That was supposed to be my last post but because of replies I continued to post.  I may post once in a while but definitely not as frequent.  As for the religion thing,  I don't believe any of the current religions are correct and thus post as such.  Might there be a god?  Maybe.  Is he one humans thought of/can interpret?  No.   I did not start off this "offensive" it evolved over time i guess. Like I said before I am also guilty of making these conversations toxic.  That quote is one of them.  Yes I could of worded that better but at this point I was probably already angry.  Part of my weaknesses is I don't show people respect who don't respect me. This is an error on my part.  I argue based on other credible peoples facts.  If 9/10 scientists say one thing and are accredited I will argue using their theories and facts.  It does not mean I fully understand everything they are talking about in details, but I trust their judgement.  Using this I form my opinion and will argue with it. I only got "butthurt" because of everyone's replies etc, it just turned the whole convo toxic.  I'm trying to improve that side of my personality and show respect to everyone regardless.
I know this place is fairly local I do act a little different in real life than on the internet but that's a bad habit.  I'm trying to fix this all up and end this negativity.  So hopefully if one day I do meet someone here in rl again there is not all this negativity following. I am semi young and there are things that I am improving. I am sorry to everyone who got swept up in this toxic roller coaster. I'm just trying to end the ride before it gets worse.  In the end I wish to get along with everyone and have meaningful positive arguments. But at this point in time I don't see it easily possible with current feelings.  One day I hope to return to more constant posting.  Until then I plan to post sparingly and let both sides emotions calm down.  Maybe I will make some self improvements on the way as I am not perfect either.

That was supposed to be my last post but because of replies I continued to post.  I may post once in a while but definitely not as frequent.  As for the religion thing,  I don't believe any of the current religions are correct and thus post as such.  Might there be a god?  Maybe.  Is he one humans thought of/can interpret?  No.   I did not start off this "offensive" it evolved over time i guess. Like I said before I am also guilty of making these conversations toxic.  That quote is one of them.  Yes I could of worded that better but at this point I was probably already angry.  Part of my weaknesses is I don't show people respect who don't respect me. This is an error on my part.  I argue based on other credible peoples facts.  If 9/10 scientists say one thing and are accredited I will argue using their theories and facts.  It does not mean I fully understand everything they are talking about in details, but I trust their judgement.  Using this I form my opinion and will argue with it. I only got "butthurt" because of everyone's replies etc, it just turned the whole convo toxic.  I'm trying to improve that side of my personality and show respect to everyone regardless.
I know this place is fairly local I do act a little different in real life than on the internet but that's a bad habit.  I'm trying to fix this all up and end this negativity.  So hopefully if one day I do meet someone here in rl again there is not all this negativity following. I am semi young and there are things that I am improving. I am sorry to everyone who got swept up in this toxic roller coaster. I'm just trying to end the ride before it gets worse.  In the end I wish to get along with everyone and have meaningful positive arguments. But at this point in time I don't see it easily possible with current feelings.  One day I hope to return to more constant posting.  Until then I plan to post sparingly and let both sides emotions calm down.  Maybe I will make some self improvements on the way as I am not perfect either.

