Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Ceasefire!!!!11!1!

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 - uncool

1
"The difference between what you wrote and what Pingu wrote is enormous. Do you need an explanation?"

Not really.  But you seem eager to give me one ... so ... go for it ...
I'm eager to show you just how much bullshit you were spewing when you said "This is not preaching by the way ... it's an outline of my hypothesis."

So do you understand that that was bullshit?
2
The emerging picture from actual evidence as opposed to Alice in Wonderland stories is that...

1. There was a global flood
2. Which made things very wet indeed
3. Including North Africa
4. When things dried out the land greened up and there were many  lakes and rivers across what is now the Sahara Desert
5. Empires flourished
6. They probably destroyed their land just like we are doing today.
7. Ergo ... Sahara desert
8. As more and more people like Paul Ehrlich are now saying
This is not preaching by the way ... it's an outline of my hypothesis ...

Preaching is different.

Here's the hypothesis version:

1. If there was a global flood
2. It would have made things very wet indeed
3. Including North Africa
4. When things dried out the land would have greened up and there would have been many  lakes and rivers across what is now the Sahara Desert
5. This would have allowed Empires to flourish.
6. If they did, their activities may have eventually destroyed their land just like we are doing today.
7. In which case that one outcome might have been the Sahara desert
8. In the manner that Paul Ehrlich once proposed.

Which you would then compare with at least one alternative hypothesis, e.g.:

1. If there was an ice age that peaked around 21,000 years ago, as copious evidence indicates
2. As the earth warmed up again, rainfall throughout the world would have increased
3. Including North Africa
4. The land would have greened up and there would have been many  lakes and rivers across what is now the Sahara Desert
5. This would have allowed Empires to flourish.
6. However, as the earth continued to warm, rainfall would have reduced.
7. Expanding the desert once more
8. In the manner that is recorded in cyclical changes in dust deposits in the Mediterranean Sea.

How would you decide which of these two hypotheses better accounts for the same observations, namely, evidence that the Sahara was greener a few thousand years ago than it is today?

And which better accounts for the observation (e.g. from ice cores and Mediterranean deposits) that the Sahara has gone through multiple humid/dry cycles over many hundreds of millennia?
Hardly any difference, but ok. 
The difference between what you wrote and what Pingu wrote is enormous. Do you need an explanation?
3
The emerging picture from actual evidence as opposed to Alice in Wonderland stories is that...

1. There was a global flood
2. Which made things very wet indeed
3. Including North Africa
4. When things dried out the land greened up and there were many  lakes and rivers across what is now the Sahara Desert
5. Empires flourished
6. They probably destroyed their land just like we are doing today.
7. Ergo ... Sahara desert
8. As more and more people like Paul Ehrlich are now saying
This is not preaching by the way ... it's an outline of my hypothesis ...

Preaching is different.
Would you like me to list all the things that show that you're preaching, Dave?
6
Hey Dave, remind me:

When are the first dates that you accept carbon dating as being accurate?
8
You know, someone once remarked that "It is obvious" is the introduction most often seen near errors, at least in math books.
9
I'd be willing to agree that Ruddiman says "A broad array of evidence indicates early and pervasive deforestation of these naturally forested regions (Hughes, 1975; Fairservis, 1971; Thirgood, 1981; Simmons, 1996). ", along with "The level of de- forestation by 2000 yrs BP was listed as 'great' (meaning 'mostly deforested') in all of the regions mapped as 'stratified' agriculture in Figure 6: southeast Asia (China), southern Asia (India), and Mediterranean Europe. Simmons also inferred that heavy deforestation had occurred in southeast Asia between India and China, along with considerable deforestation in north-central Europe."
10
On a side note, it turns out there weren't bears in the Sahara. As has already been noted, the Sahara excludes the Atlas mountains, which were home to the only native bears in Africa in the last million years. I say were, because the last one was killed about 150 years ago.
11
Quote
OK let me see if I've got your story straight
You probably would do well to assume the answer is "no" every time you think of saying this.
13
Quote
I am not particularly interested in the comments from folks with closed minds.
:ironicat:
14
So you now agree that the impact humans have made on North Africa is indeed negative?
"Now" ?

Has anyone here denied that humans have had a negative impact on the environment in North Africa?

That is a very different proposition from "MANKIND CREATED THE SAHARA DESERT" 
It's only a little bit different. You will get there. I'm a patient guy!
It's not, and you're not.
15
Voxrat has consistently defended the opposite of that excerpt, for quite a long time now, as it happens in the very sentence before that gotcha. If we are reduced to cheap pointscoring off typos is there much point in continuing?
Dave wasn't pointscoring (at least, in the sense you are saying - he wasn't pouncing on a typo). That's what I meant when I said "Dave got Voxrat's position correct". Dave's post clearly assumes Voxrat thinks humans have had a negative impact.
16
"No one here has suggested that humans have had a negative impact on the environment for millennia"

Oh?

So you now agree that the impact humans have made on North Africa is indeed negative? ( at least the northern part of what is now the Sahara which ruddiman says was heavily deforested ... see his fig. 6)

I'd really like you to post a link to that quote.

For some unknown reason I suspect no-one here said anything remotely like that and that quote is a straight lie.

People here have always and regularly agreed that deforestation and degradation is happening and has happened.

We disagree with you that said deforestation and degradation caused the Sahara.

We disagree that your proposed solutions can achieve any positive result.

Are you finally catching up?

Somehow I doubt it.
People like you are dangerous to our planet because you deflect people's attention away from the true problem which is deforestation and unsustainable agriculture over the past 5000 years or so.
I love how when Hawkins's "argument" crashes and burns, he wraps himself in his (extremely well-worn) Cloak of Self-Righteousness and lashes out at the forces of evil preventing him from Saving the Planet.

What "people"'s attention is being "deflected" from what, by whom?  :dunno: 
No one here has denied that deforestation is a problem.
No one here has suggested that humans have had a negative impact on the environment for millennia (except you, of course, with your Noble Savage myths)
No one here is defending agribusiness practices (except you, of course, with your unwavering support of the pro-Dow, pro-Monsanto Bayer Trump administration)

I'm pretty sure Voxrat missed a "not", and that Dave got Voxrat's position correct (in large generality, though not in specifics).
17
You really have a problem with dichotomies, Dave.
18
Turns out the pigs sometimes do go too far for qualified immunity.


N.B. the police can still get qualified immunity; this was only a denial of a summary motion for q.i.
19
Thank you; not sure why I couldn't find it. Hrm. I wonder why Mueller didn't use that at all.

Maybe gave Manafort enough rope to allow him (Mueller) to add witness tampering charges.  Might also add more charges to the other witnesses themselves.
While that would have motivated a course of action before the motion to revoke bail, the rope is being pulled now with that motion. So why not use the obvious and much less deniable condition-breaking? I'd think the revocation would be somewhere that Mueller would throw the kitchen sink (or at least, point out every obvious reason) at Manafort.

Only thing I can think of is if the bail agreement was modified (and the relevant document would have to still be unreleased). Which doesn't really make sense...
20
Hey Dave, remind me how you treated Pingu? And borealis?
22
Thank you; not sure why I couldn't find it. Hrm. I wonder why Mueller didn't use that at all.
23
Tampering with witnesses seems like an obvious threat to the integrity of the judicial process. If nobody thinks there's a risk of that happening then fine, no need to put it on the bail conditions.

ETA: The whole point was asking Dave to think about why it might be in the bail conditions in the first place. 

I'm doubtful it was; Mueller heavily relies on a different condition (don't commit a crime while out on bail) that is statutorily included in any bail agreement (18 US Code 3142 (c)(1)(A)).

Do I understand then that it was an implicit rather than an explicit condition to granting bail?
I'm not sure what "it" refers to, there, but no matter what, I'm not differentiating between a condition being implicit or explicit.

I'm saying that if there were a condition not to contact certain potential witnesses (specifically, the ones cited in the motion to revoke), I would have expected Mueller to cite that condition. Instead, he's relying on a condition that appears in all bail agreements (and therefore was a part of Manafort's).
24
lol
"my many years of observation of Academia"
25
Tampering with witnesses seems like an obvious threat to the integrity of the judicial process. If nobody thinks there's a risk of that happening then fine, no need to put it on the bail conditions.

ETA: The whole point was asking Dave to think about why it might be in the bail conditions in the first place. 

I'm doubtful it was; Mueller heavily relies on a different condition (don't commit a crime while out on bail) that is statutorily included in any bail agreement (18 US Code 3142 (c)(1)(A)).