Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Desertification Solution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    You behave yourself. You started it by directly mocking me about my "research". Don't throw stones when you're in a glasshouse and don't be pathetically sanctimonious about it. I think we're done here anyway.
    You didn't slam the door on the way out, did ya?
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
      TED talks are seen in person by lots of wealthy, influential people.
      My oldest daughter is recovering from chemical dependency (abuse of prescription pain meds for her back) and has been in a hospital the last week. She tells me all they let them watch on TV is "TED TV".

      Maybe that's why! They want them to become wealthy and influential people.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        My oldest daughter is recovering from chemical dependency (abuse of prescription pain meds for her back) and has been in a hospital the last week. She tells me all they let them watch on TV is "TED TV".
        That is... unexpected.

        In any case, i hope the recovery goes well. Even after using those as prescribed following a knee replacement, a friend of mine ended up going through withdrawal once the prescription ran out. Not fun.
        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
          That is... unexpected.

          In any case, i hope the recovery goes well. Even after using those as prescribed following a knee replacement, a friend of mine ended up going through withdrawal once the prescription ran out. Not fun.
          Thanks, TL - she's had a tough tine with this. This is her third hospitalization, but the first two were in a facility I would consider more of a "loony bin" than a hospital. This one appears to be a whole lot better, with actual counseling sessions, consultations -- not just - we're gonna keep you for 3 days, adjust your meds and kick you out. They have a program similar to (and perhaps an offshoot of) Friends of Bill.

          She seems to be doing much better.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            Thanks, TL - she's had a tough tine with this. This is her third hospitalization, but the first two were in a facility I would consider more of a "loony bin" than a hospital. This one appears to be a whole lot better, with actual counseling sessions, consultations -- not just - we're gonna keep you for 3 days, adjust your meds and kick you out. They have a program similar to (and perhaps an offshoot of) Friends of Bill.

            She seems to be doing much better.
            Yeah, it's my understanding that a combined program of cognitive behavioral therapy and medication is typically the most effective option, so it sounds like she's on the right track.
            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

            Comment


            • #36


              I'll get back to this tomorrow when I'm feeling better.
              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

              My Personal Blog

              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

              Quill Sword

              Comment


              • #37
                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                My Personal Blog

                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                Quill Sword

                Comment


                • #38



                  Full disclosure


                  https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/...216044460.html
                  Last edited by Teallaura; 08-04-2018, 03:32 PM.
                  "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                  "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                  My Personal Blog

                  My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                  Quill Sword

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Last one.



                    Today, anyway...
                    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                    My Personal Blog

                    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                    Quill Sword

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                      You're completely misinterpreting what i was doing there. In this post, you complained that the critique Starlight linked was from the Sierra Club, and therefore could be dismissed. I was just linking a critique with links to the scientific literature, so that you could evaluate the critique rather than simply dismissing it due to your issues with the source. It was separated from my personal critique, which was about the sloppiness of the guy in the TED talk.

                      Before writing multiple paragraphs about what you think is going on, it's often easier to ask what i'm trying to get across.

                      In any case, your argument is now shifting to saying that the whole carbon sequestration part of things was outside his main point, and therefor unimportant. I disagree. TED talks are seen in person by lots of wealthy, influential people. They're often watched online by millions more. I'd say that, if you're given that audience, it's essential that you get everything right.
                      Starlight claims to do 'research' - a claim he supported by posting a soundbite from a PAC - and a PAC that has become increasing unreliable over the years at that (I used to like the Sierra Club but now the NRA actually does a better job - and I still am not a fan of the NRA). But mostly - IT'S A PAC!

                      In that selfsame post, he (SL) makes it ABUNDANTLY clear that he hasn't even bothered to watch the video, even in part (it's long - I wouldn't fault skimming and then commenting about the skim - SL didn't do that - he called the man a fraud having not bothered to give the evidence a hearing, fair or otherwise). It's on that combined basis that I dismissed his argument without hearing.

                      I presumed your post was actually your position - simply because I expect better from you than the crap SL pulls. Are you now stating that you were simply trying to support SL without bothering to review the material either?




                      And let's review here a sec - you commented in specific about something that actually is in the video - at 22:00 on a 22:19 video. I had to rewatch it just to find the comment so I assumed you'd actually watched the thing - are you now saying you hadn't?

                      And no, if you read what I actually wrote I was very careful to specify that carbon sequestration wasn't important TO THE ARGUMENT PROPER. It isn't - and that isn't a change in position. Nor could you (general) reasonably assume that if you understood the argument presented in the talk - which has to do with desertification and the use of livestock to prevent rather than cause it.




                      You (personal) stated in your original post that you weren't familiar enough with the material (presumably desertification and livestock) and then provided a link. Savory states specifically in the talk that he isn't familiar enough with the material (carbon sequestration) and mentions a citation. Other than specificity (link v citation), how is that any different? Neither of you is making an argument on the material in question - you are now telling me you were merely using it to support SL's 'research' (PAC? Seriously?) whereas context makes it abundantly clear that Savory is using it to support his call to action, not his argument.

                      Looking at your actions, I see no difference that would not warrant using your own approach to your own argument - you deal poorly with Savory's argument (using a weblink rather than doing the math/research [here a lit review I presume]) . According to you , Savory deals 'sloppily' with the comment on carbon sequestration. So, if a citation about a supporting point brings his whole argument into question - as per your own words - why doesn't that same methodology apply to you? Why wouldn't I be justified in ignoring your calculations on carbon sequestration - a field that I accept you are familiar with - just as you ignore his arguments about desertification - a field he has demonstrable expertise in?


                      So, finally, the 'let's get everything right' idea. No human has this level of perfection - least of all the hard sciences which are increasingly relying on consensus to interpret analysis. That aside, rubber versus road. Extension Services and universities across the country (US) have put intensive rotational grazing into practice and very few report anything but positive results over time (it is not a one season fix). More to the point, I can't find the disgruntled ranchers who got talked into it and had their pastures ruined - far from it. I find ranchers running the gamut from enthusiastic to grudging at the start claiming they did indeed see improvement. That is compelling - more so than limited research. Pastures are their livelihood - it's not something they take lightly or would sit by quietly if they were badly damaged by some stupid program the Ag Extension wanted to try.

                      So I looked for them - the guys with the least political motivation to lie about it if it were failing. Not the organic farmers who are so gung ho they will try anything (even if the crazier things sometimes work, they aren't large scale management solutions - and aren't profitable agriculture); not the activists; not Savory's institute - the ranchers and farmers that actually make their living on their pastures. The Ag Extensions and universities that are also closely tied to the agricultural world (universities like Auburn that can't afford politically to tick off ranchers and farmers with anything too useless or damaging). I looked - but I haven't found any.

                      Which means there's got a to be a few I didn't find - the world doesn't come in perfect numbers (Hi, Mendel!) - but if this didn't work at all, or was actually damaging as SL's 'research' claims - they should show up in enough numbers to easily find them.

                      Does that prove Savory right? No, it needs a much better review - and no one's paying me for that. It is a very strong indicator that his actual argument is sound, however, because it has been put into practice and does work at least in those instances.

                      People do read this forum - used to be more, of course, but doesn't this axiom apply to your audience as well? Don't you also owe it to them to make sure you 'get it right' with your citations? Did you do that - or did you just pick the first peer reviewed articles that matched SL's expectations?
                      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                      My Personal Blog

                      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                      Quill Sword

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                        I presumed your post was actually your position - simply because I expect better from you than the crap SL pulls. Are you now stating that you were simply trying to support SL without bothering to review the material either?
                        I really don't understand what your issue is here. This is reviewing the material, which should include reviewing the credibility of the person presenting the material.

                        Let me explain why this has to be the case here. We'll take his first factual claim, which comes at about 4 minutes in: "most of the soil in that grassland that you've just seen is bare and covered with a crust of algae." Is that true? There's no way to tell from this talk. Is it this specific grassland, or is it a general feature of grasslands? Again, no way to tell. Do algal crusts lead to desertification, as he goes on to say? There's no way to tell from this talk (but details in the link i provided indicate that this is NOT true). There's simply no possible way to judge the accuracy and significance of his claims simply by watching the talk. It necessarily requires us to look elsewhere for information.

                        The link i provided compares claims he's made - not only in this specific talk, but more generally - to the scientific literature, and shows that he's misrepresenting our current understanding of a wide variety of relevant topics. My own take is the same, based on the areas where his arguments overlap with things i know well. My conclusion from this is that the speaker is not reliable. That doesn't mean that all of his material is wrong, just that there's no way of determining which is right and which isn't without a far more detailed study of the topic.

                        TL;DR: there are only two ways to evaluate the material in the video - either blindly trust everything that the speaker's saying, or evaluate the credibility of the speaker. And you're getting annoyed at the people who are doing the latter.
                        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                        Comment

                        Related Threads

                        Collapse

                        Topics Statistics Last Post
                        Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                        48 responses
                        135 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Sparko
                        by Sparko
                         
                        Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                        16 responses
                        74 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post shunyadragon  
                        Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                        6 responses
                        46 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post shunyadragon  
                        Working...
                        X