Welcome guest, is this your first visit?
Member
Discoveries
 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20
  1. #1
    us
    Apr 2006
    Tennessee/Texas
    Minelab Sov / Fisher CZ-70 Pro/Fisher CZ 20
    928
    3 times

    Exerpt from Politics

    Web,you said, and I quote:
    "1)Ice Sheets melting will cause sea level rise (No time scale given and what he said was a worst case scenario)
    2)Glacers are retreating
    3)Lake Chad is drying up (All the stresses put on the lake were not talked about like the amount of water drained from the feeding rivers for human uses. but with the lake drying up it does change the climate to a more arid climate around the once large lake)
    4)Warming of the oceans is a factor in the killing off of the coral reefs
    5)Automobiles and coal-burning power plants are the two biggest sources of carbon dioxide in the U.S. Clearing of forests is also an important source worldwide"

    NO#
    1) Yes, and Ice Sheets freezing like at the South Pole will cause sea level to lower. A bald face attempt to scare the public into investing into Cap and Trade thus feeding Al BILLIONS. I guess your right about the ice melting causing sea level rise, but don't you think Gore's take on it is really disingenuous?
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html

    2) Well if your talking about the ones in Greenland Gore is just plain lying, at lease according to the UK Daily Mail online.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet....te-change.html

    3) Now this is truly a tough one. No doubt about it Lake Chad is drying up, but MMGW being the culprit as Gore asserts? An unlikely claim at the best. The truth? Well the Sahara used to be a tropical paradise but now ..... not so much. The climate change in central Africa is toward a much dryer clime. This coupled with a much increased agricultural demand are the main reasons for the drying up of lake Chad as noted in the 8Th paragraph down on the article by Merck international, not MMGW as asserted by Gore. Once again another case of Gore trying to SCARE UP MONEY for himself.
    http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2003/march/chad.htm

    4) Oh this one is easy. Yes, it is quite probable that warming Oceans do kill Coral Reefs. Problem the Oceans are COOLING!!! Again Gore trying to SCARE MONEY INTO HIS POCKET!!! Please, don't believe me.
    http://globalfreeze.wordpress.com/2....ng-hypothesis/

    5) Nope, not even close to the truth. Although automobiles and powerplants may be the largest source of co2 from HUMAN production, the largest amount of co2 release into the atmosphere occur during warm months from OCEAN and they dwarf the amounts of human production so much that the release of the United States is considered less than insignificant!!! I mean really, co2 is a trace gas and 93% of it is found in the Ocean.
    http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi....tmosphere.html

    Alright, Web I understand you may have been deceived by Gore with some of these, but the guy is a Decepticon and a liar period, not to be believed by anyone who will be honest about the matter. I hope this helps to understand why Gore cannot be take seriously by honest folks like yourself.

    Now, any more facts that Gore spouts that are true?? dontknow


    The above is an excerpt from politics. I moved it here because the posting of the ORIGINAL 5 POINTS BY by Weblor as shown at the start has managed to distract from another thread. Here is where I will discuss this matter. Now Webilor has made several accusations on the other thread so to spoon feed I will attempt to clarify here, although I really doubt it will do much good. Web said that Gore did provide some good facts in his documentary though he (Webilor) did not like that Gore was using scare tactics.

    The point I would question is what are "Good facts"? Being as the net effect at the South Pole has been ice gain rather than loss as Webilor states, then the fact that ice sheets melts as used by Gore is to use a fact to try and convince others of a lie like MMGW. Not what I consider a "good fact" while there is no doubt it is a fact.
    Also I said I did not direct my comments toward anyone but Al Gore. Yes, inquires may have been made toward Webilor, but I never accused him of the things that Gore did or said.
    Webilor listed the drying of of lake Chad as a "good fact" although he states that he realizes that MMGW contributed very little if any to the process. Al Gore implied that it was MMGW that was primarily responsible for lake Chad's demise. The same strategy used elsewhere and thus not what I would call a "good fact".
    The same process goes for the other three points brought up. Gore has used them in his movie to imply a lie. If it is not Ocean warming which has not been true since 2000 it was co2

    The same process goes for the other three points brought up. Gore has used them in his movie to imply a lie. If it is not Ocean warming which has not been true since 2000 it was auto and energy plants being the major source of co2 in the US. These two were not even facts, but just prettyed up lies by Gore.
    Now if Webilor wishes to discuss this futher here fine, but he needs to quit denying facts. Webilor had the gall to state that the Ocean was warming and that a one year temp change was not enough to warrant a change in warming trends. Wrong buddy. That is a combination of facts from 2000 to 2009 and is definitely a trend.
    Now do as you wish but be warned. I will not back down.
    Arooooooo Wolf Pack

  2. #2
    us
    Jul 2010
    Missouri
    487
    2 times

    Re: Exerpt from Politics

    What 21 has left out. This is a better representation of what has happend on said forum instead of a biased Exerpt, in which he left key points out.

    And all can be followed up with. And below all of this I will be continuing the discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by werleibr
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainedigger
    Quote Originally Posted by werleibr
    Quote Originally Posted by 21stTNCav
    Quote Originally Posted by werleibr
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave44
    Quote Originally Posted by werleibr
    Quote Originally Posted by Chadeaux
    Quote Originally Posted by werleibr
    Quote Originally Posted by GrayCloud
    Prove it.
    I can.. GO rent that documentary.

    here is a trailer for it.
    Really? Have you seen transformers yet? Maybe the dark knight?

    Sorry, but fiction is fiction. It's a movie, not the news. Just like wrasslin, it's made up. Sorry to burst both bubblesfor ya, but they're both fantasy.
    yes i have seen those movies, but they are FICTION as you said. Difference is A documentary is not fiction. There will be biased facts within it, but there are still many facts in there. And that guy you are making fun of was the State Attorney General for the State of New York who tried to bring the heads of the banks to justice. Maybe you should watch the movie and get a small education.
    My education is just fine, client #9 WAS the State Attorney General,, A huge leftist,, and because of his exploits with his pants he was OUSTED, then divorced. Documentary does not mean fact based. Micheal Moore and Al Gore prove that every other week. This propaganda film you push is just that, Propaganda!
    Al Gore has facts within his documentary... Most of it is a scare tactet yes, but there are good facts in there. But that is the thing about watching these. You take there points they make then research them. Much of what this documentary told was truth.
    Facts from Al Gore's documentary.
    1) Greenland is a place on the planet Earth.
    2) It is cold in Greenland.
    3) Greenland has Ice.
    4) Sometimes that Ice falls off.
    5) The sun is hot.
    6) My name is Al Gore.

