Oh my God...Another Tipping Point! Ahhhhh!

[asterism]

if your purpose is to install yourself in a position of denial then nobody can free you from your own trap.

You are still an idiot and wrong.

See? This is what happens when you can't prove your case.

Look dumbshit, You don't accept the results of studies and yet you still expect people to prove their case. Now how can anybody do that for you if you won't accept the results of studies?

If you simply look around the earth a while you will find overwhelming evidence of habitat loss and species declines.

But if you prefer denial to the obvious nobody can help you.

I fully accept the results of the studies, I just don't have the same conclusion because I think the premise if flawed. How can we actually know if there is a net loss? So far all you've got is assumptions and invectives.

 

[loosecannon]

The typical juvenile response I see. Here's a little free advise buster...read through a few of my earlier posts and you will quite clearly see that I am all for protection of the environment. I advocate protection of the rainforests and am angered by the continued theft of resources for the "climate modelers" that could actually be used to accomplish something good rather than line the pockets of the fraudsters. I actually clean up hazardous waste contaminated areas and return the area to its original condition. I DO, you don't. I practice what I preach, I have removed more poisons from the environment than should have ever been there but you choose to lecture me about dangers when you post nonsense like spending a leisurly, relaxing time in a 212 degree sauna...right...

well good for you. But I didn't lecture you about saunas, dickhead. So why the fuck are you arguing if you know we are causing mass extinctions and doing massive damage to the biosphere?

Because you are rude and don't know nearly as much as you think you do. I am quite happy to have a reasoned discussion on any scientific matter with you but leave the name calling and the juvenile behaviour at home. It helps no one, especially you.

To answer your point, the very methodology of their reporting is the same as that which globalwarmingclimatechangeglobalclimatedisruption which means they will once again choose hyperbole over science. That is anathema to me as a scientist. Right now there are an average of three new species of critter discovered in the Amazon rainforest every day.

Prove to me that we are in a extinction event right now. Species come and go as a natural process so when I see some person post a link to some article written by an activist whatever it makes me wonder. The so called "sixth extinction event" is not founded in fact. The people who wrote that pulled a large number out of their rear ends with no science behind it..they simply made it up.

Now THINK about what I wrote.

I have been thinking about what you wrote, most of it had long since occurred to me. You aren't very original.

But this: "there are an average of three new species of critter discovered in the Amazon rainforest every day.
" is either a red herring or you have a screw loose.

I hope you realize that if 30 new species were discovered each day that would be evidence of nothing except how limited our knowledge of the planet is.

And proving an extinction event is a waste of effort if you can't understand the destruction of habitat we have visited upon the earth since the 18th century.

BTW I laugh at your notion that anything can be proven via the internet. If you read it online, don't believe it. I would wager that 80% of what is online is bullshit. Regardless of the apparent credibility of the source.

 

[loosecannon]

See? This is what happens when you can't prove your case.

Look dumbshit, You don't accept the results of studies and yet you still expect people to prove their case. Now how can anybody do that for you if you won't accept the results of studies?

If you simply look around the earth a while you will find overwhelming evidence of habitat loss and species declines.

But if you prefer denial to the obvious nobody can help you.

I fully accept the results of the studies, I just don't have the same conclusion because I think the premise if flawed. How can we actually know if there is a net loss? So far all you've got is assumptions and invectives.

I assume the sun will rise tomorrow. But I can't prove it will, and neither can you.

DUH!

 

[westwall]

well good for you. But I didn't lecture you about saunas, dickhead. So why the fuck are you arguing if you know we are causing mass extinctions and doing massive damage to the biosphere?

Because you are rude and don't know nearly as much as you think you do. I am quite happy to have a reasoned discussion on any scientific matter with you but leave the name calling and the juvenile behaviour at home. It helps no one, especially you.

To answer your point, the very methodology of their reporting is the same as that which globalwarmingclimatechangeglobalclimatedisruption which means they will once again choose hyperbole over science. That is anathema to me as a scientist. Right now there are an average of three new species of critter discovered in the Amazon rainforest every day.

Prove to me that we are in a extinction event right now. Species come and go as a natural process so when I see some person post a link to some article written by an activist whatever it makes me wonder. The so called "sixth extinction event" is not founded in fact. The people who wrote that pulled a large number out of their rear ends with no science behind it..they simply made it up.

Now THINK about what I wrote.

I have been thinking about what you wrote, most of it had long since occurred to me. You aren't very original.

But this: "there are an average of three new species of critter discovered in the Amazon rainforest every day.
" is either a red herring or you have a screw loose.

I hope you realize that if 30 new species were discovered each day that would be evidence of nothing except how limited our knowledge of the planet is.

And proving an extinction event is a waste of effort if you can't understand the destruction of habitat we have visited upon the earth since the 18th century.

BTW I laugh at your notion that anything can be proven via the internet. If you read it online, don't believe it. I would wager that 80% of what is online is bullshit. Regardless of the apparent credibility of the source.

Here is a link to the 3 species a day claim.

In Amazon, New Species Discovered Every 3 Days - Yahoo! News

I never claimed I was original.

It is an average of three not 30 and you are correct we know very little about our world. I have been researching it for over 35 years and am continually amazed at what I learn.

As stated previously I know more about the destruction man has wrougt then you ever will, I have been repairing the damage all over the world for over 20 years now.

When did I ever say anything can be proven via the internet. The internet has lead to a plethora of internet "experts" who know so little of what they speak it is laughable. The internet is a wonderful tool if used properly but a terrible weapon when used improperly.
I think you are being kind with your 80% estimate.

See, wasn't that nicer!

 

[westwall]

Look dumbshit, You don't accept the results of studies and yet you still expect people to prove their case. Now how can anybody do that for you if you won't accept the results of studies?

If you simply look around the earth a while you will find overwhelming evidence of habitat loss and species declines.

But if you prefer denial to the obvious nobody can help you.

I fully accept the results of the studies, I just don't have the same conclusion because I think the premise if flawed. How can we actually know if there is a net loss? So far all you've got is assumptions and invectives.

I assume the sun will rise tomorrow. But I can't prove it will, and neither can you.

DUH!

Actually yes you can. Mathematically it is quite simple to prove it.

 

[loosecannon]

Here is a link to the 3 species a day claim.

It's irrelevant, it means nothing!

When did I ever say anything can be proven via the internet.

you asked for proof of extinctions.

We don't even know what lives here yet, how can we know how many species die as we trample their habitat?

I applaud your described efforts doing whatever kind of restoration work you do. That's all the praise I can share not knowing more details.

 

[loosecannon]

I fully accept the results of the studies, I just don't have the same conclusion because I think the premise if flawed. How can we actually know if there is a net loss? So far all you've got is assumptions and invectives.

I assume the sun will rise tomorrow. But I can't prove it will, and neither can you.

DUH!

Actually yes you can. Mathematically it is quite simple to prove it.

It is impossible to prove what will happen tomorrow.

IMPOSSIBLE!

But that wasn't the point!

The point was that we can no more prove that the sun will rise tomorrow than we can that extinctions are net negative.

But everybody lucid will operate on the assumption that both are true.

 

[dilloduck]

Extinction my ass. They've all moved on the next dimension that we don't know about yet.

 

[loosecannon]

Extinction my ass. They've all moved on the next dimension that we don't know about yet.

GMOs?

 

[asterism]

Look dumbshit, You don't accept the results of studies and yet you still expect people to prove their case. Now how can anybody do that for you if you won't accept the results of studies?

If you simply look around the earth a while you will find overwhelming evidence of habitat loss and species declines.

But if you prefer denial to the obvious nobody can help you.

I fully accept the results of the studies, I just don't have the same conclusion because I think the premise if flawed. How can we actually know if there is a net loss? So far all you've got is assumptions and invectives.

I assume the sun will rise tomorrow. But I can't prove it will, and neither can you.

DUH!

Get back to me when we have to rearrange our economy based on some studies that show the sun probably won't rise tomorrow.

I completely agree with mitigation measures to look at our biodiversity and understand that habitat is important and fundamental. It's the unfounded alarmist activism by scientists and politicians that bother me. It's especially egregious when there are real environmental problems we know how to solve which get pushed aside in favor of the new crisis du jour. Our little town actually took funds away from water quality improvements to hire grant writers so that they could get federal funding on "climate change."

The result was a tax increase to upgrade the already wasteful bus system to make it less wasteful, but someone else gets to pay for it. Why do we have a bus system in this town anyway? The most "green" action would be to get rid of it since we have mostly empty busses running all around and replace them with a subsidized cab on demand system. Greener and cheaper, what's not to love? Well then the "environmentalists" talk about the "social costs."

It's a shell game.

 

[asterism]

I assume the sun will rise tomorrow. But I can't prove it will, and neither can you.

DUH!

Actually yes you can. Mathematically it is quite simple to prove it.

It is impossible to prove what will happen tomorrow.

IMPOSSIBLE!

But that wasn't the point!

The point was that we can no more prove that the sun will rise tomorrow than we can that extinctions are net negative.

But everybody lucid will operate on the assumption that both are true.

So you admit it's not a proven net negative and called me stupid for not accepting the premise that it is a net negative. Is this where you tell me to "take a look around?"

 

[westwall]

I assume the sun will rise tomorrow. But I can't prove it will, and neither can you.

DUH!

Actually yes you can. Mathematically it is quite simple to prove it.

It is impossible to prove what will happen tomorrow.

IMPOSSIBLE!

But that wasn't the point!

The point was that we can no more prove that the sun will rise tomorrow than we can that extinctions are net negative.

But everybody lucid will operate on the assumption that both are true.

No its not. It is very easy to predict exactly what will happen tomorrow, next week, 10,000 years from now, in the solar system. Very easy, it is called astronomy and calculus and it is remarkably consistent no matter which solar system you look at. The math allways seems to work.

As far as the extinctions go, there is no research out there that shows what you and the others stated. None. There are plenty of biologists working their collective asses off trying to classify the thousands of species that are found every year. That is a simple fact.

To make the claim that we are currently in a "extinction event" is not supported by fact. That renders it down to simple hyperbole and propaganda....which makes it irrelevant.

 

[Old Rocks]

Once again, Walleyes repeat a lie. There are many studies that have shown that we are exterminating species at a rate matched only in the five previous great extinctions. Note ol' Walleyes post not one scientific study to back up his assertations.

 

[Old Rocks]

I fully accept the results of the studies, I just don't have the same conclusion because I think the premise if flawed. How can we actually know if there is a net loss? So far all you've got is assumptions and invectives.

I assume the sun will rise tomorrow. But I can't prove it will, and neither can you.

DUH!

Get back to me when we have to rearrange our economy based on some studies that show the sun probably won't rise tomorrow.

I completely agree with mitigation measures to look at our biodiversity and understand that habitat is important and fundamental. It's the unfounded alarmist activism by scientists and politicians that bother me. It's especially egregious when there are real environmental problems we know how to solve which get pushed aside in favor of the new crisis du jour. Our little town actually took funds away from water quality improvements to hire grant writers so that they could get federal funding on "climate change."

The result was a tax increase to upgrade the already wasteful bus system to make it less wasteful, but someone else gets to pay for it. Why do we have a bus system in this town anyway? The most "green" action would be to get rid of it since we have mostly empty busses running all around and replace them with a subsidized cab on demand system. Greener and cheaper, what's not to love? Well then the "environmentalists" talk about the "social costs."

It's a shell game.

Why yes, it is a shell game. A game that people like you play. You are part of this society and therefore part of the problem. But you refuse to be held accountable for any of your share in the problem.

 

[Old Rocks]

Or maybe, just maybe, the activists fiddle with the numbers to show a decline where there is none so they can keep the money rolling in to fund their activities? What do you think?

More importantly....think.

take your own advice. If you are so stupid as to assert that there are no extinctions occurring then you don't deserve consideration.

Flush.

Meanwhile in less than 200 years man has usurped and done long term damage to more than half the earth's surface. Or habitat. We unleash known poisons into the environment with industrial efficiency, monopolize water, change the DNA of crops, and clear cut forests at an astonishing rate.

The typical juvenile response I see. Here's a little free advise buster...read through a few of my earlier posts and you will quite clearly see that I am all for protection of the environment. I advocate protection of the rainforests and am angered by the continued theft of resources for the "climate modelers" that could actually be used to accomplish something good rather than line the pockets of the fraudsters. I actually clean up hazardous waste contaminated areas and return the area to its original condition. I DO, you don't. I practice what I preach, I have removed more poisons from the environment than should have ever been there but you choose to lecture me about dangers when you post nonsense like spending a leisurly, relaxing time in a 212 degree sauna...right...

 

[Old Rocks]

well good for you. But I didn't lecture you about saunas, dickhead. So why the fuck are you arguing if you know we are causing mass extinctions and doing massive damage to the biosphere?

Because you are rude and don't know nearly as much as you think you do. I am quite happy to have a reasoned discussion on any scientific matter with you but leave the name calling and the juvenile behaviour at home. It helps no one, especially you.

To answer your point, the very methodology of their reporting is the same as that which globalwarmingclimatechangeglobalclimatedisruption which means they will once again choose hyperbole over science. That is anathema to me as a scientist. Right now there are an average of three new species of critter discovered in the Amazon rainforest every day.

Prove to me that we are in a extinction event right now. Species come and go as a natural process so when I see some person post a link to some article written by an activist whatever it makes me wonder. The so called "sixth extinction event" is not founded in fact. The people who wrote that pulled a large number out of their rear ends with no science behind it..they simply made it up.

Now THINK about what I wrote.

I have been thinking about what you wrote, most of it had long since occurred to me. You aren't very original.

But this: "there are an average of three new species of critter discovered in the Amazon rainforest every day.
" is either a red herring or you have a screw loose.

I hope you realize that if 30 new species were discovered each day that would be evidence of nothing except how limited our knowledge of the planet is.

And proving an extinction event is a waste of effort if you can't understand the destruction of habitat we have visited upon the earth since the 18th century.

BTW I laugh at your notion that anything can be proven via the internet. If you read it online, don't believe it. I would wager that 80% of what is online is bullshit. Regardless of the apparent credibility of the source.

Well now, ol' Walleyes believes that shit from Watts is equivelent to articles published by the PNAS.

 

[asterism]

I assume the sun will rise tomorrow. But I can't prove it will, and neither can you.

DUH!

Get back to me when we have to rearrange our economy based on some studies that show the sun probably won't rise tomorrow.

I completely agree with mitigation measures to look at our biodiversity and understand that habitat is important and fundamental. It's the unfounded alarmist activism by scientists and politicians that bother me. It's especially egregious when there are real environmental problems we know how to solve which get pushed aside in favor of the new crisis du jour. Our little town actually took funds away from water quality improvements to hire grant writers so that they could get federal funding on "climate change."

The result was a tax increase to upgrade the already wasteful bus system to make it less wasteful, but someone else gets to pay for it. Why do we have a bus system in this town anyway? The most "green" action would be to get rid of it since we have mostly empty busses running all around and replace them with a subsidized cab on demand system. Greener and cheaper, what's not to love? Well then the "environmentalists" talk about the "social costs."

It's a shell game.

Why yes, it is a shell game. A game that people like you play. You are part of this society and therefore part of the problem. But you refuse to be held accountable for any of your share in the problem.

Held accountable? By whom? I wasn't the one who pulled funding for better water here.

 

[Old Rocks]

Every body has their pet projects. Everybody thinks that the other fellows projects are irrelevant. The problem is, from water pollution, atmospheric pollution, to species extinction, any funding is going to have to come from the people living in this nation. That means taxes. And a determination to prevent the problem from reoccurring. That means regulations. That means none of this is going to happen, given the present climate of no new taxes and the hell with regulations.

 

[westwall]

Once again, Walleyes repeat a lie. There are many studies that have shown that we are exterminating species at a rate matched only in the five previous great extinctions. Note ol' Walleyes post not one scientific study to back up his assertations.

Show us a few.

 

[westwall]

Because you are rude and don't know nearly as much as you think you do. I am quite happy to have a reasoned discussion on any scientific matter with you but leave the name calling and the juvenile behaviour at home. It helps no one, especially you.

To answer your point, the very methodology of their reporting is the same as that which globalwarmingclimatechangeglobalclimatedisruption which means they will once again choose hyperbole over science. That is anathema to me as a scientist. Right now there are an average of three new species of critter discovered in the Amazon rainforest every day.

Prove to me that we are in a extinction event right now. Species come and go as a natural process so when I see some person post a link to some article written by an activist whatever it makes me wonder. The so called "sixth extinction event" is not founded in fact. The people who wrote that pulled a large number out of their rear ends with no science behind it..they simply made it up.

Now THINK about what I wrote.

I have been thinking about what you wrote, most of it had long since occurred to me. You aren't very original.

But this: "there are an average of three new species of critter discovered in the Amazon rainforest every day.
" is either a red herring or you have a screw loose.

I hope you realize that if 30 new species were discovered each day that would be evidence of nothing except how limited our knowledge of the planet is.

And proving an extinction event is a waste of effort if you can't understand the destruction of habitat we have visited upon the earth since the 18th century.

BTW I laugh at your notion that anything can be proven via the internet. If you read it online, don't believe it. I would wager that 80% of what is online is bullshit. Regardless of the apparent credibility of the source.

Well now, ol' Walleyes believes that shit from Watts is equivelent to articles published by the PNAS.

PNAS is the laughing stock of the science community. Only imbeciles and internet experts value what they print. The rest of us use their papers ....for.... well.... toilet paper as that is the best use for it. Watts has many guest authors who ARE PhD's and who ARE respected by the scientific community.