Sayonara

This comment has concerned some of the staff. Can you give us an example of a troll comment from any RE? Send via PM if you wish.

Hi Elas. The "flashcards" are intended as guidelines for use when posting on the forums, and were written at a time when we were inundated with baloney on a daily basis. If you feel that they are an unnecessary encumbrance when you are presenting your work, there is not generally a problem with ignoring or modifying them. After all, the less insane your work, the less it will come across as dodging the guidelines. You can rest assured that most members will point out any perceived problems in a candid but constructive fashion. With regards to your submission which you asked about previously... can you point to a specific post or thread?

"In concert" means that they work together, if that helps. As in "a concerted effort".

There are two problems with this. The first is that your examples are also examples of extreme ecosystems, with very few trophic connections. These are incredibly sensitive to upsets to begin with, and extinctions require much less pressure. The second problem is one which has already been demonstrated quite adequately. Identifying what is and what is not "extinction due to habitat loss" is not a simple matter, whether or not we say that it should be.

Yes - use the power of Voice.

Let me give you an insight into the mind of your average smoker. You have to understand two things: 1) how close a smoker can sit to you before you find it unreasonable is determined by your subjective views, 2) like everyone else, smokers are (i) not telepathic, and (ii) a bit lazy. If you press a smoker for an answer, you will normally find they freely admit that lighting up near someone before asking if it is OK is fairly inconsiderate. BUT. They will also, in all likelihood, happily move away or stub it out if ask them to. It really is all it takes in most cases. Clearly this is not an ideal scenario, and if you have read my posts you will have seen that I wish other smokers would be more considerate. But on the other hand, it is hardly nicotine Armageddon either. I am not really trying to propose an argument of my own, I am attacking a flawed anti-smoking argument. Personally I share many of the concerns about smokers' behaviour, even if it is all highly generalised, a bit of a concerted demonisation effort, and not really anything to do with the OP. It's just that - as you know - I can't stand to see people using broken logic to mount an attack on people's rights.

Indeed. However Sisyphus' post, to which I replied, asked a question about CO2 toxicity and inward leaks, which I chose to answer under the assumption of toxicity control within a sealed habitat. Whether or not an inward leak would actually occur is immaterial - carbon dioxide toxicity doesn't change depending on its source. This is not my implication - it is your inference. Perhaps your nonsensical inferences have little to do with me. The point of mentioning the toxicity of CO2 is because it is directly relevant to Sisyphus' question. The point of mentioning the toxicity level by volume at a standard Earth atmosphere is that, if the conversation were to develop along those lines of atmosphere control requirements in a sealed habitat, an unacceptable level for carbon dioxide would already have been established. One thing to take into account in a closed habitat is that exhaled air is about 4.5% carbon dioxide by volume, if memory serves. This seems high but of course in a modular habitat it is going to diffuse into the internal atmosphere and I would expect a carbon scrubbing system would work to keep the environmental level below 0.35% (iirc danger levels in working environments are listed at about 0.5%, but this needs to be lowered in a reduced-gravity environment). Now let's refer back to my post: Now you are spotting my implications.

Non-existent? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyzstan

Thanks for that. It is 20 to midnight here so I will have to digest that tomorrow evening (or more likely wed evening, as I have a class after work tomorrow).

I am shifting nothing. I describe it as such because you respond to "cars are damaging" with "but they have a benefit", as if there is some magical formula that makes driving more acceptable than smoking, and this benefit you mention is the final output. You are missing the point; this is not about scoring points for the team. My counter-attack (if you will) on driving was simply to illustrate that your argument was flawed. Put it this way: any successful and fair democratic society must address perceived threats with proportional responses. Legislating away personal accountability over a question of manners is not a proportional response. Everybody loses when legislation is used to hammer down something to which a more proportional response is "...do you mind not doing that here?" Believe me, this would not be the first time seemingly innocuous legislation has opened the door for subsequent laws with a wider reach and a stronger grasp. Geographically specific meetings are virtually obsolete, and the cost of assembling hybrid and bio-fuelled fleets is plummeting, yet people like yourself keep driving backwards and forwards, without putting pressure on your companies to update their communication technologies, start car-sharing schemes, or invest in environmentally sound leased/company cars. Believe me, I am well aware of how much more convenient life is with a car, but you seem to be saying that the negative effects of driving and manufacturing cars can be neglected in our discussion simply because there is a small positive output. Convenience, not benefit. Convenience at a cost to us all, and to thousands of other species. And yet while defending this ongoing destructive pantomime that we are all responsible for, you have the nerve to interfere in other people's business with drastic cries of "ban this" and "you can't do that", when all the situation actually requires is that you show some spine, appeal to people's better natures, and tell them outright that their behaviour offends or harms you. It is shameful. Your argument is not being ignored; it is being disputed (or quite possibly misunderstood - it happens). However, this thread is constantly at risk of being derailed and I would urge all participants to get back to the point of it. The latest strictly relevant offering I see is SkepticLance's most recent post, which directly addresses the question in the OP.

