And THIS is why the 12th is the greatest hole in golf.

If you ever wanted to see how majors are lost, see number 12. 

YES!!  That last foul on him was...um...not even close to a foul.   

That's the way to finish a game!!!

GO SOX!!!!!!!

It was great seeing you, your sister and some other VTTW regulars!  I think TRO will be in for a couple of games before the season is over.  If not, his ears will be burning for sure. 

He is just an animal tonight!!   

I take that back, nice TD!!! 

 

Barnett is getting molested. Can't buy a holding call. Bull crap.

The non-calls on their holding is making it hard not to throw the remote through the TV.   

Yep, yep, yep, and yep. 

 

I think they want us to feel sorry for them.

Give me a minute- let me see if I can work up some tears.

Yeah, I just rolled my eyes and said, "Give me a break." on that.   

 

[are]

I've lowered my carbon footprint significantly over the last five years and to be honest, all it has done is save me a hefty amount of $$$.  Seriously mucho dinero.  I turn to experts for suggestion.  On this board I turn to Pirate for his University of Tennessee football analysis because he's learned and amazingly knowledgeable about this sport.  And when it comes to this thing called climate change, I turn to the scientists... it's what they do.  I'll never understand the almost "militant" refusal to give scientists the respect when it comes to real knowledge of the subject.  To suggest they are politically or financially motivated seems beyond far fetched.  

If I can make changes in my life to preserve this great planet, maybe even leave it a little better than how I left it, why is this such a friggin' affront?  I look at my kid and future generations and I accept 100% the responsibility to leave it the way I found it for them.  I don't know any better way to behave and it's irresponsible of me to put my faith in a political movement to motivate my stance on the environment just as it is irresponsible for me to look to a political party to lead me on "moral" issues.

I find the insistence to keep doing what we are doing until someone "proves" it's bad to be disingenuous, irresponsible and frankly unethical.  How much more proof do we need?  And honestly?  How long do we wait for an improvable proof before we act like responsible, caring Americans, humans and parents?  

If I go to my grave knowing I left my future generations with a clean place to live, that trumps winning a "debate" every single second.  This argument seems idiotic to me.  Scientists know more than all of us.  To pretend like any of us know better is... farce.

Where to begin... No one that I know of is suggesting that we keep doing what we're doing, and I've given credit to the US for making strides in the environmental area.  I also agree that following one's conscience on any matter is the best thing to do, and I’m glad that’s what you’re doing.  However, putting your faith in scientists that have been proven wrong so many times (not just in their predictions of what global warming will cause, but in many others areas of science) seems misguided at best.  In addition, to suggest that these scientists don't have a financial and control agenda is extremely naïve (hundreds of millions of dollars in grants have come, and continue to come, out of this issue alone).  On the control side, I think those that want to shut down the debate on the issue are the militant ones.  There are those (one was a former vice president) that want to punish those that speak out against what their scientists are saying.  Forcing people to accept a theory seems a bit militant to me.   I also think that you are putting your faith in a political movement, it's just one that doesn't begin with a "D" or "R".  I don't know of anyone that allows their political party to lead them on moral issues (I think the opposite is more true).  And to suggest that those that don't take action based on something that may not be happening as, "disingenuous, irresponsible and frankly unethical" is absurd.  I guess you love your children more than I love mine, congrats on that.  This just saddens me, "Scientists know more than all of us.  To pretend like any of us know better is... farce.", just wow.  This post is why I said that those on the gw side have what I consider to be closed minds on the issue, and they shout others down but saying the science is settled (no matter any evidence to the contrary).  (Sorry if my punctuation sucks, I was not an English major  ).

We’ll have agree to disagree on this issue, and still be brothers-in-arms as hating bama   (that's for them not you  ) .

My original reply was not to you, it was to Pirate.

To take just one example from the above, he states that "Arctic ice is at it's greatest extent".  this is simply not true if one simply looks at satellite data.

But to address your point, your plot started in 1998.  The global warming trend started in the early 1900s so by definition it's not a true picture of what's going on.

Finally, I am a person of faith, so  right back at you.  And a  just for good measure.   

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/16/global-warming-satellite-data-shows-arctic-sea-ice-coverage-up-50-percent/
http://www.naturalnews.com/041981_global_warming_computer_models_cooling.html
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17470-nasa-data-global-warming-still-on-pause-sea-ice-hit-record
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2014/02/24/the-period-of-no-global-warming-will-soon-be-longer-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/#12977ea28bf0
http://nov79.com/gbwm/trees.html
I know a few are a couple years old, and you'll question the sources, but we could post stuff like this all long, and it wouldn't change anyone's mind on the issue.

