Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Better smileys.

Topic: Paul and Anne Ehrlich on How the Sahara Desert is Manmade (Read 2942 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: Paul and Anne Ehrlich on How the Sahara Desert is Manmade
Reply #50
One thing I will grant you is that we cannot  conclude from this source that the ENTIRE Sahara desert was caused by Roman deforestation. Maybe only a small coastal portion. I don't know.

The Sahara Desert doesn't extend to the coast.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Paul and Anne Ehrlich on How the Sahara Desert is Manmade
Reply #51
One thing I will grant you is that we cannot  conclude from this source that the ENTIRE Sahara desert was caused by Roman deforestation.
But THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.
Neither "this source" - nor any other source you've come up with - says anything about the "ENTIRE Sahara desert", or any significant fraction of the Sahara desert being "manmade"

Quote
Maybe only a small coastal portion. I don't know.
No. You don't.
And yet... look at the title you gave this thread.

Just plain ignorance?
Nah.
Not in light of the number of times this has been explained to you.
This has to be your specialty:  militant ignorance.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Paul and Anne Ehrlich on How the Sahara Desert is Manmade
Reply #52
One thing I will grant you is that we cannot  conclude from this source that the ENTIRE Sahara desert was caused by Roman deforestation. Maybe only a small coastal portion. I don't know.

No, Bluffy, we don't even know who this source is or what the basis of this source's claims. There's no supporting references or citations. Nothing other than an opinion.

Now, we all know you firmly believe a firmly stated opinion, one that agrees at least in some respect with your apriori beliefs, constitutes unshakable evidence, but in the real world, that outside of Bluffoonylvania, it's pretty much nothing. Other then hot air. No support is no support.
Are we there yet?

Re: Paul and Anne Ehrlich on How the Sahara Desert is Manmade
Reply #53
One thing I will grant you is that we cannot  conclude from this source that the ENTIRE Sahara desert was caused by Roman deforestation.
But THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.
Neither "this source" - nor any other source you've come up with - says anything about the "ENTIRE Sahara desert", or any significant fraction of the Sahara desert being "manmade"

Quote
Maybe only a small coastal portion. I don't know.
No. You don't.
And yet... look at the title you gave this thread.

Just plain ignorance?
Nah.
Not in light of the number of times this has been explained to you.
This has to be your specialty:  militant ignorance.
Militant ignorance would be you, my friend.  Do you ever get tired of being wrong? 

"nor any other source you've come up with"

Which part of "the vast Sahara desert itself is largely manmade" (Ehrlich's statement right there in the OP plain as the nose on your face) is unclear?

Re: Paul and Anne Ehrlich on How the Sahara Desert is Manmade
Reply #54
Not to mention the militant ignorance that causes you to ignore the giant elephant in the room - the global flood.

Re: Paul and Anne Ehrlich on How the Sahara Desert is Manmade
Reply #55
One thing I will grant you is that we cannot  conclude from this source that the ENTIRE Sahara desert was caused by Roman deforestation.
But THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.
Neither "this source" - nor any other source you've come up with - says anything about the "ENTIRE Sahara desert", or any significant fraction of the Sahara desert being "manmade"

Quote
Maybe only a small coastal portion. I don't know.
No. You don't.
And yet... look at the title you gave this thread.

Just plain ignorance?
Nah.
Not in light of the number of times this has been explained to you.
This has to be your specialty:  militant ignorance.
Militant ignorance would be you, my friend.  Do you ever get tired of being wrong? 

"nor any other source you've come up with"

Which part of "the vast Sahara desert itself is largely manmade" (Ehrlich's statement right there in the OP plain as the nose on your face) is unclear?
You dumbass. Who cares what they said? What was their evidence? Jesus Christ you
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Paul and Anne Ehrlich on How the Sahara Desert is Manmade
Reply #56
Not to mention the militant ignorance that causes you to ignore the giant elephant in the room - the global flood.
I have an expert quoted as saying there was no global flood. That proves there wasn't.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Paul and Anne Ehrlich on How the Sahara Desert is Manmade
Reply #57
Voxrat says "A"

"A" is factually incorrect.

When I point this out, Testy says I'm a dumbass.

Ya gotta love this forum!


Re: Paul and Anne Ehrlich on How the Sahara Desert is Manmade
Reply #58
Very sciency!

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Paul and Anne Ehrlich on How the Sahara Desert is Manmade
Reply #59
Bluffy, as noted, it matters not what anyone has said, unless they have evidence to support what they say.

