Nice try, but I'm not buying it. I followed this years ago keep up with it. I have also attended conferences about it where experts from around the world presented similar research. I also have extensive experience with EPA rules, regulations, reporting, and other environmnetal concerns. I'm also a state licensed nutrient applicator.

The fact is that there are many variables that have not been and many that cannot be fully examined regarding the Illinios River.

In most studies and in my experience the bulk of phosphorus and nitrogen pollution doesn't originate with industry, agriculture, or waste treatment. It doesn't originate where things are regulated, but rather where they either are not regulated or existing regulations are not enforced.

Pollution of rivers and streams are more often a result of storm water runoff in populated areas. One needs to look at a assess the unregulated impact of Scotts "Weed and Feed", washing cars, parking lot runoff, trash and dumpsters, and millions of other sources that let organic materials enter storm drains and find their way into the "Waters of the United States" as the EPA defines it.

Before blaming a particular industry one must recognize that agenda driven progressive liberally leaning limited research into anything is rarely the anwer to anything. That is the case with attempting to try to bind the bulk of the Illinios River "problem" to the poultry industry.

Posted by: jeffieboy

March 5, 2013 at 1:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Instead of your ad hominem attacks on Art Hobson why not provide some evidence for your assertions?

Start with this one: "In most studies and in my experience the bulk of phosphorus and nitrogen pollution doesn't originate with industry, agriculture, or waste treatment."

Where exactly does it originate? Are any of your "studies" published?

Posted by: cdawg

March 5, 2013 at 4:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

It is not possible to post all available research in this forum but I'm offering a few that help illuminate the problem with pollution of waterways. The poultry industry in NWA stopped almost all land application of poultry litter several years ago yet impacts on the Illinios River have been small.

Urban areas make a large contribution to pollutants entering rivers, lakes, and streams through stormwater runoff. The fact that pesticide counts are higher in urban than agricultural areas support the notion that urban areas contribute much more to pollution than previously thought.

Phosphorus comes from both point and nonpoint sources. Point sources include municipal waste treatment plants, industrial discharge, large confined livestock operations, and urban stormwater. These sources are regulated by federal and state laws. These are required to have environmental controls such as waste handling and treatment systems and nutrient management plans. These areas are also montored and that information is available from ADEQ including the results of Stormwater runoff tests for each site where it is required.

Nonpoint sources of phosphorus include soil erosion and water runoff from cropland, lawns and gardens, home waste treatment systems, livestock pastures, rangeland, and even forests.

Urban areas produce significant nonpoint source phosphorus runoff due to over-application of fertilizer to lawns and gardens. Homeowners who apply fertilizer without following soil test recommendation eventually build up very high soil test phosphorus levels that are often significant sources of phosphorus in runoff. If you have more than 5 acres of land and want to fertilize according to ADEQ you must be qualified as a nutrient applicator and do soil testing and keep records including submitting soil analysis reports to ADEQ. A neighborhood may have hundreds of houses on 100 acres but because each lot is smaller than 5 acres they are unregulated. Therefore the impact is not measured, but it doesn't take much imagination to surmise that a significant contribution is made by lawn and garden fertilizer applied by a bunch of homeowner "rookies". More is better, right?

Also, and very importantly fertilizer, pet waste, and lawn clippings left on driveways, sidewalks, or streets, washing cars in driveways, dumpsters at restaurants, litter, dust on streets and roads, all of these are a direct source of pollution through storm drains in urban areas. Parking lot and buillding and roof runoff during significant precipitation events is also a major problem.

Posted by: jeffieboy

March 6, 2013 at 10:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

" The poultry industry in NWA stopped almost all land application of poultry litter several years ago yet impacts on the Illinios (sp) River have been small."
Actually it looks like the phosphorous pollution was cut in half: "Phosphorus pollution dropped to 0.120milligrams per liter in 2011, down from 0.219 in 2003."
I agree there are many sources of pollution beyond the application of poultry litter as fertilizer, but it appears to have a significant impact on the amount of phosphorous in the water.

Posted by: jlonber

March 6, 2013 at 12:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

There's still hope for the younger generation!

Posted by: Coralie

March 6, 2013 at 2:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Oh, I almost forgot, no more fertilizing those yards around all those nice houses all around Grand Lake. That Scotts company should be sued! :)

Posted by: jeffieboy

March 7, 2013 at 1:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

When thinking about environmental issues it is important to remember that environmental change isnt' always bad. I had the great pleasure of knowing and hearing stories from some of the "founders" of the great expansion and growth in NWA.

To understand where I'm going with this one must first take a drive up to SE Kansas. That is what NWA used to look like back in the 1920's and 30's. When people grazed cattle here they grazed acres per head.

With the advent and growth of the poultry industry especially during the 40's and 50's a lot of chicken poop was generated. Back then they put it on the ground as fertilizer. Grazing cattle went from acres per head to head per acres. That had a lot to do with turning the formerly generally brown prairie into the the lush green paradise we enjoy today.

Without the development the poultry industry brought to the area we would still look like SE Kansas and probably enjoy the same population density and economy. Business generated by poultry also fueld many of the other companies that are so prominent today. JB Hunt comes to mind and many others. That is the source of our wealth and prosperity.

The point is that NWA is a very special place. During this recession we haven't been "hurt" like some other areas of the country. Our unemployment rate remains low. Business generally thrives. Our infrastructure growing and improving. It is a great place to live.

When you have people they are going to leave footprints and there is nothing you can do about that. The critical point is that when we do leave footprints they need to be the kind that aren't radically destructive but that doesn't mean that we can't leave some that are reasonable.

With the urban and industrial development in NWA and other areas along the Illinios River there is no way you are ever going to get to a point of "pristine" where there is only .0037 levels of phosphorus in the water. It's never gonna happen because it is not achieveable.

Every system has capabilities and limits. As one approaches upper limits attempting to increasing performance becomes more and more expensive and difficult while incrementl improvements diminish. I believe we are at that point on this watershed issue. Any additional incremental improvement isn't justified by the phenominal cost.

Is one better than the other? It depends on your preferences and point of view. If you want to live on a barren prairie there is plenty available and one can always move there. I like it here and I like the way it is. I'm grateful for what the people that grew this place have done to make it what it is.

I'm not willing to make radical destructive changes to my lifestyle or suffer significant economic damage because some "tree hugger" in Oklahoma wants to turn a normal river into a pristine wilderness waterway. When you have the kind of urban and argicultural mixed development we have you can't have both. That is the reality of it.

Posted by: jeffieboy

March 7, 2013 at 10:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MM: "your God, the Democrat party">>

I've never been a democrat or a member of the democratic party.

MM: "Inhofe doesn't deny climate,">>

I'm glad he doesn't "deny climate."

MM: "[he] does deny man-made climate change.">>

Which means he's at least as uninformed on the topic as you. And that's saying quite a bit. Fortunately, there's a cure for your ignorance. Begin here:

"10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change" http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-In...

Then: NOAA: "Fingerprints of Emissions and the Carbon Cycle: Stable and Radiocarbon Isotopes of Carbon Dioxide
The Data: What 13C Tells Us" http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/infodata...

Note especially this paragraph: "How do we know that humans are responsible?"
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach...

D.
-------------
1) "All scientific bodies of national or international standing agree with the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.” http://tinyurl.com/y67qrl

2) "...an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,..." --National Academy of Science, http://www.pnas.org/content/early/201...

3) "A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change. She... analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003,... none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientif...

4) "Harvard professor James McCarth, former co-chair of the IPCC, was asked how many of the world's top 1000 climate experts would disagree with the basic scientific consensus that the increase in green house gas concentrations over the last 50 years to levels not seen in 650,000 years is primarily anthropogenic and is the cause of an increase in global temperatures.
He replied, "Five."
--Distinguishing Climate "Deniers" From "Skeptics" David Brin, Ph.D.
http://www.davidbrin.com/climatechang...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 8, 2013 at 12:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MM: "Deny climate" your words not mine.">>

If MoneyM hates it when he's quoted accurately and verbatim, he should try not to say such silly things:

"Inhofe doesn't deny climate..." --MM's words, not mine.

MM: "Mr. Inhofe does deny man-caused climate change.">>

And a few other things. Like you, Inhofe is serially misinformed and I make no apology for pointing it out.

MM: "I believe that man has caused changes in the environment.">>

Brilliant! And vacuous.

MM: "...you are one of those know-it-alls that...">>

I don't know it all, but I do know a little bit of it.

Look, Mr. Mm, I know you would like to be a smart person who knows things and writes posts that are informative and worth reading. You may even wish you knew how to spell third grade words correctly and
use grammar at 4th grade level. Maybe you wish you weren't a dishonest person who plagiarizes the writings of someone else and passes them along as your own. But God has not suited you for that task. He has instead, in his inimitable wisdom (his ways are higher than ours), fashioned you for the roll of being a Troll. That's just the way it is. So on occasion, a person may be able to take one of your blurps and make a useful point out of it (as I did above) but other than that, well, perhaps it's best to not say any more about it.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 8, 2013 at 10:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MM: "FFT: "The Rebulican climate denier and killer of science__">>

I didn't say that, those were not my words (as you falsely claimed). As noted, that was a quote from Tulsa World (unlike you I am honest and give proper attribution when posting the writings of others).

As always, Money swings... moneymissed. An ankle biter that can never even manage to land a bite!

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 8, 2013 at 11:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Right-on again, jeffieboy! I have learned a lot from you, IrishMensa, and mycentworth.

Posted by: Moneymyst

March 8, 2013 at 12:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

My pleasure, moneymyst. I continue to be appalled and saddened at how many of these progressive liberal elites skew things unmercifully in their attempts to make the world as they believe it should be rather than recognize it for what it is all the while using any means to force others to accept their mythological follies. Their activities are irresponsible and it is very difficult not to hold them in the contempt they deserve. It tries one's very soul!

Posted by: jeffieboy

March 8, 2013 at 12:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Sorry, Money, you lost me when you said you had learned from IrishMensa.

Posted by: Coralie

March 8, 2013 at 1:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Jeffieboy makes the usual errors and passes along the standard well worn canards that climate science deniers have peddled from the beginning.

He should have done his homework first.

Lunch break is over, I'll get to it after work. Pop some corn.

D.
--------------
"These people are ignorant. Well-meaning, but just plain ignorant," fumed Ian Rutherford, executive director of the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society,...

[These climate science deniers] are driven by ideology and some kind of a misplaced understanding of how the world works... None of them ever come to our scientific conferences. They know they would be laughed out of the building. The stuff they say, some of it is so nonsensical it's hardly worth discussing." http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 8, 2013 at 2:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

I can certainly understand why thinker is "free". It is certainly not worthy of any price or much serious consideration.

Back to the original subject I wonder if he can explain why there is such a difference in phosphorus levels in the White and Illinios Rivers?

For such a great "thinker" he is strangely silent on the origianl subject. It appears that in typical progressive liberal fashion when they lose their point they change the subject. It is their only means of escape.

Posted by: jeffieboy

March 8, 2013 at 6:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Jeff passes along *the* #1 and #2 most favorite climate science denier canards going around and then finishes with some conspiracy science stuff on top.

#1 "Climate's changed before"
#2 "It's the sun"

He could keep going down the list, or perhaps he can read ahead and see why they don't hold up ahead of time. Saves me time. 174 climate science denier claims unpacked: http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Jef: "Climate change is real. Climate change is also natural.">>

This is misleading and begs the question. Of course climate changes over time but the question before us is, are humans causing the correctly predicted, presently observed, warming? The best science on the planet overwhelmingly says we are.

Jef: "The end of the last ice age about 12-14,000 years ago is well documented.">>

Indeed it is. But that has nothing to do with the matter of humans causing the changes in question, in the blip of a couple centuries.

Jef: "attempting to tie human influence to it is that the research sample is much too small.">>

Why is that? Jeff doesn't say. And he's wrong anyway. With regard to the speed we've added carbon to the atmosphere and speed with which we are causing the acidification of the ocean, these changes are unprecedented over many millions of years. Observe:

"The acidity of global surface waters has increased by 30% in just the last 200 years. This rate of acidification is projected through the end of the century to accelerate even further... "The current rate of change is much more rapid than during any event over the last 65 million years. These changes in ocean chemistry are irreversible for many thousands of years, and the biological consequences could last much longer." --The InterAcademy Panel, June 1, 2009, http://tinyurl.com/3t9nasg and: http://www.interacademies.net/10878/1...

And:
"[Our] atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years)."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human...

Jef: "Most research supporting human causes is tied to changes over a very short period of time...">>

Which is exactly the problem. We are causing these changes in a profoundly short period of time. And while the climate science deniers have been complaining about alarmism, we are finding that the exact opposite is true. Note:

"Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative
Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming"
--Scientific American, 12/6/12 http://tinyurl.com/aqcqmzb

Jef: "and ignores much larger samples that are available.">>

What are these samples that are being "ignored?" Jeff doesn't say. That's because they don't exist.

cont...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 8, 2013 at 6:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Jef: "Unlike "freethinker" I am highly skeptical of established academia.">>

Having co-founded the largest skeptics group in the state, I've got the category of "skeptical" down pretty good. I don't think you are practicing skepticism but rather contrarianism based up your rightwing anti-government politics. And your errors are so basic, I don't think you know much about the topic in question.

Are there any other areas of science requiring complex expert training and knowledge where you think you know more than all of the experts, or is the area of climatology the only one? Really, I'd like to know.

I've provided ten lines of evidence showing the human finger prints on the presently observed warming (and have more). You've responded to none of it and instead floated the "it's changed before" (irrelevant) and "maybe it's the sun" (it isn't) and then some scientific conspiracy/collusion on top (which is so silly I'll just skip for now). None of these assertions accomplish the task at hand and that is, explain the correctly predicted, presently, observed warming. And more importantly, explain why it has the exact fingerprints we predicted it would if it was caused by us (you'll need to read the links I've already provided to learn about that).

D.
------------
http://www.bartcop.com/gw-mcibben_n.jpg

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 8, 2013 at 6:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Note to fayfree.....You're free to think what you like. However, people that know things won't allow you to skew facts. If you want to discuss other things go find an audience that will tolerate your off-subject and meaningless meanderings.

The subject of this thread is phosphorus levels in the Illinois River and Art Hobson's contention that the poultry companies in Northwest Arkansas are culpable, primarily responsible, and that the planet will not survive as a result of it.

In conclusion: Professor Hobson's contentions are incorrect and some of his assertions are inaccurate. What he obviously does is represent a progressive liberal environmentalist view that is political in nature and not based on good science or all availalble information and facts. He sites only a few facts that support his argument. That is just not good science nor what one would expect from an accomplished academic.

It was my intention to reveal that and I'm confident I succeeded. Neither he nor his arch supporter Coralie, a fellow progressive liiberal, have substantiatively commented on the subject at all. I find it revelaing that they leave it to someone like "fayfree" that finally admits he doesn't know anything about it.

Posted by: jeffieboy

March 8, 2013 at 7:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Jef: "Art Hobson's contention that the poultry companies in Northwest Arkansas are culpable, primarily responsible, and that the planet will not survive as a result of it.">>

Oh, and that's a plain distortion of what he said, which was a much broader point and was:

"The planet cannot survive a philosophy that pits economic development against the environment. This rule applies to Northwest Arkansas."

Turns out, your climatology misunderstandings are a good fit for this topic after all.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 8, 2013 at 8:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Humans breath in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide lets sunshine in, but insulates the resulting heat from radiating back into space.

Pretty simple: less humans breathing = less global warming. It'd be much easier to control the human population - cut it back to a more sustainable level of say, three or four billion people. One doesn't need a PhD in any field to see the answer here . . . .

If everyone on the planet were to kill the next human they see today, the numbers would be back in line. An even more efficient answer would be for everyone to kill the next pregnant woman they run across (it'd be a two-fer, don't you see? It'd obviate the need for the whole argument about abortion, too.)

Solutions are simple when you're a good neo-conservative Christian Republican, aren't they?

Posted by: GenBuckTurgidson

March 9, 2013 at 11:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Jeff: "I wouldn't expect less of any progressive liberal with an agenda.>>

Yes, because climate science denier Jeff doesn't have an agenda does he? If Jeff had a case to make for his claims, (considering he has shown himself to be a follower of quack science I doubt that he does), he could better spend his time backing up some of his claims (careful readers will notice that at no time in this thread does he do anything but pile unsourced assertions on top of each other). It seems he would rather spend most of his time ignorantly bashing Coralie, Art and telling them they should move from the state if they don't believe Jeff's chicken industry apologetic.

Jeff: "Who else would admit they know nothing about something while tirelessly continuing to argue a lost point?">>

Let's see, Jeff asks me if I can explain something about phosphorus levels in rivers and when I honestly respond that it's:

"Not an area of expertise for me. When there is a topic I don't know much about, I sit back and learn."

So he complains when I don't offer to opine about a topic that's not an area of expertise, and then he tries to hit me with that by falsely claiming I am:

"...tirelessly continuing to argue a lost point?"

What point would that be? The phosphorus level in rivers point that I didn't address at all? Jeff doesn't say what this point is. It certainly wasn't regarding his clearly clueless comments regarding climate change because I didn't lose that point as Jeff well knows because he quickly tucked tail and ran full speed from that topic. And with good reason.

Then we get some insulting story about squirrels I couldn't bother to finish where he reveals once again he's not a serious person by going on to compare people who disagree with him on matters of the environment, with his squirrels in his birdfeeder. If Jeff did have an interesting point to make about lawn fertilizer adding to the phosphorus problem, it got lost in his efforts bash Coralie and Art.

Could we have an adult conservative representative on these boards that can stand up for their comments and actually back up their claims? Or would that be asking too much?

D.
----------
Jeff still ducks the question:

Are there any other areas of science requiring complex expert training and knowledge where you think you know more than all of the experts, or is the area of climatology the only one?

At this point I'm thinking it's not the only one. It's pretty obvious that if Jeff's emotional investment in his personal rightwing politics disagree with the science, he goes with the politics.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 9, 2013 at 1:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Freethinker from Fayettenam....If you can't stay on topic I and anyone with a moducum of reasoning ability will continue to ignore your meanderings.

For Genbuck: If you took every man, woman, and child on the planet and stood them shoulder to shoulder in one spot how much space would they occupy? How many US states would they occupy standing shoulder to shoulder? Please provide a definitive answer, we don't need an essay on a different subject. Pick some US states or a state.

Back to the point, population surely plays a role in water quality in the Illinios watershed. That is unavoidable. It plays a role in every watershed, as do domestic and wild animal populations, soil composition, geology, ground cover, natural flora and fauna, the type of crops grown, and the presence of humans and human activity, and rainfall.

The topic of the discussion centered on placing primary blame for water conditions on poultry operations. The preponderence of evidence is that water quality is a result of numerous factors.

When the particular case of the Illinios watershed is compared to a similar one, the White River, there is a marked difference in levels of phosphorus while the density of poultry operations are similar. Therefore some other factor makes for the difference.

I have personally sampled stormwater runoff, had the results examined and analyzed by state approved independent laboratories approved by the government, and submitted results to ADEQ. I have also reviewed similar reports that are available as public information.

I have concluded that the difference in the two otherwise similar watersheds it that urban (city) stormwater runoff in NWA flows redominately to the west into the Illinios watershed. That evidence suggests that the problems are not primarily caused by any form of regulated agricultural runoff including any activity that requires a stormwater runoff permit frm ADEQ or is subject to land application of nutirent plans, but with unregulated urban runoff.

There are myrad solutions if one really wants to invest enough to money to turn the Illinios River into a pristine utopia including depopulating NWA completely. Regardless, with all the other influences even that won't solve the "problem".

Problems on the Oklahoma side of the Illinos River including but not limited to improper septic tanks, runnoff from parking lots and other urban effects, the Greenleaf Nursery, and cattel and hog operations make significant contributions.

The science isn't helped by attempts by Drew Edmonson using enviromentalists in Tallequa and his own dubious data and information to gain some kind of political noteriety in his attempt to win the governor's office. I'm pleased he failed miserably.

Progressive liberals and radical environmentalists have lost this round, deservedly so. It is comical how some can't shake the squirrel syndrome and keep going back to open a can of worms that was emptied long ago.

Posted by: jeffieboy

March 9, 2013 at 3:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

It appears many don't really understand the point. I don't know why - it's pretty simple.

Homo sapiens have been allowed to breed without proper herd management. Thin the herd by half, and allow the other half to evolve.

Posted by: GenBuckTurgidson

March 9, 2013 at 4:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

I was an environmental professional before I retired last year. I have been intimately involved in this issue from the start. At first I was open to the assertions made because of tens of years of loadings of phosphous. If overloaded it takes a while to dissipate that.

However, in the last several years of testing and data collection it has become apparent that poultry litter may have made a contribution at some time but that is no longer the case. The significant factor now is that the effect of unregulated emmissions is the key.

Industry has done what it can and the waste treatment facilities in our area have also...barring completely rediculous costs that won't make a difference until everybody, every soul here stops washing their cars in their driveway and carefully applies lawn and garden fertilizer in accordance with known and accepted practices.

My point is simple.....getting your grandparents and neighbors to actually do that is not an achieveable task. So best I can say at this point is "good luck" with it and hope for the best. Unless people are willing to radically change their lifestyles here, and I bet they are not, there is little that industry or public utilities can do to make things significantly better.

It's that simple.

Posted by: jeffieboy

March 9, 2013 at 7:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Jeffie: "...poultry litter may have made a contribution at some time...">>

Just imagine, an "environmental professor" saying that the poultry contributions "may have made a contribution at some time..."

Just let that sink in.

Think about how absurdly delusional that comment is. Think about how watered down and profoundly milquetoast it is. And then consider, if a certain chicken company wanted to hire a local shill who could, I don't know, do things like...

"sampled stormwater runoff, had the results examined and analyzed by state approved independent laboratories approved by the government, and submitted results to ADEQ..."

that sort of thing.

Jeffieboy would be a good go to guy for that wouldn't he? Why yes he would.

So we have two questions Jeffieboy is now ducking:

1) "Are there any other areas of science requiring complex expert training and knowledge where you think you know more than all of the experts, or is the area of climatology the only one?"

And:

2) "You don't happen to get a check from a chicken company for passing along your stuff do you?"

Why is Jeffieboy afraid to answer these questions? And why doesn't a professor know how to spell the word ridiculous? That's ridiculous.

D.
--------------
“Here is your country. Cherish these natural wonders, cherish the natural resources, cherish the history and romance as a sacred heritage, for your children and your children's children. Do not let selfish men or greedy interests skin your country of its beauty, its riches or its romance.”
―Theodore Roosevelt

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 9, 2013 at 9:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

"For Genbuck: If you took every man, woman, and child on the planet and stood them shoulder to shoulder in one spot how much space would they occupy? How many US states would they occupy standing shoulder to shoulder? Please provide a definitive answer, we don't need an essay on a different subject. Pick some US states or a state."

Jeffie, I have no idea how many people would occupy any given state if you laid the states end-to-end . . . or . . . what's your question, again?

The fact remains: there are about twice as many humans on this planet as it has resources to carry. Every other one of us is on welfare, resource-wise; right now, you're breathing my air. The only solution is to thin the herd. The only question remaining is: who do we want to do the cull?

I'd probably vote for someone other than you, Money, or Tank. I'm unsure as to y'all's judgment, when it comes to who to cull; when to cull them; and how to efficiently dispose of the offal without further damaging my planet.

Posted by: GenBuckTurgidson

March 9, 2013 at 11:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Jef: " I have never particiated in a more useless and senseless discussion...">>

Well that's unfortunate, because I thought it was going rather well. Tell us the story about the squirrels again would you?

Alpha: "He was not a professor;...">>

Excellent catch, I see my mistake. He said "professional," not professor.

Jef: "I believe he worked at George's.">>

Shirley you must mean the Majestic Lounge, because if it's the chicken house, that would suggest very much of "an agenda" and conflict of interest on this topic now wouldn't it? It certainly would explain his howler that:

"...poultry litter may have made a contribution at some time..."

That one is just breathtaking.

I do hope he hasn't given up so easily. Poor Moneymissed will be crushed. Who then will he shake his pom poms for?

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 10, 2013 at 1:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Professor jeffieboy will be missed, but he has added enough to this subject already. In other words, what needed to be said, he said. If all the air goes out of a tire, switch vehicles. I suppose you three just beat him down with ignorance.There are none so blind as a moonbat.

Buckster is you are so hip on culling the herd, the you should set us all an example and check out. We will miss you for a little while with such sweet sorrow, but life must go on. I promise hold your memory in highest requard reguardless of your insanity. On your tomestone I will write with a magic marker, "He was a man who improved the world he lived in by his death."

Posted by: Moneymyst

March 10, 2013 at 3:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

How much space would all the people in the world occupy standing shoulder to shoulder? They will slightly spill over the borders of the state of Rhode Island. They cannot completely fill any other state in the US.

Posted by: jeffieboy

March 10, 2013 at 11:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

GenBuck says "Thin the herd by half, and allow the other half to evolve."
Sorry, that's not the way it works. Human population has continued to grow through the centuries despite horrific wars, democides, plagues, and smallpox.
What will work--and is working--is a lot of people's decisions to have fewer children.
Look up family planning success stories in Bangladesh, Brazil, Iran, Thailand, and Zimbabwe.

Posted by: Coralie

March 10, 2013 at 3:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Cdawg: "But what is such a description supposed to demonstrate?">>

It could only be to demonstrate that Jeffie hasn't the foggiest idea of what he is talking about.

How tight of a space humans standing shoulder to shoulder would fit in, has no relevance to anything.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 10, 2013 at 4:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

"the influence of people is on a planetary scale not nearly as great as many believe"
Yet even in ancient times, with human population hundreds of times smaller and without all our wonderful technology, people managed to drive a number of species to extinction and to turn fertile areas into deserts by overgrazing and cutting forests--thus changing regional climates.

Posted by: Coralie

March 11, 2013 at 1:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Coralie, what you say is speculation. There is no concrete evidence that people were exclusively responsible for the extinction of species in ancient times. Keeping up with new reasearch reveals that as well as animals, groups of people including entire civilizations also disappeared completely. That evidence opens up the possiblility that something else has been at work.

Posted by: jeffieboy

March 11, 2013 at 2:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Jeffieboy, you think it is speculation that many deserts or near-deserts including the Mediterranean area were once fertile?
A scholarly paper points out:
"The vulnerability of the land to severe degradation that leads to desertification is attributed to several factors, including: large moisture deficits, climatic variability with frequent extreme events, steep terrain, geologic formations favouring desertification processes, out of phase climatic and vegetative periods, shallow soils and long periods of intensive human interference.
Under the existing natural conditions lands have inertia and resilience, and resist extreme degradation. Desertification processes have been triggered and accelerated only by human action."
[note last two sentences]
http://www.rala.is/rade/ralareport/ya...

Posted by: Coralie

March 11, 2013 at 5:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Yes, Coralie, I do. I referenced the resumes of the the authors and their references of the UN (spit-hack) study you cited. Language in it like "Irrational human action" and the political backgrounds of several of the referenced contriibutors are revealing.

It is possible for human activity to contribute to desertification locally and regionally. It happenend in America during the great dustbowl period. It took a combination of an unusual drought and agricultural practices to cause the disaster but due to a return to more normal weather and improved agricultural practices the area has recovered.

But to have catestrophic and significant change globally or even to affect large areas of a continent there must be other factors in play that go well beyond what people are capable of doing.

The authors did have the sense to distiinguish their assertions from classical deserts like the Kalahari Sahara where people were not the predominate factor while they supposed the impact of people was different for other areas and could be a trigger that that accellerated certain conditions. I won't argue with that.

It is a fact that parts of Spain, Italy and Greece have had a problem for a couple thousand years. Those areas have been arid since the end of the last ice age. Of course it is possible for people to have an effect. We could turn our beloved botanical gardens in Fayettenam into a desert with a bulldozer if we wanted to, but it would be impossible to do that on a continental or planet-wide scale.

That leads one to consider other research that supposes that rapid and radical climate change has occurred in the past and on a planetary scale. There is plenty of evidence for it and the evidence suggests that when those events occur there is nothing, absoulutely nothing, that people can do about it.

With the end of the last ice age around 12,000 years ago sea levels rose hundreds of feet worldwide. Some evidence suggests that the change was very abrupt, perhaps occurring over a period of a few short years. Once fertile lands along the shores are deep underwater today. Large inland areas were inundated. Ocean currents that impact weather changed dramatically. Where fertile savanah once thrived we find the Sahara desert today.

Sure, people can have an effect, but a longer look deeper into history suggests they aren't the most influential or dangerous ones.

Posted by: jeffieboy

March 11, 2013 at 5:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Re extinctions, I quote from Wikipedia but the same information is available many other places:
"The Holocene extinction, sometimes called the Sixth Extinction, is the mass extinction of species during the present Holocene epoch (since around 10,000 BC). The large number of extinctions span numerous families of plants and animals including mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and arthropods. Although 875 extinctions occurring between 1500 and 2009 have been documented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, the vast majority are undocumented. According to the species-area theory and based on upper-bound estimating, up to 140,000 species per year may be the present rate of extinction.
The Holocene extinction includes the disappearance of large mammals known as megafauna, starting between 9,000 and 13,000 years ago, the end of the last Ice Age."
==
Jeffieboy, do you think this is "speculative"?
Is the loss of so many plants, animals, and ecosystems insignificant?
What about the current threat to bees, which pollinate so many of our crops?
What about human dependence on a very few staple crops?
What about pollution and acidification of oceans, when so many people in the world are dependent on seafood?

Posted by: Coralie

March 12, 2013 at 4:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )