Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Txchnologist: Has Climate Change Benefited Baseball Sluggers?

Illin worse than Kim Jong the Second!

Of course, the picture is complicated. The heavy hitting of the late-nineties has since been attributed to performance enhancing drugs and the first decade of the new century has seen a marked decrease in offensive output. Then again, drug testing began in 2003, and the strike zone was effectively expanded in 2001—both also important factors affecting batters.

In a perverse sense, warmer and wetter climates are performance enhancers brought on by man’s interference in the climate. Donner pointed to National League Most Valuable Player Ryan Braun’s recent positive drug test, which is shaking confidence in the integrity of the sport. “It’s interesting that the test that determines whether the additional testosterone in a human body is natural looks at isotopes of carbon, which is the same way we show that carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere are man-made,” he said.

But what climate change gives, it might also take away. Baseball parks are likely to have more rainouts, says Richard Stuebi, managing director of Early Stage Partners, who wrote about global warming and sports for the Cleantech Blog. “We may need more stadiums with roofs.”

In a blog post entitled “Sports and Climate Change,” Stuebi celebrates the fact that global warming is bringing greens and sports fans together. “When NASCAR dads and NFL junkies start really caring about climate change, real public sector action…can’t be far behind,” he said.

Repoz Posted: December 20, 2011 at 02:40 PM | 551 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: special topics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 6 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›
   1. Famous Original Joe C Posted: December 20, 2011 at 03:02 PM (#4020032)
This is why we can't have nice things, Repoz.
   2. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 20, 2011 at 03:04 PM (#4020033)
More home runs and more rain during football games. Yea, that will spring the average sports fan into action regarding climate change.

Let's go Bears!!!

Oh dear god....what is this wet stuff falling from the sky?

I believe its called rain.

Why is it falling during this football game?

Because you drive a Hummer.

Why didn't I do something about this sooner! Now its getting all over me! AAAAHHH! WHY GOD WHY????
   3. Dale Sams Posted: December 20, 2011 at 03:19 PM (#4020042)
And how is snow in April and the last week of September going to end up helping sluggers?
   4. Autobahn Posted: December 20, 2011 at 03:33 PM (#4020056)
I can picture Repoz cackling away evilly as he posted this.
   5. tshipman Posted: December 20, 2011 at 03:35 PM (#4020058)
I say the first page is all comments from people bemoaning the impending climate change thread.
   6. Dale Sams Posted: December 20, 2011 at 03:41 PM (#4020062)
I dare anyone to imagine football players running in slow motion through snow without thinking of this song.
   7. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 20, 2011 at 04:08 PM (#4020083)
There seems little need to counter the nonsense spewed by the climate change cultists anymore, as the world seems to be finally catching on to this particular brand of faux science charlatanism. Canada has pulled out of the new Kyoto, and it seems that Japan, Russia, the US, and even the EU will be following suit. In a down economy, rich corporations cut down on frivolous spending, and once-rich countries cut down on sending $100 billion around the world every year to satisfy the faith-based demands of a collection of unsavory religious hucksters peddling nothing more than a high brow confidence game while claiming to hold obscure specialized knowledge to the impending arrival of the next bogeyman. Their knowledge may be concocted from a mixture of thin air, whole cloth, and hide-the-decline emails, but, my god, it's all unfalsifiable, man.

Thankfully, the religion of the climate alarmists is fading, dying a slow, painless-for-most, painful-for-some, death. Their predictions have not been coming true, surprise, surprise. It's now been six years since a major hurricane hit the US, after we were told it was going to be happening over and over again. The life-is-good deniers are losing.

There, Repoz. Thanks for posting the link.
   8. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 20, 2011 at 04:12 PM (#4020085)
And...we're off!
   9. Chicago Joe Posted: December 20, 2011 at 04:21 PM (#4020095)
It's now been six years since a major hurricane hit the US, after we were told it was going to be happening over and over again.


Don't jinx it.
   10. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: December 20, 2011 at 04:25 PM (#4020099)

There seems little need to counter the nonsense spewed by the climate change cultists anymore, as the world seems to be finally catching on to this particular brand of faux science charlatanism. Canada has pulled out of the new Kyoto, and it seems that Japan, Russia, the US, and even the EU will be following suit. In a down economy, rich corporations cut down on frivolous spending, and once-rich countries cut down on sending $100 billion around the world every year to satisfy the faith-based demands of a collection of unsavory religious hucksters peddling nothing more than a high brow confidence game while claiming to hold obscure specialized knowledge to the impending arrival of the next bogeyman. Their knowledge may be concocted from a mixture of thin air, whole cloth, and hide-the-decline emails, but, my god, it's all unfalsifiable, man.

Thankfully, the religion of the climate alarmists is fading, dying a slow, painless-for-most, painful-for-some, death. Their predictions have not been coming true, surprise, surprise. It's now been six years since a major hurricane hit the US, after we were told it was going to be happening over and over again. The life-is-good deniers are losing.

There, Repoz. Thanks for posting the link.


How much of that was tongue-in-cheek?
   11. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: December 20, 2011 at 04:29 PM (#4020103)
How much of that was tongue-in-cheek?


None of it.
   12. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 20, 2011 at 04:33 PM (#4020107)
How much of that was tongue-in-cheek?


As Dan says, none of it. But feel free to blindly follow the cultists, if that's what you need to do so that your world makes sense.
   13. Greg K Posted: December 20, 2011 at 04:33 PM (#4020108)
I dare anyone to imagine football players running in slow motion through snow without thinking of this song.

