How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Extended discussion forum.

Moderator: Scott Waters

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 464
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by WSTREPS » February 21st, 2019, 10:11 am

How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0005738

Questionable practices [such as "dropping data points based on a gut feeling" and "changing the design, methodology, or results of a study in response to pressures from a funding source"] by up to 72%.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do scientists lie? In order of decreasing disingenuousness, the main motives are:

Profit: Sometimes there's money in it -- a lot of money.

Laziness and ease of perpetration: It's so much easier to just make up data than to perform all those tedious measurements. And in most cases, no one is going to question you about it.

Career pressure: This is the most common reason. The data isn't going your way and you may fail to get your thesis accepted, or not get tenure, or miss a promotion, or lose your grant or your job.

Pride: Scientists are as hungry for praise and prestige as other mortals. And no one likes to be forced to admit he's wrong. So, when someone contradicts your earlier work, you may be willing to cut a few corners to defend yourself, or to prevent your opponent's paper from being published.

Ideology: Many feel that if a cause is worth dying for, it's worth lying for. As we shall consider below, liberal intellectuals are particularly susceptible to this weakness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
methodology. Scientific lying follows the same three methods of concealment that are used in all scams:

Lying: the fabrication of nonexistent data or the falsification of data by manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, or the data itself.


Hiding: omitting data that does not fit your conclusion and/or ignoring or suppressing conflicting data from other sources. Another form of hiding is shouting down the opposition by seeking the greatest possible media exposure [2], repeatedly claiming a dubious or nonexistent consensus for your views, or contriving to prevent the opposition from publication in technical journals by malicious refereeing.


Misdirection: massaging the data with biasing statistical or processing techniques, choosing the model or graphic plot that best suits your conclusion, misinterpreting data or suppressing alternative interpretations, forming unfounded assertions or extrapolations, etc. This is a vast field in itself, one in which the CRU and their IPCC brethren seem to have broken new ground.

Ernie Eison

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3590
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by jonathan » February 25th, 2019, 4:06 pm

I wonder what the % rate of questionable practices by forum commenters is? Such as selectively quoting sentence fragments rather than entire sentences in order to give a false impression of the claim, quoting other people's statements without attribution entirely as if they were your own statements, posting dubious or false information, and distributing the statements of propaganda outlets and White Supremacists as if they were fact? And can we get a breakdown of the motivations one would have for doing so?

Ernie, on this forum you have been caught lying on multiple occasions regarding herping topics, repeatedly refuse to admit your false statements even when it is brought to your attention, so why should anyone take you seriously when you pretend to be a crusader for truth on other topics? When you have shown yourself to have an explicit agenda that drives every post you make on this board, why would anyone take you seriously when you start complaining about other people's agendas? Who do you actually believe you're influencing at this point?

User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1200
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Bryan Hamilton » February 25th, 2019, 6:19 pm

The irony of citing a scientific paper to discredit scientists seems to be lost on Ernie Roodle Roo.

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3590
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by jonathan » February 25th, 2019, 8:02 pm

Bryan Hamilton wrote:
February 25th, 2019, 6:19 pm
The irony of citing a scientific paper to discredit scientists seems to be lost on Ernie Roodle Roo.
Not to mention the irony of distorting results while supposedly complaining about distorted results.

The actual statement from the paper was that 72% of scientists reported knowing of a colleague who had used some particular questionable research practices. Well, duh. If you ask people of any profession if they "know of" someone in their profession who had done something questionable, you're going to get an answer approaching 100% no matter whether you're talking about police officers or clergy or, you know, exotic reptile dealers.

By omitting that the question was in regards to knowing of a COLLEAGUE who had done such things, Ernie made it look like 72% of scientists had engaged in a questionable practice like dropping a data point without sufficient justification, which wasn't claimed in the paper at all. Selectively quoting is rather...questionable, don't you think?

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 464
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by WSTREPS » February 26th, 2019, 3:54 am

Over the years I have been attacked and religiously (trolled) by individuals, that without fail focus their castigate using unfounded character assassination as their one and only weapon of rebuttal. Note the recent accusation of selective quoting, but NO MENTION of the fact that I posted a link to the ENTIRE research paper encouraging all to read it for themselves. Placing food for thought and encouraging people to read the ENTIRE research paper . Can only be distorted into an act of deceit by someone who is clearly desperate to protect their own disputed beliefs at any cost.
Ernie, on this forum you have been caught lying on multiple occasions regarding herping topics, repeatedly refuse to admit your false statements even when it is brought to your attention,
Provide one example where I have been "caught lying". Let me help you by providing a direct link to all of my post and the corresponding threads .
search.php?author_id=477&sr=posts


The irony of citing a scientific paper to discredit scientists seems to be lost on Ernie Roodle Roo.
The real irony is that this USGS trained scientist does not know what science is. I did not cite a scientific paper to discredit the scientists. I posted a published investigative (not scientific) research paper written by scientists investigating scientists that fabricate and falsify Research. As clearly stated in the paper's title, the paper is a work premised on Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data.

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3590
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by jonathan » February 26th, 2019, 6:25 pm

WSTREPS wrote:
February 26th, 2019, 3:54 am
Over the years I have been attacked and religiously (trolled) by individuals, that without fail focus their castigate using unfounded character assassination as their one and only weapon of rebuttal. Note the recent accusation of selective quoting, but NO MENTION of the fact that I posted a link to the ENTIRE research paper encouraging all to read it for themselves. Placing food for thought and encouraging people to read the ENTIRE research paper . Can only be distorted into an act of deceit by someone who is clearly desperate to protect their own disputed beliefs at any cost.
The majority of people who actually click through links and read papers are also the type who don't stand a chance of believing your bullshit in the first place. You well know that most people don't click through links and, if they don't know you, would have taken your claim at face value. It was IMPOSSIBLE to know the actual fact being cited from the portion you quoted, there was absolutely no way to understand what the real claim was unless one actually read the paper. That is why it was deceptive.

It's much the same as your first contribution to this thread having been a White Supremacist video. Of course you didn't expect people to look up your source and find out that your claims about Asian pollution were being made by a violent pro-White extremist, one who had already been convicted of murder and church burnings and who has posted videos suggesting the incitement of race wars. You expected people to just take the "facts" in that video at face value without looking up their source.

You also still haven't explained how you come across such White Supremacist videos in the first place. Was the poster of that video someone you follow regularly?



WSTREPS wrote:
February 26th, 2019, 3:54 am
Ernie, on this forum you have been caught lying on multiple occasions regarding herping topics, repeatedly refuse to admit your false statements even when it is brought to your attention,
Provide one example where I have been "caught lying". Let me help you by providing a direct link to all of my post and the corresponding threads .
search.php?author_id=477&sr=posts
Oh, that was really easy. Let's take this thread alone: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=20743&p=241782#p241782

I'll note that after you started spreading lies in this thread, I reached out to you over PM and offered to clarify anything you were confused about, you ignored my PM and continued to spread lies publicly on a subject you knew virtually nothing about. You also deleted comments from that thread AFTER they had already been responded to, claimed they were a "double post" (which was a lie), and then replied with new, edited comments, another level of deception I have not seen anyone else engage in on this board. Then you proceeded to edit another comment AFTER it had been responded to after you had falsified your original comment yourself.

Your deception in that thread was at a lot of levels.

WSTREPS wrote:
March 19th, 2015, 5:50 pm
Bottom line, Had it not been for the pythons in Florida the Bangladesh Python Project would not have happened. Like many they saw it as an opportunity for something they could get in on.

Obvious, disproven, total lie. The BPP was begun in BANGLADESH by a BANGLADESHI snake lover and researcher before any Americans were even involved.The idea that every herper across the globe is motivated by American pythons in Florida is a ridiculous fantasy of your own creation.


WSTREPS wrote:
March 20th, 2015, 7:05 am
Its no coincidence that they decided to highlight Burmese pythons in their work, to coincide with the massive attention the pythons have been receiving in the media and scientific worlds. They saw something they could get in on and played it up. The phrase " cash in " to take advantage of or exploit (a situation). They called it the Bangladesh Python Project not the Bangladesh wildlife project or anything else for that specific reason.
A lie, and an especially arrogant one as you know none of the people involved and I believe had never even spoken to any of them, yet you claim to know everything about their internal motivations. The project highlighted Burmese Pythons because it started with Burmese Pythons, because the researcher who started it loves snakes and Burmese Pythons were running into serious human conflict in the region (predating on village ducks which was leading to their deaths). He would have radiotracked king cobras instead except that it simply proved too difficult to locate them in that region. But once the project expanded to other species and regions and pythons were no longer the primary focus, it DID change its name, to better fit the expanded focus of the project.

The claim that the project's name was chosen specifically to exploit the Everglades was something you simply made up, and then you kept trying to pass it off as documented fact when it only originated inside your own head.


WSTREPS wrote:
February 28th, 2015, 7:17 am
My guess is you (NatureStills) like fishing for customers here because this site has the right demographic to push your crap on. I have nothing against someone making a go of something but don't pretend its anything more then that. Your trying to make a living by selling a product and part of that involves acting like your doing something important to help.
That was a total lie - Scott does not make a living (or even a profit) on those trips and never did. They were solely created in order to fund the BPP (now the CCA) for the purpose of research and conservation.


WSTREPS wrote:
February 28th, 2015, 7:17 am
This PYTHON PROJECT represents nothing more then a couple guys who are finding another way to cash in on the phony Everglades python hysteria. In this case under the guise of another senseless radio tracking project being used as a way of promoting their eco tour / wildlife photography business.

Again, total lie - the founding of the BPP by a Bangladeshi researcher in Bangladesh had NOTHING to do with the Everglades, it was not created as a way to promote a business, and in fact the BPP existed as an incorporated NGO before Caesar even met Scott and before the idea of bringing in people to survey as a way of promoting and funding the project even came up.


