Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: All are welcome, but not all will be welcomed!

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - BenTheBiased

1
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
The only reason I post about it is to keep any readers aware that this is a farce and a scam, so no more people get taken in by it. I sure as hell have no hope of deprogramming you crackpots.
You guys are always good for a laugh. This is for those guests who may be interested.
2
Yeah, in addition to Hawkinzing the title, he also Hawkinzed some of the first few paragraphs. As always with Hawkinzing, he took from it exactly what he wanted to rather than what it actually said.
3
Bahahahaha...  here's what happens when arrogant octohatters who have absolutely  no fucking clue what they are talking about yet get paid large salaries advise country presidents like Senegal's.

"Plant trees in a belt 10 miles wide and 4300 miles long. Derp. Derp"

Oops! 80% of them are now dead! Imagine that!

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/great-green-wall-stop-desertification-not-so-much-180960171/
Fucking LOL. Did you even read past the title, dave? :rofl:
Not even past the comma in the title.
4
I noticed that you did not answer my question about West Texas. Again... Do you think that West Texas is degraded land?
All/some/none, Dave. Does it ever register with you when people say that? Some of West Texas is degraded pasture/rangeland. Some of it is perfectly healthy land. Much of it is simply part of the Chihuahuan desert, which is a completely natural ecosystem that exists largely because it's in the rain shadow of the Sierra Madre mountains. At one point, you seemed on the verge of understanding that this is an actual thing that can happen. Did you ever get there, or are you just ignoring/ignorantly dismissing it?
5
What I think is that you will believe whatever lunatic Theory you want to believe.
:ironicat: There is no way you could possibly not know you're projecting here, Dave. What evidence do you think you base any of your beliefs on? You just believe them. There is no evidence.
6
... if one bastardizes the term degrade and thus thinks that places like the Sahara Desert are not degraded,
not accepting your davinitions is "bastardizing" - but only if one accepts your davinition of "bastardize".
Quote
then we have a problem.
YOU most certainly do have a problem here.
Your notion of the Sahara Desert as "degraded" is at odds with every ecologist who's studied it.
Then those so-called ecologists are Just as much blooming idiots as you.
Dave, you think this because Allan Savory said it. Those ecologists think it because they have actually researched it. Why do you think Allan Savory is right, while the people who have actually studied it are wrong?
7
Just look at the way the YEC community struggles with the word "theory". If that word was not in common usage, where it means something closer to "hypothesis", they would never have gotten so confused about what scientists actually mean when they talk about the theory of evolution. The very lack of a reverse Swahili pig latin word has inadvertently rendered them unable to grasp what a scientific theory really is, the poor souls!
I think this is present in the subtext, but I just want to make it clear to the Daves in the audience that this is very much an overly charitable interpretation of the motivations of the YEC community in their use of the word "theory."

It might be necessary to separate the flock from the shepherd-wolves among them. The wolves are well aware of their dishonest interpretation, the flock think it's a truly magnificent 'gotcha' because they are Daves, dedicated to the little snap-offy words because they don't get the other words.
True. But I definitely want to clearly note that the shepherd-wolves are doing the exact thing that Dave is ironically accusing scientists of doing here...
Why do we want to use specialized language? Could it possibly be the same motivation that the medieval Popes and Cardinals and priests had?

Hmmm ...
As always, Dave is projecting the faults of his own belief system onto others who do not share them.
8
Just look at the way the YEC community struggles with the word "theory". If that word was not in common usage, where it means something closer to "hypothesis", they would never have gotten so confused about what scientists actually mean when they talk about the theory of evolution. The very lack of a reverse Swahili pig latin word has inadvertently rendered them unable to grasp what a scientific theory really is, the poor souls!
I think this is present in the subtext, but I just want to make it clear to the Daves in the audience that this is very much an overly charitable interpretation of the motivations of the YEC community in their use of the word "theory."
9
Except terms like 'snap-offy' are very imprecise. You know what else is 'snap-offy'? Juicy live celery. Live twigs. Many flowering stems. And all kinds of other things, both live and non-live, and not at all indicative of dry or fragile, though some dry fragile things are indeed 'snap-offy'.

People use words (that you don't understand because you've never cared to) because precise words better describe real things, Dave.

Your RSPL is just that: people using precise language that is least likely to be misinterpreted by other readers.
I was pretty sure this schoolmarm lecture was coming.
I was pretty sure you would make no effort to even comprehend it, let alone compose a substantive response.
10
It seems that there is no such thing as different biomes. There is just one single eco-system, which is basically rural Missouri. It is just that folks have let it go a bit, to different extents in different areas, and they need Dave to show them how to fix it with cows.
 
