Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: give some hasty rationalization, launch into some tangentially related crap, and then when someone replies to the initial point, pretend that the real topic is your freshly squeezed-out nugget of rhetoric

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 - Fenrir

1
The US is a Fascist state.
2
Hey. Stop questioning David, his brilliance is blindingly obvious. For example his brilliant idea to have blankets instead of doors saves him a good 10 minutes every time he wants to leave the house.

Ya can't argue with success like that.
5
Quote from: what Hawkins says
I'm kind of in the mood to list some evidences for the global flood from memory. It's easy to provide links to Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research and such but it's better to list them from memory.

Let me translate from the Davinese.

Quote from: what Hawkins means
Evidence is hard and I don't have any that stands up to scrutiny, so I'll just make shit up.
6
No.  Carbon dating is wrong before 3000 BC.
What was that about how "careful scientists" don't go around making statements of fact without any support?
I should think that would apply especially to statements of fact that run counter to the scientific consensus.
Even more especially when the guy making the unsupported statement has made himself a running joke with his history of badgering from challenges to said statement.

Kälksjön, Hawkins.
Two wrongs don't make a right, they make a Dave.

Orders of magnitude out there.

Two wrongs is approximately 1.7 nanodaves.
7
I love how pissy people get when you raise a logical conclusion about their ideas that they haven't thought of.

Nested hierarchies.

Do you really want to go back there?
8
And you think that's no weirder than Dalrymple saying the Earth is billions of years old? Or that life created itself?
Do you think that the existence of an African tribe lacking heads is more probable than you being wrong about the age of the earth?


Probably the same probability.  With evolution, anything is possible, right?

No. And no.

You are determined to know less with every time round these topics aren't you?

At least that's one thing you can honestly claim to be wildly successful at.
9
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?
10
Borealis thinks it's natural and beautiful and not degraded at all and that we should leave it alone.

Another egregious lie.
11
"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.
12
Let's spend some time getting rid of this ridiculous idea that "The Sahara Desert is Natural" ... shall we?

Alright ... you guys only accept Octohatter stuff ... so here's an Octohatter paper for you ... 1250 citations there, Testy ...

Quote
December 2003, Volume 61, Issue 3, pp 261-293 | Cite as

The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era Began Thousands of Years Ago

William F. Ruddiman

Abstract
The anthropogenic era is generally thought to have begun 150 to 200 years ago, when the industrial revolution began producing CO2 andCH4 at rates sufficient to alter their compositions in the atmosphere. A different hypothesis is posed here: anthropogenic emissions of these gases first altered atmospheric concentrations thousands of years ago. This hypothesis is based on three arguments. (1) Cyclic variations in CO2 andCH4 driven by Earth-orbital changes during the last 350,000 years predict decreases throughout the Holocene, but the CO2 trend began ananomalous increase 8000 years ago, and the CH4 trend did so 5000 years ago.(2) Published explanations for these mid- to late-Holocene gas increases basedon natural forcing can be rejected based on paleoclimatic evidence. (3) A wide array of archeological, cultural, historical and geologic evidence points to viable explanations tied to anthropogenic changes resulting from early agriculture in Eurasia, including the start of forest clearance by 8000 years ago and of rice irrigation by 5000 years ago. In recent millennia, the estimated warming caused by these early gas emissions reached a global-mean value of ∼ 0.8 °C and roughly 2 °C at high latitudes, large enough to have stopped a glaciation of northeastern Canada predicted by two kinds of climatic models. CO2 oscillations of ∼ 10 ppm in the last 1000 years are toolarge to be explained by external (solar-volcanic) forcing, but they can be explained by outbreaks of bubonic plague that caused historically documented farm abandonment in western Eurasia. Forest regrowth on abandoned farms sequestered enough carbon to account for the observed CO2decreases. Plague-driven CO2 changes were also a significant causal factor in temperature changes during the Little Ice Age (1300-1900 AD).

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000004577.17928.fa

Did you notice how that paper has exactly nothing to do with the age of the Sahara? It's so far off topic it may as well be about basket-weaving.

Try this one, which is actually on-topic and unsurprisingly disagrees with you. If course it is only one of dozens in what is an active area of research. Maybe you should try reading a few before your next sermon?
13
Don't forget

LOCK HER UP!!1!
14
Bahahahaha...  here's what happens when arrogant octohatters who have absolutely  no fucking clue what they are talking about yet get paid large salaries advise country presidents like Senegal's.

"Plant trees in a belt 10 miles wide and 4300 miles long. Derp. Derp"

Oops! 80% of them are now dead! Imagine that!

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/great-green-wall-stop-desertification-not-so-much-180960171/

You didn't actually read that article, did you?
15
Gah. I'm permanently surrounded by all sorts of whistly blowy things being blowed and whistled in. No bagpipes yet, that's a small relief.

Fast jigs and reels are quite catchy though.
16
From RickB
Quote
Mutations in lineages happen on a daily basis.  Every offspring is different from its parents. 

Is that what evolution theory considers a "mutation"?
I have never seen that idea in anything published.
If anyone knows of a published reference to this idea please give us the reference link and copy what you think is the relevant material.

Here's one.

One of so very many.

You can even read it online.

You're welcome.


17
I can see some definition of "brittle" applying to land whose ecology is relatively non-resilient to perturbations, like various anthropogenic impositions.  Land at the edges of deserts, for instance.

That is typically refered to as "fragile".

Savory uses "brittle" so he can blame all land degradation everywhere on not enough cows.
18
With those distractions out of the way, let's get on with actual science ...

BRITTLENESS

What is it exactly?  It's extremely important to Allan Savory and he says 2/3 of the world's land area is brittle ... so what are we talking about here?

<snipped images, we really don't need to see them again>



Somehow I thought this wall of images supposedly contained the all important definition of this terrible cancerous "brittleness".

They do.  Learn to read.

Go on then. Given a random piece of real estate how would you go about determining it's "brittleness".

Use only the information gleaned from that extract.

Remember your result must be robust and directly comparable to other sites described using the same methodology.

Ready...set...go

Tugging this forward.

A metric is useless if it is not measurable or comparable across sites.

19
With those distractions out of the way, let's get on with actual science ...

BRITTLENESS

What is it exactly?  It's extremely important to Allan Savory and he says 2/3 of the world's land area is brittle ... so what are we talking about here?

<snipped images, we really don't need to see them again>



Somehow I thought this wall of images supposedly contained the all important definition of this terrible cancerous "brittleness".

They do.  Learn to read.

Go on then. Given a random piece of real estate how would you go about determining it's "brittleness".

Use only the information gleaned from that extract.

Remember your result must be robust and directly comparable to other sites described using the same methodology.

Ready...set...go

20
With those distractions out of the way, let's get on with actual science ...

BRITTLENESS

What is it exactly?  It's extremely important to Allan Savory and he says 2/3 of the world's land area is brittle ... so what are we talking about here?

<snipped images, we really don't need to see them again>



Somehow I thought this wall of images supposedly contained the all important definition of this terrible cancerous "brittleness".

Imagine my surprise to find no such definition, just some vague witterings about nothing in particular that appears to be aimed at third-graders.

And you say this fellow is an ecologist?
21
No idea what that means

That's ok, Sithrak still hates you unconditionally.
22
Quote
<snippety snip>

Is there any point you'd like to be making?


Whoa, steady on, this is still page one, that would be indecently hasty.

It will be at least 10 more pages before Socrates even lets on what the topic is, let alone what he's implying about it.
OK, but by then I'll be zoning out on Ben Ure Island at at Deception Pass. I'll miss the debut.

Are you suggesting there might be an actual something to miss? That would indeed be a first.
23
Quote
Examples of camouflage methods apparently used by both plants and animals include:

Background matching - blending with the colours of shapes of the habitat where they live.
Disruptive coloration - markings that create the appearance of false edges and boundaries, making it harder to see the true outline.
Masquerade - looking like something else; usually something a predator might ignore, such a stone or twig. Examples include living stones, some cacti, passion vines and mistletoes.
Decoration - accumulating material from the environment. For example, some coastal and dune plants get covered by sand because of their sticky glandular trichomes, making them less conspicuous.

Is there any point you'd like to be making?


Whoa, steady on, this is still page one, that would be indecently hasty.

It will be at least 10 more pages before Socrates even lets on what the topic is, let alone what he's implying about it.
24
<snip post with stuff in it>
Dude. Where do you live? I'll find you a Savory ranch to visit.  You could learn alot. Oh sorry, dude looks like lady.

^^^^ Highlight post with no content whatsoever.
25
Less turbidity and erosion from mechanical disturbance of watercourses is one of the positive results which can result from cell grazing. Inadvertently so, but positive nonetheless.

There is also a clear negative involved. Remember the reason many farmers adopt cell grazing is because they have been promised they can run 2 or 3 or x times the stock.

It all comes down to water.

Cattle require staggering amounts of water.

Far far more than most other herbivores. Very water inefficient are cows.

The easy solution is to let your stock source their own, with all the issues that accompany that; destabilisation of banks, erosion, turbidity, increased nutrient load, algae blooms, fish kills etc. etc.

The up-side of the easy way is all the costs of all the negatives are externalised. "They're blaming me for siltation on the reef, I'm 400k away, they're dreamin".

Cell grazing requires extensive water management. All those little paddocks need water supplied directly. Supplying water to all those little paddocks needs miles of polypipe and heaps of troughs and pumps and maintenance and control and stuff. Once you have all that and all the fencing managing your stock becomes much easier. If you turn the water off in this paddock and turn it on in the next and open the gate they will move themselves. I've seen places with automatic gates as well, whole place managed from the holiday unit on the Gold Coast.

Reduction in mechanical disturbance of watercourses can be an inadvertent yet positive result of cell grazing.

That's great and all, as I said it inadvertently solves the watercourse damage problem (not broadscale erosion but that's another issue). The big downside for the operator though is that you now have a system which can supposedly run x times more stock and it cost so much to install and more to run that you now have to run x times the stock just to stay afloat. All the water costs are internalised.

Bad season or surprisingly dodgy and optimistic projections from the cell salesman and you are buggered. You no longer have the option to destock in the bad times or as a simple management option. Place ends up trashed. Watercourse is looking much better though.
Dude. Where do you live? I'll find you a Savory ranch to visit.  You could learn alot. Oh sorry, dude looks like lady.

That's cute. As it happens I visit properties all the time, some of them multiples of the size of Missouri. As it happens I visit them as a disinterested observer because I am there for other matters and therefore see them without an agenda or a salesman/tourguide. As it happens I have seen some wonderfully managed properties and some travesties. I have seen them in good times and bad. I have seen cell-grazed and non-cell-grazed properties. The one does not transfer readily to the other.