WSTREPS wrote:
February 28th, 2015, 7:17 am
A bit about radio tracking projects . The use of radio tracking has proven to have no purpose in the control and management of any snake species. Please save you examples of its use with rattlesnake's, indigos , mamba's , every invasive species biologist favorite the Brown Tree Snake. I'm familiar with all these and what been accomplished. The complete futility in achieving meaningful results....when it come to snakes nothing that matters one way or the other has ever come out of them.
The idea that radio-tracking had "complete futility in achieving meaningful results" was ridiculous, and was specifically wrong in relation to our very project.


WSTREPS wrote:The reason the pythons get top billing is because the Bangladeshi scientists are trying to cash in on the Florida python research feeding frenzy. The phrase " cash in " to take advantage of or exploit (a situation).
That was a total lie - you were given the entire history of how the pythons got top billing (only for the first few years of the project - when the project focus moved to the CHT the name was changed and they haven't had top billing since), and you still repeated it here.


WSTREPS wrote:
March 19th, 2015, 5:50 pm
Not when your the direct beneficiary , in this case the Bangladeshi scientists are the direct recipients i.e., beneficiary's of the funds generated by this eco tour business. This Eco tour is a for profit venture, how the money is spent is irrelevant to the fact that the point is to turn a profit. Make money, this whole thing is being promoted as the Bangladesh Python Project.
It was not a for profit venture, the point was not to turn a profit, and either you are completely ignorant as to what a nonprofit enterprise is or you are just a liar.


WSTREPS wrote:
March 19th, 2015, 5:50 pm
The reason the pythons get top billing is because the Bangladeshi scientists are trying to cash in on the Florida python research feeding frenzy. The phrase " cash in " to take advantage of or exploit (a situation).
That's you copy-and-pasting your previous lie even after it had already been rebuked.


WSTREPS wrote:
March 20th, 2015, 7:05 am
The tour is a for profit venture, the Bangladeshi scientists are using the profits to finance their other projects ( they are the direct beneficiary's ) of these profits. But how the money is spent is secondary to the main point that they are making money / profit from the Eco tour.
Not only are you pretending to be clueless as to the difference between a for-profit and non-profit venture, you are repeating your false claims after they'd already been corrected in the thread. Fundraising a project by providing an experience does NOT make something a for-profit venture, that's ridiculous. That would suggest that any nonprofit which provides its funders with any experience whatsoever is now a for-profit venture. Nonprofit and for-profit are terms with actual meaning and I doubt you're really ignorant as to what those meanings are.


WSTREPS wrote:
March 19th, 2015, 5:50 pm
The Bangladesh Python Project is demonstrably tied to the Florida python hysteria. The Bangladesh Python Project flat out says their research will provide us with "insight " on the "invasion mechanism" of the Burmese pythons in Florida.
In pages of information about the project, you found ONE sentence mentioning the Everglades, and it wasn't even from the project's own site but was buried more than 4 paragraphs into a description posted by on the Orianne Society's page (one of the funders). And it did not claim that the BPP results would be used to control pythons in the Everglades (which you had earlier claimed the BPP had stated), but only that it could help understand their spread. That obviously disproves your claim that the entire point of the project was to exploit the everglades situation.


WSTREPS wrote:
March 19th, 2015, 5:50 pm
I certainly don't need to pm Jonathon for any further insight on this topic. There is nothing private I have to say about any of this. I'm making my points and providing verifiable evidence to support them.

That was the meta-lie that led to all the others.


WSTREPS wrote:
March 19th, 2015, 5:50 pm
The rest of Jonathon's post is his usual misleading (taking things out of context, misrepresentative, somewhat condescending, manipulative, somewhat stupid ) rhetoric. His strange way of trying to shift the topic away from proven points by interjecting his version of the facts along with character assassination to try and prop up his side of the story. Its always about trying to tare away at my credibility. School yard games.
Remarkable, considering the above.

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3590
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by jonathan » February 26th, 2019, 6:39 pm

Should be noted - this is the current state of the project that Ernie wants to claim is profit-driven and only exists to exploit the Everglades Python situation:





And this is the researcher that Ernie claims only does this stuff in order to cash in on the pythons in the Everglades:


User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1200
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Bryan Hamilton » February 26th, 2019, 8:01 pm

I appreciate all the time you've taken on this thread Jonathan. The Bangladesh videos are super interesting.

Its very unfortunate that Ernie's behavior is allowed to continue on this forum. Many people that have been attacked by Ernie Roodle have left the forum. There is almost no moderation and that's Scott's right and privilege. Ernie is delusional. He's a liar and a bully. And he has a home here. Its probably the only outlet on the internet that tolerates his garbage. So be it.

I can't help but wonder what Ernie RIperRoo would be like to meet in real life? A gentle giant perhaps? A man of wealth, privilege and taste? Quietly humming to himself as he goes about his business of tending his snakes and checking his boardlines. Perhaps enjoying a nice cocktail on the back porch, listening to chorusing frogs and watching a delicate Florida sunset. I fondly remember that one post of Ernie Richekelli of actual field herping in South Florida. We need mote of that Ernie, Ernie that knows snakes, that knows husbandry. Less of Ernie the narcissistic politician out to right the injustices that science hath wroth upon him. Poor Ernie. Truly persecuted, truly.

I've come around to the idea that being right, factually correct, and scientifically sound are not going to convince people. Its all about relationships, and with someone like Ernie, there is no one on the other side of the screen to have a relationship with. Just a shell of a man, with an axe to grind, and no more pythons to love.

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 464
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by WSTREPS » February 27th, 2019, 8:00 am

Ernie, on this forum you have been caught lying on multiple occasions regarding herping topics
When challenged to provide proof of this statement. The poster was outed as a fraud. He could do no better than produce a long winded response comprised of a string of opinions / views. All taken from a single thread. Conveniently dismissing the supporting evidence that qualified these opinions, replacing it with his own elucidations. Twisting the truth by taking someone's honest opinions and attempting to make it appear as if they are malicious lies. Is an act of desperation. It does not matter who agrees or not. My opinions/views on that topic were all based on the perspective formed by the surrounding evidence. To make it perfectly clear, if someone states opinions , views or makes accusations based on what they believe , even if wrong (I'm not saying I was) that is not lying.


As a side note. During the short time that has passed since I resurrected this dormant thread. The thread has gotten well over 5000 additional views. Ernie Eison

User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1200
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Bryan Hamilton » February 27th, 2019, 5:09 pm

Bringing back wackadoodle for Ernie roo rooo

:crazyeyes: :crazyeyes: :crazyeyes: :crazyeyes:

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 542
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » February 28th, 2019, 10:04 am

I again urge individuals to not take a position on issues until they have done their ‘homework’. An unfortunate reality is that sleazy behavior occurs in all segments of society, including in scientific research.

I entered the following headings on Google: ‘Research showing fabrication in scientific investigations’; ‘Misconduct in science’; ‘Dishonesty in Science’; ‘Falsifying scientific investigations’. Many links are available to increase one’s knowledge of the issue of misconduct in scientific investigations.

There are some famous cases involving fraud in scientific research. But it all takes considerable time to explore. So I simply urge that everyone access the following link: List of scientific misconduct incidents – Wikipedia

Richard F. Hoyer

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4256
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Kelly Mc » February 28th, 2019, 12:19 pm

"During the short time that has passed since I resurrected this dormant thread. The thread has gotten well over 5000 additional views." Ernie Eison.



And..??

User avatar
Jeroen Speybroeck
Posts: 815
Joined: June 29th, 2011, 12:56 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Jeroen Speybroeck » February 28th, 2019, 12:33 pm

Kelly Mc wrote:
February 28th, 2019, 12:19 pm
"During the short time that has passed since I resurrected this dormant thread. The thread has gotten well over 5000 additional views." Ernie Eison.



And..??
Exactly!

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 464
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by WSTREPS » March 2nd, 2019, 2:39 am

Politicians and the media work hand and hand to drive todays unhinged and extremely profitable world of fear driven manipulation.Topics such as the promotion of man driven climate change provide prime examples of this type of chicanery . Ultimately, much of the wrongful manipulation relies on scientist to fuel the deceit. Scientist that guard the sham of credibility used to sway the masses. Scientist espousing "scientific evidence" that betrays the truth. The fraud begins with the growing number of scientists who because of personal beliefs and career incentives are willing enablers to corrupted agendas. It's been said, "Politicians make their living by lying. Scientists are supposed to do the opposite. We seem to have reached a place where ideology and personal gain supersede the truth. This is not science, just sleaze."


MYTH: The main requirement for faculty scientists to be successful is working hard at research!

