Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Coach is Back! on June 15, 2015, 08:45:17 PM
-
Global warming.....as scary as GMO, Gluten and Carbs
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/15/americas-most-advanced-climate-station-data-shows-us-in-a-10-year-cooling-trend/
-
I'm always on the fence about the whole climate change thing, but why is it politicized?
I mean, is it such a bad thing to turn your lights off when you leave a room?
Why do the conservative groups seems so against the idea?
Also, when a majority of climate scientists say that humans are bad things, why do they choose to ignore them?
I mean, you trust scientists to create vaccines to prolong your life. Trust them when it comes to designing things that allow you to fly across continents in hours and not days, but we don't trust them when it comes to the climate?
It seems very confusing.
-
Just inagine if everyone thought like Coach. Boy this world would be fucked.
-
I'm always on the fence about the whole climate change thing, but why is it politicized?
I mean, is it such a bad thing to turn your lights off when you leave a room?
Why do the conservative groups seems so against the idea?
Also, when a majority of climate scientists say that humans are bad things, why do they choose to ignore them?
I mean, you trust scientists to create vaccines to prolong your life. Trust them when it comes to designing things that allow you to fly across continents in hours and not days, but we don't trust them when it comes to the climate?
It seems very confusing.
Politicizing it = $$$$$$
No more no less.
-
Why do the conservative groups seems so against the idea?
conservatards dont give a shit about the environment on the same token liberaltards will use the environment to their benefit
its politics as usual
-
conservatards dont give a shit about the environment on the same token liberaltards will use the environment to their benefit
its politics as usual
This is such bullshit I don't even know where to start. I probably live in the conservative county in California and I can tell you that we're out there cleaning our beaches more than almost anyone. We don't want our kids swimming or surfing in dirty water, stepping on used rubbers and trash on the sand in front of our homes and this is just an example. Such BS.
-
This is such bullshit I don't even know where to start. I probably live in the conservative county in California and I can tell you that we're out there cleaning our beaches more than almost anyone. We don't want our kids swimming or surfing in dirty water, stepping on used rubbers and trash on the sand in front of our homes and this is just an example. Such BS.
anecdotal
how do you feel about fracking
-
Global warming has as much validity as the Easter bunny.
There are plenty of facts to back that up.
Much like religion, you keep telling people something enough, eventually they'll believe it.
-
anecdotal
how do you feel about fracking
Liberal Malibu tops the list in So. Cal
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Beach-Bummers-Most-Polluted-Southern-California-Beaches-153828795.html
Liberal Nor. Cal tops the list in all of California.
-
I'm always on the fence about the whole climate change thing, but why is it politicized?
I mean, is it such a bad thing to turn your lights off when you leave a room?
Why do the conservative groups seems so against the idea?
Also, when a majority of climate scientists say that humans are bad things, why do they choose to ignore them?
I mean, you trust scientists to create vaccines to prolong your life. Trust them when it comes to designing things that allow you to fly across continents in hours and not days, but we don't trust them when it comes to the climate?
It seems very confusing.
It was politicized and embraced by the global left as it was an enormous wealth-transfer tax from the richer nations to the poorer ones. Period. And it preyed upon the natural inclination of the wealthy left to feel remorse at their wealth.
-
I'm always on the fence about the whole climate change thing, but why is it politicized?
I mean, is it such a bad thing to turn your lights off when you leave a room?
Why do the conservative groups seems so against the idea?
Also, when a majority of climate scientists say that humans are bad things, why do they choose to ignore them?
I mean, you trust scientists to create vaccines to prolong your life. Trust them when it comes to designing things that allow you to fly across continents in hours and not days, but we don't trust them when it comes to the climate?
It seems very confusing.
Breaking news buddy, "scientists" didn't invent aeroplanes..
Oh and it is politicized because it involves BIG MONEY.
-
Many reports criticising global warming were apparently funded by oil companies. At first I was sceptical about greenhouse effect and such, but energy politics are seriously dirty and corrupted. You can never trust big oil and their lobbyists
-
Breaking news buddy, "scientists" didn't invent aeroplanes..
Oh and it is politicized because it involves BIG MONEY.
Science and Engineering go hand in hand and are why you have things like jet airplanes and not just kites skipping across sand dunes dude.
-
-
Global warming has as much validity as the Easter bunny.
There are plenty of facts to back that up.
Much like religion, you keep telling people something enough, eventually they'll believe it.
Huh?
Horrible analogy, dude. Religion is Easter bunnyish BECAUSE IT LACKS EVIDENCE, the exact opposite of climate change. You can't have it both ways; you either trust science (and scientists) or you don't.
The degree to which man has contributed is the issue; but even there, scientific consensus is that we've been a major factor. What to do about it? This is where politics has (and will) come into play.
-
-
Meanwhile it is currently a 79 degree afternoon in the middle of June in Texas....
Man, we are really burning our asses up down here with all this "warming". ::)
-
Huh?
Horrible analogy, dude. Religion is Easter bunnyish BECAUSE IT LACKS EVIDENCE, the exact opposite of climate change. You can't have it both ways; you either trust science (and scientists) or you don't.
The degree to which man has contributed is the issue; but even there, scientific consensus is that we've been a major factor. What to do about it? This is where politics has (and will) come into play.
I agree.
Weren't we talking about scientific method just the other day in another thread?
I mean, people believe in vaccines and that kind of thing, but when it comes to the planet, nah... THOSE scientists are all fucking liars and charlatans.
???
-
Meanwhile it is currently a 79 degree afternoon in the middle of June in Texas....
Man, we are really burning our asses up down here with all this "warming". ::)
Weather vs. climate, you know this. And Texas alone can't speak for the globe. 14 of the 15 hottest years (since 1880) were all in this century, last year being #1. Either they're ALL lying to us, or ... what?
-
This makes no sense. Your article references the NOAA, using them as the source for this "cooling trend." Yet this isn't what they're reporting on their site:
No Slowdown in Global Warming in Recent Years
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html
So which is it?
-
Weather vs. climate, you know this. And Texas alone can't speak for the globe. 14 of the 15 hottest years (since 1880) were all in this century, last year being #1. Either they're ALL lying to us, or ... what?
Like anything else...just follow the money trail.
-
Just inagine if everyone thought like Coach. Boy this world would be fucked.
What you need to understand is that coach is a user ( no pun on his rec use age days) Why does he care about tomorrow so long as he gets what he wants today
THE BEEF
-
Like anything else...just follow the money trail.
They're ALL in on it? All the climatologists of all the organizations from all the different countries - ALL lying for a little scratch?
And building 7 was a controlled demolition?
-
coach's landlord used global warming to incinerate his lease agreement
no further evidence required
-
They're ALL in on it? All the climatologists of all the organizations from all the different countries - ALL lying for a little scratch?
And building 7 was a controlled demolition?
I knew that conspiracy was bullshit from the first time I heard it.
-
This is such bullshit I don't even know where to start. I probably live in the conservative county in California and I can tell you that we're out there cleaning our beaches more than almost anyone. We don't want our kids swimming or surfing in dirty water, stepping on used rubbers and trash on the sand in front of our homes and this is just an example. Such BS.
Maybe conservatives shouldn't be so nasty.
-
I knew that conspiracy was bullshit from the first time I heard it.
Same type of thinking here, though. Too many players, too many obstacles, too much suspended disbelief. Not logical.
-
Ok getbiggers here's the data in support of CO2 levels causing an increase of global temps :
The poles are used because they have undisturbed ice samples and show the greatest amount of change.
1. Take a variety of ice core samples from the poles.
2. Analysis of the dissolved gases in the ice can be obtained, going back 10,000 yrs
a. The levels of CO2 show fairly normal seasonal cycles for the first 9900 years.
b. The temp is obtained by measuring the % of oxygen isotopes. The % of the common O2 isotopes correlates with temp. In the past 100 yrs the AVERAGE temp per season/per decade has increased.
c. Plot the variables of CO2 levels vs temp increase and use a linear regression analysis and you get a near perfect , statistical fit on the graph, in support of the trend.
This kind of evidence is the gold standard in real scientific research.
The real problem is that most people are ignorant of how climate change is actually measured and analyzed.
I don't want to sound pompous, but, the proof or evidence most use to deny this is fairly juvenile and pseudo science.
-
Ok getbiggers here's the data in support of CO2 levels causing an increase of global temps :
The poles are used because they have undisturbed ice samples and show the greatest amount of change.
1. Take a variety of ice core samples from the poles.
2. Analysis of the dissolved gases in the ice can be obtained, going back 10,000 yrs
a. The levels of CO2 show fairly normal seasonal cycles for the first 9900 years.
b. The temp is obtained by measuring the % of oxygen isotopes. The % of the common O2 isotopes correlates with temp. In the past 100 yrs the AVERAGE temp per season/per decade has increased.
c. Plot the variables of CO2 levels vs temp increase and use a linear regression analysis and you get a near perfect , statistical fit on the graph, in support of the trend.
This kind of evidence is the gold standard in real scientific research.
The real problem is that most people are ignorant of how climate change is actually measured and analyzed.
I don't want to sound pompous, but, the proof or evidence most use to deny this is fairly juvenile and pseudo science.
Look at the people that are doing this. Stupidity seems to be a common theme amongst them.
-
Coach,
Try to verify your article postings by searching for a few other corroborating articles. The Daily Caller is a conservative rag, the right wing equivalent to The Huffington Post, a liberal rag with little journalistic integrity.
Try reading something like this with some hard scientific evidence: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php)
-
This is such bullshit I don't even know where to start. I probably live in the conservative county in California and I can tell you that we're out there cleaning our beaches more than almost anyone. We don't want our kids swimming or surfing in dirty water, stepping on used rubbers and trash on the sand in front of our homes and this is just an example. Such BS.
x2
The arguement that conservatives don't care about the environment is shit bag retarded. Conservatives treat the environment the same as anyone else. We all eat, shit and drive...
-
Ok getbiggers here's the data in support of CO2 levels causing an increase of global temps :
The poles are used because they have undisturbed ice samples and show the greatest amount of change.
1. Take a variety of ice core samples from the poles.
2. Analysis of the dissolved gases in the ice can be obtained, going back 10,000 yrs
a. The levels of CO2 show fairly normal seasonal cycles for the first 9900 years.
b. The temp is obtained by measuring the % of oxygen isotopes. The % of the common O2 isotopes correlates with temp. In the past 100 yrs the AVERAGE temp per season/per decade has increased.
c. Plot the variables of CO2 levels vs temp increase and use a linear regression analysis and you get a near perfect , statistical fit on the graph, in support of the trend.
This kind of evidence is the gold standard in real scientific research.
The real problem is that most people are ignorant of how climate change is actually measured and analyzed.
I don't want to sound pompous, but, the proof or evidence most use to deny this is fairly juvenile and pseudo science.
Wow, such an important-sounding post...and yet, so lacking.
The central theme of alarmism is that higher CO2 causes higher temps. Congrats, you've just plotted one of the two needed metrics, screamed "shup up!" And run away.
Where is the required plot of temperatures during this period, to prove higher CO2 causes higher temps? You DO remember the "higher temperature" part, right? You guys are always shifting your goalposts around, so it's possible you've forgotten your central "theory"
I love how you hand-wave your temperatures with words like "correlates" and "average" as if either of these bullshit, sophomoric statistical derivations can replace the real "gold standard", OBSERVATION. Since correlation between higher CO2 levels and temperatures is you THESIS, how can you state that as PROOF? It's imbecilic.
And the OBSERVATIONAL temperature studies have shown that the earth is not warming, and hasn't been since 1997.
So run along now and get ready to move your goalposts again. I am sure you'll find something to "prove" your "theories" enough for the NY Times to write another of their yearly breathless hagiographies: "This Time They've Done It!"
I'll be back then to dismantle that BS.
Toodles.
-
Coach will always be safe from Global warming, as he is furthest from the sun.
-
It was politicized and embraced by the global left as it was an enormous wealth-transfer tax from the richer nations to the poorer ones. Period. And it preyed upon the natural inclination of the wealthy left to feel remorse at their wealth.
