So... there's a possibility that there might be unspecified problems at some unknown point in the future, and we MUST take specific actions right now to prevent them?

[rolls eyes]

If this were a business plan, it'd be laughed out of every bank in the country.

"Many of the world's ecosystems are in danger and might not support future generations unless radical measures are implemented to protect and revive them, according to the most comprehensive analysis ever conducted of how the world's oceans, dry lands, forests and species interact and depend on one another."

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah.
What I really want to know is- when can I get my
own T-Rex?

Paul:

I have a feeling that the actual report that is being discussed might be a little more specific than what this Washington Post reporter has written.

I think its funny when people, aka the above posters, just dismiss something like this without even reading the original report. Great idea, just read the watered down Washington Post article, and decide that its all worthless bullshit.

Paul, you're a little confusing. You have said repeatedly that you dont think that scientists are stupid, but then you make posts like this. Are you saying that you think that these environmental biologists all full of shit? Are you saying that you dont think that human activities are having adverse affects on ecosystems, etc? What are you saying? I would be interested to hear what parts you disagree with.

I understand that the article was written by a WaPo writer, therefor I dont put alot of stock in his interpretation of the report, since often times reporters really miss alot.

Harvey:

If this were a business plan, it'd be laughed out of every bank in the country.

This is a recap of the report by a Washington Post reporter. But then, I'm sure you read through all of the actual report before making your brilliant assessment.

Sounds like the last gasp for air in the Environmental Movement. They know it's dying so why not get an article out to cause more panic. Gotta love the victim mentality - especially when it's the earth.

jiggity:

Do you think that human activities arent causing any negative impacts on our enviroments?

You do understand that we require a healthy environment in order to live, right? Its not some wishy washy hippy shit, its pretty basic. Clean water, clean air...thats good to promote you know. Its in our interest to keep things healthy, since thats what sustains us. Food doesnt originate in Costco you know...

Areaman asks:

>'What are you saying?"

Area, with all due respect I've written thousands of words on the topic(s) and Michael has come behind me and (within a tight margin for error) restated my arguments with both accuracy and precision.

If you still don't know what I'm saying, it is clear at this point you are either unable to comprehend it or unwilling to comprehend it.

Either way the implications are the same. My trying to explain it is pointless.

Guys and gals,

Notice the post's title, the conclusion drawn, the author of said conclusion, and the context of posts during the last couple of weeks re "oozers" and "thumpers". This is the equivalent of Pavlov shaking a juicy rib in front of furry friends.

Debate the study itself but act like Paul isn't there. Maybe I'm reading too much into this but this reads like one extended practical joke. Remember, I'm an oozer. Perhaps my analytical skills are slipping or there has been too much ether in the lab.

If you still don't know what I'm saying, it is clear at this point you are either unable to comprehend it or unwilling to comprehend it.

Ya Paul, you're right, I just cant understand your posts. No need to act like that dude.

Your point is that scientists are fallible. Big deal, do you have anything else to say?

I was asking you questions that were specific to this article/report, however you didnt answer any of them. I'm not asking you about what you wrote yesterday, I'm asking you about this report:

Are you saying that you think that these environmental biologists all full of shit? Are you saying that you dont think that human activities are having adverse affects on ecosystems, etc? What are you saying? I would be interested to hear what parts you disagree with.

Obviously you think that some parts of this report are bullshit, and I'm just wondering which ones specifically. Can you answer that directly without a lame attempt at discounting my intelligence? I'll bet you can...

AnonymousD:

Debate the study itself but act like Paul isn't there. Maybe I'm reading too much into this but this reads like one extended practical joke. Remember, I'm an oozer. Perhaps my analytical skills are slipping or there has been too much ether in the lab.

With all due respect, this isnt a scientific report, this is some WaPo's diluted analysis of it. I havent read the report, so I dont feel that I can really say one way or another whether its bullshit or not.

Area, it was not an attempt to insult you in any way... sorry if that is how it sounded.

But after I say something 100 times and others manage to figure it out but you can't only 2 logical conclusions can be drawn:

You are unable or unwilling.

That's not an insult. It is a mere statement of obvious fact. (unless you can come up with a 3rd alternative I missed)

P

Ah..areaman,

You might think that Dr. Robert Watson and Walter V. Reid are "icons" of truth, but until I've seen a through, balanced, scientific peer-review, and verification/validation of their environmental models (which has never been done), then there *may* be a point. Till then it's all scare-mongering to get funding. $21 mil was wasted so far on this effort alone. They are almost as bad as World Watch Institute and it's 15 year history of bad predictions. Jean Dixon has a better track record.

AnonD:

Notice the post's title, the conclusion drawn, the author of said conclusion, and the context of posts during the last couple of weeks re "oozers" and "thumpers". This is the equivalent of Pavlov shaking a juicy rib in front of furry friends.

Ya Ya. I know what the guy is trying to do. He goes and gets something "scientific" then posts it with a title and a couple lines that make insinuations, then sits back and waits for people to get all pissed off. How exciting.

Same thing with his post yesterday where he made the big accusation that scientists arent always right, like thats news. So on this one he posts a lame WaPo article, and makes another insinuation about "science" without reading the actual report being discussed.

BTW- For the record Areaman, my money is on unwilling.

As opposed to andy where the smart money is on unable.

Same thing with his post yesterday where he made the big accusation that scientists arent always right

Yo area, if two "scientists" disagree, which one do you believe?

The article about the report says the report claims that 24% of tillable land is currently being used ...
I'll call BS on that one ... fly over the US and instead of sleeping look out your window ... While the US is farming a large % of our land we aren't even close to 24%, and what about the rest of the world, Africa, China, even the Middle East ... Of course if we listen to the Greens we would be getting about half the current yield from the land we do farm (ban all chemicals etc.) ...
Of course man has negative effects on the planet, but the same man has cleaned up the air and water over the last 40 years. Our air and water is cleaner now that 40 years ago and that is a result of moving forward not wallowing in the past as the Greens would have us do.

Bucky Katt:

Actually I dont think that either Watson or Reid are paragons of truth. Environmental types are concerned with funding, and findings need to be scrutinzed carefully. I agree with you there.

I just dont assess reports based on what a WaPo reporter writes...thats my issue here. I havent read alot about this particular project, so I cant really say one way or another whether its bullshit or not. I'm not realy into dismissing things like this without reading the material, along with any counter evidence.

Yo area, if two "scientists" disagree, which one do you believe?

Well, that depends Paul.

Sometimes they might both be full of shit. Sometimes one's ideas may make more sense to me. I have to read their work, and assess it for myself.

Example: Richard Leakey and Donald Johanssen disagreed all the time about human origins...and often I think that both of them just needed to get over themselves.

RE: areaman's post (March 30, 2005 01:13 PM)
With all due respect, this isnt a scientific report, this is some WaPo's diluted analysis of it. I havent read the report, so I dont feel that I can really say one way or another whether its bullshit or not.

I admit it. I read the post's title (that sounded suspicious right off the bat), the first post's line (knew where this post was going), the concluding statement (confirmed my previous observations), and noted the author (recall of previous data :)).

The quoted article could have said "Run for your lives... a tsunami is heading for your house now!" and I'd have missed it. By now you've correctly concluded that I did not read this report. I'll trust your initial synopsis of content and agree that skipping the source document and trusting WaPo would be a mistake. Mmm, steak.

>and often I think that both of them just needed to get over themselves.

no mirrors in your house huh?

Great idea, just read the watered down Washington Post article, and decide that its all worthless bullshit.

why even do that? I can read the headline and the first paragraph and know its worthless bullshit!!

Now where are the keys to my Hummer, I have to go club a baby seal and drill for some oil!!

(Checking my watch...) It has not been almost three hours since Paul posted this piece, and there's not hide nor hair from Andy and the Oozers (good name for a punk band)...

jeff:

The article about the report says the report claims that 24% of tillable land is currently being used ...
I'll call BS on that one ... fly over the US and instead of sleeping look out your window ... While the US is farming a large % of our land we aren't even close to 24%

Remember thats TILLABLE land Jeff, not all land.

from the update:

Like I always say, 1,360 scientists can't be wrong.

roflmao

"Some Guy":

no mirrors in your house huh?

Do you always answer for Paul?

Now where are the keys to my Hummer, I have to go club a baby seal and drill for some oil!!

Wow...thats so funny. I've never heard that before. Its so offensive. Wow, you are really rebellious.

"Notice the post's title, the conclusion drawn, the author of said conclusion, and the context of posts during the last couple of weeks re "oozers" and "thumpers". This is the equivalent of Pavlov shaking a juicy rib in front of furry friends."

Exactly. Also notice that Paul has again categorized his post as Humor.

What? Truth hurt?

sssshhhhh

And Paul said I was boring.

I have a computer program (Closetthumper version 0.001) that searches the GoogleNews Science section, adds a snarky headline saying "Scientists and Oozers are wrong," a posts it to a weblog.

It also searches the Comments for any one that uses a three syllable word, calls the author a "moron," excerpts a random bit of the comments, quotes it with "You didn't read what I said, you Oozer," and posts that as a new Comment.

All the user has to do is delete the really awkward comments and questions.

Some Guy:

To answer your question, I have no compunction about admitting that there is alot I have to learn. I dont delude myself into believing that I have all the answers, because I surely dont.

So?

wavemaker you can set your watch now

Some Guy:

What? Truth hurt?

Oh ya, you really got to me that time.

Paul:

Wow, you're so clever.

If I can put words into Paul's mouth, I think his point for days was that the "zealots" as he called them needed to get over themselves. or that's how I took it.

Your not seeing that trait in yourself prompted the mirror comment.

RE: wavemaker's post (March 30, 2005 01:45 PM)
Andy and the Oozers (good name for a punk band)...

Hey, I've got a couple that will fill in.

If I want retro pop:
"Anony and the Oozers"

If I want rap:
"AnonymousD and his Oozies"

If I want Christian:
"A.D. and the Ooze"

If I want Brittany-lite:
"ADoozy"

These names for sale at the counter out back - heavy discounts to potential artists.

> I think his point for days was that the "zealots" as he called them needed to get over themselves.

There were several points but that, I guess, describes one of them.

Area- I calls um like I sees um

Welcome back Commissar! This thread just wouldn't be complete without you. I feel like we're becoming a family. Somewhat dysfunctional, but what family isn't?

Will somebody please wake up Andy?

> Will somebody please wake up Andy?

oh please no

Area may go out of his way to be annoying but he has a brain.. (same for AD) Andy is dumber than the Commissar...

Just his presence lowers the average IQ in the room by 10 points.