I Suppose

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: I Suppose

Postby vincentpa » Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:24 pm

whistlingwings wrote:SpinnerMan -- in regards to your "how bad is global warming?" question, read this: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... al-warming

The scientific community is in agreement that it will be very very bad if we do not reduce emissions. Sorry, but I trust the guys that study climate science every day (I hunt with one of them) more than I trust anyone that says "well it's just a LITTLE warmer, what's the harm?"


Lol! The IPCC! That's truly funny. You're entire argument is based on an appeal to authority, which doesn't exist.

Spinner, why humor him. Point him to the thread and let him read. You'll spend 30 pages arguing with him like you did with slow and all he'll have us the IPCC stated this, or 97% scientists this, or my friend the climate scientist that. So he works for the DoD. His friend is a climate scientist. What's next?


Sent from my iPhone 5, which sucks my cojones. Don't buy one.
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: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA


Re: I Suppose

Postby vincentpa » Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:27 pm

whistlingwings wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
whistlingwings wrote:The job of the board is to, yes, determine which treatments Medicare will pay for....so that we can reduce how much we spend on Medicare! Yes you read that correctly: its job is to reduce Medicare spending. If it did not exist, people on Medicare would in essence get any treatment they wanted, for free.
And since the country is going bankrupt, and that is the only source of health care for most of these people, will it be political and budgetary decisions or will it be based on competition in a free market where if a company offers to little coverage they will get a bad rep and lose business? It is a death panel because collectively there is nothing people can do to impact the decisions. If it is a pension or a business or private citizens, they can take their business elsewhere. It's not easy, but possible. Here, there is no mechanism of self correction and their motivation is based on federal government budgetary constraints and political expediency.



Like I said before, the Panel was based on that of the BHS that determines QYL. THere are no other options for most of those whose fate will be determined by the "experts". It's nothing less than a Death Panel.

I find it troubling that WW feels that it's perfectly acceptable for a government entity to be the final arbiter of a persons fate if that government entity is comprised of "experts" and the objective is to save money.



So you think that folks on Medicare and Medicaid should get any and all treatments that they want, on taxpayer dime? Because as I said, these "death panels" are only applicable to Medicare treatments/payements, with some minor applications to Medicaid.


Ah answering a question with a question. Are you a sophomore in college? The simple answer to your loaded question is the decision should be made by the patient and his doctor, not Barry and Kathleen Sebelius or a Death Panel.


Sent from my iPhone 5, which sucks my cojones. Don't buy one.
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: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:30 pm

Where was your question in what you wrote????

"Like I said before, the Panel was based on that of the BHS that determines QYL. THere are no other options for most of those whose fate will be determined by the "experts". It's nothing less than a Death Panel.

I find it troubling that WW feels that it's perfectly acceptable for a government entity to be the final arbiter of a persons fate if that government entity is comprised of "experts" and the objective is to save money."


------------------

Yes, 97%+ of scientists. You can believe the less than 3%, that is fine. As long as you realize you believe something that almost no scientists who study the topic agree with, of course you can believe whatever you want. Just don't say that you are sure you are right, because you are almost surely wrong.
Nobody cares about your season totals. Especially if you pay to hunt private.
whistlingwings
hunter
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: I Suppose

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:43 pm

whistlingwings wrote:SpinnerMan -- in regards to your "how bad is global warming?" question, read this: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... al-warming

The scientific community is in agreement that it will be very very bad if we do not reduce emissions. Sorry, but I trust the guys that study climate science every day (I hunt with one of them) more than I trust anyone that says "well it's just a LITTLE warmer, what's the harm?"

Yet, the estimate of how much warmer it will be has continued to decline as their knowledge increases. :huh:

Image

Most of them wildly over predicted the warming which means they wildly over predicted the consequences.

Ask your guy that studies climate science every day what is the optimum average global temperature.

Clearly the earth can be too cold and have disastrous consequences. This condition has been demonstrated in the past.

Theoretically the earth can be too hot and have disastrous consequences.

Given that conditions are not disastrous right now, there is an optimum point where both warmer and colder do net harm. What is that point?

If we are below that point, warming will be a net benefit.

If we are above that point, cooling would be a net benefit.

Image

It's absurd to believe that we happen to be right at that point and it is a steep slope on either way, but that is what your climate buddies have told us over the years. Doomsday sells.

BTW, a large fraction of my graduate school work was focused on environmental sciences and my minor for my Ph.D. was in environmental engineering. I am not an expert, but I am not a novice either. You brought in the mystery man that you know, with a vague description that could include a tech logging data with no background. That's not a very solid appeal to authority. But ask him what is the optimum global temperature. Unless we are right at that point, both warming and cooling cannot be bad.
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: 15804
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: I Suppose

Postby ScaupHunter » Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:50 pm

There is no part of science where 97% of the scientists agree on anything. WW is buying into the media BS and hype. A true peer evidence is not performed by the guys who agree with you. It is reviewed by those who disagree. A real scientist knows he is wrong. Go back and read the mentioned thread WW. Global warming has been thoroughly debunked here and in the real world.
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: 6397
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:57 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:Yet, the estimate of how much warmer it will be has continued to decline as their knowledge increases. :huh:


The prediction of how much warmer it will be has not declined. The 1990 estimates were .15C - .3C per decade. The latest prediction is .2C per decade. The latest observations are also close to .2C per decade.

The question of "what is the perfect temperature?" has been asked and is addressed in much of the published research. Of course there is no "perfect" temperature....different temps mean positives for some things, negatives for others. The issue is the *****rate***** of change. Fast change = plants and animals do not have time to adapt, which is why extinctions are predicted. Fast change = humans will have to spend a lot of $ to adapt rapidly, eg importing water into dry areas as much of the western USA already has to do.
Nobody cares about your season totals. Especially if you pay to hunt private.
whistlingwings
hunter
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Thu Nov 14, 2013 1:03 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:There is no part of science where 97% of the scientists agree on anything. WW is buying into the media BS and hype. A true peer evidence is not performed by the guys who agree with you. It is reviewed by those who disagree. A real scientist knows he is wrong. Go back and read the mentioned thread WW. Global warming has been thoroughly debunked here and in the real world.


You're joking, right? You've obviously never been involved in the scientific community. Yes, 97%. It has been confirmed many times by studies, surveys, etc. You don't have to listen to the media. Go to the individual websites of climate scientists and see what they say themselves.
Nobody cares about your season totals. Especially if you pay to hunt private.
whistlingwings
hunter
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: I Suppose

Postby WTN10 » Thu Nov 14, 2013 1:32 pm

whistlingwings wrote:Bill O'Reilly is smart.


Stopped reading here.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14016
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: I Suppose

Postby assateague » Thu Nov 14, 2013 1:42 pm

:lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:


Hey whistlingwings- 97%+ of the people here feel you're a doofus. Must be true, right?
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: I Suppose

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Nov 14, 2013 1:43 pm

whistlingwings wrote:The 1990 estimates were .15C - .3C per decade. The latest prediction is .2C per decade.

We are at the very low end of the range of predictions and the fear was for the high end. Which makes the rate of change at the low end of the range. And how fast can plants adapt. We have historically had big changes over extended periods and they adapted just fine.

But you hit on the biggest point of all. It is SUBJECTIVE.

whistlingwings wrote:Of course there is no "perfect" temperature....different temps mean positives for some things, negatives for others.


And the relative importance of them is subjective, which is why you could say if it were not subjective. The net effect is subjective.

whistlingwings wrote:which is why extinctions are predicted
So what? How much human suffering justifies avoiding something going extinct? It is a subjective value judgment and should not me made by some global warming death panel that decides what they think the acceptable level of harm from higher energy costs is. These subjective value judgments are to be made by our representatives and not by small panels of government bureaucrats and politically appointed "experts."

Personally and financially, I would do great with a big huge CO2 tax because nuclear power is the only viable option for a very low carbon emission future, but the suffering caused to the poor cannot be disregarded no matter how much it makes you feel better about yourself.

whistlingwings wrote:Fast change = humans will have to spend a lot of $ to adapt rapidly, eg importing water into dry areas as much of the western USA already has to do.
Or spend a lot less on heating bills up north. Crops will grow in places they have not. I've never got this assumption that it would mean more dry areas. The evaporation rate increases as temperature increases. And the simple mass balance is that what goes up must come down. More evaporation = more precipitation. Granted it will not be uniform, but on average there will be more precipitation. Humans are clever, they will adapt in a way that minimizes the negative impacts and maximizes the positive benefits. Look at the whole sale changes in the U.S. over the last 100 years. We change very rapidly.