As for Ehrlich, you even quote him as saying he doesn't remember what he wrote in the 1960s. As I noted, pretty strange for someone to not have a copy of a book they wrote, one that significantly made their reputation. Whether or not Ehrlich remembers what he wrote, he should certainly be able to walk over to a shelf in his office or library and pick up the book and find the passage and confirm what he wrote.

And, now, just as then, there's no supporting evidence. Never was, never will be.
Are we there yet?

  • Pingu
Re: Paul and Anne Ehrlich on How the Sahara Desert is Manmade
Reply #60
Voxrat says "A"

"A" is factually incorrect.

When I point this out, Testy says I'm a dumbass.

Ya gotta love this forum!



Dave: "largely" does NOT mean the same as "entirely".

And in any case, it turned out that Ehrlich was wrong.

Quoting older books that seem to you to suggest that he was right is not evidence that he was.  It is just evidence that other people were wrong as well.

The EVIDENCE that he was wrong is in the evidence of cyclical climate change in the Sahara, dating back to well before humans were even around.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Paul and Anne Ehrlich on How the Sahara Desert is Manmade
Reply #61
Voxrat says "A"

"A" is factually incorrect.

When I point this out, Testy says I'm a dumbass.

Ya gotta love this forum!


You're a dumbass with or without this forum.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • Faid
Re: Paul and Anne Ehrlich on How the Sahara Desert is Manmade
Reply #62
For the really really slow people, we could break this down into two sentences to help avoid confusion.

1) Abandoned land in Latium and Campania turned into swamps.
2)  Abandoned land in Northern Africa turned into desert.

 One of the reasons I like older textbooks is because the authors wrote with interesting sentence structures.
It's a shame that you didn't pay the same  attention to sentence structures in grammar class.

Does any of that say "Romans created the Sahara desert"?

The article is talking about the Roman Empire doing the abandoning ... so yes.
Stop playing dumb dave.

Where does it say that "Romans created the Sahahra desert"?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Paul and Anne Ehrlich on How the Sahara Desert is Manmade
Reply #63
What desert do YOU think is in North Africa? The Gobi?
Does the quote say "Romans created all the desert regions in North Africa"?

Can YOU read, dave?
  • Last Edit: June 07, 2016, 12:08:53 AM by Faid
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Paul and Anne Ehrlich on How the Sahara Desert is Manmade
Reply #64
One thing I will grant you is that we cannot  conclude from this source that the ENTIRE Sahara desert was caused by Roman deforestation. Maybe only a small coastal portion. I don't know.
IOW, "one thing you will grant us" is that we are right and you are full of shit?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Paul and Anne Ehrlich on How the Sahara Desert is Manmade
Reply #65
Militant ignorance would be you, my friend.  Do you ever get tired of being wrong? 
No U
Quote

"nor any other source you've come up with"

Which part of "the vast Sahara desert itself is largely manmade" (Ehrlich's statement right there in the OP plain as the nose on your face) is unclear?
What part of the sources (plain as the nose on your face) refuting it is unclear?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Paul and Anne Ehrlich on How the Sahara Desert is Manmade
Reply #66
Not to mention the militant ignorance that causes you to ignore the giant elephant in the room - the global flood.
We're in urgent need of a facepalm smiley.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Paul and Anne Ehrlich on How the Sahara Desert is Manmade
Reply #67
Voxrat says "A"

"A" is factually incorrect.

When I point this out, Testy says I'm a dumbass.

Ya gotta love this forum!


Dave says "A".
People show him evidence that "A" is incorrect.
Dave dismisses it all as garbage and propaganda. He points us to a 1970 quote by Ehrlich that also claims "A".
People show him sources contradicting and disputing Ehrlich's claim.
Dave dismisses them as "repeating Darwin dogma".
Later, dave shows us a quote from a 1939 book saying "B". He claims it says "A".
People show him it does not, in fact, say "A". Dave admits that it doesn't, but claims it might as well have said "A" because Ehrlich.
Dave then claims the evidence is on his side.

Did I miss anything? ;)
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Paul and Anne Ehrlich on How the Sahara Desert is Manmade
Reply #68
Not to mention the militant ignorance that causes you to ignore the giant elephant in the room - the global flood.
We're in urgent need of a facepalm smiley.
I agree. Hang on and I'll get one.
Truth is out of style

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: Paul and Anne Ehrlich on How the Sahara Desert is Manmade
Reply #69
Is now available. Best one I could find at short notice. :doh:
Truth is out of style

Re: Paul and Anne Ehrlich on How the Sahara Desert is Manmade
Reply #70
Voxrat says "A"

"A" is factually incorrect.

