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 ScaupHunter » Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:53 pm

whistlingwings wrote:clampdaddy:
No, my comment refers to the people that want to violently overthrow the United States government.

ScaupHunter:
Yes, anyone who wants to violently overthrow the government should be dealt with with deadly force. That would be called a coup. Whether they be from North Korea or Boise. So anyone who works a job that involves machinery that uses oil and gas can't have an opinion about global warming? Hope none of you guys drive to work, or work with heavy machinery. That makes sense :rolleyes:


Simply pointing out the hypocrisy of making a living off the profligate waste of fossil fuels then crying about global warming. Missed that little message did we?
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: 6702
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am


Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:07 am

ScaupHunter wrote:
whistlingwings wrote:clampdaddy:
No, my comment refers to the people that want to violently overthrow the United States government.

ScaupHunter:
Yes, anyone who wants to violently overthrow the government should be dealt with with deadly force. That would be called a coup. Whether they be from North Korea or Boise. So anyone who works a job that involves machinery that uses oil and gas can't have an opinion about global warming? Hope none of you guys drive to work, or work with heavy machinery. That makes sense :rolleyes:


Simply pointing out the hypocrisy of making a living off the profligate waste of fossil fuels then crying about global warming. Missed that little message did we?


No, I understood your little message, did you have a hard time reading what I wrote? I asked you if anyone who takes a job that involves fossil fuels is no longer allowed to have an opinion on whether or not global warming is real and man made.
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 clampdaddy » Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:16 am

whistlingwings wrote:clampdaddy:
No, my comment refers to the people that want to violently overthrow the United States government.

Like who?
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3649
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: I Suppose

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Nov 15, 2013 4:44 am

whistlingwings wrote:SpinnerMan:
Time Magazine should not ever, ever, be considered a scientific publication. I was exaggerating when I said I would have to coot hunt in Canada :thumbsup:

I didn't say it was a scientific publication. I'm saying something that was fringe would not have gotten the cover. But maybe people were fine with the exaggeration. How many of these people are exaggerating their claims of the coming calamity?

There are way too many "scientists" that respond to the politics of the day. Just like there are so many unprofessional journalists, sadly there are getting to be way too many unethical scientists. Once they decide they want to change society, they have biased everything they do. Even professional scientists must do double blind studies in order to not see what they want to see. The students in the environmental science classes were the worst students. In particular, I was taking an aqueous geochemistry at the graduate level. I hadn't taken a chemistry class since being a sophomore at that point. My scores on the test were way better than the rest of the class. It was sad since this was their field. The professor was very good. I also had a couple biology professors that were terribly biased. One intentionally and one just didn't belong at that level, but was well intended.

I have no doubt that there is some warming. I'm pretty convinced that we are at a point that warmer is a net positive and the rate of change is just not a problem on balance. What I do know is that the harm from raising the cost of electricity will far exceed any benefits if it is on net negative.
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: 16293
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: I Suppose

Postby vincentpa » Fri Nov 15, 2013 6:32 am

whistlingwings wrote:

As you yourself have even been able to recognize, one or two decades is a blip on the global climate timeline. And yes, scientists cannot yet fully describe the warming hiatus, but recent findings are very close: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... hange-cfc/


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

They are close.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The "two-decades-is-a-blip" argument cannot be turned around as a rebuttal to my argument. The entire theory of global warming is predicated on CO2 creating a greenhouse effect. The computer models of the scientists determined there would be significant warming as a result of the increased CO2. Hasn't happened.


whistlingwings wrote:As long as you all recognize that you believe something that every major scientific organization on the planet tells you is false, that is fine. Just at least recognize the fact that you are in the small minority, and a large majority of scientists/scientific organizations will tell you that you are wrong.


So your entire argument then boils down to an appeal to authority because you can't explain what amounts to be the fatal blow of the data not supporting the predictions. :thumbsup:

whistlingwings wrote:
vincentpa wrote:However, they have not tied it to any warming that occurred over a very short period of time.
Umm...yes. Yes they have. Many, many times in many many studies and experiments.
Image



Umm... No. There has been an exponential increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere, yet no warming in over a decade and a half. By your theory, the earth should be a sauna right now. It's not. Whoops.

To address your graphic, correlation does not signify causation.


BTW, since we're giving credentials, I'm a structural engineer. I build big things. I don't teach, unless you consider the mentoring of junior engineers.
Last edited by vincentpa on Fri Nov 15, 2013 7:26 am, 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: 7742
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: I Suppose

Postby Andy W » Fri Nov 15, 2013 6:36 am

assateague wrote:And for the record, why aren't there mile thick glaciers parked all over North America like there were 15,000 years ago?