Africa is basically rural Missouri that is a bit warmer and dryer, with lions in, what people have messed up. With lots of cows, you could just turn it into it's natural state of being rural Missouri, only with zebras instead of deer.

The Sahara desert is what happens if you take a rural Missouri and really mess it up, through agriculture. Again, the answer is lots of cows: if we just did that it would be rural Missouri again in no time because rural Missouri gets plenty of rain.

If you take rural Missouri and make it a bit colder and put moose in, then you basically get Canada.

Then there is the rural Missouri that got really wet and warm and that just has too many damn trees, and those are the rainforests. Here, you just cut some of the trees down before you add the cows and hey presto! Rural Missouri again in no time, though possibly a bit warmer and wetter.

Almost everywhere just needs to be more rural Missouri, so you get more ecosystem for all the animals that live in rural Missouri. This is called "healing the land". Pretty soon, everyone will realize this because of Dave's tireless and highly effective research and activism, and then the whole world will basically be rural Missouri, with the possible exception of the poles.

This is exactly Dave's view. He might protest weakly a bit if he bothers responding at all, but this really is it.

I've wondered more than once why he recognizes that the poles are exceptions but fails to recognize that it's possible for other areas to also be exceptions.
11
Lions and tigers don't do very well in the Sahara Desert so we'd like to try to keep the rest of Africa from becoming like the Sahara.
It won't, unless atmospheric circulation changes dramatically. You never even tried to understand the explanations of Milankovitch theory, Hadley cells, and how atmospheric circulation controls rainfall. You just scoffed ignorantly at them because you had your unshakable belief, based on no evidence whatsoever, that plants cause rain. Yet another demonstration of how you suck at science.
If we could achieve the unthinkable and actually re-green the entire Sahara - putting it back the way it was a few thousand years ago, then wildlife would be in great shape.
We can't. It will re-green again, as it always has, when the climate cycle shifts, and the North African Monsoon strengthens. But nothing you do with cows is going to make that happen faster. (Well, technically, that's not necessarily true. More cows means more methane, which means faster climate change, but that's not a good thing for us, and it has jack shit to do with how or where they're grazing.)
(Except of course the extinct species) (Which will re-evolve according to Darwin given enough time) (Time ... the Magic Potion!)
Do you really believe that's something Darwin says? Are you really that ignorant about Darwin? Where, exactly, do you think Darwin ever said that extinct species will re-evolve?
12
The Dutch spend a lot of money and effort keeping Ven lakes in place,
Well, shit, have they tried large herbivores?

They have, not far from Amsterdam. It hasn't been going well, really.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/27/dutch-rewilding-experiment-backfires-as-thousands-of-animals-starve
Quote
"You'd expect 20 or 30% to die of natural causes including starvation each year but the population grows in summertime and there is no control mechanism - normally you'd have predators such as wolves but it's too small an area to have predators."
Why didn't they just put them in moving cages? Those mimic predators quite well, I'm told.
13
Which stage is the one where you repeatedly and nestedly quote yourself without ever making an actual point?
14
The problem, Dave, is that in your version of "science," whatever explanation you happen to believe for a given phenomenon is unquestionable to you regardless of any evidence. You sometimes pay lip service to the possibility of other explanations, but if anyone ever presents one, you scoff at it and dismiss it out of hand without actually examining any evidence for or against it. You never actually do anything to determine which explanation has more explanatory power. That's the thing the rest of us call science. It's something you never, ever do.
So, Dave, would you like a little demonstration to show you I wasn't just making that up?
Here's where you do this part...
The problem, Dave, is that in your version of "science," whatever explanation you happen to believe for a given phenomenon is unquestionable to you regardless of any evidence.
To me the answer is obvious. It's Allan savory's management.
And here's where you do this part...
You sometimes pay lip service to the possibility of other explanations, but if anyone ever presents one, you scoff at it and dismiss it out of hand without actually examining any evidence for or against it.
"Gravelled the stream bed"

Lol

OMG ... "a filter" ...??

Come on, Bors. 

And here's the part you haven't done, because you don't ever, ever do it...
You never actually do anything to determine which explanation has more explanatory power. That's the thing the rest of us call science. It's something you never, ever do.
This is as simple and clear a demonstration as it gets. This is exactly why we say you suck at science. (I say you don't even really know what it is.) Even you should be able to see that you are doing it when it's laid out this clearly. Do you see it? Or do you still deny it?

If you don't look for ways you might be wrong, you are not doing science. Period. It's as simple as that. As much as you want to believe what you are doing is science, it's not. And it never will be until you start trying to prove yourself wrong. But I don't think that's something you are brave enough to do.
15
We - you, me, Savory, everyone else here - is ALL doing science.
:no: 

No. You isn't.
So I think this is the real root of the constant impasse we always have here - me vs. you guys - this idea of what science is and what constitutes evidence ... and what doesn't.


One problem is that your concept of 'evidence' is very superficial.

If you've read either of my posts referring to your evaluation of the 'clear/muddy streams' as 'evidence' that Savory's methodology is responsible for the clearness of the one stream, you can (or should) see that you've asked no questions about the streams other than whether they are muddy or clear and whether one farm used Savory's methods.

But there are many other questions to be sked and answered in order to come to your conclusion. The rest of us want those questions asked and answered in order to reach the same conclusion. That is required to eliminate other plausible reasons for either stream to be muddy or clear.
:yes:
Questions such as?
And that's the (or rather, a) difference between you and a scientist, Dave.

You ask "Why won't they accept that I am right?"

A scientist asks "How could I be wrong?", and goes to figure out if they were.

Show that you have excluded other explanations, and maybe you'll convince us. Show that you've even considered other explanations, and you'll get something more than "Stop preaching, asshole."
16
The problem, Dave, is that in your version of "science," whatever explanation you happen to believe for a given phenomenon is unquestionable to you regardless of any evidence. You sometimes pay lip service to the possibility of other explanations, but if anyone ever presents one, you scoff at it and dismiss it out of hand without actually examining any evidence for or against it. You never actually do anything to determine which explanation has more explanatory power. That's the thing the rest of us call science. It's something you never, ever do.
You of course will protest and say you do exactly that. You are wrong. What you do instead is cherry-pick evidence. You look only at what you think is evidence for your preferred explanation or against any others. You ignore or reject any and all evidence against your preferred explanation and for any others. That's why your version of "science" is actually just believing your preferred explanation unquestioningly.
17
The problem, Dave, is that in your version of "science," whatever explanation you happen to believe for a given phenomenon is unquestionable to you regardless of any evidence. You sometimes pay lip service to the possibility of other explanations, but if anyone ever presents one, you scoff at it and dismiss it out of hand without actually examining any evidence for or against it. You never actually do anything to determine which explanation has more explanatory power. That's the thing the rest of us call science. It's something you never, ever do.
18
We - you, me, Savory, everyone else here - is ALL doing science.
:no: 

No. You isn't.
So I think this is the real root of the constant impasse we always have here - me vs. you guys - this idea of what science is and what constitutes evidence ... and what doesn't.


One problem is that your concept of 'evidence' is very superficial.

If you've read either of my posts referring to your evaluation of the 'clear/muddy streams' as 'evidence' that Savory's methodology is responsible for the clearness of the one stream, you can (or should) see that you've asked no questions about the streams other than whether they are muddy or clear and whether one farm used Savory's methods.

But there are many other questions to be sked and answered in order to come to your conclusion. The rest of us want those questions asked and answered in order to reach the same conclusion. That is required to eliminate other plausible reasons for either stream to be muddy or clear.
:yes:
20
The interesting thing about these streams (or one stream) ... is that we know WHY Savory's is clear - soil is healthy and well vegetated including stream banks.

Neighbor's streams are muddy because there is lots of bare ground and runoff from rain events picks up sediment, whereas on Savory's ranch it does NOT pick up sediment.
No, "we" don't "know" that that's "WHY." You believe that that's "WHY."

Now you are welcome to come up with your own explanation for why these facts are as they are, but you can't change the bare facts.
Why would anyone need to "come up with" their "own explanation" when there is a perfectly good method of determining the most plausible explanation? It's called science. You should really learn what it entails at some point.
21
"Gratuitous preaching."

Which will one day hopefully wake you up enough to pull your head out of your ass.
You've heard the common definition of insanity, right Dave? No, clearly your preaching isn't winning any converts here. It never will. We all know what will: evidence. Actual, scientific evidence. But you will never present any. Not just because you don't have any, but because you don't even know what it is. So carry on with your ineffective preaching and your insane belief that repeating it over and over will one day make a difference.
22
Also just his general incredulity about the possibility of anything bad ever happening (see also: the flammability of straw, tree diseases, etc.)
23
Suppose, for example, that goat parasites are able to thrive in a native species, like tapir or peccary, and you end up having your few goats contribute to the decimation of two important native foods?
I foresee an LOL.
24
What exactly is wrong with the standard explanation? Relative to the vast amount of time represented by the fossil record, change can occur quickly, periods of relative stasis can be long, and fossilization is rare. You haven't actually presented a criticism of this explanation. Just empty mockery.
25
A Fighting Chance against the Rich and Powerful eventually eyeing their 1.5 million acres and appropriating it for themselves based on "scientific studies" by university professors like Pingu, bulldozing all the trees
You mean people who have specifically argued against bulldozing all the trees? Do you have any idea how clueless you sound?