Also, you being a person of faith doesn't change the fact that you made my point for me.   

I interrupt my vacation and consuming of multiple bottles of champagne to say: What a freakin' nightmare. There are three tiglet fans here and it's a good thing I've been drinking heavily.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I am a charter member of the ABC club. Anyone but the danged tiglets. Even Bama.

Happy dadgum New Year.

Happy New Year!  But the red team, go Tigers!

I'm rooting against the rat bastards, regardless of who they play, period. Dot.

No f'ing way.    the red team!

I even pulled for ND vs the tide a few years ago. That's not saying I'm an Irish fan because I would root for the taliban over bama.

I remember not pulling for Miami when they played the red team  in the sugar bowl following the 1989 season.  I felt dirty for a month after the game.     

You're about to get the message. Try running "Roll Tide" around in your head a few times and if you don't get violently ill then you got some issues. If we ain't going to the NC series then I don't care where we play our bowl game.

Preach it my brother!   

My oldest boy hates florida more than any other sec team.  I think what you are commenting on is part of the reason.  I've noticed that the "younger" fans seem to despise florida much more than they do the red team  .  I blame that on their youth and innocence.   

You definitely need to worry about me then.  I would NEVER root for the red team.    (that finger is for the red team  , not you.  )

fu got two really nice no-calls in OT.   

Here's my question on climate change: Why can't the answer lie somewhere in the middle? Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why does it all have to be AGW-related if you're a liberal or humans are completely blameless if you're a conservative?

We KNOW the earth is warmer today than it was 50 years ago. We KNOW that we're seeing some of the consequences of that. What we DON'T know, and may never know, is whether humans played a role in that or whether it's a naturally-occurring, cyclical phenomenon. And what we're unsure about is just how much the earth has warmed since that massive El Nino year in 1998. (Since El Nino is again off the charts this year, I'd anticipate that this is going to be another hot year, globally, that will give global warming scaremongers ammunition.)

I'm very much a skeptic that humans can actually influence the amount of warming we saw in the latter part of the 20th Century. But I'm not so dead set against the idea that I don't want to learn more if I can. In the meantime, would it really hurt us to clean up our act a little bit? We know that our behaviors are polluting the atmosphere and harming the environment. That isn't debatable. If we can reduce carbon emissions and consume more renewable energy, why wouldn't we want to? But, on the flip side of that, is there really enough data to justify wholesale change that could plunge the U.S. into an economic recession that surpasses even the Great Recession of '07-'09, just so we feel good about our efforts to prevent climate change that we aren't sure is caused by man in the first place?

Well said.  I think the US has taken, and plans to take, tremendous steps to reduce pollution, increase conservation, and spread environmental awareness over the past few decades, which I think is a great thing.  What I fear is that data manipulation and alarmism is being used to try to control people's lives and take more of their hard earned money in an attempt to try and address a problem that may not need addressing (or can't be addressed by humans, as mother nature likes to remind us from time to time).  Just color me skeptical but not closed minded on the issue.

I'm not impressed with the source.  They use a very selective time frame to make their point and also limit it to a single source of data.

 My plot is from a government agency that shows the consensus temperature increase from multiple data sources. 

It shows a leveling off in the time frame cited by your article, but just glancing at it, it's not quite zero.  But they do appear to be pretty close.

I don't really care how impressed you are with the source, as I can show the same conclusion from multiple sources.     I know you don't care how unimpressed I am with your "government agency" source, a source that I would assume has a large stake in the results of the data. I also wonder if any of the data sets were based on computer modeling rather than, as my source was, based on verifiable satellite data?  It may be that none was obtained from computer models, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were.      As I said in my post, it depends on who and what you believe.

Also, a few weeks ago there was a thread on the board about what a hypothetical conversation might be like between a scientist and a person of faith.  It was said that the scientist would never just say "conversation over" like a person of faith was supposedly predisposed to say.  I think your "Period, dot." nonsense confirmed what I believed to be true - thanks for that.   

I guess it depends on who and what you choose to believe. 

http://www.naturalnews.com/045005_global_warming_climate_change_greenhouse_effect.html#

I could also show graphs and articles that show no correlation between manmade CO2 and global temps, but we could post links all day and it wouldn't change our respective minds on the issue.