Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UNH Hockey: Treading Water or Trending Upward

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: UNH Hockey: Treading Water or Trending Upward

    Originally posted by Dan View Post
    To touch on the thread title...

    I can understand why people would lean Trending Upward at present. However, with the far more daunting schedule of the second half and the lack of progress (and regression - see Stutzle) in recruiting I have real concerns about leaning Treading Water come the end of the season...

    Their recruiting strategy probably is what it is at this point. Souza has been the lead recruiter for nearly five seasons and aggressively moving on kids like Evans has never been the MO. He's not going to last on the market much longer, so I hope that they are in on him and making a convincing case.

    Santa Juana is off the board to UConn. Scardina is headed to Bowling Green. Glasman to Colgate. For all the talk about UNH's inability to compete for high-end prospects, these are proven junior scorers (over multiple seasons) who they could/should have been able to land. These are the type of kids who can lift UNH up to the middle of the Hockey East pack (at least) and help them position themselves for an even higher caliber of recruit moving forward. Adding high-end offensive talent has never been (for me) about landing first-round draft types. Its about adding potential 100+ point scorers (career) and 15+ goal scorers (season)...

    As of right now, Cafarelli is scoring in the BCHL and I'm sure Richels is tearing up HS hockey in Minnesota - but the scoring from the rest of the recruiting classes continues to leave a lot to be desired. That needs to be addressed by goal scorers. Not assist first guys. Not 200 foot players. Goal scorers...

    Nother goal by Evans 7-7-3-10 as a 17 year old

    nother assist by Nick Ardanaz
    The Langley native recently committed to the University of New Hampshire for 2021-2022. Ardanaz is also thrilled to be playing next to his close friend and former Delta teammate John Evans who is also a recent commit of the Warriors for 2019-2020. “John and I have played with each other for as long as I remember”, stated Ardanaz. “It will be great to play out our first years of junior together on the same team. John’s a great player and a better teammate.”
    Why not just make it six years together, next at Kelowna, and 4 and UNH?
    The Souza record:
    15-16 10th place
    16-17 10th place
    17-18 11th place
    18-19 8th place
    19-20 9th place
    20-21 10th place
    21-22 9th place
    22-23 10th place

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: UNH Hockey: Treading Water or Trending Upward

      Originally posted by Dan View Post
      To touch on the thread title...
      Treading water. I get it now.
      I will not be out cheered in my own building.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: UNH Hockey: Treading Water or Trending Upward

        Being a lifeguard in my younger days for many years, and having taught swim lessons during that time, learning to 'tread water' was an important safety skill I taught. Problem is tho, you can get pretty t tired of 'treading water' although it might keep one afloat until help arrives. Was thinking about my now 6 plus years of being a fan of the UNH Wildcats over the weekend and for the most part...feels like it's been a treading water situation. I have enjoyed my association immensely despite of this; I mean, despite the won / loss there's been tons of great benefits of being a fan of this team and following it (even to parts unknown to me like Belfast and later in the month, Tate arena as we take on Army).

        The second half of this season will be full of challenges, esp when we hit the HE portion of it. Here's where the treading water part will be tenuous; you can't just tread water with teams like UML, BC, PC (who can all be beaten on any given night). Coach says our best hockey is before us...I look forward to seeing that. But right now, being where we are in HE, we can't afford to do anything less. See? I'm not as naïve as I thought I was...

        Ps just looked at the "tale of the tape" between UNH and Army...we will have our hands full. They lead the Atlantic and shucks even Bentley lost to 'em 🤔
        Last edited by HockeyRef; 12-15-2019, 12:47 PM.
        Here we go 'Cats!!

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Darius View Post
          Treading water. I get it now.
          Or, maybe Dan meant trending upward, as in global sea level?

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: UNH Hockey: Treading Water or Trending Upward

            Hey guys....been away to long for the hockey discussions, not the politics though!! How does an educated person confuse climate with weather?
            If Dan is accurate on the recruiting post, and I have no reason to doubt him, than I’m very disheartened! I think that Souza is trying to incorporate Alumni with his conference calls, his media updates, et al.....but we all know the crux is recruiting! Unfortunately, I’m still of the mind that neither hockey program will flourish again until Scarano retires! Plot his coming to UNH thru now with our programs successes or should I say failures.....will any coach be given the tools and backing to do what is needed?🤔🤔

            Comment


            • #81
              Zoofer, here is UNH’s Junior Hockey scoring for this season...

              * Will Margel
              (Madison, USHL): 12 G, 1-0–1 (Traded out of USHL)
              (Coquitlam, BCHL): 11 G, 4-9–13 (At least he is scoring here)

              * Connor Sweeney (Trail, BCHL): 37 G, 2-6–8
              * Liam Devlin (Chicago, USHL): 22 G, 4-1–5

              * Aidan Curran
              (Cedar Rapids, USHL): 0 G, 0-0–0 (Doesn’t make team)
              (Salmon Arm, BCHL): 11 G, 1-4–5 (Traded out of BCHL)
              (Bonneyville, AJHL): 13 G, 0-4-4 (Recently left team to return to NCDC)

              * Robert Cronin (Dubuque, USHL): 19 G, 1-3–4
              * Nick Cafarelli (Wenatchee, BCHL): 33 G, 13-19–32
              * Jack Ring (Northeast, NCDC): 27 G, 2-11–13
              * Cy LeClerc (Islanders, NCDC): 26 G, 6-15–21
              * Tim Bakos (Sioux Falls, USHL): 21 G, 3-3–6

              Richels, Sacco, Turner and Winters are all still in HS. Richels is scoring and I’m sure the others are as well, but it’s at a level of competition that has no real predictive value.

              So, quick math as I ride the bike that is 37 goals in 232 man games of junior hockey for an average of 0.16 GPG. USHL scorers are averaging 0.12 GPG (9 G in 74 GM).

              If you add the two defenseman you get 0.14 GPG overall and 0.11 USHL GPG...

              * Nick Ardanez (West Kelowna, BCHL): 34 G, 1-12–13
              * Alex Gagne (Cedar Rapids, USHL): 15 G, 1-4–5
              Last edited by Dan; 12-15-2019, 05:56 PM.
              Live Free or Die!!
              Miami University '03

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by zoofer View Post
                Hey guys....been away to long for the hockey discussions, not the politics though!! How does an educated person confuse climate with weather?
                If someone disagrees with your point of view they are uneducated? Okay...
                Last edited by scoreboard; 12-15-2019, 06:18 PM.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: UNH Hockey: Treading Water or Trending Upward

                  Originally posted by msprice View Post
                  Thank you Dan for saying what I, and I'm sure many others, were thinking.
                  You can say that again ...

                  Originally posted by msprice View Post
                  Thank you Dan for saying what I, and I'm sure many others, were thinking.


                  Originally posted by Woke Dan View Post
                  That's fine Chuck - it wasn't meant to be flattery. Just, remember (when you throw terms like pretentious around) who started this conversation excited about the opportunity to put naive lemmings who don't ask the right questions in their place (and who posted twice begging for my response). With apologies to Darius and others, this post really needs a response - but it will be my last thoughts on the matter.
                  This will be my last response on the topic as well. Just want to point out that it was none other than you who escalated this to the point where we eventually got to. Looking back, e.cat and myself were poking some (deserved) fun at Time's 2019 Person of the Year - apparently the Hong Kong protesters were not sufficiently "woke" to qualify, and/or Time didn't want to hurt its circulation numbers in the Chinese Politburo, learning from Daryl Morey's "offensive" tweet - and I admittedly came off a little overbearing, prompting the estimable 'Watcher to call me on it. We had a relatively tame and respectful exchange, because that's what people having an informed debate do. Then you came in over the top, tried to make this all political … and we were off to the races ...

                  Originally posted by Woke Dan View Post
                  Sure. Your party got paid to flip on what was a critical issue for them (perhaps even more so than the Dems). They profited for their denials - what's the benefit to you in all this?

                  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/u...te-change.html
                  Paraphrasing Woke Dan … wow, citing the highly-partisan NY Times GOP bad, Dems good lol.

                  Originally posted by Woke Dan View Post
                  You have nothing to stand on in this debate if your resorting to this type of attack. Seriously Chuck, are YOU unable to do many things in your own life as a result of posting on this message board? That would be sad to hear. Personally, I (like most everyone else, I assume) am able to post here, have a job, a social life and more - and all in addition to supporting, donating to and actively fighting for many things I believe in. But if you need to convince yourself of the virtues of your own beliefs by pretending that anyone who doesn't work for Climate Change 24/7 doesn't really believe either than do your thing (and if you need to convince yourself, maybe that's a clue in and of itself) ...
                  This was in response to me pointing out that if CC was truly (1) existential and (2) man-made, why are we here d!ck!ing around on a college hockey message board. Dan did not answer whether he felt CC was either (1) or (2). I've answered that it's neither of those two, so I'm OK and not bothered. I've explained why that is. The planet is in better shape now than when I was a kid, and things here in the USA are WAY better ecologically than 50 years ago when I was a 3rd grader on the first-ever Earth Day. Every day, here in the USA, the air is cleaner (less pollution and less smog), and the water is cleaner (see Charles River, Boston Harbor and Merrimack River for 3 relatively local examples). If we can stop public defecation on the Streets of SF, all the better.

                  I do have to admit, the apologist handling of my pointed question about President Obama's recent purchase of oceanfront property on the Vineyard did produce some fantastic creative writing …

                  Originally posted by Woke Dan View Post
                  The fact that you would assume Obama purchasing ocean front property could ONLY mean he doesn't actually believe in Climate Change is the perfect illustration for how deeply you've buried your head in the sand, how biased you are and how disingenuous your arguments are on this topic ...

                  It may be low hanging fruit to make that sort of joke (practically scraping the ground to be honest), but that's not what it has to mean at all. Does it not occur to you that Obama might care about Climate Change BECAUSE he likes the ocean and wishes to live on the coast - or does it just not fit your narrative? In a concept especially foreign to your party these days - perhaps he understands he has the means to take the risk of living on ocean front property and cares about Climate Change issues out of empathy for other people, both now and in the future
                  Yes, of course, what was I thinking? My life experience tells me it makes TOTAL sense to spunk $15MM on an oceanfront property when you're convinced sea rise is an imminent and existential threat. Kind of like building a ski chalet on an active volcano, right? Because you're going to lead by example, and take the hit for the rest of civilization. Whatta guy (ditto Algore).

                  Originally posted by Dan View Post
                  Honestly, one could possibly disagree with timelines, severity or how to best stand up to Climate Change - but there is zero reason to pretend it doesn't exist unless one is looking to profit from said denial or validate ones political standing by doing so.
                  OK … so here's the point where you've finally gotten down from your high horse, and admitted this *might* not be as simple as some would lead you to believe. If you dig back far enough, you'll see I did say that climate was, is, and has always will be in a state of change. In fact,, right now, sea rise is happening at the rate of 3.1mm/year. If that rate is maintained - and most of the models most scientists have put forward in the past have been proven by subsequent real-life data to be overstated (and wildly at times, including the "hockey strick" graph) - that means it will take three hundred (300) years for sea rise to gain one (1) meter. Clearly, Algore and President Obama can do this simple math, too. And if polar ice is net receding in the Northern Hemisphere, NASA data will tell you it's growing at a faster rate/volume down in Antarctica. Archimedes tells us overall we'll likely be OK.

                  ---

                  What follows is a link I've found helpful AND balanced (the many comments afterwards are insightful as well). Issues such as plate tectonics, undersea AND above-surface volcanic activities, sunspot activity, and documented long-term climactic cycles all play into a very complicated picture. So when someone tries to oversimplify this issue by claiming that CO2 levels are THE primary cause, and serve as a "dial" for human activity to impact future climate … it flies in the face of past data, and conveniently ignores the fact that in all previous extended (and more pronounced) warming periods up until now, human activity (and specifically use of fossil fuels) was never a factor:

                  https://www.longrangeweather.com/glo...mperatures.htm

                  As far as the "yucky and gross" argument, I get it. But again, at least here in the USA, it's remarkably better now that it was for generations, dating back to the Industrial Revolution. I never said it was perfect - and the fact is, nothing ever will be perfect. There are huge issues elsewhere in the world, most notably in China and India. If we lack the intestinal fortitude to challenge China on this, let's start with India, which is not run by a socialist/totalitarian regime. Half a loaf is better than none, and a good start, no??

                  Truth be told, we currently lack the technology to rely on windmills and solar panels to replace what the current energy demands are. Over time, that will likely change - as has efficiency and emission levels of fossil fuels. And good for future generations - we keep working at it, and the human race has solved other problems, there's no reason to believe it won't continue to make progress on this too. But to ditch what we have working (wonderfully) right now for something that's not even close to ready, is foolish. It speaks to an agenda of governmental control, all this demonizing of the fossil fuel industry, which has made much progress in my lifetime, and I'm sure will continue to make further progress in the future. Because that's what we, as humans, have always done.

                  JMHO. Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and GO UNH!!!
                  Sworn Enemy of the Perpetually Offended
                  Montreal Expos Forever ...

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Chuck Murray View Post
                    You can say that again ...







                    This will be my last response on the topic as well. Just want to point out that it was none other than you who escalated this to the point where we eventually got to. Looking back, e.cat and myself were poking some (deserved) fun at Time's 2019 Person of the Year - apparently the Hong Kong protesters were not sufficiently "woke" to qualify, and/or Time didn't want to hurt its circulation numbers in the Chinese Politburo, learning from Daryl Morey's "offensive" tweet - and I admittedly came off a little overbearing, prompting the estimable 'Watcher to call me on it. We had a relatively tame and respectful exchange, because that's what people having an informed debate do. Then you came in over the top, tried to make this all political … and we were off to the races ...



                    Paraphrasing Woke Dan … wow, citing the highly-partisan NY Times GOP bad, Dems good lol.



                    This was in response to me pointing out that if CC was truly (1) existential and (2) man-made, why are we here d!ck!ing around on a college hockey message board. Dan did not answer whether he felt CC was either (1) or (2). I've answered that it's neither of those two, so I'm OK and not bothered. I've explained why that is. The planet is in better shape now than when I was a kid, and things here in the USA are WAY better ecologically than 50 years ago when I was a 3rd grader on the first-ever Earth Day. Every day, here in the USA, the air is cleaner (less pollution and less smog), and the water is cleaner (see Charles River, Boston Harbor and Merrimack River for 3 relatively local examples). If we can stop public defecation on the Streets of SF, all the better.

                    I do have to admit, the apologist handling of my pointed question about President Obama's recent purchase of oceanfront property on the Vineyard did produce some fantastic creative writing …



                    Yes, of course, what was I thinking? My life experience tells me it makes TOTAL sense to spunk $15MM on an oceanfront property when you're convinced sea rise is an imminent and existential threat. Kind of like building a ski chalet on an active volcano, right? Because you're going to lead by example, and take the hit for the rest of civilization. Whatta guy (ditto Algore).



                    OK … so here's the point where you've finally gotten down from your high horse, and admitted this *might* not be as simple as some would lead you to believe. If you dig back far enough, you'll see I did say that climate was, is, and has always will be in a state of change. In fact,, right now, sea rise is happening at the rate of 3.1mm/year. If that rate is maintained - and most of the models most scientists have put forward in the past have been proven by subsequent real-life data to be overstated (and wildly at times, including the "hockey strick" graph) - that means it will take three hundred (300) years for sea rise to gain one (1) meter. Clearly, Algore and President Obama can do this simple math, too. And if polar ice is net receding in the Northern Hemisphere, NASA data will tell you it's growing at a faster rate/volume down in Antarctica. Archimedes tells us overall we'll likely be OK.

                    ---

                    What follows is a link I've found helpful AND balanced (the many comments afterwards are insightful as well). Issues such as plate tectonics, undersea AND above-surface volcanic activities, sunspot activity, and documented long-term climactic cycles all play into a very complicated picture. So when someone tries to oversimplify this issue by claiming that CO2 levels are THE primary cause, and serve as a "dial" for human activity to impact future climate … it flies in the face of past data, and conveniently ignores the fact that in all previous extended (and more pronounced) warming periods up until now, human activity (and specifically use of fossil fuels) was never a factor:

                    https://www.longrangeweather.com/glo...mperatures.htm

                    As far as the "yucky and gross" argument, I get it. But again, at least here in the USA, it's remarkably better now that it was for generations, dating back to the Industrial Revolution. I never said it was perfect - and the fact is, nothing ever will be perfect. There are huge issues elsewhere in the world, most notably in China and India. If we lack the intestinal fortitude to challenge China on this, let's start with India, which is not run by a socialist/totalitarian regime. Half a loaf is better than none, and a good start, no??

                    Truth be told, we currently lack the technology to rely on windmills and solar panels to replace what the current energy demands are. Over time, that will likely change - as has efficiency and emission levels of fossil fuels. And good for future generations - we keep working at it, and the human race has solved other problems, there's no reason to believe it won't continue to make progress on this too. But to ditch what we have working (wonderfully) right now for something that's not even close to ready, is foolish. It speaks to an agenda of governmental control, all this demonizing of the fossil fuel industry, which has made much progress in my lifetime, and I'm sure will continue to make further progress in the future. Because that's what we, as humans, have always done.

                    JMHO. Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and GO UNH!!!
                    Chuck, you claimed earlier that you do not take talking points from others, that you speak for yourself, blah, blah, blah, but you continue to post links to bogus sites that deny science. Sad.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: UNH Hockey: Treading Water or Trending Upward

                      Chuck, googling cliff Harris, your "balanced" source, suggests you may not want to rely on that site too much. Unless you also want to buy into contrails conspiracies and bible driven analysis

                      One of the three sources for that chart is from this guy:
                      Iben Browning (January 9, 1918 – July 18, 1991) was an American business consultant, author, and "self-proclaimed climatologist."[1]. 2 He is most notable for having made various failed predictions of disasters involving climate, volcanoes, earthquakes, and government collapse.[2]. 11
                      the second source is from a business writer

                      https://www.amazon.com/Michael-G.-Za...rwt_scns_share

                      the third are secret documents only these guys own

                      I love contrarians who question things, but if there is a consensus, I'd hope for more cogent challenges. Sometimes "settled science" does get it right
                      Last edited by NCAA watcher; 12-16-2019, 07:41 AM.
                      The Souza record:
                      15-16 10th place
                      16-17 10th place
                      17-18 11th place
                      18-19 8th place
                      19-20 9th place
                      20-21 10th place
                      21-22 9th place
                      22-23 10th place

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by NCAA watcher View Post
                        Chuck, googling cliff Harris, your "balanced" source, suggests you .at not want to rely on that site too much unless you also buy contrails conspiracies and bible driven analysis
                        Anything but a newspaper that cites...checks notes...past GOP campaign commercials...

                        I would like to learn more about this post Industrial Revolution clean up, however! You know, so I can do my part!

                        What could have possibly contributed? I assume there were no progressive environmental laws or social regulations (it probably happened by investing more money into factories and rolling back oversight of the industries all together, if anything). Still, if initiatives had been suggested for implementation, I wonder who might have supported, opposed or invested capital in denying the need for said (purely hypothetical) laws and regulations...
                        Last edited by Dan; 12-16-2019, 12:02 AM.
                        Live Free or Die!!
                        Miami University '03

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          In an entirely unrelated topic JVR has three goals and six points in the last six games and is back up to (at least) a 20-goal/season pace for the 10th time in his 11 year career!

                          I’d imagine JVR is excited about cleaning up his game, following one of the grimiest stretches of productivity in the entire existence of his career...

                          He probably breaths easier now that he can actually see the horizon of production through the haze he was previously mired in...

                          Regardless, I bet he won’t settle for these three goals. He’ll probably want to stick with what worked and may even look for new solutions that will help him be even better...

                          He definitely won’t want to get complacent and allow the same old negativity to return to pollute his thoughts...

                          JVR has been very fortunate financially, but he still wants to do right by his teammates!
                          Last edited by Dan; 12-16-2019, 12:06 AM.
                          Live Free or Die!!
                          Miami University '03

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Dan View Post
                            In an entirely unrelated topic JVR has three goals and six points in the last six games and is back up to (at least) a 20-goal/season pace for the 10th time in his 11 year career!

                            I’d imagine JVR is excited about cleaning up his game, following one of the bleakest stretches of productivity in the entire existence of his career...

                            He probably breaths easier now that he can actually see the horizon of production through the haze he was previously mired in...

                            Regardless, I bet he won’t settle for these three goals. He’ll probably want to stick with what worked and may even look for new solutions that will help him be even better...

                            JVR has been very fortunate financially, but he still wants to do right by his teammates!
                            Despite being "a third line plodder," what I like about JvR is that he sets up in front of the net and gets punished on the PP. I think that he is earning those goals the hard way.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: UNH Hockey: Treading Water or Trending Upward

                              Originally posted by scoreboard View Post
                              If someone disagrees with your point of view they are uneducated? Okay...
                              Believe in the impact or not. Believe it is happening or not. Not knowing the difference between climate and weather?

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohdh2is4UMw
                              I will not be out cheered in my own building.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Chuck Murray View Post
                                You can say that again ...







                                This will be my last response on the topic as well. Just want to point out that it was none other than you who escalated this to the point where we eventually got to. Looking back, e.cat and myself were poking some (deserved) fun at Time's 2019 Person of the Year - apparently the Hong Kong protesters were not sufficiently "woke" to qualify, and/or Time didn't want to hurt its circulation numbers in the Chinese Politburo, learning from Daryl Morey's "offensive" tweet - and I admittedly came off a little overbearing, prompting the estimable 'Watcher to call me on it. We had a relatively tame and respectful exchange, because that's what people having an informed debate do. Then you came in over the top, tried to make this all political … and we were off to the races ...



                                Paraphrasing Woke Dan … wow, citing the highly-partisan NY Times GOP bad, Dems good lol.



                                This was in response to me pointing out that if CC was truly (1) existential and (2) man-made, why are we here d!ck!ing around on a college hockey message board. Dan did not answer whether he felt CC was either (1) or (2). I've answered that it's neither of those two, so I'm OK and not bothered. I've explained why that is. The planet is in better shape now than when I was a kid, and things here in the USA are WAY better ecologically than 50 years ago when I was a 3rd grader on the first-ever Earth Day. Every day, here in the USA, the air is cleaner (less pollution and less smog), and the water is cleaner (see Charles River, Boston Harbor and Merrimack River for 3 relatively local examples). If we can stop public defecation on the Streets of SF, all the better.

                                I do have to admit, the apologist handling of my pointed question about President Obama's recent purchase of oceanfront property on the Vineyard did produce some fantastic creative writing …



                                Yes, of course, what was I thinking? My life experience tells me it makes TOTAL sense to spunk $15MM on an oceanfront property when you're convinced sea rise is an imminent and existential threat. Kind of like building a ski chalet on an active volcano, right? Because you're going to lead by example, and take the hit for the rest of civilization. Whatta guy (ditto Algore).



                                OK … so here's the point where you've finally gotten down from your high horse, and admitted this *might* not be as simple as some would lead you to believe. If you dig back far enough, you'll see I did say that climate was, is, and has always will be in a state of change. In fact,, right now, sea rise is happening at the rate of 3.1mm/year. If that rate is maintained - and most of the models most scientists have put forward in the past have been proven by subsequent real-life data to be overstated (and wildly at times, including the "hockey strick" graph) - that means it will take three hundred (300) years for sea rise to gain one (1) meter. Clearly, Algore and President Obama can do this simple math, too. And if polar ice is net receding in the Northern Hemisphere, NASA data will tell you it's growing at a faster rate/volume down in Antarctica. Archimedes tells us overall we'll likely be OK.

                                ---

                                What follows is a link I've found helpful AND balanced (the many comments afterwards are insightful as well). Issues such as plate tectonics, undersea AND above-surface volcanic activities, sunspot activity, and documented long-term climactic cycles all play into a very complicated picture. So when someone tries to oversimplify this issue by claiming that CO2 levels are THE primary cause, and serve as a "dial" for human activity to impact future climate … it flies in the face of past data, and conveniently ignores the fact that in all previous extended (and more pronounced) warming periods up until now, human activity (and specifically use of fossil fuels) was never a factor:

                                https://www.longrangeweather.com/glo...mperatures.htm

                                As far as the "yucky and gross" argument, I get it. But again, at least here in the USA, it's remarkably better now that it was for generations, dating back to the Industrial Revolution. I never said it was perfect - and the fact is, nothing ever will be perfect. There are huge issues elsewhere in the world, most notably in China and India. If we lack the intestinal fortitude to challenge China on this, let's start with India, which is not run by a socialist/totalitarian regime. Half a loaf is better than none, and a good start, no??

                                Truth be told, we currently lack the technology to rely on windmills and solar panels to replace what the current energy demands are. Over time, that will likely change - as has efficiency and emission levels of fossil fuels. And good for future generations - we keep working at it, and the human race has solved other problems, there's no reason to believe it won't continue to make progress on this too. But to ditch what we have working (wonderfully) right now for something that's not even close to ready, is foolish. It speaks to an agenda of governmental control, all this demonizing of the fossil fuel industry, which has made much progress in my lifetime, and I'm sure will continue to make further progress in the future. Because that's what we, as humans, have always done.

                                JMHO. Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and GO UNH!!!
                                +1
                                UNH Hockey: You can check out any time you like but you can never leave!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X