Mr. Peepers
Senior Member
Wait, why am I arguing with a person that quotes super-moron Ann Coulter??? That can be nothing but a lost cause...
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
1. I want you to label as 'science' those aspects for which you can provide empirical evidence.
What, are you asking for a roster of polluters and their effects on the environment? There are millions. I suspect you know how to google.
2. I want all to exercise regulation over only those areas that they actually hold deeds.
What the FUCK does that mean?
3. Bad science based on guesses and desktop models, produce bad results. Professor Holly Fretwell actually went out and studied the result of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. She found forests conserved in service of the spotted owl are dead or dying; closed forests were overstocked and pest ridden; 500 weak and spindly trees grow where 60-80 healthy ones used to flourish.
Do We Get What We Pay For? | PERC
This has nothing to do with "science". Did you read your own article? The biggest obstacles are money, politics and the public's dislike of controlled burns. In the wild, there are forest fires - they are not suppressed in nature and are necessary (scientists DID figure this out).
a. Range scientist Allan Savory has written about millions of acres, formerly grasslands, have become deserts because wildlife has been shut out by environmentalists. Only livestock now, and to a lesser extent remaining remnants of former wild herbivores in the presence of pack-hunting predators, combined with fire suppression can permanently reverse desertification
Savory Institute - Turning Deserts Into Grasslands - Desertification Explained Simply by Allan*Savory
Where in that article does it say anything about environmentalists "shutting out wildlife"? Either you have no reading comprehension AT ALL or a VERY vivid imagination. Do you want to know what happened to the prairies in the first place? Fucking read up on what caused the dust bowl. Hint... it's monoculture... same exact shit we're doing right now. What the article is actually talking about is grass farming. Read up on Joel Salatin on what a grass farmer does to keep pasture healthy.
[1. I want you to label as 'science' those aspects for which you can provide empirical evidence.
/QUOTE]
What, are you asking for a roster of polluters and their effects on the environment? There are millions. I suspect you know how to google.
What the FUCK does that mean?
This has nothing to do with "science". Did you read your own article? The biggest obstacles is money, politics and the public's dislike of controlled burns. In the wild, there are forest fires - they are not suppressed and are necessary (scientists DID figure this out).
Where in that article does it say anything about environmentalists "shutting out wildlife"? Either you have no reading comprehension AT ALL or a VERY vivid imagination. Do you want to know what happened to the prairies in the first place? Fucking read up on what caused the dust bowl. Hint... it's monoculture... same exact shit we're doing right now. What the article is actually talking about is grass farming. Read up on Joel Salatin on what a grass farmer does to keep pasture healthy.
Ha! Politicalchick is about the most scientifically illiterate respondbots on the board.
You're asking the impossible of the utterly incapable.
Once again you demonstrate an infants cry to be recognized....
...but you never contribute anything.
That's why you will never be any more than comic relief.
You have managed to avoid learning like a blonde avoids showers at the Bates Motel.
work hard to free up the congealed gears of your mind and try to actually contribute a thought.
1. "Of course I can shred it. Ecosystems are real."
Peeps....your verifying that you believe the scam hardly constitutes any shredding.
2.The OP gives the statements of experts that it is a fabrication.
It's the reason that I included same.
A Princeton professor, Duke University...and an officer of the Department of the Interior.
See what I mean about you looking foolish?
Wait... those "philosophers" waxing poetic about nazis and "ecosystem schemes" are experts? Experts on ecosystems (aka scientists)? Wow. Um, I'm not the one that looks foolish (and very, very gullible). You know, righty professors in Chicago let loose a bunch of graduates who got Pinochet the butcher puppeted into power in Chile in the 70's with the help of our very own CIA. Just because one is an academic, it doesn't alway mean that his/her worldview is "correct". Yours most certainly is not. You just seem to need to be spoon-fed whacked out "philosophies" that match your own greed and disregard for the commons.
Tsk, tsk,....the language!
Now...see....you're getting upset.
That usually means that you are losing, and you know it.
Let's take your first objection.
It means that environmentalists should be able to take an area that they call an 'ecosystem,' and by instituting the changes and restrictions that they have in mind, demonstrate that the area remains healthy and self-sustainable.
The language is because I view people like you as dangerously ignorant.
In nature, everything is always changing.
There is no such thing as 'the health of nature'...except in your textbooks, the ones that pretend that the model exists in reality.
Now....this is subtle, so pay attention: if you wish to manage an area, it must be for a specific purpose. If you want to mange for deer, you do it one way, or butterflies, or any successional creatures, another way. But there are deliberate choices required.
So...an area is 'healthy' for a specific purpose....
The environmentalism that you champion is like trying to invent a perpetual motion machine, or taking a close-up photo of the horizon.
It is the same search for utopia that every Leftist philosophy has in mind.
It means that environmentalists should be able to take an area that they call an 'ecosystem,' and by instituting the changes and restrictions that they have in mind, demonstrate that the area remains healthy and self-sustainable.
Ha! Politicalchick is about the most scientifically illiterate respondbots on the board.
You're asking the impossible of the utterly incapable.
Once again you demonstrate an infants cry to be recognized....
...but you never contribute anything.
That's why you will never be any more than comic relief.
You have managed to avoid learning like a blonde avoids showers at the Bates Motel.
work hard to free up the congealed gears of your mind and try to actually contribute a thought.
LOL! You are indeed stupid enough to think that anything rational could be 'contributed' to your scientifically illiterate politically motivated Cut-and-pasteathons.
I can see you're emotionally vulnerable, as usual, so I'll allow you to have the last word that your pathological mind set so desperately craves in order not to be shattered.
Wait, why am I arguing with a person that quotes super-moron Ann Coulter??? That can be nothing but a lost cause...
Once again you demonstrate an infants cry to be recognized....
...but you never contribute anything.
That's why you will never be any more than comic relief.
You have managed to avoid learning like a blonde avoids showers at the Bates Motel.
work hard to free up the congealed gears of your mind and try to actually contribute a thought.
LOL! You are indeed stupid enough to think that anything rational could be 'contributed' to your scientifically illiterate politically motivated Cut-and-pasteathons.
I can see you're emotionally vulnerable, as usual, so I'll allow you to have the last word that your pathological mind set so desperately craves in order not to be shattered.
Now, now....you didn't have to verify that you didn't have the ability to understand the thread....
...that was eminently clear.
I was merely being kind to an inferior.
Time for you to lean into the strike zone and take one for the team
Now, Peeps....you really must do a better job of reading and understanding the OP to which you are ostensibly replying!
This is the connection between Hegel and your ersatz science:
"Oxford invented Hegelian ecology….unity, the whole….there is no separateness from nature. Hegelian ecology is the total control of everything."
Another hint...because I appreciate your efforts....when you begin to address my imaginary weaknesses rather than the subject at hand, it'd a give-away that you're throwing in the towel.
Tsk, tsk,....the language!
Now...see....you're getting upset.
That usually means that you are losing, and you know it.
Let's take your first objection.
It means that environmentalists should be able to take an area that they call an 'ecosystem,' and by instituting the changes and restrictions that they have in mind, demonstrate that the area remains healthy and self-sustainable.
The language is because I view people like you as dangerously ignorant.
In nature, everything is always changing.
There is no such thing as 'the health of nature'...except in your textbooks, the ones that pretend that the model exists in reality.
Now....this is subtle, so pay attention: if you wish to manage an area, it must be for a specific purpose. If you want to mange for deer, you do it one way, or butterflies, or any successional creatures, another way. But there are deliberate choices required.
So...an area is 'healthy' for a specific purpose....
The environmentalism that you champion is like trying to invent a perpetual motion machine, or taking a close-up photo of the horizon.
It is the same search for utopia that every Leftist philosophy has in mind.
Holy god, you are ignorant. There very much ARE specific ecosystems that require specific temperatures, rainfall and plant and animal populations. If you change even slightly that ecosystem, you knock one vital component off kilter, then yes, you can alter or destroy the whole ecosystem. I saw it with my own eyes in Ecuador.
And what the hell does this mean?
It means that environmentalists should be able to take an area that they call an 'ecosystem,' and by instituting the changes and restrictions that they have in mind, demonstrate that the area remains healthy and self-sustainable.
We can see very easily what parameters keep an eco-system healthy and sustainable. What do you mean "changes that they have in mind"? No wonder you only use only other people's quotes. You make no sense.
See what I mean? The plan is to take over everything by appealing to your fear that mankind is destroying the planet.
See what I mean? The plan is to take over everything by appealing to your fear that mankind is destroying the planet.
Mankind is destroying the planet.
See what I mean? The plan is to take over everything by appealing to your fear that mankind is destroying the planet.
Mankind is destroying the planet.
So, in summary, the kind-hearted, all-knowing, beneficent bureaucrats and technocrats are better stewards of the land than the folks who actually own, and make their living from same.
That's your belief?
And by that logic, the government folks are better able to spend your money than you are?
Can you say 'statist'?
Mankind is destroying the planet.
So, in summary, the kind-hearted, all-knowing, beneficent bureaucrats and technocrats are better stewards of the land than the folks who actually own, and make their living from same.
That's your belief?
And by that logic, the government folks are better able to spend your money than you are?
Can you say 'statist'?
Supergirl, why do you think we are evil? It's a simple question, so answer it!
So, in summary, the kind-hearted, all-knowing, beneficent bureaucrats and technocrats are better stewards of the land than the folks who actually own, and make their living from same.
That's your belief?
And by that logic, the government folks are better able to spend your money than you are?
Can you say 'statist'?
Supergirl, why do you think we are evil? It's a simple question, so answer it!
Sure, Dub....a simple answer for a simple guy...
1. "...why do you think we are evil?"
As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger....'what's with the 'we,' white man?'
All of 'you' are not evil.
The evil folks are the ones who clearly understand and endorse the totalitarian basis of the movement.
They want big government to control everything and everyone, and, specific to the environmental movement, property and individual rights.
2. Then there are the simps who accept at face value all of the fear mongering and hand-wringing, give their power as voters to these con men.
Now, to be clear, folks in the second group are doing what they think is best for their children, themselves,....and for the earth.
They've been fooled.
As Alexander Pope wrote:
A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.
Me? I'm just tryin' to clue you in...
You're welcome.
So, in summary, the kind-hearted, all-knowing, beneficent bureaucrats and technocrats are better stewards of the land than the folks who actually own, and make their living from same.
So, in summary, the kind-hearted, all-knowing, beneficent bureaucrats and technocrats are better stewards of the land than the folks who actually own, and make their living from same.
No, the GOD-DAMNED SCIENTISTS AND INTELLIGENT PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE KNOW IT IS TRUE.
Tell me, CG, have you ever been in a real lab, or a data collection site? I'm guessing not. Have you even participated in physical science?
So, in summary, the kind-hearted, all-knowing, beneficent bureaucrats and technocrats are better stewards of the land than the folks who actually own, and make their living from same.
No, the GOD-DAMNED SCIENTISTS AND INTELLIGENT PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE KNOW IT IS TRUE.
Tell me, CG, have you ever been in a real lab, or a data collection site? I'm guessing not. Have you even participated in physical science?
Who is CG?
I've been in real labs and I think I know science fairly well.
I don't even think these people will be around in 3 years. I think they will change their story to warming the Earth is a good thing and believe every word of it on the internet, like the liars they are. They're agenda driven.
So, in summary, the kind-hearted, all-knowing, beneficent bureaucrats and technocrats are better stewards of the land than the folks who actually own, and make their living from same.
No, the GOD-DAMNED SCIENTISTS AND INTELLIGENT PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE KNOW IT IS TRUE.
Tell me, CG, have you ever been in a real lab, or a data collection site? I'm guessing not. Have you even participated in physical science?
Wise up.