(small)Najee Snapchat Theory

Submitted by WoodleyIsBeast on
Najee put out a video tonight on Snapchat where he was singing while wearing a Michigan shirt. He appeared to wear the same shirt last week, and I haven't seen him wearing Alabama stuff on Snapchat. My theory is that since Najee is private, and the kind of guy that could just show up on either campus, he is either: A) Blue B) Playing with us for attention/firing shots at Michigan. Certainly the former makes more sense based on what his persona appears to be, right?
MGoBoard
Football

bluepow

December 25th, 2016 at 9:11 AM ^

That fact should sow great fear, not provide comfort.  Climate action is NOT about saving the Earh, she has indeed seen it all, it is about protecting our ability to grow crops. 

Unfortunately with methane feedbacks and the loss of albedo from an increasingly ice-free Arctic we are probably already screwed.  At the very least we should all appreciate this is unquestionably the greatest issue of our time, by a long shot.  It is not your children's problem; it demands immediate massive action.  Those that deny now are bad at both observation and the most basic statistical analysis.

Merry Christmas.

Joined: 11/11/2009

MGoPoints: 3931

1464

December 25th, 2016 at 10:47 AM ^

If 99 out of 100 doctors said "JMEISTER, you need this surgery or else you're going to die," and the one other doctor said "JMEISTER, those libtards are all after your money, you'll be fine..." are you getting the surgery? There is nothing more frustrating to me than an idiot with strong convictions. You are just patently wrong, but too brainwashed to realize it.

Joined: 06/21/2010

MGoPoints: 37173

schreibee

December 26th, 2016 at 5:14 AM ^

So - WHY is this a "liberal" vs "conservative" issue anyway? What exactly in the conservative agenda makes NOT believing in climate science mandatory? I mean, I guess at some level "conservatives" are more likely to be creationists, and therefore more suspicious of science in general. And yet I don't get the feeling that those on here mocking warming are also mocking evolution for the most part. So what aaspect of "conservatism" is more prone to create climate change deniers? Without judgement here, I'm just curious. And what's funniest as I type out the word conserve over and over here, is why are "conservatives" so against "conservation"? Is that irony? Anyway if anyone can rreasonably and rationally explain how the two beliefs are linked, I'm wondering...

Joined: 11/02/2009

MGoPoints: 21103

TIMMMAAY

December 26th, 2016 at 10:51 AM ^

Okay man, I'm not a liberal, just to establish that right now. I believe in climate change, full stop. Now how will you attack my viewpoint? Seriously, your first reaction is to break out the word "liberals" as if it's some type of admonishment, without using any facts to support your position.

I would like to see a response...

Joined: 09/08/2008

MGoPoints: 56291

Ryno2317

December 25th, 2016 at 12:41 PM ^

It's actually kind of funny .... I remember as a kid people were talking about global cooling and how we were going to have to somehow make the world dramatically warmer in order to melt the massive increase in ice. In fact Newsweek had a big article on it which they have since admitted -- 35 years later -- that was wrong. (They are certain this time about global warming, however). If you want to see how nobody really knows anything on this topic, go look that the predictions of climate scientists and see if any of them have been even remotely close to what has happened. (Hint -- they are not been .. . Not by a long shot).

Joined: 10/14/2013

MGoPoints: 12486

StellaBlue

December 25th, 2016 at 12:52 PM ^

Hard to believe there are so many ignoramuses on this site.  Instead of mis-quoting Newsweek from the 1970s, why don't you go read an actual science journal?

The models are matching the data with alarming precision.  In fact when the models are wrong they are too conservative---the rate of change is greater than feared.

And what is this absolute hooey that scientists are making this up?  For what purpose?  Careers would be made disproving ACG as well, but the data is clear.   Simply unbelievable how dumb and ignorant so many people are--swallowing the big oil propaganda hook, line and sinker.

Joined: 03/24/2010

MGoPoints: 2180

Roanman

December 25th, 2016 at 5:04 PM ^

There, fixed it.

Money in bulk is being made, across many fields, by making up research and then failing to make it available for review to anybody but your bestest buddies. This practice, by the way has been a lament of real scientists about the state of the science business across the board for some time now.

There is Life Changing Money in government approved research, which means of course research that supports government goals. Government of course don't like to hear the shit they don't like to hear, thus the abuse of supposedly protected whistleblowers not to mention our brand new ministry of truth signed into law just yesterday. That one there being just a glorious example of reaching across the aisle and by-partisan cooperation which of course could absolutely never happen on absolutely any other issue. Two absolutes.

In my business, the joke about the MAI designation which stands for "Member Appraisal Institute", is that it really stands for "Made As Instructed". The business of science has largely gone the same way.

 

Joined: 07/08/2008

MGoPoints: 1405

Ryno2317

December 25th, 2016 at 1:34 PM ^

Wow. The climate models have over predicted warming and sea level increases dramatically. I think it's time to step out of the little blue bubble and do some research. I would normally take the opportunity to remind you that the earth has not warmed for the last 15 years but I think you would need a safe space. Seriously, do some research.

Joined: 10/14/2013

MGoPoints: 12486

bluepow

December 25th, 2016 at 5:38 PM ^

"You cannot predict to absolute precision what you have never before seen" - Said every scientist ever about everything.

The evidence is overwhelming.  The fossil fuel industry has just a teeny-weenie little bit more to lose than those ALL POWERFUL GOVERNMENT SCIENTISTS have to gain; comparing media and/or data manipulation between the two over the topic is comical.  

While we dither we chart a course into unknown devastation that is already happening much faster than most expected.  But, whatever.  Merry Christmas.

Joined: 11/11/2009

MGoPoints: 3931

Roanman

December 26th, 2016 at 1:25 PM ^

The fossil fuel industry has just a teeny-weenie little bit more to lose than those ALL POWERFUL GOVERNMENT SCIENTISTS have to gain; comparing media and/or data manipulation between the two over the topic is comical.

You want to compare Bbbbbillions and up, to the Millions at a time handed out not to ALL POWERFUL GOVERNMENT SCIENTISTS, but the input you miss is the hundreds of thousands of people with their finger in the till throughout the fossil fuel business. Beyond a doubt, the boys at the top are clipping huge coupons, but there are a huge number of mouths to feed.

Compare those Bbbbbillions with the paltry Tens of millions being thrown around at contract scientists who are for the post part University Professors. Let say you're some mid level prof at a mid level Ivy league University and you just brought in !0/20 mill into you department. You have to hand over a nice sized piece to the U of course and hire some minimum wage advanced candidate for peanuts. "Good news tho Big Fella, you are going to get your name on the cover." For the most part the rest is yours to manage/keep as you see fit. Do you really think that the guys in this position are going to uncover evidence of, NEVER MIND, THERE"S REALLY NOTHING GOING ON HERE? Hell no!!!! They're going to suss out some issues that will enable a quick opportunity to go back in for some more grant money.

This is why the abuse of peer review is so revealing. If you only seek review from your buds and/or like minded folks who know that they can come to you for your blessing, the entire procees becomes the corrupt cesspool that we enjoy today. 

 

Joined: 07/08/2008

MGoPoints: 1405

Michigan Arrogance

December 26th, 2016 at 10:04 AM ^

It's so disappointing to see posts like this get as many upvotes as the do. On this blog, it's just sad and shocking.

 

how so many people believe in mega conspiracy theories regarding hundreds or thousands of scientists, grant writers and government employees who are all collaborating to invent data, misinterpret data or whatever is so fucking sad. Ignorance, arrogance, political confirmation bias and an inferiority complex have all combined in this age of information to produce this phenomenon. 

Honestly tho, it comes down to how little respect people have for education in the country. You get a PhD or almost any other letters after your name and about half the population of this country rolls their eyes. And it's only going to get worse, b/c the people without those degrees will have fewer and fewer jobs as robotics development becomes more efficient, cost effective.

They will search for answers as to why their lives are shite, no jobs, no money, no success like the people they see on TV all day. It isn't their fault of course, it's the government's fault. Their school teachers, politicians, and the "elites."

There is no hope for the future, my friends, unless you retreat to VR. Which I highly recommend that you do.

 

 

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 35448

bluepow

December 25th, 2016 at 11:10 AM ^

Wake the fuck up: it's not politics, it's science.  Democrats suck on the issue as well.  Their panty-waist "solutions" are nowhere close to what the current geomorphological changes demand.  Almost all politicians are sold out to the almighty fossil fuel dollar.  I would say 95% of them.  

The data is SCREAMING at us and this is a genie-out-of-the-bottle problem.  It's not "pollution", it's permanently changing the atmosphere while sending us on a wild ride of unknown feedback.  By making this a political issue you trivialize it and delay the fundamentally conservative, fundamentally empowering, and fundamentally patriotic transition to clean energy.  

This solution isn't even expensive anymore but it does represent the greatest transfer of wealth and power from monopoly to individual our economy has ever witnessed.  The status quo is terrified of that and you support them.

Joined: 11/11/2009

MGoPoints: 3931

bluepow

December 25th, 2016 at 5:33 PM ^

Oh, it will cost the fossil fuel industry plenty...hell yeah, but that was their choice ("Beyond Petroleum" never amounted to much, did it?).  However the clean energy revolution will empower individuals and eliminate two monopolies (gas and electricity); financial resources will be more efficiently leveraged.  To society as a whole the vision is very cheap.

Joined: 11/11/2009

MGoPoints: 3931

bo_lives

December 26th, 2016 at 1:43 AM ^

Like it or not the lives of the "plebes" are tied up in the lives of the "elites". See: 2008 banking crisis. There is a reason that changes in the price of oil reverberate thorughout the stock market. If the fossil fuel industry were to collapse overnight, it would result in the liquidation of multi-billion dollar corporations, which would devastate investors, the majority of whom are mutual funds/pensions, etc. whose primary stakeholders are the common people.

While I agree that the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate and that renewable energy is the way of the future, I do not agree with the chicken littles proclaiming that armageddon is on our doorstep. Sea-levels will rise, climate patterns will change. But humans are incredibly adaptable and the technology for instant dissemination of information will allow us to take the necessary steps to avoid catastrophe. The earth warmed at an alarming rate throughout the 2000s, but deaths due to natural disastors decreased.

The truth of the matter is that our standard of living in the west is very energetically costly, and the renewable energy industry is still in its infancy compared to the fossil fuel industry. The infrastructure required to power manufacturing plants, liner shipping, cars/tracks, household heating for 300M people has been based on fossil fuels for 200 years. You are not going to change that overnight.

Joined: 04/10/2011

MGoPoints: 7867