Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
shader

Nature on verge of collapse? UN report is shocking

Recommended Posts

Just now, joeyMD said:

Whatever gets you by each day I guess.

Luckily my students, the administration and the parents mainly agree with me.

Anyway, off to class to teach "bad things" according to you liberals.

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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, John Blutarsky said:

That doesn't mean it's trolling. You guys are proving the point that if someone posts something that you don't agree with you call it trolling.

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, joeyMD said:

Whatever gets you by each day I guess.

Luckily my students, the administration and the parents mainly agree with me.

Anyway, off to class to teach "bad things" according to you liberals.

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).

Edited by Amused to Death
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, joeyMD said:

Luckily my students, the administration and the parents mainly agree with me.

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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have entered such an interesting time in our evolution with people able to just ignore science based on youtube videos and then just argue with people that actually know things...where this goes is anyone's guess but if i had to put money on it, it's nowhere good

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, joeyMD said:

We don't know who can be bought and who can't at the UN.

And nice to know that you immediately think I am not here for an honest discussion.  I teach science in high school and I believe that "global warming" is a farce.  It is just a money ploy.

That is like a geography teacher being a member of The Flat Earth Society.

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, joeyMD said:

Bzzz.  And of course you are wrong.  I have won many awards in teaching science, both in the county and principal awards for best teacher in the school.

Thanks for playing.

Do you believe in evolution?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, joeyMD said:

Bzzz.  And of course you are wrong.  I have won many awards in teaching science, both in the county and principal awards for best teacher in the school.

Thanks for playing.

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. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

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. 

You got something against botany Bucko?  What about geology, do you have something against the rocks and dirt people? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, joeyMD said:

Wow, you must be a hoot at parties.

Since you're still here, the title of your text book(s) please?  If not too much trouble.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys?

 

I'm starting to think that this Dr. Joey guy may not actually be a real teacher.  

  • Like 2
  • Thinking 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m a climate scientist at one of the top universities in the country. I’ve won many awards. Climate change is real.

Edited by Snorkelson
Not a real scientist
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, joeyMD said:

Wow, you must be a hoot at parties.  Do you get invited to them?

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!")

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, McJose said:

Hey guys?

 

I'm starting to think that this Dr. Joey guy may not actually be a real teacher.  

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ditkaless Wonders said:

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 curse 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!"

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.) 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

I’m a climate scientist at one of the top universities in the country. I’ve won many awards. Climate change is real.

With a name like snorkelson??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ShamrockPride said:

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.

OH OK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ShamrockPride said:

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.

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.

Edited by Amused to Death
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ShamrockPride said:

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.

Inception 2: Thread Derailment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

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.) 

We had a course in electro for rhesus.  We shocked the monkey.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

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. 

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.

Edited by Gr00vus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ditkaless Wonders said:

We had a course in electro for rhesus.  We shocked the monkey.

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

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!")

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, apalmer said:

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, ShamrockPride said:

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.

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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

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?

I mean, he could just be ignored. Who is making anyone engage him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

 

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. 

 

 

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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ShamrockPride said:

I mean, he could just be ignored. Who is making anyone engage him?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gawain said:

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? 

Biodiversity is important. If all we end up with are the domesticated species, we'll have very little biodiversity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gawain said:

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? 

Is this an honest question?

  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ShamrockPride said:

I mean, he could just be ignored. Who is making anyone engage him?

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.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Gawain said:

 

Why do we need wild animals? 

I recommend you watch "Our Planet" on Netflix to understand the impact the loss of just one or two types of animal can have. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, joeyMD said:

BTW, a science teacher means that I don't just teach one subject, I teach multiple.  So much easier to say science teacher instead of all of the different subjects.

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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HellToupee said:

With a name like snorkelson??

That’s Dr Snorkelson.

Edited by Snorkelson
Not a real doctor
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, joeyMD said:

BTW, a science teacher means that I don't just teach one subject, I teach multiple.  So much easier to say science teacher instead of all of the different subjects.

So you teach LA, PE, SS etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One topic I am NOT conservative on is the environment.  We need and should be doing so much more.

 

I've been to 48 countries and counting.  Believe me when I tell you we are destroying the earth.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

One topic I am NOT conservative on is the environment.  We need and should be doing so much more.

 

I've been to 48 countries and counting.  Believe me when I tell you we are destroying the earth.

But do you teach every high school (one of the best in the nation) subject? 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

Biodiversity is important. If all we end up with are the domesticated species, we'll have very little biodiversity.

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. 

40 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Is this an honest question?

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, joeyMD said:

LOL.  School are so far left leaning, it is nice to have someone to go against the grain.

In fact, all of the Math teachers at my school (which is one of the best in the county) are all Republicans.

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”.  

Edited by dkp993
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gawain said:

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. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

This statement/mindset concerns me more then any of the others (as unfortunately 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”.  

I'm sure there will be some comment about how liberals are the reason for common core math or something dumb like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gawain said:

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. 

We need them to survive.

HTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, John Blutarsky said:

That doesn't mean it's trolling. You guys are proving the point that if someone posts something that you don't agree with you call it trolling.

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

One topic I am NOT conservative on is the environment.  We need and should be doing so much more.

 

I've been to 48 countries and counting.  Believe me when I tell you we are destroying the earth.

I believe you.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Gawain said:

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. 

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, TripItUp said:

One topic I am NOT conservative on is the environment.  We need and should be doing so much more.

 

I've been to 48 countries and counting.  Believe me when I tell you we are destroying the earth.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.