    Other than these facts exactly what "facts" that are so good in there
    1)Ice Sheets melting will cause sea level rise (No time scale given and what he said was a worst case scenaro)
    2)Glacers are retreating
    3)Lake Chad is drying up (All the stresses put on the lake were not talked about like the amount of water drained from the feeding rivers for human uses. but with the lake drying up it does change the climate to a more arid climate around the once large lake)
    4)Warming of the oceans is a factor in the killing off of the coral reefs
    5)Automobiles and coal-burning power plants are the two biggest sources of carbon dioxide in the U.S. Clearing of forests is also an important source worldwide
    Those are a few
    Al Gore is using scare tactics, and his "fact" is kinda fuzzy like his math. Most glaciers are GROWING and the break offs they cite as proof they are melting in fact were caused by the glacier GROWING and caused by expansion break off.....
    Al Gore also claimed he invented the internet...
    http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm
    Quote Originally Posted by 21stTNCav
    Web,you said, and I quote:
    "1)Ice Sheets melting will cause sea level rise (No time scale given and what he said was a worst case scenario)
    2)Glacers are retreating
    3)Lake Chad is drying up (All the stresses put on the lake were not talked about like the amount of water drained from the feeding rivers for human uses. but with the lake drying up it does change the climate to a more arid climate around the once large lake)
    4)Warming of the oceans is a factor in the killing off of the coral reefs
    5)Automobiles and coal-burning power plants are the two biggest sources of carbon dioxide in the U.S. Clearing of forests is also an important source worldwide"
    NO#
    1) Yes, and Ice Sheets freezing like at the South Pole will cause sea level to lower. A bald face attempt to scare the public into investing into Cap and Trade thus feeding Al BILLIONS. I guess your right about the ice melting causing sea level rise, but don't you think Gore's take on it is really disingenuous?
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html
    2) Well if your talking about the ones in Greenland Gore is just plain lying, at lease according to the UK Daily Mail online.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...te-change.html
    3) Now this is truly a tough one. No doubt about it Lake Chad is drying up, but MMGW being the culprit as Gore asserts? An unlikely claim at the best. The truth? Well the Sahara used to be a tropical paradise but now ..... not so much. The climate change in central Africa is toward a much dryer clime. This coupled with a much increased agricultural demand are the main reasons for the drying up of lake Chad as noted in the 8Th paragraph down on the article by Merck international, not MMGW as asserted by Gore. Once again another case of Gore trying to SCARE UP MONEY for himself.
    http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2003/march/chad.htm
    4) Oh this one is easy. Yes, it is quite probable that warming Oceans do kill Coral Reefs. Problem the Oceans are COOLING!!! Again Gore trying to SCARE MONEY INTO HIS POCKET!!! Please, don't believe me.
    http://globalfreeze.wordpress.com/20...ng-hypothesis/
    5) Nope, not even close to the truth. Although automobiles and powerplants may be the largest source of co2 from HUMAN production, the largest amount of co2 release into the atmosphere occur during warm months from OCEAN and they dwarf the amounts of human production so much that the release of the United States is considered less than insignificant!!! I mean really, co2 is a trace gas and 93% of it is found in the Ocean.
    http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-...tmosphere.html
    Alright, Web I understand you may have been deceived by Gore with some of these, but the guy is a Decepticon and a liar period, not to be believed by anyone who will be honest about the matter. I hope this helps to understand why Gore cannot be take seriously by honest folks like yourself.
    Now, any more facts that Gore spouts that are true??
    I see you like to stick to your conservative media for your information. Just like you claim I stick to liberal media. I do not, I do actual research. To start off
    1) I did claim that Al Gore went into scare tactics with his documentary. That does not stop the fact that he did produce good facts within it. Also remember Al Gores movie was what 2006, now 5 years old so 5 year old data
    2) About Ice Sheets. The Arctic Ocean has seen a drop in sea ice
    ice extent in the Arctic Ocean this year reached the second lowest level on record, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). NSIDC announced on Thursday that sea ice cover for the year apparently reached its minimum extent on September 9, following which it began to rebound with the onset of fall. That minimum extent, 4.33 million square kilometers (1.67 million square miles), was the second-lowest on record, 160,000 square kilometers (61,800 square miles) above the record minimum, in 2007.
    This can be found http://news.discovery.com/earth/arct...rd-110916.html and here http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/091511.html

    Now as for the Antartic the Ice has been melting. Just because you get one year of growth that does not stop the fact the earth and waters are warming.
    "Eighty-seven percent of the alpine glaciers are in retreat," said Martinson of the Western Antarctic Peninsula. "Some of the Adele penguin colonies have already gone extinct."
    http://news.discovery.com/earth/anta...ns-101214.html

    There has not been a substantial amount of freezing. The amount that freezes is hardly what it use to be.

    As for other glacers growing. There is a difference between Glacers growing and an abnormal amount of snow produced in one year. Give it three years and all that “new glacer” aka recent snow will be gone and the glacers will still be seen as receeding.

    3) I never stated that MMGW was the cause of Lake Chad drying up. I did state that a big stresser on Lake Chad was the human population draining the water that was entering the lake. However due to the lake drying up there is less rain on the surrounding areas because there is no evaporation coming off of the lake! Hence the climate is becoming more arid now and is changing and this has been caused by man. SO this is Man Made Climate Change!!!!
    4) The oceans are not cooling but warming. Yes the surface is warming at a faster rate than that of the deep ocean. Do you know about the density of water? It is at it’s most dense at 4 degrees Celsius. Get water colder and it becomes less dense, get water warmer and it becomes less dense. Now there is not a great mixing in the oceans like the lakes that happen. This is why lakes “turn over” in the spring and fall and have a thermocline. Any way the ocean waters are not mixing as much except for within the currents. Now when the warm water is forced due to the current deep into the ocean it is actually warming the deeper ocean. That is something that those reasearchers did not look into. Read this again carefully.
    5)
    Automobiles and coal-burning power plants are the two biggest sources of carbon dioxide in the U.S. Clearing of forests is also an important source worldwide"
    There see the main point here yet.. IN THE US. I never claimed the world. And actually the ocean is a good sequester of the CO2 and did you read the dang article at waterencyclopedia? Or skim and scan for things? Did you miss this part within that page
    Today, CO 2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing as a direct result of human activities such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels (e.g., coal and oil). Over the past 150 years, CO 2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by as much as 30 percent (from 280 to 370 ppm).
    It is the 7th paragraph. Wanna know something else.. Why the ocean is letting CO2 go?? BECAUSE IT IS WARMER. cold water holds more carbon dioxide than warm water. Same goes for oxygen. Colder water holds more O2 than warmer water. Time to learn some chemistry.

    Next came

    Quote Originally Posted by werleibr
    Quote Originally Posted by onfire
    Quote Originally Posted by werleibr
    Quote Originally Posted by onfire
    Wheelbarrow, why don't you try to convince me about Global warming in December, January, February and part of March in Wisconsin Share some of U.V's stash before you comment .
    Hey onfire or should I say cold fire... I am from Wisconsin... I just currently reside in Missouri. I am from North Central Wisconsin Near Eau Claire and Chippewa Falls. So I do know a thing... It has been warmer there. Snow does not stick until Thanksgiving now, before there was a foot of snow already on the ground then. Deer Hunting during thanksgiving has been warm. At times in the 70's. Back in the 70's it was dang cold. Lets see what else. Oh Ice fishing has been starting later because the ice has not been as thick as early and it has ended earlyer than in the 70's.... should i continue?
    So what has that to do with man made global warming? I say Black absorbs heat, maybe we are just over populated
    All that blacktop (which i hope you were refering to and not the color of people's skin) was placed by who? MAN. SO that would be man made global warming!
    Then

    Quote Originally Posted by 21stTNCav
    Quote Originally Posted by werleibr
    Now do we need to continue this discussion in the Global warming forum?
    Sir, do you realize that you are the one who held up Al Gore as having good facts. Look at how I addressed each of my comments. All were addressed toward Gore, Not you.
    I showed the facts, and your ignoring everything I posted. Fine Web, discuss this with others or yourself.
    Neither will refute the FACT that you were shown the truth and decided to attack instead. Even the Lake Chad deal. I never said a damn thing about you not telling the truth or for that matter Gore not telling the truth. You know the only reason that lake is included in any Al Gore documentary was to IMPLY that it was MMGW, YOU KNOW IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yet you still act like I said you lied about it Now I guess your also implying I cannot use Fox News!!! Did you check any of the other sources??
    The last thing I am going to explain to you is so very simple it cannot be misunderstood to anyone with a IQ over 65.
    The Ocean does warm, every summer. When it does it releases co2. The largest amount of co2 in the atmosphere of the United States comes from COASTAL evaporation which has a higher per capita release of co2 because of higher temps from solar refraction from shallow bottoms and bays. Of course this is off set in the winter because the Ocean cools thus absorbing co2. The net effect over the last 8 years has been toward absorption because of overall lower temperatures of the water. This being said the vast majority of co2 over the North American continent, or any continent for that matter comes from the Ocean and not any man made source. YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT AUTOMOBILES AND ENERGY PLANTS BEING THE MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR TO CO2 IN THE USA IS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!! IF YOU HAD SAID "HUMAN CONTRIBUTOR" YOU OR GORE WOULD HAVE BEEN RIGHT, BUT YOU OR GORE DID NOT!!
    Please remember you hijacked this thread not I and I will not discuss this futher here and most likely not at all considering the attitude toward truth.
    Followed by me replying with

    Quote Originally Posted by werleibr
    My good 21stTnCav,

    You did direct them at me if you do reread your comments
    … but don't you think Gore's take on it is really disingenuous?
    or
    Well if your talking about the ones in Greenland Gore is just plain lying, at lease according to the UK Daily Mail online
    and then this
    Now, any more facts that Gore spouts that are true??
    . All of these were asking me things.

    You claimed to show me facts and that I ignored everything you posted, while I am saying the same thing I am showing you facts and you are ignoring everything that I have posted.
    You have not shown any truth other than you dislike Al Gore. Like I have said, he used scare tactics with his documentary and I was not a big fan of that.

    Yes Gore was trying to Imply it was MMGW. What I am trying to get across is that the drying up was still due to man and it is forcing a man made climate change in the area. That is what I was trying to put forth.
    I am not trying to imply that you cannot use Fox News as a source and sorry if it came across that way. 1 news source is not always the best thing to go by. Did you see that Fox was reporting from an Australian news source which is owned by News Corp. The same ones that owned News of the World. They also own the New York Post, Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones and FOX!!! So in essence it was one of their sister companies that had that report. Now I know because one subsidiary dose a bad thing this does not reflect the company as a whole. I was just curious if you had known this.
    Now if you also read that story within Fox it also said that the losses of ice in West Antarctica were offset by the growth in East Antarctica. That is a growth of 0. So in Antarctica there is neither growth nor shrinkage according to this article.
    Now for your question on did I check the other sources. Yes I went to them all. That is what spurt some of my other comments about the Arctic region.

    Your claim that the costal regions of the US has a higher per capita release of CO2. Do you even understand what is going on with the chemistry of the water? Please answer that question. It could be a true claim, however a misleading one at that. The ocean is not producing as much of that CO2 that it is releasing. It is releasing the CO2 that it sequestered from the atmosphere. There is a greater amount in the atmosphere due to humans! That throws the equilibrium of the system between the ocean and atmosphere off, so more starts to transfer into the ocean. Now because the warm water does not hold that CO2 as well it will release the CO2. Most of the CO2 being released was extra that it gathered from the atmosphere and is sending it back. So when you take the net in and subtract the net out you will see that it balances out to be around 0. SO that is how they are coming up with man being the greatest CO2 releaser, because the ocean is only releasing back the stuff it tried to take in because the chemistry is thrown out of wack.

    So do you think saying Wrong, Wrong, Wrong will make you Correct. No it will not. Your claim is a bad spin on the grander scale of things. And the oceans are not cooling.. And I gave you evidence of that earlier.

    OH and one other thing 21st.. I never hijacked this thread. You and your company turned it into this. Here is a breakdown of the thread and how it became this.
    1 ) I was asked to give info about Wall Street that I was using
    2 ) I provided a documentary to rent.
    3 ) I was accused of watching a fictional movie
    4 ) Your company (Dave44) brought up Al Gore and Micheal Moore
    5 ) I stated that Al had truth in his documentary
    6 ) YOU 21st then stated 6 facts from the documentary and ASKED ME what good facts were in there!!! You 21st
    YOU ASKED ME TO GIVE YOU FACTS.
    7 ) I give facts
    8 ) You cry about me hijacking thread.
    9 ) Now me giving more facts

    Now what has really happened here? It is that you have started to lose the debate/argument. You are finding that I am much more knowledgeable on the subject than you thought. You are finding it hard to find evidence and science to back up your claims. So now you are trying to divert away from what is being discussed. You are pulling a classic politician move, turning the subject onto something else, more of an attack strategy. Every challenge that you guys have attempted I have attempted to take on with this.

    One final point for you to ponder. Every major news organization has printed and ran stories that were not true stories but stories written by PR firms. Steven Milloy of Fox was found to be doing this. And using Blogs as news sources is not the best Practice for evidence.


    As you can see I did answer all his points that he was arguing against.

    As you can see I did say that I believe that Gore used scare tactics, but had facts within much of his movie.

    Time to get your Geography Down 21st!! You stated
    Being as the net effect at the South Pole has been ice gain rather than loss as Webilor states
    The Arctic is in the NORTH and Antarctic is in the SOUTH! I stated that the ARCTIC (NORTH POLE) has been losing ICE and provided evidence of such. 2007 and 2011 are the lowest amount of summer ice on RECORD!!. The Antarctic from your own sorces has not even claimed that all the Antarctic ice is growing. It stated that the ice growing in EAST ANTARCTICA HAS OFFSET THE LOSS IN WEST ANTARCTICA. That is neither a net gain nor a net loss. So you fact that you are stating is not the whole picture.

    Yes I did admit and claim that MMGW was not the cause of the drying up of Lake Chad, but what 21 fail’s to realize is that because the lake is drying up due to man’s other activities there is a Climate change occurring around Lake Chad. And recently this climate change has been towards a warmer and Dryer climate.

    I love how you (21st) State that Ocean warming is not true and that the auto and energy industry is not the Major source of CO2 within the United States, but does not provide were he is getting his data. The heat content of the Ocean has been steadily rising since 1985. Between 1980 and 1985 there was a cooldown, but has since steadily climbed. This can be seen at the following website. http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/


    Now 21 you say you will Not back down.. Niether will I.. But unlike you, I admit when I am wrong or misspeak. Now provide your evidence. I have debunked 1 of your stories of were it were from. A blog. I also tried to point out to you to watch were your news came from.. The fox story came from austraila, but is all owned by News Corp.

    I ask for others who want to to join in on the conversation. Come from ither side.

  3. #3
    us
    Apr 2006
    Tennessee/Texas
    Minelab Sov / Fisher CZ-70 Pro/Fisher CZ 20
    928
    3 times

    Re: Exerpt from Politics

    By all means. I think the discussion there has been enough discussion between us to realize that I do not feel I am wrong and neither do you. I see your point about lake Chad, but the problem is Gore did not project it as so. Again, not a good "fact" if you are getting it from Gore. Again, this has played out. I continue to feel, with what I think is more than sufficient proof, that there are little if any "good facts" within "An Inconvenient Truth" and as you say those that want to weigh in on either side. Our Conversation is at an end for now Web, at least regarding this.
    Arooooooo Wolf Pack

  4. #4
    us
    Jul 2010
    Missouri
    487
    2 times

    Re: Exerpt from Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by 21stTNCav
    By all means. I think the discussion there has been enough discussion between us to realize that I do not feel I am wrong and neither do you. I see your point about lake Chad, but the problem is Gore did not project it as so. Again, not a good "fact" if you are getting it from Gore. Again, this has played out. I continue to feel, with what I think is more than sufficient proof, that there are little if any "good facts" within "An Inconvenient Truth" and as you say those that want to weigh in on either side. Our Conversation is at an end for now Web, at least regarding this.
    Now have you seen Cool It? That is a much better documentary than Gores, but once again you refuse to see that there were facts within Gore's movie, because you dislike Gore. Then when we go on showing other data you cannot refute the data I provide. Time to face facts 21st. Global warming is happening and Humans have sped it up.

  5. #5
    us
    Pronounced "Shadow" - ---= Wolfpack Forever! =---

    Sep 2011
    Southeast Arkansas
    Ace 250
    3,464
    2019 times
    Cache Hunting

    Re: Exerpt from Politics

    Well if you and your god Gore would stop shooting off your HOT AIR, it would probably stop.

    You need to admit to yourself and others that the MMGW crowd is manufacturing their own versions of "facts" for fun and profit to the detriment of the poor.

    High utility bills won't hurt them, they have more money than God. Just look at how much energy Albert spends to light his mostly unoccupied mansions . . . not one but several mansions.

    And he still wants more of your money and mine.
    Know your homophones (as opposed to homophobes like me)! Know which ones to use ... and their meaning:

    "Know" is related to knowledge, while "No" is a negative response.

    "There" is a location, while "Their" shows possession and "They're" is the contraction of "They are".

    "Which" specifies an item from a set but a "Witch" casts spells and wears a pointy black hat.

    "Patients" (people receiving medical care) must show "patience" (tolerate delay).


  6. #6
    Charter Member
    us
    Living the WP

    Apr 2006
    Chesterfield, Va.
    Whites XLT, Minelab Etrac, Minelab Excal II, At pro
    4,301
    1602 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting

    Re: Exerpt from Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by werleibr
    Quote Originally Posted by 21stTNCav
    By all means. I think the discussion there has been enough discussion between us to realize that I do not feel I am wrong and neither do you. I see your point about lake Chad, but the problem is Gore did not project it as so. Again, not a good "fact" if you are getting it from Gore. Again, this has played out. I continue to feel, with what I think is more than sufficient proof, that there are little if any "good facts" within "An Inconvenient Truth" and as you say those that want to weigh in on either side. Our Conversation is at an end for now Web, at least regarding this.
    Now have you seen Cool It? That is a much better documentary than Gores, but once again you refuse to see that there were facts within Gore's movie, because you dislike Gore. Then when we go on showing other data you cannot refute the data I provide. Time to face facts 21st. Global warming is happening and Humans have sped it up.
    Oh Web,, don't go there, you have no proof whatsoever beyond your feelings. Let us back off a bit. Do not let your feelings, honed by the elites, cloud your judgement.
    Thomas Paine-
    "Government even in its best state is but a necessary evil," Paine wrote, and "in its worst state an intolerable one." Like many Americans today, Paine believed that government added insult to injury by using tax dollars in ways that were actually harmful to the public. "When we suffer," wrote Paine, "or are exposed to the same miseries by a government which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities are heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." To Paine, "securing freedom and property to all men, and, above all things, freedom of religion," were the only legitimate functions of government. Americans generally agreed, and went to war to achieve this vision.
    http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=233

    "People whose lives are barren and insecure seem to show a greater willingness to obey than people who are self-sufficient and self-confident. To the frustrated, freedom from responsibility is more attractive than freedom from restraint. They are eager to barter their independence for relief of the burdens of willing, deciding and being responsible for inevitable failure. They willingly abdicate the directing of their lives to those who want to plan, command and shoulder all responsibility." ~Eric Hoffer “The True Believer”

    The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. --Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)

  7. #7
    us
    Apr 2006
    Tennessee/Texas
    Minelab Sov / Fisher CZ-70 Pro/Fisher CZ 20
    928
    3 times

    Re: Exerpt from Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by werleibr
    Quote Originally Posted by 21stTNCav
    By all means. I think the discussion there has been enough discussion between us to realize that I do not feel I am wrong and neither do you. I see your point about lake Chad, but the problem is Gore did not project it as so. Again, not a good "fact" if you are getting it from Gore. Again, this has played out. I continue to feel, with what I think is more than sufficient proof, that there are little if any "good facts" within "An Inconvenient Truth" and as you say those that want to weigh in on either side. Our Conversation is at an end for now Web, at least regarding this.
    Now have you seen Cool It? That is a much better documentary than Gores, but once again you refuse to see that there were facts within Gore's movie, because you dislike Gore. Then when we go on showing other data you cannot refute the data I provide. Time to face facts 21st. Global warming is happening and Humans have sped it up.
    Now, you have exposed yourself. Any more Declaratory comments Please don't hold back.
    You know, I have refuted almost every speck of data you provided but your showing youself. Rather than debate you have ran to the liberal fall back trench. Just shout that "The debate is over, I am right, and I win.".
    I do admit I expected better. From here on in I shall be on the guard that you are like most of those who deny scientific evidence and do your best to rip down those who disagree. So far you have refuted nothing and as a matter of fact made yourself look rather weak. Here, I will give you one more little morsel. I wonder what you will do with it??

