Leaderboard

well at least Capper got back to tweeting actual news versus attacking the fanbase as being unreasonable.

He didn't have to say anything. It looks like an upgrade has already happened with the D-line hire, so I don't doubt that it may well be true with the other 2.

As I read through the beating this thread is, its looking alot like the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate. Bill Nye: Here is all this evidence from decades of research from thousands of reputable scientists that support the theory of evolution. Ken Ham: Well there are these few reputable scientists that support the theory of creationism. Therefore it is on equal footing with the theory of evolution and should be given equal time in our public schools. (insert bible verse reading here) Bill Nye: While I admit evolution is not an absolute proven theory, the evidence is overwhelming. Ken Ham: See! You're not sure, therefore the theory of creationism is just as, if not more, plausible. (insert another bible verse here)

Exactly!!! The fact that he felt the need to do so is certainly encouraging..........Unless it is just one's nature to see virtually everything in the negative!

Why is that you chose to give credence to the above scientists...the one's skeptical of global warming...after having for pages and pages proposed that the motives of those scientists with mainstream (I know you love that word) views on global warming are driven by financial/political/ideological agendas? Do the one's you've referenced lack agendas? Are their scruples both morally and professionally purer than the one's for whom you've asked us to "follow the money"? Or...is it simply that they fall in line more with your politics? Because if it is the latter, that strikes me as intellectually dishonest...drawing a conclusion first, then finding support. Oh...and from the Wikipedia page you provided (so as one can't question a Wiki source), if you scroll down to the link "List of scientists opposing global warming consensus"...this gem: "As of August 2012, fewer than 10 of the statements in the references for this list are part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature."

P1 I think your sig line isn't large or sufficiently visually intrusive. You still have work to do there. Maybe you could look to me for inspiration? Just a thought.

Can he hire the next basketball coach?

What else is the SID going to say? It will be interesting to see who they are. EDIT: should have read 97s post. Lol

Okay UNT90, I’ve looked up your three climate scientists Robert Balling Accepts anthropogenic climate change (Michaels and Balling 2009) but believes it is relatively mild. To follow UNT90’s suggestion let’s follow the money. Dr. Balling has received funding from ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC. Patrick Michaels Accepts science behind global warming via greenhouse gases and believes human release of fossil C is responsible for warming but believes changes will be mild and perhaps beneficial. John Holden (Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy) says of Dr. Michaels, "Michaels is another of the handful of U.S. climate-change contrarians … He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science.” Sallie Baliunas Dr. Baliunas expertise is in astrophysics. She has published on stellar variability which has implications for solar cycles. She’s very skeptical about the role CO2 plays in climate change, preferring to attribute global warming to solar cycles. Dr. Baliunas coauthored a paper published a paper in 2003 which suggested the climate hasn't changed in the last 2000 years. Several members of the Climate Research journal resigned in protest to the flawed peer-review process allowing Baliunas' paper to be published. Thirteen of the authors cited by Baliunas & Soon in the paper repudiated her interpretation of their work. The Editor of Climate Research later said of the paper, "If it would have been properly reviewed, it would have been rejected on the basis of methodological flaws." Citation Patrick Michaels and Robert C. Balling, Climate of extremes: global warming science they don't want you to know, Cato Institute, There. I’ve investigated the three contrarian climate scientists you recommended. I’m not impressed. Yes, some few individuals with training in climate science deny climate change, or the role of fossil carbon, or the projected outcome of C release. There are thousands of climate scientists and it’s not surprising that a few deny the science for religious, political, or ideological reasons. The vast majority of climate scientists agree that the earth is warming, that man’s release of fossil C is at least partially responsible, and that the consequences may be dire. I think it’s interesting to note the parallel between climate science denial and creationism. The vast majority of biologists accept evolutionary theory as the best explanation for biodiversity but a few, such as Michael Behe, insist there has to be magic involved. Having a few characters such as Behe doesn’t mean we need to doubt evolution and having a few contrarians such as Balluing, Michaels, and Baliunas doesn’t mean anthropogenic climate change isn’t real and isn’t a threat.

You've conducted decades of research to come to your conclusions? Or are you just repeating what you are told?

good write up Harry. I see it the same way....SMU being the biggest wildcard. If we lost to SMU but beat Indiana and still finished 9-3, would everybody be cool with that???

There is NO DOUBT that climate change is real. Anyone who would ignore that FACT is a denier. ...and not particularly well educated. What there IS, however LOADS OF DOUBT about, is the conclusion that man's activities are the cause and/or do we have the power to effect change? I don't think there there is good evidence either way. ...and when the wild eyed predictions of the global warming alarmist crowd get blown out of the water (first it was global cooling, the next ice age was coming, then it was warming and the ice caps (the same ones that trapped several ships this winter) would be GONE by 2013 causing world wide floods, a story the BBC recently recanted on, the fact that the record shows cooling rather than warming over the last decade, the credibility of the movement gets called into question. There is no doubt, when recorded history and the fossil record is studied that the climate changes a lot. It has had wild swings, to far more exaggerated extremes than we have had since the dawn of the industrial age, and that our planet goes through cyclical drought, ice age, wet periods, etc, much of which have to do with solar activity and our position relative to the sun. ...so it REALLY comes down to "are we to blame for a portion of this change, and if we are can we do anything about it? ...and if the answer to that is YES, then how much effect, and SHOULD we? Should we allow the world economy, and thus humanity to suffer for potential and undiscovered gains by making changes? Should we allow local, federal or world governments to impede on individual liberties for these unrealized gains? It isn't "climate change" that is debated, it is really the cause, effect and reaction that is debated. This is a topic I have studied a great deal, as someone who is very much a scientific mind, someone who doesn't have a religious point of view to cloud my thoughts on this, and even I keep coming back to the absolute irrefutable fact that we don't have all the fact, and most of the theories and predictions have holes in them (usually put there by the climate itself) and then consider the corrupt political movement around the subject and find myself coming down on the side of individual liberties should not be trampled, energy prices should not be artificially inflated in the name of man-made climate change. We should regulate to keep the air and water clean, you'll get no debate from me on that front. ...and we have made HUGE progress on that front since the 70's when things were at their worst. ...but we should not be making policy that has major economic and liberty limiting consequences based on unsettled science.

Would make accept the Athletic Director's position?

Mac is growing the reputation that coaching under him is good for one's career. Additionally, he has an incredible network in the industry to both grow the candidate pool and also get authentic evaluation of those candidates from their former colleagues. I've remained confident that the only thing that would prevent Mac from making quality hires here is the confusing lack of his own contract extension announcement.

You know Him?

You nailed it.

Oh. Em. Gee. I've asked two, straight-forward questions. Rather than even efforting at answers, I've received defensive replies, 2 mentions of GTWT and the seemingly default stance of that which doens't suit me is politically slanted.

I guess there is never going to be enough money or the right way to spend it for many of us. For someone to say we have not been committed to better athletics is BULL!! Think where we were 5 years ago! There has been a dramatic turnaround. Oh and the firing of the USM football coach after a year has really worked out well for the USM football team!

Failure to buy out contracts when it is painfully clear the coach is failing. From Dodge to Stephens to Benford, this is a pattern. Our peer Southern Miss fired a football coach after one season when it was clear he was a terrible failure. We refused to do the same in basketball and then had our own AD basically blame the players before the start of this basketball season. It's a mindset that we seem to have a very hard time obtaining in our administration. One gets the feeling that they have to be drug kicking and screaming to fund athletics properly, and still look to find any way possible to cut corners and do it on the cheap.

When you claim that the administration is not committed to winning, you should define what YOUR parameters for "winning" are. I believe that our administration is committed to having a successful overall athletic department, as graded against our peers---like minded institutions that spend roughly the same amount of money on athletics. Our budget pretty clearly announces to our alums, and fans, that we expect to be competitive in every sport. Our spending, for each sport, generally falls in the upper half to upper quarter of what other teams within CUSA are spending. If we were outspending everyone in our conference then it would be a clear sign that we expect to win the conference championship. From the frequency of posts you make on this subject, it sure seems like you'd only be happy if we are always outspending everyone in the conference. Anything less than that is not "showing a commitment to winning"...?

May have had a chance at Danny Kaspar, HC of SFA and former player at UNT. As I understand it. We didn't even call him in for an interview.

So what's the seating capacity at FAU...about 140? Cannot believe it is a CUSA venue.

Whoa whoa whoa wait. People resigned because peer review science is flawed?!? But only flawed when the paper doesn't say what you want it to say? Just look John Hopden's personal attack on Balling. Contrarian? Is that a new scientific term used to dispute research? The vitriol is just soooo scientific! Where does John Holden's funding come from? The US Government. John Kerry has made crystal clear what the US government EXPECTS all science to say. Pretty bold statement for an entity supplying billions of dollars annually for global warming research, don't you think? Of course these people were attacked. They are attempting to murder the cash cow. That cannot happen. What about Isdo? No tile to find the character assassination pieces on him?

I agree, but we were very fortunate last year to be just about injury free throughout the 2 deep. 2 years in a row like that don't happen too often. And don't forget that we have zero college experience at QB. We all saw last year in the Ohio and Tulane game what can happen to a running game and a good O line when you won't/can't succeed in the vertical passing game. Lots of questions this year. Lots more than last. I think 7-5 is pretty optimistic. If things go perfectly, we could hit 9 games. Things rarely go perfectly, especially 2 years in a row.

I'm confused

I like how every team is "improving," is that just a gentle way of saying they sucked last year?

We will beat SMU at home--and I think it won't be close, either. Just my opinion--and I'm not exactly considered the eternal optimist around here...

Only watched the first 2 minutes of this. Holy cow he puts on a show! If we land this guy, it's a major coup.

I'm here, although I think the Apogee Advantage could creep in and make Harry's prediction true. FAU was turning it around big time at the end of the year last season. Bowl eligible, but stayed home. They are going to be very difficult to beat.

I think there's some science there. But yes, it can't be conclusive. But it makes complete sense that the earth would get warmer with so many people creating energy (re: heat). Who's to say that what we are observing *would* be a cooling period in the Earth's normal cycle, but instead, the population growth has modified it to a somewhat normal climate? So the next natural warming cycle will be consequential because of all the aided warming from humans as well? Or, who's to say that despite all of the energy 7 billion people use/emit, not a thing is changing? ~200 yrs isn't really enough to tell. It used to be just another scientific field of study until Al Gore stepped in and turned it political. Now that it's a political topic (just like with all other political topics), there's no middle ground anymore... Thanks Al.

You and I, we agree.

What really needs to be understood by everyone who wants to point to the history of the earth and it's cycles for clues/answers to why the Earth will continue to cycle as it always has, is the enormous population change that has occurred in the past 200 years. This is the variable that is certainly capable of being an agent of change. The population of the earth before the mid 1800's was less than 1 billion people. It's over 7 billion now. The history of the earth prior to the mid 1800's needs to be set as more of a control. It shouldn't really be cited by anyone today for or against climate trending. However, ~200 years is not really enough time to see measurables to prove/deny that the population explosion (and whatever energy methods that population are utilizing) is contributing anything to the climate. But, it's certainly interesting to look at. Christian here; and from my point of view, anyone who cites someone saying, "God is in control, so we have nothing to worry about... keep doing what you're doing!" should be discarded. At best, this person's motives are overzealous. At worst, they're political posturing, having nothing to do with God at all. God is certainly in control. BUT, the Earth is part of His creation and we need to treasure it as such. Gen 1:28 (before the fall) says to be fruitful and multiply, & subdue the earth... It does not say to exploit it.

Need a boost up on that cross you just made for yourself?

Absolutely. I have a good feeling that KP is going to be the guy to pull the impact d-lineman/linemen that we have all been clamoring for.

Coach Patrick putting in work.. Really going after a ton of DE's

It is cold today ... I guess global warming is over... another ice age is approaching...

Annnnndddd we have a Nazi reference...that's the first time I've ever heard that. Congrats on making a connection that no one else here has made. Would "Climater", "Carboner", or "Cooler" be more appropriate as I see more parallels with the "Birther" movement?

36-24-36? Only if she's 5'3".

. . Well since it keeps coming up.....I'll remind again that you certainly CAN find "decent" coaches for less that 5 years. I posted a list of the schools who hired new coaches between 2008 and 2013 that also allowed web access to their contracts, and showed that 14% of those reporting the deals did in fact find coaches who would accept less than a 5 year deal, all of whom were thought to be "decent" or better at the time I suppose? And the MOST INTERESTING SCHOOL ON THAT LIST?......UNLV, who found their guy for 3 YEARS in 2011. Anyways, considering all that, and the frugal approach UNLV took to funding their travel expenses to the HOD bowl as reported here: http://m.reviewjournal.com/sports/rebels-fell-dallas-bowl-game-could-break-even-fiscally,...and,...all may give us some insight as to why Smatresk's arrival has been followed by campus audits and 3 resignations so far? Rick

Is it politics, as you suggest...or...maybe...is it that there appears to be so little science that supports "the other side"? Again...using your source...fewer than 10 peer-reviews.

I DEMAND NAMES! ... I'll trust the secrecy though.

There's damn little science on the side of climate science denial. Just a few contrarians like Roy Spencer or John Christy who believe God is in charge so we need not fear anything, http://discovermagazine.com/2001/feb/featgospel [paste]Also, if you don't understand the connection between politics and money, you are just really naive.

chuckle.

People need to remember that SMU could raid our coaching staff if they wanted. They have the one thing that matters in college football. Money. And for those that expect UNT to roll over them on 9/6, you are in for a big surprise. That game is gonna be a dogfight.

Well, water expands when it freezes, so if much of the polar ice that is melting is actually floating on sea water, it's possible sea levels won't change all that much. Now if the polar ice was sitting on land above sea level then I would expect sea levels to increase. I couldn't tell you if all that ice is sitting on land or water though.

UNT90, you really should have taken a science class post 7th grade.

All I know is our punter is apparently a badass...

Cant lead from the back!! did that just to suffice your statement

Don't listen to CBL. He is an idiot, as usual. Uh, anyone know his address?

Worst case scenario: 5-7, best case: 11-2(conference title game win)