PDA

View Full Version : World may not be warming, say scientists



Eric Johnson
02-14-2010, 10:23 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

http://tinyurl.com/yaql22r

The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.

In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”.

It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

-more-

badbullgator
02-15-2010, 06:29 AM
I feel a graph coming.........

Everyday something like this comes out, but still Henry shows us CO2 graphs..........

This is no different than the swine flu in the 70's, West nile virus, or swine flu in 2009. Everyone jumps on the bandwagon preaches doooooooom and makes money off it before it is exposed for what it is........nothing but fear placed in your mind so others can make money off of it.

Gerry Clinchy
02-15-2010, 06:55 AM
From Eric's citation:


Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, said he accepted there were problems with the global thermometer record but these had been accounted for in the final report.

The way in which these "problems" were accounted for was not mentioned in the article.Wonder how they were "accounted for".

“It’s not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,” he said. “We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40% and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.”

Interesting, that we are now setting records for snow accumulation in many locations along the Mid-Atlantic. Haven't seen this much snow since the blizzard years of 94 and 95. However, not to worry, I read somewhere recently that this cold weather and heavy snow was just one side-effect of a global warming trend.

In 94 and 95 the heavy weather was blamed on El Nino (a known cyclical occurrence). Surprised that there has been no reference to El Nino at all now.

The issue would be, I think, weather warming or cooling, if the cause is not man's doing, I seriously doubt whether man can change it.

dnf777
02-15-2010, 08:03 AM
Like I've said many times before, its just as foolish to dismiss global climate change as it is to believe what the politicians tell us about it!

We need to let the legitimate scientific community study this issue, and come up with the best that they can. The planet isn't a big puppy dog that you can stick a thermometer under its tail and get a fairly accurate reading! (besides, how would you get that big thermometer to north Philly anyway?);)

Using one winter's snow accumuations to gauge climate change is like finding a nickel in your sofa pillows, and calling your financial advisor exclaiming everything's changed! One year, ten years...are just blips.

road kill
02-15-2010, 08:29 AM
I feel a graph coming.........

Everyday something like this comes out, but still Henry shows us CO2 graphs..........

This is no different than the swine flu in the 70's, West nile virus, or swine flu in 2009. Everyone jumps on the bandwagon preaches doooooooom and makes money off it before it is exposed for what it is........nothing but fear placed in your mind so others can make money off of it.

These are the same "hippies" that also gave us the "paraquat" scare in the 70's!!:D




rk

Buzz
02-15-2010, 08:33 AM
In 94 and 95 the heavy weather was blamed on El Nino (a known cyclical occurrence). Surprised that there has been no reference to El Nino at all now.



I don't know what weather you've been listening to, but I've been hearing about El Nino since last summer.




Everyday something like this comes out, but still Henry shows us CO2 graphs..........



Of course something like this is coming out everyday. Why do you think that is? Could it have something to do with the fact that legislation passed in the house, and now opponents are slinging as much crap against the wall as they can to see what sticks?

I noticed that the author of the article used a very common journalistic tool. Put all the information that supports your point up front in the article, preferably in the first few paragraphs. Then anything that refutes it goes into the last few paragraphs. It's not unusual after-all for readers to lose interest before getting that far. Here are the last few paragraphs.


Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, said he accepted there were problems with the global thermometer record but these had been accounted for in the final report.

“It’s not just temperature rises that tell us the world is warming,” he said. “We also have physical changes like the fact that sea levels have risen around five inches since 1972, the Arctic icecap has declined by 40% and snow cover in the northern hemisphere has declined.”

The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has recently issued a new set of global temperature readings covering the past 30 years, with thermometer readings augmented by satellite data.

Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.”

pat addis
02-15-2010, 08:37 AM
am i the only on e that remembers the headlines about the coming ice age of the late 70s early 80s i remember lines in the paper showing where the polar ice cap woul be in the years that followed it seems to me it should have been in chicago about now.

subroc
02-15-2010, 08:39 AM
...The planet isn't a big puppy dog that you can stick a thermometer under its tail and get a fairly accurate reading! (besides, how would you get that big thermometer to north Philly anyway?)...

why believe it is warming then?

subroc
02-15-2010, 08:51 AM
Will Time recycle (that noble activity of man) this story?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

huntinman
02-15-2010, 09:02 AM
The climate has been changing since the beginning of time. Man did not cause the ice age to end any more than the changes taking place today. Average temps are just that, there have always been extremes either way. I suspect that will continue well beyond our lifetimes.

