domer76 (02-11-2019)
Members banned from this thread: USFREEDOM911, cancel2 2022, Truth Detector, MAGA MAN and CFM |
ILA went one step forward, and is trolling with my bad news. How bad should someone feel, when I'm suffering, and yet I feel bad for them? Well, it's what you expect from trolls.
domer76 (02-11-2019)
canceled.2021.1 (02-11-2019)
The study claims there will be no insects left in 100 years and you find it to be credible? Did you happen to notice they calculated the rate of decline as if it was linear? I love the irony when liberals who claim to be part of "the party of science" are shown to not have even basic understanding of it.
C'MON MAN!!!!
Ever hear of Colony Collapse Disorder, dumbshit? Once the bees are gone, we’re fucked. But stupid fucks of your level are too goddam stupid to realize that.
https://www.epa.gov/pollinator-prote...lapse-disorder
Sirthinksalot (02-11-2019)
I didn't parrot anything, nor say "fake news" or blah blah conspiracy. I pointed out an obvious flaw in the study that you missed because you don't understand basic math. If a very large number, (like say the biomass of insects on planet earth) decreases by 2.5% a year, it sure as shit doesn't go to zero in 100 years like your study claims.
Since the total mass of insects on earth is a very, very large number, I will use a much smaller, round number as an example. If the total mass of insects was 1,000,000 tons and that mass was decreased by 2.5% a year for 100 years, you would end up with approximately 80,000 tons of insect mass. That would still be catastrophic. I merely pointed out a very obvious (to someone who understands math, unlike you) flaw in the study.
I have indeed heard of it, dumbshit. It wasn't mentioned in the study and has nothing to do with my comments regarding the flaw in the study. Read my comments above if you'd care to be educated, stupid fuck.
You didn't need to spout verbatim, the kind of idiotic Trumpspeak I suggested we'd see out of your ilk, for the intent of it to be the same thing. Just like I said, some slob like you would come along and try to shovel some ignorant right-wing shit all over it.
And that's exactly what you did.
From the OP:
Do you understand what "peer reviewed" means, Einstooge? Google it.The first global scientific review of insect population decline was published this week in the journal Biological Conservation and the findings are “shocking,” its authors said.
More than 40 percent of insect species are dwindling globally and a third of species are endangered, concluded the PEER-REVIEWED study, which analyzed 73 historical reports on insect population declines.
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.
If that's not beyond your abilities, that is.
I'll give you a hint... they didn't just get some guy with a calculator to come up with some numbers then type it into an article. Several other highly qualified people fact checked it prior ti its release.
Note also, the words could be. That could very well take into account the possibility of other mitigating factors coming into play.
At any rate, if you think for one moment that anyone in their right mind will take the word of a NOBODY and a ZERO like you, over the word of a major scientific journal quoting the results of a PEER REVIEWED EXPERT STUDY, you're even stupider than you make yourself sound.
As far as your supposed "math prowess" is concerned, nobody is impressed.
C'MON MAN!!!!
domer76 (02-12-2019)
I do in fact understand what peer reviewed means, moron. Unlike you, I am capable of "reviewing" trivial calculations myself. A decline rate of 2.5% annually does not go to zero in a hundred years, because each year the 2.5% decline comes from a number that is 2.5% smaller than the previous year. I doubt you will be able to follow that simple logic, but hey I tried to educate you and dumbass domer.
From your OP:
Do you understand the words "will" and "none" Einstooge? Google them. We couldn't eradicate all the insects on earth if we tried.“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.
Thanks for further demonstrating your lack of understanding of how a decline rate works over time. Did you even bother to crunch the numbers in that equation you linked? It doesn't come out to zero, Einstooge. I'm more than capable of checking trivial calculations (apparently you aren't). Whatever a dumbass like you may think about me being a "nobody" my criticism of Francisco Sánchez-Bayo's erroneous math is correct. FYI, biologists aren't known for their math prowess, and in fact to earn a biology degree, one needn't go farther than basic trigonometry. Thanks again for your demonstration of a typical liberal's "understanding" of science.I'll give you a hint... they didn't just get some guy with a calculator to come up with some numbers then type it into an article. Several other highly qualified people fact checked it prior to its release.
Note also, the words could be. That could very well take into account the possibility of other mitigating factors coming into play.
At any rate, if you think for one moment that anyone in their right mind will take the word of a NOBODY and a ZERO like you, over the word of a major scientific journal quoting the results of a PEER REVIEWED EXPERT STUDY, you're even stupider than you make yourself sound.
As far as your supposed "math prowess" is concerned, nobody is impressed.
All I see out of you is yet another right-wing dumbfuck running his fat, jerk-ass mouth and bloviating about his supposed expertise while not backing it up with a shred of proof.
The study in question was reviewed by other scientists and experts in various scientific fields, all of whom I'm quite certain, have math skills light years above any you claim to possess.
Therefore, the very notion that anyone outside your own peer group of fellow, low-foreheaded apes and drooling knuckle-draggers would take your word on the subject above theirs, is so ridiculous it just further proves your abject level of simple-minded, bone-headed ignorance.
Get over yourself, idiot. Your self-proclaimed "scary awesome math skillz" are nothing more impressive than the understanding of how to calculate simple interest, but in reverse.Originally Posted by Sirstinksalot
BFD.
That still doesn't make your idiotic nonsense any more credible.
C'MON MAN!!!!
Honest questions here
Do liberals see any connection between a move towards a “great society” and man-made global warming?
Seriously. Have you considered the hypocrisy of your platforms? You want to take from the rich, allowing the poor and middle class to have a better living conditions
An undeniable fact of the matter is poor people in this country have far larger homes then the poor people in other countries. Poor people here have more technology in their homes too.
How can we improve man made global warming by allowing the poor to live even better? Every program you implement that takes from the rich (who are few in numbers) and distributes to the poor is going to increase consumption, which increases production, which increases pollution.
Every time the economy slows – you will see democrats wanting to pump money into the economy to get people spending again. Spending – on vacations, technology, gas, travel, larger mortgages for bigger homes, etc, etc. Our economic system requires debt based spending as we need to grow GDP to minimize the ratio to foreign held debt.
Bookmarks