Exploding the "Ecosystem" Fraud

[Mr. Peepers]

Wait, why am I arguing with a person that quotes super-moron Ann Coulter??? That can be nothing but a lost cause...

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. I want you to label as 'science' those aspects for which you can provide empirical evidence.

What, are you asking for a roster of polluters and their effects on the environment? There are millions. I suspect you know how to google.

2. I want all to exercise regulation over only those areas that they actually hold deeds.

What the FUCK does that mean?

3. Bad science based on guesses and desktop models, produce bad results. Professor Holly Fretwell actually went out and studied the result of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. She found forests conserved in service of the spotted owl are dead or dying; closed forests were overstocked and pest ridden; 500 weak and spindly trees grow where 60-80 healthy ones used to flourish.
Do We Get What We Pay For? | PERC

This has nothing to do with "science". Did you read your own article? The biggest obstacles are money, politics and the public's dislike of controlled burns. In the wild, there are forest fires - they are not suppressed in nature and are necessary (scientists DID figure this out).

a. Range scientist Allan Savory has written about millions of acres, formerly grasslands, have become deserts because wildlife has been shut out by environmentalists. “Only livestock now, and to a lesser extent remaining remnants of former wild herbivores in the presence of pack-hunting predators, combined with fire suppression can permanently reverse desertification…”
Savory Institute - Turning Deserts Into Grasslands - Desertification Explained Simply by Allan*Savory

Where in that article does it say anything about environmentalists "shutting out wildlife"? Either you have no reading comprehension AT ALL or a VERY vivid imagination. Do you want to know what happened to the prairies in the first place? Fucking read up on what caused the dust bowl. Hint... it's monoculture... same exact shit we're doing right now. What the article is actually talking about is grass farming. Read up on Joel Salatin on what a grass farmer does to keep pasture healthy.

Tsk, tsk,....the language!
Now...see....you're getting upset.

That usually means that you are losing, and you know it.

Let's take your first objection.
It means that environmentalists should be able to take an area that they call an 'ecosystem,' and by instituting the changes and restrictions that they have in mind, demonstrate that the area remains healthy and self-sustainable.

They cannot.

In nature, everything is always changing.
There is no such thing as 'the health of nature'...except in your textbooks, the ones that pretend that the model exists in reality.

Now....this is subtle, so pay attention: if you wish to manage an area, it must be for a specific purpose. If you want to mange for deer, you do it one way, or butterflies, or any successional creatures, another way. But there are deliberate choices required.

So...an area is 'healthy' for a specific purpose....
The environmentalism that you champion is like trying to invent a perpetual motion machine, or taking a close-up photo of the horizon.

It is the same search for utopia that every Leftist philosophy has in mind.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[1. I want you to label as 'science' those aspects for which you can provide empirical evidence.
/QUOTE]

What, are you asking for a roster of polluters and their effects on the environment? There are millions. I suspect you know how to google.



What the FUCK does that mean?




This has nothing to do with "science". Did you read your own article? The biggest obstacles is money, politics and the public's dislike of controlled burns. In the wild, there are forest fires - they are not suppressed and are necessary (scientists DID figure this out).




Where in that article does it say anything about environmentalists "shutting out wildlife"? Either you have no reading comprehension AT ALL or a VERY vivid imagination. Do you want to know what happened to the prairies in the first place? Fucking read up on what caused the dust bowl. Hint... it's monoculture... same exact shit we're doing right now. What the article is actually talking about is grass farming. Read up on Joel Salatin on what a grass farmer does to keep pasture healthy.

Ha! Politicalchick is about the most scientifically illiterate respondbots on the board.

You're asking the impossible of the utterly incapable.

Once again you demonstrate an infants cry to be recognized....

...but you never contribute anything.

That's why you will never be any more than comic relief.


You have managed to avoid learning like a blonde avoids showers at the Bates Motel.


…work hard to free up the congealed gears of your mind…and try to actually contribute a thought.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "Of course I can shred it. Ecosystems are real."
Peeps....your verifying that you believe the scam hardly constitutes any shredding.

2.The OP gives the statements of experts that it is a fabrication.
It's the reason that I included same.

A Princeton professor, Duke University...and an officer of the Department of the Interior.



See what I mean about you looking foolish?

Wait... those "philosophers" waxing poetic about nazis and "ecosystem schemes" are experts? Experts on ecosystems (aka scientists)? Wow. Um, I'm not the one that looks foolish (and very, very gullible). You know, righty professors in Chicago let loose a bunch of graduates who got Pinochet the butcher puppeted into power in Chile in the 70's with the help of our very own CIA. Just because one is an academic, it doesn't alway mean that his/her worldview is "correct". Yours most certainly is not. You just seem to need to be spoon-fed whacked out "philosophies" that match your own greed and disregard for the commons.

Now, Peeps....you really must do a better job of reading and understanding the OP to which you are ostensibly replying!

This is the connection between Hegel and your ersatz science:
"Oxford invented Hegelian ecology….unity, the whole….there is no separateness from nature. Hegelian ecology is the total control of everything."


Another hint...because I appreciate your efforts....when you begin to address my imaginary weaknesses rather than the subject at hand, it'd a give-away that you're throwing in the towel.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Tsk, tsk,....the language!
Now...see....you're getting upset.

That usually means that you are losing, and you know it.

Let's take your first objection.
It means that environmentalists should be able to take an area that they call an 'ecosystem,' and by instituting the changes and restrictions that they have in mind, demonstrate that the area remains healthy and self-sustainable.

The language is because I view people like you as dangerously ignorant.

In nature, everything is always changing.
There is no such thing as 'the health of nature'...except in your textbooks, the ones that pretend that the model exists in reality.

Now....this is subtle, so pay attention: if you wish to manage an area, it must be for a specific purpose. If you want to mange for deer, you do it one way, or butterflies, or any successional creatures, another way. But there are deliberate choices required.

So...an area is 'healthy' for a specific purpose....
The environmentalism that you champion is like trying to invent a perpetual motion machine, or taking a close-up photo of the horizon.

It is the same search for utopia that every Leftist philosophy has in mind.

Holy god, you are ignorant. There very much ARE specific ecosystems that require specific temperatures, rainfall and plant and animal populations. If you change even slightly that ecosystem, you knock one vital component off kilter, then yes, you can alter or destroy the whole ecosystem. I saw it with my own eyes in Ecuador.

And what the hell does this mean?

It means that environmentalists should be able to take an area that they call an 'ecosystem,' and by instituting the changes and restrictions that they have in mind, demonstrate that the area remains healthy and self-sustainable.

We can see very easily what parameters keep an eco-system healthy and sustainable. What do you mean "changes that they have in mind"? No wonder you only use only other people's quotes. You make no sense.

 

[mjollnir]

Ha! Politicalchick is about the most scientifically illiterate respondbots on the board.

You're asking the impossible of the utterly incapable.

Once again you demonstrate an infants cry to be recognized....

...but you never contribute anything.

That's why you will never be any more than comic relief.


You have managed to avoid learning like a blonde avoids showers at the Bates Motel.


…work hard to free up the congealed gears of your mind…and try to actually contribute a thought.

LOL! You are indeed stupid enough to think that anything rational could be 'contributed' to your scientifically illiterate politically motivated Cut-and-pasteathons.

I can see you're emotionally vulnerable, as usual, so I'll allow you to have the last word that your pathological mind set so desperately craves in order not to be shattered.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wait, why am I arguing with a person that quotes super-moron Ann Coulter??? That can be nothing but a lost cause...

OK.....now you're gonna get it!


1. Here I was hoping for a spirited defense of environmentalism by the Leftists, who understand the real purpose…or by folks who have succumbed to the fear-mongering ‘mankind is destroying the planet’ types. But all they have is “you’re wrong, you’re wrong.’

2. So….let me explain the process. First, you pretend that the ‘ecosystem’ is real, and it includes everything. Including the worst thing there is: mankind!

a. Now…you mark off an area, identify it as a mythical ‘ecosystem,’ and cordon it off- ‘cause bad things are happening…..identify the cause of the bad things…mankind! So, all people in the area must be expelled, and/or the area is labeled ‘Do Not Touch Anything!’ Even if you legally own it.

b. But, when the there is no improvement….because change is what happens to any area….make the area under control bigger!

c. So….keep setting aside land…currently the ‘Wildlands Project’ has taken more land than all of New England and New York State.

d. But…we still haven’t found enough of the ‘ecosystem’ such that it is healthy and sustaining….heck, maybe it’s the whole universe!!!



3. “The Wildlands Network (formerly known as “Wildlands Project) was created in 1991 to stem the tide of speciesextinctions that was being recorded across North America. Evidence that such extinctions were often exacerbated by a lack of habitat connectivity between existing protected areas[1] resulted in the organization’s adoption of a primary mission focused on scientific and strategic support for creation of “networks of people protecting networks of connected wildlands.” Wildlands Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. BTW….when was there a period when no species became extinct? Never. And did the world end?


4. Anti-Wildlands Project: “There are overlapping schemes that quietly and deliberately drown our property rights and freedom. Take a look at U.S. Congress - H.R. 5101 Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act of 2010. This bill is intended to lead to the formal creation of several continental-scale "wildlife corridor systems" that will negatively impact livelihoods, homes, the environment, ranches, farms, access to resources, outdoor recreation and more.”
Wildlands Project


See what I mean? The plan is to take over everything by appealing to your fear that mankind is destroying the planet.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Once again you demonstrate an infants cry to be recognized....

...but you never contribute anything.

That's why you will never be any more than comic relief.


You have managed to avoid learning like a blonde avoids showers at the Bates Motel.


…work hard to free up the congealed gears of your mind…and try to actually contribute a thought.

LOL! You are indeed stupid enough to think that anything rational could be 'contributed' to your scientifically illiterate politically motivated Cut-and-pasteathons.

I can see you're emotionally vulnerable, as usual, so I'll allow you to have the last word that your pathological mind set so desperately craves in order not to be shattered.

Now, now....you didn't have to verify that you didn't have the ability to understand the thread....
...that was eminently clear.
I was merely being kind to an inferior.


Time for you to lean into the strike zone and take one for the team…

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Now, Peeps....you really must do a better job of reading and understanding the OP to which you are ostensibly replying!

This is the connection between Hegel and your ersatz science:
"Oxford invented Hegelian ecology….unity, the whole….there is no separateness from nature. Hegelian ecology is the total control of everything."


Another hint...because I appreciate your efforts....when you begin to address my imaginary weaknesses rather than the subject at hand, it'd a give-away that you're throwing in the towel.

I obviously know more about the subject in hand, you know, having worked with returning biologically-cleaned wastewater back to a river system (yes, a an ecosystem - and a delicate, vital one). You know, making sure that there were no chlorine shocks or fish kills, or phosphorous-induced algae blooms. I guess it was silly to take notes for the government as to the eficacy of said water. I guess I should just rely on your philosophers instead of my experience, insight and eyeballs. This river ecosystem impacted all other ecosystems downstream, including some drinking water uptakes. You're right, the inter-connectedness of all the ecosystems within nature are a "myth" to be disregarded. Holy god... I'm out.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Tsk, tsk,....the language!
Now...see....you're getting upset.

That usually means that you are losing, and you know it.

Let's take your first objection.
It means that environmentalists should be able to take an area that they call an 'ecosystem,' and by instituting the changes and restrictions that they have in mind, demonstrate that the area remains healthy and self-sustainable.

The language is because I view people like you as dangerously ignorant.

In nature, everything is always changing.
There is no such thing as 'the health of nature'...except in your textbooks, the ones that pretend that the model exists in reality.

Now....this is subtle, so pay attention: if you wish to manage an area, it must be for a specific purpose. If you want to mange for deer, you do it one way, or butterflies, or any successional creatures, another way. But there are deliberate choices required.

