Scientists admit they underestimated the number of trees
-
a whole lot of animals live in woods.
btw, if you tie your shoelaces together, you can't walk........
-
Lol. Good times.
-
a whole lot of animals live in woods.
btw, if you tie your shoelaces together, you can't walk........
a whole lot of animals live in woods.
btw, if you tie your shoelaces together, you can't walk........
Seen a few African lions roaming around NE OH have you Cal? I understand the point that certain small species may be hard to definitively say have gone extinct, and usually biologists make some sort of hedge like 'we haven't seen them in decades". At some point, when a species was so prevalent in a certain spot...and then they're gone, and you can see what made them go away...you can call them extinct. I don't think that article gave scientists enough credit for how much we've combed the earth looking for shit. Just because only 3% of our land mass is "urbanized", don't mean we don't know what's on the other 97%. But come here quickly and tell us the cool story next time a black rhino's spotted traipsing down lorain ave.
-
You still have no legit point.
You think wild crocodiles are extinct because they are not found in Alaska?
ahahahahaha.
Eventually, it comes around to this:
The destruction of millions and millions of acres of virgin rain forests on earth, for profit.
mmgw wonks won't talk about it, and scientists blame global warming for everything.
A lot of insects, animals live primarily in those forests. So.........taking out those forests,
kills most all of those species, yes?
Therefore, stop the wanton and dramatic destruction of those virgin rainforests.
Or, just have nice day, and be very, very quiet, and let us adults talk about the subject,
okie dokie?
-
You still have no legit point.
You think wild crocodiles are extinct because they are not found in Alaska?
ahahahahaha.
Eventually, it comes around to this:
The destruction of millions and millions of acres of virgin rain forests on earth, for profit.
mmgw wonks won't talk about it, and scientists blame global warming for everything.
A lot of insects, animals live primarily in those forests. So.........taking out those forests,
kills most all of those species, yes?
Therefore, stop the wanton and dramatic destruction of those virgin rainforests.
Or, just have nice day, and be very, very quiet, and let us adults talk about the subject,
okie dokie?
The destruction of millions and millions of acres of virgin rain forests on earth, for profit.
mmgw wonks won't talk about it, and scientists blame global warming for everything.
Uh, that's been like the founding issue of the mmgw movement. Again what planet are you on? Seriously. The destruction of the rainforests is one of the biggest problems on our planet and has been noted as so pretty much now for at least half a century if not longer. How is life with your head buried in the ground?
-
Just let him be. The "virgin rainforests" comment is his "gotcha!" remark. We can't handle that kind of truth!
What is a conservative scientist? One that prays on how to interpret the data?
Too bad all of these scientists are liberals and too biased to agree with. What a weird coincidence that they just so happen to disagree with you too...
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Oh, really? I thought it was all being blamed on us human beings driving our cars,
trucks, campfires, and cows farting, and all of us needing to be taxed and taxed
and taxed ...
and all the time, they secretly know it's the destruction of the rainforests?
You don't say.
http://www.climatechangechallenge.org/News/Featured-Articles/bellamy_climate_change_not_man_made.htm
-
Deforestation as a contributor to the Causes of Climate changeIt is important, first to understand what a precious resource rainforests play in our world. They form part of a delicate ecosystem that has taken millions of years to evolve.Rainforests every year help to absorb almost 20% of man made CO2 emissions therefore deforestation can be classed as a major contributor to the causes of climate change. Cutting down rainforests faster than they can be replaced has a devastating effect on the carbon emission cycle producing an extra 17% of greenhouse gases. Remember trees absorb CO2. More deforestation means more CO2 build up in the atmosphere.Deforestation by means of cutting down and burning these tropical rainforests usually pave the way for agriculture and industry which often produce even more CO2.Dr. Md. Mizanur Rahman, a biodiversity specialist, (UNO, Mongla, Bagerhat) says, "that climate change and forests are interlinked. The increased destruction of the rainforest forming a precious cooling band around the Earth's equator, is recognised as one of the main causes of climate change. Forests trap and store carbon dioxide, playing a major role in mitigating climate change. On the flip side of the coin, forests become the sources of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide when destroyed or over-harvested and burned. Forests , if not harmed ensure that they are enabling to continue to produce the benefits; to mitigate the effects of a changing climate; and to compensate for fossil fuel emissions through carbon storage; and to enhance ecosystem health, sustainability, and resilience.Forests reduce greenhouse gas emissions to combat global warming. 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions result from deforestation and degradation of forest, more than all the world's cars, trucks, ships and planes combined. Fossil fuels release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere contributing to global warming and climate change. Forest alleviates this change by converting carbon dioxide to carbon during photosynthesis. The world's forests contain about 125 percent of the carbon found in the atmosphere. This carbon is stored in the form of wood and vegetation through "carbon sequestration".Trees possess about 20 percent carbon by weight and biomass of forest acts as a "carbon sink." The soil organic matter produced by the decomposition of dead plant material also acts as a carbon store. Consequently forests store enormous amount of carbon: in total, the world's forests and forest soils currently store more than one trillion tons of carbon, twice the amount found floating free in the atmosphere, according to FAO studies.The atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration in the pre-industrial era was 280 ppm. Right now the level has risen to 375 ppm, a 30% increase. It is predicted that the level will be 450 ppm in 2050 resulting in 1.8-3ºC increase in temperature eventually. Therefore, global warming will produce a sharp upswing followed by a deep plunge into a glacial period several thousands years from now. A myriad of potential impacts such as increased cyclone intensity; melting of polar iceberg and glaciers; increased salinity and changes in oceanic currents sea level rise and inundation of low lying cities like Venice, Cairo, New Orleans, Lagos, Amsterdam, etc.; coral bleaching and mortality of coral reef; colonization of invasive species and species migration; changes in ecosystem; mass extinction; ozone layer depletion; water shortage; and spreading of diseases -- is predicted. "
-
and the mmgw movement, moron, is not on this board.
Not one of the prommgw wonks around here will talk about it.
Just political postering via sound bites and liberal key phrases.
Listen to the 140 scientists who want the UN to prove their contentions.
-
Just let him be. The "virgin rainforests" comment is his "gotcha!" remark. We can't handle that kind of truth!
What is a conservative scientist? One that prays on how to interpret the data?
Too bad all of these scientists are liberals and too biased to agree with. What a weird coincidence that they just so happen to disagree with you too...
Just let him be. The "virgin rainforests" comment is his "gotcha!" remark. We can't handle that kind of truth!
What is a conservative scientist? One that prays on how to interpret the data?
Too bad all of these scientists are liberals and too biased to agree with. What a weird coincidence that they just so happen to disagree with you too...
You are all about science until some nut job MAN says the "feel" like a woman. Then you ignore the science that clearly indicates that the person has an X and Y chromosome (therefore they are a man) and you ignore the clear observation that they are a man just because the mentally ill person says they feel like a woman.
It's interesting how stupid you really can be sometimes.
:neutral_face: -
Just let him be. The "virgin rainforests" comment is his "gotcha!" remark. We can't handle that kind of truth!
What is a conservative scientist? One that prays on how to interpret the data?
Too bad all of these scientists are liberals and too biased to agree with. What a weird coincidence that they just so happen to disagree with you too...
You are all about science until some nut job MAN says the "feel" like a woman. Then you ignore the science that clearly indicates that the person has an X and Y chromosome (therefore they are a man) and you ignore the clear observation that they are a man just because the mentally ill person says they feel like a woman.
It's interesting how stupid you really can be sometimes.
You are all about science until some nut job MAN says the "feel" like a woman. Then you ignore the science that clearly indicates that the person has an X and Y chromosome (therefore they are a man) and you ignore the clear observation that they are a man just because the mentally ill person says they feel like a woman.
It's interesting how stupid you really can be sometimes.
Actually the science there explains why they feel the way they do. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism#Brain_structure
Zhou et al. (1995) found that in a region of the brain called the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc), a region known for sex and anxiety responses, MTF transsexuals have a female-normal size while FTM transsexuals have a male-normal size. While the transsexuals studied had taken hormones, this was accounted for by including non-transsexual male and female controls who, for a variety of medical reasons, had experienced hormone reversal. The controls still retained sizes typical for their gender. No relationship to sexual orientation was found.
In a follow-up study, Kruijver et al. (2000) looked at the number of neurons in BSTc instead of volumes. They found the same results as Zhou et al. (1995), but with even more dramatic differences.
-
Sorry, I forgot to insult you and everyone else while disagreeing with you
can I still play? -
Just let him be. The "virgin rainforests" comment is his "gotcha!" remark. We can't handle that kind of truth!
What is a conservative scientist? One that prays on how to interpret the data?
Too bad all of these scientists are liberals and too biased to agree with. What a weird coincidence that they just so happen to disagree with you too...
Just let him be. The "virgin rainforests" comment is his "gotcha!" remark. We can't handle that kind of truth!
What is a conservative scientist? One that prays on how to interpret the data?
Too bad all of these scientists are liberals and too biased to agree with. What a weird coincidence that they just so happen to disagree with you too...
You think all decent scientists are liberal? You think that to be conservative is defined by an unwillingness to accept scientific fact? Guess again. Just a fringe minority of conservative scientists (actual scientists, not ken ham pseudo-scientists) are YECs or whatever.
-
Just let him be. The "virgin rainforests" comment is his "gotcha!" remark. We can't handle that kind of truth!
What is a conservative scientist? One that prays on how to interpret the data?
Too bad all of these scientists are liberals and too biased to agree with. What a weird coincidence that they just so happen to disagree with you too...
You think all decent scientists are liberal? You think that to be conservative is defined by an unwillingness to accept scientific fact? Guess again. Just a fringe minority of conservative scientists (actual scientists, not ken ham pseudo-scientists) are YECs or whatever.
You think all decent scientists are liberal? You think that to be conservative is defined by an unwillingness to accept scientific fact? Guess again. Just a fringe minority of conservative scientists (actual scientists, not ken ham pseudo-scientists) are YECs or whatever.
Follow the money.
WSS
-
Just let him be. The "virgin rainforests" comment is his "gotcha!" remark. We can't handle that kind of truth!
What is a conservative scientist? One that prays on how to interpret the data?
Too bad all of these scientists are liberals and too biased to agree with. What a weird coincidence that they just so happen to disagree with you too...
You think all decent scientists are liberal? You think that to be conservative is defined by an unwillingness to accept scientific fact? Guess again. Just a fringe minority of conservative scientists (actual scientists, not ken ham pseudo-scientists) are YECs or whatever.
You think all decent scientists are liberal? You think that to be conservative is defined by an unwillingness to accept scientific fact? Guess again. Just a fringe minority of conservative scientists (actual scientists, not ken ham pseudo-scientists) are YECs or whatever.
No no no no
I'm making fun of Cal calling all scientists presenting data he disagrees with "liberal scientists". I then made a stereotype for "conservative scientists".
Hell, there are even some YEC scientists that have made contributions. We've had them listed here before...
I don't think all scientists are liberal. If we extrapolate my experience in engineering out to scientists, I'd imagine most aren't that political at all.
-
Just let him be. The "virgin rainforests" comment is his "gotcha!" remark. We can't handle that kind of truth!
What is a conservative scientist? One that prays on how to interpret the data?
Too bad all of these scientists are liberals and too biased to agree with. What a weird coincidence that they just so happen to disagree with you too...
You are all about science until some nut job MAN says the "feel" like a woman. Then you ignore the science that clearly indicates that the person has an X and Y chromosome (therefore they are a man) and you ignore the clear observation that they are a man just because the mentally ill person says they feel like a woman.
It's interesting how stupid you really can be sometimes.
You are all about science until some nut job MAN says the "feel" like a woman. Then you ignore the science that clearly indicates that the person has an X and Y chromosome (therefore they are a man) and you ignore the clear observation that they are a man just because the mentally ill person says they feel like a woman.
It's interesting how stupid you really can be sometimes.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I'm pretty sure Chris' follow up addressed this post appropriately
-
You are all about science until some nut job MAN says the "feel" like a woman. Then you ignore the science that clearly indicates that the person has an X and Y chromosome (therefore they are a man) and you ignore the clear observation that they are a man just because the mentally ill person says they feel like a woman.
It's interesting how stupid you really can be sometimes.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I'm pretty sure Chris' follow up addressed this post appropriately
What the fuck are you talking about?
I'm pretty sure Chris' follow up addressed this post appropriately
Just let him be. The "virgin rainforests" comment is his "gotcha!" remark. We can't handle that kind of truth!
What is a conservative scientist? One that prays on how to interpret the data?
Too bad all of these scientists are liberals and too biased to agree with. What a weird coincidence that they just so happen to disagree with you too...
backpedal much?
the "stereotype" you called a conservative scientist is complete with the (mocking) of "one who prays"
is more "gotcha" because it is unsubstantiated. a favorite of yours to use here and marginalize people of faith.
how do you stereotype a conservative scientist exactly?
-
I'm not sure how I backpedaled... I probably could have used some better wording in my first post though.
If praying is good for you, then great. I'm pretty sure there have been studies on it and how it affects the brain. It does make people feel better. Other than that though, it really doesn't accomplish anything.
-
I'm not sure how I backpedaled... I probably could have used some better wording in my first post though.
If praying is good for you, then great. I'm pretty sure there have been studies on it and how it affects the brain. It does make people feel better. Other than that though, it really doesn't accomplish anything.
I'm not sure how I backpedaled... I probably could have used some better wording in my first post though.
If praying is good for you, then great. I'm pretty sure there have been studies on it and how it affects the brain. It does make people feel better. Other than that though, it really doesn't accomplish anything.
It's a pretty strong placebo for a lot of people. At least in terms of praying for themselves. In terms of "let's pray for timmy's cancer to go away" not so much.
-
its the "gotcha " twins!
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login