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

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

to the main point: doing algae science is qool! We might have something here.

I agree.

Originally Posted by AetheLove

No need to do a physical count. A very accurate survey could be done by a small team pretty quickly. Perhaps a little less quickly in Baghdad (security issues?). Sampling, done properly, is amazingly powerful.

I glanced at those links you had. The figures, and the way they were quoted, (and the picture of two guys slinging a dead dog onto a truck), were instantly familiar. It really took me back. Anyway, those numbers stink of inflation. I don't doubt that the actual numbers are still impressive, but everyone in the "get rid of dogs" business has an incentive to adjust their figures upward.

Cheers,


AetheLove

I dont put a whole lot of faith in surveying on stuff like roaming dogs. As for the dogs the policy of culling was in place under saddam due to an extreme problem. That of course ended before his death. Just going from when he was caught in 2003 thats 7 years of 0 animal control in an area with a known issue. Then add what was going on to it and i can see how numbers would jump to an extreme. After all i cant defend a number i never physically saw but i can understand how it could be fairly close.

The math is fairly simple. The average dog has 6 puppies and can do that twice a year. Say the number was at 100k in 2003 and that half are female. Thats 300k stray puppies born in 6 months. In 2 years you now have and additional 150k females able to have a litter. So they had 7 years to get to to 1.25 million when basic numbers could have done it 2.5 years. It may not be to far out of scope when you think about the conditions.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Ugh. Are you serious?



The post that I was responding to mentioned "the environmentalist nutcases," which also hadn't appeared before that post. I was describing the opposite end of the spectrum. Does that not comply with your apparently arbitrary rules of discussion?



Two people, yourself included, stated that they didn't "feel bad" about driving. This was a direct, and appropriate response to those statements. As for pet populations and their natural levels:



You brought it up, and the answer is, plenty of people: Carrying capacity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carrying capacity is a well-described phenomenon. Read up on it.



Actually, that was one of the keystones of the argument, and it was wrong, and not corrected. That's why it's a bad article.




I didn't say that anyone had.



Again, carrying capacity is a well understood phenomenon.



I wasn't talking about a certain area, I was speaking globally, and once the global carrying capacity is reached, there's no place to migrate to.



And I'm saying that this is well understood. See how often you bring up the same questions, even though they've been answered?



I was respoding directly to your post:

And was only discussing the extinction of the human race because you brought it up. How is it possible that you can't follow this? And if I point out that you're speaking about things that you don't understand, that's only because you do that so often. Here, you're claiming that environmental science hasn't been able to make any predictions, but that's absolutely incorrect. That doesn't stop you though, from making these grand statements. So if you're going to do that, be ready to get called out on it.

Shit like this,


Is just wrong, and a simple google search before you post would confirm this, but you don't. You choose not to, and then you get offended when you get called out. Sorry.

Ill address this tomorrow im to tired to deal with it. Then again maybe ill just ignore because your ignoring half of every post ive made.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Ill address this tomorrow im to tired to deal with it. Then again maybe ill just ignore because your ignoring half of every post ive made.

Yes, let's take option 2, eh?

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Yes, let's take option 2, eh?

Yeah someone that has no clue on how to discuss a topic or realise people dont have to agree would opt for that option.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

The math is fairly simple. The average dog has 6 puppies and can do that twice a year. Say the number was at 100k in 2003 and that half are female. Thats 300k stray puppies born in 6 months. In 2 years you now have and additional 150k females able to have a litter. So they had 7 years to get to to 1.25 million when basic numbers could have done it 2.5 years. It may not be to far out of scope when you think about the conditions.

Excellent. You have sketched out a basic theoretical framework for population growth in an unconstrained environment (no food shortages, no predator/prey interaction, etc). Your model measures the cumulative effect of constraints as a single factor which you measure by comparing your theoretical maximum unconstrained population with the actual population.

Setting up your function and testing the value of coefficients is the next step. Improving this model iteratively and comparing predictions against empirical data would likely be sufficient for a masters thesis.

... a hundred years ago.

Another weakness is that you will need empirical data on actual populations so you can compare your model's prediction with something real (and so improve the model). That brings us to:

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I dont put a whole lot of faith in surveying on stuff like roaming dogs.

Then you are a fool.