This is my view on this whole thing.  I came here because I liked guns and 2a.  I am passionate and opinionated as a person. Raised by/around lawyers so I am also fairly argumentative. Furthermore I am very blunt.  I don't treat anyone like a special snowflake. My arguments and beliefs on religion were not diluted down.  I am agnostic and will view my opinions and arguments with that.  If anyone feels offended so be it.  I want to argue based on facts not emotions. If you can back up your religious beliefs with facts that's great we can argue. I didn't tone it down because it would offend you.  Maybe I should of.  I do not have opinions just because they are against the majority here.  I have opinions regardless of where I am and where I post.  If i was on a liberal forum, I would have the same opinions and opposing opinions on 2a etc.  I would gladly argue with a liberal about religion or guns, freedoms and social issues.  Same as I would argue with a conservative on religion, abortion, climate change etc.  I am an independent I don't belong to either party.  I don't cater my opinions based on the forum I am on.  In the beginning I never singled people out and even towards the end I didn't do it much.  As time the conversations became less about facts and more about emotions and calling individuals out and putting random labels on them (liberal etc).  Then everything spiraled down from there to being too toxic and not productive.  I don't have some victim complex because I too was part of this escalation.  While I don't think I was the first one to start individual insults I did end up resorting to some. This is why I made my decision to stop posting often.  Its clear at this point the conversation is too toxic and based too much on emotions to be productive for anyone.  The easiest way to solve this is just for me step out and post less.  I do admit my arguments sometimes were not the greatest as I am not an expert on every field.  I tend to look at the facts I do understand then base my opinion on that and what the majority of respectable people in that field say. If 9/10 doctors say something I will believe and trust them especially if that sounds correct.

Too bad this place wasn't anonymous then we could all discuss things without putting labels and names on people.

Maybe your hypocrisy and inconsistent comments were the cause of the arguments, and not so much a "difference of opinion?"

Just a thought.   

I know this place is fairly local I do act a little different in real life than on the internet but that's a bad habit.  I'm trying to fix this all up and end this negativity.  So hopefully if one day I do meet someone here in rl again there is not all this negativity following. I am semi young and there are things that I am improving.

nine and a half months ago, i tried to gently explain to you, but did you listen?

macsak

QuoteModifyRemoveSplit Topic
Quote from: omnigun on September 13, 2016, 03:46:13 PM
All stemming off of some shitty tv show you watched.  Reminds me of retarded SJW's.

really?

drck1000

QuoteModifyRemoveSplit Topic
SJW - Had to google that one as well.   

Closest I could guess was SWV, but I don't see how that was anything close to the context here. . . 

omnigun

Quote from: drck1000 on September 13, 2016, 04:36:35 PM
SJW - Had to google that one as well.   

Closest I could guess was SWV, but I don't see how that was anything close to the context here. . . 

Quote from: macsak on September 13, 2016, 04:31:35 PM
really?

Yeah Social Justice Worker.  "A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation."  People who complain about social justice on stuff they don't understand or have proof for.  Fits fairly well here

macsak

Quote from: omnigun on September 13, 2016, 07:50:50 PM
Yeah Social Justice Worker.  "A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation."  People who complain about social justice on stuff they don't understand or have proof for.  Fits fairly well here

really?

omnigun

Quote from: macsak on September 13, 2016, 08:06:52 PM
really?

Yus, though the term I'll admit is realitivlty loosely related here.  Was previously irritated about SJW's lol

macsak

Quote from: omnigun on September 13, 2016, 08:28:59 PM
Yus, though the term I'll admit is realitivlty loosely related here.  Was previously irritated about SJW's lol

you clearly do not get what i mean
let me spell it out for you
for someone who does what you do and spends as much time on the internet as you do, you must have heard at one point that you should not say something online that you are not willing to say to someone's face
so to make it clear, "really, are you willing to call S197 retarded, shallow, and 'not-well-thought-out' and a watcher of shitty videos to his face?"

omnigun

Quote from: macsak on September 13, 2016, 08:57:28 PM
you clearly do not get what i mean
let me spell it out for you
for someone who does what you do and spends as much time on the internet as you do, you must have heard at one point that you should not say something online that you are not willing to say to someone's face
so to make it clear, "really, are you willing to call S197 retarded, shallow, and 'not-well-thought-out' and a watcher of shitty videos to his face?"

