Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: home of the A- community.

Recent Posts

12
OK, any predictions for the future of this 'deal'?

My completely uneducated guess: Kim is not going to back down on anything yet- He's not quitting while he's ahead. On the contrary, well see more "steps" from NK in subsequent months. Another testing site will go down, remains of US MIA soldiers will be returned (with lots of fanfare and coverage), maybe a missle silo or two will close. Trump will respond with triumphant boasting to all that. This will go on throughout the summer, and the same time Kim will pursue talks about a formal peace treaty with SK. The semiology of "Peace" is so strong (and rating-boosting), that both SK and the US will happily play along.

Then, with the midterms in the US right around the corner, Kim will say that he's sufficiently proven he's "down the road to denuclearization", and the peace treaty should be accompanied by an easing of sanctions at least. Step-by-step, tit-for-tat and all that.
 Leaving Trump with very limited wiggle room, and the risk of a negative response causing a complete collapse of the deck of cards they'd have been building- at the worst possible time for him. And in that scenario, Kim can still come out on top, pretending that he was wronged and tricked into making unilateral concessions.

Just my two drachmas, again.
13
Again Monad supports what I am talking about.

Well no, it actually blows your whole ridiculous argument apart.
Hmm, I'm confused. Wasn't sucky indicating his whole ridiculous argument should be blown apart?
14
This intelligence of the camouflage of plants and animals is just the tiniest tip of the iceberg of the intelligence of Nature. Intelligence manifests everywhere in Nature on planet Earth. You can see it everywhere if you simply look. 
But of course you will not see that if you close your mind and simply rule it out.
I am not particularly interested in the comments from folks with closed minds. Nothing can enter such a mind. For others it is a VERY interesting exercise to make an effort for a day to see the intelligence of Nature in specifics.
What this means is that for the sake of the exercise one chooses to see/interpret the elements of Nature as being the manifestation of intelligence. It does not mean you have to believe it. It is an exercise in observation and thinking.
And then rejecting it in favor of a more plausible alternative. Something people who are open to other alternatives are able to do.
Another thing that makes the "nature is intelligent" less appealing is that it increases the number of unanswered questions. My preferred explanation for apparent intelligence in nature decreases the number of unanswered questions.
15
FYI Dave:

The Eemian...is the interglacial period which began about 130,000 years ago and ended about 115,000 years ago

The Holocene ...is the current geological epoch. It began approximately 11,650 cal years before present, after the last glacial period.
16
This intelligence of the camouflage of plants and animals is just the tiniest tip of the iceberg of the intelligence of Nature. Intelligence manifests everywhere in Nature on planet Earth. You can see it everywhere if you simply look. 
But of course you will not see that if you close your mind and simply rule it out.
I am not particularly interested in the comments from folks with closed minds. Nothing can enter such a mind. For others it is a VERY interesting exercise to make an effort for a day to see the intelligence of Nature in specifics.
What this means is that for the sake of the exercise one chooses to see/interpret the elements of Nature as being the manifestation of intelligence. It does not mean you have to believe it. It is an exercise in observation and thinking.
And then rejecting it in favor of a more plausible alternative. Something people who are open to other alternatives are able to do.
17
OK let me see if I've got your story straight ... from Wikipedia "Neolithic Subpluvial" article ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Subpluvial

1) The area we now call the Sahara Desert (God forbid me calling it "North Africa") was savannah with a full complement of mammals  - grazing herbivore herds, lion, tigers and bears oh my!

2) It was this way from about 7000 BC to about 3000 BC then it began to get dry.

3) Significant deforestation began happening about 8000 BC according to Ruddiman and others

4) But none of this deforestation had anything to do with N. Africa (sorry, Pingu) drying out.

5) Blame it on Milankovitch

6) Lol

Is that about right?
Nope. In true Hawkinsian style, you didn't even read the wiki link you provided. You just assumed it said this or that, based on random words your Hawkinsing eyes scanned.