    http://globalfreeze.wordpress.com/20...ording-to-nasa
    http://articles.ocregister.com/2006-...m-pool-cooling
    http://deltafarmpress.com/global-coo...ong-scientists
    http://isthereglobalcooling.com/

    OH I just luv to see scientist who want another answer squirm and have to finally admit "I don't know.". Of course they follow that up with "but I know I am right!" sorta just like you Web.
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=88520025

    Now I am not going to say that it is not possible that these sites could be wrong, but they are not all blogs and many are quite credible. I guess you would dismiss all this because it disagrees with what you want to be true. Your misfortune.
    Arooooooo Wolf Pack

  8. #8
    us
    Jul 2010
    Missouri
    487
    2 times

    Re: Exerpt from Politics

    21st, I have not exposed myself. What just because I watch Documentary’s that I am somehow uneducated?
    21st I quote you as saying,
    You know, I have refuted almost every speck of data you provided but your showing youself. Rather than debate you have ran to the liberal fall back trench. Just shout that "The debate is over, I am right, and I win.".
    I have never ran from the debate and fallen back to the trenches shouting the debate is over. Quote me where I say that.

    Saying I deny scientific evidence, what hogwash. You have been, because you have not brought up anything wrong with what I post other than it is supposedly liberal propaganda. That is your only fall back.
    Now I went to all your sites.

    Site 1) Did not work as it was a bad link. But I believe you were trying to eventually lead me to this website http://www.examiner.com/weather-in-b...ording-to-nasa Since your first one was a blog that referenced this possibly? But now I show how your article is a bad spin on what the paper actually said. Did you see the link at the bottom that sent you to the actual NASA story? It is here http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...ling/page1.php It is 5 pages worth of a news article. Read It, become educated. I quote parts of the actual story
    Not surprisingly, says Willis wryly, that paper got a lot of attention, not all of it the kind a scientist would appreciate. In speaking to reporters and the public, Willis described the results as a “speed bump” on the way to global warming, evidence that even as the climate warmed due to greenhouse gases, it would still have variation
    The actual scientist who wrote the paper said that this was just a minor cooling, but wait if you keep reading the actual NASA article,
    “Basically, I used the sea level data as a bridge to the in situ [ocean-based] data,” explains Willis, comparing them to one another figuring out where they didn’t agree. “First, I identified some new Argo floats that were giving bad data; they were too cool compared to other sources of data during the time period. It wasn’t a large number of floats, but the data were bad enough, so that when I tossed them, most of the cooling went away. But there was still a little bit, so I kept digging and digging.”
    The digging led him to the data from the expendable temperature sensors, the XBTs. A month before, Willis had seen a paper by Viktor Gouretski and Peter Koltermann that showed a comparison of XBT data collected over the past few decades to temperatures obtained in the same ocean areas by more accurate techniques, such as bottled water samples collected during research cruises. Compared to more accurate observations, the XBTs were too warm. The problem was more pronounced at some points in time than others.
    The Gouretski paper hadn’t rung any alarm bells right away, explains Willis, “because I knew from the earlier analysis that there was a big cooling signal in Argo all by itself. It was there even if I didn’t use the XBT data. That’s part of the reason that we thought it was real in the first place,” explains Willis.
    But when he factored the too-warm XBT measurements into his ocean warming time series, the last of the ocean cooling went away. Later, Willis teamed up with Susan Wijffels of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organization (CSIRO) and other ocean scientists to diagnose the XBT problems in detail and come up with a way to correct them
    Looks like after a year of looking at the data, he was finding things that were outliers, and sensors that were not working correctly.

    So the new Argo data were too cold, and the older XBT data were too warm, and together, they made it seem like the ocean had cooled,” says Willis. The February evening he discovered the mistake, he says, is “burned into my memory.” He was supposed to fly to Colorado that weekend to give a talk on “ocean cooling” to prominent climate researchers. Instead, he’d be talking about how it was all a mistake.
    Look at this, he has admitted that his paper had been a mistake because he did not take into account how accurate his sensors were being. But this scientist did admit his mistake and found his mistake.

    Site 2) Same story reference as Site 1. The ARGO’s were found to be reading to cold.
    Site 3) This one talks about scientists in Russia placing a bet with scientists in the UK. Then talks with an Australian engineer who says there is a 94% chance of global cooling. Don’t know what kind of engineer he is. These guys all say we will have cooling due to the sun’s activity going down. I understand this, however they don’t talk at all about their data any more than one thing. Where is there paper? Now this site I am not going to rule or throw out. I would like to see their paper talking about their data.
    Site 4) A blog that a guy posts all his “findings” around the internet. He found that the US had a lot of snow and that a month had been cooler or a year cooler. That does not discredit Global warming. Besides there is El Niño and La Niña effect, which account for seasonal differences. This guy did not take into account what the strength of those two weather patterns were. He even references a site that shows that the sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere is down while in the Southern Hemisphere it is at 0. Like I had been saying!!
    His trend of less violent tornadoes was not a decline.. It has been steady.. Hell this year there was a large increase. Guess he only wants to view data up to 2005. Also just because deaths from severe weather events are declining that does not account for global cooling. We have better warning systems now, and people evacuate from strong hurricanes when they are coming towards the cost. That is a misuse of data. This whole site is one giant blog with only a year or two of data. Nothing that can count towards anything.
    Site 5) Is once again referencing what Site 1 did. Same story.


    So let us see here, out of 5 sites you gave 3 unique ones and 2 that ran the same story as another one. Sites 1,2,and 5 all were about the same thing. They jumped on a part of the paper they wanted to exploit. Now when you go to the actual website for the paper and the guy who discovered that you come to realize that he made a claim, then a year after continuing to look at his data he found were there were errors. Accounted for the errors, and found that the water had not done what he thought it did. It was still warming. Site 3 had interesting take on things, however never gave a link to the scientists paper or anything like that. Site 4 was your favorite style of information. A blog. Now 21st why should people start to believe you on your data you provide if you cannot accurately read the printing and do a little more in-depth research. But I think you said it best yourself as quoted below from the south texas temp research thread
    Quote Originally Posted by 21stTNCav
    Quote Originally Posted by werleibr
    And not to be a total butt about things, however, you are being a little too specific with your numbers. Temp is reported as 2 digits, so you should have 2 significant figures, 3 is alright but 2 is what you should have. So your Thing should state that your weather stations on average report 2 degrees below the other guys.
    Sorry, but I am not a scientist. although my readings out to 4 digits past the decimal makes them MORE ACCURATE than the just the 2 digits in front of the decimal. If it makes you feel better to say that the temp in the areas I measured is an average of 2 degrees rather than 2.1547 degrees cooler than the reported temp, knock yourself out buddy. It is not a big thing and I think everyone understood my data perfectly.
    That is correct 21st you are not a scientist. You have failed understand your data. Failure like this causes the type of belief that you have about global warming. A misguided one.


