sho nuff
Footballguy
You are “new” here and immediately label others liberals because they questioned you calling the UN the MSM?
And I doubt your admin and parents mainly agree with a science teacher who denies actual science.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Nature on verge of collapse? UN report is shocking (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter shader
- Start date
And I doubt your admin and parents mainly agree with a science teacher who denies actual science.
zoonation
Footballguy
I don't believe that he actually holds the opinion that the results were bought. He claims to be a science teacher at a top 10 high school in America. In my experience, most science teachers adhere the principle that evidence matters. I suspect he does as well notwithstanding that he is not providing any in this thread.
So, in short, yeah. trolling IMO.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
When you get a chance, can you post the name of the text book you use in your science class? TIA. I'm curious to see what's being taught in today's high school science classes (my youngest graduated 5 years ago).
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus
Footballguy
Are they climate scientists? Can you share the evidence they've used to come to their conclusions and/or the methodology by which they performed their analysis?
squistion
Footballguy
Gustavo Fring
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Good for you. None of the high schools I know of teach a class called “science.” Biology, chemistry, human physiology and anatomy, astronomy, physics, sure. But nothing that broad and all encompassing. It must be a great deal of work.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
You got something against botany Bucko? What about geology, do you have something against the rocks and dirt people?
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Since you're still here, the title of your text book(s) please? If not too much trouble.....
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Snorkelson
Footballguy
I’m a climate scientist at one of the top universities in the country. I’ve won many awards. Climate change is real.
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Oh, absolutely. But it's more about where I live than how I live. I generally don't go. I'm not much for parties.
What I do enjoy is analyzing language - yes, I'm a major nerd. But just as an example, can you guess how many people who no longer post on this board have ever posted "you must be a hoot at parties" on this board before today?
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
My High School did not have an astronomy option. We could potentially take up to two years of advanced physics, chemistry, and biology. We could take botany and geology. There was a course in genetics taught intermittently. Of course back when I went to High School there were only 103 known elements, the physics was primarily Newtonian with some vector mechanics tossed in, and biology included human anatomy, physiology, and sexuality (there were two sexes and "Don't do it!")
Last edited by a moderator:
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
That article is about much more than global warming, so even if somebody doesn't believe in global warming, they should surely be able to still understand the gravity of some of the other issues.
In fact I would argue that almost all of what they are talking about has little to do with global warming and more to do with our awful rate of consumption.
I have some questions about some of the numbers. What do they mean by Mammal biomass? Does that mean combined weight of all mammals? If yes, that needs to be taken with a grain of salt since paleontologists' theories and conclusions change almost as much as dietitians do. Even whale conservationists hedge a great deal when discussing estimated populations from 200 years ago. Don't get me wrong, I am sure the number is very large, I just think deciding on 82% and stating it the way the article did is irresponsible.
How could 75% of the earths land have been significantly altered? Just uninhabited mountains and deserts alone should take up pretty close to that. Would like to see how that figure was decided. Again, I believe it would be large, just curious where such a % came from.
The $100 billion figure sounds fascinating to me. SIgn me up as being willing to contribute. That is an insanely low number if legit.
In fact I would argue that almost all of what they are talking about has little to do with global warming and more to do with our awful rate of consumption.
I have some questions about some of the numbers. What do they mean by Mammal biomass? Does that mean combined weight of all mammals? If yes, that needs to be taken with a grain of salt since paleontologists' theories and conclusions change almost as much as dietitians do. Even whale conservationists hedge a great deal when discussing estimated populations from 200 years ago. Don't get me wrong, I am sure the number is very large, I just think deciding on 82% and stating it the way the article did is irresponsible.
How could 75% of the earths land have been significantly altered? Just uninhabited mountains and deserts alone should take up pretty close to that. Would like to see how that figure was decided. Again, I believe it would be large, just curious where such a % came from.
The $100 billion figure sounds fascinating to me. SIgn me up as being willing to contribute. That is an insanely low number if legit.
ShamrockPride
Footballguy
And yet you've all allowed him to hijack a worthy thread topic. Great job again guys. This is why I don't come to the PF often. You all take the bait everytime destroying what should be good thread content. Too busy trying to one up each other instead of actual discussion.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Our Human Physiology and Anatomy class was pretty amazing. We did gel electrophoresis using multiple species' DNA (I believe a redhead was one of the species.)
HellToupee
Footballguy
McJose
Footballguy
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Perhaps turn your anger towards the one doing the hijacking. As an aside, I'm genuinely interested in the type of science being taught in today's high schools. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt - a real teacher would be able to name their text books pretty quickly I'd imagine.
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Gr00vus
Footballguy
It depends on what they consider coastal, but the damage is also being done in just about all major forests (especially damaging in rainforests) and jungles on the planet. The amount of desert has expanded over the last 150 years as well. Ice packs on mountain ranges have been effected too.
I saw an interesting snippet the other day about how much of the snow/ice pack on the Rockies has been getting covered in dust recently due to the impact of animal husbandry and off road vehicles. The result is the darker snow absorbs sunlight more quickly, which causes the snow to melt sooner, which causes water to be released much earlier in the year than normal at a rate faster than expected (or able to be captured), exacerbating water shortages for those depending on the runoff (which is a very large area). Stuff like this is going on all over the planet.
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I believe one of my favorite recording artists may have been in your class.
I recall the last time I saw him in concert, every time Peter Gabriel sang "shock the monkey" I screamed like a Howler with his jumbly bits in a vise. My neighbors to the left found it very funny. The ones to the right less so.
apalmer
Footballguy
As someone who had to use a slide rule for calculations in physics class because calculators hadn't been invented yet (at least not in a model that was affordable to anyone but an Ivy League College), I'm jealous of your modern education.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
We had to become proficient with a slide rule but everything changed in 1977 when Texas Instruments released the TI-30. Damn, that was really more computational power than anyone would ever really need.
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
I find this interesting. Someone jumps into a good thread and hijacks it but instead of placing the blame on him you place the blame on everyone else. This reminds me of the people who work hard yet get in trouble for any thing they do wrong yet the people who screw around all the time are allowed to do it. Is this like a "I have higher expectations for you" type of thing?
ShamrockPride
Footballguy
Gawain
Footballguy
They also state the global bio-mass of "wild mammals." So the paper can decry lemur populations falling, but also stand against cattle populations rising. There is an inherent bias that wild is more valuable than tame and farmed means something less than undomesticated.
My biggest concern with these types of articles is they fail to distinguish between local tragedies and global catastrophes. Planetary desertification through runaway warming, a 50 meter rise in sea level or a return to Snowball Earth are global disasters that threaten most/all human life. The loss of a single species, while sad, isn't going to make an impact in the day-to-day life of the vast majority of the population.
Why do we need wild animals?
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
You're right, he could be ignored but they chose to call him out. No one is made to engage just like you are not made to. You are also able to ignore the posts that you don't care for.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
Biodiversity is important. If all we end up with are the domesticated species, we'll have very little biodiversity.
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
Gr00vus
Footballguy
In my case, I always try to take people at face value when a new poster shows up. So I was trying to engage in a good faith conversation to get at how this one came to the conclusions they have.
Philo Beddoe
Footballguy
One would think there are consequences from pumping a gajillion gallons of oil out of the ground and burning it.
apalmer
Footballguy
I recommend you watch "Our Planet" on Netflix to understand the impact the loss of just one or two types of animal can have.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
OK, in that case just the name of the text book that would cover the global warming hoax. Third time I'm asking, btw. Should be pretty easy.
Snorkelson
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
McJose
Footballguy
McJose
Footballguy
Gawain
Footballguy
I'm not trying to be a jackass here, but when a site affiliated with conservation.org states that the #4 benefit of biodiversity is due to the fact that, "Biodiversity is an integral part of culture and identity," the proposition that lessening our biodiversity can lead to a catastrophic outcome is weakened.
If you want to point to biodiversity as the reason why we still have the Cavendish after Big Mike's failure or talk about CCD and the impact on pollinators, I can understand the importance of alternate sources. However, there's no inherent positive to having these alternates be wild or domesticated from these examples.
Someone's going to have to answer the question of why wild animals are more valuable than those that live on a preserve or sanctuary.
Someone's going to have to answer the question of why animals in a preserve or sanctuary are more valuable than those on a farm.
No one's mourning the Hispaniolan edible rat.
dkp993
Footballguy
This statement/mindset concerns me more then any of the others (as unfortunately it drives other conversations). This should not, in any way, be a right or left, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican thing. Science and math are science and math not tools for politics, and it must stop now. Who cares if a math teacher is liberal or conservative and science should be about science and not about “going against the grain”.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
There may be examples of wild animals that have become extinct and didn't affect the world in a drastic way but would you admit that there are some that would cause drastic affects.
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
I'm sure there will be some comment about how liberals are the reason for common core math or something dumb like that.
Skoo
Footballguy
dkp993
Footballguy
I agree with this. Someone who believes a conspiracy (like flat earth or Qanon or pizzagate) are not trolling by expressing their belief in it. They are trolling if they don’t believe it but post #### to stir the pot. Big difference.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Because free roaming animals are an integral part of natural evolution. Farms are contrived stagnation. If we want to have a chance to stay viable as a planet as we screw everything else up, we’re going to need evolution to help us out.
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
Yet Trump seems hell bent on destroying it. He just eliminated the safety standards put in place after the BP disaster. I'm guessing he has a "who cares about clean water, air, soil, I'll be dead in less than 30 years" attitude.
Similar threads