Talk to me aj. I get all of my ammo for debates from Getbig...
-
Talk to me aj. I get all of my ammo for debates from Getbig...
Read the latest encyclical from our communist pope to see how tightly the left embraces this movement for that singular purpose.
-
They're ALL in on it? All the climatologists of all the organizations from all the different countries - ALL lying for a little scratch?
And building 7 was a controlled demolition?
In fact, it make no difficulties at all to these foil hat followers of the conspiracy religion, to put every freaking country in this world behind this sinister plan to poison human kind with the aluminum. It make no difference to them if those vapor trails are on the Russian sky, on the African sky etc. it is all same conspiracy, which they call geoengineering, but it miraculously isn't the same completely public science called geoengineering which we could read from the science magazines. It is some kind of dark side of geoengineering, so if there is geoengineering conference, these guys keep their meetings in dungeons below the conference centers with mask and capes. Sadly, these guys are complete idiots, drooling morons, who goes berserk and fall in some kind of ape shit meltdown if you ask about some evidence to back up their fairy tales ;D
Seriously? Seriously, the answer to this matter is simple: What internet has done, it has given the voice to the really really stupid people, the people who you can't meet in your normal life, because they are kept behind the closed doors. You know, like morons you remember from school, these idiots who didn't learn anything and were just complete incompetent in any way possible. What internet has done, it has given them to possibility to open their mouth, and the rest we see here day after day. These morons who weren't able to count their fingers correctly are now self claimed conspiracy experts with the IQ smaller than their shoe size. They are as I say, idiots, complete morons, and that is evident if you look these theories somewhat closer. They doesn't understand even the simplest facts of life, and laws of physics are completely unknown to these morons. That's why they keep presenting these pearls of human ignorance, like "chemtrails" as a fruits of their endless wisdom. They have think it over "with their own brains", but they can't prove even one word of their fairytale, and only thing they write without heavy use of copy/paste is insults to the people who would like to see some evidence ;D
-
In fact, it make no difficulties at all to these foil hat followers of the conspiracy religion, to put every freaking country in this world behind this sinister plan to poison human kind with the aluminum. It make no difference to them if those vapor trails are on the Russian sky, on the African sky etc. it is all same conspiracy, which they call geoengineering, but it miraculously isn't the same completely public science called geoengineering which we could read from the science magazines. It is some kind of dark side of geoengineering, so if there is geoengineering conference, these guys keep their meetings in dungeons below the conference centers with mask and capes. Sadly, these guys are complete idiots, drooling morons, who goes berserk and fall in some kind of ape shit meltdown if you ask about some evidence to back up their fairy tales ;D
Seriously? Seriously, the answer to this matter is simple: What internet has done, it has given the voice to the really really stupid people, the people who you can't meet in your normal life, because they are kept behind the closed doors. You know, like morons you remember from school, these idiots who didn't learn anything and were just complete incompetent in any way possible. What internet has done, it has given them to possibility to open their mouth, and the rest we see here day after day. These morons who weren't able to count their fingers correctly are now self claimed conspiracy experts with the IQ smaller than their shoe size. They are as I say, idiots, complete morons, and that is evident if you look these theories somewhat closer. They doesn't understand even the simplest facts of life, and laws of physics are completely unknown to these morons. That's why they keep presenting these pearls of human ignorance, like "chemtrails" as a fruits of their endless wisdom. They have think it over "with their own brains", but they can't prove even one word of their fairytale, and only thing they write without heavy use of copy/paste is insults to the people who would like to see some evidence ;D
GetBig in a nutshell! :D
-
Wow, such an important-sounding post...and yet, so lacking.
The central theme of alarmism is that higher CO2 causes higher temps. Congrats, you've just plotted one of the two needed metrics, screamed "shup up!" And run away.
Where is the required plot of temperatures during this period, to prove higher CO2 causes higher temps? You DO remember the "higher temperature" part, right? You guys are always shifting your goalposts around, so it's possible you've forgotten your central "theory"
I love how you hand-wave your temperatures with words like "correlates" and "average" as if either of these bullshit, sophomoric statistical derivations can replace the real "gold standard", OBSERVATION. Since correlation between higher CO2 levels and temperatures is you THESIS, how can you state that as PROOF? It's imbecilic.
And the OBSERVATIONAL temperature studies have shown that the earth is not warming, and hasn't been since 1997.
So run along now and get ready to move your goalposts again. I am sure you'll find something to "prove" your "theories" enough for the NY Times to write another of their yearly breathless hagiographies: "This Time They've Done It!"
I'll be back then to dismantle that BS.
Toodles.
you must not be familiar with the green house effect. Try reading a text book from the 20's, it should describe this discovery in great detail.
-
you must not be familiar with the green house effect. Try reading a text book from the 20's, it should describe this discovery in great detail.
The greenhouse effect does not take into account the various feedback mechanisms like sea algae. It does not trump observational data, which sadly does not support your hypothesis.
-
Wow, such an important-sounding post...and yet, so lacking.
The central theme of alarmism is that higher CO2 causes higher temps. Congrats, you've just plotted one of the two needed metrics, screamed "shup up!" And run away.
Where is the required plot of temperatures during this period, to prove higher CO2 causes higher temps? You DO remember the "higher temperature" part, right? You guys are always shifting your goalposts around, so it's possible you've forgotten your central "theory"
I love how you hand-wave your temperatures with words like "correlates" and "average" as if either of these bullshit, sophomoric statistical derivations can replace the real "gold standard", OBSERVATION. Since correlation between higher CO2 levels and temperatures is you THESIS, how can you state that as PROOF? It's imbecilic.
And the OBSERVATIONAL temperature studies have shown that the earth is not warming, and hasn't been since 1997.
So run along now and get ready to move your goalposts again. I am sure you'll find something to "prove" your "theories" enough for the NY Times to write another of their yearly breathless hagiographies: "This Time They've Done It!"
I'll be back then to dismantle that BS.
Toodles.
The linear regression line graph fit based on the data on CO2 vs temp speaks for itself during the past century.
-
When I start seeing the richest and smartest people in the world (who are mostly public supporters of this) like Buffett, Soros, Gates, and others actually start selling off their limos, sports cars, mansions, and yachts I might start to believe that we're the cause of all this and that danger may be eminent. Until then, I'll continue to invest in oil and gas companies, let them drill and frack on my lands, and continue to drive my own cars and live in a nice home with central AC and heating.
-
"Global warming" hahaha.
It get real warm right around July, Aug and Sept. Coincidence? lol
-
"Global warming" hahaha.
It get real warm right around July, Aug and Sept. Coincidence? lol
There is a clear, factual relationship between CO2 levels and changes in global climate.
The politics on this issue comes in when debating what to do about it.
The liberal left wants this absurd shut down of cars and industry.
The oil, coal groups on the right want to pretend nothing is going on .
BOTH extremes are wrong and won't help.
A moderate, comprehensive approach is the ONLY practical solution.
This is a tough sell because it requires bipartisan solutions and cooperation.
Red vs Blue is fine for cheering at a game, but it's crazy when dealing with a scientific issue.
-
Global warming.....as scary as GMO, Gluten and Carbs
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/15/americas-most-advanced-climate-station-data-shows-us-in-a-10-year-cooling-trend/
This is based on just U.S. sites which are based primarily in northern parts which could be affected by other factors related to global climate change which could result in slightly cooler temperatures or a skewed average. The same for England which would freeze under current climate models because the thing that keeps it warm, the gulf stream, would be halted by the ice caps melting into the Atlantic.
-
There is a clear, factual relationship between CO2 levels and changes in global climate.
The politics on this issue comes in when debating what to do about it.
The liberal left wants this absurd shut down of cars and industry.
The oil, coal groups on the right want to pretend nothing is going on .
BOTH extremes are wrong and won't help.
A moderate, comprehensive approach is the ONLY practical solution.
This is a tough sell because it requires bipartisan solutions and cooperation.
Red vs Blue is fine for cheering at a game, but it's crazy when dealing with a scientific issue.
conservatards dont believe in weather
-
The linear regression line graph fit based on the data on CO2 vs temp speaks for itself during the past century.
No it doesn't. Hence the fact that there is no warming in the last 15 years yet CO2 levels are rising. Please google the definition of "correlation"
-
GetBig in a nutshell! :D
It is, isn't it? ;D
-
Real Scientists do no go back and 'adjust' their data for the last 10 years. They spiked the data they didn't like when it disagreed with the current political ideology.
-
conservatards dont believe in weather
We don't believe in bullshit scare tactics as an excuse to create another tax.
-
I suggest you fellas report these findings to the US Navy, NASA and all the other scientific authorities in the world.
Wouldn't want them to get off on the wrong track with this.
-
The greenhouse effect does not take into account the various feedback mechanisms like sea algae. It does not trump observational data, which sadly does not support your hypothesis.
So NASA are unaware of this? they are completely mis-interpreting the data they created/collected.
of course carbon sinks and sources are accounted for. What do you think has been going on in climatology for the last 50 years?
-
So NASA are unaware of this? they are completely mis-interpreting the data they created/collected.
of course carbon sinks and sources are accounted for. What do you think has been going on in climatology for the last 50 years?
Misinterpreted? The just deleted and replaced the data that they didn't like. What reputable scientist does that?
-
Misinterpreted? The just deleted and replaced the data that they didn't like. What reputable scientist does that?
proof?
-
No it doesn't. Hence the fact that there is no warming in the last 15 years yet CO2 levels are rising. Please google the definition of "correlation"
Dem's big words bro.
-
$$$$ nothing more nothing less.
-
"Scientists" tend to have data that supports the agenda of those that "$upport" the scientist.
There are tons of scientists that are highly regarded (or were until they dared to against the establishment) and have the highest accreditation possible - that completely disagree with "man-made climate change"
Of the arguments here - AJ is the most reasonable by far.
Here is the thing - if you believe the "planet has a fever" then lead the way for the rest of us and really sacrifice and give up all of those things that create carbon emissions.. Don't just sit there and let the poor planet suffer with a fever.. Can you imagine how miserable the poor Earth feels being so large with a fever?? I bet it has a tummy ache and sore throat too.. But you can walk your ass to work and WalMart and maybe even get that doggone fever to break if you get all of your buddies to do the same..
As for me - fuck the planet I like my Humvee and love to keep my A/C on 68 even when I am gone so that its nice and cold when I arrive. I do only run the front unit when I am away for more than a day though
-
This is why I don't have a party anymore.
-
"Scientists" tend to have data that supports the agenda of those that "$upport" the scientist.
There are tons of scientists that are highly regarded (or were until they dared to against the establishment) and have the highest accreditation possible - that completely disagree with "man-made climate change"
Of the arguments here - AJ is the most reasonable by far.
Here is the thing - if you believe the "planet has a fever" then lead the way for the rest of us and really sacrifice and give up all of those things that create carbon emissions.. Don't just sit there and let the poor planet suffer with a fever.. Can you imagine how miserable the poor Earth feels being so large with a fever?? I bet it has a tummy ache and sore throat too.. But you can walk your ass to work and WalMart and maybe even get that doggone fever to break if you get all of your buddies to do the same..
As for me - fuck the planet I like my Humvee and love to keep my A/C on 68 even when I am gone so that its nice and cold when I arrive. I do only run the front unit when I am away for more than a day though
lol, what arguments, AJ made some statements he can't back up. Co2 has risen sharply, warming has occurred, he is literally completely incorrect. Would make sense that you take "the highest accreditation" as evidence. 99% of the worlds (not just US, see if you can keep up) disagree with you and AJ.
That is, places like China, Turkey, Norway, Russia all agree with NASA, they have data to corroborate. It's hilarious that you think money is the motive, you think the oil industries aren't making money? you think the Green lobby can bully the oil industry? they are paying off all these scientists, for the last 10 years in hopes of a carbon tax. Where is all this money coming from?
you are honestly pretty dense, one person riding a bike won't do shit, the change has to be logical, progressive and take into account the current climate, economic or otherwise.
SCIENCE IS BAD, the internet, aviation, x-rays, combustion engines, interplanetary travel, vaccines etc etc.. all funded by leftist NWO folks.
-
What else did the ‘97% of scientists’ say?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/
The man made global warming cabal have learned their lessons from the Joseph Goebbels school of propaganda, that is
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it......for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie"
-
published just today by NOAA
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CH45QyHWoAQgaNi.jpg)
-
What else did the ‘97% of scientists’ say?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/
The man made global warming cabal have learned their lessons from the Joseph Goebbels school of propaganda, that is
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it......for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie"
what does the pope say? I gather the catholic church is in on the scam too?
???
-
Howbmuch does the pope bench ?
How much do all these climate paranoïde bench ?
Now thst's the Question here..........
-
what does the pope say? I gather the catholic church is in on the scam too?
???
http://drtimball.com/2015/pope-francis-apparently-doesnt-know-ipcc-climate-objective-contradicts-catholic-doctrine/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/18/is-the-catholic-church-burned-by-the-sun-again/
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/marxist-ideologue-calls-for-worldwide-central-planning/
-
I wonder what Obama has on the pope. Blackmail? A bribe? Or just simple Chicago style bullying?
-
I wonder what Obama has on the pope. Blackmail? A bribe? Or just simple Chicago style bullying?
Wait. I thought it was Al Gore
-
I wonder what Obama has on the pope. Blackmail? A bribe? Or just simple Chicago style bullying?
so you disagree with the basic research on this issue?
Because economics is your field, you may not have a grasp of the science, but denying this is akin to thinking the US are in a surplus.
-
so you disagree with the basic research on this issue?
Because economics is your field, you may not have a grasp of the science, but denying this is akin to thinking the US are in a surplus.
Tell me what we can do about this?
Do you really think it will get better if we all live in caves and ride bikes all of the sudden?
Will China, India, Mexico, and other countries play nice also?
Why aren't Soros, Buffett, Gore, Richard Branson, Gates, et al reducing their own carbon footprints?
The world was here long before we got here, and I think it will still be here long after we're gone.
-
It's liberal bullshit. If anything did happen it wouldn't effect us until 50 lifetimes from now. In the mean time the left is going to push for more tax on propaganda.
-
The world was here long before we got here, and I think it will still be here long after we're gone.
that is the point. the world will bounce back, after a few thousand years. but unless we do something, civilization as we know it won't.
massive storms and flooding along the coast will cause displacement of a billion or more people. extreme summer temperatures will make other areas unlivable. Existing farm land may become less productive. all of this will cause famines and war.
Tell me what we can do about this?
simple, get off hydrocarbons. It will take some time and effort, but it can be done. coming up with some ways to remediate the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and oceans would help too.
-
Fear mongering.
Do you really think that fossil fuels are to blame every time there's a flood, a drought, a hurricane, an act of terrorism? Did we not always have these events? What about the recent increase in the frequency of shark attacks in shallow waters? Are those because of fossil fuels too? ;D
I have no doubt pollution is not the greatest thing, and reasonable measures have long been put in place in the US to reduce it.
The problem is that big govt goes way overboard, just as they do with everything else. It's largely a ploy for alt energy interests, carbon taxes, and to redistribute wealth.
Fossil fuels will be here for a long, long time. Big oil and gas companies themselves are working on alt energy, but they're nowhere near close to abandoning fossil fuels. Not until something practical, affordable, and reliable on a large scale comes along.
that is the point. the world will bounce back, after a few thousand years. but unless we do something, civilization as we know it won't.
massive storms and flooding along the coast will cause displacement of a billion or more people. extreme summer temperatures will make other areas unlivable. Existing farm land may become less productive. all of this will cause famines and war.
simple, get off hydrocarbons. It will take some time and effort, but it can be done. coming up with some ways to remediate the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and oceans would help too.
-
that is the point. the world will bounce back, after a few thousand years. but unless we do something, civilization as we know it won't.
massive storms and flooding along the coast will cause displacement of a billion or more people. extreme summer temperatures will make other areas unlivable. Existing farm land may become less productive. all of this will cause famines and war.
simple, get off hydrocarbons. It will take some time and effort, but it can be done. coming up with some ways to remediate the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and oceans would help too.
If we don't commit trillions of dollars to correct this problem the North Pole will likely be completely melted by the year 2014.
-
Fear mongering.
Do you really think that fossil fuels are to blame every time there's a flood, a drought, a hurricane, an act of terrorism? Did we not always have these events? What about the recent increase in the frequency of shark attacks in shallow waters? Are those because of fossil fuels too? ;D
I have no doubt pollution is not the greatest thing, and reasonable measures have long been put in place in the US to reduce it.
The problem is that big govt goes way overboard, just as they do with everything else. It's largely a ploy for alt energy interests, carbon taxes, and to redistribute wealth.
Fossil fuels will be here for a long, long time. Big oil and gas companies themselves are working on alt energy, but they're nowhere near close to abandoning fossil fuels. Not until something practical, affordable, and reliable on a large scale comes along.
Totally agree here, too. Just doesn't seem wise applying baby/bathwater here. How many of those who fervently deny the science have even bothered to read, research, or consider it?
With such an overwhelming consensus, dismissing it as unworthy propaganda just sounds dangerously foolish. Critics should be keeping legislation/policy honest, seems to me, not denying there's an issue altogether.
-
So who exactly can we trust to comment on this? (other than the coach)
Dr. Tim Ball?
-
http://www.principia-scientific.org/review-the-deliberate-corruption-of-climate-science-by-dr-tim-ballreview-the-deliberate-corruption-of-climate-science-by-dr-tim-ball.html
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=415
-
Do you really think that fossil fuels are to blame every time there's a flood, a drought, a hurricane, an act of terrorism? Did we not always have these events? What about the recent increase in the frequency of shark attacks in shallow waters? Are those because of fossil fuels too?
well, oil certain is the root cause of lots of wars these days.
the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the reason there are more, and more intense droughts, hurricanes, temperature extremes, etc.
If we were to burn all the know oil and coal reserves, not what has yet to be discovered, but what know about and have easy access to, the amount of CO2, CH4 and N2O in the atmosphere would be enough to kill us. We can't keep adding these chemicals to the atmosphere. The sooner we stop, the better off we'll be.
(http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/files/2009/03/stuart2.png)
-
Here is a very entertaining as well as enlightening talk by Dr. Tim Ball
Worth watching.
-
well, oil certain is the root cause of lots of wars these days.
the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the reason there are more and more intense droughts, hurricanes, temperature extremes, etc.
If we were to burn all the know oil and coal reserves, not what has yet to be discovered, but what know about and have easy access to, the amount of CO2, CH4 and N2O in the atmosphere would be enough to kill us. We can't keep adding these chemicals to the atmosphere. The sooner we stop, the better off we'll be.
(http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/files/2009/03/stuart2.png)
Good Christ, you've been drinking the Al Gore koolaid.
And yet, with your apocalyptic graph, temperatures haven't risen in 15 years. So, so curious. It almost like your theories are complete shit.
-
And yet, with your apocalyptic graph, temperatures haven't risen in 15 years.
you must have missed my previous post
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CH45QyHWoAQgaNi.jpg)
That a few weather stations in the US showed cooler weather for a few years does not mean the entire planet is not heating up.
What about some plain common sense? How can you think that you can double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in less than 150 years without it affecting the environment ??
-
you must have missed my previous post
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CH45QyHWoAQgaNi.jpg)
That a few weather stations in the US showed cooler weather for a few years does not mean the entire planet is not heating up.
What about some plain common sense? How can you think that you can double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in less than 150 years without it affecting the environment ??
Let's look at some actual observed data rather than ginned up simulated data presented as reality
(https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/aqua-amsu-30n-60n-ch-5-7-temps.png)
-
that is a measure of one part of the atmosphere, about 6-10 miles up. while important, it is only part of the story. that data is from a NASA satellite, yet NASA scientists strongly believe in man made climate change.
-
that is a measure of one part of the atmosphere, about 6-10 miles up. while important, it is only part of the story. that data is from a NASA satellite, yet NASA scientists strongly believe in man made climate change.
You mean he is cherry picking data and actually using the data from the people he claims "made it up". He is simultaneously using a source he claims is fraudulent while also using the very same data to form a different conclusion then the people collecting it.
it's incredible. This guy deserves a nobel.
-
I for one am glad we have several doctoral level, astrophysicists on this board, who can educate us on these pressing matters. Without getbig's wealth of knowledge, I don't think I could ever truly understand the world's most complicated subjects. :D
-
-
The global warming crowd continually drives home the point that "97 - 98% of all scientists agree on global warming". So where did this number come from and how was it determined?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/breaking-the-97-percent-climate-consensus-canard.php
-
Here is a very entertaining as well as enlightening talk by Dr. Tim Ball
Worth watching.
You mean the guy who makes up stuff?
Ball has also claimed, in an article written for the Calgary Herald, to be the first person to receive a PhD in climatology in Canada, and that he had been a professor for 28 years,[27] claims he also made in a letter to the then-prime minister of Canada, Paul Martin.[28] However, on April 23, 2006, Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the University of Lethbridge, wrote a letter to the Herald in which he stated that at the time Ball received his PhD in 1983, "Canada already had PhDs in climatology," and that Ball had only been a professor for eight years, rather than 28 as he had claimed.[29] In the letter, Johnson also wrote that Ball “did not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere.”
added in an extra 20 years, no research regarding climate.
His one study was funded by exxon mobil, I mean, come on...
-
yes, I'm sure everything in his videos on youtube is made up.
Here is another very good video of Dr. Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University, speaking to a committee of the Washington State Senate. He pretty much covers it all (which pretty much agrees with
Dr. Tim Ball)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Easterbrook
-
yes, I'm sure everything in his videos on youtube is made up.
Here is another very good video of Dr. Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University, speaking to a committee of the Washington State Senate. He pretty much covers it all (which pretty much agrees with
Dr. Tim Ball)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Easterbrook
you mean this guy?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/don-easterbrook-heartland-distortion-of-reality.html
the guy who works for the oil companies who agrees with the guy who is funded by exxon mobil. Yet you think there is a clean energy conspiracy going on around the world ::)
there is no cooling trend, the whole basis of this thread is wrong. The guys you cite are wrong, demonstrably so, they are so low on the totem pole of climatologists no one gives a fuck about them. They have done nothing meaningful in the field.
He literally makes up stuff, like completely misrepresenting the IPCC positions and claims, read the thread to see each of his lies destroyed by facts.
-
Yes! Let's not get our science from scientists, but from political disinformation sources like the Koch Brothers. Why are people so willfully stupid. :-\
-
The "skepticalscience" website? Really?
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html
apparently a website put together by high school kids and valley girls
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/
-
The "skepticalscience" website? Really?
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html
apparently a website put together by high school kids and valley girls
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/
lol, you are nuts.
your link is garbage, popular technology.net? more fucking pseudo science links. skeptical science lists it's contributors
http://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php
notice how they actually have some education in climatology, earth sciences, oceanography etc
mean while, pop tech has a fucking computer tech guy and a software engineer. Why do you want to take information regarding a topic from non-experts?
-
Populartechnology.net is another excellent website exposing and debunking the pseudo-science, misrepresentations and outright lies of the "global warming-climate change" group.
For example:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/97-articles-refuting-97-consensus.html
-
I'm sure Necrosis would classify these men as "pseudo-scientists"
http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/07/eminent-physicists-skeptical-of-agw.html
-
lol, you are nuts.
your link is garbage, popular technology.net? more fucking pseudo science links. skeptical science lists it's contributors
http://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php
notice how they actually have some education in climatology, earth sciences, oceanography etc
mean while, pop tech has a fucking computer tech guy and a software engineer. Why do you want to take information regarding a topic from non-experts?
You seem so passionate about this issue.
How much of your own personal money have you sent into to help combat the problem?
-
You seem so passionate about this issue.
How much of your own personal money have you sent into to help combat the problem?
zero.
I wouldn't say I am passionate about climate change, more so truth.
the answer isn't in stopping what we are doing, it's altering what we are doing so that it is sustainable.
-
Keep praying for your ALGore inspired duck in the oven scenario. :D
-
you must have missed my previous post
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CH45QyHWoAQgaNi.jpg)
That a few weather stations in the US showed cooler weather for a few years does not mean the entire planet is not heating up.
What about some plain common sense? How can you think that you can double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in less than 150 years without it affecting the environment ??
The data shown on these charts (from NOAA) has been "adjusted", that is purposefully changed from the original data, the purpose of which is to show more global warming than there actually is. More fraud and deception.
Dr. Easterbrook explains how the data has been modified over the years starting about 13.30 into this video
-
The sun is the greatest factor in earth's climate.
/End of thread
-
The data shown on these charts (from NOAA) has been "adjusted", that is purposefully changed from the original data, the purpose of which is to show more global warming than there actually is. More fraud and deception.
Dr. Easterbrook explains how the data has been modified over the years starting about 13.30 into this video
I didn't watch the whole video, but he seems to be using US temperature data only? Why only temperatures from one country?
-
In this video Easterbrook is testifying before a state Senate committee for the state of Washington. The state senators are expressing concern how climate change is affecting state industries, primarily, it appears, the various fishing industries within state waters. But his charts cover the world with some covering just the US
-
In this video Easterbrook is testifying before a state Senate committee for the state of Washington. The state senators are expressing concern how climate change is affecting state industries, primarily, it appears, the various fishing industries within state waters. But his charts cover the world with some covering just the US
so..based on your research and investigations,
your personal opinion is that the *climate change* phenomena is all a hoax?
-
The data shown on these charts (from NOAA) has been "adjusted", that is purposefully changed from the original data, the purpose of which is to show more global warming than there actually is. More fraud and deception.
Dr. Easterbrook explains how the data has been modified over the years starting about 13.30 into this video
"adjusted" is a statistical term. This guy is a knob...
the adjustment is made because of known biases in measurement, like ubanization, instrument changes, sun exposure etc. this is a agreed upon method to detect "real" changes, with biases removed. So if one station reads incredible for weeks, or something odd occurred like a station move the data is removed, it's "adjusted".
the raw data is there for everyone to see, you can choose to "adjust" the data. The only concern is the algorithms used are known only to NOAA...
-
so..based on your research and investigations,
your personal opinion is that the *climate change* phenomena is all a hoax?
If you mean by *climate change* the proposition put forward by Al Gore, the UN and the IPCC as well as other left leaning individuals and organizations that claims the earth is experiencing unprecedented global warming of the earth, caused by increasing CO2 as the result of man's burning of fossil fuels, then yes, I am of the opinion that it is probably the worst and most dangerous fraud/scam perpetrated upon the citizens of this planet.
The climate is changing. It has always been changing and always will keep on changing. It's changing again right now as we move into a multi-decade era of global cooling. There are some scientists that believe we are headed towards a mini ice age and I think this is possible.
Watch Dr. Ball's video on the Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science.
Ultimately, climate change is driven by the sun. Watch this video of Dr. John Casey, The Sun Dictates Climate Change
-
I for one am glad we have several doctoral level, astrophysicists on this board, who can educate us on these pressing matters. Without getbig's wealth of knowledge, I don't think I could ever truly understand the world's most complicated subjects. :D
...as if any getbigger , would have a legit doctorate in some area of physics ;)
What's the odds of that being true?
-
...as if any getbigger , would have a legit doctorate in some area of physics ;)
What's the odds of that being true?
the odds of a getbigger having a legit doctorate in physics are about the same as Al Gore and Necrosis being right.
-
the odds of a getbigger having a legit doctorate in physics are about the same as Al Gore and Necrosis being right.
;) you'd be surprised
-
If you mean by *climate change* the proposition put forward by Al Gore, the UN and the IPCC as well as other left leaning individuals and organizations that claims the earth is experiencing unprecedented global warming of the earth, caused by increasing CO2 as the result of man's burning of fossil fuels, then yes, I am of the opinion that it is probably the worst and most dangerous fraud/scam perpetrated upon the citizens of this planet.
The climate is changing. It has always been changing and always will keep on changing. It's changing again right now as we move into a multi-decade era of global cooling. There are some scientists that believe we are headed towards a mini ice age and I think this is possible.
Watch Dr. Ball's video on the Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science.
Ultimately, climate change is driven by the sun. Watch this video of Dr. John Casey, The Sun Dictates Climate Change
So you feel it's basically is a scam perpetuated via leftist ideologies.
Do you believe the US Navy is a leftist organisation?
If so how do you arrive at this conclusion?
-
So you feel it's basically is a scam perpetuated a leftist ideologies.
Do you believe the US Navy is a leftist organisation?
If so how do you arrive at this conclusion?
I don't know much about atmospheric science or physics, but I think climate changes due to CO2 is a legit concern for humanity.
-
I don't know much about atmospheric science or physics, but I think climate changes due to CO2 is a legit concern for humanity.
the "debate" has been over for a very long time.
you were in the Navy right?
so maybe you're biased
-
the "debate" has been over for a very long time.
you were in the Navy right?
so maybe you're biased
I wasn't in the Navy, but always had a desire to sleep near a lot of seamen.
What kind of fag studies atmospheric physics?!
-
The data shown on these charts (from NOAA) has been "adjusted", that is purposefully changed from the original data, the purpose of which is to show more global warming than there actually is. More fraud and deception.
Dr. Easterbrook explains how the data has been modified over the years starting about 13.30 into this video
So, you are saying that climate hasn't change at all, and all the charts are manipulated, because this Dr say so? Why in the name of god it goes always like this: There is tens of thousands well respected scientist all over the world saying that climate is changing, but they all are wrong because some populist morons claim it isn't true? Why don't you "follow the money" in this conspiracy? Who will benefit and who has to pay tons of money, if all the industries in the USA has to clean their waste? There is two agendas clearly visible in this matter. One want to prevent global warming because it will kill human kind from this planet, and another which want to keep poisoning air because they are earning ridiculously big money if they keep things as they are. And why you think that this is some kind of American problem? There is scientist all over the world who has make just same conclusions about the data which they have been gathering without anything to do with NASA. In Finland people is planting grapes to start the wine industry up north first time in the millineum, so something has changed already. At the end of the decade we have palm trees in Helsinki and we can grow some bananas in our garden ;D
-
Not saying that at all. Neither are all the respected scientists in the videos I have posted links to. Climate is always changing. It always has and it always will. If you will take the time to watch some of these videos you will see exactly what they are saying.
-
Not saying that at all. Neither are all the respected scientists in the videos I have posted links to. Climate is always changing. It always has and it always will. If you will take the time to watch some of these videos you will see exactly what they are saying.
We know why the climate changes, you are acting as if it's some unknown fucking cycle that cannot be understood.
It's like saying bodyweight changes, always has, therefore no deviation is a problem. Well, say you yo yo 10-15 pounds for years then jump 50 lbs, something happened, was it magic? no it was the variables that contribute to weight, like activity level, calorie intake. We can isolate these factors just like we can in the climate, we measure the sun's output, we know the ocean currents, major weather patterns/forces, the tilt of the earth, our position in orbit everything.
When no other variable changes expect one (in this case CO2) and we see acidification of the ocean (increased co2, grade 2 science), rising sea levels, worsening storms (more heat means more energy in the atmosphere) etc.. it's pretty fucking clear, only someone with a vested interest could argue otherwise. it's basic fucking science, basic.
-
coach, the data that YOU posted showing temp changes right after 9/11 due to the banning of flights... that was the single most convincing piece of ACTUAL evidence that man influences temperature.
WHy did you introduce that? Did you read it and realize what it said?
-
If you mean by *climate change* the proposition put forward by Al Gore, the UN and the IPCC as well as other left leaning individuals and organizations that claims the earth is experiencing unprecedented global warming of the earth, caused by increasing CO2 as the result of man's burning of fossil fuels, then yes, I am of the opinion that it is probably the worst and most dangerous fraud/scam perpetrated upon the citizens of this planet.
The climate is changing. It has always been changing and always will keep on changing. It's changing again right now as we move into a multi-decade era of global cooling. There are some scientists that believe we are headed towards a mini ice age and I think this is possible.
Watch Dr. Ball's video on the Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science.
Ultimately, climate change is driven by the sun. Watch this video of Dr. John Casey, The Sun Dictates Climate Change
You've got to be joking... John Casey has no credentials in the climate science community, he's not a climate scientist, he holds a degree in Management from some shit university. Also NONE of his or his companies work, who seems to be a mouthpiece for oil companies, has been published or PEER REVIEWED.
So basically anything coming out of his mouth is about as credible as going to a two year old for advice on ICBM trajectory systems.
If you want to have a credible discussion, at least use someone who knows what the fuck they are talking about and not some schill for corporations.
-
You've got to be joking... John Casey has no credentials in the climate science community, he's not a climate scientist, he holds a degree in Management from some shit university. Also NONE of his or his companies work, who seems to be a mouthpiece for oil companies, has been published or PEER REVIEWED.
So basically anything coming out of his mouth is about as credible as going to a two year old for advice on ICBM trajectory systems.
If you want to have a credible discussion, at least use someone who knows what the fuck they are talking about and not some schill for corporations.
No one disputes the sun has a role, solar output is down, yet temp up? I love the simple fucking answers, it's the sun and only the sun.
-
No one disputes the sun has a role, solar output is down, yet temp up? I love the simple fucking answers, it's the sun and only the sun.
Right, just like no one disputes the fact that climate science is extremely complicated, but it's still science it gives us a solid baseline of understanding of how our universe works. The science clearly shows that human beings are causing the earths climate to break out of the normal climate cycle.
I was once on the side of the doubters and for a long time I didn't believe it. Instead of listening to the talking heads, the politicians (who btw, shouldn't be commenting on science at all, few of them are actual scientists and most are lawyers who couldn't pass a basic chemistry course in high school), just go look at the data. The data doesn't lie.
I recommend watching a great documentary called "Merchants of Doubt" which touches heavily on the issue of schills who are puppets of the tobacco, oil, chemical and anti-climate institutions who's sole purpose is to sow misinformation and confusion into these subjects. It took 50 years for big tobacco to finally admit that smoking causes cancer when they knew for a fact through their own internal scientific findings back in the 60's that it did. It's a great doco and if you put your personal and political biases aside for an hour to watch you'll realize you've been duped.
There's also the problem of people who warp the data on both sides of the spectrum to further their agenda. It's important that anyone apply basic critical thinking skills to what they are reading or being told. Ask why is this person saying what they are saying? Who do they work for? What agenda if any does their employer or entity who funds them have?
You can google most of these people who go on talk shows who hold opposing views to climate change and easily find out who they work for, what their credentials are if any, and what their past employment has been. All of these things should be considered when assessing the truth.
The sad thing is the majority of you will go on believing what you believe because the truth is too scary to face. The truth means we have to change the way we live and do things, and for most, that's too big of a possibility to contemplate.
-
You've got to be joking... John Casey has no credentials in the climate science community, he's not a climate scientist, he holds a degree in Management from some shit university. Also NONE of his or his companies work, who seems to be a mouthpiece for oil companies, has been published or PEER REVIEWED.
So basically anything coming out of his mouth is about as credible as going to a two year old for advice on ICBM trajectory systems.
If you want to have a credible discussion, at least use someone who knows what the fuck they are talking about and not some schill for corporations.
It's a forum debate and anyone is welcome to put in their 2 cents.
Plus this is the get big forum.
What's the chance some get bigger has a graduate degree is a physics related area, LOL ;)
-
In Finland people is planting grapes to start the wine industry up north first time in the millineum, so something has changed already. At the end of the decade we have palm trees in Helsinki and we can grow some bananas in our garden ;D
Yeah right ;D, but still no Mangos & nude beaches in Mantula land 8)
-
It's a forum debate and anyone is welcome to put in their 2 cents.
Plus this is the get big forum.
What's the chance some get bigger has a graduate degree is a physics related area, LOL ;)
FALCON :)
-
Plus this is the get big forum.
What's the chance some get bigger has a graduate degree is a physics related area, LOL ;)
I have a Masters of Science in Geophysics. USC 85