When I point this out, Testy says I'm a dumbass.

Ya gotta love this forum!



Dave: "largely" does NOT mean the same as "entirely".

And in any case, it turned out that Ehrlich was wrong.

Quoting older books that seem to you to suggest that he was right is not evidence that he was.  It is just evidence that other people were wrong as well.

The EVIDENCE that he was wrong is in the evidence of cyclical climate change in the Sahara, dating back to well before humans were even around.
You're really going to quibble over "largely" vs. "entirely"?  Okey dokey

"Ehrlich turned out to be wrong" ... Oh?  Wouldn't it be a little safer on your part to say something like "Ehrlich's view is in the minority" ??

I never said that "quoting older books is evidence" of anything.  What I WILL say is "quoting older books is interesting because it can challenge our thinking as to whether the mainstream view is correct or not."  Note that this is what happened to Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler ... at least according to Paolo Casini, the guy who made Newton's "Classical Scholia" available for the first time.

The "evidence" of your "millions of years" is based upon assumptions which you have never demonstrated to be true.

Re: Paul and Anne Ehrlich on How the Sahara Desert is Manmade
Reply #71
I have a question regarding the Sahara desert which I've never asked before ...

The following is the mainstream (Alice in Wonderland) view of the Sahara Desert written in popular prose ...

Quote
But around 10,500 years ago, a sudden burst of monsoon rains over the vast desert transformed the region into habitable land.

This opened the door for humans to move into the area, as evidenced by the researcher's 500 new radiocarbon dates of human and animal remains from more than 150 excavation sites.

"The climate change at [10,500 years ago] which turned most of the [3.8 million square mile] large Sahara into a savannah-type environment happened within a few hundred years only, certainly within less than 500 years," said study team member Stefan Kroepelin of the University of Cologne in Germany.
- See more at: http://www.livescience.com/4180-sahara-desert-lush-populated.html#sthash.sG763LY5.dpuf

Here's my question ...

Do you think that if it started raining again in the future over the Sahara Desert that it would once again become lush and fertile?  If you think that, could you please explain to me the big picture of how that would occur?  As I hope you know, fertile land requires much more than water.

  • Faid
Re: Paul and Anne Ehrlich on How the Sahara Desert is Manmade
Reply #72
The "evidence" of your "millions of years" is based upon assumptions which I have never  managed to even name, let alone dispute.
fyp
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Paul and Anne Ehrlich on How the Sahara Desert is Manmade
Reply #73
Dave, just give up already. Admit that the article doesn't say what you claimed it said. Otherwise, you look more and more like an ass with every post.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Paul and Anne Ehrlich on How the Sahara Desert is Manmade
Reply #74


Here's my question ...

Do you think that if it started raining again in the future over the Sahara Desert that it would once again become lush and fertile?  If you think that, could you please explain to me the big picture of how that would occur?  As I hope you know, fertile land requires much more than water.

Are you going to start in with the 'must have large herbivore poop' thing again? Dave, you know what else poops? Every living creature that isn't a plant. Mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, arthropods - they all poop. Do you have any idea what the density of non-large herbivore animals there are per hectare of any biome anywhere? Of course you don't.

As a single example for you, let me present the Meadow Vole, a tiny rodent indigenous to the prairies, marshes and old fields of NA:
Quote
Female meadow voles reach reproductive maturity earlier than males; some ovulate and become pregnant as early as three weeks old. Males are usually six to eight weeks old before mature sperm are produced.[12] One captive female produced 17 litters in one year for a total of 83 young. One of her young produced 13 litters (totalling 78 young) before she was a year old.[

Quote
Peak meadow vole abundance can exceed 1,482 meadow voles per acre (600/ha) in northern prairie wetlands.[18] Meadow voles in optimal habitats in Virginia (old fields with dense vegetation) reached densities of 983/ac (398/ha); populations declined to 67/ac (27/ha) at the lowest point in the cycle.[

Quote
As with many other small mammal species, M. pennsylvanicus plays important ecological roles.[46] The meadow vole is an important food source for many predators, and disperses mycorrhizal fungi. It is a major consumer of grass and disperses grass nutrients in its feces

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meadow_vole

That is one species of animal in one set of habitats. It lives along with a multitude of other small living things, all of which contribute to the health of the soil during life and after death.