I can definitively state that about 6-8 inches of snow is the ideal venue for football. Growing up football was fun to play all-year round, but the season everyone looked forward to was winter. It takes a special skill to make cuts in snow half-way up your shins and you can hit as hard as you like, it's always a soft landing. Also it adds an extra layer of strategy. Do you go bare-handed and trade the use of your fingers in future years for better grip? Or gloves and limit yourself to simple passing plays. Or worse yet go mitts and resign yourself to an exclusive running game!
   14. Greg K Posted: December 20, 2011 at 04:38 PM (#4020111)
Canada has pulled out of the new Kyoto

To be fair the Environment Minister has claimed Canada is pulling out because an agreement that doesn't include the US and China is a waste of time, not necessarily that climate change isn't something to address internationally. Certainly Harper doesn't have a reputation for hugging trees, but I think there's more to the decision than the death of environmentalism.
   15. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: December 20, 2011 at 04:43 PM (#4020114)
If "Climate Change" benefits the hitters, then it obviously hasn't been happening lately. In case they hadn't noticed, offense has been trending way down the last few years.
   16. Endless Trash Posted: December 20, 2011 at 04:43 PM (#4020116)
Damn scientists! I mean cultists!
   17. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: December 20, 2011 at 04:45 PM (#4020118)
As Dan says, none of it. But feel free to blindly follow the cultists, if that's what you need to do so that your world makes sense.


I know you have felt it necessary to blindly follow the cultists in order for your world to make sense.
   18. LionoftheSenate Posted: December 20, 2011 at 04:47 PM (#4020120)
Post the north american temperature chart from the past +100 years and then post the MLB run scoring chart from the same period +100 years. Both charts have the same shape. Even the low run scoring environment during the late 60s aligns with cooler temps.
   19. BDC Posted: December 20, 2011 at 04:48 PM (#4020123)
Fortunately, Zazzle.com offers a range of gifts for those convinced that global warming is a cult belief.
   20. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 20, 2011 at 04:49 PM (#4020124)
Ray is being intentionally inflammatory, but the reality isn't far off.

The facts on the ground are:

1) The earth has gotten slightly warmer in the 20th c., though not in the last 10 years
2) Nobody know why (could be manmade, or natural, or some of both)
3) The timing of the warming, increases, plateaus, etc. does not correlated well with human activity
4) Given current technology, the cost of attempting to stop the warming massively outweighs the cost of dealing with slightly higher temps
5) Many scientists and political motivated groups have tried to leverage alarmism about the warming to feather their nests, and enact their own anti-growth agendas
   21. Morty Causa Posted: December 20, 2011 at 04:49 PM (#4020125)
   22. , Posted: December 20, 2011 at 04:50 PM (#4020126)
Fossil fuels are PEDs (QED). Therefore, players will no longer be allowed to use transportation that involves fossil fuels.* Or to play in arenas lit by fossil fuels.

* Not so fast Volt drivers - what produced the energy to charge your car?
   23. LionoftheSenate Posted: December 20, 2011 at 04:50 PM (#4020127)
As for man causing climate change. Man's CO2 output is responsible for way less than half of the warming that has been measured. Likely closer to 5%. That's not much.
   24. LionoftheSenate Posted: December 20, 2011 at 04:52 PM (#4020132)
4) Given current technology, the cost of attempting to stop the warming massively outweighs the cost of dealing with slightly higher temps


You forget the only tenant of liberalism.
"No problem is too small we can't fix at any cost"
   25. Endless Trash Posted: December 20, 2011 at 04:55 PM (#4020137)
Aside from a few tinfoil-hat types, there is pretty well a consensus among scientists now about manmade global warming. To deny it at this point is akin to denying the moon landing.

Now, that doesn't mean there isn't still a lot of stupid crap spewed by ignorant and/or agenda-pushing people, alamarists, etc.. but that's true of anything...
   26. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: December 20, 2011 at 04:57 PM (#4020140)
Listen to Exxon and ignore those evil scientists with their silly propoganda.

I was worried because I almost agree with Ray on the steroids thread (hey I said almost), but in this thread all is right with the world and I can be happy again. We need some Joey and GoodFace posts and perhaps a little SBB. Apologies if I forgot anyone or lumped you in indescriminatly.

Attempted thread jack - I find when I am reading BBTF I read the post, skipping over who wrote it. I often never look, but sometimes when I find it extra clever/stpuid/funny/etc I look. I am amused at how many posts I can identify before I look. Yankee Redneck is the easiest to identify, but there are others.

Do others also do this, or am I the only one?
   27. Greg K Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:00 PM (#4020145)
Do others also do this, or am I the only one?

I sometimes do the opposite, and skim through to find posters I can usually rely on to be entertaining (sometimes even intentionally!)
   28. Tippecanoe Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:01 PM (#4020148)
6) Humans have released hundred millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that had been locked in the ground for eons.
   29. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:05 PM (#4020150)
You forget the only tenant of liberalism.

The rent is too damn high!
   30. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:08 PM (#4020155)
6) Humans have released hundred millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that had been locked in the ground for eons.

True, but the warming doesn't correlate well with that.

If you look at the graphs produced, even by the alarmists, you see flat temps from the 1880's-1920's. A rapid increase of approx 0.4 deg C from 1920-40, a slight decrease and then plateau from 1945-1980, another run up of 0.4 deg. C from 1980-2000, then another plateau.

Two forty-year long periods of massive industrialization showed no effect.

If you're going to argue causation, how do you reconcile that with a continuous increasing amount of CO2 emissions?
   31. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:09 PM (#4020157)
Aside from a few tinfoil-hat types, there is pretty well a consensus among scientists now about manmade global warming. To deny it at this point is akin to denying the moon landing.


A consensus! Wow.

Unfortunately for this silly argument, science is not up for a vote.

And even if it were, there are "scientists" who disagree. (Who are you counting as a "scientist"? Are they in the right field? Are they able to comprehend the issue? Are they affected by their own personal or political agenda, such as the hide-the-decline people?)

Some of this is like asking 100 practicing Catholics whether God exists. Again, it's a religion. And like all religions, the central claims ("God exists") are not falisfiable.
   32. The Good Face Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:12 PM (#4020163)
As Dan says, none of it. But feel free to blindly follow the cultists, if that's what you need to do so that your world makes sense.


I miss the good old days when dumbass religious adherents who found Christianity to be passé believed in crap like EST or Magic Healing Crystal Power and didn't insist they be given control of the economy.
   33. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:15 PM (#4020166)
I miss the good old days when dumbass religious adherents who found Christianity to be passé believed in crap like EST or Magic Healing Crystal Power and didn't insist they be given control of the economy.

These folks always wanted to control the economy. When Marxism didn't work out, they found ecology/climate change.

The old saw about hard core environmentalists being like watermelons is pretty much spot on. Green on the outside, Red on the inside.
   34. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:15 PM (#4020167)
You guys almost make cults sound like a bad thing.
   35. Endless Trash Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:15 PM (#4020168)

A consensus! Wow.

Unfortunately for this silly argument, science is not up for a vote.


LOL

This is beyond preposterous. What *is* science, beyond the consensus opinion of the interpretation of the evidence by those who study it, ie scientists?

The people who make their living studying the issue have come to a general consensus, yes. That Ray from BBTF doesn't like their conclusion is immaterial.
   36. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:18 PM (#4020172)
This is beyond preposterous. What *is* science, beyond the accepted interpretation of the evidence by those who study it, ie scientists?


Just wait until you hear what they say is the motivation of scientists who are agreeing with climate change.
   37. Greg K Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:19 PM (#4020174)
I miss the good old days when dumbass religious adherents who found Christianity to be passé believed in crap like EST or Magic Healing Crystal Power and didn't insist they be given control of the economy.

You were born before or after the "scientific" reform of the Poor Laws in 1830s?
I don't think anyone (religion, secularism, the 21st century) has a monopoly on true belief leading to misguided policy.
   38. Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn) Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:19 PM (#4020175)
Did anyone see "Boss" on Starz? I thought it was quite good.
   39. BDC Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:20 PM (#4020176)
The earth has gotten slightly warmer in the 20th c., though not in the last 10 years

Wait, so the data posted at NASA's website are completely wrong? Most measures show the past decade to have been unusually warm, globally.

Though weren't NASA the people who sent Donald Sutherland to the South Pole in November 1963? So that Khrushchev and Jimmy Hoffa could kill Kennedy and embark on the massive re-education of the American public by flouridating our water and forcing us to buy weak lightbulbs MADE IN COMMUNIST CHINA I SEE IT ALL NOW :-D
   40. stig-tossled, hornswoggled gef the typing mongoose Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:20 PM (#4020177)
* Not so fast Volt drivers - what produced the energy to charge your car?


Lightning Lad.
   41. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:22 PM (#4020182)
Unfortunately for this silly argument, science is not up for a vote.


When last I looked - it was a few years ago I admit - I did a literature search and discovered there were no - that's none, zero, nada, zilch - articles in peer reviewed scientific journals that went against the basic thrust of the basic tenants of climate change. There were plenty of arguments around the edges - man made or not, degree of change, predicted rates of change, impact of change. These are important, and even there the deniers make MUCH more of it than is warrented.

Scientists could make their careers if they could publish such articles. Publish or perish. And yet oddly they don't.

A final note. The "Big Oil" companies are investing tens (perhaps 100s) or millions of dollars in assuming that climate change is real. Don't believe me? Look up their plans for exploiting the famed Northwest Passage in future years. They are dumping a ton of money into infrastructure to utilize the fact that it is likely to be ice free more and more often in the upcoming years.

And yes this is the same big oil that dumps money into "scientists" preaching it is all a lie.

I get that the Lib V Con are suppossed to disagree on stuff, but sometimes it is silly. See the current tempest about lightbulbs, where because the evil 'D' party is in favor of one thing the 'R' party has decided it is evil and must be oppossed. Of course the major corps in the lightbulb industry are in favor of the regulations (which don't say what some people claim it says), but who cares.

And yes in the '70s the D party was more likely to be kneejerk, but lately it is the R party. A cycle I suppose.
   42. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:22 PM (#4020185)
I miss the good old days when dumbass religious adherents who found Christianity to be passé believed in crap like EST or Magic Healing Crystal Power and didn't insist they be given control of the economy.


Glad you didn't include astrology, or I'd have to point you to the '80's
   43. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:24 PM (#4020188)
Unfortunately for this silly argument, science is not up for a vote.

Whenever someone now says to me, "the science is settled", I remind them that a few years ago Pluto was a planet, and now it isn't.

And by the way, do you know how the decision was taken to make this change? A bunch of astronomers gathered together at a symposium and voted on it.
   44. , Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:24 PM (#4020189)
Aside from a few tinfoil-hat types, there is pretty well a consensus among scientists now about manmade global warming. To deny it at this point is akin to denying the moon landing.

My main argument with those arguing that manmade global warming is a serious problem is that they dramatically overstate their case. They have a case. Even a good one. But nothing close to what the sentence I quoted states.

In any case, there is science and there is policy. Science is never 100%. Policy is black and white. Therefore, anyone using science as the end all, be all of policy decisions will risk looking silly.

To me it boils down to this: while I'm not convinced man is the primary cause of the warming we've observed* continually increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere forever and ever doesn't seem a particularly good idea. Just as climate and atmospheric science is too complex for us to know with any certainty that man is the problem, it's very complexity makes our screwing with it a very bad idea. We really have no idea what increasing CO2 so dramatically will do, long-term. Say we keep going and get to 1000ppm CO2. What does that atmosphere do for earth? For humans? We have no idea. Therefore, since we're actually in pretty good shape with the levels we've had, why mess with it?


Finally, you often hear folks state that the warming we've observed is mostly natural (this happens to be where I come down) with a bit of man-made thrown in. But they state this as if it's a good thing. To me, the really scary scenario isn't that man has induced climate change (from which we might theoretically recover by changing our ways) but that it is natural and that the climate humans have thrived in is starting to change in dramatic ways, as it has in the past, and that there is absolutely nothing we can do to change it.
   45. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:25 PM (#4020190)
There were plenty of arguments around the edges - man made or not, degree of change, predicted rates of change, impact of change. These are important, and even there the deniers make MUCH more of it than is warrented.

No one is arguing that it's not warmer.

Those arguments "around the edges" are the important stuff.

The earth has warmed and cooled many many times.

Even if humans are causing it, does not necessarily mean we should do drastic damage to the economy to stop it.
   46. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:26 PM (#4020192)
Whenever someone now says to me, "the science is settled", I remind them that a few years ago Pluto was a planet, and now it isn't.


"Planet" isn't so much a science thing as it is a way to divide things. It was either 8 planets, with formation being the differentiation, or 13 planets, with size being the differentiation.
   47. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:28 PM (#4020195)
No one is arguing that it's not warmer.


Ray just did in #7, if you missed it.

And the Republican Party as a whole seems to have taken a position that it isn't happening.
   48. ?Donde esta Dagoberto Campaneris? Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:31 PM (#4020199)
To me it boils down to this: while I'm not convinced man is the primary cause of the warming we've observed* continually increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere forever and ever doesn't seem a particularly good idea.

I'm not as worried about CO2 as I am about wasting all of that extremely useful petroleum primarily for transportation purposes, but this is about where I come down.
   49. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:31 PM (#4020200)
Wait, so the data posted at NASA's website are completely wrong? Most measures show the past decade to have been unusually warm, globally.

Being warm does not necessarily mean getting warmer. We are at a local maxima, yes. But the graph you link shows a plateau in the recent past.
   50. Greg K Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:31 PM (#4020201)
The earth has warmed and cooled many many times.

This is certainly true, and it usually had dramatic effects for human societies. All the more reason to be fully aware of any effect we have over climate. If things beyond our control are shifting all the more reason to try to mitigate the change rather than exacerbate it.
   51. trantor Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:32 PM (#4020204)
I guess it is time to put a second * next to the Babe's records, after all, he played during the temperature upswing and climate peak of the late 20's/30's global warming temperature peak. That might be a worse crime than not competing against black players.
   52. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:32 PM (#4020206)
Ray just did in #7, if you missed it.

I don't think that's what he's saying.
   53. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:33 PM (#4020207)
When last I looked - it was a few years ago I admit - I did a literature search and discovered there were no - that's none, zero, nada, zilch - articles in peer reviewed scientific journals that went against the basic thrust of the basic tenants of climate change. There were plenty of arguments around the edges - man made or not, degree of change, predicted rates of change, impact of change. These are important,


Yes, they are important. They are crucial issues, not fringe issues that are "around the edges." WTF?
   54. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:35 PM (#4020210)
This is certainly true, and it usually had dramatic effects for human societies. All the more reason to be fully aware of any effect we have over climate. If things beyond our control are shifting all the more reason to try to mitigate the change rather than exacerbate it.

True. but it has been cold spells that have been devastating. The warm spells generally bring prosperity.

If we could mitigate the human effect on the climate costlessly, sure. But, you're talking massive economic costs.

I'm old enough to remember when "the next ice age" was a source of concern.
   55. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:36 PM (#4020211)
No one is arguing that it's not warmer.

Ray just did in #7, if you missed it.


No, I didn't argue that at all.
   56. Endless Trash Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:36 PM (#4020212)

When last I looked - it was a few years ago I admit - I did a literature search and discovered there were no - that's none, zero, nada, zilch - articles in peer reviewed scientific journals that went against the basic thrust of the basic tenants of climate change. There were plenty of arguments around the edges - man made or not, degree of change, predicted rates of change, impact of change. These are important, and even there the deniers make MUCH more of it than is warrented.


Exactly.

Since then, there has been more settling around some of these edges ... there isn't that much real debate (among scientists...not among loons) about the "manmade" part, anymore.

And by the way, do you know how the decision was taken to make this change? A bunch of astronomers gathered together at a symposium and voted on it.


This is an oversimplification of what happened.

As it was, there was no hard criteria of what constitutes a "planet." The discovery of more than a couple pluto-sized objects found orbiting beyond its orbit led to a debate on whether these new objects should be classified as planets. This led to scientists deciding they needed to come up with real criteria on what constitutes a "planet." And yes, they had a big symposium and voted on what criteria makes a planet a planet,
simplifying:

1) It orbits a star
2) It's roundish
3) It doesn't intersect other orbits

As it turns out, Pluto violates (3) and is thus not a planet under the new (and first) criteria developed to define planets. That's what happened. Technically, it wasn't even a "change." We went from having no real definition of planets, beyond the arbitrary nine that had been in place for 50 some odd years, and finally developed this criteria which happened to exclude Pluto.

What this has to do with climate change or interpreting evidence is beyond me.
   57. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:37 PM (#4020213)
I sometimes do the opposite, and skim through to find posters I can usually rely on to be entertaining (sometimes even intentionally!)


And you read mine! I'll assume a simple mistake and move on.
   58. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:38 PM (#4020214)
No, I didn't argue that at all.


It's either that or you're claiming that climate change will have no effect, which is just as crazy.
   59. Endless Trash Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:40 PM (#4020218)

In any case, there is science and there is policy. Science is never 100%. Policy is black and white. Therefore, anyone using science as the end all, be all of policy decisions will risk looking silly.


Right, it's not 100%, and it evolves. More evidence surfaces and the consensus shifts. My problem with "the other side" is that they don't change their opinion based on the evidence. Check the calendar, it's not 2003 anymore.
   60. , Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:41 PM (#4020219)
I'm not as worried about CO2 as I am about wasting all of that extremely useful petroleum primarily for transportation purposes, but this is about where I come down.

Yeah, this is a big thing too. Burn up all the petroleum and you're looking at steel laptops or granite ipods.

So, I'm very sympathetic with, for want of a better term, the Left's goals re climate change. I just think they have next to no plan how to make their changes without destroying the economy. Reducing fossil fuels by having a few billion people starve doesn't seem a very good plan. Of course, I don't really have much of a plan, either. I'm a research scientist and I can tell you that "research", while important, is not a short-term solution to anything.

If I were in charge of policy, you would all be sitting next to (figuratively, of course) a modern nuclear reactor. I'm not saying it's no-risk, but it's the only technology I know of that can do what the those pushing Kyoto and such want done.

Speaking of nuclear, the standoff between the US and China on climate change seems very like the nuclear arms race between the Soviets and the US. Lots of people want the two parties to behave a certain way, arguing that the very survival of our race hangs in the balance, but neither side can safely do so without certainty the other side is also doing it. And there is no way to be certain about it. Classic stalemate. So neither side changes and all the minor players in orbit either can't safely change their behavior either or realize that there is no point if the two big boys don't change or both.
   61. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:42 PM (#4020220)
What this has to do with climate change or interpreting evidence is beyond me.

Your entire post illustrates the point I tried to make. Very little in science is ever truly "settled". We may believe it is, but then new information has a funny way of surfacing that often forces science to rethink what it thought it knew.

As another example: in climate science, the scientists still don't even agree on what the best method is to use in order to measure temperatures. Some climatologists believe that the best way is with ground-based temperature stations, and others believe the best way is with satellites.

When people who study the climate can't even agree on something so simple as this, it's hard to take seriously anyone who would claim that far more complex issues regarding the earth's climate are "settled".
   62. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:44 PM (#4020224)
It's either that or you're claiming that climate change will have no effect, which is just as crazy.


No, I am not claiming that at all, and it does not follow from my comments that I must be saying one or the other. You're 0 for 2.

The only thing you've gotten correct was to observe in post #11 that my post #7 was not tongue-in-cheek.

So I guess technically you're 1 for 3. Depending on whether your post #11 qualifies. Perhaps we should vote on it.
   63. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:45 PM (#4020226)
If I were in charge of policy, you would all be sitting next to (figuratively, of course) a modern nuclear reactor. I'm not saying it's no-risk, but it's the only technology I know of that can do what the those pushing Kyoto and such want done.

I'm perfectly happy to see more nuclear power in the US. I'd love for us to be less dependent of fossil fuels, but for geo-politcal reasons.
   64. Endless Trash Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:46 PM (#4020228)

Your entire post illustrates the point I tried to make. Very little in science is ever truly "settled". We may believe it is, but then new information has a funny way of surfacing that often forces science to rethink what it thought it knew.
\

I agree, and this is a great thing. This is the best thing about science. The only person who has used the word "settled" in this thread is you, so I don't know why you keep putting it in quote-marks. I said that there is a general consensus right now, among scientists, that manmade global warming is real. That is the current state of the science. Things may change, but until new evidence surfaces why should we assume that it's wrong?

Hey, we have no evidence that the Loch Ness Monster exists, but no science is "settled" so let's just assume that it does. Makes sense to me.
   65. Greg K Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:47 PM (#4020232)
And you read mine! I'll assume a simple mistake and move on.

You're on the provisionary list. As long as you score an average above 5.6 on your next 14 posts you're locked in until your next annual review. Barring you saying something mean about Brett Lawrie of course.
   66. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:48 PM (#4020234)

Your entire post illustrates the point I tried to make. Very little in science is ever truly "settled". We may believe it is, but then new information has a funny way of surfacing that often forces science to rethink what it thought it knew.


Except that "planet" was arbitrary, and not really something scientists cared about.

As another example: in climate science, the scientists still don't even agree on what the best method is to use in order to measure temperatures. Some climatologists believe that the best way is with ground-based temperature stations, and others believe the best way is with satellites.


The differences in terms of how much warming there has been is very, very small.

When people who study the climate can't even agree on something so simple as this, it's hard to take seriously anyone who would claim that far more complex issues regarding the earth's climate are "settled".


So an argument of which tool is more accurate than anoother tool that differs only very slightly makes the whole thing suspect?
   67. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:49 PM (#4020235)
No, I am not claiming that at all, and it does not follow from my comments that I must be saying one or the other. You're 0 for 2.


Then what is your position?
   68. , Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:49 PM (#4020236)
My problem with "the other side" is that they don't change their opinion based on the evidence.

Neither side does, though. Every politician ever has used science as a means to an end. If the science supports their position, use it as if it were written in stone. If it doesn't, obfuscate and cut funding.

The trouble with "settled science" is that science is always settled. Until the next game-changing discovery.

As I say, I'm not really arguing with the goals of the climate change is trouble camp. There is clearly sufficient evidence to cause concern. Using our fossil fuels more wisely would be a good thing. Cheaper, cleaner energy would be a great thing. It isn't going to happen just because the government mandates it.

But statements that it is fact, rather than supported theory* or alarmist stuff like earth will be a desert wasteland in 50 years does more harm than good in my opinion. People who might otherwise be sympathetic to the idea instinctively know it's alarist stuff with more than a little bit of ideology thrown in and, therefore, dismiss it. If you want to be the rational, responsible participant in the debate you have to be rational and responsible.


* That balls dropped from a height drop to the ground is a fact. Gravity is a theory.**

** Newtonian physics was "settled science" for 300 years. Then it wasn't. And it was much simpler than the climate.
   69. Endless Trash Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:50 PM (#4020237)

So an argument of which tool is more accurate than anoother tool that differs only very slightly makes the whole thing suspect?


This is the same kind of argument we see from evolution deniers. Find some small, almost arbitrary thing that hasn't quite been decided yet, and use that to call into question the entire theory. Madness.
   70. Bob Tufts Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:51 PM (#4020239)
Are we talking climate change, AGW or global warming? I think they've had more of an effect on hockey sticks than baseball or football.

We need a sabremetric analysis not just of the science, but the of proposed fixes and their costs. It cannot be hysteria driven and remind us of HOF/steroid/Chass blogs.

Tell me the costs and "return" before I decide what I think should be done.
   71. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:53 PM (#4020240)
So an argument of which tool is more accurate than anoother tool that differs only very slightly makes the whole thing suspect?

Yes. Until the so-called smart guys settle the WAR vs. Win Shares controversy, there is no such thing as a good baseball player.
   72. Endless Trash Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:56 PM (#4020244)

Neither side does, though. Every politician ever has used science as a means to an end. If the science supports their position, use it as if it were written in stone. If it doesn't, obfuscate and cut funding.


I should state for the record that I have no dog in the political fight. I don't live in the US; I don't care about your politics. I am commenting on the science and its acceptance among the mainstream, and its denialism by some who simply don't like the conclusion.

The idea that we should assume something is wrong because some evidence might surface in the future is just bizarre. Newtonian physics may have been supplanted by Einstein, but it's the best we had for years and it's still in use because of its practicality for 99% of human purpose. Are you saying that people in the 19th century should have rejected Newtonian physics out of some prescient notion that it might be replaced in the future? It is just strange to me.
   73. , Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:57 PM (#4020247)
I'm perfectly happy to see more nuclear power in the US. I'd love for us to be less dependent of fossil fuels, but for geo-politcal reasons.

The reluctance of climate change zealots* to embrace nuclear power suggests to me that climate concerns are secondary for them to ideological concerns. Nuclear has a lot of problems, political first, technical second. But if you truly believe climate change is a threat to our existence, you should want the US Navy to start building nuclear reactors without regard to unions, regs, etc. If the normal sort of politicking is still to be maintained, you must not really believe it is as grave a threat as you say it is. Basically have a WPA push to build nuclear reactors and e-car charging stations. Dot the landscape with them. Once constructed, ban cars that use fossil fuel. If we were to do this with the urgency that "grave threat to our survival" dictates, you could be done with it in 10 years, maybe less.

If you aren't in favor of this, you clearly don't think burning fossil fuels is a direct threat to our survival.


* Zealots, I say, which isn't, by a long stretch, everyone who thinks it's a problem.
   74. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:58 PM (#4020248)
See the current tempest about lightbulbs


¿Que?
   75. villageidiom Posted: December 20, 2011 at 06:02 PM (#4020252)
It's either that or you're claiming that climate change will have no effect, which is just as crazy.
In #7 Ray is making no prospective claim.

Ray might be crazy, or he might not. But your insistence on Ray's #7 claiming these things - which are not there - is actually making Ray look good compared to you.
   76. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: December 20, 2011 at 06:02 PM (#4020253)
The reluctance of climate change zealots* to embrace nuclear power suggests to me that climate concerns are secondary for them to ideological concerns. Nuclear has a lot of problems, political first, technical second.


Nuclear power should be our #1 method of replacing fossil fuels right now. 3 major accidents is all we've seen, and those accidents were human/mechanical error, human error, and major earthquake/tsunami. Given how many power plants with outdated technology still operate safely, I think add many more nuclear reactors would be extremely safe.
   77. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: December 20, 2011 at 06:06 PM (#4020256)

Ray might be crazy, or he might not. But your insistence on Ray's #7 claiming these things - which are not there - is actually making Ray look good compared to you.


Yeah, I've been misremembering what he's said in previous climate change threads, and read meanings into that weren't there.
   78. Random Transaction Generator Posted: December 20, 2011 at 06:06 PM (#4020257)
Just to confirm:

Is Ray saying that it's a "lock" that there is no man-made global warming?
   79. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 20, 2011 at 06:10 PM (#4020259)
I should state for the record that I have no dog in the political fight.


Yes, no one who subscribes to this "consensus" ever does. Their motives are all pure as the driven snow.

I do have a dog in the "political fight" (which is not separate from the issue but is a part of the issue). I don't want money wasted and resources wasted and lives uprooted, all so that some people can advance their own agendas via fear mongoring.
   80. , Posted: December 20, 2011 at 06:10 PM (#4020260)
Are you saying that people in the 19th century should have rejected Newtonian physics out of some prescient notion that it might be replaced in the future?

Of course not. But, then, empirical fact is sufficient for action, too. People weren't jumping off cliffs before Newton because they thought they could fly. But with warming and the temperature of the earth, we don't have such empirical fact to fall back on. If there were no theory, what would we use? The answer is, clearly, nothing. Because for most of human history we had no theory and, so, no idea we should even worry about it much.


The issue of how best to measure temperature TODAY is of interest because we don't have such accurate records going way back. We have estimates with big error bars. The important questions are:

1. How unusual is the recent warming trend?
2. Where does global temperature stand in relation to the temperature over the course of human history?
3. What will the next few decades/centuries bring?
4. How important to the climate are contributions of industrialization?

Answers, as I see them:

1. Unknown
2. Unknown
3. Unknown
4. Unknown

I say that because I don't think we can "measure" global temperatures going back centuries with anything like the accuracy needed to answer the historical questions and "modeling" is still in relative infancy. But none of that counters the fact that the evidence we have is alarming. I would state, as I've said that we should be cautious and do what we can to change our ways.

That doesn't mean I think we should insist that we have all the answers.


(I see measuring temperatures of the earth in ancient times the way we have measured cosmic distances. It's all indirect and inferential. Thus, you can expect it to yo-yo back and forth a lot before settling down. And one new discovery can change everything. I also don't like using different techniques for different time periods and claiming high accuracy.)
   81. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: December 20, 2011 at 06:14 PM (#4020264)
Nuclear power should be our #1 method of replacing fossil fuels right now.

Sounds wonderful in theory, but it's an absolute nightmare when you take into account the total cost of the infrastructure changes that are necessary to do it.

I have no issues at all with nuclear power, but the idea that it could ever completely replace fossil fuels is a pure fantasy. Even countries like France that utilize nuclear power far more than the U.S. still use and depend on oil.
   82. , Posted: December 20, 2011 at 06:15 PM (#4020265)
Try this analogy on for size:

You come upon a car wreck. Mangled car, mangled driver. Do you move the driver? No, you might do further harm. Unless, of course, there is a more immediate threat, such as fire. If the car is on fire, you move the guy, no matter what. But you don't move him, just because there might be a fire. It's a tricky situation.
   83. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 20, 2011 at 06:16 PM (#4020268)
I should state for the record that I have no dog in the political fight. I don't live in the US; I don't care about your politics. I am commenting on the science and its acceptance among the mainstream, and its denialism by some who simply don't like the conclusion.


And, to follow up, how does it make you above the fray that you don't live in the US or (allegedly) care about US politics? Why is that evidence that you "have no dog in the political fight"? The "political fight" isn't limited to the US. People who want the US to ship money all over the place live outside the US as well.
   84. Famous Original Joe C Posted: December 20, 2011 at 06:21 PM (#4020270)
These folks always wanted to control the economy. When Marxism didn't work out, they found ecology/climate change.

The old saw about hard core environmentalists being like watermelons is pretty much spot on. Green on the outside, Red on the inside.


Who needs talk radio when you have people at your favorite baseball site who talk like this?
   85. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: December 20, 2011 at 06:23 PM (#4020273)
See the current tempest about lightbulbs


Legislation passed to require greater efficiency in lightbulbs sold in the US. Cue the crazy people talking about who liberals are taking away our god given right to incandescent light bulbs. Then the rules were pushed back (for a variety of reasons, largely placating the crazy people). Now the light bulb manufacturers (such as GE) are protesting the change (for a variety of somewhat self serving reasons).

But thankfully the crazy people (and yes I am being deliberating disparaging of some of them - I am looking at you Mrs. Bachmann) can have their lightbulbs (which in fact were not really banned, but whatever).

The reluctance of climate change zealots* to embrace nuclear power suggests to me that climate concerns are secondary for them to ideological concerns. Nuclear has a lot of problems, political first, technical second.


I am ambivilant on Nuclear Power. Because of construction, mining, and so forth it turns out to not be a carbon friendly as it would appear, but anything is better than coal. As part of a national and comprehensive policy (along with a Carbon Tax, which would in fact not destroy the economy and is a great idea even ignoring Global Warming for a variety of reasons that deserve their own thread) would be fine, so long as there is a plan for disposal of the waste and other safety realted issues.

Is Ray saying that it's a "lock" that there is no man-made global warming?


Primey and thread winner!

Edit: And Mike Crudale
   86. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: December 20, 2011 at 06:28 PM (#4020277)
Is Ray saying that it's a "lock" that there is no man-made global warming?

Funny, but just a few months ago he was saying that it's always been over. Wish he'd make up his mind.
   87. Endless Trash Posted: December 20, 2011 at 06:29 PM (#4020279)

Yes, no one who subscribes to this "consensus" ever does. Their motives are all pure as the driven snow.


I don't have motives. I don't really care if you drive a hummer or not. I have never suggested nor implied that I want you or the US or anyone else to do anything. One airplane trip produces as much pollution as all the cars in the US combined*. We're all ###### regardless.

*or something like that.

I do support nuclear energy. Nuclear powered planes would be pretty cool.
   88. , Posted: December 20, 2011 at 06:34 PM (#4020282)
so long as there is a plan for disposal of the waste and other safety realted issues.

From a technical standpoint, disposal of nuclear waste is a solved problem. Of course, it is far, far from solved politically.
   89. . Posted: December 20, 2011 at 06:35 PM (#4020283)
Apparently Bill Conlin is a child molester. So there's that.

Carry on.
   90. Endless Trash Posted: December 20, 2011 at 06:39 PM (#4020285)

Yes, no one who subscribes to this "consensus" ever does. Their motives are all pure as the driven snow.


Ray, I agree with you on this site probably more often than any other regular poster. I find most people's attacks against you to be baseless and puerile. I have repeatedly defended you in the past, and so I say this not as someone like Andy but as someone who generally supports you and the points and posts you make: In this case you really sound like a boob.
   91. . Posted: December 20, 2011 at 06:41 PM (#4020287)
Ray, I agree with you on this site probably more often than any other regular poster. I find most people attacks against you baseless and puerile and I have repeatedly defended you in the past. So I say this not as someone like Andy but someone who generally supports you and the points and posts you make: In this case you really sound like a boob.

Another one fooled by randomness.
   92. Dale Sams Posted: December 20, 2011 at 06:46 PM (#4020292)
Saying "there's no climate change because the US hasn't been hit with a hurricane in six years" is like saying "Jason Varitek is the best catcher ever cause he caught 4 no-hitters"

If i said there definitly IS climate change because "where I live we had a historical low of -30, a historicaly hot summer, the worst earthquake in area history and the typical billions of dollars in tornado damage, all in one year."...I'd expect to get smashed for sample bias, and rightfully so.

Believe it or don't believe, I don't give a ####...but I expect to see more and more miserable World Series in non-domes cities as the seasons get longer and the climate more unpredictable. Of course it will take like 50 more years of World Series to verify this, so be sure and download this thread in your VR Cortex Databases when they become available.
   93. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 20, 2011 at 06:55 PM (#4020301)
Saying "there's no climate change because the US hasn't been hit with a hurricane in six years" is like saying "Jason Varitek is the best catcher ever cause he caught 4 no-hitters"


Nobody said this (Is anyone here capable of responding to what I actually wrote?), and it misses the point anyway. The claim from the life-is-good deniers was that we were going to see more hurricanes due to global warming. That claim is, at least in part, falsifiable: we were either going to see more significant hurricanes or we were not. It turned out that we did not. (Whether those hurricanes would have been due to global warming was the next question, but we didn't even get there because the initial claim was not borne out.)

In any event, pointing out that we did not see said hurricanes is not a comment that "therefore, there is no climate change." That is simply a logic fail.

Whenever the life-is-good deniers have made predictions, they have fallen short/had to be revised/etc. The entire change from "global warming" to "climate change" was because the former term was inconvenient, because people saw that temperatures weren't necessarily getting warmer. And so the term was switched to -- wee! -- climate change. That way, any change in the climate can be attributed to CLIMATE CHANGE! Woo.

The problem is that the term in itself is retarded, because the climate has ALWAYS been changing.

Then you get to the problem of the last 100 years that everyone is obsessed with (it's really much a much smaller time window than that) being a pimple on an elephant's ass compared to the lifespan of the planet.

And we have different ways of measuring these things now. And it's easier to measure something that is current.
   94. JustDan Posted: December 20, 2011 at 06:58 PM (#4020303)
Saying "there's no climate change because the US hasn't been hit with a hurricane in six years"

yeah.. and that is major hurricanes (cat 3 or higher). And there have been many of these, they just weren't a major hurricane on US landfall. There has been major hurricanes that when through the Caribbean, and there has been major hurricanes that weakened before they hit U.S.
   95. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: December 20, 2011 at 06:58 PM (#4020304)


Nobody said this (Is anyone here capable of responding to what I actually wrote?), and it misses the point anyway. The claim from the life-is-good deniers was that we were going to see more hurricanes due to global warming. That claim is falsifiable: we were either going to see more significant hurricanes or we were not. It turned out that we did not. (Whether those hurricanes would have been due to global warming was the next question, but we didn't even get there because the initial claim was not borne out.)


Wrong!
   96. Rants Mulliniks Posted: December 20, 2011 at 06:58 PM (#4020305)
In case anyone is keeping score, I agree with Ray 100%.

Here are some indisputable facts:

- the climate is always changing (see Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age for examples in the last millennium)
- CO2 is not pollution
- biodiversity and productivity increases as you move from poles to the Equator
- plants (i.e. crops that feed us) grow better as CO2 increases

This certainly isn't indisputable, but I would argue that there is now more money behind the pro-AGW side than the other. The warmists continuing to insinuate that us "deniers" are funded by oil companies is like the pot calling the kettle black.
   97. Dale Sams Posted: December 20, 2011 at 06:59 PM (#4020308)
Barring "The Day After" insanity, neither side is really going to be able to PROVE anything in our lifetimes. *I* don't think there's going to be any runaway 'Venus effect'. If you held a gun to my head, I'd side with the climate change people. but as a baseball fan, I do understand sample-size.
   98. A triple short of the cycle Posted: December 20, 2011 at 07:02 PM (#4020312)
Ray DiPerna - if you think scientists are cultists with a self-serving agenda, where do you turn to for information re global climate change?
   99. Dale Sams Posted: December 20, 2011 at 07:03 PM (#4020315)
Oh, and the real reason I side with climate change is because it makes my life more interesting. I LIKE seeing my city utterly shut down for 2-3 weeks. I hope it gets shut down for 2 months this time.
   100. Ray (CTL) Posted: December 20, 2011 at 07:05 PM (#4020317)
As to the silliness of companies turning "green" being some indicator of The Truth, it's being done purely for marketing reasons. Follow the money.
Page 1 of 6 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Chicago Joe
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogMLB rumors: How Dodgers' Dave Roberts could replace Giants' Bruce Bochy
(7 - 1:30am, Nov 19)
Last: phredbird

Newsblog2018 Cy Young Award winners | MLB.com
(53 - 12:38am, Nov 19)
Last: Booey

NewsblogOT - November* 2018 College Football thread
(301 - 12:30am, Nov 19)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogSale of Baseball Prospectus
(374 - 10:58pm, Nov 18)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(2314 - 10:54pm, Nov 18)
Last: Chokeland Bill

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(2530 - 10:16pm, Nov 18)
Last: PJ Martinez

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (November 2018)
(456 - 9:35pm, Nov 18)
Last: Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB)

NewsblogMLB Trade Rumors: Phillies 'Expecting to Spend Money' in Pursuit of Bryce Harper, Manny Machado
(10 - 9:30pm, Nov 18)
Last: there isn't anything to do in buffalo but 57i66135

NewsblogHere's why the Cardinals need Bryce Harper
(64 - 9:14pm, Nov 18)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogReport: Dodgers' Kenley Jansen to Undergo Heart Surgery, Expected to Return for Spring Training
(3 - 7:56pm, Nov 18)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature

NewsblogMichael Wilbon Weighs In On Jacob deGrom With Worst Baseball Take Of Year | MLB | NESN.com
(20 - 5:55pm, Nov 18)
Last: Lars6788

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (2018-19 season begins!)
(1231 - 4:31pm, Nov 18)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogQ&A: Damon Minor on Giants' Steven Duggar, Chris Shaw, Aramis Garcia
(3 - 4:26pm, Nov 18)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogIndians' Trevor Bauer pleads his own Cy Young case using a spreadsheet on Twitter
(30 - 4:12pm, Nov 18)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogPosnanski: Baseball 100 Rules
(283 - 2:07pm, Nov 18)
Last: Rennie's Tenet

Page rendered in 0.6714 seconds
46 querie(s) executed