The kulaks are revolting - does Urban back big farmer?

[Funky_monks]

Jesus

There is a certain level of arrogance involved in blustering into a discussion with a scientist who's field it is, providing scant or no evidence for your assertions and then resorting to insults.

I'd make very sure I knew what I was talking about and had evidence for it if I was going to argue with, say a biochemist in a discussion about their field of biochemistry, and even then, Id be very prepared for them to pull a whole load of other evidence out/give angles to the discussion I hadn't been previously aware of.

 

[brogdale]

Back OT, scientific knowledge, encyclopaedic or not, is hardly a prerequisite to seeing what a bunch of whingeing, tax dodging cunts the farm bosses are.

 

[Rompipalle]

Edit. Bugger. Just spotted that someone has already posted it.

Meh.

 

[Rompipalle]

By training? You mean you have a Batchelor's degree?
You didn't even understand how plants used nutrients on the last thread.

FWIW I trained as a secondary science teacher and completed my NQT year before I left for HE and the standard of scientific knowledge amongst the teachers wasn't exactly encyclopaedic, but then I've marked some pretty poor undergrad theses who still went on to achieve a degree.

Batchelor’s do cup-a-soup - not degrees.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Jesus

There is a certain level of arrogance involved in blustering into a discussion with a scientist who's field it is, providing scant or no evidence for your assertions and then resorting to insults.

I'd make very sure I knew what I was talking about and had evidence for it if I was going to argue with, say a biochemist in a discussion about their field of biochemistry, and even then, Id be very prepared for them to pull a whole load of other evidence out/give angles to the discussion I hadn't been previously aware of.

This a politics thread, not a biochemistry thread.

And I will bow to your superior knowledge in the latter field when you come up with a citation for the nonsense phrase 'photosynthetic inversion' and not before.

 

[Funky_monks]

This a politics thread, not a biochemistry thread.

And I will bow to your superior knowledge in the latter field when you come up with a citation for the nonsense phrase 'photosynthetic inversion' and not before.

Firstly, yes I know it's a politics thread. My point was that I'm not a biochemist, just like you are not an Agricultural Scientist and, were I to be having a discussion with someone who was an expert in a scientific field that wasn't mine, I would go about it quite carefully to make sure I had my facts and references correct and I would still expect them to know more about it than me. You appear not to have that notion, presuming instead that your BSc in an unrelated subject and career as a science teacher somehow furnish you with a better grasp of a subject that somebody who's scientific field it is, which is breathtakingly arrogant.

I was referring to this process, call it what you like: What happens when plants dominate lakes?

Its a term I had heard used a fair bit in the fisheries/aquatic management sector, and yes, I get that it is the available products of photosynthesis in the water that are inverted and the co2 is due to respiration, but that seems like a relatively minor quibble to have, really.

The point I was making on the thread, I think was that this is how eutrophication kills aquatic life, unless you dispute that too.