ionel

Isn't this pretty much true of most programs? Engineering is pretty tough anywhere in terms of time commitment etc. doesn't really work well with wrestling.

Amen

Well I ask all here, are any smart enough to evade a half million dollars in taxes and then even after caught be able to run out the statute of limitations before any time can be served. That there is smarts ... get r done!

Yes I have ... I du know what you mean.

of course he will ... he is proud of Hunter's crimes.

Well we can't get Senator Dole to vote to impeach Ban ... so yeah not gonna happen.

Climate has been around for 4+ million years correct and cycles in climate etc can be thousands to hundreds of thousands of years so that definition doesn't fit if only focused on less than 100 years.

Fifth avenue is under water, doubt he could do that.

Princeton administration and professor's heads would explode. A friend of mine is a professor there and I'd hate to hear that his head exploded.

Please define "climate change." If you can't define climate change then I doubt there are "climate change deniers." Focus on C02, we can define that.

This is good information, we should be focused on hard data that we can quantify not undefined terms like "climate change." Looking at the article: “The science is irrefutable: humans are altering our climate in ways that our economy and our infrastructure must adapt to,” said NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad, Ph.D. “We can see the impacts of climate change around us every day. The relentless increase of carbon dioxide measured at Mauna Loa is a stark reminder that we need to take urgent, serious steps to become a more Climate Ready Nation.” Wait, so "climate change" is causing CO2 to rise? I thought it was rise in CO2 was causing warming. And now we have another new term, "Climate Ready Nation," which we can't define. Where are the statistical studies that show this causality? If the scientists have the causal relationship backward (or can't establish) is there any hope of solving the potential problem of rising CO2? "Prior to the Industrial Revolution, CO2 levels were consistently around 280 ppm for almost 6,000 years of human civilization. Since then, humans have generated an estimated 1.5 trillion tons of CO2 pollutionoffsite link, much of which will continue to warm the atmosphere for thousands of years. CO2 levels are now comparable to the Pliocene Climatic Optimum, between 4.1 and 4.5 million years ago, when they were close to, or above 400 ppm." Ok this does seem alarming but do we know what the natural cycle is of C02 level, is it a million years, 4 million years etc.? But "This graph shows the monthly mean carbon dioxide measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, the longest record of direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere. Monitoring was Initiated by C. David Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in March of 1958 at a NOAA weather station. NOAA started its own independent and complementary CO2 measurements in May of 1974." wait a minute you just said levels were around 280 ppm 6,000 years ago but you've only been measuring since 1958 and how do we know the levels from 4 million years ago? And sure I know there's other ways to estimate the levels but then don't put so much stock in the Mauna Loa data if its such a short period and we don't know how it fits with longer history and cycles. “Carbon dioxide is at levels our species has never experienced before — this is not new,” said Pieter Tans, senior scientist with the Global Monitoring Laboratory. “We have known about this for half a century, and have failed to do anything meaningful about it. What's it going to take for us to wake up?" Ok sure maybe but our species is surviving. And what are we going to do when we "wake up." Scientists should focus on science, the facts and the data, correlations etc. We need good data and good models to estimate why CO2 is increasing instead of simply thinking its all an industrial revolution point in time impact. I'm sure they are doing good research but this article doesn't provide any information to suggest what we are learning from the research. And sure this may not at all be the fault of the scientist but rather the journalist. I've been interviewed for articles where the journalist put in quotes something that I did not say. Doesn't mean it was untrue but was done because It fit what the journalist wanted to write about.

C'mon Man, those aren't cages, its a fresh air ventilated tiny home condo with a wrap around picture window. The same thing Obama used, only Trump used cages.

reference/source?

sounds about right

ftfy

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/14/us/politics/hunter-biden-indictment-gun-charges.html https://www.wsj.com/politics/hunter-biden-indicted-on-gun-charges-5d6bdcaf

everything is right wing and its a crazy world so ...

Pretty sure that is not a major, perhaps a concentration within the major.

Well except for that final score thing/phase.

Revelation 22:21

Surely you aren't suggesting its a global climate issue!? So if California bans all cars, trucks, trains, aircraft anything other that foot traffic it won't fix the problem?

Can we also make it flat again? MIFA

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-10/retail-ceos-signal-rising-alarm-as-theft-eats-away-billions-in-sales#xj4y7vzkg https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/08/this-is-how-much-money-retailers-are-losing-to-shrink-retail-theft.html