Completely outdated and utterly wrong! In the past, academic institutions were centers for hard work with scholarship, scientific research, and advanced teaching. Today, everything in modern academia depends on dollars. Academic institutions have become business entities where profits are the chief goal; that transformation changes almost everything in the working atmosphere. Faculty scientists now are businessmen and businesswomen. The real purpose of hiring them is not to get more research done, but to acquire more research grant awards, since those dollars are business profits; this means that instead of working hard at research to advance knowledge and its applications, they are working to acquire more and bigger research grants. For science faculty, the number of publications produced in science journals now has limited importance, while the number of dollars in research grant awards is first and foremost. The truth of my statements is perversely emphasized by the increasing number of faculty scientists who cheat at their research in order to try to get more research grant dollars, Dr Monsrs


Dr.M is a scientist with several doctoral degrees, including a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. laboratory research, hands-on experimental studies in biomedical science during over 35 years as a member of the faculty at 3 academic institutions and one government laboratory center in the USA.
POSTED comment in reponse to Research Article
How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data
Daniele Fanelli


I have been in 4 labs, 2 of which were multi million dollar labs. One PI outright faked my data then tried to blame me. One tried to get me to fake a poster, telling me its just a poster. The 3rd said nothing while post docs and students mentioned they discarded certain patient samples because they knew the patients cells were not good for their assay. The 4th lied to me about coming to the lab and getting great data for a quick 1st author paper. It seems most PIs only care about their own reputation or the next grant. I remember a survey where about 2/3 admitted to doing something they knew wasn't right. I think all grant proposals from the govt should come with a lie detector clause, enforced on a good percent of random people, just like drug testing. Also penalties should include jail time, they are stealing tax money by fraud, not to mention the people who lose their life to bad science, when good science may have saved them. AZZY

For those who dont know PI stands for "principal investigator" (PI) is the holder of an independent grant administered by a university and the lead researcher for the grant project "head of the laboratory" or "research group leader."
Ernie Eison

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4256
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Kelly Mc » March 2nd, 2019, 9:41 am

Burnin that wee hour oil.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4256
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Kelly Mc » March 2nd, 2019, 6:31 pm

You know what I think? I think Im a Sample Individual here. So what I'd like to know, is why are you doing this here? You never say. So if there is major fraud happening in scientific research or whether its hyperbole what I would like to know As A Sample Individual is, Why obsess about it Here?

You minimize you're personal investment in python stuff. You always use a huge broad brush. So ok what is it then? Are you trying to make people who make their living as biologists feel like they are in a bad profession? People who are just doing what they have dreamed of doing since they first looked at a garden snail up close or went to a museum on a school trip and knew this is IT.

People who are sifting tediously through mud for larvae and people who have poured their heart and soul into following the lives and conserving the existence of a snake that most people feel nothing but hatred for, but is a humble and irreplaceable native treasure?

The oldest scientist Ive met was still working in a university lab, cleaning rodent bins, when we last spoke. And he had traveled the world studying reptiles, and written tons of papers in Ukranian and is thankful his landlord includes utilities.

So what is it you are really wanting to say and who is it that you want to say it to, really?

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3590
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by jonathan » March 3rd, 2019, 2:30 am

Jeroen Speybroeck wrote:
February 28th, 2019, 12:33 pm
Kelly Mc wrote:
February 28th, 2019, 12:19 pm
"During the short time that has passed since I resurrected this dormant thread. The thread has gotten well over 5000 additional views." Ernie Eison.



And..??
Exactly!
Especially considering that if you look at who is "on" the forum at any particular point, and see how few people have actually commented on the thread, it looks rather likely that a large amount of those "views" are actually bots. There are not that many logged-in members here at any one time and I doubt many of them are frantically refreshing a random boardline thread with every new comment that appears.



WSTREPS wrote:
February 27th, 2019, 8:00 am
Ernie, on this forum you have been caught lying on multiple occasions regarding herping topics
When challenged to provide proof of this statement. The poster was outed as a fraud. He could do no better than produce a long winded response comprised of a string of opinions / views. All taken from a single thread.
You asked for a single example. The fact that I was able to provide a great number of examples and all from just one thread actually looks bad for you, Ernie. I didn't even have to open a second thread to make that list.


WSTREPS wrote:
February 27th, 2019, 8:00 am
Ernie, on this forum you have been caught lying on multiple occasions regarding herping topics
Conveniently dismissing the supporting evidence that qualified these opinions, replacing it with his own elucidations. Twisting the truth by taking someone's honest opinions and attempting to make it appear as if they are malicious lies. Is an act of desperation. It does not matter who agrees or not. My opinions/views on that topic were all based on the perspective formed by the surrounding evidence. To make it perfectly clear, if someone states opinions , views or makes accusations based on what they believe , even if wrong (I'm not saying I was) that is not lying.
Someone whose entire shtick is attacking the validity of scientific evidence should be able to distinguish what is or is not an "opinion". An opinion can be true for one person and not for another ("oranges taste good" "Zebrahead is an awesome band"). You made specific claims that are either true or false - those are NOT opinions. And where you stated those claims as facts in direct opposition to all evidence available, they were lies.


WSTREPS wrote:
March 19th, 2015, 5:50 pm
Bottom line, Had it not been for the pythons in Florida the Bangladesh Python Project would not have happened. Like many they saw it as an opportunity for something they could get in on.

That is not an "opinion." Those are two direct claims about the state of mind and intentions of the project founders. And since you had ZERO evidence to back your statement despite claiming otherwise, and never provided evidence that backed such a statement despite claiming that you had acquired so much evidence that you didn't need any more, it is fair to label your accusation as a lie.


WSTREPS wrote:
March 20th, 2015, 7:05 am
Its no coincidence that they decided to highlight Burmese pythons in their work, to coincide with the massive attention the pythons have been receiving in the media and scientific worlds. They saw something they could get in on and played it up. The phrase " cash in " to take advantage of or exploit (a situation). They called it the Bangladesh Python Project not the Bangladesh wildlife project or anything else for that specific reason.
That is not an opinion. That is a direct claim about the "specific reason" they named the project. And since you made that claim in defiance of all actual evidence you had regarding the naming of the project, your claim is a lie.


WSTREPS wrote:
February 28th, 2015, 7:17 am
Your trying to make a living by selling a product and part of that involves acting like your doing something important to help.
That is an accusation, a claim, not just an opinion. And you had ZERO evidence that Scott was trying to make a living via selling this product, so your claim was a lie.


WSTREPS wrote:
February 28th, 2015, 7:17 am
This PYTHON PROJECT represents nothing more then a couple guys who are finding another way to cash in on the phony Everglades python hysteria. In this case under the guise of another senseless radio tracking project being used as a way of promoting their eco tour / wildlife photography business.

Again, those are actual claims, ones that were obviously, provably false and you had the evidence to know they were false.


WSTREPS wrote:The reason the pythons get top billing is because the Bangladeshi scientists are trying to cash in on the Florida python research feeding frenzy. The phrase " cash in " to take advantage of or exploit (a situation).
That is not an opinion, that is a direct claim about the reason the Bangladeshi scientists started their project. And it was obviously untrue.


WSTREPS wrote:
March 19th, 2015, 5:50 pm
Not when your the direct beneficiary , in this case the Bangladeshi scientists are the direct recipients i.e., beneficiary's of the funds generated by this eco tour business. This Eco tour is a for profit venture, how the money is spent is irrelevant to the fact that the point is to turn a profit. Make money, this whole thing is being promoted as the Bangladesh Python Project.
WSTREPS wrote:
March 20th, 2015, 7:05 am
The tour is a for profit venture, the Bangladeshi scientists are using the profits to finance their other projects ( they are the direct beneficiary's ) of these profits. But how the money is spent is secondary to the main point that they are making money / profit from the Eco tour.
Those are repeated lies, as was repeatedly pointed out to you the terms "for profit" and "nonprofit" have actual, defined meanings and you know that this is not a for-profit venture. Thus you are lying.


WSTREPS wrote:
March 19th, 2015, 5:50 pm
I certainly don't need to pm Jonathon for any further insight on this topic. There is nothing private I have to say about any of this. I'm making my points and providing verifiable evidence to support them.

That is a lie, as you didn't provide evidence to support any of your points. The only "evidence" you provided in the entire discussion was a single line buried in a funder's description that casually mentioned Everglades pythons, and even that single line merely mentioned the "invasion mechanism" of the python, falsifying your claim that the intent of the project was portrayed as intending to learn how to "control" the pythons. None of your other claims were supported by any evidence in the slightest.


WSTREPS wrote:
March 19th, 2015, 5:50 pm
The rest of Jonathon's post is his usual misleading (taking things out of context, misrepresentative, somewhat condescending, manipulative, somewhat stupid ) rhetoric. His strange way of trying to shift the topic away from proven points by interjecting his version of the facts along with character assassination to try and prop up his side of the story. Its always about trying to tare away at my credibility. School yard games.
Again, remarkable, especially considering your responses here and immediate attempt to avoid and distract the moment I posted obvious examples of you doing the exact thing I claimed you do.

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 542
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » March 4th, 2019, 9:29 pm

Jonathan,
One thing I have learned about social media is that the credibility of sources, on both sides of issues, can be very questionable.

In your Feb. 6th post, you disparaged Dr. S. Frederick Singer by first indicating he is “a well-known contrarian” as if being a contrarian is somehow a negative. Then you attributed a number of claims about Dr. Singer as if they were fact. So the question becomes, did you actually read the published studies by Dr. Singer that supports your position about him or were you merely parroting something you read in the social media?

Today, I entered a number of inquiries on Google about Dr. Singer. No mater what I entered, the overwhelming number of links were negative espousing the very same points you mentioned. To my way of thinking, that raises a very large red flag and one would expect to find a decent number of links with positive input. That was not the case so that tells me the ‘deck has been stacked’.

After a considerable amount of searching, I found one link by Greenpeace that was negative of course. But it did contain a quote by Dr. Singer that appeared in the Washington post and copied below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ExxonSecrets Factsheet: S. Fred Singer A Greenpeace Project

“Singer Letter to the Editor -Washington Post February 12, 2001 It is ironic that the attempt by two environmental activists to misrepresent my credentials [letters, Feb. 6] coincides with a sustained cold spell in the United States that set a 100-year record. As for full disclosure: My resume clearly states that I consulted for several oil companies on the subject of oil pricing, some 20 years ago, after publishing a monograph on the subject. My connection to oil during the past decade is as a Wesson Fellow at the Hoover Institution; the Wesson money derives from salad oil. S. FRED SINGER” Source: Fred Singer - Washington Post Letter to the Editor
=======================================================================================
I did find two links that represents the same a piece written by Dr. Singer. I suggest you read it yourself as it comes from the person himself. Now you either believe Dr. Singer is being truthful or you believe the biased entries form his detractors that occur in other links. Your choice. I have copied two paragraphs from Dr. Singers published narrative.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corporate Corruption of Science - S Fred Singer

Secondhand Smoke, Lung Cancer, and the Global Warming Debate ... Dec. 19, 2010
By S. FRED SINGER
Also published in American Thinker

“The ultimate aim of these attacks, at least in my case, has been to discredit my work and publications on global warming. I am a nonsmoker, find SHS to be an irritant and unpleasant, have certainly not been paid by Philip Morris and the tobacco lobby, and have never joined any of their front organizations. And I serve on the advisory board of an anti-smoking organization. My father, who was a heavy smoker, died of emphysema while relatively young. I personally believe that SHS, in addition to being objectionable, cannot possibly be healthy.”

“The other issue is the conduct of science and the integrity of the science process: the intrusion of government political agenda—worthy or not—on the way science is done and reported to the public. The corruption of science in a worthy cause is still corruption, and it has led to its further corruption in an unworthy cause—the ideologically driven claim of anthropogenic global warming.“
=============================================================================
Last, elsewhere on this forum I have mentioned that I am a skeptic. Thus, I could be considered a ‘contrarian’ as well. Once I understood the basic principles that govern the populations of species (didn’t occur until my Jr. year in college), I became skeptical about the claim that the Rubber Boa was rare even though I had never observed the species in the wild.

If over the years, you have read my posts, you know I do not trust the listings by wildlife agencies, especially herps, that those agencies have placed in some category of conservation concern. I have voiced skepticism and criticism about the notion that random recreational collecting can produce lasting negative impacts on species of herps.

Similarly, I have posted essays that challenge the notion that placing species in a ‘protected’ status, with perhaps a few exceptions, has conservation value. Such listings of species in most cases, have no conservation value whatsoever!

Likewise, the notion that road kill produces lasting negative impacts on many species of wildlife, with again perhaps a few exceptions, is mostly nonsense. And there are gobs of published scientific papers that claim otherwise. It has been clear to me that none of the authors that have made such claims understand the basic principles that govern populations. Nor could they possibly have done some serious critical thinking of the issue.

Richard F. Hoyer

User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1200
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 8:49 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Bryan Hamilton » March 5th, 2019, 7:55 am

Similarly, I have posted essays that challenge the notion that placing species in a ‘protected’ status, with perhaps a few exceptions, has conservation value. Such listings of species in most cases, have no conservation value whatsoever!

Likewise, the notion that road kill produces lasting negative impacts on many species of wildlife, with again perhaps a few exceptions, is mostly nonsense. And there are gobs of published scientific papers that claim otherwise. It has been clear to me that none of the authors that have made such claims understand the basic principles that govern populations. Nor could they possibly have done some serious critical thinking of the issue.
Richard,

Time and time again you come here to make these claims. As though you have uncovered some secret "laws" that govern nature.

Placing species in protected status, has time and time again, been shown to protect those species.

Population biology is a simple mass balance equation. If the number individuals removed from a population exceed the number recruited into the population, that population will decline. If the decline continues, it will eventually lead to extinction. Road mortality is another source mortality. If you bothered to look, there are scores of papers documenting negative effects of road mortality on all kinds of wildlife, from reptiles, snakes, turtles, to caribou, salamanders, and cheetahs.

You have experience with two, small, relatively widespread species of snakes (sharptails and rubber boas). Trying to generalize your experience to all wildlife is simply wrong. But then you add in an insult that anyone who disagrees with you "fails to understand basic principles governing populations. And has not done any critical thinking". This is in spite of dozens to hundreds of interactions with professional wildlife biologists and scientists on this forum contradicting your poorly formed hypothesis.

I'm sorry you had some legal and professional issues with captive snakes. I'm sorry you have had negative interactions with scientists. But when you let your personal issues dictate your views of science that is the opposite of science. YOU are exactly the kind of person that refuses to change their views when presented with contradictory evidence. That is the OPPOSITE of good science does and exactly the kind of thing that you look down on scientists for.

People look up to you on this forum Richard. You should do better and live up to this role.

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 464
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by WSTREPS » March 6th, 2019, 4:39 am

As science, politics and the media became deeply intertwined. Scientist became less scientific and increasingly more agenda driven. Many would be scientist soon learn that playing the game is the key to a long and very successful career. The scholastic training they receive program's them well for this task. It starts in the educational systems. For decades they have been worsening.They preach (brain wash) one sided radicalized "liberal" narratives as the only truth. Placing focus on pre-specified results. Its a system that uses memorization in place of learning. Simple recall abilty is accepted and rewarded. Students that stray from the prescribed agenda are frowned on. It is a system designed to produce followers. Entitled career driven individual's ready to say yes and place their own careers and self importance above all others. Not truly critical thinking individuals that are prepared to objectively take on the challenge presented by difficult scientific questions. This is the foundation of sand that todays publicized world of science is built on.


Research grants pay for all the many expenses of doing scientific research in universities, and now are the primary focus for faculty scientists. Size and number of grants determines salary level, promotions, amount of assigned laboratory space, teaching duties required, professional status and reputation, and, ability to have graduate students working in a given lab.


Research studies are supported by money from taxpayers, industry, and some dedicated group associations. There are many separate reasons why modern research always is costly. First is the cost of salaries.

My main conclusions are that (1) business and money now rule science, and (2) everything about scientific research at universities now is money (see: “Introduction to Money in Modern Scientific Research” , and, “3 Money Cycles Support Scientific Research” ). I certainly am not the only one to reach these conclusions (i.e., search for “money in science” on any internet browser, and you will see what I mean!). Dr Monsrs PHD, 35 years as a member of the faculty at 3 academic institutions and one government laboratory center in the USA.

Does anyone really believe that a scientist receiving research grants to explore man made climate change or the ecological effects of an introduced species,or any high profile issue that is surrounded by political and media attention is going to produce evidence that things aren't so bad ? Those scientist full well know that to do so would be career suicide. In todays world of science telling the truth will kill your career. Ernie Eison

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4256
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Kelly Mc » March 6th, 2019, 12:10 pm

I have reasons to be resentful of acadamia too, starting from when I was a little kid where I was estranged from others and teachers being unkind, whereas today kids who are different are catered to .

I found a niche doing jobs with animals and didnt think about it much until now, without degrees I wish I had

The thing is those jobs were like lifetime labs for me and my interests grow and intensify with no where to put them, as positions I know I would belong are not available to me.

But Scientist persons have been generous to me in the spirit of science and it has honored me to have been educated on subjects that I have interests in, and to have my ideas listened to, and have my gaps in understanding respectfully corrected. As well as have shared excitement in concepts and hypotheses.

There are many things not taught in standard curriculum, or only given perfunctory mention. You have much knowledge and I have an era and vocational fellowship feeling with you but it irks me when you call people stupid, etc.

Im probably only an irritating thorn to you when I come on threads, and I have an online temper too. But every one is dimensional and so are most other things.


I really cant think of anything that has more potential for dimension than Science.

User avatar
Fire Drake
Posts: 62
Joined: March 9th, 2017, 4:22 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Fire Drake » March 6th, 2019, 4:52 pm

You're a true gem, Kelly. I mean that in the most respectful manner. I am really glad you are on this board. You make it much more interesting than it otherwise would be. Have a great final approach into Friday.

-Brian

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3590
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by jonathan » March 8th, 2019, 2:06 am

Richard F. Hoyer wrote:
March 4th, 2019, 9:29 pm
Jonathan,
One thing I have learned about social media is that the credibility of sources, on both sides of issues, can be very questionable.

In your Feb. 6th post, you disparaged Dr. S. Frederick Singer by first indicating he is “a well-known contrarian” as if being a contrarian is somehow a negative. Then you attributed a number of claims about Dr. Singer as if they were fact. So the question becomes, did you actually read the published studies by Dr. Singer that supports your position about him or were you merely parroting something you read in the social media?

Today, I entered a number of inquiries on Google about Dr. Singer. No mater what I entered, the overwhelming number of links were negative espousing the very same points you mentioned. To my way of thinking, that raises a very large red flag and one would expect to find a decent number of links with positive input. That was not the case so that tells me the ‘deck has been stacked’.
Can you explain more directly what you mean by "the deck has been stacked"? Claiming that not finding enough positive links about someone is a red flag indicating that they may not be all that bad is an interesting approach, and does fall in line with my assertion that you're something of a contrarian, but I don't see what actual logic is behind that deduction.


Here is an example of criticism of Singer from a published paper, showing quite directly his involvement in attempts to attack critics of the tobacco industry. I also read Singer's own editorial in the Washington Times disparaging the EPA for their report stating that secondhand smoke was a carcinogin.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446867/
In addition to creating front groups and contributing funds to groups that have a mission broad enough to carry some of the tobacco industry's goals, the tobacco companies also use publications by allegedly independent think tanks, such as the Virginia-based Alexis de Tocqueville Institution. This group's 1994 report “Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination”35 criticizes the US Environmental Protection Agency's risk assessment methods in 4 areas: environmental tobacco smoke, radon, pesticides, and hazardous cleanup. It dismisses in its first chapter the agency's risk assessment of environmental tobacco smoke, using arguments similar to the tobacco industry's “junk science” arguments described by Ong and Glantz.

This report has been widely used by the tobacco industry in its quest to dismiss the hazards of environmental tobacco smoke. And although no direct financial link has been established, several members of the report's academic advisory board have been involved with different tobacco companies' activities.36 The report's principal reviewer, Dr Fred Singer, was involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, a group that was considered important in Philip Morris' plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), as discussed by Ong and Glantz.37,38 He was also on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces on “junk science,” defending the industry's views.39


Some other citations:

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/S._Fred_Singer

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/I ... ic_Ecology

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/H ... _Institute

https://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/home/key-documents/

https://www.desmogblog.com/no-apology-i ... orthcoming



Do you find the HeartLand Institute to be a credible source of unbiased information or not?

