E
J
Jon A. Lambert
Eleanor McHugh said:
Exactly. That's one of the problem with species extinction models.
Where's the empirical data?
First they take Darlington's rule as a model basis and create a theoritical
inversion of it. If I find a thousand
species of critters in hundred acres of land and I clear that land for
agriculture, afterwords I can only
find 400 species of critters, they maintain 800 species have gone extinct.
I simplify, but not by much.
The model itself is idealized to maximize extinction rates. The model's
assumption that simple clearing
of land is akin to asphalting the rain forest, when the practical real world
model of historical agricultural
practices in the eastern US doesn't even come even remotely close to their
extinction model. They cannot
even get to within a magnitude of consensus on how many species exist; bad
data. And lastly
cannot even substatiate the extinctions; more bad data, or lack of it. Look
I'm a conservationist, a bird
watcher, and a nature lover as well. I'm not a nature worshipper! Sorry,
but this is junk science based
on some sort of morality. A good example is documented toad extinctions in
Ceylon. Supposedly a
half dozen of the several dozen toads categorized in Ceylon have become
extinct. They succumbed to
a fungus. No problem. But wait, this fungus spread is blamed on man-made
global warming.
Got an agenda? Welcome to the state of eco-science.
M
Marc Heiler
The model itself is idealized to maximize extinction rates.
I agree.
It depends. Aside from this media brain-washed attitude, the whole field
of ecology does list problems without inflated models. Think about
glaciers for example. It may not be a big problem that they are
shrinking, however the fact THAT there is a change should be noted down
accurately by scientific research.
I was never a fan of science which tries to shock or otherwise scare
people as part of a strategy, but changes in environment can often lead
to unexpected problems cropping up. One that comes to my mind are new
animals which are brought to an endemic population (i.e. cats on an
island, eating eggs of turtles). Another problem is the huge amount of
fishing in oceans in general, which changes the whole ecosystem
drastically.
I agree.
It depends. Aside from this media brain-washed attitude, the whole field
of ecology does list problems without inflated models. Think about
glaciers for example. It may not be a big problem that they are
shrinking, however the fact THAT there is a change should be noted down
accurately by scientific research.
I was never a fan of science which tries to shock or otherwise scare
people as part of a strategy, but changes in environment can often lead
to unexpected problems cropping up. One that comes to my mind are new
animals which are brought to an endemic population (i.e. cats on an
island, eating eggs of turtles). Another problem is the huge amount of
fishing in oceans in general, which changes the whole ecosystem
drastically.
E
Eleanor McHugh
Agreed. Good science always starts with an hypothesis but what defines
it as science is the impartial collection of data to determine whether
or not that hypothesis is credible and the rigourous mathematical
interpretation of the data. It also has to be based upon repeatable
effects and testable predictions otherwise we aren't discussing
science at all but metaphysics.
It's also essential that science be conducted in a sceptical
environment and that those performing investigations actively distance
themselves from those who would use the results for political or
social purposes.
Ellie
Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
http://slides.games-with-brains.net
C
Christophe Mckeon
ok, somebody got pretty peeved at me and listed my IP with spambag.org
which is a pretty funny name for an RBL, however i am not a spambag, and
consider that to be fairly low blow (although harmless as i can easily
change my IP), when i am hardly the only poster on this very lively
thread, and had no warning. btw one person in private correspondence has
indicated to me a major change in the direction of their lives, so it
may not be as OT as is assumed. in any case this is 100% the last
message from me on this thread, i promise. so if you argue further you
will just be aggravating an itch i won't be able to scratch
so you are saying that population is a problem? if so then we are in
agreement.
again, climate is one of the forces i was talking about. but that misses
the point. it is not change in climate that kills off civilizations, it
is how resilient their agricultural systems are when the climate happens
to
change. deforestation & monoculture lead to salinity, poor water
retention, localized draught, desertification, soil erosion, ecological
poverty, etc...
of course rome collapsed over a long period of time, hundreds of years
in fact, there were volcanic eruptions, barbarian invasions, etc...
it did not do so within the course of a few bad winters, that's just bad
history.
in fact soil erosion and infertile land was one of the major forces in
the demise of rome. at the start of the empire farming was respected and
even noblemen were proud to be farmers. farms were small about 2-5 acres
and proper
husbandry was taken seriously. even with small scale careful farming
practices however erosion was already a problem sometimes even causing
outbreaks of diseases due to clogged waterways.
by the end of the empire as it descended into decadence, the farms had
become huge slave labour driven monstrosities which tried to squeeze
every last drop of cash out of the land disregarding proper husbandry
and soil fertility was severely affected. small scale farmers were
driven off their land and a few city-dwelling fat cats made all the
profits at the expense of everyone else and the health of the land
(sounds familiar). rome had lost her main source of energy, her
agriculture, and hence her resilience against the volcanoes, the
droughts, etc...
if you want to truly understand what you are talking about i suggest
reading the book 'dirt, the erosion of civilizations'.
nonsense. soil erosion due to agriculture has been a major detriment
to the health of civilizations since the bronze ages. soil erosion from
bronze age agriculture was even correctly identified by aristotle,
almost 3000 years after the fact, and of course 2000+ years ago.
an example of deforestation as recorded in ancient literature can be
found in the epic of gilgamesh where he cuts down wood from the cedar
forests of iraq.
that story is almost 5000 years old. when's the last time you saw cedar
forests in iraq?
yes the incas were destroyed by european diseases amongst other causes
largely brought on by europe. europe was of course plundering away in
the search for resources.
the problem is that all the land is being cleared. so in you opinion,
where did the critters run, mars?
right, well in my brainwashed state, call it misguided humility if you
will, i'll go with the *majority* opinion of biologists and their
collective junk science, thanks, and if i want to build a nuclear
missile i'll speak to some PHDs in physics, not my local model rocket
club.
which is a pretty funny name for an RBL, however i am not a spambag, and
consider that to be fairly low blow (although harmless as i can easily
change my IP), when i am hardly the only poster on this very lively
thread, and had no warning. btw one person in private correspondence has
indicated to me a major change in the direction of their lives, so it
may not be as OT as is assumed. in any case this is 100% the last
message from me on this thread, i promise. so if you argue further you
will just be aggravating an itch i won't be able to scratch
so you are saying that population is a problem? if so then we are in
agreement.
again, climate is one of the forces i was talking about. but that misses
the point. it is not change in climate that kills off civilizations, it
is how resilient their agricultural systems are when the climate happens
to
change. deforestation & monoculture lead to salinity, poor water
retention, localized draught, desertification, soil erosion, ecological
poverty, etc...
of course rome collapsed over a long period of time, hundreds of years
in fact, there were volcanic eruptions, barbarian invasions, etc...
it did not do so within the course of a few bad winters, that's just bad
history.
in fact soil erosion and infertile land was one of the major forces in
the demise of rome. at the start of the empire farming was respected and
even noblemen were proud to be farmers. farms were small about 2-5 acres
and proper
husbandry was taken seriously. even with small scale careful farming
practices however erosion was already a problem sometimes even causing
outbreaks of diseases due to clogged waterways.
by the end of the empire as it descended into decadence, the farms had
become huge slave labour driven monstrosities which tried to squeeze
every last drop of cash out of the land disregarding proper husbandry
and soil fertility was severely affected. small scale farmers were
driven off their land and a few city-dwelling fat cats made all the
profits at the expense of everyone else and the health of the land
(sounds familiar). rome had lost her main source of energy, her
agriculture, and hence her resilience against the volcanoes, the
droughts, etc...
if you want to truly understand what you are talking about i suggest
reading the book 'dirt, the erosion of civilizations'.
nonsense. soil erosion due to agriculture has been a major detriment
to the health of civilizations since the bronze ages. soil erosion from
bronze age agriculture was even correctly identified by aristotle,
almost 3000 years after the fact, and of course 2000+ years ago.
an example of deforestation as recorded in ancient literature can be
found in the epic of gilgamesh where he cuts down wood from the cedar
forests of iraq.
that story is almost 5000 years old. when's the last time you saw cedar
forests in iraq?
yes the incas were destroyed by european diseases amongst other causes
largely brought on by europe. europe was of course plundering away in
the search for resources.
the problem is that all the land is being cleared. so in you opinion,
where did the critters run, mars?
right, well in my brainwashed state, call it misguided humility if you
will, i'll go with the *majority* opinion of biologists and their
collective junk science, thanks, and if i want to build a nuclear
missile i'll speak to some PHDs in physics, not my local model rocket
club.
P
Phlip
Christophe said:ok, somebody got pretty peeved at me and listed my IP with spambag.org
which is a pretty funny name for an RBL, however i am not a spambag, and
consider that to be fairly low blow (although harmless as i can easily
change my IP), when i am hardly the only poster on this very lively
thread, and had no warning. btw one person in private correspondence has
indicated to me a major change in the direction of their lives, so it
may not be as OT as is assumed. in any case this is 100% the last
message from me on this thread, i promise. so if you argue further you
will just be aggravating an itch i won't be able to scratch
You picked ME to end the thread on? Thanks a lot!!
There is only one possible way to retaliate...
http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/spam_a_global_warming_issue
E
Eleanor McHugh
Universal dRuby, without the flaky bits
Ellie
Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
http://slides.games-with-brains.net
R
Robert Dober
I can hardly wait if it will come up with 42 too???Universal dRuby, without the flaky bits
OTOH I have never let reality influence my judgement.
R.
E
Eleanor McHugh
I find it always responds to reason if I poke it hard enough anyway
Ellie
Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
http://slides.games-with-brains.net
M
Michael Bruschkewitz
You're glad to be able to switch completely.
I still have to get paid work to be able to live on my some 1000 sqm and to
supply my and my family needs.
Growing plants an permaculture is a very interesting field and really more
satisfying than sitting in front of a computer screen or discussing obvious
things with stupid managers or colleagues.
So I wish you really good luck!
Michael B.
I still have to get paid work to be able to live on my some 1000 sqm and to
supply my and my family needs.
Growing plants an permaculture is a very interesting field and really more
satisfying than sitting in front of a computer screen or discussing obvious
things with stupid managers or colleagues.
So I wish you really good luck!
Michael B.
M
Marc Heiler
Growing plants an permaculture is a very interesting field and
Are these two rivals?
Or can they be integrated TOGETHER ...
Are these two rivals?
Or can they be integrated TOGETHER ...
J
Joel VanderWerf
Marc said:
After all, the principal product of most managerial meetings is the very
substance that is needed to nourish a bountiful garden.
SCNR