17 yrs. no warming?

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:49 am

RustyGunz1960 wrote:Many posts on this subject are made by people who cannot tell the difference between fact and opinion. Some are even ignorant enough as to define smart and stupid opinions based on whether they are on the same or opposite side. While I do not know the qualifications of anyone here I'd be willing to bet that none are scientists specializing in the field of climatology, including myself. I have worked in the environmental field for close to thirty years, but it is one unrelated to climate so my opinions are still merely my opinions, no matter what argument I may make for them. Anyone can post any individual study or source they want, but they usually cite sources that support their opinions (most often based on their politics) and ignore those which contradict them. Conflicting data is always present in science. Trying to accurately sort and interpret it is incredibly difficult unless one is without bias. Bias can stem from one's religion, politics or even a predetermined hypothesis. If you can find an unbiased scientific source listen to it/him/her very closely. They are exceedingly rare. Everyone else is merely blowing smoke out their ass.


You could say I work in the pollution prevention field... let me tell you I know exactly what I am saying.
My Job for the most part depends on liberal politics, and a green agenda. Yet, I oppose it completely.
That's right my opinion is opposite of what my bias should be.

With that said you are mostly correct, science is not perfect, but with a little common sense one can figure which side is using this as a tool and which is actually concerned with the truth.
There are only two types of people in the world, those who love duck hunting and those who never have duck hunted.
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 8513
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN


Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:53 am

MackieKnife wrote:Very well put. We need more people like bloomberg on americas coastline who are willing to build structures to protect from disasters before they happen again and again and again.

What are you talking about?
If one finds living on the coast so intriguing they can live with the consequences!
We need not spend tax dollars on saving those who put themselves in harms way!
There are only two types of people in the world, those who love duck hunting and those who never have duck hunted.
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 8513
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby beretta24 » Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:01 am

You can also follow what is often the most valuable tool in assessing BS....the money. Who is paying for what study and understand who has the most to gain from the outcome. It often proves to be stronger than the science. :thumbsup:
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 5949
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby vincentpa » Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:06 am

RustyGunz1960 wrote:Many posts on this subject are made by people who cannot tell the difference between fact and opinion. Some are even ignorant enough as to define smart and stupid opinions based on whether they are on the same or opposite side. While I do not know the qualifications of anyone here I'd be willing to bet that none are scientists specializing in the field of climatology, including myself. I have worked in the environmental field for close to thirty years, but it is one unrelated to climate so my opinions are still merely my opinions, no matter what argument I may make for them. Anyone can post any individual study or source they want, but they usually cite sources that support their opinions (most often based on their politics) and ignore those which contradict them. Conflicting data is always present in science. Trying to accurately sort and interpret it is incredibly difficult unless one is without bias. Bias can stem from one's religion, politics or even a predetermined hypothesis. If you can find an unbiased scientific source listen to it/him/her very closely. They are exceedingly rare. Everyone else is merely blowing smoke out their ass.



What a wonderful and thoughtfully intellectual post! Thank you.

I now understand that there is actually bias in the world.

I also now understand that only people that are labeled as "experts" in a field can render any opinion with meaning on that particular subject. The rest of us are nothing but sheep and dupes completely incapable of reviewing evidence and making a rational determination for ourselves. And we are certainly incapable of separating fact from opinion.

Your post has credibility. After all, you work in the environmental field.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7724
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:14 am

MackieKnife wrote:
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
MackieKnife wrote:Very well put. We need more people like bloomberg on americas coastline who are willing to build structures to protect from disasters before they happen again and again and again.

What are you talking about?
If one finds living on the coast so intriguing they can live with the consequences!
We need not spend tax dollars on saving those who put themselves in harms way!

Where would you move manhatten to? Not that easy to pick up the global epicenter for finance and place it in montana. Many unique cultures originated based on a coastal lifestyle. I think its worth spending money on.


Yes, and those "Many unique cultures " didn't get government bailouts!

If you chose to live on the coast, don't come looking for my wallet!
I may choose to give to a good cause and donate money to such a venture, but you should not force me to give money to people who made the choice to put themselves in harms way!

In the history of the planet... it has always been the survival of the fittest... now the strongest are punished and are being weened out. The strong and smart are forced to support the weaker ones who would other wise phase out of society. What does that lead to? EXTINCTION!
There are only two types of people in the world, those who love duck hunting and those who never have duck hunted.
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 8513
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby RustyGunz1960 » Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:32 am

vincentpa wrote:
RustyGunz1960 wrote:Many posts on this subject are made by people who cannot tell the difference between fact and opinion. Some are even ignorant enough as to define smart and stupid opinions based on whether they are on the same or opposite side. While I do not know the qualifications of anyone here I'd be willing to bet that none are scientists specializing in the field of climatology, including myself. I have worked in the environmental field for close to thirty years, but it is one unrelated to climate so my opinions are still merely my opinions, no matter what argument I may make for them. Anyone can post any individual study or source they want, but they usually cite sources that support their opinions (most often based on their politics) and ignore those which contradict them. Conflicting data is always present in science. Trying to accurately sort and interpret it is incredibly difficult unless one is without bias. Bias can stem from one's religion, politics or even a predetermined hypothesis. If you can find an unbiased scientific source listen to it/him/her very closely. They are exceedingly rare. Everyone else is merely blowing smoke out their ass.



What a wonderful and thoughtfully intellectual post! Thank you.

I now understand that there is actually bias in the world.

I also now understand that only people that are labeled as "experts" in a field can render any opinion with meaning on that particular subject. The rest of us are nothing but sheep and dupes completely incapable of reviewing evidence and making a rational determination for ourselves. And we are certainly incapable of separating fact from opinion.

Your post has credibility. After all, you work in the environmental field.


Try reading a little more slowly, perhaps even sounding out the words. I made a point of stating that my opinion is no better than anyone else's, even though I do work in the environmental field. And yes, most are sheep. Look at who we elected president.
RustyGunz1960
hunter
 
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:16 pm
Location: Little Egg Harbor

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:41 am

RustyGunz1960 wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
RustyGunz1960 wrote:Many posts on this subject are made by people who cannot tell the difference between fact and opinion. Some are even ignorant enough as to define smart and stupid opinions based on whether they are on the same or opposite side. While I do not know the qualifications of anyone here I'd be willing to bet that none are scientists specializing in the field of climatology, including myself. I have worked in the environmental field for close to thirty years, but it is one unrelated to climate so my opinions are still merely my opinions, no matter what argument I may make for them. Anyone can post any individual study or source they want, but they usually cite sources that support their opinions (most often based on their politics) and ignore those which contradict them. Conflicting data is always present in science. Trying to accurately sort and interpret it is incredibly difficult unless one is without bias. Bias can stem from one's religion, politics or even a predetermined hypothesis. If you can find an unbiased scientific source listen to it/him/her very closely. They are exceedingly rare. Everyone else is merely blowing smoke out their ass.



What a wonderful and thoughtfully intellectual post! Thank you.

I now understand that there is actually bias in the world.

I also now understand that only people that are labeled as "experts" in a field can render any opinion with meaning on that particular subject. The rest of us are nothing but sheep and dupes completely incapable of reviewing evidence and making a rational determination for ourselves. And we are certainly incapable of separating fact from opinion.

Your post has credibility. After all, you work in the environmental field.


Try reading a little more slowly, perhaps even sounding out the words. I made a point of stating that my opinion is no better than anyone else's, even though I do work in the environmental field. And yes, most are sheep. Look at who we elected president.


But if you have any intelligence why could your opinion not be as good if not better than some of the politicians?

CRS research indicates that 27 members of the House and one Senator
have no educational degree beyond a high school diploma. Five members of the House, but no
Senators, have associate’s degrees as their highest degree

Look at this guy...
Image
Just on looks (which I realize is a bad thing to judge on), not attractiveness... facial expressions and all that...
This guy has to be a moron, so why is his opinion more highly toted in your mind than mine is?
There are only two types of people in the world, those who love duck hunting and those who never have duck hunted.
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 8513
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby ScaupHunter » Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:45 am

Welcome to the smokers club. So I can't make an informed call as an impartial observer because I have an engineering degree and work in environmental protection. I have to be a climatologist and a nonbiased one at that? Just exactly how many of those exist in America? I am guessing none.
Last edited by ScaupHunter on Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6651
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby vincentpa » Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:01 am

RustyGunz1960 wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
RustyGunz1960 wrote:Many posts on this subject are made by people who cannot tell the difference between fact and opinion. Some are even ignorant enough as to define smart and stupid opinions based on whether they are on the same or opposite side. While I do not know the qualifications of anyone here I'd be willing to bet that none are scientists specializing in the field of climatology, including myself. I have worked in the environmental field for close to thirty years, but it is one unrelated to climate so my opinions are still merely my opinions, no matter what argument I may make for them. Anyone can post any individual study or source they want, but they usually cite sources that support their opinions (most often based on their politics) and ignore those which contradict them. Conflicting data is always present in science. Trying to accurately sort and interpret it is incredibly difficult unless one is without bias. Bias can stem from one's religion, politics or even a predetermined hypothesis. If you can find an unbiased scientific source listen to it/him/her very closely. They are exceedingly rare. Everyone else is merely blowing smoke out their ass.



What a wonderful and thoughtfully intellectual post! Thank you.

I now understand that there is actually bias in the world.

I also now understand that only people that are labeled as "experts" in a field can render any opinion with meaning on that particular subject. The rest of us are nothing but sheep and dupes completely incapable of reviewing evidence and making a rational determination for ourselves. And we are certainly incapable of separating fact from opinion.

Your post has credibility. After all, you work in the environmental field.


Try reading a little more slowly, perhaps even sounding out the words. I made a point of stating that my opinion is no better than anyone else's, even though I do work in the environmental field. And yes, most are sheep. Look at who we elected president.



You should follow your own advice and read more slowly. I'm not mocking your position on global warming, I was mocking your post.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7724
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby assateague » Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:39 am

WHY IS THERE NO GLACIER COVERING MY HOUSE?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WTN10 » Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:51 am

assateague wrote:WHY IS THERE NO GLACIER COVERING MY HOUSE?


It's so hot today.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14036
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:54 am

WTN10 wrote:
assateague wrote:WHY IS THERE NO GLACIER COVERING MY HOUSE?


It's so hot today.


No it's sublimation, duh.
There are only two types of people in the world, those who love duck hunting and those who never have duck hunted.
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 8513
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby High Sierras » Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:09 am

assateague wrote:WHY IS THERE NO GLACIER COVERING MY HOUSE?


It's all Bush's and Cheney's fault. The Government owes you a Glacier to cover your house. :biggrin:
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 675
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby aunt betty » Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:37 am

RustyGunz1960 wrote:Many posts on this subject are made by people who cannot tell the difference between fact and opinion. Some are even ignorant enough as to define smart and stupid opinions based on whether they are on the same or opposite side. While I do not know the qualifications of anyone here I'd be willing to bet that none are scientists specializing in the field of climatology, including myself. I have worked in the environmental field for close to thirty years, but it is one unrelated to climate so my opinions are still merely my opinions, no matter what argument I may make for them. Anyone can post any individual study or source they want, but they usually cite sources that support their opinions (most often based on their politics) and ignore those which contradict them. Conflicting data is always present in science. Trying to accurately sort and interpret it is incredibly difficult unless one is without bias. Bias can stem from one's religion, politics or even a predetermined hypothesis. If you can find an unbiased scientific source listen to it/him/her very closely. They are exceedingly rare. Everyone else is merely blowing smoke out their ass.

#huh?
INTERNET CREDIBILITY is...an OXYMORON. :moon:
User avatar
aunt betty
memberhip was not approved
 
Posts: 11696
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:09 pm
Location: Go HOGS!

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:26 pm

RustyGunz1960 wrote:Many posts on this subject are made by people who cannot tell the difference between fact and opinion. Some are even ignorant enough as to define smart and stupid opinions based on whether they are on the same or opposite side. While I do not know the qualifications of anyone here I'd be willing to bet that none are scientists specializing in the field of climatology, including myself. I have worked in the environmental field for close to thirty years, but it is one unrelated to climate so my opinions are still merely my opinions, no matter what argument I may make for them. Anyone can post any individual study or source they want, but they usually cite sources that support their opinions (most often based on their politics) and ignore those which contradict them. Conflicting data is always present in science. Trying to accurately sort and interpret it is incredibly difficult unless one is without bias. Bias can stem from one's religion, politics or even a predetermined hypothesis. If you can find an unbiased scientific source listen to it/him/her very closely. They are exceedingly rare. Everyone else is merely blowing smoke out their ass.

Very, very well said Rusty! :thumbsup:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:29 pm

WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
RustyGunz1960 wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
RustyGunz1960 wrote:Many posts on this subject are made by people who cannot tell the difference between fact and opinion. Some are even ignorant enough as to define smart and stupid opinions based on whether they are on the same or opposite side. While I do not know the qualifications of anyone here I'd be willing to bet that none are scientists specializing in the field of climatology, including myself. I have worked in the environmental field for close to thirty years, but it is one unrelated to climate so my opinions are still merely my opinions, no matter what argument I may make for them. Anyone can post any individual study or source they want, but they usually cite sources that support their opinions (most often based on their politics) and ignore those which contradict them. Conflicting data is always present in science. Trying to accurately sort and interpret it is incredibly difficult unless one is without bias. Bias can stem from one's religion, politics or even a predetermined hypothesis. If you can find an unbiased scientific source listen to it/him/her very closely. They are exceedingly rare. Everyone else is merely blowing smoke out their ass.



What a wonderful and thoughtfully intellectual post! Thank you.

I now understand that there is actually bias in the world.

I also now understand that only people that are labeled as "experts" in a field can render any opinion with meaning on that particular subject. The rest of us are nothing but sheep and dupes completely incapable of reviewing evidence and making a rational determination for ourselves. And we are certainly incapable of separating fact from opinion.

Your post has credibility. After all, you work in the environmental field.


Try reading a little more slowly, perhaps even sounding out the words. I made a point of stating that my opinion is no better than anyone else's, even though I do work in the environmental field. And yes, most are sheep. Look at who we elected president.


But if you have any intelligence why could your opinion not be as good if not better than some of the politicians?

CRS research indicates that 27 members of the House and one Senator
have no educational degree beyond a high school diploma. Five members of the House, but no
Senators, have associate’s degrees as their highest degree

Look at this guy...
Image
Just on looks (which I realize is a bad thing to judge on), not attractiveness... facial expressions and all that...
This guy has to be a moron, so why is his opinion more highly toted in your mind than mine is?

What in the Hell does this mean Woody? Jump on him for .....oh, I know a few reasons.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:30 pm

High Sierras wrote:
assateague wrote:WHY IS THERE NO GLACIER COVERING MY HOUSE?


It's all Bush's and Cheney's fault. The Government owes you a Glacier to cover your house. :biggrin:

Maybe not their fault....but if we shot them we'd be way ahead.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:58 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
RustyGunz1960 wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
RustyGunz1960 wrote:Many posts on this subject are made by people who cannot tell the difference between fact and opinion. Some are even ignorant enough as to define smart and stupid opinions based on whether they are on the same or opposite side. While I do not know the qualifications of anyone here I'd be willing to bet that none are scientists specializing in the field of climatology, including myself. I have worked in the environmental field for close to thirty years, but it is one unrelated to climate so my opinions are still merely my opinions, no matter what argument I may make for them. Anyone can post any individual study or source they want, but they usually cite sources that support their opinions (most often based on their politics) and ignore those which contradict them. Conflicting data is always present in science. Trying to accurately sort and interpret it is incredibly difficult unless one is without bias. Bias can stem from one's religion, politics or even a predetermined hypothesis. If you can find an unbiased scientific source listen to it/him/her very closely. They are exceedingly rare. Everyone else is merely blowing smoke out their ass.



What a wonderful and thoughtfully intellectual post! Thank you.

I now understand that there is actually bias in the world.

I also now understand that only people that are labeled as "experts" in a field can render any opinion with meaning on that particular subject. The rest of us are nothing but sheep and dupes completely incapable of reviewing evidence and making a rational determination for ourselves. And we are certainly incapable of separating fact from opinion.

Your post has credibility. After all, you work in the environmental field.


Try reading a little more slowly, perhaps even sounding out the words. I made a point of stating that my opinion is no better than anyone else's, even though I do work in the environmental field. And yes, most are sheep. Look at who we elected president.


But if you have any intelligence why could your opinion not be as good if not better than some of the politicians?

CRS research indicates that 27 members of the House and one Senator
have no educational degree beyond a high school diploma. Five members of the House, but no
Senators, have associate’s degrees as their highest degree

Look at this guy...
Image
Just on looks (which I realize is a bad thing to judge on), not attractiveness... facial expressions and all that...
This guy has to be a moron, so why is his opinion more highly toted in your mind than mine is?

What in the Hell does this mean Woody? Jump on him for .....oh, I know a few reasons.


It is a simple point, Jim.
Why do people follow idiots like the above and feel "regular" Joel's opinion is not worth listening to?

Rusty assumed that there are no experts on here... Which with his outrageous required qualifications, not surprising.
Yet, Al Gore is an expert?
I'm sorry, but I am far more an expert on polution and its affects than Al Gore could dream of being... Still my word means nothing.

Hypocrisy that rusty has bought into... Shocking.
There are only two types of people in the world, those who love duck hunting and those who never have duck hunted.
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 8513
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:02 pm

MackieKnife wrote:
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
MackieKnife wrote:
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
MackieKnife wrote:Very well put. We need more people like bloomberg on americas coastline who are willing to build structures to protect from disasters before they happen again and again and again.

What are you talking about?
If one finds living on the coast so intriguing they can live with the consequences!
We need not spend tax dollars on saving those who put themselves in harms way!
:beer:
Where would you move manhatten to? Not that easy to pick up the global epicenter for finance and place it in montana. Many unique cultures originated based on a coastal lifestyle. I think its worth spending money on.


Yes, and those "Many unique cultures " didn't get government bailouts!

If you chose to live on the coast, don't come looking for my wallet!
I may choose to give to a good cause and donate money to such a venture, but you should not force me to give money to people who made the choice to put themselves in harms way!

In the history of the planet... it has always been the survival of the fittest... now the strongest are punished and are being weened out. The strong and smart are forced to support the weaker ones who would other wise phase out of society. What does that lead to? EXTINCTION!

Duh. Its obvious you dont who the strongest are. New world order Bolshevism.


History, if nothing else, repeats itself.
If you think the "new world order" can handle themselves in a collapse, well you're wrong.

If you doubt a collapse will happen, think about this... forever is a long time

And I doubt we will make it another century even if things go well.
There are only two types of people in the world, those who love duck hunting and those who never have duck hunted.
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 8513
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:05 pm

WoodyWhiffingMG wrote: It is a simple point, Jim.
Why do people follow idiots like the above and feel "regular" Joel's opinion is not worth listening to?

Rusty assumed that there are no experts on here... Which with his outrageous required qualifications, not surprising.
Yet, Al Gore is an expert?
I'm sorry, but I am far more an expert on polution and its affects than Al Gore could dream of being... Still my word means nothing.

Hypocrisy that rusty has bought into... Shocking.

OK. That's a rational point, woody. Comparing conflicting data from equally esteemed sources is tough. On this one it simply seems to me that it would be something we would want to err on the safe side of, assuming there is a real conflict of scientific opinion.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby assateague » Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:08 pm

The "safe side", in my opinion, would not be to wreak economic disaster on the the developed world while giving the developing world (and China) a free pass to do whatever they want. Either it's important or it's not, environmentally speaking. And it has been demonstrated to be "not", if the powers that were for it were also willing to give those developing nations a pass.
Last edited by assateague on Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:13 pm

assateague wrote:The "safe side", in my opinion, would not be to wreak economic disaster on the the developed world while giving the developing world (and China) a free pass to do whatever they want. Either it's important or it's important or it's not, environmentally speaking. And it has been demonstrated to be "not", if the powers that were for it were also willing to give those developing nations a pass.

I could not agree more, AT. I consider those actions as a travesty.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:26 pm

MackieKnife wrote: The new world order is orchestrating the collapse. You are blind. The Bolsheviks are coming and they are looking to kill you. You ready?

Ready, comrade.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby vincentpa » Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:29 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote: It is a simple point, Jim.
Why do people follow idiots like the above and feel "regular" Joel's opinion is not worth listening to?

Rusty assumed that there are no experts on here... Which with his outrageous required qualifications, not surprising.
Yet, Al Gore is an expert?
I'm sorry, but I am far more an expert on polution and its affects than Al Gore could dream of being... Still my word means nothing.

Hypocrisy that rusty has bought into... Shocking.

OK. That's a rational point, woody. Comparing conflicting data from equally esteemed sources is tough. On this one it simply seems to me that it would be something we would want to err on the safe side of, assuming there is a real conflict of scientific opinion.


It's not a political argument it's a scientific argument. The entire premise is that greenhouse gases are producing global warming. The scientists are able to measure co2 levels throughout the last many thousands of years but not through a whole cycle of an ice age. The levels of co2 are elevated. This occurred at the same time as warming in a warming period. Wrong conclusions were drawn from correlations calculated through coincidence. We are in the retreat of an ice age. Every first year geology student can tell you that. We are also in a period of substantial solar activity. No chit warming is occurring but not from elevated co2. On the end Jim, mostly all of their science is legit. It's their conclusions that are wrong. The proof is that there hasn't been any statistical warming in over 17 years, in fact there has been cooling for almost 8. Plus their Computer models have woefully been completely wrong.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7724
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Glimmerjim » Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:35 pm

vincentpa wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote: It is a simple point, Jim.
Why do people follow idiots like the above and feel "regular" Joel's opinion is not worth listening to?

Rusty assumed that there are no experts on here... Which with his outrageous required qualifications, not surprising.
Yet, Al Gore is an expert?
I'm sorry, but I am far more an expert on polution and its affects than Al Gore could dream of being... Still my word means nothing.

Hypocrisy that rusty has bought into... Shocking.

OK. That's a rational point, woody. Comparing conflicting data from equally esteemed sources is tough. On this one it simply seems to me that it would be something we would want to err on the safe side of, assuming there is a real conflict of scientific opinion.


It's not a political argument it's a scientific argument. The entire premise is that greenhouse gases are producing global warming. The scientists are able to measure co2 levels throughout the last many thousands of years but not through a whole cycle of an ice age. The levels of co2 are elevated. This occurred at the same time as warming in a warming period. Wrong conclusions were drawn from correlations calculated through coincidence. We are in the retreat of an ice age. Every first year geology student can tell you that. We are also in a period of substantial solar activity. No chit warming is occurring but not from elevated co2. On the end Jim, mostly all of their science is legit. It's their conclusions that are wrong. The proof is that there hasn't been any statistical warming in over 17 years, in fact there has been cooling for almost 8. Plus their Computer models have woefully been completely wrong.

Oh brother....do you realize how many hours of internet research you have subjected me to, to come to the conclusion that I still don't know? Screw it....I like Clinton and Gore. I'll believe Al if he tells me there really is a tooth fairy! :lol3: Now I've got to install motion sensors in my grandkid's room. Do they work on "fairies"?
Last edited by Glimmerjim on Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests