GTWT

The lesson here, if there is one, is that these are 17-22 year old amateur athletes and we should be careful how we talk about them. Once they're pros making millions for playing a game then feel free to write whatever you like. Until then, calling someone 'a bust', especially anonymously, shows a lack of class.

Scott, your concern is that the conclusions drawn by the scientific community empower government to regulate industry and individuals. Do you see my point?

The cause of anthropogenic climate change is pollution - the release of fossil CO2 into the atmosphere. And, just like ozone, mercury, & lead pollution, the increase in CO2 is something we can do something about but only if we first recognize the problem. Even if yyz28 is right, and the science linking global warming to human release of CO2 isn't certain (science is never certain - it doesn't work that way), we will still be better off by dealing with the problem aggressively. Our air will be cleaner, our oceans less acidic, & our use and dependence on fossil fuels will decrease. We will be forced to build newer & cleaner nuclear power plants & find other sources of energy. We will be forced to live simpler, cleaner, more intelligent lives. I'm convinced the scientists are right and the CO2 we're releasing is having a devastating effect on the environment & on or future. But even if I'm wrong, and I hope I am, we're still better off behaving as if the treat is real.

yyz28 writes: Is there any source you respect? NOAA, FactCheck, AAAS? Anyone who disagrees with your philosophical (for it's not scientific) position is wrong. You find the typical trash in personal emails that can be taken out of context. The incident was investigated by numerous organizations and no suggestion of wrong-doing was found: That's from Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy ) but they provide links to primary sources. Thanks for the demonstration of your motivation in denying anthropogenic climate change. Thanks for the graph. Now, can you find one for the relevant period since the mid-1800s? I'll help - http://www.roperld.com/science/GlobalWarmingGraphs.htm The idiot protesting a modern, efficient, safe nuclear power plant is no different from a Christian fundamentalist trying to worm id/creationism into the public school classroom. Both are reality deniers. Both have motivations that have nothing to do with the science.

From yyz28: 'Climategate' has been misrepresented by science deniers. See factcheck: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/ The data are consistent. Consistent enough to convince the vast majority of scientists expert in climate science. And your evidence for this is...? Personal incredulity? Finally, you blame "the left' for the decline of nuclear power. That's BS. The arguments against nuclear power are being made by the same kinds of science-deniers that argue against anthropogenic climate change & evolution. They have their own reasons to oppose nuclear power and those reasons have nothing to do with science.

CO2 is good. Plants use it in photosynthesis. Too much CO2 is bad. It acts as a greenhouse gas and if levels increase the amount of solar energy retained by the earth's atmosphere will increase, leading to global warming. Despite Monkeypox's bemoaning the error resident in the climate change model (& there's error in every scientific model), the physics of climate change is very straightforward. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we're releasing massive amounts of CO2, temperatures are rising.

Well, the people who actually practice science, say the American Association for the Advancement of Science, disagree... http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=447

YYZ28, I know you're too intelligent to reject an analysis just because it comes from NOAA. Do you doubt the moon landings because the information is from NASA? If the link isn't random, and it certainly doesn't seem to be, the relationship withhuman activity is the one I gave earlier - CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas. Man has released massive amounts of CO2 that had been sequestered in fossil fuel deposits. The rise in global temperatures over that time is what one would expect if, indeed, the released CO2 was causing the increase in temperature. I would like to acknowledge that I dodn't expect to change your mind using science. The science isn't why you deny anthropogenic climate change. Other folks, people who are still open to argument, should know that your doubt of the reality of climate change isn't rational. Rather it's a defense mechanism gone awry.

Sounds interesting. Link please.

“During the June 2011-June 2012 period, each of the 13 consecutive months ranked among the warmest third of their historical distribution for the first time in the 1895-present record. The odds of this occurring randomly is 1 in 1,594,323.“ ~National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/national/2012/6

There's quite a bit of evidence in the scientific literature. I assume you're familiar with it. Correlation doesn't imply causation but it is a necessary condition for causation. Again, I assume you're familiar with the relevant scientific literature and not just with what Tony Watts says the literature says. Thank you, I will.

Scepticism (and by 'scepticism' I mean skepticism) is healthy. It should, however, be informed by some knowledge of the subject. The vast majority of climate scientists - the people with knowledge - believe that climate change is occurring, that it is in large part due to man's activity, and that it will have a huge impact on the well-being of our children & grandchildren. Man has released massive amounts of CO2. CO2 is a well-documented green-house gas. The earth's mean temperature has shown a strong correlation with atmospheric CO2 levels. You may believe that climate change isn't happening or that it isn't due to human burning of fossil carbon. Your belief, however, isn't based on science. It's based on economics, or ideology, or some misinformation you've been exposed to.

Now children...

Is the gym across from the super pit the old 'snake pit'?

Best idea would be to find a 'raptor rescue' organization that had an eagle which could be brought to games. We would need to support the facility thru donations. I'm not sure I like the idea of having live mascots (except for dogs) at games. At West Texas they bring a live bison to games. It's cute when it's a baby but as it gets older the idiots who have charge of the animal have a difficult time maintaining control. Someday someone's going to get killed or some gun-happy cop will end up shotting Thunder X in front of 8K fans.

It used to be in Houston but they moved it to make way for an expansion of the theme park. Traffic was tied up for days as they moved it down I-10.

Maybe. But if North Texas was ever involved in something like this I would never give the school another penny.

I want to wish MTSU a long and successful tenure in the Sun Belt.

Why? Especially if it means losing a year in which he can help win 13 games.

I like your optimism. To go 8-4 everything has to fall our way. That won't be likely. My hopeful guess is 7-5. No, 8-5 because we're going to a bowl and we're going to win it! God bless Texas!

Actually, my dislike of SMU stems from my elitism. I think we're better than them.

What's this "us" stuff? We may still have another year to play in the belt but it ain't our home any more. Good luck & good riddance to the SBC.

I want to distance UNT from anything to do with the Sun Belt - that means MT, Troy, WKU, and all the rest. God bless & good riddance. GBT

"Get over it and move along...better yet...stop smoking drinking. How people can still be smokers drinkers in this day and age with all the knowledge they have about the health benefits of not smoking drinking to both themselves and their loved ones is beyond me..." Flyer, are you in favor of allowing drinking as a student walks from one building to another?

What happened to the freshman linebacker (Stojkovic?) that seemed to be promising last year? Did I miss something?