Thread: Science project Oil and shutting up the tree huggers for good.

Who's the 12yo?

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

I think that we're getting a little caught up on this cat and dog book. Whether or not their point was over the top, their message along with the message shared by environmentalists - that our lifestyles have an impact which should be considered - is perfectly valid.

Without dredging into the "tit for tat" that seems to be occurring, I agree with this statement. To ignore our impact (even little ones) is foolish. By the same token, to focus on the little areas of impact to the exclusion of other larger areas of impact (not implying that this is what's going on) is equally foolish. With that said, I do think that the "environmentalists" hurt themselves to a degree as their public facing apparatus is just as bat shit crazy as some of the crazy religious folks that get routinely skewered. There needs to be a greater focus on conservation efforts across all things, rather than groups playing 'Soundbite Gotcha' every day of the week.

And Ceb, I have also been keenly interesting in where the Algal Biodiesel "thing" goes. It would be a very good win for conservation efforts (not to mention all of the other downstream benefits.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Listen, if you're going to keep talking, and in fact, making pretty big claims about stuff that you don't understand, expect people to call you out on it, and try to be less sensitive about it. Or you could, you know, actually research your claims. I'm purposely saying these things in the least insulting way possible.




Wrong:

This is the first mention of extinction, and is what I was responding to. Soy brought up extinction later on, and I wasn't involved in that conversation. Of course, you could have just clicked back into the thread, and seen this information for yourself, but you'd rather just spew nonsense. This is your MO, and why we have the issue out lined above.

Lets take a look at what you have proven people wrong with.

First post.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

This would be a great development. Of course, it wouldn't solve all of the environmental issues surrounding fossil fuels, but not having to argue over obvious mistakes like ANWAR drilling, and not being dependent on places like the middle east and Venezuela are both clear wins.

Perfectly valid post.

Second post.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

It doesn't matter whether or not you feel guilty about it. There are very real, measurable consequences to our behavior, and those effects will grow as the population grows. Anti-environmentalism is short-sighted and generally indicates ignorance about basic science.

A responce to a post about a video discussing a book. No where in the previous posts was anyone saying anything about being antienvironment. Yet your already into "Your ignorant because you dont share my view mode.".

Third post.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

The video is about this book, Time to eat the dog?: the real guide to sustainable living - Robert James Dennis Vale, Brenda Vale - Google Books. From what I was able to find, the title is tongue-in-cheek, and it's simply about the hidden impacts of many of our activities. These impacts are easily measurable and are real. Of course, the Fox News dumbed the message down and hyped it up for their audience, so you get "Environmentalists say you should kill and eat your dog!"

Clearly a valid post and on topic but chop full of your opinion. Nothing wrong with opinions.

Forth post.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Unless they have greater than perfect efficiency, any animal is going to use more energy than the sum of its prey, so the answer to your question is, always more. And that's ignoring the fact that cats and dogs aren't hunting wild animals, they're eating farmed animals, which wouldn't be raised if the demand were not there.

No, what's stupid is ignoring the fact that everything that we do, including keeping pets, has an environmental impact. This impact exists whether or not you ignore it.

The dog and cat population is absolutely higher than naturally sustainable populations.

Started out good but quickly went down hill. No one said we should ignore what we do has an environmental impact and no one said cats and dogs were or were not at sustainable populations. However Considering that bagdad alone has 1.25 million stray dogs and the US has 78 million. Those strays in bagdad alone seem to be doing just fine all on there own. The only reason anything is being done is human interest. So take us out of the picture who here thinks they are qualified to say what the sustainable population really is. Dogs wouldnt be the only animal breeding uninterupted without us plus habitat would be much more vast. So once again your opinion poised as fact.

Fifth post.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Actually, this article isn't very good:
It's almost been a year, when can we expect to see some non-"moot" numbers in this pretty good writeup?

The article isnt good because they didnt update number that dont change the outcome hardle at all? However still a valid post and i wouldnt argue that someone isnt entitled to their opinion.

Sixth post.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

I think that we're getting a little caught up on this cat and dog book. Whether or not their point was over the top, their message along with the message shared by environmentalists - that our lifestyles have an impact which should be considered - is perfectly valid.

True enough but no one ever said our lifestyles dont impact the environment.

We'll skip seventh due to it just asking for clarification and we'll skip eight because the ninth is a repeat of it.
So ninth post.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

It certainly seems to have riled you up, maybe that was the point.

Actually, we have plenty of ways of knowing. You clearly don't know, but that doesn't mean that it's unknown. There's a certain amount of food energy available in a given area, and it will support a certain number of predators of a given size, give or take. Evolution isn't going to allow the dog to violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Fair enough by all means tell me what the population of any animal would be in any given area without humans exsisting? I mean you do know and i dont understand (second and third time for your normal line) so you must have the numbers correct? That is what you implied when you responded to my post so prove it.

Tenth post.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Nobody's arguing that the rock that is the planet is in danger of no longer existing. Lots of people, though, would like to avoid extinction of the species, or the many uncomfortable levels between our current situation and that one.

True enough.

Eleventh post.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

I'm talking about the planet as a whole. When the planet is at capacity for a particular species, then unless they develop interstellar spaceships, finding a new hunting ground isn't an option.

How is this proving me wrong when my comment was in regards to your eighth and ninth posts? So you think changing a certain area into the planet somehow means my posts have been proven wrong? Not even close.

Twelfth Post.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

What was the point of this statement? How does it apply to your apparent argument that dogs and cats aren't at populations above those that would be supported in nature?

I didnt argue that they are or arent at sustainable populations. I said who is to know what they would be without humans exsisting.

Thirteenth post.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

We're more than capable of causing the extinction of the species, but then again, I wasn't the one to bring up extinction, you were. I'm just talking about adverse effects, and those effects are absolutely happening now. These effects include extinction of animals due to habitat loss, lowered air quality in urban areas due to pollution, the destruction of natural resources by oil drilling, etc. These aren't hypotheticals.

I'm sorry if you don't understand the science behind it, or if you're "tired" of the discussion, but that doesn't say anything about the people who do understand it, and do want to do something about it, it says something about you.

Who said anything about us not being able to cause the extinction of any species? Fifth time with the dont understand line. Which equate in just this thread you average every 38.46 post contains a comment about someone not understanding something because they dont agree with your view point. Of which by the way bounces all over the damn place and your attention to what people have said lacks to say it politely.

So once again seeing as i dont undersatnd and you have the bead on whats "understood" why not try proving anything i said as wrong because you haven't even come remotely close so far.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Oh yeah wicked i would love to hear what the sustainable dog population is for any area. Before you answer with the almighty knowledge of what is fact consider this. In baghdad alone there are 1.25 million stray dogs. The city is 872 square miles which means there are 1433.48 stray dogs per mile. They are doing pretty well for being the middle of a dessert. How many you think would be able to sustain in a forest?


See the funny thing about sustained populations is we are really the only thing exempt to natural selection. To many dogs around a bigger better hunter moves in and puts it in check.

I could care less about whatever else you two are arguing about this time around, but I would like to know where you got that number. Considering the fact that I would guess a large percentage of Baghdad is covered in buildings to have 1400+ dogs per square mile they would literally be nut to butt.

Sounds like Dog Burgers....