BARRYOSAMA

Jet packs are a better option in towns like this where taxes are capped.  

#DeVos/Muda 2020 ~ Down with Dolts

9 hours ago, Muda69 said:

 

And it looks like Mr. Trump is now your hero, right?

 

Nope, just shows that he is not the most vile human on the planet.

I now know of two that easily whip him.

#DeVos & Muda 2020 ~ Reject the Retards

2 minutes ago, LaSalle Lions 1976 said:

As a Special Ed teacher...not good.  This is one thing I won't lighten up

No doubt at a government  sponsored educational factory where the fruits of my hard work are stolen by the government in order to babysit the dregs of society.  DeVos and Muda 2020!

4 minutes ago, LaSalle Lions 1976 said:

You do know that the word "idiot" was a term used for the intellectually disabled in the 19th century

Yes.  Rather than spend a few million to fund the special olympics, it would be cheaper to cage the disabled and laugh and heckle and throw crap at em...cuz ya know...they ain’t normal and offer no material benefit to society.

Idiot cages in the town square is much cheaper.

36 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Yeah - that'll get him elected......

Genital grabbing didn't hurt our current Prez

The evidence is that the meme is directionally incorrect.

34 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

LOL!!  that wasn't one outlier.  TD is throwing the BS flag on you!!

 

You cited one source that appeared to quoting a source from 1929.  Every other source I saw said between 20-30 million.  Your citation is by definition, an outlier.

What the heck does "directionally correct" mean?  

Sounds like "alternative facts".  

If you agree with the message, the hell with the facts.

45 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

 Are they credibly a source to cause damage to the environment?  I provided a pretty credible source that claims they are not, which I interpret aligns with the true intended message of the meme.  I don't think many people ever thought bison outnumbered cattle.

That is not what your article says at all.  The title of your article literally says that the livestock industry affects the environment.  Dr. Mitloehner provides data that says it does not have the level the affect some previous studies had reported  (Several other scientists have real problems with his methods) but nonetheless he ends his article by saying:

"Climate change demands urgent attention, and the livestock industry has a large overall environmental footprint that affects air, water and land.

These, combined with a rapidly rising world population, give us plenty of compelling reasons to continue to work for greater efficiencies in animal agriculture.

I believe the place to start is with science-based facts."

AOC would agree.

Dr. Mitloehner, the author of article you cited has his work critiqued in this study:

https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-a-livable-future/_pdf/about_us/FSPP/letter-policymakers/20160512_Mitloehner_Response12.pdf

1 hour ago, TrojanDad said:

I see on the buffalo figures you stopped at the first source from your Google search.  Keep reading....you may just find some other sources that align with the 60 million.  But I do understand you got the number you wanted.

https://www.vorebuffalojump.org/pdf/VBJF buffalo population and crash.pdf

Looks like phys.org feels differently....and I don't think they are considered a fascist type organization

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-meat-affects-environment-cows-climate.html

Chicken Little sky is falling response to meme while labeling someone with a differing perspective fail

I looked at several sources.  The consensus is 20-30 million.  Your one outlier appears to be drawn from data collected in the 1920s doesn't change my mind.

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/rangelands/article/viewFile/11258/10531

I am only calling into question the fake facts the meme displays.  I made no mention of how I thought cows affect the climate.  Your attempt to paint me as anti cow is a fail every bit as bad as the fascist meme.

1 hour ago, swordfish said:

20-30 million buffalo in North America in the early 1800s

Over 90 million cattle in USA

12 million in Canada

15 million in Mexico

Fascist meme fail

On 3/16/2019 at 8:16 AM, Muda69 said:

As a climate scientist do you put any credence into this hypotheses?: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2016-06-15/what-is-an-ice-age-explainer/7185002

 

Highly unlikely.  Dr. Phipps seems to think so as well as he is co-author of a research paper saying that Antarctica warming and ice sheet melting is clearly a result of human activities over the past 180 years.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160824135035.htm

2 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Thank you for your support.

 

And another convo devolved into a mind numbing, ad hominem, straw man, goal post shifting cesspool.

Thanks for staying true to your school.

#MyManMuda

2 hours ago, swordfish said:

For every example you consider intellectual or scientific, I can certainly match with an example I will consider intellectual or scientific.......
 

No you can't.  You just ignore examples you don't like.

I just told you what caused the Ice Age to end and how it is not related to current warming and you put the blindfold on.  

22 hours ago, swordfish said:

Then explain to SF ......PLEASE.......How did mankind or fossil fuels melt the glaciers years ago that formed the Great Lakes and uncovered Canada?

Mankind and fossil fuels DID NOT melt the glaciers, rising levels of greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane have been responsible for almost all of the Earth's major climate changes, but if you are referencing the most recent glacial retreat, that is the result of Milankovitch cycles (sometimes referred to orbital wobbles).  When these wobbles reduce the sun's intensity in the northern hemisphere, a glacial period begins.   Conversely, when the wobble provides more atmospheric insulation, a warming period ensues.

The Milankovitch cycles would predict that the Earth should be in a cooling/glacial cycle right now.  That is not the case.  

Past warming eras were always tied to rising levels of greenhouse gases were always triggered by huge increases in CO2 emissions caused by massive volcanic eruptions called Large Igneous Provinces.  We have not had one of these events in 16 million years.

The current rise in greenhouse gases is clearly the result of the Industrial Era's use of fossil fuels and is the best current explanation for rising global temps, melting glaciers, and all other climate change issues.

2 minutes ago, swordfish said:

 the ultra-liberal WASHINGTON POST. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Washington Post has never been considered ultra liberal.  Someone is believing Trump's alternative facts.

I don't understand lol

npr left center

forbes - right center

MRC - Whacky fringe right!

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

Other organizations think so.

https://www.mrc.org/bozells-column/npr-admits-liberal-bias

 

Organizations that don't believe in evolution.  Nice one. lol.  You sure know how to pick em.  NPR>Forbes>MRC is what we have learned today.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/media-research-center-mrc/

Notes: The Media Research Center (MRC) is a politically conservative content analysis organization based in Reston, Virginia, founded in 1987 by activist L. Brent Bozell III. Its stated mission is to “prove—through sound scientific research—that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values.” Unfortunately, this source needs its content analyzed as it is very biased toward the right. They also advocate for climate denialism and even appear not to be on board with evolution. 

Cosmic Rays and Chemtrails - Pseudoscience for the Modern Conservative by Bill D. Nye

6 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

NPR.  lol

 

Forbes magazine doesn't think so.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/berlinschoolofcreativeleadership/2017/02/01/10-journalism-brands-where-you-will-find-real-facts-rather-than-alternative-facts/#69db9f83e9b5

Real facts, not alternate facts

Made honorable mention.  Breitbart....lol

5 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

I will continue to listen to Forbes while you continue to get the wool pulled over your eyes.

 

Cosmic rays. must be blinding you while also heating the Earth.  

2 hours ago, swordfish said:

Typically it is customary to post the link to indicate who the author is.......You may notice the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times and Brietbart were the links I posted so you can see the basis of my opinion.....

Breitbart. lol

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#619404d33f9f

 

Ill listen to experts...  https://www.pbs.org/video/97-of-climate-scientists-really-do-agree-vl3snl/   you can listen to Forbes.

Tol is debunked https://skepticalscience.com/climate-contrarians-accidentally-confirm-97-percent-consensus.html

Idso is a geologist, not a climate scientist, who is paid nearly 12K a month by the Heartland institute to deny human caused climate change.

As Im sure you know, the Heartland Institute also thinks there is no connection from smoking tobacco and lung cancer.   Lots of credibility.

Heartland, as Im sure you know, has historically been funded my big oil, big tobacco, big polluters.

Shaviv and Scafetta both think cosmic rays and other planets are the reason it is getting warmer.  They are the outliers with wacky research who are also paid by Heartland.

I'll stick with the 97%

Alabama is probably one of the top five states when it comes to relying on the federal government for dough.