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 assateague » Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:55 pm

Still here?
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 5:03 pm

Well stated AT. I will add that WW has to keep at the immaturity thing in a vain attempt to make himself appear superior. Meanwhile, his juvenile dodges demonstrate his own immaturity. If being called a doofus so offends him, if he's so preoccupied by it, he should probably find somewhere else to seek attention where his delicate feelings are coddled. The topic was recently discussed to death with the liberal utilizing the same sorry strategy to defend his beliefs. Like I stated before, let your fingers do the walking and search for the thread. Use my name and global warming. You will find it.


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: 7723
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: I Suppose

Postby vincentpa » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:04 pm

WW, the IPCC is not a scientific organization, it is a political body.


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: 7723
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:18 pm

vincentpa wrote:WW, the IPCC is not a scientific organization, it is a political body.


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


Ok, sure.

How about these, all of which (along with every other scientific organization on the planet) have concluded that antropogenic warming is real:
American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, The Geological Society of America, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, U.S. Global Change Research Program, International Academy of Science, American Association of Petroleum GeologistsAmerican Association of Petroleum Geologists, United States National Research Council, Joint National Science Academies, European Science Foundation, Geological Society of London, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics.......I could go on.......

And only one - one - scientific academy has ever said otherwise. After their members threatened to leave in 2007, they reversed course. Take a wild guess:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
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 5:39 pm

Still here? You'll be at 20 grand before you know it. That's how it happens. Then you can look at yourself in the mirror and tell yourself to get outside.
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 5:49 pm

whistlingwings wrote:
vincentpa wrote:WW, the IPCC is not a scientific organization, it is a political body.


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


Ok, sure.

How about these, all of which (along with every other scientific organization on the planet) have concluded that antropogenic warming is real:
American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, The Geological Society of America, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, U.S. Global Change Research Program, International Academy of Science, American Association of Petroleum GeologistsAmerican Association of Petroleum Geologists, United States National Research Council, Joint National Science Academies, European Science Foundation, Geological Society of London, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics.......I could go on.......

And only one - one - scientific academy has ever said otherwise. After their members threatened to leave in 2007, they reversed course. Take a wild guess:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists


Like I said, an appeal to authority doesn't amount to much. Every scientist from each of those organizations cannot explain the over decade and a half without warming. All and I mean all of their computer models were wrong. Not just a little wrong but way off. Sure, there's more carbon dioxide in the air. I completely buy that. That is easy to measure. However, they have not tied it to any warming that occurred over a very short period of time. You can line up whomever you want. The facts as they have come to light, don't support their conclusions. It's an inconvenient truth. Step and fetch.
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: 7723
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: I Suppose

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:53 pm

whistlingwings wrote: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.

Have you ever written a peer reviewed article? Have you ever been a peer reviewer? Have you ever done government funded research? Have you ever submitted a proposal for government funded research? Have you ever been a reviewer of proposals for government funded research? Trust me it can be quite incestuous. This was made clear in the climategate scandal.

BTW, I have no doubt that if you increase CO2, the average temperature goes up. The questions are how much and what are the consequences.

There is a huge semantics disconnect every time this is brought up.

One side is arguing for TRILLIONS in costs which will probably still have no dramatic impact on the CO2 emissions because China is not going to do anything but what China wants and they may be producing half of the world's CO2 in a few decades.

If these people claiming catastrophic global warming is real are serious, there is no way windmills and solar panels get you anywhere close to where we need to be. The answer is nuclear power. That's it. That's the only option. Nothing else gets us even close to where we need to be. Sure theoretically we can pump CO2 in to the earth and hope it stays there, but will it and what is the cost ($'s and environmental).

Actions speak louder than words. While they are screaming about more funding for research, they are not serious about doing what it takes to get CO2 emission levels in line with the rhetoric. They are not serious about anything but more government control. :huh:

whistlingwings wrote: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?

I work at one of the major scientific institution in the world and I have been to a quite a few of the other ones. That's why I am skeptical of their objectivity.

I ran into my Congresswoman at the airport a few years ago. She made a comment that she wishes they could get politics out of science. It will NEVER happen. The best you can do is be the most skeptical of those people telling you what you want to hear. Every horribly bad idea ever implemented had the backing of a lot of credible scientist :thumbsup:

What were the stats on man made global cooling that was proven wrong? Was it 97% or only 95%? :huh:
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: 16186
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:10 pm

vincentpa wrote:
whistlingwings wrote:
vincentpa wrote:WW, the IPCC is not a scientific organization, it is a political body.


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


Ok, sure.

How about these, all of which (along with every other scientific organization on the planet) have concluded that antropogenic warming is real:
American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, The Geological Society of America, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, U.S. Global Change Research Program, International Academy of Science, American Association of Petroleum GeologistsAmerican Association of Petroleum Geologists, United States National Research Council, Joint National Science Academies, European Science Foundation, Geological Society of London, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics.......I could go on.......

And only one - one - scientific academy has ever said otherwise. After their members threatened to leave in 2007, they reversed course. Take a wild guess:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists


Like I said, an appeal to authority doesn't amount to much. Every scientist from each of those organizations cannot explain the over decade and a half without warming. All and I mean all of their computer models were wrong. Not just a little wrong but way off. Sure, there's more carbon dioxide in the air. I completely buy that. That is easy to measure. However, they have not tied it to any warming that occurred over a very short period of time. You can line up whomever you want. The facts as they have come to light, don't support their conclusions. It's an inconvenient truth. Step and fetch.



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/

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.

"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
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 6:17 pm

SpinnerMan - yes, I have. My background is aerospace engineering. You're a climatologist?
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 6:30 pm

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.
And was this not true when they were telling us catastrophic cooling was on the way? :huh:

Image

Image

whistlingwings wrote:SpinnerMan - yes, I have. My background is aerospace engineering. You're a climatologist?

Nuclear engineer, but my minor for my Ph.D. (nearly enough course work for an M.S.) was environmental engineering. I studied a lot of the relevant science at the graduate level plus just my natural curiosity on the subject. This was mostly before it got so political.

Yes you have what? There was a pretty good list, but if you have been involved in those things, you know it is not a pure process. I also used to work for TRW before they were bought by Northrup-Grumman.

Of course, if you want to control the energy sector, you have to assure everyone that catastrophe will ensue otherwise. Additionally, you have to ensure them the cost will be negligible and if they like what they have they can keep it. PERIOD.

The actions do not match the rhetoric. Why would Al Gore build mansions? Why would the rich like him not aspire to be as carbon negative as possible if we are in the danger they claim?

Nearly all proposals are widely inadequate or fatally flawed. Why?
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: 16186
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:37 pm

I run an educational company now, so other than coot shootin I'd say education is my only expertise. :fingerhead:

Global cooling was never embraced by the scientific community at large, actually wasn't embraced by many scientists at all. Not foregoing the fact that in the 70s climatologists were acutely aware that the "models" they had were not even close to useful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

______

I hope you fellas are right, I really do. If the scientists are right, by the time I'm 80 I'll have to go coot shootin up in Canada, not looking forward to that.
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 6:42 pm

With the state of public education, I wouldn't exactly be bragging about that.
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 assateague » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:46 pm

And for the record, why aren't there mile thick glaciers parked all over North America like there were 15,000 years ago?
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 6:47 pm

assateague wrote:With the state of public education, I wouldn't exactly be bragging about that.


I said I run an educational company. Really, your continuous immature derision is sad to watch. If you're younger than 18 I apologize, but if you're a grown man: grow up.
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 7:12 pm

whistlingwings wrote:Global cooling was never embraced by the scientific community at large, actually wasn't embraced by many scientists at all. Not foregoing the fact that in the 70s climatologists were acutely aware that the "models" they had were not even close to useful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Yet, they really duped Time magazine and others :huh:

whistlingwings wrote:I hope you fellas are right, I really do. If the scientists are right, by the time I'm 80 I'll have to go coot shootin up in Canada, not looking forward to that.

It is exactly this kind of stupid statements that are the problem. If you are 10, and warming is the 0.2 C per decade like you said, that would be 1.4 C. That isn't going to push the coots to Canada. They will still be locked up tight for a long time. Ice fishing will still be quite popular. That change is not that many miles
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: 16186
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: I Suppose

Postby cartervj » Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:17 pm

whistlingwings wrote:I run an educational company now, so other than coot shootin I'd say education is my only expertise. :fingerhead:

Global cooling was never embraced by the scientific community at large, actually wasn't embraced by many scientists at all. Not foregoing the fact that in the 70s climatologists were acutely aware that the "models" they had were not even close to useful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

______

I hope you fellas are right, I really do. If the scientists are right, by the time I'm 80 I'll have to go coot shootin up in Canada, not looking forward to that.



You should fit right in, Canada has a socialist utopia I hear. :welcome: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
“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: 7330
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: I Suppose

Postby dave79 » Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:23 pm

whistlingwings wrote:Here is your answer:

1.) Having Sarah Palin as a figurehead makes other conservatives look bad. John McCain is smart. Bill O'Reilly is smart. If you really truly believe Sarah Palin is smart, you've lost your marbles.

2.) Defense is a huge part of our federal budget. True conservatives, folks who really want to reduce the deficit (and many like me, who have worked in the defense department) realize that having a larger military than the top ten countries below us *combined* is completely unnecessary.

3.) Abolishing the Federal Reserve and going back to the gold standard is nutzo. Anyone who has an undergrad degree in economics can tell you that. There are much more sane, real-world steps we can take to control government financial reach.

4.) The name. Tea Party. Tea Bagger. It's too easy. Not to mention whoever came up with the name hasn't read their history. The Boston Tea Party lead to violently overthrowing a government. If you want to violently overthrow my government, get the heck out of my country. I didn't work in the defense department trying to keep your kids safe from foreign terrorists so that you can sit in your living room with your rem 870 super mag thinking about how you'd like to overthrow our government. F-35 to your rear end would put a quick end to that line of thinking.


This just shows how immature you are.
dave79
hunter
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:34 pm
Location: indiana

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:28 pm

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:

dave79:
That statement was made about the Tea Party in general, and yes, I do believe anyone who wants to violently overthrow the United States government should be taken out, whether it be a domestic or foreign terrorist. Unlike the immature name calling others have partaken in, it was a general statement obviously not made to anyone here, and it certainly wasn't calling someone a name.
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 » Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:54 pm

You are confusing people who want to keep politicians from continuing to morph our government into something it was never intended to be and people who (claim they) will defend their second amendment rights with force, with people who want to overthrow the government. They are not anarchists. They want the constitution to be upheld.
Last edited by clampdaddy on Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: I Suppose

Postby ScaupHunter » Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:59 pm

Instead of calling them names, you want them dead. So much better and more polite than name calling. Speaking as a man who served his country in combat. I will say clearly that doofuses playing the I made a living of the carbon fuel driven DOD and military complex have nothing to say about global warming. You made a living off the most profligate burner of fossil fuels around. All such doofi should be keel hauled on the USS Roosevelt. Twice to ensure they get the message loud and clear.

It is not your government. it is our government. We the people, have the right to remove it at the will of the people
At any time.
Last edited by ScaupHunter on Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:48 pm, 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: 6641
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:08 pm

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:
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 cartervj » Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:10 pm

Feel better legislation as usual has major unintended consequences :lol3:

Some animal rights activists are wondering just how many birds green energy may unintentionally kill as more and more birds turn up dead at solar energy facilities throughout California.
A recent article by Vice author Lex Berko notes that dead birds are being found with "singed wings" around several California solar energy facilities.
It happens that many of California's solar plants are, the article claims, in the path of "the four major north-to-south trajectories for migratory birds" called "the Pacific Flyway."
Birds are dying in one of two ways. In some cases, they imagine the shining solar panels to be bodies of water and dive straight into them. There they die when they smash into the panels from the sky.
Others "feel the wrath of the harnessed sunlight." The ultra polished solar mirrors bounce sunrays strong enough to burn the feathers off birds that quickly crash to the ground, caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Many of the fowl dying as a result of their unfortunate flight paths over solar facilities are birds protected by the federal government under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
“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: 7330
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: I Suppose

Postby cartervj » Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:03 pm

ROSCOE, S.D. (AP) — Robert Malsam nearly went broke in the 1980s when corn was cheap. So now that prices are high and he can finally make a profit, he's not about to apologize for ripping up prairieland to plant corn.

Across the Dakotas and Nebraska, more than 1 million acres of the Great Plains are giving way to corn fields as farmers transform the wild expanse that once served as the backdrop for American pioneers.

This expansion of the Corn Belt is fueled in part by America's green energy policy, which requires oil companies to blend billions of gallons of corn ethanol into their gasoline. In 2010, fuel became the No. 1 use for corn in America, a title it held in 2011 and 2012 and narrowly lost this year. That helps keep prices high.

"It's not hard to do the math there as to what's profitable to have," Malsam said. "I think an ethanol plant is a farmer's friend."
“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: 7330
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: I Suppose

Postby dave79 » Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:10 pm

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:

dave79:
That statement was made about the Tea Party in general, and yes, I do believe anyone who wants to violently overthrow the United States government should be taken out, whether it be a domestic or foreign terrorist. Unlike the immature name calling others have partaken in, it was a general statement obviously not made to anyone here, and it certainly wasn't calling someone a name.


It's immature imo to waive your service in front of peoples faces like that. You actually signed up to protect the rights of muslim extremist, who are american citizens and live in the states, that hate america and would love to see it destroyed.
dave79
hunter
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:34 pm
Location: indiana

Re: I Suppose

Postby Rat Creek » Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:40 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:We have a new DHC moron. I hereby dub him the Troubled Tory.


Brevity is the soul of wit. :thumbsup: :lol3:
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4438
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Rat Creek and 4 guests