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 542
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » March 9th, 2019, 6:03 pm

In keeping with the original post by stlouisdude, in the 1960’s, I contributed to the Sierra Club as their views on the environment pretty much matched my own. But then in order to attract contributions, they began lying in their solicitation documents. I then ceased making contributions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following posts are pretty much a repeat of the positions I have written about over the years starting on the Kingsnake forum, then the former national PARC web site, and then more recently on this forum. I will be entering a four part series of posts that to some degree, are related to the original topic of environmentalism and were spurred by the recent post by Bryan Hamilton.


Part 1: Background Information:
Many years ago, my son Ryan in Utah suggested I might wish to join the national PARC ListServe web site (since discontinued). At the time, the membership appeared mostly to be made up of state and federal wildlife biologists, professional herpetologists, conservationists, some students, and a smattering of other stake holders.

Ryan mentioned something to the effect that there seemed to be a number of misconceptions circulating on the web site. And he was correct as I soon found some PARC members expressing the view that collecting of herps by members of the public could produce serious, negative impacts of herp populations. It was noteworthy that no one cited any scientific research in support of such a claim.

Sometime later, the topic of road mortality surfaced. And again, the only views mentioned were that road kill produced a serious negative impact on populations reptiles and amphibians. I recall being surprised that wildlife biologists would have adopted such positions on both collecting and road kill and with no one posting any opposing points of view.

One referenced paper considered as ‘proof’ was entitled “Highway Mortality of Snake in The Sonoran Desert of Southern Arizona” by Philip C. Rosen and Charles H. Lowe. Biological Conservation, 68, (1994) 143-148. When I conferred with herpetologist Dr. Robert M. Storm here in Corvallis, he too was of the opinion that road kill was a serious problem and referred to the same Arizona study. So I ended up getting a reprint of that paper.

I was surprised that wildlife biologists would considered either incidental collecting or road mortality as having significant negative impacts on herp populations. The reason for being perplexed was because all wildlife biologists surely understood that game species can be harvested annually by the many thousands and yet remain as self sustaining populations. So how could they then express or agree with concerns about serious negative impacts on herp populations from incidental collecting and road mortality?

Then it became apparent that many, if not most PARC members were not aware that most species of herps have densities and numerical abundance that far exceed those of most game species. I then embarked on producing posts or essays relating to the topics of numerical abundance of snakes, recreational collecting, and road mortality.

In this series of posts, I will attempt to explain why I consider both forms of take on herp as basically being non-issues.

Richard F. Hoyer

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 542
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » March 9th, 2019, 6:05 pm

Part #2: Road Mortality:
Here in northwestern Oregon, the most visible species that end up as road kill are the Raccoon, Stripped Skunk, Black-tailed Deer, and the introduced Opossum. Other DOR species observed with a bit less frequency are the Calif. Ground Squirrel and the introduced E. Cottontail Rabbit and Nutria. In Corvallis, our native W. Gray Squirrel is now exceedingly common in the city and thus is quite commonly a victim of road mortality.

In this region of northwestern Oregon, the Roughed-skinned Newt and Northwestern Garter Snake are the most numerous observed DOR herps. The Robin,and Red-tailed Hawk appear to be the most observable birds killed on roads.

Whenever I have viewed some frequency of the above species dead on the roads, understanding the basics that govern populations, the thought never crossed my mind that the overall populations of those species were being negatively impacted. Instead, the first thing that came to my mind is that those species must have healthy densities in proximity to roads.

Support for that point of view is that year, after year, I have witnessed about the same frequency of DOR specimens of those same species. If the populations of those species were being negatively impacted, there would be a discernable reduction in the frequency of those species being killed on roads. That simply hasn’t happened.

Bryan mentions an important aspect of populations biology: “If the number individuals removed from a population exceed the number recruited into the population, that population will decline.” That is very true. However, more basic information needs to be assessed before one can reach the position that the amount of documented attrition (removal) from a population represents a serious decline or is reaching the point where such loss or attrition exceeds recruitment.

When I posted my positions on the PARC web site, I used the terms ‘supply’ and ‘demand’. With respect to wildlife populations, ‘supply’ has two general components with one being an estimate of the overall numerical abundance of a species. And the mean number of individuals created during reproduction is the second component. The latter is basically what Bryan refers to as ‘---the number recruited into the population---.” ‘Demand’ refers to the number of individuals removed from a population by all factors that produce attrition which includes road mortality and incidental collecting.

Therefore, with respect to the documented amount of road mortality, before any judgment can be made with respect to possible serious negative impacts on populations, it is imperative to have at a minimum, some base-line information on the overall numerical abundance of species. It would also help if there were some estimate of the surplus or ‘supply’ (recruitments) created during reproduction.

I contend that when estimates of numerical abundance and the mean reproductive output are assessed, documented road mortality would represent a insignificant factor for the majority of herp species. Compared to other forms of attrition, predation, disease, winter kill, etc., road mortality and incidental collecting are very likely to be insignificant.

Richard F. Hoyer

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 542
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » March 9th, 2019, 6:06 pm

Part 3: Road Mortality continued:
So what about the evidence, the published accounts dealing with road mortality? It has been quite a few years since I dealt with this issue on the PARC web site at which time I reviewed a number of published accounts on road mortality of herps. I do not automatically accept an authors claims or conclusions if they are inconsistent with my understanding of the basic principles that govern populations.

And so I was immediately skeptical where some authors claimed that road mortality produced significant or serious, negative impacts to herp populations as such claims were completely counter to the basic tenets of population biology as I understand those tenets. So on the PARC web site, I produced critiques on two published reports that claimed road mortality produced serious impacts on populations of herps.

One of those critiques was on the Rosen and Lowe paper dealing with road mortality of snake in Arizona. In both papers, the authors stated or implied that road mortality produced serious, negative impacts yet the authors of those papers failed to present any valid evidence that would support their claims. The only evidence the author produced were the numbers of dead herps. By themselves, such numbers are meaningless. (See #1 below>)

Neither paper identified the base-line information on estimates of numerical abundance nor mean reproduction output for the species they claimed were being seriously impacted. So there was no way in which the reader could judge if the amount of documented mortality was significant.

The research project by Rosen and Lowe was really excellent. And I take it for granted the authors were very sincere in their assessment of the road mortality of snakes. However, immediately clear was that they entered their study with a predetermined bias which is identifiable in their introduction. Before they even presented their evidence, in their introduction is the following sentence: “Highway mortality, as automotive traffic increases, will therefore have an increasing serious impact on snake populations.”

Consider the following points:
1) After documenting the amount of road mortality of snakes, how can researchers claim that such mortality constitutes a “serious impact on snake population” if they do not have any estimate of the overall numerical abundance of snake populations nor have any estimate of the species mean, annual reproductive output? Any blanket claim of serious, negative impacts has to be accompanied by valid population estimates and not just a report on the amount of snake mortality that has been documented.

For instance, if 500 snakes of species X are found smooshed on a stretch of road over a year’s duration, if the the estimated population of the species within the region of study is 5000, then that 10 percent mortality could be considered as significant. But if the population of snake species X is estimated at 500,000, then the 500 (0.01% ) dead snakes on the road is hardly worth a footnote. That is, there needs to be a basis for comparison before any valid assessment can be made about the significance of road mortality (or collecting for that matter).

2) Studies on herp mortality invariably have taken place on roads having been in existence for many years. Thus, road mortality had to have been occurring for many years before the study was initiated. So if the current documented amount of road kill is considered as having a significant negative impact, and if traffic volume has not increased significantly, it stands to reason that all along there had to have been a continuous, ongoing serious, negative impact from road mortality. I don’t recall ever seeing that point being considered in the published accounts I read. That point raises more questions I will leave up to others.

3) Some studies were accomplished over a period of years. If as claimed that road mortality represented a significant negative impact on populaitons of herps, the researchers of such multi-year studies should have observed a trend in declining numbers of DORs each succeeding year or at least over the duration of such studies. But I have to add a disclaimer that I have only reviewed a limited number of such studies. However, the Rosen and Lowe study does not report a significant decline in the number of road kills over the 4 years of their study. To me, that was troubling.

Noteworthy is that Rosen and Lowe (now deceased), cite an unpublished study of snake mortality that took place 40 years earlier on the same roads on which they performed their study. And the amount of observed DOR snakes in both studies are not that far apart (73 vs. a mean of 66). If road mortality was producing a serious negative impact on snake populations, then the number of DOR snakes observed by Rosen and Lowe should have been significantly less than what had been recorded 40 years previously. Clearly that point was overlooked by those authors.

4) Finally, like most if not all land vertebrates, herps have established home territories. On the PARC web site I asked the following: How can road kill negatively impact overall snake populations beyond the snake’s home range radius from any indicated road? The silence was deafening. (Maybe I should have indicated beyond the diameter of a species’ home range from the indicated road.) I urge everyone to think about that point which pertains to all studies that indicate road mortality produces, or can produce a serious negative impact on the populations of herp species.

I have wondered if any authors that published accounts on herp road mortality have undertaken follow-up studies on the same roads? If so, then they should document a significant reduction in road mortality if in fact, roads truly produces significant negative impacts on herp populations. It seems reasonable that on roads with high traffic use likely can reduce the density of snake populations in close proximity along such roads. But beyond the near proximity to roads, I contend that road mortality can not possibly impact the overall populations of snakes.

Richard F. Hoyer

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 542
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » March 9th, 2019, 6:07 pm

Part #4: Incidental Collecting:
In a general sense, the incidental collecting of herps and road mortality are not really different from hunting, trapping and fishing in that all of those factors represent forms of attrition. And in a general sense, all can be considered as forms of predation. So it would help to understand the basics of predation which I won’t go into here.

So the question becomes, will any of the above forms of attrition produce significant and permanent reduction in species’ population over time? One might also ask, how does the attrition from any of the above factors stack up to other forms of attrition such as predation, disease, winter kill, etc.? And then, we should understand the available evidence.

I contend that with an examination of evidence along with some critical thinking, neither incidental collecting or road mortality can produce lasting, negative impacts on the overall numerical abundance of herp populations. Consider the evidence that despite the purposeful targeting of species via hunting, game species continue to remain as self sustaining populations. That position should be self-evident without having to cite the literature.

So with respect to non-game species of herps which have far greater population densities and far greater numerical abundance than most game species, and for which demand is but a fraction of the demand for game species, believing that random, incidental collecting would lead to serious declines in numerical abundance and not remain as self sustaining populations, is irrational. If such were the case, then there should be a decent amount of scientific literature documenting such incidents. I urge everyone to conduct a search for such scientific publications. Should anyone find such studies, please let me know so I might become better informed.

Each individuals can arrive at their own judgment based on their personal research of the issue and ability to think critically. If anyone already is convinced that incidental collecting of herps produces serious negative impacts to overall populations, then anything I mention hereon likely is of no value.

Points to consider:
1) Species and habitat are inseparable. A reduction of habitat results in a reduction of species numerical abundance. An increase in favorable habitat will increase species’ numerical abundance.
2) The major reason for most documented declines of species has been due to outright loss of habitat and/or the degradation of habitat.
3) There is almost a total void of published evidence in which incidental / recreational take produces negative consequences to herp populations. (I know of just one such publication which pertained to a species of turtle in a very small part of the species’ distribution.)
4) Most regulations that place species in a ‘protected status only entails a hands-off, no collecting policy.
5) Most regulations that place species in a ‘protected’ status do not also protect habitat.
6) Demand is either low to non-existent for the majority of non-game species (herps) that have been placed in a protected (no collecting) status.
7) Most species for which there is some demand have very large distributions and large numerical abundance.
8) Collecting of herps occurs randomly over a species distribution.
9) Most species of herps have far greater densities and far greater relative abundance than most game species. (II you do not understand nor accept that statement, so be it. There are some basic principles involved and it would take a very extensive amount of time and print to try and convince doubters.)

Questions to consider about the ‘protected status’ of non-game species: (Understand that there is little to no demand for most species of herps.)
For non-game species for which there is little to no demand, what are they being protected against?
For non-game species for which there is little to no demand, how does a protected status actually protect such species?
For all non-game species of herps place in a ‘protected status’, if their habitat is not protected, how does the official ‘protected status’ realistically protect those species?

With respect to claims that herp populations are significantly, negatively impacted by incidental collecting (or road kill), do you believe that valid scientific evidence is needed in support of such claims? Or are you willing to accept such statements or claims without having such evidence?

Concluding remarks:
If you have had the mind-set that road mortality can produce significant, negative impacts to the overall populations of species, I urge you give considerable thought to Point #4 identified in Part-3.

If you have had the mind-set that random, incidental collecting of herps can produce significant negative impacts, consider the number of deer hunters, and the number of deer harvested both number in the many thousands. Then make a comparison with the limited number of herpers and other members of the public that may collect different species of reptiles and amphibians. If through reproduction, deer remain as self-sustaining populations, doesn’t it stand to reason that with far less demand, through reproduction, species of herps also remain as self sustaining populations?

And if you need additional evidence that species of reptiles and amphibians remain as self-sustaining populations when collected, I urge you review the published accounts of the commercial harvesting of herp species in Florida as published by biologist Kevin Eng.

Richard F. Hoyer

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3590
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by jonathan » March 9th, 2019, 6:53 pm

Richard F. Hoyer wrote:
March 9th, 2019, 6:03 pm
Ryan mentioned something to the effect that there seemed to be a number of misconceptions circulating on the web site. And he was correct as I soon found some PARC members expressing the view that collecting of herps by members of the public could produce serious, negative impacts of herp populations. It was noteworthy that no one cited any scientific research in support of such a claim.
For the most part I agree that collection is not the serious threat in terms of wildlife populations.

I am somewhat interested in the specific case of your study sites in the San Bernardino Mountains though, the ones that you cite so frequently in other arguments.

I have been told by respected, serious herpers that snake densities at your study sites have crashed due to overcollection. That knowledge of concentrated populations at those sites led to large amounts of collection (including poaching) to the point that snake finds dropped 90+% among experienced herpers in just a few years.


Now, I can imagine the argument, "They're not gone, they're just harder to find", but the all-star herpers I am referring to believe that they really have been severely impacted and their credentials are beyond reproach. I can imagine the argument, "They declined for other reasons", but considering the timing that would be farfetched. I can imagine the argument, "The overall species isn't effected, just one local population" and I'd say that's legit. But the situation does appear to me to be evidence that overcollection can indeed severely impact local populations.


Another example is a particular horned lizard population which crashed, apparently due to overcollection, to the point that several people believed that the local site was extirpated from horned lizards altogether. I was thankfully able to find one at the site recently, but it apparently was the first in 15 years and it does appear the population was severely negatively impacted by the collection.


Overall I'm on board with you on this one - collection for the pet industry isn't the major threat by any means. But sometimes you do overstate your case. And this example, where the whole problem is that there has been very little serious study of the issue, is pretty much the opposite of the other issue which you keep trying to draw parallels to.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4256
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Kelly Mc » March 9th, 2019, 11:37 pm

Mr Hoyer, about understanding the principles governing populations, which is a statement you've said twice in this thread, and well, I think you've said the exact same thing in other threads.
It sounds specious when you state it because you never explain what they are exactly. You imply many don't understand the Principles That Govern Populations, like you do so could you please break us off an explanation so that we could understand them too

The Principles, please my good sir

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4256
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Kelly Mc » March 10th, 2019, 12:09 am

Item # 9, per herps, you said there are basic principles about density populace but didn't want to have to spend the time to convince doubters, but I doubt that you don't have time.

I do think though, that even if you do, most people on this board will still want there to be less DORs than not give a damn how many there are, and also consider seeing even One dying Casque Headed Lizard at pet co, something that sucks even though they dont see the lots of them piled at the wholesalers, as I have.

let alone horned lizards in their home region, plucked up vacation travelers and poachers, "incidentally".

You might convince them mathematically, but the dry psychopathy of your odd fervor, will not triumph.

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 464
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by WSTREPS » March 10th, 2019, 11:44 am

U.S. population will increase from 203 million in 1970 to 439 million in 2050, according to the Census Bureau. Eighty-two percent of all U.S. population growth today is due to arriving immigrants and their children.

It's phony to say 'I'm for the environment but not for limiting immigration…

Those environmentalists who think we can double or triple U.S. population without wiping out wildlife and scalping our last wildernesses, are living in a fool's paradise....
Predominately leftist Politicians, media and self absorbed career minded scientist are all profiting (Big Time) from doomsday scenarios.Telling us tales about man-made Global warming and how we are causing a catastrophic transformation to the earths climate. Yarning about rising sea levels, a baking planet, polar bears with no place live, etc. At the same time , promoting short sighted injudicious policies. Doing thier best to convince everyone to support the biggest threat to nature in the United States.

The REAL threat to the health of the United States (or anywhere), is immigration. A threat rigorously supported by these same people who vociferate their concern for the country's environmental future. Liberals do love their environmental issues, but they also love to support IL/legal immigration. The argument that "We are all immigrants " is one steeped in a shameful stupidity. To compare immigration of the past. Immigration involving people from European countries and Asia, How these people came to the United States, their numbers, thier wanting to be American's to what is now taking place is a disgrace. As far as the United States is concerned. There is no need to worry about climate change, If allowed to continue, Mass immigration will destroy nearly all of this country's environment, long before any of the earth's (rumored man induced) cyclical climate changes.

Ernie Eison

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4256
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Kelly Mc » March 10th, 2019, 3:29 pm

I have wondered about roads and what they Actually Are to reptiles and amphibians.

(to step away from political for a minute)

I have heard since the beginning about the drawing power of residual warmth but what about other things? Are they just inadvertent anomaly in the topography or a swath of generational trek?

Are behaviors being shaped of no consequence or are adaptive dents happening and how could it be measured?

When I generalize by saying Reptiles and Amphibians, I actually mean any species and any data, not of course that its the same but it could be more similar across taxa then dissimilar, something I've noticed with other dynamics. Just wondering.

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3590
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by jonathan » March 10th, 2019, 4:53 pm

WSTREPS wrote:
March 10th, 2019, 11:44 am
The REAL threat to the health of the United States (or anywhere), is immigration. A threat rigorously supported by these same people who vociferate their concern for the country's environmental future.

Ernie Eison
Beyond the fact that Ernie's original contribution to this discussion was posting a video from a White Supremacist and murderer who has advocated race war....

How disabled are your logical facilities if you really believe that the biggest threat to the environment is immigration? :lol:

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 542
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » March 10th, 2019, 5:50 pm

Kelly,
Understanding population ecology / wildlife science (adopted from evolutionary theory), STARTS with one major biological principle. That principle indicates that during reproduction, species over producer their kind.
“Overproduction by definition, in biology, means that each generation has more offspring than can be supported by the environment.”

It is the overproduction in species that creates a surplus or supply. That allows predators, including humans, to removed some of that surplus yet leaving species in the position of remaining as self sustaining populations one year to the next.

I simply cannot over emphasize that doubters really should examine the published data on the commercial harvest of herps in Florida. And perhaps there may be similar data of commercial take of reptiles and amphibians in Louisiana. I am not referring to incidental take, but COMMERCIAL take!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for your question about point #9, I believe there is one principle that deals with the general observation in which there is an inverse relationship between the body size and densities. Perhaps Bryan can help out.

Some examples: The Ringneck Snake has greater densities than the gopher snake, voles have greater densities than rabbits. I believe comparisons are usually made between predator vs. predator, or herbivore vs. herbivore. But even across lines, there are many examples such as Red-back Salamander occurs at greater densities than rabbits or deer in the same habitats. There are, of course, exceptions, caveats, etc.

Richard F. Hoyer

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4256
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Kelly Mc » March 10th, 2019, 6:09 pm

Thank you Mr Hoyer.

That is not something I gave thought of, which rings a fundamental sounding bell and of no doubt at all.

I apologize for any implied note of disrespect, but it is a hard world for little things (quoting The Heart is a Lonely Hunter)

There are so many kinds of other animals and so few people who want to protect them.

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3590
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by jonathan » March 11th, 2019, 1:36 am

Jeroen Speybroeck wrote:
February 28th, 2019, 12:33 pm
Kelly Mc wrote:
February 28th, 2019, 12:19 pm
"During the short time that has passed since I resurrected this dormant thread. The thread has gotten well over 5000 additional views." Ernie Eison.



And..??
Exactly!
And for good comparison, the thread regarding my article series on extirpated and near-extirpated herps in California is now over 11,000 views. Somehow I don't think that accurately reflects the number of people who have read it.

The issue isn't just that Ernie is wrong to hype 5000 views. I'd suggest it also shows that Ernie isn't the person you should go do if you're looking for accurate and useful deductions from data.

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 464
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by WSTREPS » March 14th, 2019, 10:15 am

I don't want to derail this topic by going back and forth with individuals who defensively rely solely on pejorative. That siad, I will take a moment and again set the record straight by disemboweling this nonsense,
You also still haven't explained how you come across such White Supremacist videos in the first place. Was the poster of that video someone you follow regularly?
I also posted videos by Thomas Sowell a black economist and social theorist, social critic George Carlin, Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn etc.

The person being referred to as a White Supremacist and murderer is, Varg Vikernes, A famous musician (not hard to come across) and dedicated family man who advocates social conservatism, environmentalism, simple living and self-sufficiency. Points all selectively left out by the poster. It's not hard to reason that this poster thinks, the worse he can make Mr. Vikernes look the worse he will make me look. While I don't agree with everything he says, Vikernes does raise many interesting and truthful points both socially and environmentally. As seen in this thread Liberal dogmatist become unhinged when confronted with harsh realties that can only be rebutted with deviousness.

Murder, church burnings, white supremacy. In his videos Vikernes talks about everything in brutally honest detail. There is a lot more to the story than what simple minded individual's gather and deceitfully use from a quick search of the "headlines".

Ernie Eison

Now at well over 10000 and climbing additional views since I brought this thread back to life.


User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4256
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Kelly Mc » March 14th, 2019, 12:18 pm

Ernie, why dont you make your own Youtube video with your perspectives, instead of utilizing other peoples podiums?

You state your views very confidently and standing behind other people perhaps more well known, seems unoriginal and it has a hint of this thing Ive been noticing with boomer guys these days, where there is this emboldened absorption of philosophies that correlate with a perceived loss of power. This is just an observation as I am quite apolitical, and my views run case by case. I am conservative in many surprising ways.

Another thing I cant help but find glinting is that reality is as it is, whether an ideology embraces is or not and nature has nothing to do with what we think.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4256
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Kelly Mc » March 14th, 2019, 1:02 pm

If scientific method were even roughly applied to your theory of 100000 views, it would be a discarded study as too many other posts and posters have applied factor for your theory of you, to be of any measure.

A less imperfect test would be to author a thread of your own, and observe the response.

As a sample individual I disclose that I followed Jonathans posts each time posted, and would click on someone who has yet to post on this thread more quickly than to read yours as they are too predictable.

I am just reporting as a sample individual here.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4256
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Kelly Mc » March 14th, 2019, 1:26 pm

Also I think Ive met you before Ernie, you showed me some Calabar Burrowing Pythons. I was with my best friend Nathan at the time, a black guy who was a body builder and kept really big pythons, monitors and had a caiman.

I was probably a less memorable person. But you were cool, friendly and it was a fun exchange. I could be mistaken I guess, but just sayin.

I remember because it was the first time I had ever seen burrowing pythons in the flesh.

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3590
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by jonathan » March 14th, 2019, 7:15 pm

CONVICTED murderer

CONVICTED church arsonist

PROMOTES race war

PROMOTES fears of White Genocide

Yet Ernie thinks he's a good authority to quote on race differences. Not on music, not on self-sufficiency, Ernie didn't quote him on either of those topics. Ernie posted a video on him talking about environmental degradation and blaming non-White people while giving White people a pass.


WSTREPS wrote:
March 14th, 2019, 10:15 am
I don't want to derail this topic by going back and forth with individuals who defensively rely solely on pejorative. That siad, I will take a moment and again set the record straight by disemboweling this nonsense,
You also still haven't explained how you come across such White Supremacist videos in the first place. Was the poster of that video someone you follow regularly?
PRO

I also posted videos by Thomas Sowell a black economist and social theorist, social critic George Carlin, Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn etc.

The person being referred to as a White Supremacist and murderer is, Varg Vikernes, A famous musician (not hard to come across) and dedicated family man who advocates social conservatism, environmentalism, simple living and self-sufficiency. Points all selectively left out by the poster. It's not hard to reason that this poster thinks, the worse he can make Mr. Vikernes look the worse he will make me look. While I don't agree with everything he says, Vikernes does raise many interesting and truthful points both socially and environmentally. As seen in this thread Liberal dogmatist become unhinged when confronted with harsh realties that can only be rebutted with deviousness.
I didn't talk about his family life, environmentalism, simple living and self-sufficiency because you posted NOTHING of him on those topics. In fact, you have posted NOTHING meaningful on those topics during your entire existence on this board, so don't make a joke of it and pretend you care now.

You chose to post a video of him trashing Asian people, blaming them for environmental problems and gloating about the superiority of White communities. It was a really stupid argument on multiple levels, starting with the idea that litter is the great environmental issue and moving on to showing pictures of Asian trash transfer stations and talking like that was just random dumping. :roll:

You CHOSE to post a video of a White Supremacist attacking non-White people, then followed it up with an attack on immigrants.





https://sunwheelkindred.wordpress.com/2 ... er-pierce/

http://metalinjection.net/editorials/if ... -or-racist



WSTREPS wrote:
March 14th, 2019, 10:15 am
Now at well over 10000 and climbing additional views since I brought this thread back to life.
At this moment the only people logged onto the forum are: "Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot], jonathan" and 68 unregistered guests. That's the same breakdown I see most of the time I log on nowadays. So basically your views are coming from a combination of registered bots and unregistered bots. :thumb:

My post on the breakdown of herp communities and ecological problems in California is up past 11,000 views now even though it only has 11 comments and most of them are mine. :crazyeyes:

But keep bragging about bot views Ernie. That doesn't make you appear illogical and out-of-touch with reality at all. :lol:

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 464
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by WSTREPS » March 16th, 2019, 1:34 am

It's no coincidence the most widely publicized threats to the environment, things such as climate change, invasive species and the pet trade. Are also the ones that show the greatest appeal for conniving individuals to profit. Politicians project a favorable image, scientist access huge funding/career opportunities, the press benifits from sensational click bait fodder. All three hoaxers go hand and hand. Climate change agitprop offers plenty of bluster but no scientific proof to support the hype of cataclysmic environmental impacts. In the case of introduced species and the pet trade. Fear mongering shock and awe tactics give way when the true facts are uncovered and the harmful impacts if any are shown to be minimal. That brings us to immigration.
Eighty-two percent of all U.S. population growth today is due to arriving immigrants and their children.

There is an overwhelming national and international consensus on the relationship between population growth and environmental degradation.

The goal of stopping population growth is a key element in any environmental protection plan.

Unlike the other listed environmental issues that can be argued over. The devastating link between population growth and environmental degradation is conclusive. Who could argue that more people is ever a good thing for the environment. But leftist viewing the world thru snowflake colored glasses champion, the idea that allowing millions of people, uncontrolled entrance and opening the door to let millions more into the country is a good thing. They maintain that immigration should be supported and only evil racist bigot's would oppose this. To think that any country having millions of people breach its boarder, creating a population expansion of epic proportions will not suffer devastating environmental repercussions is delusional. There is nothing bigoted about opposing immigration that is destroying the culture and environment of some of the worlds most beautiful countries, only a fool would support it.

Ernie Eison

Image

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3590
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by jonathan » March 16th, 2019, 2:06 am

I thought you would have the shame to wait a little longer after 50 people got killed. Maybe at least let their bodies be buried before you keep promoting this poisonous bullshit.

That anti-immigrant, white supremacist, birthrate drop-fearing, Turner Diaries-loving, ecofacist hole in the internet that you dug Varg out of is the EXACT same hole that produced Brenton Tarrant.


https://thenewsrep.com/115359/eco-fasci ... w-zealand/
Where fringe left wing environmentalists view human beings as a unnatural virus or plague on the planet’s ecology, the ecological fascists view immigrants as blight upon the white man’s territory, and aspire to return to a more traditional agrarian lifestyle where the white race is tethered to their land which is of course preserved by and for them alone.

At this point, it becomes apparent that the Christchurch shooter’s ideology dovetails with ideas about demography, overpopulation, social Darwinism, and racial hygiene. In America’s past, this ideology was known as eugenics but today it is combined with the sarcasm and nihilism of internet sub-culture to form the alt-right. Eco-fascism is The Population Bomb mixed with the Turner Diaries, turned into a meme, and then expressed in the real world through callous mass murder.