Except I suspect you're not a fool. I'm going to put it down to you having expended all your energy arguing with Wicked.

The math to do such a survey properly is old. Zoologists and wildlife biologists have generations of experience designing and implementing such surveys (so do demographers - humans have populations too). There is a spectacular wealth of well-tested theory and real-world experience. These have interacted over time, each improving the other. The field of population dynamics is very well developed and its practical applications are used every day in a variety of fields.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I am curious as to what natural phenomena we can predict with 100% accuracy other then the sun is going rise and set.

Many, many things. I can't even believe you asked this question.

We do a pretty good job with tides. Also with predicting the change in the ratio of uranium to lead in a sample over time.

The amount of energy released (or consumed) by a chemical reaction, or a phase-change.

I've got to head out soon... can someone else take care of the next dozen?

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

[...] i never read that much about what science assumes mars history is.

WTF?

DG - unless that was a typo, I'm going to draw a conclusion: you don't understand science. At all.

You could though. You read to learn. You look things up. You don't mind (and sometimes enjoy) an argument. You like to be right - but you also like to be right for the right reasons. You believe in rationality, and can follow a set of logically connected statements. You're at least curious about science.

Why don't you go be a scientist?

Cheers,


AetheLove

Originally Posted by AetheLove

Excellent. You have sketched out a basic theoretical framework for population growth in an unconstrained environment (no food shortages, no predator/prey interaction, etc). Your model measures the cumulative effect of constraints as a single factor which you measure by comparing your theoretical maximum unconstrained population with the actual population.

Setting up your function and testing the value of coefficients is the next step. Improving this model iteratively and comparing predictions against empirical data would likely be sufficient for a masters thesis.

... a hundred years ago.

Another weakness is that you will need empirical data on actual populations so you can compare your model's prediction with something real (and so improve the model).

If you read what i said. "After all i cant defend a number i never physically saw but i can understand how it could be fairly close." Does that imply in any way that i know the number that was supplied is correct? No its a simple statement of how in 2.5 years the number could be reached. Which leaves an additional 4.5 to sheer up to the number provided.

Originally Posted by AetheLove

Then you are a fool.

Except I suspect you're not a fool. I'm going to put it down to you having expended all your energy arguing with Wicked.

The math to do such a survey properly is old. Zoologists and wildlife biologists have generations of experience designing and implementing such surveys (so do demographers - humans have populations too). There is a spectacular wealth of well-tested theory and real-world experience. These have interacted over time, each improving the other. The field of population dynamics is very well developed and its practical applications are used every day in a variety of fields.

I understand your point but i still dont put a whole lot of faith in surveys. I never have and never will. I could give you the reasons why but ou would just dismiss the anyway. So why should i bother?

Originally Posted by AetheLove

Many, many things. I can't even believe you asked this question.

We do a pretty good job with tides. Also with predicting the change in the ratio of uranium to lead in a sample over time.

The amount of energy released (or consumed) by a chemical reaction, or a phase-change.

I've got to head out soon... can someone else take care of the next dozen?

I was actually reffering to things on topic but true enough on your points.

Originally Posted by AetheLove

WTF?

DG - unless that was a typo, I'm going to draw a conclusion: you don't understand science. At all.

You could though. You read to learn. You look things up. You don't mind (and sometimes enjoy) an argument. You like to be right - but you also like to be right for the right reasons. You believe in rationality, and can follow a set of logically connected statements. You're at least curious about science.

Why don't you go be a scientist?

Cheers,


AetheLove

If you had read the quote that responce was to you would already no Soy asked me without looking it up if i knew why Mars doesnt hold steady orbit. Seeing as i have never read about what science assumes mars history is up to that point it seemed like a valid responce.

As for being a scientist well its to boring for me. It would be like holding a desk job. Both items being the larger part of what i was getting a degree in is what keeps me from finishing it. If field work was the bulk of marine biology i would have probably finished it years ago. As or my understanding of it well, using climate change as an example, its not that i think its wrong but i dont think its 100% accurate either. I dont like varriables in anything that people are suppose to swallow as fact. So i dont deny man has effected it but i disagree on the amount versus the effects of every other varriable.

So in essence my issue is science now a days imho is more interested in telling people what the money backing the project wants them to hear. Its to political and like politicians some scientists have ruined it for the rest by only being concerned about that next check. So i doubt some of the conclussions being produced and yes i choose that wording specifically. I prefer to have the data and reach my own conclussion. If im wrong im wrong but simply saying your wrong will not fit the bill. Prove why my thinking is off base. It damn sure wont be the first time i was wrong about something and it wont be my last.

Im a hands on person which is why i choose construction and mechanics as my fields and inventing as a hobby. I actually have the answer mercedes and fiat have been searching for in the new engine they are trying to build 20 ft from me. All the engineering degrees in the world cant replace practical knowledge. I'll be damned if i come off of it right now when my plan is to release a mod package for vehicles so everyone can have better fuel economy, fewer break downs, half as many moving parts, and higher hp and torque all while using the same engines that have been around for decades. So i give both companies a giant middle finger and a fuck you for trying to steal my idea right after i applied for the patent. All i need is one part of which is a bit pricy seeing as nothing in its grouping will meet my requirements. As such it must be made and the first in anything cost to god damn much.

As for argueing no i dont enjoy it. I do however really enjoy a good conversation or debate. Something some around here lack is the ability to discuss. Its much easier to call them ignorant or say they dont understand just because your opinions dont match. After all apples arent always apples in a discussion. The idea is to break barriers and keep critical thinking alive. So you cant blindly say your right and say someone else is wrong. When i went to school the whole idea was to keep a clear mind, discuss it, and see if you can get a better answer or a better product.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

If you read what i said. "After all i cant defend a number i never physically saw but i can understand how it could be fairly close." Does that imply in any way that i know the number that was supplied is correct? No its a simple statement of how in 2.5 years the number could be reached. Which leaves an additional 4.5 to sheer up to the number provided.

That's fine, and your back-of-the-envelope figuring shows that those population figures aren't beyond belief.

In a bizarre coincidence I happened to have a tiny bit of experience with urban dog populations in non-first-world cities. My experience there, coupled with the text and photos from the links, set off some warning bells. Maybe the quoted population figures are accurate (maybe they hired an environmental consulting company and had a good survey done). But they looked convenient and familiar to figures I've seen before and knew were inflated.

I'll also admit to turning on the snark in that paragraph, mostly as a way to set up my response to your dismissal of surveys:

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I understand your point but i still dont put a whole lot of faith in surveys. I never have and never will. I could give you the reasons why but ou would just dismiss the anyway. So why should i bother?

I wouldn't dismiss legit reasons. There's plenty of ways a survey can go wrong. Part of the value of the practical experience you get implementing them is that you find out how they can go wrong. You learn how to notice and correct errors. You learn how to do a better job next time. ... and when I say "you" I mean "us", all of us. A discipline is at it's best when it is sharing errors and weaknesses as well as strength and success.

An effort to individually count every dog is still a survey. There are ways that can go wrong. A survey designed to use a sampling technique can also go wrong. Properly done, sampling can be much cheaper to do and as- or more accurate.

So you learn to be suspicious. You and I - we're both there.

But I was surprised to hear you dismiss the potential accuracy and value of a survey. I agree that it's possible to fuck 'em up. All humans make bonehead mistakes, and some humans are liars. I think it's also possible to do a good job.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

If you had read the quote that responce was to you would already no Soy asked me without looking it up if i knew why Mars doesnt hold steady orbit. Seeing as i have never read about what science assumes mars history is up to that point it seemed like a valid responce.

And my laser rangefinder locked on to the word "assume." That's the bone I was picking.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

As for being a scientist well its to boring for me.

[...]

So in essence my issue is science now a days imho is more interested in telling people what the money backing the project wants them to hear. Its to political and like politicians some scientists have ruined it for the rest by only being concerned about that next check.

Sure, but that's also the problem with auto mechanics. Plenty of them will misrepresent the data, or tell you what you want to hear, or push whatever the shop owner is making high margins on this month. That's a problem everywhere.

It's those damned humans again - can't live with 'em, can't live without being one of them.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

As for argueing no i dont enjoy it. I do however really enjoy a good conversation or debate.

I guess that's what I was getting at. "Argue" - "Discuss" .... Poh-tay-toh - Poh-tah-toh.

Cheers,


AetheLove