Featured IIHS wants more nags

Such studies are often biased from the beginning to hold the studied species responsible in the conclusion.

It's like the Smithsonian study that holds feral cats responsible for the extinction of dozens of species in its conclusion. However, if you actually read the study, in all of those cases, the extinction was caused by the humans, dogs, and rats. When these studies are done, a goal/outcome is already set before any research is done, and the research and analysis is biased and focus in order to reach that goal/outcome. Therefore, such studies are inherently biased even before they start. They are like the climate-change-rebuttal studies sponsored by the oil companies in that sense.

 

I linked review papers like the one your article was reporting on. Not all the research reviewed can be biased, or your source suffers the same issue. But that paper conformed to your preconceived notion, so you didn't question it. That notion also kept you from even considering the sources I provided, nor the main point that impacts on plants can't be applied to animals, and vice versa.

There truly is no point in having discussions with you.

 

On the contrary, with you, as you keep Google'ing references to support your point.

 

And if you have an opinion and a reference it is OK. But if I have a contrary opinion and cite references supporting my opinion it isn't? Please explain.

(I'm one who regularly will switch to a news source whose bias is opposite mine. Just as I love the contrary cartoons posted by some here. I want my opinions/biases to be challenged. )

 

And that’s what I did. He doesn’t want to agree to disagree.

And when I pointed out the common flaw in invasive/introduced/non-native-species studies—confirmation bias—he snapped at me.

Confirmation bias—Wikipedia

 

Let's see.

You provide a link to an article on a review paper about how invasive species may not be as harmful as most hold them.

I read the actual review article(and provided a direct link to it). An introduced species with a generalist diet will not have a negative impact on plants, on average. It is a review with a very large scope though. There will be cases where there was a negative impact, and ones where there was a positive impact, likely in places where the native large herbivores were wiped out. The important thing to keep in mind about the review paper is that it was just looking at the impact of introduced species on the local plants.

When eating plants, wild pigs aren't picky about what they eat. So they likely aren't causing harm to the local plant species. They don't just eat plants though. Pigs eat meat too. Introduced ones here eat more of it than the ones back in their native lands. They don't even wait for some of that meat to die on its own.

I point that all out, with sources of the negatives introduced wild pigs can have on local animal species.

You don't address the points I raised. You just brush them off with the accusation of bias without even reading the sources. You would have known they were review papers, if you had. Even had seen one had stated more research is needed to determine if the pigs are having an impact on local animals overall.

Now you are using the 'agree to disagree' card instead of considering you have a bias.

 

Yes they are invasive, hurting natural wild life, and of course farms are ranches. They also cause car accidents.

Please don't protect invasive speicies. Please if you put a non native animal in a home, or farm, or ranch, don't let it free to destroy habitat. Kill the feral pigs.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fsc-feral-swine-risks.pdf

 

Not just Europeans but also Native Americans, who crossed the empty Bering Strait during the Ice Age.

Yes, humans are the greatest and most environmentally destructive invasive species of all, but now I start talking like some James Bond villains.

How Homo sapiens became the ultimate invasive species | Scientific American

 

You get 5 mi/kWh? That's 169 mpge.

 

It's still nowhere as good as the ~ 6 mi/kWh on my Gen 4 Prius Prime, but you can't match the rolling resistantance and drivetrain efficiency of the Gen 4 Prius Prime, which is the industry's best. You could beat it at high speeds though. But, then, I only get a 35-mile BEV range.

 

Sure, full self-driving would make me happy, too, but not at $8,000 + tax.

As I said, it is more expensive to fuel a Model 3 than a Gen 4 Prius Prime in California. And the gasoline at $5 a gallon here is not discounted at all.