Over that time period we have pretty much cut down and allowed to regrow all of the forests in the east and probably most of the ones in the west. Everything seemed to have adapted to that pretty well. Sure there were some extinctions, but people came out of the deal pretty good.
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: 15804
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Thu Nov 14, 2013 1:56 pm

assateague wrote::lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:


Hey whistlingwings- 97%+ of the people here feel you're a doofus. Must be true, right?


I really wish there could be a mature discussion on this forum. Anytime someone has a differing opinion, somehow instead of mature debate it always degrades into name calling "doofus" "bubble boy" etc. I feel like I'm back in middle school.

Grow up. 20,000 posts? Get outside, get away from the computer buddy.
Nobody cares about your season totals. Especially if you pay to hunt private.
whistlingwings
hunter
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: I Suppose

Postby assateague » Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:35 pm

And where are you right now?
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: I Suppose

Postby vincentpa » Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:36 pm

whistlingwings wrote:Where was your question in what you wrote????

vincentpa wrote:Like I said before, the Panel was based on that of the BHS that determines QYL. THere are no other options for most of those whose fate will be determined by the "experts". It's nothing less than a Death Panel.




I find it troubling that WW feels that it's perfectly acceptable for a government entity to be the final arbiter of a persons fate if that government entity is comprised of "experts" and the objective is to save money."


Cute dodge. Irrelevant. Don't ask me a question. Defend your position against my statement. You can't. The link you provided didn't debunk the Death Panel, it supported it. The only thing the Death Panel has between its recommendations and implementation is a buffer. Only the naive and children believe the Secretary of HHS is going to override the panel. Once a new recommendation is implemented, it will be extremely difficult or next to impossible to reverse. Even if reversed, it will be on the deaths of individuals who fell victim to the administers of fate. It's funny to watch liberals rationalize. To a liberal, if there are more than one layer, then responsibility vanishes. The mafia used to call men that gave the orders but insulated the boss, they probably still do, buffers. Does that make the boss any less culpable? No. The Death Panel's recommendations will be taken and implemented as perfunctory. The buffer will be meaningless.

whistlingwings wrote:Yes, 97%+ of scientists. You can believe the less than 3%, that is fine. As long as you realize you believe something that almost no scientists who study the topic agree with, of course you can believe whatever you want. Just don't say that you are sure you are right, because you are almost surely wrong.


The 97% is quite wrong. There has been plenty of evidence to support the concocted number was fabricated. Many of the scientists themselves claimed they were included erroneously and their work predicted the exact opposite. WWW debunked the number in the last thread. The reason people are mocking your 97% number is because we've been through it before recently. Let your fingers do the walking and search the thread. Slowshooter started that thread. Let your fingers do the walking. There has been no statistical warming in the last 17 years. Your entire argument is nothing more than the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority. There is nothing to your argument.
Last edited by vincentpa on Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: I Suppose

Postby vincentpa » Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:39 pm

whistlingwings wrote: The latest observations are also close to .2C per decade.


Rubbish. There has been no statistical warming in over a decade and a half. The rest is a bump in the geological history of the earth.
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: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:47 pm

assateague wrote:And where are you right now?


On vacation. In about 7 years on this site I've posted a little over 100 times. Would've probably been more active if it weren't for guys like you who, instead of having a mature conversation, call people names, berate folks who are new to hunting for internet scouting when they don't know any better, etc. Too much like middle school conversations for me to handle.
Nobody cares about your season totals. Especially if you pay to hunt private.
whistlingwings
hunter
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:54 pm

vincentpa --
The only way you will convince anyone that fewer than 97% of climate scientists agree, is by listing names of climate scientists who disagree. Pointing to "flawed polls" and "rigged research" won't do it. Almost all climate scientists have personal websites where they discuss their research and list their publications, give me a list of names and/or their websites and I'll be convinced.


EDIT
Just for craps and giggles, here is the most recent published, peer-reviewed study of studies: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Alternatively to listing the names of the dissenting climatologists, you could analyze the above paper and tell the entire scientific community how their 97.1% figure is incorrect.
Nobody cares about your season totals. Especially if you pay to hunt private.
whistlingwings
hunter
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: I Suppose

Postby vincentpa » Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:25 pm

whistlingwings wrote:vincentpa --
The only way you will convince anyone that fewer than 97% of climate scientists agree, is by listing names of climate scientists who disagree. Pointing to "flawed polls" and "rigged research" won't do it. Almost all climate scientists have personal websites where they discuss their research and list their publications, give me a list of names and/or their websites and I'll be convinced.


Flawed polls and rigged research are significant. Couple that with no warming in over a decade and a half, it's damning. It was pleasurably to watch those that make up your fictitious 97% stepping and fetching to explain that hum dinger.


Sent from my iPhone 5, which sucks my cojones. Don't buy one.
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: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: I Suppose

Postby assateague » Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:26 pm

whistlingwings wrote:
assateague wrote:And where are you right now?


On vacation. In about 7 years on this site I've posted a little over 100 times. Would've probably been more active if it weren't for guys like you who, instead of having a mature conversation, call people names, berate folks who are new to hunting for internet scouting when they don't know any better, etc. Too much like middle school conversations for me to handle.



Ah yes, the "holier than thou" approach. It generally doesn't work, either. You're here. On a computer. Arguing. Still a member.


Try again, junior. :lol3:
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: I Suppose

Postby vincentpa » Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:28 pm

Linking to the study that was debunked gives you the giggles. That gives me the giggles.


Sent from my iPhone 5, which sucks my cojones. Don't buy one.
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: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:29 pm

vincentpa wrote:Linking to the study that was debunked gives you the giggles. That gives me the giggles.


Sent from my iPhone 5, which sucks my cojones. Don't buy one.



Debunked? How and where. You need to site evidence, not just say things.
Nobody cares about your season totals. Especially if you pay to hunt private.
whistlingwings
hunter
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:58 pm

assateague wrote:
whistlingwings wrote:
assateague wrote:And where are you right now?


On vacation. In about 7 years on this site I've posted a little over 100 times. Would've probably been more active if it weren't for guys like you who, instead of having a mature conversation, call people names, berate folks who are new to hunting for internet scouting when they don't know any better, etc. Too much like middle school conversations for me to handle.


Ah yes, the "holier than thou" approach. It generally doesn't work, either. You're here. On a computer. Arguing. Still a member.

Try again, junior. :lol3:


You missed the point. I am pointing out your immaturity for calling people names. I'm also pointing out that you probably spend too much time on here having posted 20,000 messages in four years. I'm on here now posting my 100th some message in 7 years. You're on here posting your 20,000th odd message. That's the point. I'm suggesting that you spend a little less time in internet forums and a little more time in the real world.
Nobody cares about your season totals. Especially if you pay to hunt private.
whistlingwings
hunter
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: I Suppose

Postby assateague » Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:05 pm

And yet here you are.
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: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:41 pm

assateague wrote:And yet here you are.


Trying to have a conversation with mature adults, some of them pretty intelligent. Your immature name calling is not needed.
Nobody cares about your season totals. Especially if you pay to hunt private.
whistlingwings
hunter
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: I Suppose

Postby assateague » Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:47 pm

Immature name calling is one thing. But clinging to something with no logical thought process takes immaturity to a whole 'nother level. Didn't they teach you anything while you were working for DoD? :lol3:


The reason you're not getting what you want from this is because it's all been hashed out at least 9 different times, at length. Apparently, Spinner and Vince have more patience for a johnny-come-lately who feels entitled to have everyone grant his wish, when he wants it granted. Go search around- you're simply not important enough to make such demands on any others who may or may not post in here, and have the whole topic rehashed just because you're here, now.
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: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:53 pm

assateague wrote:Immature name calling is one thing. But clinging to something with no logical thought process takes immaturity to a whole 'nother level. Didn't they teach you anything while you were working for DoD? :lol3:


The reason you're not getting what you want from this is because it's all been hashed out at least 9 different times, at length. Apparently, Spinner and Vince have more patience for a johnny-come-lately who feels entitled to have everyone grant his wish, when he wants it granted. Go search around- you're simply not important enough to make such demands on any others who may or may not post in here, and have the whole topic rehashed just because you're here, now.


:lol3: a bunch of duck hunters hashing out climate change "at least 9 different times" is logical, while believing every major scientific institution in the world is not? Yall must be the smartest duck hunters I've ever heard of. :lol3:

:lol3: And now I'm making demands! What demands am I making? I posted comments and asked questions, I'm not demanding anyone respond. If you respond by calling grown men you haven't ever met names, I'll certainly point out the immaturity in that though. Do you call grown men you haven't met "doffus" -es in real life, or is that just your internet forum thing?
Nobody cares about your season totals. Especially if you pay to hunt private.
whistlingwings
hunter
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Oregon

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests