Breaking news: phone records linking him to escort service. IKYN
Printable View
Breaking news: phone records linking him to escort service. IKYN
Is this Hugh Freeze?
Yep. Escorts for players? Recruits? Inquiring minds want to know!Quote:
Originally Posted by Houston Techsan
Himself perhaps?
They said this was unrelated to the investigation. If they were for players/recruits, that would be relevant to the investigation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg68
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...9178ba527f.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by techdawg28
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Bjork, speaking alongside Vitter in the news conference, called it a "sad" and "unexpected" day for Ole Miss. He said had Freeze not resigned, the school would have exercised a "moral turpitude" termination clause in Freeze's contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by faninmonroe
http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/20117453/hugh-freeze-ole-miss-rebels-resigns-escort-service-calls-cited
Seems it came to light due to Houston Nutt suing Ole Miss and Freeze for a smear campaign. I don't know if Nutt is justified for suing Freeze, but he's dished out his revenge
Basically used the same ammo on Freeze that Freeze's camp used on Nutt -
Karma is a bitch...
College football is in big trouble, IMO. It has become another huge corrupt entity, and the enormous amount of money being thrown at these coaches is causing it to a large extent. Houston Nutt was hell bent on revenge against Freeze and Ole Miss due to his dismissal, and this is the result. Nutt lost his multi-million dollar a year job to Freeze, and he would not let it stand. P5 schools, and some G5 ones, have created this monster by paying coaches insane amounts of money.Quote:
Originally Posted by techdawg28
The coaches will do anything to get top recruits so they can keep making mega bucks. Ole Miss is the new poster child for corruption. Besides the usl type recruit score-fixing scandal, it now looks like they (Freeze) are hiring hookers to lure in top recruits. I read that all the SEC coaches despise Freeze and Ole Miss because they have been luring the top recruits away from their schools by nefarious means. They are pissed that they didn't think of these crooked ways to entice recruits.
I love college football, but I cringe every time I see a story like this, because all the innocence, or perceived innocence, of student athletes playing for the fun of it and a free education is proving to be a farce. I know I am painting with a broad brush, but has college football turned into the NFL light? Universities and the NCAA need to get back to the real mission of college athletes, and stop the madness. I know the genie is out of the bottle and there seems to be no turning back, but I do miss the more innocent times of college football.
#letlesfixthemess
:D
All of these big schools cheat. According to Scott Ferrell's article in The Times and the Monroe paper, LSU spent 141,000,000 on their athletic programs last year. I'd love to see an itemized list of their expenses. Everybody just takes it for granted that these are legitimate expenses like they did 35 years ago when they were sending football players to LSU- Alexandria to get free credits so they could stay eligible. They had been doing this for years and nobody called them out for it. Bill Carter thought it was such a non-issue that he wrote about in the Alexandria paper. He thought everybody that read his paper was an LSU fan and would have no problem with it.
Honestly, the NCAA should regulate the salaries of coaches so that more of the surplus from athletics is actually applied to improve the academics. Programs are throwing the money away because they have so much they don't know what to do with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amos Moses
I can understand using donations and revenue for athletics when you're breaking even or worse, but when you are far in the green, give some revenue to academics
Nope. We disagree on this one. People don't pay to watch over educated liberals indoctrinate young people. Also, if the NCAA were to limit coaches salaries those hardest hit would be the upper crust of the G5s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearpaw
How would G5s be hardest hit when we aren't even paying close to the amounts the P5s are for a coach?
How would you feel if the funding went only to improving scientific/medical/engineering (i.e. only engineering, biomedical, chemistry, math, computer science, and physics) research and teaching; also scholarships for those programs. Then, less funding would need to directly come from the federal government, and we could help reduce public debt/deficits.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Most liberally minded indoctrination seems to come from soft sciences and liberal arts
If they are limited we'd be limited. Don't think for a second that NCAA would pass a rule that was not on a "graded payroll scale". Being limited with a $140,000,000 budget does not sting nearly as bad as being limited with a $20,000,000 budget. The NCAA guys are not socialists.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tech52
For the most part, but they THINK they are always the first dawg to get kicked and bark the loudest. They'll always get their money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearpaw
Ain't gonna happen -Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearpaw
I look at myself and what I spend annually on Tech athletics wise & LTAC, NO ONE is going to redirect that money to the academic side of the equation
The academic side gets the money I give them because of the athletic side - not vice-versa
So you climb the food chain to the P5's to those that have NO ties to the institution except through the sports programs and it will be even a larger effect
It may not be the right thing, but it is what it is
I'm not saying that any donations go to academics, I was only limiting it to the PROFITS from REVENUE (ticket sales, TV, etc), not from donations. Very few programs have net profits (Texas is best), but those profits should be not just wasted on athletics (arms race of better coaching salaries, facilities, uniforms, etc.). We don't need to have schools close like the Soviets ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden
In summary, if you have donations for athletics, apply them to the athletic budget. If you have a profit (not including donations), then apply some to academics, scholarships, research, and the endowment.
No! That's NOT what the customer is paying for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearpaw
Ok, but I don't believe the customer (fans) is wanting to pay for coach/players to receive escorts either. And I don't believe we customers want our universities to close because college football has become a shameless arms raceQuote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
The problem.
ESPN signs 15-year deal with SEC (2008)
http://www.espn.com/college-sports/n...ory?id=3553033
The Southeastern Conference has signed a 15-year deal with ESPN reportedly worth more than $2 billion to televise sporting events, including football and men's and women's basketball.
PD and DFM, what are y'all paying for? I'm paying for a good athletic program, with decent facilities and competitive programs. I also want the athletic program to benefit the academic side (awareness is a big one). While I enjoy some of our improvements, some that I've heard of in other programs are unnecessary, and I believe it is moronic for a program to use their endowment as collateral to get ahead (USL)Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Agreed, but that's the market these days... what was life like before big TV?Quote:
Originally Posted by qng001
19 Bowl gamesQuote:
Originally Posted by Bearpaw
Conservatives don't believe in science. Those scientists are the big, bad liberals these days because what they've proven doesn't fit with the preconceived conservative timeline of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearpaw
Driving to a friend's house to watch Tech games on a descrambled satellite dish (late 80s and early 90s).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearpaw
Jefferson Pilot was the bomb.
How did the science theories work out for the newspaper industry? Conservatives believe in capitalism not free stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by theprofessor
It honestly depends on who you talk to, like most things, conservatism includes a wide scope of beliefs. Many conservatives appreciate the hard, factual advances we've achieved through medicine and engineering. However, many conservatives don't give as much credence to the more theoretically applied timeline archaeologists, paleontologists, biologists, historians, and physicists employ to attempt to explain "existence". Such theories are really not necessary to function.Quote:
Originally Posted by theprofessor
I believe I'm 75-90% conservative and 25-10% liberal, in the US mainstream definition. I'm quite skeptical, as most scientists should be. And I know that we, as subjective beings, will never know the objective truth. At the end of the day, all knowledge is belief ;)
Are you talking about real science or algore science?Quote:
Originally Posted by theprofessor
BearManPig ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Cool Hand Clyde
Al Gore's phony, contrived science certainly gives new meaning to an "algore-rithm."Quote:
Originally Posted by Cool Hand Clyde
That may be the dumbest thing I have ever read.Quote:
Originally Posted by theprofessor
Me too!!!!!:shocked2: Without science, we don't have the quality of life we enjoy today. The only way I interpret conservative and liberal is in our interpretation of the constitution. Conservative and liberal have nothing to do with science. Science is how nature works.Quote:
Originally Posted by detltu
Back to the thread. Skip Holtz rumblings. Very distant, though.
Les Miles is what I hear.
Right, They didn't like King George taking their money. I watched the Sons of Liberty series on July 4th. If you haven't seen it, you need to. This is not that horrible thing that Bill O'riley did. It runs from 10 years before the war to the signing of The Declaration of Independence. It's done very well and has some very good actors. It's three 90 minute segments.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
I saw that too, but it was not relevant to us.Quote:
Originally Posted by counselingdawg
What I saw was something on twitter/report (not too reliable, I know) and they also mentioned Derek Dooley (cough cough).
I wish everyone believed like you do. Unfortunately, it's simply not the truth. There are still many people today on the religious right who do not believe that science and the Bible can co-exist. I heard it all the time growing up, and I still hear it today.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
You do realize much of the old testament has been vindicated by modern science? Big example, do not drink/eat blood ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by theprofessor
I know what you mean, and I've heard that before too. A guy in Kentucky has built an ark, and he has a dinosaur on it. He believes the earth is only 6000 years old. My next door neighbors told their kids that dinosaurs were the work of the devil. Both of their kids rebelled from the church after they became adults.Quote:
Originally Posted by theprofessor
??? You can't be serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by theprofessor
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/47/47ae8...aeb653c54f.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by theprofessor
Back to the subject of this thread. I do find some humor in the fact that anybody thinks this is anything new. Some of what went on from the 50s through the 70s makes this look like child's play.
Yep and no one is immuneQuote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
Some just have better "perks"...
Frank wilson should be high on their list
------Read about half of the Killing of the Rising Sun ----- Reads like a novel and has the facts of the whole situation----anybody doubting the dropping of the big one on the Japs should check this book out!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
WTF!!! I'm talking about the Revolutionary War for our independence that started in 1776, not WWII.Quote:
Originally Posted by exflash
If y'all are gonna be reading about the dropping of the big bomb in an ole miss conversation, THIS is the book to read.
http://flimflamthebook.com/
Written by the guy who actually discovered the bomb (phone call to escort service).
Do you think they'll get the death penalty? Were the escorts for recruits?Quote:
Originally Posted by BulldawgMom
I keep hearing that the escorts were NOT for recruits so I don't think this will impact the investigation. Certainly doesn't help them, tho.
Ole Miss will probably get hammered, but I don't see them getting the death penalty. Baylor maybe, but not Ole Miss.
"Precious" getting mentioned as a contender to succeed Freeze. Half of Tennessee hopes someone shares their misery. The other half don't want him anywhere close to the SEC. And I thought the situation couldn't get much weirder!
OM certainly WANTS the world to think the "pattern of inappropriate behavior" only involved the coach. But what's so head-scratching is how fast this happened. They have defended him fiercely for 4 years. One phone call did NOT bring him down, that's for certain. And in a few months they have to use this impeccable character of their head coach to defend the 21 NCAA allegations.... Barney F was a rogue coach but Hugh's Christian godliness was so far above the charges involved. Good luck with that now. Word on the street (unless you live in Oxford) is to just hang on, because there's much more to come that's much worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
You mean "Japanese".Quote:
Originally Posted by exflash
If Miami didn't get the death penalty for the things they did I don't see how Ole Miss would.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
Or the Louisville program in mens basketball. The evidence against Louisville and the Univ of Miami was much, much worse than this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salvatore Assante
It all comes down to $$$. NCAA would never consider giving death penalty to a P5 school especially a prominent one of late such as Baylor or Ole Miss. Yet if someone from a G5 school was caught jaywalking.. NCAA wouldn't hesitate to bury them to set an example because they don't have the $$$.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
"Nips"Quote:
Originally Posted by qng001
Easily the STUPIDEST thing you've ever said and that takes some doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by theprofessor
Actually, the funny part is seeing people with Journalism degrees trying to tell me and other highly educated scientists whether we are right or wrong, based on our political ideology!
Btw, your quote above doesn't really show you to be unbiased, like all of you and your journalist friends are supposed to be.
Saying "conservatives don't believe in science" is just a disingenuous way for liberals (and journalists) to try to shut down one side of the debate without having to actually debate the topic.
Another disingenuous way to shut debate down, used consistently by journalists and the left, is this phrase, "climate science is settled". One of the stupidest phrases I've ever seen. NO science is settled, EVER. All science should be constantly questioned, theorized and tested.
There are many many examples of scientific discovery that show the stupidity of this. The best is that all of science thought that the universe was governed by Newtonian Physics, then Quantum Physics was discovered.
At the very least, we should be thankful that you are again showing your true colors.
Well said!Quote:
Originally Posted by DJDAWG
The very premise of science is violated by the "settled" word. It is all about hypotheses and testing to PROVE or DISPROVE hypotheses. You would think a journalist would understand the basic definition of the subject.
http://www.espn.com/college-football...ulldogs-writer
Very accurate article. MSU fans have been reading about this story for 2 years. Nobody else believed it or wanted to even look. It's surreal to see all these articles from national publications coming out today. Notice the crickets from Mississippi publications...... OM owns MS journalists. Lawyers too. Still lots of smoke the worst is yet to come.
Cheers TSUN! Love, MooU.
Very well said. Today, liberals are nothing more than modern day plantation owners. They seek to put as many people as possible on the government dole via government subsidies. These liberals want an underclass of low income voters to live below the poverty level, so they will be fully dependent on "Big Government" Democrats for their future healthcare, their minimum wage jobs, their Welfare/food stamps, their free education (don't mention pro-choice here, LOL!), their free abortions at Planned Parenthood, medicare/medicaid, daycare, Rent Control, and of course social security (which we actually PAY FOR, and are entitled to). With regard to "Science" and liberals, I thought this blogger nailed it well:Quote:
Originally Posted by DJDAWG
The reality is, it's the liberal's like "theprofessor" that are science deniers, because it doesn't fit their narrative.Quote:
"There is an iron-clad scientific consensus on when life begins — conception — but progressives (or liberals such as "theprofessor") suddenly morph into ignorant science deniers when the topic of human life in the womb — life, by the way, that is actually observable — comes up. And why is that? Because admitting the obvious fact that human life in the womb is human life would do damage to the secular sacrament of abortion. That is why Bill Nye the “Science Guy” muses aloud that there should be a punishment for people who have “extra kids” due to the familial carbon footprint but also releases idiotic videos defending abortion, with nary a scientific fact to be seen.
On abortion, transgenderism, the mounting harmful health effects of the birth control pill, you name it — progressives (or liberals such as "theprofessor") deny it if it doesn’t suit their ideological agenda. And so when they come out bristling with the righteous indignation of a cat doused with a bucket of water over a climate change agreement, conservatives tend to be suspicious. Why do they suddenly want to use science as a cudgel? Why is this issue in particular so important to them? Why do they ignore observable embryology but obsess over theoretical climatology?"
This one is a good read.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/w...t-not-abortion
Why do we have thread titles on this board?
SMH
ruff, ruff, ruff, ruffQuote:
Originally Posted by pawdawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJDAWG
Come one guys. Cut him some slack. Afterall, is he really a journalist or just a sports' reporter?Quote:
Originally Posted by WWDog
I know climate change to be a very real phenomenon, and I have it on good faith that the largest contributors are a group of sisters from Bernice. Having spent time in Soonerdawg's house when he hasn't been particularly well behaved, and being married to his sister-in-law when I might have innocently transgressed some insignificant formality, I have been witness to the most dreadful and hasty change in climate one could imagine.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
I knew there was something missing on this board for a while and this post is an example of what is missing!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtydawg
I'm glad you are back on the board Dirty as I have missed your posts.
Thanks, WWDog. I try to make it back when I remember. I find I get too easily distracted these days. Plus, I've found my new calling at keeping PaDawg honest on that Facebook.Quote:
Originally Posted by WWDog
I spent more time during my journalism career working outside of a sports department than inside it. I'm a sports fan. I wouldn't classify myself as a sports reporter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtydawg
Here's the problem with today's political environment. If you're not a conservative, you must be a liberal. There's no in-between. There's no middle ground whatsoever. Don't mistake my anti-Trumpism for liberalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
Liberalism is not a badge most liberals are proud to wear now because it now translates to socialism. So now many liberal socialist claim to be fence riders. Which social or political issues to you consider yourself to be "in the middle" on?Quote:
Originally Posted by theprofessor
I read the article you posted with this quote. He makes great points about the people most in power that are promoting climate are not following climate saving tactics and that is the reason why conservatives are so skeptical. He is right, if you are as worried about the environment as you say you are you should practice more environment-friendly living. Many are not doing that. But I would argue it has more to do with their position in society than an active disregard for the environment. Conservative Politicians are just as guilty. Lousiana had Senator David Vitter for many years who argued for family values but spent many nights with escorts and hard drugs in new Orleans. We could go back and forth on the double standard of what politicians (from both sides of the aisle) say versus what they do until next football season but it doesn't mean that what they advocate for is inherently wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
Now to the crux of his argument. Climate change due to human activity is not theoretical... it is actively observable and measurable. Although science is never "settled", that is what makes science the engine of society is that it is constantly self-correcting, there does exist quite a consensus among experts. In fact, surveys of peer-reviewed scientific papers on climatology and the opinions of other scientists consistently show an over 90% consensus that humans are causing global warming. Also, the surveys found the more that the scientists' expertise aligned with climate science the more likely they were to agree to the overwhelming consensus of global warming (97 to 98% agree). On the premise of his statement that life is at conception is not a question for science to answer. Science will tell you the what and the how but, when it comes to categorizing rather the zygote is life or not - remains a question for religious leaders, philosophy, ethics and law to decide. Thus, life conception is not a science topic you can "deny" like denying all the evidence to man-made global warming.
Climate change happens with or WITHOUT human activity. You tree huggers are welcome to pay as much you want to make miniscule improvements to the environment. I'd rather not particiipate in your wealth redistribution scam.Quote:
Originally Posted by BOPdawg
No kidding! Clearly you should have posted this to the "Comments That Don't Warrant A Thread" thread. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by rabiddawg
You're right it does. Why haven't all these egg-head climate scientists taking that into account? Surely, they wouldn't have published over 13,000 studies in support of human caused global warming without thinking of that tidbit... Or, perhaps they have. They have found to be a pattern of climate change over the past 400,000 years - and we have broken that pattern. we should be heading into the next small Ice-age (or cooling period) but, were not. We're warming and not only that - we're accelerating in that warming. I'm not a tree hugger. just a realist. But you're coming across as an ostrich with his head planted in the ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
And - redistribution scam???? This makes no sense at all. Can you breakdown the economic mechanics of how such a scam would work?
You have to realize that the energy landscape is changing. We, as a country, can either hop on board so we can lead the effort (like we have with every advancement eg., industrial revolution, and the informational revolution) or, be left behind and let China and Germany soak up the entire fledging industry and every one of the extremely well-paying jobs that go with it. That is what I'm protecting. Not a tree. But the future economy and the jobs with it.
Clean air, drinkable water and unpolluted hunting/fishing grounds would be nice bonus
Yes... but they are merely suggestions.Quote:
Originally Posted by rabiddawg
your mom.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
You keep saying global warming, but you liberals had to change that to climate change because global warming was a hoax.Quote:
Originally Posted by BOPdawg
Here are the record high temps for every state in the US. Notice anything?
https://www.infoplease.com/science-h...eratures-state
Here is a little more data for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by BOPdawg
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicato...al-temperature
Since the late 70's the average temp in the US has risen an average of less than 0.50 degrees F per decade, so that's less than 5 degrees in a hundred years. And I have yet to see any legitimate proof of what has actually caused that increase. It could be part of a natural cycle.
As my new Ole Piss son-in-law says, "At least we still have The Grove."
Attachment 14066
The cost per KW hour to produce wind/solar power is greater than conventional forms of power, so electricity rates go up. But only productive, working people will pay for the increase. All others are/or will be subsidized.Quote:
Originally Posted by BOPdawg
The gov't has continued to over-regulate conventional power sources, charging absurd fines and penalties in order to steal that money and give it to wind/solar. Remember Solyndra? That is re-distribution.
Hell, even ethanol. Producing it creates more CO2 than using it eliminates.
The scams are too numerous to list here.
I want fusion reactors!Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
Your link doesn't support your argument as well as you think it does. Everyone one of those readings has occurred AFTER the industrial revolution began.Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
5 Degrees! in less 100 hundred years! How do you not see the significance of that? That is unprecedented. And all measurements show it is only accelerating. The next five degrees will be over only 20 years. Here is a more informative graphic than your link (shows the trend from year to year and goes back over a 1000 years). Climate scientist call it the "hockey stick graph". Check it out.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/imag...ng?w=450&h=299
I would wager because you haven't even looked. Really ask yourself that. Take a moment for self-reflection. Have you really expended the engergy to read and understand the very science you claim is wrong? There are over 13,000 scientific publication in peer-reviewed journals, and with the power of google you would be able to find it as easily as my 12-year-old nephew. You graduated from our fine school - can I ask what your major was? how about your current occupation? Is either closely related to climate science? Again, I would wager a 'No'. Like I mentioned to you before, Over 97% of climate scientists, whose job it is to study this very area, many are much smarter than me and you, and yet they have come to the conclusion. It is real. It is man-made.Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
You are mentioning the scams of subsidization of the industries. That comes with the government handing money to any industry - Which is why I actually agree with you on that. But, it doesn't show how Climate Science is a scam. Which is more believable - that thousands upon thousands of scientist are in cahoots to orchestrate major legislative changes with very little personal gain for themselves, or ingrained rich oil monopolies and billionaires trying to maintain their own profit margins? I would follow the money and find who has much more to lose. Big oil.Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
I can find as much science to support my position as you can yours. One example is attached.Quote:
Originally Posted by BOPdawg
http://objectivescience.net/truth-climate-change/
Surely you know that the "hockey stick" graph methodology was found to be seriously flawed and exposed as a fraud to such an extent that the IPCC dropped it from it's 2001 report.
I am semi-retired and probably read a lot more than you do. But I don't have to waste my time reading to know a fraud when I see it. That comes with experience.
Remember what I said, I acknowledge climate change, but not that human activity plays a major role.
Run along and play now you condescending prick.
The NCAA can not nor will not (even try to) give the death penalty to a A5 school. It still benefits the big schools to have the NCAA, right now, but don't think they aren't maneuvering in shadows to replace the NCAA one day. Much like how Supreme Chancellor Valorum was stunned and removed from office by Senator Palpatine.
I know there are a lot of sec homers on here but I personally enjoy watching them get black eyes. Not a fan of the sec and that means the instate school too.
My lord... is that... legal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wade_Antley
He made it legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tech52
No, you can't. There simply is not enough peer-reviewed articles that support your position. And, the link you posted isn't a from a study, publication or scientific journal. It's a blog post. Not even close to being the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
The original yes. The revised, which has been confirmed by many subsequent studies and presented here (note the year on the graph, it's after 2001) It also uses a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores as their basis for measurements (where the original study only used one). All reach the same conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
That's great. I hope you get to go fishing more than I do. I assume, since you didn't answer the question, that you don't have a degree in climate science or anything close to it. Nor do you work in the field of climate science. So, suffice to say you do not have the expertise nor the experience to dispute the consensus from the scientific community that climate change is man made. But hey, you're well read by your own admission and know a fraud when you see one - that has to count for something. Maybe that's what 97% of climate scientists are missing... Your gut feeling.Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
OK, pleasure talking to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
Must be the offseason! Pawlitics leaking into the football board. :P
Soooooo.... anyone think Ole Piss will take Kiffin? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Built4Speed
I hate the offseason!!!!
We should want them to hire Lester and in turn Lester routinely beats the DL coach down in BR -Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearpaw
Talking about a meltdown of EPIC proportions....
True "EPICism." :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden
LOL That would be awesome!!!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden
I would say that you haven't looked into the ideological side of this scam. These are globalist trying to destroy capitalism, individual freedoms and private property.Quote:
Originally Posted by BOPdawg
I'll let your side argue for themselves, using their own words, not mine!
Matthew 7:15-20New King James Version (NKJV) You Will Know Them by Their Fruits
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
http://www.investors.com/politics/ed...oy-capitalism/At a news conference in Brussels in Feb 2015, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."
Quote from Club of Rome: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention….and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself….believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose.”
Quote by Maurice Strong, a primary power behind UN throne: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Quote by Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”
Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
Quote by Louis Proyect, Columbia University: “The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now.”
Quote by Michael Oppenheimer, major environmentalist: “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
Quote by David Graber, scientist U.S. Nat’l Park Services: “We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
Quote by Al Gore, former vice president: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”
Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist: “That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”
Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Quote by Ross Gelbsan, former journalist: “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.”
Quote by Charles Alexander, Time Magazine science editor: “I would freely admit that on [global warming] we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.”
Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat: “A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.”
Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models.”
Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”
Quote from Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: “It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.”
Quote by Robert Muller, UN Assistant Secretary General: “In my view, after fifty years of service in the United National system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.”
In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”
IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”
ClimateGate Emails
Trenberth associate Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote:“Mike, the Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC …”
Wigley and Trenberth suggested in another e-mail to Mann: “If you think that [Yale professor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official [American Geophysical Union] channels to get him ousted [as editor-in-chief of the Geophysical Research Letters journal].”
A June 4, 2003 e-mail from Keith Briffa to fellow tree ring researcher Edward Cook at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York stated: “I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc…If published as is, this paper could really do some damage…It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically… I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review—Confidentially, I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.”
Writing to Jones, Peter Thorne of the U.K. Met Office advised caution, saying: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous
In another e-mail, Thorne stated: “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”
As Greenpeace co-founder Peter Moore observed onFox Business News in January 2011: “We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years…The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It’s not good for people and it’s not good for the environment…In a warmer world we can produce more food.”
When Moore was asked who is responsible for promoting unwarranted climate fear and what their motives are, he said: “A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue.”
Could we please setup a thread in the politics forum for y'all to discuss this issue?Quote:
Originally Posted by DJDAWG
BOPdawg, you really need to look into this 97% climate scientists consensus hoax. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta.../#755f5380485dQuote:
Originally Posted by BOPdawg
-------Quote:
Originally Posted by BOPdawg
This is called "anecdotal" evidence. I can do the same thing by showing no major hurricanes have hit the Gulf Coast States in over a decade and there are been far fewer and weaker tornadoes in the Midwest.
-------
Have you ever wondered why the "warmers" use the Centigrade scale?
Remember back to your college Chemistry days (you did take college Chemistry? Hopefully from Dr Deese!). Temperature is the measure of kinetic energy. To calculate the Gas Laws or Heat Transfer correctly, scientists use the Kelvin scale. Why? Molecular motion stops at 0 Kelvin, which is an absolute measurement of temperature. Celsius is just referenced to the freezing point and boiling point of water, which really has nothing to do with gases, heat transfer/temperature or Global Warming!
https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...al-temperature
Since 1880, where the avg temp was 14.51 C, surface temperature has risen at an average pace of 0.13°F (0.07°C) every 10 years for a net warming of 1.71°F (0.95°C) through 2016, to an avg tem of 15.46. That is an increase of 6.55 %. Wow, a pretty big jump in only a century. Graph that and you get a nice upward curve. Scary!
(WHY ARE THEY STILL NOT USING THE KELVIN SCALE ?!?!?!)
According to an IPCC report, https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/005.htm,
over both the last 140 years and 100 years, the best estimate is that the global average surface temperature has increased by 0.6 ± 0.2°C.
Notice the error range allows that the actual increase could be from 0.4°C to 0.8°C.
Do you realize that this is a margin of error range of ± 33% !!!! To form ANY opinion on that stat is ridiculous!
Now, let's change the C to K. We get 287.66°K in 1880 and 288.61°K in 2016. That is an increase of 0.95°K or an increase of .0033 or 0.33 %. Wow, that really seems to be an almost negligible increase. This easily falls within the margin of error range.
Now, the fun part!
Let's graph that, oops, I get a straight line. In other words, if you use the Kelvin scale which ALL scientists should use, then you find that there has been NO warming whatsoever.
Note: Conversion from C to K is a simple formula, just add 273.15 to the C. This also means that C and K measures are a one-to-one relationship. In other words, C is just shifted to get K. So, this is comparing apples to apples.
-----------------
Again, BOPdawg, if the stories or reporting that you read DO NOT use the Kelvin scale, then the reports are invalid. All heat transfer that is done using a scale other than Kelvin ALWAYS results in a failing grade in ALL science classes.
Also, if you say that my work or data doesn't count cause I'm not a climate scientist, then, you are sadly mistaken. I am an expert in math and statistical analysis.
And, I didn't even get into the significant digit rules for scientific calculations nor how NOAA people are going back in time to change the older temperatures to be less so that a nice increase will result
when compared to the current decade. I can easily prove that to you if you'd like.
My friend, you are being hood-winked.
-----------------
Lastly, what in the world is an Average Global Temperature? This is a nonsensical stat that is a modern invention.
How do you take average temperatures from deserts, tundra, rain forests, polar mountains, Pacific islands, oceans, etc. and then average that together?
These are specifically different environments that have wildly different forces enteracting to affect temp and weather patterns.
This is like adding all of the scores from little league, high school, college and pro baseball games and then calculating an average score per baseball game.
These games are different environments and occur at different frequencies.
Adding the scores together and coming up with an average score per game and then making changes to MLB rules based on that data is nonsensical and not the least extremely stupid.
It's the very definition of comparing apples to oranges.
A Global Average Temperature is one of the stupidest statistical numbers I've ever seen!
Ya know what I enjoy on a hot day? A Coca-Cola Icee!