Because you know how to tee it up, shlep-rock.Gee, how did I know that's how you would respond . . .
Because you know how to tee it up, shlep-rock.Gee, how did I know that's how you would respond . . .
Yes, espola, the sky is falling, and its gonna land right on your house.
It doesnt snow that much in the Sierras.We rented chalets near the Main Lodge at Mammoth a few times when we had fewer kids and more money. The A-frame chalets have a second-floor loft with a sliding door opening onto nothing. I asked the agent about it - he said "blizzard exit".
http://aff.bstatic.com/images/hotel/max500/379/37959827.jpg
No, I believe the term for many of both you a Izzy's responses would be, "cliche".Because you know how to tee it up, shlep-rock.
Well La-Dee-Fricken-DA!No, I believe the term for many of both you a Izzy's responses would be, "cliche".
It doesnt snow that much in the Sierras.
signed, The Donner Party.
Great depth, fantastic, Trumpian in fact!Well La-Dee-Fricken-DA!
"For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction"Current depth at the Mammoth Ski Patrol Sesame Street instrumented snow-study site - 109 inches.
Last year the depth peaked at 112" in mid-March. The best year recently was 2010-11, when the depth was 128" on Jan 1 and got to 213" in late March.
http://patrol.mammothmountain.com/Home.aspx
Is that what you meant?No, I believe the term for many of both you and Izzy's responses would be, "cliche".
Actually, its Chris Farley. RIPGreat depth, fantastic, Trumpian in fact!
97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them
The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.
To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
Then this.
April 2015, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 299–318
Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education
Those 2 love birds won't even get out of the cabin.I heard Wez and E are going to Mammoth. I'll be looking for them on Sesame Street..
Shit, I've got plans.Humans 'don't have 10 years' left thanks to climate change - scientist
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world...eft-thanks-to-climate-change---scientist.html
There's no point trying to fight climate change - we'll all be dead in the next decade and there's nothing we can do to stop it, a visiting scientist claims.
Guy McPherson, a biology professor at the University of Arizona, says the human destruction of our own habitat is leading towards the world's sixth mass extinction.
Instead of fighting, he says we should just embrace it and live life while we can.
"It's locked down, it's been locked in for a long time - we're in the midst of our sixth mass extinction," he told Paul Henry on Thursday.