    Now my challenge to you 21st. Do what I did to your sites. Find ways to discredit my data I provided. Time to forget the Gore stuff and find ways to discredit my stuff, stuff that Gore did not use.

  9. #9
    us
    Apr 2006
    Tennessee/Texas
    Minelab Sov / Fisher CZ-70 Pro/Fisher CZ 20
    928
    3 times

    Re: Exerpt from Politics

    Is this why this stood for so many days without any response? Does the military really give you that amount of time off that you have time to research and dissect every iota of information to discredit someone??
    Sorry, but apparently I must have responsibilities that you do not. My job will not allow me to do such a thing. I think it has been shown without a doubt that your grasping for any piece of drift wood to keep your unfounded global warming theory afloat.

    Your all over the map jumping from Ice in the north to that in the south to warming and cooling oceans while only being able disprove nothing. Pittiful and shallow. Why not admit some of the data deserves merit. Because you cannot stand to be wrong.
    Sorry, but you are. Again, discussion does not need to go futher. If people will read your post they will see a good 80% goes to debunking one website while the other 4 are discounted out of hand by you. Why should I care to take this futher?? Answer, I should not!!

    Good day and good luck.
    Arooooooo Wolf Pack

  10. #10
    us
    Jul 2010
    Missouri
    487
    2 times

    Re: Exerpt from Politics

    21st you posted at about 10pm on Friday. It sat over the weekend. I was home, without internet all weekend spending time with my 5 year old. Sorry I don't spend my life on here. And do you not know how the military works? You forget since you got out. Military gives you weekends off. Also I am in the National Guard. Only do the military thing 1 weekend a month. As for my other government job it is for a local government as an Engineer. I do have breaks and post during that time. I don't have to do a lot of research because I have a great knowledge in the subject. You on the other hand have little, and it has shown.

    How am I all over the map. I am giving you GLOBAL data since this is about GLOBAL warming. I was only jumping around because you were providing your information that talked about all of that.

    80% of my debunking one website vs all 5 is because if you could read. 3 of the 5 were referencing the same dang thing. Why would i repeat the same thing in all? 1 site had some interesting stuff and I was wanting to see there paper on it. and the last one was a BLOG.

    21st you are also such a hypocrite. let me quote you complaining about me again.
    Rather than debate you have ran to the liberal fall back trench. Just shout that "The debate is over, I am right, and I win.".
    Now you say
    Why should I care to take this futher?? Answer, I should not!! Good day and good luck.
    Looks like you are doing what you claim liberals do. You are falling back running with you tail between your leg because you cannot refute any of my evidence and crying the debate is over, and that you are right.. Nor can you talk about this stuff because the only information you know is what is out in the media and what follows your agenda.

    Now stop stating that I cannot stand to be wrong.. I can, but what I cannot stand is people who come to a debate and don't debate. They only throw what they belive up and run. They don't actually look at any data or have any thinking skills for themself.

    21st here is what I can tell about you. You are a rightwing conservitive. You own a business. You invest into oil and coal companies, and You know nothing about the global warming subject.

    Now 21st step up to the challange. Find ways to refute my evidence. To add a little more to the mix. Climate Change and Global warming causes Animals and plants to shrink. and we are not just talking about fish (which is due to overfishing aswell). We are talking about many warmblooded animals.
    http://news.discovery.com/earth/life...ng-111017.html

    But you will not be able to and you have admitted why in the past
    Quote Originally Posted by 21stTNCav
    Sorry, but I am not a scientist.
    SO there you go you admiting how you cannot understand what is happening.


  11. #11
    us
    Apr 2006
    Tennessee/Texas
    Minelab Sov / Fisher CZ-70 Pro/Fisher CZ 20
    928
    3 times

    Re: Exerpt from Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by werleibr
    21st you posted at about 10pm on Friday. It sat over the weekend. I was home, without internet all weekend spending time with my 5 year old. Sorry I don't spend my life on here. And do you not know how the military works? You forget since you got out. Military gives you weekends off. Also I am in the National Guard. Only do the military thing 1 weekend a month. As for my other government job it is for a local government as an Engineer. I do have breaks and post during that time. I don't have to do a lot of research because I have a great knowledge in the subject. You on the other hand have little, and it has shown.

    How am I all over the map. I am giving you GLOBAL data since this is about GLOBAL warming. I was only jumping around because you were providing your information that talked about all of that.

    80% of my debunking one website vs all 5 is because if you could read. 3 of the 5 were referencing the same dang thing. Why would i repeat the same thing in all? 1 site had some interesting stuff and I was wanting to see there paper on it. and the last one was a BLOG.

    21st you are also such a hypocrite. let me quote you complaining about me again.
    Rather than debate you have ran to the liberal fall back trench. Just shout that "The debate is over, I am right, and I win.".
    Now you say
    Why should I care to take this futher?? Answer, I should not!! Good day and good luck.
    Looks like you are doing what you claim liberals do. You are falling back running with you tail between your leg because you cannot refute any of my evidence and crying the debate is over, and that you are right.. Nor can you talk about this stuff because the only information you know is what is out in the media and what follows your agenda.

    Now stop stating that I cannot stand to be wrong.. I can, but what I cannot stand is people who come to a debate and don't debate. They only throw what they belive up and run. They don't actually look at any data or have any thinking skills for themself.

    21st here is what I can tell about you. You are a rightwing conservitive. You own a business. You invest into oil and coal companies, and You know nothing about the global warming subject.

    Now 21st step up to the challange. Find ways to refute my evidence. To add a little more to the mix. Climate Change and Global warming causes Animals and plants to shrink. and we are not just talking about fish (which is due to overfishing aswell). We are talking about many warmblooded animals.
    http://news.discovery.com/earth/life...ng-111017.html

    But you will not be able to and you have admitted why in the past
    Quote Originally Posted by 21stTNCav
    Sorry, but I am not a scientist.
    SO there you go you admiting how you cannot understand what is happening.

    Look Sir, Your debunking of only one website is true and exactly what you did. If the websites were about the same thing fine, but by debunking one you do not debunk all. The purpose was to show that you could not stay on one topic. Your tactic seems to be to deflect attention from the subject brought up, Ocean cooling and warming, to other aspects of MMGW. Now while it is true that other aspects of the unsubstantiated theory of global warming tie into the core subject easily, it has shown you will not address that subject only. Although you managed to provide sufficient evidence to warrant disregarding a couple of sites I posted, the rest of them were dismissed out of hand. By demanding more proof from these sites you take the ability to respond out of my hands, in effect creating a straw man argument that cannot be won or lost by me regardless of how long I debate or how much evidence I present.
    What am I to do. Go back, find 10, 20, even 100 more articles? It would never be enough. It would be a blog, or the study in question did not use the correct criteria.
    Did it ever occur to you that although the Argos study may have been flawed that the difference shown could still not be accounted for in global warming theory? No, I guess not, but then again you do not want to hear or acknowledge that.
    You have called me a hypocrite and a liar in your last post and for some reason you think I should be nice and accept anything you say to me. You expect me to take my time looking up more links to disprove global warming.
    I think you must be insane.
    I have put data out there that you have not refuted, but rather used your considerable skill at deflection to dance around. You have refuted some data, but not the majority of it yet you accuse me of not debating.