So...an area is 'healthy' for a specific purpose....
The environmentalism that you champion is like trying to invent a perpetual motion machine, or taking a close-up photo of the horizon.

It is the same search for utopia that every Leftist philosophy has in mind.

Holy god, you are ignorant. There very much ARE specific ecosystems that require specific temperatures, rainfall and plant and animal populations. If you change even slightly that ecosystem, you knock one vital component off kilter, then yes, you can alter or destroy the whole ecosystem. I saw it with my own eyes in Ecuador.

And what the hell does this mean?

It means that environmentalists should be able to take an area that they call an 'ecosystem,' and by instituting the changes and restrictions that they have in mind, demonstrate that the area remains healthy and self-sustainable.

We can see very easily what parameters keep an eco-system healthy and sustainable. What do you mean "changes that they have in mind"? No wonder you only use only other people's quotes. You make no sense.

If WHO changes any of the conditions?

Why evil mankind, that's WHO!


You're making my point.


1. Born out of a fear that pastoral lands would be overrun by developers, the environmentalists practice ‘fortress conservation,’ the typical form of conservation everywhere. It involves locking down as much land as possible and practicing ‘natural regulation,’ which means no one touches it! Ever. Not even ‘disturbing the vegetation.’

2. Now, for most of recorded history, humans have practiced adaptive management of resources., i.e., when a problem crops up, we solve it. If we want a landscape, we create one; a working forest, ditto.

3. Rangeland, farmland, townscapes- all can be managed for bounty and health of resources and people!

4. But ‘natural regulation’ began in the 1960’s in almost all land-use agencies in the world and quickly became the preferred method by which all resources and land were to be managed. Over the past five decades, natural regulation has been adapted almost everywhere. Nature knows best.

a. Man is a virus and a despoiler and must be controlled!


All hail Gaia, Mother-Earth

 

[Mr. Peepers]

See what I mean? The plan is to take over everything by appealing to your fear that mankind is destroying the planet.

Mankind is destroying the planet.

 

[PoliticalChic]

See what I mean? The plan is to take over everything by appealing to your fear that mankind is destroying the planet.

Mankind is destroying the planet.

So, in summary, the kind-hearted, all-knowing, beneficent bureaucrats and technocrats are better stewards of the land than the folks who actually own, and make their living from same.

That's your belief?


And by that logic, the government folks are better able to spend your money than you are?


Can you say 'statist'?

 

[Dubya]

See what I mean? The plan is to take over everything by appealing to your fear that mankind is destroying the planet.

Mankind is destroying the planet.

So, in summary, the kind-hearted, all-knowing, beneficent bureaucrats and technocrats are better stewards of the land than the folks who actually own, and make their living from same.

That's your belief?


And by that logic, the government folks are better able to spend your money than you are?


Can you say 'statist'?

Supergirl, why do you think we are evil? It's a simple question, so answer it!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Mankind is destroying the planet.

So, in summary, the kind-hearted, all-knowing, beneficent bureaucrats and technocrats are better stewards of the land than the folks who actually own, and make their living from same.

That's your belief?


And by that logic, the government folks are better able to spend your money than you are?


Can you say 'statist'?

Supergirl, why do you think we are evil? It's a simple question, so answer it!

Sure, Dub....a simple answer for a simple guy...

1. "...why do you think we are evil?"
As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger....'what's with the 'we,' white man?'

All of 'you' are not evil.

The evil folks are the ones who clearly understand and endorse the totalitarian basis of the movement.
They want big government to control everything and everyone, and, specific to the environmental movement, property and individual rights.


2. Then there are the simps who accept at face value all of the fear mongering and hand-wringing, give their power as voters to these con men.

Now, to be clear, folks in the second group are doing what they think is best for their children, themselves,....and for the earth.


They've been fooled.


As Alexander Pope wrote:
A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.


Me? I'm just tryin' to clue you in...


You're welcome.

 

[Dubya]

So, in summary, the kind-hearted, all-knowing, beneficent bureaucrats and technocrats are better stewards of the land than the folks who actually own, and make their living from same.

That's your belief?


And by that logic, the government folks are better able to spend your money than you are?


Can you say 'statist'?

Supergirl, why do you think we are evil? It's a simple question, so answer it!

Sure, Dub....a simple answer for a simple guy...

1. "...why do you think we are evil?"
As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger....'what's with the 'we,' white man?'

All of 'you' are not evil.

The evil folks are the ones who clearly understand and endorse the totalitarian basis of the movement.
They want big government to control everything and everyone, and, specific to the environmental movement, property and individual rights.


2. Then there are the simps who accept at face value all of the fear mongering and hand-wringing, give their power as voters to these con men.

Now, to be clear, folks in the second group are doing what they think is best for their children, themselves,....and for the earth.


They've been fooled.


As Alexander Pope wrote:
A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.


Me? I'm just tryin' to clue you in...


You're welcome.

I don't want big government and I don't want a carbon tax. I want cheap energy and it's possible with Thorium MSRs.

I know we can't just keep on putting CO2 into the atmosphere. It's going to be very expensive to get it out of there. If we don't do it, we're going to lose every city along the coasts of this world. That means no more London or Washington, DC. I'd like to keep those places around in the future. Do you realize the cost of such destruction? How much is NYC worth and realize this, you can't destroy it and not pay for it? There is no free lunch for future generations.

If you want to live in some kind of fantasy, then go ahead! I care about my children, their children and everyone else in this world. What do you care about?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

So, in summary, the kind-hearted, all-knowing, beneficent bureaucrats and technocrats are better stewards of the land than the folks who actually own, and make their living from same.

No, the GOD-DAMNED SCIENTISTS AND INTELLIGENT PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE KNOW IT IS TRUE.

Tell me, CG, have you ever been in a real lab, or a data collection site? I'm guessing not. Have you even participated in physical science?

 

[Dubya]

So, in summary, the kind-hearted, all-knowing, beneficent bureaucrats and technocrats are better stewards of the land than the folks who actually own, and make their living from same.

No, the GOD-DAMNED SCIENTISTS AND INTELLIGENT PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE KNOW IT IS TRUE.

Tell me, CG, have you ever been in a real lab, or a data collection site? I'm guessing not. Have you even participated in physical science?

Who is CG?

I've been in real labs and I think I know science fairly well.

I don't even think these people will be around in 3 years. I think they will change their story to warming the Earth is a good thing and believe every word of it on the internet, like the liars they are. They're agenda driven.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, in summary, the kind-hearted, all-knowing, beneficent bureaucrats and technocrats are better stewards of the land than the folks who actually own, and make their living from same.

No, the GOD-DAMNED SCIENTISTS AND INTELLIGENT PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE KNOW IT IS TRUE.

Tell me, CG, have you ever been in a real lab, or a data collection site? I'm guessing not. Have you even participated in physical science?

Who is CG?

I've been in real labs and I think I know science fairly well.

I don't even think these people will be around in 3 years. I think they will change their story to warming the Earth is a good thing and believe every word of it on the internet, like the liars they are. They're agenda driven.

CG....?

Geezzz.....I rattled Peeps so much that, now, he thinks he's talking to folks who aren't here.

Another characteristic of environmentalists, I guess.


Intervention! Intervention!!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, in summary, the kind-hearted, all-knowing, beneficent bureaucrats and technocrats are better stewards of the land than the folks who actually own, and make their living from same.

No, the GOD-DAMNED SCIENTISTS AND INTELLIGENT PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE KNOW IT IS TRUE.

Tell me, CG, have you ever been in a real lab, or a data collection site? I'm guessing not. Have you even participated in physical science?

The starting point is an understanding of where folks are coming from.

Don't be fooled into believing that the appellation 'scientist' automatically implies either impartiality or a search for truth.



Grow up.

Wise up.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Wise up.

Obviously I'm not the one who needs to "wise up". Go read another right wing propaganda piece so that you can quote more BS out of context, why don't you? You obviously have nothing better to do. I really, really hope there aren't too many more out there as dangerously ignorant as you are.