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3590
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by jonathan » March 16th, 2019, 2:12 am

WSTREPS wrote:
March 16th, 2019, 1:34 am
Eighty-two percent of all U.S. population growth today is due to arriving immigrants and their children.

There is an overwhelming national and international consensus on the relationship between population growth and environmental degradation.

The goal of stopping population growth is a key element in any environmental protection plan.

Unlike the other listed environmental issues that can be argued over. The devastating link between population growth and environmental degradation is conclusive. Who could argue that more people is ever a good thing for the environment. But leftist viewing the world thru snowflake colored glasses champion, the idea that allowing millions of people, uncontrolled entrance and opening the door to let millions more into the country is a good thing. They maintain that immigration should be supported and only evil racist bigot's would oppose this. To think that any country having millions of people breach its boarder, creating a population expansion of epic proportions will not suffer devastating environmental repercussions is delusional. There is nothing bigoted about opposing immigration that is destroying the culture and environment of some of the worlds most beautiful countries, only a fool would support it.

Ernie Eison

Image

That's so stupid I'm shocked that you think there's anyone on this board who would buy that bullshit for a second. I don't believe for a second that you're stupid enough to believe it, you must thing there's someone dumb enough for you to manipulate but I struggle to imagine who you think that is.

Who is naive enough to think that environmental issues are determined by national borders? Ernie, when people migrate, they're still the SAME number of people, they're just in a different place.

* If you believe your bullshit that White countries have better environmental policies than non-White countries, then shouldn't you be arguing for MORE people to immigrate to White countries, so their environmental actions will be better controlled?

* If you believe that population growth is the conclusive problem, then shouldn't you be arguing for MORE of the world's population to immigrate to the West, where their birthrates always drop substantially?


That's where actual logic with your assumptions would lead. It's not remotely possible to form a pro-environment worldview that's simultaneously White Supremacist and anti-immigration. But it appears that you care more about White countries staying White than you do about the actual global environment getting better.

User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 464
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 3:03 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by WSTREPS » March 17th, 2019, 9:48 am

Repeatedly what is seen in the responses of those who object to what I say. Responses that most often cannot be viewed in any way, other than as harassment.Is a clear-cut disregard for facts and reasoning. For these people. The bold truth before them is not convincing enough to prevent them from rationalizing and promulgating their whimsical doctrine.They are so manipulated by a system that brainwashes' more than educates. These people blindly believe only those they have been trained to believe. This mindset leads to extreme arrogance. They themselves become the true bigots, aptly put "unable to imagine any sane and honest person disagreeing with them. Therefore, all their opponents must be fools or liars."

For confirmation of this. I strongly suggest that anyone viewing this thread, scroll back and read ALL the responses to my post.


Ernie Eison

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4256
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm
Location: San Francisco, California

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Kelly Mc » March 17th, 2019, 10:51 am

Please do not try to position yourself as a victim who is being harassed. You are purposefully provocative and will not budge from the persona you adopt online. Truly, I cant believe that persona is all there is to you.

I am more sad for you then angry anymore as it is clear you want to be heard but you wont be real.

I also have a difficult time understanding how a person with lifetime involvement with reptiles can be so joyless and disdainful to others who have the same interests, especially here which its the real deal here.

Maybe pythons were just products to you.

I also think you are kind of vicious and picked that particular guy's podium specifically because of his anti Christian comments, which are repetitive and that its because you are jealous of Jonathan. There have been other guys but Jonathon is in the top 5.

You can ignore me all you like, but I am a sample individual. You are posting to an audience and I am in it.

I am not afraid to speak as one member of the audience.

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3590
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by jonathan » March 17th, 2019, 12:23 pm

WSTREPS wrote:
March 17th, 2019, 9:48 am
Repeatedly what is seen in the responses of those who object to what I say. Responses that most often cannot be viewed in any way, other than as harassment.Is a clear-cut disregard for facts and reasoning. For these people. The bold truth before them is not convincing enough to prevent them from rationalizing and promulgating their whimsical doctrine.They are so manipulated by a system that brainwashes' more than educates. These people blindly believe only those they have been trained to believe. This mindset leads to extreme arrogance. They themselves become the true bigots, aptly put "unable to imagine any sane and honest person disagreeing with them. Therefore, all their opponents must be fools or liars."

For confirmation of this. I strongly suggest that anyone viewing this thread, scroll back and read ALL the responses to my post.


Ernie Eison
Your first entry in the thread was to post an openly racist video by a White Supremacist, convicted arsonist, and convicted murderer which tried to claim that White people weren't responsible for environmental problems.

Your last entry in the thread before this was to claim that Immigrants were really the ones responsible for environmental problems, and you posted that anti-immigrant screed just one day after an anti-immigrant radical had killed 50 people.


And you claim that for anyone to point these things out is "harassment".

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3590
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by jonathan » March 17th, 2019, 12:53 pm

Kelly Mc wrote:
March 17th, 2019, 10:51 am
Please do not try to position yourself as a victim who is being harassed. You are purposefully provocative and will not budge from the persona you adopt online. Truly, I cant believe that persona is all there is to you.

I am more sad for you then angry anymore as it is clear you want to be heard but you wont be real.

I also have a difficult time understanding how a person with lifetime involvement with reptiles can be so joyless and disdainful to others who have the same interests, especially here which its the real deal here.

Maybe pythons were just products to you.

I also think you are kind of vicious and picked that particular guy's podium specifically because of his anti Christian comments, which are repetitive and that its because you are jealous of Jonathan. There have been other guys but Jonathon is in the top 5.

You can ignore me all you like, but I am a sample individual. You are posting to an audience and I am in it.

I am not afraid to speak as one member of the audience.
I doubt it's that complex. The initial video Ernie posted was pure "White people are better than Asian people" with no reference to religion at all, and I didn't post until after Ernie did. I doubt he posted it for any reason other than to state exactly what the video stated, and thus divert from actual explanations for environmental issues.

Besides, Varg's comments on religion are one of the weakest parts of his whole spiel, he's basically just an anti-Jewish conspiracy theorist. A convicted murderer and racist who thinks the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is a real document and who preaches that Christianity is a fake religion created by Jews to trap pagan Europeans and infect them with their filthy Asian mindset isn't the best advocate for the superiority of anti-religious thought.

In fact, though fellow anti-immigrant Norwegian nationalist Anders Behring Breivik personally sent Varg his manifesto before killing 77 children in a "multicultural" camp, Varg has criticized Breivik for not being anti-Jewish enough.
His manifest is vast, some 1500 pages, and he is pretty thorough in both what he says and what he did. There are a few facts that doesn't make sense to me. How can he list all the problems caused by different Jews in our history and yet fail to mention even one of them with a single word in his manifest? He attacks the symptoms of the disease Europe is suffering under, but not the cause of the disease.
What Mr. Breivik has said is largely true, in all except in what he doesn't say; he doesn't tell us that the Jews are the origin to all these problems, and that they were created by the Jews to hurt us. All we have to do to make this act of violence favourable to us is to make this clear to everyone; the Jews created Marxism, feminism, Christianity (need I tell you that Jesus and not least Paulus/Saul were both Jews?), so-called psychology, banking ("money lending"), the hippie-movement and all other ideologies and movements which are aimed to destroy and de-construct all nations in Europe. Behind each and every one of them you will find a Jew (or some times a Freemason)!

How could you miss that out, Mr. Breivik?

Also, Breivik made the mistake of killing White children and not just immigrants, though that critique was really just an aside at the end of a much longer rant about jews
Oh, and by the way; true nationalists don't kill children of their own nation, even if someone tries to brainwash them, like AUF did. They were not (yet) Marxist extremists; they were just children.

Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 542
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:14 pm

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by Richard F. Hoyer » March 18th, 2019, 9:26 pm

For those who have an open mind about the issue of Climate Change and have the time to examine both sides that issue, I noted that the NIPCC has publishing a 5th report. Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels – Climate Change ...

In scanning some of the links associated with that document, one passage I found of interest is as follows:
“It is the fifth volume in the Climate Change Reconsidered series and, like the preceding volumes, it focuses on research overlooked or ignored by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”

I assume some individuals consider the scientists that are a part of the NIPCC as being ‘charlatans’ and being bankrolled by the fossil fuel industries. If you have such a belief, you are very badly mistaken.

Another NIPCC document worth the time of becoming better informed is the following link. Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming (2016)

Richard F. Hoyer

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3590
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: How I've come to disdain environmentalists

Post by jonathan » March 19th, 2019, 1:22 am

Richard F. Hoyer wrote:
March 18th, 2019, 9:26 pm
For those who have an open mind about the issue of Climate Change and have the time to examine both sides that issue, I noted that the NIPCC has publishing a 5th report. Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels – Climate Change ...

In scanning some of the links associated with that document, one passage I found of interest is as follows:
“It is the fifth volume in the Climate Change Reconsidered series and, like the preceding volumes, it focuses on research overlooked or ignored by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”

I assume some individuals consider the scientists that are a part of the NIPCC as being ‘charlatans’ and being bankrolled by the fossil fuel industries. If you have such a belief, you are very badly mistaken.

Another NIPCC document worth the time of becoming better informed is the following link. Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming (2016)

Richard F. Hoyer
I asked a question a ways up that you didn't answer - do you consider the Heartland Institute to be a reliable funder of accurate science knowledge and unbiased research? Do you believe that their objective is to discover the truth, or to solicit findings that fit their agenda? And if a pro-climate change scientist was on the monthly payroll of a similarly leftist propaganda mill, would you consider that a reason to distrust their research?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

Post Reply