Monkeypox

That was a large rant to admit that you have beliefs without knowledge, and you want Americans to adopt changes based on your beliefs. You're a theist, and your god is "the environment." Did biology fail when the dinosaurs became extinct?

But Brawndo has what plants crave! It's got electrolytes. A man said to the universe "Sir, I exist!" "However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation."

That was an absurd rant. You've used little if any actual science in any of your posts on this thread. You actually appear to know very little about environmental sciences, and probably need a good deal more schooling on it, because mostly what you've posted has been vagaries about CO2, deforestation (which is surprisingly in decline), and "garbage issues." I speak of deep ocean environments and you talk about "the oceans," displaying ignorance on the topic. And you often say things like "ZERO doubt" on subjects where there is and will be considerable doubt. Here's the problem, and why I pointed out the hypocrisy. Your lack of knowledge on these subjects, and the failing of scientists in these studies, makes it guesswork and conjecture. If you can't show me lead times between CO2 and temperature, if your data collection is biased and/or faulty, and if you can not show positively HOW programs to reduce CO2 will and HAVE actually achieved results, then you're promoting legislature built on BELIEF, not science. That makes it a religion, and it makes you a zealot, no less so than those who want to dis-allow gay marriage. You just agreed with me in your last sentence, whether you realize it or not. Population growth will continue to be rapid until the 3rd world catches up. And like I said, since having children increases one's carbon footprint exponentially more than changing ALL PRESENT LIFESTYLE CHOICES, we are indeed screwed, if we're the primary cause of global warming. So, to follow you're thinking 1) The POINT of human beings is to make more human beings 2) More human beings increases CO2 emissions 3) CO2 from humans cause global warming 4) Global warming will kill us all 5) The point of human beings is to kill us all. Me, I think there is no point.

Yeah, I really wanted to clarify that I didn't think it was a slight on Boise's more recent successes, where they've knocked off tough opponents. But they scheduled BRILLIANTLY over time, slowly increasing the level of competition as they became more confident in their ability to handle it. Part of that is just luck (as schedules are worked out so far in advance), but Boise BUILT their program on very few "body bag" opponents. Now, partly that's not a fair comparison because, yes, they were also raising money. The other part of that is that, for them, regional opponents were more WAC, MWC, Pac-10 and for us they're more Big 12, SEC, CUSA.

I don't see how you can argue FOR gay marriage and against religion in one thread, and then say that the point of living is to reproduce. You realize surely that your inference that people who responsibly choose not to reproduce in an overpopulated world or that people who are incapable of reproduction are not serving any life purpose is incredibly bigoted. But, then again, you used the word "retarded" to describe a sensible and responsible world-view. Also, we're not going to run out of people just because those who truly care about "the environment" choose not to reproduce. Until world birthrate drops, there's simply nothing to bolster that belief. But there are finite resources here, and POPULATION is the prime driver of pollution. The earth has a "Maximum Capacity" and I would think that, if anything, those who carry the belief in anthropogenic global warming would be the first to acknowledge it.

You know what the conclusions of Muller from the Berkeley project have been? More clean natural gas and fracking. Note also that the Berkeley project has removed bias by taking RANDOM samplings, not by including more data. It's not a conspiracy that the scientific community is only looking at anthropogenic global warming studies. Nobody's trying to hide it. It's where the money and interest lies. Nobody wants to hear that there are problems you can't fix. As far as your article regarding the consensus, it involves the "most actively publishing climate scientists." So I'm not impressed. It simply shows what I'm saying - climate scientists are primarily all looking for one thing... and they're finding it. I do go to the doctor, but I've done well by not taking what they say as gospel, as they make mistakes often, too. I avoid doctors and medications as much as I do gurus and hocus pocus. They're equally fallibe, unfortunately. And, to get to the point, if you can't agree on lead times between CO2 and temperature, then you can't show me how our policies to reduce carbon emissions are effective. Not for decades. And, of course, as I've stated before, the greatest driver of even theoretical anthropogenic global warming is population. So without curbing population growth, you're pissing in the wind. If you believe in anthropogenic global warming, then you should logically believe that human extinction is inevitable. For me, it's as irrelevant as aliens and Jesus.

