clear a picture of who is obfuscating the situation, and how.
Eventually, the master document will be a data base, with tags, so you can search it however you like, kind of like Captain Kirk on the old Star Trek series. "Computer! Calculate butterfly growth by year in the U.S. and compare with that in the U.K.!", and things like that.
For now, I'm manually making those connections.
"TLDR" is definitely in play, here, but there's no escaping the master document.
Whenever I complete this, I'll undertake another, possibly called "couplets", where things that blatantly show how things are listed next to one another, to help the reader understand the great confidence game.
For example, an article from February 2017 said that Pacific Grove’s monarch butterfly count was “up” from 2016.
The number of monarch butterflies overwintering at a Pacific Grove increased 695% from 2016 to 2017.
Prior to "couplets", I'll add quotes to the master document, and images, and any cool verbiage I've developed over time in relation to the subject. The articles, only in a formative stage, are already very impactful, from my perspective.
Once I've assimilated everything, I'm going to go back through it again and document all the sources of the general statements.
I'm not going to be gathering new data for some time. Instead, I'll be publishing in-process compilations with a current working copy of the "statistics" document to each.
You can manage the working copies as you like - delete after reading, or save somewhere and save the new one's over the old. The reason I'm attaching it is to get as many copies of the document floating around as possible.
Butterfly numbers on Hope Farm in the U.K. increased 213% from 2000 to 2017.
In 2017, the Yosemite National Park butterfly count sets new records “for the number of participants, butterfly species, and individual butterflies”.
Where the author led with “number of participants”, to imply that the highest butterfly numbers in history at Yosemite were the result of “increased awareness.”
Broads Authority said 2017 was a “record breaking” year for the Swallowtail Butterfly in the U.K.
An article from January 2017 from Norfolk Virginia was headlined “Favorable forecast for butterfly count”. Adam Timpf, compiler for the Long Point count, said he’d already been seeing “a lot of” monarchs and swallowtails. Where “a lot of” is general. As you may recall, generality is a hallmark of propaganda.
The author averred that “those observations won't necessarily translate into elevated tallies on count day.”
An article from February 2017 said that Pacific Grove’s monarch butterfly count was “up” from 2016. Where “up” is a hedging generality, put forward in place of a far more impactful percentage.
The number of monarch butterflies overwintering at a Pacific Grove increased 695% from 2016 to 2017. The author of the article provided the numbers, but hedged by omitting the far-more-impactful percentage I just presented.
“Taking that into account, as well as the dynamic nature of monarch overwintering behavior, it would be difficult to draw any conclusions regarding the overall population by simply looking at these numbers,” said Stong, who noted that the season’s overall pattern was different than years past because of the large number (39,753) that were observed overwintering at a private site in Big Sur where only 5,000 were counted last year.
Another article from February 2017 said that pacific grove’s monarch butterfly count was “up slightly” from 2016. The author described a 695% increase as "up slightly".
There was a 109% increase in small pearl-bordered fritillary butterflies in Scotland from 2016 to 2017. The headline of the article referred to it as a “numbers boost”. The author said that “scientists” recorded “one of the worst years on record for British butterflies” in 2016, and that “one species was bucking the trend”.
Where “scientists” and “one of the worst years on record” are both general. As you may recall, generality is a hallmark of propaganda.
In July 2017, the world’s largest butterfly survey “aims to assess apparent spike in British numbers”.
Where the repugnant meme “spike” implies that numbers have rapidly increased, but will soon rapidly decrease, forming a “spike” on the graph.
In July 2017, Sir David Attenborough said that “even common British butterflies are now endangered”.
Where “common British butterflies” is general. As you may recall, generality is a hallmark of propaganda.
In August 2017, “The Record” asked “Is the monarch butterfly thriving again?”
In August 2017, a NewsTimes article was headlined “More butterflies spotted in Connecticut”.
Where the author led with “more butterflies spotted”, which implies the increase was the result of “more assiduous butterfly counting”. “More” is general. As you may recall, generality is a hallmark of propaganda.
Nicole Palffy-Muhoray, the museum assistant at the Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History, which has studied Connecticut’s butterflies for decades, “quickly cautioned that one year doesn’t indicate a trend and at least ten years of data was needed to determine if a trend exists.”
Palffy-Muhoray said there may have been a few good years in a row but she is hesitant to say the species are coming back because there are so many factors involved.
In September 2017, a “record” number of Monarch butterflies started their migration early in Morro Bay, California.
In September 2017, an article from New Jersey said that the “Iconic but depleted monarch butterfly makes a summer comeback”.
Montreal, Canada saw an “unprecedented” number of painted lady butterflies in September 2017.
In September 2017, Monarch butterflies in Illinois were “flying high this year after recent declines”.
In September 2017, an article from Delhi, India, headlined “15 teams record 50 butterfly species across Delhi”, said “A large number of butterflies indicate a healthy environment, experts say.”
Where “15 teams” implies that the highest number of butterfly species ever counted was the result of “more assiduous butterfly counting”.
In September 2017, Chinaenvironment.info said that Red admiral butterflies in the U.K. were “thriving”. The author said that “More than 550,000 butterflies were recorded, but the record number of surveyors hides a more concerning picture”.
Mouthpiece of the State Chinaenvironment.info used “record number of surveyors hides a more concerning picture” to clearly state that great number of butterfies counted was the result of “increased awareness”.
In October 2017, monarch butterfly numbers in Cape May New Jersey were said to be “best in 4 years, halfway through count”.
Where, under the false guise of “rushing to press”, they’ve published smaller numbers to do what they can to blunt and defray.
Painted lady butterflies in the U.K. increased 30% from 2018 to 2019.
Monarch butterflies overwintering in Mexico increased 144% from 2018 to 2019, which had the highest count since 2006.