zeus3925
02-15-2010, 09:30 AM
I'm amazed at how many of you are climate scientists and chose the RTF to pontificate.:rolleyes:

YardleyLabs
02-15-2010, 09:37 AM
Will Time recycle (that noble activity of man) this story?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
Actually, you might want to look at Kukla's own later study from 1998 where he addresses the fact that while global temperatures are increasing, the effects are not uniform geographically, seasonally, or diurnally. He reviews the data in detail as compared with climate models and proposes explanations consistent with observed data, including an overall warming in global temperatures. See http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp;jsessionid=9C218BD87C826728C009AAAA A1E7F0FA?purl=/764707-mVbNpb/webviewable/

Also see http://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/19/us/evidence-is-found-of-warming-trend.html?&pagewanted=all for Kukla's most recent work on global warming.

subroc
02-15-2010, 10:01 AM
he is all over the place in that particular summary.

What stood out to me amoung all the waesle words was this on page 2:




The ultimate cause for the change in the temperature range however, still remains unknown.

Cody Covey
02-15-2010, 10:08 AM
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/02/un_climate_panel_admits_dutch.php

More truth from the climate experts

YardleyLabs
02-15-2010, 10:24 AM
he is all over the place in that particular summary.

What stood out to me amoung all the waesle words was this on page 2:

I provided links to both his 1998 and current work because I think they illustrate well that the road of science is not a straight line. Rather, it involves constantly challenging the data and the theories to build theoretical constructs that are more and more robust. Using snapshots taken over the history of the process to impugn the evidence is equivalent to accusing scientists of flip flopping over whether the earth is flat or more spherical.

The theories of global warming -- which have increasingly evolved into theories of global climate change -- are not the product of a conspiracy of a group seeking to overturn our prior understanding of the world's climate. The theories come from the same people working with better data from more sources filtered through more years of focused investigation.

The amazing thing is not the understanding that the climate is changing and that the change is a product, in part, of human activity. It is that anyone would think that we could dump so much garbage into our atmosphere without affecting world climate.

When I was a teenager, I read a book titled "1-2-3 Infinity". It discussed the evolution of mathematics, and with that the evolution of our understanding of what was considered to be finite. We have been going through a similar process of evolution in our understanding of our environment.

As cities and towns dumped their garbage into our rivers and oceans, they were certain that the ability of these bodies to cleanse themselves was infinite. They were wrong, as became evident only as species began to die off, fish became inedible, and waters unswimmable. With the advent of our explorations of the outer atmosphere and near space, we thought nothing of leaving our debris in orbit. After all, space was infinite. Increasingly, we must now deal with the hazards posed by this debirs both to the newer satellites we launch and to the earth as orbits deteriorate and objects reenter the atmosphere.

In light of all we have learned about the finiteness of our environment, why would anyone think that we could continue to thoughtlessly alter the contents of our environment without impact? Why would one assume that these alterations would be benign in the absence of proof? Can we only learn through extinction?

Buzz
02-15-2010, 10:27 AM
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/02/un_climate_panel_admits_dutch.php

More truth from the climate experts

The data wasn't invented by climate change scientists, it came from European Commission DG Fisheries and Maritime Affairs.

Although it is fun to just throw more crap against the wall.

http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/pdf/country_factsheets/netherlands_en.pdf

And all the report really stated was that the Dutch are at the greatest risk regarding rising sea level.


The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level where 60% of its population lives and 65% of its Gross National Product (GNP) is produced.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch12s12-2-3.html

dnf777
02-15-2010, 11:33 AM
why believe it is warming then?

Because there is mounting evidence from apolitical scientific sources that show it is. The rate of change and the source of change is left to be answered. The rate of glacial melting and temp change is faster than any other time in earth's history, saving for Krakatoa's eruption, and I don't recall any such eruptions lately. The trick here is to figure out WHO is legit, apolitical, and trustworthy. Certainly there are many folks with chips on this table who cannot and should not be trusted. Arbitrary dismissal is reckless, as is arbitrary acceptance.

WaterDogRem
02-15-2010, 11:42 AM
Because there is mounting evidence from apolitical scientific sources that show it is. The rate of change and the source of change is left to be answered. The rate of glacial melting and temp change is faster than any other time in earth's history, saving for Krakatoa's eruption, and I don't recall any such eruptions lately. The trick here is to figure out WHO is legit, apolitical, and trustworthy. Certainly there are many folks with chips on this table who cannot and should not be trusted. Arbitrary dismissal is reckless, as is arbitrary acceptance.

Contradicting? Just asking.

Eric Johnson
02-15-2010, 11:52 AM
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/158214

http://tinyurl.com/ygmxtdk

THERE has been no global warming for 15 years, a key scientist admitted yesterday in a major U-turn.

Professor Phil Jones, who is at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, conceded that there has been no “statistically significant” rise in temperatures since 1995.

The admission comes as new research casts serious doubt on temperature records collected around the world and used to support the global warming theory.

Researchers said yesterday that warming recorded by weather stations was often caused by local factors rather than global change.

-more-

YardleyLabs
02-15-2010, 01:38 PM
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/158214

http://tinyurl.com/ygmxtdk

THERE has been no global warming for 15 years, a key scientist admitted yesterday in a major U-turn.

Professor Phil Jones, who is at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, conceded that there has been no “statistically significant” rise in temperatures since 1995.

The admission comes as new research casts serious doubt on temperature records collected around the world and used to support the global warming theory.

Researchers said yesterday that warming recorded by weather stations was often caused by local factors rather than global change.

-more-
A better source of what Jones said can be found in the transcript of the actual interview with the BBC, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm. I love sources such as the Daily Express, whose owner once told a Parliamentary Commission that he ran his papers "purely for the purpose of making propaganda". While the new owner, conservative Richard Desmond, has not made a similar comment, based on the litigation record he appears to have managed to lower the quality of reporting. This is a case in point, athough his story is largely lifted from other participants in the conservative blogosphere.

As is apparent from the BBC interview, the statistical significance -- being measured at the 95% confidence level -- depends largely on the number of years included in the trend period. The question posed by the interviewer addressed a short period of time during which Jones noted that the temperature increase was 0.12 degrees centigrade per decade and that the trend came close to meeting the level of 95% confidence, but fell short and was therefore not statistically significant using that standard. He also noted that the trend was statistically significant at the 95% level if you included more years of data. Further, he noted that there was a slight decrease in temperatures during the period 2002 to present -- -0.12 degrees centigrade per decade -- but that this decrease was also statistically insignificant. On could be charitable and assume that journalists misrepresentation of his statements simply reflects their ignorance. Personally, I don't believe the reporters are that stupid. I think they are that dishonest.

Eric Johnson
02-15-2010, 02:54 PM
I don't think we're getting through to you. All...repeat ALL...the material on "global warming" is now suspect. I don't care what you say or quote, someone can now say that it's based on flawed data and there's simply no way to refute that statement. I'm not presenting an argument for or against global warming. I'm showing how stupid the scientists are for their advocacy and how gullible our politicians are for swallowing this hook, line, and sinker.

As far as that goes....the BBC is every bit as flawed a source as Murdock and for the same reason though the other side of the coin. I lived in the UK for 3 years. Other than the Guardian, no news source is more slanted to the left.

Eric

YardleyLabs
02-15-2010, 03:16 PM
I don't think we're getting through to you. All...repeat ALL...the material on "global warming" is now suspect. I don't care what you say or quote, someone can now say that it's based on flawed data and there's simply no way to refute that statement. I'm not presenting an argument for or against global warming. I'm showing how stupid the scientists are for their advocacy and how gullible our politicians are for swallowing this hook, line, and sinker.

As far as that goes....the BBC is every bit as flawed a source as Murdock and for the same reason though the other side of the coin. I lived in the UK for 3 years. Other than the Guardian, no news source is more slanted to the left.

Eric
In fact, despite massive amounts of manufactured controversy, nothing very substantive has come out of all the questions except noise. Yelling loudly that the emperor is naked means nothing when the emperor is fully clothed.

huntinman
02-15-2010, 03:19 PM
In fact, despite massive amounts of manufactured controversy, nothing very substantive has come out of all the questions except noise. Yelling loudly that the emperor is naked means nothing when the emperor is fully clothed.

. Huh??

road kill
02-15-2010, 04:17 PM
In fact, despite massive amounts of manufactured controversy, nothing very substantive has come out of all the questions except noise. Yelling loudly that the emperor is naked means nothing when the emperor is fully clothed.

