I don't have that button better type wisely Sent from my SM-G930V using Bowhunting.com Forums mobile app
Please show the thousands of studies that falsify data on climate change to justify your statement! It is a shame that childish antics have to be presented when faced with the potential for a serious discussion on a matter of great concern.... sad indeed.
Not going to bother, you go look them up. You can recklessly use generalities saying simply "thousands of studies" but when someone else does it you scream they need to post proof...kiss off. It's not hard to find a crap ton of research and a slough of scientists that say it's wrong that utterly refutes the crap concept of man made climate change. All the empirical evidence is made up or intentionally skewed to push a political agenda. The number of times it's been proven that data was falsified and discussions were found being had to intentionally mislead in order to support the narrative has already poisoned the well, the scientists and supporters of the theory have long lost any credibility. Something else needs to be addressed and I don't feel editing the below quote brought the point of the edit to attention well enough so I'll do it in a new post.... Now, whoever was insulted by the "Chicks" part of that comment has more of a sexist ideology than I do. I never even conceived of the possibility that "chicks" could be taken to mean women in the context of that post nor have I ever put forward any inkling of sexist lingo in my thousands of posts. Anyone who could have taken it that way has a sexist mentality of women and also a sexist view of men that they'd concieve "chicks" in that context. It doesn't even make any sense used in the sexist context. If that was actually what you were offended by then you have more of a problem than I do. To make matters worse, if you were insulted then there is a dislike function to make it known rather than acting like a sniveling coward and lodging a complaint with mods over it. A simple dislike and a post and a post or a PM complaining about it publicly and to me personally would have been a far more respectable way to handle it. I would have quickly laid the concern to rest and made the context and meaning clear of the term used. I suppose I could have posted "baby chicks" in the OP but that seemed blatantly redundant being a chick is a baby bird...I mean, really...good grief.
Sorry, but I took it to mi mean women, and I thought it was disgusting....and don't paint me as sexist with a "bigger problem" than you....you wrote it. No mods involved. Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
I read it as chickens. We have chickens so it was pretty simple to see what Covey meant. I'm not here to defend him, but after knowing him for a few years now, you'll never catch Covey degrading women in any way. Personally, I don't see how you could read that comment and think that he was referring to women. JMO.
Because there are not thousand of studies, just like global cooling in the 70's. There is not 1000's of studies, there is a paper, maybe three, but it fits an agenda so folks lock on to it and use it. When the majority of the scientists state something is wrong, I'll go with them
I certainly did write it and I stand by it...every bit of it though I'm here telling you now that it was not, does not and never did refer to women. (at least not women who aren't loony liberals but that's a political statement not one based on gender) No need to apologize, I'm certainly not. I'd agree if that meant women (in general) then it would be disgusting but I find it curious how you could make that leap mentally to assume it would have been referring to women rather than a baby bird. Is it your common experience to : A. Encounter men that think women are that way. (which is kind of comical from a purely biological functioning perspective) B. Encounter women that you in some way perceive that way. C. Have no clue, you were just looking for something to complain about or take offense to. D. Were actually mad about the political simile and how it aligns with personal party affiliation/beliefs/values. E. Assume that all women are liberal therefore it meant all women were like a baby bird. Since I in no way meant it as referring to women, have explained it and you appear to not be accepting that explanation then yes, I'd say you have some sort of deeper problem. Maybe not sexist but a problem of some sort. I say it appears you are not accepting it because you had to insert the part about "You wrote it" in there as if insisting that your perception of the meaning behind it is still the correct one.
When funding starts to undertake disproving global climate change due to man...then you'll get your majority consensus against the theory, until then you will only get what the market favors and that's supporting the theory that man is causing global climate change. You do realize that no funding is being pushed for research to disprove it, it's all funding to find evidence to push the narrative that favors regulation and profit by the people that are trying to profit from it's acceptance. Of course I know you and the other guy already know it and either won't accept that fact or choose to totally ignore it. Those that believe in it are simply following a religion and don't even realize it. A religion based on faith in the religion's prophets and priests. Without fail, those prophets and priests have been proven wrong, every claim they make is wrong, every prediction they make is wrong. Take a close look at them, every one of them are political hacks pushing it from a political standpoint. Al Gore and Bill Nye are both constantly wrong, both adamant and nearly militant advocates and are neither climate scientists nor do they seem to practice what they preach. I've lost count of the number of predictions Gore has made that have been wrong x10.
No, I am saying that you tried to blame others for taking it wrong, but as you can see, more than one took it to mean women. Instead of raging against the others, maybe you should reflect on the way it was written. Hey...no worries....if you say you meant baby birds, why would I not believe you Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
I see a few people that are more willing to find a fault than to look for a simpler and less controversial explanation. I didn't think it was a cliche that needed to be dumbed down for people to understand. I admit it crossed my mind to write it as "baby chick" but I had a second thought that it seemed ridiculously redundant since a chick is a baby bird and not a woman. I guess I need to account for the common, average person's separation from nature vs common slang... I can't help people being ignorant but I guess I can educate them so they are no longer ignorant. In that sense, a misunderstanding like that is their fault because they reached the wrong conclusion from a knee jerk assumption.
See, now you are calling the others stupid and saying you have to educate them.....you seem to have a pretty high opinion of yourself.....no need to educate me....I see who you are Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
Who gives a **** if Chick was meant to mean women or not. Jesus do we need to really get our undies in a bunch over it. Grow a spine and move on.
Another display of ignorance. Let me educate you on the problem with what you posted and your perception of my post. (see how that works) I called no one "stupid", you're simply jumping to a wrong conclusion based on your ignorance of the difference. There is no crime in being ignorant or being called ignorant. Ignorant is simply a lack of education on any given subject being discussed, etc... However stupidity is another issue altogether. Being stupid is the inability to learn...generally meant as an insult it's referring to a refusal to learn out of stubbornness. You can percieve yourself as stupid but I'll never make that claim...I can however honestly refer to someone as ignorant when they display an obvious lack of knowledge in the subject at hand. I was ignorant how anyone could read chick in the context of my post and comprehend it as meaning women. I now see how they could make the mistake so you educated me through communication. (see how that works in reverse) You were ignorant of the fact that I meant a baby bird and not a woman. I educated you on what was meant by the context of my post with a simple explanation. Opinion of one's self played no role in what took place there nor here. Maybe your opinion of yourself is too high if you can't admit that you are ignorant in some situations. See who I am? No...I think you are woefully short of a practical conclusion of "who I am". I'll continue to try to educate you on that matter if you so wish, I make no attempts to hide who I am.
Like I said when it fits your views it's a legit study Al Gore is not a scientist and neither is Bill Nye. So I don't listen to them
Just remember. This is why you trump voters voted for trump. This guy has it all figured out. Enjoy! http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/rural-america-understanding-isnt-problem
Now see, here we go again with the ignorant conclusions. I never said either study was accepted, I said there are thousands saying man made climate change is real, I said there were thousands to that effect made by money hungry quacks (proven by the fraud that's been proven time and again with the scientists you're so proud of discussing altering things on purpose to favor the conclusions they wanted). I also said there were thousands (yes it was a gross generalization made by both sides here) of studies refuting those studies. I didn't say I accepted either of them. I also said the ones proven to have committed fraud poisoned the well and had lost credibility (to me). Saying I conclude it's a hoax based off of fraudulent discoveries and data I've seen in opposition means I believe some data that is backed up through my own observation and conclusions, it's not saying any one study is "accepted". Science has been wrong countless times, it's almost always wrong...the scientific method makes it a prerequisite to assume it's wrong, always. The concept of a flat earth was backed up by scientific consensus for generations...it was wrong. Disease, biology, chemistry, the foundations of physics themselves were all wrong but agreed upon through a "consensus" at one time or another. It hardly ever is an absolute. Faith in scientists is dangerously placed because the only thing about science that has any certainty is that it's wrong to some degree...always. These quacks are screaming the end of the world by margins that they cannot even accurately measure globally, nor have the reliable data to make the conclusions they are making. The followers of the MMGCC religion don't care, they are always ready to believe with their faith in the bought and paid for perpetrators of the false religion. Some for political reasons, some out of environmentalism, some just because they like having a "flavor of the day cause". Consequently, almost without fail, every scientists that develops a study that supports MMGCC is a liberal democrat. They are on a mission to push the agenda in spite of whatever wrong conclusions or faulty data they are presented with. Their mission is funding, political and intra party/ideological acceptance and support.
