Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I just have to say that lately I have been reading posts by some of the dumbest people I have ever had the misfortune to read. Why is it that we have so many "experts" in herpetoculture that don't even know basic science. Instead of researched arguements,I see tirades about "God and Country" to justify ignorance.
We need trees because they produce the quality air we breathe. We need wetlands because they are natures nursery Thousands of species of animal life depend upon them for survival. It is that simple, which is why the arguement for destroying trees and wetlands is so stupid! Maybe some of you ought to pick up a basic science book before you blast "Enviromentalists" and make idiots out of yourselves.....
Frank
The plus key on my computer is broken so I apologise for the lack of pluses in the formula posted below.

-----
Chris Harrison

...he was beginning to realize he was the creature of a god that appreciated the discomfort of his worshippers - W. Somerset Maugham

Thanks! Technology is my particular Achilles heel...Computers; a questionable ally...Frank

Now who's calling names?

I may not be a highly educated stuffed shirt but, I an neither dumb nor ignorant!

I don't believe it takes a lot of knowledge to figure this one out. All we have to do is look at Gore vs. Bush & it's easy to see which is better. Let's just say for the sake of argument that Gore had been elected president & that he had done all kinds of amazing things for the environment, would you really trade all that for national security?
Had he been in office duing 911 he would still be sitting around with his administration trying to figure out what had happened, why they hate us & what we can do differently to make them love us. In the mean time, we would be under attack after attack because the enemy knows he's too big a pussy to do anything about it.

It's been fun but, now I really must go because I have an appointment with the SUV dealer!

3 cheers for God & Country!

Eric

I don't have to call names. Pick up any childrens book on science and you can learn about Photosynthesis. Then tell me I am wrong. Unlike some people I've seen here I respect an educated arguement. Mine is very easy to prove, and I don't have to hide behind noise. So prove me wrong with facts...Otherwise you are just another idiot who is spitting into the wind.
The problem we have with Bush is he has repeatedly shown that business is more important than common sense. I am just as angry about 911, but that does not justify trashing the enviroment to appease campaign promises to big business...And you can Bless America all you want, but without air to breathe...you will do it for a dead audience as you gasp your last breath. You can legislate practically everything, but niether Bush, nor the church can replace nature's air cleaning system once you have made houses out of it. At that point you had better hope for a miracle
Instead of bravado...pick up a book. knowledge is the begining of wisdom.
frank

For the record....I did not vote for Bush. I did not vote for Gore. I wrote in a protest vote for Jimmy Stewart for president, John Wayne for vice (both dead...but at least honest when alive). Last election there was no good choice so I refused to either sanction one of them...or give up my vote.
Frank

Frank,

Where did you get the idea that I disagreed with you on photosynthisis?
The only thing we disagree on is how bad the situation is.

Ok, we disagree on one other thing. John should've been the pres & Jimmy the Veep!

Eric

But then there is allways Arnold???
Frank

just when I was relaxing...I found Amevias in my yard......

We can get so dumb as to not realize that all the plant matter on this planet consumes as much O2 when it dies, as it produces when it is alive! We can also be so dumb as to ignore the fact that the same plant matter produces as much CO2 when it dies as it does when it is alive. Thus, all the plants in the world collectively, never add any O2 or consume any CO2 because all the dying ones do the exact opposite of the growing ones leaving no net gains either way.

Put a million trees under a giant bubble. Come back in a million years and if the same volume of plant matter is still there, the O2 and CO2 levels will be exactly the same.

True, pants will filter some pollutants out of the air, but guess what? When they burn, they release them back into air-- or if they die and rot, they are released back into ground. The pollution doesn't just disappear!--though it could change its form a little bit.

Simple science books will tell you about photosynthesis, but they won't tell you about the rest of the cycle that ends up in end with no total gains or losses of CO2 or O2. (the plants eventual death). Now if you could only figure out a way to stop plants from ever dying. Then you could use the argument that they significantly help the air because that would stop the cycle. Cutting them down does the same thing--except that now you are depleting the soil of its nutrients and creating another problem.

As for us needing wetlands as nurseries, I couldn't agree more. Do we want and need forests? Yes. Do we need overgrown forests that have 10 times the trees as a health forest? Nope.

Rodney

But it seems you are not so....You really don't get the big picture. If the whole CO2 exchange worked exactly like you describe we would all be dead because when the plants rereleased CO2 and took in Oxygen all Terrestrial animal life would suffocate (except those in close proximety to the sea)...phyloplankton or not. The only surving life would be in the sea...Which is why life evolved there first (amongst other reasons). animals were late coming ashore...Well after the forests formed to clean and oxygenate the air. Your problem is you are too focused on what you think is important,,,and you over look the fact that 500 million years of success is based on the fact that the oxygen produced is excessive enough because plants grow and replicate much faster than they die so there is no equal intake and output...You are not going to find your plastic bubble where plants don't grow.
Now...is this going to keep on????????????
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Sorry, but I can't drop it!

I really irks me when people say things that simply are not true and not based on good science. Then other misinformed people repeat that same thing until the vast majority of the public then believes it because they have heard the same thing from so many people that it must be true. If 90% of the public believes something, and repeats it, but it can be disproven, do you think that makes it true? You can go back to the global warming thing on this. Most scientist don't believe it, but most of the public does because the news media constantly repeats what a few scientists say about it. Consider the Kyoto Accord as an example. A bunch of countries all got together to have a meeting to VOTE about global warming! Not science, but a VOTE! Voting does not make something true!

I don't mind dropping this, but if someone is going to "inform" the public about something that is blatantly false, I am going to oppose them with the truth--and hopefully, some intelligent people will think about it and will repeat the truth and beat back these falsehoods.

One of the basic laws of Science is that "Matter is neither created or destroyed, it only changes form" We know for a fact that plant matter, after it is totally decomposed, is soil. We also know that the same is true for energy (excluding nuclear reactions where very small amounts of matter are changed into very large amounts of energy--a way of changing form) "Energy is neither created nor destroyed, it only changes form" These two scientific laws are called conservation of matter and conservation of energy. To ignore these two laws because it isn't politically correct because it doesn't back up your argument is very foolish.

Do you think that it is a coincidence that burning plant matter consumes huge amounts of O2 and produces hugh amounts CO2 and heat, while photosynthesis (a much slower chemical reaction) consumes small amounts of energy and CO2 and produces O2 over a much longer period of time and exactly equal to the burning process? Isn't it odd that rotting does the exact same thing as fire, but more slowly since fire is a very rapid oxidization and rotting is a very slow one?--doesn't seem odd at all to me!

Another thing you fail to recognize about all the animals that are producing CO2 and consuming O2--Guess what they are eating? Yes, that's right, most are eating plants. They are part of the decomposition process too! Instead of those plants just rotting or burning, they are being digested. This provides energy (both body heat and locomotion among other things) for the animals which need to breath in O2 and exhale CO2 for that same oxidization process to take place.-Guess what, the energy the animals produce (plus growth), in total (plus the further energy released during the decomposition of their feces), is equal to the energy release by the plants they ate, if the plants were to decompose by fire or rotting! Now you are probably saying, "What about carnivores?" Well, they are eating the plant eaters and getting energy from their bodies that is equal to what the plant eater would produce if was to die and decompose!--that accounts for the growth part that I was talking about. Wow, another coincidence!

Think about it--the only way to produce an excess O2 and eliminate some CO2 from the environment is to interrupt these cycles someway. And doing so, is only temporary. Cut trees for lumber will eventually rot or burn. But at least you can get that gain for a few year.

Do you also think it is a coincidence that the prehistoric plant matter that produces oil, when burned, releases all the CO2 during burning of the fuel that it absorbed from the environment when it was alive?--there's your break in the cycle! That's the same gain you would get by cutting trees, though for a much longer period of time. Stop the decomposition somehow, and you achieve your goal.

Note, I am not proposing this (cutting trees to cut CO2), just pointing out the foolishness of most environmentalists that oppose cutting trees ALWAYS, and also think there is too much CO2 causing global warming while ignoring thousands of other factors. Cutting trees will produce the effects they so desperately want for their global warming argument.

