Anybody watch state of the union?

[accountantsanonymous]

Diddywahdiddy

you are a treat


Telling an adult to look up the definition of ad hominem. I literally can’t stop giggling. You eat paint chips as a little kid?

Quoting the US debt at 240,000 per person..

21 anything divided by 300 something is never 24 anything. It’s roughly 70,000 per rough guess. Basic math.

As for the rest of the vague statements about gutting this federal budget and that one, and pebble mine and coal mining and blue planet bs and then going on about ego stroking tribalism

Quite literally I’m chuckling so hard my little man sleeping on my chest is gonna wake up.

please stick around I need some laffs now and again.

Do you have any facts, or are you just going to berate someone for a well thought out post? You might not agree with the statements made, but don't belittle someone because they may have a different viewpoint than you. We are better than that.

 

[EastMT]

Do you have any facts, or are you just going to berate someone for a well thought out post? You might not agree with the statements made, but don't belittle someone because they may have a different viewpoint than you. We are better than that.

Per capita national debt as of 2018


I have yet to be begin to procrastinate.

 

[accountantsanonymous]

I wasn’t arguing #s, just the delivery of the message. No need to be disrespectful. On that note, thank you for providing that data.

 

[EastMT]

To my brothers/sisters that I hope to see "On The Trail" and continue to express our opinions, or attack another' opinion "without attacking the man". I expected some blowback. Perhaps later I've got some time later to respond in detail, as the data doesn't lie, but here is some reading:

From the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Science" journal, a highly-respected peer-review journal, the title of the Review Article is:

"Expert credibility in climate change"

William R. L. Anderegga,1, James W. Prallb, Jacob Haroldc, and Stephen H. Schneidera,d,1
aDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; bElectrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 3G4; cWilliam and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Palo Alto, CA 94025; and dWoods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
Contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010 (sent for review December 22, 2009)

The Abstract:
Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC dis- cussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

Please take the time to read the research as outlined in the article above. It was published 10 years ago. It compares the opinions of those who have published the greatest numbers of peer-reviewed research articles on Climate Change vs. those who have published a paucity of peer-reviewed articles...draw your own conclusions but please don't attack me for my opinions. Let's get back to discussing our passions for fly fishing/sheep hunting/elk hunting etc and keep a civil discourse. Time to get to the office.
Best,
DWD

So here’s the issue, I believe in climate change. I’m just not worried about it. Many more people can survive under warmer conditions than colder conditions. 1 or 2 cold summers after a volcano eruption has showed this in the past. Yeah rising seas may make you move,but famine from crop failures will cause starvation of millions.

One scientific fact I can guarantee-it has been hotter, it has been cooler. It will be hotter, it will be cooler.

We’ve been in a constant state of apocalyptic climate predictions since the 60’s varying from the coming ice age in the 70’s to death by heat in the 80-90’s.


Same goes for politics- Since 2000 every single election has been “the end of freedom in the US”. Every one.

If Clinton was elected 2nd time America was dead.

Bush was Hitler, dictatorship was started if re-elected

Obama was gonna seize everything but your electric car and start putting people in camps that disagreed with him.

Anti-trumpers were almost gouging their eyes out in 2016. Probably will be again if nothing in the economy changes soon.

Just relax, the earth has been bombarded with giant meteors, volcanos, ice ages, climate so warm some snakes grew to 1000 lbs.

I’m suffering from AFS, Apocalypse Fatigue Syndrome. You can only cry the sky is falling for so long before you lose your audience.......

 

[11boo]

If the climate change poses a clear and present danger, why are the Florida seaside properties still selling at a premium, and banks loaning money for them?

 

[rlmmarine]

I will add this though. The political climate in this country is frustrating, demoralizing, and exhausting. It breeds hate, it makes people my age (26) question wether or not we want to bring kids into this ever more destabilizing world, and quiet frankly it makes me lose sleep some nights. Here, on rokslide, i don’t see democrats or republicans, political agendas, and constant arguing that seems to have no end. I see my brothers and sisters, i see like minded people that are always eager to help complete strangers, regardless of their race, religion, or political views. I see outdoorsman and women of all types, patriots, and true Americans that want to be a part of the solution not a part of the problem no matter how big or small. And unless you screw someone over on the classifieds or say you love wolves you will never see hate on this forum. it’s so great to see somewhere that people network and converse and give advice without any type of incentive. They are just GOOD PEOPLE. Save this shit for the water cooler and let’s talk guns gear and hunting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just dont ask for a place to go hunting. Not asking for your secret spot or anyrhing.

 

[weatherbow21]

Politics have become a team sport. Maybe its always been that way, but its never been so obvious. That's the frustrating part to me, America is such a sport oriented country, its how we've began looking at politics as well. Team democrat vs team republican, its literally the way most (or many) young people look at it. I get people don't like Trump, hes ugly and annoying to watch speak, he's said and done some stupid stuff but we all have, I'd rather have a leader with a few flaws that one like the previous administration that could do no wrong. If you could just listen to the SOTU and not have to watch the negativeness on one side of the room or behind the president, it was a great and uplifting speech. I do wish he left some of the guest stuff out, he proved hes a politition just like the rest of them with that stuff especially the Limbaugh award.

 

[Antarctica]

The SOTU was excellent, and an affirmation of the divide in our nation. We are literally balanced on an ideological fulcrum.
God help us THEM if it tips the Socialist way.

Fixed it for ya...

 

[realunlucky]

Romney needs tossed out of the GOP

With Trump at the helm do we even need a Congress?

 

[Antarctica]

To my brothers/sisters that I hope to see "On The Trail" and continue to express our opinions, or attack another' opinion "without attacking the man". I expected some blowback. Perhaps later I've got some time later to respond in detail, as the data doesn't lie, but here is some reading:

From the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Science" journal, a highly-respected peer-review journal, the title of the Review Article is:

"Expert credibility in climate change"

William R. L. Anderegga,1, James W. Prallb, Jacob Haroldc, and Stephen H. Schneidera,d,1
aDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; bElectrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 3G4; cWilliam and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Palo Alto, CA 94025; and dWoods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
Contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010 (sent for review December 22, 2009)

The Abstract:
Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC dis- cussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

Please take the time to read the research as outlined in the article above. It was published 10 years ago. It compares the opinions of those who have published the greatest numbers of peer-reviewed research articles on Climate Change vs. those who have published a paucity of peer-reviewed articles...draw your own conclusions but please don't attack me for my opinions. Let's get back to discussing our passions for fly fishing/sheep hunting/elk hunting etc and keep a civil discourse. Time to get to the office.
Best,
DWD

As I stated in another thread. I've spent a good portion of my career working with climate scientists (some of the most respected and well funded in the world frankly). And plenty of that working in the greatest climate science playground of all - Antarctica. If you think for one second that scientists are unbiased, you're a fool. I know for a fact, because I've seen it over and over with my own two eyes, that scientists want one thing more than anything else. Continued funding. And objective analysis be damend if they think the result will inhibit continued funding - the conclusion/data will be 'interpreted'.

The above citiation that "an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field", means nothing more than "an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field" want to get another dollop of taxpayer dollars to piss away studying the same thing they studied 10 years ago.

I'm not a climate change denier. I believe its changing. How much is attributable to mankind vs natural cycles or other phenomenom, is less clear. I don't believe we can necessarily stop it or that it will continue on the same trend.

The other problem with scientists is that they believe that since "they found the problem" its their god given right to dictate the solution. Their job is to collect data and identify the problem. Its society's role as a whole, to decide how to deal with it, if at all.

 

[tdhanses]

To my brothers/sisters that I hope to see "On The Trail" and continue to express our opinions, or attack another' opinion "without attacking the man". I expected some blowback. Perhaps later I've got some time later to respond in detail, as the data doesn't lie, but here is some reading:

From the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Science" journal, a highly-respected peer-review journal, the title of the Review Article is:

"Expert credibility in climate change"

William R. L. Anderegga,1, James W. Prallb, Jacob Haroldc, and Stephen H. Schneidera,d,1
aDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; bElectrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 3G4; cWilliam and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Palo Alto, CA 94025; and dWoods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
Contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010 (sent for review December 22, 2009)

The Abstract:
Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC dis- cussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

Please take the time to read the research as outlined in the article above. It was published 10 years ago. It compares the opinions of those who have published the greatest numbers of peer-reviewed research articles on Climate Change vs. those who have published a paucity of peer-reviewed articles...draw your own conclusions but please don't attack me for my opinions. Let's get back to discussing our passions for fly fishing/sheep hunting/elk hunting etc and keep a civil discourse. Time to get to the office.
Best,
DWD

Yes the Climate changes as it has for billions of years. We’ve only been tracking temps for about 100 years.

There is no proof man has done anything to speed up or slow this change. 100 years of data is similar to wonder why you didn’t become a millionaire just because you thought it.

The Climate will change as it always has done. If you think we have any control over that, that’s your opinion.

But how do you balance a budget and pay for job killing expensive regulations these climate change activists want, all for the benefit of maybe .0001* effect? Is that effect worth high unemployment, lower income, crappy infrastructure etc?

So no one is saying climate change isn’t real, but no one has solid proof we did anything to speed it up or can slow it down.

For every article you post I can find another highly regarded scientist that disagrees, so who holds these institutions or people in high regard? The Al Gores of the world?

On another note, Yellowstone is going to blow anytime, based on its history of eruptions it at about the 99.9% of repeating its normal cycle. Just that cycle takes billions of years, so it could be a few hundred to a thousand year from now but it’ll blow again and it’ll wipe out pretty much everything.

 

[Kootenay Hunter]

gop or dem, con or lib, folks should be given facts to make their own decisions and form their own opinions. When lies are propagated to support a biased position, that is called propaganda. The propaganda machine has been the tool of some of the most horrific atrocities perpetrated by humankind.

I applaud Romney on his decision and speech. As someone who personally struggles with their faith, it was inspirational to see someone allow God and faith to guide their conscience and stand up for what you believe it true and right. When you take an oath in front of God to uphold what is true and right, you must honour it.

 

[tdhanses]

I wasn’t arguing #s, just the delivery of the message. No need to be disrespectful. On that note, thank you for providing that data.

Well many just throw things out like they are facts, yet they get their only facts from a group that supports the decision.

I saw no disrespect, we as a society need to have thicker skin.

 

[tdhanses]

So here’s the issue, I believe in climate change. I’m just not worried about it. Many more people can survive under warmer conditions than colder conditions. 1 or 2 cold summers after a volcano eruption has showed this in the past. Yeah rising seas may make you move,but famine from crop failures will cause starvation of millions.

One scientific fact I can guarantee-it has been hotter, it has been cooler. It will be hotter, it will be cooler.

We’ve been in a constant state of apocalyptic climate predictions since the 60’s varying from the coming ice age in the 70’s to death by heat in the 80-90’s.


Same goes for politics- Since 2000 every single election has been “the end of freedom in the US”. Every one.

If Clinton was elected 2nd time America was dead.

Bush was Hitler, dictatorship was started if re-elected

Obama was gonna seize everything but your electric car and start putting people in camps that disagreed with him.

Anti-trumpers were almost gouging their eyes out in 2016. Probably will be again if nothing in the economy changes soon.

Just relax, the earth has been bombarded with giant meteors, volcanos, ice ages, climate so warm some snakes grew to 1000 lbs.

I’m suffering from AFS, Apocalypse Fatigue Syndrome. You can only cry the sky is falling for so long before you lose your audience.......

Don’t forget the Russians had Kennedy assassinated in 63’.

 

[KurtR]

Work in construction and for the average worker times could not be better in my area. Cant find enough skilled people to do the work. Cost of living here is low as compared to most places. Wages are going up. Retirement accounts are growing at great rates. Hunting and fishing options are endless here but we dont have all the fancy places to eat are 100 miles from the nearest wallmart and selection of ipa and flatbills is little to none. For most of us in the fly over states times are looking up.

 

[tdhanses]

gop or dem, con or lib, folks should be given facts to make their own decisions and form their own opinions. When lies are propagated to support a biased position, that is called propaganda. The propaganda machine has been the tool of some of the most horrific atrocities perpetrated by humankind.

I applaud Romney on his decision and speech. As someone who personally struggles with their faith, it was inspirational to see someone allow God and faith to guide their conscience and stand up for what you believe it true and right. When you take an oath in front of God to uphold what is true and right, you must honour it.

FYI... he didn’t follow his faith, it’s just an easy way to say he doesn’t like Trump. Romney is a slime ball and always has been.

 

[Kootenay Hunter]

FYI... he didn’t follow his faith, it’s just an easy way to say he doesn’t like Trump. Romney is a slime ball and always has been.

Well, at least he has the balls to say it then. Plenty of others in the GOP dislike Trump behind closed doors but don't have the cojones to say otherwise. I guess they're scared they might get kicked out of the party.

Wasn't there some other party in the past that seemed to take a hardline against any dissenters....shoot, can't remember when or where....hmmmm

 

[tdhanses]

Well, at least he has the balls to say it then. Plenty of others in the GOP dislike Trump behind closed doors but don't have the cojones to say otherwise. I guess they're scared they might get kicked out of the party.

Wasn't there some other party in the past that seemed to take a hardline against any dissenters....shoot, can't remember when or where....hmmmm

Haha, every party.

So you should be happy with Trump then, we’ve never had a president that has give such praise to God and protecting religious liberties such as praying in schools?

 

[realunlucky]

FYI... he didn’t follow his faith, it’s just an easy way to say he doesn’t like Trump. Romney is a slime ball and always has been.

Maybe we should wall off all the population of Utah Romney represents as punishment for going against the will of the GOP.



Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[realunlucky]

Haha, every party.

So you should be happy with Trump then, we’ve never had a president that has give such praise to God and protecting religious liberties such as praying in schools?

Well when you can walk on water your just protecting your best interests right. Trump 2020

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk