kallend 1,677 #26 April 2, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Marc, twice in the past week you've posted something on climate change with accompanying comment or thread title that indicates either you didn't read what you posted, or you read it and misinterpreted what you read. You have proved conclusively that you have no credibility as a commentator on any scientific topic. So, since you've posted over and over again about 'existing law' that isn't actually extant, you're saying that you have no credibility as a commentator on any self-defense or firearm topic. That comment just indicates (again) that you ignore posts you don't agree with. Maybe you can show what post I supposedly 'ignored', upthread, since I am speaking to the comment about being a 'credible commentator'. Did you know there's a law in existence that bans the sale of guns to certain individuals?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #27 April 2, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Marc, twice in the past week you've posted something on climate change with accompanying comment or thread title that indicates either you didn't read what you posted, or you read it and misinterpreted what you read. You have proved conclusively that you have no credibility as a commentator on any scientific topic. So, since you've posted over and over again about 'existing law' that isn't actually extant, you're saying that you have no credibility as a commentator on any self-defense or firearm topic. That comment just indicates (again) that you ignore posts you don't agree with. Maybe you can show what post I supposedly 'ignored', upthread, since I am speaking to the comment about being a 'credible commentator'. Did you know there's a law in existence that bans the sale of guns to certain individuals? Yup, I was aware of that. Did you know that you specifically mentioned states that DON'T require NICS for private sales as examples of your 'existing laws' bullshit?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #28 April 2, 2010 Quote Which part of jumping out of planes (presuming this is gravity) has changed in the past few centuries? A lot of science is in fact settled. It could be reopened if it fails to predict (hello GW debaters!) accurately. Now if you want to talk about the GPS units that some may over rely on for jump operations, there you will see some corrections to Newton's Laws due to relativistic concerns. But falling out the door? Pretty straightforward stuff. My point is that science is a process. All of the things that I listed were derived through the scientific process and the general consensus is that things are going to behave according to our current understanding. There will be some people however who will deny the views held by the majority. And that's great, especially in matters of science where the process allows for, and encourages clarification and correction and modification of our understanding. But in the meantime, the process needs to be respected which typically means that until proven otherwise, we'll continue to operate according to the understanding held by the majority. We're not going to stop skydiving because someone says that it's really a big meat magnet or nylon repellent in the earth that makes it possible. Maybe it's a complex combination? But regardless, we're still "falling" and we should do what we can, with the tools that we have, to make it survivable. After reading that I'm beginning to wonder what was in those brownies by the coffee maker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #29 April 2, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Marc, twice in the past week you've posted something on climate change with accompanying comment or thread title that indicates either you didn't read what you posted, or you read it and misinterpreted what you read. You have proved conclusively that you have no credibility as a commentator on any scientific topic. So, since you've posted over and over again about 'existing law' that isn't actually extant, you're saying that you have no credibility as a commentator on any self-defense or firearm topic. That comment just indicates (again) that you ignore posts you don't agree with. Maybe you can show what post I supposedly 'ignored', upthread, since I am speaking to the comment about being a 'credible commentator'. Did you know there's a law in existence that bans the sale of guns to certain individuals? Yup, I was aware of that. So you don't really have a point, do you? Quote Did you know that you specifically mentioned states that DON'T require NICS for private sales as examples of your 'existing laws' bullshit? Nope - your miscomprehension that has been repeatedly pointed out. You continue to beat the same strawman because you IGNORE any post that disagrees with your preconceived ideas.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #30 April 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteDid you know that you specifically mentioned states that DON'T require NICS for private sales as examples of your 'existing laws' bullshit? Nope - your miscomprehension that has been repeatedly pointed out. Riiiiiight.... which is why you mentioned those states, and why you mentioned bills that would require private sellers get NICS checks, and why opposition to said bills is 'the gun lobby preventing enforcement of existing law'.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #31 April 2, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteDid you know that you specifically mentioned states that DON'T require NICS for private sales as examples of your 'existing laws' bullshit? Nope - your miscomprehension that has been repeatedly pointed out. Riiiiiight.... which is why you mentioned those states, and why you mentioned bills that would require private sellers get NICS checks, and why opposition to said bills is 'the gun lobby preventing enforcement of existing law'. I can't help it if you misinterpret what you read. However, since you've now been told about it a dozen or so times and STILL misinterpret (or ignore) it, it does reflect rather poorly on you.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #32 April 2, 2010 QuoteQuote Do you jump out of planes? Do you drive a car? Do you take any medication? Do you eat any processed foods? Do you listen to your Dr's medical advice? Communicate via the internet? Watch TV? All of that is based on science that hasn't been "settled". Which part of jumping out of planes (presuming this is gravity) has changed in the past few centuries? A lot of science is in fact settled. It could be reopened if it fails to predict (hello GW debaters!) accurately. Now if you want to talk about the GPS units that some may over rely on for jump operations, there you will see some corrections to Newton's Laws due to relativistic concerns. But falling out the door? Pretty straightforward stuff. The science of gravity most definitely is NOT settled. However, only an idiot would use that as an excuse to jump from a high rise building without a decelerator of some kind. Quantum mechanics is not settled either, but the folks who invented lasers didn't use that as an excuse to give up.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #33 April 2, 2010 Quote But in the meantime, the process needs to be respected which typically means that until proven otherwise, we'll continue to operate according to the understanding held by the majority. I didn't realize that the scientific method included voting. At one point, the majority believed the earth was flat, and also the center of the solar system (and universe). You're using gravity to legitimize the far less mature science around climate on earth. And here it looks like you're suggesting that majority rules is the way it should proceed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #34 April 4, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteDid you know that you specifically mentioned states that DON'T require NICS for private sales as examples of your 'existing laws' bullshit? Nope - your miscomprehension that has been repeatedly pointed out. Riiiiiight.... which is why you mentioned those states, and why you mentioned bills that would require private sellers get NICS checks, and why opposition to said bills is 'the gun lobby preventing enforcement of existing law'. I can't help it if you misinterpret what you read. However, since you've now been told about it a dozen or so times and STILL misinterpret (or ignore) it, it does reflect rather poorly on you. I'm sure that calling you out on your constant stream of lies does reflect poorly on me (in your eyes). Oh well - sucks to be you.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #35 April 5, 2010 QuoteQuote Do you jump out of planes? Do you drive a car? Do you take any medication? Do you eat any processed foods? Do you listen to your Dr's medical advice? Communicate via the internet? Watch TV? All of that is based on science that hasn't been "settled". Which part of jumping out of planes (presuming this is gravity) has changed in the past few centuries? A lot of science is in fact settled. It could be reopened if it fails to predict (hello GW debaters!) accurately. Now if you want to talk about the GPS units that some may over rely on for jump operations, there you will see some corrections to Newton's Laws due to relativistic concerns. But falling out the door? Pretty straightforward stuff. I think this was exactly his point. The theories of gravity are actually being called into question lately. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #36 April 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteDid you know that you specifically mentioned states that DON'T require NICS for private sales as examples of your 'existing laws' bullshit? Nope - your miscomprehension that has been repeatedly pointed out. Riiiiiight.... which is why you mentioned those states, and why you mentioned bills that would require private sellers get NICS checks, and why opposition to said bills is 'the gun lobby preventing enforcement of existing law'. I can't help it if you misinterpret what you read. However, since you've now been told about it a dozen or so times and STILL misinterpret (or ignore) it, it does reflect rather poorly on you. I'm sure that calling you out on your constant stream of lies does reflect poorly on me (in your eyes). Oh well - sucks to be you. Inventing a strawman and using it as a basis for calling me a liar is not only intellectually dishonest, it also constitutes a PA. I'm surprised the mods haven't called you on it yet.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #37 April 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteDid you know that you specifically mentioned states that DON'T require NICS for private sales as examples of your 'existing laws' bullshit? Nope - your miscomprehension that has been repeatedly pointed out. Riiiiiight.... which is why you mentioned those states, and why you mentioned bills that would require private sellers get NICS checks, and why opposition to said bills is 'the gun lobby preventing enforcement of existing law'. I can't help it if you misinterpret what you read. However, since you've now been told about it a dozen or so times and STILL misinterpret (or ignore) it, it does reflect rather poorly on you. I'm sure that calling you out on your constant stream of lies does reflect poorly on me (in your eyes). Oh well - sucks to be you. Inventing a strawman and using it as a basis for calling me a liar is not only intellectually dishonest, it also constitutes a PA. I'm surprised the mods haven't called you on it yet. So, if it WASN'T the non-private NICS states you mentioned or the NICS bills you mentioned, what DID you mean when you went on and on about 'the gun lobby blocking enforcement of existing law', John? Is the NRA somehow forcing gun owners to sell to known felons? Sucks when you get busted.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #38 April 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteDid you know that you specifically mentioned states that DON'T require NICS for private sales as examples of your 'existing laws' bullshit? Nope - your miscomprehension that has been repeatedly pointed out. Riiiiiight.... which is why you mentioned those states, and why you mentioned bills that would require private sellers get NICS checks, and why opposition to said bills is 'the gun lobby preventing enforcement of existing law'. I can't help it if you misinterpret what you read. However, since you've now been told about it a dozen or so times and STILL misinterpret (or ignore) it, it does reflect rather poorly on you. I'm sure that calling you out on your constant stream of lies does reflect poorly on me (in your eyes). Oh well - sucks to be you. Inventing a strawman and using it as a basis for calling me a liar is not only intellectually dishonest, it also constitutes a PA. I'm surprised the mods haven't called you on it yet. So, if it WASN'T the non-private NICS states you mentioned or the NICS bills you mentioned, what DID you mean when you went on and on about 'the gun lobby blocking enforcement of existing law', John? Is the NRA somehow forcing gun owners to sell to known felons? Sucks when you get busted. You are in the wrong thread, and intellectual dishonesty will get you nowhere.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #39 April 5, 2010 Quote I think this was exactly his point. The theories of gravity are actually being called into question lately. By skydiving physicists? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #40 April 5, 2010 Quote Inventing a strawman and using it as a basis for calling me a liar is not only intellectually dishonest, it also constitutes a PA. I'm surprised the mods haven't called you on it yet. Doesn't a part of your manliness die every time you play tattle tell? Now you can't even bait people into violations, so you try to make them up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #41 April 5, 2010 Quote Quote Inventing a strawman and using it as a basis for calling me a liar is not only intellectually dishonest, it also constitutes a PA. I'm surprised the mods haven't called you on it yet. Doesn't a part of your manliness die every time you play tattle tell? Now you can't even bait people into violations, so you try to make them up. Did you ever apologize for claiming I "cherry picked" years when, in fact, John Rich and Quade picked those years, or did your manliness prevent you from apologizing?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #42 April 5, 2010 more trolling and misdirection from the person best known for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #43 April 5, 2010 Quote more trolling and misdirection from the person best known for it. Misdirection? Ummm - mnealtx introduced the topic of gun laws into the thread, and YOU introduced manliness. You deserve a nice big irony score. Still won't apologize for a blatantly erroneous accusation, eh. You must be SO MANLY!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #44 April 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteBarring an about face by nature or adjustments, it appears that for the first time since 2001, Arctic Sea ice will hit the “normal” line as defined by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) for this time of year. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climate_change_happening_before_your_eyes To get the thread back on track, if you look at this graph from the National Snow and Ice Data Center: nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100303_Figure3.png you will see that the extent of arctic ice peaks during el-Nino years. Since this is an el Nino year, it's hardly surprising that we're seeing an increase. The trend is still DOWN.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #45 April 5, 2010 QuoteQuote I think this was exactly his point. The theories of gravity are actually being called into question lately. By skydiving physicists? Which skydivers would you prefer to question gravitational theories: skydiving truck drivers? Skydiving advertising execs? Skydiving attorneys?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #46 April 5, 2010 There are a couple of problems with the reasoning, but I'll look a bit more deeply. (1) The trend is down in this graph. (2) El Nino years - there is no correlation. 1983 was a strong El Nino year and there was the beginning of a significant decline (at LEAST a ten year low - probably a greater length of time). (3) Assuming there was a correlation, El Nino leads to a higher global temperature. An increase in the average monthly extent of sea ice during warmer periods would indicate that warmer temperatures INCREASE the amount of arctic sea ice, in which case the loss of arctic ice would be an indication of NO global warming. (4) Data collection regarding the sea ice extent paints a nice visual picture. However, it also isn't the whole story. The proximate cause of disruptions in sea ice extent is always the prevailing winds. If the prevailing winds come from the west, North of the Bering, the sea ice will be pushed eastward until it either is pushed to warmer seas or piles up. The area of the sea ice coupled with the thickness of the ice is the compelling figure. Total area is a neat litle measure and provides a nice visual, but total ice volume/mass is a better indicator. (5) Records showing the Arctic sea ice minimums are trending downward. The records of the arctic sea ice maximums are slightly downward. It is modeled that the effect of greenhouse gases w ill be maximized in the winter and minimized in the summer. In the winter increased moisture content of the air at warmer temperatures will lead to increased precipitation and ice formation. More ice formation in the winter with lesser melting in the summer. The impact would be expected as, yes, smaller radius of Arctic ice, but a greater concentration and greater thickness of ice within - which would implicate the probability that the total volume and mass of ice will be (and is) in stasis. While increased ablation would occur in in summer, increased ice accretion would occur in winter. So, this looks like it could be evidence of AGW. However, predictions of "ice free by 2030" are not supported by the theory itself! Evidence is seen in Greenland, where the volume throughout Greenland is in stasis - loss of ice in some coastal regions and increase in ice throughout other regions. Note: NOAA has some projections of ice thickness by the 2050's that show less area and thickness as a ten year average. I still, however, think that your interpretation of the El Nino correlation with incresing ice thinckness is just a bit off... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #47 April 5, 2010 Quotemore trolling and misdirection from the person best known for it. oh, I can name at least 5 right off hand that are more obtuse about it ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #48 April 5, 2010 QuoteWHAH WHAH whah whah WHAH Ignoring the BS, let's focus on topic (vaguely). How exactly has the subject of freefall (gravity) changed for the skydiver? What new nuances to the centuries old understanding will change our sport? This is an area you're actually qualified to talk about. Odds are you'll decline, of course, but it's worth asking for the 3rd time. will we need to print new freefall tables? Or get new altimeters? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #49 April 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote I think this was exactly his point. The theories of gravity are actually being called into question lately. By skydiving physicists? Which skydivers would you prefer to question gravitational theories: skydiving truck drivers? Skydiving advertising execs? Skydiving attorneys? Next thing you know, some patent clerk will be putting out goofball theories on things... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #50 April 6, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I think this was exactly his point. The theories of gravity are actually being called into question lately. By skydiving physicists? Which skydivers would you prefer to question gravitational theories: skydiving truck drivers? Skydiving advertising execs? Skydiving attorneys? Next thing you know, some patent clerk will be putting out goofball theories on things... Should you be referring to Albert Einstein, he did have a doctorate in physics. It's not like he was a lawyer.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
