Another thank you Professor
Something worth watching. Click here.
Really enjoyed this guy …CSF. Lot of fun to listen to as well.
This is excellent…CSF….excellent.
ditto
another great listen to………..COMMON CORE…..education or the lack thereof…….
Pray? You said you were not a Christian. Who is your god?
Interesting question, Wayne.
My guess that with the Professor it is a figure of speech. Remember, everyone has an opinion on everything!
more info re: illegals.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2549755
On the lighter side:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxE-lGK_OZU
Just spent 1/2 hour chatting with Cory and Rick. Rick feels really strongly that the elections in November will result in a conservative resurgence.
Any opinion?
Meanwhile in India:
https://in.news.yahoo.com/india-teeters-on-verge-of-blackout-060222690.html
Thermal power plants across the country are fast running out of coal. A massive blackout of the kind last seen in the grid collapse of August 2012 when 600 million people were left without electricity is now a possibility if nothing is done quickly.
I have been studying climate change.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/vwpsw/4154F0B7E470E27785257601005982A2?OpenDocument
This is a long lecture on the subject by one of the top scientists studying climate change. If you watch it, carefully note whenever she refers to solar irradiance.
Changes in solar irradiance are small in relative terms, amounting to about 0.1% of the sun’s output – called the solar ‘constant.’
But that 0.1% in absolute terms is a huge number given the size of the solar constant – the amount of energy coming from the sun.
In real terms it has an effect over the 11-year solar cycle which is about equal to the forcing caused by changes in greenhouse gasses over the same period. i.e. of comparable magnitude to possible anthropogenic effects.
There is however a qualitative difference between solar and greenhouse gas forcing. Solar is cyclic – up and down – whereas greenhouse gas forcing is monotonically increasing.
The problem with the conclusions reached by the global warming scientists is that they assume, because they measure an effect of the 11 year sunspot cycle, that this is the only variation in solar irradiance that must be considered.
from my survey of relevant literature and scientific studies, talks with scientists at the University of East Anglia (referred to as U.E.A. by everyone) I have reached the conclusion the Climate Change scientists may be wrong. This hinges on whether measurements by a Chinese group, directly on solar irradiance are correct or not.
We have the Climate Change group who infer the base-line on which they see the 11-year solar cycle as flat, versus the Chinese group who measure the solar radiation using satellite data who say it is not flat.
This is an english report on the Chinese paper mentioned above.
http://phys.org/wire-news/163418219/has-solar-activity-influence-on-the-earths-global-warming.html
Would that I were half as eloquent as Daniel Hannan. It is a long speech, but even his answers to questions are brilliant.
I pray that America learns his lesson.