Yes, but they can't measure the interaction specifically of deep ocean environment to atmosphere. It's one of several HUGE gaps in our understanding of climatology. Because we can't yet quantify these interactions (far too complex and misunderstood), it's assigned neutral value in climate models. Fact of the matter is that we know very little about the deep ocean scientifically when it comes to chemical interactions within and between its environments. We know BASICALLY that it has a carbon uptake of falling food material for bacteria and larger organisms, and that's essentially it. We know that the deep ocean stores heat and circulates based on density, but again, can't entirely quantify its heat storage capacity or the factors for release. For all we know, things could be far worse, in actuality.

In which case, people in the US should adopt the children from those poorer nations until they catch up. Fact of the matter is, if you have a child, you have no business asking someone else to change their lifestyle. If you claim that you want to reduce your carbon footprint, and then go and have children, you're a hypocrite. It's worse than driving an SUV while eating veal and towing a boat to go to a McMansion that's insulated with blue whale blubber and baby seal fur,cools itself with the stolen polar ice caps, and heats itself by burning blood diamonds. Also, the reason it's a problem in the US is also the consumption of resources per capita. While we might have some cleaner technologies and tighter EPA regulations, we're still MASSIVE consumers (who, in the end, pass on a lot of the carbon footprint of our consumption onto those poorer countries full of brown people so we can feel better about ourselves).

They can practice it all they want. Until they increase their knowledge, though, and address prime faults in their scientific process and methods, then it's just profit by means of conjecture. People who practice science used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth. People who practice science used to believe that vaccinations in the 80s wouldn't stop working in 2000. Quite frankly, you can post all the links you want, but until you post one about consensus in the scientific community regarding lead times of CO2 temperature change or absolute analysis of deep sea interaction with the atmosphere, then this "science" is based on faulty climate models. By the way, I can keep going, there's at least 3 or 4 more areas where climate models fail and rely on conjecture. But again, I'm not expecting scientific debate here. Pointing out the lack of clean science in the matter is the same as pointing to a lack of consensus on Biblical interpretations. People believe what they believe, and they're not going to change it.

Well, now we're getting interesting. Having a child is actually the worst thing an individual can do, if they're interested in protecting the environment. Interesting that you'll never see that on a list of "ways to reduce your carbon footprint," even though having a single child will negate 100% recycling, driving less while having a greener car that gets high mpg, living in a green house, using only high efficiency bulbs...

Actually, science isn't the reason anyone believes in anthropogenic global warming, at least, not if we're being honest. Any person truly interested in the science would reject the methods and data mining that both sides have been using to further their agendas. Fact of the matter is we are incapable of accurately measuring our impact, and it's unlikely we'll overcome our limitations in the fields of climatology, meteorology, and geology enough to make any such claims with scientific accuracy. When scientists can't agree on the timeframe of leads between temperature and CO2 or agree on even theoretical feedbacks from global warming, there's simply nothing to compel one to trust in the climate models. When they're having to take "best guesses" at the interactions between deep sea environments and atmosphere, I can't honestly see how anyone can take these models as scientifically accurate. Furthermore, nearly ALL of the studies on global warming over the last 20 years have been conducted under the premise that global warming IS manmade. IOW, that's all they're looking for. Personally, I don't care what causes global warming. If human extinction is an inevitability, so be it. If we can fix it, great. But our analysis of it and reaction to it should be based in good science, not feel-good philosophy. I firmly believe we're relying far too much on fossil fuels, that we need to improve technologies, and that we need to work towards minimizing our impact on the planet. But until I hear sensible solutions and see the real backing put into smart projects, I'll continue to rail against bunk science and fairytale politics.

Boise State: 1997 - Houston Nutt 4-7 Wins vs. Weber State, NMSU, UNT, Idaho 1998 - Dirk Koetter 6-5 Wins vs. Northridge State, Portland State, Utah, Weber State, USU, NMSU 1999 - Dirk Koetter 10-3 Wins vs. Southern Utah, New Mexico, Utah, Eastern Washington, Nevada, USU, ASU, NMSU, Idaho, Louisville 2000 - Dirk Koetter 10-2 Wins vs. New Mexico, Northern Iowa, Central Michigan, Eastern Washington, UNT, NMSU, ASU, USU, Idaho, UTEP I believe that would be the timeframe that TIgreen was referring to.

I would assume you've read and rejected the studies on selection bias present in data collection of the NOAA?

Everyone's the next Boise, and all of their quarterbacks are the next Seneca Wallace.

Talons wouldn't legally be able to be responsible for an eagle.

You can have one for a variety of purposes, but you have to be specially permitted and it has to be injured in a way that makes it incapable of being returned to the wild, I believe. Georgia Southern's, when it was found, had a permanently injured beak. North Texas could certainly have one permitted for educational use, but I don't know that it'd be realistic to have it flying around at games or anything - displayed, perhaps. But there are a lot of controls on the contact the animal can have - certainly none outside of the handlers. Here's the federal permit. http://www.fws.gov/forms/3-200-14.pdf I'm not sure if the State of Texas has a different permit. If they do, I believe you're required to have both.

Georgia Southern, FWIW, has an animal sanctuary in which they house their own bald eagle mascot, "Freedom." They'd be a school that might have good information on which to model a smaller program. http://welcome.georgiasouthern.edu/wildlife/_home

That's really good. Honestly, it will have to be an outside source's baby, because student organizations come and go, professors come and go, and you don't want this to be something everyone loves at first but then grows up and people get bored because it stops being cute like a puppy or Macauley Culkin.

The organization you're looking for, as the one that would likely ultimately be responsible for the care and/or research with these animals, is ORCA (Organization for Reinforcement Contingencies with Animals). Well, if they're not, they might be able to tell you. I know they work specifically with the Heard Museum in McKinney. http://orgs.unt.edu/orca/ In terms of local resources/sanctuary for raptors, I believe the most significant is the Blackland Prairie Raptor Sanctuary. http://www.bpraptorcenter.org/ Someone between them and the Heard Museum might be able to work with the University on the project. NOW, the reality. What you're talking about requires money. A good bit of money. An initial sum to set up the program and then yearly donations to keep it viable. Universities generally will get money for projects such as this from grants - IOW, they'd have to have a specific research goal for it, write the application/grant proposal, get approved, and get funding. Keep in mind that ORCA is a student organization that receives a lot of their training by working as volunteers, and it's buried in the Behavior Analysis department of the University. The other way is from donations, many times specific donations because someone went out and found a wealthy philanthropist alumnus who wanted this to be a pet project (pardon the pun). And that's what this is, regardless of whether or not it's a grant or a donation, it will have to be somebody's baby, because SOME DAY someone will look and say "I don't think we need this. I don't want to pursue this or use THIS money for it." So there are at least 2 University entities that would need to be involved in this, but in the end, I think it will have to be a coordinated effort between the animal behavior people (ORCA), Athletics, and probably someone on the spirit front, as well as an outside animal group (Heard Museum, Blackland Prairie, local zoo, etc.)

Those banana milkshakes cured my dad's Alzheimer's. Gave him diabetes, though.

I still don't think people understand that it's people boycotting CFA, NOT because of the guy's beliefs, but because the money from CFA goes to fund groups that they don't agree with. So if you're FOR gay marriage, then it would be counterproductive to give money that goes to groups that work AGAINST gay marriage. I don't have a dog in this fight, but the boycott makes perfect sense. As for the kiss-in and other bs... well, that I don't get.

So how much more are they producing? Enough to pay back the costs in 35 years of operation instead of 40?

If gay people wanna marry, I got no problem with it. If Chic Fil A wants to oppose that, I'm fine with that, too. They lose enough of my business on Sundays, which is theoretically the best day for Chic Fil A, btw. Fact of the matter is that I have no idea what the money I spend at the grocery store, auto dealership, gas station, or electronics store goes to. I know it purchases me a product I want at a price I'm agreeable to. That's the business of the place. Just like I could give a crap about some idiot celebrities politics as long as they entertain me. Just. Don't. Care. But hey, it's cool if these other people do. Support them. Don't. Buy more. Buy less. Actually, I guess I prefer people buy less, because no matter what location you're at, Chic Fil A drive-thru lines are OBSCENELY long. I bet it's because people can't get it on the best day - Sunday.

Yeah, I'm not sure why people think that Olympic athletes should be even more financially crippled than they already are. Let them at least make a living at the thing they're most talented in. Also, watch the documentary on the 1992 Dream Team.

Meh.