kelownabomberfan

What about Mr. One-ACL?

It's not a coincidence that their first game is against Winnipeg. If anyone is capable of handing a new franchise its first win it would be the Bombers.

Glenn did play for Hamilton at one time, so wouldn't that make him a vet of Hamilton? I'm not defending Friesen here at all, just curious what the protocol is. I realize that his last team technically is Ottawa, but he never played there, so would he really be considered, at this point, just a Calgary vet?

so you're saying that seeing him in Hogtown is a longshot... The more I hear about Creehan the more glad I am that he is gone. Not sure how he pulled off the 2011 defence we had, though it looks like it was more because of Burke and in spite of having Creehan on the staff.

I was curious though as to why the US "environmental" group the Tides Foundation has spent so much money on protesting the oil sands. Ezra Levant exposed how they paid the Native chief from Alberta who traveled with Neil Young $50,000 to show up at some rally in Toronto. If this Native chief is so concerned about issues with the oil sands, why does he need to be paid to show up at anti-oil sands rallies? And why is a US charity paying him to do it? And why is Neil Young, a former Winnipegger now living in the lap of luxury in California, coming up to Canada to tell everyone else how to live, and to criticize the government because they cared too much about money? Like Neil is suffering living in the USA? The whole thing didn't make a whole lot of sense, but it is curious to see US interests funding anti-Canadian business activity while the US president fights against a pipeline that would benefit Canada (and the US too, they get to refine it and sell it). Meanwhile, more and more oil is being transported by tankers on railways, which is so much less safe than a pipeline. Which is just so dumb.

Well, here's how he tells it in his blog...not sure who at Husky Oil he talked to but anyway...he still comes off sounding like a loon... http://www.lincvolt.com/lincvolt_lincvoltgazette

That whole Neil Young thing was quite sad. The guy should stick to singing songs and not messing with the livelihoods of thousands of Canadians, and billions of dollars that are flowing into the Canadian economy. It's easy for some super rich dude to show up here and tell everyone they should go live in a cave, while he trots back to his mansion in California in his Lincvolt car. That car that he drove on his "Hiroshima" "odd"ysey up to Fort McMurray was bragged about by a lot of enviros as showing how "cool and hip" Neil is on the environment, but the reality was that car ran on some kind of special kind of fuel, and when he ran out of bio-fuel in Red Deer he threw some big hissy fit on the "husky oil" people and then accused the Canadian government of caring too much about money because they didn't have his special stupid bio-fuel available in gas stations in Canada. Good grief, how out of touch with reality do you really have to be to be that stupid? That car of his also burned down in a warehouse last year and burned up $1 million worth of his memorabilia with it. Anyway, I felt sorry for the poor kids in Red Deer who had to deal with this crazy old man suddenly descending upon them screaming at them because they didn't have bio-fuel for sale.

And imagine the spin-offs if that space race had continued to Mars, instead of being wasted on this stupid climate change crap. For a trillion dollars we could have put people on Mars by now and be terra-forming it already for colonization. Instead here we are still spending billions upon billions of dollars because our earth was supposed to be heating up and instead it seems to be getting colder. So very dumb.

I think if you ask most people if they think man made climate change is real and a real problem, they'd say "yes". Then if you asked them how much they would be willing to pay to "fix" it and if they'd be prepared to radically alter their lifestyles to correct it, they'd say "zero" and "hell no". It's like the benefit plan at work. People all scream they want one, but when I tell them how much it would cost to go 50-50 they say "oh well that's ok". People want all kinds of stuff, but there's only certain things they will actually pay for. Stopping man-made climate change isn't one of those things.

Not sure if you are being serious or sarcastic, but the point of my post was that I quoted an anti-oil sands Green party MLA who is also a climatologist. And even HE says that the effects on the GHG emissions from the oil sands are minimal, and that the real danger is coal. But this is a Canadian looking at it from a Canadian perspective. Who has billions of tons of coal and burns millions of tons a year for electricity? The USA. And yet who is opposed to the Keystone Pipeline? The USA. Total hypocrisy on their part to oppose the oil sands when their coal burning is far worse than any oil sands. It's all politics, not science.

I also hate how the warmists, especially in the US, attack the Canadian oil sands so much. If you look at how much coal the US burns, and the Chinese as well, the output of emissions far exceed the oil sands. It's blatant politicking in my view. Here's a study from Andrew Weaver, who is a Green Party MLA and a former professor at UVic, which shows just how little the oil sands contribute to the "man made" climate change warming: http://climate.uvic.ca/people/nswart/Alberta_Oil_Sands_climate.html I always throw this back in the face of the anti-oilsands people and they walk away muttering and change the subject. Their usual MO is to just say that whoever is contradicting their blarney is "in the pay of big oil" but they can't say that about a Green Party guy. That's the part that gets them. Leave the oil sands alone, and focus on coal. It is just plain awful for the environment in every way.

fine! Did you read that Matthew Ridley lecture I posted? You can pretty much substitute what he is saying for my opinion. He agrees that it is a thing too.

I think it had a lot to do with that glowing ball in the sky that warmists always want us to ignore. The energy it puts out isn't static, it's always fluctuating. The problem for the warmist types and especially the politicians is that they haven't figured out a way to tax sunshine. But they have found a way to tax CO2 outputs. And so once they figured that out, it was then all about convincing the general public that CO2 was bad. It's not bad. It's a harmless gas that all plant life requires to survive. And once the mechanisms of funding were put in place, and the bureaucrats were comfortable, it became all about how "the science is settled" and how anybody who doesn't just bend over and accept it is a "climate misinformer" and a "denier". The vested interests are now entrenched, and so we have to keep the status quo going, no matter that none of the predictions from the IPCC or any other warmist entity have ever come true, or no matter that the earth isn't warming, and the ice caps are not melting. It's irrelevant now. And the next generation currently coming through our schools has already been brain-washed. I hope that this CO2 nonsense dies the same death that acid rain and the ice age fraud died, however this time there are millions of people involved. It's almost become too big to fail now. What will have to happen is for the entire global economic system to have an even bigger shock than 2008, such that people just won't give a crap about this stuff, as they'll have way too much other stuff to worry about, and funding this nonsense will be the last thing on anybody's mind.

I think the cold we're experiencing is just proof that the entire greenhouse gas theory is requiring a lot more work and a lot more modeling. I know that the climate change movement is desperately trying to explain away the coldness and change all of their theories around to try and account for it. It's the reverse of what the guys in the 1970's did with their old papers, they just crossed out "cooling" and wrote in "warming" and changed "pollution" for "CO2". Now they are erasing their cross-outs and going back to their 1970's theories. The issue here is that there are billions upon billions of dollars at stake. Huge huge money. The Goddard Institute which is a part of NASA, which was supposed to be working on advanced spaceflight, now receives $4 billion a year in government cash to "study" global warming. That's just wrong I think. I also think as long as Obama and fellow warmists control the White House, that money will keep flowing, no matter how cold it gets or how much the earth doesn't continue to warm, and no matter how less severe storms get. The Democrats and Obama are so politically invested in this unproven hypothesis, they'd look like fools to pull out now. It was like Vietnam for the Americans, even though they knew in 1968 that the war was lost, they continued for another five years to pour men and money into it because they couldn't admit they were wrong. They same is applying here too.

LOL - I never said that his work is fraudulent, though I'd like to see his data. You would think that a scientist responsible for hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars being spent would be required to show his work. It is troubling that he has never been forced to do this, given how much hysteria has been driven from his hockey stick. Al Gore won a nobel prize doing up a movie full of complete fabrications, with his showpiece being the hockey stick. Steve McIntyre has completely disproven it. So it will be interesting to see what happens in this case. Speaking of which, here's a hilarious article written by Steyn this week on the case, called "Defaming for Beginners": http://www.steynonline.com/6178/defaming-for-beginners

And it was some of the same shysters trying to sell that blarney in the 1970's that are responsible for the trillion dollars that have been wasted on this global warming scare. Look it up. When I was growing up I vaguely remember the ice age scare, but as that failed to materialize the next scam was acid rain. When that failed to kill the earth the junk scientists had to find a new way to find funding, and walked into the open arms of politicians who know all too well that the best way to control people and wring money from their pockets with taxes is via fear. So they cooked up this "global warming" nonsense. It's amazing how often I hear people parrot mantras that have been fed to them by the man-made climate change establishment. "The earth's climate is changing, it's indisputable" - yet four different satellites that measure these things all corroborate that the earth hasn't warmed in almost 18 years. The past decade has been one of the least active for hurricanes the earth has seen in the past 100 years. You have to remember, the technology to measure the strength of tornadoes and hurricanes is relatively new, and so of course, now we are going to have "record" strength storms, as the viability of previous records going back even 50 years are not very reliable. The weather has been politicized, and the sole aim I see now whenever there is a storm is to try and tie it to global warming, even if there is no tie whatsoever.

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.