Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday 49,369
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#33724 Jan 20, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
The reasoning is concurrent with the rejection out of hand of scientific findings concerning global warming. This is accomplished by a demeaning of the moral idealism of the scientist in general. To blatantly say, out of hand, that the scientific process is corrupt because scientists game the government for personal gain, without hard evidence to back this up seems to be a tool of the radical RW agenda. Not only climate science but such things as science of evolution and even medical studies of the effects of chemicals including such studies as the effects of tobacco on the human body.
Yep - partisan politics is an ugly and messy business. Lies, innuendo, skullduggery, character assassination, demmagoguery - anything goes to persuade, pressure, and WIN. Doesn't matter what the issue is - both sides eventually go negative.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>As to why the hard Right digresses to such an attitude more than others ...
False premise - not proven. The far Left is no less reticent to twist, distort, and suppress facts and truth as necessary to serve their partisan political agenda. WINNING is all that matters. Truth be damned - and the skirts of the partisan progressive Left are no cleaner.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text> ... is a topic pertinent to discussions about global warming. If these folks do not base their understandings in the science, what in the world do they base them upon. Possibly propaganda by the vested interests? I am not sure what else can be the basis of their reasoning. Perhaps you can provide that information. It would help my understanding immensely.
Of course -_all_ partisan politics is a conflict between vested interests, and being "vested" in an issue is not limited to the purely monetary sense. "The science" is of interest to a partisan only to the extent it supports or can be twisted to support their rhetoric and position - and this is equally true of the Left and the Right.

All that has value in partisan politics, debate, and rhetoric, whether on the Left or the Right, is WINNING. WINNING is the only "truth" that has value in politics, because if you lose - you're out of power and you have to go get a real job.

As for "doing the right thing" just because it's right, two of the savviest politicians I've known over the years told me this about getting something done in the public arena:

1) 90% of the time in public policy, you do what you have to do to WIN. Maybe 10% of the time you get the chance to do something just because it's the right thing to do - and that has to be enough for you, or you don't belong in politics

2) There aren't enough Calvinists who vote or find campaigns in the world to support doing much that requires general self-sacrifice for the greater good on the part of the population. They're a fundamentally selfish and self-interested bunch.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#33725 Jan 20, 2013
*fund campaigns ...

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#33728 Jan 21, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>

False premise - not proven. The far Left is no less reticent to twist, distort, and suppress facts and truth as necessary to serve their partisan political agenda. WINNING is all that matters. Truth be damned - and the skirts of the partisan progressive Left are no cleaner.
<quoted text>
Of course -_all_ partisan politics is a conflict between vested interests, and being "vested" in an issue is not limited to the purely monetary sense. "The science" is of interest to a partisan only to the extent it supports or can be twisted to support their rhetoric and position - and this is equally true of the Left and the Right.
All that has value in partisan politics, debate, and rhetoric, whether on the Left or the Right, is WINNING. WINNING is the only "truth" that has value in politics, because if you lose - you're out of power and you have to go get a real job.
As for "doing the right thing" just because it's right, two of the savviest politicians I've known over the years told me this about getting something done in the public arena:
1) 90% of the time in public policy, you do what you have to do to WIN. Maybe 10% of the time you get the chance to do something just because it's the right thing to do - and that has to be enough for you, or you don't belong in politics
2) There aren't enough Calvinists who vote or find campaigns in the world to support doing much that requires general self-sacrifice for the greater good on the part of the population. They're a fundamentally selfish and self-interested bunch.
In the arena of global warming, the topic of discussion here, there is no doubt that the RW denounces the science much more than the liberals. If you doubt this, you have not been paying attention.

The vested interests I was referring to here are those that have monetary considerations.
Largelanguage

Rhyl, UK

#33729 Jan 21, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Well - let's review the post I was responding to:
"... science, which you don't have a clue about ... anything else you have to say is worthless ... arrogant and stupid ... There really is no fool like an old fool."
Hmmm. No - I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there, Large - may I call you Large?
The last statement in my post that you found "uncalled for" was quite reserved in comparison.
FG may be a punk, but she's a very smart one - and clearly anyone who can dish it out like he does routinely can certainly take it. I doubt she's weeping her eyes out in hurt over anything I've posted to him.
But thanks for your concern. Always good to check oneself from time to time.
How old are you? You're "old" aren't you? Old lol. 70 doesn't seem sow old anymore though hehe. Anyway, since you're "old", you should take it on the chin anyway. He may be smart, but he's still just a kid. He's not emotionally ready to receive it.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#33730 Jan 21, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
How old are you? You're "old" aren't you? Old lol. 70 doesn't seem sow old anymore though hehe. Anyway, since you're "old", you should take it on the chin anyway. He may be smart, but he's still just a kid. He's not emotionally ready to receive it.
Are you a Creationist? All the REPUBLICAN Presidential candidates said they did not believe in evolution, with the exception of Ron Paul and Huntsman.

As I recall, Huntsman was the only Republican Presidential candidate who said we should listen to the scientists on global warming.

Care to tell me what I'm missing in the above?

Regards, Wallop.
Largelanguage

Rhyl, UK

#33731 Jan 21, 2013
I'll give you a "wallop" in a minute. I am a creationist, correct. Ron Paul probably isn't the best republican senator, but he at least is useful. If he chooses to be evil and go away from God, then he must instead be manipulated into doing good. Being a tool.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#33732 Jan 21, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
I'll give you a "wallop" in a minute. I am a creationist, correct. Ron Paul probably isn't the best republican senator, but he at least is useful. If he chooses to be evil and go away from God, then he must instead be manipulated into doing good. Being a tool.
The majority of evolutionists are religious, pal.
--Even the Catholic Church has come down on the side of evolution.
--Jon Huntsman is a Mormon and Ron Paul is a Baptist.

If you take the Bible as 100% literal, then explain to me why, per Genesis Chapter 1, the Earth was created on Day 1, and the sun, moon, and stars created on Day 4.

Is all astronomy "evil" too?

Sheesh.
Largelanguage

Rhyl, UK

#33733 Jan 21, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
The majority of evolutionists are religious, pal.
--Even the Catholic Church has come down on the side of evolution.
--Jon Huntsman is a Mormon and Ron Paul is a Baptist.
If you take the Bible as 100% literal, then explain to me why, per Genesis Chapter 1, the Earth was created on Day 1, and the sun, moon, and stars created on Day 4.
Is all astronomy "evil" too?
Sheesh.
Just 2 people you suddenly say make the entire religion evolutionists? The fact that only 2 proves the actual religion itself is almost creationist. Where do you get your facts from? We are taking the bible literally, because that is how people read books. You are meant to take the context literally.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#33734 Jan 21, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
In the arena of global warming, the topic of discussion here, there is no doubt that the RW denounces the science much more than the liberals. If you doubt this, you have not been paying attention.
The vested interests I was referring to here are those that have monetary considerations.
I don't disagree, but I find your view to be incomplete.

Let me explain why I believe this - bear with me.

Science - more accurately for purposes of this discussion, logical positivism - is not the sole source of human truth and knowledge. Epistemologically, there are other sources of truth and knowledge that all have validity.

If by "the arena of global warming," you are merely referring to academic discussion within the scientific community as to what is known about the past and present behavior of Earth's global climate system, causal mechanisms, hypothetical predictions of future climate, and testing of those hypotheses, certainly the heavy weight you place upon logical empiricism is perfectly appropriate.(I anticipate the tediously well-worn response that there is no debate, the science is aettled yadda yadda ... sure - whatev. I happily concede the point for the purposes of discussion). If it is this "arena of global warming" to which your refer, it's puzzling why the scientific community, confident in their scientific knowledge, would even care about converting ignorant 'nonbelievers.'

So I must presume that by "the arena of global warming," you are referring to the wholly different discussion of what society's _response_ should be to this scientific knowledge, in particular the legitimacy of compelling certain changes in free individual or collective societal choices and economic behaviors by force of government authority. If so, one errs by not acknowledging that this is a POLITICAL debate, not a scientific one. In the political arena, logical empiricist arguments (i.e., what you refer to as "the science") are not automatically due any greater weight or validity than those grounded in other epistemological schools, or rhetoric.

Moreover, in this political arena, one errs by supposing that the only "vested interests" that have weight in the debate are monetary in nature.

To return to the particular case of The Great AGW Debate, while there's no denying that AGW is BIG BUSINESS for BOTH sides, there are also many, many voices on BOTH sides who have strong vested interests in the matter that are principally moral, ethical, ideological, or even metaphysical in nature.

Yes, the eeeevul and ignorant Reichwing Teabagger Deniers certainly do downplay, deny, ridicule, and otherwise cast doubt on the scientific knowledge that doesn't support their arguments. Just as the AGW Jihadis downplay, deny, ridicule, and otherwise cast doubt on the frankly poor understanding and knowledge of ALL the costs and consequences - both intended and unintended - of the policy actions for which they are so strenuously militating.

Bottom line - it is difficult to win an argument when your opponent is unencumbered with a knowledge of the facts. If real change action is the goal, the warmist side needs to get over themselves and make more persuasive arguments for societal change than simply whining about "the science." Being right on the science is helpful, but not sufficient or even most important to carrying the day politically.
litesong

Everett, WA

#33735 Jan 21, 2013
Kasanchesarada wrote:
There is no global warming.
Buy this island.......... & hope you're on your death bed. If you're not on your death bed, then you'll be in the sea bed quicker than you'll want to be........ in either bed.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#33736 Jan 21, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>

Moreover, in this political arena, one errs by supposing that the only "vested interests" that have weight in the debate are monetary in nature.

.
They are purely monetary and even though there are millions/to a few billions to be made on alternative energy there is HUNDREDS of billions to trillions on the side of the vested interests of the oil companies, coal companies, and utility companies.

This pretty much says it all:

**Organizations that say AGW is a FACT**

U.S. Agency for International Development
United States Department of Agriculture
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
United States Department of Defense
United States Department of Energy
National Institutes of Health
United States Department of State
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA)
National Science Foundation
Smithsonian Institution
International Arctic Science Committee
Arctic Council
African Academy of Sciences
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences
and the Arts
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Académie des Sciences, France
Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy
Indian National Science Academy
Science Council of Japan
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Turkish Academy of Sciences
The Royal Society of the United Kingdom
National Academy of Sciences, United States
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Ass for the Advancement
of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Society of Agronomy
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Botanical Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Federation of American Scientists
Geological Society of America
National Ass. of Geoscience Teachers
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of Australia
British Antarctic Survey
Institute of Biology, UK
Royal Meteorological Society, UK
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization

**Organizations that say AGW is a FRAUD**

American Petroleum Institute
US Chamber of Commerce
National Association of Manufacturers
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Industrial Minerals Association
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
Great Northern Project Development
Rosebud Mining
Massey Energy
Alpha Natural Resources
Southeastern Legal Foundation
Georgia Agribusiness Council
Georgia Motor Trucking Association
Corn Refiners Association
National Association of Home Builders
National Oilseed Processors Association
National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
Western States Petroleum Association
National Agnotology Producers Association
The Astroturfing Consortium

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#33738 Jan 21, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't disagree, but I find your view to be incomplete.
Let me explain why I believe this - bear with me.
Science - more accurately for purposes of this discussion, logical positivism - is not the sole source of human truth and knowledge. Epistemologically, there are other sources of truth and knowledge that all have validity.
If by "the arena of global warming," you are merely referring to academic discussion within the scientific community as to what is known about the past and present behavior of Earth's global climate system, causal mechanisms, hypothetical predictions of future climate, and testing of those hypotheses, certainly the heavy weight you place upon logical empiricism is perfectly appropriate.(I anticipate the tediously well-worn response that there is no debate, the science is aettled yadda yadda ... sure - whatev. I happily concede the point for the purposes of discussion). If it is this "arena of global warming" to which your refer, it's puzzling why the scientific community, confident in their scientific knowledge, would even care about converting ignorant 'nonbelievers.'
So I must presume that by "the arena of global warming," you are referring to the wholly different discussion of what society's _response_ should be to this scientific knowledge, in particular the legitimacy of compelling certain changes in free individual or collective societal choices and economic behaviors by force of government authority. If so, one errs by not acknowledging that this is a POLITICAL debate, not a scientific one. In the political arena, logical empiricist arguments (i.e., what you refer to as "the science") are not automatically due any greater weight or validity than those grounded in other epistemological schools, or rhetoric.
Moreover, in this political arena, one errs by supposing that the only "vested interests" that have weight in the debate are monetary in nature.
To return to the particular case of The Great AGW Debate, while there's no denying that AGW is BIG BUSINESS for BOTH sides, there are also many, many voices on BOTH sides who have strong vested interests in the matter that are principally moral, ethical, ideological, or even metaphysical in nature.
...

If real change action is the goal, the warmist side needs to get over themselves and make more persuasive arguments for societal change than simply whining about "the science." Being right on the science is helpful, but not sufficient or even most important to carrying the day politically.
Of course you are correct. However, that does not change the fact that if Western Civilization is correct in their realistic understanding of nature and the universe, the political posturing is moot over the long run. If you believe that some other reality, that is beyond our understanding, ie. religious or mystical, then of course we are simply whistling in the wind. However, as we have seen historically, science does indeed win over the prejudices and the politics. It may not be immediate but never-the-less scientific understandings have endured.

However, for the "warmists", as you say, to win the political debate they must educate the eighty some percent of the scientific illiterate. This would be an almost insurmountable task considering the attitudes of those who have little or no background in the sciences. These attitudes are asseverated by those who profit from exploiting that ignorance. Though you must remember, those responsible for governance should be exposed to a higher reality simply because they are in positions of high responsibility. While they may stoop to prejudices and emotions to gain a vote, there is a level of statesmanship in most of them. I am optimistic that they will do what is found to be necessary when they get to the short rows.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33739 Jan 21, 2013
Teddy is welcome here. However, if he's as great as he thinks he is, he could adjust his propaganda and learn what's current vis a vis global climate change.

He appears to sing "the land of the free" to the slaves.

How about a little authenticity?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33740 Jan 21, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Buy this island.......... & hope you're on your death bed. If you're not on your death bed, then you'll be in the sea bed quicker than you'll want to be........ in either bed.
Where's this island?

Did you see the BEST study is finally published?

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2...
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#33742 Jan 21, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Teddy is welcome here. However, if he's as great as he thinks he is, he could adjust his propaganda and learn what's current vis a vis global climate change.
He appears to sing "the land of the free" to the slaves.
How about a little authenticity?
Well. I certainly am the first to admit my awesome powers of incredible Greatness were not up to the challenge of deciphering WTF you're on about here.

Hungry for authenticity, are we? You didn't even check out the Stewart Brand vid I linked especially for you, did you.

Go check it out. All of it. Seriously. Then come back and try to tell me you got nothing of value out of it.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#33743 Jan 21, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you are correct. However, that does not change the fact that if Western Civilization is correct in their realistic understanding of nature and the universe, the political posturing is moot over the long run. If you believe that some other reality, that is beyond our understanding, ie. religious or mystical, then of course we are simply whistling in the wind. However, as we have seen historically, science does indeed win over the prejudices and the politics. It may not be immediate but never-the-less scientific understandings have endured.
However, for the "warmists", as you say, to win the political debate they must educate the eighty some percent of the scientific illiterate. This would be an almost insurmountable task considering the attitudes of those who have little or no background in the sciences. These attitudes are asseverated by those who profit from exploiting that ignorance. Though you must remember, those responsible for governance should be exposed to a higher reality simply because they are in positions of high responsibility. While they may stoop to prejudices and emotions to gain a vote, there is a level of statesmanship in most of them. I am optimistic that they will do what is found to be necessary when they get to the short rows.
I admire your optimism, even though I can muster precious little of it myself as I consider the overall calibre and judgement of "those responsible for governance" in Washington today. "Statesmanship" is not the first thought that comes to my mind as I survey the expensive wreckage ...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33744 Jan 21, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
I admire your optimism, even though I can muster precious little of it myself as I consider the overall calibre and judgement of "those responsible for governance" in Washington today. "Statesmanship" is not the first thought that comes to my mind as I survey the expensive wreckage ...
Are you kidding?

Compare Dr Biden with "shotgun" Cheney, for example. I remember the day he shot his friend on the head. Some stateman he was!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33745 Jan 21, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Well. I certainly am the first to admit my awesome powers of incredible Greatness were not up to the challenge of deciphering WTF you're on about here.
Hungry for authenticity, are we? You didn't even check out the Stewart Brand vid I linked especially for you, did you.
Go check it out. All of it. Seriously. Then come back and try to tell me you got nothing of value out of it.
As a fact, I did watch it. I think he's too simplistic about GMO and nuclear reactors. That's alright. He'll get more nuanced.

You read this one:

http://www.scitechnol.com/GIGS/GIGS-1-101.pdf

Can you muster the science and the math?
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#33747 Jan 21, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>As a fact, I did watch it. I think he's too simplistic about GMO and nuclear reactors. That's alright. He'll get more nuanced.
You read this one:
http://www.scitechnol.com/GIGS/GIGS-1-101.pdf
Can you muster the science and the math?
Math? What math? Why - did you find it a struggle?

Brand has been working seriously on this stuff for over 40 years and originally published this "Environmental Heresies" thesis in 2005 - so I think that's all the "nuance" you're going to get.

As for "simplistic," his thesis makes the anti-nuke neo-Luddites' "analysis" look like the work of the village idiot.(Which it is).

As for the paper - largely a yawner; no news.

I did find this part interesting, though -

"Diurnal variations decreased from 1900 to 1987, and then increased; this increase is significant but not understood.""

"Some of the climate models predict that the diurnal temperature range, that is, the difference between Tmax and Tmin, should decrease due to greenhouse warming. The physics is that greenhouse gases have more impact at night when they absorb infrared and reduce the cooling, and that this effect is larger than the additional daytime warming. This predicted change is sometimes cited as one of the “fingerprints” that separates greenhouse warming from other effects such as solar variability."

"The behavior of the diurnal range is not simple; it drops from 1900 to 1987, and then it rises. The rise takes place during a period when, according to the IPCC report, the anthropogenic effect of global warming is evident above the background variations from natural causes. Although the post-1987 rise is not sufficient to undo the drop that took place from 1901 to 1987, the trend of 0.86 ± 0.13°C/century is distinctly upwards with a very high level of confidence. This reversal is particularly odd since it occurs during a period when the rise in Tavg was strong and showed no apparent changes in behavior. From 1950 to 2010, because of the recent rise, the net change we observe is -0.04 ± 0.01°C/decade. We are not aware of any global climate models that predicted the reversal of slope that we observe."

Now what do you make of that?
PHD

Overton, TX

#33750 Jan 21, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Math? What math? Why - did you find it a struggle?
Brand has been working seriously on this stuff for over 40 years and originally published this "Environmental Heresies" thesis in 2005 - so I think that's all the "nuance" you're going to get.
As for "simplistic," his thesis makes the anti-nuke neo-Luddites' "analysis" look like the work of the village idiot.(Which it is).
As for the paper - largely a yawner; no news.
I did find this part interesting, though -
"Diurnal variations decreased from 1900 to 1987, and then increased; this increase is significant but not understood.""
"Some of the climate models predict that the diurnal temperature range, that is, the difference between Tmax and Tmin, should decrease due to greenhouse warming. The physics is that greenhouse gases have more impact at night when they absorb infrared and reduce the cooling, and that this effect is larger than the additional daytime warming. This predicted change is sometimes cited as one of the “fingerprints” that separates greenhouse warming from other effects such as solar variability."
"The behavior of the diurnal range is not simple; it drops from 1900 to 1987, and then it rises. The rise takes place during a period when, according to the IPCC report, the anthropogenic effect of global warming is evident above the background variations from natural causes. Although the post-1987 rise is not sufficient to undo the drop that took place from 1901 to 1987, the trend of 0.86 ± 0.13°C/century is distinctly upwards with a very high level of confidence. This reversal is particularly odd since it occurs during a period when the rise in Tavg was strong and showed no apparent changes in behavior. From 1950 to 2010, because of the recent rise, the net change we observe is -0.04 ± 0.01°C/decade. We are not aware of any global climate models that predicted the reversal of slope that we observe."
Now what do you make of that?
Useless scientific science fiction.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pompano Beach Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min RealDave 1,156,265
Happy New Year 2015 Lying Cowards > Tamarac , F... 25 min American_Sons 1
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 54 min Ratloder 68,915
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 6 hr JOEL 71,272
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 11 hr feces for jesus 307,110
Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) 23 hr Anne 96,717
mitchell calvin carnivale (Dec '12) Sat info4U 6
Pompano Beach Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Pompano Beach People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Pompano Beach News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Pompano Beach

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 7:01 am PST

NFL 7:01AM
Louis Murphy, Buccaneers strike contract extension
Bleacher Report 7:02 AM
Bucs Sign WR Louis Murphy to 3-Yr Extension
Bleacher Report 8:04 AM
Breaking Down Saints' Game Plan vs. Bucs
NBC Sports11:25 AM
Jets' Mangold, Harvin game-time decisions at Miami - NBC Sports
Bleacher Report 8:30 AM
Saints vs. Buccaneers: Complete Week 17 Preview for New Orleans