Start again with the very first paragraph.
18
OK let me see if I've got your story straight ... from Wikipedia "Neolithic Subpluvial" article ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Subpluvial

1) The area we now call the Sahara Desert (God forbid me calling it "North Africa") was savannah with a full complement of mammals  - grazing herbivore herds, lion, tigers and bears oh my!
That's not what it says.

Try the first paragraph:
Quote
The Neolithic Subpluvial, or the Holocene Wet Phase, was an extended period (from about 7500-7000 BCE to about 3500-3000 BCE) of wet and rainy conditions in the climate history of northern Africa. It was both preceded and followed by much drier periods.
The last sentence is relevant.

Or a later paragraph:
Quote
The Neolithic Subpluvial began during the 7th millennium BCE and was strong for about 2,000 years; it waned over time and ended after the 5.9 kiloyear event (3900 BCE). Then the drier conditions that prevailed prior to the Neolithic Subpluvial returned; desertification advanced, and the Sahara Desert formed (or re-formed). Arid conditions have continued through to the present day.
Again, the last sentence is relevant.

2) It was this way from about 7000 BC to about 3000 BC then it began to get dry.
No, not quite right.
Quote
The Neolithic Subpluvial began during the 7th millennium BCE and was strong for about 2,000 years; it waned over time and ended after the 5.9 kiloyear event (3900 BCE).
It started during the 7th millennium BCE, meaning between 8000 and 9000 years ago. It began to fade between 6000 and 7000 years ago and ended completely about 3900 BCE. 900 years before your stated dates. Wrong again.

3) Significant deforestation began happening about 8000 BC according to Ruddiman and others
Citations? Especially from the "others". Particularly as to when and where.

4) But none of this deforestation had anything to do with N. Africa (sorry, Pingu) drying out.
Well, not much. Except that whatever deforestation that occurred in Africa, occurred in the coastal areas of North Africa. Which is adjacent to the Sahara and has occasionally been incorporated into the desert at times. Most of the Sahara has not been the verdant wonderland you want it to be. Some areas have had, for short periods of time, the necessary water and soils, most have not. It's not possible to go from bare rock to verdant grassland in less than many tens of thousands of years.

5) Blame it on Milankovitch.
To some extent, that's been a primary forcing for climate change. Not entirely but a primary forcing. Your need to simplify things down to the level a primary school student can deal with should be embarrassing. But not you, you consider being a gullible rube who is also militantly ignorant narcissistic DK posterboy with no relevant education, training and/or experience.

6) Lol

Is that about right?
No. You didn't get a single thing right. How does it feel to repeatedly shoot yourself in your gun hand? It's a trick not many are capable of.

19
On another side note, Hawkins made up the bit about

Quote
Significant deforestation began happening about 8000 BC according to Ruddiman and others
... at least as far as North Africa is concerned.
20
Quote

Figure 2
Present day meteorology and vegetation in North Africa.

(a) Latitudinal distribution of present-day vegetation belts (MED.: Mediterranean and sub-Mediterranean; DES.: desert; GBT: grassland, bushland and thicket; WOO: woodland; FMT: forest mosaics and transitions; FOR.: rain forest) [60], and mean annual precipitation (MAP) and meteorological elements [3], [4], [59] projected onto a cross-section along the eastern Sahara (dark N-S line in b). (b) Map of the main physiographic and tectonic [88], [97] elements. Coloured vegetation belts are based on a structural classification of vegetation (indicating percentages of woody cover: %wc) using MAP values and main climatological determinants on tropical African biomes [56].

Quote

Figure 4
Reconstruction of North African vegetation during past green Sahara periods.

(a) Estimated and reconstructed MAP for the Holocene GSP (6-10 kyr BP) projected onto a cross-section along the eastern Sahara (left panel) and map view of reconstructed MAP, vegetation and physiographic elements [7], [8], [11], [45] (right panel). (b) Estimated and reconstructed MAP for the Eemian GSP (122-128 kyr BP) projected onto a cross-section along the eastern Sahara (left panel) and map view of reconstructed MAP, vegetation and physiographic elements [14], [15], [44], [45] (right panel).


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3797788/