ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 6th June 2014, 08:36 AM   #161
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,599
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
You are referring to BASIC HYDROLOGY as woo?! You're completely out to lunch here--you have abandoned even the pretense of a scientific approach at this point.

Have you studied ANY geology? At all? Ever? This isn't tricky stuff here, and nothing I said is in the slightest controversial in any fields studying hydrology or soils. To call what I said "woo" is the equivalent of calling the study of gravity or germ theory woo.

Also, I find it extremely telling that you have no explanations of your own. You'll bite whenever I dangle a potential one in front of you, but you appear incapable of providing a coherent explanation yourself.

That's irrelevant. The fact that you used that term at all demonstrates that you know nothing about paleontology, and therefore cannot have any opinions on what is typical with us. If you had any interaction with paleontologists, you'd know that the overwhelming majority of us study invertebrates. It's also a personal attack intended to avoid the fact that you can't address the ecological concerns I'm raising.

No, I do not--and the fact that you don't realize there are costs to altering the hydrology demonstrates yet again that you are not even trying to approach this from a scientific standpoint. You are preventing water from going from Reservoir A to Reservoir B; this has ecological impacts. Not all of them are going to be good, from ANY perspective. At best, the good will outweigh the bad--but that will necessarily be something that has to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Lie. You specifically equated accpetence of holistic grazing with competance in your previous post.

You're living in a fantasy world and demanding we join you. If we did that, we'd all starve to death, simple as that. Until you do the basic research necessary to understand hydrology, there's no point in any further discussion between us on this topic--you're too ignorant of the topic to contribute meaningfully.
See now you are getting nasty. OK nasty is fine. But it is you that are ignoring basic hydrology, not me. You simply refuse to accept that the hydrology in the soil is largely controlled by biological systems. You take the opposite view that hydrology primarily controls biological systems. Both are part correct. If there is no water at all, then there is no biology. And the amount of available water does limit to a certain degree the biology. But biology has evolved to control hydrology quite effectively. Especially the biology that evolved in dryer areas. So good land management in those areas can't ignore the effects that things like waxy coatings, decaying biomass coverings, cell walls, and humus have on creating reservoirs of water. One of those effects is holding more water when it rains (mostly all in 1 month in this particular case) and releasing it slowly later. (the other 11 months in this particular case)
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 6th June 2014 at 08:50 AM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2014, 11:33 AM   #162
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,104
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
.
...

I'll just ignore this woo [bold] science and continue with even more on the fly woo [/bold]. I am sure you'll be embarrassed you wrote it when you stop to think.

...
edited to prevent major reality distortion. ..
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2014, 11:58 AM   #163
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,104
Looks to me as though a monoculture is the bestest way of all. We should teraform our deserts and such so we can grow cows
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2014, 03:19 PM   #164
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,599
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Looks to me as though a monoculture is the bestest way of all. We should teraform our deserts and such so we can grow cows
This look like a monoculture to you?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2014, 02:51 PM   #165
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,065
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
But it is you that are ignoring basic hydrology, not me. You simply refuse to accept that the hydrology in the soil is largely controlled by biological systems.
Red Baron Farms, you seem to be missing Dinwar's point entirely and going on magical mind-reading derails .
The basic hydrology that you are ignoring is that the total amount of water available to an ecosystem is roughly constant and not controlled by biological systems. I say "roughly" because there is a little thing called global warming and of course the amount of water varies annually.

What biological systems can do is control some of the distribution of water between reservoirs. For example, forests act as sponges and so are reservoirs in their own right, deserts encourage runoff into actual reservoirs like ponds and streams, grasslands are in-between.

Changing "water from going from Reservoir A to Reservoir B" will have an ecological effect. That effect could be good. That effect could be bad. An example of a bad effect would be a grassland that absorbs so much water that it becomes a swamp and drowns all of the cattle .
To be more serious: "Retaining water in an ecological system that suffers from lack of water is a benefit" is trivially obvious. Of course if an ecological system has a deficit of X and that deficit is causing problems for the ecosystem then adding X will help the ecological system !
Grasslands in general though do not have a deficit of anything. Like any undisturbed ecosystem they have adapted to the resources that are available. This includes the deserts that Savory seems to concentrate on.
Farmed grasslands though may have deficits that concern farmers since they reduce profits. That is why farmers use grassland management programs.

Last edited by Reality Check; 8th June 2014 at 02:54 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2014, 06:42 PM   #166
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,599
What you say is true, except that a dry grassland will turn to desert if the herds of herbivores are removed. Bring them back and you can bring back the grassland/savanna. Since in many cases that is impossible with wild herds, as their numbers are often too low or even sometimes extinct, or the predators are gone too, or their migration lanes are fenced or otherwise blocked, ... then the option to bring back grassland from desertified land with livestock exists. Whether Asia, North America, South America, Africa, even Australia, when the herds were removed, or in some cases still there but with different behavior due to predators being removed, the deserts grew. In dry brittle grassland it is a universal observation.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2014, 08:19 PM   #167
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,065
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
What you say is true, except that a dry grassland will turn to desert if the herds of herbivores are removed
What I said is true and nothing to do with an unsupported assertion that dry grassland will turn to desert if the herds of herbivores are removed, Red Baron Farms.
Or for that matter that adding herbivores to desert creates dry grasslands (or even that "dry" grasslands even exist - just how dry is dry?).

Probably a misconception but isn't the expansion of the Sahara partially blamed on the addition of herbivores (the need for cattle grazing)? That would be a bit of a problem for your assertion.
Maybe your assertion really is "removing the herbivores that cause a dry grassland will turn to desert will cause a dry grassland will turn to desert and adding them back will reverse the process"!

Last edited by Reality Check; 8th June 2014 at 08:27 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2014, 08:36 PM   #168
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 52,940
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
What you say is true, except that a dry grassland will turn to desert if the herds of herbivores are removed.
OMGWUT????

__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2014, 09:07 PM   #169
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,599
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
What I said is true and nothing to do with an unsupported assertion that dry grassland will turn to desert if the herds of herbivores are removed, Red Baron Farms.
Or for that matter that adding herbivores to desert creates dry grasslands (or even that "dry" grasslands even exist - just how dry is dry?).

Probably a misconception but isn't the expansion of the Sahara partially blamed on the addition of herbivores (the need for cattle grazing)? That would be a bit of a problem for your assertion.
Maybe your assertion really is "removing the herbivores that cause a dry grassland will turn to desert will cause a dry grassland will turn to desert and adding them back will reverse the process"!
I have discussed the brittleness scale and linked it many times. If you can't be bothered to read it or remember it, or understand the dynamic, that's on you. I have also discussed the difference between desert and desertified land. Again, if you can't be bothered to remember or understand the distinction, that's on you.

You seem to forget, Savory is not some rancher trying to justify his cattle operation with woo. He was a Game Officer, and later a research officer in the Game Department. He used the flawed science of the day to attempt to save the newly made wildlife parks. He drove off the people, the cattle, culled the remaining wild herds, everything that "consensus" says you should do. He saw first hand how instead of restoring the ecosystems, removing the herbivores actually caused a chain reaction that caused desertification. Only after the dismal failure of the "consensus", did he dedicate his life to finding something that did actually work. And he has. It is not some unsupported assertion. I have linked over and over examples supporting this. You simply refuse to accept it.

Whatever man. Believe it or not as you wish. But the actual evidence is most certainly not on your side.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2014, 09:27 PM   #170
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,065
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
I have discussed the brittleness scale and linked it many times.
...snipped Savory rant....
That is not evidence for your assertion, Red Baron Farms.
It is a fairly useless scale that Savory made up: "The scale is subjective; there is no formula for its calculation." !

Compare that with aridity index which can actually be calculated fairly objectively.

If you can't be bothered to read your assertions or remember them , or understand the dynamic, that's on you. But your assertion was:
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
What you say is true, except that a dry grassland will turn to desert if the herds of herbivores are removed. Bring them back and you can bring back the grassland/savanna.
This has no mention of Savory.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2014, 09:31 PM   #171
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,599
Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
OMGWUT????
Yeah that's right.

Quote:
The cause of the widespread extinction has provoked much debate, with climate change being one theory.

However, scientists studied dung samples from 130,000 and 41,000 years ago, when humans arrived, and concluded hunting and fire were the cause.

The extinction in turn caused major ecological changes to the landscape.

The scientists looked at pollen and charcoal from Lynch's Crater, a sediment-filled volcanic crater in Queensland that was surrounded by tropical rainforest until European settlement.

They found Sporormiella spores, which grow in herbivore dung, virtually disappeared around 41,000 years ago, a time when no known climate transformation was taking place.

At the same time, the incidence of fire increased, as shown by a steep rise in charcoal fragments.

It appears that humans, who arrived in Australia around this time, hunted the megafauna to extinction, the scientists said. link
Notice what came first? We hunted the herbivores, then came fires and major ecological changes, and that desertification caused the low from hunting populations to go extinct, and even other species that were not hunted too.

You can ridicule the concept all you want, but it is science. Science that Savory has taken advantage of in the opposite way to restore damaged ecosystems.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2014, 09:41 PM   #172
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,065
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Yeah that's right.
Yeah well, that's wrong. Notice what actually happened, Red Baron Farms:
Humans killed off Australia's giant beasts
1. Humans killed off Australia's giant beasts in a specific region.
2. There were human-lit fires that would have happened even with the mega fauna there.
3. There were major ecological changes that may have happened even with the mega fauna there.
4. Mixed rainforest ((not a dry grassland )) was replaced by leathery-leaved, scrubby vegetation called sclerophyll (not really a desert).

We do not ridicule the concept of desertification for the simple reason that desertification happens!
We do ridicule an unsupported assertion about removal of herbivores doing this, especially when your "evidence" is so bad.

FYI, Red Baron Farms: The crater in question (Lynch's Crater) lies on the Atherton Tableland
Quote:
The Atherton Tableland is a fertile plateau which is part of the Great Dividing Range in Queensland, Australia. It is located west to south-south-west inland from Cairns, well into the tropics, but its elevated position provides a climate suitable for dairy farming. It has an area of around 32,000 km˛ with an altitude ranging between 500 and 1,280 m (1,640 and 4,200 ft).[1] The fertility of the soils in the region can be attributed to the volcanic origins of the land.
That does not sound like a desert!

Last edited by Reality Check; 8th June 2014 at 09:45 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2014, 09:49 PM   #173
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,599
Reality Check,
The aridity index is not useful when you are purposely managing the land in a way that changes the evapotranspiration present. That's why he had to make a new brittleness scale which is adaptive. It is more flexible and therefor more useful.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2014, 09:54 PM   #174
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,599
It's what gives you the timeline. The pattern. The australian megafauna decreased, in brittle areas that ecological change resulted in desert, but in areas that were not brittle, change still happened, but didn't result in desertification.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2014, 01:44 PM   #175
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,065
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Reality Check,
The aridity index is not useful when you are purposely managing the land in a way that changes the evapotranspiration present.
Red Baron Farms, the aridity index is an actual useful index because it can be calculated. The UNEP index of aridity includes the (potential) evapotranspiration.
The brittleness index is a useless index because it is subjective. It is not an index - it is a guess. It ignores the evapotranspiration present.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2014, 02:04 PM   #176
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,065
Question "dry grassland will turn to desert if the herds of herbivores are removed"

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
It's what gives you the timeline. ...
This is what exposes the continued error about a "brittle area" turning into a desert, Red Baron Farms !
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Yeah well, that's wrong. Notice what actually happened, Red Baron Farms:
Humans killed off Australia's giant beasts
1. Humans killed off Australia's giant beasts in a specific region.
2. There were human-lit fires that would have happened even with the mega fauna there.
3. There were major ecological changes that may have happened even with the mega fauna there.
4. Mixed rainforest ((not a dry grassland )) was replaced by leathery-leaved, scrubby vegetation called sclerophyll (not really a desert).
...
FYI, Red Baron Farms: The crater in question (Lynch's Crater) lies on the Atherton Tableland
There is no "dry" grassland as in your still unsupported assertion.
There is not resulting desert as in your still unsupported assertion.
There is no removal of herbivores as in your still unsupported assertion. There is removal of mega fauna (including some large herbivores) leaving other herbivores happily munching away. And what you are still ignoring: human-lit fires.
P.S. "three-metre tall giant kangaroos and marsupial lions, as well as giant birds and reptiles" are not cattle ! Specifically they do not have hooves to do Savory's magical trick of churning up the top soil. In this case
Quote:
"Big animals have big impacts on plants. It follows that removing big animals should produce significant changes in vegetation."

The removal of large herbivores altered the structure and composition of vegetation, making it more dense and uniform, he said.
More dense and uniform vegetation is not a desert. It looks like an environment that would be more impacted by human-lit fires and lead to the demise of most of a rainforest.

Last edited by Reality Check; 9th June 2014 at 02:16 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2014, 02:15 PM   #177
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,065
Question "... in brittle areas that ecological change resulted in desert..."

So now we have another vague, unsupported assertion from you, Red Baron Farms:
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
The australian megafauna decreased, in brittle areas that ecological change resulted in desert, but in areas that were not brittle, change still happened, but didn't result in desertification.
Some easy questions for you to answer then:
* What does "brittle" mean, Red Baron Farms?
I hope that it is not the ridiculous, circular "take away herbivores and desert forms" .
* Can you give a map of the "brittleness" of Australia before the megafauna decreased, Red Baron Farms?
* Can you match that map with the formation of deserts, Red Baron Farms?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2014, 12:48 AM   #178
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,599
Actually all your assertions are without evidence. Funny how you try to twist it backwards.

The evidence is clear, it is the causation that is under vigorous debate. Here is a good example of part of that debate:

Quote:
"Most of Australia’s largest mammals became extinct 50,000 to 45,000 years
ago, shortly after humans colonized the continent. Without exceptional climate
change at that time, a human cause is inferred, but a mechanism
remains elusive
. A 140,000-year record of dietary d13C documents a permanent
reduction in food sources available to the Australian emu, beginning about the
time of human colonization; a change replicated at three widely separated
sites and in the marsupial wombat. We speculate that human firing of landscapes
rapidly converted a drought-adapted mosaic of trees, shrubs, and nutritious
grasslands to the modern fire-adapted desert scrub. Animals that
could adapt survived; those that could not, became extinct."-
Ecosystem Collapse in Pleistocene Australia and a Human Role in Megafaunal Extinction
Gifford H. Miller et al
That is the desertification of Australia. That it happened is not in dispute. While Savory may not be able to prove 100% the causation, he has documented and observed with repeated modern evidence the effects of over rest. Flush of growth, followed by fire, followed by ecosystem change to desert scrub. Further, once he finally realised what was the cause, he was able to reverse the ecosystem changes back to drought-adapted mosaic of trees, shrubs, and nutritious grasslands. The species may vary, but the pattern is there for anyone to see, and it doesn't matter if it is Australia or North America. Since you can't see the pattern, it would be impossible for you to see the solution. Oh well. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Oh and by the way, what makes land brittle or not is if there is or isn't enough moisture to accomplish biological decay as apposed to oxidation. The soil bacteria and fungus need to eat in order to live, and they need a range of temp, moisture, food supply to do that. If they can, the result is nutrient recycling called mineralization which in turn feeds the plants. If they can't, desertification. In brittle areas they need help from the large herbivores.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 10th June 2014 at 12:52 AM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2014, 06:29 AM   #179
ComfySlippers
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 4,723
Can I order two bags of Brittle please.
ComfySlippers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2014, 01:50 PM   #180
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,065
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Actually all your assertions are without evidence.
...snipped more ranting about Savory claims...
Actually your reading comprehension remains bad since the news article and paper was and remains about deforestation, not desertification, and so remains not evidence for your claim Red Baron Farms.

Funny how you still cannot understand that a rain forest is not a grassland !
Funny how you still cannot understand that a fertile volcanic plateau (with rivers, lakes and dairy farms!) is not a desert !

The facts are clear: a rain forest diminished a great deal after the extinction of Australian megafauna and the event of human clause fires. The cause of the collapse of these rainforest ecosystems is still unsure:
Ecosystem Collapse in Pleistocene Australia and a Human Role in Megafaunal Extinction
Quote:
Giant vertebrates dominated many Pleistocene ecosystems. Many were herbivores, and their sudden extinction in prehistory could have had large ecological impacts. We used a high-resolution 130,000-year environmental record to help resolve the cause and reconstruct the ecological consequences of extinction of Australia’s megafauna. Our results suggest that human arrival rather than climate caused megafaunal extinction, which then triggered replacement of mixed rainforest by sclerophyll vegetation through a combination of direct effects on vegetation of relaxed herbivore pressure and increased fire in the landscape. This ecosystem shift was as large as any effect of climate change over the last glacial cycle, and indicates the magnitude of changes that may have followed megafaunal extinction elsewhere in the world.
Emphasis added in the vague hope that you will try to understand what you cite, Red Baron Farms .

This is the deforestation of Australia. That it happened is not in dispute.

Red Baron Farms: Evidence for the "The australian megafauna decreased, in brittle areas that ecological change resulted in desert, but in areas that were not brittle, change still happened, but didn't result in desertification" claim?

P.S. implying that "brittle" grasslands is the ridiculous, circular "take away herbivores and desert forms" is not good! You need to give examples of grasslands that were scientifically judged to be "brittle" before desertification.

Last edited by Reality Check; 10th June 2014 at 01:59 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2014, 01:55 PM   #181
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,065
Originally Posted by ComfySlippers View Post
Can I order two bags of Brittle please.
I assume that Red Baron Farms going on about this on about this so far imaginary "brittle" stuff is a reference to the Savory brittleness scale which is an unscientific guess.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2014, 04:17 PM   #182
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,599
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

P.S. implying that "brittle" grasslands is the ridiculous, circular "take away herbivores and desert forms" is not good! You need to give examples of grasslands that were scientifically judged to be "brittle" before desertification.
I get it. I really do understand your frustration. HM mimics a natural trophic cascade. ie biomimicry. And you can't even begin to see how it mimics that trophic cascade when the cascade it uses for a model is still hotly disputed. It is somewhat circular. First you assume that maybe removing herbivores or changing their behavior in many cases is what caused the desertification. Then you attempt to add herbivores in various ways and methods and observe when the theoretical trophic cascade that caused desertification reverses. Then you develope a method that consistently reverses that cascade. Then you go back and claim, "See? The initial hotly disputed cascades I mimicked must be right, because I can replicate and reverse it consistently at will." That's a whole lot to take in for someone who is still stuck on the initial hotly disputed cascades. And it is a bit "circular". You could never be 1000% sure that the cascades you are mimicking truly ever happened in the first place. You can measure and quantify the results to a large degree, but the causation vs correlation debate still rages. The fact that you can artificially reproduce those theoretical cascades is just evidence that the initial hotly disputed trophic cascades happened that way. But it is very strong evidence because it is so easily repeatable. In a way, HM is evidence for the debate on the Megafauna extinctions. And the Megafauna extinctions are the evidence Savory used to develop HM. It is circular in that respect.

ETA PS Here is some more evidence. Particularly addressing hydrology.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 10th June 2014 at 04:35 PM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2014, 04:39 PM   #183
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,065
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
I get it. I really do understand your frustration....irrelevant HM stuff snipped...
You do not get it.
The frustration I have is that you are someone who seems to be quite intelligent but
* thinks that a vague, subjective scale is somehow scientific.
* cannot answer a post with material relevant to that post (this reply is an example - where is the scientific definition of "brittle", Red Baron Farms?).
* cannot acknowledge that a rainforest is not a grassland!
* cannot acknowledge that a fertile plateau is not a desert!
* cannot backup assertions with evidence or at least acknowledge that these are fact less assertions.
Red Baron Farms: Evidence for the "The australian megafauna decreased, in brittle areas that ecological change resulted in desert, but in areas that were not brittle, change still happened, but didn't result in desertification" claim?

Red Baron Farms: Evidence that "dry" grassland will turn to desert if the herds of herbivores are removed (and the reverse)?
Start with defining the "dry" part of "dry grasslands".

ETA:
* keeps bring up Savory and HM claims that are irrelevant to the subject of my posts, e.g. the Savory/HM claims for the Australian case could be to introduce cattle to browse grass but your assertion would be to reintroduce giant kangaroos to browse trees .

ETA2:
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
First you assume that maybe removing herbivores or changing their behavior in many cases is what caused the desertification. ...snipped a fantasy...
And you really do not understand what my assumptions are !
My assumptions include that
* you have evidence when you assert that removing herbivores from "dry" grasslands causes desertification.
* you are smart enough not to make up fantasies about my assumptions (not well supported so far) .
* you may one day present the scientific evidence behind your assertions.
* you are not just blindly parroting the unsupported assertions of someone else (Savory?). That if you are repeating their assertions then you have a list of their scientific evidence behind the assertions.

Last edited by Reality Check; 10th June 2014 at 04:58 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2014, 05:57 PM   #184
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,599
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
You do not get it.
The frustration I have is that you are someone who seems to be quite intelligent but
* thinks that a vague, subjective scale is somehow scientific.
* cannot answer a post with material relevant to that post (this reply is an example - where is the scientific definition of "brittle", Red Baron Farms?).
* cannot acknowledge that a rainforest is not a grassland!
* cannot acknowledge that a fertile plateau is not a desert!
* cannot backup assertions with evidence or at least acknowledge that these are fact less assertions.
Red Baron Farms: Evidence for the "The australian megafauna decreased, in brittle areas that ecological change resulted in desert, but in areas that were not brittle, change still happened, but didn't result in desertification" claim?

Red Baron Farms: Evidence that dry grassland will turn to desert if the herds of herbivores are removed (and the reverse)?
Start with defining the "dry" part of "dry grasslands".
Ok I'll try my best. No guarantees, but I'll give it a stab.
"* thinks that a vague, subjective scale is somehow scientific."

You can never use reductionist science. It doesn't work. There are quite literally nearly an infinite number of interactions and constantly changing variables. A reductionist science scale like the aridity index simply fails, where a holistic science brittleness scale works. The somewhat vague subjective nature of the scale is actually why it works. Emergent properties not possible to detect by analysis are possible to define by a holistic science approach. Since those emergent properties are the primary focus of HM.......

"* cannot answer a post with material relevant to that post (this reply is an example - where is the scientific definition of 'brittle'"

The simple answer is brittle land is subject to desertification. So simply insert "subject to desertification" or "already having been subjected to desertification" for "brittle". So a "brittleness scale" would be a scale that attempts to define the relative ease that land is subject to desertification. Aridity is just one of many factors affecting "brittleness".

"* cannot acknowledge that a rainforest is not a grassland!
* cannot acknowledge that a fertile plateau is not a desert!
* cannot backup assertions with evidence or at least acknowledge that these are fact less assertions."

These are bordering on personal attacks in the form of strawmen. I never claimed those things, so I am not required to attempt to back them up. I think your confusion may however rest with a logic fallacy called equivocation. Desertification is a type of land degradation in which a relatively dry land region becomes increasingly arid, typically losing its bodies of water as well as much of its vegetation and wildlife. A rainforest could potentially degrade to a grassland and a grassland to a desert, and the last step of that degradation be considered desertification, but that is not what you seem to be claiming I said. I suggest you carefully reconsider your statements with the knowledge that desertification is not desert, it is a process. In this case we are concerned with that process of land degradation when it is caused by anthropogenic reasons.

"Evidence for the "The australian megafauna decreased, in brittle areas that ecological change resulted in desert, but in areas that were not brittle, change still happened, but didn't result in desertification" claim?"

I linked you to a couple of papers with the evidence that large regions of Australia underwent dramatic land degradation after humans arrived. Also that the animals were dramatically reduced first, then the ecosystem changes. What part are you missing? You didn't read the papers?

ETA The last quote I will simply say that I attempted to reword my discussion since you and others were having problems understanding "brittle" and "desertification". I tried to simplify it to a level you could at least start to understand. I fully acknowledge that was a mistake and may actually have caused even more confusion. Sorry. Hopefully the above will help in that regard better.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 10th June 2014 at 07:15 PM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2014, 07:34 PM   #185
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,065
Question Evidence for HM is actually very popular and widely used in NZ and Australia

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Ok I'll try my best.
Not vey good, Red Baron Farms.
* We can use reductionist science because it works.
Savory (presumably) whining about it to allow the making up of imaginary scales does not change the fact that his scale is useless.

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
The simple answer is brittle land is subject to desertification.
So we are relying on bad definitions: brittle land is subject to desertification, thus any grassland that turns to desert is "brittle" and we have no way of determining this beforehand !

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
* cannot backup assertions with evidence or at least acknowledge that these are fact less assertions."
...I never claimed those things,
Yes you did: Red Baron Farms: Evidence for the "The australian megafauna decreased, in brittle areas that ecological change resulted in desert, but in areas that were not brittle, change still happened, but didn't result in desertification" claim?
We were talking about grasslands turning into deserts and you cited rain forests turning into fertile farmlands. You have still not acknowledged the error.
Thus

* cannot acknowledge that a rainforest is not a grassland!
* cannot acknowledge that a fertile plateau is not a desert!


You still have not backed up your assertions (above and following) with evidence:
Red Baron Farms: Evidence that "dry" grassland will turn to desert if the herds of herbivores are removed (and the reverse)?
Start with defining the "dry" part of "dry grasslands".
You are not required to back them up if you do not mind being thought of as spouting endless groundless assertions without any evidence.

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
I linked you to a couple of papers with the evidence that large regions of Australia underwent dramatic land degradation after humans arrived.
You mentioned (no link) one paper that was irrelevant to your assertion about grasslands, Red Baron Farms. That was the same paper that was actually linked to from the news article that you linked to in reply to The Central Scrutinizer's post about your grassland assertion.
Ecosystem Collapse in Pleistocene Australia and a Human Role in Megafaunal Extinction
which lead to the questions about you understanding the difference between rainforest and grassland/fertile land and desert.

Oh dear - you should not encourage me to look back in the thread for seemingly imaginary papers, Red Baron Farms
Red Baron Farms (28th May 2014): Evidence for HM is actually very popular and widely used in NZ and Australia?.
Or would you like to acknowledge that there is no evidence that Savory's HM (as opposed to holistic management) is "widely used in NZ and Australia"?

Last edited by Reality Check; 10th June 2014 at 07:41 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2014, 07:40 PM   #186
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,065
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
I will simply say that I attempted to reword my discussion since you and others were having problems understanding "brittle" and "desertification".
I think that everyone here understands the term desertification.

Understanding "brittle" is easy - it is a basically a weasel word. Any land that turns into desert is "brittle' thus "brittle" land can turn into desert .
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2014, 08:53 PM   #187
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,599
I really find it amusing how you are able to come up with these complex arguments as to why the Brittleness scale is useless and how HM can't be anything more than woo, yet....

Savory, Mollison and others can restore land with so called useless "woo" CONSISTENTLY and CONSISTENTLY document that every time. They can also teach others how to do it and document it CONSISTENTLY.

Meanwhile people using your so called science CONSISTENTLY fail over and over time and time again, universally. Yet that isn't considered "woo" by you.

You really are like the eggheads early in the science of aerodynamics that used to say somewhat jokingly, "By the physics of aerodynamics, a bumblebee can't fly." Of course I am not sure if you are old enough to remember when that was a common saying. But you in your scientific zeal are making an error in rational thinking resulting in your pseudoscience ideas.

HM is science based and has real repeatable results that can be measured. Your argument, while clever, is similar to arguing bumblebees can't fly.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 10th June 2014 at 08:55 PM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2014, 09:05 PM   #188
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,065
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
I really find it amusing how you are able to come up with these complex arguments as to why the Brittleness scale is useless and how HM can't be anything more than woo, yet....
...snipped more Savory hero worship ...
I totally find it amazing that you think that I am presenting complex arguments, Red Baron Farms .
It is basic science that scales need to be objective to be useful. So the simple reason as to why the Savory brittleness scale is useless it that it is subjective.

I have never said that HM is woo. You have not presented any credible scientific evidence that it works yet. But thanks for labeling HM woo ,Red Baron Farms , even if I do not agree with you. Any methodology that according to you depends in an obvious bit of "woo" like the Savory brittleness scale is dubious to say the least.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2014, 09:12 PM   #189
TjW
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
No. Real science makes predictions. Pseudoscience makes postdictions. The unquantifiable "brittle" is postdicted from the results.
Get the results you wanted? Then HM works. Don't get the results you wanted? Then the land was too 'brittle'. And HM 'works'.
TjW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2014, 09:12 PM   #190
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,065
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
You really are like the eggheads early in the science of aerodynamics that used to say somewhat jokingly, "By the physics of aerodynamics, a bumblebee can't fly.".
Oh dear - the bumblebee argument , Red Baron Farms !
Quote:
The "bumblebee arument", in pseudoscience, states that the laws of aerodynamics prove that the bumblebee can't fly, as it does not have the required capacity (in terms of wing area or flapping speed). Consequently, therefore, science can be shown to be in error, providing a loophole for pseudoscientific "explanations". Arguments like these are occasionally used by creationists to claim that it's impossible for bees to be a product of evolution, though they're quite common in more general anti-science circles that like to cry "look at science, it knows nothing!"
Unfortunately (for the pseudoscientists), the laws of physics do not in any way forbid bumblebee flight; there are no papers that deny bumblebee flight, and no scientist has done so in a lecture, except, perhaps, ironically. To put it simply, it is possible to "prove" that a bumblebee cannot fly if you perform an extremely crude calculation (like forgetting to take into account things like the rate of flapping, the rotation of the wing, or the action of vortices), but a full aerodynamic calculation (to say nothing of getting all empirical and watching a bumblebee fly) will show that the bumblebee's flight works perfectly fine.
Origin
The origin of the statement is lost in the mists of time, but one version says that it was made by French entomologist August Magnan in 1934, based on calculations by his assistant, an engineer.[1] Other versions suggest that the bumblebee could not fly according to the principles of fixed-wing aerodynamics; that is to say, it must flap its wings. In fact, bumblebees simply flap harder than other insects, increasing the amplitude of their wing strokes to achieve more lift, and use a figure-of-eight wing motion to create low-pressure vortices to pull them up.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2014, 09:36 PM   #191
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,599
LOL Very funny twisting of words. I always knew you were clever. But the fact that the brittleness scale is flexible, doesn't mean it is not useful. In fact it is the key to understanding "Landscapes in different climates respond very differently to similar management" Landscape brittleness

"Lessons from a Brittle Landscape", Permaculture Magazine

Maybe read up on it. There is two sources approaching the subject from different perspectives.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2014, 09:47 PM   #192
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,599
Originally Posted by TjW View Post
No. Real science makes predictions. Pseudoscience makes postdictions. The unquantifiable "brittle" is postdicted from the results.
Get the results you wanted? Then HM works. Don't get the results you wanted? Then the land was too 'brittle'. And HM 'works'.
In order for your argument to have ANY validity at all, you would first have to find cases where HM didn't work to restore the land. That my friend is a VERY VERY VERY difficult thing to find. It is simply too effective to find failures. Not saying it is impossible. I am sure it is possible somewhere. But you need to be like a pig on a truffle to find it. If the land experienced or is still experiencing desertification after man killed off or changed the behavior of the large herbivore herds and megafauna and/or their predators (which is most the planet), then HM works consistently, even in seemingly impossible circumstances.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 10th June 2014 at 09:49 PM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2014, 10:48 PM   #193
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,065
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
LOL ...HM fantasies snipped...
Not so funny ignorance of basic science from Savory that you seem to have fallen for hook, line and sinker. As I said:
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
It is basic science that scales need to be objective to be useful. So the simple reason as to why the Savory brittleness scale is useless it that it is subjective.

I have never said that HM is woo. You have not presented any credible scientific evidence that it works yet. But thanks for labeling HM woo ,Red Baron Farms , even if I do not agree with you. Any methodology that according to you depends in an obvious bit of "woo" like the Savory brittleness scale is dubious to say the least.
A scale that is so "flexible" that it can mean anything is doubly useless.

Did that "reductionist science" nonsense also come from Savory, Red Baron Farms?
Does the continued unsupported assertion that Savory's HM works come from him or you, Red Baron Farms?
Given your history of unsupported assertions, I suspect this unsupported assertion is from you. But who knows - you could be just parroting Savory .

Personally I have no doubt that any good land management program (including HM) works, i.e. improves the quality of the land. But you have provided no evidence in this thread that HM works better than any other land management program. You have provided evidence of a bit of Savory's incompetence (the brittleness scale). The TED talk gave a couple of hints of more incompetence. But whether this affects HM is still unknown.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2014, 10:52 PM   #194
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,065
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
In order for your argument to have ANY validity at all, you would first have to find cases where HM didn't work to restore the land.
Wrong, Red Baron Farms. As I pointed out in my last post - any good land management program will restore land. Even doing nothing could restore land in some cases! The question is whether HM works better than other land management programs.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2014, 11:08 PM   #195
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,065
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Second one first - an fairly irrelevant article (not about brittle or even dry grasslands!) in "The Permaculture Magazine". An anecdote about a (large) Spanish garden !

Landscape brittleness
Quote:
Brittleness scale
Savory places landscapes on an arbitrary brittleness scale from 1 (very nonbrittle) to 10 (very brittle). He emphasizes that this scale is not precise -- the important thing is whether you are dealing with a brittle, semi-brittle, or nonbrittle environment, because that's what affects the land's response to management.
Confirmation about the unscientific nature of the Savory brittleness scale. He is basically saying let anyone define "brittle" landscapes as ... brittle just using feelings ! Then there is the guess about how the land would respond to management.

The general description of brittleness in the rest of the page is good.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2014, 05:36 AM   #196
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 52,940
Originally Posted by TjW View Post
No. Real science makes predictions. Pseudoscience makes postdictions. The unquantifiable "brittle" is postdicted from the results.
Get the results you wanted? Then HM works. Don't get the results you wanted? Then the land was too 'brittle'. And HM 'works'.
I wish you wouldn't have said that. Now we'll have to watch more YouTube videos.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2014, 07:23 AM   #197
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,599
Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
I wish you wouldn't have said that. Now we'll have to watch more YouTube videos.
You guys don't have to do anything. I approached this with the incorrect assumption that you actually wanted to learn about a new scientific breakthrough. My bad. HM is all about predictions. Predictions that actually happen. Things like changes of biological diversity, changes in hydrodynamics etc... That's what started this whole argument, a prediction that I made that you laughed at. Predicted results that I have seen first hand. Land I have actually walked on and seen for myself. So go back to your Dilbert cubicles and find some one else to argue the point. I am exhausted trying to talk to you. Dinwar I can talk to. We may have disagreements, but at least his arguments are intelligent.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2014, 08:31 AM   #198
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 52,940
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
I approached this with the incorrect assumption that you actually wanted to learn about a new scientific breakthrough.
We do! Do you have one?
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2014, 01:05 PM   #199
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,065
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
I approached this with the incorrect assumption that you actually wanted to learn about a new scientific breakthrough.
Please tell us about this new scientific breakthrough, Red Baron Farms.
List the papers about it in the scientific literature.
List the many institutions teaching, advocating and using this new scientific breakthrough.
But please remember:
* anecdotes are not scientific evidence (the plural of anecdote is not data!)
* a web site selling a product is not scientific evidence that the product works
* assertions need a little thing called evidence to support them
* science has basic standards, e.g. scales need to be calculable (objective not subjective so that experiments using them are replicable).
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2014, 01:13 PM   #200
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
* science has basic standards, e.g. scales need to be calculable (objective not subjective so that experiments using them are replicable).
That's not necessarily true.... The issue is, a lot of things we CAN'T calculate, either because we don't know how to put it into an equation yet or because the equations are not solveable (Darcy's Law, to reference hydrology once again). And then you have scales that are descriptive but not calculatable. The one about sexuality comes to mind--you can't calculate how homo/heterosexual a person is, but that doesn't stop the scale from being usful.

The most fundamental aspect of science RBF has forgotten is that a one must examine the whole of the relevant dataset. This includes things like hydrology, which RBF dismissed as woo. Until that concept is accepted, holistic grazing is never going to rise above voodoo in terms of scientific rigor.

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms
Dinwar I can talk to.
You may think you can talk to me, but I've no interest in talking to you. I consider you nothing more than a pseudo-science peddler, and you've demonstrated a refusal to actually learn relevant information.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:17 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.