Bush's fault?
Andy W
hunter
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:30 am
Location: KY

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:15 am

vincentpa:
"By your theory, the earth should be a sauna right now."
NO!!!!!!!!
By the theory, the earth should be about .2C warmer than it is right now. A small error, which scientists have figured out the cause of (again....you'll have to actually read the research that I linked to.)

*****The models DO accurately predict temperature as a function of CO2 concentration.*******
Confounding human-caused variables, which have never been a part of the global climate until very very recently, such as CFC concentration, are not fully understood yet. As SpinnerMan, who has apparently studied climate science linked to earlier
*******CO2 concentration has been 100% proven to affect temperture*******
Image
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 » Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:54 am

whistlingwings wrote:vincentpa:
"By your theory, the earth should be a sauna right now."
NO!!!!!!!!
By the theory, the earth should be about .2C warmer than it is right now. A small error, which scientists have figured out the cause of (again....you'll have to actually read the research that I linked to.)

*****The models DO accurately predict temperature as a function of CO2 concentration.*******
Confounding human-caused variables, which have never been a part of the global climate until very very recently, such as CFC concentration, are not fully understood yet. As SpinnerMan, who has apparently studied climate science linked to earlier
*******CO2 concentration has been 100% proven to affect temperture*******
Image



Spinner was stating a belief, not a fact that CO2 causes warming.

The computer models have been completely wrong. It was even reported as such in the English newspaper The Guardian that you are wont to quote. You are cherry picking the temperature range in a sad attempt to support your position. You've chosen the lowest temperature in any range ever quoted. Regardless, it is completely irrelevant. You still can't seem to address the fact that the earth hasn't warmed statistically in over a decade and a half. I'll wait to see how you dance around that one again. You'll have to wait until the scientist/activists discover/fabricate the reason for it. They're close. You'll get back to me on it; I'm sure.
Last edited by vincentpa on Fri Nov 15, 2013 10:10 am, 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: 7742
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: I Suppose

Postby vincentpa » Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:56 am

I wonder if the scientist that published the graphs you've presented realizes that they work against the global warming scare.
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: 7742
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: I Suppose

Postby ScaupHunter » Fri Nov 15, 2013 10:18 am

Of course they don't. They only push that which they believe supports their theories and funding sources. Apparently 97% of climatologist are money whores riding the economic wave. The 0.2 rise in temp is easily explained by the increased solar flare cycle of the sun. If not for that, the earths a temperature may well have dropped. Any scientist that focuses on one thing causing global warming is a complete fool and clearly biased to the point of having no credibility at all. The oceans interaction with the suns electrical output will always have far more effect on the earths temperature than humans can. As would a super volcano going off and blocking the suns rays from reaching the Earth.
Last edited by ScaupHunter on Fri Nov 15, 2013 1:05 pm, edited 3 times 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: 6702
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Fri Nov 15, 2013 10:19 am

vincentpa wrote:I wonder if the scientist that published the graphs you've presented realizes that they work against the global warming scare.


:huh: it's great how structural engineers and other people who do not study climate science think that their "analysis" is better than that of...climate scientists. But I'll indulge you: how, mr. scientist, do graphs showing that global temperature is very strongly correlated with atmospheric CO2 concentration....not show that global temperature is very strongly correlated with atmospheric CO2?
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 » Fri Nov 15, 2013 10:28 am

whistlingwings wrote:
vincentpa wrote:I wonder if the scientist that published the graphs you've presented realizes that they work against the global warming scare.


:huh: it's great how structural engineers and other people who do not study climate science think that their "analysis" is better than that of...climate scientists. But I'll indulge you: how, mr. scientist, do graphs showing that global temperature is very strongly correlated with atmospheric CO2 concentration....not show that global temperature is very strongly correlated with atmospheric CO2?



You'll have to excuse my skeptical nature. I always am skeptical of any scientist purporting to accurately measure temperature data going back 400,00 years when they have such a difficult time standardizing and analyzing current temperature data collection and analysis. That also goes back to your temperature graph dating to 1890 or so. You do realize you can't combine data that was collected/measured using different methods. In other words, that graph is bogus. :wink: Another observation, one has to wonder the cause of all that CO2 400,00 to 10,000 years ago. I guess Mr. Slate was cracking the whip on Barney and Fred. Yabba Dabba Doooooooooo!

Mr. Aeronautical Engineer. I have a question for you. How is stress related to strain in the elastic and plastic zones? Don't post a graph. Explain it to me in words.
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: 7742
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Fri Nov 15, 2013 10:40 am

:no: ok, so now we get to the root of the problem - not believing that CO2 concentration directly affects temperature. SpinnerMan I'll leave that up to you to explain if you want.

:lol3: how is stress related to strain? I couldn't even describe the basics of a stress-strain curve, been waaayyy too long since I've done any real engineering. Unless you count boat blinds as real engineering :grooving:
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 ScaupHunter » Fri Nov 15, 2013 1:09 pm

If you spent your life as an aeronautical engineer you would remember those things clearly. I remember the answer. I haven't done anything structural design related since engineering school which was 20+ years ago.
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: 6702
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:04 pm

:rolleyes: You fellas can think I work at McDonalds. SpinnerMan asked about my background, and I told him. This again is why I haven't done much in these forums over the last 7 years

"What's your background? I used to be an engineer. OH REALLY - well answer this question about engineering to PROVE it! I don't remember, and don't care. SO you CAN'T answer it huh, no way you were an engineer! Liar!"

Man oh man, that's some good adult conversation right there. Just believe I work at McDonalds, not going to hurt my feelings or change a debate about global warming.
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 » Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:24 pm

whistlingwings wrote::no: ok, so now we get to the root of the problem - not believing that CO2 concentration directly affects temperature. SpinnerMan I'll leave that up to you to explain if you want.


Why do you need Spinner to explain? Why can't you?

whistlingwings wrote: :lol3: how is stress related to strain? I couldn't even describe the basics of a stress-strain curve, been waaayyy too long since I've done any real engineering. Unless you count boat blinds as real engineering :grooving:


You got called out on the most basic of all Mechanics questions and you didn't know the very simple and basic answer. That is something someone with a degree in Civil, Mechanical or Aeronautical engineering would never forget. You're a fraud.
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: 7742
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: I Suppose

Postby Rat Creek » Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:29 pm

This is why it is called the Church of Global Warming. :bow: :bow: :bow: You just have to believe it based upon faith and little else.

So since 1960, and assuming we can accurately measure an entire planet's constantly changing atmosphere down to one part per million :eek: , it is estimated that CO2 has increased by 50 parts per million to roughly 400 parts per million. About ONE part per MILLION per YEAR. Oh, the humanity. :crying: Let's put that in number format as it stands today.

CO2: .0004
Everything else: .9996

I would display it in a pie chart but they have not invented monitors with enough pixels to see the CO2 part of it. :hi:

Yes, it is obvious what is causing the warming...er...cooling...er...change. It cannot possibly be that really bright shiny hot thing in the sky that causes the daytime temps to rise A LOT, and nighttime temps to drop A LOT. You know that thing that makes it 90 degrees in the summer and 10 degrees in the winter. That thing can have no bearing on temperature swings because we know the Sun's output is constant and never fluctuating. It must be something else. :fingerhead:

By the way, I am not an engineer, but I am an excellent cook and do the chicken dance at weddings. Just wanted you to have my credentials. :rolleyes:

You just have to suspend logic and want to believe. :bow: :bow: :bow:
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4526
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:33 pm

This is why CO2 concentration increases temps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect It has been proven thousands of times; you can make a miniature greenhouse in your back yard, pump it full of CO2, and see the basic mechanism at work.

:lol3: ok ok you guys got me, I'm a fraud. If I wanted to, I could have googled the question or gone home and dug up my mechanics of materials book. You fellas take this forum a bit too seriously. It's an internet chat forum, if you're basing the validity of people's statements on what they say their backgrounds are, you might as well throw in the towel. (I worked with fluid flow and then business development, no structural design. ATK Space Systems at the SRB facility north of Ogden first...which is no longer the name of the division...and then at Northrop, El Segundo campus. Also worked at Butler International on helicopter gear design while I was at Purdue...name of the company is now Butler America)
Last edited by whistlingwings on Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 » Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:46 pm

The funny thing about models is that if you're assumptions are correct, the model is worthless. To determine if the assumptions are correct, the results from the model must be compared to the results from the observations. In this case, they don't jive. In the last decade and a half, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen exponentially with no corresponding warming of the planet. The models used to predict warming based on CO2 content were obviously seriously flawed. Even if CO2 is causing some greenhouse effect, it is very small when compared to the other environmental factors affecting our planet. Climate scientists need to shed their activist capes and rework their models.
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: 7742
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: I Suppose

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Nov 15, 2013 3:23 pm

whistlingwings wrote::rolleyes: You fellas can think I work at McDonalds. SpinnerMan asked about my background, and I told him. This again is why I haven't done much in these forums over the last 7 years
You missed my question a bit. I'm author on quite a few journal articles. I've been the peer reviewer on quite a few journal articles. I have been involved in many research proposal submitted to the government. I've been the expert review providing comments to the government for selection of research proposals. That is my world. It is a human world with all the human flaws. Given that, your argument that the herd all agrees, is not as convincing and if you followed the climate gate scandal, there were cliques and cronyism.

My criticism has always been the lack of skepticism. The activism. They sensationalism. It was not professional. It was not pure science, that is for sure.
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: 16293
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Fri Nov 15, 2013 3:53 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
whistlingwings wrote::rolleyes: You fellas can think I work at McDonalds. SpinnerMan asked about my background, and I told him. This again is why I haven't done much in these forums over the last 7 years
You missed my question a bit. I'm author on quite a few journal articles. I've been the peer reviewer on quite a few journal articles. I have been involved in many research proposal submitted to the government. I've been the expert review providing comments to the government for selection of research proposals. That is my world. It is a human world with all the human flaws. Given that, your argument that the herd all agrees, is not as convincing and if you followed the climate gate scandal, there were cliques and cronyism.

My criticism has always been the lack of skepticism. The activism. They sensationalism. It was not professional. It was not pure science, that is for sure.


No, I understood your question. You wanted to point out your vast experience, and asked if I had the same amount of experience, of course hoping that I don't. Unlike you, I'm not fond of touting everything I've done in life. To again answer your question: yes, I have been involved on both the research/proposal/grant side as well as the for-profit side. Admittedly in education policy, not engineering, and it was long ago. My lady still makes that "her world" as you put it, so I'm somewhat familiar with it :thumbsup:
Last edited by whistlingwings on Fri Nov 15, 2013 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 » Fri Nov 15, 2013 4:04 pm

That said -- for those of you who are familiar with the academic realm and related professional organizations -- know that if a view was ever expressed by a professional organization that did not mach the research, the scientists in that organization would speak out. Thus, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists members spoke out against the organizations global warming denial, after which every single scientific organization on the planet was in agreement.

I look forward to returning to this thread in 20 years to tell you that the scientists were right :wink:
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 Rat Creek » Fri Nov 15, 2013 4:28 pm

whistlingwings wrote: It has been proven thousands of times; you can make a miniature greenhouse in your back yard, pump it full of CO2, and see the basic mechanism at work.


Well, since it has been done thousands of times, then surely these climate experts are not conducting the same experiment over and over. And why would they pump it full of CO2 when CO2 is such a minuscule part of our atmosphere. That would be of no value.

To put a real experiment into practice, which would be a waste of time, you need one greenhouse with 00.035% CO2 and 99.956% controlled substance compared to another greenhouse with 00.04% CO2 and 99.96% of the same controlled substance. Keep in mind, this is not 4%, but 4/100ths of one percent. If you are correct, you will measure an increase in temperature based upon the 00.005% (5/1000ths of one percent) difference in CO2. Let us know how that turns out.
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4526
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Fri Nov 15, 2013 4:43 pm

Rat Creek wrote:
whistlingwings wrote: It has been proven thousands of times; you can make a miniature greenhouse in your back yard, pump it full of CO2, and see the basic mechanism at work.


Well, since it has been done thousands of times, then surely these climate experts are not conducting the same experiment over and over. And why would they pump it full of CO2 when CO2 is such a minuscule part of our atmosphere. That would be of no value.

To put a real experiment into practice, which would be a waste of time, you need one greenhouse with 00.035% CO2 and 99.956% controlled substance compared to another greenhouse with 00.04% CO2 and 99.96% of the same controlled substance. Keep in mind, this is not 4%, but 4/100ths of one percent. If you are correct, you will measure an increase in temperature based upon the 00.005% (5/1000ths of one percent) difference in CO2. Let us know how that turns out.



Yes, if you have a very sensitive temperature gauge, you will measure a very small increase. Remember Earth is warming at .2C per *decade*, which by my math, oh, somewhere around .02C per year.

It blows my mind that folks who understand 400ppm = .0004 = .04% = 4/100ths can't comprehend the very basic, proven science of greenhouse gases absorbing and emitting.
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 boney fingers » Fri Nov 15, 2013 5:00 pm

whistlingwings wrote:I look forward to returning to this thread in 20 years to tell you that the scientists were right :wink:


That's what they were saying twenty years ago.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 860
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests