domer76 (02-13-2019)
Members banned from this thread: USFREEDOM911, cancel2 2022, Truth Detector, MAGA MAN and CFM |
domer76 (02-13-2019)
I called into question the credibility of the study considering the obvious math error that you still haven't acknowledged. I still question its credibility. That's not the same as disavowing the entire thing. The spreadsheet was a vain attempt at helping you understand a very simple principle, but alas you are too stupid to follow.
I understand that language is hard for you inbred types. But keep on with your "Nomad agree because them are eck-spurts. Nomad are smart!"
“The Communist party must control the guns.”
― Mao Tse-tung
“Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.”-Generally attributed to Uncle Joe Stalin
“Everything under heaven is in utter choas; the situation is excellent.”
― mao tse-tung
Nomad (02-13-2019)
Being a scientist is a great job. You are never wrong.
I already explained to you that what you apparently think is some advanced math concept (for you maybe) is basically the same thing as a simple interest calculation, only in reverse.
IOW, instead of adding the interest (2.5%) to the principle which in turn increases with each compounding, causing the amount that the 2.5% represents to also increase, you're subtracting the reduction (2.5%) from the original total which in turn decreases with each subtraction, causing the amount that the 2.5% represents to also decrease.
Big fucking deal.
There is nothing complex or beyond my understanding about that. I think I learned it in junior high school.
The fact that you felt the need to represent it as some kind of advanced math that only a brainiac (like you apparently think you are but aren't) just drives home what a rube you really are.
All that aside, and as I have also tried to explain to you, I seriously doubt they used such a simple and basic arithmetical formula to arrive at their conclusion about how much decimation of the Earth's insect population might occur over the 100 year specified time period.
Your absurd oversimplification of such a complex issue is indicative of your simple-minded thought process.
In short, you are exactly the kind of low-foreheaded, dumbass Trumptard I was talking about in the OP.
And thank you once again for not disappointing me by failing to live down to my prediction.
C'MON MAN!!!!
In Germany scientists at the Leibniz Institute of Freashwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries have discovered that regions that have experienced sharp decline in flying insects have high levels of light pollution.
Cut the electricity and save the flying insects.
Ever drive up in the mountains in June and see your car caked with insects. Stop driving your cars assholes.
Liberals wanted to stop cutting trees to make grocery bags. They wanted plastic bags. Look where that got us.
Liberals wanted alternate clean power like wind turbines but they kill up to 328,000 birds a year in North America.
You got to love their forward thinking.
I never once claimed the math was complex you dolt, I repeatedly said it was basic and simple, like your mind. This is a quote from your OP:
I get it. The written word confounds your simple mind, you slack witted fucktard. Or is this how you "win" arguments? Just keep saying stupid shit until the other person gives up in frustration after trying to speak sense to an imbecile?Chillingly, the total mass of insects is falling by 2.5 percent annually, the review’s authors said. If the decline continues at this rate, insects could be wiped off the face of the Earth within a century.
“It is very rapid. In 10 years you will have a quarter less, in 50 years only half left and in 100 years you will have none,” study co-author Francisco Sánchez-Bayo, an environmental biologist at the University of Sydney, Australia, told The Guardian.
No liberals ever wanted or asked for plastic grocery bags, liar. Environmentally minded people of all political stripes want reusable cloth bags to be the standard.
As for wind turbines killing birds, I see you used the upper end of the ESTIMATED NUMBER of between 140,000 and 328,000 in your ranting screed, so your "lib'rul hatin" agenda is obviously what you really care about, not dead birds. Hopefully technology can develop a solution to that problem. Either way, it's no excuse to continue poisoning the environment with fossil fuels, so whatever your point was supposed to be is a mystery to me.
Hey, sorry we're not clairvoyant and can't predict every potential future challenge associated with everything humans attempt in the pursuit of maintaining the health of our planet.
Oh well.
C'MON MAN!!!!
Keep on back peddling and trying to weasel out of your embarrassment, you little turd.
That's all you've got going for you anyway.
You're obviously too dumb to grasp the concept of what a months long, peer reviewed scientific study entails. You seem to think it was just a couple of dudes who opened up their Excel spreadsheet program, typed in a few numbers and based the findings of their study on it.
Plus, you're missing the big picture. Whether it's going to happen in 100 years or 120 years is not the point. The point is that we could well be on the verge of yet another ecological disaster and jerk offs like you are too busy paying attention to NASCAR, football and Trump's obnoxious bullshit to even care.
You are nobody to be hurling insults about anyone else's intelligence, Trumptard.
Because you are truly about as dumb of a fuck as there is on this forum.
C'MON MAN!!!!
Obviously you weren’t born when your grocer asked whether you wanted paper or plastic. Cloth bags are the newest trend.
Regardless of the number of birds killed it shows the hypocrisy of the liberals.
You and the the other inbred retard Domer crack me up. You both get your ass handed to you with your own stupidity. What do you do? What you both do best. Start flapping your limp wrists around. Democrat politicians rely on wimpy, stupid people like you. You never disappoint.
Bookmarks