    Here is my debate. Did you really look at the site you posted? I am not going to say boo about the article being a blog, but as for Tim Wall, the writer of the initial article, I cannot find a thing. All of the information is based on the theory that global warming is occurring, which is debatable at the very least, and in my opinion not occurring in any consistant basis. If you had taken time to see the comments posted below the article you might find most people did not have a very favorable view of the article on the blog.
    Conclusion, not a very credible bit of evidence. Do not drag it into any court.

    As for what you know about me, YOU ARE WRONG. I am invested via 405b's in some energy companies, but these are in diversified funds and a very small part of my investments. The vast majority of any energy companies utilized for my retirement are through the TRS system ran by the State Of Texas dept of Education and I have no control over.
    I am an Conservative, but consider myself to be moderate. As for what you consider me to be I could care less. Your opinion of me means nothing to me. I work for the Public School System in Texas performing Physical Therapy, and at this time I do not own a business and never have. I do perform Contract Physical Therapy, but this on a small scale and with the Texas State Hospital, again not a business.

    Now if you wish to inflict more accusations to try and damage me in some way go right ahead. Show your pettiness and lack of character. You will do much more harm to yourself attacking me than I could ever do to you by responding in kind.

    Arooooooo Wolf Pack

  12. #12
    us
    Jul 2010
    Missouri
    487
    2 times

    Re: Exerpt from Politics

    21st, Once again you fail to understand anything. How is debunking one site not debunking the other sites that reference that exact same article that I debunked!!! I have stayed on topic, all about global warming. At the end of the last post I diverted to show things about you and will explain later on within this post.
    Global cooling and warming of oceans had everything to do with the arctic and Antarctic regions. And you had posted two different items. One that we are entering an ice age aka global cooling, nothing to do with cooling of the oceans, and then one of dealing with cooling of ocean.
    I did not dismiss the Russian news story. I was just stating for a fact that I would like to see their research paper that they wrote. You do not have to provide it. It is always better to read their own papers vs reading a news story that takes pieces of it out. So, I was not trying to create a “straw man argument”. Sorry if it seemed like I was.
    Did it ever occur to you that although the Argos study may have been flawed that the difference shown could still not be accounted for in global warming theory? No, I guess not, but then again you do not want to hear or acknowledge that.
    What are you trying to say? That using flawed data is what we must do? When an istrament is known or found to be reading colder or hotter, we are to use the original readings because that is what is printed out on it. Or do we correct it for how off it was reading? When the study took into account that the Argos readings were off, and the other floats were off, they found that the ocean was still warming up, with seasonal fluctuations. I guess I am still confused on what you are trying to say.
    Yes I called you a hypocrite, and showed how you were being one. I never accused you of lying. I accused you of incorrectly stating things about me. Now you wine when I make claims about you. That is also a type of hypocrite.
    I have refuted your data, and it is you who dances around and deflects. Always going to you same data. You have never refuted any of my Data other than in my last post on the blog (which we will talk about later in this post).
    Now for that Later part of my post I have talked about…
    Did you really look at the site you posted?
    Why yes I did. I sent you to a site similar to what you have sent me to. Yes it is a blog and yes it is not to be taken for it’s fullness. Now did you go to the site that was talking about the study? There was a link in there. In which it tells about how global warming is causing a shrinking of animal size. In case you missed the link to the news article within that blog, here it is. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-...una-flora.html
    Now I do not have a subscription to the journal that the study was published in, but am going to be looking for it at a library near me.
    Now again you say in your opinion Global warming is not happening, but that is your opinion, No evidence to truly support it. And comments posted at the bottom do not mean anything about the article? There are tons of comments on many articles. Not everyone comments.. Those that usually do are ones that disagree with the article, No matter who writes it. If it was an article against global warming, people that believe in Global warming would be writing on the blog. SO people posting to the bottom are just as yours are opinions.
    I was not trying to use it as full evidence. I was attempting to see if you actually do any other research on this article and dig deeper like I had on your global cooling web site. You only looked for the articles author, but not what news story he was referencing. Now maybe you will read it and take some things into thought. The temperature increase is what is causing the smaller stature.
    Now As you stating you invested in energy companies it shows that you have a vested interest in there not being any global warming. Energy companies that will be invested in are Coal fire plants, and Oil, two big contributors’ towards Environmental degradation and global warming. If they have regulation put on them, or they start to not be the strong hold, your investment will go down and start to lose money and no one likes to lose money. I was right that you were a conservative and many of them don’t believe in Global Warming. That is why I put that in there.
    Nice to see that you work with kids that need physical therapy. I knew two kids from my class that had to go daily to theirs because of the choice their mom made while she was pregnant. Always good to see a public service worker.
    For you not owning a business, I am sorry that I brought it up. I was thinking you did and that you mentioned it within the political forum. I guess I had you mixed up with another on that forum while we were talking about Global warming on there. Once again Sorry…I got that you owned a business part wrong.
    So now have you looked at all the other evidence that I had provided in the posts prior?
    And since I brought it up that you had a vested interest that Global warming was not going on, I expect that you are going to claim that I have a vested interest that it is. Well to get to that question a head of time. I do not. If it is not going on, it does not help me gain or lose money. I am an Environmental Engineer. I design many things to help mitigate mans influence on the environment. Whether Global Warming is occurring or not, there will always be a need for my skills. Designing Wastewater plants, drinking water plants, landfills, hazardous waste cleanup, air or water permits, and the list goes on. Either way there will always be a market for what I do. I do not invest in any companies as I have yet to find one worth investing in.

  13. #13
    us
    Apr 2006
    Tennessee/Texas
    Minelab Sov / Fisher CZ-70 Pro/Fisher CZ 20
    928
    3 times

    Re: Exerpt from Politics

    I do not have time to go more into depth than to say that you have presented no more proof than I have about global warming. You have a educational background in Environmental science that I do not, and so it is evident that you must have much more data to draw from than I. I cannot while at work continue to research and thus do as you do and dissect every post, every web site. My answers must be brief. As for what companies I am invested in I would like you to understand something. I have two Vanguard mutual funds. I do not know if they are invested in energy companies or not, but since most mutual funds do hold energy stocks I assume my funds have such companies. Again, I do not have the time to look but I do not think it is fair to say I am a vested "energy investor" because the two mutual funds I have MAY have energy stocks. The funds have over 300 companies each. I really do not want to go down the list finding out if I have Exxon/Mobile or not so if you wish to continue to call me an dedicated "energy investor" there is little I can do.

    There are more than one study regarding the cooling of the Ocean and the decreasing temp of the planet since 1998, but you chose to ignore them. You business, your choice. Here is a documentary you might gain some insight from.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...arminghoax.htm

    Although this article warns that the overall trend may be toward ocean warming it is a different study than the Argos one and it came up with the same results.
    http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-O...ng-36442.shtml

    I did not have much more than a cursory glance at the site you added but I will say this much, the full blown Obama for president ad is a rather telling indictment.

    I of course did not know that you are and environmental engineer before and again this is quite telling. When did you intend to disclose this information?? Did you not think that arguing environment with and enviromental engineer is not really a smart thing to do??
    I personally think you kept you job title under wraps for exactly that purpose, so more or less you could instruct those of a lesser academic degree with impunity. Of course that is my opinion, but from here on I think I will restrict my comments to those backed by a Friend of mine who is a meteorologist and was kind enough to lend me thermometers for my little test temp measurements.

    I think it would be a lot fairer if you discussed this subject with him and not me. At least with him you could not take advantage of someones ignorance regarding a subject.

    If you would like I would gladly discuss Total Knee Rehabilitation protocol, Lumbar Stenosis Injury, and Bracial Plexus conduction studies with you, just so the ball would be in my professional court. Toodles.
    Arooooooo Wolf Pack

  14. #14
    us
    Jul 2010
    Missouri
    487
    2 times

    Re: Exerpt from Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by 21stTNCav
    I do not have time to go more into depth than to say that you have presented no more proof than I have about global warming. You have a educational background in Environmental science that I do not, and so it is evident that you must have much more data to draw from than I. I cannot while at work continue to research and thus do as you do and dissect every post, every web site. My answers must be brief. As for what companies I am invested in I would like you to understand something. I have two Vanguard mutual funds. I do not know if they are invested in energy companies or not, but since most mutual funds do hold energy stocks I assume my funds have such companies. Again, I do not have the time to look but I do not think it is fair to say I am a vested "energy investor" because the two mutual funds I have MAY have energy stocks. The funds have over 300 companies each. I really do not want to go down the list finding out if I have Exxon/Mobile or not so if you wish to continue to call me an dedicated "energy investor" there is little I can do.

    There are more than one study regarding the cooling of the Ocean and the decreasing temp of the planet since 1998, but you chose to ignore them. You business, your choice. Here is a documentary you might gain some insight from.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...arminghoax.htm

    Although this article warns that the overall trend may be toward ocean warming it is a different study than the Argos one and it came up with the same results.
    http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-O...ng-36442.shtml

    I did not have much more than a cursory glance at the site you added but I will say this much, the full blown Obama for president ad is a rather telling indictment.

    I of course did not know that you are and environmental engineer before and again this is quite telling. When did you intend to disclose this information?? Did you not think that arguing environment with and enviromental engineer is not really a smart thing to do??
    I personally think you kept you job title under wraps for exactly that purpose, so more or less you could instruct those of a lesser academic degree with impunity. Of course that is my opinion, but from here on I think I will restrict my comments to those backed by a Friend of mine who is a meteorologist and was kind enough to lend me thermometers for my little test temp measurements.

    I think it would be a lot fairer if you discussed this subject with him and not me. At least with him you could not take advantage of someones ignorance regarding a subject.

    If you would like I would gladly discuss Total Knee Rehabilitation protocol, Lumbar Stenosis Injury, and Bracial Plexus conduction studies with you, just so the ball would be in my professional court. Toodles.
    I will check out your sites. And I will keep an open Mind and take it all in. I have mentioned my Degree before, but maybe not within the politics forum, but i think, and I could be wrong, I have within the global warming threads someplace. Anyway I kept it underraps only because no one called my education into question. I am not trying to take advantage of you but open up your eyes. Things that you are reading and beleiving could in fact be wrong. I am trying to get you to critically think and do more indepth research on a topic that you seem to feel strongly about.

    And I may have to take you up on a discussion of total knee rehab. At 16 I had to have my petella realigned in one knee.

  15. #15
    us
    Apr 2006
    Tennessee/Texas
    Minelab Sov / Fisher CZ-70 Pro/Fisher CZ 20
    928
    3 times

    Re: Exerpt from Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by werleibr
    Quote Originally Posted by 21stTNCav
    I do not have time to go more into depth than to say that you have presented no more proof than I have about global warming. You have a educational background in Environmental science that I do not, and so it is evident that you must have much more data to draw from than I. I cannot while at work continue to research and thus do as you do and dissect every post, every web site. My answers must be brief. As for what companies I am invested in I would like you to understand something. I have two Vanguard mutual funds. I do not know if they are invested in energy companies or not, but since most mutual funds do hold energy stocks I assume my funds have such companies. Again, I do not have the time to look but I do not think it is fair to say I am a vested "energy investor" because the two mutual funds I have MAY have energy stocks. The funds have over 300 companies each. I really do not want to go down the list finding out if I have Exxon/Mobile or not so if you wish to continue to call me an dedicated "energy investor" there is little I can do.

    There are more than one study regarding the cooling of the Ocean and the decreasing temp of the planet since 1998, but you chose to ignore them. You business, your choice. Here is a documentary you might gain some insight from.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...arminghoax.htm

    Although this article warns that the overall trend may be toward ocean warming it is a different study than the Argos one and it came up with the same results.
    http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-O...ng-36442.shtml

    I did not have much more than a cursory glance at the site you added but I will say this much, the full blown Obama for president ad is a rather telling indictment.

    I of course did not know that you are and environmental engineer before and again this is quite telling. When did you intend to disclose this information?? Did you not think that arguing environment with and enviromental engineer is not really a smart thing to do??
    I personally think you kept you job title under wraps for exactly that purpose, so more or less you could instruct those of a lesser academic degree with impunity. Of course that is my opinion, but from here on I think I will restrict my comments to those backed by a Friend of mine who is a meteorologist and was kind enough to lend me thermometers for my little test temp measurements.

    I think it would be a lot fairer if you discussed this subject with him and not me. At least with him you could not take advantage of someones ignorance regarding a subject.

    If you would like I would gladly discuss Total Knee Rehabilitation protocol, Lumbar Stenosis Injury, and Bracial Plexus conduction studies with you, just so the ball would be in my professional court. Toodles.
    I will check out your sites. And I will keep an open Mind and take it all in. I have mentioned my Degree before, but maybe not within the politics forum, but i think, and I could be wrong, I have within the global warming threads someplace. Anyway I kept it underraps only because no one called my education into question. I am not trying to take advantage of you but open up your eyes. Things that you are reading and beleiving could in fact be wrong. I am trying to get you to critically think and do more indepth research on a topic that you seem to feel strongly about.

    And I may have to take you up on a discussion of total knee rehab. At 16 I had to have my petella realigned in one knee.
    I am not sure what you mean by realignment. I am assuming you mean how the patella rides on the trochelar notch of the Fibula. I assume the quad ligaments were detached and reset either laterally or medially. Could you tell me which?
    Arooooooo Wolf Pack

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Sponsors

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

can a bone spur in my knee cause the patella to dislocate

Click on a term to search for related topics.
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.1.3