Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Nevada Convert

“Scientists” Reach New Level of Stupidity: Claim They Know There’s 20,000,000,000,000,000 Ants On Earth

Recommended Posts

On 9/22/2022 at 2:23 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

This study analyzed research on local ant populations from nearly every corner of the globe to come up with their number and in the conclusion they do note that estimate they came up with was very conservative.

If the methodology is very flawed like you state, these studies would not pass peer review. 

Junk science is practiced quite a lot by scientists, and there’s a lot of money to be made in it. So of course they cover for each other. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2022 at 6:44 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

I guarantee nobody got rich on this ant study lol

I bet you could follow the money back to Orkin...

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2022 at 4:26 PM, Nevada Convert said:

The assumptions are not logical. That’s the obvious flaw in all this. 

How are they not logical? They took 500 different ant studies from around the world, which obviously covered a wide variety of habitat types. Undoubtedly they divided the Earth’s surface into an extensive variety of habitat types and then extrapolated ant density for each habitat type based on the relevant studies. At that point it becomes a multiplication exercise. Undoubtedly other scientific teams would come up with somewhat different habitat classifications. This would affect the numbers. This application is on a much larger scale than is typically undertaken but this is a very straightforward and typical way for biologists to estimate population sizes. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2022 at 6:19 PM, Old_SD_Dude said:

How are they not logical? They took 500 different ant studies from around the world, which obviously covered a wide variety of habitat types. Undoubtedly they divided the Earth’s surface into an extensive variety of habitat types and then extrapolated ant density for each habitat type based on the relevant studies. At that point it becomes a multiplication exercise. Undoubtedly other scientific teams would come up with somewhat different habitat classifications. This would affect the numbers. This application is on a much larger scale than is typically undertaken but this is a very straightforward and typical way for biologists to estimate population sizes. 

The study even stated that there are portions of the globe where no data was available so they took the minimal logical population to incorporate into their figure, making their figure as they put it "very conservative".

We need to remember what this is all about though. the 100+ studies showing that feral cats kill a +++++ ton of birds.  Convert's claim that his feral cats "might kill 1 or 2 birds a year" when the reality is that feral cats on average kill multiple a week.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2022 at 5:25 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

The study even stated that there are portions of the globe where no data was available so they took the minimal logical population to incorporate into their figure, making their figure as they put it "very conservative".

We need to remember what this is all about though. the 100+ studies showing that feral cats kill a +++++ ton of birds.  Convert's claim that his feral cats "might kill 1 or 2 birds a year" when the reality is that feral cats on average kill multiple a week.  

 

Yeah well Contard would reject those studies because they use a similar methodology, obviously on a much finer scale, to examine bird densities in urban and exurban areas where cats are present vs rural areas where there are far fewer cats (because there are less people and cats, and cats get eaten by coyotes if they’re left outside). 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2022 at 1:32 PM, Nevada Convert said:

You’re even dumber than I thought if you think it’s possible to get an approximate count of ants on fvcking planet earth. How stupid can you be? The actual number could easily be plus or minus 75% that. 

I obviously have no problem with science when it’s actually science and not ridiculous assumptions based on assumptions based on assumptions. How many times has science declared certain findings in the past as ‘certain’ and then technology improves and they find out that they weren’t even close. Science once told us it was safe for military personnel to do a close up inspection of the Bikini Islands and hang out there after we nuked the place in a test. 

Science is not God. It has its flaws. It has its politics. It has its arrogance. It can reach too far beyond its ability, and there are always idiotic sheep that blindly follow it.

I know some of you guys are always looking for a way to troll me and get me riled up. Sorry, ain’t happening. 

I will trust the Scientists before I trust you.

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2022 at 3:04 PM, Nevada Convert said:

You don’t know an average number of ant colonies in a certain habitat. There’s just way too many variables in play. There will certainly be some habitats where you’ll know a lot more about than others. There are also lots of dynamic variables within certain habitats, or sub habitats, that dramatically affect the number of ants in a given year. 

And there are certain areas of the world that aren’t very accessible and haven’t been studied. The problem is your making huge assumptions by labeling habitats with a fixed number, and then all the error in those assumptions gets multiplied a gazillion times for a worldwide number. The closer you look at these “habitat averages” the more you should realize how impossible it is to remotely come up with a number.

At least some “studies will give you a “min. to max.” range to reflect how much they really don’t know.  You don’t say, the number of lizards in the US ranges from 10 million to 10 trillion, so the actual number is 10 billion. LOL. 

 

That's why they are called estimates.

In our modern and technological world, it is necessary to quantify what is in our world. Even if it is an educated guesstimate.

Even Carl Sagan estimated

 

carl sagan cosmos GIF

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2022 at 2:16 PM, SharkTanked said:

Season 4 Wow GIF by The Office

LOL, it’s OK to call out uneducated white trailer trash, but not ok to call out other groups that have just as many that are dumb and uneducated. Sorry, I deal in facts, not PC bullshit. This is well documented if your silly brain wasn’t aware of this. Must really suck to be a slave to PC. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2022 at 2:02 PM, Nevada Convert said:

I’ll never understand small minded partisan hacks like yourself that see things so polarized. Uneducated people exist in droves on both sides of the political spectrum. Yes, the white trailer trash right wing folks aren’t the smartest people. But neither are a lot of the minorities in urban America. There’s plenty of ignorance on science everywhere, not just your partisan stereotypes. 

In this case, I don’t think you’re trolling. I think you really believe this, and you think I’m dumb. I might not be the brightest bulb in the lamp shop, but I ain’t dim. LOL. Alright, happy, and halfman are mods and they can look up my name. Plug my name in here with 1997 NV Beta. They still have me living in KS, but that’s OK.  https://www.tbp.org/memb/memberLookup.cfm

We’re gonna need your sisters Facebook again to confirm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2022 at 10:01 PM, PokeTransplant said:

Didn't Connie get a BS degree in Home Depot combat from BlueRulesXXXX University.  Because that BS degree is paying dividends!!!!

Says a dude that was so insecure about his little weenie that he got on an organ transplant waiting list. When one a bigger one became available and he got the surgery, he wanted everyone to know and created his silly moniker with it. Thanks for the update!

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2022 at 5:04 PM, Nevada Convert said:

You don’t know an average number of ant colonies in a certain habitat. There’s just way too many variables in play. There will certainly be some habitats where you’ll know a lot more about than others. There are also lots of dynamic variables within certain habitats, or sub habitats, that dramatically affect the number of ants in a given year. 

And there are certain areas of the world that aren’t very accessible and haven’t been studied. The problem is your making huge assumptions by labeling habitats with a fixed number, and then all the error in those assumptions gets multiplied a gazillion times for a worldwide number. The closer you look at these “habitat averages” the more you should realize how impossible it is to remotely come up with a number.

At least some “studies will give you a “min. to max.” range to reflect how much they really don’t know.  You don’t say, the number of lizards in the US ranges from 10 million to 10 trillion, so the actual number is 10 billion. LOL. 

 

Convert

 

Have you heard of....

 

Biologists?

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/23/2022 at 7:28 AM, Bob said:

It is kind of stupid that scientists are attempting to quantify something that is unquantifiable. I wonder how many orders of magnitude they are off by and in what direction

When you think of the impact ants have on ecosystems, and how their presence is a reflection on the viability of said ecosystems, having some measure of an estimate is pretty nice to have.  If we start seeing heavy fluctuations due to some set of events, it may indicate habitat and environmental changes.  By your same notion, it is stupid to attempt to quantify CO2 emissions, endangered species counts, human physiological changes in the macro, just because we won't ever be able to capture all the counts without an error range.  As has been already stated, this is an amalgamation of hundreds of on-ground analysis and extrapolations from around the world and various habitats using longitudinal and applied research to ascertain the data.  No one is claiming a high level of preciseness, and they even note they are lowballing the figure to not overstate the estimate.  Calling things stupid because you either don't grasp this very basic premise without providing any example as to why other than "because it might be wrong" essentially equates to not believing much of anything, because most things in science are unquantifiable, not fully provable, or have stated confounding variables.   

Would love to hear your thoughts in church.  Probably be a real debbie downer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/23/2022 at 10:28 AM, Bob said:

It is kind of stupid that scientists are attempting to quantify something that is unquantifiable.

"the number of something" is objectively quantifiable bob it's kinda the definition of "quantifiable". A more useful measure is the number of ant colonies per square kilometer or something but knowing the average pop per colony matters too. once you have those two for described ant species and a decent estimate of undiscovered species you can build this without much effort. 

On 9/23/2022 at 10:28 AM, Bob said:

I wonder how many orders of magnitude they are off by and in what direction

0. 0 orders of magnitude. That is how estimates like this work. you sharpen your pencil until you are within an order of magnitude, because just knowing that is pretty valuable. it is literally part of high school science olympiad; they'd ask 30 questions just like this and we'd just write down a number that was the order of magnitude. it would be scored based on  for getting it right on, 3 for +- 1 order of magnitude off, 1 for 2, 0 for more than that. 1 question every 2 minutes, we got more "5"s than any other score. 

I guarantee the university had more than 2 minutes to do this with more resources than a high schooler's bag of random facts. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/23/2022 at 1:30 AM, Nevada Convert said:

. Sorry, I deal in facts, not PC bullshit. 

Joe Biden Lol GIF by ProBit Global

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...