| Pages:
1
..
5
6
7
8 |
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 19590
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by David K  |
Has anyone who thinks the tiny areas where humans live and create pollution, ever been out on the ocean, far enough out where you don't see land?
|
Dk,
Go sail offshore anywhere in the world. You rarely go a mile without finding floating human trash. The floating visible trash is just a small amount
relative to the dissolved and sunk pollutants.
You are being pig headed to think man's pollution does not change the ecosystem.
If you approached mission history with the same inflexibility, your book would be garbage data.
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 65215
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
The ocean is NOT the source of man made pollution. Try reading again my reply. I deal in facts and allow readers to form opinions rather than telling
people what they should think.
[Edited on 2-27-2016 by David K]
|
|
|
Whale-ista
Super Nomad
Posts: 2009
Registered: 2-18-2013
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Sunny with chance of whales
|
|
May be helpful for future postings on controversial topics
FYI...
ChangeMyView: or, How to change someone’s mind, according to science
Summary:
"...research suggests that the arguments that end up changing people’s minds have certain dynamics. Numbers are important: The more people that try to
persuade the original poster, the greater the likelihood of changing their view. So is timing: Those who write back first to the post first are more
likely to persuade the original poster than those who write later, as the lefthand chart below shows."
To see charts, follow the link below.
Partial post:
The universe is constantly clamoring to change your mind about something – whether it’s in the form of Twitter feuds, political debates or Mountain
Dew’s horrible “puppy monkey baby” Super Bowl ad. But how many of these appeals to alter our views really succeed?
A new paper from researchers at Cornell University sheds some light on how and why people are convinced to change their minds. The researchers
analyzed nearly two years of postings on ChangeMyView, a forum on the internet community reddit where posters present an argument and invite people to
reason against them.
These arguments on ChangeMyView range widely in terms of topic. “People don’t define who they are, their genetics and environment do,” reads one.
“Zoos are immoral,” says another. “I think that the vast majority of Bernie supporters are selfish and ill-informed,” reads one thread, which received
1125 comments in one day.
Unlike the mindless clashes you often see on Twitter or Facebook, commentors on ChangeMyView explain their reasoning at length. The forum also
requires the poster let others know when their view has changed by awarding the other poster a ∆ (a “delta,” the Greek letter used in math to
denote change) and explaining exactly what modified their view. By looking at these exchanges, the researchers can study exactly what persuades people
outside the laboratory and also have access to mass quantities of data.
Their research suggests that the arguments that end up changing people’s minds have certain dynamics. Numbers are important: The more people that try
to persuade the original poster, the greater the likelihood of changing their view. So is timing: Those who write back first to the post first are
more likely to persuade the original poster than those who write later, as the lefthand chart below shows.
Interestingly, the researchers find that some back-and-forth exchange between participants is a sign of success in convincing someone, but that a lot
of it is a sign of failure -- shown in the chart below on the right.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/10/how-t...
\"Probably the airplanes will bring week-enders from Los Angeles before long, and the beautiful poor bedraggled old town will bloom with a
Floridian ugliness.\" (John Steinbeck, 1940, discussing the future of La Paz, BCS, Mexico)
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
One Thing IS Certain................
Those with the power to effect significant change are NOT posting HERE.
Or, pondering the wisdom of those posts.
The profusion of "social-media" forums have merely supplanted (in exponential numbers) the various "Letters to the Editor" in print media allowing
(many) readers to vent and delude themselves that they're having some sort of influence over important events while allowing others to be entertained.
And, there's nothing wrong with that.
But, you DO have to wonder about those who take seriously their efforts.
THAT is a bit Delusional.
Still, as long as everybody is enjoying themselves, it's all harmless (and costless) Fun.
|
|
|
MMc
Super Nomad
Posts: 1679
Registered: 6-29-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: Current
|
|
"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination.”
Mark Twain
"Never teach a pig to sing it frustrates you and annoys the pig" - W.C.Fields
|
|
|
Ateo
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5914
Registered: 7-18-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by MMc | "In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination.”
Mark Twain |
And with that, I'm closing this thread. 
|
|
|
micah202
Super Nomad
Posts: 1615
Registered: 1-19-2011
Location: vancouver,BC
Member Is Offline
|
|
,,,rather presumptuous of yer 
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Personally I have more concern over the drought ... than rising sea levels ... at this time
Making enough water for all human needs, is a difficult proposition
|
|
|
Cisco
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4196
Registered: 12-30-2010
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by David K | Hi Steve,
So if one plants species is replaced by another... I understand it is different, but life still goes on.
Who is to say that when an animal transports a seed (birds do this a lot, and how palm trees are found where water is, in Baja) that is not a
"natural" event?
I understand the opinions that change is bad, but if a natural earth animal relocates a natural earth plant, is that really unnatural... or just not
convenient? Thinking this logically, not emotionally.
Thank you! |
"So if one plants species is replaced by another... I understand it is different, but life still goes on."
Not for the one that is replaced David.
And if that one was your food source and the predating species is poisonous you are pretty well screwed.
|
|
|
micah202
Super Nomad
Posts: 1615
Registered: 1-19-2011
Location: vancouver,BC
Member Is Offline
|
|
.
If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to
believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on
the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. Bertrand Russell
.
|
|
|
wilderone
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3868
Registered: 2-9-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
The natural world is not religion nor politics.
Tamarisk was introduced as an ornamental plant and has been used for windbreaks, shade and control erosion along stream banks. But they increase the
salinity of the soil, making the land unproductive for agriculture and recreation. In Wyoming: Since clearing his land of invasive plant species
[tamarisk and russian olive], [there] has also [been] a revival of bird populations. “I’ve got pheasants like I’ve never seen before. Yes, tamarisk
was planted as wind breaks prior to the dust bowl era in the dust bowl states. How did that work out?
Unpenetrable tamarisk along stream banks prevent migration and limit food scavenging for animals. The eco-system includes animals, birds, reptiles,
insects - all interconnected. An acceptance of this obliteration of an element of our world is shameful.
So. Agreed. There are plenty of human-caused problems that adversely affected a healthy ecosystem. Fast-forward 75 years – are we wiser? Can human
beings now reverse some of the damage? Let’s hope so.
PS: if people in coastal towns are seeing their streets flood due to rising tides, I would have to say that is hard evidence. Evidence of ...?
Multiple choice:
1. Sinking land masses
2. Rising tides
3. Faulty measuring tapes
4. Mass delusion of citizens
|
|
|
bezzell
Nomad
Posts: 444
Registered: 11-30-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
ahh but there's one of the major problems!
A common denominator (sp) for ALOT of these deniers ...
- they actually believe that once upon a time, a snake spoke
- they actually believe that once upon a time, a tree caught on fire and started talking (I chit you, not)
- they actually believe that when you expire, you'll go to a special place and meet up with your pets!
there's really no point in trying to educate these 'believers'.
Imagine being so confused, that your interpretation of the 'human footprint' is just the roads (scars) and buildings and the actual footprints. (vs
the change in the atmosphere's / oceans' chemical composition etc. and that all is under control of a magic-man in the sky.  )
Ni modo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aannOZw2shY
[Edited on 2-28-2016 by bezzell]
|
|
|
vandenberg
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5118
Registered: 6-21-2005
Location: Nopolo
Member Is Offline
Mood: mellow
|
|
Not a magic man, but a deity with a beard.
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
THOSE Believers.......................
At least, are not intending to cut off your Head should you disagree with THEIR beliefs.
As far as all of those "individual" acts which attract doubt and ridicule, it simply boils down to ONE question.
Is there a Divine Being or NOT ?
Such a Divinity "could", without question, make anything occur and defy ALL so-called Natural laws so the "referenced"
events ONLY hinge on that ONE central question.
Was the Universe a result of a Supreme plan ?
Or, was it created from the coming together and explosion of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ?
The latter sounds as silly as the former is made out to be.
AND, that latter can NEVER be PROVED.
The rest is just trivial pursuit over details.
|
|
|
Mexitron
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy!
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by 4x4abc | | Quote: Originally posted by Mexitron | | If you were a botanist David you might think differently---for example the Great Plains--one third of the US--are essentially gone---farming and
cattle have either overrun them or had secondary effects. The vast California grasslands are almost completely transformed from native bunchgrasses
to annual European invasive grasses and weeds. In Baja and much of the southwest US Tamarix have choked off waterways---take a look at the Rio Grande
valley sometime---hundreds of square miles of non-native Tamarix that has suffocated the original ecosystem and pumps vital water supplies into the
atmosphere---the Pecos River is a trickle now because of that. Come out to Texas and see non-native Ligustrum, Bamboo, and Nandina choking out the
Oak Woodland understories. Story is the same around the world. |
Love it! You opened an important door.
The aggressively invasive homo europaeus albescens killed 20 million of the native inhabitants. Choking the original ecosystem. Erasing all traces of
other species.
Visit some of the cancer spots (LA, New York etc) and see how Asian, Black etc homo subsets are creating sick new environments.
But you would rather focus on the Tamarisk from Africa. Brought over by the Jesuit padres. I am sure David has that covered in his new book.
Without the Tamarisk early farming would not have been possible. Thriving even on the poorest water (including salt), creating fast wind protection
and soil erosion management. Providing strong wood for construction.
Now that we don't need them any more, it's called an invasive species.
|
Unfortunately the Tamarisk species you are referring to is Tamarisk aphylla which was used as you say. That species is not particularly invasive.
Since you are not a botanist I can understand your error. Tamarisk ramosissma is the culprit I am referring to and it was generally used as an
ornamental and is from Eurasia. If you don't enjoy or appreciate intact ecosystems then the discussion can end here.
|
|
|
Mexitron
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy!
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by David K | Hi Steve,
So if one plants species is replaced by another... I understand it is different, but life still goes on.
Who is to say that when an animal transports a seed (birds do this a lot, and how palm trees are found where water is, in Baja) that is not a
"natural" event?
I understand the opinions that change is bad, but if a natural earth animal relocates a natural earth plant, is that really unnatural... or just not
convenient? Thinking this logically, not emotionally.
Thank you! |
Well you can justify anything with the 'big picture' thinking. Who is to say that Hitler didn't have many beneficial results either? He took an
impoverished economy with runaway inflation and turned it around into an economic success story. But I'm sure you don't want the rest of the crap
that came along with him. There's always good and bad sides, its a matter of choice--personally I favor keeping ecosystems relatively intact. When
one invasive species such as Tamarix takes over its replacing many different plant species and the insects and animals that are adapted to them that
have been evolving for millions of years.
|
|
|
4x4abc
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4427
Registered: 4-24-2009
Location: La Paz, BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: happy - always
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Mexitron |
Unfortunately the Tamarisk species you are referring to is Tamarisk aphylla which was used as you say. That species is not particularly invasive.
Since you are not a botanist I can understand your error. Tamarisk ramosissma is the culprit I am referring to and it was generally used as an
ornamental and is from Eurasia. If you don't enjoy or appreciate intact ecosystems then the discussion can end here. |
Define "intact" ecosystem.
Like Galapagos where all present species invaded at one point from somewhere else?
Intact and nature don't really go well together.
Per definition, nature means constant change. Everything in the universe is in the process of changing. Nothing will be like it was yesterday.
Nothing.
Restoring today into yesterday? Ask your children. They have an answer.
And as a reminder. A tamarisk from Eurasia is bad, you say. All the various humans after Columbus (or the Vikings , whatever you prefer) were a good
development?
Harald Pietschmann
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 65215
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Mexitron | | Quote: Originally posted by David K | Hi Steve,
So if one plants species is replaced by another... I understand it is different, but life still goes on.
Who is to say that when an animal transports a seed (birds do this a lot, and how palm trees are found where water is, in Baja) that is not a
"natural" event?
I understand the opinions that change is bad, but if a natural earth animal relocates a natural earth plant, is that really unnatural... or just not
convenient? Thinking this logically, not emotionally.
Thank you! |
Well you can justify anything with the 'big picture' thinking. Who is to say that Hitler didn't have many beneficial results either? He took an
impoverished economy with runaway inflation and turned it around into an economic success story. But I'm sure you don't want the rest of the crap
that came along with him. There's always good and bad sides, its a matter of choice--personally I favor keeping ecosystems relatively intact. When
one invasive species such as Tamarix takes over its replacing many different plant species and the insects and animals that are adapted to them that
have been evolving for millions of years. |
Great example of when a 'natural event' is overly destructive and obviously not a positive change! Thank you!
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Cisco | | Quote: Originally posted by David K | Hi Steve,
So if one plants species is replaced by another... I understand it is different, but life still goes on.
Who is to say that when an animal transports a seed (birds do this a lot, and how palm trees are found where water is, in Baja) that is not a
"natural" event?
I understand the opinions that change is bad, but if a natural earth animal relocates a natural earth plant, is that really unnatural... or just not
convenient? Thinking this logically, not emotionally.
Thank you! |
"So if one plants species is replaced by another... I understand it is different, but life still goes on."
Not for the one that is replaced David.
And if that one was your food source and the predating species is poisonous you are pretty well screwed. |
My understanding is that some 98 to 99% of all species that have ever inhabited this planet have gone extinct over the eons. Do we think that somehow
man is going to change that trajectory in any meaningful way? I have a problem with that type thinking when it is applied to say more than your
personal back yard.
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 19590
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Barry A. | | Quote: Originally posted by Cisco | | Quote: Originally posted by David K | Hi Steve,
So if one plants species is replaced by another... I understand it is different, but life still goes on.
Who is to say that when an animal transports a seed (birds do this a lot, and how palm trees are found where water is, in Baja) that is not a
"natural" event?
I understand the opinions that change is bad, but if a natural earth animal relocates a natural earth plant, is that really unnatural... or just not
convenient? Thinking this logically, not emotionally.
Thank you! |
"So if one plants species is replaced by another... I understand it is different, but life still goes on."
Not for the one that is replaced David.
And if that one was your food source and the predating species is poisonous you are pretty well screwed. |
My understanding is that some 98 to 99% of all species that have ever inhabited this planet have gone extinct over the eons. Do we think that somehow
man is going to change that trajectory in any meaningful way? I have a problem with that type thinking when it is applied to say more than your
personal back yard. |
Given that Homo sapiens has been wiping out species at a relatively rapid rate, I suspect the other species would cheer to see Homo sapiens go
extinct. Maybe your dog will miss you, but all the other species will cheer Homo sapiens extinction.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
5
6
7
8 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
