[quote who="psychoak" reply="159" id="2527693"] They mandate thousands upon thousands of things that the typical person will never notice...[/quote] ...and that they would notice if it were taken from them. [quote]From now on I'll pretend clonmac is right. The SFR is a shining beacon of properly applied funding[/quote] WoooooooHoooooooo!!!! You heard him!! He said it, and I quoted it!! ...and ya, those few bucks that gets taken out as tax from
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1164" id="2527341"] . And I like how Dr Guy says "please research" as if looking up media articles counts as research. I only read the one about Antarctic ice (didn't have much time) I see you cannot even take your own medicine. And please re-examine the referenced quote. I dont care if antartica is turning purple! But one thing they all show is it aint melting! So take your own advice and RTFM.<br
This thread is still going, eh? And I still am seeing a lot of crappy media articles being thrown around still. [quote]Uh, no again. Again, please research and do not accept Al gore's lies unequivocally: Antarctic and Arctic[/quote] I only read the one about Antarctic ice (didn't have much time), but talk about a huge pile of misquoted exerpts that miss the context completely. Here is a transcript from Dr. Ian Allison (the scientist that pretty much the article is based on).</
[quote]Thing is, you've set it up so if I can point out that any government program in fact works, I've alreadly defeated your argument of the government being completely unreliable.[/quote] Exactly! Which is how the fishing topic started. I gave an example of a government funded program that is a great program that works. Then he comes in and tries to claim that the program is a failure at regulating, when the program doesn't even go towards regulations! You nailed it on t
[quote who="psychoak" reply="152" id="2526713"] What did you think they said? Are you expecting there to be a "Regulations" section instead of assuming, logically, that the $300 million in administration covers it? Maybe you're right and not a dime of the SFR Act revenues are going towards this completely obvious, explicitely listed, and necessary activity. How the fuck would that be a good thing for sport fishing? [/quote] Do you even fish? If
[quote who="psychoak" reply="148" id="2526607"]I'd buy that, but SFR funds aren't restricted from going towards regulations, nice or not he told you horse shit, whether the books say they're not using any towards the commercial department or not. Law enforcement costs are barred, regulations are specifically allowed. Along with wetlands management(yes, it's really going towards the protection of all those mosquito farms), boating safety, water resources educ
[quote who="MichaelCook" reply="145" id="2526494"]I think the rule is if a thread goes more than 3 pages then people can legally talk about anything AS LONG AS THEY ARE PASSIONATE ABOUT IT.[/quote] How is this for passionate.... [quote who="psychoak" reply="146" id="2526522"] Congratulation, you discovered a web page noting that SFR funds are part of the Sport Fish Division budget. Guess which division manages harvests? <b
[quote]Yeah, I am. Yes, it does. Sport fishing doesn't happen if there aren't any fish because the commercial fishermen caught them all. All commercial fish have a "material value in connection with sport or recreation in the marine and/or fresh waters of the United States." Alaska Fish and Game regulates commercial fishing in Alaskan waters. Alaska Fish and game is funded by the SFR Act. The SFR Act funds the management of the commercial fishing industry. Any commercial fishing done in state
[quote]The country has been running deficits since it started this idiotic mix of socialism and capitalism for a reason. We can't afford all the horse shit we're paying for. If not for technological progress, the crippling effect it's had on the country would have destroyed us in the seventies at the latest.[/quote] [quote]As you cede my point, you can stop arguing with yourself now. [/quote] So if you were originally talking about spending while under a budget deficit, then y
[quote]The rest of your post is too pointless for response, like the SFR funds specifically going towards the regulating of the commercial fishing industry. How you can know about such an obscure program that 99% of the population hasn't even heard of, but not know the primary use... You're truly a mystery.[/quote] You sir, are a moron. SFR doesn't go toward commercial fishing regulation. Sorry. Try again. It provides Federal aid to the States for management and restoratio
[quote who="psychoak" reply="131" id="2524628"] I knew you'd be brainless in every subject, but at least you got this part right. The country has been running deficits since it started this idiotic mix of socialism and capitalism for a reason. We can't afford all the horse shit we're paying for. If not for technological progress, the crippling effect it's had on the country would have destroyed us in the seventies at the latest. &
The problem in America is that people use the terms "capitalism" and "socialism" freely without really understanding their actual meaning. People will use the word capitalist to describe America's economy and then use the word "socialist" to describe anyone who proposes ideas of any type of government intervention. In reality, America's economy is neither pure capitalist or pure socialist. It is a mix between the two and it is better for it! There are pros and cons to each eco
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="1139" id="2521116"] This particular issue is one I find hard to feel very passionate about because regardless of whether AGW is real or not, we're not going to be doing anything about it. [/quote] That's very true. If it does turn out to be true, there really isn't much of any realistic solution that would be feasible on a short time scale. A short time scale being 100 years. So, if their predictions for the next century do turn out to
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1131" id="2520600"] I quoted the part. You correct me? No, you lectured me, you have not corrected me yet. I have not made statements of error, so you cannot correct me. You can incorrectly assume (or practice omniscience - you choose your poison). [/quote] By your definition of "omniscience, anyone who has a debate with you would be considered "omniscient". Yourself included. I've done nothing different than you've done. We
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1125" id="2519848"] I love it how everyone assums omniscience. I can read source code. Can you? (I will not assume and you have not said). My mother cannot. Neither can my wife. But that does not make them stupid or ignorant (you want a lawyer? I know plenty that cannot read source code). Can you debug? What debugger do you use? For even if you can read source code, when the source code grows to th
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1120" id="2519710"] You sure you know what you are talking about? Very much so. But again, if you are going to run a program blindly, how do you know what it is doing? You cant. But you can discect it, and then rewrite it in any language you want (like Excel Macros). - Durr! Do you know what you are talking about? [/quote] The more you post, the more there is to correct you on. How do you know what it is doi
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1117" id="2519587"] Well, this shows me you are not doing anythingn with their data as Cygwin is just a Unix emulator. Excel runs fine in Windows. And excel (with macros) is all you need. [/quote] Durr, and their programs run under Unix/Linux, that is where CygWin comes into play. You can do it without having to dual boot to Linux or anything. So if all you are doing is parsing the data with Excel, then you mi
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1115" id="2519427"] So where do they mention Bolivia? nowhere. You see I did read both (and you have read nothing) and it still does not explain how they can extrapolate with no data - differences from teh data they have! Let me give you an example of what they are saying. [/quote] OK, if you honestly did read the entire study, then I will no longer continue to say that you didn't. But, I can honestly tell you that you
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1109" id="2518788"] not when you refuse to read anything other than your own dogma. I READ your 87 and 99 reports [/quote] Umm, no you didn't. Or at least you didn't understand any of it. Because if you did, you wouldn't be going on about your ridiculous "Bolivian" effect. They even talk about it throughout the study (my guess is that you skipped over that part): One issue with the bias method is how many years of record overlap s
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1103" id="2518296"]Clonmac: You lost it right there. You tried to use a 1987 study to refute something that HAD NOT HAPPENED. [/quote] There is just no getting through to you.
[quote who="Moosetek13" reply="1102" id="2518156"]Sounds like a double-step fan dance, to me. A lot of distracting steps with a couple fast moving fans to draw the attention. [/quote] If you want to believe that, fine. But, it even stated in there clearly that there is very little subjectivity involved. They even gave an exact number of the number of stations that were subjectively removed. All flagged data were graphically displayed along with neighb
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="1100" id="2517906"] Read the study and stop making stupid claims that they are filtering out weather stations in the arctic to skew the temperatures to the high side of things. This isn't the issue to my way of thinking. It's not whether intentional 'skewing' is taking place, but why raw data sources would be excluded at all. How does that enhance the validity/reliability of the data? If it's simply a convenience so they don't
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1097" id="2517789"] You apaprently have a reading comprehension problem as you continue to attribute statements to me that I did not make (as is clearly seen). and to dodge the main question - why has the number of reported stations decreased 5000 (circa 1990) to 1500 (today). Now how is a 25 year old study going to answer that question? How is it germaine? Of course I was not referring to the one you linked to, but the CURRENT one. 
To Dr Guy. Jeez, you refuse to read scientific studies don't you? I didn't claim that UHI is the reason why they took out some of the stations. Again, if you actually read the study , you'd understand why. But, go ahead and continue reading your blogs. And why are you going on about IPCC? I never said anything about the IPCC. They've admitted their mistake. They've acknowledged it. They've also stated that you shouldn't discredit an entire report based on
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="1092" id="2517656"] I also didn't find anything in there that would explain why using extrapolations from a limited number of stations in certain areas would be better than using actual data from a larger number of actual stations. [/quote] Pages 4 and 6 go into that a little bit to explain why. Page 3 goes into why they chose the 1200km limit. Page 25 and 26 is a good conclusion of the meteorological station records analysis.
Sins Forums