Hawaiian Coqui Killers - Page 2

shannondicorse · 10-14-2013, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robguz24

Conflating scientists working on protecting native species with the military industrial complex and health insurance companies isn't serving your arguments well. I'll let our governor know he can go ahead and fire all the inspectors that are actively keeping out previously unintroduced snakes (we have none), plants, and plant diseases. Wow, what an expensive waste of resources!

robguz,

no... this is not what I'm saying... at all!!

What I routinely see are grossly misplaced scientific resources.

Good protection and quarantine are critical in the short & medium term but they will not make as huge a difference as we think, in the long run.

Because unless civilisation collapses, the long run matters enormously. An ecological garrison strategy cannot be sustained in the long run.

If the annual probability of successfully blockading any potentially offensive species per year is p (p<1) then the probability of the blockade being successful in N years is p^N. Lim p^N; N >>infinity = 0

Understanding a biosystem in quantitative depth; and then building robustness into it is the only sustainable way*.

But no-one is systematically funding this. And the reasons lie in the short-run economics of the business aspect of scientific research. There are several ways to add robustness. These have to be case specifically quantitatively researched in minutiae. That is ALL I'm saying.

Sorry to offend anyone.

sincerely,

shannon

shannon.di.corse@gmail.com

* I can, however, see other strategies involving specially targeted artificial viruses etc... but waging biological warfare is a deadly slippery slope. I'll not go there!

shannondicorse · 10-14-2013, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caliboy1994

...We are intelligent; we have all of the capabilities, resources, and know-how to make sure that our own presence doesn't screw everything up. There is no point in advocating not trying to lessen the current impacts we are having on Earth's biosphere and not trying to clean up the messes we have made....

caliboy,

I argue in my post to robguz that currently we don't have the capability and resources to mitigate some of the things that you fear.

At the current level of human population and industrial development there is no way that we can avoid making (past, present & future) significant and telling impacts on the planet.

What these impacts are; and their dynamics; are woefully under-studied.

This is because we have not deployed resources towards in depth understanding of the dynamics of the biosphere and its constituent subsystems.

The Human Ecology has significantly impacted the system. There are objective, but not comprehensive, measures of this impact.

That humans have "messed" up the system is an aesthetic statement. "We" have to decide what we think we want. "We" have to research whether or not what we think we want is realisable. "We" currently do not have that capability; because we do not put our resources into such study.

I'm kinda sorry that PR-Giant's semi-lighthearted post engendered such deep and weighty consequences.

But these things have to be said.

shannon

shannon.di.corse@gmail.com

robguz24 · 10-15-2013, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shannondicorse

robguz,

no... this is not what I'm saying... at all!!

What I routinely see are grossly misplaced scientific resources.

Good protection and quarantine are critical in the short & medium term but they will not make as huge a difference as we think, in the long run.

Because unless civilisation collapses, the long run matters enormously. An ecological garrison strategy cannot be sustained in the long run.

If the annual probability of successfully blockading any potentially offensive species per year is p (p<1) then the probability of the blockade being successful in N years is p^N. Lim p^N; N >>infinity = 0

Understanding a biosystem in quantitative depth; and then building robustness into it is the only sustainable way*.

But no-one is systematically funding this. And the reasons lie in the short-run economics of the business aspect of scientific research. There are several ways to add robustness. These have to be case specifically quantitatively researched in minutiae. That is ALL I'm saying.

Sorry to offend anyone.

sincerely,

shannon

shannon.di.corse@gmail.com

* I can, however, see other strategies involving specially targeted artificial viruses etc... but waging biological warfare is a deadly slippery slope. I'll not go there!

No worries, I agree with some of your points. I guess I come from the perspective living here where I see little emphasis is put on science, or any understanding of our native ecosystems vs. things like tourism. In the long term, really even 10 million years is short term in geological time, all the Hawaiian islands will be long gone due to natural geological processes, and new islands will emerge. In the short term, I am just saying there is real impact on the existence of some species, and certainly in some cases as impacts people living in certain areas. The irony of the coqui is that you have to disclose it on real estate transactions. Some people won't live in such areas, and it keeps where I live a bit more affordable! It also make tourism less attractive which is also nice overall, though I have nothing against tourists, having been one for years before I moved to Hawaii.

PR-Giants · 10-15-2013, 04:14 AM

caliboy you are not consistent, today in this thread The real 'Ice Cream'! you seem to accept that "real pests" were being transported around the world without any formal inspection. This could be happening hundreds of times a day, so who is going to be responsible for the people who are not responsible.

The Coqui provides a benefit and the Banana Weevil is a major pest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caliboy1994

It is true that we may live in a new geological era where Earth's ecology and biochemistry is being heavily altered by the influence of mankind, but that doesn't give us the excuse to be passively accepting of it and not do anything about it. As the new dominant species on the planet, it is OUR responsibility to make sure that our actions don't ruin the planet's preexisting ecological balance, and if our actions are doing so then we need to make a coordinated effort to mitigate these impacts. We are intelligent; we have all of the capabilities, resources, and know-how to make sure that our own presence doesn't screw everything up. There is no point in advocating not trying to lessen the current impacts we are having on Earth's biosphere and not trying to clean up the messes we have made. Because if we allow ourselves to ruin everything, we are nothing more than a cancer on the face of the Earth that will cause long-lasting or even irreversible damage to its systems.

PR-Giants · 10-15-2013, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shannondicorse

I'm kinda sorry that PR-Giant's semi-lighthearted post engendered such deep and weighty consequences.

But these things have to be said.

shannon.di.corse@gmail.com

You might enjoy this thread Climate change hoax exposed?

shannondicorse · 10-15-2013, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR-Giants

You might enjoy this thread Climate change hoax exposed?

PR,

The "Global Warming" that has morphed into "Climate Change" has now become a Carbon Cult.

Religious matters stir deep emotions in people; so I don't discuss religion. I have no wish to be burnt at the stake (...thereby adding even more CO2 to the atmosphere - lol!).

I don't want to disclose much of my background; because I'm only here to fool around breeding bananas...

...but I've NEVER seen a quantitative General Circulation Model that works over an extended timeframe without tweaking to fit the data as it comes in. Even modelling paleoclimates fails abysmally - when everything is retrospective.

In fact, I resolutely maintain that predictive Climatology is just where predictive Economics is: informative and perhaps entertaining. Nothing else.

Just ask anyone to explain in detail how a "greenhouse gas" works to increase mean temperature globally... and try hard (...i mean really hard!) to contain your laughter.

shannon

shannon.di.corse@gmail.com

caliboy1994 · 10-15-2013, 06:00 PM

Climate models may not be entirely accurate in terms of predicting shifts in weather patterns in the future, but the current observed warming trend and its extremely strong correlation to increased GHG concentrations is very real.

designshark · 10-15-2013, 06:46 PM

If it wasn't for "global warming / climate change" I'd be on top of a glacier right now!

caliboy1994 · 10-15-2013, 06:57 PM

Yeah, and if it weren't for anthropogenic climate change Glacier National Park in Montana would have 150 glaciers instead of 25!

Retreat of Glaciers in Glacier National Park | Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center (NOROCK)

designshark · 10-15-2013, 07:18 PM

Studies show Mars is warming too, I've stayed awake at night wondering how us humans have caused that? Then I came to the idea that maybe it's the sun! Ah ha! That would cause Earth and Mars to warm more than previous years. But on the other hand, that's too simple. The governments of the world wouldn't be able to tax the sun so we must convince everyone us humans have caused all the warming, even before we arrived. Just a thought.

caliboy1994 · 10-15-2013, 07:52 PM

We don't know enough about Mars' climate systems to say what's causing any warming that may be happening there. Many of the variables at work on Mars are much different than what goes on here (for example their atmospheres are much different, the influence of albedo on both of the planets is very different, particulate concentrations and compositions on Earth and Mars are very different, their climate cycles are very different, and of course we have the biosphere which plays a role in regulating climate). There have been no significant increases in solar energy in recent years either. If changes in solar output are in any way contributing to Earth's current warming trend, then they aren't contributing much to it at all. The IPCC reported recently with 95% certainty that anthropogenic GHG emissions are the cause. And this is a no brainer, because we know for a fact that global average temperatures and greenhouse gas concentrations are directly linked.

sunfish · 10-15-2013, 07:59 PM

How the hell can they only be 95% certain

designshark · 10-15-2013, 08:45 PM

And only I can prevent forest fires . . .

Richard · 10-15-2013, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunfish

How the hell can they only be 95% certain

Tony, "certainty rate" is a standard term in statistics that refers to a calculation with respect to a "confidence interval". So the meaning is much different than it appears at first glance. For example, it does not mean that 95% of researchers are sure, or that all researchers are 95% sure ...

caliboy1994 · 10-15-2013, 11:39 PM

Here's a good analogy: Say you got a chest x-ray and there was a lump in your lung. It was not entirely clear what it was though, and it was impossible to tell for sure what it was. The doctor said that there was a 95% chance that it was a cancerous tumor, and a 5% chance that it was either a benign tumor or nothing at all. What would you do? I, for one, would certainly go through cancer treatment just to be sure. We call that the precautionary principle.

caliboy1994 · 10-15-2013, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR-Giants

caliboy you are not consistent, today in this thread The real 'Ice Cream'! you seem to accept that "real pests" were being transported around the world without any formal inspection. This could be happening hundreds of times a day, so who is going to be responsible for the people who are not responsible.

The Coqui provides a benefit and the Banana Weevil is a major pest.

It may be beneficial for controlling banana weevil populations, but it certainly isn't good for native insect populations in Hawaii's forests now, isn't it? Couldn't we bring in some other form of bio-control in Hawaii to control banana weevils, one that wouldn't become invasive?

Same thing with kudzu. It's great for building soil, but it invades native temperate forest in the Eastern US, and eventually chokes out anything that it climbs on.

Richard · 10-16-2013, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caliboy1994

Here's a good analogy: Say you got a chest x-ray and there was a lump in your lung. It was not entirely clear what it was though, and it was impossible to tell for sure what it was. The doctor said that there was a 95% chance that it was a cancerous tumor, and a 5% chance that it was either a benign tumor or nothing at all. What would you do? I, for one, would certainly go through cancer treatment just to be sure. We call that the precautionary principle.

As a college mathematics+ teacher, I would say you misunderstood the meaning of 95% likelihood.

caliboy1994 · 10-16-2013, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

As a college mathematics+ teacher, I would say you misunderstood the meaning of 95% likelihood.

Well, that was more meant to communicate the precautionary principle across than illustrate the principle of likelihood. Hence, a very powerful argument as to why we should take action.

sunfish · 10-16-2013, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caliboy1994

Here's a good analogy: Say you got a chest x-ray and there was a lump in your lung. It was not entirely clear what it was though, and it was impossible to tell for sure what it was. The doctor said that there was a 95% chance that it was a cancerous tumor, and a 5% chance that it was either a benign tumor or nothing at all. What would you do? I, for one, would certainly go through cancer treatment just to be sure. We call that the precautionary principle.

Say you needed to work on an electric circuit. You ask your scientist assistant if he shut off the breaker. He says I'm 95% certain I did. Would you touch the wires or go check the breaker .

caliboy1994 · 10-16-2013, 10:51 AM

Well, according to the precautionary principle, I would probably want to double check to see if the breaker was off myself.

10-15-2013, 06:00 PM	#27 (permalink)
caliboy1994 <div style="font-style: italic;"><div style="font-style: italic;"></div></div> caliboy1994's Photo Gallery Location: SFV, California Find me on the map! Zone: USDA zone 10a; Sunset zone 18/19 Name: Andreas Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 2,301 BananaBucks : 279,765 Feedback: 0 / 0% Said "Thanks" 1,474 Times Was Thanked 2,196 Times in 1,148 Posts Said "Welcome to Bananas" 236 Times	Re: Hawaiian Coqui Killers Climate models may not be entirely accurate in terms of predicting shifts in weather patterns in the future, but the current observed warming trend and its extremely strong correlation to increased GHG concentrations is very real. __________________ "The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings." ~ Masanobu Fukuoka Find me on linktree here as Solarpunk Farmer: https://linktr.ee/solarpunkfarmer

10-15-2013, 06:46 PM	#28 (permalink)
designshark Location: Anderson, Indiana Find me on the map! Zone: 5-6 Name: Tim Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 223 BananaBucks : 23,684 Feedback: 0 / 0% Said "Thanks" 66 Times Was Thanked 148 Times in 94 Posts Said "Welcome to Bananas" 154 Times	Re: Hawaiian Coqui Killers If it wasn't for "global warming / climate change" I'd be on top of a glacier right now! Last edited by designshark : 10-15-2013 at 06:48 PM.

10-15-2013, 06:57 PM	#29 (permalink)
caliboy1994 <div style="font-style: italic;"><div style="font-style: italic;"></div></div> caliboy1994's Photo Gallery Location: SFV, California Find me on the map! Zone: USDA zone 10a; Sunset zone 18/19 Name: Andreas Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 2,301 BananaBucks : 279,765 Feedback: 0 / 0% Said "Thanks" 1,474 Times Was Thanked 2,196 Times in 1,148 Posts Said "Welcome to Bananas" 236 Times	Re: Hawaiian Coqui Killers Yeah, and if it weren't for anthropogenic climate change Glacier National Park in Montana would have 150 glaciers instead of 25! Retreat of Glaciers in Glacier National Park \| Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center (NOROCK) __________________ "The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings." ~ Masanobu Fukuoka Find me on linktree here as Solarpunk Farmer: https://linktr.ee/solarpunkfarmer

10-15-2013, 07:18 PM	#30 (permalink)
designshark Location: Anderson, Indiana Find me on the map! Zone: 5-6 Name: Tim Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 223 BananaBucks : 23,684 Feedback: 0 / 0% Said "Thanks" 66 Times Was Thanked 148 Times in 94 Posts Said "Welcome to Bananas" 154 Times	Re: Hawaiian Coqui Killers Studies show Mars is warming too, I've stayed awake at night wondering how us humans have caused that? Then I came to the idea that maybe it's the sun! Ah ha! That would cause Earth and Mars to warm more than previous years. But on the other hand, that's too simple. The governments of the world wouldn't be able to tax the sun so we must convince everyone us humans have caused all the warming, even before we arrived. Just a thought.

10-15-2013, 07:52 PM	#31 (permalink)
caliboy1994 <div style="font-style: italic;"><div style="font-style: italic;"></div></div> caliboy1994's Photo Gallery Location: SFV, California Find me on the map! Zone: USDA zone 10a; Sunset zone 18/19 Name: Andreas Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 2,301 BananaBucks : 279,765 Feedback: 0 / 0% Said "Thanks" 1,474 Times Was Thanked 2,196 Times in 1,148 Posts Said "Welcome to Bananas" 236 Times	Re: Hawaiian Coqui Killers We don't know enough about Mars' climate systems to say what's causing any warming that may be happening there. Many of the variables at work on Mars are much different than what goes on here (for example their atmospheres are much different, the influence of albedo on both of the planets is very different, particulate concentrations and compositions on Earth and Mars are very different, their climate cycles are very different, and of course we have the biosphere which plays a role in regulating climate). There have been no significant increases in solar energy in recent years either. If changes in solar output are in any way contributing to Earth's current warming trend, then they aren't contributing much to it at all. The IPCC reported recently with 95% certainty that anthropogenic GHG emissions are the cause. And this is a no brainer, because we know for a fact that global average temperatures and greenhouse gas concentrations are directly linked. __________________ "The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings." ~ Masanobu Fukuoka Find me on linktree here as Solarpunk Farmer: https://linktr.ee/solarpunkfarmer

Members currently in the chatroom: 0
	The most chatters online in one day was 17, 09-06-2009. No one is currently using the chat.

10-15-2013, 07:59 PM	#32 (permalink)
sunfish Banned sunfish's Photo Gallery Location: San Diego Find me on the map! Zone: 9-11 Name: Tony Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 18,429 BananaBucks : 1,186,403 Feedback: 8 / 100% Said "Thanks" 3,210 Times Was Thanked 20,592 Times in 7,760 Posts Said "Welcome to Bananas" 2,716 Times	Re: Hawaiian Coqui Killers How the hell can they only be 95% certain

10-15-2013, 08:45 PM	#33 (permalink)
designshark Location: Anderson, Indiana Find me on the map! Zone: 5-6 Name: Tim Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 223 BananaBucks : 23,684 Feedback: 0 / 0% Said "Thanks" 66 Times Was Thanked 148 Times in 94 Posts Said "Welcome to Bananas" 154 Times	Re: Hawaiian Coqui Killers And only I can prevent forest fires . . .

10-15-2013, 11:39 PM	#35 (permalink)
caliboy1994 <div style="font-style: italic;"><div style="font-style: italic;"></div></div> caliboy1994's Photo Gallery Location: SFV, California Find me on the map! Zone: USDA zone 10a; Sunset zone 18/19 Name: Andreas Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 2,301 BananaBucks : 279,765 Feedback: 0 / 0% Said "Thanks" 1,474 Times Was Thanked 2,196 Times in 1,148 Posts Said "Welcome to Bananas" 236 Times	Re: Hawaiian Coqui Killers Here's a good analogy: Say you got a chest x-ray and there was a lump in your lung. It was not entirely clear what it was though, and it was impossible to tell for sure what it was. The doctor said that there was a 95% chance that it was a cancerous tumor, and a 5% chance that it was either a benign tumor or nothing at all. What would you do? I, for one, would certainly go through cancer treatment just to be sure. We call that the precautionary principle. __________________ "The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings." ~ Masanobu Fukuoka Find me on linktree here as Solarpunk Farmer: https://linktr.ee/solarpunkfarmer

10-16-2013, 10:51 AM	#40 (permalink)
caliboy1994 <div style="font-style: italic;"><div style="font-style: italic;"></div></div> caliboy1994's Photo Gallery Location: SFV, California Find me on the map! Zone: USDA zone 10a; Sunset zone 18/19 Name: Andreas Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 2,301 BananaBucks : 279,765 Feedback: 0 / 0% Said "Thanks" 1,474 Times Was Thanked 2,196 Times in 1,148 Posts Said "Welcome to Bananas" 236 Times	Re: Hawaiian Coqui Killers Well, according to the precautionary principle, I would probably want to double check to see if the breaker was off myself. __________________ "The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings." ~ Masanobu Fukuoka Find me on linktree here as Solarpunk Farmer: https://linktr.ee/solarpunkfarmer

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hawaiian Bananas	Gabe15	Main Banana Discussion	12	05-22-2014 09:14 AM
Maya Hawaiian plantains	Nicolas Naranja	Main Banana Discussion	13	10-16-2013 09:24 PM
Hawaiian Flower	Worm_Farmer	Other Plants	7	04-20-2012 11:22 AM
Hawaiian Plantains	bet.ben	Member Introductions	3	10-20-2010 09:53 PM
Hawaiian Banana?	ryan	Banana Identification	4	05-01-2007 05:56 AM