On the contrary.......Yelling loudly that the emporer is fully clothed means nothing when he clearly COLD!!:shock:





rk

david gibson
02-15-2010, 04:42 PM
In fact, despite massive amounts of manufactured controversy, nothing very substantive has come out of all the questions except noise. Yelling loudly that the emperor is naked means nothing when the emperor is fully clothed.


the problem is you and the other "progressives" have yet to show us anyone wearing a stitch of clothing.

but seriously - here you are - an outdoorsman and hunting enthusiast, yet you defend to the core this questionable president we have who deep down wants to take your guns and right to hunt away from you!

pretty much every principle this muslim president of ours ascribes to or objects to is the polar opposite of what every gun-owning american with a tradition of hunting and outdoors heritage in their blood holds near and dear to our hearts.

i just dont get it. its like carnivorous fur-wearer worshiping PETA. the ludicrousness of your folly prohibits me from ever believing a word of anything you type. if you just dont like bush its ok. lots of us "right" people have issues there as well. same with Palin. she aint the savior for the right, but she's better than what you guys have!

but a "progressive" who owns guns that worships this jacka$$ of a POTUS (and i only say that because earlier one of you called Palin a bitch, so its fair play) is truly a person of questionable judgement.

i really feel sorry for you - i hope you dont have kids. they would be (or are) very confused individuals....


Obama and Osama - two men who count among their friends people that bombed the pentagon.....and this guy is now our president?

dnf777
02-15-2010, 04:57 PM
i really feel sorry for you - i hope you dont have kids. they would be (or are) very confused individuals....

That's WAY below the belt! That type of personal attack poisons the water for everyone. Nobody deserves to have their kids' well-being questioned here.

I heard people throw hissy-fits when Sarah's children were questioned, saying that was out of bounds, despicable, and deplorable. Same should apply here at least, amongst friends.

badbullgator
02-15-2010, 05:46 PM
In fact, despite massive amounts of manufactured controversy, nothing very substantive has come out of all the questions except noise. Yelling loudly that the emperor is naked means nothing when the emperor is fully clothed.


Ah yes, only Jeff and Henry understand the truth. We are all dumbaass rednecks with no edumacation. When something goes against the koolaide he has been drinking it is filnging pooh at the walls, when what he believes is flung it is correct and comes from good sources anything elses is garbarge.....time and time again.......

JDogger
02-15-2010, 06:26 PM
When something goes against the koolaide he has been drinking it is filnging pooh at the walls, when what he believes is flung it is correct and comes from good sources anything elses is garbarge.....time and time again.......

SOP @ RTF PP BBG. ;-)

Buzz
02-15-2010, 07:31 PM
the problem is you and the other "progressives" have yet to show us anyone wearing a stitch of clothing.

but seriously - here you are - an outdoorsman and hunting enthusiast, yet you defend to the core this questionable president we have who deep down wants to take your guns and right to hunt away from you!

pretty much every principle this muslim president of ours ascribes to or objects to is the polar opposite of what every gun-owning american with a tradition of hunting and outdoors heritage in their blood holds near and dear to our hearts.

i just dont get it. its like carnivorous fur-wearer worshiping PETA. the ludicrousness of your folly prohibits me from ever believing a word of anything you type. if you just dont like bush its ok. lots of us "right" people have issues there as well. same with Palin. she aint the savior for the right, but she's better than what you guys have!

but a "progressive" who owns guns that worships this jacka$$ of a POTUS (and i only say that because earlier one of you called Palin a bitch, so its fair play) is truly a person of questionable judgement.

i really feel sorry for you - i hope you dont have kids. they would be (or are) very confused individuals....


Obama and Osama - two men who count among their friends people that bombed the pentagon.....and this guy is now our president?

I'm not sure how I could be expected to take any of this paranoid horse $h!t seriously.

david gibson
02-15-2010, 07:41 PM
That's WAY below the belt! That type of personal attack poisons the water for everyone. Nobody deserves to have their kids' well-being questioned here.

I heard people throw hissy-fits when Sarah's children were questioned, saying that was out of bounds, despicable, and deplorable. Same should apply here at least, amongst friends.


now please point out one thing i said bad about your kids. ??

i just said they would be confused, the insult is directed at you. not surprised you didnt see it... ;-)

"well, you see Johnny, its like this. yes, i want guns so i can hunt and protect my family, but we are voting for a guy and support a guy that says we shouldnt have these guns, and that we cling to them and our religion because we aren't as smart as our leaders. but thats ok, the rules aren't made for us."

Buzz
02-15-2010, 07:43 PM
I don't think we're getting through to you. All...repeat ALL...the material on "global warming" is now suspect. I don't care what you say or quote, someone can now say that it's based on flawed data and there's simply no way to refute that statement. I'm not presenting an argument for or against global warming. I'm showing how stupid the scientists are for their advocacy and how gullible our politicians are for swallowing this hook, line, and sinker.

As far as that goes....the BBC is every bit as flawed a source as Murdock and for the same reason though the other side of the coin. I lived in the UK for 3 years. Other than the Guardian, no news source is more slanted to the left.

Eric

I found errors in every single textbook I used in college. I promptly threw them each into the garbage and told my instructors that every bit of information in them was now suspect, and that they were not worth the paper they were printed on. They were very understanding at test time.

dnf777
02-15-2010, 08:01 PM
now please point out one thing i said bad about your kids. ??

i just said they would be confused, the insult is directed at you. not surprised you didnt see it... ;-)

"well, you see Johnny, its like this. yes, i want guns so i can hunt and protect my family, but we are voting for a guy and support a guy that says we shouldnt have these guns, and that we cling to them and our religion because we aren't as smart as our leaders. but thats ok, the rules aren't made for us."

I believe it was directed at Yardley anyway, but hoping someone "doesn't have kids" is pretty personal. Just because someone doesn't share your political views is no reason to question their ability to raise kids that aren't "confused" for cryin' out loud!

"and by the way Johnny, don't spend more than your allowance by borrowing milk money from that Chinese kid, but our government for the past 8 years borrowed 5-7 trillion, depending on how you stack your dimes, and we want more of that behavior...the rules aren't made for us"

YardleyLabs
02-15-2010, 08:39 PM
now please point out one thing i said bad about your kids. ??

i just said they would be confused, the insult is directed at you. not surprised you didnt see it... ;-)

"well, you see Johnny, its like this. yes, i want guns so i can hunt and protect my family, but we are voting for a guy and support a guy that says we shouldnt have these guns, and that we cling to them and our religion because we aren't as smart as our leaders. but thats ok, the rules aren't made for us."
Actually, my kids do extremely well at the ripe ages of 36 and almost 28. Both have formed their own companies and done well, and both have wonderful families of their own. My son and daughter in law like to shoot, my daughter and son in law do not. My daughter is an occasional fish eating vegetarian for both dietary and ethical reasons, and is an outstanding cook. My daughter in law looks at the ocean, a river, or the woods, and sees a supermarket full of food. She loves to fish. She has never hunted but would like to. For that matter, I have never hunted, and the only animals I have ever shot with a gun have been the birds used in training my dogs. I have no problems with hunting, but seldom eat meat. I have guns because I like to shoot targets and because I have a tendency to take pictures in areas that are not necessarily good for the health. All of us -- my four kids, my ex, and I -- voted for Obama and, given the same choices, I would do so again. I did not vote for him in the primary, but it was close. None of us is the slightest bit confused. I like some things about Obama and dislike others. I liked some things about McCain but disliked more, mostly because of his shift to the right to strengthen his base. I consider Palin to be the epitome of some of the worst that American politics has to offer. I also believe she is a complete narcissist and largely amoral. Unfortunately, she shares those traits with many politicians fro both sides of the aisle. I appreciate your concern about my family, but I can assure you that they do very well.

road kill
02-16-2010, 08:19 AM
Actually, my kids do extremely well at the ripe ages of 36 and almost 28. Both have formed their own companies and done well, and both have wonderful families of their own. My son and daughter in law like to shoot, my daughter and son in law do not. My daughter is an occasional fish eating vegetarian for both dietary and ethical reasons, and is an outstanding cook. My daughter in law looks at the ocean, a river, or the woods, and sees a supermarket full of food. She loves to fish. She has never hunted but would like to. For that matter, I have never hunted, and the only animals I have ever shot with a gun have been the birds used in training my dogs. I have no problems with hunting, but seldom eat meat. I have guns because I like to shoot targets and because I have a tendency to take pictures in areas that are not necessarily good for the health. All of us -- my four kids, my ex, and I -- voted for Obama and, given the same choices, I would do so again. I did not vote for him in the primary, but it was close. None of us is the slightest bit confused. I like some things about Obama and dislike others. I liked some things about McCain but disliked more, mostly because of his shift to the right to strengthen his base. I consider Palin to be the epitome of some of the worst that American politics has to offer. I also believe she is a complete narcissist and largely amoral. Unfortunately, she shares those traits with many politicians fro both sides of the aisle. I appreciate your concern about my family, but I can assure you that they do very well.

Much like the sitting President!!




rk

zeus3925
02-16-2010, 08:52 AM
All I know I had three guns before Obama and I got three guns now. Nobody has stopped my hunting. Boo--Happy Halloween.

Buzz
02-16-2010, 09:02 AM
All I know I had three guns before Obama and I got three guns now. Nobody has stopped my hunting. Boo--Happy Halloween.


I had and have 8 guns. And I have not heard Obama say that he wants to take them away. Here are statements from candidates McCain and Obama about the recent Supreme Court decision on gun rights:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/27/nation/na-scotus27?pg=2




On the presidential campaign trail, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama were supportive of the court's ruling.

While calling the decision "a landmark victory for 2nd Amendment freedom," McCain said it did not "mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens." He also took a jab at a controversial statement Obama made in April, adding: "Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly."

For his part, Obama drew a somewhat different lesson from the court's decision. He said it endorsed both gun rights and reasonable regulation.

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures," he said.

"I know what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun-show loophole and improving our background-check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals."

M&K's Retrievers
02-16-2010, 09:06 AM
All I know I had three guns before Obama and I got three guns now. Nobody has stopped my hunting. Boo--Happy Halloween.

I know it seems like forever, but Obama has only been there a little over a year. He's been way too busy trying to to jump start the economy, creating jobs and giving speeches. Give him time. After all, he did manage to appoint a judge who would like to take your 3 guns.

M&K's Retrievers
02-16-2010, 09:09 AM
... All of us -- my four kids, my ex, and I -- voted for Obama and, given the same choices, I would do so again.

Gosh! Who would of thunk it? :rolleyes:

zeus3925
02-16-2010, 10:00 AM
I know it seems like forever, but Obama has only been there a little over a year. He's been way too busy trying to to jump start the economy, creating jobs and giving speeches. Give him time. After all, he did manage to appoint a judge who would like to take your 3 guns.

I ain't worried!

M&K's Retrievers
02-16-2010, 10:28 AM
I ain't worried!

Maybe you should be.

NRA regards

road kill
02-16-2010, 12:17 PM
I found errors in every single textbook I used in college. I promptly threw them each into the garbage and told my instructors that every bit of information in them was now suspect, and that they were not worth the paper they were printed on. They were very understanding at test time.
I never found any errors in my college text books.
In fact, they are still like NEW!!


We did win the MIAA conference title in football both years I started though!!:shock:



rk

Buzz
02-16-2010, 01:29 PM
I never found any errors in my college text books.
In fact, they are still like NEW!!


We did win the MIAA conference title in football both years I started though!!:shock:



rk

That's funny right there... I hope your instructors were as understanding as mine were! :p

I always used to get so frustrated with errors. I would be working through the derivation of a solution to some problem, and beating my head against the wall trying to figure out why I was so thick headed. Then I'd go to a professor's office to get the thing untangled in my mind, only to find out that I couldn't understand the derivation because there was an error in it...

Now, I'm writing textbooks, and I have an appreciation for how difficult it is to keep the errors out. When you know what it's supposed to say, you can proofread right over them. Hell, I can't even type a comment on RTF without getting errors in there half the time.

dnf777
02-16-2010, 01:51 PM
I never found any errors in my college text books.
In fact, they are still like NEW!!


We did win the MIAA conference title in football both years I started though!!:shock:



rk


the scary part is...most of what was in current even textbooks when I was in school are now in history books! Hell, kids graduating college this year weren't even born when Reagan was shot! Its ancient history!

road kill
02-16-2010, 04:33 PM
The funny part is that was the first time I went to college.
Then I got drafted into the military.

When I came back I went to engineering school.
I never understood 80% of the stuff they were talking about.

How I passed I will never know.
But I got into power distribution testing & maintenance.
Including Infra-red testing and vibration analysis of large rotational apparatus.
I wrote a book on using ultra sonics for non intrusive testing of high voltage corona discharge and dielectric insulation breakdown.


Football was funner!!:D



rk

subroc
02-17-2010, 10:52 AM
One for you man caused global warming advocates.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/17/who_doesnt_trust_science_now_104429.html

Henry V
02-17-2010, 03:35 PM
One for the climate change deniers:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/07/climate-change-denial-industry

badbullgator
02-17-2010, 03:40 PM
I like the way you use the word deniers......as if....nevermind