Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: every hole's a goal

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 - JonF

1
Meanwhile, things get worse for Roger Stone.

Roger Stone tapped failed stand-up comedian turned radio DJ for info from Assange: report

Quote
In emails obtained by the WSJ, Stone asked New York radio host Randy Credico, who'd just interviewed Assange, for information about Clinton's time as secretary of state.

"Please ask Assange for any State or HRC e-mail from August 10 to August 30-particularly on August 20, 2011," Stone wrote to Credico.

...

The emails suggest that Stone wasn't fully forthcoming when he testified before the House Intelligence Committee--he testified he'd merely wanted confirmation that Assange had info about Clinton. The new revelations make it more likely that Stone will be indicted
2
Being a billionaire- especially one born with a silver spoon in his mouth - is points off AFAIC.

A lot of points 

ETA:  Even more especially one with a long sordid and well documented history of shady dealings to maintain and amplify that wealth.

Everyone here is missing the point, probably because of their blind hatred for Trump.

The only point was that he is the only person to be a billionaire AND POTUS, so just maybe he does know something that most people don't. But you people cannot even admit something as obvious as that. Hatred destroys the hater.
So wealth plus power = knowledge?

Note that Trump pays little or no attention to the vast amount of information easily available to him.
3
Maybe I have this wrong but I don't think what Trump said is attributing a false quote. It was either rhetoric or hyperbole and not a big deal.

That's the way he talks!
If that were true, he should learn to talk a different way, perhaps even the way most people talk.

Most people aren't billionaires and president so maybe he knows something we don't?
Most people aren't ignorant illiterate egomaniacal morons, so maybe he doesn't know anything we don't?
5
Let's just see where the chips fall. I predict FBI heads will roll right into jail. It will take time for it to happen but I predict it will happen. I have had enough arguing, thanks!
So that's a no on providing any evidence.
6
Cohen's pretty much toast already, but the hits keep coming.

REVEALED: Ukraine dropped Manafort corruption probe after funneling cash to Trump fixer Michael Cohen

Quote
Earlier today, [the BBC] reported that Michael Cohen was paid $400,000 by Ukraine to set up a face to face meeting with Donald Trump back in June of 2017. Michael Cohen has never filed a FARA, nor is he a registered representative of the Ukraine, as required by law.

So this is the LITERAL definition of pay for play, right? Money for access?

BBC reports that the payment was "arranged by intermediaries acting for Ukraine's leader, Petro Poroshenko" and that shortly after the meeting in June of 2017, Ukraine decided to stop investigating Paul Manafort. Totally coincidental, I am sure.

Not a cast-iron case, but certainly a fascinating confluence.
7
But spying on his campaign seems like a big deal to me.
One person was sent to talk to three people who were known to have strong ties to Russia or for whom there was credible evidence of strong ties to Russia.  It appeared that those ties were at best inappropriate and at worst illegal.

But I guess you think the FBI should not investigate possible criminal action by anyone involved in a Presidential campaign. Amirite?

There was zero political motivation. Amirite?
Got any evidence of political motivation? (Remember this wasn't the investigation Obama allegedly wanted to know all about).

Didn't think so.

To answer your question, maybe no, maybe yes. There were plenty of reasons to investigate with or without a political motivation.

I answered your question, answer mine: I guess you think the FBI should not investigate possible criminal action by anyone involved in a Presidential campaign. Amirite?

And here's another: Do you really think the Democrats would spy on Trump's campaign, turn up some dirt as they did, and keep it secret?
8
(1) The FBI and other intelligence agencies were not "the Obama administration".
(2) People (like Page and Papadopoulos) participating in foreign efforts to influence elections don't get a pass because they're official team members of a political campaign.
(3) I think the Clintons SHOULD be investigated for things like Bill's $500,000 speaking gig in Moscow.

Don't be such a tool.
The DOJ is part of the executive branch. They were working for the Obama administration.
This is bullshit.
Yeah, the DoJ is part of the executive branch. But up until Trump, the idea of the president ordering investigations was way beyond the pale. Learn about Watergate.
Quote
According to the tapes of Strzok and his girlfriend, Obama was kept fully informed.
[citation needed]
Bullshit! Obama had full control of the DOJ with Loretta Lynch! The meeting on the plane with wild Bill should have been enough evidence to have somebody impeached.

This entire matter is a witch hunt and you need a citation to know that the tapes explicitly said that Obama was to be kept fully informed?

How the hell did you miss that detail?
I.e. no citation.

Fully informed about what? HInt: it wasn't about anything to do with the Trump campaign.  And it wasn't tapes.

What high crime or misdemeanor did Clinton and Lynch commit?  Don't forget to include the evidence.

BTW, there was no spying on the Trump campaign.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Heinz?

What was Stefan Halpar doing if not spying? I know! He was an FBI "human resource"
No. Seems you failed to read http://talkrational.org/index.php/topic,1081.msg184344.html#msg184344.
9
But spying on his campaign seems like a big deal to me.
One person was sent to talk to three people who were known to have strong ties to Russia or for whom there was credible evidence of strong ties to Russia.  It appeared that those ties were at best inappropriate and at worst illegal.

But I guess you think the FBI should not investigate possible criminal action by anyone involved in a Presidential campaign. Amirite?
10
(1) The FBI and other intelligence agencies were not "the Obama administration".
(2) People (like Page and Papadopoulos) participating in foreign efforts to influence elections don't get a pass because they're official team members of a political campaign.
(3) I think the Clintons SHOULD be investigated for things like Bill's $500,000 speaking gig in Moscow.

Don't be such a tool.
The DOJ is part of the executive branch. They were working for the Obama administration.
This is bullshit.
Yeah, the DoJ is part of the executive branch. But up until Trump, the idea of the president ordering investigations was way beyond the pale. Learn about Watergate.
Quote
According to the tapes of Strzok and his girlfriend, Obama was kept fully informed.
[citation needed]
Bullshit! Obama had full control of the DOJ with Loretta Lynch! The meeting on the plane with wild Bill should have been enough evidence to have somebody impeached.

This entire matter is a witch hunt and you need a citation to know that the tapes explicitly said that Obama was to be kept fully informed?

How the hell did you miss that detail?
I.e. no citation.

Fully informed about what? HInt: it wasn't about anything to do with the Trump campaign.  And it wasn't tapes.

What high crime or misdemeanor did Clinton and Lynch commit?  Don't forget to include the evidence.

BTW, there was no spying on the Trump campaign.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Heinz?
11
(1) The FBI and other intelligence agencies were not "the Obama administration".
(2) People (like Page and Papadopoulos) participating in foreign efforts to influence elections don't get a pass because they're official team members of a political campaign.
(3) I think the Clintons SHOULD be investigated for things like Bill's $500,000 speaking gig in Moscow.

Don't be such a tool.
The DOJ is part of the executive branch. They were working for the Obama administration.
This is bullshit.
Yeah, the DoJ is part of the executive branch. But up until Trump, the idea of the president ordering investigations was way beyond the pale. Learn about Watergate.
Quote
According to the tapes of Strzok and his girlfriend, Obama was kept fully informed.
[citation needed]
Bullshit! Obama had full control of the DOJ with Loretta Lynch! The meeting on the plane with wild Bill should have been enough evidence to have somebody impeached.

This entire matter is a witch hunt and you need a citation to know that the tapes explicitly said that Obama was to be kept fully informed?

How the hell did you miss that detail?
I.e. no citation.

Fully informed about what? HInt: it wasn't about anything to do with the Trump campaign.  And it wasn't tapes.

What high crime or misdemeanor did Clinton and Lynch commit?  Don't forget to include the evidence.

BTW, there was no spying on the Trump campaign.
14
Dave, when a single tree falls it doesn't clear a saw the 300ft wide and a mile long.  You're not proposing to clear a little false here and there at the kind of rate you'd expect to be happening in the forest anyway. You wanted to "thin the canopy by 50%". All those animals attracted to light gaps by the abundance of food? Normally they live in the canopy. Remove half of it and you destroy their habitat.
Is opening up some "light gaps" comparable to those described in the article the same as thinning the entire rainforest canopy to 50%?  No I don't think so.  I stopped talking about the 50% thing when I saw too many heads exploding.  We can talk about that again later once you've gotten your heads around "light gaps."


Well there is a bit of difference between 40 acre light gaps and 400 m2 light gaps. 

And when you expand that to 20,000 400 m2 there might be some impact, even on 1 million acres.
Dave has no comprehension of the relative sizes there. Dave, 400 m2 is 0.1 acre.
15
Geez no. Any animal can go feral at any time. But there would be almost zero negative effect if similar animals already existed in that area.

No I'm sure that all trees do not coppice well. But I'm sure there are many rainforest species that do.
From just an hour before.
Jon quit talking out of your ass. If you make an authoritative statement like that give me a citation of somebody who has knowledge based on their own experience. It's fine that you don't have your own experience, but at least have the decency to refer to someone else's work to support your authoritative statements.
Maybe the above should be:
I, Bluffy, should quit talking out of my ass. If I make authoritative statements like above, then I should give the readers a citation of somebody who has knowledge based on their own experience. It's fine that I don't have my own relevant experience, nor education, nor training, but at least I should have the decency to refer to someone else's work to support my authoritative statements, but I don't. And I'm not going to. Ever. Except as a quote-mine.
Good example.
16
Jon quit talking out of your ass. If you make an authoritative statement like that give me a citation of somebody who has knowledge based on their own experience. It's fine that you don't have your own experience, but at least have the decency to refer to someone else's work to support your authoritative statements.
Dave quit talking out of your ass. If you make an authoritative statements as you have give me a citation of somebody who has knowledge based on their own experience. It's fine that you don't have your own experience, but at least have the decency to refer to someone else's work to support your authoritative statements.

As for my statements your avoidance is pathetic. You could argue whether a light gap as discussed in that article could support one or two sheep or goats, but the point is that the light gap caused by a tree fall will be far smaller than your 300 feet by one mile swath.

The fact that you don't understand scaling is long-established. Ten times larger than one tree fall is going to be significantly different. 100 times larger will be vastly different. When you extrapolate results you need to justify the extrapolation. You don't.

I can't prove you don't know what "edge effect", but it's an educated guess based on the fact it's been mentioned as an important factor and you have ignored it. But you can easily prove me wrong. Define "edge effect" in your own words and discuss how it relates to your plan.

Betcha can't.
17
Dave, when a single tree falls it doesn't clear a saw the 300ft wide and a mile long.  You're not proposing to clear a little false here and there at the kind of rate you'd expect to be happening in the forest anyway. You wanted to "thin the canopy by 50%". All those animals attracted to light gaps by the abundance of food? Normally they live in the canopy. Remove half of it and you destroy their habitat.
Is opening up some "light gaps" comparable to those described in the article the same as thinning the entire rainforest canopy to 50%?  No I don't think so.

Did I say it was? No, no I did not. I'm pointing out to you that natural breaks in the canopy are not what you are proposing to create. They, and the huge amounts of leaching that you will open the soil up to, are not comparable to a gap in the canopy that lasts a few years at most, is rapidly colonised by shrubs and (comparatively) low growing trees that will still be supplying the thin topsoil with nutrients, and taking those nutrients up almost as fast as they are applied. The bulk of the biomass is still in the plants, not the soil. It still doesn't get a chance to build up, because those plants, being rainforest plants, are adapted to soils with very few nutrients and take everything up as fast as they can. And yes, there will be increased leaching in that little area, because there will be more rainfall reaching the forest floor in large bursts, rather than gradually as a result of being delayed by the canopy and all the plants living up there.

Quote
I stopped talking about the 50% thing when I saw too many heads exploding.  We can talk about that again later once you've gotten your heads around "light gaps."

Dave, we understand light gaps as being a standard part of rainforest ecology. They form, there;s a brief flurry of activity around them, and then they close up again. More importantly they're small and widely spaced. Totally unlike your proposals.

Dave, once you've gotten your head around basic rainforest ecology maybe you can start thinking about exactly what effects your idiotic and utterly destructive policy will have on animals and plants that depend on the canopy and near continuous rainforest cover have. How do you think sloths will be able to get to their communal middens with 330ft gaps between trees? Did you even know sloths have communal middens?
You're full of shit.  I'm tired of arguing with idiots.  Maybe I'll be in the mood another day.  Nothing will be destroyed.  I'm simply going to open up some "light gaps" and feed sheep and goats therein.  The end.
Light gaps are where a tree falls. You are going to feed sheep and goats in light gaps? It's fortunate that you actually aren't going to do this.
Light gaps inform us what will happen when we create small clearings in rainforest. And as I expected, good things happen in terms of forage growth which is undoubtedly suitable for sheep and goats, judging by the reported increase in these areas in herbivore and predator population.
"Small clearings" maybe capable of sustaining one goat or sheep. Significantly larger clearings are different. You never get this scaling thing.

You are proposing major changes that will destroy what was there and negatively affect ecosystems for miles around. Edge effect. Another critical concept you can't understand or learn.
18
Big buttons.
Dave, it would help if you had the rudiments of knowledge about the ecology of the places you're proposing to apply things into. Because if you push the same button in one biome there's no indication that it will have the same effects in another.

What happened to rabbits when they were introduced into the UK Dave?

What happened to the same rabbits when they were introduced into Australia?

Same "big button" Dave, right? So why does nobody care about the former but the latter is considered a disaster?
It is a constant source of amazement and Fascination to me to watch grown men with Advanced Science degrees literally unable to rub two neurons together enough to realize that moving some goats and sheep from Dadanawa Ranch to Southern Guyana is in an entirely different category than bringing rabbits from overseas to Australia. Does this moron not realize that there already are herbivores of similar size and Habit in the southern Guyanese rainforest already? Like deer for example? Does he not realize that there are plenty of jungle predators to keep them under control if they were to go feral?

WTF?
Missing the point as usual.

OF course, your plan is much more dangerous than the rabbits.

The detailed effects of major changes to a critical and complex ecosystem are difficult to predict, as it was difficult to predict the effect of rabbits.  However, we can be sure that your "plan" would bring many major changes to the rainforest, and we can easily bring up some obvious issues. Such as destroying the environment of the majority of organisms.
19
Dave, when a single tree falls it doesn't clear a saw the 300ft wide and a mile long.  You're not proposing to clear a little false here and there at the kind of rate you'd expect to be happening in the forest anyway. You wanted to "thin the canopy by 50%". All those animals attracted to light gaps by the abundance of food? Normally they live in the canopy. Remove half of it and you destroy their habitat.
Is opening up some "light gaps" comparable to those described in the article the same as thinning the entire rainforest canopy to 50%?  No I don't think so.

Did I say it was? No, no I did not. I'm pointing out to you that natural breaks in the canopy are not what you are proposing to create. They, and the huge amounts of leaching that you will open the soil up to, are not comparable to a gap in the canopy that lasts a few years at most, is rapidly colonised by shrubs and (comparatively) low growing trees that will still be supplying the thin topsoil with nutrients, and taking those nutrients up almost as fast as they are applied. The bulk of the biomass is still in the plants, not the soil. It still doesn't get a chance to build up, because those plants, being rainforest plants, are adapted to soils with very few nutrients and take everything up as fast as they can. And yes, there will be increased leaching in that little area, because there will be more rainfall reaching the forest floor in large bursts, rather than gradually as a result of being delayed by the canopy and all the plants living up there.

Quote
I stopped talking about the 50% thing when I saw too many heads exploding.  We can talk about that again later once you've gotten your heads around "light gaps."

Dave, we understand light gaps as being a standard part of rainforest ecology. They form, there;s a brief flurry of activity around them, and then they close up again. More importantly they're small and widely spaced. Totally unlike your proposals.

Dave, once you've gotten your head around basic rainforest ecology maybe you can start thinking about exactly what effects your idiotic and utterly destructive policy will have on animals and plants that depend on the canopy and near continuous rainforest cover have. How do you think sloths will be able to get to their communal middens with 330ft gaps between trees? Did you even know sloths have communal middens?
You're full of shit.  I'm tired of arguing with idiots.  Maybe I'll be in the mood another day.  Nothing will be destroyed.  I'm simply going to open up some "light gaps" and feed sheep and goats therein.  The end.
I can't tell, Dave: is this
1) You backing off of the "strips" and switching to proposing feeding your livestock in light gaps, or
2) You saying that the "strips" are merely light gaps?
I'm backing off talking about strips for now because I saw too many exploding heads.  One can be a Buddhist. Or one can be a nudist. But if you are a nudist Buddhist, people's heads will explode.
So, you're avoiding even the most important details about your "plan" because so many people pointed out why it's a recipe for disaster.

Got it.
20
Rainforest.

Focus.
Leaching

Focus.
None to speak of in rainforest soil. 

But let's think about this ...

If I cut ONE big tree in the rainforest down to the stump and coppice it every year ... just ONE ... a big one ... So that some sunlight can reach a small patch of forest floor ...

What will happen?

Will I suddenly experience leaching?

Why or why not?

Looks like you found your answer:

Quote
A common event in the tropical rainforest is the fall of an emergent tree, usually during a tropical thunderstorm. In fact, it is estimated that tree turnover rates in some rainforests are every 80-135 years. When one of these giants--laden with lianas connected to neighboring trees--falls, it takes out a sizeable portion of the canopy. This hole in the canopy is known as a "light gap" because direct sunlight reaches the floor in contrast to the usual 1-5 percent under full canopy conditions. The opening of a light gap brings many changes to the section of rainforest.

The light gap is rapidly colonized by the same pioneer species that colonize clearings including trees like cecropia, balsa, macaranga, musanga, and bamboo, and shrubby plants like gingers, bananas, nightshades, climbing lianas, and rattan palms. These species are well-adapted for rapid growth, but not for long-term existence in the forest. Their often white wood and leaves with poor chemical protection are subject to infection and infestation by insects. Generally, these pioneers flower rapidly and produce numerous fruits, but are soon overtaken by the hardier, better adapted hardwood trees which fill in the gap in the canopy. Many forest tree species are dependent on light gaps to complete their life cycle.

As a result of the increased light and abundance of fruits produced by gap colonists, light gaps are areas of increased animal activity. Carnivorous animals follow the herbivorous animals that are attracted to the fruiting plants.

I don't see anything about leaching :dunno:
Is there some reason you should?  Is that meant to be an exhaustive list of effects?
21
Oh crap why did it copy all that?
You posted the HTML source of the page.
22
Is it your contention, Hawkins, that any tree can be coppiced?
Not saying that but I suspect most can be. I[1] don't have a scintilla of a clue.
FIFY
Dave.
23
Cut the trees and the water goes in the creek faster. The faster it moves, even underground,  the more soluble material goes with it (though above ground movement does also increase and takes more solid material through erosion too). If you cut down the trees you can't keep the water out of the creek is a shorthand way to say all that though. Hmg is not going to affect that much of the system to overcome the effect of the water.
If what people are saying is true about rainforest tree roots being shallow, and we cut down some of them, except we don't kill them, we leave the stumps for coppicing and other plants grow better because of more sunlight reaching them, then I fail to see how any water flow would be affected.  You seem to be reciting things you've read while not really engaging your brain.  I encounter this constantly.  It's an unfortunate human phenomenon.
Now, quite a bit of the rain doesn't reach the ground, and what does is slowed by caroming off leaves and whatnot..

So you are proposing to add water that hits the ground harder.

And make many other plants grow much worse, destroying the ecosystem.

Many rainforest trees cannot be coppiced.
You are talking out your ass. Come on man. You can do better than that.
Translates to "I[1] got nuthin', so I'll ignore this and repeat my[2] bullshit again soon.
Dave.
Dave's.
24
Cut the trees and the water goes in the creek faster. The faster it moves, even underground,  the more soluble material goes with it (though above ground movement does also increase and takes more solid material through erosion too). If you cut down the trees you can't keep the water out of the creek is a shorthand way to say all that though. Hmg is not going to affect that much of the system to overcome the effect of the water.
If what people are saying is true about rainforest tree roots being shallow, and we cut down some of them, except we don't kill them, we leave the stumps for coppicing and other plants grow better because of more sunlight reaching them, then I fail to see how any water flow would be affected.  You seem to be reciting things you've read while not really engaging your brain.  I encounter this constantly.  It's an unfortunate human phenomenon.
Now, quite a bit of the rain doesn't reach the ground, and what does is slowed by caroming off leaves and whatnot..

So you are proposing to add water that hits the ground harder.

And make many other plants grow much worse, destroying the ecosystem.

Many rainforest trees cannot be coppiced.
25
Dave in the rainforest as much as possible is cycled as quickly as possible. It isn't cut down and exported hundreds of miles off site. So you don't need to add commercial (or indeed any) fertilisers, because the nutrients that aren't leached stay on site, and the system has adapted to cycle the nutrients that are susceptible to leaching as rapidly as possible, and most of those are locked up in the canopy.
And while the rainforest flora have evolved to grab those nutrients as efficiently as possible from that thin skin of topsoil, they obviously can't be 100% efficient. The occasional ion that is not snagged by a plant or a microbe and gets washed into the underlying soil is leached and gone for good.  There has to be input from somewhere.

African dust keeps Amazon blooming
Quote
Dust from one of the world's most desolate places is providing essential fertilizer for one of the most lush, scientists have discovered. Significant amounts of plant nutrients have been found in atmospheric mineral dust blowing from a vast central African basin to the Amazon, where it could compensate for poor rainforest soils. ...

"The Amazon is essentially a leached or leaching system," says Bristow. Nutrients in the soil are washed away by rains. "So although it is very productive, it is actually quite nutrient-poor."

IIRC this came up in a previous Hawkins-fisking years ago in another context.
Oh here we go again. This was beautiful. The Sahara Desert is actually a good thing because it keeps the Amazon rainforest going.

ROFL
It is an important factor in keeping the rainforest going.