If I see another blatant falsehood, I will argue against it also--I consider it a public service to help counteract the dumbing down of our schools. I saw another post that repeated this falsehood, so I had to counter it.

Please people, THINK--don't just accept everything you hear! Especially when it contradicts other things you know to be true.

You want to read some mind blowing facts. Check out this site. See both sides of an issue and then make up your mind what you believe if you can't figure things out for yourself.

Sorry if I rant a lot, but falsehoods presented as facts really irk me and I suppose they alwasy will!!

http://pushback.com/

Rodney

First of all the Quote you used has been obsolete since the beginning of the nuclear age. The correct law is:" Matter can niether be created nor destroyed by ORDINARY MEANS. Also soil does not represent the total breakdown of plant matter. it is converted further by gram positive bacteria to a form that plants can use as food...the rest to an inert residue.
Update your text please.
I agree about the dumbing of America. It is scary! But as far as you're educating goes you do need more recent texts.

Personally I do not beleave in POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

How you concieve that I am ignoring the the law of conservation of matter and the law of conservation of energy is beyond me. I showed your arguements to my wife (who is a Biologist) and she says you are constructing an erroneous picture out of small pieces of truth. And no...she is not with PETA nor does she hug trees (openly).
I am an ex-zoo curator so please don't lecture me on what animals eat. But you are constructing a picture based on absolutes and ignoring the variables that I have presented.
Also; you chose to ignore that you are not an expert on Florida biology and the solutions that you advocate (for Florida)...and the politics you hate...don't work here. We don't have people clubbing salmon and we don't have campuses full of militants. Here trees grow much faster than any force (save fire and people) can kill them. So as I keep saying the balance you speak of does not exist here. it is countered by negative production parts of the world like deserts for example.
The processes you speak of are not the arguement here...What you just don't get is this whole world has succeeded (prior to man because there are always variables.
The bottom line is still...About a Florida Issue. Have you even lived here? I doubt it. Your too intelligent to be spouting what you are if you had. I have 50 years here.
And yes...When someone in California starts telling me what's best for my home...I do take your advice...I can see out my back window what is going on here...You aren't going to change that truth from California.
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

According to "Biology" 6th ed. by Campbell and Reece:
"One of the first clues to the mechanism of photosynthesis came from the discovery that the oxygen given off by plants is derived from water and not from carbon dioxide. The chloroplast splits water into hydrogen and oxygen. Before this discovery, the prevailing hypothesis was that photosynthesis split carbon dioxide and then added water to the carbon." "The waste product of photosynthesis, O2, restores the atmospheric oxygen consumed during cellular respiration."
If the amount of oxygen was equal to the amount of CO2 being produced there would not be free O2 in the atmosphere. Besides which, you are failing to add other photosynthetic organisms into the equation, such as the cyanobacteria which are the only prokaryotes that generate O2.
Aint my lady smart?
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

So, what are the EXTRAORDINARY means that are taking place that prevent, in the end, after all the growing/decomposing is done, not ending up with the same number of atoms and the same type of elements? I know science is discovering new things all the time, but unless there is some type of nuclear reaction going on, I really don't see how matter is being created. And certainly not in the amount needed if the forests were actually producing some excess O2. If you or anyone else could figure that out, you should be able to easily turn lead into gold! Just because the wording has changed in texts, doesn't mean the ideas of conservation of matter and energy are any different. They have just been reworded to take into account nuclear reactions and make the older wording of these laws less verbose--the ideas stay the same and they still support my argument.

The bacteria and microbes that you talk about are irrelevant because that only proves that plants can use some things that aren't completely decomposed--and some things are still being decomposed at that point. That is why I wrote totally decomposed in my previous posts. There are many other complex things to take into account, like the symbiotic relationship of fungus in the soil and plants--and so on. Insects eat the plants and some animals eat the insects. But that is still irrelevant. It doesn't mean that forests produce a net gain of O2. Any system in balance, will by definition, not produce any extra O2 or CO2--if it does, it is not in balance! If you can find a difference, that simply means that something hasn't totally decomposed yet. The only way to knock it out of balance it to somehow interrupt the cycle. Again, here in California, the forestry department says that 10-20 times as many plants are present as is HEALTHY for the forests. "Environmentalist" groups stop the thinning and now we have yet another forest fire disaster on our hands. These fires are not at all natural. They are far larger and more powerful than what would be normal. And let me tell you, the air quality produced from that fire is many thousands of times worse than it would have been if those forests had been allowed to be thinned a little. Not to mention all the jobs it would create and what a help it would be to the economy.

Do you think any endangered animals in that area have the least chance of survival? They would at least have a chance if those forests had been thinned a bit.

Much like my bubble with a forest under it analogy. If you place animals in that bubble, and it is in balance (same amount of plants and animals by weight) The O2 and CO2 levels will be the same after 1 million years--regardless if there are any animals in that equation or not. If there were 10 lb. of animals, 1000 lb. of animals or 100,000 animals, the O2 and CO2 levels would still be the same. If the animal population was increasing, or the plants were increasing, this obviously would not be true since it is not in balance. And that seems to be the problem today. Maybe not precisely where you live, but there are far more trees in this country than there were 50 years ago. Native Indians used to burn the forests regularly to keep them healthy. We changed all that with modern fire fighting techniques and the virtual elimination of the Indian's techniques. Now instead of correcting it, and creating jobs, and helping the economy all at the same time, we have environmental groups that file law suits to prevent it, costing us billions of dollars annually-and then telling us they are saving us while causing major disasters and asking for donations. And that doesn't even take into account the elimination of many apex predators and occasionaly overgrowths of their prey while hunting is not allowed or is frowned upon.

As for the technical aspects of photosynthesis. That is really irrelevant also. Whether the plants produce O2 from water or CO2, you still end up with all the same elements in the end in the exact same number. Some of these elements make great fertilizer. Personally, I think a lot of CO2 is converted to O2 due to the amazing amount of carbon left over when a forest burns. All that carbon couldn't come from water exclusively. Or maybe it is some process other than photosynthesis that is producing all the carbon all together-but again that is irrelevant. Ad some of those nutrients to the soil and plants will grow better or worse, but you still end up with the same thing in the end. There are many thousands of relationships going on in a heathy forest and many thousands of chemical reactions (both biological and non-biological, but again, you end up with the same elements you started with in the end. You don't have to undestand every reaction even though it would be nice to.

(I didn't mean to sound like I was lecturing you! ) Like I said before, I get kind of passionate about this stuff.
I have always loved science, physics and philosophy and when something doesn't make sense, I speak up.--Just don't ask me much about history or English! LOL

On a philosophical note. What isn't natural? Bird's nest are natural, Beaver dams are natural, but man made homes are not?
Everthing that exists and/or is man made is natural. Even extraterrestials, if they exist.

Rodney

Well said.

Thread moved form the indigo forum
-----
_____

PHWyvern

I must admit, I like writing them too.

I hope I don't get anyone too upset--I'm really not trying to make anyone mad.

I want to make one other thing perfectly clear---I do not support cutting forests that are already too thin, only managing the ones that are overgrown by thinning them a little. The clear cutting logging that was done in the past is long gone. The newer techniques where people walk through a forest and figure out which trees/shrubs should be removed and which ones should stay for the health of the forest is not evil just because it gives the timber industry and some individuals some work and some industry profits from it. All profit is not evil.

No, I'm not a tree hugger either, but I do support real conservation and I don't support fraudulent "conservationist" groups and I love animals. I raise them for a living even though I have to work a lot harder and I could make a lot more money doing other things--plus I haven't been able to take a day off in over 12 years!

The nature conservancy, for example, sounds great--they buy land to protect it. But they don't tell you about giving it to their executives, or logging, or drilling that same land! If all they did was buy land to conserve it, I would have no problem with them. But knowing what they do, I couldn't possibly give them one cent. I'm sure they probably do some good, but I'll look for someone who doesn't pull that kind of stuff. If they wanted to give me a bunch of land that I couldn't do anything with, why would I want it? Why would their executives want to personally own it when it is already owned and "supposedly" being protected by their organization?

Every time you see a word I write in quotes, read it as sarcastically as you can!

Rodney

I see you have developed camp followers! Well...since it seems that only your science is relative....What can I say? You are obviously soooo briliant that you can even overrule the latest scientific information. How grand it must be to be able to ignore any voice but your own......Please, I would really like to know what your degree is in that you can wield such a mighty and authorative voice?? But then again that would mean I would have to read more of your posts.
If (alas) you detect a note of sarcasim in my reply...perhaps it is just my amazement that a man from California should know so much more about Florida than poor me that has only spent his life here!
Personally I am done with this charade. Since you are above answering a straight question or accepting facts (source presented) then your ruse of wanting an intelligent conversation is just a sounding board for your own pontification.

adieu Monsieur...I'm bored, Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

First, I never said that I know more about Florida than you do, just that trees don't produce excess O2 and consume CO2 in their entire lifetimes and that most "environmental" groups are frauds.

A good analogy would be televangilists. Con men are attracted to that position because they know of the rewards, that doesn't mean all preachers are con men, it just means that many televangelists are con men. In my opinion, televangelists are like environmental groups--they attract con men. Environmentally concerned people are to environmental groups what preachers are to televangelists.

One question of yours that I forgot to answer was how smart your wife was. Yes, I think she is, she married you didn't she!

First, it sounds to me like you have an ego problem. Someone with a degree couldn't possibly be wrong. In my entire life, I've never met anyone without a degree that was right or someone with a degree that was wrong about something.

I don't mind being wrong. I've been wrong before and I will be again. As long as someone can prove it, then that's fine. It will make me smarter in the end if you can prove I am wrong about this. I am perfectly happy bettering myself by correcting something I am wrong about.

Since you asked, I have a degree in computer sciences with a business option. Spent most of my college years racing motorcycles in the canyons, rebuilding exotic cars and motorcycles, and ditching class because I was so bored. I've been self-employed for about 12 years raising exotic animals--parrots mostly. I usually only went to class if there was an exam. or it was raining. I was rated #1 in the entire college (yes it was just a junior college - of about 30,000 students) in beginning, intermediate and advanced economics. Was always in the top 1-4 people in my high school of 2,000 students in biological science, chemistry, physics and math. Graduated college cum laud. Probably about the middle of the road in English and History though--just had no interest in things that I had to memorize, and I still don't. When in school, I always though of other students as rather stupid, rather than thinking of myself as smart- and tried to explain math/physics to them. I don't think I am a genius in any way, but I have known a lot of fools with degrees and lot of geniuses without them! I am sure you are familiar with Einstein's educational background-just to prove a point. If you apply yourself, it's pretty hard not to get a college degree, no matter how intelligent you are.

Probably my favorite line of all time was Jay Leno doing one of his Jay Walking segments where he interviewed a bunch of college graduates at their graduation ceremony. After virtually none of them could say who the vice president was or what the cubed root of 27 was (they looked really confused) among other very easy questions, Jay said, "And just think, this is the smartest they will ever be. They just graduated college! It's all downhill from here!" Oops, all those students with college degrees were wrong! How could that be? (My sister and I knew all the answers and considered them rather simple, and she never went to college)

What question have you asked that I haven't answered? I thought I replied to everything, guess I must have missed something. If you ask it again, I'll try to reply if I know the answer.

Another thing to consider about current thinking about the environment. 1) Grants are given to those that try to prove things politically correct. There is no money involved in what I am saying, but hugh amounts of money to be made by lawsuits against corporations that produce goods by your theories.

If you missed it before, here is the URL to the 15,000 scientists that don't beleive in global warming. Considering that this came as a reply to the scientist that changed their minds from ice age to global warming, this seem far more current thinking than yours-if not more numerous. Not to mention the scientist that still believe we are cooling, or the ones that believe that warming is actually good for the environment.

http://pushback.com/environment/fraudulent-environment.html

Rodney

We seem to be becoming a culture of non-excellence. We try to include all the school children in everything so no one gets left out. Everyone gets an award or bumper sticker or something. Then we wonder why we can't compete with other cultures. Competition is very healthy. Either you get some esteem from winning, or you see your weaknesses and you better yourself by trying harder next time.

It's sad how political correctness has been substituted for competition.

Charlie