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 ScaupHunter » Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:35 am

assateague wrote:WILL SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHY THERE IS NO GLACIER ON TOP OF WHERE VINCE HUNTS DUCKS?


97% of pseudo climate scientists and Slow all agree it is global warming. :yes:
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: 6662
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am


Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:38 am

ScaupHunter wrote:
assateague wrote:WILL SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHY THERE IS NO GLACIER ON TOP OF WHERE VINCE HUNTS DUCKS?


97% of pseudo climate scientists and Slow all agree it is man caused global warming. :yes:

FIFY
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: 8525
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Jul 01, 2013 9:26 am

slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:Now you are being an idiot.


I'm not the one that claimed that the 97% was a lie, the science was a lie and that the IPCC is part of some giant conspiracy,
then was unable to credibly back any of it up at all.

That's all you! :lol3: :lol3:

You should go back to just waving and pretending that you gained an inch when you lost a mile. :lol3: :lol3:

If you have the truth all you have to do is credibly share it.

Sorry, I keep forgetting... YOU CAN'T. Haaa haaaaaa!!!!

Case in point.... You have difficulties distinguishing propaganda when it is presented to you by the IPCC and touted by the media and the president.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 57619
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Jul 01, 2013 9:39 am

assateague wrote:WILL SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHY THERE IS NO GLACIER ON TOP OF WHERE VINCE HUNTS DUCKS?

It melted.... :hi:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 57619
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Jul 01, 2013 9:50 am

Image
Image
:hi:
Reality is extremely hard to explain away...
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 57619
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Gunnysway » Mon Jul 01, 2013 9:54 am

Because we were experiencing a warming cycle which, according to the numbers I've seen is over, and now we are in a cooling trend. This has been happining for thousands of years.

It is possible a glacier will push south to Vinces house...

or not...

I think 97% of scientists would agree with this...
Setting up meetings between geese and God since 1992...

Gud till ära, oss till gagn...
User avatar
Gunnysway
hunter
 
Posts: 3123
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 11:46 am
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Mon Jul 01, 2013 9:55 am

slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:the IPCC is a political organization pushing an agenda. Period.


Conspiracy is conspiracy. Period.

Haaa haa! Seriously. If Ronald Reagan spoke from the grave and told you that climate change was real you would cover your ears and hide behind your couch.

:lol3: :lol3:

I win...you loose. YOur manufactured 97% consensus is bull schit.


So I just gave up 17% of the consensus willingly. Go ahead. Change the 70%'s mind...




Real quick.... why are we all bothering to explain science to someone who cannot even handle simple subtraction.
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: 8525
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:17 am

Select excerpts from the letter:

“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
“We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”


49 former NASA scientists go ballistic over agency’s bias over climate change
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 57619
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:30 am

This is what Man Made Global Warming alarmists sound like to public....
Image

Crying Wolf....

That is the reason for the drummed up hysteria and bogus "97% consensus" in the face of reality.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 57619
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby vincentpa » Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:57 am

assateague wrote:WILL SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHY THERE IS NO GLACIER ON TOP OF WHERE VINCE HUNTS DUCKS?




:lol: :lol: :lol:

The last two seasons I wish the glaciers were a lot closer. We had another mild winter. A nice cold spell in December would've been nice. In contrast to the mild winter, we had the coldest spring on record.
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: 7726
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Glimmerjim » Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:28 am

WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:the IPCC is a political organization pushing an agenda. Period.


Conspiracy is conspiracy. Period.

Haaa haa! Seriously. If Ronald Reagan spoke from the grave and told you that climate change was real you would cover your ears and hide behind your couch.

:lol3: :lol3:

I win...you loose. YOur manufactured 97% consensus is bull schit.


So I just gave up 17% of the consensus willingly. Go ahead. Change the 70%'s mind...




Real quick.... why are we all bothering to explain science to someone who cannot even handle simple subtraction.

I was waiting to see who would attack this. Just a typo. We all do it. Trying to validate an argument or position by jumping on a simple error is just so..........Republican.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10839
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby Gunnysway » Mon Jul 01, 2013 11:41 am

No offense... but thats not a typo...

It's just bad math...

Been there, done that... :lol3:
Setting up meetings between geese and God since 1992...

Gud till ära, oss till gagn...
User avatar
Gunnysway
hunter
 
Posts: 3123
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 11:46 am
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby vincentpa » Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:17 pm

This thread will not be complete without a tome from spinner.
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: 7726
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:58 pm

vincentpa wrote:This thread will not be complete without a tome from spinner.

It will never be complete. It is a matter of religion and not science at this point.

IT will remain true, whatever IT is, regardless of how many reinterpretations of the "facts" are necessary to prove IT true.

Doesn't matter which side of the argument you are on. It's about sides and not science. Each thinks they are the true God-fearing and the others are the infidels that must be defeated.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16217
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby vincentpa » Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:13 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
vincentpa wrote:This thread will not be complete without a tome from spinner.

It will never be complete. It is a matter of religion and not science at this point.

IT will remain true, whatever IT is, regardless of how many reinterpretations of the "facts" are necessary to prove IT true.

Doesn't matter which side of the argument you are on. It's about sides and not science. Each thinks they are the true God-fearing and the others are the infidels that must be defeated.



If da glove don't fit, ya got to acquit.
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: 7726
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:19 pm

vincentpa wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
vincentpa wrote:This thread will not be complete without a tome from spinner.

It will never be complete. It is a matter of religion and not science at this point.

IT will remain true, whatever IT is, regardless of how many reinterpretations of the "facts" are necessary to prove IT true.

Doesn't matter which side of the argument you are on. It's about sides and not science. Each thinks they are the true God-fearing and the others are the infidels that must be defeated.



If da glove don't fit, ya got to acquit.

:fingerpt:

You must convict even if an eye witness testifies that the "creepy-ass cracker" was the one getting the "ground and pound" because you can't defend yourself against someone that looks like Obama's mythical son :bow: :bow: :bow:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16217
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:25 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
vincentpa wrote:This thread will not be complete without a tome from spinner.

It will never be complete. It is a matter of religion and not science at this point.

IT will remain true, whatever IT is, regardless of how many reinterpretations of the "facts" are necessary to prove IT true.

Doesn't matter which side of the argument you are on. It's about sides and not science. Each thinks they are the true God-fearing and the others are the infidels that must be defeated.



If da glove don't fit, ya got to acquit.

:fingerpt:

You must convict even if an eye witness testifies that the "creepy-ass cracker" was the one getting the "ground and pound" because you can't defend yourself against someone that looks like Obama's mythical son :bow: :bow: :bow:


AKA... the white man is always guilty.

wait... Zimerman is not white?!? eff him, have MSNBC say he is and then pull the race card.
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: 8525
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby slowshooter » Mon Jul 01, 2013 3:33 pm

assateague wrote:WILL SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHY THERE IS NO GLACIER ON TOP OF WHERE VINCE HUNTS DUCKS?



The truth is that Vince isn't cool enough. :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby slowshooter » Mon Jul 01, 2013 3:37 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:Now you are being an idiot.


I'm not the one that claimed that the 97% was a lie, the science was a lie and that the IPCC is part of some giant conspiracy,
then was unable to credibly back any of it up at all.

That's all you! :lol3: :lol3:

You should go back to just waving and pretending that you gained an inch when you lost a mile. :lol3: :lol3:

If you have the truth all you have to do is credibly share it.

Sorry, I keep forgetting... YOU CAN'T. Haaa haaaaaa!!!!

Case in point.... You have difficulties distinguishing propaganda when it is presented to you by the IPCC and touted by the media and the president.


You can't even tell when you have data at all. And when you get some you can't tell if it's legit.

Again, all you have to do is present the information that you have which will prove that the consensus is non existent and that their opinion is incorrect. That's all it takes to undermine the appeal to authority that YOU brought up.

You have yet to do so. Despite my efforts to encourage you to act.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby slowshooter » Mon Jul 01, 2013 3:40 pm

WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:the IPCC is a political organization pushing an agenda. Period.


Conspiracy is conspiracy. Period.

Haaa haa! Seriously. If Ronald Reagan spoke from the grave and told you that climate change was real you would cover your ears and hide behind your couch.

:lol3: :lol3:

I win...you loose. YOur manufactured 97% consensus is bull schit.


So I just gave up 17% of the consensus willingly. Go ahead. Change the 70%'s mind...



That was a pretty stinky typo.

Got a new Macally keyboard and while it's low profile I am fat fingering everything. The worst part of it is that the caps lock key is right next to the A key and I'll be halfway through a post and realize that I'm typing in all caps. Then I have to go back and correct it.

Real quick.... why are we all bothering to explain science to someone who cannot even handle simple subtraction.


That's the spirit! :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby slowshooter » Mon Jul 01, 2013 3:44 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
Select excerpts from the letter:

“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
“We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”


49 former NASA scientists go ballistic over agency’s bias over climate change



LOL! Relying on even more non climate scientists.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/12/attacks-climate-science-nasa-staff

Maybe one of these guys was the first climatologist of Uganda or something. :lol3:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby slowshooter » Mon Jul 01, 2013 3:46 pm

Gunnysway wrote:No offense... but thats not a typo...

It's just bad math...

Been there, done that... :lol3:


Nope. Just me dragging finga. Wish it was bad math. I can skip keys and flop around pretty easy on a keyboard. I typed on one that was missing 4-5 keys when I first got here. That was a real treat. :no:
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby slowshooter » Mon Jul 01, 2013 3:51 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:It will never be complete. It is a matter of religion and not science at this point.

IT will remain true, whatever IT is, regardless of how many reinterpretations of the "facts" are necessary to prove IT true.

Doesn't matter which side of the argument you are on. It's about sides and not science. Each thinks they are the true God-fearing and the others are the infidels that must be defeated.


Nonsense. If there was scientific evidence to disprove the 97% then it would be pretty easy to get them to believe otherwise.

If Inda wanted to do so, all he would have to do is provide the evidence to change their minds. If his information was credible he would have zero problems convincing me as well.

I have no religion around this at all. If new information comes up and shows that there should be a course correction I'm all for it.

Inda on the other hand not only won't change his mind. He can't change his mind.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby cartervj » Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:03 pm

BERKELEY, Calif., July 1 (UPI) -- Electric cars, despite their supposed green credentials, are among the environmentally dirtiest transportation options, a U.S. researcher suggests.
Writing in the journal IEEE Spectrum, researcher Ozzie Zehner says electric cars lead to hidden environmental and health damages and are likely more harmful than gasoline cars and other transportation options.

Electric cars merely shift negative impacts from one place to another, he wrote, and "most electric-car assessments analyze only the charging of the car. This is an important factor indeed. But a more rigorous analysis would consider the environmental impacts over the vehicle's entire life cycle, from its construction through its operation and on to its eventual retirement at the junkyard."
Political priorities and corporate influence have created a flawed impression that electric cars significantly reduce transportation impacts, he said.

"Upon closer consideration, moving from petroleum-fueled vehicles to electric cars starts to appear tantamount to shifting from one brand of cigarettes to another," Zehner, a visiting scholar at the University of California, Berkeley, said.
Zehner, once an electric car enthusiast who has since changed his position and become an activist looking at a number of so-called green initiatives, is the author of the book "Green Illusions."


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/01/Study--Electric-cars-no-greener-than-gasoline-vehicles
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7342
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: 17 yrs. no warming?

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Jul 01, 2013 7:03 pm

slowshooter wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:It will never be complete. It is a matter of religion and not science at this point.

IT will remain true, whatever IT is, regardless of how many reinterpretations of the "facts" are necessary to prove IT true.

Doesn't matter which side of the argument you are on. It's about sides and not science. Each thinks they are the true God-fearing and the others are the infidels that must be defeated.


Nonsense. If there was scientific evidence to disprove the 97% then it would be pretty easy to get them to believe otherwise.
Obamacare bent the cost curve up as expected. Have opinions changed? :no:

The porkulus failed to stimulate the economy as anyone with a hint of common sense knew it would. Have opinions changed? :no:

Man is a destructive force on the planet and must be constrained and controlled by some intellectual (formerly bloodline) elite whether it is man-made cooling, man-made warming, or just man-made change, the facts don't matter, the opinions will not change. Do you even see anyone arguing about the optimum temperature or optimum CO2 or optimum anything? We know at the extremes we all die and clearly we are not all dead, so there is a point below which it is too cold, above which it is too hot, and right at that point it is just right. Of course, even acknowledging that there is an optimum point crushes the appeal to authority for the very simple reason that that point is HIGHLY subjective based on what humans value. That means for you and me the true perfect optimum is NOT the same value. It is not a matter of pure scientific debate on facts. It is also based heavily on a subjective value judgment. Scientists' value judgments are no more relevant than any other human being on the planet. If they were then you must believe my value judgments are more relevant than yours. They are truly equal.

However, the debate about "facts" that are nothing more than individual value judgments is one huge area where the so-called climate science in particular and most environmental sciences in general have been totally corrupted. To many of these scientists it is a religion just like many of the intelligent design scientists. They "know" the truth and their goal is to use pseudo-science to prove it to the non-believers.

To be a pure scientist you must be obsessed with trying to prove YOURSELF wrong. How many scientist these days try to disprove their own theories? Can't risk the funding, the power, the prestige, the money, the politics, or just the sense of personal intellectual superiority to be proven wrong. There are a lot of scientists with the mental equivalent of the napoleon complex. After all half of them are dumber than the average scientist, but most of them can't admit that to themselves.

According to Vince this should put an end to the debate :wink:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16217
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests