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
Guys do you have any idea how expensive it is to plant trees? It's horrendously expensive and it doesn't accomplish the main job that needs doing, which is increasing vegetative cover on the soil so that the scanty amount of moisture that does fall is retained and is thus more effective.
Please tell us how much it costs to plant trees. Remember you promised a economic analysis years ago.
2
I was skeptical of Donald Trump at first too but more and more I am starting to believe that he may go down as one of our greatest presidents.
You had your nose way up his ass from the start. You seem to be acknowledging some flaws recently.
3
What is the most horrifying thing that you see the Republican Party doing right now?
Not impeaching Trump maybe.
I don't want him impeached unless it's en masse. Trump is evil and incompetent. Pence is evil and competent. Ryan is evil and a little competent. I forget who's next.
4
What is the most horrifying thing that you see the Republican Party doing right now?
Sabotaging the ACA. It's very popular and working fairly well. There is significant room for improvement, and in many cases there is an easy fix borne of what we've learned over the past few years. But it requires Republicans wanting to fix it.

Since it does not benefit the rich or corporations (other than the health care industry, which R's don't like because they know the ACA is working and they like it), the R''s hate it, and they have built a very successful straw version of it and sold killing it to the rubes.
5
The Strzok anti-Trump text message to FBI lawyer Lisa Page about "no way" Trump gets elected and having an "insurance policy" to see that he doesn't, certainly needs some explaining.
::)

There was no " 'insurance policy' to see that he doesn't "

That was invented by conspiracy theorists.


Bullshit. The insurance policy was clearly mentioned in Strzok's text message. Whether it actually existed or not, it wasn't invented by conspiracy theorists.
Yes it was mentioned.
But there's nothing in the memo that says it had anything to do with preventing Trump's election.

Quote from: Stzrok
I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40.

You are a big fan of CONTEXT, except of course when that context works against what you want to believe.

Excuse me?

What context are you talking about?
I quoted the whole thing:
Quote
Here's Strzok's full text, which was released along with many others last week:
Quote
I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40.
WaPo article


Sure, you Quoted the whole thing but you totally ignored the context in which the insurance policy was mentioned.

The context is crystal clear - no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk.

They cannot take the risk he gets elected, so they need an insurance policy against that happening.

Keep pretending you cannot understand that Mr. context man.

Think flu shot. That is an insurance policy to prevent something from happening.

Do you understand it now?

Better than you.
Think unspecified preparation for the possible future. An insurance policy is part of the analogy, not specified as part of the real situation.
6
Who's known for killing and maiming people, Dave? Antifa protesters or the Klan/white supremacists/nazis? Come on, you must know the answer to that one.
Both.  (Talking about currently, not in the past)
In other words, ignoring a hell of a lot of context. Literally more than a century of context.

Even currently the tally of violence is pretty one-sided. Alt-right white supremacists have done a lot of killing and maiming in the US in the past several years. Antifa seem to have damaged some property and punched a couple people.
Uhhh, Dave?
You seem to have lost the ability to defend the dumb shit you post.
He's never had the ability.

Now he's lost the inclination.
7
On the contrary, what I have instructed Sea Star to do is what's known as the scientific method... Propose a hypothesis, then try to refute it. The hypothesis is "desertification is caused by over grazing and deforestation" ... Googling those terms for various regions of the world allows us to attempt to refute that hypothesis. Certainly if we find no articles supporting that hypothesis, then we can consider it to be refuted. On the other hand, if we do find articles supporting that view, then we have to evaluate those for their quality. If we find an abundance of articles supporting that view and the articles seem to be well researched, then we can consider the hypothesis to be tentatively supported.

Welcome to science!
Very, very, very tentatively supported.

Scientists LOOK AT THE FUCKING SAHARA as well.
8
Lol

Sea Star has been trolling me this whole time.
No she hasn't you dumbshit. She's trying to figure out if you actually have a point because your stupid a+b produces lettuce as a sum. She's trying to figure out where your logic is broken so she can either agree or disagree with you. As it is, you've just made a stupid assertion and pointed to pajamas as support.
Of course I have a point. How many times do in have to repeat it? The cave art in SE Algeria tells us that this area was lush and green less than 10000 years and that there were grazing herds.  Put that together with what we know about mismanaged grazing herds causing desertification today and you have a case for "overgrazing plus a few other factors caused the Sahara."

What seems to be the problem in understanding this?
Your unstated and erroneous assumption that SE Algeria represents the state of the entire Sahara at that time.
9
Either Dave is a lousy salesman, or they already know that the system is complete BS.
There is no system. Dave's the Joker of agriculture.

Quote
You know what I am? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it! I just do things.
10
The Strzok anti-Trump text message to FBI lawyer Lisa Page about "no way" Trump gets elected and having an "insurance policy" to see that he doesn't, certainly needs some explaining.
::)

There was no " 'insurance policy' to see that he doesn't "

That was invented by conspiracy theorists.


Bullshit. The insurance policy was clearly mentioned in Strzok's text message. Whether it actually existed or not, it wasn't invented by conspiracy theorists.
Yes it was mentioned.
But there's nothing in the memo that says it had anything to do with preventing Trump's election.

I don't know any other way to interpret this:

I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40.

What do you think he is talking about? life insurance maybe?
Not really. The life insurance is an analogy.

An insurance policy was mentioned. It was not about an insurance policy against Trump. It was about how people prepare for unlikely events, illustrated by people buying life insurance at age 40.
11
The Strzok anti-Trump text message to FBI lawyer Lisa Page about "no way" Trump gets elected and having an "insurance policy" to see that he doesn't, certainly needs some explaining.
::)

There was no " 'insurance policy' to see that he doesn't "

That was invented by conspiracy theorists.


Bullshit. The insurance policy was clearly mentioned in Strzok's text message. Whether it actually existed or not, it wasn't invented by conspiracy theorists.
Yes it was mentioned.
But there's nothing in the memo that says it had anything to do with preventing Trump's election.

Quote from: Stzrok
I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40.
Expecting a life insurance policy to prevent your death would be strange.
Then again, taking an umbrella with you to make sure it will not rain, does seem to work.
He wasn't proposing an insurance policy to prevent death in the analogy ... he was proposing and insurance policy in case death occurred.  And it did in fact occur ... "death" happened from Strzok's perspective when Trump was elected ... so ... time to cash in the insurance policy ... good thing they had enough foresight to purchase it ... see?
There was no implication that what they wanted to prepare for a possible Trump victory would be an insurance policy. They wanted to do something unspecified.
12
The Strzok anti-Trump text message to FBI lawyer Lisa Page about "no way" Trump gets elected and having an "insurance policy" to see that he doesn't, certainly needs some explaining.
::)

There was no " 'insurance policy' to see that he doesn't "

That was invented by conspiracy theorists.


Bullshit. The insurance policy was clearly mentioned in Strzok's text message. Whether it actually existed or not, it wasn't invented by conspiracy theorists.
An insurance policy was mentioned. It was not about an insurance policy against Trump. It was about how people prepare for unlikely events, illustrated by people buying life insurance at age 40.

Duh.

Of course you can't comprehend such a complex message.
13
Conclusion: there were domestic bovine herds in the Bovidian period in the middle of what is now the Sahara Desert.

Got it?
The middle of the desert?
Headline
Quote
ten millennia reveal the evolution of human life on the edge of the Sahara
First para -
Quote
Set in a vast plateau in the south-east of the Algerian Sahara at the borders of Libya, Niger and Mali,

Yes, I already addressed that.  I'll do it again.  I don't blame you for missing it with all the squid ink around here. 

I don't know why the article talks about the "edge of the Sahara" unless it means edge of the Algerian Sahara because Tassili n'Ajjer is pretty much smack dab in the middle of what WE call the Sahara Desert now if you plot it on a map.  See for yourself.  Plug that location name plus "Algeria" into Google Maps and click satellite view so you can see the desert.  You'll see that it appears as a National Park pretty right in the middle of the enormous desert. 
Dave, I'm not reading other posts, just yours to me.

You asked me to read that article. You wouldn't tell me the main points of the article you wanted me to say attention to.
I read it.
The location does not seem to be a main point of the article. Why are you bringing it up?
If you want to 'teach' someone something, you have to give them the facts/data to work with.
So please explain to me how location is relevant.
It's smack dab in the middle of what we now call the Sahara Desert.  i.e. all of N. Africa was lush and green and fertile less than 10k ya ... complete with grazing animal herds.  Now it's not.  What happened?  Well, judging by what's happening TODAY, Ehrlich probably nailed it.  If this archaeological site was at the edge or in present day S. Africa or somewhere NOT smack dab in the middle of the Sahara, then my argument would have less force.  I'm really mystified as to why this is so hard to get.
Dave, who is Ehrlich? I did not see mention of him in the article on ancient wall art.
You still have not told me what information I was to glean from the article. Apparently location is important, but I don't know why.
no I've explained all of that several times. If you don't get it by now, you won't get it. Paul Ehrlich. Population bomb guy. Google him.
I.e. in paleoclimatology he is chopped liver.
14
It's smack dab in the middle of what we now call the Sahara Desert.
It was not in the middle of the Sahara then.

 
Quote
  i.e. all of N. Africa was lush and green and fertile less than 10k ya ... complete with grazing animal herds.

Does not follow.  I.e. That small portion of N. Africa was lush and green and fertile less than 10k ya ... complete with grazing animal herds. Tells us nothing about any other area.

Quote
   Now it's not.  What happened?  Well, judging by what's happening TODAY, Ehrlich probably nailed it.  If this archaeological site was at the edge or in present day S. Africa or somewhere NOT smack dab in the middle of the Sahara, then my argument would have less force.   I'm really mystified as to why this is so hard to get.
It's easy for those of us who think. Its position relative to the rest of the Sahara back then is what counts. As you said, "somewhere NOT smack dab in the middle of the Sahara, then my argument would have less force.". Well, when it was green it was on the edge of the Sahara. Your argument has no force.
15
Also informed by Ehrlich.  Is he a kook?

Ehrlich, though a smart man, is a biologist, a zoologist, and more specifically, an entomologist. I don't expect him to be particularly well grounded in prehistoric anthropology.
Or paleoclimatology.
16
But no substantial response to my post.
So I read it, your turn.
It should be clear to you what I think without a summary, but okay. I think that North Africa was green and lush soon after the single Ice Age which occurred soon after the global flood. But the article I referenced puts this green and lush period - the pastoral period - between 7000 and 3000 BC. Okay fine. What's a few thousand years among friends? The important thing that we glean from this article is that it was definitely green and Lush complete with grazing herds less than 10,000 years ago, then it dried out. And of course the question is why. I already explained to you that all we can do is make informed speculation based on what we know now about desertification. I posted a study about the Mongolian steppe and how it is becoming a desert due to over grazing. Therefore we can make a somewhat informed speculation that perhaps it was the same reason that caused desertification in North Africa. This speculation is further strengthened by the fact that thanks to Allan Savory We Now understand the specifics of how mismanagement of grazing herds causes deserts and how proper management of those same size herds or even larger herds actually reverses desertification.
So, that's a big fat "No, I don't have any evidence".

We know a lot more about the history of the Sahara than you dare acknowledge.
17
So as you can tell, the Darwin Club here wants us to believe that over grazing had nothing to do with desertification in Northern Africa... They want us to believe it was random climate change.

Okay great... If they can come up for hard evidence for that, wonderful.

We have.

Quote
I personally believe it was over grazing but it's hard to come up with hard evidence of that since it is such ancient history. The best we can do is informed speculation and we do have examples of desertification occurring as a result of over Grazing In the present day. For example...http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2013/sep/overgrazing-turning-parts-mongolian-steppe-desert

Quote
Overgrazing accounts for about 80 percent of the vegetation loss in recent years, researchers concluded, and reduced precipitation as a result of climatic change accounted for most of the rest.

Without less rain as a result of climate shift it will never be a true desert like the Sahara. Mongolia is semi-arid with about 14 rainfall per year.
18
My argument does not depend on the time scale being more recent. Even if you accept the dates given,   you have a very recent Green Sahara complete with flocks and herds of grazing animals.  Since that time it has progressively gotten much dryer due to something.

Which begs the question... What is that something?
Climate shift. 6,000 years ago, the Sahara desert was tropical--what happened?:

Quote
  As little as 6,000 years ago, the vast Sahara Desert was covered in grassland that received plenty of rainfall, but shifts in the world's weather patterns abruptly transformed the vegetated region into some of the driest land on Earth. A Texas A&M university researcher is trying to uncover the clues responsible for this enormous climate transformation - and the findings could lead to better rainfall predictions worldwide.
..

The Hadley circulation is a tropical atmospheric circulation that rises near the equator. It is linked to the subtropical trade winds, tropical rainbelts, and affects the position of severe storms, hurricanes, and the jet stream. Where it descends in the subtropics, it can create desert-like conditions. The majority of Earth's arid regions are located in areas beneath the descending parts of the Hadley circulation.
"We know that 6,000 years ago, what is now the Sahara Desert was a rainy place," Korty adds.
"It has been something of a mystery to understand how the tropical rain belt moved so far north of the equator. Our findings show that that large migrations in rainfall can occur in one part of the globe even while the belt doesn't move much elsewhere.
 
19
We are only saving that part of the world that has herbivores living sustainably on it. That's not much of the 🌎
No.  We are saving the world where herbivores currently exist ... but they are being managed in a non-sustainable way.  Which is why we have blights on the world like the Sahara Desert.  And yes, we CAN regreen places like the Sahara Desert ... we just have to start around the edges and work inward over time.  Remember, you have to have at least a tiny amount of vegetation to begin with to get started with your grazers. If you read what Allan Savory writes, you know that there are many places in the world that are becoming a desert and it's these places where Allan focuses to try to get the ranchers there to change their management so that desertification can be reversed.
There is a difference between a desert and desertification of a non-desert climate. Deserts are natural in many areas.
Why should I trust what Savory wrote?
Trust no man. Look for evidence instead. One of the largest deserts on the planet  - the Sahara Desert - was most likely man-made.  I haven't studied the others much.
Evidence for the claim that the Sahara is 'man-made', please. A link and a summary. I'll evaluate your source.
^^^^^
Dave?
Ok.

First though... have you read about the "Pastoral Period" in that region? Mainstream dates run from about 7200 BC to 3000 BC
Link and summary, please

"The Pastoral Period (or 'Bovidian period') from around 7,200 BC to 3,000 BC is the dominant period in terms of the number of paintings, during which there is the representation of bovine herds and the scenes of daily life. They have an aesthetic naturalistic realism to them and are among the best known examples of prehistoric mural art."

http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-africa/15000-artworks-over-ten-millennia-reveal-evolution-human-life-edge-sahara

These paintings are not on the edge of the Sahara as the verbiage in the link leads you to believe, but rather are smack dab in the middle ... Southeastern area of Algeria near the Libyan border.

I personally believe the time scale is too old based on other evidence. I would place the dates more like 2500 BC - 2000 BC.
I see no indication there that the change to desert was caused by human activity, no matter what the time period.

Got any evidence what caused the change?

Didn't think so.

Of course you have no non-PRATT evidence of any errors in the mainstream time scale. RH Brown has failed you.
20
Well ... now it's not just me saying "heads will roll" ... others are saying it too ...

Quote
Rep. Gaetz: "Heads Will Roll" at DOJ and FBI When Details Of FISA Abuse Memo Come Out
Posted By Tim Hains
On Date January 19, 2018

Rep. Matt Gaetz appeared on FNC's 'America's Newsroom' Friday morning to discuss the effort to release a Top Secret memo which allegedly details abuse of FISA surveillance during the Obama administration. Gaetz also told Sean Hannity Thursday night that if it comes out: "I believe people will go to jail."

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/01/19/rep_gaetz_heads_will_roll_in_doj_and_fbi_over_contents_fisa_abuse_memo.htm
Pre- debunked in Message 5351.

The FISA memo is no more than Gowdy's Nunes' fantasies that are too ridiculous even for most Republicans. Sorry, got the wrong loon initially.

No heads rolling for that.

Just another pathetic attempt to distract from the real crimes of the Trump administration.,
21
So it took just under a year to find out that Trump can't do deals.

And the Washington swamp is as boggy as ever.
Boggier to the max.
22
I see you!
23
Hi, Dave. Are you badgering or franoogling?

 :badger:
24
But you running a couple goats on ten acres of prime arable land tells us nothing about whether your system will work anywhere else on the planet.
Or if it can be adapted to a significant portion of the Earth's land, or how to adapt it, and what global consequences could follow such adoption.
25
Oh, and, your repeated "explanations" are vague and unsupported assertions which boil down to "you gotta adapt it to your needs [1], but you have nothing to offer beyond that.
Not a real quote.