pigseye

He's just not worth the money for the return, but I have been hard on him from day 1.

Sleepers Celiscar, Donald Dieke, Emmanuel

The trashier the better for todays mental midgets.

Let's dispense with the hand waving. This is about cheap labor and power in the developing world for the manufacturing industry and nothing more.

The budget will balance itself, lol, so that's what we have to look forward to, that and sunny ways. What a bunch of dopes, just as bad as Trump supporters on the gullability scale.

I don't understand why you are posting a specific reply (re: cherry pick) from a notorious troll on www.skepticalscience.com. You are being silly. Seriously, it's all here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=10&t=1168&&a=18#3421 I mean Gord even gets schooled by another poster, Patrick 027- why would you even post the above when it was pretty much dismissed/disproven on the next page? Anyways, not sure why you are so anti-science. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/outreach/education/science/clouds_and_climate.html That's okay, you don't understand the energy balance but neither do the scientists creating the models. I would think that if we are going to base an entire political agenda on the 'science' them we should at least be sure we understand it before we do.

It's not that it might be wrong, it's that it can debunked by any first year physics student: The STUPIDITY of AGW. ---- Trenberth's Energy Budget Incoming Solar Radiation = 342 w/m^2 Solar Radiation Absorbed by atmosphere = 67 w/m^2 ------------------- (342 - 67) Leaves 275 w/m^2 available. Reflected by Clouds etc. = 77 w/m^2 Reflected by Surface = 30 w/m^2 Total due to reflection = 107 w/m^2 The percentage of reflected energy is 107/275 = 0.389 or 38.9%. Leaves 168 w/m^2 absorbed by the Surface of the Earth. 168 w/m^2 and an emissivity of 1, gives a temperature of 233.31K or -39.69 deg C. -------------------- Now what happens if the reflected energy was decreased by 1% to 37.9%? 0.379 X 275 = 104.23 w/m^2 so an additional (107 - 104.23 = 2.77 w/m^2) is available to heat the Earth. 168 + 2.77 = 170.77 w/m^2 is now absorbed by the Surface of the Earth. 170.77 w/m^2 and an emissivity of 1, gives a temperature of 234.26K or -38.74 deg C. -------------- The Earth just warmed by (39.69 - 38.74) 0.95 deg C !! That's just due to a ONE PERCENT change in reflected energy!! ----------------- Why the Hell is anybody talking about CO2, positive feed-back loops, carbon taxes etc. to explain something so easily explained? Especially since the AGW'ers admit that their "computer models" can't and don't handle CLOUDS well and the SUN is the ONLY ENERGY SOURCE! ----------------- AGW is UTTER STUPIDITY no matter how you look at it!

What consensus would that be: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9 FYI actual science is where you posit a hypothesis, construct a model that explains how X will react to Y IF the hypothesis is correct. The next, and most important step is to compare the model to real world empirical data to see how well they match. If the correlation is poor then the hypothesis is wrong. It is on this final test that AGW fails miserably, no increase in extreme weather events, no mid tropospheric hot spot, no acceleration in sea level rise, no long term temperature variations that exceed previous warm periods (Roman, Medieval etc). Scientists, like other people, have political beliefs, ideological orientations, and personal views that strain their scientific objectivity. One of the most disgusting things to emerge from the 2009 Climategate emails was the revelation of an attempt to subvert the peer-review process by suppressing the publication of work that was scientifically sound but contrary to the reviewer’s personal views. The infamous phrase “hide the decline” refers to an instance where a global warming alarmist omitted data that contradicted his personal belief that the world was warming. This sort of bias is not limited but pervasive. Neither is science a foolproof method for producing absolute truth. Scientific knowledge is always tentative and subject to revision. The entire history of science is littered with discarded theories once thought to be incontrovertible truths.

Caught cooking the data again http://www.cfact.org/2016/02/02/stats-tampering-puts-noaa-in-hot-water/ http://www.cfact.org/2016/01/26/measuring-global-temperatures-satellites-or-thermometers/

The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth. The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. The convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0. This is all a matter of science and not science fiction as portrayed by the media.

TBD, but my money would be on the safety position.

We don't even need to start a NI receiver, is what I am saying.

Kohlert isn't even a safe bet to start or make the team imo, never mind Puke & Bucknor.

Kirk Penton ‎@PentonKirk Clarence Denmark has found a new #CFL home. Agent says he has signed with the #Riders. #Bombers Oh CD.

About as good as could have been expected I would say. When the draft is not deep, targeting special teams guys is a good move.

Hard Nova for DOS on my 486 Zelda on my NES Gave my SNES and games away Ogre Battle 64 on N64 Fire Emblem on Game Cube Jade Cocoon 2 on PS2 My son has a PS3 but he plays mostly on his computer now as do I.

I can't believe he's only 26, trading his rights would be dumb.

Climate Hustle, just to see how deep the corruption runs.

Jerry Ryan

I would have expected the MTS share price (a lot held by employees) to have jumped with the news but it is dropping with the news that the deal will face tough regulatory scrutiny.

Money or scouting, we'll find out soon enough.

I'm clearly no Dipper but, Doer is one heck of a politician. btw, anyone else just a little concerned with our new PM's policies (or lack of)?

Nice little rainy day fund they got going, and suckit to the clowns who said a new stadium couldn't work.

This deal claims that it would reduce the duration of patents so that cheaper drugs etc. will flow into the system sooner. It also claims it will enforce minimum wage standards and working conditions in the poorer nations. It claims it will reduce the illegal trade in endangered species, such as rhinos and elephants. It will definitely threaten our marketing boards and supply management for milk, eggs etc. as cheaper imports come in. imo, the US is the big winner in this deal, no question.