Bearing in mind that this is a science forum, and not a religion forum. Tobekilled, please think carefully whether you have anything to add to this community, or whether you are just going to be wasting everybody's time. Without the theatrics, if at all possible.

Yet cars are far more destructive than smoking in environmental terms. Waving this aside because of a perceived societal benefit is an unquantified and arbitrary value judgement. I would classify cars as being a convenience, rather than an overall benefit. They cost us massively in terms of raw resources, and the true extent of the damage done (to humans and the planet) by collisions and accidents, the burning off of fossil fuels, carving the planet into roads, and belching out millions of tonnes of exhaust every year, very much remains to be seen. I don't think this is really comparable to a minor and user-controllable vice like smoking, in any way.

It's a shame you had to kill the poor snuffles to illustrate that point, but yes - that's exactly the problem. Extinction pressures are more often than not due to a complex and specific set of circumstances. We need to know more about Lomborg's thinking.

interesting... but couldn't you just as easily (and more cheaply) paint over a mechanically switched keyboard?

That's what you think, but we have managed to find a supplier in Kyrgyzstan.

What I am warbling on about, Ophiolite, is a controlled human-breathable atmosphere in Sisyphus's and Pangloss's "Martian atmosphere sealed out" habitat (see posts #12 and #20), which would in all likelihood be maintained at or about one standard Earth atmosphere. So before your next leap to the reply box, I suggest you take more time to actually follow the discussion, and less time thinking about how to be condescending and downright rude.

If we are including the latter and disregarding the former, I would err on the side of Lomborg being wrong, but see below: Paralith has made a very concise argument, and it echoes my sentiments exactly. To give clear cut examples, we need to know what we are supposed to give clear cut examples of. If we are to determine whether Lomborg is right or wrong, then we must evaluate his arguments, so we need know what his criteria are for habitat loss. Personally, I do not own his book, which is why I asked you (twice). One example I can think of which would probably satisfy all definitions of habitat loss is that of volcanic eruptions within isolated island ecosystems - these happen all the time and have been going on since before life even arose. It is a safe bet that tens of thousands of species of plant, animal, and perhaps even micro-organisms have met their ultimate fate this way. Do we consider that warming at the end of ice ages is effectively the same as global warming? If so, we may be able to find candidates relatively easily. I have replied to your later post first because my reply to your earlier post is going to be a bit off-topic True, but the size of a rat is not any indicator of the risk posed to ancient species by any pathogens it might have been carrying during a historical encounter. What you need to bear in mind is that, in ecological terms, present-day studies can give a very precise idea about how the modern form of a species interacts with the current ecosystem. Unfortunately models that we derive from those studies do not extrapolate backwards very well at all, particularly where there are extinct animals that formed part of the historical ecosystem that the rat was involved in, and especially where the ecosystem was so isolated (these tend to have strange rules and a higher demonstration of interspecial vulnerabilities). The Polynesian rat arrived in New Zealand with the humans, about 1,000 years ago. Yes, humans hunted the moas and doubtless did massive damage to the population, but this alone does not mean we can rule out that the rat attacked the staple food source of the moas, whether by competition or by vectoring disease, nor can we rule out that the rats did not attack the moas themselves (again, by vectoring or by predation). A full-grown moa would likely make mincemeat of a rat, but what of an egg, or a chick? I would not waste too much time with this personally - I have already said twice it can be written off as human interference (mainly because we took the rat to New Zealand). I am simply trying to get you to think about these scenarios in a more ecologically eclectic way, so that you are less likely to make the mistake of assuming the most easily identified cause for population decline is the only one being enacted. Simply put, commentary on the current ecology of a species is not commentary on the historical ecology of a species. Consider that the reason that large birds today are unaffected by the Polynesian rat (assuming this is true, which I am going to) is because these are the species that were able to adapt to its presence. One thousand years is more than enough time for selection to push ecological interactions that way. This is true, there certainly is some rubbish. But there is some good evidence as I recall that the rats had a grave impact on the ability of the palm trees to maintain a workable population, by eating the nuts (i.e. seeds) that they dropped. The reason for mentioning this was to illustrate that even a small rat can have a devastating effect, and that we should not be so quick to dismiss them from our consideration of the ecological battleground. The moas, also hunted by humans, would have been placed under a different set of selective pressures which could easily have caused adaptive conflict. In these situations, adaptation through selection can be seriously impaired, if not downright counter-productive. But, like I said, the only reason for discussing all of this is to show you that we need to think about this problem in a more ecologically-oriented fashion (it is, after all, a question of ecology), and to demonstrate that we should keep an open mind about historical extinctions that pre-date accurate naturalistic record keeping (what you said about Easter Island applies to New Zealand too, don't forget).

Carbon dioxide is dangerously toxic at levels as low as 5% by volume, so although it is not a massive risk you would definitely need constant monitoring and compensation. Oh, you also need to take into account that tolerance to gaseous toxins like carbon dioxide will be reduced in Mars colonists due to the physiological effects of the low gravity.

Yes. This is neither pseudoscience, nor is it the kind of speculation this subforum is intended to attract.

Consider the Asian black rat. It has notoriety in the archives of history for sparking off some of the most horrific plagues mankind has ever witnessed. Perhaps you think it stretches credulity to think that "small rats" could be responsible for the death of a third of the population of Athens in the 5th century, a quarter of the population of the east Mediterranean in the 6th century followed by another wave that left 25 million dead, a third of the population of all of Eurasia during the 14th century, and 12 million people in China and India in the 19th century. No? Then why not for the Polynesian rat? Do not play the fool by ignoring the potential effects of such a potent and well-known vector organism. The Polynesian rat was introduced to New Zealand by humans, and is widely acknowledged as being a major participant in several South-Pacific extinction events, including many bird species. I can't honestly imagine that you have checked that for factual accuracy, however there is the issue that we would not expect to find diseases vectored by the rat to be present in the population almost a millennium after the host species has been wiped out. Also, consider that they do not need to affect the birds directly. They need only compete for, infect, or destroy their food supply. Were you aware that the Polynesian rat was a major factor in the deforestation of Easter Island, for example? Look how that turned out. I am not looking for "alternative explanations". I am pointing out that what you attribute in a blinkered fashion to simple human hunting was actually almost certainly brought about by several contributing factors, as these things so often are. Ecology is rarely cut-and-dried. Regardless, I already stated that the rats could be written off as human interference, so I don't see any need for an objection. Or indeed, how any can be seriously attempted without ecological evidence. We seem to be going in circles now. If we consider habitat loss to be "any change to the habitat that changed it sufficiently to make it non survivable", then Lomborg is clearly wrong and there is nothing more to discuss. This is why I enquired about his specific criteria.

Which is really all it takes; my point exactly. Legislation removes any incentive for them to learn this for themselves. As far as I am aware, I am the only person in this thread who has used the words "...as a smoker", and I don't recall 'justifying my habit' in any way. I am not answerable to you for my actions and I have no reason to seek your validation. I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I am quite capable of thinking in a rational manner, and I am not one for self-deception. It just so happens that I quite like smoking, in a controlled manner and as part of an otherwise very healthy lifestyle. I jog, run, swim, and do weight training. I eat more fruit in a day than most people see in a week. I drink enough water to sink a battleship. I avoid refined sugars, low-complexity carbs, and most kinds of fats. I have never smoked full strength cigarettes and on a 'bad day' I will have ten at most. I understand the need to kick the habit, indeed I have spent months without fags and reaped the rewards. But the bottom line is, at the moment I want to smoke, I enjoy it, and since I am taking measures to mitigate the harmful effects, and since I go out of my way to ensure that I don't expose non-smokers to my smog (as I have stated many times, not just in this thread), I don't see any particular need for me to ask for permission to indulge, or explain myself to anyone. It always seems disingenous when I see 'addiction' and 'habit' being used together. They are not the same thing. I don't think whether or not smoking is self-destructive is the subject of the thread. In fact, I rather believe Pangloss is mainly interested in the effects on people around smokers. Since we have not established whether or not we accept those effects to be significant (which is the purpose of this thread), this is clearly not the place for "discouraging others". If you want to make a separate anti-smoking thread, do so. Otherwise get off the high horse; I for one have had it with the holier than thou routine. Hey kids, smoking is not okay. Don't start, or you'll regret it. Other than that, it is actually your personal choice. Of course, if you want the quiet life, you could choose one of the many self-destructive behaviours that people won't harp on and on and on about. Have you considered alcoholism, solvent abuse, opiates, or maybe even self harm? The last one is the cheapest.

No assertion was made that the dolphin was made extinct by the pollution, although it was affected by this to some degree. It's possible that it might have eventually adapted. What finally killed the species was the completion of the Three Gorges Dam, as I mentioned before, which changed the habitat permanently. (Interestingly enough there were 1 million people living in what was to become the reservoir: their habitat was also destroyed, but they were able to migrate and adapt). Not necessarily; at the time we had a habit of taking disease-ridden rats with us everywhere we went, which had a hand in many extinctions. But for all intents and purposes, yes, this example is "human interference". Although you could easily go the "it's habitat denial" route, which is why... ...is still a useless question until we decide what range of reasons qualify as "loss of habitat".

Given enough resources we could deploy some kind of web-like field generator in orbit, but I suspect that even a massively powerful EM "shield" would probably only slow the loss down. Constantly pumping out Mars-brand atmosphere might actually be cheaper.

As is indicated by our destruction/denial discussion, the magnitude of our examples' significance in such a falsification will be directly related to what he considers "habitat loss" to be.

Read the link in the first reply about the colonisation of Venus - it is actually fairly ideal for atmospheric habitation. Yes, you are quite right. The magnetic field basically deflects the solar wind, which would otherwise tear away the atmosphere. Makes you wonder what Mars was like before... that could be our fate one day