Don't know him but yes internet and rl are separate.  The fact that the internet isn't personal the use of colorful language is much more acceptable.  It was more of a rash spout  of continued back and forth arguments and I got caught up in the heat of the moment. I ment nothing really use of the "retard".  It was ment to be understood in injunction with SJW  (I view 90% of actual SJW's as stupid people). I wasn't try to imply lack of intelligence of S197, whoever he is.  I do apologize for that though. As for saying 'not-well-thought-out' is true however, he even admitted it himself.  And yes AMC "documentaries" tend to be indeed shitty.

macsak

Quote from: omnigun on September 13, 2016, 09:09:36 PM
Don't know him but yes internet and rl are separate.  The fact that the internet isn't personal the use of colorful language is much more acceptable.

negative, this is a small, local forum, and many of us know each other personally

omnigun


Quote from: macsak on September 13, 2016, 09:26:04 PM
negative, this is a small, local forum, and many of us know each other personally

I do realize this, not quite used to it.  This is probably the smallest forum and most local I have ever been on.  Will try and refrain from such language.    My point still stands though.  Until proof is provided I would prefer slander of a particular company is wrong.  I still support Desert Tech until proven otherwise and this may of hit a bit close and might of ended up construed it as a more personal argument.

One last post on "off topic". I am admin on another board where discussion on religion and politics are strictly forbidden. Anyways, one member joined us from another site that we came from that did allow discussion on religion and politics. Well, this one guy, who was quite intelligent would constantly try to argue religion, often twisting things as "well they brought in religion". He was actually VERY good at getting people to sound foolish if they weren't on their game with facts. But he did it in an "in your face" and brash way. Well, because it was anonymous. Funny to find out that he has had been forced to eat his teeth quite a few times as he ran his mouth in many a Texas bar. To his credit, he took it and didn't file charges or anything as he knew what he was doing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If that's not trolling, then I'll eat my dog's dinner tonight!

That's not trolling.

Bon appetit!

Haha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's not trolling.

Bon appetit!

Haha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm glad he's getting steak tonight!   

I'm glad he's getting steak tonight!   

Lucky dog...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If that's not trolling, then I'll eat my dog's dinner tonight!

You forot the millennial kid's choice for thread title:

"Ah the paid climate change/polution denying members are at it again"

When do I get a dime for peeing in the Post Toasties of the globull warming hoax perpetuators?

I'm glad he's getting steak tonight!   

I dunno, a very fresh slab of Ono works for me over steak..........as long as my wife makes her Tarter sauce.

One last post on "off topic". I am admin on another board where discussion on religion and politics are strictly forbidden. Anyways, one member joined us from another site that we came from that did allow discussion on religion and politics. Well, this one guy, who was quite intelligent would constantly try to argue religion, often twisting things as "well they brought in religion". He was actually VERY good at getting people to sound foolish if they weren't on their game with facts. But he did it in an "in your face" and brash way. Well, because it was anonymous. Funny to find out that he has had been forced to eat his teeth quite a few times as he ran his mouth in many a Texas bar. To his credit, he took it and didn't file charges or anything as he knew what he was doing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I allow political and religious discussions on my board. I have deleted most all of it because it was very dated and the board is dying. But I still have rules everyone has to abide by. Here are my forum rules: http://www.konaforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1168

Not to change the subject  , but here is some idiocy that I've hesitated to post for days, but it's raining outside right now so... From our very own University of Hawaii "researchers"... ETA: Is it a typo, or is the "Geography" department really part of the "College of Social Sciences"? If so, that would explain a lot about this "research". ("...an associate professor of geography in the UH Manoa College of Social Sciences").

They define the range of "killer heat" based upon the relative combinations of temperature and humidity. The writer then notes that according to those "conservative" criteria, last Sunday was a "killer heat" day in Honolulu. He then fails to mention the number of deaths that occurred in the "killer heat" of that day. Why?! Surely this research re the devastating effects of anthropogenic global warming and the professor's appeals to cure it need to be brought to the public's attention by loudly and boldly proclaiming the horrific loss of life caused by these "killer heat' episodes that will be of increasing frequency, intensity, and duration... unless, could it be, no one died due to the "killer heat"? But that would seem to be a contradiction... Perhaps in the name of scientific objectivity, given the consensus and all that, it should be renamed "mildly uncomfortable heat"?

Lethal heat will grow common, climate change study predicts

http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/06/19/hawaii-news/lethal-heat-will-grow-common-climate-change-study-predicts/?HSA=49244a8e46eae8138a217efb4b39c4afd8dfc03c

Three-quarters of the world’s inhabitants, including those living in Hawaii, will be exposed to deadly heat waves by the end of the century unless greenhouse gases are not substantially reduced, according to a study published today in Nature Climate Change.

And even if bold action is taken to curtail emissions, nearly half of the world’s population still faces living with the dangerous hot spells, with tropical regions feeling the worst of it, the study said.

“We’re left with a choice between bad and terrible,” said lead author Camilo Mora, a University of Hawaii professor.
* * * * *
Mora, an associate professor of geography in the UH Manoa College of Social Sciences, said that when the project began a year and a half ago, little was known about how common such killer heat waves are, and the researchers were expecting to find relatively few.

That’s because the scientific literature usually describes only a few, including the 2003 heat wave that killed 70,000 people in Europe, the 2010 event in Russia that killed 55,000 and the 1995 Chicago hot spell that killed more than 700.

Digging deeper, Mora’s team found more than 1,900 deadly heat waves going back to 1980.

“That was a big shock, I’m telling you,” he said.
* * * * *
After analyzing the weather conditions during the lethal heat episodes, the researchers identified a threshold of heat and humidity beyond which conditions defeat the body’s natural cooling system. It’s a threshold that’s variable because lower temperatures can become lethal as relative humidity goes up.

According to their data, at 80 percent humidity, killer heat waves have occurred at temperatures above 68 degrees Fahrenheit. At 40 percent humidity, they have occurred when the mercury tops 75 degrees.

But to be conservative, the study used a higher threshold — a curve that includes 81 degrees at 80 percent humidity and 91 degrees at 40 percent humidity.

In Honolulu Sunday, the humidity was 70 percent and the high temperature reached 87 at the Daniel K. Inouye International Airport. That qualifies as killer heat under the study, but the isles also were cooled by an 11 mph breeze.
* * * * *
While Mora said President Donald Trump’s move to pull out of the Paris climate agreement was a step backward for the planet, he remains hopeful the world can still rally to minimize the damage.

“This is something we cannot afford not to fix,” he said. “It’s like climbing a building and choosing between jumping from the second floor or the eighth floor. I prefer to jump from the second floor rather than the eighth floor.”

So let me get this straight? If they cannot change the weather enough to kill people they will just change the definition of killer weather? Will these paid off climate liars do anything to try and create weather hysteria so the naive will believe them? 

Another great article from National Review:

Discarded solar panels are piling up all over the world, and they represent a major threat to the environment.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449026/solar-panel-waste-environmental-threat-clean-energy?utm_source=jolt

Clean energy may not be so clean after all.

A new study by Environmental Progress (EP) warns that toxic waste from used solar panels now poses a global environmental threat. The Berkeley-based group found that solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear-power plants. Discarded solar panels, which contain dangerous elements such as lead, chromium, and cadmium, are piling up around the world, and there’s been little done to mitigate their potential danger to the environment.

“We talk a lot about the dangers of nuclear waste, but that waste is carefully monitored, regulated, and disposed of,” says Michael Shellenberger, founder of Environmental Progress, a non-profit that advocates for the use of nuclear energy. “But we had no idea there would be so many panels — an enormous amount — that could cause this much ecological damage.”

Solar panels are considered a form of toxic, hazardous electronic or “e-waste,” and according to EP researchers Jemin Desai and Mark Nelson, scavengers in developing countries like India and China often “burn the e-waste in order to salvage the valuable copper wires for resale. Since this process requires burning off plastic, the resulting smoke contains toxic fumes that are carcinogenic and teratogenic (birth defect-causing) when inhaled.”

This is one of the dirty little secrets behind the push for renewable energy. While consumers might view solar panels as harmless little windows made from glass and plastic, the reality is that they are intricately constructed from a variety of materials, making it difficult to disassemble and recycle them. Japan is already scrambling for ways to reuse its mounting inventory of solar-panel waste, which is expected to exceed 10,000 tons by 2020 and grow by 700,000 to 800,000 tons per year by 2040. Solutions are hard to find, due both to the labor-intensive process of breaking down the panels and to the low price of scrap. (Dan Whitten, a spokesman for the Solar Energy Industries Association, disputes EP’s study. In an e-mail to me, he claims that solar panels are “mainly made up of easy-to-recyle materials that can be successfully recovered and reused at the end of their useful life.”)

This will also be a problem here in the U.S., which has more than 1.4 million solar-energy installations now in use, including many already near the end of their 25-year lifespan. Federal and state governments have been slow to enact disposal and recycling policies, undoubtedly fearful of raising any red flags about the environmental threat posed by a purported climate-change panacea. Meanwhile, at precisely the moment when, because of the rise of smartphones, Americans are generating less waste from consumer electronics, discarded solar panels are stacking up. EP estimates that Americans with solar roofs produce 30 to 60 percent more electronic waste than non-solar households.

“At a time when iPhones have reduced our need for digital cameras, alarm clocks, GPS systems, and other electronics, solar panels risk increasing overall e-waste production,” Shellenberger says. “The people who could pay the price for this hazard are some of the poorest people in the world.”

This is not to even mention the environmental damage done by making solar panels in the first place. A 2013 investigation by the Associated Press found that from 2007 to 2011, the manufacture of solar panels in California “produced 46.5 million pounds of sludge and contaminated water. Roughly 97 percent of it was taken to hazardous waste facilities throughout the state, but more than 1.4 million pounds were transported to nine other states.” That’s no way for a state to keep its carbon footprint small; one renewable-energy analyst quoted by the AP estimated it would take “one to three months of generating electricity [from the solar panels] to pay off the energy invested in driving those hazardous waste emissions out of state.” Six years later, it’s safe to assume the amount of toxic waste is even higher as solar-panel production continues to ramp up.

Thankfully, renewable-energy sources are at last facing some much-needed scrutiny, even within the ranks of green activists. A group of prominent scientists recently rebuked a study by Mark Jacobson, a Stanford professor and leading clean-energy (and anti-nuclear) activist, who had claimed that the U.S. could generate energy exclusively from wind, water, and solar energy by the year 2050. The scientists said Jacobson’s study “used invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions.” The group admonished policymakers to “treat with caution any visions of a rapid, reliable, and low-cost transition to entire energy systems that relies almost exclusively on wind, solar, and hydroelectric power.”

As the Trump administration considers reforming federal energy subsidies, officials should look at how renewable technologies such as solar panels impact the environment once they’ve outlived their usefulness. There is nothing environmentally friendly about creating mountains of hazardous waste in an effort to reduce CO2 emissions.

I've visited recycling facilities in the US with giant chippers that break the used solar panels into small bits which are then processed to remove the metals. The rest is nontoxic and sent to the landfill. A big problem that my clients have is with chronics steeling the batteries out of the construction equipment and selling them to the recyclers for $14 a battery for the lead. My clients are hiring security to protect their heavy equipment.

I do agree that the manufacturing of solar panels can produce serious toxic waste if not controlled properly. The US manufacturers are restricted by the EPA but most solar panels are made in China who don't have strict pollution controls.

I'll have to find the thread that we had about green energy.  I think we had a couple.  One was pointing out that some technologies marketed as sustainable have some really nasty "side effects".  Yeah, maybe the energy collection/generation is sustainable, but what is involved in manufacture and disposal of the equipment can be even worse than the net "savings". 

Speaking of chronics.  Bulky item pickup where my dad lives was last week.  So we put out an old TV and I saw a few others from neighbors as well as other appliances.  I noticed that someone came through and ripped out all the power cords.  I assume for copper wiring. 

I'll have to find the thread that we had about green energy.  I think we had a couple.  One was pointing out that some technologies marketed as sustainable have some really nasty "side effects".  Yeah, maybe the energy collection/generation is sustainable, but what is involved in manufacture and disposal of the equipment can be even worse than the net "savings". 
Speaking of chronics.  Bulky item pickup where my dad lives was last week.  So we put out an old TV and I saw a few others from neighbors as well as other appliances.  I noticed that someone came through and ripped out all the power cords.  I assume for copper wiring.

I do know it costs less to make glass bottles than it is to recycle the glass into new bottles. Recycling here is a joke because the mixed material is shipped in the empty containers back to LA where it is sold to the Chinese and shipped there where it is remade into raw materials which gets sold to the mainland and shipped back to Hawaii. Talk about carbon foot print. It's much better to send all of our recycle material to H-power where it can be burned into energy.

For those of you who are man made climate change believers, if this doesn't convince you that you are being lied to, then you are purposely not wanting to believe the truth and sticking your proverbial heads in the sand. How anyone in their right mind can expect the EPA to be able to predict the future is beyond me. But the naive will continue to believe our government can do anything including predicting the future and knowing what is going to kill premature babies before they are even conceived.

Judicial Watch Sues EPA over Obama Clean Power Claims

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-epa-obama-clean-power-claims/

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today announced it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for records concerning the agency’s claim that the Clean Power Plan would prevent thousands of premature deaths by 2030 (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (No. 1:17-cv-01217)).

The June 21, 2017, suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the EPA failed to respond to a May 3 FOIA request for:

All internal emails or other records explaining, or requesting an explanation of, the EPA’s decision to claim that the Clean Power Plan would prevent between 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths by 2030.

The controversial Clean Power Plan, aimed at cutting carbon emissions from existing power plants by 32 percent by 2030, was touted by the Obama administration not only as a way to forestall global warming but also as a means of providing large health benefits to the American public.  The Plan, first proposed by the EPA in June 2014, was implemented through regulatory interpretation of the Clean Air Act after the Congress refused in 2009 to enact cap-and-trade legislation to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions.

By law, the EPA must conduct a cost-benefit analysis to accompany each new major regulation it promulgates.  The cost-benefit analysis produced to justify the regulations underlying the Clean Power Plan claimed to prevent thousands of premature deaths each year as well as reducing serious health complications the agency associated with coal-fired generation plants.  In an August 2015 press release announcing the Plan, then-EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy claimed:  “By 2030, the net public health and climate-related benefits from the Clean Power Plan are estimated to be worth $45 billion every year.”

The regulatory plan, like the legislation Congress rejected, was promoted as combating “anthropogenic climate change” and was designed to mandate the shifting of electricity generation away from coal-powered plants.  On March 28, President Trump signed an executive order directing the EPA to begin the legal process of withdrawing and rewriting the Clean Power Plan, which would have closed hundreds of coal-fired power plants, halted construction of new plants, increased reliance on natural-gas-fired plants and shifted power generation to huge new wind and solar farms.  On June 1, President Trump also announced the United States would cease participation in the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change mitigation.

The EPA omitted the “2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths” figure in its final rule.

“We suspect fraud ‘science’ behind the Obama EPA’s claims in the Clean Power Plan, which is a scheme to end coal energy under the guise of combatting alleged global warming,” said Judicial Watch President, Tom Fitton.  “The Trump EPA can drain the swamp by releasing this Obama era EPA data immediately.”

More proof of the lies that the climate believers fall for:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/?utm_source=site-share

More proof of the lies that the climate believers fall for:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/?utm_source=site-share

but, but, but , but 97%

butt, butt, butt , butt 97%

Corrected your spelling.... 

Corrected your spelling.... 

Should be "butt hurt, butt hurt, butt hurt "


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk