kelownabomberfan

This is why I like nuclear energy. Zero CO2 emissions. But the flaky enviro-nuts are all too scared of it to support it, for the most part. Instead we are supposed to all just go with solar power and wind. If you listen to the Green Party, they'd have the entire country on solar and wind power within a few years, which would mean 90% of us would be dead in two years, of starvation due to lack of ability to grow, harvest and transport food, but much more quickly, from freezing to death, on the first cloudy -40C day with no wind. It's a dead-end philosophy to support horribly expensive inefficient bird blenders. IF CO2 is a pollutant, and I don't agree that it is, then we need to move to something that is economically efficient as an energy source. And that is nuclear. There are no other sources right now. In the future? We'll see. I'm still waiting on dilithium crystals as our future energy source as we saw in Star Trek. I also like natural gas as it is clean burning. When I see Beijing it makes me sick. I've been to Cairo and almost choked on the air quality there. Massive billowing green and brown clouds of smog everywhere. That pollution wasn't caused by CO2, it was particulates. All of this smog that is slowly killing these people could be averted by switching to nuclear power and natural gas. But people would rather wring their hands about the "dangers" of nuclear and the CO2 emitted by natural gas, then care about actual problems, like particulates from burning diesel fuel and coal and just firing it all into the air in large metropolitan areas.

It's not even close. The IPCC has issued what - 4 reports now since 1990? And every one has been revised downwards in terms of the so-called "effects" of CO2 in the atmosphere. The last IPCC report even admitted that there is no link between CO2 and severe weather. In fact, there are now peer-reviewed studies that show that in periods of earth's history when CO2 was higher (due to volcanic activity) the climate and weather were more stable than in low CO2 periods. The science of climate is evolving and changing as we learn more, and the din of hysteria from nuts and loons, and mostly from shysters making huge bank off of this hypothesis like Suzuki and Gore get discredited and go live in their 10,000 sq foot mansions and just shut up. So no, it's not as proven as its going to get, far from it. I'll give you the point that the "theory" behind heat trapping is somewhat sound, but in terms of the actual effects or amounts of heat actually trapped, given sensitivity and cloud vapour effects, there is still a long way to go. Gravity is easy to prove. So to some extent is evolution, given all you have to do is visit a natural history museum to see the world over hundreds of millions of years. It's almost impossible right now to show exactly how much heat is actually trapped by Co2 in the atmosphere, and the IPCC continually having to revise their predictions is just a symptom of that. If you look back over the last 25 years when this theory first started gaining traction (it actually was put forward by some of the same guys like Steve Schneider, who in the 1970's were trying to sell the exact OPPOSITE theory, that earth was headed for a new ice age due to "pollution" (they hadn't glommed on to CO2 yet, that came later)) the earth by now should be awash in water, as the polls should all have melted. In the year 2000, British warmists were expounding on how kids going forward in England would never know what snow looked like. I could go on, but the point is - scientists have no clue what the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere really is going to do, and so comparing AGW to gravity and evolution is just plain silly. I agree. If you read guys like Matthew Ridley and Bjorn Lomborg, you'd see that while they are "luke-warmers" in that they agree on CO2 being a greenhouse gas (man I hate that stupid term, almost as much as "carbon footprint) they say that the trillion dollars the western world has already spent in this "fight" against CO2 is a complete waste of money. The US spent $22 billion last year "fighting" man-made climate change. $22 billion!!! And $12 billion more was spent just on subsidizing wind power, with no end in sight as wind power is horrible inefficient and horribly expensive. Imagine if all of that money had been used instead to fight poverty or to cure cancer and AIDS, or diabetes. Or on going to Mars! Man would be so much better off then we are now. Here's a link to a lecture Matthew Ridley gave a while ago, where he compares the current "science" surrounding man-made climate change to the "science" surrounding crop circles, and how the two "movements" have a lot in common - quite worth the read: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/01/thank-you-matt-ridley/

I disagree on the "climate change" comment, as too often now it is confused with "man-made climate change" which is different from natural climate change, which occurs constantly, thanks to changes in amounts of radiation and energy we receive from the sun. Too often now people say "climate change" without understanding that there is a big difference, one is observable - the natural one - and one is still an unproven hypothesis (man-made).

Wylie and Willy - a match made in pun heaven.

There is no lawsuit that can win because someone said something on the internet. That's what free speech is there to protect. Now they could I suppose depending on what was said go in front of one of those unconstituational human rights commissions but those are a whole different discussion that is probably best left alone cause it'll get more than a few people riled up. Libel laws still apply to internet postings. And there are limits to what is protected with respect to Freedom of Expression in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Free speech on a message board is a myth - you give it up when you agree to the terms of service that lets the board owner(s) and their appointees edit or remove your posts. In a court of law the truth can be used as a defence. So if what you are saying is offensive, it still is legal as long as it is true. In the Kangaroo Court of our "Human Right" commissions, the truth can't be used as a defence. Nothing applies to help the defendant in those things, you are basically guilty when you walk in the door and the process is the punishment. There is an interesting case of libel going on in the US right now - several publications and bloggers have called Michael Mann's global warming "science" into question, and instead of providing evidence to satisfy them, he is suing them instead for libel. This is what is known as a SLAPP lawsuit. In any event, in order to win his case, Mann will now have to prove that his work showing his hockey stick of global warming was in fact accurate and his data is solid. In all these years since his "hockey stick" projections of global warming went public, he has never released his data. If he does in fact do it, and the defendants prove they were right all along about Mann's work, the entire global warming industry might crumble, which it should, given it appears to be built on sand anyway.

with a bum knee and cannon arm he could be a Dieter Brock clone, which means all we have to do is trade him to Hamilton and the cup is ours.

Is that similar to championship Austria or Romania? Nope... it's quite close to Championship Turkey, Championship Greece and Championship Norway. Wait, are we talking about potential places that flight MH370 landed now?

This thread is dumb.....LOL. Just kidding. Keep up the great work guys. Really appreciate the anti-Shankman moderation style. That guy just showed how one bad moderator can destroy an entire website.

The only things changing the o-line now that I can see: 1) Draft day we get Lavertu so now we at least have a center to develop 2) Swiston and Pencer pick it up in camp and legitimately push for starting positions, including a tackle spot 3) We bring in a decent Oline coach who can develop our young guys properly. I've seen only regression in our O-line while other teams seem to be able to develop young guys into bonafide starters. This has to change.

BC - Boltus collapse

Yes I agree to this, if the first name is "Cam".

Aye..I'm still learning how this board works and just trying to spread the good news. Imma be on here for a while. Yall in for a treat with Robert. how's his mobility with the whole knee thing he has going on?

Why does everyone forget this game???? This was the worst game I went to in Winnipeg. 3 minutes into the 2nd half, I went to the store, then walked to my car. Nov 2, Hamilton 37, Wpg 7 Name Comp Att Yards TD Int HALL, M 18 35 160 0 1 The whole team had given up by that point. It was a nothing game and everyone played like it.

then he's going to have to sign with the Halifax Schooners if he wants a starting job. Everywhere else is full up.

I still don't get if it was his dream to play in the NFL why he didn't go in 2012? Why did he re-sign with BC?

I'd like to see the NFL acknowledge the CFL for what it is, a farm system for them, and start pumping some real bucks into this league so that it can pay guys enough that they don't have to decide between staying at the school they are teaching at or the job stocking shelves instead of playing. I really want to see the CFL players paid more, it always bugs me how they are sacrificing their bodies for such small pay.

why the hell didn't this lunatic go to the US two years ago rather than re-signing with BC? That was just nuts! He had his window, he was 27, and he blew it. But whatever. The guy is a whacko.

You mean like 1962?

Winnipeg Blue Bombers, Superbowl LIII champions....ahhhh....my imagination is the only thing that has kept me sane since 1990....

Right. Someone punch my old English teacher.

Simple solution: onion rings I ordered the onion rings a few weeks ago at A&W through the drive-thru and I get home and there's five onion rings in the bag. That's it. I'm never going back there again. We've got Carl's Jr, Five Guys and Fatburger here now, lots of good burger joints to choose from. Five Guys is definitely my favorite, their burgers and fries are miles ahead.

Why would he do that? Better to just keep collecting a paycheque and waiting for a trade, while you hock cruellers and coffee to people in Detroit who have no idea who Tim Hortons is. Tim Horton. Most Canadians don't even know who Tim Horton the hockey player was, other than people over the age of 50 who saw him play. I am talking about "Tim Hortons", the doughnut franchise of which Kevin Glenn owns several in the Detroit area.

I'm practicing for my run at the Liberal leadership if JT resigns.

then they better never feed him after midnight!

According to reports, Mack was hired a few months ago to be Putin's general manager for Ukrainian relations. When asked about his thoughts on the Crimea by a reporter, apparently Mack responded "I have no idea where that is".